Originally posted by Lord Stark
Which means nothing, his performance is still far better. Filoni himself confirms this. Its backed by Kit Fisto, the best on the team getting owned by an early CWs Ventress who in turn is inferior to Savage.What's the exact quote? And what does this prove?
His performance was better in that he was lasting longer and being trolled, nothing more. Fisto didn't exactly get owned by Ventress. People assume that because the entire passage barely focused on the duel, but instead focused on Kenobi fighting off her minions. Ventress won that fight by kicking Fisto in the face, similar to how she did Kenobi in her last fight against him, except that Kenobi's performance was far more embarrassing because he had the help of Anakin, and was taken out of the fight in the first few seconds. And Ventress was beat by Savage because he was physically too overwhelming for her. Ventress is Savage's superior in every area except physical strength and force power.
I don't remember the exact quote verbatim, but the implication was that Sidious was Yoda's clear superior, and how his fight with the brothers was supposed to showcase why no one is able to compete with Sidious. I'm on my phone so I can't get the link until later. It was posted by Temp. My point is, Filoni's opinion doesn't matter unless it's regarding his own productions. If we take everything Filoni says as canon then no one can compete with Sidious, and the mini CW series are exaggerated depictions of force.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
His performance was better in that he was lasting longer and being trolled, nothing more. Fisto didn't exactly get owned by Ventress. People assume that because the entire passage barely focused on the duel, but instead focused on Kenobi fighting off her minions. Ventress won that fight by kicking Fisto in the face, similar to how she did Kenobi in her last fight against him, except that Kenobi's performance was far more embarrassing because he had the help of Anakin, and was taken out of the fight in the first few seconds. And Ventress was beat by Savage because he was physically too overwhelming for her. Ventress is Savage's superior in every area except physical strength and force power.
He still lost to early CW's Ventress, who Kenobi babyshook in the first Clone Wars movie. Also I highly doubt Ventress would have finished him before he recovered. And Kenobi wasn't serious in that fight. Neither was Skywalker. Although n-canon Infinities shows Kenobi defeating Ventress on Kamino.
I don't remember the exact quote verbatim, but the implication was that Sidious was Yoda's clear superior, and how his fight with the brothers was supposed to showcase why no one is able to compete with Sidious. I'm on my phone so I can't get the link until later. It was posted by Temp. My point is, Filoni's opinion doesn't matter unless it's regarding his own productions. If we take everything Filoni says as canon then no one can compete with Sidious, and the mini CW series are exaggerated depictions of force.
Yeah implications are different than outright statements. And yes its relevant to his own productions he shows Savage doing better than the Councilors because he's better than all of them. And Maul is WAY better than all of them.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
His performance was better in that he was lasting longer and being trolled, nothing more. Fisto didn't exactly get owned by Ventress. People assume that because the entire passage barely focused on the duel, but instead focused on Kenobi fighting off her minions. Ventress won that fight by kicking Fisto in the face, similar to how she did Kenobi in her last fight against him, except that Kenobi's performance was far more embarrassing because he had the help of Anakin, and was taken out of the fight in the first few seconds. And Ventress was beat by Savage because he was physically too overwhelming for her. Ventress is Savage's superior in every area except physical strength and force power.I don't remember the exact quote verbatim, but the implication was that Sidious was Yoda's clear superior, and how his fight with the brothers was supposed to showcase why no one is able to compete with Sidious. I'm on my phone so I can't get the link until later. It was posted by Temp. My point is, Filoni's opinion doesn't matter unless it's regarding his own productions. If we take everything Filoni says as canon then no one can compete with Sidious, and the mini CW series are exaggerated depictions of force.
👆
Originally posted by Lord Stark
He still lost to early CW's Ventress, who Kenobi babyshook in the first Clone Wars movie. Also I highly doubt Ventress would have finished him before he recovered. And Kenobi wasn't serious in that fight. Neither was Skywalker. Although n-canon Infinities shows Kenobi defeating Ventress on Kamino.Yeah implications are different than outright statements. And yes its relevant to his own productions he shows Savage doing better than the Councilors because he's better than all of them. And Maul is WAY better than all of them.
👆
Filoni outright stated no one can compete with Sidious, so I guess that's true then?
He didn't show Savage as doing better other than lasting longer due to Sidious' trolling. Sorry, but slashing his saber in the ground and swinging it around, while Sidious dances around him, and physically attacks him without even looking at him, is not showing Savage as doing better than the council members. It's showing Sidious as not taking him seriously, and enjoying the fight as Filoni outright stated. I don't think Sidious could afford doing the same with the council members, which is why he went straight for the kill.
Kenobi barely bested Ventress in the CW movie. She disarmed him and the fight was pretty long. Regardless, Kenobi admitted to being inferior to Fisto at the beginning of the war. Not to mention he tooled Grievous whereas Kenobi has struggled immensely with him up until ROTS. Not much of a disparity has been shown between them.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Filoni outright stated no one can compete with Sidious, so I guess that's true then?
No because George Lucas' 'you have to be Yoda or Mace Windu to compete with the Emperor' overrides it.
He didn't show Savage as doing better other than lasting longer due to Sidious' trolling. Sorry, but slashing his saber in the ground and swinging it around, while Sidious dances around him, and physically attacks him without even looking at him, is not showing Savage as doing better than the council members. It's showing Sidious as not taking him seriously, and enjoying the fight as Filoni outright stated. I don't think Sidious could afford doing the same with the council members, which is why he went straight for the kill.
Yeah, sorry Filoni is a canon source, you are not. If he flat out says Savage is better than the Jedi Councilors who fought Sidious that's what it is. That's his interpretation of the scene he directed. How is your interpretation more valid than his at all?
Kenobi barely bested Ventress in the CW movie. She disarmed him and the fight was pretty long. Regardless, Kenobi admitted to being inferior to Fisto at the beginning of the war. Not to mention he tooled Grievous whereas Kenobi has struggled immensely with him up until ROTS. Not much of a disparity has been shown between them.
Because Shi-Cho is amazing at dealing with multiple foes. Also Grievous got better as the war progressed.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Also, I looked up the supposed timelines, and apparently "The Cestus Deception" would have taken place well after The Clone Wars movie.Obi-Wan admitted clear inferiority to Fisto in TCD, and Agen Kolar even more skilled than he. There is no escape!
Kolar is not better than Fisto.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
No because George Lucas' 'you have to be Yoda or Mace Windu to compete with the Emperor' overrides it.
So what overrides his remark about the mini CW series being exaggerated depictions of force usage, which is a source of feats that you consistently draw from?
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Yeah, sorry Filoni is a canon source, you are not.
Too bad nothing Filoni said contradicts my argument.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
If he flat out says Savage is better than the Jedi Councilors who fought Sidious that's what it is.
No, he said Savage did better against Sidious, which he did, because Sidious was clearly trolling him.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
That's his interpretation of the scene he directed. How is your interpretation more valid than his at all?
Because his interpretation of the ROTS fight scene isn't any more valid than mine. And even if it were, his statement doesn't contradict my interpretation, considering that, again, he showed Sidious deactivating his sabers mid-fight, dancing around Savage's strikes, and physically attacking him without even looking. He was trolling Savage, taking his time, and enjoying the fight as Filoni stated. Lucas didn't show Sidious as having the same demeanor against the council members. Therefore, doing better against a trolling Sidious doesn't suggest he's better than some of the top skilled saber masters of the order.
You can ignore context all you want, but it doesn't change the circumstances and that Sidious treated both fights differently, which I explained how in great detail in the Agen vs Talon thread.
You'd have a point if the fight was set up the same way, and was meant to showcase a disparity between Savage and the council members, but it wasn't, and the very different nature of the fight supports my conclusion more than it does yours.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Because Shi-Cho is amazing at dealing with multiple foes. Also Grievous got better as the war progressed.
Grievous was a single foe, wielding multiple sabers, which is what Kenobi's form is well suited for as well.
Also, where is your proof that he got better? In fact, I'd argue that Kenobi is the one who got better, considering ROTS was the only fight in which he solidly defeated Grievous in a saber contest. Grievous' performance against Kenobi remained the same throughout the CW, in which he usually held the upper hand against Kenobi in pure sabers.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Kolar is not better than Fisto.
It was heavily implied by Mace Windu, given that he was the first person Mace had in mind to help him to take on Sidious, whom I'm sure they acknowledged as possibly being more powerful than Dooku.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
So what overrides his remark about the mini CW series being exaggerated depictions of force usage, which is a source of feats that you consistently draw from?
It being directly referenced as a canon source by the ROTS commentary.
Too bad nothing Filoni said contradicts my argument.
Yes it does.
No, he said Savage did better against Sidious, which he did, because Sidious was clearly trolling him.
There'd be utterly no point in even bringing it up if that's the only reason he did better.
Because his interpretation of the ROTS fight scene isn't any more valid than mine. And even if it were, his statement doesn't contradict my interpretation, considering that, again, he showed Sidious deactivating his sabers mid-fight, dancing around Savage's strikes, and physically attacking him without even looking. He was trolling Savage, taking his time, and enjoying the fight as Filoni stated. Lucas didn't show Sidious as having the same demeanor against the council members. Therefore, doing better against a trolling Sidious doesn't suggest he's better than some of the top skilled saber masters of the order.
Yeah it does. And him making the statement implies he's better than them. And that's not the only reason. His defeat of Ventress and giving dueling on par with Plo Koon do suggest he's better than any of them. Also him applying Dun Moch does not mean he was putting zero effort into it.
You can ignore context all you want, but it doesn't change the circumstances and that Sidious treated both fights differently, which I explained how in great detail in the Agen vs Talon thread.
Its not ignoring it. Its that you are completely underestimating how much effort Sidious put into the duel.
You'd have a point if the fight was set up the same way, and was meant to showcase a disparity between Savage and the council members, but it wasn't, and the very different nature of the fight supports my conclusion more than it does yours.
Filoni's statement contradicts this. Him saying 'Savage did better than the Jedi Council' would be ****ing pointless if it weren't to draw a direct comparison to their abilities.
Grievous was a single foe, wielding multiple sabers, which is what Kenobi's form is well suited for as well.
Not as well as Shi-Cho.
Also, where is your proof that he got better? In fact, I'd argue that Kenobi is the one who got better, considering ROTS was the only fight in which he solidly defeated Grievous in a saber contest. Grievous' performance against Kenobi remained the same throughout the CW, in which he usually held the upper hand against Kenobi in pure sabers.
Because he went from losing to Kit Fisto to giving Dooku and Mace Windu difficulty.
It was heavily implied by Mace Windu, given that he was the first person Mace had in mind to help him to take on Sidious, whom I'm sure they acknowledged as possibly being more powerful than Dooku.
A common misread.
"The only Council members physically present, other than
Obi-Wan and Anakin, were Mace Windu and Agen Kolar."
"Which would leave Mace and Agen Kolar—both among the
greatest bladesbeings the Jedi Order had ever produced—here on
Coruscant in case Sidious did indeed take this opportunity to make
a dramatic move."
Kit Fisto, Saesee, and Shaak Ti aren't present in that Council meeting, which means they were likely offworld at the time. So enough with the Agen wank.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
It being directly referenced as a canon source by the ROTS commentary.
That's not what I asked.
Of course Filoni doesn't have the authority to pick and choose which sources he wants as canon, otherwise the EU isn't canon (well it's not anymore, but you get the point).
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Yes it does.
No, it doesn't.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
There'd be utterly no point in even bringing it up if that's the only reason he did better.
There was no point in bringing up that no one is able to compete with Sidious based on his performance against Maul and Savage, yet he brought it up anyways despite the fact that his battle with Yoda contradicts his claim.
There was no point, considering he depicted Sidious demeanor against the bros differently than how Lucas depicted it against the council members.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Yeah it does.
No.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
His defeat of Ventress
Again, due to his overwhelming strength, not by virtue of skill and speed. Ventress is better than Savage in every area except for strength, which is why she has been depicted as being on par with Kenobi, and has even held both him and Anakin off at the same time more than once.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
and giving dueling on par with Plo Koon
If Savage was so good that he can last as long as he did against Sidious by virtue of his own talent, there shouldn't have been a parity between him and Koon. He should have ended Plo Koon in about 10 seconds tops, considering Sidious would down Koon as easily and as fast as he did B-team. Even faster and easier, considering Tin+Fisto+Kolar >>> Plo Koon. Speed wise, their all on the same level.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Its not ignoring it. Its that you are completely underestimating how much effort Sidious put into the duel.
Which there was no effort coming from him at all, other than in saber locks.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Filoni's statement contradicts this. Him saying 'Savage did better than the Jedi Council' would be ****ing pointless if it weren't to draw a direct comparison to their abilities.
The fight wasn't intended on showcasing a disparity between them, therefore Filoni's statement about two different fights that are already finished and aired, is meaningless; unless, of course, the point of the entire fight was set up and intended to show a disparity between Savage and the council members, but it wasn't, as evident by Sidious treating both fights very differently.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Not as well as Shi-Cho.
Then Fisto should have went to face Grievous, and Kenobi should have stayed on Coruscant to help face a much greater threat than Grievous.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Because he went from losing to Kit Fisto to giving Dooku and Mace Windu difficulty.
And then went to losing solidly to ROTS Kenobi, who isn't on par with Windu nor Dooku.
Originally posted by Lord Stark
A common misread.
"The only Council members physically present, other than
Obi-Wan and Anakin, were Mace Windu and Agen Kolar.""Which would leave Mace and Agen Kolar—both among the
greatest bladesbeings the Jedi Order had ever produced—here on
Coruscant in case Sidious did indeed take this opportunity to make
a dramatic move."Kit Fisto, Saesee, and Shaak Ti aren't present in that Council meeting, which means they were likely offworld at the time. So enough with the Agen wank.
Concede this pint then.
Though, I'd be careful on the wanking comment, considering you actually believe Savage to be so far ahead of the likes of Fisto, Kolar and Tiin that he can last a lot longer than their combined efforts against Sidious by virtue of his own talent.