Originally posted by McP
Neph, you still don't get it. I consider feats like killing the whole planet by a voice, giga-drain, idea of Force sever being unstopable technique and telekinetically holding a ship in one piece as exaggerations far worse, then old CW.Sidious is called "the most powerful Sith Lord in history", and that quote concerns on his battle abilities. Every source, that suggest that Nihilus, Vitiate or anyone else had superior feats to Sidious is just an exaggeration.
And your another response to me is not necessary. You wont be able to find nothing, that would change my mind. I wont be able to change your mind as well.
I'm not sure you understand what an exaggeration is. :T
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Sure it is. You say it's not selective, I say it is. When you start rifling through non-movie eras in the EU with the same standard, we'll talk. But you don't. And why you don't has already been made clear: you think the deck is "unfairly" stacked against you and believe the removal of "outlier" feats and sources will help you gain some footing.That's textbook agenda there, my son.
But you didn't address anything I said. I pointed out that if I were using it selectively, I'd actually use it selectively and not just in cases where the exaggeration is readily apparent and explicit. MCP is the guy who wants to use it selectively. Did you see his rants about how inferior other era's are and that their good feats should just be dismissed? Hilarious.
Look, ok I'll bite. Enlighten me: Which materials should I randomly proclaim are exaggerated? There's nothing indicating exaggerations in other era's that I can tell. So you tell me. If it'll shut you up, I'm all ears.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Well said.
Nothing to say anything to.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
You want a private exchange? Take it to PMs. Otherwise, it's fodder for the rest of us to butt in and do as well please. excellent
I never said that you couldn't, I just pointing out that you butting into my conversation and then changing the subject kind of makes your input pretty dumb.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Sidious's power is never mentioned or indicated? 😂Given that canon!Sith philosophy apparently revolves around the concept of superiority, you do realize I could make the argument that Sidious has to ultimately be the best Sith Lord by virtue of his position as the reigning Master?
It seems that your spontaneous cataracts impede you here, as well. Face it, dude. Palpatine's position requires him to be the best Sith Lord. He's the guy who actually wins. He's gotta be smarter, stronger, faster, more agile, more skilled, more patient, more knowledgeable, and better looking than his apprentices or predecessors. The only evil doer who's better is the actual living manifestation of the dark side.
You're goofy. But thanks for proving my point. 👆
And why would he need to be the UBEREST EVAR :jazz hands: just because he's the reigning Sith Lord? I already pointed out that he only has to be the best Sith at the time. The concept of superiority only applies to the Sith seen in the movies. Yoda and Sidious are never implied to be the best in history, just the heads of their respective order. And it's not as if the movie suggests that Sidious needed to be the best in history to achieve what he did. In fact Sidious himself states that the Sith will "once more rule the galaxy", indicating that his accomplishment isn't unprecedented. And he admits that he couldn't achieve what his predecessor did. And like I said, his victories largely owed to his manipulation skills and political acumen. He literally just needs to be powerful enough to hold off Yoda and pwn Luke. He "won" because he tricked everyone and preyed on vulnerable people. There's nothing requiring him to be the best Sith based on his position in the narrative or story. Khan didn't beat Kirk because he was smarter and better than everyone else, he did it because it was narratively appropriate.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Pretty sure Jabba The Hutt would qualify then. Or Tarkin. Or Grievous. Or any other inherently malevolent figure. Stop being silly. Palpatine's great power is inherent to the character.
If they were the main villain I'm pretty sure they could qualify. If they story allowed them. It wouldn't quite be as good, because they lack the manipulative, seductive and devilish qualities that Sidious does, but if Lucas had given those qualities to them to make the same narrative figure there's nothing stopping them from being capable of holding the same thematic weight.
How does Sidious being very powerful tie into his "Devil" persona?
The only one who said the "miros" were exaggerated was Filoni, but then goes on to show force users hurling ships and whatnot. As I said, Windu's feats, which are considered by many to be the most exaggerated, aren't exaggerated next to his TCW feats, only flashier. It always looks for impressive taking out an army of enemies, especially when surrounded, but, again it's not a display of power beyond force pushing an ET-AT walker, and casually lifting a large platform heavy enough to crush a war vehicle. Smashing two battle droids into thousands of pieces in the micros is something he replicated on about a dozen of them with a one handed force push in TCW.
Some of it is inconsistent and exaggerated, but not for most of the characters we argue for. The feat Cart provided for Anakin was done with a lot of exertion, so even that isn't all that over the top when we consider his casual feats in TCW, and his domination of powerful force users. Anakin has always been depicted as a character who can pull off extreme feats in desperate situations.
Also, Sidious was depicted as the devil, needing a messiah like figure to bring about his downfall in order to restore balance back to the force. To have a villain being more powerful than him is inappropriate. There are a lot of villains who have similarities to the devil. However, as stated by Lucas, Sidious represents him, as in he's the big bad of the mythos, being depicted as the focal point through which the dark side operated, and his death diffusing it on a cosmic scale. We went over this Neph. The EU elaborated the point further by calling Sidious the dark side's most powerful expression (DE endnotes). To have a villain being more powerful than him is just as inappropriate as having another force user with a force potential greater than Anakin's. I mean, there are other villains who have surpassed him in power, but the case for Sidious's power is much greater than the case for Nihilus's.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Also, Sidious was depicted as the devil, needing a messiah like figure to bring about his downfall in order to restore balance back to the force. To have a villain being more powerful than him is inappropriate. There are a lot of villains who have similarities to the devil. However, as stated by Lucas, Sidious represents him, as in he's the big bad of the mythos, being depicted as the focal point through which the dark side operated, and his death diffusing it on a cosmic scale. We went over this Neph. The EU elaborated the point further by calling Sidious the dark side's most powerful expression (DE endnotes). To have a villain being more powerful than him is just as inappropriate as having another force user with a force potential greater than Anakin's. I mean, there are other villains who have surpassed him in power, but the case for Sidious's power is much greater than the case for Nihilus's.
^ More or less this.
We went over this Neph.
And a whole lotta that^.
Your opinion of Sidious's station and importance is... wildly incongruous with not just what's been said of him by me, but by pretty much everyone in a position of authority at LucasFilm or Del Rey since time immemorial. It's clearly the manifestation of a deep-rooted grudge against the character or perhaps an unhealthy reaction to perceived Bane/SWTOR hate or {more probably} both.
Either way, you answered my question, so thanks. We'll obviously have to agree to disagree tho.