Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

...
Is it a problem for you? I would love Bane to use lightning more powerful than anything Sidious has ever used. Matter of taste, I suppose.

And of course, as humans it makes little sense that something "ancient" can be better than something modern. Superstitions, for example, are outdated.

But why the hate for Bane? Do not attack: enlighten. Tell me of your Sci-Fi pursuits and why a mega powerful Bane offends them.

Cheers.

Your friend, Happy_Sith.

Well, this is my answer: it's all on priorities. Star Wars is the story of three things: Anakin Skywalker's fall and redemption, Luke Skywalker's choices and legacy, and Palpatine's rise to power and ultimate defeat. They're the three most important characters and the ones that Star Wars is really about. Bane is, relative to them, nothing important, essential, or even significant.

I'm fine with certain characters demonstrating certain abilities or traits that outclass the main characters, but Palpatine in particular is supposed to represent the ultimate evil. Not the "main bad guy", but evil at its finest -- at its strongest. He is the best and rightly so. Would it upset me if Bane had certain advantages over the Emperor? Nah. So long as, at the end of the day, it's evidently clear who is really the more dangerous person.

Cool answer.

Thanks, Gidoen.

Other input - thoughts/whims, welcome!

Nah, I wouldn't care, just as long as Zannah is shown to be at least as powa'ful. The sexism in Star Wars is startin' to tick me off.

Palpatine's meant to be a mastermind, but if he relies on being uber powerful the that defeats the point. And the whole, 'he's the main villain, the ultimate sith, so he must be deathly strong' doesn't work for me. Personally I think it would be good for other characters to be stronger than him, it would just highlight he fact that despite this, they still couldn't do what he did and draw attention the the qualities that truly make him the 'ultimate sith'.

So far from the summary I posted yesterday in the "Dynasty of Evil" thread, i don't think he will be overpowered, as it says his long use of the darkside is taking its toll on his body.

Which it did on Freedon Nadd and Palpatine, too. It doesn't mean he's weaker in the Force.

Originally posted by Darth Exodus
Palpatine's meant to be a mastermind, but if he relies on being uber powerful the that defeats the point.

No, it doesn't. He's meant to be the ultimate instrument of the dark side. Being the strongest, most attuned to the Force, and most knowledgeable would kind of be in that territory.



For the life of me, I can't think of a science fiction/fantasy villain who is cunning yet average or anything less than one of the absolute most powerful of their kind. Saruman, Sauron, Magneto, Viktor, you name it. Kind've makes them less intimidating if they're not.



Faunus said this, too. But Sith aren't always sneaky and evil is meant to be portrayed as powerful and seductive. Palpatine's achievements weren't solely because of either intellect or Force strength, but a combination of them. If you limit him to one specific category, you diminish either Palpatine or his predecessors.

He's the best, period, and clearly intended to be. That's what makes him so dangerous.

In my opinion, Palpatine being not-so-powerful or not powerful at all goes completely against the nature of the 'Ultimate Sith', as well as the very nature of the Sith themselves. It wouldn't make sense for Palpatine to be less powerful than he is.

Originally posted by Gideon




For the life of me, I can't think of a science fiction/fantasy villain who is cunning yet average or anything less than one of the absolute most powerful of their kind. Saruman, Sauron, Magneto, Viktor, you name it. Kind've makes them less intimidating if they're not.



Vader? Tarkin?

Originally posted by Gideon

For the life of me, I can't think of a science fiction/fantasy villain who is cunning yet average or anything less than one of the absolute most powerful of their kind. Saruman, Sauron, Magneto, Viktor, you name it. Kind've makes them less intimidating if they're not.


You should probably kick Sauron from that list and replace it with Melkor. At his height, Melkor could have smashed Sauron. Sauron was a nasty bastard, but he wasn't the top dog until much later.

Originally posted by Autokrat
You should probably kick Sauron from that list and replace it with Melkor. At his height, Melkor could have smashed Sauron. Sauron was a nasty bastard, but he wasn't the top dog until much later.

Yeah, but Melkor was only relevant during the 1st age. (Right?) Sauron was the highest power at the time Gideon was talking about.

Edit: Melkor wasn't even the villain of LotR. He was present in the Silmarrilion and friends, but not during the books proper.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Yeah, but Melkor was only relevant during the 1st age. (Right?) Sauron was the highest power at the time Gideon was talking about.

Edit: Melkor wasn't even the villain of LotR. He was present in the Silmarrilion and friends, but not during the books proper.

I was thinking in terms of the entire LotR mythos, but yes in terms of just LotR, Sauron was top dog

Of course sadly he has no personality since Tolkien utterly fails at developing his villains to be more than cardboard cutouts of evil. His closest attempt with Sauromon was his only positve showing.

As for Bane? Bane needs to die in some pathetic fashion, and Drew should stick with Mass Effect.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Of course sadly he has no personality since Tolkien utterly fails at developing his villains to be more than cardboard cutouts of evil. His closest attempt with Saruman was his only positve showing.
Except that (for those Maia that originally fell) there was no good reason. They rebelled and followed Melkor. There needs be no better reason for that than for the Christian version of Satan rebelling against Yahwe. Evil in LotR is irrevocably fallen.


He wrote ME!?!

That explains a lot.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that (for those Maia that originally fell) there was no good reason. They rebelled and followed Melkor. There needs be no better reason for that than for the Christian version of Satan rebelling against Yahwe. Evil in LotR is irrevocably fallen.

Which is why I think Tolkien is a terrible writer and his mythos utterly boring. My only admiration of the man's works are of his mastery of linguistics, but otherwise I've seen far more realistic and complex stories in fantasy.

I give him credit for kick starting the fantasy trend, but give me Michael Moorcock, any day over Tolkien.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I was thinking in terms of the entire LotR mythos, but yes in terms of just LotR, Sauron was top dog

Of course sadly he has no personality since Tolkien utterly fails at developing his villains to be more than cardboard cutouts of evil. His closest attempt with Sauromon was his only positve showing.

As for Bane? Bane needs to die in some pathetic fashion, and Drew should stick with Mass Effect.
I disagree. He makes some really tormented figures of evil in the Sil. Maegwyn and Eol? The complexity of Feanor's sons...the whole thing with Turin?

Sauron is an unseen force of order and malevolence, he's 'seen' only in the Sil.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Which is why I think Tolkien is a terrible writer and his mythos utterly boring. My only admiration of the man's works are of his mastery of linguistics, but otherwise I've seen far more realistic and complex stories in fantasy.

I give him credit for kick starting the fantasy trend, but give me Michael Moorcock, any day over Tolkien.

This is gonna draw my ire. Not only are you incorrect that Tolkien's villains are 'cardboard cutouts,' but to overlook quite a bit of the gray areas in LOTR and just reduce it to 'tralalala good versus evil' is to miss a huge point of the books.

Hell, look at Saruman, Grima Wormtongue, Gollum...look at Denethor.

'Realistic' is a poor term there. It's a fantasy story that acknowledges itself as such and complex? There's quite a bit of complexity in LOTR

And Michael Moorcock? What the hell? Moorcock doesn't have complexity or realism, he angsts it up for dramatic value, makes his heroes crying children who run away from their responsibilities lamenting the unfairness of it all. And throw in some fighting Gods, cause it's so kewl. And real art is ANGSTY so the heroes have to lose people and die horribly. Moorcock is little more than a bitter old baby who compensates for his lack of talent by attacking other works. He's not fit to touch Tolkien's typewriter.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
I disagree. He makes some really tormented figures of evil in the Sil. Maegwyn and Eol? The complexity of Feanor's sons...the whole thing with Turin?

Sauron is an unseen force of order and malevolence, he's 'seen' only in the Sil.

I suppose to be honest, I just don't like his writing or his world in general. I like the movies well enough, but his work just doesn't appeal to me.



I happen to think Moorcock's decontsruction of Conan was brilliant. Elric, is in my opinion one of the most lasting anti-heroes I've ever read about. His constant struggle against his own inner demons and Stormbringer pulled me into the story.

Part of the appeal for me was the polar conflict- absolute evil is hard to come by, let alone absolute good. The mortals can be morally gray all they want. It enhances the story and atmosphere. What doesn't help is when the Authority's actions become ambiguous. Who wants Eru Illuvitar to be an angsty crybaby?

The idea that there are moral absolutes contributes to the fantasy setting. That the mortals can't always fit into those categories gives the work authenticity.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I suppose to be honest, I just don't like his writing or his world in general. I like the movies well enough, but his work just doesn't appeal to me.

Fair enough, but don't call him a terrible writer just because he doesn't appeal.


What deconstruction, exactly? He doesn't go after the character, he just makes the character the polar opposite.

And as I said...Elric justs angsts it up. No matter what. He's a whiny, perpetual child. With an unbelievably tiny amount of depth.

Are we talking about Eragon now?

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Vader? Tarkin?

Vader is one of the strongest. But he was second fiddle when Palpatine came along.

Tarkin? You may have me. But he could also blow up planets at a whim.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Are we talking about Eragon now?

Trust me. At some points it's like Elric meets people just for them to die and add to his sorrow

Originally posted by Gideon
Vader is one of the strongest. But he was second fiddle when Palpatine came along.

Yeah but he's not the end all be all, is the point.

For twenty years, before the PT was made, Sideous was seen as one of the greatest fictional villains of all time, and in-universe he was feared because of his political savvy and military might, not for his actual combat abilities. No one really knew for sure Sideous was a certified fighting badass until the prequels (though I guess Dark Empire might help). So, for over a decade Palpatine was seen as one of the best despite his only real shtick being lightning... So basically I agree that Palpatine should be the strongest, but I disagree that it's necessary for a villain to be truly threatening. I mean, look at Lex Luthor and the Joker. You can be a super baddie, ad a scary one at that, and still be a physical weakling.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Are we talking about Eragon now? Never read those books. But the movie SUCKED.

Originally posted by Lightsnake

What deconstruction, exactly? He doesn't go after the character, he just makes the character the polar opposite.

That's exactly what a deconstruction is, very much like how Song of Ice and Fire is deconstruction of traditional High Fantasy. Moorcock too Conan, and deconstructed the character, subverting it into Elric.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
And as I said...Elric justs angsts it up. No matter what. He's a whiny, perpetual child. With an unbelievably tiny amount of depth.

All things considered, the amount of shit Elric gets dropped on him: being physically crippled and forced to rely on Stormbringer just to move, accidentally killing the woman he loved, consistently having Theleb K'aarna screw him over, being a virtual ***** of the Chaos gods, and then finally getting killed by his own sword after the apocalypse between Chaos and Order. If I was him, I'd be bitching about how much life sucked too.

And, I don't know where you are getting this lack of depth from. Elric is a very complex character. His continual desire to try and free himself from the power plays of Chaos, stacked up against the fact that he worships a Duke of Hell and is constantly having to beg Arioch for help, despite serving the forces of Order creates, in my opinion, some very interesting conflicts.

Moorcock's awesome and Elric is a great anti-hero. I love the bit where he pretty much destroys a city single-handed. I've always preferred Corum though, dunno why. Must be the handjob.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Never read those books. But the movie SUCKED.

Aye the movie did suck but I rather enjoyed the books, haven't read the last one yet, working my way through The Night Angel trilogy at the moment.

I would have to agree though they do sound like they're talking about Eragon.