Darth_Yuthura

I know that this thread had died out a long time ago, but I really wanted to add something to it. Macnamara died shortly after Jackson and all with the hype of that entertainer, the death of this former secretary of state was overlooked by many. Jae Onasi wasn't even aware that it happened until I brought it up, as well as many I've spoken to where I live. Many may not think he was as significant to history as Jackson, but that doesn't mean that he should have been buried by the death of a pop star. Obviously it was because the media were interested in making money, but I find it disturbing how Jackson could get many front pages for a number of days while Macnamara passed on with barely any notice. We Americans really need to reset our priorities and realized that the celebrities we have come to worship are not as significant to our lives as we think. I thought very highly of Robert Macnamara because he was able to recognize how his methods of operating the state like a corporation resulted in many illogical actions taken by the US in the Vietnam war and WWII. I would advise people to read up on him, or at the very least watch his movie 'The Fog of War.'

Yeah, she killed three masters just with the wave of her hand. Or Mace genuinely was killing Palpatine. His Force power may have been intensifying, but his flesh wasn't enduring so well. Correction: Marek beat his ass and would have killed Palpatine if Koto hadn't intervened. Then Palpatine took advantage of his mercy and put him in an unexpected predicament. Had Marek stuck down Palpatine, he would have eliminated the Sith once and for all. Once his lightsaber was gone. Anakin showed up just as he was left defenseless, so it could be one way or another, pending on what you believe. Alright, I would accept that. So if you would ask Mr. Lucas that question specifically so he could answer it directly, I will accept his answer. Since he hadn't said that PT were the strongest of all Jedi and all Sith of all time, then it's not canon. And even if it were, why would the next generation of Jedi and Sith be less powerful than the generation before it? The proof was that Palpatine was vulnerable and Mace would have killed him if not for Anakin. Mace was in a lot better condition being exhausted than Palpatine was almost being dead... until Anakin stepped in. All that the 'Emperor threw the fight' can never be more than speculation. If Palpatine wanted a servant to replace Vader so greatly, then why didn't he just create one instead of investing all those resources into scouring the galaxy for Luke? Well don't forget that Starkiller had the Emperor at his mercy and very well could have disposed of him. Killing him would have been the more favorable way out, but that was lost when Palpatine went for Kota and the Senators. ------ And let's not lose perspective on this topic. An F-22 can simultaneously engage five F-15's and still expect victory, but that doesn't exactly mean that it's better than those five fighters. An F-22 certainly cannot engage 20 Mig-29's, but those five F-15's could. They likely wouldn't be able to wipe them all out, but they would do better fighting at a four to one disadvantage than an F-22 going twenty to one. Just because a character could beat another doesn't exactly mean they are better in all other regards. Malak betrayed his master, but he was certainly an imp compared to Revan's power and knowledge. Windu could wipe out Palpatine, but I wouldn't say he could do all the warmongering of which he did.

Yes. No. Palpatine could have continued blasting Mace, but why would he have wanted to? If you didn't plunge your hand into boiling water, did that mean you weren't capable of doing it? Palpatine obviously stopped blasting Mace because Mace was turning it back on him. Only when Mace lost his lightsaber did he start blasting him again. ??? Do you mean a secret superweapon facility that built the Sun Crusher? I don't see the logic, so please explain. Don't say it's clear because that implies you're obviously right with or without any reason. And to explain why I don't see it as obvious, there is flawed logic in both cases. First is that Skywalker wasn't present until at the very end of the fight. As Skywalker wasn't even expected to be there when the fight broke out, Palpatine had no motive to let himself be defeated. If he were present before it started, then that argument might stand. There also was a lot of reason to assume he was in danger from Starkiller. Before Kota stopped him, the Emperor was just one lightsaber stroke away from death. The Emperor was beaten by a better opponent. Kreia. Play the game. I can't speak for the novel, but the apprentice did redirect the lightning back with the saber in the game. Then he did it without a saber in the cutscene. The only reason that he died was because his intent wasn't to beat Palpatine, but to keep the senators from being killed. Are you talking about the same thing? I suppose that you do prove a point that nothing Lucas says in an interview is cannon, so his quote 'Jedi in their Prime' doesn't mean the PT Jedi were the most powerful ever. Again the use of the word 'obvious.' I could just as easily say that Palpatine obviously wasn't able to beat Windu, which was why he would have died if Anakin didn't attack Mace. Yes there is. Palpatine figured out how to clone himself after death. He was powerful, but there were many shortfalls in which his master could have accomplished to a greater degree. Anakin was supposed to be the 'perfect Jedi' in which was supposed to replace Palpatine as his apprentice. Palpatine could never pull off something like that, considering how much effort he went to for Luke after Vader was crippled. You're right. Minimal evidence. Palpatine never reached the extent to which he could replicate the supposed-abilities that Plagueis achieved in his lifetime. His cloning technique did save him when Plagueis was killed altogether, but he could never perform the kind of feat as creating a 'perfect' Force-entity as Anakin. That's a joke right? Starkiller beat the Emperor and nearly executed him, but that stupid Kota interfered. In so doing, the situation became unstable and Starkiller sacrificed himself to ensure the Senators could escape. The 'blowing up' part was Starkiller's doing.

Wrong context. He explicitly explained why Vader and Luke fighting were not as impressive as the pre trilogy being it was a cripple, a youth, and an old man in the original trilogy vs. Jedi who were at their prime. That's right and then Mace beat Palpatine's ass with his own Force lightning. Until Palpatine stepped in and violated the code by killing his master before surpassing him and then dropping everything of the rule of two in his unquenchable lust for power. That was what brought about his demise. I would be more inclined to say Darth Plagueous was the peak of the Sith and that Palpatine never reached his level, let alone exceeded him. That argument = wrong context. Yeah, but it's not like Bane learned everything that Revan knew from that holocron. Did Revan put everything he knew on that holocron? Exar Kunn. Revan. Anakin. Bane. These are all guesses, but take into consideration that your conclusion is about as solid as these, who've beaten Sidious or were regarded so highly in what they were capable of. Windu can at least take credit for kicking Palpatine's ass one-on-one. Marek, who also eliminated Vader as well, proved his might against Palpatine.

I also wanted to add that there really weren't any other major characters that developed aside from Wikus. There was a CGI alien that probably would have been the closest to a 2nd star role in the movie, but there was really very little meaningful character interaction throughout the movie. There were some really greedy characters that continued being evil, but I couldn't help wondering what really changed at the end.

I think that she could read history and wonder how ancient masters could perform certain tasks that she couldn't. It's far more likely she would be telling the truth about being impitent than if she were bragging. No, I think it was meant that Kreia could make herself invisible. Palpatine was like a Purloined letter. Katarr. Master Zhar... Master Vandar... and a lot of other Jedi. I only wish Atris were there as well. Maybe, but Windu clearly was the more powerful of the two. Had he had help from one of the other Jedi in order to beat Palpatine, then maybe this holds water; but the other three were cut down early. Had they fought one-on-one to start, Mace wouldn't have suffered any disadvantages by fighting alone. If Anakin had simply not selfishly killed Windu, Order 66 wouldn't have been given and the original trilogy wouldn't have happened. Anyway, the troops that stormed the Temple were trained exceptionally well and they could have carried out the operation without Anakin. The Maw installation comes to mind. Oh is this that self-fulfilling argument again? Palpatine wasn't defeated by Windu because he was letting himself almost be killed so that Anakin would save him. He just thought it would be great to toy around with Starkiller and almost let himself get killed again. Is that what you're saying? That's not Palpatine's style. He would not engage those Master swordsman if he could just as easily wipe them out with the Force. Clearly he resorted to a lightsaber because that was his only way of defeating those Jedi. No, it was because Windu could not only defend himself against, but redirect Palpatine's lightning against him. Yoda, Starkiller, and Windu could all do that.

Very scientific reasoning, considering that Palpatine had gone up against Darth Bane... wait he didn't? How would you know that? Three masters that weren't as strong as the PT Jedi you say? I remember something that mentioned ancient Force-users actually were more powerful than those from the present. That actually inverses your logic. Palpatine didn't go up against four Council members, he took on one Council member, one master, and two knights. I actually believe that due to the release issues, Master Vash was supposed to also be on Dantooine, but even three council members would have been more than Palpatine could handle. Given as he struggled against Windu, I would place my bets on Kreia. She killed three Council members with extreme ease, where Palpatine couldn't even beat Windu alone. (Yes there were three other Jedi, but they didn't aid Windu much) Sion wasn't broken through words... he just wanted to die when he realized his life of pain wasn't worth living. Nihilus actually became stronger as more powerful opponents got in his way. His hunger was his strength, so long as there were beings worth consuming. He would have died anyway, but not after being the last 'living' thing in the galaxy.

Okay, I actually have a question in regards to the KOTOR level cap at 20. I won't ask the same question again... it is hard wired into the program and can't be increased. Is there any way to increase the character's stats to emulate what a character would receive at 21 and 22 without going above the 20 cap? Does TSL have a similar cap at level 50?

I saw it just tonight and only because it was an outing with friends. Otherwise I wouldn't have given it a second thought. I would say that it had an original alien plot not done before, like Men in Black, but I would not see it again. I didn't hate it, I don't regret seeing it, but I didn't really enjoy it. I also didn't really care for the ending... I won't spoil it. It could have been worse, but the main character did come through when he didn't have to.

That's not exactly 'even steven' except in regards to equal weapons. In regards to SW, Count Dooku was considered a level 9 master swordsman; but he was noted to dislike using two sabers. This being so would mean that he likely wouldn't turn to a backup saber because he hadn't trained intensively on using it. He would have been much better just using one than adding another to the mix. I'll admit that the curved hilt has an advantage when used with both hands that can't be done with duel sabers. The advantages of the curved hilt and tonfa grip are that they are not widely used, making them more difficult to counter. An opponent that knows how to fight with two sabers will be more likely to beat another opponent wielding two sabers than one holding a Dooku saber. That is not exactly due to the single being better, but because that particular user knows tricks that the other doesn't.

So what's the intent? Are you like a 10th degree blackbelt wanting to show off, or are you genetically programed to be violent? The only thing I could figure out that would answer your question as to why you have violent thoughts is because it comes at an instinctual level. If you encounter it, play video games, have no other source of mental stimulation... any of these apply to you?

Actually it does. A skilled blademaster with two in hand. That's really the trick; it's more difficult to fight with two blades, but one who has mastered fighting with two will be more effective than mastering the use of only one. I'd place my bets on a Master swordsman with a single blade beating a fair opponent wielding two. If it were one master against another, then the master fighting with two would have the edge. Only there are fewer with that level of experience because of the additional practice required.

Okay I should have said 'bacon we know today.' I knew about the smoked/salted/brine, but the preserves often intensely changed the flavor of the meats. That's why fresh bacon overtakes the other methods of storing the flesh.

Did you know that 90% of the European diet prior to the French Revolution consisted of bread? One reason (there were many others) that sparked the revolution was in part due to the rise in the price of grain. Bread and cheese are traditional and classic ingredients. Bacon really only became feasible with the advent of the refrigerator.

I'm not proclaiming that video games are the ONLY factor in this. I remember TV shows 15 years ago which inspired me to become more violent, because I was a child and thought it was cool to mimic my favorite heroes. That's definitely something that I actually would consider more influencial than video games. Movies are also a major thing. I probably would say that violent video games do not exactly corrupt our youth, but they are a part of a much greater society which adds appeal to violence. That doesn't mean everyone who spends eight hours a day or more watching/playing violence electronically will shoot everyone in their school with an AK, but those who start by emulating them are more likely to escalate things to a more extreme level. The counter to this is a firm grip on reality. The biggest problem I see with electronic/digital worlds is that they are much more appealing than the dullness of reality. I would also admit that I have lost touch with reality even when I was 20. I was simply not interested in the world anymore because nothing was as stimulating as good-old electronic fiction. Very young children are more likely to just become wild, but the older they get, the more likely to go from physical violence (punching, kicking) to using a gun. That's when they seek to hurt other people rather than just emulate Batman or Spiderman.