Admiral Vostok Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 What does PMSL mean? I'm not good with net-lingo (and proud of the fact). Saber, my comment was more directed to those who were taking you seriously than being critical of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 PMSL could be an abbreviation of that latin babble from a while ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Originally posted by Admiral Vostok What does PMSL mean? I'm not good with net-lingo (and proud of the fact). Saber, my comment was more directed to those who were taking you seriously than being critical of you. I know, I could tell you understood it. I'm just astounded that anyone for even a split second thought it wasn't a wind up! So I just had to Piss MySelf Laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nairb Notneb Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Well, ok, so you get us. Good one. I'm a dope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 No Comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Piss MySelf LaughingAhhh... another mystery of internet abbreviations is revealed to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Though Vostok I doubt you would use that though it doesn't sound like somthing you would actually say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Here is an argument(almost ultimate since now, it won't change) against your Maul=Grievious theory. Listed under "movies" at the Star Wars databanks: Part non-humanoid alien, part custom-designed droid, Grievous hunted Jedi for sport and proudly displayed his victims' lightsabers around his belt as trophies of his conquests. Maul is indeed a humanoid alien. Can't be him then. http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/generalgrievous/index.html I felt it important to point out that the non-humanoid comment no longer exists in the databank. In my reading of the Databank after finding the Dreadnaught entry to show to Viceroy, I thought I'd read Greivous' entry. As well as having a new picture there of him, it no longer refers in any way to what sort of alien he was before becoming part droid. Not that this validates my Maul=Greivous theory, I'm still not confident about that at all, I just found it interesting that they changed their story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 I don't think it could be maul from the sounds of things the species Grevious is from has four arms since Grevious has a deadly fighting style and uses 4 arms at times to deadly effect. Those droids in the background of that Picture must be the legendary ones with Staffs that can stop a Lightsabre. Maybe those could be in the new RTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Originally posted by DK_Viceroy I don't think it could be maul from the sounds of things the species Grevious is from has four arms since Grevious has a deadly fighting style and uses 4 arms at times to deadly effect. Well that's what the EU says, and until recently the databank supported this with its "non-humanoid" comment. But I find it intriguing that any reference to him being non-humanoid has been erased from existence in the databank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 No that bit is actually from the Movies section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Not any more it isn't. That's the whole point of my post. The movies section used to say he was non-humanoid, and now it doesn't. Why was it changed? That's the question I'm asking. Also in the General Grevious' EU section it doesn't mention anything about him being non-humanoid either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Maybe they uploaded a Post ep III databank instead of uploading the one they meant to. They may not have wanted to give away some details so soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Unlikely since as you already said they've mentioned in EU that he had four arms. They're not giving anything away if it's already published elsewhere. The previous one can't have been a "post Episode 3" databank; for one thing it's unlikely such a thing has been written, but more importantly this one actually reveals more about what he does in Episode 3 than the previous one did. The last paragraph describes what he's doing at the start of Episode 3, and no such paragraph existed before. In combination with the newer pictures it seems obvious to me this is a newer databank entry than the previous non-humanoid entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Well still it doesn't contradict the EU though I think I now realise why it's been changed. There were some images-concept art of Grevious as having a wheel droid mode. That may have changed and as such no longer a need for him to be classed as Non Humanoid. Perhaps he could be a Givin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nairb Notneb Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Maybe he was going to be a non-humanoid character but they read our discussions and liked the idea so much that George Lucas changed his mind and at the last minute has decided to go with our idea of Grievous being Maul? Could it be that we have altered Star Wars history forever?? The world may never know!!???!?!!?!??!??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Nairb of course that's what happened;) I still think because it was prior to the Ammendment they may have been planning to feature some shots of Grevious and his Wheel droid mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 But the fact he has a wheel droid mode after he becomes a droid shouldn't effect the fact he was non-humanoid before he became a droid. I think Nairb is right too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Yes but the point is he's not all robot and if he went to wheel droid mode he'd have to be non humanoid otherwise it'd half kill him going to that mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I know that, but the non-humanoid refers to before he was a droid. We can see that currently only his head and maybe torso are the non-robotic bits, so the fact he can now go into wheel droid mode isn't inhibited by the fact he may have been humanoid before becoming a droid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nairb Notneb Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 The pictures that I've seen of GG were of him riding a "Wheel Tank" like vehicle with a large canon on it. And I to fall back on the idea that Grievous is either Maul or Sifo Dyas (or both as some believe), my feeling that this is true has been strengthened. I'm not positive that it is true yet, but my suspicion that it is has been increased because I re-watched the "Making of Grievous" movie from the website, and at the end, George Lucas says that "Grievous is the leader of the droid army. He is an Alien in a droid shell which is an echo of what Anakin is to become". This basically says that Grievous is a foreshadowing tool for Anakin's final transformation into Darth Vader in the story line. Plus he will be very cool. This leans me towards the possibility that he could have been Sifo or Maul. If Grievous was a character that we were familiar with that was transformed into a cyborg, that gives his transformation more credibility in this story, thus giving Anakin's transformation more credibility. Just as Dooku's joining the Dark Side is a foreshadowing of Anakin's fall and it tells us that it is possible for Anakin to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 17, 2004 Author Share Posted November 17, 2004 I still don't believe Grievious could be Maul. First would be the eyes as Viceroy pointed out. Unless somehow Maul lost his eyes falling down the bottomless pit, they must be his original ones. Second, he is supposed to be a great general and Maul certainly doesn't look like one. He seems more of a solo Jedi hunter then an army leader who knows a lot about battle tactics. This is ,of course, only an assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Well certainly the eyes is the major problem now with my theory now that Greivous is no longer non-humanoid. However the fact Greivous is a great leader while Maul supposedly isn't doesn't necessarily hold. Sure, he was a solo Jedi hunter in TPM rather than a leader, but that doesn't mean he can't also be a leader. As we all know Vader turns out to be both a decent solo Jedi hunter and a great leader; Maul could quite possibly be too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 If you look at the art you also see that it's his chest that's got organic elements and if he went into wheel droid mode that would certainly do some major damage. Looks like the Eyes have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nairb Notneb Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Originally posted by DK_Viceroy If you look at the art you also see that it's his chest that's got organic elements and if he went into wheel droid mode that would certainly do some major damage. Looks like the Eyes have it. Very clever Viceroy, you must be very proud of yourself. I would be. I'm very jealous of your wit. Any way, your astute observation of the apparent difference in the eyes of Darth Maul and General Grievous brings great strength to your argument for GG being his "own man", the idea of which I agree with, but to be clear as mud, I am still holding on to the idea that it is possible that Grievous could be either Maul or Sifo Dyas reborn. I'm at about a 35% chance of it being possible. http://cgi.theforce.net/theforce/image.cgi?Image=episode3/newspics/tfn-burgerking_sw-02.jpg To look at the teaser trailer again you might have also noticed with your amazing powers of observation that there are two individuals shown that are also presenting new differences that were not previously shown to us. Anakin's eye's (which now look much like Darth Mauls) and Sidious' (a.k.a. Palpatine) teeth which seems to have quickly changed from his AOTC appearance to his ROTJ appearance, bad teeth and all. Also, to venture a point of view (which can hold true from certain aspects) although G. Grievous' eyes do not appear to be the same as Darth Maul's eyes (assuming they are the same person) neither do his arms, nor his legs, nor does any other part of his body. This being said, then General Grievous doesn't look like any character from any Star Wars movie ever made so he can not possibly be anything but General Grievous. Also, Darth Vader doesn't look like anybody else either, therefore he cannot be Anakin. As I have said, the eyes that we see him having may not be his own, or his originals. But I agree that the fact that they are not the same seems to say that GG and DM are not the same person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.