PT Was Grievous a good villain?

I just couldn't get past the weirdness of the microseries.

 

There... That's your opinion, not mine.

That's also your opinion. But even if true, he doesn't need to be as iconic as those to be considered iconic.

Define 'greatness'.

My opinion was already given. I could expand on it, if I want to.

And I stand by what I said.

The fact is that most people who posted here shared their opinion about the character. Good or bad, it's irrelevant and subjective.

So what? Are you implying the majority is right and the minority is wrong? If not, what's your point with that statement?

Again, so what? Why should I care about that?

Debate? More like strawman. Who said most people had watched the micro-series? Read the thread again if you forgot what you're arguing about.

 

this is the definition of icon: an object of uncritical devotion : idol. Grievous is not adored or idolized. Darth Vader is. Love it or hate it by definition Grievous is not a icon. That is not my opinion that is from a English language dictionary.

 

Yes, he is. Not by you and many people but by many others. And that's not the only definition of iconic. The Oxford Dictionary has a much more accurate definition.

 

Oxford Dictionary definition - of, relating to, or the nature of an icon

Dictionary.reference.com - of, pertaining to, or characteristic of an icon

 

I think Grevious made an interesting villain. I don't like his voice though. Even though I don't like the 1st clone wars animation done by Genndy Tartakovsky, the Grevious in there was better. He seemed much more menacing.

 

Couldn't agree more, although I liked the voicing because it was impressive. (Even though it was clearly edited. )

It'd be nice if the mini-series continued. I would've been at the TV every time it aired.

 

You don't have to care but obviously you do.

If the masses say Grievous was not a good/iconic villain. It just means MOST people did not think he was a good/iconic villain. The minority is not WRONG but you cant deem a character iconic based off ONE opinion. Look at your response to me saying Grievous is not adored by the masses.(YES HE IS) not only are you speaking on others behalf but anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

If the majority of people do not like Grievous he can not be considered iconic.

You responded to my post with questions. If you ask me a question I will respond. My statement about the micro series was to explain that most people who saw Grievous for the first time was in ROTS not the cartoon.

 

I can't exactly agree with it having to be a majority of peoples. Sure, for it being iconic, it means to be able to recognize something without much thought. Although, for him to be recognized by anyone is technically being an iconic character. If he isn't iconic, why do people cosplay as GG? Clearly because they adore him, since they put their time and effort into making something representing Grievous.

 

No, I don't. You still have to explain your logic.

Which 'the masses' didn't. Besides, appealing to the majority is a very well known fallacy.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

That was my response to you saying that Grievous is not adored or idolized. He is adored and idolized (it happened and continues to happen, so it's not up to debate), therefore making your statement that he isn't, wrong. You never mentioned 'the masses' nor can you since there is no way you can measure the opinion of the masses.

Anyone who says that he isn't iconic is wrong, yes, because it's not a matter of opinion or up to debate. What you can't seem to accept or understand is that some characters can be more iconic than others, and the latter don't cease to be iconic because of that.

What?! Since when? Wether 'the majority' likes a character or not has nothing to do with it being iconic.

Exactly.

And who's arguing that? What does that have to do with my questions?

 

Whether a character is considered iconic is a matter of personal perception. For some he is, others he's not. Neither is wrong because it'd down to how an individual sees the character. An opinion even shared by many does not always equal fact. To you he may be iconic, for me he isn't. We disagree and that's fine.

 

Commander Krix said:

Im not saying Alexrd is wrong. All I said is most people don't agree with that opinion. My opinion of Grievous was that he was ok. He could have been done better in the movie. There are people who called him terrible, I do not agree with that. He was not a good villain because of the way he was executed on the BIG SCREEN. I thought he was a good villain in the cartoon though. People may cosplay as Grievous but is he instantly recognized outside of Star Wars fandom? I give you an example Darth Maul was one of the most popular costumes for Halloween after TPM came out. Kids and Adults were both drawn to him. If you mention Darth Maul to people who are not huge Star Wars fans most people will know him. Mauls fight with Obi Wan and Qui Gon is considered to be a great fight sequence by most people. Some even consider it to be the best of the saga. Did Grievous do anything in the movies that was close to Maul did in TPM? Or did he do anything that is as widely remembered? Alexrd I agree that the masses aren't always right but they are not always wrong either. The truth usually lies somewhere in between. The masses can be misguided as the PT showed so well. I don't think your opinion is wrong but you cant turn around and just stamp my opinion as wrong either.

 

It's posted here that you're saying he is wrong. I'm not playing on anyones side either, I'm just presenting the facts.

 

Alright so I say Sio Bibble is icon. Does that make my opinion right? If you are going to present facts also point out alexrd was the first to say Grievous was a icon. When I questioned it he responded he just is! That sounds an awful lot like saying he was saying Im right and your wrong. I only responded to that statement. If you read my post the dictionary definition of icon is not what Grievous is. I used the dictionary definition to validate a point being made. So why is it ok for alexrd to stand his ground and I cant stand on mine. Has Alexrd given points to why Grievous is a good villain? No. So please make some points about why Grievous is a good/iconic villain. I will actually like to know why someone finds him Iconic. I wont even debate it no more. Just stop only picking my post apart. Be fair and look at alexrd responses too before judging mine.

 

Darth Dookacas said:

Your opinion? Absolutely. That's something that you are obliged to say as you please.

You're also correct in this manner as well.

That'd be his opinion, although he technically spoke for others as well.

I'm not sure as to what dictionary you had used, but I looked up several meanings of the word online, as well as looking through a paper dictionary. I didn't find anything relevant to what you had posted.

Alexrd said:

It kind of explains that you do care since this argument has gone on for 2 1/2 pages.

That's a fact coming from an opinion. It's my opinion that Grievous is iconic, I can go to a store and ask somebody. They might say that he sucked! (Fact from an opinion.)

 

Thanks Commander Krix for looking at both sides. I will not go on about it no more. I accept and respect Alexrd's opinion as well as yours.

 

And I ask again: so what? Even if true, that doesn't deny my argument.

Why should he do that?

When was that a requirement for a character to be iconic? And why do you find it so difficult to accept the fact that some characters are more iconic than others?

Who are these 'masses' you keep talking about and why are they relevant for the discussion? Ad populum is a fallacy, leave it out.

I spoke based on facts, which you corroborated with your example of fandom.

I care about him explaining his argument (and how it relates to mine), doesn't mean I care about what the majority thinks. In fact, there is no correlation.

No, it's a factual conclusion based on the premiss that many consider Grievous iconic (which is also a fact). Since those people do, he can be called iconic. Not everybody has to like the character or find it iconic for it to be one. I could even hate the character. That doesn't deny the fandom that exists around him or the people who are able to identify his character.

 

Clearly you aren't finished with this argument, but I just wanted to set an even base line between you two.

This thread wasn't made to top one person over the other. It was a simple question which only really required one post, or you can compare with other peoples post. (Don't use that as an excuse to continue the argument either.)

 

Thanks Krix I just feel he is trying to bully me. You see he won't stop even after I tried to be reasonable. Can other people please explain to Alexrd to let it go. I'm done arguing.

 

Yeah, I watched Episode 3 before 1 and 2(don't judge me, I was like 8 when it came out and waited til' I was 11 before watching it), and I just assumed Grievous was a long time main antagonist from the previous movies. To my surprise, he was by no means even refered to in them, so it was kind of an awkward move to just include such a distinctive character with no explaination what so ever. In the old Clone Wars he's a really badass and scary villain, and I really like him there! In the new one he's portrayed as much weaker, but I think in my own opinion that he's kind of underrated, he does win a lot and they talk about his previous victories as well. He did kill Nahdarr Vebb for example, he did defeat Eeth Koth. He used some unfair tricks, but people want him to be a Jedi killer, right? He's not supposed to be honorable.

Overall I enjoy the villain, his backstory sounds really interesting.

 

This http://www.funnyjunk.com/Revenge+of+the+sith/funny-pictures/5170162

says Gary Oldman agreed to be the voice of Grievous but pulled out because not all the actors were a part of SAG.

Any truth to this? First time I ever heard it.

 

The initial draft was 4 hours? Why didn't we get that? And the opening battle was one hour? How long did it end up being? The novel had that at 100 pages or so but could they have made it work?

 

What says an adversary can't be honourable? Sounds like judgementalism to me.

 

How the **** did ROTS lose to Narnia in visual effects?

The original cut ran 4 hours? MUST HAVE.