Smh guys... StarWars.Com and the Episode don't contradict each other in Kanan splitting up the group. Just stop arguing about it already. Here's what StarWars.com says:
" the logical choice pairing Maul with the weakest of the Jedi." - StarWars.com: Twilight of the Apprentice Episode Gallery.
It says he agrees to split the group up, here's what happens in the Episode:
Ezra: I say we split up. Trust me.
Kanan literally agrees with Ezra pairing up with Maul. At first he is reluctant but reluctantly does it anyway, but how and why he agrees doesn't matter since there are multiple ways people will decide to intepretate this and argue about it. However, StarWars.com never specified on why Kanan agreed, it just says he agreed, and then describes Maul and the weakest of the Jedi which is Ezra as a logical pairing, which also doesn't contradict the Episode itself. StarWars.com does not say that Kanan agreed with it being the logical choice, in fact it describes Maul and Ezra being a logical choice fromm an And it doesn't really matter whether Kanan disagrees with that idea because he obviously doesn't trust or like Maul. StarWars.com's description of Maul and Ezra being a logical pairing wasn't stated by Kanan's admission, but rather as a means to tell the story of the Episode itself...
I agree with you and don't understand why you're getting upset. To spell out the multiple ways, they just need to look at the grammar in the sentence:
"Kanan agrees to split the group up, the logical choice pairing Maul with the weakest of the Jedi,"
The comma after "up" is incorrectly used. It should have been followed by a conjunction such as "and" or not used at all and instead replaced with a period or a semicolon. Even that doesn't really matter because one independent clause is followed by another, and the latter describes the situation further than the former. There are three ways to interpret the sentence.
1) Kanan agrees to split the group up, and he does so because Maul is the strongest, which is what the franchise wants us to know, or
2) Kanan agrees to split the group up, and he does or does not agree to do so because Maul is the strongest even though the franchise wants us to know that Maul is, or
3) Kanan agrees to split the group up, and he does not agree to do so because Maul is the strongest even though the franchise wants us to know that Maul is.
It doesn't matter which interpretation is used because in any option the franchise has now said that Maul is the strongest and is therefore the logical choice. You're right. (Actually, it says that Ezra is the weakest implying that Maul is the strongest.)
Going even further, that statement is not mutually exclusive from Kanan trusting Ezra. Nothing is said to imply that Kanan trusted Ezra's trust in Maul. Ezra just says, "trust me," and Kanan nods. (replying to a kbro comment)
You do not prove how it is factually inaccurate
The quote says kanan agrees to split the group,this never happens
"Kanan: " <--- a nod typically implies agreement, which is exactly what yousuf said. (Kanan literally agrees with Ezra pairing up with Maul.)
proven that the two are mutually exclusive.
What? Yes it is. Kanan agreeing with maul to split the group blatnatly contradicts what happens in the episode where kanan never agrees with maul. Those two claims are mutually exclusive.
Kanan agrees regardless to whom the agreement or consent is given, and his agreement doesn't even matter because the point is that Maul is the strongest.
@kbroskywalkerSource for this fact? Regardless starwars.com is a secondary source, if its contradicts a canon primary source it serves a sa guide for, this obviously invalidates the contradictory claim it makes. And I'm taking the word of the creator over a image from a gallery which contradicts the episode it serves as a guide for.
Disney has stated that there is no more tiered canon.
Thats fine, but primary sources still>secondary sources
Whatever is published about SW from the time of their purchase and forward is all canon and all of that canon is equal canon.
Which is fine, but published material takes precedent over guides to published material. The whole point of sources like starwars.com is they outline what happened in the episode. If part of this outline contradicts the episode itself, its invlaidated.
Non-tiered means that there is no primary and secondary source. It is all primary, and again, the Filoni statement, which I still think was tongue-in-cheek (opinion only), is not mutually exclusive of the quote on the website unless we take the quote literally, which even you can't do.
Above you said that we can't specify that Filoni is only talking about Imperials, but you then said we can't use Kenobi and Vos as examples because they "...are not potential enemies," which is how you contradicted yourself. You did follow up with "If it does, well then that's, that," but do you really believe that considering Filoni has kinda sorta contradicted himself in other interviews? I can't give you specific ones, but if you go back and read his interviews from the past, you'll find where he's asked the same or similar questions over and over. Each time he answers, he gives a reply that isn't truly contradictory, but it won't accurately correspond 100% , either, similar to his quote as compared to the SW.com quote, which is why I say that they aren't mutually exclusive. It doesn't make sense that Ahsoka is all of a sudden a stronger combatant than Obi-Wan or Vos, neither of whom are old and decrepit.
Also, I don't recall Yoda being on his deathbed even though he did die 6 years after Rebels season 3 and seven years after Rebels season 2, "Twilight of the Apprentice," and eight years after the beginning of season 2, which is when Ahsoka is introduced. Eight years is a long time for a Jedi Master to be on their deathbed, especially considering that they were training a Jedi not long before dying regardless of anyone's perceptions about said Jedi master's combative abilities. No one thought an 874 year old Yoda would have beaten an 80 year old Tyranus, either. For that matter, no one would have thought an 83 year old Tyranus would have been able to take on ROTS Anakin Skywalker and ROTS Obi-Wan Kenobi together, but he (and they) did. I'm not really seeing a 4-2 BBY Yoda having a problem with Ahsoka considering he was up and about training Luke with no problems in 4 ABY just before his death.
However, if we do take Filoni's statement literally, then we have a contradiction in new canon, and one that doesn't make sense anyway considering what's said above. Whether you want to accept it or not, Disney has defined the new canon as being untiered. What is published is to be consistent no matter what, and the only way to make what has been said/ published about these characters has to be cohesive. I'm with you, though, on that it is all or none, but again, considering what's said is incohesive, I can't help but think Filoni wasn't thinking completely through what he said. Without direct confirmation, what he said is senseless.
Back to the OP, Vader > Maul more times than not.
Log in to comment