Grand_Admiral_Thrawn

I wasn't sure ifthose were from the same site, but the style had indicated as much to me. In my searching I had come across another site (I think it was another one) by a German guy who had several Grand Admiral pics, thoug hthe uniform was somewhat more ornate (the collar of the uniform was a stiff black with gold leafing on it).

Because the movies belong to LucasFilm he won't have a say as to the production of more movies (especially after he's gone). I suppose it will all depend on the position his children hold in the company, and their respect for GL's wishes.

Well, I have two things to say to that. First, if the chrystal weren't 100% black (and there for, not really black) there would be a sufficient ammount of translucency for light energy to pass through and produce a lighsaber blade. A chrystal similar to this, but with a greater level of darkness to it, should therefor suffice as a focusing chrystal. Now, that said, this assumes that the energy being used is light energy. There are non-transparent chrystals, such as black tourmaline, that are semi-conductors. While tourmaline itself may not make a good focusing chrystal, it`s properties suggest that there should be other non-transparent chrystals capable of conducting energy. There may be no natural black light, but the blade produced should be sufficiently dark in colour that one would describe it as black (though the light from the centre of the blade, the white core, would probably be the predominant colour since its intensity would be the greatest).

I've actually found a picture of Thrawn that I like, but alas my artistic skills aren't up to the taks of creating a sig I like. This is the image if there are ny nice people out there who would help a graphically challenged Grand Admiral .

Jedi describes someone who is able to use the force, but was trained to do so using the tenets of the Jedi Code, and through Jedi teachings. As I have said in another thread, Dark Jedi are still Jedi. The Sith are not Jedi because they have not gained their power through Jedi teachings, but through those of the Sith. Other than players who choose the light side in the Knights of the Old Republic games, I've never heard of any Sith Lord or Master coming over to the light side of the Force, so there is no light side equivalent. It could be argued that Jedi who fall to the dark side and learn the ways of the Sith are both Sith and Jedi, but I believe that once you begin the journey through the powers of the Sith you loose touch with your old teachings.

No, I think that they would take an apprentice after they have killed their Master. We can't take the "Always two there are" too strictly .

Naval etiquet must be very different between the British and American navies. If a Captain were taking command of a ship once commanded by a Commander (doesn't happen often), th Captain would still refer to the Commander as Captain. The same would be true if a Captain were in a room with a Rear-Admiral and a Fleet Admiral. They would both be refered to as Admiral. Maybe in the past American officers were more touchy about their ranks than the Brits? I suppose if a Commentary were done like 60 Standard Minutes it would be quite successful (and useful to boot).

I'm going to go the way of a non-animated image. I'm just looking for a decent background, something very Imperial, to put my picture of Thrawn on. I'm hoping to have something working by later tonight.

With the introduction of the tierd concept, Dr. Saxtons work makes far more sence to me. Ranks such as Line Captain would have had to be created for officers who are to command fleets (or suadrons) that are considered too small for a flag rank, but too large for a standard Captain to command. Situations like this would be far more common in a military as spread out as the Imperial Navy. They may also be used depending on the size of the ship being commanded. For example, an officer holding the rank of Commander might be given command of a smaller ship, perhaps a Lancer Frigate or a Carrier style ship, one that requires some one higher than a Lieutenant to command, but would be too low in prestige for some one holding the rank of Captain to command. I still find the number of sub-ranks for Lieutenant excessive, but without knowing all of the positions to be filled by an officer, it's difficult to discount any of them. In the real military the title with which you address an officer may be confusing if their position is not the same as their rank (for example a Commander might command a Destroyer in the Navy, but you would call him Captain out of respect). I'm not sure if there would be any trouble with what you call a Commodore. I believe there was a Commodore reprimanded recently in the Canadian Navy, and he is simply refered to as Commodore. I think you would simply pay the courtesy of refering to an officer by the name of their position rather than their base rank in such situations (Captain could refer to a Lieutenant, Commander, or Captain in command of a ship, Commodore for a Commodore, and Admiral for those in Flag positions). I'm not sure if people could handle a BEAK Commentary, what with all the references linking to other pages and all .

Jahled, you might want to edit some of those options. Episode six was RotJ. I think you meant Episode seven through nine.

It was actually suppose to be a temporary signature, but I havent't taken the time to come up with a new one. At the moment it's as small as I can get it until I can find a good .gif editing program. I'll try and come up with something non-animated for the interum.

I believe he stated itthat way because he considers the Prequels and the Original Trilogy to be two different bodies. He simply wanted to live to see the completion of Episode III.

I believe it was also entitled Sorceror's Stone in the UK, though why it was changed for the North American release is quite beyond me. A Philosopher has nothing to do with magic.

Most games based off of movies aren't very good due to the plot limitations. Most of the time they just take all of the "cool" aspects of the movie and make them player controled. That said, I still enjoy the odd game of Battle for Middle Earth, but it has it's limitations as well (a lot of them at that).

For example, I'm currently reading the Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin novels by Patrick O'Brian (the movie Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is based on the tenth book of this series). In the UK the books are published by a company called W.W. Norton & Company. Under their banner the 15th book in the series is titled Clarissa Oakes, howver, the American version of that book is entitled The Truelove (yes, it's suppose to be truelove, don't ask me why). Oddly enough my research shows that the American version and the UK version are both published by the same company, yet are titled differently, while the Canadian version is published by HarperCollins, but shares it's name with the British publication. This is, however, a good example of how novels can be published by different companies depending on where they are being sold. Another example is a series of book that I read cumulatively known as the Malazan Book ofthe Fallen. It's a fantasy series (not your typical elves and dwarves mind you, this is much darker) that has been published up to the fifth book in Canada, but only to the third in the U.S. Here in Canada Bantam Press publishes the book, using cover art that seems to fit the style of writing. In the U.S., however, there is a different publishing firm, Tor Books, who forced the author to change the cover art to be more like other books of the genre, in hopes that the Dungeons and Dragons players will pick it up. Basically who publishes a book depends on where they're active. Bantam and DelRey probably don't publish anything in Europe, so the only way you'll ever see their name on the side of a novel is if it's been shipped in from North America due to publication rights, or if no local publisher will pick the title up. I'm interested to know if the novels you have over there have the same cover art as we on this side of "the pond".

Now why didn't I think of saying it that way?

I had come to the realization that Sea Lord and Grand Admiral in the British and German sence are essentialy the same rank, so any linkage between them would be poinless ( it would be like comparing highway and autobahn (sp?), which pretty much results in the answer "duh!"). When relating to the Star Wars Grand Admiral and High Admiral, Grand Admiral has no equivalent in the real world, where High Admiral is basically the German Grand Admiral and the British First Sea Lord. Something I think we should consider is the possibility of the Imperial Navy using a tierd Flag Rank system. I'm not sure if it is still in use, but at one time there was a system in the British (I know, get off the Brits already! ) navy where there was a Rear, Vice and regular Admiral of the Blue, Red and White, making nine possible flag ranks rather than three or four (excluding Admiralty command positions). So, a Rear-Admiral of the Blue was lower than a RA of the Red who was lower than an RA of the White, and so on. As Mr. Saxton pointed out, there are too many possible combinations to make the Imperial rank structure as strait-forward as he presents.

Bantam and DelRey are probably the North American publishing companies. Another series I am reading is published by one company here, but a completely different one in England. The result is not only a variance in length (pages that is), but in some cases the title of the book.

Well, other than Battlefront, Republic Commando, and Knights of the Old Republic (I and II), you might be out of luck. Most of the new SW titles are for Game Cube (ala Rogue Squadron), but I guess you should have the RotS game to take a look at.

I agree with Evaders. I don't see DelRey doing any reprints of the hold novels, and I doube Bantam will continue to do so. I think we'll see a slow decline of our favorite and not-so-favorite (damn you Black Fleet Crisis!) novels from our local books stores. I don't think Lucas could order a change to any of the novels simply because, although they are property of LucasFilm, they still belong to the Authors. For the same reason he can't make any changes himself. There is always the up-side that those books we have now would be worth more money in the long run.

I'm confused as to why we need to assume Piett was promoted to the ran of high admiral for the engagement at Endor. Although the Imperial Fleet that was massed there was huge (perhaps an understatement), he was already the commanding officer of the flagship (with a captain below him, therefore making the placement of some one above him impossible), and so the logical choice for fleet commander. I say this because it is generall accepted that there were Grand Admirals aboard the Death Star, meaning that even were Piett promoted to High Admiral, there were officers (presumably more capable officers) who could have commanded the fleet, and who were of a rank higher than Piett. His command was a byproduct of his posting. Now, my linkage between the rank of Grand Admiral and Sea Lord was only for example. I know where the rank of Grand Admiral came from (I have an odd fascination with Dönitz) but have now found another reason my connection makes little sence: the Admiralty rank of First Sea Lord is the equivalent to Grand Admiral (IRL that is). Churchill was First Sea Lord in the First World War, placing him in command of the whole of the British Navy. Dönitz was in the same position in the Second World War (of the German navy though ). Because the two ranks are one and the same, it makes no sence that they should equate one another in the SW universe. That, and the rank of Grand Admiral clearly holds a different status in the Imperial Navy than it did in the Kriegsmarine.

There's a pretty good discussion about the Sith/Jedi/Dark Jedi going on in the RotS Trailer thread.

Going insane is one way to fall to the dark side, but as SOCL said, not the only way. I was perhaps a little too simplistic in my outline. The Jedi are not strictly of the "Light" side of the force, but of the area one could consider more neutral. I think that Yoda put it best when saying the the Force should be used "for knowledge and defence, never for attack". So we can assume that Jedi are defenders (initially) and that they use the Force for knowledge. Dark Jedi are those Jedi who use the Froce to attack, to get what they want, and to get more power faster. I've been under the impression that the Dark Side corrupts as well, which may explain why we consider Dark Jedi to be insane. BUt if we look at the Emperor and Vader, we see that, although cruel and evil, they seem to be quite in control of their actions. When I started reading these new EU books and their description of the force as not Light or Dark but neutral, with the user puttin his/her own tint on it, I though that was a little too simplistic. There is Light or Dark, I believe, and the user can be pulled to one end or the other (or remain neutral), however it should be possible to use the Force for attack, so long as malice, hatred and aggression are not your reasons. You could say that it allows for an offencive defence. As for the Sith=Dark Side, I'm afraide that's how it is. The teachings of the Sith (not the code, but the manner in which they train) support lies, deciet, double-crossing, and murder so long as you achieve your goal. Shows of effection and good will are seen as weaknesses. I think it's been said before, but the Sith are consumed by the force. Its power slowly erodes their body, destroying them with it's power. I think in RotS we'll see a more clear definition of what it is to be Sith. Palpatine says that "the Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural". When asked if one could learn this power he responds "Not from a Jedi". I think that this strongly ties the Sith to the Dark Side, but it also shows that the Sith and Dark Jedi have not fallen in the same manner. It also should indicate that, perhaps, the Dark Jedi are more in the Grey area and beyond (towards the darkness), and that some things we attribute with the Dark Side because of what we've seen Vader and the Emperor do may only be powers gained through Sith knowledge. Although they are evil, Dark Jedi are still Jedi.

I was under the impression that it was more along the following: Palpitane was a Sith. You are labled a Sith by following the teachings of the Sith. Sith teachings focus on emotion, power, and feeding a hunger for power. There is only one Master and one Apprentice at one time (according to Mace Windu), but if we go by EU sources, this is mostly because you only become a Master by killing your master. Vader was a Sith, a Dark Lord of the Sith to be more precise. The Emperor was a Sith Master. Sith Lord is the equivalent of Jedi Knight, with Sith Master being the equivalent of Jedi Master. Sith teachings twist you, make you cruel. Dark Jedi are Jedi who have given into the dark side of the Force, but did not do so through the teachings of the Sith. I would venture to say that, although Dark Jedi are basing their actions on emotion, they do not have the cruelty of the Sith, though they could probably be called evil. You would still have to give into your emotions to become a Dark Jedi. Qui-Gon was, I think, a new style of Jedi, and, like SOCL said, was more in the grey simply because he didn't hold to the Jedi Code as closely as most Jedi of the time. I would try and describe it as follows: Sith and Jedi are two schools of teaching the force, one focusing on the Dark Side, the other on the light. The Sith are Dark Jedi, but are called "Sith" because of the way in which they were taught. Dark Jedi were once Jedi but gave into their feelings.

Although I'm pretty sure I'd rather be a Sith, I went through Knights of the Old Republic II with a white ("silver") lightsaber. I just found it appealing.