Talk: Grievous/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Grievous

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Spoilers

3 spoiler tags? --SparqMan 17:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Two should be enough for any article, since we only have two kinds of spoiler tags. I don't want to check it out on my own, though. -- Aidje 17:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

My friend told me he watched it FRAME By FRAME and saw him split for a split second. Anyone agree?

Grievous's Lightsabers

What is the source of Grievous getting Foul Mondoma's, Roron corrb's, Sha'agi's, Tarr Ceiar's, and Even Piells lightsabers?--wattamb2000

  • Well I know for a fact that he took Roron Corobb's, as that's specifically mentioned in Reversal of Fortune; and it's assumed that he takes all of his victims' lightsabers. MarcK 14:20, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • and please put new comments at the BOTTOM of pages. Its rude to put them in above full pages of comment. Durnar 14:23, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • When in Reversal of Fortune? I cant find the part.--wattamb2000
  • Strip 83, and now that I look at it it actually mentions both Corobb and Moudama's sabers being taken:
Moudama and Corobb fought well, but Grievous was too strong. He took their lightsabers and the Chancellor and left in his ship.
So as I said I think it's safe to assume he takes them off of everyone he kills. MarcK 14:38, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • If Greivous has 3 dozen sabers, he must of took some from the killed jedi on geonosis. That would make 32 sabers. *Was Even slashed on the chest? How was he killed?--wattamb2000
  • Please stop asking how people died. Nobody cares. And if you are that desperate to find out in detail, go read the original sources. Durnar 14:55, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I dont think there is a source for the replicas of Qui-Gons and Sidious's. Is there?--wattamb2000
  • Well, i do think that Grievous is quite unorthodox when it comes to strategic thinking. On Hypori, he takes out five Jedi while using two lightsabers. And on Coruscant, he uses his four-armed mode to take out TWO Jedi. Seems pretty odd to me, i would have used four sabers on Hypori if i were him. User:General Secura
  • I believe the explaination for that would be that Tartokovsky didn't know that Grievous could do the four arm thing when he did the Hypori battle for the cartoon. ALSO, what is the official source that says that Grievous killed Even Peill? I've not found anything to support that. Joser_Kyind
  • Why does it say on the article that Ki Adi Mundi was defeated by General Grievous when he was killed by his Clones on Mygeeto? I don't understand how Grievous came into possession of his lightsaber. User:General Syrus Satirus
    • On Hypori, they battled, and Ki-Adi-Mundi lost his lightsaber before escaping. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:41, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • The main article implies that it is unclear why Grievous collects Lightsaber's but judging by his character and what he says in the Silent Hand, it appears that he's collecting them as trophies. -- TheDarkArchon 10:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How does Grievous have Adi Gallia's lightsaber? She wasn't killed until after his death so I find it difficult to believe she was resurrected to be killed by the clones. Also, in the list of Jedi he did not personally kill it mentions Shaak Ti but in the deleted scenes in episode 3 he does indeed kill her right in front of Obi-Wan and Anakin. That is where the 3rd lightsaber in his vest comes from when he captures them later. OompaLoompa of DOOM 02:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Adi Gallia was killed in Obsession. You're probably thinking of Stass Allie. As for Shaak Ti, the deleted scene isn't canon. She was alive as of the time of Anakin's attack on the Jedi Temple; after that, it's unknown. - Lord Hydronium 02:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Shaak Ti survived the Raid on the Jedi Temple, as shown on the cover of the new Insider issue. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 19:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If you listen to the scene with the intros on, you'll find out that it was an alternate plot line, and that Shaak Ti was suposed to have been captured with Palpatine. -lord_vader1414
  • Well, yeah, that's what I ment. She wasn't captured, as was orriginaly intended. I personally think that that's good. If she was captured, it would make her look weak, and she's not. -lord_vader1414
  • Really? Where did she die? I mean, that's cool that Anakin didn't kill her. She's probably my favorite female Jedi, next to Barriss Offee. -lord_vader1414
    • According to the latest Star Wars Insider, because none of her death scenes were in the film, it's possible she's still alive. -LtNOWIS 20:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well that's shweet. Thanks for the info you guys! -lord_vader1414

Title

Keeping in mind our "no titles in article name" rule, should this be at Grievous? QuentinGeorge 04:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

  • This is a tricky one, as he is never refered to in any literature as anything but General. Hmmm. Count Dooku is the same way. I'm torn on this one, it may be the exception.--Eion 05:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm...Dooku is referred as just "Dooku" when talking about his pre-Sith days, however. He only reclaimed the title when he left the order. QuentinGeorge 05:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
      • True, but I still think this may be the only exception. Though, I will wait till I see EpIII to judge.--Eion 05:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
      • With Grievous alone not sounding like a name, I'd say settle with the exception. I would revise Dooku, though.--Gen.d 18:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It may be that General Grievous is a name he took on after being sealed into his metal body. In that case, "General" appears to be a part of his proper name, and should stay. The only thing that would make sense otherwise would be if a source refers to him as "Grievous" was still a full Kaleesh. --SparqMan 19:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Coming back to this, it seems clear that this article should be titled "Grievous". --SparqMan 15:01, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree --Beeurd 00:23, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Nobody calls GG "Grievous," not even Sidious. It's part of his name. For the Lord Nyax article, will it just be "Nyax"?--Erl
        • That's different. Lord Nyax is a mythical story, General Grievous is a living being with a rank/title. And please date your comments. --beeurd 16:17, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, when the escape pods are launched in ROTS, Obi-Wan does say, "Grievous!" QuentinGeorge 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is kind of a mouthful. And if that's his real name, how did he come by the name of Grievous? -- SFH 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I assume it was after he was borged. Or, perhaps it was a name given to him during the wars - like "Butcher" QuentinGeorge 00:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
        • isn't Qymaen jai Sheelal the name that Supershadow made up for him?
          • You're thinking "Grievous Shakar". —Silly Dan (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If Qymaen jai Sheelal is his real name, and Grievous is an alias then shouldn't the article be at "Qymaen jai Sheelal" instead of "Grievous"?--201.230.85.240 21:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No, because Grievous, which is not an alias, changed his name from Qymaen jai Sheelal to Grievous. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 22:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Grievous post-ROTS?

In the new expansion pack for the SW: Galaxies online game, you apparently get to fight General Grievous in a post-ROTS environment! Now, I know this might be just game-mechanics and they are never a part of official continuity, but I believe he comes with a back-story that details his revival after ROTS, complete with an artificial "gut-sack" (to replace the one that blew up on him in the movie). And backstories in games are actually a part of continuity. What do we do with this information? VT-16 11:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • *groan* He's dead; let him die. I can't believe they're going to try and bring him back. argh. (I'm sure my complaints are very helpful to you.) – Aidje talk 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Has he appeared yet? If not, I would wait. If he does, then I would only use material that is something you could a transcript of, such as game material, cut scenes (does SW:G even have these?), StarWars.com blurbs or other material. Just saying that he appears wouldn't really be worthwhile. --SparqMan 00:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Come on- The guy literally burst in flame - even out of his eyes! I have serious doubts that even Darth Vader would have survived this. --Gen.d 15:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Will they be giving him an artificial brain-sac too, because that puppy was fried up like a meal from the cookbook of Hanibal Lector. God, I know I've seen GG fighter in ads for the SW:G expansion, but I really hope they don't put him in...--Eion 15:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty terrible plot-twist, considering Grievous’ vital organs were incinerated. At least Boba Fett was still mostly in one piece when he was brought back. I hope this information ends up as no more than a note in the 'Behind the Scenes' section. --Fade 15:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Judging from people who played this, it´s not Grievous, but a droid built after his specs. Apparently it´s called N-K Necrosis. Funny, sounds almost like necromancy, "raising the dead"... Maybe I´m just grasping at straws. ;P VT-16 19:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, that's probably entirely intentional --Fade 21:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        • After some snooping around, I can confirm the NK Necrosis. It is located in a cave on Kashyyyk, surrounded by an army of lesser droids. It uses a double-bladed red lightsaber, and seem to be completely mechanical (as opposed to Grievous). --Imperialles 21:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Maybe it's just a really poor rip-off then? Or a 'homage' if I'm being kind :P --Fade 09:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
            • In any case, Galaxies is S-canon

Lord Patrick 08:23, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, if Grievous survived the shuttle crash that caused him to be a cyborg, perhaps there was a chance that his dead hulk was recovered and repaired to be completely droid, which meant all of Grievous's surviving "living" parts could have been scraped and been replaced by droid parts. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:19, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

i hope he survives and is made of something like CORTOSIS!!!

  • What a profound statement. Another reason why we should only allow registered users to edit. -- Doo Doo 06:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Issue resolved: N-K Necrosis--Erl 04:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Uh, Erl, we've known about him for a while now. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I know, I was just putting up there for the benefit of anyone who didn't--Erl 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay, just checking. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Just because he appears in Battlefront II doesn't mean he's actually alive. The creators just wanted to give people theopprotunity to have players fight with some of their favorite characters. Grievous is dead. Gone. Yes, there was N-K Necrosis, but that's not Grievous. That's just the same body, and Necrosis life was very shortlived. Warhobbe 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

reference to blasters after his death?

i suppose that this is not the right area to post this, but i seem to remember Obi-Wan saying something like 'Uncivilised' about the blaster that he kills Grevious with, can somebody please confirm this, also, does Obi-Wan say something about the blasters used by one of the characters in ANH??? --82.35.168.60

  • In RotS Obi-Wan tosses away Grievous's blast saying "So uncivilized". I think what you might be refering to in ANH is Obi-Wan telling Luke that lightsabers are of a "more civilized age" and not as "clumsy or random as a blaster". --Beeurd
    • thanks
  • My impression (and Matthew Stover's) is that "So uncivilized" refers to Grievous

refering to the blaster

  • It also my be refering to that grievous was uncivilized and had and uncivilized death by his own blasterLt.sarge
    • Or, it might mean something completely different. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:46, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought that it was about the blaster, because he appeared to be looking at it, and in ANH, he says "not as clumsy or as random as a blaster...a weapon for a more civilised age."--Xilentshadow900 22:04, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, remember that A New Hope was made before RotS here. There is always a chance, but it doesn't have to mean Kenobi referred to Grievous's blaster, even though he said that line in RotS. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:20, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it just seems like the kind of line Lucas would throw in to bind the movies together. Its like a hobby of his.--Xilentshadow900 22:27, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Wheel Bike

This article needs to include a link to his Tsmeu-6 personal wheel bike.

  • Wrong, I have some comfimed evedince from the revenge of the sith dvd that the name of grievous's wheel bike is called "the dread speeder".Although this might have been in early production and could have been changed to the Tsmeu-6Lt.sarge

Age

Do we have a source for Grievous' birthyear of 60 BBY? I haven't seen anything official on GG's age - Kwenn

  • I seem to recall reading something stating he was in his 40s when he became Grevious... Although I forget where I read this, I shall scour my resources searching for something to back this up. --Beeurd 00:22, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Chestplate Confusion

I believe that Grievous gets his chestplate crushed by Mace in both Labyrinth of Evil and Obsession... so which one do we put down? --Demented Smiloid 14:07, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • And don't forget Clone Wars. :-) – Aidje talk 15:33, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Just say Mace did it, and don't specify where. QuentinGeorge 23:40, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Definately wasn't on Coruscant like Clone Wars says, it would contradict the movie which shows him undamaged. Obsession is the best explanation for it. --Lowkey
        • Obsession only shows Grievous damaged after Mace drops a STAP on him, with sparks flying from all over his body. It doesn't explicitly state his lungs were damaged, or even that this injury caused his coughing. And I don't recall Mace doing anything other than Force-pushing Grievous from a mag-lev train in Labyrinth of Evil. Clone Wars is the only source that expliticly shows Grievous recieving that injury - Kwenn 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Plus, LoE and Clone Wars were originally supposed to be the same thing... So, if that is truly the case, Grievous would have gotten his cough from somewhere else. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The First Vader?

  • Did you ever think that Grievous could be like a Vader before Vader.I'm mean like look at the facts; burtally injurned in a freak accident, half cyborg, wants revenge on the jedi, it all makes sence!Purplesaber 42
    • I believe the cyborg-life-support-after-brutal-injury parallel is intentional, if that's what you're asking. – Aidje talk 19:23, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, It's like Lucas accually wants us to beleve that,but I don't think alot of people reconize it.I think you have to watch Clone Wars to figure it out.Purplesaber 42

In fact, according to Dark Lord, the selfsame droids which reconstructed the dying frame of Darth Vader into the cyborg we know and love to hate also reconstructed Grievous a decade before. This also locks down when Grievous suffered his shuttle crash to 29 BBY. Gothymog 20:51, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Does it specifically say "a decade before" or does it say "around a decade before"? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:57, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I cannot recall the exact wording as I do not possess the book, merely have read it. I'm pretty sure it says the former, though someone with the book will have to check. Gothymog 13:58, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • yeah, Vader's a combination of all the past 'Emporer's hands.' He was mostly cyborg (like Grievous), he betrayed the jedi order (like Tyranus), and he was a weapon of the sith, what with his brutality (like Darth maul). I read that theory somewhere on the net. . .probably on wikipedia. . .I'll have to check that. :) Warhobbe 17:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

C-i-C

Like Asajj Ventress, Sev'rance Tann was not the C-i-C for CIS forces either. --SparqMan 22:26, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, she was. The New Essential Chronology states that she held more sway with Dooku than Grievous did until her death. It doesn't make sense if she held more sway than Dooku, but Grievous had a higher rank. Therefore, she was the first Supreme Commander of the CIS. Please don't reedit the article again. If you have a problem with it, it's too bad, it's a fact.
  • There is a difference between sway and rank. There are tons of instances in the real world of non-governmental officials holding more sway with Heads of State than actual members of their Cabinets or staff. -- SFH 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there is a source where it says that Tann wasn't CiC. All of the sources (besides maybe Visionaries, which has iffy canon status) only say that Grievous was CiC after Tann's death, since Tann was invented first. Also exlain in SWGB why Dooku refers to her as his finest General
    • Exactly. He doesn't refer to her as Commander in Chief; only General, whereas Grievous has been specifically named as the Supreme Commander - Kwenn 20:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And Dooku may have been allowing his biases to sink in. Tann was Force-sensitive, Grievous was not. Tann looked Human, Grievous did not. Tann was fully organic, Grievous was not. There are reasons that Dooku would have prefered Tann to Grievous, but the fact remains that General Grievous was the Supreme Commander of the Droid Armies, not Sev'rance Tan. -- SFH 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why did Asajj Ventress and Durge fight with Grievous over the CiC position in the Clone Wars cartoons? That suggest that there was a position to be filled, one made empty by Tann's death. You even have her as THE top military officer in the CIS on her page.
    • That event did not occur in the cartoons at any stage. QuentinGeorge 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I might be thinking of a comic or something, but Iread about that somewhere.
  • It's in the Databank on Grievous and Ventress' articles. -- SFH 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Grievous being CiC of the Droid Armies doesn't perhaps mena as much when one consideres there was the Confederate Navy (assuredly a different unit) as well as organic forces. Kuralyov 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, perhaps Tann was the Supreme Commander of the Confederate Navy. But, there's no proof for that. But the point is, Grievous was the one-and-only Supreme Commander of the Droid Armies. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

First name and more

Confirmed by Abel G. Pena himself on TFN, Grievous's first name will be revealed in Star Wars Insider 84 in his article The Story of General Grievous. Also included will be his origins as an organic Kaleesh, the war with the Huks, and the blood transfusion from Sifo-Dyas. :D -- Riffsyphon1024 19:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow, that's great! The history of Greivous to be revealed. That will be one article I can't afford to miss. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:10, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • The new Insider is out. Can anyone reveal Grievous' real name? - Kwenn
      • Wasn't in this issue. Hopefully it will be in 85. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 18:15, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

its General Grievous Skaker

  • Please read SuperShadow, my poor anon. And when are we going to learn that name? -- SFH 15:10, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we'll find out the real full name in the next Insider, or the next, etc. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:15, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't in 84? Disappointing... - Angel Blue 451 15:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Like I said above, hopefully it will be in another issue. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:14, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • It is confirmed to be in 86, along with an article about mandalorian culture written by Karen traviss. An issue we can't miss!--Xilentshadow900 16:08, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Finally, an end to Grievous Skaker. Finally, Grievous' first name and his history will be revealed! Indeed, we cannot miss this. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:39, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • As long as it isn't "Albert", I'll be happy. - Angel Blue 451 17:46, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Heh. Seriously though, I hope that they do include it in 86. - Angel Blue 451 18:25, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, if it's actually been confirmed, it should be in it. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:27, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • I know, I just hope they don't delay it again. - Angel Blue 451 18:32, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • Maybe Abel G. Pena ment Insider 86 instead of Insider 84. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:35, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • Nah, he just kept on getting pushed back by KAren Traviss's stuff. Now they're in a mag together. Check his blog on the subject. It has many edits on it.--Xilentshadow900 19:00, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • 'Tis possible, I suppose. - Angel Blue 451 18:51, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Weird

Yeah um, maybe its my computer or something but the text of this page have been replaced with links and stuff and words overlapping other words. But its just this page not others.

  • It's the same with mine, too, and probally the same for everyone else. What could be doing this? How can we fix it? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:53, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[[The Grievous scene on the DVD is: "It's more similar to the Clone Wars cartoon. And there's some music in there that you don't ever hear until now. Some of the John Williams music that was cut from the actual feature ends up in this scene. " GRIEVOUS KILLS SHAAK!--wattamb2000

  • How many times do we have to tell you, wattamb2000, Greivous DOES NOT KILL Shaak Ti! The official death of Shaak Ti is in the Jedi Temple. She got slaughtered by Anakin Skywalker!! Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:33, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, Matt Wood, who attended the 2005 SFX Convention in Toronto, made a statement that might indicate this scene being restored to the film. Or he could have been joking. (Most likely) VT-16 15:25, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • It has to be a joke, even though it was planned that way, because the Episode III Visual Dictionary clearly states that Shaak Ti fell victim to Vader's fury in the Temple. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 16:05, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Look at the Wikipedia article on Shaak Ti. It states Grievous killed her!--wattamb2000
          • Wikipedia is by no means an authoritative source. Any piece of information has been added by a fallible user, just as is the case here—so saying "Wikipedia says X" is no better an argument than "Wookieepedia says X"; in essence, it's about the weakest argument you could give. – Aidje talk 18:15, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • Plus, the EPISODE III VISUAL DICTIONARY IS A MORE REALIABLE SOURCE!!! Wattamb, if you're so desparate in making it seem you're right, which you aren't, how do we know that you didn't write that little bit yourself!!!! Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:02, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

i have a picture of grievous killing her i don't know how to post them she was defeted by greivous twice

  • The scene was cut, it's no longer canon. --beeurd 13:47, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

6 BBY?

That date is incorrect. 6 BBY was during the rule of the Galactic Empire, so how could Dooku, Durge, and Grievous all be around after their deaths? -- Riffsyphon1024 18:30, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Grievous Resurrected?

It says that Grievous was resurrected after the Galactic Civil War. What are the sources for this? Unit121 21:11, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Galaxies, but it's not canon. And even if it is, that wasn't Grievous. It was a droid called N-K "Necrosis" that seemed to use Grievous' shell. --Master Starkeiller 21:20, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Removed the nonsense text. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:50, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Abel Pena is covering this in an upcovering article. :) Tam 13:38, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Although, "Necrosis" does look pretty neat... but, besides, what does this has to do with Grievous?...User:Sniper112

His Voice

I noticed in Episode III, Grievous had one voice, but then in the Clone Wars, he had another voice. In the sega, did Grievous aways have that voice from Episode III, or did his voice change when Mace crushed his body at the end of Clone Wars Chapter 25?

  • John Di Maggio did his voice in his first appearance, at the episode with the battle of Hypori. In the second season, Richard McGonagle provided his voice. Matthew Wood did the movie voice. It's all their in the article. -- SFH 23:59, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing as how Obi-Wan, Anakin, Padme and everyone else also have different voices, its hardly an issue. QuentinGeorge 01:01, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

But in some ways (not all ways), even after the fact there's diferent actors, Obi-Wan talks the same way and sound like Ewan McGregor, Padme talks like Natalie, the same thing with Yoda, Palpatine, Dooku, Qui-Gon, Mace and the Clones, but John Di Maggio and Richard McGonagle don't sound like Matthew Wood, they don't even talk in the weird accent that Matt use in Episode III.

  • Wood's inclusion in the film was a last-minute sorta affair, Tartakovsky simply didn't know what Grievous would sound like, and guessed. Tam 13:37, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Corpse

"The corpse of General Grievous lay on the Utapau landing platform with a charred ring around it, and even the Utapaun birds of prey would not touch his remains." Nice wording (almost Tolkienesque) but could we get a source on that? -- SFH 23:40, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I also thought that was a bit... strange. It doesn't really add anything to the article, so I say remove the "...and the Utapaun birds of prey would not touch his remains" part and add what's left to the previous paragraph. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:43, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I think its intent was to show that Grievous had become so evil that even nature itself wouldn't take him. However, there wasn't much left of his body left to begin with, nor was there after his death (that has to have been the most violent death I have ever seen in a Star Wars film). -- SFH 00:17, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • The line comes from the Revenge of the Sith novel. As Obi-Wan makes his way to Grievous' fighter, he notices that his corpse is still there and that not even the birds can stomach him. TIEPilot051999 00:41, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's an official source. I'll add it back in. -- SFH 00:48, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • No problem. I just finished reading it the other day. TIEPilot051999