Talk:General Grievous

Sign

Please sign ALL your comments to this page using --~~~~
Deskana (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sith Lord?

Since Grievous wielded lightsabers, even though he is rendered unable to call upon the Force, could he be considered a Sith Lord? --John VEd Telerionus 21:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No.

A Sith Lord, by definition, is either one of the Dark Lords of the people who lived in Korriban or one of their apprentices. Grievous is not a Force user, and in fact has barely any connection to the Force at all since he was rebuilt as a cyborg. If Asajj Ventress has no claim to the title of Sith, much less Grievous. --Luis Dantas 10:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, when he first began to surface he was in fact called Darth Grievous, but by the time the "Clone Wars" cartoon came into being and included him, the Darth was dropped and so were his force powers. The character of Darth Greivous was revamped into General Grievous.

Further more, I coulda sworn I saw it stated somewhere officially that part of the reason the Jedi had such trouble fighting him was due an utter lack of contact between him and the Force, making him somewhat invisible, analogous to the Yuuzhan Vong. --maru 15:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Can a person be called a Jedi Knight or a Sith Lord even though they are unable to call upon the force, but can wield lightsabers? --John-1107 05:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Nope- inherent in the definition is the condition of being a Force-user, withe the primary difference between Jedi Knight or Sith Lord being what side of the Force drawn upon and corresponding changes in style and philosophy. Just wielding lightsabers means one is a darn good swordsman, or damn stupid, is all. --maru 17:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Duh of course not (my friend told me to do this, so blame her) (Treetalker12 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)) ps. genaral grevouis is stupid ( my friend told me to write that too)

Past/present tense?

Beyond his backstory, I'm noticing some use of both present and past tense to describe the general. "The general displays amazing dexterity" and "His . . . weakness in battle was" are two examples. Since he's dead in the story, shouldn't all of it be changed to the past tense? And if descriptions of his attributes ought to be in the present tense, shouldn't they at least be consistent? --Elembis 23:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

When refering to literature, it is appropriate to use the present tense. The same probably applies to movies. --Citizen Premier 01:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Ehh- somewhat dubious. But I can agree it is important that the tenses be consistent, at least. --maru 15:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand it can be appropriate, and it would be expected if Grievous were still alive, but it's weird to go from present tense to past tense at the end of the article. However, saying "Yoda was a Jedi master" early in an article would imply his death, as well as clash with the common images of Yoda as being a Jedi master. Despite that, I say we use the past tense for consistency. It's been done before (see Saruman). --Elembis 21:43, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

What this seems to me to mean is his transition from Kaleesh warlord (organic being) to his cyborg form as he is more commonly seen. when they refer to him in past tense and describe him, it is most likely a trait he lost when he became a cyborg. when they say things such as "He has great dexterity" it is a trait he has kept through the transition. when they say "he is now..." it means it is somehting he gained through becoming a cyborg. seems plausible.JonathanLee98 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Magna droids

Are we really sure that Grievous' droids were using 'electric' staffs? They looked more like force pikes, or shields than electricity to me, and I don't see how electricity could stop a light saber beam from touching the staff. --maru 15:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It's science fiction, okay. --→ JarlaxleArtemis 22:59, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

According to Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary, they are "Electrostaff" which the tips can generate electro-magnetic field. StarWars.com has new databank entry of the MangaGuards and the staff, go take a look! --Kevinmhk

The metal is called "Krint" which is resistant to Lightsabers. --Psi edit

Wookieepedia says its called Phrik....confusing. --24.22.212.250 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are electrostaffs (Force pikes use the Force, I believe). Unless the starwars.com or other Star Wars site says it's made of Krint, I'd go with the Phrik material. I've heard it in Karen Traviss' books and a few other sources, but I've never heard "Krint." Phrik was (seemingly) manufactured most during the Clone Wars, but before Grevious had his bodyguards. Buy a copy of Wizards of the Coast: Star Wars Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook: Saga Edition and there will be a lot of information (WotC works with LucasArts to come up with official information on Star Wars) on stuff like that. Meanwhile, you could learn the rules of a pretty darn awesome RPG. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick question--is it Grevious or Grievous? I'm a fan of Star Wars and I have plenty of books--you'd think I would remember. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Get a better picture of the General instead of the comic book cover. Get something like his picture on the Star Wars website. --B-101 20:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, does anyone know if using the one on the SW website would fall under Fair Use? --maru 17:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

A screenshot from the movie should be fine. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying the picture from SW.com, just a picture with most of the General's body in it from the movie. I don't really like the comic cover and I think we should keep the character pictures consistent. --B-101 19:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

i dislike the comic cover too.. it is one of the worst pic of Gievous released by LucasArts. --Kevinmhk

Young Boba Fett figthing General Grievous ?¡

can somebody give the source of that information ?, for what i have founded the event happened during clone wars episode 20 and that the general won and forgived Boba's life, but i dont see anything sugesting that figth really ocurred. --User:200.44.146.218

Episode 20? There's only six episodes. --→ JarlaxleArtemis 23:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant the 20th micro-cartoon? --maru 00:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably. I don't know anything about the comics. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

No, no, I was referring to the animated cartoon series that was on Cartoon Network- Clone Wars; they were called microcartoons 'cause the first few groups (at least; the schedule was irregular and I stopped watching after that) were, like, 3 minutes. --maru 00:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I never heard of that one either. --→ JarlaxleArtemis 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

It was Boba fett's own book series entitled "Boba Fett," He was given the assignment to capture Wat Tambor when he ran afoul of Grievous.

im the guy who started the disscusion, yes im talking about the clone wars'cartoon. can you give me the exact title of the book so i can try to found it ? thanks

The book is Star Wars: Boba Fett #5 - A New Threat --Kevinmhk

About improving Grievous' article

my fellow friends please take a look: Background Information in the current artice---

• 1-5 paragraphs are talking about the transformation to cyborg
• 6th paragraph is talking about lightsaber ability and lack control of the Force
• 7th is talking about the Battle of Hypori
• 8th is talking about The Battle of Coruscant
• 9th one is talking about Grievous' ability AGAIN and suddenly mention the bodyguards
• 10-12th are AGAIN talking about his lightsaber ability and weakness in the Force
• the 13th suddenly mentioned he is under Dooku and Sidious
• 14th is talking about The Battle of Utapau
• no paragraph mentions the events triggered by his death

i think the article should re-arrange... dividing parts into backstory, transformation, ability and weakness, then follow the timeline to describe his activites in Clone Wars and ROTS.

the article of Palpatine is doing such a great job, i think Grievous should/can follow

by Kevinmhk, a crazy Star Wars Fans and Grievous' Fans~

• I will do that--Gpigr

How many Jedi?

"However his existence was a secret, since no Jedi had escaped his presence alive. He first revealed himself to the public when he attacked and dispatched a team of seven Jedi Knights in an aggressive display of lightsaber mastery during the Battle of Hypori. With his mechanical enhancements and attributes combined, he was able to battle five Jedi single-handedly. Only three survived the onslaught."

Five + Three = Eight, not Seven. What's the real number? --Golbez 19:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

"to battle five" not "kill five", the real number is indeed 7 Darth Kevinmhk 03:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe i should list out the names: The Battle of Hypori - General Grievous VS Daakman Barrek(death), Ki-Adi-Mundi(survive), Shaak Ti(unconscious), Aayla Secura(unconscious), Sha'a Gi(death), Tarr Seirr(death), K'Kruhk(apparently death, but re-appear in other Expanded Universe materials). --Darth Kevinmhk 03:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because Grievous killed Daakman Barrek and Sha'a Gi first, so Grievous could battle the remaining 5 Jedi single-handedly. --Darth Kevinmhk 03:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serial killer category

Should grievous be added to the category fictional serial killers because he kills,or are soldiers in war not considered serial killers?

I'd say not. All his killings seem to be in the context of war, not because he is an amoral psychopath who likes killing, which is what one usually thinks of when serial killers come to mind. Should we add Luke Skywalker or Obi-Wan Kenobi? --maru (talk) Contribs 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

well now, in the comic book series when the rebels try to attack him on his flagship or wherever he was he seems to kill them without regret. it wasnt really a war. it was a rebelious jedi and a couple friends trying to get back at him for killing their friends.there were battle droids involved but it wasnt an actual battle, i wouldnt say.go ahead on the serial killer category. sounds awesome to me. JonathanLee98 03:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Maru. Serial killer implies to me a murderer in times of peace, not a general. Are assassins and bounty hunters included in this list? If not, it really doesn't seem appropraite that Grievous is. And Mr Lee's example seems more like self defence than cold blooded killing. MrJammie 23:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Force?

How can a villian with the lack of force abilities defeat any jedi/sith in battle? It seems they would just push him away and crush his body in only a few seconds as has been established in previous movies/books etc. I'm confused. Gary Seven 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I agree A lot! because, how can you kill anybody with no Force? And he killed a lot. Well maybe because he's a metal guy!

You know what man u got a great point. I can only tell u to go up to the sith lord part and rean what i said and it still wouldnt fully explain this. But if i had to say anything is that he could of been forced pushed around but not crushed. his armor was made out of some strong type of material that not even a star ship balster could harm. But great point man[added by user sirbizzy]

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.-- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

grievous horribly weakend in the movie in the clone wars he was extremely powerful in yet in the movie he was slow and sluggish i think this should be in the page i mean i understand that mace windu weakend him in yet this in no way constitutes his weakend state he barely moved at all forgive me if this is in the wrong format as i am sort of new at this however i still think my state ment is valid

tartakofsky(sp?) had no real idea what grievous would actually be like in the movie.nobody did, really. that is why his appearance differs so much, not to mention his random shape-shifting ability. he was rumored to be a big bad villain, and with tartakofski's previous cartoon expierience (samurai jack) he most likely imagined someone quick, strong, powerful, and frightening. therefore the crappy cartoon version of general grievous was born, and his plotline was murdered.

When it comes to "why didnt the jedi just use the force" THEY HAD NO IDEA! i doubt jedi training includes how to beat a kaleesh cyborg with four sabers and metal armor incasing his only weak spot. obi-wan is extremely intelligent and inventive, whcih is why he discovered Grievous' weakness. the other jedi simply couldnt keep up with grievous in swordplay and probably had no time to summon the force while fighting off four lightsabers consecutively.JonathanLee98 03:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said for Kenobi's battle with Jango Fett. A Jedi should really be able to body slam any non-force using opponent from 20 yards away. Crappy character. 68.166.173.232 (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

When Grevious gets owned by Obi-wan, am I the only one who felt...

... like Obi-wan was acting like a smug, smarmy, condescending, ridiculously-naive piece of human garbage for making a quip about his victory? Grevious, the noble warrior, annihilated, and Obi-wan thinks it best to crack wise? UGH -- Lucas you madman! Theavatar3 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.But then again, Lucas was also dumb enough to delete the line "You're lucky you dont taste very good" from the dagobah scene where r2-d2 is launched out of the water. this line seems to imply Luke has tasted r2-d2 before.lol JonathanLee98 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

THAT IS SOO true!!!! how can he defeat other jedies with no Force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.234.143 (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Utapau section

The Battle of Utapau section seems to be almost completely wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.39.135.153 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. General Grevious never escapes. Obi-Wan pulls his chest plates apart, shoots him in the heart, and he catches fire and dies! Then again, my brain might be lying to me again. Isn't that what happens? I know Grevious never escaped. Cactus Guru 04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's true, Cactus Guru, Obi-Wan does pull the chest plates apart and shoot him (after being pushed near the edge of a platform, dangling in suspense and what-not). Although by now, 2010, I'm not sure if someone's changed it or not. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Details from Hypori Missing

In Clone Wars, it seems there is evidence that Grievous was directly controlling the strategies of droid troops, at least by the dilaogue before Grievous attacked. --68.41.156.80 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor contradiction

Just noticed that the opening Character paragraph describes Grievous as "an accomplished Jedi hunter in the period before and during the outbreak of the Clone Wars", but in the Clone Wars section, it states he killed his first Jedi during the Battle of Geneosis. Which of these is the correct story? MrJammie 23:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, MrJammie. It could be that he was a bounty-hunter ("I want them alive!" type stuff), and finally killed a jedi in the Battle of Geonosis. Who knows? Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this even mean?

"Only three and barely four survived the onslaught, with one a second later they recovered."

I deleted this sentence because I couldn't figure out what it was trying to say. Someone who can figure it out can add it back in coherently. XAlpha 01:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

I took the liberty of correcting his name. The name stated was a creation of that iggnoramus Micky Suttle.71.101.33.174 08:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Return

Exactly in what does Grievous return? And how can Dooku be "alerted to the 'new Grievous' " if he's already dead?

Section removed; it reeked of bullshit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop the madness!

Is there any way to lock the character information box of this page? People persistently replace Qymaen jai Sheelal with Grievous Shakaar, and the recent string of edits only seem to clutter it and defeat the purpose of a small box of vital, standardized information. I'd revert all of them, but I'll sit this one out for a bit and see what any more experienced editors think... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalthuras (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Part one, I've reordered the way that the infobox code was handled in the article, which will hopefully cut down on edits that screw everything up.

Secondly, unless someone can come up with a good reason why not, we should have the name be the one he's most familiar to non-fans as: General Grievous. Let Wookieepedia get all fan-boy about his name, or mention his old name in the body of the article, but not the infobox. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Blood Transfusion of Grievous is From Another Kaleesh

One of the articles in this section indicates that grievous blood was that from a transfusion method with blood of a human (Syfo-Dyas). It is nearly impossible for a blood from a human to be compatible with that of an alien, not to mention that it can cause blood cloths and organ failure. --DarthPlagueis 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:10577.jpg

Image:10577.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Final Battle

When Grievous was fighting Obi-wan, why didn't he pull out 2 more lightsabers and keep fighting after he lost four of them (and 2 hands)? According to the Clone Wars TV series, he's got what, 20 different lightsabers he could have used? Shouldn't he have done that especically when Kenobi lost his lightsaber which would make him easy prey for Grievous? Emperor001 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would assume it is since he keeps his lightsabers in his robe, and throws the robe away before taking up the fight.

No, in the series, all of the lightsablers were fastened to his legs. Emperor001 (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense

How is it that Grievous' organic parts (eyes, heart, etc.) can survive the rigors of open space when he sucked out of the window of the battleship? - Cybjorg 10:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Dude, it's science fictionit is not the real science you see in textbooks.--Mart572 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yah, it's for the same reason that we hear explosions in space. Makes for a better movie. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, part II

In the Revenge of the Sith section it tells about all of Grevious' organic parts being destroyed but in "partial rebirth" section it mentions that "a brand new body with his brain left as the only organic part". Is this a mistake in the Star Wars cannon? And could someone site where these contradictions occur?

Movie Canon(with one N) or G-Canon as it's called vs Book Canon, according to books Grievous was pretty much just a brain but in the movie he had all of those parts in that sack thing Obi-wan shot. Pretty much, if you want to go with the books go with the books if you want to go with the movies go with the movies, just don't try to rationalize one thing from one source with another thing from a separate source of canon. All you need to know is the big main facts(Luke blew up the death star, Anakin kills a village of Sand people, Grievous is a Cyborg) is in both. However how it came to be, might be different in both in fact in "the Clone Wars" series the writer has gone on record saying he has actually formed things how things happen in books comics and how they are in the movies but left it up to the audience to believe what they want-76.21.106.232 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask..

What is the source for the end of the partial rebirth section? it seems like fanon..(and not the NK part, the part where it is possible Palpatine rezes him) 71.122.158.91 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's from the MMO Star Wars Galaxies.172.188.238.81 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Grievous image

I'm being nitpicky, but can we get a pic of grievous in his normal pose. [IE standing up in human like pose, only him in the pic?] thans (Treedemfoir (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Transformers?

The amount of information about ILM and their work on the Transformers movie seems completely unecessary to me, I have no problem with it being mentioned but I don't think there needs to be a description and explination.172.188.238.81 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I cut it. It seems like it's enough just to state that he was one of their most complicated models "at the time" as opposed to including a lengthy aside about Transformers that doesn't even make a direct comparison between the two films. 209.40.212.28 (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Cyborg

How he become a Cyborg? This page said nothing about he becoming a cyborg wearing a lightsaber carrying cape.(209.129.62.2 (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

TV

With the Television series of the Clone Wars, Grievous plays an important role. Should we put that up there? Queenqpawn (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Hi all. I noticed that in the "Novels" section, there are no references other than the books themselves. Is that suitable? Also, while I'm here, I might as well suggest this--should there be more talk about GG's religion in his background? That's the very reason he would have rather died than be sustained by technological means. His planet was very natural and his religion had everything to do with nature and maintaining a natural life. He absolutely hates droids (very clear in the new animated series, where he knocks droids' heads off without thinking of the cost from factories). Thus, he may be mocking the monotony of the battle droids by saying, "Roger, roger, roger, roger," in Battlefront II (video games section). Maybe this whole talk section is pointless, as the books themselves are references, and I don't remember where I read the information on GG's background (but I know it's there somewhere in LucasArts' archives). Feedback please. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

How many arms?

In Episode III, I think he had 4 arms. But the picture here shows only 2 arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francispotter (talk • contribs) 15:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

His arms could split into two, making four arms. Agent 14LC (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

Ought "Grievous murdered numerous Jedi" be softened to "Grievous killed numerous Jedi" in the lede? "Star Wars" characters claiming that the killings in question constitute murders is neither here nor there, surely. And determining whether the authors mean for them to be perceived, and/or whether the audience does perceive them as such, runs afoul of OR policy, absent an appropriate attribution.

- 2A02:560:4201:7A00:C189:8ECC:3818:9BD5 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Neo spamton

Neo spamton gets no rizz 2603:8080:A301:E7C5:B993:D5AB:176F:D8BC (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)