Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: this
Posted By: Bry <bmulheran@gmail.com>	Date: 1/11/12 7:28 p.m.
In Response To: Re: this (Stephen L. (SoundEffect)) : In Halo 1, we only saw the point of view of humans selected for Operation: : RED FLAG. I would presume that once underway, they were briefed on Elites. : By October 2552 (Halo 2) Elites were already old news. Who's to really say? In strictly military terms, you tend to only be briefed on your particular mission, which is why there were mainly only Spartans present at that briefing on Reach and not more of the crew. There are also little details like how a fair number of the crew on Pillar of Autumn are in fact surprised to see a Spartan II on-board. : The Taming of the Hunters and the Grunt Rebellion were internal to the : Covenant. Well, in the Grunt's case, certainly, but in the Hunter's case : the Hunters were out to be exterminated because they defiled Forerunner : relics. It was because the Hunter eels couldn't be isolated and killed : without the Covenant damaging Forerunner relics that an Elite Arbiter : brought them into the Covenant fold. The Covenant had been just out to : kill them off like Humans. And I don't think any more than 1 Arbiter : (Elite) was even involved. Interesting that you've come to that conclusion. I'm not entirely sure what you've used as a basis for that, given art which depicts the Arbiter defeating Mgalekgolo. As I understand it, the Sangheili were actually getting badly beaten by them. : I'm also not implying that the Elites didn't wage ground wars against other : foes in the past. Perhaps those foes were worthy adversaries. I'm saying : that the novels seemed to want us to know that it was humans specifically : that Elites were disgusted with and that's the basis of their not being : seen on human battlefields prior to 2552. That poison was crafted by the : Prophets and seemed very pervasive, but it turns out some Elites : questioned why humans weren't inducted into the Covenant in CFTU, which of : course occurred during the Halo 2 timeframe when more Elites had had : experience firsthand fighting humans. Quite, and remember that I had delved into the material of Halo and the Halo 2 Limited Edition, which of course included CFTU and the deleted/extended cutscenes, in-particular the one with Truth and Thel talk about the history of the Covenant. All of this influenced me along a different path. They prepared me for a line of fiction rather different from what the novels earlier novels had depicted, or at least Fall of Reach. That said, IIRC, The Flood doesn't actually go so far as to reaffirm that particularly detail in Fall of Reach. If one was to read The Flood without having read Fall of Reach, then I don't think they would be left with the impression that the Sangheili were not regularly encountered earlier. Indeed, MC's first encounter with them on the surface of Halo makes it seem like he is reasonably familiar with them. Enough to refer to those in blue as aggressive rookies and those in red as veterans. This all said, I've been personally quite invested in the Sangheili, their path, culture and philosophy. Essentially it was curiosity about them that brought me here to HBO via Jillybean. : What you say was a door opened, I call a huge mess to reconcile ALL official : material. I don't pick and choose my canon. All official Halo material is : my canon and I would appreciate it if it all fit. : As someone who's dedicated much of his free time for 7-8 years now trying to : do just that, the parts that don't fit are beyond frustrating. Indeed. It just so happens that this particular part never really fit very well in overall context. At least not really past the Fall of Reach itself. In the end, this problem has stemmed from the way the Halo EU was originally handled. Fall of Reach was written in a fraction of the time Eric would have liked and with what amounted to very little back and forth between him and Bungie. Under the circumstances, its really quite impressive that any portion of FoR has held up to scrutiny. In essence, the retcon was an solution to a problem that never should have existed in the first place. But exist it did.

Diecast Scale Model Collection

Message Index

343I and the future of Halo.	ElzarTheBam	1/10/12 6:16 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	DEEP NNN	1/10/12 8:04 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	FoolsRun	1/10/12 8:44 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	General Vagueness	1/10/12 4:21 p.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/10/12 5:29 p.m.
this	davidfuchs	1/10/12 5:32 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/10/12 6:53 p.m.
Re: this	Quirel	1/10/12 11:16 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 6:25 a.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/11/12 11:27 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 12:03 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/11/12 12:11 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 1:08 p.m.
Re: this	Anton1792	1/11/12 3:12 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 5:13 p.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/11/12 6:29 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 6:52 p.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/11/12 7:28 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 8:08 p.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/12/12 6:15 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/12/12 6:44 a.m.
Re: this	scarab	1/12/12 2:49 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/12/12 3:48 p.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/12/12 4:05 p.m.
Re: this	scarab	1/12/12 5:23 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/13/12 10:23 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/13/12 11:14 a.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/13/12 12:05 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/12/12 5:16 p.m.
Re: this	Anton1792	1/11/12 9:31 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 10:23 p.m.
Re: this	Anton1792	1/12/12 5:27 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/12/12 5:00 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/15/12 4:47 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/15/12 5:29 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/15/12 7:13 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/16/12 12:35 a.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/16/12 5:38 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/16/12 8:17 a.m.
Re: this	Leisandir	1/16/12 8:45 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/16/12 9:07 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/16/12 4:33 p.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/16/12 10:31 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/16/12 11:27 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	General Vagueness	1/11/12 11:10 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	FoolsRun	1/11/12 7:25 a.m.
halomultiplayer.isnotcanon.net	scarab	1/11/12 7:31 a.m.
Re: halomultiplayer.isnotcanon.net	FoolsRun	1/11/12 7:53 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	General Vagueness	1/11/12 11:43 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	Flynn J Taggart	1/11/12 1:20 p.m.
the comments they're responding to	kidtsunami	1/10/12 4:12 p.m.
The one thing 343i needs to do:	Azo 'Galvat	1/11/12 12:03 a.m.