What is canon? Lucas has said he treats the Expanded Universe stuff as an alternate universe.
He has said the same things about the original trilogy.
after reviewing this page i see what you mean:
but i also found this:
which seems to say that most of the expanded universe is in fact canon, although not on the same level of canon as the films. the only difference between the g-canon, which is absolute, and c canon, which the EU novels fall under, is that lucas was not involved in creating them. however, the storylines and characters are still considered to try to keep consistency within the universe. another quote from george:
The point is, with so many different “levels of canon”, you’re free to pick and choose what you want.
Quoth Capitaine Zombie:
“Why do the Sith in the original trilogy behave this way?”
“Because that’s the way Sith behave.”
“Bull! We don’t see any Sith behaving that way in the original trilogy.”
Nope, doesn’t quite hold up.
I dont understand at all what you wrote. There are no Siths in the original trilogy. Just Jedis,. Light Side users, Dark Side users. Period. Dont reinject poor concepts into something that never used them.
Which is why Darth Vader wasn’t referred to as “Lord of the Sith” in the Novelization of Star Wars. “written” by George Lucas.
Oh wait, he was.
One of the things that occurred to me while watching it last night was this;
The whole “moving objects with the Force” was a big deal in the movie. Luke failed. He had not mastered that skill before leaving off his training to go get his friends.
Then when he gets into a fight with Vader and proves himself adept at the Lightsaber, Vader decides to test his other skills, possibly sensing that he has not mastered other Jedi skills, possibly just wondering how strong he is in other areas. So Vader starts throwing shit at him in the middle of the lightsaber duel. Well, the moment it becomes obvious that Luke is clueless and completely unable to use the force to repel these things, we see Vader STOP trying to fight him and just begin throwing shit at him.
And Luke loses that fight.
What was it that I wrote exactly, hmm:
To which you respond:
When you try to sound smart, it helps if you actually are smart. Like able to read. Or understand plain English.
BTW, the SW:A New Hope novelization wasnt even written by George Lucas…
The word “Sith” was never mentioned in the original trilogy. There are also several other points that confound the issue.
Darth Vader is referred to as a Jedi - “You’re the last of that dying religion.” (Paraphrased) So, is Darth Vader still a Jedi in Star Wars? Or is he the last just because he was a Jedi before going dark?
As mentioned, Vader is referred to as the last Jedi in Star Wars, but that was before the Empire knew about Kenobi (full Jedi), Luke (guy with force talent), and Yoda (hiding on Degobah). But surely Grand Moff Tarkin knew about the Emperor. Of course, we the audience don’t know the Emperor uses the Force at this time - did Lucas? Was this an oops, or actually valid? See Darth Sidious was never a Jedi, just a powerful dark Force user (which the prequels called Sith, based upon some lore determined somewhere other than the original trilogy as run). So this could have been a “I didn’t think about that”, or it could have been a tell - Vader was a turned Jedi, but the Emperor was a Sith Lord and didn’t even need a lightsaber anymore.
And did Sith really use lightsabers, or was that Vader’s carryover from being a Jedi? Hmm?
I know that I came out with the notion that “Jedi” was the term for a Force User, and there were lightside and darkside Jedi. I also recall someone dropping the name Sith and “Darth = Dark Lord of the Sith” on me sometime during the years the movies were coming out, too.
It’s all as clear as mud.
I too strongly remember the Lord of the Sith part in the publicity material that came out at the time of the first ST. The novelization however gave me the impression that the Sith were some race on some planet somewhere, and that Vader was not necessarily even human. And while Lucas might not have wrote the book, he certainly read it, and I don’t think Alan Dean Foster came up with the Sith concept by himself. I don’t remember if it was in the earlier versions of the script.
As for the Emperor, he was certainly never a Jedi, and I don’t know of anyplace where he exposed his use of the Force to the public at large.
I seem to recall Vader’s “Dark Lord of the Sith” title appearing in the character page of the Stars Wars story book (This one). So the word Sith dates back to before the prequels, even if it wasn’t ever said in the original trilogy.
No one publically knows that the Emperor is a Jedi/Sith/Force User. Yoda and Anakin/Vader are the only survivors the attack where Palpatine revealed himself as Sidious.
Your understanding of what Sith could mean back at the time, that is the possible race of Vader (and his possible status as an alien), was probably the most commonly understood explanation.
In any event, it doesnt matter, the term was never even muttered in any of the original trilogy movies, therefore Sith isnt part of the OT.
As for the Emperor being a Jedi, the term back then was synonymous with Force user. Same for Vader there.
Anyway, people saying “ho, yeah but that’s how Siths behave” have a problem in reasoning, considering “Sith” never played a role in the OT, not even as flavor text. They would mostly be developed by the Dark Horse comics and then reinjected into the SW movies through the prequels. An as poor choice as midichlorians.
OK, if you have a problem with the word “Sith”, then just mentally replace every instance of “Sith” in this discussion with “Dark side Force user”. It means more or less the same thing, and there were undoubtedly dark Force users in the original trilogy.
What’s always bugged me about this whole Sith thing and the Rule of Two is that almost nobody ever stops and thinks about how much suspension of disbelief it requires for the Sith to remain this way for the amount of time that they do.
The whole Dark side can be effectively summed up as greed and lust for power. So no Sith ever thought that they could achieve more power by having a ton of Sith instead of just 2? I know this is a movie but a random shuttle accident could have eliminated the Sith forever. Plus, it’s been 20 years since the elimination of the Jedi and discovering Luke, what if Vader and the Emperor never found another force user? When the Emperor and Vader dies, that’s it! A school for Sith or at least some type of training for future Sith could have at least given them some backup in case something happens to one of them. As such, they were simply lucky that they happened upon a young force user that just happens to have been strong enough to possibly take over as an apprentice. The whole thing is too much for me to believe
And as far as bad guys go, it’s annoying when they are so clearly one-dimensional. Yes, we know about Vader and his past and his motivations, but even though he turned good at the end, there was still 20 some odd years of him and the Emperor thinking the exact same way to go about getting power. What if, instead of having only 2 Sith in the entire galaxy, they go around killing all the non-Sith and Dark side people? Essentially, the endgame for a Sith is only accomplished when he’s the freaking emperor of the entire galaxy! There’s no consolation prize of owning your own solar system and living to a ripe old age surrounded by opulence and slave girls. Lucas treats every Dark sider the exact same way: they want power and the only means to that is to get the one job that by definition can be only one of. Don’t tell me that’s believable. I would have liked to have seen some other Sith lords ruling their own little section of the galaxy, like Jabba, getting fat and using the Force for his own amusement
When I thought the “Sith” was simply one evil race, I could have stomached not having the above be true. But Sith is simply another name for Dark force user. I cannot make myself believe that seemingly all motivation when you’re a Sith is the same, I just can’t. It would have made a tiny bit more sense if they were all the same race, but they’re not. Even when they try to differentiate things a little bit, like having Anakin’s motivation be to save his wife, they ignore that eventually and end up the same. When Palpatine told him that he couldn’t bring his wife back or save her, that should have been the catalyst that spurred him to whip out his lightsaber and cut Palpy’s head off. Instead, he continues following him for some reason
The following is all “Expanded Universe” stuff (from novels, comics, etc., and, thus, is not the same level of “canon” as the movies). Also, I’m paraphrasing all of this, and may not have exact details 100% accurate.
Many thousands of years before the time of the movies, a group of rogue Jedi, who were interested in developing their skills in the Dark Side, were banished by the rest of the Jedi Order. These Dark Jedi found a race of beings called the Sith, who themselves had some level of power in the Dark Side; the Dark Jedi became the rulers of the Sith people.
At some later time, a Sith Empire formed, eventually came into conflict with the Republic, and were eventually defeated. AFAICT, this pattern continued several times…the Sith rose up, fought against the Republic / Jedi, and were defeated. Eventually, after one such defeat, whichever Darth was at that point the leader of the Sith came up with the “only two Sith” idea. Sometime thereafter, the Jedi came to believe that the Sith might have disappeared entirely.
Ah I see, so there is a method to the madness.
However, one follow up question: Were Sidious and Vader the only ones who have ever succeeded with the 2 Sith method (at least for 20 years)? You mention that in the past, many Sith banded together but were defeated each time. How long and how many defeats did it take the Rule of Two to win?
Seems like the Sith, if they had an empire in the past, should have been more content with ruling their own empire with lots of Sith instead of trying to get the whole galaxy
As I recall, the Sith kept losing because they had to spend so much time putting down internal insurrections and betrayals, they couldn’t effectively fight against the unified Jedi/Republic front. The Rule of Two was instituted so that the Sith master would only have to watch for one knife in the back at a time, instead of dozens and dozens.
This just goes to show you’d never cut it as a Sith Lord. We’re talking about people for whom “power at any cost” is a religious commandment. By their nature, they could never be content with anything less than everything.
The “rule of two” was how the Sith operated for about 1000 years. In The Phantom Menace, when Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, and Anakin finally make it to Coruscant and the Jedi Council, and Qui-Gon tells the Council that he believes he fought a Sith Lord, Ki-Adi-Mundi says, “Impossible! The Sith have been extinct for a millenium.”
I’m not sure how many times the Sith Empire (in various forms) lost to the Republic / Jedi; I’m pretty sure it was more than two or three.
The Rule of Two was instituted, in part, to keep the Sith apprentices from banding together to defeat their master – a situation in which no one apprentice would actually be stronger than the master whom they had defeated.
It also allowed the Sith to lie low for that 1000 years, and subtly destabilize the Republic, biding their time until such point in time when they could finally exact their revenge and take over the galaxy.
That’s fairly advanced long-term planning considering each apprentice doesn’t seem to be able to even hold back on the backstabbing for more than a few decades