- Time
- Post link
I don't recall anyone named "darth with a red lightsaber"....
The Person in Question
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy? — Page 5
- Time
- Post link
Give it time.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Am I the only one that sees the "Darth with the red lightsaber" thing as an integral part of Star Wars? I grew up with the Knights of the Old Republic games as an essential part of my headcanon so I can't really dismiss that.
- Time
- Post link
RicOlie_2 said:
I don't recall anyone named "darth with a red lightsaber"....
Don't worry I fixed it
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
moviefreakedmind said:
darklordoftech said:
I'm just worried that the ST will continue certain prequelisms.
Like all bad guys being named darth, all bad guys using red lightsabers, ridiculous coincidences and everyone being connected somehow, jedi not being allowed to love, and stupid space prophecies?
yes
Octorox said:
Am I the only one that sees the "Darth with the red lightsaber" thing as an integral part of Star Wars? I grew up with the Knights of the Old Republic games as an essential part of my headcanon so I can't really dismiss that.
Saber colors are divisive, but you are the only one who thinks that a character being called "Darth" is an integral part of Star Wars. If there needs to be a character called "Darth", doesn't there also need to be a character called "Ben"?
This brings me to something that annoys me about KOTOR: that it seems to have replaced the OOT in the minds of some fans and EU authors. I miss when the OOT was the guide to what is and what isn't Star Wars. I prey that JJ and Kasdan feel this way too.
- Time
- Post link
Octorox said:
Am I the only one that sees the "Darth with the red lightsaber" thing as an integral part of Star Wars? I grew up with the Knights of the Old Republic games as an essential part of my headcanon so I can't really dismiss that.
Yes and no. While I didn't grow up believing every darksider had to go around with "Darth" in their name, I did consider red lightsabers the weapon of darksiders.
Of course, that notion was formed a long time ago when I was a little kid, when I still viewed the world through very simplistic, black-and-white, western-world glasses; I outgrew the former when I outgrew the latter.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Pretty much all of the artwork and designs I've seen have been pretty blah. I think the (painting spoiler removed) was the only thing that looked remotely interesting.
Will wait for the trailer but its looking alittle grim.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
[Whoops...deleted due to minor spoilers--not that they were any worse than ratpack's, but still...].
- Time
- Post link
ratpack1961 said:
Pretty much all of the artwork and designs I've seen have been pretty blah. I think the sith holding vader's helmet was the only thing that looked remotely interesting.
Will wait for the trailer but its looking alittle grim.
The opposite of this is my opinion.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
- Time
- Post link
For Force's sake no VIRGINAL CONCEPTIONS or any similar ham-fisted "myth-making" derived from boring-ass Catholicism or Christianity, two of the least interesting, least compelling and downright pathologically perverted goat-herders' ghost stories ever.
That means no resurrection (of Vader, Luke, or anyone else!), no messianic prophesies, no stigmata, no angels (I'm picturing some kind of celestial space-mermaid materializing to give guidance)...
- Time
- Post link
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
moviefreakedmind said: stupid space prophecies
I really hope that the prophecy isn't interpreted to mean that 2 Jedi + 2 Sith = balance. Prophecies in general are bad, prophecies that embrace evil are worse.
- Time
- Post link
RicOlie_2 said:
[Whoops...deleted due to minor spoilers--not that they were any worse than ratpack's, but still...].
Yeah sorry I didn't realize that the conceptual painting was spoilerish my bad. I was trying to find something positive to say and that painting was it!
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
ratpack1961 said:
Pretty much all of the artwork and designs I've seen have been pretty blah. I think the sith holding vader's helmet was the only thing that looked remotely interesting.
Will wait for the trailer but its looking alittle grim.
*AHEM!*
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/New-plot-spoiler-policy-please-read/forum/2/topic/16764/
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
Darth Id said:
For Force's sake no VIRGINAL CONCEPTIONS or any similar ham-fisted "myth-making" derived from boring-ass Catholicism or Christianity, two of the least interesting, least compelling and downright pathologically perverted goat-herders' ghost stories ever.
To quote Warbler: *sigh*
- Time
- Post link
darklordoftech said:
you are the only one who thinks that a character being called "Darth" is an integral part of Star Wars.
I like how you speak for everyone.
No wait, I don't.
- Time
- Post link
Eye kind of like that in the EU Darth is a title that means God-king or something liek that. As for the new trilogy eye'm actually kind of hyped for it. Originally eye didn't really care but now eye can't wait for a teaser trailer agt least. Eye herd that they finished filming!
- Time
- Post link
^Eye think my Is hurt from reading all that.
- Time
- Post link
Can't tell of ESL or just stupid. o.O
Pizza-Burrito
- Time
- Post link
The prequels made "Darth" as a title more integral to Star Wars than it had been before. "Darth" is clearly a name, not a title, in A New Hope (e.g. "only a master of evil Darth", "you can't win Darth", etc.). But whatever. The inclusion (or lack thereof) of "Darth" in the new trilogy wouldn't have an effect one way or the other on how blase I feel about it.
- Time
- Post link
deepanddark20 said:
"Darth" is clearly a name, not a title, in A New Hope (e.g. "only a master of evil Darth", "you can't win Darth", etc.).
But that's not clear at all. Sure it makes sense if you read those lines with the idea that Darth is his first name. But they make just as much sense if you read it as his title. Replace "Darth" with a title such as "Captain", "Doctor", or "Commander" and they still make perfect sense. There is no firm evidence in the OT one way or the other for determining if Darth is a name or a title.
- Time
- Post link
Why call him Lord Vader when Darth is the proper title? It'd be like calling a King a Prince.
- Time
- Post link
I think it's simply self evident that it was a name when that script was first written and then it became a title during the later expanding and revising of the series as it developed. After that first movie, there is never again a single time when a Sith is referred to merely as "Darth". Not even once. Referred to merely as "Vader", yes. But as "Darth," no.
It's not a detail that can't be rationalized and made to fit with the later movies, just like you have done canofhumdingers. Your approach is perfectly valid. But it's just like Luke's clear attraction to Leiah in A New Hope (and the intense romantic moment between them that was deleted from ESB) is evidence that the whole sister angle was an innovation of RotJ and not something that was already planned from the beginning.
Earlier in A New Hope Obi-Wan says Darth Vader was his name even before he turned to the dark side. And don't counter by pointing out that he was lying to Luke; remember ESB and RotJ didn't exist yet (and if you're going to try arguing that Lucas had all the twists planned out from the very beginning instead of making it up as he went, don't bother; besides the few examples given in this post, a list of others could also be given to further discredit the "saga was all written from the very beginning" fallacy)
Time to get back to the subject of being blase about the new trilogy though (the true topic of this thread)
- Time
- Post link
Handman said:
Why call him Lord Vader when Darth is the proper title? It'd be like calling a King a Prince.
Well, people can have more than one title. Charles, Prince of Wales is also Duke of Rothesay and Duke of Cornwall. In various settings it may be appropriate to address him as Prince, Duke, or His Royal Highness.
Vader could easily have multiple titles and the proper etiquette of such things is never explained in the films so we have no reason to assume that one is a name and the other is a title.
As one possible example, Darth could be some sort of Jedi/dark side/sith title (basically some sort of title associated with evil force users) while Lord could be an Imperial/government type title. This might explain why Obiwan uses Darth while imperial officers often call him Lord. And when Obiwan does call him Darth it could almost be taken as a mocking/sarcastic use of the title implying Obiwan's disgust at his evilness/dark slide alliance.
Again, that's just one possible explanation. Personally I don't care much whether Darth is his name or title. It's just that the arguments used by people who insist that Darth was "clearly" supposed to be his name originally are almost invariably weak and easily dismissed. I have yet to see any valid argument that clearly proves Darth was definately his name and not a title in the original film. The evidence presented within the OT is ambiguous at best and Darth can make sense logically as either a title or a name.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
@ Deepanddark20
I'm not a Lucas apologist in the least and I think the evidence out there quite clearly shows that they were making things up and changing things as they went along. I never said Lucas had some big overall storyline planned out from the beginning. He quite clearly didn't and has lied about it for decades.
But that's not the point and has little to no bearing on the specific topic of Darth being a name. It very well may have originally been intended to be a name, but there is no clear evidence within the OT, or even within the first film if you want to narrow it down that much to prove that point. The strongest evidence is Obiwan's line about "a young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine..." But even that line makes perfect sense if you replace "Darth Vader" with "Captain Solo" or something similar.
JEDIT:
So I looked up the exact line and it reads, "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights."
That does NOT say what his name was prior to turning to evil. It can be inferred, but that inference may be incorrect. The only thing that can accurately be ascertained from that line is that he was known as Darth Vader when he hunted down Jedi for the Empire.