General Star Wars Random Thoughts Thread — Page 69

darth_ender said:

<snip>
[no caption necessary]

darth_ender said:

[no caption necessary]

Caption: (right to left: Obi-wan Kenobi, CreepyPuppetYoda, CreepyPuppetAnakin)

I had to share that one on Twitter.

chyron8472 said:

ray_afraid said:

hey, I have a question I'm sure you folks can clear up for me...

What is "sith"?

Harmy said:

It is an anagram of the word shit.

Revenge of the Sith = Thong Shit Fee Ever

Harmy- it's actually Tshi. ; )

Chyron- ...I've no idea what you are talking about.

Does anybody know what/who "Sith" really is supposed to be in Star Wars? I know episode 3 was called "Revenge Of Sith" but I don't know what that's referring to and I never really cared. Then I read in the Ep. 7 thread that someone doesn't want "any more Sith in the movies!" and I suddenly realized that I didn't know Sith was ever even in the movies. Can anybody clear this one up for me?

ray_afraid said:

Chyron- ...I've no idea what you are talking about.

Does anybody know what/who "Sith" really is supposed to be in Star Wars? I know episode 3 was called "Revenge Of Sith" but I don't know what that's referring to and I never really cared. Then I read in the Ep. 7 thread that someone doesn't want "any more Sith in the movies!" and I suddenly realized that I didn't know Sith was ever even in the movies. Can anybody clear this one up for me?

I was just extending Harmy's joke.

The Sith are the opposite of the Jedi.

Jedi are good; Sith are evil.
Jedi use the light side of the force; Sith use the dark side.

The Sith are also generally known to only exist in pairs: one master, one apprentice. The reason why is because they are treacherous and power-hungry. If there are too many Sith, then they fight each other, drawing their focus away from the Jedi, and so they keep their numbers small. This lust for power is also evident in that when a Sith apprentice becomes powerful enough, he likely kills his master and recruits his own apprentice (just as Palpatine explained in Revenge of the Sith).

Also, if the Expanded Universe is to be believed (ie. the movies and shows don't say this, only unofficial stuff like books), a strength of the light side comes from strength in numbers (ie. friendship), and so more Jedi means more overall light-side force power. Whereas the dark side has a limited overall quantity of power, so the more dark-side users there are, the more diluted their individual powers become (I read this in the Darth Bane books). So the Sith established the "rule of two" in an effort to keep the dark side concentrated into fewer people, giving them greater individual power.

There are people who sometimes use the term "Dark Jedi". I would think the original reason was because the term "Sith" was never used in the original trilogy, and so back then "Sith and "Dark Jedi" were somewhat interchangeable terms or else confused to mean the same thing. However, it seems that the currently held stance is that the Sith have their own code and history and such, while Dark Jedi are rogue dark-side force users.

chyron8472 said:

 

The Sith are the opposite of the Jedi.

Jedi are good; Sith are evil.
Jedi use the light side of the force; Sith use the dark side.

Thanks! That's what I figured, but I'm pretty sure I read a post saying that someone doesn't want any more Siths in the new movies, but just dark side force users... made me think there must be a difference.

Tobar said:

 

DARTH MAUL : At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge.

DARTH SIDIOUS : You have been well trained, my young apprentice, they will be no match for you. It is too late for them to stop us now. Everything is going as planned. The Republic will soon be in my command.

What "revenge" is he talking about? Are the Jedis and Siths like feuding fraternities? Did Delta Jedi egg Kappa Sith and steal their pet lizard? Or is it a light side / dark side segregation situation? Like maybe the light siders wouldn't let the dark siders use their water fountains or sit with em on the space bus. Until Obi-Wan Kenobi led a fool-idealistic crusade for equality that ended in a falling out (to say the least) between himself and his buddy Anikin, the outbreak of a civil war that divided the galaxy and a blood feud between the Siths (of which there are only two?) and the Jedis (which I ass-u-me there are thousands of?). .... I guess what I'm trying to ask here in my highly polluted state is what is this feud between the Jedis and the Siths and why was is so important to the story that the third one is called "Revenge Of The Siths" and yet I don't remember it even being a plot point in part of the story at all? And, yes, I did go to see all 3 films..

I'm sure the EU addresses it, but going strictly by Episode One, it's clear nobody had even encountered a Sith in a very long time. Possibly centuries.

One can infer from this the Jedi thought they had wiped the Sith out a long time ago. And it's mostly been sunshiny days since then, long enough to be slow to react when real evil returns. Palpatine and Maul are seeking revenge for their order, even though they weren't actually around for the events they are revenging for.

The Sith are the polar opposites of Jedi, therefore conflict.

Amen to that.

ray_afraid said:

chyron8472 said:

 

The Sith are the opposite of the Jedi.

Jedi are good; Sith are evil.
Jedi use the light side of the force; Sith use the dark side.

Thanks! That's what I figured, but I'm pretty sure I read a post saying that someone doesn't want any more Siths in the new movies, but just dark side force users... made me think there must be a difference.

Read the part of my post which explains the difference between a Sith and a Dark Jedi.

In a nutshell, Dark Jedi and Sith likely used to be interchangeable when the Original Trilogy films first came out, since no one in the OT used either term to refer to Vader or Palpatine. But, various books over the years have come to establish that the Sith are are an organized sect of force-users who have a recorded history and their own code which they follow, while Dark Jedi are rogue dark side force-users who have no such code nor any allegiance to anyone.

Tobar said:

 

DARTH MAUL : At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge.

DARTH SIDIOUS : You have been well trained, my young apprentice, they will be no match for you. It is too late for them to stop us now. Everything is going as planned. The Republic will soon be in my command.

What "revenge" is he talking about?

In the past, the Sith became too powerful, and the Jedi worked to wipe them out. Either the Sith feel oppressed by the Jedi, or else Palpatine only told this to Maul to help motivate him--it wouldn't be the first time he's lied to an apprentice.

Hearing the word "sith" reminds me of everything that has been done to ruin Star Wars over the years.

I'm truly sick of this Jedi vs. X crap. It's terrible storytelling designed to appeal to babies.

Jedi, Sith/Dark Jedi, lightsabers, and "The Force" were all things used to move the plot along in the OT. That's right: they were used to move the plot along and they weren't the focus of the plot.

I guess I'm trying to say that seeing Jabba the fucking Hutt in ROTJ was a hell of a lot more interesting than seeing Yoda flipping around with a lightsaber and tossing junk with "The Force" in AOTC.

Thanks for the info, guys.

I'm with you, AntcuFaalb. Seems that anytime I ask someone in the know to explain something about the prequels, I always get "well, to really appreciate and understand it, you gotta read this set of comics and watch these cartoons and play with these toys." The books and other media surrounding the OT was never necessary information vital to the plot of the films. The films should make sense on their own.

I've grown to feel the PT should have actually focused more on Obi-Wan and less on Anakin. Also less shrinking of the infinitely vast SW universe to tying every character's threads together. For example, I like that the stormtroopers are clones. I think having kid Boba Fett as a clone is a travesty. The best thing about Boba Fett in Empire is that, for all you know, he's just a damn good, menacing bounty hunter. Seeing him as clone kid diminishes that dark mystique.

Anakin could have been introduced in the second film as a rising, talented, but arrogant teenage Jedi or something. The war between separatists and the Republic could have still served as a backdrop. Less 100 lightsabers at once eye candy and more focus on Anakin and Obi-Wan carrying out missions. But of course this wasn't in the films because otherwise there wouldn't as much material for EU stuff like TCW.

One of the better points that RLM makes in their AOTC review is that we just don't see Anakin's training. We try to establish that Obi-Wan and Anakin's relationship is rocky and complicated due to Anakin's emotions, but it just would have worked better if we saw Obi-Wan and Anakin getting along better before Anakin's turn. ROTS tried to correct this, but even then Anakin's conflicted feelings just feel unnatural. One minute he and Obi-Wan are saying bye like old friends, the next minute Anakin's whining that Obi-Wan doesn't trust him.

Gah. You got me writing about the PT.

AntcuFaalb said:

Hearing the word "sith" reminds me of everything that has been done to ruin Star Wars over the years.

I'm truly sick of this Jedi vs. X crap. It's terrible storytelling designed to appeal to babies.

Jedi, Sith/Dark Jedi, lightsabers, and "The Force" were all things used to move the plot along in the OT. That's right: they were used to move the plot along and they weren't the focus of the plot.

I guess I'm trying to say that seeing Jabba the fucking Hutt in ROTJ was a hell of a lot more interesting than seeing Yoda flipping around with a lightsaber and tossing junk with "The Force" in AOTC.

Amen to that, too.

Jaitea said:

.......but Sith has been there from 1977

I never said it wasn't.

It was not, however, the primary focus of the story and was rather used to help push the story along.

Plus the word was never uttered in the movie itself.

Harmy said:

Plus the word was never uttered in the movie itself.

I didn't want to risk saying this in case I missed a line or something. Thanks.

Also, "sith" is an anagram of "shit", which seems to be a word that more accurately describes its impact on the prequel scripts.

:-D

Jaitea said:

My point was, it doesn't bother me about the Sith, when I was a kid of 9 years old in 1977 & all the information a kid could get of Star Wars was what was given to you, Snaggletooth, R5-D4, Power Droid, X-Wing Fighters, Star Destroyers, Y-Wings,......all these ships, vehicles.....aliens & people....their names weren't mentioned in the film....along with that was Darth Vader Dark Lord of the Sith

It made perfect sense to name the Dark Force users Sith in the Prequels (about the only thing that did) 

J

Good point(s), Jaitea.

I will ponder this further.