Dark Lord of the Sith??

[Xard]

If I remember it right, New hope novel was published before the movie. That is from dvd-box bonus material

[Guest The Architect]

Darth Vader is a name, not a rank or status and DV is the Emperor's goon, not a Dark Lord. He even takes orders from Tarkin. I'm also saying, like many others, that everything Star Wars that is not ON FILM in the OT is EU.

 

That's correct.

[Plano Skywalker]

first of all, I don't think we are addressing who takes military orders from whom.

 

if you want to technical about it, Lucas used the word "Darth" because it is Dutch for Father. So Vader was, originally, "Father Vader" at least on the drawing board.

 

What makes it into the movies is "G Canon" and, yes, that includes Epi I-III. So even if Darth was not originally thought of as a title and even if it appeared in the EU before it appeared in the movies, the fact is that it does appear in the movies (as a title, i.e. Darth Sidious) and is just as much "G Canon" as anything else. G Canon does not contradict G Canon so, even if there appears to be some sort of contradiction, there is none.

[astr0creep]

If I remember it right, New hope novel was published before the movie. That is from dvd-box bonus material

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

From Wikipedia :

 

''A book version of the movie was credited to have been written by George Lucas himself, but in reality was ghostwritten by Alan Dean Foster, who went on to write the first Expanded Universe novel, Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Certain scenes deleted from the film (and later restored or archived in DVD bonus features) were present in the novel, such as Luke at Toschi Station with Biggs and the encounter between Han and Jabba in Docking Bay 94. Also, some scenes from the movie were included in the novel's photo insert which never made the original film (such as a stormtrooper riding on a Dewback). Some of the material was omitted from the film by Lucas to maintain a linear narrative.''

 

EU.

[Jediphile]

If I remember it right, New hope novel was published before the movie. That is from dvd-box bonus material

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

From Wikipedia :

 

''A book version of the movie was credited to have been written by George Lucas himself, but in reality was ghostwritten by Alan Dean Foster, who went on to write the first Expanded Universe novel, Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Certain scenes deleted from the film (and later restored or archived in DVD bonus features) were present in the novel, such as Luke at Toschi Station with Biggs and the encounter between Han and Jabba in Docking Bay 94. Also, some scenes from the movie were included in the novel's photo insert which never made the original film (such as a stormtrooper riding on a Dewback). Some of the material was omitted from the film by Lucas to maintain a linear narrative.''

 

EU.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That quote actually contradicts your point about the novelization of the original movie ("A New Hope"), since is says that Alan Dean Foster wrote it and then went on to writing the first ever EU novel. By that logic, the novelization of Ep. IV cannot be EU, since "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" is said to be the first EU novel, and the Ep. IV novel was written before that...

[astr0creep]

first of all, I don't think we are addressing who takes military orders from whom.

 

if you want to technical about it, Lucas used the word "Darth" because it is Dutch for Father.  So Vader was, originally, "Father Vader" at least on the drawing board.

 

What makes it into the movies is "G Canon" and, yes, that includes Epi I-III.  So even if Darth was not originally thought of as a title and even if it appeared in the EU before it appeared in the movies, the fact is that it does appear in the movies (as a title, i.e. Darth Sidious) and is just as much "G Canon" as anything else.  G Canon does not contradict G Canon so, even if there appears to be some sort of contradiction, there is none.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First, the current subject is the term ''Sith'', not ''Darth''.

Second, in the OT, ''Darth'' is the first name of Vader only. There are no other Darths.

Third, most of the EU is Canon, that is not my point. My point is that for a lot of people, mostly those of us who actually grew up waiting for Eps 4-5-6 to come out in theaters in the 70's, Star Wars and all that really counts as Star Wars is only what makes up Eps 4-5-6 in their original filmed and final edited version. Everything else is filler.

Fourth, Eps 1-2-3 are EU because they are completely different from Eps 4-5-6 and were made to sell toys, not to revolutionize movie making and amaze us with wonders beyond our imagination.

Fifth, the term ''Sith'' is EU.

Sixth, again I see nothing wrong with the EU. But it's mostly fanmade and basically the result of speculations as to what happens in GL's mind.

 

I've said this before in other threads of this type : Star Wars is like coffee. You have the OT from 1977 which is like coffee beans that you must grind first to have your coffee in the morning. It's fresh, it smells really good. And then you have the EU, which is like Instant coffee. Still fresh and great, just not as much and you can have more anywhere simply by adding water which, somehow, dilutes the experience.

Edited January 27, 2006 by astr0creep

[astr0creep]

If I remember it right, New hope novel was published before the movie. That is from dvd-box bonus material

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

From Wikipedia :

 

''A book version of the movie was credited to have been written by George Lucas himself, but in reality was ghostwritten by Alan Dean Foster, who went on to write the first Expanded Universe novel, Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Certain scenes deleted from the film (and later restored or archived in DVD bonus features) were present in the novel, such as Luke at Toschi Station with Biggs and the encounter between Han and Jabba in Docking Bay 94. Also, some scenes from the movie were included in the novel's photo insert which never made the original film (such as a stormtrooper riding on a Dewback). Some of the material was omitted from the film by Lucas to maintain a linear narrative.''

 

EU.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That quote actually contradicts your point about the novelization of the original movie ("A New Hope"), since is says that Alan Dean Foster wrote it and then went on to writing the first ever EU novel. By that logic, the novelization of Ep. IV cannot be EU, since "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" is said to be the first EU novel, and the Ep. IV novel was written before that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are correct, I used the wrong quote. I'm looking for info on the Novel ''A New Hope'' that was released before the movie was in 1977, specifically the release date, not the movie version.

Sorry.

[Jediphile]

Third, most of the EU is Canon, that is not my point. My point is that for a lot of people, mostly those of us who actually grew up waiting for Eps 4-5-6 to come out in theaters in the 70's, Star Wars and all that really counts as Star Wars is only what makes up Eps 4-5-6 in their original filmed and final edited version. Everything else is filler.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't see how you can speak for that group in general. I, for one, would like to say that this is not the case for me, since I always considered the comic books that Marvel put out at the time as canon. The Thrawn trilogy (novels) and the Dark Empire comic books came later (around 92), but they're better than most of the Marvel stuff and were just as much canon to me.

 

Fourth, Eps 1-2-3 are EU because they are completely different from Eps 4-5-6 and were made to sell toys, not to revolutionize movie making and amaze us with wonders beyond our imagination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think that's right either. The only one who can okay new films is Lucas, and he's got enough cash as it is - he really didn't need to make the prequel trilogy just to make some fast $$. The prequel trilogy can be criticised for many things, but I don't think this is one of them.

 

Fifth, the term ''Sith'' is EU.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We've yet to establish that.

 

Sixth, again I see nothing wrong with the EU. But it's mostly fanmade and basically the result of speculations as to what happens in GL's mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think the various authors and artists involved in Star Wars novels and comics over the last few decades see themselves as "fans". Some of them are professional people. Aaron Allston (who wrote some of the X-Wing novels) was a professional D&D game designer for years and still highly respected for much of the work he did at the time, for example.

 

I've said this before in other threads of this type : Star Wars is like coffee. You have the OT from 1977 which is like coffee beans that you must grind first to have your coffee in the morning. It's fresh, it smells really good. And then you have the EU, which is like Instant coffee. Still fresh and great, just not as much and you can have more anywhere simply by adding water which, somehow, dilutes the experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pardon me, but do you mean to sound elistist? If you like only the original movies, then that's fine, but it's still just an opinion - it doesn't mean that all other Star Wars is low quality by definition.

[Plano Skywalker]

OK, let us take a look at what the thread-creator wants. We all have opinions about the movies but that was not his question.

 

>>Someone please explain to me how the Dark Lord of the Sith title actually works.<<

 

now, I don't know about you, but when I see a question like that, I automatically think EU. so, that sets the tone for the rest of the thread, IMO.

 

 

>>The way I figured it, there is only one, and you gain the position by killing the ruling Dark Lord.<<

 

a fair question, and, again, one that has an EU point of reference.

 

 

>>Okay, but then how can Vader be Dark Lord of the Sith while Sidious clearly still lives? According to Wikipedia, both Darth Maul and Count Dooku (as Darth Tyranus) held the title before him, while they too were clearly apprentices to Sidious/Palpatine...<<

 

Wikipedia is totally fan-updated, amateur, unregulated content.

"The New Essential Chronology" at the local bookstore is the most definitive

guide there is at the moment for official continuity.

 

IMO, "Darth Lord of the Sith" is more relevant as a concept when you have an empire of Force users (like the old racial Sith lords did).

 

But, anyway, let us just forget Revan and Malak for a minute and go back to the old comics....Darth Bane shorted the title "Dark Lord of the Sith" to "Darth". He also instituted the Rule of Two....there can only be 2 Sith at any one time to prevent discord among the Sith. But this is "C Canon" which can be modified and was modified by the Revan story.

 

 

>>How does that add up? After all, it's not as if they are the lords who accept Sidious as a mentor and advisor, no, they clearly take orders from him and are very submissive and respectful. Note how Vader actually kneels before Palpatine and calls him master in the RotJ. I don't quite get it...<<

 

Just because you are Royalty does not mean that you answer only to Royalty. A real-world example is Prince Andrew who serves in the British military. His superiors have to show a special deference to him but they are still his superiors.

That would explain how Vader took orders from others but still had a special connection to Sidious. Sidious is also the Galactic Emperor, that is why people kneel to him....not because of some abstraction known as the Dark Lord of the Sith....that was once a political title....in the movie era, it is just an abstraction from a bygone era.

 

Basically, for Vader to go around saying he was a Dark Lord of the Sith would be like someone in our time going around saying he is a member of the Knights Templar.....yes, they still exist but it is not the same thing at all. Anyone who truely thinks he is a Knight Templar needs to have his head examined (and that is exactly how the ordinary Imperial troops viewed Vader and Sidious).

[BattleCookiee]

if you want to technical about it, Lucas used the word "Darth" because it is Dutch for Father.  So Vader was, originally, "Father Vader" at least on the drawing board.

 

Vader is Father in Dutch, yes... but Darth?

I wonder where in Holland they would go saying that... as I never heard about it?

[Plano Skywalker]

if you want to technical about it, Lucas used the word "Darth" because it is Dutch for Father.  So Vader was, originally, "Father Vader" at least on the drawing board.

 

Vader is Father in Dutch, yes... but Darth?

I wonder where in Holland they would go saying that... as I never heard about it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I stand corrected....

[GhostofAnakin]

if you want to technical about it, Lucas used the word "Darth" because it is Dutch for Father.  So Vader was, originally, "Father Vader" at least on the drawing board.

 

Vader is Father in Dutch, yes... but Darth?

I wonder where in Holland they would go saying that... as I never heard about it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I always thought it was "Dark Father", as in Darth was Dark, Vader was Father.

[Plano Skywalker]

I always thought it was "Dark Father", as in Darth was Dark, Vader was Father.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've heard that too....chances are, we will never get an "official" clarification on what it was supposed to mean because they have incorporated the EU definition as the canon definition...they don't want us to be asking these questions.

[BattleCookiee]

I always thought it was "Dark Father", as in Darth was Dark, Vader was Father.

 

Could be... but Darth isn't Dark in Dutch...

Maybe in another language...

Edited January 27, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[astr0creep]

Third, most of the EU is Canon, that is not my point. My point is that for a lot of people, mostly those of us who actually grew up waiting for Eps 4-5-6 to come out in theaters in the 70's, Star Wars and all that really counts as Star Wars is only what makes up Eps 4-5-6 in their original filmed and final edited version. Everything else is filler.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't see how you can speak for that group in general. I, for one, would like to say that this is not the case for me, since I always considered the comic books that Marvel put out at the time as canon. The Thrawn trilogy (novels) and the Dark Empire comic books came later (around 92), but they're better than most of the Marvel stuff and were just as much canon to me.

 

Fourth, Eps 1-2-3 are EU because they are completely different from Eps 4-5-6 and were made to sell toys, not to revolutionize movie making and amaze us with wonders beyond our imagination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think that's right either. The only one who can okay new films is Lucas, and he's got enough cash as it is - he really didn't need to make the prequel trilogy just to make some fast $$. The prequel trilogy can be criticised for many things, but I don't think this is one of them.

 

Fifth, the term ''Sith'' is EU.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We've yet to establish that.

 

Sixth, again I see nothing wrong with the EU. But it's mostly fanmade and basically the result of speculations as to what happens in GL's mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think the various authors and artists involved in Star Wars novels and comics over the last few decades see themselves as "fans". Some of them are professional people. Aaron Allston (who wrote some of the X-Wing novels) was a professional D&D game designer for years and still highly respected for much of the work he did at the time, for example.

 

I've said this before in other threads of this type : Star Wars is like coffee. You have the OT from 1977 which is like coffee beans that you must grind first to have your coffee in the morning. It's fresh, it smells really good. And then you have the EU, which is like Instant coffee. Still fresh and great, just not as much and you can have more anywhere simply by adding water which, somehow, dilutes the experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pardon me, but do you mean to sound elistist? If you like only the original movies, then that's fine, but it's still just an opinion - it doesn't mean that all other Star Wars is low quality by definition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok. I won't reply to everything you said, that would be pointless.

 

The Original Trilogy in its original edited form is set in stone. It is pure, it is the nucleus from which everything else has evolved from, canon, eu, whatever.

 

The term ''Sith'' is outside of that nucleus, so is the status of Dark Lord and being ''a Darth'', the prequels, the novels, the comics, the games, everything else. Thats not bad at all, since it allows this universe to grow eternally.

 

For me, the Expanded Universe is everything that is outside of that nucleus, Canon or not. And I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Doesn't mean I am elitist or that I hate everything that is not OT, on the contrary, I love everything Star Wars.

 

That is my opinion, my belief, whatever you want to call it and since I have had it since 1977, you will understand if I defend and protect it ever so strongly.

[Jediphile]

The Original Trilogy in its original edited form is set in stone. It is pure, it is the nucleus from which everything else has evolved from, canon, eu, whatever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And yet a basis that Lucas has revised. Don't get me wrong - I hate the "Greedo shoots first"-idea too, since it takes away from some of the defining characteristics of Han Solo, but Lucas decided to change, so his revision is canon now, not the original... Yes, I agree that this sucks.

 

That is my opinion, my belief, whatever you want to call it and since I have had it since 1977, you will understand if I defend and protect it ever so strongly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fair enough, but I've been watching that long as well, and I completely disagree.

[Darth_Zonos]

Vader was always called the "dark lord of the sith" tho at the time sith really didnt mean anything so they dicided not to say it out front because they didnt know where lucas was goig with it

[DarthMethos]

Someone please explain to me how the Dark Lord of the Sith title actually works.

 

The way I figured it, there is only one, and you gain the position by killing the ruling Dark Lord.

 

Okay, but then how can Vader be Dark Lord of the Sith while Sidious clearly still lives? According to Wikipedia, both Darth Maul and Count Dooku (as Darth Tyranus) held the title before him, while they too were clearly apprentices to Sidious/Palpatine...

 

How does that add up? After all, it's not as if they are the lords who accept Sidious as a mentor and advisor, no, they clearly take orders from him and are very submissive and respectful. Note how Vader actually kneels before Palpatine and calls him master in the RotJ. I don't quite get it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is there room for two Dark Lords, and one of them is in direct control? Like in the story lines in Knights of the Old Rebpulic 2?

[Darth-Seer]

Its the Rule of Two

There Can only be one Dark Lord

The Ruleing Dark Lord and his Apprentice, Who also takes the Title Dark Lord so in the Films Darth Sidious has the title Dark lord and his apprentices Darth Maul, Darth Tyranus and Darth Vader all take the Title Dark Lord with him

Edited February 6, 2006 by Darth-Seer

[DarthMethos]

Its the Rule of Two

There Can only be one Dark Lord

The Ruleing Dark Lord and his Apprentice, Who also takes the Title Dark Lord so in the Films Darth Sidious has the title Dark lord and his apprentices Darth Maul, Darth Tyranus and Darth Vader all take the Title Dark Lord with him

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sith Lords? Wouldn't that apply as Lord of the Sith? Or, are they different?

[Darth-Seer]

Dark Lord and Sith Lord are diffrent ranks

Lord is a Prestige Rank along with Maruder and Assassin

where as Dark Lord is the all supreme ruler over the Sith

[Dark Wastl]

The Original Trilogy in its original edited form is set in stone. It is pure, it is the nucleus from which everything else has evolved from, canon, eu, whatever.

 

The term ''Sith'' is outside of that nucleus, so is the status of Dark Lord and being ''a Darth'', the prequels, the novels, the comics, the games, everything else. Thats not bad at all, since it allows this universe to grow eternally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, but it simply doesn't work that way. The "nucleus" as you called it, isn't the first edit of the original Star Wars movies, it never has been and never will be that way. You may think that way, but that won't make it the truth.

 

The nucleus of everything which has to do with Star Wars, is the original synopsis Lucas wrote. This synopsis has Darth Vader as the Dark Lord of the Sith, and the Sith Order as the enemy of the Jedi Order. Both the first and the final script of the first movie say that as well, and it doesn't matter one bit, whether the word Sith was spoken in the movies or not.

[DarthMethos]

Dark Lord and Sith Lord are diffrent ranks

Lord is a Prestige Rank along with Maruder and Assassin

where as Dark Lord is the all supreme ruler over the Sith

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, Dark Lord of the Sith is different from Sith Lord? They are two different ranks in the Sith Order.

 

I think that makes sense.

[Darth-Seer]

Yep, Its a little Confusing

[Darth Blivion]

Vader is known to be a Sith in the movies, but it is never discussed in the OT - an era where force users in general are a rare species, and their religions considered obsolete. As someone said, the term Sith doesn't mean anything to the majority of the people in the OT, as it only applies to the adherents of that ancient religion, Palpatine and Vader.