Speculation Balance to the Force - plotline continuation in Episode 7

Still, I think the Sith should not appear in the ST. They can use Force-users as villain, just not Sith.
Prophets of the Dark Side? Force witches? Radical Jedi?

I really loved the first comic series that was launched to make publicity for TOR. In the series, the main villain was revealed to be a radical Jedi who wanted to restart the war in order to wipe ou all Sith.
The KOTOR comic series also had a suprising plot. In the series, the main villain were Jedi Masters. They had a vision about the return of the Sith and thought one of their students would be swayed to the Dark Side. In order to make sure their vision did not come true, they murdered their apprentices. Of course, one escaped, but he did not go to the Dark Side. Ultimately, the Padawan (Zayne Carrick) managed to clear his name.

Apart from Force-users, they can also come up with a new villain who does not use the Force. Hutts? Mandalorians? Imperials? Radical members of the Alliance?

 

I continue to repeat this question. What is the difference between a sith and another dark side using force user for the average viewer. I'm not talking about the guy who has read every novel in existence, written extensively on forums like this one, or watched every interview of Lucas to parse out hidden meanings in his phrases. What is a sith for the average viewer? At the moment the average viewer considers sith to simply be another word for person who uses the dark side of the force. To me it would seem like trying to make a whole new villain that is essentially a sith, but call him something else just makes things look even worse. Especially since there really is nothing in the storyline actually keeping them from using the sith. not even the fulfillment of the prophecy is an obstacle. Call ti what you want, but if it looks like a sith, talks like a sith, has a red lightsaber like a sith, uses force lightning like a sith, then the average viewer is simply going to say, "Well that's a dumb way to try and say the force is still in balance." I even recognize the difference between sith and force user, and even I would say it is a dumb way to try and say the force is still in balance.

 

I would prefer to see the Dark Side represented by something other than Sith. When you really think about it, the Sith are just an ideology. The Dark Side is far more than just one specific ideology.

 

Again, how do we know that according to just the films? More importantly, how does average Joe know that?

 

I'm not sure what you are asking here, they don't know the Sith? They might not,

They don't need to know it. You just write an interesting character who uses the Dark side of the force.

 

No my point is this. The average viewer believes dark side force user are sith. They are the same thing. Get in a different villain of a different organization, but make them a sith for the average viewer in every way, and it will at best seem confusing. At worst it will appear lazy. My main question is simply this. How do we know the sith is just an ideology form the films? When have they ever come out to say that. Right now the average viewer wouldn't be able to tell the difference. My personally opinion is if you want to use sith then just make them sith. Don't give them a pain tjob with a new title. Call it what it is.

 

I don't think the average person cares all that much about the word Sith. I also don't think that they assume that the only way to be a Dark Side person is by being a member of one particular group. I think the movies make it clear that the dark side is a temptation, you don't have to be a member of a group to be tempted. It's pretty basic.

And they don't have to come right out and say that the Sith follow an ideology in the films, it's something people are supposed to be able to get. They talk about aspects of it, like the rule of two Or how the Sith look inward, and the Jedi act selflessly . Not everything has to be clearly spelled out in dialog you know.

 

edit: accidental double post, oops!

 

I get what you're saying, but this problem is easily remedied by good storytelling:

{Bad Guy whips out Force Lightning or a wicked looking lightsaber-type weapon}
Good Guy: You're a Sith!
Bad Guy: Ha! The Sith were pretenders. My powers are beyond labels: infinite, ULTIMATE!

and so on... and so on...

Not that I'm advocating that, but it wouldn't be that difficult to introduce a new type of Force-using villain into the story, and make it easy for the casual viewer to understand.

But I do think you're right, to the average viewer, Good Guy Force User = Jedi, Bad Guy Force User = Sith. That's what the movies have given us, so in the most technical sense, that's all there is.

 

Not saying everything needs to be spelled out in dialogue. (By the way, not sure if this was intended, but that came off as a bit patronizing. Hope you don't think I am being to abrasive towards you.) What I am saying is that the average viewer does not think what you are saying. They think to turn to the dark side is to be a sith. I'm not saying a new group would ruin the movie for me though, but I see it potentially being confusing for the many people who have not made the leap of dark side force user does not automatically equal sith. Right now they have yet to see another group, and the movies so far have not really clearly stated what you are saying. I agree that sith is really just an ideology, but I don't think the average viewer sees it that way.

Right now any new dark side force user would simply be sith with a new name. Either do something completely and radically different, or keep the sith.

 

It wasn't meant to be patronizing. That was not my intent

I don't think we agree about how a typical moviegoer views the Sith, though.

 

I can understand your concept, but even then it still seems a bit lame to me. I get this is just being nitpicky now, but if it looks like a sith, and the idea you are going for is sith then for pete's sake just own up to it and call it what it is. Otherwise. Give us something truly iconic, different and unique. I do agree though that the exaplanation in film would be easy. I'm skeptical on whether or not they would think that through. My fear is they all assume what others have done in thinking the average viewer has already figured out the distinction.

I guess all I can do is work off of personal experience. Every average viewer for these films has not come remotely close to believing sith is an ideology.

 

Fleab88, average viewer or not, where is it suggested that "Sith" is a synonym for "darksider" rather than a sect of darksiders?

 

I know I'm supposed to say Sith, but it's but it's also never suggested that all lightsiders are Jedi.

 

You seem to be saying, "it is because it is".

 

Let's look at the facts. All lightsiders on film so far have been jedi. All darksiders on film thus far have been sith. It is suggested by the simple absence of literally any other option on the films so far. You are also trying to do what many have already done i this discussion, and that is change my real point. I acknowledge that sith and Jedi are just an ideology of the force, but I acknowledge that for being a more in depth fan who does more than just watch the films. My whole point is that the average viewer does not realize that distinction. By taking out that point of my argument you are essentially trying to debate an issue I was never trying to debate in the first place.

To get back to your sidetracking argument though, your argument of silence falls on its face since I can equally use the exact same argument to prove my point. The films give no distinction either way. Thus that argument is a moot point.

 

Your argument is that that the average viewer thinks anything that isn't seen doesn't exist, which I absolutely disagree with. Based on your argument, France doesn't exist in any movie that doesn't mention or show it.

I was also saying according to the movies.

 

Getting old to try and set up my argument in a different way to tear it down. Let me try one more time. The films have shown us that darksider have always been sith. There has never been a hint that there are other sects of darkside users. There have been zero references. People have used the word sith when suspecting someone to be a darkside user. When one of the sith goes all sith like in using darkside force powers you don;t see someone ask, "Are you a sith, prophets of the darkside, some other random sect?" No, they call them sith. By all means consider the average viewer silly for making the assumptions, but the truth is that the average viewer believes darksider=sith. Is that correct? No, but that misunderstanding is there. People know France still exists because the average viewer has references outside of the movies to show its existence. That is not so with the sith. I have seriously trouble seeing how your comparison works. When your ready to stop using fallacies I will be willing to discuss it with you.

 

I'd say that you are assuming that the average viewer assumes that in the first place.