"Darth," Overused?

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by BigMackDaddy, Mar 12, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Darth_Nub, Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn
  1. mixza Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 28, 2004
    star 4
  2. k-man Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 14, 2002
    star 3
    There's nothing on the Official Site that shows preference for whether "Darth" is a name or a title. I personally don't think it's a title since a title typically suggests a level of achievement (Padawan, Knight, and Master). Darth is used regardless of status (by both Maul an apprentice and Sidious a master).

    In addition (EU warning) there were Sith Lords who did not use Darth at all. It seems to have originated with Darth Bane only 1,000 years prior to TPM. Perhaps it was his actual name and subsequent Sith Lords take the name Darth in honor of him. Or perhaps he simply created the name for himself and all others follow suit.

    To the topic, overused? No.
  3. Scott3eyez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2001
    star 4
    I think it's obvious that "Darth" was just a title for Vader.

    His real first name was "Lord."

    ;)
  4. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    Darth is simply a proper title. Do you watch war movies and complain that the term "general" is overused?
  5. VCT Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2001
    star 3
    Like I said in my previous post, Lucas decided to make "Darth" a title once he started writing the PT, but it was clearly not a title in the days of the OT.

    If "Darth" was indeed intended to be a formal title rather than a name in the OT, then why did Vader's subordinates address him as "Lord Vader" instead of "Darth Vader?" Why did they say "My Lord" instead of "My Darth"?


  6. Spike_Spiegel Former FF Administrator Former Saga Mod

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2002
    star 6
    In addition (EU warning) there were Sith Lords who did not use Darth at all. It seems to have originated with Darth Bane only 1,000 years prior to TPM. Perhaps it was his actual name and subsequent Sith Lords take the name Darth in honor of him. Or perhaps he simply created the name for himself and all others follow suit.

    That's my take on it. For me, "Darth" is an honorary kin of thing. You become a Sith and you get a Sith name, including the honorary "Darth" first name that belonged to the "original" Sith (well, the one that created the "modern" version of the Sith anyhow." You become Darth Insertyoursithnamehere, Dark Lord of the Sith. That is why you still call Vader Lord Darth Vader.

    Or something like that. ;)
  7. mixza Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 28, 2004
    star 4
    His real first name was "Lord."

    His first name wasn't "Lord"! That was just how the Imperials addressed him. "Vader" is a Sith name, not a surname. You only get one. (Maul, Tyranus, Sidious)

    Like I said in my previous post, Lucas decided to make "Darth" a title once he started writing the PT, but it was clearly not a title in the days of the OT.

    That may be true (I wouldn't know; I'll just take your word for it) but that is irrelevent. It is a title now.

    If "Darth" was indeed intended to be a formal title rather than a name in the OT, then why did Vader's subordinates address him as "Lord Vader" instead of "Darth Vader?" Why did they say "My Lord" instead of "My Darth"?

    Because they weren't Sith, I guess. Why did Anakin and everybody else call Padme "My Lady" instead of "My Senator"? (Good thing Ani never said the latter, at least not in front of Obi-Wan! ;)) Actually he kind of said it more like "milady". Sorry, I have this bad tendency to get random.

    Edit: Hey, everything suddenly turned green! When is St. Patrick's Day?
  8. VCT Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2001
    star 3
    Mixza, I think Scott3eyez was just joking about "Lord" being Vader's name, hence the ;).

    As for my point about "Darth" not being a title until the PT films, it is not irrelevant to this discussion, because the author of this thread (among others) thought that "Darth" was just Vader's first name. And they were right, based on what was presented in the OT. "Darth" was never presented as a title until TPM came out, and even then it was never explained as being a title. Hence, it is understandable why they thought the word was being overused.


  9. mixza Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 28, 2004
    star 4
    Mixza, I think Scott3eyez was just joking about "Lord" being Vader's name, hence the ;)

    Oh yeah. I didn't see that down there. Well, I'm glad no one thought his first name was "Lord".

    And TPM is out now. Doesn't this forum cover ALL the movies? *checks, because mixza is a clueless idiot sometimes* It does. So anyone that takes into account all the movies, and this forum does, knows that "Darth" is not overused.
  10. ObiwanJohn Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 12, 2003
    star 4
    Whereas I do agree that Darth Vader has been the best badguy so far, I don't have much of a problem w/Darth being a title. It was a bit cumbersome to have both Darth Sidious and Darth Maul in one movie but oh well. I don't remember GL asking for my input.

    About Tyrannus(sp) though, was he ever actually called Darth in AOTC or was he just addressed as Lord Tyrannus? I can't recall how Jango addressed him.
  11. CommanderConrad Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 30, 2003
    star 4
    Sidious called him Lord Tyrannus, and Jango just said "a man named Tyrannus."
  12. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    "POST # 200"

    [Han] "Oh yeah? Watch THIS!" [/Han] ;)

    "Was it meant as a title in the original trilogy?"

    No. As VCT correctly stated, "Darth Vader" wasn't even originally a Dark Lord. But hey, things change.

    "Sidious called him Lord Tyrannus, and Jango just said "a man named Tyrannus."

    Making Jango just one more person that Dooku hasn't been completely honest with. ;)
    Lucas: I also realized that there should be some discussions about how helpless the battle was, and some mock surprise from Dooku at the size of the clone army." - Mythmaking: Behind the Scenes of AOTC ;)
  13. fosh-bantus88 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 27, 2003
    star 4
    "POST # 200"

    [Han] "Oh yeah? Watch THIS!" [/Han]


    yah, well, i have school, homework, and television to deal with, Ok. not everyone can afford to just sit down and post all day, so leave me and my petty accomplishments alone alright :_|
  14. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    [face_laugh]

    Just giving a little perspective, is all. :p

    (Though it's not like many of Bib's posts had much in the way of content to begin with. ;) )
  15. cooker Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 8, 2004
    star 2
    In addition (EU warning) there were Sith Lords who did not use Darth at all. It seems to have originated with Darth Bane only 1,000 years prior to TPM. Perhaps it was his actual name and subsequent Sith Lords take the name Darth in honor of him. Or perhaps he simply created the name for himself and all others follow suit.

    Ah, but in the EU, there were Darths before Bane, namely Revan and Malak from Knights of the Old Republic. So that kinda pops the "honouring Bane" balloon.

    A propos to the topic, I have to side with the "it's a title" peeps. Despite Lucas' intentions in the script drafts, there is nothing in the OT that clearly shows that Darth is not a title. And so, he was free to adopt it as such for the PT. Besides, doesn't 'Darth Maul' just sound so cool?
  16. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    Second only to Darth Vader. ;)
  17. mixza Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 28, 2004
    star 4
  18. Ninja_Gayden Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 21, 2004
    star 1
    The word "Darth" has it's purpose. Think of it as a title like "President, King, QUEEN, Senator, and or Pope"

    It's just a title to distinguish his signiciant: DARk lord of the siTH.

  19. k-man Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 14, 2002
    star 3
    Ah, but in the EU, there were Darths before Bane, namely Revan and Malak from Knights of the Old Republic. So that kinda pops the "honouring Bane" balloon.

    Missed those. Good call.

    Okay, title wins.
  20. Psychotic_Sith Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2004
    star 3
    DARk lord of the siTH

    Dark Lord Of The Sith, or Darth. It's an acronym. And a title.
  21. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    This belief still lives?!? :eek: [face_laugh]
  22. That_Wascally_Droid Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 29, 2001
    star 6
    It's no acronym, that's for sure. It was thought of by a fan, and quickly latched onto by other fans looking for rhyme and reason where there is none.
    Is 'Darth' overused?
    I think the real question here is: 'Should Darth have been used as a title?' to which I say, why not?
    While not always intended as a title, I think looking back on how it was used in the OT doesn't exempt its use as a title.

    All the rest (Maul, Tyrannus, Bain, etc) are just an attempt to imitate or out do Vader.

    I think comments like this are utterly ridiculous. It's the same story written by the same man. They are each seperate characters with their own motives and agendas and in no way trying to imitate or out do one character. It's the same franchise! If it was another franchise, or a remake of the OT, then possibly. But the trilogies are not in competition with each other.
    I honestly don't believe many fans, especially those close to the OT, see this.
    Although I do find it hilarious. Since the revelation of a certain OT character, there has been genuine fear, and not just from Jedi.
    Fans seem to believe that the character was made to replace and out-do Vader and as such he's being attacked for everything he possibly can.
    Now that fear seems to be retreating back to even other characters even less of a 'threat' to Vader such as the other Darths.
    'Well they're useless and stupid and used to make money!' Yet many of these characters don't have a huge marketting ploy behind them.
    I think once people realize that their beloved trilogy and its characters are in no direct threat from the PT as it's not the function of the PT, people will warm up to them more.
  23. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    "All the rest (Maul, Tyrannus, Bain, etc) are just an attempt to imitate or out do Vader."

    "I think comments like this are utterly ridiculous."


    As a big O-OT fan, even I agree. Even the ANH novelization spoke of other, prior Darths (though I believe the implication at the time was that there were more than two - that's obviously changed. ;) Vader wasn't even as big a character at that point, in relation to Tarkin and sporadic mention of the Emperor.
  24. That_Wascally_Droid Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 29, 2001
    star 6
    Cold medicine and me posting don't mix.
    In my previous post, I meant revelation of a certain Ep III character.
    Also, after the DVD fiasco, it's swell to see MBJ and I on more stable terms again :p
  25. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    Perhaps you felt you were being treated unfairly? :D



    (You know I couldn't stay mad at you forever.. :p )
Moderators: Darth_Nub, Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.