Did George Lucas Lie To Us?

Exactly, and that is why Maul was so unnecessary. We see that the Emperor is a fickle man; he sees something new, he wants that and is no longer content with what he has. He had Vader, an amazing warrior, efficient and powerful in the Force; but he saw the potential in Luke, and wanted the new model in apprentices. He was ready to cast his "old friend" to the side for his son.

Actually Maul wasn't unnnecessary. Maul was Palpatine's first choice because Palpy had trained him from birth and had him down as being his right hand man when the Sith finally had their day of victory.
It wasn't until AFTER Maul's death that Palpatine became fickle with his apprentices.

"Sith" is a PT invention that was never mentioned in any of the original movies, it was in drafts dating back to before the Classic Trilogy ('Black Knights of the Sith'), but was scrapped as something not needed, and still isn't. By ROTJ, the dueling of Skywalker and Vader was understood as the ruthless and cruel nature of the Emperor, it was in his nature to gain pleasure from watching people ficht and kill each other. There was no Sith concept introduced at the time, it was understood as an invention of the character himself as means of giving a prize to the one he sees worthy. "Sith" is a concept that is not needed as it is never mentioned or even refered to ever again.

Hey nice revisionist history there
As has been mentioned "Dark Lord of the SITH" was the description given to Vader in the ANH script which is CANON and at the same level as the film.
The fact it is mentioned in the PT, means you can have a whine about it because it was never mentioned in the OT, so it has to be a bad thing.
Thats going terribly low. To be ignorant of that simple truth is to lose all credibility in this debate.



EDIT:

I know it was in the script, unfortunately, the script itself wasn't projected onto the screen.

Oh the irony of this statement

 

Actually Maul wasn't unnnecessary. Maul was Palpatine's first choice because Palpy had trained him from birth and had him down as being his right hand man when the Sith finally had their day of victory.
It wasn't until AFTER Maul's death that Palpatine became fickle with his apprentices.

But why was it necessary? We didn't need to see Maul get cut in half to know Palpatine was fickle. He would have put Maul in the same position if a better prospect came up. That point would have been illustrated anyway, and with better developed characters.

Hey nice revisionist history there
As has been mentioned "Dark Lord of the SITH" was the description given to Vader in the ANH script which is CANON and at the same level as the film.

That is where we differ. I don't see the script as anything more than a script. It's the films, the finished product that we're looking at. He could have called Vader "Susan B Anthony" in the script, and it still wouldn't have made it's way into the film unless it were mentioned by characters or seen in some way.

The fact it is mentioned in the PT, means you can have a whine about it because it was never mentioned in the OT, so it has to be a bad thing.

Yeah, because as we all know, Lucas sees consistency as evil.

Thats going terribly low. To be ignorant of that simple truth is to lose all credibility in this debate.

What "simple truth?" I'm just saying it's completely pointless, and a show of sloppy writing on Lucas' part, in introducing something that will only be abandoned as it has no place in the established films.

Oh the irony of this statement

Yes, yes, I know, "The script is on the screen, in the form of the movie." Ha ha ha.

 

Yeah, because as we all know, Lucas sees consistency as evil.

Actually Lucas is being consistent (therefore he doesn't see consistency as evil), he is keeping the name he had for the Jedi's enemy, and using it in the Prequels.

And since this Episode One, he needs to establish who this Order are, and why they are enemies of the Jedi.

Then I suppose there is no need for their mention in the OT because we'll know what Palpatine and Vader are, as well as who they are. Which explains its exclusion in the film and its simple mention in the script when describing Vader.

 

Actually Lucas is being consistent (therefore he doesn't see consistency as evil), he is keeping the name he had for the Jedi's enemy, and using it in the Prequels.

And since the "enemy" of the Jedi don't use that title in the movie, there was no need introducing it into the PT.

And since this Episode One, he needs to establish who this Order are, and why they are enemies of the Jedi.

Which he didn't really do. He introduced the idea of the Sith, and didn't really do anything with it.

Then I suppose there is no need for their mention in the OT because we'll know what Palpatine and Vader are, as well as who they are. Which explains its exclusion in the film and its simple mention in the script when describing Vader.

The two characters got through the Classic Trilogy without the tag of "Sith," we know they use the Dark Side of the Force. You actually provided a point for why it wasn't necessary.

 

Ah bugger this, you'll stick to your ignorant opinion so I dunno why I bother.

 

I don't appreciate being called "ignorant." Please note that I refrained from using insults myself.

 

The term "Sith" didn't need to be included in the OT. The only people that would say it are Vader and Palps. It would sound pretty stupid if they started addressing each other "My Sith Apprentice" or "My Sith Master." It is, however, necessary to introduce the term in the PT, or else you wouldn't have anything to call the enemies of the Jedi. In the OT, the enemy was simply the Emperor. In the PT, they don't know who these people are, so they call them the sith. I admit, it would have been nice if, in ESB, Yoda said something like "The Dark Lord of the Sith, the Emperor, is strong" or if in ANH, Obiwan said "The Sith slowly annihilated the Jedi." But that would just be another term that would need to be explained. I don't see how it's a big deal, or how it's inconsistent with the OT.

Cometgreen

 

The term "Sith" didn't need to be included in the OT. The only people that would say it are Vader and Palps. It would sound pretty stupid if they started addressing each other "My Sith Apprentice" or "My Sith Master." It is, however, necessary to introduce the term in the PT, or else you wouldn't have anything to call the enemies of the Jedi.

Like I said before, the users of the Dark Side got by fine without a tag. The users of the Light Side of the Force were the Jedi, the users of the Dark Side of the Forcer were not Jedi. Their identification came about not in what they were, but rather in what they weren't. They weren't Jedi and they used the Force for evil, they were non-Jedi, so to speak.

In the OT, the enemy was simply the Emperor. In the PT, they don't know who these people are, so they call them the sith. I admit, it would have been nice if, in ESB, Yoda said something like "The Dark Lord of the Sith, the Emperor, is strong" or if in ANH, Obiwan said "The Sith slowly annihilated the Jedi."

It would have made sense for Obi-wan to tell Luke about the Sith as he told him about Vader and Anakin; something like, "Vader fell to the Dark Side of the Force, and became a Sith; the sworn enemy of the Jedi thought to have been killed off long ago. As a Sith, he helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi. He betrayed and murdered your father..." Or, "Take your Jedi weapon. Strike me down with it. It is the way of the Sith." See? If it were meant to be in the Classic Trilogy, it would have been in there. The idea was around, but wasn't used.

But that would just be another term that would need to be explained.

Then it's usage in the PT would be justified, as it serves a purpose later on in the saga; explaining something Ben may have said, or Yoda, in explaining to Luke.

I don't see how it's a big deal, or how it's inconsistent with the OT.

I see it as inconsistent because it's something that was thrown in, dabbled with a bit, and then eventually tossed to the side. Which really irks me because it's not mentioned anywhere in the CT, so that means its an idea that will be abandoned, and if its abandoned, then that means it was pointless to begin with.

 

No, it wasn´t unnecessary to introduce the term "Sith" in the PT, Loco, because the Sith order is taking it´s revenge on the Jedi. That´s what the PT is all about!
And what is all this nonsense about "Sith" not being used properly? We are told very eloquently that the Sith are old enemies of the Jedi that were thought to be extinct and are now after revenge. Without this plot, the PT would be rather pointless.
The OT, on the other hand, doesn´t need to mention the Sith by name, because that´s not important to the plot in it. Hopefully, you will understand when you see EpIII that Palpatine continues to hide the fact that the Empire he has created is a Sith Empire. This is even explained in ANH, when Tarkin says to Vader "You, my friend, are all that´s left of their religion". Noone in the Empire knows that the Emperor is a Force-user!
Also, Luke doesn´t need to hear the term "Sith", because it´s irrelevant to him. He just needs to know that the dark side is dangerous and must be destroyed.

 

No, it wasn´t unnecessary to introduce the term "Sith" in the PT, Loco, because the Sith order is taking it´s revenge on the Jedi. That´s what the PT is all about!

Palpatine seizing control of the Galaxy was for revenge on the Jedi? I thought it was his own lust for power.

And what is all this nonsense about "Sith" not being used properly? We are told very eloquently that the Sith are old enemies of the Jedi that were thought to be extinct and are now after revenge. Without this plot, the PT would be rather pointless.

Well, the Sith want revenge for something; could it be the Jedi destroying them? Well, the Official Site says otherwise, With the promise of new powers attainable by tapping into the hateful energies of the dark side, it was only a matter of time before the order self-destructed. Internecine struggle by power-hungry Sith practioners dwindled their numbers.

If they practically killed themselves off, what do they want revenge on the Jedi for? Where is this "eloquently" cleared in any of the movies?

The OT, on the other hand, doesn´t need to mention the Sith by name, because that´s not important to the plot in it. Hopefully, you will understand when you see EpIII that Palpatine continues to hide the fact that the Empire he has created is a Sith Empire.

What about when Luke is in the presence of the Emperor and facing his own father? Wouldn't that be a time for the "Sith" title to arise? Why would the Emperor hide the fact he was a Sith from Luke, if he was so confident the boy would turn? Besides, I would say Luke's tettering over the edge of the Dark Side is fairly important in the Classic Trilogy.

This is even explained in ANH, when Tarkin says to Vader "You, my friend, are all that´s left of their religion". Noone in the Empire knows that the Emperor is a Force-user!

That is true.

Also, Luke doesn´t need to hear the term "Sith", because it´s irrelevant to him. He just needs to know that the dark side is dangerous and must be destroyed.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the most absurd things I've read in this entire thread. That sort of thinking generates more half-truths for Ben to say when he talks to Luke. The character has lost almost all integrity, and for him to NOT tell Luke what happened to his father when he is supposedly sitting down and setting it straight is just ridiculous. Why shouldn't Luke know about the Sith? If he's a Jedi, he should (according to your own logic) know who his enemy is, it's obvious Obi-wan knows what the Sith are and that Anakin becomes one, so there is no reason for him to hold that information from Luke.

 

Well, the Official Site says otherwise

Let´s keep to the films like you said, shall we?
It´s possible that the Sith destroyed themselves, but if we go by TPM alone:

"The Sith have been extinct for a millennium!"

"At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge!"

It´s obvious that the Sith blame the Jedi for their defeat.

Obi-Wan obviously didn´t want to tell Luke about the Sith for some reason. What could that reason be? I don´t know, perhaps he didn´t want him to know that there was another order of powerful Force-users, because that could make him want to join them? I honestly don´t know, but that´s my guess.
Of course the OT plot about Luke´s possible turn to the dark side is important, did I say otherwise?

Look, Loco, GL didn´t mention the Sith in the OT films, but so what? Why make such a fuzz about it? Why feel that it makes it impossible for you to enjoy Star Wars?
I don´t know if that´s the case, but it sure sounds like it.

 

Let´s keep to the films like you said, shall we?
It´s possible that the Sith destroyed themselves, but if we go by TPM alone:

"The Sith have been extinct for a millennium!"

"At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge!"

It´s obvious that the Sith blame the Jedi for their defeat.

Fair enough, though unlike the "Dark Lord of the Sith" gimmick in the Classic Trilogy, this actually was mentioned in the film, and we don't know any more about them at the end of the movie than we did about them at the beginning, except for vague details.

Obi-Wan obviously didn´t want to tell Luke about the Sith for some reason. What could that reason be? I don´t know, perhaps he didn´t want him to know that there was another order of powerful Force-users, because that could make him want to join them? I honestly don´t know, but that´s my guess.

If it were meant to be in the story, it would have been. There were ample opportunities for it to be put in and mentioned.

Of course the OT plot about Luke´s possible turn to the dark side is important, did I say otherwise?

And if he turned, he would become a Sith, right? Then it would be important for that information to be present when applicable.

Look, Loco, GL didn´t mention the Sith in the OT films, but so what? Why make such a fuzz about it? Why feel that it makes it impossible for you to enjoy Star Wars?
I don´t know if that´s the case, but it sure sounds like it.

My problem is with unnecessary material making its way into one of the movies and then later being abandoned. Lucas brings up a notion, dabbles with it, and leaves it for another one; to bring up things that have no relevance to future events, but are given high priority at the time, that's sloppy writing. And TPM is littered with that. It's full of details that were given more priority than were needed, and it may affect the entire PT.

 

Yeah, because as we all know, Lucas sees consistency as evil.

You're thinking of David Lynch.

If you don't think Maul was necessary, then who do you think should have done Palpy's dirty work while he looks good in the Senate?

 

Actually, I could have seen Dooku doing all business deals with the Trade Federation. It would have been better to have him, instead of Sidious, appearing through hologram and ordering Nute Gunray while trying to get the Senator killed using bounty hunters. Basically, have what Dooku did in Episode II and move it to Episode I.

 

George Lucas did lie to me. First he told me there were going to be TWELVE Star Wars movies. Then he told me there woud be NINE. Now apparently there are only going to be SIX! I am so hopping mad that I set my Yoda underoos on fire. That'll teach him!

George Lucas is an evil, evil man.

 

"we don't know any more about them at the end of the movie than we did about them at the beginning, except for vague details."

Isn't that the point?

Cometgreen

 

Isn't that the point?

If it's to make the Jedi look incompetent and stupid, then yeah.

 

...That is the point.

Cometgreen, who doesn't understand how the word "sith" makes the jedi look stupid

 

One of the things I like about Star Wars is that not everything is spelled out for you. It raises questions like:
- What did Obi-Wan think of Anakin going to Naboo after the first clone battle?
- What does "Balance to the Force" mean?
- What was Leia thinking after realizing she was Luke´s sister?
- How is the Empire evil? (classic thread at CT forum)
It raises these kinds of questions and lets you figure them out by yourself. In a way, that makes you part of the creating process!

Another thing I like is what you´re talking about, Loco: How several things are introduced and then not mentioned again. It means that you can watch the saga from many different angles. At one viewing, you can have one introduced aspect in mind, at the next you can have another. They aren´t mentioned again, because they don´t need to and we shouldn´t be distracted by too many things at the same time. We should be able to concentrate on that which we wish to concentrate on.

 

Converting Jedi to Sith is not the ideal situation for finding an apprentice. Maul was the perfect Sith: raised as a Sith from birth, devoid of any identity other than being a Sith. The films needed to establish what it means to be a Sith before they start turning other characters into them. Notice that Darth Maul is the only Sith without an alter ego. Sidious is Palpatine, Tyranus is Dooku, and Vader is Anakin.

 

Palpatine seizing control of the Galaxy was for revenge on the Jedi? I thought it was his own lust for power.

Lust for power was certainly one motivation, but so was revenge. That's why Darth Maul said, "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we shall have revenge."

If they practically killed themselves off, what do they want revenge on the Jedi for? Where is this "eloquently" cleared in any of the movies?

It's not really touched on in the movies except for Maul's statement. It's one of those pecular references that Lucas throws into his scripts that refer to things outside of the scope of the films. It's one of the things that makes Star Wars such a unique saga because there is a history quite outside of the movies that the audience only gets glimpses of. Lucas is created a layered story but he's not necessarily filling in every single detail. It's an intelligent approach that leaves room for the audience's imagination to actively participate in the story.

What about when Luke is in the presence of the Emperor and facing his own father? Wouldn't that be a time for the "Sith" title to arise? Why would the Emperor hide the fact he was a Sith from Luke, if he was so confident the boy would turn?

At this point in the story, labels were irrelevant and unecessary. Not to mention the fact it would have reduced the dramatic tension if Palpatine had to explain to Luke who the Sith were. It was enough for Luke to know that Vader and the Emperor were the enemy of the Jedi. Besides, the prequels have established who the Sith are so re-explaining it in the last half of the story would have been redundant.

And if he turned, he would become a Sith, right? Then it would be important for that information to be present when applicable.

To me, "Sith" is just another way of saying "darkside of the force." For example, in Attack Of The Clones when Yoda faced off against Dooku, he said, "Powerful you have become. The darkside I sense in you!" By your logic, it would have been critical for Yoda to identify Dooku as a Sith, but he didn't. He merely recognized that Dooku had become an agent of the darkside. As such, in Return Of The Jedi, the important part of the story is not that Luke was tempted to become a Sith but that he was tempted by the darkside, thus making any mention of the Sith unecessary at best.

----------

I am so hopping mad that I set my Yoda underoos on fire. That'll teach him!

Maybe you should have taken them off first. That's gonna leave a mark!

 

You have no idea...

 

>>>Since it's the films we're talking about, that's what matters. It's never mentioned in the films because it was an idea from the drafts that was definately scrapped, otherwise something would have been done with it in the original films.

I suppose the Ewoks idea was scrapped too then, right? And "Emperor Palpatine" was deemed an irrelevant character?

>>>>I see it as inconsistent because it's something that was thrown in, dabbled with a bit, and then eventually tossed to the side. Which really irks me because it's not mentioned anywhere in the CT, so that means its an idea that will be abandoned, and if its abandoned, then that means it was pointless to begin with.

Mmm. So everything not mentioned in the CT is therefore pointless...

I can see why you're not a big fan of the prequels! Although I don't understand why you don't take the next logical step and write off ESB and ROTJ, because of all the stuff that "Star Wars" didn't mention.

>>>Besides, I would say Luke's tettering over the edge of the Dark Side is fairly important in the Classic Trilogy.

True... which raises the interesting question of why the Classic Trilogy didn't bother to explain to the viewer what the Dark Side of the Force is...

 

First of all, LOCO ? Great job and excellent analysis. What you are stating is the exact opposite of ignorance. You are making a claim and offering reasoning and evidence to support it. Without having to resort to name calling or subtle insults. Nice!

I am all for sticking with what we only see in the films as a basis for SW lore. And given that, the idea of the Sith is really pointless. What is the difference between a Jedi and a Sith? As of now, it?s just use of the Dark Side. We are clearly told in the OT that the evil Darth Vader uses the Dark Side of the Force. That a Jedi can succumb to the Dark Side.

The Dark Side itself is actually a villain in the OT as well. It can seduce, corrupt and ultimately, destroy you. And it?s a great part of the story.

The Sith title was thrown in the PT with no such depth. It is an extreme stretch to say the beauty of the saga are its holes and inconsistencies. We are never told that Maul was trained from birth. People keep throwing this out there. For all we know he could be Sifo Dyas.

We also don?t know what the Sith want revenge for. I did not find this to be interesting. I found it frustrating. We are left with villains who are bad just for the sake of being bad.

It's not really touched on in the movies except for Maul's statement. It's one of those pecular references that Lucas throws into his scripts that refer to things outside of the scope of the films. It's one of the things that makes Star Wars such a unique saga because there is a history quite outside of the movies that the audience only gets glimpses of. Lucas is created a layered story but he's not necessarily filling in every single detail. It's an intelligent approach that leaves room for the audience's imagination to actively participate in the story.

There is nothing wrong with leaving room for imagination but at some point, you have to provide a story. Maul is one of the main villains of TPM. He has about 3 lines. One would think, that since Sidious says nothing on what these 2 are up to or why they are even going about their evil scheme, that Maul would provide some clarity. The motivations of the villains should not just be left to the imagination. I attribute it more to sloppiness.

At this point in the story, labels were irrelevant and unecessary. Not to mention the fact it would have reduced the dramatic tension if Palpatine had to explain to Luke who the Sith were. It was enough for Luke to know that Vader and the Emperor were the enemy of the Jedi. Besides, the prequels have established who the Sith are so re-explaining it in the last half of the story would have been redundant.

How is it redundant for the PT to give some explanation of the Sith and ?then? (I put it in quotes since you are pretending that you are seeing these movies in numerical order, even though no one is) Luke, the last hope and last apprentice to get an explanation 4 movies later?? As pointed out by Loco, Obi Wan?s talk with Luke would have been more than an appropriate time to explain something about the ?Sith.?

And furthermore, if labels are unnecessary, why does everyone refer to the Jedi all the time in the OT? Including Sidious?? He says the title ?Jedi? several times when speaking to Luke. But only refers to his power as ?The Dark Side.? Labels are still clearly important, but GL chose to drop the label Sith out of the films.

To me, "Sith" is just another way of saying "darkside of the force." For example, in Attack Of The Clones when Yoda faced off against Dooku, he said, "Powerful you have become. The darkside I sense in you!" By your logic, it would have been critical for Yoda to identify Dooku as a Sith, but he didn't. He merely recognized that Dooku had become an agent of the darkside. As such, in Return Of The Jedi, the important part of the story is not that Luke was tempted to become a Sith but that he was tempted by the darkside, thus making any mention of the Sith unecessary at best.

This point also leads to another inconsistency. If Dooku is not a S

 

Thanks Green, I appreciate it.