Did George Lucas Lie To Us?

There is nothing wrong with leaving room for imagination but at some point, you have to provide a story.

Now see, statements like this really confuse me. You're implying that because Lucas didn't give us an in-depth explanation of Maul's origins he some how cheaped us out of the story. The thing is, the story wasn't about Darth Maul. His character was a means to an end, kind of like Boba Fett in the original films. Lucas can't help it if fans go ape over throw away secondary villian characters. There is tons of story there without explaining Darth Maul's origins, which is irrelevant to the story any way.

The motivations of the villains should not just be left to the imagination. I attribute it more to sloppiness.

Their motivations were quite clear: revenge and a lust for power. Now why would they want revenge? Because the Jedi apparently wiped them out a thousand years ago. This information is plainly stated in the film although the audience is not spoon fed by having the film make the connection for them. It's one of the things I love about Lucas as a story teller. He provides the dots and lets us connect them.

And furthermore, if labels are unnecessary, why does everyone refer to the Jedi all the time in the OT?

Because Jedi symbolizes what Luke aspires to become and later does become. The term Jedi is given great significance in the original films. When the Emperor proclaims Luke a Jedi, it is the culmination of Luke's character arc.

There is really no need to define (or in this case, re-define) the Sith in the last three chapters. The story is about Anakin and Luke, not the Sith.

This point also leads to another inconsistency. If Dooku is not a Sith, then what is he? A, dare I say it? Dark Jedi?

How is it inconsistent? Yoda merely said that Dooku was using the darkside. For all we know, anybody who devotes themselves to the study of the darkside of the force could be a Sith, although there are traditionally only two. But the significant story point was that Yoda sensed the darkside in Dooku.

Basically, the Sith are anti-Jedi (remember, Qui-Gon stated that Darth Maul had been "trained in the Jedi arts"). Based on the films, it would seem that "Sith" and "darkside user" are more or less interchangable. But it's an irrelevant issue anyway as it has little bearing on the story proper. It just provides intriguing depth and texture to the narrative.

 

Now see, statements like this really confuse me. You're implying that because Lucas didn't give us an in-depth explanation of Maul's origins he some how cheaped us out of the story. The thing is, the story wasn't about Darth Maul. His character was a means to an end, kind of like Boba Fett in the original films. Lucas can't help it if fans go ape over throw away secondary villian characters. There is tons of story there without explaining Darth Maul's origins, which is irrelevant to the story any way.

The difference between Boba Fett and Darth Maul is that Boba wasn't the focal antagonist of the movie. Darth Maul was, he was the most visible villain in the movie as his purpose was to provide conflict for the protagonists. To say that he was simply the "means to an end" is not good enough, all characters are means to an end, yet why does Maul go by without any development?

Their motivations were quite clear: revenge and a lust for power. Now why would they want revenge? Because the Jedi apparently wiped them out a thousand years ago. This information is plainly stated in the film although the audience is not spoon fed by having the film make the connection for them. It's one of the things I love about Lucas as a story teller. He provides the dots and lets us connect them.

Not really, one dot would be "At last we have our revenge" in one part of the movie and having "The Sith? But the Jedi destroyed the Sith over a millenium ago," and the audience goes "ahhh." That is connecting the dots provided. Lucas did not do that. He put one dot and left it at that. The writer forgot to put in the next dot, so there's nothing to connect to except an assumed dot that has no real basis on anything of substance.

Because Jedi symbolizes what Luke aspires to become and later does become. The term Jedi is given great significance in the original films. When the Emperor proclaims Luke a Jedi, it is the culmination of Luke's character arc.

If "Jedi" is what Luke aspires to become, then "Sith" should be something he should try to get away from.

There is really no need to define (or in this case, re-define) the Sith in the last three chapters. The story is about Anakin and Luke, not the Sith.

If the story deals with those characters, and evil being a possible outcome for them, it is essential to develop that potential outcome. The story isn't about the Sith, but it's something that one character supposedly becomes and it's a fate for another. For that reason, it should be fleshed out if it's introduced.

How is it inconsistent? Yoda merely said that Dooku was using the darkside. For all we know, anybody who devotes themselves to the study of the darkside of the force could be a Sith, although there are traditionally only two. But the significant story point was that Yoda sensed the darkside in Dooku.

And the Sith aspect wasn't necessary at all, showing that it has been, for the most part, abandoned already.

Basically, the Sith are anti-Jedi (remember, Qui-Gon stated that Darth Maul had been "trained in the Jedi arts"). Based on the films, it would seem that "Sith" and "darkside user" are more or less interchangable. But it's an irrelevant issue anyway as it has little bearing on the story proper. It just provides intriguing depth and texture to the narrative.

Yeah, it has little bearing on the story, one of the gaping flaws of the Prequels; where an element is simply introduced for the sake of introducing it only to be abandoned as a notion to be forgotten. In the end, it's left unresolved and its pointlessness only becomes more apparent with subsequent episodes.

 

To say that he was simply the "means to an end" is not good enough, all characters are means to an end, yet why does Maul go by without any development?

Because the story was not about his character. While he was the most visible villian, he was not the main villian.

He put one dot and left it at that. The writer forgot to put in the next dot, so there's nothing to connect to except an assumed dot that has no real basis on anything of substance.

Like I said, Lucas doesn't spoon feed his audience. And the dots are there.

If "Jedi" is what Luke aspires to become, then "Sith" should be something he should try to get away from.

Once again, he was not being tempted by the Sith but by the darkside of the force.

The story isn't about the Sith, but it's something that one character supposedly becomes and it's a fate for another. For that reason, it should be fleshed out if it's introduced.

There is a difference between not fleshing something out and not fleshing it out to your specific satisfaction. Based on your arguments, it appears that Lucas is merely guilty of the latter. The Sith are the anti-Jedi, but more importantly and of much more critical importance to the story and characters, they are agents of the darkside.

Yeah, it has little bearing on the story, one of the gaping flaws of the Prequels; where an element is simply introduced for the sake of introducing it only to be abandoned as a notion to be forgotten. In the end, it's left unresolved and its pointlessness only becomes more apparent with subsequent episodes.

If you say so. [rolls_eyes]

 

Yeah, it has little bearing on the story, one of the gaping flaws of the Prequels; where an element is simply introduced for the sake of introducing it only to be abandoned as a notion to be forgotten. In the end, it's left unresolved and its pointlessness only becomes more apparent with subsequent episodes.

Now this what I mean by being ignorant.
You're looking at it the wrong way round.
TPM is the INTRODUCTION, it is going to give us elements which start us off when we go along the journey.
The fact we get the name of the Jedi's arch enemy, is so that we get introduced to them and know instantly in the future films exactly who they are.
That doesn't make it irrelevant, that makes it easier for the audience to identify who's who.

The future episodes don't need to constantly remind us of who the guys in black are, thats terribly patronising (so you'd complain either way, you're very harsh on GL if you ask me), because after you've identified who they are in the first film, you don't need constant reminders (or maybe you do?).

 

I had no idea when I walked in here that this debate would be so hysterical! People have actually spent 50 posts arguing over the word 'Sith'. I thought I was an obsessive SW fan, but my hat is off to you guys. You really...oh what the Hell, I AM an obsessive fan, so here goes.

I guess I have always just accepted that Darth Vader was the Dark Lord of the Sith. It told me so in the comics that went with the movie. It said so on all the Topps trading cards. It really did seem to go hand in hand with Vader's name. And they kept saying it for years, something I would never be able to consider an abondoned concept. If it was abondoned, they would stop using it.

And I didn't need a deep explanation of what the Sith was. I just knew that Dark Lord of the Sith sounded bad, especially when conected to Darth Vader.

And so what if we didn't get a complete a detailed history of the Sith. We also didn't get one for Wookiees, or Rodians, or what the hell a "Grand Moff" was, but it didn't lessen our enjoyment of the movie, did it?

But wait a minute. Is Tarkin really a "Grand Moff"? Was that mentioned in the movie? I can remember 'Governor Tarkin', but I don't recall "Grand Moff." Of course, I am getting old, and I haven't watched the movie for a few months, so maybe I'm forgetting something.

And I don't remember the word "Rodian" ever being used in any of the movies, either. So does this mean Greedo has no species.

And where was that deep insight into the Wookiee history? If I remember correctly, one of them played a rather important part in some of these movies. But we know nothing about him. Can someone out there tell me who Chewbacca really is? Thank you.

If nothing else, this argument has driven home just how far overboard Star Wars fans can go. And I'm not pointing fingers at certain people, or saying it's only the people who didn't like TPM and/or AOTC. People on both sides can get a little carried away with the complete absurdity of their arguments, myself included.

Now, I'm not trying to say anything about anyone's opinions or whatever, but am I the only one who thinks it's just a little silly that over 50 posts have been spent arguing about a word that the vast majority of SW fans have accepted since 1977? For 26 years Vader has been accepted as the Darl Lord of the Sith, but now because some people haven't liked the newer movies, and didn't get the hoped-for explanations, despite there being no promise of said explanations, NOW we have a problem with it? That simply doesn't make sense.

Not everything needs an explanation. Some things simply ARE, and we have but to accept them, and then move on with our lives.

Or put it another way. How can it be an abandoned concept if it is used in the first chapter to identify who the bad guys are? Does it matter that it's not used again? Do you not still know who the bad guys are? To me, this sounds like nothing more than rationalization after the fact as to why some people didn't like the newer movies. This is your right, but I do feel somewhat sorry for the people who are intentionally trying to find even more reasons to dislike some very good films.

At least, that's what I think.

 

Because the story was not about his character. While he was the most visible villian, he was not the main villian.

And as the most visible villain, he should be more fleshed out and developed, so as to provide more of a presence. He has the Boba Fett quality to him, he looks cool and doesn't really do anything to merit any real credit. The difference is, Boba Fett's role was small in ESB while Maul's was substantially larger. He was the most visible villain and we had no reason to care for him; we didn't know anything about him other than that he wanted revenge for some reason and he didn't believe in talking.

Yes, I know, "the Sith are supposed to be mysterious." Yes, they are, to the Jedi, not the audience.

Like I said, Lucas doesn't spoon feed his audience. And the dots are there.

Providing substantial information isn't spoonfeeding; providing it in monotonous conversations without anything happening for the entire second act is spoonfeeding, which he did in BOTH TPM and AOTC.

Once again, he was not being tempted by the Sith but by the darkside of the force.

By introducing the Sith, Lucas sought to provide an opposing order to that of the Jedi for the opposing side of the Force. What he did was create a polarizing effect in organizations; before, if a character is a Force user, he/she was either a Jedi or not. Now, with the introduction of the Sith, if a Force using character is not a Jedi, then he must obviously be a Sith, as there are only two factions to decide from. So yes, Luke was indeed being tempted by the Sith to join the Dark Side of the Force.

There is a difference between not fleshing something out and not fleshing it out to your specific satisfaction. Based on your arguments, it appears that Lucas is merely guilty of the latter. The Sith are the anti-Jedi, but more importantly and of much more critical importance to the story and characters, they are agents of the darkside.

Blaming the audience for a flaw in the film? Again?

If you say so. [rolls_eyes]

How Durwudian.

 

Blaming the audience for a flaw in the film?

No, I'm blaming you personally for trying to find a flaw where none exists.

 

Seeing as how for me to speak, I would have to watch the movie, and to watch the movie, that would make me a member of the audience. So, yes, you are blaming the audience for a flaw in the movie.

 

Seeing as how for me to speak, I would have to watch the movie, and to watch the movie, that would make me a member of the audience. So, yes, you are blaming the audience for a flaw in the movie.

Nice way to twist what he is saying from speaking singularly to collectively.
Doesn't change the fact he is meaning you and YOU alone.

 

Regardless, it doesn't change the "fact" that it's done in an effort to lift responsibility off of Lucas and the film.

 

It is not a fault when a filmmaker fails to make a movie to your specific satisfaction. That's all I'm saying.

 

But it is the fault of the filmmaker to fail to live up to one's already lowered expectations.

 

Titanic was definitely NOT what I was expecting from James Cameron. Considering the movies he made prior to this floating, (for a little while - tee hee,) turd, like Terminator and T2, Aliens, The Abyss, and True Lies, the boat movie should have been, and could have been a rollicking godd film. It was not, however. This is obviously because James Cameron doesn't know how to direct a movie anymore. He has no idea what a good story is anymore. It has NOTHING to do with what I was expecting. It's because it was obviously a seriously flawed film. It just plain old sucked.

 

Titanic was definitely NOT what I was expecting from James Cameron. Considering the movies he made prior to this floating, (for a little while - tee hee,) turd, like Terminator and T2, Aliens, The Abyss, and True Lies, the boat movie should have been, and could have been a rollicking godd film. It was not, however. This is obviously because James Cameron doesn't know how to direct a movie anymore. He has no idea what a good story is anymore. It has NOTHING to do with what I was expecting. It's because it was obviously a seriously flawed film. It just plain old sucked.

Um . . . okay.


In a nut shell: So far, agreed with everything Loco's said, specifically Dooku being the main villian in TPM and the whole thing with the sith.

That is all. You may continue . . .

 

Thanks, AB.

 

So what is wrong with making the logical assessment that the Sith are avenging their prior defeat by the hands of the Jedi? Is the rest of the world incorrect in making that "connection of dots"? The Sith Order was eradicated, and the Jedi Order flourished. What more needs to be described?!

It's this cornball, nitpick, fanboy whining that every backstory element be spoonfed-to-them-because-they-lack-the-spirit-to-immerse-themselves-in-a-myth that drives people like me up the wall........It's a movie....not life.......

Will you perpetually wonder what Darth Maul meant by revenge when the Star Wars saga is long gone complete and a part of moviemaking lore a century from now? I mean....get off it and move on.......Jeez.....

 

"TPM is the INTRODUCTION, it is going to give us elements which start us off when we go along the journey.
The fact we get the name of the Jedi's arch enemy, is so that we get introduced to them and know instantly in the future films exactly who they are.
That doesn't make it irrelevant, that makes it easier for the audience to identify who's who."

EXACTLY. That's why we're introduced the force and the jedi in ANH, so that when people first viewed it, they had a clear understanding of what the force is and who the good guys were. Now, should sith have been added in ANH? It might have given it a nice touch. Does the inclusion of the word "sith" in TPM make the movie or saga any weaker? No, of course not. It strengthens the saga. Now we know what to call the Emperor and Vader.

I mean, really, it's just a name. It's not an idea or plot point, just a name.

Cometgreen

 

Thanks, AB.

I haven't said a thing in ages.

Come on, guys! I even changed my icon! (Pray I don't change it back.)



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Does the inclusion of the word "sith" in TPM make the movie or saga any weaker? No, of course not. It strengthens the saga. Now we know what to call the Emperor and Vader.

I mean, really, it's just a name. It's not an idea or plot point, just a name.

What it does is introduce an element to the saga that is neither reinforced, resolved, or even developed. It's a show of sloppy writing.

Sure, we know what to call the Emperor and Vader now, but it wasn't something that was needed. It's just fringe. The Sith could have been something very effective for the saga as an anti-thesis to the Jedi priority in the Classic Trilogy, and it could have added an entirely new dimension to the Emperor and Vader. Instead, it's quickly dropped and abandoned to be forgotten. It gives the Emperor a "name" but there is no solid motivation, just some vague notion of revenge for something the Jedi may have done a thousand years earlier. We don't know anything about the Sith, just the idea and no actual substance.

 

What you are "conveniently" forgetting is that Palpatine uses the Sith powers as a means - an instrument - to obtain his desire for galactic domination. His mysterious origins call into question whether or not Palpatine had always been a member of the Sith Order in the first place, but, instead - more logically - he simply may have acquired his Dark Side powers from a cookbook, and pulled Maul into the mix to help him on his ride to the top. He likely could not care less of some plot to exact revenge on the Jedi - that was just a ruse to keep Darth Maul on board before he died of boredom......

Once the empire has been established, the last thing he would want to do is flaunt a long dead, evil, chaotic Order in front of the masses. Why should the majority of citizens knowingly support an evil despot? Lucas' only portrayal of the Sith and the personality of Palpatine throughout the PT is one of covert and disguised machinations. For all the audience knows, the only individual in the OT who is even aware of the Emporer's Sith tendencies is Darth Vader, himself. Furthermore, as an audience, we don't even know if persons outside the Jedi Order have any knowledge of the history of the Sith or of a line of Darths to begin with, which puts even Vader's true persona into question. And even if they do, there is still no connection between Palpatine and the Sith other than the employment of a ruthless, hardline enforcer of martial law to maintain stability within his New Order who had chosen to take up a name in homage to the strongest warriors of the past.

As one can see, omission of Sith exposition throughout the OT is permissible from a narrative standpoint. If it worked in the era of the OT (1977 to 1996), nothing has changed plot-wise to dictate that it cannot work in the PT era (1997 to today). The OT saga remains unchanged...... It's simple logic, man..........

?

 

This is almost too funny. There are literally dozens, possibly hundreds of backstories and explanations that are missing from these five, and indeed probably ANY film. And the funniest part of it all is the argument that including the word 'Sith' was unnecessary.

Um...the movies THEMSELVES weren't necessary, so that one doesn't really hold any water. And judging by the extreme minority that are bothered by this, the entire issue is unnecessary.

I can come up with thousands of things that aren't necessary, but what's the point? Just going around spending my life pointing out what's wrong with things, instead of looking past that to see what's good? Doesn't seem like much of a life to me, but who am I to judge anyone else?

Enjoy your unnecessary argument.

 

That response was unnecessary as well.

 

First I laughed. Then I got irritated. Then I laughed a bit again. Then I suddenly felt a bit silly because I was reading. Then I went red because I remembered that I am also a Star Wars fan. Then I felt silly because I couldn't grasp how on Earth a single four-letter word could be the difference between liking and disliking a film. Then I got irritated again. And finally I laughed a third time.

I would like to thank all the participants for a seriously disturbing read!

 

It's this cornball, nitpick, fanboy whining that every backstory element be spoonfed-to-them-because-they-lack-the-spirit-to-immerse-themselves-in-a-myth that drives people like me up the wall........It's a movie....not life.......

Bingo.

 

It's this cornball, nitpick, fanboy whining that every backstory element be spoonfed-to-them-because-they-lack-the-spirit-to-immerse-themselves-in-a-myth that drives people like me up the wall........It's a movie....not life.......

I'm sorry, but no. There is a difference between allowing some things to go unsaid, and it's another to just plain not develop it at all. Smaller details, like Maul's species or whatever, can go unsaid. THAT adds mystery to his character as it affects only him and it allows us to ponder his origins, it's another to not develop the order of the Sith, as it acts a motive for his and future characters in the movies. The Sith Order is what drives Maul, Palpatine, Vader, and even Dooku to do what they do; it's their motivation for their actions in these movies. The Sith is an aspect of the Force, like they Jedi, they represent the Dark Side of the Force and its users. It's something that affects the characters of the Prequels, and supposedly, the Classic Trilogy. It's one of the aspects that makes them think the way they do. To introduce this is to introduce a new level of depth the characters, and to leave it empty creates a void in characters that were doing just fine.

This whole "blame the audience" deal is areally lame way of taking responsibility off of Lucas and his sloppy writing. There are some things that can be left mysterious, but there are other things that need to be fleshed out and made to their fullest potential.