Dooku's a DARK JEDI MASTER!? And he's a Sith too!

CA : A way of looking at it was that the Council was simply sceptical of Qui-Gon's claim. After all, he appears claiming to have been attacked by a enemy who were presumed extinct for a thousand years, and to have found the Chosen One of prophecy to boot.

It can be seen that way, but I personally think that its unrealistic for Qui-Gon's credibility to be in question on that high a level.

Darth_Jaxon : Here are the facts. Nowhere in the Star Wars movies is the term "Dark Jedi" used. What does that mean? It means that at this point Dark Jedi are not part of the Star Wars universe.

Then as of 1998 you didn't believe Sith were part of the Star Wars universe? Hate to constantly use that analogy, but it sure works.

Dark Jedi is a concept made up by the EU.

Actually, it's a concept created by George Lucas.

Aside from early mentions of Sith Knights in the ANH rough drafts, no one had any idea, in terms of the movies, what exactly a "Dark Lord of the Sith" was...only that Vader was one of them. I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't even know that Palpatine was one until seeing Darth Sidious for the first time in 1999, and learning more about the PT and OT connections from Lucas interviews.

If going by only the OT, from 1976 to 1998, and not fully understanding his role as a Sith, Vader can, without any doubt, be called a Dark Jedi. Once again...He was a Jedi Knight, and he turned to the dark side. That is all that is required.

But now that we understand more of his role as a Sith, first and foremost, it becomes uneccesary to call him a Dark Jedi, because that is not his main title or anything.

So, the concept of Dark Jedi is from Lucas, through Vader.

The term itself, however, is indeed Expanded Universe in origins.

As of right now there are Jedi and there are Sith. That is all. There is not even any proof for us to assume there are Dark Jedi.

Read the posts above about what the thoughts of the Jedi Council may have meant. Not proof, but, IMO, it leaves the door open for speculation.

Without any evidence of Dark Jedi it is completely illogical to assume they exist.

Why is it illogical? Forget all thoughts about the Sith...Why, after thousands of years, can there be no Jedi who turn dark who aren't Sith?

Force-sensitives can exist on any planet in the known galaxy. What if there was an inhabited world, undiscovered by the Republic and Jedi Order, and a Force-sensitive child learned how to use his abilities ( for good or evil ), never being trained as a Jedi or Sith.

What is he? Not a Jedi. Not a Sith.

darth_saul : What happens if a Jedi Knight is tempted to the dark side, not by a Sith, but just by the dark side itself? What if he uses the dark side and never joins the Sith? What would you call him? I think it is silly to assume that every jedi that ever used the dark side is a Sith.

Exactly.

Although it was for a very short time in battle, both Obi-Wan in TPM and Luke in ROTJ use the dark side of the Force, tapping into their hate and anger. They don't become Sith for those seconds -- or minutes.

I am actually more of a purist than not

I actually am as well, even if certain people don't believe it. My regard for Lucas and the movies are higher than anything else throughout the whole Saga.

PadmeBra : The thing is though, as far as we know, Dooku and Anakin are the only Jedi to turn to the Dark Side.

That is true.

But like I always say, that's all that is needed for the movies. Lucas can't show a bunch of Jedi turn...As been mentioned before, it would cheapen Anakin's fall.

But in terms of thinking about Star Wars in-universe, not confined by 12 hours of film, and thinking about the wide-ranging scope of the galaxy...There must have been more than them, who were not aligned with the Sith...Because the temptation from the dark side is strong, the Jedi have been around for thousands of years, and there's millions of planets in the Republic / Empire,

 

Which, I must point out, is probably a Lucas concept. He's referenced the novelization Sith origins in interviews.

 

Padme Bra...
"This is the movie forum so the discussion should center around whether or not the words "dark Jedi" will be used to describe Dooku in the film."

There is no difference in Dooku being a Dark Jedi Master in the PT and Darth Vader in CT being a Sith.

Nowhere in those movies is Darth Vader a Sith, yet it was a fact that he was.

Nowehere does it have to appear in the movies for Count Dooku to be a Dark Jedi and/or Dark Jedi Master for it to be true.

Count Dooku is a Dark Jedi Master because he is. Count Dooku is also a Sith because he is.

What's so hard to grasp about that. ?

 

"Maybe I'm off base here but I thought it was fairly clear that those were the only 20 to ever leave the order."

Well, there are only 20 Jedi who have ever resigned their commissions in the modern age of the Jedi Order, that's post-Sith War (rule of two, Darth Bane, etc) 2000 years pre-TPM. That's trivia I got off of those Jedi Fruit Rolls, but that's the wording they used - "resigned their commissions" and "modern age," defined as after the fall of the Sith, 2K yrs before the PT.


More Jedi may have fallen before, going to the Sith or elsewhere, but since the elimination of their competition, things have been quiet.

 

Quote:
"There is no difference in Dooku being a Dark Jedi Master in the PT and Darth Vader in CT being a Sith."

The difference is huge, oh condescending one. Darth Vader being a Sith is from Lucas. "Dark Jedi Master" is an EU term. What's so hard to grasp about that?

 

There is no difference in Dooku being a Dark Jedi Master in the PT and Darth Vader in CT being a Sith.

The difference is Lucas created a new movie series and established the "Sith". Unless he decides to include "Dark Jedi" in Episode III, they will remain EU.

 

The term was not EU. It was created by Lucas in ANH. It just wasn't in the film itself. EU = EU writers. Lucas' stuff is not EU.

 

Dooku being a Dark Jedi is not in the film itself.

Are you working for LFL Padme? Where did you get this insight that Dooku being a Dark Jedi didn't come from Lucas or LFL for the movie.

Lucas has a lot of things which are not in the movies, but which are true.

Not even bringing up the issue of expanded universe or canon, we have a description of Dooku being a Dark Jedi. He is a Jedi-gone-bad. A Jedi-gone-bad is not the same as being a Sith. There was never any indication that Sidious or Maul ever were Jedi.

Like in A New Hope, how Vader was a Sith. He wasn't a Sith because 22 years later, Lucas said he may be a Sith. He was a Sith, because he was a Sith at the time.

Just like Dooku is a Dark Jedi now.

 

Not in the film = EU. That isn't a hard concept to understand.

 

Just like Dooku is a Dark Jedi now.

Or a Sith. Dark Jedi are Sith, just like when a Sith becomes good he is a Jedi.

 

But the point that keeps getting overlooked is that the term "Sith" was EU until TPM.

No, Vader was described as a Dark Lord of the Sith as far back as the ANH novelisation.

 

Quote:
"Not in the film = EU. That isn't a hard concept to understand."

That is such a load. The term EU wasn't even thought of until all the comics and books and stuff came out. This feeble attempt to make the rest of EU as credible as Lucas' work isn't fooling anyone.

Fine, I'll revise Jedi Merkurian statement.

The difference is Lucas created a new movie series and established the "Sith". Unless he decides to include "Dark Jedi" in Episode III, they will remain SW material not from Lucas.

Definitions and semantics changes nothing. You know what everyone means when they say EU.

 

No, Vader was described as a Dark Lord of the Sith as far back as the ANH novelisation.

And the ANH novelization is EU.

That is such a load. The term EU wasn't even thought of until all the comics and books and stuff came out.

You mean, in 1976?

This feeble attempt to make the rest of EU as credible as Lucas' work isn't fooling anyone.

It's not feeble, and it isn't meant to fool anyone. It is simply the truth. Anything that is not in the movies is the EU. The very definition of EU is that it expands the universe set forth in the movies. Therefore, anything that is not in the movies falls under that category.

I'm sorry if you can't see that.

 

Well I was thinking more along the lines of Heir to the Empire-on. That's when the term really started. Until then people had common sense I guess.

Anyway, I already said that the definition is irrelevant. You know that people mean "non-Lucas" when they say EU.

 

Common sense, PB is knowing that Lucas did not single-handedly create the films. That's what seems to be lost on people.

In fact, "=not Lucas" people created some pretty significant concepts, characters, names and details.

Why people view any source which tells of such movie details not in the films and/or not of Lucas as EU is beyond me.

 

That's ok. I'm sure you can not understand and still leave a perfectly normal life.

 

"No, Vader was described as a Dark Lord of the Sith as far back as the ANH novelisation."

And the ANH novelization is EU.

Absolutely not.

 

Why not? It's not in the movie, so it's EU.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's not correct.

 

Lucas wrote the novel though.

 

No he didn't, but it doesn't matter. Not in the movies = EU. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

 

Who wrote the ANH novel?

 

MetallicPea...
"Lucas wrote the novel though."

Ooh, ooh, do I get to, or does someone else want to do it.

 

Alan Dean Foster wrote the ANH novelization.