Official Info Here we go again...

People can keep saying this but that doesn't make it true. Nothing in the movies indicates whether or not other Sith can come along.

 

"Always two they are, no more, no less. A master and an apprentice."


This is one clue and its found in the movies.

How exactly would other Sith come along, in what way would that happen? The chain is broken, the Sith died out. The followers will only be Dark Jedi; maybe if they re-discover some ancient Sith artifacts and knowledge they could eventually become followers of an ideal amd form a cult; but the fact is that all the accumulated wisdom died with Sidious and Vader, only they, mostly Sidious, could spread the ancient Sith knowledge to the next generation. Anyone flirting with the dark side cannot simply call themselves Sith, I mean they can, but it doesn't make it true. Nothing in the movies indicate that there were more than two Sith.

 

That's an EU thing and as far as the films are concerned it's not part of the story. Plus, just because the line is broken, it doesn't mean that someone else couldn't pick it up.

If Luke died before he had a chance to train any Jedi, would there ever be any more real Jedi? I'm sure there would be eventually. To me it's no different.

 

The rule of two is part of the film story, as is the belief that the Sith have been extinct for a millennium. Both of those are central to the story of Bane.

 

I hate this whole rule of 2 crap. When Yoda says "always 2 there are" why can't he mean everytime you come across a Sith there is defo another one. A master and an apprentice. I know the EU expanded upon it, but I always liked to understand that as hey we've found one here, so there's another here. If we find one there, there'll be another there.

Kind of like let's say there's a Sith of the North and he has an apprentice (always 2 of them there are), but then we discover a Sith of the West and he has an apprentice (always 2 of them there are), a Sith of the South bla bla bla

I think you get the picture.

I always liked this version of the rule of 2 much better than the singular narrowminded rule of 2 that the EU created based on Yoda's one line

 

This is a great theory. You know the "rule of two" was not explained much in the films. We have made a lot of assumptions about it. The rule of 2 could simply mean that the Sith work in 2's, no more, no less.

 

Yeah I refuse to believe that there were only two Sith running around during the time of the PT.

 

There's a good discussion of the Sith in the "The Sith in Disney Trilogy" thread:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-sith-in-disney-trilogy.50007308/

 

Hmm, interesting. I've never considered that. I've always taken it literally.

 

For example, in TCW Maul cites the "rule of two" when calling himself the "master" and Savage the "apprentice". And of course he knows they're not the only Sith out there, even when dismissing Dooku as "Sith pretender".

 

I understand this and it's possible that this could have been true. But the philosophy of Bane is very clear: There should be only two Sith at any given time because then they would not fight among eachother and destroy themselves. The purpose of the rule of two is that it would protect the Sith from themselves and it's the reason why Bane was so fundamental on this point. If there were ever more than two Sith they would eventuelly clash with eachother and nothing would be accomplished; there is a reason why Palpatine and the Sith finally succeded in their quest for galactic domination; there were only two at a time and it was an extremly effective strategy.

The rule of two is not narrowminded, it's actually deep and there are very good reasons for it. The master would stay alive because he had the knowledge that the apprentice desired; when the apprentice finally aquired the wisdom he could take down his master. Then the new master would adopt his own protegee.

 

On the thread title - "Here we go again" - I'd forgotten how rabid and completely fruitcakey some fans are - Online petitions? Star Wars Earth? I demand this that or the other or the movie will suck/fail? It's going to be a LONG couple years...

 

Ain't that the truth

 

Yeah, I get all that, but as I said in my original post - "I know it's been expanded upon in the EU but..."

When I watch the movies, I do not get the philosophy of Bane in any of movies. In fact I don't hear his name at all.

I'm not bashing the EU, I'm just saying from the movies alone there is no reason to discount the theory I have put forward, and then it is not difficult to assume that Disney may do the same thing, therefore it is easy to introduce a new Sith.

To be clear, I am neither saying any is right or wrong. Speculation. Fun.

 

I don't like those arrogant fans who claim that you're not a true SW fan if you also don't read the EU books. Such silliness.

 

I'm with you on that, speculation is fun. Let's put this one down and speculate about other aspects of the upcoming movies

 

And honestly, the Shat said it best -

 

I agree with you. I have friend who is not interested in the EU (books, comics, etc) or memorabilia, and is the biggest fan then some of us here put together.

He suggested for us two, taking our girls (I need to get girlfriend by then ) to see Star Wars VII. Oh, neither him or me don't mind about re-casts, because... have seen Carrie Fisher?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

The quality of the EU is so hit-and-miss, though.

 

You mean this amazing lady? (yeah, 2012 pic)

 

That broad could take down the entire Empire with a cold stare, a pack of smokes and some harsh language.

 

To look HALF this good at 56... we should be so lucky.

 

Is that an electric cigarette? What the hell is that? Looks like a magic wand.

 

We should be lucky enough to be half as badass as she is when we're 56.