Lit Should Disney bring back the Sith?

Discussion in 'Literature' started by StarWarsFan91, Oct 6, 2017.

?

Should the Sith have a future post-RoTJ?

yep 18 vote(s) 32.7%
nope 20 vote(s) 36.4%
maybe 17 vote(s) 30.9%
  1. MrDarth0 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2015
    star 2
    Disney should bring back the Sith in a pre-TPM movie.

    And no, Kylo is definitely not a Sith. Snoke, we don't have enough information yet.
  2. The Supreme Chancellor Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 4
    Do you think Palpatine wanted Vader to murder him? The relationship between Sith is the master is supposed to train someone to serve him while maintaining power while the apprentice must somehow learn enough to kill their master.
    A KOTOR movie would be amazing.
    Last edited by The Supreme Chancellor, Oct 12, 2017
    AusStig likes this.
  3. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 8
    Palpatine encouraged Vader to kill him multiple times.
  4. Ulicus Lapsed Moderator

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2005
    star 6
    Yeah. I don't think I'd go so far as to say that Palpatine "wants" Vader to kill him but he does understand -- and embrace -- that his job is to make Vader as big a threat to him as he can. That's how a Sith Master pushes themselves to ever greater heights and avoids complacency.
    Gamiel likes this.
  5. The Supreme Chancellor Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 4
    Prove that he wanted Vader to kill him. Please.
    Last edited by The Supreme Chancellor, Oct 12, 2017
  6. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 8
    He said so to Yoda in Revenge of the Sith's novelization which was approved by Lucas.
    Last edited by Charlemagne19, Oct 12, 2017
  7. EmperorHorus Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2016
    star 2
    That aspect of the Sith was really just the Bane-sith who followed the Rule of Two, and even then I think it's been mentioned in several sources and novels (not sure if "canon" ones) that Palpatine & Plagueis before him were planning for the Rule of Two to be ending with them.

    It didn't make them not Sith anymore because they didn't believe in the Rule of Two

    edit: mostly responding to the posters before this one that I quoted than the one I actually quoted, go figure

    Firstly, he was talking ****. That's what happens during duels. Palpatine never wanted Vader to kill him, if you know anything about his character you would know that's a ridiculous assertion to make.

    Secondly, just to be an annoying, technically ROTS novel is only canon where it directly translates the film. Pretty sure Stover's novelisation also references a lot of other EU stuff that is not necessarily "canon" any more
    Last edited by EmperorHorus, Oct 12, 2017
  8. DarthKuriboh Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 8, 2007
    star 3
    no. They should sell the franchise.
  9. The Supreme Chancellor Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 4
    No he didn't. He just said "Darth Vader will become stronger than either of us." That doesn't equal "I want Darth Vader to kill me." No matter how strong Vader becomes, Palpatine would have always been able to hold his family's safety over his head.

    Myth debunked.
    Last edited by The Supreme Chancellor, Oct 13, 2017
  10. SpecForce Trooper Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2016
    star 4
    I feel like I need to bring this up again.
    I'm glad the Knights of Ren aren't Sith. Us "hardcore" fans could think of a dozen reasons the Ren Knights aren't Sith, butcasual viewers don't know the difference. Everyone I've talked to think's Kylo Ren is a Sith. What I'm getting at is Disney needs to clearly show that they are different. Technically or functionally. But if I'm being completely honest, the real goof here was having Kylo and his posse look just like the Sith. Any future effort to expand the Knights will be hindered by the aesthetic similarity.
    Last edited by SpecForce Trooper, Oct 14, 2017
  11. StarWarsFan91 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2008
    star 4
    Kylo should have been introduced with non dark robe and with a non red cross guard. Making the blade a product of good Ben Solo. He could have learned about ancient Jedi, influencing him to make his saber a cross guard. Since he isn't a Sith, when he fell to the dark side he could have lacked the knowledge or intent to bleed his blade to red.
  12. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 7
    As I said in the other thread, we haven't even met the Knights of Ren yet. They might not even be Force-sensitive.

    Nothing Kylo or Snoke have said or done have shown them to be any different from Palpatine/Vader/Dooku/Maul-style Sith. And really, we've only seen the Sith run by Palpatine, not all Sith have to have the same style or philosophy as him.

    But Snoke and Kylo apparently have the same style and philosophy, despite not claiming to be Sith.

    They should have made Snoke & Kylo different from the other movie Sith both stylistically and philosophically, or should have just called them Sith. It really means nothing to say they aren't Sith, the way they've been depicted so far.


    In my opinion, it would have been best if Snoke/Kylo were stylistically and philosophically different from Palpatine and his apprentices... and still called themselves Sith.

    Snoke's outfit in TLJ is a step in the right direction... but instead of making him a disfigured old man like Palpatine, how about an elf-like ageless being? Or female? Or more alien? And maybe have Kylo Ren dress in gold and white, with a golden lightsaber, no mask/helmet, or very different (you could still have him trying to be the best version of Vader, just not have him copy his style or flaws).
    Last edited by Ghost, Oct 14, 2017
    AusStig and SpecForce Trooper like this.
  13. StarWarsFan91 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2008
    star 4
    Kylo Ren sporting a yellow blade would have been rad. Finally getting a Jedi color we haven't seen before in film. Yellow vs Rey's blue would have been a unique site. If their are non sith dark siders post ST, Disney needs to let the red blade go (only old ones existing). Have the knowledge to bleed them lost, and if one does have a saber, have it be a Jedi blade. So in the unlikely scenario Rey falls to the dark side, have her keep using the blue coloring instead of bleeding anakins crysral. Also mix it with darksiders not using any sabers. Instead blasters and regular Melee weapons. Creating some steps to distinguish these new baddies from the Sith.
    Last edited by StarWarsFan91, Oct 15, 2017
    Gamiel and SpecForce Trooper like this.
  14. EmperorHorus Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2016
    star 2
    They were never going to do that though. Good guys = blue (& green) blades, Bad guys = red blades. That's classic Star Wars, which was their no. 1 aim when making TFA --> make it as close to the original as possible in terms of themes & style (especially visual style).

    It's the same reason the bad guys of the New Trilogy (or at least TFA) were always going to be some form of Sith (or Sith-clone going by a different name).
    AusStig and SpecForce Trooper like this.
  15. SpecForce Trooper Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2016
    star 4
    Blades should ideally be faction-exclusive.
    Jedi = Blue
    Sith = Red
    New Jedi = Green?
    Imperial Knights = White
    Last edited by SpecForce Trooper, Oct 15, 2017
  16. StarWarsFan91 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2008
    star 4
    I understand that nostalgic reasons played a role in giving Kylo a red blade. Still I'm hoping that his red crossguard is basically the last new red saber. If it survives we could see more of it, but If their is a new trilogy after ST, the villain shouldn't wield red. Their can still be a "future" for more red sabers, it's called RoT Sith anthology or the vast ToR eras.
    Last edited by StarWarsFan91, Oct 15, 2017
  17. EmperorHorus Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2016
    star 2
    I'd say there's a good chance that future films/trilogies will have a more creative and original villain & characters. The push for OT-similarity in TFA was largely because of the poor reception of the prequels IMO
    AusStig likes this.
  18. DarthPhilosopher Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2011
    star 4
    To make Kylo and Snoke Sith is silly for several reasons:

    a) Firstly it pointlessly shrinks the universe by making every Sith-like character a Sith. It's like if Indiana Jones post-1945 made every fascistic villain Nazis. Sure they could make all villains who are fascistic Nazi's or Neo-Nazi's, but why not make them another fascist-like organisation and add nuance? In real world history there isn't one organisation that is behind every conflict, that is destroyed and restored, again and again. I too would like there to be difference between Kylo/Snoke and the Sith; but even if they are very similar I don't see that as a reason to just make them Sith.

    b) It would needlessly complicate the whole 'Anakin destroyed the Sith'.
    Last edited by DarthPhilosopher, Oct 15, 2017
    Gamiel and darklordoftech like this.
  19. EmperorHorus Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2016
    star 2
    They already are tbh. As far as the films and most of the EU is concerned there is really no definition for "Sith" other than "Dark-Side Force User". All you're really arguing against here is whether or not they should be called "Sith".

    If there had been any real definition of what Sith and what they stand for in any of the previous films then it would be an opportunity for this to be something different, but there never was.

    If they use the Dark Side of the Force, wear black, have red lightsabers and want to take over the Galaxy . . . then they're Sith.

    I agree with what you say in that it would need them to be special in some way to differentiate them from the Sith in other films, but it really doesn't look like that's happening.
    AusStig, SpecForce Trooper and Ghost like this.
  20. DarthPhilosopher Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2011
    star 4
    Except there is already an implicit standard in the nuCanon that the definition 'dark side user wearing black' isn't the definition of a Sith. Ventress isn't a Sith and nor are the Inquisitors or post-ROTS Maul, despite meeting this definition. Ahsoka, similarly, isn't a Jedi. By making this broad definition applicable the tension of Luke being the last Jedi is also removed, because, hey, someone could just come along, find a holocron, and declare themselves the next Jedi.

    It makes sense that a Sith needs to be trained by another Sith, otherwise any notion of destroying them would be like trying to nail down smoke.
    Gamiel and darklordoftech like this.
  21. darklordoftech Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 30, 2012
    star 6
    Most people I know think that "Sith" refers exclusively to Palpatine. They think that Palpatine is part of a race called "the Sith" that the Jedi wiped out in ancient times. I know that OT merchandise referred to Vader as a "Dark Lord of the Sith", but how many people remember merchandise from that long ago?
  22. EmperorHorus Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2016
    star 2
    You're missing my point. As I said, not every "dark side user wearing black" is called "Sith", but the way they are portrayed they might as well be, because there is no differentiating factor.
    Ghost and SpecForce Trooper like this.
  23. DarthPhilosopher Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2011
    star 4
    To be honest I think this is lacking any nuance. A Sith is an individual who has been trained by another Sith and who has been ordained a Sith by their Sith master. Sure, to the lay person the Sith may be the same as Ventress and the Inquisitors, but that doesn't make is so, and it doesn't mean the storytellers should just throw out all nuance. It's like saying 'well the Coptic Pope and the Catholic Pope act the same, therefore all Christians are basically Catholics even if they technically aren't'. I assume you also don't like the idea that Ahsoka isn't a Jedi, because she basically is for all intense and purposes, apart from the fact that she technically isn't.

    Should Kylo/Snoke be distinct? Sure. If they aren't should they just be called Sith? No.
    Last edited by DarthPhilosopher, Oct 16, 2017
    Gamiel and darklordoftech like this.
  24. EmperorHorus Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2016
    star 2
    Yes, pretty much. Your analogy is strange though, presumably Catholics and Coptics have discernible differences, unlike the Sith/non-Sith in question.

    Ahsoka not being a Jedi is obviously very different because we have been given significant background on the Jedi Order, how they operate, their chain of command and what they stand for, which led to Ahsoka leaving.

    As you said, "A Sith is an individual who has been trained by another Sith and who has been ordained a Sith by their Sith master" --> none of this tells us anything except that they are called "Sith".

    There is nothing at this stage differentiating Snoke & Kylo Ren from Sidious, Vader, Maul & Dooku. For Snoke & Kylo Ren not being Sith to mean anything, that has to change.
  25. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 8
    I think the biggest argument against bringing the Sith back is they are a crutch like the Borg.

    Yes, I'm fusing fandoms.

    I love Borg.

    The Borg are awesome.

    I also think if you use the Borg too much, you dilute what makes the Borg effective.

    And I was glad when they wiped them out permanently and irrevocably in the Star Trek novels.
    darklordoftech likes this.