Lit Should Disney bring back the Sith?

Would you be okay with Star Trek introducing a "new antagonist" that was functionally identical to the Borg called the Cyb?

(As an aside, have we ever seen a non-Sith employ Force lightning in the new canon? Obviously it happened all the time in the EU, but I'm wondering if that might be another way to distinguish Snoke from Palpatine.

Along with the fact that he now loves GOOOOOOLD, of course.)

 

It's diversity!

a) it wouldn't shrink the universe, it would just make sense (this doesn't nearly shrink the universe as much as many other things that already happened)... Snoke and Kylo worship the Sith, have the same goals, it would make sense they would call themselves Sith

b) The existence of Snoke and Kylo make "but at least Anakin destroyed the Sith" the most pointless argument ever.

 

Uh, excuse me? They're totally different. For one thing the Cyb don't say "Resistance is futile" but rather "Struggle is pointless".

Though it could be argued that their hero worship of the Sith (assuming that's even true: so far it's hero worship of Vader, isn't it?) is why they wouldn't take the mantle for themselves.

 

Only to come back in Star Trek Online.

 

Coptics and Catholics are discernibly different, yes, but that's only because they are real world organisation and not viewed through the prism of fiction.

I don't really know why this needs to be explained: the Sith, post-Bane, are an organisation which exists around two members as a concentration of their power. Like most organisations one can not self-declare themselves a member and must be made a member by the organisation itself. The only person who can make one a member is a Sith master with no other Sith above him/her. With the death of both Sidious and Vader the Sith as an organisation ceases to exist. Anyone calling themselves Sith after this are not technically Sith (as we know them) no matter what they declare themselves to be. It's just like anyone calling themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party after 1945 isn't technically the same party as the organisation led by Adolf Hitler. They would be a new organisation going by the same name. In a fictional universe why just call them the same thing when they are technically different? Again, it would be like someone founding the Knights Templar again - no matter how much they dress the same and follow the same rules they are technically two separate entities.

Why? They aren't members of that organisation?

Why? The Sith were clearly the most powerful organisation to oppose the Jedi. A dark sider at the head of a fascist army and a half-baked Jedi Padawan doesn't negate the significance of Anakin's achievement.

 

Palpatine was the greatest threat to face the galaxy. The Sith returning without him wouldn't negate the significance of Anakin's achievement, either.

If the only reason LFL aren't calling Snoke and co. Sith is because "We need to maintain the fact that Anakin destroyed the Sith", then lol.

We already know (thanks to RotS) that the prophecy is open to interpretation, and from there it's as simple as "Oh, we thought it was referring to 'the Sith' as in the order, but it was really referring to 'the Sith' as in Palpatine, specifically".

 

Unless Snoke is from the original Sith Order it seems like a lot of unnecessary explanation just to resurrect the term Sith, when they would technically be a new order going by the same name anyway. Just leave the Sith destroyed at the end of ROTJ and name the new organisation something new. Naming them the 'Sith' again just requires an explanation where one isn't currently needed.

It may work thematically that Luke is witnessing the rise of a new Sith-like Order. By naming them something new it shows that they are something distinct yet similar.

 

If they aren't Sith they should be presented differently. Kylo and Snoke appear to be nothing more than Sith without the name. If they aren't Sith don't give them red sabers, black cloaks, an Imperial faction and a devotion to the Dark Side.

 

I agree that they should be distinct in atleast a philosophical way.

But even if they aren't distinct they don't need to be called Sith.

 

At this point, they might as well retcon the Chosen One bringing balance by saying it's what he does in ROTS--balancing the Force by killing all Jedi until it's down to 2 Sith Lords and 2 Jedi Masters. Hey, why does everyone assume the Force is very nice? (a look at what goes on in the galaxy can confirm it really isn't); the Jedi were arrogant to presume bringing balance meant "our side winning, and the Sith destroyed".

Now, we have 1 major Jedi Master and 1 major dark side user (Luke and Snoke). So... the Force is still balanced...

 

Yes, because Star Wars definitely isn't a morality tale. The point of 'The Force' is that there is an inherent goodness and justness to the universe, and suggesting that the universe requires both evil people and good people is not a moral message. The idea that balance is 1 darksider and 1 lightsider is - to be frank - a very infantile view of the concept Lucas was trying to illustrate. Balance is the interplay between negative and positive energies and how these energies are essential to the order and stability of the universe. The need for life and death, creation and destruction, fear and fearlessness, and how these are essential to one another in order for both to exist. The balance of these two realities of the universe (Jedi), rather than the imbalance of these realities.

 

My post was half a joke. But seriously, it may be a good avenue to explore the "atheist" side of Star Wars--people who acknowledge that Force users have genetic powers, but don't necessarily accept that these powers make them more in tune with the divine, morality, etc. There is no "will of the Force"--this is just talk by the genetically superior with midichlorians to make themselves feel more important.

The Force isn't an entity, it's just a name given by people with midichlorians who take their powers way too seriously. Thus, the Force users have no special claim on what's moral and what's not, and no special claim on what's divine, etc. (Admittedly the existence of Force ghosts throws this in a loop).

These people wouldn't buy Jedi prophecies etc. They'd just accept that Jedi mental powers are adept at calculating increased probabilities of certain events happening, but that's it. Just because the Jedi have powers doesn't make them priests from this point of view. The galaxy's atheists would see Force users claiming to have a connection to religion about as logical as the Marvel universe citizens accepting Charles Xavier and his X-Men have a connection to the divine just because of their powers (i.e. not logical at all).

 

Interesting, but as I've always viewed the Force as being a provable energy field, I would view these 'atheists' as people just denying gravity. Perhaps there are people who don't view the Force as divine though (the definition of divine though becomes murky once 'supernatural' powers become scientific truth. It's questionable if the Jedi even view the Force as uniquely divine, or simply view nature itself as divine.

 

I still think it's a legitimate question though. Say, if certain people being born started being able to harness dark energy and dark matter in the real world to use telekinesis and telepathy (and this can be scientifically proven let's say). Then they expected everyone to start worshipping dark energy and dark matter with themselves as priests declaring what to do and not do--well, we'd all acknowledge they have powers now and a connection to a strong energy source, but I'm not sure how many people would convert to the Church of Dark Matter and Energy (or maybe they will, what do I know?)

 

That's true. I don't think the Jedi have (or are originally meant to have) a very dogmatic ideology. Nor do I think they are particularly evangelical. I view them as supporting a secular society. But I can see people being opposed to the Sith and holding unfair prejudice against the Jedi.

 

Lol that's exactly the point . . . they are "viewed through the prism of fiction". Your looking at some hypothetical scenario where the Sith are a real life group which is simply not relevant.

You've just repeated the same meaningless thing you did before. You've said nothing of the Sith other than that they are called Sith, and your analogy is again equally inaccurate, presumably those 2 parties are different. Snoke/Kylo & the Sith are not different yet.

 

@EmperorHoru whether or not Kylo or Snoke appear as Sith is irrelavent. The Sith are an organisation not merely an ideology. Unless Kylo and Snoke are somehow part of that organisation they are not technically Sith. The point is that in real life there are organisations that are remarkably similar yet distinct - why mus all similar organisations in Star Wars be the same one.

 

Also in the real world, the mainstream just accepts that the modern Olympics are a continuation of the Greek Olympics even though they are 2 complete different entities separated by hundreds of years.

So, just because the Sith died in ROTJ doesn't mean they can't come back. If Kylo and friends, dress like Sith, fight like Sith, talk like Sith, proclaim they want to be just like their Sith grandfather---the rest of the galaxy isn't going to care about the fine details on whether Kylo is skipping Sith Law Section 3 paragraph 5 or whatever. I'm going to guess the rest of the galaxy will just assume these guys are Sith if Kylo says he is a Sith. Sometimes it's just that simple.

Even though people in the know like Luke will know these guys technically aren't Sith to the average citizen, these details will be irrelevant--nothing has been shown to distinguish Kylo from the Sith, to the real world audience or the in-universe galaxy.

 

Yes, but my point is that they are technically different. Why, from a storytelling perspective, make them the same?

 

Yes, you've completely missed my point again.

I've never said "they are officially Sith and are called Sith". In fact I've been saying the opposite, repeatedly, in that not being called Sith is the only difference they have.

 

And I agree. My point is that just because they are the same doesn't mean that they need to be named the same. Why did you engage with my original point if you're just going to misunderstand it?

 

Because Kylo says he wants to finish what Vader started and Rey says he wants to be as powerful as his grandfather. The question is, why wouldn't Kylo try to be a Sith if all he wants is to emulate his grandfather?

If the Catholic Church is dead and you want to be just like the Pope you read in your history book, it's logical to assume whatever group you start will be an attempt to revive the Catholic Church and use the name. The real Catholic Church will not be around to stop you from doing this.

 

Because he technically can't be a Sith. He can create a new organisation and call it the Sith, but this just means the storytellers have to explain that the prophecy was wrong, or sort of right, just the 'other Sith'. Just create something different and avoid the need for an explanation.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but these are based on "real world" reasons and not any thinking that in-universe Kylo would have. Kylo would have no desire to explain away a prophecy he probably views as his grandfather's biggest mistake and be more than happy to stomp on it and say "I brought back the Sith, guess the prophecy was wrong Uncle Luke."

I feel that when you bring in real world reasons "Lucasfilm wants to preserve the prophecy in name only" and use them to override what the characters themselves are established to want, it pulls viewers out from the story and weakens story and character.

 

I think it's clear the prophecy refers to Palpatine's power in particular and that the destruction of the Sith was perhaps the implication. By ressurecting the Sith you now need an explanation when you previously didn't need to explain anything. It's easier for the Sith to end with Palpatine, especially since technically whatever Kylo creates will be different anyway.