Lit Should the Sith return post-ROTJ?

In the new canon, do you think the Sith Order should eventually return after RoTJ?

Or unlike the old canon, they should just stay dead, and Sith appearing in future works should stay pre-RoTJ?

 

What I think is that labels should be re-worked. They are far too narrow in actuality and much too broad in practice.

 

SW needs to move away from a mono-vision. It became in Legends that any darksider was deemed Sith and the term got horribly diluted.

I don't think bringing them back would aid this.

 

Nooooo

I think the proliferation of Sith in the EU starting in 2006 was awful.

What 7 is doing is what I've been saying the EU should have done for years.

 

No, though I partially say that because then they'd have to dig into the Republic's past for new stories that feature Sith.

 

Agreed.

The mass market commercialisation of the term "Sith" is what makes me a bit apprehensive about what to expect in the future.

For me, from a quality perspective, I'd prefer they not have more Sith, as it gets stale and cliched, but... clearly some of the marketing people think Darth This and Darth That has more sales value, so... as successful as not using Sith in the early EU was, it's in the hands of the gods at the moment what the Disney PR machine are thinking...

I know Rebels only has the Inquisitor, but.. Rebels can also use Darth Vader's image, which the ST might not be able to connect with as directly, so... I'm sorta resigned to Kylo Ren ending up becoming a Sith at some point, even if the only actual Sith Lord is more of a background figure like the Emperor originally was.

Having said that, there's another part of me that thinks the TOR PR people were narrow-minded and put too much weight on the word "Sith", as I often ask myself: do most ordinary fans even know what a "Sith" means? People know the word Jedi, that's widespread, but... I tested this on my mother once a few years back, and she called Vader a Jedi before I reminded her of the term Sith, which makes me sometimes wonder if the EU has oversold the importance of calling everything Sith.

 

But what distinguishes Kylo Ren from the other Sith?

He looks like a Sith, behaves like a Sith.

Supreme Leader Snoke is talking like a Sith.




You can't have Sith in all but name, and declare you invented a new, orginal, non-Sith darkside enemy.

 

Tell that to the Inquisitor.

 

How do we know how Kylo Ren acts?

 

Why not? How many Abrahamic religions do we have, again? Same principle applies.

The Sith were a specific dark side tradition.

 

Official promo images show him engaging in Sithy things, like burning down a village.

And how would these guys be any different?

What would be the point in create a new, dark-sider organization that looks and talks and behaves just like the Sith? What would be the point in creating that kind of confusion?

 

I don't mind the Sith or any dark siders like them, but if really had to choose a certain kind of villain(s) it would be the Rakatan Infinite Empire. Simply because it's different than simple Sith and dark jedi to an extent, and it still feels like Star Wars. We'll see where the ST takes us though, this whole Knights of Ren thing might be more interesting than the Sith we've seen in the movies so far.

 

Bad guys tend to do bad stuff.

I suppose we should just call all bad guys Sith.

 

A different name worked fine for the Nightsisters and Inquisitors.

This is what makes me sometimes question how much the average audience cares what the bad guys call themselves, and why I noted the people I've asked who've sometimes just called Vader a Jedi in conversation, due to the term never even being used in the OT, and the PT never actually explaining "what" it means, beyond Anakin simply being meant to destroy these "Sith".

I'd be quite happy for the Dark Side to be reinforced as the actual threat again, and what made the Jedi special be their ability to survive and keep going, whereas-- if Kylo was not a Sith-- it would show the dark side wasn't as capable of being a unified, stable group like those who followed the light side and remained together, as it'd convey the idea that the dark side is more fragmented and chaotic, with people being selfish and not all part of the same, singular order?

TL;dr It'd be sorta cool for the Jedi Order to be unique, and us to drop the idea of a Sith Order, but to instead convey the idea that only the light side could remain stable, and the dark side just be a bunch of disorganised, splintered, independent sects, each with their own selfish motives.

 

Different techniques, religious practices, philosophy, theology, goals, traditions . . . less of an existential threat, perhaps. Who knows?

"Sith" is not, or at least shouldn't be, a catch all term for anyone with a bad attitude carrying a red lightsaber. Any more than "Jedi" should be a catch all term for anyone who can use the Force. (Even though it's understandable why that would be the case for the layman, IU and OOU)

 

We haven't seen the movie. No other Sith hero-worship though. They don't have that type of lightsaber either.

Not all authoritarian regimes are Nazi's. Not all Christians are Catholics.

Sith is not an adjective.

 

This is a cool idea. The Rule of Two was also designed to deal with the problem of order among dark siders. Though where the RoT dealt with that problem by narrowing the Sith down to two people, the next dark side movement may deal with it by allowing dark side use to expand unlimitedly.

 

Yeah, we should call all dark-siders Sith. Because that's one defines Sith.

There is only one thing that fits all Sith: embracing use of the dark side.

You can have totalitarian Sith, anarchist Sith, corporatist, Sith etc. In the movies, we've only seen what a Sidious-led Sith order is like.

There's no ideology that connects the Sith, other than embracing use of the dark side.

But why purposely create an organization that is Sith in all but name?

The Sith already have no unifying techniques, religious practices, philosophies, goals, etc.

What little the Sith MIGHT have to define themselves, dressing in black and wielding a red lightsaber, Kylo Ren is doing.

 

In the EU. which is why they were terrible

 

Like I just edited in above:

What little the Sith MIGHT have to define themselves, dressing in black and wielding a red lightsaber, Kylo Ren is doing.

(And it seems like he and the First Order are just as interested in order as Palpatine/Vader. And his obsession with the past seems to make me think he'll have a grudge against Luke and any Jedi, or anyone who dares possess a lightsaber).

 

Why not "have Sith in all but name, and declare you invented a new, orginal, non-Sith darkside enemy"?

 

Then what's the point in not naming them Sith? What purpose does it serve?

Some people are already like "I'm so happy the Sith are not the villains anymore, something new! A red lightsaber-wielding masked villain in a dark suit who's obsessed with the past and wants to restore order to the galaxy, and uses the dark side!"

 

What?