Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond (Archive)' started by CoolyFett, Dec 8, 2012.
Let's keep the EU discussion to the EU thread, please. That's why it's there.
We are sorry, is it ok if we try to include the EU in EP 7 as best we can?
That's what the thread is for. Link's at the top of the forum.
I'm not assuming either.
I just know
No they just had a different opinion than you. I rather enjoyed the prequels, but I realize that is pretty subjective. I would be hesitant to call someone as wrong for not liking one film as much as the other. They just value various elements differently than I do. Does that make them wrong for disagreeing with our opinion? Nope.
No it doesn't. -Darth Boba
Yeah, I felt the same way about Legacy. Loved the villains, though, Darth Nihl in particular.
As for the Thrawn stuff, I would absolutely love to see that adapted to the big screen, in the animation style of Avatar or the Final Fantasy movies.
Let's keep the EU discussion to the stickied EU thread at the top of the forum, please.
For those who are curious as to what I had to say about how much weight Lucas' words hold:
Don't get me wrong; I like George Lucas. However, he's been known to change his mind a few times about SW over the course of the last several decades, as is his right. Given that history, for someone to say they definitively know what will/won't happen in the next set of movies based on interviews that will be upwards of twenty years old by the time the movies are released is something of a stretch.
You said it pretty well. There is nothing wrong with George changing his mind. I merely realize that there is a good chance he will, and thus do not base the entire plot off of a quote form an interview that can't really even be fully used to make argument that is being presented here. I think some people backlash when we say George is known to change his mind because they assume we are speaking poorly of him for it. The dude has every right to change his mind on his work. I do it too.
Using only the movies and their novelizations to support their answer, here’s another question for the “Sith Naysayers:”
How did the very first Sith Lord come into being?
The movies & novelization-only answer would be (based on TPM novel)- 2000 years ago a Jedi rejected the Jedi Order and founded the Sith order.
Here we go - censorship. There is no way that post caused offence to anyone..
I'd like to see it as part of an animated series or straight to iTunes/BluRay releases like the DC animated films.
I'm not really a "Sith Naysayer", but my answer would be "who cares?"
I'm really not at all opposed to Sith showing up, I just don't think they HAVE to show up, either.
Some people think the Sith have been destroyed and shouldn't show up again. I don't see a problem with that. I don't see a problem with having someone use the dark side and not be called a Sith. I also don't see a problem with a Jedi falling to the dark side and not being called a Sith.
Call them a "dark jedi" or a "darksider" or whatever, or don't even give them a proper name at all. If someone in universe asks, just say they use/fell to the dark side.
I definitely don't see why anyone would immediately scream "SITH" after a Jedi falls, or after encountering someone who uses the dark side. Is anyone in universe even familiar with the term? The name isn't mentioned at all in the OT, so it's possible/probable that Luke doesn't know the term. If Luke's relative falls, do you think he would immediately label him/her as Sith? Luke's reaction would more likely be "(s)he's fallen to the dark side, (s)he needs help", not "OMG SITH!"
A fallen Jedi isn't always a Sith. Sometimes Jedi just fall.
Exactly! A Sith Lord is actually nothing more than a Jedi Knight/Master who looked at the Jedi Code and said “**** that!”
Is that what people are really trying to suggest? Because Anakin Skywalker performed the body-slam of the century, no Jedi would say “well this sucks! Gimme my black robes and red lightsaber!” ever again?
I can respect this opinion, and actually falls similarly in line with me. I certainly do not think sith have to be in the films, but it is pointless with zero legs to stand on to say it is impossible for them to return.
In the EU there's a bit more to it than that- it explains where the word Sith comes from (an alien race)- and how "Sith Lords" came from a group of fallen Jedi who fled the Republic, came to the worlds of that alien empire, and became its leads, its Lords- "Lords of the Sith".
Blame Uncle George for all that, because he’s the one to apply the term in the first place. There actually isn’t any distinction between the two, really.
In the movies, we never see any Fallen Jedi that aren't Sith. In TCW however, there's characters like Krell, Ventress (sort of- had Jedi training) and so forth.
Are Fallen Jedi basically the same as Dark Jedi?
Or are they Jedi that have fallen down and can't get up?
A Jedi who no longer follows the Jedi Code, could be said to have "Fallen"
To qualify as "Dark" they must use the Dark Side of the Force.
I'm not sure how you can read my comment and then think there's any need to assign blame to anyone. I like the Sith just fine and have no problem with them being in the ST.
I definitely see a distinction, but that's just my opinion.
So was Dooku considered one of the Fallen before he went to the Dark Side? You know since he left the Jedi Order?