A Jedi does not have Revenge.

Wow, I was just thinking Revenge of the Sith is a perfect title for the new film. Originally as you all know Return of the Jedi was supposed to be named Revenge of the Jedi. Then about a week before its realese George changed the name to Return of the Jedi because QUOTE "A Jedi does not get Revenge" according to GL.

So all in all ROTS is a perfect name for the new film because Sith have revenge and Jedi do not!

The last installment to the Star Wars Trilogy will tie everything together just nicely.

 

I agree, I don't see why some people hate it, I think it is better than "The Birth of the Empire" one that was going around.

 

Sort of, except Revenge for what? And who (no EU please) are the Sith to be vengeful? It's too prequel to the prequel for me.

 

GL explained this in an interview when the title was announced - at one stage, the Sith dominated the galaxy, but were wiped out by the Jedi, who then became the dominant order. They want revenge on the Jedi. It's all there in TPM:

Darth Maul: At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge.

Ki-Adi-Mundi: Impossible! The Sith have been extinct for a millennia!

Put two and two together - the Jedi wiped out the Sith, the Sith want revenge.

 

Yeah, but it's too backstory for a title - even from your explanation it works better as a title for TPM. It's like calling a movie about D Day "Revenge of the Allies" but not telling any of the story about the earlier part of the war.

 

Well, if you look at it as all one big story rather than six individual movies, if you follow the story, it's set out in TPM that the Sith want revenge and the Jedi believe them dead, but the movie is The Phantom Menace, because all the bad guys are mysterious and in the background. Then you watch AotC, and then you get to the roll-up of Ep III, and it's REVENGE OF THE SITH - you think, wow, are the Sith really going to get their revenge? It's already set out in TPM that the Sith want revenge, and then they finally get it in RotS. They don't achieve their revenge in TPM, but that's where it starts - the revenge is only complete in RotS.

 

Take all your points, but still think it is a curious title. If wonder if GL feels he bottled out not using Revenge of the Jedi and wants seconds...

 

Well, one of the sole reasons we have multiple Episodes instead of just STARWARS is because Lucas felt "bottled out" by having to cut it all into pieces. So that probably IS one of the reasons Revenge is getting it's title.

Plus it's the whole drive of the Sith - their entire scheme is based on getting revenge on the Jedi, this is established very early on. We don't know why but i guess RotS will tell us.

 

For some strange reason, what if Lucas **had** to change one of the six titles?

I'd vote for Revenge of the Sith. Why?

Let's go in order of when the films were made: First, the *fact* of the matter is that A New Hope will always be known as Star Wars. That's just a statement of obvious fact. To argue the point is, well, pointless. Even so, A New Hope is a title that the average film goer will not question. In the end, the average film goers are the ones seeing these movies.

Next, we have The Empire Strikes Back. This, again to the average person, makes sense. The title speaks for itself.

Return of the Jedi is the same way. The fact of it is that everyone knows what a Jedi is. It is officially part of our lexicon; even those that have NEVER seen the films knows what a Jedi is.

The Phantom Menace also makes sense, regarding now broad Star Wars knowledge. People know what a 'phantom' is and what 'menace' means.

Attack of the Clones is a great, fun title that, to me more than any of the others, reaches back to the pulp sci-fi days Lucas loves so much. People know what the term 'clone' means, and they, well, attack.

However, we then reach Revenge of the Sith. I'm going to just state in a very blunt fashion that the word 'Sith' will **never** be a part of our language, like Jedi. The absolute vast majority of people that see the movie, or think about seeing it, are going to say to themselves, "What in the hell is a Sith? Some type of animal, an automobile?" The term 'Sith' is never mentioned in the first three films that were released. It is also not mentioned nearly enough in the two newer films to be grasped.

To add to that, look at the other five titles. Every one of them does not require one to scratch his or her head. The Phantom Menace, again, makes sense. It gives the idea that there is some type of puppet master hovering over the events in this film. A menace, a threat, that cannot be grasped. You do not need to see the movie at all to get an idea of what the title means. Attack of the Clones is the same way. Before you even sit in your seat, you KNOW the clones are, well, going to attack. Jump ahead to A New Hope. What will this movie be about? Of course, a new hope! What does the Empire do in the film from 1980? It strikes back. Before you even SEE it, you get the idea that the Empire saw a defeat and is not taking it lightly. Return of the Jedi, too, gives the viewer an idea before he or she even arrives at the theater (or at home nowadays). Again, the term 'Jedi' is well known, and by the term 'return' makes it sound almost epic. Revenge of the Sith, though, is going to leave people scratching their heads. Once again: first, what in the hell is a freak'n Sith? Second, they/she/he/it/whatever is seaking revenge? Uhm, okay.

People seem to jump, for some reason, on The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones when, in reality, The Empire Strikes Back is just as ridiculous of a title, but time makes people forget things. In the end, Revenge of the Sith is simply a bad title all around. This is not saying a THING about the films themselves, absolutely not. Here I am only speaking of the titles.

Brandon

 

The title isn't bad. It beats "Rise of the Empire".

 

The title *is* a bad title, though. As for "Rise of the Empire," it's a non-issue, really. Had it been used (which I doubt was EVER an option), then maybe we would be having this conversation now... maybe not. Who knows.

Brandon

 

The title *is* a bad title

Please don't put words in my mouth.

EDIT: Errrrr, allow me to clarify before I'm prosecuted for being rude, which I did NOT intend on being: you definitely have a point about moviegoers possibly not understanding the term "Sith", but I was taken back by you saying that the title was bad as if it were plain fact, even though I love it.

 

A Jedi does not have Revenge.

I'd argue that point

[image=http://www.eleves.ens.fr/home/marcq/lukevader.jpg]
[image=http://www.petridish.net/pics/12097/re.JPG]
[image=http://www.petridish.net/pics/12097/venge.JPG]

 

Luke wasn't taking revenge in ROTJ. He was acting upon anger, which is wrong also, but of course he overcame it and threw down his weapon. In any case, it wasn't revenge.

Anakin was getting revenge, but of course we know that this was the beginning of his downfall and was not the right thing to do. This starts him down the path of the darkside and tears him away from the Jedi.

Obi-Wan did not take revenge either. He and his master were already in a fierce battle with Darth Maul, and he had intended from the beginning to kill the Sith lord. This wasn't revenge either. This was also a defensive fight as the Sith Lord attacked first.

Lastly, when George stated 'a Jedi doesn't take revenge', he meant that it was not a trait of a good person to seek revenge. This is proven in the climax of Return of the Jedi, when Luke does not take the easy way out, and instead displays the true nature of a Jedi and choses good over evil.

 

You're right about the Revenge of the Jedi title. The Jedi don't have revenge, but before the actual final concepts for Return of the Jedi came into focus, Lucas kind of wanted to make something happen to make the Jedi take revenge much like the Sith did in the prequals. By the time the finals came in, Revenge of the Jedi never really fit so Lucas just decided on the title we have today.

I'd argue that point

Most of the time Jedi do block off that kind of human emotion. In the three scenarios in the three images you've provided, each has a different meaning.

Luke knew nothing about the rules of the old Jedi Order. He was fighting on his own accord. Anakin was a straying individual from the Jedi order. Obi-Wan was angry, but that only stimulated him to defeat Maul. Otherwise, he would have lost if he would've fought in anger.

 

"Revenge of the Sith, though, is going to leave people scratching their heads. Once again: first, what in the hell is a freak'n Sith? Second, they/she/he/it/whatever is seaking revenge? Uhm, okay. "

Anyone that doesn't know what a Sith is, who the Sith are represented by or that they want Revenge on the Jedi, really has no business seeing RotS.

I mean it's a third act, with the first 2 acts more than enough times mentioning the dark lords of the Sith. It's even blatantly said that they want and they'll have their revenge on the Jedi.

Not to mention it being followed by 3 films where the Galaxy is under control by these dark lords.

Revenge of the Sith basically tells you "this is where the banthapoodo hits the fan".

It sets the tone immediately.

If you're gonna look at it from a perspective of one who hasn't seen or hasn't any knowledge on Star Wars, then you could do it for any title.

Clones Attacking ? Who are the Clones and why are they attacking ? WHO are they attacking ?

Phantom Menace ? Who is the phantom menace ? why isn't it a blatant menace ? why is it a menace ? to who is it menacing ?

A New Hope ? why a 'new' hope ? for who is it a new hope ? etc etc...

 

Which is why you shouldn't try figuring out a sequel(or prequel in this case), without seeing the films made before it. Anyone who saw the previous films should understand Episode III and its title. If you haven't, then see them before wasting $7.50 on a movie that you'll have to go see again.