Why weren't the Sith mentioned by name in the OT?

Surely, the term Dark Lord of the Sith had been heard long before the Prequel Trilogy. But all you heard was that Darth Vader was the Dark Lord of the Sith. You never hear the Emperor in the OT as being called the Dark Lord of the Sith, let alone Darth Sidious. By the time Palpatine rises to ultimate power, he does it as the Supreme Chancellor of the Republic and transforms the Republic to a Galatic Empire but since most people except for the Separatists didn't know him as Sidious, he remains Emperor Palpatine and not Darth Sidious.

Hence, the terms to refer to Vader and Palpatine in books was Dark Siders and Dark Jedi instead of Sith Lords.

Thoughts?

 

...I'm just wondering how long it will take for someone to bring up the "Darth = Dark Lord of the Sith" theory...

 

But the term Sith should have been used in the OT. It was used countless times in the PT. I know what Darth means. I'm just wondering why the term Sith or Sith Lord or Dark Lord of the Sith wasn't mentioned at all in the OT. Mark Hamill did mention the term in an old documentary called From Star Wars To Jedi but that was the only time before the prequel trilogy I heard it.

 

In one of the ROTJ storybooks, there was a page at the start with photos of all the characters. Underneath this picture was the legend "Dark Lord of the Sith"

[image=http://internetservices.readingeagle.com/blog/zeke/archives/Darth%20Vader/Darth%20Vader.jpg]

 

My guess is that it wasn't really necessary to the story. Vader is referred to as "Lord Vader," but that's as close as we get to "Dark Lord of The Sith." Perhaps it was to keep the mystery open. Remember how mysterious Darth Vader & the Emperor's past was? We were always wondering how they came to power. Why was ANH Episode 4? There was so much mystery. I think this was another reason we loved the OT so much - The mysteries kept us guessing.

Another thought... The Jedi & Sith in the PT were the ones talking about the Sith. In the OT, the only characters that may have even known what a Sith was, may have been Obi-Wan, Yoda, Vader & The Emperor. Obi-Wan & Yoda may have felt it not necessary to explain what a Sith was to Luke. He got the point that Vader was a former Jedi and was now evil. That was all he needed to know.

This brings up another question: Was "Sith" a term only used between force users? To the average person, they might call the person an evil or dark Jedi. According to Yoda, there can only ever be two Sith at one time, so this would probably make the term a very rare one. Even a Jedi who turned to the Dark Side wouldn't necessarily be a Sith. I think the reason it was used so much in the PT, was because it was huge news that the Sith had returned. In the OT, there were just two Sith in charge of the Empire, but perhaps no one else other than Obi-Wan & Yoda knew that they were actually called Sith.

 

Well, if we take a look at the early ANH scripts, it's pretty clear why the Sith are never mentioned in that film. They simply don't need to be.

Early on, there were going to be lots of Sith in the first film: a whole contingent of dark Force users, of whom Vader was the #2 man in the hierarchy. These other minor Sith were all eliminated in later script revisions, and Vader became the only one left. Once the concept of an established Sith Order with lots of acolytes was dropped from the film, there was no longer any need to explain what exactly the Sith were. It was sufficient to say that Vader was a fallen Jedi, who betrayed Luke's father and helped create the Empire.

Also, in early ANH drafts, the Grand Master of the Sith Order, to whom Vader was the right-hand man, was established as somebody entirely separate from the Emperor. I suspect that when ANH was being shot, Lucas still hadn't decided whether the Emperor was really a Sith or not. However, when Vader became the fallen Anakin Skywalker in ESB, it was now necessary to have an arch-Sith ranking above Vader, somebody evil enough to have turned Luke's virtuous father to darkness. Plus, if Vader can no longer be the true villain of the next film, somebody else needs to be! This is where the Emperor as the chief Sith and evil mastermind comes in.

Certainly, the Sith could've been mentioned by name in ROTJ, when the Emperor's true Force power is revealed. But I suspect Lucas was trying to leave matters intentionally vague, so he could have a free hand if he ever made those prequels that were in the back of his mind.

Oh, and the term "Darth"? That was simply Darth Vader's first name, as conceived well before he was retconned into Anakin Skywalker. Also, the name was never intended to mean "dark father" in any Scandinavian/Germanic language... in an interview from the time of ANH, Lucas admits that the original meaning of Vader's name was Dark Water.

 

Because when Star Wars was released the story being told didn't involve the Sith specifically. Only when the Emperor transformed into the character he became did the whole Sith Order thing come into play. Starting to talk about The Sith in subsequent movies when it had never been mentioned earlier was probably seen as creating confusion and continuity issues. Ironic innit?

 

Originally, Palpatine was supossed to be a feeble old man put into power as a puppet leader. Then was later re-wrtten to be the Dark Lord Sidious.

In KOTOR II, a refugee explains that although people knew of the term Sith, it was just another name for Jedi to a lot of people in the crossfire. Since most of the Sith were fallen Jedi anyway. So it can be pressumed the same logic would work with Vader.

Although the Emperor and Vader followed the rule of two, they still had Dark Jedi underneath they're command, like the Emperor's hand, even though use of the Force was banned. At any rate, many of those Dark Jedi may have called themselves Sith anyway.


As for the absence of the name Sith, no it really wasn't nescessary for the story.

 

While the term was never used in any of the films of the OT, Darth Vader was always referred to in the novelisations & comics as a (or the) Dark Lord Of The Sith. It also popped up in storybooks, magazine articles & so on.
The novelisation of ANH actually has a little bit of elaboration, although it's all somewhat ambiguous:

Vader's entrance

Two meters tall. Bipedal. Flowing black robes trailing from the figure and a face forever masked by a functional if bizarre black metal breath screen - a Dark Lord of the Sith was an awesome, threatening shape as it strode through the corridors of the rebel ship.
Fear followed the footsteps of all the Dark Lords. The cloud of evil which clung tight about this particular one was intense enough to cause hardened Imperial troops to back away, menacing enough to set them muttering nervously among themselves. Once-resolute rebel crew members ceased resisting, broke and ran in panic at the sight of the black armor - armor which, though black as it was, was not nearly as dark as the thoughts drifting through the mind within.

Prior to the conference of Imperial officers:

'I tell you, he's gone too far this time,' the General was insisting vehemently. 'This Sith Lord inflicted on us at the urging of the Emperor will be our undoing. Until the battle station is fully operational, we remain vulnerable.'

Vader's thoughts before the destruction of Alderaan

Despite his advances and intricate technological methods of annihilation, the actions of mankind remained unnoticeable to an uncaring, unimaginably vast universe. If Vader's grandest plans ever came to pass, all that would change.
He was well aware that despite all their intelligence and drive, the vastness and wonder were lost on the two men who continued to chatter monkeylike behind him. Tarkin and Motti were talented and ambitious, but they saw things only on the scale of human pettiness. It was a pity, Vader thought, that they did not possess the scope to match their abilities.
Still, neither man was a Dark Lord. As such, little more could be expected of them. These two were useful now. and dangerous, but someday they, like Alderaan, would have to be swept aside. For now he could not afford to ignore them. And while he would have preferred the company of equals, he had to admit reluctantly that at this point, he had no equals.

Certainly by this stage, the Sith had evolved beyond the conception of a band of pirates into a far more fearsome & powerful organisation, although the second excerpt does suggest that they were still mercenaries operating separately to the Empire, & not regarded with much respect. One is reminded of the mobsters employing the services of the Joker in The Dark Knight.
The line in the first excerpt - 'Fear followed the footsteps of all the Dark Lords' - could be taken to imply that there were meant to be other Sith Lords in existence at this stage apart from Vader (which was the case in the third draft).

As to why the term never appeared in the films - not necessary. By the time he was writing the shooting script, GL was trying to simplify matters, so there really wasn't any point in referring to an organisation which has no specific impact on the story, & which he most likely hadn't completely decided the nature of anyway.

 

Yes, the mentioning of the Sith wasn't necessary in the OT, but the fact that it wasn't mentioned now seems very strange if you're trying to view the films as a 1-6 saga.

 

Why? It's mentioned in the PT, and isn't necessary in the OT.

 

If Lucas had made the films 1,2,3,4,5,6, do you think he would've completely eliminated the word Sith from 4-6 when it had been such a major part of 1-3? It's not like they were just mentioned in the PT and then disappeared. They were major characters, pivotal to the story in the PT and they were running the galaxy in the OT. Surely worth at least a passing reference in 6 hours of film.

 

It is something of a hole - one would expect it to be uttered at least once - but I don't consider it to be too much of an omission. Given the dialogue & scenes in the finished films, referring to the Sith Order simply isn't necessary, partly because most of the characters didn't know who they were. As far as I know, the galaxy at large was unaware that they were being ruled by a 1000-year-old, two-man death cult. An evil Empire, yes, but not what amounted to evil Jedi.

As for those who did know - Palpatine & Vader wouldn't have been constantly using the term between themselves, and Obi-Wan & Yoda may have been witholding the information from Luke, like so much else.

I know that's a rationalisation, but I can't think of any dialogue or situations in the OT which would necessarily be improved in any way with the inclusion of the term. It might have perhaps fit into Luke & Obi-Wan's very first conversation about the Jedi, the Force & everything else, and maybe their final conversation on Dagobah, but such specific information about the users of the Dark Side was more detail than was needed, either for the audience, or a very confused & vulnerable Luke.

 

Brilliant explaination. The reason I think the Sith weren't mentioned by name in the OT was mainly because there weren't a legion of Jedi unlike the PT. As an Order, they knew who the Sith were and what they were. But as disorganized as the Jedi were in the OT, there was no need to have the the Sith mentioned. Together by Yoda, they are mentioned only as "Vader and his Emperor"

 

^^^ Agreed with Nub and mjerome3

Dude, it's a flippin' word. Despite the lack of the word in the OT, the Sith are still there. It doesn't change the story one iota. The OT wasn't mared by its omission prior to the PT, and the PT makes enough use of it. What did you want - for Lucas to go back AGAIN and sprinkle the word "Sith" around in the OT so that it makes "more sense"?

Seriously, what's the deal?

 

There's probably a number of reasons why the Sith Lords aren't mentioned as such in the OT. I would say it's because they still exists at the time of the OT and we know that they use the Dark Side of the Force. Yoda told Luke what the dark side was. Anger, aggression, etc. We saw the Emperor and Vader use the Force in an angry and aggressive way. Darth Vader is referred to numerous times as Lord Vader by his fellow Imperial officers. He's thus a Lord of the Sith.

 

This would have flowed nicely:

VADER: What is thy bidding, my Sith master?

EMPEROR: There is a great disturbance in the Force, Sith.

VADER: I have felt it, Sith.

EMPEROR: We Sith have a new enemy -- Luke Skywalker.

VADER: Yes, my master Sith.

EMPEROR: He could destroy us Sith.

VADER: He's just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him.

EMPEROR: The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not
become a Jedi.

VADER: If he could be turned, he would become a powerful ally... of the Sith.

EMPEROR: Yes. Yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done, Sith?

VADER: He will join us Sith or die, my master.

 

You guys are right. Lucas could actually have made the OT without using the word Jedi either and it wouldn't seem strange at all subsequently watching the films in a 1-6 order.

 

You forgot to add a SITH in the last line after "my master."

 

Save for the fact that the OT is about Luke's journey to become a Jedi, and the climax of the Saga is about Anakin returning to the Jedi fold.

But hey, don't let the plot get in the way of your drama.

 

It's just a flippin' word, dude. Why bother with it?

 

Another reason the term isn't missed - the Sith Order as it had existed before was basically redundant. Palpatine & Vader had all but exterminated the Jedi & taken control of the galaxy, so the purpose of this secret cult had been fulfilled. It was now time for the two Dark Lords to embrace their roles as rulers of an Empire.

Certainly they both continued to practice the way of the Dark Side when necessary, but by the time of the OT, the whole 'Sith thing' was probably something they didn't regard as relevant. The Rule Of Two didn't seem to be important to them, & it could be argued that this abandonment of the ways of an Order which had survived a millennium in the shadows led to their ultimate downfall.

 

Do you think they were over the Rule of Two? I haven't watched ROTJ through for ages so I may have missed something, but I've always thought that in the movies at least, The Emperor was unlikely to have more than one Skywalker at once as an apprentice. I thought the plan was either for Luke to turn to the DS and kill his father in the process, or else Luke wouldn't turn in which case he would be toast and D. Vader would carry on as 2ic .

 

I think the perfect place to stick the word "Sith" in Ep. IV-VI would be in the opening crawl for ESB. In the second paragraph, instead of saying "The evil lord Darth Vader...", they could EASILY change it to: "...The Sith lord Darth Vader..." or "...The evil Sith Lord Darth Vader..."

That would do it for me...

 

That is how I saw it. I found kind of confusing that Vader didn't betray Palpatine then and there and try to recruit Luke as his apprentice. Especially given the fact Anakin was ready to try and challenge Palpatine in ROTS when he was trying to get Padme to join him.