Villains revealed?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Old Luke: "Old Ben told me what the Sith were a thing."

Audience: "Uhhh, no he didn't you lying charlatan."

Old Luke: "Oh, my bad, it was Ghost Old Ben, he told me after that sick kegger the Ewoks threw for us."

Audience: "So let me get this straight, of all the information Ben and Yoda told you, not once did they mention on screen that there's probably still an organised element of Sith around beyond the Emperor and Vader? Or that the Sith were a thing at all? Isn't it reasonable to assume that the reason "narratively" that they neglected to mention the Sith as a thing, is because they both thought all that was left was a fallen Jedi and the Emperor? And that the Sith were basically no longer a real thing? Ignoring the fact that they were never really explained narratively in the first place."

Old Luke: "STFU BRO"

I honestly can't see any sane human being not heavily invested in, and only in, the original trilogy and all it contains, actually giving enough of a shit to go through this.

Here's how it'll more likely go.

Old Luke: "Old Ben told me what the Sith were a thing."

Audience: Oh, neat.

Old Luke: The sith were, [exposition], and then they [exposition] in the [exposition].

Audience: Oh wow, thats pretty cool.

EDIT:
Never seen anyone who wasn't the marginal fringe of any fandom discuss that they hate newly added material for its narrative effect, outside of film or literature professors. Nor can I see a average audience goer or highly invested star wars fan, actually going through the exercise of purging all information on star wars they have to actually be like "Well because they didn't mention the sith in the original trilogy, no one should know what they are." or go through the mental gymnastics needed to say the sith aren't a bit deal in star wars, just because of films made decades ago not thinking of it at the time. You said that outside influences having an effect on the story was a bad thing, but I counter to say it is a neccisary thing to keep the audience from thinking the characters are stupid.

Old Luke: What's a sith?

Audience: What do you mean whats a sith? You fought 2 of them, remember? Looks like the actors are going senile in their old age, hope they don't forget any other important information.

 

[Kaeb]

I honestly can't see any sane human being not heavily invested in, and only in, the original trilogy and all it contains, actually giving enough of a shit to go through this.

Here's how it'll more likely go.

Old Luke: "Old Ben told me what the Sith were a thing."

Audience: Oh, neat.

Old Luke: The sith were, [exposition], and then they [exposition] in the [exposition].

Audience: Oh wow, thats pretty cool.

Which again, doesn't make any narrative sense as to why Ben just didn't mention it before.

The more narratively cleaner approach that doesn't sacrifice aspects of Ben or Yoda's character or their trust with Luke, is simply that they didn't know. They just thought it was Palps, his control over the government and the military and their former Jedi ally.

 

[Cortan]

[exposition]

So that's what they're calling it these days.

 

[Kaeb]

Which is to say, as I've said multiple times, they need to reintroduce it as a concept, because when it's introduced into the ST that makes it narratively important, because in relation to the OT which they will continue off of, it isn't.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Which is to say, as I've said multiple times, they need to reintroduce it as a concept, because when it's introduced into the ST that makes it narratively important, because in relation to the which they will continue off of, it isn't.

You know I completely agree.

EDIT:
Though I think expecting luke skywalker to not know what sith are, even if it fits with the narrative, would make audiences more confused them him knowing about the sith. Much like how vader's role was expanded after a new hope because of his popularity, so to have the sith become incredibly popular even with mainstream audiences. So maybe some narrative bending, for the sake of not breaking audiences perspectives of what would and would not be believable, would be okay.

In any case, giving a reason for the sith to be important is probably needed. I would suggest the bad guys declaring themselves sith, even if in name only, so we could get an explanation of their narrative importance, or maybe even just as a spring board for delving into the siths new history and lore, seeing as the old one was kinda decanonized.

 

[Andrewza]

I know we will get more women to watch VII if young ghost obi took his top off.


Any case why would yoda or obi tell luk that pap was a sith. There is no need. Does him knowing his a sith help in a fight? Luke was trained with one goal in mind.

And the CW and a few of the games are seen as cannon and the fans of star wars have seen CW and probaly played KOTR. So the lore estableshed there is relveant to VII and I hope they don't drop all the back story.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

I know we will get more women to watch VII if young ghost obi took his top off.


Any case why would yoda or obi tell luk that pap was a sith. There is no need. Does him knowing his a sith help in a fight? Luke was trained with one goal in mind.

And the CW and a few of the games are seen as cannon and the fans of star wars have seen CW and probaly played KOTR. So the lore estableshed there is relveant to VII and I hope they don't drop all the back story.

Mainstream star wars audiences probably just know the word sith, and that its the dark side, and thats about it. Expecting them to have watched the show or played the games is really stretching things, or expecting them to keep up with the lore.

As for why yoda and obi wouldn't have told luke about the sith, well we don't know they didn't. We have books coming out soon that expanding on the periods between or near the original trilogy films. Whose to say that within those books, which will be considered canon, that luke didn't learn about the sith?

 

[Kaeb]

I may hate the Sith and not want them anywhere near the ST, but if they had to be introduced, they could do it like:

*Couple of guys and girls walk up to Old Luke and kill like five of his pupils*

Old Luke: Who the **** are you?

Murder Murdererers: Yo, we're Sith Warriors.

Old Luke: What the **** is a Sith?

Sith: We are the same power that brought down the Old Republic, we are the Emperor's legacy.

Old Luke: F U C K!!!!

 

[Miz]

Luke can die for all I care he had his three movies.

 

[Rom]

"Always two there are... no more, no less. A Master.... and an Apprentice."

Emperor is the Master... Vader is the Apprentice... and Yoda and Obi-wan had no reason to believe that Palpatine had changed that intrinsic system after Dooku's Dark Jedi all either disappeared or were killed and the Jedi were defeated at the close of the Clone Wars. I know that it's a bit of a cop-out as Sith was not mentioned anywhere in the OT, but the fact of the matter is that the canon is Episode I, Episode II, the Clone Wars TV show, Episode III, Rebels (whatever that canon happens to contain), and The Original Trilogy. The Sith were all established in the other mediums and they're going to continue to carry over into the Sequel Trilogy regardless of whether Luke would have been expressly aware of the Sith or Not.

It's fair to say that due to the Rule of Two being considered fact by Yoda and proven with the death of Dooku opening the way for Anakin to become Darth Vader under Palpatine, Yoda and Obi-wan honestly believed that in defeating Vader and Palpatine, who no longer have the secrecy = protection the Sith of the past did due to their very public position in Galactic Society, Luke would be able to break the Rule of Two and that would be the end of the Sith.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Which is to say, as I've said multiple times, they need to reintroduce it as a concept, because when it's introduced into the ST that makes it narratively important, because in relation to the which they will continue off of, it isn't.

I don't think you've made that point clear. But when you say it that way, I agree with you.

I can't remember, so feel free to correct me here, but did the prophecy expressly state in the prequels that Anakin/the Chosen One would be balance to the force by destroying the Sith? Or did it just say he would bring balance to the Force?

Yes. At least two occasions in Episode III, for example, that I can recall. Yoda mentioned that the prophecy could have been misread, which of course they can make a point in Episode VII if they wanted, but in the context of I-VI then the destruction of the Sith brought balance to the Force.

If these sequel movies are going to rely on information established in the CW, which in many ways conflict a lot of what happened in the prequels anyway, then that's ****ing dumb, you can't expect an audience to go watch a TV show to understand something about your movie which has to speak for itself.

They don't have to rely on it in the sense that they talk about it, but it's George Lucas canon and part of the official canon of the saga as decided by Lucasfilm/Disney. Its events therefore have to be taken into account to inform the story as needed.

I agree that that is stupid, and again, it's both a plot hole and a series of character inconsistencies introduced by the prequels, but them thinking the Sith as an organised element were no longer a thing and that it was just Palpatine, is perfectly viable to me. They killed all of his warriors (whatever they were supposed to be or whoever they were supposed to be exactly, we don't really know), Maul, Dooku and I guess others that barely matter to the movies in CW. Many years later, as far as they know, their only problem is the Imperial Military, the 'Sith I guess' Emperor and his Fallen Jedi attack dog. Those are the only enemies that now exist in the OT. And those are the only enemies discussed by the characters in the OT. That means the Sith just aren't a thing anymore based on the narrative direction of the PT to the OT. Plain and simple. Which doesn't sacrifice Yoda or Ben's character if they thought an organised Sith element didn't exist. They just thought it was Palpatine, a remnant of the Sith, and Vader, a former Jedi.

I don't see a plausible retcon for that. In Episode III, Yoda specifically calls the Emperor 'Darth Sidious' which is a Sith name. Yoda says that he and Obi-Wan must destroy the Sith, i.e. the Emperor and Vader. Obi-Wan, on Mustafar, calls Palpatine the Dark Lord. Obi-Wan tells Padme that Palpatine is a Sith Lord. In his ‘You were the Chosen One' speech, Obi-Wan says to Vader 'It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them.' He also says 'Only a Sith deals in absolutes' to Vader. At the end, when Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Bail Organa are talking about the twins, Obi-Wan says that the kids have to be taken into hiding 'somewhere where the Sith won't sense their presence.'

There is nothing between those moments and the beginning of Episode IV that would justify Obi-Wan and Yoda suddenly believing that Palpatine and Vader were not Sith. They had been fighting the Sith, learning about them, and trying to find the Sith throughout the prequel era, as especially evidenced in The Clone Wars where they talked about the Sith all the time.

I'm sure there's a viable explanation for why Luke wouldn't know about it, but it's not this. Canonically, it does not fit. It might if it was just the prequels that needed to be taken into account, though, I'll grant you that much.

You can agree or disagree if you want, but effectively there was really only Palps and I don't even know if they're fully going to classify Vader as a Sith Lord within the movies. It just seems like he's a fallen Jedi.

"A powerful Sith you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Vader." - Palpatine

They will. Could they change it? Sure, but they're not going to. Vader has been known as a Dark Lord of the Sith since 1977.

This is dumb.

Why wouldn't they explain what the Emperor is? Or what he apparently represents?

Narratively and character wise, why would they neglect to mention that information unless it was no longer a factor?

Perhaps because of their failures. During the Clone Wars, they got so wrapped up in trying to find and fight the Sith as an institution that it was one of the factors that blinded them to who the Sith really were, and what was really necessary to achieving victory for the Jedi. Perhaps they would want to help Luke avoid those mistakes, and keep him focused only on what was important. Luke knowing about the Sith isn't necessarily important to defeating the Emperor and Vader.

As you and I have talked about before, labels like Sith (at least, what the Sith became) are kinda dumb. Maybe Obi-Wan and Yoda feel the same way, and that's our answer to this question. Maybe they thought the label didn't matter as long as Luke understood the nature of the dark side, how to overcome it, and how the Emperor and Vader might use it. Because if Luke can understand that, then ultimately ‘Sith' is just a word, a word that the Jedi got too caught up with - much to the detriment of the galaxy.

This is dumb.

Why would Ghost Ben suddenly decide to take on his younger form? They would have to establish the boundaries of that ability, can they just appear however they want?

Can the Ghosts change their clothes?

Can they whip their titties out to distract their former apprentices in mourning?

I would actually put aging makeup on him, if it were up to me (assuming he was even in it). I wouldn't be too fussed at that point about the continuity of him looking slightly different, because in-universe there'd be no difference. You'd play it as Luke seeing the same dude he always saw.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

I may hate the Sith and not want them anywhere near the ST, but if they had to be introduced, they could do it like:

*Couple of guys and girls walk up to Old Luke and kill like five of his pupils*

Old Luke: Who the **** are you?

Murder Murdererers: Yo, we're Sith Warriors.

Old Luke: What the **** is a Sith?

Sith: We are the same power that brought down the Old Republic, we are the Emperor's legacy.

Old Luke: F U C K!!!!

What I don't understand is why it is absolutely vitally necessary for luke to not know what the sith are. To me it would be like saying luke shouldn't recognize who vader is in empire because he never actually saw him introduced as darth vader, only seeing a side profile of him as he killed obi wan. Or that Luke shouldn't recognize jabba the hutt because the two never meet in person before. Some information being learned off screen is just neccisary for audiences to not dismiss the character as being dumb.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

What I don't understand is why it is absolutely vitally necessary for luke to not know what the sith are. To me it would be like saying luke shouldn't recognize who vader is in empire because he never actually saw him introduced as darth vader, only seeing a side profile of him as he killed obi wan. Or that Luke shouldn't recognize jabba the hutt because the two never meet in person before. Some information being learned off screen is just neccisary for audiences to not dismiss the character as being dumb.

I agree it's not necessary for him to not know - realistically, I still think it's obvious that Obi-Wan and Yoda would've told him about the Sith - but I do think the idea of Luke learning about them for the first time is a good one from a storytelling standpoint. Not only does it allow for an interesting new way for Luke to explore the dark side, but a re-introduction also allows the film to make the Sith more interesting than the prequels made them.

 

[Marf]

In the films, the Sith were very boring, the only one I found even remotely interesting was Darth Sidious. Which is I don't really care about the Star Wars movies at all.

In the EU however, they are a diverse, exotic and fascinating culture with all kinds of archetypes and characters (except for the Rule of Two, which is bullshit). If the amount of detail and complexity given to the Sith in the EU was used in the films, they could be just as interesting.

What I hate is the idea of dividing whole cultures into the categories of heroes and villains. Sure, there can be antagonists and protagonists within certain societies (like the Sith, or dare I say even the Jedi), but the galaxy is far too big to call an entire civilization or order the "villains". There could easily be a Sith character who is one of the heroes, or not a hero or villain at all. Depending on how well his character is constructed and how complex he is.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

I agree it's not necessary for him to not know - realistically, I still think it's obvious that Obi-Wan and Yoda would've told him about the Sith - but I do think the idea of Luke learning about them for the first time is a good one from a storytelling standpoint. Not only does it allow for an interesting new way for Luke to explore the dark side, but a re-introduction also allows the film to make the Sith more interesting than the prequels made them.

That is true, though i would say they need to be very careful about the way they handle it to make sure that luke skywalker doesn't come off as neglectful or, as said before, dumb. Its set decades after the first film, and having him just be completely ignorant about sith to the point of not recognizing the word might do more harm to audiences willingness to play along. I think them not knowing much about the sith, outside of things they assumed from vader and palpatine, would offer good story telling potential as well. So yeah, I think I see what you're saying and agree.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

That is true, though i would say they need to be very careful about the way they handle it to make sure that luke skywalker doesn't come off as neglectful or, as said before, dumb. Its set decades after the first film, and having him just be completely ignorant about sith to the point of not recognizing the word might do more harm to audiences willingness to play along. I think them not knowing much about the sith, outside of things they assumed from vader and palpatine, would offer good story telling potential as well. So yeah, I think I see what you're saying and agree.

Regarding how Luke comes across, that's why I mentioned the thing about how he could know who the Sith are from ancient times, and have suspicions about Palpatine and Vader, but never know for sure who or what the Emperor and Vader actually were.

That could even set up interesting questions about what really makes a Sith a Sith, sort of along the lines of what Martha said.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

In the films, the Sith were very boring, the only one I found even remotely interesting was Darth Sidious. Which is I don't really care about the Star Wars movies at all.

In the EU however, they are a diverse, exotic and fascinating culture with all kinds of archetypes and characters (except for the Rule of Two, which is bullshit). If the amount of detail and complexity given to the Sith in the EU was used in the films, they could be just as interesting.

What I hate is the idea of dividing whole cultures into the categories of heroes and villains. Sure, there can be antagonists and protagonists within certain societies (like the Sith, or dare I say even the Jedi), but the galaxy is far too big to call an entire civilization or order the "villains". There could easily be a Sith character who is one of the heroes, or not a hero or villain at all. Depending on how well his character is constructed and how complex he is.

I would say that the siths doctrine of supreme selfishness and living a philosophy almost similar to thomas hobbs state of nature makes them naturally inclined to be bad guys, since pursuing ones passion without restraint will put you at odds with mostly everyone.

However, because of the whole EU condensing thing, I can't actually say what the sith philosophy is, or what their history will be, until the new material starts coming out.

So yeah, carry on then.

Regarding how Luke comes across, that's why I mentioned the thing about how he could know who the Sith are from ancient times, and have suspicions about Palpatine and Vader, but never know for sure who or what the Emperor and Vader actually were.

That could even set up interesting questions about what really makes a Sith a Sith, sort of along the lines of what Martha said.

Ohhhh, I like this. :anticipation:

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I would say that the siths doctrine of supreme selfishness and living a philosophy almost similar to thomas hobbs state of nature makes them naturally inclined to be bad guys, since pursuing ones passion without restraint will put you at odds with mostly everyone.

However, because of the whole EU condensing thing, I can't actually say what the sith philosophy is, or what their history will be, until the new material starts coming out.

So yeah, carry on then.

Canonically, the Sith philosophy right now is basically "I am angry, so here are my black robes, red lightsaber, and super angry face. rawr"

 

[Marf]

I would say that the siths doctrine of supreme selfishness and living a philosophy almost similar to thomas hobbs state of nature makes them naturally inclined to be bad guys, since pursuing ones passion without restraint will put you at odds with mostly everyone.

There's nothing villainous or evil about wanting to embrace the emotions and passions most relevant to human nature to improve ones' self. It's a highly optimistic and inspiring philosophy.

They don't pursue their passions without restraint, power and control are the other core tenants of their philosophy. Control over ones' fate and ones' self. Sith control their passions with an iron hand then channel and use them efficiently. They embrace and control their emotions, their emotions do not control them.

Canonically, the Sith philosophy right now is basically "I am angry, so here are my black robes, red lightsaber, and super angry face. rawr"

Not sure if you mean canon or official canon. If you were referring to official canon, then unfortunately that is the case. In the EU, the philosophy is discussed in far more detailed and intricacy. Still not to the complex extent which I would personally like, but if these aspects were introduced into the films, the Sith could be much more than just boring, black and white villains.

 

[Kaeb]

So what this boils down to is this:

Some people think that the Sith still have to be a thing, and if they are, Luke should already know about them.

Others don't think they necessarily have to be a thing, but if they genuinely have to be, they have to be reintroduced to the audience through a character that never knew about them.


And the only way we have of knowing what the best path is, is when the movie comes out. Otherwise we're going to keep arguing in circles.