Rule of Tow

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Darth Zahanna
I realize that noone seem to really care about the rule of two which is such an important thing in the star wars universe so i want people to tell me what they know

SnakeEyes
Hehe... rule of "tow."

Sesse
Rule of The BGM-71 TOW is a US anti-tank missile. TOW stands for Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided?

Razielim
Bane started the rule of two. After him, there could only be two Sith Lords.

One to embody power, the other to crave it.

I think this was meant to strengthen the Sith line. However, it doesn't neccesarily make the Order stronger as it went along; it made one sith more insidious, evil, manipulative and "effective" than the last. By the end we have Palpatine, the most evil, manipulative, insidious and "effective" one in Bane's Order. He was the planned revenge of the Sith.

jollyjim311
Also, it allowed the two to have more command of the darkside. When there were a lot of Sith/Dark Jedi, the darkside was "Spread too Thin" and made the Sith less powerful, due to the sharing of power.

Razielim
That's possible... But remember, at some times the Force was greater in the Dark Side than other times. The Dark Side is corruption of the Force, not a flow of energy that Bane's Order had pure dibs on; the force breeds life and energy, but energy and life breeds the force as well (Yoda).

The Ancient Sith were immensely powerful and numerous, and in my theory, their existance caused a nexus of Dark Side energy in the galaxy. Although they had to "share" the power, it's fair to assume they had a larger source of energy.

For example, by the OT we have two Sith who have the force to themselves. However, there are only two beings corrupting the force in the first place.

jollyjim311
http://www.swcomics.com/Old_Republic_Era_c.php?i=19&f=37&name=Jedi_vs_Sith_2_of_6

Jonathan Mark
Originally posted by jollyjim311
Also, it allowed the two to have more command of the darkside. When there were a lot of Sith/Dark Jedi, the darkside was "Spread too Thin" and made the Sith less powerful, due to the sharing of power.
WTF? So the force get's "spread thin?" Like butter or something? OMG that's pathetic.

Darth Avis
it was written in the comic...

Razielim
Snap son. I guess I was wrong...

Now Bane's Order is making a hell of alot more sense to me.

Jonathan Mark
Originally posted by Darth Avis
it was written in the comic...
Than it contradicts everything SW. The Force doesn't just get used up or stretched then like butter... it's always the same a balance between light and dark. However, sometimes the Dark gets more powerful and vice versa... it doesn't get stretched thin.

Really Jedi vs Sith is full of bullshit.

ThoraxeRMG
Rule of tow lol

Blaxican Style
Yeah Jonathan your a fool for criticizing the "Tow"

Darth Zahanna
so thank you all for you comments and i apologise for my lack in the spelling area

Ushgarak
Problem here is that GL and the EU conflict somewhat.

GL has commented that the traiditon of there being only two Sith has gone on for thousands of years.

The EU makes it out to be only a thousand years ago, and even more confusingly often makes it out to be a secret, so it is unclear how the Jedi knew it in TPM.

I think the EU is in trouble there, continuity wise. George Lucas' comments make it clear that when Jedi fought Sith at anything other than the very first time it happened, there were just two of them.

Jam-Jul_Lison
I think Yoda knowing about the rule of two was just a plot hole on lucas's part. There was no way for Yoda to know about it. Also the rule of two was created so the sith could remain hidden. I do however think the it did eventualy weaken the sith. Palpatine was not even that powerful. He had to use Kyber Crystals just to be as strong as we saw. About the only Sith Lords that ever impressed me from the movies was Vader and Maul. Maul was just realy gifted in the force he was just very good at hand to hand combat. Not to mention he had been training with Palpatine for quite a while. I do not think Palpatine had planned on Maul getting killed. However once realizing Anakin's potential he realy changed his plans to include him. I will say this though. Palpatine was one of the smartest sith but his plan did have some flaws. His mistake was taking over as Supreme Chanceller. He should have put in some weak minded pawn. Everyone knows the way to take out a group is to take out the leader. So if that leader died he could have just replaced him with someone else and Palapatine rules behind the scenes. Also I think the jedi in the prequal time were weaker then the order was in the old days. Just look at how Palpatine fooled them so easily.

Darth Zahanna
I have to agree with you Jam-Jul but i do have to say that Maul was one of the best sith in the movies i feel that they shouldn't have killed him off and have had him live until a fight with anikin in like the third movie then have Palapatine take anikin as his apprentice

Ushgarak
No, it wasn't a plot hole, and I just explained why. GL never intended for it to be such a secret. It was the EU that did that in error.

Darth Zahanna
Well if the Jedi knew about the Rule of Two all they would have to do is find the Sith kill the two of them and be done with it. I think that them not knowing it would give them a fear that the sith might come back or even still be out there if they killed of two of them but as we all need to remember there is a difference between Dark Jedi and the Sith.

Ushgarak
Errr... what the heck do you think they were trying to do? That was the entire plot! They knew one was dead, but they didn't know which one and they were trying to find the other!

There is no 'if' about it, you know. It was actually IN there, in the film, they DID know.

Darth Zahanna
Yes but the question is why did they know it did one of the sith just come up to them and tell them it makes no sense for them to know it had always bothered me and it is also why i believe that the first three movies that came out in the 70's are way better

Ushgarak
Like I say, they knew it because that is how it always was when they fought the Sith!

That is absolutely how it was meant to be.

Lightsnake
Actually, ush, according to Lucas, there used to be a lot of Sith, but thanks to the Jedi and the infighting , they were reduced to one Sith who started the rule of two. Apparently the Jedi have had clashes with the Sith since Ruusan, Ki-Adi being a bit misinformed

Darth Zahanna
Actually they were reduced to Two that is why it was the Rule of Two it was the Master Bane and the Apprentice Zahanna.

Ushgarak
I know exactly what GL said thankyou, Lightsnake. That's actually directly where all this is coming from.

And DZ, that is a continutiy that seems to contradict GL. GL specifies that they fought until only one was left, and THEN that one took an Apprentice.

Darth Zahanna
Well as it is know either way it ended up with two people so it really doesn't matter but the point is that they fought more than two sith for quite awhile if that was how it was the whole time that would make sense but they don't so tell me how they know and i will maybe understand what the hell Yoda thinks he is thinking about in the movies.

Lightsnake
So, the much older Yoda was right, rather than Ki-Adi? Anakin's blowing up about how he's not a master was contradicted in the official TPM stuff, where Ki-Adi was a knight and on the council.

Ushgarak
That was never official TPM stuff. That was another peice of EU background detail that got blown out the water.

The contradiction is simple, DZ- the EU misinterpreted TPM and the error came from there.

To reconcile, you would actually have to retcon Darth Bane to far more than 1000 years ago, and not have him as the last Sith Lord the Jedi fought.

This is the crutch issue. As far as the films are concerned, the point at which the Sith were thought to have died out a thousand years ago is NOT the same time they went to being only two people. That had already happened, long before.

Nactous
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Problem here is that GL and the EU conflict somewhat.

GL has commented that the traiditon of there being only two Sith has gone on for thousands of years.

The EU makes it out to be only a thousand years ago, and even more confusingly often makes it out to be a secret, so it is unclear how the Jedi knew it in TPM.

I think the EU is in trouble there, continuity wise. George Lucas' comments make it clear that when Jedi fought Sith at anything other than the very first time it happened, there were just two of them.
You taking KotOR into consideration Ush?

Lightsnake
No, it was in the visual dictionaries and the official guides, even the making of. The EU didn't 'misinterpret' anything, novelizations and the like get line by line edits.

And the time the Sith were thought gone not being the same as when they were two people? According to who? Ki-Adi Mundi?

Mišt
How do they become Sith in the first place? If the whole point of the saga was to eliminate the Sith forever, and Ki Adi says they've been extinct for a millenium, how could they return? (from a Jedi's pov).

Ushgarak
LS, the visual dictionaries and what-not are all EU> My statement stands- the EU got it wrong.

Mist- easy. A thousand years ago they thought they had killed both Master and Apprentice. Clearly they were wrong.

The only way to become a Sith is to be taught by the Master. Exaactly how they started out, GL has never made entirely clear.

As for KOTOR, that is set long enough ago that it could be during the period before the Sith slaughtered themselves down to two people. But it is still clearly far more rooted in the EU area than the film one.

What you havr to do is totally strip away all the EU, everything you have read or heard. Pretend you don't know anything about Star Wars at all. Then watch TPM.

You will get just these canonical facts about the Sith:

1. They want revenge
2. They were thought to be extinct a thousand years ago
3. They train in the Jedi arts
4. There are only ever two

By watching TPM, there is no information that there were EVER more than two Sith at a time.

The onkly reason we know there were ever more, is that GL said so. But he describes that as being something that happened thousands of years ago, and clearly makes out that for much of their history, the Sith were just two.

But because of the influence of the comics and a total misreading of the 'extinct for a thousand years' line, the EU has a totally different continuity here, which is pretty much rendered incorrect by the films.

Darth Zahanna
Actully the whole thing about them being extinct I do belive has to do with the True sith that the dark Jedi meet on Korriban and after centries the exiled dark jedi and the true sith become known as one

Ushgarak
Again, that's nothing to do with the continuity established by the films.

Lightsnake
Ki-Adi's been wrong before, why is his word the gospel? and it was in the Lucas reviewed stuff that Ki started as a knight on the council. The thing is, those EU were lucas approved, and he worked very closely with the authors for it. And according to Lucas, there were more than two Sith, we know they 'want revenge', and we know Yoda knows about the rule of two and that Ki-Adi Mundi is wrong almost every time he opens his mouth. That EU was based upon what Lucas said, during the production of TPM and came after TPM. The facts are: Ki was wrong, just like he was wrong about how Count Dooku couldn't have assassinated anyone.
The TPM novelizaiton and dictionary make that clear and Lucas worked closely with the authors of both.

Darth Zahanna
does anyone realize that this is The EU forums so why are we talking about the films so Ushgarak if you have something to talk about about that doesn't have to do with the films

Nactous
Originally posted by Ushgarak
LS, the visual dictionaries and what-not are all EU> My statement stands- the EU got it wrong.

Mist- easy. A thousand years ago they thought they had killed both Master and Apprentice. Clearly they were wrong.

The only way to become a Sith is to be taught by the Master. Exaactly how they started out, GL has never made entirely clear.

As for KOTOR, that is set long enough ago that it could be during the period before the Sith slaughtered themselves down to two people. But it is still clearly far more rooted in the EU area than the film one.

What you havr to do is totally strip away all the EU, everything you have read or heard. Pretend you don't know anything about Star Wars at all. Then watch TPM.

You will get just these canonical facts about the Sith:

1. They want revenge
2. They were thought to be extinct a thousand years ago
3. They train in the Jedi arts
4. There are only ever two

By watching TPM, there is no information that there were EVER more than two Sith at a time.

The onkly reason we know there were ever more, is that GL said so. But he describes that as being something that happened thousands of years ago, and clearly makes out that for much of their history, the Sith were just two.

But because of the influence of the comics and a total misreading of the 'extinct for a thousand years' line, the EU has a totally different continuity here, which is pretty much rendered incorrect by the films.

You ah, misspelled have.

Jam-Jul_Lison
I got one explanation for Yoda saying what he did about the rule of two. I am thinking maby the force told him somehow. After all he is more in touch with the force then anyone else is realy. Also the rule of two being secret is a good thing. It explains why the Sith managed to survive. When the rule of 2 was created the Jedi had though all the Sith had been wiped out. I am sure the Jedi tried to see if they could find any more but by the time of the rule of two. The Sith had gone so deep into hiding that the Jedi could find no trace of them so they assumed they were wiped out. I am sure many of them had doubts that they were gone for good but after a couple hundred years it was easy for them to believe them. I am sure they thought the Sith were to impatiant hide for that long.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Darth Zahanna
does anyone realize that this is The EU forums so why are we talking about the films so Ushgarak if you have something to talk about about that doesn't have to do with the films

Because we started talking about what info we had on the Rule of Two! And part of that came from the films, and I pointed out that the EU was in error with regards to the films, and you were saying otherwise so I was re-iterating that.

And it IS error. Remember, in the EU, the primary canon is still the films.

Lightsnake, we have been over this 'approved by GL' nonsense before. That doesn't mean shit for continuity. EU authors always know that they are in a secondary continuity line. GL never created or cared about that thing about Ki being only a Knight. As for the rest, you just have to re-read what was said above.

That the Sith have been thought extinct for a millennia is canon too.

Look, you don't NEED an explanation. The films already HAVE one, that overrides everyone else. Yoda knows about the Rule of Two because the Rule of Two is not a secret. It was there when they last fought the Sith.

Geez.

Lightsnake
According to Ki-Adi Mundi, who, according to material that has been closely reviewed with Lucas himself, was incorrect...is Count Dooku incapable of assassinating everyone? Was the Republic only a thousand years old? And yeah, for all we know Gl DID create the thing about Ki-Adi being a knight and he defintiely had to approve it.

Ki was wrong, it's that simple. Yoda knew something he didn't, as it was in the very tPM novelization, which had a line by line review, that one thousand years ago was when the Rule of two started

Ushgarak
Lightsnake, I will repeat once more. Unless it is in the films or GL's comments, it is NOT film canon OR made any more official, no matter how much GL approved of the work. He works by very simple rules- it doesn't matter if he approves it or not, if it is not his work, it doesn't count. EU authors are very much aware of that.

Ignore everything else. Watch the film. Ignore all the other nonsense. The situation is clear. KAM is NOT wrong- that is information being given to the viewer. The TPM novel is contradicted by GL himself, so your point there is wrong also. GL makes it clear that the Rule of Two had been going on for thousands of years.

Sorry- it is the EU that is wrong.

Lightsnake
No, he doesn't. All we have is one line from a very fallible Jedi. And according to GL, how old's the Republic then?

Ushgarak
At least a thousand generations. But so what? Republics get re-founded all the time. Just look at France- it is on its fifth.

Sorry, point remains, you are wrong, GL contradicts you, and that information about the Sith being thought extinct a thousand years ago is absolutely and totally canon.

Lightsnake
Refounded? but that's in the EU.

And actually, GL both approved and created the idea of the Sith's Rule of two going on for a thousand years and Ki being wrong. If you're clinging to that, you have to acknowledge the Republic is only a thousand years old

Ushgarak
Incorrect.

GL's DIRECT quoting on how the Sith work clearly says it had been going on for thousands of years.

Your statement above is, I suspect, a direct lie.

Jam-Jul_Lison
More and likly it is just a mistake on the part of Lucas. To think that Lucas can not make mistakes is just stupid. Look at what he did in A New Hope when he had it edited in that Greedo shoots first. Or when he edited haden in as anakin's ghost at the end of the Return of the Jedi special edition. Lucas us human and makes mistakes. Plot holes happen. We should not be obsessing over it. The EU and the movies are for our enjoyment so just enjoy them.

Ushgarak
You might call them mistakes, but that doesn't matter. What GL says is law.

Besides which, it is NOT a mistake. None of the film work contradicts itself. It only contradicts the EU. That is the fault of the EU authors, not GL.

There is no plot hole other than in some people's minds.

Lightsnake
So, GL is a fallible movie character? How about when GL makes an idea for and in the EU? And none of the film works contradict themselves? The Republic standing for a thousand years much?

Ushgarak
Again, that's not an error. It is obvious that the last founding of the Republic was a thousand years ago. What is your problem?

You are just losing the plot now. What is that 'GL is a fallible movie character' statement all about?

Lightsnake
GL didn't say a thing about the Sith being extinct for a millenia, GL created the idea of the Rule of two and helped to create the idea around Ruusan, a millenia beforehand which gave birth to the Rule of Two. He approved of or even created it.

And no, it's not obvious...the movies say the Republic stood for a thousand years, contradicting ANH

Ushgarak
Again, you are just ignoring what I say.

The Republic of France is just over 200 years old. But the current French Republic was founded just a few decades ago.

There is no contradiction. The current Republic was founded a thousand years ago. But Jedi have been defending the Republic in general since the very first one was founded. Easy.

GL put the line in about the Sith being thought extinct on purpose. The entire plot revolves around that line- that the Jedi THOUGHT the Sith were dead then, but clearly they were not. That is the point.

GL created the idea of the Rule of Two. Unless you can show otherwise, I have never seen the slightest hint that he invented Ruusan or anything similar. But he did, directly, say that the Rule of Two had been going on for thousands of years, plainly and undeniably.

Jam-Jul_Lison
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You might call them mistakes, but that doesn't matter. What GL says is law.

Besides which, it is NOT a mistake. None of the film work contradicts itself. It only contradicts the EU. That is the fault of the EU authors, not GL.

There is no plot hole other than in some people's minds.


How about this then. Lucas added in at the return of the jedi people celebrating all over the galaxy celebrating the emperor's death. Before Lucas has even done this the book The Truce of Bakura was already written. In it it tell you that no one in the empire knew the empire was dead and they thought the destruction of the death star was part of the emperor's plan. This is just one reason Lucas made a mistake with the celebrating. Now here is another reason he made a mistake on that. In episode 3 you pretty much see that very few people even know that Palpatine was a Sith. Palpatine even set it up to make it look like he was a Hero. While it is true that there were some unhappy people. But most of the humans within the empire saw the empire itself as a good thing and not as the bad guys. As for the non-human. Well we all know that the Empire was rather racist on their attitude towards non-humans. Also there seemed to be a mistake in a New Hope that was there at the beggining. Remember when Luke told Obi-Wan that he hated the Empire. If you recall that earlier on in the movie Luke told Uncle Owen he wanted to go to the acadomy. I do not think tattoine had any of those so I am assuming he ment the Imperial Acadomy because there is no way the Rebellian had one. So the real question is, If Luke hates the Empire then why does he want to join the Acadomy? We know that Biggs left for the Acadomy and then defected to the Rebellion. Did Luke Plan on doing that himself? Lucas is Human and all Humans make mistakes. If someone thinks otherwise, then it just shows how unintelligent they are.

Ushgarak
Jam, you have to get used to something here.

As far as George Lucas is concerned, the EU does not count. It is an alternative continuity that he does not care about. It is nothing to do with HIS continuity.

Have you not picked that up yet? I recommend you check the canon policy posed in the film threads.

And Luke just wanted to fly. His 'hatred' of the Empire was just bravado. Not until his folks were killed diod he really become that way. His conversation with Biggs about the Rebellion clearly shows that Luke was no Rebel by default before then- Biggs was trying to convince him.

Antediluvian
He's right on this one, LS. The Republic has never actually stood as a singular Republican Era.


They have a series of eras. Old Republic, New Republic, blah blah blah!

Lightsnake
But those're still EU concepts, if we take that, why preclude the other stuff? And what about the other things from EU GL puts in? And no hint? how about his extremely close working with of the TPM novelization, including turning over some of his own concepts?

Ushgarak
If GL wants to take stuff from the EU, that's just fine. It is his choice. He can take material from absolutely anything he likes. Part of the intro for ROTS is taken from 'Hero'- that doesn't make that film canonical in Star Wars.

The EU's own canon policy states that film continuity has primacy. Hence, if the EU makes a mistake of this nature- or if GL contradicts it with later work- it is the EU that has to give way.

Lightsnake
Because a single line from a character proven to be fallible in his knowledge is downright 100 percent true?

Ushgarak
Look, what is this 'fallible' nonsense about?

KI Adi was simply stating a fact- that the Jedi thought they had killed the Sith a thousand years ago. No-one ever contradicted that, no-one told him he was wroing, because clearly the Jedi DID think that, which is why QGJ's claim was so outrageous,. Even Mace was sceptical.

Once more- the whole point is this idea that the Sith were thought extinct, but that was an error. All this weird nonsense about KAM being fallible seems to be a massive distraction. Yes, he was fallible- rather like the whole Order had been on this issue. That doesn't change the importance or relevance of this canonical line.

Jam-Jul_Lison
Lucas not think the Expanded Universe does not count makes no since. If that was the case he would not have Expanded Universe stuff on starwars.com. That kind of comment is one Supershadow would make and has made. We all know how fake he is. Also look at all the money the EU has brought in for him. To deny that would be to deny himself any money he made off of it. We all know that Lucas would never deny that money. The fact of the matter is that the Expanded Universe is just as important as the Movies. I admit I do not put as much emphases on the comics. I have never realy read any of them. But I have read lots of the books. I consider them just as important to the story as the Movies. As do many of the fans.

Lightsnake
No, Ki-Adi thought they'd killed the Sith. And the much older Yoda knew something the rest of the Jedi didn't. I'll trust the Lucas edited and collaborated novelization on the issue

Ushgarak
Sorry, Jam, this is not speculation, this is fact, as stated by GL himself. He has directly stated that he sees it as an alternative continuity to his own, that he has nothing to do with.

It exists but in a seperate line. Whether you like it nor not, that IS how it is.

The EU specifically exists as a parallel universe version of Star Wars, where different things happen.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Lightsnake
No, Ki-Adi thought they'd killed the Sith. And the much older Yoda knew something the rest of the Jedi didn't. I'll trust the Lucas edited and collaborated novelization on the issue

They ALL thought they had killed the Sith. But what difference does any of this make to the point at hand? The point is still that the Rule of Two had existed for thousands of years, not A thousand, and so a thousand years ago when the Sith were thought extinct, it was because the Jedi thought they had killed both of them.

And in turn this means that the EU story about Bane and co is wrong, and based off a misreading of the lines in TPM.

Lightsnake
Then what was the point of the Prophecy? Yeah, they thought the Sith were gone, Ki was just sketchy on his dates. And no, it just means the EU found some explanation for Lucas's contradictory statements as usual and it's been well explained away by LFL. Because, Ush, there's never a given date for the start of the Rule of two in the movies, but Lucas closely worked with and PERSONALLY APPROVED the back story of the Rule of two and PERSONALLY APPROVED the fact Ki Adi was wrong and his company, to explain the perceived error said that, yes, Ki-Adi had no clue about the rule of two but Yoda did.

Ushgarak
No, Ki was absolutely right on his dates. A thousand years ago is indeed the time the Sith were thought extinct, canonical and in the film. No other explanation is needed, it is as simple as that.

The Prophecy wasn't even believed by a lot of people, remember?

I will again contend that your assertion that George Lucas personally approved that Ki-Adi was wrong to say a thousand years is a lie. He did absolutely no such thing.

You are also lying to say he approved the Rule of Two as described in the EU. He tstaed the backstory personally, clearly, and it contradicts what you say.

Lightsnake
Not according to LFL. And Lucas only edited the TPM novelization, AOTC novelization and ROTs novelizations line by line. and for the last time: Ki-Adi mundi is not the end all be all and LFL's stance on it: Ki-Adi Mundi was wrong, the Rule of Two began a thousand years prior to TPM and your opinion doesn't override theirs.

Stop clinging to a single, throwaway line that's already incorrect on one front just because you hate the EU.

Ushgarak
LFL has directly stated that the novels are onyl personal interpretations of the films. I do not believe you when you say that LFL have said that George Lucas has backed the EU version of the Rule of Two. I directly have George Lucas' quote where he describes otherwise.

I am clinging to facts; you are simply spewing more lies.

And the 'throwaway line', as you call it- despite being nothing of the sort- doesn't even have anything to do with the argument about when the Rule of Two started. What is wrong with you?

Lightsnake
Well, you're going against how Lucas personally deals with the novelizations and the novelizations are higher than the rest of the EU.

And yes, Ush, no explanation to how LFL has given an explanation? Or to how Lucas edits the novels and works closely with the authors?

Once more, your entire proof is a throw away line from Ki Adi that's fallible in one respect. LFL's licensed the idea that he didn't know about the Rule of Two and that the Jedi have had clashes with Bane's order in the times since Ruusan, I'm going to believe them

Ushgarak
No, I am not going against how GL treats the novelisations, Again, that is a lie you are making up.

Once more, it does not matter a tiniest damn how closely GL works with anyone. His own word is still law. No mattwr how closely he works with anything, only what he himself says or writes counts for him.

Again- stop lying., My proof has absolutely nothing to do with what KAM says at all. WHY do you keep saying that?

My evidence comes from George Lucas. Here is what he said:

"One of the themes throughout the films is that the Sith lords, when they started out thousands of years ago, embraced the dark side. They were greedy and self-centered and they all wanted to take over, so they killed each other. Eventually, there was only one left, and that one took on an apprentice. And for thousands of years , the master would teach the apprentice, the master would die, the apprentice would then teach another apprentice, become the master, and so on."

Lightsnake
So? That's been established as part of Sith lore for thousands of years, that's nothing to do with the Rule of two and it fits in with what he said about there being lots of Sith, especially as he's talking about when the Sith were first founded

And, yeah Ush..you can't counter the novelisation factor so you try to slander the other party? And no, it doesn't matter what he personally approves, even if explains something in the movies?

Ushgarak
Lightsnake- are you having trouble reading? Read CAREFULLY. That passage directly describes that the Rule of Two- there only being two Sith- has gone on for THOUSANDS of years.

How can you be so obtuse?

GL's word here overrides absolutely everything you say. Which is fine, seeing as much of it is lies.

Lightsnake
I see nothing about only two Sith, only the master and the Apprentice and according to GL for a long time there were lots of Sith. The thing there is 'Lords' plural, 'when they started, and the 'for thousands of years', not to mention his other statements and that fitting in perfectly with the history of the Sith established BEFORE TPM. And according to terry Brooks, Lucas spent an hour with him on the phone describing the history of the Sith. and according to the description of the novel:
Therefore, the information on this subject provided in Brooks' novelization can be presumed to derive from Lucas himself.

And yeah, Ush, "I'm beaten so, uh...you're a liar! Liar!"

Ushgarak
Lightsnake, how blind are you?

He says it went down until ONLY ONE WAS LEFT, and then that one took an Apprentice, and so on. There were only two left!

However, because you are being so exceptionally weird and dense with understanding this, I'll post the sentence after the quote as well:

"One of the themes throughout the films is that the Sith lords, when they started out thousands of years ago, embraced the dark side. They were greedy and self-centered and they all wanted to take over, so they killed each other. Eventually, there was only one left, and that one took on an apprentice. And for thousands of years, the master would teach the apprentice, the master would die, the apprentice would then teach another apprentice, become the master, and so on. But there could never be any more than two of them, because if there were, they would try to get rid of the leader."

Feel silly now? Honestly, LS, that was one of the most breathtakingly silly things I have ever seen on the forums, and I have seen a lot of silly things.

Lightsnake
Still referring to....just the founding! Nothing about there being only one more Sith Lord with one apprentice. And from a simple google search, info on the TPM novelization from SW.com:

The novelization is especially well-known for a passage describing the history of the Sith, including Darth Bane. According to Terry Brooks' memoir, Sometimes the Magic Works, Lucas spent an hour on the telephone with him discussing the history of the Jedi and the Sith. Therefore, the information on this subject provided in Brooks' novelization can be presumed to derive from Lucas himself.

Brooks devotes an entire chapter of Sometimes the Magic Works to the writing of the Episode I novelization, which was an extremely happy and fulfilling experience for him.

Ushgarak
That is not referring to just the founding. What is that nonsense? That is another lie from you. That is a direct description from George Lucas about how the Sith went to the Rule of Two. It directly says there is only one Sith Master with one Apprentice!

George Lucas' word overrides everything else

Specifically, it overrides anything Terry Brooks says.

Jam-Jul_Lison
I was not aware that this was a Lucas knows all thread. Fact of the matter is Lucas is getting up in his years and it is no surprise that he would make a mistake. The fact that the EU information is on starwars.com is proof enough to me that is it fact. That and the fact the Lucas allows the EU to be written is another reason I believe it to be accurate. It is possible that Yoda was just guessing when he said what he said about there always being a master and an apprentice. My guess was once he realized Maul was a Sith, he used Logic to determine that in order for the Sith to have survived in secret that they needed to use that system. This would not be surprising considering how old and wise he is.

Ushgarak
Sorry, forum policy is that George Lucas overrides the EU. That is also the policy of Lucasfilm itself. Lucasfilm actively say that the true story of Star Wars is the films and not the EU, which is secondary, and GL- who is the man with the power to set what is what- directly describes it as a parallel universe.

That's the end of that. GL's word IS law, I am afraid. It is forum policy because we long ago grew tired of the argument about that. You will, I am afraid, just have to respect that.

Jam-Jul_Lison
Instead of Bashing Lucas or the EU we should be looking for a reason to prove how both could be correct. Yoda using Logic to put it all together would be one of those examples and would make since.

Lightsnake
And the whole apprentice killing master thing applied to the entire Order, not just there being one master and one apprentice, which that quote makes no mention about, since according to Lucas there were a lot of Sith...and according to Terry, Lucas spent a while describing to him the history of the Sith which is what he wrote down.
Terry Brooks' words>Your interpretation

Ushgarak
No it didn't. LS, learn to read. Goerge Lucas says there were lots and lots of Sith Lords- but then they killed each other UNTIL ONLY ONE WAS LEFT. Understand? ONLY ONE WAS LEFT. Then THAT one took an Apprentice. That one became the Master when his Master died, then took an Apprentice, and so on. Very very VERY clear.

GL overrides Terry Brooks, and only someone as weirdly obtuse as you does not recognise exactly what GL says, as any child can.

It doesn't need to be reconciled, Jam. GL has stated what his position is, and the EU either agrees or contradicts. If it contradicts, it is wrong.

Lightsnake
yeah, that's great. Nothing about the Rule of two continuing for thousands of years when Lucas himself supplied the information that it did not. Who do I trust, the guy who got info directly from a phone conversation with GL and SW.com....or you. Not a hard decision

Ushgarak
No, Goerge Lucas did not supply it. Terry Broosk did. He says he talked to GL, but so what? He might have embellished, invented, or made error.

What Geroge Lucas himself said is what I printed. And he has the ultimate authority. First hand, direct, from the most important canon source there is.

George Lucas directly says that the Sith went down to only two thousands of years ago. I have given the quote. That ends any argument stone dead.

Lightsnake
Oh, he MAY have...well, according to Terry, Lucas spent a long time on the phone with him, describing to him the history of the Sith which is what he wrote. Sorry, Ush, your mays and what have yous aren't applying here.

And yep, GL is ultimate canon, hence his giving us the history of the Sith in the form Bane and Ruusan and the Rule of Two

Ushgarak
No, he did NOT do that. Again, Terry Brooks did, after saying he had a convo with GL.

What GL himself directly said overrides that. That is the only direct source we have. What Terry Brooks says is just what he says, regardless of any talk with GL he may have had.

What GL himself, personally and directly, said obviously has primacy on that. And what he says contradicts your view and what Brooks says. Well, tough. His word is law, and that is directly what he said.

You don't even have proof that GL came up with a single thing in the TPM novel. You only have Brooks' word for it, and GL's word is more important than Brooks' in any case.

I DO have proof that GL said what he did.

I will not allow this pointless argument to continue for much longer, Lightsnake. You have been totally defeated by proven and posted sources. Your argument only persists due to increasingly stupid misinterpretations.

You are simply wrong on this. GL has stated the truth. And once more, it is forum policy that GL has primacy on all such matters. That had to be respected.

Jam-Jul_Lison
It seems to be if the Sith were to want to hide like they did that the rule of 2 would be a secret. Also here is some of the info on the Sith direct from starwars.com As you know there is info in several areas in the databank under movies and Expended Universe.

Movies- http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/thesith/index.html

Explanded Universe-
http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/thesith/?id=eu

Ushgarak
But the Rule was not a secret- the TPM film makes that clear. Nor did GL ever intend it to be a secret.

Nor is the website a canon source. Please read the canon rules again. GL's own words contradict that, so it is wrong.

Lightsnake
No, Ush, it doesn't make it clear and the novelization makes it clear that Ki-Adi was wrong and Yoda knew more than the others. Your interpretation is wrong. And right, SW.com isn't official...

Ushgarak
No, sw.com is not a canon source.

Ye,s it does make it clear. Again, only your silliness changes that. This is direct word from GL that makes it very very clear indeed. The wording is not even slightly ambiguous. The Sith fought until only one was left. He took an Apprentice. From that point on, there were only ever two at a time. That went on for thousands of years. Clear, and direct, and the end of the story.

That's about that for the argument. That is the background of the Rule of Two, as given by GL himself. There can be no greater authority on the subject.

If you want to discuss implications and so on of the rule, then do so. But the origins argument is done. If people try to persit on it, I shall have to close.

Jam-Jul_Lison
at the top of the page at starwars.com if says Welcome to the Official Site. So do not say it is official. Also you would think that in order to remain in hiding like that, that it would have had to be a secret. It is possible that yoda had long suspected that the Sith may still be around and knew that the only way to do so would to be to form a rule of two. He does seem to be the most intellegent of the jedi and without a doubt he was the Wisest.

Lightsnake
And the direct background of it was stated by GL, to terry Brooks who wrote it down, what is your point?

And nope, your interpretation's incorrect as official sources and LFL contradict it, I'll believe Terry over you any day. In NO PLACE does it say there was JUST ONE Master and JUST ONE Apprentice, it says the Apprentice killed the master and this went on since the inception of the Order, which fits in PERFECTLY with the aLREADY ESTABLISHED EU on the subject

Antediluvian
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, sw.com is not a canon source.

Ye,s it does make it clear. Again, only your silliness changes that. This is direct word from GL that makes it very very clear indeed. The wording is not even slightly ambiguous. The Sith fought until only one was left. He took an Apprentice. From that point on, there were only ever two at a time. That went on for thousands of years. Clear, and direct, and the end of the story.

That's about that for the argument. That is the background of the Rule of Two, as given by GL himself. There can be no greater authority on the subject.

If you want to discuss implications and so on of the rule, then do so. But the origins argument is done. If people try to persit on it, I shall have to close.

You're threatening to close this thread?


That's outright ridiculous, Ushgarak. I've seen about enough of this shit for one day.

Why are you so afraid of being incorrect? Is it not possible for the almighty Ushgarak to never be wrong? Is Lightsnake challenging your opinion with valid theories and some stakes of evidence?

Awwww . . . Poor Ushgarak.

You can't even debate properly without threatening someone, can you Ushgarak?

I thought these Forums were about debating, dude.

Get real.

Borbarad
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I will not allow this pointless argument to continue for much longer, Lightsnake. You have been totally defeated by proven and posted sources. Your argument only persists due to increasingly stupid misinterpretations.

You are simply wrong on this. GL has stated the truth. And once more, it is forum policy that GL has primacy on all such matters. That had to be respected.

Excuse me but where can I find the forum policy for the EU subforum ? The only thing I see is your own thread in the film section...is this a film section ?

And Lucas own word ?

http://www.darkhorse.com/news/interviews.php?id=667



Hmm. Looks as if Lucas personally participated in the design of the Ancient Sith. I love how Kun takes several apprentices and how there are several Sith Lords in the Ancient Sith Empire.

But that's not enough because Lucas contradicts himself often enough on that topic. In ANH "Darth" is clearly a part of Vader's Name and not a title, since Obi-Wan hands him the line "Only a master of evil, Darth".

And are we taking about the same Lucas who personally stated this here: "There are two worlds here.There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe - the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time,but they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe."

The EU does "intrude" in between the movies ! And even better: The passage about Sith history is written down in the TPM novelisation. May I quote your own thread here ?

"Canon includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers."

The TPM novelisation spins out of Lucas' original story and is considered absolute canon. And somehow this all is overwritten because Lucas give an ambigious statement in the TIME Magazine ?

So you really believe he did think about that statement more than about the TPM Novelisation (spending an hour of time explaining said topic to the writer of the book) ? I don't...

And how can the rule of two not be a secret when the existance of the Sith was ? How can the Jedi have thought that the Sith were exstinct when there were always two Sith Lords for thousands of years ? Was one of the Jedi a complete idiot who did possess an inability to count up to 2 ? "There are always two Sith. A master and an apprentice. One of them was killed. So there is...none left" ?
Jedi might act stupid sometimes but I doubt that they are that stupid...

Lightsnake
Yeah, Lucas personally participated in both TOTJ and DE...I see no reason to doubt Terry, either. Thank you, Nai.

KingDubya
Originally posted by Borbarad
But that's not enough because Lucas contradicts himself often enough on that topic. In ANH "Darth" is clearly a part of Vader's Name and not a title, since Obi-Wan hands him the line "Only a master of evil, Darth".
Which is exactly like referring to a man as "Sir" or "Mister". When I get the attention of the man standing in my path to a doorway, I say, "Excuse me, sir." Is "sir" suddenly part of his name? No, because it is a title. Just like "Darth".
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ye,s it does make it clear. Again, only your silliness changes that. This is direct word from GL that makes it very very clear indeed. The wording is not even slightly ambiguous. The Sith fought until only one was left. He took an Apprentice. From that point on, there were only ever two at a time. That went on for thousands of years. Clear, and direct, and the end of the story.
According to the sources I have used, Ush is right. The Sith continued fighting until only one was left (specifically, Darth Bane) and he set the Rule of Two so as to prevent any more wars between seperate factions of the Sith. This was also, supposedly, based off of the strength seen in pairs of Sith such as Exar Kun and Ulic Qel-Droma and also that of Darths Revan and Malak.

Borbarad
Originally posted by KingDubya
Which is exactly like referring to a man as "Sir" or "Mister". When I get the attention of the man standing in my path to a doorway, I say, "Excuse me, sir." Is "sir" suddenly part of his name? No, because it is a title. Just like "Darth".

No. Vaders title is "Lord" as you see all his subordinates calling him "Lord Vader". So if Obi-Wan wanted to use something like "Sir" or "Mister" he would have said "Lord" or "Mylord".

And Obi-Wan himself never calls him "Darth" out of this particular situation. He always refers to him as "Vader". And watch ANH carefully: When Luke and Obi-Wan meet for the first time and Obi-Wan tells Luke what happened to his father he tells Luke that "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi knights. He betrayed and murdered your father."

Lucas developed the concept of "Darth" being a title for the PT movies and because of that you don't have anybody in the EU using said title before the time of TPM (Kun, Ulic, Nadd, Ragnos, Kressh, Sadow).



You did notice that Ush denies the story of Darth Bane by using Lucas quote that the Sith always were two for "thousands of years" (so before Bane's time) ?

Lightsnake
Heck, even Palpatine was just 'Emperor Palpatine' until the prequels...also, though, the EU's practically confirmed Yoda's personal clash with the Sith of Bane's order, hence him being aware of the Rule of two...one of the Sith was probably definitely killed and the master or apprentice was thought to be killed

Jam-Jul_Lison
Originally posted by Lightsnake
Heck, even Palpatine was just 'Emperor Palpatine' until the prequels...also, though, the EU's practically confirmed Yoda's personal clash with the Sith of Bane's order, hence him being aware of the Rule of two...one of the Sith was probably definitely killed and the master or apprentice was thought to be killed

He was called Emperor Palpatine cause that was his official position in the Empire. He did not go around publicly declaring he was a Sith. Only those close to him knew the Truth. The rest of the empire just though Vader was the only Sith. Or perhaps just as a Jedi even. Remember when Governor Tarkin said to Vader that he was the last of his Religion in Star Wars a New Hope. That line right there tells you that they had no idea that Palpatine was a force user. They believe Vader to be the last of the force users.

Lightsnake
Even when his Sithiness was public knowledge, there was never a Darth title until TPM

Razielim
Actually, the name "Palpatine" wasn't introduced until TPM.

He was always just "The Emperor".

Lightsnake
'Palpatine' was his name always in story drafts, and later popularized in the EU

Razielim
In which? I've never read a reference of it until 1998.

Jam-Jul_Lison
Originally posted by Lightsnake
Even when his Sithiness was public knowledge, there was never a Darth title until TPM

I am not saying that we do now owe Lucas for that. But it still fits in with the story. Knowledge of the Sith was almost completly lost and no one knew Palpatine's sith name. I do not think Palpatine would have told Mara Jade secrets like that. To him she was just an expendable pawn for him to use. So everyone assumed Darth was part of Vader's name. As for them not being able to find answers in the jedi archives when coruscant was eventualy retaken, Palpatine had already seen to it that the archives were destroyed. So instead they just refered to him as the name they knew him by.

Borbarad
Originally posted by Jam-Jul_Lison
So everyone assumed Darth was part of Vader's name.

Err...what ?
Obi-Wan and Yoda both knew that "Darth" was a Sith title so why should they handle it like a part of Vader's name ? And their must have been quite some people knowing that Palpatine was a Sith Lord named Darth Sidious. Namely Bail Organa and the Senators that were part of the Rebellion, some members of the CIS that survived the Clone Wars.

Another SW plothole. Since I've seen ROTS for the first time I keep wondering why Chewie doesn't recall Yoda's name in the OT films...and much more how Han can have doubts about the Jedi, their powers and the force when his own co-pilot has seen them in actual combat on Kashyyyk...

Jam-Jul_Lison
This is not a plot hole you can blame on the EU. Lucas himself created those plot holes. The authors of the EU were just going by the info that Lucas had given them to work with. To deny the EU because Lucas goes and makes mistakes is no reason to deny them. If anyone is at fault then it is Lucas. Not only does he contradict the EU he even contradicts the OT. I do not think Chewie would keep quiet to Han about the Jedi. He would be more honest with Han then anyone. Han would know Chewie would not lie to him.

Lightsnake
Palpatine is directly named n both the Glove of Darth Vader series, the OT novelizations and Dark Empire

Captain REX
Lucas has every right to contradict EU, Jam-Jul. He could tell someone that all of EU is fake and say 'Actually, here's what happened!' and it'd all be destroyed and no one could do anything about it.

ANH made it seem like the Jedi had been gone for decades, and not just two. However, Han can still think it's a load of shit and hocus pocus however much he wants. Doesn't matter if he's seen them himself or if Chewie has, it's a matter of his beliefs. Hell, in a Star Wars Tales comic, Quilan Vos lifts him up with the Force and he still thinks it's a load of shit.

Lightsnake
Lucas genereally wouldn't contradict the EU to such a degree, and I could believe Han is that much a cynic, especially as said story may or may not be infinities

Captain REX
He wouldn't, but he could...

With Tales, I throw it into a 'If it's not contradicted by other EU or anything else...' perspective.

Lightsnake
Well, not yet, anyways, so Ghost's canonical status is unknown.

And Lucas, at times, does-or did- take interest in the EU at times

Captain REX
Every once and awhile. I wonder what he thinks of Legacy...oh, that'll be a doozy for him...

Lightsnake
He gave consent for it. hell, he gave a specific go ahead and even defined some boundaries

Captain REX
Eh, whatever. Well, down with the Rule of Two, then!

Lightsnake
Well, at that point in time, since it's a new Order entirely without a need for secrecy...Palpatine kinda say '***** the Rule of Two' Himself

Captain REX
Palpatine only had one serious Sith apprentice at a time, just had a lot of assassins and handymen that he trained a bit. He kept the Rule of Two in effect.

Darth Krayt, though, Rule of Two is dead with him.

Lumiya still ain't a Sith, to me. Vader gave her some training, but hell, when she appears in the Legacy of the Force series, she admits she can't be a Sith! That's the only thing that made my day about reading those spoilers. Everything else made me want to slaughter the author.

Lightsnake
hardly that bad...it's not like Krayt's mr. mondo Sith Lord...PAlp will always be the last and truest Sith. Jacen, though, he has the potential to do some damage

Captain REX
I'm still wondering why they can't just let Luke enjoy a few decades of rest before passing away peacefully. His life pretty much sucks after ROTJ.

Lightsnake
More or less, I don't think he's had a month to just relax at all since he got married

Captain REX
Joy for Skywalker. no expression

Darth Zahanna
Ushgarak I am very tired of you calling the movies final word GL reads and approves all the novels therefore that automatically makes it the final word so just stop being an idiot and go talk on the movie forums and i can just create a new name with an alise if you kick me off for this comment

Darth Zahanna
I apologise for my comment there because i have been away from my computer for the weekend which often happens so i was reading through what was said over the weekend and Ush pissed me off so i made that comment

Faunus
Well, regarding GL's word on a given matter, he's right.

KingDubya
Originally posted by Razielim
Actually, the name "Palpatine" wasn't introduced until TPM.

He was always just "The Emperor".
He was referred to, DIRECTLY by Vader, as "Emperor Palpatine" in either Episode V or VI, I can't remember which.
Originally posted by Borbarad
No. Vaders title is "Lord" as you see all his subordinates calling him "Lord Vader". So if Obi-Wan wanted to use something like "Sir" or "Mister" he would have said "Lord" or "Mylord".

And Obi-Wan himself never calls him "Darth" out of this particular situation. He always refers to him as "Vader". And watch ANH carefully: When Luke and Obi-Wan meet for the first time and Obi-Wan tells Luke what happened to his father he tells Luke that "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi knights. He betrayed and murdered your father."

Lucas developed the concept of "Darth" being a title for the PT movies and because of that you don't have anybody in the EU using said title before the time of TPM (Kun, Ulic, Nadd, Ragnos, Kressh, Sadow).
I wasn't aware of Obi-Wan directly saying his name was Darth Vader, so that proves me wrong. But some of those EU characters that did not have the title of Darth were created after the PT had started, so it seems that either that is ignorance, or they didn't have that title for a reason. According to Wikipedia (and don't remind me that it's not a reliable source, I know), the first person to use "Darth" as a title was Darth Andeddu, followed closely by Revan and Malak.
Originally posted by Borbarad
You did notice that Ush denies the story of Darth Bane by using Lucas quote that the Sith always were two for "thousands of years" (so before Bane's time) ?
Well, I didn't see that part of his post, so other than the "thousands of years" part, I agree with him.

Jam-Jul_Lison
Ok here is a site with great movie quotes. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes

Please note the following line in it. Word for word from the movie. I remember the movie well enough to know that it is true. lol

Luke: How did my father die?
Obi-Wan: A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi knights. He betrayed and murdered your father.

Here is another line to support that it was orginaly intended for darth to be part of his name.

Darth Vader: Your powers are weak, old man.
Obi-Wan: You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

See Obi-Wan even said that Darth Vader was his name. Lucas just happens to change his mind a lot. Also the name Darth in the Sith name is ment to instill fear in their opponanats. Also here is another great line I love.

Darth Vader: I've been waiting for you, Obi-Wan. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I met you I was but the learner. Now, *I* am the master.
Obi-Wan: Only a master of evil, Darth.

DarthMaul9123
i think that that was obiwan just fitting into his character, and that he called him darth so that luke wouldn't know his name, but thats a good idea too
and the other darth's are because obiwan only called him anakin when he was a jedi, and at the end of revenge of the sith he started to call him darth, or darth vader

Jam-Jul_Lison
It is amazing how easily someone can just change their name without going through any paperwork in the movies. lol. His name changed from Anakin Slywalker to Darth Vader in such a sort time. lol. You would think getting the new ID would be a pain. lol. Just imagine Vader waiting in line in the Galatic BMV or would it be Galatic BSV?

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Borbarad


And how can the rule of two not be a secret when the existance of the Sith was ? How can the Jedi have thought that the Sith were exstinct when there were always two Sith Lords for thousands of years ? Was one of the Jedi a complete idiot who did possess an inability to count up to 2 ? "There are always two Sith. A master and an apprentice. One of them was killed. So there is...none left" ?
Jedi might act stupid sometimes but I doubt that they are that stupid...

What is this gibberish? Did you actually look at what I said?

The point is that GL clearly makes out the Sith to have been like this for thousands of years. He says that clearly and undeniably.

The Jedi also think the Sith have been extinct for A thousand years. This is also said quite clearly.

Clearly, that mans that a thousand years ago they thought they had killed both, but were wrong. Simple as that.

Yoda's line "Always two there are" doesn't even make any sense if the Jedi have not seen them like that before. The context is entirely wrong. It is very clearly a comment being made based on previous experience the Order had. if it was a new thing, Yoda would have mentioned how the Sith have changed, or this being a new thing. Not at all- it is the same old thing, simply returned. Not surprising that it sounds like that, because that is exactly what GL had in mind.

Yes, I do accept GL's own word over the novelisation. Aside from anything else, Lucasfilm directly tells people to be like that, when they point out that even the novels are just other people's interpetations. GLs word is king, and whilst he might contradict himself sometimes, here he has not- he has been nothing but clear. Your second hand reports of what he might have thought are not as strong as direct quotes from him either.

Meanwhile, you don't need to tell me about the alternate universe nature of the EU. But it is the EU editors themselves who declared that anything from the film universe is primary canon for the EU as well. What GL says is canon for the film universe, therefore it is primary canon in the EU, therefore sources that differ from that are wrong.

I didn't make those rules, as ever, I am just the messenger. They didn't have to declare that, they could have said that the EU differences were correct and the films wrong, but there you go, they did it as they have done it.

-

And for the final time- what GL reads and approves does not matter one tiny bit. His opinion of the EU being an alternate Universe that he does not count is on public record. He can guide the EU all he likes, he still does not count it, and so the film continuity does not count it either.

-

Meanwhile, 'Darth' and 'Lord' are interchangeable. So it is perfectly acceptable for Obi-Wan to say 'Darth' as one might says 'Captain'.

But yes, also clearly, that is a retcon; at first it was a name, and then GL expanded it later to a title, causing a certain discontinuity with the EU. I think KOTOR did the right thing in assuming it was always like that.

I am afraid they don't actually say Palpatine in the OT, KD.

darthnuman
Hey Ush. I see you have ridden the forums of all the antediluvians.

Lightsnake
No, Ki-Adi mundi says something of the sort...how old is Ki? Maybe...fifty? How old's Yoda? 900? Ok, then.

And yes, Obi-wan is going to address his enemy as 'lord'.

And yeah, Ush, GL's opinion means nothing! Nor does what he creates in the way of Sith history and dictates! Please

ESB - 1138
Originally posted by Jam-Jul_Lison
I think Yoda knowing about the rule of two was just a plot hole on lucas's part. There was no way for Yoda to know about it. Also the rule of two was created so the sith could remain hidden. I do however think the it did eventualy weaken the sith. Palpatine was not even that powerful. He had to use Kyber Crystals just to be as strong as we saw. About the only Sith Lords that ever impressed me from the movies was Vader and Maul. Maul was just realy gifted in the force he was just very good at hand to hand combat. Not to mention he had been training with Palpatine for quite a while. I do not think Palpatine had planned on Maul getting killed. However once realizing Anakin's potential he realy changed his plans to include him. I will say this though. Palpatine was one of the smartest sith but his plan did have some flaws. His mistake was taking over as Supreme Chanceller. He should have put in some weak minded pawn. Everyone knows the way to take out a group is to take out the leader. So if that leader died he could have just replaced him with someone else and Palapatine rules behind the scenes. Also I think the jedi in the prequal time were weaker then the order was in the old days. Just look at how Palpatine fooled them so easily.

Kyber Crystal. First off don't get important information that you plan to use from supershadow.com. Palpatine never used a Kyber Crystal. And the Jedi weren't fooled as easily as everyone seems to believe. During that time the Sith were thought to have died out then Darth Maul appears and killed Qui-Gon, one of the best Jedi of the order at the time. Then Count Dooku appears as the "Sith Lord" and if anything that took them away from finding the Sith Lord because of maybe 2 reasons.

1.) They thought Dooku was the Sith Lord
2.) Clone War

It seemed that Dooku helped throw the Jedi off the trail of finding Palpatine sooner and even then Mace and Yoda sensed the dark side surrounding the Chancellor.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Lightsnake
No, Ki-Adi mundi says something of the sort...how old is Ki? Maybe...fifty? How old's Yoda? 900? Ok, then.

And yes, Obi-wan is going to address his enemy as 'lord'.

And yeah, Ush, GL's opinion means nothing! Nor does what he creates in the way of Sith history and dictates! Please

GL's opinion is precisely what I posted, LS- that the EU is an alternative universe that does not count. Again, that is direct and umabiguous from GL himself. Sorry, but there it is. You do not have a leg to stand on. Direct quotes from GL- which you cannot match for you have no direct quotes- establish the Rule of Two NOT working as related about Bane, and about the EU not being counted by him.

Live with it.

l0rd?
Just thought I'd let you all know that Palpatine actually does use a kyber chrystal. His saber is a kyber saber.

Lightsnake
Right, because a vague statement explained in a Luca reviewed source as incorrect supercedes Lucas's dictations over the history of the Sith...

Get real, Ush. This is just a case of 'I hate the EU! It doesn't count despite numerous recognitions and collaborations!"
When you take into account Lucas himself gave Terry this information, I believe him and GL a LOT more than you

l0rd?
However canon is a point of view so you will both have to agree to disagree.

Captain REX
Lightsnake, you lost, get over it.

Lucas himself has said many times that the EU is not part of his continuity. What Terry says is squat to what GL says, and unless GL himself says 'I gave him the history of the Sith as I think it should be...' there's no knowing what the conversation was about.

Now you're just being silly and saying Ush is just an EU-hater and that he should be disregarded. Way to go, you're a good-argument hater and you're being disregarded.

Lightsnake
As opposed to the argument of "A vague quote supercedes any and all logic of Lucas actually dictating said history!"
EU's not canon? Of course not. However, I'm inclined to take Terry Brooks' word over what Lucas told him over an hour on the phone which he said is what he wrote down over Ush's interpretation of vague time magazine quotes that can be taken several ways, especially when what Lucas said matched up perfectly with previously established EU, which, according to the author, Lucas had quite a bit of collaboration with.

So, um, yeah, let's think...what Terry says means squat...even when Terry's saying what Lucas TOLD him?

Funny, that...but, no, what Lucas says doesn't matter, right?

IKC
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/4996/obeyush7en.jpg

Bespin Bart
It doesn't matter if it's coming from Terry, Lightsnake.

Lightsnake
...it doesn't matter if it came from Terry who's writing down exactly what GL told him?

overlord
Originally posted by IKC
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/4996/obeyush7en.jpg Cool pictar! What is it about?

Jam-Jul_Lison
Originally posted by ESB - 1138
Kyber Crystal. First off don't get important information that you plan to use from supershadow.com. Palpatine never used a Kyber Crystal. And the Jedi weren't fooled as easily as everyone seems to believe. During that time the Sith were thought to have died out then Darth Maul appears and killed Qui-Gon, one of the best Jedi of the order at the time. Then Count Dooku appears as the "Sith Lord" and if anything that took them away from finding the Sith Lord because of maybe 2 reasons.

1.) They thought Dooku was the Sith Lord
2.) Clone War

It seemed that Dooku helped throw the Jedi off the trail of finding Palpatine sooner and even then Mace and Yoda sensed the dark side surrounding the Chancellor.

Despite Supershadow being a fake he does occasionly come up with something that makes since. Such as the idea of Palpatine having a Kaiburr crystal. If he did or did not is debatable. But we do know that their was a such thing as a Kaiburr crystal. They have a section on it on starwars.com. Also they did not think Dooku was the head Sith Lord. They did not find out Dooku was a sith until episode 2. And when they did Dooku straight out told Obi-Wan that his master had control of the Senate. They did not believe him but they did not dismiss the possibility either. I think Yoda suspected Palpatine since the beginning of episode 2. remember the look yoda give palpatine when he suggest then that anakin and obi-wan should guard Padme. Despite that though the Jedi were still blind sided. I refuse to believe that Palpatine could take out the Jedi with Mace so easily without some sort of power boost. His power also seemed to match that of Yoda and look how old, wise, intelligent and powerful Yoda was. So either he had some sort of power boost or the Jedi were actualy so weak that they could be so easily beaten. Either way the jedi got creamed. They were definity caught off guard.

ESB - 1138
Originally posted by Jam-Jul_Lison
Despite Supershadow being a fake he does occasionly come up with something that makes since. Such as the idea of Palpatine having a Kaiburr crystal. If he did or did not is debatable. But we do know that their was a such thing as a Kaiburr crystal. They have a section on it on starwars.com. Also they did not think Dooku was the head Sith Lord. They did not find out Dooku was a sith until episode 2. And when they did Dooku straight out told Obi-Wan that his master had control of the Senate. They did not believe him but they did not dismiss the possibility either. I think Yoda suspected Palpatine since the beginning of episode 2. remember the look yoda give palpatine when he suggest then that anakin and obi-wan should guard Padme. Despite that though the Jedi were still blind sided. I refuse to believe that Palpatine could take out the Jedi with Mace so easily without some sort of power boost. His power also seemed to match that of Yoda and look how old, wise, intelligent and powerful Yoda was. So either he had some sort of power boost or the Jedi were actualy so weak that they could be so easily beaten. Either way the jedi got creamed. They were definity caught off guard.

Wrong. All Dooku said was that a Sith Lord was controlling the Senate and of couse Obi-Wan didn't believe him.

Plus if you look at pictures of Palpatine from any Star Wars movie you will see no crystal shape or form on his body.

Jam-Jul_Lison
Originally posted by ESB - 1138
Wrong. All Dooku said was that a Sith Lord was controlling the Senate and of couse Obi-Wan didn't believe him.

Plus if you look at pictures of Palpatine from any Star Wars movie you will see no crystal shape or form on his body.

Actualy if you recall Obi-Wan told Yoda that, Yoda said they were going to keep to keep an eye on the senate. So that proved they considered that Dooku might have been telling the truth. As for lumps, who said the Kaiburr crystal was very big. It could have easily been hung around his neck like an necklace and it be hidden underneath his clothes or even at times in his pocket. His clothes were not exactly tight making it easy to hide.

Guilty Gear
Originally posted by Soren the Mage
You're threatening to close this thread?


That's outright ridiculous, Ushgarak. I've seen about enough of this shit for one day.

Why are you so afraid of being incorrect? Is it not possible for the almighty Ushgarak to never be wrong? Is Lightsnake challenging your opinion with valid theories and some stakes of evidence?

Awwww . . . Poor Ushgarak.

You can't even debate properly without threatening someone, can you Ushgarak?

I thought these Forums were about debating, dude.

Get real. Good point and damn. laughing

Tangible God
I remember this thread. Why it was cured of Death for THAT^, I don't know.

Ushgarak
That's an official warniong for you, Guitly Gear, for such a pointless bump supporting a post flaming a moderator.

Closed.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.