Why does everyone keep posting these out-of-the-film explanations? Its pretty obvious where all the PT Sith names come from as far as their meaning in the English or Dutch or whatever languages. Just like its pretty freaking obvious why Grievous has his name.
THE QUESTION, PEOPLE!, IS WHY DOES PALPATINE NAME HIM VADER?
NOT why did LUCAS name him Vader. Jesus H. Christ on a tricycle people. Pay attention.
You're right mephistodesigns, but the problem is this:
It has to be assumed Sidious doesn't name Vader arbitrarily (it's not like the Pope). This conclusion leads to the idea that there is a method for naming a Sith. The discussions about adding an "In" onto the front of the word is about trying to figure out what the Sith tradition is. Perhaps it's the Sith tradition to take a word and drop "In" from it. Up until Maul (and subsequently Tyrannus), this worked fine. There was a wonderful "in-the-film" explanation. There isn't anymore. After Maul and Tyrannus, it comes across as very arbitrary. This presents the idea that there WAS an in-the-film explanation, the one we all want, but that Lucas DIDN'T CARE about the in-the-film explanation because he'd rather name a guy "something cool" like Darth Maul. In other words, he probably killed the in-the-film reasoning for his own out-of-film desires.
Furthermore, EVERY IN-THE-FILM REASON FOR EVERYTHING COMES FROM LUCAS' HEAD ANYWAYS!!!! doh
Vader wears the suit because he fell in a volcano. That's the in-the-film explanation. It came from George Lucas' brain though lol.... it isn't like history where it really happened!
Originally posted by ImperialPEZ
Ahem, when we were first introduced to the name Darth Sidious, it was in the same movie where we were introduced to the name Darth Maul. Your In- trick working years ago in-the-film is a farce. In the OT, Sidious was never referred to as Sidious.
Emperor Palpatine was known to be called Darth Sidious a LONG time ago, just like we all knew a LONG time ago Anakin became Vader by being killed in a lightsaber duel with Obi-wan on a volcano.... just because it was never in the movies it doesn't mean we didn't know it. It might not have been official canon or anything, but it was a name and very rarely if ever has any NAME from EU or from any other non-canonical sources been shown to be wrong by statements of Lucas or in film.
I really dont think his name means anything, originally im sure lucas just picked the name "vader" because it sounded cool. any kind of reference to anything else is 'after the fact' and was either put in EU to make vader sound like it has a point, or people looking to other languages for some kind of point. but I really dont think lucas had anything special in mind other then "darth vader" sounded menacing and cool.
I don't have a source other than that I remember knowing this long before I even knew the PT had gotten the thumbs up for production. I'm sure, however, that someone here could provide one.
And when I speak about an in-the-film explanation, I don't mean one that is explicitly given in the film. I am referring to a reason that would exist were we to take the film as being fact rather than fiction, and also that can be dedeuced from the film. For example, Yoda says he has trained Jedi for 800 years.... in other words, he is over 800 years old. It is NEVER said that he is able to live so long because he is a different reason. However, to me that explanation is in-the-film, because it is an explanation that would work were the film to be real-life fact rather than fiction, and we can dedeuce it.... we can easily say, gee he is a different species that must be it. An out of film explanation, on the other hand, would be: George Lucas wanted to have Yoda be very wise and very old, and he says in an interview, "Yoda uses a special Jedi potion that keeps him alive."
Originally posted by Mist
😑 i dont get it😐
Basically, I said the idea of Vader and Sidious coming from taking the words INVADER and INSIDIOUS and dropping the "IN"s was an explanation that was "in-the-film."
I had said the idea of deriving Sidious from insidious was in-the-film, and ImperialPEZ said it was not because the name Sidious is not in the film.
I was explaining in my last post that when I say in-the-film I don't mean something that is explicitly stated on-screen. What I mean is something that would go with the continuity of the film, so it would work if the film were real.
For example, even though it didn't happen, it would have been possible to have Vader's son be named Luke in Empire, but be named Eddie in ROTJ, because they are only movies and the people making them can change whatever they want. In real life, that would be impossible. So when I say in-the-film, I mean treating the film like it's real life.
So basically, my original point is that if the movie were real life, the idea that deriving a Sith name by dropping "In" would have been feasible when all we had were Vader and Sidious. Since we have Maul and Tyrannus now, that forumla is no longer in-the-film because if it were real life, it wouldn't work (Inmaul and Intyrannus aren't real words).
To cut to the chase, I think Lucas came up with the names Vader and Sidious when he did by taking Invader and Insidious and dropping the Ins. I think he had set that as the pattern of how things worked for the dark side. I think he then decided it was more important to have a cool sounding name like Maul than to have good continuity.