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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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."
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?
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.