ShadowDog Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I'm with Lucas on the tardation of the Rule of 2. Clearly Yoda was talking where there's one, there's at least one more. Duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 No, because on January 17th 2000, George Lucas stopped eating a cheeseburger and said "There were only two Sith. That's the ticket. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. That's what I meant all along." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted December 2, 2014 Author Share Posted December 2, 2014 No-- Lucas meant there are only two ever because they kill each other off. The Clone Wars went into great lengths to both explain and dispel the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas1138 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 MEH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Not being flip, I agree. And I don't pay any attention to anything Lucas says outside of the movies. I haven't seen much of TCW, but I wasn't impressed and don't really care about any additional explanation. As such, the line really only explained that there has to be another Sith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted December 2, 2014 Author Share Posted December 2, 2014 MEH is right. If I am right about Abrams-- in that he is going to put in a lot of things older fans wanted from the PT and didn't get-- I'm hoping he's laying seed for that grand scale lightsaber battle we've never had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas1138 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Stop. You stop it right now. I won't do this again!Not being flip, I agree. And I don't pay any attention to anything Lucas says outside of the movies. I haven't seen much of TCW, but I wasn't impressed and don't really care about any additional explanation. As such, the line really only explained that there has to be another Sith.Much like Driver was talking about, that seemed like it got classic "over-explanation" treatment. Then going into the EU there was whole book called Rule of Two I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 MEH is right. If I am right about Abrams-- in that he is going to put in a lot of things older fans wanted from the PT and didn't get-- I'm hoping he's laying seed for that grand scale lightsaber battle we've never had.Like Braveheart style, with two opposing armies with lightsabers? I would be down for that. I don't know if we will get that, but it would be cool to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Just to clarify ... when I said Lucas in my last reply I was talking about our Lucas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 our Lucas.At least you're not calling him "my Lucas." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Choc Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 On the 2 Sith rule, stories change as they are being written. Especially ones that are written sporadically over the course of 40 years. It's probable Lucas meant that there are only 2 total Sith at a time. But that's irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with changing that meaning as long as you don't have to jump through too many hoops to do it. In this case there aren't any hoops to jump through. As has been pointed out it could easily mean that Sith come in pairs. Also it could simply be that Yoda was wrong. Either way it's a pretty easy fix, that I would think barely counts as a ret con. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Human Torch Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I think the two sith rule is best intrepreted as a trick the sith played on the jedi... they bought it hook line and sinker. Much easier to go about your business when the jedi are patting themselves on the back for wiping out the threat of the dark side after only killing those two who were dumb enough to get caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Maybe it was just meant as another poop joke. Sith/Always 2 = Other word for Poop/#2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Human Torch Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Sith is also an anagram of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Ah, the prequels...over-explaining stupid crap but not telling us basic information like WHAT IS A SITH!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted December 3, 2014 Author Share Posted December 3, 2014 Ah, the prequels...over-explaining stupid crap but not telling us basic information like WHAT IS A SITH!?That depends. If you're George Lucas they're the bad guys who can use the dark side of the force and have red lightsabers. The End. If you like the EU, the Sith were an ancient race of aliens whose doctrines and religion became the basis of philosophy for a group of Dark Jedi who then crafted it into a movement. There are Dark Jedi, and there are Sith... and the Nightsisters and a few other groups known to use the dark side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Choc Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 And I think that Lucas explanation is perfectly fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Krawlie Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Yeah, it really doesn't need anything more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolis Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 But God forbid you try and explain that the whole thing started with the taxation of trade routes. The USA entered world war 2 because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. But why did Japan bomb Pearl Harbor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas1138 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I mean I think it's the same, the EU just provided the back story for the term, which was kind of the point of the EU. Watching the movies (pre-reading any EU) I never really needed anything more than sith = bad guy force user = red lightsaber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamonAtila Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Maybe Yoda meant there's minimum 2 sith but could be more? No, he said specifically 'no more, no less' Could the Sequel Trilogy continue to update the Jedi/Sith rules and have Luke talking to Yoda and it being revealed Yoda made a mistake, etc..? Of course. They own it, they can write what the want. But that won't make the movie GOOD. As you guys said, the PT pushed it too far with over-explaining things and if that keeps going on then Star Wars is truly in big trouble. These new movies are supposed to be the redemption, and I really hope they are. Also, for people who think the 4chain synopsis was farfetched and fan-fictiony? The PT gave us: -"Someone to see ya, honey! Jedi by the looks of him." -"What are midichlorians?" -"Execute Order 66" Etcetera, etcetera....so in a way the 4chan rumors sound more OT and canon-y than not. And lastly.... If you like the EU, the Sith were an ancient race of aliens whose doctrines and religion became the basis of philosophy for a group of Dark Jedi who then crafted it into a movement. There are Dark Jedi, and there are Sith... and the Nightsisters and a few other groups known to use the dark side. Just a term like 'Nightsisters' completely embodies why I stay away from that EU CRAP and feel that everyone should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryn Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 If you like the EU, the Sith were an ancient race of aliens whose doctrines and religion became the basis of philosophy for a group of Dark Jedi who then crafted it into a movement. There are Dark Jedi, and there are Sith... and the Nightsisters and a few other groups known to use the dark side.They likely didn't get Bothans right either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANA-kin Skywalker Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Benedict Cumberbatch has been seen on the set. He's not credited to be in the movie, and he denied being cast a long time ago. However, when confronted about his appearance on the set, he was asked again if he was to be in the film, he didn't deny it, and said no comment repeatedly. Add all that up, I don't know what the heck it means, but I would LOVE Benedict Cumberbatch to be in the film, or even a voice over for whatever Andy Serkis is playing.The voice in the trailer sounds an awful lot like my boy, the big batch of cumber himself, Benedict Cumberbatch. I called it therefore I am awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavonis Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I read that Serkis has confirmed it is his voice on the teaser trailer, not Cumberbatch's. And being seen on set does not prove that an actor is in the movie. Daniel Radcliffe has claimed to have been on set, but no one expects to see him in the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas1138 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Serkis confirmed it was him. Cumberbatch confirmed it wasn't him. I think it's safe to say that Cumberbatch is in the movie somewhere though. Not in any meaningful way, but I bet he's in there. Just based on how he always answers questions about whether or not he has a part in Star Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts