StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I was wondering something. I was reading the Star Wars message boards and they kept on repeating a certain thing. Now, if George Lucas says something, but that something is never in a movie, book, game or any in-universe source is it considered cannon. I know he owns the franchise, but my question is his words automatically considered cannon and thus no longer up for debate. Thanks for the information.

[This question came about the fact that GL said something about their being no Sith once Vader and Palpatine died and I just wanted to know if that is considered high cannon)

It's his universe, what he says goes and everyone else has to work around it. And what he said about the Sith is true: there were no true Sith Lords after Palpatine and Vader, only wannabes like Jerec and Ismaren.

Here's what Leland Chee has to say on the subject:

With regard to George's comments to Rob Coleman, we try to glean whatever tidbits of information we can in instances like this but we also have to take these statements with a grain of salt. Sometimes George may have been joking or he may have just been speaking off the cuff. He also reserves the right to change his mind. Sometimes we get to explore these ideas further in the EU, and sometimes we don't. In this case we don't.

Simply using the Dark Side of the Force does not make you a Sith Lord. There were no Lords of the Sith in the post-RotJ EU (besides resurrected Palpatine), only Dark Jedi. This distinction is canonical (RotS novelization).

This question was really two question, it seems. 1) does everything Lucas say automatically cannon, and 2) did he say the thing about the Sith.

The first question was answered by both Kuja and Lord Poe very usefully. While it is his universe and he does have a certain amount of say, he is also human who can retract what he says. So in a way we should take what he says with a grain of salt unless we are sure its 100% true. In other words, it shouldn't be the only thing we use to back up our side in a debate, but as supporting evidence it sure helps.

The second question is a little harder to answer it seems (looking at the 'fights' breaking out on Starwars.com. Some sources suggest that Lumiya was a Sith. She was trained by Vader and traveled to Sith worlds. But then who knows. But I agree with you, Vympel, that using the Dark Side does not make you Sith any more than using the Light makes you Jedi. To be a Jedi or Sith you must have a history, mindset, and certain unique abilities. But, again, wouldn't an apprentice to a Sith master also be considered a Sith even when he just began training and can't do anything but wave a pointy stick around.

Thanks (Kuja, Lord Poe, Vympel) for your speedy and useful responses. This reminds me why I like this forum compared to The Force Net, SpaceBattles and StarWars.com.

The current version of the Sith ceased to exist with the deaths of Vader and Palpatine in ROTJ/DE.

There is no reason, that a new (incarnation of the) Sith-Order can't arise again (after all, it did so in the past).

IMO what he says comes wright below the movies in the canon scale.

I'd like to pop in and say a bunch of things that help nobody.

Firstly, Dark Jedi have to have been Jedi that fell to the Dark Side. Not every Dark Side adept is a Dark Jedi, the same way that not every Light Side Force adept is a Jedi. Similarly, not every Dark Side adept is a Sith Lord, unless they're part of the unbroken chain of Sith.
Darth Tyranus and Darth Vader had the privilege of being Dark Side adepts, Sith Lords and Dark Jedi. Lucky bastards.


Also, it would seem that in Lucas' view of Star Wars history, even if there were multiple incarnations of the Sith (there may not even be), there's an unbroken chain of succession from the first Sith to the last. And at the last, it ends.

After that you have folks calling themselves Sith, but they're not Sith any more than Assaj Ventress was. The fact that there aren't real Sith Lords anymore doesn't make the pretenders' claims any more legitimate. So even the EU can have their characters call themselves Sith, but there you go.. the final interpretation, whether they're "true" or not, is up to you.


As for things that Lucas says in general, they really do have to be taken with a pinch of salt. I mean, are Stormtroopers all clones or not? First they weren't, then they were, now they aren't. I actually attached myself to the idea that they are somewhere along the way


Btw fyi, it's spelt "canon", not "cannon".