"What the heck is a "Darth", anyway?" Topic

Well?

It's a contraction for Dark Lord Of The Sith.

It is not clearly defined but is generally seen as both a title and a way to signify leaving one's old life behind:

starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth

Sith types usually seem to get the 'Darth' honorific, in the various games at any rate.

I'm not sure exactly at what level of force usage one is qualified to use it. Darth Nihilous could wipe out whole planets with his mind, so a tad tough, but the various lightsaber wielding cannon fodder in KOTOR, Jedi Knight etc don't have the Darth title, just names, even fairly hard ones.

it's a contraction for Dark Lord Of The Sith

Like Gestapo? I like that explanation.

So George Lucas is a CuThaShouStoMaFil.

Pat

Er… Darth was the word "dark" changed around a bit. As was the word Vader and changing of the word father, so "Darth Vader" was really "Dark Father". That's per Lucus by the way.

Didn't anybody ever watch the Joseph Campbell inverviews of George Lucus and their discusion of myths and the Star Wars Saga? The whole Father/Son mythic battle thing? Anyone?

So Darth Vader had TWO honorifics. He was referred to as "Lord Darth Vader" at least once in the movies.

No matter what anyone says, for me it is just Vader's first name – and Lucas screwed it up later.

Its Hindi for Father.

– and Lucas screwed it up later.

Like that never happened elsewhere.

It's Galactic speak for "sales associate".

A screenwriters made up word to distinguish good from evil. Originally if I recall the conversation with a chap at Skywalker Ranch, a contraction of Dar(K)th (E)arth (the counter Earth theory)which was an original plan for Star Wars since it was thought folks wouldn't go to see a space opera that didn't include heroic Earthmen. Everyone gets to be wrong.

I always heard it was dutch for Dark Father

The way Alec Guinness says "Only a master of evil, Darth" always sounded to me much more like a man addressing his old comrade by his first name, rather than someone using an honorific.

If it's an honorific, how come his minions hardly ever use it? They don't call him Darth to his face, they usually stick with 'Lord Vader.'

> Like that never happened elsewhere.

True, true.

I thought it meant "Head of Catering"

YouTube link

Its Sith for the prefix "IN-"

Darth Vader
Darth Sidious
Darth Terloper
Darth Cestuous

Lucas cant spell "Daft"

OK, there is the world when Star Wars (the movie, not Chapter Nineteen or whatever revision Lucas wants to pretend today)
premiered and Darth Vader was the name of the primary antagonist, who wasn't Luke's father and who in fact did kill Luke's father.

Then there is the world after succees where suddenly there were always going to be three movies, which then became six movies and then became nine movies.
That is the world where Leia is Luke's sister; which makes the first two movies very creepy in parts, the world where Annakin Skywalker built C3PO and where Greedo shot first.

That world is the After The Fact World and is subject to change at any moment.
In other words, Darth was his first name and Vader was his last name back in 1977. Period.

If we want canonical, Wookiepedia is far more deeply emersed in the force, nerdier and on (star wars) topic then TMP (and has lots of great pics). This hallowed tome says of the term "darth" starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth

"The Darth title was more than just a symbol of power; it was a claim of supremacy. It was used by those Dark Lords who have sought to enforce their will on the other Masters. It was a challenge — a warning to bow down or be destroyed."
¯Sith Blademaster, Kas'im[src]
Darth was a title given to certain Sith Lords which preceded either their chosen Sith name, or, in some cases, their birth name.

"The Darth tradition is a relic of the past. It represents what the Sith once were, not what we are now."
¯Kas'im[src]
Many Sith Lords chose to add "Darth" to their name, so much so that the word is considered synonymous with the dark side of the Force in some circles. It was also taken to signify giving up one's old life. Such examples are Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader, or Jacen Solo becoming Darth Caedus. But the origins of the word are uncertain. It is often thought that "Darth" is merely a contraction of the title "Dark Lord of the Sith", but there are theories that suggest a deeper interpretation.

The possibility of Rakatan originEdit
Some historians suggest that "Darth" is actually a corruption of the Rakatan word Daritha, meaning "emperor". Others note another Rakatan connection: the words for "triumph" or "conquest" in Rakatan is darr, and the word for "death" is tah, leading to the theory that "Darth" is derived from darr tah and therefore means "triumph over death" or "immortal". Given the obsession of the Sith with discovering the means to live forever, this idea, on the surface, is not entirely without merit. But others point out that the true meaning of darr tah is "conquest through death," meaning the conquest of one's enemies.

Ultimately, the flaw in such theories involving a Rakatan origin is that, even if they are accurate, they cannot spring specifically from Revan or Malak's re-discovery of the Rakata and the Star Forge. Five years prior to their emergence as Sith Lords (3,964 BBY), the title "Darth" was already well known by the Jedi in connection to the Sith, which is why Padawan Zayne Carrick could call Jarael "Darth Sunshine". In addition, Haazen claimed that if he were to take a name like the Sith of old, it would be "Darth Hayze," all but asserting that the title Darth was around prior to Revan and Malak's discovery.[1] There is still the possibility that one of the Rakatan theories could be correct, since the ancient Sith homeworld of Korriban had once been occupied by the Rakata (circa 28,000 BBY), which is one way either the Daritha or darr tah term could have entered the ancient Sith language. Darth Andeddu lived during the time of the Old Sith Empire (6,900 BBY to 5,000 BBY), early enough for his holocron to come into the possession of the fallen Jedi Freedon Nadd.[2] He was known for experiments into eternal life, a possible link to the Rakatan word.

But even if the Rakatan connection proves to have some validity, numerous other cultures make similar claims to the etymology of the title, so for the present, there is no definitive answer as to what the term "Darth" truly means

Eclectic Wave 10 Nov 2011 8:44 a.m. PST wrote:

Didn't anybody ever watch the Joseph Campbell inverviews of George Lucus and their discusion of myths and the Star Wars Saga? The whole Father/Son mythic battle thing? Anyone?

I saw it and had the video and book at one time.
VR
James Mattes

vojvoda – glad to hear it.

Darth Vader was ALWAYS going to be Luke's father, there was never a time, even in pre-production of the first film, when Vader wasn't planned to be Luke's father. Luce's first huge 9 film story draft back in the 70's pre star wars had Darth as Lukes father. It was not RETCONNED* into the films.

*Retconned – retro-active continuity

> Darth Vader was ALWAYS going to be Luke's father

So you bought that lie eh?

"Darth" is old Welsh for Dark. Likewise, Vader is old Welsh for "Father".

Sorry, it was retroactively put into the plot.Take it from someone who read every single frak'n thing about Star Wars when it first came out.
The Darth Vader as dad, Leia as Luke's sister etc. were added when it became clear that Star Wars would be an ongoing enterprise.

I seem to think the playboy interview at the time had theories about darth vader that were "almost spot on"

Of course I only looked at it for the pictures, I was ten at the time…

of course if I could find my copy now.. it had a lovely spread of the Star wars cast and some of the original proto art. (it also had a lovely spread of Melanie Griffiths)

Then there is the world after succees where suddenly there were always going to be three movies

This whole "always going to be one movie" has an obvious flaw to overcome.

The words we see on the screen in Star Wars are titled "Episode IV". It is clear that from the very start Lucas was at least angling for a series.

There are some other indications scattered around : Yoda's rather peculiar "no there is another".

I have no issue that Darth was retconned as a title and a whole bunch of things, but that "Episode IV" suggests very strongly that it was always seen as, erm, episode 4.

The orginal Star Wars had no episode number on it when it was first released. That was placed there after the "prequels" were added.

episode IV a new hope was added when it was first rereleased – just before TESB came out

it was in a film movie projection we had in 1980/1

Of course video followed… but that is another story.

in the books contempory to the first movie Darth Vader is both a title and a name, it like somebody being named lord Earl Vader, or Queen Princess Elizabeth. Its strange.

of Course the same books have Obi – as an honorific so Ben Kenobi name means Jedi Knight of (family Kenobi) so by retconning one and un retconning the other they made a real hash job of it.

Its a fun film – but it makes no sense other than as a method to sell toys.

> There are some other indications scattered around : Yoda's rather peculiar "no there is another".

That was decided WELL into the writing of the second movie, it was not even decided till well into Empire that Vader would be Luke's father. By the filming of the second movie most of what would be the story that ends up on screen was in place. (but not before then, despite Lucas' protests to the contrary).

And as others have pointed out, Star Wars did not have any stinking IV plastered on it originally, it was just Star Wars. (I'm fairly certain Empire did not have a 5 on it when it first aired either – could be mistaken there though)

> "Darth" is old Welsh for Dark. Likewise, Vader is old Welsh for "Father".

Put together you have "Father of Darkness", makes for a great name, doesn't mean doodly about Luke's parentage though.

> The Darth Vader as dad, Leia as Luke's sister etc.

On our DVD set they have some of the original screen test dialog, notable for the fact that it is dreadful – just as bad as the prequal dialog that ENDED UP on screen. Also notable for the fact that Leia was noted as being skilled with what would become the Force (Luke's character was commenting on it).

So, although Lucas had reams of ideas and plot points, some of which said they were all one family, others had them seperate. The one that ended up on screen was the much simplified version that became Star Wars. This is where the confusion comes from – there is some proof that Lucas intended to do a good bit of what he later claims was his original vision, but it appears it was only done as a list of things in his idea book rather then any coherent plot.

I saw it in 76 or 77 I was stuck by the fact it said Episode IV. Just how I remember it from years ago. Google it.

link

VR
James Mattes

Don't have to James, I've got a pirate copy of it. No episode listed on it.

I remember when Star Wars came out, back in '77. No, there was no "Episode IV" on the title sequence. All that was added later.

And, yes, the Leia storyline turned really creepy, but they had Han move in quick, to kind of wash the two would-have-been-icky-if-we'd-known-at-the-time kisses away.

(I actually wonder if the change was made because someone decided Harrison Ford was a better romantic lead than Mark Hamill.)

And it was just called 'Star Wars', none of this 'A New Hope' crap either ….

I think you guys are right. I went on line and checked some video clips. Some have it some do not.I thought I had seen it in the theater with it. It might have been a re-release.
VR
James Mattes

It's no secret that Lucas based many of his "screen languages" on real world languages or jargons. I remember watching a documentary in anthropology class in college and thinking that then atives on screen sounded just like Ewoks.

-Eli

To Plant/Lerementov/Maddaz

In 1977 there was NO "Episode IV" header in the titles' crawl

BUT there was in the FIRST re-release in 1980-81.

Lucas had STAR WARS re-released as a 'trail' for the upcoming "Empire Strikes Back" release.

It may surprise some of you younguns in this age when you can see movies which were in cinemas mere weeks ago on cable or on DVD, but actually 30 years ago there were theaters which actually made a living by playing nothing else but movies of yesteryear.

They were called 'second vision' theaters.

Of course all of them closed and became porn cinemas or supermarkets when VHS recorders became commonplace.