Sith Trooper Confirms Crappy Episode IX Poster

So today we were treated with the image of the Sith Trooper.

D_I3XJ9XsAgSLfX

Lucasfilm paints their stormtroopers with toenail polish.

Laser sites on rifles generally have a red laser that puts a glowing red spot on any target.  But nothing would be better than having your target be entirely red from head to toe.  After all, that SJW resistance needs all the help they can get.

But this release has now likely confirmed the authenticity of this old crappy poster that everyone was doubting.

Fw11stWi

Rey sports a man-bun.

Unfortunately, it appears that even this idea may have been lifted from the fans.  Just think; this used to be a joke:

adidas-stormtrooper-02

Lucasfilm is guilty of cosplay appropriation.

Some fans may remember the Sith Trooper from better times:

D_JU3ooU8AA3VvQ

UPDATE:

SC Reviews comments:

35 thoughts on “Sith Trooper Confirms Crappy Episode IX Poster

  1. A first “odor” stormtrooper with a red coat of paint? More boring and insipid designs from this train wreck of a trilogy. Abrams and Johnson have the poorest creative eye imaginable. I know the artists at ILM aren’t to blame as there are some “fabuloso” designs in the “art of” books for 7 and 8; but what these directors have chosen to appear in the film, are the shittiest designs and ideas from the book.

    Just look at the concept art for the Canto Bight scenes; you instantly get the idea that the artist knows exactly what Star Wars is and what that scene needed. What Johnson ended up with on screen, was some low budget looking crap that would have been the norm for 90’s television.

    I miss George Lucas so much!

    Liked by 4 people

    • I miss George myself. But I know he will never be involved in another SW movie again. And that is not only due to KK, but Di$ney, Bob Iger that is!

      He was treated really scummy by those 2 snakes. Once the last letter was dry on that sale document, it was Bye, Bye Georgie…SMH!

      And I looked at this new toy, and all I could think was,

      “Is this part of the new, scraping the bottom of the barrel line?”

      Liked by 3 people

  2. Even ignoring the inherently ridiculous concept known as “Sith trooper”, the fact that it’s nothing but a regular stormtrooper that was dropped on a bucket of red paint is simply the latest example of their lack of imagination and artistic talent.

    Looks hideous too.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. They look more like Maul Troopers as does Kylo’s new mask with the red cracks/welds.,lol

    Red Stormtrooper armor predates Disney and Abrams. Goes back to at least 1995.

    https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Emperor%27s_Royal_Guard_stormtrooper_armor

    Most likely there is a tie in with Palpatine’s Royal Guards and Snoke’s Praetorian Guards – whether cause of the apparent return of Palpatine or simply because Kylo assumed control of the FO and is a enthusiast of the Sith Order. “Sith Trooper” is lame though. Guess they could also be neo-CIones since Kylo expressed some interest in that program to piss off Hux in TFA.

    I kinda bet they all die when their new base blows up(another Death Star again) .

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Seeing the detail on this design in EVS’s latest video, the grooved red motif is a clear steal from the red ‘muscle’ armor designed by Eiko Ishioka for the opening sequence of Coppola’s Dracula.

    And it’s not the only bit of pilfering from that movie, in the teaser for Episode 9, that side tracking shot where Kylo sort of non-stabs a dude – that’s clearly a Disneyfied photocopy of a much better shot in that same opening sequence of Dracula.

    (full movie on youtube: CzkIEMeXwMg)

    Why has Abrams been watching the opening to Dracula so much? Hopefully that’s how he felt when he saw TLJ. Elizabetha is Star Wars! And Rian is the vengeful Turks.

    Liked by 2 people

      • I didn’t say red armor is unique, I said the red grooved armor motif is stolen from Eiko Ishioka. Where else has there been red grooved armor? Only in that Dracula movie. Eiko Ishioka is a famous movie designer who died in 2012, Abrams probably figured he could steal it and nobody would catch him or complain. But I’ve caught him and I’m complaining! I’ve caught him red-handed, no pun intended. He stole the motif from a dead Japanese woman.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks, yep she also did that suit in The Cell, it’s one of her trademark motifs.

        I’m having mysterious trouble posting anything at the moment but there’s a WP blog with an article ‘Eiko Ishioka Costumes As Sets’ which has some more cool pics, including one of her saying ‘look over there’ to a young genius named George Lucas!

        I don’t know why but it’s impossible for me to even post a link to another WP blog! It’s so irritating.

        Like

  5. Red stormtroopers? WAY more exciting than everything else combined that the bunch of shills who pretend they watch this pathetic excuse for a Star Wars trilogy will have seen so far. I mean who would expect JJ to get THIS creative– … oh, so he ripped this too. Well, I’m surprised the woke faggot didn’t go for rainbow 😀

    Liked by 2 people

  6. The grooves in the armor and some other cosmetic angles seem allocated from the Death Troopers. Some designs look also lifted from the Clone armor(which seems to have been used by even non-Clones like the later Purge Troopers in the new game Fallen Order).

    Like

  7. Whoa, hold the phone! I am a wee bit confused here.

    Wasn’t it Crylo who said, “let the past die”? And while he said that, he also said, “the SITH, the JEDI, all of it!”?

    So if he wanted that all to “die”, then why TF do we have SITH troopers?

    These morons can’t seem to keep any of these movies coherent with the saga, and not even their own trilogy!

    If someone told me this entire trilogy was just a prank, I might be inclined to believe them at this point! But I know, and unfortunately so, that this is no joke, prank or any humorous gaffe.

    And it seems like, what I think to be the Knights of Ren in production pics, that look eerily similar to Enfys Nest, and they are also on a desert planet, seems like they are also ripping off SOYLO too! I bet they will connect Enfys Nest to the Knights of Ren?

    And why would anyone be “excited” to see the Knights of Ren? Their master is Crylo Ren FFS! If the master of the group poses no threat, then how can the group pose a threat? Crylo Ren gets his ass kicked constantly and cries at the drop of a hat! And the REYLOS and REYTARDS want us to believe that Crylo Ren is one if not the “best” antagonist in the ENTIRE SW lore? LMFAO!

    I really want to know what kind of drugs these people are taking in order for them to say stuff^ like that?

    Oh yeah that’s right, they are the Tide Pod eating generation. Now I can see why they would say such stupid things like that…

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Well his line was very similar to Maul’s:

    He does his homework for a student of the Dark Lords. If he wants to be like Darth Vader then he does want to be a Sith or close enough to that Dark religion to where he practices their beliefs and styles himself after them. Also he could have been lying or deceiving in his attempt to seduce Rey to his side which is the Dark.

    Like

    • Ironically, Maul’s advice (and by extension Kylo Ren’s philosophy) also happens to match up with the Jedi’s philosophy in the Prequel Trilogy as well. I really think the whole “non-attachments” philosophy George Lucas cooked up for those films was a completely stupid idea, especially when it effectively painted the Jedi as being little to no different from the Sith. The fact that they generally took padawans in when they were young enough to not be capable of remembering their parents and their past would also point to that as well.

      Also, is it just me, or does Maul look a little sad when he says “Forget your Attachments” in that screencap?

      Like

      • How is it stupid? Attachment is tied to greed, to the inability to let go. It’s something inherently not good in a moral, philosophical, and psychological level since it goes in direct conflict with selflessness. The Sith, unlike the Jedi, are attached. Their ways are all about greed and a constant quest for power. They are unable to let go, they are unable to be selfless. So no, the Jedi and Sith on this are complete opposites. This is even stated outright in the movies, so to claim that they are the same on this issue is simply ridiculous.

        Also, the Jedi don’t take anyone from their parents. They do intentionally start Jedi training from a very young age. As Jedi, they are trained to be compassionate and love people, not become attached to them.

        The issues and consequences of attachment is something that Lucas points out time and time again throughout the movies. Both Luke and Anakin fail when they give into their attachments and both of them succeed when they let go of attachment, greed and selfishness. And this is true even for secondary characters like Han.

        Like

        • “How is it stupid? Attachment is tied to greed, to the inability to let go. It’s something inherently not good in a moral, philosophical, and psychological level since it goes in direct conflict with selflessness. The Sith, unlike the Jedi, are attached. Their ways are all about greed and a constant quest for power. They are unable to let go, they are unable to be selfless. So no, the Jedi and Sith on this are complete opposites. This is even stated outright in the movies, so to claim that they are the same on this issue is simply ridiculous.”

          Both you and Lucas fail to get it. Non-attachments actually lead directly to greed and make it all the more likely to just backstab your friends and family. Let me put it another way. Palpatine OBVIOUSLY had zero attachments to anyone save for maybe Vader [probably the only guy he actually went out of his way to actually save in his entire life]. If he had even the tiniest ounce of attachment to, say, his allies in the Trade Federation, he wouldn’t have had Vader kill them. And besides, in Matt Stover’s novelization, the Jedi tried to arrange for Anakin to spy on Palpatine largely in part to sabotage his friendship with him in order to ensure he remained under their thumb based on what Mace Windu said (and bear in mind, this was BEFORE they learned Palpatine was a Sith Lord, so it obviously wasn’t due thinking he was Darth Sidious), which technically would violate non-attachments according to both you and Lucas himself.

          “Also, the Jedi don’t take anyone from their parents. They do intentionally start Jedi training from a very young age. As Jedi, they are trained to be compassionate and love people, not become attached to them.”

          Being loving and compassionate kind of REQUIRES having attachments to even work. If I lacked attachments to, say, my parents, or heck, any person at all, let’s put it this way, I’d see no reason to NOT kill them or do any particularly vile thing to them simply for fun worst case scenario. Think along the lines of how Wesker behaved to his own comrades at S.T.A.R.S. in Resident Evil. If he had any attachments to them, he wouldn’t backstab them. Same goes for, say, Primarch Galenth Dysley/Barthandelus in Final Fantasy XIII and the Cocoon citizens he had charge over. Heck, to use a real-world example, Pol Pot perfectly represents just how “no attachments” is a horrible way to live. A large part of the reason why over a quarter of Cambodia’s population died under the Khmer Rouge was literally because he “didn’t need them”, meaning he had zero attachments at all to them. I believe I linked you to them the last time I mentioned this in another article, and I don’t think you ever addressed those bits. And yes, they do take people from their parents. There was even a controversy mentioned in one of those Holonet News viral marketing things for Attack of the Clones to that effect.

          “The issues and consequences of attachment is something that Lucas points out time and time again throughout the movies. Both Luke and Anakin fail when they give into their attachments and both of them succeed when they let go of attachment, greed and selfishness. And this is true even for secondary characters like Han.”

          Actually, Luke having attachments to his father to such an extent that he was willing to try and redeem him from the dark side is ultimately what saved the day. If he followed Obi-Wan and Yoda’s non-attachments policy, he most likely would have killed Vader without even a second thought, and then ended up becoming Palpatine’s new apprentice as a result.

          Like

          • Just to be clear, I really don’t care about the EU, Rebels or Disney works. None of which speak for or reflect Lucas’ views and intentions.

            As for your arguments: you seem to be confusing the meaning of what attachment is. Attachment is not empathy or compassion. Attachment is not inter-personal connections. Attachment is not necessarily related to people (but it can be). The Jedi are about compassion and selflessness. About caring for others over the self. But they are not attached.

            What Lucas means with attachment comes from the Buddhist concept (like a lot of the Jedi philosophy) of Upādāna, which is translated as attachment, but in the sense of clinging and grasping. All of which is fueled by greed. Basically, it’s the inability to let go. This is something that every major religion and respective moral philosophies warns against. If you aren’t able to let go, you cause suffering to yourself and others.

            And Star Wars is full of moments where characters are faced with attachments and their ability to let go (or the consequences of not letting go). If Shmi hadn’t been able to let go of Anakin (someone which she cared for more than anyone else), she would be compromising the prospect of a better life for him. Han is able to let go of his selfish life and the prospect of material wealth for a selfless cause (and in turn help many people). Luke acts on his attachment for his friends and ends up paying the price. Instead of rescuing them, he’s the one who ends up being rescued. He also is able to let go of his attachment and that’s when he prevails. Anakin isn’t able to let go of his attachment for his mother, and in turn succumbs to his emotions and decides to act on his fear of loss. This leads him to discard and compromise his mission and duty, act on his fears and emotions and try to rescue his mother. And when he’s faced with the reality that he couldn’t, he lets his fear turn to anger, and anger turn to hate, and he ends up exacting a massacre.

            Again, this is all well established throughout the saga. And Luke isn’t attached to Anakin. He’s compassionate towards him. He’s attached to Leia, and it’s when Vader threatens Leia that he almost falls. But he doesn’t because he realizes his mistake before it’s too late. His ultimate move is to let go of everything. To be completely selfless, to be willing to give up his life and everything else rather than be turned and take Vader’s place. It’s his compassion that brings Anakin back.

            Like

            • I’ll give you Disney’s rendition as well as well as Rebels (kind of), but the EU most certainly DOES reflect Lucas’s intentions (he would not have signed off on them in the first place if they didn’t. In fact, if anything, he probably would have at the very least fired anyone who dared write an EU story).

              As far as attachments, again, even under the Buddhist philosophy, it does not work at all. Technically, Barthandelus and Wesker made great Buddhists by having absolutely no attachments to anyone, actually letting them go casually to such an extent that they outright murdered them. I’m pretty sure even Buddhists would have viewed them as scum (and, heck, Barthandelus didn’t even give a damn about his own life, willing to die just to make sure Cocoon was destroyed). Same goes for Pol Pot, if I must be honest. He obviously “let go” of a quarter of the population, to horrific results. Even Palpatine let go of a whole lot of things, was even willing to forsake his own life just to get Luke to the Dark Side. Are you seriously going to call them “compassionate”? Besides, I’m pretty sure taking joy at someone dying is NOT compassion, which is something Yoda actually advocated when telling Anakin to let go. And quite frankly, if I were to adhere to Buddhism, I’d probably go massacre everyone precisely to ensure I let go of everything I own, because that’s exactly the logical conclusion of what Buddhism teaches. It’s also a reason why Christianity does NOT approve of Buddhism ultimately. Even Planned Parenthood can claim compassion as they’re murdering babies in the womb, that’s still not true compassion. Let me put it another way, if you had the ability to, say, save someone from cancer, yet decided even against their wishes to just kill them simply because you want to lack any attachments, would you view that as a good thing?

              Besides, you are aware that God doesn’t let go, right? If he let go, he wouldn’t even BOTHER saving us from eternal damnation. If I were to let go, I’d actually just not even bother saving anyone, be a total nihilist since, hey, if I’m to lack any attachments, might as well be as merciless as possible to everyone and hurt my fellow man since that’s what true nature is like. Compassion, TRUE compassion if I must add, actually REQUIRES attachments. If you have no attachments, you have zero reason to not kill your parents and dishonor them simply because you felt like it, for example (and the ten commandments actually REQUIRES honoring parents as one of them). Buddhism ultimately seems to mistake callousness with compassion. If Jesus were Buddha, he’d probably slaughter all of humanity simply to show he had zero attachments to anyone and anything and think that as compassionate. Want another example of a good Buddhist under no attachments? The Joker from The Dark Knight. He obviously lacked any sort of attachments to anything. Here’s another example: Seymour Guado from Final Fantasy XI, he if anything is the Jedi philosophy and Buddhist philosophy taken to its most logical conclusion, where he claims compassion while committing genocide without any remorse at the same time.

              Like

              • Correction, Seymour Guado is actually from Final Fantasy X, not Final Fantasy XI. My point with that character example still stands, however. In fact, how about I show you a video that highlights that character’s views: https://youtu.be/UHeaQiCUbuQ Basically, the buddhist view of compassion is basically callousness mixed with utter nihilism.

                Like

  9. Pingback: Sith Troopers Prove Smudboy Wrong | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s