Talk:Eeth Koth/Legends

Not Dead
I don't care what the EU says. Eeth Koth appears in both Episode III and the Clone Wars microseries. No, I swear I'm not talking about Agen Kolar. His skin is darker, anyway.--Darth Fisto 03:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, whether or not you like it, the EU supports that he died on Geonosis when his LAAT was shot down. Additionally, he will not appearing in Episode III according to IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0788434/--SparqMan 04:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

2005 (UTC) Well, the inking error threw me off. Sorry for the confusion.--Darth Fisto 01:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC) --Darth Mantus 11:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's definately Kolar returning for Episode III. Eeth only appeared in Episode II due to the use of archival footage.
 * No, seriously, I've read the screenplay, and Eeth Koth is definately in it, and so is Agen Kolar. Also, he is clearly in the Clone Wars series. It's not Kolar because of the color of his skin. Darth Fisto 12:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) It clearly says "Agen Kolar" in the credits of the cartoon. The continuity editor of Lucas Licensing has also confirmed it is. 2) Only Agen Kolar is in the film, regardless of whatever screenplay you have read. The confusion is because for all intents and purpose, they are the same character. QuentinGeorge 08:52, 18 May
 * It is Agen Kolar In Ep III because Lucas could not get the actor who played Eeth Koth back to play him, and the new actor looked so different that he had to be made a new character.

In Attack of the Clones when they are on the gun ships and there being shot at, when u see Yoda, Mace Ki Adi Mundi and Kit when the gunship blows up nex to him you can see a Lightsaber in the gunship when it blows and its Eeth!

Source of Eeth's death
In case you don't know, Eeth's death was clearly stated in the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook. Darth Kevinmhk 10:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's Inside the Worlds of Attack of the Clones which confirms it. Furthermore, it's stated in the LFL holocron as Eeth's death. The Zabrak in the cartoon is NOT Koth, despite what you may think. QuentinGeorge 06:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to (re)start the debate, but...
Hi there. I'm sorry if you guys already felt that you had a consensus going on the issue of Eeth's death, but I'm afraid that the current version doesn't hold water, IMHO. Issues of the names listed in the Ep. III script or the Clone Wars vol.2 credits aside; the character featured in two separate scenes of CWv2 is clearly Eeth Koth, not Agen Kolar. Although I know that the latter was originally supposed to be the former, since it has been established that they are different characters I don't think that one can treat them as interchangable.

There is no way you can mistake them; Koth has a MUCH lighter yellow-brown skintone compared to Kolar's dark black-brown, the actors under the makeup have completely different racial characteristics, and most importantly Koth has distinctive line tattos on his face while Kolar does not. Check out the two pictures below. Now compare them to CWv2. The character there has the lighter skin and the tatts, ergo he must be Koth. I simply don't see that there is any "matter of opinion" about this.

Now, I grant you it is possible (as the credits would indicate) that the CWv2 character was supposed to be Kolar, but I honestly believe that is neither here nor there. After all, Kolar was supposed to be Koth in Attack of the Clones until they retroactively declared that he was a separate character. In no instance is either character's name actually spoken anyway. And as has already been discussed, the Ep. III script contains a similar mistake.

As far as canonicity is concerned, you might argue that both Inside the Worlds of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones and CWv2 are technically both C-Canon, but I think anyone would agree that a televisual source such as CWv2 (which has been categorically shown to have canonical implications) would superceed the reference book. Does anyone else agree with me on this?

I think that this is basically a similar case to that of K'Kruhk, where he clearly was supposed to die at the hands of Grievous in CWv1, but when this was later contradicted by the Star Wars Republic comic it was retconned as a "Whiphid healing hibernation" in which he was mistaken as being dead. Clearly, Koth survived Geonosis as it is inarguable that it is him in CWv2; we're just waiting for some kind of canonical explanation.

I hope some other folks will consider this debate and make some informed contributions. Cheers, DarthFistula
 * There's no debate. Koth is dead. He's not appeared in EU source post Episode II, as the cartoon credits and OS databank clearly identify the Zabrak therein as Kolar. QuentinGeorge 07:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See EU deaths for movie characters and Casualties of Geonosis. The official explanation is that Eeth is dead, regardless over whether you think the cartoon Zabrak looks like him. QuentinGeorge 07:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the cartoons are no higher in canonicity than any other EU source. Like comics, cartoons can have visual errors. We see Yarael Poof in an issue of Republic. Has he magically come back to life? No, it's simply an art error. QuentinGeorge 07:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And also bear in mind the cartoons are a highly-stylized version of events&mdash;so characters don't actually look exactly as they would in real life. If we can excuse the exaggerated proportions of the characters, I'm sure we can excuse this small difference - Kwenn 08:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, with all due respect I still disagree. As I said before I think this is easily analagous to the situation with K'Kruhk's "death". Does anyone else want to discuss this particular similarity re: canon? And as far as "visual errors" is concerned, I think even if this is a "mistake" it is still inarguably a representation of Koth, not Kolar, even if it is unintentional. I really don't think this is a question of "my opinion". He does look like Koth, objectively. As I said before, Kolar was originally supposed to be Koth after all, so difference of resemblence is clearly an adequate basis for character identification. Anyone else want to discuss this? DarthFistula
 * Nope. He's dead. That's official. End of story - Kwenn 10:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As Kwenn said - there's nothing to discuss. He's dead. Period. It's Kolar in the cartoon and always has been. Our personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant.  QuentinGeorge 11:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with DarthFistula (!); I think Eeth's canonical death should be considered overwritten by his canonical appearance in Clone Wars. And I agree with his/her point about the similarity of K'Kruhk's retconned survival of Hypori; SW canon has heaps of continuity errors which are only reconcilable through later retconning explanations. I mean, for goodness sake, the Thrawn novels and much of the early EU were significantly incompatible with the prequels until they started doing some seriously slippery explaining away. And I also agree that an actual depiction of Eeth in Clone Wars should take canonical precedence over a mention of his death in a reference book. I mean, seriously; there's no way the Zabrak in that council scene (or the later one) can be mistaken for Agen Kolar. Like the article on Star Wars canon says; "every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others." Surely Clone Wars is a more authoritative source than a brief mention in a reference book? DarthBinks Easter Saturday, 2006.
 * Me too. For example, Star Wars: The Visual Dictionary contains statements which are now obviously incorrect because they have been contradicted by the later prequels; like stating that Darth Vader rose to power through gradually climbing the ladder of the Imperial Navy and that he was initially regarded as "insane human wreckage" by his peers. Are you guys arguing that we should regard information like this as canonical despite the fact that this reference book has been clearly overruled by more up-to-date films? Surely not.
 * It seems obvious to me that the same should apply here. It's only logical that Star Wars Clone Wars Volume Two should be automatically considered a more canonically valid source than Inside the Worlds of Attack of the Clones, hands down (and yes, I also agree that the attribution in the Clone Wars 2 credits are a mistake, just like the Revenge of the Sith script). As to the Lucasfilm Holocron; we all know that takes a while to get fully updated. Don't forget, Agen Kolar was Eeth Koth at first.
 * Anyway, that's my two cents. Ta, PressPass
 * Ignoring the rather blatant use of sockpuppets, there is absolutely ZERO chance that this is going to be retconned. Eeth Koth died in Geonosis. It always was this way, and it always will be this way. And colouring errors are nothing to throw out everything else on. Sorry, but that's the way it is. QuentinGeorge 08:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to get too deep into this debate, but the Clone Wars series, though officially exactly the same canonically as reference works, has in the past been on the losing end of continuity gaffes. Until the New Essential Chronology retconned the endings of Labyrinth of Evil and the Clone Wars series, for instance, it was Labyrinth's version of events, not the cartoon's, that were the version the Lucasfilm VIPs said were closer to the truth. jSarek 07:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye. If anything, the cartoon is a LOWER level of canon than the books. QuentinGeorge 08:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)