This is the talk page for the article "Eeth Koth/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

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. 04:29, 15 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

2005 (UTC) Well, the inking error threw me off. Sorry for the confusion.--Darth Fisto 01:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • 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.

--Darth Mantus 11:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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)
    • I'm quite upset that they killed him off so quickly. I don't think he received the attention he deserved.

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.
File:Eeth koth1.jpg
File:77 - Agen Kolar.jpg

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—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)
      • I don't see why a source's strike rate should be the sole determining factor in assessing its canonicity. There are LOADS of things in the Clone Wars animated series that are now considered canon. I think there are far more cases of reference books being overruled by later product, even from episode to episode of the prequel trilogy. I mean, the Episode One visual dictionary states that the standard Battle Droids are modelled after Neimoidians but the Ep. II one says that they're designed to resemble Geonosians. -Bob.
        • It's not going to happen, since there's no contradiction. It's Agen in the cartoon and was always intended as such. There are far more egregious continuity errors to worry about, you know. Furthermore, it's not about "strike rate", it's about the sheer number of sources that explicitly contradict the cartoon on this matter. For Pete's sake, Koth's already been replaced on the Council in the comics that take place prior to the cartoon. Are you going to suggest he magically vanished, only to reappear for a single Council meeting before vanishing AGAIN? QuentinGeorge 09:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I've been reading this debate with some interest and I'd like to throw in my opinion at this point. Although QuentinGeorge's argument seems well backed-up (and very forcefully expressed!), I do kind of feel that he's just restating his case now. And I'm not sure how he can say so confidently what the makers of the clone wars series actually "intended", unless he can quote an actual statement from them about the matter. But as to the question of Kolar's membership on the council, he's certainly got a good point there. At any rate, I think his view is quite clear by this point, so I'd personally be keen to hear from even more other users on this matter. Get a few fresh opinions, hopefully.

Personally, I remain unconvinced one way or another. White the Attack of the Clones-era book admittedly does state Eeth Koth died and the cartoon Zabrak is not referred to (in the scene) by name, I also find it pretty hard to simply discount the cartoon Eeth Koth as an "animation mistake" since he was quite obviously drawn to look like Koth, even if the writers may have had Kolar in mind.

Here's a challenge to those of you who are strongly in the "Koth died at Geonosis" camp; can anyone find any in-universe sources (comics, novels etc.) that make any kind of reference to Eeth Koth's death? Can anyone supply any difinitive in-universe corroboration (more than the circumstantial, like Agen Kolar being on the council) for Koth's demise? It would certainly add weight to that side of the argument.

Peace, guys. DarkLordOfTheBith.

  • Hello again, everyone. So, "blatant use of sockpuppets", huh? Assuming you're talking about me, them's fightin' words, QuentinGeorge! Anyway, I won't dignify that with a response. Keep it civil, I always say. Look, the rebuttal I'd like to offer is pretty simple; Eeth Koth's death has never actually been depicted in any kind of story, so I would argue that that a story which clearly depicts him as alive, even if it was created as the result of a "mistake", should take precedence. Common sense, I reckon.
  • I also agree with DarkLordOfTheBith; let's hear from some more people with new evidence on this topic.
  • But more importantly, I'd just like to point out to everyone here that the source Inside the Worlds of Attack of the Clones which is basically the central evidence supporting Eeth's death is inherently flawed. Seriously folks, read it again. In the very same sentence it states that Sora Bulq also died there, which we all knows is obviously not the case. And before anyone jumps down my throat and point out that his death was "misreported" like it says on his own page, just take a moment to think about that. If Bulq's death was canonically contradicted by his later appearance in Star Wars: Republic, then surely the same applies to Koth's appearance in Star Wars Clone Wars Volume Two. How can it be argued that this book's declaration of Koth's death is holy writ if Bulq's death mentioned in the same breath is completely disregarded?
  • Catch ya all later. Ta, PressPass


  • OMIGOD! Look at this! It clearly isn't Logray in the Ewok cartoon! They look nothing alike!

And crap! Look at Teebo!

Different coloured skin AND hair! Another imposter!
They must be totally different characters! Clearly we must retcon this! QuentinGeorge 11:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No...that...can't be Chirpa...It can't be! QuentinGeorge 11:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • By the way. All these new users appeared and magically happened to post here, and here only, to support your opinion here. If that isn't sock-puppetry, it's a mighty big coincidence. QuentinGeorge 11:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, that was a rather unpleasant post. And to think: I came to Wookieepedia to get away from this kind of abuse on Wikipeia. Not nice to see people copping it here too. So, in the hopes of broadening out the discussion I've tagged this disputed section. Anyway, I just wanted to say that it seems pretty thin to me for this guy QuentinGeorge (who clearly has a a bit of a mean streak) to insist that the screenwriters & animation artists on Clone Wars "intended" for the character to be Agen Kolar. How does he know what they intended? None of us do. In fact, it seems far more likely to me that they intended it to be Eeth Koth, unaware of the (frankly comparatively obscure) statement of his death. After all, why else would they draw him to look exactly like Koth if they intended him to look like Kolar? I find it rather implausible that they wouldn't have had access to the relevant archive pictures to tell the one from the other. Although I obviously don't know what they intended either, it seems much more plausible that they intended him to be Koth and that he was deemed to be Kolar after the fact when they were drawing up the end credits when someone realised that he was supposed to be dead, to try and smooth over the contradiction. Anyhoo, that's MHO, for what it's worth. DarthBinks Late Easter Saturday, 2006. P.S. I can't help but note that the QG's stream of invective doesn't contain any factual refutation of the preceeding posts.
      • Eeth Koth's death is stated in the Power of the Jedi sourcebook, Inside the world of Attack of the Clones and in the holocron itself - [here]. All these sources confirm Koth's death and you must accept this as the official Lucasfilm line. KastMorben 13:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
        • As QuentinGeorge explained, there is nothing to dispute about. Even if the Clone Wars cartoon overwrote the sourcebook, Leland Chee's blog entry, as the latest source, overwrote it in turn (even though the blog itself isn't canonical, it reflects the Holocron). - Sikon [Talk] 15:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
          • "I can't help but note that the QG's stream of invective doesn't contain any factual refutation of the preceeding posts." - You must be blind. I provided you with two links from the Keeper of the Holocron (ie, LFL's continuity guru) and two published sources. You just dismissed them by saying, "But it looks like Koth in the toon!". QuentinGeorge 23:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Well, it seems like my side of the argument isn't going to get anywhere here. I don't know about the other "not dead at Geonosis" people, but it's quite clear to me that standard of proof here is highly reliant on Lucasfilm declarations etc rather than the evidence of one's own eyes. Which is fine, I guess; it is the official canon system after all. If that's ultimately the sole determining factor in debates here at Wookieepedia then I for one am not going to push uphill any further.

However, I still rather object to QG's aggressive attitude ("You must be blind". Lovely...!) and am frankly disappointed that Wookieepedia indulges users with the same short tempers and ill manners as Wikipedia is infamous for. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, I don't even mind people proving me "wrong" with cumulative evidence, but I don't like seeing fellow new users like PressPass being attacked for their opinions, much less being dealt with rudely myself. I thought this would be a friendlier place.

Finally, although I accept that this debate is over (at least in as much as the contrary position is no longer being tolerated), I would still be interested purely for the sake of curiosity if any of you would please be so kind as to answer the call which DarkLordOfTheBith put out to locate any in-universe references to Eeth Koth's death, or for that matter any kind of (polite) response to my own question about why the ligitimacy of the original statement (upon which all subsequent reaffirmations are surely based) of Koth's death should not be thrown into question by having Sora Bulq's obviously incorrect death declared in the same sentence. Personally I'd just like to know about these two points for my own peace of mind, and you chaps obviously know so very, very much more about all this than me.

Thanks, DarthBinks

  • Damn straight. I'll put it even more plainly than that - QuentinGeorge is acting like a jerk. I'm perfectly happy to have a civil debate with someone over questions of fact an interpretation; but the kind of condescending, humourless and inflexible didacticism he's been dishing out to anyone here who didn't agree with him is something I don't need. You know, you can disagree & debate someone without resorting to bile. Get some frickin' manners, dude.
  • Anyway, I've obviously "lost" this debate. I can admit that. But I DO think the challenges in the previous post are pretty fair and it'd be nice if any of you rabid naysayers would have the good grace to have a go at them, rather than just keep citing the hallowed holocron. Later, DarthFistula.
    • I uploaded a screenshot of Agen from the Clone Wars cartoon. I think that it is obviously supposed to be Eeth Koth. There is no question about that. The animators probably did not know he was dead so my opinion on this is that it is an artistic mistake as was mentioned before. If he's dead he is dead. if he shows up again without explanation then it is a mistake until a canon source says otherwise. I'm mostly posting the image here for a more fair argument so those without the cartoon on hand can respond if they wish to.--DannyBoy7783 02:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well man, no where tells us that it is Eeth Koth. If he dies between Ep. II and the cartoon, then we should accept that it is Agen Kolar.

Inactive user

This user has been inactive for 12 months or more, and has lost their user page privileges. If you are the user in question, simply undo the last edit to this page when you return to normal article editing activity.

Last article edit: April 3, 2016 (contribs)

02:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the image, DannyBoy7783. I was hoping someone would post one. Again, although I still acknowledge that I have lost the argument, I'm glad that someone new to this discussion at least agrees with me that the animation model was clearly designed to look like Eeth Koth and was VERY probably intended to be the actual character as well, only to be retconned as Agen Kolar in the credits at a later point in postproduction. DarthFistula, ANZAC DAY.
    • While I agree with you on those points I think this argument is pointless. if he's been retconned then he's been retconned. The animators messed up. End of story. You have a good argument I think, but if Koth is dead then that's that.--DannyBoy7783 15:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Eezh Koth appears in Wild Space. Is he dead or is he not ? Clone Commander Lee 28th December

  • No. Databank: Inside the Worlds of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones by Simon Beecroft (2002, DK Books) describes Koth as a casualty of the Battle of Geonosis. A Republic gunship that explodes on-screen in the Episode II movie is described in this book as carrying Eeth Koth, Tarados Gon, and Sora Bulq. In reality, the figures inside the gunship are indistinct and anonymous in the movie. Koth's death -- like Sora Bulq -- would be disregarded in the canon of Star Wars lore, as the character design would resurface in the Clone Wars micro-series, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated series. Can we archive this section? I think it would be a very good idea, as a reminder that not all is at it seems in Star Wars... and as a warning to the more vocal posters that shouting down people who have other views is not always the perfect way to proceed. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).


Source? Yrfeloran 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Revenge of the sith (the game)

Was Eeth in EP3 the game? master_fisto 02:15, 10 December 2006

  • No, he wasn't.My guess is that he never really had any importance in the films to make it into the gameOOM-10 07:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)OOM-10


Sharad Hett was Eeth Koth's padawan until 47 bby when he went missing. Shouldn't that be mentioned?

In the arena?

Eeth Koth fights in the arena? Where? If you look at the circle of survivors, only one Zabrak is present, which is Agen Kolar. Yes, Eeth died in the gunship, but I think that he was already on the gunship; maybe he came with Yoda to Kamino and came back to Geonosis with him, where he died. -- Cato Neimoidia 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In Star Wars:Revenge Of The Sith the novel he goes with the team of Masters to apprehend Palpatine and is killed by Palpatine69.221.234.21 01:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course he is dead

ok first of all. yes. he died in Ep II during the battle of geonosis. We have that pretty clear. But what has no base, and have never been explained: Actually I remember that it was a fan that wrote in the wikipedia, after the Ep II release, that he was in a LAAT, where he died, without any support.

In the same Gunship traveled, Agen Kolar, Bultar Swan, "Eeth Koth" and another Jedi. First of all, he was never seen in the arena (we know all this Agen Kolar Conflict, but pittung this ona side. it has no sense becuase he was never there) and he never jumped into that Gunship that was shot. The same Gunship that if eventually was shot, and destroyed, were Agen Kolar, and Bultar Swan survived, but Eeth Koth not. That of course has no sense at all. What leads us to the conclution that THAT GUNSHIP what we saw in the movie wasnt theirs.

So Eeth Koth really died in Geonosis, but maybe in the excecution Arena, or in the space battle, or in the battle outside the Arena. That is something it hasnt been cleared yet, and senseless that has been accepted in wookieepedia as canon (I mean that that Gunship was shot and he was there etc).

  • Inside the Worlds of Attack of the Clones establishes that Koth, Taradas Gon, and Sora Bulq were all killed in the explosion. Obviously Bulq's "death" has been overridden and explained, but Koth's hasn't. Ergo, he's canonically dead, and he canonically died in the gunship. :-) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 07:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking up Darth Maul...

Shouldn't there be some mention of the fact that after Episode 1, Eeth Koth attempted to investigate the Zabrak Sith that killed Qui-Gon on Naboo? Kalin Sorn 20:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I want to say it was the Episode 1 visual dictionary, but I don't know for sure. I'll just look around until I find what I'm thinking of. Perhaps someone else, knows what I'm talking about? Kalin Sorn 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've read this somewhere too. I think it was in the Episode II Scrapbook thingy --Jake200493 11:36, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

The Clone Wars: Wild Space

  • Hi, according to the talk page on The Clone Wars: Wild Space, apparently Eeth Koth is still alive after the Battle of Geonosis. Is this another canonicity issue from The Clone Wars series? (sorry, didn't see this was mentioned above, but it was never answered anyway)

Inactive user

This user has been inactive for 12 months or more, and has lost their user page privileges. If you are the user in question, simply undo the last edit to this page when you return to normal article editing activity.

Last article edit: April 1, 2013 (contribs)

05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add one more request for more info on the dead jedi who was apparently fighting to defend korriban in wild space(i havent read it yet a friend told me) because as ironic as it is for a dead jedi to defend a dead world it doesnt make sense

  • In my opiion, he is not dead at the of Battle of Geonosis. The first source of his death is Inside the World of Star Wars: 3 Jedi died in the gunship. But later sources (comics) override it: Sora Bulq have survived.

Chee stated in his blog, Koth have died. But his blog isn't an official source. It isn't a even source, just a collection of other sources. He refers to the ItWoSW. I think his statements souldn't be read as written in stones. He just presents the actual official answers. But this can change in time. For example he stated repeatedly the dark trooper are only game-mechanisc in non-Dark Forces computer games. Later the TFU RPG book invented the Dark Trooper Phase 0 project to solve this continuity error. This override Chee's previous 'canon' statement.

Previously some users said there are no sources of Koth's survival other than the CW cartoon. The cartoon was retconed to show Agen Kolar. I agree with this. Some of the extra videos about creating the cartoon show drawers working from the EP1 Visual Dictionary instead of the EP2 VD. And other, like Adi Gallia are also in the cartoon's Coulncil instead of Strass Ailee. So the cartoon isn't a good source to support Koth's survival.

Now there is the Wild Space novel to support his survival. It is as canon as the comics that override Sora Bulq's death. I think if a part of a sentance in the ItWoSW is overriden, other parts of the same sentance can also be retconed.

Also the RPG sourcebooks are often overriden. Think about C'boath's 3 or 4 sapatere birthdate. The Databank doesn't say anything about his death.

I don't say he surely survived, but his death is questionable. I think it sould be stated in the BtS section. Darth Morrt 10:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Eeth in Clone Wars 3D

OK- so its been confirmed that Eeth appears in Grievous Intrigue and people are skeptical about this. Remember that just because the Gunship exploded doesn't mean he died. Grievous himself is evidence of this. The article says

A Jedi Master is taken hostage and tortured by General Grievous. Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Adi Gallia devise a daring rescue plan but they soon realise the General has a plan of his own.

Now the key word in that quote is torture. Eeth's article tells us that Eeth had the rare Force Power Crucitorn , enhancing his natural Zabrak ability to withstand torture. Also, Eeth "died" on Geonosis. Grievous was on Geonosis. He could have easily took the near-dead Jedi Master held him hostage, and tortured him. He lasted so long without giving in because of his Cruticorn and Zabrak abilities.

Of course, there is still a possibility that its just a flashback, but it would be nice to see Eeth still alive :D --Jake200493 11:57, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

  • Ok, I believe the latest update to the Databank entry closes this discussion once and for all: "Koth's death - like Sora Bulq - would be disregarded in the canon of Star Wars lore, as the character design would resurface in the Clone Wars micro-series, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated series." So, does that mean that not only is Koth officially still alive, but he is now also officially the zabrak from the micro-series? Gry Sarth 13:33, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
    • Guess so, feel free to update both this and Kolar's article. MauserComlink 13:35, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
      • Can't. Kolar's article is locked. Gry Sarth 14:03, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm glad Eeth's back, I liked him :D --Jake200493 14:23, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
  • "This left the fate of Eeth Koth unknown. Lucasfilm Licensing killed off the character as a callout in a battlefield map in Inside the Worlds of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, though that death would be disregarded when the character returned in "Grievous Intrigue," a 2010 second season episode of Star Wars: The Clone Wars, written by Ben Edlund and directed by Giancarlo Volpe." Ta-daa! Eeth is not dead (yet). Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).
  • Well, here we have it in the video commentary [[1]]: Dave Filoni was reasonably certain that Koth was killed off in Ep. II, but he consulted Leeland Chee to verify it. Chee validated this claim. Filoni then called George Lucas and asked if Koth 'could be not dead', and so it was (every Star Wars fan's dream, I envy that guy!). So, Koth was brought back. Originally slated to die at the beginning, Filoni suggested otherwise because of his habitual knack for killing off new characters during season one. Retcon in it's purest and most enjoyable form. Still, I worry that Grievous Intrigue was too much of a circular story, with nothing achieved other than an increasingly angry Obiwan. --Newagent89 19:56, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Clone Wars Microseries

The databank claims that Koth's character design was used in Clone Wars; this info in itself is nothing new. Until we get confirmation that that character is intended to be Koth, Clone Wars Chapters 21 and 22 should remain as possible appearances. Otherwise, we're speculating. I've asked Leland Chee over on TOS forums if that character has been retconned to be Koth rather than Kolar, but until we get an answer, we don't know for sure. Menkooroo 16:02, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

  • "Koth's death -- like Sora Bulq -- would be disregarded in the canon of Star Wars lore, as the character design would resurface in the Clone Wars micro-series, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated series." I think the return of the character design is the return of the character in an 'artistic form' instead of 'live-action form'. But maybe I am wrong, I am not native English speaker. - Leeland rarely answers on the Forum, his last post was in August. Darth Morrt 19:44, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
  • "This left the fate of Eeth Koth unknown. Lucasfilm Licensing killed off the character as a callout in a battlefield map in Inside the Worlds of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, though that death would be disregarded when the character returned in "Grievous Intrigue," a 2010 second season episode of Star Wars: The Clone Wars, written by Ben Edlund and directed by Giancarlo Volpe." This is on exactly the same page as the bit you have selectively quoted. It's just a few paragraphs on. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).
    • Heh, I'm not arguing that it's not Koth in Grievous Intrigue. I'm talking about Chapters 21 and 22 of the Samurai Jack Clone Wars cartoon from 2004. That's why I "selectively quoted". Menkooroo 05:31, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
      • The anon's comment is useless now, but I still think that "the character design would resurface in the Clone Wars micro-series" means that the character returned in drawn form. Darth Morrt 08:36, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
        • That's a fair assumption, too. I regret the vehemence with which I made my initial comment; I now realize that the statement is ambiguous enough to go either way --- but that's really the problem, isn't it? We can't be certain what it means. As such, I think that "Possible Appearance" is fair. Thoughts? Menkooroo 09:22, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
          • OK, let it possible. Darth Morrt 10:25, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+