ST Daisy Ridley (Rey) in Episode VII

I knew it! Bob is playing Daisy!

 

The different planet should be called Cageapalooza and the inhabitants should all be Nic Cage and Gary Busey.

 

Well I guess that could be her character's name. She is dark hair, she could be like Luke ... 'like the sun or son' a beam of light and if she is a Solo ... the rest would fill in as well ... maybe ...

It is vague and confusing enough it could be true

 

OW and K?

G
Luke and Anakin living on a backwater and being unaware of their nature/potential are supposed to mirror each other for the father/son story to show their similarities and differences until a Jedi arrives to guide them, like the Arthur & Merlin tales.

The "hero's journey" doesn't always start like that and Ridley's character can be aware, since s young age of her potential, like Hercules or Achilles. Her story can be the struggle to carry the weight of the responsibility, or maybe a rebellious to avoid it - depending on which parent she grows up to be like - or rebelling and then accepting if she is like both Han and Leia. There are old tales like this too.

The "mirroring" works for Luke and Anakin. If the movie starts the same way with with another of the main characters having exactly the same start it would be so boring and lazy.

The quality of a photo wouldn't be a good way to judge whether the helmet is fake - it could just as easily be fan made and quality cameras are an everyday item.

 

Here's one article, for example.

 

Here's another thought I had today.

In TCW episode Children of the Force, Sidious was taking Force sensitive children to become Sith. What if a Sith agent has taken Daisy as an infant and raised her to be evil, she starts questioning herself and who she really is and runs away to another planet. Agents are sent after her and one of them has a change of heart on first seeing her and he helps her discover who she is. Luke tries to go after her but gets taken captive.

 

Episode VII would take place 20 years after her birth.

Anyway, given what happened with Han and Leia at the end of Episode VI, who's to say they didn't have any children 30 years later??

 

This is one of the biggest reasons why I do not believe that she is a Solo. Han and Leia would have had to have kids at quite an old age to be having them.

 

I too believe she is a Solo.

The casting people could've gone with a blonde or a red-head, an African or Asian but they went with a pretty caucasian brunette who looks like she belongs in Padme's bloodline.

 

She have to be 40 then. Although they could be held in status. Besides based on rumors that would be more likely to be Boyega since they have got Imperials chasing him down and he starts on the Empire's Side.

 

Don't necessarily have to be in their 40s. More like late twenties to mid thirties would be a believable age for the offspring of Han/Leia.

 

Which Ms Ridley clearly is not.

 

Well, here is what I think: I think that Ridely's character is perhaps an offshoot of the "Rachel" character that was used in the call sheets last year. I think when they did rewrites last summer they wrote out one of the teenage females. They could have combined the Han/Leia daughter character with the tough teenage girl character.

Thus creating a different character that wasn't related to Han/Leia but followed the same path as that character.

Just a thought.

 

"The casting people could've gone with a blonde or a red-head, an African or Asian but they went with a pretty caucasian brunette who looks like she belongs in Padme's bloodline"

With that said, she is british and has a british accent.

 

Aren't Carrie and Harrison's kid in the early and mid-twenties? Carrie's daughter Billie is 21, Harrison's daughter Georgia is 26. Thus making Daisy in her early 20's seems reasonable to me. Star Wars plays fast and loose with ages. Didn't Padme go from being 14 in The Phantom Menace to 24 in Attack of the Clones, while Natalie was only technically 3 years older.

Honestly asking, are Han and Leia supposed to be way older than Carrie and Harrison? If Carrie's daughter is 21, why couldn't Leia's be?

 

I still think that she is too young to be a Solo.

With all due respect, this is where I will bow out of this part of the conversation. It is nothing personal against you, but I firmly believe that the public screen test character were simply throw-away character to test acting ability and have absolutely nothing to do with any part of Episode 7. There is nothing short of JJ publicly saying otherwise that would get me to believe that as tightly that he has this movie and it's characters and plots wrapped in secrecy, that he even had a sliver of anything to do with the movie, metaphorically or not, in those open and public screen tests.

Because if that I will be no good at continuing this conversation.

If Carrie's daughter is 21, then she had her at the age of 36. If Harrison's daugther is 26, then he was 46 years old. Clearly, this is biologically capable of happening. However, having children at that age is not normal.

 

Its possible I guess. It could have been a total PR stunt. There has been talk about that in the past.

No need to be dramatic about it. We are all just speculating. Nobody really has a clue whats going on with this thing anyways.

 

Twenties, yes, maybe even 30, but their kids couldn't be older, as this film takes place about 30 years after RotJ. That means Leia is now about 53 in the film, right? So, a 20 year old Daisy could be her kid easily. Leia would have been about 33. That's not old at all.

 

I disagree with that. A woman having a kid in her 30s is totally normal and a guy in his forties is getting older, but still not crazy and unheard of. And in reality, Daisy Ridley's father was 52 when Daisy was born. (He's 73 now).

Assuming Daisy's character is approximately 20 (based on Daisy's age), she would have been born about 10 years after Return of the Jedi. Leia and Han would have been 33 and 43 respectively when she was born, which are perfectly reasonable ages to have kids. And if by chance they have another, older kid (like Oscar), the ages make even more sense. They had one kid a bit after Endor, waited a few more years, and had kid #2.

Obviously, we don't know Daisy is a Solo and we're all just guessing at this point. And while there are arguments to be made that Daisy isn't a Solo, I don't think age is a particularly compelling one.

 

Very good points, Adi! I agree with everything in your post, especially the point about women in their thirties having kids being completely normal.these days, more women in their forties are even having kids!

 

It's not normal. It happens, but it is not normal. The average age for a woman in the US to have a baby is 25.

 

Really? You should have kept to your word;

As you obviously don't understand 'grown up' relationships.

 

Easy there, Quickdraw! Don't be mad bro. The part of the conversation that I dropped out of was discussing "Rachel" and the public casting call. I figured that I was very clear about that.

 

Eh. The average height of a woman is 5' 4" but I wouldn't call a woman who's 5' 7" an abnormal giant. 25 may be the average, but it's not some weird freakish thing for a woman to have a baby in her 30s (or even 40s) these days. Realistically, it can and does happen all the time, and there's no reason a 33 year old Leia couldn't very believably have a kid.

Again, there are reasons to think Daisy isn't a Solo, of course. But her age isn't one of them.