ST Rey Skywalker/Daisy Ridley Discussion Thread

Thats because for some reason they thought Rey random was more impactful then being a skywalker. it took until they decided episode 9 was the last of the skywalker saga that they remembered oh yeah legacy is important (psst but not that important).

But then Ben being the son of Leia and Han was always going to be a big deal. and so it should. he is connected to the previous trilogy just by the love story of Han and Leia. while Rey random is just restart luke with nothing to connect her.

I mean if you binged watched all 9 episodes you would see a family story. Shmi Skywalker > Anakin > Luke/Leia > Ben Solo.

 

Really? Becuase Padme's reaction always suggested to me that she's a poorly-informed teenager whose unaware that Tatooine is'nt a member of the Republic, hence why Shimi shuts her down by telling her the Republic does'nt exist on Tatooine.

The local authorities on Tatooine don't enforce Republic laws for the same reason the local authorities in Lanzhou don't enfored the laws of the United States - it's in a different country.

Hutt Space is a soverign power. The Jedi have as much right to meddle in their affairs as the Boy Scouts of America have to start a revolution in Russia.

No many that she knew personally who had such a large and lasting impact on her life and worldview.

I would think that logically if she died shortly afterwards she was going to die anyway.

It very well may, but if it does I'm not aware of it. I'm only making logical deductions based of what I know.

No, she was a novice and he was a master, and it showed becuase, despite is multipule disavantages, she was only ever able to get in one hit and it was a sneak attack.

Ah yes, Johnson should'nt have know better then to not consult with Alliyah Skywalker, the sole authority on what consistutes and Jedi Master and how they should be dipicted, before he decided to dipicted Luke the way he did. On his behalf I apologize to you profusely

I'd like to see how good your fighting skills are when you've been sitting around not praticing, getting out of shape, are in your fifties and your largly cut off from the thing that allows you to actually make use of the fighting styles your trained in.

Why would their have to be any others who were treated that way to make it a valid choice to depicted Luke that way? Heck, why is it disrespectful just because you say it is?

I’ll ask again – where is the rule that states he couldn’t be shown that way?

Why not?

To show that even the greatest masters are capable of failure and the greatest heroes are just people who are as flawed and fallible as the rest of us.

It’s not a claim, it’s an opinion.

For the vast majority of my time as a Star Wars fan I’ve dealt with a nearly-always infallible, mostly-flawless Luke who, despite decades of development in-universe and out, barely developed as a character. I liked him, but I always found him rather bland and uninteresting. ST Luke was a very refreshing take on the character to me and, I suspect, to others as well.

There’s nothing wrong with me liking TLJ Luke, it’s just as valid an opinion as you not liking him – just as Johnson’s take on the character is just as valid a take as what you wished he had done instead.

Mark Hamill also said that he eventually came around to Johnson’s ideas and that people were just twisting his words to make it seem like he had an issue with the film and it’s director, but nice try.

I mean, if we want to play this game I can point out how George Lucas thought TLJ was a beautifully made film; I mean, if we’re going by appeals to authority here surely Lucas’s overrules Hamills – or we can not play that game and just acknowledge that TLJ, like almost every other film in the history of films, has people who liked it and people who don’t and none of our opinions are any more valid then anyone else’s.

Yeah, no duh, because it’s a different power

If they were force projecting instead they’d be dead – Kylo makes it clear during the first scene were they talk to each other.

Kylo felt the water because of his connection to Rey – he did actually have a physical form that was manifesting on Ach-To and making physical contact with it as Luke was on Crait.

Rey would have died instantly, while Luke was able to hold his form with ease for a prolonged period of time and create solid objects out of nothing just by using the power of his mind (the dice). Who cares if he died? The fact that he was able to do it at all, and for as long as he did, while other people would have died right away, is what’s impressive.

And Force ghosts can’t help people? That’s news to me, because they sure as heck help out a lot across the francise. But yes, let’s criticize him for making a heroic sacrifice – Obi-Wan shouldn’t have done that either, because he’s far more useful alive then dead.

Because Kylo used to be a Jedi and is knowledgable in their history, teachings and ways.

Nice opinion.

I don’t share it.

She would have a hard time reaching him when she gets shot dead the moment she stepped out of cover.

How so?

Yeah, he did. The movie flat-out makes it clear that that is the case.

Those twelve survivors are the Resistance, and they were only able to get to Rey because Luke held the FO back. Again, the movie makes that clear.

If Luke hadn’t inspired the galaxy nobody would have joined the Resistance after TLJ and nobody would have answered Lando’s call to arms.

Funny, for being totally UNBELIEVABLE I belived it just fine.

Luke does'nt use Force Speed in ESB.

Agian, Dooku used lighting on accident when he was just an apprentice, so it's not a master-tier ability and what Rey did is'nt unique or special. This is'nt a video game were certain abilities are only unlocked once you reach X level.

As far as we know any lightning would have blown up that ship - you keep claiming that the lighting itself destroyed the ship, and ingoring that the ship was itself coursing with eletricity and filled with fuel.

Or maybe it's not damage control at all, but rather further evidence that the thing you claim is hard is'nt hard at all?

No, I'm paying attention, I just don't see the point being made.

Just becuase powerful masters do something does'nt mean only powerful masters can do that thing. Your saying "oh, this is a powerful display of Force power and it's unrealistic that Rey could do it" but I've yet to see any of you provide any actual sources that support your claims.

Ben did'nt have the name Skywalker, true, but he was still a Skywalker.

Well, Rey disagrees

Becuase he's a Human who slipped up and had a momentary lapse in judgement were he briefly entertained the notion of doing something terrible before he relized that said thing was terrible.

I've been there, and so have a great many other peaple.

Eh, I never really liked how the PT retconned the films into being the story of a single family, and that's part of the reason why I (and I suspect others) liked Rey not being related to anyone - it got the francise back to what I see as it's "roots" were the Skywalkers were no more special then anyone else.

And the Skywalker's could have still had a lasting legacy without any members of their family surviving or Rey taking the name - there was never any requirment or even reason that these films had to end with a living Skywalker.

Well, at least the cast and crew of the ST can take solice in the fact that the Star Wars fandom has always been filled with toxicity and bile and they were'nt being singled out.

 

Which is quite ironic given the fact that before the PT retconned it into a family story that the OT was about Luke Skywalker, who discovers the villain is his force sensitive father Anakin skywalker. oh and that he had a secret Sister who might also be force sensitive. so for the 3 movies of the OT, and yes there only 3 movies. there were no other movies to suggest its "roots" were based on different heroes. for those 3 movies Luke was the hero.

How did a 3 film trilogy about one character and his father issues give people the impression that its future roots were based on discovering new random heroes?

For episode 7 to be about a new hero. thats not going back to its roots. its just a remake. just without any potential heritage for the character.

 

Becuase in the OT, before the PT came along and recontextulized things, the Jedi/Sith fight was the secondary plot, the family stuff was'nt central to the main storyline of the Rebels vs Empire and Vader's fall was just something vauge that happened in the past, with the "oh, yeah, Leia's your sister" thing being almost as tacked on as "Rey, your a Palpatine."

Becuase before the PT came out Luke was just a random hero who was the last hope becuase their was nobody else available - there was nothing special about him or Anakin being a Skywalkers, it just happened to be their last name. The PT came along and made it all about some prophecised family destiny thing with Anakin as space jesus, and then from that the EU seized hold of the idea and inflated the importence of the family to the point were Luke, Leia, Han, Jacen, Jaina, Anakin, Mara and Ben more or less elbowed most of the other characters that had been built up over the course of the 90s and early 2000s out of the main character role and came to virtually monopolize the books.

To some peaple that got really annoying and we perfered it when Skywalker had no more special a meaning then Solo, Lars or Kenobi. That's all I'm saying.

 

So you are basing it on episode 4. or the Original Star wars movie for its roots?

Id argue times had moved on since to think its roots were based on Lukes character from the original Star wars movie.

 

I understand that interpretation but to me I've always thought as the ruler of her planet she would be pretty well informed on galactic law, and where her young inexperience comes in is not realizing that laws are just words and don't automatically reflect reality. There's plenty of examples of this on Earth, one of the least controversial of which would be the Wild West(as depicted in movies anyways) where robberies and shootouts and whatnot happen all the time despite being illegal because there's only the local (possibly corrupt) sheriff to stop them because they're geographically disconnected from the rest of the country. For a Star Wars example, whatever laws protect consular ships on diplomatic missions from being attacked and boarded by the government have a little loophole called "What are you going to do about it if we do?". So yes I've always been under the impression that Hutt space is part of the Republic the same way Scotland is part of Great Britain despite being it's own country, only instead of being Scotland it would be some other example from the British Empire's past where they're geographically far away from the capital and are a pain to police yourself, so you are incentivized to rely on their willing cooperation and not escalate tensions with them so that they don't rebel against your rule. There are multiple examples that suggest Tatooine was legally a part of the Empire so it makes the most sense to me that they were also a part of the Republic and just transitioned over with the rest of the galaxy, rather than the Empire bothering to annex that dust ball.

That's where I get lost. What large impact or lasting impact did Luke possibly have on her world view??

I think logically that if she died shortly afterwards the ghosts didn't save her from death.

What you know is that absolutely no one in the movie suggested it couldn't move and would have become useless after that shot. For whatever it's worth Wookiepedia has this to say:
"Its mobility was provided by rocket ports on the far side of the base"
...
"The first test of the base's weaponry, which had already been charged by draining a star before moving into position,"

 

I'm basing it on all three (4, 5 and 6) prior to the addition of the PT, as well as the EU as it existed prior to the influance of the second trilogy.

Evidently not, since she assumed Republic law applies to places were the Republic has no power.

Well, it's not. Tatooine is controlled by the Hutts as of TPM - we are told this in the film - and the Hutts are sovereign power independent of the Republic (we are also told this in the film, though not in so many words).

The Empire is not the Republic; their expansonistic and they want a peice of everyones pie. They still don't control Hutt Space, though, so either A) to use your British Empire analogy Hutt Space is akin to Egypt during the time it was a protectorate of the British or B) Vader had to get permission from Jabba to land his troops in ANH* (a third possibility is Vader did'nt ask and ended up cuasing a diplomatic incident, which is honestly something I can see him doing).

*In TCW the Republic to had to ask the Hutts permission to pass through their space and make use of their worlds as bases, so this explanation would seem to fit the best with prior precident.

He inspired her (along with the rest of the Resistence) at the end of TLJ and was already seemingly a personal hero before that, and talked her up and prevented her from making a catastophic, life-ruining mistake in TROS that would have had negative reprecusions for her and disasterous ones for the galaxy.

Of course not, but her getting up and finding the strength to contiue to fight was becuase of them, so if it had'nt been for them she would have just laid their on the ground and died, probobly earlier becuase she had no reason to keep fighting.

Whadda ya know, it does say that. So yes, your right, SK Base can move and Han's death was'nt meaningless - IMO though, Rey still owed more to Luke then Han.

But for clarification my prior point was that if there's no information telling me a planet is capable of moving around like a space ship then I'm not going to assume a planet is capable of moving, becuase that's a silly thing to assume.

 

Some might consider that a problem - that a character will supposedly be viewed as automaticly of more importence to the francise then others just becuase their members of a specific family; if that's not elitism, then what is?

Honest question - is it really so hard to believe, or outragous a concept, that some of us, love them though we may, are just kinda...sick of the Skywalkers at this point? And that part of the reason we liked what TLJ presented about Rey so much is'nt so much that she was nobody, but that she was'nt related to anyone else importent (be it a Skywalker, a Palpatine or whoever else) who came before in the francise?

 

If bloodlines matter in that way, why should Rey use that name?

Rey can think her face is made of pudding. It doesn't make it something that the movie developed on screen.

Being human like that doesn't have to equal doing that. I think that's what we call kinda homicidal.

I feel like many people haven't stood over their nephew's with a weapon, readying the weapon (I think), considering killing them.

 

@K2771991

Rian Johnson had the right idea I think in continuing the Skywalkers in the way of his teachings. That's the complaint I dont get. People pissed about Luke yet we get a film which *added* to his character, and gave a full circle perspective on the force and what it meant for Luke, and the force going forward. "Pass on what you have learned". What he learned was different than the past jedi and in a way he is holding on to his existence until someone comes along *eager* to learn, someone who is questioning their own existence, as well, who at the same time helps Luke gain and reinvigorate the faith.

I did suggest kylo being the survivor would make for a better ending, but to close of the Skywalker saga also makes it more complete if the Skywalkers are now gone. Opens with no Skywalker, ends with no skywalker. Luke having the opportunity to say his peace is more important than a Skywalker surviving, no?

 

@K2771991, a Luke was never a “ random hero who was a new hope because there was no one else”. We knew even from the OT films that the Skywalkers were powerful Force users. Remember the line,” The emperor knew that if Anakin were to have any offspring, that they would be a threat to him,”? Also, remember Luke telling Leia, “ The Force is strong in my family,”?

Yoda and obi-wan knew that Luke and leia would be powerful and waited a long time for them to grow up. Obi-wan watched over Luke , and yoda said, “ This one a long time have I watched.” That’s because Luke WAS their new hope to deal with Vader and the emperor and to eventually rebuild the Jedi order. Notice that obiwan watched over Luke instead of trying to deal with the two darksiders himself.

George Lucas always intended it to be a family story told against the magnificent backdrop of the Star Wars universe.

Speaking of Lucas, him saying that he thought it was a “ beautifully made film” is kind of a back-handed and not very complimentary comment. Notice that he never said that it was a great film with a wonderful story and great characterizations, or even that he enjoyed the film. He gave a very brief and not very enthusiastic comment. He couldn’t very well say he hated it; could he?

As for Mark Hamill, he made MANY negative comments about TLJ; not just one. Even RJ’s helper in that video about making the film said that Hamill was unhappy, though he gave the reason as being because Hamill was “ playing the Obiwan character and not the hero this time”, but that wasn’t true. Hamill always said that he WOULD play an Obiwan like character that passed the baton to the new hero in a small role. He has said that since the time of the making of TESB. Sadly, Hamill didn’t get to play an Obiwan kind of character in the ST. He was never allowed to train the new hero or to have a good relationship with her, much to the detriment of TLJ, the ST, and the whole saga.

I don’t doubt that Hamill May have made some positive comments about TLJ. I am sure that he was pressured to do so by the filmmakers, LFL, and even Disney, as negative feedback about a film by an actor probably isn’t good for business. However, it was very clear in many, many comments that Hamill made, that he did not like or agree with the direction that RJ took with Luke. Sadly, Hamill wasn’t able to change Johnson’s mind. Hamill played the character for four films before TLJ. He definitely knew the character a LOT better than Johnson did. No one would have denied Harrison Ford’s requests, but sadly, they didn’t listen to Hamill.

As to the rest of your rebuttals to my earlier comments, once again, we just need to agree to disagree. Our opinions about Luke and TLJ and Ryan Johnson seem to be complete opposites, so there is no sense in continuing to argue and go around and around about them.

 

In A New Hope Luke was a random hero from the middle of nowhere who sees more purpose or search for purpose, looking to the horizon knowing there is more out there.

The Saga starts with quigon, a non skywalker who in a way adopts Anakin, and ends with Rey who was in a way adopted by the Skywalkers. Seems fitting.

 

Ultimatly she should'nt have. I'm largly come around to the idea of her being a Skywalker, but I still don't think it was a good idea - and my opinions of the Skywalker's manoplization of the francise is a big reason why.

No, but a lot of peaple - myself included - have had violent impulses at some point in our life that would have led use to do harm to ourselfs or others and relized better before we've done anything. And was Force-sensativity and the strong, ever-present pull of the Dark Side a real thing, I'm sure more peaple would end up in Luke's shoes.

At the time the OT came out the PT had'nt decided the Jedi did'nt go around having relationships and children, so as far as we knew that did'nt mean anything special - heck, it still does'nt, becuase we know that connections (strong or otherwise) to the Force can be passed down through bloodlines and it's not just a Skywalker trait.

Only becuase in the context of the OT at the time they were made there was nobody left save for Luke and Leia, with both Obi-Wan and Yoda being to long in the tooth to do anything good - Yoda was nearing death by the time Luke finally reached him and Obi-Wan could barely stand up to Vader for short duel.

And I don't care what Lucas indended, becuase I'm not talking about what he indended but rather what I personally liked about the OT before the PT came along.

Why? Becuase you say so? Do you know him personally?

Mickey Suttle, is that you?

Yeah, actually he could have. He's a private citizen with the right to free speech.

Out of the three ST films it's the closest to his own treatment for them, so I don't see why he would'nt like them - and at the very least I suspect he would'nt begrude RJ for his choices given that A) their both artists who like to try new things/think outside the box and B) Lucas's own "divisive" choices in the PT let to him getting attack by the same toxic segment of the fandom that went after Johnson.

No, he made a few comments that expressed a bit of disapointment with the coices Johnson took vs his personal thoughts on were the story might go, and the haters twisted that into a narrative of "see, Hamil hates it! He's one of us! RJ is the devil!" He then had to clarify his position, though that did'nt stop peaple from claiming that he was being forced to do so by the evil corporate overlords holding a gun to his head.

Yes! Becuase of course if what he says does'nt fit your personal narrative he's must be being forced to say things by the evvviiiiiiiillll Disney overlords. That's why his since come out now that he's no longer under Disney/LFL's payroll and re-clarified that they forced him to do this, and why he threw his support behind the petition to re-shoot the film, right?

Or maybe they knew the character equally as well and just had a differing vision to them? Johnson's a longtime fan who grew up with Star Wars, so he definantly knows the character.

Honest question, becuase I actually want to know; what makes your, or Hamills, vision for Luke so much better then Johnsons or mine? Why do (and hypothetically assuming your conspiracy theory is correct, Hamill) you get to gatekeep the character and decided what choices for his storyline and devolopment are good and respectful and which are bad and disrespectful?

Becuase this fandom has become so polirized and toxic that peaple can't just see something they don't like and go "well, I did'nt like that but I understand why some did," be civil and try to understand/respect why other peaple like it and why the directors/writers made the choices they did. They have to rage agianst it, attack it and nitpick it apart like it's the spawn of satan and foist their personal opinion upon the world as if it's fact.

Gatekeeping and entitlement, plain and simple.

Agreed.

When you say it that way I actually really, really like it

 

I wouldn't assume some would see it as adding, but some may see it as treading previous ground for the character or regressing the character to have him progress again or having the character, to them, act out of character. I don't think he learned anything I think he wouldn't have already had before.

I think the movie, to me, develops an opposite concept, of Luke never wanting to do that and having given up. He literally says, "You think that I came to the most unfindable place in the galaxy for no reason at all?" "I will never train another generation of Jedi. I came to this island to die. It's time for the Jedi to end."

I think the movie itself doesn't showcase Rey having that much of a strong influence on Luke. I think, to me, they barely get to know eachother. Yoda's the one says something to him.

Anakin and Shmi were alive at the time frame of the beginning of TPM.

In the fiction of the movies, I don't prefer that.

Luke is the son of a dead jedi, as far as the audience is told, in ANH.

Qui-Gon never gets the chance to adopt Anakin, and Rey isn't a child to be adopted and the only person she forms a, I think as far as the movies show, developed over time connection with, is Leia, out of that family.

 

Controlled by the Hutts doesn't mean they aren't part of the Republic. There's also planets "controlled by the Trade Federation" and the Trade Federation is part of the Republic at that point. Planets have their own local powers and authorities the same way states in the US do, but it's pretty clear that the federal government of the Republic at this point in time is a lot weaker than the US's is(There are both pros and cons to strong federal governments).

With all due respect to TCW, it also alleges that Darth Maul survived TPM and wandered around a trash planet with robot spider legs he acquired from somewhere for a decade before getting his mind back and going on a reign of terror culminating with overthrowing the government of Mandalore and declaring himself ruler, so I don't necessarily see it as aligning perfectly with what the movies intended. Also the movies definitely intended Tatooine to be part of the Empire so if the outside sources say that it's not well, there's a reason I feel the way that I do about outside sources. The deleted scenes with Biggs explicitly describe it as part of the Empire, and the celebrations at the end of ROTJ including Tatooine is an odd choice if it's not part of the Empire. For whatever it's worth there are a bunch of Stormtrooper helmets on spikes on Tatooine in The Mandalorian which is again odd if it wasn't Imperial territory at the time of ROTJ. Imperial territory and Hutt territory are not mutually exclusive. Now, at this point I think we're off topic and I'm willing to just agree to disagree, but those are the reasons why the outside sources on this matter aren't convincing to me.

I don't think he inspired her with that trick, she didn't even see it and wasn't really in need of inspiring anyways because she missed out on all the doom and gloom the Resistance went through in the movie. As for their little chat it basically went like "Rey, you're doing what I did and what I did was dumb and had terrible repercussions for myself and the galaxy. I see now that I was being an idiot all that time and I highly recommend not copying me." That's not "Gee thanks, you've inspired me to take your last name now" stuff for me. I mean, nothing is actually "you've inspired me to take your last name now" to me. That's just a weird thing to do. (There are legitimate reasons why people occasionally change their last names but one of them is not because they met an inspirational historical figure once or twice, especially if they barely got along).

But the point is we don't know that they actually did anything more than cheer her on, like a regular living person can do on Earth. That doesn't mean they saved her life because inspiring her to defeat Palpatine didn't stop her from dying anyways.

That's no planet, it's a space station.

 

He did'nt mean literally adoption - he was talking metaphorically.

If Hutt terratory is part of the Republic then why does TCW treat it as a seperate, neutral power and the Republic has to barter for permission to pass through it and establish bases on its worlds? Heck, if it's part of the Republic why does'nt the Republic's currency have any value on Tatooine and why does'nt Qui-Gon just go to the residence of the local governer or for help in TMP?

I'm not sure what your arguing. You don't get to dismiss my points becuase you personally think Maul's survivial was silly (and for the record, I agree with you).

Firstly, deleted scenes are'nt canon. But as for those other examples, their fair points but they don't mean Tatooine/Hutt Space was a part of the Empire; the planet could have been annexed, but at the same time it could just be that the Hutts allowed Imperial troops to established a presence their, but that no more makes it Imperial terratory then Germany was US terratory during the cold war.

That's entirely possible. However, Republic territory and Hutt territory are.

Fair enough. But I feel inclinded to point out that canon does'nt work on the basis of whether it convinces individual peaple of what it tells them.

Agree to disagree. I think Luke inspired Rey and meant a great deal to her in terms of shaping her worldview and ideology and I think her chosing to honor him and his family by taking there name was a valid choice.

She only got up becuase they showed up, and she got stronger the more voices appears, that's enough to convince me that, at the very least, ther regaining her strength was becase of them.

No, it's a planet.

A planet that can move, apparently, but still a planet.

 

I don't really think that applies to Rey, as well.

Not strong writing consistency.

The people of the planet dismisses them.

What did Luke say that was inspiring and how does this make him mean anything a great deal to her?

 

"There are a lot of movies that are badly made that I love, and there are a lot of movies that are just beautifully made but I don't like them. And critics have a tendency - that's all they focus on, which is, 'I like it. I don't like it. It's good. It's bad.'" - George Lucas, The Academy of Achievement Interview, 1999

I wouldn't take George Lucas's "beautifully made" as significant proof that he loved TLJ when he's also said this. Beautifully made, according to GL, can also mean he doesn't like the film.

Truthfully speaking, GL has been very quiet about the ST.

 

That's where you and I differ. To me it's all made up stories for entertainment so whether it's consistent is more important to me then whether it's technically canon. Canon today can become non-canon tomorrow. I'm not changing my whole Star Wars world view every time they release new material regardless of the quality of it. A large part of the appeal of Star Wars to me is the universe the OT set up. If they release new stuff I feel doesn't fit with the old stuff I'd rather ignore it than dilute my ability to enjoy the stuff I previously loved. That doesn't mean you have to, it just means you're not very likely to change my mind on what a piece of media intended by citing a different source of media. That doesn't mean other sources of media have no value or anything and can never be referenced to try and clear up some confusion, I'm just saying if two things appear not to match across different stories I'm perfectly willing to chalk that up to writing inconsistencies rather than any kind of in-universe reason, because that is a common thing that happens I don't see a reason to pretend otherwise.

 

There is no political boundary so high that it can render a slaver immune from attack, either internal or external. Tatooine may not be in the Republic, but Padme is absolutely correct to argue that slavery shouldn’t be tolerated on Tatooine, and that the Republic should do something about it. You allow slavery, and you forfeit your right to inviolable sovereignty. The Republic, give its size, resources and democratic makeup, has a moral responsibility to protect slaves on Tatooine from their slaver government, despite not being legal sovereigns.

 

I suspect he regrets ever selling the franchise to Disney but he did and now he can't do anything about it.

 

Good thing your not obi-arin then, since he was talking about his own personal interpritation of the film.

If Tatooine is consistently show/said and implied to not be part of the Republic, then I would call that fairly strong writing consistency.

Yes, they do. By saying the Republic does'nt exist on Tatooine - which is supported by multipule other sources.

She was all set to give up and Luke stepped in to talk her up, inspiring her to find faith in herself and steel herself to go do what needed to be done.

Since I already know you well enough to know you'll just say something along the lines of "well, I don't think, to me, that means anything" though I'm just going to stop you there by saying it does mean something to me. That's how in interpreted the film, I enjoyed the message and I liked the relationship between them. Agree to disagree, let's move on and save us talking in circles like we usually do.

Oh, I see. He was talking about TLJ...eighteen years before it was made?

Oh, and that means he hates it?

AND I THINK THEY DO.

WHY ARE WE YELLING?

Probobly becuase I don't think Kylo's an insult of a character and does'nt spitefully spit on the end of their story.

Becuase not everyone views Kylo's story in TLJ the same way you do.

Shocking, I know.

That's a very bold and morally praiseworthy statement, but it's not one that fits with political reality - nations rarely go around starting was and invading their neighbors just to force their belief systems on them; even in modern days in examples were such a thing happens is more often then not due to some other, more cynical reason rather then out of a care for the peaple, and "I don't like the thing your doing in accordance with to your own laws and customs that does'nt affect me in any way" is not, as far as I'm aware, a valid cusus belli for war.

The Republic (and by extension the Jedi) have no power, or right, to enforce its will upon anouther soverign power just becuase they disagree with the way they do things, even if the thing they disagree with is something horrible. No more then the United States as any right to invade Saudi Arabia to enforced equal gender rights upon their population, invade Russia to prevent the killing of homosexuals or invade Sri Lanka or Isreal to prevent the opression and slow ethnic deaths of the Tamils and Palestinians. It's not pretty, and one could argue (fairly) that it's not right, but geopolitics rarely are either of those things.

Why would he regret it? He made 4.05 billion dollers and shed himself of a fanbase that had given him a great deal of grief and harrasment for the previus decade or so, and now he can watch a whole new slew of films and shows as just a regular Joe in the audience who does'nt know whats going to happen next.