ST Rey Skywalker/Daisy Ridley Discussion Thread

And I don't, becuase I don't see one.

If you meet someone with whom you share a mutual friend and you hit it off with them and eventually become romanticly involved, is that an inorganic part of life. I fail to see how Rey and Poe having not met prior to the end of TLJ can (or should)

As far as I can remember Hamill's never written nor directed anything, so I don't see how he has more experience then Johnson and Trevarrow - if you mean more experience with Luke then sure, but that does'nt mean his opinion on the character trumps theirs.

Again it's not so much as it is a matter of value as it is a matter of differing relationship dynamics.

And I think it does.

I see no reason to think RJ would not have relented and tweaked his own vision for TLJ in such a minor way to accommodate Trevarrow's vision if that's what the latter had really wanted.

 

But consider this, what you are saying that Luke living or dying is a minor thing.
That RJ could easily change it and would have no real objection to do so.

Doesn't this mean that RJ's reason for killing Luke off were not that strong?
Luke is arguably one of the most well known SW characters and his death would be a major thing.
So to suggest that RJ just did on a whim, "Oh and Luke dies." That does not speak well of the motivation behind this.
Also, if RJ did not really care one way or the other if Luke lived, then why not accommodate Mark Hamill on this issue?

On the other hand, if RJ felt that Luke dying was absolutely crucial to the story he was telling, that the Luke character had to lay down his life at the end. Then RJ has a stronger reason for why he does it and it explains better why he refused Mark Hamill but it would also mean he would be resistant to accommodate CT.

Who is more important to the film RJ is making, MH or CT?
Obviously Mark, he is playing Luke, who is a major character in the film.
Colin is just writing the sequel so he has no impact on TLJ itself.

If we go with the total extreme, a totally cheesed-off Mark or a totally cheesed-off Colin, which would be the most harmful for TLJ?
Again obviously the former, if Mark is really angry about what he is told to do, either he can phone his performance in, which could hurt the film. Or he is so angry that he quits. This would hurt him majorly and is a VERY unlikely thing but the impact of Mark Hamill walking off the new SW film would be a major disaster for Disney.
If Colin is unhappy then that would not impact RJ or his film, that is for Colin to deal with.
Unless CT goes and cries to KK or Disney.
Again this is an exaggeration.

In closing, if the death of Luke was a minor thing that RJ could easily change, then to me that means he killed Luke off for weak reasons.
Leaving Luke alive gives more options for the writer of the next film whereas a dead Luke boxes them in considerably more. If RJ did not care either way then he choose to box in the next writer for again weak reasons.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Luke out of the picture takes Reys crutch away.

Forget tros and just think of where TLJ leaves things, we have Kylo Ren as Supreme Leader, with the army of the FO and the knights of Ren under him, and Rey with the resistance who meets up with Finn.

Rian was setting up Finn to be better included in the main drama I think. Leia of course was likely always going to play a part in episode 9, but I think the idea going forward(from tlj) was that things would be much tighter on the characters, which is why they were reduced to a small camp.

 

At the end of TLJ, Kylo was the Supreme Leader, Poe was the Resistance Leader, Rey was the Last Jedi, Leia stepped down in Poe's favor and Finn was caring for injured Rose who previously declared her love for him and either saved his life or prevented him from going off in a blaze of glory, depending on POV.

In TROS, Kylo was quickly made Palaptine's underling, Poe forgot that he was the leader so that he could tag along like a minion, Leia was the leader again, Finn and Rose were so over that she wasn't even part of his inner circle, while Rey was one woman army rendering everyone who tagged along with her else pointless cause she could do everything herself and didn't need anyone's help.

 

Hard to argue with any of that.

The Trio was such a misstep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

From what I understand, Luke was originally supposed to die in episode ix, not episode viii. Luke certainly did not need to die in TLJ. He still hasn’t even fulfilled his role as Jedi teacher/ mentor to the hero. He still hadn’t successfully trained anyone. From comments made by trevorrow and Hamill, trevorrow had plans for Luke in his film. In fact, it was after Carrie Fisher died and after RJ killed off Luke, that trevorrow seemed to have trouble with his own episode ix story. If two characters that you were planning to use in important ways are suddenly lost to a writer ( three, with snoke), I could understand it would be difficult to completely change the story. Even if RJ didn’t want to give in to Hamill or trevorrow’s wishes, he should have done it after Carrie died. Luke’s death could have easily been taken out of the film. Carrie died a whole year before TLJ came out.

It just seems that RJ wasn’t willing to compromise or give in to a trevorrow or Hamill. It just seems like he wanted to be the one to be able to say that he killed off Luke skywalker. Luke’s death certainly didn’t improve TLJ as a story or film. It didn’t help the heroine, because she was left with no Jedi teacher; and it certainly didn’t help Luke’s character. So, Luke died just because Rian Johnson wanted luke to die. Luke’s death didn’t make the story of TLJ or the ST or the whole saga better. In fact, I would say it negatively affected all three and made all three worse.

 

Luke teaches Rey. The Jedi now rest with Rey.

I know there is probably a lot of fans that wanted Luke twirling a lightsabre cutting down AT ATs deflecting Palpatine lightning with his green sabre but then what's the point of Rey?

Fans praying for just one more blaster shot from Leia or Luke cutting down ATATs with his green sabre or throwing around FO members with his mind.........that's out of character.

 

Luke did NOT need to be the hero of the ST. I don’t think ANYONE expected Luke to be the hero or main character of the ST. What most of us wanted to see was for Luke to pass the Force knowledge and Force skills to the new hero. That did NOT happen. You said “ Luke teaches Rey.” That’s not true. Just saying it doesn’t make it true. Luke told rey why he thought the Jedi should end. He didn’t teach her force philosophy or Force skills or force knowledge. Luke was not a mentor to Rey. Luke and Rey had a very negative relationship; not a positive one. Rey even attacked Luke from behind and accused him of “ creating Kylo”.

That’s why so many of us are so annoyed. Luke was disrespected and killed off without being allowed to fulfill what should have been his role: restoring the Jedi order, or at least, properly training Rey and passing the baton to her to be the next Jedi hero. But, RJ killed Luke off without allowing him to train Rey. He killed Luke off for no reason, except that he COULD, and had him die accomplishing nothing and leaving no legacy at all. At least, if Luke could have truly trained Rey, he could have left a legacy, but RJ kept even that from him.

 

We saw Luke carry on what he believes the force to be through Rey.

The life of a jedi is not an easy task. The saga tells us this. So, what's the problem?

The complaints I read seem more rooted in EU material "this is what the force is this is how training works". Where people have acquired some kind of "this is what training is for jedi" mentality through years upon years of books and comics.

Johnson brought it back to the films, where it is more about opening up the mind to a larger world.

 

No, I'm saying that it would be a very easy change to make.

That's not what I'm saying at all; the film does treat Luke's death as a major thing, but the way it's set up the only major effect it would have is on the third movie, which Trevarrow, not RJ, is writing.

Would Johnson be annoyed at having to alter his vision? Sure, possibly he would, but I see no reason why that would prevent him from accomidating Trevarrow if that's what the latter had really wanted - after all, he himself asked Abrams to alter his vision for the end of TFA and JJ complied, so why would'nt RJ do the same in turn for Colin?

Trevarrow having plans for Luke does not require Luke living, so it seems your assuming that becuase he said he had plans he's saying those plans were twarted by Luke death - read the evolving scripts for DTOF, Luke still plays a fairly large role in them.

Agian, as far as I'm concerned there is no realistic, logical reason that I can see for why, if Trevarrow had really, really insisted that Luke live, RJ would not have obliged him; heck, Hamill probobly could have forced the issue if he really wanted to by simply refusing to act unless it was changed.

Agree to disagree on all three points.

Agian, agree to disagree.

How do you know that's what most peaple wanted to see?

Luke gave Rey philosphical lessons and helped shape her perspective of the Jedi and the Force; training does not need to be martial or Force based, and IMO the ideas Luke imparted on Rey, while shaped somewhat by his cynism, are well-founded and a perspective I hope (and think she will) retain going forward. So yes, he did teacher her things and he, along with Leia and Han, served in a mentorial role to her.

And Luke and Rey's realtionship became positive in the end, as evidenced by their discussion in TROS.

No, she asked if it was true that he created Kylo, and he anger subsided when Luke explained what really happened.

Why do you get to decide what consitutes "disrespect" for the character? Why is it disrespectful becuase you see it that way, as opposed to respectful when I and others see it that way? Why do you get to say what is and is'nt the right path for the character

And I'm with Pablo Hidalo; rebuilding the Jedi was'nt Luke role, it was someone elses plan for him (I.E Yoda and, via projection, the fans) - even so, he still rebuilt the Jedi, and it's only becuase of his earlier work that Rey has a foundation to build off of (she's in a much better place starting off then he was).

Agreed. As I said before, training need not be martial or Force-based.

It's that, I think, and peaple thinking their personal headcanons and visions for how they wanted the character to end up trump everything else; the character would never do X thing or act X way becuase they don't think he would, and if he is'nt dipicted in a way that they personally approve of it's "disrespectful" to the character.

 

Why aren't people allowed to have their opinions? He/she is allowed to think Luke was disrespected. I do too. You are allowed to think that he wasn't.

 

If the conclusion of the character via their death isn't seen as important to the story and/or character by the writer, I don't know why it happens. If it is seen that way by the writer, then I can see and sympathize with not wanting it to be changed.

A movie isn't life. I think it's a structure of build and development. If this thing hasn't had development until the last movie in the trilogy, for the main character, what's the point of even doing it?

It's not about writing/directing. They have less connective tissue to the construction of the character. But also, I think to suggest someone thinks less of an actor than another writer, I think that, to me, doesn't come off as positive.

How is it minor if the writer may see it as a prominent part of the story and character, to include it?

 

No, but if a movie replicates life I'd say it's a gain for the film, not a loss.

So...just like life, then?

Becuase Trevarrow thinks it would be an interesting thing to explore and wants to do it? Is'nt that reason enough to do anything? Why limit yourself with arbitrary, self-imposed restrictions?

You misunderstand. It's minor becuase it would be an easy change that would take only a few minates of tweaking the script. Whether or not RJ felt it was minor to his film is anouther question entirely (though even if he did feel it was a major change, I still see no reason to think he would'nt have accomidated Trevarrow if Trevarrow had really wanted Luke to live).

The problem - and this is a major problem around here I've noticed - is that it's not presented as an opinion, it's presented as authoritive fact.

It's never things like "I think Luke was disrespected, but I understand why others may like what the film did and think otherwise" or "I don't think it helped TLJ as a film" it's "Luke was disrespected" and "it certainly did'nt help TLJ as a film" and by implication and logic presenting things in such a way implies that not only are you stating fact rather then opinion, but that other peaple thinking differently are wrong.

Peaple are 100 percent allowed to state their opinions, but they should also clarify when they are stating opinion and not fact - lest other peaple get understandably confused - and should remember that their opinion is no more (or no less) right then anyone elses.

 

Saying something doesnt happen in the film which does, is not an opinion.

 

I don't think life operates on that. I think it doesn't replicate life, not really, more gives the illusion of it replicating life. If it replicated life, many things wouldn't happen in this way, not just the trappings of this particular concept of the story. I think of movies as having structure and consistent, developed, story and characters. I think this isn't that.

I see the wink as an antagonistic use.

I don't see a reason to do something if it's not a consistent overarching development.

I wasn't referring to that. Why would a writer change something they think is important to the story and character their writing for and think it may devalue that writing for the story and character in that story?

I think, as far as I remember, it's not shown in the movie that Rey agrees with, values or uses much of his lessons.

 

You don't think that a persons life is a structure of build and devolopment?

Antagonistic? No, it was coy.

Gesh, dude.

In what way is the possibility of Rey and Poe devoloping a relationship in the third film inconsistent with what came before?

He asked Abrams to do the same thing with the ending of TFA, so at the very least it's becuase he has no right to deny it one person when he himself asked it of anouther.

Agian, simply put I do not think Johnson would deny Trevarrow if Trevarrow really, really insisted on it. I see no reason to think he would'nt, while you guys apparently think otherwise. Agree to disagree.

She took his name at the end of all things and she thought enough of his opinion that his advice was enough to get her to come out of her near-exile in TROS, so I see no reason to think she would'nt - especially when his lessons were fundementally solid and backed up by hard-earned experience.

 

We saw Force training in TESB. Luke didn’t give Rey physical training, Philosophical training, or Force knowledge like Yoda did. What yoda did In TESB started to prepare Luke to be a Jedi and to understand the force. Except for the stupid plant thing, Luke didn’t teach Rey anything about the force or about being a Jedi. He just railed on and on about the Jedi, and most of what he said was wrong-headed thinking. Rey got most of her force knowledge from downloading it from Kylo. ( according to the novel, apparently) . I never read it.

Luke grew and improved from his jedi training, Rey didn’t even seem to need Jedi training. She just magically could do whatever the script needed her to do.

@K2771991, why are you so often seemingly belligerent? Just because my views and opinions and those of some others here may not be the same as yours, doesn’t mean that we should be treated like your enemies, and our ideas and opinions shouldn’t be just dismissed as wrong. All of us are presenting our opinions, and we shouldn’t have to say that all the time. You don’t always say that everything you post is your opinion. It’s assumed.

@obi-arin-kenobi , what did I say didn’t happen in TLJ that did happen? If you are referring to my claim that Luke didn’t train Rey, I really DON’T think that luke trained Rey. He talked to her. He argued with her. He lost a physical skirmish with her when she struck him from behind. He told her why he thought there should be no more Jedi. He blamed the Jedi for things. But he DIDN’T train her. Leia trained her after she apparently downloaded Jedi skills and knowledge from Kylo. We saw Luke and Rey interacting and talking. Nothing Luke said to her would help her to be a Jedi or learn Jedi skills. She was there for about a day.

 

Um, yeah, he did; the things he "railed on and on" about were philosphical lessons, and I don't see how their wrong-headed in the least; their validity is backed up by both his own experiences and faliures as well as what we the audience are shown in the PT.

Rey got Jedi training from Leia. And I don't see what the issue is with her using some Force abilities without formal training - remember, Luke could use the Force just fine before he went to Yoda when his only formal training in it (that we know of) was a few seconds learning to see without his eyes (a lesson he failed at) from Obi-Wan.

If Obi-Wan can be considered a valid teacher of Luke's when his only training amounted to a very short session on the Falcon, then why can't Luke be considered a valid teacher of Rey's for giving her some philisophical training (and I'll not that we don't know if they did anything else off-screen - Rey was there a couple of days, after all)?

If I seem belligerent I'm sorry, becuase that's not my intent. I'm just fed up with the constent negativity within this fandom and others (which has gotten worse as of late it seems, since just a few months ago it did'nt seem quite so bad even on the ST forums), were peaple drag something through the mud just becuase they don't personally like it and seem determind to suck the fun out of both the threads and the films for all the other peaple, so maybe I do get a little short at times becuase of that.

But that being said, and since we are on this subject, my sharpness - ironicly - is also in part becuase I see many of your posts (and those of others) as aggressive and belligerent towards the films, their creators and the character dipictions in them, as well as exibiting a sense of what seems to be entitlment and ownership of the francise where you "know better" then those of us who think differently. You say things like the films "disrespected" Luke for example, and by virtue of not making it clear that's your opinion you are - whether intentionally or not - implying that those of use who think otherwise are either wrong in our beliefs or complicent in the disrespect.

If you'll all notice I'm far less sharp with peaple who are not themselves sharp and negative in their opinions and make an attempt to see the validity in the views of the other side. I don't have an issue with differing opinions, but attitude plays a large role in how I engage (though I do always try to be respectively and understanding irregardless, so agian apologies if I come off belligerent).

I'll just check you off along with anakinfan and aaliyah_skywalker as one of the peaple who I now assume by default are always stating opinions. Though I don't see why you would think I would assume that by defualt; logically if something is state as a fact rather then an opinion then other peaple should belive that you think it is a fact, rather then an opinion, no?

 

I think you are selling Luke short. I really do. Give the film another chance. When you see the parts you do not like, I presume the sabre throw, the standoffish nature up front, the hesitation about Ben, etc, keep in mind the context in which he says and does these things. With the jedi, he is only telling her the truth.

Everything cant be focused on but we have some things which are implied--rey training with the lightsabre, luke living off the land in harmony, an utter lack of humility. For example he milks a sea creature which is portrayed in a somewhat comical way but it is meant to show Luke's understanding of fitting in with the world around him, not all too different to Lucas's use of symbiotic relationships. This is all part of the quote/unquote training, or, how Luke as an individual is choosing to reveal himself and the force to her. It's all a lesson in a way.

Also rey was already a formidable fighter.

 

I don't think that's a fair request - certainly everyone should try to view any form of media with an open mind, but I don't think it's fair to ask child (or anyone else) to view the film the way you do; no more then it would be fair for them to ask the inverse.

I do think it's more fair to ask that they try to understand how you see the film and why, even if they disagree, but that request cuts both ways.

Agreed. And not only that but I think they were valuable, hard-earned (on the part of the PT Jedi and Luke) lessons that Rey should (and hopefully has) take to heart and apply to her rebuilding of the order.

I don't know if I'd say she was formidable, but she was definiantly more then capable by the time we meet her, and adaptable enough to translate her staff-fighting skills into a clumsy-yet-resonably-effective ad-hoc, stopgap lightsaber form.

 

I don't think life always operates on consistent that, and not structure like a movie has it.

That sounds closer to what I meant, but I was seeing it as more dismissive. It's not something I take as seriously as that. But I wanted to vocalize what I felt my issue was with it. I'm sorry for the my maybe causing misunderstanding.

it's almost entirely in the last movie.

I think the change in having Luke not be lifting rocks or whatever means nothing to any of the character or story arcs in the movie and I think, to me, is entirely about the next movie. I think Luke's death is a conclusion to Luke's story and character in the movie, in that movie.

I think, to me, that's apart of the a of development.

I think his lessons weren't of much value to her.

 

Luke already had three films about his story.
The ST was meant to be about the passing of the torch to the next generation.
Unfortunately TROS made it the Palpatine saga.
They killed off the last Skywalker. They reduced Finn to a joke. They over used Poe whose purpose post TLJ was as General taking Leia's place not swanning around on the MF like a second rate Han Solo - he's not Han, Han was a mercenary not a dedicated revolutionary.
And they elevated Rey to some kind of Force goddess that everyone immediately adored five minutes after they met her.
The next generation turned out to be a complete and utter disaster.

 

Oh, this strawman again, marvelous. You think some things are on the decline but then they just start roaring back.

 

Don't worry about it

But you said it's not consistent. What exactly is it inconsistent with? It being devoloped in the final movie is'nt an inconsitency (by that logic Leia being Luke's sister is an inconistency, since it was devoloped in the last movie - should Lucas not have told that story?).

Well, I do.

Or, at least I hope they did and I see no reason to think they did'nt. But ultimatly that remains to be seen, I suppose.

Rey being a Palpatine does'nt negate the fact that she's part of the next generation and the torch was passed to her.

We must have watched different films, becuase in the one I saw Finn had the second most importent role in the climax and Poe did indeed take Leia's place.

And I think you underestimate how many dedicated revolutionaries look like scruffy mercenaries, rather then clean-cut speechmakers; think of Poe as being more akin to Che Guevara, relative to Leia's Ho-Chi Minh.

Well, it does seem like that's the issue a lot of the time.

Frankly if the EU did'nt exist I honestly don't think half as many peaple would have a problem with Luke in the ST as do.

 

No, people have a problem with the way Luke was portrayed due to his portrayal being completely half-baked in terms of showing a disillusioned world-weary master in the context of his own journey. It's pathetic and when you watch Luke thrust all the blame for his own inaction and negligence on his predecessors who maintained a millennium of peace for the entire film, it's extremely grating to just have him die at the end when he's hasn't really redeemed himself at all. So excuse me for having the audacity to agree with the sentiment that maybe, just maybe, those involved in writing his character went way too far. See, that's the difference. It's why people look at Logan in his last film or Kratos in the last God of War and go, "Wow, it hurts to see him this way but you know what, that's about right." and why when many look at Luke in this film, they go, "This guy is basically unrecognizable, what the hell?".

His circumstances are not like Obi-Wan's. He wasn't defeated to the bitter end and sent into exile. He left the entire galaxy out to dry and countless lives perished because of it. That's the issue.