ST Kylo Ren/Adam Driver Discussion Thread

So, it sounds like you are trying to say that Anakin is paying his dues while being in the Darth Vader suit? That the suffering he endures just by being in the suit (whilst still commiting atrocities and evil) combined with saving his kid is enough to "deserve" a ticket to the everlasting Jedi afterworld?

Not trying to put words in your mouth...correct me if I'm not getting it.

 

Perversely, this actually kind of explains why Kylo is more relatable to some people. Most people watching the ST do not have severely traumatic childhoods on the levels of Rey or Finn, but virtually everyone has some complaint or dissatisfaction with their upbringing. The lack of specifics about why Kylo is so upset with his parents, combined with the fact that his parents actually are good people who love him, can make it easy for him to resonate because it's an extremely common experience to have parents who love you and are trying, but to feel dissatisfied with them for one reason or another.

The absurd part is, of course, the way in which Kylo "acts out" is being a mass murdering fascist, which is...a bit of a disproportionate response to "I'm disappointed with my loving parents", and something that is a total sympathy and relatability killer for many of us. I assume that most "Kylo is relatable" believers are just sort of ignoring Kylo's specific actions and just looking at the general vague idea of being a "bad guy", which they then equate to "teenage" (or youngish adult I guess) rebellion.

I find this to be a not-very-enjoyable storytelling practice. TLJ in general feels a bit "meta" in a bad way and this is an example of that, as though the story is written with the philosophy that "it's just a story, the deaths and suffering of people in it don't inherently matter because they're not real" rather than in a way that feels authentic to the universe. See also: the positive tone of the end of the movie even though almost all of the Rebellion-sistance has been killed! It almost feels like the positive tone exists because the movie succeeded (in its mind anyway) at delivering its theme, rather than anything good happening in-universe.

Honestly, I'm not so much concerned with what is or isn't deserved as I am with the romantic connotations of Kylo getting a kiss from Rey. It's undeniable that a kiss on the lips between two adults has the connotations of romance in the English-speaking world. It seems to validate that a romantic spark between the two exists. But seeing Kylo in such a light makes Rey look a bit ridiculous and lacking in self-respect.

It's one thing to be grateful for him saving her, but romantic interest goes beyond that. Even if it can't be acted on due to Kylo's death, the idea that Rey had enough romantic interest in him to give him a kiss does seem like she, on some level, is overlooking all the atrocities he committed. Because that's a difference between romantic love and many other types. You can love your parents without approving of them, considering them remotely good people, or even liking them. This is technically true of romance, but if you do attempt a relationship with someone despite all these things, well...me and many others will pity you, judge you as a weirdo, or both. The kiss implies that maybe romance could've been an option if Kylo had lived, unless you want to say Rey was acting out of lust or something, which isn't really more respectable or appealing.

I just want to point out that the movies don't imply the existence of an afterworld, heaven or paradise that Force Ghosts get to live in. I have no idea if other media does, but it's not in the movies. We just see the ghosts chilling out in the real world. Being a ghost in the real world is honestly not that glamorous, especially considering that in the OT, they never were shown interacting with the material world in any way other than Obi-Wan sitting on a log.

I don't really think of Anakin's appearance as a Force Ghost as a reward for him so much as reaffirming that he truly did revert to being the Jedi his son had admired so much. If anything, it's a reward for Luke.

 

I don't disagree. I get why people don't like it. To me, it's a fairy tale trope that doesn't really resonate. A nice hug would've sufficed. That said, a crap ton of fans seem to be really into it. I can't fault them for their tastes...I mean, I can...but different strokes and all that.

Fair enough. It is a form of immortality and afterlife though.....mythologically it is a thing that makes one "more powerful that you can possibly imagine." If you don't see it as a reward...I get it. I do think it's a perk/bonus....if not technically "Jedi heaven" it is becoming one with The Force. Yoda said rejoice for that. Yoda also conjured lightning as a Force ghost. Maybe because he IS The Force?

 

His real suffering starts as soon as he becomes Darth Vader. That he's 'evil', and is also suffering is not mutually exclusive right? He did bad things... he got his legs and arm cut off, he was incinerated, put in an iron lung and his wife died. Honestly, are you telling me that this is something you've never been cognisant of or thought about in 20 years? Did you think life for Vader under Palpatine was dinner parties and fine dining? Anakin's purgatory is definitely felt whilst he's living... he's a sad and broken creature at the end of ROTS... feared by everyone, loved by no one... coupled with the fact that when he is finally redeemed, he doesn't get to live out the rest of his life with his kids.

 

I wasn't suggesting Vader didn't suffer physically or emotionally. Clearly he did - horribly disfigured, living in pain and isolation under Palpatine's control. That suffering is part of his story. Yet, what does that have to do with his redemption? Does his suffering excuse anything for Vader? If, not why bring it up?

My question was whether suffering while still doing evil constitutes "paying a price" for redemption. Vader suffered immensely but continued inflicting suffering on others for decades as the Emperor's enforcer. Much of this suffering is ongoing subjugation to The Emperor....Palpatine puts him through this, no? So, to me, the question of "what does an ultimate evil doer (like Vader) deserve is still in the air. The suffering before was tragic but was it redemptive on its own?

 

My take:

I don't think Star Wars has ever been about what redeemed villains "deserve" in terms of rewards or punishments - that's applying a very different framework than how these stories operate.

Star Wars takes a mythological approach to redemption. It's not about tallying up evil deeds and determining appropriate consequences. It's about the transformative power of choice and sacrifice. When Vader saves Luke or when Ben saves Rey, the focus isn't on whether they've "earned" forgiveness - it's on the moment of transformation itself.

The saga is structured around archetypal storytelling where redemption is possible through self-sacrifice. This is why both Vader and Ben die after their redemptive acts - not as punishment, but as completion of their arcs. Their deaths aren't about cosmic justice, but about narrative resolution.

What happens afterward (Force ghost status, a kiss from Rey) isn't presented as a reward they "deserve" but as symbolic representations of their return to the light. Asking whether they "deserve" these moments isn't how I think Star Wars approaches storytelling.

This mythic approach to redemption is what makes Star Wars more fairy tale than realistic drama with real world psychology. It's why I accept things like Obi-Wan smiling at Anakin's ghost despite all the atrocities Vader committed.

 

Right, regarding the kiss;

If it must be in there (and it is), then I'm at least glad the Rae Carson novelization specifies that it isn't romantic in nature, but it's still like.... it admittedly baffles me

I think it was Daisy who said that they also filmed a version of that scene without the kiss. I honestly can't help wondering if they filmed (and went with) the kiss version because it felt more cinematic/climactic? Or if it was just throwing a bone to Reylos, I seriously wonder that

I honestly don't have a problem with Rey's story overlapping with Kylo's, and I like that she tries to reach out to him and bring him back, and when he refuses, she just shuts the door on him (figuratively and literally). I really like the one and only non-confrontational line she has with him in TROS (the "I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." line) I think it just works for her when she's at her lowest point. I'm a sucker for the trope of heroes showing compassion to villains, and it's perfect for his character as an added slap in the face/salt in the wound of "What the hell are you doing with your life"

But all that said, I'll never understand the Reylo ship, which has been going since 2015. Is it really just down to the two actors being a conventionally attractive young woman and man who happen to be in the hero and villain roles? I dunno. Suffice to say I have my misgivings with the kiss

 

Redemption isn't about 'excusing', it's about atoning for wrong doing. The reason why Anakin's 'suffering' is cited, in this case, is because it's related directly to the position Anakin finds himself in. It's how the character is progressed/developed within the film. It's how *sympathy* is retained by the audience despite Anakin's actions. It's one of the elements that distinguishes well drawn character development from poor character development (Kylo Ren being the latter IMO).

I think you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Anakin's suffering under the guise of Vader is just symbolic of how much he actually lost... and for what? Remember, we're not (as I'm aware) having a philosophical conversation about how one establishes a quasi-religious moral criteria for what constitutes 'redemption'... instead, we are discussing what makes an audience sympathetic to the idea of a villain being redeemed (from a writing/technical filmmaking perspective). The audience retains sympathy for Anakin, because that's how the character is written (in the PT). In the OT, Vader's redemption works because we have empathy with the main character, Luke Skywalker.

Kylo Ren, on the other hand, is not written sympathetically at all... that's the point, and is something that our fellow posters have been arguing for literally pages. His redemption is not earned (in the eyes of the audience generally), because that's not how the character is written/developed. So when it does happen in TROS, it feels forced (no pun), like it comes from left field... it's for no discernible reason... and him kissing Rey before he dies is just plain weird. So when people say Kylo's redemption isn't earned... I don't think they are talking literally about the moral justification, but rather, it's about the lack of character development/motivation, that results in a dramatic damp squib.

 

See, there's nothing I disagree with here other than a kiss specifically being appropriate for Kylo. When I mention how the romantic connotations make the kiss different, you basically agreed ("I don't disagree") and said you also don't really like the kiss. So what exactly are you arguing for at this point?

I don't think Obi-Wan smiling is very psychologically implausible, though. We know Obi-Wan had mentally separated Anakin from Darth Vader. But that didn't mean he didn't wish he could have his friend back...it just means he thought it was impossible, that he was essentially already dead. If nothing else, he would certainly be glad that the horror of the Empire's reign was over, and that Anakin contributed to that happening in the end.

I'm glad too, even if it's not very believable. A kiss on the lips being an expression of mere gratitude is not really a thing in the English-speaking world.

 

I am saying that, while I don't prefer the kiss....I don't hate it. I would have preferred a nice hug, but I get it. Symbolically it works...I guess. I am not offended by it, I understand why Reylo's like it. The novel does say it's not romantic in nature....yet, in the movie it looks like it is. I guess ultimately, my point is that SW has always had moments of having characters act not out of real human psychology and operate more like fairy tale characters. Rey and Ren's smooch feels like this to me.

Again, Anakin's redemption is a very mythological/fairy tale ending for me and it works like that for me. Just my take...

 

I hear you.

Yet, I think it's unfair, though, to characterize fans who enjoy these films (or even Reylo fans) as people who just "fall for Kylo's sad faces" or who think women should be "healers of evil men." Many viewers connect with different aspects of character dynamics without endorsing problematic gender roles.

Throughout the trilogy, Rey consistently demonstrates agency, strength, and independence. Her moment of compassion toward Ben doesn't negate that character development or reduce her to a "healer of evil men" role. She makes her own choices based on her experiences, not because the narrative forces her into a traditional female archetype.

 

I don't really get why you're trying so hard to defend something you only "don't hate", but I'll roll with it I guess xD

Hmm. You seem really fond of the idea that Star Wars is fairy tale-ish. I don't know if I agree that much, or at the very least, you're overstating the point. It's deliberately a "simple" good-and-evil type of story, and I wouldn't say it's always super realistic when it comes to psychology, but it usually has a solid basis in how people behave even if certain details are exaggerated or cartoonish. And when it does have characters behaving unrealistically, I personally don't shrug my shoulders and think "it's a fairy tale" - I try to think of reasons why it might make sense, and if there aren't any, I get annoyed.

As a result, when I see something like Padme having a muted and not horrified response to Anakin committing atrocities, I don't think "Well, it's a fairy tale," I think Padme is written really weirdly. And when I see Rey kissing Kylo, I think it's the writers trying to throw in some romantic element between them that has not been given a good basis in the narrative and would be offensive anyway, and therefore, bad writing.

There are other moments that also seem unrealistic but are easier to justify. Luke not really mourning his aunt and uncle feels a little odd, but is at least somewhat justified by the fact that their deaths are what motivates him to dive into the conflict, so his fighting is essentially his mourning in some sense.

I already explained how I don't actually think Vader's redemption was overly fairy tale-like. Not saying it was realistic per se, but it does have roots in the characters' psychological profiles that make some sense. That's how I generally think of Star Wars: certainly not a realism-focused franchise, but generally I understand characters' motives and personalities and they behave in light of that. When they behave in a way that doesn't make sense, I'm annoyed and unsatisfied, or at best amused by the unintentional ridiculousness, as opposed to shrugging my shoulders, which is (apparently?) your preferred response.

And Anakinfan has a point...saying "it's a fairy tale" only goes so far. Fairy tales aren't some kind of gold standard. There's no real excuse for using sexist tropes in modern media.

I doubt most Reylos think "women falling for evil men and trying to fix them is good in real life" or something, or that the creators actively intended this, but it does seem to "play into" this regressive idea. I understand this doesn't bother everyone, and it's not like I think you're sexist if it doesn't, but that doesn't mean people can't criticize it for what it is. "It doesn't bother everyone / not everyone who likes it is sexist" is a true statement, but it's not much of a defense.

Does she make choices based on her experiences? What experiences led her to thinking Ben was redeemable - just a force vision and hearing Vader got redeemed? That's not really her "experiences", it's just knowledge she received that for some reason she thought it was a good idea to act on, even though if anything, her experiences should tell her to be more cautious and untrusting. What led her to kissing him - mere gratitude, which is basically never the basis for a kiss on the lips in English-speaking culture? Hmmm...the narrative forcing her into a female archetype doesn't seem so farfetched, does it?

Listen, I'm not here to judge people who enjoy it. We live in a sexist world, of course it's going to find its way into media, even if the creators didn't actively intend it. If I'm being honest, I'm actually less bothered by the potential sexism than it being unsatisfying from a storytelling point of you. I don't know what that says about me, but the broader point is: it's not wrong to call out sexist implications just because some people like the media. We can't progress culturally if we shy away from criticizing things just because some people may be offended.

 

I understand you're not a fan of the "it's a fairy tale" explanation, which is totally fair. I think we have different approaches to how we engage with these stories.

When I say Star Wars has fairy tale elements, I'm not using that as an excuse for poor writing. I'm describing the storytelling tradition Lucas deliberately drew from - Joseph Campbell's hero's journey, samurai films, Flash Gordon serials. These influences create a specific mythological framework that sometimes prioritizes archetypal storytelling over psychological realism.

Some prefer to look for logical character motivations, and when they're not there, they can be frustrated. That's a completely valid way to engage with these films. I tend to accept certain stylized elements as part of the saga's DNA, particularly around redemption arcs.

I'm not strongly defending the kiss scene itself, but rather defending different interpretations and creative intentions in storytelling. When people dismiss certain moments as objectively bad writing rather than recognizing they might be viewing them through a particular lens, the conversation becomes less interesting.

I agree that saying "it's a fairy tale" isn't a blanket excuse for everything. Modern storytelling should absolutely evolve beyond problematic tropes. And there are definitely moments in Star Wars where character choices strain credibility beyond what even a mythological framework can support.

The kiss scene clearly didn't work for you because you didn't see the narrative foundation for it, which is understandable. Again, I didn't love it either, but I can see how it functions within the saga's pattern of emphasizing symbolic moments in character arcs.

While it can be read through the lens of problematic tropes, I think there's more nuance here. Star Wars often repurposes familiar narrative patterns, but that doesn't mean they're always reinforcing the same problematic elements. Context and execution matter. Whether something reads as a harmful trope often depends on perspective and how it's integrated into the larger story.

You're right that "it doesn't bother everyone" isn't a strong defense on its own. But I do think interpretation depends significantly on point of view. Different viewers prioritize different aspects of storytelling and bring different perspectives to what they're watching.

The films show her Force visions, her naivety, and her misunderstanding of why Vader was able to turn. She's explicitly manipulated by Snoke creating their Force bond. These elements are deliberately portrayed as her making mistakes and learning - not as the narrative endorsing her choices as ideal. Rey is shown to be flawed in her judgment, which adds to her character.

Kissing is incredibly cultural and varies widely - between different countries, families, and individuals. Some people kiss friends on the lips, others would never do that outside of romance. Even within English-speaking cultures, there's tremendous variation in how physical affection is expressed.

Star Wars has always established its own cultural norms that don't necessarily map to Earth expectations. The characters exist in their own context with their own experiences.

That specific kiss can be read multiple ways - as romantic, as gratitude, as symbolic closure, or as a moment of shared humanity. Different viewers will naturally interpret it differently based on their own feelings about physical affection. I don't think there's a single "correct" reading of what that moment meant.

I agree, but I also think sometimes people see patterns and intent where none exists. Creators don't always deliberately encode messages - sometimes storytelling choices are made for symbolic resonance, visual impact, or emotional payoff without deeper implications. How can we safeguard against all possible negative interpretations without shackling the creativity.

Agreed. I also think we cannot progress if we shy away from creating things just because some people may be offended. Case in point: The Acolyte.

The recent Star Wars series faced intense controversy simply for having LGBTQ+ cast members and creators, with some critics warning viewers to "get ready for pronouns in Star Wars" before it even aired. Even when the creator, Leslye Headland, clarified she didn't believe she'd created explicitly "queer content," the mere presence of diverse representation was enough to trigger backlash and accusations of pushing an agenda.

I think we should absolutely discuss potentially problematic elements in media. But there's also the question of where art's responsibility begins and ends. With any artistic choice potentially offending someone, we need to balance cultural criticism with allowing creative expression. At this point, what doesn't offend someone? Where is the line of art/responsibility of the artist?

This isn't about dismissing valid concerns, but acknowledging the complexity of artistic interpretation. Different viewers will naturally interpret content in various ways based on their own perspectives and values.

 

If you don't think logical character motivations matter, I'm not sure this discussion has a chance of going anywhere, as our frameworks for evaluating these movies may essentially be incompatible.

But this happens a movie made by American earthlings with American earthlings being one of the major demographics targeted by the movie. The implications are breathtakingly obvious.

This feels "technically true", but that doesn't hold much weight in light of the established cultural norms this movie exists in. They made the decision to put the kiss in knowing what the implications of a kiss on the lips in their own culture are. It can be fun to have more creative or interpretative readings of media, but they shouldn't be put on equal footing with the plain obvious implications of a scene.

 

My point isn't that LGBTQ+ representation is problematic - it's that all art will offend someone, regardless of content.

You're saying people who dislike representation "deserve to be offended." But that's making the same kind of value judgment you're criticizing others for making. One person's "deserved offense" is another's "valid criticism."

This is why artistic responsibility is so complicated. The question isn't whether diverse representation should exist (it absolutely should), but how we navigate these different reactions while still supporting creative freedom.

That's not what I said. I acknowledged that logical character motivations matter - I simply suggested that some viewers prioritize different aspects of storytelling. Star Wars has always balanced character psychology with mythological/archetypal elements. I wasn't dismissing logical motivations, just recognizing that different viewers place varying emphasis on different storytelling components.

Even among "American earthlings," physical affection norms vary dramatically across families, generations, communities, and individuals. What constitutes an obviously romantic kiss to you and I might read differently to someone else based on their personal background. That's all that I am saying. I view the kiss as you do...but that doesn't mean I am not allowing others to interpret it differently.

There's validity to what you're saying - creators make choices with educated guesses about how their audience will likely interpret them. But my point is that reception is still subjective. What appears to have "plain obvious implications" to one viewer may genuinely read differently to another based on their personal experiences with affection and their relationship to these characters. How else do you explain elements of Star Wars that are divisive? Some view Ewoks as insufferably cute kiddie bs designed to sell toys. Others view them as a wonderful mix of fairy tale mythology mixed with a Vietnam war allegory.

This gets at a fascinating contradiction in how we engage with art. We simultaneously get upset when creators don't intend things we read into their work AND when they do intend things we disagree with. We want both authorial intent to matter and our interpretations to be valid, depending on which serves our perspective better in the moment.

I dunno. Maybe I'm weird this way in hoping we can acknowledge both the "likely intended" reading and the legitimacy of various interpretations, rather than dismissing different readings as merely "fun" or less valid.

 

The point isn’t to debate whether bigotry is immoral but just pointing out that differences of opinion on what a piece of art means exist and it’s wrong say your interpretation is the only one possibly intended or that art that offends people does so for inherent reasons. Just like bigotry against inclusion is wrong it’s possible to go too far in the other direction and paint things as problematic that aren’t. I’m sympathetic to your standing against equating bigotry with criticism but I can’t help but see it this way reading the discourse here when compared to progressive fans of the sequel trilogy and their interpretation. There really is an implication that once an accusation of privilege or racism is made no criticism can refute that.

 

To be honest, I think I regret wading into the conversation about morality and bigotry with regards to Reylo, it's too charged (and being honest, it's not something I really thought about before visiting these forums). So I don't think I'll be discussing it or presenting opinions about it much in the future.

All I want to address right now are a couple of points:

I'm not disallowing anyone from doing anything. I actually would prefer it to be non-romantic myself. This isn't even really about authorial intent, it's about what the creators created and the context in which it exists. If someone can see the kiss as platonic, honestly, I'm happy for them. But it's not what's implied by the movie considering its specific cultural context.

Purposefully ignoring the implications of something and having your own headcanon is fine. Accidentally forming an interpretation of a scene based on your own experiences and context which doesn't grasp the original context of the media, and choosing to accept that even if you later learn the context, is also fine. People should do what's enjoyable for them. But I just can't say that every interpretation is equally true to the media as it exists, even if some less plausible interpretations might be more enjoyable to me.

Also, there are some cases in some media where multiple interpretations can be equally accurate to the media. I just don't think that's the case here. In America, where this movie was made and where a lot of its audience lives, the association of a kiss on the lips with romance and sensuality is way too strong to reasonably ignore.

I'm not sure if it matters for your overall point, but this comparison is poor. The Reylo kiss debate is about analyzing what happened in the story and the Ewoks thing is about opinions and preferences. I'm not talking about if the kiss was appealing or even its thematic meaning, I was basically just talking about what that action should be taken to mean in a basic "what was this character thinking" sense.