ST Kylo Ren/Adam Driver Discussion Thread

I think there's also the element at play of Anakin's perspective on things, if I remember correctly, his whole people should be made to agree thing.

 

That perspective had nothing to do with slavery though, nor anything to do with the clones (who he did'nt even know existed yet).

Don't get me wrong, Vader would'nt give a fig about if the clones (or anyone else) were slaves, but Anakin pre-fall absolutly would absolutly take issue with it if such a thing were the case, given his established distain for the pratice and his close bond with the clones. It pokes a major hole in the "the clones are slaves" argument when the character most likely to take issue with such a thing never speaks up agianst the "issue."

Anyway we're all getting off topic with this discussion, so should probobly either move on or move things to a more relevent thread.

 

I don't understand why you insist on arguing (pretty weakly) that the Clones aren't slaves. They are.

 

Becuase their is no canon source that says they are, nobody ever acts like they are (including the clones themselves, tellingly) and it's impossible for them to be such things to begin with (in so much as the pratice is defined to exist within the Star Wars universe) due to the fact that slavery is illegal under Republic law*.

If clones are slaves it should be pretty easy to bring up a multitude of in-universe sources stating they are; TCW has episodes that feature the ordering of more clone troopers and the liberation of actual slaves, and in neither of those instances (as far as I recall) does anyone - including peaple like Anakin and Padme who 100 percent would have an issue with the Republic using slave labor - say anything; heck, even the PT films themselves don't even bring it up, so seemingly they did'nt think it was a thing to begin with.

The "clones are slaves" is (currently) a fanon concept that has its roots in some EU works, not an idea that exists in the current canon (at least as far as I know or remember).

*at the very least if they were volating their own laws by allowing the clone army to exist it would have been a major and persistent issue that definantly would have been brought up by now.

 

The fact that they don't object to the illegality is kind of the point. It is supposed to show the Republic is compromising its ideals.

I don't watch TCW so I only go by the films.
The whole creation of them is shrouded in mystery, and has danger written all over it. Something always seemed off about the army. The Jedi's vision was sullied, they didn't sense the army's connection to the Sith.

The fact they are bred specifically to die early and going by the films don't have a choice to not fight.
"Less independent than the original host." "... to make it more docile." "They will accept any order without question." And they are referred to as "units" which is pretty dehumanising.

And if you take into account Stormtroopers post-clone-war era, they don't have it too good either.

Finn mentions "I was raised to do one thing". That sounds like slavery to me.

 

Based on what source? Surely if this were an issue - if peaple like Padme, Bail Organa and Mon Mothma, who are dipicted as paragons of justice and honor amid the corruption of the Republic, were compramising their ideals by supporting the clone army - it would have been brought up? Surely the clones themselves would bring it up, rather then dismiss the point when its brought up by Slick? Certainly Anakin would speak up in protest?

And the films never say their slaves.

You know what the films do say though? That slavery is illegal in the Republic.

That has nothing to do with them being slaves.

The films never say that.

All of which is firmly disproven by TCW; Lama Su was talking out of were the sun don't shine.

No more dehumanizing then any other militery that uses the term.

Imperial Stormtroopers are recruits, and FO Stormtroopers are child soldiers. Neither of them are clone troopers, though, so their status is'nt relevent when discussing clones and their status within the Republic.

 

You can pretty heavily infer that, at the very least, since there's no other reason to make an army that way. If the Republic was interested in the rights of its troops, it would have used conscripts, where that's something it would at least be compelled to consider. It wouldn't have accepted an army of human beings grown in vats for the sole purpose of serving the Republic and fighting its wars. Having the clones take an oath for which there is an almost nonexistent chance that they would refuse, saying they were proud of their service or that "no one ever argued against it" doesn't make it any less morally questionable. The fact that we only ever see deserters or defectors is, once again, no accident.

Of course, that's exactly what I was stabbing at with my earlier point. He may be a slave but that doesn't mean he didn't believe in order or have opinions that were authoritarian.

 

Oh, so we're not talking about the films anymore?

 

The Republic did'nt make the army, and if it's existence voilated their laws then that is something that would have been brought up as a major issue (and likely on multipule occasions). Yet it never was in either the films or TCW, including on occasions were it 100 percent would have been brought up...

...wonder why

They did use non-clone troops in addition to the clones and they were debating creating an army the normal way during ATOC; the revelation that the Seperatists were planning an immenent attack on them meant they did'nt have any choice to accept the clones though.

They accepted the army because they did'nt have a choice - that, unlike the idea of the clones being slaves, is something that's actually in the films.

And your evidence for this claim is?

Where is it stated they would not refuse? Heck, where is it stated that if they did refuse they would'nt be allowed to go on with their life?

Okay, I really don't know how many times I have to say this

If nobody ever brings up the clones being slaves as an issue, including the peaple who 100 percent would bring it up and oppose it with every fiber of their beings, then the clones are not slaves. It's as simple as that; you keep insisting their slaves, and have yet to provide any actual evidence stating that they are.

He cares about the clones a great deal and we know for a fact that he still has an issue with slavery, yet he does'nt have an issue with the clones being "slaves."

And even if you want to dimiss Anakin saying it by pointing to his quasi-facist views from ATOC (which had nothing to do with slavery anyway) that still does'nt explain why none of the other Jedi, as well as peaple like Padme, Bail Organa and Mon Mothma, or anyone in the Rebellion, ever bring it up as an issue...

...Wonder why?

If we were supposed to think the clones were slaves and that the Republic, and the noble peaple remaining in it, were voilating their ideals, by supporting the existence of the army then surely we would have been told that? The fact that nobody every brings it up, including the peaple who would bring it up and would never go along with using slave labor, punches a huge hole in the claim that the clones are slaves.

We've been talking about TCW for a while. It provides evidence regarding this subject, irregardless of whether or not you like the show or not.

If you want to just go by the movies then we can do that, be the movies make the status of the clones even less of an issue then TCW does so it would'nt really help your argument

 

Hey, all threads on this site become about something else at least once a week, remember?

But jokes aside, as I said a while ago we should'nt be having this discussion here and should move it if we're going to persist (I don't really care, personally, and honestly I'd just as soon drop it since there's only so many times I can go around in a circle before I get sick of doing so)

 

'You'll take both sabers to Exegol'. He seems to know.

Rey Skywalker. ROTJ Leia didn't know about Luke and Ben talking in Dagobah.

 

The Dagobah thing, is that a theory of yours or sourced from somewhere? Just curious.

 

My theory, but the source's the film. Or the films.

The ST privileges Rey's POV in some aspects, just like the OT privileged Luke's. The hero's journey and all that.
Exegol Ben seems to be ROTJ Leia knowing who Luke was at the end...and Kissing Rey seems to be Han not having a clue (yet). That's why Ben laughs, I imagine. 'It's not like that at all'.

The way I see it at the moment, Ben left Kef Bir with the intention of joining those people at the end -'what [Leia] fought for, that's not gone'- being in that way some kind of ex-FN2187 (that's where Lando's blaster would fit in) but, just as TROS Rey in Luke's island, he changed his mind. Maybe he was told or shown something. He appears utterly changed in Exegol.

Something happened in Bespin, I think. 'Somehow, I've always known'.

 

Interesting.

Although, to me, I feel the implication is Rey healing him, Leia adding her strength to his, and Han (through Leia) inspiring him is what brings out the Exegol personality.
It seems simpler, like the moment he throws away the Ren saber was it.

 

Maybe the greatest display of force power in the entire Saga, they invented an entirely new charismatic personality from scratch for him and transplanted it on him. That has to be the most epic cosplay ever.

 

Lol.
It's your right to feel that way. For me I honestly bought into the story's intent that he had changed.

It is kind of like how I believe Anakin's two flips in ROTS and ROTJ. It is way more interesting and deep if you let yourself believe it, ROTS took me a few watches to fully accept.

I get that you probably think that is forcing yourself to like it though. To each their own.

 

My problem was with what he changed into, more than he changed. From Kylo Ren, I will never believe the, as you named it, "Exogol Personality" was how Ben Solo previously was. So IMO there was Ben Solo, then Kylo Ren and then a newly invented personality that was neither because JJ wanted meta-Han-Solo in the movie at this point. That alone breaks my suspension of disbelief.

If Anakin in his final moments in ROTJ had suddenly acted like Yoda, I would have equally been like "what the hell???"

 

Tbh I can't fathom who Ben Solo WAS as a lightsider. We were never shown onscreen besides post-redemption.
After Luke's characterisation in TLJ this was probably the biggest disappointment in the trilogy for me. It is way below the handling of Luke as a gripe though.

Terrio's description of him as the "ghost of Ben Solo" rings pretty true for me. It was like a "what if". Kind of surreal.

 

I just can't believe he had a charismatic, fun personality previously. Han Solo, if evil, wouldn't be Kylo Ren IMO.

For me it played more like a frog turned into a skunk and if you kiss the skunk, you should legit get the frog back. Maybe somewhat improved but still a frog, not a prince.

I can suspend my disbelief on a lot of things but just not stuff like that.

Vader and Anakin worked better for me. It would have broken my disbelief if Anakin was like Lando in his youth and then turned into Vader. Then, I see no throughline anymore.

I accept that the character changes as a darksider but still within certain parameters. Even if twisted. Nothing like introvert becomes extrovert or stuff like that.

 

I find it so ironic that TROS killed off Ben/Kylo to appease those that despised him. And it hasn't.

 

Maybe he had. Until he started boarding school where he had to suppress his personality. I can totally see him as a bubbly personality when he was small. Both of his parents are witty and lively, highly intelligent and exceptionally good at what they were doing. Then he ends up in boarding school where he is told that he's not just smarter than his peers - so don't even bother putting your hands up because EVERYONE knows you know the answer - but even his teacher can't find the time he needs to be trained.

I feel Ben would have fared much better with a one-on-one training with Luke.

At the end of TROS we don't have enough of him on the screen to assume which prior state he turned back to, if at all. I'd wager he would have grown up and become whatever he was meant to be; with an awful lot of baggage that he'd have to carry.

 

The Kylo Ren comic shows some interesting things, and yes, he would have done better if he'd been his uncle's sole student.
Or if Leia had trained him herself, as TROS now shows she was capable of it.

 

Ren-2-Ben change is easy to explain - they wanted to show a bit of Ben without committing to more. Hence what Rejwan described as "what could have been". You see a glimpse of it and then it's over, you'll never see more. To make the change fully land, they needed to show it over a period of time. So either he started to turn in TLJ already or the latest at the start of TROS when he learned of Palpatine return and his role in his own turn ("every voice you have ever heard inside your head"). Instead, they prolonged Kylo because they had to sell the new-old mask replicas and ended up with a rushed, Vader-like redemption. Ben Solo was great, though, which is why they wanted to keep little bit of him even though it worked better in a vacuum than in the (rushed) context.

But anyway, they showed the character because they knew they weren't going to move forward with him. otherwise they would have saved it for more movies.