ST Kylo Ren/Adam Driver Discussion Thread

When the writers claim they “styling like the OT” but then take out what made any OT elements work, and replace those with elements that were more regressive than the 1970s and 80s OT, they cannot claim they were just styling like the OT.

Having Kylo redeemed by a relative would not be copying the OT unless he had a son who redeemed him. Having Rey as the redemptor does not work unless (general) you like or are OK with dumb codependent girls who ignore toxic treatment in favor of hair conditioner and sad puppy faces.

Not sure what is supposed to be considered “safe”. If “safe” means “not demanding that people change their standards of morality,” I’m not seeing why “safe” is anything other than good.

 

I’ve been thinking a good way to look at it is this:

- You could watch ROTJ with a rather “amoral,” main-characters-revolving morality for Vader and Luke if you wanted to, but that was because the OT, in actual substance, was all about making a story that would earn your investment in the characters and convince you of the moral righteousness of the story’s plot first; the applicability of the “amoral” favoritism some used was actually a side-effect fo the story. With Vader, that began with combining a sympathetic and heroic backstory for Luke’s character with Vader, but then also developed the relationship to reach that point in the climax.

- From TLJ on, LFL was totally dependent on the “amoral,” main-characters-revolving “morality” for Kylo, as the actual substance of the story had nothing to get there. What this meant in practice was people who simply and wholly wanted Ben Solo to be the hero and get redeemed, damn the rest, and who never bothered to pay attention to the story. It was people who wanted to apply the side-effect from ROTJ to the ST, but never cared for what caused it in the earlier example.

That’s the big reason why Ben Solo’s redemption is just empty fanservice. There’s no story behind why it happens; in fact, it’s literally just reversing the scene from TFA because Ben Solo’s fan don’t care about the story. It’s also why so many of them feel righteous and justified by it; they always assumed nothing he did, nothing that was on screen, no lesson or theme being taught, would ever determine anything that a simple “he’s a Solo” could ignore.

It’s why it’s piece of crud storyline that is, frankly, insulting to the OT, PT, and the rest of the franchise.

 

I still think that he absolutely nailed the disturbed, creepy, but pitiable edge they wanted for TFA… and then never got asked for, required of, or given a script that would require more, and kept on plugging along doing that same performance while LFL convinced themselves it was something else.

 

I’m listening to the X-Ray Vision podcast right now and this came up: Thanos had a point, and Killmonger also had a point, which made them great villains—it was easy to root for their starting goals without rooting for their means. Thanos’ point was climate change and overpopulation; Killmonger’s point was fighting against colonization and racism.

Even Anakin had a point, although his was not nearly as good—dogmatism and inflexibility of the Jedi.

What was Kylo’s point? What was there to root for? (I won’t root for privileged kid problems or opposition to parents with careers.)

 

Establishing an identity isn’t really a cause that would lead to an “end justifies the means” mentality, the way Thanos wanting to stop climate change and Killmonger wanting to rectify issues caused by racism and colonization did.

With those two I could root for their causes without at all endorsing their methods. With Kylo there is nothing to root for and quite a bit to root against.

 

I was actually just thinking about this in comparison and contrast with the other dark siders from the movies and TV Shows, and I think he definitely leans more towards Palpatine and Dooku as desiring generic power, with a side of either narcissism or sociopathy mixed with insecurity compared to their megalomania or pure elitism.

Maul (raised and brainwashed by an abusive Palpatine to an absurd extent) and Vader (fallen hero corrupted by a sympathetic human desire perverted into possessiveness) arguably occupy the two areas of characterization that is more expected of him, but never got really developed, especially since both were shown to have more capacity for empathy they couldn’t totally ignore with family, and to have a greater degree of self-awareness and much larger goal-oriented pragmatism.

Maul has the soft spot for his brother that *does* motivate him beyond his desire for vengeance or power (see how quickly he left Obi-Wan alone after Savage lost his arm), and part of the intrigue of his portrayal post-TPM is how painfully aware he is of having lost his place in his master’s machinations, and his logical, though still immoral and vile, reactions to that. Vader is well known to have been motivated primarily by his family, both for good and bad reasons, but even when deprived of that, he remained more on-task and pragmatic than even Tarkin when it came to maintain the Empire’s “Order.”

Kylo doesn’t just contrast in his ability to cold-bloodedly murder Han, but also for his motivation for doing so, and in how myopic and self-centered he is while doing it. Neither Vader nor Maul ever showed any true desire to kill their loved ones for the sake of not having loved ones “holding them back” as Kylo does, and neither has a moment comparable to his entirely self-involved reaction to Han’s appearance.

Seriously, if you watch that scene in TFA again, watch how little Kylo does that would practically assist the First Order at that time. He’s so wrapped up in his personal test that neither he nor his men notice Chewie, Rey and Finn… or any of the explosives they’ve planted.

He definetly comes off more like a serial killer with a totally irrational MO and objective than the others.

 

I agree, but that does need to go in one of the Senate Floor threads.

 

You don’t need to edit or move it. Just go to the YJCC and Senate Floor threads to continue the discussion.