ST Rey Skywalker/Daisy Ridley Discussion Thread

the Jedi are human characters who are not emotionless, the contradiction between their ideal of not letting their feelings get in the way and their human status is dramatic. The characters having emotion and not always following their codes has no bearing on the question of what that code is. The Jedi as George Lucas envisioned them took an oath of non attachment.

 

But he could still use it when Mando found him.

 

I'd argue that's debatable that that was an attachment.

 

It isn't debatable. Luke is attached to Vader when they fight at Endor. He doesn't want to fight him, but he was also afraid to face him because he may have to kill him. When he defeats Vader, he realizes that he doesn't have to kill him and it is then that he's let's go of his fears and chooses not to kill him. Vader is attached to his power and Palpatine. He let's go of it and saves him.

The Jedi have emotions, but they cannot be ruled by them. Fear, anger and hate must be acknowledged and then purged from their hearts. Vulcans with emotions are Romuluans. They are driven by logic, but they can feel love.

T'LAYR: "What you seek has not been done in ages past and then, only in legend. Your request is not logical."

SAREK: "Forgive me, T'layr. My logic is uncertain where my son is concerned."

 

Only a little, but if not doing more training it could fade away.

 

Actually, I was thinking of Gladys Letterman.

 

There are many emotions besides fear, anger and hate shown by many Jedi throughout the PT and TCW that GL wrote.

 

Why wouldn’t there be? No one here thinks the Jedi don’t feel the full spectrum of human emotions.

 

I support the no attachment rule in the fiction of these movies and I don't refrain from criticizing the unhealthy attachment of the reylo romance.

 

Like I said before, I think that's a debateable take. Luke's connection with his dad isn't the driving force of him refusing to turn to the dark side. If anything, I'd suggest him realizing that he could become his dad is what leads him to let go of his attachment, and refuse to turn no matter what it means for him or those he cares about.

 

If you’re going to ignore the actual message of the movies and ignore what George Lucas intended. Why should we listen to any of your ideas

 

The Jedi failed to stop Palpatine because of their complacency, arrogance and attachment to the Republic & to power.

That Luke and Anakin finally defeated the Sith with some help from familial love doesn't mean that this is the answer to all of the galaxy's problems. It just means that sometimes, for some people, it's what will open the door to healthy detachment.
Because again, that's how they saved everyone; by letting go. By detaching.

 

It’s not even that love isn’t the answer to all problems. It’s that selfless love is not attachment.

Selfish love vs selfless love, not emotional attachment vs emotionless logic

 

Indeed. But why not both?

Thanks for mentioning that, though. What you're saying is ultimately the message of the story. Anakin came back to the light because he found true compassion. He finally learned to love selflessly, which is what a Jedi does.

 

In the ST Luke fails because of his attachment to being a Legend, which he tries to live up to, but can't, and then fails again because of his attachment to his failing Ben Solo.

And Rey fails - wait...she never fails. I mean she does, but the movies don't recognize her failures as failures. Taking the name Skywalker is not a form of healthy attachment/detachment. It's a form of obsession. She doesn't really need to take that name. She does so, because she needs to belong to their family because her family is evil. (Even though her parents were good, but whatev, Rey doesn't care about them anymore) She also has an unhealthy attachment to Ben Solo, even going so far as to bring him back to life because ... she cannot accept death, or her role in killing him.

Ironically, Kylo Ren is the only one who is totally detached. He wants to kill his past, the Jedi, the Sith, his family, Rey, his future. But of course, he's afraid of being attached to the light. So there goes that lol.

It's almost as if the ST writers have no clue what the Jedi stand for, or care about anything related to attachments. It's just not something covered in the ST at all.

 

But is Vader being Luke's dad part of the reason why Luke is so keen in saving him?
I would say so. IF Vader was what ANH set up, the person that murdered Luke's father.
Would Luke even be interested in saving him? Would he think that there was good in him?
Or would he be more like Obi-Wan, "More machine now than man. Twisted and evil."
And now Luke would have no problem with killing Vader, it needed to be done.

And suppose that Luke did kill Vader, not in hate or anything, just a detached killing, it is for the good of the galaxy. What then? Could Luke kill Palpatine? Or would Palpatine crush him?

I do agree that Luke seeing that he was getting close to becoming Vader is what caused him to stop, to back away. But what he let go of was his hate and fear, not his attachment. He knew he could not save Han and Leia by killing Vader and doing so would only make him a slave to evil. So he backed down from the abyss. He was still attached to them, but he would not let the Emperor or Vader use that attachment against him. Their fates was their own, he could not alter that. He accepted what fate would bring.
And that is what Vader/Anakin saw and part of the reason why he broke his own chains.
He accepted death, he would run or flee from it, if he died then so be it. But he would not let his own son be killed if he could save him.

Luke was still attached to his father, he even said "I've got to save you." And Anakin told him that he already had and death was now inevitable. Luke needed to hear that and accept that.

No, Romulans embrace their passions but Vulcans DO have emotions. They just control and temper them with logic. The TNG ep "Sarek" makes that very clear. Sarek says that Vulcan emotions are very intense, that they would overwhelm a normal person.

Because what a creator intended and what ends up on screen might not be the same?
Because art is open to interpretation?
Because what an artist wanted to convey and what an audience gets out of it could be different?

Lucas wanted me to laugh at Jar Jar's antics in TPM but I did not. Am I therefore wrong? That the intent to get a laugh overrides me not laughing?

If detachment makes for a great Jedi then someone that does not care about anyone would make a great Jedi. This person could never get compromised by love or any other attachment to another person because they don't care about anyone.

Mr Data in TNG, pre emotion chip, if he could use the Force, would make a perfect Jedi. No emotional impediments, no risk of letting any love, anger, fear or hate cloud his judgement because Data could not have those emotions nor any emotions at all.

I think that a good Jedi acknowledges their emotions but don't let them control them. They feel them but are not ruled by them.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

At the very end, Luke is okay with losing everything he holds dear.

His father....
His sister...
His rebellion....
His religion....
His life....

He throws down his saber and refuses to play the Emperor's game knowing that he could lose it all. As long as he doesn't go to the dark side. He passes his Jedi test, shows his father how it's done, and that's why the Emperor says "so be it, Jedi". He knows he can't turn Luke. He knows Luke will never be tempted again. He knows he's a better Jedi than his father. And that's why he then just goes in for the kill. Luke is now useless to him, and so he must die. There's no back up back up plan. No 30 year future clones standing by. He just kills Luke and will reluctantly keep Vader as his forever apprentice.

And that's when Anakin finds the strength to do what's right. Seeing his own child dying by the hands of the Emperor is a step too far. He had this chance with Dooku, and with Mace. And back then he failed. And so Anakin gives up everything he holds dear.

His Emperor...
His Power...
His Control...
His Son...
His Life...

He throws the Emperor down the shaft, knowing he'll die. Knowing his son might still die. Knowing that he won't get to live with his son. As long as does something to help stop that from happening.

 

Well no, he had a pretty strong attachment to Han and Leia. But then having an attachment doesn't automatically switch off the dark side.

 

Yeah, and he killed them or tried to kill them many times over. Sounds like a perfectly fine detached sociopath.

 

Even Vader is not a great example of someone who could be reasoned with by people he knew or had some sort of relationship with.

Infact its quite ironic how Filoni spends so much time filling in the relationship between Anakin and Ahsoka. giving them this special brother/sister relationship. And then in Rebels he tries to kill her. I guess she doesn't class as an attachment? Even though we continuously get more and more material about their bond. But hey everyone always says she isn't Anakins son so it doesn't count. oh the son who he cut his arm off and basically left it to last minute to save. Love certainly conquers all, after doing alot of damage first.

But then Vader wouldn't be badass to people if he wasn't open just to kill everyone.

 

There's a difference between Ahsoka and Luke; Luke is a reflection of Anakin. Ahsoka is a reflection of Obi-Wan. In the latter, Ahsoka tries to kill Vader just as Obi-Wan had. Ahsoka doesn't try to sway him back and she fully represents classic Jedi training. She would never bend towards the dark side. Luke, on the other hand, is different. Vader tempts Luke on Bespin, but he rejects him. This gives him pause as Vader cannot believe that he could do that. This starts him on his path to redemption. And when he spares him and rejects the dark side, Vader starts to see how weak and pathetic he's been all these years. And he sees Luke forgiving him for everything. This changes him. Luke is what he should have been.

Ben's in the same boat when he killed Han, because like Anakin and Dooku, he makes a conscious and willing choice to hurt someone. To kill them. To go beyond caring and turn inwards. But like his grandfather, a piece of his humanity remains. That's why he couldn't kill Leia and that is why his subconscious manifested his father, in order to finally accept the truth; he's not evil. He was wrong this whole time. Knowing that Palpatine was alive and behind everything, it stuck in his craw. It gnawed at him to the point that nearly dying and knowing his mother was dead, finally broke him free of the dark side.

 

Arguably, but Luke has stated no attachment to the idea of his dad turning from the dark side even at the. He doesn't depend on his dad for his plan to work and is willing for his dad, along with himself, to die on the death star to defeat Palpatine. Luke even states that his dad is dead. But I think Luke can believe that his dad still has good in him and also not be attached to his dad. However his attachment to his sister and his friends is an issue and what drives Luke try to murder Palpatine and also lash out in rage at Vader, until Luke, to me, sees his potential to become Vader. Arguably, Luke not only lets go of his attachment in that scene, but also lets go of his anger against his dad and what his dad being Vader means for him.

I should point out, as well, that I think attachment and love can be separate things.

I think that's not that comparable. One is a type of comedy that you don't like. The other is arguably a lesson the movie develops, even if you may disagree with it.

I think someone can care and be detached.

But unlike Anakin, Kylo has little to no motive, origins or goals to drive his character, as far as any of the movies developed on screen.

 

Lucas never said the Jedi cannot love. They just cannot love people to the point where they let fear dictate their actions. What the Jedi fail to do with Dooku and Anakin is to trying to convince them to see reason. To show them compassion to the point of giving them a reason to turn back. Luke shows his father unconditional love, which the Jedi espoused.

Your problem is that you don't understand the difference between attachment as defined by selfish desire, versus selflessness which is compassion. The attachment here is Anxious Attachment. When parents are inconsistent in dealing with their children—sometimes warm and loving and at other times cold and rejecting—the children will cope by learning to carefully monitor the parents’ moods so that they can feel secure by heading off rejection before it happens. These children develop anxious attachment styles (also called “preoccupied” among adults) so that they can remain on guard for any signs of rejection. They try to stay as close as possible to their loved ones, don’t like to let go, and have a hard time dealing with loss, especially if they cannot make sense of why the loss happened.

Anakin reflects this in many ways. It fits the narrative of someone who worries about losing his loved ones and trying to cling to them. Lucas isn't inconsistent here.

No. It's about not carrying about one person above all others. Anakin could kill Palpatine when he reveals himself. He doesn't because to do that would be tantamount to killing Padme himself.

"You almost come a second too late. You're rushing over to make sure that nothing happens-but your anticipation is that they're going to hurt each other. When the lightning starts things are going from bad to worse from your point of view. And when Mace is going to kill him, you have to act.

Try and increase how uncomfortable you feel as the shot goes on. Try to think back on the Darth Plagueis story-run that through your head. Take it one step further: you realize that by telling the Jedi about Palpatine being a Sith that Padme is going to die. Basically, you just killed her."

--George Lucas To Hayden Christensen, The Making Of ROTS.


That's the problem with attachment. He had an opportunity to do the right thing and to trust the Force that she won't die. Or at least accept her death if it comes down to pass. He has to compromise himself to get what he wants. Luke will not compromise himself to save his loved ones.

The problem there is that Abrams doesn't understand what Lucas was saying. And the thing is that the movie ends without resolving everything. We don’t see the next chapter other than everyone embracing each other. And Johnson chose to go in a direction different from what was being set up. Lucas decided to have Han and Leia get together in 77, when he started work on TESB. He stuck with that through the end in 83. There was no consistency with the ST.