ST Rey Skywalker/Daisy Ridley Discussion Thread

You guys are no better than Rian Johnson when it comes to misinterpreting and wrongly criticizing the Jedi.

 

Rian managed to sour me on SW with one movie, something I've loved since 77. So, not really the same. The TV shows have slowly brought me back.

 

Idc buddy. I’m just saying that George Lucas wasn’t inconsistent, he consistently had the message: Jedi code good

 

Rian and JJ did not care about the attachment rule. i don't think they understood it, for the same reason alot of people here don't understand it. While Filoni does understand it because he was working with Lucas and so he was given an insight into Lucas's mindset. And that's why its acknowledged in The Mandalorian and TBOB. Now when it comes to the future of Star Wars, they are probably acknowledging it. We are through with trying to fix Lucas's work. it will probably be brought up in the acolyte and maybe even Ahsoka.

Some think its a burden to storytelling when it is actually something that works very well in smart storytelling.

If everyone had to follow the same human traits for storytelling, everything would be very samey.

 

Except Lucas didn't contradict himself. In the first draft of ANH, he has General Skywalker dresses down Annikin after discovering his make out session with a female technician.

GENERAL: "You are trained well, but remember, a JEDI must be single-minded, a discipline your father obviously never learned, hence your existence. Clean yourself up. Discipline is essential. Your mind must follow the way of the BENDU."

STARKILLER: "It won’t happen again, Sir."

In the second draft, the Jedi had families. By the third draft, it was unclear if it was common or not. Once Lucas got to TESB, he was moving towards Han and Leia getting together, which is why the triangle kept falling apart in each draft until it was cut from the final film.

The galaxy is filled with enough potential Force users that there was never a danger in not having enough. What was necessary was maintaining discipline, which was easier without families churning out three to five Jedi at a crack. But training from a young age was important going back to the first draft ofANH, where Deak Starkiller was 11 and in the first draft for TESB, Yoda says this...

MINCH: "It would have been easier to teach you if you’d started younger, like Obi-Wan. You’re going too far, too fast."

Lucas was already of the mind that Jedi training is lifelong and required the deepest commitment. The dangers in Jedi falling is always there. But by focusing the attachment to a Jedi caregiver, this makes it easier for the child to understand how the Force works while giving them the discipline they need. In many ways, the training is modeled after the Shaolin who at one point trained students from a young age and didn't have families.

But as pointed out, Lucas didn’t have much involvement in its development. They were given free reign with limited conditions. They made the choice to create a narrative that went against his work. And it's why he stated that Luke would keep to it. Ben having his family was in keeping with the idea Leia would have a child, which is then furthered by Ben not being trained from birth, thus leaving him vulnerable.

 

Jedi code mostly good but flawed

 

I don't know now how anyone could watch the OT, and especially the PT, and walk away thinking the Jedi didn't make mistakes or that their code wasn't flawed.

Of course there were flaws. But the biggest flaw was that they adhered to the code, more so than the Force itself. Their code blinded them. We even see that in the Tales of the Jedi with Mace. That's their biggest mistake. And one that tends to happen with religious orders.

And it's even weirder to say they didn't or that their code wasn't flawed, since the point of the ST, at least according to TROS, is that of course the Jedi made mistakes. The only way to grow beyond those mistakes is to acknowledge them so that the next generation doesn't copy them.

 

I’m not disagreeing that Filoni understands the philosophy behind the non-attachment rules, read interviews and it’s very clear he does. However I think it’s also clear that he is willing to jettison the rules themselves in favour of a good story when necessary.
For instance in Rebels Ezra is able to start Jedi training at the ripe old age of 14, even older than Anakin was in TPM, and our other Rebels Jedi is clearly in a committed relationship, albeit discreetly. Kanan and Hera even have a child together, ergo: their relationship is basically a marriage in all but name.
Rebels does incorporate the non-attachment philosophy, (Kanan asks Ezra to plan the Ghost crew’s mission to rescue Hera from Thrawn incase his feelings for her get in the way). But the rules themselves are only ever given passing lip service, the Kanan/Hera romance is very much portrayed as something positive for both parties, not a distraction from following the Jedi Code.
So yes Filoni has kept the philosophical underpinnings of those rules, but scrapped any concrete rules (Jedi training from toddler-hood, no romance) in favour of the story he wanted to tell.

So I would not be at all surprised to see a post-TROS Rey who is willing to take on students who are already adults, and maybe even permit her followers to have a little romance in their lives.

 

Well that's going a bit far. they clearly were not in a committed relationship. Even if there was some things going on behind the scenes. Which apparently Jedi can have sex, they just can't gain an attachment. And "discreetly" wasn't at the expense of the Jedi. They are gone. "discreetly" was at the expense of knowing about the attachment stuff.

I think people tend to think the attachment rule is a burden to poor Jedi when its actually protecting Jedi. Kanan isn't avoiding attachments because the jedi might find him and spank him. He is avoiding it because he knows he has to avoid it for his own sake.

And also did Kanan know about the child? Guessing probably not.

Now obviously in storytelling there will be different takes on the idea. the Jedi are not vulcans so attachment is most certainly a possibility. And its not that it isn't possible. its that its their responsibility to control that aspect.

But that's where id call it "smart storytelling". you can explore aspects of what the attachment rule means and explore it from different sides. But you are always gonna have to acknowledge the risks of going against the rule. Its probably at no point ever gonna become love conquers all goodness in the universe and the jedi were too arrogant to see it

 

I've never felt that apprentices beginning their training as adults/teenagers has been framed as a negative thing. The Council used Anakin's age as an explanation for their decision to deny him training and yes, he did eventually fail, but Yoda's problem with Luke was never really his age. "He's too old" was just his last-ditch attempt at talking Luke and Ben out of it (Remember, it was his idea to wait until the time was right; to let the Force show the way).
The real issue was Luke's anger and impatience. Those flaws may be a product of him having gone untrained for so many years, but Luke's age is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. It's a possible cause of some problems, but not a problem in itself.

 

As I said…

…Kanan literally asks somebody else to plan Hera’s rescue incase his romantic feelings for her cloud his judgment. Seems pretty clear to me that the writers want us to know this relationship is an attachment for Kanan.

I’m not disputing this, what I am arguing is that the people who write Star Wars frequently ignore those rules.

Personally I’ve always quite liked that the Jedi have a monastic flavour (at the very least it makes them different from other Superhero-type good guys), so I’ve never minded the no romance rules personally.
That said, the more I’ve interacted in fandom spaces, the more aware I’ve become that…

a. Many fans do not like the idea of the Jedi being monks.

b. Star Wars’ writers frequently ignore those rules, often because they too dislike them.

So I try not to get too attached (lol) to the Space-Monk concept incase Lucasfilm decides to ditch it in the future.

 

Well the idea is meant to be that kids are adopted by the jedi at a young age before they gain an attachment to their parents. Anakin was at an age where he already had an attachment to his mother and alot of his feelings were on her... Luke was way older and was fully open to attachments.

Anakin is a massive example of what can happen when you train someone with attachments. Now whether that will happen every time or not. It may not be the default result, but its an open risk. Why would you create an order of pupils with attachments when we seen what the risk is and the mess it can create?

Smart writing is acknowledging the rule but exploring it in different ways. As they did with Kanan and even Obi Wan. But if you was to say say the rule is wrong, then i feel like that's not really taking it into consideration. that's just ignoring it and saying nah its gone away now and wasn't really that important.

I think there is a difference between ditching it and playing with it. Sure JJ and Rian didn't care. And they probably didn't think anyone would miss it either because the PT wasn't that well received. But since then we have had far more PT content that has had to stick to the jedi lore, i don't think it will ever be ditched. it will be played with. And if its done well, then id consider that smart writing.

 

On the other hand, there's a sizeable contingent of fans who joined fandom (often as kids) when the PT came out who think the Jedi rules are perfectly fine and people who complain about them are missing the point of selfless space monks. Something I very much disagree with. I suspect it's a generational thing in fandom - and might also be related to how younger generations are often generally much more attached to the Internet and much less likely to encounter sex and romance frequently in their everyday lives.

 

As someone who, I think, was a teen when I first watched the PT and didn't have regular internet access until years after I saw them and sees no particular issue with the jedi rules in concept, I'd argue otherwise.

I'd disagree with, what I think is, the implication that jedi can't be escapist, romantic and have the no attachment rule. I think that love and connection and committed healthy relationships can absolutely be apart of a jedi's story and also the jedi not be attached. I don't interpret caring and loving people as attachment, in that way, in the Star Wars fictional universe.

 

Indeed! Filoni absolutely does not ignore the rule of nonattachment. Rebels makes it clear that he is very much aware of it, as Kanan struggles with it and ultimately does what he was trained to do as a Padawan: He let's go of everything and does what needs to be done to save the Ghost Crew, for their sake, for Lothal's sake, for the sake of the future. Unconditional, selfless love; compassion; detachment; the Jedi way.
So nonattachment remains a thing with the Jedi and it always will.

Now, the ST didn't get into that, but there is no doubt in my mind that if/when they tell the continued story of Rey and the next generation of Jedi, it will be addressed.

 

And how did they handle that training?
They had someone with the highest midi count ever so potentially the most powerful Force user ever.
Anakin is also the chosen one and, apparently, the only one who can restore balance by killing the Sith. So he is super-important to the Jedi. They also know he is much older than what Jedi-to-be usually are and they know he has attachments and misses and worries about his mother, who is a slave on a planet run by criminals.

So what did they do?
They handed Anakin off to a Jedi that had never trained a student before so was a total rookie in that regard. They apparently took no extra steps or extra precautions when it came to Anakin and seemingly just expected him to let go of his attachments like all the other Jedi. Not realizing that letting go of the attachment to your birth parents is much easier if you are taken in when a person is too young to have formed any kind of bond. Anakin had a bond but the Jedi saw no need to alter their methods in any way.

What they could have done? Assign Anakin to a more experienced Master, one that has trained Jedi before.
Free Shmi. Anakin's worry was made worse because he knew she was a slave and lived in a not nice place. So if she had been freed from slavery and lived a better life, that would help Anakin to worry less. He would also feel some gratitude towards the Jedi because they freed his mother.
Instead they did nothing and Anakin knew that and he could and possibly did resent them a bit.
Here are these people that claim to work for good and they can not be bothered to help a woman that suffers in slavery and yet helped one of their number.
I think that IF Qui-Gon had lived, he would have done more to try and free Shmi. And in some EU he did.

And what did the Jedi do about that? Yoda felt something really bad with Anakin, Obi-Wan knew that Anakin was on Tatooine. Given that he knew that Anakin had been suffering bad dreams about his mother for some time, they why should be obvious. Anakin went there for his mother.
If Yoda and Obi-Wan talked about that, they would know that something bad happened there, likely involving Anakin's mother. So they should talk to Anakin and ask about it. If he hides what happened or try to say that nothing happened, that should be a concern.
The dreams by themselves should be a concern to Obi-Wan. Anakin clearly is still attached to his mother so he isn't learning. Obi-Wan can also see that Anakin is crushing on Padme and while he warns Anakin about it, he does not bring it up to the others. In RotS it seemed that Obi-Wan knew that Anakin and Padme were together, despite the rules, and he let it slide.

What would happen if the Jedi refuse to allow Anakin to be trained at the end of TPM?
Either, Obi-Wan quits the Jedi Order and trains Anakin on his own. Would that be better?
Or, Palpatine, who now is aware that Anakin exists, takes him and trains him as a Sith. That would be worse.

Anakin's attachment to his mother was there, not the Jedi's fault but also not Anakin's fault either. The Jedi could either try and help him deal with that, like freeing his mother, or just think it will go away on it's own. With Padme, part of what bothered them was the lie. They had to keep their relationship a secret and had the baby been born normally and Padme did not die, then it seems that would expose them and likely lead to Anakin getting kicked out from the Jedi Order.

That depends if you see attachment = BAD or that there are healthy attachments and unhealthy attachments.
Also Luke had an attachment to his father and that helped to save the day. And Anakin had an attachment to his son, that also played a part.
Had Luke been like the PT Jedi and written Vader off as evil, he would not have tried to save him and even if he could kill him without turning, Palpatine would destroy him.

Since ESB have Yoda say that Luke must conquer Vader and the Emperor, that they must be stopped and how in RotS, Obi-Wan says that the prophecy means the Sith must die. Then the message IN the films is, Yoda and Obi-Wan want Luke to kill Vader and Palpatine.
Plus Yoda and Obi-Wan, in RotS, give up on Anakin, he is gone, lost. If they somehow changed their mind and think he can be brought back, then you have a plot hole.

So if what Lucas intended to get across is not clear then any interpretation that does not violate the films is valid.

But you said before;

Making the case that Anakin issues comes from this, how his "parents" have treated him. But Shmi did not do this as far as TPM shows and if the Jedi did, then don't they share some of the blame?

This statment makes no sense, it is like saying "Bob refuses to rob Banks unless he sees the potential to do so." So Bob have no rule against robbing banks, he would only do so when he thinks it can work.
The Sith can and clearly do turn Jedi. It is win win for them, they remove an asset for their enemy and get an asset for themselves.

The Valorum character in the first draft is likely an element from the Hidden Fortress, where you had the enemy general that worked for the bad guys but switches sides. The honorable enemy type of character.
And Valorum in that draft, from what I recall, was not shown as all evil, he could respect his adversaries, treat them with some honor. And he seemed not to like how those he worked with dealt with the heroes.
The second draft removes this character, there is a Prince Espa Valorum mentioned but that seemed to be the Sith Master and likely had not connection to the character in the first draft other than the name.
Vader goes from general to Sith in the second draft but he is more all-evil and he dies at the end. So no redemption there.
The first draft of ESB still had Vader separate from Luke' father and Vader was shown as nothing but evil.
When Lucas did not like that first draft and Brackett was ill and could not work, he went at it himself.
Then, I think, he got rid of the ghost of Luke's father, who did not serve much of a role, and made Vader the father.

Luke still was attached, he accepted his father's death after a bit of protest and he mourned, grieved and then let go. The same way quite a lot of people here work, we are attached to people and if they die, we feel sad, mourn, grieve, say our goodbyes and then let go and move on.

But Luke's age in ESB is hardly his fault.
1. Yoda and Obi-Wan choose to wait three years between ANH and ESB before calling Luke. They could have called him right after ANH and he would be three years younger. They did not.
2. Yoda and Obi-wan at the end of RotS, made the choice to split up the children and wait until the time was right. They could have taken the children and trained them from birth, as was the norm for the PT Jedi. They did not, possibly because they saw that their methods might be flawed and in need of change.

So they made the choice to wait to train Luke until he was in his 20's.
If this was a no no, why did they do this?
If Yoda says "Wait until Luke is older than 20 and then bring him here for his training."
20+ old Luke shows up and says "I am here now, can you train me?
And Yoda says "Train you? Far too old you are, get away from here you must."
Does that make sense?
Also, in ESB, Obi-Wan asks Yoda if he was any different from Luke when Yoda trained him?
For that to work, Obi-Wan would have to be off similar age to Luke in ESB.
If Obi-Wan talks about how he was like at age five and compares that with 20 something Luke, that makes little sense.

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Even without freeing Shmi, QGJ would have been a better father figure to Anakin, and probably would have understood the attachment feelings he was going through better than any other Jedi. He would have helped Anakin stay in the present and probably not gravitate to Palpatine in the first place.

The other Jedi, even OWK, just weren't capable of truly helping Anakin in the ways he needed. And that's not to place blame solely on the Order. Anakin is to blame for his actions and choices. And the Jedi are to blame for being too rigid perhaps to their ways and Code that they became blinded to the force, and the dark side around them. They needed to be more flexible in how they handled every day change. And not just with Anakin, but probably in general. This is why the Jedi take children early. To indoctrinate them as early as possible, remove their attachments to family and loved ones, and teach them to live a detached but compassionate lifestyle. By the PT era, the Jedi had grown far removed from the every day problems of the galaxy. They were elitists, living in their literal ivory tower, had become far too politicalized, and probably too centered on the bigger picture. They grew arrogant, and full of hubris that they could do no wrong. And both Yoda and OWK give Anakin poorly generic advice. Something that may have worked on other Jedi, but not one who is clearly struggling.

Maybe the Force sent them Anakin for a reason. To show them they needed some changes. Anakin basically broke their ways. And even though those ways last for thousands of generations, there's always room for some improvement and self-perspective.

 

Well its made pretty clear that the Jedi have no idea if he is the chosen one. Qui-Gon was convinced he was, while the Jedi, not so much. and the Jedi were not particularly sure about training him in the first place. So in the end Obi Wan says he will take on the responsibility for the child at Qui-gons dying wish and Yoda says ok fine.

The jedi likely had no idea Anakin would start having visions of his mother dying. But then at the same time, What would gratitude do? In the long run the issue is not that the Jedi did nothing, its that Anakin was unable to disconnect himself from attachments. And that likely wouldn't change.

But then this brings me to my next point.

But wasn't she already set free (kinda) in ATOC? wasn't she married? but captured by tuskens? What is anakin resenting the Jedi for? For not putting her in protection?

Well that's for a what-if situation right there.

But this seems like a misinterpretation. Keeping their relationship a secret did nothing. What would have happened if they had revealed it and the Jedi gave it the OK? then Anakin starts dreaming about her death? I suppose the jedi could put her in 24 hour medical care where they would probably find nothing was wrong. And then anakin continues to have dreams about her death, to which Palpatine comes in, due to them wanting anakin to spy on him at his reluctance, and says to anakin he knows how to stop padme dying. Darth plagueis etc ect. And anakin in his desperation to not lose her would STILL likely turn to do anything to save her. Including killing jedi.

When Yoda gives him the advice to "be careful when sensing the future", he is talking likely in the historical experience of the harm it can do. And Anakin tells Yoda he won't let it happen. So Anakin sets his OWN path into making his future vision come true. There really is nothing the Jedi could have done there. its more in Anakin attachment that become MORE important than the Jedi order. Even if he killed all the jedi but saved padme and walked off into the sunset. Anakin would have seen it as worth it.

The Jedi didn't need to change that aspect because what ultimately destroyed them wasn't the LACK of attachment.

 

That, to me, sounds like a suggestion that Anakin should have been given special treatment. Anakin was treated like any other jedi. I agree with that way of doing things, and think that Anakin's own choices led to his downfall, not the choices of the mean ol jedi. The jedi shouldn't have to do anything for Anakin for him to not hate them.

 

Well attachment is when someones life feels like apart of your own. The moment you attach to someone, you can never not see yourself without that person. I think a Jedi would have to be very mentally stable to be able to be in a romantic relationship or a parental relationship.

Its a bit like how you see anakin in ATOC when he had the dream about his mother, you see him meditating outside to calm his mind. Its not just something Jedi naturally have control over.

Or Obi Wan with satine. Whether anything happened between them or not, they clearly were not in a relationship. and when Maul killed her, Obi Wan was stable enough to grieve but also accept it without a desire for revenge. Which if she had become his attachment, its hard to say whether he would have been as stable as he was.

 

I think the real issue here is that, while it could be argued Finn showcases an unhealthy type of attachment towards Rey in TFA, in Finn just being there to rescue Rey, that is done away with as fast as it comes. I think, moreso, story and character wise, if at all, it's serves to have Han speak to a variation of his younger self (someone whose interested more, at that moment, in not the bigger picture) and for Finn to learn from a more experienced older variation of himself (someone who once was concerned more with their own interests and has grown to care about helping people). Luke gave a version of a similar talk to Han in ANH. The idea that this is somehow a legit issue for Finn is only introduced in TLJ. It's a problem that that movie mostly creates for itself to fix, similar to Poe just being such a hothead man...

So, basically, what once was an arguable character flaw that Han swiftly could talk Finn into the opposite, is now like a character defining problem that the movie has to spend a bit more time on to "correct", instead of actually progressing the narrative of the character through the lens of his stormtrooper history (and actually cutting out the only story prominent element that uses it).

Whether this is because RJ simply only cared about focusing on the idea that all these heroes are actually secretly selfish egomaniac jerks (like with Luke and Poe as well), or because, for whatever reason that moment where Han easily gets Finn to help was just not enough for RJ, or some other silly reason, I think is debatable. But I think it is an issue TLJ creates for itself, because RJ just seemed to want to say that Finn's character apparently basically manifested out of existence after he says he's just there for Rey and manifested back to be hurt and knocked unconscious by Kylo.