ST Rey Skywalker/Daisy Ridley Discussion Thread

Well I feel both, I was glad Force Heal got canonized but for films and canon it needs a consequence.

 

It's funny after all that headcanon (which I can appreciate as well as the next person) that the idea that Yoda taught Luke some sabre moves is unimaginable...

 

I have to say I love Rey most in TFA and TROS. She comveys a purity, innocence, and self determination I admire. On TLJ she seems clouded, and cringey in her bond with Kylo. I mean Abrams may have never had the Reylo aspect had Rian not done that in TLJ. I mean in TFA she hates Kylo, he killer her father figure Han, and she beat him in the duel. Then in TLJ she is suddenly wants to hold hands?

 

Yeah Rian I believe created Reylo, because TFA had no indicator of them being a thing, Abrams back tracked it in TROS, but that kiss.. I think Abrams felt hostage to do it.

 

Fans created Reylo, Rian capitalized on it. Talk to any Reylo fan and they will give you all the moments in TFA.

 

There's no evidence that Abrams was hostage to anything. I suspect he (Abrams) always wanted Rey and Kylo to become allies/friends... but maybe not necessarily as lovers. And as the ST ran out of road, Abrams just chose the path of least resistance... because the ST fans, generally speaking, liked 'Reylo'.

 

They filmed multiple endings where that kiss didn't happen. So it seems he had no clue what to do, filmed all ideas, and then when editing it together the decision to go with the kiss version stuck. Probably because kiss endings are pretty classic way to top off a climactic ending.

And it makes sense to appeal to the group of fans who were enjoying the ST by that point. Of course, they weren't into the trilogy for Rey, and became angry when Ben died. So there really was no way to please everyone by that point.

 

Path of least resistance, hostage, different words for the same thing.

 

Also creative bankruptcy and a strong tendency towards mediocrity. That’s the Bad Robot motto.

 

I have suspicion if Rey ends up with someone, they will be female. That is if she ends up with anyone at all.

 

Feeling hostage and being a hostage are different things. Abrams can go along with something he feels is there, regardless of it's writing sense.

 

Did you see this thread? A lot of Rey options to vote for or against.

https://boards.theforce.net/threads/star-wars-is-awful-survival-battle.50059050/

 

Regardless of how others may feel, Rey is radicool to me!

 

The idea that Abrams was a hostage to Disney is absurd. He came back willingly to make TROS. Ultimately he’s just a bad filmmaker.

 

Only if one doesn’t know any better. I’d suggest a thesaurus.

 

K, I’m done with talking in this thread.

 

You understand that they are *not* different words for the same thing right? Also, if you're suggesting that Abrams was being held hostage, I think you need to present the evidence for that rather than just avoiding the unpleasant truth i.e. that Abrams is responsible for the films he makes.

 

Being hostage and feeling hostage are different things. The initial post never said he was hostage to Disney. It said he felt hostage to the kiss. I feel like you're replying to an argument that doesn't exist.

 

That's not correct. I think what you're meaning to state is that there's a difference between being a 'literal' hostage and being a 'figurative' hostage.

Abrams was not 'hostage to the kiss'... that doesn't even make sense.

 

It's factually correct. If someone feels like they're hostage, that doesn't actually make them a physical hostage. Regardless of viewing through literal or figurative language. Either way, you're sidestepping the point: That person, in that post, never said that Disney held him hostage or that he was actually held hostage. I don't know why you'd assume that's what they meant, when they didn't say it. I feel like you're defending yourself because you misunderstood what the person was saying and don't want to admit it.

I think you're overthinking it. If someone says that, I think they can mean that he felt obligated to it, and just used more aggressive language to convey their point.

 

So I have to be mindful that you may not be an adult, so need to be respectful of that... but you're just confusing yourself. Are you stating that actual hostages can't 'feel' like they are a hostage? Perhaps you believe that 'actual' hostages don't know when they are a hostage, so don't 'feel' like a hostage because they don't know? Is it that you think this is some mutually exclusive thing? I tried being helpful in suggesting that one should distinguish it between the 'literal' and 'figurative' meaning of the word... and again I'd recommend referring to it as such... but you seem so intent on focusing on your spurious use of language.

Firstly... for clarity.... this is the quote I was replying to...

"Abrams back tracked it in TROS, but that kiss.. I think Abrams felt hostage to do it."

You do understand that no one has ever suggested, or believed it suggested, that JJ Abrams was literally being held hostage right (even I assume the fellow poster who used the word?)? So I believe your response is highly suspect.

Secondly, rather that speaking for the other poster, (since I was responding to them directly in the first post), let them respond themselves. No one is interested in your interpreation. So what is it you're trying to defend or argue exactly? Or is it that you're just trolling? Abrams was not hostage (figuratively or literally) to anything but his own lack of talent.

 

Yeah. I actually think he has not made one good film. It's all mediocre fluff. Like the thinnest possible facsimile of Spielberg.

 

Agreed. I get that some people like his films... but he's the antithesis of what Star Wars films should be IMO, certainly when he has creative control. If he'd been directing someone else's story/script, I'd perhaps be a bit more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (even though I don't like his films from a visual perspective too).

 

Well, in theory, for someone in that situation, yes. But in this situation, that isn't what I said.

I think the figurative or literal suggestion wasn't really important to the discussion. I felt you knew what we were discussing either way.

Then I think you had little reason to respond with:

As, you'd know, the person didn't say that Abrams was a hostage, with their words, in that post you replied to with this. What did you think they were saying that would lead you to reply with this?

I'm interested in my interpretation and feel it's necessary to defend someone's stance when I feel it's being misinterpreted and/or misconstrued, in this case. That's enough for me.

I responded to you because I disagreed with the way you responded to the person's post.