Discussion Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy Star Wars Movie

I’m wondering if this will be addressed at some point but I’m curious exactly when and how Luke’s stance on attachments evolved over time. We know he started training Leia right after ROTJ, and she was in a relationship with Han at that time.

We next see Luke about 6 years later, telling Grogu he has to choose between his (adoptive) father and being a Jedi. Maybe he decided attachments were too risky after talking to Ahsoka?

About 10 years later, in Shadow of the Sith, Luke is training 15 year old Ben Solo and the text says “family ties had little to do with the teachings of the Jedi order.” I’m wondering how Leia and Han felt about giving up their son forever. Also seems sad that family ties is what brought Anakin back to the light and then a few years later Luke just goes, “yeah the old Jedi order sure had the right idea about family and romantic attachments.”

 

I wonder if our own religious/non-religious background isn't shaping our attitude towards the Jedi's attachment. Perhaps people professing beliefs that put value on monastic/contemplative practice (e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity) will have easier time accepting it. While, for instance, Protestants, atheists, agnostics, believe that such detachment is harmful and unnatural. Despite our faith, most of us live in a secular society and we are conditioned to believe that having children is the easiest way for our legacy to survive and keep us alive forever.

I think GL, maybe subconsciously, tried to alleviate these fears by making the new Jedi essentially immortal with the Force Ghost concept.

 

Sorry for the double post but cannot edit the above message any longer. The second to last sentence should be read "to believe that HAVING children".

 

The ROTJ climax is an interesting case. Lucas has said it’s about Vader giving up his attachments to the Emperor and to power, and embracing selfless love for his son. Paradoxically though you have the inescapable fact that Vader is redeemed by a son who, according to the teachings of ye olde Jedi Order, was never supposed to exist in the first place.

 

I don’t really think it’s a paradox, I think it’s merely suggesting that perhaps the Jedi weren’t right about everything.

 

Its been a while since i saw that film, but its a great one and i can see it being used as template for a larger than life love story- sort of. Dont expect a literally body swapping plot for a Star Wars ( i mean, its already been used if you look at how the light/ dark side operates and how it manifests in both the physical and mental state of a body), but «Your Name» is about understanding another human beings journey and understanding someone else. And by that also digging deeper into the mystery of feeling love - and the state of loneliness / existentialism about being human.

Its also a film that plays a lot with time and memory. The medium of film is perfect for that.

In general you sell your pitch by using few sentences as possible- like a logline - and its usually best to use a well known referance to some other relevant work of course. «Your name» is not the worst logline you can use.

Lindelof - his ideas for «Prometheus» was ambitious i say, but maybe the more philosofical ideas got streamlined in true Hollywood style along the way. He was not back for the follow up film, also directed by Ridley Scott and that movie is much more a direct, typical horror/ sci-fi/ thriller, without the mystery and grand ideas that «Prometheus» presents. Especially Michael Fassbenders character has many layers to it.

 

There is an inherent contradiction in the PT Jedi no attachments Jedi rule (I think the led to some early PT era EU contradictions which some married Jedi on the council in the comics which got retconned when Ep 2 came alone) and the climax of Return of the Jedi. It's compelling and doesn't have an easy answer. We've seen the straightforward no attachments go bad happen with Anakin but that could be interesting to expand upon where the result isn't going completely wrong. It was a way to save Grogu out of Luke's Jedi Academy burning fate (and c'mon, the little guy isn't a Jedi he's a Mandalorian dammit) and shows that sticking to the dogma can't exactly be the best idea. So I think if there was a story about Jedi who have attachments and that doesn't automatically mean they become a Sith Lord, that could have room for expansion. And Lindeolf is kind of a bit romantic softie at heart if you see Watchmen and Lost and The Leftovers, there is romantic tragedy but most of the couples get through with the power of love in the end.

 

Could Rey cameo,

 

Manifesting a Rey return.

 

People talk a lot about cutting the undesirable elitism that has existed in SW. Recently the focus has been the idea that one doesn't need to come from a special bloodline to be a hero, to be a Jedi.

Another form of elitism, IMO, is the idea that people have to become ascetic super monks who deny worldly physical enjoyment to be heroes, to be Jedi.

To see that this is untrue, all we need to ask is whether all monks -- or priests -- in the world have some special spiritual connection that makes them extra holy. The answer is obviously, No. In fact, the real world tells us that people like this often become sick and twisted due to their ascetic nihilism -- their denial of desire and physical enjoyment.

We also know that regular people who don't practice ascetic nihilism are often heroes, and in the fictional world of Star Wars, some of the greatest heroes have been scoundrels, the exact opposite of ascetic nihilism.

Regular people also have strong spiritual connections, and it would be easy for us to argue that these spiritual connections are benefitted by their physical relationships, whether platonic or romantic in nature. Therefore, one of the basic false premises of the PT Jedi is that the romantic (or erotic) isn't spiritual in nature, but inherently selfish. Again, this is just a form of nihilism with a puritanical bias against physical enjoyment and pleasure.

So the question for fans and LFL creators to ponder is whether or not this kind of anti-physical ideology should still be promoted in Star Wars. I obviously think it would be a bad idea to do so, and I even think Lucas and Filoni were clearly critiquing the extremes of non-attachment in The Clone Wars. Even the subtext of the PT suggests the PT ways were flawed and contributed to Anakin's downfall.

However much people may be tired of discussing this topic (feel free not to discuss it), it's nevertheless a key question that must be addressed for the post-OT Jedi narratives -- to continue non-attachment or to push more deeply into the issue and explore what true spirituality is. The Force is created by life, and therefore, should not be detached from it, physical connections, and the spiritual.

Attachment doesn't turn Jedi into Marvel superheroes or villains -- it deepens their spiritual connection to the Force.

 

I believe this is a good example of some points I have raised previously on this thread. Some fans dislike the real life concepts of monks or even religious people. Which is fine, I am no religious guy either. But not sure why keep mixing real life stuff with a something that appears on a movie.

On a different note, had anyone told me in 2019 that, after the mess the ST was, LFL would end up chosing the ST period (with ST characters) as the direction to move to franchise forward, I would not have believed it.

Lindelof, Ms Marvel director, ST era, Rey… What a recipe!

 

Better then doing OT and PT era, do something with the era you just recently established. Even after the ST trilogy. Rey's journey as a Jedi moving forward will be intresting. Will the new force teens end up meeting the Jedi and be the start of a story of the Jedi order Rebuilding. Most of the ST actors/actresses seems open to return. I love to see Connix back, do something with Carrie Fisher's daughter then just be small supporting character. Maybe she and Poe Dameron become the new leaders.

 

People often defend the no-attachment Jedi by arguing that the idea comes from Lucas and his interest in Eastern philosophy. So it's relevant to critique it from that end.

As for your argument about real life and fiction, both affect each other, both influence each other. The idea that they don't isn't well supported and naive. The premise of culturalism criticism is that entertainment spreads ideology more than any other vehicle.

 

Yup. In other words, with Padme it's attachment, and with Luke it's compassion.

 

I do totally understand where Lucas was coming from with the attachment rule. Some people think it was just an idea added to the jedi to create drama, but Lucas really put alot of thought into stuff and its makes sense to me personally.

The Jedi were not wrong to do away with attachments. Its easy to remember that attachments ain't constant happiness. Infact happiness is what makes it attractive. But losing it when we fear losing the happiness. There are many different types of loss. whether its a break up or a death ect ect, and that can lead to jealous, emotional confusion and the desire to stop that pain no matter what. And that does lead to a dysfunction of our senses. its becomes easy to stop caring.

And you don't want an organization of unstable Jedi interacting. Because that could ultimately lead to bad things.

Attachments are only good, while are they are good. But they ain't always good. Its not really an area you can pick and choose.

And really there is nothing to feel sorry for the jedi about. they are trained to let all stress go, Meaning they are peaceful and probably won't need to feel the desire of attachment to make them whole.

 

Or maybe they were all shooting blanks, and hence said "F it, might as well be a Jedi now".

 

This makes no sense. Rey did nothing and overnight beat the crap out of Ben, Luke, and the Emperor! So the realism of her 'training' new Jedi would include a 1-hour online course that teaches them how to simply change their last name to Skywalker or Palpatine in order to tap into more force power. Simple as that.

 

And that's even assuming that Rey considers herself a Jedi at the end of TROS. She has made herself a new light saber, true, but she made a point to pick the color yellow, one that was never used by the jedi (except for the temple gards in Clone wars, but I don't think that really counts). She might just continue her life as some Ronin à la Ahsoka and never train anyone.

It was obvious that Luke would take upon himself to restart the Jedi at the end of ROTJ. With Rey... not so much.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...talks-star-wars-future-indie-film-1235315782/

As many speculated, that “hint” from THR the other day was just in that new indie film she has coming out soon. So that’s the end of that.

 

Rey Skywalker is the last Jedi so without her, the jedi religion dies. Luke Skywalker's words. Any former jedi still around is not part of the jedi religion anymore.