ST The Cohesion/Direction/Structure Of The ST & It's Pros & Cons

Nobody is asking you to judge them or float boats in Kylo's judgement of them.

If something doesn't succeed, it fails. They failed. The reasons why and the correct attribution of blame, from the audience's perspective, is a different discussion.

A vicarious experience isn't obliged to anticipate and reflect, at all times, everything that the audience member thinks it should or would feel.

If you completely ignore or discount the internal conflicts and extenuating circumstances that made Ben suggestible to Snoke, then you are ignoring themes that have been in Star Wars since the beginning.

Doesn't your satisfaction with Kylo becoming a murderer just because Snoke told him to not "absolve" Ben?

 

@Blastaar , please check what I was talking to La Cavalera, we have already reached an understanding of this point.

There is no good reason for anyone to become evil, except in their own messed up internal points of view, which were the reasons that I was listing.

Nobody here agrees that an evil character has any kind of justification, no matter how this justifications may look like externally.

And we discussed how, for Kylo, whatever he felt about a number of things (which I listed and there may others as well) was enough *for him* to go to the dark side.

We are all free to find these reasons weak, but for the character, they were his reasons and were strong enough to put him into this path.

 

I didn't ask for a "good" reason. Just give us a reason at all. What is his motivation? Why is he going through all of his if all he does is make sad faces? Why did he turn to the darkside? What made him embrace it to the point where he's killing parents and trying to kill uncles? We know darth vader's reasoning for turning to the darkside, yet even he wouldn't kill family members. Kylo is clearly fine with crossing that line, but we have no reasoning behind his actions.

 

Kylo's internal reasonings were provided by myself and others a few posts/pages before this one. And of course I am not canon, so my list is my interpretation of what was presented in the movie, there may be other reasons.

Kylo was ok to kill his father based on his belief that this would give him strenght. He was wrong, and he seems to regret it to the point the could not kill his mother too.

How regretful was he in a scale from 1 to 10, I don't know. All I know is that he was regretful enough that he could not repeat that he did to Han, and that killing his father only increased his conflict. Which means there is a conflict inside him, meaning, he stills knows what is wrong, but he does it anyway, and this can come to haunt his thoughts, at least up until a point in TLJ where he seems to overcome this and agrees that he is a monster indeed.

 

Kylo has it. We don't need to endorse or accept his reasoning. But Kylo's reasoning is there.

 

I found these last pages of discussion to have been very productive. With the release of the film to home media, many points we discuss will be easier to reference.

 

If you are looking for TLJ to be telling you anything about Kylo Ren you should take away with you, it's - Don't fall into the trap of blaming your parents as a reaction to the insecurity and dislocation that adolescence can sometimes experience under extenuating circumstances, or it could turn out bad for everyone.

And in Luke's case, don't continue to blame yourself for anything other than being controlled by fear of failure, rather than acknowledging it but continuing to try and do the right thing anyway.

 

There are two possible contexts in which to evaluate Luke’s susceptibility to corruption, but unfortunately this interpretation does not work in either. The first is in the context of the OT only. The second is in the context the OT as well as the PT. I suppose there is a third, which would be to include EU material but for simplicity’s sake, let’s just stick with the films.

In the first context, you have simply misread the exposition surrounding his character. When Owen Lars says he’s afraid Luke has too much of his father in him he is not referring to the dark side at all, but rather that Luke’s longing for adventure will pull him away from the simple, safe life of a farmer and get him into trouble. It is foreshadowing the danger that Luke is going to face, not moral temptation. Even when Yoda and Obi-Wan discuss temptation and the force on Dagobah, and Luke experiences the cave, any suggestions that he might succumb to the dark side are vague, allusory and symbolic. More pertinently, they never seriously suggest that Luke might commit acts of evil like murder, torture, etc. It is rather an enunciation of his inner struggle for purity of soul. When Luke confronts Vader on Bespin, it never seriously feels like he will turn to the dark side, and the same with the ROTJ throne room. The notion that he may have a seed of evil in him is sort of addressed in the ROTJ Dagobah scene, but is dismissed almost immediately as both Yoda and Luke seem to agree it is only a problem if he makes it a problem. In short, there is never any real danger of Luke turning to the dark side in the OT as it was originally presented. His unadulterated purity is the most defining aspect of his character, never to be assailed. The whole notion of “dark-side Luke” was not given serious consideration until Timothy Zahn’s The Last Command, and the Dark Empire comics series.

Things get a bit more interesting if you evaluate the fall to darkness within the context of both the PT and the OT, but even here, there is not enough to support Ben’s character (or rather to imply there is a character where none exists). The tragedy of Darth Vader enhances Luke’s story in many ways, but principally by providing a stark and reassuring contrast. The circumstances of Anakin’s fall to the dark side are spelled out clearly, with a lifetime’s worth of deliberations and decisions culminating in a fateful point of no return. When Owen Lars makes his famous remark, it has an entirely new context, but here too, you have misread it. He is referring to Anakin’s massacre of the Tuskens, both as an act of revenge and an act of vigilantism. Maybe that act was immoral, but the audience already knows Luke is a far distance from the unique circumstances of that act. Beru it should be noted, seems to think Luke’s tendencies are a good thing, or at least natural. At least she doesn’t seem to think they are bad or dangerously evil. All of this serves to confirm that the call of the dark side has nothing to do with pedigree but with the force itself.

So actually, without relevant exposition, the callback to the Luke/Vader dynamic is not an inversion but rather a perversion. In lieu of backstory, Ben has stylistic distinctions to make him an “anit-Luke”. Luke was blonde, Kylo is raven haired. One wore white, the other black. One is optimistic, the other pessimistic, etc. However, none of this informs who his character was, or why he is who he is now.

At this point, your entire premise is faulty, because it is not a question of whether Ben’s story will be enhanced, but whether it exists at all. Currently, it simply does not, except in tomes of head-canon and fan theories based around short, unreliable statements from Luke, Ben, Han and Leia. There is no comparison to be made whatsoever between Ben and Anakin’s turning, except in the most superficial sense, and with Luke, the allusions to his temptation were always vague and in any case, unfulfilled.

No we didn’t, but I think the difference is that Vader was never presented as a character who was explicitly eligible for redemption until ROTJ, and even then only as a remote possibility. Also, the relationship between Luke, Leia and Vader was explained (hastily, to be fair) by explaining that essentially, there is no relationship. The kids were hidden away before they were born, so that Vader didn’t even know if they were alive. That is a complete explanation even if it is a bit of a cop out. Ben’s backstory, by contrast, is completely unexplained and yet it is supposed to serve as an explanation for major character development. It is supposed to explain why Luke went into exile, why Han and Leia broke up, why the Jedi have disappeared, why the First Order is ascendant, why Rey believes he can be redeemed, etc. The whole ST is revolving around him at this point, and we know nothing about him except for head canon. It is lazy, horrible writing, no other way to look at it.

And here we get to the fatal flaw at the heart of the ST, the one that kills it as soon as it begins. They are supposed to be a reboot, but also a sequel.

 

Of course, why make a genuinely good continuation of the saga as a whole when one can simply opt for a pale facsimile of the original trilogy that clearly relies on ancillary material in lieu of offering substantive development within its runtime?

 

Oh yes, it exists for sure. It was presented in TFA and TLJ.

I watched the movies and I understood Ben's story. I did not need any headcanon or fan theories. It was all there for me to watch.

Oh, so who is a reliable source, then? If not the main characters on both sides if the story?

 

I won’t argue you with that this is what’s happening with franchises these days.

https://screenrant.com/movie-franchise-soft-reboot-continuation-discussion/

As someone who used to sign petitions against Hollywood rebooting old classics like Casablanca outright I prefer this new approach though. Whereas obviously you prioritize total innovation in storytelling as perhaps a top priority for you.

For me, I’m okay revisiting familiar beats I love in different ways with new characters and within Star Wars it’s easy enough for me to work through as repeating in sort of a WWI and WWII way. I love spending time in this galaxy with magic and sci-fi enough to suspend disbelief where some others are not willing. I’m happy about the possibly of my daughter possibly connecting with the ST as I did the OT. Even if I know the OT is better.

I called the soft reboot long ago. The difference is I don’t wield it as an insult. It doesn’t bother me. As a relatively “bright side” person I guess I see it as far better than the idea of them rebooting Star Wars entirely with fresh faces I-VI, which is legitimately something I thought they might have considered when I first heard about the purchase and surveyed the previous landscape of hard reboots that were out there in cinemas in the early to mid 00s.

The sheer originality you hoped for with the ST is what I’m hoping we get with other content coming up. Including the new Rian Johnson and Game of Thrones dudes trilogies.

 

Ben's statements contradict the others, so which are true?

I'm not saying you can't enjoy TLJ, just presenting my own interpretation. I'll play along, but please, if you're serious, then take my questions seriously. Where did they explain when and how Ben first met Snoke? What did Snoke first say to him, and how did that set Ben along the path to the dark side? Who are the Knights of Ren that Snoke referred to in TFA, of whom Kylo is the leader? How old was Ben when he started training to become a Jedi? Did Snoke influence him before or after he started training? What specific, immoral actions did Ben commit that caused Leia and Han to be worried about him? Was it like, killing his pet hamster, or just drawing creepy pictures?

 

Yeah, he discovered nu metal and it was all downhill from there.

 

There is no truth. There are points of view. The light side, and the dark side.

I am a light side person, so I believe Han, Leia and Luke. And I take everything Kylo says and try to understand it from his own internal point of view, which does not mean I endorse his actions.

 

Lol, iknowrite? Where did Snoke come from? Florida, obviously.

 

I think you might have spoke too soon.

 

Ben's fall is reverse Anakin's fall.

Anakin=tried to save his family (from phantom threat)
Ben=tried to save himself from his family (from phantom threat)

Both believed that Jedi (Anakin) or family (Ben) betrayed them. Which is quite untrue, but this is their point of view.

If Ben fell to the dark side before the situation with Luke, it doesn't make sense from dramatic point and in SW context. It removes self-fulfilment element of Luke's vision and cheapens his regret and exile.

It makes this subplot only about Luke but ST is not about Luke, it's more about Kylo. Kylo believes that he was defending himself and Kylo was afraid of Luke on Crait in very unhealthy way. Fall to the dark side always starts with the fear and in Kylo's case fear of Luke pushed him on the dark side.

In the end, Luke actually made much more for "saving" Ben than Rey: he gave him opportunity to face his fear but took away possibility to kill him forever. Luke is gone. Kylo's fear is gone. Luke killed that past.

 

We get as much or more backstory on Snoke and Ben as we did Palpatine and Vader via the OT.

Right now... the ST is closer to the OT than the PT in total critical acclaim and combined IMDB scores. It’s also closer in exposition of the dark side users. We got by 15-20 years just fine without knowing much about Vader or Palpatine.

Pretend we get anthology films in the future that show more about Snoke and Ben and Luke sooner than 16-20 years after the ST ends. So long as it eventually occurs... just as the PT eventually explained Palpatine rise and Vader’s descent eventually did... we’ll get the answers. Better late than never.

 

This is primarily one of the reasons why I found every supporter of the ST finding the premature death of Snoke to be perfect for the story at this stage. Ben and Anakin do not even compare. When I heard Snoke say that he was going to finish Ben's training, I was under the idea that we'd not only see the kind of training that apprentices to masters of the Dark Side like Snoke but how their relationship fared and how it largely differed from his grandfather's relationship with Palpatine. This approach would have fleshed out Ben to a far greater degree than what we saw in this film and generally would have made Snoke more compelling which is always good.

Anakin constantly retooling his technique throughout the war gave him skill and experience which served him well in the Clone Wars and made him ideal for being an enforcer for the Empire, the ideals he possessed that would later get twisted by Palpatine, his loyalty and passion which were good qualities that ended up corrupted, etc. all make him more distinct from Ben Solo. Ben Solo has never lived in hardship. I don't even believe that he has endured the intense and morbid nature of combat for most of his life and Anakin had become well-acquainted with it far before Ben's current age. With that consideration, Snoke has to prey on different things. He has to twist other attributes that Ben has to his will.

Making a shallow carbon copy of Vader and the Emperor largely has no value when you seriously take these things into account. Even the subversions attached to them are completely surface-level things that don't contribute much to the characters nor make them all that investing.

 

Pablo Hidalgo said Han and Leia wasn't absent parents just busy (Han turned in a responsible man he just became smuggler again after Kylo's crime).

Leia wanted Luke to help Ben. He didn't need to be a jedi but understand better about the force. Luke, the last jedi, could help him. Lyra Erso knew a lot about the Force but she wasn't a jedi. TLJ novel said about a teenager Ben destroying stuff still when he lived with his parents, Han and Leia were worried about his anger.

 

And? Luke decided to help Ben when it was too late. Snoke started influencing him before Luke started helping him (And that was Snoke's plan). Ben couldn't control his powers and becoming a Jedi was the worst thing you can do with such issues.

I think it's clear that Kylo became fascinated with Vader after Jedi ways didn't work for him. He rejected legacy of the light side and turned to another legacy. He was viewing in the same limited way both his teachers viewed it: be the Jedi or be on the dark side.

That's why he and Luke are on the same page in the beginning of TLJ: Jedi teachings do not work. The same happened with Anakin, he didn't know what to do with fear, anger and power and he was torn apart between two limited perspectives.

As for sympathetic reasons for anger and fear, I personally don't know what to say because I view it as a personal thing. Mostly I don't care about sympathetic backgrounds because they are often similar and they never justify future actions. I can only understand emotions and feelings which led to crimes, and sympathize with person who feels hurt and root for them to heal and find the right way. Chikatilo had the worst background I have ever heard but I'll never sympathize with him because I don't know if there was any sane - not sadistic - emotion left in him.

 

I fully admit that when I zoom out on what we have with Ben Solo through 2 films the redemptive angle seems like a massive uphill battle to pull off.

It’s true that 3 of the things that make Kylo Ren an interesting and compelling villain to hate in a King Joffrey kind of way are the very same things that also make it super hard to imagine a great redemptive angle. Especially now that Fisher is gone. Having a mother get through to her son even if he was a spoiled brat turned Dark Side user and seeing Leia happy might have given us the reverse of what helped us get on board with Luke. Even if we didn’t personally think Vader, prior to the prequels, deserved to be redeemed the fact that Luke did mattered and helped. If Leia would have been happy and had a better relationship with her son that could have helped a lot. They might have planned that so what the heck do they do now if that was the plan? Again, let’s revisit 3 aspects to him that make him easy to dislike:

1) He had good parents and didn’t have a super hard upbringing.

2) He killed Han Solo.

3) He’s very manipulative and sneaky when he’s focused and calm.

All of that works fine if we are meant to hate him. Some antagonists that’s all you want. Some antagonists you fear because they seem physically unstoppable. Others because they’re evil geniuses. Others you just hate in that Game of Thrones / Malfoy villain kind of way. It’s all antagonism and so long as the vast majority of the viewers feel something about the character you’re good. Most do with him. He’s one of the most popular characters of the ST. Some hate him. Some love him. That works. However, the redemptive angle is still very hard at present. It’s difficult to see a path where he survives IX.

He either does something at the end to help her that kills him and dies. Or he’s killed by her and dies. How can he possibly do enough to survive the movie and somehow move on without the galaxy wanting his head? That’s the other thing that Leia could have helped with as a leader.

If they intend to redeem him I think they basically have one option to make him likeable and remorseful and different and that would have to be Hux and the Knights of Ren overthrowing him and becoming the final villains at the top, including making it seem like they killed Leia against his orders and forcing him to become an uneasy ally of the Resistance who don’t trust him. It would have to go that Magneto helps the X-Men route with the enemy of my enemy becoming my friend. That’s the only way I can see where it pays off more of what Johnson set up with them getting to know each other more and tasting the throne because at least then, after he’s earned trust slowly and perhaps started moving back to the Light with his time with Rey and through seeing old things that remind him of his old life and being free of Snoke in general. The drama would then come from his anger against the K of R and Hux leading him back toward the Dark Side and whether he’d done all this just to get the throne back or if he was legitimately changing and becoming a good partner with Rey.

I feel like it almost has to do sonething like that for him to have any shot at redemption or else it will just be him being a villain for more time and that making people hate him more and then him either being killed, which many would like if he remained evil, or him sacrificing at the end but with Snoke gone I’m not sure how they’d make that as rewarding.

 

There's a name for people whose actions only make sense to them. But insanity is not very sexy so you can guarantee that Kylo will not be portrayed as insane, which leaves Kylo of sound mind with a rotten list of excuses to explain his actions. The reasons given in the film are to excuse him and make him sympathetic to the audience, which makes them reasons the writers are hoping the audience can be sympathetic with. And we're back to whether those reasons, the ones proffered in the films, are sufficient; and, of course, they're not even close - which you as much as admitted when you conjured up the 'internal point of view' thing.

 

No it's to make it credible that he might be able to see that he's wrong and try to do something about it like his grandfather eventually did.