ST What do you think of the fact that Han and Leia were no longer together in the Sequel Trilogy?

While Mark Hamill turned in a good performance, even he will tell you that the character he played wasn’t Luke Skywalker. I didn’t go into TLJ to see a great performance by Mark Hamill. I went into TLJ to see Luke Skywalker. I didn’t see Luke Skywalker. That’s one of the biggest problems with TLJ. Plus, the Mark Hamill character did NOTHING to progress Rey’s character, and Rey is supposed to be the main character. That’s another problem with TLJ.

Sorry, @jaimestarr , but Rey is NOT a Skywalker. She is a Palpatine, so her being a “ good” character, does nothing to salvage anything positive for the Skywalker family. Everything ended in ruin for them.

 

There is no definitive way to gauge who Luke Skywalker ought to have been 30 years after the events of Return of the Jedi, so any portrayal within reason is Luke. To me, he was Luke, so which of us is right?

 

Mark Hamill had issues with his character/story in Return of the Jedi as well. So what? It IS Luke Skywalker in TLJ. Any claims to otherwise is petty obstinance, or just silly rhetoric....rhetoric that is usually ramped up by anti- TLJ fans clinging to a joke Hamill made (and has since recanted) as if it were the gospel.

Rey is a Skywalker just as much as Leia is an Organa. Somethings are stronger than blood.

That has been one of the tenets of Star Wars from the very beginning. Surely you didn't miss this as it's a BIG theme presented across the entire saga. Ancestry and lineage don't define you, it's your virtue, your principles, your actions, and your deeds that define you.

@Lobot's Wig

It's not even really up for interpretation. One only needs to differ to the author/writer/creator of the work.

For example: You could tell me all day long that Rocky Balboa isn't "the real Rocky" in Rocky IV , but Sylvester Stallone would likely disagree with you and you'd be wrong.

Now, that doesn't mean you can't do whatever head cannon you want, but it doesn't make you right.

 

Indeed, they are two different statements. I personally believe based on the evidence we are presented in the movies that the galaxy is in worse shape. However, the evidence presented in the movies is noticeably lacking and doesn't paint a clear picture. A reasonable person could construct a case that that is merely the same as before and I could understand how they reached that conclusion. But even in that case, the point remains that it's not any better, so what good really did our heroes sacrifices accomplish? This is especially problematic because one of the underlying premises of the ST is that the post-ROTJ period wasn't actually that good to begin with, so maintaining that status quo doesn't feel like a win.

There has never been an unprovoked nuclear attack the way the Empire vaporized Alderaan, and there hasn't been a nuclear attack at all for 80 years. On top of that the Empire definitely employed a corrupt police force that brutalized citizens anyways. I'm not really sure what you're suggesting.

The Organas raised Leia from the time she was very young as loving parents. Rey met Luke for a day or two on an island, smacked him over the head with her staff and said smell you later. It's hardly surprising that people don't view those two situations as equivalent.

 

The "Skywalker in spirit" thing totally could've worked if it was actually earned. TLJ absolutely ruined any hope of that landing properly. At best, Luke could be seen as a wise mentor if he had more of a presence as a force ghost, but the ship sailed on father figure once you wasted the whole middle film not developing a fondness between them.

 

That the filmmakers/writers failed to create a wider context (or world building) for the ST to exist in, significantly undermines the story they are attempting to *tell* (read *sell*). That the First Order itself doesn't seem to have an objective (other than to dominate I suppose), and the Resistance is to counter that objective (whatever that is?) is reflective of the wider issues that the characters suffer from i.e. little motivation and function within the story. That the galaxy doesn't seem to have moved on from the days of the OT, in any meaningful way, of course undermines what Luke, Leia and Han fought for in the previous films. That the galaxy is basically at the same place at the end of TROS, as it was at the end of ROTJ, undermines whatever it was the characters in the ST were trying to achieve. The net result being that, at a story level, the ST doesn't serve a purpose. other than killing off all the OT characters.

 

I suppose it's fair to downplay the victory (and future prospects of the galaxy) at the end of The Rise of Skywalker.

Yet, by that logic, wouldn't one have to do the same with the end of Return of the Jedi?

Meaning, we can choose to believe that things won't be so great after that films, happy ending, yet doesn't that automatically diminish the sacrifices of Obi-Wan, Anakin, Yoda, Bail Organa, Padme, etc?

Maybe my analogy was sloppy, if so, I apologize.

You were suggesting that the threat of a government having/using Death Star is more dangerous than the lawlessness, unrest, uprising of criminal organizations, and the pockets of rogue Imperials left unchecked that we witness in The Mandalorian (aka the immediate post ROTJ galaxy.) I don't necessarily disagree.

My point its: what is dangerous in the galaxy (like our world) depends upon your point of view/who/where you are.

Many governments in our world currently own stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear and otherwise) that are analogous to The Death Star. They have the capability of destroying cities/countries/etc with the push of a button.

Citizens alive during the Cold War lived in constant threat/fear of nuclear armageddon.

Yet, for many citizens in our world things like, violent crime, poverty, lack of resources, police brutality, drug/health epidemics were/are far more dangerous than the threat of a catastrophic "world ending" event.

Lastly, you are correct that the threat of Nuclear Armageddon (seemingly) isn't nearly what it used to be. I'd argue this makes the Death Star analogy more apt. In the films, the Death Star was only used on two planets before it was promptly destroyed, no?

1. One could easily be just as dismissive of the relatively short amount of time Luke spends with Obi-Wan (and Yoda) in the OT. This doesn't stop Luke from absolutely adoring and revering his masters. In many respects, Luke rejected his lineage (being the son of Darth Vader) and modeled himself after Obi-Wan. One could argue that Leia almost completely rejected her heritage as a Skywalker (daughter of Vader). Did she not?

In Episode 4, Luke is with/trained by "the crazy old man/wizard/hermit" his Uncle told him about for, what, a few days? This doesn't stop Luke from viewing Obi-Wan as a father figure, from mourning his loss, modeling himself after Obi-Wan, etc.

2. I think you are underselling the time that Rey spends with Leia. TROS shows us that Leia is a prominent Force/influence/mother figure in Rey's life. Rey spends over a year training with Leia and receiving her guidance, wisdom, and love.

3. Luke's interactions with Rey are not limited to the contentiousness moments they share in TLJ. Like it or not, their relationship is ultimately shown to be one of admiration, trust, and respect.

 

As, thanks to the ST, we now know the OT folks screwed up in every regard and didn`t build anything lasting, the point is moot. The victory of ROTJ now seems like a bitter joke, absolutely. And yes of course it diminishes the sacrifices of those that came before, including the OT folk now.

What makes the ST characters to be so special to be exempt from that? Other than Disney being unlikely to hurt their own toys, those characters have no inherent narrative superiority. They can land in the mud just like their predessors so the next generation can be made to shine at the expense of them.

 

1. Luke may not have spent a lot of time with Obiwan or Yoda, but he learned a huge amount from both of them and they built positive bonds. Luke didn’t attack either one of them from behind either.

2. If Rey spent a lot of time with Leia and had a good relationship with her, then she should have called herself Rey Organa or Rey Solo.

3. If the filmmakers wanted there to be a good relationship between Rey and Luke, then they should have shown Luke actually TRAINING Rey and not just telling her why the Jedi needed to end. The filmmakers should have SHOWN them building a relationship. We should have witnessed Rey showing Luke “ admiration, trust, and respect”, instead of showing us Rey attacking a guy she wanted to be her Jedi master from behind and accusing him of “ creating” Kylo. That wasn’t what I would call respect, trust, or admiration. Rey took the side of a mass murderer and the guy who captured her; tortured her; and threw her against a tree two days earlier, instead of Luke. She showed Kylo far more trust and respect than she showed Luke, and he was only grumpy to her.

Like it or not, trust, respect, and admiration between Luke and Rey were not shown.

 

I think this good relationship is supposed to come from his pointless pep talk cameo in TROS where they pretended he was some wise person, let alone Jedi Master. Impossible sell after the previous movie but Rey in all her OPness seems to have bought it. No idea why. Maybe she pretended they had never met before that.

 

I see others have already addressed some of these points, but to put it in my own words:

Surely with how long you've been on these forums you're aware that a lot of the outspoken critics' biggest problem with the ST is that they feel the way it handles the aftermath of ROTJ invalidates the accomplishments of our original heroes. That was the case before TROS was even released, let alone what we assume comes after it.

I get that out of all the people in the galaxy there was surely some percentage of which whose day-to-day lives were better under the Empire than they were under the New Republic. I'm not really sure the relevance of bringing that up in this discussion, unless you're suggesting that overthrowing the Empire was a mistake, which basically turns the OT into a farce.

This is probably an unnecessary tangent because I'm still not really sure how it's relevant, but the fact that our Earthly governments, which are themselves no paragons of virtue, have the opportunity to use weapons of mass destruction at their fingertips and one way or another they've managed to refrain from doing so for 80 years shows just how bad living under the Empire is by comparison. The Death Stars had to be destroyed because the Empire wasn't just going to choose not to use them on their own.

Luke doesn't change his name to Luke Kenobi because that would be ridiculous. He also doesn't say "I am a Jedi, like Obi-Wan before me". But more importantly than the amount of time is the quality of the time. Rey literally beats Luke over the head with her staff the last time she sees him alive. The reason its relevant that she barely knows him is that their largely negative encounter on Ach-too encompasses basically their entire relationship. It's not like Anakin and Obi-Wan who had a relationship that Anakin describes as "the closest thing I have to a father" for over a decade before their spat on Mustafar. Luke and Rey aren't even friends in the ST, let alone a surrogate family.

I don't think her relationship with Leia is particularly relevant when you literally just said "One could argue that Leia almost completely rejected her heritage as a Skywalker". If that's the angle they were going for they could have gone with Rey Solo since she also has a good relationship with Han. The reasons they didn't entirely stem from out-of-universe.

I mean, they pretty much are. She has one conversation with his ghost in TROS and it pretty much goes like
"Stop being dumb"
"I'm just doing the same thing you did"
"Yeah, well you shouldn't because I was being dumb then too."
"Oh, ok then. Cool, thanks. I better go."
There is absolutely no conversation between them that comes anywhere near "I'm adopting you into my family".

 

Yep. To me, it's like Freddie Prinze Jr insisting that "Han gave the Falcon to a girl" as to why we were upset. When did that happen? Why does Rey get the Falcon again?

 

I was hoping she'd bury the falcon in the dessert along with the sabers. Alas.

 

@ChildOfWinds @AlliyahSkywalker

Listen, movies are an art form. Like all art, we each bring our own individual history, beliefs, and concerns to the films when we absorb/interpret/and view them. I totally understand your thoughts on these movies. Yet, I simply don't view the ST in the negative light that either of you do. We just view Star Wars films differently. Sorry.

Right, yet the same assumption you are making about the state of the galaxy after TROS surely could have been presumed about ROTJ long before there was a Prequel, or Sequel Trilogy.

Look at the old EU: Post ROTJ we got Grand Admiral Thrawn, The Resurrected Emperor, Luke turning to the Dark Side, etc. All of these could be accused of negating/destroying/tarnishing what occurred in the OT with our heroes.

I think how the OT legacy was handled/treated in the old EU was often far more egregious than anything we got in the ST.

I guess what I am getting at is this: I'm not sure it was ever a given that the galaxy was less dangerous after ROTJ than it was before.

Certainly, as you said, the absence of a government with Death Stars is a plus. Yet, there are new/different evils, dangers, and situations that could/would arise in the vacuum created when the Empire fell.

Again, the old EU certainly didn't present the galaxy as being "less dangerous" despite ROTJ's happy ending. This is the kinda the way it goes with sequels, no?

We can table this if you want. Again, I am sorry for the clumsy analogy. To me, the threat of the Death Star is analogous to what the threat of Nuclear war was in the USA during the Cold War. Something to fear/worry about, but not an immediate threat/worry in the day to day existence of citizens.

Certainly Luke could have. It wouldn't have taken the story much of nudge to have Luke follow Kenobi enough to take his name and reject Skywalker due to his father's evil legacy.

As it stands, Luke still maintains this idealized version of his father despite his father's actual, horrible, legacy. Though he models himself after Obi-Wan, Luke sees the good in his father (via The Force) and helps to redeem the irredeemable Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker. Thus, he restores the family name.

Rey, on the other hand has NO reason to view Palpatine as redeemable, nor a role model. The Palpatine name/legacy is entirely one to be rejected. Unlike Luke, the girl needs a new surname. Thus, Rey models/names herself after her role heroes, mentors, and new family (Luke, Han, Leia). Unlike Luke, Rey had a desire (need?) to forge a new identity/family for herself.

Out of universe, Rey Skywalker was the natural choice. Of course.

I don't dispute that Rey could have named herself Rey Solo, or Rey Organa. In universe, these may have been more natural choices.

Yet, Rey is gazing at the Skywalker twins when she makes this declaration. Perhaps she only made the decision in that very instant based on that exact moment. She also grew up believing in the myth of Luke Skywalker. Hell, maybe she just liked the sound that surname better.

Point being, it makes perfect sense poetically even if one claims it's slightly ham-fisted narratively.

Lastly, I think it's an incredibly powerful message about identity and the choice we all have to be whatever/whomever we want.

This is simply you regurgitating dialogue in the film without context. If your created conversation is legit how you interpreted this scene, it's no wonder the movie doesn't work for you. This re-telling is devoid what is actually happening in this scene.

One could just as easily slap together a funny/mad magazine version of Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue with Luke in ROTJ. It's simply exists as a funny, yet an insincere/obtuse take on the material.

 

One could presume that the very next day after the credits rolled on the OT, Han Luke and Leia all died in a tragic speeder accident, and it certainly wouldn't contradict anything from the movies. Why one would presume such a thing out of all the possible continuations to the story is beyond me. I presume the post-TROS timeline will go poorly because the most generous reading of the situation is that it's back to the same as it was post ROTJ, and according to the ST itself it went poorly then. Why should I think it will go better this time?

Why can't I have problems with both? Because I certainly do. But as I've said before, I feel like the ST copied over many of my biggest complaints about the EU, but without keeping the stuff that was actually fun or interesting. I mean come on, they didn't even use the word "Mofference" once.

New dangers sure, absolutely. But they shouldn't have the same resources to cause trouble as a tyrannical dictator who controlled the entire known area of the galaxy. The problem is the ST didn't give us new dangers, it gave us the exact same danger again, right down to literally Palpatine being alive.

Well yeah, if you change the story to accommodate it Luke Kenobi could have made sense. Rey Skywalker also could have made sense if they wrote it that way, but that's not what we actually got.

"Slightly" is not how I would describe the level of ham-fistedness here. I can change my last name to Gates and declare Bill to be my father figure, but that's not going to get me invited to his house or a share of the inheritance. We either have that kind of relationship or we don't.

I mean, here's how Luke reacts in-universe:

But anyways, the point remains that Luke and Rey are not friends as presented in TLJ, and there's nothing that happens in their short conversation in TROS that lifts their relationship all the way from there to literally family, last name and everything.

 

Yeah, the POV thing wasn't exactly liked by Luke. He didn't enjoy being lied to, even if it was in his own interest. I think far too many fans think POV Lie is a good thing and can settle any decrepancy in an argument.

The ST set up is, unfortunately, broken even before it begins. We have an Imperial "Remnant" that acts just like the Empire did. It travels and attacks every planet it comes across like it owns the place. As if it's the law. As if it's the government. We also have a Resistance, that acts just like the old Rebellion. Small and broken down. Running for their lives.

The main issue here is that the very word, Resistance, implies that the FO is more powerful than they are. Hence, the reason why they need to resist it.
In truth, the Resistance has nothing to resist in the ST. They're defenders of the government. They should be called as such. Or, even if they're not officially with the NR, another name entirely. If the Resistance were a group of former stormtroopers who all lived on "Planet First Order", that would make sense. That would be a Resistance, because they're resisting the power/government that controls the planet.

The Resistance is also not even a Rebellion, because what are they rebelling against? The NR? Nope. A group of terrorists who have decided to attack the NR? Maybe. Would the Empire consider themselves a "Resistance" in the OT against the Rebellion? Not for a single second.

So with that, it makes very little sense that Leia - who's own son is a leader in the FO - would be in charge of, or would create, or dig in and spend her life working towards, a Resistance militia that doesn't actually resist anything. She should be chasing down every last Imperial ship. She should be sending Poe and other pilots to patrol the border zones along NR space to make sure no one gets in.

We should at least see the stakes flipped from where we left off in ROTJ, in the beginning of TFA. However, the movie keeps the Empire on top right from the start.

 

I have thought about this, and whilst I still think that the best answer to "Rey who?" at the end would have been a glance over towards Luke and Leia, a smile and "Just Rey", like she said to the little alien guy earlier in the movie, I reconcile "Rey Skywalker" like this.

I don't think she sees herself as being part of Luke's family. She has solved the mystery of her own legacy, and made peace with it. But Palpatine isn't really the best name to take either, due to its past connection with the Empire.

So why not Skywalker, simply as a way to continue the legacy and legend of Skywalker, rather than want to be a member of the family? There are no Skywalkers left, so why not take the name and keep it alive. That's how I see it. It works for me.

 

I would have liked her to say "I'm Rey Parker Jr. " Cue Ghostbusters theme.

 

I didn't think we were discussing anything as hyperbolic as that scenario. As I said, most recently it's been the Mandalorian that has shown us that the galaxy was dangerous and in shambles after the Empire fell. Before that, the old EU illustrated that things weren't necessarily easier/better and peachy after ROTJ.

Are we talking "better for the galaxy" or "better for the OT3"?

According to the ST, things were (more or less) great for the OT3 up until 6 years prior to TFA (the fall of Ben Solo).

The galaxy always seemed to be a cluster muck of danger and chaos after the Empire fell. In every version, the old EU, the current canon, The New Republic always failed to take root and never reached the heights/stability of the Old Republic, no?

Mofference! Wow I totally forgot that one. Hilarious. Easily you can have problems with both. Yet, this makes it more of a problem of continuing the saga post ROTJ rather than just and issue with the ST.

It's an issue with making a sequel to ROTJ that has existed since 1991.

If you create a whole new set of adversaries, dangers, challenges for the OT3, like the New Jedi Order series, it feels more like a spin off and something new rather than a cohesive and continuing saga.

If you tie the saga together with a remaining/redone Empire, Palpatine, Clones, Sith, Jedi, etc it undoes much of ROTJ's finality.

Again, not an issue that was born with the advent of the ST. See above.

Well, it made sense to me. Surely, I cannot be the only one who got it. As I said, Rey was searching for family the entire trilogy and ended up rejecting her true (evil) lineage for the family that took her in/mentored her/gave her direction.

You are missing the point. Rey already was invited to the Skywalker house and invited to share in their inheritance/legacy. They literally took her in as family. This is clear in the films.

According to your analogy you already would have been invited to the Gates house and to share in that families inheritance....you'd likely be more than apt/welcome to change your surname to Gates.

They are not friends. They are master and student. If you don't think there is mutual reverence/love from Han, Luke, and Leia towards Rey I am not sure what movies you are watching.

 

If it comes to Luke Rey is the master in that analogy, I wouldn`t say he is the student, though, more like nothing. As it is, I would say their relationship is non-existant and no, I don`t think there was ever love there. Han didn`t know her long enough. He most certainly didn`t love or revere her. Rey looked to Han and Luke with reverence from what she had heard of them and I think with Han, her reverence wasn`t crushed to the degree that it was with Luke. Poor Daisy Ridley struggled so much to portray any emotion toward Luke`s death. Can`t blame her. Then again, Leia also didn`t seem to particularly care either. It was all "yay, we have you, Rey, you are OP enough for all of us" right away.

Now Leia is the only one where there is a case for mutual love. Leia also mentored Poe a lot and I think she loved him, too. In that regard, I don`t think there was anything special about Rey. The Rey/Leia relationship was, for several reasons, certainly not the key component of the ST.

I usually like the theme of found family and it works pretty well in the OT but the ST has go to be one of the worst executions of that theme. Rey only took the name for meta brand name reasons and to justify the movie title which would otherwise makes no sense. Whatever Rey does with the name has zero to do with the Skywalkers for me. The name itself is meaningless now. When all is said and done the Skywalkers were a failed force experiment. And even if Palpatine might not like the how of it, his descendant came out on top. His descendant has the power to give the Skywalker name table scraps or not. I think Palps could at least appreciate the humiliation of the Skywalkers in that.

 

The main issues I see with this is TLJ went out of it's way to paint Luke's "legend status" as his own downfall, and it's simply not a very relatable choice. George Washington didn't have children of his own, and I've never heard of anyone changing their last name to Washington to honor his legacy after he died. That's just not how humans use surnames.

I'm not entirely sure what we're discussing on this point tbh. All I said was that if the galaxy was "in shambles" after ROTJ then it's still in shambles after TROS because they certainly didn't fix anything in the ST. If anything, it got worse.

Better for the galaxy of course. I was told that the OT3 sacrificed themselves for the greater good, but the greater good doesn't seem to be any better off now than when they were alive.

In "every version" aka "both" because there's only two of them, neither of which do I rate that highly.

There's an inherent risk in creating a sequel to anything, absolutely, but I don't think that completely absolves them of blame. There's an inherent risk when you step foot in a car but you still have control over things like choosing to wear a seatbelt.

Luke never took her in, and "mentored her" is pretty big stretch to describe the couple pieces of advice he gave her, most of which she ignored.

Han and Leia, sure absolutely. If you want to be part of their family there's a name that denotes that and it's not Skywalker. If you think Rey and Luke love each other in any scene prior to the writers foisting his last name onto her then I don't know which movies you watched. You don't take someone's last name just because you're their student, there has to be more to the relationship than that.

 

What? An enormous of people have been surnamed Washington in honor of his legacy. Do you think every person named Washington in the world is/was a descendent/blood relative of George Washington?

When The New Republic is destroyed by Starkiller Base, the galaxy is full fledged thrust into a violent conflict that is worse than things had been since ROTJ. Bare minimum, they destroyed The First/Final Order, Kylo Ren, and the resurrected Palpatine in this regard.

As we already both agreed, we cannot know for sure that the galaxy was more safe/better off after ROTJ or TROS. We don't know for sure.

Follow me on this:

Han sacrificed himself for Ben Solo. Leia did the same. Luke sacrificed himself for Leia and The Resistance. Ben Solo assisted Rey in defeating Palpatine, and The Knights of Ren. Then he sacrificed himself to save Rey's life.

Without the sacrifices of Han, Luke, & Leia: Rey ( the Last Jedi), and the Resistance, would be all be dead.

Without Rey and The Resistance, Palpatine would have have reclaimed the galaxy with his Sith Army.

Clearly, the OT3 did sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

If you don't like how the sacrifice was handled, or who they sacrificed themselves for, etc.... that's another point altogether...

Interesting. Are you opposed to the idea of sequels to ROTJ with the OT3 altogether, or just have a different concept in mind?

I was talking specifically about the risk inherent to making a sequel to ROTJ. I suspect that Lucas maybe thought this and was wise to dive into the Prequels instead.

Also, your car analogy doesn't hold water. When you drive a car, you are mainly engaging in procedural, repeated, motions. While making movies involves some of that, there is also a lot more creativity, artistry, and emotion involved. Ergo, movies are subjective in how they work, and seatbelts either work, or they don't.

1. While in Porg-land, Rey lived with Luke, was sheltered with Luke, ate with Luke, for some amount of time. If I go spend a summer living/training with my karate instructor, did he/she not "take me in"? Is that not what it's called?

2. Luke gave Rey guidance and advice. He taught her lessons. This is clear in the films. This is called mentoring. Just because you don't like the content/quality (or Rey's use) of the guidance/teaching doesn't negate the fact that Luke, indeed, mentored Rey.

So, your issue is that 2/3 of the Skywalker Family adores Rey and that she takes on the surname of Skywalker?
Are they not known as The Skywalker Twins?

Check it out: When Arnold Schwarzenegger married Maria Shriver much was made of the fact that "Arnold Schwarzenegger married into the Kennedy family. Arnold married a Kennedy. Technically, Arnold married into the Shriver family as it was Maria's mom who was a Kennedy.
Yet, the surname/lineage with more prestige, legacy, and fame was primarily referred to.

In universe, by the time Rey comes along, the name Skywalker has already reached a mythological level of famousness. Everyone knows of the legendary Skywalker family. It makes sense that she'd choose that...it was/is the family name in universe too.

 

I mean, there's a lot of people with the last name Smith who are not related to nor named after Will Smith. A quick google reveals that a lot of former slaves selected Washington as their last name, but without any evidence that it was done so in honor of George. According to Booker T Washington it was just the name that he came up with when his teacher asked on the first day of school.
------------------

I think I can cut down on some of the back and forth by clarifying this.

It's not that I don't think the OT3 sacrificed themselves, or that a story where the heroes die can't be satisfying, it's that the ST's version in particular was dissatisfying because it didn't make the galaxy better, it just made it not worse. And given the state of galaxy as it's portrayed, not worse isn't good enough. For Han in particular it's dubious whether his death accomplished anything at all.

I'm opposed to any sequel where Palpatine is still alive or the New Republic wasn't worth fighting for. I don't think that's too much to ask. I also think it's just kind of a waste for there to not be new Jedi trained by Luke.

I was speaking more generally about the concept of risk. You can have a plan and still make a bad trilogy, you can not have a plan and luck into a great trilogy, but that doesn't mean that there isn't value in having a plan that they knowingly opted not to invest in. It's not like there was nothing more they could have reasonably done to make the movies more coherent.

Did she? They lived in the same "town" but I don't recall any sort of indication that they lived "together". I don't remember them eating together either. She was there for like 3 days tops, and she neither arrived nor left on good terms. So no, I would not call that "taking her in".

That sounds more like a technicality than a good story. He gave her 2 formal lessons and a couple of pieces of advice so now they're super close, forget about the lying, disobedience, and outright physical confrontation that took place between them.

Oh come on. This is just nonsense and you know it. If Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver adopted a child do you think that child would take the name Kennedy? "Thanks for all you did for me but your last name's not famous enough"? Skywalker is not Han's last name, it's not Leia's last name, and it's not even Leia's maiden name. There's no reasonable explanation to honor someone by taking their brother-in-law's last name when "Solo" already encompasses the people involved perfectly.

 

Right, so at some point...people chose, or were given, the surname Smith. That's one way last names work.

See? People can and do select new last names in our world too throughout history. For various reasons. In fact, contrary to your claim, people unrelated to George Washington by blood chose to take on his surname. Whether they did so to honor him, or not, is irrelevant.

In Rey's case she was/is honoring Luke (and Leia) and the family when she chose the surname, Skywalker.

Through their sacrifices, the OT3 helped to restore/better the galaxy to the state it was in before Kylo Ren, the Rise of the First Order, and the return of Palpatine.

Through their sacrifices the OT3 helped make the galaxy, "not worse". Not worse that when? It sounds like you are saying that the OT3 helped restore the galaxy to the state it was in after ROTJ, or else I am unclear on what you are saying here....

Again, given the state of the galaxy when?

Oh come now. In TROS, surely you recognize that, when Ben Solo rejects the Kylo Ren persona and turns good, it's largely due to the loss of his mother, and his memory/emotional reckoning of the tragic moment on the bridge with his father, Han Solo. That's the beauty of the scene. It gives Han Solo's words and death meaning and that motivates Ben Solo to finally dismantle Kylo Ren.

1. Yikes. Palpatine's comeback has been tarnishing Star Wars for you since 1991. So far, The Emperor has been 2 for 2 in terms of official/canon Star Wars stories. Palpatine has literally been returning since they started publishing/creating sequels to ROTJ.

2. I am unclear about your meaning when you say the "New Republic not being worth fighting for". Can you explain?

3. Rey was technically trained by Luke and Leia. Again, if you don't like what that entailed, that's a different conversation.

I wonder: If you liked the ST, would you still think the planning/development was an issue?

A lot of naysayers of the PT say that the development/production of the PT was marred by George Lucas have more autonomy than ever and not having to answer to anyone compared to when he created OT. You know how they could tell the development/planning was poor? They didn't like the movies.

Rey seemed to be on the island for the same "3 days" time length that Luke was on Dagobah for. Meaning, I don't think it's firmly established in the film how long Rey is/was on Ahch-To. It's seems nebulous.

Rey lived in a little guest house right next to Luke's hut. He literally opens his door, walks downstairs and is at/in her quarters. Perhaps they didn't eat together. It's unclear, I that can certainly be in my head. Maybe they do in the novel?

I'm not sure what arriving/leaving on good terms has to do with anything.

If my nephew were to run away to live with me, stays with me and for 2-3 contentious weeks while living in my guest house, and finally returns to his parents after a fight with me.....I still "took him in." I feel like we are just arguing semantics and terminology about what that phrase means. We can drop it if you wish.

Whether it's a good story or not is largely up to you and your tastes. It's also irrelevant. As I said, you don't have to like what/how/when or the quality of what Luke taught Rey, but he did instruct her and guide her. Thus, he mentored her.

What? That's not what I was suggesting at all.

I was commenting on the fact that lineage/legacy/bloodline of the Kennedy name is more famous/renowned than Shriver. Thus, when Arnold was marrying Maria Shriver, the press said he was marrying into the Kennedy Family, not the Shriver family.

Likewise, the Skywalker family is largely referred to as such (and not the Solo/Organa family) both in and out of universe.

Again, in and out of universe, the entire family is referred to collectively as The Skywalker Family. Certainly, Rey could have chosen the surname Solo, or Organa, but neither of those are what the family is typically referred to as.

Also, I want to repeat that, when viewing TROS...Rey seems to make this decision to take the name after gazing at the Skywalker twins. I always thought she just picked the name on the spot because of that.

 

some really good points there.. i only wish I had your energy to continue the endless debate. always love reading your positive posts