Dagenspear

oojason said:

Yeah, Lucas even re-shot/re-edited the Darth Maul death scene as to split the character in two to make sure fans realised Maul was dead in TPM. I think I remember Lucas describing Maul as something along the lines of a being a henchman, a ‘pawn’, not a main villain etc… at the time when he was being criticised by fans for killing Maul off with little screen time in TPM - given the heavy marketing, PR, and merchandising of Maul as a character.

Of course it makes perfect sense that would bring Maul back to be the main villain in his Sequel Trilogy… 😉
 

So? Retcons have existed in Star Wars since TESB.

I think it makes more sense than introducing a random new villain whose just Palpatine again and then just bringing back Palpatine. That, plus, to me, the empty, irrelevant, black hole of a character that is Kylo Ren.

oojason said:

More revisionism and retcons, I think; a quick example would be George making Leia ‘The Chosen One’ in his ST instead.

So?

It would have been intriguing to see how he executed that, for sure. Though for me, TFA, TLJ and DOTF made for, or would have made for, a better ST than what we know of George’s belated ~2012 ST outline (and better than what we got with TROS).
 

How would just empire vs rebels, which is what even DOTF continues on, be better written? How can any trilogy with TFA and TLJ, which have not much of any I think creativity or story to them equal better?

oojason said:

Indeed - and especially so for an official book titled: ‘The Making of Star Wars - The Definitive Story Behind The Original Film’.

That Rinzler himself felt he needed to try and clarify the issue - due to fans noticing and highlighting George’s failed attempt at re-writing history - (on the official website) is lost on some of those… who wish to downplay or brush aside such topics - and yet are seemingly focused on little else.

Though thankfully not on here…

A brief overview of the OriginalTrilogy•com down the years… | Posting on the OriginalTrilogy•com…

👍
 

The when changes nothing about the story or characters I think. Why does it matter to those things or make them bad? You haven’t answered that.

JadedSkywalker said:

Well Lucas said for decades that Luke and Leia were always meant to be twins and Vader was always intended to be Luke Skywalker’s father. Is that lying or mythologizing, it’s hard to say. He might have said it so often and so many times since Return of the Jedi wrapped production that he actually believes it.

Its a big turn from not caring about Vader in the Splinter of the Mind’s Eye story conference, to after The Empire Strikes Back rejiggering the entire Saga to be about his downfall and redemption, instead of Star Wars from the Adventures of Luke Skywalker.

I do know Lucas originally thought of Leia ending up with Luke, Luke is more devoted to her he said in the making of Star Wars, and he also said let her run off with the Wookiee at one point. In the Splinter conference. Does that sound like he thought Leia was of cosmic importance or Anakin’s daughter. Or how about wanting to kill Vader off.

The idea that he had all 6 episodes planned out from one big script is laughable.

Even the prequels as we have them have many discontinuities and retcons form the original films. and plot holes. And are not at all the prequels he was going to make or envisioned in the 1980s.

Reading that he saw Yoda as spiritual guru and Yoga master does not scream Lucas wanted a cartoon Yoda jumping around with a lightsaber. I do accept the view now Of his being ashamed of having been in and leading the Clone Wars. And why he thinks wars not make one great. Its the only way I can forgive those awful scenes in the prequels, if I make up a headcanon. Like I like the idea of Palpatine using a lightsaber as mockery of the Jedi religion and their traditions, but I also doubt Lucas ever intended him to have one at all.

What does it matter what Lucas may have initially wanted, if he changed his mind? How does it make a story point or character decision terrible? And how are these plot holes or discontinuities?

Most people that I’ve seen in movie reactions who watch these movies for the first time now seemingly, as adults seem to like Yoda’s fighting more than not, so they don’t think they’re awful. Whose more right?

Leia remembering her mom and her dying right after Leia was born makes no sense. Her mom should have survived into her early childhood on Alderaan. And where was the great starpilot or good friend, Anakin was none of those things in the prequel. He wasn’t a cunning warrior. The dude lost every lightsaber fight he ever was in, except the one where he murdered Dooku. Oh, I get people will say the Clone Wars cartoon the Filoni one, filled in some of these things. But you shouldn’t need outside media.

We see both Anakin being what is seen in the movies as a good pilot and friend and cunning warrior in the movies I think, just not all the time. You admitted that we see him do it against Dooku, so the main issue that I see is that you wanted more of it, but that doesn’t really add to the character I think, we see that he was. These complaints never make sense to me in regards to the good friend part. How could Anakin be that good friend but also want to murder Obi-Wan and turn evil and assist the empire in massacring all the Jedi that he was a member of? People seem to want a character that was Obi telling Luke about his dad, when the next two movies revealed not only that Obi shades his honesty, but also I think Anakin simply didn’t work to be all the time. All of Anakin and Obi’s scenes in ROTS are friendly. They’re antagonistic more in AOTC, but saying someone was a good friend doesn’t mean they never got on your nerves or talked back to you. How do the movies contradict what Obi said?

TCW didn’t add anything in that’s needed for Anakin, just showed more of what the movies already showed. Anakin being a cunning warrior is shown at the beginning of ROTS. His pilot skills are shown in TPM and ROTS. And we see Anakin and Obi being friends in all but 2 of their scenes in ROTS. How is there a contradiction or a plot hole there, rather than just something you think we didn’t see enough of?

I want to preface this next part by saying that I do think the Leia remembering Padme thing is an actual contradiction, as it’s something that is actually contradicted by the movies and not just something that the movies didn’t show all the time, but I don’t see it as any larger of a discontinuity than Leia being Luke’s sister in the first place, or more of an issue than things like Luke and Leia kiss or Luke having more of a reaction to the death of a guy he just met than the people who raised him, or how Leia’s reaction to her planet’s destruction being almost entirely glossed over. So, to me, focusing on the Leia remembering Padme so much, I think is kinda not that important overall.

And for me personally I think Padme dying in childbirth makes more sense for everything else, because if Padme lived and only kept Leia I think that opens a whole different can of worms:

Why her and not Luke, why is one given away and the other stays with the mom?

How is staying with her mother being “safely anonymous”, which is what Obi says Leia is in ROTJ?

How does it make sense for Leia to be randomly given to someone in the political arena after her mother dies?

Or, if Padme got with Bail before she died, why would she do that and not go into hiding instead?

If she wasn’t in hiding, then how was Leia hidden from the Emperor and Vader?

That’s not to say that these angles couldn’t possibly be explained, but I think the issue is that the story becomes a house of cards where characters actions either become kinda contrived, don’t make sense and/or other things that they say don’t compute if you abide by one line from Leia in ROTJ. I think it doesn’t even really make sense that Leia’s a princess in the OT, if she was supposed to be hidden from the empire. To me, ROTS patched that as simple and straighforward, Bail was the only one there besides Obi and Yoda who knew who Leia was and offered to take her.

The Padme dying of a broken heart giving birth to the twins, as suited Vader is born on an operating table is powerful, but it broke the OT canon of Leia remembering her mom as a child. I only sort of can forgive it because it creates a poetic scene and has visual symmetry, but Lucas should have adhered to the OT. Like Vader creating Threepio may be interesting because he becomes more machine than man, but that was not originally Threepio’s backstory.

What does it matter what the original backstory was when it wasn’t in the movies? Why should he have adhered to the OT specifically, when the OT doesn’t always adhere to itself?

Threepio’s backstory in the movies isn’t contradicted by Anakin building him.

Mocata said:

The question of “when” is paramount when we’re dealing with real film history versus a bunch of phoney “my original vision” claims that keep changing.

But what does that change about what makes the ideas good or bad or a problem or not? How does Lucas’ perceived honesty or lack thereof on when he developed the idea make a writing idea better or worse? How does the “when” make it any more or less of value, or perceived “nowhere”? What’s the difference between ideas from the 70’s/80’s and ideas from the 90’s/2000’s?

oojason said:

Aye, like Broom Kid’s post above - that is pretty much spot on for me, mate.

And like that, it doesn’t address what the problem is with it or what makes it poor.

Yeah, 100%. Along with the infamous lie and woeful attempt at re-writing history / time-travel from Lucas himself - an inane and bizarre attempt to give his then-new midichlorians idea some credibility (for want of a better word)… it certainly didn’t come from when Lucas attempted to claimed it to be - so ‘nowhere’ fits quite aptly.
 

How is it problematic, based on EU material doing something else? All of Star Wars is made up, just like the eu stuff about them having families was made up. Why is this a problem with these things or when they were developed?

oojason said:

You nailed it.
 

I think they are neither emotionally stunted, nor are they weird, as all the main Jedi show emotions and are never treated as bad for showing emotions. What does it matter when it existed? I think Padme is the main character of TPM, but why should she be the main character of the PT, when the plot about the fall of the Jedi has about nothing to do with her?

What’s terrible about Anakin being a child? And aging down? Anakin was never established in any movie before TPM to have been any age, so how is he aged down? You gave no reasons I think for what’s terrible about any of this, just resorted to claims about Lucas’ ideas of himself it seems to me.

And you didn’t give any reasoning for what’s stunted or more emotionally sensible about any of this.

Did you not percieve the idea of people indulging in their own selfish wants and fears and how that can lead to self destruction and the harm of those you care about and fascism? How is the PT, I think, saying that not something interesting about our own world and lives?

Broom Kid said:

Lucas’ conception of the Jedi being weird emotionally stunted monks (which did not exist until he really started writing Episode I, either) was one of the worst decisions he made in the 90s, honestly. Along with aging Anakin down to 8, and not making Padme the main character of the Prequel trilogy.

he made a ton of absolutely terrible calls in his mythology as he made it up, and because so much of his own self-mythologizing is built around the grandiosity of his own creativity, he basically couldn’t retcon his own bad storytelling instinct to arrive at any of the interesting endpoints his bad setup COULD be saved by.

That Trevorrow wound up looking at the ingredients Lucas laid out for his mythology and arrived at an answer that makes SOME kind of emotional/philosophical sense (vs the dogmatic adherence to what “Balance of the Force has to mean”) kinda speaks to how stunted and forced every aspect of Jedi dogma, both textually AND metatextually.

It’s like Lucas (and Lucasfilm) forgot all this shit is made up, and the only real use any of it has is for allegorical storytelling, and for figuring out a way to use those elements in the pursuit of saying SOMETHING interesting about our own world and lives.

I think they are neither emotionally stunted, nor are they weird, as all the main Jedi show emotions and are never treated as bad for showing emotions. What does it matter when it existed? I think Padme is the main character of TPM, but why should she be the main character of the PT, when the plot about the fall of the Jedi has about nothing to do with her?

What’s terrible about Anakin being a child? And aging down? Anakin was never established in any movie before TPM to have been any age, so how is he aged down? You gave no reasons I think for what’s terrible about any of this, just resorted to claims about Lucas’ ideas of himself it seems to me.

And you didn’t give any reasoning for what’s stunted or more emotionally sensible about any of this.

Did you not percieve the idea of people indulging in their own selfish wants and fears and how that can lead to self destruction and the harm of those you care about and fascism? How is the PT, I think, saying that not something interesting about our own world and lives?

JadedSkywalker said:

For me it would be the prequel doctrine on attachment I disagree with. Because Jedi had families and children in Star Wars lore before the prequels. Just like how the chosen one thing was made up and so was midichlorians.

To get the Jedi celibacy thing you have to go all the way back to discarded script drafts for the original film, the son of the suns prophecy for the chosen one thing. Midichlorians came from nowhere.

How is it problematic, based on EU material doing something else? All of Star Wars is made up, just like the eu stuff about them having families was made up.

JadedSkywalker said:

Some of his sequel ideas have also been repurposed. If Mando and Gorgo holds to be true they will be facing warlords running the remnants of the Empire. And Dave Filoni is using George’s ideas in Darth Maul Shadow lord with Darth Talon.

Wasn’t Luke as a colonel Kurtz like character allegedly in George’s treatment. That sort of ended up in the Last Jedi if not in the way George would have handled it. The astral projection/ Luke is a legend stuff. and not a straightforward redemption arc. That does not sound like George at all. I also don’t picture Lucas making the prequel Jedi failures and Luke’s meta narrative. Chuck the lightsaber it’s time for the Jedi to end. Burn the tree with the Jedi texts, oh that is right Rey stole them.

I do like the idea that the force is bigger than the light side and the dark side and its vanity that the force dies if the jedi religion dies. The balance being bigger than the jedi and Sith conflict is interesting and then its abandoned.

But not in the story context they were pitched, with the characters they were connected to.

I don’t care about Luke being in exile. I care that Luke sucks. Would Luke have been a petty man child, who discards his sister and his friends life and blames the Jedi for all his problems, even though they had nothing to do with him pulling a weapon on his sleeping nephew with intent to murder him? If not, Luke being in exile doesn’t annoy me that much.

oojason said:

I gave the DOTF script another read through last night (I’d forgotten how enjoyable and engaging it was) - and there is certainly that aspect of the Force being addressed throughout the script (especially with Rey; and meshing / riffing with themes on Luke and Vader in ROTJ).

For me, the finale was quite intriguing on the subject _(and also breaking that problematic

Problematic? How? Having self control is problematic? Or is this the whole interpretation that the Jedi aren’t allowed to have feelings, even though all the main Jedi are shown to have feelings and feel emotions?

JadedSkywalker said:

George wasn’t going to make sequels he was going to make Star Wars underworld and that never got made.

Disney’s priority was to make a commercial for a theme park. And to sell toys. Other ancillary merchandise. Storytelling was never as important as corporate planning was. They have shareholder calls and meetings, corporate boards and governance. Quarterly quotas.

I called them outline ideas, not scripts. I do still think there’s more creativity in them than the ST though.

[Spartacus01 said:]

Anakin never went to see his mother before Attack of the Clones because the films heavily imply that the Jedi weren’t allowing him to. You can say whatever you want about Anakin, but one thing we know for sure is that he’s impulsive, rebellious, and doesn’t hesitate to take risks or rush to save the people he cares about. That’s his core trait and also his biggest flaw. If he had been physically able to visit his mother whenever he wanted, and if the Jedi really weren’t stopping him, then you’d expect him to go see her every chance he got. And as soon as he started having those nightmares, he would have immediately run to check on her. The fact that he didn’t, even while being haunted by those visions, means that something was holding him back. And since he was part of the Jedi Order, it makes sense to conclude that it was the Jedi themselves who were preventing him from going.

Stop him? The Jedi stopping anyone from doing anything by coercion is neither something the Jedi are shown to do in the movies, nor are they said to do it. What would they do to stop him? How would they stop him? I don’t think that lines up. Moreso, I’d think they’d advise against it.

Anakin was told by his mother to not look back and that her future was there. Anakin trying to be committed I think can have other reasons, trying to be a proper Jedi, trying to make his separation from his mother worth it, trying to justify a feeling of guilt in him potentially feeling like he abandoned her. Especially considering the Jedi aren’t shown to have any ability or attempt to force any Jedi to do anything in the movies.

Yes, it’s true that Anakin could technically have walked away from the Jedi Order whenever he wanted. But it’s not that simple. If he’d left before Attack of the Clones, he’d basically be on the streets. Everything he owned belonged to the Order, so leaving would mean giving all of that up. He’d end up wandering the lower levels of Coruscant, trying to scrape together some crappy job just to survive. And if he’d left after marrying Padmé, sure, he could’ve lived with her, but Anakin wasn’t the kind of guy to sit around doing nothing all day. He’d still need a purpose, something meaningful to do, a goal to chase, and that’s not something you just figure out overnight. After spending over a decade in an institution that gave him structure and something to focus on, walking away wasn’t exactly simple.

First, it’s never said in the movies that people just are tossed out with no assistance and no oversight if they quit. Second, Anakin wasn’t a lone kid. He had Palpatine behind him as an ally. If he quit the Jedi, I don’t see why Anakin would expect that his friend in political high places Palps wouldn’t back him.

The rest is in regards to Anakin’s emotions on the situation, not what the Jedi make him do, which was my issue.

It’s so hilarious to me to see some people here so overly touchy about Lucas that they’re getting annoyed at outline ideas that I think do pitch distinct enough ideas comparably to Disney’s ST. It’s like a grasping of defenses for Disney’s lack of creativity to me.

JadedSkywalker said:

I think it’s merely a design preference. But I preferred the used universe of Star Wars 1977 over the bright and clean cgi esthetic of the prequels. It lent a sense of authenticity and realism that the prequels lacked. And that also the sequel trilogy lacked.

I’d suggest it’s also a totally different part of the galaxy mostly, at a different time. Why would it be the same if the place, time and structure of things is different?

The dinged up and dirty and dingy look of things. Landspeeders, the Millennium Falcon. X-Wings of the rebel alliance. Lightsaber hilts etc, blasters. Kenobi’s Robes. The detail work on Threepio and Artoo. And on Vader’s suit and all its parts and pieces including the cape.

Being older things, I think makes sense they’d be that way. New things owned by politicians and newer Jedi with more resources, I think it works that it’s not that really.

And how the Rebels were much more utilitarian. the Empire more clean and antiseptic and austere in design. How the rebels could just be farmers or privateers or whatever port of call they hailed from. Some of them might even be criminals like Han Solo. Or people out on the fringe. Luke being a former moisture farmer and all of that. Kenobi being able to pass as a Tatooine local wearing the garb of a farmer. Of course, they made those Jedi Robes.

Who said it was the garb of a farmer? There’s similarities I think (robe and neck thing mainly), but Obi-Wan’s clothes aren’t what I see as aggressively similar. Obi even has a clasp on his belt for his saber. Also, ROTJ is the movie that showed Anakin wearing the exact same clothes as Obi I think, in his post Vader form.

I think each world and culture should have varied more in the prequels. You would only get bright and Shiny on Coruscant but not on the lower levels.

I think there’s more of grungy kinda vibe in the lower levels when we see it in AOTC. And the Gungan city I think looks neither like Coruscant or Naboo. Similar with Geonosis and Utapau not looking like any of them.

JadedSkywalker said:

Vader does say in the OT the Emperor is not as forgiving as I am. Don’t you remember. Apology accepted Captain Needa. Admiral Ozzel is as clumsy as he is stupid, You’ve failed me for the last time admiral.

I don’t see any of those as puns, more dry remarks or insults.

Prequely is flashy twirly lightsaber moves. Style over substance. Not fitting the tone of SW 77 where Vader enters Leia’s ship. Lightsabers are to be held with both hands as if they have weight and heft to them.

Who says how lightsabers should be held? Because some characters did it that way in a couple movies? What’s style over substance about either of these things? Tension, weariness, conflict are all still explored in the PT fights.

Suited Vader is imposing and moves exactly as he does in SW and TESB. The lightsaber combat style in the OT is completely different than the prequels.

Vader isn’t trying to fight Luke to the death in TESB I think, so I don’t see a contradiction in behavior or actions. And Luke isn’t nearly skilled enough.

Vader’s design looking like Star Wars 1977 or closer than the prequel is completely what I meant as well as how James Earl Jones sounded. Still not the imposing figure of David Prowse though. I don’t like Episode III Vader at all.

I prefer the cleaner look. Seems more a preference thing per person to me.

I’d like everything to hew and adhere to the OT esthetic.

I don’t think that changes much, especially considering in the PT we are seeing a totally different side of the galaxy for the most part. I don’t think it counters anything in the OT really much.

I know someone mentioned Mustafar, I could do without a prequel reference there but not a dealbreaker.

What does a prequel reference harm?

NFBisms said:

Eh, idk about that. If anything you can argue its depiction in TLJ alone lands on being didactic against it. That stuff isn’t politics though, nor has that necessarily been a conversation re: woke in Star Wars

It’s depiction is used still, I think, to present Rey in a passive role that serves Kylo and Luke’s story. By making it that way, I still think it’s not against it. That the romance angle is there at all, I think suggests a random favoritism for the concept, that doesn’t take Rey’s character and emotions about everything she’s experienced by Kylo’s actions into account.

I was suggesting that runs counter to some of those who argue it’s political or woke.

JadedSkywalker said:

To me that was the worst part of Rogue One Vader far too prequelly. In fact every appearance of him since the prequel except in Rogue One before the hallway scene has been prequely.I also found the Darth Maul scene in Solo to be lame.

What’s prequelly?

I liked Vader with the red lenses and don’t choke on your aspirations, that was very OT Vader.

What do the red lenses add, other than bearing a resemblance to OT? And Vader in the OT never makes a pun that I remember. Also, why would Vader in everything else that takes place years before the OT not be closer to the prequel version?

As for Finn I felt like Force Awakens was setting up him and Rey to be a thing, and then last Jedi all of sudden Reylo happens. Which reminds me of Hayden Skywalker/Padme from the prequel. The bad boy psycho romance. Rey is all I can save him I can fix him. There is still good in him.

Not really I think. Because Anakin and Padme:

A. Has a personal relationship before the romance that isn’t hatred and violence.

B. Padme isn’t written to break away from any relationship for Anakin.

C. Padme’s romance with Anakin isn’t developed to be when Anakin is already a monstrous villain.

Even TLJ doesn’t clear the very low bar that AOTC actually put some effort into as a romance. Hilarious.

Mocata said:

Does woke mean anything these days? I use to think it was something do do with common sense being replaced by box ticking and messaging but it’s hard to say any more. Overall I still like TLJ but it’s odd if you break it down in any detail. Grifters complaining about Hollywood will say the Rose side-plot is forced but fail to say how beyond the basics of a lame non-romance. Would they be complaining less if Finn and Poe Dameron did this mission or is that too gay for them (or Disney)? Does it make sense Finn gets talked down to about how evil the First Order is when he’s witness to a massacre?

Elsewhere things like Luke being in hiding to avoid the circular nature of the conflict makes some sense. Some people say he shouldn’t be shown as an old grouch. But can the same old heroics go on forever, can these characters be simplistic and static? Which to me is the problem with Rogue One… it’s just so bland and has more fan service and CG action than personality. The sequels might not have much to say but RO is just ‘here’s Darth Vader, please clap’, and then people do.

Broom Kid said:

Woke is one of the more fun reappropriations of language to mean absolutely nothing that’s happened in quite awhile.

I was suggesting how I think it’s nonsense to claim it’s woke or progressive.

But at least I think the Rogue One does have something going on in it’s story and character structure concepts, other than the fan service of Vader. And Vader being involved in some way makes some sense I think because of the lead in to ANH, even if I think it’s not strongly done.

Broom Kid said:

Complete side-tangent: I know it’s a bit of a tiny kerfluffle regarding “the red lenses” on Vader (and he did have sort of darker amber/tinted lenses in Star Wars that often had a bit of a red hue when the lights hit them) and how Rogue One supposedly overdid it to some degree; but as someone who has cut a version of that movie and pixel-peeped QUITE a bit, a lot of the “red lenses” stuff is literally just red light IN the shot reflecting off the lenses, which otherwise still look mostly dark/black. The meeting with Krennic on Mustafar seems to be a scene that gets complained about heavily, but you can actually see the set lights casting a red glow on the scene and reflecting off the mask. It’s not that the lenses are red, it’s that there are orange/yellow/red lights bouncing off that plastic.

I don’t really get why some people make a thing out of little visual things like red lenses. What does not having them like hurt about the character, that makes them so gasp prequelly in a way that is poor?

NFBisms said:

Not gonna lie, I genuinely still don’t get it! The ST are extremely, and almost outright intentionally, apolitical movies with genuinely nothing to offer on that front. And I like TLJ! Andor, Acolyte, sure. But The Last Jedi?

I’d argue TLJ is more sexist, with how I think it shoves Rey into a passive role as a protagonist and builds her story around the dumb, to me, bad boy good girl romance with Kylo. That, plus, all the female characters are basically props for the male characters stories. Luke may suck, to me, but I still think Rey is written not really as her own character, but for Luke’s as well as Kylo’s.

And yet, the movie is bashed as woke and acclaimed as progressive. Hilarious to me.

Broom Kid said:

I believe the entire purpose of Driver pursuing Soderbergh (who then got Burns onboard) was primarily to investigate the idea of the character not being “redeemed” - Driver had initially signed on thinking that was the goal with the guy, and that had been reinforced by how The Last Jedi was done.

I don’t think they were trying to cement Kylo’s importance to the overall story, really. In fact, his being forcefully, clumsily shifted to hold almost the whole focus of the ST by the midway point of Rise of Skywalker is a huge reason it folds in on itself, dramatically - the movies start by pairing Rey and Finn as the co-leads, and then Rey takes center stage for the 2nd chapter, and instead of Finn & Rey coming together for the 3rd chapter, they backseated both of them for the sake of making Ben the hero/main character. Say what you will (I do, all the time, LOL) about Trevorrow’s skills as a creative, but at least his first couple whacks at the story recognized where The Last Jedi was pointing towards, and it was NOT a “redemption” for Kylo, and it was 100% at Finn leading some sort of uprising amongst the First Order (which is probably the only way the Resistance overcomes having almost no numbers).

This seemed to have been a story looking to pursue the original idea in a different framework. Kylo/Ben wouldn’t actually be prominent to that degree, he’d be hunted, and the clumsy, facile idea of “redemption” forced on him would be sidestepped for a more interesting examination of the character who actually IS too far gone.

I think Kylo was given more focus than Rey was in TLJ, to her detriment. The character being bent around reylo, for the sake of her trying to turn him away from villainy I think is a showcase of that. Along with all their scenes being mostly Kylo talking at her or her saying very little at all. Same with her scenes with Luke, where she mostly just reacts to what other people are saying and doing. I think that was the movie that pushed that idea of Kylo changing as a core concept for the protagonist Rey to pursue, out of nowhere I think, not TROS. I think even TROS drops Kylo out of prominence within the story to focus on Rey and that Kylo has very little character growth and is mostly a device to keep Rey from dying within the movie. Trevarrow’s draft, that I’ve seen, does not much that different with Kylo as a character overall, and still has him change at the end from Leia’s persuasion and then heal Rey, dying in her place.

I think TROS moreso takes away all the focus from Kylo and gives it to Palpatine in regards to Rey’s story, giving Palpatine the one draining lifeforce at the end, being the one behind the deaths of her parents (if I remember correctly that was revealed to be Kylo in Trevarrow’s draft, I think giving Rey an actual drive against Kylo) and the one who was seeking to take over the galaxy and wipe out the resistance.

TLJ also I think outright didn’t do much with Finn’s connection to his stormtrooper thing, cutting out the scene where Finn got some troopers to turn on Phasma, which I think was one of the only things that gave Finn much of a voice in the movie. I think TLJ also did that to Rey a lot as well.

SparkySywer said:

It may open up the story to future movies where Ben Solo is more prominent, plus the opportunity to more fully realize the ST cast. Plus, if Adam was pitching this movie, he may be more prominent than just showing up at the end. Search for Ben Solo sounds awesome to me

Why do we need Kylo to fully realize the ST cast? What’s of value about Kylo’s prominence?

rocknroll41 said:

Had the Ben Solo movie gotten made, I have a feeling it woulda lifted elements from the scrapped Duel of the Fates script (mainly Mortis). On the other hand, maybe it woulda been cool to see Ben have to explore the criminal underworld, and get a taste of his dad’s life.

But it would’ve been about Kylo…

henzINNIT said:

You think he sucks? Who cares, when many disagree with you.

That doesn’t change my issue.

Mocata said:

Compared to Rey and Finn? Lol.

Both likable, to me, and had actual backgrounds and origins and didn’t suck entirely, to me, so yeah.

henzINNIT said:

An actual actor and an actual director were excited to do a Star Wars film, based on one of the few original characters from Disney that is actually pretty popular, and the suits can’t see past a retcon. Madness.

Popular? Who cares, when I think he sucks worse than any of the other main ST characters. So good riddance for me. I’d rather see Palpatine dance on Vader’s grave than more of what I think is an entirely junk character be pretended to matter.

SparkySywer said:

Yeah they’re totally putting out feelers for bringing back Adam Driver for that Rey movie

Classic Disney if so. Feminism, until they see an opportunity to put down their main female lead with a, to me, dumb trash bad boy good girl romance nonsense that negates her agency and common sense. It’s TLJ all over again. Get ready for Rey to be a near totally passive character while Kylo whines about nothing at her and I think for no real reason, despite him having assaulted her, invaded her mind, killed her ally and hurt her other ally, she’s fallen for him, and then people will simultaneously laud it as progressive and bash it as woke.

rocknroll41 said:

Adam Driver confirmed in an interview today that in 2021 he tried convincing Disney to make a movie about Kylo coming back to life called The Hunt for Ben Solo, but they said no.

oojason said:

He sounded really positive about it - and working with Steven Soderbergh for it - as well…
 

Adam Driver on Jarmusch, ‘Star Wars’ and putting filmmakers first - article from AP News

'“I always was interested in doing another ‘Star Wars,’” says Driver, who starred as Kylo Ren in the trilogy kicked off by “The Force Awakens.” “I had been talking about doing another one since 2021. Kathleen (Kennedy) had reached out. I always said: With a great director and a great story, I’d be there in a second. I loved that character and loved playing him.”

Driver says he took a concept to Soderbergh for a film that would take place after 2019’s “The Rise of Skywalker.” That movie culminated in Ren’s redemption and apparent death. Driver had undertaken the trilogy with an arc in mind for Ren that inverted the journey of Darth Vader. As the trilogy evolved, it didn’t play out that way. Driver felt there was unfinished business for Kylo Ren, or as he was known before turning to the Dark Side, Ben Solo.

Soderbergh and Rebecca Blunt outlined a story that the group then pitched to Kennedy, Lucasfilm vice president Cary Beck and Lucasfilm chief creative officer Dave Filoni. They were interested, so the filmmakers then pulled in Scott Z. Burns to write a script. Driver calls the result “one of the coolest (expletive) scripts I had ever been a part of.”

“We presented the script to Lucasfilm. They loved the idea. They totally understood our angle and why we were doing it,” Driver says. “We took it to Bob Iger and Alan Bergman and they said no. They didn’t see how Ben Solo was alive. And that was that.”

“It was called ‘The Hunt for Ben Solo’ and it was really cool,” adds Driver. “But it is no more, so I can finally talk about it.”

Soderbergh, in a statement, said: “I really enjoyed making the movie in my head. I’m just sorry the fans won’t get to see it.”

Representatives for Disney and Lucasfilm declined comment.’

Sounds like reasoning to celebrate to me! For me, good riddance to what I think is an empty, black hole of a character.

Mocata said:

If they can’t figure out what to do in six years then maybe it should just stop. Or at least have producing duties taken off them. Kylo being the one who lived and wandered into the desert was the obvious choice since he was actually written as a real character.

Is this a joke? Kylo? The guy who I think has no developed solidly origins, goals or motives, is written as a real character?

Nah. I think good riddance. I’d rather watch Palpatine dance on Vader’s grave than Star Wars pretend that Kylo has any value as a character as is. Right now, I’d rather see a Rey movie than more Kylo favoring, reylo nonsense.

I think TCW messed with Anakin, to me, taking away the rawness of the character and vulnerability, and leaning more into a generic jockey like hero character, and emotionally hindering the character.

That all being said. Personality, in basics, Anakin in TCW I don’t think is written much differently in TCW than how he is during the speeder chase in AOTC and in the for the most part first half of ROTS. So, from both angles, new things and similarities to the movies, I don’t think Anakin is given much that’s better constructed. Moreso, to me, some things are more given more time to them, maybe?

SparkySywer said:

I don’t think that’s true at all. The more their friendship is genuine, the more drama there is when they fight. They don’t need to secretly resent each other to end up fighting.

I didn’t speak on the drama. I spoke on character. To me, Anakin’s tension with Obi works as a set up for his resentment and bitterness and then hatred of him.