SPECULATION Is Luke Rey's Father? - The Evidence For and Against

But it's possible that what Maz said is true and that Luke, Leia, and/or Han are Rey's family. Rey's idea of who her family is could be someone completely different than who they actually are, if she was kidnapped or adopted to protect her or something like that, and therefore, what she's saying would be true.

 

Even Pablo Hidalgo and Matt Martin from the Lucasfilm Story Group don't think Rey is a Skywalker by blood.

What's the point of hiding in TFA that Rey is a Skywalker by blood when it's totally obvious because we are in the Skywalker saga? Where's the surprise?

 

Martin and Hidalgo are contractually bound to not disclose anything useful about material that is unreleased.

Matt Martin was not part of the Story Group in 2015.

Here's what they're actually trying to make people do on twitter with speculation:

 

Well, I don't think it's meant to be a surprise. They know they can't surprise anyone this time around with a parentage reveal anyway. Genuine surprises will change me from other places. There are two main reasons for waiting one is that they already had the Kylo Ren reveal and JJ stated that he only felt he could get away with one family reveal in his movie and anything else would be overkill for one movie. Second is to give Rey time to develop her own identity. Give the audience a chance to know and like her outside of being Luke's daughter.

 

Forget V and VI for a minute; the whole first Star Wars movie in 1977 was a bloodline movie about a son whose importance derived directly from who his father was. It wasn't about how 'anyone could be anything': it was quite specific. Any person who honestly says or thinks otherwise fundamentally misunderstands Star Wars.

 

Next

 

It has nothing to do with Vader! I just said forget V and VI for a minute. Please do read. And watch Episode IV where Luke's importance is derived from his hero Jedi father.

 

Why does anyone think that LFL/etc would *cryptically* "debunk" the leading Rey's parentage theory? A debunk = "X is not Rey's parent."

I just don't understand why anyone thinks that dissecting ambiguous, qualified social media posts will lead them closer to the answer than *the actual text of the script* and the rest of TFA?

If peeps want to take KK's/MM's/PH's statements to heart, go with the unqualified, straightforward stuff that they obviously don't consider spoilery. Like (paraphrasing) "lineage, legacy and family are important themes" and "Rey's parentage is integral" and "Luke-Rey is the 'beating heart' of TLJ." They obviously do NOT consider such info spoilers, unlike confirming/debunking specific theories.

'Cause guess what? If they had actually debunked a major parentage theory, they wouldn't continue to play coy about it. It's safe to say that LFL knows what it's doing.

 

Perhaps just because the actual text and the rest of TFA don't allow any certainty.
That said, I believe Hildalgo can only confirm or explain what's been already told.
He can clarify some details (for instance when he said that in the visions, Luke and R2 scene is another time and place than that of Kylo and teh KOR, because in that case, the script said that too. So he was just explaining better something that people hadn't got).
But what's been said in 7 about Rey, is just that she is an orphan.
That's what the movie stated.

Hildago's job is not to give hints about the future.
In 7 she's an orphan, as Luke was in 4, as Leia wasn't luke's sister till 6.

Whatever we're going to find out, he won't tell us.
He's only saying to us: in 7 she is an orphan, Maz doesn't know who Rey is.
Maz is saying those things to her (her family =/= than Han or Luke...
but still Maz doesn't know who Rey is)

And - as you know - I'm more in the #ReyNotRelatedCamp

 

(Btw not directing the following complaints at you personally.)

I have broken down dialogue and been informed that citing grammar rules to determine the meaning of a sentence is a logical fallacy. And from what I've seen, many Rey Unrelated theorist happily recognize Maz as an "oracle" type who is a reliable narrator when citing the line "The longing you see isnt behind you, it is ahead" in support of their theory (despite the fact that, in context, it doesn't.) I think Han's advice to Finn of "women always discover the truth. Always" right before seeing Maz was inserted into the script for a reason...

But most of the time, evidence I cite and arguments I make are met with a blanket "You don't know that for a fact"-type of statement. Which is true, but irrelevant and not an actual counter-argument

If the standard for this argument is "proof beyond any doubt - cite the TLJ/9 script or else," then is there any point to backing up theories at all?

People can believe what they want to believe. But please don't try to shoot down others' theories/evidence if you're unable to explain why a different understanding of the evidence is just as valid or superior. If you don't agree with a theory, that's fine. But if you have nothing of substance to counter with, why bother? Just post your own view and be done with it. You don't even need to explain why you believe X is so! Unless you're telling someone else why they're wrong, in which case, imo, substantively explain yourself or don't bother.

PH will confirm or deny certain stuff in the movie, agreed.

But statements like the lineage, legacy, family statement? KK and the directors make such broad, direct, unequivocal statements about the movies *all the time* and *repeatedly* in interviews. They don't consider this information to be spoilery! It is NOT a direct debunk or confirmation of parentage theories other than "rey's parents don't matter" ones. It might make certain theories more easily questioned, but LFL apparently doesn't care. Just as PH *actually, directly* shooting down Ezra and Sabine being Rey's parents.

If JJ actually and intentionally crafted a perfectly ambiguous "mystery box," he did an awful job o it, because it seems that the vast majority of the audience (including lots of people who had no preconcieved notions/expectations) came away with a particular impression.

Does that fact mean they are necessarily correct? *No.* But it's strong evidence of what the director intended the movie to convey (unless you seriously and fundamentally question JJ's competance, which I don't).

Which leads to the question - why? Did he pack TFA with "red herrings" and deliberately mislead the audience because the mystery is so important, or is it simply that preserving the mystery of Rey's parentage is considered less important than narrative foreshadowing and story set-up?

If one is finding that viewing TFA/leadup to TLJ through the lens of a particular parentage theory results in conclusions that the "mystery box" or marketing or whatnot was problematic or confusing....maybe it's the theorist that's got it wrong, and not LFL. Just perhaps.

 

Second child of Princess Lea Organa Solo and Han Solo.

 

Fact is, if we are debating, if all the world is debating, perhaps no every single persone that saw the movie

I was so naive to believe we were moving forward...

 

Are you seriously saying on a message board no one is allowed to disagree with "Speculation" not evidence as you call it? There is no evidence either way if she is or isn't related to anyone as in Luke, Leia or Han. It's up in the air. It doesn't make it a red herring, but it does make it that she has an important parent, possibly. Most orphan stories do have at least one noble parent.

 

Pretty overwhelming evidence here. There's still a slim chance Rey is related to Luke. It's possible the family she remembers was an adoptive family. Seems clear from the tweets above that she'll recognize her family. The whole Solo thing makes zero sense at this point.

 

What I'm saying is that if you don't agree with evidence, you should state WHY.

And saying that there's no evidence either way is basically an unsupported, blanket dismissal of the basis for any speculation in this thread.

 

There's no evidence she's related to anyone. Speculation does not equal evidence. If someone disagrees with speculation get over it. There will be more disagreement later.

 

Who's saying speculation is a synonym for evidence? How do you define "evidence"? Because I certainly do NOT equate evidence with rock-hard proof.

 

I don't meant to be obtuse, but I'm not going to indulge this any further. It's off topic and completely unproductive.

 

Martin and Hidalgo self admit that they're full of crap on twitter not trying to settle upcoming issues on twitter. Martin in particular had nothing to do with the story aspect of Star Wars until last year. He was just a digital/website guy. So his tweets from 2015 are even more useless than his future tweets.