"Somehow, Palpatine..."

Luke didn't know about force lightning until after he'd thrown his saber away.

No the writers just weren't interested in repeating that trope. Besides. Anakin never entered a showdown having to overcome his one remaining flaw. Only Luke had that story. So it's clearly a mistake to insist that if Rey wasn't depicted as facing the big bad but actually facing the one flaw in her character that she needs to conquer, then it means that the writers are telling you that she is already perfect. I never heard anyone say that Luke became perfect AFTER he prevailed in ROTJ. So it doesn't even make sense to say that not defeating your biggest flaw in the climax is an indication that a character has achieved perfection.

By the way. Flaws are momentary. It's not as if people are born flawed and then unflaw themselves into perfection. Yes, you overcome or correct flaws. But you also develop flaws. You trade one flaw for another one. Reduce them or make them worse.

 

You're a bigger person than I am.

 

I can't with this nonsense. Luke saved HIS FATHER. It's the only reason he wanted to save Vader, because it was his FATHER. Jesus H. Christ, he killed thousands of people. Personally. He's the one who blew up the Death Star. But Palpatine deserves a chance? This is so absurd that I actually have to fight the urge to say what I really want to say because it's not allowed on this site.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 30, 2022, Original Post Date: Nov 30, 2022 ---

They're not pacifists, for Christ's sake. Jedi have killed countless people and not turned evil as a result.

Palpatine is literally trying to kill her:

But she's supposed to just sit there and take it because she can't killl her grandfather. This is nonsense. This is seriously one of of the dumbest conversations I've ever had.

This is one of the stupidest conversations I have ever.

 

Do you know what - it's nowhere near as stupid as DLF bringing back Palpatine in the first place. The character belonged in the past. He was a great baddie, was killed off in a satisfying and thrilling manner, and he should have stayed dead. His resurrection wasn't just half baked, it rendered all the sacrifices made by the heroes completely pointless. I still find it hard to believe a bunch of well paid professionals came up with such as shoddy plotline as the return of Sidious and Rey Palpatine. I've seen better written fan fiction.

 

That edit is just so F good. Imagine getting this on screen.

 

His father who was described to him as a saintly Jedi knight like Obi-Wan, by Obi-Wan.

People will argue that day is night and that the context of war, actual life or death combat, is irrelevant to the way people can be expected to behave in those circumstances, because they are fundamentally opposed to Palpatine playing a role in any Star Wars film beyond ROTJ. People like the perceived value of what they have already experienced to remain the same. And they feel that producing new experiences that take elements once thought to be unique and special to why they appreciated their previous experiences somewhat devalues that experience. Obviously, it doesn't devalue anything because the idea that experiences change in value due to anything but time and memory is utterly ludicrous.But people are still afraid that it does and insecure about it. I imagine that continuously condemning the new experiences (which they can take or leave as they please) and subjecting them to special and undue scrutiny makes them feel more secure about it. Logic would dictate that a perceived inferior new experience would enhance the value of the original experience and vice versa. But it most often doesn't work that way, if you go by some of the responses to the new experience's very existence.

Were in a realm where Rey's defeat of Palpatine is suspect because she wasn't sympathetic towards him or sufficiently horrified by at the sight of the consequence of her actions. But at the same time, the previous heroes who defeated Palpatine without appearing horrified or conflicted about it at the time are said to have been dispossessed of any victory whatsoever due to his clone hanging around for decades before attempting to make a come back.

 

Not exactly, as the death of the genuine Palpatine by Vader led to the use of clones, who appeared insufficient, and finally led to his definite end in TROS.
Like Maul, Palpatine had to be killed twice.

 

I've never liked the redemption of Vader. Ever. He is a Maclunkey mass murderer, for Christ's sake. He didn't care about doing what's right, he cared about saving his son. He's still selfish up to his last breath. But the worst thing that moment did was create this notion Jedi have to try and "save" everyone, including villains.

And Palpatine is just the most absurd example of it. The idea that someone is actually trying to make this argument makes my head hurt. Frankly, it stems from a lack of objectivity. It's anti-sequel nonsense. No one thought Palpatine needed to be "redeemed" before 2019.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 30, 2022, Original Post Date: Nov 30, 2022 ---

That's some Special Edition type nonsense.

 

Did they ever actually kill Maul?

 

You suggested Rey can’t even see what’s happening. It’s just too darned bright. I asked what story purpose that would serve as the idea would be immensely counterproductive to the nature of the sequence. You’re answer seems to be ‘I don’t know, but whatever it is, it’s the opposite of whatever you think.’ I was hoping you had an interesting take on the scene. Something I hadn’t thought of.

I’m not arguing anything. I’m stating my honest reaction. I think the ending works fine as is. For me, it would have worked better if it had adhered closer to its own themes. But that’s on me and I acknowledge that.

You keep wanting to put this in terms of me reprimanding the film for not doing what I wanted. But this is a false narrative you’ve built in your own head. I simply wish it had handled things differently. It didn’t though and I accept that.

And that’s why it doesn’t totally land for me. The filmmakers evidently didn’t have any interest in fully exploring their own theme. That’s completely their prerogative. It’s their movie. Not mine. But I watched their movie and I have thoughts.

Luke sympathizes with Vader. Rey sympathizes with Kylo. These were both unsympathetic characters until we were given reason to sympathize. Our hero having sympathy for our villain isn’t an unprecedented concept in this series. It’s one of the foundational motifs. I accept the position that the story didn’t need that. I don’t accept the position that this is something the story would never do. That’s intellectually dishonest.

George Lucas didn’t set out to tell a war story and then sprinkled in little lessons of morality along the way. He started out with a morality tale and set it against the backdrop of a civil war. A society, at war with itself, over basic principles of right and wrong - morally correct and morally incorrect. It’s an ideological conflict: liberty versus tyranny and what those two sides look like.

The war component of the story only exists to support the moral component of the story. It’s level of candor is only relevant to its expression of its ethics. The Rebellion is at war with the Empire over the soul of the galaxy. To put it another way: they aren’t fighting what they hate, they’re saving what they love.

The Jedi fully believed the Sith were extinct for like a thousand years. If their purpose truly was to destroy the Sith and the Sith were destroyed, then why continue existing? They did it! Mission accomplished. But they stuck around for another thousand years? Just for something to do, I guess.

The Jedi are the defenders of the people of the Republic. Their purpose is to protect them from whatever threat intends to do them harm. That threat might take the form of a rival religion like the Sith. Or it might be a militant terrorist outfit like the Nihil in the High Republic series. The Jedi aren’t defined by the Sith. It’s not who they are. Their job isn’t to seek them out and destroy them. The Jedi aren’t destroyers. "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack."

But that’s exactly the way it’s presented in the films. The Jedi, as a whole, don’t pay any mind to that prophecy. It isn’t why they’re doing or not doing anything. It isn’t guiding their actions. Maybe it’s real, maybe it’s not. That’s the way it’s presented. It’s not shown to be some holy scripture that they all uniformly revere as gospel. The council all practically roll their eyes at Qui-Gon when he brings it up. “But he’s the chosen one!” “Hey, could be, but he creeps us out.”

The Rey character is innately compassionate. The first active role she takes in the story is saving BB-8 when she didn’t have to. It’s an intrinsic aspect of her character. How is that unnatural? It would be entirely in keeping with who she’s been established to be as a person.

Being unkind or remorseless would be more out of character. The movie itself even engages with this idea earlier in the film: "I'm going to find Palpatine and destroy him." "Rey, that doesn't sound like you."

This is a movie. Rey isn’t a real person. The severity of her condition is only as significant as the scene requires it be. It could have been presented however they wanted. And, again, compassion isn’t a theme I’m imposing. I’m not bringing that to the story. The story brought that in 45 years ago.

Please explain. Isn’t compassion the reason she wants to defend her friends in the first place? Is there an ulterior motive at work I’m not aware of?

That’s how opinions work. You state it and then you attempt to defend it with supporting evidence if it’s questioned. Your assertion is that I’m not merely stating an opinion, but somehow “imposing” that opinion onto others, which is simply irrational. My opinions aren’t any more or less influential than anyone else’s here. Pay them credence or don’t. That’s on you.

The issue is ‘presenting an argument’ becoming ‘argumentative’. I have no desire to argue with anyone. I’m here for fruitful discussions and insightful discourse. I can’t comprehend anyone who perceives subjective viewpoints as personal attacks. It makes no sense to me.

How it appears to me is that I’m presenting an interpretation of the text that doesn’t conform to how you’ve already strictly constructed it in your head. And instead of putting that rigidly affirmed definition aside for a second and flirting with the prospect of ‘maybe there’s more than one way to look at this’, you reject it outright and don’t even attempt to engage. That’s your right to do so, of course. But I feel like that propensity is going to lead you to missing out on a lot of amazing ideas and experiences.

 

Then what was the point of the Rey healing the snake, or her healing Kylo after realizing that her fighting him isn't doing any good? Thematically, not narratively - of course the narrative purpose was to introduce healing as Chekhov's Most Obvious Gun. What was the point of Luke throwing away his lightsaber, or Obi-Wan's plea to Vader not to try and take the high ground? All of these work towards a thematic goal that state that offense and aggression aren't the way for the Jedi to win - to truly win. To attack an opponent after you have the upper hand leads to failure. This was established in the OT, PT, even in TLJ by Rey leaving Kylo alive after she woke up first. Sure, she could have killed him then and saved a lot of heartache, but that's not the Jedi way. This isn't just something thrown in last minute that we're discussing, but a consistent and constant pattern we can trace from Lucas' films and all throughout Star Wars. (Anakin to Dooku, Mace to Palpatine, Luke to Vader, our heroes to Second Sister in JFO, Kanan and Ezra to the Grand Inquisitor in Rebels, Rey to Ben in TLJ, Rey to the snake in the cave, Rey to Kylo albeit after the fact.)

And when has rising to taunts or reacting to them in Star Wars ever been presented as a good thing?

She could have easily redirected the lightning somewhere else. Choosing to fire it back at Palpatine at the time her quip is antithetical to the points above. It reminds me of a moment in Avatar: The Last Airbender. An antagonist fires lighting against one of our heroes, our hero is able to redirect the lightning, to kill his opponent - an unrepentant killer and warlord - and our hero decides not to. Our hero takes the hard way out, because that final blow goes against everything the hero believes. It'd be out of character and against the theme of this character, despite being something we in our world would most likely do without hesitation. The point here is that until Rey made the choice to direct it BACK, Rey could have done something else with it.

I'm confused on this point. Are you saying that Luke is allowed to save the bad guy who was complicit in the murder and death of untold billions because of a biological relation? Because if that's what you're saying, then Rey falls into that category.
Or are you saying that because Vader shouldn't have had a chance, then Palpatine shouldn't have one either? If that's the case, then this whole discussion is moot since you weren't ever going to get past that core value to see the point of the conversation.


I'll try to say the point one more time, but after this, we may just need to go our separate ways:

THE POINT IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PALPATINE IS WORTHY OF REDEMPTION OR WILL BE REDEEMED. IT IS ABOUT THE FACT THAT REY OFFERS IT. IF REY IS SUPPOSED TO BE OR POSSESS "ALL OF THE JEDI" THEN SHE NEEDS TO EMBODY THEIR BEST TRAITS, NOT JUST THEIR MOST APPEALING ONES TO US. STAR WARS IS A FAIRY TALE WITH FAIRY TALE ENDINGS, MORALS AND THEMES. THAT INCLUDES OFFERING REDEMPTION TO THOSE WE WOULD NORMALLY SEE AS IRREDEMABLE.

No, she was supposed to - in accordance with the themes of the previous movies and trilogies - reflect it away, offer Palpatine one final chance, and then strike him down when he refuses to turn from his path. She's not sitting there, nor is she passively taking the attack. Rey's in a position of power because she's the one walking towards him with full control and knowledge of what she's doing.

Personally, I'm not opposed to Palpatine playing a role post-ROTJ, but it's how that role is played and how that shows up is problematic. Star Wars literally has time travel now, and that would have made more sense than the esoteric line of "the dark side is a way to many things people consider unnatural," or whatever.
WHAT is as important as HOW, especially when it comes to audience satisfaction. Or at least that's how I view it.

Nearly every era of Star Wars gave us examples of Jedi who have killed and killed and killed and turned evil as a result. Pong Krell, Barris Offee, Count Dooku, nearly Luke himself, Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader. Dark Jedi/Fallen Jedi are a thing because of the jaded nature that comes with killing. Or rather, killing out of aggression rather in self-defense.
Not to mention, the Jedi killing out of aggression and in pursuit of such an outcome is seen as a moral failure. Obi-Wan failed to kill Maul whenever he lost himself to rage or anger. (TPM, TCW.) Luke nearly succumbs to the Dark Side out of such an act of anger and aggression. (ROTJ.) Yoda and Mace fail to take out the Emperor and ultimately lose when they're the aggressors in the confrontations. Anakin goes off the deep end once he starts murdering people, and doesn't really win a single fight where he's the aggressor. When the Jedi became generals of war instead of keepers of peace, it spelled the end for nearly every Jedi in the galaxy.
Jedi aren't soldiers. They're not really even supposed to be police. They're mediators, counselors and councilors, therapists, helpers, bodyguards on occasions, and peace-builders. Yes, they can be warriors, and as a fan that's the most exciting part, but that's not what they're supposed to be. Philosophically speaking that makes sense too - Jedi are all about peace and a natural balance. (Death is present, as is a sense of darkness, but not necessarily corruption.) Murder is an abrupt and jarring shock to the system; as such, it would make sense that the Jedi be unsettled by this and consider it a last resort at best.

I think you're confusing pacifism with passivism. Jedi aren't passive and acceptance about the way of life as it is in all respects. (Although when you get to the Will of the Force, things can get tricky.) Jedi are ABSOLUTELY pacifists at their best though. Jedi are ACTIVELY promoting and arguing for peace. When they don't is when things are wrong.

 

I've heard they asked Obi Wan some reshoots of the murder scene.

 

The snake is just an injured creature cowering in its home. Rey just has the courage to not treat it like a potential enemy. Lord Sidious is bent on consuming the galaxy with hatred and darkness. He will wipe out anyone who opposes his plan. He's not cowering in his home. He has plans destroy all those who don't bend to his will.

Kylo Ren/Ben Skywalker was revealed to Rey, by the force, as still having some good in him. That he would ultimately turn back. They have been established as twins/siblings in the force. Lord Sidious is bent on consuming....... etc etc. He had both her parents murdered purely out of spite after failing to hunt her down.

To demonstrate to the Emperor that he wasn't going to be goaded into fighting his father any more. He swore several times in that movie that he would not, could not fight him.

Because Obi-Wan already expressed deep ambivalence about having to fight his pupil and friend.

What relevance does that have to TROS? At no point does Rey have the upper hand over anybody until the very last second when he is actually disintegrating.

The point of Palpatine's taunts while he's frying Rey and the rebel fleet is to make the audience understand that Palptaine is implacable. Unrepentant. Completely unsympathetic, unworthy of compassion and undeserving of redemption. He is leaving her no choice.

Is that a fact? Is there precedent for a Jedi doing this with force lightning?

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 1, 2022, Original Post Date: Dec 1, 2022 ---

But in previous posts you claimed to be perplexed at me challenging your arguments. Then you claimed you weren't making any arguments. Now you're saying that presenting arguments you believe supports or upholds your opinion is how opinions work.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 1, 2022 ---

The nature of that sequence is that the evil Sith Lord is absolutely bent on destroying Rey and all the rebel ships in that moment before reqconquering the galaxy.

You reactions is that it didn't land for you. Everything else is an argument you;ve presented which you believe explains and upholds that reaction. Reactions are (mostly) spontaneous. Everything else you've posted however, is not spontaneous. Including your indications that Rey defeating Palpatine is less than heroic and your suspicion that she, un-Jedi like, is relishing his pain and the sight of his disfigurement while she too is receiving a lethal blast of his energy.

Showing sympathy for the devil has never been a theme of this saga.

Vader wasn't the devil. Luke didn't sympathize with the devil. Luke sympathized with his father, who was described to him as a saintly Jedi before he discovered the truth. And even after that, the force showed him that he was a good person seduced by the devil (that's Palpatine) who is the real evil one.

Kylo is another Vader and Rey has a similar relationship where the force shows her the potential for redemption.

None of this applies or has ever been contemplated as being applicable to Palpatine, by anyone at any time in this saga. Least of all the writers.

I hope you are not serious. The war affects just about every single thing that happens to the characters if this saga.

There's a difference between purpose and sole purpose.

They most definitely do. They just don't believe right away that Anakin is the chosen one. By Episode III the maintained belief that he is the chosen one prevents them from accounting for the danger of Palpatine appointing him to the council.

Not really. In the context of her harsh upbringing she's perhaps surprisingly compassionate. But that's just such a broad stroke that it really can't be used to dictate or proscribe certain behaviours in extreme circumstances.

Going to find him to destroy him is not the same as finding the courage confront him, the duty of a Jedi, and being blasted by his force lightning intended to kill you and finding the strength, supported by all the dead Jedi, to absorb and deflect that energy which resulted in him blowing himself up.

At no point in this saga required the audience to appreciate sympathy being felt for Lord Sidious. So the absence of a shot of Rey expressing how horrified she is by his appearance in the last second of his life is just as big as the filmmakers and the scene require it to be.

The stated theme of this movie, it's in the trailer, is finding the courage to face fear, destiny and a seemingly insurmountable foe. For generations, Jedi have been able to perform their duty which, regrettably, involves destroying the sworn enemies of peace, justice, democracy etc. And they are expert at destroying those that need destroyed without being seduced by the power to destroy itself. Rey was able to destroy Palpatine as it was a means to practical end. Not revenge for her parents. Not punishment for dragging the galaxy into darkness. Not anger at what happened to Ben and the fate that she's been told is hers. And not simply hatred for his hunger for supremacy over the galaxy. Her motive was to save her fellow rebels from certain death. Even if that meant her own. What happened to her parents, to her, to the Skywalkers and the rest of the galaxy before that all weighed in on it being a just fight. But she was not seduced by the power of righteous fury those things could have given her.

And it cost her life to save the rebels from Palpatine's evil. The sacrifice she made for the galaxy and all her friends is worth a million of your proposed, and supposedly necessary, twinge of compassion for Palpatine's flaky visage.

Palpatine's face disintegrating was clearly and image chosen to give the audience satisfaction at that sight. It is quite perverse to suggest that it wasn't properly utilized by the filmmakers choosing not to have Rey express an opposite sentiment to the audience's, while she was dying.

 

For Rey to offer compassion to Darth Sidious. There needs to have been better justification, better preparation (about six or seven films worth) and a lot more than just being conceptually consistent with the presumed theme of becoming unique among all other characters, especially Jedi, in offering sympathy for the devil. The actual devil. Not just someone who has been momentarily seduced into doing evil. Not a wronged, misguided lost soul. Not someone we have been told has a past that explains if not excuses their evil doing. A person we have been told unequivocally is the source and catalyst of all the evil at work in the galaxy.

The theme has been that Jedi wield great power to thwart evil more than most people in existence do. And so they are the ones who confront it and it's their dilemma how to maintain balance while defeating evil. How to perform their duty and meet their destiny without being seduced by the power that can enhance ones fears and vice versa. How to remain faithful to "right is might" and not to confuse it with "might is right".

You need to stop pretending that it's only about Rey offering compassion to someone and the fact that it's Palpatine, in the act of trying to kill her and the rebels, that she's supposed to be offering it to is not important. That's just nuts.

 

I gave up. I can't talk to someone putting forth such an absurd argument. Palpatine can't be killed towards his grand daughter and should be given a chance? Maclunkey moronic. Besides the fact that he's Space Hitler, he's literally trying to kill her by the end of The Rise of Skywalker.

 

The nature of the sequence is good standing up to evil. You suggested the person representing good might not be fully aware of how she’s standing up to the person representing evil. Can we please both agree that’s most probably not what’s happening in that scene and be done with it?

I feel I was very clear on this point. I approached TROS the same way I do any story. Whether I’m watching it, reading it, or listening to it, I allow myself to react however I react. Good or bad or indifferent, my reaction is my reaction. Afterward, I explore the ‘why’ of it. I try to reverse-engineer where that feeling is possibly coming from. What is it about me that influenced the response I had? To better understand myself. You don't do that?

In contemplating my conflicted reaction to Palpatine’s demise, I eventually came to an answer. Star Wars is a story about compassion. The Jedi are heroes that champion compassion. Rey is a character that leads with her compassion. At the confluence of the culminated story, when good defeats evil, when the Jedi defeat the Sith, when Rey defeats her own dark legacy, it wasn’t achieved through an act of compassion. It was an act of unpleasant violence. I don’t believe that is entirely in agreement with the philosophy of the story. And that’s probably why it feels ‘off’ to me.

Let’s not rewrite history here. Vader absolutely was ‘the devil’ - to Luke and to the audience in 1980. He was pure unrepentant evil. A quintessential villain. Nobody was sympathizing with him at that point. People wanted him to die and for Luke to kill him. It’s what we’d been conditioned to expect. The ending of ESB and the narrative drive of ROTJ completely reframed that preconception and changed the whole trajectory of the series. Luke was no longer an avenger. He was an evangelist. It challenged the audience to reconsider what they believed they knew about right and wrong.

Luke’s discovery of their relationship is what allows him to unlock his sympathy. It motivated him to stop seeing him as a murderous thing, but as a human being worthy of redemption. Understanding leading to compassion: a theme in the story.

Luke recognized his father was in a prison of his own making. If he locked himself in there, then he could let himself out again. He just needed to believe he could. Vader is most certainly evil. But he didn’t have to be. He still had the power to choose a better path. Luke, through his compassion and mercy, showed him it was possible. Anakin chooses that better path and that’s how he’s redeemed.

Rey seeing and understanding Ben’s turbulent soul, a lot like her own, allows her to see him as a broken person rather than the “monster” who murdered his own father. Understanding leading to compassion: a theme in the story.

It wasn’t applicable to Vader either . . . until it was.

I didn’t realize you had direct inside knowledge of what Abrams and Terrio were thinking as they wrote the story. Are they close friends of yours? Will you be spending the holidays together this year?

You’re misstating my position. The wars we see in Star Wars are an outward expression of the story’s broader themes. This galaxy is at war with itself over the fate of its soul. Its better angels are battling its lesser demons. It’s virtue versus wickedness. It’s the same battle being fought between hero and villain. It’s the same battle being fought within the heart of our hero. Do I do what’s morally right? Do I do what’s morally wrong? Which side do I let win?

Every layer of conflict in the story is speaking to the same thing trying to tell you the same message. “War is hell”, in this case, is tantamount to saying ‘war is ugly, ugly things happen in war, and that’s the way of things’. And that’s true of actual war. But this is not actual war. It’s a metaphor promoting the ethically proper way to conduct your life (by the story’s definition). Things don’t just happen unless they reflect the intended message of the story. The intended message of the story isn’t “war is hell” or “war is messy”. It’s about what we fight for and how we fight for it.

Enlighten me. Which one are we talking about here?

Please explain. The Jedi concede to allowing Anakin on the council, as Palpatine’s representative, because they mean to exploit that relationship for their own benefit. It has nothing to do with the prophecy. Mace is worried about the arrangement because he doesn’t think Anakin can handle that juggling act with his buddy Palps.

Obi-Wan tries to use the ‘chosen one’ status as a counterargument because it’s the same argument Mace made to him in AOTC when it was Obi-Wan who didn’t trust Anakin. But Mace shoots him right down about that noise. “So the prophecy says.” Mace doesn’t care about what some goofy prophecy says. He trusts in his own instincts and his instincts tell him Anakin will crack under that pressure (which he immediately does).

Is that what you’re referring to?

I’m saying that it’s an established character trait. Rey IS compassionate. She acts towards others with compassion. When she doesn’t though, it’s meant to be concerning as it's out of character. The movie is blatantly telling us this. It’s not a strange or “unnatural” emotion to expect from that character in a life and death situation. It's a part of who she is.

Absolutely true. They didn’t feel it valuable to show Rey demonstrate a moment of mercy and so they didn’t. That’s productionally accurate. What I’m saying is that if they did want to do that, they could have. The specific circumstance wouldn’t have prevented them. The circumstance is whatever they want it to be. They made it up.

And finding a way to feel genuine sympathy for the most unsympathetic being in the entire universe would have been an unprecedented display of courage. Something no other Jedi, in all those generations, could likely have done. What better way to show how thoroughly you’ve overcome your fear than to extend a gesture of mercy to the thing that represented that fear.

Rey’s greatest fear is that she’s just as tainted as he is. But Palpatine would never show sympathy to an enemy. He’d consider that a weakness. But Rey isn’t Palpatine. That’s not who she is. Here’s her chance to prove to him and to herself. Themes.

Demonstrating unsurpassed charity AND dying for it? For me, that elevates the ending well beyond what you’re talking about.

And the idea of finding satisfaction in someone’s death is a very unsettling thought to me. I just don’t have that gear.

It’s perverse NOT to get a thrill from violent death? You and I are very different people. I’m thrilled for your satisfaction though. That’s lovely.

There’s a difference between ‘presenting an argument’ and ‘having an argument’. It seemed to me you were stating that I was ‘arguing’ with you. That sense is reinforced by you continuously misstating my position which is a tactic commonly used by people who are trying to win an argument. You seem to use both definitions interchangeably. I’m stressing to you that I don’t. I’m absolutely presenting an argument. I’m absolutely not engaging in an argument. However much you might want to.

Case in point. This is a definitive misstatement of my position. I never said this. I never even hinted at this. This is something you’ve concocted in your own head. Perhaps it’s a genuine misunderstanding on your part. But I suspect it’s more you, for whatever personal motivation, needing to win at something you perceive as an argument, and fudging the facts in your favor to do it.

I have precisely zero interest in petty bickering for the sake of anyone's ego. I couldn’t care less about being right or wrong. I’m here for intellectual discourse on the nature of morality in storytelling. All opinions are welcome as far as I’m concerned. Especially the ones that disagree with me. Those are the best discussions. But you don’t seem to want a civil discussion based on mutual respect. You want to have a fight and to win that fight. Well, best of luck with that. I hope it’s fulfilling for you. I've said what I've had to say.

 

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Rey offering a chance would make her unique. From what I can tell, it's the opposite - Rey giving Palpatine a chance would make her exactly like her predecessors. That's part of the point. That Luke and the Jedi are at their best when they reach the seemingly unreachable.

And no one's saying he shouldn't be stopped. But like the snake, if there's a chance to offer a way out, then why not? We all know Palpatine isn't going to take it, but the point is to provide it regardless.

And that was a moral victory. Luke didn't fight, and he still won. That's part of the point, that fighting doesn't always lead to victory, at least not a moral one. (Which are the type the Jedi should be actively trying to win.)

Yet he still did, so ambivalence doesn't mean much in the face of actions. I think it's still better explained in the context of Luke in ROTJ - it's the Jedi trying to offer the villain a way out before a final decisive blow.

Like how she only had the upper hand in the Kylo fight when Leia changed him, which turned into an action she ultimately regretted. Decisive action, even if you have just gained the upper hand was presented previously as a bad thing in TROS. Palpatine echoes that, but on a larger scale and without the consequences.
But anyways, the better answer would be that you're asking for what we're discussing to be seeded throughout the previous movies and stories. Examples have been provided, this among them. THAT'S the relevance.

And yet, when Vader - another seemingly implacable villain unworthy of compassion taunted Luke into nearly falling to the Dark Side, he's ultimately redeemed. But that doesn't answer my question - when has rising to a taunt ever been seen as a GOOD thing in Star Wars?

There's precedent for Mace being able to NOT direct the lightning back at Palpatine before actively doing so. Wouldn't it like poetry (it rhymes!) for Rey to initially be directing it back only for her to stop and direct it elsewhere, claiming for it not to be the Jedi way? (And then, as these things go, Palpatine tries to go for a cheap shot and is ultimately defeated and/or killed.)

Anyways, this discussion seems to be coming to an end, as all things do. I honestly wish it ended with more respect on all sides, but alas, that's not how these things go at all times. Either way, it was an interesting discussion to sneak into, and I'm curious about where future discussions will land. (This is the part where I'd usually say "feel free to respond and I'll read it, but I won't respond myself" as this is a pretty circular discussion at this point.)

 

Madness.

She was dying.

 

Maybe it should have been Ben Solo/Kylo Ren who 'offed' him then....no relation, a victim of his 'grooming' through Snoke, and the last Skywalker; his family had been damaged forever by Palpatine starting with Anakin.
But that would have denied Rey Goddess her glory. Strangely, his father being the one who originally killed Palps back in ROTJ didn't demean Luke, but then again, Rey's a girl.