What's the point of this trilogy?

"Sketchy things that the women in GFFA did to Ben Solo and nobody seems to care - Click here. Also - The simple trick to having your arms and legs fall off and watch your weight drop by at least twenty pounds. Jedi are furious!"

 

Now there's something I didn't know.

 

Leia made a fear based decision, because of a premonition, resulting in tragic consequences. Sound familiar?

 

Oh yeah. That goes way back to ROTJ. Once they knew they knew they were siblings and Mark thought about things for a minute, he posed the question and Carrie adamantly shot him down on that idea because she didn't get to play with magic powers.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Weird thing was....she was told her son would die if she continued her training. But he went and died anyway, didn't he?

 

Dying in Star Wars is a relative concept.
They don't really consider it dying, completely, if you're good when you die.

For instance, Lucas' original plans for Obi Wan's death in ANH was that he would go off and into the spirit plane (essentially) and kick a bunch of butt in the spirit plane that would royally screw up Vader and Palp's abilities to do crap in the corporal plane, and then he would rematerialize in his corporal form after being "done" needing the spirit plane.

That ended up not happening, for a bunch of logistical reasons - some of which were related to Sir Guinness' inability to return much, and so the line, "I'll become more powerful than you can imagine" just ended up becoming one of those dangling lines that raised more questions than the movies ever gave answers to - because if you go off of the movies, "more powerful than you can imagine", effectively totaled up to, "I'll be able to whisper guidance and hope to your son whenever I feel like it."

Which - I mean...at a stretch is "more powerful" if you squint at the clouds real hard.

But, basically, it's not much of a "death" in Star Wars if you're a good guy. I mean, it is, and they're sad about it and all torn up, but at the same token there's this looming Christian styled afterlife warm and fuzzy that everyone's fighting over regarding their souls places, and true death seems to be dying on the dark side - that is somehow seen as the most nightmarish tragedy that motivates everyone's actions to nearly kill themselves trying to "save" their loved ones from "death".

Or as my wife said (who's not much of a Star Wars fan - she likes a few movies and that's about it) when she leaned over and whispered to me in the theaters as Ben flew off the cliffs in TROS, "That's OK, no one ever dies in Star Wars - they all seem to come back anyway."

Cheers,
Jayson

 

It's almost as if the plot of TROS is filled with holes

 

The exact line from Luke is “Leia told me that she had sensed the death of her son at the end of her Jedi path.” When Leia disappears into the Force (the end of her Jedi path), so too does her son. So the premonition came true, but not in the way she’d expected. Just like her father’s premonition about her mother came true, but not in the way he’d expected.

Moral: you can’t live your life in fear of what ‘might’ happen. If you let that define your existence, then you’ll never find peace. Her father did it. Her brother did it. She did it too. It’s always the same result. Sort of like poetry and all that

 

Spoiler: Good mother? Not in the movie.

I don't understand why you so eager to defend your opinions and interpretations. There is not a right way to seeing things and a wrong way.
I know that you have an immense passion and knoledge for movies and Star Wars but if someone disagree with you it doesn't mean it's a personal attack he just disagree with you. We should be able to accept our differences

I didn't see Leia as a mother in the ST, good or bad. Yes she feel regret and guilty for what happens to his son, but we don't know what she accomplished before Ben turn evil, we don't know nothing about their past relationship. In fact Leia and Kylo Ren barely interact with each other. And I know that TROS should be "Leia" film, but... come on.

And Leia is his mother, so what exactly she's doing to bring her son back to the Light Side?

Right! Task his ex-husband when a few moment earlier they had this conversation:

So to me Leia never felt like a "concerned" mother or at least in a consistent way.
In the end of TFA she seem more concern on destroy were his son is instead of "save him" because "there's still light in him".

For TLJ the only moment Kylo and Leia share it's when he almost kill her but ultimately can't showing that maybe Leia was right. However:

WTF? Now she know his son is gone? Why? And if she lost all hope, why he saved him in the following movie?

So if you want defend the ST, it's fine. If you want defend your opinions it's fine as well, but soon or later you should accept that someone could see things in a different way. We should share our thought not fight for them!

I'm glad when someone give me a different opinion, he gave me a different perspective, he challenge my beliefs. It's the only way to valuate if our opinions are base on fact or just on our preferences and experience.

Again, this is probably the third or fourth time I argue with you. But it just because I very liked what you saying, you show a true passion for Star Wars and you seems a George Lucas expert, both thing that I admire. However often you get caught in the role of the devil's advocate and you defend Star Wars (or Lucas) no matter of what, and I'm just sorry but sometimes you just need to Let it go.

Spoiler

oh, f#£k... I hate Frozen and I quote it in a post, do you realize how I care to go so far?

In the end I lost track of my thoughts. I don't even mad or angry.
Whatever doc, maybe I just waste my time here. I tried to be creative and positive but I start to see more and more toxic conversation and I lost a bit of hope. And I am a part of the problem, because wherever I go there are people who criticize the movies and people who defend the movies, it's war beetween people that should be get along because they both love Star Wars and I'm just sick of that!

I was looking for people you accept the critique but are creative and positive about: yes, this doesn't quite work, but what about we try to fix it? What if this characters goes in this direction? Would be better? Wold be worse? But there are people who don't want make those questions in the first place, so why bothering?

I start my project with great entusiasm and passion, but now it become exausting and timeconsuming, I was looking from some sparks of hope, someone else who'd share my ideas, someone that could help me sharping my script and refine my English... but I really don't nothing about this forum... and I dont' know what to do anymore.

 

I don't defend Star Wars no matter what.
Let's get that clear before we go any further.

Just because you haven't read me giving Star Wars criticism doesn't mean I haven't.
I've torn apart pretty much every movie at some point for one reason or another and listed their faults, and I've repeatedly commented on my dislike for Rogue One, and I've opened an entire thread on how Mando started having problems for me...to say the least - I wrote a rather exhaustive rundown criticizing the throne room fight in TLJ, and I have gone after the entire ST for where it misses on following the art form of the first six movies...to list but only a few.

It just so happens that what you have read me reply to are matters where I don't see a problem in the movies in and of themselves.
I don't doubt for a moment that the movies can cause people to have opinions and thoughts that they do not like, but that is nothing of my concern.

If someone dislikes the style of a movie, or really hates a certain character in a movie - great!
I can't even watch one of the Harry Potter movies because Umbridge irritates me to no end.
That's just my taste.

I also don't require that people agree with me, or that they agree that the movies are one thing or another.
I will state my views flatly and move on from there.

I'm not adverse to people hating the movies. I will, when I'm in the mood and have the time, reply to comments that cause me to think and want to reply about something. Sometimes that's a good thing that I'm replying to - other times it's a bad thing I'm replying to.

Now...before I reply to anything further, do you want me to reply, or are you rather not interested in my thoughts and would rather I stop speaking?
I can do either.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

You know...I actually thought that ALL the SW originals were in character.
Look at Leia in the OT. She was a passionate believer in the 'greater good must come first.' Even before her love for her homeworld and her parents. So she remained 'Leia' in the ST...to the extent that even though she sent Han to 'save their son'....she still would have destroyed Starkiller with BOTH of them on it.....to save the galaxy.
The problem is, heroes do NOT make good parents. My bro read an 'alternate Earth' DC comic where Superman had a son....and when he finally found out his dad was Superman all he said was:
'So that is why you're never here."

Luke was still a 'pacifist', no matter how disillusioned he was. He won against Palpatine by throwing away his lightsabre. In TLJ he won by using the Force to deceive his nephew.

Han loved his son, but couldn't bond with him because 'The Force' was mumbo jumbo to him. All established in the OT.

Poor old Ben....never stood a chance.

 

You know, it's funny but we Ben/Kylo fans think that of all the OT heroes, Han was probably the 'best' parent to Ben.
Luke waited too long to admit he'd failed him.
Leia always put the 'greater good' first - she could have gone and spoken to Ben face to face on Crait...but didn't.

Han however...sacrificed his life in an attempt to bring his son back. This is the man who prior to meeting Luke and Obi Wan was a mercenary who refused to do anything if not for money, and yet ultimately was the most unselfish of all. And in TLJ RJ showed his father's murder had 'split his spirit to the bone'.

The scene where Han strokes his son's face at the end of TFA has to be one of the most moving scenes in any SW film I've ever seen....and Ford and Driver were amazing.

I always thought that scene was there so we the audience would forgive Kylo as Han did - it certainly worked for me - but looking back, I now think that Abrams just wanted us to hate him.

 

Leia also sacrificed her life for her son though. We know this because JJ, through some rather clumsy dialogue, has the Maz character blatantly tell us so.

“Leia knows what must be done, Artoo. To reach her son now will take all the strength she has left.”

She’s addressing R2, but really she’s just shamelessly explaining to the audience so we’d get what was happening. Leia knowingly traded her life to save her son . . . apparently.

Hmm, doubt it. This is what JJ had to say about that exchange:

“The truth is, I think that Kylo Ren, in this moment, is actually being convinced to walk away from this. Snoke is, as Han says, using him, and I think that somewhere Ben knows this. But I think that he can't accept it. Deep down, he has gone too far … In Kylo's mind, what he has just done, seals the deal. It's the ultimate proof to Snoke that he is to be trusted, that he will not be seduced by the light. And I think the instant that he's done it, he regrets it.” - Director’s Commentary, The Force Awakens, Chapter 43, Father and Son.

If JJ had truly wanted the audience to hate Kylo in that moment, it wouldn’t have been hard to present that murder in no uncertain terms. As it is, we see that there was some degree of inner conflict at work. There’s momentary and persistent doubt in his action. You don’t do that unless you want the audience to be conflicted too.

 

I don't know, I've not really dug into it - but a lot of times, stuff like that is shoved in after the first assembly screenings because feedback comes in indicating something wasn't clear.
It could easily be that they didn't have that exposition before and left it to symbolism, but it went over the audience's head so they scrambled together exposition using digital characters because that didn't require extensive reshoots to get it. It certainly feels that something like that kind of situation - just like the OT's reliance on overdub ADR exposition to make clarifications that weren't clear before.

Maybe I'm misreading and need to get more coffee in me, but isn't what you just wrote the same thing @madcatwoman17 just wrote?

She wrote that the scene made it possible for us to forgive Ben because Han did (and we sympathize with Han, so he's our in).
And you wrote that you doubted (that the scene made it possible for us to forgive Ben because Han did) because it wouldn't have been hard for Kylo to be presented as a murderer in no uncertain terms, but instead we see some degree of inner conflict.

Unless...are you saying that it's not about forgiving, but conflict?
That we're supposed to feel conflicted?

Perhaps you are (see, I need more coffee).
Anyway, if so - I suppose I see those as sort of the same thing.
If you have a villain, and now you're conflicted about your view of them, then you've been given some level of proposition to forgive him - whether you choose to fully accept it yet or not - it's been given. Otherwise, you wouldn't be compelled to be conflicted.

Maybe I'm overthinking this, or splitting hairs too thinly. Time for coffee.


For what it's worth, @madcatwoman17 that scene of Han dying made my wife cry, and my daughters struggle to get through TFA every time because of it.
I agree, it's among the upper class of powerful scenes in all of Star Wars.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

That’s definitely my read. The scene, as is, probably wasn’t very clear. And they didn’t have the liberty to expand it with Carrie, so they brought in this awkward insert where a character is nearly breaking the fourth wall to tell us what’s happening. And even with that, it’s still pretty opaque. I mean, I’m not even really sure exactly what’s going on there, but the implication is that whatever she did worked. So, hooray, I guess.

I was just countering the notion that Han was willing to go the extra mile that Leia wasn’t. But she did. Inelegantly presented. But she did effectively do the same thing.

She (I’m assuming ‘she’) ended her post with “I now think that Abrams just wanted us to hate him [Kylo].” Which I think is pretty unlikely considering how that scene is staged and what his comments about it were. Maybe I misread?

 

Completely agree.
Now that I understand your point @eeprom...
@madcatwoman17 , I'll add to @eeprom's position with the following.

Han softens Ben. Leia saves him. Han is always positioned as a sort of Jiminy Cricket to Ben.
Leia actively forces Ben to change his heart time after time. He could kill his Father in TFA. He couldn't shoot his Mother in TLJ.
And it was her voice punching through the cosmos like Luke force projecting in TLJ that thrust into his barricaded heart.

In TLJ, she did the same thing when he was close enough. And he was clearly affected and even looked momentarily lost in footing - had the setting been different, he might have been moved right then, but other pilots flew in and interrupted the trance by shooting his Mother.

So really, TROS's bit there was a reprise of that same moment, and (clunky, as @eeprom notes) she gave it all she had this time and really hit him hard. Hard enough to cause him to completely stop mid combat and get stabbed to death (I'm sure Leia dying added a bit to the punch to his heart).

I think it's pretty pronounced that Ben has done everything he can to wall his Mother off from himself as much as possible out of a fear of being weakened away from the dark side by his love for her. He can con himself into thinking he can kill his Father without feeling, but he never is able to bring himself to do the same with his Mother.

That, to me, speaks volumes about where the connection lies, and who has the actual power to truly affect his heart. Leia.
Han's more about the head for Ben - not so much the heart.

Han: That's what Snoke wants you to believe.
...
Han: You know it's true.
...
Ben: I know what I have to do, but I don't know if I have the strength to do it. Will you help me?
...
Ben: You're just a memory.
Han: Your memory.
...
Ben: Dad...
Han: I know.​

Conversely, every instance of meeting with Leia is virtually dialogue free, aside from an utterance of name.
Instead, they are driven by the musical score and cinematography entirely - that is, purely emotional conversations between the two.

Again, I think this speaks volumes about where things lie in regards to Ben and his relationship to his two parents, and who has the power to touch his heart and who has the power to touch his head (in fact, quite literally on that note).

And if there's one thing Star Wars has definitely maintained through all of its decades of retconning how the force works, it's that the heart is what condemns and redeems a person - not their head.

OH!
Yeah, totally agree.
In no way was Ben ever set up to be the Jaffar of this story.

I've long (you know this, this bit's more for @madcatwoman17 ) said that the ST is really fascinating because we don't really have an antagonist so much as we have two protagonists - it shares more similarities with something like Buddy Cop dramas like Tango and Cash, Lethal Weapon, et. al. than it does with hero epics in regards to it's primary character conflict.
Just as no one would say that we're supposed to hate Riggs, no one should think we're supposed to hate Ben (well...unless they're annoyed by the character, but that's not intended - and that's true of just about any character out there, so ...meh).

I feel like this might be where the fan community arguments are flavoring the perception of the film - that is, the "anti-Ben" community of fans can cause someone to think the movie hates the character, or only sees him as a villain, when that's not how the movie positions itself.

From the outset he's a tragic character we connect with intimately. You don't do that with villains that the audience is supposed to just hate.
You don't give them soft moments of them praying to their ancestors for strength, and having doubts of worth, being self-conscious, being pushed on by others - taunted, etc... if the point is that you want the audience to hate them.
That's exactly the tools you use to show the audience your supposed bad guy has puppy dog eyes - which shifts them from "bad guy" to "tragic protagonist".

Which is exactly what Ben is. Ben is the tragic protagonist who follows, almost to a T, the arc of Anakin in a mirrored reflection and the PT doesn't see Anakin as "the villain". He's the tragic protagonist. The villain, as always, is Palpatine. That's who you're supposed to "hate" (except...not, because hate leads to...dangit Yoda!)

Anyway, yeah - @eeprom , Totally agree there.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Maybe...but it's said that Harrison Ford put that scene in. And Abrams wasn't ok with it.

 

Could be. I can't speak to that. All I can go by is what he's said in the commentary.

"I will say that shooting this scene was a very tricky thing. I think that both Harrison and Adam brought quite a lot to it. I think their own personal baggage came to this. I think the idea of killing Han Solo was a crazy, painful idea. And the truth is because Harrison had been injured early in the shoot, despite his full recovery, I hated the idea of seeing him vulnerable at all. So this was hard I think for everyone to do, even though we knew it was essential and necessary."

Maybe he's blowing smoke. I don't know. I'm sure he didn't want the Han character to die, but sure seems like he recognized it was pretty crucial to the story.

I get that a lot of folks feel that killing Han Solo is an irredeemable act, but I don't believe JJ or the movie itself advocate that.

 

Ford didn't put that scene in.

Ford has had a long running known bit with having wanted to die in the original trilogy because he wanted the character to do something meaningful, and felt there was not really anything else for the character to do other than just kind of sit around and shrug his shoulders some more.

"I figured that his utility had been exhausted, bled out, and I was willing to die for the cause. To bring some gravitas."

and

"I’ve been arguing for Han Solo to die for about 30 years, not because I was tired of him or because he’s boring, but his sacrifice for the other characters would lend gravitas and emotional weight."​

That is possibly getting conflated with the idea since Han now dies.
So, in that sense - yeah..ish. Harrison Ford has basically been on a very long "Kill Han Solo" campaign regardless of any story variations for a very long time.

However, that he dies really comes from pretty much the same solidly good story telling place that Harrison was coming from all those years ago - as Arndt put it...

“I had thought Han’s story and Leia’s story was just about them coming back together. At the end of the movie they would have reconciled and gotten over their differences. And you would have said, ‘Okay, bad stuff happened, but at least they’re back together again. J.J. rightly asked, ‘What is Han doing in this movie?’ If we’re not going to have something important and irreversible happen to him, then he kind of feels like luggage. He feels like this great, sexy piece of luggage you have in your movie. But he’s not really evolving. He’s not really pushing the story forward.”​

And as Abrams supports the above statement by Arndt:

“Han Solo’s death is this massive tradeoff. How can we possibly do that!? But… if we hadn’t done that, the movie wouldn’t have any guts at all. It felt very dangerous.”​

Meaning, yeah - Ford wanted Han to die, but that wasn't why he signed up. He signed up because Abrams said he had a good idea for Han Solo and thought Ford should do it. That's according to Ford.

"J.J. said 'This is a good idea, I (J.J.) have decided that this is a good idea and I would like you to do it.' "​

To which, Ford said, "Okay." and jumped on board. When asked about that seemingly simple exchange Ford basically said that it's Abrams and he's good with just trusting Abrams...because it's Abrams. (Keep in mind that Abrams is in the Spielberg circle and has been for a very long time - Spielberg gave Abrams and his friends a kick start at 14 years old, so Ford's known Abrams for a long time. ... he also was the writer on Regarding Henry, so Ford knows his narrative sense directly as well...)

So, in total - Ford's been wanting Han to die for a very long time, and has put that idea out into the universe very loudly for a long time.
Arndt's original treatment didn't include a Han death, and Abrams rightfully felt there was a complete lack of value to Han as a result, and accurately thought that Kylo was lacking in gravitas as a "villain" - and quite naturally, that lead to joining Han's death to being by the hand of his own Son. Not to mention the entire lexicon of the previous two trilogies almost begs for that kind of language of Father figures and Son figures wiping each other out...so, it's right there floating around in a myriad of ways.

Harrison is a very interactive actor and adds his two cents quite heavily to scenes, and pushes the writers and directors by asking really hard questions they've completely overlooked about his character (as always happens - he's looking at one character - they're looking at all of them...that's why good writers and directors listen to the actors), but he didn't come up with an entire story arc that ties Ben into killing Han in this great struggle over Ben's soul that's stretched out over the course of the entire film.

That's very Abrams, and very, VERY Kasdan. Kasdan wanted to kill Han ages ago. He's been hungry for characters to meaningfully die since the OT when he would get into big arguments with Lucas as Lucas repeatedly slapped down the idea and banned killing characters for gravitas (...except...when he did ... it...hmm....).

And Abrams...Jesus. Abrams kills someone in almost every movie he makes for a bit of gravitas. It's almost his third most go-to move after mystery box and lens flares.

Taking Care of Business - no deaths
Regarding Henry - Well...effectively, Henry dies - that's kind of the kick of the whole story.
Forever Young - Helen, basically dies as far as McCormick is concerned, which launches the entire point of the story - not wanting to face the reality of death.
Gone Fishin - Technically no main character dies...instead, our hapless heroes stumble upon a murderer who takes to hunting them down.
Armageddon - I mean...come on.
Joy Ride/Roadkill - well...come on...it's a horror film.
Mission: Impossible III - Ethan's protege Lindsey dies from an implanted skull bomb...because...why not!
Star Trek 2009 - Dad's death is the opening.
Super 8 - Mother's dead before we even get started, and Nelec gets wiped out to "kick it up a notch".
Star Trek ID - Kirk dies.

And then there's Star Wars, which you know how his went.

Basically, like I said - like the saying about life of death and taxes - well, if it's an Abrams movie, the only things for certain are mystery, death, and lens flares.

Cheers,
Jayson