Star Wars Disenchantment

[Schilkeman 964]

Yep, even Anakin Skywalker, the Son of Suns himself gets one line of dialog. Aesthetically, the ST is almost exclusively pulling from the OT. There isn't a single callback to any character from the PT who didn't also exist in the OT. Plus all the digs about using practical effects, etc, it's clear where their inspiration came from. 

[Tallguy 3,401]

13 hours ago, Docteur Qui said:

I understand why franchises are hesitant to move past the events of their original moneymakers, but good lord if it isn't boring watching the same locations in the same 20-year period of an entirely imagined universe.

 

I've finally come to the conclusion that I am not THAT interested in the Star Wars "universe" as such. But I am interested in the Galactic Civil War. I don't need to keep going to the Death Star or Tatooine. But there's a lot to do in a galaxy wide political conflict. How many World War II movies can one watch? Quite a few apparently.

 

I think Andor proves my point.

[Chen G. 3,950]

This is an important point: the story of the Star Wars films doesn’t exist to showcase the Galaxy: rather, it’s the Galaxy that exists as a backdrop to the story of the films.

 

That by itself doesn’t preclude interstitial entries like Rogue One or Obi Wan. But to say “well, why can’t they just jump a few centuries in time and tell another, separate story in this setting” is to miss the point.

[ThePenitentMan1 744]

On 12/12/2022 at 4:36 AM, Chen G. said:

In November 1979, Lucas produced a doctored version of the script, which now (for the first time) carries the "Episode IV: A New Hope" headline, is dated to January 1976, edited to resemble the finished film but also includes the Jabba scene

 

Just read this, and now I'm curious: do the Mono Mix lines like Tractor Beam and Close The Blast Doors appear in the earlier, un-doctored versions of the script?  I remember finding an ANH script online that included them, but it may have been the doctored version.

[Chen G. 3,950]

I checked: Yes to the former, no to the latter.

[ThePenitentMan1 744]

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

I checked: Yes to the former, no to the latter.

 

Really? I would've guessed the other way around: the Tractor Beam line always felt to me like an unnecessary filler line that adds no needed information and actually contradicts the line before it, while the latter scene always just feels incomplete without the Close The Blast Doors line.

 

So to hear that Tractor Beam was there from the start and not Close The Blast Doors is pretty surprising!

[DarthDementous 1,059]

15 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

Just my theory, feel free to ignore.

 

I think Filoni acquired an appreciation for the prequals I'm not sure he would have had if he wasn't hired to run the show and worked so closely with George. He has spoken somewhat disparagingly about Anakin's characterization, as well as the writing, and the political overtones of the prequels. I also think he has some fundamental misunderstandings about the Jedi, which have become harder to ignore in the past couple of years, since he is now, up there, without all the assistance. 

I believe he still consults with George although likely not nearly to the extent as when he was on TCW

 

I’m curious though, what do you believe his fundamental misunderstandings of the Jedi are?

[Schilkeman 964]

5 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

I’m curious though, what do you believe his fundamental misunderstandings of the Jedi are?

I could try and paraphrase all of this, but this guy did all the work finding the quotes. Interesting stuff, kinda long read.

 

https://at.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/what-lucas-says-what-filoni-says/rb6gb225naze

[DarthDementous 1,059]

20 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

I could try and paraphrase all of this, but this guy did all the work finding the quotes. Interesting stuff, kinda long read.

 

https://at.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/what-lucas-says-what-filoni-says/rb6gb225naze

That was an interesting read and helps explain why Filoni’s Star Wars projects feel a little ‘off’

 

In many ways he’s echoing the common interpretation of fandom as opposed to the slightly more nuanced and assured interpretation of the creator, which is ironic given how many people call him Lucas’ apprentice

 

Even more ironically, Lucas’ idea of the selfless Jedi corrupted by war is shown far more clearly in the EU Clone Wars comics than Filoni and Lucas’ show, which is why I always found the former fit more with the movies than the latter

[Chen G. 3,950]

4 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

In many ways he’s echoing the common interpretation of fandom as opposed to the slightly more nuanced and assured interpretation of the creator

 

Lucas? "Nuanced"? 

[Mattris 416]

On 24/12/2022 at 12:33 AM, Schilkeman said:

I could try and paraphrase all of this...

 

Please do.  If Filloni 'fundamentally misunderstands the Jedi', explaining how should be relatively easy.

 

4 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

That was an interesting read and helps explain why Filoni’s Star Wars projects feel a little ‘off'

 

Lots of Star Wars projects 'feel off' to many of its audience. I say it's because they, in general, are not looking at Star Wars from the right point of view, that is, the correct one.

 

51 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Lucas? "Nuanced"? 

 

You obviously aren't familiar with the man's many talks and interviews over the decades. I suggest you look into them.

[Chen G. 3,950]

34 minutes ago, Mattris said:

You obviously aren't familiar with the man's many talks and interviews over the decades. I suggest you look into them.

 

I listened to a lot of George Lucas talking. I've never heard him say anything remotely intellectual or insightful. He's obviously a brilliant businessperson (I think of Lucas more like a Robert Shaye - a producer that directs - than as a director who produces) and he has a good eye for visuals and is obviously good at writing short stories: I actually think he's a better writer than he is a director, not vice versa. But to paint him - as people do here and elsewhere - as an intellectual... I mean, I'm sure he would like us to think that way, but he just isn't.

 

There's a wonderful, new biography of Lucas from 2019 by Brian Jay Jones where he looks a little more assidiously into Lucas' younger years. The man graduated with an Associate of Arts from a small community college, with most of his grades being Bs and Cs; and while he likes to regale us with his supposed erudition, all the testimony is that he was never much of a reader and that most of what he reads is fairly terse, digestible stuff.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

Guy, guys. Give the constitution a rest, okay?

It's Christmas.

[Chen G. 3,950]

1 minute ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

It's Christmas.

 

Jew here; no Christmas. 

[DarthDementous 1,059]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

But to paint him - as people do here and elsewhere - as an intellectual... I mean, I'm sure he would like us to think that way, but he just isn't.

I don’t see how I’m calling or seeing Lucas as an intellectual by pointing out that his interpretation of his work in the case of the Jedi and their downfall is more nuanced than Dave Filoni’s

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

What is "an intellectual", and why isn't Lucas one?

[Chen G. 3,950]

On 25/12/2022 at 6:37 AM, Naïve Old Fart said:

What is "an intellectual", and why isn't Lucas one?

 

An intellectual is what Lucas claims he is: someone who was well on his way to becoming an anthropology professor, but instead went to film school and then proceeded to pour his well-honed understanding of the human psyche, reared on dense, 4000-pages' worth of Frazer's Golden Bough, Joseph Campbell and Bruno Bettelheim, in order to distill all mythologies down into the "formula" for Star Wars.

 

Facts are, dude went to a small community college, took a Sociology class and got a B for his pains....

 

On 25/12/2022 at 5:00 AM, DarthDementous said:

pointing out that his interpretation of his work in the case of the Jedi and their downfall is more nuanced than Dave Filoni’s

 

I read the post that was linked: it seems to me that rather than more nuanced, Lucas' interpertation is if anything more full of holes and steeped in the most superficial, pseudo-Zen nonesense I've ever read.

 

For instance, I - like Filoni - don't read the Jedi as intentionally flawed: that's not the impression I get from watching those films. When, say, Yoda tells Anakin to "let go" and not miss "those around you" who die, my reading of the situation is George Lucas is sitting there penning the lines thinking this is the coolest, best ersatz-Zen demeanour he can possibly conjure up for the Jedi - its not meant to be read as flawed, its meant to be read as cool. The issue is it plays to audiences like Yoda is just being an arse.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

Oh, shit!

Youse all just know what's going to happen, now 

[Chen G. 3,950]

1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Youse all just know what's going to happen, now 

 

Na-uh! I'm not responding to some 800-word, Mattris-penned, Star Wars-quoting babble.

 

No sir.

Had enough.

For a lifetime.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

[Schilkeman 964]

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

read the post that was linked: it seems to me that rather than more nuanced, Lucas' interpertation is if anything more full of holes and steeped in the most superficial, pseudo-Zen nonesense I've ever read.

Look, I gave up trying to convince people of the depth and nuance present in these films years ago, because these are usually the responses I get. You do you. I don’t think it’s pseudo Zen, but actual Zen. Jedi are supermen who could, if motivated enough by greed and attachment, burn the Galaxy to the ground. This is, of course, what we see happen.
 

I don’t know if George is an intellectual or not, but I do think he’s a genius. As a professor of mine once said, “an A student come back to work for a university. A C student comes back to donate a million dollars to a university.” 

[DarthDementous 1,059]

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I read the post that was linked: it seems to me that rather than more nuanced, Lucas' interpertation is if anything more full of holes and steeped in the most superficial, pseudo-Zen nonesense I've ever read.

 

For instance, I - like Filoni - don't read the Jedi as intentionally flawed: that's not the impression I get from watching those films. When, say, Yoda tells Anakin to "let go" and not miss "those around you" who die, my reading of the situation is George Lucas is sitting there penning the lines thinking this is the coolest, best ersatz-Zen demeanour he can possibly conjure up for the Jedi - its not meant to be read as flawed, its meant to be read as cool. The issue is it plays to audiences like Yoda is just being an arse.

I question whether you did actually read that post because Lucas’ quotes are shifting the blame to the Sith and the corruption of the Jedi through being conscripted into war, which is the exact opposite of being intentionally flawed. That’s Filoni’s take. That they’re intentionally flawed because of their lack of care whereas Lucas sees them as fundamentally compassionate and urging more balance in how we love others so we don’t get possessive.

[Chen G. 3,950]

40 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

I do think he’s a genius.

 

Genius is not necessarily a global term. People often have a genius for something. George Lucas certainly has a genius for business: like I said, I think of him more as a producer who directs rather than as a director who produces; and he has a genius for writing short stories - he comes-up with interesting premises for films and at his best his quite capable of constructing compelling screenplays from them.

 

The issue here is that Lucas, regardless of any genius he may possess, claims to be an intellectual. Just look at how Empire of Dreams sings the praises of his student films for the added dimension of "his interest in mythology and philosophy", not to mention all the Joseph Campbell talk. Lucas may be a fine filmmaker (at his best) and, by all accounts, a perfectly nice man and certainly very influential on the film industry and helpful to a future generation of filmmakers; but he's also a very, VERY duplicitous individual, and its funny to see people fall hook-and-sinker for his intellectual pretentions.

 

6 minutes ago, DarthDementous said:

Lucas sees them as fundamentally compassionate and urging more balance in how we love others so we don’t get possessive.

 

Ain't nothing compassionate about Yoda telling Anakin, who had just spoken about foreseeing the death of someone close to him, "tough luck, don't miss them. Attachment is wrong." That's just nonesense.

 

Also, Lucas saying the Jedi are compassionate and unflawed in their aims is literally contradicted a short while later in the quotes when Lucas says they are "being corrupted by this war."

[DarthDementous 1,059]

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Ain't nothing compassionate about Yoda telling Anakin, who had just spoken about foreseeing the death of someone close to him, "tough luck, don't miss them. Attachment is wrong." That's just nonesense.

 

Also, Lucas saying the Jedi are compassionate and unflawed in their aims is literally contradicted a short while later in the quotes when Lucas says they are "being corrupted by this war."

That’s not a contradiction. As you yourself pointed out, there’s a difference between being fundamentally flawed and doomed to fail eventually, and being corrupted by an external influence. If the Jedi were allowed to remain in their natural role as peace-keepers its highly unlikely they would’ve fallen. They’re a fundamental mismatch for war, that doesn’t make them fundamentally flawed because they were never intended to occupy that role. A spoon is not fundamentally flawed because it doesn’t have the precision of a fork.

 

Yoda isn’t talking to some random person off the street here, he’s talking to a Jedi Knight who knows full well what he means by what he’s saying because he has been steeped in it most of his life. The Jedi are allowed to love, they are not allowed to possess. By becoming attached to the point you can’t ever let go even when they die you only do yourself a disservice, in the eyes of the Jedi. To them, death isn’t the end but the next stage of life. Anakin can’t let go of even the ones he hasn’t lost yet, that makes him greedy in comparison to the Jedi and that’s what leads him to the dark side, the opposite of balance. That’s what Lucas claims these movies are about and despite not really liking the Prequels I find the movies support that interpretation. That being said, the Prequels really needed to play up the compassionate angle of the Jedi far more so it’s clearer to the audience that Anakin doesn’t have it right.

[Schilkeman 964]

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

That's just nonesense

Attachment is not necessarily a global term. Perhaps you see it as false Buddhism because you do not understand the Buddhist take on attachment. As the very first Google result for Buddhism and attachment states:

 

”The Buddhist concept of non-attachment is a constructive way to approach relationships. Here, attachment refers to an attempt to control things that you can't control.”

 

As Yoda is trying to say, you can not control death. Palpatine lures him with the idea that he can, in fact, cheat death. 

 

[Mattris 416]

On 25/12/2022 at 2:22 AM, Chen G. said:

I listened to a lot of George Lucas talking. I've never heard him say anything remotely intellectual or insightful.

 

Either you haven't seen the interviews I have or your definitions of "intellectual" and "insightful" defer from mine.

 

Or perhaps it's that you haven't listened closely enough to what he said or from the right point of view.

 

10 hours ago, Chen G. said:

... he's also a very, VERY duplicitous individual, and its funny to see people fall hook-and-sinker for his intellectual pretentions.

 

Duplicitous? At times, perhaps. This devious tactic helped him succeed in getting his audience to fall hook-and-sinker for his trap... including you.

 

12 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Na-uh! I'm not responding to some 800-word, Mattris-penned, Star Wars-quoting babble.

 

No sir.

Had enough.

For a lifetime.

 

You stopped responding to my substantive/longer posts some time ago - no doubt because you have no substantive responses, just dismissive ones (and laughter) along the lines of 'What you're theorizing/suggesting can't possibly be true because it runs contrary to my assessment of George Lucas and Star Wars.'

 

You may have a higher than average vocabulary, Chen. But your intellect caps out with a pride-infused brick wall when confronted by my facts, logic, and canon excerpts that, all told, suggest something else is going on with Star Wars.

 

Don't worry. I won't be posting any more 800-word Star Wars writings on this forum. I've already posted more than enough to prove my worth, including quite a few in response to your babble.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

Progress?

[Tallguy 3,401]

After years of listening to Lucas blow smoke about his grand plans or that Han never shot first they just edited it badly and other such nonsense one could start to think that Star Wars was an amazing accident. (Which, of course, it was.)

 

Then I read Rinzler's The Making of The Empire Strikes Back and The Making of Return of the Jedi. The second is necessary to appreciate the first. Almost every one of Lucas' additions to Empire make the movie better. And they are spot on as to how the audience will receive them. Three years later he winds up getting almost everything wrong. He learns all of the wrong lessons from Empire and Raiders.

 

As to Filoni v. Lucas, Filoni is certainly not without flaws I also think that he might be more in touch with 1976 Lucas than Lucas is.

[Giftheck 917]

What even is this thread at this point? It seems to be JWFan Vs Mattris, The Thread: Part 2

[Tallguy 3,401]

18 minutes ago, Giftheck said:

What even is this thread at this point? It seems to be JWFan Vs Mattris, The Thread: Part 2

 

Occasionally, maybe. 

[Chen G. 3,950]

1 hour ago, Tallguy said:

one could start to think that Star Wars was an amazing accident. (Which, of course, it was.)

 

Eh, I don't buy the happy accident narrative. Just because the stars aligned doesn't mean the movie was a happy accident.

[greenturnedblue 372]

What's the difference?

[Chen G. 3,950]

5 minutes ago, greenturnedblue said:

What's the difference?

 

Just because there was a component of luck involved (when is there not one?) doesn't mean luck is the secret to the production's success.

 

It was a fun screenplay, brought to life with excellent special effects. That is the secret to its success.

[Holko 9,529]

And passionate inspired production design and great editing and fantastic music.

[Mattris 416]

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Just because there was a component of luck involved (when is there not one?) doesn't mean luck is the secret to the production's success.

 

What do you think was 'lucky' about the creation/production of Star Wars? What do you think was "the secret to the production's success"?

[Chen G. 3,950]

8 minutes ago, Holko said:

And passionate inspired production design and great editing and fantastic music.

 

Exactly, all of which could be said to have been touched by luck, I'm sure. But that's not the key to their success.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

In my experience there’s no such thing as luck. 
 

Star Wars is all just simple tricks and nonsense.

[Tallguy 3,401]

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Just because there was a component of luck involved (when is there not one?) doesn't mean luck is the secret to the production's success.

 

That's what I meant.

 

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Just because the stars aligned doesn't mean the movie was a happy accident.

 

Every good movie is a happy accident. Maybe there are movies that are perfect in their original plan and what we see on screen was what was going on in the filmmaker's head from the inception. (Probably a Hitchcock movie or two.) And the accident is that no one stepped in to screw it up. Star Wars was not one of those movies. Without a lot of luck (or the right circumstances, if you will) Star Wars would not have been the crowd pleaser that it ended up being.

 

4 hours ago, Mattris said:

What do you think was 'lucky' about the creation/production of Star Wars? What do you think was "the secret to the production's success"?

 

In reverse order:

 

Luck: Lucky was that he had John Williams who talked him out of using existing classical pieces. Lucky was hiring Anthony Daniels and then letting him use his own voice in direct opposition to Lucas' original plans. Lucky was Gary Kurtz and Irvin Kershner in general. Lucky was Marcia Lucas and Brian DePalma.

 

One could say that Lucas did what he was supposed to do and surrounded himself with great people. Lucky was that at this time he was willing to listen (or unable to ignore them if you're being less charitable). Unlucky was years later when he stopped doing that.

 

The Secret: Obviously the "secret to the production's success" is still Lucas at the very core. But without all of those elements we don't get Star Wars. And when those elements vanished or diminished we didn't get Star Wars anymore. Not like it originally was.

 

It might sound like I'm diminishing Lucas' centrality to Star Wars. Far from it. His was the central idea. For as many times as someone pushed him out of what seems like it would have been a terrible idea (Threepio) there were more times where he was presented with something and he came back and said "That's not what I want, make it better."

 

It's a one to many and a many to one relationship. There is Lucas and everyone he needed to execute his ideas and sometimes guide him to better ones. But while there were a bunch of people waiting to work for Lucas there were not a bunch of Lucases waiting for them to work for.

 

We've been waiting for 40 years for another Lucas. And for the most part that hasn't even been Lucas anymore.

 

1 minute ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

In my experience there’s no such thing as luck. 
 

Star Wars is all just simple tricks and nonsense.

 

Given your sources, you seem at odds with yourself.

[Chen G. 3,950]

12 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

One could say that Lucas did what he was supposed to do and surrounded himself with great people. Lucky was that at this time he was willing to listen (or unable to ignore them if you're being less charitable). Unlucky was years later when he stopped doing that.

 

Eh, I don't buy that narrative either.

 

Yes, Lucas had some ideas that he was talked out of: but that always happens to some extent. There are documented instances of this in the prequel trilogy, too: Lucas thought the Jedi should be very aloof but Liam Neeson convinced him it would be a good idea for Qui Gon to rest his hand on Shmi's shoulder when he asks "will you be all right?"

 

So painting the Lucas of the prequel trilogy era (or even the Return of the Jedi era) as someone so drunk on success as to be beyond reproach is I think just a convenient way to "explain" how the man who made Star Wars could also make something like Attack of the Clones.

 

Part of the issue with George Lucas is that his filmography is so scant - six films in 34 years - that any sort of observation you can make about his ouvre runs into a sampling issue. Almost every filmmaker has his fair share of stinkers in his catalogue, but because Lucas directed so few films, his stinkers really stand out; and the same is true of his successes.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

That’s a very weird definition of ‘luck’’. To me, something is only luck if it’s the result of an external factor out of your control. An example being, it would’ve been unlucky if a sandstorm rolled in and destroyed the Tunisia set.

[Mattris 416]

On 26/12/2022 at 4:37 PM, Chen G. said:

So painting the Lucas of the prequel trilogy era (or even the Return of the Jedi era) as someone so drunk on success as to be beyond reproach is I think just a convenient way to "explain" how the man who made Star Wars could also make something like Attack of the Clones.

 

Ah, yes... the old 'disparaging Attack of the Clones' trope. In your opinion, what was wrong with the film? Narratively and thematically, how do you view Episode II within the Saga?

 

On 26/12/2022 at 4:37 PM, Chen G. said:

Part of the issue with George Lucas is that his filmography is so scant - six films in 34 years - that any sort of observation you can make about his ouvre runs into a sampling issue. Almost every filmmaker has his fair share of stinkers in his catalogue, but because Lucas directed so few films, his stinkers really stand out; and the same is true of his successes.

 

I would say that limiting Lucas' filmography to only the films he directed is being outright dismissive of his life's work. In that 34-year time period, he also wrote The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and the first three Indiana Jones films, ever-present as the authority figure alongside the directors during those epic Lucasfilm productions... which would not exist without his vision and story-telling expertise.

 

Instead of editing your posts, Chen, why don't you finally reveal:

 

What do you think was 'lucky' about the creation/production of Star Wars?

What do you think was "the secret to the production's success"?

 

And while you're at it, please also tell us your definition of "stinker" and "success".

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

12 hours ago, Tallguy said:

Given your sources, you seem at odds with yourself.

Look into my eye.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

[greenturnedblue 372]

George Lucas letter to Lost, 2010:

 

"Don't tell anyone ... but when 'Star Wars' first came out, I didn't know where it was going either. The trick is to pretend you've planned the whole thing out in advance"

 

https://collider.com/george-lucas-letter-lost-damon-lindelof-carlton-cuse/#:~:text=In six seasons%2C you've,you've wrapped up everything.

[Demodex 557]

This thread lives on?  😄😄😄

 

@Mattris, you are an insufferable know-it-all that doesn't know jack shit. 

[JWFan Moderators 100]

Personal attacks are not allowed on JWFan

[Demodex 557]

On 27/11/2022 at 11:02 PM, Mattris said:

 

The Emperor returning - more specifically, with Rey being related to him in some way - was absolutely not "an extremely common fan theory".  On the rare occasion it was even mentioned, it was dismissed outright by almost everyone (here and fandom-wide) because 'Emperor Palpatine is dead!'

 

It was also dismissed because it's fucking stupid. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, JWFan Moderators said:

Personal attacks are not allowed on JWFan

 

Not even at Mattris?

Ok. Fine. 

[greenturnedblue 372]

My personal theory is that JJ always intended Rey to be Luke's daughter, but it was scrubbed last minute because she and Kylo Ren kissed in IX (not that an incestuous kiss has not already been in a star wars film). Then they made her Sheev's daughter, because they were bringing back Palpy anyways. Then, she becomes a Skywalker in name only as a compromise 

[Mattris 416]

On 28/12/2022 at 5:42 PM, greenturnedblue said:

George Lucas letter to Lost, 2010:

 

"Don't tell anyone ... but when 'Star Wars' first came out, I didn't know where it was going either. The trick is to pretend you've planned the whole thing out in advance"

 

Also in that letter:

 

"Now that it's all coming to an end, it's impressive to see how much was planned out in advance and how neatly you've wrapped up everything. You've created something really special."

 

So Lucas contradicted himself, certainly not for the first time.

 

The contents of this letter should be negated by the simple fact that George Lucas started it by saying "Don't tell anyone...".  But it was publicly shared immediately!  Since it's safe to assume that the show's producers - including JJ Abrams - would not have wanted to disrespect George Lucas, they must have had his permission to tell everyone, meaning Lucas wanted the world to hear what he had to say, which included a controversial statement about Star Wars not being planned, even though he had claimed otherwise for decades.

 

Does George Lucas think that the Lost creators/producers/writers started the show without a plan and only began planning things throughout its later installments? Does he think this because it's what he was told? Was he told the truth? Is he telling us the truth?

 

Two contradicting statements cannot be true. One of the statements is a lie.  Lies are meant to confuse, deceive, and divide those who hear them. Lies can be powerful. But the truth is always stronger.

 

On 29/12/2022 at 2:33 PM, greenturnedblue said:

My personal theory is that JJ always intended Rey to be Luke's daughter, but it was scrubbed last minute because she and Kylo Ren kissed in IX (not that an incestuous kiss has not already been in a star wars film). Then they made her Sheev's daughter, because they were bringing back Palpy anyways. Then, she becomes a Skywalker in name only as a compromise 

 

That's some interesting logic you have there.

 

JJ Abrams wrote the trilogy's finale, including the kiss and the reveal of Rey's relevance in the overall story. There were no 'compromises'. Abrams simply played on the audience's ignorance and assumptions. (In Star Wars, it wouldn't have been the first time.)

 

The fact is, the SW canon contains a mountain of literal evidence that proves this was planned... all of it.

[Demodex 557]

 

1 hour ago, Mattris said:

The fact is, the SW canon contains a mountain of literal evidence that proves this was planned... all of it.

 

No, it doesn't. Because it wasn't. We all know it wasn't. 

If you have proof we are all wrong and you're right please provide it. 

Otherwise you have no credibility.