Support NeoGAF

[Rootbeer]

Is this canon?

Of course.

 

[-griffy-]

Stuff

This is the last I'll say, and I suggest we all move on because it's actually ruining the thread at this point. Kylo Ren says "It is you" in the book. He does not say it in the movie.

Let's also be clear that though Kylo may "murmur" it, it is audible to Rey:

It IS you," Ren murmured.

His words unsettled her: Not for the first time, he seemed to know more about her than she did about herself.

It isn't an inaudible thing that only Kylo hears in the novel. It is said out loud and the other character hears and internally responds.

The book and movie are two different tellings of the same story. This is one of those differences. That is the simplest explanation for why we as the audience don't perceive it happen in the movie. It doesn't mean it didn't happen ever at all, or off camera between scenes. But if it didn't happen on camera in a shot of Kylo murmuring to himself, or off camera via audio that we could hear, or any other way that a filmmaker could have presented a character murmuring, then it means it literally and simply wasn't in that scene of the movie. It was not captured by the filmmakers and presented and communicated to the audience.

You disagree with us, we disagree with you, the entire discussion is becoming circular, repeating itself for pages now. We aren't getting anywhere or having a meaningful discussion, so let's simply acknowledge the disagreement and move on.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Of course.

holy shit lmao

So this is tangential, but coming out of the theater I wondered why Snoke needed to be cgi rather than a costume, and my friend who was watching with me made the comparison to Gollum in the LOTR movies. Which brings me to the question: why was Gollum fully cgi rather than a costume? Like, what were the major benefits of this approach?

I do agree Snoke would've been great with practical FX... which boggles my mind because so much of the film was practical.

The CGI did lend itself to the hologram effect though.

 

[Kilrogg]

holy shit lmao



I do agree Snoke would've been great with practical FX... which boggles my mind because so much of the film was practical.

The CGI did lend itself to the hologram effect though.

They said Snoke didn't work well as a practical effect. Why, I can't remember. Don't think they went into the specifics.
Incidentally, the reason why Maz Kanata is CG is lack of time. They wanted to make a real Maz costume/puppet, but it took them so long to settle on her final character design that they run out of time to make her a practical effect. The producers wouldn't delay the release of the movie just for that. Which is a shame, cause CG characters with a meaty role in any movie tend to take me out of it, especially if they talk and if I feel they could have been done using practical effects. Obviously I understand why Smaug had to be CG in The Hobbit, for instance.

 

[QuantumZebra]

stuff.

It isn't "me disagreeing with you (and helios)" It was me and prag, surfinn, and multiple other people repeating ourselves over and over to helios about him not knowing what the definition of a contradiction was.

No one is disagreeing that the novel has more scenes / is more fleshed out than the movie, and no one is disagreeing that the movie is number #1. We are just stating that:

A. Helios doesn't know what the word "contradiction" means

B. The novels are canon, no matter how much people yell about them not being canon. If something happened in the novel that didn't happen in the film, it *still* happened, just off-screen (unless it contradicts what happened in the movie, IE, where Finn was slashed by Kylo).

That is it.

 

[fallout]

Which brings me to the question: why was Gollum fully cgi rather than a costume? Like, what were the major benefits of this approach?

The biggest problem with prosthetic makeup, costumes, etc. is that you lose a lot of the body and facial movement that plays into acting. When LOTR was being made, computer graphics had gotten to the point where they could make it look believable enough that it was worth it. It's obviously a trade-off, but I just can't even imagine a costumed Gollum ever being as emotionally captivating as the one we got.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

They said Snoke didn't work well as a practical effect. Why, I can't remember. Don't think they went into the specifics.

They said it was because he was 7-foot tall and too thin, if I recall correctly.

I wonder if this reasoning pertains to TFA only or if they perhaps anticipated Snoke fighting in later films or something.

 

[-griffy-]

They said it was because he was thin and tall or something.

I wonder if this argument pertains to TFA only or if they perhaps anticipated Snoke fighting in later films or something.

It's because of the facial scarring leaving a gaping hole in his cheek, something that is deliberately obscured in the movie by the lighting.

This is a shaky excuse though since, while it's true the scarring can't be done with makeup, you can easily point to Two Face from The Dark Knight to see a similar CGI effect convincingly done on an actor:

Maybe there's something about his character that we just don't know about yet that further warrants the use of CG, but I'd wager it was a similar situation to Maz in that they just didn't have the design finalized in time and opted for CG so they could keep working on it.

I'll say that him being CG didn't bother me as much on repeat viewings as it did the first time I saw him. If we're being honest, CG alone can't ruin the character. Jar Jar was a bad character who was also CG, not a character that was bad only because of CG.

As for Gollum, that is a character who is emaciated and skinny from head to toe, with exaggerated features (big head, large and bony hands/feet, big eyes, protruding ribs/spine, sunken cheeks, etc). It's all stuff that can't really be done by layering makeup/prosthetics on an actor, since that adds stuff rather than taking away. He would have looked like a guy with prosthetics on rather than a shriveled, pathetic creature whose physical being has been eaten away from the many years under the ring's corruption.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Seems more likely that, like Maz, they ran out of time or weren't satisfied with what they had to that point and ran out of time to do further work.

 

[Surfinn]

Why not?

He's basically saying, "There are lots of theories about this line from the book. It's actually a callback to this other thing from the movie." That's exactly what you'd expect from someone trying to clarify a point around which there's lots of chatter and confusion.

Again, the only people dismissing or downplaying that interpretation are the people whose theories it doesn't prop up.

Right, but now there's a problem of not actually knowing the full/true meaning of the "awakening", which clearly isn't JUST about Rey. As Quantum stated in a previous post, the force is and has always been about more than just a single user. If you rewatch Empire (in regard to the quote explicitly borrowed in TFA), you'll notice that Yoda mentions that the force is EVERYTHING and that we are all connected to it. That alone is enough for one to focus on a POSSIBLE bigger picture, outside of just Rey alone. We still don't fully know what the "awakening" entails, in short. So for Pablo to say "hey this is just in reference to the awakening guys" doesn't actually tell us enough to draw any conclusions or rule anything out. That's been my point from the beginning. We simply don't have enough information, even after considering his explanation.

My reason for dismissing the interpretation that Ren is referring to some otherwise unknown connection to Rey is that all the evidence I've seen could be sufficiently explained based on other already-known elements of the narrative.

You simply don't need a Ren-Rey connection to resolve any of that evidence, or for any of it to make sense or have significance within the story.

I can understand not agreeing with that interpretation, as I agree there isn't enough info to know one way or another, but to outright dismiss the idea of the "it is you" line meaning something significant (other than the vague idea of the awakening literally being Rey beginning her hero's journey and connecting with the force) seems short sighted.

I don't think anyone would give two craps about what the novelization says if the theory were just as evident from the film alone. They certainly wouldn't need to fight to preserve its perception as canon, since they wouldn't need it to support their theory.

Again, we're going back to the idea that since the writers based their novels off of an early draft of the script, it's possible they were working with content that ended up being cut from the film but that doesn't automatically mean it won't be used in a future episode.

So, in the TLDR version, the quotes we've seen are too vague to dispel theories that Ren could AT LEAST know who Rey is, if not have had a previous meeting with her.

We simply don't have enough information to throw the theory out or dismiss the possibility. I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, as we both have access to the same information, but I'm going to have to respectfully agree to disagree with you here.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Right, but now there's a problem of not actually knowing the full/true meaning of the "awakening", which clearly isn't JUST about Rey. As Quantum stated in a previous post, the force is and has always been more than just a single user. If you rewatch Empire (in regard to the quote explicitly borrowed in TFA), you'll notice that Yoda mentions that the force is EVERYTHING and that we are all connected to it. That alone is enough for one to focus on a POSSIBLE bigger picture, outside of just Rey alone. We still don't fully know what the "awakening" entails, in short. So for Pablo to say "hey this is just in reference to the awakening guys" doesn't actually tell us enough to draw any conclusions or rule anything out. That's been my point from the beginning. We simply don't have enough information, even after considering his explanation.


I can understand not agreeing with that interpretation, as I agree there isn't enough info to know one way or another, but to outright dismiss the idea of the "it is you" line meaning something significant (other than the vague idea of the awakening literally being Rey beginning her hero's journey and connecting with the force) seems short sighted.

Again, we're going back to the idea that since the writers based their novels off of an early draft of the script, it's possible they were working with content that ended up being cut from the film but that doesn't automatically mean it won't be used in a future episode.

So, in the TLDR version, the quotes we've seen are too vague to dispel theories that Ren could AT LEAST know who Rey is, if not have had a previous meeting with her.

We simply don't have enough information to throw the theory out or dismiss the possibility. I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, as we both have access to the same information, but I'm going to have to respectfully agree to disagree with you here.

Yup.

Occam's razor is highly applicable here. There is more to point to Kylo having an idea of who she is and then knowing for certain who she is by the end, than there is for him not knowing who she is.

Until otherwise proven - it is the logical conclusion to assume he did know who she was by the end of the episode.


(By the way im amazed that people think the writers of the novel didnt consult with JJ and the films creators on this... you really think it would be hard to remove the "It is you" line before it hit press?)

 

[Vyer]

I don't agree it's the 'logical conclusion', but I do agree it is left as a very strong possibility and can't be dismissed outrightz

 

[prag16]

I'm on board with the idea that Kylo most likely knows something. But I think a couple of you guys are taking too much for granted regarding the "awakening". I tend to agree with the others that the awakening seems to be referring to Rey. Don't know how you're so certain that the awakening necessarily has to be broader than that; some of the assumptions being made regarding that seem far from safe. As has been said, the line from the teaser can't really be used as proof. In the book "the dark side and the light" was a snoke line that referred to Kylo's inner struggle; it wasn't referring to the awakening.

 

[LegendofLex]

Yup.

Occam's razor is highly applicable here. There is more to point to Kylo having an idea of who she is and then knowing for certain who she is by the end, than there is for him not knowing who she is.

Until otherwise proven - it is the logical conclusion to assume he did know who she was by the end of the episode.

This is exactly the opposite of how Occam's Razor works.

Occam's Razor means that you choose the explanation that minimizes your reliance on unknowns.

So when presented with a line that could be referring to something that's already known (Kylo's existing displeasure at having received bad news, Kylo's recognition that there has been an awakening), Occam's Razor demands that you conclude that those explanations - the ones that are based on existing pieces of known information - are indeed what that line is referring to, not to an as-yet-unconfirmed story detail that could be revealed in the future.

You don't say "well, the story is better if _____, so therefore _____." At least, not if you arrived at your conclusion using Occam's Razor. (That's not to say that all interpretations must be arrived at through that lens; pretty much any guess as to who Rey's family is at this point involves some not-strictly-logical guesswork.)

This basically sums up my entire issue with that line of reasoning: it's being presented as if it's somehow the logical conclusion that follows from the evidence when instead it's simply a possibility that's left open by the evidence.

 

[heliosRAzi]

This will be the last thing I'll say on this

Kylo Ren is NOT contradicting the novel at the end of the movie. You do not have time during that scene to see his reaction AT ALL other than the moment of the lightsaber flying past him. In the novel he "murmured" the phrase "It is you" to himself, which means that he quietly said it to himself, IE thinking out loud.

Do you get it yet? You have no clue at all what he said to himself in the movie - you don't get to see his reaction.

Because the movie doesn't show it, therefore he didn't say it. There is no reference to what he was by anyone else. No one else reacted to it. There is nothing. In the book, as griffy pointed out, Rey hears his words and reacts to it, but she doesn't hear or react to it in the movie and the camera lingers on her for a good while. If she heard it, there's a good chance we would hear it, too. And, again, in the script, there is no indication that he said anything at that moment. It is a contradiction because the book says he did one thing, but the movie shows something else. Simple as that.

In that scene, you have PLENTY of time to see his reaction and hear his words. There are a few moments where Rey and Kylo just stand there trying to figure out what just happened. Right then is the moment where he could've said, "It is you."

Even if there weren't time to show anything, the director can make time if he chooses.

Just because you don't see it happen in the film doesn't mean it never happened, and that is what you're trying to infer here. We never get to see Snoke telling Kylo about Vader - but you have no problem accepting that happened. If this statement by him does not jive with your headcanon, then again, sorry.

Clearly, Kylo knows what has happened to Vader. We can make a reasonable inference that someone told him. Most likely, it was Snoke or even Luke. Given the information we have, we can safely make that assumption. Given the information in the film, we can assume that Han and Leia did the dirty despite us not having to see it. Given the information in the film, we know that Kylo does not say anything to Rey once she gets the lightsaber. None of this was brought up until people read the novelization. Up until you read the novelization, did you have any idea that what he said? No.

Kylo Ren didn't say "It is you" in the movie.

 

[Surfinn]

I'm on board with the idea that Kylo most likely knows something. But I think a couple of you guys are taking too much for granted regarding the "awakening". I tend to agree with the others that the awakening seems to be referring to Rey. Don't know how you're so certain that the awakening necessarily has to be broader than that; some of the assumptions being made regarding that seem far from safe. As has been said, the line from the teaser can't really be used as proof. In the book "the dark side and the light" was a snoke line that referred to Kylo's inner struggle; it wasn't referring to the awakening.

I'm in the camp of "we don't know the bigger picture yet"; obviously Rey is a huge part of the "awakening", but I think it's full meaning is clearly left open to interpretation considering we've got a LONG way to go in the trilogy and that there is no indication that Rey is the sole component of the awakening. The line from the teaser could have been from an early script that eventually evolved into TFA's theatrical release, but that doesn't mean they simply thew out the implied significance. I mean, that's literally the first dialogue we hear when introduced to JJ's new SW movie.

Surely there's more to the force than Rey being the hero.. just like there was more to the force than Luke in the OT. The Force redeemed Vader through Anakin's actions, and therefore allowed Luke to succeed, AND vice versa (Luke helped Anakin redeem himself). The OT is largely about Luke and his completion of the hero's journey, but it's not simply about Luke and The Force.

 

[prag16]

Helios, you still don't get it, did you're just being obtuse at this point, seemingly. This is a really odd hill to die on.

Of course the line means less than if it had been in the movie. But it's not exactly a contradiction by the strictest sense of the word, and it's entirely fair game in helping us speculate and make educated guesses.

Surely there's more to the force than Rey being the hero.. just like there was more to the force than Luke in the OT. The Force redeemed Vader through Anakin's actions, and therefore allowed Luke to succeed, AND vice versa (Luke helped Anakin redeem himself). The OT is largely about Luke and his completion of the hero's journey, but it's not simply about Luke and The Force.

The awakening referring to Rey wouldn't mean there isn't more to the Force than Rey.

There's really nothing to indicate it's more than that as of right now other than the line from the teaser.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

They said it was because he was 7-foot tall and too thin, if I recall correctly.

I wonder if this reasoning pertains to TFA only or if they perhaps anticipated Snoke fighting in later films or something.

That doesn't make sense. Can do his face and head as practical easily and would work and be much better. A

Maximum 6 6 and bigger. Anything other than pure cg

 

[BreezyLimbo]

.

Hmmm

anyone we know? Obviously human, just with a messed up face..

 

[heliosRAzi]

Hmmm

anyone we know? Obviously human, just with a messed up face..

That makes him look like an Engineer from Prometheus

 

[Count Dookkake]

.

 

[The Outsider]

That makes him look like an Engineer from Prometheus

Snoke is Jesus confirmed.

 

[excelsiorlef]

All the voice list has been released

http://www.starwars.com/news/from-b...rce-awakens?cmp=smc|345462828&linkId=20655917

 

[Ushojax]

I thought Serkis said Snoke was humanoid but not human.

 

[Trigonometrize.]

Currently in proximity of Trevorrow.

GAF, what should I do?

Tell him to end it with Yoda giving a medichlorian lecture to Poe and Finn's child.

 

[sc0la]

Currently in proximity of Trevorrow.

GAF, what should I do?

Drive away frantically before calling HQ to confirm where Trevorrows tracker shows his location to be.

All the voice list has been released

http://www.starwars.com/news/from-b...rce-awakens?cmp=smc|345462828&linkId=20655917

Red Eyed Sand Alien (watching BB-8 roll away): “Kojima.” — Robert Stambler

Lol JJ really does have a crush on Hideo

 

[Surfinn]

The awakening referring to Rey wouldn't mean there isn't more to the Force than Rey.

There's really nothing to indicate it's more than that as of right now other than the line from the teaser.

I'm going to go ahead and say it's about even, honestly. What in the movie points to the awakening ONLY being about Rey? You could make arguments either way but they're all essentially based on assumption.

I find it hard to believe this awakening refers to one individual and isn't a rift in the entire fabric of the force. Like I said, if this were the only SW movie to be made, sure, it's probably just about Rey. But there are two more. Imagine going into ESB after watching ANH and getting your mind fucked by all you thought you knew.

We need to keep an open mind and consider the fact that there's just too much assumption in all current theories to throw anything out (that isn't downright crazy like reincarnation or test lab brewing).

You can quote me (I don't have a sound theory as of now, and I know that may irk some).. this awakening is more than Rey. I'll save it for the Ep. 8 spoiler thread. Right now it's just a hunch that's based off of what Yoda said in ESB (explanation of the force) and the fact that we don't fully understand what is happening with the force. I think there has been an awakening and we've only seen a glimmer of it, and only from the light side of the force.

I'd be willing to bet on it.

 

[LegendofLex]

What in the movie points to the awakening ONLY being about Rey?

The question is: what in the movie points at anything besides Rey?

Note that this doesn't preclude future movies from giving us more; it just doesn't give us anything definitive to point to within TFA as an isolated work.

 

[Toxi]

The question is: what in the movie points at anything besides Rey?

TR8R is clearly the one who awakened.

 

[Paganmoon]

... I just now got why fans called him TR8R, god damn it I'm slow.

 

[Surfinn]

The question is: what in the movie points at anything besides Rey?

Note that this doesn't preclude future movies from giving us more; it just doesn't give us anything definitive to point to within TFA as an isolated work.

Right, and from the sound theory perspective, I'm not going to go ahead and pretend like I've got something solid or something that follows the model framework for what makes a sound theory, like I just said.

But, again, it brings me back to ANH.. there was actually ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to suggest Vader is Luke's father, and actually much more so to suggest he's not (it's outright told to the audience). There were no sound theories that could have been pieced together to support the fact that he actually IS his father.

We need to step away from ONLY examining what is present in TFA if we want a better understanding of where the next two movies might take us. To do so would be short sighted.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

The question is: what in the movie points at anything besides Rey?

Note that this doesn't preclude future movies from giving us more; it just doesn't give us anything definitive to point to within TFA as an isolated work.

Finn literally "awakens" from being a Stormtrooper.

Snoke also referring to Jedi as plural when talks about Luke returning and training the next generation of Jedi.

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

The question is: what in the movie points at anything besides Rey?

Note that this doesn't preclude future movies from giving us more; it just doesn't give us anything definitive to point to within TFA as an isolated work.

Kylo Ren noticing Finn?

 

[JaseMath]

Does the SW community still champion the Snoke is Jar Jar theory?

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Hmmm

anyone we know? Obviously human, just with a messed up face..

 

[Interfectum]

What if Snoke is Old Gregg? Anyone spot any Bailey's in the scene?

 

[Tansut]

What if Snoke is Old Gregg? Anyone spot any Bailey's in the scene?

Do ya love me, Kylo?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'm going to go ahead and say it's about even, honestly. What in the movie points to the awakening ONLY being about Rey? You could make arguments either way but they're all essentially based on assumption.

The only context in which an "awakening" is discussed in the film is plainly about Rey. You can theorize about something else, but there's really nothing in the film to support it. I'm honestly baffled that anyone thinks otherwise.

 

[Interfectum]

Do ya love me, Kylo?

I fucking hate Irish cream!

 

[Surfinn]

The only context in which an "awakening" is discussed in the film is plainly about Rey. You can theorize about something else, but there's really nothing in the film to support it. I'm honestly baffled that anyone thinks otherwise.

Where in the film does it say the awakening is just about Rey? I understand TFA is about Rey and the beginning of her Hero's journey and progression as a force user, but as far as I know, there's nothing outright stated about the awakening and it being tied only to her. In fact, there's very little discussed about the awakening at ALL. In the "there's been an awakening, have you felt it?" conversation, Rey isn't even addressed (not even "the girl", for that matter). This scene, to me, seems to introduce the overarching awakening of the force. Take a look at the nearly identical scene in ESB "there's been a great disturbance in the force". Vader and the emperor CLEARLY DISCUSS LUKE and how he might destroy them. Snoke doesn't even mention Rey until Kylo tells him she's force sensitive. He then says "if what you say is true, bring her to me". This leads me to believe she's only a PART of the awakening, and that there's a bigger picture we've yet to see.

Of course, that doesn't mean that TFA isn't directly about Rey and her role in the force awakening, which it clearly is.

 

[LegendofLex]

Where in the film does it say the awakening is just about Rey?

The film wouldn't spell out for you that the awakening is all about Rey.

It just might not give you anything to read into about the awakening referring to anything else.

Lots of people assumed that "The Force Awakens" was going to refer to some grand manifestation of the Force. That obviously didn't wind up showing in any visible way during the movie: the only displays of the Force within the movie came from Kylo and Rey - exactly the same way the Force has appeared in other Star Wars films.

And the only Force user out of the two of them who could be said to have "awakened" in any meaningful sense is Rey.

You're free to speculate about it being about something else, but the fact of the matter is people can easily shut down that speculation as being purely speculative because it doesn't actually use evidence from the film/its story. People don't have much patience for debating ideas that can't be disproven because they aren't based on evidence in the first place; they'd rather discuss where the weight of the evidence is pointing.

In the "there's been an awakening, have you felt it?" conversation, Rey isn't even addressed (not even "the girl", for that matter). This scene, to me, seems to introduce the overarching awakening of the force. Take a look at the nearly identical scene in ESB "there's been a great disturbance in the force". Vader and the emperor CLEARLY DISCUSS LUKE and how he might destroy them. Snoke doesn't even mention Rey until Kylo tells him she's force sensitive. He then says "if what you say is true, bring her to me". This leads me to believe she's only a PART of the awakening, and that there's a bigger picture we've yet to see.

This is why that statement from Pablo Hidalgo is really useful: lots of people hadn't arrived at the intended conclusion that the awakening was about Rey, so they wind up taking a completely different reading from the story.

Kylo Ren noticing Finn?

The Stormtrooper who wasn't doing his job? Kylo Ren notices that he's the likely defector, but that's about it.

Finn literally "awakens" from being a Stormtrooper.

"Literally"? No.

Snoke also referring to Jedi as plural when talks about Luke returning and training the next generation of Jedi.

"The new Jedi will rise" could be either singular or plural.

 

[Surfinn]

The film wouldn't spell out for you that the awakening is all about Rey.

It just might not give you anything to read into about the awakening referring to anything else.

Lots of people assumed that "The Force Awakens" was going to refer to some grand manifestation of the Force. That obviously didn't wind up showing in any visible way during the movie: the only displays of the Force within the movie came from Kylo and Rey - exactly the same way the Force has appeared in other Star Wars films.

And the only Force user out of the two of them who could be said to have "awakened" in any meaningful sense is Rey.

You're free to speculate about it being about something else, but the fact of the matter is people can easily shut down that speculation as being purely speculative because it doesn't actually use evidence from the film/its story. People don't have much patience for debating ideas that can't be disproven because they aren't based on evidence in the first place; they'd rather discuss where the weight of the evidence is pointing.

I think the film was designed to ONLY focus on Rey, and purposefully left conversations open ended about the awakening. Otherwise there would be no reason not to mention Rey in the conversation, like it was done in ESB. I understand they DON'T have to mention her in that convo, but in my opinion, not doing so (in this context) was eluding to future episodes.

Just because TFA is about Rey doesn't mean there isn't a larger picture for the force awakening. And I believe those hints are present in the film.

Again, we may agree to disagree, but I thought I would at least explain my opinion. I'm OK that.

Pablo's comment was about Rey's role in the awakening, as displayed in TFA, in my opinion.

 

[LegendofLex]

I think the film was designed to ONLY focus on Rey, and purposefully left conversations open ended about the awakening. Otherwise there would be no reason not to mention Rey in the conversation, like it was done in ESB.

Unless *gasp* the characters didn't know who Rey was/that she was the thing at the center of the awakening they felt!

Neither Kylo nor Snoke had encountered her yet.

Just because TFA is about Rey doesn't mean there isn't a larger picture for the force awakening.

And just because there could be a larger picture doesn't mean we have any actual reason to believe that there is.

I don't disagree with you that it could be part of a larger picture. Where we disagree is that because you have no evidence to support that conclusion I don't think anyone needs to consider that possibility when speculating about other unanswered questions.

Especially when you're suggesting that the title of this film actually hasn't been fully explained within the film it's describing, and won't actually be fully explained until the next one (which will almost certainly have a different title).

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I thought Serkis said Snoke was humanoid but not human.

I mean unless his face disfigurement is on the left(His right) side of the face and it makes him look human...and his natural face is the droopy scarrish face on his left(Our right)..

 

[Surfinn]

Unless *gasp* the characters didn't know who Rey was/that she was the thing at the center of the awakening they felt!

Neither Kylo nor Snoke had encountered her yet.



And just because there could be a larger picture doesn't mean we have any actual reason to believe that there is.

I don't disagree with you that it could be part of a larger picture. Where we disagree is that because you have no evidence to support that conclusion I don't think anyone needs to consider that possibility when speculating about other unanswered questions.

Especially when you're suggesting that the title of this film actually hasn't been fully explained within the film it's describing, and won't actually be fully explained until the next one (which will almost certainly have a different title).

The emperor had never encountered Luke before yet brought his feelings of a disturbance in the force to VADER'S attention. Again, I know TFA doesn't need to follow the plot points from ESB exactly, it's just worth pointing out.

I've already provided evidence; even if you don't see what I've listed as such, you're basically saying if we don't have any explicit evidence from TFA, said idea is not worth considering. As we've seen in the OT, ANH did NOT introduce evidence to support the idea of Vader being Luke's father, and even presented evidence to directly CONTRADICT that idea. I think you're applying the general principles of sound theorizing in the wrong context (speculating scripts that often wildly differ between films). Every idea or theory doesn't have to rigidly follow those principles in order to create worthwhile predictions and speculation based on where the story MIGHT be headed. Had you used the logic you're suggesting, you'd probably have already decided Luke's father could never be Vader.

Also, I'm not concluding anything. I'm not saying I'm right or that my speculation is more valid than anyone else's. I'm just saying I think the story WILL go there, not that there's not a possibility it won't.

My post above is an opinion, not a conclusion that it will happen.

 

[LegendofLex]

The emperor had never encountered Luke before yet brought his feelings of a disturbance in the force to VADER'S attention. Again, I know TFA doesn't need to follow the plot points from ESB exactly, it's just worth pointing out.

That's kind of an apples to oranges comparison, though, since from the moment we're introduced to the Emperor in ESB we know he already was aware of Luke (and the fact that he was Anakin's descendant and thus a Force user), even if he hadn't met him yet. In TFA, it's not clear whether Kylo or Snoke recognized or even suspected that "the scavenger" was the source of the awakening they'd felt; certainly neither of them had any specific reason to believe that at that point.

I've already provided evidence; even if you don't see what I've listed as such, you're basically saying if we don't have any explicit evidence from TFA, said idea is not worth considering. As we've seen in the OT, ANH did NOT introduce evidence to support the idea of Vader being Luke's father, and even presented evidence to directly CONTRADICT that idea.

There is no line of reasoning where Vader being Luke's father would have been a likely interpretation of the information we had from ANH, but that's largely because that detail hadn't even been thought of yet.

Even so, that doesn't suddenly mean that all bets are off and everything is equally likely.

I think you're applying the general principles of sound theorizing in the wrong context (speculating scripts that often wildly differ between films). Every idea or theory doesn't have to rigidly follow those principles in order to create worthwhile predictions and speculation based on where the story MIGHT be headed. Had you used the logic you're suggesting, you'd probably have already decided Luke's father could never be Vader.

Vader being Luke's father was indeed one of the most unlikeliest outcomes based on the information in ANH, even though it was the case per ESB.

The writers actually had to write in an explanation for why it was true despite being unlikely by the time ROTJ rolled around.

If we go off the idea that retcons can happen at any time and use that as a cornerstone of our reasoning, there's no reason to interpret any work based on what the work itself presents, because at any time those interpretations can be discarded to reconcile what would otherwise have been contradictions.

Maybe they set up the idea that Kylo actually did know Rey, but - fake-out! - he actually just knew her because he was having similar visions. Surprise!

Attempting to humor all of these possibilities makes debate meaningless, because you're no longer evaluating theories based on their likelihood; you're evaluating them based on the logic that the writers can do whatever they want (which, just like when writers do it, inevitably means you're just making up what you want to see instead of looking at what's likely).

Also, I'm not concluding anything. I'm not saying I'm right or that my speculation is more valid than anyone else's. I'm just saying I think the story WILL go there, not that there's not a possibility it won't.

The bolded part of your post is a conclusion, an affirmative "I think ____ will be the case" statement.

I'm saying that there's no reason that makes this conclusion a likely one, just a possible one. And I you're never going to get a group of people interested in discussing theories to say "your less-likely possibility is of equal merit to the more-likely possibility."

Anyway, I'm officially done with this line of discussion; I don't want to clog up the thread any longer.

tl;dr - I know the film allows for many possibilities, but I'm most interested in finding the most likely ones based on what we've seen, not on examining the more speculative ones.

 

[Surfinn]

That's kind of an apples to oranges comparison, though, since from the moment we're introduced to the Emperor in ESB we know he already was aware of Luke (and the fact that he was Anakin's descendant and thus a Force user), even if he hadn't met him yet. In TFA, it's not clear whether Kylo or Snoke recognized or even suspected that "the scavenger" was the source of the awakening they'd felt; certainly neither of them had any specific reason to believe that at that point.

If I remember correctly, there was no way he could have known of Luke prior to that conversation? Weren't Anakin's children hidden from him and the empire? Wasn't that the whole point?

There is no line of reasoning where Vader being Luke's father would have been a likely interpretation of the information we had from ANH, but that's largely because that detail hadn't even been thought of yet.

Even so, that doesn't suddenly mean that all bets are off and everything is equally likely.

One could argue that he's extremely hesitant and awkward while delivering his explanation. It's actually kind of ingenious if you watch it now.. totally does seem like he's lying, even if that wasn't their intention at the time. I can't say for certain how I would have felt seeing it for the first time, as I grew up with the films. I wonder if anyone questioned his explanation at the time (from the audience).

The bolded part of your post is a conclusion, an affirmative "I think ____ will be the case" statement.

I'm saying that there's no reason that makes this conclusion a likely one, just a possible one. And I you're never going to get a group of people interested in discussing theories to say "your less-likely possibility is of equal merit to the more-likely possibility."

I still haven't seen any presented theory that's more likely than the proposal of "the force awakening is more than simply Rey's involvement in the story". My theory is just as likely as the theory that points to Rey being the sole awakening, because we simply don't have enough information.

Again, we're back to square one of this shit is all based on pure assumption. Show me one (Rey and her lineage/connection to awakening) theory that is generally accepted as way ahead of all others, based on what we've seen in TFA alone.

That objectively doesn't exist because of the information at hand.

And as it seems we're going in circles (don't wanna get into THAT again in this thread), I'm going to go ahead and ultimately agree to disagree with you. Thanks for the conversation (and I'll check out the leading theory if you have a link to it).

 

[heliosRAzi]

One could argue that he's extremely hesitant and awkward while delivering his explanation. It's actually kind of ingenious if you watch it now.. totally does seem like he's lying, even if that wasn't their intention at the time. I can't say for certain how I would have felt seeing it for the first time, as I grew up with the films. I wonder if anyone questioned his explanation at the time (from the audience).

I don't think anyone questioned the explanation at the time. It's one of the reasons why the reveal that Vader is Luke's father is so memorable and unexpected. Obi Wan had to give his reasoning as to why he bent the truth (lied) and Yoda had to confirm it.

At the time of ANH, Vader wasn't meant to be Luke's father. Vader didn't sense that Luke was his son while the heroes were on the Death Star. Luke was given his family name of Skywalker. Luke was being hid on Tattooine, Anakin's homeworld. Luke was being raised by relatives. Furthermore, previous drafts of the Empire Strikes Back did not have Vader as being Luke's father. In one of them, Luke actually meets his father, but it's not Vader.

 

[Surfinn]

I don't think anyone questioned the explanation at the time. It's one of the reasons why the reveal that Vader is Luke's father is so memorable and unexpected. Obi Wan had to give his reasoning as to why he bent the truth (lied) and Yoda had to confirm it.

At the time of ANH, Vader wasn't meant to be Luke's father. Vader didn't sense that Luke was his son while the heroes were on the Death Star. Luke was given his family name of Skywalker. Luke was being hid on Tattooine, Anakin's homeworld. Luke was being raised by relatives. Furthermore, previous drafts of the Empire Strikes Back did not have Vader as being Luke's father. In one of them, Luke actually meets his father, but it's not Vader.

I bet if they knew Vader was Luke's father in ANH, the Emperor "disturbance in the force" scene would have been in there around the time Luke gets to the Death Star. Interesting how things turned out.

 

[Slime]

Hmmm

anyone we know? Obviously human, just with a messed up face..

Obvs: