SNeaker

I think one of the producers referred to the fact that the "main" story is the Skywalker story, whereas things like Rogue One and others are standalones in the same universe but in a spinoffy way. Now, there is a current generation Skywalker in Kylo, but if he's the last of his line while Rey is a Kenobi and NOT a Skywalker (though of course she could be both) then we have a problem as far as the Skywalker aspect of the story.

Accents in Star Wars has never made any sense. If the Jedi were all taken from their families at a very young age and raised on Coruscant...why do they all have different accents? My guess for Finn is that they wanted at least one American-sounding lead good guy and had to differentiate between him and Rey. Rey's accent is not unlike her alien guardian, no? Though it's funny given the joke that Imperials always have clipped British accents.

Because the movie didn't just take away their happiness, it took the happiness they created and turned it against them. If they'd had a son who died, but they had 15 years with him, I would say that it's very sad and tragic, but that it wouldn't ruin their happy ending because they still did something and still accomplished something. The problem I have with this movie isn't that it's a continuation of the story that should have just ended, it's that it's not a continuation at all -- it's a giant reset button. Kylo didn't just go evil -- he destroyed Luke's work reinstating the Jedi, tore apart his parents' marriage, and eventually murdered his own father. Stormtroopers are terrorizing innocent people led by a dude in a black cape and mask and uniformed British-accented Aryans, and the Empire -- er, First Order -- is destroying whole planets again. So what did the original trilogy accomplish, exactly? In fact, the galaxy might have been better off if Han and Leia had never had a child to turn evil and cause so much damage. So the "15 years of bliss" have been marred. Their love *caused* this mayhem and destruction. That's not how I really wanted things to go for them, ya know? Which is why the only potential salvation will be if Rey is theirs. But even so, why should I get invested in these new characters and hope for their triumph if I know it can all be undone? Why should I root for the Skywalker family if it seems that the line is just clearly too tainted (Ben, who did not have the troubled childhood of Anakin or the stifling bureaucracy of the Jedi Order to deal with went evil rather easily) and they should probably just sterilize themselves to protect the galaxy? I would say I hope Rey is his sister just to end the shipping, but...that never stopped people before.

I think of it as like wizards/witches in Harry Potter. Their children will have magical abilities (barring the occasional squib), but there are also plenty of Muggleborn witches and wizards born all the time. Perhaps the old Jedi didn't know it could be hereditary, or perhaps they did and specifically tried to prevent too many from being created as it would be more difficult to train and control them and not let them fall to the Dark Side.

But what's a little plot hole between friends? :) Seriously, though, Vader didn't recognize Leia when he tortured her, and while Leia always felt a connection to Luke she didn't realize he was her brother. Else she might not have kissed him. Twice. It is true that if Leia and Han had a daughter and this girl shows up whom Leia feels a connection to (which she must, given that hug) that she should suspect something. But the same would be true if Rey is Luke's daughter. And Kylo may not have been the one to tell Leia that Rey was dead -- she could have just assumed it from the massacre with no survivors. I do think Luke's daughter makes more sense given the events of this movie. But on an emotional level I'm hoping for Solo.

He hasn't been gone for 30 years. Ben is about 30, from what I can gather, and probably a teenager when he went evil and destroyed the Jedi academy that Luke had restarted. It was then that Luke went into exile, so say 10-15 years before TFA. Rey is probably 20ish as of this film. Which would put her at about 5 when she was abandoned. The way I see it, they're providing clues to point to her either being Luke's or Han/Leia's daughter with the intention of keeping us guessing. They might enjoy the "twist" of her being neither, but I hope they don't go that route or what's the point. For Luke as father: Her connection to the lightsaber, piloting talent, seeing him in the flashback, seeming fascinated with him, being the one to find him, and Han and Leia not either recognizing her or mentioning a lost daughter. For Han/Leia as parents: Connection to Anakin's lightsaber could also be through Leia, piloting talent could be through Han (and Anakin), instinctive knowledge with the Falcon, connection to Han and seeing him as father figure, understanding Chewie (and his obvious affection for her), the hug with Leia (whom she hadn't actually met at that point), and no need for a rando love interest for Luke.

I've been thinking and thinking about Rey's abandonment on Jakku and who would have done it. It seems hard for me to imagine Luke abandoning his daughter or niece and ignoring her cries even if he thought it was for her own safety. He himself disappeared -- if it was him who did it, why couldn't he have just taken her with him to wherever he ran off to? So now I wonder if maybe it was actually Kylo himself. Unable to bring himself to kill his little sister or cousin (especially early on in his fall to the dark side), he instead abandons her on a far off planet (not evil enough to kill her, but cold enough to ignore her cries, and it would explain why she seems to have not wanted him to leave her since he would be someone she would know and love) and lets everyone believe she died. He seemed particularly upset when the First Order goon mentioned a girl and there seemed to be a kind of fascination with her on his part -- plus he did want to take her on as apprentice.

On the one hand, I want Kylo redeemed if just for Leia's sake and because it's what Han would have wanted. But I also feel like it would almost be cruel to do it. Kind of like giving a vampire back his soul. How could Ben ever live with himself after killing his own father? It would be torture.

You guys are killing me. Killing me. This was exactly why I approached these movies with trepidation. Yes, the prequels were terrible and unwatchable, but ultimately...they just didn't matter. It was disappointing not to get good movies, but they were always extra. The backstory and history behind a story we already knew and which had a happy ending. These new movies may be technically better and have the "feel" of Star Wars, but at what cost? I had 30 years to imagine a future for these characters (with some help from the books -- I didn't read all of them and tended to pick and choose which aspects I accepted in my head canon) and now all these years later they're going in and messing with it. For what? What is this amazing and new story they are telling that makes it worth it? So far at least, I'm not seeing anything special or unique -- any new theme or lesson or story that just needs to be told. Other than "life is shit and the same cycles of tragedy will repeat forever so don't even bother." Er. Great message, there. Maybe the next movies will flesh it out and develop the story, but based on this one, I remain skeptical. Especially since...well, let's be honest. We don't have a new Star Wars movie because someone thought of an amazing idea for a Star Wars story. We have it because some people wanted to make a lot of money and they hired people to come up with a new story. I'm sure everyone involved wanted it to be good, but there is a difference between something that is the result of inspiration and creativity and something that is the result of an assignment.

I could see how if they had lost another child when she was young -- and especially if Ben were directly or indirectly responsible -- it would be too painful to even discuss. She's gone (in their minds) but Ben can still be "saved," so that's what they discuss. Yoda died in Jedi.

They never said it for sure, My head canon until they either confirm/deny is that they did get married and were still married as of this movie, just separated and estranged. I agree. I wouldn't assume Luke would keep that rule when starting a new Jedi order. I don't think it was that aspect that made people assume Rey would be Solo rather than Skywalker when the photos/trailer first came out -- it was simply that Leia had a love interest while Luke had none at the end of the original trilogy, so it stood to reason she and Han would have kids, and here is a woman in the trailer with that same Carrie/Natalie look.

Right. And the reason people assumed from the trailers that she was an Organa/Solo is because Han and Leia were an actual couple in the movies who ended the first trilogy together and Daisy Ridley has the same look as both Carrie and Natalie. I think it's safe to say that most people assumed over the years that Luke would go on to restart the Jedi knights and that Leia and Han would produce children to redeem the family (which makes the fact that their son has now turned evil and the one to destroy Luke's work all the more bleak.) It's what happened in the books. The reason why I personally want Rey to be a Skywalker or Solo is because I do want a "good" Jedi in the family line and because yeah, the main series is about this family. I'll take her being Luke's daughter, but I'd prefer her to be a Solo (perhaps hidden from her parents who were told she was dead after Ben went evil) just so that Han can have had a child who wasn't a lame emo. One that he had the chance to get to know before he died. The only thing that intrigues me about the upcoming movies and makes me still anticipate them given my disappointment with how derivative and pointless this one was is the potential for exploration of the Luke/Leia/Ben/Rey relationships. If Rey's not in the family, I don't really see the point of the story at all. I totally picked up on the fact that JJ did this deliberately to mimic the first movie (as he did pretty much *everything* in mimicry of the first movie), but I think it was a huge misstep. It's NOT the first movie. It's the seventh in a series. It's one thing to plop us into a brand new movie but have the characters say things that imply a long and deep history of a rich universe without needing to explain things. But you can't continue an existing story thirty years later without explaining what happened in the preceding thirty years. Instead of enriching the story, it takes away from the depth. I have a long and deep connection to Han. But I have NO connection to his son. Without showing me their relationship, without making me understand what it was like when it was good -- when it was loving and warm -- I couldn't feel the true impact of Han's betrayal by his son. He got killed by a person who is a virtual stranger to me and whom I have no personal investment in.

I really loved all of the new characters. Rey, Finn, Poe, and BB-8 -- all awesome. I want to spend more time with them. I wish they were in a movie with a smidgen of originality.

Except the ending of the first movie was clearly "they won the battle, not the war" given that Vader was still alive. The problem isn't that the win may have been temporary. The problem is that it may not have been a win at all. I don't think anyone's claiming that there wouldn't still be work and fighting to do in order to achieve democracy again, and that peace and prosperity would be enjoyed everywhere by all living beings forever and ever. But that's not the same as them not winning at all and our heroes never finding any personal happiness. I would be 100% fine with (and thrilled to see) a movie 30 years in the future that states that after a period of relative calm and the creation of a New Republic, a new threat is rising and it's up to a new generation of scrappy young heroes (with the help of the old one) to fight it. It could even be Neo-Imperialists picking up the mantle. But it's supposed to be a sequel. From what I can tell, this is more like a reboot.

THANK YOU. I am so so bothered by this concept and most people I know don't seem to get it and think I'm just being cranky. I mean, I'm planning to see it (tonight) but I've been ambivalent about it since they were announced and even more so as each nugget of info and footage came out. And what bothers me is A. What's the point? Did we need new Star Wars movies? If we did, did we have to ruin the ending of the originals to get one? and B. There seems to be a serious lack of creative vision involved in this one. I truly believe the people making the movie wanted to make a good Star Wars movie that has the feel and fun and adventure of the originals, but there's something extremely self-conscious about the fact that they're using the same characters to tell the same story with the same bad guys. Here in the real world we defeated the Nazis, then we had the Cold War, now terrorism. Different threats from different places with different stakes. Why couldn't they say "And then a New Republic was formed and there was a time of relative peace and prosperity, but now a new threat rises?" and create something original? Why should we care if the good guys of the current films triumph if 30 years later we can be told "Actually, they didn't. Their lives after the credits rolled sucked and the same damn threat is still ongoing?"

I don't think it's meant to be, though. It's meant to be more like "Castaway." In space. A survival story starring a giant nerd with a wry sense of humor. I think it's meant to be much more lighthearted and relatable. As a lover of the book, I did not enjoy the movie as much (particularly some of the changes they made to the ending) but overall good adaptation. I probably would have liked it more had I not read the book, but that's how it goes. I was glad they didn't add some wife and kid for Mark as I'd feared. My friend and I, who already loved the "Council of Elrond" scene from the book, lost our shit when it hit us that Sean Bean was playing Mitch in that scene and started going on about how one doesn't merely...walk onto Mars. Heh.

I wondered that too, but then she had a bump at the baptism. Rhona is no Terri Schuester (plus she was trying to get Andre to sleep with her), so I don't think she's wearing a fake baby bump. Instead I wonder if Rhonda suspects that the baby may not be Andre's, given the "games" she and Andre used to play.

I legit watched Jake's confused little Gina head kiss about a dozen times. Soooo cute.

The Rogue Squadron books were my faves! But they didn't introduce Thrawn, the Zahn trilogy did. Those (the Zahn books) were ok, but more serious and political than I like. To me Star Wars is supposed to also be funny and fun, and that's what I felt like most of the books were missing. The Rogue and Wraith Squadron books were great because they had adventure and humor, and it was actually good that they mostly left out Luke/Leia/Han since most writers couldn't write for them properly. I could take or leave most of the books, but when I picked a new one up at B&N out of curiosity, I was shocked at seeing the whole timeline just gone, even though I knew the old books were no longer going to be considered canon. It's hard to think of Corran, Tycho, Mirax, the book versions of Janson and Wedge, Face, et al just wiped out.

Yes, but that was during the age of the Empire, after Palpatine and Vader deliberately wiped out the Jedi and all memory of them.

But they were setting up the New Republic at the same time. So yes, there were still remnants to fight and all that (and I quit before the Yuuzzhan whatever thing), but they were still building something at the same time. The trailer implies that nothing got built. If Rey is either Luke's or Leia's daughter, then what I'm seeing is that with everything they fought for in the original trilogy, they couldn't even build a better future long enough to raise their own children. (Though maybe we're all wrong and she's actually a grandchild -- the ages would make more sense, tbh.) Well, I agree, but I wouldn't put it past them. I trust no one.

But if there was no, like, reinstatement of the Jedi and a new hope with the eventual Skywalker/Solo offspring redeeming the Skywalker name, then it makes a lot of the original trilogy kind of bogus. So they won, but...eh, it was kind of temporary, they didn't really succeed in rebuilding anything either Jedi wise or galactic republic wise. So why should we believe it if this trilogy ends with the bad guys defeated again if we know the good guys may not actually accomplish anything. Anyway, right now my working theory is that Luke fell to the dark side and Han and Leia sent their daughter away (or someone else did and told them she died) to a desert planet to protect her from being corrupted by Luke. So it's the same story all over again with a girl in the lead (the way Lucas originally intended.)

See, I dunno, this whole concept bothers me. Even though I can let go of the books (much of which I didn't like and ignored anyway) I need to feel like the end of Return of the Jedi ushered in an era of peace and prosperity and a new Jedi order based on Luke (and Leia) and Leia and Han's future children. The idea that not that long in the future people don't even know it all happened is bizarre to me. I feel like I kind of wish this story was taking place even further in the future, like centuries even, with no Han/Leia/Luke at all, and so it's ok for that time period to be kind of shrouded in myth and mystery and the legends of these great historic heroes, but why so soon after it have people forgotten if nothing changed after the triumph at the end of the original trilogy? I know I'm probably overthinking it, but this is why I've been ambivalent since they announced the new movies. No, nothing could be worse than the prequels, but the prequels were backstory. They couldn't ruin the original trilogy or the original characters for me the way the new movies can.

I've seen him live, and yeah, pretty amazing. As for Dianna...I wish her success, but I'm not surprised by these reviews. These are the same issues I had with her on Glee. As others have said, she's not best suited for the stage. Her greatest strength is not just her beauty but the fact that the camera loves her.

Hmm. I never had anything against Melissa, but I really like the trailer...except for her. There is something very odd about the way she talks that bugs me.