The Choc Posted September 4, 2015 Author Share Posted September 4, 2015 I'd be surprised if he is Lukes kid just because it opens up so much stuff. Who is the mom? Where is the mom? That kinda stuff. Having him or anyone else being Han and Leias kid is nice and clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen123 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Well... "The Last Jedi" certainly says A LOT!I hear you, but.. the plural of Jedi is Jedi, right? So he could be referring to a group there, not just Luke. Technically. But every time they were mentioned as a group in the films it was "THE Jedi." "The last of the Jedi" vs "The last Jedi." Either way, though, it suggests that even if Luke isn't THE last one, there aren't many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Choc Posted September 5, 2015 Author Share Posted September 5, 2015 I think like Tank has said that in this trilogy we will get some of the things we wanted to get in the PT but didn't. Mainly larger scale saber fights. Not like an army vs an army but 5 against 5, 7 against 7. That kinda thing. We've all read about the Knights of Ren, so its certainly possible that we meet some of Kylo's buddies in Episode VIII. Then maybe you have Luke in hiding training one or more Jedi, then possibly adding Finn and Rey to that group. So in VIII we could have Luke, Rey, Finn and possible more students against the Knights of Ren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 That would certainly make me happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Choc Posted September 5, 2015 Author Share Posted September 5, 2015 For some reason I believe the rumors that they are casting another main female character for Episode VIII who will be Han and Leia's daughter. I've always felt that this trilogy will eventually boil down to brother vs sister. We've had teacher vs student, father vs son. Brother vs sister makes sense. I just couldn't see how Rey could be Han's daughter based on the rumors out there, which seem to get at least somewhat confirmed as more and more stuff comes out. I mean it didn't seem like Rey knew she was a Solo, which would mean she was sent into hiding very early. It didn't seem like upon meeting her Han knew it was his daughter either, which seemed even more impossible. But now I'm thinking she isn't a Solo. Which brings me back to the rumor about a Solo daughter being cast in VIII. My thought is that Luke lost his nephew to the dark side and decided to go into hiding with his niece to train her. He told Leia that he'd send a signal when he was ready to come out of hiding, thats the light saber and where the movie picks up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavonis Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 You've always felt that the trilogy - the first of which hasn't even been released yet - will boil down to sibling rivalry, with lightsabers? Maybe. I suppose the Skywalkers and Solos aren't likely to raise normal children to emotionally healthy adulthood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odine Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Well... "The Last Jedi" certainly says A LOT!I hear you, but.. the plural of Jedi is Jedi, right? So he could be referring to a group there, not just Luke. Technically. But every time they were mentioned as a group in the films it was "THE Jedi." "The last of the Jedi" vs "The last Jedi." Either way, though, it suggests that even if Luke isn't THE last one, there aren't many.Yeah I agree. However I was always under the assumption that there would not be that many Jedi running around. A handful at best. It seems highly improbable that in the 30 years after ROTJ a brand new Jedi order flush with padawans, knights and apprentices (akin to the order of old) has sprung up all thanks to Luke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen123 Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Well... "The Last Jedi" certainly says A LOT!I hear you, but.. the plural of Jedi is Jedi, right? So he could be referring to a group there, not just Luke. Technically. But every time they were mentioned as a group in the films it was "THE Jedi." "The last of the Jedi" vs "The last Jedi." Either way, though, it suggests that even if Luke isn't THE last one, there aren't many.Yeah I agree. However I was always under the assumption that there would not be that many Jedi running around. A handful at best. It seems highly improbable that in the 30 years after ROTJ a brand new Jedi order flush with padawans, knights and apprentices (akin to the order of old) has sprung up all thanks to Luke. This is one of those things where the idea of there being very few Jedi 30 years after ROTJ is more of a revelation to people who followed the EU since by the same time period, there were quite a few Jedi by that time. I didn't read the last series of novels, so I have no idea what may have happened there, but I believe there were at leas a hundred Jedi by that time. To go from that to a handful, at best, is a substantial reduction. Based on the various rumors we've seen, this isn't super surprising at this point, of course, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I'm going with there being ONE. Luke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen123 Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Only Ren speak in such terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavonis Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 In the OT, the bad guys told the truth and the good guys lied. I wouldn't expect that to change for the sequels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen123 Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 In the OT, the bad guys told the truth and the good guys lied. I wouldn't expect that to change for the sequels.That's an awfully revealing statement about yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavonis Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Really? Vader: "No. I am your father." True. Kenobi: "[Vader] betrayed and murdered your father." False. Even ignoring that, what reason do we have to think Ren is lying (in character)? To whom would he lie, and for what reason? Just 'cause he's "evil"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen123 Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Sorry. I meant that your observation is spot on, so if you're telling the truth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavonis Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 It's just semantics. Most people when they hear there is a dark side, in their heads they will think the opposite of that is the light side. Luke says in ROTJ that he wants to turn his father back to the good side. Same exact thing, just a different word. Light means good.I've been thinking about the idea that dialogue, names, and terms we've heard are "just" semantics. Different words and word combinations have different meanings. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that screenwriters look to choose the words they use in their stories carefully. For instance, the "last of the Jedi" versus "the last Jedi" sound the same but are can be interpreted differently to imply different statuses for the Jedi order. Did Luke actually train anyone after ROTJ? Are any of them practicing Jedi? Did any of them survive over the decades? I think the same should be considered for the teaser trailer dialogue from Snoke: "There has been an awakening. Have you felt it? The dark side, and the light." Just having a term for the good side of the force implies that it is neutral. It was always presented as inherently good, though with potential for perversion through embracing fear, anger and hatred, in the original trilogy. To wave this new dialogue away as "semantics" is to ignore potentially new approaches to the use and abuse of the force in the new movies. In fact, there are many other semantic changes that we've not really discussed. Why is the Rebellion the Resistance now? Why is the Empire the First Order? There must be a reason for the renaming by the producers and writers, other than just to be different from the original films. The Rebels were the "Alliance to Restore the Republic", a group dedicated to overthrowing the galactic government and establishing their own. From what we've learned so far, it doesn't look like they managed to do that. What is the Resistance? A resistance movement aims to fight against an occupying force, or just thwart the goals of the government in general. The scales of the two groups - Rebels versus Resistance - seem very different, with the Resistance likely to be a vastly smaller organization. I would hazard that the Rebels didn't win the war at the end of ROTJ, but rather just a big battle at Endor. Granted that they decapitated the Imperial government, but empires do not fall quickly. Killing the Emperor didn't eliminate the innumberable stormtrooper garrisons around the galaxy, nor discourage the Imperial governors and moffs from maintaining order. The infrastructure of the Empire was too well-established to simply disappear with Palpatine's death. The articles I've read suggest that the First Order is the type of organization you might get if the Nazis had retreated to Argentina after the Second World War. I'd expect that to mean the bad guys took a chance to regroup, reorganize and rethink their goals and their methods. What might those goals be? Will there be much difference in the methods of the First Order versus the old Empire? The First Order may simply have a better public relations department than the Empire now. They're not the Empire apparently, they don't want to use the name for some reason. Something about them must be different. Otherwise, the old terms would be just as good as the new ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 As a screenwriter, if I was talking about more than one dude, I'd say "the last of the" ...and reserve "The last" if it were just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen123 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Take a shot anytime someone says "of the" in Leatherface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen123 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 In the OT, the bad guys told the truth and the good guys lied. I wouldn't expect that to change for the sequels.On a related note: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavonis Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 "Molten lava" is redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Choc Posted September 7, 2015 Author Share Posted September 7, 2015 It's just semantics. Most people when they hear there is a dark side, in their heads they will think the opposite of that is the light side. Luke says in ROTJ that he wants to turn his father back to the good side. Same exact thing, just a different word. Light means good.I've been thinking about the idea that dialogue, names, and terms we've heard are "just" semantics. Different words and word combinations have different meanings. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that screenwriters look to choose the words they use in their stories carefully. For instance, the "last of the Jedi" versus "the last Jedi" sound the same but are can be interpreted differently to imply different statuses for the Jedi order. Did Luke actually train anyone after ROTJ? Are any of them practicing Jedi? Did any of them survive over the decades? I think the same should be considered for the teaser trailer dialogue from Snoke: "There has been an awakening. Have you felt it? The dark side, and the light." Just having a term for the good side of the force implies that it is neutral. It was always presented as inherently good, though with potential for perversion through embracing fear, anger and hatred, in the original trilogy. To wave this new dialogue away as "semantics" is to ignore potentially new approaches to the use and abuse of the force in the new movies. In fact, there are many other semantic changes that we've not really discussed. Why is the Rebellion the Resistance now? Why is the Empire the First Order? There must be a reason for the renaming by the producers and writers, other than just to be different from the original films. The Rebels were the "Alliance to Restore the Republic", a group dedicated to overthrowing the galactic government and establishing their own. From what we've learned so far, it doesn't look like they managed to do that. What is the Resistance? A resistance movement aims to fight against an occupying force, or just thwart the goals of the government in general. The scales of the two groups - Rebels versus Resistance - seem very different, with the Resistance likely to be a vastly smaller organization. I would hazard that the Rebels didn't win the war at the end of ROTJ, but rather just a big battle at Endor. Granted that they decapitated the Imperial government, but empires do not fall quickly. Killing the Emperor didn't eliminate the innumberable stormtrooper garrisons around the galaxy, nor discourage the Imperial governors and moffs from maintaining order. The infrastructure of the Empire was too well-established to simply disappear with Palpatine's death. The articles I've read suggest that the First Order is the type of organization you might get if the Nazis had retreated to Argentina after the Second World War. I'd expect that to mean the bad guys took a chance to regroup, reorganize and rethink their goals and their methods. What might those goals be? Will there be much difference in the methods of the First Order versus the old Empire? The First Order may simply have a better public relations department than the Empire now. They're not the Empire apparently, they don't want to use the name for some reason. Something about them must be different. Otherwise, the old terms would be just as good as the new ones. I think the point of the change in names for the Resistance and Empire is something like this: The Alliance/Rebellion did win the war against the Empire eventually. They set up a government that probably was successful and strong in parts of the Galaxy, less so in others. The Empire was defeated, maybe even formally surrended or whatever. But ofcourse not every single person affiliated with them were killed. So as I said the New Republic was strong in certain parts of the Galaxy, but not all. Some of the former Imperial leaders saw this and started anew trying to take over the parts of the Galaxy that the Republic was weaker in. They were successful. But they weren't "The Empire" anymore. Why not? Because they aren't an Empire. An Empire is a government that rules over a vast area of different peoples. That definition probably doesn't apply to The First Order. My basic theory is that there is a Republic established in parts of the Galaxy. The First Order is then controlling other parts of it, but the Republic has no stomach for fighting The First Order. So the Resistance is a movement inside First Order controlled area's, fighting against the First Order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Choc Posted September 7, 2015 Author Share Posted September 7, 2015 You've always felt that the trilogy - the first of which hasn't even been released yet - will boil down to sibling rivalry, with lightsabers? Maybe. I suppose the Skywalkers and Solos aren't likely to raise normal children to emotionally healthy adulthood. Even before they announced the new trilogy I thought if they ever did make sequels that they'd be centered on a fight between siblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts