ARCHIVE: Rey's Lineage Discussion II - 2

If you go back and track the inception of the ST, from GL, Arndt worked directly with him on those original  treatments. KK had meetings with GL also, then Kasdan & JJ took over, JJ had meetings with GL & KK.... If you then add the original concept art work and everything that is out there on the internet and a lot of it in the kenobi files and Pablo saying that this is the story GL left them with,

Pablo didn't say GL left them with the story of Jedi killer
Pablo didn't say GL left them with the story of Sam

In fact, didn't Pablo recently credit GL with the creation of Rey? That is a tweet that exists, I am sure it is in the Kenobi files also.

And then you add that with the quote from Daisy you start to get good idea of the timeline of events.

FrolickingFizzgig wrote:

Gemini wrote:Here's the part of the interview

so yes folks, she seems to have been told about what it was from the start but again it's open
To interpretation. To say quite clearly that it has ALWAYS been the same would imply pretty heavily that it literally means always from the start. Just my interpretation though.

@Gemini
There was another interview that broached this subject (I can't remember which came first), I just can't find it. In the other one she specified that she was told during the filming of TFA and that it hasn't changed since then. I highly doubt she even knows (or cares) about unused treatments or other ideas that were toyed with before she was even hired. We simply do not know, and this is another great example of confirmation bias. You see "it's always been the same" as "it's been the same forever and ever since the character was first created", which is not what it means at all... Daisy played the finished Rey concept and helped flesh out the character further. She played Rey from the script that JJ and Kasdan wrote, not the character from the Lucas treatment or Arndt treatments.

@FrolickingFizzgig

Here is the interview, Fizz (I think it's this one):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnYnpI4jV9U

DR says she heard Rey's backstory when they were filming VII. It's not clear whether it was always the same or not right from the start, she doesn't say. We can't be sure what changes took place between Lucas's early idea of a female Jedi and JJ and Ardt's script. And we know Lucas's version was rejected so who knows what remained (if anything). It's possible that it never changed, but we don't know. DR's words don't confirm this and it certainly can't be used as evidence for any particular lineage theory.

Pablo said Rey was created by Lucas and the writers that followed him (Pablo's exact words), which again doesn't tell us anything. We know the female protagonist concept came from Lucas, and we also know others continued working with the concept after Lucas' treatment was rejected.

In a lot of ways Daisy entered production late in the game. The script was already written by that point, and she (apparently) did not hear her character's background until TFA was actually being filmed. I just think there are different definitions of "the beginning" (as Pablo says consistently in his Tweets). There is the beginning with the Disney buyout, the beginning with hiring JJ as the director, the beginning with the Lucas treatment, the beginning with Arndt being in charge of scriptwriting and the beginning with JJ and Kasdan taking over script duty. Daisy's "beginning" would realistically be her appointment as "Rey", the protagonist. I don't understand why she would know about the entire writing process when she was hired to play a finished character. Also, why wasn't she told about her background until the movie was already filming? You would think if it was that big of a deal she would have known from the beginning... I bet Adam did.

None of this tells us who she is. None of it, and the insistence that it can only mean one theory is just so frustrating to see time and time again, along with the insistence that Lucas "never" would never have created a non-related character. We simply don't know...

Queen of the Knights wrote:

FrolickingFizzgig wrote:

Gemini wrote:Here's the part of the interview

so yes folks, she seems to have been told about what it was from the start but again it's open
To interpretation. To say quite clearly that it has ALWAYS been the same would imply pretty heavily that it literally means always from the start. Just my interpretation though.

@Gemini
There was another interview that broached this subject (I can't remember which came first), I just can't find it. In the other one she specified that she was told during the filming of TFA and that it hasn't changed since then. I highly doubt she even knows (or cares) about unused treatments or other ideas that were toyed with before she was even hired. We simply do not know, and this is another great example of confirmation bias. You see "it's always been the same" as "it's been the same forever and ever since the character was first created", which is not what it means at all... Daisy played the finished Rey concept and helped flesh out the character further. She played Rey from the script that JJ and Kasdan wrote, not the character from the Lucas treatment or Arndt treatments.

@FrolickingFizzgig

Here is the interview, Fizz (I think it's this one):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnYnpI4jV9U

DR says she heard Rey's backstory when they were filming VII. It's not clear whether it was always the same or not right from the start, she doesn't say. We can't be sure what changes took place between Lucas's early idea of a female Jedi and JJ and Ardt's script. And we know Lucas's version was rejected so who knows what remained (if anything). It's possible that it never changed, but we don't know. DR's words don't confirm this and it certainly can't be used as evidence for any particular lineage theory.

@Queen of the Knights

She has said its always been the same though

The definition of always is:at all times.

So it's clearer in my opinion that she means it's been the same at all times not just TFA production stage she was told. There's nothing she says which suggests that's when she only knows about. The word always is clear and concise and meaningful when I say always I don't mean only recently or something.

Gemini wrote:

Queen of the Knights wrote:

FrolickingFizzgig wrote:

Gemini wrote:Here's the part of the interview

so yes folks, she seems to have been told about what it was from the start but again it's open
To interpretation. To say quite clearly that it has ALWAYS been the same would imply pretty heavily that it literally means always from the start. Just my interpretation though.

@Gemini
There was another interview that broached this subject (I can't remember which came first), I just can't find it. In the other one she specified that she was told during the filming of TFA and that it hasn't changed since then. I highly doubt she even knows (or cares) about unused treatments or other ideas that were toyed with before she was even hired. We simply do not know, and this is another great example of confirmation bias. You see "it's always been the same" as "it's been the same forever and ever since the character was first created", which is not what it means at all... Daisy played the finished Rey concept and helped flesh out the character further. She played Rey from the script that JJ and Kasdan wrote, not the character from the Lucas treatment or Arndt treatments.

@FrolickingFizzgig

Here is the interview, Fizz (I think it's this one):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnYnpI4jV9U

DR says she heard Rey's backstory when they were filming VII. It's not clear whether it was always the same or not right from the start, she doesn't say. We can't be sure what changes took place between Lucas's early idea of a female Jedi and JJ and Ardt's script. And we know Lucas's version was rejected so who knows what remained (if anything). It's possible that it never changed, but we don't know. DR's words don't confirm this and it certainly can't be used as evidence for any particular lineage theory.

@Queen of the Knights

She has said its always been the same though

The definition of always is:at all times.

So it's clearer in my opinion that she means it's been the same at all times not just TFA production stage she was told. There's nothing she says which suggests that's when she only knows about. The word always is clear and concise and meaningful when I say always I don't say that when I mean only recently or something.

@Gemini
But Daisy's version of "the beginning" would not be the same as Lucas', JJ's, Arndt's or KK's... she was cast in spring of 2014, when the script had long-since been passed along to JJ and Kasdan.

I can make an educated guess, based on history of the creator, his work to date, previous films. The film TFA itself as evidence, narrative structure used by the creator, in the case of Star Wars Saga, ring composition and film language. Solid research into the history of the project, what was the early intentions etc...

No one else has to be comfortable with that, that is a journey we each have to take if we choose to.


I am going to give Daisy the benefit of the doubt of having intellectual curiosity... and also, the directors would want her to know who she was playing and in the case of Star Wars Saga who she is related too...

It's not unusual for actors to know the past and background and early concepts. Because the director does talk to them. I've seen this as I've worked in production.

"Comfortable" with it? It's a character backstory in a film. I think most of us are pretty "comfortable" with it being whatever it ends up being.

I asked Pablo, not that I expect it to prove anything to anybody.

For what must be the millionth time, none of us are uncomfortable with Rey being a legacy character. Some of us just don't see the evidence in TFA. It tells us who her parents aren't. She's not Luke or Leia's, it doesn't tell us who they are. Everything is speculation at this point.

BastilaBey wrote:For what must be the millionth time, none of us are uncomfortable with Rey being a legacy character. Some of us just don't see the evidence in TFA. It tells us who her parents aren't. She's not Luke or Leia's, it doesn't tell us who they are. Everything is speculation at this point.

@BastilaBey

Agreed. It is speculation

But again it's just up to interpretation what TFA showed or didn't show us, right?

It's not a fact from either view. Art is interpreted by the viewer and viewers see different things in a piece of art.

Time will tell which interpretation is correct.

Right because Pablo knows what was said and what wasn't. He knows every piece of conversation passed between everyone on set.

Daisy says she knows and it's always been the same. Pablo thinks she doesn't know

He says that tweet in his opinion not factually. "I can't see why"

@Gemini Of course. "We shall see".

Out of interest, do you think the audience was supposed to see that Rey was a Kenobi? Or is it a case of subtle groundwork being laid so that it makes sense once there is a reveal and people go back to rewatch TFA?

Gemini wrote:Right because Pablo knows what was said and what wasn't. He knows every piece of conversation passed between everyone on set.

Daisy says she knows and it's always been the same. Pablo thinks she doesn't know

He says that tweet in his opinion not factually. "I can't see why"

@Gemini
I was waiting for you to say exactly this.

BastilaBey wrote:@Gemini Of course. "We shall see".

Out of interest, do you think the audience was supposed to see that Rey was a Kenobi? Or is it a case of subtle groundwork being laid so that it makes sense once there is a reveal and people go back to rewatch TFA?

@BastilaBey

To be honest, I don't think so. The audience was supposed to see Rey skywalker. The clues which imo point to kenobi are things that are more subtle and are sewn into the narrative but for example if she turns out to be a kenobi. The audience will see that Ending to TFA and be like "oh yeah it showed us way back when, the saber didn't call to her because she's a skywalker, it called to her because she's a kenobi, and like obi wan needed to use it to get luke onto the fight"

Reywalker is the red herring. Kenobi imo is the true reason the saber called to her simply because of what she chose to do with it.

FrolickingFizzgig wrote:

Gemini wrote:Right because Pablo knows what was said and what wasn't. He knows every piece of conversation passed between everyone on set.

Daisy says she knows and it's always been the same. Pablo thinks she doesn't know

He says that tweet in his opinion not factually. "I can't see why"

@Gemini
I was waiting for you to say exactly this.

@FrolickingFizzgig

Glad to have entertained you.

don't see why you are trying to bait me with a laughing emoji though.

Gemini wrote:

FrolickingFizzgig wrote:

Gemini wrote:Right because Pablo knows what was said and what wasn't. He knows every piece of conversation passed between everyone on set.

Daisy says she knows and it's always been the same. Pablo thinks she doesn't know

He says that tweet in his opinion not factually. "I can't see why"

@Gemini
I was waiting for you to say exactly this.

@FrolickingFizzgig

Glad to have entertained you.

don't  see why you are trying to bait me with a laughing emoji though.

@Gemini
He did say it as an opinion with no factual evidence backing it up, so it was open to that particular interpretation. I mentioned when I posted the Tweet that I didn't expect it to prove anything to anyone. We really all have made up our minds about the character, and nothing but a canon story is going to change anything.

And again I feel like I need to post the eternal Lineage Thread disclaimer: I don't dislike the Rey Kenobi theory and would be completely satisfied if it were always intended to be canon.

It's really too bad that nobody can theorize about Rey's backstory without causing a flareup of a very familiar debate. This thread was dead for weeks before a new conversation began, and lo and behold the same old debate was reignited. As others have said time and time again, I don't think most people here care who Rey is. I know I don't. I have no objection whatsoever to Rey being a Kenobi. I do, however, have disdain for the way the theory is presented. The amount of reaching used to verify Rey being Obi-Wan's grandaughter provokes some serious eye rolling on my part (not all, just most). And of course the fact that posters can hardly theorize casually about Rey's origin without having Rey Kenobi evidence presented to them even though they never asked for it. This is all coming from somebody who really, truly has no qualms whatsoever with Rey being a Kenobi. Bring it on ST. I'm down for whatever provides us with the best overall story.

To be honest it's a discussion thread so debating will happen between those with differing opinions? I don't see where it says that old debates can't start up again.

The conversation was/is fine apart from one thing which I think was baiting.

I'm not debating about her being a kenobi, im fine with that. I'm debating about evidence which imo suggests that her backstory has never changed.

If it has never changed from Lucas then it's a guess that she is a legacy character and not someone new, based on how he writes.

Gemini wrote:To be honest it's a discussion thread so debating will happen between those with differing opinions? I don't see where it says that old debates can't start up again.

The conversation was/is fine apart from one thing which I think was baiting.

I'm not debating about her being a kenobi, I'm debating about evidence which imo suggests that her backstory has never changed.

If it has never changed from Lucas then it's a guess that she is a legacy character and not someone new, based on how he writes.

@Gemini
I'm just glad it's happening in the appropriate thread for the first time in three months lol.

Well, Pablo's Tweet was enough to tell me that there's no reason to think Daisy (who was cast to play a finished character) would know anything about the rather secret Lucas treatment, and therefore her definition of "never changed" would imply that it never changed from when she first heard the backstory during the filming of TFA. I'm not sure where the idea that the the Lucas, Arndt and JJ/KK treatments were all the same came from, but it's an opinion I always feel reading certain posts. Meanwhile, Jedi Killer wasn't even human to begin with and the story had no real direction until JJ and KK took over. So yeah...

Please refrain from baiting when discussing this topic. 95% of the flare-ups in this thread occur when one side is not respectful to the other. I've seen this occur on both sides of the debate recently, so please know that no faction is being singled out. If you have questions, please feel free to pm one of the staff on what is appropriate.

That said, I believe Daisy has stated repeatedly she knows who Rey's parents are. I don't think the central story has changed much since day 1, although there is much debate on what counts as "day one." From what I gather, both the central romance and Rey's origins were the first to be planned, and then Finn, Maz and Poe came later on.

@Iojovi I guess the key question there would be, if there was always that central romance, was 'jedi killer' always the son of Han and Leia? Or is it possible that this young female hero was the Skywalker, and he was an unrelated character?

IoJovi wrote:Please refrain from baiting when discussing this topic.  95% of the flare-ups in this thread occur when one side is not respectful to the other.  I've seen this occur on both sides of the debate recently, so please know that no faction is being singled out. If you have questions, please feel free to pm one of the staff on what is appropriate.

That said, I believe Daisy has stated repeatedly she knows who Rey's parents are.  I don't think the central story has changed much since day 1, although there is much debate on what counts as "day one."  From what I gather, both the central romance and Rey's origins were the first to be planned, and then Finn, Maz and Poe came later on.  

@IoJovi

Thank you and I agree with you that it has not changed from day one.

That seems to what has been said across various forms of media from concept design books to Pablo and Daisy and people who seem to have spoken to JJ.

Again just interpretation.

BastilaBey wrote:@Iojovi I guess the key question there would be, if there was always that central romance, was 'jedi killer' always the son of Han and Leia? Or is it possible that this young female hero was the Skywalker, and he was an unrelated character?

@BastilaBey

I think that goes back to Pablo's tweet - the creators didn't have Rey's backstory mapped out yet - they only knew who she wasn't (which was an awesome tweet, I admit!).  As far as Jedi Killer goes, he began as a dark entity that ate stars, so there's that.  I doubt he was Han and Leia's son at that point.

@Gemini That is interesting isn't it.  It seems that Daisy and Pablo conflict on this.  Of course, what counts as day one could be completely different to someone else. Now that I think about it though, it does make sense. Pablo would have been involved with this long before Daisy was hired, so of course each would have two different interpretations of when the process began.

@IoJovi
I understand that, but like you said, there are different definitions of "day one." Daisy's "day one" is not the same as JJ's "day one" or Lucas' "day one", considering the fact that she didn't enter production until the story itself was basically finalized, and even then she wasn't told until TFA's filming had already begun.

The central story definitely changed between the Lucas and JJ treatments. Jedi Killer wasn't the original villain, there was a female Sith in Lucas' version instead. Jedi Killer was an Arndt/JJ concept, and even then he wasn't human or a legacy character to begin with. Nobody can tell me the narratives were fundamentally the same when the major villain was different in each treatment to the extent that one was female, one was a weird looking red alien and one was a human/anti-villain and Han and Leia's son.

To me, "day one" means the moment when JJ and Kasdan took over the script. That was really when the ST came into focus. Before that it was a bunch of ideas and concepts with no real direction. They used some ideas and abandoned others. The concept of a female force sensitive finding her place in the Force came from Lucas, but we don't know how much that theme evolved over time as it was handed off to different writers...

IoJovi wrote:

BastilaBey wrote:@Iojovi I guess the key question there would be, if there was always that central romance, was 'jedi killer' always the son of Han and Leia? Or is it possible that this young female hero was the Skywalker, and he was an unrelated character?

@BastilaBey

I think that goes back to Pablo's tweet - the creators didn't have Rey's backstory mapped out yet - they only knew who she wasn't (which was an awesome tweet, I admit!).  As far as Jedi Killer goes, he began as a dark entity that ate stars, so there's that.  I doubt he was Han and Leia's son at that point.  

@IoJovi

Does anyone have the tweet where he says the backstory wasn't mapped out yet for her as in Rey.

Because it seems like it has not changed from other tweets where he says the story Lucas left is what they used with Rey in particular. Also George Lucas' son seeming to know the back story when he called Rey "Anastasia" (story of a Royal who loses it all and ends up in rags.)

Reys name does mean regal in French and King in Spanish. I think there's some clues there. Lots of thought goes into a name.

Actually if you search names which mean regal or royalty you get Rey in Google.

     Rey means "king" in Spanish and Occitan, derived from the Latin rex(King) It is used as a surname throughout the world. It is also used as a given name for both males and females, sometimes as an alternative to Raymond.

Meaning. Spanish Meaning: The name Rey is a Spanish baby name. ... In French the meaning of the name Rey is: Regal.