The Potentially Non-Romantic Connection Between Kylo Ren and Rey

IoJovi wrote:

Helix wrote:Imagine if everything was the same, but Kylo was played by Steve Buscemi. Too much sexual tension, there's no way it wouldn't be romantic.

@Helix

Post of the day.  Bravo!!!  

But seriously - why make Adam Driver, who is already a good looking guy by all definitions, look like an absolute god among men as Kylo Ren, have him stare at Rey with those eyes of his like she's the only pool of water in the entire desert, and not go anywhere with it?  

@IoJovi

That's one of the first things that struck me in the interrogation scene, how completely dolled up and prettified they had made the actor.  My assumption was that they made him look so good to appeal to both Rey and the audience.  Attractive people are usually put together in films for a reason.  Then the director's commentary came out in which J.J. confirmed that Kylo was made to look like a "prince".

Here is what I've been wondering lately, though.  I've read much about "subverting tropes" since TFA was released, and I've never been quite sure that I understand what it means.  Is it possible that the point was to make it look, on the surface, like a typical Disney prince and princess situation, running down the steps of the castle, the bridal carry, his appearance, etc., only to turn the whole thing on its head and say, "Ah ha!  It's not going where you think it's going.  Rey will be the new generation strong female character who doesn't need a prince to rescue her and doesn't need help to defeat the bad guy!", thus "subverting the trope".

I don't know if I've been coherent here.  Hopefully somebody understands what I'm asking!

I'd love to be part of @Darth Dingbat's cake discussion and am seriously bummed at the thought of less @BastilaBey around here, one of the people who made me stick around here. However I'll agree with @Helix, some of the counter posts, however well meant, are also slightly wrong footed. This is a place to discuss the non-romantic possibilities and given that for some posters, that's the conclusion they've come to, they should be respected instead of given the counter arguments. It's kind of like when you've reached a certain conclusion or are not feeling well and the response you get is somebody trying to talk you out of it/fix the situation. When sometimes the best thing to do is to just let somebody talk and listen to what they have to say. So some of these counter arguments, it's not that I disagree with the thesis of romanticism being a key intended element in the what's been shown. Just that if somebody has their doubts or has shifted their interpretation to mean that it's going to be more about their relationship together as the two sides of the Force working together, please be respectful and let them have their unique individual interpretation. For all the smart people here, consider the discussions and debates you've had in the classroom or conferences and concede the same level of respect in allowing others to have their own varying interpretations (which is really miniscule because we all agree that the main outcome is that they have the central relationship and will have to work together) and leave it at that. Another thing about smart people is that we can be very egotistical about our ability to solve puzzles or figure things out. And to be honest, reading @BastilaBey's post really made me sad. Because I want to keep talking/goofing out, theories right or wrong, with people like that. Not because I want to win a debate or prove that I'm smarter/can figure things out better than other fans. That's always why I preface my conjectures with statements like "it could be," "this would be plausible," or "if the filmmakers intend to come at it from this angle et cetera."

Otherwise I agree with @ISeeanIsland's take, that there are more than likely elements introduced in TFA which may have been intended to be romantic. But whether or not the filmmakers follow up with that (thought it seems dumb they'd release JJ's DVD commentary with lines like a Prince and a Princess) is something we can only guess at right now because they're being so damn coy with the information and clips/photos we're getting 6 months' ahead of the release. Regardless, I do think the coyness points towards something more than just these two continuing to be enemies and fighting and more than likely not cousins or siblings. But we have no way of knowing, it's healthiest to think through all possible scenarios now rather than getting shocked in December, and again, just please respect others' desire to look at the scenario from the non-romantic angles.

AceofWands wrote:
@Helix

And that's why they can't throw billions of dollars away. Fiction, and movies are about the audience trusting the creators enough to let themselves be involved emotionally in the story. If the audience doesn't trust the creators, they shut off, and the emotional journey is gone. Scriptwriters know that and study that. Sticking to the genre and fulfilling expectations is part of the deal.

As a business, it needs to do things right. You can't serve pasta in a McDonald's franchise. Sorry. Nothing against pasta, but it's not what people expect when walking into a McDonalds. If they want to stay in business, and keep growing, they need to be consistent with their brand. That goes for any business.

So yes, LF needs to stick to the genre, or else it's not SW and it would mean that Disney threw money down the drain, which is unlikely. When I say that it's either Reylated or Reylo, it's not because I'm demanding it, or because I feel that I'm entitled to it. It's because I know the genre enough to know that those are the two only satisfying plots for the ST.

I know that creating and managing expectations is the role of the scriptwriters and I can dig up material to support my claim. I think the idea is simply wrong.

If you can dig up material supporting the fact that LF can do whatever they want and still be all right, by all means do it.

If anyone can analyse the VF article and the aftermath and provide solid arguments as to why it means that there won't be any romance or that it in any ways dismisses romantic Reylo, I'm all ears. I haven't seen that yet.

Also, I just disagreed with someone's opinions, and my post about gaslighting was not directed at anyone. I'm sorry it seemed that way. You write that we must remember that there's a person behind the screen, but I haven't seen any kindness or understanding or even any engagement in debate. This is a discussion board and different ideas and opinions should be welcomed.

Yes, I still think the whole "I actually think there won't be any romantic Reylo" is falling prey to gaslighting and I won't change my mind unless someone can give me solid arguments as to why they think that.

@AceofWands

If those are your expectations, you have only yourself to blame when you are disappointed. Film genre isn't the same as fast food, they can do both. Why do you think Hardee's has a sub menu for Burritos? A burger shop selling burritos, how off brand. You make a point about me not showing any care when all I'm doing is healthy debate, like you wanted, but then you twist it. I never attacked you for it, but now you're accusing me of not 'understanding'. As if your opinion is the only one that can be stated, that's not how it works. You say there's no engagement, but there is, it's just not what you want.

I say that it's either Reylated or Reylo, it's not because I'm demanding it, or because I feel that I'm entitled to it. It's because I know the genre enough to know that those are the two only satisfying plots for the ST.

This is an assumption and there's many ways they can do the plot without either of those and it can still be good. They are far from that and this only shows that you clearly don't understand the genre as well as you want to. Rigidly sticking to genres and rules is dull and will grow dull, an audience wants to be thrilled and surprised. Would be Reywalker a surprise to anyone? Reylo would be to some, be gag worthy to others.

Also, I just disagreed with someone's opinions, and my post about gaslighting was not directed at anyone.

Yes, I still think the whole "I actually think there won't be any romantic Reylo" is falling prey to gaslighting and I won't change my mind unless someone can give me solid arguments as to why they think that

You're still kinda doing that, tbh. Because people in this thread have doubts and inadvertently you're still referring to them.

I'm not saying there can't be any opposing opinions, like I said in my last three posts, but you seem to ignore that aspect. I was talking about stifling opinions and misunderstandings. They don't fit with the engagement you want. Same with movies, you only want movies for you, that fit your mold and it's the only mold you think is right.

Like do I want to upset you? No. I'm just saying realistically, wants and expectations are subjective. Like 99% of people here don't find the lack of Reylo satisfying story-wise, but that's not the entire audience and doesn't mean it wouldn't work with the same punch. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it wouldn't. What I'm saying is, we're not the billions of dollars, that part of the audience would mostly likely be fine without those aspects. We're a small portion.

IoJovi wrote:That could be true, but even it that case if you remove the angle of eventual romance if she is indeed not blood related, it still falls flat. People want a relationship that they've all experienced and can relate to. There has to be more to it than "my family messed up your family and I feel guilty for it so here's some help." Does that make sense?

@IoJovi

Well, for people who aren't Reylo fans, basing that relationship on romance would fall flat for them too.

I'm very much biased and would, any day, choose a fully fledged Reylo romance over any other end game. That's my preference and the most satisfying story for me. But even if it were done very well, we'd still have an angry mob of unsatisfied Reywalkers, Finnreys, etc.

So I'm thinking there's going to be a twist that doesn't involve romance or blood relation, something that most fans haven't considered. I don't really know what it could be and am just putting forth my "shower thoughts" as they come.

WhatGirl wrote:

IoJovi wrote:That could be true, but even it that case if you remove the angle of eventual romance if she is indeed not blood related, it still falls flat. People want a relationship that they've all experienced and can relate to. There has to be more to it than "my family messed up your family and I feel guilty for it so here's some help." Does that make sense?

@IoJovi

Well, for people who aren't Reylo fans, basing that relationship on romance would fall flat for them too.

I'm very much biased and would, any day, choose a fully fledged Reylo romance over any other end game. That's my preference and the most satisfying story for me. But even if it were done very well, we'd still have an angry mob of unsatisfied Reywalkers, Finnreys, etc.

So I'm thinking there's going to be a twist that doesn't involve romance or blood relation, something that most fans haven't considered. I don't really know what it could be and am just putting forth my "shower thoughts" as they come.

@WhatGirl

Yeah, it's so subjective. People will see this movie just because it's 'Star Wars'. The name alone makes money, doesn't mean everyone will be satisfied and get what they want. No matter what, people will disappointed, they won't get what was most satisfying for them.

They could have some totally satisfying, out of the ballpark idea we haven't considered. Maybe every fan is too rigid in what we consider possible? I think the aspect of being totally pleasantly surprised is exciting.

My feeling @Snufkin and @Helix is that , by simply saying "Ok, we might have been wrong all this time"  we are simply throwing down the drain one year of intelligent discussion and analysis.

This board was founded on intelligent discussion and analysis.

Can we discuss non-romantic Reylo? Sure, but let's debate it then the same way we've been debating everything. "We might be wrong and I don't want to be disappointed" is not the spirit of these boards.

"What's the alternative? What makes sense storywise, plotwise?" That's the spirit. And a lot of people have been debating this here. We circle back to Reylated as a satisfying alternative, and we know she's not related.

"Oh, but they can make a nonsensical plot" , for me is not an argument that holds. Why would they do that? How would KK approve such a thing? It just doesn't make any sense.

I like discussion boards because many minds can think a lot more than only one, but I think it's important to follow a logical string of thought.

From the moment I first started debating this (at the other place)  to now, I was sure that there was a romantic arc. A romantic arc can also be tragic and one-sided. The romance is there in TFA, and JJ is not a noob that doesn't know what he's doing.

But sure, let's forget all the evidence, all logic and say "maybe Rey and Kylo don't have any romantic arc after all" just from fear of being disappointed. It makes a lot of sense.

For me that's spitting on all the writing and work of this community. Sorry.

But please tell @BastillaBay she can come back, I won't hang around here, first cause I don't want spoilers, second because I don't like the lack of an open and active social thread.

But yes, I guess I feel personally sort of offended. This is a new username but I've been in this community from the beginning. The very beginning. Nothing that I ever wrote was ever emotional or based on fantasies and wishes. It was simple observation and knowledge about storytelling. Now suddenly everything that everyone noticed, all the comparisons, all the shots that were analysed, the tropes, is worth nothing because of a poorly framed quote? Sorry, but that's just sad.

For my part, I apologise for wading into this thread to explain why few things other than Reylo make sense to me. It was pretty bone-headed of me. This thread isn't for that, and it isn't for me, I realise that.

I think part of the problem in this discussion is that we sometimes use the same words to refer to different things. For example, I don't think anybody on this forum believes that Lucasfilm literally owes anyone other than their investors anything. If the viewer doesn't get what s/he wants, then s/he just doesn't like the film, and perhaps writes a bad review. That's it.

But purely in storytelling terms, promises are made, and when they are broken, the story falls flat. Storytelling works on trust.

It's funny to read SW fans' discussions sometimes because every theory one doesn't believe in or want is bad storytelling, and only the things one personally wants are good storytelling. Every single fan out there knows the one true way to tell a good story, everybody is the only true expert, and all other theories are sith. I'm as guilty of this as anyone. But that doesn't change the fact that good storytelling has certain rules, and different types and genres of storytelling have different rules. Now, I've studied narratives and storytelling for almost 20 years (good grief, I just realised I'm getting old); that doesn't mean I actually know anything, just that I've developed a habit of analysing this stuff. And the more I've analysed this stuff, the more I've kind of realised, not that one can predict everything, but that originality and surprises are not the foundation of what is generally accepted as "good storytelling". Originality and surprises aren't necessarily even in the Top 10 of important building blocks of a good story.

Foreshadowing is an important part of storytelling, and whilst we have no idea what the outcome is and what the twists may be, they will need to have been set up by TFA - whatever they are. So at this stage, not "anything" can happen, if the story is to make sense. Things can happen if they build upon what came before. Even if details are retconned, you can't just switch gears - or lanes, or take a sharp turn to a different road, pick your metaphor - midway through.

Or, well, you can. It could of course be that twists in the ST come out of the blue, everything is unpredictable and up in the air, and the ST turns out to be a disjointed mess that doesn't build upon anything that came before. But a disjointed mess is impossible to speculate about.

@AceofWands

I don't think we're throwing a year of insightful analysis and reasoning down the drain.  I still believe in that analysis although I always doubt myself because I know as a human being I'm just as susceptible to confirmation bias as any other person.  Still and again, I believe our take on the film is much more accurate and logical than most.  I think what I've been trying to accept is that there is no guarantee the filmmakers will follow through in a logical fashion; George Lucas is ample proof of that.

@Darth Dingbat

You make a good point about what constitutes a good story being in the eye of the beholder.  There are guys who feel it would be a great story if Palpatine created Rey in a petri dish in a lab.  I'm not feeling that!

Darth Dingbat wrote:

It's funny to read SW fans' discussions sometimes because every theory one doesn't believe in or want is bad storytelling, and only the things one personally wants are good storytelling. Every single fan out there knows the one true way to tell a good story, everybody is the only true expert, and all other theories are sith. I'm as guilty of this as anyone. But that doesn't change the fact that good storytelling has certain rules, and different types and genres of storytelling have different rules. Now, I've studied narratives and storytelling for almost 20 years (good grief, I just realised I'm getting old); that doesn't mean I actually know anything, just that I've developed a habit of analysing this stuff. And the more I've analysed this stuff, the more I've kind of realised, not that one can predict everything, but that originality and surprises are not the foundation of what is generally accepted as "good storytelling". Originality and surprises aren't necessarily even in the Top 10 of important building blocks of a good story.

@Darth Dingbat

My last post. Sorry people.

I agree with everything you wrote except the bolded. While we don't really believe in Reylated, most of us came here and agreed that the satisfying alternative would be Rey Solo or Rey Skywalker, in this case preferably if they had known each other for a long time. That's the opposing theory to ours! And we think it would make for a satisfying story. Because it would!

So I think we're being pretty rational on this, and it's not about "what we want". I frankly only want a good story.

I'm not even taking the VF thing into account, just pointing these things out because this is a what if thread. No basis in reality.

It's less 'we might have been wrong' and 'what-if' we were wrong. Like if I made a thread about a giant radioactive turkey attacking, is it possible? Maybe, but it's just a what-if.

I didn't even agree with Bastila on the VF thing, I just empathized with her on feeling put off by the misunderstandings.

Darth Dingbat wrote:For my part, I apologise for wading into this thread to explain why few things other than Reylo make sense to me. It was pretty bone-headed of me. This thread isn't for that, and it isn't for me, I realise that.

I think part of the problem in this discussion is that we sometimes use the same words to refer to different things. For example, I don't think anybody on this forum believes that Lucasfilm literally owes anyone other than their investors anything. If the viewer doesn't get what s/he wants, then s/he just doesn't like the film, and perhaps writes a bad review. That's it.

But purely in storytelling terms, promises are made, and when they are broken, the story falls flat. Storytelling works on trust.

It's funny to read SW fans' discussions sometimes because every theory one doesn't believe in or want is bad storytelling, and only the things one personally wants are good storytelling. Every single fan out there knows the one true way to tell a good story, everybody is the only true expert, and all other theories are sith. I'm as guilty of this as anyone. But that doesn't change the fact that good storytelling has certain rules, and different types and genres of storytelling have different rules. Now, I've studied narratives and storytelling for almost 20 years (good grief, I just realised I'm getting old); that doesn't mean I actually know anything, just that I've developed a habit of analysing this stuff. And the more I've analysed this stuff, the more I've kind of realised, not that one can predict everything, but that originality and surprises are not the foundation of what is generally accepted as "good storytelling". Originality and surprises aren't necessarily even in the Top 10 of important building blocks of a good story.

Foreshadowing is an important part of storytelling, and whilst we have no idea what the outcome is and what the twists may be, they will need to have been set up by TFA - whatever they are. So at this stage, not "anything" can happen, if the story is to make sense. Things can happen if they build upon what came before. Even if details are retconned, you can't just switch gears - or lanes, or take a sharp turn to a different road, pick your metaphor - midway through.

Or, well, you can. It could of course be that twists in the ST come out of the blue, everything is unpredictable and up in the air, and the ST turns out to be a disjointed mess that doesn't build upon anything that came before. But a disjointed mess is impossible to speculate about.

@Darth Dingbat

My issue isn't storytelling rules, it's genre rules as a concept that must be adhered to. We know George didn't make SW a flat Space Opera, it took themes from other genres. That's what made the OT so remarkable to people back in the day, it had old concepts and new concepts in one. That's why 'genre-busting' is a thing. You can drop things from the genre and even make new rules. What's more praised? Adhering to old concepts or making some fresh and new? SW isn't just a Space Opera and it can do like Lucas did and drop Space Opera tropes for Western, Gothic Horror, etc and be just fine with that mix.

My example is Bloodborne, because I love it and it does it well. It was sold as Gothic Horror and starts like that. Then it shifts to Cosmic Horror and trades and mixes the tropes, rules, ideas. People wondered 'Hey, why have we never seen something like this before?'. It was an unconventional mix that worked well. You didn't even miss those Gothic Horror things it dropped, it blended them so well.

Like people said, we have a good team on this. I think it'll be good even if it doesn't stick to the rules and does some 'genre-busting' of its own.

My heart say - Kylo and Rey will happen as romantic pair, might not be the way many of us wanted. We have enough of evidence.

My brains says- What if? Sort of a Off Topic but I do remember for years debating will Jon and Danerys get together or just a family. Going back and forth, we had a solid amount of evidence for it but also some things pointing against it. Debates were a lot more heated than any of it here. Largely because we all share the love for Kylo and Rey, what they represent, their journey and that some kind of Reylo will eventually happen. Sometimes going into hardcore paranoia with this.

One of the things I love about this fandom that people simply root for them to be on good terms, Kylo to get a redemption and while having a good story. ReySkywalker as much as I dislike it, it can be turned into a good story for many, ReyKenobi, ReyPalpatine heck, I might even tolerate or like it. As long they make a buck out of it but he only concern always were Will LF be bold enough to do and do it the right way?

This was, is and will be main concern. If done correctly, Reylo can be a very good ship touching on many subjects from our own lives. Manipulation, sense of belonging somewhere, moral dilemma of our choices affecting our families. One of the the aspect why I'm rooting for them and the positive impact on many fans out there. LF might decide that Reylo is too risky and going with FinnRose or no romantic relationship at all, but that would be sort of going against their own idea.

Will I be dissapointed if no romantic relationship came out of it? Sure, not gonna lie, because this would have been a missed opportunity. But if done correctly platonic bond can be a very good, sending a positive message, and I would appreciate it.

Sacrebleu wrote:@AceofWands

I don't think we're throwing a year of insightful analysis and reasoning down the drain.  I still believe in that analysis although I always doubt myself because I know as a human being I'm just as susceptible to confirmation bias as any other person.  Still and again, I believe our take on the film is much more accurate and logical than most.  I think what I've been trying to accept is that there is no guarantee the filmmakers will follow through in a logical fashion; George Lucas is ample proof of that.

@Darth Dingbat

You make a good point about what constitutes a good story being in the eye of the beholder.  There are guys who feel it would be a great story if Palpatine created Rey in a petri dish in a lab.  I'm not feeling that!

@Sacrebleu

Thank you for that image I'll never get rid of now of Palps "baking" a Rey. Maybe he baked several Reys...

And now I imagine Rey as Resident Evil's Alice although the original Alice was not created in a lab, but there were clones! Clone stories are nice too. Poor Kylo mind probing 100 Reys until he finally finds the original one so he can open that damn hidden door in the Jedi Temple that can only be opened by the combined efforts of a dark side user and a light side user. That's why he was so close to her while interrogating her "Clone again? No? Yes?"

Sorry. Don't mind me. I am tired. I'll leave now.

Helix wrote:Imagine if everything was the same, but Kylo was played by Steve Buscemi. Too much sexual tension, there's no way it wouldn't be romantic.

@Helix

Adam's looks are still too divisive to be a strong argument for an obvious romantic storyline, IMO. Make-up and styling might make an unconventional-looking guy look his best, but it's not going to make him into a conventionally handsome guy. That's just not how mainstream Hollywood works; when movies want to convey the idea that "this guy is hot and handsome and the girl's mind is blown when she sees him", they don't go for a guy who invites opinions ranging from "hot" to "weird and ugly" and particularly leaves the straight males puzzled. Like, they might not have any personal investment in a male actor's looks, but if they look at someone like Hayden Christensen, they easily accept him as a handsome guy because he looks like a guy from menswear catalogue or a boy band.

Now when it comes to subvert-the-expectations romance, yeah this casting makes sense. It kinda reminds me of JJ's Star Trek, where at first you're supposed to think that Kirk and Uhura are so getting together, but the surprise is that she's Spock's girlfriend. Kirk's conventional handsomeness and Spock's more quirky offbeat looks are very much a part of the trick.

Just to add about the impact of their relationship.

One of my very dear friends who loves them, can understand their loneliness and sense of wanting to belong somewhere and to someone. Her parents gave her up for adoption when she was a baby. She went from one family to another, having this feeling like being a stranger. She loves most of all Rey who she can sympathize most with, but also Kylo for her parents to give up and being confused and bit angry child.

So to her and many people out there it's not about she's hot, he's hot get them together, Jedi's yay or supporing abuse relationship like antis are saying. She sees the light at the end of the dark tunnel and the struggle of two confused, hurted and lonely people. This aspect is very important because a lot of people can see part of themselves in Kylo and Rey, Adam certainly can.

I gotta bring her here because she has so many wonderful ideas, but tries to stay away from social media in regards to Reylo. She understands the amount of hate it can lead to - if people are ignoring or misunderstanding our views and what we really sees in them.

Saracene wrote:

Helix wrote:Imagine if everything was the same, but Kylo was played by Steve Buscemi. Too much sexual tension, there's no way it wouldn't be romantic.

@Helix

Adam's looks are still too divisive to be a strong argument for an obvious romantic storyline, IMO. Make-up and styling might make an unconventional-looking guy look his best, but it's not going to make him into a conventionally handsome guy. That's just not how mainstream Hollywood works; when movies want to convey the idea that "this guy is hot and handsome and the girl's mind is blown when she sees him", they don't go for a guy who invites opinions ranging from "hot" to "weird and ugly" and particularly leaves the straight males puzzled. Like, they might not have any personal investment in a male actor's looks, but if they look at someone like Hayden Christensen, they easily accept him as a handsome guy because he looks like a guy from menswear catalogue or a boy band.

Now when it comes to subvert-the-expectations romance, yeah this casting makes sense. It kinda reminds me of JJ's Star Trek, where at first you're supposed to think that Kirk and Uhura are so getting together, but the surprise is that she's Spock's girlfriend. Kirk's conventional handsomeness and Spock's more quirky offbeat looks are very much a part of the trick.

@Saracene

Huh? I wasn't making that point. I was just saying they should've cast Steve Buscemi because he's so charming...

Obviously there won't be romance because he's not played by Steve.

Divisive looks or not, Adam Driver is a "millennial sex symbol" (I hate the definition but hey, I wasn't the one who called him that) and the love interest in a hit TV show called Girls, aimed at young women. He may not be conventionally handsome, but he hits several boxes that make him appealing: presence, the possibility of raw sexuality, strong body, great flowing hair, intense eyes, sensual voice & lips etc. The whole appeal of the unmasking is that: the monster is actually a young, ordinary and *gasp* attractive man.

As @Helix said, if Steve Buscemi was playing Kylo, the tropes applied to the narrative would possibly be entirely different.

Things I remember from Girls:

1. Adam Driver's pecs.

That's about it. That's all I need.

Helix wrote:Things I remember from Girls:

1. Adam Driver's pecs.

That's about it. That's all I need.

@Helix

Girls has always been a niche indie TV show, a huge mainstream franchise is a whole different level.

Funnily enough, Steve Buscemi did play a love interest in Ghost World Tellingly, it wasn't a big summer blockbuster.

Nah, I wouldn't consider Girls such a niche. It's obviously less distributed than other mass media products due to being on cable/aimed at a very specific audience, but it had impact in the cultural environment, to the point that there are many academic papers (at least in Brazil) analyzing how the show was influential in female representation and new definitions of sitcoms in the current zeitgeist.

I love Ghost World haha. I forgot about Buscemi being the love interest there. Great movie, but totally different from Girls as well.

I have to say I was a bit annoyed yesterday. I've had this concern fro some time that one day there'd be a split between romantic Reylos and the "To-Be-Defined" Reylos. We usually went through similar analysis and ended up with the connection of Rey and Kylo being important to the story, but disagree on the exact nature of their relationship with some being more certain than other about it.

Let me share the following with you. I have temporarily allowed my newly purchased Rey * shakes fist at Disney for their quality merchandizing * to be next to my favorite Kylo figure. Temporarily. Then she'll go back in her corner because he's mine



Now I am quite sure everyone will see a different Reylo looking at these two. GA would probably see hero/villain. Reywalker will see good Skywalker/bad Skywalker. ReySolos - can't believe the idea is still out there - will see good sister/evil brother. Romantic Reylos will see romantic vibes. Me, I see a multitude of options and can't choose one : protagonist/villain, scavenger/dark prince, random girl/legacy boy, light side user/dark side user potentially switching seats, new generation Jedis, master/teacher switching seats, force allies, potential non romantic soul mates or potential romantic partners, force muse/inspired Jedi warrior, etc. I don't know how to explain it, but to me it's just Reylo and I am looking forward to more compelling dynamics - as mentioned in the description of our forum -, whatever that means at this point, between the two. And I neither feel gloomy, depressed or gaslighted by LF. On the contrary, I enjoy my To-Be-Defined Reylo. I might not like the Reylo I get in TLJ in spite of being quite open still on the nature of their relationship but hey sith happens. TBH I am not even sure I want it to be that clearly defined. There's a certain beauty in it not being clearly defined and left to interpretation. Ok, maybe not in a spectrum that goes from blood-related to the parents of the future Skywalker generation

I just realized that the way Rey and Kylo are positioned in my picture, it looks like he's pleading to be saved from her. I hear you, man, she's quite an angry one.

SanghaRen wrote:I have to say I was a bit annoyed yesterday. I've had this concern fro some time that one day there'd be a split between romantic Reylos and the "To-Be-Defined" Reylos. We usually went through similar analysis and ended up with the connection of Rey and Kylo being important to the story, but disagree on the exact nature of their relationship with some being more certain than other about it.

Let me share the following with you. I have temporarily allowed my newly purchased Rey * shakes fist at Disney for their quality merchandizing * to be next to my favorite Kylo figure. Temporarily. Then she'll go back in her corner because he's mine



Now I am quite sure everyone will see a different Reylo looking at these two. GA would probably see hero/villain. Reywalker will see good Skywalker/bad Skywalker. ReySolos - can't believe the idea is still out there - will see good sister/evil brother. Romantic Reylos will see romantic vibes. Me, I see a multitude of options and can't choose one : protagonist/villain, scavenger/dark prince, random girl/legacy boy, light side user/dark side user potentially switching seats, new generation Jedis, master/teacher switching seats, force allies, potential non romantic soul mates or potential romantic partners, force muse/inspired Jedi warrior, etc. I don't know how to explain it, but to me it's just Reylo and I am looking forward to more compelling dynamics - as mentioned in the description of our forum -, whatever that means at this point, between the two. And I neither feel gloomy, depressed or gaslighted by LF. On the contrary, I enjoy my To-Be-Defined Reylo. I might not like the Reylo I get in TLJ in spite of being quite open still on the nature of their relationship but hey sith happens. TBH I am not even sure I want it to be that clearly defined. There's a certain beauty in it not being clearly defined and left to interpretation. Ok, maybe not in a spectrum that goes from blood-related to the parents of the future Skywalker generation

I just realized that the way Rey and Kylo are positioned in my picture, it looks like he's pleading to be saved from her. I hear you, man, she's quite an angry one.

@SanghaRen

What about the frog?

EchoBase wrote:

SanghaRen wrote:I have to say I was a bit annoyed yesterday. I've had this concern fro some time that one day there'd be a split between romantic Reylos and the "To-Be-Defined" Reylos. We usually went through similar analysis and ended up with the connection of Rey and Kylo being important to the story, but disagree on the exact nature of their relationship with some being more certain than other about it.

Let me share the following with you. I have temporarily allowed my newly purchased Rey * shakes fist at Disney for their quality merchandizing * to be next to my favorite Kylo figure. Temporarily. Then she'll go back in her corner because he's mine



Now I am quite sure everyone will see a different Reylo looking at these two. GA would probably see hero/villain. Reywalker will see good Skywalker/bad Skywalker. ReySolos - can't believe the idea is still out there - will see good sister/evil brother. Romantic Reylos will see romantic vibes. Me, I see a multitude of options and can't choose one : protagonist/villain, scavenger/dark prince, random girl/legacy boy, light side user/dark side user potentially switching seats, new generation Jedis, master/teacher switching seats, force allies, potential non romantic soul mates or potential romantic partners, force muse/inspired Jedi warrior, etc. I don't know how to explain it, but to me it's just Reylo and I am looking forward to more compelling dynamics - as mentioned in the description of our forum -, whatever that means at this point, between the two. And I neither feel gloomy, depressed or gaslighted by LF. On the contrary, I enjoy my To-Be-Defined Reylo. I might not like the Reylo I get in TLJ in spite of being quite open still on the nature of their relationship but hey sith happens. TBH I am not even sure I want it to be that clearly defined. There's a certain beauty in it not being clearly defined and left to interpretation. Ok, maybe not in a spectrum that goes from blood-related to the parents of the future Skywalker generation

I just realized that the way Rey and Kylo are positioned in my picture, it looks like he's pleading to be saved from her. I hear you, man, she's quite an angry one.

@SanghaRen

What about the frog?

@EchoBase

OMG I didn't even notice the frog.

@SanghaRen, you just made my day with this post. Thanks for sharing that.

Helix wrote:

Darth Dingbat wrote:For my part, I apologise for wading into this thread to explain why few things other than Reylo make sense to me. It was pretty bone-headed of me. This thread isn't for that, and it isn't for me, I realise that.

I think part of the problem in this discussion is that we sometimes use the same words to refer to different things. For example, I don't think anybody on this forum believes that Lucasfilm literally owes anyone other than their investors anything. If the viewer doesn't get what s/he wants, then s/he just doesn't like the film, and perhaps writes a bad review. That's it.

But purely in storytelling terms, promises are made, and when they are broken, the story falls flat. Storytelling works on trust.

It's funny to read SW fans' discussions sometimes because every theory one doesn't believe in or want is bad storytelling, and only the things one personally wants are good storytelling. Every single fan out there knows the one true way to tell a good story, everybody is the only true expert, and all other theories are sith. I'm as guilty of this as anyone. But that doesn't change the fact that good storytelling has certain rules, and different types and genres of storytelling have different rules. Now, I've studied narratives and storytelling for almost 20 years (good grief, I just realised I'm getting old); that doesn't mean I actually know anything, just that I've developed a habit of analysing this stuff. And the more I've analysed this stuff, the more I've kind of realised, not that one can predict everything, but that originality and surprises are not the foundation of what is generally accepted as "good storytelling". Originality and surprises aren't necessarily even in the Top 10 of important building blocks of a good story.

Foreshadowing is an important part of storytelling, and whilst we have no idea what the outcome is and what the twists may be, they will need to have been set up by TFA - whatever they are. So at this stage, not "anything" can happen, if the story is to make sense. Things can happen if they build upon what came before. Even if details are retconned, you can't just switch gears - or lanes, or take a sharp turn to a different road, pick your metaphor - midway through.

Or, well, you can. It could of course be that twists in the ST come out of the blue, everything is unpredictable and up in the air, and the ST turns out to be a disjointed mess that doesn't build upon anything that came before. But a disjointed mess is impossible to speculate about.

@Darth Dingbat

My issue isn't storytelling rules, it's genre rules as a concept that must be adhered to. We know George didn't make SW a flat Space Opera, it took themes from other genres. That's what made the OT so remarkable to people back in the day, it had old concepts and new concepts in one. That's why 'genre-busting' is a thing. You can drop things from the genre and even make new rules. What's more praised? Adhering to old concepts or making some fresh and new? SW isn't just a Space Opera and it can do like Lucas did and drop Space Opera tropes for Western, Gothic Horror, etc and be just fine with that mix.

My example is Bloodborne, because I love it and it does it well. It was sold as Gothic Horror and starts like that. Then it shifts to Cosmic Horror and trades and mixes the tropes, rules, ideas. People wondered 'Hey, why have we never seen something like this before?'. It was an unconventional mix that worked well. You didn't even miss those Gothic Horror things it dropped, it blended them so well.

Like people said, we have a good team on this. I think it'll be good even if it doesn't stick to the rules and does some 'genre-busting' of its own.

@Helix

I don’t know Bloodborne but combining Gothic Horror with Cosmic Horror sounds like a fairly logical crossover to me. Neither conflicts with the other. And a genre like Horror is based on uncertainty and discomfort to begin with, so jolting the audience is actually part of the expectation.

When we talk about genre "rules" and genre conventions, I think there are basically two (or more) layers here. There are surface-level conventions, which tend to become habitual within genres, often turning into clichés. There are a million variables here with which you can make an old story (and all stories are old in their basic elements) into something fresh and new. Then there’s what you might call the "heart" of the specific genre. I’m not going to debate what constitutes the heart of any given genre, but it’s hard to mess with that "heart" without messing with the audience’s expectations and trust.

As an extreme example, if your light-hearted romantic comedy suddenly turns into a tragedy in the third act and everybody dies in a car crash, it’s no longer a light-hearted romantic comedy. It can be something else, perhaps it’s something completely new and avant-garde, but it no longer delivers what it promised. That’s why, if you set out to write a satisfying light-hearted romantic comedy (as opposed to a deliberately avant-garde comedy), you probably don’t kill everybody in a car crash.

I think many TV series these days operate on a principle of constant anxiety and curveballs in order to keep the audience on their toes (and therefore obsessively tuning in, until they just burn out and give up on the series), and that has taught the audience to believe and/or fear that anything can happen. Characters' obsessive goals are abandoned after a few episodes, protagonists can die in a season finale to be replaced by other ones, characters find true love only to fall in love with someone else in the next season, overarching themes seem to change with every new season, and so on. That’s the kind of "storytelling without end" that seems to proceed without any specific endgame in mind.

And then there are the "rules of storytelling" which are not genre-bound, as such. You see, I disagree with you about the OT. Lucas may have changed the surface-level tropes and conventions of the Space Opera, but for story, he actually went further back to the basics. The OT conforms to the mythical hero’s journey to a tee. And by doing so, he established what the Star Wars saga is.

The ST in its turn isn’t some new groundbreaking work in the genre, but as a part of a pre-existing saga it’s not only bound by genre expectations, but also by the expectations of that saga. Which Lucasfilm are reinforcing even further by constantly calling it the Skywalker saga, emphasising its inherent optimism and its fairytale elements, etc.

But, getting back to Reylo, if we go with the "anything can happen”"mindset, and the suitably BIG epic story that builds upon what TFA gave us is neither Rey Related nor Reylo, then the "logical" option - from my point of view - wouldn’t be low-key platonic Reylo but some BIG bizarro twist of the "Kylo, I am your grandfather's female clone, and you are my great-great-great-grandfather's latest reincarnation" variety.

Things like that seem ridiculous - well, they are ridiculous - but if the story operates on the level of "anything can happen" like some TV series do, then naturally the goal would be that anything can happen, i.e. shocking twists. You don’t just throw all expectations out of the window for no reason. If you give the audience something they totally weren’t expecting and that wasn’t foreshadowed in any way, then the shock value in itself is the goal.

Anyway, I’m rambling again… but setting aside all specific genre conventions and "the story must go THIS way or else it doesn’t make sense to ME" headcanons, at the very least the most basic ”rule” of storytelling is that stories build towards something and therefore, as they progress, they must build on what came before. And stories build "up", not down - a story with an epic set-up would build up towards a suitably epic climax, not wind down towards "… so that was it?"

At least, not deliberately so. Of course in practice tons of stories either fall totally flat or are pretty "meh" in conclusion. But presumably storytellers at least try to avoid that.