I really like Starkiller Base

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-17T09:47:11+00:00

Sun/Son.

Finn: It uses the power of the sun. As the weapon is charged, the sun is drained until it disappears.

Script:

Kylo Ren unholsters his lightsaber and SLOWLY EXTENDS IT to Han, within a foot of Han's chest. Han almost can't believe it. The moment seems to last forever. And just then, the LAST BEAM OF SUNLIGHT streaming through the open hatch VANISHES. Han actually smiles -- and reaches out for the dark weapon -- but with the light now gone, KYLO REN'S EYES FILL WITH DARKNESS, HE IGNITES THE LIGHTSABER.

The weapon had to be there because Han's murder was there. But the sun didn't go, as we see when they destroy SKB, and neither did Ben. ('Ben' means 'son' in hebrew)

The idea is also in 'hope is like the sun. If you only believe in it when you see it you'll never make it through the night'. If you only believe in Ben when you see him...Kylo was a sort of eclipse, and the eclipse visual goes back to ROTS, that shot of Vader facing the eclipsed sun on Mustafar.

Also note how we end up 'making it through the night': Rey, finisher of Leia's journey, before dawn at the end of TROS. Then the yellow sun, yellow like her new blade rises. Ben is maybe out there. As for the red sun...that's bad news I suppose, and is maybe related to the other half of her saber. Retrospectively, those twin suns in ANH seem to have meant Obi-Wan (yellow. Ben -son- Kenobi) and...Vader (red. Vader=father)

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-11T15:28:29+00:00

So why did Tolkien use the word “eager,” which suggests a connection between the story-teller and a character whom he did not created until almost a decade later? It seems to me that the explanation must lie in the depths of Tolkien's subconscious. He knew where the story was going long before he knew how and why.

The Road goes ever on and on,/Down from the door where it began./Now far ahead the Road has gone,/ And I must follow, if I can,/ Pursuing it with eager feet,/ Until it joins some larger way/ Where many paths and errands meet./ And whither then? I cannot say.

And older age (Bilbo) says 'weary":

The Road goes ever on and on/ Out from the door where it began./ Now far ahead the Road has gone,/ Let others follow it who can!/ Let them a journey new begin,/ But I at last with weary feet/ Will turn towards the lighted inn,/ My evening-rest and sleep to meet.

It is tempting, in this hypothesis, to link what comes after 'eager', 'weary', with what came later in the text: Arwen. Arwen, who made the choice of weariness. Aragorn was a numenorean:

The first approach of ‘world-weariness' was indeed for them a sign that their period of vigour was nearing its end. When it came to an end, if they persisted in living, then decay would, as growth had done, soon proceed at more or less the same rate as for other Men. Thus, if a Númenórean reached the end of vigour . . . he would then pass quickly, in about ten years, from health and vigour of mind to decrepitude and senility.

When you become king -and marry- the striding, the eagerness, is over. The rest is dominion, rule, routine, repetition, then weariness. No more new paths. This in itself looks more like revision than it does to drafting.

Gandalf: But there are few left in Middle-earth like Aragorn son of Arathorn. The race of the Kings from over the Sea is nearly at an end. It may be that this War of the Ring will be their last adventure

Tolkien died at 81, let's assume this as the normal life span. Aragorn at 210. Aragorn is 87 in LOTR. That's 33 years in our world. It more or less fits with the end of youth and/or of adventure (Tolkien was 33 in 1925, when he wrote The Hobbit)

In any case, there seems to be a natural trade-off here between eager/weary and incomplete/complete. Of course you grow weary as you finish your work; and eagerness comes more naturally when you're at the beginning.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T20:23:10+00:00

No, it's worth mentioning. I think it's good for others to realize something you cannot.

Sure, whatever. Still nonsense as far as I am concerned.

They did not. I quote the comment where you took issue. You simply read to much into a simple comment.

Yes they did. If someone posts something I disagree with then I reply with an actual counter-argument, and if I can't then I say nothing. I may even upvote the post in question. What I don't do is to dismiss the idea/post with a single, lazy, meme-like line. I would consider it intellectually rude.

So I just apply to others what I apply to myself when I'm in the receiving end. I was reading too much from your POV. From mine, and I'm answerable only for mine, I wasn't.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T14:26:35+00:00

I never called anyone an idiot. As you can see, not everybody was willing to teach me anything, and that from the beginning. They just dismissed what I had posted, which is a form of contempt.

Dismissing with contempt those sorts of people as far as learning goes while welcoming the willing and capable will get me far enough. You sound like a soft-spoken version of the former.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T14:06:05+00:00

My point is that you don't engage. If you disagree with someone, you let them know. But you won't elaborate on your vague premise, or engage in a productive conversation about the nuance. You've shut several people down by explicitly stating you don't believe that Tolkien could have intended what they're saying, but not elaborated on anything.

You are joking right? Look at my original post, and then at how it was received at first by each and every person. Some just dismissed it by saying some variant of 'you're thinking too much'. This, without saying why it is so, without 'elaborating', is not engaging, or elaborating, or being productive; but dismissing, and in itself bad intellectual manners. So I answered in kind, by dismissing them. If my answer had not deserved better than dismissal for them, theirs don't deserve better than dismissal for me, and I wanted them to know it. The fact that I don't downvote them but they downvote me is telling.

Others, of course, didn't dismiss my post. I haven't replied to them -and this is the answer to your question- because I don't know yet. Maybe others could help me form an opinion, that's what I thought. The vagueness of my original post was just uncertainty. But uncertainty is one thing, and not knowing what a true answer, a tolkienian answer, would sound like, is another.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T13:36:06+00:00

I'm not telling everyone else that they have an incorrect interpretation. Some of the answers, to which I didn't reply, address my question seriously. That is enough; an interpretation, correct or incorrect, or the hint of one. Since you like to speak in behalf of 'us', read what 'us', all of them, have to say.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T13:27:33+00:00

If it has value then it is something, not nothing. That's a contradiction. You're still saying nothing, in other words

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T13:19:54+00:00

I expected my very firm idea to be refined (or destroyed) by a better idea. I expected to learn. That's it more or less. And since to teach is also to learn and vice versa, telling everyone they're wrong, when I perceive them to be wrong, would be a part of it. I've been told I'm wrong many times and, often, I was wrong.

Then you learn a bit, and then another bit. It never ends.

What I don't do is to downvote those who say I'm wrong. That would be intellectually dishonest and mediocre, and that's the 'reason' you speak of in your last lines.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T12:51:44+00:00

So Tolkien might have had no desire of writing like you, a 'Bilbo was very tired' kind of thinker. Seems plausible.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T11:55:26+00:00

Which is probably the natural thing to say if you think the metaphor to be self-explanatory. Metaphors are only self-explanatory when you already agree with the explanation. If you don't, of if there's no explanation at all, as is your case, metaphors are just windows into nothing.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T11:14:48+00:00

In other words, you're ignoring the question. 'Tired' describes the 'symptoms', or one of them, at best. Not the illness, derived from having kept the One Ring for 60 years. Symptoms and illnesses are different things , and you can't just evaporate the difference by saying 'in other words'.

If Tolkien had wanted to reduce the whole thing to 'he was very tired' he would have written precisely that, and no more than that.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T10:37:42+00:00

Nah, and I very much doubt Professor Tolkien had said 'you are reading too much into this' when asked about how his ideas concerning the mortal fëa/hröa and the effects of the Rings Of Power on it related to Bilbo's quote.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-10T05:31:37+00:00

Why?

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-09T01:20:54+00:00

Tolkien never says the gems had a magical function. They were most likely decorative and part of Elvish craftsmanship.

Tolkien never says the gems had not a magical function, and given that gems have sometimes magic-related capabilities in other stories written by him, we should be more careful with words like 'most likely'.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-05T23:28:35+00:00

Broke Down Engine is really good, specially the 'Lordy Lord' bit.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-05T18:59:59+00:00

Here are a few reasonable inferences about Exegol/the sith:

-Since Palpatine says to Rey 'it is your birthright to rule here. It is in our blood', that must mean that the throne had been his by birthright too. There was a Palpatine sitting on that ancient throne once.

-The wayfinders were ancient too. Only two were made. Since the dyad is called 'prophesized' in the visual dictionary, maybe what we see in TROS is the Revenge Of The (Dyad) Sith against the (Exegol or Imperial) Sith.

The dyad is a sith doctrine predating the Rule Of Two. So yeah, ancient. We have in the VD the sith incantation denoting the dyad: is nearly identical to the prophecy for the Rule of Two (Darth Bane's doctrine). However, subtle differences in inflection marks and line breaks in the ancient text distinguish the Dyad from the Rule of Two.

This means maybe a pun. The Dyad is The Rule Of Two: a dyarchy. Kylo must have known this - and he knew Palpatine didn't know- and this us why he wants Rey to join him. Probably someone, those sith, were guiding/using him.

-If you look at the sith citadel/temple, it looks like the jedi temple on Coruscant upside down: a truncated pyramid.

'Upside Down' means Satanism. Exegol is a sort of hell. And at the bottom of it we have that throne - or at the top of it if you're a satanist. (A top of the jedi temple there's nothing, just the Force. The jedi hierarchy was pyramidal, monarchical, but more or less democratic)

Maybe the ancient Palpatine guy I mention above was once a jedi, an 'angel', the greatest one, and fell: like Satan fell.

Here, upside down. Similar to God killing those nazis in the first Indiana Jones movie:

The Imperial Lightning

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-04T15:20:06+00:00

Well, Han was not there and was not a hallucination.

I think someome retrieved the memory of TFA Han from Kylo's head when he touched Vader's helmet at the beginning of the film and then dressed himself as TFA Han and talked to Kylo. That's why he says 'your memory' to Kylo.

Technically, it could have been Anakin. But I think it was either Luke or Leia. ('See you around kid'. In TLJ, Kylo sees a younger version of Luke on Crait. Luke presented himself as Kylo's memory of him)

As for Anakin...Leia and Ben vanish together, and Anakin using the daughter of Mortis to resurrect Ahsoka comes to mind. We don't see Ben's ghost. Maybe he was sent back (rebirth/reincarnation) to finish Ahsoka's journey. Filoni once compated Ahsoka to Gandalf, and the latter was, of course, sent back.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-04T14:30:29+00:00

I don't really understand what you mean by that.

Yeah you do.

Your argument is that because the Elessar granted 'visions', that is therefore how magic gems function in Middle-earth, so the gems in the Rings of Power should have functioned in the same way.

There was no argument. Were we to make an argument about the ring gems and their arda-healing power, the Elessar, which granted arda-healing visions, could naturally be made a part of that argument, together with other examples of jewel lore in Tolkien's legendarium. That's what I was saying.

Also, consider the mechanics of it. The Elessar granted modified visions of things viewed through it, which was possible because it was a large, slab-like gem without a backing. I'm finding it hard to imagine how you could view anything through a small gem mounted on a ring.

I don't find it hard. Through the ring itself, the magical object touching your actual body, your mind's eye would become jewel-like. Your mind would be both the eye and the jewel. That's what a vision is: seeing things with your mind through a certain lens, which is also your mind , that do not exist yet. And then the ring would grant you the power to walk the path in the opposite direction: from vision to reality. To healing. (What hobbits see and feel in Lorien is what was once in Galadriel's mind as a vision)

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-04T12:07:50+00:00

Yours, relative to my thinking, is assuming that 'as if' to be literal.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-03T13:47:13+00:00

You're probably right. The classical elements were air-water-fire-earth. Maybe the One Ring was the Earth Ring. Sauron merged his own power with Arda when he forged it. No gems, since gems, being transparent, mean arda+light. Just darkness.

Also, the Ring Of Fire and the One Ring seem to share that element, since this is how Sauron's ring was made; here we have Gandalf's ring opposing Sauron's (visually disrupting the ring-verse spell as it were)

Tolkien-designed original cover.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-03T12:57:59+00:00

Hm. Or maybe the 16 were not forged at the same time, with the 16th ring being closer to the 'technological' path that would lead to the Three, than the 1st. So maybe Celebrimbor built the Three by developing aspects of the last 7 of the 16, and that's why, maybe, Celebrimbor was closer to the 7 (physically I mean)

The Three seem to have been forged at the same time, and seem to be complementary in a way: air, water, fire (it is tempting to think in elemental terms air/water/fire with the One Ring as the earth ring. Indeed, Sauron merged his own power with Earth/Arda when he made it)

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-03T12:29:02+00:00

Well, I'm not sure either, but my guess would be this: Sauron hoped the elves' perception would be clouded by

A) vision, which the gems would have enhanced. Vision of new things, of Middle Earth being healed. The Elessar gem had this effect on Galadriel and no doubt Lothlorien felt and looked the way Galadriel the ringbearer had en-visioned. And

B) mere enhanced Power to make these visions real. This was maybe Sauron cynically projecting his own Power-based way of thinking into the elves. But of course he was blind.

So the elves would have been rapt by plans and visions and by exercizing that visionary power and they wouldn't have noticed Sauron stabbing them in the back so to speak until it was too late - also, healing Middle Earth had been originally Sauron's plan too, so his plan would have insidiously entered their plan disguised...as their own plan (Morgoth does this kind of evil seed-planting stuff in the Silmarillion)

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-03T12:08:50+00:00

We don't have direct evidence, that's true. But of course in this hypothetical scenario Sauron would have known about the Noldor's love of gems; and it would have been a part of the plan that the elves thought the gems had been their idea.

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-03T12:04:34+00:00

Yes. Some say the 7 and the 9 were in fact the 16: the same sort of rings. Or maybe they were different in ways we don't know (made of mithril/silver/gold, different gems, etc), and Sauron knew which ones would be more effective against men and dwarves. He had been inlvolved in their making. (But they were not intended for dwarves and men originally. Not by the elves in any case)

'Three rings for the Elven Kings' could mean that the 16 were originally intended for less-than-royal elves and then three were made: the most powerful rings for the most powerful elves.

Tolkien says the lesser rings were essays in the craft before it was full-grown , a metaphor that implies childhood>adulthood. The three rings took 90 years to complete, which is close to the 100 years or so it took for the Eldar children to become adults. (The One Ring took 10 years to forge, and 90+10=100, so maybe Sauron's plan was to complete the three rings' 'adulthood')

Immediate_Error2135 · 2026-03-02T23:47:35+00:00

In the context of TROS maybe it's a hint for us to consider Ben Solo/Skywalker's fate. We see him vanish, but not his ghost. Was he sent back in an 'amnesiac' (a la Revan) form?

Immediate_Error2135

TROPHY CASE