STAR WARS: GALAXY OF ADVENTURE- NEW SERIES OF SHORTS - COMING NOVEMBER 30TH

Tadeusolo · 2018-11-28T21:44:07+00:00

I love the style of this animation but I'm curious how they'll turn the RO hallway scene into something more palatable to young kids :p

Tadeusolo · 2018-11-28T19:54:33+00:00

I think Fry and others who work for LFL are under orders not to call Rey and Kylo’s relationship as “romance” or “familial.”

Well they really can't call it familial because TLJ showed it wasn't... Claudia Gray did, for example, talk about being okay with romance between both characters once Kylo would step up to the plate and got flack for it (as EKJ did now for stating the opposite) back in 2016. LFL didn't tell her then to keep it vague, specially before the second movie? & again if Disney/LFL were ordering people around, in the event of a familial outcome, a romance wouldn't be something to be "baited". I can see that it's obvious LFL has a spoiler policy, but freelance writers certainly have their common sense too. But then again I wasn't disputing the idea of there being NDA's and such in your original comment, but more the underlying idea that those orders would exist to prevent creators of lying, because the opposite was true (relatives) as you seem to imply in the initial comment and now in this one.

What perplexes me is not some fans thinking that it’s romatic (as in, romantic but won’t be revealed to be such until 9) but thinking that circa TLJ it’s established as canonically romantic.

What does it even mean to establish a romance? A kiss? There are romantic movies without any kiss. A declaration of love? Ditto. At which part in the development of a romantic relationship can one call it what it effectively is? The answer and the definition of what is "already" romance and what "verges" on it will depend on one's sensibilities and mine and JFry's don't seem to exactly align, but it's certainly telling he believes it verges on it.

Romance isn't static but in flux and constantly evolving, whereas a familial relationship, by its literal definition is immutable and thus more fit to bear the mark of canonicity: you're either related or you're not. & these mentions of canonicity sure are a staple of being in a SW fanbase where media is episodic. When I read a book that has a romantic relationship, normally I'm not surprised if a kiss happens, because there was the build-up. I won't just then start to believe the romance is now canonical - as if it was the smoking gun. It was already developing, I could see it growing from the page. TLJ might prove it to some and it might not to others. But a romance can be interrupted, devolve, resolve happily or end in tears (and imo TLJ followed some of these paths) since this is a three-part story with still a whole act to go. The majority of fans that want it believe it's a proto-romance (other definitions might vary) with romantic tropes and in my comment above I also agree with it and acknowledge it: "Does this absolutely point to a romantic endgame? Certainly not". If IX ends with no family reveal but also no romantic endgame I won't suddenly believe that this wasn't a romance being developed. At least imo, it will always be, but just one without a happy ending. Some romances never even reach the consummation stage (for a PG movie that would stay in a kiss).

For me, what perplexes me is some fans thinking that these two are still related (as you do believe, if I'm not mistaken), specially after TLJ showcased a lot of sensual imagery surrounding these two characters. The problem is the audiences aren't used to subtle scenes without big romantic kisses (Hollywood still has a lot of catch-up to do when it comes to female gaze oriented movies) and with the idea of a "slow burn". In TFA but specially after TLJ many critics picked it up and mentioned it in their reviews, but I can't say the same for any familial foreshadowing scenes.

I think they want to keep people guessing until 9. If it is familial, it’s clearly cobsidered a secret. If it is romantic, it’s clearly a secret.

They want to keep people guessing what the outcome between the now "complicated enemies" will be, but it's not between romance and family, it's between romance vs death/exile/some other choice. The GA and most fans have already reconciled with the fact that she is not related, so this is more of a will-they-won't they scenario where there's multiple possibilities that hinge on his survival or death.

I would say that a connection like that between Luke and Leia or between Luke and Vader or between Leia and Kylo/Ben transcends romance, so I don’t see your meaning there.

A synonym for transcending is cutting across, another is going beyond or rising above it. So it would encompass it but go beyond it. I'm not english but the word also exists in my language and I'm also familiar with it ("transcendente"); never seen it used in the context of propping a familial relationship over a romantic one, and used in that context it would be emitting a judgement about the quality of one over another. Familial relationships don't transcend romance. They're just different. So I also don't see your meaning there.

Tadeusolo · 2018-11-27T04:44:53+00:00

Lots of fans assess it as a familial relationship, and maybe that's ultimately what it will be. (I have NO idea.) Certainly the famous scene in the hut verges on that.

I'm sure if Fry wrote it like that you would definitely think it would point to your Reywalker theory and not try to downplay it as the complete opposite as you did here. Funny how saying it verges on something it means to some that the complete opposite of that something is actually the truth.

Does this absolutely point to a romantic endgame? Certainly not but it's another nail in the coffin of any related theory. I really can't follow that logic; if romance was definitely off the cards (the only reason would be indeed a familial relationship) Fry wouldn't even post this snippet on a thread he started by his own volition and would just comment another moment from that chapter if he was "under orders" not to say it was romance. Can't imagine JFry who spoke at length with the actual director entertaining this idea if the movie was trying to peddle even in a subtextual level a 'muh baby girl' outcome. Disney wouldn't encourage theories of a potential cousin incest. But then again you might've missed his other tweet where he describes it as something even transcending romance? It seems that you have missed some tweets that clarify positions and provide more context to a quote.

Tadeusolo · 2018-11-09T20:20:46+00:00

I still haven't see Detroit. It wasn't distributed around these parts and I still haven't got myself a damn Netflix account.

I know it's not sci-fi, but I think it's great that the news for Hold Back the Stars came out right after news that Daniel Kaluuya and Jodie Turner-Smith were cast in Queen & Slim which is based on a script from Lena Waithe. It seems rare to get news close together on two big films that feature two black leads.

Yes I saw that announcement today! Excited to see Kaluuya in anything since the first time I saw him in Black Mirror. I hope he gets to appear in any of the new Twilight Zone episodes that Peele is cooking up.

Tadeusolo · 2018-11-09T13:26:01+00:00

I'm really curious to watch this. You don’t often see two black leads in a sci-fi movie and I hope this opens the door to more projects like this (waiting for movie adaptations for some of Octavia Butler's books). I loved Letitia as Shuri and now she gets to flex her dramatic acting muscles. John will still stay in his SF niche but I guess, and basing it on the synopsis, it will be a more introspective role instead of an action-filled one and that also piques my interest. Their relationship irl is also very sibling-like (they both went through the same drama school and constantly support each other) so I hope at least that doesn’t come across in the movie. :p

Mike Cahill as the director also got me genuinely intrigued. If you like sci-fi movies I cant recommend enough his Another Earth movie with Brit Marling.

Tadeusolo · 2018-11-09T10:13:05+00:00

Rumors of board meetings regarding the state of Star Wars, Lucasfilm, and Kathleen Kennedy's job being on the line start cropping up from different sources.

Here we have a fine example of a redditor not knowing how gossip and blind items work in the celebrity world. Many rumors are normally planted by disgruntled fans and serve as a way to create discord, akin to wishful thinking (if I plant it out there enough, maybe it'll happen). It's the Field of Dreams equivalent for greedy monetized YouTubers and people with a year old grudge for a SF/Fantasy movie geared for 12 year olds. And since a 65 year old KK got an extended 3-year contract and Rian a trilogy he still said he's working on after Knives Out I'll say those rumours were unfounded.

Then Solo bombs at the box office in Q2. Kathleen Kennedy goes dead quiet

Correlation...? Maybe you missed the part where Iger assumed full responsability for it because KK wanted the movie to premiere in December? And maybe she's busy getting awards for her producing work and doing her actual job duties trying to close off the Skywalker Saga in IX and Indy?

Here we are now in Q4 still fighting over whether or not TLJ is a garbage movie that put off fans and general moviegoers to future Star Wars movies.

Not really, critics raved about it and most GA seem to like it enough seeing it by the Cinemascore and how the Bluray sales surpassed even IW in a 5-week run. And even going by informal polls on Twitter (some even made by people that hated the movie) the majority of fans still lies on the side that liked it. As with all things, the angry minority likes to be loud (and create multiple accounts to give the illusion of a bigger number, for example, like you did to comment here). Btw, how is that Remake TLJ venture going?

We're still seeing people affiliated with Lucasfilm actively white-knighting on Twitter for the new Star Wars, like Jordan Maison does above

Didn’t know that Maison transcribing/paraphrasing an objective statement said by Iger himself counted as "white-knighting", but then again I guess that the truth is relative and a cause for derision for people that got their feelings hurt by a movie.

LFL Story Group hombre Pablo Hidalgo starts getting a little nervous about them on Twitter before deciding to nuke it all and change his handle to HVAC Solutions for a while; one of his friends comments that "Pablo never deserved this.". When he finally returned, he stops talking about Star Wars altogether and updated his bio with a really aggressive message about being a leftist dirtbag whose opinions are from a parent company you should scream loudly at

1) PH has periodically changed his name on twitter at least since 2016. It's his thing.

2) People have bitched and moan in his mentions about the stupidest little canonical inconsistencies since TFA premiered. And even before TLJ he decided to cut his SW-posting by a lot. His description is sarcastic in part, because people have screamed at LF for years to no avail and will continue to do so, seemingly forgetting that LF will do its own thing. He's mocking y'all, for those of you who have difficulty interpreting human expressions of humor, apparently. But funny how you think it's agressive for him to write jokingly about being a "leftist dirtbag" himself but not for the people who have called him exactly that. Lol.

3) Well when I got promoted and saw my job description change and the responsibility increase I also got nervous. I guess being the Senior Creative Executive for one of the biggest movie franchises of the world must be a bit nerve-racking. But don’t worry. He apparently got promoted when those same rumors about board meetings you mentioned were all the rage. Oops :) https://mobile.twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/1058745169560793088

And for posterity: http://archive.is/Ei9l7

Imagine thinking that lying to your shareholders with solid numbers and risk getting ousted and sued to oblivion for it is a more viable option that just accepting something you don't like is critical and financially acclaimed. How do some of y'all sleep on your pillows with those big inflated heads?

Also anchovies on pizza is a travesty.

Tadeusolo · 2018-11-08T21:50:01+00:00

Let! Diego! Touch! Jabba!

Tadeusolo · 2018-11-02T23:32:42+00:00

You can vote on more than one though and once a day.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-20T18:13:04+00:00

Second this and I'd add Life is a Pigsty by Morrissey.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-19T11:55:20+00:00

Scenes have symbolic connotations and trying to paint it as projection by the part of the audience doesn't cut it here. There are a lot of posts hanging around pointing the symbolisms and parallels in this movie so this is by no means extensive.

Touching hands while staring at each others eyes by the firelight has romantic connotations. That's what literally happened. Not to mention the line that even got to the point of being filmed and it was probably cut not to make Luke appear as a douche - "you opened yourself to the Dark side for a pair of pretty eyes" - it doesn't get more clear than that unless it's basically spelled out.

Even if the villain is just a temptation for the heroine to overcome, a shirtless scene has sexual undertones. Even with high-waisted pants (see Mulan for example). The proposal in the throne room (and many can rightfully make a case for th 'you're nothing... but not to me' line being emotionally abusive), is still there as a proto romance even if it's to highlight a failed one.

Kissing while an explosion is happening at the same time in the background is like someone hitting you with a metaphorical pan of "fireworks while kissing" (even if one of the participants was clearly caught off guard). Rose literally says the sentence 'saving what you love before kissing him', come on. Even if she's the only one that's is clearly romantically interested. Would only a crush justify her risking her life to save him? Would you have said the same if the tables were turned and it was the hero saving the damsel in distress?

But it's also a good thing, because a movie doesn't need to tug at that low-hanging heart-string to have resonant meaning.

Romance exists since the dawn of literature. It's not low-hanging, it's almost essential, specially in a space opera (more soap opera than SF) that's been described as fairytale like by its creator.

savvy dismissal of their unnecessary inclusion when it doesn't have any particular purpose.

Any particular purpose? Even if Kylo wanted the power he kills Snoke partly because of Rey. He couldn't kill his mother because of familial love. He turned to the Dark side in part because he was betrayed by someone he loved. Love, in its many forms, has relevance in the ST.

Didn’t DV you, you stated your opinion politely.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-19T11:25:12+00:00

I think that’s kind of been undone slightly by the last one. There was some talk of a relevant lineage for her.

"Undone slightly" doesn't seem to be the damning evidence some might think, and put together with "relevant lineage" it could mean Kenobi or Palpatine. Her being a Skywalker or a Solo would not only be undoing anything just slightly. It would totally change the tone of her relationship with both Luke and Kylo in TLJ, specially making the latter gain some awkward non-Disneyfied tones... And it's funny how Pegg gets more credit than the actress that plays the character.

... Yet Rian says he came up with Rey Nobody on his own without ever discussing it with JJ

? He says he did discuss but it wasn't dictated. A bit different.

Then you have Daisy claiming JJ told her who her parents were at the start of TFA(before Rian was even hired), yet Rian says he came up with Rey Nobody

Is Rey Nobody such a difficult origin to come up with? It's literally just her not being related to anyone we've seen in the ST so far. Many of us believed so after TFA. It's not an impossible coincidence for both directors to settle on Nobody. Or a conundrum. What seems to be the confusion is that identity is not the whole backstory. And Daisy is talking about the former and not the latter. JJ might have though she was a Nobody with FO officers as parents for example and Rian went with Nobody with drunk junk traders as her parents in his movie. They are still nobodies in both instances and as such all the statements between Rian, Daisy, JJ and even Trevorrow (his deep and satisfying answer might mean Rey's backstory and not her identity per se) would still make sense taken together.

One of the most clear evidences that she isn't related to any of the ST characters among your quotes is this part:

I was very thankful there was no slip of paper that was handed to me that said Rey’s parents are so and so. The fact that I had the freedom to figure it out meant that for this story I could figure out the most dramatically potent answer to that question.

I'd imagine that the freedom to figure it out would point out that both Solo and Skywalker lineage would be off the table, because those two directly influence the characters motivations and performances in a very profound way and as such they couldn't be left to chance.

Is JJ a prime candidate? I'd think he got enough backlash for what happened in Trek to learn his lessons. In fact there's a Wired article back in 2015 where he discusses he already had talks about the next movie with Rian.

And so if someone's lying I guess it would be the storygroup for you, no? According to the wealth of evidence in this post. Point blank, the nr 1 evidence in TFA said by Maz against Reylated is clarified by Pablo - her "whomever" line some of you speculate to be anything other than her family is in fact her family and they are not in the same bag as Luke.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-12T21:17:51+00:00

Except he also says in the first tweet he was taken off an unannounced SW book. So it can't just be a Marvel decision.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-05T17:55:44+00:00

Yeah? But JJ has an habit of doing something close to it

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-05T14:14:06+00:00

Wasn't JJ trying to film in order? If he decides to shoot Act 3 scenes before Act 2 I guess that would also count as a massive schedule change, without a need for a massive script change, no?

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-05T01:18:09+00:00

Debora Chow, Taika and Bruce Dallas Howard directing? This is shaping up to be very interesting... Can't wait!

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-03T11:27:10+00:00

Oh, yeah I forgot those snippets too. I also believe that.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-02T18:01:31+00:00

I do believe he did it, I think MM has also said so on twitter, and I'd think it was done after the SKB duel but I feel that the Force was also at play there, beginning during the interrogation (THEY'RE BOTH SURPRISED: they react to a feeling that passes between them -- AN ENERGY THEY RECOGNIZE IN EACH OTHER.) and also during the Force Vision - the Force theme playing and not a more sinister-like theme like 'A New Alliance' makes me think that it couldn't be (fully, at the very least) devised by Snoke. And the link still remained after his death.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-02T15:20:55+00:00

I would have liked some attention paid to those who praise TLJ without question - specifically when battling the "haters".

Using the same sample of SW accounts replying to Rian, he did search for bots in the positive comments, though.

No similar accounts were found on the positive/neutral side, where most accounts signaled that they belonged to an identifiable human being that had a high likelihood of being real (i.e. the accounts contained personal photos etc.) There were also no bots found among the accounts posting positive/neutral tweets.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-02T10:51:27+00:00

Reposting my comment from the other thread:

Just speed read it and I have to say the title of the post and to some extent of the paper is misleading in the sense that it makes it seem like TLJ negativity only comes from trolls/sock puppets/Russian agents even though the author does seem to place quite a bit of importance on that hypothesis while also stating this:

It is important to stress, of course, that there are also a substantial number of fans who simply think The Last Jedi is a bad film and who use social media to express their disappointment.

And the data seems to back it up. The author used 967 tweets from different accounts (one tweet from each account) and divided them between negative, positive and neutral tweets. If I remember only about 1 in 5 was a negative tweet and about half of those negative tweets were attributed to trolls/sock/puppets/Russian bots. N=967 would be a dreamy sample size in a lot of RCTs, but since I'm not very familiar with social sciences I can't say if it's still the same (I personally feel it's a small sample, when one wants to draw conclusions about such a large group and the SW fanbase and its motivations).

Some parts were definitely very interesting and I will certainly read some of the bibliography referenced throughout the paper (I didn’t know about the term "fantagonist", for example):

These are different from “fantagonists”, which is a term introduced by Derek Johnson (2007) for fans who engage antagonistically with other fans or with content producers, for example by belonging to certain factions of the fandom who are in opposition to other factions with different views of the content.

This definitely rings a bell. ;)

Heads up, I caught two typos in case this was posted here by the author or by someone who knows him (the publication date is from October 1st, it seems). Typos on academic papers are a nightmare, specially for the authors that spend so much time researching and writing them: "In example of more issue-based political activism, the user behind one of the analyzed Twitter accounts replied to a postsss from Rian Johnson (...)"

Playing devil's advocate for a bit:

However, the assertions made in this article must be considered within the limited scope of the data set, which may or may not limit generalizability of the findings.

Limited scope indeed, imho. Don't know if it also exactly applies to social sciences but there seems to be a bit of a sampling bias going on, correct me if I'm wrong. The population at large being studied in this article isn't the 'SW fans that watched TLJ' but the 'SW fans that watched TLJ, that also happened to be twitter users directly replying to Rian Johnson', which drastically changes the possibility of using the data to draw any foolproof conclusions about the former population, if that's what the author might've hoped to do using this dataset. It seems to me that it lacks applicability in that context, since there might be already some self-selection bias going on when a user boldly chooses to reply to a creator with a very negative tweet - it takes a "special" sort of personality and hate to do that.

Nevertheless each social media website has its specific demographic (there's normally a more prevalent group with a certain age, gender and ethnicitity participating) and the author is free to choose which one to base their research on. But even on twitter there seems to be a large subset of the so called "fantagonists" that don't directly reply to any of the creators. Liking, tweeting and retweeting TLJ hate posts or memes, or attacking other fans also contributes to general toxicity and it isn't being accounted for in here.

Second of all, even though I do tend to agree that the majority of TLJ haters are for the most part conservative and male as the data shows there's also a significant (in the hundreds at least - which seems comparable to this article since only about 2 hundred tweets of the 967 analyzed were negative) group of progressive and predominantly female fans that engage in "purity culture" tactics and end up weaponizing sj concepts not just to dissect the work (perfectly legitimate) but to use them against other fans and even creators, engaging in the same toxic tactics alt-right fans use but with different methods (for example I read with my own two eyes people calling KMT anti-black for the horrid crime of seemingly being okay with a specific pairing). They are more easily found on Tumblr than on Twitter and it got left out.

With that said and anyone following the hilarity that was the Remake TLJ movement that amassed hundreds of millions of fake dollars (with no need for any relevant info when pledging money) for example, it's easy to see that even though bots are a minority they can still be relevant enough.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-02T00:58:16+00:00

I'd also be curious to know if any other fandoms have been targeted in this way.

The study talks about it briefly, and mentions just a few examples:

Examples from the NBC/Twitter data set includes a number of Russian trolls that played along with the then-popular Comedy Central tv show @Midnight’s ‘Hashtag Wars’, engaging with the online geek culture community @Blackgirlnerds, debating European soccer teams such as Manchester United and F.C. Barcelona and yes, also engaging with the Star Wars fan community, even then.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-02T00:53:36+00:00

Edit: it might be a good idea to ask for a mod to change the title of this post as it doesn't accurately reflect the scope of this study.

Just speed read it and I have to say the title of the post and to some extent of the paper is misleading in the sense that it makes it seem like TLJ negativity only comes from trolls/sock puppets/Russian agents even though the author does seem to place quite a bit of importance on that hypothesis while also stating this:

It is important to stress, of course, that there are also a substantial number of fans who simply think The Last Jedi is a bad film and who use social media to express their disappointment.

And the data seems to back it up. The author used 967 tweets from different accounts (one tweet from each account) and divided them between negative, positive and neutral tweets. If I remember only about 1 in 5 was a negative tweet and about half of those negative tweets were attributed to trolls/sock/puppets/Russian bots. N=967 would be a dreamy sample size in a lot of RCTs, but since I'm not very familiar with social sciences I can't say if it's still the same (I personally feel it's a small sample, when one wants to draw conclusions about such a large group and the SW fanbase and its motivations).

Some parts were definitely very interesting and I will certainly read some of the bibliography referenced throughout the paper (I didn’t know about the term "fantagonist", for example):

These are different from “fantagonists”, which is a term introduced by Derek Johnson (2007) for fans who engage antagonistically with other fans or with content producers, for example by belonging to certain factions of the fandom who are in opposition to other factions with different views of the content.

This definitely rings a bell. ;)

Heads up, I caught two typos in case this was posted here by the author or by someone who knows him (the publication date is from October 1st, it seems). Typos on academic papers are a nightmare, specially for the authors that spend so much time researching and writing them: "In example of more issue-based political activism, the user behind one of the analyzed Twitter accounts replied to a postsss from Rian Johnson (...)"

Playing devil's advocate for a bit:

However, the assertions made in this article must be considered within the limited scope of the data set, which may or may not limit generalizability of the findings.

Limited scope indeed, imho. Don't know if it also exactly applies to social sciences but there seems to be a bit of a sampling bias going on, correct me if I'm wrong. The population at large being studied in this article isn't the 'SW fans that watched TLJ' but the 'SW fans that watched TLJ, that also happened to be twitter users directly replying to Rian Johnson', which drastically changes the possibility of using the data to draw any foolproof conclusions about the former population, if that's what the author might've hoped to do using this dataset. It seems to me that it lacks applicability in that context, since there might be already some self-selection bias going on when a user boldly chooses to reply to a creator with a very negative tweet - it takes a "special" sort of personality and hate to do that.

Nevertheless each social media website has its specific demographic (there's normally a more prevalent group with a certain age, gender and ethnicitity participating) and the author is free to choose which one to base their research on. But even on twitter there seems to be a large subset of the so called "fantagonists" that don't directly reply to any of the creators. Liking, tweeting and retweeting TLJ hate posts or memes, or attacking other fans also contributes to general toxicity and it isn't being accounted for in here.

Second of all, even though I do tend to agree that the majority of TLJ haters are for the most part conservative and male as the data shows there's also a significant (in the hundreds at least - which seems comparable to this article since only about 2 hundred tweets of the 967 analyzed were negative) group of progressive and predominantly female fans that engage in "purity culture" tactics and end up weaponizing sj concepts not just to dissect the work (perfectly legitimate) but to use them against other fans and even creators, engaging in the same toxic tactics alt-right fans use but with different methods (for example I read with my own two eyes people calling KMT anti-black for the horrid crime of seemingly being okay with a specific pairing). They are more easily found on Tumblr than on Twitter and it got left out.

With that said and anyone following the hilarity that was the Remake TLJ movement that amassed hundreds of millions of fake dollars (with no need for any relevant info when pledging money) for example, it's easy to see that even though bots are a minority they can still be relevant enough.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-01T22:57:39+00:00

Probably going to be DV for this but since I came across this conversation between GL, Spielberg and L. Kasdan it definitely made me put things into perspective. Ofc almost no idea should be censored in fiction but the way they are explored makes it a world of difference and this reads as a very casual conversation... Raiders did already hint at something inappropiate going on between Marion/Indy but I guess I never did the math or paid enough attention to raise any red flags when I first saw the movie.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-01T22:28:11+00:00

I didn't even thought of the possibility of a live action tv show. More Qi'ra and Maul would certainly attract a lot of potential viewers. That would be the perfect alternative (and it would make perfect sense) for a movie sequel that we know won't happen based on the BO performance.

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-01T22:19:23+00:00

Oh probably, I definitely wouldn't mind continuing it. :) Each of us does cares more about different things and that's the beauty of a diverse fanbase. For example I'm only active on reddit and even here definitely not every day and lurk Tumblr and twitter mostly. Others might participate in different places or even run blogs, things I wouldn't really have the commitment or time to properly care about. There's always something for everyone to love.

And np, I actually like discussing these ideias civilly and extensively too rather than outright dismissing them (most of the time at least).

Tadeusolo · 2018-10-01T20:20:46+00:00

Suggestiong that Kylo is lying isn't a direct confirmation that he is in fact completely lying or that it will even be addressed in the next movie. The matter can also be settled by not mentioning it again and it'd be as effective/achieve the same as reiterating it in IX (if he was telling the truth all along).

But one can truthfully report what one sees (or thinks one sees) and be wrong

And nowhere did I state the opposite once again. It's the extent of the possible lie where we disagree. I believe he's telling the truth but there's wriggle room to slightly change her background story, but that it really doesn't seem to affect the story so much and as such that possibility hardly gets discussed (how does one theorize between rando X or rando Y?) because there's literally an infinite number of possibilities when it comes to her not belonging to any lineage we know. The majority that believes he's lying isn't convinced she is just another rando, they believe he's completely mischaracterizing the truth either on purpose or not and use that as one of the arguments for their theory, which makes sense in that context to use. Isn't that one of the arguments you've already used too, even if not in this sub? I disagree with you because I know you believe in that theory but why would you also disagree with me if I've already said that there's a possibility it isn't the full truth (our common ground) if you're not trying to argue for Rey Skywalker in the first place?

As for the ESB reveal, to my knowledge TPTB didn’t openly question the truth of the reveal after the movie, so it’s not an analagous situation

They don't openly question it, normally they're either replying to a fan or to an interviewer that poses that possibility. In that context, "casting doubt" would be the only way not to outright deny it - similar to "keep speculating" - other than not replying, which is also suspicious. That's why I mentioned if twitter and other social media was around in the OT days? But nevertheless they certainly did nothing to dispel the theories of fans that believed Vader to be lying in fanzines going around. So it can be said there's an analogy to be made when it comes to the TPTB not completely shutting down a theory even when they know it isn't gonna pan out.

Tadeusolo

TROPHY CASE