Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
2
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#4910
Ben Solo should return
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
The decision to execute the fictional character, Ben Solo (also known as Kylo Ren), at the end of Disney-Lucasfilm’s Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker was an ill-conceived decision that added to the number of dissatisfying arcs for the sequel trilogy characters. I propose that resurrecting Ben Solo would allow an opportunity for these arcs to continue and be seen to their proper conclusion.
Round 1
Con
#2
Truth #1: Ben Solo only dies in The Rise of Skywalker.
Ben Solo dies nowhere else, and only at the end of the 9th movie. Are you asking for a sequel to that?
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate. I apologize for the first round forfeiture. First, I will respond to their question and then begin my opening preamble, followed by the main contentions. The contender may present their rebuttal, leaving the final round for summarizations and closing statements.
Con's Question:
"Truth #1: Ben Solo only dies in The Rise of Skywalker.
Ben Solo dies nowhere else, and only at the end of the 9th movie. Are you asking for a sequel to that?"
Clarifying the Resolution:
My position is based on the death of Ben Solo in the Rise of Skywalker, the 9th movie of the Star Wars sequel trilogy. So, yes, in my saying Ben Solo should return, I am suggesting there should be a sequel or follow up to the events that take place at the end of Rise of Skywalker that involve his return from death.
Preamble:
I shall prove my case on two fronts, which shall be given their own sections below:
- Why Ben Solo should return
- How Ben Solo should return
Burden of Proof
The resolution means Ben Solo should return from death and have a story that follows his journey following the events of The Rise of Skywalker (abbreviated as TROS*). Therefore, I should win if I prove how and why that would be a narratively plausible and positive direction for the Star Wars chronology to take (please note: I'm not speaking from a business or financial point of view for Disney-Lucasfilm, the owner for the Star Wars franchise, only from a narrative perspective for how Ben Solo's return would impact the in-universe story).
Conversely, my opponent should win if they prove Ben Solo should not return as it would either be implausible and/or detrimental to the Star Wars story**.
Abbreviations
Pro and Con may reference any of the Star Wars films or shows with abbreviations. Below are common ones I'll be utilizing:
TFA - The Force Awakens (Episode VII of the Star Wars sequel trilogy)
TLJ - The Last Jedi (Episode VIII)
*TROS - The Rise of Skywalker (Episode IX)
Other Terms and Definitions
World Between Worlds (abbreviated as WBW) - the in-universe realm between time and space first introduced in Star Wars Rebels season 1, episode 10.
Force Ghost - "the soul and essence of a deceased Force-sensitive [person]" (Wookieepedia)
The First Order (abbreviated as FO) - the evil intergalactic regime intent on galactic domination previously led by Supreme Leader Kylo Ren, AKA Ben Solo
The Resistance (AKA the Rebels or Rebellion) - the insurgency against the First Order and "good side" of the sequel trilogy
Light Side/Dark Side - the metaphysical manifestations of good and corruption that make up two halves of the Force
The Force - "an energy field created by all life that bound everything in the universe together" (Wookieepedia). Those who are strong with the Force have innate and specialized abilities and skillsets that could be categorized as supernatural.
**Detrimental, in this context, implies narrative decisions that are too incongruous or inconsistent with the Star Wars story at large to make cohesive sense and creates a significant disconnect between audiences and the story being told. Con is free to expand upon the manner and measure of detriment any way they see fit.
I am also including this list of Star Wars characters if it's needed as a reference. Names are organized by surname.
Contentions
1. Why Ben Solo should return
The Rise of Skywalker is widely considered a polarizing film among many Star Wars fans alike, one of the most potent reasons being its finale, in which two major plot points unfold:
- Rey, the protagonist of the trilogy, learns she is the granddaughter of Sheev Palpatine and kills him, which, in turn, kills her
- Kylo Ren, the former antagonist, reverts to the light side and reclaims his identity as Ben Solo, Jedi, and sacrifices himself by transferring his life force to Rey, ultimately "dying"
The film ends with Rey claiming the Skywalker name as her own, and the trilogy concludes there. I propose this ending to be dissatisfying by sweeping degrees, but for the case of Ben Solo, I'll limit my reasons to the following:
- False hope
- Not even 20 minutes before Ben Solo's "rebirth", he has a conversation with his father, Han Solo (or the memory of Han Solo). During that conversation, Han Solo says, "Kylo Ren is dead, my son is alive", a heartfelt encouragement that rallies Ben Solo to action and discard his dark side persona for good. It's a tender and triumphant moment, only to be decimated by his death mere moments later. What was the point of Han declaring "my son is alive" only for said son to die? What was the point of any all build up two films prior in TFA, when Leia told Han to "bring their son home"? Or the revelation from Luke in TLJ that Kylo was not 100% corrupted? It's a clunky narrative beat to have Ben die so unceremoniously. A false hope of survival and redemption.
- Dyadic Exploration
- There's still many questions left behind in the wake of Ben's death regarding the dyad, what it is, how it functions, and what its possibilities hold. His death means that specific connection between Rey and Ben will never be explored nor fully explained.
- The Last Skywalker
- Despite Rey taking the name, Ben Solo is the true final Skywalker by way his mother's bloodline. He is the son of Leia Organa and Han Solo. To snuff him out is to snuff out Skywalker line as a whole feels like needless halting of legacy.
- Stranger Things
- Stranger things have happened. Palpatine returned inexplicably. Darth Maul was sliced in two and made a return. The precedent has been set for Ben Solo to return without raising too high of eyebrows by comparison.
- Death by Redemption
- This is more of a personal philosophical point, but I find it rather cynical that those have done wrong need to die instead of have the proper chance to atone. I don't believe that death needs to be the end all be all punishment for people who have the potential to change - at least not in fiction. I propose it is far more interesting for a character who is ethically gray to confront and experience the consequences of their actions.
2. How Ben Solo should return
Since the debut of Ben Solo's demise in 2019, theories of his return have been whispered into the ether, the prevailing one having revolved around the World Between Worlds. I used quotes above when referencing Ben's dying because his "death" does not follow the typical conventions of a Jedi's soul surrendered to the Force. In the past, when those who are strong with the Force die, they fade away, as Ben does in the film, but their Force Ghost reappears in some capacity as confirmation of their passing onto the Netherworld.
At the end of TROS, we see two Force Ghosts make a final cameo, Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa. Yet despite having ostensibly passed on, Ben is nowhere to be found. Remember, his turning to the light was a rather big moment, reminiscent of Anakin Skywalker reverting to the light in a similar show of self sacrifice so many decades prior. When Anakin died, his essence returned as a Force Ghost, smiling on at Luke in gratitude. The similarity in the final scene of TROS can't be overlooked as Luke and Leia gaze on with pride at the new "Skywalker". And yet, no Ben. Why?
I propose it's because Ben Solo never fully passed on to the Netherworld and is currently fixed in a state within the WBW. While Ben follows a similar path as Anakin, Ben is special in his own right. He has a special connection with Rey, one half of a dyad with properties that, as stated above, have yet to be fully explored. This deviation opens the door for new territory within the Star Wars canon. The latest episode of Ahsoka, following the journey of an adult Ahsoka Tano from Star Wars Clone Wars, leads Ahsoka to the WBW where she encounters (SPOILER) Anakin Skywalker in a younger form.
This all but confirms the potential of the WBW and how it can play a role in bringing Ben Solo back. Not only would it be consistent with the prior lore established by the universe, but it would also open up novel narratives that expand the universe in compelling ways. Paired with the aforementioned ethical obstacles Ben would need to confront, his return has the makings of something quite fascinating for Star Wars.
Opposing Viewpoints
Those in favor of Ben's conclusion may argue his death was designed as a parallel to Anakin's. He was able to "finish what he [Anakin] started" by at last bringing a loved one back to life, thereby atoning for his crimes, and joining his mother, Leia, in the Force. However, this leaves two questions:
- What about the dyad? All things considered, what larger point did Ben and Rey's connection play to the story apart from a few cool moments in TLJ and the climactic rescue scene in TROS? Sure, Anakin and Ben are alike in many ways, but Ben has something Anakin doesn't, and that alone is worth investigating further.
- If Ben's redemption and reunion with his mother was such a final signature to his arc, why was he nowhere to be seen in the concluding shots? If that narrative is to be taken as truth, why wouldn't he be included with his mom and uncle to drive the point home? His absence otherwise casts a tone to the scene that is confusing at best, and bleak at worst.
Or, perhaps, it is hopeful, if we are to believe his absence suggests a story that has yet to be finished.
Con
#4
I'm out of time again, am I not. Either way, let's make this brief so I could finish it in a single hour.
1. How do characters "return"?
It is simple. For a character to return from the dead, it must either:
- Be initially considered to be dead, and then revealed to actually NOT be dead, such as in the case of Darth Maul
- Have someone(or even the force itself if you are that badass) think you are worth reviving and performing some rare process such that you are indeed brought back, as in the cases of Sidious(to himself, Canon timeline) and Rey "Skywalker" Palpatine(Namely by Ben Solo himself)
Pro has not brought a single case outside of these two subcategories, so we're gonna stick with them as of now.
2. Was Ben Truly Dead?
Short answer: Yes. How? Well, you see, He has already been a part of the force along with his mother and uncle by the end of Movie IX.
Death reunited Ben Solo with his mother, Organa, who did not pass into the Force until she was joined by her son.[1] Their corporeal forms vanished simultaneously,[31] allowing mother and son to rest in peace together, becoming one with the Cosmic Force.[1]
I kept the citation links so you guys can see for yourself.
The question thus becomes: How does someone already taken by the force "become alive again"? How would Qui-Gon do this, for example? The answer is actually simpler than you think: that force ghosts and namely all individuals already passed on to the force can just exist without become "resurrected". Remember when Pro attempted to define resurrection?
I propose that resurrecting Ben Solo would allow an opportunity for these arcs to continue and be seen to their proper conclusion.
Though it is of note that Pro has put up this as a fight.
I propose it's because Ben Solo never fully passed on to the Netherworld and is currently fixed in a state within the WBW.
This speculative statement is directly at war with the aforementioned quoted part from Wookiepedia along with valid sources [1] and [31] seen above. This is a fictional series, whatever is canon is canon, and whatever isn't is not! Therefore, we shall continue while interpreting Ben as already a part of the force because it has been said by at least someone who represents at least an opinion of a part thereof on behalf of Lucasfilm and the SW canon.
And because force ghosts and people already passing on to the force after their earthly death aren't "revived" and can't, this whole idea is absurd.
Keep in mind, that this wasn't the case with Rey: When Ben tried to resurrect Rey, Rey wasn't fully "dead" yet.
After returning to the surface, Solo took Rey's body in his arms and, realizing that she was dead, began to despair. However, he sensed a spark of her essence and realized that the Force had not yet claimed her. Recalling the way she used the Force to heal him on Kef Bir, Solo applied the same technique on Rey, willing her to return to life.[27] He took the life energy that she had given to him and returned it to its original source along with all that remained of his own essence.[11]
Keep in mind, that when Rey "healed" Kylo(or Ben, as we call him today) on Kef Bir, it was a non-fatal wound and Ben wasn't CLOSE to being dead within the duration at which Rey attempted(and suceeded) in healing Ben. This is not the case we are discussing, as Ben is
- Dead by material standards
- Already passed on to afterlife canonically, unlike Rey at any given point in the canon timeline before the end of Movie IX
In the end, this maneuver is unlike not even the most similar cases before it in the same continuum(Let's not count legends at this point, I mean, there's a guy infamous for absorbing entire planets' biospheres), so its inclusion would break continuum logic and make Disney canon even more nonsensical than it already is.
I challenge Pro to bring up any similar cases strictly in Canon. No legends-exclusive and non-canon material allowed here.
3. Is Ben worth resurrecting?
Short answer: No. The entire 3 films are him filling a niche that would be better off not existing(for example, the Ren Riders are basically the equivalent of an underground gangster group, and the First Order is just a knockoff version of a knockoff version of the Empire). There is no incentive for bring him back especially since the lot of screentime he got in the 3 movies were just him trying to break stuff, breaking stuff intentionally, and breaking stuff unintentionally. Let's just say, The Resistance knows where Luke is: On Ahch-to, but when Luke died(Well we can see that, Luke just disappeared in front of Kylo's eyes by overexaustion, unable to project his own force no more), NOBODY tried to revive Luke.
The entire ideological faction didn't care about reviving someone who:
- Took part in destroying both death stars and the largest flagship in Imperial Squadron: The Executor
- Directedly resulted in Palpatine's first death, and because his Exegol body was so distant away, this is at least an exile for the old Emperor
- Was the most powerful light-side force user from 4ABY to 34ABY
- Founded a Jedi Academy, continuing the lineage, and serving as the grandmaster for years
Why would they revive someone who has committed the same amount of(if not more) war crimes but did about 1% or less of positive contribution to the galaxy compared to Luke? Short answer: They won't. Is it because they can't? Maybe, I mean, how do we bring people already in the force afterlife?
Or you can say that Luke was dead long before anyone capable of first aid found him. But the same is for Ben. By the time Rey reached Tatooine, it'd be at least a few hrs from when Ben reached clinical and biological death, his corpse on Exegol. And for such a key character to the movie itself(although maybe not to the galaxy, that's why he wasn't even "worth it"), if someone called an ambulance for him, don't we think we'd at least have a scene after the credits telling us that?
We didn't, and there is no reason to do it.
4. Leave Disney Canon Alone
Disney Canon is already shown to be so inconsistent and logically fallacious that I think it is not worth saving. At this point, we should probably just keep on watching shows that take place BEFORE 30 ABY, such as Andor and Ahsoka. Let me point out a few absurdities that is at this point common knowledge to both of us:
- Somehow an ancient dagger was carved in respect of the shape of landscape from a single planet, AS A PROPHETIC DEVICE, in a galaxy with MILLIONS OF STARS.
- Somehow Palpatine returned. We had no previous signs of such.
- Somehow he had thousands of upgraded ISDs build from scratch, on a planet that should not have natives(Exegol), and somehow he found enough people to operate all of them.
- Somehow thousands of civilian spaceships found Exegol despite not even having Exegol on the hyperspace GPS at all due to it being in the unknown regions. You can't convince me with the Millenium Falcon, that shit's more advanced than probably everything behind it. The fact that anything arrived within 3 lightyears from Exegol at the same time as any other ship, in a cluster, is already miraculous.
- They still didn't explain how the force dyad work, before killing off one of 2 people that cannot be reversed unless you break the lore EVEN MORE oh boy...
You tell me that this is the lore you wanna save? I don't even think Disney want that. As Movie IX: TROS became the least profitable mainline film in the series, you'd think they'd stop, eh?
Conclusions
- Canonically Ben has already passed on to afterlife, meaning that he can't be revived unless he breaks fundamental lore we've been based on for decades
- Disney canon is already disastrous in terms of logic, and there is little to no incentive to keep putting money on what happened after Ben died on Exegol. It's just not profitable to Disney to do that anymore at this point.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thanks to Con for their arguments.
I'll keep my rebuttal and summarization brief:
I concede to Con's point regarding the degree of deadness to which Ben Solo is afflicted. The "Afterlife" quote presented would suggest that Ben Solo has joined the Force and moved on to the Netherworld with his mother. But the question still remains why he wasn't seen as a Force Ghost joined with Leia at the end if he truly moved on with her. The question also remains how the dyad and WBW properties could influence his return. Whether Ben Solo is "dead" or dead-dead, therefore doesn't make much difference to the core of my contentions. At the end of the day, we have the why and we have the how for the manner it could happen.
I challenge Pro to bring up any similar cases strictly in Canon
The heart of my argument is that Ben Solo's characters has unique properties that opens the door for the new narrative opportunities. Put another way, the novelty of his return is a reason for it to happen, and there are enough pieces to substantiate it, even more so than Palpatine's return. As Con aptly put it, "Somehow Palpatine returned. We had no previous signs of such." I don't see the reasoning for this not being extended to Ben.
There is supplementary material that suggests Ben killed his fellow Jedi classmates while under Luke Skywalker's tutelage. This is in direct conflict Charles Soule's The Rise of Kylo Ren comic series, which reveals Ben had nothing to do the Jedi temple being destroyed and that it was, in fact, Palpatine/Snoke's doing. This is further confirmed in both the film and novelization of TROS when Palpatine reveals he's "been every voice inside [Ben's] head" since childhood.
Incongruences within the canon is confusing, yes, but it also means not every shred of detail should be be enshrined in truth. It leaves the door open for possibility.
Con proposes "there is no incentive for bring him to come back especially since the lot of screentime he got in the 3 movies were just him trying to break stuff, breaking stuff intentionally, and breaking stuff unintentionally." but my advocacy for novelty is the incentive within itself. Not only with exploration of the WBW's properties, but with the very essence of storytelling within this universe. We would get to see a character grapple with his horrifying decisions, witness the Resistance and those around him who were victimized process those decisions. Instead of dying, he would need to live it. To face full, unrelenting accountability. That has the makings of compelling storytelling while leveraging new mechanics, and thereby having a fresh take on a franchise that has a clear problem with retreading trodden ground to the point of self cannibalization.
It is, in my views, better to take risks and introduce new concepts to the Star Wars story than continuously rehashing the old. Which is why when Con brings up the question as to why bring Ben back as opposed to Luke Skywalker, the answer is simple: Luke's story is done. It has been told and retold many a time over. Ben has a novel trait unique to him that Luke does not have, which is his dyadic connection to Rey.
Why would they revive someone who has committed the same amount of(if not more) war crimes but did about 1% or less of positive contribution to the galaxy compared to Luke?
To that particular point, I think it's worth noting that Luke Skywalker had a significantly higher kill count compared to Ben per this kill count list.
#1 Hux (155,572,361,721)
#9 Luke (1,549,232)
#14 Anakin/Vader (153,232)
#19 Rey (50,064)
#41 Kylo Ben (81)
#54 Jar Jar (43)
I also disagree with Con's interpretation of Kylo Ben's character being watered down to a person who merely breaks things. Kylo Ben is a conflicted character trapped between two identities. While his grandfather was tempted by the dark, Kylo is tempted by the light. A child in a mask, as Snoke puts it, playing pretend, pretending to be Vader, but ultimately struggling to figure out who he truly is. We saw glimmers of who Ben Solo could be with his exciting return to light at the end of TROS. The shrug and smarminess of his father. The heroism of his mother. But I think it's worth seeing *all* he can be.
If we acknowledge the Disney sequels are discordant, allowing a story that fills some of the gaps with Ben Solo is nothing but an opportunity for repair and growth.
I thank you for your time.
Sources:
Con
#6
Re-settling the concerns
I concede to Con's point regarding the degree of deadness to which Ben Solo is afflicted. The "Afterlife" quote presented would suggest that Ben Solo has joined the Force and moved on to the Netherworld with his mother. But the question still remains why he wasn't seen as a Force Ghost joined with Leia at the end if he truly moved on with her.
Or...that the force ghost is a phenomenon that requires learning.
No joke. You have to be of the pure selflessness of intentions in order to be peaceful enough to do so, or bla bla bla. Either way, Qui-gon learned this technique not from the Jedi but from another ancient force-related organization called the Whills, in which the same technique was pass down to Yoda and Obi-wan, etc.
We have to note that becoming dead as a Jedi does not automatically grant force-ghost status even if the entirety is passed on to the force. You have to make a choice, kinda like applying for scholarships. Anakin (formerly Vader) was just so gifted at it that he can already choose to return to the light and become a force ghost by the time he's dead despite forgetting how to be a Jedi for like 23 years. Ben wasn't as gifted(he was gifted by his own right, but on no platform is he as gifted as his grandpa, and this explains why his attempts at being a semi-dark warrior has been foiled after a few years, rather than over 2 decades. Also, what did most Jedi's do before Qui-Gon? Did some kind of Whills just sorta came close to everyone's ears and said "hey you gotta be a ghost it's cool"? We have no evidence to support such a belief.
We have no reason to believe that Ben was gifted enough that he can already choose to become a force ghost the moment he dies, and we have no reason to believe that Ben want to make this choice this way at this moment in time, considering for the most marked years of his life he has been a dark-sider. I mean, despite Anakin being too young and inexperienced to be a full-on master, his force abilities are indeed on par with a good portion of the high council (albeit still below Yoda, Obi-wan, Mace Windu, etc). Contrast this with Ben not even advancing past padawanship before branching off. We have no reason to believe that Ben was able to become a force ghost with the lack of foundation trained in the Jedi arts or that he would think this is the way for the exact same reason.
Unlike his nephew who rejected his training, Leia actually took up the Jedi arts again taught by Luke. Leia was as talented blood-wise as Luke in terms of force sensitivity(that by Ep6, she could sense her brother despite receiving no formal training of any kind ever). We have reasons to believe that Leia is both more adept and more trusting for the arts of the force that she would be one that turns into a force ghost like his brother, not Ben.
In conclusion, due to lore implications, this is no problem at all.
The heart of my argument is that Ben Solo's characters has unique properties that opens the door for the new narrative opportunities. Put another way, the novelty of his return is a reason for it to happen, and there are enough pieces to substantiate it, even more so than Palpatine's return. As Con aptly put it, "Somehow Palpatine returned. We had no previous signs of such." I don't see the reasoning for this not being extended to Ben.
Due to Ben's death directly being set in a timeline AFTER palpatine "returning" that I deem Disney canon borderline unsavable (to which Pro not only did not contend but embraced it somehow). You can't save something that's already shattered into pieces already.
There is supplementary material that suggests Ben killed his fellow Jedi classmates while under Luke Skywalker's tutelage. This is in direct conflict Charles Soule's The Rise of Kylo Ren comic series, which reveals Ben had nothing to do the Jedi temple being destroyed and that it was, in fact, Palpatine/Snoke's doing. This is further confirmed in both the film and novelization of TROS when Palpatine reveals he's "been every voice inside [Ben's] head" since childhood.
That does not mean contradictions do not matter; In fact, it means the complete opposite, that explanations should be given whenever needed. This is a good example of an offered explanation: that Ben was being lured into doing dark side things rather than voluntarily.
Palpatine's rebirth has been offered an explanation (albeit very stiff when you look at it, and is overall a stretch at most), as he previously set up clones of himself before his death on Endor, bla bla bla. Ben's death needed no further elaboration. Force can heal people, and when you get passed onto the force you can't just come back being revived. Bringing Ben back from the dead would not only become an unnecessary explanation but would break the lore more than it fixes.
but my advocacy for novelty is the incentive within itself. Not only with exploration of the WBW's properties, but with the very essence of storytelling within this universe. We would get to see a character grapple with his horrifying decisions, witness the Resistance and those around him who were victimized process those decisions. Instead of dying, he would need to live it.
Weird ways to escape death have been almost a trademark for the SW universe. We have no reason to believe that no matter what Ben's fate afterward is, it will eclipse every single one before it. Let's just take a look at some notable ones.
- Darth Maul: Thrown into a pit cut in half, thought to be dead, later got put into garbage piles in another planet. Built cybernetics and is now a crimelord.
- Palpatine: Guy got electrocuted, took years to build back his empire, then angered a galaxy full of civilians that they all somehow met at a place not showing up on the GPS because of how badass he is, dying with thousands of ISDs operated by people on a planet without natives.
- Boba Fett: Guy got eaten by a sarlacc and somehow built his way back up to a boss.
- Various: Survived full-on stabs by a high-power lightsaber.
- Andor: Guy fell at least 100 feet and somehow climbed up the entire shaft with a broken back and still was able to use the blaster.
- Anakin: Guy got burned for possibly hours until being turned to a black cyborg running on hate. Do you top this.
These things all either created lore(such as Anakin and Maul) or at least didn't interfere with it(such as Andor). The problem is that knowing how they butchered Ben in the last 2 movies and just kinda left him ending by IX, do we really need a return?
Don't fix what is not broken, and don't fix what does not need to be fixed. This is a prime example. There is no lore-wise reason to bring him back except for the vague exploration of storyline logic. That is not very convincing.
To that particular point, I think it's worth noting that Luke Skywalker had a significantly higher kill count compared to Ben per this kill count list.
Quantifying contribution like this is absurd. I killed no one, does that mean I am better than Luke? No. Reasons? Obvious. Try again.
While his grandfather was tempted by the dark, Kylo is tempted by the light. A child in a mask, as Snoke puts it, playing pretend, pretending to be Vader, but ultimately struggling to figure out who he truly is. We saw glimmers of who Ben Solo could be with his exciting return to light at the end of TROS. The shrug and smarminess of his father. The heroism of his mother. But I think it's worth seeing *all* he can be.
Or, we could just connect the dots with using flashbacks, or comics of Ben's life before Episode VII where he began to tear his life apart. That is a good way to fill the blanks without being lore-breaking. IDK if there are actually something like this, but be noted if there are.
If we acknowledge the Disney sequels are discordant, allowing a story that fills some of the gaps with Ben Solo is nothing but an opportunity for repair and growth.
Except that 1) Disney has essentially the copyright to the Canon timeline and the works associated with it; 2) Without Disney who also broke him, Ben would be a nonexistent character. We cannot just honor a character by disregarding where it came from.
I rest my case.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
The topic is "Ben Solo should return," which is pretty specific insofar as it tells us what should happen, but pretty broad in terms of what that means. I think Pro's correct that there should be a both a means by which Ben Solo can return and a reason for him to return, but Pro notably provides very little in the way of reasoning as to what's likely to happen should he come back to the series. Instead, much of Pro's argument focuses on how he could return (so that's one part of it), and how his death was a negative for the narrative surrounding his character, i.e. by preventing further exploration of elements like the dyad, abruptly halting the hopes of his parents, snuffing out the Skywalker line, and providing a cynical means for redemption. I don't see much analysis of what the series is likely to do now that his character is back in the story. I get some of that in R3, where Pro argues that it could allow for exploration of the WBW (doesn't seem specific to the character) and that Ben could then "grapple with his horrifying decisions, witness the Resistance and those around him who were victimized process those decisions," but there are two problems with this. First, it's presented for the first time in R3, making it a final round argument that does allow some response from Con, but is nonetheless pretty unfairly positioned to afford him minimal response. Second, all of that seems like Pro's imposition of what he wants on the character. I buy that they would likely continue the dyad and even the exploration of the WBW would necessarily have to happen if he returned from there, but it's up to Pro to justify why Ben would interact with the Resistance and face accountability as a foregone conclusion.
Coming back to the issue of how he could return, I do think this is a double-edged sword for Pro. I don't think there's any argument that can be made that a fictional character in a universe where other characters have had fake out deaths could have themselves had a fake out death, and with the WBW in play, there is clearly some wiggle room when it comes to the act of physically dying. Like Con, I don't buy that the lack of a Force ghost opens the way for this to happen, and I do think it opens a novel route to return from death that has not been presented just like this before (even Ahsoka isn't a 1-to-1 comparison).
The problem is that if I buy that Disney can revive this character in this way, I also have to buy that those very "discordant" issues that have accompanied the Disney sequels are likely to continue with Ben's survival. And that's a problem for Pro's argument. He says that "allowing a story that fills some of the gaps with Ben Solo is nothing but an opportunity for repair and growth," but seems to simultaneously acknowledge that Disney has a bad track record when it comes to making fulfilling narratives. Con notes several times that the efforts to bring back certain characters, particularly Palpatine (who gets referenced as a major example of a character similarly returning from the dead), have had substantially negative effects on the narrative of the series. So while I agree that the way Ben was taken out of the series was negative for a variety of narrative reasons, I'm not seeing a good reason to believe bringing him back will improve upon his or the general narrative of the series.
So, the best I can do is point to the exploration of the dyad and the WBW, and I have to compare them with broader effects on the lore of the series that result from Ben having even less basis for returning than Palpatine. Since neither side is particularly forthcoming on the impact level (why should I care so much about any of this?), I'm forced to look at things from my perspective. The dyad and WBW can potentially be explored through other characters (Ahsoka already did some of the latter) and I just generally have trouble seeing either of them as important when compared with setting an even broader standard of who comes back and from what. While revival of the supposed dead happens with some regularity, I can see bigger problems with people just generally mistrusting anything that looks like a death on screen. While the lore the Disney cannon may not be "borderline unsavable" as Con claims, the concept of a relatively untrained Jedi managing to reach and return form the WBW does present its own set of questions that I think have broader effects on enjoyment of the series as a whole. Therefore, I vote Con.
you haven’t posted a vote
I'm going to try to get to this. Someone remind me if I haven't posted a vote in a couple of days.
to be clear, the kill count wasn't to quantify contributions, it was to showcase the fact that Luke committed far more war crimes than Kylo lol
not to mention him stealing babies across the galaxy and whatnot.
I'll reread this. Right now I'm torn. While bringing Ben back seems a fine direction for further sequel movies, said sequel movies were kritiked as a bad idea.
Note: Con makes a mention of the profitability of Ben's return to Disney, but in my preamble, I requested that we keep the debate to narrative reasons only, not fiscal.
oh shit i didn't realize anyone accepted this
You’ve missed one round but can still make a comeback.
In love and correct 😌
Girl, I think you are in love.
“Well, compared to Vader and Anakin, Ren is an obvious downgrade.”
That is the point of his character. He tries to emulate what Vader was, but fails, because at his core, he is not the same. In his heart he knows this, and instead “performs” the Dark Side by lashing out and demonstrating violent spurts of aggression rather than wholly embracing it. He’s playing pretend. A child in a mask, as Snoke aptly pointed out.
“Possibly the only non-dominant Sith in the entire series.”
Kylo is not a Sith.
“However, up until episode 7 all bad guys had 1. Plan 2. Motive 3. Consistency 4. Some stability in speech and battles, 5. Sense of respect in battles and speech 6. Cool lines.”
1. Kylo’s plan was to finish what Vader started. This is stated in the first film of the trilogy.
2. As verbalized: to move the galaxy towards a new order that doesn’t believe in esoteric notions of Dark versus Light, Sith versus Jedi. This is stated in the second film. To be precise, The First Order acted as an inquisition to impose itself as the singular and final rule of law in the galaxy.
As implied: to get revenge on those he trusted and abandoned him as a child, inadvertently casting him away and towards the dark side, Han and Luke being being major players in that. This was also clarified in the second film. His motives eventually incorporate having Rey at his side to achieve the above, as clarified in the third film.
3. The conflict residing in Kylo was evident since the first movie and stayed true to the moment of his turn in the final film. This conflict made him volatile and angry, interspersed with flashes of vulnerability. This is consistent with the above motives in addition to his being a metaphoric child in a mask.
4. I’m not entirely sure what is meant by this, but any instability observed in Kylo can be attributed to the aforementioned symptoms of a character who is volatile and in constant battle with himself. Snoke, again, aptly described Kylo as unbalanced for this reason.
5. Kylo Ren was corrupted, dogged, and a bit arrogant in his pursuits to achieve what he wanted. There’s no reason such a character would demonstrate respect towards his foes. I’m unsure what is meant by “respect in speech”.
6. “Your son is gone. He was weak and foolish like his father, so I destroyed him.”
“Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.”
Rey: “You are a monster.”
Kylo: “Yes, I am.”
This isn’t even to speak of his sarcastic one-liner retorts.
“Anakin was a bit emo, yes, but he was mostly reasonable in it.”
Was he? He choked his pregnant wife to death under the unfounded pretense of her cheating on/betraying him and proceeded to plunge the galaxy into endless turmoil and suffering for decades to come. His “I hate sand” attitude in general categorizes him as more of an emo considering Kylo didn’t even speak or lament his frustrations with the world by much in comparison.
“At least you knew what they think.”
It’s true that Kylo Ben may not be as chatty as Anakin, but he didn’t need to be. We saw who he was and how he felt through his actions: From smashing his helmet in a fit of incalculable rage; to staring, quiet and forlorn, into the abyss after executing his own father; to making the silent decision to spare his mother’s life.
I understand Kylo Ren/Ben Solo is part of a trilogy some people simply don’t enjoy, but that doesn’t mean the fundamentals and nuance of his character, which are indeed laid out in the films, need to be ignored.
"would the attitudes of the dark side really lead to well adjusted disciplined individuals?"
Well, compared to Vader and Anakin, Ren is an obvious downgrade.
Possibly the only non-dominant Sith in the entire series.
Dark side makes people a bit unstable, yes. However, up until episode 7 all bad guys had 1. Plan 2. Motive 3. Consistency 4. Some stability in speech and battles, 5. Sense of respect in battles and speech 6. Cool lines.
Okay, I understand that Emo is getting popular again. However, I would actually prefer if Jedi was emo. Anakin was a bit emo, yes, but he was mostly reasonable in it. I would prefer if they go back to those reasonable emos. At least you knew what they think.
There’s a popular fan theory that the timelines got split during rebels. The New Trilogy being what happened if Ahsoka died; freeing the television writers to wholly ignore Space Leia and Emo Ren.
That said, I appreciated Emo Ren. A child pulling a temper tantrum with the power to move mountains. It’s different, and it’s scary in its own way. Sure we’re not going to respect the guy who stops in the middle of a fight to hurt himself as a cry for help or whatever, and he’s a complete novice with a lightsaber; but would the attitudes of the dark side really lead to well adjusted disciplined individuals?
New Star Wars movies have like only 7/10 rating, and even that is exaggeration.
The only reasons why people watched last 3 movies is because 1. The name "Star wars", 2. Too much avertisement.
I appreciate making female Jedi the main character, but the movies are so boring. There is nothing colorful about them. Ren is just crying most of the time, or looks like he is about to cry. There is no any kind of charming bad guys, which is what Star Wars before had. Ren is just crazy. You cant like him or respect him. Well, maybe thats what the disney was after.
Still, if they are going to make any more Star Wars movies, better start over instead of continuing this.
Couldn’t be as bad as space Leia, but it’d be bad. Yoda is already using force lightening from beyond the grave, it would remove the impact of sacrifice if their afterlife becomes a revolving door.