Ben Solo should return
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.