The Force Awakens Who are Rey's parents (speculation)

[DigificWriter]

The saber calling to her doesn't HAVE to be explained by her being a Skywalker, though, and such an explanation wouldn't actually track with the things that we know about her relative to the characters she interacts with and the timing of certain important events relative to her age in TFA and her age when she was abandoned on Jakku.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The saber calling to her doesn't HAVE to be explained by her being a Skywalker, though, and such an explanation wouldn't actually track with the things that we know about her relative to the characters she interacts with and the timing of certain important events relative to her age in TFA and her age when she was abandoned on Jakku.

This literally makes zero sense. Not one thing that happens in the movie suggest any reason why she can't be a Skywalker. Rey is between 19 and 21, she is dropped off as a child. The age in which Kylo falls to the Dark Side is never stated, but he is close to 30, so it could have been over a rather large period if time. So even if Rey isn't little during the attack (and I still totally think she is), Luke fears the same for his daughter/niece, and decides to hide her as far away as he can. The same way he and his sister were hidden. He blocks her memories and does not drop her off himself, as it would mean he knows where she is.

In TFA we see the manipulation of the mind and memory by the Force (Force visions and the battle of minds between Rey and Kylo) and Rey sees herself among the Skywalkers in her own visions. You do realize that happens right?

She arrives in the memories of Luke, Vader, Kylo and herself. No one else. By the way, my money on the massacre scene not being from her or Kylo's POV, but her mothers, who we haven't met yet. Would make sense as it would be:

1. A vision of Vader.

2. A vision of Luke.

3. A vision of her mother (being killed by Kylo).

4. A vision of herself.

5. A vision of Kylo from the future.

The funniest thing about this argument is that it is actually painfully obvious for many simple reasons outside of the actual narrative.

1. They emphasis Rey being dropped off on Jakku. She wasn't born there, her parents didn't stay with her. So what of her history before Jakku? Why make a point of it, if it doesn't matter?

2. They never show her parents. They show her being dropped off, and specifically show a scene where the ship and her parents are unidentifiable. Why do that? Why, if it isn't someone we already know?

3. They emphasis her parentage in the trailers and the Skywalker bloodline.

Personally, I think the original intention was for it to be Han and Leia. But at some point, they changed it to Luke for one reason or another. The deleted scenes from the original shot order, emphasizes that little Rey was at Luke's Jedi Academy. Luke knows her, which will be his burden as he trains her. And if Luke knows her, there is zero point for her to not be related to them.

 

[DigificWriter]

By the time Ben killed his fellow Jedi students, Rey was already living on Jakku, because it has already been confirmed that said incident occurred far more recently relative to TFA than 14 years earlier, which is when Rey was abandoned.

It has also been confirmed that, in the forthcoming novel Bloodline, which takes place 6 years prior to TFA, Han and Leia are still at a good place in their personal lives (meaning that the incident that drove them apart - Ben's betrayal of Luke - has not yet happened).

 

[X Knight]

having rewatched TFA again, I will say this......

while I wouldn't go so far to call Rey a "Mary Sue," I can understand the argument that she seems to be just "too good" at everything despite having little known/formal training.

She's gifted as a pilot. She's gifted in mechanics and engineering. And she's obviously strong in the Force. All traits which she just so happens to share with Anakin and Luke - in addition to growing up on a desert planet and not knowing her full lineage ( Anakin didn't know his father and Luke didn't know his real parents ).

She also "inherits" the Falcon, Chewie as co-pilot, and R2 by the end of the film.

If she's part of the Skywalker/Solo family, then the above is easier to accept.

But, if she's some unrelated character, then the above just seems awfully convenient and she does come close to being a "Mary Sue."

and no, I don't buy her being a strong Force Sensitive as a logical explanation. it's just a cop out.

Not every Force Sensitive has to be a gifted pilot and mechanical engineer like the Skywalkers were. Why couldn't she be gifted in other areas?

For example, they could have shown her to be gifted at picking up languages, or "knowing" an object's past by touching it. Or a gifted haggler/negotiator. All of that aided by her subconscious use of the Force. And doing any of that would have made her more unique - especially if she's an unrelated character.

instead, though, they made her gifted in the 2 areas that the Skywalkers are gifted in - piloting and mechanics.

if she's a Skywalker/Solo, then that makes sense because those traits run in the family. otherwise, it comes across as lazy writing, imo. and Rey comes across as nothing more than a "derivative" character.

She's Luke 2.0 or Anakin 2.0 without actually being related to them.

 

[Havok83]

She's a derivative character regardless. Making her Luke's daughter just makes her a derivative of him instead of her own person.

 

[X Knight]

^^ perhaps.

but her being Luke's daughter makes it easier to accept that she's so good at similar things as Luke and Anakin because it runs in the family.

Her being a totally unrelated character who just happens to be good at those same things just feels awfully too convenient.

that makes her seem less of her own character and more of just copying Luke/Anakin, imo.

I just feel that if she's an unrelated character, then she shouldn't be so similar to Luke/Anakin other than being gifted in the Force. Don't make her such a gifted pilot or mechanic. Make her good at something else.

 

[Solidus]

She's far from derivative. Actually in many ways she's the complete opposite of Luke.

Luke is a individual who was raised by a loving family and lived a relatively boring life with friends. He dreamed of getting away from it all and seeking adventure.

Rey is someone who is a loner, had to survive all by herself living in a dangerous environment. She unlike Luke does not want to seek adventure, wants to reject the call to duty multiple times. Unlike Luke she wants to find her family and wait on Jakku until said happens.

 

[Havok83]

She's far from derivative. Actually in many ways she's the complete opposite of Luke.

Luke is a individual who was raised by a loving family and lived a relatively boring life with friends. He dreamed of getting away from it all and seeking adventure.

Rey is someone who is a loner, had to survive all by herself living in a dangerous environment. She unlike Luke does not want to seek adventure, wants to reject the call to duty multiple times. Unlike Luke she wants to find her family and wait on Jakku until said happens.

and yet there have been long posts since hte movie came out pointing out and stressing how similar they are. She isnt an exact clone but she is a derivative of the guy. So much of what they did with her was a callback to him and if you go by what people are saying here, are the hints to why she is his daughter

 

[Solidus]

and yet there have been long posts since hte movie came out pointing out and stressing how similar they are. She isnt an exact clone but she is a derivative of the guy. So much of what they did with her was a callback to him and if you go by what people are saying here, are the hints to why she is his daughter

And family members do have similarities, there are elements that are similar, but at the same time she's a completely different character. Kind of like most children.

 

[Havok83]

And family members do have similarities, there are elements that are similar, but at the same time she's a completely different character. Kind of like most children.

Lots of fictional characters are derivatives of their parents. When writers create them, they do so with that in mind. Like Quicksivler isnt a derivative of Magneto, but someone like Spidergirl is a derivative of her father, Spiderman

 

[Solidus]

But the word derivative is more of a negative connotation you are using. Her journey, personality and back ground is very different then that of Luke's.

 

[DigificWriter]

Most, if not all, of the things that people are pointing to as traits pointing towards Rey being similar to Luke and decrying as derivative if she's not his daughter are not in any way exclusive to his character, even in the specific combination in which they've been compiled, and therefore have no actual bearing on whether or not she is related to him.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

The biggest hint for me was her thinking about Luke's hiding spot as her happy place. A place she's never been. She's connected to Luke some way or another.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ That's not a hint towards her parentage; it's the seeds of a question to be answered, especially when we don't know WHY she was seeing 'dreams' of Ach-to.

 

[Brother Jack]

The biggest hint for me was her thinking about Luke's hiding spot as her happy place. A place she's never been. She's connected to Luke some way or another.

A vision of the future. I don't think it's out of the question that something out of the "forceback" was not out of the past. But I agree that she's most likely a Skywalker and most definitely been trained before.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Were they going around telling you that Kylo Ren was Leia and Han's son before the December screenings of TFA? No? Then why trust them now to tell you what happens?

 

[DigificWriter]

Were they going around telling you that Kylo Ren was Leia and Han's son before the December screenings of TFA? No? Then why trust them now to tell you what happens?

1) Because TFA itself makes it clear that none of the people Rey interacts with in any significant capacity - Han, Leia, Maz, Ben/Kylo - have any idea who she is

2) Because the TFA supplementary material backs up what TFA shows us

3) Because there have been a number of instances in which people like J.J. and Pablo have gone out of their way to clarify things that fans had 'glomped' on to that were not in line with what was actually meant to be conveyed

4) Because there was no reason for J.J. to answer the question that he was asked about Rey's parentage in the manner that he did; he could've very easily demurred and/or offered a cryptic answer instead of the answer he gave

Be as skeptical as you want; it won't change the truth, which is that Rey's parents aren't in TFA and she therefore is not a Skywalker or Solo.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

So what you're saying is....NOOOOO! THAT'S NOT TRUE! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!



Abrams clarified his statement later on - that the discovery by Rey of her parentage isn't in the movie, but that they could be. He's covered his bases so that he won't be accused of lying after the reveal happens.

Luke and Leia and Vader were all family and didn't know it in Star Wars (1977). In attempting to mirror the OT, they've mirrored this style of storytelling.

Hidalgo has only said that Jyn Erso isn't related to Rey and neither is Rey the offspring of Ezra and Sabine.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

1) Because TFA itself makes it clear that none of the people Rey interacts with in any significant capacity - Han, Leia, Maz, Ben/Kylo - have any idea who she is

2) Because the TFA supplementary material backs up what TFA shows us

3) Because there have been a number of instances in which people like J.J. and Pablo have gone out of their way to clarify things that fans had 'glomped' on to that were not in line with what was actually meant to be conveyed

4) Because there was no reason for J.J. to answer the question that he was asked about Rey's parentage in the manner that he did; he could've very easily demurred and/or offered a cryptic answer instead of the answer he gave

Be as skeptical as you want; it won't change the truth, which is that Rey's parents aren't in TFA and she therefore is not a Skywalker or Solo.

Why would they assume that little girl that went missing 10 years ago is Rey? You think she looks similar? More importantly, why do you assume anyone outside of Luke knows she exist?

But you are right, it won't change the truth. You are wrong, like you are always wrong.

 

[DigificWriter]

Abrams clarified his statement later on - that the discovery by Rey of her parentage isn't in the movie, but that they could be. He's covered his bases so that he won't be accused of lying after the reveal happens.

His "clarification" is nothing more than an obvious attempt to "walk back" what he said and therefore doesn't have any meaning, and if you believe it, "I've got some ocean front property in Arizona. From my front porch you can see the sea. I've got some ocean front property in Arizona. If you'll buy that I'll throw the golden gate in free".

Hidalgo has only said that Jyn Erso isn't related to Rey and neither is Rey the offspring of Ezra and Sabine.

He's said far more than that. Off the top of my head, here's stuff he's commented on/clarified/talked about since TFA's release:
1) Ben/Kylo Ren's massacre of his fellow Jedi students occurred far more recently relative to TFA than 14/15 years ago (which is when Rey was left on Jakku)

2) Maz and Ben/Kylo don't know who Rey is, and Ben/Kylo's "it's you" from the novelization was solely in reference to Rey being the "awakening" he and Snoke felt

3) The scene of Rey and Ben/Kylo in the rain had nothing to do with Ben/Kylo's massacre of his fellow Jedi students

4) The reason that the film cut away after Maz asked Han about Rey was an editorial decision intended to avoid needless exposition explaining to Maz stuff that the audience already knew

5) Concept art of a family and a spaceship seen in the Visual Dictionary had nothing to do with Rey directly, but was of a family she was originally going to see fly away from Jakku

6) Rey and Ben/Kylo Ren are 10 years apart in age, meaning that he was 15 at the time she was left on Jakku (when she was 5)

I know there are other things Pablo's commented on/clarified that I'm forgetting about, but those are the things that he's commented on/clarified that I could, as noted, remember off the top of my head.

We also have J.J. having clarified that R2 waking up had nothing to do with Rey arriving on D'Quar, and awkwardly trying to clarify that Rey and Leia's hug at the end of the movie wasn't an indication that Leia recognized Rey as anything other than the girl that Han and Finn had gone to rescue.

You are wrong, like you are always wrong.

You keep telling yourself that, skippy.

The evidence and the facts overwhelmingly say that I'm NOT in fact wrong.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Surprises in movies work only if you get the audiences to believe the wrong thing. Sometimes they go about that in this way. Look at HBO and Kit Harington (Jon Snow) from Game of Thrones for example. Or look at comic book movies like Iron Man 3 with the Mandarin or The Dark Knight Rises trying hard to get the audience to think Bane was Ra's al Ghul's son successor to mask Talia - and Marion Cotillard's own words weren't reliable before the release of that movie either.

 

[Snow Queen]

Why would they assume that little girl that went missing 10 years ago is Rey? You think she looks similar? More importantly, why do you assume anyone outside of Luke knows she exist?

But you are right, it won't change the truth. You are wrong, like you are always wrong.

Well, she had the same hair still. As we know, no two people have the same hairstyle.

 

[DigificWriter]

Surprises in movies work only if you get the audiences to believe the wrong thing. Sometimes they go about that in this way. Look at HBO and Kit Harington (Jon Snow) from Game of Thrones for example. Or look at comic book movies like Iron Man 3 with the Mandarin or The Dark Knight Rises trying hard to get the audience to think Bane was Ra's al Ghul's son successor to mask Talia - and Marion Cotillard's own words weren't reliable before the release of that movie either.

If you're trying to mislead people or actually establish/maintain some sense of mystery or doubt, you don't go out of your way to clarify or comment on things in a fashion that dispels false notions about the stuff you're clarifying or commenting on.

Both J.J. and Pablo have done this (Pablo on numerous occasions, J.J. on two prior to his comments at Tribeca), so your argument that they're trying to be misleading falls flat.

 

[AnneFan]

I read a theory which could work.

Spoiler

Rey is the all powerful chosen one, which reset itself after Anakin restored balance. Which would work nicely in a way, with Luke training Rey and this time the young hopeful not going down a dark path, but rather Kylo serving that role.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

His "clarification" is nothing more than an obvious attempt to "walk back" what he said and therefore doesn't have any meaning, and if you believe it, "I've got some ocean front property in Arizona. From my front porch you can see the sea. I've got some ocean front property in Arizona. If you'll buy that I'll throw the golden gate in free".

So you get to decide when JJ is telling the truth and lying? Why?

He's said far more than that. Off the top of my head, here's stuff he's commented on/clarified/talked about since TFA's release:
1) Ben/Kylo Ren's massacre of his fellow Jedi students occurred far more recently relative to TFA than 14/15 years ago (which is when Rey was left on Jakku)

Rey being left on Jakku does not need to coincide with the massacre.

2) Maz and Ben/Kylo don't know who Rey is, and Ben/Kylo's "it's you" from the novelization was solely in reference to Rey being the "awakening" he and Snoke felt

Maz not knowing Rey means what exactly? As to whether Ben recognizes her in anyway. There is of course, "What girl?"

3) The scene of Rey and Ben/Kylo in the rain had nothing to do with Ben/Kylo's massacre of his fellow Jedi students

Nope, it is probably when Ben killed her mother. Which is why she gets that vision and a second with Kylo.

6) Rey and Ben/Kylo Ren are 10 years apart in age, meaning that he was 15 at the time she was left on Jakku (when she was 5)

Rey was 4 and has no barring on the attack or her parents. You assumed Luke didn't hide her before the attack. Why? The reason Leia sent Ben to Luke was because he was being tempted by the Dark Side. Why wouldn't Luke hide his child in that case?

I know there are other things Pablo's commented on/clarified that I'm forgetting about, but those are the things that he's commented on/clarified that I could, as noted, remember off the top of my head.

We also have J.J. having clarified that R2 waking up had nothing to do with Rey arriving on D'Quar, and awkwardly trying to clarify that Rey and Leia's hug at the end of the movie wasn't an indication that Leia recognized Rey as anything other than the girl that Han and Finn had gone to rescue.

And none of this says Rey isn't a Skywalker.

You keep telling yourself that, skippy.

The evidence and the facts overwhelmingly say that I'm NOT in fact wrong.

You literally have no facts, and in fact avoid facts to try and further your arugment. Like you did with Laurel, like you did with the Fantastic Four.

But if you so sure answer these questions:

1. Explain how the original spoilers that told us that the planet was a weapon, that the main hero was a female Solo and that the villain was a male Solo, got all those right, but Rey?

2. Why did the very legit shot order show the potential filming of a young Rey at the temple learning? If she has never met any of these people, how does that work out?

3. If Rey isn't a Skywalker, why make a big deal of who her parents are and not tell us who they are?

4. When give a lot of evidence about a certain situation, you wouldn't buy it. Also, if you believe in taking evidence at face value, why do you deny JJ's own words?

Spoiler

Laurel is the one calling "time of death" in the promo for this episode, so she's not the one dying unless they stuck that in there to throw people off (which is a lot of unnecessary work).

^ That doesn't make much sense, but okay.

Personally, I'd rather take evidence at face value than be cynical and pessimistic, and Laurel being the one to call "time of death" is pretty solid evidence that she's not dying.

We'll see what happens, though.

I don't buy the notion that it's Laurel in the grave, as I've yet to see any evidence for said notion that is actually compelling, so it doesn't make sense to me that Laurel fans would just "give up" and resign themselves to something that I don't think there's all that much evidence for.

Oh well. We'll see what happens.

I was going to go to through the Fantastic Four stuff, but I don't hate myself that much. You simply ignore evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.