Kylo Ren's Ghost in the Machine: Why Some Resurrections Are a Narrative Glitch We Don't Need
AI Gaming News Author · Polygon ·
Jeff explores why Disney's decision to reject a Kylo Ren sequel is actually a win for storytelling integrity, arguing that bringing Ben Solo back would be the ultimate 'narrative glitch' that ruins his perfect ending.
Right, so I’ve been tinkering with this story all morning, and bloody hell, it’s wilder than it first appeared. You know that feeling when you finally beat a boss that’s been kicking your teeth in for three hours, only for a cutscene to trigger where they suddenly stand up, dust themselves off, and say, “I wasn't even trying”? It’s frustrating, isn't it? It feels like the game just cheated you out of your hard-earned victory. Well, it turns out Disney and Lucasfilm almost did the cinematic equivalent of that with our favorite moody Force-user, Kylo Ren.
Now, before we dive into the digital tea leaves of this one, I’ve got to give a massive shout-out to Aimee Hart over at Polygon, who recently penned a brilliant piece on why bringing Ben Solo back from the Great Beyond would be a massive tactical error. She’s hit the nail on the head, and I reckon she’s spotted a pattern in the way we consume stories that’s worth digging into.
Here’s the scoop: Adam Driver—the man behind the mask himself—revealed to the Associated Press that he actually teamed up with director Steven Soderbergh (yep, the Ocean’s 11 guy) to pitch a sequel titled *The Hunt for Ben Solo*. Apparently, Lucasfilm was actually keen on the idea, but Disney eventually pulled the plug because they couldn't figure out how he’d actually... well, not be dead. It’s a bit of a shocker, really. It’s like a developer pitching a sequel to a game where the protagonist definitely died in a supernova, and the publisher finally saying, “Wait, how is he breathing again?”
I’ve got to be honest with you, mates—I’m with Disney on this one (a sentence I don't say often, believe me). As Aimee Hart points out in her article for Polygon, bringing Kylo Ren back would fundamentally misunderstand why his exit in *The Rise of Skywalker* was one of the few things that actually landed with any emotional weight. If you’ve played any narrative-heavy RPGs lately, you’ll know that a character's ending is often their most defining moment. You can’t just hit 'Undo' without breaking the whole spell.
Think about the arc for a second. We spent three movies watching Kylo Ren (or Ben Solo, depending on how much you like his hair) flip-flopping between the Light and Dark sides like a laggy connection switching between servers. He was obsessed with his grandfather, Anakin Skywalker. But where Anakin fell to the Dark Side because he was desperate to save the person he loved and failed, Ben did the opposite. He rejected the Dark Side and sacrificed his own life energy to save Rey. He succeeded where Vader couldn't. He finished the quest, hit the level cap, and logged off for good.
In the gaming world, we’d call that a perfect 'True Ending.' Bringing him back as anything other than a blue, shimmering Force ghost (the Star Wars version of a legacy skin) feels like a desperate attempt to farm more engagement from a character who has already finished his campaign. Why bother with the stakes of a story if the 'Game Over' screen is just a suggestion?
Hart’s point about the "integrity" of the scene is what really resonates with me. As gamers, we’re used to 'Somehow, Palpatine returned' moments—we see it in every franchise that refuses to let its villains stay in the graveyard. We’ve seen Darth Maul survive being sliced in half (the ultimate 'hitbox gore' survivor), and we’ve seen Ahsoka Tano literally saved by a time-travel mechanic in the World Between Worlds. But just because you *can* use a cheat code to bring a character back doesn't mean you *should*.
I reckon there’s a broader lesson here for the gaming industry too. We live in an era of 'Live Service' storytelling, where characters are often treated like permanent assets that must be monetized forever. Whether it’s Web3 gaming trying to make sure your digital hero lives on-chain for eternity or big studios churning out endless DLC, there’s this growing fear of the 'End.' But endings give meaning to the beginning. Without the possibility of a permanent logout, the adventure starts to feel a bit hollow, doesn't it?
Imagine if the end of *The Last of Us* or *Red Dead Redemption 2* was just undone in a sequel because the publishers realized the characters were too popular to lose. It would cheapen every tear shed by the players. Aimee Hart argues that Kylo Ren’s death is one of the few shreds of integrity left in a movie that, let’s be fair, felt like it was written by a committee trying to please everyone at once. By letting Ben Solo stay dead, they actually respected the character's journey.
Now, don’t get me wrong—I’m a curious wizard. I’d love to see what a Soderbergh-directed Star Wars flick looks like. The man knows how to pace a story better than almost anyone. But 'The Hunt for Ben Solo' sounds like a quest where the loot at the end just ruins the lore of the previous expansion. Sometimes, the most 'pro-player' or 'pro-fan' move a creator can make is knowing when to put the controller down and let a story rest.
We often talk about 'player agency' and 'choice' in games, but there’s also something to be said for 'narrative consequence.' If Kylo Ren can just respawn because his actor had a cool idea for a spin-off, then the sacrifice he made for Rey becomes just another cutscene we skip on our second playthrough. It loses its magic.
So, as much as I love a good comeback story, I’m tipping my wizard’s hat to the decision to keep Ben Solo in the Force’s cloud storage. Let’s focus on new stories, new characters, and new ways to blow a hole through reality, rather than just patching old ones until they’re unrecognizable. After all, if Star Wars has taught us anything, it’s that the galaxy is a bloody big place. There are plenty of other stars in the sky that haven't been mined for content yet.
What do you lot think? Are you hungry for more Kylo, or do you reckon we should leave his lightsaber in the sand where it belongs? I’m cautiously optimistic that Lucasfilm might finally be learning that 'More' isn't always 'Better,' but then again, I've seen enough corporate marketing speak to keep my skepticism charged to 100%.
Safe travels in the digital ether, mates. Watch out for those narrative glitches.
Tags: Star Wars, Game Narrative, Lucasfilm, Character Development, Disney
Original article: Polygon