1. Due to the increased amount of spam bots on the forum, we are strengthening our defenses. You may experience a CAPTCHA challenge from time to time.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Notification emails are working properly again. Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam". This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. IMPORTANT! To be able to create new threads and rate posts, you need to have at least 30 posts in The Cantina.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Before posting a new thread, check the list with similar threads that will appear when you start typing the thread's title.
    Dismiss Notice

Doing Luke Better

Discussion in 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' started by Adam812, Aug 18, 2018.

  1. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Rebel General

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2018
    Posts:
    735
    Likes Received:
    1,332
    Trophy Points:
    4,842
    Credits:
    1,760
    Ratings:
    +1,926 / 126 / -51
    The problem is that the story established in E7 does not even remotely mesh with what we got in E8. E7 establishes that Luke has gone in search of the First Jedi Temple. When Rey finds him, he is standing in full Jedi regalia. Then E8 comes along and gives us a Luke who has cut himself off from the Force.

    The usual apologists will talk about how it all makes perfect sense when you think about it, but it doesn't. Why would someone go on a great quest to find the first Jedi Temple if their goal is to cut themselves off from the Force? That's like someone wearing religious vestments in the middle of St. Peter's Basilica and then saying they want to cut themselves off from religion.

    So I can't blame Abrams for E8 when it is clear Abrams wanted the story to go in other directions.
    --- Double Post Merged, Aug 20, 2018, Original Post Date: Aug 20, 2018 ---
    The problem is Luke didn't evolve. He devolved. That's the problem. In good storytelling, we expect heroes to suffer setbacks. What we don't expect is the hero to go so far backwards that he become unrecognizable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
    • Wise Wise x 1
  2. NinjaRen

    NinjaRen Supreme Leader

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2015
    Posts:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    103,269
    Trophy Points:
    171,517
    Credits:
    56,736
    Ratings:
    +111,944 / 176 / -32
    Even though I don't like TLJ that much I have to disagree. It's all explained in the movie itself. Luke went to Ahch-To with hope to find answers. And he did, but they weren't like as he had expected.

    The thing with the clothing is also shown in the movie. If we look at the scene of Luke trying to burn the tree, then it becomes pretty obvious that Luke did try this before, but he wasn't able to do it. At the ending of TFA he was about to burn the tree again. Thus he wore his Jedi robes because he wanted to end the Jedi as a Jedi. I think this was even explained by RJ himself in the BTS documentary.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Wise Wise x 2
  3. Rayjefury

    Rayjefury Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Posts:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    3,409
    Trophy Points:
    12,967
    Credits:
    4,671
    Ratings:
    +5,225 / 106 / -18
    But the motive was retroactive and out-of-universe though was it not? It was the big twist/reveal in ESB - it wasn't determined at the time of ANH filming that Luke's father and Vader were the same. It's something that was decided later. I can think of no reason why this couldn't have also been done with the reason for Luke' absence.

    I mean if you were ok with the credible and well informed character Obi Wan (who knew Anakin best) providing inaccurate information to the lead in ANH, I don't know why Han couldn't do the same in TFA. The constraint that he must be speaking unfettered truth is (to my mind's eye) an artificial one

    Was there? Do we know this for sure? Because I see us debating whether or not Han's POV of events had to be viewed as the ironclad irrefutable account of events, and I see nothing to support that. I think Obi Wan in ANH set the precedent that initial information can be overtaken by new information, and therefore in no way was Rian forced into the Broken Luke that he conjured.

    Luke that contemplates murdering his nephew in his sleep for things he hadn't even done yet does require a re-imagining of Luke. I think you and others are arguing what is mathematically possible vs what I and others are arguing what is probable. And I think we have the better case and forensic framework because ANYTHING is possible. Luke could have turned out to be Thrawn all along, and I believe if Rian had chosen that story many would choose to defend that ret-con as feverishly as they defend Broken Luke. But it still wouldn't be probable, and therefore not believable, and therefore the deserving object of pointed criticism.

    That said, if the fans insisted on having Luke wounded and damaged (because they just didn't get enough of that in the OT) I have a scenario for them: what if Luke's murderous moment was with Snoke instead? What if Luke encountered Snoke, and they ended up engaged in battle (which is part of how Snoke became scarred) and at the end of the confrontation Luke had the chance to kill him but did not (in adhering with the Jedi code and his own moral values to never given into to darkness) only to have Snoke corrupt Ben and strengthen the F.O. as a overwhelming military force later?

    That would have been (IMO) infinitely better than what we got because:
    1. It doesn't subvert the developmental trajectory upon which we last saw Luke but rather reaffirms it.
    2. it would illustrate that even that inspirational heroism we associated with Luke, could be a liability. That what we perceive as a good could end with catastrophic results, and cause us to reassess our own ethics around ends vs means.
    3. We would be able to further drive home the idea (first elevated in the PT) that the Jedi ideology had blind spots, not just in emotional stoicism, but strategically. Who
    4. It would give Luke a reason to question himself and the Jedi way in a way that makes more sense than the ham-fisted reason Rian shovels on the audience that the Jedi should end because of the events of the past 20 - 30 years vs the THOUSANDS of years the Jedi successfully safeguarded peace in the galaxy.
    5. It would give the story so much more texture (IMO) to see it wasn't a moment of Darkness in Luke that set into motion a chain of events that leads to the rise of the FO and Kylo, but a moment of Light. A moment of mercy and maybe even compassion that actually initiates events that imperil the galaxy. Imagine having that philosophical debate around those ideas and how it relates to us out-of-universe.
    --- Double Post Merged, Aug 20, 2018, Original Post Date: Aug 20, 2018 ---
    Sure there's a difference between the two but the analogy still holds: every radical change isn't good change. For me it interesting to hear the word "evolution" invoked when defending TLJ Luke; mostly because it's almost become a euphemism. All characters in a saga should evolve, but what is being attributed to evolution here is really a retcon. A de-evolution flown under the banner of evolution - because it's change.

    In the hands of lazy writers, disinterested in logical coherence in development, evolution usually just means, "I'll make the character darker". Even you used the word "grow" when talking about evolution. What growth do you discern when you first see Luke in TLJ? There really isn't any is there?

    It is a de-evolution. From his beliefs in Jedi ideology, to use of the Force, to engagement in the conflict to save the galaxy. They are all departures of the development communicated in the OT. And to what end? Do we see Luke carry any of these "new" beliefs that he has acquired (via evolution) through to the end of the movie? No. By the movie's end he has is back on board with the utility of Jedi, back on board with using the Force again, and he is back engaged in the conflict...
    He has done all this just to return to Luke in ROTJ from 30 years ago. That isn't evolution. It was re-imagining of the character through a fixed plot lens that requires us to commit to this new version of Luke on faith, while the movie jettisons it once it's served it's purpose in serving the plot.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. cawatrooper

    cawatrooper Dungeon Master

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Posts:
    4,817
    Likes Received:
    21,974
    Trophy Points:
    149,167
    Credits:
    19,944
    Ratings:
    +26,699 / 65 / -37
    I almost feel like this is a foregone conclusion, though.

    One of the biggest complaints about Luke in TLJ is how disillusioned he was.

    For those in the class paying attention, it's clear on Crait that he's regained some faith. Sure, he probably still wants some Jedi reform (as, honestly, is probably necessary) but I seriously doubt he'd regress back into the depressed hermit he was in TLJ.

    It's a lot of character development, and it may have been difficult for some to swallow- but I think this arc could still really pay off in a big way.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Wise Wise x 1
  5. Jaxxon

    Jaxxon Green Space Rabbit

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Posts:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    14,351
    Trophy Points:
    146,617
    Credits:
    11,728
    Ratings:
    +16,062 / 29 / -4
    I have my own problems with TLJ, but Luke's portrayal is not one of them. Part of me really wanted to see him "ignite the green," but his actions are a beautiful continuation of his refusal to kill Vader at the end of RotJ.

    I understand why so many fans wanted the EU, wise-old-man, super-ultra-good-guy version of Luke. But that's not what we got. We got something much more interesting and nuance, something that invites us to examine not only the character of Luke, but our own attachments to nostalgia and heroes.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Great Post Great Post x 2
  6. greenbalrog

    greenbalrog Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Posts:
    223
    Likes Received:
    505
    Trophy Points:
    6,122
    Credits:
    1,204
    Ratings:
    +654 / 1 / -1
    I must have missed that then. Where exactly in TLJ is it explained that Luke went to Ahch-To in the hope to find answers? And where is it stated or shown that he did find answers but they were not like what he had expected? And what answers did he find there by the way? I've seen TLJ around 5 times now and I still don't fully understand why he went to that island in particular (I guess to be able to close himself from the force?). I'm genuinely interested in knowing the answer to these questions or at very least your take or interpretation. Please let me know. Thanks.
     
    #26 greenbalrog, Aug 20, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2018
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  7. NinjaRen

    NinjaRen Supreme Leader

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2015
    Posts:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    103,269
    Trophy Points:
    171,517
    Credits:
    56,736
    Ratings:
    +111,944 / 176 / -32
    Well, sometimes movies tell you something without telling you it directly. That's called "reading between the lines". It's a subtle kind of story telling. Luke went to Ahch-To to look for the first Jedi temple and to find the answer to the question of "Why is the dark side so tempting and how did the Jedi deal with it?".

    He found the sacred Jedi texts, but after studying them he realised the Jedi of the past also had no answers to offer. The dark side is and was always a mystery to the Jedi. Luke learned that the legacy of the Jedi is failure and hybris.
    This discovery didn't make Luke happy. He wanted to find a solution and he did, but not the one he was expecting. In his mind the only solution to destroy the dark side is killing the Jedi. Obviously he was wrong and later on he changed his mind.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Friendly Friendly x 2
  8. Rayjefury

    Rayjefury Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Posts:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    3,409
    Trophy Points:
    12,967
    Credits:
    4,671
    Ratings:
    +5,225 / 106 / -18
    I agree with this latter part, but I question the wisdom of the LFL in engaging in it. Why would a franchise who's longevity, appeal, and intense fan loyalty is fueled by nostalgia and identifying with the heroes...

    ... give us a movie that not only subverts the general dynamics that have been established over 7 Episodes and 1 stand alone, but challenges us to examine why we should continue to like SW, why the characters should appeal to us, and why we should (for lack of a better term) exhibit brand loyalty? That seems entirely counter-intuitive (IMO). But I do agree that I think it was part of Rian's message and vision
     
    • Great Post Great Post x 2
  9. metadude

    metadude Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Posts:
    243
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    1,637
    Credits:
    1,020
    Ratings:
    +656 / 11 / -5
    Really "better" is subjective in this regard so it's more like "Doing Luke differently so as to cause clapping people to boo and booing people to clap, and some remaining the same"; in everyone's mind their ideas are the best, like they were in Rian Johnson's mind.

    Just out of curiosity, what do you see as Luke's character development in RotJ and how does it affect the ST?

    Well, Luke didn't actually cause Anakin to turn to the dark side. Luke wasn't responsible for anything at all that happened without him. But in the ST, Luke is responsible in part for what happened. That doesn't mean Luke's story in the ST had to be what it was, but a different reaction to the situation does makes sense in the fact that the circumstances were vastly different. Different circumstances-different reaction, makes sense.

    Sure it could've been done. But, why?

    How so? It was a moment of instictive reaction. How does a moment of instctive reaction require a re-imagining of Luke? The last time I saw Luke having a moment of instinctive reaction he was swinging a lightsaber at Palpatine in order to kill him, so he could save everything he cared about. Isn't that virtually the same imagining?

    I wouldn't doubt you could tell me the probability of pulling an ace from a standard deck of cards. But telling me the probability of the actions of a man after 30 years of time and unknown events? I'd need to see your math on that one. I'd actually need to see the math creating probabilities for a man's actions after a few weeks.

    That would have been different, sure. But would it be "better"? Depends on the viewer. You'd get both "yes" and "no" answers with some shrugs.

    What do you see as Luke's developmental trajectory upon which we last saw, and how does that affect the ST use of Luke?

    Sure we do. One thing Luke learns and grows into, is that failure is a great teacher, and that "we are what they grow beyond" - that's what carries Luke back to the proverbial fold.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
  10. Moral Hazard

    Moral Hazard Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Posts:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3,221
    Trophy Points:
    13,167
    Credits:
    7,326
    Ratings:
    +5,168 / 26 / -7
    Sure there are contradictions to Luke in TLJ.
    We hear him claim the Order needs to end but we see how important it is to him in how wears/folds his robes and in his hesitation to destroy the temple.
    The character is obviously conflicted and the film shows actions at odds with what he tells others (or perhaps more importantly himself.)

    One way of interpreting this is that the filmmakers were clouded.
    Another is that there is meaning here.
    That it's no accident that the middle of the trilogy introduces us to two Skywalkers on opposing sides who are both:
    • receivers of Jedi training who now question the Order,
    • tortured souls in need of healing,
    • feeling isolated,
    • unhappy with with the hands they have been dealt by the universe and their current place in it,
    • being taught unwelcome lessons by an unexpected Rey of Light.
    We may not know for sure but I don't think they need to be mutually exclusive actions.
    I'm not suggesting this is the case but here's a few random possibilities off the top of my head if you can't see any:
    • To hide from Force users who could otherwise track you.
    • To study and die without distraction or temptation.
    • To give due diligence before acting on a serious decision and allow the opportunity to change your mind.
    • To look at the Great Mysteries from a detached or more objective perspective.
    • To destroy potentially dangerous intel before it got into the wrong hands.
    • To take a time-out as a 'cry for help' because deep down you're lost and want to be rescued but too stubborn to seek help.
    • To test the narrative that the galaxy is better off without the Jedi.
    • To test fate/destiny/The Force directly.
    How would turning Han's exposition to Finn and Rey into mistake or a lie make sense or add to multiple dramatic elements?
    It's a safe bet that important fictional characters get their weaknesses exploited.

    In-universe reasoning:
    The Jedi Order values self-cultivation and guarding against evil.
    If a master's pupil 'turns' then any master would self-reflect and internalize some responsibility.
    They could identify weakness such as inadequate preparation, mistaken actions/inactions, clouding of judgement, lack of foresight etc.​

    Real World reasoning:
    That's how stories work. Central character face challenges that exploit their weaknesses.
    To get such arcs from OT characters instead of getting 'untouchable hero's' or 'perfect mentors' was a real gift.​

    Anything except Jedi Master Luke Skywalker succumbing to a moment of temptation from the Dark Side apparently!
    I still don't know what makes this guy we haven't caught up with for decades suddenly immune to the Dark Side. :rolleyes:

    I like your observation about the possible vs probable.
    What satisfied most of my qualms about TLJ was hearing Rian's approach to some screenwriting choices.
    Key questions were presented, options explored and in some key questions Rian chose options that challenged the character most and provided the most drama.
    This sounded like a SW-esque approach to me.
    Probable leads to predictable.
    A probable approach wouldn't have given us one of the greatest reveals in cinema history.
    A challenging characters and hunting drama approach did.

    Maybe we just have different expectations for our space-opera's - I'm certainly not looking for the probable in these stories!
    That's an interesting alternative take.
    It may highlight what Rian's choices in TLJ may have been exploiting:
    • That Ben remains to a certain degree a product of his own agency. We can see some reasoning why he chose his path.
    • That we get opera-drama moments between Skywalker family members and understand Ben's hatred toward Luke being a product of a direct interaction.
    I'm not sure if this is a fair use of the term ”retcon”.
    Which established facts in Lucas' work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted in TLJ?
     
    • Like Like x 5
  11. Background Character

    Background Character Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Posts:
    436
    Likes Received:
    1,080
    Trophy Points:
    6,042
    Credits:
    2,310
    Ratings:
    +1,940 / 90 / -66
    The problem is that Luke's hero status made him seem like an infallible Jesus-figure to a lot of fans, but the truth is that he was always just a normal guy who realized his full potential in the force and achieved great things. He made mistakes along the way, he failed, was filled with doubt, and was at times, tempted by the dark side. Luke's reputation in the SW galaxy after Return of The Jedi becomes the same as in the SW fanbase - he's a legend. And Rian explored the idea of what happens when a person's legend status fills them with hubris, and the weight of responsibility and guilt felt when a hero fails to live up to their heroic status. Luke reacts to the betrayal of his own nephew like any normal human would. With deep regret and a sense of failure of his own sister and close friend. He goes into exile, the same as Yoda and Obi Wan did, with the realization that the force being exclusive to the Jedi has only enabled the dark side to rise and destroy another generation of Jedi. He ultimately changes his mind on the counsel of his old master and cements himself as the galaxy's greatest hero by sacrificing himself for his friends at the film's end. What I don't see is Luke simply brushing off Kylo's betrayal and not being significantly affected by it and just becomes a Resistance leader alongside Leia. What we got was infinitely more interesting.
     
    • Great Post Great Post x 4
  12. Rayjefury

    Rayjefury Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Posts:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    3,409
    Trophy Points:
    12,967
    Credits:
    4,671
    Ratings:
    +5,225 / 106 / -18
    ???

    Is your question "why am I suggesting a path that would have been better for Luke" in the "Doing Luke better" thread?

    I've answered this question several times in detail already in many threads. Most of us have reached consensus that Luke igniting the light saber wasn't merely instinctual reaction. But I wouldn't insist that you take my word for it, watch the scene again and see how much time elapses from the moment Luke first goes for the LS to when his face expresses shame for having thought of killing Kylo. Does that read as instinct to you?

    This reads a little bit like a Strawman. Or at the very least an unnecessarily narrow reading of my post. I didn't argue I could (or would) calculate a probability, I said I was arguing what was probable - the word has meaning beyond just a statistical treatment i.e. Probable: supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof.

    My statement wasn't made in a vacuum, we have the entire OT as evidence from which to draw in supporting these statements.

    They're not mutually exclusive here (different and better). And I have to remind you, you are asking would my "different" approach be better in a thread dedicated to asking how Luke could've been done better - how would that be possible without it also being "different"

    As a Master Jedi. And I see no established precedent or pedigree among Master Jedi (in 7 Episodic movies) to secretly read student's minds and contemplate murdering them when they don't like what they see (especially when we have seen that Masters are not adept at reading the future). I also see no established precedent or pedigree from Luke to do this. If there was no interest in telling the story of how ROTJ Luke could become a Master who could contemplate murder, perhaps they shouldn't have created a Luke in TLJ that does it.

    The last time we saw Luke on the screen, he was refusing to kill his father who WAS actually responsible the death of a untold number of life forms, while Luke was still on the path to becoming a Jedi. But now we are to believe that instead of appealing to the light in Ben, he slips into his hut at night to read his mind and contemplates murdering him? It is possible? Sure. Is it probable (given what we know)? No. And I don't have to calculate an actual probability to make that case.

    I think you'll have to go back and read these responses in context. The "new beliefs" of which I speak are the ones that he holds at the beginning of TLJ which people were attempting to relabel evolution. He does not carry any of these views by the end, and thus they do not represent an evolution of Luke from ROTJ to TLJ; it illustrated the degree of his de-evolution.
    --- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2018, Original Post Date: Aug 21, 2018 ---
    1. It didn't have to be a mistake or a lie, just Han's POV
    2. What made these "dramatic elements" sacred cows that they must be preserved at all costs?

    There are a lot of folks that seem deeply committed to dying on the Hill for Rian's vision - why?

    Negative, anything is possible. Luke could contemplate murdering his nephew just as he could have also been Thrawn all this time. Anything is possible. It just isn't probable (in either case) given what we know about Master Jedi and Luke and the story in general. And also to clarify here, I haven't argued that he couldn't be faced with temptation by the Darkside, you all are making that case. I said it was not probable or believable that he would contemplate murdering his nephew; that is a very specific assertion on my part that people have taken and expanded to a blanket statement about all Dark Side temptation.

    I think there's a leap in there somewhere. I don't think making Luke an actual Master Jedi suddenly let's the cat out of the bag for the entire movie anymore than knowing Rey was a student Jedi in learning is a spoiler for what happens in the movie.

    We have different expectations for sure... and also contributing to us not quite seeing eye to eye? You being 100% wrong on everything. LOL.

    I can think of one... guess what it is... wait for it... that Master Jedi contemplate murdering their students in their sleep LOL. We're never going to get around this because Rian needed Luke to not be Luke in order for Ben to be "wronged" in order for Ben to garner sympathy. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why it was important to this trilogy that we feel empathy for Kylo, but not Hux, or Snoke, or Phasma for that matter.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Background Character

    Background Character Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Posts:
    436
    Likes Received:
    1,080
    Trophy Points:
    6,042
    Credits:
    2,310
    Ratings:
    +1,940 / 90 / -66
    Every time someone suggests that Luke attempting to kill a member of his family is out of character and improbable:



    Temptation never goes away, ever if we overcome it previously. No one is made immune from temptation.
    --- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2018, Original Post Date: Aug 21, 2018 ---
    You are trying to compare a commercial product made for consumers to a character in a story. Why should a character in a story be tailored to suit the tastes of the consumer rather than to tell a genuinely interesting story? Giving the masses what they expect is not how you tell a compelling story. If everything is predictable and safe and the same, you bring nothing new to the table and you have nothing of interest to offer.

    It's not a devolution. It's a humanization. Luke acts like any normal human would when overcome with failure. To have him brush off Kylo's betrayal as nothing would be to make him unrealistic and unrelatable. It takes the idealized hero and shocks everyone by telling them that this guy isn't the Messiah after all, he's still prone to temptation, he still makes mistakes, he still doubts himself. Like any real person would who went through what he did.

    And like a real person, he can change. He can admit he was wrong. He can still respond to wisdom from a former mentor that affects his outlook on a situation. But we don't allow him to do any of this when we have a narrow view of him as a Superman, perfect and incapable of change. I don't find superheroes to be compelling and relatable characters, even if they can be fun to watch. I respond to characters that more accurately reflect what it is to be human rather than superhuman.
     
    #33 Background Character, Aug 21, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    • Like Like x 6
  14. greenbalrog

    greenbalrog Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Posts:
    223
    Likes Received:
    505
    Trophy Points:
    6,122
    Credits:
    1,204
    Ratings:
    +654 / 1 / -1
    Thanks for the reply, that is a good description of Luke's events in TLJ. I totally get what you're saying, and I agree that we got a plausible "real-world" scenario with what Rian did to Luke. The problem is, I did not like it. Could be an execution issue as well. The motivations don't seem good enough and are in conflict with Luke's established personality. Also, the connection to TFA wasn't well done either, in my opinion. This is the type of thing that is hard to put in words, you just feel it.
    --- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2018, Original Post Date: Aug 21, 2018 ---
    Thanks for your reply. I understand that that is your interpretation of the events and I want to believe in it, but as I feared, there's a big difference in saying "it's all explained in the movie itself" and "sometimes movies tell you something without telling you it directly". The latter is, of course, a subjective construction. At most, one could say that "it is implied by the movie as one possible explanation", which is a very different thing.

    I don't agree that Luke needed to go to Ahco-To to learn that the legacy of the Jedi is failure and hybris. He could have easily feel that way before going there, especially when he saw his nephew turn and his new Jedi Order burning.

    So, one has to infer that Luke went to Ahco-To to find answers. It should be, right? It must be. But, he could also have gone there to close himself off from the force, to the one place no one would ever find him. In other words, to simply leave the fight and hide. Some things are too important to be left to interpretation, otherwise you risk getting confused fans and backlash.

    Luke says "Do you think I came to the most unfindable place in the galaxy for no reason at all?". Well, start your bets on what did Luke meant with that.

    This is what Rian has to say about it:

    Source

    So, it appears the explanation for that line is, put simply, Luke went to Ahch-To to hide. If that's so, and everything in TLJ leads to believe that is the case, that's not good enough, in my opinion. And that's the big problem I have with TLJ.

    So, like you, I chose to believe that Luke went to Ahch-To to find answers, atlhough that's not what the storyteller seems to be implying. Not finding any, Luke just gave up on the fight. And that's another hard thing to swallow right there.
     
    #34 greenbalrog, Aug 21, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    • Friendly Friendly x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Moral Hazard

    Moral Hazard Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Posts:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3,221
    Trophy Points:
    13,167
    Credits:
    7,326
    Ratings:
    +5,168 / 26 / -7
    I agree that the exposition is just his opinion.
    It's just that he's either right or wrong and if he's wrong it would seem weird to me.
    I guess good writers could come up with a way to work it in and make sense.
    I guess it might seem that way but there's decisions Rian's made I don't like and I don't have any allegiance to anyone. (Live free don't join!)
    I'm only on board with his vision of Luke because - taken on it's merits - his method makes sense, it provided a thoughtful and challenging story, and I'm yet to see a credible reason why it could be labelled "re-imagining", "retcon", or "not Luke".
    I guess I'm having trouble conceptualizing the head-canon dictating what kind of evil is out of bounds for the Dark Side and which characters are beyond it's influence!

    (And yet another thread is invaded by our friendly neighborhood tussle. Sorry guys.:rolleyes:)
    Just saying that If SW stories were written based on what's probable we wouldn't have twists like Vader being Luke's father and Leia his sister.
    Hahaha :D
    But seriously, I could be and I'm willing to change opinion with good reason.

    I'll follow wherever the quality evidence and reasonable arguments lead and when my opinion on story contrasts with the experts I'm willing to park mine and try theirs on to see how it fits.
    I had some reservations at first but I'm finding the experts take on TLJ fits pretty well!
    And here I thought I was in danger of sounding arrogant! :p
    The certainty required to claim to know a fictional character better than TPTB based on a few years boggles my mind!
    Particularly when those formative years show us a character with a weakness for being tempted to display violent anger toward dark-side embracing family members.

    ETA: And we don't need to sympathize with Kylo yet. Just understand why he hated Luke.
    Have you ever carried a grudge?
    --- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2018, Original Post Date: Aug 21, 2018 ---
    I know this wasn't directed at me and you know I agree TLJ is edited to portray Luke's actions as taking some time...
    I'm just wondering if we're getting hung up on a semantic disconnect here?
    I've looked up "instinct" and was surprised not to find anything implying "immediate" in the definition,
     
    • Like Like x 4
  16. Sparafucile

    Sparafucile Guest

    Credits:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I can't disagree with you about Luke's moodiness, I just never felt his and Anakin's were the same kind. Luke's struck me as more "normal" teenage angst, while Anakin wanted from an early point in his life to control and dominate what's around him. I suppose my perception could have been skewed because I know Anakin's fate, while Luke is presented as the hero and in a brighter light. If I had to scale them in each scene, Luke's would have been mild in comparison to Anakin's.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. metadude

    metadude Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Posts:
    243
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    1,637
    Credits:
    1,020
    Ratings:
    +656 / 11 / -5
    When the suggestion is moving from "could have" to "should have" then, yeah; that's my question - why?

    If it's running counter to reason then I'd call it instinct. Since Luke doesn't follow through with what first enters his mind, then what first entered his mind was based on personal instinct. But whatever word you want to use to descibe it, it follows from the same Luke in RotJ. Palpatine was telling him his friends were going to be killed and the Rebellion was finished and in response Luke went for his lightsaber and started swinging to kill. This is the same Luke that went berserk when his sister was threatened by Vader and, again, started swinging to kill. So Luke igniting his saber and thinking of swinging to kill Ben, who was also threatening his friends and everything he cared about, is quite in character if "in character" means, following from what we see prior to this.

    Bear in mind that all Palpatine and Vader did was say words, and those words sent Luke into a killing frenzy. We have no idea what Luke actually saw when he looked into Ben's mind. I'm sure that seeing would have a far greater impact than merely hearing. But igniting his saber and NOT swinging to kill? From the Luke we last saw in RotJ that's actually a positive growth, wouldn't you say? Luke went from thought->action just to, thought without acting upon that thought. Luke was always portrayed as rash to act in the OT (he's got the metal hand to show for it), and in TLJ he does in fact control that instinctual rashness we've seen in him, and doesn't follow through on the thought into action.

    Yeah but if my response is an unnecessarily narrow reading of your post then I'd propose your response is an unnecessarily narrow reading of my response. I wasn't actually meaning you had a mathematical probability forumla to show, I was meaning, probabilities are meaningless when it comes to predicting human behavior in unknown scenarios. But if we're using Luke's past behavior as a guide for thought and action, then it seems to me if we ask, "What would Luke do if he found out someone intended to harm people he cared about?" then the probable outcome is "Ignite his saber and swing to kill."

    I'm saying that "better" is meaningless in a subjective frame of reference. You can't do Luke "better" in a meaningful way, but you can do Luke "different" in a meaningful way. What I mean is, if you state an idea and ask "Is this better?" you're going to get three response: yes, no, and indifferent. Thus nothing meaningful has taken place via your changes. Though is you ask "Is this different?" you'll get a meaningful consensus of: yes.

    Because Luke saw his own black-gloved hand and realized his vision at Dagobah was coming true, and he was becoming Vader, so he stopped; this constitutes, what exactly? He's now a Master Jedi incapable of fault? He's moved into the realm of the wholly immaculate? Since you're the probability expert tell me: if Luke didn't have a black glove over a mechanical hand in that moment, would he have made the same decision, or, would he have killed Vader and become a Master Sith? What do the probabilities tell you?

    Okay you do realize that characters can actually act differently than other characters, yeah? That's why it's called "character" you know? You know how in Dr. Who each new Doctor acts differently than the ones prior? Or how like, Kylo Ren acts differently than Rey, even though they're both humans? I'm not really sure why you would think character actions are mandated by other character actions, as if they're they same character.

    In 7 episodic movies, did you ever see a Sith turn from the dark side before Anakin did it in RotJ? No? Then how is Anakin doing that since there's no precedent? How is Kenobi lying to Luke - erm, stating truth from a different point of view - concerning the fate of his father? There's no precedent of a Master Jedi doing that with one of his students? How is Yoda putting on the "I'm a crazy person in a swamp" act when there's no precedent?

    Also Luke's entire story as a Jedi is unprecedented in every way. Since when in 7 episodic movies is there only one Jedi who has to face down his own father? One Jedi having to learn things in virtual isolation, and not trained up from youth amidst numerous other senior Jedi constantly by the side? How are you even expecting "precedent" in a completely unprecedented scenario? I'm not following how any of your line of thought here makes any sense.

    And you line of thought here is that, since no character has done this previously, no character can ever do this? How do things happen in the first place in your line of thought?

    Again, how can Luke do anything as a first? In your line of thought, how can any character do anything as a first? There's never going to be a precedent for a first so? Characters can only do, what? What other characters before them have done? How does that work since there has to be a first?

    Luke actually told the story of how he could come to look into Ben's mind and react to what he saw. It was right there in the dialogue.

    Sure, but Luke wasn't responsible for Vader. Luke didn't even know the full story of Vader. All he knew was that Vader was his father. If Luke would've known the full story, would that have changed his stance? What do probabilities tell you? If Luke knew Vader killed younglings, would he have been like "Screw him let him burn freaking child-killer"?

    Don't forget that Luke's refusal to kill Vader is spurred by seeing his own black-gloved hand in the moment, which snaps him out of his kill-frenzy. Did Luke spare Vader because of love for his father, or, because he didn't want to become his father? Bit of both?

    The point here is that we're dealing with two very different situations, and the one does not in any way inform your ability to state "probabilities" concerning Luke's potential actions at any given future date and scenario.

    Well we actually do have a precedent of looking into a student's future via the PT when the Jedi Council did so with Anakin. So there's that. But to me the bigger question is, why is this a problem for you? What does "appealing to the light in Ben" actually mean in this context, and why is looking into a student's potential not right? Why is a character barred from this in your mind? Why is a character who not only contemplated killing, but also acted on that contemplation numerous times prior, suddenly banned from even harboring the thought (let alone following through with the action) for a moment?

    Honestly, I don't think you could calculate a potentially probable probability in this case.
     
    #37 metadude, Aug 21, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    • Like Like x 4
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
  18. Moral Hazard

    Moral Hazard Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Posts:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3,221
    Trophy Points:
    13,167
    Credits:
    7,326
    Ratings:
    +5,168 / 26 / -7
    Me too - I get the point you were making now.

    I'm much more forgiving of Luke's attitude.
    I thought he had little to no “mask” and wore his heart on his sleeve.
    Every moody reaction he had was kinda justifiable either as a teenager sensitive to injustice or a young novice dealing with the realities of high-stakes warfare.

    And maybe my perception was skewed by seeing Anakin as an adult but I just thought he was a dick.
    His moodiness seemed petty, brazen, arrogant and more difficult for me to justify with all his training and resources.
    (Like many others, the Clone Wars helped me see a likeable side to adult Anakin.)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Xeven

    Xeven Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Posts:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Trophy Points:
    7,967
    Credits:
    3,317
    Ratings:
    +2,526 / 253 / -116
    Rian would kill Santa and Rudolph to try and do something “different” rather than something fans wanted. If they don’t fix Luke I’m pretty much done with SW. what they did with Luke, also for what ever reason, made me less interested in Rey.

    I’m more interested in Luke’s redemption as a wise Master and being alive now than I am Kylo’s Or Rey’s future.
    If anything, Rian made me long for my childhood Hero, Luke Skywalker.
     
  20. Background Character

    Background Character Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Posts:
    436
    Likes Received:
    1,080
    Trophy Points:
    6,042
    Credits:
    2,310
    Ratings:
    +1,940 / 90 / -66
    What the fans wanted wasn't realistic or interesting. It was safe and predictable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...

Share This Page