Doing Luke Better

Have you seen the advertising roll out, media blitz, and sustained marketing campaign of an Episodic Star Wars movies? Figurines, toys, clothing, merchandise, cross promotion from everything to pajamas to cereal, teasers and trailers being advertised during football games? And you're asking me am "I" trying to compare characters in a story to a commercial product?

Your argument here is coming across a little like semantic word quibbling . I think the case for de-evolution is excellent in this instance, and I don't think that changes because you choose to label it something more generic and nebulous. We know what values Luke had in the OT, they are laid out as close to objectively as can be done in a movie. We know what values he no longer has at the beginning of TLJ, he articulates and illustrates them fairly objectively. He hasn't learned something new when we finally meet up with Luke again at the beginning of TLJ, he has cast off something he once believed. That is - de-evolution.

Also, being prone to temptation and making mistakes is probably not in the same ball park, county, or area code of contemplating murdering a family member in their sleep based on something you think they might do. Bit of a gap there between what I hear constantly being argued "humanizes Luke" vs what Luke actually did.

I wonder if you all aren't guilty of some projection here regarding the "Luke" we would have like to have seen. I mean you refer to Luke as a Messiah... when all we were asking for was Luke who was a Master Jedi. Qui Gon, Mace, Yoda, Obi Wan... we never viewed any of them as deities. What exactly is prompting you to go from our desire to see Luke operating as an older wiser Master to thinking we are looking for Space Jesus? If you didn't have a problem with Rian imagining Luke Force Projecting across the cosmos, what is so off-putting to us wanting to see Luke behave like and exhibit Force dexterity similar to Yoda or Mace or Qui Gon?

Nah I think this one is definitely a Strawman. We are not arguing that Luke was perfect or impervious to mistakes or that he should have been following ROTJ. You all are. We are arguing the chosen story points featured in TLJ don't humanize Luke, they criminalize him and demonize him. And it's a characterization that was not only unnecessary but one that the flagrantly clashes with the OT development while making only half hearted (if any) efforts to bridge the gap between the two with coherence. If we have no OT to draw from, you could present Luke anyway you wanted without objection. Any person could end up in his position (including Luke). We aren't saying it's impossible. But Luke has an established history. You want to bend that arc? You want to see it travel through the mud get a little dirty? Do your due diligence and write the story that connects the two. Don't hand wave and expect us to generate head canon to supplement lazy writing. Do the work, honor the metadata that came before (even if you plan to change it's trajectory). If you won't do the work, don't blame us when we don't believe your vision of the character.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 22, 2018, Original Post Date: Aug 22, 2018 ---

I would argue that you don't accept the proposed reasons why, but that they have been provided repeatedly. We're actually at the point where I would ask you what you would accept as evidence (to either establish that your threshold is logistically unattainable signaling that you are actually fixed in your position unable to be swayed by new information, or that there is an actual line in the sand that can be met).

It's not a question of what rightfully falls within the spectrum of the "Dark Side" or if Luke should be impervious to it all, the question is would Luke contemplate murdering his nephew in his sleep? Those of us who find TLJ a figment of Rian's imagination are (by and large) saying no. Because we are drawing from the Luke's established background in a way that it appears Rian did not. We are asking the question is Luke likely to fail a test that we have ostensibly seen him pass already with less maturity and training with his father? I say it's not probable. The counter argument has been anything is possible. And of course anything is possible including Rian's story being a dream that Finn had while he's in a coma. I think the writers ultimately have an obligation to earn the audience's buy in with credible plot points. The OT development is canon. If you want characters to run perpendicular to how they were drawn in the OT, you have the obligation to make the story work plausibly. I am not accepting hand waving (via dialogue) in place of solid writing for something as monumental as the re-imagination of Luke. Make me believe he is who you say he is now. The onus is on you.

Not so, a twist need only be unexpected. Being probable (in the framework we're discussing) is just a function of plausibility. i.e. Does this twist contradict any other firmly anchored story points.

Mr. Hamill would be really disappointed to hear you talking about him like this. Still I think he knows a thing or two about SW and it's fans.

LOL, but do you see the "sleight of hand" your side is employing though? You are simultaneously arguing that he's changed but he hasn't changed; it all depends on which "wall of the castle" you're trying to defend. When I call the TLJ Luke a retcon, you say, "no, no, no, remember he could be tempted to violent anger when he was younger - this is who he is". When I say Luke would never contemplate murdering a family member let alone a student in his sleep, you all say "how do you know for certain how he could change over the years"? I don't think you can make the argument that Luke's flaws were permanent, but his virtues were somehow ephemeral. If his virtues could atrophy in the time between ROTJ and TLJ, so could his vices. But all I ever hear argued is that his flaws propagated into the future culminating in Kylo, while his heroism, calmness, and virtue ended with ROTJ. Can't have it both ways.

Tell that to Rian, he seemed to think you needed it.

I know but we've been over this before, Luke is narrating what's going on in his mind during the sequence. It isn't instinct regardless of the speed (or lack thereof) in which it happens. Luke is literally telling us what he was thinking at the time.

 

In ROTJ, Luke faced temptations to strike out in rage due to the emperor's taunting and then due to Vader's threat to turn his sister to the dark side. He was able to control his dark emotional reactions and successfully turned Vader back to the light side, even though both Yoda and Obi-Wan doubt that it could be done. Luke had matured and became a Jedi by the end of ROTJ.

So one logical character arc for Luke in the ST would be for Luke to believe that dark-siders, especially one with family relation, could be turned back to the light side, but then learned, after several attempts, either (1) that his belief was mistaken, and Ben was different from Vader and couldn't be redeemed, or (2) that his belief was correct and Ben could be redeemed, just like Vader. The ST seems to have this journey in part. Luke had one moment of temptation and it backfired on him, and then he just gave up. No attempt was made to find and talk to Ben again. No attempt was made to at least help Han and Leia find Ben, and let them try to persuade their son. Instead, Rey was the one who tried to redeem Ben. It's as though the character arc that I mentioned above was started by Luke but then was taken over halfway (and will likely be completed) by a random stranger (Rey). I found this a rather odd story choice.

 

The thing about Luke is that in the OT he was the solution to a problem that was caused by someone else, while in the ST Luke is the cause of the problem. I think that truth should be given due weight in Luke's different reaction to the problem. In the OT, Luke comes from nothing and solves a problem of which he's not responsible for causing. His father is in trouble and Luke is unrelenting in his resolve to help him out of a situation which, again, Luke bears zero responsibility. And Luke succeeds and becomes a legendary figure for reversing the dire situation in which both his father and the galaxy found themselves.

Then in the ST, Luke has one brief moment in which is instinct to defend kicks in (yet again, this time doesn't follow through by acting on it) and yet that single moment in time starts the whole thing up again. Everything Luke had accomplished in the OT is undone by Luke himself. Now he's the cause. The entire galaxy is going to know, that guy that came out of nowhere and fixed the problem and reversed the course, just caused the problem and reversed it all back again. The legendary Luke Skywalker. For Luke to now run away from the problem instead of running toward it makes sense. This is the first time Luke has ever had to face failure of this kind. And of this magnitude. Not only plunging the situation back to where it was before he came onto the scene, but to also do it through Han and Leia's son. When you think about it, it's a monumentally crushing scenario.

Now, granted that Luke running toward the problem to fix it himself would also make sense. That would make for a different story. Personally, I like the TLJ story better. Far more poignancy and depth to the character of Luke than a story in which Luke never really has to face failure that actually has an effect on others that aren't him. The only time Luke had ever really failed, was in ESB and that failure did nothing, really. The situation remained the same. It wasn't a failure that affected others or even really himself; it's the same type of failure that Rey faced in TLJ. But Luke's failure in TLJ is that of Kenobi's failure in RotS. It affects everyone, not just the one. Which is why Luke echoes the "I have failed you" to Ben, as Kenobi said to Anakin. As an aside, what is odd to me is that a contingent of people harp on about how Rey "never fails" and how she needs to fail big time in order for her character to be satisfying - but do that to Luke and it's war.

Now, as Luke came in to take over halfway for Kenobi's failure, Rey comes in halfway to take over for Luke's failure. So all this is to say, I don't think it could be called an "odd choice" when it is what has happened before. True that Luke was related to Vader (but bear in mind all Kenobi had in plan was for Luke to kill Vader so familial relationships were not only insignificant in that scenario but also detrimental to the outcome which is why Kenobi and Yoda wanted to keep the familial knowledge from Luke) but Rey coming in out of nowhere to solve a problem created by others is the same scenario as Luke coming from nowhere to solve a problem created by others. This is without actually knowing how IX will play out. Perhaps there is something more to "random stranger" Rey than we know; perhaps Luke will be the one to redeem Kylo. Who can say?

But the point of this long-winded post is that, the situation "rhymes" and in a saga that is supposed to parallel, the story choice here isn't odd, it all naturally flows from what has come before. And, personally, I find Luke's story to be deeper and holding more poignancy as it was done, than to have Luke be a man who never really had to face real failure, and overcome it in such a perfect way as he did in TLJ. By "perfect" I mean, using the force and the idea of the Jedi in its height; by "defense only" - he basically Jedi mind-tricked the entire First Order, and in a way where we got to see that awesome shot of him facing down the war machine, and engaging in a lightsaber duel that wasn't actually a lightsaber duel but pure defense on varying levels.

 

The parallel/rhyming doesn't work for me. First of all there was no comparable scene to Luke thinking about killing Ben in the prequels. Anakin's moment of decisively turning to the dark side was when he decided to help Palpatine and killed Mace Windu, and Obi-Wan wasn't around at that moment. Whatever faults that Obi-Wan had, it contributed indirectly at best to Anakin's fall. Luke, on the other hand, was directly responsible for Ben's turning to the dark side according to TLJ.

Even if we do grant that Obi-Wan was responsible for Anakin's fall, it made sense for Luke to be the redeemer because he was Vader's son. It didn't make sense for an unrelated stranger to do it in a "reverse-mirror" situation without further justification. To me it just seemed like rhyming for its own sake.

Another difference between Obi-Wan and Luke's situations was that Obi-Wan had no reason to believe that a person deep in/on the dark side could be turned back. Luke, however, knew better. So Luke giving up after just one failure seemed like an illogical jump to me. Now, if Luke had made one or more attempts to reach out to Ben and had failed, then it would make sense for him to have given up.

 

TLJ is the stupid self serving side of the Force.

 

Does the thread topic doesn't change whether I use "could have" or "should have"?

As I have suggested to everyone who has argued this, if you have the video of the scene available, please watch it again. Luke is literally narrating what he was thinking during the scene. What he saw, what he thought (emphasis on "thought") he could do about it, and ultimately the shame he felt for contemplating it. It is not instinct.

I think taking context from the movie is probably more grounded and tenable than projecting what we think could have happened to fill in the gaps (which seems like happens frequently when defending the events in TLJ). In ROTJ, Palpatine baited, goaded, and provoked Luke repeatedly while he was literally seeing his friends die. This is objective fact. Luke is engaged in Light Saber battle with Vader in ROTJ. None of these things are true with Luke and Ben. His friends aren't dying, he isn't being provoked, Ben hasn't killed or slaughtered through out the galaxy, and Ben isn't engaging him with his LS while Luke is doing his probe. This is objective fact. Do I visually know what Luke saw in Ben's mind? No. No one does. That you are sure that "seeing would have a far greater impact than merely hearing" is pure strategic conjecture on your part. And it cannot carry the weight of anything more than speculation. Are you're allowed to speculate and hypothesize here? Sure (we all do it), but you are eschewing almost all the contextual differences and relying on your own subjective head canon (i.e. the seeing greater impact than hearing) to make your case. So I would argue, it's not a strong one.

I would have counter this and point out (again) that the OT is canon. Confronting a family member corrupted by the dark side is NOT an unknown scenario to Luke. We have seen him do it before. We have seen him do it with less training, less maturity, and less Force dexterity, facing two infamous evil doers, with higher short term stakes. And under the weight of all this duress, the Luke of ROTJ still passed the test.

If you disagree with the very premise of the thread, I'm not sure why you're in it debating the conclusions. It's the same confusion that arises (from an earlier post) when you balk at the use of "should have" instead of "could have" when there is no operative or literal difference in between the two when we are speculating how we think Luke could have been done better (which is the topic). But perhaps I'm wrong. You have thus far been defending what is in TLJ (at least in conversation with me you have); and we are not debating what was in the film. We are asking how it could have been done better. If you are viscerally repulsed by the word "better" for some reason, then just tell us "how Luke COULD have been different".

And there's the strawman again. If we say Luke wouldn't contemplate murdering his nephew in his sleep we are therefore saying he is wholly immaculate and impervious to fault? You all continue to make that leap of logic and neither acknowledge it when you take off nor land. That is your counter-argument, not our argument; please come claim your baggage. But since you brought it up, please tell us why that mechanical hand didn't stop Luke from reaching for and igniting his light saber over his sleeping nephew.

If you're going to be snarky, you could at least do me the favor of having a valid point tucked away in there somewhere. I'm not merely comparing characters here; I'm comparing characters who have a shared ideology and general code of conduct (across 7 movies). If you had a movie with a Nun abusing drugs and killing people it is not a dishonest observation or obfuscation to note that this doesn't conform to what we know about/expect that Nuns. It can serve as part of the basis for which we don't believe in a character.

Because Lucas hadn't decided on Anakin being Luke's father when he wrote ANH. This is a known thing. Not secret at all. Kenobi's telling the truth "from a certain point of view" is a result of a out-of-universe decision; so are many of the other points you are attempting to raise. And none of it is material to my point anyway, because I haven't argued that each element of a movie has to have precedent. Once again these are the strawman that you are summoning into existence by arguing from an extreme when I am making a specific case. Rian wants us to believe Luke is:

1. A Master
2. A person who contemplated murdering his nephew and student in his sleep

So I consult with what we do know. Does Luke's past support this notion? I say no. He's been faced with family members consumed by the Dark Side before, he didn't think about assassinating them he appealed to their light. Do the Episodic movie portrayals of Master Jedi support the idea that a Master Jedi might secretly read another's mind and think about killing them for what they see? I say no. So if there is nothing in the PT or OT that supports that wild left turn that he wants Luke to take, he has to provide the credibility and believability towards it himself. And IMO he does not. I think you'd actually need an entire movie dedicated to such a radical repositioning of Luke. And I don't think there are any short cuts that can be taken on this one. You either pick another flaw or challenge to impose on Luke, forego radical retcon, or go forward with the retcon doing the long hard ground work to establish it (not just as a possibility but something that is probable). This isn't a change you can simply voice track through IMO.

That's because you are arguing a point that you have attributed to me that I haven't actually made.

Please see responses above.

Again, responses above.

Please go back to my original statement and ask, am I asking how Luke could look into Ben's mind and react to what he saw. I don't believe Luke would do this if he was written in a way that honored his development in the OT (my opinion), but that's not even my point here - please go back and read what I actually said, and see if what you are saying here is at all responsive to it. It's not, but I want you to see it for yourself so you don't think I'm just conjuring this out of thin air. You are not responding to what I am actually saying.

Luke's refusal to strike down Vader is the culmination of a number of things (certainly some of the things you named came into play but also including his desire to become a Jedi, which he does once he throws down his LS). But honestly the situations are not different in terms of who he's confronting (family) it's how he's confronting them that it is different (appealing to their inner light vs surreptitious mind reading). On an unrelated note, I actually give Palpatine more credit for Luke becoming a Jedi than his black mechanical glove; Palpatine's hubris actually saved Luke. Each time Luke starts bending towards darkness and is about to go over the edge, Palpatine interjects thinking he's pushing him over the line when he's actually jolting him back just before he falls.

And what did Yoda conclude? "Clouded this boy's future is." Are those not his exact words?

If Luke could truly see all of Ben's true future, wouldn't he have also seen that his trip into the hut to read his mind is what starts Ben on that journey? Luke sensed darkness when he looked in his Kylo's mind right? What do we see in both TFA and TLJ? That Ben is also being tugged by the light. He hesitated, not once but twice when it came time to take his parents out. He laments while talking to the melted helmet of Darth Vader that he is feeling the pull to the light. Snoke even senses it. If Luke's reading of Kylo was so meaningful and informative why didn't he see that as well? He sensed the good in his father when he wasn't even a full fledged Jedi yet, but now as a Master Jedi he can't feel the goodness in Ben? He can see Ben's future in HD, but hasn't seen Snoke turning Ben right in front of him? And now he is contemplating murdering him? I'm supposed to re-suspend my disbelief to accommodate Rian's logic canyons (can't even call them gaps at this point)? No thanks I'll pass.[/QUOTE]

 

Well a rhyme is like something, not identical to it. Sure there will be subtle differences. Identical wouldn't be rhyming, it would be copying.

The "I have failed you" is meaning, as a teacher. Both Luke and kenobi failed (in their own judgment) their students as a teacher, and that failure allowed their students to stray from the path.

He was, yes. This actually parallels Anakin in this instance. Just as Anakin saw Padme's future and by trying to stop it, ended up causing it; Luke saw Ben's future, and by contemplating stopping it actually caused it.

I'm not saying he was responsible, I'm saying Luke paralleled Kenobi in failing his student, which failure had an effect on others.

Well, firstly, rhyming is for its own sake. That's the point of rhyme. But, the justification for Rey here is, love. In the abstract, it makes sense for love to be the redeemer. In Luke's case it would be familial love, in Rey's case? We don't know the answer to that yet but this is a reason I've said before that, to my mind, love must be the parallel in EIX. If it's not familial, then it must be romantic. Thus the rhyme is a love couplet.

Again I believe you're discounting the different scenario in that Luke is not responsible for Vader, but is responsible for Kylo. Just because we see Luke not giving up on Vader doesn't follow that he must act the same way with Kylo, since different scenarios can and often do cause a different reaction to the problem. It does make sense for Luke to just turn away from a problem he caused. Again, it would also make sense for him to try to fix that problem. Either way would make sense. Two different storys. I prefer the former story (the one we got in TLJ) because it is more familiar to the human condition, and allows Luke's story in TLJ to reflect the entirety of his story in the OT in a metaphysical manner, creating a culmination to his story which is much more satisfying to me, personally. The end scene in TLJ where Luke emerges from the dark, fiery passage into the light to face the FO is a greater catharsis. In other words, the lower the rise begins, the higher its zenith becomes.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 23, 2018, Original Post Date: Aug 23, 2018 ---

No but my response will change whether you use "could have" or "should have", thus my response.

This is why I said, "whatever you want to call it"; I'll accept any definitive term, the response will be the same.

Luke isn't seeing his friends die, he's being goaded only by words in RotJ. In TLJ Luke is seeing it, he is being goaded by sight. Me saying "seeing would have a greater impact than hearing" isn't speculation it's truth. Which has the greater impact: hearing about someone you care about dying, or, seeing it happen? You don't actually have to answer that because everyone already knows the answer.

Also, Luke didn't follow through with the action, unlike previously.

Confronting a family member of whom Luke is responsible IS an unknown scenario.

That I disagree with the premise is precisely why I'm debating the conclusions.

A. All black things are crows.
B. Crows can fly.
C. All black things can fly.

I disagree with the premise A; thus dispute conclusion C.

It's not a strawman when your argument is that Luke making a mistake doesn't follow from his character.

I'm not the one claiming to dictate what a man can or cannot do. That's you.

It isn't snark it's incredulity.

You mean like Qui-Gon Jinn who kept defying the council? Mace Windu who was going to kill Palpatine without a trial? The Jedi of whom Yoda lamented weren't behaving Jedi-like - not just the young but older more experienced ones, as well? You saw guys dressed in robes sitting in a circle and suddenly you can tell me how everyone of them acted in uniform manner? I think you may be confusing the Jedi with the clone troopers. Okay, that was snark.

What about Vader turning from the dark side? In all of Star Wars there's no precedent for a Sith turning from the dark side. How did it happen? It wouldn't have happened, right? Because there's no precedent and so the probailities dictate it shouldn't happen. But it did happen! Hey, it was me who stole my dad's keys dude!

Well, let's find out. How did Luke previously react the the information that someone was threatening everything he cared about?

1. Palpatine: ignite saber. Swing to kill.
2. Vader: ignite saber. Swing to kill.
3. Ben: ignite saber. Think about swing to kill, but don't.

Looks like par for the course.

You have made the point that Luke "wouldn't do that" based on precedent of how the Old Republic Jedi conducted themselves (which, again, as far as those movies actually show is one who is always at odds and defying the council, one who is going to kill someone without a trial, and then a bunch of guys in robes sitting in a circle) so my point that Luke is, not operating in the same scenario as them, therefore your appeals to "prededent" are entirely meaningless; and it's valid.

They're each as invalid as the previous.

Still that way.

I'm actually responding to what you're saying. You're saying, "A guy who previously ignited his saber and swung to kill two people who verbally threatened everything he cared about wouldn't ignite his saber and think of swinging to kill a third person who did they same, by visual means instead of audial" and I'm saying "Your reasoning is clearly flawed."

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.

Yeah those are his exact words after he -> looked into the boy's future. Apparently Ben's future was not so clouded to Luke. But what do you think Yoda would have done if he saw Anakin's future, that he would destroy everything Yoda cared about? What do the probabilities tell you? Would it be a Mace Windu "He's too dangerous to be left alive!"? Was Mace Windu's "too dangerous to be left alive" the Jedi code of conduct that Luke should've followed by precedent? Did Luke defy Jedi code of conduct by not killing Ben? What do the probabilities tell you?

I couldn't tell you what Luke coulda woulda shoulda seen. All I know is what he said in the dialogue.

Not enough information to formulate an adequate hypothesis. This is where you and I are different. You presume to dictate the actions of people in uncharted territory, I don't.

 

I look at the sequence in Ben’s hut like an echo of the Dagobah cave scene. Luke approached the situation wrong from the start and manifested the worst possible outcome as a result. He found there what he’d brought with him: fear, doubt, aggression. “Your weapons, you will not need them.” Why did he need a lightsaber to talk to his nephew? Why did it need to be a confrontation? The messaging in TLJ was about learning from failure and Jedi Master Luke hadn’t learned from his.

 

Not just Luke, but almost all Jedi to this point we've met in film had failed to learn this until the final hour so to speak.

 

I see where you are going with this... and, based on what we've seen thus far, it makes sense. I really hope this isn't the direction EPIX takes. It really feels like the worst possible scenario. It is so disappointing to think about, I will admit to having a bit of mental block to the whole idea. It's like, until you spelled it out, my brain wouldn't even let me begin to go there.

Wow.

From the script of ROTJ:

114 INT EMPEROR'S TOWER - THRONE ROOM
Out of the window and on the view screens, the Rebel fleet is being
decimated in blinding explosions of light and debris. But in here there
is no sound of battle. The Emperor turns to Luke.

EMPEROR
Your fleet has lost. And your friends on the Endor moon will not
survive. There is no escape, my young apprentice. The Alliance will
die...as will your friends.

If the course is that Luke doesn't learn anything during the most consequential event of his life, sure. ROTJ shows us that Luke does learn, however. This is why he throws away the lightsaber and becomes a Jedi Knight; he learned.

 

That is an excellent insight. Yeah that's good.

True, aside from Yoda, Luke's the only Jedi we see that doesn't die with a lightsaber in his hand.

Not a fan of love eh? This reminds me of a friend of mine's kid, when they'd watch movies and any kissing would happen, his dad would say "Look it's your favorite part" and he'd get all upset and defensive "No! I hate this!" Then one day I'm sitting there with him and I forget what was on, but suddenly there's a romance scene and he turns to me smiling and says "Look it's your favorite part!" and I look at him and say "It is." and he was like:



No but seriously someone had to spell this out for you? What did you think was going to happen, Rey debates Kylo back to the light side? Clearly it would be either familial or romantic love; or now that I think about it, maybe platonic "I love everyone and will do anything for anyone" Rey dies to save Kylo love. Whatever form it's love that will be the answer, it always is.

You seem to be responding to my statement "Luke isn't seeing his friends die" as if you're rebutting it or something. But the dialogue you're quoting actually supports it so I'm not sure of your point here.

EMPEROR
Your fleet has lost. And ->your friends<- on the Endor moon ->will not<-(future tense)
survive. There is no escape, my young apprentice. The Alliance will
die...as ->will<-(future tense) ->your friends<-.

Apparently he didn't. It was seeing his own black-gloved hand that snapped him out of the killing frenzy Vader sent him into by stating that perhaps Leia would turn to the dark side. Luke realized he was at the threshhold of taking the place of Vader and succumbing to the dark side. That was based more on a realization in the moment than a life-lesson learned. I mean, the entire point of the throne room was to get Luke to kill Vader and turn to the dark side in that moment. Luke snapped out of it, threw away his saber so he couldn't do it, said "I won't turn" and because of this, to Palpatine: "You've failed" and Palpatine's response "If you won't turn, you will die."

What's the thing you see Luke having learned here, and why does that mean he could never repeat a potential mistake? I've learned in my experience that violence is never the right answer. I loathe it. It resloves nothing. But if I'm holding a gun, and a person is about to hurt someone I care about? I can't say I wouldn't shoot to kill. And someone standing by might say "That was the wrong thing to do" and I stare in silence a moment, then turn and say "I know" then hurry to make sure my friend is okay.

What it really seems to me is that your criticism is that, Luke cannot act like a human being. It just seems to me a really vacuous critique based on a nonsensical line of thought.

 

I can’t find a way to like TLJ. I do think that they could fix the confrontation with Ben by adding a sceen to TLJ or even TFA of the past where Luke can see Kylo kill Han in a vision before it happened. Only way I can see Luke going aggressive on Ben in that scene is to save Han or Leia or both.

Maybe he thought hiding from life and the Force on Ach-too he could avoid the situation.

 

The issue is that there has been no indication from the previous films or from the first half of TLJ itself, that Luke tended to behave differently when he was responsible for the problem. I suspect if we had asked the fans before seeing TLJ, whether Luke would have run away from a problem that he had caused, most fans would probably answer no (clearly Mark Hamill didn't think so either - hence his comments about "Jake Skywalker"). Since this was such a crucial "character flaw" of Luke, there should have been a scene in TLJ (prior to the big reveal about Ben's turn due to Luke's action) which showed Luke reacting badly to a problem that he had caused, so helping the audience know that Luke had a "character flaw" that explained why he had isolated himself on Ahch-To after just one failure. It's important to remember that Luke wasn't a new character, but a returning character that the audience thought they knew. So for good story-telling, a previously unknown character trait needed to be introduced as part of the story before using it to explain something.

 

You're really going to make me do this eh? LOL. Alright. Here is your quote today:

Here is my original statement

Not a "should have" in sight. LOL. I think it's probably easier to just say "I forgot what the thread topic was" and own your mistake than pivoting from one bad argument to the next pretending you have an actual grievance. The only one saying "should have" between the two of us is YOU. I think this is the point where Rian would tell you that "failure is a teacher".

Ok but this was you earlier:

And you would be wrong because, it is not. Words have meanings. I appreciate that you are comfortable with me calling it whatever I like, but if you would call it instinct, I think the portrayal in the movie doesn't support that claim... at all. As to the rest of your statement

What is the basis for even suggesting this? LOL, are you making this up as you go along? If I start to invest in a fund and change my mind, it was personal instinct? If I got to McDonalds to get a Double Quarter and change my mind get a Big Mac instead, that's personal instinct? Please tell me how this works. How does "personal instinct" stand in for "choice". Are we going to be arguing that Luke went to Ben's hut on instinct next?

Putting aside for a second that words have meanings and labeling something that it is not, isn't a tenable position, an implication from your statement is that Luke hasn't grown. Even if you believe the Vader confrontation was different than the Ben confrontation, it would mean that Luke responds with the SAME lack of composure/control/wisdom with Ben as you are saying he did with Vader 30 years before. Are you meaning to say this?

Ok serious question, did you actually WATCH ROTJ? I'm being serious, did you watch it? Because Luke is looking out the Window as the Alliance flies into Palpatine's trap. While Sidious is talking to Luke (provoking him) you can literally, LITERALLY see flashes of explosions in the background over Luke's shoulder. And he has watched the Death Star destroy Alliance ships. I'm not sure how this is even a point for debate. I see from another post, that now you are saying you only meant Luke's friends. First though, you are saying he's only being goaded by words. He is not. He is watching the fleet being destroyed. So let's scratch that one off the list. Second, I think it's pretty presumptuous on your part to assert Luke's only friends are on Endor. Lando is flying in the fleet - is he Luke's friend? Wedge Antilles is flying in the fleet - is he Luke's friend? Are you really stating with certainty that Luke has no other friends amongst the fleet?

This statement is SO not true (especially the latter half) and I'll demonstrate how in just a moment. But do you recognize that you are asserting something subjective here and presenting it as though it's objective? Do you see it?

• Which would have the greater impact, watching a drone strike on a village or hearing the cries of anguish as it happens?
• What would have the greater impact, watching someone play viola, or hearing someone play the viola?
• Which would have the greater impact, seeing a comedian tell a joke, or hearing the joke?

You don't have to answer either because everyone knows the answer. Your "truth" is not a truth. *Goes to "To Do List" and scratches off demonstrating why your earlier statement wasn't true*

That you disagree with a premise precludes the need to debate the conclusions. Literally. I'm guessing that's why you haven't responded to my request to tell us how you would do Luke better (since that is the topic). If you don't believe Luke could be done better, none of the conclusions that follow from that premise will meet your approval.

It's a Strawman when you attribute an argument to me, that I haven't actually made. As you continue to do.

See, just like that, Strawman. You're almost doing it unconsciously now.

"It's not round, it's circular". Another example of things not being mutually exclusive.

And that's fine, I can be snarky too (see round vs. circular). In all these examples though do you feel like you have provided precedence / evidence that a Master Jedi could think to do what Luke did? I haven't made the arguments I have made here lightly, I have watched the movies closely. The closest we get really is Mace... and Palpatine does have control of the Senate as Mace says, he has just killed several Jedi, and he is still armed (with Sith lightning). Palpatine IS guilty of actions he has taken, even if we decide we disagree with how Mace handled it. Ben is not guilty of a crime at the moment Luke reads his mind in secret and contemplates murdering him. And even Mace didn't contemplate murdering a child in his sleep. But we are to believe Luke did.

Is there an indicator that Vader has light in him? Then there is plausibility for his turn, even though there is no in-movie precedent for a Sith turning back. And here's your 2nd friendly reminder that I never argued that only things that have precedent can happen. I'll give you a guess who is actually making that argument and attributing it to me.

What's that? He thinks about killing Ben? Cool, sounds like we're all agreed that it wasn't instinct now - he thought about it. Case closed. Moving on, let's deal with you numbered bullets. Would you care to hazard a guess how long it takes Luke to ignite and swing his saber to kill as an upstart wannabe Jedi in ROTJ vs how long it took him to do it after reading Ben's mind secretly? No really, guess. LOL. Palpatine provokes Luke for almost 2 minutes without so much as getting an angry glance in return from Luke. He baits and provokes him for more than 2 minutes and destroys a few Cruisers for good measure. And still Luke doesn't go for the LS. It's almost 5 minutes total before Luke actually goes for the LS. How long did Luke hold out before going for his LS in TLJ? Was it even 30 seconds? So not-yet-Jedi Luke in ROTJ had more composure and restraint than Master Jedi Luke in TLJ? Yeah that's a problem.

And just so we're clear, noting all this behavioral attributes of these Jedi, none of them contemplate murdering a child while they sleep. Is that correct? We have some that are defiant, some that want to kill Sith, some that can't quite read the future, but even among them, none of them ever close to contemplating murdering a young student in his sleep - is that correct? Yes? Ok. Does it take longer to provoke Luke to consider using violence in ROTJ than it does in TLJ? Yes. Do I have basis to say I don't believe in Rian's vision for Luke. Unquestionably. Anything in here you care to refute?

Just a point of order, you continue to argue distortions of what the movies actually portrayed so I'm concluding that you don't watch them very closely. Here is what Luke said about his mind probe

"I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I'd seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart. He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become."

Luke doesn't actually say he saw anything but darkness; and that might actually be a metaphor. This is all setting aside the flawed logic that is necessary to support the argument that seeing something is more powerful than hearing something. Luke doesn't say if he sees anything he just confirms that Ben has already been turned.

Where you and I are different is that when I state something is a fact, it actually is, and not merely just a strongly held belief. I think where we also differ is I'm debunking your claims with in-film data that can be confirmed or corroborated by anyone. I'm also not employing an army of strawman and attributing them to you, that seems to be your go-to move (which is why you're still asking me about statistical probabilities while ignoring that you have been arguing for the last 2 pages what YOU think is probable - the irony is spell binding to be honest).

 

And Yoda was still pushing Luke towards killing Vader not redemption.
Keeping that hubris intact lol

 

As well as Obi-Wan: "then The Emperor has already won, you we're are only hope."

 

The Jedi kind of suck tbh

 

In regards to the space fleet being destroyed in Luke's view, this shows to Luke that the Emperor really did know about the Rebel plans to attack. When the Emperor tells Luke this is all to his design, there is no reason whatsoever for Luke do doubt him. The DS is operational, the fleet is being decimated, and the Emporer claims truthfully that the Rebels on Endor are walking into a trap. Based on everthing Luke sees and the ring of truth strikes true in the Emporer's statement. All the evidence Luke has points to the destruction of the Rebellion. Even if he believes his friends on the moon can escape the trap, with the Rebel fleet destroyed, they'd be slowly hunted down on the planet, or intercepted and destroyed by the fleet trying to escape.

I believe you are right, that the scenarios between RotJ and TLJ are not even close to comparable. Luke would have had to have regressed from RotJ to the flash backs in TLJ. Which isn't impossible, but I believe in required more of an explanation. But thats last is admittedly opinion.

 

Technically, all Yoda told Luke was that he needed to “confront” his father in order to become a Jedi. And that’s precisely what happens.

 

You are technically right. Which is the best kind of right