Doing Luke Better

In ROTJ, Palpatine is attempting to provoke Luke with an ultimatum: kill me, or I kill your friends. He’s forcing him into a corner by pushing a false choice. In TLJ, Luke is presented with a similar ultimatum: kill Ben, or he kills my friends (to simplify). Another false choice. They aren’t identical, but they are absolutely comparable.

Luke is effectively presented with a young Hitler before the Holocaust. He has the unique opportunity to eliminate a monster before he becomes that monster and, for a moment, he considers it. It was wrong, it was an instant of weakness, and he pays the price for his lack of faith. That’s the setup.

 

Then techincally he did it twice.

 

I suppose one can compare apples to oranges if you want, but there are inherently some pretty big differences, but similairties do exist. Both round, both fruit, both sweet ect... The list of differences are pretty great, so much so that it is commonly viewed as an exercise in futility to compare the two. Ergo the expression.

In RotJ
Young, untrained (or training with haste and somewhat incomplete), emotinal force user in presence of his father, goaded by master manipulator that really has set up the board and manipulated matters into one huge trap that imminently (minutes or at most hours) threatens his only family and friends. The two he faces were two people instrumental in countless atrocities, including the destruction of Alderaan, so their evil has zero doubt or bounds.

In TLJ
Older, wiser Jedi master, Jedi teacher and instructor, leader of a Jedi school, who has overcome successfully previous encounter above. No real time crunch, no imminent danger, distant mastermind (possibly unknown at this time, but who knows we don't have that info in the movie) but the possibility in a constantly moving future that his nephew (as yet innocent of any wrong doing as far as we know) may eventually be seduced to the dark side and possibly kill Luke's family and friends and/or may cause unheard of suffering to the galaxy.

To me, the difference are pretty great.

Everyone assumes Luke grew, but it is possible he regressed. If that's the case, the scenario is entirely possible, but it isn't earned. I think RJ or any story teller who wanted to tell this story, owed the audience more back story on Luke. As others have mentioned, he could have achieved the same story without contrivance which is TLJ Luke. In other words, he could have told essentially the same story, sparring the audience of having to make huge leaps of head canon to make it work.

Edit: To me, I question why RJ was so adamant to tell this specific story, with all it's subversion and twists, about such a beloved character, without having the proper time (imo) to do the character justice and show him the respect he deserved.

It's like if they introduce Thrawn in EPIX and decided to do an adapted Thrawn trilogy condensed within just over 2 hours. (I think) Fans would (mostly) dislike it because the story would lack much of the subtlety and detail that a Thrawn story would deserve.

So for me, to present me the Luke we see in TLJ, I would need at least a movie detailing the changes that lead him to this for me to even fathom them as possible and thus suspend my disbelief to enjoy the product.

 

No, it's pride that's making you do it.

I'm not talking about your precise words, I'm talking about the attitude which your words as a whole convey. All of your words are based on a "should have" point of view, thus my response. You're not at all being covert about your disdain for what is, so why the need to try to attempt to fit yourself into the category of "could have" when clearly you're suggesting "should have"? In other words, why pretend you're not in "should have" mode, when clearly you are?

You'll find that abstract terms have a way of meaning different things to different people. They're not as easily defined as you may think. In common linguistics words are defined by popular useage, but popular useage sometimes varies. Here is one definition of instinct (I just Googled the word and this was the result):

an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.

So based on that I'd say Luke's behavior is based on instinct.

I'm comfortable with the use of any term to describe anything, as long as we are understanding the linguistic correlation in order to be on the same proverbial page and share meaningful communication. The point of language is to convey ideas to create meaningful understanding, the actual sounds we're making with our mouths don't matter to me; as long as the idea is meaningfully conveyed, the language has served it's purpose.

I think it does, based on the definition above; Luke's fixed pattern of behavior (as shown in the films) in response to the stimuli of his friends being threatened is to, ignite saber and swing to kill. That is Luke's "typically fixed pattern of behavior" in response to "friends/loves being threatened"

But, again, we can call it by whatever term you wish to utilize; the point remains the same.

My basis is a definition of instinct which follows from the idea: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.

Well those two examples don't give me enough information to form a valid conclusion. If you have a pattern of going to McDonalds to get a Double Quarter whenever you receive bad news, and have received bad news and so have gone to McDonalds to get a Double Quarter, then change your mind and get a Big Mac instead? Then yes, I'd call your first "choice" as being based on personal instinct i.e. an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.

If not, then it isn't.

If the "choice" is based on an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.

Not without demonstrating an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.

Well, bear in mind again that Luke doesn't follow through with the [insert term of choice here which conveys the idea of an personally innate response to certain stimuli]
usual reaction. He doesn't swing to kill. Thus, growth. Other than that, yes that is what I am meaning to say.

Of course I saw it. I cried when Spock died. I'm man enough to admit it. KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!

I'm not talking about seeing flashes of light.

I'm going to go for diplomacy here and take the fifth on stating what it is that I'm seeing.

Comparing hearing a joke/watching someone tell a joke to hearing your wife died/seeing your wife die, is a false analogy so unbelievabley fantastic that it tells me a lot about - no, wait. Diplomacy. I'll just stick with, those are false analogies.

That's true.

Oh it's consciously done. It's just that it's not a strawman when it's what you're arguing. Here, how about instead of:

Dictating what a man can or cannot do

I spell out the unstated proposition

Dictating what a man can or cannot do [without running afoul of the probability algorithm in your mind, thus causing your mind to reject what the man has done as something that "shouldn't" have been "probable"]

As well as an example of things not being mutually inclusive.

As an aside, you use that word "Master Jedi" like it has some special power that when we apply it to a man, he becomes a sort of superman. This is pretty much the (counter)point TLJ. I'd like ot delve into that topic but we've got our plate full as it is so I won't. But what I will say is that when I look at the "Master Jedi" of the PT, I don't think I'm seeing what you're seeing. What I'm seeing is a group of men with lofty titles engaging in a lot of morally and ideologically questionable actions. In the end, it's as if you're asking for "righteous precedent" to be found among a group of questionabley "righteous" people.

Maybe it's not the actions of Luke that are the problem here, maybe it's your expectations of the Master Jedi that are the problem? Maybe the problem isn't "never meet your heroes" but the problem is "never hold people to unreasonable standards"

You say "Palpatine IS guilty" because you are seeing behind the scenes, as it were. Mace was not. Whatever the judgment of Mace, Palpatine had a legal right in the Republic system of government. Anakin stated "It's not the Jedi way". Mace's statement "He's too dangerous to be left alive" is an exact echo of Palpatine's statement to Anakin regarding Dooku's death "He was too dangerous to be kept alive". How Mace handled the situation is the point of the matter because you are calling into light the actions of the Master Jedi to condemn Luke. But the pattern of action of the Master Jedi precedent is made clear: kill the problem. Mace is an example, and so are Obi-Wan and Yoda in wanting to kill Vader. So that is the precedent.

Speaking of Luke reading Ben's mind "in secret" (seems to be that a Master Jedi engaging in intrigue is an act worthy of condemnation in your eyes), let's remember the intrigue precedent. The Jedi Council of Master Jedi ordered Anakin to spy on Palpatine. Anakin's response "It's not the Jedi way". Think about it - the Master Jedi are asking Anakin to spy on his mentor and father figure. It's not really about the spying alone, but about the fact they are asking Anakin to do it.

And, yes, I agree, Mace is never shown contemplating killing a child. But of course, Ben wasn't a child (remember the "words have definitions" thing you were saying?). Ben looked to be about the same age as Anakin in the PT. Mace was never shown contemplating killing someone about twenty years of age. But would he? Would Mace have let Ben live if he were in Luke's place? Well we'll never know - but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mace would've ignitied his saber and killed Ben without a problem in the world. Why? Because even though we never see Mace in that situation, we do have his thoughts on the matter stated very clearly: "He's too dangerous to be left alive" said the Master Jedi.

But, although we never see Mace contemplating killing a "child", we do see two others: Yoda and Kenobi. Because Anakin is of course a "child" as well. Yoda sent Kenobi to kill the "child" and Kenobi left his "brother" and student with amputated limbs to ignite into flame.

So do we ever see any of the Master Jedi secretly read the mind of their student, and contemplate killing them in their sleep? No. But we do see the Master Jedi engage in intrigue, reading the future of their students, ask their students to betray the trust of their mentor and father figure, engage in vigilante justice, strike to kill those deemed "too dangerous", order the killing of a "child" "brother" and student, engaging in blatant hypocrisy in leading into war, exhibiting pride and hubris... and these are the Master Jedi you're using a some kind of "probability guide" in order to condemn Luke for? Looking into his student's future and THINKING about eliminating a future of horror right then and there. An act which caused him so much shame that he ran away and couldn't face his sister, and just wanted to die?

It's like you would condemn a man for THINKING about killing twenty-year-old Hitler in his sleep. But you know what? This discourse between the two of us has actually caused me to consider Luke in an even greater light. That Luke not only refused to kill Hitler in his sleep; but that the anguish that came upon him for even THINKING about killing Hitler in his sleep was of such a magnitude as to cause such grief? That shows me that if anyone can be called Master Jedi, it's Luke Skywalker.

Cannot happen [without you arguing that they shouldn't happen/are unbeleivable]. Better?

No, what's happening is you're operating by a definition of "instinctual behavior" that precludes any thought. This is why it's important to define our terms. What I'm saying is that Luke's action is based on a typical personal response established by a pattern of reaction to a certain stimulus. I'm not talking about instict of the type of, flinching; I'm talking about instinct of the type of behavior that is repeated to the point it becomes a pattern of initial response.

It's not a problem because you're still not taking into account other variables. We don't know what Luke thought/felt/saw when he looked into Ben's future. There's also the difference in the scenario that Luke in TLJ is reacting to the undoing of everything he had accomplished in the OT. Luke and co. had successfully thwarted the Empire and brought in the New Republic. That all came at a great price and sacrifice. Now Ben was threatening to undo all of that. That Luke would react more quickly in a scenario which added the threat of the undoing of all everyone had accomplished in the OT, shouldn't be a problem to anyone competently judging the situation.

In other words, the emporer of the existing Empire telling Luke his friends are going to die and the Empire will continue, is different than Luke potentially seeing his friends die, and the existing New Republic will fall (which Republic was the proverbial "fruit" of all the OT labor. So, you putting a stop-watch on Luke's reaction is... it invites incredulity.

No. Just murdering them while they're awake, and potentially while they're asleep if they're "too dangerous to be kept alive"

He said he "I saw"; whatever he "saw" (and we aren't privy to that) it was equal to "the end of everything I love" - he "saw" the "end of everything I love" - at any rate seeing "darkness beyond what I ever imagined" would cause a greater reaction than seeing flashing lights in the distance through a window.

There's irony here, kid. No doubt about that.

 

The point is that the two scenarios have a similar function within their respective plots. It’s a test for Luke where he has to make a choice between two extremes and makes (ostensibly) the wrong one. He struck out at the Emperor from of a noble, yet selfish, desire to protect his friends. He drew his saber above his defenseless nephew out of a similar impulse. Yes, the salient details and specifics are different, but it’s the premise that’s important.

Yes, we’d ‘expect’ that, 30 years removed and a lifetime of experience away, Luke wouldn’t make the same mistake, but he does. He’s not immaculate. He’s just a man. I understand that’s not the Luke a lot of people wanted to see, but that’s the one we got. So I’m willing to roll with it.

I don’t disagree. I imagine it was a matter of economics. The roster was pretty packed and certain elements were truncated to allow for all the components RJ wanted in there. I certainly would have preferred 10 more minutes of Luke development instead of Canto Bight, but that’s me.

How could Luke have been done better? Give us more insight into his mindset. Spell out that he was conflicted about his choice to go into exile - that he’d had a heroic, but misguided, motivation for it. Connect those dots more explicitly. I’m not sure what huge leaps in head canon are needed for this to ‘work’ though. All the pieces are there. You just have to put them together yourself, which was probably a poor choice on RJ’s part given the response.

 

Look you're inviting a first-moment problem in your line of thought. There always has to be a moment at the first. But if that moment has to be set up by a previous first moment? Infinite regression paradox. Can't be done. Stories can no longer exist. It's in TLJ that we're seeing how Luke reacts to this specific problem. And thus, now we know how he would react to that situation.

I contrast I suppose I could cite story after story that operates the same way as TLJ and are widely considered "good stories"; example, was LotR "good" storytelling? Boromir got tested and failed (tried to take the ring) with no previous scene showing how he would react to the test. Bad storytelling? How about the inverse of Aragorn taking up the mantle of king by accepting the sword? No previous indicator of how he would react to that situation in a positive manner (constant refusal being shown prior). Bad storytelling?

Thus the point of TLJ that you're not understanding. You're creating a false image in your mind, and are upset when the image is found out to be false. But I propose the problem isn't with the "hero" it's with you creating a false image in the first place. If you were to ask me if Luke would run from a problem, my answer would be easy: not enough information to formulate an adequate hypothesis.

As for Mark Hammill, he is not the writer, he is the actor. His thoughts on how Luke should be presented are irrelevent and potentially detrimental to the story. What I mean is that, Mark is Luke Skywalker in a certain sense. Many people (fans) are going to react to him as a person in light of how his character is portrayed. I submit Rose Tico/Kelly Tran as evidence. Mark is always going to play both sides of the equation in order to be acceptable to both side of the equation. He has expressed both outlooks on Luke in TLJ, probably to placate all possible fan outlooks and keep himself in the good graces of the fandom. Wise move if so.

But of course Mark is going to see Luke in the same Master Jedi image because it's HIS role. If I were to star in a movie, I would be saying, "I think the best course of this character would be something like John Wick meets Bruce Lee meets Wolverine. Just an unstoppable machine that steamrolls everything in his path. Everyone likes him and all the women want him. That sounds right to me. he is a scientist, archaelogist, cowboy, ninja. Oh and his primary love interest is this strong woman and highly skilled. Very intelligent and a perfect counterpart. Daisy Ridley would be perfect for that part, I think. But she's so head over heels that even though she tries to hide it and remained composed, there's just this sexual tension boiling under the surface every time she's in the same scene. It's like this inner turmoil that threatens to just shatter her professional composure at any moment and erupt into a tempestuous passion on the spot. Also I think Kristen Stewart and probably Emma watson should be involved. Make that three primary interests. And they're always competing with each other over him. Plus he rides a Harley and plays the guitar like Steve Vai on Blue Sky. THAT sounds like where this character wants to go." Then I look around and the writers are looking at me with blank expressions. There's a moment of silence. Then I say, "What?"

You get the point.

Whgen you say "thought they knew" my question is, since as you propse there was never a scene indicating how Luke would respond to a problem he had caused, how did you "think you knew" what his reaction to an unknown scenario would be?

"Good" storytelling is a subjective claim so doesn't really do much. What you really mean by "good storytelling" is "storytelling as I would suggest" which is fine but unuseful and not a valid critique of, well, any story. I'm loathe to bring up "critics" because of my disdain for the concept, but as a general reference, if this suggestion of yours was so necessary to "good storytelling" why did most professional critics seem not to think the same, along with a significant set of movie-goers?

 

Ben did not turn because Luke had a momentary lapse in judgement. Luke says, flat out: "Snoke had already turned his heart". So, what Luke was dealing with was a spy, saboteur, assassin that is his nephew.

Obviously your own moral compass will lead you to believe what you will about which side of the story is true. I'm inclined to side with Luke Skywalker.

 

I think that you know this is not what I'm saying, but, rather, refusing to acknowledge the virtue of any other outcome. I come from the point of view that Star Wars is different from other film franchises... or at least it used to be. Its more than just different; its different in a unique way. This unique difference is the reason I have, traditionally, enjoyed Star Wars yet I do not enjoy most other movies.

I acknowledge that your description of one possible outcome is consistent with the ST as it has been presented. This is likely the prime reason I find the ST so disappointing. Beyond the mundane "just like everything else" stench it brings with it, it's just cheesy. Not cheesy in a fun way. Cheesy in a way that concerns me m\y eyes may never roll forward ever again.

Star Wars has already been haunted by the myth of the requisite romance. The romantic aspect of AOTC, for example, was the lowest point of the prequels, for me. Not b/c of the way GL executed the situations or dialog as much as b/c it had far too much impact on the plot.

I don't expect you to agree, but perhaps consider that there is value in telling a story without romantic love as the centerpiece and that there are those of out here that are starved for it.

Yeah, I guess I can see it coming, I had/have enough hope to continue looking for other viable options as this is a direction I do not support and will detract from my ability to enjoy future installments. I really hope it doesn't end up going down this road. Perhaps I should place my hope in JJ subverting our expectations.

As far as what I thought would happen, I was/am hoping for anything besides this romance angle. I have -100% interest in Kylo's redemption. I don't find anything about him relatable or redeemable. If the opening crawl of EPIX began the statement "Kylo Ren has been killed in a head-on collision with a comet. There is no chance he survived. Hux now reigns supreme", I would be rather pleased. I will leave it at that as the is not the proper thread to discuss such things.

I'm simply providing the evidence which specifically negates your point and allowing it to speak for itself.

I have no desire to be confrontational, but I do find it telling that you ignore the context in which this line was delivered. Yes, some/most of Luke's friends (Leia, Han, and Chewbacca) are not dead yet. Other members of the Alliance are, however. This is evident in the contextual description:

"Out of the window and on the view screens, the Rebel fleet is being decimated in blinding explosions of light and debris."

Luke is watching the Rebel fleet be decimated.

You are welcome to believe that if you want. I'm fine with it. I don't agree.

Luke, in my opinion, does act like a human being. One very specific human being. His name is Luke Skywalker. The person I saw in TLJ is not Luke Skywalker, as evidenced by his behavior. That is a different human being entirely of which I have no prior knowledge nor with whom I have any desire to become familiar.

If Luke didn't learn anything lasting in that moment in the Emperor's throne room, it's only because RJ wrote it that way 30+ years later. It's a retcon, and an unnecessary one. I don't believe that the primary determining factor in Luke's decision to throw away the lightsaber was his mechanical hand. I believe that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

I believe Luke learned attacking Vader or the Emperor is the easy, more seductive answer. There are many connotations here. I wouldn't want to be perceived as presenting the extreme "aggression is never the answer". Only the Sith deal in such absolutes. Rather, it's the more natural/typical response. The Emperor is betting on this. Keeping those around him mired in aggression toward one another affords him his power. Given the scenario, most would lash out in desperation not realizing there are other options. In that moment, perhaps for the first time, Luke realizes the spirit of that which Obi Wan and Yoda taught him.

• The Jedi use the Force for knowledge and defense; never for attack.
• Don't give-in to hate. That is the path to the dark side.

The teachings of the Jedi present alternative that aggression isn't the only answer. That realization, along the fact that attacking Vader is precisely what the Emperor is telling him, he chose, instead, to do the other thing; to stand down.

I believe Luke could repeat these mistakes. I don't believe TLJ filmmakers put in the time or effort required to make that believable or enjoyable.

 

He wasn’t beyond reach though. Luke should have responded with understanding and compassion, like a Jedi, instead of reciprocal hostility. That’s his failure.

We got the truth of the matter though. Luke reacted to his fear with aggression and provoked his nephew into doing the same. Both accounts are true . . . from a certain point of view.

 

Jedi*


*not that we've actually seen but heard about

 

Yeah, sure would love to meet one of these theoretical perfect Jedi we're always talking about. Probably wherever Bigfoot and Nessie are hanging out. Shangri-La, maybe?

 

Probably on a shelf with the Snyder Cut of Justice League

 

Boromir and Aragon were new characters introduced to us as the LOTR story was told, so I could take their behaviors in that story as given without requiring prior indications. Luke, however, was a returning character in the SW saga. You said it's a false image, nevertheless it's an image left by OT, that Luke was willing to confront evil, sometimes violently and sometimes peacefully, and not ran away from a threat to the galaxy.

For an analogy, let's consider Poe Dameron. Unlike other people I don't have an issue with how he was portrayed in TLJ. I didn't know much about his character based on what happened in TFA. However, the impression left by TLJ was that Poe had learned his lessons and that at the end of TLJ he was no longer the reckless person he had been at the beginning of the movie. So if in Episode 9 he's portrayed once again as reckless, they should provide a clear explanation as part of the movie. I shouldn't have to come to this forum after the movie and have you or other people explained to me why his character has regressed.

 

Fair question.

The claims I'm questioning aren't the claims of "it's not what I would have done with Luke" or "here's something that may be better".
They are claims that TLJ Luke:

• runs “perpendicular to how he was drawn in the OT”
  
• is “retcon”
  
• is “a re-imagining of the character”
  
• is “not Luke.”

The above are all factual statements - they are either true or false.
They are shown to be false as soon as evidence is presented that demonstrates similarities between OT Luke and ST Luke.

I wouldn't accept cherry picked evidence that supports one position while all the opposing evidence is ignored.
I wouldn't accept evidence that only seeks to verify the probability of outcomes.
I would accept any canon evidence proving the TLJ narrative couldn't happen to Luke Skywalker in the GGFA.

Lol. I'm sure Mark knows a lot about SW and it's fans but I'm not about to join the game of articulating his thoughts for him!

I can understand Mark's initial frustrations and those of some fans.
I still claim these frustrations come from head-canon and expectations - head-canon and expectations no-doubt supported by actual canon - but still head-canon and expectations.

Due to Mark's specific job requirements I imagine we would be hard pressed to find someone with more Luke Skywalker head-canon!
He's actually a great example of how attachment to the stories and characters we build in our head can conflict with official canon and become a real obstacle toward accepting new narratives.

This isn't a false dichotomy where Luke either completely changes or completely remains stagnant.
Characters can change in some areas and remain stagnant in others.

I don't think a clear-cut and consistent “Luke Skywalker” is possible let alone desirable.
He's a bundle of strengths, weaknesses and personality traits that can surface or be suppressed or manifest differently depending on the narrative.
How Luke changes or doesn't isn't a concern for me as long as it's plausible, thoughtful, interesting, and moves within established rules.

And I'd have agreed!
But character-based narratives are about exceptional circumstances too.
Perhaps there's a little poetry in the choices for those open to it:

The OT introduced us to a Luke preparing for confrontation to try and safeguard the galaxy (facing Vader).
He finds he is vulnerable to fear/anger and learns that his means define his ends.

The ST introduced us to an older Luke avoiding confrontation to try and safeguard the galaxy (sneaking into huts and running away into exile).
He finds he is still vulnerable to fear/anger but eventually finds a means to define an honorable end.

Because Dark Side.
Fear allows the Dark Side to twist Luke Skywalker's mind and yet the Luke we know and love manages to resist it in the end.
This is a classic SW trope deliberately simple enough that even my under-ten nieces and nephews have articulated this.

Noun: instinct

1. Inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli
2. An intuitive judgement or feeling about the best way to act, not based on rational conscious thought.

As far as I can tell both these definitions can apply to Luke in TLJ and neither is negated by the response taking some time or some thought being involved.
It just can't be rational conscious thought.

edit:grammar

 

You all don't know this about me but one of the reasons why I love "logic" and "math" is that they're objective in nature. They don't play favorites, they aren't biased to one end of the political spectrum of the other, they don't regard station. The high school drop out and the Ph.D alike have access to logic and math. You can prove logic and you can prove math objectively. For everything else you can only provide evidence and try to build a compelling case that sways others. What's the purpose of this preamble? Let's walk through your response so I can tie it together.

But you yourself just called them "claims" - which suggests you are actually looking at them as they were expressed: as opinions. (I mean you weren't going to pull out a protractor and measure the angle of Luke in the OT compared to TLJ and say, "this is 80 degrees, for it to be perpendicular it had to be 90 degrees"). I am claiming TLJ Luke runs perpendicular to how he was drawn in the OT (which is a metaphor), and I provided evidence too. But I can't mathematically "prove it" anymore than you can prove that he wasn't. So I'm not sure what compelled you to see them as claims and then shift to "factual statements" that must be true of false. Because "true" and "false" are objective states. To establish them, you need "proof" not "evidence" - right?

No my friend. I would have had to have made a remark such as "there are NO similarities between OT Luke and ST Luke" or some other absolute statement. Then you only have to find one way that they were similar to "prove" my absolute statement is incorrect. If you are purporting to present "evidence", there is a debate to be had. "Proof" proves, "evidence" suggests.

And there is the "tell". You would only accept proof. I asked what you would take as evidence, not proof. This is not a debate that lends itself to proofs (whether you're pro TLJ Luke or anti TLJ Luke).

Oh Mr. Hamill has provided his own thoughts, we wouldn't need to articulate them on his behalf. I was just wondering if the certainty required to claim to know a fictional character better than TPTB based on a few years boggles your mind when that person is Mark Hamill. His concerns about Luke's treatment seem to have been validated by on-going fan response.

LOL, but these fans have said where their frustrations have come from... do you know better than them why they're upset? I thought you didn't want to get into the game of articulating other's thoughts for them.

On the flip side, one might also be hard pressed to find someone who knew the pathway that would best suit Luke.

Actual people can certainly grow in some areas and not in others, but that process is organic. Luke is a character, the changes in his pathway aren't organic, they are out of universe, and written by actual people deciding what he does. The contradiction I'm spotlighting is in the analysis being used in attempt to defend TLJ Luke. I mean if a character can only change in a way that fits your preconceived notions (i.e. it's ok if he hasn't changed in terms of restraint, but ok if he's changed to be more grouchy and crude) wouldn't that mean you're engaged in the much dreaded head-canon festival? Hmm?

And for many people this version of Luke doesn't feel plausible, certainly doesn't feel thoughtful, and doesn't seem to honor much of the trajectory that came before it. So you can see why we'd be concerned.

Because Rian.

Interesting wording. The Luke we know and love manages to resist it in the end. What was he at the beginning? Was he a Luke we knew? A Luke we loved?

Luke said Ben would bring death and destruction and pain. Luke also says that he "thought" he could stop it. Are we arguing this isn't rational and conscious?

 

What do you actually think it unique about the Star Wars narrative? Aside from the cosmetic differences (which are unique) Star Wars as a narrative is based on the most common and mundane storyline used in storytelling since the dawn of time.

Well, these are loaded epithets, it's like if I said "Your cheesy replies are disappointing, and have the stench of mudanity about them. Just like every other criticism in this thread" I'm not really saying anything meaningful or reasonable, I'm just using words with negative connotations as a kind of "argument" when it's really just baseless rhetoric with no substantial value.

Okay you don't like stories in which love impact the plot. I'm wondering why you're on a Star Wars forum since that's the foundational impetus of plot throughout every trilogy. But you do realize that's not actually a valid criticism of a story, right? It's personal taste. To fault a writer for writing a story in which love drives the narrative is... well, the fault is all on your side of the table in that scenario.

I doubt anyone would disagree. But if you're suggesting writers of a movie need to bow to what you want, I think you may want to, re-evaluate the place of the recipient in art. Going onto a Eminem forum and criticizing his music as being "not what I like to hear, and he should consider that polka has value and there are people out here starved for it" is, well, you choose the adjective to describe that.

Or, maybe have no expectations at all? You know what they say about expectations and disappointment.

You're right. Luke does see the flashes of light through the window. I will gladly concede the point.

Again, if "ignite saber" in response to "threat to friends/loves" is what you're talking about here, then the Luke you see in TLJ is definitely the Luke you saw in RotJ, as evidenced by his behavior.

Whoa there, Tex. "If Luke didn't learn anything lasting" is your way of saying "Luke is acting in TLJ like he did in RotJ" so you're really saying "The person I saw in TLJ is not Luke Skywalker as evidenced by his behavior being the same as the Luke I saw in RotJ". So it's not that Luke is acting "different" in TLJ than the Luke you saw in RotJ that is your problem, it's that Luke is behaving THE SAME as the Luke Skywalker you saw in RotJ. You just refuted your own opening premise.

So in your mind, Luke Skywalker acting like the Luke Skywalker you factually know, is the problem because, Luke Skywalker (in your belief/opinion-based expectations) should NOT be acting like the Luke Skywalker you factually know, but should be ating like the Luke Skywalker you don't know and have never met, but expected to exist in the ST as a different character than the specific character of Luke Skywalker in the OT. You wanted a different Luke Skywalker than the one you knew.

I guess your beliefs were wrong. That's not the fault of anyone writing a story. It's certainly not a valid critique of anything. Bear in mind, it's not that I'm saying "You have to like this" or "You're wrong not to like this"; if you don't like rock and roll, that's okay. Nothing wrong with that. We all have different likes and dislikes. It's the part where you have a subjective reaction, then attempt to place blame on the writer for your subjective reaction that's not only unreasonable, but, incompetent and unjust judgment. Like a judge who condemns a defendant in court because the defendant happens to be a poet and "I don't like poetry"

 

Turning a character dark or edgey has got to be a well worn and annoying trope by now. Whether it's SW, DC, MCU, it feels lazy and suggests a lack of creativity. "The only way I can think to make this character interesting is to make him/her dark". Sigh.

Han didn't need a redemption arc where he had to be first dragged through the mud.
Leia didn't need a redemption arc where she had to first be dragged through the mud.
I'm guessing Lando won't get a redemption arc or dragged through the mud.

But Luke? It's like we have to go through this series of thought experiments to justify that the test he had to pass in order to become a Jedi, was more difficult and passed under greater duress while facing more imminent danger, than the test he failed as a Master Jedi. Luke somehow becomes a Master Jedi without ever gaining a greater mastery on restraint and control on his emotions (if some of the arguments in this thread are to be believed here).

I see Luke more as a centerpiece than a Superman. I was hoping to see Luke operate as a Master (like Obi Wan, Qui Gon, Mace, and Yoda) but I guess Rian thought subversion was the order of the day. The odd thing is that everything Rian wanted to explore he could have done without subverting Luke. You could make the argument that the messages and themes would have been more powerful but doing them through a "Luke we knew and loved".

Imagine a calm wise looking Luke trying to teach the Jedi way to Ben, and in his fervor to instill Jedi principles he missed Ben's human needs and frailties? We would have the whole PT as precedent that Jedi were prone to this, Luke would be challenged, in need of a redemption arc, Ben would have been wronged (which I believe was the cornerstone around which Rian built this story line) failure could still be a teacher, but Rian and this need to subvert... sigh. And as you noted, the die is cast. TLJ is canon.

I expect JJ to honor the metadata that came before in the OT about the length of the appearance of Force Ghosts. Luke would therefore be limited to brief, non-action cameos; not sure there's an opportunity to be "known" or "loved" Luke. He'll just be grumpy wise cracking unnecessarily cryptic Luke. I think any attempts to try to "rectify" where they feel they might have missed the mark in TLJ will come off as "a day late and a dollar short" pandering.

 

I think it is when you're claiming TLJ Luke was “retcon”.
Like I said, it is a factual statement that's either true or false.
In this case any evidence required to support your claim would also be proof.

Noun: proof

1. Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.

Sorry man but I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
I can't find anywhere that reads like I'm speaking for others.

And that's cool but different to what I was challenging which was your claims TLJ Luke was “retcon” and “not-Luke”.

You asked what evidence I'd accept?
Any canon evidence directly controverting TLJ Luke.

Same, same, but different.
Classic SW!

I don't mean to dismiss any shock in encountering TLJ Luke.
I tried very hard not to have any expectations going in and I was still a bit rattled.

For sure he was different - shaped by experience and circumstance - but he was the same too.
And in the absence of any evidence controverting TLJ Luke I'm left concluding that my road-bumps to accepting the character must've been formed in my own head and laid by my own presumption.

 

For starter's how you are phrasing this "it is a factual statement" has the literal meaning that it is "true". A factual statement is true, and I don't think you mean to say that in reference to our discussion; you are challenging the validity of what I'm saying. So I'm guessing you're saying "factual" as a synonym for "objective". An objective statement can be determined to be true or false. Assuming that this is what you were meaning to communicate, allow me to offer the following:

ret·con
ˈretkän/
noun

1. 1.
   (in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.
   "we're given a retcon for Wilf's absence from Donna's wedding in ‘The Runaway Bride’: he had Spanish Flu"

verb

1. 1.
   revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.
   "I think fans get more upset when characters act blatantly out of established type, or when things get retconned"

Have you and/or others argued that our belief that Luke overcame his fear and lack of emotional control in ROTJ was wrong? Is Luke's thought to murder his nephew in his sleep new information? Does it impose a different interpretation on previous events (i.e. how we see Luke's developmental trajectory)? Does it facilitate dramatic plot shift? Then I say Retcon. Now I would argue that I have made a compelling case for retcon based on the above definition. Do you agree with my argument or do you hold a different view still? If you hold a different view, then we are debating. If we are debating, we are providing evidence, not proof. If either one of us has proof the debate is over.

Here it is right here.

"I still claim these frustrations come from head-canon and expectations - head-canon and expectations no-doubt supported by actual canon - but still head-canon and expectations."

Here it is right here. People have been told "ad nauseum" that their problems with TLJ is their emotional investment in their own personal head canons. It doesn't seem to matter how often they articulate what their actual frustrations are, somehow the argument continues to be, "no your problem is your head canon". It appears you are doubling down on this idea as well. And I would find it odd that with people actually saying what their issues are with the movie, you can follow up by saying it's head canon, and at the same time say you didn't want to get into the game of articulating other's thoughts for them.

And based on the information above I provided, I believe you will fail this challenge.

And it has been provided. You just don't accept it or don't agree.

Please (in your own words) describe to us what is different and what is the same. In your opinion, what is the same about Luke, and what is different? Are you speaking in metaphor or do you really see tangible traits that are the same and some that are not?

And I'm asking how he was different and the same (to you)? Are you arguing there's anything about Luke that's the same at the beginning of TLJ? Are you arguing there's anything different about Luke by the end of TLJ? Please expound (if you would).