Doing Luke Better

Some people seem to view the Jedi ranks like they’re video game achievements that get unlocked after gaining a certain number of experience points or something. “But Luke upgraded his armor back in quest three. He’s level 12 now, he should be invulnerable to attacks of level six! It makes no sense!” He’s not a video game character, he’s a human being with flaws. Flaws that are well established. He repeated a mistake as an older man that he’d made before as a young man. Is that forbidden for some reason? That doesn’t exist within the realm of plausibility?

Who exactly named Luke a “master” by the way? There’s no venerable council of elders to confer that title on him - no determining body that could approve that promotion. He spent ROTJ calling himself a Jedi Knight when it wasn’t strictly true. Why would this be any different? He doesn’t act like any master we’ve ever seen? Well, he ISN’T like any master we’ve ever seen. Follows suit, doesn’t it?

Luke was presented with a fight-or-flight scenario. He encountered a perceived threat and reacted with a ‘fight’ response. Yes, it was unworthy of a Jedi Master, of a teacher, of a hero, of a protector and paternal figure. But that was the point! That’s why Luke is so thoroughly ashamed and devastated. He’d failed everyone including himself. He’d given in to his fear, responded with hate, and it led him to suffering. Just like Yoda had warned.

He didn’t feel he was worthy of his legendary status - that he was a greater burden now than an asset. Like in ROTJ, when he abandoned his friends and mission at Endor because he believed his presence was a larger danger to both - Luke removed himself from the equation. He went into seclusion because he’d caused enough damage. He didn’t trust himself anymore and felt everyone was better off without him. And he was, again, wrong. He believed it was a noble gesture, for the greater good, but it wasn’t. It was a resignation to defeat and he needed someone to show that to him.

My interpretation of Luke after ROTJ was always that he’d be the ‘wheel breaker’ (so to speak). He’d find out what the faults of the old Jedi Order were and correct them. He’d figure out why they fell, how it happened, and fix it. He’d forge his own path and build a better Jedi order. But that’s not what happened. He, evidently, followed that same path to some degree and made the same mistakes and suffered the same consequences. That’s disappointing to me, but not unwarranted. That role seems to have shifted to Rey now. She’s the new hero of this story and it’s now her job to make good on that potential.

 

Flaws that he overcomes and his triumph over them is well established. But I'll give you credit for at least acknowledging that he repeated a mistake, but let's be clear, it's not because of choices he made, it's because of choices Rian made.

The opening credits in TLJ for one, named Luke a Master Jedi. Yoda also references him as being a Master during the conversation in TLJ. Shouldn't that be enough to establish that he was indeed a master?

Ok so we are agreed that he is a master. I think the ONLY in-movie Master Jedi arc that has development that you have to compare to is Obi Wan. You don't know Mace's, or Yoda's, or Qui Gon's. None of it is shown in the movie. So... no Master is like any Master as far as we know. But does that mean they should follow general ethics and guidelines that they share?

I think fans could accept Luke making a new mistake, but failing an old test (along with the other Rian Johnson revisions of Luke's personality) requires too much suspension of disbelief (IMO).

He went to Ach-To to die, in shame. There is a reason why he doesn't tell Rey the full truth the first time she asks what happened to Ben. I see a lot of people suggest that Luke was actually making a noble sacrifice by staying away for fear of making things worse. But I don't recall any verbiage in the movie supporting that. What I remember is Rey telling Luke that Leia sent for him, and he refuses the call. Where's the nobility in that? Ben is already corrupted. Leia is already aware that her son is lost and Luke can't save him. But she's still sending for him because she believes he can help. Why should he refuse?

Because that's what Rian wrote. Not because Luke made choices, but because Rian made choices. And to be clear, if it had been another writer and a story the fans liked, his trajectory would still be a product of out-of-universe decisions by writers and TPTB.

 

What different interpretation is being imposed on previously described Luke?
How do you interpret OT Luke differently after watching TLJ?

I'm not speaking for others there ↑ but questioning where the particular notion comes from.

I've seen no canon evidence directly controverting TLJ Luke or indicating TLJ Luke to be false or incorrect.
That's why I'm claiming strong assertions like TLJ Luke is “not Luke” or "retcon" must be formed from within.

If I'm right it doesn't effect the legitimacy of any fan opinions - I'm only examining the foundation of ideas and quality of evidence.
Feelings, interpretations, and subjective validations about movies are always legitimate, especially with SW which has always emphasized heart over head!

If I'm wrong that's cool too and no big deal although I'd like to learn where.

The main differences I see between OT Luke and his introduction in TLJ were:

1. His faith in the Jedi Order had been shaken.
2. He was actively avoiding confrontation.

It soon became apparent to me that these differences were temporary, plausible (given the circumstances), and challenges that the character overcame by the end of the movie.

edited for grammar and clarity

 

Ha ha ha. Well, yeah, the character choices were definitely made by the writer who wrote them. Hard to argue that

A master in the same way others were masters before him though? We have no frame of reference for that. Near as we can tell, Luke was working this all out on his own. Simply put, Luke had far less formal training than any other Jedi. That he was ill prepared and fell short in some part because of that is not an outrageous assertion.

Yes, they absolutely *should*, and that’s why Luke’s trespass is so fundamentally egregious.

Like his own master before him, Luke took on an extremely gifted but profoundly troubled student out of obligation and overconfidence. “I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi. I thought that I could instruct him just as well as Yoda. I was wrong.” > “In my hubris, I thought I could train him; I could pass on my strengths.” Luke’s failure wasn’t just the result of an old mistake, but one born of ignorance to history - those that fail to learn from it are doomed to repeat it. We’d all like our hero, Luke Skywalker, to be above that base sort of thing, but the premise of RJ’s story is that he’s not. That’s not too far beyond my suspension-of-belief, so I’m willing to buy it. Like master, like student.

One of those people is Rian Johnson. In the director’s commentary track for TLJ, he explicitly says this. I don’t disagree with you at all. That’s why my earlier suggestion in this thread for improving Luke was for RJ to better connect those dots for us. Because, you’re right, it isn’t made at all clear with what’s presented.

Simple. He's fully convinced that he ‘knows’ better than her. She ‘thinks’ she wants his help. But he ‘knows’ he’ll only make matters worse. He believes he’s doing the right thing, but he’s absolutely, unequivocally, and in all ways, wrong. He believes, because of the legacy of the Jedi, his failure was inevitable. His actions, however well intended, will always circle around to catastrophe at some point. So why even bother? It’s futile. But, again, he’s wrong and his journey in TLJ is awkwardly (to be generous) coming that realization.

Sure. RJ decided, in order to keep the new characters the focus, the featured legacy character would have to rediscover the person they used to be as an arc. Just like Han in TFA.

 

Man, if I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen the definition of ‘retcon’ debated on a forum, I’d be able to fund that ‘remake TLJ’ silliness all by myself.

It’s really pretty simple. Retcon = retroactive continuity. It’s when a pre-established element of a story is altered (retroactive) in order to better agree with a current storyline (continuity). Vader’s backstory changing between ANH and ESB, for example, is probably the most infamous retcon in fiction. We were told one thing, had it be integral to the plot of that storyline, then were given a conflicting account that became integral to the plot of the new storyline. That’s how it works.

A hopeful and optimistic guy in his early twenties becoming a cynical and disillusioned middle aged man isn’t exactly a radical concept. It’s the tropiest trope that ever troped a trope. There’s nothing ‘retroactive’ about that. Everything that purportedly happened in the past still happened. He’s just changed over the last few decades as people often do. If you go directly from one to the other without a whole lot of in-between though, that’ll likely come off as fairly jarring and disjointed for the audience. But that doesn't make it a ‘retcon’, just fragmented.

 

That he was now able to control his emotion after his confrontation with Vader and Sidious. Now we're being told, well no, that was just a temporary victory over the Sith. Luke in fact is still just as prone to emotional outbursts and lack of control, lack of faith, and susceptibility to fear as he was in ANH and ESB (let alone ROTJ) therefore TLJ Luke is plausible. That is RetCon by the letters and spirit.

And as for being "not Luke", please if you can, let me know how many jokes he told in the entirety of the OT, vs how many he did in TLJ. Was Luke a huckster and a crank in the OT? I see Han in TFA, and I see old Han with growth. I see Leia in TFA and TLJ, and I see the old Leia with growth. I see Luke in TLJ and he doesn't look like the old Luke with growth, he looks like Luke that retrograded to beginning of his journey in the OT as though tthe OT never happened.

Ok for one, you are sliding your lens of analysis in front of their explanation. That you accept no evidence provided directly controverting TLJ Luke doesn't mean it doesn't exist (I keep supplying it, and you keep disagreeing - which is fine, it is subject to interpretation). There is no evidence for you. But there is evidence for others. You don't need to superimpose what you think must be the answer because there is a gap for you. What I wanted to see in "TLJ" is independent of whether or not what I "got" in TLJ was in alignment with what we already know to be Luke in ROTJ. Do you follow what I'm saying? It honestly feels like, for your logic to apply, what we saw in ROTJ must be head canon. It's not head canon, it was the movie. What is head canon however (I would argue) are the myriad explanations for why Luke is essentially the same character (when it comes to controlling his emotions, his fear and anger) but not the same character when it comes to fighting for his friends, believing in the light in people, believing in the Jedi, being heroic, being tenacious, being determined, and being stalwart. All I have gotten thus far is interpretations/takes/head canon on why you think it doesn't violate any rules. And all I see is Luke being sent back to his starting blocks in ANH (much the same way Finn was sent to his starting blocks in TFA) and repeating his journey.

On numerous occasion, on this very forum, the suspicion that criticism aimed at TLJ was by fan boys and/or those too over indulgent in their own head canon (which was the culprit for their criticism, and not actual substance) - has been reflexively used to discredit criticism. Maybe it's not your intent (which I would believe), but I think you're swimming against the current on this one. On this forum, if it can be said that your analysis is driven by head canon it DOES effect the legitimacy of the opinion (IMO).

I can think of many more differences (and have listed a few) but now the other part of the question is, how is he the same as the Luke from the OT?

Right we have no frame of reference for it at all, we never see him act in the capacity of a Master (good or bad) prior to TLJ. There is no reason to suspect that he is any less a Master or that he is paid no future visits by Yoda and Obi Wan to help him along the way. But still we don't know. Still I would contend he doesn't fall short because of his training (however non-traditional we assume it was, if it was). Master's lose students, the outrageous assertion is the way in which Luke did it and how he responded afterwards.

Ignorance to history? Luke is well aware of the story of his father, his seduction to the Dark Side and his fall. Losing a student is something other Jedi have done as Masters as well. Again, the "bridge too far" is how he lost the student and how he responded in the aftermath. And I contend there is really nothing in the OT that supports either (how he lost the student and how he responded).

Plausible explanation? Yes. Likely (IMO), no. For me Rian Johnson has to eat his own dog food here. If you are telling us that your Luke is shameful, beaten down and no longer heroic, don't try to make him heroic by not coming back to the Resistance. He was ashamed, sad, depressed, angry, guilt-ridden, weak, and beaten, and he didn't want to be seen in that state. His absence wasn't an ill-advised attempt at noble sacrifice, it was self-serving IMO.

 

“Ignorant” in the respect that he hadn’t learned from it. He was aware of the past, but hadn’t taken to heart the lesson in it. So he repeats it. That was part of theme of the movie: learning from failure and the perils of not doing so. Again, I feel this is a shortcoming of RJ’s spotty approach to exposition.

Luke, in ROTJ, responded to the fear of losing his friends with aggression. Similar to the scenario presented in TLJ. Luke, in ROTJ, thought removing himself from his friend’s company was the best way to protect them. Similar to the scenario presented in TLJ. To claim there is “nothing in the OT that supports either” isn’t total intellectual honesty, IMO.

There is precedence there to show that Luke is at the very least 'capable' of this particular line of thought and action. If you’re not willing to accept the premise because the narrative didn’t properly provide satisfactory connective reasoning, then I understand the complaint. But objecting on the grounds that there’s “nothing” there doesn’t read as completely accurate to me.

And that’s what it comes down to. You don’t buy the premise. It’s too incompatible with your interpretation of the character and that’s perfectly legitimate. You didn’t like the choice that was made and wish a different one, one more in keeping with your own perspective, had been made. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Han, who abandoned Leia for selfish reasons, constructed the idea that he was doing it for HER. “I know every time you look me, you're reminded of him.” That’s how he rationalized the decision to himself. He wasn’t deserting her, he was doing her a favor. It was a false justification though. I see Luke’s methodology as pretty similar. He validated his choice by believing in the altruism of it, but truly he was just afraid of letting everyone down again. It’s not an either/or, I feel, it’s a bit of both. But that’s just my take. Maybe I’m lending way too much credit here.

 

Going back to the topic, and referencing everything that was written since, I think Luke could be done better if A)you dislike TLJ, and B) I think for some who do like TLJ Luke can still be done better (please don't ask for numbers, we'll never really know). In other words, the opinion that Luke could have been done better is greater than merely fans who disliked TLJ. Better does not necessarily mean he was done badly, just that they don't like certain aspects of his depiction in TLJ.

Moving forward into EPIX, I think for those which Luke wasn't done well, those will be tickets lost at least on OW. I think that will hold true for every facet of TLJ that didn't rub the audience right in TLJ. There is a backlash, but I agree it's likely small and almost insignificant. This however is what will hurt IX if anything does. Aspects of the ST that turned fans, both casual and super, away from the ST. It's not people banding together to take down a franchise, it's someone who liked SW in some way that simply doesn't identify with it anymore. It will be curious to see if they've reached more people than they've lost, because I honestly don't know at this point.

 

This is a good point to highlight. I would argue that you only get the sense the he hasn't learned from his father's fall from TLJ. Coming out of ROTJ 30 years ago, if you asked, I think the consensus would be that Luke had learned from his father's fall and learned greater discipline and control via ESB and ROTJ culminating in him finally becoming a Jedi - there's a causal link between the two. If he doesn't learn from his father's mistake, he doesn't become a Jedi. TLJ says, "wait no, he hasn't learned what it looks like, and he hasn't grown that much, actually he screws up in a way you've never seen before that upends everything you thought you knew about Luke. And now instead of what you thought then, he's this." This, to me, fits every criteria (fully not marginally) for a retcon.

I think he responded to being baited and goaded, not so much out of fear. You can see concern and anxiety registering in his expression over the fact that the Emperor knows their entire plan. I'd definitely hear arguments for anger and malfeasance (if for no other reason, Sidious claims he can sense it in Luke) but not fear. I do agree that Luke thought he would imperil the mission on Endor (see I can agree with people too ). But to be more specific here about my assertion (i.e. "nothing in the OT that supports either"), Luke runs away due to shame and brokeness after his transgression. Nothing like this ever happens in the OT. Luke escapes and/or retreats (Hoth, Cloud City, etc.) but never, EVER does he run because he's ashamed of his actions.

But in TLJ he does because he had screwed up in a way that is (frankly) unbelievable. He runs and ignores the needs of his friends, even when they ask for him to come back. I stand by my contention that there is nothing in the OT that supports that, or that supports Luke thinking about murdering anyone (let alone his own nephew in his sleep while he was under his tutelage).

Let's also be fair here, he didn't just opt out of the Rebellion attack on Endor because he thought he would imperil the mission, he thought, he genuinely thought he could turn Vader. Post-Murder-Contemplation Luke in TLJ is just removing himself from the spotlight of his unbelievable failure (if we go strictly by what is in the movie). The narrative doesn't provide satisfactory connective reasoning (if the comments you attribute to Rian in the directors cut are true - I wouldn't know I haven't looked at them), but it still is not an apples to apples comparison even if it was what Rian was envisioning. People have been beating me over the head with Han's words in TFA about why Luke was gone. What did Han say, did any of it have to do with Luke thinking the galaxy was better off without him or that he blamed himself?

I don't buy the premise that Luke changes only in ways that makes him worse, and stays the same only in ways that make him worse in order to justify what we see in TLJ. He could certainly lose a student, he could certainly make a mistake (as Jedi had done before him in both regards), but I honestly haven't seen an argument yet that Luke was capable of treating a family member like he did Ben and then running away from his actions and their fall out. We have all of the OT to demonstrate otherwise. When did Luke run from accountability for his mistakes in the OT? And when he knew Vader was his father, despite all he had done, Luke believed in the light in him and appealed to it. Now if Luke had murdered a few people here and there in the OT on his way to becoming a Jedi, maybe there's a case for TLJ Luke. Having him consider murdering his own family who was under his care (while he slept) is a Luke I don't recognize and one I contend, is entirely unsupported IMO.

But was Han still doing Han things in TFA? Was Leia still doing Leia things when we see her in TLJ and TFA? The roles and behavior is familiar and amplified with growth. Luke (IMO) is a complete de-evolution that is mathematically possible but implausible and inorganic, not because of head canon, but because of what we know in the OT. And the supreme irony here is that when you argue the OT as a critique against TLJ Luke, the counter is that we didn't interpret ROTJ and the OT correctly while simultaneously arguing there is no retcon. How can we change our understanding of the OT to better understand TLJ Luke and there NOT be a retcon?

 

The basis is that, like the Jedi before him, he’d become arrogant and overconfident with time. He’d allowed himself to lose that discipline. To repeat the same mistakes others had made before him. That doesn’t undo or rewrite what he achieved in ROTJ. It means that he couldn’t maintain it.

“Anger, fear, aggression - the dark side are they.” He feared for his friend’s safety, it brought him to anger, and he lashed out in aggression. That was the point of Yoda reiterating his spiel from ESB. To let us know that Luke was giving in to the dark side. That he was playing into the Emperor’s hand just as Yoda had warned.

When has Luke ever committed something this unforgivable though? Surely your position isn’t that Luke is shameless and unrepentant because he never actually demonstrated that specific capacity before. When has Luke in the OT ever been apologetic or remorseful for his actions? That doesn’t mean he lacks the ability for profound regret.

And, after his failure, he genuinely thought the galaxy was better off without him. In one instance he was right. In one instance he was wrong.

No, they certainly aren’t exactly the same thing. But it’s of a similar motivation which reveals the propensity for Luke to react in a way like this.

Well, that was my impression the first time I heard it anyway. “Luke felt responsible. He just walked away from everything.” Generally speaking, when someone feels responsible for something it means they’re assuming blame. The phrasing implies he walked away because he felt responsible. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but the simplest explanation is often the correct one I find.

Which mistakes in the OT are anywhere comparable to this one though?

Yeah, after a year’s worth of reflection. How did Luke react when he first discovered the truth though? He leaped to his possible death.

By abandoning the people he cares about when they need him the most? Sorry, no. That’s not true of any version of Han we got in the OT.

Growth? JJ deliberately placed Han in a pre-ANH position in TFA to show us how far he’d fallen as a person. His confrontation with the gangs on his freighter was meant to illustrate that there was nothing left for him. He was at the end of his rope. His arc in that movie is all about redemption. Like paint-by-numbers redemption.

I’ve been known to be a little slow on the uptake, so you might need to roll that one by me again. What now? What about OT Luke was changed? RJ took established behavioral traits of the character and escalated them to an exaggerated dramatic level. I understand not being able to accept where he took those foundational components, but he didn’t just invent them.

 

Not speaking for @Rayjefury, but for myself, I just feel this way.

If there were a million different paths to take Luke, this was one extreme that I not just didn't expect, but that I didn't want.
I also didn't want them to go the other extreme and make Luke a god with the Force either.

In either case, RJ (or any other director) could have made a case that within the SW universe, it's possible. I just feel neither are very likely. Your average 12 year old can't beat a trained Navy Seal with 10 years combat experience, but if you put them through a million fight scenarios, I suppose the kid could possibly win one or even a dozen or so. It just isn't very likely.

I think I, like many others who dislike this direction with Luke, feel that his becoming Luke from TLJ has about as much chance as that 12yo. RJ went to extremes (imo) to sink the character to a point we don't even recognize him anymore. It isn't just the scenario, it's his behavior to certain situations or his thinking process seems entirely illogical. We just can't follow. His tossing the lightsaber starts it, but it certainly doesn't end it. His refusing to train Rey because he wants the Jedi to die, then trains her to show her they have to die? It just doesn't make sense (to our minds).

If there were a million multiverses of SW, something along the lines of say Spiderman and all his versions, sure, this Luke is possible. But this Luke certainly wouldn't be identified as Peter Parker. He'd be an extreme Spider-man that probably wouldn't catch on, and thus Marvel would be able to back pedal and stick to the version most people like. Unfortunately by choosing to go this extreme version in a saga film, SW doesn't have that liberty anymore. They can retcon a bit, they can play with perspective and create backstory to "make" it fit. But that feeling we got watching him in TLJ will never go away, and I feel no matter how much material they come up with I'll never buy into it. Not out of so much stubbornness, but out of disinterest. I don't want to know about this extreme version of Luke.

Sure, you can pull out specifics and pull them to their maximum potential to justify his behavior and decisions, it still doesn't feel natural. Which is why I can't wait until the ST is done so we can move on from this and hopefully never have a continuation of this "saga" because now it will never get my interest moving forward.

I'm not writing this so much out of hate, but I see both sides (hate pitting us against each other and designing teams... but ....) circling each other trying to get that critical blow (it seems). I don't see this so much as an argument to win, but to understand the other side. I get it, it's possible, I just don't like it, I reject it, and I don't want to listen to this story, just like I don't want to read a comic book or watch a cartoon of a Spiderman that's too bizarre for me to feel like he's Spiderman.

 

I feel the same. No convincing or need to win is required here. As with everything, some liked the way Luke was portrayed others didn't. Then it's a whole spectrum of opinions. I'm in the "plausible: yes, liked it: no" zone. It didn't feel natural to me nor satisfying, particularly Luke's motivations and choices preceeding Rey's arrival. To me it feels out of character. It's a feeling, so it can't be talked out with rational arguments, and I understand them perfectly well. In the end it's a matter of taste.

So, most of us have already formed an opinion. However, we read and participate in this kind of threads looking for answers or simply out of curiosity to see what other fellow SW fans think, and especially why they feel the way they feel.

Personally, I think there were other areas where VIII could have innovated and made things unexpected and fresh. And it did, in some ways. I just don't think messing too much with the arc of an already establlished character, one of the most iconic characters and symbols of hope and compassion there is, was the way to go. But that's me.

 

Great post, Greenbalrog. There is no right answer, just how each of us feels about the arc and progression of Luke, and indeed other characters. There are arguments and counter-arguments that can be made, some convincingly so. At the end of the day we take from it what we want, based on our own opinions, interpretations and emotions. For me, it was great seeing Luke's character again but similarly it wasn't a Luke I recognized; an abstracted version of Luke which suited the required narrative for the film itself; but not as part of an ongoing saga.

We'll see what JJ has in store for us next year. For me, it will be a missed opportunity if Luke's journey is over but I recognize the ST isn't about him or the other legacy characters.

 

I don’t want it to seem like I’m championing the choices made in the movie as if they were the only choices that could have been made. A ‘not quite Luke’ Luke wasn’t what I wanted out of his depiction either. My aim here was just to focus in on the logic of what was presented. I feel the assertions that the character ‘makes no sense’ or is ‘unbelievable’ aren’t accurate to me. There’s enough set behavior there you can trace through to rationalize the character getting to the place he’s at. Not that it was the best possible destination to arrive at.

Johnson’s decision for the character wasn’t based on what would be the most thrilling or satisfying, but what would create the most conflict and drama. What would be the most difficult thing for Luke to have to grapple with? It would be to turn his heroic attributes against him and have him do something truly unheroic, then live with the consequences and have his arc be about climbing out of that hole back to righteousness. Is that ‘fun’ though? No. Not really. It’s a pertinent lesson to learn: You never truly fail until you decide to give up. And even then it’s never too late to try again. But that’s not fun.

The best counter I have is that the contradictory nature evidences his internal conflict. He doesn’t truly believe what he’s saying. It’s all talk. He wants to have hope again, but he’s afraid to. On the surface, he’s trying to convince Rey to give up, but underneath he’s secretly wanting her to convince him of the opposite . . . or it’s just sloppy writing. I’m willing to extend the benefit of the doubt though.

Bummer.

Fair enough. Personally, I’m just interested in an engaging and well thought out story. If a character has to be diminished in some capacity for that to happen, then that’s fine with me. Just make it worthwhile. TLJ almost lands that for me, but was lacking.

Since we’re on the topic of comic book characters, the premise reminds me a bit of Batman Beyond. An animated imagining of a future Batman where he’s given up the fight, become a recluse, and a plucky new hero has to coax him into helping him assume the mantle. The traditional Batman we know would never give up though. So to play along you have to accept that initial proposition. Maybe people would have been more able to receive the idea if Luke hadn’t died at the end.

 

This doesn't read as accurate to me. The Jedi ideology certainly had blind spots (as most ideologies do). For example, it wasn't collective arrogance that blinded them to Anakin, plenty of Jedi were wary of him, it was their rigid insistence on principles and restrictions as a one-size-fits-all solution that didn't address significant issues and problems that some of their students faced. The Jedi didn't lose discipline (for example) in the PT, or become reckless with power, they just couldn't see everything as they needed to. Jedi ideology made them myopic in their view.

Luke repeating mistakes from earlier (with more dire consequences to the student, the galaxy, and his legacy) coupled with an almost a cowardly retreat in the aftermath does undo what he has achieved in ROTJ. Because what exactly has he learned if he's repeating a mistake? (This is rhetorical question, I'm not asking you to answer it, I'm asking it to illustrate a point)

I'm grouping these together (even though it places them out of order relative to your actual response) but I think you are underscoring my point (maybe intentionally, maybe not). Luke has never committed something so unforgivable. There are no mistakes comparable to this one. That's why it's unbelievable. When push comes to shove, there just isn't anything in the OT like it (and thus my argument that the OT doesn't support it). As an audience member, you either overlook this and take a leap of faith and suspend you already suspended disbelief to give the writer the benefit of the doubt, or you decline to due labor on behalf the writer in connecting the dots. I'm the latter on this particular topic.

He wasn't right in either instance. His absence from the Rebellion fleet had no impact on the outcome on the fleet in ROTJ. The peril he sought to avoid (discovery of their plan) was already realized. And he was just flat out wrong in TLJ.

There is a basis for it (in ROTJ) but there is no development of it (in TLJ) to justify saying it was used. If you watch the movie alone, you would be just as warranted to say that they don't leverage the basis in ROTJ. We once again have to take Rian's word for it, that it's what he intended. It feels a bit disingenuous to retroactively justify in-movie events with out-of-movie commentary, (a criticism I aim at Rian, not you). If there was a perceived hole in your film, you should have filled it in-movie. Monday Morning Quarterbacking or legitimate criticism of bad attention to detail? You be the judge.

Agreed. He blamed himself. He walked away because he felt responsible, not because he was being noble.

He rejected it, searched his feelings and knew it was true. Then started looking for a way to escape. He didn't just leap eyes closed, he looked around, surveyed the area and then dropped and then (in what I can only assume was his use of the Force) managed to fly a curved arc into a soft landing into one of the sub shafts on the side of the main shaft. I don't think he intended to end up on the antenna array (as he ultimately did) but I don't think he was attempting to leap to anything but an escape.

Han was a smuggler in the OT and he was still one in the ST. The point is made during the story that after Ben's corruption that both he and Leia went back to what they were good at, smuggling for him, leading for her. I'm not sure Han abandoned anyone he cared about when they needed him. He was what he was in the OT, with more growth. I stand by that comment.

Han wasn't at the end of his rope several times in the OT? He wasn't constantly in debt to this person or that person, tracked by this Bounty Hunter and that one? It wasn't pre-ANH, but it did include ANH metadata. Han is a freighter captain / smuggler first and foremost. JJ honors that metadata and carries it forward in TFA. TFA wasn't redemption it was ascension. His life had been largely characterized by thinking of his own sake, his final act is to end his life was thinking of someone else's sake. I don't regard that as redemption (which perhaps you'll regard as a semantics argument) because he didn't have anything to atone for in being independent (which is why you don't hear him apologize to Ben). But the mission comes to a complete halt for Han when he sees he has a chance to bring his son home.

OT Luke does not become a Jedi until he faces his Vader and Sidious and refuses to give in to hate and anger. The relationship between these two events is causal. If he doesn't throw down the LS, he doesn't become a Jedi. It is a lesson he has to learn to move forward; and the moment is seminal. We understand that he hasn't just metaphorically become a Jedi, he is spiritually a Jedi, which is punctuated by the visit of Yoda, Obi Wan, and his father at the end. Anakin's appearance is particularly important. He hadn't lived his life embracing the Light Side for many years. Yet there he stood with Obi Wan and Yoda - why? Because he was guided by love/compassion for his family in his final moment. Like Luke, he relinquished hate. And they both did so by throwing down the tool that would enable their hate (for Luke it was the LS, for Anakin it was Sidious).

And that one small step was enough to propel to Anakin to the Light Side so that he could stand shoulder to shoulder with the other Jedi. We understand that it propels Luke similarly to the life of a Jedi. TLJ comes along and says, "no Luke's step wasn't really that significant or transformative. He hasn't really learned the lesson that made him a Jedi. In fact he isn't really changed much; all those character attributes that were problematic in ANH, ESB, and ROTJ, he still doesn't have control over them. The victory over the Sith on the Death Star? A temporary one, and not a pivotal moment. Luke is still prone to exhibit weakness in mental toughness, emotional control and discipline."

That is retcon.

We don't leave ROTJ thinking Luke is the same Luke from the first 2 movies (nor, would I argue, were we supposed to). But TLJ says Luke hasn't changed that much (retroactively) in order to justify the leap backwards Luke appears to suffer between ROTJ and TLJ.[/QUOTE]

 

Retcon or presumption?
This idea that Luke was now able to control his emotions after his confrontation is a good example of what I meant by coming from within the viewer.

I can't find any SW canon evidencing this notion.
I can find some falsifying it:

"Anger... fear...aggression.
The dark side of the Force are they.
Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight.
If once you start down the dark path,
forever will it dominate your destiny..." - Yoda

"A challenge lifelong it is,
not to bend fear into anger." - Yoda

Like I indicated above I just think you're drawing bigger conclusions than the evidence in RoTJ indicates.
That and the canon evidence that directly falsifies this idea that Luke will always control his fear and anger after overcoming one significant test.

There's no need to explain why Luke wrestles with fear and anger - it's all in the movies.

But he did...

"The Rebellion is reborn today.
The war is just beginning.
And I will not be THE LAST JEDI."​

That's an understandable reading and why I address the distinction every now and again.
An idea is based on intuition or limited evidence is still legitimate.
Movies are about “feelings” and SW in particular makes a point of heroing feelings.

Saying “TLJ Luke doesn't feel like Luke to me” on a forum is fine although it may get questioned.
Saying “TLJ Luke is “not Luke” and a “re-imagining” is fine too but such a bold claim is likely to get tested.

Hang on a minute, I only illustrated the differences first because there was less to list and the main point of contention!
Why did you want me to list them if not to discuss them?
But in all seriousness, do you think the big differences I listed too much to accept for the character?

Anyway, we can all select evidence to demonstrate Luke's similarities and differences.
The key is that I believe claiming he's “not Luke” is actually falsifiable.
I have seen no canon evidence that directly falsifies TLJ Luke.
Mentioning OT Luke overcoming a test or not cracking jokes isn't evidence controverting TLJ Luke - it's only evidence that Luke overcame a test and made less jokes.

Luke's similarities are in line with his character traits and circumstances.
They are demonstrable and are not undermined by or going beyond existing canon and limitations set in the GFFA.

His differences are also in line with his character traits and circumstances.
They are not undermined by or go beyond existing canon and limitations set in the GFFA.

But it's not just shame and responsibility.
Luke couldn't see any success coming from any further direct involvement - only failure.
Luke outlines all this in the film:

"I will never train another
generation of Jedi.
I came to this island to die.
It's time for the Jedi to end."

"...I will teach you the
ways of the Jedi and why they need to end."

"Lesson two.
...if you strip away the myth
and look a their deeds
the legacy of the Jedi is failure.
Hypocrisy, hubris."

"At the height of their power, they
allowed Darth Sidious to rise...
Create the Empire and wipe them out.
It was a Jedi Master
who's responsible...
for the training and
creation of Darth Vader."

"I came to face him, Leia.
And I can't save him."

Older Luke also shares some weaknesses from the younger Luke of the OT.
He's not immune to fear:

"He would bring destruction,
and pain,and death...
and the end of everything I love"

"It didn't scare me enough then.
It does now."

He thinks he's weak:

"By the time I realized I was no match
for the darkness rising in him...
It was too late."

"I was weak.
Unwise."

He lacked confidence:

"Leia blamed Snoke, but It was me.
I failed.
Because I was Luke Skywalker.
Jedi master.
A legend."

"I can't be what
she needs me to be."

Hmmm...
Has Luke ever made the mistake of bending fear to anger?
Has he ever made this mistake with his life, legacy and the fate of the galaxy at risk?

There's a difference between picking up characters up at a dramatic point 30 years later and building on them
and
doing so within self-imposed limitations that fetishize what has only been addressed in the past.
The latter would be like driving forward with all eyes fixated on the rear-view mirror - bound to result in a crash!

edit grammar

 

It's really pretty impressive how decisively little you and I share with respect to our interpretations. No judgement. It’s just really astounding how two people can approach the same thing and come to radically different conclusions. Life would be boring if everyone agreed all the time though

The Jedi, in my observation, were keepers of the peace who waged a war. Keepers of justice who staged a coup. Their role was to defend the Republic, but had allowed themselves to be used in a ploy to attack its very core. They’d become unfocused and undisciplined. Not with respect to obedience, but in regards to their responsibility. They were looking left when they should have been looking right and they didn’t realize it until it was too late. They’d become convinced of their mastery and it contributed to their downfall. Not unlike Master Luke. But that’s just my interpretation.

ROTJ Luke is basically taking his driving test. He wasn’t totally prepared for it, he flounders a bit, recovers, and ultimately passes. He got his license. HOORAY!! Some 30 odd years later, he’s unexpectedly forced to take that same test again and, this time, he fails. His license is revoked and his reaction is: “Well, s**t, maybe I SHOULDN’T be out there on the road anymore. I’m a danger to myself and others.”

Problem: Luke would be an expert driver in this analogy. How does an expert driver fail a driving test? Answer: He’d been focusing on the wrong things. He’d become too comfortable with his immediate skills and lost sight of the broader rules-of-the-road (as it were). Preposterous? Maybe.

I’d say that sums the stakes up quite succinctly. You’re either willing to accept the premise and go on that journey or you’re not. If you can’t look past the central conceit of the situation (true of any fiction writing), then you can’t egage with the story.

You brought up the impetus for each decision. In one instance it was to save his father. Ultimately that choice was vindicated as ethically correct - he succeeded in his goal. In the other instance it was to protect others. Ultimately that choice was invalidated as ethically incorrect - he failed in his goal.

Sure. I won’t spend a second of my time defending it. I’m honestly not clear at all whether the result was intentional. Was this the product of Johnson ‘trusting the audience’ or was it an artifact of him lacking the deftness to properly tie things together. I’d rather to assume the best

Maybe this is too heavy a concept for the room, but I liken the sentiment to the mentality of suicide. People can rationalize the unnatural concept of self-murder by believing that it’s for the good of others. That they’re nothing but a burden and everyone would be better off without them. They’re providing a service, in a way. It’s actually a selfless act in that sense. But they’re absolutely wrong. It’s the most selfish thing a person can do. The deed is to no one’s benefit. You’re invoking nothing but grief in the ones you supposedly care so much about.

Fleeing out of assumed responsibility doesn’t have to be out of the course of self-sacrifice, but it’s a natural conclusion to come to.

I’ve seen this scene countless times throughout my life - a truly staggering number I’m certain. I’ve never once thought that Luke was leaping to safety at that moment. Vader stated the terms pretty clearly: join me or die. Luke made his choice.

I’d always assumed what happened was the designed purpose of the machinery: vacuum up loose debris and jettison it out. The system saw Luke as garbage and treated him accordingly (just like Rian Johnson, amiright? ). It was sheer luck Luke survived (or the will of the Force or whatever). Again, just my take.

And I fundamentally disagree. The point of the exchange between the two was to convey that they’d gone back to what was familiar as unhealthy coping mechanisms. They were each practicing avoidance instead of dealing with what had happened with their son. Han left Leia when she needed him the most. His sin is running away because he couldn’t face the reality of what happened with his child. He’s redeemed when he literally stops running and faces him. Arc complete.

I don’t want to keep being THAT guy, but if you own the TFA Blu-ray, please listen to JJ’s commentary for those scenes. It’s really very insightful. You’re entitled to your own interpretations, but I don’t think you’re fully picking up on what’s being communicated.

I won’t dispute any of that. All Jedi have ‘trials’ they have to pass before being knighted. Luke passed his trials. He slayed his dragon and earned his knighthood. Does that then mean though, that because he proved himself virtuous in that moment, that he’s now no longer susceptible to the same sort of ordeal - forever and ever?

You can certainly come to that conclusion from the end of ROTJ (which was intended to be the finale at that point), but that’s not the only possible interpretation. You’re making that assumption which the story itself doesn’t qualify. We know he’s victorious, not that that victory was everlasting.

Sorry. No. Contradicting perceptions of continuity and actual continuity aren’t the same thing. You feel the supposition you’ve come to is the only correct way to read those events and that suggesting otherwise must then be incorrect. If you can find a source from George Lucas supporting your inference, that Luke had conquered his darkness for all time, then I’ll happily concede the point and acknowledge the derailment in character development. Failing that, I feel it's open to debate and so allows for other equally legitimate readings. That's just how I see it though

 

Experts fail all the time. NASCAR, open wheel racing....they crash all the time and some times with lethal results. I think the analogy works perfectly fine.


Even if you find a bit of Lucas saying Luke conquered this for all time, it wouldn't be on film as in, it isn't IN the story. If we just took everything Lucas said off the cuff about SW as canon then even the OT is a complete cluster F because that changed many times in words alone.
But it would be a better argument than some other ones presented no doubt.

 

Well, on my end, I’m only trying to stay consistent with my own position. I can’t just point to what the writer said when it suits me. Y’know? “No no no, you see, it only counts when they agree with ME.”

 

Well it does only count when they agree with ME though....