Figuring out why I dislike TLJ.

All right man, I don't know if this is a joke or what (if it is, it's in seriously bad taste) but that scene had nothing to do with "diddling kids". It's frankly disgusting that anyone would even imply that, because... well, it's just so clearly not at all what happened. Add to the fact that some people really have unfortunately experienced that, and I honestly can't believe that we're even making light of it like this.

If that's what lies at the crux of why you dislike Luke now, then I guess I understand why you dislike him so much, but the perspective is wrong at its core.


But anyway, I'm 100% done going down this road anymore if we're going to continue discussing this disgusting proposition, because I find it absolutely disrespectful to real life victims.

Sorry you had the minor inconvenience of not liking a Star Wars film, but some people have real problems.

 

don't get upset. a lot of people see violation/abuse coded into the ST.
it's part of why the trilogy thus far has been very disturbing to a lot of people, i think.
also a large part of the reason it's resonant, unfortunately.

 

In some specific instances, maybe. But I think this severely crosses the line.

To be honest, and sorry if I'm wrong, but it almost feels to me like weaponizing tragedy.

 

I think this is utter rubbish, and my wife agrees. Sex is not what makes you relate, it's who you are as a person, what decisions you make. Great character is great for anyone, it's what makes him/her great. I feel like modern Hollywood forgot how to make great characters and just tries cheaply to please everyone.

Rey is a bad character, since she's perfect. She's just an idea. Now Leia was a strong female character simply because she was a strong PERSON. She was created as a character, not as a marketing plot.

 

i honestly don't think so. but maybe explain what you mean about weaponizing tragedy.

and is that not what Ben's whole life has been about: weaponizing him through abuse?

 

I mean from a more meta form.

Again, I don't feel comfortable putting words into people's mouth, and I don't think Sparc personally would do this because they're a good person, but it would be far too easy for disgruntled fans to latch onto this preposterous and disgusting idea and use it to criticize the movie.

And I also don't feel comfortable discussing this type of tragedy at length, because I was fortunate enough to never have anything happen to me, but I can't help but feel that by weaponizing a tragedy like this just to try to drag a film you didn't enjoy, you're really doing a disservice to survivors.

I may have gotten a little frustrated and shocked earlier, but again I definitely don't think this is what Sparc is intentionally doing. Still, I could see this conspiracy theory being incredibly harmful not only to Star Wars' already toxic climate, but to real life innocents.

Anyway, I don't really have anything more to say on that, as I never really wanted to discuss this from the beginning and find that any allusion to it in the movie to be so utterly subjective and vague that it doesn't really warrant discussion anyway. @Sparafucile, sorry if I sounded harsh earlier.

 

OK, here is the timeline of his comments:

-April 11, 2017 on GMA, "I fundamentally disagree with 100% of Rian Johnson's take on this character....."

-Nov 23, 2017 at a Star Wars Fan Event with Daisy Ridley, "The Last Jedi is the best SW movie since Empire Strikes Back." It even has it's own thread as it was started to shut up the people who kept saying that Mark Hamill was constantly badmouthing TLJ.

-Dec 27, 2017 from the Washington Times, "Maybe he's Jake Skywalker, he's not my Luke Skywalker....."

This is EXACTLY how I described it in my earlier post, as I'm sure we could both find other quotes throughout the last 6 months and Hamill going back and forth saying he loved the movie and hated the movie.

 

The "he's Jake Skywalker" quote comes from the terrible YouTube video. The video leaves out "I came to really believe that Rian was the exact man that they needed for this job." "Rian Johnson is just such a gifted filmmaker and storyteller, but it took me a long to [accept]–because it's radical."

There's no back and forth. He struggled with the story at first. Voiced it with RJ privately and Disney made it very public in the documentary. Mark made it public as well (he regrets it now). Mark eventually came around when he saw the final product.

 

Again, that's the way you interpret it, which is fine. But any person can interpret his remarks a different way as I'm doing.

 

You're free to believe whatever you want. That's true. In this case you happen to believe in a lie.

I do love this forum. It's much better than the scream in your fact nature of YouTube/Twitter. Unfortunately those platforms allow misinformation like Mark's thought's on the film to be spread around like gospel. People just like and retweet whatever confirms their worldview.

In a forum like this you have to try a little harder.

 

What does the Good Morning America clip have anything to do with YouTube? I actually DVR'd that clip last year as even Daisy Ridley said to Rian Johnson regarding the narrative of her scenes with Luke, "We need to talk...." I remember being alarmed by both her and Hamill's statements, but still being naïve thinking they were joking. I don't argue with you that there are YouTuber's who post stuff on Star Was (that support Pro and Anti opinions), but I go by stuff I read from reputable newspapers, websites, etc.

You have not proven anything to me in this thread other then saying I'm wrong, and YouTubers are a bunch of crazies. We can agree that YouTubers are a bunch of crazies!

 

I'm not sure how much clearer Hamill can be on this topic. I just wish people were a little better about getting the full context of a quote before jumping to a conclusion.

 

Deconstructions do not work well for everyone and they don't work the same in every movie.

Snyder's attempted deconstruction of Superman fell completely flat for me and it never came full circle when it should have.
Nolan's deconstruction of the Batman mythos is done brilliantly, boiling it down to it's core concepts. (in the first movie at least)
Johnson's deconstruction of Luke Skywalker seems to be the most controversial and I get why. But for me it works. It breaks him down and gives him a chance to rise again. It takes him off the hero pedestal and makes him human again like he was in 1980. Will work for some. Not for all.

 

Luke is also somewhat retroactively sugarcoated as a 'chosen one' by the introduction of that prophecy in 1999. That makes deconstruction even more difficult because now we've added some B.S. divinity to something without really having that moment to establish that the prophecy was B.S. to begin with (a throwaway line about misreading it from Yoda in ROTS doesn't cut it). That, and the apparent RPG interpretations of midichlorians and Force powers, make it more difficult to deconstruct a character that was weirdly retconned into being some sort of superhero, when he was just a good son that made the right choice regarding compassion and forgiveness in the face of hate and fear.

 

Absolutely. And I honestly applaud Disney and LFL for having the stones to pull the trigger and try it. The boldest bit of film making in Star wars since 1980

 

Morally - yes. I still hold the same values. I've maybe grown more cynical with age and experience, but my morals are exactly the same. My opinion on what is right and what is wrong has not changed.

If Luke truly feels responsible for the rise of Kylo Ren, if he truly feels like he kickstarted Ben's turn by contemplating murdering him in his sleep - I really do not think he would have turned his back on the galaxy, allowed this darkside creation of his to unleash his reign of terror completely care-free, and more importantly he wouldn't have turned his back on his friends.

Yes, he changed by the end of the film - back to Luke. But he spent what, 15 years, ignoring everything? That's not Luke by any stretch of the imagination. Hopefully they will retcon it so Luke witnessed Ben murder his wife or something like that. Luke's actions would sit better with me then. At least give him better motivation for even considering (however briefly) murdering his nephew in his sleep. But as of right now... hmmm. To give homicidal thoughts credence when he knows that "always in motion, the future is" is terrible writing in the grand scheme of the saga. Basically Luke is gonna kill his nephew because of what might happen (I'll say it again "always in motion, the future is").

That's my take on it, and I'm not even that much of a Luke fan - Han was my hero growing up.

 

We never saw Luke as a teacher of a dozen talented kids, including one that is his nephew.

Fans that like TLJ understand that Luke may not be the best mentor or uncle, and placed in a position where he has to do something that he wasn't prepared for. Just because he was an ok student, doesn't mean he's going to be a successful teacher, and if he fails, spectacularly since his students are now dead, that's something different from what we saw him handle. Fans assumptions about what an older Luke would do don't have to stuck on what a 22 year old Luke did during a time of war (which is leave the Rebels often to follow his own path). Luke the teacher can be a different person that what we may have known in the OT.

 

Betraying everything he values and stands for to the point where he more resembles a fallen prequel Jedi than himself is apparently the only way that Luke could have been humanized.

 

Considering the pedestal he was on, yes it is.
He was essentially a god.
You have to tear down the walls that make him a god to humanize him.