Great article about Luke

That's what commentators mean when they appreciate the very meta-narrative of the ST so far.

 

Riiiiight!!!! Because Disney lets Mark trash this movie if he wants to. You live in a bubble made of unicorn farts and fairy dust if you think Disney didn't tell Mark to pipe down. The mental gymnastics some people can do are amazing. Some people here are going for the gold,

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 9, 2018, Original Post Date: Jan 9, 2018 ---

Thousands of possibilities, but one where he didn't run off and hide with nothing better to do than rub one off so many times the skin came off his bionic hand.

 

First of all, wow.

Second, there is zero evidenced to back up what you just claimed. There is evidence to backup what I've claimed. I'm not about to get into a debate based on harsh assumptions.

Sidenote: Every post I've seen from you had been very targetting of, and demeaning towards, other members of the forum. Shame on you for contributing to that crap.

 

I'll drop this here. Cover of the Wheaties box for you. If you can't comprehend how amazing it is Mark said anything at all under the circumstances you've won the gold.

 

Using specifically chosen pieces of someone's word, that are chosen only to backup your argument, doesn't hold up here. Sorry.

There's much more to Hamill's opinion, as he has clearly stated. Stop using him in this manner. He has expressed that being used in this manipulative way has not been to his liking.

 

So the 50+ statements don't hold up. But a couple of statements after the fact do. You sir are a gold medalist for sure.

 

As I said above, if all you have are assumptions, bias, and attacks, then I'm not interested.

And seriously, please stop treating members (and Mark) in such demeaning ways.

Good day.

 

Assumptions????? ?<------one last question mark just I know you got it. I've listened to the man say the words 50 plus times. I think were beyond assuming at this point.

 

With all due respect, Mark has said a lot of stuff over the years. You can't pick and choose just to try and back up your own opinion. Whether or not an actor likes the direction of a character is irrelevant. He's not a story teller. Besides, he's clearly stated his support for Luke after he let it set in. Mark is a master troll and a master at getting attention. Don't forget his interviews after TFA where he went on and on about his "stare". The dude loves to have fun with the fans, especially ones so easy to trigger like yourself.

 

Good Deflection. So when Mark talks, we only believe what he says when it agrees with ya'll. When you disagree with what he said he was just trolling. Silver medal for your gymnastics. The other guy put more heart into it.

 

Apparently, you're still in the gym doing gymnastics because you didn't comprehend what you just read. When something is IRRELEVANT, it means you ignore it, whether it helps or hurts your argument. Mark's comments about anything to do with story decisions are IRRELEVANT. Do you get it now?

 

So the author that wrote an article as the basis of this thread, relevant. Mark Hamill's comments irrelevant. Got it.

 

the thing in the movie is we know it is all Snoke's doing and Luke even comments as such but it's never expanded upon. it's like he's down and out about his Nephew going to the dark side but ignores the root of it. if going after Snoke is futile or would cause too much blowback that would have been a useful plot point, for giving us more empathy with Luke.

 

I think he should have acted like Yoda and Obi Wan. From what I saw in OT, I don't think it is in his nature to try to murder his nephew or to turn away from Jediism. Otherwise, that would have assumed that his story is not yet complete, which means NT will have to be about him as well. But NT is supposed to be about Rey and a new set of characters.

The way I see it, given the point that SW will always be identified with Jediism and that not only fans but even the new producers appreciate the original characters (as seen in plans to make films about some of them), then the manner by which they were treated in the recent films is uncalled for. The same goes even for characters like Adm. Akbar.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 9, 2018, Original Post Date: Jan 9, 2018 ---

According to the article, the most important lesson that Luke gave to Rey is, "'The Force does not belong to the Jedi. To say that if the Jedi die, the light dies, is vanity—can’t you see that?'" That implies that there is no "true Jedi path."

In addition, given the ability to possess and use the force without training or discipline, not only is there no "true Jedi path," there is also no such thing as a Jedi path!

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 9, 2018 ---

Surely, Luke would not have been that intellectually inept! Given the fact that he outwitted Kylo Ren near the end of the film shows that he could have considered many options to counter or influence Kylo through various means.

Also, one gets this feeling that even Luke's presence was irrelevant in the movie, together with that of other characters from OT, given their actions or their fate (e.g., Han Solo's, Akbar's, and even Luke's banal deaths). It even reached a point when characters like Snoke and Capt. Phasma were given a similar sendoff.

This point is exemplified further with Rey's character, which uses the force with very little training. It is as Luke's main role in the movie was merely to show that he's the last Jedi and that the Jedi were never important.

 

Perhaps. I feel like the end of the film contradicts that lesson, though.

 

I feel like this is a good spot for this:

 

From what I remember, the end shows one of the children in the stable using the Force to get a broom. If any, that probably supports what Luke said. If it's in reference to the idea that Rey was able to recover the ancient texts, then apparently it's now just book learnin' that's involved.

 

At first, I really didn't like how Luke was portrayed in the film. Today I ran across this series of tweets which made a lot of sense to me. I had recognized some of the parts the author mentions such as Luke clearly embracing nonviolence in ESB, but did not put it all together as well:
Maybe he reads a lot into it that wasn't really there, but I do like his take on Luke's behavior and I'll go back and watch it with fresh eyes, for sure.

 

Just what we all watch SW for -- to find out that our Jedi Knight is human and capable of mistakes! Wow, who would have guessed that we watch space fantasy for realism?

Well, anyone who watched ESB would already know that Luke was human and made mistakes. That's why this is yet another element of the old films which is now being rehashed.

And anyway, this whole apologize for Rian's bad writing stuff is disingenuous -- Rian didn't really write Luke this way because it was an interesting idea. He did it because he and the other ST writers can't think of any other way to raise Rey up on a pedestal without tearing Luke down. That's the real reason Luke was portrayed this way, and all of this other bunk defending this as bold writing is simply bull****.

 

The catch is that a third film followed TESB.