Luke Skywalker,our hero ,forever.

What hope do they have ? Broomboy ? It is stated clearly that Leia's friends didn't answer her call ... They're 10 on a ship ...

Luke inspired Rey a lot. He inspired her so much that she left him after almost hitting him with a lightsaber ...

We didn't see the same movie then.

 

I'm uncomfortable with the notion of defining Star Wars movies as "commercial". Maybe it is because I've been in the fandom long enough to know that these films, although successful with audiences, have always done their own thing, always had a very definite trajectory: the one dictated by George Lucas, which I have always considered individual and "creative" more than general and "commercial". I would say it would be a disservice to the franchise not to let their creators (who are also fans, remember) to come up with their best story possible. I know that there are different story options, but if you know anything about writing you know that for the writer there is only one story: the one that feels right in his heart of hearts, and I wouldn't like any trace of this "commercial" "walking-on-shells" mindset to dictate the narrative of these films, thank you very much.

--- Double Post Merged, May 5, 2018, Original Post Date: May 5, 2018 ---

We definitely didn't, which probably shows our minds fixate on different things. I tend to read beyond behavior. One person may be angry with another person, but that does not mean they stop caring for them, or hate them or disrespect them.

Leia's word's: "We have what we need to build the resistance". Leia said it. There is hope, believe me.

 

You don't have to think of Star Wars films as "commercial," but, I bet the people making them do. ;-) I mean, either every new movie has new Stormtroopers and character costumes because of creative vision, or, it's because they want to sell a C3PO with a red arm and Range Troopers, etc.

Even still, it is true that none of these things need be treated as extremes or (false) dichotomies. Star Wars can be a commercial property *and* have a great, singular creative vision behind it. It's just a matter of how those concepts are kept in balance, know what I mean? And I think for a lot of people, TLJ was too much of what Rian Johnson wanted to do as an individual as opposed to a film that would be as inclusive as possible to the franchise's entire fan base.

 

It is one thing to market the "look" of your films (smarten up the troopers, design new robots, create some porgs) and another to deliver a Star Wars story in which the older protagonists (now secondary characters) fail to serve the story of the new protagonists in the most effective way just because the creators fear fan reaction... Han Solo's exit was most adequate, facing a responsibility as a father he had dodged for too long. So was Luke's death, believing in his own power, becoming an inspiration for the downtrodden, for Rey. Leia, if Carry hadn't died first, would probably have had a purposeful heroic death too. You could tell me there were another hundred ways the film creators could have dealt with the original characters, but I still feel that, story ways, showing them imperfect and human and ultimately making them die fighting for what they believed in was the better creative choice these authors could have made. It gave the story dramatic momentum and made the audience feel most invested.

That would have been a generic movie, too self aware and too bland, and I assure you that most Star Wars fans don't like that kind of movie. At the core of all the fun and action in Star Wars there is always drama and tragedy. You can't either escape it or sugarcoat it.

 

That's what people have been saying, yes. =)

I keep saying false dichotomies impede these conversations. They can write the old characters as imperfect, human, and dying for their beliefs while still writing them in a way that doesn't conflict with what fans hold most dear about those characters. In this case, Luke's optimism, strength of will, and ability to see hope in others.

Also, if you ask me, Han and his death were treated just fine. I don't think there was anything wrong with how he was portrayed. This is why TFA didn't have the kind of gigantic backlash TLJ is having. Some people were sad to see Han die, but, they were relatively OK with killing a beloved character when it served the story well - as you pointed out Han's death did. Really, the only nitpick with Han's portrayal in TFA has nothing to do with him. It's how Rey is written without human imperfections as she is more knowledgeable and skilled with the Falcon than Han. That was a bit of a head scratcher.

If, say, Episode IX showed Leia to be a First Order spy, it would create all sorts of new dramatic story possibilities, but people would freak out because it would conflict with what Leia fans love about the character.

Again, leaning on false dichotomies do not advance these conversations.

 

It is not uncommon in discussion to prune arguments drawing up dichotomies. It is an effective way to find common ground and also the source of primary disagreement. In this case, for example, we have learned exactly what the nature of the fan service you think must be protected is: the essential traits of the old trilogy characters, their personalities. That is a step forward from the vague idea of film creators “making the fans upset” you mentioned in one of your previous posts... So you see, drawing a dichotomy has been productive so far, and has made me, and others I hope, understand, within this reductive dialectic medium of communication we are using, what you really meant.


I see where you’re coming from now, and although I understand your qualms about the portrayal of Luke, I will add that, in my viewing of both old and new trilogy, I have found no inconsistencies in Luke’s character’s treatment. The way I see it is that Luke in the ST has become more sceptical and pessimistic due to his terrible misstep as a Jedi teacher to kylo Ren. Circumstances altered the hopeful Jedi student he once was into a desilusioned and hesitant master. This is not too hard for me to relate to as a fan of Luke, but maybe this is because I’m of a certain age, and not anymore the wide eyed idealist I used to be. Like Luke, I have rebuffed the more hopeful ideals of my daughter, the “Rey” of my life, and more than once I’ve been called out on the entrenched social constructs I was raised in, and taught a lesson or two by her, in the same way Luke was taught a lesson by Rey.

I understand that people do not identify with this character evolution devised by RJ, but I can’t see in it a disservice to the fans. RJ did actually made a believable evolution of the Luke we met in the OT: yes Luke embodied Hope, but he also embodied impatience, hastiness and frustration. He was never a perfect hero.


My only problem with TLJ is that RJ did not flag Luke’s rediscovery of hope enough at the end of the film. Maybe he should have echoed what yoda made him see in the island and should have told Kylo ren: “the new Jedi are coming and you can’t stop them”, instead of contradicting himself saying “I’m not the last Jedi”. That sentence was a bit unfelicitous and confusing, I thought.

 

Well, dichotomies are not the problem. False ones are. To say that the use of false dichotomies was actually beneficial comes off as playing dumb. It would have been more efficient if you'd just talked with me using grounded reason and not something you knew to be inaccurate. We may not have gotten here at all if I didn't try to be very patient in navigating those fallacies. I'm glad we're to a point of better understanding now, but, it has nothing to do with feigned ignorance being a valid discourse technique.

Still, I am truly glad we're here now. Thanks for sticking with it and remaining polite.

And that's a perfectly fine reaction. I definitely see where people can arrive at that conclusion. I think the reason why so many people don't is because of a part that you took for granted in building that logical progression. That being the part where Luke has that terrible misstep of considering killing his nephew. It's not that Luke can't have mistakes, and big ones -- flawed characters are the best kind! But almost killing one's nephew is the kind of mistake that requires (what many feel) is a HUUUUGE departure from Luke's character. As many have pointed out before, Luke was well-known for seeing the good in an old man like Vader. For that same person to have homicidal doubt over a young Ben Solo doesn't fit for many people. If it fits for you, that's fine, these things are subjective. I'm just explaining why it doesn't fit for many.

You're absolutely right. Luke was never perfect and should not be perfect in TLJ. Again, though, the difference between impatient, hasty, and easily frustrated feels like a far cry from nephew-cide for most. =)

I could see that. I think perhaps what would have worked better (in my opinion) would be if Luke found a way to forgive himself and rediscover hope in himself. Because I don't think Luke ever feels people of the galaxy like Leia or Rey or Chewie are devoid of virtue and hope. Rather, he feels like he is no longer worthy of positive things because of what he did. So, maybe through Luke's force projection diversion he could tell himself that he redeemed himself before dying .... or something...... I mean, I don't know a perfect way to get out of the corner Luke was painted into. But, something to that effect might have left a better taste in people's mouths.

Thanks for this discussion. As you said, hopefully others will see our back and forth (and read it entirely) and come to some new understandings.

 

I accept everything you say but this:

I never said anything about your arguments that I knew was inaccurate... I was just trying to defend my point of view and honestly did not catch the nuances of your argument until you cared to explain them. I am not a mind reader. I’m sorry you felt under attack, and for wearing out your patience, but hey sometimes one just has to explain oneself a bit better, that’s all. This is the risk In this kind of medium. Once you open your mouth, you have to be ready to back up your arguments and be fine with it. False dichotomies are definitely relative. You were just reading too much into my intent, that’s all.

I know that people are upset about Luke, but I refuse to pamper at their discontent. The creators of these stories only need to be consistent with the fan within themselves. To do otherwise would put these films at risk of becoming heartless. You may think you can do both, but it is evident that a lot of people hated this film for the same reason others loved it. You can’t really please everyone, so you might as well do what you think it’s right and follow your gut. TLJ was not a film without problems, but IMO these were more about translating ideas into images than about butchering characters.

And Luke didn’t always see the good in people. He was very quick to dismiss Yoda when he first met him, he also dismissed Han a great deal at the start. Luke was always prompt to make hasty judgements and then backtrack and think twice. The event in which he considered to exterminate kylo and save what he loves makes sense to me.

 

A big misunderstanding I believe a lot have is that Rian Johnson made Luke who he is in TLJ. That isn't really the case. Rian Johnson took Luke at his basically darkest times and saved him.

Lets examine where Luke is. He is depressed and ashamed as TLJ starts. He has failed. Rian Johnson didn't make him fail. Luke failed before the start of TFA. All Rian Johnson did was show how he failed in more detail. We already knew before TFA started that Luke had ran away. We already knew that Luke had failed in rebuilding the Jedi. He had started an academy with his nephew as the star student. The star student was lost to the dark side and destroyed the academy, murdered half the students and convinced the other half to join him. All of this occurred before TLJ was even written. Rian showed is just how Ben rejected Luke and became Kylo. Luke was ashamed that he lost his nephew, ashamed that he failed. So Luke leaves and goes somewhere he believes he will not be found.

So then TLJ starts and the redemption of Luke Skywalker starts. He is not ready to say yeah lets go. That wouldnt be realistic. It takes events and ultimately his greatest teacher to understand that as a legend he is needed. That he is needed, but also needs to hand over the baton.

The big thing is that Rian Johnson used logic and what was set in front of him as the start of Luke's arc in TLJ.

 

I respectfully disagree. It would not be difficult to go in a direction consistent with Luke's established character...and plenty of plot devices could have got you there.

"Jedis don’t give up. I mean even if he had a problem he would maybe take a year to try and regroup, but if he made a mistake he would try and right that wrong.’ So right there we had a fundamental difference, but it’s not my story anymore. It’s somebody else’s story, and Rian needed me to be a certain way to make the ending effective. That’s the crux of my problem. Luke would never say that. I’m sorry" (to lend Mark Hamills words)

Rian Johnson was afraid of Luke's shadow falling on other characters. He had did not have the required respect for the franchise he was handling. He wanted the past to go...and would kill it if he had to. This he did, taking away Luke's legacy at the same time. It is likely he was the most popular character in SW, one chart estimating it below, and I think SW will hit a wall with IX unless they insert him in IX as a force ghost. (Which they shamefully will...prepare for trailers hihlighting it)



https://www.quantcast.com/blog/the-fans-behind-the-force/

 

I actually thought it was pretty smart of JJ to "paint Luke into a corner" in Force Awakens. That it was a good way to introduce us to the new characters.
And I don't feel like JJ left Rian with only one choice as how to write Luke. He left him on an island with a blank canvas - reintroduce Luke however you like.

I would have loved to see a Luke that met my 35 years of insane expectations, but what we got what at least a terrific performance by Mark Hamill.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 8, 2018, Original Post Date: Jul 8, 2018 ---

... but now I'm thinking about the map to Luke Skywalker... Hmm...

 

I would agree with you that a filmmaker should make the film they want to make and should never try to please the fans. But when you are making Part 8 of a 9 Story Saga, you can't make your own standalone movie as that is what essentially Rian Johnson made. For example, he has Rey and Poe meet for the first time at the end of TLJ, yet they met at the end of TFA at the Resistance Base (it wasn't shown on screen, but they are all waving to Rey when she leaves to find Luke). Then you have Snoke tell Kylo Ren take off that ridiculous mask, yet he wore it several times in front of him in TFA. Or BB8 saying 'I got a bad feeling about this' when no one in the audience speaks droid! Or the previous 7 Saga movies ended with a Skywalker in the final shot, yet Broom Boy is in the TLJ last shot.

So Rian Johnson should have the freedom to make the story he wants and not worry about fan service to appease the fans. But he still has to understand there were 7 movies that came before it, and there will be 1 more movie that comes after it, and it can't stick out like a sore thumb.

 

this was for the audience's benefit, not to ignore what they didn't get to see in TFA.

totally in keeping with Snoke's character; he makes fun of the Knights of Ren in TFA while at the same time indulging Ren's attachment to his grandfather.
maybe it's too subtle in the movie; it's definitely more aggressive in the eu.
by the time we get to TLJ, Snoke has had it with the kid screwing up; this is typical predator behavior: build them up, tear them down.

i don't really understand the complaint about this.

eh. i consider the Falcon scene to be the "final shot" of TLJ (and it inckudes Leia).
broom boy is a coda that really ought to have been an after-credits scene.
but then people would have complained that Star Wars shouldn't have after-credit scenes. : o p

i don't think it does. i think it has some strange moments, but then so did ESB in comparison to ANH.
and i won't even try to mention the whole of the PT, which to me sticks out like a whole sore foot--aesthetically, narratively conceptually.

 

The use of the word "hero" in the title is poignant. People have a tendency to create in their minds the perfect picture of their hero. The take the best moments and deeds, excise the rest, and create this, it's like a false image of the hero. And it takes the place of the real person. So we have the proverb, "Never meet your heroes" because when you meet the real person, you open the door for the disspelling of the illusion you've created in your mind. You meet a real human being. It turns out that the flawless icon you've built is based on someone who is, "just a man" - so it brings up the question, was Luke really your "hero", or, was the illusion of Luke you created in your mind to take the man's place, the "hero"?

If you watched TLJ and were like "That's not my Luke Skywalker" was your Luke Skywalker the real Luke Skywalker? or was your Luke Skywalker a fabrication which took the place of the real Luke Skywalker? When you say "Not my Luke Skywalker" are you saying "Not the illusion I fabricated to put in Luke Skywalker's place"? If you watch the OT, clearly Luke is a flawed character. He made mistakes and let's not forget that he's got a metal hand as a permanent representation of that fact. It's right there reaching out to take the lighsaber from Rey. As is his real hand. Think about the subtle relevance of that.

In sports there's the concept of the "fair weather fan" and it's used in form of a negative connotation. It's when people will only accept a team when the team is unstoppably winning constantly. When everything is going perfect and good, there they are in the stands cheering their "heroes". But the minute the team starts to falter, as any team will, whenever the illusion of perfection is shattered, there go the "fair weather fans" turning on their former "heroes" and walking away from the stands. But it's the fans who stay loyal to the team through better or worse, that I would propose are the ones who are the true fans. They are the ones who when they say "hero" they mean it in the most genuine sense.

Okay I mean no offense here at all, but it's also the case that teachers are often a bit misguided. There are bad teachers in this world, and I'd propose they far outweigh the good ones in numbers. Rian touched on this in the video of the OP (the idea of the problems with making things 'for the fans'), and I agree completely with what he said. You say here, "It's for your audience" but you're failing to consider that there is no way to know what your audience actually wants or how they will respond to any given idea. So when you say "It's for your audience" I would respond with "Oh? And how do you propose we determine what that statement actually means in any functional manner?" In other words, to me, your statement has no real meaning at all. It has no functional application and no relevance to the determination in the process of how something is formed. It is an empty statement.

You made the statement about a dichotomy between something like "baseless fan-service" and "angering fans" and that there is a middle road, but again I would question the substance of your proposition. Because, there is no possible way to know how any idea is going to be received by anyone, let alone a group of fans who are wildly at variance in expectation. It's not until after they experience the subjective that any given person will make the response known. If artists had precognition to know the best course of action to take, then we would always be getting the "right" form of art - especially when money is involved.

Personally, I find it all to be like fans of a musical group wanting the group to write music catering to what the fans want to hear. It's a strange request that can not only, not work, since everyone is different; but it's basically asking the artist to manufacture fake art by churning it out of a machine which has been pre-programmed with a specific parameters. I would much rather arists produce art which is genuine, and not pre-packaged from a machine. What is the point of art if not, the expression of the artist? And, again, whether it is genuine expressive art, or, pre-packaged "art" cranked out of a machine - you are never going to know how it will be received until, after it is receieved.

You mentioned, test screenings, but test screenings are something that don't take into account the diversity of a large-scale audience. They are the attempt to manipulate audience reception in a way that is built on false premises. Movies that did well in test screenings have been ill-received by the large-scale audiences; sometimes they even produce the opposite results e.g. audiences liked the original more than the post-test screening result.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 12, 2018, Original Post Date: Jul 12, 2018 ---

I also think that if you look at what Mark has said about TLJ, it appears to me he's a smart guy. He does a good job at deflecting any potential backlash from himself. He states both positives and negatives about his role in TLJ. I would speculate that he's deftly playing both sides of potential. Probably to avoid becoming a social pariah after all the man has to eat and maintain his career. In the OP video, Mark is playing the negative side so if anyone is angry, they will bypass directing their anger at him, since he "agrees" with them. But you can also find Mark saying positive things, as well. So he is basically making himself agreeable to everyone, covering his bases.