Luke Skywalker's portrayal and it's similarity with another fantasy character

True. Going off of this, though, I think it's a balance thing. It's fine to have some series that look and feel like the original series, but we also need a mixture of things that don't do that, and enough variety with both so that fans of either can be satisfied. Marvel dealt with this problem with their comics a couple of years back too: They wanted to push diversity and inclusivity into their comics by introducing new characters and stories, and then selling those exclusively. And when it backfired (and it did), Marvel and the publishers tried to blame that on a pushback against diversity instead of a pushback against options.

Do old-school fans want that warm blanket of nostalgia? Absolutely. But I also think there's a way to balance that with a bold, series forwarding style of stuff too. ...so, go High Republic?

 

I didn't recognize Luke in his Mandalorian appearance other than he fold his hands in front of him, just as he did in ROTJ. That's it.

Personally I would have prefered seeing Luke swing his lightsaber like in ROTJ. Now this would have been a nice and brave homage. What we have seen in Chapter 16 was cool, but it was only cool for the sake of it being cool.

OT Luke > TLJ Luke > Mando Luke

 

“Balance.Powerful nostalgia, powerful new stuff.” - Luke, probably

 

Balance would be splendid. I feel like I would get so much more out of the Mandalorian if it had come out right after TLJ but before SOLO and TROS.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 26, 2020, Original Post Date: Dec 26, 2020 ---

Star Wars in 2020

 

IMHO the problem is the distance between trilogies. If Episodes 7-9 had been filmed 20 years ago (either in lieu of the prequels or with Episodes 1-3 coming out in the early 1990's), by George Lucas, with the plot being how the New Republic fell apart, the rise of the First Order, Ben Solo becoming Kylo Ren, and ending with a dejected Luke retreating to the island, fans would have accepted this. They also would have likely accepted the entire plot of the Last Jedi.

The difference is that we would have seen exactly how the Luke Skywalker of Episode VI became the Luke Skywalker of Episode VIII. This is important. You can say that both movies are snapshots in a person's life, but when the two snapshots are so diametrically opposed to each other, it's only fair to show on screen how one becomes the other. If this is a minor character, one can accept that "life happens" and that this is perhaps the final result of some previously unknown character flaw, but when we're talking about a major hero character (similar to a Superman) who is beloved by people of different generations all over the world, the character needs to be treated with a little respect.

And I don't want to fall into the trap of disagreeing with the character arc. I was fine with Luke's exile in theory, even though I would have liked to see the causes played out in more detail. It made sense given the circumstances which the movie explained. The unforgivable sin, for me, was the fact that after Luke had achieved his redemption and "gotten his mojo back", Rian Johnson killed him off. That one event, Luke's lame and completely unnecessary death (from a force "coronary", no doubt!) served to undermine the entire movie for me. At that point, I immediately distrusted both the story and the character arc. It seemed at that point that Johnson's goal was not to tell a story but rather to find excuses to first humiliate, and then shove a major character of the OT out of the way.

There were also points (tossing the lightsaber, losing a swordfight to Rey, etc.) that made no sense based on who Luke was, and seemed like Johnson was simply showing his true intentions. And the fact that he turned Finn into the classic stereotypical bumbling "black sidekick" also indicated that he knew what he was doing with characters he didn't care for.

Is it any wonder that Star Wars fans who got excited about Luke's appearance in the Mandalorian did so because they wanted to see the same guy who we last saw at the "Endor Party" in 1983? The fans (and I include myself) are still there because we never got to see Luke after that point.

 

I understand..most of this. I get fans wanted to see more of the between time, and I wouldn’t mind it either, despite it working for me personally.

what I don’t get is seeing it as Rian wanting to just get rid of an OT character. He didn’t really have to, no. But it was a sort of fitting end, and a beautifully shot scene to end on with the binary sunrise.

the one point I always take issue with?

because this isn’t what happens. I mean, kind of, but only because she, aggressively, drew a saber on him. The last time we know that happened to him was that night in Ben’s hut, same blade color too. But the surrounding events? He toys with her. The only real hit she gets before the saber is surprise attacking him from behind. And when he does fall? He catches himself with the Force, showing a sense of control and readiness still, waiting to see what she’ll do. Only once she lowers the blade does he lower himself the rest of the way to the ground.

 

A few thoughts on different posts i read on this thread:

- I enjoyed Luke in Mando and I'm also at peace with Luke in TLJ (although I too had the the Great Master Luke in mind when the ST was announced). For me, absolutely no contradiction between the two. Fan service? Might be, doesn't matter to me.

- We associate art with originality, but that's a typical 'modern' conception of art. In history, art served different functions. Prehistoric art was ritualistic, superstitious. In antiquity art was pretty much imitating the real. In christianity art didn't need to be original at all (more paintings were made of the crucified Jesus in a white loincloth flanked by a blue-dressed Mary and a red-dressed John). It's simply a 20th-21st century idea that art needs to be original. I'd like to ask the question if originality is always better. An original song is not necessarily a beautiful song. A plain red painting is original, but is it better than a Rembrandt imitation? And finally: the same with movies: is the PT better because of originality? Is TLJ good because it subverts expectations (thus being original in the Star Wars Saga)? Off course, neither are movies necessarily bad because of originality.

- That being said: I'm not a fan of too much recycling either. Movies and series are not good because of recycled ideas. I'd like to point out here that the success of the Mandalorian was already made in Season 1 without relying on familiar faces. There were some familiarities playing an important role: the well-known armor of a Mandalorian, the mysterious species of Yoda. But only in season 2 did they use Ashoka, Luke and Boba Fett. And I must say: I'm happily surprised by the way they handled Boba. To me Boba allways has been a visual character, I had no interest in a Boba spin-off or a background story but it worked well. Luke's appearance was pretty short. He was placed in a totally different context. For the bounty hunters this was just a brief, mysterious appearance. I can understand Luke allways kept himself low profile in the events of the Galaxy, not appearing too much in public. That's how he became a myth, only one generation further. In short: the quality Mandalorian season 2 did not depend on the recycling. But the 'recycling' was done in a smart way.

- Indeed RJ took a risk. The fan backlash was not surprising. All kinds of civilized criticism are allowed off course. For me TLJ has other flaws than the story choices of the director (flaw number one: the sick humour).

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 30, 2020, Original Post Date: Dec 30, 2020 ---

Indeed it would have been interesting to see the events on screen happening between ROTJ and TFA. The only thing i worry about: wouldn't it feel like a PT reharsment?

One of my main problems with TLJ is not necessarily Luke's death but rather the way he died. RJ introduced the idea in the Star Wars universe that you can actually die by using the Force. Uhm, hello? Did Obi-Wan keep that in mind when he opened a door using the Force? The PT has so many Force tricks and jedi action one could actually wonder why no jedi needed to be reanimated. The fact that using too much Force kills you doesn't fit at all with the mystico-religious concept of the Force. That was to me one of the biggest 'sins' of TLJ and TROS.

 

IMHO the problem is the distance between trilogies. If Episodes 7-9 had been filmed 20 years ago (either in lieu of the prequels or with Episodes 1-3 coming out in the early 1990's), by George Lucas, with the plot being how the New Republic fell apart, the rise of the First Order, Ben Solo becoming Kylo Ren, and ending with a dejected Luke retreating to the island, fans would have accepted this. They also would have likely accepted the entire plot of the Last Jedi.

The difference is that we would have seen exactly how the Luke Skywalker of Episode VI became the Luke Skywalker of Episode VIII.

TLJ Luke is more TESB Luke, since TLJ is utilizing TESB as a parallel/homage. Also, parallels from other characters leak over into Luke (Darth Vader, Yoda, Obi-Wan), compromising the character. Luke is more akin to TESB Luke with him challenging (Yoda and Obi-Wan) in spirit (Luke being upset with the Jedi in TLJ).

ROTJ Luke is still present in TLJ, but in certain areas (the attempt to kill Kylo mirrors the third phase of "kill Vader" in the ROTJ throne room scene/fight, the possible shoulder brush being a reference to Luke making a cocky salute to Jabba). I think Luke's more erratic behavior that's been gleaned from ROTJ is more detrimental to the script, actually. And, ironically, the film makes use of it, when promoting Kylo's villainy later on.

This is important. You can say that both movies are snapshots in a person's life, but when the two snapshots are so diametrically opposed to each other, it's only fair to show on screen how one becomes the other.

It fits. ROTJ Luke is insanely crazy at points, despite a calm demeanor. He is a few steps away from Sephiroth (both are aloof and relatively emotionless) and in some ways crazier than him (snapping at the thought of Leia turning dark because he believes that Leia is the rebels' only hope).

I can see TLJ Luke throwing in the towel in order to prevent escalation/prevent more dark side users causing pain for the galaxy, as Rian saw it. That's ACTUALLY reasonable in respect to Luke's track record.

Another thing, as soon as Luke knew that Leia was in trouble/immediate danger, he wanted to help the Resistance, but got turned off as soon as he saw Rey and Kylo in cahoots, being reminded of his past. Perhaps he shouldn't have let his emotions in the way, but he saw evil as only continuing.

If this is a minor character, one can accept that "life happens" and that this is perhaps the final result of some previously unknown character flaw

No, just glossed over, blinked out of existence through an emotional score, emotional appeals in ROTJ dialogue, avoidance of context and visuals in ROTJ (red lights, dare/defiance of the Emperor, purposeful disarmament, Luke's Vader clothes, mechanical hand/the black glove). also, the idea that Luke could never be tempted again after passing his test of "avoiding the dark side" (TLJ repeats the idea from ROTJ of Luke snapping for little reason due to thinking that Leia was the rebels' only hope, but makes the idea better by tying in TESB's idea of visions and whether that they could come true and the death of Luke's friends, whom he loved.).

, but when we're talking about a major hero character (similar to a Superman) who is beloved by people of different generations all over the world, the character needs to be treated with a little respect.

Which version of Luke? There are three in the OT. To be honest, the film honors all three, which encounters some odd moments.

And I don't want to fall into the trap of disagreeing with the character arc. I was fine with Luke's exile in theory, even though I would have liked to see the causes played out in more detail. It made sense given the circumstances which the movie explained. The unforgivable sin, for me, was the fact that after Luke had achieved his redemption and "gotten his mojo back", Rian Johnson killed him off.

The point is whether the redemption happened or not, not so much how long it lasted, imo.

That one event, Luke's lame and completely unnecessary death (from a force "coronary", no doubt!) served to undermine the entire movie for me.

The plot can do what it wants. If Ewoks can defeat the trained troops of the Empire, then Luke can die from Force over-use/strain. (In TESB, it takes a strain from Yoda to lift the X-Wing, so Force strain IS possible.).

At that point, I immediately distrusted both the story and the character arc. It seemed at that point that Johnson's goal was not to tell a story but rather to find excuses to first humiliate, and then shove a major character of the OT out of the way.

Maybe. Fair point. I can't say if it was really a humiliation of the character- Luke not being happy with Yoda and Obi-Wan (reasons and answers from keeping him in the dark and being dogmatic about the use of the Force) has LONG been overdue, as it was barely addressed in Return, and Luke did not emotionally react in a realistic manner towards them.

There were also points (tossing the lightsaber, losing a swordfight to Rey, etc.) that made no sense based on who Luke was,

Luke making a lightsaber toss is historically in touch with his character- he tosses a lightsaber in Return of the Jedi in order to show that he's unwilling to kill Vader. In relation to ROTJ's production, Luke may be tossing it in order to provoke a dare from the Emperor to kill him.

In TESB, Luke struggles to fight with Vader, he doesn't lose easily, but he does still lose.

In ROTJ, when Luke is in forfeit mode, he gives up easily (because he doesn't want to kill his dad) and literally plays hide-and-seek in the dark after Vader slashes the platform that Luke jumps to during the fight. He lowers his defenses against Vader (which Vader deems unwise). Luke's stance is towards self-defense and pacifism; he's not one towards "winning" in ROTJ, unless he's provoked.

and seemed like Johnson was simply showing his true intentions.

Who knows.

And the fact that he turned Finn into the classic stereotypical bumbling "black sidekick" also indicated that he knew what he was doing with characters he didn't care for.

Except for the fact that Finn uses his brain on multiple occasions (trying to lie to Rose while escaping, providing a rationale to Rose for leaving- to save Rey, figuring out the best escape route from the lead ship, etc.). It makes the character more complex than simply being stupid or bumbling. Yes, there's the scene of him waking up and shouting, "Rey!", at the beginning of the film, collapsing onto the floor with water everywhere, but that's the last thing that he remembers, and the scene is presented for laughs, not necessarily the character himself.

Is it any wonder that Star Wars fans who got excited about Luke's appearance in the Mandalorian did so because they wanted to see the same guy who we last saw at the "Endor Party" in 1983? The fans (and I include myself) are still there because we never got to see Luke after that point.

Yes. Nostalgia is heavy for the character, since Return of the Jedi Luke is seen as the epitome of Luke's character.

 

i see this pop up a lot, and I get it. The film is kind of vague on how he dies, yet also suggestive of it being due to the projection, especially based on Kylo’s comment to Rey (“you can’t be doing this, the effort would kill you”).

We tend to figure some abilities take a toll on the body. At least in Legends, things like using the Force to amplify speed or strength exhausted one faster as well. In this instance, if we associate it with the Force use, I’d put it more on the extent of it, the distance, over the actual technique.

I’m always a bit iffy on novelizations, especially since there’s a trend of them being from earlier versions, iirc. That said, I did like the addition Jason Fry made in the TLJ novelization, that after the projection, Luke heard voices calling him to let go, and he did. He was at peace, as Rey says, and lets go to join with the Force. This suggests, to me, that he could’ve continued, yet possibly believed his time had come and he may be more helpful from beyond. Whether that works for you is up to you.

 

Outstanding.
The comparison to Baggins is spot-on.
I was caught off guard by RJ’s version of Luke when I first saw TLJ but it makes so much more sense the more time that passes, and with each rewatch (skipping Canto Bight of course ).
The fact he caught himself before he made that decision - the crossing of the line - is a huge moment given the history of the Skywalkers.

 

Very interesting to read. Allthough I still have some issues with the idea of 'dying by using too much Force' (not only in TLJ, but also in TROS), it's interesting to read another point of view on Luke's death. The good thing about many scenes in Star Wars is that they are open to more than one interpretation.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 5, 2021, Original Post Date: Jan 5, 2021 ---

What I already pointed out in another forum thread and would like to repeat here: There IS a coherence in Luke's story arc from ANH to TLJ, one which actually serves a paradoxical theme of the entire Saga: non-violence (allthough a non-violent Star Wars movie or even series would be unthinkable).

ANH: Luke blasts the Death Star and triumphs, be it in a violent way.
TESB: Luke ignores Yoda's message ("Your weapons, you don't need them."). He thinks Vader is just an evil monster he has to kill to solve the conflict. He feels no connection with him until he learns the truth.
ROTJ: Luke does use violence to rescue his friends from Jabba the Hutt, but not after doing a peaceful offer. At Endor, however, he goes for a nonviolent solution. I believe he was easily powerful enough to slaughter an entire ewok village. Finally, he refuses to fight against Vader and throws away his sabre.
TLJ: First he refuses to act, at the end he acts in a nonviolent way. Off course non-violence does not mean non-action.
In TROS he does catch the lightsabre and encourages Rey to go on, but Rey too is following the path of nonviolence. She doesn't kill the wounded beast but heals it. She heals Kylo Ren after giving him a possibly fatal blow. And ultimately, she uses the two lightsabres to deflect Palpatine's lightning, not to strike him down.

Note on The Mandalorian: What if Luke's victims on that destroyer would have been human stormtroopers instead of battledroids? To me, this is an important difference (Sorry L3, I still believe a droid is not a real living being and thus doesn't deserve the same rights). I'm glad they showed a heroic Luke without contradicting the whole nonviolence theme.

 

Of course, it is, the whole young character goes to meet a hero figure who turns out to be a shadow of there former self has been used in countless stories for centuries. Even the former hero gives there life as a form of redemption, is in no way a new story idea.

 

Rian Johnson was somewhat clear about what his intentions were in interviews surrounding the film. Much of what Rian has said about his story has been overlooked. Folks like to pull a sound byte here and there that makes Rian look like he's clueless but for anyone paying close attention, he put a lot of thought and passion into The Last Jedi as far as the story is concerned.

This is something I picked up on simply because I've read Classic and Medieval literature. I talk about this here:

I do wonder at the prospect of having thousands of Star Wars fans who say they love a story and yet have no clue as to the essence of the legends upon which that story is based.

 

Whether you love or hate what they did with Luke, there was nothing groundbreaking about what they did with the character in this film, the don't meet your hero's arc is possibly in the top 10 cliche story points in literature history.

That doesn't make it good or bad, but I do think there needs to be push back against the idea that it was original or unprecedented.