The "treatment of Luke"

I think Luke’s End would have been more accepted had we had other movies over the years with Luke at his peak. A lot of old fans were wanting to see peak Luke and we got washed up, beat down Luke.

that is all.

 

I don’t know. I feel like it’s way more about execution than premise. I think most of the folks that pushed back on “washed up, beat down Luke” would have been far more accepting had he not also been portrayed as callous, misanthropic Luke.

 

I think George had no interest in showing any of that. He barely showed us the idea of peak Jedi in the prequels. We are given enough to understand that this is the order operating at its supposed height, but depicts the Jedi going through a series of calamities until their ultimate downfall. We didn't get Anakin's rise to peakness. We're just told that since we saw him fail spectacularly in AOTC he became a hero general of the war off screen. Same for Obi Wan.

Lucas just wasn't interested in spending time with people not on a "journey", i.e. either trying to become something greater, or falling from greatness.

I don't subscribe to the myth that Lucas slavishly followed the Campbell template (We know that Lucas only really referred to it when he was considering dropping The Star Wars or starting from scratch because he wasn't sure if he was just pulling gibberish out of his bahookie. Campbell's work reassured him that the things he was focusing on were almost ubiquitous in a wide rage of mythologies), but it's fair to say that there is no obligation or imperative in the hero's journey to spend time with a character who is not struggling to fulfill their destiny or whatever. So why would Lucas go there? Just to rub the fan's belly and recognise how great they think Luke is?

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 21, 2024, Original Post Date: Feb 21, 2024 ---

I don't recall Luke displaying anything that could be called callousness or misanthropy.

 

What??!? I could've sworn Luke was depicted as a hermit in the STs.

 

I think projecting an avatar of himself to face-off with and misdirect Kylo Ren WAS seeing Luke at his peak.

 

That's not what callousness or misanthropy are.

Obi Wan and Yoda were both hermits.

I've know callous and misanthropic people whom I wished were hermits.

 

I’m not sure why the ideas would be mutually exclusive.

Even a prime Luke would inevitably encounter some sort of adversity that would challenge his preconceptions and force him to grow as a person. That’s simply the human experience. None of us are static shells. We’re always in flux. Always on a “journey”.

REY: There's no light left in Kylo Ren. He's only getting stronger. The First Order will control all the major systems within weeks. We need your help. We need the Jedi Order back. We need Luke Skywalker.

LUKE: You don't need Luke Skywalker.

REY: Did you hear a word I just said?

LUKE: You think what? I'm gonna walk out with a laser sword and face down the whole First Order? What did you think was going to happen here? You think that I came to the most unfindable place in the galaxy for no reason at all? Go away.
___________________________________________________________________
Luke hears of the dire circumstance befalling a galaxy full of innocent people and is ostensibly unconcerned with their imminent suffering. That is being callous.

He’s actively rejecting all human connection and pursuing self-imposed isolation. That is being misanthropic.

 

I never said they were. I'm saying that Lucas had no time for them in his saga. He also said "You need to tell the the same story again and again, for each generation. So that generation gets it." He seemingly didn't envision a Star Wars movie that depicted everything being basically hunky dory for his main heroic character(s).

The kind of journeys Lucas was interested in were the ones that checked out as valid in Campbell's studies.

What does "prime Luke" represent that the audience hasn't already seen or doesn't understand about Luke already?

That does not display cruel insensitivity for other people or a dislike for humankind.

Uncooperative, inert and somewhat resentful of people's presumptions and preconceptions of his destiny and what ought to be second nature and easy for him yes. But only in the context of what has happened to him and exactly who he has to face and why. A complete stranger just turned up on his secret planet (handing over a token and reminder of past failures) as if he was just waiting for the nod. Wouldn't you be less than pleased?

He's not on that island to get away from humanity because he despises them. It's because he fears his place in it is a doomed one and a dangerous one to the people around him. He believes that expectations lead to him losing Ben. People's expectations of him is what will get them all killed in the end if they follow them implicitly. He believes.

 

Who said anything about “hunky dory” though? “Peak Luke” simply means fully grown and mature Luke. An adult Luke. You’re an adult, Martoto (I presume). Is everything in your life “hunky dory”? Entirely free of conflict and character growth? If so, congratulations!

I’m not saying it was any sort of detriment to not have a bunch of 30-something year old Luke Skywalker movies. But it’s not like there wouldn’t be a compelling story to tell there. Coming-of-age stories aren’t the only kind that can be told.

Man, quibbling over definitions is such absolute inanity. The words mean what they mean. I didn’t choose them haphazardly. Showing no concern for the suffering of others IS being callous. Divorcing yourself from society from a place of cynicism IS being misanthropic.

That’s the attitude being portrayed for the benefit of the audience. Not that he IS those things, but that he's giving the appearance of those things.

You’re speaking to his motivation. Which does make perfect sense for the character. I’m speaking to his on-screen characterization. That’s what I believe some folks found off-putting about the character as presented.

The Luke people were familiar with from the OT was kind, caring and compassionate. His nature is to be involved and supportive. The Luke we meet at the beginning of TLJ is the antithesis to that. He’s irritable, dismissive, and caustic. He wants no part in helping those that desperately need it.

I personally believe it’s central to the character that he’s purposely acting against his nature, but I totally see why someone would reject that presentation out-of-hand.

But that’s not why the character is doing what he’s doing. He’s not perturbed by the imposition or the presumption. Luke DOES want to take the saber. That’s the point of his sincere contemplation. He isn’t messing with her.

His impulse is to be the hero. His instinct is to defend and protect. But it’s that very instinct that led to the confrontation with his nephew. So, he’s intentionally acting against that instinct. He doesn’t trust it anymore and that’s the root of his characterization when we meet him.

But Rey, and we, don’t know that yet when he’s first reintroduced. All we know is that the guy is acting like a massive jerkwad. Which is seemingly out-of-character.

For a lot of people, it’s hard to reframe a first impression. “The Luke I know wouldn’t act like that”. And that’s the point, but it’s hard to then walk somebody back from that emotional reaction after the fact.

 

Luke is fully grown and mature in TLJ. I think you just mean you didn't enjoy seeing him in a pit of despair.

I'm not quibbling, Callous and misanthropic simply don't apply to Luke's depiction in the movie.

Which is not misanthropic or callous. His behaviour is consistent with his stated motivation and the circumstances.

I never said he was messing with her. And he clearly is disturbed by the implication that he would be instantly inspired to pick up that weapon and go with , whoever she is, after being careful, he thought, to disappear. That doesn't mean he isn't still struggling with his instincts.

The Luke you know didn't have his academy destroyed and didn't face having to confront his nephew with the outcome being one of them would die. As it was with Obi Wan and his father.

I feel I need to point out , again, that, "Luke blamed himself, and walked away from everything." was the hand TLJ was dealt by TFA. There was never good to be "peak Luke" in TLJ. It would make no sense. Except in a flash back, which the movie is already forced to make that stylistic break in order to convey the essential element of Ben and Luke's falling out.

 

I think you have me confused with someone else. I LOVE Luke’s character in TLJ. I’m simply pushing back on your false equivalency that Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker would inherently have no struggle to overcome. That assumption makes very little sense to me. I don’t understand this perspective.

This is full agree to disagree territory. I don’t think the movie works at all as intended if Luke isn’t structured in contrast to his depiction in the OT. He needs to be unsympathetic and pessimistic. He has to start disconnected from his nature and find his way back to it by the end. That’s his arc. It really doesn’t make much sense to me otherwise.

We don’t know his full motivation and circumstance until well after the impression has been made. All we have at start is the assertion that Luke holds himself responsible for what happened with Ben.

But that characterization didn’t necessitate an acerbic and aloof demeanor. He could have still been kind and understanding, yet immensely mournful, and stayed consistent with the character. It was a choice to invert his disposition.

I’m sorry. I thought you were implying that Luke was offended by Rey trying to recruit him to help save people’s lives. “How rude. Can’t you see I’m busy staring out at nothing in particular?”

The scene, to me, reads like a temptation that he has to overcome. His attitude towards her though isn’t genuine. It’s a performance. He wants her to dislike him. He wants to discourage her wanting his help. So he’s playing the part.

Again, I’m just offering a theory on why a decent number of people rejected TLJ Luke. You don’t need to convince me.

That’s not what @Xeven was saying though. He (I’m assuming he) was theorizing that it had to do with not seeing “peak Luke” before the ST. That maybe if we had, then TLJ’s depiction wouldn’t have landed so discordantly. No way to know of course.

 

I can't think of any scenario where I would like or accept Luke being misanthropic and callous.
No amount of "peak Luke" beforehand could offset that.

But he's not unsympathetic. He's grumpy. He's at worst unfriendly towards Rey and keeps her at a distance while trying to disabuse her of any notions that he is going to simply forget why he's there in the first place.

That's irrelevant.

That's true also.

 

This! ^^^^^

I continue to be surprised by some of the crazy discussions we get into here.

 

If folks wished they could have seen Luke jumping around like Zorro, nearly flawlessly kicking everyone's arses, and wrestling with the moral trials of being space Jesus to the Galaxy, don't worry. They'll make it.

All that stands in the way, if what folks want is "young Mark Hamill Luke", are technological solutions and that is simply a matter of a little more time... but not much.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

What's "crazy" is being expected to ignore or forget the fact that callousness and misanthropy are clearly defined terms. If they're not being used to describe cruel insensitivity and hatred of mankind, then they are being misused. Knowingly or not. They are definitively not applicable to Luke's demeanor in TLJ. This is not a quibble.

Luke being dismissive, resistant and unmoved by Rey's wide eyed and naïve presumption is categorically not callous or misanthropic.

What we have here is another case of misappropriation and hyperbole employed to try and enhance the stature of people's complaints.

You don't have to like the fact that Luke is depressed, grumpy and uncooperative. But he is not misanthropic or callous at any stage, so that criticism is simply not valid. And relying on it to add the clause that being treated to "peak Luke" would have been acceptable compensation is a false bargain.

When people find that the mistruths they cling to about a certain thing are no longer being ignored or tolerated, they tend to think it's "crazy".

 

Furthermore.

I don't accept that people who have been banging on about how "my Luke would NEVER...." for the past seven years would also entertain the idea that it actually would have been acceptable if they had gotten to see "peak Luke" beforehand. So much for "never". If that is what people are saying now, then it definitely calls into question the integrity of the arguments given so far for Luke not doing what he did and not being the way he is at the beginning of TLJ. It rather confirms that, despite what they have repeatedly said, that it's all about not being gratified with the confirmation of a heroic preconception of a predominant, triumphant Luke enjoying his status and station. It's not about what Luke is in TLJ. It's about what he's not.

As for Luke's demeanor. Is it really so different from how he appears in TROS, after he's met his destiny, saved the resistance and avoided having to destroy his nephew or be destroyed by him? Maybe it's Mark Hamill's performance choices you don't like. I'd strongly disagree with you. But he's not a whole lot different in his demeanor. Except for him being the one trying to convince Rey to face her destiny.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 22, 2024, Original Post Date: Feb 22, 2024 ---

It might only be a matter of a few of years before amateur fan-filmmakers can use AI to conjure up the peak Luke they think they are owed.

 

Putting word definitions aside.
It still looks that the way Luke is portrait in VIII is interpreted pretty different by people.
Looks like we have to live with that, because I doubt that the way people feel about Luke in TLJ no matter in which way is really affected by arguments, which you probably can find for each position.
That said. List the arguments here and discuss as much as you want, but maybe change topics (inside the scope of the thread), when you start circling around one thing and before getting personal.

 

It just seems to me that the commentary from some fans carries the assumption that being in the company of Luke in a certain gratifying disposition was owed to them, regardless of the story. And that story should have been dictated to accommodate that gratification. Or that there at least should have been some kind of horse trading of "Ok, you can have your story. But you have to pay the peak Luke tax first." That's just, fundamentally, an artistically bankrupt way to operate.

I believe that, for many, "Treatment of luke" actually means "Treatment of me(the fan)" in relation to not being instantly gratified by Luke's re-introduction to the saga.

 

On that, we all agree.

It was a STAR WARS movie for crying out loud---OF COURSE we expected gratification at the return of a beloved character from the OTs!!!

If the filmmakers had taken an "artistically bankrupt" approach (you know, giving the fans what they expected), the franchise would still be regularly kicking out blockbuster Star Wars feature films. Star Wars was always intended to be a fun, "Flash Gordon-ish" Saturday matinee movie, not The Godfather.

 

The problem is, you can't please everyone.
Even among fandoms there are arguments - as we can all see!
TROS tried to do that, and four years later people still haven't got over it.