Why Rian wrote Luke's character the way he did...

I appreciate all your efforts in trying to put Luke's actions into perspective, I guess we'll never agree since we seem to have very different personal philosophies. In my opinion the end never justifies the means. The Luke from the OT is someone that seemed to align with my beliefs, this Luke doesn't, I guess it just comes to that.

 

Luke and I would agree with you. He didn't try to kill Ben in his sleep. He "Thought about it for briefest of moments." He was clearly ashamed of it to the point of quitting the galaxy and going away to die.

 

Well if he contemplated that path it seems that at that point in his life he was not fully convinced of that belief. I think that kind of core values are very important and defining in a persons character, I thought Luke had demonstrated to share those values when he chooses self sacrifice instead of killing his father, so the idea that so many years later he might still think of that option as a viable choice makes me unable to identify with his character anymore.

 

Rian Johnson adopted the modern cultural trend to create heroes with major character flaws OR to add flaws to existing heroes ("to make them more human"). During the 1970s and 80s our heroes faced challenges, experienced failure but persevered to become stronger. Rian Johnson changed Luke by giving him a major character flaw in The Last Jedi.

You, I and many others have difficulty following Rian's "character development" for Luke because in ROTJ we witnessed Luke's moral code solidified. Willing to give up his life, Luke confronted Darth Vader (the universe's most infamous villain) and succeed in saving him from the Dark Side and turned him to the Light.

Rian's Luke faces a lesser challenge than in ROTJ and acts contrary to his solidified moral code.
Luke's challenge to convert Vader (who never demonstrated wavering from the Dark Side) was a much harder challenge than turning (or keeping) Ben Solo to the Light. Luke never gave up on Vader; Rian's Luke gives up on Ben. In ROTJ Luke never tried to murder Darth Vader; Rian's Luke tries to murder Ben.
Rian failed to offer any explanation why Luke would contradict his moral code OR show Luke's moral code changed.

Rian's character flaw for Luke, that he would attempt to murder his sleeping nephew in "a moment of weakness", is inconsistent with Luke's established moral code. Good people do not pull swords on sleeping relatives in a moment of weakness. (Maybe recovering serial killers murder in a moment of weakness.) For Rian to tell us Luke, who would not kill Vader while facing death before the Emperor, would kill his conflicted sleeping nephew in a moment of weakness is extremely inconsistent character development or extremely bad storytelling.

Many of us believe it is both inconsistent character development and bad storytelling.

 

That's what is so brutal about temptation it comes back time and again. Here in a moment of fear and apprehension he thinks an idea over but in the end chooses against it. A married man sees a beautiful woman entertains a hook up but shakes it off. An employee rethinks cutting corners. On a moment of Road Rage you consider running the idiot that cut you off then slowed down off the road.

 

What would have been more realistic is show some back and forth betweenLuke and Kylo. Show Luke actually reaching out to Kylo with some dialogue. I would hope a wise man would at least have some communication with him before deciding to kill him. Rian wanted to get to a certain destination without realizing that the journey matters.

 

Luke should have went to confront Snoke once he knew the latter was trying to seduce his nephew.

 

If you think they did a good job with Luke.. you're not a fan of the original trilogy.

 

I am very puzzled how dismissive people are of Luke pulling out and igniting a lightsaber on sleeping Ben.

Follow me for a moment...
I see people rationalize it was only a moment of weakness and Luke didn't kill Ben.
What's the equivalent in reality to pulling a lightsaber on someone and igniting it?
Answer: Pulling a loaded gun, removing the safety and pointing it at a person is the equivalent to pulling a lightsaber on someone.

So how does it work if you pull a gun on your sleeping nephew?
Rationalization: But Luke didn't pull the trigger.
Reality: It is NEVER acceptable to pull a gun on a sleeping nephew.
Pull a gun on a cop, you're probably dead. (Agreed we're not talking about a cop, we're talking about a sleeping teenage nephew.)
Rationalization: But Luke really wasn't going to shoot. It was just a moment of weakness.
Reality: Doesn't matter. It is NEVER acceptable to pull a gun on a sleeping nephew. That's not self-defense.
Luke will be found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder.
Rationalization: But Luke sensed darkness in Ben... But he could be the next Mao/Stalin/Hitler/Che
Reality: Ben never hurt anyone. He never threatened anyone. He never tortured animals. Maybe Ben drew disturbing pictures. We don't even know if Ben talked about idolizing Mao/Stalin/Hitler/Che. If Ben had done something terrible, then it is a different situation.
Uncle Luke is going to prison.
Rationalization: But Luke felt really bad afterwards. He felt shame.
Reality: Luke can tell the judge during sentencing. He will go to prison for assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder. He may receive counseling and put on suicide watch.

Unfortunately, this is Rian Johnson's story. Luke's actions are disturbing, unrealistic and inconsistent with his character.
Reality: Only Rian's Luke would let his psychologically unstable nephew sleep with a loaded gun at his bedside in his school's dorm.

@Aglarion, you're right. This is really disturbing.

 

See this is the kind of idiotic statement that isn’t helping things right now.

 

I would never blankly summarize anyone's reaction to a film into a neat box labeled "overwhelmed by the unexpected".
I just honestly disagree that it was lazy - if anything the lazy thing would have been to deliver the obvious resolution anyone could have predicted after TFA (Luke being on the island to regain ancient knowledge / him being slightly disillusioned but ultimately won over by Rey and brought back into the fold / him hiding from Snoke / something other than a personal failure collapsing his new Jedi order efforts / your personal favorite combination of those ).

I read Yoda's final lesson to Luke as connected to the events in the film and Luke's overall idealist disposition - not necessarily as a neat exposition piece about why Luke failed in his efforts in total.
Luke's absolute disillusionment with the Jedi is the mirrored consequence of his absolute adoration and believe that their ways are the salvation of the galaxy.
His reality turned out to be messy and the realization that power is easily corrupted came embodied by his own family of all things.
It took just one generation for the dark side to rear its ugly head again.
Luke tries to protect the galaxy by ending the Jedi and might well hope that removing one side from the conflict ( ending the cycle ) might after a horrible interlude lead to a lasting and more egalitarian calm.
His defiant composure towards Rey is an expression of that decision to do greater good - and Yoda (and Rey with a naive spin) see it as the desperate folly that it is.
What Yoda tries to tell him is that that's life and therefore validates Luke's disillusionment with the Jedi but contradicts his disillusionment with their cause.
He's basically saying it's okay bro - your failures and the failure of the old ways shouldn't keep you from trying to keep trying.
Well we see what Luke does in reaction to that.

Again I'm not saying that that's the best, only and perfect conclusion to Luke's arc - but I do honestly find it alot more touching than any of the scenarios I myself had wished for before seeing the film. And I really really don't find it lazy.

PS
I was actually heartbroken coming out of the cinema, my rational and emotional faculties totally at odds with one another.
I really get the pain or disappointment.

 

Calm down. It is called an analogy. You turn this stuff very personal. No need to shout and throw insults.
The point was Luke was guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder... societal norms dictate such actions unacceptable. Others, myself included, find these actions disturbing.

Rian's story never said Ben threatened or hurt anyone. That would be relative information and change the situation, such as if Ben was Force Choking people in his sleep.

 

It would have been better writing if Kylo killed Luke on Crait. It would have made Luke as the real jedi he was and Kylo definitely crowned as the Emperor if the Galaxy and so much dramatic moment. And that is definitely a thing Luke Skywalker would do ! Sacrifice himself for his friends

Here we have Luke not dying and then dying ... alone on an island.

Much drama lost there and much confusion.

It's the exact same opposite as Leia, she died and then no she lives. It was like stealing the drama out of this story just ... to make a twist.

That was a strange story choice. It loses the entire movie.

Luke should have died on Crait. And I'm quite sure there will be no rant today especially when it changes nothing to the story.

 

What Luke did in TLJ was basically what he did at the end of Return of the Jedi. He threw away his sabre. That's how he would win. By not fighting directly. In TLJ Luke is doing very much the same thing. Its an extension of that wisdom, the true wisdom he had acquired after his confrontation with Vader in TLJ. Going away from the confrontation might actually win you the fight. A true hero knows when it makes sense when to fight and not to fight.

Very much the same kind of wisdom as displayed by Yoda and Obi Wan at the end of Revenge of the Sith: they went into exile.

Very much the same kind of wisdom as displayed by Obi Wan at the end of A New Hope: he would become more powerful if Vader would strike him down hastening the confrontation between father and son



That's the result when you think about the question: "Who is Luke Skywalker" and "What makes him a hero".

 

Remember that Luke threw away his lightsaber once before, at the end of Return of the Jedi. He realized even then that you can't solve violence with more violence. He won by seeing the good in others and challenging them to see the good in themselves. So why take his lightsaber back when Rey offers it?

All the Jedi in the galaxy couldn't stop the Empire by using lightsabers. Luke toppled the Empire with love. Do you see what a step backwards it would be for Luke to take up his lightsaber again and kill his nephew? Can't you understand how Luke's refusal to kill his nephew mirrors his refusal to kill his father?

Luke trancended violence and won. The rest of the Jedi embraced violence and died. Who then is truly wise?