main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

ST Luke and Leia: From ROTJ to TLJ

Discussion in 'Sequel Trilogy' started by EntechednReformatted, Jun 16, 2018.

  1. EntechednReformatted

    EntechednReformatted Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Oct 17, 2009
    We've debated Luke's arc in the ST for months now, but what I haven't seen a lot of discussion on is how it relates to the arc set up for Leia. This is longish, but the TL;DR is that the ST was in the process of playing out the scenario foreshadowed in Luke's last conversation with Leia in ROTJ.

    For me, everything about the choices Luke makes in the ST make a lot more sense when you accept a few things.

    1. Luke is a pacifist.

    This shouldn't be a surprise. He was already halfway there by the time the credits roll in ROTJ. And the events with Ben at Luke's temple were more than enough to push him the rest of the way. Luke was never, and I mean NEVER, seriously going to kill Ben Solo. The fact that he even considered it for a moment is his greatest shame. Do you think that as Luke watched his temple burn, he's thinking "I should have killed Ben when I had the chance?" No way. In the end, Luke can't kill his own nephew any more than he can kill his own father.

    But couldn't he at least join the Resistance? I would say ... not really. Keep in mind, the last time we saw Luke go on a military mission with Leia and Han, on behalf of the Rebellion, he wound up compromising the mission to Vader and had to run off and leave them. "I'm endangering the mission, I shouldn't have come ... That's why I have to go. As long as I stay I'm endangering the group and our mission." It shouldn't be surprising that Luke might have drawn a lesson from that about participating in Rebel/Resistance military operations.

    But more important is, again, Luke's pacifism. He refused to kill his father. He tossed away his lightsaber rather than even attempt to fight the Emperor. If Luke feels it would be wrong for him to kill two Sith Lords who served as the architects of everything wrong in the galaxy, why would he think it would be okay to massacre conscripted Stormtroopers and TIE pilots? Just because he wouldn't personally feel the loss? Isn't that a bit of cognitive dissonance that would eventually lead to Luke really internalizing "Wars not make one great" and "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack"?

    2. Luke wants Ben to come back from the Dark Side, just as Anakin did, but

    3. Luke now knows that he isn't the person who can reach Ben Solo.

    Luke's mistake in Ben's hut pretty much guarantees that Ben will never listen to Luke ever again, but it went beyond that. Ben was Luke's apprentice. Luke had been sensing the darkness in Ben for some time, and you KNOW that Luke hadn't just been ignoring it. You think Luke hadn't been trying to teach him about the dangers of the Dark Side the whole time they were training together? The hut incident was just when it all came to a head, but it stands to reason that Ben had stopped really listening to Luke long before that.

    Furthermore, Luke believes that not only can he not reach Ben, his presence is only likely to make matters worse. The hate there is too personal. Luke thinks that he needs to be well out of the equation if Ben is going to be reached.

    Which brings us to the most important A-Ha! moment for understanding what Luke is doing:

    4. Luke thinks Leia can save Ben.

    If Luke can't reach Ben, well then what's Plan B? Plan B is the same thing it's been since the OT: Leia.

    Back to ROTJ again:
    "If I don't make it back, you're the only hope for the Alliance."
    "Luke don't talk that way. You have a power I don't understand, and could never have."
    "You're wrong Leia. You have that power too. In time, you'll learn to use it as I have."

    And from TLJ:
    "I held out hope for the longest time, but I know my son is gone."
    "No one's ever really gone."

    Those are the last words Luke ever speaks to his sister, and it's in response to Leia's failing hope in her son. I think the unspoken message is clear ... "Remember what we talked about on Endor? I've come to confront Ben, but I can't save him. You have to step up now."

    This may sound harsh, but Leia has been ducking that responsibility. When she sensed, as Han put it, "too much Vader" in Ben, she sent him to Luke to solve the problem. And then in TFA, she tells Han to bring their son home (though the new canon novels made it clear that Han's connection to Ben was never as deep as Leia's), and Han died trying.

    Leia has retreated to the familiar, being a political and military leader for the Resistance, when what she needs to do is what Luke did in ROTJ. In ROTJ, Leia doubted that she could ever be like Luke. In the ST, she still doubts it. Leia wants Luke to be the Resistance's New Hope, but Luke believes, deep in his bones, that Leia is the only hope the galaxy needs. When Luke finally breaks his self-imposed ban on Force use, he reaches out to Leia. And before he confronts Ben, a confrontation that he knows will kill him, he doesn't reach out to his estranged apprentice, who desperately needs guidance. He reaches out to Leia, and tells her "I'm sorry" and "No one's ever really gone." Luke believed it was Leia who really needed his guidance.

    And guess what? Leia heard him loud and clear. That what Leia's "What are you looking at me for? Follow him!" line was all about. Leia now knows that she has to leave behind the leadership of the Resistance and deal with Ben ... personally. Deferring to Poe's leadership was the first step in distancing herself from that role.

    TLJ set up a heckuva fantastic story for Leia in Episode IX but the devastating loss of Carrie Fisher made it hard to see it as anything but Leia's Last Adventure. The Luke/Leia arc in the sequel trilogy was being set up to play out the hypothetical situation suggested in ROTJ: in the event of Luke's failure, Leia has to save the galaxy.






     
  2. bweurk

    bweurk Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2018
    i think you are onto something here! that is why i think they should cg Leïa in episode IX even if it's in a very very limited way, a simple ghost appareance at the right moment, non talking, or just saying "Ben" could be what brings her son back to the light side...
    although to be honest, i would love for this trilogy to end with Ben in prison and for the next trilogy to give him a 3 episodes redemption/penance arc
     
  3. Benoda

    Benoda Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Apr 30, 2018
    I'm not sure about this.
    - I haven't seen any evidence of Luke being a pacifist. In ROTJ, Luke fights/kills thugs on Jabba's barge, then stormtroopers on Endor. Luke not killing Vader seems to be an idiosyncratic event which is dissimilar from the other events Luke engaged in (including a space station he blew up, with how many people in it? Millions?), with him fighting his father and all (which he only has 1 of and 1 observation is not much grounds for a pattern). Him tossing his lightsaber aside was what brought Anakin back, and resulted in the death of the Emperor. If one's actions directly lead to the death of another person, that's not really pacifism. Furthermore, in Battlefront II (which is canon), Luke fights/kills a lot of stormtroopers when he was attacked which was post-ROTJ. So I don't think there's any evidence of him being a pacifist.
    - I agree with the next 2 points
    - I don't see how those scenes are connected and think it's kind of a big stretch to make that connection. There doesn't seem to be a connection between them in plot or structure and there's so much time and many events transpiring between them. The story you set up sounds plausible, but seems like a really unlikely direction for the film to take now. Though if Ren is redeemed, his mother having a big part in it would make sense. Pretty sure LFL already said they won't be CGing Leia in.
     
  4. bweurk

    bweurk Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2018
    they should CGI her, not in a big way like they did with Tarkin, but just a small appearance as a force ghost, it would not be tasteless, and it would be a hommage for Carrie Fisher. But may be they can do the same thing without her, and make Ben feel her absence even more because he knows he will never see her again, and it could be the remorse that brings him back
     
  5. PendragonM

    PendragonM Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Because her only reason to be in 9 is that, right? It's all about Kylo. Not about winning the war, it's about Kylo because that's all the ST is about. Luke and Han were sacrificed on the altar of Darth Pectorius and now Leia's only function is to bring him back. Marvelous.

    She can save the galaxy just as well by cutting his head off for killing her husband and brother. Because that's what he deserves.
     
  6. bweurk

    bweurk Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2018
    She is his mother... this is Star Wars, you know, the saga in which Luke Skywalker's function was to redeem his father...
    The war can be won by any leader of the resistance... Ben Solo has only one mother...
    If Carrie Fisher was alive it would be a different matter, but she is not, and the only aspect of the story where she cannot be replaced is as the mother of the bad guy...
     
  7. Benoda

    Benoda Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Apr 30, 2018
    I agree they could CGI her in, but we'll see. I think LFL really shot themselves in the foot with not rearranging their plans (though RJ is the only person I've read who said they wanted to keep the movie as is) with Luke & Leia after Carrie passed away. Even with the footage shot with Leia, they could edit TLJ to have her pass away in that film, but now I think it's likely her involvement may be limited to the screen roll. Maybe just an audio clip of Leia saying "Ben..." at a critical moment or something. Regardless of what they do though, I think Leia was really underserved in the ST trilogy (I despise what they wrote for Luke and Han, but the writers actually tried to write for them, Leia basically got pushed to the side) and it's unlikely 9 will be able to fix that.

    And yeah @PendragonM , I really hate how their legacies were demolished because of Kylo (though I'm more displeased with their choice to have Luke and Han giving up, but that's still tied to Kylo) and his redemption and absolution still seems a likely conclusion. I mean, there was really no need at all to go the route they did with tearing down Luke, Leia, and Han and they could still have an emotional conflict at the center of the ST. Especially if they go the redemption route and we end up where the ST started off (which is pretty much where ANH started off), just without Luke, Leia, and Han in the picture.

    Also, I forgot to mention in my post above: another piece of evidence that Luke was unlikely a pacifist was he carried around a lightsaber, the weapon of a Jedi. If Luke never wore a lightsaber and only carried it into Ben's room, that implies pre-meditated attempted murder (possibly the only thing worse than what we saw).
     
  8. bweurk

    bweurk Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2018
    I liked Original Poster's analysis of Leïa's supposed role in the ST but i agree that i don't really think "pacifist" is the right word for Luke (but i understand and kinda agree with a lot of aspects of his idea)
    You say that havig Kylo be the bad guy and having another empire is detroying Luke and Leïa's legacy, and i understand what you mean, to be honest, when i saw TFA for the first time, i briefly had the same idea. But i think that's why you are in a fairy tale mindset. Don't get me wrong, i am not talking you down on that, it's something i am often guilty of too... when a story ends (like at the end of ROTJ) we kinda want the ending to be "they lived happily ever after"... but when you take a look at real history or mythologies (i know Star Wars is not real History, but i think it takes a lot from both History and mythologies) that is not how it works. Peoples won the first World War and yet there was another a few years after (since i am french i will even add something that is interesting to think about... in France, one of the great heroes of World War I was Philippe Pétain... and in World War II he was basically the villain... can we say that reality wrote him out of character?). There are also a lot of mythological characters that embark on a quest and win the day, then their children have to face something that "ruins" the parent's legacy... that is the cycle of life... that is how it works.
    Anyway, back on the topic, i really don't see what is bad in Leïa's role in the ST being to redeem her son. It has been foreshadowed that he still has a soft spot for her, he cannot bring himself to shoot her when he has the chance, and yes, as the OP said it, Luke clearly states that he will not bring him back ("i came to face him" or something like that), he clearly states that Rey will not bring him back ("this is not going to go the way you think!") but when Leïa states that she knows her son is gone, Luke corrects her ("nobody is really gone for ever).
     
    StartCenterEnd likes this.
  9. PendragonM

    PendragonM Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 7, 2018
    And gives her Han's dice - the line is about Han. Why does everyone insist about making it about Kylo?

    What is it with World War I to II analogies? Yes, it's been 30 years, but there's a big difference in how we got from World War I to World War II versus ROTJ to TFA. And yes, Star Wars is a fairy tale and I am not happy Luke, Han and Leia are blamed for Kylo and the First Order, and that everything they fought for is now gone. I don't care how "real" it is - it's a story, it doesn't have to be real.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2018
    CairnsTony and MasterPrince713 like this.
  10. Ender_and_Bean

    Ender_and_Bean Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    May 19, 2002
    I’m hoping they write it so that the returning Knights of Ren stage a coup d'état against him and he’s pushed out and then helps the Resistance and learns that Leia is on life support and wants to see her and then the Knights of Ren come and destroy the medical facility with her bacta tank and Ben Solo rages and does something insane with the force to that ship.

    We find out she’s left a couple letters behind before dying. One for the resistance that’s read aloud and the other for Ben where she elaborates on what was written in Bloodline where she wishes she would have been the one to tell him who is grandfather was before Snoke did and gives him some motivational words related to how much better she knows he can be and the emptiness of his pursuits in the Dark Side. Especially since it’s cost him everyone who’s ever cared for him. Including this new girl that Leia can sense he has feelings for, Rey.

    We then hear Ben reading it and all of this starts his journey back toward atonement.
     
  11. bweurk

    bweurk Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2018
    he gives her Han's dices, but he says that as an answer to her "i know my son is gone" so you are dishonnest to pretend it has nothing to do with Kylo.
    Star Wars is not a fairy tale.. it is not real History either, nor it is mythology... Star Wars is an epic saga that borrows to all three. On this aspect it chose to act more like reality than fairy tale. You may not have liked it, but you would be wrong to think that Star Wars should only follow the rules of fairy tales.
     
  12. bweurk

    bweurk Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2018
    I do not hate your idea, but it would need Carrie Fisher's voice over to make it work. I think it would be more heartbreaking for him to realize that his mother is totally gone, no letter, nothing, only his regrets....
    That or a limited force ghost....
     
  13. Ender_and_Bean

    Ender_and_Bean Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    May 19, 2002
    The reason Luke’s line is so good is that it works so many ways at once. Crait Luke is great Luke and we need more of him in IX.
     
    Benoda likes this.
  14. PendragonM

    PendragonM Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 7, 2018
    I'm sorry, I'm what now?

    It's ambiguous at best. It can be read either way. Read it as Kylo isn't really gone - before he puts a saber through Luke, the same way he did Han.
     
    MasterPrince713 likes this.
  15. bweurk

    bweurk Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2018
    "dishonest" (with only one "n") i am not english but i think it's a word...
    don't take it as an insult, i am not saying you are dishonest as a person in general... but claiming this sentence has nothing to do with Kylo just because Luke says it before giving the dices is dishonest since he says it as an answer to Leïa's "i know my son is gone"...
    It's not really ambiguous, it just has two levels of understanding, but you don't chose how you interpret it, you have to understand both...
    to make simple it's something like:
    -Leïa "i know my son is gone"
    -Luke "nobody is really ever gone... oh and speaking of peoples who are gone! look what i found in the Millenium Falcon!"
    (well said like this it makes Luke sound a bit like a jerk... lol)
     
    PendragonM likes this.
  16. Jamtia

    Jamtia Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Apr 5, 2016
    Yeah it was set up well. It makes me sad we won’t get to see that Kylo and Leia interaction and how much of a role she would play. I get she was passive when it came to her son, but I think Rey gave her a new sense of hope.
     
  17. DarthHass

    DarthHass Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 20, 2004
    I love the original poster’s analysis.
     
    lovethedarkside likes this.
  18. Krueger

    Krueger Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Well, I don't think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that his words might have a double meaning (as is the fashion with SW). Yes, he was talking about Han first and foremost, but I do think the way the line is delivered we are meant to think that he could also be talking about Kylo. I mean, Luke's had past experience with such things. Obi-Wan and Yoda were insistent that Anakin was gone, but Luke proved he wasn't.
     
  19. Darth Boycs

    Darth Boycs Jedi Knight star 1

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2018
    And we saw that Ren couldn't bring himself to kill Leia in TLJ. The connection is certainly there.
     
  20. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Luke isn't an absolute pacifist. He refused to kill his father because he was defeated and helpless and to strike him down at that point would be nothing but a wasteful act of anger. There's nothing wrong with a Jedi taking up their sword for a just cause, like a rebellion against a genocidal empire. That's not an aggressive use of the Force, because the existence of oppression is itself an act of aggression necessitating a defensive response. The war against the Empire is not at all like the Clone War, which at its core was a senseless, manufactured conflict between two factions who simply disagreed with each other, and whose legitimate disagreements were taken advantage of by opportunists on both sides. A philosophy of absolute pacifism would be a wildly incoherent stance for Luke to take given that the Empire never would have been defeated were it not for his father killing the Emperor and his friends in the Alliance destroying the second Death Star. His principled stance would have meant nothing if it hadn't been subsequently backed up by uses of justified force.
     
  21. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    No. He's a Jedi that means he believes in self-defence which means not just himself but the wider spectrum of the galaxy. He clearly has no problem using violence if the situation calls for it as per the start of the movie where he kills an entire barge of people to save one person.

    We don't know. TLJ makes a point of being confusing and having Luke confused and not deal with these issues. Not killing a defenseless person is hardly pacifism. That is just consistent with Luke and the Jedi.

    The perplexing part is the whole sneaking into the room at night and mind probe in the first place. The inconsistency is that Luke would see all these terrible things that as far as we know Ben Solo hadn't done and then go for the Lightsaber as a first instinct when this is something he wouldn't do with Vader once he knew he was Anakin. He was never in a situation where he was able to strike down Vader before he knew he was Anakin. At that point it would make sense as Vader is a confirmed killer without anything at all redeeming as far as he would know and certainly would kill Luke if he had the chance as far as Luke would know.

    I see no connection here. The point was very specific in ROTJ and would not apply to the Resistance.

    That's not Luke's personal 'pacifism' as such that is Luke being a Jedi. Remember the situation. Luke believed that the Rebels would destroy the Death Star and destroy all three of them. He couldn't help the mission anymore in the conventional way of destroying the shield generator. In fact he was endangering it so the best thing to do was to go to the Sith and distract them at worst or hopefully get Vader to turn. He refused to kill his father after almost succumbing to striking and killing him after all the machinations of Sidious and Vader beforehand.

    So here we have Luke being manipulated by the Sith and using his friends endangerment as motivators to go into violent action. Remember Sidious and Vader wait until Luke tries to strike Sidious down before Vader engages him in battle. The point is that Luke ultimately does in ROTJ what the Jedi couldn't in the Clone Wars. He doesn't fight and in doing so he wins the fight because the fighting increases the power of the Dark side. Fighting the Dark side in itself isn't wrong. It's the right thing to do but the Sith want the Jedi to fight their way as opposed to the way the Jedi should in this situation.

    Sometimes the way needed is to use a Lightsaber and slice someone in half. The Jedi and Luke have no problem in doing that whatsoever but in this case against the Sith that isn't always the way necessary.

    Luke attacked Jabba and his people killing most of them in defense of Han Solo.

    Jedi are guardians of the Republic not free agents so when the Republic is attacked or imminently going to be then responding makes sense.

    What they didn't know of course was that it was all part of brilliant plan to topple them and take over the galaxy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2018
  22. fugacity

    fugacity Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 7, 2018
    I'm sorry, but it seems pretty crazy to say that the "no one's ever really gone" comment is CLEARLY about Han. The point is that Kylo's not really gone, in the same way that Han's never really gone, and how Luke won't ever be really gone.

    There's layers of meaning in the exchange, but the straight forward reading is about Kylo. Which we know by the preceding lines.
     
  23. PendragonM

    PendragonM Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 7, 2018
    So it's dishonest or crazy to say that? Luke says no one's ever really gone and hands Leia Han's dice (which were never a thing until now but what of that?)
    I know it's hard to think that two people who hadn't seen each other in years might make a comment about the man who meant so much to both of them, but whatever, Han's trash, right? He doesn't matter and never did. Everything is about Kylo, sorry I forgot.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2018
    ChildOfWinds likes this.
  24. fugacity

    fugacity Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 7, 2018
    Not because Han's trash, because it was a conversation about Ben. I see the double meaning to Han. I see it also applying to Luke.

    I just think the plain straight forward meaning is that Luke can't save him, but he's never really beyond saving as Leia suggests.

    Maybe I'm missing the dialogue's intent, but it's a conversation about Ben.

    I'm not disrespecting you or your favorite character(s), I'm just saying you might be incorrect to demand people not see it as being about Ben.
     
  25. PendragonM

    PendragonM Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 7, 2018
    I’m not demanding, I’m pointing out that Luke is handing Leia Han’s dice when he says it, leading me to think that it’s about Han not Kylo. Otherwise, Luke and Leia say nothing about the man who loved both of them for 30 years and is now dead. But of course that would be in keeping with the rest of the narrative.