ST Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) in Episode VII

I feel like some of this speculation is superfluous. Abrams would never make Luke Skywalker into a darksider. I'm sure he doesn't want to be called "the guy who ruined my childhood" for the rest of his life.

 

It was literally just an idea as for the only way I personally could see any kind of dark side Luke working. There are so many reasons against him turning, not the least of which is that he already faced down that temptation in ROTJ. I'm also not that down with the notion of him having to kill innocents either, but if there was some kind of amazing execution and it was an impossible dilemma, you can't say 100% certain it wouldn't work - you can say you hate the sound of it obviously, but I think for all this kind of speculation, it's too easy to categorically say something can't work when actually, we wouldn't know until we saw the finished film and saw how it played out in the proper context as the film-makers intended. I'm playing devil's advocate on counts here - I very much doubt we will see Darth Luke at all.

 

Satipo

 

@ Dra---

I wasn't agreeing with you. Please accept my smiley face as compensation for our misunderstanding.

"The complex aspect would be that Luke would perhaps go to the darkside because innocents would have to be killed for a greater good, or for the sake of Luke's friends.

It would be a kind of grey ethical area because many fans would understand the action and agree that it was justified. Others wouldn't."

When dealing with emotions, I try to focus on the motive rather than the actions. Killing people isn't bad, in and of itself. It's WHY they're killed, and what's in a person's heart when they're killing. This is why Yoda and Ben had no problem with Luke killing both Vader and the Emperor. The problem would be if he did it out of fear, anger and hate rather than a noble duty to justice.

This is why I have such a big problem with Obi-Wan killing Maul. Nobody checks with him later on to make sure his heart was in the right place. He had just seen his master murdered before his eyes. Clearly his pain and rage fueled his fighting - his actions. Then Maul gets taken out, no questions asked.

Dooku took Anakin's arm. Anakin later beheaded Dooku. And no questions asked. ;P

Although killing children could easily be seen as a grey area with fans, I think that if Luke truly acted from a good and noble place in his heart, he wouldn't go to the dark side for sacrificing them for the greater good.

However, if he did it for his friends, one could make the argument that he was motivated by attachment, fear and selfishness!

 

Luke turning to the darkside, anyway you try to justify it, is a terrible idea. His character arc should take a step forward, not 2 steps back. And him using the darkside to save his friends just goes against what Kenobi & Yoda warned him of in TESB.

Should they be sacrificed?
"If you honor what they fight for... yes"
Luke's a wise old man now... not a hard headed teenager. If anything, he'll sacrifice himself to save the day or just to buy his friends time to escape... like Kenobi.

 

Saying it is a bad or good idea is nice, but the rumors suggest that Luke saves the day in a not-so-good way. Either that is completely bunk or things are not all hunky dory with Luke. It doesn't mean he turned to the dark side at all, but rather uses methods not orthodox for the Jedi suggesting that under Luke, the Jedi ways have changed. Be it through aggression, first strikes, or using dark side powers to achieve peace, if the rumors hold true, Luke isn't so saintly, at least not in the beginning.

 

How would somebody other than the inner circle know that? They don't give scripts to just anybody & a climactic scene like that would be the holy grail of closed sets. And if the rumor is true about multiple scripts... then there is that.

Besides, saving the day in a bad way doesn't mean darkside. Him sacrificing himself would be bad to me, even for the greater good. I don't want to see him as a force ghost for ⅔ of the trilogy.

My uncle is BY FAR the biggest SW fan I know. He has a pole barn ⅔ of the way full of SW memorabilia. He doesn't seem the least bit interested in continuing the series after ROTJ. He doesn't mind more movies, but not at the expense of what all was accomplished in the OT. That's why fantasy stories end with "and they lived happily ever after". I kind of agree with him, but it's hard not want to see the big 3 back on the big screen.

 

What? I see he has a beard & lost weight. That's basically the jist of what we know of his participation. Oh... & he's playing Luke, but that's not important.

 

i think we need to define .. dark. Do you mean, darksided. or just a little grimer because of all he has seen?

 

Good question. Dark has become a wishy-washy marketing slang that has lost most meaning. Many heroes are called dark, some only because they wear dark clothing or such.

Dark for me means that the character likes to act outside the moral boundaries of society. Han for instance was a dark hero because he was basically a thief.

In comparison, a sarcastic streak or blunt honesty or "hardiness" are not what I would call dark.

 

If one continues to use the darker emotions to fulfill selfish desires, then it will turn you. Anakin didn't want to be evil, but he saw it as a necessity. But the more he used the dark side, the more it changed him into Vader. That's why he choked Padme when he thought she had willingly betrayed him. That's why during the war, Palpatine kept arranging for Anakin to be put in situations where his fear, anger and hate would start to get the best of him. This lead to moments like he fight with Dooku on Naboo, while it also resulted in Anakin becoming increasingly aggressive towards Dooku in battle, while it also resulted in his anger at the droids for almost ruining Padme's party, which was more of a calm and peaceful situation.

 

i do disagree that Han was a " Dark Hero" Yes he was an illegal smuggler, but that is more of a rogue, nuetral character, not dark. han always had an honor about him.

 

If we go by the book and Han is indeed an "ilegal smuggler", you could say Luke is a terrorist.

 

yes , this is why we cna never judge the Star wars universe as we judge our universe. We run by different ethics and rules

 

Han was smuggling contraband was that was illegal during the Republic era. Lucas even said as much.

 

Dunno. It's enough to qualify as a dark streak in my book. But I certainly wouldn't say he was a villain or anything like that.

 

Honor? He develops that over the course of the trilogy, which is why we love him, but he's certainly not an honorable man in the beginning.
He shoots Greedo... ruthless, effective and justified? Yeah. Honorable? Not in the least. He only reluctantly agrees to help save an innocent woman because he's promised a payday at first.
Han's journey is interesting because he starts off as a dishonorable, untrustworthy and untrusting drug smuggler and murderer - but when in the right place at the right time he rose to the occasion and started to become a hero.

 

I wonder Mark having that disheveled look is something that JJ will incorporate into the film?[/quote]




Who's disheveled looking?

 

Hamill looks like somebody pee'd on his rug. That rug really tied the room together.

 

What?

 

If I have to explain the joke, then "you're obviously not a golfer".

 

Character arcs don't need to move forward -- that's an arbitrary value of progress. It presupposes that all arcs must progress in a positive way.

The best character arcs, in fact, as Chekhov knew, allow their characters to backslide, or think they're moving forward when they're actually not.

The value of progress and the idea that all our heroes must always improve is just another example of banal fan sentimentality. It can't be interesting because there's no tension there.

Anyway, if Luke were to commit an atrocity in order to save his friends, it would cohere with what we knew about him in the OT. Yoda warned him not to save his friends, but he went anyway. In ROTJ, the Emperor taunts him that his friends are about to die, and he breaks into a rage and beats the crud out of Vader. He only just barely stops himself from killing Vader. Barely.

Now imagine if he's watching his best friends and family about to be killed right before his eyes. Much different than the ROTJ scenario, when they were off in the distance. I don't believe for a second he would allow his loved one to perish when he could save them. Unfortunately, the way to save them may mean killing innocents completely unrelated to the conflict. This would be a selfish act, but most I think could relate to it. If anything, this would show that Luke has always been friends and family first. The only thing that's changed is what he's willing to do for them -- murder and sacrificing his own immortality.

So it's not just foregrounding his personal sacrifice, but also his selfishness. That's what interests me about it. (So the Jesus analogy doesn't really apply, unless Jesus also murdered people to save Mary and Paul).