ST Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) in the ST

The happy ending was a cliche decades ago. Now it would have been a pleasant surprise. The new cliche is the deconstruction of all characters. And we did not avoid that.

The conclusion I'm drawing from TFA is that Han and Leia are definitely to blame about their kid. Not alone, but still to blame. It was pretty obvious.

 

Agreed, I think blaming Leia and Han is ridiculous. Same with Luke, did he have a moment where he was at fault for igniting his lightsaber, sure. But he’s not responsible for Kylo’s actions. Kylo alone is responsible for his decisions.

 

That's exactly what the character thought about himself...It's kinda the whole point.

@DarthFixxxer
It makes room in the story for something to happen. Happily ever after means, no story. Those three rising to the level people seem think they should have would have not made room for any galactic problems except outside threat which was a never-gonna-happen.

You may blame who you like, or read the story however you would like. I don't think people in general think in such black and white simplism as "if the kids bad, blame the parents."

 

I said that Han and Leia are not the only to blame. But they played a part. That's what TFA makes us think. If JJ didn't want the audience to think that, he should have made it clear, instead of actually leaving hints that Kylo Ren was indeed neglected. I don't think in such black and white simplicism as "if this user on the boards is saying something I disagree with, then they must be thinking in black and white simplicism".

There are literally more than 100 ways where Luke Leia and Han could have been happy, successful, heroic and all powerful, and the story could progress, without the need for an intergalactic threat. They have been discussed here many times just in the one year I'm part of these forums, and I've seen dozens of ideas about Luke better than what you claim to be the only way to make the story progress.

Also, an intergalactic threat would be a very exciting prospect and a great idea. Maybe that's why indeed it was never gonna happen. Too good to be true.

 

it forces a story to happen rather than a story naturally evolving out of the context set forth by the canonical films that came before. these characters WE KNOW. we know what makes Luke Luke. Rian wrote Luke to not act like himself to force a 2 hour plot that ultimately never stuck the landing. i really dont think it ever had a chance. the fact that he didnt understand this says a lot IMO about his idea of Star Wars and what it means to him.

 

That's literally the conclusion the creators said we should draw.

 

Umm, what?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...-kylo-ren-star-wars-force-awakens-documentary

 

And the net quickly went nuclear in response.

As an actor's method for getting into character? Fine. As an actual reason in-story? Nope.

 

Edit: Missed Pros message. @Jedi Ben summed up what I was going to say anyway.

 

Of course. Any unflawed character is difficult to empathize with. And "classic" Luke was always flawed -- running off to "save" his friends in Cloud City, only to force his friends to rescue him instead, etc.

Flaws are great. But one question is: Are the flaws we see in TLJ believable? Are they in character for the character we know?

 

Watching the Star Trek: Pickard trailer, and seeing Riker and Troi still together after all these decades with a family, wow does it makes the ST choices look even worse by contrast.

 

^What a weird choice after the backlash of TLJ-Luke.

 

Not if god mode Picard later on takes on the entire new formed Borg-Romulan-Klingon fleet and saves the world

 

Not exactly god mode, but he has now a full series named after him to come back from his breakdown or whatever went wrong.

 

Uhm..... what? Luke Skywalker is the only powerful Jedi that exists in the galaxy when the ST begins.
Pickard is one of thousands of Star Fleet Captains, and he doesn't have any super power.

How is he broken and disillusioned? It wouldn't make sense for him to be trying to "save the galaxy" in his 80s (whatever saving the galaxy could mean in Star Trek).

These two are not similar situations in any possible way.

 

Maybe you revise this after episode 6: Picard milks Gorn's boobs

Spoiler

Gorn's milk is green!

 

I think there is a middle ground between 1:1 and it not being similar in any way

 

I'm no fan of The Last Jedi, I think it was a terrible missed opportunity, but my disappointment with it revolves around the fact that I had built up in my mind what it was going to be about, and hoped it would be about, and it was something else entirely.

However, I don't think that the Rashomon type scenes with Luke and Kylo as unreliable narrators of events are that heinous. For the idea to have worked better, it needed a third, independent witness to the event to tell what really happened, I feel.

I disagree with your apparent declaration as to whether it was an acceptable way to write Luke, or whether Luke would or would not behave this way. That is for the selected writer to decide. Whether you like it or not is a different matter.

I don't mind that Luke is different to his characterisation from ROTJ. It was over thirty years ago, and how many of us are the same people in our twenties that we are in our forties and beyond? Not me, certainly.