ST Luke Skywalker/Mark Hamill Discussion Thread [SEE WARNING ON PAGE 134]

I think I’m confused. How was Luke proven correct by Ben accidentally killing everyone?

 

That old chestnut?

It wasn't because he got less screentime.
It was a total contradiction to his original characterisation.

Look at Obi-Wan in Ep3 and Ep4. Two different actors yet you believe it is the same guy. Largely because he hasn't gone into exile simply to die... he was waiting for Luke and Leia to come of age. When I saw TFA I thought Luke was waiting for Rey on Ach-To, but then we got TLJ and he both wasn't actually expecting her and just told her to **** off.

 

Well... I see your point, but it is a paradox I think.
Ben was potentially dangerous but might not have turned if Luke hadn't feared his growing power.

He couldn't steer Ben in the right direction, he lost the battle for Ben's soul with Snoke/Palpatine.

But Kylo was a ticking time bomb it seems. I obviously think Luke was way out of character for even considering killing him, but it is semi-understandable when Kylo indeed instantly conjured a force-storm.
Catch-22, but tbh I am hoping this will be expanded on later.

 

I guess that logic just doesn’t work for me. If it was an accident, the only thing Ben needed was a better teacher. That’s crapping on Luke.

 

Well, yes to an extent. I don't personally like what TLJ did either.

It was an accident but it was pure dark-side. He hated what Luke had done and thus subconsciously manifested the end of the Jedi Temple.
Sourced from Ben's particularly powerful connection to the force (and hence the dark side), and his being targeted by the Sith who also told him Luke would do just this (the comic has a line in Ben's mind, seemingly from Palpatine "We thought he might" about Luke's "betrayal").

TLJ seems to imply that Luke didn't take the signs seriously enough.
"It didn't scare me enough before. It does now!"
"By the time I realised I was no match for the darkness rising in him..."

I think there wasn't much Luke could have done differently, but hard to say.

 

Re-read the original post. Besides Lukes characterization, Luke "being sidelined" for 2 of 3 movies was mentioned. As was the fact that he didn't reunite with Han and Leia (all 3 together). Furthermore, the original poster bemoans the fact that Luke didn't have a wife/family, etc. Obviously, I am aware that the characterization of Luke in TLJ rubs many fans the wrong way, that's not all that was up for discussion. Thanks!

 

Its a full list of common grievances with Luke that shows all the numerous ways he couldve been used in a more hopeful and optimistic story, yet none of these routes were taken.

It's not that most fans wanted Luke to take over the whole ST, we just wanted him to make some kind of positive contribution to the story (beyond simply being Rey's cheerleader while she cleans up his messes). If they hadn't treated the OT characters in such an overwhelmingly cynical and depressing manner, I'd be able to handle a death here and a mistake there, because the integrity of the characters and their original story are upheld.

 

Fair enough. But like @Def Trooper noted it is not the main complaint from displeased fans.

Like I hinted Obi-Wan and Yoda didn't completely contradict their PT selves in the OT. In fact arguably they had grown wiser and less regimented. Luke however seems to have regressed to before his enlightened form at the climax of ROTJ.

Plus for example, Obi-Wan and Yoda's pessimistic view that Vader can't be redeemed and must be destroyed (which Luke ultimately proves wasn't the only way) is backed up by what we see them experience in the PT. It makes sense coming from their experience of the tragic destruction of their entire Jedi family. They ultimately retain faith in the next generation however.
Luke on the other hand; we left him in '83 at his most hopeful, then for a mostly inexplicable reason next time we see him he has abandoned his ideals.

 

Look, I never wrote that I expected Luke to be one of the main leading characters., even though I did expect a greater presence from him. The new leads were supposed to be Daisey Ridley and John Boyega and I was perfectly onboard with that and with Luke serving as a mentor. The treatment of the character, not so much how many minutes he clocked, is the problem I and many people had. I specifically jotted down the individual things which I think could be seen as problematic.

And btw if you think this is the Golden Age of Star Wars then there's a peace in the Middle East that I would love to sell you. Just my

Maybe you should reread my post yourself.

First of all thinking that Luke would have more screen time in the trilogy does not automatically equate him being the lead or a lead. As another person wrote my argument wasn't about screentime, it was more about what was done with that screentime, who he got to and didn't get to interact with. That being said one of the top three topics that came out of TFA was the fact that Luke had one silent scene that lasted just seconds at the end of the movie. It took a lot of people by surprise, disappointing many. Now you may not feel that way but here's the thing....my original post was mostly all about what Mark Hamill himself felt about what was handed him. I carefully referenced outcomes that may have caused Hamill himself to decline returning to the role if he knew ahead of time what was in store for him. Pure speculation obviously but worthy of discussion. I mean Hamill after all did admit to being surprised he wound up getting such a small role in TFA, he did discuss what he saw as a missed opportunity to reunite with Ford and Fisher on screen even if just one scene, he famously commented on how he felt the Luke Skywalker that was written for TLJ was one that he did not recognize and went in a direction he believed Luke would never go. This was the the gist of my post; the possible regret Hamill has for saying "yes" when asked to return to Star Wars. Can we keep the conversation on that instead of on your belief that I'm some Luke fanboy who can't let go and hated the trilogy because of how he was used? Because those who know me on this site realize that I spent the bulk of five years far more concerned about how Finn was being presented in all honesty.

 

Well, it's not inexplicable. He basically crapped the bed with the new generation of Jedi and is living in exile/grief/fear. I am not saying you have to like it, that it works for everyone, or that it's what anyone wanted....but it is explained in the narrative. Should the new trilogy shown the fall of Ben Solo and given us more time into Luke losing his faith? Perhaps. I'm not sure that would have been ideal to have another trilogy chart the fall of a Skywalker boy.

He has a greater presence than either Yoda or Ben had in the Original Trilogy. Luke had more "meat" to his story in the ST than Obi-Wan did in the OT. No? Again, you may not have liked it, but Luke did get a significant amount of time devoted to his story/character in the ST.

Obviously we have all ages of fans on these boards. I remember the dark times of the mid 80's to early 90's when Star Wars was basically dead. No merchandise to be found. No new movies. No books. No comics. Only slim issues of Lucasfilm magazine. Now, you have a juggernaut of a movie, a monster hit of a TV show, several animated series, and a video game (or two). To me, this has been just a great as the late 70's/early 80's and the Prequel Era. Sorry you aren't enjoying it.

 

I saw SW as a four year old in 1977. I lived through the 80s and 90s that you are referring to. With all due respect you seem to be equating greater onscreen quantity with quality. I'll take the batting average of the three lone films that stretched from '77 to '83 as well as the explosion of the SW books from the early through late 90s (so popular they regularly made the NYT Best Sellers' List) over this current run that started with the animation series. Why ? Because most of the films haven't been that good and the novels have been far worse than those from the previous era. So we'll agree to disagree.

 

Put yourself in his shoes. He made jack from Star Wars. He was worth maybe 5 million before the sequels (from what I read it was mostly from financial investments). Disney approaches you and says you can expect to make $10,000,000 from the sequels. What would you do? Mark is almost 70 and his earning potential is limited. He is now worth approximately $18 million post-sequels. His entire family is now setup for the rest of their lives. I think if he had known what was waiting for him, he would do it again and he would be right to do so. And yes Luke is my favorite character by far.

 

1. I was not trying to offend your sense of old school fandom. Sorry if it came across that way.
2. Quantity does not outweigh quality. Yet, quality is subjective.

Films: The original trilogy are my favorite of Star Wars movies, and probably will always be. That said, I found the sequel trilogy really satisfying and exciting in it's own right. Is it a zero sum game? Are no Star Wars movies really the optimal choice? I absolutely LOVED looking forward to a new Star Wars adventure on the big screen every year. An entire movie about how the Death Star plans were retrieved? An entire movie devoted to the adventures of a young Han Solo and Lando? The fact that this was even possible was unfathomable to me as a fan in the 80's and 90's. I am so grateful to see these things come to fruition.
TV: I'd choose the Mandalorian and Clone Wars/Rebels over The Holiday Special and The Ewoks/Droids cartoons of the 70's/80's every time. Every single time.

Lastly, I love that we have an ENTIRE Star Wars related section at Disney Theme parks. It's unprecedented in many ways. There's nothing to measure it against as now we have Star Tours, plus a new immersive experience/world. As I said, I think it's new golden era of being a Star Wars fan.

 

While the lightsaber catch could be seen as a slight to the beginning of TLJ, he also said that "I was wrong" to go into exile which he already figured out at the end of TLJ anyway so I didn't really see it as "correcting" it. Luke's hair in TROS looked weird but I liked to finally see a positive interaction between him and Rey. His behavior in TLJ didn't really surprise me that much because it's a pretty common trope for disillusioned mentor character and I never thought Kylo's version of the flashback to be the "truth" since he's a pretty unreliable character, what matters is that he found himself again and his death is still one of my favorite scene of the trilogy.

 

It wasn't Disney - George signed them all before he sold to Disney. Mark signed last - he has said in interviews that he didn't think it was a great idea but he thought he was safe because Harrison wouldn't do it. Harrison did, so he had to sign too. Carrie signed first, then Harrison, then Mark. Which cracks me up reading all the "Harrison didn't want to come back unless they killed him off" when they all signed before there was a script in place, let alone TFA.

 

Sorry for the delay in posts, I've been suffering really bad fever like allergies this week and been super out of it. I do enjoy taking my time and putting some effort into these posts though!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There seems to be a lot of suggestion in this thread and across the boards that in order for a proper deconstruction to be made the story needs to be analyzed in a way that makes it “realistic”. With the implication that realistic means the story must be darker, more cynical and depressing. The art must match the “real world” and the real world is a nasty, evil place where people are defeated over and over and over again. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Deconstructions as defined by TV Tropes,


“Deconstruction" literally means "to take something apart". When applied to tropes or other aspects of fiction, deconstruction means to take apart a trope so as to better understand its meaning and relevance to us in Real Life.


Note that nowhere in the definition does it state that a story much be darker and edgier. Nowhere is it implied that a more realistic setting is necessarily a darker one. In fact in states,


Note that while deconstructions often end up darker, edgier, sadder and more cynical than the normal version, there is no reason they have to be. While the Deconstruction process can reveal things we weren't thinking about for a reason — a major contributing factor in why it tends to be depressing — Deconstructions are free to exist anywhere on the Sliding Scale of Idealism vs. Cynicism.


Failure and despair aren’t any more “realistic” than hope and triumph are. Yes people do fail, but people also win. There are countless examples of heroes and victories throughout history. Examples of heroism in the face of despair. People in the most horrific of circumstances and situations finding strength in their own character and fighting for what is good. In fact, our own world has never seen as much long-lasting peace, prosperity and advancement. Does it mean we don’t have issues or problems? No it does not. However, there is always hope in a better tomorrow.


Deconstructions aren’t good in of themselves, but rather they serve to better see the underlying assumptions and ideas behind a work of fiction. What in turn makes the deconstruction fruitful is later the reconstruction. We tear down things but only with the goal to better understand them and make them better.


This I believe is the biggest crime in the sequel trilogy. Things are deconstructed. They are torn apart. They are reinterpreted and changed to the some of the worst possible outcomes and are left in pieces. We ask however, what was the purpose? What did we learn from this vandalism? What do we learn about Luke failing to rebuild the Jedi Order, nearly killing his nephew and giving up? Do we learn any more about the human condition? About the Jedi? The Force? What is the purpose? We don’t have one. We are left with no more answers to the fundamental themes of Star Wars before The Last Jedi (and the trilogy as a whole) than we are afterwards.


Why is it important to point out that the Resistance and the First Order buy from the same arms dealers? Are we making a point? Is it that the group who kill billions and the group fighting them are morally equivalent? What is the point in making the only Skywalker grandkid evil? Is it to show that evil can be passed down the generations? But why not good? Does that not count.


Lastly, I’d like to point out that Star Wars isn’t supposed to be realistic. It’s a fairy tale in space meant to be mythical in scope teaching timeless lessons. In the words of George Lucas:


”The whole point of the film, the whole emotion that I am trying to get at the end of this film, is for you to be real uplifted, emotionally and spiritually, and feel absolutely good about life. That is the greatest thing that we could possibly ever do.”


Thanks forever George. The Force will be with you, always.

 

It also doesn't hope that, to quote something from Legends, Luke wasn't the "last of the old, he was the first of the new." He wasn't like the older Jedi, he did things differently and forged his own path. That was one of the points of ROTJ, he something that Obi Wan and Yoda thought was impossible, and he did it his way.

To suddenly go "oh never mind, he made all of the same mistakes they did and ended up in the same place" was not only lazy and uncreative, it missed the point of the OT entirely.

And if there was any doubt left that they did this to prop up their new pet character, TROS makes that 110% clear. Everything that was Luke and Anakin's, was taken away and given to Rey and they desperately tried to push how oh so much better and cooler she was. And that's the biggest sin of all here I think.

 

Exactly, Luke was supposed to be better than the old Jedi. Not because he was inherently special or the Chosen One but because he had the priviledge of learning from past mistakes and forging his own path. A better way forward. He chose compassion when Ben and Yoda chose violence. He chose love and hope in the face of evil and despair. He redefined the Jedi to be better than before. It's a myth for the ages. The entire point of the Saga. Anakin the redeemed father and Luke the reborn son. It's a story as old as time. Humanity is progress. The generations learn from those from before and become better.

The message now seems to be that the Jedi suck, good and evil are the same and everything organized should die. Everyone should just live without any definition. What a tale.

 

But thats the thing isn't it... there was no being better than the Jedi. the Jedi did nothing wrong beyond be manipulated and be too high and mighty to see it. the whole idea of forbidden love and whatever, that was all for a good reason. and Luke probably was never gonna be able to sustain a jedi order that was sustained by Love. mostly because even if he could stop himself from making that mistake... its not to say any his students could when they were put into a situation similar to anakin and padme.

Its not a flawed system. it kept the jedi going for hundreds of years.

Luke wasn't tasked with improving the jedi, he was tasked with bringing them back.

 

Where are all the people who were presumptively assuming Ben would be saving Luke in this issue to further some agenda and that the series was bad because of it?

 

I agree with this completely. Luke was a naive farm boy who seemed to have the least street smarts between the three OT characters as Han and Leia always felt more worldly. It was his arc to in the end to have the growth that gave him wisdom beyond that of the greatest Jedi masters ever. It was the wisdom of compassion that seemed to be slipping away from the old Jedi and never achieved by Anakin that became the boon that Luke would achieve and learn.

His forward arc should have been about taking that boon and sharing it with the world as a teacher. We impart wisdom as teachers and as parents. He had failed in his attempt to teach a new Jedi Order and he never had children. And when we look at Rey we see someone looking for tutelage and also searching desperately for a parental figure. And so fate would have it that the two people that needed each other the most would meet on some island in the middle of nowhere. It was destiny that they would help fill each other’s arcs become monumental in each other’s lives. Rey would learn from her faults and gain wisdom while finding her father figure. And Luke would finally be able to share his wisdom and find the child he never had. What a story...that could have been.

 

Yo, honest question.

Why were Terrio so concerned about giving Luke and Leia a happy reunion at the end of TROS as ghost. TLJ already gave them a better reunion scene, with the Crait sequence. Also wouldn't Leia be more happy to reunite with her lost son as a ghost? These comments are mind bogling to me. They were more focused on giving the OT characters happy endings, than the characters this trilogy was about LOL.

 

They needed the scene to show that Leia had Jedi Training so that it wouldn’t be weird for her to train Rey.

 

I’m referring to them being the only ones showing up as ghost. Terrio acts like it’s a big deal for the twins to be reunited. Wouldn’t it be a bigger deal for Leia for her to be reunited with her Son?