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

I think you're creating a false dichotomy by suggesting the film asks us to judge Luke's act as "the most heroic" while dismissing others. Star Wars has always balanced different forms of heroism - from combat to sacrifice to inspiration.

Your point about Rey's dogfighting being at odds with Luke's non-violence misses how Star Wars consistently operates. The franchise has always contained this tension between necessary fighting and idealized restraint - that's what makes it compelling! The original trilogy celebrated both Luke destroying the Death Star and his later refusal to kill Vader.

Luke's projection isn't artificially elevated by his death - it has narrative significance because it completes his character arc from despair back to hope. And it doesn't diminish what Holdo, Poe, or Finn did - their actions work in concert, not competition.

As for Luke potentially training Rey or doing something else earlier - that ignores his entire character struggle with failure. His final act matters precisely because he overcomes this failure.

The film doesn't practice "protagonist-centered morality" - it shows different characters finding their own paths to heroism, each serving the greater cause in their own way.

In short, I believe you're expecting a single, consistent definition of heroism when the saga has always been about navigating the complexities between fighting, sacrifice, and inspiration.


@DarkGingerJedi



1. I think there's a deliberate parallel between fandom's view of Luke and what's being played at as far as the in-universe mythology. The film engages with both dimensions.

2. I disagree that the galaxy doesn't have a mythic view of Luke. There's substantial evidence that (post ROTJ) Luke became legendary within the Star Wars universe itself, not just to fans.

You can track this evolution through the original trilogy itself. In A New Hope, Luke makes a one-in-a-million shot that destroys the Death Star - an extraordinary feat. Yet at this point, only Vader and the Emperor seem to recognize his significance. By Empire, his reputation has grown but isn't universal - Lando casually refers to him as "someone called...uh...uh...Skywalker." Even Jabba doesn't recognize him by reputation in Return of the Jedi.

Yet, just a few years after ROTJ, as shown in The Mandalorian, Moff Gideon is absolutely terrified of Luke. His legend as the man who defeated Vader and supposedly killed the Emperor had already spread throughout the galaxy.

Interestingly, his narrative thread/idea of Luke's post ROTJ "legend" was established even from early EU novels like "Heir to the Empire" and "Dark Empire," Luke's status rapidly transformed from hero to legend...again....not in the OT, but post ROTJ.

As you noted, the Jedi were already considered myths less than 20 years after Order 66 in ANH. By TFA/TLJ, it's been 30+ years since Luke's ROTJ deeds. Rey's evolution proves this point perfectly. In TFA she literally says "I thought he was a myth"—direct evidence his reputation had reached mythic proportions. By TLJ, she has more facts but still approaches him with legendary expectations, seeking the hero who could face down the whole First Order with a laser sword.

Luke's crisis isn't just about "failing to meet his own imperfect standards." When he had that moment of weakness with Ben Solo, he wasn't just failing as an uncle—he was failing as THE Luke Skywalker, the legendary figure who restored the Jedi. The gap between the man and the myth is what broke him.

You claim Luke has the distorted view....yet, that's exactly the point of his arc in TLJ. His journey is about reconciling the man with the legend. His exile isn't mere self-pity—it's his response to the impossibility of living up to what his real accomplishments came to represent.

Bottom Line: Other than EU, we never really got to see Luke in his prime as a Jedi master. Yep, Madalorian leans waaay into the version of Luke and fans generally (me included) loved it. Yet I do think there is some contrast between that version of Luke and how he was in the OT. Ergo, I do think that there's enough narrative wiggle room that allows for TLJ Luke to be totally valid.

 

Here's another thing. Rey knows all about Luke saving Vader but Ben doesn't? How did Rey find out?

And while we're talking about apologies, Obi Wan AND Yoda say NOTHING about Leia being Luke's sister. Now, yeah, most of that is due to the retconning in ROTJ but Obi Wan doesn't even say anything to Luke then, he has to guess.

Exactly. Or we could say that all the stuff that happens in this trilogy is all very poor meta on the OT.

Yep.

 

At least when it all comes out and Luke guesses Obi wan is like “bingo”.

He doesn’t lie more about it. And it’s just Obi-wan, right there as himself, sitting on a log.

He’s not pretending to be something he isn’t. He’s not further lying to Luke. He comes clean and basically goes “that’s how I see it”. Anakin is dead.And Luke’s answer is “no he’s still my father in there” and then proves it.

In TLJ, Luke on the other hand is written as a jerk. Here in his final moment he’s nothing more than a troll. To his own nephew. The person. Hs supposedly failed.

What he should have said was something like “Here I am, Ben. I know you were looking for me. The real me. Unmasked. No more lies. You didn’t need some legend to be told at bed time. You just needed an Uncle. Even a faulty one. You’re an adult now. I’m sorry”

But nah. Luke isn’t even there for Ben. He’s there to distract Ben w lies so the Resistance can escape. It’s no wonder Ben doesn’t care for his apology.

 

I don't disagree that Luke's portrayal in the OT could naturally progress to what we saw in the The Mandalorian. As I said, the old EU went this way too. What I'm arguing is that Luke wasn't presented as "mythic" in the Original Trilogy itself. In the OT, he was a relatable hero on a journey.

The EU and Mandalorian definitely portray Luke as more of an "unstoppable/super Jedi" than he had been before. TLJ doesn't dispute this evolution - it actually leans into it by acknowledging how his legend grew over time.

But no hero stays at their peak forever. Not Batman, not Rocky, not Bond, not Robin Hood. So I think it's completely reasonable to show an aged Skywalker as we saw him in TLJ after 30 years of "Star Wars-ing." Heroes age, they face new challenges, they sometimes fail, and they have to reconcile with their own legends.

TLJ explores what happens when the man behind the myth has to confront the weight of his own legacy - which is a natural progression for a character who's been built up to such heights. It's actually a more interesting direction than simply having him remain the perfect, unstoppable Jedi Master forever.

I share some reservations about the Force projection power, but it does have precedent in Star Wars lore - it appeared in comics before TLJ. Plus, Star Wars movies have always evolved Force powers and typically revealed new ones with each installment. Beyond that, I see it as a meaningful culmination of Luke's character arc rather than just a convenient plot device. It allowed him to face down the entire First Order non-violently, embodying the highest Jedi ideals.

As for Luke's portrayal being jarring compared to the hero we knew after ROTJ - yes, it's a significant shift, but it's not without foundation. Even at the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke has been thought the ringer.. It's not unreasonable that decades later, after further challenges and a devastating failure with Ben Solo, he might become disillusioned.

While I can understand why some found Luke being a "weird hermit" off-putting, I actually like how it echoes Yoda and Obi-Wan's own exiles. Many fans (myself included) found his journey deeply compelling precisely because it shows a beloved hero struggling with failure and ultimately finding redemption. His final act becomes more meaningful because he had to overcome his own demons to achieve it.

Lastly, you are making a significant assumption that "most moviegoers" had a problem with Luke in TLJ. From my perspective, it was primarily hardcore fans who took issue with his portrayal. Most casual moviegoers I encountered actually thought Luke's characterization was among the strongest elements of the film. Perhaps they approached it without preconceived notions of what post-ROTJ Luke should be?

 

Yet I don’t think he’s presented as mythical in the Mandalorian. He’s cutting down robots and using the force like we see Obi-Wan and Qui-Gonn do in TPM or other Jedi in TCW. For me that’s a natural progression of his powers in the intervening years from Jedi - Mando. FWIW personally I don’t even think of the EU (probably because I’ve forgotten a lot of the books I read 30 years ago) when I’m watching these films. But I’ve never had Luke down as a superhero, even in the EU books I’ve read that’s never been a takeaway from them that I can recall.

We’re sort of getting into our own expectations now going into these films. For the record I wasn’t expecting all the main OT characters to be so down on the luck in the ST and also for the record I don’t like what they did with them at all. I also think the downward spiral to where Luke is in TLJ is too much of leap, for my tastes anyway. Equally this force projection power is too much for me to accept too. But again that’s just my tastes.

I take no enjoyment in having such a downer on these characters that we see in the ST, it doesn’t make me want to go and watch them again.

 

This is a galaxy where telekensis exists. There are superhero feats here. It's basically common place, even if some people have never come across it.

Its a galaxy where this happens.

You can't blame the story for having 'superheroes', even imperfect ones, when superheroes, and their superhero powers, are essentially part of the galaxy.

 

And it's a done to death cliche, which is one of the reasons I skipped the latest Indiana Jones movie. I mean, if JJ and Kasdan really talked to Hamill, Ford and Fisher about their lives now, they should have noted that all 3 of them were still active, still up on what's going on and moving on to new successes. Why is it always "oh, they declined." It's tiring and stupid, honestly. The same thing over and over.

Plus, when Rey, Finn and Poe see what happened to Luke, Han and Leia, why in the world are they sticking around to have the same thing happen to them?

 

I agree to an extent. I do think that Luke is presented as more mythic/legendary in Mando. It's like the John Wick/Babayaga or Batman (man or creature) type thing. Certainly some of this comes down to there's been a continuing an evolution in how Jedi powers are portrayed over time on screen.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVED seeing Jedi at the peak of their powers in the Prequel Trilogy, demonstrating abilities and skills we'd never witnessed or imagined in the Original Trilogy. However, there's still a significant leap between what we saw Luke do in the OT and his appearance in The Mandalorian. The contrast between Luke taking down Jabba's guards on the sail barge versus his systematic dismantling of the Dark Troopers shows a stylistic shift. The Mandalorian scene undeniably leans more into that PT/superhero dynamic, with Luke displaying a level of power and precision that goes beyond what we saw in the Original Trilogy.

This progression makes sense given his growth as a Jedi, but it also represents the franchise's overall evolution in how Force users are portrayed - increasingly spectacular and visually dynamic. The Luke we see in The Mandalorian is definitely channeling some of that prequel-era Jedi Knight aesthetic and capability. I don't dislike it, but I maintain that it does show Luke as more "unstoppable super Jedi" than we ever saw from him before.

I totally get it. Carrie Fisher's passing had a profound impact on how the sequel trilogy ultimately unfolded and felt. Her death created a void that affected both the narrative possibilities and the emotional resonance of the films.

Looking back, I think I would have also preferred for Luke Skywalker to survive throughout the trilogy. His death in TLJ, while thematically meaningful, closed off storytelling opportunities that might have helped the trilogy feel more cohesive, especially after losing Carrie/Leia.

I went into the sequel trilogy somewhat prepared for the original trio to meet their ends - it follows the mythic pattern of the heroic journey that Star Wars has always embraced, where mentors and old heroes often pass the torch through sacrifice. But the real-world circumstances made these fictional deaths feel heavier and perhaps less satisfying than they might have otherwise.

 

I'd argue this isn't a cliché but rather a cornerstone of mythic storytelling that's been vital to human culture for thousands of years. Joseph Campbell 101. No? I get if it's not your taste, but it is part of the hero cycle.

The aging hero facing new challenges and confronting their legacy isn't lazy writing - it's a fundamental aspect of the hero's journey that makes characters fully dimensional and relatable. Would we prefer Luke to be frozen in amber, never changing or growing? That would be the true cliché.

As has been said....throughout mythology and literature, heroes face different challenges as they age. King Arthur's early quests differ from his later struggles with Mordred and betrayal. Odysseus's journey home is followed by challenges ruling Ithaca. Even Beowulf's story culminates with an older hero facing a dragon, knowing his strength isn't what it once was.

Modern media portrays this journey effectively too. Logan showed a weakened Wolverine finding new purpose. The Dark Knight Returns features an aging Batman confronting his limitations. These aren't repetitive stories - they're explorations of how heroism evolves with time.

Star Wars itself is built on these mythic cycles. Obi-Wan and Yoda both withdrew after failure before finding new purpose. Luke's arc in TLJ continues this tradition, showing how heroes respond to setbacks differently than in their youth.

What would be truly "tiring and stupid" would be denying these characters the full range of human experience, including failure, doubt, and redemption. That's not a cliché - it's authentic storytelling that respects both the character and the audience's intelligence.

 

It comes down to execution, which seems to confuse so many defending the ST.

An idea alone, and the ST is bereft of them, isn't enough. Not all aging hero stories are equal.

Mythic stories or not, writing well and consistently is still vital.

 

You started by claiming the aging hero story is "a done to death cliche," but now you're focusing on execution instead. Have you changed your perspective on whether the trope itself is overplayed?

This seems to be a different conversation entirely, and one where we're likely to reach even less agreement since perceptions of execution are highly subjective. Clearly, some viewers found Luke's portrayal deeply resonant and true to his character, while others felt it betrayed fundamental aspects of who he is.

What constitutes "well-written" varies significantly from person to person. The elements that make TLJ's portrayal of Luke work for me might be precisely what makes it fail for you - and neither of us would be wrong. Different strokes for different folks...

Lastly, I find your phrasing about "so many defending the ST" versus others unnecessarily divisive. This kind of us-versus-them framing doesn't lead to meaningful (nor fun) discussions about Star Wars.

Most Star Wars fans have mixed feelings about various aspects of all the trilogies - we're not neatly divided into "defenders" and "detractors."

When you frame the conversation this way, you shut down discussion. Maybe that's the point? I hope not.

 

One of these events was done seriously, and is Luke's most defining moment, and the one that made him a Jedi.

The other is a literally throw away joke, waiting for an audience laugh track, because that was more important than having our first real scene of Luke be poignant and serious about his current life.

One is epic. The other is a fart joke.

 

Yep, you don't not like the film, but that doesn't mean its thematic choices lack intention or meaning. Yep, TLJ took risks with beloved characters, and while not everyone appreciates those choices, they weren't made carelessly. The film attempts something genuinely meaningful with Luke's character, showing how his years of experience and reflection led him to a deeper understanding of what it truly means to be a Jedi - not just a warrior with a laser sword, but someone who can inspire hope and save lives without violence.

I missed it. Were we talking about Luke tossing his saber in TLJ?

Even if you dislike other aspects of the film, Luke's final stand represents one of that is philosophically consistent applications of Jedi philosophy we've seen in the entire saga. "Wars not make one great..." and all that.

 

It's not like Luke was using an anti-violence tactic in order to make an anti-violence statement. Unless I missed something, Luke did not believe Kylo could be turned, and so the idea that a peaceful approach would work makes no sense. He wasn't trying to inspire the galaxy to embrace an anti-violent stance. So highlighting the fact that he didn't use violence seems superficial. Unless I missed the bigger point? In that moment? Maybe. But the bigger picture was that he was inspiring people to fight for their freedom. Not peacefully but with violence. No?

 

Can we please stop lying about Luke Skywalker in the EU?

Anyone who has read the majority of the main story arc novels (and not the spinoffs), knows that Luke Skywalker was portrayed in an excellent manner, through a journey that started with him exploring the roots of the Jedi, and ended with him him being the Jedi Grandmaster, while still not perfect or super powerful. Pick whichever EU storyline you want (X-Wing, Thrawn, Jedi Academy, The New Jedi Order, Legacy Of The Force, Fate Of The Jedi, and the list goes on) and show me where Luke was portrayed to be this unbeatable, always correct, always powerful super Jedi. Nowhere. He still remained a hero throughout all these stories, after mistakes and wrong decisions, and he still could be seen as an example to follow though, and that's why his writing in the EU is in my opinion absolutely FLAWLESS.

On the contrary, in the sequels he is a coward, an indecisive grumpy old man, an arrogant snob, and someone who abandons his family, his friends, and the galaxy. When people say that he is out of character, they are 100% correct. Everyone evolves and changes through their life, but noone becomes an entirely different person, losing all core traits and beliefs. That was just some other character, but it certainly wasn't Luke Skywalker.

 

Have to agree about the EU, Whilst I have none of the modern comics, (I only have the 70's & 80's Marvels), I own and have read at least once all the novels from Heir to the Empire through to the New Jedi Order series and Luke isn't a 'superhero' in them at all. I do think that's an exaggeration to refer to him as that. Unless I'm missing something else in the other EU material?

The way you describe Luke in TLJ is the reason why I think its too much of a leap and a massive change in character for me to accept. I remember someone on here posting around the time of TFA, worried about what they would do with the legacy of Luke after TFA. He was beside himself that he was relegated to just appearing at the end and portrayed as a coward by running away, which was all against what we know Luke to be. I clearly remember replying to him many times saying stuff like don't jump the gun yet, wait til we see the next film. Oh man he was completely right to be concerned with what they did with Luke. I think his user name was childofwinds or something, maybe hes long gone now.

Anyway I have to ask if anyone actually enjoys this version of Luke in the sequels? No one has come out and said yes its enjoyable.

Can anyone remember what Mark's comments were about Luke, I'm sure he was subtly warning us in the build up to TLJ.

 

Exactly. And I didn't even like the EU or read most of them.

Those that demand we view Luke as a perfect over-powered superhero Jedi in pop-culture, do so because TLJ's meta-view landscape depends on our POV being part of the mythos of the story and the mythification of Luke. Rey our surrogate stand-in is US, the viewer, who's heard all about this mythic figure who blew up the DS and saved his father. (Which was apparently released to the galaxy by Snoke News, Channel 11, because the Skywalkers apparently kept that a dirty little secret. Which of course further doesn't make sense. Because the galaxy, judging by Rey, took that reveal rather well. And not how Snoke, the Skywalkers, or Ben, seem to think it ruined the family, but whatever. Just more strange logical inconsistencies)

That kind of story could have worked in isolation. As its own unique movie or story. Where the writer wants to work that meta mythos into an actual story. (Birdman almost comes to mind). But in a saga, where we've seen 7 prior episodes of this story, and 3 episodes of this character ... that doesn't really work. RJ can't just revamp the character as he sees fit, to fit in with a meta pop-culture view of Luke, and then bring him down a notch from that high perfect place he's supposedly sat for decades. When he never actually did in the saga story.

Luke was imperfect in the OT. Luke was imperfect in the EU. I really don't know many people even who thought he was perfect. Or infallible. Or even a superhero. Maybe in a joking or sarcastic manner, I think a lot of people pretend to do 'jedi moves' where we can do extreme feats and it's all silly. But that pop-culture POV can't be used to re-create the character just because someone is interested in making some kind of larger point about how Star Wars is silly and dumb.

 

The ridiculousness of Rey greeting Han Solo and the name of Luke Skywalker like some kind of fan girl provides one of the most cheesy and cringe moments in the film. Much like the terrible dialogue between Finn and Poe in the TIE fighter when he just randomly tells him about the map to Luke. I hadn't actually considered how meta it all is. But yeah, its seems weird when I think about it.

 

You're General Han Solo. Pilot of the Millennium Falcon. And you, sire, you are his pet dog. And you're Luke Skywalker. Your father was the most hated man in the galaxy, and you saw the goodness and conflict in him, and saved him.

Rey basically summarizes the OT to the characters that lived it, and to an audience that watched these movies 9000 times. Its their way of making Rey seem important, or at least, like a character. Because they didn't do any real character work on her, and stuffed that all into a mystery box for later.

Rey living on Jakku, heard all the stories and thought they were fake. Bed time stories. Or she thought Luke was a myth, but Han...Han was totally real? I dunno. Who knows. But when she meets these people, she instantly knows exactly what took place 30 some odd years ago. That's how myths work apparently.

 

I believe you may have misunderstood my position, and I apologize...that might be my fault for being unclear. I never argued that Luke was making some "anti-violence statement" or advocating pacifism as an ideology.

My argument has been that Luke's non-violent projection in TLJ is consistent with his character arc and represents his growth as a Jedi. This follows naturally from his choice not to kill Vader in Return of the Jedi and embodies a Jedi philosophy of using the Force for "knowledge and defense, never attack."

When you suggest that a "peaceful approach" makes no sense because Luke didn't believe Kylo could be turned, that's not addressing my actual point. I wasn't arguing Luke was trying to redeem Kylo - he explicitly said "I can't save him." It was about Luke choosing a method that saved the Resistance without resorting to violence himself.

I never suggested Luke was "inspiring the galaxy to embrace an anti-violent stance." I simply pointed out that his actions were consistent with Jedi philosophy.

My point has simply been that Luke's final act was a perfect culmination of his character journey and represented his deeper understanding of what being a Jedi truly means - not that he was making some grand political statement about non-violence.

Yes, let's do stop.

Flawless portrayal? In Dark Empire, literally one of the earliest depictions of a post ROTJ Skywalker, Luke literally joined the resurrected Emperor as his dark apprentice. He turned to the dark side - abandoning his friends, his principles, and everything you claim makes up his "core traits."

If you're going to accuse others of "lying" about the EU, perhaps you should acknowledge that EU Luke used Force projection (the very ability folks criticize in TLJ) in the Dark Empire comics decades ago. The same ability.

You claim EU Luke was never portrayed as "super powerful," yet in various EU stories he moved black holes with the Force, defeated a living planet called Abeloth, took down Star Destroyers single-handedly, and battled Sith Lords amplified by dark side nexuses.

The irony of praising EU Luke while criticizing sequel Luke for abandoning the galaxy is striking. EU Luke literally served a cloned Emperor Palpatine and had to be rescued by his sister. How is that maintaining his "core traits"?

The EU consistently escalated Luke's abilities far beyond what we saw in the films, creating increasingly powerful threats just to give him something to overcome. That's exactly the power creep that made many EU stories increasingly implausible.

I appreciate the EU stories too, but let's not pretend they presented a perfectly consistent version of Luke. They took just as many liberties (or more) with his character as the sequel trilogy did.

 

Whether you liked Dark Empire* or not doesn't change the fact that, contrary to @Master Jedi Fixxxer 's claim, that the EU did show Luke abandoning his core beliefs far more dramatically than in TLJ and was incredibly "super" powerd in his abilities. There are a few other examples in the EU of this as well.

*Many fans did and still do have love for Dark Empire. Maybe fans were just so excited about the one two punch of it and Heir to The Empire bringing Star Wars back into the forefront that our tastes were skewed? Can we really fault people for liking the Star Wars that they like?

You say this a lot, but I don't think the film lands on this squarely. It's certainly mentioned, Luke blames himself quite a bit...though Luke also says Ren's "heart had already turned" due to Snoke. Ren blames Luke and everyone else. Rey clearly questions Luke...but she finds out that Luke was right about Ren by the end of the film.

Yet, I think TLJ clearly show that Snoke is pulling the strings and actively manipulating Kylo Ren. We see it in action. More importantly, I think the films ends in a way where Kylo Ren is clearly responsible for his own actions/situation/bad behavior.

 

Aren’t you the one who said he was written as too perfect and like a superhero in the EU. That his Pop culture mythos was exaggerated and he needed to be shown as faulty?

Yeah you did.

So which is it? Looks like the EU showed him as having faults and failures and this whole “Luke was mythologized as too perfect” is your own interpretation