ST how different do you think a Lucas ST would've been?

The problem is that the preamble to the incident and in fact the previous 30 years of Luke's life are missing pieces of the puzzle. We have no idea what has shaped or formed Luke and his motives in the preceding years. Rian Johnson imagined a series of events and arrived, in my opinion, at a feasible and believable portrayal of Luke Skywalker's life at that time period, but he does ask for some faith from the viewer to cross that rather large chasm from one iteration to the other with him. Many fans aren't willing to do that, which is their prerogative.

 

I don't believe that Rian's take on Luke is that radical, nor do I consider it to be incorrect. I am in agreement that there is much missing context that would make the transition less jarring, but I don't agree with the absolute conclusions that determine "This is not Luke Skywalker".

 

I was going to use a Cobra Kai analogy regarding Chozen's first reappearance in 30 years and being a completely different character.

 

Chozen was defeated, but there was nothing in the character or situation at the end of KKII that suggested he would be humbled by that defeat, which made the character change in CK something of a (great btw) twist and surprise for the viewer. Indeed, of all Daniel's opponents, his (and Sato's) clinging to "honour" made the prospect of a grudge being held for 30 years all the more expected. But I digress...

I don't follow the BIB ?

 

How is this remotely similar. And who said people don't change. Not every change is the same. You are comparing a Japanese teenager who lost a karate fight and 30 years later is actually a human, as if that's something strange, with Luke's character assassination.

 

Disagree. When Luke peered into Ben's mind he was subjected to horrors and atrocities. Remember, Jedi can see/feel/experience possible future events in real time.

Luke says, "I saw darkness. I'd sensed it building in him. I'd see it at moments during his training. But then I looked inside... and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart. He would bring destruction, and pain, and death... and the end of everything I love because of what he will become. And for the briefest moment of pure instinct... I thought I could stop it."

So, while Luke wasn't physically in a battle/war. He's an astral traveling space wizard and he most definitely was in a "high stress" situation once he peered into Ben's mind and saw he was already corrupted by the Jedi's rival, the greatest evil, the dark side. Perhaps, RJ should have spoon fed the audience exactly what Luke experienced/saw.

I suspect that you are less invested in Chozen than you are in Luke Skywalker. The difference between these changes/shifts in characterization are not as different as you suggest.

Consider, you are very general with your description of Chozen metaphor and very specific with your description of Luke. I also think you are focusing on Luke at the wrong moment of time. Luke's character is still traditional/heroic/Jedi master Luke when his temple is destroyed.

IMO Luke's would be: "Why am I not an optimistic, hopeful hero, willing to dash into battle to save the day?" "Because I've spent my entire adult life fighting this cyclical/never ending battle against the dark side. The cost has been horrible personal (and galactic) tragedies and the cycle hasn't ended. I am no longer going to be a part of the problem."

 

For me, the correlation between the two scenes is not in Luke being influenced by extraordinary circumstances as opposed to being at peace in the middle of the night. The correlation comes from Luke having the stark realization of how closely and how quickly he came to the dark side, albeit while being provoked, and seeing how quickly and easily Ben gravitates toward the dark side in normal situations. It scared Luke when it happened to him under duress, so it has him completely horrified to see it in Ben under normal circumstances and situations.

 

It is similar in the respect that both characters have not been seen for 30 years and who, when they were brought back to the screen, were somewhat different characters than they were in their first iteration based on their interim, fictional life experiences. It seems to be that this however is not an acceptable change for Luke, despite the similar gaps in backstory where any such changes could have quite feasibly occurred, without that being strange either.

 

That's simply not true. The old Gary Kurtz interviews about their original plans for the sequels shows that there were plans for the prequels going far back as ESB/ANH.

 

Of course it's not acceptable for Luke. You are comparing apples to oranges. Two very different characters that went through two different changes on screen, one of which is not believable.

What necessitates for me to accept any depiction of a character that changed after 30 years, just because I accept the one that was shown in Cobra Kai?

I really do NOT understand this struggle from people who thought Mark Hamill was ok in TLJ to have everyone accept the change is plausible.

I wish it weren't that way, but for me it's just never going to be plausible.

 

Of course it is plausible, even if the characterisation is not to your liking. It isn’t like he transformed into a giant Sarlacc and changed his name to Kevin. He was simply depicted as a man who had become disillusioned with and had rejected his previous philosophy due to what he perceived as a personal failure and a betrayal of the trust his sister had placed in him with her son. Very plausible in my opinion.

 

JW Rinzler's "The Making of Star Wars : Return of the Jedi" has a section in it from July of 1981 where George sits down in person and lays out the backstory of Anakin for Kasdan, Marquand and Kazanjian. Script writing didn't begin until 1994.

This excerpt from an interview Lucas did with Empire Magazine in September 1999 clearly shows that the PT was always on the table. He needed a break, he needed technology to advance. I have never seen anything that reported him saying there would never be more films until an interview he did in 2012.

"At the end of nine years of making Star Wars, I was not ready to continue it. I was completely burned out on it. I was more passionate about raising my kids than making movies and especially making Star Wars. So I made other kinds of movies and TV shows and advanced the technology I needed.

My passion is for filmmaking. I'll go and do filmmaking that is easier to do, where you can realise your ideas better. And nine years is a big part of your life, and to commit to another nine years, I didn't wanna do that right away."

 

Yes, but after 1983 and Return of the Jedi, George Lucas said numerous times that he was done with Star Wars. It wasn't a planned hiatus. He was burnt out. That's why many elements from a proposed 3rd trilogy were folded into ROTJ, etc. It was only after the digital FX revolution T2/Jurassic Park that George Lucas dipped his toes in the water (Young Indy) and decided that he would, indeed, return to Star Wars.

Odd that you say the PT was always on the table, and the provide quotes with Lucas stating that this wasn't necessarily the case. Again, after 1983 it was NOT a definite that he'd do more Star Wars films. So, that's not "always on the table" is it?

In any event, George Lucas most definitely created the OT to be able to stand on it's own without a PT. Yes, thankfully, he was renewed, found inspiration, technology, and such to do another trilogy. Yet, the suggestion that Lucas created the OT in some incomplete manner to be "finished" or "completed" by the PT is simply incorrect. Again. It was NEVER guaranteed that George Lucas was ever going to do more Star Wars.

 

I didn't make the suggestion that he created the OT in an "incomplete manner to be finished or completed by the PT." The ideas/loose drafts with some solid detail for the PT were always there. Pretty sure the words " I didn't want to do it right away" don't mean it was never going to happen which is how your post came across.

 

Perhaps you should go back and look at the origin/reason for my response. I wasn't talking to you initially. I was responding to this:

This is simply incorrect. Lucas didn't have "plans to fill gaps (in the OT) with the PT." Fact is, after 1983, Lucas had no plans to go back to Star Wars. Eventually, he changed his mind.

 

The movies were literally released as episode 5 and 6.
Lucas planned to eventually make the prequels since 1980.
Why are we even discussing this?

 

Because some of this historical revision, including what you are saying, is incorrect.

After ROTJ, Lucas was not "on pause" or "taking a break." After 1983, Lucas was done with Star Wars. It wasn't a forgone conclusion that he was ever going to make the prequels. Therefore, it was a BIG deal when he announced that he was, indeed, going to make more Star Wars films.

Now, like a lot of things, he may have revised his story and told us that "The Tragedy of Darth Vader" was always the plan, or he was "waiting for technology to catch up" yet this was not always the case, nor what he stated at the time.

Again, to the initial point: if a person says that Lucas created the OT always having the intention to do the PT to "fill in gaps", that person is incorrect. Fact is, yes, Lucas had a backstory he developed when creating the OT, he also had some semblance of plans for sequels. However, for all intents and purposes the OT was designed to stand on it's own without needing additional prequels/sequels.

Again, Lucas didn't know if he'd ever get to making Prequels or Sequels.

 

No, what I said was not incorrect. ESB was released in the movie theaters as Episode V.
If you release a movie in 1980 with the title Episode V, it means you are planning to do Episodes I, II and III at some point.
Whether you get to do it eventually, might depend on a lot of factors, but the plan was clearly to do the first three movies at some point.
Otherwise he wouldn't have added V to ESB and VI to ROTJ.

You're just assuming he was done with Star Wars. Clearly, he wasn't.

I don't really pay attention to these claims, nor do I find them important. I never understood why people get all riled up about what Lucas says anyway.

No one can predict the future, correct. But he definitely planned to make the prequels.

 

Agreed. I never understood that either, especially considering Lucas has contradicted himself repeatedly about a great many things when it comes to Star Wars.

 

Clearly you are a bit unclear in the developmental history of the Star Wars saga, or don't understand the creative process that these films went through. He didn't have it all mapped out, he didn't know for certain that he'd ever make films beyond ROTJ, and he certainly didn't design the OT with gaps to be filled in by a PT.

I'm not assuming. George Lucas has quoted as saying he didn't know if he'd get around to doing them. It wasn't set in stone. Having a story and planning to make the films are two different tasks. There was a long stretch post ROTJ where Star Wars was done. George Lucas wasn't interested in Star Wars anymore and fans thought he was done. This very similar to how things were after 2005 and Revenge of the Sith. According to Lucas there was "no story" and "no plans" for anything beyond Episodes 1-6. Then, as he's known to do, he changed his mind.

Obviously.

You are simply wrong. He hadn't always planned to make them. If you would do a bit of research ( or were perhaps a bit older) you'd know this was the case. Thanks for the discourse.