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

So? He still blames them.

I don't care. He goes enough to dismiss the lives of his sister and his friend, only teaches something to try and prove the jedi should end, lies seemingly about what went down in the hut, blames others for his problems, and still only helps after Yoda gives him a pep talk, not because of Rey or anything she does or says. Even then, he still never is shown to admit to his sister what he did to her son.

Nothing in the movie ever says or shows what the movie thinks the previous generation did that led to their failure, what it thinks Luke's failure was, how Luke repeating the old jedi order led to him failing, or if he even failed because of that at all, and doesn't how and what he would learn from that failure.

The thematic intent doesn't change how the character and story is written.

 

@Alliyah Skywalker I’m not sure, personally, if the movie wasn’t trying to make audiences dislike the character of Luke. Not something I would ever have thought pre-TROS but something i strongly suspect now.

 

For most of the movie? Perhaps. But the much-touted Crait was obviously supposed to be a rah-rah moment for the character. If the intent was to really loathe him throughout, even as clumsy as it was, it wouldn't have been in the movie.

I think it underestimated how far (or not) you can lead an audience re: a character.

 

I think Crait Luke was intended as plausible deniability.

No one was going to try to make Luke Skywalker less likeable as a character without such deniability. TLJ was a movie designed to promote gaslighting.

 

It's kind of reflective of the real world in a really depressing way:
A woman and two people of color blow up a planet destroying weapon at great personal risk, thus saving millions of lives.... Meh.
A white man shows up and stands there makes a long distance phone call at the last minute after the woman and POC have done the hard work.... OMG THE BEST THING EVER, I'M SO INSPIRED!!

 

I don't think LFL/Disney is that insidious - let me rephrase, I don't think they are that insidiously clever. I see it more as clumsy incompetence paired with carelessness.

When I was in like 7th grade, couple of my classmates had the bright idea to pour gasoline onto some twigs and played around with a lighter. Now, while they weren't the brightest bulbs, they were not so ignorant that they didn't know what happens if you light up gasoline. And I'm sure they took some precautions. But I totally understand that the reaction to second degree burns on the face of one and permanent scaring was sonething like "gee, who thought it would turn out exactly like that". Not that the others planned to disfigure who was used to known as one of the prettiest boy in school.

 

Unlikely that literally *that* many people could be clumsy and incompetent. More likely imo that there were 2-3 folk in the SG (remember that the SG poured over every inch of that script, according to RJ) who wanted that outcome - perhaps thinking it would be best for the brand long-term - and everyone else didn’t really care or pay that degree of attention.

I think the snyder cut saga should have dispelled the fantasy that Hollywood is entirely composed of extremely well-intentioned people without personal agendas that result in twisted perceptions of what “good for the brand” means.

 

I don’t believe in well-intentioned either but I can totally believe in ego and widespread incompetence. Those are not mutually exclusive to me. As is the inability to read the room, so to speak.

However TLJ is fundamentally a Johnson movie and apparently writing "manpain" like that and characters like that is what appeals to him. So even if one or two people in the story group saw the script, knew how it would land and muhaha-ed silently, the people who really had veto-ing powers - which is nowhere in the SG - didn't use them either. Even Iger could have said "hell no" and it wouldn't have happened.

 

This is where I end up.

I agree with @JoJoPenelli that the deconstruction of Luke was intentional but like @Alliyah Skywalker has pointed out - I don't believe LFL realized how bad they were messing up SW in doing so. Echo chamber among RJ and leadership - so much that what Mark Hamill and the rest of the cast was saying was ignored. They were a go with the RJ trilogy because they believed what the critics were saying and thought fans would see it the same way.

They thought their apology tour post TLJ would be enough to save the response but it obviously didn't.

 

I mean, according to RJ every word of every draft was gone over and approved by the SG so I absolutely credit them in how it turned out. And while they didn’t have official decision-making power, if those who did deferred to them, then they had unofficial decision-making power.

Iger wasnt paying attention. Neither was KK - it’s unclear what she did aside from arbitrarily hiring and firing creatives. (She certainly wasn’t exercising oversight except occasionally by accident.)

There are, in fact, persons who hate the legacy characters and think weakening the fans’ attachment to them would facilitate the promotion of stories with wholly new characters (think: THR, a SG initiative). And are egotistical enough to think that new characters could easily replace legacy characters in terms of sales and attachment.

 

But see, that is exactly what I would classify as clumsy incompetence and carelessness. One group basically shrugs and leaves it to others and the other group for some reason believes beloved characters grow on trees and can easily be replaced and generated.

I just expect more of my evil masterminds.

 

I really like the idea that the jedi shouldn't have a monopoly on force power and that Luke came to think they were bad for the galaxy. I also like the idea that he wouldn't want to train anyone because a single Jedi going dark has such profound implications for the gffa. These ideas are good follow ups to the wider saga story, which are mostly absent in the other 2 entries. I so wish RJ had centered these issues, Luke's genuine, justified fear over them, and made them more relevant to Rey, rather than so heavily focusing on Luke's resentment.

 

But they never did. Nowhere in the Saga has it ever been said or implied that only Jedi have Force powers. The opposite, in fact.

Why would he think that? And when would he have come to this conclusion? He mentions Obi-wan’s mistake with Vader *but he learned that way back in ANH.

Again - he learned this in ANH. It had zero impact on him wanting to become or eventually becoming a Jedi or training others.

They’re absent in the other Saga entries because they were rendered utterly nonsensical *checks notes* literally decades ago, if not from Day 1 of the franchise.

He likely didn’t center these issues because they were merely half-a$$’d excuses for Depressed Luke and made no actual sense in the context off the Saga.

 

Maybe "monopoly" isn't quite the right way of putting it. But the idea that the Jedi order has a dogmatic view of the force and a dogmatic view of what constitutes "good" or the "light side" and that this dynamic has potentially negative galactic implications is a major thematic strain of the PT and the OT? And I think Luke rejecting the concept of the Jedi in light of all this history and his experiences is a potentially interesting idea that has precedent given what was portrayed in the other 6 films and would be a potentially meaningful continuation of that story.

Sure, we see Luke overcome much of this in ROTJ. But I think there is story potential in Luke trying to rebuild the Jedi order in a way that avoids the mistakes of the PT Jedi, or at least, that was the natural way to go after ROTJ and the PT.

When would he have come to the conclusion? I think the idea is that what happened with Kylo and his students would be traumatic and cause him to rethink certain things, yeah. And yeah, he learns what happened to his father in the OT and how devastating this one man falling was for the galaxy. Then on top of that he later has the lived experience of teaching his nephew, who then falls just like his grandfather to the enormous detriment to the galaxy. I don't think that's a stretch or nonsensical at all, really, for there to be a discussion on the danger of ultra-powerful force users. I think it's an interesting question in light of what happened with Vader and Kylo.

Geez? The PT and TCW is all over these concepts, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about when you say they are so "utterly nonsensical."

They were kinda half-a$$d, I'd agree. Literally all I'm saying is there's some story potential in Luke having legitimate crisis of faith over whether the Jedi are good for the galaxy or not in light of his experiences. I think it's there in TLJ, but not the main thrust of his arc which mostly focuses on his bitterness and resentment to the detriment of his OT journey, as you and many others continue to repeatedly point out.

They're not absent in other saga entries. Episodes I-VI explore this broader concept of the light/dark and the Jedi's flawed approach to it. Anakin, Luke, Grogu, Rey are all characters the jedi were afraid to train because they could be susceptible to the dark side. I think fleshing out and continuing that piece of the narrative through Luke in the ST had potential.

 

No, it isn’t. The PT makes clear that the Jedi are dogmatic and have lost their way but there is little to no focus on interrogating whether what they deem “good” (or light side) is actually good or whether what they deem “bad” (or dark side) is, in fact bad.

And we learn nothing about the Order’s beliefs in the OT at all. Lucas literally invented the Code *for the PT* and the line between good and evil is extremely clear and unquestioned. (The only question is whether Vader can become good again.)

So I’m rather perplexed as to where you’re getting this from

Luke rejected the old Jedi dogma in RotJ (to the extent he was taught it, which wasn’t much).This isn’t some revolutionary idea, either for a SW writer or for Luke to manifest *30 years later* in-story.

That would have been nice but that’s not what we got so I don’t see the relavence.

What did Ben’s fall teach Luke that Vader’s fall didn’t? Vader was active for *20 years* and had a huge impact on the galaxy and Luke’s own life and friends. He saw Vader’s power. He saw the emperor’s power. The idea that he didn’t understand how dangerous a dark sider could be until his nephew destroyed the temple is genuinely hilarious and requires ignoring a big chunk of the OT entirely.

Geez? The PT and TCW is all over these concepts, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about when you say they are so "utterly nonsensical."[/quote]

I should have been clearer in how I articulated my response.

The idea of the implications of a Jedi going dark was already thoroughly familiar to Luke. Very, very thoroughly familiar. RJ decided to write a Luke Skywalker who miraculously forgot all of his life experiences after the OT because he wanted to write a very specific angsty Luke rather than work within the confines of the actual canon of the actual Saga TLJ is actually a part of. ANH established that Luke knew Vader’s fall was due to the poor tutelage of Obi-wan; TLJ has Luke act like he only discovered this when Ben turned. Luke learned of the power and consequences of dark siders running amok throughout the OT; again, TLJ act as if Luke was oblivious until Kylo destroyed his temple. Bonus points for Luke talking smack about his beloved old mentor who literally died to protect him.

30 years too late for that. They could have stuck that in a gap-year novel.

The ST isn’t Luke’s story anyway. So not the time or the place.

Luke didn’t need an arc in the ST. TLJ’s soiling of Luke’s character came at the expense of the actual protagonist’s story, which makes it all the more ironic.

Again, I think that Luke having some crisis of Jedi faith in his own story much closer to RotJ could be very interesting. But it had no place in the next-gen movies set decades later. And RJ knew this. The SJ knew this. The SJ could have commissioned such a book, in fact! But they didnt.

“Good” and “bad” are pretty fundamental to these movies. The PT doesn’t interrogate how the Jedi view this binary, though. The OT certainly doesn’t.

And they were correct re Anakin. Grogu isnt a Saga character and didn’t exist circa TLJ. Neither Obi-wan nor Yoda refused to train Luke nor did Yoda express hesitancy because he thought Luke would fall. Afterwards he says that Luke shouldn’t have run off because *he wasn’t ready for the burden* of knowing Vader was his father, not because he could have fallen to the dark side.

As for Rey….Luke doesn’t want to train her for half a dozen stupid reasons, none of them fear she’d fall to the dark side.

Gap year book. I’m a Luke stan but I never wanted Luke to hog the spotlight from Rey in the ST whether he was in-character or not.

 

I think you're putting a lot of words in my mouth, frankly, and assuming a bunch of things I never opined on. I never once commented on the value of Luke having an ST arc in and of itself, I never said Luke should dominate the ST (I specifically said in my original post that I wish these things had been made relevant to Rey), and I'm not presenting these points as though they are supposed to be some air tight statement of the PT/OT's themes. I merely noted their existence, their relevance to things that are in TLJ, and how I thought these general ideas could have had some potential. Case in point:

Yes....my entire original point was that we didn't get these things outside a couple lines in TLJ and that I thought they could've had potential for an ST story. So you agree?

I'm perplexed that you seem determined to not know what I'm talking about. Yes, we learn they're dogmatic, and their views on the lightside are in large part what makes them dogmatic, from my viewing. We do learn about these beliefs in the PT: attachments are bad, strong "good" emotions like love can lead to fear, which leads to the dark side...etc, so Jedi shouldn't get married, have kids (...etc).

These things are enormously important to the PT and Anakin, and they're meant to inform and contrast with Luke's position and choices in the OT with regards to his father and his own relationship with attachments and his dark side. We don't learn about the order's specific views in the OT, but we do get an idea from Obi Wan and Yoda's perspective, and the PT elaborates on this and directly ties it to Anakin's fall as a contrast to Luke's struggles. I don't think I'm saying anything exactly original. It's the main story / character arc across the 6 films.

So you agree that there was a story throughout the PT/OT about the Jedi's flawed ways and how Luke was able to transcend them? I think the ST should have continued that story through a new generation, with Luke in a supporting role.

Once again, it's actually extremely relevant to the point I made on my own and you chose to respond to. I agree with much of the criticism of Luke's arc in TLJ that I see here. All I was saying was that there were certain ideas within that storyline that I did like and that I believe would have been better if fleshed out more.

I didn't say this, but it's not just about Luke. I think the idea of trying to rebuild the Jedi while avoiding the dogmatic ways of the PT jedi and being vigilant of the danger of the dark side is something that should've been a major thrust for the entire ST and its new characters.

Well, yeah, exactly, it'd be up to a good screenwriter to determine how Luke would have changed and responded to events happening in those 30 years in a way that feels true to the character in the OT. The whole issue is that the ST never gives us a compelling enough reason for Luke's situation.

I literally never said he didn't understand the potential implications before Kylo. I just said his trauma around Kylo could be another contributing factor. I think the idea that Luke's view on the dark side and the jedi couldn't have shifted after the lived experience of creating his own jedi temple, his nephew turning, and his students all dying is hilarious. Can it be done in a way that is regressive and ignores his OT arc? Literally obviously. But we're talking about hypotheticals here, and you're assuming the vague hypothetical story I mentioned would inevitably have all the same flaws as TLJ.

There's endless things Luke could have learned from Kylo falling that he didn't from Vader purely from having a different vantage point alone. It's one thing to hear events that happened before you were born and had no control over, it's another to experience similar events yourself in an environment where you are in charge. I think that's just a fact about life.

I feel like you're approaching me as though I'm trying to defend to the death the entire TLJ Luke arc? Once again, I was just picking out a kernel of things I liked about it and that I wish had been expanded on more because I think it would've made a better story.

I mean, I don't think it's crazy to say that Luke's views on Vader's fall could have evolved sometime between him learning about the Jedi for the first time in ANH and 35 years later in TLJ. Yes, the implications were familiar to him, and that's exactly why Kylo falling may have had such a devastating impact on him. He thought he could prevent what happened with his father happening again by rejecting the dogmatic ways of the Jedi and carving out a new path that doesn't eschew attachments, but it didn't work.

Plus, Luke doesn't exactly know in the OT WHY Vader fell because GL hadn't written it. He doesn't know that his fear of losing his loved ones drove him there or anything about the Jedi's orthodoxy or anything like that. We don't know what conclusions Luke would come to if he himself watched the PT. I think there is storytelling room for exploring how Luke understands his father and his fall 30 years later, especially in light of what happens to his nephew. If 30 years is "too late" I mean, okay, but that's the story and that's when they chose to set the movie.

...Implying that I do want Luke to hog the spotlight from Rey in the ST? I didn't say Luke needed an arc in the ST nor did I say that Luke's arc should be the main ST story. But if he is going to have some emotional involvement in the events of the ST, just like Obi Wan and Yoda and Vader do in the OT, then being disillusioned with the Jedi and working with the next gen to overcome this could have been, IMO, a potentially good story for the ST if done well.

I don't agree one way or the other about whether 30 years is objectively too late or not. It's a story, you can literally have things happen however and whenever. Given that much of Anakin and Luke's stories revolve around the issues we're talking about right now, I think those issues should have stayed prominent for the protagonist of the ST, not tucked away into a novel. And since Luke is a part of the ST and it was his job to rebuild the Jedi order, I think it makes sense that an ST would potentially explore these issues in part through Luke.

My point was that these themes and plot points are deeply relevant to Star Wars across the board because in the moment it felt to me like you were writing them off entirely.

Yes, they were right about Anakin, but I really don't think their being "right" was meant to justify their dogma. And Yoda did refuse to train Luke at first, I'd say it was a bit more than hesitancy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole "he's too old" stuff in large part to do with the Jedi's desire to train kids who didn't have a lot of attachments and thus, less potential to fall to the dark side? It may not be explicitly stated in Luke's case in ESB, but it's hard not to make the connection between Luke and Anakin, who were both told that they were too old and that their attachments were potentially dangerous.

Plus, even in the OT, Luke's relationship with his "dark side" is deeply relevant to his journey.

And it's objectively not true that Luke wasn't scared Rey would fall to the dark side. He says she went "straight to the dark" after that one lesson, he compares her power to Kylo's and says she's dangerous, and he accuses Rey of selling her soul to the dark side/Kylo (I forget the exact line) when he catches them in the hut.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

To me a potential conflict that would have followed Luke's OT arc would be for him to have almost too much faith in Kylo. This is where I expected the movie to go before TLJ was released. In other words, Ben is demonstrating many dark tendencies and espousing dark side truths in training. Luke continues to train Ben and build him up in the force despite protests from other force users and these warning signs (which continue to grow and grow), because he has seen one of the most evil men in the galaxy make the right choice. Surely Ben who will follow suit, Luke believes. Then, Ben turns, killing Luke's students and destroying the school in the process. Luke's faith in himself as a teacher is shaken and he feels responsibility for those lost lives. When Rey arrives and perhaps shows in their interactions her temper/anger at what has happened to her in life, Luke doesn't trust himself to "read" Rey correctly and is hesitant to train her. Drama ensues. Eventually Luke comes around and trains her (novel concept!). Works also if Rey is Luke's daughter because he is especially terrified of losing her again, but this time to the dark side.

 

Can’t help but notice how the story drags inexorably towards Luke and Kylo at the expense of Rey if 1. Rey is unrelated to either, 2. She had zero connection to Kylo’s fall and/or 3. The movie insists that we need to know Kylo’s backstory at all, or Luke’s.

Reading through the discussion it’s painfully obvious that no matter how one would “fix” Kylo’s or Luke’s story in TLJ, any story for them that excludes Rey as a fundamental element is a problem.

(Not to mention Finn but his sidelining really indicts the fundamental structure and assumptions of the movie so yeah.)

 

Agreed. It's a pet peeve of mine when people complain about the fact that JJ did not expound upon Kylo's backstory in TROS. Nope. That blame falls to RJ.* When RJ decided that Rey was completely unrelated and unconnected to Kylo/Luke, he made Kylo's backstory completely irrelevant to this trilogy.

* OK, maybe some blame goes to JJ because I believe he should have retconned that stupid answer completely, but I have a feeling his hands were tied.

 

Considering how he clearly tried to undo Finn’s sidelining and saw Finn’s plot clumsily hacked out of the film for his trouble, my guess is that there were things he was not allowed to do and DLF were happy to sacrifice the quality of the final movie if it meant stopping JJ from doing them.

 

Finn definitely should have had his own story, but it should definitely also have connected to the force story, that seems to be the set up in TFA, and of course the final film confirms he is force sensitive, it’s just not well planned out, but I don’t think his story needed to be separate from the force story

With Luke, I’m still mostly fine with his portrayal in the ST, especially the scenes on Crait

 

I don't think Finn was part of the force story in TFA. People often have to over-examine to really see any clue he was ever attached to anything force related. But Finn was never meant to be a jedi in TFA. Like Leia it was decided much later that they would have Force sensitivity. and even then they left to the last minute as a surprise.

But yeah i agree Finn should have had his own story.