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

Apologies...this was bad phrasing. I think that this is part of Luke's pity party/point of view that he later jettisons.

 

I think you are missquoting or missreading me, not purposefully, I hope.

I said post ROTJ Luke was more mythologized (more mythic?) in the narrative than he was in the OT, and Luke was often shown to be more overpowered/super Jedi than the OT ever portrayed him.

My exact words:

"Luke mythologized?" Yes. Post ROTJ he was...I pointed to several examples contrasting the OT to post ROTJ versions of Luke. Too perfect? Without flaws? I don't think so.

Again, what's with the hositlity and divisiveness?

Bottom Line: I never claimed post ROTJ was flawless. Even when comparing his powers/prowess to those of superheroes. Superheroes aren't inherently perfect, nor usually written as such. Not even Superman. Again, my comparing Luke to superheroes had more to do with his powers/prowess than infallibility.

 

Indeed, let's stop. I specifically clarified that I was referring to the over-arching main story in the entirety of the EU stories, and I even gave a few examples as proof. A couple of random comic books (which btw are not nearly as impactful or significant as a few dozens of 400 page novels, which flesh out characters and stories thousands of times more than any comic book can do) don't prove me wrong. If anything, it proves my point, that all TLJ apologists who try to use the EU as an argument, fail miserably to do so.

1. Luke did not move celestial black holes like the ones we have observed in this existing universe. Instead, he manipulated tiny localized black holes created by dovin bassals in the Yuuzhan Vong wars. This took a tremendous amount of effort and he passed out afterwards, and there is nothing unreasonable about this. I have multiple degrees in Physics, and I can assure you that the forces generated by hypothetical tiny localized black holes are something a powerful Force user should absolutely be able to deal with. Excellent sci-fi writing if you ask me.
2. There was never a living planet called Abeloth. Abeloth was one of the supreme Overlords of the Force, pretty much in the same category as the Father, the Son and the Daughter of Mortis. Also, Luke did NOT defeat her by himself. The entire Fate Of The Jedi series explains clearly that no ordinary Force user can defeat her on their own, and it took a collective effort after collaborating with the Lost Tribe of the Sith in order to simply contain her.
3. Taking down an Imperial Star Destroyer is for sure one of the most "exaggerated" things that we have seen a Jedi do in the EU, but ultimately size matters not. We have seen in canon media Darth Vader stop a spaceship from leaving easily. We have even seen Rey (what a joke of a scene) stop a spaceship with the Force and antagonizing Kylo Ren over it. Luke btw is supposed to be the most powerful Force user in the galaxy in post-ROTJ stories. That still doesn't make him a god of the Force or an invincible super Jedi, as has been clearly implied in all these conversations.
4. There is nothing wrong with Luke Skywalker being able to battle Sith Lords and defeat them. I don't even understand why this is something he shouldn't be able to do. I suppose you truly wanted Luke to be weak and lame. Then good for you, you got TLJ showing you that.

The majority of the EU stories are perfectly plausible and totally fine. Your arguments above make me wonder if you have read the specific novels mentioned, or if you just go by what other users may be saying.

 

Let's stop. But let me follow your example first write some more

Listen, you accused me of "lying" about the old EU. Yet, I find it interesting that you're dismissing Dark Empire as merely "a couple of random comic books" when it was/is easily one of the most significant and influential EU stories ever produced. It was seminal and it (along with Heir to the Empire) was responsible for kicking off the Star Wars resurgance in a massive way. Either you are unaware of it's impact, or purposefully underselling it's importance/impact.

The novels you reference don't contradict my point. I never claimed Luke wasn't portrayed well in the EU - I said he became more mythologized and powerful post-ROTJ than he was in the original trilogy. This happened across both comics and novels. Your dismissal of comics as inherently less significant than novels is also peculiar (and elitist) when discussing Star Wars, a franchise that began as a visual medium (partly based on comics) and where comics have always been an important part of the expanded universe.

And let's not create arbitrary divisions between "TLJ apologists" and others. I'm discussing how different Star Wars media portrayed Luke Skywalker over time, not defending or attacking any particular film. The way you frame this as an "us versus them" debate doesn't lead to meaningful discussion about the character. You are creating a fake pissing contest with someone who basically approves of and loves every Star Wars film.

These technical clarifications don't change my central point about Luke's portrayal evolving across Star Wars media. I wasn't attempting to provide scientific analysis of fictional Force powers, but illustrating how Luke's abilities expanded greatly beyond what we saw in the original trilogy.

Whether they were "dovin basal black holes" rather than celestial ones, or whether Abeloth was technically a Force entity rather than a living planet, or whether Luke had help - these details don't contradict my core argument that post-ROTJ Luke was portrayed with significantly greater powers and mythic status than OT Luke.

I never claimed Luke shouldn't be able to defeat Sith Lords or be powerful. My comparison was between his portrayal in the OT versus later works. The original films showed Luke struggling against Vader and the Emperor - later works showed his powers expanding dramatically.

This isn't about wanting Luke to be "weak and lame" - it's about acknowledging how different creators have portrayed the character over time. The fact that you need to provide detailed technical explanations for these incredible feats actually reinforces my point about his expanded abilities.

I've read the novels and comics in question. I never said EU stories weren't "plausible" within their own context or that they weren't enjoyable. Thanks for questioning my fandom though. That's always nice.

My point is simply that Luke was portrayed much more mythically and powerfully in post-ROTJ media than he ever was in the original trilogy. In the OT, we saw a farmboy gradually becoming a Jedi who barely defeated Vader and needed his father's help against the Emperor. The post-ROTJ Luke (whether in novels, comics, or The Mandalorian) displays abilities and receives in-universe reverence far beyond what we saw in the films.

I don't have a problem with this evolution - it makes sense for his character's journey. But this expanded portrayal helps explain some fan expectations and why TLJ depicted Luke struggling with the burden of living up to "the myth of Luke Skywalker." The film directly addresses this when Luke says "I became a legend" and grapples with what that legend meant to the galaxy.

The gap between the man and the myth is a central theme of TLJ, drawing on how the character had been built up both in-universe and in our real-world fandom since Return of the Jedi.

 

Catching you taking both sides is ...being hostile now?

This not you?

So which is it now? He was shown as imperfect in the EU (after the movies, in all those novels, comics etc)...or what? Based on what you yourself just posted, he seemed to be full of failure even in the EU.

You're the one who was arguing that his meta-mythos became unrealistic and somehow this informs his story in TLJ, and why his failure there was so important and relatable. But that's not what happened though.

 

Re-read the bolded. Do you see the part that says "...and years of fan discussions that gradually turned him into this perfect, all powerful Jedi.."?

I am speaking broadly about how the character evolved in pop culture/fan perception. "Not my Luke..." and all that. I am not claiming that every EU story portrayed him without flaws.

You see the distinction right?

Regarding your claim that I argued "his meta-mythos became unrealistic and somehow this informs his story in TLJ" - that's actually pretty close to what I believe did happen, both within the Star Wars universe and in our real-world fandom. Every fan has their own version of what Luke means to them that comes from their personal take on the OT...and beyond.

Bottom line: There's a difference between saying "all EU stories portrayed Luke as perfect" (which I never claimed) versus observing how the character evolved in cultural perception through various media and fan discussions over time.

If you truly think I am arguing in bad faith..... I apologize. I could have worded this better, but my point stands.

Lastly, here's why I am sensing hostility:

-Accusing me of "taking both sides" and arguing in bad faith
-Using confrontational phrasing like "Catching you..." and "So which is it now?"
-Presenting my statements as contradictory without acknowledging nuance and ignoring context

Maybe I am missreading you?

 

Sounds like a compromise…

 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. It raises questions....
.
How do creators know what will alienate fans? What obligations are there in that sense? Shouldn't creators just do what they think is right/cool/best? Lucas alienated fans many times with the prequels, special editions, and controversial additions like midi-chlorians, but he followed his vision regardless. Did he care about fan backlash? Should he have? Where's the line between creator freedom and fan expectations?

I'm not sure this was Johnson's thesis about symbolic heroes being more "real." I think it was acknowledging that Luke Skywalker WAS presented as a real guy in the OT and not nearly as mythic as he became in the post-ROTJ narrative. Luke's end in TLJ seems to continue a tradition rather than introduce something new, cynical, thesis. Star Wars established this trope in the previous trilogies and even in the first film with Obi-Wan's sacrifice.

Again, is it Johnson's duty to make the version of Luke I/we like? How do we all agree on that? We all have different relationships with the character. Johnson made the movie as he thought was best, just as Lucas did repeatedly throughout his career.

I wonder if our reactions stem from our personal relationships with Luke rather than any objective failure of storytelling. While Johnson's interpretation may not align with yours, it offers an exploration of legacy and legend that fits within Star Wars' tradition of bold, sometimes divisive storytelling.

 

I don't necessarily think Lucas set out to alienate the fanbase with midis. Or anything else for that matter.

There was a quote of him during the making of AOTC where Yoda battles Dooku. And he goes "And then Yoda pulls out his little saber and flips around. That's what the fans want to see"

I think Lucas genuinely wanted to please his fans and audiences. Did he always get this? NOPE. He took risks, he did things out side of the box, but I think he wanted the fans to love/accept whatever creative decision was being made. He may have wanted to alienate critics, and Hollywood stuidos, but he wanted the fans to love it. (Even if he was also doing these movies, for just himself, as an artist)

Alienating is something different. It's purposefully setting out to make some fans more than uncomfortable. Its a choice to do something just because you it won't be liked by most fans. Or worse, doing something because you want to push them out of the fandom entirely.

I think RJ definitely did this. He seems love doing this type of thing. Being divisive was the point. There's video of him relishing this aspect of storytelling in some ancient home-video, and he was even on stage refuting MH (who spoke out about giving the fans what they want) by saying 'we have to tell the story we want to tell", to thunderous applause. I think he would have felt he failed, or worse, been entirely bored if the entire fandom liked his movie.

 

Lucas never set out to purposely alienate fans/audiences or provoke... he just tried to make stories/films he believed in... and by and large the audience went with him. I still remember audiences going wild when Yoda drew his lightsaber in AOTC... and when he confronted Palpatine in ROTS. AOTC and ROTS made Yoda into a bit on an action figure, and I know some older fans were disgruntled with Yoda being in combat, and being less 'zen', but ultimately he's a Jedi and the Jedi have been in combat situations (as established in 1977).... so it was a logical extension of the idea that Yoda *would* have been a master in those areas.

 

Well when Lucas spoke about his Sequel trilogy he said he knew that fans would probably hate what he did with it, but it was to him still completing the story. or at least the story he wanted to tell. And since early talk was that he was focusing more on the workings of the force. Which fans complained about it for episode 1. It does seem like he would have focused on this element whether fans wanted it or not. Which the fans would have seen as going against them and what they wanted.

In terms of alienating fans. It makes no sense to set out to alienate fans. No one sets out to ruin Star Wars. Everyone has an opinion and everyone has vision. Even if it doesnt match what is ultimately desired. And thats likely going to continue moving forward.

 

Nicholas Meyer was not a fan of Star Trek or even the first film yet he made the best films of the series. He even went directly against one of the underlying foundations of the show set by Gene Roddenberry by making Starfleet more militaristic in nature. Meyer has stated often that the fans don't know what they want until they get it, it is up to the creator(s) to show them. However he's a much better writer than Abrams and he was able to breathe new life into that franchise for the next decade. Meyer has gone on record to say he didn't understand what Abrams was going for in his Star Trek reboot, that should have been a warning.

William Shatner & Leonard Nimoy both directed entries with vastly different results. I would say both know their characters inside and out. Nimoy was able to make it work, Shatner couldn't. Johnathan Frakes finds himself on both ends of that spectrum, with the best entry of the new generation cast and also arguably the worst. I don't think you can make hard rules about what to do with someone else's established characters, it comes down to execution. In many ways elements of Wrath of Khan & Undiscovered Country can be found in the ST but they aren't done nearly as well.

 

As much as he showed Starfleet in a more militaristic manner, the world - even with direct implications and evidence of failings - was still utopian and optimistic. It still even felt like a continuation of the era as it was unfolding for the characters, The characters were still themselves too. And if they did show a change in character, we got to see it play out (instead of hiding it in the past or as some mystery),

And while I generally think JJ’s Star Trek is fun on its own and nothing more, it’s not as interesting as the other movies. Something is lost. It feels shallow.

Same for his Star Wars. JJ is using the same paint, and can copy a brushstroke here and there in these other franchises, but he doesn’t know how to copy anything meaningfully deeper.

 

And even though he didn't realize it at the time, Nicholas Meyer's approach to Star Trek was squarely in the footsteps of Gene Roddenberry's original vision for the show. When he first met with William Shatner, Meyer said he didn't want to do traditional Star Trek but rather a swashbuckling naval tale - "Horatio Hornblower in space" - to which Shatner replied "But that's exactly what Gene's original vision was!" And he wasn't joking: the description of the captain in Gene Roddenberry's 1963 pitch document describes him as "a space-age Horatio Hornblower".

So one reason Wrath of Khan is so well-done is that Meyer independently picked up on some of the classic themes of the original series, even though he didn't realize it at first.

Plus, Roddenberry's view of Star Trek as something primarily focused on painting an optimistic vision of the future only became really pronounced in the movie era and with TNG - after a huge fandom had emerged and become vocal about things they liked about the show, enough that it reshaped Roddenberry's vision of what Star Trek should be. Back during TOS, though, while the optimistic future was an assumed part of Roddenberry's setting, simply presenting a utopia on TV wasn't an end in itself. As many of the writers on TNG complained, utopia could rather get in the way of creating dramatic situations. It's noteworthy that Roddenberry's shift in that direction happened during the decades when he was no longer running a TV series week to week.

 

Well Roddernberry wasn't a fan of Nicholas Meyer's approach to Star Trek. He felt Nicholas Meyer's made starfleet feel like the military. Which Roddenberry was very against. Roddenberrys Star Trek was basically more The Motion Picture. That mankind are a utopia and all that we have is the dangers from others. While Nicholas Meyer's wanted more drama i suppose and was very open to stirring some pots to get there. Like the crew making some comments that could be seen as racially prejudice against Klingons. Or even Meyer's was originally going to bring back Kirstie Alley's Saavik from Wrath of Khan to be revealed as a villain for The Undiscovered Country, That spock was gonna forcefully Mindmeld with to find out the truth. But she refused to return. And i guess he didn't want to use the recast actress from the previous 2 movies. So Meyer's changed it to a different female Vulcan character.

While when Roddenberry got the chance to make his Star Trek again, he made sure that it was a utopia once more. Very on the nose utopia that drove the writers crazy with the stuff they couldn't do because Roddenberry felt so many things were not allowed. No grieving, no illness, no jealousy, no religion ect ect.

 

It was still a utopia in Wrath of Khan.

And TNG definitely had Starfleet as a semi-military structure. These aren't just space-science vehicles. There's a command structure of captains, and lieutenants, and they use the same hierarchy as one would find in many militaries. And they definitely ran into Admirals who were doing shady things, and other officers who didn't always see eye to eye with Picard's morals and philosophy.

I mean, this was in the pilot episode of TNG. Looks like it could be right on par with anything in Wrath.


Its really on in the modern era, maybe even towards the end of Voyager, where things got ... gray. Where all the sets were gray, and costumes were gray, and planets were gray, and people had questionable morals. And things seemed bleak. (And that's outside of the contemporary history where they are post-Borg and Post dominion. The entire thing seemed like it didn't want to be a utopia anymore.

And then in Picard it all just seemed so lost. It was just an action-show, set in space, and light, very light on the sci-fi utopia world. Even in the final season, where they brought back the D, and the entire gang say on the bridge wearing black leather and very muted colors, and even the lighting seemed ... gray and muted.

Kind of like ... TLJ.

See. Look at that. I managed to keep this on track.

 

Roddernberrys vision of a Utopia was we evolved to be perfect in the future. Series 1 of TNG for example is full of the crew praising humanity for being superior to many of the flawed aliens they have met. Roddenberry also wanted the costumes to be tight fit and smooth with no creases. To again perfection. The show evolved as Roddenberry became more distant from the production and passed away. But this was his vision, his creaction and thats what he wanted Star Trek to be.

Nicholas Meyer's is very grounded in retrospect. He has gone on record saying he doesn't really care what the fans want. He is Following a formula but basically saying this, this and this is dumb, and this is the refined version. Which wasn't Roddernberrys vision. And Roddenberry was very open about his dissatisfaction for many years.

But everyone has a different interpretation of things. Including with Star Wars. Everyone has a different view point on what it should be, what they like and what sides they think need more focus on. While Nicholas Meyer's got to modernize Star Trek in a time when it kinda needed modernizing. Bit of you was to try and modernize Star Trek today the same way Meyer's did in the 80s, Its always going to be a tough sell to the fandom. Which is what they have been trying to do.

 

DS9 was my favorite Trek outside of films 2, 4, & 6. The war setting, the shades of grey, rich characters and episodes that came out of left field just made it a fun show. However it took a few seasons for the show to find its stride. The characters evolved and changed throughout the show's run and I think each character earned their outcome. The Section 31 episodes had intrigue but I don't think anyone could have imagined just how badly they would screw up the film version.

I think Favreau is following a similar path to Meyer. He essentially took a fan favorite character, made it his own and its success is now a tent pole in the franchise. It became so successful that it was used to launch several spin-offs and even had the guts to show the Luke Skywalker that everyone wanted to see.

 

@godisawesome

You make some interesting points about creator responsibility when inheriting established characters. I agree there's a balance between artistic freedom and respecting what came before.

However, I'm not convinced Johnson was as disconnected from the character as you suggest. The OT showed Luke's journey from farmboy to Jedi, but it also showed his struggle with failure and disillusionment (Empire Strikes Back). TLJ takes this aspect of Luke and explores how it might manifest decades later after another profound failure. This seems like a natural continuation rather than a misunderstanding...certainly I don't know how Johnson can know how most/all fans feel about Luke. We as fans don't even agree amongsth ourselves.

I find your point about the false dichotomy interesting. Yes, Luke is both human and mythic. But isn't that exactly what TLJ ultimately concludes? Luke begins the film rejecting his mythic status, but ends by embracing it - using the legend of Luke Skywalker to inspire the galaxy while acknowledging his human flaws. The film doesn't end with cynicism but with hope and possibility.

Regarding Force powers - I've said it before, Star Wars has always introduced new Force abilities as needed for storytelling (Force lightning, Force ghosts, Force healing, etc.). The Force bond between Rey and Kylo seems consistent with established lore about powerful Force connections. Luke's projection isn't that different from Obi-Wan's ability to appear and communicate after death.