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

/\
That’s a profound misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Luke’s arc in the OT. He doesn’t end his arc ‘disillusioned’ and having ‘failed’ in his quest. Quite the opposite in fact. Luke is enlightened… he has transformed from farm boy to Jedi Knight. He has found his family, facilitated the overthrowing of the Empire/emperor and redeemed his father Anakin Skywalker. That we rejoin him some 30 years later and he’s now a broken, disillusioned, self absorbed and self-imposed exile, shows how much DLF and the writers/filmmakers *do not* understand these characters nor the basic tenets of storytelling in Star Wars.

That Luke (or any classic character) should have failures and disappointments along the way is not the issue… it’s that his abject failure (and that of the New Republic, Han and Leia) is used as a jumping on point for the ST. Even worse, they don’t even get to resolve that failure, as it’s only used as a problem/issue for the new protagonists to fix on their behalf. It’s not good storytelling… and it fails on pretty much every level.

 

Where was he disillusioned in ESB?

Was it this moment?


Or was it this moment in ROTJ?



Let's look at that definition, shall we?

"Disillusioned" means disappointed and unhappy because of discovering that something or someone is not as good as one had originally believed or imagined. It suggests a loss of faith or trust in something previously held in high regard.

While he does uncover that his father wasn't a good person as he originally believed, and this does shatter his world-view because its truly shocking, Luke actually has the opposite of disillusionment. He actually has hardened faith in the matter. Not just to save his father, but to become a Jedi. And just when he finally give up on the idea that his father is conflicted about being evil, just when he's about to tap into the dark side in order to kill him, he collects himself, throws his weapon away, declares that he IS a Jedi, just like his father IS, and .... makes Vader realize he still has a choice to make.

That is the complete opposite of loss of faith. Or trust. At not point does Luke walk away from his goal, from wanting to be a Jedi, or saving the day and helping the galaxy. The only thing - the one element - that causes and issue for him - is the demand to at least be open to killing his father, because his plan might not go the way he thinks. And that's nothing to do with being disillusioned with anything, but because of the opposite fact that he has faith and connection to his father that won't allow him to consider this a possibility.

That's right. His faith in his father is TOO strong. Not lost.

So. Where do you get this? I understand that you love the ST, or in this case TLJ, but ... why do you have to turn over the OT in its defense?

What has happened by the end of the OT, is that Luke has gone from whiny, impatient farm boy, feeling hopeless and yearning to be important, who didn't know himself, his family, nor his powers or place in the galaxy ... to the opposite. He's grown up. Matured. Become wiser. He's made reckless mistakes and learned consequences from those events. He's realized that the truth can be complicated and that his heroes have lived lives full of failure and victory. And that his faith was proven correct. He now has a very big job to do.

This isn't at all what you argue. Luke is not disillusioned with anything. And he's definitely not someone who thinks he's perfect or without flaws, or even feels he needs to be this. Nothing in the OT aligns with this interpretation.

And once again, it's not the powers. Its the execution of the thing. For reasons I've gone into numerous times ... it's inconsistent with the movie's message, themes, and narrative. If anything is disillusioned, its the ending of the TLJ, with its own movie.

 

Welp. He mentioned Luke's entire OT journey from farmboy to Jedi. That last part happens in ROTJ.

And I'm still unconvinced that Luke is disillusioned in ESB. He doesn't give up. He rejects Vader's truth and offer, and makes a leap of faith, as it were. And what happens, his friends come to rescue him. He generally accepts that Vader is his father. And its that connection with his friends, and with his father, that drives him to believe there's still good in Vader later on.

This is the opposite of anything TLJ is trying to rewrite about the saga's history, or at least what Jaimestarr is trying to argue in defense of TLJ's fallen Luke.

 

@DarkGingerJedi

dis·il·lu·sion·ment
/ˌdisəˈlo͞oZHənm(ə)nt/
noun

1. a feeling of disappointment resulting from the discovery that something is not as good as one believed it to be.

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "disillusionment." I'm not suggesting Luke lost faith in his father or in becoming a Jedi by the end of ROTJ. Rather, I'm pointing to the fact that Luke experienced profound challenges to his worldview throughout the OT - discovering Vader was his father, learning Obi-Wan had hidden the truth, and facing the reality of failure at Cloud City.

What makes Luke compelling in the OT is precisely that he faces these challenges and emerges with a stronger, more nuanced faith - not blind idealism but tested conviction. TLJ takes this same pattern and extends it: Luke experiences an even more profound failure with Ben Solo and initially responds by withdrawing, but ultimately finds his way back to a more mature understanding of his role.

The key difference is scale and time. In the OT, Luke's crises and resolutions happen within a compressed timeframe. In TLJ, we're seeing someone who has had years to marinate in his failure, becoming embittered in a way that young Luke never had the chance to become. But the arc is fundamentally similar - challenge, withdrawal, and ultimately recommitment to higher principles.

The Luke at the end of TLJ who projects himself across the galaxy and becomes a legend that inspires the entire Resistance is absolutely consistent with the Luke who threw away his lightsaber and declared himself a Jedi in ROTJ. Both are acts of profound faith and self-determination.

I'm not "turning over the OT" to defend TLJ. I'm suggesting that both tell a story about a character struggling with the gap between legend and reality, and ultimately finding a way to embody both. TLJ didn't betray Luke's character - it gave him one more meaningful arc that honored his complexity.

Close. I'm not suggesting Luke would be perpetually susceptible to "ESB-style disillusionment" despite going through ROTJ. I'm arguing that experiencing disillusionment isn't a sign of character regression or inconsistency - it's a natural human response to profound failure, regardless of maturity level.
My point is that Luke in ROTJ achieved a significant level of maturity, but that doesn't make him immune to future crises of faith. Even the wisest, most mature people can experience moments of doubt when confronted with catastrophic failure - especially one involving family and the potential rebirth of everything they fought against.

The fundamental difference between our perspectives seems to be about what constitutes character consistency. I see TLJ Luke as consistent precisely because he doesn't remain in his disillusioned state - he works through it and ultimately recommits to his values, just as he did in the OT. The film isn't arguing Luke "didn't mature enough" - it's showing that maturity doesn't equal perfection or immunity to doubt (my issues with the post ROTJ "super Luke" that sometimes pops up).

I disagree that TLJ portrays Luke as not caring about others or being self-centered. His withdrawal wasn't from indifference but from the belief that his involvement would cause more harm than good - a misguided conclusion, certainly...the movie ultimately shows this, but one born from caring too much, not too little. His final act was entirely selfless and focused on saving others.



As for the rest....

I still don't entirely agree with your interpretation of TLJ's approach to Luke. Shocking, I know...

First, I've mentioned this before, but Luke isn't presented as "mythic" or a "legend" within the Original Trilogy universe itself. That transformation happened afterward, both in-universe and in fan perception. TLJ is specifically engaging with that post-OT mythologizing.

Regarding Luke's death, I actually agree with you somewhat - I think he probably should have lived. The projection across the galaxy was impressive enough without requiring his sacrifice. This connects to your point about artificially elevating his final act.

I can see how TLJ elevates Luke's importance, but that makes narrative sense given who he is. The sequel trilogy was always going to have to address Luke Skywalker in a significant way - he's arguably the central character of the entire saga. TLJ essentially became his movie, for better or worse. Perhaps a more tertiary role would have balanced things better, but I'm not sure that would have satisfied audiences either.

About the Broom Boy epilogue - it shows Luke's impact continuing to inspire the next generation. This makes sense given who Luke Skywalker is in the Star Wars universe. His legend would naturally have significant impact, and showing children inspired by his final stand helps illustrate how the cycle of heroism and inspiration continues beyond the original heroes. Does it overshadow our other heroes? Sure. It's Luke Skywalker.

As for the sequel trilogy's overall approach to legacy and new characters, I don't think it's as messy as you suggest. While not as cohesive as the OT, it handles these themes more effectively than the prequels did. But that's probably a conversation for another time.

 

The assertion was that because Luke had gone through a gambit of emotions in the OT, it was appropriate that he be allowed to do the same in the ST. But no... that's a blatant straw man argument. That the jumping on point for the reintroduction of Luke is him *already* being a loser, who has given up on his life and friends... him being the opposite character of who he was at the end of ROTJ *is* the issue... it's *not* presented as a new character arc or new journey that Luke must take... it's presented as a fait accompli. He's already at that point with no development and absolutely no onscreen drama. It's the antithesis of character development, but rather it's the clumsy, unsophisticated and destructive approach of writers unfettered by due diligence and lack of good writing practices IMO.

 

Okay fine. You cleared that up a bit. But that's not quite what you said earlier, which was that "The OT showed Luke's journey from farm boy to Jedi, but it also showed his struggle with failure and disillusionment (Empire Strikes Back)."

I don't think Luke experienced disillusionment in ESB or the OT.

He definitely experiences sadness, grief, and is disappointed that his father isn't the hero he was led to believe. He's beaten physically and emotionally and even spiritually by the reveal.

But disillusionment isn't just another word for being disappointed. It's something more. I gave you the definition. You responded with one too. A lesser one. You left out the examples the dictionary uses to define this feeling more clearly.



See that? Its not just being disappointed in something. Its about the sense of disappointment beings so strong that one feels like giving up, or actually does, or is cynical that anything good could happen, or change, or that a good outcome can ever be found.

Its about being hopeless.

Never for a second does that the disappointment Luke finds, stop him. He's far too hopeful for that. Nor does it make him want to give up. He struggles with his training, not understanding it at all times. He's frustrated. He's very impatient. (to a fault at times) And when he rushes off to help his friends, he promises to return. (Which he does)

If Luke was disillusioned in ESB, he would have given up, felt hopeless, or done something similar to what we see in those examples above. He does none of that. This is not someone who is feeling disillusioned with the Jedi, his mentors, his training, his father, or that horrible truth, or anything really. Its someone who accepts his new found truth, and is ready to face what comes next.

This is hope. A tinged hope. But hope nonetheless.


Which brings us back to the main point. None of this leads us to a character who has given up the way they have in TLJ. TLJ is rewriting history, along with you defending that rewrite, with a unique POV, because it depends on this POV to make it work.

As i posted, Luke's final moment is "I am a Jedi, like my father before me.". This is pride. This is resolute. This is faith. This is the opposite of feeling anything close to being disillusioned or disappointed with their mentors, the Jedi, their father, or anything that has happened to them.

Is this disillusionment? Doesn't look like it either. It looks like happiness. Like a proud son and student, who's at peace with what's taken place and is hopeful for what comes next. (even if it doesn't)


Luke did fail. Luke did suffer. Luke did feel sadness. He even felt disappointment. Luke never let any of those feelings make him quit or reject everything, or express being disillusioned with any of it, or whatever else we see in TLJ. So no, I still reject your assertion.

 

Yes and agree with your whole post!

He doesn't fail with Ben Solo. Ben had already turned dark, by his own choice. Luke didn't have anything to do with that. Luke's failure is that he should have used a blaster instead of a light saber so Ben wouldn't have woken up and escaped to kill all his other students. (I'm only being partially snarky here).

Luke's real failure is to leave without a word to Han and Leia - well, presumably. As with most everything in this trilogy, we know nothing about the timeline or if Luke left a message in Artoo or how he got to Space Irish Island without Artoo - maybe that's why he crashed into the sea or whatever. The movies don't seem to care so why should I?

Except he doesn't. Rey does, Poe does, Leia does. Luke doesn't do a damn thing except make Kylo angrier, IIRC.

And Broom Boy would be like most current children, and funnily enough, Kennedy and Abrams - "who is Luke Skywalker?" Why would they care about him, especially since they're in slavery? It's like Rey caring about the Resistance. Why should she? They aren't coming to get her out of misery, now are they?

 

Luke in the OT is an eternal optimist, his faith rarely waivers, it's only during his Jedi training that he loses faith in himself and then he gets through it thanks to Yoda. The Luke we see in TM and TBOBF is still the same Luke but he's a little calmer, has a little more maturity. His emotions are buried deeper but still his compassion and kindness comes to the surface far quicker than earlier Jedi. By the ST the shock of what happened with Ben has dramatically affected his faith, but if we follow Luke's history we know that it would be temporary. Luke even when he was at his lowest, he always put his friends first, for Luke to abandon them is explainable if he did it to found his Jedi order. I just don't see Luke abandoning them forever and that's his intention in his solitude before Rey arrives on Ach-To.

It's obvious that they were mirroring Yoda's solitude on Dagobah but Yoda was under threat from the Empire, Luke wasn't, he had friends and family and he walked away from them. Yes there is a perfectly reasonable explanation that after Ben he searched for Jedi artifacts and in the scriptures he found answers that crushed his faith entirely. Did he expect to find that the history of the Jedi included many failures, his father being one he used specifically when explaining to Rey, but here we might have the ultimate betrayal of Luke's character... Luke never lost faith in Anakin! And why would he now after Anakin had found redemption? The Jedi came through, defeat was turned into victory. It seems in desperation to create a flawed hero, create a hero that can come back at the end to save everyone, that hero needed to be destroyed first.

 

@DarkGingerJedi

Once again, I think we're getting caught up in the semantics of what words mean to us.
Disillusionment exists on a spectrum - from the milder examples in your screenshot like 'growing disillusion with the political process' to more extreme cases where people quit or give up entirely. I was using it in the former sense, not suggesting Luke became completely hopeless or cynical. I am sorry if you feel the word is too strong, yet I meant what I said.

The dictionary definition you shared actually supports what I was saying - disillusionment is 'a feeling of being disappointed and unhappy because of discovering the truth about something or someone that you liked or respected.' This precisely describes Luke learning the truth about Vader.
The important point is that ESB showed Luke confronting painful truths that challenged his worldview, regardless of what specific term we use to describe that experience.

You're focusing on Luke's triumphant ROTJ ending as proof he couldn't become the Luke we see in TLJ. But people change over decades, especially after experiencing devastating failure. The Luke in TLJ has experienced a 30-year gap that included the catastrophic failure with Ben Solo. Even the most resolute people can become disillusioned after traumatic events. This isn't rewriting the OT character but showing how that same person might respond to new circumstances.

You mention that "Luke did fail. Luke did suffer. Luke did feel sadness" in the OT but "never let any of those feelings make him quit." That's true, but there's a significant difference in scale and consequence. In the OT, Luke's failures were part of his journey toward becoming a Jedi. With Ben Solo, his failure came after decades as a Jedi Master, when he had established a new Jedi Order, and resulted in the deaths of his students and the rise of the First Order. The stakes and personal responsibility were exponentially higher.

What makes Luke's arc meaningful in TLJ is that he doesn't remain disillusioned - he reconnects with his purpose and values, just as he did in the OT.

If you don't believe Luke could ever reach that point of disillusionment, that's a perfectly valid interpretation. Different fans have connected with different versions of Luke throughout Star Wars media. Some disliked Dark Empire Luke, others took issue with Luke in Legacy of the Force, and many have their own view of how Luke should have been portrayed post-ROTJ. That's the nature of loving characters we care about deeply - we all have our own relationship with them* and point of view of them.


*Hell, I still don't really buy the narrative/Anakin's reason's/logic for turning in Revenge of the Sith, but I'll still be watching it eagerly this weekend. Maybe I'm weird like that?

1. The film doesn't establish that it was objectively Luke's fault - but Luke himself believes it was, which is crucial to understanding his exile.
Luke's guilt stems from his momentary consideration of striking down his sleeping nephew, which he believes pushed Ben fully to the dark side. His exile isn't because he actually caused everything, but because he believes his failure as a mentor contributed significantly to the disaster.
This internal struggle makes Luke's journey about confronting perceived failures rather than actual ones, which fits with his introspective character we've seen throughout the saga.

2. I agree about ditching Han and Leia. So does Luke...he apologizes to Leia in TLJ during their reunion on Crait. Maybe you don't like any of it, but I think the reunion with Leia is one of the most poignant of the entire saga.

You are free to engage with the film (or not) however you want.

However, the sequence clearly establishes that Luke's actions directly save the Resistance. He draws the entire First Order's attention and firepower, creating the crucial window of time needed for everyone to escape through the back of the cave.

The film deliberately shows this cause-and-effect: while Luke confronts Kylo, we see Rey arriving at the back entrance and moving the rocks. Without Luke's distraction, the First Order would have cornered and eliminated what remained of the Resistance.

Again, you are free to engage with the films or not. Broom boy IS inspired by Luke Skywalker. It is what it is.

@Django Fett

I understand your view, and I think it's an important insight - everyone does has their own headcanon about who Luke would become in the decades after Return of the Jedi.
Some fans imagine Luke as the eternally optimistic hero who never wavers, others see him evolving in different ways based on new experiences and responsibilities. The Mandalorian shows one version, the EU/Legends showed others, and TLJ presented yet another interpretation.

When a character is as beloved and iconic as Luke Skywalker, fans develop deep personal relationships with their understanding of who that character is. This is why debates about Luke in TLJ become so passionate - we're not just discussing a fictional character, but different visions of someone who feels real to many of us.

The 30-year gap between ROTJ and TLJ leaves plenty of room for Luke to have changed in ways consistent with his core character while responding to new challenges. Whether those changes feel authentic depends largely on what aspects of Luke each person connects with most strongly.

@godisawesome

Ultimately, I think Luke Skywalker is harder to get right than people think. Yes, I loved Mando Luke, but that was basically ROTJ Luke turned up to 11 - a fan-pleasing action sequence showing his peak powers.

Book of Boba Fett Luke covered new ground (his earliest days as a mentor), and even that relatively traditional portrayal proved controversial to many fans. It stayed close to what most consider "classic Luke" without straying too far, yet still generated debate and rage, etc.

 

It’s ultimately easier to get on board with how Luke Skywalker is portrayed in the Sequel Trilogy if one doesn’t understand, or doesn’t care, for how he was portrayed in the Original Trilogy… and I know a couple of people whom are that way inclined. But ultimately this comes down to bad storytelling and the sequels failing to do the basics well, or even adequately. They cut so many corners that they work as an example of how *not* to establish characters and situations. It’s ultimately why the ST doesn’t work, IMO, as nothing is really adequately established or developed (in this instance Luke’s ‘disappearance’ and general attitude)…not a character or plot point… everything is just what it is without real rhyme or reason.

 

The big thing for me is that I don't find this version of Luke enjoyable, I think its a well worn Hollywood cliche that the hero is down on his luck and will die. I also think its too far of a turn around in character too. Lets remember that the majority of people watching films and TV don't seek out comics and books either, but even if you've read anything from the EU novels its a complete 180 (I stopped at the NJO series as I thought it dragged on for too long).

This is the first portrayal of Luke on the big screen for over 30 years, there is nothing else in between on film to go off, so Return of the Jedi is still fresh in our minds. This IMO is why its difficult to accept Luke in this way, its such a radical change and the general audience will know of nothing in between to contradict the character we saw in the OT. Maybe it would have been easier for me to get on board with if it was established better, because we know very little of whats been going on to establish how we got to ST, other than some brief flashback / dialogue in TFA and personally I don't think thats enough. I find it so difficult to relate to what they did or feel anything for the character as he's presented. Thats how I feel about it anyway.

For all the defence of the ST, I still have yet to see someone say they enjoy what they did with Luke. I find nothing redeemable or rewatchable in this character in the ST for me to think about revisiting it.

 

Actually. We're not free to engage the films. They cost money to watch. We have to pay to engage with the films. So yeah, if I have to pay for something, I expect to get something of value in return. Entertainment, at the very least.

Although Broom Kid being inspired by Luke IS a weird inconsistent choice since the movie just spent 2 hours hitting me over the head with the 'fact' that the galaxy (hint: WE the fans/audience) was ignorant about Luke and the Jedi. That we only romanticized the good stuff. And that they ignored or didn't know the bad (even though they did). And that failure is the greatest teacher, even though Luke's failure, failed to teach him the right lesson. And what Ben Solo and the galaxy (and WE the fans) really needed was to see the Luke's failures because those are what's important to pass on too. Because no one is really a legend, and Luke and the Jedi are full of failure and we must confront that with the truth: A legendary projection of Luke who once again pretends to be a legend, and doesn't mentioned the dirty stuff.

Some of us were engaged with this movie. I just wish that RJ had as well because it seems like the writer/director never really was.

 

Will we ever see broom kid again?

 

He's the protagonist in Rian Johnson's upcoming SW trilogy.

 

I hear you. The gap between ROTJ and TLJ is significant, and without seeing that evolution play out on screen, it can feel jarring.

That said, I think if the OT is where you leave off, 30 years of Star Warsing leaves a wide berth of picking up the story. There are countless directions Luke's character could have gone, all potentially valid based on different interpretations of his core traits.

I genuinely did enjoy aspects of Luke's portrayal in TLJ. I found it compelling to see a legendary hero wrestle with failure and the weight of his own myth before reconnecting with his core values. His final confrontation with Kylo Ren - finding a way to save everyone without violence - felt true to the heart of what made Luke special. I also think this is absolutely Mark Hamill's best acting of the saga. He gets some genuine emotional depth to sink his teeth into.

Part of this sequel problem comes from the HUGE span of time between the films. There are plenty of stories/films that engage in similar narratives with our heroes: The Dark Knight Rises, Blade Runner 2049, Rocky Balboa, Rambo (4), Tron: Legacy, Terminator 2, Mad Max: Road Warriorm Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Ghostbusters 2. As stated, much of this comes from Campbell's heroic journey outline.

Also, much of this comes down to fan/audience expectations/anticipations. Many fans were appalled at what the PT trilogy did with Vader/Anakin, The Jedi, etc as it didn't line up to personal expectations. I suppose everyone has their own opinion of if these were done well, and threshold for which heroes should/could go through this.

I wasn't suggesting you need to "do work" to appreciate TLJ or that your reaction to the film is somehow your sole responsibility. When I said "you are free to engage with the film however you want," I was simply acknowledging that the reaction is valid.


@PendragonM

My point about Luke saving the Resistance was addressing the specific claim that "Luke doesn't do a damn thing except make Kylo angrier." The film clearly shows his actions creating the opportunity for everyone to escape. You don't have to like how this was executed, but the narrative causality is there.

Similarly with Broom Boy - I wasn't telling you that the should care about this scene, just that within the story as presented, this character was inspired by the legend of Luke Skywalker. That's not asking you to do work - it's just describing what's in the film.

We all experience these stories differently based on our expectations and connections to the characters. That's the nature of being invested in a decades-long saga with characters that mean different things to different fans.

I think there's a distinction here that's worth exploring.

While you absolutely have a right to expect value for your money, art isn't quite the same as a typical consumer product. When you buy a toaster, there's a clear expectation of what it should do. But with films, books, music, or any art form, the "value" is inherently subjective and varies tremendously from person to person.

Star Wars films aren't made to order based on each fan's personal preferences - they're creative works that invite us to engage with them on their own terms. Some of those creative choices will resonate with certain viewers and not with others.

The "we deserve what we pay for" argument could be applied to any film that takes a direction you personally dislike. Should The Empire Strikes Back have been rejected because it was darker than the original? Should Return of the Jedi have been considered a ripoff because it repeated the Death Star plot? Phantom Menace certainly had some people feeling ripped off. Okie-day?

Everything I've seen in interviews and behind-the-scenes material suggests Johnson was deeply engaged with the mythology and Luke's character specifically. He made controversial creative choices, but they appear deliberate rather than disinterested.

 

I find that people whom like Luke in the ST don’t like him much in the OT… or appreciate the OT in general…

 

Not me brother...if all the other Star Wars iterations melted away from existence and we only had the OT...I'd be okay with it. Luke Skywalker is my favorite fictional character (most of the time). I also like Luke in the ST and love those movies.

 

Having characters develop in drastic ways off-screen is, more often than not, really annoying. I think it should usually be avoided, and when it is done, it needs to be well-justified. In the case of Luke in TLJ, I really don't think it was. We know that Kylo turning to the Dark Side made him feel like a failure, but why did he almost kill him to begin with? And why was his feeling of being a failure so overpowering he walked away from everything that mattered to him? You can always say, "Well, it could happen, it's been 30 years!", but that's not very satisfying. People generally want to understand characters in fiction, especially ones they already know. If a character's actions don't match up with their prior characterization, it's not too much to ask to want an actual explanation for it, instead of just leaning on the passage of time to explain it away.

Some people have a greater tolerance than others for off-screen character development, and that's fine. But for me, such a drastic character change with no real explanation almost feels like a hole in the story. It can be hard to believe what you don't see...and in this case, what we don't see is Luke's journey from ROTJ to TLJ. Yeah, we can't really change the fact that decades have passed since ROTJ considering we're using the same actors, but with more flashbacks and backstory and a less drastic character change, it could've worked a lot better.

 

They are absolutely in the minority… *Most* fans don’t like what they did to Luke Skywalker in the ST… otherwise we’d not be discussing it now years after the fact. We’ve even had polls on it.