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

In general, you have been very careful at framing your opinions as such. I appreciate that. Yet, take this example of what you say here:

"I don't care about Luke Skywalker, the legend, after seeing a movie about Luke, the failure who considered killing his (nephew) in his sleep for things he hadn't done yet, after he'd already been told and experienced the fallout of future visions not being reliable and then abandoning his friends and family to suffer and die, refusing to help after (I guess) finding out one of them has died, and never admitting his mistakes to everyone he wronged."

Clearly you are misrepresenting events in the movie to line up with your cynical take on the film. This statement reframes/heavily slants what actually happens in the movie to make it more in line with your bias.

I dunno. It seems like you are giving the saga leeway for some instances of characterization and not others.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that if a movie tells you of an event/fact/plot point, rather than showing you, that it can be more easily dismissed?

I'll say it again: Luke was shocked/startled/horrified at what he saw when he peered Ben's mind. It wasn't that he "sensed The Dark Side" it's that Luke was immersed in and subjected to every atrocity Kylo Ren would ever commit. Remember, through The Force, Jedi can experience different space and time. Luke wasn't prepared for the darkness within. He tells us, "It was beyond what I ever imagined." Luke instinctively drew his weapon to stop it. It was a momentary mistake. Yet, this moment was NOT out of character for Luke Skywalker, nor a Jedi Knight.

Example: Revenge of the Sith elevator scene | In the heat of battle, Obi-Wan was startled by Anakin and ignites his saber in defense. Now, Obi-Wan has The Force. He wasn't in any immediate danger at that moment. He couldn't sense Anakin? He was startled so he reactively drew his lightsaber on his best friend. It was a momentary mistake.

Yes, I realize the circumstances are not the same. Rather than in being the heat of battle, Luke was somewhere much worse. He was deep inside the mind of someone already corrupted by The Dark Side. He was living/seeing/experiencing Kylo Ren's reign of terror all in one moment. Now, all of that considered, Luke saysthat he was wrong to instinctually fire up his weapon. He admits to this. It's the #1 reason that he blames himself for Ben Solo's fall.

You seem to be siding with Kylo Ren's version of events. No?

You know what? Luke says as much. As I said, he admits that this is a moment of weakness for him and it turns into his greatest shame. He acknowledges that he didn't live up to "Luke Skywalker: The Legend."

I am not understanding you on this.

Let's rewind:
You don't mind Han Solo embracing his role as a hero/savior/ally at the end of ANH because it doesn't contradict his prior behavior?

You don't like Luke embracing his role as hero/savior/ally/Jedi/legend at the end of TLJ because....? It does contradict his prior behavior?

Isn't your complaint that TLJ Luke is unlike Luke of the OT. When he embraces that version of himself, you still don't like it?

A huge portion of TLJ is about restoring Luke's mojo. It's not just the Yoda talk...it's the culmination of events leading up to that talk as well.

Again, I am confused. Prior to his redemption in the OT, Vader did have a prior established strong characterization. We saw this characterization for 2 (nearly 3) entire films before his change at the climax in Return of the Jedi. Did we not?

I love George Lucas. It was his right to sell his company to Disney. Yet, for all the people bemoaning "the current state of Star Wars" Lucas's his actions are the catalyst for where you are at.

Portions remained though. Notably, Luke as a Col. Kurtz type recluse. This was Lucas's idea.

Again, Lucas decided Luke was going to be a Col. Kurtz like recluse. That is straight from Lucas. Are you familiar with Apocalypse Now? If so, you would know that a character starting off as " Col. Kurtz like" is NEVER going to be a positive, inspiring, heroic take on anything.

Secondly, I think you are wrong to speculate on what Lucas would/would not have done. I mean, how many old school fans expected Darth Vader to be an overly cutesy kid in The Prequels? How many thought he'd be the whiny/petulant teen we got in Episode 2?

1. Where was the promise that we'd ever see Luke as a respected teacher?
2. He definitely does make the shift. It literally happens onscreen at the climax of TLJ and this characterization continues into The Rise of Skywalker.

Again, I love George Lucas. I agree that we don't know what he'd have done. Again, Lucas's idea of Luke as Col. Kurtz-like stuck. Now, I am not sure who these "unreliable narrators are" that you speak of. Lucas had a tendency of retconning his own mythology/Star Wars creation stories as well. For example: Restating years later what Han was and inspiring the "Han Shot First" controversy.

Dude, I was joking. Sorry you didn't get it. That said, I think JJ Abrams style fit Star Wars really well. Sorry if that makes me a newb, or weird for liking JJ Abrams.

Side note: Mission Impossible 3 was my favorite of that series. That said, I was disappointed in how lost turned out.

So says you. You are projecting and reaching.

Do you know there is such a thing as the Heroine's journey. It's more focused on emotional struggle/sacrifice than physical. I am not well versed in it, but I think it's worth exploring. Example: compare Rey's heroic journey to Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman. Diana doesn't do much much physical suffering/challenges. Her journey is more one about discovering identity, place in the world, and preserving the good around her in the world. To me, Rey's journey is different than Luke and Anakin's in this way.

It's easy to make a Star Wars movie? Sounds like your version would have been more to you liking. Have you posted it in the fan cition forum?

Meh. Cynical take.
This sounds like fans claiming Lucas "flushed the franchise down the toilet" with The Prequels.

"All we got is a kids TV show on cartoon network with a crappy teenage girl Anakin calls snips."
Or like cynical fans in the mid-80's.
"Star Wars is wrecked. It's just stupid kid stuff with Saturday morning cartoons and silly made for TV Ewok specials."

Also, you can disparage The Mandalorian all you want, but that "TV Show" kicks all kinds of a$$. Plus, Clone Wars just provided some of the best hours of Star Wars ever. So, while you cannot please everyone. I think Disney is doing more than okay.

Yes. Lawrence Kasdan is and extremely untalented hack and simply plagiarized ANH.

Ah, there you are. That's how you roll

It did. Perhaps try reading the novelization?

 

I think they should've rewrote TLJ to keep Luke alive after Carrie's passing.

 

They were saving the Kylo-Leia confrontation for IX.

It was all leading up to if Kylo would change sides or not.

TFA: Kylo kills Han
TLJ: Kylo tries to kill Luke before he ghosts out
Episode IX: Kylo confronts Leia face to face. Redemption or he kills her?

 

yes but when CF died they knew that it wasn't going to happen. So instead of transfering that onto a living actor (Hamill), they wasted time and money on out-of-context footage that they couldn't even insert in a scene with Ben.

 

nah he can be force ghost and have great momments.

i agree they should have had more Luke even as a force ghost. Leia was nice but it's not the sam with out carre.

 

They didn't have to even rewrite TLJ. Just set opacity to 1 instead of 0. Done.

 

Unfortunately, if you ruin someone`s image enough, it can be hard to impossible to restoring it for a good many people. The idea of Luke, the wise Jedi Master and mentor is a joke to me, after what I`ve seen from him in TLJ.

TROS only gave him a cameo - with a really bad wig - and I couldn`t take him seriously. I need to respect a character myself if the narrative appoints them to such a position. And that ship had long sailed.

I can`t say I ever saw the Luke Skywalker I liked in the ST movies. Not on Crait, not in TROS, certainly not in any of the Ahch-To stuff. Okay, in the cliffhanger ending of TFA he didn`t yet say anything but the way this scene was completed, it goes in the negative pile as well.

 

I understand that you don't like Luke in the ST. I really get that. Yet, this is different than stating that he never makes the shift in his attitude/behavior/action etc. is it not?

 

The ST will not age gracefully like the OT because there is no story, just imitation and shameless rebooting. BTW, calling TLJ cerebral is like calling Trump a brain surgeon.

I really do think with new leadership at Disney and potentially new leadership at LFL, some kind of retcon to the ST is possible. They have a strong reason to do so: 30 years of post-ROTJ Luke stories would be profitable. And this isn't just something that could happen in literature and comics, but live-action TV. With the Mandalorian breaking exciting ground in the post-ROTJ world, the absence of Luke Skywalker would be strange indeed. And a potential Luke Skywalker spinoff would be a goldmine of narrative potential and financial windfall for Disney. Meanwhile, demand for the ST characters to return pales in comparison. Fan desire is the kind of Force that will make big corporations respond. I think Luke fans should get together and spur this possibility on. We've seen firsthand that Disney will respond to vocal fans.

 

I'm not your dear. Or your deer.

You don't think you were promised anything so....

Unreliable narrators - JJ Abrams, KK, Johnson, Kasdan, Bob Iger, Lucas himself, Pablo Hidalgo and any of the story group. We only have their statements and no independent confirmation. That is what I mean.

And all this stuff about "oh, Lucas said this, Lucas said that," suddenly appeared when everyone was upset by Luke in TLJ. That's what I mean by unreliable narrators.

First, that was sarcastic. Second, why is it when anyone criticizes the movies, we always get "well, what would you have done, smarty pants?" It's not my job. It is the job of a group of guys who got paid enormous sums to come up with a story and basically warmed over the OT.

We agree! Look at Kasdan's work - Body Heat and Silverado are basically remakes of a certain style. Empire, Raiders and Jedi, he didn't write the stories. The Big Chill was his life, as I recall. Accidental Tourist is an adaptation of a book. I've never seen Continental Divide or The Bodyguard but I remember Silverado was like watching paint dry and that was in the 80s. I'm guessing it's unwatchable today. Body Heat has a terrible ending, IIRC.

 

That would have been great. I'm a fan of the trope which has a mean-spirited, misogynistic old martial arts teacher and a female student, like the Pai Mei scenes in Kill Bill. The female student always gets put through the mill because the old man wants to prove that she hasn't got the same guts and determination as a man, but she ultimately proves him wrong. I would have loved that kind of relationship between them as Luke trained Rey.

 

The won't rectcon or ignore the ST, they find a way around and make it so it wooks quite well with the ST. Sure the ST won't be remembered as OT, but so neither is the PT. I'm sure in future we will have more content with ST characters as we have with PT and OT ones.

 

In a way, they had that in TLJ.
Kylo was leading the attack on the Raddus.
He sensed Leia's presence. He couldn't bring himself to shoot.

 

I know that love, but I had to give you something to come back with

 

Exactly. It was leading toward one way with that example. But he tried to strike Luke down when he saw him.

So with Leia in IX, the tension would be that it could go either way.

 

I don't. I mean, I knew the EU was being largely disregarded. This made sense since Lucas would frequently do this himself. So, anything after ROTJ was an open book.

What did you think you were promised?

Consider the group of people you mention. By your reasoning: How can we believe anything is regards to to development of any Star Wars entity? I mean, people frequently point to George Lucas as "the one true source of Star Wars", right? So, if we are to count him as an "unreliable narrator" what does any of this discourse matter?

I think one of the reasons "Lucas said this/that" appeared during the release of TLJ is because that's when the Making of book was released. This book also revealed the roots of Luke's characterization/situation as being one of George Lucas's ideas that remained.

People frequently cite Lucas when debating all aspects of Star Wars. Many arguments surrounding the PT, OT, Special Editions, ST, utilize Lucas's words/intent/goals as evidence. Again, if we are categorizing his words/intent/thoughts as "unreliable" it completely alters/negates/undermines a good portion of discourse that we have here on these forums. Does it no?

I apologize. I did not recognize your sarcasm. I genuinely thought you had a lot of ideas about what the ST "should be" and wondered if you'd posted anything. Wasn't trying to be flippant or snarky.

Ah, now you fail to recognize my sarcasm. Kasdan rocks. Sorry you don't like him.

 

Maybe not. But I`ve seen a lot of variations of "but her turned it around, he became the Luke everyone had been waiting for etc" as some kind of trump argument. When sure, on paper it was supposed to be that but is there really that much of a difference for someone if they don`t personally see/feel that he became a respected teacher or hero or whatever figure to them? I guess everyone could clarify there were scenes with that intent in the movie but they were entirely unmoved or unconvinced by them?

Luke technically gave Rey one very general lesson about "reaching out" and I would say one or two rants (more than lessons) about the Jedi. He went on about how it was hubris to think the force belonged to the Jedi. How the Jedi allowed Darth Sidious to rise, how one trained the later Darth Vader and how he himself failed his own legend bla bla.

That is dialogue that is undisputably in the movie. And the intent of that dialogue is not all that hard to guess at either, I would say. But beyond that, it already becomes a question of how one takes that dialogue. For instance with the above-mentioned dialogue does Luke explain himself or just excuse himself? There is a distinction, at least for me. And if you say even if it is an excuse, it is technically also an explanation. the next question would be: does he explain himself satisfactorily? Now that enters entirely into the realm of "does one think he talks complete nonsense or is their merit to these thoughts". The movie doesn`t and couldn`t even answer this conclusively because it can`t dictate the thoughts and reactions of audience members.

Then there is what he did on Crait. He did a force projection to buy some time as a distraction. The Resistance fled, hid a roadblock and was rescued by Rey. That is, again, undisputably in the movie. Was his force ability powerful? You could argue there is set-up in the movie earlier with one line by Kylo. But that just really sets up that one dies from it. Which Luke does.

As the Chekov`s gun in storytelling, it is far more effective to set up "but you`ll die from this, it is just too big a thing to do" and then character A does it and doesn`t die. Verbally and visually that communicates far more effectively how great a feat is that a character performs.

Now is it an epic scene ? Subjective. Is is a satisfying scene? Subjective. Does it redeem Luke? Subjective. Is it heroic? Subjective. Is it inspiring? In the context of the movie apparently for some slave kids - with the wider meta narrative being "oooh, such a legend inspires the galaxy". Is it inspiring to the viewer also? Subjective. Is Luke now a respected teacher figure? To whom, Rey or the viewer? I would say she respects him in the TROS cameo but he is hardly really her teacher, that is clearly Leia as set up much more heavily by the movie itself. To the viewer? Subjective.

So ultimately, stuff happens in the movie that can`t be disputed. Certain actions and dialogue of course. But IMO the key points being discussed here enter heavily into the subjective region. If I think Luke talks complete whiny nonsense in his "reasoning" for why he camps out on Planet Island, then it is honestly the same to me as if he wouldn`t explain himself at all. Heck, in the latter scenario, at least I could maybe come up with a reason that I would find convincing.

And in terms of likeability, I honestly need at least some likeable characters to get me through a story. I can make due even with a bad story if the characters are enjoyable. Hating Luke, Rey and Kylo certainly did that force plot no favours. Wanting Holdo spaced certainly didn`t that boring chase plot any favours. Finn and Rose had the best quota of likeable characters in their own plot, unless they dragged fortune cookie wisdom DJ into it but their plot was so preachy and unengaging, they weren`t likeable enough to get me through it.

 

Well we know Luke half-trained Leia.

And she in turn, half-trained Rey.

So there’s a connection.


With Rey learning the rest from the ancient texts.

 

I don`t view mentorship working in a hereditary way like that. Because then for example Qui Gon kinda trained Luke.

Rey doesn`t really need training, she has "falls in her lap" powers of unbelievable convenience and no effort. That trumps even the best deus ex machina.

 

I think there's a very good chance they do retcon/ignore the ST. Not only does a large enough percentage of fans have intense dislike for it, but the supporters for it are much less passionate and often ambivalent. Since the ST lacks a significant story and adds very little to the Saga that isn't destructive to franchise, it's pretty easy to revise. All it takes is the right leadership, and Filoni and Favreau and Chapek may be the ones to do this.

I mistyped in my previous post: I meant to write that the ST won't age as gracefully as the PT (not the OT), and this is an important thing to understand because it gets to the root of the issue, The PT added a substantive story to the franchise, and so even with its weaknesses, it's been able to be perceived differently over time. The PT is also full of amazing imagery and beauty. The ST is lacking in both respects, and particularly in regards to story.

That lack of story could easily be overlooked by fans, since it's easy to overlook nothingness, but what can't be overlooked is the destruction of Luke Skywalker and the damage this does to future storytelling during the post-ROTJ period. Because Disney is interested in making money, they have good reason to consider using Disney+ as a medium for revising things.

As for Rey, Poe, and Finn, the passion for these characters is medium-low at best, but more significantly, the actors have a strong distaste for the ST's poor storytelling, and it's clear the leads aren't interested in returning. So the only thing of significance the ST has accomplished is alienating fans and destroying narrative potential.

So the ST is much different than the PT, and the best route forward is erasure.

 

There are plenty of exciting ways to portray an exiled Luke Skywalker, RJ's version is one out of many, whether it's convincing or not is up to the audience to decide on its execution. According to the TLJ art book, in the early version of TFA, his revitalization would have happened during the first movie while he was training Kira/Thea and according to Hamill, GL would have made him survive until episode IX in which he would have died after training Leia. So they would have kept him as a mentor figure throughout the ST (TBF, it's unclear which version of episode IX MH was talking about though he did say he spoke to GL so who knows).

Grumpy Luke was actually entertaining, it wasn't really a surprising with how his arc was set up in TFA. The disillusioned mentor figure who either becomes hopeful again by the end of the story thanks to the influence of a new student or becomes an antagonist is quite common for characters over 50 so I wasn't really surprised with his story in TLJ. I didn't buy his "it's time for the Jedi to end" line in the trailer for a second. There's a reason why they put it in the trailer which was then re-contextualized in the movie. I didn't have any problem with his death, I thought it was poetic and one of the most peaceful death in SW which is rare, especially in the movies.

Of course I have nitpicks over some particular scenes but I understand why RJ did it even if I disagree with it. The two lessons were some of my favorite scenes in TLJ, that Sidious name drop in particular was unexpected but was a beautiful tie to the PT.

 

Regarding Luke...
Come on....he believed he tried to murder him!

 

It may be but they won't erase the era or it's story, they will work around so it works. And Ridley and Boyega enjoyed their roles, maybe a little disappointed, Oscar liked the role but has biff with disney, Adam loved his role as Kylo ren. Ridley liked RJ storytelling more then JJ. They only wanted to return if all 3 came back and we see if she comes back in 20-30 years like the OT gang. the destruction of Luke is something that's been there since lucas drafts. There's many intresting things you can do in post return of the jedi with first oder and dakness rising in unkown space and Luke looking for jedi relics. FIloni even compares Luke's journey to Frodo journey at the end.

 

Pai Mei is a great example and that would be a great dynamic indeed.