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

Not mentioning it in the follow-up makes the concept retroactively ludicrous. Sure, it's still in TLJ but after TROS it is even more of a joke than it previously was.

TLJ said something did happen and the next movie showed how it very much didn"t happen in any significant manner.

Sure. Because everyone expects books and a TV show about FG Luke's adventures where he rebuilds the Jedi Order or something.

He is dead in the ways that matter for the continued use of a fictional character. Cameos are just that - cameos. The one in TROS for example was a bad joke IMO. Might as well have been cut.

 

What reverence? My perception of this character in TLJ is that the idea of a lost Luke isn't out of line, but how it's executed, how it's developed and how it's paid off is something I think isn't strongly written, to me.

 

That's a fair desire not to discuss those kinds of video essays and have a discussion on those terms. It's perfectly fine. I will say this though if you don't want to discuss it you don't have to comment at all. I just brought it up because I thought it make for some interesting conversations. This is a general purpose thread to discuss Luke Skywalker in the ST so you don't have to address everything someone posts in here. With that said this conversation has been interesting. So I guess I'm happy you responded anyway.

Yeah I can see how that criticism can become annoying, people complain you can't enjoy something because of pre-existing expectations, but they then fill in the narrative gaps themselves despite those answers not existing in the movie. I think that's why a lot of The Last Jedi fans weren't happy with The Rise of Skywalker. They themselves built up a lot of expectations about the movies and when they saw TROS those expectations were dashed as well. I do want to add that people pre-concieved notions and expectations do affect their experience and it's a legitimate point to bring up, but that doesn't seem to be your issue. You and I seem to be in a similar boat in that respect. I'm open to a lot, but it has to make sense for what came before and how we last saw that character and setting and to me how the Sequel Trilogy played out didn't really fit with the rest of the Saga on a narrative level. I don't have an issue with old man Luke, but as you said it's not old man Luke that is the issue it's that it isn't fleshed out enough and his reasons aren't consistent with the character prior. PSAstitch on Youtube had a video comparing deadbeat Spiderman with TLJ Luke and makes the key point that even though Peter Parker is a radically different character from what you're used to you still see glimmers of the character. That considering what he went through his transformation makes sense as well. I don't really feel like that was earned, or what we got in TLJ. As with my point about the Lucas outlines and comparing them with what we got it was to show how the old man Luke concept could have worked better with fans even if you still had many who didn't like it. Yeah it would be jarring at first, but Luke is at least trying to better things and he does get out of that funk with more adventures on the way.

I'm actually going to withhold comment on TLJ and it's development, but not because I don't want to talk about it, I actually really do, but I don't want to derail the topic of this thread. I actually was thinking of transferring the conversation to the Development of the Sequel Trilogy thread, but it seems to be locked and I asked a moderator about reopening. So when I get an answer on that I'll let you know, quote your comment here and give you my response there.

 

Hamill is certainly a good enough actor to do whatever is required. He has by far the most dramatic scenes in the OT, and IMHO, pulls them off successfully. The issue with Luke Skywalker in the ST is all about the writing, not the acting.

 

I can see your point on the essay, If the essay didn’t have such a clickbait title and say things like Luke’s Secret Shame i probably wouldn’t have said anything if it was why i think Luke was the way he was i would have not commented as you mentioned. On these forums especially as of late IMO we get a lot of posts and articles supposedly about subjects and they just end up being heavily skewed one way or another and just and not even really about what they talked about in the headline.

With regards for the development and then being able to accept something i think we are on the same page about it as we could have gone with it if they had done the work. I find Peter B Parker an interesting example from Spider Verse since it’s actually the right way to do it. We actually get a summary saying here he is as you knew him but look at what happened to him over the years and now he is this. Also as you say you can see the elements of his old characteristic come through during the entire film till he is the Spider Man we know. If they had done something similar with Luke it could have worked well. With Luke we never got any of that till like the very end and if the scene didn’t work for you then the whole story just completely falls apart. I wish RJ had at least used some of the idea from GL’s script and have him for of a reason to have been in hiding not just what we got. I don’t think RJ was interested enough in Luke’s journey to the state he portrayed him in during TLJ he just wanted to tell the Old Man Luke story.

If they don’t open up the Developpement thread a lot of that conversation has slipped into the story purpose thread.

 

Again, I'm not sure what good it does for conversation for you to regurgitate the bare bones of Luke's story in TLJ using overly negative charged language and the most cynical of terms. Does it convey your distain for TLJ? Sure. Yet, it's hard to see your message with all the extraneous dirt throwing and such. As I said, I could take any plot line from the saga and describe it using the most cynical phrasing to make it seem "less than."

Well, to be fair....we don't see

I dunno. Lando showed up with a giant fleet of "just people." It wasn't an army, navy, military. It was citizens. I see a direct line drawn fromLuke's stand on Crait, the fact that news of this legend/event spread to people the galaxy (broom boy), and regular citizens showing up at the end of TROS.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Explain again?

Again, I realize that you don't like it. Luke's scene in TROS was a highlight for me and the audiences I have viewed the film with. I am sorry you don't find any joy in it. That must suck.

 

I don`t. At all. If JJ wanted to sell me that bridge, he needed to do a far better job at it. As it stands, Crait is a joke to me and Luke is an "inspiration" on paper. It`s now an empty tag-on scene of TLJ, devoid of any narrative weight as far as I`m concerned.

This discussion started on the grounds of "Luke giving us hope for the future". Which he didn`t do in TLJ via Crait and it is really meaningless to me that he is technically still around for FG cameos here and there but dead in terms of weighty narrative use of a character for the future. I really don`t care much about cameos so why in all the world would that lead to "hope for the future" on my part?

I acknowledge that on some spiritual level within the universe the character is still around. That alone just doesn`t give me any warm fuzzies. He is dead and therefore unable to redeem himself in any way I would find meaningful. Therefore his not-quite-dead-state means zilch to me.

Other than the horrible wig it wasn`t a horrifically humiliating like stuff in TLJ so it was less offensive. I just found it super-pointless.

I also think the Obi Wan cameo in ROTJ didn`t have much of a narrative necessity to it - Luke could have easily come to the realization about the sister reveal a couple seconds earlier in the scene with Yoda so it wasn`t needed to happen in the other cameo - however I had nothing against it either. Seeing Obi Wan and taking two minutes out from the story just for the sake of it? Why not. It was nice to watch. I don`t demand every scene in a movie needs to have a point.

But seeing Luke in the bad wig wasn`t really anything I needed. At this point I couldn`t take him seriously as any figure who was supposed to sprout wisdom anyway. TLJ took care of that permanently. The lifting of the X-Wing was just an eye-roll-y pat on the head. In a movie where Super-Rey and Super-Kylo raise people from the dead and play tug-of-war with big transport pships in the sky, little Luke finally learned how the raise a little fighter ship. How quaint.

So it was considerably more annoying to have this unneeded scene there. They could have cut this ridiculous "crisis of faith" that lasted 30 seconds or something for Rey before she got super again and just gave the screentime to the hilariously dropped thing of "Finn wants to tell Rey something" if need be.

 

No that’s wrong. Kylo, the villain, came to that conclusion and he was wrong. That’s why he’s the vilkain.

The thesis of the movie is just the opposite of that. Force Ghost Yoda explained it.

 

I guess I don’t see how @dagenspear is being “cynical” here? Hasn’t he/she pretty much just stated what we saw regarding Luke in TLJ? Since all of those things are true in the film, it’s not like the poster was just giving a personal opinion. It IS factual that Luke did nothing about his nephew after the incident in the hut in which he ignited his lightsaber after reading kylo’s mind while he slept. It’s also true that Luke ran away to hide on an island for six years and did nothing to help. Even when Rey arrived with a plea from his sister, Luke refused to help. Luke only went to Crait after that lecture from yoda, his former mentor ( even though it didn’t make sense that yoda’s speech would change his mind when even his sister being in need didn’t sway him. That was really stupid, in my opinion.). And then, about five minutes after Luke decided to do something, ( which was only giving twelve people a five minute distraction), he died from using the Force. (I found that to be even more stupid.)

TFA was all about finding Luke Skywalker so that he could help the resistance and “ make things right”, but finding Luke turned out to be completely unnecessary. Luke didn’t help to fight Kylo or snoke or the first order. He didn’t train Rey or live to rebuild the Jedi order that he lost. He did a five minute magic show and died. So searching for Luke was just a big worthless waste of time. He simply wasn’t needed. Only Rey was.

So, I Don think that @dagenspear was being cynical. It’s the film that is cynical as well as nihilistic.

 

When people criticize the film for what’s on camera we are cynical and nihilistic yet we somehow hate the film because of head canon. Most everyone that loves the film and Luke in TLJ have their one head canon as to why he was broken and that’s okay. I have yet to see any arguments that work justifying Luke based solely on what he does on camera throughout all of his appearances in the films it’s just maddening.

 

Let's face it, they brought Palpatine back, I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same with Luke!
I wouldn't put anything past this lot!

 

Stating the plot of a movie in a short/dismissive/negatively slanted phrasing is cynical. Blatantly ignoring the themes and context of the events in the movies is cynical.


Example: Most heroic characters aren't whiny/self absorbed teenagers that, after shirking family responsibilities, just as easily, shrug off the deaths of their family to join a lying, old, reclusive, criminal to learn the mind control rituals and practices of an outlawed cult, then meets with up with a gang related, drug running, felon, his bullying bodyguard, and a teenaged anarchist/spy/agitator to ultimately become a key member in a terrorist organization aiming to destabilize/upheave the current government and the stability it provides.

Now, everything I said about A New Hope is technically accurate, but clearly, is a slanted take. It's devoid of any contextual, or thematic background that the movie actually provides. It is a cynical/misleading take on the material designed to do one thing while claiming to do another.

This is not too far off from the way many anti-TLJ or ST fans will describe the films as if this enhances the viewpoint, or helps meaningful; conversation. Point it is, it's not done in good faith and it gets in the way of actually engaging in a fair discussion.

Interesting. Explain this more. What aspect of Luke's character/story are you talking about?

 

Not to side-track things, but that scene very much did have a narrative point. How many times in ESB does Luke lament, "Ben, why didn't you tell me?" Quite a few times is the answer. Luke and Obi-Wan return to that subject quite directly in ROTJ. It's an opportunity for Obi-Wan to rehabilitate himself in Luke's eyes (and those of the audience). Whether that succeeds might be up for debate, but there's a definite purpose for the scene outside of the sister reveal (which, in itself, is a sign that Luke trusts Obi-Wan again).

 

I don't think pointing this out sidetracks things, it brings something sharply in the focus: Not everyone watches these films and comes away with the same interpretation.

To me, just like this Luke/Obi-Wan interaction from ROTJ, the ST clearly explains/illustrates the various motivations/insights/reasons of Luke's character. Yet, just purpose of the ROTJ Obi-Wan scene seems to be up for debate and is able to be mis-read/ignored etc.

 

I will provide a brief breakdown not sure if I will have the time to get into lots of detail but when I can I will. If you really want to get into the weeds as people say I will do my best at a later time

Luke starts out as a farm boy in ANH and embarks upon a journey that leads him from Jedi Knight to Jedi Master, along the way he faces many trials and challenges he fails and has set backs on multiple occasions then finally in ROTJ faced with the Emperor Luke gives in at least partially to his anger and ends up defeating his father and almost falls in to the Emperor's trap and the path that he almost walks down. He instead choses a pacifist and Jedi path and believes in his father and the love he has for his father and his father for him to bring down the Emperor and save himself. At the end of the film we see a Luke that has grown beyond his rashness that has suffered losses and learn less about being a Jedi, visions of the future and more. We also have core characteristics of the character established

Now we are in the ST when we first meet the character a lot of his core characteristics are gone. His faith in his friends, his compassion, the way he would never give up and constantly pick himself up. Instead we have a broken Cynical old man that is a far cry from the Jedi Master or Knight we met at the end of ROTJ. We then get the explanation of why he did what he did in one scene where he decides to follow a vision (already had a nasty lesson about those) raises a lightsaber in fear and anger (already learned that lesson to) and then Kylo lashes out at him and destroys the temple.. Luke has a major setback blames himself and leaves to go die and abandons his friends and the galaxy (already saw a setback in ESB but came back one year later stronger and saved his friend, never seen him abandon anything in the OT)

Now the issue with this is that somewhere between ROTJ and TLJ Luke has had some hardships that have clearly let him unlearn just about everything he learned in the OT to get him into that hut situation in the first place and that by itself the hut situation doesn't seem like it would convince Luke Skywalker to quit based on everything we know about the character before this film. The audience has to assume he has had a pretty awful go of it and that this is the last straw he is done and now just wants to wait for death. The story isn't created organically it's artificial which is why it feels so flawed and out of place for many people. It's RJ Saying I want to tell this story this way and go with it. GL gave Luke a purpose in leaving now we have failure..... Now if this was the story they wanted we should have gotten more background in both VII and VIII so we saw how the character progressed and became the man he was. People may have hated it but at least it would have made sense. As it stands there's a ton of story missing critical important story that they left out so they could tell Heroic Luke Stories if they felt like it in between trilogies when he really should just be having the worst time ever (just my opinion) More of that needed to be in the films and not left to the imagination since unlike the OT this is a sequel and we know these characters. It could have been trough lines of exposition that they could then expand in the EU but something. Luke was essentially reset to the person he was before the end of ROTJ having unlearned all of the lessons of the OT. That's fine it can happen but the ST chose not to tell the story and none of what changed Luke is on screen which is just frustrating. I would much rather be complaining about not liking the direction they took Luke Skywalker rather than saying they were just to lazy to write the damn story. The same applies to the other OT characters as well Luke's is just the most egregious

The other point was to have Obi Wan confirm that Darth Vader wasn't lying about being his father

 

I didn’t say the film’s lesson was that history repeats itself — just that the film is largely about that concept. But @cerealbox is right, Yoda teaches Luke (and all of us) to “grow beyond” that idea. History does repeat itself in the film, but that doesn’t mean you can’t change the future. Kylo believes that, too, but his idea of how to change the future is wrong. Kylo’s problem is that, in order to “become what you’re meant to be,” you have to essentially ignore and/or eliminate any remnants of the past.

What the heroes teach us in the film, though, is that we should embrace and learn from the mistakes of the past to positively influence the future. That was the lesson. Luke was a good teacher, but where he failed was his inability to see that the future could be changed and that history didn’t have to keep repeating itself. Yoda reminded him of that, and The Rise of Skywalker expands on that by having Luke and Leia teach Rey that same lesson — you can’t change the past, but you can change the future.

 

"Mis-reading/ignoring" sounds a lot like "you`re watching it wrong".

This scene has the sister reveal - which is a necessary plot point for later in the movie. Beyond that it is an emotional convo between Obi Wan and Luke. Which is nice. But it has no bearing on the plot. If you absolutely had to cut something from the movie for time, what would it be, this or, say, the Emperor shooting lightning at Luke?

I do make a distinction between scenes that are in a story to just be a nice breather with some emotional stuff and scenes that are absolutely necessary for the basic plot to work out and you couldn`t move/rewrite what happened there and still have the same plot. Which, emotional scenes CAN be absolutely pivotal to the plot but often they are just not. The Obi Wan cameo was a nice breather scene. Obi Wan didn`t have give Luke his POV speech or else the entire movie falls apart.

In that regard, yes, I stand by my assessment that the Obi Wan cameo in ROTJ was not fundamentally needed. It`s still a nice scene and I`m in no way saying I want it cut from the movie. Coversely, I`m saying that Luke cameo in TROS was not needed and it wasn`t even a particularly good scene so I`d happily see it cut from the final product and feel it was probably even improved.

Every nice has a "narrative purpose" in that regard, being just a breather scene or even a comic relief scene that is mostly filler has a "purpose" in the story, namely being a breather or just for levity. I`m talking about scenes being necessary for the plot when I say the cameo was pointless either way. And Rey`s entire "crisis" was so pointless and blink-if-you-miss-it-hey-we-are-trying-to-fix-TLJ-did-you-notice-that, it wouldn`t derail the movie at all if it never happened.

Already accomplished via Yoda. There is even the story of George consulting child psychologists who told him for children to believe that, it needs to come from a positive authority figure. Obi Wan would have been that but Yoda already surficed. That`s why he literally confirms it.

And that was literally what the OT characters did in their own trilogy and basically the point of Luke`s attitude back then. But since it`s the Sequel Trilogy now the OT characters have been relegated to "haha, suckers, you failed" so the ST characters can be the OT characters and do a victory lap right over them. For no other reason because it`s the ST now yet the exact same story of the OT with the same villain and all so they needed to have failed and the ST characters just need to hold out their hands and grab the victory falling into it.

That is the furthest thing from baton passing I can imagine.

 

I don't think I'm ignoring the themes or the context. I don't care about the context, as I think his context doesn't justify his actions or make me sympathize with him. Similar with his conclusion in that movie. I don't think themes matter, in this situation. I see the themes and the characters as different things.

Luke being a whiny teenager isn't him considering killing his nephew and abandoning his friends and family, on purpose to suffer and die and refuse to help, when confronted for most of the movie.

Luke doesn't shirk responsibilities in ANH, before his guardians die. Luke searches for the R2 unit they bought and gets attacked and is found by Obi-Wan. After being asked to help, Luke refuses in favor of his responsibilities to his family. Yes, I think Luke's lacking reaction to their deaths isn't good writing as well.

I don't think my post is ignoring the story and characters of the movie, like I think that hypothetical is. I think my perception of Luke doesn't change anything the movie gives.

I think I'm using the context TLJ gives. I think Luke's background, the context are the reasons I see it as cynical.

Couldn't that be suggested similarly to saying someone is blatantly ignoring things?

 

I don't think his performance in the OT was particularly great but it doesn't matter because there really weren't expectations the same then as they would be all these years later at the conclusion of his character arc. He was more believable as a young Luke than he would have been as a Jedi elder tasked with carrying a larger part of the on screen story. Just my opinion of course but he was de-emphasized for one reason or another.

 

He was the furthest thing from de-emphasized as a character. If they wanted that, they would have given him more like an extended cameo as just a Jedi mentor. I hated the writing for him in the movie but it was the opposite of writing you give to someone if you think they are a bad actor and want to hide it away with some easy stuff. It would be the equivalent of saying "we don`t think you can play Romeo, here have Hamlet instead". Because that is so much easier. So really that argument makes no sense to me.

 

He wasn't central to the story in a physical sense. He had less than 4 minutes of combined screen time in 2 out of the 3 movies. It would have been impossible to eliminate him completely but he certainly wasn't tasked with any heavy lifting.

 

And he had a major role in one out of 3 you forgot to mention. Where he was very much called on to do heavy lifting.

You think action-heavy would have been a hard part, for a production with the budget of Star Wars? Action-heavy would have been the easiest thing to do, even with Mark Hamill not mainly doing it. You can go the way of the one-million-cuts like the Taken movies. You can go with stunt performers and not do many close-ups. You can CGI. And with the way the force works, if they wanted mega-action heavy, they can still pull it off by having him stand in front of a green screen, hold his hand out and then just put lots of effects in. That stuff would have been easy-peasy.

So nope, not buying it. This is not the day and age where you can`t work around the fitness of an actor if you want them in just "action scenes". Taking their shirt off, that`s something else. But not the umbrella term of being physically involved.

 

People are free to watch and interpret a movie however they want. However, it is difficult to engage in conversation if we fundamentally don't interpret the movie the same. Meaning, if we cannot agree on surface level stuff like basic plot points and story structure, how can we get into theme, characterization, and symbolism?

1. Sister reveal aside, the scene between Obi-Wan and Luke is SOOO much more than a nice emotional conversation. In fact you seem to be totally mischaracterizing (dare I say missing the point?) of the scene.

The scene between Luke and Obi-Wan in ROTJ is where the film is literally laying out the stakes for Luke's confrontation with Vader. This scene is where we first get the idea that Luke sees good in his father, and cannot bring himself to kill Vader. It also gives us much needed insight as to how Obi-Wan views Vader differently, and why he thinks Luke needs to be willing to kill in order to defeat the forces of darkness. It creates tension, drama, and internal conflict for Luke moving forward.

Further more, this conversation illustrates that Luke's feelings for Leia make him vulnerable in a way that Vader and The Emperor can exploit. This very thing (again explained in this Obi-Wan scene)comes heavily into play in the VERY CLIMAX of the movie.

Again, if you think this scene is simply a fluffy emotional talking piece with the sister reveal, yeah, I'd say you might be "watching it wrong" because you seem to be missing some much bigger things than what you describe the scene as.

2. While not exactly analogous, I think that removing the scene with Obi-Wan would completely alter everything in the throne room leading up to the Emperor shooting lightning...as I explained above.

Again, if you think the scene with Obi-Wan in ROTJ is "just a nice breather" with some emotional stuff, I'd suggest that you are, misreading the scene and missing the point. Again, this scene is absolutely necessary for the plot to work and you cannot just get rid of it as it informs Luke's entire thought process/character motivation/vulnerability and conflict in ROTJ.

This is is confusing. The point of Luke's attitude in the OT was to learn from his past failures? That doesn't seem right. I mean, to a certain extent all characters learns from past mistakes as they evolve, but that lesson wasn't THE lesson imparted on Luke in the OT.

Again, this seems failing to engage with the film on its own terms. Not caring about context is kind of just ignoring what the story/narrative is explaining...is it not?

Can you elaborate on this?

 

Christopher Lee was in his 80's when he played Dooku. They just CGI'd the fight scenes.

 

I didn`t need this scene to get any of that. Luke being conflicted is already touched upon in the scene just seconds ago with Yoda. And him being conflicted about confronting his own father vs. random McEvil guy doesn`t need two consecute scenes for me to get it. Not to mention it is brought up in detail later on in the scene with Leia. Where he tells her exactly what he plans to do and why. And then yet again with Vader when they are alone. And then multiple times during the fight. Am I really supposed to not get it in any of those?

Obi Wan putting his perspective in words was also not needed for me in detail because you have that wonderful scene in ANH where he speaks so positively of his good friend Anakin, then looks shifty - clearly because of Luke`s presence and not wanting to come out and spill the beans - when he speaks of how Anakin was murdered by evil Vader. Then he looks sad and defeated.

So sure, the scene in ROTJ reiterated all that. But I didn`t need it. And I don`t think I`m missing the point of the scene.

Two movies and parts of ROTJ itself illustrate Luke`s feelings for Leia. If I didn`t get it from those, I wasn`t gonna get it from the Obi Wan scene. If you get the sister reveal in in the scene with Yoda, it can play out just the same.

I don`t see the slightest reason why it would.

Like I said, I got all of that just fine from other scenes. This was considerably easier than figuring out Bruce Willis was dead in Sixth Sense. At least that took me twenty minutes in or so. Luke`s conflict and thought process is very easy to understand with very little set-up. It`s not more or less a fairytale story for nothing. Much more Scifantasy than Scifi. There are multiple scenes regarding Luke`s conflict, all beautiful scenes but losing one doesn`t lead to the house of cards tumbling down. At least not for me.

Not fom his past failures but to find a different way to the Jedi before him. Yoda in Empire was all about how the dark side was the final destination if you ever hopped on board that train. Luke was the one who thought of buying a return ticket for his father.

And with the context of the PT, it is pretty overt that it is supposed to be "the new generation who does better".

But now we have the new-new generation who has the actual victory because the OT generation totally blew it in hindsight. It`s the "okay, boomer" of trilogies.