ST ST Criticism Discussion Thread

1) Fear of losing what he’s gained leading to anger and the Dark Side.

Example: Dark Side glimpse number 2 opposite Ben Solo.

2) Being stuck between do or do not.

Example: Trying to end the Order but never fully bringing himself to do it.

3) Daydreaming of fixes for the largest problems in order to avoid the ones truly holding him back that were more pressing right below his nose.

Example: Becoming obsessed with the separation of the Jedi from the Light somehow leading to real change in the galaxy while ignoring the bigger issues going on.

4) Wrecklessness in a decision.

Example: Force block to shut out anyone trying to talk him out of this.

5) Ignoring contrary opinions from mentors and family related to the likelihood of success of his ideas and choosing to do things his own way regardless.

Example: Again, believing that only he gets what must be done and that others can’t see what he sees as the path forward.

6) Willingness to escape a situation and jump off a ledge over embracing the dark side fullly like his father had.

Example: Shutting off the force from his life entirely and retiring.


7) Willingness to take a non-violent approach and take the chances that come from that. Especially when the alternative may involve combat with a family member.

Example: He wants no part of the saber any more.

8) Passionate in whatever it is he’s chosen to believe in.

Example: His face lights up when he is teaching Rey the first lesson and telling her that to think that only the Jedi can use this power for good and that all Light side users must be taught the Jedi way is Jedi vanity.

9) Willing to sacrifice his own happiness and well being for what he feels is right.

Example: This is where his arc and Bruce Wayne’s in the Dark Knight rises are similar. Wayne believed removing superheroes from Gotham would end hero worship and lead to something better and longer lasting. Luke believes the same of the Jedi now. Both are aware that others will think less of them and are willing to live a less fulfilling life on their own for 6 years in order for something more meaningful beyond Jedi or Superhero to step in where the Jedi and superheroes were bandaid fixing things and in some cases creating new super villains.

10) Willing to die to save what he loves.

Example: Separating his spirit from his body to save his sister.

There are others as well but since you asked... those are probably the bigger ones that come to mind.

 

The thing is, why deliberately crap all over the character arc that worked and replace it with, an OT rehash? How was this the best way to go, it makes no sense to me?

Legends for all of it's many faults, was able to make Luke a flawed fallable character, you know like he ALWAYS was from Day One, without burning all of his accomplishments to the ground or fundamentally betraying his character growth.

 

I also wouldn’t say he gives up easily in the OT: Wampa cave, saving Han on Tatooine, saving Vader after initial setbacks in throne room


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think @DarthPhilosopher is referring to him giving up on lifting the X-wing out of the swamp in ESB. But wasn't his whole OT arc about overcoming stuff like that?

 

He gives up like once if it recall. When he fails to lift the X-Wing, and tells Yoda "you ask the impossible." But importantly, when Yoda then lifts it, he acts like its an almost spiritually revelation for him. But that's ONE moment and his entire OT arc was growing from past failures and learning from stuff like that.

Rian and the folks at LF would have you believe that he never learned a freaking thing either during the OT or the 30 years afterwards.

 

You think they have shown that he’s learned nothing?

He learned how to build this until it was taken away.



He taught Leia as well.

Learned how to block the force.

Learned where the first Jedi temple was.

Learned how to separate his spirit from his body and embody that while our matter may be crude... luminous beings are we within.

Seems more like 6 years of a misguided guilt-ridden crusade against the Jedi Order versus likely 20 more years of heroics and building and teaching from ROTJ forward and his moment on Crait.

 

When does it say that he taught Leia?

He learned a few tricks, that he had no intention of actually using, fantastic (sarcasm).

And the First Jedi Temple has pretty much no relevance to the onscreen story in TLJ, it could have been any planet that he ran off to.

And he uses it to troll Kylo for five minutes to save 20 people when he let everyone else in the Resistance die first, and then he dies on his first time using it because, he got tired I guess. Oh how impressive (sarcasm).

Six years of a "crusade" that makes no freaking sense and is massively OOC for him and defines him throughout 99% of his screentime, vs. 20 years of stuff that we NEVER GET TO SEE and ends up meaning nothing in the end anyways. Everything he built, GONE burned to the ground. Everyone that he taught, DEAD OFFSCREEN, except for the genocidal murdering fascist. All of this stuff happens offscreen, and it's all gone by the time that we get to the main narrative.

So yes, as far as the films are concerned, he learned nothing.

 

Here RJ contradicts his entire schtick of subverting expectations. In order to do it, you need to know what people actually expect. He definitely knew that people wouldn't expect Luke to be the way he was in TLJ. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything to subvert.

 

Not for me. I don’t care what story they tell me about him, he’s a betraying, petulant, brat who should die in a burning Hot Topic store. I don’t care why he went dark, they can’t give me a reason that I would care about. He lost every chance he had with me when he killed Han. I didn’t care for him before that either.

Just because Hamill played the Joker doesn’t mean Luke and Batman are at all alike. The Dark Knight’s ending was hands down one of the stupidest things I’ve ever sat through - oh, I have to take the blame. Really, like the Joker isn’t right there? Give me a break. It’s stupid when Bruce does it and it’s even more absurd when Luke does it because at least Gotham has a police force. Luke leaves the galaxy and the people he loves to die. I wish Han had found him on Space Ireland and hauled off and slugged him into the middle of next week. There’s no nobility in what Luke did and it’s not in character - the kid who wouldn’t leave his aunt and uncle in the lurch, who came to save Han and Leia, who never gave up on his father, just leaves? I need that “guess I’ll die” GIF here.

 

I like the idea of a moon falling on Kylo

 

...to make Kylo look no worse than Luke when Kylo does the same thing to Poe and Rey probably. It simultaneously makes Luke behave horrible and makes Kylo look better.

And of course foolish Luke wakes Ben up in the process because what the heck did he expect to happen?

 

Okay well that may be your opinion but it's directly at odds with the core moral message of the Star Wars saga.

 

I think Obi Wan would have "finished off" Anakin if he had known he was going to live. He left him there to die. It wasn't a moral choice to let him live.

The fact that the Emperor revived Anakin, gave him a suit, and rehabilitated him was completely unexpected. Arguing that Obi Wan should have finished the job is a fair argument, but it has nothing to do with choosing to let Anakin live. I believe in hindsight Obi Wan probably wished he had delivered a death blow.

 

Your term doesn't accurately describe me and is inherently reductive. Just because someone defends something about TLJ, or RJ, doesn't make them a 'defender/backer/supporter'. I also criticise RJ and TLJ. Am I alternatively both a defender and a critic of RJ and TLJ? You're defining people by certain of their opinions and disregarding others in an apparent need to sort people into neat little categories. I especially take issue with you contrasting me with Luke fans. I'm just as much of a Luke fan as anyone else here.

The statement we were (or I thought we were) talking about was that Luke's personality in TLJ is consistent with his traits in the OT. Which is accurate; he does regress back to some of his more negative traits in the OT.

You are misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that there is an even distribution of positive and negative comments from MH, as if there is some magic ratio. I am saying that his thoughts are nuanced and not necessarily as wholly negative as you're suggesting. You appear to insist that MH positive comments should be disregarded as 'dishonest' and that only his negative comments 'count'. MH himself has stated he doesn't like how people are misrepresenting and cherrypicking his comments. Until we hear otherwise I'm taking all of MH's comments as honest.

 

We are all entitled to our own opinions about MH and how he truly feels. IMO, he has gone out of his way in his attempt to make it clear to all of the SW fans that he did not like the way RJ presented Luke in TLJ. It is almost unheard of for an actor to say anything negative at all about a movie they are promoting. Hamill has always been a professional, in fact, he has always been the most enthusiastic of SW supporters. He is being paid to speak positively about the movies, so if he works in a positive comment here and there, that, I would think, could be construed as part of his job. The negative comments are something quite different. He is being openly hostile when he is supposed to be completely positive. Almost every actor on every single promotional tour for a movie says only positive things about the movie they are promoting. The mere fact that he has said some positive things does not counter the negatives, thus making it too nuanced to interpret. By that rationale, there is no word, or even words, that can possibly be used to describe how MH feels, because it'll always be too nuanced. Literally everything can be interpreted that way, even if he explicitly stated he "hated" the movie, you could argue that his feelings are really more nuanced than even his own words can describe. All ideas are infinitely nuanced and impossible to pin down if you so choose them to be....

The negativity Hamill has expressed on a promotional tour meant to sell the product, in and of itself, is IMO meaningful, and speaks volumes about how he feels.

 

Because Luke used a noisy lightsaber, not a silent until used blaster. I know Han, Leia and the Rebels taught him better than that.

 

That must be why he specifically called out people cherry picking and taking his comments out of context. Obviously because those interpretations were... accurate?

Taking all of his comments into consideration I think it's obvious he has a complex opinion on both the film and RJ. Again, maybe he actually hates the film and RJ... I'm not willing to say that until he says it.

 

Hamill really disliked his role in the movie does not equal Hamill really hated The Last Jedi. He keeps the far vast majority of his pretty unheard of in volume of personal public griping in this business to his own lane.

 

I think you're the one who is lacking nuance here in your accusations. His comments may be aimed at other things he has read by other posters he disagreed with. As far as we know, MH has never read my particular quotes, and as far as you know, if he had, he might agree with everything I've said. You have no idea how he would feel about my particular ideas, given the context I put them in. So why don't you use the same standards you have in this case and admit you have no clue what Hamill would think about my opinions? I always back up my points with plenty of context. I don't just cherry pick quotes. He also never denied hating the movie. He just didn't confirm it.

 

Correct. It still makes absolutely no sense that Luke would purposefully seek out an unfindable planet that contains the first Jedi temple to simply turn himself off from the force (whatever the hell that means). The premise that JJ set up infers Luke was up to something, going back to the roots of the Jedi to correct their fallen path, to find some answer that could turn the tide back in the lights side's favor. And only when the time was deemed right would those worthy find Luke through the use of the map that he left behind. NONE of this is addressed in TLJ and the film suffers for me because that was the big question I was interested in. Instead of answering anything that was built up in TFA RJ just decided to throw a curve ball that ended up being incredibly unsatisfying, again for me. Why leave a map to his whereabouts if he did not want to be found?

What is the answer to this I ask the TLJ defenders.

 

Quoted because I can only like once.

 

Yes, I'm clearly talking generally. I don't know what he thinks of either of our opinions. But at the same time MH is clearly talking about those who take his comments and put an overly negative spin on them by removing context and cherrypicking. All I then proceeded to state is that his comments are more nuanced than many give them credit for and you responded defensively. You then demonstrated clear confirmation bias by implying that he may actually hate the film because he didn't explicitly deny it, even though in the context of his comment he is clearly refuting such an idea as an example of an out-of-context and cherry picked comment. That is an example of you removing context. You've also dismissed his positive comments out of hand. All I am saying is that we should do MH the good courtesy of taking his comments at face value and not try and read into them to fit our narratives. I have no interest in trying to align MHs views with mine, which is clearly shown by the fact I have stated I both agree and disagree with comments he has made. That's perfectly fine with me. In contrast you have said previously, I believe, that it matters a great deal to you whether MH agrees with you or not.