DrDre

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

Matt.F said:

NeverarGreat said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

tere are good explanations for most of them anyway.

There are explanations now that we’ve had ages to ponder them. Conversely, the novelization for TLJ isn’t even out yet.

The TFA novel straight up explains how the Starkiller beam could destroy a planet on the other side of the galaxy from where the base itself is located. It just depends on it you want to accept that explanation.

That is to say, you like the movie or you don’t, and that’s your choice. But holding ST and OT up to different yard sticks isn’t exactly fair.

We shouldn’t need novelizations to justify the events of a movie.

But as for different yardsticks, the Death Star was a moon sized space station with essentially a big version of a blaster that could blow up rocky planets. It required the resources of a galaxy-spanning empire to build.

Starkiller Base is a piece of construction many times larger than the Death Star, with a primary weapon requiring seemingly universe-breaking technology that has never been previously hinted at or explained, built by an organization that by all indications is a fraction the size of the Empire.

These are not two yardsticks.

Iteration is your answer.

The German Empire was defeated in WWI, the Nazi’s “rose from the ashes” and 20 years later the Third Reich invaded Poland and WWII began.

The engineering iteration upon the previous weapons, saw the war machine now employ cannon that could span the English channel, unmanned V2 bombs, U boats, and any number of other more advanced hardware (including ultimately nuclear weapons).

Pretty obvious that the First Order is based upon the hardware of the Empire (TIE Fighters, Star Destroyers, Stormtrooper armour, Starkiller Base, etc), and so iteration is your answer to why they are more advanced.

But that still doesn’t answer the question of why they were able to build a far more ambitious project with far less resources. If we saw that they used a robotic workforce and had a lot of automation for their fleet it would make sense, but we get no indication that it’s different from the Empire in this regard. Hux even says that it’s a machine ‘that you have built’. Yet another missed opportunity if you ask me.

Well, how did the Empire do it? They built two huge battlestations in secret. The First order built a superweapon on a small planet. Not quite the same level of construction required. the weapon is more powerful, but the setup is not larger. And we see this one fleet. How many fleets does Snoke have? How many fleets did the Empire have? We see and increase in the technology, but we don’t really see a larger force. The Empire had to dominate the galaxy and keep the rebels at bay. The First Order destroyed the Republic capital and fleet (one fleet in one system, but evidently all the Republic thought it needed) so they don’t need the huge resources the Empire had to have the fleet and ships we see. When you move beyond the movies, the Empire was massive and there is no indication the First Order is anywhere near that big.

There’s no indication period. That’s the issue. We have to assume the Republic fleet was obliterated. We have to assume the destruction of Starkiller base, and all it’s equipment, and personel didn’t cripple the FO, much like the attack on the Republic capital system apparently crippled the New Republic. There’s just no frame of reference. There’s only the opening crawl and a few lines of dialogue, and those seem to suggest the FO is overruning the galaxy, implausible as that may be, while by the end of TLJ there’s a rebellion so small, that it fits into the Millenium Falcon.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

chyron8472 said:

You do not let the movies tell you a story on their own terms. You want it to be on your terms and are angry and frustrated that it doesn’t work that way. If you were willing to let the films tell their own stories and expand your understanding of the universe as you acquire more information about it, you would be able to accept and enjoy it.

I have to agree with your assessment, though I think your last paragraph is a bit off topic. DrDre was expecting ROTJ hero Luke, not old Mentor Luke. Such a fall is a mythic trope. I don’t know what some others were expecting, but whatever they expected they were disappointed.

I think this is inaccurate and an oversimplification. Time and time again we get these arguments, that us critics didn’t like TLJ, because of expectations and what not. It’s not about wanting hero Luke. It’s about what means are used to achieve what ends. The OT is in part about Luke’s growth as a character. In TLJ Luke has regressed to a deplorable state. Is this problematic in of itself? No, not at all. However, the means by which this was achieved, and to what ends, is what makes TLJ a bad Star Wars film in my view. The means, a sixty second flashback, is far too compressed IMO. It makes Luke’s transition from hero and Jedi to curmudgeon, who abandons his family, friends, and the GFAA at large, just not believable to me. This situation is compounded by the ends, which ultimately amount to a big reset in the Star Wars universe, where an even smaller rebel force has to fight another tyrannical regime, while another new hope has to somehow reinvigorate the Jedi.

So, for me personally deconstructing Luke Skywalker, while jarring, might have been worth the journey, if the franchise really went in an interesting new direction, whilst respecting the underlying themes of the overarching saga as set up by Lucas. However, since the ST for me personally amounts to little more than a reboot, whilst undoing almost everything the OT’s heroes achieved on a personal and macroscopic scale, I just disagree with the idea that the ST films tell their own stories and expand our understanding of the universe. It’s story consists of a mishmash of OT story threads, held together by a plot designed to defy expectations, and to avoid the OT’s resolutions. At the same time it provides very little understanding how and why the GFFA regressed back to the OT’s macrostate, because the film is too preoccupied with pulling the rug from under our feet at almost every turn, in my humble opinion of course.

The ST is like a rollercoaster. There’s fun and excitement to be found around every unexpected twist and turn, but ultimately the journey just leads back to the beginning of the ride, which makes it pretty pointless, if like me you wanted to go places.

Yes, that was oversimplified. But it is clear you had expectations and that you didn’t like where things went and that you didn’t really find the film engaging. But the thing I have problems with is because of that you have created a conspiracy theory that this was done deliberately to reboot the series and piss off long-time fans.

I have never said it was done to piss off long term fans. Star Wars is a brand, and the Empire versus rebels conflict is closely connected to that brand, just like the lightsabers, the Force, stormtroopers etc. So, rather than take a big risk and really tell a different story, that could be viewed by many as not really being Star Wars, because it doesn´t have some sort of Sith Lord, a fallen Jedi apprentice, stormtroopers, Star Destroyers, a tiny band of rebels led by a young Jedi wannabe, etc. , they took the safe route and ensured that the ST still adhered to a slightly modernized OT aesthetic, and remained beholden to the basic Empire vs rebels/Jedi vs Sith premise. The fact that a group of fans are pissed off, or in most cases simply disappointed, is just a side effect of that deliberate choice.

Matt.F said:

Yawn, what a load of tedious waffle.

Dre, you realise that these are movies made to entertain 8 year olds right?

Thank god the ‘deconstructing Luke Skywalker’ imaginary movie you wanted in your head wasn’t made!

I am afraid the simple solution for you Dre is to either walk away from the series, as watching TLJ has appeared to trigger you into hours upon hours of wasted time poured into expressions of regret and bitterness, or to dial down your lofty and unrealistic expectations and enjoy the movie on its own merits - as a film made to entertain 8 year olds.

Here we go again…I’ve reported you to the mods, because you simply can’t stop yourself from making things personal.

They say the test of good manners is to be patient with the bad ones, but I’ve lost my patience with yours.

yotsuya said:

chyron8472 said:

You do not let the movies tell you a story on their own terms. You want it to be on your terms and are angry and frustrated that it doesn’t work that way. If you were willing to let the films tell their own stories and expand your understanding of the universe as you acquire more information about it, you would be able to accept and enjoy it.

I have to agree with your assessment, though I think your last paragraph is a bit off topic. DrDre was expecting ROTJ hero Luke, not old Mentor Luke. Such a fall is a mythic trope. I don’t know what some others were expecting, but whatever they expected they were disappointed.

I think this is inaccurate and an oversimplification. Time and time again we get these arguments, that us critics didn’t like TLJ, because of expectations and what not. It’s not about wanting hero Luke. It’s about what means are used to achieve what ends. The OT is in part about Luke’s growth as a character. In TLJ Luke has regressed to a deplorable state. Is this problematic in of itself? No, not at all. However, the means by which this was achieved, and to what ends, is what makes TLJ a bad Star Wars film in my view. The means, a sixty second flashback, is far too compressed IMO. It makes Luke’s transition from hero and Jedi to curmudgeon, who abandons his family, friends, and the GFAA at large, just not believable to me. This situation is compounded by the ends, which ultimately amount to a big reset in the Star Wars universe, where an even smaller rebel force has to fight another tyrannical regime, while another new hope has to somehow reinvigorate the Jedi.

So, for me personally deconstructing Luke Skywalker, while jarring, might have been worth the journey, if the franchise really went in an interesting new direction, whilst respecting the underlying themes of the overarching saga as set up by Lucas. However, since the ST for me personally amounts to little more than a reboot, whilst undoing almost everything the OT’s heroes achieved on a personal and macroscopic scale, I just disagree with the idea that the ST films tell their own stories and expand our understanding of the universe. It’s story consists of a mishmash of OT story threads, held together by a plot designed to defy expectations, and to avoid the OT’s resolutions. At the same time it provides very little understanding how and why the GFFA regressed back to the OT’s macrostate, because the film is too preoccupied with pulling the rug from under our feet at almost every turn, in my humble opinion of course.

The ST is like a rollercoaster. There’s fun and excitement to be found around every unexpected twist and turn, but ultimately the journey just leads back to the beginning of the ride, which makes it pretty pointless, if like me you wanted to go places.

Edit:

Oops, I almost did it again, but I don’t want to get into another pointless debate, so I’m off again.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

ZigZig said:

I have a strange Groundhog Day feeling.

Same. It just struck me I honestly don’t know what the fuck I’m doing.

It’s all there in the film. If you don’t like it, fine. If you don’t want to accept it, fine. But it’s there, and it works for me and a lot of people. I truly don’t know why I bother, I’ve been arguing about this movie for more than a month and it feels like I’ve basically accomplished nothing at all.

Just because you have an opinion, doesn´t mean it´s right. Just because it works for you, doesn´t imply there´s some truth that everyone else is missing.

I might argue you are ignoring obvious problems with the film. It’s all there in the film. If you like it, fine. If you don’t want to accept it, fine. But it’s there, and it ruins the film for me and a lot of people. I truly don’t know why I bother, I’ve been arguing about this movie for more than a month and it feels like I’ve basically accomplished nothing at all.

That like yours would be a fallacious argument.

One thing I do agree with is, that we´re going around in circles, which is sort of pointless.

I never said I was right. I’m just saying that most of the stuff I keep arguing about is justified in the film itself. There’s nothing wrong with not accepting something the film presents or wishing it had taken a different route. I really mean it, that’s fine. But I can’t keep arguing like this, I’m basically just explaining the movie (and don’t take this to mean that I think you didn’t get the movie, that’s not what I’m saying! as for the “obvious problems,” I didn’t catch barely any at all until I logged on here, so I guess in this regard I’m the one who “didn’t get it” haha).

Like I said, if the direction didn’t work for you, fine, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m still trying to accept that I can’t change that (for me this isn’t about being “right,” I just want you to see why this is a good movie so you can enjoy it). It worked for me, and I’d wager it’d be near impossible for anyone to change that (certainly now after having heard every possible complaint for the past month). So yeah, I think we really are going pointlessly in circles.

Well, I think criticisms work two ways. It’s partly about expectations, or wishing it had taken a different route. In that respect I agree, it’s not the creator’s fault for taking things into his preferred direction. However, much of the criticsm is also leveled at other aspects of film making, whether there are tonal issues, whether the story’s original, whether the characters are well developed, and or consistent. These are issues people have with the film, that cannot be simply attributed to expectations, or wanting things to go a different route. It’s all still subjective of course, as any opinion is, but to the critics these are weaknesses of the film, that exist even if they accept the basic premise of RJ’s story.

For example I believe, I would have accepted Luke’s arc in this film, if the relationship between Luke and Ben Solo had been better developed. RJ could have added a few more flashbacks to flesh out the backstory, or some exposition reminiscent of Obi-Wan’s “good friend” tale in ANH. If it would have been established, that Luke and young Ben were once very close, we would understand Luke’s heartbreak better when it all went bad. It also would have worked better if the story didn’t end up repeating the Empire vs rebels dynamic, which is a problem of originality. That way not all of our classic hero’s accomplishments would have been undone, because they would be facing a different challenge and situation.

Oooh boy, there’s a lot I want to say about this but I promise I will not. I’ve been trying to get out of this thread for awhile now. I think if I publicly make a promise to stay out of it I’ll be able to stick to it easier.

I made those promises, and it didn’t work, sadly. Once you start reading through other people’s posts, it’s just too tempting to respond, and before you know it you’re walking in circles again. I guess not reading the thread at all would be a solution.

One thing that I’ve done in the past is type up a response… and then not post it.

That’s actually a good suggestion. That way you can get it out of your system.

I don’t mind reading this thread and occasionally posting in it, I just can’t keep getting into dead-end arguments.

Yeah, me too.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

ZigZig said:

I have a strange Groundhog Day feeling.

Same. It just struck me I honestly don’t know what the fuck I’m doing.

It’s all there in the film. If you don’t like it, fine. If you don’t want to accept it, fine. But it’s there, and it works for me and a lot of people. I truly don’t know why I bother, I’ve been arguing about this movie for more than a month and it feels like I’ve basically accomplished nothing at all.

Just because you have an opinion, doesn´t mean it´s right. Just because it works for you, doesn´t imply there´s some truth that everyone else is missing.

I might argue you are ignoring obvious problems with the film. It’s all there in the film. If you like it, fine. If you don’t want to accept it, fine. But it’s there, and it ruins the film for me and a lot of people. I truly don’t know why I bother, I’ve been arguing about this movie for more than a month and it feels like I’ve basically accomplished nothing at all.

That like yours would be a fallacious argument.

One thing I do agree with is, that we´re going around in circles, which is sort of pointless.

I never said I was right. I’m just saying that most of the stuff I keep arguing about is justified in the film itself. There’s nothing wrong with not accepting something the film presents or wishing it had taken a different route. I really mean it, that’s fine. But I can’t keep arguing like this, I’m basically just explaining the movie (and don’t take this to mean that I think you didn’t get the movie, that’s not what I’m saying! as for the “obvious problems,” I didn’t catch barely any at all until I logged on here, so I guess in this regard I’m the one who “didn’t get it” haha).

Like I said, if the direction didn’t work for you, fine, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m still trying to accept that I can’t change that (for me this isn’t about being “right,” I just want you to see why this is a good movie so you can enjoy it). It worked for me, and I’d wager it’d be near impossible for anyone to change that (certainly now after having heard every possible complaint for the past month). So yeah, I think we really are going pointlessly in circles.

Well, I think criticisms work two ways. It’s partly about expectations, or wishing it had taken a different route. In that respect I agree, it’s not the creator’s fault for taking things into his preferred direction. However, much of the criticsm is also leveled at other aspects of film making, whether there are tonal issues, whether the story’s original, whether the characters are well developed, and or consistent. These are issues people have with the film, that cannot be simply attributed to expectations, or wanting things to go a different route. It’s all still subjective of course, as any opinion is, but to the critics these are weaknesses of the film, that exist even if they accept the basic premise of RJ’s story.

For example I believe, I would have accepted Luke’s arc in this film, if the relationship between Luke and Ben Solo had been better developed. RJ could have added a few more flashbacks to flesh out the backstory, or some exposition reminiscent of Obi-Wan’s “good friend” tale in ANH. If it would have been established, that Luke and young Ben were once very close, we would understand Luke’s heartbreak better when it all went bad. It also would have worked better if the story didn’t end up repeating the Empire vs rebels dynamic, which is a problem of originality. That way not all of our classic hero’s accomplishments would have been undone, because they would be facing a different challenge and situation.

Oooh boy, there’s a lot I want to say about this but I promise I will not. I’ve been trying to get out of this thread for awhile now. I think if I publicly make a promise to stay out of it I’ll be able to stick to it easier.

I made those promises, and it didn’t work, sadly. Once you start reading through other people’s posts, it’s just too tempting to respond, and before you know it you’re walking in circles again. I guess not reading the thread at all would be a solution.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

ZigZig said:

I have a strange Groundhog Day feeling.

Same. It just struck me I honestly don’t know what the fuck I’m doing.

It’s all there in the film. If you don’t like it, fine. If you don’t want to accept it, fine. But it’s there, and it works for me and a lot of people. I truly don’t know why I bother, I’ve been arguing about this movie for more than a month and it feels like I’ve basically accomplished nothing at all.

Just because you have an opinion, doesn´t mean it´s right. Just because it works for you, doesn´t imply there´s some truth that everyone else is missing.

I might argue you are ignoring obvious problems with the film. It’s all there in the film. If you like it, fine. If you don’t want to accept it, fine. But it’s there, and it ruins the film for me and a lot of people. I truly don’t know why I bother, I’ve been arguing about this movie for more than a month and it feels like I’ve basically accomplished nothing at all.

That like yours would be a fallacious argument.

One thing I do agree with is, that we´re going around in circles, which is sort of pointless.

I never said I was right. I’m just saying that most of the stuff I keep arguing about is justified in the film itself. There’s nothing wrong with not accepting something the film presents or wishing it had taken a different route. I really mean it, that’s fine. But I can’t keep arguing like this, I’m basically just explaining the movie (and don’t take this to mean that I think you didn’t get the movie, that’s not what I’m saying! as for the “obvious problems,” I didn’t catch barely any at all until I logged on here, so I guess in this regard I’m the one who “didn’t get it” haha).

Like I said, if the direction didn’t work for you, fine, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m still trying to accept that I can’t change that (for me this isn’t about being “right,” I just want you to see why this is a good movie so you can enjoy it). It worked for me, and I’d wager it’d be near impossible for anyone to change that (certainly now after having heard every possible complaint for the past month). So yeah, I think we really are going pointlessly in circles.

Well, I think criticisms work two ways. It’s partly about expectations, or wishing it had taken a different route. In that respect I agree, it’s not the creator’s fault for taking things into his preferred direction. However, much of the criticsm is also leveled at other aspects of film making, whether there are tonal issues, whether the story’s original, whether the characters are well developed, and or consistent. These are issues people have with the film, that cannot be simply attributed to expectations, or wanting things to go a different route. It’s all still subjective of course, as any opinion is, but to the critics these are weaknesses of the film, that exist even if they accept the basic premise of RJ’s story.

For example I believe, I would have accepted Luke’s arc in this film, if the relationship between Luke and Ben Solo had been better developed. RJ could have added a few more flashbacks to flesh out the backstory, or some exposition reminiscent of Obi-Wan’s “good friend” tale in ANH. If it would have been established, that Luke and young Ben were once very close, we would understand Luke’s heartbreak better when it all went bad. It also would have worked better if the story didn’t end up repeating the Empire vs rebels dynamic, which is a problem of originality. That way not all of our classic hero’s accomplishments would have been undone, because they would be facing a different challenge and situation.

In the end all of these arguments are rationalizations of how we felt after watching the film, whether positive or negative. If like for me the balance was shifted towards the negative, despite really wanting to like the film, you start dissecting it to look for rational explanations for why you feel the way you do. It’s not to piss off other fans. It’s just to channel what are generally pretty strong emotions. Of course in forums like this we get entrenched, with one side battling it out with the other, like the rebels against the FO (you are the FO of course 😛).

NFBisms said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

Still talking about Luke, I’ll try to clear things up a little bit. I don’t really have a problem with Luke not living up to be the legend he was made out to be. I just don’t understand, for example, how did the legend originate. Like I said in a previous post, his victories were mostly personal and (should be) unknown to the rest of the galaxy, except for destroying the first Death Star. But I can see how a myth or some mystery feeling would grow around him, given that most people probably thought that the mysterious nature of his activities and his sad devotion to an ancient religion were suspicious and weird. And mysterious and wizardry. Anyway.

I don’t get why the tales of his bravery wouldn’t spread and balloon. And he had more victories than we saw in the films.

What tales of bravery? How he led the defense of Echo Base in Hoth and failed miserably? Or how he disappeared only to show up without a hand? Granted, Han Solo’s rescue is a big deal and was probably one of the greatest displays of Luke being a hero, but so what? The clone wars is full of badass moments and missions. Moreso than Han’s rescue. Then Luke basically defected in Endor, and I think the other rebels that didn’t know of his whereabouts were quite suspicious. And then he suddenly comes back! He’d eventually tell Han and Leia what happened, sure, but how the events in the Death Star II eventually led up to a legend is beyond me.

What clone wars moments? There’s only the battle of Geonosis, Coruscant and Utapau.

What I really have a problem with is how he died and ultimately failed his goal, failed his whole purpose in the original trilogy, which was to rebuild the Jedi Order. That makes him a failure imo. Not only that but the movie also makes him betray his character arc in the scene with Kylo with unconvincing explanation as to why, and also present him as some sort of fool for making the exact same mistake that his mentors did years before, mistakes that he was aware were made. And what pisses me off is that all of this happened just so that Rey could have the exact same journey as Luke, specially now that we have the exact same scenario we had in the original movies.

Luke didn’t fail, though. His goal was to become a Jedi (check) and to pass on what he learned (check). He will not be the last Jedi, and Rey won’t be a Jedi like him.

He did fail. Yes, becoming a Jedi was one of his goals, and he achieved that, but at the moment Darth Vader destroyed his beliefs, expectations, values, ideas of his purpose and the reason why he was fighting, his purpose and he himself became much bigger than just becoming a Jedi because his dad was one.

Do you think he passed on what he learned? Not to Rey, I don’t think. She has the books, but that’s about it. He taught her nothing, and the movie made that very clear. She might become a Jedi still, but not from or because of Luke.

Not only did he not teach her nothing, I don’t think he’s done teaching her. And yes, she is going to be a Jedi because of Luke, not just because of the few lessons he taught her, but because he inspired her (and the rest of the galaxy).

Anyway, after RotJ he built a Jedi Order that lasted for probably some 3-5 years, only for it to be destroyed. Another failure. And then he died. His death scene was pretty badass and beautiful, I’ll give you that, and it showed how awesome Luke Skywalker can be. But he still failed. I’m making it sound like that’s the problem - that he failed - but no. The problem is that he died a failure. It served no purpose, it just pissed on his character. Everything he tried to accomplish, accomplished and built was either destroyed or killed, including Luke himself.

He could have just… survived. Been able to go on, to teach a new generation, to learn from his failures rather than to die as one. But that was not allowed.

Did we even watch the same movie? The idea that Luke died a failure… clearly that was not what happened.

Mmm, let me see. Luke was instrumental in bringing peace and justice back to the galaxy. He wanted to train a new generation of Jedi. He made a mistake, and ended up failing his students, and by running away rather than fix that mistake, he allowed a second darkness to take over the galaxy. He is partly responsible for that. Luke’s legacy is one of failure. While he has provided hope for a future generation, it is now up to the next generation to fix his mess. Luke is like a guy with huge debts, who after refusing to pay them, dies just after providing his heirs the hope of paying off those debts in time. That is not a legacy of success in any shape or form.

If you choose to interpret it that (wrong) way that’s your prerogative. But the film (and it’s ending especially) is explicitly about the success of Luke’s legacy, and how that has inspired the galaxy.

No, the film is explicit in the success of Luke’s effort to inspire hope in a terrible situation he was party responsible for. This does not create a legacy of success, it creates a glimmer of hope in a legacy of failure.

If a police force sit on their behinds, and allow a group of criminals to go on a killing spree, they have failed in their duties, even if they belatedly see the error of their ways, and attempt to bring them to justice, or more accurately inspire others to do it for them.

I don’t really think it’s fair to blame the rise of the First Order on Luke.

And the films don’t even really suggest that. The point is that the dark side always comes back. You can’t always stop it from rearing it’s ugly head, what’s important is that there’s hope you can defeat it once again.

The majority of the responsibility isn’t on Luke. However, it is the responsibility of a Jedi to guard peace and justice. The dark side can always come back, but it is a Jedi´s responsibility to prevent that from happening, or if it manages to rise again, do everything in his or her power to defeat it. Luke didn´t live up to that responsibility.

I thought it was to use the Force for knowledge and defense never for attack…

Yes, Luke should have defended the peoples, and principles of the New Republic, which he didn’t. It’s not about attacking the FO. It’s about protecting peace and justice. War is a final resort, when it is the only option for preventing another tyranny.

Besides, Jedi or not, I think it would be out of character for Luke post-ROTJ to wage a war just because of visions. That’s what screwed him over in ESB and in the fleeting moments he saw what Ben could become. His arc in the OT was to become less about looking to the future (horizon) and “rushing into battle.”

It’s not about waging war, or rushing into battle. It’s about preparing for the worst, and subverting the efforts by the FO to bring down the New Republic, in the defense of peace and justice.

DominicCobb said:

ZigZig said:

I have a strange Groundhog Day feeling.

Same. It just struck me I honestly don’t know what the fuck I’m doing.

It’s all there in the film. If you don’t like it, fine. If you don’t want to accept it, fine. But it’s there, and it works for me and a lot of people. I truly don’t know why I bother, I’ve been arguing about this movie for more than a month and it feels like I’ve basically accomplished nothing at all.

Just because you have an opinion, doesn´t mean it´s right. Just because it works for you, doesn´t imply there´s some truth that everyone else is missing.

I might argue you are ignoring obvious problems with the film. It’s all there in the film. If you like it, fine. If you don’t want to accept it, fine. But it’s there, and it ruins the film for me and a lot of people. I truly don’t know why I bother, I’ve been arguing about this movie for more than a month and it feels like I’ve basically accomplished nothing at all.

That like yours would be a fallacious argument.

One thing I do agree with is, that we´re going around in circles, which is sort of pointless.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

Still talking about Luke, I’ll try to clear things up a little bit. I don’t really have a problem with Luke not living up to be the legend he was made out to be. I just don’t understand, for example, how did the legend originate. Like I said in a previous post, his victories were mostly personal and (should be) unknown to the rest of the galaxy, except for destroying the first Death Star. But I can see how a myth or some mystery feeling would grow around him, given that most people probably thought that the mysterious nature of his activities and his sad devotion to an ancient religion were suspicious and weird. And mysterious and wizardry. Anyway.

I don’t get why the tales of his bravery wouldn’t spread and balloon. And he had more victories than we saw in the films.

What tales of bravery? How he led the defense of Echo Base in Hoth and failed miserably? Or how he disappeared only to show up without a hand? Granted, Han Solo’s rescue is a big deal and was probably one of the greatest displays of Luke being a hero, but so what? The clone wars is full of badass moments and missions. Moreso than Han’s rescue. Then Luke basically defected in Endor, and I think the other rebels that didn’t know of his whereabouts were quite suspicious. And then he suddenly comes back! He’d eventually tell Han and Leia what happened, sure, but how the events in the Death Star II eventually led up to a legend is beyond me.

What clone wars moments? There’s only the battle of Geonosis, Coruscant and Utapau.

What I really have a problem with is how he died and ultimately failed his goal, failed his whole purpose in the original trilogy, which was to rebuild the Jedi Order. That makes him a failure imo. Not only that but the movie also makes him betray his character arc in the scene with Kylo with unconvincing explanation as to why, and also present him as some sort of fool for making the exact same mistake that his mentors did years before, mistakes that he was aware were made. And what pisses me off is that all of this happened just so that Rey could have the exact same journey as Luke, specially now that we have the exact same scenario we had in the original movies.

Luke didn’t fail, though. His goal was to become a Jedi (check) and to pass on what he learned (check). He will not be the last Jedi, and Rey won’t be a Jedi like him.

He did fail. Yes, becoming a Jedi was one of his goals, and he achieved that, but at the moment Darth Vader destroyed his beliefs, expectations, values, ideas of his purpose and the reason why he was fighting, his purpose and he himself became much bigger than just becoming a Jedi because his dad was one.

Do you think he passed on what he learned? Not to Rey, I don’t think. She has the books, but that’s about it. He taught her nothing, and the movie made that very clear. She might become a Jedi still, but not from or because of Luke.

Not only did he not teach her nothing, I don’t think he’s done teaching her. And yes, she is going to be a Jedi because of Luke, not just because of the few lessons he taught her, but because he inspired her (and the rest of the galaxy).

Anyway, after RotJ he built a Jedi Order that lasted for probably some 3-5 years, only for it to be destroyed. Another failure. And then he died. His death scene was pretty badass and beautiful, I’ll give you that, and it showed how awesome Luke Skywalker can be. But he still failed. I’m making it sound like that’s the problem - that he failed - but no. The problem is that he died a failure. It served no purpose, it just pissed on his character. Everything he tried to accomplish, accomplished and built was either destroyed or killed, including Luke himself.

He could have just… survived. Been able to go on, to teach a new generation, to learn from his failures rather than to die as one. But that was not allowed.

Did we even watch the same movie? The idea that Luke died a failure… clearly that was not what happened.

Mmm, let me see. Luke was instrumental in bringing peace and justice back to the galaxy. He wanted to train a new generation of Jedi. He made a mistake, and ended up failing his students, and by running away rather than fix that mistake, he allowed a second darkness to take over the galaxy. He is partly responsible for that. Luke’s legacy is one of failure. While he has provided hope for a future generation, it is now up to the next generation to fix his mess. Luke is like a guy with huge debts, who after refusing to pay them, dies just after providing his heirs the hope of paying off those debts in time. That is not a legacy of success in any shape or form.

If you choose to interpret it that (wrong) way that’s your prerogative. But the film (and it’s ending especially) is explicitly about the success of Luke’s legacy, and how that has inspired the galaxy.

No, the film is explicit in the success of Luke’s effort to inspire hope in a terrible situation he was party responsible for. This does not create a legacy of success, it creates a glimmer of hope in a legacy of failure.

If a police force sit on their behinds, and allow a group of criminals to go on a killing spree, they have failed in their duties, even if they belatedly see the error of their ways, and attempt to bring them to justice, or more accurately inspire others to do it for them.

I don’t really think it’s fair to blame the rise of the First Order on Luke.

And the films don’t even really suggest that. The point is that the dark side always comes back. You can’t always stop it from rearing it’s ugly head, what’s important is that there’s hope you can defeat it once again.

The majority of the responsibility isn’t on Luke. However, it is the responsibility of a Jedi to guard peace and justice. The dark side can always come back, but it is a Jedi´s responsibility to prevent that from happening, or if it manages to rise again, do everything in his or her power to defeat it. Luke didn´t live up to that responsibility.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

Still talking about Luke, I’ll try to clear things up a little bit. I don’t really have a problem with Luke not living up to be the legend he was made out to be. I just don’t understand, for example, how did the legend originate. Like I said in a previous post, his victories were mostly personal and (should be) unknown to the rest of the galaxy, except for destroying the first Death Star. But I can see how a myth or some mystery feeling would grow around him, given that most people probably thought that the mysterious nature of his activities and his sad devotion to an ancient religion were suspicious and weird. And mysterious and wizardry. Anyway.

I don’t get why the tales of his bravery wouldn’t spread and balloon. And he had more victories than we saw in the films.

What tales of bravery? How he led the defense of Echo Base in Hoth and failed miserably? Or how he disappeared only to show up without a hand? Granted, Han Solo’s rescue is a big deal and was probably one of the greatest displays of Luke being a hero, but so what? The clone wars is full of badass moments and missions. Moreso than Han’s rescue. Then Luke basically defected in Endor, and I think the other rebels that didn’t know of his whereabouts were quite suspicious. And then he suddenly comes back! He’d eventually tell Han and Leia what happened, sure, but how the events in the Death Star II eventually led up to a legend is beyond me.

What clone wars moments? There’s only the battle of Geonosis, Coruscant and Utapau.

What I really have a problem with is how he died and ultimately failed his goal, failed his whole purpose in the original trilogy, which was to rebuild the Jedi Order. That makes him a failure imo. Not only that but the movie also makes him betray his character arc in the scene with Kylo with unconvincing explanation as to why, and also present him as some sort of fool for making the exact same mistake that his mentors did years before, mistakes that he was aware were made. And what pisses me off is that all of this happened just so that Rey could have the exact same journey as Luke, specially now that we have the exact same scenario we had in the original movies.

Luke didn’t fail, though. His goal was to become a Jedi (check) and to pass on what he learned (check). He will not be the last Jedi, and Rey won’t be a Jedi like him.

He did fail. Yes, becoming a Jedi was one of his goals, and he achieved that, but at the moment Darth Vader destroyed his beliefs, expectations, values, ideas of his purpose and the reason why he was fighting, his purpose and he himself became much bigger than just becoming a Jedi because his dad was one.

Do you think he passed on what he learned? Not to Rey, I don’t think. She has the books, but that’s about it. He taught her nothing, and the movie made that very clear. She might become a Jedi still, but not from or because of Luke.

Not only did he not teach her nothing, I don’t think he’s done teaching her. And yes, she is going to be a Jedi because of Luke, not just because of the few lessons he taught her, but because he inspired her (and the rest of the galaxy).

Anyway, after RotJ he built a Jedi Order that lasted for probably some 3-5 years, only for it to be destroyed. Another failure. And then he died. His death scene was pretty badass and beautiful, I’ll give you that, and it showed how awesome Luke Skywalker can be. But he still failed. I’m making it sound like that’s the problem - that he failed - but no. The problem is that he died a failure. It served no purpose, it just pissed on his character. Everything he tried to accomplish, accomplished and built was either destroyed or killed, including Luke himself.

He could have just… survived. Been able to go on, to teach a new generation, to learn from his failures rather than to die as one. But that was not allowed.

Did we even watch the same movie? The idea that Luke died a failure… clearly that was not what happened.

Mmm, let me see. Luke was instrumental in bringing peace and justice back to the galaxy. He wanted to train a new generation of Jedi. He made a mistake, and ended up failing his students, and by running away rather than fix that mistake, he allowed a second darkness to take over the galaxy. He is partly responsible for that. Luke’s legacy is one of failure. While he has provided hope for a future generation, it is now up to the next generation to fix his mess. Luke is like a guy with huge debts, who after refusing to pay them, dies just after providing his heirs the hope of paying off those debts in time. That is not a legacy of success in any shape or form.

If you choose to interpret it that (wrong) way that’s your prerogative. But the film (and it’s ending especially) is explicitly about the success of Luke’s legacy, and how that has inspired the galaxy.

No, the film is explicit in the success of Luke’s effort to inspire hope in a terrible situation, he was party responsible for. This does not create a legacy of success, it creates a glimmer of hope in a greater legacy of failure.

If a police force sit on their behinds, and allow a group of criminals to go on a killing spree, they have failed in their duties, even if they belatedly see the error of their ways, and attempt to bring them to justice, or more accurately inspire others to do it for them.

Obi-Wan did everything he could in ANH and succeeded in his mission, which was to initiate Luke as a Jedi and deliver R2 to the Rebels.

Yoda also did everything he could to make Luke the most capable Jedi ever.

Pretty different from Luke huh?

No, honestly not that different from Luke at all. The entire mission of the Resistance up till the end of TLJ is to find Luke to bring back the Jedi and restore hope in the galaxy. Both of those are accomplished at the end of the film by Luke and his pupil, Rey. Obviously Rey is not a typical pupil, but that is part of a different point altogether.

It’s entirely different. When Luke abandoned the galaxy, the New Republic was still in full control, and the FO a rump state hiding in the unknown regions. Luke had a far more favourable position than Obi-Wan and Yoda, who were on the run of a tyrannical regime, who controlled the GFFA. Luke’s failure is in the fact, that he didn’t act to stop the FO’s rising power, and the terrible suffering that ensued. The fact that he at least helped to provide some hope of undoing his past mistakes, does not alter this fact.

SilverWook said:

They basically hid for twenty years. Why not Hyperspace kamikaze a star cruiser into Palpatine’s summer palace or something? 😛

Because before TLJ you needed a bit more than a single ship, thirty rebels, and some hope and inspiration to bring down tyranny. 😛

SilverWook said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

Still talking about Luke, I’ll try to clear things up a little bit. I don’t really have a problem with Luke not living up to be the legend he was made out to be. I just don’t understand, for example, how did the legend originate. Like I said in a previous post, his victories were mostly personal and (should be) unknown to the rest of the galaxy, except for destroying the first Death Star. But I can see how a myth or some mystery feeling would grow around him, given that most people probably thought that the mysterious nature of his activities and his sad devotion to an ancient religion were suspicious and weird. And mysterious and wizardry. Anyway.

I don’t get why the tales of his bravery wouldn’t spread and balloon. And he had more victories than we saw in the films.

What tales of bravery? How he led the defense of Echo Base in Hoth and failed miserably? Or how he disappeared only to show up without a hand? Granted, Han Solo’s rescue is a big deal and was probably one of the greatest displays of Luke being a hero, but so what? The clone wars is full of badass moments and missions. Moreso than Han’s rescue. Then Luke basically defected in Endor, and I think the other rebels that didn’t know of his whereabouts were quite suspicious. And then he suddenly comes back! He’d eventually tell Han and Leia what happened, sure, but how the events in the Death Star II eventually led up to a legend is beyond me.

What clone wars moments? There’s only the battle of Geonosis, Coruscant and Utapau.

What I really have a problem with is how he died and ultimately failed his goal, failed his whole purpose in the original trilogy, which was to rebuild the Jedi Order. That makes him a failure imo. Not only that but the movie also makes him betray his character arc in the scene with Kylo with unconvincing explanation as to why, and also present him as some sort of fool for making the exact same mistake that his mentors did years before, mistakes that he was aware were made. And what pisses me off is that all of this happened just so that Rey could have the exact same journey as Luke, specially now that we have the exact same scenario we had in the original movies.

Luke didn’t fail, though. His goal was to become a Jedi (check) and to pass on what he learned (check). He will not be the last Jedi, and Rey won’t be a Jedi like him.

He did fail. Yes, becoming a Jedi was one of his goals, and he achieved that, but at the moment Darth Vader destroyed his beliefs, expectations, values, ideas of his purpose and the reason why he was fighting, his purpose and he himself became much bigger than just becoming a Jedi because his dad was one.

Do you think he passed on what he learned? Not to Rey, I don’t think. She has the books, but that’s about it. He taught her nothing, and the movie made that very clear. She might become a Jedi still, but not from or because of Luke.

Not only did he not teach her nothing, I don’t think he’s done teaching her. And yes, she is going to be a Jedi because of Luke, not just because of the few lessons he taught her, but because he inspired her (and the rest of the galaxy).

Anyway, after RotJ he built a Jedi Order that lasted for probably some 3-5 years, only for it to be destroyed. Another failure. And then he died. His death scene was pretty badass and beautiful, I’ll give you that, and it showed how awesome Luke Skywalker can be. But he still failed. I’m making it sound like that’s the problem - that he failed - but no. The problem is that he died a failure. It served no purpose, it just pissed on his character. Everything he tried to accomplish, accomplished and built was either destroyed or killed, including Luke himself.

He could have just… survived. Been able to go on, to teach a new generation, to learn from his failures rather than to die as one. But that was not allowed.

Did we even watch the same movie? The idea that Luke died a failure… clearly that was not what happened.

Mmm, let me see. Luke was instrumental in bringing peace and justice back to the galaxy. He wanted to train a new generation of Jedi. He made a mistake, and ended up failing his students, and by running away rather than fix that mistake, he allowed a second darkness to take over the galaxy. He is partly responsible for that. Luke’s legacy is one of failure. While he has provided hope for a future generation, it is now up to the next generation to fix his mess. Luke is like a guy with huge debts, who after refusing to pay them, dies just after providing his heirs the hope of paying off those debts in time. That is not a legacy of success in any shape or form.

By that logic, Obi Wan and Yoda are even bigger failures. 😉

They are failures for not recognizing the risk Anakin presented, and for failing to stop Palpatine, but they at least did everything in their power to reverse the situation. In my view Luke is a far bigger failure, for not even attempting to fix his mistake, and refusing to help even when he was asked in a most desperate hour. He came around it the end, but only when the situation had completely spun out of control, something that might not have happened, if he had acted like a true Jedi years earlier.

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

Still talking about Luke, I’ll try to clear things up a little bit. I don’t really have a problem with Luke not living up to be the legend he was made out to be. I just don’t understand, for example, how did the legend originate. Like I said in a previous post, his victories were mostly personal and (should be) unknown to the rest of the galaxy, except for destroying the first Death Star. But I can see how a myth or some mystery feeling would grow around him, given that most people probably thought that the mysterious nature of his activities and his sad devotion to an ancient religion were suspicious and weird. And mysterious and wizardry. Anyway.

I don’t get why the tales of his bravery wouldn’t spread and balloon. And he had more victories than we saw in the films.

What tales of bravery? How he led the defense of Echo Base in Hoth and failed miserably? Or how he disappeared only to show up without a hand? Granted, Han Solo’s rescue is a big deal and was probably one of the greatest displays of Luke being a hero, but so what? The clone wars is full of badass moments and missions. Moreso than Han’s rescue. Then Luke basically defected in Endor, and I think the other rebels that didn’t know of his whereabouts were quite suspicious. And then he suddenly comes back! He’d eventually tell Han and Leia what happened, sure, but how the events in the Death Star II eventually led up to a legend is beyond me.

What clone wars moments? There’s only the battle of Geonosis, Coruscant and Utapau.

What I really have a problem with is how he died and ultimately failed his goal, failed his whole purpose in the original trilogy, which was to rebuild the Jedi Order. That makes him a failure imo. Not only that but the movie also makes him betray his character arc in the scene with Kylo with unconvincing explanation as to why, and also present him as some sort of fool for making the exact same mistake that his mentors did years before, mistakes that he was aware were made. And what pisses me off is that all of this happened just so that Rey could have the exact same journey as Luke, specially now that we have the exact same scenario we had in the original movies.

Luke didn’t fail, though. His goal was to become a Jedi (check) and to pass on what he learned (check). He will not be the last Jedi, and Rey won’t be a Jedi like him.

He did fail. Yes, becoming a Jedi was one of his goals, and he achieved that, but at the moment Darth Vader destroyed his beliefs, expectations, values, ideas of his purpose and the reason why he was fighting, his purpose and he himself became much bigger than just becoming a Jedi because his dad was one.

Do you think he passed on what he learned? Not to Rey, I don’t think. She has the books, but that’s about it. He taught her nothing, and the movie made that very clear. She might become a Jedi still, but not from or because of Luke.

Not only did he not teach her nothing, I don’t think he’s done teaching her. And yes, she is going to be a Jedi because of Luke, not just because of the few lessons he taught her, but because he inspired her (and the rest of the galaxy).

Anyway, after RotJ he built a Jedi Order that lasted for probably some 3-5 years, only for it to be destroyed. Another failure. And then he died. His death scene was pretty badass and beautiful, I’ll give you that, and it showed how awesome Luke Skywalker can be. But he still failed. I’m making it sound like that’s the problem - that he failed - but no. The problem is that he died a failure. It served no purpose, it just pissed on his character. Everything he tried to accomplish, accomplished and built was either destroyed or killed, including Luke himself.

He could have just… survived. Been able to go on, to teach a new generation, to learn from his failures rather than to die as one. But that was not allowed.

Did we even watch the same movie? The idea that Luke died a failure… clearly that was not what happened.

Mmm, let me see. Luke was instrumental in bringing peace and justice back to the galaxy. He wanted to train a new generation of Jedi. He made a mistake, and ended up failing his students, and by running away rather than fix that mistake, he allowed a second darkness to take over the galaxy. He is partly responsible for that. Luke’s legacy is one of failure. While he has provided hope for a future generation, it is now up to the next generation to fix his mess. Luke is like a guy with huge debts, who after refusing to pay them, dies just after providing his heirs the hope of paying off those debts in time. That is not a legacy of success in any shape or form.

…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

DrDre said:

The ST is meant to be part of a larger overarching story.

Again this is just your desire/opinion. I don’t care about the development of characters from PT to OT, and furthermore trying to use that as a justification for calling character development a “plot hole” just doesn’t work.

Which is your opinion, and arguing semantics.

TV’s Frink said:

Words mean things. Plot holes are something specific, and are not what you are describing. It’s not semantics.

But ok. I said I give up before, I mean it this time.

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

Words mean things. Plot holes are something specific, and are not what you are describing. It’s not semantics.

But ok. I said I give up before, I mean it this time.

“Arguing semantics is a derogatory term used by one party in an argument to resist the other party’s attempt to question the terms and language used in the argument.”

I’ve explained what my issues are with the ST, which is the point, I’m trying to get across. Despite this you continue to avoid the topic, by arguing about the meaning of a word (semantics) I used to summarize my argument. A word I would gladly replace by a more appropriate term, if that makes you happy, as I’ve indicated. Ergo, you are arguing semantics. I would like to get away from semantics, and discuss the issues I’ve raised with those posters, interested in discussing them.

Actually, the full quora.com post is…

'“Arguing semantics” is a derogatory term used by one party in an argument to resist the other party’s attempt to question the terms and language used in the argument. This is generally done because the current terms favor his / her position.

In this situation the first party will often feign impatience – “Come on, let’s stop quibbling about semantics and get on with things!”’

 

I don’t see Frink stating ‘arguing semantics’? Do you?

And it certainly wasn’t used as a derogatory term by him - as you inferred by mentioning it in your post.
 

A word of warning - tread carefully when trying to cast aspersions of using a ‘derogatory term’ onto others.
 

That is all - thank you.

I was the one who said Frink was arguing semantics, not the other way around. I was getting impatient with Frink for banging on about my choice of words or specifically a word, when I wanted to debate an argument. I already stated, I would be happy to use an other term to summarize my criticisms. Despite this fact, Frink further debated the meaning of the word I used previously, hence my response, where I reiterated, why I felt he was arguing semantics, rather than debating the argument.

TV’s Frink said:

Words mean things. Plot holes are something specific, and are not what you are describing. It’s not semantics.

But ok. I said I give up before, I mean it this time.

“Arguing semantics is a derogatory term used by one party in an argument to resist the other party’s attempt to question the terms and language used in the argument.”

I’ve explained what my issues are with the ST, which is the point, I’m trying to get across. Despite this you continue to avoid the topic, by arguing about the meaning of a word (semantics) I used to summarize my argument. A word I would gladly replace by a more appropriate term, if that makes you happy, as I’ve indicated. Ergo, you are arguing semantics. I would like to get away from semantics, and discuss the issues I’ve raised with those posters, interested in discussing them.

TV’s Frink said:

DrDre said:

The ST is meant to be part of a larger overarching story.

Again this is just your desire/opinion. I don’t care about the development of characters from PT to OT, and furthermore trying to use that as a justification for calling character development a “plot hole” just doesn’t work.

Which is your opinion, and arguing semantics. I’ve explained my issues with the flow of the story, and I don’t really care what words you want to use to describe it. If you want to get hung up on some word, be my guest. Call it an inconsistency, if that makes you feel better.

TV’s Frink said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yhwx said:

It’s amazing how people have selective amnesia. Yes, Luke did throw away his saber in ROTJ, but a few seconds before, he was about to kill Vader. And a few minutes before that, he’s prepared to “strike down” the Emperor, only to have his faithful apprentice intercept the attack.

I would call that a character arc. These things didn’t happen in a random order. Luke get’s goaded into using force, first by Palps, then by Vader to the point of almost killing Vader. Luke realizes he’s about to follow in his father footsteps, and composes himself, tossing away his lightsaber. He’s learned a valuable lesson, and passed the test. A test he then again fails in TLJ.

How did he fail that same test? Aren’t his actions just consistent with how he was portrayed in ROTJ? A person doesn’t stop making mistakes just because they make the right decision one time. As you pointed out, the Emperor goaded Luke into striking. Vader goaded Luke into striking. He seems to like striking and be easily goaded and then later comes to his senses. How then is going to Ben’s hut to confront him and freaking out about how far he has fallen and igniting his light saber out of character. It seems totally in character by the very example you have provided. That is his MO. React on instinct and then let his wisdom rein him in. You have just proven with your own examples that Luke’s actions in Ben’s hut are 100% consistent with ROTJ Luke.

I don’t agree. The idea of a character arc is, that people make a journey, usually learning from their mistakes, such that they don’t make that mistake again. In TESB Luke drew his weapon first when confronted with Vader, itching for a fight. In ROTJ Luke had to be goaded into a fight, and he resisted the Emperor for a long time, despite the real threat and suffering he faced. Luke learned from his experience in TESB, as he learned from his experience in ROTJ to finally become a Jedi. So, after ROTJ Luke should have grown beyond such mistakes in my view. The situation with the possible future of Ben Solo pales in comparison to Luke’s previous real experiences from my point of view, and so he should have been able to control himself. Let’s not forget Luke has had at least two decades to learn from his experiences before his fallout with young Ben, and to grow as a Jedi Master. Yet, TLJ seems to suggest the opposite happened. Luke regressed, and turned out to have become a far worse Jedi than Obi-Wan or Yoda, despite growing beyond their dogma in ROTJ.

When did we see Luke actually learn from his mistakes? We see him make similar mistakes over and over again and we never see him really grow past it.

I gave you a very clear example in my previous post.

And why should the fall of his nephew not shake him to the core?

It should shake him to the core, but he’s been trained to deal with this stuff both by studying and experience. A fireman is not supposed to freak out at the idea of having to put out a big fire, especially when we saw him put out bigger fires in the past, and he should certainly not give up while the fire is still small, and allow it to burn the house down.

You are building Luke up as a legend and not seeing the flaws he carried right to the end of ROTJ.

And you refuse to acknowledge the growth of Luke’s character over the course of three films.

When Luke threw down his saber and faced the Emperor he knew that he was likely to die. The Emperor didn’t goad him any further, he just tried to kill him. But there is no big huge change in Luke’s personality.

I think you are wrong. For Luke to throw away his weapon in the face of danger, and to resign himself is a major progression of his character. Just look at how he refused to leave his weapon when Yoda suggested he didn’t need it in the Dagobah dark side cave. The Luke who proclaims himself a Jedi is a very different person from the one who enters the cave. That is character progression. It’s poor story telling in my view to then just wipe that all off the table with a sixty second flashback, and more or less say Luke’s different now, move along.

so him making a similar mistake due to the horror of seeing how far his nephew had fallen already could be shock enough for him to act on instinct over intelligence for a moment. I don’t know why that is so hard to believe of his character. His arc was to redeem his father, not to be the perfect Jedi.

No, but his arc was to become a capable one, not one of the worst Jedi in history. Luke became one of the lost 20. The only thing that could have happened, that would be worse, is Luke joining the dark side. At least the PT took three movies to explain (poorly) how Anakin turned from a young hero into an evil monster. TLJ condensed a similar character arc into a sixty second flashback. That won’t do for me.

The one fact that is missed in many discussions surrounding your points is that 30 years have passed. That is a long time to consider ones life and choices, good and bad.

The other thing I was thinking about with regards to the horror Luke feels when he searches Kylo is that Kylo was likely being influenced by Snoke for quite a while by then. It is possible that Luke was sensing the Supreme Leader or at least his evil presence along with Kylo’s turning. This would cause Luke to respond as he does imo.

It might, but IMO thirty years passing is no excuse for plot holes.

I know it’s pointless to bring it up but they aren’t plot holes. You just wanted something different than what you got. Not the same thing.

It doesn’t flow well with the structure of the PT and the OT. Aside from the time passed, the OT progresses naturally from the PT, with characters not developing significantly between films. The ST is meant to be part of a larger overarching story. However, the ST breaks the flow of the story by not only having macro events develop between trilogies, but also significant character developments for pretty much all of the main characters of the OT. So, in terms of the structure of the saga, as set up by Lucas, the ST introduces plot holes or alternatively an inconsistent story flow in my view.

Creox said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yhwx said:

It’s amazing how people have selective amnesia. Yes, Luke did throw away his saber in ROTJ, but a few seconds before, he was about to kill Vader. And a few minutes before that, he’s prepared to “strike down” the Emperor, only to have his faithful apprentice intercept the attack.

I would call that a character arc. These things didn’t happen in a random order. Luke get’s goaded into using force, first by Palps, then by Vader to the point of almost killing Vader. Luke realizes he’s about to follow in his father footsteps, and composes himself, tossing away his lightsaber. He’s learned a valuable lesson, and passed the test. A test he then again fails in TLJ.

How did he fail that same test? Aren’t his actions just consistent with how he was portrayed in ROTJ? A person doesn’t stop making mistakes just because they make the right decision one time. As you pointed out, the Emperor goaded Luke into striking. Vader goaded Luke into striking. He seems to like striking and be easily goaded and then later comes to his senses. How then is going to Ben’s hut to confront him and freaking out about how far he has fallen and igniting his light saber out of character. It seems totally in character by the very example you have provided. That is his MO. React on instinct and then let his wisdom rein him in. You have just proven with your own examples that Luke’s actions in Ben’s hut are 100% consistent with ROTJ Luke.

I don’t agree. The idea of a character arc is, that people make a journey, usually learning from their mistakes, such that they don’t make that mistake again. In TESB Luke drew his weapon first when confronted with Vader, itching for a fight. In ROTJ Luke had to be goaded into a fight, and he resisted the Emperor for a long time, despite the real threat and suffering he faced. Luke learned from his experience in TESB, as he learned from his experience in ROTJ to finally become a Jedi. So, after ROTJ Luke should have grown beyond such mistakes in my view. The situation with the possible future of Ben Solo pales in comparison to Luke’s previous real experiences from my point of view, and so he should have been able to control himself. Let’s not forget Luke has had at least two decades to learn from his experiences before his fallout with young Ben, and to grow as a Jedi Master. Yet, TLJ seems to suggest the opposite happened. Luke regressed, and turned out to have become a far worse Jedi than Obi-Wan or Yoda, despite growing beyond their dogma in ROTJ.

When did we see Luke actually learn from his mistakes? We see him make similar mistakes over and over again and we never see him really grow past it.

I gave you a very clear example in my previous post.

And why should the fall of his nephew not shake him to the core?

It should shake him to the core, but he’s been trained to deal with this stuff both by studying and experience. A fireman is not supposed to freak out at the idea of having to put out a big fire, especially when we saw him put out bigger fires in the past, and he should certainly not give up while the fire is still small, and allow it to burn the house down.

You are building Luke up as a legend and not seeing the flaws he carried right to the end of ROTJ.

And you refuse to acknowledge the growth of Luke’s character over the course of three films.

When Luke threw down his saber and faced the Emperor he knew that he was likely to die. The Emperor didn’t goad him any further, he just tried to kill him. But there is no big huge change in Luke’s personality.

I think you are wrong. For Luke to throw away his weapon in the face of danger, and to resign himself is a major progression of his character. Just look at how he refused to leave his weapon when Yoda suggested he didn’t need it in the Dagobah dark side cave. The Luke who proclaims himself a Jedi is a very different person from the one who enters the cave. That is character progression. It’s poor story telling in my view to then just wipe that all off the table with a sixty second flashback, and more or less say Luke’s different now, move along.

so him making a similar mistake due to the horror of seeing how far his nephew had fallen already could be shock enough for him to act on instinct over intelligence for a moment. I don’t know why that is so hard to believe of his character. His arc was to redeem his father, not to be the perfect Jedi.

No, but his arc was to become a capable one, not one of the worst Jedi in history. Luke became one of the lost 20. The only thing that could have happened, that would be worse, is Luke joining the dark side. At least the PT took three movies to explain (poorly) how Anakin turned from a young hero into an evil monster. TLJ condensed a similar character arc into a sixty second flashback. That won’t do for me.

The one fact that is missed in many discussions surrounding your points is that 30 years have passed. That is a long time to consider ones life and choices, good and bad.

The other thing I was thinking about with regards to the horror Luke feels when he searches Kylo is that Kylo was likely being influenced by Snoke for quite a while by then. It is possible that Luke was sensing the Supreme Leader or at least his evil presence along with Kylo’s turning. This would cause Luke to respond as he does imo.

It might, but IMO thirty years passing is no excuse for plot holes. If major events happen, that significantly affect the characters, they should be shown on the screen in my view, especially considering this is supposed to be a saga, that follows a host of characters across generations. What the ST does is just skip a whole bunch of development related to Luke, Han, Leia, and Ben Solo, in order to focus on Rey, and the rerun of Empire versus rebels. This would be fine, if it were not for the fact, that Han, Luke, and Leia are main characters in the saga, and the fact that we’ve already seen three movies about a relatively small rebel force fighting a big bad Empire. It’s extremely jarring to just skip the development of characters you’re invested in, at least for me.

Collipso said:

Eh, I’m with Dom on this one. We knew nothing of Vader’s turn in TESB. Why the double standards?

For me it is, because Ben’s turn is intimately connected to Luke’s fall from grace. When we first saw Vader, and his mentor Obi-Wan, the story was about Luke’s journey, and we didn’t need to know the backstory in detail. They were afterall new characters. However, since this is the 8th episode an ongoing series the story needs to naturally progress. To me the ST is like having viewed the PT, and then have Anakin Skywalker be good at the start of ANH with a short flashback in TESB telling us how he went from Vader back to Anakin. That’s not natural story progression. If you look at what happened between the PT and the OT, the answer is very little. The Empire increased their hold on the galaxy, the last Jedi were hunted down, and a Rebel Alliance was formed, but the characters were pretty much in the same place, often literally. Not so for the ST. It’s like there’s a trilogy missing, leading many to feel Luke’s character change has not been properly developed. Since the developments around Luke’s character are strongly connected with young Ben’s character development, I needed more development for both of these characters. So, in my view it’s not a double standard.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yhwx said:

It’s amazing how people have selective amnesia. Yes, Luke did throw away his saber in ROTJ, but a few seconds before, he was about to kill Vader. And a few minutes before that, he’s prepared to “strike down” the Emperor, only to have his faithful apprentice intercept the attack.

I would call that a character arc. These things didn’t happen in a random order. Luke get’s goaded into using force, first by Palps, then by Vader to the point of almost killing Vader. Luke realizes he’s about to follow in his father footsteps, and composes himself, tossing away his lightsaber. He’s learned a valuable lesson, and passed the test. A test he then again fails in TLJ.

How did he fail that same test? Aren’t his actions just consistent with how he was portrayed in ROTJ? A person doesn’t stop making mistakes just because they make the right decision one time. As you pointed out, the Emperor goaded Luke into striking. Vader goaded Luke into striking. He seems to like striking and be easily goaded and then later comes to his senses. How then is going to Ben’s hut to confront him and freaking out about how far he has fallen and igniting his light saber out of character. It seems totally in character by the very example you have provided. That is his MO. React on instinct and then let his wisdom rein him in. You have just proven with your own examples that Luke’s actions in Ben’s hut are 100% consistent with ROTJ Luke.

I don’t agree. The idea of a character arc is, that people make a journey, usually learning from their mistakes, such that they don’t make that mistake again. In TESB Luke drew his weapon first when confronted with Vader, itching for a fight. In ROTJ Luke had to be goaded into a fight, and he resisted the Emperor for a long time, despite the real threat and suffering he faced. Luke learned from his experience in TESB, as he learned from his experience in ROTJ to finally become a Jedi. So, after ROTJ Luke should have grown beyond such mistakes in my view. The situation with the possible future of Ben Solo pales in comparison to Luke’s previous real experiences from my point of view, and so he should have been able to control himself. Let’s not forget Luke has had at least two decades to learn from his experiences before his fallout with young Ben, and to grow as a Jedi Master. Yet, TLJ seems to suggest the opposite happened. Luke regressed, and turned out to have become a far worse Jedi than Obi-Wan or Yoda, despite growing beyond their dogma in ROTJ.

When did we see Luke actually learn from his mistakes? We see him make similar mistakes over and over again and we never see him really grow past it.

I gave you a very clear example in my previous post.

And why should the fall of his nephew not shake him to the core?

It should shake him to the core, but he’s been trained to deal with this stuff both by studying and experience. A fireman is not supposed to freak out at the idea of having to put out a big fire, especially when we saw him put out bigger fires in the past, and he should certainly not give up while the fire is still small, and allow it to burn the house down.

You are building Luke up as a legend and not seeing the flaws he carried right to the end of ROTJ.

And you refuse to acknowledge the growth of Luke’s character over the course of three films.

When Luke threw down his saber and faced the Emperor he knew that he was likely to die. The Emperor didn’t goad him any further, he just tried to kill him. But there is no big huge change in Luke’s personality.

I think you are wrong. For Luke to throw away his weapon in the face of danger, and to resign himself is a major progression of his character. Just look at how he refused to leave his weapon when Yoda suggested he didn’t need it in the Dagobah dark side cave. The Luke who proclaims himself a Jedi is a very different person from the one who enters the cave. That is character progression. It’s poor story telling in my view to then just wipe that all off the table with a sixty second flashback, and more or less say Luke’s different now, move along.

so him making a similar mistake due to the horror of seeing how far his nephew had fallen already could be shock enough for him to act on instinct over intelligence for a moment. I don’t know why that is so hard to believe of his character. His arc was to redeem his father, not to be the perfect Jedi.

No, but his arc was to become a capable one, not one of the worst Jedi in history. Luke became one of the lost 20. The only thing that could have happened, that would be worse, is Luke joining the dark side. At least the PT took three movies to explain (poorly) how Anakin turned from a young hero into an evil monster. TLJ condensed a similar character arc into a sixty second flashback. That won’t do for me.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yhwx said:

It’s amazing how people have selective amnesia. Yes, Luke did throw away his saber in ROTJ, but a few seconds before, he was about to kill Vader. And a few minutes before that, he’s prepared to “strike down” the Emperor, only to have his faithful apprentice intercept the attack.

I would call that a character arc. These things didn’t happen in a random order. Luke get’s goaded into using force, first by Palps, then by Vader to the point of almost killing Vader. Luke realizes he’s about to follow in his father footsteps, and composes himself, tossing away his lightsaber. He’s learned a valuable lesson, and passed the test. A test he then again fails in TLJ.

How did he fail that same test? Aren’t his actions just consistent with how he was portrayed in ROTJ? A person doesn’t stop making mistakes just because they make the right decision one time. As you pointed out, the Emperor goaded Luke into striking. Vader goaded Luke into striking. He seems to like striking and be easily goaded and then later comes to his senses. How then is going to Ben’s hut to confront him and freaking out about how far he has fallen and igniting his light saber out of character. It seems totally in character by the very example you have provided. That is his MO. React on instinct and then let his wisdom rein him in. You have just proven with your own examples that Luke’s actions in Ben’s hut are 100% consistent with ROTJ Luke.

I don’t agree. The idea of a character arc is, that people make a journey, usually learning from their mistakes, such that they don’t make that mistake again. In TESB Luke drew his weapon first when confronted with Vader, itching for a fight. In ROTJ Luke had to be goaded into a fight, and he resisted the Emperor for a long time, despite the real threat and suffering he faced. Luke learned from his experience in TESB, as he learned from his experience in ROTJ to finally become a Jedi. So, after ROTJ Luke should have grown beyond such mistakes in my view. The situation with the possible future of Ben Solo pales in comparison to Luke’s previous real experiences from my point of view, and so he should have been able to control himself. Let’s not forget Luke has had at least two decades to learn from his experiences before his fallout with young Ben, and to grow as a Jedi Master. Yet, TLJ seems to suggest the opposite happened. Luke regressed, and turned out to have become a far worse Jedi than Obi-Wan or Yoda, despite growing beyond their dogma in ROTJ.

And Luke runs off (as Ben and Yoda did, and as he himself did in TESB and ROTJ) to find answers at the first Jedi Temple.

There’s nothing in TLJ to suggest Luke went looking for answers. He said he came there to die. The situation cannot be compared to Obi-Wan and Yoda, who bided their time until there was a real hope of defeating the Empire. When Leia asked Obi-Wan for help in their most desperate hour, he gave it to them. Luke just gave up, and refused to help.

His failure was not just in igniting his lightsaber, it was in failing to see the darkness in his nephew. I was failing Leia. For a man who grew up an orphan, found his father and sister, redeemed his father (and hopefully has conversed with his force ghost though that is pure conjection) and then fails his sister in the one thing she needed his help with… can you just imagine the level of anguish that would cause? He failed both of his living blood relatives. Not to mention his best friend.

He did not fail to see the darkness, he simply misjudged how far Ben had already fallen. How does he go about fixing his error of judgement? He becomes anti-Jedi, and runs away. The end result: his best friend is dead, and his sister is in a coma. That’s quite a character change for it to be condensed to a sixty second flashback.

It is not so much that I don’t respect your right to your opinion, it is that I am confused how you got there. Everything about the Luke from the OT that I grew up with points to this being a logical offshoot and a story that makes sense in setting up the ST.

Yeah, and everything I grew up with points in the opposite direction. We just don’t agree, and have a different interpretation of a character, which is perfectly fine. You will continue to enjoy the ST, while for me the saga ends with a final victory in ROTJ while old Sebastian Shaw looks proudly at his son, who will rebuild the Jedi order in a new era of peace and justice.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Absolutely the scariest thing. Obviously I’m not talking about the immediate threat, but I don’t think there’s much doubt that Kylo brought Luke more pain than Vader (I’m talking emotionally here).

I disagree. Vader in the end of TESB destroyed everything Luke believed in and everything in Luke’s world. He had possibly killed his best friend, told him that his dad was not a hero but a monster, made him see his master were liars, destroyed his base at the beginning of the movie, killed several of his friends… and Luke was a young, immature man (if you compare to what he should’ve been in TLJ).

So I highly doubt that the possible future he saw was worse than this. As selfless as anyone may be, we are always biased towards ourselves.

There’s a big difference between being 20 years old and falling on your ass and learning your dad’s a failure and being 50 years old and facing the possibility that you’re a failure and your life’s work has been meaningless.

yeah, that is what i was getting at with my previous post.

• first failure is hard, but he didn’t actually know his dad, and he was still young and in my mind, unwilling to accept the truth of his dad’s evilness, so he kinda muddled through with the stubborness of youth.
• second failure, brought back the first (which he probably didn’t think of a failure before, because he had won vader over right?), and amplified it, added extra layers of failure. People who think they are right all of the time, fail HARD.

Yes, but here’s the problem. Ben hadn’t really done anything by that point, so there was no reason to assume Luke would not continue to believe he could turn the tide. I can sort of accept your reasoning if Ben had crossed over to the dark side in both thought and action, but just the prospect should not be enough, considering Luke’s experiences IMO.

Yeah he hadn’t done anything yet, but Luke’s vision gave way to a momentary temptation that faded away as soon as it came to him. So you’re basically saying Luke should be above temptation which I find ridiculous.

I’m not saying Luke should be above temptation, I’m saying:

1. I needed more setup for the moment where Luke enters Ben’s sleeping quarters, and probes his mind. This setup is required to provide context for Luke’s state of mind, and to be able to determine why Luke considered Kylo a huge threat at that point in time.

Legitimately don’t know why you feel this way.

Because Luke doesn’t know what we know as the viewer. He cannot really see the future, only a possible future, as Yoda taught him in TESB. So, unless Kylo really did or was about to do something terrible, he’s just a potential threat, not a real threat in my view.

2. I needed Luke to to be enotionally compromised in some way, to be momentarily tempted to use force. In the throne room it took the Emperor quite some time to goad Luke into going for his lightsaber, and that involved real pain and suffering, not just feelings.

Difference is, Luke went to face Vader and the Emperor knowing he’d be tempted and was prepared for it. His situation with Ben caught him off guard and vulnerable, his solution was sparked by his hubris.

Luke knows full well there’s always a danger of falling to the dark side. He’d seen it with Vader, and experienced it for himself. So, if anything he should be more prepared for the eventuality than Obi-Wan and Yoda.