Mrebo

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Collipso said:

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - cool movie, had the potential to be the best Harry Potter franchise movie, but failed because of a confusing plot. I really liked the characters and the part of the story where they’re looking for the lost creatures in New York, and really liked the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately I didn’t like the Obscurus part of the plot, and honestly it felt like it belonged in a completely different movie, given the huge tone discrepancy between it and the other subplots.

Edit: I liked how it portrayed the US as super conservative 😉

That, and the whole movie looked like a cartoon.

I agree with you both and I was most put off by the generic action movie ending.

joefavs said:

In that /film interview, Johnson explained that the thinking for Holdo needing to stay on the ship was that an autopilot or droid would have some sort of tell that would be obvious enough for the First Order to pick up on. That makes enough sense for me; I totally buy that there would be a quantifiable difference between the way a ship piloted by an organic vs. a computer would fly.

This wasn’t a fast maneuverable ship like the Falcon and a straight flight path would seem the best option in terms of keeping distance and not using more fuel. Autopilot would seem normal in this situation and should have been what they were doing throughout (since they weren’t doing anything else). There wasn’t that much time left for the First Order to even notice anything funny. Holdo just stood there on the bridge until she decided to ram the First Order. Even if one does accept this slender reed of an excuse, I don’t think it explains why captains of other ships stayed behind when their ships were destroyed.

Bigger issues are that the First Order didn’t lightspeed ahead and were somehow unable to detect or view the smaller ships.

RJ seemed to be leaning heavily on a nautical model where two ships could be involved in an hours long chase, life rafts make a desperate run to a nearby island, unseen on the dark waves, and the captain goes down with the ship. I see the merit as a matter of inspiration and style but it requires some weird and not wholly believable explanations to make it work in the Star Wars universe.

yhwx said:

I’ll admit it to you, you need to be sitting down when you read this next tweet. I didn’t and I was so shocked I fainted. This news will shake you to your bones, it’s that radical.

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/957389820397084672

BREAKING NEWS:
President Trump has declared he is NOT a feminist.
He tells me: ‘No, I wouldn’t say I’m a feminist. I mean, I think that would be, maybe, going too far. I’m for women, I’m for men, I’m for everyone.'
Full interview, Sunday, ITV, 10pm.

Bahaha

TV’s Frink said:

Hillary responds.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/957091151122747392

A story appeared today about something that happened in 2008. I was dismayed when it occurred, but was heartened the young woman came forward, was heard, and had her concerns taken seriously and addressed.

I called her today to tell her how proud I am of her and to make sure she knows what all women should: we deserve to be heard.

Ugh.

Agree with ugh. What a patronizing phone call to make.

darth_ender said:

Not at all saying Frink is equivalent to this guy…

I liked where you were going until that part 😉

“Wonderstruck”

I liked the magical overtones. It was a little disjointed as it flashed between two parallel stories but I think it still worked fairly well as both stories were interesting and it heightened the magical feeling. The movie was somewhat undermined by questions about the motivations/choice of the adult characters that precipitated the boy’s journey. Some might insist that it doesn’t matter because it wasn’t the adults’ story or something. But those choices were integral to the story and you’re left wondering if you’ve been cheated. The actor who plays Riddler in “Gotham” has a small role and it was fun to see him being less creepy than usual.

7/10

Kellythatsit said:

Hi All, I’ve only posted a few times on these threads (despite being a constant lurker since 2006) but thought it’s time I threw my hat into the fray.

Just an observation more than anything I guess, but do you think the late release of the novelisation may have contributed to the divisive reaction to TLJ?

Previously you could always go to the book if you were unsure about a character’s motivation or a plot point. It would generally provide an extra insight that would help to process what at first may have felt a little jarring.

Don’t know, would love to hear your thoughts though.

I’d be curious to know if the books do affect opinions of the movies. I’d imagine any effect is quite small. But maybe there is a correlation between people who are into reading the novelizations and who like the movie. I don’t read novelizations.

yhwx said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Oh hey religious hypocrisy isn’t limited to the right!

Although I’d argue it’s more prevalent on the right, or at least more obvious given how much more obvious people are about their faith in general on the right.

I thought there was a different hypocrisy on display in that story.

Didn’t say it was the same, just that it’s a supposed religious person being hypocritical.

Your post definitely reads as saying this is an example of religious hypocrisy on Clinton’s part. I’m not sure I see that nor how that is relevant to the hypocrisy on display. What I see is someone who was supposed to be standing up for women and for what’s right, doing the exact opposite for no good reason that I can discern.

If the past few months have taught us anything, it’s that people can stand for the right things but do the wrong things at the same time. I think we saw this with Franken. There’s a whole societal complex to protect these people.

I think people of both political parties in the U.S. feel similarly about their own politicians who are hypocrites (ie those who profess values they do not actually hold) or are merely weak people who fail to consistently abide their values (ie everyone in varying degrees). I think Clinton falls into the former category. I see absolutely no good reasons for her choice there and millions of bad ones.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Oh hey religious hypocrisy isn’t limited to the right!

Although I’d argue it’s more prevalent on the right, or at least more obvious given how much more obvious people are about their faith in general on the right.

I thought there was a different hypocrisy on display in that story.

Didn’t say it was the same, just that it’s a supposed religious person being hypocritical.

Your post definitely reads as saying this is an example of religious hypocrisy on Clinton’s part. I’m not sure I see that nor how that is relevant to the hypocrisy on display. What I see is someone who was supposed to be standing up for women and for what’s right, doing the exact opposite for no good reason that I can discern.

TV’s Frink said:

Oh hey religious hypocrisy isn’t limited to the right!

Although I’d argue it’s more prevalent on the right, or at least more obvious given how much more obvious people are about their faith in general on the right.

I thought there was a different hypocrisy on display in that story.

A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.

Wait til you get to the part where you discover what very important position he held.

God I love this thread.

yhwx said:

Sometimes no one to trust is better than anyone to trust.

This is my life philosophy.

Sometimes I like to drive nowhere in particular. If I’m on vacation, I may just be looking around with no particular destination. I may stop someplace on a whim. People don’t always drive with fixed start and end points. If I’m on a highway and suddenly decide to stop at a rest area I can change lanes in fairly short order. I don’t know how a self driving car would work with how people drive.

I think establishing legal culpability would be fairly straightforward. But existing strict liability laws could be problematic for manufacturers.

I think voluntary adoption is the best way to go. Insurance rates should heavily favor self driving cars anyway. And a sort of herd immunity will result as many accidents result from the actions of more than one car.

Mocata said:

Mrebo said:

Mocata said:

TV’s Frink said:

Frank your Majesty said:

That’s why I disagree with the notion that you can show someone the Plinkett reviews in order to convince them that the PT is bad.

If you have to convince someone that the PT is bad, you cannot convince them.

Rational arguments / irrational viewers.

I think some members of this forum think the PT is good and don’t consider themselves irrational.

That’s the problem.

I don’t think it is.

The problem is insisting we must all come to the same conclusions. I enjoy discussing the merits and faults of SW movies. It’s silly and frustrating to go about with an intent of proving people wrong about their views of Star Wars. You may change someone’s view based on a discussion but it’s nothing to you if that doesn’t happen.

Also, there’s something in the rules about personal insults.

Mocata said:

TV’s Frink said:

Frank your Majesty said:

That’s why I disagree with the notion that you can show someone the Plinkett reviews in order to convince them that the PT is bad.

If you have to convince someone that the PT is bad, you cannot convince them.

Rational arguments / irrational viewers.

I think some members of this forum think the PT is good and don’t consider themselves irrational.

Shopping Maul said:

Mrebo said:

Shopping Maul said:

Why would Rey even know about Anakin’s bedside conversion? I can’t imagine that any rebel worth their salt would be impressed by the notion that Darth Vader’s soul was saved at the last minute. How did this so-called legend spread? And why?
It would’ve been so much better if Rey had simply said “you defeated the Emperor at the battle of Endor!” and Luke had responded with “well, it was a little more complicated than that”. Having the whole Vader/Anakin story become legend makes no sense to me.

But everyone in the galaxy saw the movies! The reaction video of Ben watching ESB is priceless. When he finds out about Vader being Luke’s father he tears Leia and Han’s living room apart. That’s when he was sent off to Luke.

Ha ha, plus he was somewhat grossed out when Mom gave Uncle Luke that big kiss!

No wonder he’s so screwed up. Even Uncle Lando doesn’t want to be around anymore.

dahmage said:

DrDre said:

....

WYSHS

Best point in this thread.

😃

Shopping Maul said:

Why would Rey even know about Anakin’s bedside conversion? I can’t imagine that any rebel worth their salt would be impressed by the notion that Darth Vader’s soul was saved at the last minute. How did this so-called legend spread? And why?
It would’ve been so much better if Rey had simply said “you defeated the Emperor at the battle of Endor!” and Luke had responded with “well, it was a little more complicated than that”. Having the whole Vader/Anakin story become legend makes no sense to me.

But everyone in the galaxy saw the movies! The reaction video of Ben watching ESB is priceless. When he finds out about Vader being Luke’s father he tears Leia and Han’s living room apart. That’s when he was sent off to Luke.

oojason said:

dahmage said:

NeverarGreat said:

Random Opinions on appearances:
I liked that Hux looked more sallow and haunted.
I liked how Leia looked more regal.
I liked how Snoke was a sassy jerk.
I liked how C-3PO and R2-D2 looked a lot more realistic somehow.
I liked Holdo’s…everything.

Oh, I agree with this. Very much.

Same here - the scenes with the OT characters were pretty much spot on for me, and the new ST characters evolved - though I do wish to have seen more of Rey & Luke on Ahch-To - which we seemingly may do via the deleted/cut scenes.

The scene with Luke and Leia together was touching (a lot of dust in the cinema that day 😉) yet also found the Luke and R2 scene also emotive (damn these dusty cinemas!) - beautifully played and acted, even by R2…

Very much looking forward to Episode IX…

I think it was shabby that they cut out Rey’s third lesson. It’s just so sloppy to set it up and then let it drop.

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.

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.

And I still hold the opinion that Luke’s Jedi order would be completely different from the one seen in the prequel trilogy, because he was trained by a hippie Obi-Wan and an exiled much wiser Yoda - both of them being masters that learned from their mistakes and trained Luke differently. Luke was a Qui-Gon like Jedi, imo. Not a Obi-Wan or a Yoda.

You know I share your view of Luke. This is probably a minority view in Star Wars fandom.

I have mixed feelings on Luke’s death. I would have wanted him to live if only to see a revived Luke in E9. I think disappointment is made more acute by not getting to see him portrayed in a more heroic way leading up to his death. Sure, this has to do with a general expectation but there’s nothing wrong with that. Without expectations this movie wouldn’t have been made, or would have been made in a dramatically different way.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I guess it depends on your definition of fallen? I personally think the “Anakin died and became Vader” strict dichotomy is pretty silly.

It also depends whether we’re talking about before Luke entered the hut or after Luke searched Ben’s feelings.

So how do you define “fallen”? I don’t think having bad thoughts counts as fallen. But maybe that’s just me 😉

Luke doesn’t know Ben’s thoughts, he knows his feelings and his future, which I think are more telling.

Whether feelings or thoughts (the distinction isn’t terribly important as far as I’m concerned), perceiving the future is another matter. As Yoda said, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”

And if Luke perceives that Ben might in the future fall, that is still different from perceiving that he is fallen.

But that’s not what Luke perceives. What he sees is a future where Ben does terrible things which leads his to a momentary lapse of judgement.

There’s no question of “Ben might fall” Luke makes it explicit that Ben had either already fallen or was deep in the process.

What Luke sensed in Ben’s feelings:

“I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I’d seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart.”

What Luke saw in Ben’s future:

“He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.”

Saying Luke merely sensed Ben’s “bad thoughts” is dramatically underselling the situation.

When you say “that’s not what Luke perceives,” that’s not true unless you’re saying the future is certain. And we know it isn’t.

I’m saying Luke doesn’t see a future where Ben might fall because he’s already at that point. What he sees in the future is something far more horrifying than just the simple “Ben might fall.”

Your argument is that the vision Luke beheld was horrifying. My rhetoric was more tame (antihyperbole!) but I didn’t deny that it was a terrible thing to behold.

No, saying what Luke felt was simply bad thoughts is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement doesn’t have to be making something out to be bigger than it is, it can go the inverse too.

What a lot of us have trouble accepting is that Luke accepted what he saw, especially after the fact. “Snoke had already turned his heart,” means what? In large part, our appreciation for Luke is perhaps supposed to make it really meaningful. But there’s so much work being done in that line that many don’t buy.

“Snoke had already turned his heart” means exactly what it sounds like. That’s not a vision of the future in motion, that’s Luke’s perception of Ben’s current situation in that moment. I don’t know how you can disregard that. As for accepting the vision of the future? Did he really accept it as gospel or was it just something that briefly sparked a horribly misguided idea in his mind? The film would suggest the latter.

If Snoke turned Ben’s heart, that calls out for answers to why and how. I recall discussions in this forum (before TLJ) on how lacking in credibility it was that Luke could realistically have been convinced to turn to the dark side in the OT. That seems an entirely reasonable argument and I’m fairly convinced by it. There just wasn’t enough established in the movie to explain why Luke would turn.

I’ve made a similar argument, but it’s not that I don’t believe it’s possible that Luke could turn (I think they set it up quite well in ESB), I just think they dropped the ball when it came to exploring the temptation Luke should be facing throughout ROTJ.

In TLJ, we’re not given anything except Luke’s assurance that Ben was lost. We don’t know what Snoke could have possibly done to take Ben beyond the point of no return. I’m not ignoring Luke’s statement, I’m saying it doesn’t really explain anything.

Why should we have anymore than that? We don’t need to know anything more about that for the purposes of this story.

It does matter for the the credibility of this story and the characterizations. It’s strange to me that you would advocate for a movie showing as little as possible. Efficient storytelling has its virtues but if one is to accept that Snoke had an iron grip on Ben (and that Luke, of all people believed it) it calls out for more. If you can see how ROTJ dropped the ball, I don’t know how that isn’t apparent here.

I can accept that Luke saw something so horrible that raw defensive instincts kicked in. Others here have a harder time with that, but it makes sense to me. Note that is different than Luke concluding that Ben was already fallen.

So you refuse to accept a fact that the film presents then?

When it comes to a story, saying that one “refuses to accept a fact” is a strange statement. Stories are not facts that must be believed. A good story makes itself credible. If there are holes or poorly established elements, that’s the story’s problem. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s enjoyment of the film, but there are gaps that don’t work for many of us.

This is not the story of how Ben was tempted to the dark side. He’s already Kylo Ren at the start of the film. I don’t know why you don’t see the distinction there. Yeah, we’re asked to take Snoke turning Ben to the dark side as a given. Why is that so hard to accept? I really don’t get why you won’t.

What I am addressing is Luke’s actions and thought processes. You’ve not seen me contest Ben’s turn to the dark side. That Ben was being tempted is established and accepted. Glad we cleared that up. An issue we have been discussing is whether Luke could have done something to save Ben. Specifically we are dealing with a scene that was shown from the past that is supposed to inform our understanding of both Luke and Ben. I have no trouble believing that after leaving Luke for dead Ben finally ran into the arms of Snoke. What is in dispute is that Luke concluded from Ben’s feelings alone that Ben was beyond his ability/desire to help him. And that is thin gruel in my view.

Luke had an instinctual reaction to seeing Ben had turned to the dark side. If Luke had managed to sneak back out of Ben’s room without Ben realizing that he had ignited his saber, I have no doubt Luke would have tried to work things up differently.

And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.

As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.

As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.

What doesn’t make sense is that Luke would give up afterward. And this goes again to the idea that Ben is lost and yet having no idea why that is. It begs for an explanation of exactly what Snoke did and of what Ben did to become beyond hope.

No and no. Luke didn’t quite give up, from his perspective going to the island to die and let the Jedi Order die with him was his solution to the problem (however misguided, of course). And I don’t quite think that Luke thinks Ben is “beyond hope,” he just doesn’t think he can help him.

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

The question is why Luke thinks he can’t help Ben.

Because of the way he failed him. I don’t think Ben is quite open to the kind of strategy Luke took with his father.

Back to the real question, again. We can only guess at what influence Luke might have had with Ben. In what way did Luke fail Ben? Simply that he didn’t see Snoke’s influence? Not saying that isn’t bad, but it’s more negligence than anything.

Um, he almost killed him? I don’t think Ben would be so willing to talk after that.

You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”

Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.

Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.

This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.

I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.

Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”

As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.

Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.

We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.

That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.

But you do think that if Luke hadn’t ignited his saber that night he would have tried to save Ben?

I don’t see why not, in fact I think I suggested this very thing.

Just wanted to confirm. Nice to find agreement.

yotsuya said:

I posted that long block of text because it covers the scenes that relate to the current discussions. In TFA we hear from his parents that Kylo was already going down the dark path when he stared training with Luke. He wanted to be on that path. That is a frequent theme with him. He wants to be dark. I think it is safe to say that Luke saw that and knew it was too late.

There is a lot in both movies that reinforces that Kylo is on the path he wants to be. He idolizes Vader. I think this emphasis plus what Luke said is enough to make it a fact that it was too late before Luke ever entered Ben’s hut.

Luke’s hubris and ultimate failure is in thinking he could overcome something like that. His success had gone to his head. For some reason he waited until Ben was old enough to run into problems to start his training. And then Kylo was not only fallen, but he took some of Luke’s other students and killed the rest. How could Luke fail worse than that. All of his students gone in one night. Luke failed in so many ways that don’t seem all that significant until you add them together.

There’s some discord between Ben being already lost and it being Luke’s fault. If Luke isn’t capable of saving Ben then any hubris is beside the point, unless Luke should have recognized that he should have given up and/or killed Kylo when he had the chance. I don’t think you’re saying that though.

I get Kylo’s temptation and all that. I’m less clear on Luke’s conviction that Ben was lost.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I guess it depends on your definition of fallen? I personally think the “Anakin died and became Vader” strict dichotomy is pretty silly.

It also depends whether we’re talking about before Luke entered the hut or after Luke searched Ben’s feelings.

So how do you define “fallen”? I don’t think having bad thoughts counts as fallen. But maybe that’s just me 😉

Luke doesn’t know Ben’s thoughts, he knows his feelings and his future, which I think are more telling.

Whether feelings or thoughts (the distinction isn’t terribly important as far as I’m concerned), perceiving the future is another matter. As Yoda said, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”

And if Luke perceives that Ben might in the future fall, that is still different from perceiving that he is fallen.

But that’s not what Luke perceives. What he sees is a future where Ben does terrible things which leads his to a momentary lapse of judgement.

There’s no question of “Ben might fall” Luke makes it explicit that Ben had either already fallen or was deep in the process.

What Luke sensed in Ben’s feelings:

“I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I’d seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart.”

What Luke saw in Ben’s future:

“He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.”

Saying Luke merely sensed Ben’s “bad thoughts” is dramatically underselling the situation.

When you say “that’s not what Luke perceives,” that’s not true unless you’re saying the future is certain. And we know it isn’t.

I’m saying Luke doesn’t see a future where Ben might fall because he’s already at that point. What he sees in the future is something far more horrifying than just the simple “Ben might fall.”

Your argument is that the vision Luke beheld was horrifying. My rhetoric was more tame (antihyperbole!) but I didn’t deny that it was a terrible thing to behold.

No, saying what Luke felt was simply bad thoughts is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement doesn’t have to be making something out to be bigger than it is, it can go the inverse too.

What a lot of us have trouble accepting is that Luke accepted what he saw, especially after the fact. “Snoke had already turned his heart,” means what? In large part, our appreciation for Luke is perhaps supposed to make it really meaningful. But there’s so much work being done in that line that many don’t buy.

“Snoke had already turned his heart” means exactly what it sounds like. That’s not a vision of the future in motion, that’s Luke’s perception of Ben’s current situation in that moment. I don’t know how you can disregard that. As for accepting the vision of the future? Did he really accept it as gospel or was it just something that briefly sparked a horribly misguided idea in his mind? The film would suggest the latter.

If Snoke turned Ben’s heart, that calls out for answers to why and how. I recall discussions in this forum (before TLJ) on how lacking in credibility it was that Luke could realistically have been convinced to turn to the dark side in the OT. That seems an entirely reasonable argument and I’m fairly convinced by it. There just wasn’t enough established in the movie to explain why Luke would turn.

I’ve made a similar argument, but it’s not that I don’t believe it’s possible that Luke could turn (I think they set it up quite well in ESB), I just think they dropped the ball when it came to exploring the temptation Luke should be facing throughout ROTJ.

In TLJ, we’re not given anything except Luke’s assurance that Ben was lost. We don’t know what Snoke could have possibly done to take Ben beyond the point of no return. I’m not ignoring Luke’s statement, I’m saying it doesn’t really explain anything.

Why should we have anymore than that? We don’t need to know anything more about that for the purposes of this story.

It does matter for the the credibility of this story and the characterizations. It’s strange to me that you would advocate for a movie showing as little as possible. Efficient storytelling has its virtues but if one is to accept that Snoke had an iron grip on Ben (and that Luke, of all people believed it) it calls out for more. If you can see how ROTJ dropped the ball, I don’t know how that isn’t apparent here.

I can accept that Luke saw something so horrible that raw defensive instincts kicked in. Others here have a harder time with that, but it makes sense to me. Note that is different than Luke concluding that Ben was already fallen.

So you refuse to accept a fact that the film presents then?

When it comes to a story, saying that one “refuses to accept a fact” is a strange statement. Stories are not facts that must be believed. A good story makes itself credible. If there are holes or poorly established elements, that’s the story’s problem. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s enjoyment of the film, but there are gaps that don’t work for many of us.

This is not the story of how Ben was tempted to the dark side. He’s already Kylo Ren at the start of the film. I don’t know why you don’t see the distinction there. Yeah, we’re asked to take Snoke turning Ben to the dark side as a given. Why is that so hard to accept? I really don’t get why you won’t.

What I am addressing is Luke’s actions and thought processes. You’ve not seen me contest Ben’s turn to the dark side. That Ben was being tempted is established and accepted. Glad we cleared that up. An issue we have been discussing is whether Luke could have done something to save Ben. Specifically we are dealing with a scene that was shown from the past that is supposed to inform our understanding of both Luke and Ben. I have no trouble believing that after leaving Luke for dead Ben finally ran into the arms of Snoke. What is in dispute is that Luke concluded from Ben’s feelings alone that Ben was beyond his ability/desire to help him. And that is thin gruel in my view.

Luke had an instinctual reaction to seeing Ben had turned to the dark side. If Luke had managed to sneak back out of Ben’s room without Ben realizing that he had ignited his saber, I have no doubt Luke would have tried to work things up differently.

And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.

As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.

As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.

What doesn’t make sense is that Luke would give up afterward. And this goes again to the idea that Ben is lost and yet having no idea why that is. It begs for an explanation of exactly what Snoke did and of what Ben did to become beyond hope.

No and no. Luke didn’t quite give up, from his perspective going to the island to die and let the Jedi Order die with him was his solution to the problem (however misguided, of course). And I don’t quite think that Luke thinks Ben is “beyond hope,” he just doesn’t think he can help him.

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

The question is why Luke thinks he can’t help Ben.

Because of the way he failed him. I don’t think Ben is quite open to the kind of strategy Luke took with his father.

Back to the real question, again. We can only guess at what influence Luke might have had with Ben. In what way did Luke fail Ben? Simply that he didn’t see Snoke’s influence? Not saying that isn’t bad, but it’s more negligence than anything.

Um, he almost killed him? I don’t think Ben would be so willing to talk after that.

You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”

Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.

Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.

This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.

I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.

Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”

As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.

Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.

We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.

That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.

But you do think that if Luke hadn’t ignited his saber that night he would have tried to save Ben?