Mrebo

Jeebus said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/18/16905794/marijuana-legalization-polls

Only 16 percent of Americans favored keeping the current policy. About 29 percent backed only medical legalization, 5 percent backed decriminalization, and 49 percent backed full legalization. The remaining 1 percent were not sure.

Even among Republicans, who tend to be more conservative on drug policy issues, current federal marijuana law fared poorly: Only 25 percent of Republican voters supported keeping the policy as is, 36 percent backed medical marijuana, 2 percent backed decriminalization, and 36 percent backed full legalization. The majority of Republican voters were for some form of legalization — medical or recreational.

…

And the great majority of voters oppose current federal marijuana law. This kind of result — 83 percent of Americans choosing anything but a current policy — is exceedingly rare in any kind of polling.

Those are insane numbers. 83%!

I found a more insane number: 84%!

The federal government shutdown was “mainly unnecessary” 84 percent of American voters say…

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.

I can’t say that an overt act is required in every case. Although it makes sense that there will be an overt act that is the turning point for most people. That’s generally how things seem to work in the real world. Until a person has done a bad thing, there is still hope that they won’t do it, even if the temptation is very strong.

If there isn’t an overt act, I wonder what the turning point was that resulted in a person resolving to a life of darkness. I’m not saying Kylo wasn’t being corrupted (he clearly was). I’m only questioning the nature of his commitment.

When Ben left Luke for dead, killed the other padawans, and fled to Snoke, that could have sealed the deal (although the impetus would have been Luke’s moment of madness mistaken for murder, poignant perhaps).

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.

With almost 40,000 people killed in the U.S. each year in car accidents, should self-driving cars be required in the not distant future?

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.

Ultimately what you’re suggesting is a Luke that is near infallible and always makes the best decisions. I like when characters start the story in a different spot than where they end it. When Luke finally does apologize to Ben on Crait, it has so much more weight to it. We know the shame and anguish and doubt that Luke has had to overcome to finally get to this point.

Not at all, as my response above should indicate to you.

Cool.

And since I forget to respond to this…

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

It’s still an exaggeration, so in my opinion it fits the definition.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Understatement and exaggeration are opposites. An exaggeration is by definition an overstatement. We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case. For example, if you say, “Darth Vader was not a nice guy,” that’s not an exaggeration.

Since I guess today we’re quoting definitions in this thread for some reason:

Hyperbole

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Exaggeration

a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.

I don’t deny that hyperbole is typically used for overstatements, but I think the definition can apply to understatements as well.

If you look at all the rest of the information connected to that definition (and any other dictionary), it has to do with overstatement and amplification. Of course exaggeration can be used to express something being better or worse: “this is the best cake ever!” or “this is the worst cake ever!” That’s what the definition you quote is getting at.

I guess I just don’t really care enough about this debate to look at other definitions or continue discussing it.

I thought you had lot it drop a couple pages ago before raising it again. It’s only for your own edification if you ever do care to look it up.

I guess I should have, the whole reason I forgot to respond to that part was because it wasn’t important, it’s just my interpretation of the word. And I’m not Frink, I don’t even care about using hyperbole that much to begin with. The semantics of it isn’t the point of what I was criticizing there.

Hey, it’s not like I get a kickback from Webster’s. And there are no prizes to be won in internet arguments. My understatement all those years (?) ago wasn’t important to the argument anyway. And I agree overstatement/understatement doesn’t need to be taken so seriously.

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.

Ultimately what you’re suggesting is a Luke that is near infallible and always makes the best decisions. I like when characters start the story in a different spot than where they end it. When Luke finally does apologize to Ben on Crait, it has so much more weight to it. We know the shame and anguish and doubt that Luke has had to overcome to finally get to this point.

Not at all, as my response above should indicate to you.

And since I forget to respond to this…

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

It’s still an exaggeration, so in my opinion it fits the definition.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Understatement and exaggeration are opposites. An exaggeration is by definition an overstatement. We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case. For example, if you say, “Darth Vader was not a nice guy,” that’s not an exaggeration.

Since I guess today we’re quoting definitions in this thread for some reason:

Hyperbole

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Exaggeration

a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.

I don’t deny that hyperbole is typically used for overstatements, but I think the definition can apply to understatements as well.

If you look at all the rest of the information connected to that definition (and any other dictionary), it has to do with overstatement and amplification. Of course exaggeration can be used to express something being better or worse: “this is the best cake ever!” or “this is the worst cake ever!” That’s what the definition you quote is getting at.

I guess I just don’t really care enough about this debate to look at other definitions or continue discussing it.

I thought you had lot it drop a couple pages ago before raising it again. It’s only for your own edification if you ever do care to look it up.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case.

Hahahahahaha.

I was hoping someone would appreciate that 😄 Had to be you.

It was funny but not “haha” funny.

In other words, not why I was laughing.

I didn’t think it was terribly funny, but it’s a sentence many might gloss over in reading. It’s no fun getting away with that kind of thing!

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.

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].”

And since I forget to respond to this…

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

It’s still an exaggeration, so in my opinion it fits the definition.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Understatement and exaggeration are opposites. An exaggeration is by definition an overstatement. We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case. For example, if you say, “Darth Vader was not a nice guy,” that’s not an exaggeration.

Since I guess today we’re quoting definitions in this thread for some reason:

Hyperbole

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Exaggeration

a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.

I don’t deny that hyperbole is typically used for overstatements, but I think the definition can apply to understatements as well.

If you look at all the rest of the information connected to that definition (and any other dictionary), it has to do with overstatement and amplification. Of course exaggeration can be used to express something being better or worse: “this is the best cake ever!” or “this is the worst cake ever!” That’s what the definition you quote is getting at.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case.

Hahahahahaha.

I was hoping someone would appreciate that 😄 Had to be you.

dahmage said:

TV’s Frink said:

Collipso said:

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.

I think a better way to describe would be “character inconsistencies”.

Just a reminder that this is all that needed to be said, and I accepted it immediately. But nah, let’s spend a few pages arguing instead. An especially effective tactic is to start quoting definitions…that always ends the argument, right?

I agree with Frink on this

an argument is “an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.”

so well done all.

Since Dom and I are also on a topic of semantics, want to add your two cents on hyperbole/exaggeration vs understatement?

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.

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.

And since I forget to respond to this…

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

It’s still an exaggeration, so in my opinion it fits the definition.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Understatement and exaggeration are opposites. An exaggeration is by definition an overstatement. We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case. For example, if you say, “Darth Vader was not a nice guy,” that’s not an exaggeration.

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.

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.

Funny I came across an aspect of this story in the course of my work today and wondered what it was all about, thanks for the post.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

dahmage 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.

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.

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.

I still don’t believe that Darth Vader was Luke’s father.

Stay strong!

I know you want to see the birth certificate but we had the confirmation of both Yoda and Obi Wan, not to mention the Prequels.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*(For present purposes anyway.)

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 😉

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

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

It might. But that’s not what happened. On the night in question Luke sensed great evil and ultimately saw a scared boy, not someone who was fallen.

Or both, but let’s just ignore half of what the movie told us!

Again: what happened in that scene did not depict that Kylo had fallen. I’m not sure what in your mind counts as having already fallen.

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

It might. But that’s not what happened. On the night in question Luke sensed great evil and ultimately saw a scared boy, not someone who was fallen.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The Democrats would be a more liberal party if the electorate were more liberal.

IMO the positions of both parties have drifted right to attract donors, which are unfortunately worth quite a bit more than voters.

This. Since “Citizens United”, it’s getting harder to distinguish when a politician is trying to attract voters, and when they are trying to attract funding. You’re right it’s more usually the latter, since that generally leads to the former (sadly).

Hasn’t it always been practically impossible to tell?

TV’s Frink said:

hairy_hen said:

You know, it’s a sad day when my post using farts as a (surprisingly apt) metaphor for media bias is more on point than this predictably stupid backbiting some of you engage in on a regular basis. Seriously, don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

Beats working.

You too, huh?

It is fascinating to look at the wildly different views on policy and politics between countries. I recently stumbled onto a YouTube channel, “The Right Opinion,” by a British guy who seems to be a solid leftist. He takes an honest and logical look at arguments he may disagree with and admits when there is some validity to a point. His analyses of American issues is interesting because he comes from a different political culture.

Temporary insanity then. Luke apparently has a propensity for it. And we come full circle!

hairy_hen said:

You know, it’s a sad day when my post using farts as a (surprisingly apt) metaphor for media bias is more on point than this predictably stupid backbiting some of you engage in on a regular basis. Seriously, don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

Are you aware Ben Franklin wrote similarly of academia in “A Letter to a Royal Academy”?

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

I prefer thinking of him as “moist pathetic”.

Yuck, thanks for that.

If you guys would rather read that then look at Handsome Mark Sanchez, I seriously question your common sense.

Me and Mark Sanchez can’t be friends either.