1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

Yeah. Several times. And still kept doing it.

No, he didn’t. He went there while Ben was sleeping to check on the darkness he’d seemed to sense in Ben. He saw something far worse than expected, had a thought that he could end it that lasted a heartbeat before he realized he’d been in that same position before and curbed that impulse. (It’s not a mistake or coincidence that, as he steps back from that irrevocable action, he gazes at his saber in his mechanical hand just as he did in the throne room as he stopped himself from wailing away on Vader. We in the audience are intentionally being led to make that connection.)

A Luke Skywalker who, in a moment of surprise and panic that his loved ones would die horribly, considers giving in to a dark impulse for a flickering moment doesn’t fit the same Luke Skywalker who, when his newfound sister was threatened, went on a rampage against the father he’d said he wanted to redeem?

And, he didn’t act on what he saw, did he?

I respectfully disagree for the reasons stated.

Sorry it didn’t work for you. It’s natural, when we end up not enjoying something that we’d hoped to, to look for some inherent fault or flaw in that thing. We wanted to like it, and we didn’t, so there must be some blame to assign. More often than not, though, it’s just a matter of personal tastes, and it’s bound to happen sometime, even when it’s something we usually enjoy. (I’m a huge U2 fan, but I still haven’t listened to all of Songs of Experience , because what I’ve heard doesn’t hit me the same way most of their library does. It happens. Last time was with Zooropa . But, over time, I’ve come to appreciate a fair number of its tracks.) Seems like that’s what happened here.

He pulled a lethal weapon on Ben and turned it on. So yes he did act on it. I am just not going to buy post Return of the Jedi Luke acting in this manner with out more context. A single vague sentence doe not cover it. And Mark Hamill clearly doesnt agree with this either.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

He pulled a lethal weapon on Ben and turned it on. So yes he did act on it. I am just not going to buy post Return of the Jedi Luke acting in this manner with out more context. A single vague sentence doe not cover it. And Mark Hamill clearly doesnt agree with this either.

That's all personal taste, not an objective fault with the writing or "ignoring canon" or anything. YOU may not like it, but clearly other people do. That's fine.

For me, it would've been vastly disappointing if Luke had no struggle at all and was just this uber Jedi that could solve the galaxy's problems with a single stroke of his saber. Instead, the nuanced, retrospective take on Luke was VASTLY more interesting, and it made his final moment standing against the First Order so much better. The ultimate act of being a Jedi we ever see on screen is by Luke Skywalker, after he overcomes his struggle through learning from a young student and being reminded what matters by his former master - and that makes him worthy of being the best Jedi in the saga more than anything, imo.

Also, Mark Hamill wanted Luke to turn to the Dark Side in an Episode 7, and had talked to George about it after RotJ, and he's pretty known for just saying stuff - but he himself has even said "I'm not the writer, I'm not the storyteller".

1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:

That's all personal taste, not an objective fault with the writing or "ignoring canon" or anything. YOU may not like it, but clearly other people do. That's fine.

Also, Mark Hamill wanted Luke to turn to the Dark Side in an Episode 7, and had talked to Roger about it after RotJ, and he's pretty known for just saying stuff - but he himself has even said "I'm not the writer, I'm not the storyteller".

In other words he felt drastic changes should happen on screen. not off screen. And there needed to be a drastic change to get from I cant kill my father to i will consider killing my nephew to the point of pulling a lethal weapon on them and turn it on. That is a seriously drastic change in character.

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

In other words he felt drastic changes should happen on screen. not off screen. And there needed to be a drastic change to get from I cant kill my father to i will consider killing my nephew to the point of pulling a lethal weapon on them and turn it on. That is a seriously drastic change in character.

Nope, not to me. It was the logical progression of his character, based on aspects I outlined in a previous post in this thread.

Also, the development didn't happen off-screen - we see it, three times, in fact.

Just now, StarkJunior said:

Nope, not to me. It was the logical progression of his character, based on aspects I outlined in a previous post in this thread.

None of which happened on screen. so no it is not a logical progression of the character. And who said anything about not having struggle. Who said the choice was Uber Luke from the EU or crochety angry Luke from the Sequals? why are those our only options?

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

None of which happened on screen. so no it is not a logical progression of the character. And who said anything about not having struggle. Who said the choice was Uber Luke from the EU or crochety angry Luke from the Sequals? why are those our only options?

Just because it didn't happen on screen doesn't mean its not logical.

7 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

None of which happened on screen. so no it is not a logical progression of the character.

Yes, they did - what I was specifically referring to. They happened in the original trilogy, and in the TLJ we see the moment that caused him to retreat from the galaxy. It's right there on-screen - his momentary struggle with the dark, and then Ben - as far as we knew at the time - destroying his temple.

5 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Who said the choice was Uber Luke from the EU or crochety angry Luke from the Sequals? why are those our only options?

They aren't, but all I ever hear from most of the people I encounter that take issue with it is that they wanted badass Luke with a green lightsaber and him to fight Snoke and be all Prequel flippy-flip, wuxia Jedi.

To other fans, including Rian himself, the Luke we wanted was the one in TLJ, which is the logical progression of his character arc to us.

It's just opinion.

10 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

He pulled a lethal weapon on Ben and turned it on. So yes he did act on it

From A Certain Point Of View. (TM) 😏

Pardon me while I illustrate with something that’s fresh in my mind. Last week, I listened to a podcast interview with Joe Mangianello from 2018 that had been sitting on my phone for a while. Talking about how he and his wife approach things differently, he mentioned an occasion where She told him someone slighted her, and she just shrugged and said, “Poor them.” Joe, however, wanted to go pound them into paste, and even headed for the door. She told him, “No... poor them .” So...did he act on that impulse? According to you here, he did. Since he didn’t actually assault the person, I’d say he didn’t.

At this point, though, we’re getting into semantics. You suggested that Luke went to Ben while he was sleeping with the intent to murder him, but that wasn’t the case.

17 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I am just not going to buy post Return of the Jedi Luke acting in this manner with out more context. A single vague sentence doe not cover it.

That’s a matter of personal preference. For some, it did. For others, it didn’t. Which, as I’ve said quite a few times, is fair enough if it didn’t. That doesn’t mean it was flawed, it just means it wasn’t your thing.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

In other words he felt drastic changes should happen on screen. not off screen. And there needed to be a drastic change to get from I cant kill my father to i will consider killing my nephew to the point of pulling a lethal weapon on them and turn it on. That is a seriously drastic change in character.

If Luke is going to be a main character (as he likely would have been in a Lucas-made 7, done earlier than 2015), sure, happening on screen is ideal. But he’s not a main character for the sequels, so we just need the bullet points of how he got to the person he is for the sequels’ story.

Let’s look at something else current for an example: Picard . We’ve gotten detail on how Picard got to where he is all these years later. But when Seven, Riker, and Troi showed up for their guest appearances, we didn’t get detailed biographies of what’s happened to them in the ~15 years since we last saw them in Voyager and Nemesis , respectively. We got what was pertinent to how they intersect with Picard’s current story.

Same with Luke...he’s a supporting character this time around, making the movie equivalent of a guest appearance. His full biography over the past 30 years isn’t relevant to how he impacts TLJ’s story. What is relevant is why he retreated from the galaxy and cut himself off from the Force. And we’re given that information.

Which didn’t work for you. And, again, that’s fair. You wanted more. (I want more, too.) but this particular story didn’t require more.

I would have had Holdo be New Republic and not Resistance so they could explain what was going on instead of focusing on Rian's Reylo fixation that literally required all the other characters to be sidelined including Luke.

Instead of acknowledging the passing of Carrie Fisher and altering TLJ enough for whatever Trevorrow had planned for episode 9 they literally ruined the ST for reasons that still make no sense.

I wonder if the story we're getting is the true story. Maybe Luke was a "funny uncle" and it wasn't his lightsaber that Ben saw when he woke up...

Star Wars SVU coming soon!

4 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Yes, they did - what I was specifically referring to. They happened in the original trilogy, and in the TLJ we see the moment that caused him to retreat from the galaxy. It's right there on-screen - his momentary struggle with the dark, and then Ben - as far as we knew at the time - destroying his temple.

They aren't, but all I ever hear from most of the people I encounter that take issue with it is that they wanted badass Luke with a green lightsaber and him to fight Snoke and be all Prequel flippy-flip, wuxia Jedi.

To other fans, including Rian himself, the Luke we wanted was the one in TLJ, which is the logical progression of his character arc to us.

It's just opinion.

We saw 1 scene out of context that didnt make sense for the character we last saw in Return of the Jedi. Which had him acting out of character for that character. With no context for how he got to the point where he was willing to kill his nephew based on "Darkness" he saw in him. But we have no idea what that darkness was or how Luke got to the point where he was willing to consider killing his nephew. 1 out of context scene is no where near enough.

I didnt want a flippy lightsaber luke. I just want one that is a logical progression. I dont see why the only options we are allowed are Dour Luke or Superman Luke. Why couldnt we have wise reluctant to fight Luke who gives wisdom and trains students. That is the Luke I wanted. And if you are going to progress to dour Luke I want to see all the steps on that path. not a single out of context scene.

4 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

If Luke is going to be a main character (as he likely would have been in a Lucas-made 7, done earlier than 2015), sure, happening on screen is ideal. But he’s not a main character for the sequels, so we just need the bullet points of how he got to the person he is for the sequels’ story.

Let’s look at something else current for an example: Picard . We’ve gotten detail on how Picard got to where he is all these years later. But when Seven, Riker, and Troi showed up for their guest appearances, we didn’t get detailed biographies of what’s happened to them in the ~15 years since we last saw them in Voyager and Nemesis , respectively. We got what was pertinent to how they intersect with Picard’s current story.

Same with Luke...he’s a supporting character this time around, making the movie equivalent of a guest appearance. His full biography over the past 30 years isn’t relevant to how he impacts TLJ’s story. What is relevant is why he retreated from the galaxy and cut himself off from the Force. And we’re given that information.

Which didn’t work for you. And, again, that’s fair. You wanted more. (I want more, too.) but this particular story didn’t require more.

We didn't get bullet points. we got a single out of context scene that doesn't make sense.

28 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

We saw 1 scene out of context that didnt make sense for the character we last saw in Return of the Jedi.

Let’s take stock of the Luke we saw in Return of the Jedi—

- Cocky. Marches into Jabba’s palace like he owns the place. Chokes a couple of guards on the way in. Threatens Jabba that not freeing Han is “the last mistake (he’ll) ever make.”

- Discovers that everything his mentors told him was a lie, designed to turn him into a weapon.

- After deciding to go against that training and save his father, gives in to an angry impulse and lashes out at the Emperor. Talks a great talk about not fighting his father, but then flies into a murderous rage, fueled by anger and fear, and rampages against that same father when dear ol’ dad suggests corrupting newfound sis.

- Pulls himself back from the brink of killing his father when the Emperor resumes goading him, making it clear that Luke’s been playing right into the Emperor’s plans by hammering away at Vader.

Yeah, you’re absolutely right. It makes no sense for that guy to see unfathomable darkness in Ben, the direct danger it posed to his loved ones, and think, for just a moment, that doing something extreme could prevent that.

That one scene has plenty of context, and tells us what we need to know for Luke’s role in the story. Is there more that can be told? Sure. But it’s not necessary for TLJ’s story.

3 hours ago, Oldmike1 said:

I am starting to see that real world politics seems to shape ones view of last jedi more then most movies

I am glad you have discovered mirrors.

10 minutes ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

I am glad you have discovered mirrors.

Mirrors like this cause resentment more than changing minds..Also people go to movies to relax. not to b lectured at. Have you notice the fact movies and merch sales have gone down...

13 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Also people go to movies to relax. not to b lectured at.

Humanity has never lived in a world where the arts were not political and did not hold up a mirror to society. You may not like the lecture, but there's always a lecture.

7 minutes ago, Mistervimes said:

Humanity has never lived in a world where the arts were not political and did not hold up a mirror to society. You may not like the lecture, but there's always a lecture.

no there really is not. What it does result in is less people spending money on that product this is a good way to accomplish that. If your goal is to change minds. This is not the way to accomplish that.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

We saw 1 scene out of context that didnt make sense for the character we last saw in Return of the Jedi.

No.

You saw 1 scene out of context that didnt make sense for the character we last saw in Return of the Jedi.

We saw 1 scene that made total sense for the character we last saw in Return of the Jedi.

And it's the same scene.

13 hours ago, StarkJunior said:

Because Jedi don’t have flaws, right?

That scene was Luke rejecting the the Emperor and the Dark Side, it wasn’t him ridding himself of his impulsivity, his struggles with doubt, overconfidence, ect.

Even in people’s precious EU, Luke struggled with temptation - and even falling at one point, briefly - as the Skywalker men all have that flaw.

However, disregarding the EU, Luke is the only one to actually succeed in fighting the temptation and remaining in the light when it tempts him - which arguably is the trait that makes him the best of the Skywalker men.

He was also manipulated by his masters, lied to, and pushed to kill when they didn’t even consider redemption.

And, as far as we know from canon, they didn’t teach him how to rebuild the order, only to get strong enough to kill the Sith.

No, Luke didn’t cast off all his flaws. That’s nonsense. All that was is him rejecting the Emperor and the Dark Side, in that moment .

Jedi absolutely can have flaws and should have flaws. But by then end of the OT he should have cast off his old flaws and had to deal with new. Its called growth.

I agree, he is the best of the Skywalker men, he is THE New Hope.

Yes he was manipulated by his masters AND he disobeyed them almost all the time. He did things a NEW way and succeeded. By the end of the OT he had ALREADY cast off the old ways. Through just his actions in the OT he showed the old ways were flawed.

No they didn't teach him and that adds further fuel that Yoda and Obi Wan were wrong, that Luke was right. That Luke IS the actual New Hope for the Jedi. They wanted a weapon against the Sith, but what they got was someone who was able to see through their BS and dogma and do what he felt was right. To become what the Jedi never could.

You and I are just totally going to disagree about that scene. There is so much other subtext going on there. It is the culmination of the OT, intended or not. When Mace was faced with a similar scene he chose to execute Sidious, same with Anakin and Dooku. Luke, chose the correct path, even though it probably meant his death. He made the choice no one else in the entire series could make. Which makes Luke the gotdaymn NEW HOPE!

By the time of the ST he should have already shed the old ways and burned the old ways to the ground BECAUSE HE WAS DOING THAT THROUGHOUT THE OT and rebuilt it his way. He should have flaws but give him something new, people can actually change.

I actually don't mind that he feels like a failed Master because his student fell to the dark side, that's a great flaw. But its everything else that went along with it. He's REALLY going to give up on his nephew who hes known his whole life when we was ready to save a father he hardly knew? Thats a stretch. He's really going to isolate himself from his friends and family knowing full well what a trained Jedi turned dark could unleash on the galaxy? I just can't buy that. Give me reluctance and self-doubt and failure for sure, that's good storytelling. But what we got just doesn't make sense.

I’m sitting here trying to figure out what “lecture” some people found so offensive. I don’t recall a lecture.

2 minutes ago, Inquisitor Tremayne said:

I actually don't mind that he feels like a failed Master because his student fell to the dark side, that's a great flaw. But its everything else that went along with it. He's REALLY going to give up on his nephew who hes known his whole life when we was ready to save a father he hardly knew? Thats a stretch.

For a fleeting moment, thinking he could spare the galaxy and his loved ones? Sure. Because he didn’t go through with it. Keeping in mind that, after talking a good game about wanting to save that father he didn’t know, he was more than ready to kill him when his sister was threatened.

5 minutes ago, Inquisitor Tremayne said:

He's really going to isolate himself from his friends and family knowing full well what a trained Jedi turned dark could unleash on the galaxy? I just can't buy that.

It’s the example that he was given by his mentors: in the face of a crushing failure, tuck your tail between your legs and hide in the middle of nowhere.

7 minutes ago, Inquisitor Tremayne said:

Give me reluctance and self-doubt and failure for sure, that's good storytelling. But what we got just doesn't make sense.

To some. And it made plenty of sense to others. Such is the way of all storytelling. Sorry these elements didn’t work for you.

48 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

It’s the example that he was given by his mentors: in the face of a crushing failure, tuck your tail between your legs and hide in the middle of nowhere.

Yeah, and in TRoS he tells Rey he was wrong and that she should not follow in his - or their - example.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

no there really is not. What it does result in is less people spending money on that product this is a good way to accomplish that. If your goal is to change minds. This is not the way to accomplish that.

3000 years of theater that shaped policy, human perception, and morality says you are incorrect.

4 minutes ago, Mistervimes said:

3000 years of theater that shaped policy, human perception, and morality says you are incorrect.

there are good ways and bad ways. If you cause a large section of your audience to give the middle figer to your production you have not accomplished your goal. That does not mean theater has not shaped things. It just means some ways work and others dont.