The Rise of Skywalker Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker (IX)

[Adhesive Boy]

A crisis of faith is a logical reason. Why he had a crisis requires a longer analysis for some, but I'm fine with the facts in and of themselves as presented. It makes sense for Luke to undergo a crisis of faith when considering his history of rash, emotional reactions, but I understand why others can't come to terms with it.

That might make sense to someone that didn't watch Return of the Jedi, as this is pretty much writing as if that didn't exist. It's also obviously not a longer analysis that's required but one that makes more sense and follows the logical progression of the character better.

But it's mainly just writing with plot goals in mind and shoehorning characters to fit into that box. Rian is the D&D of Star Wars.

 

[writer0327]

That might make sense to someone that didn't watch Return of the Jedi, as this is pretty much writing as if that didn't exist. It's also obviously not a longer analysis that's required but one that makes more sense and follows the logical progression of the character better.

But it's mainly just writing with plot goals in mind and shoehorning characters to fit into that box. Rian is the D&D of Star Wars.

I understand your feelings but I see it completely differently. I find Rian is bridging both OT and PT conflicts, and through Luke's vantage point he arrives at one ultimate conclusion: this is a history destined to repeat itself to no avail. He's wrong of course, but that is a character challenge for Luke. There's nothing in RotJ that suggests Luke is forever resistant to having his faith tested. In fact, RotJ shows Luke's impulsive nature and that his outcome in TLJ is certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

 

[The Guard]

Rey's story goes nowhere after they establish the bond, she ends the movie with the same relationships and statuses as she began. The entire Canto Bight scene is irrelevant fluff for Finn that just confirms that they don't know what to do with him, as it's Rose that gets to talk about the troubled past even though Finn is already established to have been forced into service as a kid.

I mean, she ends the movie in a leadership role and with Jedi powers, so...agree to disagree.

Finn's character in TLJ is relevant. The scenes on Canto Bight are clearly tied to the themes of the importance of those throughout the galaxy standing up to the First Order and joining the rebellion VS ignoring the problem or contributing to it.

There's a lot of things in this movie that are less important than making Luke consistent and logical. Of course making Finn's character relevant is also important, but clearly he wasn't able to do that. No wonder Boyega and Hamill had supportive talks about being written like ****.

You are correct. There are a lot of elements in the movie more important than Luke. Which is fair. Luke had his trilogy, and this one wasn't intended to be about him. His story is merely part of events that unfold.

Can we stop with the "appeal to authority" approach with regard to how actors felt about their characters being written? That's a logical fallacy, and not a cohesive argument against the content of the story, its structure, etc.

So if the trilogy is full of redundancy it's hardly a big thing if another small part is added. It's already beyond the point of where it's too much.

Except it wouldn't be small. It would be a character with the same dynamic. Not a different character with the same or a similar dynamic.

You're thinking backwards. The movie is what it is because of Rian writing it so.

Well, yeah, it's a movie. It has to be written.

If he did a proper Luke he could just have written Rey so it wasn't necessary for her to do the same, if that's what's desired. She still doesn't accomplish anything in that regard in the movie and just repeats the same lesson regarding her parents as she did in the first one.

She doesn't accomplish anything in what regard?

She obviously doesn't repeat the same lesson regarding her parents as he did in the first one. In the first movie, she believes her parents may have been someone important. In the second, she is told that they were no one.

She's a copy of Luke as she's set up. A force sensitive young person with a good heart living on a desert planet, being dragged into the story by having to leave the planet with a droid the enemy is after, etc. They then of course develop differently as Luke actually has a personality arc and Rey remains bland and is only defined by her power and general greatness.

And she was also orphaned and a good pilot, etc. Those are their basic story and character similarities. That is intentional. There are differences.

I was saying that the greatest amount of redundancy regarding redeeming Ben is created by making Rey invested in it, because then it becomes a significant focus of two of the three movies in the trilogy.

Disagree. It would be considerably more redundant to have Luke repeat the whole "turn someone back from the Dark Side" thing instead of having a completely character do it.

The battle/balance between the light and dark has significant focus in almost every Star Wars story I've ever seen, at least those involving the Jedi. I don't think that's a legitimate knock against using it.

If Luke does what he of course would do by any stretch of logic it would just be a short flashback scene.

At which point it would likely be dubbed "poorly executed" because...reasons.

Ergo if one wants to reduce the redundancy it's Rey that shouldn't be bothered with it. And if you don't want less redundancy, why even bring this up to begin with? You're the one that brought it up and if you don't want less of it you can't reasonably see it as a negative, which makes the entire discussion around it pointless.

I'm talking about the degree of redundancy to the overall saga. There is a difference in having one character parallel another character's journey and life experiences, and seeing the differences therein, VS having one character repeat the same experiences and trials that they already had again.

 

[The Guard]

There's nothing in RotJ that suggests Luke is forever resistant to having his faith tested.

This.

His faith is tested constantly throughout various versions of the saga. He fails sometimes. This was a very specific portrayal of failure, which is the issue most fans seem to have. That it wasn't a brief, easily conquerable "moral test" in the heat of battle or something.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

I understand your feelings but I see it completely differently. I find Rian is bridging both OT and PT conflicts, and through Luke's vantage point he arrives at one ultimate conclusion: this is a history destined to repeat itself to no avail. He's wrong of course, but that is a character challenge for Luke. There's nothing in RotJ that suggests Luke is forever resistant to having his faith tested. In fact, RotJ shows Luke's impulsive nature and that his outcome in TLJ is certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

Why do the TLJ fans always keep going back to the straw man that it's about that Luke can't be broken? I've seen it towards me and other posters several times in this thread and it's pretty annoying when that's clearly not what's being said. To no surprise the other poster above also went in to support said straw man.

You said that Luke has a history of rash decisions, but you seem to conveniently forget that it's by design so he can grow out of that. There is nothing rash about Luke in RotJ. Quite the contrary he is entirely calm throughout all of his convoluted plan with Jabba, and his decision to give himself up to Vader is a calm and calculated one. I hope you're not going to try to refer back to his anger during their fight, as anyone that would think of calling themselves a Star Wars fan would know what's going on in that scene, which is obviously the ultimate test of the dark side in him.

But back to the point I was making, which is that it's pathetic writing to explain a character's personality change by showing another case where he also already acts opposite to his character. It's also hilariously bad to make the thing that breaks him a very minor version of what he already went through. It's not only making it worse from a character progression standpoint, it also shows the same lack of imagination that made both him and JJ copy so many scenes from the OT. I get why Rian himself said that he's bad at writing with a deadline.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

I mean, she ends the movie in a leadership role and with Jedi powers, so...agree to disagree.

Finn's character in TLJ is relevant. The scenes on Canto Bight are clearly tied to the themes of the importance of those throughout the galaxy standing up to the First Order and joining the rebellion VS ignoring the problem or contributing to it.

She already had Jedi powers in TFA, and in what way is she a leader? She hardly spends any time with the Resistance at all.

I disagree entirely about Finn. He could have had a good moment with his sacrifice, but that was also ruined really badly. The Canto Bight scenes failed to deliver a good message, especially as they were so happy to release some animals while letting the slave children be, and not coming back for them either. It all rings hollow. On top of that it was a subplot that took the bad parts of the prequels and didn't go anywhere else than to pay off the other extremely stupid power struggle on the Resistance main ship.

You are correct. There are a lot of elements in the movie more important than Luke. Which is fair. Luke had his trilogy, and this one wasn't intended to be about him. His story is merely part of events that unfold.

Can we stop with the "appeal to authority" approach with regard to how actors felt about their characters being written? That's a logical fallacy, and not a cohesive argument against the content of the story, its structure, etc.

You're saying I'm correct and then talk like you just made up what my post said. I clearly said that many things in the movie are less important than getting Luke right, as Luke is a central part of the movie, and even more so Star Wars so you want to get logical continuity.

I didn't make an argument, I said that I understand why they felt so bad because they were the ones suffering from it. What's more of a logical fallacy is making straw men, something you just supported in your post above the one I quoted.

Except it wouldn't be small. It would be a character with the same dynamic. Not a different character with the same or a similar dynamic.

Obviously a character stays true to its core traits, that's what any rational being expects unless there's a good explanation for why it doesn't. In this case there was no explanation whatsoever, Luke just acted differently because Rian put plot over logic.

Well, yeah, it's a movie. It has to be written.

And you can write it anyway you want, which makes your stance on creating redundancies pointless because he can just not write it like that. Your argument hangs on that it's the only way the story can go.

She doesn't accomplish anything in what regard?

She obviously doesn't repeat the same lesson regarding her parents as he did in the first one. In the first movie, she believes her parents may have been someone important. In the second, she is told that they were no one.

She doesn't get through to Ben. They just have a Force contest and yet again the supposedly extremely gifted force user with lots of teaching from Master Luke and Snoke can't beat the girl that just found out that she's Force sensitive the other day. All in the same stroke as he's trying to present Kylo as the big bad.

The lesson in TFA is to drop the parent thing because they aren't coming back but she has a new family in the future. In TLJ she's back to obsessing about her parents, which might have had some point if they were going to make her a Palpatine in TLJ, but since the answer is yet again that they aren't anything to care about it's just wasted screen time (yet another example).

And she was also orphaned and a good pilot, etc. Those are their basic story and character similarities. That is intentional. There are differences.

Oh yay, the classic Internet trope of stating something but not doing the normal thing and give examples or make arguments based on it. An utter waste of time to not state things directly when it's in this slow format.

Disagree. It would be considerably more redundant to have Luke repeat the whole "turn someone back from the Dark Side" thing instead of having a completely character do it.

The battle/balance between the light and dark has significant focus in almost every Star Wars story I've ever seen, at least those involving the Jedi. I don't think that's a legitimate knock against using it.

No, because one thing requires a quick scene, the other drags it out over two movies. And don't explain to me why Rey trying to redeem Ben is a thing, you're the only one that brought it up as a negative by calling it redundant.

At which point it would likely be dubbed "poorly executed" because...reasons.

Yay, more straw men. You TLJ defenders sure like those.

I'm talking about the degree of redundancy to the overall saga. There is a difference in having one character parallel another character's journey and life experiences, and seeing the differences therein, VS having one character repeat the same experiences and trials that they already had again.

One scene that's there to show character consistency in one of the most important characters of the saga doesn't do much to the overall saga. Especially not since the result would be different this time.

But the whole redundancy argument has no merit anyway. If it wasn't a major point of TLJ to be redundant we wouldn't have the escape from Hoth again. Or the battle of Hoth. Or the Emperor's throne room with new Vader saving new Luke from new Sidious. Or the old Jedi master from the previous era hiding on a planet for the new character to go find. Etc.

 

[writer0327]

Why do the TLJ fans always keep going back to the straw man that it's about that Luke can't be broken? I've seen it towards me and other posters several times in this thread and it's pretty annoying when that's clearly not what's being said. To no surprise the other poster above also went in to support said straw man.

You said that Luke has a history of rash decisions, but you seem to conveniently forget that it's by design so he can grow out of that. There is nothing rash about Luke in RotJ. Quite the contrary he is entirely calm throughout all of his convoluted plan with Jabba, and his decision to give himself up to Vader is a calm and calculated one. I hope you're not going to try to refer back to his anger during their fight, as anyone that would think of calling themselves a Star Wars fan would know what's going on in that scene, which is obviously the ultimate test of the dark side in him.

But back to the point I was making, which is that it's pathetic writing to explain a character's personality change by showing another case where he also already acts opposite to his character. It's also hilariously bad to make the thing that breaks him a very minor version of what he already went through. It's not only making it worse from a character progression standpoint, it also shows the same lack of imagination that made both him and JJ copy so many scenes from the OT. I get why Rian himself said that he's bad at writing with a deadline.

One of the problems is Rian Johnson didn't have the luxury of an entire trilogy, or even a movie, the develop Luke to that extent. Luke isn't the main character of TLJ. He's not even the second or third main character in this movie. We're supposed to be following the stories of Rey, Finn, Poe, and Kylo Ren.

Luke's information is supplemental detail so we understand his mental state when Rey meets up with him. Its like Han in TFA...after his growth from a rogue scoundrel who only cares about himself to being a leader of the Rebellion in the OT....he goes right back to being a smuggler. There's not a great deal of explanation to it, in his own words he just "went back to doing what he does best". People accept Han's regression because there's no reason to dive into those details unless we want to make this Han the main character of the film. There's no difference with Luke in TLJ. RJ provided enough information to explain he underwent a crisis of faith. Do I want more detail, a fully fleshed out story of that event? Sure do, but I don't need it to understand the Luke in this film. Everything we got in those flashbacks is enough to understand the general situation of where we are in TLJ. In 30 years, anything could have happened to Luke, he could have underwent many ups and downs and had his faith shaped in many ways. He could have just as easily become the greatest Jedi Master of all time as he fell from the faith. Those that don't like it simply don't like it because they didn't want this outcome for Luke. Or maybe they wanted Luke to be a main character in this film and have a fully fleshed out fall from grace. In order to flesh out Luke's entire crisis, you would have to expand it through the better part of an entire film at the very least.

Also I don't consider the "thing that breaks him" a minor version of anything he had already gone through. Luke had never been partner to turning someone to the dark side, as a matter of fact, losing Ben to the dark side is probably the worse thing he has been through in his entire life. Considering his relationship through Leia and his friendship with Han, Luke likely had developed a powerful bond with Ben.

It is that moment in RotJ when he loses control that shows Luke is fallible, that he is not a perfect being, but human. His original flaws all still there, he learns to control them, but that does not mean they cannot return during a moment of pressure. Everyone seems to forget that the temptation to slay Ben was described by Luke as "a moment of pure instinct that passed like a fleeting shadow". This is in perfect harmony with Luke in RotJ. Saying post-RotJ Luke would have never been tempted for even a second to take an irrational action is like saying a former alcoholic could never be tempted again. It literally removes all of the humanity away from him and makes Luke a two-dimensional character who's thoughts and actions can be easily predicted.

 

[The Guard]

She already had Jedi powers in TFA, and in what way is she a leader? She hardly spends any time with the Resistance at all.

She's becoming a leader. She sees an exponential growth in her powers and leads a trapped Resistance to safety.

(Skims rest of post)

You seem to be mostly interested in being snarky/rude and labeling people. We're done here.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

One of the problems is Rian Johnson didn't have the luxury of an entire trilogy, or even a movie, the develop Luke to that extent. Luke isn't the main character of TLJ. He's not even the second or third main character in this movie. We're supposed to be following the stories of Rey, Finn, Poe, and Kylo Ren.

Luke's information is supplemental detail so we understand his mental state when Rey meets up with him. Its like Han in TFA...after his growth from a rogue scoundrel who only cares about himself to being a leader of the Rebellion in the OT....he goes right back to being a smuggler. There's not a great deal of explanation to it, in his own words he just "went back to doing what he does best". People accept Han's regression because there's no reason to dive into those details unless we want to make this Han the main character of the film. There's no difference with Luke in TLJ. RJ provided enough information to explain he underwent a crisis of faith. Do I want more detail, a fully fleshed out story of that event? Sure do, but I don't need it to understand the Luke in this film. Everything we got in those flashbacks is enough to understand the general situation of where we are in TLJ. In 30 years, anything could have happened to Luke, he could have underwent many ups and downs and had his faith shaped in many ways. He could have just as easily become the greatest Jedi Master of all time as he fell from the faith. Those that don't like it simply don't like it because they didn't want this outcome for Luke. Or maybe they wanted Luke to be a main character in this film and have a fully fleshed out fall from grace. In order to flesh out Luke's entire crisis, you would have to expand it through the better part of an entire film at the very least.

Also I don't consider the "thing that breaks him" a minor version of anything he had already gone through. Luke had never been partner to turning someone to the dark side, as a matter of fact, losing Ben to the dark side is probably the worse thing he has been through in his entire life. Considering his relationship through Leia and his friendship with Han, Luke likely had developed a powerful bond with Ben.

It is that moment in RotJ when he loses control that shows Luke is fallible, that he is not a perfect being, but human. His original flaws all still there, he learns to control them, but that does not mean they cannot return during a moment of pressure. Everyone seems to forget that the temptation to slay Ben was described by Luke as "a moment of pure instinct that passed like a fleeting shadow". This is in perfect harmony with Luke in RotJ. Saying post-RotJ Luke would have never been tempted for even a second to take an irrational action is like saying a former alcoholic could never be tempted again. It literally removes all of the humanity away from him and makes Luke a two-dimensional character who's thoughts and actions can be easily predicted.

Writing Luke to be in line with his previously established character transforming into the new place he's in doesn't have to take up much time. They could even tell us instead of showing us as while that's not the optimal way to do things in movies it's a hell of a lot better than completely fumbling the character transition.

Lots of people dislike Han's regression, and much because it's such cheap storytelling that's clearly just meant to make Rey come off better in yet another way that doesn't seem earned, which unfortunately hurts the Rey character instead of helping her.

Trying to deal with turning someone from the dark side when that person hasn't really done anything bad is extremely minor compared to trying to turn one of the most evil men in the galaxy's history that has countless horrible deeds under his belt. What you describe to me only shows that it would be harder to just abandon Ben to his fate than it would have been to accept that Anakin is gone. Yet Luke just doesn't even think it's worth trying to help his nephew and he just goes away to formulate extremely illogical conclusions. Maybe they should just have pushed that Luke got severe brain damage by the roof falling in on him.

Luke lost control while being under the direct influence of two great sith lords, actively pushing him towards the dark side. Star Wars fans know that, which is why I mentioned that as there is no dark force working upon Luke whatsoever in what's shown in TLJ. On the contrary he is not still the man on the verge of becoming a Jedi Knight that beat the darkness in the most difficult situation possible, he's now the man that did that and has risen in knowledge to attain the rank of Master. But because Rian wasn't able to write plot based on character he had to make Luke become less capable and stable the more of a Jedi he became.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

She's becoming a leader. She sees an exponential growth in her powers and leads a trapped Resistance to safety.

(Skims rest of post)

You seem to be mostly interested in being snarky/rude and labeling people. We're done here.

That's rich coming from the guy that uses snarky straw man arguments. Are you going to pretend that you've never been rude to people here either? You only seem to be interested in complaining about fallacies when it's not directed back at you.

 

[Limonade]

Writing Luke to be in line with his previously established character transforming into the new place he's in doesn't have to take up much time. They could even tell us instead of showing us as while that's not the optimal way to do things in movies it's a hell of a lot better than completely fumbling the character transition.

Lots of people dislike Han's regression, and much because it's such cheap storytelling that's clearly just meant to make Rey come off better in yet another way that doesn't seem earned, which unfortunately hurts the Rey character instead of helping her.

Trying to deal with turning someone from the dark side when that person hasn't really done anything bad is extremely minor compared to trying to turn one of the most evil men in the galaxy's history that has countless horrible deeds under his belt. What you describe to me only shows that it would be harder to just abandon Ben to his fate than it would have been to accept that Anakin is gone. Yet Luke just doesn't even think it's worth trying to help his nephew and he just goes away to formulate extremely illogical conclusions. Maybe they should just have pushed that Luke got severe brain damage by the roof falling in on him.

Luke lost control while being under the direct influence of two great sith lords, actively pushing him towards the dark side. Star Wars fans know that, which is why I mentioned that as there is no dark force working upon Luke whatsoever in what's shown in TLJ. On the contrary he is not still the man on the verge of becoming a Jedi Knight that beat the darkness in the most difficult situation possible, he's now the man that did that and has risen in knowledge to attain the rank of Master. But because Rian wasn't able to write plot based on character he had to make Luke become less capable and stable the more of a Jedi he became.

Honestly, if Luke had alluded to be under some kind of spell or Forces attempting to undermine his ability to think clearly--I would've easily been behind that backstory. (A place where the Emperor could've been alluded to) But from what I saw, this was a preemptive and premeditated attack on Ben Solo--even if it was fleeting moment, whatever that means, as Luke said.

However--yes, objectively I can accept this story... but in the back of my mind, it doesn't completely add up for me--given what we saw, left off, and know of Luke in the OT.

 

[BatLobster]

Honestly, if Luke had alluded to be under some kind of spell or Forces attempting to undermine his ability to think clearly--I would've easily been behind that backstory. (A place where the Emperor could've been alluded to) But from what I saw, this was a preemptive and premeditated attack on Ben Solo--even if it was fleeting moment, whatever that means, as Luke said.

However--yes, objectively I can accept this story... but in the back of my mind, it doesn't completely add up for me--given what we saw and know of Luke in the OT.

I still think it's a 100% fair interpretation, knowing what we now know, then when Luke peered into Ben's soul what he really saw was Sidious' darkness (without knowing it) and that's what truly made him freak out.

"...but then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined." -Luke

 

[Limonade]

I still think it's a 100% fair interpretation, knowing what we now know, then when Luke peered into Ben's soul what he really saw was Sidious' darkness (without knowing it) and that's what truly made him freak out.

"...but then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined." -Luke

Yeah, but if that's the only clue to go off of... I wouldn't rest my entire case on it.

Especially since my point was based on what he said after your quote.

Usually good foreshadowing adds more elements than just the spoken words... it's audio cues, deliberate references, reoccurring themes.

What I'm saying is that while the story logic is there... it doesn't hold up very well to critical thinking. Which is fine--it's a space fantasy movie, it's allowed to have holes or leaps of logic. But I think the OT was able to hold itself much more coherently than what I've seen in the sequel trilogy.

And I dunno if that's because fans were able to explain the OT better to the general public... but the ST is having a hard time bringing fans to the same general conclusion.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, but if that's the only clue to go off of... I wouldn't rest my entire case on it.

Especially since my point was based on what he said after your quote.

Usually good foreshadowing adds more elements than just the spoken words... it's audio cues, deliberate references, reoccurring themes.

Well...I'm not saying it's particularly good foreshadowing, but I still think the connection is right there and difficult to overlook at this point. Luke says "Snoke had already turned his heart". We later learn that Snoke is a Palpatine creation, and has actually been the the voice of "Vader" in Kylo's head, so Palpatine's influence is ultimately what led him down the path of darkness in the first place.

I'm not saying Luke was robbed of his free will in the moment like he was literally under some spell, but he clearly got a whiff of some potent darkness there which as he says, would lead to the destruction of everything he loved.

I think the moment worked as is, but the Palpatine of it all just adds another layer to it for me.

What I'm saying is that while the story logic is there... it doesn't hold up very well to critical thinking. Which is fine--it's a space fantasy movie, it's allowed to have holes or leaps of logic. But I think the OT was able to hold itself much more coherently than what I've seen in the sequel trilogy.

And I dunno if that's because fans were able to explain the OT better to the general public... but the ST is having a hard time bringing fans to the same general conclusion.

Ha, well there's a lot of things to get into about why it's been hard for Star Wars to recapture the same magic of the OT....but I'll just say that I enjoy the ST more than most seem to, but it's never been a question in my mind that the OT is still the best Star Wars thing we have. It's the idea at its purest and most simple, and the only trilogy of the three that works totally on its own.

 

[The Caped Knight]

These comics offer great insight to what happened in between the films. Here we see Luke first clash with the Knights of Ren and their no match for him. Which just proves that Rian totally wasted Luke potential.

 

[BatLobster]

These comics offer great insight to what happened in between the films. Here we see Luke first clash with the Knights of Ren and their no match for him. Which just proves that Rian totally wasted Luke potential.

Love Soule's work, but if this trilogy was ever supposed to be about Jedi Master Luke kicking butt all over the galaxy then maybe putting him in self-exile on and MIA for the first film in the trilogy wasn't the right move.

Still though, Luke's stand on Crait is the most purely Jedi act ever seen in the films.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

Love Soule's work, but if this trilogy was ever supposed to be about Jedi Master Luke kicking butt all over the galaxy then maybe putting him in self-exile on and MIA for the first film in the trilogy wasn't the right move.

Still though, Luke's stand on Crait is the most purely Jedi act ever seen in the films.

In what way is that more Jedi than actually going in person to try to overthrow the dark threat and ultimately laying down your weapon in order to redeem your fallen father?

What Luke did in TLJ was ultimately nothing more than a little distraction to save a handful of people he should never have abandoned to a threat only he was fit to face (meaning the dark Force). He wasn't even close to getting through to Ben, and honestly he didn't really seem to even try much. That he used weapons less than in RotJ doesn't matter since the Jedi aren't about pacifism.

 

[BatLobster]

In what way is that more Jedi than actually going in person to try to overthrow the dark threat and ultimately laying down your weapon in order to redeem your fallen father?

What Luke did in TLJ was ultimately nothing more than a little distraction to save a handful of people he should never have abandoned to a threat only he was fit to face (meaning the dark Force). He wasn't even close to getting through to Ben, and honestly he didn't really seem to even try much. That he used weapons less than in RotJ doesn't matter since the Jedi aren't about pacifism.

"Wars make not one great."

"A Jedi uses the Force only for knowledge and defense, never for attack."

Disagree with you, I do.

 

[moviedoors]

Still though, Luke's stand on Crait is the most purely Jedi act ever seen in the films.

It's so good. He wins not by chopping harder with a weapon, but by using his wits and his discipline. He knows exactly how to play Kylo's flaws and insecurities and he walks him into a failure of his own making. It's a defeat based in character.

 

[Mani-Man]

These comics offer great insight to what happened in between the films. Here we see Luke first clash with the Knights of Ren and their no match for him. Which just proves that Rian totally wasted Luke potential.

Yeah, i mean again...i can live with the movies...but seeing this stuff makes me so furious on how they wasted potential so carelessly.
There was so much unlimited potential and they wasted it all.

Frome snoke to the knights of ren, ben, luke as jedi master, rey, finn, poe...everything.

 

[DarthDaveBanner]

Knowing that the majority of Luke's scene in TROS was a reshoot certainly explains Mark's terrible wig throughout most of it...

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

"Wars make not one great."

"A Jedi uses the Force only for knowledge and defense, never for attack."

Disagree with you, I do.

If the Jedi were about pacifism they would never have had weapons. Pacifists don't use weapons in any circumstances. The Jedi Order is an order of knights that fight to defend the galaxy, so pacifism has never been their way. They are just taught not to relish battle, or to seek it out themselves. They only fight when it's necessary.

The Jedi aren't about making minor contributions to a conflict and then letting others do all the heavy work either, which is what Luke did in that scene. A Jedi takes the hardest tasks upon himself.

So TLJ didn't have Luke have the most Jedi moment, it only made him out to be the worst Jedi we've seen as it showed him choosing to turn his back on everyone and run away when the new dark lord rose, without even trying to do something about it.

 

[Mani-Man]

If the Jedi were about pacifism they would never have had weapons. Pacifists don't use weapons in any circumstances. The Jedi Order is an order of knights that fight to defend the galaxy, so pacifism has never been their way. They are just taught not to relish battle, or to seek it out themselves. They only fight when it's necessary.

The Jedi aren't about making minor contributions to a conflict and then letting others do all the heavy work either, which is what Luke did in that scene. A Jedi takes the hardest tasks upon himself.

So TLJ didn't have Luke have the most Jedi moment, it only made him out to be the worst Jedi we've seen as it showed him choosing to turn his back on everyone and run away when the new dark lord rose, without even trying to do something about it.

To be fair, nobody really gave the Jedi a clear direction to begin with as far is i remember.
They always have jumped around on the Jedis code and what or what not they would do.
But yeah, they were never the prime example of a pacifist.
Sure they didnt seek out war and battle, but they also didnt shy away from it when it was neccessary.

Luke definitly wasnt at the most jedi in TLJ, he was a broken man who from what i assume made the same mistakes as the jedi did when they fell.
He taught the same lections and held onto the same fears and worries.
And when he failed he hid out of shame.

In the end he faced his failures...as best as he "could"(or better said as smart as Johnson thought himself to be when he did it the way)

I can see TLJ work in terms of Luke, you could have built up on this.
But ROS ruined it far more i think.
Because in TLJ we didnt knew about palpatine, we didnt knew Luke still had his ship.

In ROS we have this knowledge know, he knew about palpatine and his connection in this all, he had his ship which he could have used to return to his sister...but instead he kind of wussed out to me looking at this all.

If i think about it, TLJ feels kind Shallow with the way they handled Luke.
I would have liked it if he would have returned to actually fight the first order, palpatine and so on.
Learning from his mistake and move the jedi forward.
I said it before, but he could still have had a cool death if in the end you would have made him put his lifeforce into Rey and Ben, bringing them back to life...boom, he gets a heroes end and the skywalker lineage is still alive.

As we have it, the skwalkers are dead...at least in blood, and that makes me kind of sad.

 

[BatLobster]

If the Jedi were about pacifism they would never have had weapons. Pacifists don't use weapons in any circumstances. The Jedi Order is an order of knights that fight to defend the galaxy, so pacifism has never been their way. They are just taught not to relish battle, or to seek it out themselves. They only fight when it's necessary.

The Jedi aren't about making minor contributions to a conflict and then letting others do all the heavy work either, which is what Luke did in that scene. A Jedi takes the hardest tasks upon himself.

So TLJ didn't have Luke have the most Jedi moment, it only made him out to be the worst Jedi we've seen as it showed him choosing to turn his back on everyone and run away when the new dark lord rose, without even trying to do something about it.

My point wasn't that the Jedi were historically shown to be pacifists. It's that...first of all, we can probably agree that OT Yoda is the wisest of all the Jedi, and those are his words. The Jedi got dragged into fighting a corrupt war, and was a huge part of their downfall. As Mace says, they're supposed to be keepers of the peace, not soldiers. The weapons are supposed to be a last resort.

Like Obi-Wan says in ANH, there are alternatives to fighting. Luke found one that also happened to give us the most awesome display of Force power we've seen in a film. That's why I say it's the "most" Jedi thing.

If he shows up and confronts Kylo/TFO at the end of TLJ, then what? Either he kills Kylo, his own nephew, which I don't think he wants to do. Or Kylo kills him, which would only send Kylo further down the dark path. By deceiving Kylo and not fighting him, he not only buys the Resistance time to escape and survive, he keeps door open for his nephew's eventual redemption...which Kylo ultimately walks through, which helps ensure Rey/The Jedi's victory in the end. There's a reason he tells Leia, "No one's ever really gone." If you read between the lines, he believes Kylo can still be saved-- just that he's not the one who can do it, because he's the one who failed him. Which is why he knew he could use Kylo's hatred towards him to create a big enough distraction to save the Resistance.

So if you really look at how everything played out, Luke sacrificed his life to saved the resistance, became a legend for the galaxy to rally behind, set off a chain of events that ultimately help save the galaxy. And then he gives Rey a huge boost from beyond the grave in her moment of turmoil.

Luke played an important role in saving the galaxy, again.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

My point wasn't that the Jedi were historically shown to be pacifists. It's that...first of all, we can probably agree that OT Yoda is the wisest of all the Jedi, and those are his words. The Jedi got dragged into fighting a corrupt war, and was a huge part of their downfall. As Mace says, they're supposed to be keepers of the peace, not soldiers. The weapons are supposed to be a last resort.

Like Obi-Wan says in ANH, there are alternatives to fighting. Luke found one that also happened to give us the most awesome display of Force power we've seen in a film. That's why I say it's the "most" Jedi thing.

If he shows up and confronts Kylo/TFO at the end of TLJ, then what? Either he kills Kylo, his own nephew, which I don't think he wants to do. Or Kylo kills him, which would only send Kylo further down the dark path. By deceiving Kylo and not fighting him, he not only buys the Resistance time to escape and survive, he keeps door open for his nephew's eventual redemption...which Kylo ultimately walks through, which helps ensure Rey/The Jedi's victory in the end. There's a reason he tells Leia, "No one's ever really gone." If you read between the lines, he believes Kylo can still be saved-- just that he's not the one who can do it, because he's the one who failed him. Which is why he knew he could use Kylo's hatred towards him to create a big enough distraction to save the Resistance.

So if you really look at how everything played out, Luke sacrificed his life to saved the resistance, became a legend for the galaxy to rally behind, set off a chain of events that ultimately help save the galaxy. And then he gives Rey a huge boost from beyond the grave in her moment of turmoil.

Luke played an important role in saving the galaxy, again.

Yes, Yoda was very wise but his words in the OT are not meant to be taken in any pacifist sense, which should be pretty clear as he's explicitly training Luke so he can destroy the Sith. The idea to redeem Vader and lay down his life for that was entirely Luke's. Yoda said that if you go down the path of the dark side it will dominate you forever, and he avoided to say that Vader was his father since that would make it harder for Luke to kill him. The pacifist thing only works when you interpret some words a certain way, but never when you look at the actions of any Jedi.

I know what you mean that you see in his actions in TLJ, but I don't think making a short distraction is even remotely close to redeem himself from having been the worst Jedi we've ever seen, by abandoning everyone in their greatest time of need. I'm not saying that he had to go there and fight Kylo. He did however not do anything to try to appeal to Ben, he seemingly tried to just humiliate him. That means that even when Luke finally took action he still didn't really lift a finger to try to save his nephew and former student. He still walked the path of the worst Jedi there has been. And as stated, Jedi doesn't just do a little and leave the hard stuff for the others. He should have done way more to even reach the baseline for a Jedi. That he sacrificed his life is more a funny thing because of what actually killed him. It looks comical, if it wasn't for that I was upset that that moment made Luke's legacy as the worst Jedi permanent. Obi-Wan's sacrifice was so much better done on multiple levels.

As for him becoming a legend I never bought that. He should already have been a legend as he did something far more impressive in the OT, and who's going to spread the word of what happened in a way that anyone will believe? Definitely not a handful of Resistance fighters saying that the legendary Luke whom no one had seen for years, came back and then vanished again and no one ever sees him again. That will sound like one of the lower quality rumors among all the ones that will be spread. The kind that's deliberately created so you can't verify it to be either true or false, and no one seems to want to help the Resistance so their word won't have any weight either.

Luke just bought Rey a little time so she could be shown to be a far better Jedi than he is, which is pretty much the extent of what the trilogy is about. The villain's words ironically seemed to mirror what was actually happening on a meta level. Rian could just have written the Resistance to search the caves earlier, have Rey get there to help them out earlier, and then escaped while the First Order was blowing up the door. That would even have been believable given how the situation looked, which further shows how little Luke did.