What do you want the force, and the Jedi to mean?

[ray245]

It is not too difficult for me to believe that a man could change a great deal in thirty years. Hard to watch for a fan of Luke who wants him to be an idealized hero, maybe, but "not what the fans wanted" and "objectively out of character" are not the same thing.

The problem, to me, comes from the fact that we don't see those thirty years except in a few brief lines/flashbacks, so it comes off very sudden and jarring (even with TFA foreshadowing that something clearly went very wrong with Luke for him to go into hiding when the galaxy needed him). So I'll give you that the execution was imperfect (I think if anything, it should have been set up more in TFA, but its pretty clear that the Sequels suffer somewhat from a lack of overall editorial direction), but I believe that the underlying concept is fairly sound.

I don't know, I think the issue is not just with the execution of Luke's evolution, but the underlying concept is problematic for a franchise like Star Wars. The strength of Star Wars lies in its myth-making and building a narrative of a character reaching a point of enlightenment, and then acting as a example for other people to follow and learn from in the positive way.

Making Luke Skywalker more flawed might create more drama for the series, but it makes the drama feels too fake and unnecessary. "oh look at how an enlightened hero can fail because we need the new generation of hero to be the TRUE heroes and Jedi". Seriously, fuck that because it goes to show a production team that will once again turn Rey into a flawed and failed Jedi Master 40 years later because they need to repeat the endless cycle of Jedi trying and failing to build the Jedi Order.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is not too difficult for me to believe that a man could change a great deal in thirty years. Hard to watch for a fan of Luke who wants him to be an idealized hero, maybe, but "not what the fans wanted" and "objectively out of character" are not the same thing.

The problem, to me, comes from the fact that we don't see those thirty years except in a few brief lines/flashbacks, so it comes off very sudden and jarring (even with TFA foreshadowing that something clearly went very wrong with Luke for him to go into hiding when the galaxy needed him). So I'll give you that the execution was imperfect (I think if anything, it should have been set up more in TFA, but its pretty clear that the Sequels suffer somewhat from a lack of overall editorial direction), but I believe that the underlying concept is fairly sound.

I don't know, I think the issue is not just with the execution of Luke's evolution, but the underlying concept is problematic for a franchise like Star Wars. The strength of Star Wars lies in its myth-making and building a narrative of a character reaching a point of enlightenment, and then acting as a example for other people to follow and learn from in the positive way.

That's one strength of the Original Trilogy, but I don't feel that there is only one right way to tell a Star Wars story. I'll note also that TLJ did allow Luke to inspire others by his example, because the point of his death is about restoring the Legend of Luke Skywalker, despite acknowledging Luke's fallibility.

Making Luke Skywalker more flawed might create more drama for the series, but it makes the drama feels too fake and unnecessary. "oh look at how an enlightened hero can fail because we need the new generation of hero to be the TRUE heroes and Jedi". Seriously, fuck that because it goes to show a production team that will once again turn Rey into a flawed and failed Jedi Master 40 years later because they need to repeat the endless cycle of Jedi trying and failing to build the Jedi Order.

It could go that way, yes, and that would be a detriment to the franchise in the long-term, yes- but only in so far as constantly using any trope over and over again without originality would be to the detriment of the franchise.

I think that you're missing the point here somewhat. It was not about making Luke flawed simply to create drama or to sideline him so that Rey can be the real hero (while Rey may be the overall hero of the ST, Luke, Holdo, and for that matter Kylo contribute more directly to defeating the First Order in this film than Rey does). Its about acknowledging that yes, the old heroes and legends are imperfect, but you can still find value in them, and can and should still have hope in a better future, despite that. And doing so in a way that reflects very well how the Dark Side has previously been portrayed in canon. These themes are alluded to throughout the film, and its a direct challenge to the "Both sides are just as bad, nothing really matters, nothing will ever really change" cynicism that is so prevellant today, and I love that. Unfortunately, whether through flawed execution by the film or audience bias or both, many people just saw the cynical deconstruction, and missed the underlying reconstruction (just like they saw Poe's critics of Holdo, took them at face-value, and refused to buy the subsequent vindication of Holdo).

In short, TLJ's problem is, in part, that it was so effective a deconstruction that many people then refused to buy the subsequent reconstruction. Though to be blunt, I think that's also partly due to a lot of people going in determined to hate the film and reject it as a failure, and only acknowledging those parts of the film that fit their preconceptions.

[FaxModem1]

One thing Luke's whole portrayal in the ST reminds me of is the Vulcans on Enterprise. In order for the plot to work, they had to sabotage the Vulcans as characters, and as a civilization. This was for the purpose to show how flawed and how much of a challenge they were for Earth standing on it's own two feet. This included them being warmongers against the Andorians, who were willing to disgrace their own temples to spy on them, rather unreasonable about any proof given to them about the possibility of time travel, striking a blow against their supposed rationality, and having them being very bigoted against telepathy, removing their concept of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. This went so against what the characters were supposed to be, and what the fans loved about them, that they had to dedicate an entire arc in the fourth season to fix their divot. While it didn't contradict what was portrayed earlier onscreen, because there was nothing in-canon that the Vulcans weren't imperialist militant bigots before they had a reformation, it did feel like a violation in spirit of what they were supposed to be.

Same way that in the OT, Luke is motivated to become a Jedi because he's inspired by helping people, and following the image of his father in his head. He doesn't go to Bespin to kill Vader, but to rescue his friends. He doesn't want to become a Jedi for revenge regarding the death of his aunt and uncle, but because he wants to follow his father's example and he has to act, because he just can't do nothing anymore. He doesn't leave the Rebels on Endor to kill the Emperor, but to save his father. Sure, Luke is headstrong, but his actions seem to come from a place of compassion, not malice.

Regarding the importance of weapons training:
This is being sidestepped to talk about what account is true. This is why, in the first story he tells, he doesn't pull out his weapon. However, in the true version of events, we all know's Luke's intent, to murder Ben, to save everyone from whatever he thought he was going to be. Even if Luke was tempted, his natural impulse shouldn't have gone that far. This is why I've stressed comparisons to cops, cowboys in westerns, and knights in medieval movies reaching for their swords. Luke is reaching for his weapon. I hate it, but fine. However, there's a big step in also bringing out and igniting the weapon, something Luke seemed to have outgrown in his own training in the OT. It's unrealistic for someone familiar enough with weapons for Luke to do this, unless he was so far gone. This was probably done because Mark Hamill staring darkly with murderous rage at Ben sleeping wouldn't have been as understandable as bad as him actually bringing out his lasersword for the idiots in the audience. In which case, Luke is far more prone to violence than he should have been. The true fall would have been Luke sinking into temptation at all, entertaining such thoughts of murdering his nephew. But the film portrayal is that Luke was willing to sink so far as to actually be homicidal, which is many steps beyond falling into the temptation of the dark side.

Regarding Luke's Pride:
Okay, so the main reason we're supposed to have that Luke fell is that Luke got so swept into his own legend that he came to believe that he could do no wrong. Fine, let's see the evidence of that through other parts of the ST. Did Luke become materialistic, and there's Jedi merchandise everywhere, akin to how if you go to any place with a dominant religion, there's tacky souvenirs being thrust at everyone? Where's the St. Luke the Jedi candles, the Luke Skywalker sightings in people's toast, doors, etc. Hell, maybe even a shrewd capitalist exploited Luke's deeds and made Skywalker: the T-shirt, Skywalker: the breakfast cereal, and Skywalker: the flame thrower. Or if it's more of a religious awakening, where's the tacky Luke Skywalker figurines being hocked at Rose and Finn on Canto Blight as they wander around, or when Rey is wondering around Maz's bar? Or symbols of his likeness, said to bring the force to them, akin to Buddha statue necklaces and crucifixes? All we get is Han saying that there are rumors of what happened to Luke and Ben, with people like Rey not even sure if the force even exists.

If they wanted to show Luke becoming corrupted because of his pride, we should have some sort of portrayal of that. Have Luke covered in Jedi bobbles and his room filled with all sorts of artifacts, showing off his immense pride in his station as the leader of the Jedi, with opulent quarters and other signs he was going down the wrong path. Instead, we get huts and a temple we never see until it's burned down. Maybe have Luke do something to show the dark path he was going. Maybe everyone had a copy of Luke Skywalker's biography on their coffeetables, showing how he's sold out. Instead, we jump straight to, "He feared his nephew, drew his weapon, and realized too late that he was the asshole."

Luke wasn't prideful in the OT, and it's necessary show that he became so for us to believe that's why he failed. Sure, he had a bit of earnest cockiness, but it was earnest. Yoda did humble him, and helped him grow. That's why half the dialogue of ESB is him asking questions, and unlearning what he has learned. That's why it doesn't work for me. It's not a natural step for Luke, because he was humble, he was centered, and while he was having some problems with the dark side, he was overcoming them and becoming a true Jedi.

The ST instead, robs him of that, and at the last minute, tries to fix their divot.

[The Romulan Republic]

One thing Luke's whole portrayal in the ST reminds me of is the Vulcans on Enterprise. In order for the plot to work, they had to sabotage the Vulcans as characters, and as a civilization. This was for the purpose to show how flawed and how much of a challenge they were for Earth standing on it's own two feet. This included them being warmongers against the Andorians, who were willing to disgrace their own temples to spy on them, rather unreasonable about any proof given to them about the possibility of time travel, striking a blow against their supposed rationality, and having them being very bigoted against telepathy, removing their concept of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. This went so against what the characters were supposed to be, and what the fans loved about them, that they had to dedicate an entire arc in the fourth season to fix their divot. While it didn't contradict what was portrayed earlier onscreen, because there was nothing in-canon that the Vulcans weren't imperialist militant bigots before they had a reformation, it did feel like a violation in spirit of what they were supposed to be.

I feel a little out of my depth discussing this comparison, because I was not a regular Enterprise viewer, and there are many episodes I know more from second-hand accounts than first-hand experience. That said, I don't think that its necessarily wrong to do something different from what viewers expect, because the implication of that would be that a series should never really change, never try to do anything really outside the box or original. That the Vulcans should always be the same stereotype culture, even hundreds of years earlier (this thinking is way worse when applied to a race than to an individual character, too, because it invites ideas of inherent racial traits). However, a change can be well-executed or poorly-executed.

In TLJ's case, again, I think the underlying premise was sound, but it could have been better set-up by showing more of what happened between the films.

Same way that in the OT, Luke is motivated to become a Jedi because he's inspired by helping people, and following the image of his father in his head. He doesn't go to Bespin to kill Vader, but to rescue his friends. He doesn't want to become a Jedi for revenge regarding the death of his aunt and uncle, but because he wants to follow his father's example and he has to act, because he just can't do nothing anymore. He doesn't leave the Rebels on Endor to kill the Emperor, but to save his father. Sure, Luke is headstrong, but his actions seem to come from a place of compassion, not malice.

Malice, no. Fear for those he loves, yes. I'd point to when he drew his saber on his father, bludgeoned him into submission in a berserker rage, and cut off his hand before having his moment of realization and holding back. All because Vader threatened his sister. You can argue over whether that's a bigger slip than with Ben- on the one hand, his actions were far more violent in RotJ than what he actually did in TLJ, but on the other hand, Vader was an enemy in a war and an immediate threat, while Ben was asleep and a student in his care. But the point is, Luke is not immune to lashing out in anger out of fear for a loved one.

I agree, Luke isn't driven by malice. And even when he drew his saber on Ben, I don't think he was acting out of hate, so much as terror. Terror for those he loved, and terror of failing to live up to the Legend of Luke.

Though of course, as Yoda says, "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the Dark Side." I and others pilloried that line for its oversimplification, and how it was used to justify the Jedis' rejection of attachment and emotion, even positive ones. But I see a lot more truth to that line now. Fear is the motivator of most that is evil in the world. Where the Old Republic Jedi erred was in failing to recognize that their actions were also being driven by fear- specifically fear of falling. That is a great vulnerability of Jedi, and I suspect Luke suffered from it too, in his self-imposed exile.

Regarding the importance of weapons training:
This is being sidestepped to talk about what account is true. This is why, in the first story he tells, he doesn't pull out his weapon. However, in the true version of events, we all know's Luke's intent, to murder Ben, to save everyone from whatever he thought he was going to be. Even if Luke was tempted, his natural impulse shouldn't have gone that far. This is why I've stressed comparisons to cops, cowboys in westerns, and knights in medieval movies reaching for their swords. Luke is reaching for his weapon. I hate it, but fine. However, there's a big step in also bringing out and igniting the weapon, something Luke seemed to have outgrown in his own training in the OT. It's unrealistic for someone familiar enough with weapons for Luke to do this, unless he was so far gone. This was probably done because Mark Hamill staring darkly with murderous rage at Ben sleeping wouldn't have been as understandable as bad as him actually bringing out his lasersword for the idiots in the audience. In which case, Luke is far more prone to violence than he should have been. The true fall would have been Luke sinking into temptation at all, entertaining such thoughts of murdering his nephew. But the film portrayal is that Luke was willing to sink so far as to actually be homicidal, which is many steps beyond falling into the temptation of the dark side.

Well, you've got the Doylist explanation right there- film is a visual medium, and they needed a visual cue for the audience. They also needed something that Ben would notice when he woke up to explain his attacking Luke and completing his fall to the Dark Side.

In-universe... I don't know if we can really judge the effects of witnessing whatever was in Ben's head on Luke. We don't know exactly what he saw- only that it was bad enough to provoke that response. But his dialogue implies that he foresaw Ben murdering his family/students.

This is also why I don't feel a comparison to a real-world cop or soldier is entirely applicable- though if you want to use cops as a parallel, well, how many cops in the last year shot an unarmed person under questionable circumstances and then claimed they were afraid for their life? And how many of them resigned in shame afterwards, as Luke did, vs defending their actions and remaining in their publicly-funded jobs?

And yes, Luke absolutely should have known better. No one is disagreeing. I'm simply trying to look at why a man like Luke might make the wrong choice, rather than just saying "it sucks" and calling it a day.

Regarding Luke's Pride:
Okay, so the main reason we're supposed to have that Luke fell is that Luke got so swept into his own legend that he came to believe that he could do no wrong. Fine, let's see the evidence of that through other parts of the ST. Did Luke become materialistic, and there's Jedi merchandise everywhere, akin to how if you go to any place with a dominant religion, there's tacky souvenirs being thrust at everyone? Where's the St. Luke the Jedi candles, the Luke Skywalker sightings in people's toast, doors, etc. Hell, maybe even a shrewd capitalist exploited Luke's deeds and made Skywalker: the T-shirt, Skywalker: the breakfast cereal, and Skywalker: the flame thrower. Or if it's more of a religious awakening, where's the tacky Luke Skywalker figurines being hocked at Rose and Finn on Canto Blight as they wander around, or when Rey is wondering around Maz's bar? Or symbols of his likeness, said to bring the force to them, akin to Buddha statue necklaces and crucifixes? All we get is Han saying that there are rumors of what happened to Luke and Ben, with people like Rey not even sure if the force even exists.

People might not be sure whether the Jedi religion or even the Force is real, especially on a backwater like Jakku, but there is no doubt that Luke himself is real. Even if all most people know about him is that this man walked into a room with Vader and Palpatine and then only Luke walked out, that's more than enough to make him a legend.

I do agree that there's a bit of disconnect between TLJ's legend of Luke and Rey not even knowing if the Force is real in TFA, or at least a missed opportunity in TFA (as I noted before) to better set up TLJ's plot, but that's down to the lack of effective overall editorial oversight, I suspect, not a fault of TLJ specifically. But I grudgingly accept it because if plays into Rey's established characterization of being someone who is very savvy in terms of practical skills and thinking on her feet, but has very little formal education and is sometimes tripped up by it.

If they wanted to show Luke becoming corrupted because of his pride, we should have some sort of portrayal of that. Have Luke covered in Jedi bobbles and his room filled with all sorts of artifacts, showing off his immense pride in his station as the leader of the Jedi, with opulent quarters and other signs he was going down the wrong path. Instead, we get huts and a temple we never see until it's burned down. Maybe have Luke do something to show the dark path he was going. Maybe everyone had a copy of Luke Skywalker's biography on their coffeetables, showing how he's sold out. Instead, we jump straight to, "He feared his nephew, drew his weapon, and realized too late that he was the asshole."

And as noted above, I agree that we should have seen more, though I put that only partly on TLJ, partly on TFA, and partly on management. I don't think it has to be necessarily Luke having sold out to commercialism (though that could work for a timely political message, and parallel the greed and shallow glitz of Canto Bight and the way that real-world "Both Sides" narratives portray both liberals and conservatives as equally corrupt corporate puppets). But I do think showing some visual hint of Luke's pride prior to his fall couldn't have hurt. Its not entirely absent, by any means- we have Luke's own account that he was "a legend", and that he would be follows logically from the events of RotJ. We also know he's a big enough deal that a main plot through two films, for both sides, is trying to find him (despite the fact that the Resistance has at least a partially-trained Force user in Leia and then another in Rey). But its mostly established through speech, and film is a visual medium where "show, don't tell" is often a good guideline to follow. So seeing some clear visual representation of Luke's pride probably could not have hurt the film.

Luke wasn't prideful in the OT, and it's necessary show that he became so for us to believe that's why he failed. Sure, he had a bit of earnest cockiness, but it was earnest. Yoda did humble him, and helped him grow. That's why half the dialogue of ESB is him asking questions, and unlearning what he has learned. That's why it doesn't work for me. It's not a natural step for Luke, because he was humble, he was centered, and while he was having some problems with the dark side, he was overcoming them and becoming a true Jedi.

The ST instead, robs him of that, and at the last minute, tries to fix their divot.

Perhaps "prideful" isn't the right term- but overconfident, yes. Luke is always a very bold man. I gave numerous examples of that throughout the OT, including post-training with Yoda. And it usually works for him, because he's Luke Skywalker, Legend, and he usually really is that good. But the fact that his risks often play out likely makes it all the easier for him to start buying his own hype.

[ray245]

That's one strength of the Original Trilogy, but I don't feel that there is only one right way to tell a Star Wars story. I'll note also that TLJ did allow Luke to inspire others by his example, because the point of his death is about restoring the Legend of Luke Skywalker, despite acknowledging Luke's fallibility.

The problem is his fallability in itself undermined the idea that Luke's generation can learn from the mistakes of the earlier generation. And that had undermined the struggles of the OT generation. Instead of adding and enriching the narrative of the OT, I think the ST has undermined the narrative of the OT. This is why in my personal head-canon, I view the ST movies as non-canon and a flawed narrative.

It could go that way, yes, and that would be a detriment to the franchise in the long-term, yes- but only in so far as constantly using any trope over and over again without originality would be to the detriment of the franchise.

I disagree. I think as writers, it's more important to not repeat the cycle at all, otherwise you're setting up yourself and successive writers into falling into the trap of reusing the same narrative again and again. Because in order to make a good and meaningful sequel in my opinion, you need to build upon the setting and understand how the transformed setting allowed new possibilities for story-telling. A good sequel should not reset the setting just for the sake of more drama. It makes the "hand of god/writer" too visible within a narrative, as you can feel this is a case of writers wanting to reset the drama because you need more drama.

This is soap-opera approach of writing a narrative, and I really resent such stories on a personal level.

I think that you're missing the point here somewhat. It was not about making Luke flawed simply to create drama or to sideline him so that Rey can be the real hero (while Rey may be the overall hero of the ST, Luke, Holdo, and for that matter Kylo contribute more directly to defeating the First Order in this film than Rey does). Its about acknowledging that yes, the old heroes and legends are imperfect, but you can still find value in them, and can and should still have hope in a better future, despite that. And doing so in a way that reflects very well how the Dark Side has previously been portrayed in canon. These themes are alluded to throughout the film, and its a direct challenge to the "Both sides are just as bad, nothing really matters, nothing will ever really change" cynicism that is so prevellant today, and I love that. Unfortunately, whether through flawed execution by the film or audience bias or both, many people just saw the cynical deconstruction, and missed the underlying reconstruction (just like they saw Poe's critics of Holdo, took them at face-value, and refused to buy the subsequent vindication of Holdo).

In short, TLJ's problem is, in part, that it was so effective a deconstruction that many people then refused to buy the subsequent reconstruction. Though to be blunt, I think that's also partly due to a lot of people going in determined to hate the film and reject it as a failure, and only acknowledging those parts of the film that fit their preconceptions.

I don't think the new sequel should placed an emphasis on the failing of the old heroes to begin with. It's a bad idea on a very conceptual level, because it really steal the limelight from the new generation of heroes and reduced the space for them to grow in their own ways.

Rey's journey is essentially the same as Luke's, as the last Jedi trying to rebuild a destroyed Order yet again. It fundamentally limits Rey from growing and developing as a Jedi in a way that's different from Luke's journey. Rey's growth shouldn't be about her learning to be the last Jedi and trying to build the order yet again. I think the focus should be less about Luke's failures and more about Luke's success in rebuilding the order as an enlightened Jedi.

Rey's journey should be about allowing the new generation of Jedi to find out their place in a more peaceful galaxy, and really understanding how the new Jedi Order can do things in ways that prevent the rise of the new empire. I think the execution of the themes in TLJ is fine, the problem lies in the concept itself, and not in its execution.

I think the ST has problems opposite to the PT. The PT had great idea and great concepts, but they had issues in regards to their execution. The ST on the other hand, had good execution of storytelling, but the underlying concepts is flawed to begin with.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is his fallability in itself undermined the idea that Luke's generation can learn from the mistakes of the earlier generation. And that had undermined the struggles of the OT generation. Instead of adding and enriching the narrative of the OT, I think the ST has undermined the narrative of the OT. This is why in my personal head-canon, I view the ST movies as non-canon and a flawed narrative.

Did it, though? Luke was fallible- but he did not, ultimately, fall. He was a better man, and a wiser man, than his father. He wasn't able to entirely avoid making the same mistakes as the older generation, but he was able to recognize the flaws in the old Jedi Order, even if he was not able to complete the final step of successfully reinventing it.

I disagree. I think as writers, it's more important to not repeat the cycle at all, otherwise you're setting up yourself and successive writers into falling into the trap of reusing the same narrative again and again. Because in order to make a good and meaningful sequel in my opinion, you need to build upon the setting and understand how the transformed setting allowed new possibilities for story-telling. A good sequel should not reset the setting just for the sake of more drama. It makes the "hand of god/writer" too visible within a narrative, as you can feel this is a case of writers wanting to reset the drama because you need more drama.

This is soap-opera approach of writing a narrative, and I really resent such stories on a personal level.

I partially agree, but I would note that this is purely a point against TFA (and Disney/Lucasfilm management), not TLJ. And, ultimately, its a point against the whiney OT fanboys they were pandering to by trying to make the OT Mk II.

Rian Johnson was simply working with the hand he was dealt, and I think he did a decent job of it. Sadly, I expect Abrams to retcon a lot of it, to the series' overall detriment.

I don't think the new sequel should placed an emphasis on the failing of the old heroes to begin with. It's a bad idea on a very conceptual level, because it really steal the limelight from the new generation of heroes and reduced the space for them to grow in their own ways.

This seems somewhat counterintuitive to me, as if it does one thing, you'd think it would be make room for the new heroes to shine, even if at the expense of the older ones. Could you explain further?

I will add that I think there was a need to address the fallibility of old heroes and ideals in the ST, from an out-of-universe perspective. Cynicism is very popular these days, with the idea that "Both sides are just as bad" being a favorite refrain which is ultimately used to normalize and justify tyranny, and the very concept of morality, or good and evil, often being sneered at as naive at best and selfish or authoritarian at worst, and fandoms clamouring for "dark, edgy" anti-heroes and "Hard men making hard choices". Star Wars is and should remain a fundamentally optimistic and idealistic franchise, but the filmmakers may have felt that it was necessary to acknowledge those critics, acknowledge the climate of cynicism, before they could refute it. I'm not usually a fan of heavily meta (or as I think of them, ostentatiously self-aware) films- I like a movie that just tries to tell its own story straight, without trying to worry about what everyone else thinks. But I can see the argument that Star Wars needed to address these questions in some manner.

I do think that the primary focus of the ST is on the younger heroes. Rey is very much the protagonist and Kylo the main villain, not Luke or Han or Leia.

Rey's journey is essentially the same as Luke's, as the last Jedi trying to rebuild a destroyed Order yet again. It fundamentally limits Rey from growing and developing as a Jedi in a way that's different from Luke's journey. Rey's growth shouldn't be about her learning to be the last Jedi and trying to build the order yet again. I think the focus should be less about Luke's failures and more about Luke's success in rebuilding the order as an enlightened Jedi.

Okay, I think I see your point here, but within that very basic premise "Young Force user leans to be a Jedi and tries to rebuild the Order", there is a LOT more room for variation than you're acknowledging. Rey's journey (thinly-sketched as it admittedly is) is not simply Luke's journey. If anything, they're mirrors in a number of ways. While Luke yearns to escape his family and hope, Rey initially is reluctant to leave Jakku or embrace her role as a Jedi (Anakin and Luke's impulsiveness and overconfidence, at least, she does not have). While Luke is tempted by fear for his friends, Rey is tempted by insecurity over the fact that she has no circle of her own in which she belongs. While Luke nearly falls by lashing out in anger, Rey seems able to wield her anger without succumbing to it (you can question if this is consistent with other depictions of the Dark Side, but there is precedent in Windu's Vaapad technique).

I find the potential to contrast the differences between them, and how they react to superficially similar circumstances, quite intriguing, and I only wish it had been explored in greater depth.

Rey's journey should be about allowing the new generation of Jedi to find out their place in a more peaceful galaxy, and really understanding how the new Jedi Order can do things in ways that prevent the rise of the new empire. I think the execution of the themes in TLJ is fine, the problem lies in the concept itself, and not in its execution.

I think the ST has problems opposite to the PT. The PT had great idea and great concepts, but they had issues in regards to their execution. The ST on the other hand, had good execution of storytelling, but the underlying concepts is flawed to begin with.

I don't think there is only one right way to make a Star Wars series, and anything else is invalid. The ST is not how I would have done it, but that doesn't make it bad.

I do think that, as interesting as it might have been, "a more peaceful galaxy" was not a realistic expectation of a series of big budget action movies titled Star Wars. However, had it been me, I would probably have avoided an Empire 2.0, at least initially, and started with a divided galaxy filled with more small-scale conflicts, with the Old Republic and Jedi having to navigate the quagmire. Less World War II in space, more Afghanistan in space.

[ray245]

Did it, though? Luke was fallible- but he did not, ultimately, fall. He was a better man, and a wiser man, than his father. He wasn't able to entirely avoid making the same mistakes as the older generation, but he was able to recognize the flaws in the old Jedi Order, even if he was not able to complete the final step of successfully reinventing it.

I think so, because once again we are going back to square one, with a narrative about the failings of the Jedi Order once again. An important narrative for Luke would have been to explore how important familial relationship were in preventing people from falling to the dark side. TLJ and ST made the case that familial relationships are utterly unimportant in preventing people from falling to the dark side, with familial bonds even being useless in bringing people back from the dark side.

It is drama for drama sake, and fuck that.

I partially agree, but I would note that this is purely a point against TFA (and Disney/Lucasfilm management), not TLJ. And, ultimately, its a point against the whiney OT fanboys they were pandering to by trying to make the OT Mk II.

Rian Johnson was simply working with the hand he was dealt, and I think he did a decent job of it. Sadly, I expect Abrams to retcon a lot of it, to the series' overall detriment.

I agree, I think JJ Abrams have fucked up the potential of the Sequel movies but I don't think Rian Johnson really helped his case by making Luke's failing as a Jedi even worse. I would have accepted on some level that Luke's familial bond with Ben is why he ignored Ben's gradual fall to the dark side rather than Luke thinking of killing Ben in the first place.

This seems somewhat counterintuitive to me, as if it does one thing, you'd think it would be make room for the new heroes to shine, even if at the expense of the older ones. Could you explain further?

I will add that I think there was a need to address the fallibility of old heroes and ideals in the ST, from an out-of-universe perspective. Cynicism is very popular these days, with the idea that "Both sides are just as bad" being a favorite refrain which is ultimately used to normalize and justify tyranny, and the very concept of morality, or good and evil, often being sneered at as naive at best and selfish or authoritarian at worst, and fandoms clamouring for "dark, edgy" anti-heroes and "Hard men making hard choices". Star Wars is and should remain a fundamentally optimistic and idealistic franchise, but the filmmakers may have felt that it was necessary to acknowledge those critics, acknowledge the climate of cynicism, before they could refute it. I'm not usually a fan of heavily meta (or as I think of them, ostentatiously self-aware) films- I like a movie that just tries to tell its own story straight, without trying to worry about what everyone else thinks. But I can see the argument that Star Wars needed to address these questions in some manner.

I do think that the primary focus of the ST is on the younger heroes. Rey is very much the protagonist and Kylo the main villain, not Luke or Han or Leia.

I think they focused on the WRONG area of fallibility of the OT heroes. Rather than a story focusing on how they fucked things up in general, and allowed everything they've built to revert back to square one, a better way to depict the passing of the torch is to show how the way the OT heroes approached "galaxy-saving business" in their prime might not work for a new peaceful galaxy, and the need to trust in the younger generation and allow them to have a different approach in keeping the peace.

Luke as a Jedi was basically a Jedi-warrior in the mould of the Jedi in their final years of the Clone wars, the all-action warrior fighting at the forefront. It would have been far more interesting and more important for the franchise to move beyond that and show us how Jedi Knights could act as peacekeepers with violence and light-saber swinging their last resort.

Okay, I think I see your point here, but within that very basic premise "Young Force user leans to be a Jedi and tries to rebuild the Order", there is a LOT more room for variation than you're acknowledging. Rey's journey (thinly-sketched as it admittedly is) is not simply Luke's journey. If anything, they're mirrors in a number of ways. While Luke yearns to escape his family and hope, Rey initially is reluctant to leave Jakku or embrace her role as a Jedi (Anakin and Luke's impulsiveness and overconfidence, at least, she does not have). While Luke is tempted by fear for his friends, Rey is tempted by insecurity over the fact that she has no circle of her own in which she belongs. While Luke nearly falls by lashing out in anger, Rey seems able to wield her anger without succumbing to it (you can question if this is consistent with other depictions of the Dark Side, but there is precedent in Windu's Vaapad technique).

I find the potential to contrast the differences between them, and how they react to superficially similar circumstances, quite intriguing, and I only wish it had been explored in greater depth.

How they grow as Jedi is ultimately the same journey. There's differences and variations, but those aren't that different in a major way. Rey the loner and being the daughter of nobodies would have been more interesting if she had some Jedi-peers to interact with as she try and fit in or try and find her role within the new Jedi Order.

A narrative about Rey gaining respect from the rest of her Jedi-peers despite her humble background would have been more different and more interesting than what we have now.

I don't think there is only one right way to make a Star Wars series, and anything else is invalid. The ST is not how I would have done it, but that doesn't make it bad.

I do think that, as interesting as it might have been, "a more peaceful galaxy" was not a realistic expectation of a series of big budget action movies titled Star Wars. However, had it been me, I would probably have avoided an Empire 2.0, at least initially, and started with a divided galaxy filled with more small-scale conflicts, with the Old Republic and Jedi having to navigate the quagmire. Less World War II in space, more Afghanistan in space.

I don't think there's a right way to make a Star Wars series, but there is a danger of falling into the old EU trap of never-ending galaxy-wide war between plucky underdog good guys against evil empire in some form, with a destroyed Jedi Order.

[FaxModem1]

Well, let's face it, the big problem of the ST, a bit like the PT, is execution. We're not getting soaked into the world long enough to know what's going on, or why this is going on, so that the fight we're seeing feels a little disconnected. Hopefully they can fix that in IX, but that's going to be like Enterprise all over again, fixing the divot that previous storytellers made because they couldn't be bothered.

I hope to see more spirituality in the trilogy, with Rey earning her abilities through personal growth, but I don't know if they want to do that or not, for whatever plot reasons.

[Esquire]

Well, let's face it, the big problem of the ST, a bit like the PT, is execution. We're not getting soaked into the world long enough to know what's going on, or why this is going on, so that the fight we're seeing feels a little disconnected. Hopefully they can fix that in IX, but that's going to be like Enterprise all over again, fixing the divot that previous storytellers made because they couldn't be bothered.

I hope to see more spirituality in the trilogy, with Rey earning her abilities through personal growth, but I don't know if they want to do that or not, for whatever plot reasons.

I just want to add a giant +1 to everything in this. Too much was done too quickly with too little setup, and as a result... well, the movies we've got, I suppose.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, let's face it, the big problem of the ST, a bit like the PT, is execution. We're not getting soaked into the world long enough to know what's going on, or why this is going on, so that the fight we're seeing feels a little disconnected. Hopefully they can fix that in IX, but that's going to be like Enterprise all over again, fixing the divot that previous storytellers made because they couldn't be bothered.

I hope to see more spirituality in the trilogy, with Rey earning her abilities through personal growth, but I don't know if they want to do that or not, for whatever plot reasons.

I just want to add a giant +1 to everything in this. Too much was done too quickly with too little setup, and as a result... well, the movies we've got, I suppose.

I personally feel that too much emphasis is placed on needing lengthy set-up (for a non-Star Wars example, I remember how after GoT premiered, every fandom out there seemed to be demanding season per book adaptations, even when it would have been needless and required actual extensive padding). Or how everyone insisted that the DCCU failed because they didn't do stand-alone films for every character before making a team movie like Marvel, even though Marvel did exactly that with Guardians of the Galaxy, a team movie that had very little connection to any of the prior MCU films and who's main characters and setting were almost entirely new? Or X-men, for that matter (much as I hate to give any credit to that rapist Bryan Singer).

Whatever happened to economy in storytelling? Whatever happened to "show, don't tell", for that matter?

There are two points where I feel better set-up was badly needed, however. The first is in TFA, where we really should have gotten a look at the politics behind the Resistance. This would have both helped explain the overall galactic political situation and why the NR is so unprepared, and given the destruction of Hosnia more weight. But the fanboys whined about the "boring" Senate scenes in the Prequels, and they got what they wanted, God damn it.

The second is in TLJ, where more flashback scenes to show what went down with Luke and Ben could have helped make the reasons for Luke's actions more clear, and made them feel less jarring. Actually, the ground work for that should have been laid more in TFA.

[Esquire]

Well, let's face it, the big problem of the ST, a bit like the PT, is execution. We're not getting soaked into the world long enough to know what's going on, or why this is going on, so that the fight we're seeing feels a little disconnected. Hopefully they can fix that in IX, but that's going to be like Enterprise all over again, fixing the divot that previous storytellers made because they couldn't be bothered.

I hope to see more spirituality in the trilogy, with Rey earning her abilities through personal growth, but I don't know if they want to do that or not, for whatever plot reasons.

I just want to add a giant +1 to everything in this. Too much was done too quickly with too little setup, and as a result... well, the movies we've got, I suppose.

I personally feel that too much emphasis is placed on needing lengthy set-up (for a non-Star Wars example, I remember how after GoT premiered, every fandom out there seemed to be demanding season per book adaptations, even when it would have been needless and required actual extensive padding). Or how everyone insisted that the DCCU failed because they didn't do stand-alone films for every character before making a team movie like Marvel, even though Marvel did exactly that with Guardians of the Galaxy, a team movie that had very little connection to any of the prior MCU films and who's main characters and setting were almost entirely new? Or X-men, for that matter (much as I hate to give any credit to that rapist Bryan Singer).

Whatever happened to economy in storytelling? Whatever happened to "show, don't tell", for that matter?

There are two points where I feel better set-up was badly needed, however. The first is in TFA, where we really should have gotten a look at the politics behind the Resistance. This would have both helped explain the overall galactic political situation and why the NR is so unprepared, and given the destruction of Hosnia more weight. But the fanboys whined about the "boring" Senate scenes in the Prequels, and they got what they wanted, God damn it.

The second is in TLJ, where more flashback scenes to show what went down with Luke and Ben could have helped make the reasons for Luke's actions more clear, and made them feel less jarring. Actually, the ground work for that should have been laid more in TFA.

That's all fair, I think. Certainly there's a balance to be struck between Marvel and... I don't know, who's the opposite of Marvel in terms of character-based screenwriting? Anyway assume I said those guys.

[The Romulan Republic]

If I could make three changes to the Sequels, it would be:

1. Flashback scene showing Luke, Han, and Leia together (when the decision is made to send Ben to Luke for training, perhaps). And perhaps another showing some of Ben's training. One scene in TFA, and another one or two in TLJ, would have been good.

2. A Hosnia Senate scene.

3. For the love of God, come up with a resolution for the Search for Luke plot other than "R2 conveniently wakes up now." Because honest to God, I like the Sequels, but that was probably the laziest, most phoned-in resolution of a main plot line I've ever seen.

[ray245]

I personally feel that too much emphasis is placed on needing lengthy set-up (for a non-Star Wars example, I remember how after GoT premiered, every fandom out there seemed to be demanding season per book adaptations, even when it would have been needless and required actual extensive padding). Or how everyone insisted that the DCCU failed because they didn't do stand-alone films for every character before making a team movie like Marvel, even though Marvel did exactly that with Guardians of the Galaxy, a team movie that had very little connection to any of the prior MCU films and who's main characters and setting were almost entirely new? Or X-men, for that matter (much as I hate to give any credit to that rapist Bryan Singer).

Whatever happened to economy in storytelling? Whatever happened to "show, don't tell", for that matter?

The OT was a case of economy in storytelling. The death star meeting room scene? It was kept because it give tons of context to everything, while wrapping it up in character-driven drama ( between the imperials).

The problem is when a new generation of hyperactive directors like JJ Abrams refuse to value the importance of such scenes, preferring to sacrifice world-building for the sake of building a roller-coaster thrill ride. That works if you are making a movie with not expectations of any world-building. A director like JJ Abrams in charge of season 1 of Game of Thrones would have doomed the franchise very quickly.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know what just occurred to me: what we're seeing with Luke is basically the same thing that happened with Dumbledore in Harry Potter. The wise old mentor archetype turned out to be a deeply-flawed man, and the fandom reacted with rage (although in the case of the Potter fandom, the rage was directed primarily against the character, while in the Star Wars fandom, its directed primarily against the creators). Thus the endless parade of Evil Dumbledore fanfics, and the slightly less popular but still common Senile/Insane Dumbledore (well, that and having an evil manipulative Dumbledore who Harry must break free from and defeat is a convenient basis for Harry In Name Only male power fantasy fanfics, as well as for retconning any element of the plot the author doesn't like as part of Dumbledore's scheme, but I digress).

Personally, though, I never saw Dumbledore as an evil man or a stupid man, any more than I see Luke as an evil or a stupid man. Flawed, sure. Made some terrible choices under pressure, sure. But all those good qualities that we loved are still there. Dumbledore genuinely is a brilliant, well-meaning, charming old man. He's also sometimes blinded by his emotions (aren't we all?), tormented by regret for past mistakes, and compromised by trying to simultaneously be a schoolteacher and a spy master. Likewise, Luke is not an evil man, and he's not a stupid man. He is still the brave, loving, loyal man he always was- but his emotions clouded his judgement and his pride kept him from seeing it coming, and so he made a terrible mistake under pressure as a consequence, and the regret for that mistake further clouded his judgement. However, he was ultimately able to see through his mistakes, and rise above them.

I also remember that line in Order of the Phoenix, where Harry confronts Dumbledore and he basically says that being much cleverer than most people, his mistakes are also correspondingly bigger. I think that's very true of Luke Skywalker: Legend, and that's what got me thinking about this.

[FaxModem1]

A key difference is that Dumbledore made mistakes, but he did what he could to rectify them, he kept on trying to some degree. Luke gave up, instead deciding to let everyone else die while he whittled away his time.

Dumbledore messed up, but got back on the horse. Luke just gave up.

[The Romulan Republic]

A key difference is that Dumbledore made mistakes, but he did what he could to rectify them, he kept on trying to some degree. Luke gave up, instead deciding to let everyone else die while he whittled away his time.

Dumbledore messed up, but got back on the horse. Luke just gave up.

He "gave up" in the sense that he retired from being a Jedi. He did so, in part, because he had come to genuinely believe that the Jedi should end. He was wrong, but he was, in his way, trying to fix things. He believed he, and the Jedi, should not be part of the equation, and he tried to pass that on to Rey. I also suspect that he did not reach that conclusion instantly. Why go to an old Jedi Temple to hide, if he had given up on the Jedi? Why leave a map, even in fragments, so others could find him if they needed to? I think (speculatively, but I think its well-founded) that he initially went there to study the old texts and try to figure out where the Jedi kept going wrong, why people kept falling to the Dark Side. He left the message, then, so that Leia could find him if necessary (while making it difficult enough to find him that he wouldn't be bothered over non-essential things), or at least it suggests that he was conflicted about disappearing. Only on the island, I think, did he reach the conclusion that the Jedi should end.

And of course, he ultimately came back to stand against the First Order.

Actually, the parallel works even better than I initially thought. The Dumbledore we see in the films has had many decades to come to terms with the mistakes of his youth and become a better man. The younger Dumbledore's actions weren't all that different from Luke's canonically, following his sister's death during the skirmish with Grindlewald. He traveled. He studied magic. He studiously avoided a political career, believing that he was unfit to be trusted with power. He spent decades on the sidelines (well, until Rowling retconned it in Fantastic Beasts II), watching as Grindlewald, oh yeah, committed World War II, at most only interfering via proxies, and only when he could no longer bear the shame of sitting it out (by his own account) did he finally act. Later, he did adopt a more political career, becoming a leader in the fight against Voldemort, but that was after decades of regret and circumstances forcing him to it. And that is where we meet him- the wise if somewhat manipulative old wizard at the end of his journey.

The Dumbledore in the original books/films is basically a man who is at the end of Luke's journey in TLJ- he just survived returning to action longer than Luke did.

[ray245]

A key difference is that Dumbledore made mistakes, but he did what he could to rectify them, he kept on trying to some degree. Luke gave up, instead deciding to let everyone else die while he whittled away his time.

Dumbledore messed up, but got back on the horse. Luke just gave up.

He "gave up" in the sense that he retired from being a Jedi. He did so, in part, because he had come to genuinely believe that the Jedi should end. He was wrong, but he was, in his way, trying to fix things. He believed he, and the Jedi, should not be part of the equation, and he tried to pass that on to Rey. I also suspect that he did not reach that conclusion instantly. Why go to an old Jedi Temple to hide, if he had given up on the Jedi? Why leave a map, even in fragments, so others could find him if they needed to? I think (speculatively, but I think its well-founded) that he initially went there to study the old texts and try to figure out where the Jedi kept going wrong, why people kept falling to the Dark Side. He left the message, then, so that Leia could find him if necessary (while making it difficult enough to find him that he wouldn't be bothered over non-essential things), or at least it suggests that he was conflicted about disappearing. Only on the island, I think, did he reach the conclusion that the Jedi should end.

And of course, he ultimately came back to stand against the First Order.

Actually, the parallel works even better than I initially thought. The Dumbledore we see in the films has had many decades to come to terms with the mistakes of his youth and become a better man. The younger Dumbledore's actions weren't all that different from Luke's canonically, following his sister's death during the skirmish with Grindlewald. He traveled. He studied magic. He studiously avoided a political career, believing that he was unfit to be trusted with power. He spent decades on the sidelines (well, until Rowling retconned it in Fantastic Beasts II), watching as Grindlewald, oh yeah, committed World War II, at most only interfering via proxies, and only when he could no longer bear the shame of sitting it out (by his own account) did he finally act. Later, he did adopt a more political career, becoming a leader in the fight against Voldemort, but that was after decades of regret and circumstances forcing him to it. And that is where we meet him- the wise if somewhat manipulative old wizard at the end of his journey.

The Dumbledore in the original books/films is basically a man who is at the end of Luke's journey in TLJ- he just survived returning to action longer than Luke did.

And that's the biggest difference. Dumbledore survived long enough to rectify his mistakes.

Luke got killed off at the end of TLJ. If Luke had survived, I'm fairly sure the reaction to TLJ would have been quite different.

[The Romulan Republic]

A key difference is that Dumbledore made mistakes, but he did what he could to rectify them, he kept on trying to some degree. Luke gave up, instead deciding to let everyone else die while he whittled away his time.

Dumbledore messed up, but got back on the horse. Luke just gave up.

He "gave up" in the sense that he retired from being a Jedi. He did so, in part, because he had come to genuinely believe that the Jedi should end. He was wrong, but he was, in his way, trying to fix things. He believed he, and the Jedi, should not be part of the equation, and he tried to pass that on to Rey. I also suspect that he did not reach that conclusion instantly. Why go to an old Jedi Temple to hide, if he had given up on the Jedi? Why leave a map, even in fragments, so others could find him if they needed to? I think (speculatively, but I think its well-founded) that he initially went there to study the old texts and try to figure out where the Jedi kept going wrong, why people kept falling to the Dark Side. He left the message, then, so that Leia could find him if necessary (while making it difficult enough to find him that he wouldn't be bothered over non-essential things), or at least it suggests that he was conflicted about disappearing. Only on the island, I think, did he reach the conclusion that the Jedi should end.

And of course, he ultimately came back to stand against the First Order.

Actually, the parallel works even better than I initially thought. The Dumbledore we see in the films has had many decades to come to terms with the mistakes of his youth and become a better man. The younger Dumbledore's actions weren't all that different from Luke's canonically, following his sister's death during the skirmish with Grindlewald. He traveled. He studied magic. He studiously avoided a political career, believing that he was unfit to be trusted with power. He spent decades on the sidelines (well, until Rowling retconned it in Fantastic Beasts II), watching as Grindlewald, oh yeah, committed World War II, at most only interfering via proxies, and only when he could no longer bear the shame of sitting it out (by his own account) did he finally act. Later, he did adopt a more political career, becoming a leader in the fight against Voldemort, but that was after decades of regret and circumstances forcing him to it. And that is where we meet him- the wise if somewhat manipulative old wizard at the end of his journey.

The Dumbledore in the original books/films is basically a man who is at the end of Luke's journey in TLJ- he just survived returning to action longer than Luke did.

And that's the biggest difference. Dumbledore survived long enough to rectify his mistakes.

Luke got killed off at the end of TLJ. If Luke had survived, I'm fairly sure the reaction to TLJ would have been quite different.

He had a pretty awesome death scene, though.

And Luke almost certainly will appear again as a Force ghost. It'll be interesting to hear what he says to Rey if they talk.

[ray245]

Yeah, but a number of fans were upset that they can no longer follow Luke's story. Yes, Luke will be a force ghost, but why did he need to die in the first place if he is going to be a major figure in Rey's development after his death?

The reason why we have Obi Wan as force ghost was because Lucas felt he made a mistake in killing off Obi Wan too early.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, but a number of fans were upset that they can no longer follow Luke's story. Yes, Luke will be a force ghost, but why did he need to die in the first place if he is going to be a major figure in Rey's development after his death?

The reason why we have Obi Wan as force ghost was because Lucas felt he made a mistake in killing off Obi Wan too early.

I mean, you could argue that Force ghosts make death cheap for Jedi in general.

[ray245]

I mean, you could argue that Force ghosts make death cheap for Jedi in general.

It does, but the point is people want Luke to stay alive and active. The problem with the sequel trilogy is that many people want to see Luke become the Jedi Master with a new Jedi Order.

Luke saying alive implies he might be around to tutor Rey and he can still be personally in charge of instructing a new generation of Jedi. Killing off Luke and reviving him as a force ghost eliminates that possibility. I think it is a mistake to kill of Luke in TLJ. I think it had botched the passing of the torch moment between Luke and Rey.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, you could argue that Force ghosts make death cheap for Jedi in general.

It does, but the point is people want Luke to stay alive and active. The problem with the sequel trilogy is that many people want to see Luke become the Jedi Master with a new Jedi Order.

Luke saying alive implies he might be around to tutor Rey and he can still be personally in charge of instructing a new generation of Jedi. Killing off Luke and reviving him as a force ghost eliminates that possibility. I think it is a mistake to kill of Luke in TLJ. I think it had botched the passing of the torch moment between Luke and Rey.

As a fan of Luke, and of Hamill as an actor, I certainly wouldn't have objected to him sticking around in the flesh post-TLJ, but I still think they can do a lot with him if they choose to.

Hell, they could even have him personally fry Kylo with lightning from beyond the grave, because apparently Jedi can do that now (I maintain that for sanity's sake, it is best to believe that Yoda burning the tree was just another illusion).

Edit: You wouldn't even need to change the movie much. Just have Luke getting up instead of disappearing at the end of that sequence, and maybe a shot at the end of the film of the Falcon landing to pick him up. Still, as endings go, its a pretty amazing one, so I don't object to it overall.

I guess they're worried that if he sticks around he'll overshadow Rey, and the mentor dying is a classic trope probably for that very reason. But I also think its an insult to Rey as a character to essentially imply that she can only matter if Luke is dead.

[ray245]

I guess they're worried that if he sticks around he'll overshadow Rey, and the mentor dying is a classic trope probably for that very reason. But I also think its an insult to Rey as a character to essentially imply that she can only matter if Luke is dead.

Luke is always going to overshadow Rey. The point is they actually need to handle the passing of the torch moment well and show how Luke learn to trust in Rey as a Jedi knight and time for her to take on an apprentice.

Problem is the entire production team of all the sequel movies so far are terrible at doing that well imo. Instead of allowing Rey to slowing grow and develop her relationship as a Jedi as a student of Luke, she is barely trained by Luke. I would rather have Rey and Luke travelling around the galaxy together as master and student, and allowing their bond to be the central focus of the new films. EP 9 will end with Luke finally feeling Rey is now deemed worthy to set off on her own path and become a Jedi Master like him.

But no, the desire to reset the galaxy to lone surviving Jedi against a big evil empire has botched the sequel trilogy beyond all hope of repair.

[The Romulan Republic]

I guess they're worried that if he sticks around he'll overshadow Rey, and the mentor dying is a classic trope probably for that very reason. But I also think its an insult to Rey as a character to essentially imply that she can only matter if Luke is dead.

Luke is always going to overshadow Rey. The point is they actually need to handle the passing of the torch moment well and show how Luke learn to trust in Rey as a Jedi knight and time for her to take on an apprentice.

Problem is the entire production team of all the sequel movies so far are terrible at doing that well imo. Instead of allowing Rey to slowing grow and develop her relationship as a Jedi as a student of Luke, she is barely trained by Luke. I would rather have Rey and Luke travelling around the galaxy together as master and student, and allowing their bond to be the central focus of the new films. EP 9 will end with Luke finally feeling Rey is now deemed worthy to set off on her own path and become a Jedi Master like him.

But no, the desire to reset the galaxy to lone surviving Jedi against a big evil empire has botched the sequel trilogy beyond all hope of repair.

I mean, as I recall, you were already denouncing the Sequels before the first movie premiered, so I don't think you're entirely objective here. I think that, like a lot of fans, you're too fixated on their being only one right way to make a Star Wars movie (ie the way you expected/wanted it to be made), and therefore treat everything else as bad.

And we could still get a scene of ghost Luke passing the torch to Rey in person, though it remains to be seen if that will happen.

[ray245]

I mean, as I recall, you were already denouncing the Sequels before the first movie premiered, so I don't think you're entirely objective here. I think that, like a lot of fans, you're too fixated on their being only one right way to make a Star Wars movie (ie the way you expected/wanted it to be made), and therefore treat everything else as bad.

And we could still get a scene of ghost Luke passing the torch to Rey in person, though it remains to be seen if that will happen.

I denounce them because I think the writing team is not ideal. I've pointed out many issues I had with JJ Abrams as a director, and recently a number of people have come around to the points I made about him before TFA started shooting. Do I think there's a "one right way" to make a Star Wars movie? Yeah of course, because I think that's the path that will satisfy the fanbase the most while at the same time open up the Star Wars universe for more story-telling opportunities.

You can have a scene of Luke passing the torch to Rey, but that moment will not sastify many fans because many fans ( excluding the sexists) can feel Rey never had the chance to be Luke's student in the truest sense. The bond between Luke the master and Rey the student is very underdeveloped, with TLJ implying that all Rey needs is Luke's books rather than his personal instruction.

My issue with the sequels is how they were approached conceptually. I think you can have the best acting and directing around in a film, but if the film is built upon weak concepts, it will undermine the overall appeal of the setting in the long run.

So in essence, I think the people who cheered and basically partake in the social media campaign about how JJ Abrams was the best choice to direct EP 7 were the ones that should share responsibility if the sequel era ultimately end up as an era that no one is really that invested in. I see it as people trading long-term enjoyment for a quick-short-term fix.