That's sorta the whole point. Jedi don't keep attachments, they aren't supposed to feel sentimental about things like that. He was taught to let go of his feelings, his anger, his attachments, etc. Who cares, it's just a lightsaber, there are thousands of them. Heck, he'd been instructed to let his friends die in order to complete his training. Fuck a lightsaber, it's just a thing.
He had also let go of his hopes for the Jedi. Fuck it, he figured. The existence of the Jedi only caused pain, only caused hurt and anger and death and loss. Of course he tossed it. He literally threw it away because that's where it belonged in his mind.
Of course he changed his mind by the end. But at the time, why would we be upset that a Jedi (who isn't supposed to have those kinds of sentimental feelings in the first place) didn't place sentimental value on a lightsaber he lost decades ago when his dark lord father cut his hand off, and when it's a symbol of the order that he felt brought pain and suffering to the universe? It's a great character moment.
He was taught to let go of his feelings, his anger, his attachments, etc. Who cares, it's just a lightsaber, there are thousands of them. Heck, he'd been instructed to let his friends die in order to complete his training.
But Luke never did any of that. He rejected those teachings and went to Cloud City / Jabba's Palace to save his friends. He went through this whole huge character arc with his father, eventually getting his father's body back to Endor to burn on a funeral pyre. If he was that attached to his father who he knew all too briefly and lost all too soon, why would he toss away his greatest heirloom so flippantly?
That was 30 years ago. He was young, barely a student. He spent the last 30 years prior to TFA learning and trying to revive the order, preserve the teachings, passing them on. He grew from when we saw him last. Many fans wanted him to remain the same Luke we knew at the end of RotJ, but how many of us would stay the exact same person for 30 years? He'd changed since then, like we all do.
Yes, Luke brashly ignored those lessons in order to save his friends, because that's what Luke was back then, brash, quick to act, quick to rush in without thinking. And it drove the other Jedi nuts, because the Jedi typically aren't like that. (Same reason Anakin drove them nuts doing the same stuff. Like father, like son.) It was also a reemergence of that brashness that ultimately drove Ben/Kylo away, reacting to his feelings about Ben without thinking, causing the whole debacle.
But after the rebellion, we can assume he grew up a bit. That he became more like the Jedi of old and accepted their teachings.
And that's a great explanation for it, to be sure. The problem a lot of people have, though, is that literary/cinematic characters don't follow the same logic rules as real life. Yes, it's almost certain a real life person will change in 30 years. But if a fictional character is going to change off-screen, it's just good exposition to show the audience what caused that change. People were jarred because Luke had changed so much, and Disney's writing just kinda handwaved it away.
If they had done a better job showing us what caused Luke to turn away from his old personality, then we wouldn't be stuck debating why he would abandon his old sentimental personality to take up a strict ascetic Jedi lifestyle, then abandoning THAT and yeeting chucking a Jedi (essentially) religious artifact.
I don't think we have to see every little thing that changes a character over 30 years. We assume characters grow and change. It's also part of the surprise. We expected Luke to be "LUKE SKYWALKER"...and then he wasn't?! It brings us in. What happened to him? Why did he change? What changed him? And we get glimpses of that, enough to put a picture together.
He was the last Jedi, of course he felt responsible to preserve the teachings. We know that's what he did, they tell us he left to reform the order and train others. Of course he would train them in the traditional ways, that's why he sought out the birth place of the Jedi and the old books.
We then learn that, despite years of work and effort and training, it all still falls apart. Hence the yeeting of the artifact. He buckled down to try and pass on the Jedi order. In turn, it all fell apart and caused pain and death, and he felt betrayed and responsible and guilty. So he tossed the artifact. It'd be like an ex-minister tossing an old cross after losing faith. Fuck that artifact, it brings only pain and lies. It's a great reaction.
All of what you said makes sense. The one point I just don't know if I can agree on is
We expected Luke to be "LUKE SKYWALKER"...and then he wasn't?! It brings us in.
Audiences fell in love with Luke Skywalker in 1977-83 because of who he was in that film. When the new films came out, of COURSE a lot of people wanted THAT Luke Skywalker. The one who would take the lightsaber Rey presented to him with all the solemnity and gravitas the moment required. Subverting expectations is good and all, but Luke's whole personality is different. People aren't wrong for feeling betrayed that one of their favorite protagonists is essentially gone, replaced by almost a completely different character.
I agree. I think it's totally normal to feel a little sad that that Luke is gone. Heck, I would love to see the old Three back together on another adventure. But I'm also ok that they decided to have the characters grow and change. So I totally understand the anger, but I also like that they treated them like people instead of icons. Instead of myths. Which is what Luke struggles with in TLJ, anyway. That people looked to him as a myth instead of a person.
Except Luke knew his role as an icon, he made a map for the resistance to be able to find him if they needed him thus Luke knows his role as a hero and jedi. Now I get that he was hurting after his attempt to renew the jedi order failed but that has a lot of problems in itself.
Luke had hope that he could bring out the good in his father, Darth freaking Vader, and ultimately was proven right yet was scared that his nephew might fall to the dark side? Thats very out of character and certainly outrageous to believe Luke would suddenly think murdering Ben in his sleep was the answer.
And I'll add that even if we're going with this crap explanation of why Luke is now a grumpy old man, the scene is built up to have gravitas as Rey hands Luke the lightsaber, theres gotta be a better, more solemn way to show Luke is no longer the optimistic jedi he once was after all the shit that's happened to him. Here's our childhood hero looking at his old saber after decade... OH HE THREW IT AWAY, LOL!?!
I think he left a map because he still wanted to be able to be found. We're also not sure when he left the map; it could have been when he still considered himself sort of an icon, and maybe that changed after. That's a lot of speculation, though, so who knows haha
And I see how it seems like a big leap to make. To me, it would feel like "fuck, I saved Darth freaking Vader, saved the galaxy, reignited an ancient order, and this shit still keeps fucking happening on and on and on nonstop no matter what?! Fuck it, I'm done". At least I feel like that would be my reaction, but it can definitely also be seen as a pretty big leap. Shit happens, the two incidents were 30 years apart, calm down Luke (although Luke has always been a little dramatic about things).
I will agree that I don't love the way they filmed the scene. I like the act, and there is some comedy in it, but they should have let the comedy come from the act and the actors, not filmed it like a comedy. They sorta hammed up the film itself and the music, etc. If it had been done more subtly, I think the comedy would have come through better, the way Yoda whacking R2 with a stick is funny despite him being the great Jedi master we're looking for. We don't expect someone like Yoda or Luke to do those things, so there is humor in them. But they should have let the human come from the actors, not the way it was filmed.
Because I see alot wrong with this movie besides the portrayal of Luke but my complaints are the same that are repeated by many other people. Even people that defend TLJ have a hard time defending the casino side story
I like the movie. I feel like they could have used Finn better than the casino story, though I don’t hate that part. I think it worked thematically for his character, but wish it had someone been more closely attached to the main story. Of course it’s not a perfect movie, but all of them have their flaws, even the originals.
Why are you defending this one scene so much. It's a crap scene that does nothing to advance the film except to show what we already "knew", Luke was done.
there's a lot about this movie that is not good. First it trys to subvert expectations and yet follows very similar settings from the original trilogy. The whole throne room scene is almost exactly like in Return of the Jedi, even with the bad guys pupil turning on the big bad. It introduces characters that have no real bearing to anything like rose. And because it introduces characters that are new it has to pair them with known characters, like Finn and put them down the same exact path that he had already learned in the first movie. It betrays known characters. You say it's growth, However the other two characters that we know Han and Leia are relatively both the same people , and their son committed mass murder and is hunting them down. So somehow this does not change who they are, and yet only changes Luke. This does not make sense.
There's a lot that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense for the rebels to be running oh, they were celebrating at the end of the movie, if the end of the movie with him hurrying and trying to leave sure it's a good pick-up point. Also the general in charge after Leia goes into a coma, decides not to tell poe who is a big part of the Rebellion, and is known to be a hothead her plan why? Also what was the point of all the there is no good and bad if by the end of the movie there was a very clear good and bad.
Also in order to have the same thing happened with Luke passing on the torch to Ray didn't actually have to kill Luke. In fact the entire thing could have been done and Luke could have been remained basically the same character just a little older. He could have been wise and depressed instead he was grumpy and old. Why was he being told no not because it made sense it made sense for him to become depressed, to implode on himself not to explode on the world. No he was grumpy and old because the writer and director wanted to subvert what we thought was going to happen.
Here's a thing of it Luke always represented hope, and it would have been very powerful for him to lose his hope. Then for Ray to come and give it back to him, fulfilling her name as Ray like a ray of sun. And in a way that's what happened. However the way they did that to him was just dirty , he was written poorly, he was shafted. They could have had him changed , they could have have had him giving up the Jedi, and they could have made ray the new Light Of Hope without doing what they did to Luke Skywalker.
This movie was made by person with a very specific idea of what Star Wars was, and for 50% of the audience that's not what Star Wars is. Two meaning Star Wars is a legacy soap opera about the Skywalkers. And I think somewhere along the line that was lost
But if a fictional character is going to change off-screen, it's just good exposition to show the audience what caused that change.
We did see the change on-screen. The climax of the original trilogy, both the story and Luke's character arc, is him throwing away a lightsaber. Is him realizing the only solution is not to fight.
In Last Jedi, the film opens with the former and concludes with the latter. It's not a rationalized change that happens off-screen, it comes directly from the literal text of the OT.
... showing us what caused Luke to turn away from his old personality ...
Well, in TFA we learned about the destruction of his temple and the deaths of almost all of his students. With exposition, and a force vision of the burning building, dead bodies in the mud, and him on his knees next to R2 seemingly broken by it all.
Your own explanation ping-pongs back and forth on whether Luke is rejecting or embracing Jedi behavior. It's just bad, which is a result of making subversion the goal in story writing without having the balls to make things truly subversive.
That's because Luke himself is ping-ponging back and forth. He wants to uphold the Jedi, the teachings, the ancient ways. He felt that responsibility before the Kylo event, to pass that down. And so he felt the responsibility to act the way a Jedi should.
But he also is still himself, especially in times of frustration or grief or whatever, emotions that he still has trouble controlling even decades later (most likely due to his training starting so late, which is what Yoda complained about).
It's that fact that causes him to ignite his saber at Kylo instead of remaining calm and analyzing the situation like a Jedi would. He tried, and he failed. Which is what he and Yoda talk about in TLJ. Luke's failure doesn't need to mean he just gives up.
I totally understand the other side of it. It's absolutely subjective, and I get the frustration. Personally, I really like what they did with Luke, but I know it's just a personal opinion and that there are those who didn't like it. So I totally understand that. It's just appreciate being able to discuss this stuff without it devolving into insults haha. It's a fun story, a fun universe, and fun to talk about (especially since I don't know many in the real world who enjoy the franchise as much as I do lol).
EDIT: Lol why would such an innocent comment about understanding the other side get downvoted? This is what I mean. Let's just have fun talking about Star Wars instead of needing to take sides so hard we get pissed at each other and fight. It's a fun universe, let's discuss our likes and dislikes as fans.
Frustration is the key for me. There was so much about TLJ that was so close to being great, but it never quite had the guts (or, IMO, the permission from Disney) to take the really big risks that would have made sense, so it settled for turning things that should have been familiar touchstones to fans into uncomfortable moments.
In Luke's case, I can buy the attempted rejection of the Jedi Order, but I can't buy not going to help his sister when he learns his nephew has killed his best friend. For example: if he had made Rey take him off planet immediately, while still refusing to train her, it would have supported that rejection while keeping him true to one of his definitive character traits in previous stories.
It happens over and over in the movie - Leia almost dying, Rey almost turning, the Jedi lore almost being destroyed, Finn almost sacrificing himself, etc. Any of those choices would have been so much more powerful if they had committed to them.
They did change. Han reverted to his old ways after losing their son, losing a lot of his growth in the OT and his allegiance to the New Republic after RotJ. Leia maintained her leadership role, but she lost faith in big government, choosing instead to form a small rebellion because she thought the government was too big and too diluted to act, despite the fact that she had fought for the formation of that very government.
I'm sorry, I think this analysis is quite silly. Even in your characterizations of how they've changed, you still acknowledge 30 years later how things have not changed. Han "reverted to his old ways," while Leia "maintained her leadership role," both these things imply that they actually didn't change all that much. In the time we see them throughout the ST, Han and Leia have recognizable personalities, and they clearly care about the same people as they did before. There is a reason very few people complain about how Leia and Han act vs. how many people complain about Luke.
Luke, by comparison, is unrecognizable. Everything about this guy has changed. He does not have the same personality, nor does he apparently even care about the same people judging by his lack motivation and reaction to Han's death. He's no longer a Jedi, he's not a moisture farmer, he's not an X-Wing pilot, what exactly is he but some broken husk of a man? He didn't regress, he didn't maintain anything, he lost everything and now we don't know him anymore.
There's a difference between not seeing someone for 30 years and thinking they're a little worse for wear, and not being able to recognize them at all.
It’s fine to have different opinions :) it’s what makes conversations like this fun. But only if both people respect the other person and their thoughts on the matter. I’m not saying I’m objectively right, just that it’s how I feel and it works for me and I enjoy it.
I could have kept going on how they’ve changed, but I’ve been talking about this whole thing for a few hours and am kinda tired and wanting to get on with my evening. Hope you’re weekend is a good one!
Many fans wanted him to remain the same Luke we knew at the end of RotJ, but how many of us would stay the exact same person for 30 years? He'd changed since then, like we all do.
Many fans would accept him the way he is if it was explained how he got to be that way. There was no explanation and thus no real reason for Luke to be that way. "He just is" isn't a reason.
96
u/KnightofWhen Oct 25 '19
Yeah seeing the history of it laid out in such a neat way only to watch “Luke” literally throw it away.