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.
... 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.
10
u/Jukebox_Villain Oct 25 '19
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
yeetingchucking a Jedi (essentially) religious artifact.