The Last Jedi vs. The Undiscovered Country (Spoilers Allowed))

[bronnt]

In RotJ he acts on his rage and nearly murders his father. In the backstory for TLJ he has but a passing though about killing his nephew, in what way does that not show a growing restraint from RotJ to TLJ?

But that was Luke truly at his lowest moment, when he saw the entire Rebellion about to be destroyed, the Deathstar burning swaths in their fleet, and Vader threatening to capture and enslave his own sister. And he had a momentary lapse where he let the rage take over and started lashing out at someone, but even then, it wasn't a defenseless sleeping teenager, but a famous mass-murderer who was threatening to kill his family. And then, his response to that ultimate test....was to denounce evil, finally and utterly. He threw away his sword.

When something arises as the culmination of a story arc in which the hero gets tested, we're happy with it. And while it might be "realistic" to say that he's experiencing character development in the thirty years since we last saw his character, it's not good writing to have a culminating moment for the hero happen as a result to a series of off-screen trials. (We're not watching Star Wars for 'realism') Let us see make sure he's acting tonally consistent with the Luke Skywalker we remember from the original trilogy before showing the seams.

[Yukaphile]

Luke is humble, wise, smart, passionate, calm, and very forgiving by the end of Return of the Jedi. He's faced all the trials to emerge as not just a Jedi Master, THE last and only Jedi Master, but as a fully mature man. Contrast that to him whining about how unfair life was in ANH, and you get a sense he's grown. So Last Jedi could feel like a bit of a regress in that area, like how Goku's character has become flanderized as being so goddamned stupid in Dragon Ball Super. I think it should be plain, though, that Lucasfilm rushed out these movies because they were so desperate to cash in, and I think we can safely conclude their mindset was, "This is going to be really popular, let's just bank on that," and then kind of went on winging it from there. Honestly, Winter, you should let it go. I'm certainly furious over what they've done to Legends, but I've learned to let it stop bothering me. Hell, in a way, Last Jedi's mischaracterization of Luke is a benefit to Legends, because it might encourage more stories set in that continuity, or prompt disappointed fans to seek out those stories. The difference is all the more glaring when you contrast Legends to Disney canon, in that Legends had 30 years of world-building, seeing a single timeline unfold, while Lucasfilm puts out these rushed sequels in order to cash in, but don't understand that without that decades of seeing a world being constructed, Luke's decision just seem flat-out inconsistent with the original trilogy, and I think those who see it that way are only looking at minute aspects of his character, rather than the whole package.

[Yukaphile]

Here's some vids for ya, Winter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKWiEXjea9A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZhroUVYsNE

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

In Return of the Jedi, Luke has compassion on his fallen father and fights for the tiny spark of good in him. Defenders of TLJ will point out that he still displays an impetuous rage in that movie, but it was always with the motivation of protecting his family and friends. Then out of nowhere he turns on his own nephew because he senses evil in him? There's no set-up whatsoever for that.

In RotJ he acts on his rage and nearly murders his father. In the backstory for TLJ he has but a passing though about killing his nephew, in what way does that not show a growing restraint from RotJ to TLJ?

This equivocation does not work for me.

Luke doesn't nearly murder his father, he fights a mass murderer who is actively working to destroy the Rebellion, kill all his friends, and threatens his sister. Does he fight with rage? In that life and death struggle with the fate of the galaxy hanging in the balance, yes he does fight with rage. To see the good in Vader despite all that, to treat him with grace and compassion and find the smallest flicker of good, that is his greatest victory. How is turning his lightsaber on his innocent nephew who's having bad thoughts in his sleep a natural progression? Not to mention that it's not even rage that makes Luke turn on Kylo, it's more like fear.

So no, I don't see the two as comparable at all. It's not even a regression, it's just a weird, forced out-of-character moment to bring both Luke and Kylo to where Rian Johnson wanted them.

And like I said, that's not even my problem with Luke. If he made a split second mistake purely on reflex, I'd grudgingly accept that if he went somewhere interesting. Unfortunately, what Luke does the next several years is diametrically opposed to the core motivations of the character in the OT.

[Yukaphile]

Blame the environment we live in. It's very cynical, it's very... look, 20 years ago, we were riding off the coattails of the fall of the USSR. Technology was booming, the economy was thriving, and so lots of people in the West, at least in America, felt we were heading towards a brighter future, the end phase of that 1960s "there is wrong in the world, we're going to fight to change, we CAN do better!" Then Bush won, 9/11, two illegal wars, and his tax cuts that tanked the economy. We've just grown a lot more suspicious and cynical then, and the proliferation of the Internet makes it easier to see more people across the world, see anonymous freaks who love pissing off others, and to see every inch of the planet, and while it's probably no different than it ever was, it's feeding into the general despair and toxic poison and cynicism we feel as a culture and a society now. I feel as if, in such an environment, escapism and optimism within our entertainment sphere is more important than ever, but we don't get that, we get stuff like, "The world sucks, deal with it, there is no bright future, we're all gonna die." Of course, those at the top refusing to engage each other respectfully is not helping. Those who have power, who know how powerful their actions are, what their words can do to sway millions, and don't act responsibly. I'm not just talking Trump, btw, both people on both left and right. And that is why you get so much attempts to shove cynicism into older franchises hoping it will sell better in today's "we suck, we deserve to die" environment. Not just that, though. Late-stage capitalism. Greed is crushing us like it did the Old Republic. Education sucks, so those who become writers and have to follow corporate mandate aren't as talented as they used to be, and so cheaper FX means they can just coast along without putting any real effort into it. And overall, it's just getting worse and worse and worse. This is why it hurts so much and why I tend to just... Legends is canon to me, Disney canon is not. And anything made past 2009... is not Star Trek for me.

[Darth Wedgius]

In RotJ Luke had a momentary failure in his fault against the dark side, and the Emperor's glee helped shake him out of it. He slipped, but didn't fall. He was still the heroic figure we'd seen him grow into.

Kirk in TUC was distrustful of the Klingons, and in part the movie was about his character development. He had decades of reasons to consider the Klingons to be a treacherous, bloodthirsty enemy, because most of the Klingons he met were exactly that. And Kruge threw his helpless son's life away as a mere gesture of his power. Kirk's suspicion wasn't unjustified, either emotionally or logically.

But then Gorkon was every bit the wise statesman, trying to save peace with his dying breath after being mortally wounded by members of Starfleet. Gorkon knew what Kirk had forgotten: we're all people, and painting an entire species of individuals with the same brush is ludicrous. That, and the treachery of members of Kirk's own crew and superiors, brought that home.

"Let them die" was his nadir in that character journey. "And you've restored my son's [faith]" was the sign that the journey was complete. This movie is a close second for my favorite in the TOS film series.

Most importantly for purposes of this comparison, it didn't define Kirk's actions. He strongly disagreed with the orders he was given, but he carried them out to the best of his ability. He even surrendered to the Klingons, unconditionally, and saved the peace process.

I haven't seen The Last Jedi, so I can only go from what I've heard. I can see a reflexive action of igniting a light-saber in a moment of weakness. That's a slip, and we've seen Luke shaken by a vision before. But if that is what caused him to run off-planet, that's not a momentary slip. The Luke Skywalker we knew confronted a mass-murderer to try to save him. He can apologize to a kid. People change, but if Luke's changed that much, then the Luke Skywalker we wanted to see simply wasn't in the TLJ.

[Yukaphile]

What? Kirk wasn't justified. He said let them die. That's genocide. At least, that was how I read it from you, which I think is a big problem about how we each have different views on the world. But let's look at this farther back, maybe? Luke's moment of weakness is... arguably more... heroic? Evil, like killing an unarmed person you're related to on the off-chance they go bad, but it's more rooted in not wanting others to suffer. Kirk's actions, while consistent to his past, are worse, because if they'd actually done what he spit out in a moment of weakness, the Klingons would have either died out, or invaded as Spock said, and then got wiped out. Thing is, I do agree with what you're saying, that Luke Skywalker is not true to his character in Last Jedi, I'm just trying to point out, it's not wrong if we disagree, see?

[Mecha82]

People change, but if Luke's changed that much, then the Luke Skywalker we wanted to see simply wasn't in the TLJ.

I am curious how you would had wanted to see Luke Skywalker to be like in TLJ because I don't share your opinion about this so naturally I don't know how you see him to be like. Maybe it will help me to understand were you are coming from with your opinion.

[Yukaphile]

I think the issue boils down to how rushed the new canon was, just to cash in on Star Wars.

[Darth Wedgius]

What? Kirk wasn't justified. He said let them die. That's genocide. At least, that was how I read it from you, which I think is a big problem about how we each have different views on the world. But let's look at this farther back, maybe? Luke's moment of weakness is... arguably more... heroic? Evil, like killing an unarmed person you're related to on the off-chance they go bad, but it's more rooted in not wanting others to suffer. Kirk's actions, while consistent to his past, are worse, because if they'd actually done what he spit out in a moment of weakness, the Klingons would have either died out, or invaded as Spock said, and then got wiped out. Thing is, I do agree with what you're saying, that Luke Skywalker is not true to his character in Last Jedi, I'm just trying to point out, it's not wrong if we disagree, see?

It'd not wrong to disagree. Case in point, to me it's not genocide if you let them die, any more than it's murder if you don't go save a drug addict on the streets. If you kill off a species, it's genocide, to me, anyway. In particular, letting the Klingons die due to an action they caused while trying to conquer anybody they could? That's letting them lie in the bed they made. It's not compassionate, or necessarily right, but I'd say the federation had no obligation to help.

And I'm not arguing that Luke considering killing Ben was out of character, just running away and staying away.