well... (Off-Topic)

by EffortlessFury , Saturday, December 03, 2022, 03:26 (508 days ago) @ Kermit

I said I wasn't going to touch the tar baby again, but I keep thinking about it. Destruction or deconstruction, it doesn't matter. We still end up with pieces that mean less than the whole. To your point, I might have believed the Luke story line had it been given the time it deserved and had it been written well. But part of writing it well would've accounted for who Luke was, as a person. Who was Luke? An idealist and an optimist. Not someone burdened with a unique weakness for the dark side, but a normal person who is tempted (as we'd all be) by the dark side but who was able to summon uncommon strength of character to overcome that temptation and do the right thing. That was what made it satisfying, and that's what made it work. People don't change that much. I simply believe that Luke, facing failure, would not have become the aggressive pisser in the cereal bowl that TLJ made him out to be. I believe pissing in the cereal bowl was the point, though, and was prioritized over caring about who the characters were or what they had been. The director is talking to us, the fans, who so gullibly bought into all this good and evil mythology.

I guess the main difference between your view and mine is that I never saw Luke as someone averagely tempted by the Dark Side. He was very impulsive, and emotional, like his father. I think he had a greater strength of will than Anakin did, but I think he was more strongly tempted than you thought he was. And the truth is that he faced down that same temptation twice, it's not as if he actually went for the killing blow with Kylo. He'd had that same moment of realization that he'd had with Vader in the throne room. It was Luke doing something he'd already done, which, like you said, "people don't change that much." The temptation never went away, and he never fully mastered his control over that temptation, but he still stayed his hand at the end of the day.

All that's fine. When I said, people don't change that much, I meant Luke can't realistically have a personality transplant and become a misanthropic old bastard. Han, maybe, but not Luke. I sincerely believe that whoever wrote The Last Jedi did not understand Luke's character.

Here's the thing. Interestingly enough, Luke's character arc in TLJ was the only thing I liked about the entire sequel trilogy, and I saw his arc as entirely plausible and believable. That was also before I lived through that very kind of personality shift you claim is impossible. I have changed dramatically as a person in very similar ways to Luke due to intense, compounding failure. The people you thought you knew, and even the person you think you are, can end up becoming very different than anyone would have ever expected.

We each bring our experiences to the table. I can relate more than you might think. I've made some huge mistakes, and I'm a lot more humble about my virtue than I used to be. Hope you haven't become an embittered, misanthropic old man!

I at least haven't given up on working my way out of it, I just can't see the light at the end of the tunnel yet.

I think it's fair to say that whoever wrote The Last Jedi understood Luke differently than you; after all, no one truly knows anyone, fictional or non-fictional. We all form our belief on who a person is from what we observe, and we all observe through biased eyes. However, the person they believed Luke could become and the reasons he could become that way are 100% possible and plausible given how he was presented in the Original Trilogy, and I can now say that from personal experience.

To add clarity, I meant Luke, as he was presented in this fictional universe, can't realistically make that transformation into what he is in the Last Jedi. This issue comes up eventually if you take enough creative writing workshops. Someone will have a scene in a story, and we can't believe it. The author will protest: "But it really happened that way!" At this point the workshop leader will kindly, gently say something to the effect of: "So what?" The real world is full of events that don't make sense, that surprise us, that are inexplicable, that serve no purpose. One thing that makes fiction work is that it makes sense in a way that the real world often doesn't. If not, we wake up from the fictive dream and can no longer suspend disbelief. The writers didn't do the work necessary to make me believe in old Luke. You had a different experience.

And I can agree with that. I think that it works if you've got the proper background to fill in the appropriate blanks; the movie tried, but I ultimately don't think you can properly explain, to the comprehension of all, the arc that justifies TLJ's Luke in the timespan of the movie that first indicated that this is what Luke had become. They can theoretically attempt to fill in those gaps through later media, and personally I think they should even if some people will act as if TLJ's writers had no idea how Luke would become this way and simply decided he would be this way on a whim.

That all said, I do think that TFA's premise could only lead to some form of broken Luke who did not resemble the Luke we once knew. I also think that this created an uphill battle, no matter what kind of Luke they presented. This all comes back to not having a cohesive idea in mind for the trilogy from the jump, which is the dumbest thing for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which given Disney's experience creating the MCU. It should've been a no-brainer, and yet...