That's not what I said lol. But Luke not experiencing some kind of emotional development over the course of those 30 years would make him a Yoda clone yeah.
The fact that people seem to have no issue with Luke having a range of emotion and indeed alignment in the EU making the outrage here only more puzzling.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Apr 16th, 2017 at 12:45 AM
Anyway. The issue I see here is primarily an overabundance of reverence and, especially, an inflexibility when it comes to things different to what we've come to expect. It was the same bug bear that was had for the Prequels, which were in part hated for everything about the OT they were not (and when TFA responded by serving up a retro movie, it suffered because of it) - the idea that fundamentally there exist these oh so precious concepts that are in constant danger of being ruined.
Fundamentally, there should be nothing off-limits where it comes to the character of Luke, and I can't help but find the idea that Luke cannot inhabit certain emotions - however dramatic - to be absurd. So far as it makes sense, makes for an interesting plot, and ties in with saga thematically, this shouldn't be an issue, at all. While personally I find the idea of Luke inhabiting a space so estranged from what we're are familiar with, an idealistic, quintessential truest of true heroes, to be an intensely exciting prospect, and not something to be shied away from. It offers up a new, original dynamic and take on the character, as well as an opportunity to explore Luke's character itself in greater depth.
The fact that the transition itself occurs "off-panel" as it's been said shouldn't really matter, so far as we are able to understand the character's motivations and situation so the viewer is not left confused. A movie is concerned with the meat of the issue, and just as we don't need to know the events that made Anakin Vader to understand and empathise with his arc in OT, it shouldn't be necessary here either.
As for this tired mantra of "it undermines the OT", I really question whether people believe it, that, in fact, when they go and rewatch Return of the Jedi, the experience will be somehow now be diminished. For starters it's not as if any of Luke's accomplishments in that movie have been undone, the Empire lost, the Emperor kicked the bucket, his father was redeemed and Luke became in a position to reestablish the Jedi. The fact that several decades later sh*t hit the fan shouldn't detract from any that, because there was nothing implicit in the ending of RotJ that everything was going to work out, or that everything would remain the same. Certainly it's not as if this critique has ever been raised for say, the KOTOR series, where in despite saving the galaxy in the first game, it's in a worst state than ever in the next. I'd be interested to here if anything seriously believes this to be problematic, and would advocate the driving conflict of KOTOR II be expunged because "it undermines da Revan's achievements!!111!"
On the other hand the idea that things just worked out for Luke is 1. predictable and 2. offers little room for conflict and growth. Instead things must go wrong to create new obstacles to Luke for overcome. Bigger being better in this respect, the greater the obstacle, the greater the stakes and the greater the growth in defeating it. Indeed I think it's also true that people are being incredibly short sighted here. Chances are everything is going to work out for Luke in the end, in the sense that he's going to reach some sort of resolution, and achieve some level of closure. So asserting that turns out poor old Lukey is just a depressed old failure is to entirely jump the gun, at present this is merely a bump in the road, an additional stage in and indeed spring board for his story arc.
What I most like about this plot point though is that it's addressing a theme that, in both Legends and Canon, has gone largely unaddressed. That the Jedi kinda suck. In the OT they are represented by a pair of old geezers who though clearly possessing good intentions and ignored by Luke on two critical accounts, and much to his benefit. Whereas in the PT they are slated as almost a universally terrible and failed order who in part brought about their own demise. And in both cases they are very very bad at handling those who are in danger of falling or have fallen to the dark side. Or rather the idea of Luke simply setting up a new Order and getting back to business would pretend as if thematically, these realities didn't exist, in which case its no surprise that when he did attempt this things went pear shaped. Whereas confronting the idea head on that maybe the Jedi do need to end, or at the very least, need to be reformed, to stop this endless cycle of boom and inevitable bust, fits in well with a character whom I have at least always seen, as someone different from the Jedi of the past, and who would do things differently, and themes of Star Wars as a whole. Nor a subject that should be shied away from at the risk of pissing off some fans.
Anyway, I wrote this out because I'm not interesting in bickering about until December. These are my thoughts, take them or leave them.
Apr 16th, 2017 12:42 AM
