I'm surprised some people are so adamant about defending the movie that they don't get why many people believe Luke Skywalker, one of the most determined and heroic characters in Sci Fi, was simply not in The Last Jedi.
I think
TFA is a terrible film, but I disagree with this almost entirely. Frankly, Luke is the only reason this film is even worth considering on a thematic level. Everything else is some combination of trite, poorly developed, and incoherent. Granted, they didn't do quite enough justice to Luke's off screen development, but the character still works better than the rest of the cast.
Is it really so unbelievable that it's weird to people that Luke would go to extreme lengths to save his father from the dark side, but apparently runs in fear of and even tries to kill his own nephew?
This is my main critique of the character development as it stands in
TFA. We're left with this question: how can a guy who was willing to sacrifice himself out of compassion for his father even consider (for even a fraction of a second) that killing his nephew is the right idea? Personally, I think it's entirely possible that Luke could become this person. I could go on about it, but the essential element is that being an adult with responsibility is emotionally taxing. It's one thing to be a gung ho kid, putting yourself at death's doorway for the cause, but another when you have multiple dependents looking to you for support and protection. Compound that with the fact that Luke never completed formal training. When shit starts going down, he has nothing but old religious texts to tell him what to do, and they may possibly suggested more strict practices than necessary.
However, I don't think
TFA adequately explains this. I think it hints at it, but I still have to make more assumptions than I'd like to. I think it would have been better established if the Jedi books had actually been destroyed, signalling the end of rigid teachings which supposedly lead Luke astray. Frankly, I also would have preferred screen time go to
that story than any of the pointless meandering side plots that
TFA is currently composed of.
Why did Luke Skywalker even need to be deconstructed? Why did the farmboy that defeated the Sith with compassion end up spending the last years of his life hiding away on some rock because he didn't care? And don't give me some convoluted excuse about how he hid because he cared too much - Luke Skywalker, the guy that was integral to defeating the Empire, would not have just turned his back on the galaxy and allowed the First Order to rise up and nuke five planets.
This is where I think you're totally wrong. Why did we need to deconstruct old icons? Because that's practically what they're there for. What happens when the nimble hero gets old? What happens when their straight-forward ideology meets a more complex reality? These are important questions, and personally, the ones I find more interesting.
Have you ever seen
Logan? Good deconstructions of known characters are fantastic.
Rian Johnson legitimately destroyed one of the most iconic Sci Fi heroes of all time and all we got for it was one badass scene that could have been in any version of the script.
I really hate sentiments like this. The version of Luke you know and love still exists. He exists in the old films which still exist, and he also exists in shitty porn parodies which disrespect his character far more than and official adaptation probably would. Just because Rian's Luke is technically canon, doesn't mean the Luke you know is gone. He's just as there as he would have been had Luke not been in the new trilogy at all.
I still don't get why Luke can't have been searching for some ancient Jedi knowledge or wisdom to help him rebuild the Order, only to realise through the course of the movie that he doesn't have to do everything himself. He saved the Force from being permanently corrupted by Palpatine, he played the part the Force had chosen him to play. Now it's up to Rey and Ben to decide what happens next.
Probably because a film needs to have
some interesting main characters, and Rey wasn't holding up her end of the bargain, so Rian had to inject all the flaws into her would-be master. That may sound like a joke, but it's pretty much true. There's really no plot if miss perfect moral compass met with wizened Luke and they just hit it off. Rey would need to have actual difficulties in using her powers for that dynamic to work, and hell, even then, you'd just be rehashing the plot of
Empire.
There's nothing wrong with Luke being integral to taking out the First Order, either. The First Order, Starkiller Base, even Snoke himself was just background noise added to make the conflict seem bigger and flashier than it is, since obviously they couldn't figure out how to take a clash of ideologies about the future of the Force and make a trilogy out of it without basically bringing back the Empire and the Rebels.
That's sort of the problem too. Since they couldn't bear to divorce themselves from good-guy underdogs vs. big bad evil guys, the only way to inject any unique thematic content into the new trilogy was to muddy the waters around the Light side.
I'm surprised it's a point of contention but the guy Mark Hamill plays in The Last Jedi is no more Luke Skywalker than the guy Henry Cavill plays in Man of Steel is Superman. I don't care if Luke had to be that way for the story to work, either - when you're working with legacy characters, you change the story around them and not them around the story.
Why? Do people only ever have one story's worth of development to go through? Why do creators have to treat people's idols with baby gloves? If the character premise is sound, then I say go for it. Art should be free to do what it wants.
Snyder's Superman is terrible not because it changes the character and attempts to complicate his morality, but because it changes Superman's morality to something that's just idiotic and then touts that as the message of the film. Luke, on the other hand, may have been morally wrong, but the film goes to the effort show
why he's wrong and then even changes him back to being right.