Star Wars: The Last Jedi (SPOILERS)

[tjg_marantz]

Stop making sense will you.

[Jaymann]

This is my BROOMSTICK!

[AWS260]

Caught this yesterday. It was weird and fun and flawed and good. I continue to be incredibly impressed with the new crop of actors.

[Grifman]

Haters gonna hate.

And you didn't even read my post, which you really should be before making an erroneous comment. I've now bolded a line in the next to last paragraph for you

No I read it before I posted.

My fault then for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[Grifman]

But the Republic and First Order have a peace treaty between from the end of the Galactic Civil War.

The Soviet Union and the United States had a peace treaty as well but still engaged in a cold war. They often fought through proxies. Just because there is no declared war going on between the New Republic and The First Order does not mean they were at peace. The Resistance was not an official part of the New Republic but they were borne out of that government as a response to the NR's inability to address the threat that the 1st Order posed and were "secretly" funded by factions of the NR. So yeah, if you want to split hairs, then the New Republic and the 1st Order were not "at war" but then they sure as hell were not at peace either.

I was responding to someone's prior statement that the Republic and First Order were at war in TFA and the Republic was already losing that war (without any such statement or evidence presented in the movies). That doesn't preclude a cold war, but neither is a full shooting war. The US/USSR both used proxies just like the Resistance is apparently a proxy for the Republic. That said, I'm certain that you realize the enormous difference between the Cold War and full on shooting war between the US and USSR, and that nothing like that exists at the beginning of TFA.

[Inverarity]

-- I can see why so many Star Wars purists are disappointed with TLJ. It felt as if TLJ threw away 30 years of Luke's character development, because there's zero chance a man who sacrificed himself in RotJ to turn his father from the Dark Side would consider executing his sister's son in his sleep (prior to his nephew even having turned to the Dark Side). That seemed completely incongruent.

Well put. THIS is my biggest issue with the film. The character we saw Mark Hammill playing has no resemblance to one from the original trilogy. TFA got Han right; missing by so much with Luke is a shame.

And like Grifman and others have pointed out, the lack of any sort of understanding of how the galaxy got to this point, politically, is another miss. The connection with TLJ to the original trilogy is as incoherent as the prequels' connections. Same universe in so much as names repeat themselves and characters reference the events in the original movies, many times in a meta sort of way. But that's about it.

I have many more complaints, but I think they're largely repeats of what others have said. I'll wear the hater title, as I think this movie sits firmly in the ranks of TPM and RotS, maybe slightly outpacing them only due to a sheer lack of jar jar (unless that was him producing milk for Luke?)

[Anonymous Bosch]

Alas, in the rush to clean the slate, all the old carry-overs seemed marginalised into practical irrelevance during The Last Jedi.

The thought occurred to me that Chewbacca was also greatly diminished from the "It's not wise to upset a Wookiee" character of old. I mean, Kylo Ren killed the best friend Chewie ever had; a mission for vengeance would've been more consistent with his character than seeing him guilt-tripped out of eating tasty-looking merch-bait on Skywalker Island.

[El Guapo]

FWIW I don't have an issue with Luke (briefly) contemplating killing Kylo / Ben Solo in his sleep. He looks into Ben Solo's soul (basically) and sees that he's lost to the dark side - he had had suspicions before, but realizes it's way worse than he had thought (Ben had already embraced the dark side). He's seen the horrors that the Sith can unleash - and there is a logical case to be made that the galaxy would have been better off if he'd just done Kylo in right then and there. Of course Luke would never actually do it, but for Luke to think about it for a passing second makes sense.

That also better explain's Luke's decision to go into exile. If it had just been Ben Solo turning to the dark side (and destroying his temple), that would be one thing. But having briefly considered murdering a sleeping (albeit evil) student, adds a bit of penance to Luke's self-imposed exile.

[Isgrimnur]

Not to mention having to explain to his sister why he murdered his nephew.

[NickAragua]

Finally saw the movie. I dunno. I enjoyed the previous one without any reservations. This one was like drinking a beer, and then you get a shitty aftertaste.

Kind of reminds me of this scene from the old Beavis and Butthead movie.

[Anonymous Bosch]

FWIW I don't have an issue with Luke (briefly) contemplating killing Kylo / Ben Solo in his sleep. He looks into Ben Solo's soul (basically) and sees that he's lost to the dark side - he had had suspicions before, but realizes it's way worse than he had thought (Ben had already embraced the dark side). He's seen the horrors that the Sith can unleash - and there is a logical case to be made that the galaxy would have been better off if he'd just done Kylo in right then and there. Of course Luke would never actually do it, but for Luke to think about it for a passing second makes sense.

I still don't buy it. Say what you like about Ben Solo/Kylo Ren, he's no Darth Vader. If Darth-chuffing-Vader wasn't "lost to the Dark Side", why are we to assume Ben Solo was so much more of a lost cause? Luke was willing to sacrifice himself to turn Darth Vader from the Dark Side, who, at that time, was likely responsible for countless deaths -- including Luke's own adoptive family along with his mentor -- in service of the Dark Side. The entire point of Luke is that he's a naive farmboy who always sees the good in others... even Darth Vader. So it's completely incongruent that he'd contemplate slaughtering his sister's son in his sleep when he hadn't yet even turned to the Dark Side, much less killed his family and mentor or in the countless numbers of Darth Vader. It was just a flimsy excuse to rationalise emo Kylo Ren's anger.

That also better explain's Luke's decision to go into exile. If it had just been Ben Solo turning to the dark side (and destroying his temple), that would be one thing. But having briefly considered murdering a sleeping (albeit evil) student, adds a bit of penance to Luke's self-imposed exile.

More puzzling to me, was if Luke became a cantankerous weirdo who just wants to be left alone in his self-imposed exile, who left the map detailing his dim and distant location that Rey used to find him in the first movie? Which gets back to what I said before about Rian Johnson failing to take the mysteries and questions from The Force Awakens and use them to drive his story forward. Instead, we're left with the distinct umpression those questions never mattered.

[El Guapo]

FWIW I don't have an issue with Luke (briefly) contemplating killing Kylo / Ben Solo in his sleep. He looks into Ben Solo's soul (basically) and sees that he's lost to the dark side - he had had suspicions before, but realizes it's way worse than he had thought (Ben had already embraced the dark side). He's seen the horrors that the Sith can unleash - and there is a logical case to be made that the galaxy would have been better off if he'd just done Kylo in right then and there. Of course Luke would never actually do it, but for Luke to think about it for a passing second makes sense.

I still don't buy it. Say what you like about Ben Solo/Kylo Ren, he's no Darth Vader. If Darth-chuffing-Vader wasn't "lost to the Dark Side", why are we to assume Ben Solo was so much more of a lost cause? Luke was willing to sacrifice himself to turn Darth Vader from the Dark Side, who, at that time, was likely responsible for countless deaths -- including Luke's own adoptive family along with his mentor -- in service of the Dark Side. The entire point of Luke is that he's a naive farmboy who always sees the good in others... even Darth Vader. So it's completely incongruent that he'd contemplate slaughtering his sister's son in his sleep when he hadn't yet even turned to the Dark Side, much less killed his family and mentor or in the countless numbers of Darth Vader. It was just a flimsy excuse to rationalise emo Kylo Ren's anger.

That also better explain's Luke's decision to go into exile. If it had just been Ben Solo turning to the dark side (and destroying his temple), that would be one thing. But having briefly considered murdering a sleeping (albeit evil) student, adds a bit of penance to Luke's self-imposed exile.

More puzzling to me, was if Luke became a cantankerous weirdo who just wants to be left alone in his self-imposed exile, who left the map detailing his dim and distant location that Rey used to find him in the first movie? Which gets back to what I said before about Rian Johnson failing to take the mysteries and questions from The Force Awakens and use them to drive his story forward. Instead, we're left with the distinct umpression those questions never mattered.

What makes it make sense to me is a couple things. FIrst, while the movie isn't unambiguous about this, Kylo Ren / Ben Solo *had* already turned to the dark side. Luke say in the movie that he suspected that Ben was flirting with the dark side, but that when he got there "it had gone much farther than I had imagined". Second, it's not like Luke planed some elaborate ambush of Kylo / Ben - upon discovering Ben had turned to the dark side, he contemplated killing him for a fleeting moment, basically a second or two before deciding no, obviously he couldn't do that. Given that there is a utilitarian sort of case that killing Ben / Kylo was the right thing to do, it make sense that he would think about it for a brief second. YMMV, I suppose.

On the map, I was talking about that with my brother this morning. I'd have to rewatch TFA, because I don't really remember how it was described. It wouldn't make sense (given TLJ) for Luke to have left the map. What would make sense is that given that Ach-To (or whatever it's called) was apparently the site of the first Jedi temple, that the map wasn't a "map to Luke Skywalker", it was an ancient map to a long-forgotten Jedi temple, and Leia (and others) basically figured out (or found out from someone who knew where Luke was going) that Luke must have gone there, and were looking for a map to Ach-To (which they started referring to as a map to Luke, since everyone cared about Luke and no one cared about the site of the temple).

[Anonymous Bosch]

What makes it make sense to me is a couple things. FIrst, while the movie isn't unambiguous about this, Kylo Ren / Ben Solo *had* already turned to the dark side. Luke say in the movie that he suspected that Ben was flirting with the dark side, but that when he got there "it had gone much farther than I had imagined".

As you sugest, it's difficult to say with much specificity exactly what truly occurred due to the Rashomonesque recollections. But the point is, even if Ben Solo was flirting with or had turned to the Dark Side, it's still a ludicrously far cry from what Darth Vader had done when Luke willingly sacrificed himself to turn him.

Second, it's not like Luke planed some elaborate ambush of Kylo / Ben - upon discovering Ben had turned to the dark side, he contemplated killing him for a fleeting moment, basically a second or two before deciding no, obviously he couldn't do that. Given that there is a utilitarian sort of case that killing Ben / Kylo was the right thing to do, it make sense that he would think about it for a brief second. YMMV, I suppose.

Sure, if you completely overlook the previous 30 years of Luke's character development. Because as I said, Luke's most defining characteristic was that of the guileless farmboy who always sees the good in others, even Darth Vader. A much more utilitarian case could've been made that killing Vader was the right thing to do, yet Luke risked sacrificing everything to turn a far more dangerous and committed Dark Sider foe than Ben / Kylo could ever hope to be. So while it served the purposes of The Last Jedi to rationalise the emo-angst of Ben / Kylo, it's a blatant non sequitur in terms of coherent character development that Luke would even fleetingly contemplate murdering the son of his best friend and sister in his sleep, rather than do everything he could as a full-blown Jedi Master to turn him. From Luke's perspective, it's not as if he even had the Emperor and his Force-lightning to worry about stymieing his efforts at the time, and certainly would've been more powerful with much less to fear than when he faced down the Emperor to turn Vader. It doesn't ring true at all to the character development of the Original Trilogy, which is why so many Star Wars purists -- including Mark Hamill himself -- disagreed with Rian Johnson's treatment of the character so strongly.

[Kasey Chang]

... Which Hamill took back days later.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... -last-jedi

[Anonymous Bosch]

... Which Hamill took back days later.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... -last-jedi

Indeed, the corporate overlords of Disney were likely not best pleased by his initial comments (particularly in light of all the negative reactions to The Last Jedi from much of the Star Wars fanbase), so it's hardly any surprise they talked him into doing some damage control.

[Inverarity]

We didn’t need a happy ending to all the original characters, but try to imagine a closing credits montage at the end of Return of the Jedi, ala Animal House:

Han Solo - Broke up with Leia. Killed in combat by his own son.

Chewbacca - Vegetarian.

Leia - Loses touch with Han and Luke. Gains gift of flight. Leads another rebel alliance (errr, I mean Resistance).

Lando - MIA.

C3P0 & R2-D2 - returned to the one-liner schitck from before their most recent memory wipes.

Luke Skywalker - failed to execute his nephew in his sleep. Disappeared for an undisclosed number of years before killing himself

... and then tell me they handled the original chacters at all well.

[Chrisoc13]

... really? People wanted happily ever after? Doesn't make for much of a start to a new trilogy. If that is what some fans wanted they should have just left them out all together because a sickening happily ever after situation would have been so boring.

[Zarathud]

Luke would have been dealing with his own feelings of inadequacy as a Jedi teacher and the New Republic's setbacks. He was not fully trained. A fear of failure would have been in his character -- see the scene on Dagobah where Luke confronts himself as Vader in the Cave.

What TLJ doesn't do well is set up the revelations it makes about the Resistance and Luke. It will be interesting to see if they were edited out or never filmed.

[Inverarity]

... really? People wanted happily ever after? Doesn't make for much of a start to a new trilogy. If that is what some fans wanted they should have just left them out all together because a sickening happily ever after situation would have been so boring.

Literally my first sentence said otherwise. Are you just trolling this thread? There is something between horrible ending with no progress in 30 years and happily ever after. It’s not an either/or option. If you’re going to stick with haters gotta hate stuff there isn’t much of a dialogue to be had here.

Edit: I would agree though (if that’s plausible) that leaving out the original characters altogether would have been a better option.

[Chrisoc13]

... really? People wanted happily ever after? Doesn't make for much of a start to a new trilogy. If that is what some fans wanted they should have just left them out all together because a sickening happily ever after situation would have been so boring.

Literally my first sentence said otherwise. Are you just trolling this thread? There is something between horrible ending with no progress in 30 years and happily ever after. It’s not an either/or option. If you’re going to stick with haters gotta hate stuff there isn’t much of a dialogue to be had here.

Edit: I would agree though (if that’s plausible) that leaving out the original characters altogether would have been a better option.

Your first line may have said otherwise but the rest of your post did not. I'm just a bit surprised people wanted their happily ever after, or even expected it. I'm glad they didn't leave out the original characters as this is far more interesting, even if it isn't what some fans had dreamt up in their minds for the last 30 years.

It's the same reason I could never read the books. Every time I tried and one of the original trilogy main characters were introduced they were untouchable. Everything they seemed to do was uninteresting, predictable, and perfect. Boring. The last one I tried I put down in disgust and called fan fiction, nothing more. To me it seems that is what some people had come to expect and want. They want things to keep moving in the universe without their major characters having any further flaws, set backs, or struggles. Blech. We've had plenty of that. This was far more interesting.

[Lassr]

Saw it again last night. Still love it. As I said before I would have liked Luke's story to have been different but I have no problem with it the way it is. I thought Mark did an excellent acting job with this Luke. I just wonder about episode 9 and how the story wraps up.

Caught a few more things in the movie that I missed the first time. Disappearing dice, how Del Toro's character knew there were cloaked transports...

My wife went this time and she actually clapped during the Snoke scene. I have never seen my wife that excited at a movie, especially a Star Wars movie, and it made me happy. She still doesn't like the originals though which is blasphemous.

[msteelers]

... Which Hamill took back days later.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... -last-jedi

He didn't really take it back though. He doesn't deny his early hesitation with how they treated Luke. He's just clarifying that the end product is a great movie, which is all he wanted. At the end of the day Hamill's initial reaction to reading the script is that they completely botched Luke's character. Which is the same initial reaction many fans are having.

[Madmarcus]

How old was Luke during the first trilogy? Maybe 20? He's young, optimistic, and a little naive. He's full of the heroic stories of Jedi and suddenly he's living them. By the time he looks into Ben's soul he's different. He's seen that the Rebellion didn't magically make everything great when they defeated the Emperor. He's lost some of his optimism and naivety as he gets into middle age. He's a Hero but he's trying to live as a warrior monk without any support structure. He's been teaching new Jedi but he doesn't have much to build on as he didn't go through the sort of formal training he's trying to do.

Then he senses Ben is completely turned to the Dark Side. He's the one person in the world who has seen the good in a Sith and brought them back from the Dark Side. I'm willing to believe that if Luke says Ben was completely Dark Side then he was beyond saving by Luke. Is that because Ben is Darker than Vader? Or is it because he doesn't have the tie that he had as Anakin's son? Or even perhaps that he's just older, not as optimistic and naive and he's not willing to take the slim chance that he took with Vader?

Somehow I don't need anything more than my own experiences living to 50 to see that Luke could be both the young optimistic man in the original trilogy and the older cynical hermit in TLJ.

[gilraen]

How old was Luke during the first trilogy? Maybe 20? He's young, optimistic, and a little naive. He's full of the heroic stories of Jedi and suddenly he's living them. By the time he looks into Ben's soul he's different. He's seen that the Rebellion didn't magically make everything great when they defeated the Emperor. He's lost some of his optimism and naivety as he gets into middle age. He's a Hero but he's trying to live as a warrior monk without any support structure. He's been teaching new Jedi but he doesn't have much to build on as he didn't go through the sort of formal training he's trying to do.

Then he senses Ben is completely turned to the Dark Side. He's the one person in the world who has seen the good in a Sith and brought them back from the Dark Side. I'm willing to believe that if Luke says Ben was completely Dark Side then he was beyond saving by Luke. Is that because Ben is Darker than Vader? Or is it because he doesn't have the tie that he had as Anakin's son? Or even perhaps that he's just older, not as optimistic and naive and he's not willing to take the slim chance that he took with Vader?

Somehow I don't need anything more than my own experiences living to 50 to see that Luke could be both the young optimistic man in the original trilogy and the older cynical hermit in TLJ.

This is pretty much exactly what I'd been thinking, you summed it up better.

[Zaxxon]

Ayup. Those saying 'Luke would never do that' be crazy.

[Chaz]

I was totally fine with Luke as a cantankerous hermit. He managed to redeem his father, and his father was immediately killed. All the work he did in the original trilogy has apparently meant dick-all, and what's apparently a bigger, badder version of the Empire has come back and the Rebellion has dwindled to almost nothing. He tried to bring back the Jedi order, and sets out to train his nephew. Instead, he discovers that his nephew is almost lost to the dark side. He thinks about killing him to prevent another powerful Sith from rising, thinks better of it, and in that moment of weakness, actually does lose Ben to the dark side, prompting him to kill the rest of the students, burn the school, and turn into Kylo Ren. Luke's also 30 years older than he was before, and lemme tell you, I'm a drastically different person than I was ten years ago, let alone thirty. So yeah, I can see Luke turning into a cantankerous, hopeless man.

Also, Jedi screwing up and turning into cantankerous hermits isn't exactly a new thing. Hell, it's practically standard practice. Yoda managed to lose the entire Jedi order and let the Empire form, so he ran off to Dagobah and gave Luke a hella hard time when he showed up to be trained. Ben Kenobi tried to train Anakin, screwed it up and let him turn into Vader, then ran off to hide in a cave on Tatooine and was cranky as hell.

So do I totally believe Luke would turn into a cranky hermit when he lost his nephew to the dark side due to his own moment of weakness? Yeah, I 100% do. Also, let's not forget that one of Luke's defining characteristics when he was younger was being kinda whiny anyway.

[Anonymous Bosch]

YMMV, but for me this commentary from an Associate Professor at Fordham University articulately describes the flaws of the Rian Johnson version of Luke:

Johnson’s “The Last Jedi,” however, explicitly tries to kill Star Wars’ past - and even gleefully plays with what it considers to be the audience’s wrongheaded expectations in doing so.

There are multiple examples of this, but perhaps the best is how the character of Luke Skywalker is handled. Star Wars fans know Luke well - his quintessential hero’s journey (coming directly from the work of Joseph Campbell, which inspired much Star Wars lore) served as the basis of the story arc of the original trilogy. Though having the rashness of youth, he overcame temptation to the dark side, even resisting the power of Darth Sidious himself at the end of “Return of the Jedi.”

Abrams had set up Luke as feeling responsible for his nephew, Ben Solo, turning to the dark side and slaughtering Luke’s students and destroying his new Jedi academy. Luke then leaves everyone behind to search for the first Jedi temple - presumably to find some knowledge or wisdom that would help him realize his mistakes as a teacher. And in the final scene, when Rey finds Luke standing on an island’s cliff and holds out his father’s lightsaber, Luke’s pained gaze portrays how seriously he takes the offer.

Johnson’s film picks up where Abrams left off. After an ill-timed series of jokes (which, for some reason, reference waiting on hold during a telephone call), the movie gets right to the business of killing the past. Instead of honoring the gravity of the moment from the previous film, Johnson’s Luke nonchalantly tosses his father’s lightsaber over his head as so much trash.

There could not be a better metaphor for what Johnson did with Star Wars more generally, and the character of Luke Skywalker in particular.

Johnson’s Luke didn’t go in search of the first Jedi temple. This Luke makes it clear he didn’t even bother to read the sacred texts he found there. No, we are told he came to the island “to die.”

This Luke didn’t try to save his friends when he realized they were in danger. He selfishly and cowardly sulked in a stone hut. We learn that this Luke, rather than honoring the good in his family members by trying to turn them from the dark side, made the cold calculation to murder his sleeping nephew - the son of his sister and best friend - in light of the darkness he sensed within him.

Could we imagine a broken and defeated Luke Skywalker giving into his fear and anger and contemplating such a horrific act? Maybe. But we learned that Luke considered this kind of murder before his nephew went dark. Indeed, it ends up being precisely because Luke raises his lightsaber against his own flesh and blood that Ben Solo becomes Kylo Ren.

This sorry episode supposedly occurs only a few years after Luke says, “I can’t kill my own father” in response to Kenobi asking him to stop the Empire by killing Darth Vader. Even in the face of an actual (not just possible) existential threat, Luke can’t imagine killing a family member. Indeed, the lesson Luke learns - and that he taught all of us growing up with him - was that the future is not set, but “always in motion.” It is by pursuing and lifting up the goodness in others that evil is authentically and ultimately defeated.

Johnson’s Luke, a totally foreign character, is light-years away from that lesson. This Luke instead makes a crude utilitarian calculation about what the results might be from his killing an innocent person.

Audiences are also denied a scene with authentic Luke, lightsaber lit and at the height of his Force powers, taking on the bad guys. To make matters worse, Johnson actually plays with his audience by creating a scene in which he tricks us into thinking we are getting precisely this. But it turns out to be fake as Luke is merely using a new power (Force projection?) to create an apparition of himself on the battlefield though in reality he is far away on another planet.

I also felt Luke's departure diminished his final sacrifice of much, if any, heroism. Sure, he sacrifices his life to protect the remaining members of the Resistance, but in so doing there were no stakes involved for him. He sacrifices his life from a safe distance by only sending his illusory Force-projection to stall Kylo Ren, exposing him to absolutely no danger. Even though he did end up sacrificing his life for a good cause, it was not the danger that actually killed him, but just exhaustion. In other words, there's a huge difference between Vice Admiral Evening Gown having to stare death in the face during her final act and Luke Skywalker’s simple overexertion on a ledge overlooking the sea. There's no risk, and without risk, there's no glory. By never facing the enemy, it comes across as a much less heroic act.

He also raises a decent point about the characterization of Rey in The Last Jedi making her seem like more of a "Mary Sue":

Rey’s family is unimportant. Luke refers to her as, “Rey from nowhere.” We are told her parents were random junkers who sold her into slavery to get drunk.

But this leaves a huge hole in her character. How did Rey use a Jedi mind-trick without training? How did she defeat even a wounded Kylo Ren without training? How can she expertly fly a ship she’s never flown before without training?

Critics of her character in “The Force Awakens” called her a “Mary Sue”; that is, someone who is ridiculously good at everything without explanation. Johnson’s choice to kill her past totally undermined those of us who were trying to defend her character from this charge. Her incredible and wide-ranging skills are now completely without explanation.

[Lassr]

How old was Luke during the first trilogy? Maybe 20? He's young, optimistic, and a little naive. He's full of the heroic stories of Jedi and suddenly he's living them. By the time he looks into Ben's soul he's different. He's seen that the Rebellion didn't magically make everything great when they defeated the Emperor. He's lost some of his optimism and naivety as he gets into middle age. He's a Hero but he's trying to live as a warrior monk without any support structure. He's been teaching new Jedi but he doesn't have much to build on as he didn't go through the sort of formal training he's trying to do.

Then he senses Ben is completely turned to the Dark Side. He's the one person in the world who has seen the good in a Sith and brought them back from the Dark Side. I'm willing to believe that if Luke says Ben was completely Dark Side then he was beyond saving by Luke. Is that because Ben is Darker than Vader? Or is it because he doesn't have the tie that he had as Anakin's son? Or even perhaps that he's just older, not as optimistic and naive and he's not willing to take the slim chance that he took with Vader?

Somehow I don't need anything more than my own experiences living to 50 to see that Luke could be both the young optimistic man in the original trilogy and the older cynical hermit in TLJ.

Ditto. I agree.

[Redfive]

Johnson’s “The Last Jedi,” however, explicitly tries to kill Star Wars’ past - and even gleefully plays with what it considers to be the audience’s wrongheaded expectations in doing so.

There are multiple examples of this, but perhaps the best is how the character of Luke Skywalker is handled. Star Wars fans know Luke well - his quintessential hero’s journey (coming directly from the work of Joseph Campbell, which inspired much Star Wars lore) served as the basis of the story arc of the original trilogy. Though having the rashness of youth, he overcame temptation to the dark side, even resisting the power of Darth Sidious himself at the end of “Return of the Jedi.”

Abrams had set up Luke as feeling responsible for his nephew, Ben Solo, turning to the dark side and slaughtering Luke’s students and destroying his new Jedi academy. Luke then leaves everyone behind to search for the first Jedi temple - presumably to find some knowledge or wisdom that would help him realize his mistakes as a teacher. And in the final scene, when Rey finds Luke standing on an island’s cliff and holds out his father’s lightsaber, Luke’s pained gaze portrays how seriously he takes the offer.

Johnson’s film picks up where Abrams left off. After an ill-timed series of jokes (which, for some reason, reference waiting on hold during a telephone call), the movie gets right to the business of killing the past. Instead of honoring the gravity of the moment from the previous film, Johnson’s Luke nonchalantly tosses his father’s lightsaber over his head as so much trash.

There could not be a better metaphor for what Johnson did with Star Wars more generally, and the character of Luke Skywalker in particular.

Johnson’s Luke didn’t go in search of the first Jedi temple. This Luke makes it clear he didn’t even bother to read the sacred texts he found there. No, we are told he came to the island “to die.”

This Luke didn’t try to save his friends when he realized they were in danger. He selfishly and cowardly sulked in a stone hut. We learn that this Luke, rather than honoring the good in his family members by trying to turn them from the dark side, made the cold calculation to murder his sleeping nephew - the son of his sister and best friend - in light of the darkness he sensed within him.

Could we imagine a broken and defeated Luke Skywalker giving into his fear and anger and contemplating such a horrific act? Maybe. But we learned that Luke considered this kind of murder before his nephew went dark. Indeed, it ends up being precisely because Luke raises his lightsaber against his own flesh and blood that Ben Solo becomes Kylo Ren.

This sorry episode supposedly occurs only a few years after Luke says, “I can’t kill my own father” in response to Kenobi asking him to stop the Empire by killing Darth Vader. Even in the face of an actual (not just possible) existential threat, Luke can’t imagine killing a family member. Indeed, the lesson Luke learns - and that he taught all of us growing up with him - was that the future is not set, but “always in motion.” It is by pursuing and lifting up the goodness in others that evil is authentically and ultimately defeated.

Johnson’s Luke, a totally foreign character, is light-years away from that lesson. This Luke instead makes a crude utilitarian calculation about what the results might be from his killing an innocent person.

Audiences are also denied a scene with authentic Luke, lightsaber lit and at the height of his Force powers, taking on the bad guys. To make matters worse, Johnson actually plays with his audience by creating a scene in which he tricks us into thinking we are getting precisely this. But it turns out to be fake as Luke is merely using a new power (Force projection?) to create an apparition of himself on the battlefield though in reality he is far away on another planet.

My feelings with regard to Luke were exactly the same as this, especially the part about fighting at the height of his powers.

I still enjoyed the movie overall, but I couldn't have put it better.

[NickAragua]

Still not sure why this movie left the bitter aftertaste. Maybe it's because all my favorite characters are slowly but surely getting killed off, while a bunch of people to whom I have no particular attachment take center stage. The only new character I really like in the new series is Poe. Although, I have to admit, Kylo Ren makes some progress towards being a badass, worthy villain, rather than a whiny teenager. Not much, but he's getting there. Yeah, whatever, get off my lawn.

A few thoughts:

- Are we supposed to know who the purple hair admiral was? She's introduced like we're supposed to be familiar with her extensive exploits. Same with the "advanced B-Wing" pilot. Are we supposed to know her from some other Star Wars media?

- Speaking of "advanced" B-Wings, there's actually precedent for the "zero G bomb drop". In Empire Strikes back, TIE Bombers drop bombs in zero G on the worm asteroid where Han Solo is hiding out. Star Wars has never really been big on acknowledging zero G, so it doesn't bother me too much.

- Poor Chewie, reduced to a mere side show. Then again, he's always been a side show to Han.

- Where's Lando? Come on, old buddy, don't let me down.

- I guess the unsettling aftertaste is a function of twenty five years' worth of expectations. TFA was basically like seeing an old flame for the first time in twenty five years. She's still super hot and it's exciting and thrilling. Then, in TLD, you actually talk to her and kind of start looking around for the nearest exits because she's started to get into anti-vaccination stuff and moon landing conspiracies and thinks the government is tracking her via bread.

- Oh yeah. Good riddance to freaking Snoke and his stupid-ass name. Slicing him in half was the best thing they could have done with him in the movie.

[msduncan]

My take:

The Good:
- Mark Hamill. My wife always made fun of his acting in the trilogy. He has matured greatly and probably had the best performance.
- The interaction between him and R2.
- The interaction between him and Yoda
- The last 15 minutes of the movie.
- The nod to Han by Skywalker (one liner)

The Bad. And it was Bad:
- The first 85% of the movie. This plot was the best they could come up with?
- The hokey forced jokes
- The constant barrage of female roles. I noticed it but checked my gender privilege. My wife, midway through the movie, leaned over and said 'they are WEARING ME OUT trying to force female roles on me'.
- The complete insubordination of Poe Dameron. It was completely over the top and unbelievable. Would never have happened in the original trilogy.
- BB-8 crossed a little over into over the top and forced territory
- Rose Tico. This character was not believable. She goes from maintenance fangirl to flying on an assault? Her acting was sub-par.

My wife mentioned that it seemed like the first 85% of the movie seemed like a different director than the last 15%. She honestly asked me if they had changed directors in the middle of the film.

Did a bunch of 5th graders make most of this movie?

[Chaz]

- Poor Chewie, reduced to a mere side show. Then again, he's always been a side show to Han.

See, I thought he actually got a moment in the sun in this one. We've seen the Falcon do all kinds of fancy flying in the past. Usually, Chewie is in the cockpit, but it was always implied that someone else was flying. This time, we see the Falcon doing fancy flying, but Chewie's the only one in the cockpit. Which makes me think that he's been the real pilot of the Falcon this whole time, and Han/Lando were only there for one liners and to get in Chewie's way. Also, he got the big hug from Leia that he was stupidly denied at the end of Force Awakens.

Really, one of the best things about Last Jedi was that Yoda was back to being a practical effect, and that was fantastic.

[hentzau]

Really, one of the best things about Last Jedi was that Yoda was back to being a practical effect, and that was fantastic.

Absolutely. I looked at that and a big grin broke out across my face.

[NickAragua]

Really, one of the best things about Last Jedi was that Yoda was back to being a practical effect, and that was fantastic.

Definitely agreed about that.

Now why couldn't they do it for the Calamari guy?

[Anonymous Bosch]

- Poor Chewie, reduced to a mere side show. Then again, he's always been a side show to Han.

See, I thought he actually got a moment in the sun in this one. We've seen the Falcon do all kinds of fancy flying in the past. Usually, Chewie is in the cockpit, but it was always implied that someone else was flying. This time, we see the Falcon doing fancy flying, but Chewie's the only one in the cockpit. Which makes me think that he's been the real pilot of the Falcon this whole time, and Han/Lando were only there for one liners and to get in Chewie's way. Also, he got the big hug from Leia that he was stupidly denied at the end of Force Awakens.

That's awfully thin gruel relative to the unfulfilled "It's not wise to upset a Wookiee" characterization of the original trilogy. The murder of the best friend Chewie ever had evidently didn't much upset him, or perhaps what Han should've stated was, "It's not wise to upset a Wookiee, or you may see him guilted out of eating space penguins."

[El Guapo]

Yes, Chewie got short shrift in this movie. But the movie was already too long as it was - I'm not sure how more Chewie-growling screen time would have really added to the movie.

[ImLawBoy]

Saw this with my wife the other night, and just got through the thread. I told my wife after we saw it that now I'd need to go online to find out what everyone says is wrong with it, and this thread delivers.

A couple of starting points:

1) I loved the movie. It wasn't perfect, but it was still really well done.
2) I enjoyed the prequels and think they get unfairly bagged on, so take my comments with that in mind.
3) It's not unreasonable for some folks to think that there's a lot of hate in this thread, even if there is very little hate intended. This type of thread by its nature focuses on the flaws in a movie, and so it can get an overwhelmingly negative vibe. If I had read this thread out of context, I would have assumed that this movie was a bomb hated by audiences everywhere, even knowing that many people didn't say they hated it - only that they were disappointed or had a few problems with it. It's just the vibe that the thread gives off.

OK, now I'm going to address a few points that others raised in the order that they pop into my head, but saving the Luke thing for last.

Regarding the Republic/Resistance/First Order geopolitical triangle, while it could have been explained better, it doesn't really bother me in this movie (I was more bothered by it in TFA, where I really didn't understand it at all). In this movie, The First Order blows up the Republic government and says, "We're in charge now." I think it can really be that simple. The Republic didn't have much (any?) military, and The First Order is routing the Resistance. Who is going to tell The First Order that they have to run an interplanetary election before they'll recognize them as legit?

Regarding the casino scene, I think it was important for a couple of reasons. First, it really shows how The First Order can take and maintain power - the rich people really don't care as long as they can continue being rich. In fact, they make good money with the First Order in power. Can you imagine a world where an impetuous tyrant can be running things as the divide between rich and poor keeps increasing? Second, as others have noted, it provides some level of hope in the future, both because these poor kids idolize the Resistance, and because there more folks with the force out there.

Dern and del Toro - they were fine. I was distracted by Holdo's dress, and I kept thinking that del Toro was doing a Tom Waits impersonation the whole time, but it was fine.

The Luke thing. I think that assuming that Luke has maintained his boyish optimism is a bit naive. He may be a powerful Jedi, but he's also human, and he's seen and done a lot of shit. For him to have a fleeting moment where he contemplates killing Ben is reasonable - it sure looked like he had more than a fleeting moment where he considered killing Vader during the climactic fight scene in RotJ before deciding against it.

YMMV, but for me this commentary from an Associate Professor at Fordham University articulately describes the flaws of the Rian Johnson version of Luke:

Well, I am a former Teaching Assistant at The University of Illinois, and I have some problems here.

This Luke didn’t try to save his friends when he realized they were in danger. He selfishly and cowardly sulked in a stone hut.

This is because Luke believed, rightly or wrongly, that continuing the cycle would not be in the galaxy's best interest. Assuming that someone would act in the same manner 30 years on is silly and seems to suggest that Luke never changed in all those years.

We learn that this Luke, rather than honoring the good in his family members by trying to turn them from the dark side, made the cold calculation to murder his sleeping nephew - the son of his sister and best friend - in light of the darkness he sensed within him.

No, he didn't make the "cold calculation". He momentarily let his emotions get the better of him (something that has long been an issue in his family, including in his battle with Vader I referenced above) before realizing he couldn't do it and stopping. The author either completely misunderstood the scene or is deliberately misstating what happened.

Could we imagine a broken and defeated Luke Skywalker giving into his fear and anger and contemplating such a horrific act? Maybe. But we learned that Luke considered this kind of murder before his nephew went dark. Indeed, it ends up being precisely because Luke raises his lightsaber against his own flesh and blood that Ben Solo becomes Kylo Ren.

According to Luke's recollection, he learned when he went into Ben's mind that he was already turned. The sequence of events may have been sped up by Luke's momentary lapse, but he felt it was going to happen anyway.

This sorry episode supposedly occurs only a few years

What, do kids age super fast in the Star Wars universe? Or is he again deliberately misstating something?

after Luke says, “I can’t kill my own father” in response to Kenobi asking him to stop the Empire by killing Darth Vader. Even in the face of an actual (not just possible) existential threat, Luke can’t imagine killing a family member.

Absolutely he can imagine it! He almost does it before he gains control of himself! (Just as he does with Ben.)

Rey’s family is unimportant. Luke refers to her as, “Rey from nowhere.” We are told her parents were random junkers who sold her into slavery to get drunk.

But this leaves a huge hole in her character. How did Rey use a Jedi mind-trick without training? How did she defeat even a wounded Kylo Ren without training? How can she expertly fly a ship she’s never flown before without training?

The same way Anakin is able to create a protocol droid and fly pod racers as a little kid. This is perfectly consistent with the movies.

With that out of the way, my biggest pet peeve with the TFA and TLJ is Kylo Ren's rage fits. They seem super over the top to me, and not really befitting of someone who would be the Supreme Leader's apprentice. I also thought Leia's force flight looked silly, even if I was OK with the concept.

[morlac]

How old was Luke during the first trilogy? Maybe 20? He's young, optimistic, and a little naive. He's full of the heroic stories of Jedi and suddenly he's living them. By the time he looks into Ben's soul he's different. He's seen that the Rebellion didn't magically make everything great when they defeated the Emperor. He's lost some of his optimism and naivety as he gets into middle age. He's a Hero but he's trying to live as a warrior monk without any support structure. He's been teaching new Jedi but he doesn't have much to build on as he didn't go through the sort of formal training he's trying to do.

Then he senses Ben is completely turned to the Dark Side. He's the one person in the world who has seen the good in a Sith and brought them back from the Dark Side. I'm willing to believe that if Luke says Ben was completely Dark Side then he was beyond saving by Luke. Is that because Ben is Darker than Vader? Or is it because he doesn't have the tie that he had as Anakin's son? Or even perhaps that he's just older, not as optimistic and naive and he's not willing to take the slim chance that he took with Vader?

Somehow I don't need anything more than my own experiences living to 50 to see that Luke could be both the young optimistic man in the original trilogy and the older cynical hermit in TLJ.

This seemed to be the best post in this discussion on Luke to copy so:

I agree and will add more (sorry if it rambles, full on stream of thought mode):

I think Luke contemplating killing Ben is perfectly in line with his character. He has always dabbled with the dark side throughout his character arc. He was constantly giving into his impulses when trying to save his friends. He ignored Yoda and Obi's warning multiple times. Yoda: "Only a fully trained Jedi Knight, with the Force as his ally, will conquer Vader and his emperor. If you end your training now... if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did... you will become an agent of evil.". All the Skywalker's were labelled as too dangerous to train from Jedi Masters for a reason. Hell, just Look at his outfits through the first trilogy. He progressively gets more dark throughout the first three movies. Both in dress and demeanor. In ROJ he is full on Man in Black, uses deception and lies and has no issue slaughtering everyone to save Hon. Then jump to the big ending; the only way he bested Vader was to give into the dark side and woop his ass. And what triggered that? Yet again, threats to his loved ones causes him to turn to the darkside. Specifically it was when Vader discovered Leia was his sister and then threatened her. He went full on rage and proceeded to destroy him. Of course he didn't fully give in and pulled back but he certainly used it to win that fight. And why did he dabble in the darkness throughout the trilogy? To save his friends. So would it be that big a stretch to think he might ponder killing Ren in order to save the galaxy and all his friends? I think not. However, just like in the originals he does not give in at the last second.

IMO, this fits perfectly with his character. He has been the only force user in the first Movies that has shown an ability to use the darskide without fully succumbing to it. (side note: Rey appears to do the same in TFA in her fight against Kylo, rewatch it and see her rage when she starts winning the fight). I think/hope this is critical to the overall arc in this new series. Shades of grey are less prone to abuse than Black and White.


Edit to add: Am I crazy or did the two scenes (one told by Kylo one by Luke) of the almost assassination totally contradict themesleves? In Kylo's version I swear I saw Luke swing at him first and he swung to block it. He also looked innocent and young/naive. In Luke's it looked like Kylo had the full blown emo eyeshadow going and he swung first after Luke hesitated. May be totally misremebering this but Ill look for it when I watch it again. If true that would be realy cool and maybe even a nod/sneer at Han shoot first!

[morlac]

... Which Hamill took back days later.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... -last-jedi

He didn't really take it back though. He doesn't deny his early hesitation with how they treated Luke. He's just clarifying that the end product is a great movie, which is all he wanted. At the end of the day Hamill's initial reaction to reading the script is that they completely botched Luke's character. Which is the same initial reaction many fans are having.

https://news.avclub.com/watch-mark-hami ... 1798285592


"That being said, the concept of Luke Skywalker turning to the dark side of the Force is hardly a new concept. Dark Horse Comics explored it in the terrific Dark Empire series, and Mark Hamill himself recounted pitching the idea to George Lucas during the production of Return Of The Jedi on a 2005 episode of IFC’s Dinner For Five:

“As an actor that would be more fun to play. I just thought that’s the way it was going from when we finished [Empire]. I figured that’s what will be the pivotal moment. I’ll have to come back, but it will be I have Han Solo in my crosshairs and I’ll be about to kill him or about to kill the Princess or about to kill somebody that we care about. It’s an old cornball movie, like World War II movies.”

Maybe Hamil wasn't happy because he did NOT turn dark in the new series

[El Guapo]

I find it hard to see why it would be so difficult to accept Luke considering offing Ben Solo for like a couple seconds when he finds he's gone to the dark side.

I think the whole "Luke giving up forever and becoming a hermit" is a tougher thing to sell (basically for the reasons Mark Hamill said), although I get that to some degree (and as others have said, per Obi-Wan and Yoda it seems to be the thing that Jedi Masters do when a student goes to the dark side, for some reason).