1/6 Hot Toys - Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Luke Skywalker-CRAIT (Force Projection) -

[TaliBane]

Johnson has said that the whole point of the projection was to play on Kylo?s anger and thus impulsiveness, not just to have him appear as he remembers him. Kylo believed the saber was his, thus inciting even more anger at Luke for getting it back.

Additionally, as others have said, this version of Luke is ?Luke Skywalker?, the legend that everyone has created, and he has accepted that role, signaling that he made a mistake of throwing the saber away and running from his necessary role.

It's an odd overall idea anyway because Luke's face doesn't actually look any younger on Crait - the only real difference between Ach-to and Crait is the colored hair and beard. So the idea he should look younger in this HT figure isn't really true, it's really only about hair color.

The idea is doubly strange because the time difference between the hut scene and the Crait scene isn't all that long anyway - maybe 7-8 years. So the idea he should look noticeably younger on Crait to recapture that hut era is silly.

According to most sources, Kylo was 23 when he had the saber moment with Luke in the hut (though there does seem to have been some effort to make Driver look younger in the scene), and was around age 29/30 when Han was killed in TFA and the confrontation with Luke on Criat.

So I can sorta understand the choice of lightsaber to provoke Kylo (given how they parted, it's unclear why Luke would need to "provoke" Kylo,) but it's a very strange idea that to somehow provoke him Luke uses the force to color his hair - simply to recapture how he looked only 7 years earlier?

If the hut moment had happened when Kylo was 12 and he was now in his mid thirties (as Driver is) and this was recapturing how Luke looked 25 years earlier (Luke at a still-vital 40 vs Luke as a more noticeably older man at say 65,) I could understand it.

 

[davejames]

Well with this being his final act, I can see how Luke would have preferred to go out as the powerful Jedi Master he once was than some cranky, gray haired old hobo. Especially if this was also meant to inspire a new generation of Jedi and light a new fire under the Resistance.

But I do agree that visually it looks a bit odd, and they should have either de-aged him some more or not gone so dark with the hair.

 

[TaliBane]

Well with this being his final act, I can see how Luke would have preferred to go out as the powerful Jedi Master he once was than some cranky, gray haired old hobo. Especially if this was also meant to inspire a new generation of Jedi and light a new fire under the Resistance.

Just For Men would love to quote you for an ad in terms of his dark hair look inspiring a new generation - given the only difference between his actual look on Ach-to and redo look on Crait (other than a change of clothes,) is the hair dye.

Maybe you can land that new job - or inspire people more - without grey hair.

It's not even like he has his hair pulled back into a Jedi man-bun, or made his beard noticeably longer or anything to cut a finer "Luke icon" figure for posterity.

But yeah, in the movie, I found it confusing and odd - and the darkening of his hair was sort of pointless anyway. Maybe Kylo should have said "you haven't changed" - or something - to pay it off.

But again, they couldn't really de-age Luke more, because the hut event really wasn't that long ago, even with a muddled timeline.

But I do agree that visually it looks a bit odd, and they should have either de-aged him some more or not gone so dark with the hair. Because hell, even in ROTJ his hair wasn't that dark. Lol

Yeah his hair had a bit of that "too dark" tone (and yeah, in ROTJ his hair had a mid-brown/blondish sheen thing):

 

[Sithblade]

"You will buy this product"

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Tortfeazor]

It's an odd overall idea anyway because Luke's face doesn't actually look any younger on Crait - the only real difference between Ach-to and Crait is the colored hair and beard. So the idea he should look younger in this HT figure isn't really true, it's really only about hair color.

The idea is doubly strange because the time difference between the hut scene and the Crait scene isn't all that long anyway - maybe 7-8 years. So the idea he should look noticeably younger on Crait to recapture that hut era is silly.

According to most sources, Kylo was 23 when he had the saber moment with Luke in the hut (though there does seem to have been some effort to make Driver look younger in the scene), and was around age 29/30 when Han was killed in TFA and the confrontation with Luke on Criat.

So I can sorta understand the choice of lightsaber to provoke Kylo (given how they parted, it's unclear why Luke would need to "provoke" Kylo,) but it's a very strange idea that to somehow provoke him Luke uses the force to color his hair - simply to recapture how he looked only 7 years earlier?

If the hut moment had happened when Kylo was 12 and he was now in his mid thirties (as Driver is) and this was recapturing how Luke looked 25 years earlier (Luke at a still-vital 40 vs Luke as a more noticeably older man at say 65,) I could understand it.

I just took it to be that he uses everything to maximum effect. Does he need Anakin’s saber to provoke Kylo? No, but it’s got more impact than his green one as Kylo has been trying to retrieve it and believes it’s rightfully his.

Also, as far as his appearance, my opinion is that he doesn’t show up with his graying hair because he doesn’t want Kylo to get any sense that Luke is anything but the legend that is Luke Skywalker, and having gray hair exudes a slight sense of weakness simply in that he’s showing his age. He appears in his absolute prime form basically as a “f you I’m still Luke Skywalker” shot at Kylo.

 

[ajp4mgs]

I just took it to be that he uses everything to maximum effect. Does he need Anakin?s saber to provoke Kylo? No, but it?s got more impact than his green one as Kylo has been trying to retrieve it and believes it?s rightfully his.

Yeah, I don't see a problem with that interpretation. I used to think the green one wasn't used because they had plans to later reveal that Kylo had taken it that night when Luke was left for dead. Doesn't seem to be the case, though. Either way, it's odd that the green saber has gone MIA without explanation (as far as I know).

Also, as far as his appearance, my opinion is that he doesn?t show up with his graying hair because he doesn?t want Kylo to get any sense that Luke is anything but the legend that is Luke Skywalker, and having gray hair exudes a slight sense of weakness simply in that he?s showing his age. He appears in his absolute prime form basically as a ?f you I?m still Luke Skywalker? shot at Kylo.

I like the idea of Luke on Crait appearing to have as much vitality as possible, just so Kylo doesn't get any satisfaction of thinking that he damaged Luke's psyche in any way. The whole, "I haven't changed a bit" appearance is conveying the same message as "nothing you did changed who I am and why you fear me."

Even though graying would be perfectly natural and expected, it might be just an extra little glimmer of hope for Kylo that Luke had diminished in some small way. By not portraying that, Luke got to brush off an assault from the AT-AT's looking more like the Luke that Kylo feared would get in his way and undo everything. I think it works fine, even if the Just For Men appearance does indeed look weird on screen.

Also I don?t know why my phone is changing quotes and apostrophes to question marks.

It's been happening since the board migration. Seems to happen more when posts are made from phones for some reason.

 

[Tortfeazor]

I just got notice this will be charging on the 22nd.

 

[pixletwin]

I just got notice this will be charging on the 22nd.

I just got the same email. Forgot I used RP on this. I guess I?ll be getting it after all.

 

[TaliBane]

Yeah, I don't see a problem with that interpretation. I used to think the green one wasn't used because they had plans to later reveal that Kylo had taken it that night when Luke was left for dead. Doesn't seem to be the case, though. Either way, it's odd that the green saber has gone MIA without explanation (as far as I know).



I like the idea of Luke on Crait appearing to have as much vitality as possible, just so Kylo doesn't get any satisfaction of thinking that he damaged Luke's psyche in any way. The whole, "I haven't changed a bit" appearance is conveying the same message as "nothing you did changed who I am and why you fear me."

Even though graying would be perfectly natural and expected, it might be just an extra little glimmer of hope for Kylo that Luke had diminished in some small way. By not portraying that, Luke got to brush off an assault from the AT-AT's looking more like the Luke that Kylo feared would get in his way and undo everything. I think it works fine, even if the Just For Men appearance does indeed look weird on screen.



It's been happening since the board migration. Seems to happen more when posts are made from phones for some reason.

Cooper Anderson and all the grey foxes out there hate you.

Do you agree with that timeline of it only being about 6-8 years between the hut moment and Crait final face-off though? It seems too short to me but all the sources seem to point to Kylo being 23 then, and 29 in TFA (so presumably same age in TLJ.)

The way the whole thing's set up seems like it would have worked better if a couple of decades had passed between them meeting - it would explain the idea of the dark hair etc, but it just doesn't make much sense if it's only seven years. It's like running into your tenth grade teacher five years after you graduated - you wouldn't expect them to have aged all that much (say from 35 to 42, or like Luke, from 58 to 65.) Whereas seeing the same teacher at your 25th reunion is a bigger deal where aging/grey really comes into play.

The addition of the Just For Men look idea was a fairly major decision that had risks, both on the part of the filmmakers (confusing audience in several ways, and perhaps giving away Luke's ruse too early,) and by Luke in-universe (what if Kylo had somehow seen a visual or got a description of Luke's "hobo" look from the past several years - suggesting what he sees on Crait isn't real,) yet it's unclear why a decision that provides such a subtle/debatable advantage would have been made.

I just got the same email. Forgot I used RP on this. I guess I?ll be getting it after all.

Yeah, same e-mail and thought. There's been so many weird HT things (Jawas etc) popping up since this went up for PO I forgot.

 

[ajp4mgs]

Cooper Anderson and all the grey foxes out there hate you.

I'll never lose any sleep over Anderson Cooper hating me.

Do you agree with that timeline of it only being about 6-8 years between the hut moment and Crait final face-off though? It seems too short to me but all the sources seem to point to Kylo being 23 then, and 29 in TFA (so presumably same age in TLJ.)

In canon (by way of novels), Leia started the Resistance 6 years prior to TFA, and Ben was still with Luke at that point. So yeah, unless TROS retcons that, the event in the hut couldn't have happened more than 6 years before Luke's projection on Crait.

In the TLJ flashback scenes of Luke and Ben in the hut, there's no gray in Luke's beard. He pretty much looks like his projection form. The inference to me is that Luke aged aggressively while he was exiled and cut off from the Force. So, to appear to Kylo as being unaffected (and to remind him of the hut version), Luke shows up looking virtually the same as when Ben last saw him.

The way the whole thing's set up seems like it would have worked better if a couple of decades had passed between them meeting - it would explain the idea of the dark hair etc, but it just doesn't make much sense if it's only seven years. It's like running into your tenth grade teacher five years after you graduated - you wouldn't expect them to have aged all that much (say from 35 to 42, or like Luke, from 58 to 65.) Whereas seeing the same teacher at your 25th reunion is a bigger deal where aging/grey really comes into play.

I agree that 5 or 6 years doesn't normally age someone drastically enough to be jarring. But in the case of Luke, it apparently (and obviously) did. Hence why I get the impression that his outer aging was accelerated by inner grief and hardship (and maybe also by being cut off from the Force).

The addition of the Just For Men look idea was a fairly major decision that had risks, both on the part of the filmmakers (confusing audience in several ways, and perhaps giving away Luke's ruse too early,) and by Luke in-universe (what if Kylo had somehow seen a visual or got a description of Luke's "hobo" look from the past several years - suggesting what he sees on Crait isn't real,) yet it's unclear why a decision that provides such a subtle/debatable advantage would have been made.

Knowing a little about RJ as a filmmaker, it wouldn't surprise me if he did this aging stuff with Vader/Kenobi in mind. In ANH, Vader addresses Kenobi condescendingly by telling him "your powers are weak, old man." Vader felt superior because his former master now showed his age in a way that separated him more from his prime. Luke wasn't going allow Kylo that type of satisfaction; preferring instead to keep him as much on edge as possible to prolong their encounter.

All up to subjective interpretation, though . . . which is part of why I like it.

 

[sithocan]

At those age, your appearance may change a lot in 7 years.
In Google, search for Bon Jovi 2012 and 2019.

 

[Prime Clone]

Has anyone adequately explained why a Republic and a Resistance coexist?

 

[heon123]

This may be conjecture but I remember reading somewhere that the New Republic enforced harsh reparations and restrictions on what was the surviving remnants of the Galactic Empire (kind of like a Star-Warsian Treaty of Versailles) - the context.

Unapologetic victory eventually defeated the NR as infighting over the control of different sectors in the galaxy and what not compounded with an unwillingness to deal or failure to acknowledge the First Order and their steady consolidation of power eventually led Leia to split off and form the Resistance which got its funding from secret donors and special interests within the NR.

Of course, this crucial detail of world building was either left out or poorly translated in the movies which probably explains why everything feels like a rehash. That explanation is not foolproof either as questions still need to be answered regarding the First Order and how they were able to mobilise so quickly.

I'd argue that TFA is still the biggest offender out of this sequel trilogy and JJ should have been even more torn apart than RJ's TLJ. It's also why I'm fearful about TROS - nothing is going to get answered.

 

[pixletwin]

Has anyone adequately explained why a Republic and a Resistance coexist?

Someone will correct me if I?m wrong. The Empire was divided into two entities: the New Republic and the First Order.

The Resistance is populated by those who live within the First Order.

 

[Saintv1]

This may be conjecture but I remember reading somewhere that the New Republic enforced harsh reparations and restrictions on what was the surviving remnants of the Galactic Empire (kind of like a Star-Warsian Treaty of Versailles) - the context.

Unapologetic victory eventually defeated the NR as infighting over the control of different sectors in the galaxy and what not compounded with an unwillingness to deal or failure to acknowledge the First Order and their steady consolidation of power eventually led Leia to split off and form the Resistance which got its funding from secret donors and special interests within the NR.

Of course, this crucial detail of world building was either left out or poorly translated in the movies which probably explains why everything feels like a rehash. That explanation is not foolproof either as questions still need to be answered regarding the First Order and how they were able to mobilise so quickly.

I'd argue that TFA is still the biggest offender out of this sequel trilogy and JJ should have been even more torn apart than RJ's TLJ. It's also why I'm fearful about TROS - nothing is going to get answered.

I agree completely. It blows my mind that TLJ is the film people complain about. In TFA, The First Order destroys the Republic seat of government AND most of the fleet (which is stationed there), and the film NEVER TELLS YOU THAT. As far as the audience knows, the system destroyed by the FO has no special significance.

And yeah, TFA completely fails to explain the political state of the galaxy which, honestly, is legitimately interesting.

It's JJ Abrams all over. He cuts all the crucial context that makes the world functional and the story meaningful. R2D2 is shut down, nevermind why. Oh, he woke up. Nevermind why. He had a piece of a map and somebody else had another piece. Nevermind why. Hell, nevermind who the other guy is, too. Why is the map a secret? Nevermind. Who is the First Order and what do they want? Don't worry about. Why is there a Resistance? Not important. Why is anyone doing anything? Mystery box!

I dread JJ's impact on TROS. They put the guy who can't resolve anything in charge of resolving a nine film arc.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

[Cagoda]

I agree completely. It blows my mind that TLJ is the film people complain about. In TFA, The First Order destroys the Republic seat of government AND most of the fleet (which is stationed there), and the film NEVER TELLS YOU THAT. As far as the audience knows, the system destroyed by the FO has no special significance.

And yeah, TFA completely fails to explain the political state of the galaxy which, honestly, is legitimately interesting.

It's JJ Abrams all over. He cuts all the crucial context that makes the world functional and the story meaningful. R2D2 is shut down, nevermind why. Oh, he woke up. Nevermind why. He had a piece of a map and somebody else had another piece. Nevermind why. Hell, nevermind who the other guy is, too. Why is the map a secret? Nevermind. Who is the First Order and what do they want? Don't worry about. Why is there a Resistance? Not important. Why is anyone doing anything? Mystery box!

I dread JJ's impact on TROS. They put the guy who can't resolve anything in charge of resolving a nine film arc.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

Yes! That?s my hesitation on TROS too. TFA was such a rehash or ANH, and why? Cause nostalgia! I think that?s such a crappy argument because just including the legacy characters like Luke, Han, Leia, and Chewie is nostalgia enough.
And JJ Abrams throwing us into the politics of the galaxy without actually explaining them onscreen is confusing and frankly lazy. Like you said it?s a false mystery.
Why Snoke? Who is Snoke? Where did the First Order come from? Who or what the hell are the Knights of Ren and what?s their importance? Why does Han insinuate to Maz he knows who Rey is? Why is Snoke afraid of Luke? Why does Kylo seem shocked at the mention of the ?girl? (Rey)? It all just makes the ST confusing and convoluted. Honestly TLJ made more sense to me.
So many questions that I hope JJ addresses or answers but between answering all the questions, having a compelling story, and wrapping up the saga, I don?t know what to expect. I feel like it?ll have to be a 3 hour movie minimum. But it doesn?t seem to be that way.

 

[sithocan]

I don't remember any OT movie trying to explain anything.

 

[Sithblade]

I don't remember any OT movie trying to explain anything.

There wasn't six previous films to fill people in with what had happened so far.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Sachiel]

I don't remember any OT movie trying to explain anything.

This scene explains more about the state of the galaxy than TFA ever does.

 

[heon123]

This scene explains more about the state of the galaxy than TFA ever does.

I really miss scenes like this in movies. Quiet but tense and a forceful way of informing the audience with exposition not to mention the wide-medium shots of the actors confined by soulless ambiance of the Death Star.