I actually found Luke as a cranky old hermit really fun to watch.
1/6 Speculation: Star Wars Episode IX Figures
- Thread starter svnmelter
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Totally agree....I am VERY glad they didn’t go the 70 year old man jumping around fighting like a ninja....
I like that Luke still had some things to learn, and that he was not the perfect Jedi Master yet....
I think alot of folks were really hurt that their childhood hero ended imperfect and human after all....
Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....
To have had Luke return as something even vaguely like what he was in the OT would have been nothing short of revolutionary (for Hollywood that is.)
I mean every "return of character after 15-30 years" shows them burned out and washed up - hermits. Rambo's washed up and isolated in the 2008 movie, so's Rocky in 2006, so's Laurie in Halloween 2018 etc. etc.
People keep saying it's somehow "fresh" that Luke was this washed up hermit but the truth is, it's screenwriting 101 that you have a returning former hero as a beaten-down hermit who has to dust himself off and face his demon one more time.
And then if there is no further sequel potential (ie they aren't really stars anymore and this is more fan service than anything) - as in they're old and should have handed the mantle to the next franchise torch bearer - they should definitely die.
Honestly: Luke was pretty much 100% straight down the line of what any screenwriter would have suggested doing with him 4-5 years ago. Hermit - check, make him tutor like Ben Kenobi (but NOT!) - check, Mentor beard - check!, dies while sacrificing for the new generation (just like outsourcing, franchise heroes get to train their replacements) - check!
And these are pretty much all business decisions too. Fan service, nostalgia cultivation, commercial and casting pragmatism, franchise and brand rebooting with a "blessing" from the predecessor.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
- Messages
- 13,003
- Reaction score
- 4,489
I'll never understand why people feel it's "edgy" to make Luke a down on his luck loser. It's been done to death with characters in the past. I'll stop here before I go on another rant about how awful this film truly is.
Clint Eastwood has been playing the 'reluctant retired grizzled gunslinger' character in one way or another for 30 years now. Even Batman ended up this way. It is a common archetype.
ajp4mgs
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
- Messages
- 2,305
- Reaction score
- 1,672
Yes, we've seen the "older returning hero having to dust himself off" bit plenty of times before, but in this case (with Luke) it at least lines up with some saga context.
We first met Obi-Wan as a hermit who needed to be brought back into action. We first met Yoda in much the same way, as a reclusive hermit (with his fair share of cynicism) needing to be convinced that training Luke wasn't going to end badly. When we discovered that Anakin and Vader were one and the same, that was a fallen Jedi we'd met without having seen his "glory days" either. Same goes for Dooku. A pattern like this makes some sense when you consider the power that Jedi wield, and the general tendency for power being corrupted. Therein lies the burden of Jedi Masters (Luke included): their failures have devastating consequences.
If there are young fans being introduced to Star Wars via the ST (I know, I know; but just humor me here), they're meeting Luke the way we met Obi-Wan and Yoda (and Anakin and Dooku . . . sorta). There's precedent, and there's context consistency. Nobody objected to hermit Kenobi and somewhat-crabby hermit Yoda in the OT - because we didn't know what they were like before (and it didn't matter). But that's the only real difference: what stage of their life we met them in.
I get why fans wouldn't want Luke to end up that way, but if the ST Luke was our introduction to the character, would anyone object to it? Is it really that awful that Luke in the ST is merely the next generation of Kenobi and Yoda (and likely several other Jedi Masters prior), but with a slight twist? I think it's at least interesting that Luke would perceive the familiarity of the Jedi Master and the fallen pupil, and thereby want to end the cycle because of it. His reaction was different from Obi-Wan and Yoda in that way, and intriguing enough to me to make it worthwhile.
I don't blame anyone for hating it, but I think there's reasonable justification for the direction things went.
We first met Obi-Wan as a hermit who needed to be brought back into action. We first met Yoda in much the same way, as a reclusive hermit (with his fair share of cynicism) needing to be convinced that training Luke wasn't going to end badly. When we discovered that Anakin and Vader were one and the same, that was a fallen Jedi we'd met without having seen his "glory days" either. Same goes for Dooku. A pattern like this makes some sense when you consider the power that Jedi wield, and the general tendency for power being corrupted. Therein lies the burden of Jedi Masters (Luke included): their failures have devastating consequences.
If there are young fans being introduced to Star Wars via the ST (I know, I know; but just humor me here), they're meeting Luke the way we met Obi-Wan and Yoda (and Anakin and Dooku . . . sorta). There's precedent, and there's context consistency. Nobody objected to hermit Kenobi and somewhat-crabby hermit Yoda in the OT - because we didn't know what they were like before (and it didn't matter). But that's the only real difference: what stage of their life we met them in.
I get why fans wouldn't want Luke to end up that way, but if the ST Luke was our introduction to the character, would anyone object to it? Is it really that awful that Luke in the ST is merely the next generation of Kenobi and Yoda (and likely several other Jedi Masters prior), but with a slight twist? I think it's at least interesting that Luke would perceive the familiarity of the Jedi Master and the fallen pupil, and thereby want to end the cycle because of it. His reaction was different from Obi-Wan and Yoda in that way, and intriguing enough to me to make it worthwhile.
I don't blame anyone for hating it, but I think there's reasonable justification for the direction things went.
SilverStar17
Super Freak
Agreed.
As I've stated before, while I don't care for TLJ overall as a film, I for the most part had no issues with Luke's story/character arc and found it entertaining. The backstory on what happened during the events between RotJ and TFA made sense to me as to why he turned out the way he was. And as xipotec mentioned, I like that he still had one final lesson to learn from the masters of the past, even as a Jedi Master himself, and that he turned out to still be the hero and inspiration in the end.
It's really just story-character math - someone who's disconnected, embittered and alone has further to "arc" back to humanity as a character than someone who's not. That's why it's done over and over and over.
All I'm saying is, whether you like the set-up for Luke in TLJ or not (and I can see both sides - it is kind of fun to see Luke that way but also see the basis for the deep anger about TLJ Luke,) let's not call it "fresh" or "different" to show him as the embittered hermit who has to save the day in the end.
As I mentioned, to have set up Luke in the ST as a cool, confident, bearded warrior/traveler version of OT Luke would have been very radical in so many ways. It would have violated powerful ageism tenets, star-power (or Hamill's lack thereof) conventions, franchise procedure and even (now false) perceptions of film as primarily for the young.
Yeah it's certainly been done before, but the fact it was Luke Skywalker this time, who we had previously seen only as this incredibly noble and optimistic hero, made it still feel surprising and unexpected to me. This wasn't another Rambo type who was always an anti-social loner.
Obviously like any other fan I would have loved to see Luke rushing off into battle again as a heroic Jedi Master... if these movies had been made 15 or 20 years ago with everyone still in their prime. But sadly we didn't get those EU-era movies, and with the actors now being much older I think something else was required.
And for the most part I really like what they came up with.
The problem I have with that is that Hamill - despite not being a major star - has never been better as an actor and seems more than physically capable. I think the whole throwing away of Luke in the ST (fan tease, last great hurrah/goodbye, ghost cameo coda) was not inevitable for any other reason than the conventions and (false) commercial considerations/conventions mentioned above.
The truth is, had they done a ST centered on Luke as a older badass "Taken"-type warrior and co-lead with a younger Jedi (who yes, perhaps goes from padawan to Kylo-type villain in the course of the trilogy) fans would have adored it, they would have been commercial hits, and Hamill would have been more than capable of it both acting wise and physically.
Would they have been the type of juggernaut four-quadrant tentpole $1B to $2B releases people perceive SW movies to have to be (the reason Disney paid $2B plus for the franchise)? Probably not - they would have been $80m-100m movies along the lines of "Logan" directed by a Fincher or Nolan (yes, they would have done it) that would have earned $750m worldwide.
But falsehoods that SW is for kids, that we need to see a "new generation" in everything, passing the torch studio convention (for perceived commercial reasons) yada yada yada prevented that from happening. Even though theatrical audiences have aged a lot in the past 20 years, Hollywood (which is progressive yet conservative, forward-looking but regressive, edgy but not, etc) still has to have its pretty young cast and hire old actors for wisdom and death..
phobicsquirrel
Super Freak
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 0
Yep. There were a lot of stories (already done in the EU which had Luke being much better) yet they igorned all that to do the BS job they did. On top of that they took pieces out of the EU only to screw them up in the new trio. So why not take the good pieces and use them to add to new stuff? oh right because arrogant people running the show that thought they could do it better..... nope.
Yeah Luke as the central focus might have been cool to see, but in the real world where this new trilogy was clearly always going to feature a new, young cast of characters in order to attract a new and younger audience, I think they managed to find a pretty nice balance. And in fact they gave both Han and Luke some pretty meaty and interesting things to do in these movies (with Leia apparently supposed to get the focus in IX), so that they were more than just the typical mentor figure.
phobicsquirrel
Super Freak
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 0
It would have done better than TFA I'm sure of that. TFA was a huge win for disney and even die hard fans were okay with a lot of it for the most part. TFA gave TLJ big numbers and after it being utter crap it fell from from projections. It still made a lot and I"m sure a lot of that had to do with good will from TFA and people curious to see what the hell was going on with the controversy. Ep9 will do well I'm sure because of curiousity and because Disney seems to be pulling in all kinds of money from braindead audiences that go just because of the "disney" logo. However, had they followed more of a EU "luke" and construct a more interesting story (following after TFA or making TFA more like the EU - some story arc) then TLJ would have done a lot better. The "loser" "hermit" has been done to death and while you say it's "101" I don't agree. I think it's more along the lines of lazyness that they did what they did just to give "lame" new characters a center seat. Both rey and kylo (along with annoying side characters) is so textbook "b" movie storytelling that you'd be lucky to pass any decent film class.
Alas it's been done and we are here so it makes no difference what I or anyone else says about how it is a F'd up. People who don't like the ST are vocal and don't like it just like the ones that defend the ST at all costs (while even admitting to its faults) keep the banter alive. While the PT wasn't as good as the OT and for years (probably today) it is argued yet most people who didn't like the PT as much as the OT admitted that there were great parts and that ep3 was good. With the ST, I have yet to see that much of a common ground to the point of that many even say the ST is better than both the PT and OT which is complete garbage and only seems to come from those that want to stir the pot.
phobicsquirrel
Super Freak
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 0
The "young" cast thing is used a lot and honestly I doubt that the "young/new" cast brought butts in seats. It was the OT cast that did and since it was supposed to end the skywalker series there was no reason to ruin the OT characters like they did. Sure, bring in new people but have them be capable of handling the mantra of holding a film series while finishing the OT characters storyline properly. I mean after two films of 3 we have most of the stuff wrapped up with no main protagonist, a weak villian, a overpowered can do anything "hero", and a re-hash of sorts rebellion. At least in both the PT and the OT there was a building threat that was there along with a struggle that was continued.
Yet it didn't, despite the media trying to say that it did (in articles disparaging older fans, along with a multitude of identity politics angles in regards to TLJ.)
The opening weekends for these movies are majority older and male (when you look at a movie like RO, overwhelmingly so,) as are the repeat customers in the second half that takes it to the $1B plus. And that's not something anyone really wants to own up to because in today's climate that demo combination has negative connotations.
This idea of "but it's for a new generation"
slap) is true... but in terms of older SW fans pulling their kids off Fortnite to go to opening night like Dad did in the old days. I'm guilty of it, so are all my SW buddies - our kids enjoy the movies, and we go as a families in the opening week, so the kids' demographic shows up in the stats, but they aren't a "new generation of SW fans" like we were at their age. My experience is they are inclined to like them because we like them - they're growing up with Dad's love of SW and see a lot of it. "Come on, I know kids who love the new movies!" Not saying there aren't a lot of kids who like the new movies, but I'm saying that statistically they aren't even close to dominant (ie something approximating a "whole new generation of SW fans"), and that's a totally different situation than what existed for SW in the 80's.
I was just talking about what Disney and Lucasfilm clearly wanted. The whole focus since the sale has been on attracting a younger audience so as to keep the franchise going as long as possible. It may not have turned out that way, but that's beside the point.
And despite the impression you get on here, there ARE still a ton of older fans like me who really love the focus on these new characters, and like seeing the mix of new and old. Personally I still think that was the right approach, both story wise and for the franchise.
Because honestly I don't think we needed another trilogy with Han, Luke and Leia as the main heroes again. It would never have been as good as the OT anyway.
And despite the impression you get on here, there ARE still a ton of older fans like me who really love the focus on these new characters, and like seeing the mix of new and old. Personally I still think that was the right approach, both story wise and for the franchise.
Because honestly I don't think we needed another trilogy with Han, Luke and Leia as the main heroes again. It would never have been as good as the OT anyway.
SilverStar17
Super Freak
Agreed. Albeit perhaps not executed the best, but I agree still the right approach.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2012
- Messages
- 11,847
- Reaction score
- 3,821
I didn’t need the original cast to be the central focus. That’s never been the point and I have no issue with the new cast. That still didn’t give the filmmakers good reason to ruin one of the most iconic characters in film history. I’ll never agree with how Luke was handled no matter how anyone tries to justify it.
And thats why opinions are just opinions....
Yours is not alone, and clearly the other side is represented as well. The folks who don’t like the ST .....reeeaaaally don’t like it... it borders on some serious crazy talk sometimes. Those who like it are not as passionate about their love for it as OT, so there is that.
But to think any film could have been OT level , for fans who are mostly in our 30-50 year range is delusional. It will never happen. Remake as many old films as you want, the Gen X fanbase will never EVER think they are any good, because what most of them want....is to FEEL that thrill of seeing a original blockbuster film for the FIRST time. So the sequels of films made in the 70-80 and even 90’s is a waste of time for most film lovers of that age. Be it Ghostbusters, Jaws, Gremlins, Star Trek, Indian Jones, or an other franchise that started when most of us were kids.
LFL and Disney were clearly trying to balance on a tightrope of making films for the younger generation, while hoping the older fans would be the catalyst for that transition. It did not work, for the reasons I listed above. They would have been better off leaving the OT cast alone and starting with the new cast....100% fresh. Most of the “destroyed meh childhood” crowd would have been silent then at least and we could have judged the films on the merits of the new story and characters. There are alot of folks with rational , understandable reasons for not liking the ST , but they were drowned out in alot of conversation by the loud, repetitive hysterics of the “ruined Star Wars” ideology.
The current conversation is a good , mostly rational one. Congrats to all here making it so.
I personally have enjoyed the ST . But I went in without much in the way of pre conceived notions, as a film fan who realized the OT was lighting In a bottle, who was let down in a major way by the PT the ST seems to be a redemption from most of what I despised about the PT films.
The PT didn’t ruins SW for me, so the ST sure as hell didn’t.
Plus we go RO, which is stellar, and a really good Solo film.
I hope the SW “fans” thats are so upset the want to boycott the films are happy when the studio gives up on SW again, and its 20 more years before we get more stories from this universe.
Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....
Similar threads
