Luke Skywalker and Sir Lancelot | An Essay on Star Wars: The Last Jedi 

I appreciate it!

I probably won't be doing 02 anytime soon. Currently, I'm working on a Digimon Tamers project.

The commercial appeal is that he's an ideal rather than a person. RotJ Luke is more made for selling an action figures rather than for building upon an established character. He's far too cookie-cutter in RotJ, far less of an organic continuation of what was established in TESB. What I mean by that is the "hero" archetype is played out here in the same way the "idea" of a villain has been planted into The Emperor. He is less the boy trying to become a hero and now he's almost entirely the archetype. At what point do we draw the line between "Luke Skywalker" and "Functionally Heroic for Story Purposes."

​@@whattheegad You have a good point here. Although I can't say if Luke is cookie cutter or not in ROTJ. (Same applies for the Emperor- there are some nuances in his conduct and character- Kasdan, I believe, purposefully made his dialogue more Shakespearian and concise, etc.). If Luke is a cookie cutter, he might be the prime example of it that I've seen anywhere in fictional media- if I could make a video about it (perhaps I could experiment and do so). There are specific moments (the deleted scene of Luke and co. boarding the Millennium Falcon in a sandstorm. Han thanks Luke for saving him, and Luke says "think nothing of it" in the most stoic, humble manner.) when Luke seems to be following the ideal to a tee. But there are other moments where I wonder what they were thinking about in the directing and writing. Lucas's viewpoint appears a bit liberal or off-kilter in the Star Wars OT when constructing these scenes, and especially so in ROTJ, or perhaps my dislike of the film is showing through. The scenes have a bizarre turn out in execution and purpose as a result. It seems odd in scenes that are traditionally seem as "heroic", such as, Luke's stand/defiance to the Emperor- (the internet movie database of ROTJ- the third script draft- even cites this as he "makes the decision for which he has spent a lifetime in preparation. Luke steps back and hurls his lightsaber away." imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-Return-of-the-Jedi.html The scene is exaggerated as can be. Not only is it ignoring the fact that Luke make a conscious jump to possible suicide/sacrifice in Empire in Cloud City, the script insinuates that Luke prepared his WHOLE life for this moment of independently defying the Emperor. A lot happens ALL AT ONCE- there is little time for transitions. Other dialogue choices, such as, "Never! I'll never turn to the dark side. You've failed, Your Highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me." Stress the finality of Luke's decision, even though it (and fans, to be honest) ignore that Luke has to make a conscious effort to keep not choosing the dark side. The thing is how Lucas treats this scene as SUCH A BIG DEAL when in reality it is pitiful even compared to the revelation scene in Empire. Luke similarly says that he'll never join Vader "I'll never join you" right before he is told the truth, but he is unhappy and angry when he says it- because of the emotion in his voice (and also his constant attempts of trying to get away from Vader on the skinny platform) you can believe it. Emotion and action back up his claim. In ROTJ, it is stoically and heroically said, but because it is mostly stoic the believability of the words fall more flat. He does toss the lightsaber and decide not to kill Vader, but Vader was already deserving of death in ANH and TESB, so the decision is basically to prevent Luke from becoming like Vader, even though Vader likely deserves it and since it's just one person- not much different from any of Jabba's goons that Luke killed or blew up in the film. Tossing the lightsaber was also a foolish move if Luke wanted to live- the story conference suggests otherwise, but the film's script has Luke begging Vader for his life in a similar fashion to calling out to Obi-Wan in Empire. Also, the notion that Luke is going to hell (according to Lucas from The Making of Return of Jedi, which I believe is probably taken from a DVD commentary track or interview) if he accepts the Emperor's offer is exaggerating the pivotal moment even more- how is accepting the Emperor's offer a moment of faith crisis? Why would Luke even be interested in the offer? Because he has nothing to lose? But Luke only believes that he has nothing to lose since he believed in what the Emperor said of his friends dying. If Luke defies the Emperor, then he shouldn't believe with what the Emperor is saying, probably either. I understand when Vader makes a similar offer in Empire, but there it's also about reconciliation with Luke's father and co-ruling. Luke's father was dead most of his life- what connection is the Emperor going to have with Luke besides serving as a master? What I don't like about ROTJ Luke is how emotionless he is when interacting with other characters- before Jabba gives Han and Luke their sentence- it seems to be witty banter between Han, Luke (and Leia)- not much interaction. And when Han is somewhat (and sarcastically) concerned about their fate ("You're gonna die here- convenient"), Luke gives 0 emotion. Unless Luke was focused on scanning for R2-D2 in that scene (because Luke needs to make sure that he has his lightsaber ready), there is zero reason for him to not react to Han in a concerned or reassuring manner. If a Jedi is supposed to be compassionate here, where's the compassion? The most that Luke does is say that he has everything under control, and Han gives (a very unconvincing emotional state of sarcasm), and says, "Great" or something like that. I think Han from ANH and TESB would be more resigned or upset before a death sentence or a punishment as in Cloud City- he's upset when he knows that Lando will lower him into the carbonite freeze chamber and beforehand just after he was tortured (he tries punching Lando). This scene is ROTJ in a nutshell- things seem to happen for the sake of happening and plot twists and intrigue occurs without proper characterization or emotional reactions, for the most part (except for exceptions, such as, Vader's death scene and Vader in general). And then there are inconsistencies between films and seemingly even within ROTJ in relation to characterization and internal logic. I actually can't say the same for TLJ, despite the film being rooted in Star Wars OT rehash, including some (for and against) ROTJ content/parallels, since it focuses on characterizations, risks, and consequences. The movie had weight to it, for the most part. Even the weaker aspects of it had some meaning to it, with Rey choosing who she was. There are transitions that may seem imperfect (Rey getting a high/adrenaline rush on killing First Order airships after being told the truth about her parents could seem a bit off, but even a scene like that is plausible given the urgency of the situation- Rey chooses to defend the Resistance by rushing off in Snoke's shuttle-ship to rendez-vous with Chewbacca in the Falcon. She has to assist, defend, and rescue the Resistance, so her focus is on that- not the truth about her parents so much.), but for every imperfect transition in TLJ, I find plenty more with ROTJ. I think overall, it is much more messed up tonally than TLJ is.

Yeah, this is why I think folks have an ideal they've attributed to TESB but they can't really describe what that is in great detail. If they did describe it, I think they'd find it undermines a lot of what has been considered "conventional" in this day and age. I agree, RotJ didn't keep on track with Luke's character and I've attributed that to Lucas simply wanting to push out a commercial rather than a story. The reason I've done this is because of much of what I've heard from Kasdan but also because of how Lucas handled the prequel trilogy. I mean, he handed Lucasfilm over to Disney when he could have just as easily handed it over to a creative independent studio and/or director (much like he was himself). I'll have to look into the story conference details, however. That seems really interesting and brings up details I was unaware of.

@@whattheegad Part of the reason that George Lucas handed Lucasfilm over to Disney was because he was getting into talks with Disney (when they were updating the old Star Tours into Star Tours: The Adventures Continue in Disneyland in 2011). Lucas had some experience with Disney using his IPs respectfully through Star Tours, too, in the past, so he had some trust with the company. Lucas had also seen how well that Disney at the time had treated their Marvel and Pixar IPs around the time, so I think that could have influenced his decision. Additionally, Lucasfilm had experienced some flops and mediocre box office returns (Strange Magic, Red Tails, etc.), so selling to a trustworthy company with plenty of money would be a wise choice, I think. A creative independent studio could have been a wise decision as well, but Lucasfilm was starting to get into hot financial trouble- could an independent studio have handled it? I think any independent studio/director (even Dave Filoni) would have had trouble reaching into Lucas's brain. Creativity, sure, will always be good, can contribute to something (as the Lucasfilm team did in the past), but the era and approach to sci-fi is likely going to be different in 2010s/2020s than it was in 1970s/1980s. TESB is basically an inverse of ANH in some ways. I know a lot of fans say that Rian Johnson is the guy who "subverts expectations" in TLJ, but they seem to forget how much of that is built from TESB and the idea of sequels in general. The Empire Strikes Back despite ANH crawl promising freedom to the galaxy if the Death Star is destroyed (ironically critics of TLJ have pointed out how the First Order can be at full strength from the defeat of Starkiller Base, despite this being an TESB parallel. The difference here is that freedom isn't directly promised in TFA, the ending tone sort of implies it, but it isn't as concrete as TESB, and I think it's fair as a potential soft reboot for TESB, since the Empire brings out its armada/garrisons and dreadnaughts to compensate and keep at least some of the systems in order.). TESB forces Luke to question even Obi-Wan, who was supposed to be telling Luke the truth about his father in ANH. There are a lot of moments that are open-ended (a sign of script issues? Iffy development?), and it is hard to tell right from wrong or what a scene is supposed to represent, unlike ROTJ's often direct contradictions. So there could be the idea of moral ambivalence or ambiguity present, or at least TESB keeps things open-ended.

I've been looking for someone to talk with in-depth about a few of these things. I've got some ideas I wanna bounce off. You willing to collaborate?

@@whattheegad I believe that I am willing to collaborate- thanks! I will have to know what platform/s that you wish to collaborate on, though. I really like talking in-depth about stuff, too, so it is up my alley.

Wonderful! You can email me at rustycheeseknife@gmail.com. I can drop a Discord link for you.

@@whattheegad Would you be willing to drop it here? I'd feel more comfortable about it. Or, at least attach the link to your username description (for videos) or user account here.

Rian Johnson attempts to make some grilled cheeseburgers with mixed results. Meanwhile JJ Abrams just brings home McDonald's.

I would like to know why the progression between Lyke in return of the Jedi and how he acts in TLJ is logical. The problem with the character is that unlike the OT which progresses his character from a to b, b to c, etc., this film skips from a to z with a very weak and nonsensical progression. Aka, hes acting out of character with little to no explanation.

@@alexandermarier6847 Luke goes from just a few days of Jedi training and getting his ass kicked by Vader in The Empire Strikes Back, to "no more training do you require" and acting like a full Jedi in Return of the Jedi, with no explanation, so,...?

@@lookingforwookiecopilot But the training is the explanation, and we see the training, unlike Rey (until TROS)

@@alexandermarier6847 There isn't anything to explain how Luke gets so much better between movies, but our imagination. Do the same with Rey.

Repackaged as in they essentially tried to do it all over again because I guess since we like the first one so much, we're bound to like it all over again but make it more commercially-applicable. No creativity but the story is, point-by-point, identical to ANH. Kylo is a continuation of Vader? Hmm, that's interesting. You'd have to elaborate on that a bit more to help me understand what you mean. And I agree, TFA is very much anti-RotJ and that's exactly why I think it makes fans angry. That's a spot-on observation. I think we have an audience that is a glutton for commercialized stories. Comfort food, but for storytelling. Think of McDonald's. And I think the whole Han being promoted and Luke being promoted, etc. It's just Lucas inflating their worth even though, in all reality, they haven't truly earned it. I mean, it's like giving a promotion to someone wearing a Medal of Honor just because they won the Medal of Honor. Sure, it's an esteemed reward for heroism, but it's not the same as showing you ought to be promoted above and beyond anyone else.

@@whattheegad First of all, how do you know it's a point-by-point remake when there is clearly still a lot of ROTJ in TFA. ROTJ by itself is a bit of a homage film (stealing dialogue from TESB- "It's a trap", Luke begging someone to save him- in this case Vader and not Obi-Wan, reverse (although almost direct) use of Vader's dialogue from Luke during the bridge scene- "Come with me", etc.), in order to wrap up things. TFA is a homage of a homage (ROTJ dialogue, beats), plus a homage of Star Wars (ANH) itself, with TESB and prequel trappings, but they seem to be of a lesser extent. Although TFA appears to create plot twists with some of the ROTJ content- specifically (yes, and I think it is) dumb dialogue from Luke and Leia talking at the bridge with Luke trying to "save" Vader because "there's still good in him", with TFA recycling it with Leia using the same words (also Padme said it about Vader when she died in ROTS) in relation to Kylo Ren, trying to show that Leia believes in Luke's optimistic? ROTJ spirit. The thing is that ROTJ dialogue is not only inconsistent with TESB with Luke's emotional status at the film's end, but also his interactions with Vader- he is angry with Vader near the end of his fight, and stunned, horrified, and hurt after the revelation scene. While Kylo Ren is better contextualized as a prodigal son, as it gives the character some innocence that ANH and TESB lacked (ANH and presumably Vader was a good person before he turned to evil and was seduced by the dark side of the Force- that's it), the twist or going against the ROTJ dialogue (Kylo killing Han/remaining with the First Order) is the most realistic response. Some might see it as nihilistic, but one thing ROTJ NEVER or almost NEVER did was address WHY Vader even wanted to remain with the Empire- or his motivation. In Empire, Vader (seemingly) says that he wants Luke with him "to end this destructive conflict" and "bring order to the galaxy"- meaning the rebels- the conflict and wanting to bring order to the galaxy in general. Also, other dialogue implies that Vader simply wants to rule, i.e. seize the day with Luke. Pretty clear-cut motivation, but Luke never addresses it or barely in ROTJ. Luke says some vague stuff, like "I feel the conflict within you, let go of your hate", meaning hate of the rebels, or hatred of conflict, I guess. Somehow this is seen as Vader's motivation as for staying on the dark side. In TFA, Kylo's motivation of staying with the First Order IS addressed- he believes in the First Order's cause- that the Resistance are (murderers, thieves, and traitors). To be honest, his motivation might even be stronger and less evil than Vader's, since Kylo seems to believe or justify that the Resistance is evil- murderers, thieves, and traitors. (Make him a bit more like ROTS Anakin- "If you're not with me, you're my enemy" type of thinking- which may or may not be a commentary on the Bush administration at the time and is probably a Nixon-Vietnam commentary.). Vader sees the rebels as destructive (could be seen as evil, a bit vague), but he seems ambitious and clear-cut with his goals- order to galaxy, rule with Luke with the whole galaxy. Kylo seems to be a bit more revolutionary, personal, and psychological than Vader. When Kylo kills Snoke, he talks about killing both sides- rebels, the Sith, etc. which is extremely chilling (the speech should get more credit, imo). The point is, who cares about the Emperor, the higher up, or the "rule of two" in Star Wars, when you, yourself can cut to the top. Also, Kylo just heard how Luke seemingly gave up on the Jedi on an island- before he had little idea of what Luke was doing, other than being slightly antagonistic toward Luke when he senses him during his first Force connection with Rey. So, Kylo tells Rey to let the Jedi die as well. The thing is, Star Wars lingered on with a central focus on the Emperor (who, according to you, is a caricature, which I partially agree on, even though there's nuances in the character), and symbolizes and cemented this cackling, relatively shallow car saleman with somewhat Shakespearian dialogue for the dark side as the top dog for so long since ROTJ and the prequels and on the rule of two (which perpetuated a cycle of bad guys never quite keeping any lasting status of consequences to their actions or evil) that it seemed to undercut both Vader and the generals' importance on the plot in the OT, and specifically in ANH/TESB. By bringing up Vader and repackaging him into Kylo Ren (and deciding not to undo/undermine ROTS Anakin quotes to Padme on Mustafar as insanity/evil from body language- "We don't have to run away anymore. I am stronger than the chancellor-I-I can destroy him...." We can make things that way we want them to be"), I think TLJ (perhaps unintentionally) brought back TESB Vader with a few more layers. It was impressive and the best part of the film, easily. I actually did a fist pump in the theater when Han's death happened, too. Because it wasn't slapping Vader/Kylo's character down, as in ROTS or ROTJ, imo. Confused Matthew was also analyzing TFA in his review on RU-vid, and he thought that while it superficially resembled ANH, the more specific beats did not (Stormtrooper Finn), and I think he had a point, even though the film is drenched with rehash.

True, TFA isn't an exact copy but I'm more saying the story beats are identical to ANH. In fact, look at the running time for both films and you'll start to realize what I mean, but there's other stuff like how we begin with a droid with secret information, there's a planet-sized superweapon blowing up other planets, an old man martyrs himself to a fallen jedi, the rebels exploit a weakness in the superweapon to destroy it. It's not all carbon-copied, but the beats hit throughout TFA are identical to ANH. I think the term "cliche" is most appropriate here. It's like adding new ornaments to a Christmas tree, but it's still a Christmas tree. This is why folks bemoan the lack of impact that Finn had on the story overall because, indirectly, all his story function is that he is a proxy to the "plans" to destroy the superweapon. And that's set up in a kind of last minute detail as he reveals, "I was the janitor" at the very moment they needed some way to destroy the superweapon. Even there, that's ridiculously played out because he isn't responsible for removing the shields from the planet--they just force Phasma to do it before tossing her into the garbage. The finer details are different from ANH, but essentially the story beats are the same. As for Vader not remaining in the Empire, you're absolutely correct. TESB even has him offer Luke a chance to kill the Emperor so they can rule the galaxy forever. This destroys any previous conceptions that Vader and Palpatine were "friends" or even allies and boggles my mind why that was even illustrated in the prequels. Regardless, I think a sequel to TESB would have naturally led to a story wherein Vader or the Emperor plots against and betrays the other. If anything, I think Vader's "plea" that Luke join him might speak of Vader's own fear that he will eventually have to come to blows with The Emperor and he simply sees Luke as a means to his own advantage. Funny, Vader's appealing to Luke through a familial relation is ironic considering what happened to Luke's aunt and uncle in ANH. I'm imagining an alternate universe where the Emperor actually reaches out to Luke after the events in TESB and makes a request that Luke assassinate Vader. In exchange, the Emperor could offer Luke more political power and a chance to ease or even end the conflict between the Empire and the Rebellion. Events might spur Luke to taking him up on his deal, like maybe Han dies because the Rebel Alliance wasn't able to take swift action against Jabba or maybe Leia gets so embroiled in the ongoing civil war that she becomes more and more jaded and heinous. I had this idea in my mind where Vader would collect a remnant of the Empire loyal to him and sequesters himself on his own planet, staging his own "rebellion" against the Emperor. This would be similar setup for the 1979 film Apocalypse Now where Colonel Kurtz had become a demigod among the natives in Vietnam and was staging his own war against the Vietnamese. And that planet is where Luke travels, intent on assassinating Vader in order to gain the Emperor's favor and hopefully bring an end to the war.

Please explain.

@@whattheegad He just didn’t attempt to murder anyone. He was in the midst of a vision, like the one Rey had in The Force Awakens where she had to avoid falling debris and navigate a heaving landscape while evading strange pursuers. He says that while experiencing the future first hand like that he instinctively ignited his saber thinking he could stop “it”. But when the vision passed in an instant and he was back in the room, as they say, he realised what he was actually doing. He wasn’t actually contemplating the death of his nephew.

@@martoto77 My interpretation was that he was contemplating it. Otherwise, he wouldn't have had to deal with the guilt. I don't think it makes sense for him to feel guilty for a "sin" or error if he had not, in fact, done anything wrong.

@@whattheegad There’s the shame of having been discovered in his nephew’s room covertly trying to foresee his destiny. Shame at his nephew’s perceived betrayal. His nephew defected to the dark side as a result. Regardless of his intent the damage was done. He thought that he could be as good a master as Obi-Wan or Yoda. But lack of normal communication led him to go into his hut and spy on Ben instead. And this act alone had now ensured the outcomes he’d just envisioned. So he’s ashamed at falling into that trap, not totally unlike his father had. “I was left with shame, and consequence.” Luke is left being distrustful of his instincts. When in fact his instincts are right. It was the inability to prepare for and to recognise how and when those instincts could be used against him. When he talks about the Jedi’s legacy of failure, he’s including, or highlighting, his own lack of proper diligence .

I've watched the film again and I'm not getting much of this. As far as I can tell, Luke had full intent on killing his nephew and simply stopped himself short at the last second. But his hesitation wasn't obliged by Kylo who then toppled the entire building and set it ablaze. I do agree that Luke is plagued by self-doubt. The thing is, however, that Luke never really "acted" on his self-doubt. He "almost" acted and so he's allowing himself to be haunted by something he "almost" did. That's probably the biggest issue I have with how this was all written. In an ironic twist, however, Luke was entirely correct about Kylo turning to the Dark Side. However, Kylo's turning was largely influenced by Luke trying to STOP that from happening by pre-emptively killing him. As for Luke talking about the failure of the Jedi, I think he's projecting. Jedi have succeeded and failed throughout history. Obi-Wan is evidence of the success of the Jedi while Vader is evidence of the opposite. I think the film ought to have expressed that more as well.