The Last Jedi Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker (VIII)

[markjoedelonge]

Unfortunately the "Battle of Crait" box set doesn't include a projected Luke figure. The wait continues...

Guess we'll find out at Toy Fair. Will probably come from Black Series.

 

[Mask&Cape]

I guess so. I haven't been following it closely. Everything I got was from hearsay.

I know this is an old topic but I was away.

Those comments from Hamill have been twisted and censored to suit naysayers opinions.

Hamill did indeed disagree with Johnson's view of the character but Hamill says he came around the more he talked with Johnson. That was in their early meetings but people have made out like the two were at war on the set but it wasn't like that.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Guess we'll find out at Toy Fair. Will probably come from Black Series.

I hope so but I doubt this year. Hopefully sometime in 2019.

 

[Storm Knight]

I had no issue with Luke's character in TLJ and thought it was appropriate, in fact.

He was always particularly childish, although the young Luke was also naive. He thought he could change the universe and make a difference, as most young, inspired revolutionaries do.

When we first saw him, he was a grown man playing with toy ships in his room and dreaming of adventure with no real sense of the ramifications of war. His intention was not to fight for the betterment of others, but to go to war to satisfy his own personal desires and to feel worthy.

In Empire, when he went to train with Yoda, he was shown to be an impatient whiner whose fears about becoming like Darth Vader were starting to manifest. He was rude and disrespectful to Yoda, and even after discovering the old master's identity, he complained about the value of Yoda's teachings. Luke was about to give up his training before Yoda treated him with the spectacle of the floating ship. Yoda almost decided not to train Luke because he was such a baby.

In the third film, these fears of his became very real, and although Luke was hopeful about bringing Anakin back from the opposing side, the Emperor took advantage of Luke's personal anxieties; he was consequently broken by some chirping from his father. He did not kill Sidious -- his father did. Luke, from a personal point of view, lost his battle; his meeting with Vader almost became the scene of his father's murder at his own hands. He was about to kill Vader despite all of the soul-searching he had done between Empire and Return of the Jedi; fear and anger almost consumed him. While he wrestled with his emotions and momentarily refocused himself, he did not vanquish his fears. That's not how emotions work. He was always insecure and would continue to be even after Return. Another lapse in his composure would later in his life result in catastrophe.

At no point did I ever see Luke as a mature adult. He still had the mindset of a boy throughout the original trilogy, even though multiple times he was hailed as a hero.

Assuming Leia and Han had their baby soon after Return, Luke would have spent the following twenty years building an academy. It's not clear what kind of teacher he was, or if he was even capable of teaching.

Of course, if the war carried on afterward, then it makes sense that Luke's view of life would have taken a more cynical turn -- "what is the point of this" if there was simply going to be a perpetual war? If the truth was also to be warped and a false or faulty narrative perpetuated, then how significant was he really? Our own history of humanity has always been about conquest and political struggles; war has been the result of politics becoming a violent affair. Life is a struggle for survival against those who pose an existential threat, and at no point will humanity ever conform to one single philosophy of government. It's also impossible to get away from war in a film series titled Star Wars, so in Luke's world it's likely that war is perpetual, as it is in our world. As time passes, Luke's acts of heroism seem less important in the grand scheme of the universe. It's easy to feel small.

Based on the personality traits established in the original trilogy, it is clear that Luke has problems of low self-esteem. Every time he hits a roadblock, he sinks into a feeling of self-doubt and retreats into his own world. His failure with the academy was by far the biggest failure of his life, and nobody was going to bail him out this time. He did what he almost did on numerous other occasions -- give up. For the first time ever, all of the prestige and self-worth that he had built up throughout his life had come crumbling down: the ego, so to speak.

Ben probably isn't much older in The Force Awakens than he was when he left the academy, so Luke probably has not been in hiding for too long. What he needed again was for someone to point him in the right direction. That figure for him in The Last Jedi is Rey. At some point he needed to alter his perspective of the world. It was always about him in the original trilogy, and even the idea of being headmaster of a school could have been about him, not the students. Such tragedy and failure meant an insurmountable degree of personal embarrassment and disgrace: he was a failure. It took Yoda and Rey to teach him that one can derive success from failure, and to not dwell on one's history. Live in the moment and care less about how one is remembered. Whereas in the past he had nearly failed on many occasions, he needed to recover from failure this time. He needed to accept failure and harness it rather than let it destroy his sense of worth.

Luke has never been the archetype of the perfect, brave, masculine, heroic figure. That character is Han Solo. Luke has always been insecure, immature, and boyish one who accomplishes great tasks with support and guidance from others. He is a fickle character.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Luke had been in hiding long enough to be considered a 'myth' by Rey and Finn in TFA, that's a pretty long time.

Also, I believe it's been established that TFO came to power around 5 years before TFA started. That means Snoke was seducing Kylo before that. So yeah, you make some good points, but those parts of your argument fall flat.

 

[wampa1]

How old are Rey are Finn? 20ish? I think it's between 5-10 years that Luke has been in hiding. Even before that, if he was just doing his academy stuff a younger character on a planet in the middle of nowhere with no formal upbringing wouldn't necessarily believe that he existed and Finn certainly wouldn't, given his FO background.

 

[wampa1]

I know this is an old topic but I was away.

Those comments from Hamill have been twisted and censored to suit naysayers opinions.

Hamill did indeed disagree with Johnson's view of the character but Hamill says he came around the more he talked with Johnson. That was in their early meetings but people have made out like the two were at war on the set but it wasn't like that.

It doesn't really matter either way. Harrison Ford grumbled about Han for 30 years but that never stopped me enjoying the films.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

How old are Rey are Finn? 20ish? I think it's between 5-10 years that Luke has been in hiding. Even before that, if he was just doing his academy stuff a younger character on a planet in the middle of nowhere with no formal upbringing wouldn't necessarily believe that he existed and Finn certainly wouldn't, given his FO background.

Even so, 5-10 years isn't 'just before TFA.'So the argument the poster I was responding to falls flat.

 

[Storm Knight]

Luke had been in hiding long enough to be considered a 'myth' by Rey and Finn in TFA, that's a pretty long time.

Also, I believe it's been established that TFO came to power around 5 years before TFA started. That means Snoke was seducing Kylo before that. So yeah, you make some good points, but those parts of your argument fall flat.

Ben was a grown man when Luke betrayed his sense of trust -- old enough for Adam Driver to play him.

Luke did not leave the academy until after it was burned down. That could not have been more than a handful of years.

Five years is not much time to be in hiding.

 

[Mjölnir]

The book Bloodlines takes place 6 years before TFA and Ben is still training with Luke at that time, so Luke's definitely been gone less than 6 years. It really makes no sense that Luke's been turned into myth.

5 years is a ton of time to spend running away and letting everyone else deal with the new dark side threat and the First Order though.

 

[Brother Jack]

Luke was made a legend way before he went into hiding. It originated with him bringing down the Empire, and then grew for 20 plus years of him being "the last Jedi". That's why he failed with Ben in the first place, he couldn't live up to the expectations placed upon him by his legend.

 

[Mjölnir]

Luke is a legend for sure, but the point is that people seem to think he's a myth, that's he's not real. I don't get how him being real and being around wasn't common knowledge when the Rebellion won and created the new Republic. They should logically have heralded him as one of the great war heroes everywhere, as well as saying that the Jedi are back could be comfort and hope for a bright future for the citizens.

To me Return of the Jedi should have been what it was named, both in that Luke became a Jedi Knight and confronted the Sith, and in that the Jedi returned to the awareness of everyone in the galaxy like it was before.

I guess one can explain it that it's just that Rey is unusually ignorant because she's a scrapper on a remote desert planet (though it was the location of the last battle of the Empire), but Han doesn't seem particularly surprised that she doesn't know that Luke is real.

I guess it's just another case of how the Jedi mostly vanished from memory between Episode III and IV, which didn't make much sense either. We'll just have to live with it.

 

[Iceman]

Luke is a legend for sure, but the point is that people seem to think he's a myth, that's he's not real. I don't get how him being real and being around wasn't common knowledge when the Rebellion won and created the new Republic. They should logically have heralded him as one of the great war heroes everywhere, as well as saying that the Jedi are back could be comfort and hope for a bright future for the citizens.

To me Return of the Jedi should have been what it was named, both in that Luke became a Jedi Knight and confronted the Sith, and in that the Jedi returned to the awareness of everyone in the galaxy like it was before.

I guess one can explain it that it's just that Rey is unusually ignorant because she's a scrapper on a remote desert planet (though it was the location of the last battle of the Empire), but Han doesn't seem particularly surprised that she doesn't know that Luke is real.

I guess it's just another case of how the Jedi mostly vanished from memory between Episode III and IV, which didn't make much sense either. We'll just have to live with it.

Yeah agreed that some of this comes off as a bit strange at least. Who would forget the Jedi in that time period? Must be a very forgetful universe we're dealing with here. t:

 

[Brother Jack]

Yeah agreed that some of this comes off as a bit strange at least. Who would forget the Jedi in that time period? Must be a very forgetful universe we're dealing with here. t:

It's much easier to believe that people would think the Jedi aren't real in the sequel trilogy, where the Jedi have been gone for 50 years, than it is for Han Solo to not believe in the force two decades removed from the Jedi existing at the height of their collective power. That's one of the most annoying inconsistencies in the prequels.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Ben was a grown man when Luke betrayed his sense of trust -- old enough for Adam Driver to play him.

Luke did not leave the academy until after it was burned down. That could not have been more than a handful of years.

Five years is not much time to be in hiding.

18 years of age is considered a grown man, doesn't mean Kylo Ren could not be 30 by the time TFA happens.

And I disagree on 5 years not being a long time. As other posters have pointed out it seems Like was gone for 5 years. However Snoke was turning Ben before that. So again, those parts of your argument fell flat.

 

[Aximili86]

Yeah, think they've said it's been about 6 years between the Academy massacre and TFA.

And Ben's, what, 32 or something. He was hardly some child upon turning. He was older than Anakin in ROTS.

 

[wampa1]

And Ben's, what, 32 or something.

Was he conceived whilst Han was in Carbonite?

 

[Storm Knight]

18 years of age is considered a grown man, doesn't mean Kylo Ren could not be 30 by the time TFA happens.

And I disagree on 5 years not being a long time. As other posters have pointed out it seems Like was gone for 5 years. However Snoke was turning Ben before that. So again, those parts of your argument fell flat.

Snoke's seduction of Ben before the destruction of the academy has nothing to do with Luke's character traits except maybe to reaffirm that he might not have been a great teacher, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. The amount of time that Luke has been away is a footnote in this discussion about the consistencies of Luke's character between the original trilogy and The Last Jedi.

Five years is not a long time. For reference, Frozen, Gravity, and Pacific Rim came out in 2013 -- five years ago. Didn't that just feel like yesterday? To a child, that period of time might feel like forever, but adults perceive time differently than kids do.

The point of my analysis is that Luke's childish, insecure behavior in The Last Jedi is justified by the fact that he was often childish and insecure in the original trilogy. There is a high degree of consistency in his character between the films. People seem to have been expecting him to grow old and wise, and to become a different person altogether with age. I'm glad we did not need to take a leap of faith to assume that he had become somebody else -- he is still bratty Luke at heart, albeit older, grumpier, and in the worst rut of his life.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Snoke's seduction of Ben before the destruction of the academy has nothing to do with Luke's character traits except maybe to reaffirm that he might not have been a great teacher, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. The amount of time that Luke has been away is a footnote in this discussion about the consistencies of Luke's character between the original trilogy and The Last Jedi.

Five years is not a long time. For reference, Frozen, Gravity, and Pacific Rim came out in 2013 -- five years ago. Didn't that just feel like yesterday? To a child, that period of time might feel like forever, but adults perceive time differently than kids do.

The point of my analysis is that Luke's childish, insecure behavior in The Last Jedi is justified by the fact that he was often childish and insecure in the original trilogy. There is a high degree of consistency in his character between the films. People seem to have been expecting him to grow old and wise, and to become a different person altogether with age. I'm glad we did not need to take a leap of faith to assume that he had become somebody else -- he is still bratty Luke at heart, albeit older, grumpier, and in the worst rut of his life.

I am 35 years old and 5 years seems a long time ago to me. So much has happened in my life since, I barely remember going to see the movies you mentioned in the cinema. I own Gravity and PR on BD, and haven't watched either in over a year, so yeah, 2013 seems a long time ago for me.

You originally said that Luke going into hiding and Ben being turned happened shortly before the events of TFA. They didn't and that was the problem I had with your argument. I didn't disagree with you on Luke as a character. However, I do disagree with some of the choices Johnson made about his arc. Whether he is child like or not, him going away and leaving the universe, including his friends and family, to rot doesn't sit right with me.

But yeah my original disagreement with your argument was that major events happend just before TFA, when they happened some time before. It made some of your points fall flat.

 

[Storm Knight]

I am 35 years old and 5 years seems a long time ago to me. So much has happened in my life since, I barely remember going to see the movies you mentioned in the cinema. I own Gravity and PR on BD, and haven't watched either in over a year, so yeah, 2013 seems a long time ago for me.

You originally said that Luke going into hiding and Ben being turned happened shortly before the events of TFA. They didn't and that was the problem I had with your argument. I didn't disagree with you on Luke as a character. However, I do disagree with some of the choices Johnson made about his arc. Whether he is child like or not, him going away and leaving the universe, including his friends and family, to rot doesn't sit right with me.

But yeah my original disagreement with your argument was that major events happend just before TFA, when they happened some time before. It made some of your points fall flat.

That seems to be more nitpicky than anything. Your criticism really doesn't affect the overall argument whatsoever.

Shortly is a relative term. One common misconception that people seem to have is that Luke was in hiding for 30 years, or at the very least for a very long time -- for example, in Mark Hamill's famous interview.

Shortly, in this case, is intended to mean "some time not too long before the events of TFA."

Time is relative. If you agree with the basis of the argument, then you're really just nitpicking details that don't matter.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-time-seem-to-speed-up-with-age/

Why Does Time Seem to Speed Up with Age?

...

“Where did the time go?” middle-aged and older adults often remark. Many of us feel that time passes more quickly as we age, a perception that can lead to regrets. According to psychologist and BBC columnist Claudia Hammond, “the sensation that time speeds up as you get older is one of the biggest mysteries of the experience of time.” Fortunately, our attempts to unravel this mystery have yielded some intriguing findings.

In 2005, for instance, psychologists Marc Wittmann and Sandra Lenhoff, both then at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, surveyed 499 participants, ranging in age from 14 to 94 years, about the pace at which they felt time moving—from “very slowly” to “very fast.” For shorter durations—a week, a month, even a year—the subjects' perception of time did not appear to increase with age. Most participants felt that the clock ticked by quickly. But for longer durations, such as a decade, a pattern emerged: older people tended to perceive time as moving faster. When asked to reflect on their lives, the participants older than 40 felt that time elapsed slowly in their childhood but then accelerated steadily through their teenage years into early adulthood.

There are good reasons why older people may feel that way. When it comes to how we perceive time, humans can estimate the length of an event from two very different perspectives: a prospective vantage, while an event is still occurring, or a retrospective one, after it has ended. In addition, our experience of time varies with whatever we are doing and how we feel about it. In fact, time does fly when we are having fun. Engaging in a novel exploit makes time appear to pass more quickly in the moment. But if we remember that activity later on, it will seem to have lasted longer than more mundane experiences.

The reason? Our brain encodes new experiences, but not familiar ones, into memory, and our retrospective judgment of time is based on how many new memories we create over a certain period. In other words, the more new memories we build on a weekend getaway, the longer that trip will seem in hindsight.

This phenomenon, which Hammond has dubbed the holiday paradox, seems to present one of the best clues as to why, in retrospect, time seems to pass more quickly the older we get. From childhood to early adulthood, we have many fresh experiences and learn countless new skills. As adults, though, our lives become more routine, and we experience fewer unfamiliar moments. As a result, our early years tend to be relatively overrepresented in our autobiographical memory and, on reflection, seem to have lasted longer. Of course, this means we can also slow time down later in life. We can alter our perceptions by keeping our brain active, continually learning skills and ideas, and exploring new places.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don’t agree it’s nitpicky as it was pretty important to your argument and I don’t consider 5 years shortly before. I did t need the article either, as I said I am 35 and 5 years ago is a long time to me and some major changes have happened in my life during that time. I look back to 2013 and it’s a very different time in my life.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Herolee10]

So according to BBC, even Hamil is still having troubles fully processing the fact that Luke Skywalker is gone. I definitely prefer his view on how Luke simply just vanished to another planet that just happens to be nudist colony.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

So according to BBC, even Hamil is still having troubles fully processing the fact that Luke Skywalker is gone. I definitely prefer his view on how Luke simply just vanished to another planet that just happens to be nudist colony.

 

[TheVileOne]

So according to BBC, even Hamil is still having troubles fully processing the fact that Luke Skywalker is gone. I definitely prefer his view on how Luke simply just vanished to another planet that just happens to be nudist colony.

He's rejoined the Cosmic Force.

 

[MaceB]

One day, I would love to hear Mark Hamill's account after he told Rian that he didn't agree with his interpretation of Luke.

I imagine it went something like:

Hamill: Hey, why did you kill Luke. That's gonna hurt the originals and fans will be pissed!
Johnson: Look, the studio wants the stories to break free from the originals and they think the best way to do that is to kill Luke.
Hamill: Hmm, well I disagree... but gotta earn those dollas son.

Come on Mark, in a few years... let's get the tell all book.