The Last Jedi - There At First.. wait

[SaintRidley]

Why is nobody talking about Akbar.

Gonna be blunt: Akbar is way overblown in the fandom and isn't worth talking about.

[Malifice]

Because he was one screen for maybe six seconds, unmentioned until after he left and made no actual effect on the movie whatsover. The movie made literally one mention of him. Why should anyone, anyone, be bothered to give more than that?

Because it was Admiral ****** Akbar.

He deserved better. Instead they introduce a totally new Admiral and she gets the heroic death. He just dies like a *****.

I get why they did it and it fits with the theme of the movie. Still I found it annoying.

Not Carrie Poppins annoying or the way they destroyed Luke skywalker annoying. But annoying nonetheless.

[Malifice]

Gonna be blunt: Akbar is way overblown in the fandom and isn't worth talking about.

I think the fans deserved one though. The franchise is built on an incredibly strong fandom. Throwing us a bone would have been nice.

[Malifice]

He debated murdering a sleeping child. I am given cause to wonder what kind of mistakes you allow for your heroes to get away with.

Have you ever seen an alignment thread on these boards?

Murdering sleeping children is nothing. Heck I've seen dozens of people genuinely and legitimately argue for full on genocide for their lawful good 'heroes'.

On point, Padme didn't care about the murder of children. Or for that matter genocide. Of course that was also a massive betrayal of her character but hey.

[Malifice]

Would you kill Baby Hitler if you had the chance?

No and neither would Luke skywalker.

The Luke skywalker I remember wouldnt kill adult Hitler (Vader) if he had the chance. In fact he would rather die first.

See also: Return of the Jedi.

[Razade]

Because it was Admiral ****** Akbar.

The character who got two scenes, maybe five, at most in what...eight films? Hardly qualifies the explitive if you ask me.

He deserved better.

Did he? Back up the assertion then. Why did he deserve better?

Instead they introduce a totally new Admiral and she gets the heroic death. He just dies like a *****.

They're both pretty much in the same boat insofaras "heroic" deaths are concerned.

I get why they did it and it fits with the theme of the movie. Still I found it annoying.

Are they?

Not Carrie Poppins annoying or the way they destroyed Luke skywalker annoying. But annoying nonetheless.

Sure, the forme was...hilariously silly. The latter not so much. I actually got that.

I think the fans deserved one though. The franchise is built on an incredibly strong fandom. Throwing us a bone would have been nice.

The fans deserve nothing.

[Malifice]

The fans deserve nothing.

They should just dump in our mouth then?

[Razade]

They should just dump in our mouth then?

If you want to hold them to some exceedingly high standard where every b-list character that doesn't even get a name in their original appearance gets some massive wink and nod in a sequel more than 20 years in the future? Then yeah. If you consider that a dump in your mouth, you should head down to the local waste management plant because they've got a feast with your name on it.

[GloatingSwine]

No and neither would Luke skywalker.

The Luke skywalker I remember wouldnt kill adult Hitler (Vader) if he had the chance. In fact he would rather die first.

See also: Return of the Jedi.

Maybe you should watch that movie again, because when he fights Vader in the throne room Luke gives in to his fear at Vader's taunting and strikes in anger and that's how he actually wins. It's only shock at dealing the same wound to Vader in blind rage that he was dealt on Cloud City that lets him pull away from the Dark Side.

The Luke Skywalker you remember is an idealised version, not the one from the films.

(This is also why what's revealed in TLJ is actually appropriate. It's a mistake that Luke continually makes despite repeated lessons (the cave on Dagobah, Cloud City). He pulls away from it every time, but every time the Dark Side is right there with him. This is the time he really didn't get away with it).

[Dr.Samurai]

Maybe you should watch that movie again, because when he fights Vader in the throne room Luke gives in to his fear at Vader's taunting and strikes in anger and that's how he actually wins. It's only shock at dealing the same wound to Vader in blind rage that he was dealt on Cloud City that lets him pull away from the Dark Side.

The Luke Skywalker you remember is an idealised version, not the one from the films.

(This is also why what's revealed in TLJ is actually appropriate. It's a mistake that Luke continually makes despite repeated lessons (the cave on Dagobah, Cloud City). He pulls away from it every time, but every time the Dark Side is right there with him. This is the time he really didn't get away with it).

This equivocating is so annoying.

Yes, Luke gets taunted. In a war. Against another very formidable enemy that is threatening to turn his sister to the dark side. Luke's options are limited in the throne room. He went in there with a purpose in mind, and once his plan made contact with the enemy, it didn't go smoothly.

I don't know why people equate this with "standing over your sleeping nephew/student/ward and thinking of killing them in cold blood preemptively".

I don't know why attacking the bogeyman of the entire galaxy in a cave is held up alongside the premeditated murder of someone that hasn't done anything wrong.

I don't know why it's unreasonable to think that Luke learned his lesson after he didn't kill Vader and threw his lightsaber down and allowed the Emperor to fry him to a crisp.

Instead, we get apologists saying "Oh, well, Luke has always attacked powerful Sith in self defense, so this is in line with his character after thirty years of being a Jedi Grandmaster".

EDIT:

They should just dump in our mouth then?

Should they? No. Disney could have easily laid the heroes of old to rest in a manner that made sense and was deserving of the characters, to pave the way for the new guard.

But they chose to burn everything down.

Why? I don't know. Rian Johnson is already responding to the criticism with the old "you can't please everyone" deflection, ignoring the fact that he made a bad movie and also **** on a large part of the fanbase.

[Mechalich]

The movie tried to explain that in the first scene. Basically it's because Hux is totally incompetent.

Hux is a problem for the sequel trilogy, a big problem, and symptomatic of a larger problem with the First Order in general, which is that they suck. They suck both in general and also specifically in comparison to the Galactic Empire that they are emulating.

There are exactly two named first order characters in the ST: Hux and Phasma. Both of them are incompetent. Honestly, I'm not even sure how come Phasma is alive in TLJ, considering her failure to resist being threatened was responsible for the destruction of Starkiller Base. And they aren't even incompetent in a fun way. Phasma's character design doesn't project menace and she hasn't done anything to make the heroes or the audience afraid of her. Hux is just a mess. Domhnall Gleeson is not a bad actor (I saw Ex Machina, he's not), but he just doesn't have what it takes and both the costume department and the direction have failed him. He looks and sounds like a little boy playing at being a warlord.

I understand that filling Peter Cushing's shoes is a tall order, but the First Order is less intimidating than your average run of the mill Marvel villain - and that's a low bar.

TFA setup three antagonists: the sucky knock-off of the Empire that was the First Order, a whiny wannabe-Vader in Kylo Ren, and the blank canvas of Snoke. It was not a good starting point by any measure. TLJ chose to throw Snoke out completely; just flat-out ignoring the most open-ended option entirely. To it's credit it fixed Kylo Ren - I will absolutely give this movie that much they fixed Kylo; and it made the First Order appear even more pathetic than before.

And yet somehow, the First Order managed to achieve almost all of their objectives in this movie with only modest casualties, so the Rebels don't exactly look great by comparison. As far as the military aspects of TLJ go, it's like watching game between two really bad teams.

Presumably, Hux is going to die in Episode IX. I mean, out of all the characters available he's the one the narrative pretty much demands must perish (there are a number of options for Kylo). Does anyone care? People who loved this movie, be honest. Do you care what happens to Hux? Do you feel any desire to see Finn or Poe blast him in the head?

[Dr.Samurai]

As far as the military aspects of TLJ go, it's like watching game between two really bad teams.

That is an excellent way of putting it! I can't imagine people calling this plot "thrilling". It's like... really? There's nothing more either side can do? We have to sit here and endure this slow boring chase?

Then you find out there was something they could do all along. But they wanted to do it after just about everyone dies, for some reason.

Oh right, the reason is that we were learning that heroism is a bad thing. The best way to drive that point home is with a final act of heroism. That could have been done at any point in the film, by either side, avoiding the entire plot completely.

Yeah, great film guys. Stellar...

[GloatingSwine]

This equivocating is so annoying.

Yes, Luke gets taunted. In a war. Against another very formidable enemy that is threatening to turn his sister to the dark side. Luke's options are limited in the throne room. He went in there with a purpose in mind, and once his plan made contact with the enemy, it didn't go smoothly.

I don't know why people equate this with "standing over your sleeping nephew/student/ward and thinking of killing them in cold blood preemptively".

Because it's explicit in the lore of Star Wars that fear and anger are the emotional lures of the Dark Side.

They're equivalent because they're both temptations of the Dark Side, they actually are the same as far as the known mechanics of the Force work.

And Luke should have learned his lesson about being ruled by fear at Cloud City where it leads him to fail at the one thing he set out to do (save his friends), and he should have learned it in the cave on Dagobah where he saw the lesson that striking out in fear will lead him to the dark, but he didn't. You can't claim he learned it from the events of the throne room because the films have never shown that he did, only things that are actually in the films count not things you imagine.

Luke just doesn't attack a powerful Sith in that throne room, he fights with anger on his side, it's one of Hamill's strongest performances in the whole original trilogy, smashing repeatedly against Vader with the strength of blind rage and his whole body sells it. That is the Dark Side in action, that is Luke fighting with its power, right there at the very end of his arc in the original trilogy he cannot keep it out, only pull back from it once it has already put its hand on him.

He looks and sounds like a little boy playing at being a warlord.

He is. Snoke even says so to Kylo Ren. Snoke is not as clever as he thinks he is and he has surrounded himself with ideologically correct but incompetent minions on purpose because they're easy for him to manipulate. (And he really should have read the evil overlord list, boasting about how easy to manipulate your trusted lieutenant is whilst he's right there in the room is awfully close to #77)

[Dr.Samurai]

Because it's explicit in the lore of Star Wars that fear and anger are the emotional lures of the Dark Side.

They're equivalent because they're both temptations of the Dark Side, they actually are the same as far as the known mechanics of the Force work.

The Force is not the only thing at work here. There are also people at play. So no, they are not equivalent. At all.

Further, the idea that Luke should never learn his lesson until the very end of this movie is... I mean, why should that be the case?

People are acting like we want Luke to be perfect. Well, no, that's not the case. But as you point out, he gave into fear on Dagobah. On Bespin. On the Death Star. Then he learned his lesson and threw down his lightsaber and redeemed his father and defeated the Sith.

Why wouldn't this lesson transform him? Or carry with him for the rest of his life? He saved the entire galaxy, defeated the Sith, and turned his father back to the light. Why did this not have an impact on his character? Why does he have to keep making the same mistake? To show that he's human? So humans don't ever learn from their mistakes I guess?

The argument is very weak. It is not necessary to make Luke *this* flawed. He's not perfect. He went through his trials and came out of them triumphant. No need to drag him back to the starting plate to do it all over again to show us all that he's "flawed". We knew that already.

Also, found this gem : https://9gag.com/gag/ayxGbVb?ref=android.s

[GloatingSwine]

The Force is not the only thing at work here. There are also people at play. So no, they are not equivalent. At all.

Further, the idea that Luke should never learn his lesson until the very end of this movie is... I mean, why should that be the case?

No, the point is that Luke should have learned his lesson before the end of the OT and should then have acted in a way that demonstrated that the lesson had been learned.

Because that's how storytelling actually works.

[Misereor]

Maybe I'm damaged goods, but I can't help but compare the new trilogy to setting up a new campaign.


Story:

When planning a 3 chapter campaign, I would defintely try to keep the same GM for all three chapters.

If I decided to have another GM for the middle chapter of a campaign I spent a considerable amount of time and resources on, I would make sure that it was someone good. (not someone who only GM'd one fairly big campaign and a couple smaller ones).

But if I did decide to let soneone else GM the middle chapter, I would at least try to cooperate with them on continuity between chapters.

And make sure that they at least had a passing familiarity with the campaign world, so they didn't implement scenes which retroactively invalidated stuff from canon or made it seem ridiculous.

I would definitely not go for a setup where the other GM only started writing his chapter after the group completed chapter 1.

I would also definetely tweak things in chapter 2 and 3 based on player feedback, but I would not start with a completely blank slate after finishing chapter 1. Sandboxing can be fun, but I like a little storytelling too to avoid too much randomness and contrived spur-of-the-moment ideas.



New NPC's:

If I made any NPC's who were Mary-Sue'ish, I would do it as a troll. I would try to come up with a phenomenal explanation for it, to be revealed to the players. And importantly do so *before* they lost patience with me and stopped playing.

Even so, I would probably only make them Mary-Sue'ish in one area, not a whole bunch. Lord Flashheart from Blackadder was the best rider, fencer, shot, and kisser in the whole kingdom. He was also deliberately made an annoying prat, because the writers knew the audience would empathize with that (Woof! Woof! to the magnificent, late Rik Mayall).



Old NPC's:

If we were playing in a campaign world that had beloved, established NPC's and institutions, I would not casually screw around with them. If I had to tell my Marvel players Captain America was dead, it would be the result of something major. I would not tell them that he had been shot while attempting to evade police after being revealed as a child molester, simply because I wanted my own NPC to take centre stage and needed him out of the way.

I would definitely not have old NPC's accomplishments casually overshadowed to prove how amazing *my* new characters are. It's infantile and just plain bad writing.
(To be fair, the Star Wars EU had a problem with this long before Disney took over.)



Flavor text/Cinematography.
I wish I could do it as well as Disney. Nothing more to add.



Sociological twists and political messages
If I wanted to insert subtle lessons into my campaign, I would not do it with a sledgehammer. In fact I would not choose any lesson which I knew was controversial and divided my player group.
I suspect that if I made all knights in trademarkblack armor be evil, that would be fine. If I made all knights having black skin be evil, I suspect I would have to start looking for new players.



Humor:
I see that Guardians of the Galaxy was a trendsetter, and everyone and their little dog too is copying them.
I'm more of a John Landis kind of guy. Humor used to break the tension can be amazing. Firing off jokes every 10 seconds is silly by design and just gets annoying after a while.


That's all I can think of right now.

[Dr.Samurai]

No, the point is that Luke should have learned his lesson before the end of the OT and should then have acted in a way that demonstrated that the lesson had been learned.

Him defeating the Empire, the Emperor, and redeeming Vader is what demonstrates that the lesson is learned. He didn't come out confused needing Yoda to explain to him what he saw, he didn't lose a hand and find himself dangling beneath Cloud City. He didn't find himself standing over his murdered father with the Emperor behind him as his new master.

He emerged victorious, with the galaxy saved and his father redeemed. Lesson learned.

Because that's how storytelling actually works.

Right. Incongruous movies within a trilogy, plots that don't make sense, sub-plots that don't go anywhere, major characters killed off before being given any depth, mixed messages about heroism, mixed messages about the many and the few, and the list goes on.

Don't lecture me on storytelling while defending this movie.

[GloatingSwine]

Him defeating the Empire, the Emperor, and redeeming Vader is what demonstrates that the lesson is learned. He didn't come out confused needing Yoda to explain to him what he saw, he didn't lose a hand and find himself dangling beneath Cloud City. He didn't find himself standing over his murdered father with the Emperor behind him as his new master.

He emerged victorious, with the galaxy saved and his father redeemed. Lesson learned.

But he only reached that point because the Dark Side gave him the strength to do so. He got away with it, he didn't make a mistake he couldn't undo, that time, but there's absolutely no evidence that Luke Skywalker learned not to give in to fear in future because until this movie we knew nothing about that future.

You don't get to make up a version of the future of the character where he's better than the movies demonstrate him being, because only what's in the movies counts.

[Chromascope3D]

I mean, humans do learn from their mistakes, but it's not like the impulses to make them ever go away. Especially if it's an impulse that's been reinforced since childhood.

[Sholos]

I must have missed the part of TLJ where Kylo taunts Luke wth all the carnage he's planning and thus riles Luke up to the point where he loses control.

[GloatingSwine]

I must have missed the part of TLJ where Kylo taunts Luke wth all the carnage he's planning and thus riles Luke up to the point where he loses control.

Luke explicitly says he uses the Force to look into Kylo's mind and fears what he finds there.

[Mechalich]

But he only reached that point because the Dark Side gave him the strength to do so. He got away with it, he didn't make a mistake he couldn't undo, that time, but there's absolutely no evidence that Luke Skywalker learned not to give in to fear in future because until this movie we knew nothing about that future.

You don't get to make up a version of the future of the character where he's better than the movies demonstrate him being, because only what's in the movies counts.

If you find Luke's 'instinctual impulse' to draw his lightsaber on Ben Solo convincing, so be it. Luke admits he made a mistake, and it's possibly to buy that. What doesn't make sense is what Luke does after the fact. Why does he disappear into exile at the original Jedi Temple? Why abandon Ben to Snoke completely rather than trying to go after him (or perhaps the other students, whomever they may be) and bring him back or even put him down? Why does he leave a highly convoluted map for Leia with Max Von Sydow's character in TFA if he's planning on never coming back? (how does he even know that guy?)

In the OT Luke makes several mistakes and at a number of points has the consequences of his actions rebound on him horrifically. Starting in ANH when Owen and Beru get killed because the Empire tracks them. He arguably gets Obi-Wan killed by going after Leia on the Death Star (he clearly feels partially responsible afterward). He plays into Vader's hands by going to Cloud City and disappoints Yoda at the same time. He joins the mission to the Forest Moon of Endor and allows Vader to become aware of his presence. Luke makes mistakes.

And every time he makes a mistake he takes action to correct those mistakes. He goes with Obi-Wan to fight the Empire. He volunteers to fly an X-wing to attack the Death Star knowing its practically suicide. He puts himself in maximum jeopardy to try and get Han back from Jabba. He goes back to Dagobah to apologize to Yoda. He leaves the commando mission and turns himself in to Vader. Luke Skywalker is resilient. Only he isn't in TLJ. He made a mistake - he let a student get tempted by the dark side (he's in pretty august company there) - only this time he uproots himself to the edge of the galaxy and tries to utterly ignore the problem. He does so to the point that when someone shows up and offers him the perfect means to correct his mistake he throws the opportunity away. It's extremely jarring.

The funny thing is, that Luke's rejection of everything Jedi up to and including the very idea that they could be a force for good in the galaxy makes perfect sense: for Legends EU Luke Skywalker circa about 40 ABY. That Luke Skywalker has been beaten down by one failure after another and a galaxy and people who refuse to listen to him (because Troy Denning made it a personal mission to torment the character for most of the 2000s) that he would be totally justified in going down this road. But that character is not the Luke Skywalker who stepped out from the end of ROTJ. I expect Disney's new EU is going to spend the better part of the next decade getting Luke's character into a place where his portrayal in this movie makes sense, but in terms of jumping from ROTJ, to a few teased pieces in TFA, and then to TLJ, it just doesn't fit.

As an aside, I do want to shout out a tribute to Mark Hamill's incredible professionalism as an actor in this movie. He's made it very clear he had strong opinions against the choices made in this film, but that didn't stop him from marching around on Skellig Michael (which cannot have been pleasant, I've been there, nice place, not a good working environment) and giving a fully committed performance of the material presented to him. All too many actors placed in this position would have mailed the role in.

[Chen]

I mean, humans do learn from their mistakes, but it's not like the impulses to make them ever go away. Especially if it's an impulse that's been reinforced since childhood.

This. And frankly its more insidious in Star Wars with Jedi since the Dark side is ALWAYS going to be there as a temptation. Luke DID learn his lesson on the Death Star. And he was once again tempted by the dark side, and fought it off with Ben. He just got screwed this time in that his slight giving in (igniting his saber) got him caught and Ben went full on evil in response to him thinking his master was trying to kill him.

As for not going after Ben (and Snoke, though I'm not sure he really knew about Snoke) it seems to be what old Jedi Masters do. Same reason Yoda didn't go hunt down and kill Vader. Part of it is reasonable. In both the Yoda and Luke case, the opposition had a large military force and was trying to hunt them down. That said, they could easily have joined the Rebellion (for Yoda) or the Resistance (for Luke) and tried to take on the opposition that way. In that sense I'd say its pretty much plot contrivance.

[Malifice]

(And he really should have read the evil overlord list, boasting about how easy to manipulate your trusted lieutenant is whilst he's right there in the room is awfully close to #77)

The Starscream rule.

[Sholos]

Luke explicitly says he uses the Force to look into Kylo's mind and fears what he finds there.

Ah yes. Definitely the same as being in the middle of an active duel while your friends' and comrades' lives are being actively threatened and needing o wrap things up quickly. Yup, totally the same situation.

Not to mention the 20-odd years he had afterwards to presumably get better at the whole Jedi thing.

Luke's character assassination was a travesty.

[Dr.Samurai]

But he only reached that point because the Dark Side gave him the strength to do so.

I'm not sure how you're drawing this conclusion. Luke went in there to redeem his father, not kill him. The Emperor lured him to fight but Luke once again turned his lightsaber off and refused to fight. This was without the dark side. This was Luke, attempting again to do what he set out to do, redeem his father. Then Vader taunts him and gets him to fight, but Luke once again turns off his lightsaber. Nothing suggests that if he couldn't defeat Vader in combat that he wouldn't still insist on redeeming him. It happened to work out that way, but no, I woulnd't give credit of Luke's redemption of Vader to the dark side. By any stretch of the imagination.

He got away with it, he didn't make a mistake he couldn't undo, that time, but there's absolutely no evidence that Luke Skywalker learned not to give in to fear in future because until this movie we knew nothing about that future.

This is the crux of it. You equate "give in to fear" with "might preemptively murder a child in his sleep". That's the equivocation. Luke could have done all sorts of things in "giving in to his fear" that don't require him to consider murdering his nephew in cold blood.

Luke could have, in his desperation, go face an enemy he didn't know or understand, Snoke, and been soundly defeated and captured. And through Luke, Snoke is able to attack Leia in the Force, and has no crippled the strongest light side user that could challenge him, and the leader of the Resistance. This requires new blood to save the galaxy. Cool, no problem. Luke could admit later that he gave in to fear and made a colossal mistake if people need to be spoon fed that he's just a human and not a god.

The point is that his mistake doesn't need to be that he's a child killer.

You don't get to make up a version of the future of the character where he's better than the movies demonstrate him being, because only what's in the movies counts.

The irony. Look, if we go by what's in the movies only, nothing in The Return of the Jedi indicates that Luke would kill his nephew in cold blood for future crimes. So if you're going to go with that storyline, you need to explain it and justify it, like I said in my original posts about this movie. If we go by only what's in the movies, we don't get anything. Luke saw darkness in Ben's mind, and thought the best course of action would be to kill him. That's not justified by the movies. And for those that care, it's not in line with the expectations of the character after Return of the Jedi.

Also, everything Mecalich said, as usual lol.

Remember, at the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke says this when he overcomes the dark side and makes the sacrifice to redeem his father, "I'm a jedi, like my father before me." We go from this to "I may have to kill Ben in his sleep. Damn, that was a bad thought to have. I made a mistake. **** it, I can't fix this. I give up. The Jedi are terrible and need to be destroyed."

[GloatingSwine]

Ah yes. Definitely the same as being in the middle of an active duel while your friends' and comrades' lives are being actively threatened and needing o wrap things up quickly. Yup, totally the same situation.

Both situations where fear can let the dark side in.

Just like Anakin's fall was never to do with things right in front of him, but fear for things that might be in the future.

It's almost like it's a central theme of the whole saga or something.....

I'm not sure how you're drawing this conclusion. Luke went in there to redeem his father, not kill him. The Emperor lured him to fight but Luke once again turned his lightsaber off and refused to fight. This was without the dark side. This was Luke, attempting again to do what he set out to do, redeem his father. Then Vader taunts him and gets him to fight, but Luke once again turns off his lightsaber.

Go and watch the film again. Vader doesn't start taunting until the fight has begun, and when he does it makes Luke angry, he abandons technique and fights with raw force and violence for the first time in the whole series. And it's only when he does that that he has the strength to overpower Vader.

And that's what the Dark Side is.

Seriously, go and actually watch the film you're talking about.

Luke briefly draws on the dark side out of fear of what might happen, and only masters himself after a reminder of what it cost him last time. And there is nothing in the film which demonstrates that he would not do so again because it's the last thing of consequence he actually does in the film.

The irony. Look, if we go by what's in the movies only, nothing in The Return of the Jedi indicates that Luke would kill his nephew in cold blood for future crimes.

Apart from Luke's repeatedly established tendency to make poor decisions out of fear, which is explicitly the path to the dark side.

Luke felt the temptation of the dark side once again when he looked into Ben Solo, and once again he gave in to fear for a brief moment, as he has done many times before. This time he recovered himself too late and it wasn't something he could fix.

[Dr.Samurai]

Both situations where fear can let the dark side in.

Just like Anakin's fall was never to do with things right in front of him, but fear for things that might be in the future.

It's almost like it's a central theme of the whole saga or something.....

Anakin's fall was triggered by Mace Windu trying to execute Palpatine. He's not standing over a sleeping child. These things are different. Stop trying to make them the same.

Go and watch the film again. Vader doesn't start taunting until the fight has begun, and when he does it makes Luke angry, he abandons technique and fights with raw force and violence for the first time in the whole series. And it's only when he does that that he has the strength to overpower Vader.

And that's what the Dark Side is.

Seriously, go and actually watch the film you're talking about.

Luke briefly draws on the dark side out of fear of what might happen, and only masters himself after a reminder of what it cost him last time. And there is nothing in the film which demonstrates that he would not do so again because it's the last thing of consequence he actually does in the film.

I don't need to see it again. Luke is refusing to fight Vader. He says "I will not fight you." And Vader angers him into fighting by threatening Leia. But Luke was always trying to redeem him. That was his plan, and the dark side has nothing to do with it. Vader repeats Luke's line back to him "I sense your feelings" or whatever the line is. Because Luke knows Vader is conflicted and is trying to turn him over. Nothing to do with the dark side.

To say that the dark side gave him the strength to redeem Vader is nonsense. The dark side gave him the strength to *defeat* Vader, but it's not why he redeemed him.

And as far as your second edit goes, again, I don't think "poor decision" equals "kill Ben Solo" for the character of Luke Skywalker. You obviously think anything goes. I don't.

[Zalabim]

I really don't want to get embroiled in this, but I've already written a lot and don't feel like wasting it either. I guess I'll check back on the carnage tonight.

I must have missed the part of TLJ where Kylo taunts Luke wth all the carnage he's planning and thus riles Luke up to the point where he loses control.

How? Literally how?

Spoiler: Huge spoiler

Show

Luke Skywalker went to Ben Solo in the middle of the night because he sensed something wrong and wanted to talk to him. Standing over the sleeping Ben, Luke looks into Ben's mind and has a vision of Ben destroying everything that they had fought for. I took that literally. Luke literally had a vision of Ben wiping out the new Jedi Order, destroying the New Republic, and leading a new wave of tyranny across the galaxy. (Just like he actually does as Kylo Ren) And it's too late to change his mind. Fear grips Luke in that moment and he reflexively draws his lightsaber. (Because that's what you do when you're afraid and you have a weapon.) The only way to stop this vision from becoming true is to kill Ben now. No, that's absurd. Luke is not going to kill his nephew. Shut up, Dark Side. Unfortunately, Ben Solo already woke up, misunderstood the situation in fear himself, overpowered Luke, and the rest is motion pictures.

Was that vision a true prophecy from the force, something spawned by Luke's apprehension, or an illusion conjured by Snoke? Academic questions, since we know it does come true. Visions from the force is not a new concept.

Now here's Luke the hermit because he still won't kill Ben, and he can't stop the First Order alone and he can probably imagine that the son of Darth Vader, the teacher of Kylo Ren, the failed master of the new Jedi Order is not a symbol to rally around. Look at how Leia's treated as an extremist, a fearmonger, and an outcast by many in the senate. Having Luke around would just mean losing more allies. When Rey arrives, he didn't know how bad it had gotten. But, again, he's still not going to kill Ben (probably he can't at this point) and he still can't stop the First Order alone. It seems like he's powerless. Certainly he is without hope. Eventually though, he does find the hope and the strength, not to do the impossible, but to do something great and he goes down as a legend. Though I do wish he didn't die with that.

I mean, once someone's at the point where they're rewriting the facts of the movie and the franchise to justify hating the movie, I don't think there's discussion left to be had. But for everyone else, there's this. Why didn't Luke go after Ben? Why didn't Obi-wan try to save Vader? Why didn't Yoda stay and finish off Sheev? Fighting just leads to more anger and fear and guilt. Luke chasing down Kylo Ren isn't going to change his course. Ben was already strong enough to beat Luke before. Kylo Ren is more certain now, and Luke is less. Nothing good can come from confronting Kylo Ren without some new insight.

[GloatingSwine]

Anakin's fall was triggered by Mace Windu trying to execute Palpatine. He's not standing over a sleeping child. These things are different. Stop trying to make them the same.

That was the specific event where he picked a side politically.

His fear for Padme, of separation from her, and of her turning away from him was consistent throughout episodes 2 and 3. His fall wasn't because of one single event, it was because of a persistent fear

I don't need to see it again. Luke is refusing to fight Vader. He says "I will not fight you." And Vader angers him into fighting by threatening Leia. But Luke was always trying to redeem him. That was his plan, and the dark side has nothing to do with it.

Fighting in anger is the dark side. That's at the core of how the Force works.

And as far as your second edit goes, again, I don't think "poor decision" equals "kill Ben Solo" for the character of Luke Skywalker. You obviously think anything goes. I don't.

No, but fear leads to the dark side, and the dark side does things like "kill now because you're afraid of what might happen" (see also: the cave on Dagobah, Luke strikes out of fear and sees what he would become for doing it). There are two whole movies dedicated to demonstrating that in the character of Anakin.