Re: Kathleen Kennedy to step down from Lucasfilm?
But it did handle it perfectly. Literally the biggest complaint is that the Luke in the movie isn't the same as the Luke in the EU. And the story was continued. Read The Art of The Force Awakens, you'll see that things like a down and out Luke were there from the very beginning. In fact George pitched the idea. If anything going of off the movies alone, TLJ is the fairly logical continuation of the story.
I don't think it's exactly that "Luke isn't the same as in the EU," but rather that "Luke isn't the same as he was at the end of ROTJ, and I had a different vision of how he'd behave." And that's an accurate statement. I don't think anyone can credibly claim that Luke is unchanged from who he was at the end of ROTJ. At the end of ROTJ, Luke is the heroic victor who has, through his own self sacrifice, redeemed his father and contributed to the death of the Emperor and the destruction of the Sith. He's been tempted by the Dark Side, and has overcome his temptation to give in to hate, and he's reunited, triumphant, with his friends and family. He's...rather different in TFA and TLJ.
First, I think it's worth noting that TFA
already establishes that the Luke you're going to see is not the Luke of old, simply in terms of the fact that he has disappeared and hidden himself away. Right from the opening crawl, Luke is "different" from the character we saw at the end of ROTJ. TLJ may have really brought that point home, but it was strongly implied by the events of TFA that Luke was already going to be pretty different.
That said, I think that the Luke we know as a character, as a person, is
consistent with the Luke we find out about in TLJ. I've touched on this before, but in ESB it's established that Luke is very, very focused on his visions of the future, and that he is prone to rash behavior, like abandoning his training to save his friends because he assumes they'll die, or flipping out on Vader when Vader suggests he'll corrupt Leia. If you can accept that as part of Luke's personality -- flaws that continue to exist even if he's confronted and overcome them in the past (arguably, though, he
didn't overcome them in ESB...), then Luke's actions in confronting Ben at the Jedi Academy make sense. Once you accept that turning point in the story, then the rest of the events flow pretty easily, at least with respect to the heroes of the OT. Ben gives into the darkness and destroys the Academy, Leia retreats into her work, Han and Chewie head back to their smuggler lifestyle, and Luke goes to Ach-To to await his own demise and ponder his great failures. That moment where Luke ignites his sabre and Ben responds is arguably THE turning point between the OT era and the ST era, and it arguably sets the stage for the drama of the ST era. And the A-to-B-to-C of it all flows. It makes sense that Ben would then turn to Snoke (who had already begun influencing him). It makes sense that the OT heroes would be crushed by this moment and would just go back to their familiar roles, with Luke feeling the worst of them and hiding himself away from the galaxy as a whole. It's radically different from the people we saw at the end of ROTJ, but the moment between Luke and Ben, and the fallout from it support the end result.
What isn't supported, however, is the tonal difference from the end of ROTJ to pretty much all of the ST. ROTJ ends the way most fairy tales do. There's a strongly implied "Happily ever after" vibe. But any answer to the question "And then what happened?" after a "happily ever after" ending is either going to take one of two forms: (1) "Nothing. They lived happily until they grew old and died," or (2) "It turns out they DIDN'T live happily, but that's a story for another day." For me, at least, once I knew that Disney/LFL was set on bringing back the OT characters, I knew that "happily ever after" wouldn't survive. It couldn't. You can't have the OT characters get their happy ending AND include them in a new story full of dramatic conflict. But even with that in mind, the ST feels like a serious shift from ROTJ. Compared to, say, ROTS, the end of one trilogy does NOT feed into the next trilogy. And really, there was no way around that. Either you hurl the story far enough into the future that you preserve the OT heroes "happy ending" and triumphs, or you destroy that happy ending and make their triumph short-lived by bringing them back and telling the story of a new war across the stars. Moreover, TFA throws you right into the middle of things, and its opening crawl really doesn't do a ton to explain how things went from the end of ROTJ to the current state of affairs. Even if they told you in a brief bit of exposition, it still wouldn't jive emotionally, because, again, ROTJ ends with a "happily ever after" vibe, and everything that follows is anything but.
Ok, so, probably a lot of fans going into the sequel trilogy understood all of that, and still were frustrated by how Luke behaved. Why? I think that's because they were primed by past examples to assume that the new films would play out in accordance with some kind of established formula (even though we don't really have a formula). I think they were expecting that Luke would step into the "Obi-Wan" role, where he'd still clearly be a hero, but would be primarily training the new hero(es) and would then likely die in some act of valiant self-sacrifice. You know, just like Obi-Wan! He'd also have a similar "tone" to him. He'd be somewhat reluctant to fight, but would be resolved to help as soon as he understood what had to be done, without any real hesitation. You know, just like Obi-Wan! The thing is, I think Luke
is like Obi-Wan in terms of his relative position in the films, but not in terms of his demeanor. Obi-Wan was hesitant at first to help but stepped up anyway. Luke is extremely reluctant, but does offer Rey some advice, and then helps the Resistance at the 11th hour. Obi-Wan has an act of self-sacrifice that indirectly saves the Rebellion by buying Luke and co. time to escape the Death Star. Luke has a final act of self-sacrifice where he duels Ben, makes him look like a chump, and then >poof< disappears otherwise apparently unscathed, which now inspires future generations to stand against the darkness (based on the coda with the stable boy). Obi-Wan trains Luke -- albeit briefly. Luke teaches Rey -- albeit briefly. The main difference is in their demeanor. Obi-Wan is willing to help and kind towards Luke. Luke is reluctant and crotchety towards Rey.
Anyway, I don't think that the depiction of Luke in TLJ is an insult to the fans in the slightest, nor is it a betrayal of the character. Rather, I think it's a marked difference from fans' expectations going in, and that they were probably expecting a character who had the same demeanor as Obi-Wan. Imagine if, for example, Luke was simply...not crotchety, but rather melancholy and afraid to train another apprentice, then reluctantly helped Rey until she -- much like Luke before her -- impulsively went to confront Ben. Would fans be as bent out of shape? I'd bet not. I think it's precisely the "Get off my lawn!" nature of Luke's character that most bothers people. Had he been more solemn, more stoic, less bitter and more saddened at his own failures, I think people would probably have been more accepting ofboth his decisions and his reluctance to train Rey.
Maybe that would've been the better choice, but at least for me, I don't mind that the film went in a different direction. I also don't know that it would have been enough for all fans, but that's as may be, and is purely speculation on my part.
