Imperial528 wrote: 2019-06-04 09:11pm
I'm pretty sure you're talking about the more colloquial use of the term stoicism, but I think the actual Stoic philosophy matches quite well with how Luke is at the end of his heroic journey. He listens to his emotions, but he does not let them control him. Whereas the Jedi of old view emotions as the trappings of the self, and in being truly selfless, make themselves unaffected by them. In this I think Luke achieved what the old Jedi Order failed to: he is immersed in the world, but does not allow the ups and downs of life to alter his moral core. I believe this is why he was able to save Anakin, as well. Many of Luke's actions in the OT earned the disapproval of Yoda and Obi-Wan, just as similar actions on Anakin's part did in the PT. But while Anakin failed because he tried to become selfless and couldn't, Luke found a way to follow the spirit of the Jedi Order's teachings and restore balance to the force, while still preserving his self without becoming selfish the way Anakin did.
Yup, that's what I'm referring to. People might take it up as a jedi must show no emotion whatsover, but that wasn't what Lucas was saying in Luke's journey.
The Romulan Republic wrote: 2019-06-04 10:34pm
You're correct about Abrams' usual style from what I've seen of his work. But I will note that Luke was pretty much a typical action hero
A New Hope. The greater depth came later.
Only to an extend. Luke saved the day because he finally learn to be too caught up in the physical world and be at peace with himself when he took the shot. He didn't get any real power boost other than making the impossible shot.
It is possible to understate the influence of Buddhism on Star Wars, but also to overstate it. I suspect attempting to force Star Wars' mythology to conform precisely to any real-world religion will probably lead to some warped interpretations of canon. But I agree insofar as one's state of mind/emotional state is depicted as being key to one's ability to use the Force, and how one uses it.
I'm not saying it conform precisely to a real-world religion, but it shares the fundamental worldview that's quite different from many classical "western" myths of heroes. How many heroes in the "western" sense valued the importance of mediation as a key part of their learning/growing process?
And I don't mean mediating to "unlock" more powers. I mean mediating to better oneself as an individual.
Yes, and I consider this one of the greatest moments in film for pretty much that reason, as I've said before. Its also a moment that I consider Luke's last stand in TLJ pretty much in keeping with.
I disagree that the films "have become far too concerned with force abilities". I think a lot of the fandom has, both because you have a generation of speculative fiction fans that was brought up on video games and tends depressingly often to think of character growth in terms of "unlocking levels" and using cheat codes*, and because Rey-bashers obsess over how she's "too powerful".
*I've particularly noticed this shit in Harry Potter fanfic, where all sorts of crap with no basis in canon to give wizards what amount to power levels, usually based on intricate rules the author made up/lifted from somewhere else so that Harry-In-Name-Only can game them in order to fulfill his role as the author's surrogate male power fantasy.
Except Rey's growth as a Jedi is more about her gaining force powers than anything to do with her growing her "inner self". She doesn't need to grow her inner self when she's been given so many powers by the force.
Rian Johnson never said any of that.
Rey was not great because she could lift some rocks. She could lift some rocks because she had chosen to embrace her role as a Jedi. As I noted in the other thread, Rey fails at everything she does in TLJ, until the moment when she is forced to confront her lack of a family identity, accepts it, and still chooses not to join Kylo. After that, she succeeds. That is probably not a coincidence, from a director as attentive to detail as Johnson is.
And to argue that the film was claiming that kid was a fully-fledged Jedi, or would necessarily become one, because he had power is just such preposterous reaching that its barely worth dignifying with a response. Its a quick visual way in a visual medium to show that he has the potential to become more than a slave. That's all.
If anything, the film's defining quality for a Jedi is hope. Fear and despair is the path to the Dark Side. Hope is the quality of the Light Side. Hell, Snoke even spells it out when he says that Rey's hope in the face of a hopeless fight is proof that she is a Jedi, but apparently that's still too subtle for the fan bashers to get. Probably because you don't want to get it.
And what exactly is her role as a "Jedi"? A Jedi is not a Jedi simply because they use their force abilities to defeat bad guys or live rocks to save people. The Jedi order is an order of peacekeepers, diplomats and etc making sure there's not need to use their "active" force abilities in the first place.
Can you see Rey being a diplomat as a Jedi? Everything "Jedi" about her is about her force abilities, and not about her development on a more personal level.
A movie trailer (which was probably put together by the Disney marketing department with little or no input from Abrams) shows flashy effects, just like every other Star Wars trailer! Clearly this proves that the director understands nothing about Star Wars or heroism!
The old trailers never focused too much attention of a Jedi's force abilities. Jedi do some force jumps, but they were never made out to be some awesome deal.
I see you missed Luke's trying to preemptively murder Kylo being a collosal mistake, Poe having to learn the lesson that the most aggressive course was not always the right one, and Rose and Poe reiterating the same lesson to Finn in the final battle.
No, I'm saying Luke as an enlightened individual should not be making those mistake in the first place. That's the point of enlightenment, especially if you draw upon Buddhist influence. What I against is the idea of having to tear down "enlightened" characters simply for the sake of having more drama. It's the same as having to tear down a peaceful galaxy because you needed more inter-galactic wars.
My issue is not with the execution of the story, but how the story was conceived in the first place. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of Luke's journey because you need endless wars and conflict in your setting.
You get it, you say... but you ignore its significance.
Luke wanting to kill Kylo, to act, as you say, aggressively rather than trusting in letting things play out, is portrayed as the worst mistake of his life, and something he regretted until the day he died. You say its "missing the point of Luke". I disagree. Luke isn't perfect. He never was. He made a mistake, a very believable mistake for a person to make, he paid for it, and he ultimately learned from it.
And again, note that, in the end, he defeats Kylo without the use of any physical violence whatsoever.
I am saying Luke should never be written to make such mistakes in the first place. What I disagreed with is the idea that you need to turn Luke into a failure as the core of your new films. The story should never have been about how "Luke failed", but about how Luke's successors find new and different ways to achieve Luke's enlightenment.
You're giving the PT more credit for a few lines in between scores of scenes of powerful Jedi kicking ass with fancy acrobatics (a fight style you've also said you prefer, IIRC), than you're giving TLJ for the entire thesis of the film.
The PT is about Jedi being forced into roles they were never meant to be. The dialogue scene constantly reminded the audience that Jedi are peace-keepers, not soldiers. They were awesome at kicking ass during the Clone Wars, but that was precisely why they failed. Jedi were marching out leading armies in battles before they got shot in the back by their soldiers.
You've missed the point of the PT if you think Jedi going around kicking-ass as super soldiers was meant to be a good depiction of what a Jedi ought to be.
The opening of the Prequels had Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan being sent as ambassador to resolve disputes, and it's only when they failed because of Sidious manipulation that they resort to force.
The Jedi are fighters as well as diplomats, but they are supposed to try the latter before the former. As Rey does (though it fails), and as Luke failed (and it is very much portrayed as a failure) to do in TLJ.
Jedi are diplomats first, fighters second. Rey's journey ought to be about how she learn those attributes of being a Jedi ( which was what Luke's journey was about). Instead, the writers focused on Rey's abilities and her fighting enemies again and again. Luke's impatience was constantly being punished, but nothing really negative happened to Rey.
Put it simply. If you go back to Buddhist beliefs, there's an idea that one could achieved an enlightened stage where they no longer fall prone to making very human mistakes. Making Luke fail is like writing a story about how Buddha failed his students once he achieved enlightenment. It provides excellent drama, but it missed the whole point of what the myth was trying to communicate in the first place.
The central focus should never have been about Luke in the first place. Making Luke a big central focus was a big mistake on the writer's part, and Lucas also shares some blame as well.