On second thought, let’s not go to Coruscant. It is a silly place.
Luke’s character arc is not Star Wars in its entirety.
Have you taken a look at Finn? He’s not exactly smart.
It’s almost as if he learned that wars do not make one great
So it would be wrong for Luke to kill, but right for others? What kind of message is that?
Not only is that not what I said, it’s actively denying content of posts I made that you replied to.
No, the way of the Samurai.
Sometimes. But not when somebody is killing your friends with huge damn weapons.
She stopped Finn from saving hundreds of people, effectively causing their deaths. If you can see that as constructive, fine, but then by the same logic, Holdo’s sacrifice should’ve been condemned, but it wasn’t. And let’s not forget that Rose could’ve killed both Finn and herself by crashing into him, which would’ve improved things no end.
Add to that the point above that I made in response to Lorc: expounding a message of non-violence while fighting a war against mass murderers who blew up an entire system and will cheerfully kill you all if they get your hands on you is not something that makes sense.
Like Tom said, the message is pretty clear indeed (we are, in fact, hit over the head with it none too subtly), it just doesn’t work with everything that is happening with the movie. It rings false and naive and hollow.
How the original Star Wars should have ended:
REBEL BASE: His computer’s off. Luke, you switched off your targeting computer. What’s wrong?
LUKE: Nothing. I’m all right. Leia, I’ve figured out how we’re going to win! Not fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.
Death Star blows up Yavin IV.
Uh, pretty much everyone who alive at that point survived to the end of the movie.Not hundreds by any sense of the term.
Good thing that wasn’t the argument I made then.
Because Rose was able to predict that Rey would come out of nowhere and use her powers to create a backdoor exit.
She basically would have killed everyone. The events that conspired to save them were notwithstanding.
Then I misinterpreted you, sorry. I thought when you said the lesson for Luke was that sometimes it’s best to learn not to fight, I thought you meant that as a parallel to Rose’s decision to keep Flinn from attacking the cannon, but I see you were responding to a related-but-different point of Arjan’s.
You said “The whole point of Luke’s character arc across the first three movies is the realisation that not fighting is sometimes the best answer.” However in ROTJ fighting does appear to be the best answer for the rebels who blow up the Death Star and Vader killing the emperor.
So killing and sacrifice are right sometimes. The point is it seemed right to me of Finn to sacrifice himself. It made sense ethically and Rose stopping him and her objection of “Don’t kill what you hate, save what you love” are not congruent, especially since he would have saved a lot of people if the sacrifice worked. The only valid reason for Rose to stop him would be if she was sure the sacrifice is pointless.
You realise that Luke and Finn are not the same person, right?
That’s a very good point. It’s a little dumb to start trying to make uncomfortable points about heroism when the first movie put an untrained teenage water farmer from Tatooine in an X-Wing and he ends up destroying the Death Star. In The Last Jedi, Rey pretty much has no plan, does all sorts of irresponsible and crazy stuff, and then ends up rescuing the twenty or so people who survive Holdo’s plan to save the resistance.
Just about every Star Wars movie has protagonists who don’t follow rules, don’t conform to responsible expectations and then the universe rewards the risks they take. Even Rogue One, the heroes are outcasts and misfits who disobey orders and end up saving the rebellion- or giving a farm boy from Tatooine the chance to save it.
Well, to be fair, as far as character logic is concerned, she actually has a valid reason: Her sister already sacrificed herself and she’s still traumatised by that and can’t stand watching the guy she loves do it, as well.
From a character point of view, the action is actually fine, it’s just terrible where the
plot and thematic build of the movie is concerned.
The point being? Are moral lessons for one character not supposed to be true for other characters?
It took until you pointing it out for me to remember that her sister was even a thing.
I am actually taken aback.
Sometimes, yes. Finn and Luke have gone on different journies with different points, and different lessons.