Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
But should it be the same Luke from the original trilogy? At least 10-20 years had passed from end of the trilogy to the training of Kylo. Should we have expected the same Luke? Doesn’t it make sense that he’d changed? And wouldn’t it make sense that losing his star pupil and his nephew changed him?
And maybe he did try to save Kylo after he was turned and before he went into hiding. We don’t know for certain that the minute his temple burned down he hopped in his xwing flew away and was never seen again. Maybe he only went into hiding after Han and Leia started hating him for screwing up with their kid and after several failed attempts to win kylo back.
|
And I think this is where they really missed an opportunity for story-telling and instead used it on the visual affects of the casino.
I would have loved to see how Ben turned dark, what were his motivations, how did Snoke do it? They didn't need to go in depth like Vader's fall, but a parallel story of Ben's training mirrored with Rey's and how each one reacted differently. Use Snoke to show the turn, even with his death in the movie it would have added a lot to the depth of Snoke without having to go into details about him.
I can see Luke's reaction to failure and losing his nephew to the Dark Side to be severe enough to have him go into exile. But to me, the original Luke having Ben turn on him and stand with Snoke would have been a much more realistic devastating event than having Luke think about striking him down because of some dark thoughts. It just didn't seem to me to fit in with Luke. It felt a lot more like something thrown out just to fit in why Luke was in exile but wouldn't take more than a couple mins of screentime.