Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Spoilered news below about Dark Rey. It's kind of obvious but just in case....

 warboss wrote:
Spoilered news below about Dark Rey. It's kind of obvious but just in case....

Spoiler:

Apparently starwars.com confirmed in a now revised/deleted post that the Dark Rey we saw in the trailer was indeed just a vision of the future by referring to it specifically as such. They've since revised the article but the pee is already in the pool. It was always the obvious most likely scenario but it is funny that they seemingly accidentally let the obvious cat out of the bag so early on.

I like my guess better.

For the record, just adding spaces/blank lines doesn't spoilerblock.

 Galef wrote:
You guys are starting to make me actually like his death in TLJ. How dare you!

Generally speaking, TLJ is a film that's bothered me less as I've rewatched it. My biggest gripe is that its just too long (and Finn's arc is a big part of that, though not in the places I initially thought) to the point that its hard to find time to rewatch it. There's tons of great details and themes built throughout, and notably, once you're aware the movie is going out of its way to lie to you, you can see all the places it tipped its hand. A good example is how Leia takes a moment to meditate and prep herself for a split second before the torpedo hits, which changes a lot of the tone of that sequence, particularly now that we're a little further out from the shock of Carrie Fisher's death.

 Earth127 wrote:
Why did Luke have to die?

Simple for the same reason as Obi Wan, Dumbledore etc. In order to allow the new heroes to mature. ("We are what they grow beyond") Old and wise mentors have a really high death rate because of this and the whole while Luke is alive why Rey and not him?

You need to lose old characters sometimes to make room in your story. This was one of the many failings of GOT in the end. They stopped losing characters and thus had way too many to use satisfyingly.

Luke as a mentor for Rey does not work in the way he has been written. For obvious reasons, it works even less for Kylo.
Luke dying is just the writers getting rid of the old guard to promote the new heroes we are supposed to care about. It's an old fashioned element in a new, subversive story, and the contrast does not work because it needs a number of archetypes around it that simply did not happen.
The movie implies that Luke learned from Rey more than the other way around. The whole trilogy also implied that nobody learned anything, but this is another matter entirely.

 Galef wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Nah. One of the best things about the death we got is that Luke never really gets beat. Denying Kylo any real sense of victory is one of the most satisfying things about it and stalling a movie for a "proper" death would have given him an unearned win. Also, while this is a bit of mixing the actor and the role, Luke going out on a massive trolling seems like a very Mark Hamill way to go.

That is also fair. You guys are starting to make me actually like his death in TLJ. How dare you!

I like Luke's death more than Han's death in TFA. Latter was quite telegraphed and also seemed to have no point except to make characters and viewers dislike Kylo Ren. Luke's demise felt better constructed and served two or three plot points simultaneously.

Both come across as the death the actor requested as much as anything.

 LunarSol wrote:
Both come across as the death the actor requested as much as anything.

While I think you are right about Solo, I am not sure Hamill wanted anything that came from TLJ for Luke...

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Both come across as the death the actor requested as much as anything.

While I think you are right about Solo, I am not sure Hamill wanted anything that came from TLJ for Luke...

I don't think he cared for the "Luke tried to kill Ben and stopped trying to be a hero" and probably didn't want to have Luke die in the film at all, but the tone of it all feels very.... Hamill.

I believe Mark Hamill was quoted as saying he fundamentally disagreed with Luke's portrayal in TLJ (even referring to the character as Jake Skywalker or somesuch) and told Rian Johnson. He was obviously overruled by the director who also had studio head support though. He complained for a while publicly but was probably "talked to" by Disney and stopped.

 warboss wrote:
I believe Mark Hamill was quoted as saying he fundamentally disagreed with Luke's portrayal in TLJ (even referring to the character as Jake Skywalker or somesuch) and told Rian Johnson. He was obviously overruled by the director who also had studio head support though. He complained for a while publicly but was probably "talked to" by Disney and stopped.

Yes, early on he said he disliked the character direction. Later, he said he understood it once he saw it in action, but there's some debate as to whether that was genuinely his opinion or the result of being instructed to be more positive about the film.

Having seen Mark Hamill's twitter account, and given that he had nothing to lose since they were killing off his character anyway, the idea that he was only being more positive about the film because he was told to seems somewhat ridiculous, to be honest.

He *has* got a credit in ROS, so while it might be little more than an extended cameo in flashback or a force ghost, it still may behoove him to toe the corporate line for the time being.

Disney isn’t going to fire Luke Skywalker from Star Wars at this point. Hamill’s secure enough to not really care about the company any line anymore and honestly hasn’t been for decades.

 insaniak wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I believe Mark Hamill was quoted as saying he fundamentally disagreed with Luke's portrayal in TLJ (even referring to the character as Jake Skywalker or somesuch) and told Rian Johnson. He was obviously overruled by the director who also had studio head support though. He complained for a while publicly but was probably "talked to" by Disney and stopped.

Yes, early on he said he disliked the character direction. Later, he said he understood it once he saw it in action, but there's some debate as to whether that was genuinely his opinion or the result of being instructed to be more positive about the film.

Having seen Mark Hamill's twitter account, and given that he had nothing to lose since they were killing off his character anyway, the idea that he was only being more positive about the film because he was told to seems somewhat ridiculous, to be honest.

That seems a bit naive IMO. He has alot to lose as he is by and large only known for Star Wars unlike Harrison Ford. Has he done other things like voice acting as the joker and the old wing commander series that some (but definitely not all) hardcore fans can rattle off? Sure... but I'd hazard a guess that the percentage of the much larger casual pool of pop culture fans who recognize him as Luke falls into the margin of error in that regard. Disney has demonstrated that they have no problem casting off both actors and their fanbase that they no longer value or that they find inconvienent and Mark Hamill badmouthing his own character could easily fall under that category. Not being invited to official paid official star wars functions or having his licensing royalties cut due to disney choosing to persue other avenues in merchandise would likely be a big cut to his yearly income. Is it conjecture? Sure... but I don't feel that it's ridiculous to propose that as the reason for the sudden turnaround.

Meh... he didn't need the work, as he has no problem getting voice work. He said before TFA that he only agreed to come back on condition that Harrison Ford would also agree... because he thought there was no way in hell that would happen.

So no, it's extremely unlikely that he's just toeing the corporate line.

Maybe he's just, like, a nice guy who was made to feel bad for badmouthing the movie?

After catching up on the last few pages. We need to rethink our acronyms for movies.

Having Rise of the Skywalker, and Revenge of the Sith both be RoS is getting confusing for my poor brain.

It’s supposed to be RoS and RotS.

balmong7 wrote:
After catching up on the last few pages. We need to rethink our acronyms for movies.

Having Rise of the Skywalker, and Revenge of the Sith both be RoS is getting confusing for my poor brain.

It's 'Rise of Skywalker'... no 'The'.

I generally prefer to go by Ep# these days.

 insaniak wrote:

balmong7 wrote:
After catching up on the last few pages. We need to rethink our acronyms for movies.

Having Rise of the Skywalker, and Revenge of the Sith both be RoS is getting confusing for my poor brain.

It's 'Rise of Skywalker'... no 'The'.

Ah, I don't know how I feel about that. It feels, wrong. somehow.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
It’s supposed to be RoS and RotS.

thanks. helps out my poor brain.

Disney has most definitely had a word to Mark about his voiced opinions, I also don't think he has done an interview without at least 2 disney reps being there since "he changed his mind".

But seriously the only important question that needs answering is has he learned daisy's name yet. As my favourite example of his real feelings regarding the movies is him referring to her as the girl in a number of interviews because he did not know her name.

SeanDrake wrote:

But seriously the only important question that needs answering is has he learned daisy's name yet. As my favourite example of his real feelings regarding the movies is him referring to her as the girl in a number of interviews because he did not know her name.

That's nonsense.

SHOUT OUT to DAISY RIDLEY for no particular reason- other than being a fabulous actor, the sweetest of souls, someone who thoughtfully goes out of her way to return lost items & is more than generous with her complimentary piggy-back rides. ❤️ U- mh #DarlingDaisy pic.twitter.com/IZ55lkLV4y

— Mark Hamill (@HamillHimself) April 10, 2019

https://mobile.twitter.com/hamillhimself/status/1116127161868414976

When I first heard Disney was going to start making Star Wars movies again I was hoping to see Mara Jade. She's my favorite character in the expanded universe. But of course they didn't follow any of it so oh well.

yellowfever wrote:
When I first heard Disney was going to start making Star Wars movies again I was hoping to see Mara Jade. She's my favorite character in the expanded universe. But of course they didn't follow any of it so oh well.

To be fair, they did bring back Thrawn.

Mara Jade's story arc was so tied to Luke Skywalker that she would be somewhat hard to bring back under current lore. Though I suppose eventually she does come back.

We have literally no idea what Luke was actually doing in the 30 years between 6 & 7. I think in the EU Mara would have been dead by the time TFA was supposed to start.

So if you want Mara to have still existed, the films don't explicitly refute that. It just requires Han and Leia's son to have gone to the dark side...

I guess I still do care deep inside, but I'm hardly excited for new releases anymore.

Cosidering the wealth of content there is between the OT, the prequels (which I cherish despite their awkwardness) and the EU material, I guess I will never run out of Star Wars stuff to dive into.

As far as the new stuff is concerned, I just ignore whatever is bad and move on.

Backfire wrote:
Mara Jade's story arc was so tied to Luke Skywalker that she would be somewhat hard to bring back under current lore. Though I suppose eventually she does come back.

That was kinda my point. They didn't follow the expanded universe. I was hoping they were going to, then I could have possibly got Mara Jade. I wanted to see her during her time as an Emperors Hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Riquende wrote:
We have literally no idea what Luke was actually doing in the 30 years between 6 & 7. I think in the EU Mara would have been dead by the time TFA was supposed to start.

So if you want Mara to have still existed, the films don't explicitly refute that. It just requires Han and Leia's son to have gone to the dark side...

I believe Luke and Mara were the same age. So if Luke was alive she could be too.

 Riquende wrote:
We have literally no idea what Luke was actually doing in the 30 years between 6 & 7. I think in the EU Mara would have been dead by the time TFA was supposed to start.
.

TFA was about 5 years before the Legacy of the Force series in the EU. So no, if the EU was still in play, Mara would have been alive and married to Luke at the start of TFA.

There's always the possibility that Mara will be introduced into the new canon at some point, given that she was a bit of a fan favourite... but I would suspect that her story will be very, very different.