Star Wars musings - Luke Skywalker in the Original Trilogy

[Joelist]

With a new Star Wars movie on the horizon and especially with some of the original cast returning, I thought it might be interesting to look at some of those original characters and also to look at why the original trilogy did a FAR better job of actually building characters than did the prequels. So, first on deck - Luke Skywalker.

I always thought of Luke as one of the better thought out and developed characters we have seen in a Fantasy/Sci-Fi movie. And the credit has to go to Lawrence Kasdan, the "shadow" screenwriter of Star Wars and screenwriter of The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

Why Luke is a good character

1) He has actual motivations that the audience can understand. Starting in the first film his restlessness was brought forward very expertly, as was his desire to be like his father. His desire to become a Jedi Knight was not from wanting to be powerful or some kind of superhero - it was to become a Jedi like his father.

His loyalty to friends and mentors was also on display right in the first film. He bonded with Han and Leia and when Ben died it broke him up. And indeed his loyalty to his father is front and center throughout Return of the Jedi, when despite being told by both Yoda and Obi Wan that once you turn to the dark side there is no way back he risks everything to turn his father back.

When the motivations that drive a character are understandable to the audience, that character becomes someone they can actually identify with and root for (or against for that matter). It helps get the audience to CARE about what happens to them.

2) He has an actual ARC as a character.

An Arc in drama terms is the process of change (positive or negative) that a character undergoes during a story. Well built characters have logical arcs and their character develops in a way that serves the story and also makes basic sense in terms of the personality and motivations the character has.

Luke fulfills this part in spades. In fact, I would point to Luke as one of the better examples in cinema of good arc building and resolution.

In Star Wars, Luke is restless but also (to be honest) reckless. Several things he does (like the plan he devises to rescue Leia) are not fully considered and very risky. Plus his lack of patience shows through a lot (like in the trash compactor and even on Tattooine when he goes off looking for R2D2. He is a hero but a very immature one.

In The Empire Strikes Back we see Luke trained by Yoda. Yoda calls him out on his lack of a serious attitude, impatience and recklessness and indeed we see the impatience and attitude get corrected by Yoda multiple times in his training. Indeed, the recklessness and impatience combine with loyalty to friends to move him to leave Dagobah prematurely and go to Bespin, and then when there to confront Vader instead of getting out of Dodge once he knew he could do nothing to assist Leia and Chewbacca. The resulting battle was worth a post in its own right but for our purposes here suffice it to say Luke got his booty kicked by Vader with almost ridiculous ease.

Then we come to Return of the Jedi.

THIS Luke is so different from the one in Star Wars it is amazing. He is still fiercely loyal to friends and family but now he is calm, discerning, much more deliberate in his thinking and actions and MATURE. His experiences and Yoda's training have shaped him and the script really brings it out. This is the kind of arc fueled character development that makes movies rewatchable.

Just some thoughts on my part...

 

[Overmind One]

With a new Star Wars movie on the horizon and especially with some of the original cast returning, I thought it might be interesting to look at some of those original characters and also to look at why the original trilogy did a FAR better job of actually building characters than did the prequels. So, first on deck - Luke Skywalker.

I always thought of Luke as one of the better thought out and developed characters we have seen in a Fantasy/Sci-Fi movie. And the credit has to go to Lawrence Kasdan, the "shadow" screenwriter of Star Wars and screenwriter of The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

Why Luke is a good character

1) He has actual motivations that the audience can understand. Starting in the first film his restlessness was brought forward very expertly, as was his desire to be like his father. His desire to become a Jedi Knight was not from wanting to be powerful or some kind of superhero - it was to become a Jedi like his father.

His loyalty to friends and mentors was also on display right in the first film. He bonded with Han and Leia and when Ben died it broke him up. And indeed his loyalty to his father is front and center throughout Return of the Jedi, when despite being told by both Yoda and Obi Wan that once you turn to the dark side there is no way back he risks everything to turn his father back.

When the motivations that drive a character are understandable to the audience, that character becomes someone they can actually identify with and root for (or against for that matter). It helps get the audience to CARE about what happens to them.

2) He has an actual ARC as a character.

An Arc in drama terms is the process of change (positive or negative) that a character undergoes during a story. Well built characters have logical arcs and their character develops in a way that serves the story and also makes basic sense in terms of the personality and motivations the character has.

Luke fulfills this part in spades. In fact, I would point to Luke as one of the better examples in cinema of good arc building and resolution.

In Star Wars, Luke is restless but also (to be honest) reckless. Several things he does (like the plan he devises to rescue Leia) are not fully considered and very risky. Plus his lack of patience shows through a lot (like in the trash compactor and even on Tattooine when he goes off looking for R2D2. He is a hero but a very immature one.

In The Empire Strikes Back we see Luke trained by Yoda. Yoda calls him out on his lack of a serious attitude, impatience and recklessness and indeed we see the impatience and attitude get corrected by Yoda multiple times in his training. Indeed, the recklessness and impatience combine with loyalty to friends to move him to leave Dagobah prematurely and go to Bespin, and then when there to confront Vader instead of getting out of Dodge once he knew he could do nothing to assist Leia and Chewbacca. The resulting battle was worth a post in its own right but for our purposes here suffice it to say Luke got his booty kicked by Vader with almost ridiculous ease.

Then we come to Return of the Jedi.

THIS Luke is so different from the one in Star Wars it is amazing. He is still fiercely loyal to friends and family but now he is calm, discerning, much more deliberate in his thinking and actions and MATURE. His experiences and Yoda's training have shaped him and the script really brings it out. This is the kind of arc fueled character development that makes movies rewatchable.

Just some thoughts on my part...

We need to do a rewatch of the entire set. Perhaps schedule one movie each week for 6 weeks? I am working on a way to do this by creating shared session.

 

[shavedape]

The character of Luke is heavily derived from the template that Joseph Campbell laid out in The Hero with a Thousand Faces. George Lucas even admits it. Luke's journey, i.e. his growth, within the first film alone, not to mention the other movies, follows Campbell's template almost to a T. Here's the wiki:

 

[Joelist]

One wonders if Lawrence Kasdan (the real writer of Star Wars) followed that template also, perhaps unconsciously. The key of course was not necessarily the template but the quality of execution, and that is where Luke stands out.

 

[shavedape]

One wonders if Lawrence Kasdan (the real writer of Star Wars) followed that template also, perhaps unconsciously. The key of course was not necessarily the template but the quality of execution, and that is where Luke stands out.

I think this is why the original movie (and trilogy) worked so well compared to those horrible prequels. Luke's story was easy to understand and relate to. Compare this to Anakin and the question of "Who cares?" repeatedly comes up while viewing his "journey".

 

[Joelist]

I just realized I forgot one element of the Luke Skywalker character. So, add this...

3) Luke is a good example of an "everyman" protagonist. He comes into the story as sort of an outsider, and Kasdan uses Luke finding out things to educate US about the Star Wars universe. We learn who the Rebellion is indirectly through Luke, who the Jedi are through his interaction with Obi-Wan, how ruthless the Empire is through the massacre of his adoptive family and so on. In The Empire Strikes Back we learn the ways of the Force by watching Luke's training from Yoda. We even learn about Darth Vader from Luke's interactions with him, and likewise the Emperor - it is in his interactions with Luke that we see what a truly horrid individual Palpatine is. All of of this was done very "naturally" - it flowed properly with the character and did not feel forced onto him.

 

[Bluce Ree]

With a new Star Wars movie on the horizon and especially with some of the original cast returning, I thought it might be interesting to look at some of those original characters and also to look at why the original trilogy did a FAR better job of actually building characters than did the prequels.

That's an easy one. Lucas didn't really care during the prequels. He was just writing himself one last big paycheck and preparing Lucas Films for acquisition by reviving a dormant franchise and increasing revenue. Not unlike the "pump n' dump" strategy of manipulating worthless stock.

 

[Joelist]

That may have been part of why the directorial work was so sloppy. However, to me the core issue in the prequels was the awful screenplays. Kasdan wrote the screenplays in the original trilogy while Lucas himself did the prequel screenplays. I seriously think Lucas has two huge issues in this respect:

1) He doesn't actually understand Star Wars - especially what happened in The Empire Strikes Back.

2) He has no idea how to write characters and dialogue between characters. This is why the prequel characters don't feel real and the dialogue feels like something out of a bad high school play.

 

[Bluce Ree]

That may have been part of why the directorial work was so sloppy. However, to me the core issue in the prequels was the awful screenplays. Kasdan wrote the screenplays in the original trilogy while Lucas himself did the prequel screenplays. I seriously think Lucas has two huge issues in this respect:

1) He doesn't actually understand Star Wars - especially what happened in The Empire Strikes Back.

2) He has no idea how to write characters and dialogue between characters. This is why the prequel characters don't feel real and the dialogue feels like something out of a bad high school play.

3) He figured he'd save himself a few bucks and write all of it himself.

 

[Joelist]

That too.

 

[Joelist]

On the other hand, let's take a quick look at Luke's dad from the prequels - Anakin Skywalker.

- Motivations: Well, basically he seems to be motivated by his hormones. In Attack of the Clones he is hot for Padme and in Revenge of the Sith he is, basically, hot for Padme.

- Arc. He has no arc to speak of. In Phantom Menace he is an non-entity. In Attack of the Clones he is basically a whiny, murderous psychopath. In Revenge of the Sith, he is exactly the same. There really is no journey for this character.

The other thing of note is how phenomenally stupid Anakin is. Palpatine has to outright tell him he is a Sith because Anakin can't piece clues together that a toddler could. And then Anakin pledges himself to Palpatine on the basis of a vague story that lacks any proof, followed by going off and killing everyone in sight at Palpatine's command even though none of these orders would make any logical sense to him and their very nature would tell Anakin Palpatine has been lying to everyone all along - including him.

Really the Anakin of the originals is a FAR better character even in his limited exposure. He seems to have actual motivations and an internal conflict. The Anakin of the prequels is basically a homicidal maniac who belongs in an asylum.

 

[Overmind One]

On the other hand, let's take a quick look at Luke's dad from the prequels - Anakin Skywalker.

- Motivations: Well, basically he seems to be motivated by his hormones. In Attack of the Clones he is hot for Padme and in Revenge of the Sith he is, basically, hot for Padme.

- Arc. He has no arc to speak of. In Phantom Menace he is an non-entity. In Attack of the Clones he is basically a whiny, murderous psychopath. In Revenge of the Sith, he is exactly the same. There really is no journey for this character.

The other thing of note is how phenomenally stupid Anakin is. Palpatine has to outright tell him he is a Sith because Anakin can't piece clues together that a toddler could. And then Anakin pledges himself to Palpatine on the basis of a vague story that lacks any proof, followed by going off and killing everyone in sight at Palpatine's command even though none of these orders would make any logical sense to him and their very nature would tell Anakin Palpatine has been lying to everyone all along - including him.

Really the Anakin of the originals is a FAR better character even in his limited exposure. He seems to have actual motivations and an internal conflict. The Anakin of the prequels is basically a homicidal maniac who belongs in an asylum.

The actor they chose for Anakin as a child was more interesting than the adult Anakin IMO. And you are right, how the hell did Palpatine fool him so easily? Why didnt the Caminoans tell Obi Wan about the Order 66 programmed into the clones when they took delivery? But isnt all of this sort of moot when we are talking about fantasy like Star Wars? Perhaps Anakin had a spell on him cast by witches from Dathomir. I am wondering why you do not see an arc with Anakin in those sad prequels. I thought it was pretty clear how he went from a child with puppy love for Padme in Phantom menace, then fell in love with her, compromised his Jedi training, and finally because of his loss his anger turned to hate which was channeled by Palpatine to guide Anakin into the Sith. No?

 

[Joelist]

Overmind, what loss? Padme was very much alive when he turned. He had nothing to actually hate or be angry with. Basically he had visions of her having childbirth problems and bought a very spurious story from Palpatine of Sith Lords being able to raise people from the dead. Meanwhile in Attack of the Clones he slaughters people for no good reason and in Revenge of the Sith does the same. It's one of the bigger issues with the prequels - Anakin is not actually seduced by the dark side but rather tricked into embracing evil. In both films he is whiny, petulant and in essence a murderous psychopath. It makes Obi Wan's fond remembrance of him in the original sound really weird.

In contrast, Luke's temptation made more sense. The Empire destroyed his adoptive family and Vader directly put his friends in danger of death. Luke's incomplete training left him tempted to use his anger at this and turn it into hate, which leads to the dark side. Both Vader in Empire and the Emperor in Jedi play on this to try to turn Luke. Luke really felt like he was being tempted into a dark path. Anakin felt like Ruprecht the monkey boy going to a particularly shady user car salesman and buying the clunker of the week for $1,000,000. It's all back to extremely bad writing again.

On a broader note, being in the fantasy genre may give looser causal chains than science fiction (due to the introduction of magical and semi magical components) but the need to have plot elements flow with an internal logic is still there. So is the need for characters to actually behave accordingly to at least basic intelligence and logic - all the good fantasy has this. So the utter stupidity of Anakin (and indeed virtually every character) in the prequels has no cover by claiming "fantasy" - it is still bad writing.

 

[Overmind One]

Overmind, what loss? Padme was very much alive when he turned. He had nothing to actually hate or be angry with. Basically he had visions of her having childbirth problems and bought a very spurious story from Palpatine of Sith Lords being able to raise people from the dead. Meanwhile in Attack of the Clones he slaughters people for no good reason and in Revenge of the Sith does the same. It's one of the bigger issues with the prequels - Anakin is not actually seduced by the dark side but rather tricked into embracing evil. In both films he is whiny, petulant and in essence a murderous psychopath. It makes Obi Wan's fond remembrance of him in the original sound really weird.

I was referring to the loss of his mother, not Padme. It was the hate and anger from that loss which motivated him to slaughter the desert creatures who captured her. Although I do not approve of the genocide of those creatures, I do believe that it was a good reason for him to exact revenge on them. It was when he followed Palpatine's orders to kill children in the Jedi Temple that it crossed over into true evil. Those younglings had done nothing to him or anyone. I agree with you that Anakin's backstory was a mess. Why didnt he go back and free her in all those years? More importantly, how is slavery still possible in the Star Wars universe when they have the technology and resources they have?

In contrast, Luke's temptation made more sense. The Empire destroyed his adoptive family and Vader directly put his friends in danger of death. Luke's incomplete training left him tempted to use his anger at this and turn it into hate, which leads to the dark side. Both Vader in Empire and the Emperor in Jedi play on this to try to turn Luke. Luke really felt like he was being tempted into a dark path. Anakin felt like Ruprecht the monkey boy going to a particularly shady user car salesman and buying the clunker of the week for $1,000,000. It's all back to extremely bad writing again.

I agree. But Luke did not have visions of losing those he loved, he just lost them. He did not have a motivation to seek a way to prevent that which was GOING to happen, as Anakin did. Anakin suffered the loss of his mother and was faced with the loss of Padme in the future. Part of his journey to the Dark Side was to gain the power over death and loss. Anakin was further damaged by the actor who played him. The kid was good (if annoying), and reminded me of the energy that Hamill had in SW4. Hayden Christensen was wooden to me. I never quite connected him with his child self, or with Darth Vader. Also, I think that Quijon was a more believable Jedi than the Obi Wan in the prequels. But like you are saying, Luke is a better fleshed out character.

On a broader note, being in the fantasy genre may give looser causal chains than science fiction (due to the introduction of magical and semi magical components) but the need to have plot elements flow with an internal logic is still there. So is the need for characters to actually behave accordingly to at least basic intelligence and logic - all the good fantasy has this. So the utter stupidity of Anakin (and indeed virtually every character) in the prequels has no cover by claiming "fantasy" - it is still bad writing.

I agree again. Unfortunately we do have the prequels and now that we do, we see a Jedi Order that is...for a better word...STUPID. The clone army being grown on Camino raised a huge flag which should have had the Republic forces swarming to find out who ordered an army for the Republic a decade before there was a war? They could have traced the payments, gotten the history of past communications, etc. Instead, they send Obi Wan alone? Why did they deploy the clone army without examining them first? Why were the Sith so much more powerful than the most powerful Jedi Yoda? The prequels made the Jedi look naive and stupid to me. The Sith seemed far more intelligent and better organized.

 

[Joelist]

And that is part of the problem. The prequels made huge changes to the original trilogy storyline which messed things up badly.

In the original trilogy the Jedi come across as wise protectors. In the prequels they come across as stupid (especially Qui Gonn but all of them even Yoda) - but so do the Senate and even the bad guys. For example, on the bad guys side why on earth didn't Dooku finger Palpatine when he was betrayed in Sith? Remember he knew Palpatine was Darth Sidious. Why did Grevious and Gunray just go along with Palpatine when the only thing his directions ever caused was the destruction of their forces?

In the original trilogy it was clear that Vader fell because he was improperly trained. Obi Wan says as much in Jedi. The prequels messed that up by having Obi Wan train Anakin with Yoda's approval contradicting what was said in Jedi - that he took it on himself to train Anakin instead of doing as he was supposed to do and sending him to Yoda to be trained. The prequels fundamentally changed the depiction of the Jedi from the original trilogy, and not in a good way. The prequels also gave us the nonsense that Jedi were monastic vulcans, and that love leads to the dark side - something never even hinted at in the original trilogy.