[010]
Oransel
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
pave17, I wish Rian Johnson could have handled it differently in the first place. I can understand and accept general plot of:
to:
pave17, I wish Rian Johnson could have handled it differently in the first place. I can understand and accept general plot of: \"Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben\'s power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren\". Again, that\'s not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to the \'\'circumstances\'\' of the scene:
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a much worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a much worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
pave17, I wish Ryan Johnson could have handled it differently in the first place. I can understand and accept general plot of:
to:
pave17, I wish Rian Johnson could have handled it differently in the first place. I can understand and accept general plot of: \"Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben\'s power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren\". Again, that\'s not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to \'\'circumstances\'\' of the scene:
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a much worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a much worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
pave17, I wish Ryan Johnson could do it better. I can understand and accept general plot of:
to:
pave17, I wish Ryan Johnson could have handled it differently in the first place. I can understand and accept general plot of: \"Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben\'s power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren\". Again, that\'s not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to \'\'circumstances\'\' of the scene:
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a much worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a much worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of:
to:
pave17, I wish Ryan Johnson could do it better. I can understand and accept general plot of: \"Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben\'s power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren\". Again, that\'s not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to \'\'circumstances\'\' of the scene:
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a much worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a much worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of:
to:
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of: \"Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben\'s power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren\". Again, that\'s not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to \'\'circumstances\'\' of the scene:
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a much worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a much worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of:
to:
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of: \"Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben\'s power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren\". Again, that\'s not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to \'\'circumstances\'\' of the scene:
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a worse person \'\'and\'\' that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of:
to:
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of: \"Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben\'s power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren\". Again, that\'s not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to \'\'circumstances\'\' of the scene:
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a worse person[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a worse person[[/note]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of:
to:
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of: \"Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben\'s power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren\". Again, that\'s not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to \'\'circumstances\'\' of the scene:
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a worse person]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better[[note]]If you readily accept that Luke had no positive CharacterDevelopment and became a worse person]] but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of:
to:
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of: \"Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben\'s power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren\". Again, that\'s not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to \'\'circumstances\'\' of the scene:
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, ShockingSwerve.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of:
to:
pave17, I can understand and accept general plot of: \"Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben\'s power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren\". Again, that\'s not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to \'\'circumstances\'\' of the scene:
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
\'\'Whether Luke\'s decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for ShockingSwerve entry.\'\'
There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene:
1) \'\'Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here.\'\'
2) \'\'Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.\'\'
First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.
Second argument is better but still:
What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben\'s tent in the first place?
Why did he mentally probe him?[[note]]You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on[[/note]]
What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo?
Why did he trust it completely?
Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger?
Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?
\'\'None\'\' of these questions are answered in the movie.
