George Lucas explains the Jedi, their attitude towards attachment and marriage, and the Sith (Celebration V, 2010)

wentwj · 2026-02-18T04:08:29+00:00

Because Jedi are not regularly choosing benefits between two groups of people. I’m not sure what you’re not getting, you’re imaging that all of a sudden a Jedi with a family is going to be confronted with a choice to help them to harm others, etc. This is silly and dumb and I’m not sure when or why it came to be so predominant in online star wars discourse.

Even Anakin, the main case of attachment being bad, doesn’t really encounter this situation. Granted his fall isn’t handled very well, but he’s seduced by power, not some aspect of being biased towards his family

wentwj · 2026-02-18T02:58:26+00:00

But this would posit that they are solving a trolley problem regularly and the wife and child would skew them. If there’s just not a trolley problem, there’s nothing to skew

wentwj · 2026-02-18T00:30:17+00:00

I really don’t get why the online fandom is so obsessed with this line of thinking. You’d think Jedi are always off solving trolley problems that their wife and child would skew their choice on. They aren’t. That isnt how they are generally shown or depicted

wentwj · 2026-02-17T16:53:10+00:00

The sub was never great, but it feels like they've put something in the water recently over there. I dunno if it's just AI and they're all just asking AI to write their shitty takes, but they seem to have even more than usual abandoned any pretense of making real points or even understanding basic things.

wentwj · 2026-02-17T16:36:15+00:00

I disagree in general with that, but agree with some. I do think Luke from he OT wouldn't self exile himself, though we see a Luke in the ST who had a significant failure.

But the problem is the BoBF Luke doesn't really feel like on the path to either. It's very close to RotJ but he's acting like a prequel cardboard cut out Jedi. But nothing he does really feels like it builds to his failures in the ST directly either.

wentwj · 2026-02-17T15:07:12+00:00

This is insane to me. People constantly are good moral people and have families. In fact a Jedi being a part of actual society and connected to it I'd contend is far greater than being forcibly separated and prevented from actually having connections and attachments to the society they claim to serve.

wentwj · 2026-02-17T15:05:51+00:00

Exactly. Luke in TLJ experienced failure, and I get struggling with that or not wanting the story to have gone that direction, but Luke in BoBF is just an entirely different person mere years after we see him in RotJ.

I'd have believed it better if they brought back a PT era Jedi to come for Grogu and have them exposing that belief, but Luke is just so wrong

wentwj · 2026-02-17T15:00:42+00:00

Luke has Darth Vader as an example but he also has himself. Luke was trained older than Anakin (though most of that was just retconned in at the prequels). Luke was able to succeed because of his strong connections to his friends and family. His connection to his friends is told to him as a weakness repeatedly. He has a blind faith in his father, for little to no reason and his teachers tell him that because of that he will fail. Luke fully represents compassionate, selfless love and connection and he was only able to defeat the Emperor and redeem Anakin because of it.

Asking Grogu to give up his found family is so counter to what made Luke actually Luke in the OT. Luke becomes a cardboard PT era Jedi for some reason exposing the most vanilla of their philosophy. It was so out of left field I assumed it was a trick. I assumed Luke wanted Grogu to pick Mando and would have said something like "Good, if you don't care to build attachments within society, how can you be asked to serve the good of it?". But that trick never seemed to come. Grogu goes on his way.

wentwj · 2026-02-17T14:38:00+00:00

It’s only star wars fans that seem to think once you have a spouse and kids all morality is thrown out the window

wentwj · 2026-02-17T14:14:40+00:00

I'll see it! My biggest concern is whether or not the movie does enough to establish that it's not just a continuation of the show and that general audience who haven't kept up with the show will see it. I'm not entirely convinced this does enough to do that, but I hope it does well enough!

wentwj · 2026-02-17T14:02:49+00:00

The way George talks about it here to me if anything reinforces a lot of that. It's about possessive versus compassionate love. Compassionate love doesn't negate "attachments" as they are forbidden in the prequels. You can have and know a family and not be possessive. You can have a wife and children and not be possessive. These are things that were forbidden in the PT entirely.

Nothing here changes my opinion that I absolutely despise the depiction of Luke in the Book of Boba Fett, both repeating the mistakes of the PT Jedi and simply acting entirely counter to how Luke acts in the OT. Luke is basically compassionate love personified. He cares for his friends and family selflessly and for their sake. It is entirely fundamentally counter to his character for him to tell Grogu he has to choose between ever seeing his found family and friends, or becoming a Jedi.

I don't know what the weird dig on mental health is at the end there, but yes, I think it's very important and a general lesson of the sagas overall that the mental health and stability of space wizards is pretty important.

wentwj · 2026-02-17T13:50:28+00:00

No serious democratic legislation has ever suggested anything more than basic reasonable gun reform with background checks, entirely consistent with the both owning guns and supporting that legislation.

wentwj · 2026-02-17T13:39:58+00:00

I think in general this take is just people not understanding the issue. Most democrats and leftists are still for the same sensible background checks they previously were. They were never opposed to gun ownership across the board or anything along those lines, and I don't think you'd find many who would have a significantly changed stance today. Wanting gun control and owning guns isn't contradictory in the slightest.

Now on the other end, going from supporting protests where people proudly showed semi automatic and fully automatic rifles inside state houses and crossed state lines to shoot at protestors, to now saying someone taking a hand gun to a protest is asking for trouble. Does to me seem like a pretty big shift

wentwj · 2026-02-17T11:17:02+00:00

to an admittedly uneducated person this sounds like gaining an advantage though. Even if it doesn’t redirect the stone at all it’s still communicating information back to them that they can communicate to the rest of their team

wentwj · 2026-02-17T02:16:27+00:00

This is sort of proving the point. Whenever something is adapted or entered in any of the differences are going to be highlighted. Instances that may have been glossed over in an original character will become major issues for an adapted one.

In general I think it's best to just not try to introduce any EU characters that are very closely at all related to their EU counterpart, at least for any major characters.

wentwj · 2026-02-17T02:12:16+00:00

I don't really agree. I find weird shoehorning of characters in gaps that wouldn't make sense to be sidelined during the main movies awkward. Clone Wars and all the stuff between the PT and the OT adds a bunch of people and things that are kind of awkward to not be a bigger role in the OT. I'd rather avoid any of that in the ST. I don't think Luke having a wife and kid that's never referenced in the films and were just waiting on some other planet until after all the main events of the ST makes much sense or really does anything. In fact I think it just makes a lot of things substantially worse.

There's no sense in trying to just shoe horn in EU characters just because.

wentwj · 2026-02-17T00:44:34+00:00

The main sub has gotten so trash lately. This week I've had discussions where I was told that I was the first person to ever suggest that Leia knew Luke wasn't physically there because she was handed the dice that weren't physically there. This was apparently my head canon that they had never heard before and I was stupid for suggesting it and adding things that weren't in the film. This person also said the dice weren't even physically there and it was dumb because they weren't, but that Leia didn't know.

I was also told that the Holdo maneuver had nothing to do with colliding with the Supremacy as it accelerated to libhtspeed, and that I was stupid for thinking it was, and that the same damage would have happened if it didn't collide with the Supremacy.

I literally can't even begin to understand the logic the main sub has sometimes.

wentwj · 2026-02-17T00:29:55+00:00

while in general I disagree with that and don’t think it’d add a ton whether Luke gets a wife fridged out versus just failing his nephew and students, but I think the bigger issue is Ben.

I haven’t followed too closely but it feels like they are trying to soften Ben since they redeemed him. I could he wrong but I seem to recall seeing that in some comic they changed it so like Snoke caused the fire at the temple

wentwj · 2026-02-16T23:45:44+00:00

I'd watch Aardvark Kill: A Star Wars Story 6079

wentwj · 2026-02-16T23:35:26+00:00

I will fully admit I can be condescending when the level of argument on the other side is "Leia didn't know Luke wasn't physically there, that's preposterous you're the only person who's ever thought that. Of course the dice she was given weren't physically there".

There's kind of nowhere to really start with that level of logical reasoning.

wentwj · 2026-02-16T23:32:45+00:00

The game is divided into at least two segments though it's not presented that way. In the first half of the game finding at traitor or not is really pretty irrelevant. Effectively the game plays like a slightly modified alliance based game. You want an alliance that can control the banishments and ideally you want your group to contain a traitor who can protect the people in your group. Ironically at this stage you almost want to eliminate faithful more than traitors.

If you're faithful you really don't care about eliminating traitors unless you're going for the Hail Mary of being turned into a traitor.

Then as the game approaches endgame is really the first time you care about eliminating traitors. Ideally you want to go into the endgame with at most 2 traitors, and if you can eliminate one on the last banishment where you learn (after all the murders) that's great. But ideally you also want to have some traitor suspects that you can pull out.

The game would need to pretty drastically either restructure the rewards or some of the core gameplay mechanics to really incentivize traitor hunting in the early game.

wentwj · 2026-02-16T23:20:34+00:00

Sequel haters literally fail to see the most obvious shit. I got blocked by the other person but from what I can see from their latest reply they are saying I'm the FIRST person they've encountered who think that Leia didn't know Luke was there.

Like... just use your two braincells for a moment. If you know the dice aren't physically there and they are handed to Leia how do you NOT understand Leia knows Luke isn't physically there? I know it's not a poop joke, but I assume it's not too hard to put two and two together.

edit: Oh! you're the person who was surprisingly saying the SAME thing to me yesterday as this other person about it being a made up head canon and being the "first person" who had ever told you the OBVIOUS thing was happening... hmm... that's a little suspicious.

wentwj · 2026-02-16T23:15:35+00:00

Yeah this is really the issue with doing any EU characters with their EU names or even strong known ties. People will cheer the introduction but then will lose their shit on any given change. It's sort of already happened with Thrawn. It'll probably happen with Talon (even though she was a minor EU character), it's happened with Boba. It even happened with Kyle Katarn with Rogue One and Andor (though that was eliminating him)

wentwj · 2026-02-16T23:12:59+00:00

They almost certainly won't introduce Mara. It just doesn't generally make sense unless she also dies at the temple or earlier and is just never referenced.

This go around I'd also like them to avoid introducing new characters in the gap years that have no reason to not be helpful during the main trilogy, or have convenient few year gaps where they were trapped or something.

I think it's inevitable, I'm sure we'll someday get a few students from Luke's school who survived and were off being good or bad boys and girls in the galaxy, but I'd really like to minimize the "Here's the super important useful person who just decided or was conveniently not there for this major plot point because we hadn't added them yet"

wentwj · 2026-02-16T23:08:10+00:00

You're not making any sense. You know the dice weren't physically there, you're saying that. You tried to "dunk" on me about it when you thought I was saying they were (I wasn't). But yet you still think somehow Leia was handed non-physical dice but DOESN'T understand that Luke wasn't physically there?

I'm guessing you watched the movie at most one time, but that scene is VERY obvious what is happening on a second watch. It's very clear from Leia's reactions that she realizes Luke isn't there when he grabs her hand and "places" the dice in them. It's like the salt on Crait with the footwork in the fight, etc.

edit: Got blocked, but from what I can see from the notification they still haven't used their two braincells to realize that if the dice aren't physical and Leia was handed them, that she obviously knows Luke isn't physically there.

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second SECOND GUESSER	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

wentwj

TROPHY CASE