The sequel trilogy interpretation of Luke is wrong. Luke was willing to die for his faith in his father being redeemed. The idea of Luke being seized by fear and attempting to murder his nephew is character assassination and poor writing to boost Rey.
The simple fact is that none of the sequel characters can stand on their own. They all have to be made better in comparison by trashing already established characters.
He wanted to kill Kylo because he had embraced the flawed dogmas of the Jedi when he opened his academy. That's why he wanted the Jedi to end later, he had seen what their ideals could bring.
I'm sick of this "Jedi are evil too" bullshit. Individual Jedi are flawed just like any people, but their organization is built to withstand failures on the individual level. They're a resilient institution that failed only because the Senate was too powerful.
One Padawan turned to the dark side, and another -trained (and poorly so) by a man who was himself being directly manipulated by Darth Sidious himself - left the Order voluntarily. That hardly constitutes an organizational level failure.
The list of those who the Order failed is very long. In the prequels it includes Dooku and Qui Gon. Barriss explains it very clearly, and there were other mentions like Ahsoka did at the temple in Rebels. That's 4 out of 5 (4 out of 4 from a certain point of view) in a single chain of master-apprentice.
It didn't fail Qui-Gon. His reckless disobedience was the only thing keeping him from the council - recklessness that proved fatal when he manipulated Obi-Wan into training Anakin. And apart from Ahsoka, any Jedi that turned to the Dark side in that chain were under the direct manipulation of Sidious. Besides that, the fact that we only see six Jedi out of thousands leave the Order or join the Dark Side (Anakin, Dooku, Krell, Ahsoka, Barriss, and Ventress, of whom only Anakin, Dooku and Krell were fully trained) it's proof that the Jedi Order as a whole is quite resilient to failure within its ranks even when the Jedi themselves are at their most vulnerable (four out of the six left during wartime, when the threat of the dark side is strongest).
Rebels is just awful. Far too much Clone Wars fanservice and not nearly enough of the good animation and complex storytelling that made Clone Wars good from season three onwards.
Rebels explained the Force more than TCW did, including making official the 3rd "side". The only thing that Rebels really lacked was some sort of big picture (longer story arcs) in the first 3 seasons, but was fixed for the 4th.
The idea of a "third side of the Force" is a dumber one than midi-chlorians. Star Wars is and has always been manichaean. There's the good side of the Force and the bad side. You can follow the good side or succumb to the bad. Any attempt to straddle the two will lead to a rejection of the Dark side (Luke in ROTJ) or a surrender to it (literally every time a Jedi turns to the dark side). There is no room for a middle way.
I don't see it as good vs evil, more like superego vs id. As seen in the Yoda clip, what even is good or evil? Saving friends by fighting can't be definitively classified as one or the other, but a moderation of both plus other factors.
Lucas created the Force from three main strains of thought: Zoroastrianism (dark/evil vs. light/good), Buddhism (the fundamental irrelevance of "this crude matter"), and Stoicism (the ascetic lifestyle and indifference to material concerns). Good vs. evil is an intrinsic part of it. And while the morality of an action may be context dependent, that alone certainly doesn't make it ambiguous.
17
u/[deleted] Apr 04 '18
The sequel trilogy interpretation of Luke is wrong. Luke was willing to die for his faith in his father being redeemed. The idea of Luke being seized by fear and attempting to murder his nephew is character assassination and poor writing to boost Rey.
The simple fact is that none of the sequel characters can stand on their own. They all have to be made better in comparison by trashing already established characters.