Moe_Syzlak said:
Back to my own thoughts. It seems to me that the EU is probably responsible for a lot of fans’ feelings about the OT characters. I’ve only read the original Thrawn trilogy and I really didn’t like it. It seems to me that the EU is largely comprised of Luke et al just going on further adventures without any sort of real arcs or character development. That’s never what I wanted from the story hence my disappointment. But perhaps that is what most fans wanted, which is of course fine. I’m also sure that many will vehemently disagree with the above post about Luke’s character, which is also fine. I think we get into trouble when we start insisting that our way of viewing the story is the right way.
Big EU reader here.
First of all, love your post, and agree with it wholeheartedly.
Secondly, I would argue that the EU approached things differently, and in a way that worked for books and not necessarily movies.
Classic EU treated Luke, Leia, and Han as static characters against the moving background of the Star Wars galaxy. I can't say I understand you not liking the Thrawn Trilogy (one of the best!) but I certainly agree you don't get as many character arcs with the Big Three Characters. If you did, other books would struggle to figure out where to fit into that arc, especially since a lot of the books were written out of order. The fun is watching them interact with new characters who do have very good arcs. Mara Jade from the Thrawn Trilogy is one of the best examples: a new, changing character, interacting with the static foil of Luke Skywalker. I might even be so bold as to make a comparison with
Star Trek: The Next Generation. The focus is not in how the primary characters change (they don't), but how they interact with and change their environment. The main difference here is that instead of philosophy we're getting different adventure stories. By design, any arcs have to be contained within their books, or their book trilogies, because any large change would disrupt the environment and prevent further books in the same vein. But overall, in the long run, we root for Luke's ambitions with the new Jedi Academy (and likewise Leia's political machinations and Han's ongoing Han-ness), and it is his accomplishments that form his arc, rather than a true broad character shift.
Side note: The New Jedi Order series turns a lot of this on its head, because suddenly there are 19 books functioning as an ecosystem where characters, especially the Big Three, have room to grow and develop for the first time in decades. They cram more character arcs into that series than in the entire early EU. Entertainingly enough, the classic EU crashed and burned when suddenly their static characters exited the NJO as different people, and the writers tried to keep going as they always had. But guess what, now it's broken and you can't just go back to things as normal. They should have just ended it at the end of NJO and called it a day. Thanos is dead, everybody go home.
With movies, the character arc has to be both broad enough to be relevant and focused enough to explain in a movie (or three, in theory). So you choose one thing to develop and really expand on, like Rian Johnson did.
I love new Luke. I think it is the perfect way to shift his character in an unexpected way that feels both important to the world and relevant to the themes of TLJ especially. I imagine viewers who wanted to see Luke at his height of power doing adventurous things were quite unhappy with TLJ, but as someone who grew up reading those adventures I adored getting another interpretation of Luke's character. For me, it answered the question of "What if Luke's Academy failed instead of succeeding? What would have happened?" To me, TLJ absolutely made the right choice.