One of the biggest issues with Lukeâs portrayal in the sequels, to me, comes down to how the Jedi themselves are still misunderstood within the story.
When you look at Luke in the OT and contrast him with the Jedi as we see them in the prequels, it becomes clear that Luke represents something fundamentally different. As mentioned above, he throws away his weapon, he openly struggles with his emotions instead of suppressing them, and he believes redemption is possible even when everyone else insists it isnât. He begins his training at nineteen, something that would have been completely impossible in the old Jedi Order. Luke is hopeful and compassionate, but heâs also imperfect and emotional. And yet the message of the original trilogy is clear: this is what a true Jedi looks like. As he says himself, he is a Jedi - like his father before him.
Then the prequels expand that picture in a really compelling way by showing that the galaxy, and the Jedi Order within it, were far more flawed and compromised than we originally realized. Palpatine certainly orchestrated the grand scheme, but his success depended on the exploitation of already existing problems. The Jedi were rigid, institutionalized, and increasingly disconnected from the people they claimed to serve. Anakinâs fall wasnât just the result of manipulation, it was also the tragic culmination of the circumstances he was raised in and the emotional isolation imposed on him by the Order (and the perpetuation of his slave mentality, but thatâs a topic for another post). Whatever issues one might have with certain aspects of the prequels, in the end, they made sense. The story isnât just about Anakinâs fall, itâs also about explaining why Luke was able to succeed where the old Jedi failed.
Luke succeeds precisely because he is not shaped by that same system. He grows up surrounded by love and family instead of institutional doctrine. He forms deep friendships and bonds, experiences both the beauty and the cruelty of the galaxy firsthand, and learns emotional resilience rather than emotional repression. Because of that upbringing, he approaches the Force, and people, with empathy and hope. Thatâs why he believes in Vader when no one else does, and why heâs able to reach the good still left in his father. Luke represents a break from the old Jedi philosophy: someone who embraces compassion and emotional maturity instead of strict dogma. In that sense, the prequels actually reinforce Lukeâs role in the OT by showing exactly why he was capable of doing what the old Order could not.
But when the sequels continue his story, they seem to ignore that entire thematic progression. Instead of building on Luke as a new kind of Jedi, they effectively turn him into the very thing the narrative previously critiqued: another relic of the old Order. He ends up resembling Yoda: isolated, withdrawn, convinced that failure means the end of the Jedi. That mindset made sense for characters like Yoda or Obi-Wan, but Luke didnât share their mindset nor their history. Lukeâs defining trait was that he challenged those assumptions. I mean, ffs he defied both Yoda and Obi-Wan when they insisted Vader was beyond saving! When he decided to rescue Leia and Han! He continuously refused to accept their fatalism and emotional disconnection. Turning him into someone who ultimately repeats their mistakes feels like a misunderstanding of what made his character meaningful in the first place. As well as an inability to understand what made the PT work, and why the Jedi were also in the wrong.