"Luke is Cooler Than Han" Topic

I almost titled this "Cool Han Luke," but I thought it would be confusing. In any case, this article argues that Luke is more BA than Han is: link

Of course, she does so using my least favorite film of the trilogy (which also always made me feel there was a fourth, better film missing in the interim between ESB and RToJ, where Luke hones his powers to the level seen in the latter film. But I digress).

Personally, I think there's a distinction between *most interesting character* and *toughest hero*, but even so, she is correct on many levels! not the least of which is that Luke is the hero; Han's just along for the ride.

The author seems to not see the most important part of the whole thing, who taught Luke to be such a BA? An old man who died less than a week after they met, some little green swamp refugee? Nope. Had to be Han. Frankly the examples given show a "student becoming the master"!

GR C17 makes a fine point. If not for Han Luke would still be a farm boy with a fancy sword.

Besides, Han shot first.

New Hope---Has own ship vs lives with relatives

Empire---Who went out in the cold to look for his buddy?

Jedi---Even blind, still took a crack at the "Fett"

Using the force is not a requirement for BA.

Have to agree with the general sentiment – while the Jabba the Hutt thing was definitely BA, overall Han's the man as far as I see

Luke's masterful plan to meet Jabba? What?

His plan to deal with the Rancor starts with getting grabbed. Clever. Keep inside those talons. Maybe you can choke him on a chicken bone.

His plan to deal with the Hutt? To rely that R2 will survive being handed over as a gift, be on time and within range and proper trajectory to lob the lightsaber at just the right moment (almost blew that plan when the barge had their red fabric sun roof deployed), and rely on the booger with one eyeball could correctly aim? Even more clever.

Would make his dad proud.

Of course Luke turns to the dark side when fighting Vader but Lucas conveniently decided that it didnt count. That 'would' have made him the baddest.
And Han gave up his ship to go play with teddy bears despite the fact that he would have been a far better choice to pilot the Falcon into the guts of the Death Star (the complete lack of logic behind taking a freighter, no matter how customized into that mess is for another discussion *L*)
But nonetheless, despite the fact he spent half of jedi with a bemused expression on his face and had his leg humped by an Ewok. Han is still the badder of the two

Damned right Stryderg!

Let's not forget the Endor Holocaust.

Of course Luke turns to the dark side when fighting Vader but Lucas conveniently decided that it didnt count. That 'would' have made him the baddest.

Ironically (because Lucas didn't figure this out and never has), it's neither the powers nor the anger that makes one "Dark." Even in the films, it's quite clear that using the Force to maim, kill or deceive someone is perfectly fine if it's done for a truly greater good, and not for selfish reasons. And anger, of course, is an entirely natural reaction to the sight of evil, cruelty or injustice, and if it motivates you to take action to fight these things, then it isn't "dark," either. So it's rather nonsensical to suggest that trying to kill an evil despot who is out to enslave billions and slaughter millions, including your own friends, is either a "Dark" or evil act, regardless of what powers you use to attempt the task. Indeed, the movie ends with a nominally "Dark" character being redeemed by committing a homicide! So, then, was the Emperor telling the truth when he said that Luke's anger and hate towards him would cause Luke to join the Dark Side? Or was he lying yet again? Or did he himself not know the real truth— that power in and of itself is neither good nor evil, but rather it is what you do with it that counts. Luke could have been absolutely furious and sliced the Emperor like a pickle loaf, and it wouldn't have meant that Luke had become evil. It would simply have meant that justice had been carried out and evil had been destroyed— which is what it meant for Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker. It isn't wrong to hate evil. It's wrong to do nothing when evil is in front of you, and you can destroy it.

Alas, I don't think Lucas himself ever understood the themes he was really exploring. After all, if what he tried to say was dark was truly dark, how does he explain the slaughter of thousands and thousands of Imperial draftees aboard the two Death Stars (and, of course, the various spaceships and fighter) as being actions in keeping with the Light Side of the Force? (Would a Jedi not feel these individuals' deaths as a disturbance in the Force?)

As for the question at hand, while I'm personally a fan of Han Solo, in the end he really is just a guy with a good blaster by his side. He's pretty good in a fight, and feels no need to talk when shooting solves the problem more quickly. But Luke is the one who can blow up a space station with his eyes closed, summon a lightsaber to his hand with a thought, slice and dice monsters into snack-size bits, and hurl people and objects aside with a wave. Heck, Luke can knock even a good blaster's shots aside with a flick of his wrist. So in a stand up fight, Luke's got the goods to smack Han from Tatooine and back.

Unless, of course, Han shoots first.

I'm pretty sure Vader is the hero.
The story is just told from the villains point of view.

Everything is remarkably black and white and doesnt standup to scrutiny in any way whatsoever. But while it is fun to debate many aspects i still love the films and am quite willing to ignore the obvious flaws. I feel like a character from 1984 with all this doublethink *L*

YouTube link

Lone star is the real hero….

What Ds6151 said. The rebel scum are a distracting irrelevance, the story is about the rise, fall and redeption of Anakin Skywalker.

Lando is the MAN!

parzival,

Very good summery and well understood. I call this the D&D lawfull good versus lawfull evil dilemma.

Really very well observed….

Parzival, very cool post

It's wrong to do nothing when evil is in front of you, and you can destroy it.

Totally agree with you on this, but not sure if I agree with some of the rest of your assessment.
Basically, I feel that Lucas was far more knowledgeable and aware of the themes that you are talking about than you are giving him credit for.

Luke uses violence to destroy evil. He takes no pleasure from it at all, but he understands that it is the right thing to do. That is the jedi way, and all the masters of the Jedi council in episodes I,II,III act in accordance with this. In contrast, when Anakin returns to Tattoine and slaughters the Sand people in a revenge attack, he is already far down the path of the dark side because he ENJOYS it. He tells Padme that he killed the women and children in the camp too, which wasn't necessary, but basically made him FEEL better.

I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of Luke's light-sabre attack on the Emperor. It is not the righteous anger that Luke must channel that is evil, it is the blind uncontrollable hate-filled anger that serves no purpose that leads to evil. I mean, if Luke would have been in control of himself at that moment he would have KNOWN that his attack wouldn't have succeeded, because Vader is there to intercept his move. It could not have led to "justice", in this particular case. It is the lack of poise and pointless hatred that the Emperor finds so amusing and delightful. On its own it will not lead to the dark side, but its a good start. I think this is what Lucas is referring to with that scene. I think the Emperor (and therefore Lucas) understand that Luke will not become evil simply for slicing & pickling him, but it will show Luke that he has the same flaws as his father, and eventually lead to him becoming a pawn of the Dark side. The Emperor knows that he is in no physical danger, and he is playing his manipulative games.
Of course, Luke re-gains his control at the most crucial of times and refuses to despatch his wounded father. It is this refusal that pains the Emperor so much, and ultimately leads to the reversal of the situation and the destruction of the Emperor. Luke makes the one vital decision that the Sith cannot understand (compassion), the Emperor then attacks savagely and allows HIS guard to be taken down, for once he fails to read/feel what Vader is doing, and he is destroyed.

(A similar thing happens in Attack of the Clones; Obi Wan and Anakin have Dooku outnumbered but Anakin loses his cool and gets himself in trouble. Not very Jedi-like).

To address your death star example, the death star must be destroyed (and its crew), because it causes far more evil whilst it is existant (it can destroy planets for heaven's sake). A Sith would wipe out that many people for any number of reasons and not feel remorse, a trained Jedi will only carry out that act when it is the only right course of action.

It is wrong to "hate" evil, because the hate will not help you (and it may well hinder you or twist you into what you hate). But it is right to have zero tolerance of evil, and to prevent it where possible. In this sense, controlled righteous anger is a necessary thing.
There are fine lines between all this, the path between good and evil is sometimes a razors edge, which is what makes the concepts in the films so interesting!

Interesting points, but I'll still call Lucas to account for his scripts. Anger isn't evil, for example, which he has both Yoda and the Emperor incorrectly state. One can be angry and not bear either evil in one's feelings, thoughts or deeds. Anger is just anger— an emotional response to a perceived wrong. Now, that anger can result from selfishness ("I'm angry because I didn't get my way"), which is indeed wrong, or it can result from a reaction to injustice or cruelty ("How dare you harm an innocent child for your greed!"). So Lucas got that bit completely wrong (and even worse in the prequels— "A Jedi must not know anger… A Jedi must not know love." Really, George? Do you realize how ridiculous and nonsensical that is?)

But I think this is more of a case of the background material and themes superseding the screenwriter's abilities and understanding. I think he created something that was more than what he wrote, despite his own clumsiness in the writing of it. Not an uncommon thing in art.

Hi Parzival,

I don't think the writing was that clumsy. In fact Star Wars has an incredible economy to the script. Very important ideas and themes from religion and spirituality are captured in just a few sentences from the main characters.

If I take the meaning too literally, then I guess it can sound a little ridiculous. I mean, Yoda has a certain way of speaking that precludes long descriptive explanations, and the nature of cinema is such that viewers would get bored if the information was too long anyway.
But to be honest the more I watch Star Wars the more I am impressed by the themes and the way Lucas introduces them. The guy really knew his stuff, we know he was a big fan of Joseph Campbells work, and I don't think we can accuse the films of being superficially smart.

I am in total agreement with your point about great material superseding a Film-makers knowledge, but I'm not sure if I agree that this is the case in Star Wars. Basically, I don't think Lucas hit on this knowledge by accident.
To take one scene as an example; even a lot of hard-core Star Wars fans don't understand or like the cave scene on Dagobai, but for me it is one of the most important bits of all 6 films. For one, Lucas is giving a clever nod to the universal "hero's initiation" (which is always in a cave, and serpents are usually prominent) of the Mystery schools. But even more importantly, Luke learns in this scene that evil dwells within HIM. This is why he experiences a literal vision of himself as Vader. Evil is an internal snare as much as it is an external one. The master (Yoda) knows that the "Hero" has no right (and no real hope) of conquering the evil in the world until he has confronted his own demons and potentiality for evil. I think Lucas understands this duality of internal and external evil very well indeed.

Its a universal theme, a simple one but in a deceptive way because people always forget how important it is. It is perhaps THE most important of themes. It's no coincidence that arguably the three defining works of fiction spanning the last 3 generations have used this motif; It is present in the Lord of the Rings books (in the personal struggle of the main characters with the temptation of the One Ring), in Star Wars (as the struggle between the dark & light sides of the Force), and in Harry Potter (some of the evil of Voldimort is present in Potter, which he must conquer personally).

Were the Authors of these "fictions", if we can even call them fiction in this context, aware of what they were encapsulating into their work? Tolkein, definately. Lucas, almost certainly. Rowling, I haven't read the books so I wouldn't like to say for sure, but I would say probably.
It's a big reason for the enduring appeal of these 3 works IMO.

Very interesting discussion and subject matter my friend.