Fact check: Rian Johnson treated the character of Luke Skywalker the way I treat a roll of toilet paper. Thank god he never did and Indiana Jones film as it would have likely feature and insufferable British chick lecturing Indie and ........well shit.

1. Summary of the results

The original statement presents an extremely negative view of Rian Johnson's treatment of Luke Skywalker, but the reality is more complex. While there was significant controversy around Luke's portrayal in The Last Jedi, the film received strong critical acclaim with a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes ^[1] and maintained an "A" CinemaScore ^[2], suggesting broader audience acceptance despite vocal criticism.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

• Johnson's intentional creative decisions: The director viewed his treatment of Luke as building upon, not destroying, the character's mythological journey ^[3]. He specifically aimed to position Luke as a mentor figure who inspires the next generation.
• Critical vs. Public Reception: There was a notable divide between critical praise (93%) and audience scores (56% on Rotten Tomatoes) ^[1], though there's evidence suggesting potential manipulation of audience scores ^[4].
• Mark Hamill's perspective: The original Luke Skywalker actor initially expressed concerns about the character's arc ^[5], adding complexity to the debate.
• Johnson's defense: The director argued that treating Luke as a "video game character with permanent power-up" would have been more disrespectful than showing him as a flawed, struggling hero ^[5]. He maintained that his goal was to affirm "the power of the myth of Star Wars in our lives" ^[6].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

• The statement presents an oversimplified and emotionally charged view, ignoring the intentional creative decisions behind Luke's portrayal.
• Who benefits from different narratives:
• Traditionalist fans benefit from promoting the narrative that Johnson "destroyed" Luke, as it validates their attachment to the original trilogy's portrayal
• Disney and Lucasfilm benefit from defending Johnson's vision, as the film was commercially successful ^[2]
• Online engagement: The controversy itself generated significant social media engagement and discussion ^[7], benefiting various media platforms and content creators
• The statement's hostile tone overlooks that even five years after the film's release, Johnson stood by his portrayal ^[6], suggesting genuine artistic conviction rather than casual disregard for the character.