Luke is a capable space pilot. Who only ever flew T-65s down Beggar's Canyon before...
Worse than that, it was a T-16 which has 3 wings and no nose, so really couldn't be expected to handle remotely like a T-65 high performance starfighter.
But it's okay, because he's a boy, which means he's a hero when he does these things. Rey however is a stinky girl, so when she does it she's a pathetic feminazi liberal PC Mary Sue ruining our Warz.
I'd expect more from you, Tords (even if, as I suspect, you're saying that with a layer of irony).
FWIW, I'm thrilled that the lack of diversity in Star Wars (and big budget movies in general) has started to be addressed - it goes without saying that it's
long overdue. I think Daisy Ridley is fantastic, but I also believe that she elevates what is, in my opinion, a very muddled character on paper.
And regarding the point about Luke, at least we get a
somewhat plausible reason as to why he's a skilled pilot. Other than that, I really don't see the (supposedly) unflattering comparison being drawn here. Luke does
one cool thing, yes, but he's far from a badass. I think people's issue with Rey is that she goes from Luke at the beginning of ANH to Luke at the end of ESB over the course of one film, and it feels very rushed.
That is a good theory. I hope it is true!
As I say, the very fact that there are
so many 'theories' and speculative click-bait flying around regarding, among other things, Kylo Ren, Rey's vision/flashback, Luke, Rey's parentage, the map, the First Order, Snoke's 'true' identity etc etc etc suggests to me that people are actively trying to crowdsource story fixes because they know - on some level - that what we got was a bit unsatisfying and doesn't really hold up to any kind of scrutiny. All par for the course where Abrams is concerned.
The original movies were able to hint at a much bigger story happening off-screen and leave plenty of scope for sequels, or prequels or spin-offs, but they never
relied on those sequels, prequels or spin-offs to give vital context or explain crucial plot points or character motivations in the way TFA does. We should be wondering where the story will go
next, not assuming/wondering whether sequels will retroactively make
this film make more sense. Honestly, it kind of blows my mind that so many people are unable to make this distinction.
Or, you know, maybe it's a bit quaint and old-fashioned of me to expect a film to be reasonably self-contained and not leave me with loads of nagging questions in this age of cross-media megafranchises and shared cinematic universes. Not being facetious or anything, just find myself thinking this kind of thing a lot.
