0

This question already has an answer here:

Wouldn't taking down the Empire have been easier with two Jedi? I'm looking for in-universe reasons and storytelling explanations.

marked as duplicate by Valorum, John O, user8719, Ward, phantom42 Feb 22 '14 at 22:46

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Can you be more specific? For instance, why didn't Leia go with Luke to Dagobah to train under Yoda? – joshbirk Feb 22 '14 at 18:37
  • No. I want broad responses to why she was a worse choice for training than Luke or why Lucas decided she shouldn't be trained in the movies. The question is broad, not vague to the point of being unmanageable. – vastra360 Feb 22 '14 at 18:39
  • I'm pretty sure it's because Luke is a Mary-Sue character for Lucas. He was even called Lucas Starkiller in the earliest scripts. – Valorum Feb 22 '14 at 18:56
  • There is speculation that the big reveal that they were separated twins was only conceived of after the first movie. This abbreviates the plot opportunities for it to happen, and interferes with any such development. – John O Feb 22 '14 at 20:22
0

The easiest explanation is that Leia was more valuable in her role as a diplomat for the rebellion. Being a Jedi was basically a death sentence after Order 66 and Kenobi either didn't want to risk both children of Anakin at the same time by exposing them as Jedi or didn't find it feasible.

It's strategically sound. Less risk, more reward. Leia has been very active in the rebellion by the time Luke picks up his first lightsaber. And if something happens to luke, Kenobi and Yoda seem confident they can try to train Leia in the force if they need.

  • That assumes that Kenobi has already decided to bet on Luke, which I take issue with. Wouldn't a diplomat and a Jedi have been more useful? Why didn't he train Leia first and use Luke as the back-up? – vastra360 Feb 22 '14 at 18:49
  • Because he can't be in two places at once. Kenobi agreed to look after Luke. Leia went with Bail Organa. Also, Leia shows nearly zero force talent leading up to the movies, little during the movies, and almost disdain for it in the EU. Luke, on the other hand, is a Jedi Knight in a matter of parsecs. – joshbirk Feb 22 '14 at 18:58
  • It still feels incredibly irresponsible to not equip the twin that is in danger and being actively pursued by Darth Vader. If he had managed to take a year off or something just to train Leia in the basics and lightsaber combat, maybe she wouldn't have needed to be rescued by a backwater kid who was trained on the fly. Also, the parsecs reference is a pun, right? You know its a measure of distance and not time. – vastra360 Feb 22 '14 at 19:21
  • Yes, apologies for bad Han Solo humor. And I don't think you can just give someone a crash course in being a Jedi for a year while the Empire is still actively trying to kill off all the Jedi and any potential Jedi. If they had wanted to train Leia, she should have been on Dagobah like Luke was on Tatooine. But then, no diplomat. You just have two backwater kids instead of one. – joshbirk Feb 22 '14 at 19:25
  • 1
    Known. Won't stop me from hoping for better female characters in the new trilogy, or even gasp them being focused around a woman's hero/villain's journey instead of a boy's. – vastra360 Feb 22 '14 at 20:41

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.