My concern with this is if you're already determined what everyone's "destiny" is, they you'll never be satisfied except with movies that follow the same line of reasoning you are projecting.
If you follow this logic, you must have hated Empire Strikes Back because Luke puts aside his "destiny" of becoming the best with the force to go save his friends on Cloud City. And really dissatisfied in RotJ because A New Hope never set up Luke's "destiny" to redeem Vader. Was Leia "destined" to marry the scruffy nerf-herder that rescued her from the Death Star - would you have judged the original movies harshly if that didn't happen?
The characters in the original three movies grew and changed over the course of the movies as well as having new things revealed (like Leia being a Skywalker), and where they ended up isn't a straight line from what they wanted in the first movie. Sure, there's a foundation there, but there's also a lot more.
Not at all.
Luke's destiny was to answer Leia's call, to help in the struggle against the empire. You know this because the message she sent to Obi-wan found its way to Luke first. Leia's destiny was to restore the "rightful" democratic galactic government, the Republic. Falling in love with a scruffy looking nerf herder was something that happened along the way. Han's destiny was to find a hero within himself, to become a leader in service to others instead of pursuing his self interest above all else. Both Han and Luke were tested in ESB, and neither came through unscathed, but they both ultimately pursued their destinies.
Luke fulfilled his destiny by learning about the Force and facing Vader. The twist was that instead of defeating Vader and the Emperor, Luke used the connection he had with his father to inspire Anakin defeat the Emperor. At no point was Luke's destiny to "become the best with the force." He was never as strong as the Emperor, and without the father/son dynamic might not have been stronger than Vader. His ultimate mastery of the force was achieved by fulfilling his destiny, not as a means to that end.
Luke's path of destiny was not derailed by his choice to face Vader before his training was complete. Yoda and Obi-wan were concerned that he was not ready for the revelation about his father, and that
could derail him, but he faced that challenge and emerged with wisdom and strength because of it, but there was a cost. That was part of his hero's journey, on his "quest" to defeat the Empire. Luke never put aside his destiny--he had a branching path, action on one side and further training on the other. He made his choice, but neither path led away from confronting Vader and defeating the Empire.
As an aside, consider the treatment of Luke in comparison to the treatment of Obi-wan. Both, in broad terms, provided the hero of the story with their first training in the ways of the Force, and both perished at the end of a confrontation with the evil henchman. The difference is that Obi-wan, despite having failed as Anakin's teacher, was not a failure. He had never given up, had never abandoned hope, and when the call finally came to action he responded because he had been waiting for it. Luke, on the other hand, had become a failure by giving up after he failed once. The man who had cast aside his lightsaber and left himself vulnerable in order to reach his father and redeem the man who had become the face of evil responded to the corruption in his young nephew by preparing to strike him down, because he was ready to just give up on the young man. Then, Luke Skywalker gave up on himself, his friends and family, the Jedi, and the galaxy. When the call to action came, he sullenly refused it before begrudgingly agreeing to give Rey "lessons" that he claimed would show her the futility of becoming a Jedi and trying to help the fight against the Empire 2.0.
A lot of people defend the treatment of Luke in this movie by insisting this movie, and this trilogy, was not about him. The assertion is that dismantling his character was a necessary part of telling Rey's story. I offer the example of Obi-wan to show that his role in Rey's story (which, like most of the movie, directly parallelled a prior movie) did not require him to be a wretched failure who had given up on himself. He could have fulfilled that role while remaining Luke Skywalker, is what I'm saying. The character we saw in The Last Jedi had luke's face and Luke's name, but was otherwise unrecognizable as the character we last saw in Return of the Jedi.
As a second aside, I see some people saying that it doesn't matter who Snoke is/was. Yes... yes, it bloody well does matter. The Emperor was killed, the Empire defeated. Now Emperor 2.0 is tearing up the galaxy at the head of Empire 2.0, and we're just supposed to say "ok, show me some spaceships?" No, you can't just invalidate everything that has happened previously in the Star Wars saga without explanation. You can't take Leia's kid, being trained by Luke, and just hand-wave his fall to the dark side, because "lol of course he did." And you can't justify an uninspired retread of the original trilogy's story elements with "o hai it subverted expectations lol."
