Remember though that that's just one example of a supposed Archetype.
This is what we need to highlight: that using archetypes doesn't give you developed characters. That work still has to be done.
It's like number painting and development of characters is like coloring outside the lines,
We need to put Stereotype and Archetype in the same place we put 3 Act Structure Outlines and Character biography and Much of the worldbuilding; off to the side for reference and guidance.
The real work and story still comes from Character Development on the page as the story and that includes how the author clues the reader into the character motivation through backstory, strength and weakness to show not just the emotions or feeling or five senses, but also the background to why key elements trigger those feelings.
And in that respect I would beg to differ that Luke Skywalker and Han Solo are indistinguishable. Though there might be less depth to the characters than some in other fiction, even the little the viewer sees of their motivations tells the viewer that Luke and Han's heroism comes from totally different places.
My point is: heroes are heroes. They have certain definite characteristics. Without knowing that, the writer who wants a general audience will end up patching together something that his audience cannot relate to. One does not have to look too deeply into recent history to find out what makes a hero a hero.
By the way, writing theory should be applied after an author has written something. That way, with his own work in front of him, he can be guided further to produce better work. Writing is not pipe-fitting.