OldVengeance Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The reason people care is that it fundamentally changes Han's character. If Greedo fires first, Han is just a regular hero, probably Chaotic Good. If Han fires first, he's somewhat of an anti-hero, more Chaotic Neutral with good leanings. I'd say that 10 seconds of one throwaway scene "fundamentally changing his character" more than the entire rest of the 3 movies he's in is totally hyperbolic, but even your post seems to imply it's an overstatement. It changes him from Chaotic Good-ish to Chaotic Good? That makes no difference to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternalnight Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It's not just about changing the character. Making it so that Han did not shoot first, makes the scene just utterly stupid. Greedo shooting first and missing his shot makes absolutely no sense. Look at how close to each-other they were sitting. Even the worst shot in the universe would not miss from that close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I'd say that 10 seconds of one throwaway scene "fundamentally changing his character" more than the entire rest of the 3 movies he's in is totally hyperbolic, but even your post seems to imply it's an overstatement. It changes him from Chaotic Good-ish to Chaotic Good? That makes no difference to me. I said this in the other post about this, but here are my thoughts... My problem isn't because of the cold-blooded thing. I actually disagree with the assertion that it changed the character in regards to his alignment. Han shooting first wasn't a cold-blooded act. Greedo was sitting at the table, with a gun pointed at him, literally telling him he was about to kill him. Han shooting first didn't establish him as cold-blooded. No matter who shot first, it was still Han defending himself. What the original did establish, however, was that Han was a bad***. In the original, we were watching an old fashioned cowboy shootout. And Han won that shoot-out. In the new one, Han actually lost the shootout and only walked out of that cantina alive because Greedo can't shoot someone sitting 2 feet away. Those few seconds hurt the scene for me because it was 1. incredibly goofy looking, 2. had a character that was such a bad shot, Stormtroopers insult each other by saying, "You're such a Greedo," and 3. Han LOST the shootout; he just killed Greedo because Greedo can't shoot. It didn't destroy the film for me, but it is definitely one of the only two changes (the other being Vader's "NO") that I think was a mistake to change. The rest of the changes, I actually liked, more or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriegskeks Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It seems to me, if Han only shoots back its only luck he´s alive after he met Greedo. It looks like he is some kind of a loser. In the old version he is an outlaw fighting for his life with an strong will to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llesna Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) George Lucas originally rallied against revisionism, in the sense that he was for the preservation of old movies before they degraded. Such a horrible shame that, after creating the concept of the dark side, he too fell to its lure. In the original Star Wars, Han shoots first. It doesn't matter that George Lucas has retrospectively decided that this was not so as the truth is that Han shot first: get over it George. This kind of aggressive revisionism, which is in itself a direct attack on the memories of fans, is the reason I refused to get the Star Wars blu rays. Fortunately there is a Star Wars preservation fan edit for each film (search for "despecialized edition") which tries to bring back the original film experience with the best quality picture available. Were I ever to get an audience with George Lucas, I would ask him in a calm and measured way about one of his earliest and fondest memories. I'd then proceed to tell him that his memory is flawed and the events didn't happen that way. I imagine he'd become quite angry that I was deeming to correct his own memories, before I equated what he was choosing to do to Star Wars with this. Leaving him to think on this, I would suggest again that he return to the favour of his fans and leave the destructive path to give the fans their memories back and stop retconning the Star Wars universe, since at least when comics get a retcon, you can still access the originals in good quality. But who am I kidding? George is too far along the dark path now. I want to believe he can change and will realise the harm he is doing to fans of his creations, but I'm not banking on ever seeing the original, unaltered Star Wars on blu ray. I will still hope against hope, but it will take a massive event or fan grouping to make this happen. Kind regards llesna Edited May 3, 2012 by llesna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Listerman Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Best kill ever in an Indiana film. *Masked guy swings sword around looking to chop up Indi* *Indi pulls gun out and shoots him* According to legend, that scene in question came about because Harrison Ford had a run of the flu and had to take a serious ****, but they wanted to finish the scene. So instead of dragging out a fight scene, he just ad-libbed shooting him before he messed himself. Or so the legend goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSmoke Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I interviewed Harrison Ford aka "Han Solo" a while ago for the premiere of Cowboys vs. Aliens and quite frankly he didn't live up to my expectations. Maybe because of his age right now. Especialy when you're a fanboy like me. So meeting him in person and experiencing his grinchy attitude was kind of a shock for me. So in my opinion the "young" Han Solo would've never shot first, while the "old | grumpy" Han Solo would've creamed Guido and robbed him afterwards. And as a Bonus, here's a rather funny shot of him at the premiere. Behold his grumpyness: Click Here ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Listerman Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I interviewed Harrison Ford aka "Han Solo" a while ago for the premiere of Cowboys vs. Aliens and quite frankly he didn't live up to my expectations. Maybe because of his age right now. Especialy when you're a fanboy like me. So meeting him in person and experiencing his grinchy attitude was kind of a shock for me. So in my opinion the "young" Han Solo would've never shot first, while the "old | grumpy" Han Solo would've creamed Guido and robbed him afterwards. And as a Bonus, here's a rather funny shot of him at the premiere. Behold his grumpyness: Click Here ! Sheesh, he really has that "I really just wanna go home and watch Matlock" look about him, doesn't he? Then again, has he EVER looked as though he's enjoyed his work after The Last Crusade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karkais Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Han shot first. Everyone is mad as hell. As far as Im concerned, Han shot first and this does not bother me in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraygh Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I saw the original trilogy back in the late 80's on TV when I was around eight or nine, as far as I'm concerned, what I saw then is cannon. Han shot first, and there is no CGI in Star Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gelich Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 who gives a ****...honestly.. Why does it bother some.. but wait...some things bother others but not me...oh crap.. Sorry guys..if it bothers you...damm I DONT KNOOWWW Well, it bothered one guy to make an overhaul of the whole scene in the movie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Listerman Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 and there is no CGI in Star Wars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVyJP92TiVg <<---No CGI? I suppose this was all fully acted zomewhere in New Zealand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malusz Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Greedo supposedly was one of Jabba's top killers. The scene looks completely idiotic with him shooting first, from that close and missing. Until he changes his mind and comes back to save Luke, Han consistently acts as a greedy outlaw whose prime concerns are his own survival and money. He is selfish and cunning and he'll spare nothing to make sure he comes out alive regardless of consequences. In the retconned version, besides how awkward having Greedo shoot looks, he's a lucky dude with little wits. He's a much weaker character. As for George Lucas' opinion about the thing, yeah, stuff it full of midichlorians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yfelsung Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I'd say that 10 seconds of one throwaway scene "fundamentally changing his character" more than the entire rest of the 3 movies he's in is totally hyperbolic, but even your post seems to imply it's an overstatement. It changes him from Chaotic Good-ish to Chaotic Good? That makes no difference to me. No, it makes him Chaotic Neutral with good leanings. A Chaotic Good character would never, for example, kill a child. Well, maybe not never, but it would be a HELL of a special circumstance. Where as a Chaotic Neutral character, even with good leanings, would be more likely to kill a child if, in the end, everyone prospers. Chaotic Good would steal from the mob. Chaotic Neutral would steal from the mob and kill any of them that got in the way. It's subtle, but it's important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tausra Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) ~snip~ The original negatives were destroyed when he decided to alter them for the big re-release in the 90's. He purposely destroyed the negatives so that the original films could never be re-released, leaving only his edited versions as the ones available to be bought. Edited February 11, 2012 by tausra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidacid Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) The original negatives were destroyed when he decided to alter them for the big re-release in the 90's. He purposely destroyed the negatives so that the original films could never be re-released, leaving only his edited versions as the ones available to be bought. pristine copies of the original Trilogy still sit in the National Registry at the Library of Congress in DC so no.. also the whole "Lucas destroyed the original prints" crap was never anything more than a misinformed rumor posted.. there are multiple copies of the originals still around... Lucas himself has a special Technicolor print of the original film in his personal collection... There are relatively good quality 35mm print masters, such as interpositves and fine-grain prints, as well as Technicolor prints. There is also a perfect duplicate of the negative in separation masters. Finally, the original negatives were not destroyed. What is meant when it is said that "they don't exist" or permanently altered is that the assembled edit of the film which uses the original pieces was re-ordered from the original edit to the Special Edition edit, so in this sense the original does not "exist." It would be very easy to simply put the original pieces physically back in, but in a theoretical modern restoration they would just be scanned digitally to avoid re-cutting the negative. if he ever wanted to re-release the originals there are multiple sources he could do it from... he just chooses not to Edited February 11, 2012 by Liquidacid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyvid Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) First of all how is this even a debate. GL wrote the scene so I think he knows who shot first. If you frame by frame, Han ducks his head to the right dodging the shot and then shoots Greedo. Edited February 11, 2012 by Dyvid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBentOne Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) I said this in the other post about this, but here are my thoughts... My problem isn't because of the cold-blooded thing. I actually disagree with the assertion that it changed the character in regards to his alignment. Han shooting first wasn't a cold-blooded act. Greedo was sitting at the table, with a gun pointed at him, literally telling him he was about to kill him. Han shooting first didn't establish him as cold-blooded. No matter who shot first, it was still Han defending himself. What the original did establish, however, was that Han was a bad***. In the original, we were watching an old fashioned cowboy shootout. And Han won that shoot-out. In the new one, Han actually lost the shootout and only walked out of that cantina alive because Greedo can't shoot someone sitting 2 feet away. Those few seconds hurt the scene for me because it was 1. incredibly goofy looking, 2. had a character that was such a bad shot, Stormtroopers insult each other by saying, "You're such a Greedo," and 3. Han LOST the shootout; he just killed Greedo because Greedo can't shoot. This. How is it possible for a professinal bounty hunter to miss somone from two feet away. It makes no sense. Instead of a quasi belevable scene where Han shoots someone with a gun to his face we are expected to beleve that Han (a hardened criminal in his own right) just WAITED for Greedo to shoot him. Even more unbelevable is that we are also expected to beleve that said PROFESSIONAL BOUNTY HUNTER MISSES FROM TWO FEET AWAY!!! you could replace Greedo with a five year old, or a monkey and Han wouldve had a smoking crater where his chest used to be. and that is why the change was a poor disision. Edited February 11, 2012 by TheBentOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironcleaver Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The original negatives were destroyed when he decided to alter them for the big re-release in the 90's. He purposely destroyed the negatives so that the original films could never be re-released, leaving only his edited versions as the ones available to be bought. In the editions I bought a few years ago, in the set includes the original theader releases of each of the original three films, no editing done to them at all. Those are the ones I watch, flaws and all. I've only ever bought the VHS box set of the three films in the early 90s and now this set in dvd. The original flim was distroyed though though chopping it up and selling the Cells. The original negitive has to be in someones vault someplace though. They said the same thing when the NGE hit SWG back in the day, sorry we can't go back even if we want too, we deleted all the backups of the previous version. yeah, right. heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaddaq Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Hello, My suspension of disbelief is my limiting factor. It says something about good vs bad storytelling when I can buy the idea of aliens and hyperdrive and ancient humans in far-off galaxies, but I can't buy bounty hunters missing their targets from across the table, or smugglers choosing to wait for an assassination attempt to be consummated before defending themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jatraril Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Han shot first in the original. Greedo had the drop on Han. His pistol was pointing firht at him. Han used his cunning to distract Greedo, draw his blaster, without Greedo noticing, and shot first. This fit perfectly into Han's character as a smuggler who lives by his wits and was only out for himself. It was in the later movies his character changed as he became more involved in the war and Lea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldVengeance Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) No, it makes him Chaotic Neutral with good leanings. A Chaotic Good character would never, for example, kill a child. Well, maybe not never, but it would be a HELL of a special circumstance. Where as a Chaotic Neutral character, even with good leanings, would be more likely to kill a child if, in the end, everyone prospers. Chaotic Good would steal from the mob. Chaotic Neutral would steal from the mob and kill any of them that got in the way. It's subtle, but it's important. I don't think even the "shoots first Han Solo" would ever kill a child. So really the difference you are describing sounds minimal to me. There's still more to define his character than that one scene. Edited February 11, 2012 by OldVengeance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeBranch Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The reason why it matters is because, like someone else said earlier on, it changes Han Solo's character. If you don't see how that changes it then I don't know what to say. It's the little things that give personality too, their actions and such, not just their dialogue. It was a character building scene, particularly because this is the first time you really see anything of Han Solo. Plus, another reason why it matters to me, is because it's hard for me to believe that Greedo was only like...3 feet away from Han and IN FRONT of him no less and still managed to miss. It's a serious stretch of disbelief for me to the point where it's sloppy and overly cheesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeBranch Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Hello, My suspension of disbelief is my limiting factor. It says something about good vs bad storytelling when I can buy the idea of aliens and hyperdrive and ancient humans in far-off galaxies, but I can't buy bounty hunters missing their targets from across the table, or smugglers choosing to wait for an assassination attempt to be consummated before defending themselves. Also this, pretty much. Probably the best written post in this whole thread and the number 1 reason why anyone should care about Han shooting first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The reason why it matters is because, like someone else said earlier on, it changes Han Solo's character. If you don't see how that changes it then I don't know what to say. It's the little things that give personality too, their actions and such, not just their dialogue. It was a character building scene, particularly because this is the first time you really see anything of Han Solo. Plus, another reason why it matters to me, is because it's hard for me to believe that Greedo was only like...3 feet away from Han and IN FRONT of him no less and still managed to miss. It's a serious stretch of disbelief for me to the point where it's sloppy and overly cheesy. So before where he was acting all for himself, greedy, and self interest completely changed when he didn't shoot first?.....Ok last I checked throughout the whole movie, he still is the greedy and self interest person up until near the end of the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts