Greedo shooting first and George Lucas. (1 Viewer)

[Chad R]

The key phrase there is "while slowly grabbing hold of his gun". He is furtively preparing to blow Greedo away, and the entire conversation is nothing more than a stalling tactic on his part while he prepares to do so.

He has no choice in either scenario (stalling to shoot him in cold blood or hoping he can talk his way out of it) since the first thing Greedo does is stick a gun in Han's chest. He's slowly pulling his gun because any fast movements will make Greedo shoot.

I've never bought into the idea that Greedo shooting first changes Han's character. He's at gunpoint, under the immediate threat of being shot. Shooting first is not 'cold blood' no matter how you interpret it, he was under direct threat by a gun being pointed his way.

Then Greedo directly threatens him in his reply to "over my dead body;" "That's the idea. I've been waiting for this a long time, Solo." He's going to shoot. He's said as much. Han just gets the drop on him. That really hasn't changed. the only thing that has is Greedo is a bad shot.

And in both versions Han shows no remorse. He nonchalantly gets up and flips the bartender a coin for the mess (Classic western move). Lucas may think it softens Han, but I don't think so.

 

[Brad_W]

I agree with Chad on this one. However, the only real problem with this scene is how bad it looks. If you watch it in slow motion, you can see how Ford's head was digitally moved to the left. Really lame, but other than that I don't think it softens his character at all. The only other complaint about this scene is that I think it was unnessassary. It doesn't change the film/s for me, but still an unneeded scene to digitally alter.

 

[RobertR]

I've never bought into the idea that Greedo shooting first changes Han's character

I don't agree, but even given that, one has to wonder then why Lucas went to the bother and expense of making a scene change that looks so BAD (as Brad put it) compared to the original if it makes no difference. That sounds rather stupid and irrational.

 

[Coressel]

I've never bought into the idea that Greedo shooting first changes Han's character

I do agree completely, Chad. But at the same time I feel like RobertR in that I don't get why Lucas took the time to change it, even considering what Lucas has apparently said about it.

The brief addition of laserfire to the scene changes nothing, imo. A friend of mine who has only seen the SE of Star Wars still gets the same "Solo arch" we got in 1977.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

We also need to forget what we know about Vader. He may be The Dark Lord of the Sith and the killer of Jedi, but Han Solo doesn't know that. How many people in the original trilogy know who Vader is?

Rollie;

Are you sure about that? Not knowing who Darth Vader is would be like not knowing who the Vice-President is. I sincerely doubt that Han is that out-of-touch with current events to not know who the number two man in the Empire is.

 

[Chad R]

Lucas said it was always his intention for Greedo to shoot first, but how it was originally done was too ambiguous. He just cleaned it up to make it very clear. I think Lucas's greater point was that the scene has been misinterpreted by people for too long. He never saw it as Han shooting Greedo in cold blood. Why?

This was classic western rules. It's not who shoots first, it's who draws first. In both versions Greedo draws first. It's scary how the fact a gun was pointed first is downplayed to the point where actually shooting is so much worse than pointing a gun at someone. They are only seperated by one notch on the 'evil' scale. (Ask anyone who's had a gun pointed their way.)

So what Lucas did was take the whole idea of 'cold blood killing' out of it by removing any of the ambiguity.

Han's character isn't that he's a bad guy who becomes good. He's always displayed as a good person who's lost his way. A disillusioned character, but never a bad guy. He's a good person who is set back on the right track. Kind of a recurring theme, wouldn't you say?

 

[RobertR]

Han's character isn't that he's a bad guy who becomes good.

I disagree. See Rollie’s post.

 

[Carlo_M]

Not knowing who Darth Vader is would be like not knowing who the Vice-President is.

You have no idea how many people don't know who the VP is. :p)

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yeah, but guys you are missing one key point.

LUCAS THINKS IT CHANGES HAN'S CHARACTER.

That's why he did it. His quote says so. He thought it came out wrong (we dispute this and say he did it the way he wanted at the time). So he changed it so it would appear the way he wanted which is so that Han is NOT a cold-blooded killer.

Whether or not it changes it to you is a MOOT POINT. The director's intention in revising his scene was to alter the image of his character. And apparently he was on to something because many fans noticed and felt the effect.

 

[Coressel]

This shows he’s lying.

Oh please...
You guys have probably given this nonesense more thought than Lucas has!

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Coressel,

I don't waste too much time on this, but maybe you are right.

Maybe we have given it more thought than Lucas. Maybe what matters to us doesn't matter to him. I don't know if he's lying, but...

If he's not lying, he's an incompetent director.

If he is lying, he has little respect for his audience.

Most likely, he's convinced himself that he's telling the truth...making him deluded.

I respect the OT tremendously and I enjoyed TPM. I don't appreciate the changes to the OT. It's that simple...

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Rollie]

I'm not saying that Han doesn't know who Vader is; I'm saying he doesn't know about Vader's history. In reality, Vader is a badass Sith Lord, but to Han, all he would be is another high ranking Imperial. Han has no clue as to Vader's power, or his dealings with the Jedi.

Therefore, whether Han shoots one of Jabba's thugs or one of The Emperor's thugs, it makes no difference.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

What's a VP?
Seriously, even if we could all accept the SE version, can someone explain to me how Greedo missed? I can't accept that in any way, shape or form.
Glenn

 

[RobertR]

can someone explain to me how Greedo missed

It's called ramming suspension of disbelief down the viewer's throat, no matter how much it defies logic, simply because the director "said so".

See Armageddon threads for many more examples.

 

[David_N]

Yea I hope Lucas explains in EP2 or 3 why Rodains are such bad shots, that they can't even hit someone sitting 3 feet in front of them. Maybe it's those long skinny fingers they have. Kind of like explaining how he figures that stormtroopers are more more effective than battle droids. Now that I think of it, I think a stormtrooper did score a direct hit......on Leia's shoulder, only to get shot in the head from Han.

 

[mark_d]

Here's how I deal with it. I've said it before, people have disagreed, but there you go. And yes, I know I shouldn't have to reach, but it works for me. Better than getting all worked up about it...

Let's take one point as fact then speculate from there.

Fact: Greedo could not have missed from that range.

If he could not possibly have missed then he deliberately shot the wall next to Han's head.

Why would he do this?

Speculation:

Greedo doesn't want to kill Han, he wants to scare him out of some money. Han, knowing Greedo, is aware of his methods. Greedo is unaware that Han has a hand on his blaster. He is getting pissed than Han seems unfazed by the threats. Greedo says "I've been waiting for this for a long time" and gets a sarcastic response. This is the last straw. He thinks "I'll let off a shot to show this cocky bastard how serious I am". BLAM!

Han thanks "Bollocks to this" BLAM!

An unrealistic scenario? Perhaps. More unrealistic than Greedo shooting to kill and missing from three feet away? Not to me.

In the original version Han gasses with Greedo for just as long, he didn't just waste the slimeball fucker with the gun straight away in a cold blooded fashion. Dumb luck that he walked away from the situation which ever way you look at it.

Mark

 

[Chad R]

The idea that Han didn't know about Darth Vader is a ludicrous argument and grapsing at straws for support. That's like saying that Hitler was just thought of as a thug. I think it's safe to assume both Leia and Luke filled Han in on the man before that door slides open and Han immediately draws. By that point he had been living and fighting with the rebel alliance and would surely have been filled in on who they are fighting and why.

Han was never portrayed as evil. Never. He was only ever referred to as a scoundrel. That means he's self serving. He's greedy. He's not evil. That hasn't changed. And shooting an individual who already has a gun drawn on you (whether he misses you or not) does not make you evil. It means you care about whether you live or die. Han's life was threatened directly, and he acted.

I still don't think Lucas ever intended Han to be anything but what he is. All he did in the SE was take away the argument that he COULD be considered that way. That's what he means by ambiguous. Yes, you could argue that he was a poor director the first time around since he didn't get it across clearly necessitating the change. I would argue that the trilogy never was and still isn't perfect. There's plenty of contradictions between the films. And not just in the subtext (this whole Greedo argument is clearly subtext).

For instance in Empire Luke proclaims he isn't afraid. But Yoda tells him he will be. But, in Jedi (and Phantom Menace) fear is an emotion clearly attributed to the dark side of the force. Then, why would Yoda insist Luke will be afraid. Isn't that exactly what he doesn't want to happen?

 

[Prentice Cotham]

Wasn't Han an Imperial officer before freeing Chewbacca? So, he would have known about Vader.

Didn't Lucas also alter shots in the cell block where you could not see the actual blaster shots hitting the soldiers? I remember watching video of the original and the SE on top of each other and seeing these alterations.

 

[Richard Kim]

For instance in Empire Luke proclaims he isn't afraid. But Yoda tells him he will be. But, in Jedi (and Phantom Menace) fear is an emotion clearly attributed to the dark side of the force. Then, why would Yoda insist Luke will be afraid. Isn't that exactly what he doesn't want to happen?

Heck, Yoda even says this in ESB!

Yoda: Yes, a Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Whether or not it changes it to you is a MOOT POINT. The director's intention in revising his scene was to alter the image of his character. And apparently he was on to something because many fans noticed and felt the effect.

Well this embodies what the big stink about Lucas is these days. He doesn't really care about the fans. I've heard all the arguments about artistic integrity an all that crap a million times, but when you create something on such a scale as this that affects so many people, you HAVE to pay attention to what the fans will think. This is not "selling out", this is creating something that people will love. George did it with the original trilogy, but now it seems he's only in it for himself, and screw the fans. I despise that.

J.R.R. Tolkien never acted that way, he is quoted as saying his chief purpose in writing The Lord Of The Rings was to please readers (and I'm not trying to draw Star Wars and LOTR comparisons, Tolkien was just a huge author). George Lucas would be nothing without the fans, and if he hadn't made his movies back then we would've simply spent our hard-earned cash on something else.

-Tom