The official Star Wars The Complete Saga Blu-ray discussion thread - Page 66

Well again speed is a relative term. Again the phrase "As the crow flies" is talking about about distance, but its always used in reference to how fast you get someplace.

I realize that you have have some kind of resentment of George Lucas and anything he says is going to be held in disdain by you, but that doesn't mean that the concept of distance equaling speed isn't valid and wasn't used LONG before Star Wars.

Doug

It sounds corny but George Lucas/Star Wars has brought untold hours of fun and enjoyment to my life so I've got nothing against him but I find it all but impossible that he didn't just make a mistake.

It was a mistake clear and simple.  Lucas trying to defend it is as ridiculous as him claiming that Han never shot first.  However, the mistake doesn't detract from me enjoying the movie.

You're bringing up something that's not germane to the discussion. The fact that he used a word incorrectly doesn't change because of "disdain" OR admiration for the man (I could just as easily say that you're motivated to believe whatever he says), so don't bother trying to avoid the issue by going there.

You can't explain away the fact that Han explicitly talks about the SPEED of his ship. Ben asks about how FAST it is (NOT whether Han can find the "as the crow flies" shortest route). In neither case do they mention distance.
Speed always refers to the time taken to traverse a GIVEN distance ( S=D/T). Drag racers cite their times in the quarter mile, not some time over some shorter distance that makes them "seem" faster. It makes no sense to say the speed of item a is greater than item b if time AND distance vary. Otherwise, as I pointed out, you could make the ludicrous claim that a Pinto is faster than a Ferrari because it takes less time to go two miles than the Ferrari takes to go 10 miles.
Edited by RobertR - 2/17/12 at 4:12pm

This I think encapsulates it perfectly. I actually don't mind the line AT ALL and as others have said, it certainly doesn't detract from the experience (and if the Han as a semi-clueless braggart line is true, actually enhances it to some extent).

The problem I (and others) have is Lucas's constant attempt to revise history to make this all seem like it was "part of the master plan from the beginning". We know things change, and as Stephen King is fond of quoting when talking about the editing process for his books, "only God gets it right the first time."

I'm surprised he hasn't taken more of a revisionist history on the Luke/Leia sibling thing in an effort to de-yuckify the ESB kiss and latent love triangle present in the first two movies. Probably because there were so many so closely involved to the project that have gone out and said that the two weren't initially siblings, so that if he did go on a "they were always sibling" campaign it wouldn't pass the BS meter.

That's the fascinating aspect to me. Lucas shows an incredible aversion to admitting to simple human qualities such as changing his mind or making mistakes. I've never been able to figure out why. I remember Gene Roddenberry being asked why the people in an episode of Star Trek weren't rescued by the shuttle craft instead of the transporter. His answer? "I didn't have the budget for the shuttle craft at the time". Can anyone imagine Lucas giving such an answer?

Hmm...can't help but notice that there are vastly more characters from the Prequels than the Original (I.E. good...) series on that Bluray gatefold on page 1 ....interesting.

I would guess that the artist was a much bigger fan of the prequels than the OT. The OT characters are all shunted aside into a little ghetto in that mural.

LucasFilm still seems to believe that there are more fans for the prequel characters than for the OT characters. Notice how much better Star Wars novels sell when they're about Luke, Leia and Han--rather than all those novels about Qui-Gon Jinn.

I don't think there's a conspiracy afoot. Besides that the number of PT characters in that painting only slightly outnumbers the OT ones, I'm pretty sure that all the interior art of the set is almost all existing work (rather than something made for the Blu-rays). That image was painted during the time of the prequels so, of course, it's going to favor the PT.

Not to mention that the bigger budgets and newer technology of the PT means that those movies had more visually interesting characters that work in a painting of a bunch of characters. Love the prequels or hate them, General Grievous is much more interesting to look at than General Veers.

Was recently watching some blu-ray extras and was wondering: Does anyone else think the Harrison Ford interview on the ROTJ extras was cut short? He goes on about how the character of Luke resembled Lucas, had character growth in each film, etc. And then it ends. But given what we know of Ford's complaints about the movies, it seems logical to me that he continued and said "...unlike Han Solo, who didn't grow from film to film, which is why I suggested to George that we kill him off in Jedi..."

 

 

 

It wouldn't surprise me.

I think all the Richard Marquand interview footage must be be missing too.

Watch Citizen Kane for possible clues to an answer....

I believe I know exactly which elements of Kane you're referring to.....and I agree with you.

Ralph McQuarrie has passed away:

http://www.ralphmcquarrie.com/index.html

Sad news indeed, at least his legacy lives on (before it's all replaced by CGI that is).

Now in response to this (I know it's late, but better late than never):

It's not two explosions, it just one flash (it's important to note that it's just one flash frame and the following Greedo shot also appears for just one frame) and the reason that it appears like there's a smaller flash above Han's shoulder is that the dark spot next to Han's head is his head's shadow and the dark spot on the right side of the flash is the shadow of his hand; this is not clear from this transfer, which has blown out whites, but it's totally clear in an actual film frame, where the edges of those shadows and the shapes of his head and hand are well defined and the shape and angle of the shadows clearly puts the source of the blast (where the light is coming from) to where Han's gun is. Just wanted to clarify that.

To Harmy - your analysis seems quite reasonable. Since I don't have access to actual film frames, I will take what you said as correct, and that there is actually only one flash, and that what I thought I saw as a second flash was a shadow-obscured single flash.

We both spent a lot of time analyzing and re-analyzing a single frame to reach our conclusions. Since you have access to better sources you came to a more correct conclusion.

Given what I was working with, it was easy for me to reach the wrong conclusion, but that kind of supports my main contention - that it wasn't a clear-case of a single shot. Only by close examination did you reach your conclusion. My cursory examination came to a different conclusion. I had 'reasonable doubts'. They weren't true, but they did exist.

Either way, I'm not trying to reopen this discussion. While I do believe that Han did shoot first, I don't believe there is conclusive, rock-solid evidence either way. And frankly, whether he did or didn't doesn't affect my opinions of the film.

David

The technology to have Greedo shoot at Han existed in 1977. There are hundreds of laser blasts in the original Star Wars film, what was one more? The way they shot it, and the fact that it homages almost directly The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (where Angel Eyes was the only one who did the shooting) should be proof enough of original intent.

If the new version was really "how George wanted it" they could have very easily staged and shot it as such in 1976-7 and the animation of the laser blast would have been barely a blip in the budget.

Again, Occam's razor: what's the simplest, most likely explanation? He had all the tools and technology to shoot Greedo shooting yet chose not to. Anyone who has unearthed an early copy of the script has shown that Greedo doesn't shoot. Han gets the drop on him. Why? Because that's what bad-a$$ smugglers do. They don't get to be successful smugglers by being slow on the draw.

Carlo, your explanation makes so much sense that the only people who would dispute it IMO are Lucas himself (for reasons best known to him) and those who are very highly motivated to believe whatever he says.

I don't think Lucas ever said that this is how he originally wanted it. In fact I read an interview at some point where he said that he had changed his mind about how this would make Han look in the eyes of kids. He thought later that it made Han too cold blooded.

Personally I like it because Han grows over the course of the films. At the end of Jedi, Han is no longer a man who would kill someone in cold blood.

And actually the script dated January 15, 1976 says:

GREEDO: That's the idea. I've been looking forward to killing you for
a long time.

HAN: Yes, I'll bet you have.

Suddenly the slimy alien disappears in a blinding flash of
light. Han pulls his smoking gun from beneath the table as the
other patron look on in bemused amazement. Han gets up and
starts out of the cantina, flipping the bartender some coins
as he leaves.

Just as the way the original film was shot and edited, you never actually see Han shoot, its implied.

Doug

This thread got revived because of a quote from an interview from The Hollwood Reporter where Lucas said

I've said it before but I wish he'd just say "I want it this now. If you don't like it, tough luck" rather than making up nonsense about the audience being confused by a scene, that while put together in an odd way, was not misunderstood for 20 years.

Lucas has never admitted that he originally wanted to show Han killing Greedo without Greedo getting off a shot, but what was originally filmed (and in the script) SHOWS us that was, in fact, what his original intent was.
"Implied" is far too weak a word. It's transparently obvious that this is what happened. We don't need to be "led by the hand" and see Han pull the trigger and the beam travel from his gun to Greedo to KNOW that's what happened, any more than we needed to see Humphrey Bogart killed onscreen in Treasure of the Sierra Madre to know that he's dead. Lucas showed what he meant to show. He later changed his mind about what he wanted to show, but he's never admitted that what he originally showed was, in fact, his original intent, even though ALL evidence shows it WAS his intent.

I

Yeah, if it's only implied that Han shot first then you could say that it's only implied that Luke blows up the Death Star.

I'm still confused as to why Han shooting Greedo before Greedo shoots him first makes Han out to be a cold blooded killer.

I think the idea is that shooting someone before he can get a shot off makes one cold and ruthless, even though it was a perfectly rational thing for Han to do, given that he was literally facing imminent death.

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk

Exactly. Han said he had the money, Greedo wants it for himself. He tries to defend against Greedo's accusations, Greedo says he should just give up his ship (his livelihood). Han is playing it calm and cool, GREEDO HAS A FREAKING BLASTER POINTED AT HIS FACE.

That's not cold blooded murder. Walking up to Greedo and blasting his head off while he was having a drink in the Cantina is cold blooded. This isn't trying to make Han Solo look like a saint, but god. He's not doing anything really bad here. He's just getting rid of an obstacle that wanted nothing less than Han turned in and/or dead. This was no different than all the characters shooting the imperials. Even in some of those cases, the imperials didn't shoot first.

Yeah, I don't get that either. To me, cold blooded would be if Han knew Greedo was out to kill him and so he walked up behind Greedo and shot him (and even then, he only got a guy that intended to get him). As that scene stands, Greedo was seconds away from shooting Han himself so there was nothing cold blooded about what Han did.

No there is no implication in Luke blowing up the death star. We see him hit the fire button on his joystick, we see the torpedo leave his ship, we see the torpedo entering the shaft. Its clearly spelled out.

With Han and Greedo however, all you see is a flash and some smoke. Han might have shot Greedo, but someone across the room might have shot him too. If you were asked under oath, "what did you actually see, all you could say is that you saw a flash of light, and Greedo fell. Of course the obvious conclusion is that Han shot him, but a clever lawyer could argue that there were lots of weapons in that bar, and lots of other people who might not have liked Greedo. Maybe someone else took advantage of the situation and took the opportunity to do away with an enemy, or a rival. I think Han would have a better than even chance of getting off for the murder of Greedo.

Where is the Galactic Perry Mason when Han needs him!!!!

Doug

Dear lord, is the 'Greedo shot first' issue still being discussed?! It's as though the last 15 years didn't happen...

When the Sun expands and vaporizes the Earth, the last words spoken will be "Greedo shot first!.........No he didn't!"

 

Like someone else said, Han doesn't have a cause, he's all for himself, very selfish and ruthless when it comes to saving his own skin and for money, he grows in the film and finds a cause, to alter this scene really alters the character a bit too much and makes the growing part seem less than it could be, it's a bad move and its the one thing i really dislike, i can take the CGI changes but i wish they would have left this scene well alone.