Greedo shooting first and George Lucas. (1 Viewer)

[Richard Kim]

Yes, that's exactly right. ONE BANG. Which means ONE SHOT.

Not if they both shot simultaneously.

 

[RobertR]

But the claim was that Guido was supposed to fire FIRST, because Lucas didn't want to show Han firing without provocation. A simultaneous shot destroys that entire argument. And they were NOT simultaneous in the SE.
Sorry Richard. You're in major denial about what was on film, clear as daylight, for all to see.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Oh, you mean Lucas will reverse course and decide that darker is more marketable now? Actually, that wouldn't surprise me.

Robert;
I am now convinced that all you really want to do is the opportunity to take shots at George Lucas for whatever reason. Sorry, but when you complain about it both ways, you lose all credibility that you have in this or any other discussion.
And yes, I did note the smiley.

 

[Tom Ryan]

I really don't get how it can be construed that Han gunned Greedo down in cold blood in the first film. I mean, Greedo was POINTING A GUN AT HIM. It's called self-defense. In Tales From Mos Eisley Cantina, Greedo is shown to be sort of a twerp, just playing at the bounty hunter game. He was quite inept, really. If Lucas had wanted to avoid the "cold blood" approach (even if it was in self-defense), he could've had Han disarm Greedo and humiliate him. I'm sure it wouldn't have been too hard to do.

-Tom

 

[Greg_Y]

This is another interesting tidbit from the Lucas quote:

...but I don't like the idea that practically the first thing Han does is gun someone down in cold blood.

Even in the original, Han didn't do it in cold blood. I'm sorry, but did anyone think Han was that "dirty" after killing Greedo? If someone is pointing a gun at you, and threatening to turn you into someone that wants your head, killing him (in the sci-fi/fantasy scheme of things anyway) is not killing him in cold blood. When I hear the phrase "in cold blood", I think Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, not Han Solo.
If the killing had been cold-hearted or mean, then I can understand revising it, although I still might not agree. Before the Special Edition version, does anyone remember complaining that the scene was gratuitous or out-of-place?
I think there's a good amount of merit in the argument that the change is not only unnecessary, but unwarranted.
EDIT: Tom Ryan's post above was written at the same time as mine. Guess we were thinking alike, like many great minds.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Tom Ryan's post above was written at the same time as mine. Guess we were thinking alike, like many great minds.

Rock on!!

-Tom

 

[Gruson]

If someone is a bounty hunter, threatening to take you in or anything else, you KILL HIM!

The Special Editions just suck, enough said.

Screw Lucas for not releasing either version on DVD yet. I am glad I have my LDs but anamorphic Star Wars would be nice.

Release a bare bones DVD now and then the ones with the extras, new scenes, etc. later.

We have all bought Star Wars about 10 different times now! (VHS, THX VHS, VHS widescreen, LD, SEs, etc. etc.)

 

[Coressel]

Guys, in BOTH versions Han pulls his gun out slowly from under the table. In both versions, the green dude ends up dead.

 

[Barry S]

And what the "#%¤"#% is up with that stupid out-of-place song and dance number in RotJ? Egad!

Perhaps you didn't notice the musical number in the original Return of the Jedi? It's brief, but it's there. Right before the Tentacle chick falls down into the Rancor pit....? Ring any bells?

Lucas didn't have the technology in 1982 to do the scene the way he wanted it, so he simply completed it using modern technology. What's the problem?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Oh, you mean Lucas will reverse course and decide that darker is more marketable now? Actually, that wouldn't surprise me.

So, what exactly do you want Lucas to do for Episode II? What would make that a good movie for you?

 

[Dana Fillhart]

Could anybody with the original script or the original published novelization of Star Wars please post the text here for us to see? It may (or may not) help clarify the issue; at the least, it will assist in proving whether or not Lucas lied in the quote above.
Thanks!

 

[Micheal]

Wow, this been discussed to death on this Forum! I agree that Lucas should have left the scene alone but how many times do we have to start a debate about this?
If I had a dime for every time...

 

[RobertR]

Dana:
Try
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Keep...pe_script.html
Note the date of the script, January 1976, written by Lucas. No mention whatsoever of Greedo firing first is made. The scene is written EXACTLY as depicted in the ORIGINAL, this-is-how-the-director-originally-wanted it film.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Michael, I completly agree. I started a thread in this area about this also, but in my defense, I started it to try and let all the 'SW' fans here know the cold hard truth so that they wouldn't be terribly disappointed when the originals aren't released on dvd.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Beaten to death? Not in the least. Some people still have their doubts and that is why it is being discussed.
Remember back when? Luke had just lost the only family that he had ever known, and had taken up with this old man that he wasn't quite sure what to make of just yet. Then this old guy hooks up with some inter-steller low life. This was verified (at least to me) when he didn't even flinch when he gunned down a bounty hunter (one step above a low life). I thought that Luke was nuts for getting on the Falcon. Hans was a very dangerous person to be with.
How fast did Solo want to get off of Hoth? And again in ESB? He was as ruthless as they come.
That was my take on the originals. GL isn't fooling anyone with this change. He just made it more PC, and should be ashamed for doing so. Gee, maybe we can get 'To Kill A Monkingbird' PC'd too. What a crock!
I didn't mind GL adding scenes in for the SE. It was like putting some deleated scenes in for a slightly longer movie, but changing what did happen is a no, no.
I know that the adults here that still have some 'kid' in them are really looking forward to a darker eps. 2 & 3, but it isn't going to happen. Darth may be on top when 3 ends, but if you think that GL will have everything go evil and wrong, I think you're going to be sorely disappointed. After all, he has to make sure that the kids will understand and enjoy it.
Kwang - I admire your brillance in coining 'Lucased', for it certainly is appropriate, but I'd like a double 'ss' even better - Lucassed

 

[Rollie]

I think we need to examine Han Solo's background.
1) He's a smuggler and a scoundrel.
2) He's hanging out in, what a Jedi Master calls, a "wretched hive of scum and villainy."
3) He owes thousands of credits to a CRIME LORD for dumping an ILLEGAL shipment when he was boarded by Imperials.
When we meet Han Solo, he's a wildcard. (As was stated before.) We don't know if we can trust him. He's a wanted man and has bounty hunters looking for him. He doesn't seem to care about Luke or anyone and just wants money. Now, I could be wrong, but it seems that Han's transformation into a "good guy" is a somewhat important plot thread in the first movie. When he does escape the Death Star, he takes the first opportunity to split away from the Leia, Luke, and the droids. When he returns to save the day, it's a great scene because we know that he finally found a good cause, and friends worth fighting for.
Now, by Lucas starting him out as a timid (blaster head dodging) individual, it takes away from his edge. We really don't need all his character development anymore because he's already someone who thinks things through, and does "the right thing".
That's not Han Solo. The Han Solo I remember rushes into situations, he doesn't think them through as he should. He literally, shoots first and asks questions later. He's irrational, and that's one of the characteristics that makes him fun, and gives personality to the original trilogy.
And here's the real mind bender. In The Empire Strikes Back, the door opens and Han shoots at Vader. Sure Vader deflects the blaster bolts, but Han didn't know he could do that. Now why would the same person who let Greedo take the first shot, just rush into a room and shoot Darth Vader, in an attempt to kill him in cold blood?

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Now why would the same person who let Greedo take the first shot, just rush into a room and shoot Darth Vader, in an attempt to kill him in cold blood?

Because he's Darth frickin' Vader, the second-in-command of the entire Empire, which so happens to have been chasing him, Leia, Chewie and Threepio the entire movie. He shot because he knew that they were in danger and there was no bargaining with the Dark Lord himself.

 

[Carlo_M]

Some people thought that we should leave that ambiguous, but I don't like the idea that practically the first thing Han does is gun someone down in cold blood

To me, this is the most telling part of that Lucas quote.
Obviously "some people" referred to other talents involved in the creation of Star Wars (which include but is not limited to: his ex-wife (an editor), Gary Kurtz (producer), Harrison Ford). It's well documented the difficulties that went into making the first two films. Now that Lucas has his Empire, he can do whatever he wants. No one challenging his vision. He can do whatever he likes.
And I think herein lies the prime example of "no man is an island." Note he brought in a second pair of eyes for Ep2. I think even he is starting to believe it.

 

[Carlo_M]

Now, I could be wrong, but it seems that Han's transformation into a "good guy" is a somewhat important plot thread in the first movie.

No, you're absolutely right. Han's redemption is a major part of the whole Original Trilogy. Even in Ep2 (directed by Kershner, another talent that Lucas no longer has to listen to, Han is viewed as still a bit of a wildcard--all the references to "all you care about is money..." etc. He doesn't leave his friends, he risks his neck for them, gets frozen in carbonite, and the circle comes fully around, they risk their necks to rescue him (from a crime lord that he owes a lot of money to).

As to "why the hell hasn't anyone asked him" - I will as soon as I get the chance. But I don't see the flanneled one out and about fielding questions too often.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Only Apococlypse Now Redux has pulled it off successfully.

It did?
That the film is seen as a DIFFERENT version by all involved is the key. But the added scenes defeated much of what Coppola achieved the first time around.
Sheen as cold and aloof with the men, rather than a giddy school boy trying to bond with them right away.
Duvall being a war obsessed hard-ass with stubborn love of surfing turned into a whiney candy-ass desperate to get his surfboard back. Shit, I would expect Duvall to hunt down and kill those guys for that board with his attitude.
Plus a redundent scene about how crazy the war is with the Playboy scene. We even had guys there saying "aren't you the commander". Well we already get that later in the film.
Anyway, regarding THIS thread.
That Lucas quote says it all for him. It was never intended??? So what exactly "held you back". The blaster explosion behind Harrison didn't go off right? You tried for 3 takes and then gave up??? You forgot to mention to Harrison that he should react to being shot at?
I mean the truth is on the screen. His lying is just stupifying at times. He plays that "we couldn't get it right" crap, but then acts like it was some crucial problem he never intended to be done that way. It's not like that's the toughest effects shot in the film in the least. Clearly it didn't get made that way, AT ALL. I simply will never believe otherwise without traveling through time and hearing it discussed THEN, live on the set.