It was better to have Solo shoot first, his redemption when he arrives to save Luke at the end of the film is so much better for it.
I just miss the happy Ewok song at the end of Return of the Jedi. 
Of course, you realize that the Ewoks became extinct because of the destruction of the Death Star Mark II, and that Lucas trimmed the ending off the film so that you wouldn’t see the huge hunks of metallic death raining down on the teddy bears.
Well it’s self-defense if Greedo shoots first. Before the shooting or imminent threat of being shot at, it ain’t self-defence. Others are saying that Greedo shouldn’t have shot first, because, presumably he has to bring Han in alive.
Perhaps it can be said, as Pushkin said that Han’s redemption comes at the end of ANH, but the reviewer is saying that it is better for him to root for a scoundrel than a murderer, and that’s not an unfair argument.
IIRC, Greedo pretty much hints that he doesn’t care if he takes Han back alive or not. IRL, if you stiff a mob boss, you’re going to wind up dead. So Han knows that if he goes with Greedo, he’s a goner.
Well in that case, that would bolster my argument about Greedo shooting first isn’t necessarily a tragedy because he would have a reason to do it.
I’m not insinuating that Han actually GO with Greedo. What I’m saying is that Greedo shooting first may make some, like the reviewer, feel better about the type of person Han is at the beginning of ANH. For those of us who don’t care what kind of character he is back then, does it really matter if Greedo shoots first? It doesn’t matter to me… who cares?
Uh…Greedo was pointing a Blaster at Han. I consider that an “imminent threat of being shot at”, and I’m curious why you don’t. You don’t point a gun at someone unless you mean to threaten their life.
If someone came up to me, pulled a gun on me, and I managed to shoot him, odds are the jury would find that I killed him in self defense. Self defense is pretty useless if someone has to actually shoot at you before you can respond.
Setting aside any question of character developement, doesn’t the scene bug you at all because it just looks so totally phoney?
By the way, should Luke have waited for the Death Star to shoot first?
Well others said that Greedo had to bring Han in alive. Han probably knew that, so having a gun pointed at him wouldn’t mean that he would get shot. If you knew your bounty hunter had to take you in alive for the reward, would you really think you were about to be shot?
Other may think Greedo could bring Han in dead of alive, but there does seem to be some confusion. With Greedo shooting first I guess it seems to indicate the ‘dead or alive’ works in that situation.
Though, like I said, to some people it matters if he shot first because that makes him into a criminal. To others (like me) even if Han shot first, it wouldn’t matter one way or the other. Is there a group that really thinks Han should shoot first to show that capable of it or something?
If Greedo had to bring Han alive, wasn’t he bringing him into Jabba? Did that scene come before or after Jabba on Tatooine?
To summarize (I hope):
Some people, like the IGN reviewer, find Han’s shooting first to take away from his liking of that character. I, frankly, don’t care if he or Greedo shoot first, but I can see his point.
The question revolves around whether Greedo’s instructions were to keep Han alive or bring him in ‘dead or alive’.
If it was ‘dead or alive’ then the reviewer has no leg to stand on.
If it was bring him in alive to Jabba, then from the SE, we see that Han isn’t in imminent danger of being killed by Jabba at that time. Something it seems Han knows, because he is quite loose in the encounter.
If it was bring him in alive to another person Han owes money to, then the reviewer has no leg to stand on either, because we don’t know if this other person would kill Han on the spot.
–
Now, the problem lies in what were Greedo’s instructions. To me, it didn’t take away anything from Greedo shooting first. It doesn’t take away anything to have Han shooting first. It shows me nothing about him, really. To some it does, however, and all I’m saying is that I respect the point.
It’s pretty remarkable, in a perverse sort of way, how many things Lucas got right in the original movies (not to say they’re perfect, they’re not) that he has since screwed up.
As one who’s not a fan of Star Wars, even I will agree.
I’m not entirely sure all of it is his fault. No matter how horrid Mark Hamill was, there is no doubt that Hayden Christensen is far worse, and that is suprising, considering his prior experience was said to be pretty decent. Portman suffers from that as well. McGregor is good, but he can’t bring everyone that far up.
This is from someone who like AOTC very much (well, the romance scense will moronic) and dislike TPM, but realized it was just exposition and thus certain boringness had to be somewhat expected.
When a director gets nothing but bad performances, I think it’s fair to suggest he might be the problem.
I thought both movies stunk, especially Clones, but to look at it that way is just abuse. A whole movie - or more - of pure exposition is not acceptable from anybody and shouldn’t be let go just because it’s Star Wars. If you come up with an entire story and it’s nothing but dull setup - like, say, some crap about trade federations - relying on your audience to sit through it because they know the ending, it’s awful storytelling.
According to the Star Wars Essential Guide to Characters (don’t ask me why me wife bought it for me, but I’ve got it), which is probably completely non-canon by now:
Sounds like a ‘dead or alive’ deal to me.
as for who shot first…
But wait! There’s more…
ewwww…
Lucas doesn’t seem to have any grasp of what made many of his early movies good or interesting… or successful.
He’s releasing a “Special Edition” version of THX 1138, too. AFAIK, he hasn’t done much to rewrite the basic storyline. He’s put in all sorts of tweaks to make the underground seem less claustrophobic, barren and isolating. It was this sense of claustrophobia, barrenness, and isolation that made the film work, IMO… but why bother with that when you can have eye candy.
Yes, but the point was that even though the original trilogy also had bad performances, for whatever reason, these actors are worse. I think whoever casted the movies also shares a big portion of the blame. After all, McGregor does very well, and is directed by the same person that Christensen and Portman are.
shrug I had a feeling TPM would be that way before I even saw it. When you go out to create a trilogy, invariably the first movie will be loaded down with exposition, for example see the LOTR trilogy, but in that movie the exposition works well with action (although in the books themselves, the dullness of FOTR almost made me stop reading before I hardly got started!!). Lucas totally messed that one up though with the pacing (not saying that TPM is good), but I understand what he was going for, he just didn’t pull it off well. After all, a whole government conspiracy which leads to the Sith taking over the Republic/Empire can get bogged down in the 1/3rd with complexity.
Then if that is the case, Greedo shooting first shouldn’t be that big a deal ;).
[QUOTE=ISiddiqui]
Yeah, but a professional bounty hunter who misses a target that’s only three feet away is.
I doubt that Greedo was just firing a warning shot. He would have to know that Solo would be armed and would quickly retaliate.
Lucas cast the roles.
I don’t like the Greedo shooting first scene specifically because it ruins one of the coolest bits in the whole trilogy.
“I’ve been looking forward to this for a long time.”
“Yeah - I’ll bet you have.”
BLAM!
THUMP!
“Sorry 'bout the mess.”
How is it at all possible to improve that scene with special effects? Answering my own rhetorical question, it isn’t. The reason that scene change is complained about so much is that there was absolutely no reason at all to change it, except that for whatever reason Lucas has decided he no longer wants any shades of grey in his characters.
I finally went and read the whole review. That guy’s an idiot. “They’re Lucas’s movies! He can change them however he wants!” No shit, sherlock. That still doesn’t mean we have to like them.
But that’s neither here not there.
Yes, with the added scene with Jabba, it’s clear that Han had no reason to shoot Greedo. This is just one more reason that scene should have been left out of the movie. In the original edition, the implication was that if Greedo didn’t kill Han, Jabba would. The way Han pushes Jabba around (and steps on his tail) robs a lot of the urgency behind his departure from Hoth, when he’s worried about paying off the price on his head. If Jabba’s such a pussy that he lets a small time smuggler literally walk all over him in front of his men, why the hell is Han worried about paying off the bounty? In the SE, Jabba is the Keystone Kops of the intergalactic criminal underground.
He doesn’t have a leg to stand on as it is, because in his fannish devotion to Lucas, he’s trying to hold Han to a moral standard that he doesn’t apply to any other character in the movie. You’ve dodged this question twice now, but I’m genuinely curious: since you think this guy’s opinion holds merit, how do you reconcile Luke’s act of large-scale terrorism against the Death Star?