remember when you said the argument was dumb?

George Lucas' argument was dumb, and you took it up.

Maybe-- I didn't think I was, but I watched the comparison, and you're not going to like this, but the original version looks pretty cold to me, and I still think he could've gotten out of it another way. That's not to say Han is or was a bad character or a bad person, or to say his character development isn't important. Again, it's make-believe, I don't have to justify anything. I could say that little thing on Jabba's shoulder in RotJ used to be Luke's pet because that resonates with me, even though there's nothing to support that. I could even be wrong and making a dumb argument on that, but that wouldn't affect anyone else, just as this doesn't. I trust that you're mature enough to not think I'm dumb because I want to pretend about a pretend universe.

I never said that YOU were dumb. I find Lucas' explanation for the change dumb because it's aligned with the silly (and recent) notion that you cannot be justified in killing someone unless they have assaulted you first. The immediate danger to your life is what matters, and that's been the standard in common law for centuries. You cannot wait until you've almost been killed or (obviously) KILLED killed to react defensively. Han Solo could not have survived in the world he lived in if he waited until everyone about to shoot him shot first before he shot back. So yes, the scene did reveal something about him (that he's no chump), and that's why the change was criticized.

I also think the original was better dramatically because it ratchets up the tension, the smoke cloud obscures the action so you don't know who shot, and when the smoke clears Han is the victor. It's also difficult to believe that Greedo would have missed from across the table.

remember when you said the argument was dumb?

George Lucas' argument was dumb, and you took it up.

Maybe-- I didn't think I was, but I watched the comparison, and you're not going to like this, but the original version looks pretty cold to me, and I still think he could've gotten out of it another way. That's not to say Han is or was a bad character or a bad person, or to say his character development isn't important. Again, it's make-believe, I don't have to justify anything. I could say that little thing on Jabba's shoulder in RotJ used to be Luke's pet because that resonates with me, even though there's nothing to support that. I could even be wrong and making a dumb argument on that, but that wouldn't affect anyone else, just as this doesn't. I trust that you're mature enough to not think I'm dumb because I want to pretend about a pretend universe.

Permanently being someone is NOT good character development.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not arguing that he was or should've been the same throughout, I was saying that I don't think he was or should've been someone who would kill someone without an absolute need before and after all that happens to him.

I see little difference between saying someone is permanently a certain way and saying they are the same before and after.

I'm not arguing that. I was trying to say, I'm pretty OK with him changing, and I just would prefer that he be the kind of person that wouldn't kill if he doesn't have to.

YOU DON'T GET IT. He is that kind of person. In this situation, he had to shoot first or he would be dead.

I'm not... I don't... whatever, I don't care any more.

Do you remember what you saw at this point? Look it up on Youtube.

To be quite honest, I haven't watched the movies in a long time, it's hard to find like 6 hours to sit and watch them (or even 2 hours to watch one of them). Apparently what I saw wasn't as original as I thought anyway (and to continue being honest, I didn't know the subtitle and episode number weren't always there until some years after I first watched the first movie).

Who asked you to spend hours?

No one. I want to sit and watch the movie, probably all of them. That's not related to you saying I should look it up on YouTube. (I know, I did it again, I said something that looks related and didn't address the thing it's similar to to make myself clear, I apologize.)

It takes a little over a minute. Again, Greedo never got a shot off. HAN SHOT FIRST TO SAVE HIS OWN LIFE.

remember when you said the argument was dumb?

George Lucas' argument was dumb, and you took it up.

Permanently being someone is NOT good character development.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not arguing that he was or should've been the same throughout, I was saying that I don't think he was or should've been someone who would kill someone without an absolute need before and after all that happens to him.

I see little difference between saying someone is permanently a certain way and saying they are the same before and after.

I'm not arguing that. I was trying to say, I'm pretty OK with him changing, and I just would prefer that he be the kind of person that wouldn't kill if he doesn't have to.

YOU DON'T GET IT. He is that kind of person. In this situation, he had to shoot first or he would be dead.

I'm not... I don't... whatever, I don't care any more.

Do you remember what you saw at this point? Look it up on Youtube.

To be quite honest, I haven't watched the movies in a long time, it's hard to find like 6 hours to sit and watch them (or even 2 hours to watch one of them). Apparently what I saw wasn't as original as I thought anyway (and to continue being honest, I didn't know the subtitle and episode number weren't always there until some years after I first watched the first movie).

Who asked you to spend hours?

No one. I want to sit and watch the movie, probably all of them. That's not related to you saying I should look it up on YouTube. (I know, I did it again, I said something that looks related and didn't address the thing it's similar to to make myself clear, I apologize.)

It takes a little over a minute. Again, Greedo never got a shot off. HAN SHOT FIRST TO SAVE HIS OWN LIFE.

remember when you said this argument was dumb?

Anyway, count me fully in the Han Shot First camp now. :)

Well, that and the clarinet solo.

Permanently being someone is NOT good character development.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not arguing that he was or should've been the same throughout, I was saying that I don't think he was or should've been someone who would kill someone without an absolute need before and after all that happens to him.

I see little difference between saying someone is permanently a certain way and saying they are the same before and after.

I'm not arguing that. I was trying to say, I'm pretty OK with him changing, and I just would prefer that he be the kind of person that wouldn't kill if he doesn't have to.

YOU DON'T GET IT. He is that kind of person. In this situation, he had to shoot first or he would be dead.

Do you remember what you saw at this point? Look it up on Youtube.

To be quite honest, I haven't watched the movies in a long time, it's hard to find like 6 hours to sit and watch them (or even 2 hours to watch one of them). Apparently what I saw wasn't as original as I thought anyway (and to continue being honest, I didn't know the subtitle and episode number weren't always there until some years after I first watched the first movie).

Who asked you to spend hours? It takes a little over a minute. Again, Greedo never got a shot off. HAN SHOT FIRST TO SAVE HIS OWN LIFE.

Permanently being someone is NOT good character development.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not arguing that he was or should've been the same throughout, I was saying that I don't think he was or should've been someone who would kill someone without an absolute need before and after all that happens to him.

I see little difference between saying someone is permanently a certain way and saying they are the same before and after.

I'm not arguing that. I was trying to say, I'm pretty OK with him changing, and I just would prefer that he be the kind of person that wouldn't kill if he doesn't have to.

No matter, this whole debate is dumb, and we wouldn't be having it if Lucas had not made his stupid change and had not later made his idiotic statement about Han originally being misinterpreted as a cold-blooded killer.

I agree the debate is dumb, but mostly because it's about a few seconds from a movie-- a movie that was a formative experience in many people's childhoods, including mine, and a good piece of art, but still a movie.

Add to that mix a particularly modern and naive view of conflict, a moralistic and condescending need to "set an example" and you end up with the prequels--movies that were a depressing mix of Saturday morning cartoons, ABC after-school specials, and, worst of all, political allegory. (I'm being kind here by not characterizing them as long-form ads to sell toys.) Lucas isn't the only mega-successful Hollywood bigwig to infantilize his audience--witness the removal of guns from E.T.

The most dangerous kind of person (other than perhaps someone completely out of touch with reality) is an angry parent.

I give these guys credit for being visionaries on this--they were in line with the current obsession with trigger warnings. God forbid that anyone is exposed to anything that could potentially upset them. Ultimately, though, that's a terrible approach to making art.

There's going to be a better person to do this than me, because I'm not a psychologist and I don't have personal experience with this, but I feel I should correct you on "trigger warnings". It's not supposed to be about someone just getting upset. If someone uses it that way to try to protect themselves from things they just find distasteful they should receive a verbal (if not literal) smackdown. The idea is that some people have PTSD or a similar mental issue, and seeing or hearing certain things will cause them to partially or completely relive whatever caused it, without them being able to control it. It's a well-attested phenomenon.

I'd also contest there's a widespread obsession with it, I've seen it literally a hundred times more on the Internet than all other media combined, and I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone talk about it in person (and even on the Internet, I've seen it much more in things sourced from Tumblr and things making fun of Tumblr than anything else by a wide margin).

I agree that it has limited relevance to art, though. People should make what they want, and people who can be "triggered" should seek professional help and be careful in what they consume until they can live a more ordinary, full life.

This static view of characters informs several key "revisions" to the mythology, from the Greedo crap (Greedo didn't shoot at all in the original--we're not talking about a few frames)

Huh, I didn't know that. I originally saw it on VHS before the prequels or even the special editions, so I figured what I was seeing was the original, other than the added title and episode number in the opening crawl.

Do you remember what you saw at this point? Look it up on Youtube.

To be quite honest, I haven't watched the movies in a long time, it's hard to find like 6 hours to sit and watch them (or even 2 hours to watch one of them). Apparently what I saw wasn't as original as I thought anyway (and to continue being honest, I didn't know the subtitle and episode number weren't always there until some years after I first watched the first movie).

to the Midi-chlorian malarkey,

I don't know why people get so up in arms about that. To me it's like being mad electricity is technology and not magic-- it still works the same way and it's still cool.

Actually, no. The Force was originally something akin to a spiritual discipline, something that could potentially be mastered by anyone with the will to master it. That's not 100% true--natural affinity had a role, clearly. Lucas changed it, though. Now biology equals destiny. Huge difference.

It's not a huge difference to the story. The Force is still linked to thoughts and feelings and it has the same capabilities. I do agree bringing destiny into it even more is significant, and bringing in biology more is possibly even more significant, but that's more a thing for the prequels onward, it doesn't really affect the stories already told. (Of course, I was still a pre-teen/teenager when the prequels came out, and I was the kind of kid that thought science was cooler than magic, so your mileage may vary.)

Permanently being someone is NOT good character development.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not arguing that he was or should've been the same throughout, I was saying that I don't think he was or should've been someone who would kill someone without an absolute need before and after all that happens to him.

I see little difference between saying someone is permanently a certain way and saying they are the same before and after. No matter, this whole debate is dumb, and we wouldn't be having it if Lucas had not made his stupid change and had not later made his idiotic statement about Han originally being misinterpreted as a cold-blooded killer. No one believed that in 1977. A bounty hunter had a gun trained on Han, and was about to kill him in the next few seconds--if you pay attention to the dialogue it's obvious--Han is not a bad person; he is, however, a bad ass--or was. Put into the same situation the original Han would've done the same thing the day after dancing with the ewoks--killing or be killed by a bounty hunter is irrelevant to his character development.

I don't know if Lucas' mind got addled from the California sun or from trying to count all his money over the years, but somewhere along the line he lost sight of the archetypes he had clearly based his characters on originally. I suspect he began to believe he was the genius everyone said he was, and started making up shit from scratch. Add to that mix a particularly modern and naive view of conflict, a moralistic and condescending need to "set an example" and you end up with the prequels--movies that were a depressing mix of Saturday morning cartoons, ABC after-school specials, and, worst of all, political allegory. (I'm being kind here by not characterizing them as long-form ads to sell toys.) Lucas isn't the only mega-successful Hollywood bigwig to infantilize his audience--witness the removal of guns from E.T.

I give these guys credit for being visionaries on this--they were in line with the current obsession with trigger warnings. God forbid that anyone is exposed to anything that could potentially upset them. Ultimately, though, that's a terrible approach to making art.

This static view of characters informs several key "revisions" to the mythology, from the Greedo crap (Greedo didn't shoot at all in the original--we're not talking about a few frames)

Huh, I didn't know that. I originally saw it on VHS before the prequels or even the special editions, so I figured what I was seeing was the original, other than the added title and episode number in the opening crawl.

Do you remember what you saw at this point? Look it up on Youtube.

to the Midi-chlorian malarkey,

I don't know why people get so up in arms about that. To me it's like being mad electricity is technology and not magic-- it still works the same way and it's still cool.

Actually, no. The Force was originally something akin to a spiritual discipline, something that could potentially be mastered by anyone with the will to master it. That's not 100% true--natural affinity had a role, clearly. Lucas changed it, though. Now biology equals destiny. Huge difference.

Mark Hamill is now the same age as Alec Guinness was in the original Star Wars

Also, I don't suppose there's a way to embed tweets on here?

2)In the original, there's no clear indication of where any shot went, there's only a giant puff of smoke and sparks (from a completely different vantage point than the new version, btw) and Greedo's charred body.

if you knew Greedo was going to kill you would you shoot first? Or would you let him kill you.

If you would shoot first: would that make you a bad person?

No, but Han was too valuable to kill by the looks of it. I think he could've come up with something else.

If Han was too valuable to kill, why would Greedo have shot first?

If he was trying to kill him with that shot he's absolutely terrible at aiming, and thus not much of a threat, either that or it was a pretty massive muscle twitch when he died.

if you knew Greedo was going to kill you would you shoot first? Or would you let him kill you.

If you would shoot first: would that make you a bad person?

No, but Han was too valuable to kill by the looks of it. I think he could've come up with something else.

If Han was too valuable to kill, why would Greedo have shot first? #QED #hanshotfirst

if you knew Greedo was going to kill you would you shoot first? Or would you let him kill you.

If you would shoot first: would that make you a bad person?

No, but Han was too valuable to kill by the looks of it. I think he could've come up with something else.

Permanently being someone is NOT good character development.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not arguing that he was or should've been the same throughout, I was saying that I don't think he was or should've been someone who would kill someone without an absolute need before and after all that happens to him.

This static view of characters informs several key "revisions" to the mythology, from the Greedo crap (Greedo didn't shoot at all in the original--we're not talking about a few frames)

Huh, I didn't know that. I originally saw it on VHS before the prequels or even the special editions, so I figured what I was seeing was the original, other than the added title and episode number in the opening crawl.

to the Midi-chlorian malarkey,

I don't know why people get so up in arms about that. To me it's like being mad electricity is technology and not magic-- it still works the same way and it's still cool.

the movies became more about WHAT people were rather than what they could BECOME. That's one reason why the first few movies were so inspirational, and the last ones mostly stunk.

Dogfighting around attack cruisers, boarding and sabotaging capital ships, taking control of external turrets to defend your own ship... it was absolutely epic. The ships themselves handled like a dream and were varied in their combat abilities.

My fear, which appears to be coming true, is that Dice is just making another Battlefield game with a Star Wars skin on it. Once upon a time I would have been cool with that too, but given how poor the last several Battlefield games have been, I'm not so hopeful :(

That was the game that turned me on to the entire shooter genre.

I have very little faith this sequel will be able to compare.