George Lucas Has Apparently Changed the Famous Greedo Scene In 1977's Star Wars Again, For Disney+ (theguardian.com) 284
Freshly Exhumed shares a report from The Guardian: George Lucas, whose departure from all things Star Wars seems to have been greatly exaggerated -- appears to have yet again doctored the famous Greedo scene in 1977's Star Wars [prior to it being shown on the Disney+ streaming service]. The scene depicts the Mos Eisley cantina in which Harrison Ford's Han Solo is confronted by an alien bounty hunter and winds up shooting him dead in a brief flurry of blaster fire. It has been much discussed over the years, largely because Solo shot Greedo in cold blood in the original, "Han shot first" 1977 cut, while in later versions Lucas re-edited the footage to depict Greedo as the aggressor, with Han returning fire in self-defense. Many fans have speculated about what effect that subtle change had on Han's transformation in the original trilogy from cold-hearted hustler to hero of the resistance. Now Lucas has tinkered all over again, to further muddy the waters.
As seen on new streaming service Disney+, the scene features Han and Greedo shooting at roughly the same moment -- to be fair, this is a change introduced several years back. But now, Greedo appears to utter the phrase "MacClunkey!" before succumbing to his wounds. Reports suggest Lucas made the changes some years ago, perhaps around the time he sold Lucasfilm to Disney for $4 billion, in 2012. Celebrities such as Stephen King and Patton Oswalt have speculated about what the re-edit means for the future of Star Wars, though nobody seems to have much of a clue.
As seen on new streaming service Disney+, the scene features Han and Greedo shooting at roughly the same moment -- to be fair, this is a change introduced several years back. But now, Greedo appears to utter the phrase "MacClunkey!" before succumbing to his wounds. Reports suggest Lucas made the changes some years ago, perhaps around the time he sold Lucasfilm to Disney for $4 billion, in 2012. Celebrities such as Stephen King and Patton Oswalt have speculated about what the re-edit means for the future of Star Wars, though nobody seems to have much of a clue.
Why not return to the original (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are people still fans at this point?
Next version, Han and Greedo sing a duet in the cantina.
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Funny)
Next version, Han and Greedo sing a duet in the cantina.
...because they've replaced the blasters with walkie talkies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Why not return to the original (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Why not return to the original (Score:4, Insightful)
Change for the sake of change is pointless. Change to merely temporarily appease is counterproductive.
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not, and the franchise is bleeding due to certain injections of politics that no one wanted except a select few who unjustly run the movie industry.
It's not the injection of poilitics into star wars thats ruining it as much as it is the minumum effort crap stories, crap characters, just general crapness covered with amazing cgi. They are just making bad films these days, pure and simple. It's the CGI and SFX people that are really selling those films because they do LOOK and SOUND excellent, despite being complete shit.
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is not limited to Star Wars. Or Science Fiction. The whole business rann out of creativity so deeply, that with "Charlies Angels" we get ANOTHER Remake of a remake of a 60s TV series. (and even that was basically a run of the mill secret-agent-formula thing)
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:4)
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Insightful)
They are seriously out of ideas and can only remake/reboot and even they they are shit.
Not so much that they're out of ideas - there is a lot of good material that could be adapted - but they're scared . The old material worked once, whereas the new material might fail to where they don't make their money back.
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of original ideas around, it's just that they are risky where as a Friends reunion episode is bound to make them a big pile of cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh gods yes there are plenty of original ideal, better ideal around that could be told instead of rehashing the same trash over and over. I have a whole library of books behind me, I can turn around, close my eyes, and randomly grab 3 books that would make better movies that the drek we are seeing today.
Barbara Hambly, Time of the Dark.
Alan Dean Foster, Call to Arms. Would rather see The Spellsinger but I can go with this one.
Patric Rothfuss, The Name of the Wind. I think this one is up for a movie. They can get 3 movies off this book.
John Ringo, A Hymn Before Battle.
I can go on, Michael Reaves, The Shattered World, Terry Pratchett, The Long Earth books. There are millions of good stories out there but they just want to package and repackage the same tired stories.
Oh yes. Here is a good one. Alastair Reynolds, House of Suns and Blue Remembered Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
I would pay good money for most of the stories set in that universe. Man-Kizin wars books as well as the Ringworld books. You have a whole series of movies all packed up in one neat little package. But I bet instead we will get another retelling of the origin of Spiderman next year.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the meme is "Shut up and take my money." Well one day maybe we will get a Ringworld movie.
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, when was the last time Disney put out a NEW movie? Everything they put out is either a sequel (Toy Story 437) or "live action" remakes of their classic (and '90s renaissance stuff). I mean, who thought that a live action remake of Aladdin was a good idea?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it that most people don't recognize that or that most people don't care to acknowledge it?
Not trying to purely be pedantic. I know the stories are shit and haven't been truly compelling. I enjoy them because they're simple fun. I know a lot of my friends are in the same boat, but often times, they can't acknowledge it.
Re: (Score:2)
I did enjoy the first installment of th
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this! While I do think there have been some overtly political lines inserted here and there; its also true the in some senses Star Wars like a lot of art was never exactly apolitical. I don't happen to agree with the way the message is being tweaked but I can accept an author saying something I don't agree with and still value their work especially in the context of film or a novel; even a painting if you are not hitting me over the head with it. Just like you can write a well researched article wit
Re: (Score:3)
Star Wars has not crossed into hitting me over the head with it territory in terms of politics - yet. I feel they have walked right up to the line though
I have not even watched the two most recent films yet.
If you had seen the last two you would realize that not only has it crossed that line but left it miles in the rear view mirror.
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:4, Funny)
minumum effort crap stories, crap characters, just general crapness covered with amazing cgi. They are just making bad films these days, pure and simple.
Didn't know Martin Scorsese had a Slashdot account. Hi Martin.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was only the injection of politics, I would still watch it. I certainly enjoyed Carnival Row even though it was hamfisting politics down my throat.
What I can't stand is injection of politics and little to nothing else. Episode VII was a rehash of Episode IV, and I've already seen Episode IV. In fact, Episode IV was new and fresh for me, while Episode VII was just a worse version of it. I can't stand the new superwoman Mary Sue, I can't stand the "converted" storm trooper guy (who is for some reason a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind the characters in the new episodes too much... although it is a bit weird that the defected Stormtrooper is the only one with halfway decent aim. No, what I mind is the poor writi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you have injected too much politics in your life so you see everything as partisan politics?
Unless you see the fall of the Roman Empire as Too Soon.
Star Wars Politics Timeline
Galactic Republic: Where people were mostly happy and culture was thriving, but politics bogged things down. Early Rome
Galactic Empire: Facing a threat the Senat
Re: (Score:2)
They need to keep politics out of my galactic rebellion movies!!!
The first movie was a metaphor for the Vietnam war. It had a strong female lead and all of the bad guys were rich old white men.
Re: (Score:3)
I fully support politics in fiction, some of the best fiction out there is very political, often in ways I strongly disagree with. That's fine. The key, though, is to make it a believable part of your fictional world, with all the in-world consequences that entails. Either treat the political issue seriously and give it the respect it deserves or leave it out. If it's isolated and doesn't connect to anything else in your world, you're both missing a chance t
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, hear me out, they could try to make a story where you can see casual racism and sexism in the background, and maybe it'll even be a plot point that this makes saving the day a lot harder.
This whole "Everyone loves everyone" is just the adult version of puppies and rainbows in shows for kids.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They did that already in the original trilogy, e.g. the way Leia is treated. Just repeating it all over again would have been boring.
In the new movies it just doesn't come up. Finn's race or Rey's gender are never issues. I don't know where you got "everyone loves everyone" from, it just doesn't come up. Isn't that what you were demanding all these years, that it simply not be treated as an issue any more?
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Interesting)
In the new movies it just doesn't come up.
LOL!
Lando fucks his goddamned robot, who is on a campaign to grant human rights to robots.
Holdo and Leia get off on berating and emasculating Poe, despite him being absolutely correct about everything. There's a fucking casino planet where we get a nice hot injection of animal rights indoctrination. Space horse racing is bad! (But wait - the next movie features space horses in battle, running around on star destroyers!) Chewbacca has to become a vegetarian because Porgs are cute. Rose saves Finn in a daring display that makes zero sense, and ultimately hands the day to the Empire. Oops, the First Order.
Re: Why not return to the original (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Right, right, and the Greeks were sometimes surprised that the Lesbian soldiers wore those little leopard print numbers. People are still tittering 3000 years later.
And yet, they were the premier light infantry mercenaries of their day. Every Greek general hired them to protect their hoplites, whenever available.
Winning while wearing a funny costume is effective branding, then and now. And even in a galaxy far away.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot that no military vessel in a desperate, struggling rebellion is gonna takes orders from a woman with purple hair and a prom dress.
You have to remember that the costume/makeup people had just returned from Burning Man before the shoot.
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Funny)
Chewbacca has to become a vegetarian because Porgs are cute.
That scene would have been so much better if, after looking at his porg-on-a-stick then the sad porg, it had been followed with Chewbacca and TWO porgs-on-a-stick.
Carnivores and omnivores eat meat, and don't need to apologize for it.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not, and the franchise is bleeding due to certain injections of politics that no one wanted except a select few who unjustly run the movie industry.
Not being racist and sexist is not "injection of politics".
Just because there is a different target for the racism and sexism doesn't change the fact that woke people and woke hollywood are extremely racist and sexist.
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because there is a different target for the racism and sexism doesn't change the fact that woke people and woke hollywood are extremely racist and sexist.
I feel your pain. Why oh why can't the poor oppressed white man catch a break! So unfair!
Well, first off, race is 100 percent a social construct. That is the strange thing that the woke people had the chance to face up to the truth, and they chose to enter into the concept of race as enthusiastically as KKK members. We're all just humans, with some local genetic variations based on the environment.
But it would be silly to deny that both the left wing woke and the far right do see humans as separated by what they call "race", so that makes them at least on a low level, racist.
But when they make statements like "why can't the poor oppressed white man catch a break!" they give proof that they are both racist, and sexist. This is not an arguable point. You made a sarcastic comment about what you call race, followed by sex, referring to men.
You are racist and sexist, as shown by your own words. Try losing your racist and sexist ways, it's a much better way to look at humanity.
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:4)
I don't have the requisite formal education to be formally authoritative about statements like "race is a social construct," but I am a rational human who tries to understand these things and I hate the notion that only "qualified individuals" can talk about things of broad social interest. Since I've been participating in slashdot for a while, I'll use a car analogy to demonstrate my understanding of the statement "race is a social construct".
To the extent that a categorization of human beings into separate "races" based on surface-level physiological differences that can also be associated with DNA-level patterns exists, and these "races" can be shown to have developed due to long-term reproductive isolation of populations, then yes, race is not just a "social construct". It has a physical reality.
To believe and promulgate ideas that the "race" categorization (based on certain physiological differences) are in any way meaningful as a significant determination of the potential and actual "fit for purpose" qualities of an individual human is to use race as a social construct.
One could develop a theory that "red cars are superior to blue cars" based on certain individual examples of superior red cars compared with inferior blue cars, and one could push the idea that this automobile race concept was useful in determining fitness for purpose of cars. Critics would then correctly point out that "automobile race" was just a social construct, and they would be right. It would be true that cars of different colors exist, and a scientific analysis of the light bouncing off their surfaces and a review of the paint codes present on their production labeling could be used to confirm the "color" of any individual car, so in this sense the idea of "automobile race" would be a physical reality, and not just a social construct. But to try and use the idea of "automobile race" to determine the fitness for purpose of any given automobile for any particular use would obviously be ridiculous, and in this sense the idea of "automobile race" would be a (not useful) social construct.
The physiological differences in human beings that permit categorization of people into "races" are no more meaningful to the prediction and recognition of the "fitness for purpose" of an individual human than the categorization of cars by color is a meaningful prediction and recognition of the "fitness for purpose" of any individual car. E.g., one might think "shiny red cars" are faster, but one wouldn't bet on the winner of a road race by the color of the car.
Re: (Score:3)
Race isn't a social construct, just because your cult told you so, doesn't make it true, if it was, 23&me and other gene mapping businesses couldn't do shit.
There are variations that group in certain populations; that's true.
What is a "social construct" is the concept of "Race" as an either/or thing. (For "social construct", read "blithering insanity".)
Everybody is mixed race.
Everybody.
I did the ancestry.com thing, and found some stuff I knew about, and some stuff I didn't.
Why is Barack Obama "black", and not "white"? If (for insane reasons) he must pick one or the other, it's a coin flip.
A local talk show host made a big hairy deal about "being black", but
Re: (Score:2)
Because... (Score:3)
MacClunkey.
Re: (Score:2)
They may eventually. If they can get fans to buy the same movie for the n-th time... ... Some may have the Han-shot-first, the other will include a lost George Lucas interview, and they are going to make sure you buy them all.
There will be the original version, the remastered original, the remastered remasterd, the 4K/3D/HD-BluRay, the Disney+, the deluxe edition, the one with the original commercials,
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, if regard Star Wars with an objective eye, it's all ridiculous B movie stuff from beginning to end. Try to get kids today to watch those old movies, just try it. You'd have more luck getting them interested in a spaghetti western... some of which are pretty darn good to tell the truth. Star Wars just didn't age well. Maybe your memory of it did but you might be shocked by rewatching. Right up there with Flash Gordon. Funny how your memory plays tricks on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. They're still pretty good for what they are, but kids don't get obsessed with Star Wars like they did in the '80s. For the younger crowd, kids these days don't think Lord of the Rings is a life-defining movie, either.
Re: (Score:2)
This is beyond ridiculous at this point.
Yeah, return to the original trilogy but now with ... MORE TEDDYBEARS!!!
Re:Why not return to the original (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem with Lucus' recut was that he dictated that no other version could be reproduced or shown.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I kind of like the idea that they shot at the same time; this doesn't change Han's character from the "Han shot first" scenario the way the "Greedo shoots first" does. He still shoots Greedo *before* he's had explicit provocation.
In fact it, in the original, Greedo foolishly telegraphs his intention to Han, *after which* Han shoots first. If you change Greedo's final line to something innocuous and have them both shoot at the same time, that make *Greedo* more formidable. It changes their conv
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, we all know why they did it. Disney marketing probably calculated in advance how many additional Disney+ trial subscribers they could rope in by tweaking the original Star Wars movies and "leaking" the change to Social Media. All those diehard fans who already have the movies on VHS or DVD (or both!) will eat this shit up.
The fact that we're talking about it on Slashdot now means that they did their job well.
Re: (Score:2)
From the dialog, we know Greedo is going to double cross him. So it wasn't in Cold Blood. However Han wasn't suppose to be a likable character until the end of the movie. Han was just suppose to be the lesser of two evils.
With the turnaround at the end.
In "A new hope" he could had been written as turning against the hero and showed to be working for the empire. Because they just offered him more money, or there was a bounty on Jedi's dead or alive. If writt
Re: (Score:2)
I know. In the original Han DOES NOT shoot Greedo "in cold blood". He's got a gun pulled on him. In real life if someone has a gun on you and you fire its still self defense. You don't have to wait for them to shoot you first to get the all clear to protect yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Why even care about a single scene?
In the real world there's no prize for second place.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of the Star Wars fiction since the originals was good. Timothy Zahn's stories, for example, were very good science fiction and explored what being gifted in the Force or in strategic planning actually _meant_.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I prefer SJF politics, why call freaks warriors, they are not, they only serve their own egos and care not one whit about others far worse off than them. To be clear, my gender is Bunjil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]) and my preferred pronoun is Cheeky Bastard as distinct from Cheeky Bitch.
Welcome, Cheeky Bastard. I am dog dish by gender, and preferred pronoun is Ranch Dressing.
Star Wars was bleeding edge science fiction in 1977, 42 years ago, which made it very popular and for those who saw it fresh on the screen, their first exposure in youth, really great.
The way I see it is that for some reason, Disney has made a choice - possibly accidentally - to wreck the branding.
The Star Wars branding was pretty simple. Make a space cowboy movie, with sometimes goofy characters, but ones that the audience loves or loves to hate. Then make a ton of money off sales of toys. People hate JarJar Binks? Sure but they bought his action figure so they could make fun of it. Ewoks ridic
Heros (Score:2)
You don't get to be a hero if you get shot.
Re: (Score:2)
As compared to the times where you became a hero because you got shot and still fought on. Look what happend to Rambo going from the humiliated war veteran who fought because he gut hurt too much to the invincible non-fantasy-superhero.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Heros (Score:5, Interesting)
As compared to the times where you became a hero because you got shot and still fought on.
I'm a couple of chapters into "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" [wikipedia.org] by Joseph_Campbell [wikipedia.org] which is a book about "meta-"mythology that Lucas has acknowledged had an influence on Star Wars.
IMO, it's a pivotal scene in the movie because if Han died there, according to Campbell, the call to adventure would remain unanswered as the world (or galaxy in this case) stagnates. Greedo is a bounty hunter doing a job, Han isn't acting out of altruism or with virtue, he is on the precipice of crisis about to step into the unknown and confront the opportunity to be transformed into the hero. At that moment Han is just a smuggler, despite what the prequals portray.
The point is Greedo is the gatekeeper to the unknown that challenges the proto-hero before venturing any further. There is no room for the nice guy here because no matter who shoots first, this is where the nice guy dies. This is where there hero is forced to do what is necessary to survive.
I think Lucas is trying to convey this because on my original VHS release of Star Wars that I still have before all the edits, Solo unmistakably shoots first. The mood in the Falcon is that Skywalker is not amongst friends and that Solo is just as likely to dump them into space and take their money. The point is that Solo's story is; even a ruthless, self centered, callous and, selfish solipsist can redeem themselves and become something else. Solo is the unexpected hero, the one no one put any faith into.
That is something that Disney is not really equipped to understand. They are plunderers of mythology, unlike Lucas, who is a creator of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Solo doesn't shoot first. He's the only one that shoots. As a kid in 1977, this shocked me as vastly different from a normal movie gunfight.
It's that shock they were trying to remove, because it was very effective but gave Solo a nasty aspect to his character. No "fair" gunfight, or running away and escaping scene with Greedo falling into a trash can.
They shouldn't have changed it, but that's why they did. Less forgivable is the "Nooooooooo!" crap working its way into the OT.
Re: (Score:2)
No "fair" gunfight, or running away and escaping scene with Greedo falling into a trash can.
A smuggler like Solo would know that a "fair" fight means nothing more than the other guy is just as likely to win as you are. In a criminal world you can't win (survive) playing fair, at least not for long.
Re: (Score:2)
Solo doesn't shoot first. He's the only one that shoots.
That's right. I haven't watched the movies for a while however I remember that too. It embeds Solo's scoundrel even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a symptom (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with Quakeulf that this is "beyond ridiculous at this point"
But this also shows quite a bit about our society - and it is not flattering.
Obviously we can't stand the idea of people transforming or having a complex character anymore. Once a "cold hearted hustler", you're branded for lifetime with no chance to develop compassion for others or to turn into a better person without ret-conning the past first.. We have lost the desire (if not even the ability!) to follow any story beyond the most simple black and white, good-vs-evil pastiche.
Re:This is a symptom (Score:5, Insightful)
We have lost the desire (if not even the ability!) to follow any story beyond the most simple black and white, good-vs-evil pastiche.
What is also lacking is the perspective from the bad guys. If there is any perspective, it's usually an acknowledgement that they recognize themselves as bad ("come to the dark side"), almost never that the bad guys see themselves as good.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. One of the most shocking realizations after watching "Falling Down" was how much I could relate and understand how that little fly could trigger a mass murder step by step in an average person.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But who are all these people who were supposedly unable to comprehend that Han Solo could change? I'm still unsure I've ever met a single person who was happy to find that Lucas edited the original Star Wars cantina scene?
This just seems like personal guilt on Lucas's part, that he regretted his original decision to have Han shoot Greedo first, especially once the fans started focusing on details like that and putting big theories out there about what it all meant.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your assessment of society. The blockbuster hits of the party decade have featured dramatic character changes and development. Even safe formulas feature dramatic changes in characters such as most of the comic hero movies (or all together if you look at the story arc of characters between the entire marvel universe).
I do however agree all you said in that it applies to George Lucas. He seems to not be someone capable of creating or accepting character development anymore, and that IMO has l
Re: (Score:2)
George Lucas does not speak for "our society", and I don't think our society demanded this change, or showed any sign of not being able to handle the original version of events. This was about the kid-friendly direction George Lucas wanted to go with Star Wars, plain and simple, and doesn't reflect on the rest of society.
I don't know if the article covers this but. (Score:2)
This was my first link I saw for this yesterday, which in itself was quite funny.
https://twitter.com/ericfell/s... [twitter.com]
absorb the stupidity.
Then observe the other edits......
https://twitter.com/ericfell/s... [twitter.com]
Lucas doesn't matter (Score:3)
Greedo shooting first makes Han look worse (Score:2)
Greedo's shot is so terrible that Han was never in any danger. Perhaps if Han ducked out of the way it would have worked better. Of course that's not possible as an afterthought. Or if Greedo's gun went off as he was falling backwards. Here it looks like Han could easily have disarmed Greedo without firing.
The next star wars trilogy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a reference to a take away in the East End of London: https://eastenders.fandom.com/... [fandom.com] I suspect because the food in the cantina isn't very good, and despite what Trump says, London's a far safer place.
Re: (Score:3)
Han is the long lost son of Connor MacClunky of Clan MacClunkey.
There can be only one.
Very realistic (Score:2)
If you ever heard witnesses from a real shooting: you get more different versions of the same event from them... sometimes even from a single person.
Just sell me in edited Blu Rays (Score:2)
So, no moral growth? (Score:2)
I still don't understand why they neutered such an important part of the story. You might as well colorize Schindler's List.
Re: (Score:3)
Moral growth? Our society finds it acceptable to dig up evidence of people having done things years ago that aren't acceptable today, even if it was then, and proceeding to ruin their lives over it. Our society clearly doesn't believe in moral growth so our movies should reflect that. /s
Time for a reboot? (Score:2)
Meh (Score:2)
While not the biggest gun nut (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:While not the biggest gun nut (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
what about Obi Wan?!? (Score:2)
Han Solo was using his only option available to defend himself from Greedo, yet Solo is the burden on George Lucas's conscience...
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, this scene is different from the DVDs. Greedo didn't say "MacClunkey" / "Ah khan kee" (or whatever).
The edit has been known among people at Lucasfilm. It was done seven years ago when George Lucas worked on the 3D versions, just before he sold Lucasfilm to Disney.
Mac Clunky, two words (Score:2)
Clearly he was lamenting the laggy performance of his iBlaster, which allowed Han Solo's blaster to fire first. Maybe Greedo was holding it wrong?
Lies. (Score:4, Informative)
because Solo shot Greedo in cold blood in the original, "Han shot first" 1977 cut,
Bullshit. Greedo had a blaster pointed at Han, and talked about enjoying killing Solo.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is the era of the snowflakes though, not the era of the target demographic being the tail end of the boomers. we could handle it!
Re: (Score:2)
5) In the original, Greedo got Han to sit down specifically by pointing a blaster at him. He kept the blaster at him the entire time. In the original Han’s shot isn’t directly seen. After some words, there’s some smoke and sparks and Greedo is seen from behind slumping over.
One of the reasons Lucas said he changed the scene was that Han was supposed to be a good guy and eventually father to Leia’s children so couldn’t be a monster. I call that bullshit revisionist editing. That