# Damn it!  Han shot first!!!!



## Relique du Madde (Feb 11, 2012)

Yet again Lucas is trolling star wars fans through the media today.




			
				The Hollywood Reporter said:
			
		

> THR: People can get fanatical about the movies — how does that make you feel? The puppet vs. CGI Yoda ruckus, and the who-shot-first, Han Solo or Greedo furor come to mind.
> 
> Lucas: Well, it’s not a religious event. I hate to tell people that. It’s a movie, just a movie. The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo [who seemed to be the one who shot first in the original] to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.
> 
> Source




Doesn't Lucas know that the shooting first doesn't mean cold blooded killer WHEN YOU ARE ATTACKING A BOUNTY HUNTER WHO IS POINTING A  GUN AT YOUR FACE AND IS THREATENING YOU?!?!?!

According to Lucas's logic Obi Wan Kinobi is a cold blooded killer because of what he did in the cantina.  If only the interviewer brought that up.

I REALLY hope the re-release of Star Wars in 3D BOMBS in the box office because of that interview.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2012)

Sorry, I'm with Lucas on this one.  Too many fans take this kind of thing waaaay to seriously.

1)  Lucas is RIGHT (that Han shot second) because he WROTE the damned film.  It's also true that in the original theatrical release, it DID appear that Han shot first, despite the FACT that was not Lucas' intent.

2)  The change is so freakin' minor . . . upon seeing the special edition for the first time (actually, for the first of many times), I didn't even notice the scene looked different.  When (certain) fans started bitching about "Han Shot First!", I didn't even know what they were talking about until a friend explained it to me.  Even then, I had to watch the scene a couple of times before I agreed that it seemed to have changed.  Then I promptly forgot about it as it didn't matter at all in the larger context of the story.

The only part of the special edition of "A New Hope" that I didn't care for was the added in scene with Jabba, where Han walks around him and steps over his tail.  While I found what Lucas was trying to do interesting, Jabba was too different in appearance (and personality) between "A New Hope" and "Return of the Jedi".  It was the only scene that took me "out" of the viewing experience.  Even then, I wasn't overly concerned that there was ONE scene in a "special edition" of a classic movie, didn't disrupt my life or enjoyment of Star Wars at all.

I love these movies, grew up with them, and have spent tons of my parent's money, and then my own, on more Star Wars "stuff" . . . but I'm with Lucas, the films aren't freakin' religious events!


----------



## Kzach (Feb 11, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> 1)  Lucas is RIGHT (that Han shot second) because he WROTE the damned film.  It's also true that in the original theatrical release, it DID appear that Han shot first, despite the FACT that was not Lucas' intent.
> 
> 2)  The change is so freakin' minor . . . upon seeing the special edition for the first time (actually, for the first of many times), I didn't even notice the scene looked different.  When (certain) fans started bitching about "Han Shot First!", I didn't even know what they were talking about until a friend explained it to me.  Even then, I had to watch the scene a couple of times before I agreed that it seemed to have changed.  Then I promptly forgot about it as it didn't matter at all in the larger context of the story.




1) Wrong.

2) Wrong.

I'd bother to explain why, but you wouldn't care anyway so why should I?


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> Yet again Lucas is trolling star wars fans through the media today.




No, he was answering a question in an interview about how he felt about fan overreactions.



> I REALLY hope the re-release of Star Wars in 3D BOMBS in the box office because of that interview.




Really?  I am not so mean-spirited that I hope someone elses film fails because the filmmaker didn't cater to MY perceived needs.

I personally don't care for Lucas' constant re-tinkering of his breakout films . . . I loved the idea behind the initial "special edition" releases, but was disappointed that Lucas never released DVDs that included both the original theatrical release and the special editions.  I certainly don't care for his continued tinkering with each major release.  But to wish him failure because he isn't making HIS films with MY needs in mind?  Seems childish to me.

I probably won't go see the new 3D versions in the theatres for full price . . . unless a friend wants to go and asks me, then why not?  I will likely see them at the second-run cheapie theatres, and certainly on DVD/Blu-Ray when they finally hit that format.  I won't buy them on disc, but again, don't wish for Lucas to fail.

Plus, I know he WON'T fail.  The films will do well at the box office, and they'll do well on DVD/Blu-Ray, because most Star Wars fans aren't crazily obsessed with the "sanctity" of the original films.  My nephews LOVE the prequels, the updated originals, and the Clone Wars TV show . . . and THAT'S who Lucas is making (and re-making) his films for.

Sorry to jump all over you . . . but you jumped all over Lucas first and I'm soooo tired of cranky fan entitlement . . . . except now I'm cranky . . .


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2012)

Kzach said:


> 1) Wrong.
> 
> 2) Wrong.
> 
> I'd bother to explain why, but you wouldn't care anyway so why should I?




Your eloquent arguments have swayed me.  I'm wrong, and I was very upset when Lucas changed holy text.  Thank you.

Damn Lucas, the creator and destroyer of all that is good in a galaxy far, far away.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 11, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> Your eloquent arguments have swayed me.  I'm wrong, and I was very upset when Lucas changed holy text.  Thank you.
> 
> Damn Lucas, the creator and destroyer of all that is good in a galaxy far, far away.




Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Tonguez (Feb 11, 2012)

you two are so funny. just like Lucas and Star Wars geeks...


----------



## Kzach (Feb 11, 2012)

Tonguez said:


> you two are so funny. just like Lucas and Star Wars geeks...




I better not be Lucas in your example...


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 11, 2012)

With Star Wars, Lucas tried to re-create the movies he loved as a kid - the old serials.

And yet by his constant tinkering with the movies, he's messing up the childhood of millions of people.

I wish he'd see that people feel about his movies (the first 3 anyway) the say way he feels about the old serials.

(Ironically though, I would say the prequel trilogy captures the true spirit of old serials - lots and lots of bad acting and smack your head moments, but still fun)


----------



## jonesy (Feb 11, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> 1)  Lucas is RIGHT (that Han shot second) because he WROTE the damned film.  It's also true that in the original theatrical release, it DID appear that Han shot first, despite the FACT that was not Lucas' intent.



The problem here is that you don't know that. Nobody knows it. I don't think even Lucas knows anymore what his intent WAS. I'm sure he knows what it is now. But he seems to keep changing his view on what his view was.


----------



## Rabulias (Feb 11, 2012)

When I first saw Star Wars, it was clear to me that Greedo and Han did not like each other, and probably had a history of "disagreements."

Greedo was enjoying Han's turn of bad luck, and was making the most of it. Even as I was a kid, I had no doubt that Greedo was planning to kill Han. He admits as much when Han says "over my dead body" and Greedo replies "That's the idea."

In my mind, the scene worked well. It was a very subtle and intelligent scene, one that I thought Lucas did well. The various revisions have dumbed it down and turned it into a blunt instrument of storytelling. 

There is no evidence of Greedo shooting in the original; no sound effect, no laser bolt, no scorch mark on the wall behind Han. Greedo had Han at point-blank range and would have a hard time missing if he fired first; the clumsy new effect of Han dodging the blast demonstrates how absurdly unlikely Greedo missing would be from the positions of the two characters.

Greedo sure _thought_ he was going to fire first, I had no doubt of that.


----------



## Alan Shutko (Feb 11, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> I loved the idea behind the initial "special edition" releases, but was disappointed that Lucas never released DVDs that included both the original theatrical release and the special editions.




Incidentally, he did.  Search amazon for 'Star Wars Original Theatrical' and you'll find them.  They aren't on blu-ray and haven't been remastered, so they're still non-anamorphic, and they're Dolby Surround 2.0.  Basically equivalent to the laserdisc releases. So the image and sound isn't up to today's standards, but at least they're available in some form. (So I could get rid of my old VHS tapes.)


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2012)

Alan Shutko said:


> Incidentally, he did.  Search amazon for 'Star Wars Original Theatrical' and you'll find them.  They aren't on blu-ray and haven't been remastered, so they're still non-anamorphic, and they're Dolby Surround 2.0.  Basically equivalent to the laserdisc releases. So the image and sound isn't up to today's standards, but at least they're available in some form. (So I could get rid of my old VHS tapes.)




You're right, of course.  What I meant was, one product that offered both versions of the films.  And with equal treatment when it comes to quality.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> With Star Wars, Lucas tried to re-create the movies he loved as a kid - the old serials.
> 
> And yet by his constant tinkering with the movies, he's messing up the childhood of millions of people.




I know I'm in the minority here, at least on the intarwebs.  In reality, I don't think that many people really feel as if their childhoods where messed with.  Mine certainly wasn't.

I remember my Dad taking me to the first Star Wars films when I was something like six or seven, and I remember eagerly going to the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi as I got a little older.  I had a huge collection of Star Wars figures, any my childhood fantasies were fueled by those films.  As an adult, they remain an important part of my life, and I continue to participate in the Star Wars universe to, in part, relive those wonderful childhood memories.  Just got done playing "The Old Republic" late last night, in fact.

But I've never felt that Lucas "messed" (or any of the stronger terms some folks use) my childhood in any way by altering his films.  I don't think he needed to do it, I don't like some of his alterations, and I would rather he leave well enough alone.  But I still  have my memories and experiences (and copies of the original films), they haven't been taken away from me.

This kind of whiny, entitled, fan reaction isn't confined to the Star Wars universe, by any means, it fuels our edition wars on these boards as well.  I've seen it in Star Trek fandom . . . . and just visit the message boards of any fandom at all and you'll see at least some engaging in the same behavior . . . it seems very human.  But I've never really fully understood it, and it always irritates the hell out of me . . .


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2012)

jonesy said:


> The problem here is that you don't know that. Nobody knows it. I don't think even Lucas knows anymore what his intent WAS. I'm sure he knows what it is now. But he seems to keep changing his view on what his view was.




Well here's where I'm different, I give Lucas the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word.  I have no reason to do otherwise.  Is there some secret evidence, perhaps Lucas on tape, stating that Han did shoot first, and then later Lucas changed his mind to mess with all his now adult fans?

Granted, as the whole "controversy" doesn't matter much to me, I don't pay a lot of attention to it, and I could have missed the damning evidence.


----------



## Cor Azer (Feb 11, 2012)

I read somewhere that one of the reasons Lucas had to jigger with that scene was because it was needed to avoid a PG-13 rating (which didn't exist when Star Wars was first released). As for why Obi-wan's sabre didn't warrant the same jiggering... I have no idea. Probably has to do with the implication of the gun vs sword.


----------



## jonesy (Feb 11, 2012)

There is evidence that he keeps changing his mind. In the 1995 interview with Leonard Maltin he said that the movies were now the way he always meant them to be.
Two years later, in American Cinematographer, he said:
"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won't last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version (the Special Edition)."

And really, if you're talking about original intent and original scripts, why aren't you wondering why Lando isn't a clone trooper like he was 'meant to be'? Why isn't Kenobi the father of Luke? Why isn't Luke a general when the story begins? Why doesn't Han Solo have gills? Why doesn't Obi-Wan rise from the dead to fight Vader at the end? This is all stuff from the screenplays.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 11, 2012)

This set has three versions, the new one, the theatrical one, and a wide screen.

In Dolby 2.0 as stated above.












.


----------



## jonesy (Feb 11, 2012)

Hah! I'm re-reading the The Adventures of Luke Starkiller draft and I come across this:


> HAN: "Not this time!"
> 
> Montross reaches for his laser-pistol, but Han is faster and gets the drop on him.
> 
> HAN: "Drop it, Montross. I always said you were slow. You clumsy oaf, a club is more your style."



Nobody shot first. Nobody shot at all.


----------



## Starman (Feb 11, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> Well here's where I'm different, I give Lucas the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word.  I have no reason to do otherwise.  Is there some secret evidence, perhaps Lucas on tape, stating that Han did shoot first, and then later Lucas changed his mind to mess with all his now adult fans?
> 
> Granted, as the whole "controversy" doesn't matter much to me, I don't pay a lot of attention to it, and I could have missed the damning evidence.




I've got a copy of _The Annotated Screenplays_. Let's see what they say.



			
				Original Edition said:
			
		

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






			
				Special Edition said:
			
		

> Suddenly, the slimy alien fires his blaster at Han, hitting the wall just to the right on Han's head. In a blinding flash of light and smoke Greedo disappears as Han pulls his gun from beneath the table while the other patrons look on in bemused amazement. Han gets up and starts out of the cantina, flipping the bartender some coins as he leaves.




Make of that what you will.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 11, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Two years later, in American Cinematographer, he said:
> "The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won't last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version (the Special Edition)."




Honestly, I consider this to be despicable. Remake the films but don't try to alter history out of some egomaniacal desire to fix the mistakes of your past.

Regardless, George is old and unhealthy so he'll die soon and in 50 years when his copyright's are up, someone will remake the films better than ever, so suck it Porgie-pie.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2012)

jonesy said:


> And really, if you're talking about original intent and original scripts, why aren't you wondering why Lando isn't a clone trooper like he was 'meant to be'? Why isn't Kenobi the father of Luke? Why isn't Luke a general when the story begins? Why doesn't Han Solo have gills? Why doesn't Obi-Wan rise from the dead to fight Vader at the end? This is all stuff from the screenplays.




Now you're being silly.  Lucas' ideas, from initial conception to the final screenplay to the actual filmed movie most certainly did change quite a bit.  This is not odd, wrong, or strange, it's how stories often come together . . . in movies, tv shows, novels, comics, etc.

Lucas claims that when filming "A New Hope", after his ideas evolved into his shooting screenplay, that he intended the scene to portray Greedo shooting first.  The scene certainly didn't end up this way.  Why?  Lucas worked with a lot of other writers, directors, and the multitudes of folks who are necessary to bring a movie to life . . . perhaps his intention got mislaid during the normal process of movie making.  Or perhaps he DID change his mind later, and decided the scene would work better by changing it to Greedo shooting first, and then convinced himself that's what he always had wanted.  It's certainly possible.

Without evidence to the contrary, I'm the sort of guy who takes the artist at his word.  It's certainly possible Lucas is wrong or lying, but I don't see why I should assume that.  Absolutely nothing in this thread has convinced me otherwise.

And, you know what?  Lucas' original intentions for the scene is a red herring.  If someone DID dig up a video from the 70s showing Lucas all ecstatic about having Han shoot first . . . . I could care less!  It still doesn't justify the histrionics too many fans devolve into.

It boils down to this (for me):  Lucas decided to change his original films by adding, deleting, and changing scenes, also by tinkering with the special effects.  You might not care for some of the decisions he made (Han Shot First), really like others, and you might like or not like the overall end product of the "special editions" (and the later tinkerings).  That's all fair.  It's acting like Lucas has sinned against your childhood or the sanctity of film history that gets me annoyed.

Not that anyone should really care if they annoy me, just my perspective.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2012)

Kzach said:


> Regardless, George is old and unhealthy so he'll die soon and in 50 years when his copyright's are up, someone will remake the films better than ever, so suck it Porgie-pie.




And you've proved my point (well, to me anyways).  Now we're crowing that he's old, (supposedly) unhealthy, and soon to die?  Sheesh.  No wonder the man could care less what a certain segment of his fan base rants about.

And when Lucas does eventually pass on, and someone else at Lucasfilm decides to remake the films yet again (I agree it will probably happen) . . . what makes you think you'll like the "new" versions?  It'll be just more of the same . . .


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 11, 2012)

Here's the issue..  He may say he intended Han to shoot second, then why didn't he select the footage that supports that claim when he originally created the original master print? 

He could have easily used the special edition footage or done something more evocative of the western like the following:

As Greedo and Han spoke, the camera would have focused on their eyes.  Then when Han said "over my dead body" the camera suddently focuses on Greedo pulling the trigger and you see the flash and sparks of a squib igniting (it would have served as a nice book end to cut of Han Solo manipulating his gun under the table).  Cut to flash and smoke from Han's gun as the rest of the original scene plays out, giving the audience a OMFG moment and a loud round of applause when they realized that either Han and Greedo both shot at the same time and Greedo sucks at aiming or Greedo just sucks at being a bounty hunter and Han is a bad ass.

For someone who said the film was inspired by westerns and samurai cinema it just amazes me how much he refused to buy into their cinematic techniques to punch up the emotion of a scene that plays one one of their tropes.


As for the movie bombing in the theaters.  Part of it is because I despise directors and producers who rerelease films in the theater to take advantage of a gimmick or with an almost negligable amount of "new footage" that only amounts to new special effects.  If you wantt to prove you are a good director, producer, writer or what ever do it with a new project not be noodling around with something you produced 5+ years ago.


The theatrical rerelease of the prequals and the original films reaks of a despirate attempt to snatch money from the same fans that despises due to their "over critical nature."  Just put out the films on dvds/blue ray like everyone else are doing and call it a day! 

 -Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 11, 2012)

Double post


----------



## jonesy (Feb 11, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> Lucas claims that when filming "A New Hope", after his ideas evolved into his shooting screenplay, that he intended the scene to portray Greedo shooting first.



If he's saying that then he's lying. The shooting sceenplay doesn't even have Greedo in it. The shooting script, which I might add, calls the movie "Episode 1".

The filming began March 22, 1976. Greedo was added February 5, 1977, making it one of the last things added before the movie came out that summer.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 12, 2012)

jonesy said:


> If he's saying that then he's lying. The shooting sceenplay doesn't even have Greedo in it. The shooting script, which I might add, calls the movie "Episode 1".
> 
> The filming began March 22, 1976. Greedo was added February 5, 1977, making it one of the last things added before the movie came out that summer.




Eh, you're not getting what I'm trying to say.  'Course, I may not be making myself clear, that happens a lot, especially on issues I'm not all that invested in.  You obviously have done more "homework" on this pressing issue than I have, as I have never owned nor read the screenplays published.  I don't doubt your timeline.  But again, I don't really care as the "issue" of who shot first or what Lucas' original intent was isn't the issue I'm really talking about.

When I said the "shooting screenplay", I meant the process of Lucas making his movie, the actual filming and creating of the film, not the literal screenplay itself.  As Lucas was making his film, he claims his intent for that scene was not to portray Han as a "cold-blooded killer" and that Greedo shot first.  I have no reason to doubt what Lucas has said on the issue.  Again, it's possible Lucas is devilishly trying to mess with the minds of loyal Star Wars fans, or is a feeble old guy who changed his mind and has convinced himself otherwise.  But there is no real evidence that Lucas is mistaken or lying.  Aaaanddd, it doesn't really matter if he is a big fat liar and/or a senile old film director.

The issue, from my perspective, is . . . so what?  The change happened, regardless of how or why it happened, some folks think it was a poor decision that made the newer versions of the film poorer than the original, and I think that's a fair point of view.

*It's the vitriol.  The not only baseless, but needless, claims that Lucas is a liar and/or a senile old fool.  The claims that Lucas has destroyed the childhood of all true Star Wars fans, that he has taken something that has brought so much light into our dark world and sullied it forever.*

Even if you could get me to agree with you that, a) the movie changes are unequivocally terrible to anyone with even a slight amount of common sense, and b) that Lucas is a revisionist and manipulative man lying about his own creative process for no real gain . . . I'd still ask, "And how exactly has this ruined your childhood again?"


----------



## wilrich (Feb 12, 2012)

One thing that others in this thread have alluded to and which I have always wondered about is the whole idea that it was some how cold blooded or "wrong" for Han to have shot first.  I (and I think most people) would disagree with that moral judgment.  

Greedo was pointing a gun at Han and had spoken words which (I think) any reasonable person would interpret as a statement that "I intend to kill you, Han".  Even without that statement, I (and, again, I think most people) have no moral qualms or issues with a person shooting a person who is pointing a gun at another person in these circumstances -- put another way (from a moral, not legal, perspective), one does not need to wait for another person to actually attempt to kill them and fail before the right of self defense or protection applies.

Again, maybe somewhat off topic, and I hope it doesn't stray too much into the real world, but I've never understood the need to "justify" Han shooting first because, again, I think to most reasonable people, there was nothing immoral about Han having done so.

The fact that Lucas has felt the need to change this scene clearly demonstrates that his own morality does not comport with mine and (my sense is) most people's.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 12, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> I have no reason to doubt what Lucas has said on the issue.




And yet you are being shown evidence that warrants such doubt and choose to ignore it in order to continue riling the very people you claim spend too much time and effort invested in such arguments.



Dire Bare said:


> But there is no real evidence that Lucas is mistaken or lying.




Oh, ok, so you're not PURPOSEFULLY ignoring the evidence shown to you, you're just not paying attention to anything being said here other than your own opinion.



Dire Bare said:


> The issue, from my perspective, is . . . so what?




If you don't get it and don't care, then why are you making such a concerted effort to stir argument in this thread?

I think you need to step back and view the reality you so desperately cling to as being the all important juxtaposition of your value judgements in this thread and realise that fan is short for fanatic and that such people devote a lot of emotional resources into such franchises and that by doing so, give Lucas a mega-ass ton of money. Then he goes and changes everything solely to cater to a newer audience so that he can milk new fans and screw everyone else over that have built the franchise into the mega-sensational success that it is today. Although according to Lucas, he was solely responsible for that and fans had nothing to do with it and he owes them no loyalty or respect for making him one of the richest people on the planet.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 12, 2012)

Kzach said:


> If you don't get it and don't care, then why are you making such a concerted effort to stir argument in this thread?
> 
> I think you need to step back and view the reality you so desperately cling to as being the all important juxtaposition of your value judgements in this thread and realise that fan is short for fanatic and that such people devote a lot of emotional resources into such franchises and that by doing so, give Lucas a mega-ass ton of money. Then he goes and changes everything solely to cater to a newer audience so that he can milk new fans and screw everyone else over that have built the franchise into the mega-sensational success that it is today. Although according to Lucas, he was solely responsible for that and fans had nothing to do with it and he owes them no loyalty or respect for making him one of the richest people on the planet.




Heh, suffice to say you and I disagree.  I've read the entire thread, and I have seen absolutely no evidence that Lucas is lying or has gone senile.  I suppose you and I (and others, of course), don't see the presented "evidence" the same way.

Why did I post originally and continue to post?  I already answered that one.  I find the vitriol that a segment of fandom has towards Lucas ridiculous and irritating.  It's a pet peeve of mine.  Why did Relique post?  Not to put words in his mouth, but I imagine because he finds George Lucas ridiculous and irritating.

I often see such things from the perspective of the artist.  George Lucas doesn't owe you or I a damn thing.  The Star Wars films are his art pieces, we don't have a say in what Lucas chooses to do with them, and neither should we.  Creating movies, writing novels, painting, and other art forms are not democratic processes.

Our role as fans, as consumers, is to enjoy Lucas' movies . . . or not.  We can love, hate, or have mixed feelings about his artistic choices, but we don't own Star Wars and have no rights to it.  Even if we have spent our own good money on the films and surrounding merchandising.

I understand the importance of Star Wars and other artistic franchises in the lives of fans.  As I stated before, I've been a huge Star Wars fan since I was in elementary school.  It's been a big part of my life for most of my life.  Just like the Dungeons & Dragons game we all gather here to discuss, and have equally odd arguments over (IMO, of course).


----------



## jonesy (Feb 12, 2012)

I'd actually be interested to see someone film the first rough starkiller draft. The one with Queen Leia and Sith Knight Valorum.

I just wish he'd stop with the whole "that's how I always wrote it" stuff. The first movie was just one movie, the second movie was the second episode right up to the point where he had the idea to morph Vader and Father Skywalker into the same character, then he had the idea of the three trilogies while writing the new Vader background as the prequels, which he later completely revamped, several times, and now recently he's been claiming that he always intended the saga to be just six movies and he never wanted sequels. He's been doing it longer than I've been alive, for Windy's sake.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 12, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> I suppose you and I (and others, of course), don't see the presented "evidence" the same way.
> 
> Why did I post originally and continue to post?  I already answered that one.  I find the vitriol that a segment of fandom has towards Lucas ridiculous and irritating.  It's a pet peeve of mine.  Why did Relique post?  Not to put words in his mouth, but I imagine because he finds George Lucas ridiculous and irritating.




You are sort of putting words in my mouth.

I find this whole issue infuriating especially since this picture exists.







And because Lucas keeps editing the scene..

*Original 1995 laser disk and 1997 Special edition
*[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qWoTWd_nRw]Han shot first - starwars (Original vs Special Edition) (laserdisc 1995 and 1997) - YouTube[/ame]

Note: ONE blaster shot is heard in the original and Han never dodged! 

*2004 *
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--vWcFDonTI]Star Wars Ep. IV: A New Hope - Han Solo vs. Greedo - YouTube[/ame]

Wait... Han's reaction time got faster and he dodged??!?!?!

*2010 Blue-Ray Dvd
*[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKEX6QJ-zlQ]'Greedo Shoots First' from Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (Blu-Ray Clip) - YouTube[/ame]

Holy crap!  Double shoot!  Wait...  this wasn't how I remembered things...


If his intent was to have the scene play out like it did in the Special Edition and beyond, then his edits wouldn't have been needed since the original footage would reflect his vision.


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 12, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> Lucas claims that when filming "A New Hope", after his ideas evolved into his shooting screenplay, that he intended the scene to portray Greedo shooting first.  The scene certainly didn't end up this way.  Why?  Lucas worked with a lot of other writers, directors, and the multitudes of folks who are necessary to bring a movie to life . . . perhaps his intention got mislaid during the normal process of movie making.  Or perhaps he DID change his mind later, and decided the scene would work better by changing it to Greedo shooting first, and then convinced himself that's what he always had wanted.  It's certainly possible.




When was the interview when Lucas made this claim?  I haven't really followed the issue that much, but I *am* aware that much of Lucas' later work is clumsy compared to his initial stabs at the movies.

When he made those statements is entirely relevant, due to the malleable nature of memory.  If he said this 5 years ago, it's not nearly as credible as something he said/wrote in 1985.  It's been many years at this p oint, and frankly, memories change.

I personally think he's tinkering, and his *perception* of what he thought 30 years ago has changed.  But unless we have actual written references to compare, I think it's a moot point.  But a current interview is meaningless, for all intents and purposes.

Banshee


----------



## Kzach (Feb 12, 2012)

For the record, I really shouldn't post whilst drunk but on the flip-side, I was surprisingly coherent even if I don't really understand what "...juxtaposition of your value judgements..." actually means.

Annnnnyyyway, to sum up my argument, Lucas' sole reason for change and making the prequels is to make money off the franchise. It was never about original vision or creative control. The fans made the franchise the mega-success that it is DESPITE Lucas, and instead of appreciating the fans and respecting them and their support, he slaps in the face with these changes solely to cater to a new audience and thus milk a new generation of wallets. And then on top of that he spits in their faces by claiming a thin-skin over all the validly levelled criticism.

Screw him and his franchise. Han shot first.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2012)

Banshee16 said:


> I personally think he's tinkering, (. . .)





Tinkeirng, fiddling, tampering, meddling, etc.  I'm just curious as to why he's doing it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 12, 2012)

Kzach said:


> For the record, I really shouldn't post whilst drunk but on the flip-side, I was surprisingly coherent even if I don't really understand what "...juxtaposition of your value judgements..." actually means.
> 
> Annnnnyyyway, to sum up my argument, Lucas' sole reason for change and making the prequels is to make money off the franchise. It was never about original vision or creative control. The fans made the franchise the mega-success that it is DESPITE Lucas, and instead of appreciating the fans and respecting them and their support, he slaps in the face with these changes solely to cater to a new audience and thus milk a new generation of wallets. And then on top of that he spits in their faces by claiming a thin-skin over all the validly levelled criticism.
> 
> Screw him and his franchise. Han shot first.



He certainly is good at the marketing and money-making stuff. But I also have the feeling that he may really believe he is making the films like he wants them to be. Maybe his opinion how the films need to be is changing over time as well, which makes things even less coherent, I suppose.
At least on some level, I woudn't be surprised if all the little compromises and concenssions he made during the creation of the originals are slowly getting taken out, as far as he can do it. 

He doesn't consider that some of the compromises and the concessions he made have artistic value and helped the movies. He's a control freak. That's why the Prequels were CGI fests and the green/blue screen was the only set he cared for - it gave him the control he desired. At the same time, while he's a control freak, he doesn't seem to be a perfectionist - as he didn't seem to bother in getting really good takes from the actors, and really working out the dialog. Or maybe he really thinks that's how people should talk and act?


----------



## Starman (Feb 12, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Or maybe he really thinks that's how people should talk and act?




I don't like this thread. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like the rest of ENWorld where everything is soft and smooth.


----------



## Janx (Feb 13, 2012)

I think the evidence has already been posted.  The screenplay snippets, the video snippets, and the filming dates show that one of the LAST things he did during filming was the Greedo scene. 

 It's not like he shot it on the first day, forgot how he wanted it when he got back to the studio to assemble a movie from ALL the film.  The facts say as the guy calling the shots, that scene was EXACTLY the way Lucas wanted it when it hit the theatre the first time.

I can only speculate as to Lucas's intent.  I don't think what he says lines up with the facts of the situation.  That doesn't mean he is deliberately trying to decieve us.  it is obvious that he has changed his mind on what he intends for the film NOW.

I suspect the fan ire is rooted in the fact that as a kid, you saw one version of the film.  Now, you cannot buy that film and share it with your kids.  It has been altered from not just the way you remember it, but the way it actually WAS.

Furthermore, Lucas is making money of these changes.  Just like Director's Cut films, it draws a certain amount of re-sell value to people who bought the original and were strong enough fans to want to see what the difference was.  If Lucas did not alter the films, the amount of money he would attract probably be reduced.  Why pay $10 to see a movie you saw 30 years ago and own on DVD?

My own biases: I don't own any Star Wars movies.  I'd never seen the first ones in the theatre when they came out (I'm old enough to have).  I had the THX release in VHS.  I don't miss it.  I wasn't impressed with the new ones.  But then, I'm a Star Trek fan...


----------



## billd91 (Feb 13, 2012)

Janx said:


> It's not like he shot it on the first day, forgot how he wanted it when he got back to the studio to assemble a movie from ALL the film.  The facts say as the guy calling the shots, that scene was EXACTLY the way Lucas wanted it when it hit the theatre the first time.
> 
> I can only speculate as to Lucas's intent.  I don't think what he says lines up with the facts of the situation.  That doesn't mean he is deliberately trying to decieve us.  it is obvious that he has changed his mind on what he intends for the film NOW.




If he'd come clean about that, though the changes would still irritate me, they'd come short of pissing me off. But he doesn't come clean. He stacks lie upon lie, constantly revising his story on Star Wars and what he says he meant or intended. That's what galls me most. It's like he forgets he leaves a trail of the things he does and says.

Maybe he has a terrible memory. If so, he should come clean on that. That would explain a whole heck of a lot. Personally, I don't think that's it. I think it's more self-delusion on his part. He's drunk his own Kool-Aid.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 14, 2012)

billd91 said:


> If he'd come clean about that, though the changes would still irritate me, they'd come short of pissing me off. But he doesn't come clean. He stacks lie upon lie, constantly revising his story on Star Wars and what he says he meant or intended. That's what galls me most. It's like he forgets he leaves a trail of the things he does and says.
> 
> Maybe he has a terrible memory. If so, he should come clean on that. That would explain a whole heck of a lot. Personally, I don't think that's it. I think it's more self-delusion on his part. He's drunk his own Kool-Aid.



Another thought had occured to me - maybe he's old. Or sick. Kinda getting delusional? I hope not, because that would be terribly for him and his family. 
But the way he pretends that he always had one, grand vision of Star Wars and that never changed just doesn't seem rational, considering the evidence against it.


----------



## Starman (Feb 14, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Another thought had occured to me - maybe he's old. Or sick. Kinda getting delusional? I hope not, because that would be terribly for him and his family.
> But the way he pretends that he always had one, grand vision of Star Wars and that never changed just doesn't seem rational, considering the evidence against it.




I think it's just hubris.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Feb 18, 2012)

You know, I don't really care what Lucas' vision (original or otherwise) is, was, or will be.  I care what's in the film, what it means and what it conveys.  Once released, the interpretation of a film belongs to the audience, not the creator.

In my opinion, the personality of Han and the message of the film was far stronger, especially given Han's character arc both in the original film and the original trilogy, in the *original* version where Han shot first.

Lucas didn't ruin my childhood by rewriting history, but he did weaken a masterpiece.  It's as if 20 years later Da Vinci came back and painted a grin on the Mona Lisa.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 18, 2012)

After all is said and done, I think this would be the best contribution Lucas can give to Star Wars this day forward.






​


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 18, 2012)

olgar shiverstone said:


> you know, i don't really care what lucas' vision (original or otherwise) is, was, or will be.  I care what's in the film, what it means and what it conveys.  Once released, the interpretation of a film belongs to the audience, not the creator.
> 
> In my opinion, the personality of han and the message of the film was far stronger, especially given han's character arc both in the original film and the original trilogy, in the *original* version where han shot first.
> 
> Lucas didn't ruin my childhood by rewriting history, but he did weaken a masterpiece.  It's as if 20 years later da vinci came back and painted a grin on the mona lisa.




+1



relique du madde said:


> after all is said and done, i think this would be the best contribution lucas can give to star wars this day forward.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




-1


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> I know I'm in the minority here, at least on the intarwebs.  In reality, I don't think that many people really feel as if their childhoods where messed with.  Mine certainly wasn't.
> 
> I remember my Dad taking me to the first Star Wars films when I was something like six or seven, and I remember eagerly going to the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi as I got a little older.  I had a huge collection of Star Wars figures, any my childhood fantasies were fueled by those films.  As an adult, they remain an important part of my life, and I continue to participate in the Star Wars universe to, in part, relive those wonderful childhood memories.  Just got done playing "The Old Republic" late last night, in fact.
> 
> ...




I so agree with you on this. 

Okay I was married when the first film came out so I was not a child but I don't get how this is anyway ruining your childhood.

Also it is his intellectual property he do what ever he wants with it he does not owe any of the fans anymore than he has already given them which was some movies that people loved.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Feb 21, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> I REALLY hope the re-release of Star Wars in 3D BOMBS in the box office because of that interview.



I don't care whether any release bombs or not.  When I heard it was coming out in 3D, I shrugged and went on with what I was doing at the time, not even remotely interested in seeing it again.

George Lucas has utterly destroyed the Star Wars franchise from my point of view.

Letting Greedo shoot at point blank range, with the gun pointed straight at Han, and miss, was ridiculously stupid.  As in brainless.  The laser shot goes off at a wildly impossible angle from the angle of the gun barrel.

Han shooting first doesn't make him seem like a cold blooded killer.  When someone has a gun to you at point blank range, is a known killer, and is mouthing words to the effect that he is going to kill you in the following seconds, and you shoot first, it's self defense, pure and simple.  Now, Han almost certainly was not sorry he'd killed Greedo.  That made him seem hard-bitten and callous.  That was, in my opinion, the way it was supposed to be.

Never once from the age of eight when I first saw Star Wars did I ever think of Han as a cold blooded killer because he shot first.  On the other hand, I did think the writers were unmitigated noobs for having Han say, "It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs."  Uh, hello?  That's like saying, "It's the car that ran the Indy 500 in 400 miles!"  Utterly nonsensical.  I spent years wondering how the "race officials" had allowed Han to cheat or why the other contestants hadn't objected, but of course, the whole "Kessel Run" may have not have been a legally conducted event to begin with.  The writers obviously didn't understand something that even an eight year-old knew, that a parsec was a measure of distance, not of time.  If George Lucas was going to fix anything at all in the first movie, it should have been this gaffe.

In the second trilogy, major contributors to retroactively killing the first trilogy were:

Medichlorians.  This pretty much shot down what was magical about the Star Wars universe.  Star Wars was Science Fantasy from the beginning.  This was nothing less than an attempt to convert it to be more like actual Science Fiction.  Forget it.  That isn't what Star Wars was about.

Annakin as whiz-kid and then whiny and horny older teenager.  Whatever.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 21, 2012)

After reading through this thread, I have to say I kinda agree with Dire Bear on this one. I really don't understand the whole "ruined my childhood" thing or how some people are so angrily fired up that he tweaked on his own movies over the years.  Yea, some of the changes sucked.  But personally, I could care less WHO shot first.  Those two or three seconds don't change the movie for me at all.

Like Dire Bear said, it's the hate and want of his dying that is weird and unsettling.  The image mashup of Lucas frozen in carbonite, and then alluding that this is what he deserves, is just plain sick.

Whatever... maybe I just don't get it.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Feb 21, 2012)

For those who don't get it, its called venting. Look it up.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 21, 2012)

catsclaw227 said:


> The image mashup of Lucas frozen in carbonite, and then alluding that this is what he deserves, is just plain sick.
> 
> Whatever... maybe I just don't get it.




It's not a mashup it's an actual sculpture someone made.  

I have no clue where you got the killing part from.  Lucas being placed in carbonite isn't that bad considering that being placed in carbonite only means you will be placed in suspended animation for an indefinite period of time.  In Lucas's case it being done to prevent him from tinkering around with any more films during my life time (or until Star Wars goes public domain depending on how the law is written in regards to suspended animation) and to teach USC film students that they should create and not just focus on remaking/editing one film series over an over again because they have some notion that it isn't 100% completed.   

Fyi, I would also place Kevin Smith in Carbonite.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 21, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> I have no clue where you got the killing part from.  Lucas being placed in carbonite isn't that bad considering that being placed in carbonite only means you will be placed in suspended animation for an indefinite period of time.  In Lucas's case it being done to prevent him from tinkering around with any more films during my life time (or until Star Wars goes public domain depending on how the law is written in regards to suspended animation) and to teach USC film students that they should create and not just focus on remaking/editing one film series over an over again because they have some notion that it isn't 100% completed.



The dying sentence and the carbonite sentence were independent of each other.  Obviously, Han lived after his carbonite prison.



			
				Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> For those who don't get it, its called venting. Look it up.



There are better ways to vent than to spew hateful vitriol. Look it up.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 24, 2012)

catsclaw227 said:


> There are better ways to vent than to spew hateful vitriol. Look it up.




Are there? And who gets to decide whether they are actually better or not? 

One of the burdens of living in a free society is having to put up with people deciding to express themselves in ways you don't like. But they still get to to so (subject to the rules of the forum owner in this case).


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 24, 2012)

billd91 said:


> One of the burdens of living in a free society is having to put up with people deciding to express themselves in ways you don't like. But they still get to to so (subject to the rules of the forum owner in this case).



Agreed.  I don't tell people how to express themselves, and can accept the fact that some people do it with hate.  

But there are better ways than hate to do it. Almost every commonly held spiritual principle espouses love or acceptance or prayer for your enemies or something similar over hate.  And Mom always taught me that if I didn't have something nice to say, don't say it at all.  I am not perfect about it, believe me... I am just sayin' there are better ways than hate to express frustration or to "vent".

I am guessing you aren't suggesting that hate is a better way to vent than other ways, are you?  (Noting that violence = hate).

"Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding." - Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## billd91 (Feb 24, 2012)

catsclaw227 said:


> Agreed.  I don't tell people how to express themselves, and can accept the fact that some people do it with hate.
> 
> But there are better ways than hate to do it. Almost every commonly held spiritual principle espouses love or acceptance or prayer for your enemies or something similar over hate.  And Mom always taught me that if I didn't have something nice to say, don't say it at all.  I am not perfect about it, believe me... I am just sayin' there are better ways than hate to express frustration or to "vent".
> 
> ...




I wouldn't exactly equate violence with hate. It's entirely possible to hate something without getting violent toward it just as it's possible to be violent toward something you don't hate. But I would, in fact, say that there are times hate is an appropriate reaction and should be expressed rather than saying nothing at all. 

Gandhi, in fact, had many things to say about the abysmally racist system that was the Raj that were not nice but that needed to be said.

And no, I'm not offering moral equivalency to people getting their hate on about George Lucas and his fumbling and feeble movie-making. I have an abiding disgust and disappointment with Lucas and his hubris and the terrible choices he's made with his movies. I think people tend to go a bit overboard on Lucas. But it's not for me to say or even imply that people shouldn't have more strident feelings than mine or that mine are superior.

EDIT: By the way, I've certainly said that people get themselves a bit too worked up about things that are essentially ephemeral. But I consciously try to avoid that now. If the edition wars have taught me anything, they've taught me that one of the most vexing things to experience is someone trying to saying your feelings are somehow illegitimate, not as important, inferior, or otherwise dismissible when they are honestly held. I think that sort of thing drove a lot of bitterness and I see it happening now in the 5e forum as well.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 24, 2012)

OK, well I appreciate your opinion.  I guess I just don't understand the reactions of some to something as minor as Lucas tinkering with his movies.

I should clarify...  It's minor to me.


----------



## Kaodi (Feb 24, 2012)

I think there _is_ something of a tradition in fiction that you do not mess with the first published edition of a work willy nilly. Retconning, while commonplace, is usually employed in order to make subsequent works make sense, rather than because you feel like changing it. In this sense, Greedo shooting first had _absolutely nothing_ to do with the plot of the prequels. Even editing Hayden Christiansen into the celebration scene is far more justifiable (though hardly necessary, and definitely in poor taste), because you could at least say that that is what he looked like before his fall to the Dark Side. 

I think if we want to really figure this sort of situation out, we should ask ourselves why good ol' J. R. R. Tolkien does not get (much, if any) flak for changing the chapter with Gollum in _The Hobbit_. As I mentioned above, Tolkien's retcon of this chapter was to set up for _The Lord of the Rings_. But then, Wikipedia tells me something else I had not known: that Tolkien actually started a rewrite of _The Hobbit_ in order to bring the tone more in line with _The Lord of the Rings_, but ended up abandoning it because he felt it just _was not_ _The Hobbit_.

( Another question I thought of, though it is probably somewhat less applicable: if Leonardo da Vinci were to be resurrected from the dead, would you let him paint over the Mona Lisa with a new version of the portrait, or would you tell him to take a hike? )


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 25, 2012)

Kaodi said:


> I think there _is_ something of a tradition in fiction that you do not mess with the first published edition of a work willy nilly.




Not really.  Plenty of rewrites and "retcons" in fiction throughout the ages.



> Retconning, while commonplace, is usually employed in order to make subsequent works make sense, rather than because you feel like changing it.




Incorrect assumption.  Authors (or other creators) change their prior works for all sorts of reasons.



> In this sense, Greedo shooting first had _absolutely nothing_ to do with the plot of the prequels. Even editing Hayden Christiansen into the celebration scene is far more justifiable (though hardly necessary, and definitely in poor taste), because you could at least say that that is what he looked like before his fall to the Dark Side.




All the changes to Star Wars that you listed, I don't personally care for.  As I suspect, do most folks posting in this thread, and many other fans.  However, I think it's Lucas full right to make whatever changes he wants for whatever reasons he wants, whether I end up liking them or not.  And when I don't care for the changes to a prior work, I don't get so worked up about it that I cry my childhood was stolen from me, or other similar histrionics (not that you do Kaodi, just a general comment).



> I think if we want to really figure this sort of situation out, we should ask ourselves why good ol' J. R. R. Tolkien does not get (much, if any) flak for changing the chapter with Gollum in _The Hobbit_. As I mentioned above, Tolkien's retcon of this chapter was to set up for _The Lord of the Rings_. But then, Wikipedia tells me something else I had not known: that Tolkien actually started a rewrite of _The Hobbit_ in order to bring the tone more in line with _The Lord of the Rings_, but ended up abandoning it because he felt it just _was not_ _The Hobbit_.




Tolkien is not alone in making changes to prior, beloved works, or in starting to make some changes and backing off.  Again, totally his right as the creator, IMO.  One reason Tolkien doesn't get as much flak as Lucas (although I bet there are some serious nerd fights on Tolkien fan boards on this issue), is that his changes seem to work pretty well.  Also, they were made ages ago before the internet, before it became easy to notice and compare changes to prior works, and before the rise of the angry super nerd culture.



> ( Another question I thought of, though it is probably somewhat less applicable: if Leonardo da Vinci were to be resurrected from the dead, would you let him paint over the Mona Lisa with a new version of the portrait, or would you tell him to take a hike? )




Poor analogy, because Lucas didn't destroy the originals to create his revised "masterpieces".  He has certainly tried to suppress the original films in favor of the reworked ones from time to time, but they are still around to enjoy.

If Da Vinci came back to life, purchased the original Mona Lisa from the Louvre, and THEN proceeded to paint over it with a "new-and-improved" version . . . . well, that would be a damn shame.  But again, well within his rights to do so.  Heck, if I purchased the Mona Lisa and did that, it'd be within my rights to do it . . . .

Art is powerful, important, and meaningful to society and to individuals, as it should be.  But at the end of the day, it's just a movie, just a book, or just a painting.  We can always make more.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 25, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Gandhi, in fact, had many things to say about the abysmally racist system that was the Raj that were not nice but that needed to be said.



Yes, but being sternly critical is not the same as being hateful.



billd91 said:


> I wouldn't exactly equate violence with hate. It's entirely possible to hate something without getting violent toward it just as it's possible to be violent toward something you don't hate. But I would, in fact, say that there are times hate is an appropriate reaction and should be expressed rather than saying nothing at all.




In my notation of violence = hate, I should have been clearer. It was supposed to be in context to the anger at Lucas.  I meant that a violent reaction to Lucas changing his works would be worse than just hate, but in that case, the violence would be because of hate, ie violence = hate)

My bad, I should have clarified my statement.


----------



## Lwaxy (Feb 26, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> He certainly is good at the marketing and money-making stuff.




"Moichandising! Moichandising! Where the real money from the movie is made..."

         Yogurt



Couldn't help it


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 27, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> Couldn't help it



You should be ashamed of yourself. Really. You should have known that I don't have Spaceballs on DVD!


----------



## Lwaxy (Feb 27, 2012)

Aww sorry, next time I go with Princess Bride.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 27, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> Aww sorry, next time I go with Princess Bride.



 I don't have that one on DVD either! 

I have a perfectly viable explanation for that as well. I don't have it because.. oh, wait, what's that ugly thing behind you... *runs*


----------



## Lwaxy (Feb 27, 2012)

*pat pat* It's ok, out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 28, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> *pat pat* It's ok, out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.



I think I actually have that one. Or at least my sisters do.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Feb 28, 2012)

Harry S. Plinkett shot first. A time traveling Harry s. Plinkett.

Lucas just had to reedit the film to correct this fact. The same thing, a time traveling Plinkett, made the prequels suck.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 28, 2012)

I really don't see the big deal of who shot first.


If Han shot first, then he's a Smart Scoundrel.

If Han shot second, then he's a Slow Scoundrel. (...and Greedo's a bad shot.)


Either way, he's a Scoundrel.


----------

