CT GL doesn't want Han to be a cold-blooded killer, but isn't Han justified when he shoots Greedo?

In my opinion Han was perfectly justified to kill Greedo. Note that even the law doesn't demand you act like a sacrifical lamb. If someone threatens your life, you are justified in striking back with lethal force.

 

Force Smuggler and Samuel Vimes
Sorry for not responding sooner. I'd sort of left this discussion and just decided to have a peek at what was going on.

I'll try to make this as clear as I possibly can: My point is not that I would like to change the scene, because I wouldn't. As I said, it's important for Han's character arc that he does what he does. I want Han to be morally ambiguous, I like him that way because a) it's entertaining and b) his tale makes important points about humanity. Kind of like Anakin's story.

All I'm trying to do is explain why in my mind, Han's actions in this scene are immoral.
Also, I'm of the opinion that his character arc is strengthened if one does view the scene that way. The point that he develops a greater respect for life, freedom and justice is kind of brought home either way, but to me, the amoral nature of his conduct here makes his decision to come back and help the Rebels in the end even more powerful, since this scene goes further than any other to establish just how little he cares.

...especially in its original form...

 

Ok I can sort of see your point but two problems.

1) Han is a smuggler and a criminal so he already is an immoral character. So it wouldn't be out of character for him to act in an immoral way.

2) Han life is put in danger, Greedo stops him from leaving, points a gun at him, doesn't listen and wants him dead. Han is totally justified in shooting first. It was self-defense plain and simple. Not waiting until you are shot at doesn't make shooting first immoral. Getting angry when mocked is not immoral. And not giving the person who threatens you with a gun 17 chances to put it away likewise doesn't make shooting first immoral.

Sorry, you have not been able to convince me that Han shooting Greedo was in any way immoral.
Han was threatened with a gun, he tried twice to reason with Greedo but got nowhere. And when diplomacy had failed and it was clear that Greedo's plan was for a dead Han, the choice was either kill or be killed and Han choose the former. That is not an immoral act to me.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

1) I can't believe that you're still not getting it. For the last time: That's what I'm saying! It's in his character to behave the way he behaves! If it wasn't, he would not behave like that.

2) Morals are not absolute. We all have different values and views on morality.

I've explained my stance several times and I don't have to convince anyone. It just gets very frustrating when you repeatedly misinterpret what I say.
Now, I think this discussion has definitely run its course.

 

George was way overthinking it. Greedo and Han clearly have a history, and Greedo's "I've been waiting for this a long time" and Han's "I bet you have" indicate it wasn't a friendly history. Further, it indicates Greedo intends to kill Han, so he's acting in self defense. But in case, Han is supposed to be a tough, mercenary smuggler when Our Heroes meet him. If he has any hope of surviving dealing with people like Jabba, Greedo, and Fett, he had BETTER be willing to shoot first if the situation demands it.

 

The reason is because you have several times in this thread said that Han should have tried harder to be diplomatic, that he should not have snapped at Greedo, that he should have begged for his life, etc.
The impression I got was that you think Han should have acted differently than what he did. But if you view Han's actions, both before and after the change, as totally fine and in keeping with his character then what is your argument?
That Han is immoral? Since he is a criminal and a smuggler you can remove this scene and Han would still be that.
Honestly I am not trying to be rude or start a fight here but I am really not understanding what your argument is.

[/QUOTE]

Again I have been trying to understand what you argument is.

It does seem that you view Han's actions as unjustified in either version of the scene, so in that respect, the new scene changes nothing. So the change is pointless.
You also argued that it is in Han's character to provoke situations so that he would be justified in killing and so he can feel like a badass. But if he still isn't justified then I don't much get this.
I also don't agree that Han cares about being in the right, he cares about saving his own skin. At least early Han.

You also seem to view Han trying to kill Vader in ESB as more ok, despite Vader not having a gun out or have threatened Han in any way. Which I don't understand either, Greedo has a gun pointed at Han and basically says that Han is going to die and Han is less justified in shooting him?
Han shooting Greedo did save Han's life, him trying to shoot Vader accomplished nothing.

But let's agree to disagree as we clearly just talk past each other.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

I think I got you. In this post anyway. IMO Han isn't in the wrong to save his own life here. If he just walked up to Greedo and shot him, that would be wrong. But with Greedo threatening him from the get-go I don't blame Han. And Han tried to get Greedo to see reason but Greedo didn't. Not Han's fault imo.

 

Well, it's not the actual self-defense that I'm arguing against. He has to shoot to survive once Greedo starts shooting.

In response to Samuel Vimes' post:
I think that would be wise

But just to answer your questions in the last post:

My argument is that what Han does when he says "Over my dead body" goes against my moral standards.
For the sake of the story, though, that's perfectly fine. He's supposed to be that way.

As for Han provoking people to seem more justified in killing them, I didn't say that it actually made him justified.
Think of him as a bully who makes you take a swing at him so he can knock you down and tell the teachers that you started it.
Just to avoid getting the debate going again, though, I'm not necessarily saying that he's actually doing that. All I'm saying is that in my mind, it would suit his personality.

I'd best not comment on the Vader situation at all at this point. Let's just do what you suggest and agree to disagree

Take care!

 

Greedo still had a gun out first. So I don't see how the comparison fits.

 

Greedo has an overexcited trigger finger?

 

Force Smuggler: It was just an example. I was speaking in general, not about one specific case.

 

Han is totally justified.
Just watch the video below and the answer will be revealed as to what deep extent Han is justified in shooting Greedo. Enjoy!

 

Well in a new wrinkle to this saga within the saga Full of Sith on their latest podcast is speculating that for the 4K versions of the OT that are being worked on that while the "original" OT is not being restored that at least the much talked about scene is being changed from Greedo Shoots First (and Han second but almost at the same time) to Only Han Shoots and that all 6 movies might be re-released before TFA.

These new changes were thought by some to be the ones that were going to be released digitally last month which is why some details came out. This was not the case.

It's talked about 34 minutes in:

http://fullofsith.com/archives/1380

 

Of course he is justified. But killing someone who wants to kill him doesn´t make him a cold blooded killer.

 

Kill or be killed, it's the way of a Space Pirate

 

I think Lucas was saying people want him to be a cold blooded killer, not that he was in either cut (original or ST). I've noticed people think Han shooting first would make him cold blooded and cool, when it was self defense in every cut.

 

I never looked at him as a cold blooded killer, but when Han uses the line 'over my dead body' and Greedo replies 'Thats the idea, I've been looking forward to this for a long time'........ that Greedo was about to shoot him anyway. So I always thought that Han was justified in shooting first.

The changes made for the recent releases just look stupid, the movement of Han on screen doesn't look right.

 

Yes but look how the power of visuals over-ride anything that is directly said, stated, implied or is evident.

Look at this whole nonsensical "Han Shoots First" foolishness.

Han NEVER EVER shot first because Greedo NEVER SHOT at all in the original version.

Han can only shoot first if Greedo shoots (after he is killed no less!) so do these people really want Han to shoot first and then Greedo shoot after he is shot?

Apparently.

You may think being that exact is absurd on my part but it highlights that someone somewhere coined the phrase Han shoots first and no matter how wrong it was it caught on. It became "received wisdom" I have a better idea instead of blindly receiving wisdom from someone else how about they see if there is actually anything to it in the first place.

 

^ "Only Han shot" doesn't quite have the same ring to it...

 

"Shooting first, in order to prevent the opponent from shooting at all" seems to be the idea.


Goes right back to Han Solo At Star's End (published 1979)


Rekkon: "Kindly put your weapons up, Captain. That is Torm, one of my group. Even if it weren't, wouldn't it have been wiser to find out what was happening before preparing to shoot?"
Han: "I happen to like to shoot first, Rekkon. As opposed to shooting second."

 

Recent interview by Lucas.
http://www.hypable.com/star-wars-ge...aign=featured&utm_source=post&utm_medium=text



While speaking with the Washington Post, Lucas says Han shooting first in the Mos Eisley cantina would have made him a cold-blooded killer. Lucas says, “Han Solo was going to marry Leia, and you look back and say, ‘Should he be a cold-blooded killer?'”
He continues, “Because I was thinking mythologically — should he be a cowboy, should he be John Wayne? And I said, ‘Yeah, he should be John Wayne.’ And when you’re John Wayne, you don’t shoot people [first] — you let them have the first shot. It’s a mythological reality that we hope our society pays attention to.”

 

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean people have to overreact over a few frames that you wouldn't even notice unless you were consciously looking for it.

 

Lucas' perspective here is really weird. Han is completely justified in shooting Greedo, whether or not Greedo shoots first since Greedo presents a clear and present danger to Han's life by way of holding him at gunpoint and directly threatening to murder him. Han waiting until Greedo shoots first before returning fire (Han being a scoundrel who smuggles drugs for a Hutt who keeps sex slaves around his palace, so not exactly a paragon of virtue) isn't him choosing a moral high ground, it's idiotic. It relies entirely on Greedo being the single most incompetent bounty hunter in the entire Galaxy, which he evidently is since he misses the shot at point blank range.

My issue with the scene isn't that it makes Han any less of a hardened badass, it's that the reason for the change makes no sense (Han wouldn't be a cold blooded killer because he's acting in self-defense no matter what), and more than that, that the alteration just looks plain awful, what with Han being photoshopped to jerk his head out of the way and all.

 

Han as a John Wayne Cowboy?
Definitely not in ANH imo.
Try more like ROTJ or TFA.
He is more like Liberty Valance in ANH.
Though it was in self-dense unlike Valance who just wanted to terrorize people.
If Greedo was at a table and Han walked in and shot him, that would be bad.
Han worked for the Hutts but matured and improved. ANH Han was not with Leia. ROTJ Han was.
That's good enough for me.

 

That point seems to have been lost on a lot of your anti-Greedo-shooting-first compatriots, though (bold mine):

http://www.avclub.com/article/george-lucas-doesnt-use-internet-still-stands-gree-229093

This is not an all an uncommon thing to hear coming from many OOT purists. By your own logic, these people have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the original scene, and they are not a small portion of the viewing audience. Obviously, it was not presented clearly enough. Hence necessitating the change.

You can't have it both ways.