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

Which is the crux of the matter since Lucas obviously kept getting the message from people that Han had no justification to kill Greedo but they it was "cool" that he was a cold-blooded killer.

Now if he was then his actions at the end of the movie make no sense at all.

The problem is that for whatever reason some of those people think that Han did undergo some redemption which is simply not there in the story.

 

Because apparently people can't equate "alien pointing a gun at you and rambling on how you should be dead" to "this guy's an actual threat and should be dealt with".

Then again, this is likely the same group of people who needed Vader to shout "NOOO" just before lifting Emperor Palpatine up to his doom. Brainless, stupid people who have no concept of context clues and reading between the lines. A blind toddler could figure out why Han would shoot first.

 

What if George Lucas repeatedly changed the scene to intentionally provoke controversy over the scene itself?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_draw

P.S. Han never shot first. Either only Han shot or Greedo shot first. "Han shot first" presupposes that Greedo also shot, which is false.

 

I actually think Obi-Wan was kind of a jerk for cutting off people's arms instead of just destroying their guns.

 

Well in the previous film, Obi-Wan dismembered Anakin and left him to burn to death.
So compared to that, he was rather kind here.

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

My point exactly. He just



keeps



torturing



people



everywhere he goes

 

Aside from the name calling, this is 100% correct. People have no concept of context and by the looks of this thread, no concept of a basic self defense situation. It's downright bizarre watching people defend this joke of an alteration

 

This is one of the worst and most idiotic changes made to the film (or really any film).

1. It's clearly, obviously, self-defense

2. It's completely in character

3. The change itself makes no sense because given the timing of the shots Han was already going to shoot anyways. They were almost exactly at the same time

4. You can very obviously tell that Greedo was never supposed shoot - Han doesn't even flinch and there's no scoring/mark on the wall from Greedo's shot. It looks terrible, like a bad fan edit.

There's no defending this, it's amateur hour nonsense that doesn't even make sense.

 

There's no defending it because there's no need to defend it. It remains in the movie and some like it while others don't.

 

Probably. I bet his views changed after he became a dad. Much like how Steven Spielberg came to regret having all the agents carry guns while chasing the kids in E.T. Steven later regretted tampering with that, but that's another story - much like George regretted adding the Emperor's scream to Luke's fall in TESB to avoid glorifying suicide...

 

Obi-Wan, the remorseless killer. He doesn't know compassion or mercy -- indeed he only knows brutality. Cross him, and you'll find yourself in a fate worst than death.

Lulu Mars
I can get that. I think I've heard Steven also regrets his earlier movies depicting dads as bumbling losers and idiots who neglects their families. I can get how they might change or tweak things but this whole thing involving Han makes no sense. What, was Lucas afraid he was glorifying senseless violence? After we've just seen Vader and co. slaughter their way through Tantine IV, Vader strangling and throwing Antilles' corpse into a pillar, Tuskens clubbing the **** out of Luke among other things...Han shooting a bounty hunter to death and cracking a sarcastic quip is pretty tame by comparison. Kind of too late to be all "Violence is baaaaaaad, m'kay?", there Georgie.

 

In all fairness, though, Han is supposed to be one of the heroes. The Imperials and the Tuskens are not.

 

I personally never liked the change. It made perfect sense to me that Han acted out of self-defense ever since I first watched the movie as a kid. He was about to get shot just for owing money to a gangster. If Lucas wanted Han to be a moral role model for kids why make him a smuggler who deals with criminals in the first place? He could have simply been a trader or something and still fulfill his role as required by the plot. And wasn't ANH, especially Han's part, supposed to be inspired by Western movies as well as other genres? I'm not a Western expert, but doesn't it happen that in some situations the good guys shoot first? Has John Wayne never once shot anyone for other reasons than pure self-defense? I find that hard to believe. I liked Han much better in his original tougher version. His moral standards are intentionally questionable, as he makes it clear throughout the movie that HIS interests come first, and the hell with the Rebellion. He only changes at the very end. So why would shooting some alien that was pointing a gun at him be a problem? I understand some of the arguments above, but I still liked his shooting first better.