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

Whether Han is justified or not is besides the point in my view. The line "yes, I'll bet you have" is delivered arrogantly and coldly. Furthermore, the fact that he shows no remorse whatsoever shows that it's a kill in cold blood. Greedo is referred to by Han only as "mess." No matter who fires, it's a killing in cold blood and trying to represent Han differently makes the scene odd to the point where it no longer makes sense.

What's even worse is that the new scene looks just horrible. Han's dodge looks jerky and Han's shot doesn't look like it hit Greedo to my eye.

I actually like many of the SE changes made but this, along with Jedi Rocks and Vader's NOOO in ROTJ I really really hate.

 

After Han shoots Greedo, it should go to a flashback of when he and Greedo were BFF's, frolicking along the beach to the tune of Gonna Fly Now.

 

Yes, if there's one thing a lawyer must never do that's putting a little positive spin on a client's decisions. That would destroy his reputation and end his career..!! After all, lawyers always tell the truth..!! </sarcasm>

Actually, yeah it does. They may not exactly post a .pdf of the entire deal, but they have to let all shareholders and potential investors know all the relevant details. I'd say leaving creative control in the hands of Lucas is a pretty relevant detail, wouldn't you?

I dunno, did it cost them $4 billion to do that? Or was it just an extremely minor project not worth mentioning in a prospectus?

 

If it's available, then why can't you show it to me? You said in an above post: "I don't even believe such a clause could exist in the contract without the media finding out and reporting it." So it's clear that you think the media can get their hands on the purchase agreement. So, where is it? Why can't you cite any specifics about what's in the deal? Why hasn't some average Joe who owns 5 shares of Disney released the details of the purchase agreement. As you imply, clearly there are a lot of people who would be interested in the details of that purchase agreement, and the mere fact that you can't produce it for me suggests pretty strongly that that type of info doesn't have to be released to the public.

In fact, go buy a share of Disney stock. Let's see how easy it'll be for you to see that purchase contract, and Disney has tons of shareholders. I'm sure you can find someone who has shares in Disney, probably someone here on this site bought some Disney the day they heard it bought up Lucasfilm. See if they can get a copy of the purchase agreement. They won't be able to either.

The thing is publicly traded companies are structured like representative democracies. Shareholders elect a board of directors who oversee all that a company does (and they usually do a pretty bad job at that themselves). Those guys are the ones who get to look over a company top to bottom, they represent the shareholders, and they make sure that a company like Disney isn't doing something dumb, so, unless one of those guys spill the beans on the purchase agreement, we're not going to see it.

On stock exchanges (the secondary market) only large investors and institutions receive a complete financial prospectus equivalent to a prospectus required to be released at an IPO, and I doubt even at this level a prospectus would include a complete copy of the purchase agreement of a small company (Again, if such a copy existed, then we would be able to find a copy of it in this world of the Internet, right?) and again, I'm only talking about large investors and institutions here. Sure, small time shareholders receive a prospectus or something with a similar type of name each year, but that's nothing like a real prospectus of a publicly traded company. That's just a tiny little overview.

Also, I never said GL would retain creative control over any new films or projects. I'm simply asserting that GL included as part of the contract that the Disney can't change GL's version of the first 6 films of the saga.

Whether Disney is going to change back 4 to 6 things that fans really hate about the Special Editions wouldn't have financial ramifications anywhere near to $4 billion. Releasing a different version of Star Wars is exactly equivalent to releasing a different version of ET. Adjusted for inflation, ET's gross was something like 85% that of Star Wars. If Sony didn't have to do it with ET, then Disney wouldn't have to do it with Star Wars.

But again, back to my main point: You keep saying the purchase agreement has to be made public knowledge. Well, then, show me the purchase agreement!!!!

 

What part of "The may not exactly post a .pdf of the entire deal, but they have to let all shareholders and potential investors know relevant details" do you not understand?

What part of "The may not exactly post a .pdf of the entire deal, but they have to let all shareholders and potential investors know relevant details" do you not understand?

What part of "The may not exactly post a .pdf of the entire deal, but they have to let all shareholders and potential investors know relevant details" do you not understand?

The more you talk, the more you show just how little you understand about corporations and investments therein work. If such a relevant detail existed and Disney did not publicly disclose it, all involved parties would open themselves up to HUGE insider trading lawsuits and indictments.

I can type in bold italics too: What part of "The may not exactly post a .pdf of the entire deal, but they have to let all shareholders and potential investors know relevant details" do you not understand?

You're obviously dead set on having the last word, so I am happy to let you have it. It won't change the fact that you're wrong, but I don't see myself losing any sleep over someone being wrong on the internet.

You're entire argument comes down to the idea that lawyers are always honest and buying Star Wars for $4 billion is the equivalent of re-releasing ET for its 20th anniversary. That's what we call "bad comedy."

 

The thing is they don't have to post a pdf of the entire deal for us to settle the issue we're talking about. In that sentence you keep repeating you also state "they have to let all shareholders and potential investors know relevant details." Okay, if that's the case, where's the article or media outlet or talkative shareholder who has revealed that there are precisely zero limitations on what Disney can do with Episodes 1-6 in the future? You've already made it clear that you think Disney not being allowed to alter Ep 1-6 is a relevant detail. So, why hasn't someone confirmed that that is part of the contract? Since it's a relevant detail, that means the millions of Disney's shareholders should all know this info, but no one in the media has thought to ask a single shareholder about this supposedly well-known information so that they can confirm that Disney is allowed to release the original versions of Ep 4-6, something that a lot of fans are very interested in learning?

Contracts go into incredible detail about what the buyer can and can't do. I was involved in a small independent film project that couldn't get enough financing to get produced. I had a partner on the project. He gave up his rights to the project to me for monetary compensation. Now I have the rights to the project, but my ownership agreement isn't just one line that says: "He can do whatever he wants with this unfilmed screenplay." Instead, there are pages and pages that say what I can do with the screenplay and what I can't do. Contracts don't just stipulate what people can't do. They also stipulate what they can do -- all the things they can do. Even if GL retains no rights, the sales agreement would still spell out everything that Disney can do with Lucasfilm.

If Disney is allowed to alter Ep 1-6, then it would say that in that purchase agreement, and if Disney is not allowed to alter Ep. 1-6, then it would also say that in that purchase agreement. Since there are a lot of fans who would be interested in knowing if Disney is allowed to change or restore Ep. 4-6, that information would be public knowledge and known by the media if that detail of the purchase agreement was really a relevant detail as you keep asserting. If all shareholders can access this information, then it is inevitable that the details about what Disney can do with Ep 1-6 would make it to the media, but these details clearly haven't made it to media (or if they have, please show me the link). Therefore, since this information about Disney's rights concerning the Ep. 1-6 has not become public knowledge, that means that regular shareholders aren't privy to this information. You say above "the fact is there is nothing to indicate that Lucas maintained any control." However, the fact is there is also nothing to indicate that Lucas does not maintain the right to prevent Disney from altering his version of the original saga. It's also fairly obvious why we don't know this one way or another and why we have to speculate. The reason is that we have no idea what the original purchase agreement actually says. So, you can pretend to "know" that Disney can do whatever it wants with Ep 1-6, yet you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your claim.

 

So Han shooting the Stormtrooper on the Death Star and Vader at Cloud City. Why doesn't get Han get flak for that?

 

Yep, probably better to get back on topic.

Perhaps one could argue that Tatooine is sort of like neutral territory, while the Death Star is clearly enemy territory. Any stormtrooper on the Death Star would be an obstacle to Luke's and Han's noble mission (though Han didn't buy into the nobility of it at the time, so there's a problem right there). With Vader, I think that's the most justifiable of them all. Han has a ranked position in a military rebellion, and Vader would be a fair target since he's the hand's on military leader of the opposition at that point. They have both chosen to be part of the military, and they understand the risks that go along with the job.

 

Isn't Han still an "independent contractor" in ESB? My recollection is that he didn't officially sign up until ROTJ when everyone, including Leia, is surprised at hearing him referred to as General and that he's leading the mission.

 

Concerning the purchase agreement ... they did not by copyrighrs or licenses (where you have restricted use) but they bought 100 percent of the motherfirm. Whatdver the original owner could do ... GL ... they can do now. Paid four billion for that.

 

While I agree with mcgo that I don't think Han has a "ranked position" in the Rebellion by ESB, I still think there's no question he did the right thing in Cloud City. You could almost use your previous argument for the ANH rescue mission, in that it was almost "noble" of him. Vader is most definitely a dangerous enemy, and Han is clearly trying to protect the princess when he takes his shots at him (it's arguably self-defense in this case, too. But the way he steps up in front of Leia, leads me to believe that his first instinct at this point is to protect her). And why shouldn't he? This is the guy who in the last film had tortured her, imprisoned her, and had every intention of executing her. So yeah, he doesn't get flak for this, and IMO, he should not get flak for it.

Of course, I have no problem with him shooting Greedo in the original version either. A little bit ruthless, but necessary in his cause for self-preservation. Which in ANH, is *so* Han. So it worked. They shouldn't have touched it.

And the "Sorry about the mess"? Come on, ha ha, that's just badass. A perfect introduction to the character.

 

Well said Yanksfan

 

Thanks.

 

You're welcome!

 

That's all well and good if you believe in "an eye for an eye".
Emotional responses aside, it's totally understandable that Han would fire at Vader on sight, for two reasons: 1, he knows that Vader is extremely dangerous. 2, he understands instantly that they've been ambushed and tries his best to make the Empire's plan backfire.
Han acts on instinct. An instinct that's been fine-tuned by decades on the darker side of society. Everything he does, he does because he is who he is.
Does that make these particular actions justified, though?
Not to me.

 

Once again, I'd make a self-defense and defense of others argument here.
That's only unacceptable if you're a complete pacifist, which is a valid position to take in our world, but for which we have seen no moral correlate in the GFFA. Even Yoda is pretty much a lightsaber first kind of guy in the PT when he encounters a bad guy, despite all his later talk about "aggression" being part of the dark side.

 

How else was Han and the others supposed to get out of there then?

 

I agree with that - I think it's a valid position for someone to take (although it could get them killed, that's their problem) but it's not a position I'd ever be interested in taking.

It also would make for lousy drama in a movie.

 

I'm sorry, but in regards to the Bespin ambush, if Han had just thrown up his hands and let them be taken quietly, I would've lost all respect for him. In some instances self-defense is completely justified, and this one of those instances.

And hey, he wasn't proven wrong. At the end of the day, he could've easily died in the carbon-freeze chamber. And if Lando hadn't hatched that escape plan (in which it was necessary to blast several storm troopers--so it was far from being a "pacifist-type" alternative), there's no reason to think Vader wouldn't have just tortured Leia and Chewie for information before executing them.

So again, I don't understand how it's not "justified" for Han to try and prevent this from happening. He already knew what Vader was capable of from the events in ANH.


*Note: I don't know if that "eye for an eye" comment was directed at me or not, but that wasn't my argument at all. Mine was that he was protecting the princess from a fate similar to what she experienced in ANH. I actually don't follow the "eye for an eye" philosophy at all.

 

. Have to do this again. 100% truth.

 

"Sorry about the mess" -Darth Vader, after turning the Younglings into a Jackson Pollack.

 

In all my younger years watching the Solo and Greedo original scene, I never once thought Solo was a cold-blooded killer. Greedo had a gun pointed at his face and was making threatening comments. Plus, Solo knew he was a wanted man and could see what was coming if he didn't act.

It was an act of self-defense.

Plus, the SE changes just never looked right.