Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by Chainmail_Jedi, Jan 26, 2013.
Fan edits are what will make these movies great someday.
I've never met an ardent Han fan who wanted to see the character die. Speaking for myself, I absolutely did not want Han to die in the OT and was very grateful that he didn't. I'm OK with it happening in Episode 7, partly because I never expected Episode 7 to happen at all and so everything is gravy to me at this point. But I also acknowledge the reality that both character and actor are aging, and the new trilogy will be best-served by letting a new generation take over the main action. It's the circle of life, to borrow a phrase from another Disney film.
As for Harrison, yeah it has always mystified me why he always wanted Han to die. Go figure. I think he did a good job of contributing to Han's dialogue in some of the OT -- but I'm very glad he had no say on that particular plot point.
I can't agree that Han being suspended in carbonite is on the same level as the deaths of Spock and Gandalf (I'm not familiar with the Matrix films). Without getting into an esoteric discussion of what death really entails, from a storytelling POV, in both Star Trek and LOTR the other characters (and the non-spoiled audience/readers) were 100% convinced that Spock and Gandalf were dead. By contrast, Leia and the audience always knew that Han was still alive and "in perfect hibernation." I see it as more of a device to put the character in jeopardy than any kind of death, even a symbolic one.
We agree on non-EU children for Han and Leia. We'll just have to wait and see how they turn out.
I'm not as sure. With Spock, remember, you had that very obviously inserted mind-meld scene with Bones-- anybody who knew "Trek" reasonably would've been able to conjecture a pretty tidy loophole for that green-blooded Vulcan to be brought back. Gandalf as well lives in a world of magic and supernatural ins-and-outs, so the idea of him returning from a big dramatic off-screen plummet (no idea how it's handled in the book) isn't that surprising. Neither of these "deaths" are as audibly and cogently explained as temporary as Han's freezing in carbonite, but they're more or less on the same level.
And yes, it's always presented more as the character being in peril, but as I said-- if there was a moment to have Han die and for it to be dramatically potent, it would've been then. If he had died in ESB, either heroically sacrificing himself to break Leia free from Vader's conquest of Cloud City or killed in an execution by the Empire's troops, he would've been going out in his prime. At this point, I say just let him expire of natural causes.
Nope. Still can't agree. Yeah, sure TPTB threw in the "remember" scene with McCoy and the ending shot of Spock's coffin on the Genesis planet, but that was basically their way of throwing a bone to all the outraged fans who were ready to boycott the film because of Spock's death.
Look at it this way. In Trek 3, the crews of the Grissom and the Enterprise were both very shocked to find that Spock's body had been regenerated by the Genesis planet. In Two Towers, Aragorn and company were absolutely dumbfounded to see Gandalf alive. By contrast, nobody in ROTJ was shocked to find that Han had survived. They were expecting it. Leia had obviously studied up on hibernation sickness precisely so she could help Han after he was freed from the carbonite. In storytelling terms, that's a huge difference and not even remotely on the same level.
And I'm not one for speaking in absolutes, especially when it comes to something as chancy as trying to predict the future, but I think the odds that you'll get to see Han die of old age are just about nil.
C3PO explained that Han was perfectly safe in carbonite in ESB. You're making a false comparison.
That only underscores my point that Han being frozen in carbonite was never a "death" as Jedi Ford Prefect has suggested. I said earlier in the thread that the film audience always knew Han was alive and in "perfect hibernation." So I don't understand why you think I'm the one making the false comparison.
As I said before, it's a symbolic death, especially for that movie. It freezes him into this horrific grotesque image that combines being turned into stone with coffin imagery, and takes him out of the story for the rest of the episode. When Leia and everyone go to rescue him from Jabba's clutches in ROTJ, it's deliberately drawing upon death-and-resurrection archetypes, stories like Orpheus and Euridice or Persephone, where the deceased can be rescued from the land of the dead back to the living as long as specific rules are followed.
Anyway. The larger point is that if Han were realistically going to die and for it to mean something, ESB is when it should've happened. But by pulling the symbolic death of carbonite freezing, dramatically it just seems cheap to kill him off in the ST. It's too late to earn shock-and-awe brownie points with a stunt like that now.
And as I've said before, I think that saying Han's carbonite experience is a "death" that is in any way on the same level as Gandalf or Spock (again, that's your comparison, not mine) is really overreaching. In the context of the story the other characters don't react to these events in even remotely the same way. Once Han was frozen and Lando announced to everyone that he was alive and in perfect hibernation, there is nothing in the story to suggest that Leia ever thought of Han as dead. Quite the contrary. She knew he would be sick when he came out of hibernation and she prepared for that eventuality.
On the second point, that is purely your opinion. And I find it fascinating that you can know with complete certainty that Han's eventual death scene -- in a script you've never read and have absolutely no knowledge of -- cannot possibly work on a dramatic level.
Again, I'm talking about the audiences' reaction more than the characters. And more than that, it's something liminal rather than fully literal.
Yeah, I'm sure that's the first time anyone's ever spoken about the subjective with complete certainty on these boards before.
That's your defense? Hey, other people do it too! Geez. Wait until you actually see Han's death scene before you condemn it as being nothing more than a "stunt."
I thought of another reason why your carbonite=death analogy is way off. In stories that feature a true death-and-resurrection narrative, the "dead" character is substantially transformed when he comes back to life. Gandalf the Grey becomes Gandalf the White -- a much more powerful wizard than he was before. The resurrected Spock is essentially a baby in a man's body who must re-learn everything he ever knew. And after he does, he is not the same Spock as he used to be. The new Spock has come to terms with his emotions and I would argue he actually has more authority than he did before (there's a scene in VI where Spock actually delivers orders even though Kirk is sitting right there).
By contrast, Han is essentially unchanged when he comes back, and far from being more powerful and confident -- as a journey to the Other Side would tend to make one -- Han is arguably weaker and less confident after he comes back. Precisely because he didn't go to the Other Side at any time while he was in carbonite. It was a glorified version of sleeping. Or as Han himself put it in the deleted dialogue, a "wide-awake nothing." Hardly a trip to the netherworld.
Without Han the plot falls to pieces. I can imagine why someone would disapprove of Han in the trilogy, but it wouldn't be for very flattering reasons.
Getting into it would seem pointless because if you don't relate to the character and you deny the importance of love, sex/sexual tension, and the redeemed rogue in fiction then there are probably immutable reasons why a well reasoned and patient argument just wouldn't work on you.
Sorry, I think my comment was aimed at the other guy.
Are you telling me that you wouldn't appreciate eliminating a certain very squicky scene from ESB?
Why would we need to add in a girl from the EU that nobody's ever heard of in order to do that? Why not just cut out the scene, and let Luke stay single?
I would say "wait until you actually see Han's death scene before you say it exists". Anyway, at this point it seems like such an obligation for him to die now. Again, in ESB it would've been unexpected for him to suffer a literal death. Anything after that is just old hat.
I dunno about that. After being unfrozen from carbonite, he seems a better guy. He's openly affectionate to Leia, and has matured enough to muster up an apology to her when he loses his temper and can even be grown up enough to let her go, if she wanted. He's fully committed to the Rebel cause instead of constantly wanting to run away (yeah, Jabba's death is a help there, but the fact that he doesn't go off and keep playing space cowboy is to his credit). He even offers to let Lando use his beloved Falcon to aid the assault on the Death Star, knowing full well it could be the last time he sees it. He's less selfish, more self-sacrificing.
I would not have Leia be Lukes sister the more and more i think about the more i hate it. They should of either kept her identity unknown or introduced a new
character all together a badass chick thats 10 times the warrior Luke is. No death star 2 instead a different super weapon something more powerful and along with
this powerful super weapon the emperor should of had some type of evil master plan going beyond destroying the rebel alliance. Leia and Han should have
died there characters weren't really important by ROTJ. Also Han and Leias death would of really added to Lukes story while on the other hand Han and leias stories
were finished. Obviously replacing ewoks with wookies and a more unique planet than Endor.