OMG, it's as if you understood nothing of what I said.... OK, one by one: You don't understand what I mean when I say "cinematically equivalent". So I'll put it this way: The analogy IS the same because Lucas could have easily decided that Boba would have been the archetype for the clones while conceiving his character just as much as he could have decided that Greedo would have been the archetype for the clones while conceiving his character - hence, the arbitrarity. I can't spell that out more, hope that makes you understand my meaning. Not really. When conceiving the character of Boba Fett, Lucas did consider tying him in to the stormtroopers. He didn't do that with Greedo. What I was trying to say is that - Yes, he didn't choose to tie in Greedo, but he COULD - and that would have the same effect on the movies had he done so. Moreover, HAD he done so, we would have been arguing the opposite way: I would claim that he could have chosen Boba and you'd be telling me that he chose to tie in Greedo to the stormtroopers since the beginning of time! By the way, Boba Fett got his NAME when his action figure was manufactured for ROTJ (it was in the trivia of Star Wars: Behind The Magic, so that's official info). And this is significant...how? Read the next sentence and you'll know! You wanna tell me that an unnamed character was chosen to be the clone archetype during ESB??? No, Lucas is saying that he considered tying him in to the stormtroopers when he invented him, which by the way was before ESB. When a character has no name it usually means that the author doesn't care much about it let alone think that it would serve as a major theme! I mean, if Greedo had a name in ANH (something which Boba DIDN'T have on ESB) without serving as a major theme, why should Boba have none, if he was conceived as the origin of a major theme the way you claim? Don't fall for those marketing tricks, please! What marketing tricks? Enough said, I'm starting to think it's a prank.