Saga The importance of Han Solo

When the prequels came out, one piece of flack they all got was that "they needed a Han Solo type character." For a while I argued that the characters didn't need to correspond to the types we were used to, as this was a different set of characters. But then another thought occurred to me.

How should we describe Han Solo? Well....He first shows up when our lead Jedi and his apprentice come to a spaceport on Tattooine, needing a way to get off so they can do a job for Princess Leia. Enter Han, a hotshot pilot. In the next film he ends up escorting Leia across the galaxy. Predictably, they fall in love, and profess their feeling just before the climax of the film. And in Return of the Jedi? The whole first act is about rescuing him, after which, for the first time, he does something for the Rebellion without protest or demanding money. It's easy to forget, but in BOTH previous films, he was trying to get away from the Rebellion to take care of his personal business. Now, with that taken care of, he does something truly selfless.

And in the sequels? Well, turns out he's Kylo Ren's father. And he dies face to face with his son.

Is there another character who fits that description?

Yes. Anakin Skywalker. A critic of the prequels might be tempted to point out how poorly cast and acted the part was, and I won't argue. A character with this many similarities to a fan favorite should A) be played as an adult throughout the trilogy, like the other two characters were, and B) be played by an actor as charismatic as Harrison Ford.

But like an OT Star Trek episode, you have to look past that a bit. Why is it important on the conceptual level that these two characters are so similar?

If Han is the PT Han Solo, who's Luke? Obi-Wan Kenobi. Both saw their mentors cut down in front of them (NO!), trained under Yoda, held a dying Jedi in their arms, and were advised by a dying mentor to pass on their knowledge of the Force.

Both characters (Luke and Han, that is) need to succeed where their counterparts failed, in order to defeat the Empire. The opening of Revenge of the Sith looks a lot like the climax of Return of the Jedi. But there is a reason it's at the front instead of the back of the film: it parallels the rescue of Han Solo. Anakin's actions in that part ensure that Palpatine will be able to trap him in the Dark Side of the Force. Conversely, Luke's actions in rescuing Han are something of a dress rehearsal for what he must do to rescue his father. Vader's final act, of course, results in the death of Palpatine and the desctruction of the Empire.

On one level, Kylo Ren makes sense. Luke's fate in TFA and even TLJ are perfectly in line with Obi-Wan, and who should be the next Darth Vader but Han Solo's son?

But the importance of Han Solo in the big picture of Anakin's redemption, and even Luke's ascent to being a Jedi, actually creates a problem. The resolution of those character arcs is what made the triumph of the Rebellion possible. Luke rescues Han, Luke tries to rescue his father, refuses to kill his father, thereby awakening the good in his father. Thus are Emperor, Empire, and Vader defeated.

In the sequels, not only is there a new Empire (The First Order), a New Emperor (Snoke and then Palpatine himself), and a new Vader (Kylo Ren); it's all because of the actions of these two men so pivotal to the outcome of the previous films. The selflessness Han learned? Gone. He's a deadbeat dad and smuggler again. Luke's restraint? Nope. He snuck up on a child in the middle of the night, and that's why we have Vader 2.0.

 

I would disagree re: the PT. Anakin's closest OT equivalent is not Han; it's Luke. Both characters start as innocent kids looking for freedom from a stifling environment and adventure in a wider world, while ignorant of their powers & heritage. They become skilled at their new professions, while impatient with their progress and too self-confident in their attitudes. They develop into more thoughtful, haunted men, trying to find out what it really means to be a Jedi and fight for right. The big difference is their reaction to the major crisis point of their lives, when they must choose which path to follow.

Actually, who says there has to be a "Han Solo character" in the PT? The focus of the story is different, set in a more civilized age, as we're surrounded by knights, royalty, and political leaders. Except for TPM, we really don't focus on the less-formal, less-highborn classes which spawned Han until ANH. That's where Han's viewpoint comes into the story, out of necessity, given the setting.

 

No. The PT didnt need a Han Solo type. Its a different trilogy with a completely different aesthetic and themes.

 

True. However, Han Solo is the kind of character that is very popular because he is funnier, and more sarcastic than the hero. Having a Han Solo character in the PT would be a very easy way to make die-hard fans happier and be more comercial....
(obviously, I'm glad there wasn't a Han Solo character in the prequels).