The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo [who seemed to be the one who shot first in the original] to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn't. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.
I'm not a StarWars fan. I find the Jedi to be a creepy bunch of arrogant hypocrites. And the most I've seen of the new movies is from the Plinket reviews. And so I don't really care. I am amused at how Lucas seems to have gone insane and seems to revel in "destroying" StarWars.
But what struck me was something else.
That's why I won't talk about how Lucas' statement is a blatant falsehood given that even I can see that in the original Greedo didn't get a shot off. Which makes order mood.
But this isn't about the changes. It's that Lucas felt that he had to clarify that Han wasn't a cold-blooded killer. Ace explains the insanity:
My, you have to be sitz-tinkler to get all worried about the message you're sending by having Han "gun Greedo down" like a "cold-blooded murderer."
For one thing, you know, Greedo had a gun on him, and announced, clearly, that he intended to kill Han in the next few seconds.
This seems "bad ass" only because of silly movies in the fifties and stuff when singing cowboys always let the bad guy have the first shot. That continued for decades.
Really think about it. Han's moment to establish is badass questionable morals (something that Lucas in his later years found upsetting and required retconning) was... shooting a man that had pulled a gun on him. Which is a pretty black and white case of self defense there.
Anyway, this seems more "cold-blooded" than it is. To the extent these films have anything remotely to do with "realism," it's more realistic that you'd just shoot a guy who's aiming to kill you. Without granting him the advantage of getting to shoot first.
None of this would have seemed surprising had it not been established as a movie convention -- and only a convention in the movies -- that good guys are morons who are willing to risk a bullet to the head in the interests of Being Good Sports About This Whole Trying To Murder Each Other Thing.
Again... if someone got the drop on you, pointed a gun at you, and you were armed and able to covertly draw, aim and... what stop and only pull the trigger after your attacker shot you?
Was Han supposed to wait his turn? Make sure that Greedo wasn't bluffing?
This is right up there with Joan "We have to give the criminal every benefit of the doubt" Petterson.
If you really wanted to have Han be shady and morally grey, you'd have him shoot Greedo the second Greedo shows up and hints about Jabba, or maybe wait until Greedo merely shows his weapon (though if Greedo made a move to unholster...).
Also I'm talking about contemporary US self defense law. Not say... a wild rough and tumble spaceport dive bar full of illegal activity. Greeze.
Also naming an evil bounty hunter Greedo? Really Lucas?