Alright, seriously, who shot first? Han Solo or Greedo?

Alright, listen to logic first before you vote. It is true that in the original version, Han Solo shot and killed Greedo in the cantina, but Greedo never even got a shot off. In the revised 1997 edition, the scene was edited to have Greedo shoot first, missing and then being dispatched by Han Solo. Now, when you analyze the question, "Who shot first", that would imply that TWO people have to be shooting. Since the original version of A New Hope only had Han Solo shooting, we cannot consider that version. Thus, we MUST look to the 1997 version as the correct version to base this debate on. In this instance, Greedo cleary shoots first, ending the debate.

Remember, if you choose Han Solo, you've made that decision based on the original version. There is no "first", because Solo was the only one shooting, so logically, your answer is incorrect.

Alright, listen to logic first before you vote. It is true that in the original version, Han Solo shot and killed Greedo in the cantina, but Greedo never even got a shot off. In the revised 1997 edition, the scene was edited to have Greedo shoot first, missing and then being dispatched by Han Solo. Now, when you analyze the question, "Who shot first", that would imply that TWO people have to be shooting. Since the original version of A New Hope only had Han Solo shooting, we cannot consider that version. Thus, we MUST look to the 1997 version as the correct version to base this debate on. In this instance, Greedo cleary shoots first, ending the debate.

Remember, if you choose Han Solo, you've made that decision based on the original version. There is no "first", because Solo was the only one shooting, so logically, your answer is incorrect.

Alright, listen to logic first before you vote. It is true that in the original version, Han Solo shot and killed Greedo in the cantina, but Greedo never even got a shot off. In the revised 1997 edition, the scene was edited to have Greedo shoot first, missing and then being dispatched by Han Solo. Now, when you analyze the question, "Who shot first", that would imply that TWO people have to be shooting. Since the original version of A New Hope only had Han Solo shooting, we cannot consider that version. Thus, we MUST look to the 1997 version as the correct version to base this debate on. In this instance, Greedo cleary shoots first, ending the debate.

Remember, if you choose Han Solo, you've made that decision based on the original version. There is no "first", because Solo was the only one shooting, so logically, your answer is incorrect.

JustPlainLucas

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]

Alright, listen to logic first before you vote. It is true that in the original version, Han Solo shot and killed Greedo in the cantina, but Greedo never even got a shot off. In the revised 1997 edition, the scene was edited to have Greedo shoot first, missing and then being dispatched by Han Solo. Now, when you analyze the question, "Who shot first", that would imply that TWO people have to be shooting. Since the original version of A New Hope only had Han Solo shooting, we cannot consider that version. Thus, we MUST look to the 1997 version as the correct version to base this debate on. In this instance, Greedo cleary shoots first, ending the debate.

Remember, if you choose Han Solo, you've made that decision based on the original version. There is no "first", because Solo was the only one shooting, so logically, your answer is incorrect.

LZ71

Way too long is my guess.

Han shot first, because the original cuts are the only star wars films I can bear to watch.

At same time, Hans a better shot.

Han Solo shoots and kills Greedo before he even gets a shot off.

It was edited to be more "kid friendly." That way Han Solo's morality wouldn't be questioned... it wasn't muder it was self defense.

Remember, if you choose Han Solo, you've made that decision based on the original version. There is no "first", because Solo was the only one shooting, so logically, your answer is incorrect.

JustPlainLucas

so if im in a race and i come in "first"

and the other racers give up

im no longer in first?

ur logic is "incorrect"

How long did you spend thinking about this? :PLZ71

I don't even know who Greedo is. thriteenthmonke

I love MJ's Moonwalker. and in the end it doesnt really matter, because greedo gets shot either waygarrett_duffman

[QUOTE="thriteenthmonke"]I don't even know who Greedo is. JustPlainLucas

Doesn't it depend on which version you watch?LJS9502_basic

so if im in a race and i come in "first"

and the other racers give up

im no longer in first?

ur logic is "incorrect"

In the original shot of the scene they had Han shoot first. They changed it so that they both shot at the same time because otherwise it would make Han Solo seem more antagonistic than protagonistic.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doesn't it depend on which version you watch?LZ71

In the original shot of the scene they had Han shoot first. They changed it so that they both shot at the same time because otherwise it would make Han Solo seem more antagonistic than protagonistic.

Shad0ki11

OK, fine, Greedo NEVER shot. For one, he was sitting two feet away from him at the time, he'd ahve to be trying to miss that shot. Second, I don't care how honorable you are, when you work in the profession Han did you know you might have to get your hands dirty and you accept that. If he wasn't prepared to shoot someone out of self-preservation he wouldn't have been working with a Hutt in the first place and Greedo never would have come after him. Fourth, Han was never supposed to be an honorable character at the time, he was supposed to be a scoundrel that reformed his ways because he fell in love. Fifth, who cares if he killed Greedo in cold blood? Greedo was a slimy gangster who was going to kill Solo even though Jabba was right in town and Han was going to see him. If he was just doing legwork he would have brought Han to Jabba, he wanted to kill him because he knew if he didn't Han might be able to pay Jabba and he might not get his reward for bringing him in. Lastly, George Lucas needs to learn how to leave well enough alone.

This all just screws withmy mind. For original, Han. For alterings, Greedo.

I havethriteenthmonke

OK, fine, Greedo NEVER shot. For one, he was sitting two feet away from him at the time, he'd ahve to be trying to miss that shot. Second, I don't care how honorable you are, when you work in the profession Han did you know you might have to get your hands dirty and you accept that. If he wasn't prepared to shoot someone out of self-preservation he wouldn't have been working with a Hutt in the first place and Greedo never would have come after him. Fourth, Han was never supposed to be an honorable character at the time, he was supposed to be a scoundrel that reformed his ways because he fell in love. Fifth, who cares if he killed Greedo in cold blood? Greedo was a slimy gangster who was going to kill Solo even though Jabba was right in town and Han was going to see him. If he was just doing legwork he would have brought Han to Jabba, he wanted to kill him because he knew if he didn't Han might be able to pay Jabba and he might not get his reward for bringing him in. Lastly, George Lucas needs to learn how to leave well enough alone.

theone86

Ok, well... Greedo was the funny looking alien that got shot and killed by Han Solo in the cantina. Ring a bell now? :PJustPlainLucas

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

In the original shot of the scene they had Han shoot first. They changed it so that they both shot at the same time because otherwise it would make Han Solo seem more antagonistic than protagonistic.

JustPlainLucas

Fine then I'll bite. If I make a movie that's intended to be a trilogy, but it's so sucky there is never a second produced, does that not mean it's still the first movie released under that brand?

Then it goes back to the Mexican Standoff situation. Are you suggesting it's only considered shooting first if the other person shoots back? So if in a hockey game, the Wings win 1-0 it's not considered scoring first? Clint didn't shoot first here Scarface_tm431

Fine then I'll bite. If I make a movie that's intended to be a trilogy, but it's so sucky there is never a second produced, does that not mean it's still the first movie released under that brand?

theone86

I don't understand why everyone makes a big fuzz about this scene. In the end, han solo won in either one

I thought Han Solo did.

Why is there no pole option that says "I don't give a flying crap Greedo died anyway"?Pyro767

Neither of them shot first, it was a third party never seen by anyone, it's the only logical conclusion.

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

In the original shot of the scene they had Han shoot first. They changed it so that they both shot at the same time because otherwise it would make Han Solo seem more antagonistic than protagonistic.

JustPlainLucas

Neither of them shot first, it was a third party never seen by anyone, it's the only logical conclusion.

Bloodaxe726

[QUOTE="Bloodaxe726"]

Neither of them shot first, it was a third party never seen by anyone, it's the only logical conclusion.

LZ71

Han shot first. I hate the special edition.

Han shot first, because the original cuts are the only star wars films I can bear to watch.

joesh89

Han shot first, saying since no one else shot doesn't make him first just doesn't make sense. That's like saying in a Mexican Standoff who ever wins didn't shoot first...but he did, hence why he's still living. They probably added the shot in the 1997 version to make it Hans look like a more reasonable guyScarface_tm431

If Han was the only one shooting, then saying "Han shot first" is jhust as valid as saying "Han shot last".

After all, if no one shot after Han, then Han was the last one to shoot. Even if he shot first.

So maybe we're just asking the wrong question. Maybe the question shouldn't be "who shot first", maybe the question should be "who shot LAST"?

And if the question is who shot last, then we can absolutely say that Han shot last. Han shot last in the original version, because he was the only one shooting. And Han shot last in the revised version, because Greedo shot first.

So that's the answer to this whole debate. Han shot last. That's the only thing that everyone can agree on, regardless of which version they are watching.

[QUOTE="Scarface_tm431"]Han shot first, saying since no one else shot doesn't make him first just doesn't make sense. That's like saying in a Mexican Standoff who ever wins didn't shoot first...but he did, hence why he's still living. They probably added the shot in the 1997 version to make it Hans look like a more reasonable guyMrGeezer

If Han was the only one shooting, then saying "Han shot first" is jhust as valid as saying "Han shot last".

After all, if no one shot after Han, then Han was the last one to shoot. Even if he shot first.

So maybe we're just asking the wrong question. Maybe the question shouldn't be "who shot first", maybe the question should be "who shot LAST"?

And if the question is who shot last, then we can absolutely say that Han shot last. Han shot last in the original version, because he was the only one shooting. And Han shot last in the revised version, because Greedo shot first.

So that's the answer to this whole debate. Han shot last. That's the only thing that everyone can agree on, regardless of which version they are watching.

greedo shot first

Screw Greedo, Han shot first.

I have nothing to add to the discussion, but if you watch the remake of the Cantina scene frame by frame you can see Han Solo stretch his neck like Gumby. Carry on.

On this note, why did the followers of the Dark Side go so far out of their way to make themselves seem like the bad guys?

I mean, for starters we have Darth Vader. Vader sounds like "invader", which just makes people pre-disposed to think that he's an ass as soon as they're introduced to him. And then the whole "Darth" thing. I mean, that sounds menacing enough already. But then you find out that "Darth" is actually a contraction of "Dark Lord of the Sith".

And it's like, really?! You know, if you want to people to not oppose you and stuff, if you don't want people blowing up your bases, then it's a good idea to not actually NAME YOURSELF as a "dark lord". I mean, isn;t that sort of just ASKING for trouble?

Then we have Darth Sidious and Darth Maul. And while he wasn't in the movies, I hear that there's also a Darth Tyrannus and a Darth Bane.

And really dude...it isn't just the Sith lords either. Look at freaking Greedo. He's a murderous thieving gangster, and his name is GREEDO. When Jabba the Hutt sends him out to make a deal with some poor ignorant sap, does it help that this guy's very NAME basically says "yes, I am going to rob you and exploit you, and dealing with me is probably going to leave you thoroughly ****ed"? Would YOU ever do business with someone whose very NAME practically says "I'm going to steal your money and then murder you"?

I don't know, man. I just think that the bad guys in the Star Wars universe are badly in need of a makeover. I don't know who they've hired as their publicist, but whoever that person is, he probably needs to get fired. And/or force choked. Whatever. But when you start naming your little circle of friends "Vader", "Sidious", "Tyrannus", "Bane", and "Maul", aren't you just sort oif ASKING for people to try to bring you down? Would you ever vote for a presidential candidate who named HIMSELF "Lord Evil Destructo III"?