George Lucas Says Greedo Always Shot First

Recommended Videos

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Bhaalspawn said:
George Lucas wrote all seven Star Wars films, had a hand in writing nearly every game. The companies are called Lucasfilm and Lucasarts. Lucas created the world in which the movies were made. Directed all but two of them, and owns the rights to them.

Also the edits made in the Special Edition ALSO had a team of people working on them. Likely the same people who were involved in the original movies.

Lucas is the creator of Star Wars. He can change it has he sees fit, and fans can do nothing to stop it.
What you didn't mention was that those two movies he didn't direct were in the original trilogy, and those movies are the ones most fans dislike being changed, and he wasn't solely responsible for the scripts. And how involved was he in writing something like the games?

The fact remains that the movies were a group-effort, especially the original trilogy.

And I never said he didn't have the right to do the changes (although I am not entirely convinced he does). But my point was that the fans don't have to accept the versions with the changes as 'The real' Star Wars.

Bhaalspawn said:
I know a certain group of cartoon fans who learned that the hard way, and it sure tugged on their Heartstrings.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The Korean soap opera?
 

Mahoshonen

New member
Jul 28, 2008
358
0
0
Lieju said:
Bhaalspawn said:
THIS JUST IN: When the creator changes something in HIS movie, it is now Canon!
That is an interesting discussion in itself, and I believe everyone can just decide for themselves what they consider canon or not. But there's also one other problem here:
"Are those HIS movies?", Is George Lucas the one who has the right to mess with them?

If someone buys the rights for Citizen Kane and then remasters it so that it ends with Kane fighting Lincoln in a giant mecha suit, in space, is that version more 'canon', and correct than the movie Orson Welles made?

I personally have never cared much about the Star Wars, but it raises interesting guestions about fiction and who has the right to define its meaning, and it is an interesting social phenomenon.

Strazdas said:
Its his movie. Its his universe. He can do whatever he wants.
Is it? He didn't make those movies all alone. Input from other writers, directors, artists, the studio, the actors etc made it what it was.
And to add insult to injury George Lucas in 1989 testified before Congress AGAINST the very editing and reworking of movies that he now readily engages.

So on top of everything else, Lucas is a massive hypocrite. And possibly a felon for perjuring himself while under oath.
 

Swifteye

New member
Apr 15, 2010
1,079
0
0
Does he enjoy having people treat him with disdain? Maybe George is this really awkward dork who can't stop putting his foot in his mouth. The first step to recovery is acknowledgement george.
 

The Lugz

New member
Apr 23, 2011
1,371
0
0
TestECull said:
Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit who shot first? Because I don't. Which shot first doesn't change the fact that Episode IV is a good movie.

you went and did it didn't you

in-case you forgot on the escapist you are never the only one, ever!

http://deadhorseinterchange.com/wiki/index.php?title=The_Escapist_Forums

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.323323-Critical-Miss-Highlanders-Anonymous

and furthermore

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/9225-Highlanders-Anonymous

it's like the meme of the site..
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Zhukov said:
Are people still going on about this?

Christ, it's worse than the Firefly die-hards.

Move on.
I think people will stop griping about Lucas' revisions when Lucas stops revising/talking about his revisions. So never.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0


GL to Congress said:
My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.
People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.


These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.

I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.
I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.


The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.

There are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of "The Maltese Falcon?" Why are films cut up and butchered?

Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.

I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art, as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities.
[HEADING=3]The first of those that cried against revision was Lucas himself. Stop blaming us for getting behind his younger self on this.[/HEADING]
 

Absimilliard

Only you can read this.
Nov 4, 2009
400
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
George. George. I just rewatched that little bit of the cantina scene on YouTube and I can say with a good degree of confidence that the problem here is not one of perception. There is no confusion. Han Solo clearly, casually and without warning wasted some low-level scumbag enforcer who was giving him a hard time. You can't erase the Holiday Special from our memories, George, and you can't change the fact that Han Solo is a stone cold killer.

To paraphrase the man who played the man who pulled the trigger in Mos Eisley: "George, you can say this shit, but you sure as hell can't believe it."
Just to make 100% sure, I just rewatched the original version myself (top search result on YouTube for "Han Shot First"...), and I wholeheartedly concur. Besides, everything in Han's demeanour makes it very clear that he intends to kill Greedo, and that he feels no remorse.
I would say "nice try" to Mr. Lucas, but it really isn't. It does give a brief insight into his thought process, though...
 

Bostur

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,070
0
0
Aiddon said:
We all know that Han only shot first because Greedo was gonna do it anyway. That's what a guy from a Western (like every character Clint Eastwood ever played) does. It's a bit cold, but ya can't blame the guy for wanting to stay alive. Lucas, continuing to plug his finger in his ears and go "lalalalalalalala!"
Exactly, it's a do or die scene. If Greedo shot first Han would be dead.

It's similar to this scene, and I'd almost bet Lucas got inspired by it or another movie with a similar setup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUslGSoEH8I
 

ogrebushi

New member
Jun 7, 2010
28
0
0
Little2Raph said:
I'd always thought Han Solo was supposed to be a morally ambiguous character - it was only Chewbacca that acted as kind of a conscience that kept him from going completely bad. It wasn't until he fell in with the Rebellion and became all "respectable" that he changed his ways. Of course he shot first - maybe that didn't fit in with the stereotypical Hollywood image of what a "good guy" should be, but that's not a bad thing if you ask me. (Incidentally, that's why I like James Bond - he's a good guy, but a ruthless one).

I remember watching this interview on Australian television with George Lucas about the time Phantom Menace came out, and he was waffling on about how he doesn't believe in having gratuitous violence in his movies - and the interviewer called him out on the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy casually shoots down the guy waving the swords around. Watching George Lucas squirm while he tried to make up some retroactive explanitory bullshit on the spot is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. . .
From the imdb article, which reinforces what i remember being said ages ago...
The famous scene in which Indy shoots a marauding and flamboyant swordsman was not in the original script. Harrison Ford was supposed to use his whip to get the swords out of his attacker's hands, but the food poisoning he and the rest of the crew had gotten made him too sick to perform the stunt. After several unsuccessful tries, Ford suggested "shooting the sucker." Steven Spielberg immediately took up the idea and the scene was successfully filmed.

Once again another good idea not by lucas, since that scene does look so much better that way

At this point though I'm convinced lucas has just turned into a giant troll. The troll face pic with a neckbeard on it with flannel ....
 

DonTsetsi

New member
May 22, 2009
262
0
0
Han shot last and Vader cried out before he killed the emperor, the so-called "earlier versions" are a lie! Had you ever heard of "Star Wars" before the BluRay release???
 

VoidWanderer

New member
Sep 17, 2011
1,551
0
0
Stone cold killer? Really?

If I was being subtly threatened by a Hutt's thug and I needed to act, damn straight I'd shoot first.

Stone cold killers generally kill for no reason. The kill is pointless and random. With Solo v. Greedo, Solo had to kill Greedo because Greedo would tell Jabba what Solo didn't want him to.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
I always thought Greedo shot first. This isn't that surprising to me. I mean really, with all that Lucas has changed, and with how obviously he doesn't care what you think about it, why would he lie about this?
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Bhaalspawn said:
Lieju said:
And I never said he didn't have the right to do the changes (although I am not entirely convinced he does). But my point was that the fans don't have to accept the versions with the changes as 'The real' Star Wars.
But that's the thing. The new versions ARE the real Star Wars now. Fans can ignore it all they want, doesn't make them right.
So, what? People can't choose what version they like and consider the right one for them?

They can't choose for themselves what they like and hold dear?
Is the 'real' Star Wars the vision inside Lucas' mind?

I doubt this discussion is going anywhere, since you didn't support your statement at all.
Just that your opinion of the creative process is, I guess, that the art-piece is constantly living and whatever changes are made to it by the person that thought of it first constantly shape it.

I suspect our views on art and who decides on the true meaning of it differ.
 

Frost27

Good news everyone!
Jun 3, 2011
504
0
0
Nigh Invulnerable said:
I'm really tired of the debate about this. Just enjoy whichever version of the film you prefer, people! Let George go off and do whatever he wants with his franchise.
I would be perfectly fine if the original un-modified versions were readily available but he keeps refusing to release older versions in proper modern format every time he makes more changes. Over all, I wouldn't care how much money he wants to dump back into the originals just so he can watch ewoks blink if I could easily watch the versions that I grew up with that made fans of an entire generation and made star wars the force (pun) that it is today.

You know, Eric Clapton has altered and re-recorded Layla many times over the years but never once did he refuse to release Cream's back catalog.
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
OK here we go.

Even IF, Han shot first. He still shot an armed man who was holding Han at gunpoint. So either way, Han was still in the right to defend himself.

Personally, I think Greedo still shot first but it really does not matter. Han is NOT a cold blooded killer, He only defended himself.

FLT