Sivy Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 Was 'Greedo shooting first' George Lucas' worst idea? Ok so what are your thoughts? Can you think of something in Star Wars worst than chaging a scene that didn't need changing and making it look ridiculous.
Darklighter Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 No, I can think of something worst... ...does anyone know who...Jar Jar Binks is???!!!
Sivy Posted August 7, 2002 Author Posted August 7, 2002 Originally posted by Darklighter No, I can think of something worst... ...does anyone know who...Jar Jar Binks is???!!! Yes I would of argeed, but seeing Ep II, I realised that Jar-Jar had an important role
Darklighter Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 I guess he did...but that sort of comdey should have been spared from something as phenomonal as Star Wars.
Darklighter Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 One word posts are evil Arkum:Dlol, j/k... There was no mention of a gungan creature who elected Palpatine in the original films, so Lucas could have picked anyone or anything...why did it have to be Jar Jar?
Madcow Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 So JarJar could be executed later for his mistakes
Sam Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 jar jar flips his lid lid and gets killed by a storming mob of jedi and sith who join forces just to kill him.hahaha
Kent H Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 How is this even important? So Greedo shot first in the SE. So what?
BlackDove Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 a) he either tried to make solo look like the good guy b) censors or animal rights or WHICHEVER people told lucas to change it like that.....
BlackDove Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 Originally posted by Darklighter No, I can think of something worst... ...does anyone know who...Jar Jar Binks is???!!! and screw that .....does anyone know who... JAKE LLOYD IS???????
ibballin Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 the best thing was casting natile portman;) and does it matter that greedo shot first he was going to die anyways. i guess it was to prove what type of person is han.
kamiclone Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 i think it looks better when greedo shoots first. Cuz Han moves his head cuz.....uhh....he's cool......and his son is a jedi. Anyways George knows he made a mistake putting Jar Jar in Ep 1 so he made the part very small for Ep 2. Sux for Ahmed Best!
Nebelwerfer_ Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 I think taking out the max rebo band and putting in that fraggle-rock looking band in ROTJ S.E. was a pretty bad idea.
Sivy Posted August 7, 2002 Author Posted August 7, 2002 But how could a Bounty Hunter be such a bad shot?!
Darth_Lando Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 Greedo shooting first was a bad idea. It even looks bad on film. I dunno why George Lucas was trying to make Han Solo look like such an angel. He was a smuggler for petes sake with a price on his head, he is looking out only for himself. As the trilogy progresses Han Solo's character matures over time. It is better to meet Han Solo as the selfish smuggler who becomes a more mature person looking out for others throughout the trilogy. But no! GL had to change to make Han Solo fire the second shot so he will be a better role model I think the Ewoks were a worse idea however. If GL had used wookies instead it would have made ROTJ 35.565% better.
Darth Talliusc Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 i agree wholeheartedly with darth lando, the ewoks were a major mistake. but i think that the absoulte stupidest thing GL did was.............. (drumroll please)..................... EPISODE ONE!!!! (this is just my opinion please do not flame me for having a thought) ok not ALL the movie sucked, but most of it really blew. the saber scene at the end and a few choice moments inside a kiddy movie full of stupid animals and crappy actors (jar jar and anakin mostly). GL could have made such a cooler movie by just adding a bit more action and killing jar jar, and alas the most important getting a better casting director for Anakin.
munik Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 How is this even important? So Greedo shot first in the SE. So what? The difference is, in the original, Han murdered Greedo. In the SE he killed Greedo in self defence. That is a huge difference in the character development. For some fun about the whole thing, check out this page, The Greedo Assissination Conspiracy Page.
Kit fisto JK Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 I dont see why people dont like greedo shooting first I realy dot care if he did or didnt hes dead now so....
munik Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 Of course he's dead either way, but now the story has changed. What if Luke had killed Vader and the Emperor? They'd both be dead either way, but the story would be changed. It makes a big difference in the way you percieve Han Solo. Everyone who grew up with the original now gets to see Solo get pussified. Maybe it doesn't matter to you because you didn't grow up seeing the orginal? I could then understand how changing the story wouldn't matter to you, as you never knew the original story.
Kit fisto JK Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 I saw the origional tons of time before the special edition came out and I dont care who shot first greedo would have shot him if he didnt shoot first in the origional so who cares its a small 2 second change it dosent matter
Sivy Posted August 7, 2002 Author Posted August 7, 2002 In defense of Anakin in Ep I, he is only nine. As GL said, finding an actor of that age who could give an oscar-winning performance is impossible (apart from perhaps Haley Joel Osment). In my opinion, Mark Hamill performance in ANH wasn't that great, but in no way did it diminish the quality of the film, and thats how I feel about Ep I
BlackDove Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 Hammil suxxored a lot, but I don't think in the history of cinematography was there a worser actor then the kid in EP1..... I still get the shivers from that acting performace.... "THIS IS TENSE"
kamiclone Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 i really dont get it. Jake Llyod, i think, did a great job as Arnold Swarzeneggar's son in Jingle All The Way. Yes that was him. And there he was only 7 or 8. I think one of the major reasons Jake sucked so bad was because GL cant direct worth ****!
Dath Maximus Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 i agree with jar jar being horrible. i think he was made to terrify us all. now i have him to worry about along with blood thirsty ewoks comming at me
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.