2 hours ago, Waxfire1 said:

Fan might be short for fanatic, but theres a difference between racism, sexism and a fanatic over a movie.

Those that attacked Kelly Marie on instagram, and other media were not fans. They were racists and sexists. Please dont mix those 2. I really dont like the new area movies ( especially Ep 8 ) but i dont go out and insult the actors, the producers or anyone else. Claiming that someone did a bad job is one thing, attacking her becouse she is female and not"white" is a whole different thing.

The internet should not be a law free area where insults, racism and sexism goes unpunished.

I would suggest you are applying the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

There is no virtue requirement for Star Wars fandom whereby reprobates cannot be fans.

Some fans may classist, racist, sexist, or bigoted in other ways.

Those were fans who revealed serious character and value flaws when saying things outside the overton window.

I agree that freedom of expression should carry social consequences when people say reprehensible or stupid ****.

Sadly, while we've started to figure out the former we have not yet begun to figure out the latter.

Case in point: just about everything that comes out of the mainstream media's mouths these days.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

That doesn't stop it being murder.

Han engineered the confrontation with Beckett. He could have brought a stun weapon. He chose to go for the kill instead.

That's a point of view and you are entitled to it.

I would say "If someone rises up to kill you, kill him first."

By my lights, shooting first isn't always murder.

Nor do I think there is a moral obligation ot avoid every conflict.

Beckett was scum and died like scum.

Good riddance.

3 minutes ago, Vondy said:

That's a point of view and you are entitled to it.

I would say "If someone rises up to kill you, kill him first."

By my lights, shooting first isn't always murder.

Nor do I think there is a moral obligation ot avoid every conflict.

Beckett was scum and died like scum.

Good riddance.

Amen. I saw it as an old west showdown, and Han just got the shot off first. It was totally self defense.

2 minutes ago, Kesendeja said:

Amen. I saw it as an old west showdown, and Han just got the shot off first. It was totally self defense.

Aye, definitely the 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' moment the third act felt like it was building up to, just not the best one it could have been.

In my view, Han was entirely valid in killing Beckett. You got the definite impression Beckett was getting ready to kill him, that he would have happily done so previously, and that Han's decision to shoot him, while a surprise, was not something where afterwards he felt the need to challenge. It also presents an interesting precedent for Han's penchant for shooting first.

2 minutes ago, ColonelCommissar said:

Aye, definitely the 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' moment the third act felt like it was building up to, just not the best one it could have been.

In my view, Han was entirely valid in killing Beckett. You got the definite impression Beckett was getting ready to kill him, that he would have happily done so previously, and that Han's decision to shoot him, while a surprise, was not something where afterwards he felt the need to challenge. It also presents an interesting precedent for Han's penchant for shooting first.

And, even Beckett applauded it as the right call as he died.

It was demonstrative of chracter growth and Han becoming the person we meet in A New Hope.

Han, a good guy at heart, had to make a hard choice about surviving in a dangerous and imperfect world.

That said, Han really is trigger-fingered drug smuggling scoundrel and borderline pirate.

He's not a hero the way Luke is a H ero.

If self defense equals shooting second that's real **** tactics you won't repeat much.....

Cheerleading murder. Huh.

Star Wars fandom is really weird.

18 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Cheerleading murder. Huh.

Star Wars fandom is really weird.

Nay! Fie! Forsooth! Bad faith I say!

This is a self-serving contextonomy and willful arrogation of carte blanch moral authority.

You are cynically insinuating that good people who are equally concerned with ethics are immoral because they do not agree with you.

You don't get to cast aspersions on your fellows simply because people disagree with your mantra of "its murder because I say so."

Or because they interpret media and the world through an moral lens that is not a cookie cutter copy of your own.

Some might argue that black and white morality ignoring nuance, context, and circumstance is really weird.

Indeed, the statement "If someone rises up to kill you, kill him first" is a Hebraic restatement of a biblical precent.

In other words, there is an entire culture and more than one religion out there that lives by those words and would consider your position morally flawed.

What is more, it is not an uncommon position in secular moral systems, either. Its called situational ethics. Its a thing.

There is more to human ethics than what is written in your personal book, Horatio.

You will never enjoy a healthy transpersonal discourse and broaden your horizens if you insist on taking pot shots at the first hint of disagreement.

14 minutes ago, Vondy said:

In other words, there is an entire culture and more than one religion out there    that lives by those words and would consider your  position morally flawed. 

People consider a lot of moral progress flawed. That's their problem, not mine.

Shooting someone with a gun in their hand who says they're going to kill you isn't murder. If their gun is pointed at the ground and the other dude's at them it's more like live fire training with extreme consequences, not murder though.

When you could have used non-lethal means it is. Han made a choice to use lethal force without necessity, and he set up the situation so that it would be kill or be killed.

I've reached "don't feed the troll."

2 minutes ago, Vondy said:

I've reached "don't feed the troll."

Have you considered the consequences of not feeding the troll? Trolls could starve!

11 minutes ago, Vondy said:

I've reached "don't feed the troll."

I've reached "don't expect people to think murder is bad".

*shrug*

That was no more an act of murder than any other gun duel in every other spaghetti western ever put to film. It was Tuco vs Angel Eyes vs Blondie in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly . It was Lee Van Cleef vs Guiliano Gemma in Day of Anger . It was Franco Nero with a machine gun vs a bunch of dudes in Django . Look at the framing in Solo of Han vs Woody Harrelson: low to the ground, holster dominating the foreground, Harrelson framed in the distance - that was a shot composition straight out Sergio Leone's playbook.

2 minutes ago, Desslok said:

*shrug*

That was no more an act of murder than any other gun duel in every other spaghetti western ever put to film. It was Tuco vs Angel Eyes vs Blondie in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly . It was Lee Van Cleef vs Guiliano Gemma in Day of Anger . It was Franco Nero with a machine gun vs a bunch of dudes in Django . Look at the framing in Solo of Han vs Woody Harrelson: low to the ground, holster dominating the foreground, Harrelson framed in the distance - that was a shot composition straight out Sergio Leone's playbook.

Why do you think shot framing has bearing on how murdery Han was being here?

Hello fellow Gands. Got to agree with Desslok, without a doubt Han was in the right to wack Beckett.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

Why do you think shot framing has bearing on how murdery Han was being here?

What I'm saying is that Solo has the spirit of a spaghetti western - and that the composition backs up my theory. That I would put Han - at this point of his life - in the same grouping as Blondie, Django and the like.

1. We have no idea if Han's blaster even *has* a stun setting. There has certainly been no indication of it in the past.

2. Even if it does have a stun setting, we have no idea of the range of it.

3. Even if it was within range, it was a quick-draw duel. Do you really think Han should have risked his life to take that extra moment to set his blaster to stun? Seriously??

4. This is Star Wars, not Star Trek. It's a Western, a Fairy-Tale. It's Dungeons & Dragons in space. It doesn't get bogged down in ethical dilemmas. Han was faced with a guy who was going to kill him, so he shot him first.

*shrug*

It wasn't murder. It was a gunfight where one of them was going to die. Han chose not to. I would have done the same. If that makes me a murderer, so be it.

ETA: (Plus, I think it was a deliberate grin and nod to the Special Editions, showing that, indeed, Han shot first.)

44 minutes ago, Daronil said:

1. We have no idea if Han's blaster even *has* a stun setting. There has certainly been no indication of it in the past.

2. Even if it does have a stun setting, we have no idea of the range of it.

3. Even if it was within range, it was a quick-draw duel. Do you really think Han should have risked his life to take that extra moment to set his blaster to stun? Seriously??

4. This is Star Wars, not Star Trek. It's a Western, a Fairy-Tale. It's Dungeons & Dragons in space. It doesn't get bogged down in ethical dilemmas. Han was faced with a guy who was going to kill him, so he shot him first.

*shrug*

It wasn't murder. It was a gunfight where one of them was going to die. Han chose not to. I would have done the same. If that makes me a murderer, so be it.

ETA: (Plus, I think it was a deliberate grin and nod to the Special Editions, showing that, indeed, Han shot first.)

Han had all the time in the world to set his blaster to stun - he had overtaken Beckett and was waiting for him, after all. He also could have taken a different weapon from Dryden's ship with him. He chose not to, knowing full well that it would come down to him or Beckett. That's premeditation, and intent to kill.

1 hour ago, Desslok said:

What I'm saying is that Solo has the spirit of a spaghetti western - and that the composition backs up my theory. That I would put Han - at this point of his life - in the same grouping as Blondie  , Django  and the like. 

Sure, I agree that Solo draws on that inspiration. I don't see how that has any bearing on the particulars of Han's actions.

3 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Sure, I agree that Solo draws on that inspiration  . I don't see how that has any bearing on the particulars of Han's actions.

It has bearing because that's how westerns work, what gunslingers do: Good Guys shoot Bad Guys. Blondie kills Angel Eyes (and even bends the odds in his favor by removing the bullets from Tuco's gun). And he's still the good guy - it even says it right there in the title.

In real life? Yeah, don't shoot people. That's not okay. But it's perfectly genre appropriate and acceptable in a western to shoot people - and that's very clearly what Solo is.

1 hour ago, Desslok said:

It has bearing because that's how westerns work, what gunslingers do: Good Guys shoot Bad Guys. Blondie kills Angel Eyes (and even bends the odds in his favor by removing the bullets from Tuco's gun). And he's still the good guy - it even says it right there in the title.

In real life? Yeah, don't shoot people. That's not okay. But it's perfectly genre appropriate and acceptable in a western to shoot people - and that's very clearly what Solo is.

I support people shooting people that are about to shoot people.....real or pretend.....I'm the pirate and I approve of this message.......

2 hours ago, Desslok said:

It has bearing because that's how westerns work, what gunslingers do: Good Guys shoot Bad Guys. Blondie kills Angel Eyes (and even bends the odds in his favor by removing the bullets from Tuco's gun). And he's still the good guy - it even says it right there in the title.

In real life? Yeah, don't shoot people. That's not okay. But it's perfectly genre appropriate and acceptable in a western to shoot people - and that's very clearly what Solo is.

Yup, this is a lawless area, hence the western feel. Hopefully we've moved past that in most places of our world now!

I like the moral arguments about absolutes. The only thing I can think of that is consistently disapproved of across cultures and time is hypocrisy.

4 hours ago, Desslok said:

What I'm saying is that Solo has the spirit of a spaghetti western - and that the composition backs up my theory. That I would put Han - at this point of his life - in the same grouping as Blondie, Django and the like.

Sure. It would put him among other murderous hobos. I think that was Stans point in the first place.
Besides, Han had no problem with killing guards on the train heist either. Murder-hobo it is.