10 hours ago, ColonelCommissar said:

You know, it might be interesting for scientific purposes to take someone who has never heard of Star Wars, and thus possesses no bias on the films, to watch all eight (ten?) in order and see how they think they all stack up.

I'd done something similar with the originals in the prequels several years ago. The person had heard of Star Wars, but didn't really know much about it other than it existed.

Interestingly, that person found the prequels far more enjoyable than the originals, as in his words, the prequels showed a bit more polish and attention to detail while the originals (especially ANH) felt like they'd been slapped together. He also derided ESB as having an unrealistic romance arc as the Han+Leia felt forced when Luke+Leia had far more natural chemistry between Mark and Carrie.

Sadly, with the media saturation that Star Wars has these days, not sure being able to conduct said experiment would be all that easy. But I agree, it would be interesting to see.

15 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

I'd done something similar with the originals in the prequels several years ago. The person had heard of Star Wars, but didn't really know much about it other than it existed.

Interestingly, that person found the prequels far more enjoyable than the originals, as in his words, the prequels showed a bit more polish and attention to detail while the originals (especially ANH) felt like they'd been slapped together. He also derided ESB as having an unrealistic romance arc as the Han+Leia felt forced when Luke+Leia had far more natural chemistry between Mark and Carrie.

Sadly, with the media saturation that Star Wars has these days, not sure being able to conduct said experiment would be all that easy. But I agree, it would be interesting to see.

Here is another person who grew up with the prequels, but didn't "get" Star Wars until they saw A New Hope. These other viewpoints and entries into the franchise are really interesting to hear.

6 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

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.

Maybe they were at medium range... Stun only works up to short range...

13 minutes ago, GM Fred said:

Maybe they were at medium range... Stun only works up to short range...

Range brackets may be squiffy, but I'd say they were at Short range. Then again, I'd also say stunning someone who's left you for dead three times already and intimated a desire to kill you a lot more times is probably a bad survival strategy.

17 minutes ago, ColonelCommissar said:

Range brackets may be squiffy, but I'd say they were at Short range. Then again, I'd also say stunning someone who's left you for dead three times already and intimated a desire to kill you a lot more times is probably a bad survival strategy.

So Westley should have killed the Dread Pirate Roberts, then.

"’All right, Westley, I've never had a valet. You can try it for tonight. I'll most likely kill you in the morning.’ Three years he said that. ‘Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning.’"

?

9 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

So Westley should have killed the Dread Pirate Roberts, then.

"’All right, Westley, I've never had a valet. You can try it for tonight. I'll most likely kill you in the morning.’ Three years he said that. ‘Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning.’"

?

This is a cultural reference far beyond me, but I think I get what you're going for.

The thing is, none of us arguing Han was 'right' to kill Beckett are (I hope!) arguing it was morally right, only that it was pragmatically right. It's never morally right to kill a person, but the first time we meet Han we see he's quite happy to kill someone if it means he can keep on living. Beckett seemed to be building to kill him, that was certainly the instinct I got when watching it, and Han's blaster bolt from the blue was simply a means of cutting off that possibility early. He was aware his opponent was a significantly better gunfighter, and wanted the advantage. Furthermore, Beckett didn't say something like "Why did you just shoot me? I was about to reveal that I am your long-lost father and invite you to retire from your life of crime to open a puppy orphanage," or words to that effect. Rather he effectively congratulated Han on learning the lesson that survival is the most important thing, and it's better to shoot first than to trust falsely. It isn't morally right to kill someone, but for Han's character arc and for ensuring his survival it was the correct thing to do.

19 minutes ago, ColonelCommissar said:

This is a cultural reference far beyond me, but I think I get what you're going for.

The thing is, none of us arguing Han was 'right' to kill Beckett are (I hope!) arguing it was morally right, only that it was pragmatically right. It's never morally right to kill a person, but the first time we meet Han we see he's quite happy to kill someone if it means he can keep on living. Beckett seemed to be building to kill him, that was certainly the instinct I got when watching it, and Han's blaster bolt from the blue was simply a means of cutting off that possibility early. He was aware his opponent was a significantly better gunfighter, and wanted the advantage. Furthermore, Beckett didn't say something like "Why did you just shoot me? I was about to reveal that I am your long-lost father and invite you to retire from your life of crime to open a puppy orphanage," or words to that effect. Rather he effectively congratulated Han on learning the lesson that survival is the most important thing, and it's better to shoot first than to trust falsely. It isn't morally right to kill someone, but for Han's character arc and for ensuring his survival it was the correct thing to do.

I'll say it: sometimes it is morally right to kill.

Just making he observation that there’s fictional precedent for a criminal mentor constantly threatening to kill his charge being all bluster.

Had Westley killed Roberts based on three years of threats (and a reputation for taking no prisoners), he’d never have gained the skills and resources necessary to save Buttercup.

?

@ColonelCommissar , it’s a reference to The Princess Bride .

Since I sometimes forget that there are those who haven’t seen one of the most perfect cinematic masterpieces out there—