MikeH

23rd Feb 2021

Star Wars (1977)

Question: Why was the original trilogy always titled episodes 4, 5 and 6, when the prequel trilogy wasn't even planned?

MikeH

Answer: The original wasn't. It was just "Star Wars" when I saw it in the theater. In fact Lucas wasn't planning on any sequels when he made the first. After the first made it as a big success and drafts of a sequel were started, the second was first numbered as 2, but Lucas decided on a series with prequels, so the first became number 4, and so on. For a long time after 4-6 came out, people doubted if 7-9, let alone 1-3 would every be made. It was 16 years between the release of #6 and #1.

jimba

Answer: It is true "Star Wars" was not originally called episode IV, but Lucas always had the idea of doing a sequels. His original script became too big for one film, so he took the first third of the script (Act 1) and turned it into "Star Wars." However, since the film gave no context or background information to the audience (we're basically just thrown into the action), Lucas took the opportunity when "Star Wars" was a success to plan on creating prequels.

Bishop73

Https://drbeat.li/album/B├╝cher/The_Secret_History_of_Star_Wars.pdf (pdf of "The Secret History of Star Wars"). And here is a quote from Lucas "The Star Wars series started out as a movie that ended up being so big that I took each act and cut it into its own movie...It was like a big script. It was way too big to make into a movie. So I took the first third of it, which is basically the first act, and I turned that into what was the original Star Wars."

Bishop73

7th Jun 2017

Star Wars (1977)

Question: What's wrong with Greedo shooting first? I agree changing it is pretty pointless, but what difference does it make? How does it affect the movie?

MikeH

Chosen answer: This has already been asked and answered on this site, in the past few weeks in fact. But again: It doesn't affect the movie, but it affects the character of Han Solo and how he is meant to be perceived by the audience. If he shoots first, he's an outlaw, a rogue, and, in the classic Western tradition, quicker on the draw than Greedo. If Greedo shoots first, Han is just killing in self-defense, which does nothing for his character and makes the whole scene superfluous, other than establish that people want to kill him.

Answer: Also, Han shooting first places doubts about his motives in the viewer's mind early on. It establishes Han as ruthless, willing to do whatever it takes to survive. Might he turn Luke and Ben over to the Empire if he decides it's in his best interests? But having Greedo shoot first turns Han in to just another generic good guy.

Answer: I mostly agree with the other answers about Han, but his shooting first is integral to the plot and not about showing any ruthlessness. Greedo cornered Han and intended to turn him over to Jabba the Hut to collect the bounty on Han's head. Greedo told Han, while holding him at gun point, that he wanted the money Obi Wan was paying Han, then implied he was going to kill Han before turning his body over to Jabba for the reward. Han's only option was to kill Greedo right then and there. He basically is shooting Greedo in self-defense (or for self-preservation). As well as establishing what his character is like, the scene also serves as exposition that shows Jabba had put a price on Han's head, Greedo was a deadly adversary, that Han leads a dangerous and illegal life, and he was desperate to resolve his dilemma of living under a death sentence.

raywest Premium member

As a child of the 70's, I grew up with the notion of Han shooting first. Never gave it much thought, to me he was in a situation of kill or being killed. The debate seemed over a moot point to me.

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.