Should Han have died at the end of Return of the Jedi?
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
In other words, Lucas would have pulled a Fincher before it was cool.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing!
The tone of the entire series all in all was fun and lighthearted so all the principles needed to be happy and alive at the end. However, if the entire franchise had been more gritty and dark then Han dying would have been more appropriate.
The only good death scene for Han I can see is that he has to sacrifice himself and blows up the shield generator. Everything else would have been pointless shit.
Considering how little Han did in Jedi, killing him would have made him even more pointless. About the only significant thing he does in the movie is kiss Leia at the end. Otherwise, it's all Harrison Ford smirking and wishing he was doing something else.
Han or Lando should've died, yes.
um, what? He's the leader of the strike team on Endor, and is the one who comes up with the idea of how to use Chewie's captured AT-ST to defeat the Imperial troops.
Depends on what they were going for I guess...Lucas seemed pretty much to want a story of good defeating evil, with a happy ending, killing Han or Lando wouldn't have gone along with that. Star Wars would be completely different if they'd done that (and it would have been redundant or anti climactic if they'd killed either of them at any point in the 3rd movie). It wouldn't have been as good, and it would have been completely different. Possibly the Star Wars fan base which had already built up by ROTJ would have allowed Star Wars to remain popular but I really don't think that it would have been a good idea *at all*. Maybe actors just like doing death scenes and that's why they ask for them lol.
Yeah, I don't see the point of saving Han from Jabba and then having him die anyway.
With the light-hearted teddy bears approach, no main character deaths was the best option.
Without the teddy bears (maybe with wookies instead), I could see Chewbacca dying. But I still don't see why you'd kill Han. Maybe I could see it if Luke and Leia weren't related and she was destined to be with him and not Han. But that's not how it worked out.
With the light-hearted teddy bears approach, no main character deaths was the best option.
Without the teddy bears (maybe with wookies instead), I could see Chewbacca dying. But I still don't see why you'd kill Han. Maybe I could see it if Luke and Leia weren't related and she was destined to be with him and not Han. But that's not how it worked out.
If the idea of killing Han was mainly for shock value and because Ford wanted out of the franchise I would say no.
But if Han's character-arc had been set up in the prior two movies with the intent for him to die in the third movie, it might have worked extremely well. Say for example Vader(or Palpatine) kills Han as a lever to turn Luke to the darkside. Worked in properly it could have added a level of pathos and made Luke's redemption of Vader all the more powerful. The Han/Leia romance and possibly Luke and Leia being siblings would probably have had to have been chopped from ESB if you want to end RotJ on anything like a happy note.
But if Han's character-arc had been set up in the prior two movies with the intent for him to die in the third movie, it might have worked extremely well. Say for example Vader(or Palpatine) kills Han as a lever to turn Luke to the darkside. Worked in properly it could have added a level of pathos and made Luke's redemption of Vader all the more powerful. The Han/Leia romance and possibly Luke and Leia being siblings would probably have had to have been chopped from ESB if you want to end RotJ on anything like a happy note.
^ I can see merit in your argument. The time to have done it would have been in ESB, if you ask me. Luke arrives on Bespin in time to see Vader kill Han and is driven furious with rage, turning to the Dark Side but defeated and encased in Carbon, brought off to the Emperor. The cliffhanger is with the survivors preparing to launch a desperate bid to rescue him.
Of course, the 8 year-old me would have hated this, and 40 year-old me still prefers the original version!
Of course, the 8 year-old me would have hated this, and 40 year-old me still prefers the original version!
It could be fan fiction or canon fiction but I remember reading some where that someone had dreamed up a more nefarious future for Solo. He and Lea would have a child and that child would bring rise to the return of the Siths? And Solo would be forced to fight his own child bringing the story full circle.
Anyone remember that?
Agreed to all this, including the part about hating it when I was young.
Saying and showing are not the same thing. That's like saying Mon Mothma has a significant role in the movie just because she's the leader of the entire Rebellion.
Han simply doesn't do that much while he's onscreen, even if he does climb into the AT-ST one time.
I agree with this completely. If I'd watched a Han-killing SW when I was 9, I would have turned it off and not watched it again (my reaction would have been slightly extreme, but I'd think that a lot of people might have had similar ones). And I still think it's better this way.
That would've really sucked. I think the idea that people are "destined" to be with other people is crap even in fiction, and a story where the heroine ends up with a guy just because the one she loved died is the worst kind of "love story" one could possibly do. As if she just has to hook up with the remaining major male character in the story.
No.
Lots needed to be changed in ROTJ, but killing Han wouldn't have helped.
There was nothing in Han's story that would have pointed towards the need to kill him. Lando, on the other hand, that I could see.
Lots needed to be changed in ROTJ, but killing Han wouldn't have helped.
There was nothing in Han's story that would have pointed towards the need to kill him. Lando, on the other hand, that I could see.
Okay, that might work. Or, Vader more directly threatening to turn Leia (not just toss off the idea as an aside, but actually capture her and make the threat seem real to Luke). The story needs lots of work, and there are a number of ways it could have gone instead.
Lando already redeemed himself by helping to rescue Han.
But I could go with Lando saving Wedge by giving him time to get out before blowing the core, maybe fending off some interceptors before a huge final wave comes in. Then, he blows it and goes out in a blaze of glory. Lando's moment: destroying the second Death Star, I like it.
But I could go with Lando saving Wedge by giving him time to get out before blowing the core, maybe fending off some interceptors before a huge final wave comes in. Then, he blows it and goes out in a blaze of glory. Lando's moment: destroying the second Death Star, I like it.
One thing that needs to be remembered with Star Wars is it's based on the movie serials of old. And Rule #1 of the movie serials of old - the good guys always win and survive. That's not to say supporting characters don't die along the way - Obi-Wan being Exhibit A - but once you remember that SW was based on those serials, you knew from the opening minutes of A New Hope who would survive.
So for Lucas to kill off Han, or any of the other main characters (and remember Obi-Wan didn't "really" die, and neither did Yoda), would have been a violation of the key premise that was set out from the start. Plus it would have screwed him up from using Harrison Ford if he'd gone ahead with Episode VII which was still a possibility back in 1983 (it certainly would have hogtied much of the literary franchise that Timothy Zahn et al launched in the 1990s).
The prequel trilogy moved away from a lot of that "serial format" premise, especially with Revenge of the Sith, which is I think one reason why it didn't work as well as the original trilogy.
Alex
So for Lucas to kill off Han, or any of the other main characters (and remember Obi-Wan didn't "really" die, and neither did Yoda), would have been a violation of the key premise that was set out from the start. Plus it would have screwed him up from using Harrison Ford if he'd gone ahead with Episode VII which was still a possibility back in 1983 (it certainly would have hogtied much of the literary franchise that Timothy Zahn et al launched in the 1990s).
The prequel trilogy moved away from a lot of that "serial format" premise, especially with Revenge of the Sith, which is I think one reason why it didn't work as well as the original trilogy.
Alex
Star Wars was, allegedly, based on a lot of things - and Lucas has been explicit for decades in acknowledging the extent of borrowing from Kurosawa's dramas and adventure films.
In Kurosawa's films, heroes die.
That alone renders the use of SW's antecedents as supporting arguments for "Han should die/shouldn't die" moot - because those influences are all over the place where the issue is concerned. Picking and choosing among the examples is weak support for a position.
In Kurosawa's films, heroes die.
That alone renders the use of SW's antecedents as supporting arguments for "Han should die/shouldn't die" moot - because those influences are all over the place where the issue is concerned. Picking and choosing among the examples is weak support for a position.
