Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies Entertainment

Harrison Ford Turned Down Han Solo Role 472

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the call-him-doctor-jones dept.
eldavojohn writes "It's being widely reported that Harrison Ford turned down a £20 million deal to play Han Solo once again in a George Lucas spin off of Star Wars. The source of this information seems to be a tabloid called bangshowbiz. Harrison was approached by Lucas with two roles but instead opted for the same amount to play Indiana Jones for the fourth time. Could the spin off centered on the rugged Han Solo save the Star Wars franchise from its prequels or would it have been another mediocre release disappointing demanding fans?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Harrison Ford Turned Down Han Solo Role

Comments Filter:
  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shrike99 (100287) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:25AM (#17568668) Homepage
    Good for him, at least he knows his limits and marketablity. Now for a few Hundred posts on 'how old he is', and 'he'll sprain his back' or more such silliness.
    • Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)

      by Divebus (860563) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:41AM (#17568844)
      Hey, I'll do it for half that much. Call my cell, George.
    • Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica (681592) * on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:04AM (#17569044)

      You realize he does want to play Indiana Jones again, don't you? Indiana Jones is no less youthful or athletic than Han Solo. If he can do one, he can equally well do the other!

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by monoqlith (610041) on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:09AM (#17569088)
        Not to mention Indiana Jones is a much more physically demanding role, assuming the movie isn't just about Dr. Jones becoming a crotchety, washed up academic.
        • Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)

          by SirWinston (54399) on Friday January 12, 2007 @08:39AM (#17571784)
          > Not to mention Indiana Jones is a much more physically demanding role,
          > assuming the movie isn't just about Dr. Jones becoming a crotchety,
          > washed up academic.

          Potential titles for another Indy trilogy:

          Raiders of the Lost Dentures
          Indiana Jones and the Hemorrhoid Cream of Doom
          Indiana Jones and the Last Bran Muffin

          Raiders of the Girls Old Enough to be Their Granddaughters
          Indiana Jones and the Temple of Erectile Dysfunction
          Indiana Jones and the Little Blue Pill

          Raiders of the Shuffleboard Deck
          Indiana Jones and the Broken Hip of Doom
          Indiana Jones and the Budget Mobility Scooter
      • Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)

        by Harmonious Botch (921977) on Friday January 12, 2007 @02:24AM (#17569604) Homepage Journal
        He couldn't face being stuck in a spaceship with an 8-ft tall alien who refuses to wear pants.
      • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Blondie-Wan (559212) on Friday January 12, 2007 @09:20AM (#17572068) Homepage
        Well, not only that, but Harrison has always seen potential in the Indy character for more than just the action heroics; the character's development in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles bears this out. Indy can work as a purely dramatic character even in a non-action-oriented movie. Ford apparently sees Han as more dramatically limited by comparison, and feels he's fully explored the character already. Many years ago (late '80s or early '90s), an interviewer asked Ford if there was "any talk" of a new Star Wars movie, and Ford replied, "not in my house."


        The article summary is slightly wrong, incidentally (so what else is new?). Ford has already played Indy a fourth time (in the "bookends" wraparound segments for a Young Indy two-parter, "Young Indiana Jones and the Mystery of the Blues"). For that matter, he's also played Han Solo four times already, too (the second time being in The Star Wars Holiday Special).

    • by reporter (666905) on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:57AM (#17569462) Homepage
      I am more concerned about George Lucas than I am about Harrison Ford. Though Ford is quite old, a good writer and a good director can cast him into the right milieu so that his talent shines on the big screen.

      Therein lies the danger. Star Wars I, II, and III suggest that Star Wars IV was just a stroke of luck for Lucas. He is a poor storyteller and could easily cast Ford into the wrong kind of story. Ford's career would then end in a wimper. Of course, I would waste my $10 on Star War VII.

      Ford made the right decision.

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bacon Bits (926911) on Friday January 12, 2007 @02:49AM (#17569760)
      Actually, that's not it at all.

      I saw an interview with him around about the time of the Star Wars: A New Hope re-release. He was asked if he would ever consider reprising the role of Han Solo. He said, no. He said he didn't like the character of Han at all. When asked if he would consider playing Indiana Jones again, his immediate response was "In a second".

      Ford like Jones and doesn't like Solo. It's as simple as that. He has the luxury of being able to pick his roles.
  • by macadamia_harold (947445) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:25AM (#17568670) Homepage
    Could the spin off centered on the rugged Han Solo save the Star Wars franchise from its prequels or would it have been another mediocre release disappointing demanding fans?

    Given that Lucas most likely would have partnered Han with a squadron of Jar Jar's children and a midget in a monkey constume, I think that questions answers itself.
    • Dont rejoice (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DavidShor (928926)
      The film will be made, with Ford or without.
    • Lucas most likely would have partnered Han with a squadron of Jar Jar's children and a midget in a monkey constume
      While this is an unattractive concept for a Star Wars movie, I would definitely pay to see a movie starring Harrison Ford opposite a midget in a monkey costume.
  • Star Wars 7 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Coucho (1039182) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:26AM (#17568678)
    Revenge of the damn kid who is always on my lawn!
  • HAN SHOT FIRST (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:28AM (#17568708)
    HAN SHOT FIRST
  • by Freaky Spook (811861) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:29AM (#17568718)

    I don't want to see Han Solo's great character trashed by a bad script and the over-use of special effects.

    Lucas helped kill my vision of the star wars universe with the prequals, I will never watch another Star Wars thing he does again.
  • by RichPowers (998637) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:32AM (#17568754)
    Lucasfilm would have to apply so many effects to the aging Harrison Ford that they might as well computer generate him from the get-go :P
    • by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:01AM (#17568996) Journal
      If they did an entirely CG Han Solo, would they have to pay Harrison Ford anything? I mean it would be "Ford's likeness", but the "Han Character" is what they would be depicting...
      • by robogun (466062) on Friday January 12, 2007 @02:03AM (#17569486)
        Though Han Solo belongs to Lucasfilm, Harison Ford's face still belongs to him.

        If a reasonable person were to view the CGI character and identify it as Harrison Ford, and the filmmaker had not secured prior permission from Ford for the use of his likeness, then Ford would have grounds for a right-of-publicity action against the filmmakers.
        • by Firehed (942385) on Friday January 12, 2007 @02:21AM (#17569576) Homepage
          Not to mention the voice. While I seem to remember the new computer-generated voice in Leopard from the WWDC preview sounding pretty realistic, it wasn't the slightest resemblance to Harrison Ford. Even a good impersonator wouldn't be the same.

          Of course, I doubt that Ford would have anything to sue over if Lucas used his likeness for profit, without permission. It's the business model of most, if not all, tabloids.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by SamSim (630795)
          That's interesting. Does that mean Ford gets money when people use artists' renditions of his face for the covers of the EU novels? Because that happens quite a lot.
      • would change the story in that Han Solo gets plastic surgery so that other Bounty Hunters cannot recognize him, because after Jabba the Hut died, other mobsters who were loyal to Jabba kept the bounty on Han Solo's head. Then they could get a new actor to play Han Solo.

        Or just play it like the James Bond films, a new face, same character, no explanation to the fans at all. I hear that the daytime Soap Operas do that to their characters quite a bit when they ask for too much money, they simply get a new acto
        • by Gabrill (556503)
          Or just play it like the James Bond films, a new face, same character, no explanation to the fans at all. I hear that the daytime Soap Operas do that to their characters quite a bit when they ask for too much money, they simply get a new actor or actress and then say "The part of John Black is now being played by ." at the beginning of the series with the new actor.
          Amateurs. Dr. Who got it right. But of course he had a plot device to facilitate that.
    • Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nutty_Irishman (729030) on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:04AM (#17569040)
      This is what they ended up doing for X-Men 3 on Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen for their 20+ year prior shot. It's actually pretty impressive what they were able to accomplish digitally, check it out: http://www.fxguide.com/article357.html [fxguide.com] . A little bit different if you had to do it for an entire movie, but the technology is getting there.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by dorianh49 (988940)
      Meesa Han Solo Binks, precious!
  • R2D2 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:34AM (#17568776) Homepage Journal
    R2D2 turned down the droid role. They are contacting a Jack-in-the-Box garbage can now for the part.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:38AM (#17568814)
    The deal fell through because Ford stipulated in the contract that greedo couldn't shoot first.
  • by boxlight (928484) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:39AM (#17568824)
    Harrison Ford knows crap when he sees it. He turned down the part because he wants to try and do good work, he's not interested in resurrecting an old character just for a cash grab -- like Ford once said about returning to Han Solo in a Barbara Walters interview, "That character is a little thin for me now".

    George Lucas, on the other hand, has lost a tonnes of credibility with the Star Wars prequels. As Brent Spiner said, "it took him twenty years to come up with something lousey". George's quickness to return to the Star Wars well is more evidence that he has become a sell-out of the highest order.

    George should forget about Star Wars spin-offs, go back to his roots and start a new project. Maybe a remake of Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers ... something he loved as a child.

    boxlight

    • His role in the new Indiana Jones could easily be seen as "resurrecting an old charater for a cash grab" as well... ...But at least they haven't messed with prequels, thank Spielberg!
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Telvin_3d (855514)
        Except that with Indiana Jones, it is a character than everyone involved has been vocal about wanting to bring back. Ford has stated a number of times that he wants to play Indy again. Speilberg has wanted to since they shot the last one. I believe that Sean Connery has also been quoted saying that playing Indy Sr. was the most fun he has ever had in a role. They have spent the past 20 years trying to work around everyone's schedules. The fact that Lucas is involved in it is almost an accident.
    • by MrWa (144753)
      Harrison Ford knows crap when he sees it.

      Did you see "Firewall" or "Six days, Seven Nights"?

    • by straponego (521991) on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:15AM (#17569132)
      Okay, I know I'll get roasted for this, but... All I've seen Ford do for, oh, at least the last decade is play the straight man, the righteous normal guy who has to become an avenging action when he is SHOCKED to find that people do evil... but he never has a spark of the bad-boy sass that used to animate Han Solo and Indiana Jones.

      I mean... looking at IMDB... the Tom Clancy movies, Air Force One (Worst Idea Ever), The Fugitive, Firewall, K-19... the guy's become a grim automaton. Some of those movies were decent, but his characters were pretty much the same in every damn one. Anyway, let's hope that IJ4 breaks the long grey-brown streak.

    • by Kargan (250092)
      Not just that, either, (although I think you're right) but after watching Ford on Inside the Actor's Studio it really seems like he wants to sort of be distanced from Star Wars, as he really dodged or noncommittally answered several of the Star Wars questions, IIRC even seeming to forget the droids' names. That was kind of disappointing since Han is really pretty much the best character from the original trilogy, and the one character that you can totally point to and say "there's no one like HIM in the ne
    • by suv4x4 (956391) on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:29AM (#17569262)
      He turned down the part because he wants to try and do good work, he's not interested in resurrecting an old character just for a cash grab

      Indiana Jones 4 ... ?

      You know what, I actually would like to see the spin-off Star Wars with Ford. Unlike you crazy fans, I enjoy light fantasy/sci-fi movies for what they are.

      The dialog and some plot lines in the prequels surely were very odd at times, but Lucas has enough feedback to know better now. He learned from Jar Jar-s feedback in the first one.

      The problem here stems from insane fans with impossible to meet standards. I personally like Star Wars, like the sound track, most of the characters, and mostly, I enjoy exploring huge fantasy worlds executed in incredible detail and imagination, which is something we rarely see in movies, even for the sheer amount of people and effects required to make them a reality.

      The rest is just fan snobbery.
      • by camperdave (969942) on Friday January 12, 2007 @02:45AM (#17569732) Journal
        But there are so many small things Lucas could have done (or not done) to the series that would have made it a lot better.
        1. Han shooting first. This is what made Han such a cool character. He's a chaotic neutral in a world of lawful goods and lawful evils. He stands out.
        2. When Darth Maul and Qui-Gon Jinn are waiting for the force fields to part, there could have been some dialog about the rivalry between the Sith and the Jedi, possibly referring to the prophecy about balance in the Force.
        3. The Midichlorians should have been left out. The Force lost a lot of it's mystique.
        4. R2D2 should not have flown. For me, this is when the series jumped the shark. He should have dropped onto some passing machinery, and used a magnetic grapnel to pull himself up to the control panel instead.

        5. So, if he spent a little more time polishing the dialog/plot instead of the effects, we would have had passable movies.

          The only feedback I'd give him at this point is: If you want to make more Star Wars movies, get some good writers.
        • by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Friday January 12, 2007 @03:54AM (#17570188)
          When Darth Maul and Qui-Gon Jinn are waiting for the force fields to part, there could have been some dialog about the rivalry between the Sith and the Jedi, possibly referring to the prophecy about balance in the Force.
          Why? That scene was perfect, imho. We see the huge difference between a sith and a jedi. It's the difference between an angry caged tiger and a martial arts master. The sith is the epitome of the dark side - he's angry and impatient. The jedi is the epitome of the light side - he's patient and calm, using the small reprieve to meditate.

          Hell it even allows the musical score to shine much brighter. Most of that huge fight scene is done almost entirely without dialog, hinging instead on the tone of the music.

          I'll agree with you on the other parts - those were just silly. But that one shouldn't be changed. Ever.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kfg (145172)
      Maybe a remake of Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers ... something he loved as a child . . .

      And destroy it.

      KFG
    • by naoursla (99850) on Friday January 12, 2007 @02:22AM (#17569590) Homepage Journal
      To be fair, Lucas used to tell fans that he would make more Star Wars movies when he needed more money. At least that is what I used to hear before the Special Edition movies were released. I think he flubbed the prequels on purpose just so he wouldn't have such a rabid group pestering him all of the time. He knew they would still make swimming pools and swimming pools of cash, and the little extra they would make as great movies would not be worth becoming an even greater living legend to people for whom he could barely hide his distain.
  • often the best of the books featured han solo as a major story, so george did have a good idea, but the execution would have sucked. maybe harrison ford could have directed it, too....
  • Demanding fans? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brett Buck (811747) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:43AM (#17568862)
    There's NO WAY that anything Lucas or anyone else did would ever satisfy the "demanding fans" - the die-hards saw the originals when they were 8-12 years old, a long time ago. Their *memories* of seeing it the first time are far better than the movies actually were, so when 25 years later movies of the same general quality come out, of course they are disappointed. I was old enough to see them all with some degree of objectivity, and the originals weren't all that better than the prequels. The main thing that struck me about the originals were the effects, which were so much better than anything you had ever seen (aside from maybe 2001: A Space Odyssey). That Imperial Star destroyer coming in over the camera in the opening shot literally drew gasps from the audience. Very impressive compared to what came before, like Star Trek/Lost In Space, etc. That sort of "dazzle factor" is never going to be seen again from effects, and although the prequels effects were MUCH better than the originals, they didn't stand out. Take that away and all you have are some pretty predictable stories that anyone who watched B-movie Westerns would recognize.

              There's no way that the grown-up fans are ever going to be satisfied the way they were when they were 11 years old.

              Brett
    • Character conflict.
      SW1-3 were about character conflict.

      SW-3 to -1 were vapid special effects with no conflict.

      It wasn't that they failed to meet expectations. it was that they really did suck.
      • by Babbster (107076)
        So, let me see if I understand you...We need a Star Wars Zero?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drsquare (530038)
        SW1-3 were about character conflict.
        No, they were about light-sabre fights, spaceships and special effects. No-one came out of Star Wars when it was first shown talking about the character development.
    • It's very true that, objectively, the originals weren't Timeless Cinema or anything and that it's quite impossible to compete with folks' nostalgic perception of the movies.

      HOWEVER... Star Wars was also the first time anyone had done the space opera for which everyone had been pining since, I dunno, Jules Verne finally came to fruition with grandeur. 2001 was great, but it was semi-mystical hard sci-fi. It wasn't the cowboy movie in outer space that spoke to the munchkin in everyone. Except Brett, perhap
    • Re:Demanding fans? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Varkias (631272) on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:11AM (#17569104)
      I disagree. I've watched movies today that I loved as a kid and thought to myself "What was I thinking". Star Wars is one of those movies that I can still watch today and enjoy because it had a great story and great characters. The prequels were beautiful dreck with no soul. They will not be remembered because of the weak characters and story, it has nothing to do with the "wow" factor. I can remember watching Episode 1 thinking "wow" this movie looks beautiful and "wow" this story is horrible.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Evilest Doer (969227)

      There's NO WAY that anything Lucas or anyone else did would ever satisfy the "demanding fans" - the die-hards saw the originals when they were 8-12 years old, a long time ago.

      I'm afraid I would have to disagree with this. What made the original movies enjoyable was not my age then. I can even enjoy them now. What makes the original SW trilogy better than the prequels is the fact that the original SW trilogy didn't take itself too seriously. The original trilogy was a bit cheesy and campy, but it was ne

      • I remember reading that Lucas was inspired by Flash Gordon and the like, those campy movie serials. The good guys wear white, the bad guys wear black, the rogue wears both...and I'm not sure how the stormtroopers or Chewbacca fit into this. There's action, suspense, romance, intrigue, and then the good guys win.
    • by sidb (530400)
      I don't revere the originals. They certainly have their flaws. But the new ones just don't work even that well, in plot, emotion, or acting. I'd bet that an adult sitting through them all for the first time would still prefer the originals, even without nostalgia or dazzle factor. Harrison Ford would of course know that even though Lucas shared writing credits, he did not direct Empire Strikes Back or any Indiana Jones movie, and that will hold for the new Indy movie, too. Maybe Ford recognizes a good patt
    • by eck011219 (851729)
      I disagree -- I saw Star Wars when I was six, and was roped in like all of us were. Then I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark when I was ten and loved that even more. The second Raiders movie stunk, and I, to this day, think Last Crusade was as good in many ways as the first. I just watched it again the other day, as a matter of fact. And it came out when I was enough of an adult to be jaded (and still annoyed by the Temple of Doom).

      So whether Lucas in particular can do anything with Star Wars or not may be the pe
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dcollins (135727)
      "That sort of "dazzle factor" is never going to be seen again from effects... There's no way that the grown-up fans are ever going to be satisfied the way they were when they were 11 years old."

      I disagree. I got the exact same amazing rush, for the same kinds of reasons, from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies. George Lucas should look at those movies and feel utterly ashamed.
    • Baloney! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dxlts (1037812) on Friday January 12, 2007 @03:27AM (#17570000)
      There's no way that the grown-up fans are ever going to be satisfied the way they were when they were 11 years old.


      That's partially true, but the prequels *DO* objectively SUCK waayyyyyy more than the originals. Remember the original 3 movies were re-released a couple years *before* any of the prequels came out? I went back and saw the re-released originals as an adult, and yeah, you're right...they really weren't the same watching them as an adult.

      However, they were still FAR FAR FAR FAR BETTER than any of the prequels, with their wooden acting. As far as the special effects, the technology of the special effects used on the prequels may be better than that of the originals, but the actual use of the technology (you know, imagination, etc) was way inferior. The special effects in the prequels was just shamelessly piled on, without any art to it. Take the battle scenes for instance. It's all just a bunch of random chaos, with lasers shooting every which way, and stuff blowing up all over the place, and the camera doesn't stay on one shot for more than 50 milliseconds until it switches over to some other scene, making it impossible to really follow the flow of the battle. You basically just sit there, completely overwhelmed, and it's only after the battle is done that you finally figure out what the hell just happened. There's no tension, just confusion. Special effects just for the sake of special effects is crap. You can't just pile it on endlessly and hope it will automagically coalesce into something wonderful. More is not always better.
  • by freeweed (309734) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:43AM (#17568874)
    Could the spin off centered on the rugged Han Solo save the Star Wars franchise from its prequels

    I guess if "rugged" is the new word for "over the hill", then possibly.

    Is Lucas TRYING to emulate Trek here? ie: Keep re-using the same geriatrics until enough are in the grave that you have no choice but to finally re-cast the character?
  • He told George he just couldn't face being stuck in a spaceship with Chewbacca again.

    This isn't the reason why he didn't want to play the role again... he knew he was supposed to be married to Carrie Fisher! And have you seen her lately?! YIKES!!! I think he'd *RATHER* kiss a Wookie!
  • I can imagine them getting Carrie Fisher back to play a skinny, bhang-smoking Leia, sitting by her pool overlooking Naboo. "Pool-boy! Moisture! AAAaaaaa-aaahh.....!" And Luke trying to look all Jedi while resisting the urge to sulk or stare wistfully into the sunset. Would Chewie be buying Grecian Formula 16 by the 55-gallon drum? I think we have the workings of a SNL sketch here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by erroneus (253617)
      Fisher is to play the illegitimate offspring of Leia and Jabba... they didn't talk about it much, but Fisher is just PERFECT for the part.
  • to Bruce Campbell. C'mon, you know you want it. Hail to the king, baby.

    Swi
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:38AM (#17569352) Homepage Journal
    He'd take the role nowadays only if Han's wife or family were threatened by terrorists. [youtube.com]
  • by Mr. Roadkill (731328) on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:40AM (#17569364)
    Okay, here's the REAL deal.

    Harrison Ford took the Indiana Jones role over the Han Solo one because it's going to be a much better movie.

    The rumour that it takes place in the sixties is true, and fits in nicely with the Mr Ford's present age.

    What hasn't been widely revealed is that Sean Connory *will* be in the movie, although the role will probably surprise many people.

    Since Satan owns the pink slip for the soul of pretty much everyone who has ever worked in motion pictures, he can shuffle the deck however he sees fit... and some interesting studio mergers mean that Sean Connory will play an elderly James Bond who fell through a temporal rift as the result of Xindi interference with Earth history - the theory being that if they could get all the kids hooked on beer and acid and dope then warp drive would never be invented. Little did they realise that Optimus Prime would ride in on My Little Pony and save the day by assassinating Kennedy and illegitimately fathering Rosie ODonnell with, you guessed it, Rosie ODonnell - who fell through the same temporal rift James Bond fell through. Pygmies re-discover left-over gou'auld technology that permits them to build hypersonic blow-dart weapons, which are capable of destroying ICBMs and thereby save the USA from the tyranny of total destruction when they decide to make the Ukraine glow in the dark...which happens two-thirds of the way through the movie, because the Ark of the Covenant (which was stolen from Area 51 by the Xindi) has been given to the Russians, who are using it to try to re-animate a cut-n-shunt SuperPolitician they've made from the cryogenically preserved remains of Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Walt Disney - but exposure to nuclear fallout causes this re-animated monstrosity to sprout wings and fly to Tokyo, where as Mothra it does battle with Godzilla until Indiana Jones...

    Sorry, I've given too much away already. You'll just have to buy a ticket like everybody else.
  • Disappointed? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by freeze128 (544774) on Friday January 12, 2007 @02:21AM (#17569578)
    Why waste $100 Million just to disappoint the fans in 2 years, when you can disappoint the fans right away for free.
  • by LoadWB (592248) * on Friday January 12, 2007 @02:33AM (#17569654) Journal
    A lot of discussion here about the quality of the movies on several levels. That being told, I withhold my judgment on the series as a whole. However, my girlfriend has expressed interest in watching the films.

    As someone who has never seen them, should she watch IV through VI, then I, II, and III, or should she watch them in series?

    And so, should I pull out my original release VHS tapes of IV-VI and have her watch them in their original glory, or should she watch the new DVD releases?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I had this discussion with a friend of mine, and we came to the conclusion that the best way would be to watch 4 5 1 2 3 6.

      My reasoning is that if you watch the prequels first it ruins many plot points (ie Leia and Luke are brothers, Vader is Luke's father, etc.). However if watched 4 5 1 2 3 6, the prequels serve as a cool flashback, fleshing out the characters, and drawing out the conclusion to the cliffhangers left by Empire. Or you could just watch the original 4 5 6, and ignore the terrible prequels. E
  • by finkployd (12902) on Friday January 12, 2007 @09:53AM (#17572322) Homepage
    I was kinda looking forward to the scene where the Millennium Falcon makes the Kessel run in 12 parsecs with the left blinker on the whole time.

    Finkployd

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...