|
Post by Toryn Farr on Oct 27, 2001 14:30:48 GMT -5
ok, so lucas likes luke better than han. whoopee. that really doesn't mean much (if anything at all) as far as bria goes.
And Han would have gone back to Bria if she hadn't died. That was blatantly obvious from the HST. There are a lot of 'ifs.' In fact, there are too many, i dont wanna get into it, so we'll just focus on the one you pointed out. I think the keywords here are "from the HST." But the movies disqualify this arguement. In the movies (which are the only true canon, as i've pointed out so many times) its perfectly clear that Han is totally and completely in love with Leia. There's no way in hell he would give that up for a woman he was infatuated with who knows how many years ago, and who left him twice, and stabbed him in the back. face it: Its the real Han we see in the movies. Don't let crispin's little fantasies fool you.
|
|
|
Post by CMinor on Oct 27, 2001 21:48:37 GMT -5
Ha ha ... Glitter Bug you make me laugh. You will quote Titanic as a legitimate pointer to Bria's supposed 'greatness' but refute that the ACTUAL SW TRILIOGY has any bearing on this debate at all??? Give me a break. If you're going to try to prove that Bria is better than Leia or loved Han more or was loved more by Han or whatever it is you're trying to prove (I'm getting confused because you keep conflicting your own arguments), and you are quoting books and movies to prove your points, then you must accept other books and movies being used to prove other points. Obviously you are having trouble actually debating many of our points because you just dismiss them by making statements such as 'oh but that doesn't count because the movies weren't good'. to refute some of those: "George Lucas isn't God." SW is GL's universe, so yes he is god. However if WE shouldn't take everything GL says as holy, why should you take everything Crispin says as holy? If there IS a true authority of Star Wars, then it is George Lucas, and what he says will be taken over what Crispin says - because it is GEORGE'S universe, and what GEORGE says goes. "Anyway Han was out of character in the movies. Crispin said so herself." This feeds into your last comment. Since when is Crispin the owner of Han Solo? How does she have more authority over Han than George himself? To put it bluntly: who CARES what Crispin said about the movies? She had NOTHING to do with them. She did not write them. She was not starring in them. She did not direct them. She had nothing more to do with them than any of us. She has no more right to say who was or was not in character in the films than I do. And while we're on the subject - the movies are the root of the SW universe. Ther characterization is the original characterization and therefore must be taken as the correct representation of the characters. Glitter, I'm sorry, but you CANNOT tell us that the movies are invalid sources for debate! And please can we GET OVER the 'I know' thing? ANY reference made in HST that came up in the movies was wishful thinking on Crispin's part. It has nothing to do with the relationship created for Han and Leia. It was a (rather sad, IMHO) attempt to meld Bria's existence into the SW universe that was meant to make her important to Han, but really just came over fan-boyish. (If you want to get nasty about it, you could just say that Crispin couldn't come up with anything original herself ) Basically: Glitter please be rational. You can't debate us by trying to shut down anything we quote from a verified SW and bringing in films that had nothing to do with SW as your sources. That's just silly. EDIT: starwarsfan68, thanks for your comment about my fanfic! I appreciate it
|
|
elektrasolo@hotmail.com
Guest
|
Post by elektrasolo@hotmail.com on Oct 28, 2001 8:58:50 GMT -5
Toryn that book you just mentioned is a travesty on Han's character. It got the Bria/Han thing all wrong, and it was totally out of character how Han told his life story to someone he barely knew. Crispin was very angry at that book for messing up the HST.
Uh - Glitter -- didn't Han tell his life story to Bria about 10 minutes after meeting her? ;D
If this book messed up the HST, I have got to find it! Also - I quite liked Bria until people started elevating her to goddess (same with Mara). The girl had serious problems, and one of them was an obsessive personality that got fixated on Han.
These are book characters that somebody invented to fulfil a plot point, not an integral part of the SW universe. You may personally wander through life thinking that Han and Bria were meant to be together, but the fact is, Crispin could have changed the names in her book and written just about any SF/F story she wanted. It didn't scream Han Solo, ever.
And books and canon debates aside -- the EU is not SW, it's a group of authors' views on SW. So IMNSHO, it doesn't count. ;D
Yes, sweetheart, I said I wouldn't post, but heck, I've got things to avoid doing!
|
|
|
Post by Toryn Farr on Oct 28, 2001 10:22:35 GMT -5
Haha. I just reread Hero for Hire last nite, and DAMN, that is one cute book. You can get it through the bookstore at my site (its hosted by amazon.com). Its only $3.99, and sooooo worth it. Yeh, it is kinda weird hearing Han tell his life story to a monk (actually in all reality he really only goes into depth describing ANH, everything else is just background info), but its a children's book, you just kinda hafta take the idea and run with it. like "if one day Han did decide to pour his soul, this is what he would say." But 104 pages of Han/Leia.....mmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by glitterbug on Oct 28, 2001 11:07:43 GMT -5
CMinor you are right the films are canon and can be used in debate. (EU is canon too, but I can't dispute the films). But even if you DO go by the films it is very obvious Leia is second choice. Everything Han does in ANH, ESB, and ROTJ is somehow related to Bria. Translation - He can't get over her, he'll always love her. The films came first, but the HST is canon and that can't be denied, thus since it is EXPLAINED in the HST why Han does the things he does in the films we must accept it. Elektra: That was when he was young and idealistic, still capable of love and trust. After repeated betrayals and misfortunates, he was hardened and cynical, which is why he could not "give" himself to Leia (even after TEN YEARS OF MARRIAGE) the way he did to Bria. That is why he and Bria were closer than Han and Leia could ever be How can you say they are close when Leia admits Han had never been himself around her, and that she barely knows anything about him, when Han was himself around Bria and told her everything? And Hero for Hire WAS out of character. For one thing Han had forgiven Bria by the end of Rebel Dawn after she died and it was stupid in the book that he was still mad about it. Anyhow, I thought of two other movies that can relate to this debate. 1) Castaway. Know how Kelly thinks Tom Hank's character is dead and marries someone else, has a kid with him, but Tom Hank's character is the love of her life? That's another one. 2) Ever After and Bounce. Okay, remember how in those ones the whole plot revolved around the main keeping a horrible thing from their significant other and then eventually it came out, and the other person who had been betrayed was pissed and left? And what happened both times? They came back and the couple got back together. So in the case of Han and Bria. Sure Han was pissed when Bria betrayed him, but there is no evidence to say he wouldn't have forgiven her and gone back to her, just like those other people did in those movies. Remember Bria says "I know you're upset now Han, just leave me a message when you're ready to talk again". She knows him, and she knows he'll call once he gets over the hurt and anger. Unfortunately she died before he could ever do this
|
|
|
Post by Toryn Farr on Oct 28, 2001 16:31:45 GMT -5
Or we could compare it to the HST and OT trilogy...
remember that part when Bria betrays Han and pulls a blaster on him and totally stabs him in the back? and then Han goes "if i ever see you again, i'll blast you on sight"? and then they break up, and bria dies, and Han's upset, but then he gets over it?
and then in the movies (which are canon, the EU is not) Han's all happy and cheery in the cantina, and then when he meets leia he's like all over her? Ex. hug in the trash compactor, wink during ceremony (You still haven't shown me proof that Han "didn't make any moves on Leia cuz he was getting over Bria"). And Han sticks around the Rebellion, and waits for Leia, and finally he knows shes ready for a relationship, and they realize how much they mean to each other, cuz theyre soulmates. Right.
Its hard to say that Hero for Hire was out of character. First of all, its a childrens book, and its really meant to get Han's POV during ANH. Sure, its a little hard to swallow that Han would be telling all this to a monk, but its kinda easy to ignore that. The main point is that these are Han's thoughts, and those are right on target. His values and what he stands for remain the same. Its kinda just like "if Han were to write a journal, this is what it would sound like." You just hafta go with it.
And as for the references during the OT, those really don't hold any meaning. They're only there because Crispin decided to put them. As was already mentioned, one author can't go in and change the entire meaning of Han and Leia's relationship just because she wants her character to be more important. How would you like it if I wrote some Titanic EU where Rose met some guy when she was like 15 and fell in love with him, and the only reason she hooked up with jack was because she reminded him of that guy??? IT JUST DOESNT WORK.
|
|
|
Post by Adi_Gallia on Oct 28, 2001 19:09:25 GMT -5
Hello all, this is Adi from the JC. I believe all of you know me. Nice rebuttals so far against bria and I just wanted to add my two cents.
Right now all I have to say is, we know what George Lucas intended for Han and no Mary Sue author can change that or manipulate the facts in a desperate attempt to work her character in. bria will never be canon.
|
|
|
Post by Toryn Farr on Oct 28, 2001 19:49:04 GMT -5
hehe, thanks adi, good to see ya.
|
|
|
Post by CMinor on Oct 28, 2001 20:35:53 GMT -5
"Everything Han does in ANH, ESB, and ROTJ is somehow related to Bria. Translation - He can't get over her, he'll always love her."
Actually that sentence should read "Everything Han does in ANH, ESB, and ROTJ is somehow related to Bria. translation: Crispin is giving her character more importance than was deemed responsible and was manipulating the films to suit her needs."
This is a recurring point of yours glitter, but you have never addressed the fact that the HST trilogy was written AFTER the SW movies. Therefore Han's actions CAN'T be relating to Bria because Bria DID NOT EXIST 20-odd years ago, as a character or otherwise.
And here's your proof: The ROTJ novelization (written in 1983) has the following quote on page 478:"Han had never known love, so enamored of himself was he ..."
The HST was first written in 1997. Therefore, Bria is about 14 years out of the loop. The fact is that this was written in the ROTJ novelization, and no room was made for Bria, because of one of two reasons:
A) Han never really loved Bria.
B) Bria was never MEANT to appear in the SW universe, at least not as Han's true love.
"The films came first, but the HST is canon and that can't be denied, thus since it is EXPLAINED in the HST why Han does the things he does in the films we must accept it."
Not if it conflicts with the spirit of the original films and the intent of han and Leia's relationship we don't.
"That was when he was young and idealistic, still capable of love and trust. After repeated betrayals and misfortunates, he was hardened and cynical, which is why he could not "give" himself to Leia (even after TEN YEARS OF MARRIAGE) the way he did to Bria."
The idea Han didn't give himself to Leia is an unfounded one. I quote from Vector prime: "Even after all these years, the fire remained between Han and Leia, a deep an honest love and respect."
Also think about COPL - as bad as that book was, it was about Han risking EVERYTHING for Leia. A quote: It frightened [Leia] that someone could love her that much."
What this means, essentially gb, is that Han giving himself to Leia was a bigger step for him than giving himself to Bria, because he was - as you said - hardened and cynical.
"How can you say they are close when Leia admits Han had never been himself around her, and that she barely knows anything about him, when Han was himself around Bria and told her everything?"
*sigh* We've already BEEN through this. Leia said in THE SAME BOOK "Han's no mystery man. What you see is aboslutely what you get."Obviously she KNOWS him otherwise she wouldn't say he WASN'T a mystery man.
She also says "Han is Han. What else do I need to know?" She doesn't NEED to know every sordid detail of his past life. This shows a more trusting relationship between H/L than between H/B.
"And Hero for Hire WAS out of character. For one thing Han had forgiven Bria by the end of Rebel Dawn after she died and it was stupid in the book that he was still mad about it."
Stop saYing things are out of character just because Crispin says so!! What if I said the entire HST Trilogy showed Han out of character just because I say so? Stupid? Absolutely.
"Anyhow, I thought of two other movies that can relate to this debate."
Why do you have to talk about other movies? Can't you find any evidence from the actual films and books we're debating out?
|
|
|
Post by rkkline@aol.cpm on Oct 28, 2001 21:12:16 GMT -5
My apologies for the cross post from JC. Only one big thought from me this week. My brain is fried, but I thought I would enter the debate here as well.
Ah Glitter, our paths seem to have crossed again. I’ll pro’ly be kicking myself in the posterior for even attempting to jot down my thoughts. This thread always ends up like I'm unraveling a giant cable knit sweater that someone knitting and knitting and knitting. But here goes it…
All my criticism and joking about the EU aside, let’s look at the simple facts. Leia is canon, and that is not anything that is disputable. Throughout the course of the film trilogy, it is clearly established that Han and Leia have something very special that goes beyond initial crushes. They are very much in love. They lay it on the line several times, often making themselves vulnerable to attack from the Imperials and Jabba et al in the process. Their relationship has been discussed quite extensively in the Magic and the Myth. They are the mythical marriage of hero’s journey. No secondary character that comes along decades later can ever change that status. Sorry, not up for real debate.
Now let me compare this to the Bria characterization that has been sited as proof that Leia was not Han’s true soulmate. Before I go into it, I want it to be clearly known that I actually liked the Han Solo Trilogy, and that I actually like the Bria Tharen character. That said, I would still like the opportunity to work my thoughts out be analyze her so-called impact.
Glitter asserts: <<<Every scene in ESB is Han thinking of Bria When he says "Who's scruffy-looking?" that's a reference to Bria who called him that in TPS. When he kisses Leia and says "Stop what?" that's also a reference to Bria And when he says "I know" of course that's a reference to him and Bria's first declaration of love And it takes him so long to say "I love you" back to Leia beacuse of how Bria hurt him. >>>
Whoa, hold on there just a moment. I don’t want to get into the painfully obvious mental masturbation of which came first, the film or the EU. But I am sorry, you cannot rewrite, retool, reinterpret, or give double top-secret invisible meanings to every syllable of dialogue from the canon after the fact. Conversely, to do so is nothing short of obnoxiously arrogant and serves nothing more than to feed a writer’s own egoboo. The films can’t “reference” back to the HST. The HST didn’t exist when the films came out. There is no logic in that. It doesn’t make sense, and it is silly to think one writer could totally unravel decades of SW lore.
No one would tolerate reworking of why Orson Wells says “Rosebud” at the end of Citizen Kane. No one would accept an alternate spin on “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” These lines and their concrete meanings are not up for reinterpretation after the fact and on the whims of a single writer. This really raises the hackles of this canon purist.
more to follow (darn this size limitation on the forum)
|
|
|
Post by rkkline@aol.com on Oct 28, 2001 21:14:09 GMT -5
(Continued from above post )
In fact, I was a bit taken aback that Crispin actually had the cojones to do this time and time again throughout her trilogy. She systematically took *everything* meaningful and emotional Han had ever said Leia and twisted to reflect back on a fantasy of Bria. For those of us that only see the films (another debate for another time btw) as canon, I can scoff and say big fat hairy deal. But if you want to intellectualize Bria’s very existence we need to separate Bria as a character from Crispins fantasy of Bria as Han’s dream babe. She was a nice addition to his enigmatic past. But come on, she isn’t the be all and end of all of every thought, action, and word that he has brought to fruition since her demise. She is part of his past. Nothing more, nothing less. His actions in the films clearly show a man who is not pining for any part of his past.
But the mere fact that Crispin tries to retool *everything* Leia and Han have ever done as pale shadow of a similar action between Han and Bria only *underscores* Bria as a thinly veiled Mary Sue in the most obvious sense. Bria does not stand on her own individual actions. Rather she is measured by how her life and interactions with Han are similar to those with Leia’s.
I’m sorry, Glitter, This argument that “Bria and Han said it first” does not confirm your assertions that they are the ubercouple and that Han and Leia’s relationship is inferior. On the contrary, this method of retooling only cheapened Bria’s impact in Han’s past. She had the potential to be a great character. But with all the cutesy rewriting/retooling of well known and well loved dialogue for the films, she lost a lot of her impact, winding up a victim of her creator’s campaign to one-up the canon relationships. It’s a shame, actually. Had Bria been able to develop more as a unique character and not a counterpoint to Leia, she could have really had some oomph to her characterizaton. Perhaps I would be agreeing more with you in the Bria debate.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t like Bria. Like I’ve said above, I find her a fascinating addition to the SW Universe. But she’s isn’t all that and a bag of chips. She is one character in a huge timeline. She played her role, and throughout the timeline, Han has moved on. He grieved her death, but moved on and found someone to fill that void and more. He and Leia put a lot on the line to be together. Now I don’t like how the EU portrays their relationship either. I can reference you to some of my previous posts as I really don’t want to rehash those thoughts. But EU fans and canon purists can agree on one thing: Han and Leia are together in the films, bound by something that no one can divide. Carbonite couldn’t pull them apart. Neither can an author.
Ugh, my head hurts, so I will stop now.
Birkendoc
|
|
Solosgurl04@aol.com
Guest
|
Post by Solosgurl04@aol.com on Oct 29, 2001 17:54:46 GMT -5
boooo bria
|
|
|
Post by Toryn Farr on Oct 29, 2001 19:34:00 GMT -5
LOL! Solosgurl, I think you just summed up 3 pages of rants very nicely.
|
|
|
Post by ivylore@excite.com on Oct 30, 2001 8:33:48 GMT -5
What about Barbara Hambley's POT when Han has no idea how he'd go on if he ever lost Leia... He can't even imagine his life without her... And, in regards to the fact that Han shared more of his early life with Bria, and is so closed off with Leia, let's remember WHO hurt him so badly... I think that Bria betraying him was simply the last straw, driving him to close himself off to most people. And, he was 19. What people will share when they're 19, and what's happened to them by the time they're in their mid-thirties - changes and shapes them a lot. At 19, the pain of his childhood was recent; at 35, I think his self reliant habits were too hard to break, the wounds of his past too well sealed to be opened anew, even for Leia, who certainly was in a position to understand. And Han, I think, as implied in COJ, TNR, POT, is beneath it all, Leia's source of strength. No kid could have jumped headfirst into a relationship with her and understood how shattered her life had been by the events played out in ANH-ROJ. But Han, at that point in his life... could. Just some thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by Toryn Farr on Oct 30, 2001 15:14:59 GMT -5
thanks ivy. haha, i just realized how perfect this song was for Han and Bria: vegas, by new found glory (my 2nd fav band, tee hee) it doesnt take much to keep holding someone's hand you have to keep your eyes open as wide as you can you never know what could come along... sometimes people think that they are so in love when its the first person that they have ever been with i think its so stupid so stupid you have to keep your eyes open you'll never know if shes right if shes right (yeh) its so amazing how people can be held down by just one person that doesnt even care what they think i know its so stupid so stupid you have to keep your eyes open you'll never know if shes right if shes right... you have to keep your eyes open you'll never know if shes right if shes right YAY!!!
|
|