electricfoki.blogg.se - Han solo empire strikes back

#Han solo empire strikes back free#

He has no time for smugglers who drop their shipments at the first sign of an Imperial cruiser." GREEDO: "If you give it to me, I might forget I found you." HAN SOLO: "Yeah, but this time I've got the money." Jabba's put a price on your head so large every bounty hunter in the galaxy will be looking for you. GREEDO: "It's too late, you should have paid him when you had the chance. HAN SOLO: "Yes, Greedo, as a matter of fact I was just going to see your boss. Perhaps their bounties are set at different levels for dead vs alive. JABBA: "But if you fail me again, I'll put a price on your head so big, you won't be able to go near a civilized system." What if everyone who smuggled for me dropped their cargo at the first sign of an Imperial starship? It's not good business." To recoup his losses, he will want them alive, but to set an example to other smugglers in his service, they're still of use to him if dead. Jabba the Hutt on the other hand, wants Han Solo and Chewbacca, since they owe him a large sum of money.

#Han solo empire strikes back free#

Whether Lord Vader believes Luke to be on the Millennium Falcon or not, he needs Luke's friends, who are aboard the Millennium Falcon, to set a trap.ĭARTH VADER: "You are free to use any methods necessary, but I want them alive. While Darth Vader may bear a slight grudge against the crew of the Millennium Falcon for interfering with his shot in A New Hope and for being rebel scum in general, he is not after them.ĭarth Vader is after his son, Luke Skywalker.

Jabba the Hutt and Darth Vader are after different members of the same party. Regardless, please provide references and context. If none (currently) exist, legends explanation would suffice. Looking for in-universe, canonical explanations not armchair speculation and theories. I know this might read as multiple questions, but the overall question is simply this: Did the terms of the bounty on Han Solo change between “Star Wars” (1977) and “The Empire Strikes Back” (1980)? Or are all of these discrepancies explained by basic underworld politics and improvisation on the part of all parties? What?!? So Greedo could kill Solo and get a bounty, but Boba Fett needed him alive? Was Boba Fett just hoping to get more of a reward for a live capture? “What if he doesn’t survive… He’s worth a lot to me…”

Heck, Boba Fett clearly says this to Vader in Cloud City:

Did Jabba the Hutt in some “Honor amongst theives…” mindset simply back off from his bounty because Vader is Vader and you just don’t want to mess with him?.

Did he simply offer more for Solo being captured alive to - effectively - remove the risk of him being randomly killed by a bounty hunter?.

Did Darth Vader just do a “hostile takeover” of the bounty Jabba had in place?.

Okay, so what just happened on the bridge of the Executor? You are free to use any methods necessary, but I want them alive. …there will be a substantial reward for the one who finds the Millennium Falcon. As quoted in the script Vader says the following bold emphasis is mine: Okay, that makes sense…īut then a little bit later in the film we see Darth Vader assembling a group of bounty hunters on the Executor to personally instruct and direct them on finding the Millennium Falcon and its passengers. Han has to leave the Rebel Alliance because of a bounty hunter he ran into on Ord Mantell. Then we get to the The Empire Strikes Back (1980). Greedo says this after Han says, “Over my dead body.” So Greedo’s response clearly confirms he’s fine with killing Han to reach his bounty hunting goal. As we know from the seemingly endless retcons of the Han Solo versus Greedo scene in Star Wars (1977) - regardless of who shot first - Greedo seemed to be fine with killing Han to collect the bounty on Han: