AGREED! A bunch have no told me Sebulba says it, but it doesn't quite match up to me either. Granted maybe it's more accented in this case? But I don't think Sebulba says it exactly how Greedo does at all.
I'm in the exact same boat! At this rate, I don't even care. I'm not even offended. It's just become funny now, like he's overtly trolling us at this rate. I'm just having fun with it.
This is largely my feelings on the Greedo scene. I feel a huge reason Lucas has continued to tweak it, rather than leave it from the second edit, was because it generates such headlines and fan interest every time; after all, the later versions seemed to rest a lot on making the timing of the shots closer, rather than making either shoot earlier than the '97 edit. I have no doubt half of why the change was noticed was because someone went to stream the movie and jumped to that scene. Enough people talk about the change it's sort of irrelevant anyway what the film contains. Pop culture will remember 'Han Shot First'. In any case, it's hard for me to see this edit as any greater sin than the fact it was altered to begin with.
I also think it's important to remember that at the time of the sale, the 3D re-releases of the original trilogy weren't ready to go, so I do wonder if this was still an unfinished work-in-progress edit; that Lucas simply lost interest before he added the caption for 'Macklunkey' or had time to rethink it; or put another way, he might very well have made
more changes.
ironic that they're billing this as the "end of the skywalker saga" after they went OUT OF THEIR WAY to kill all the skywakers; to "kill the past"; and to focus this trilogy onto "new characters".
this trilogy was "sold" to us as a new beginning of a new story, in a new era, with new characters.... it was sold to us as the "future of star wars"... now they're selling it as the LAST chapter of the OLD era. ROFL
Yeah, this is what's killing me about the movie.
The Last Jedi seemed to want us to forget about the previous films and characters, even
The Force Awakens to a degree, decrying the tinge of nostalgia and urging us through Luke and Kylo Ren to let go of the past and accept change, with failure at the center... only for the movie to come out of a tunnel in a more extreme version of the previous status quo - the First Order is stronger again, the Resistance is weaker again, Rey is still becoming a Jedi, etc. - while killing off some characters for measure, feels like a complete repudiation of the previous film... only for the next to promise to explain the lore, and revisit the elements, that the previous film seemed to outright mock people for being invested in the first place.
There wasn't a reason to make another
Star Wars saga film except nostalgia for the original characters - the existing storylines were all wrapped up in
Return of the Jedi - and I still feel anthology films would have sufficed fan interest. When
The Force Awakens was released, it seemed to use its honor and respect for the first two films to beg us to take it seriously as a legitimate sequel, but the film after it seemed to mock us for buying into its premise. After the previous film's emotional setup, Luke does not turn away from Rey or refuse the lightsaber, but he flips it over his head. I can't believe you bought into this! You really believe everything they tell you? Johnson's creative choices, to me, are often more justifiable than his stylistic choices, where it feels as if he can't resist a hard swerve... which can be fun in a standalone movie, but doing it here only extinguishes the justification and promise the trilogy was built on.
So for me personally, it's just hard to enjoy seeing Billy Dee Williams reprise Lando Calrissian at this point, and it's hard to feel interested in the backstory of the Knights of Ren, after a film that seemed to insist so strongly that these things were so laughably irrelevant.
The Last Jedi told us feel we shouldn't buy into it, and we shouldn't believe what they tell me. Abrams' promises to explain elements, revisit characters, and make good on the promises made in his first film all feel sort of hollow after that. Why even make another one if there's nowhere left for these characters to grow? If lore didn't matter then, why should it matter now?
Based on how TLJ went down and how RJ treated the majority of the characters (ruined Finn, ruined Luke, ruined Kylo, killed Snoke, ruined Rey...) I'm glad he decided to use his own red Guard guys instead of The Knights is Ren as the fodder in the throne room fight.
If he used the Knights of Ren, it'd be everything wrong with Snoke repeated - something treated as mysterious and significant in the previous film, with big implications for the franchise lore, is casually disposed of without even a hint as to its deeper meaning, just to create a certain moment for the protagonists, while retroactively being treated as having never mattered to begin with anyway, taking away what little impact is left for their destruction to hold. Fans of all sides should be thankful that Johnson's better side won out here.
I still think it says an incredible amount about Johnson's approach to directing - for better or negative - that his response to their lack of inclusion was to remark he'd have had to kill them off. I mean, I appreciate the candor at least, it's one of the aspects of Johnson I like in spite of the movie, but it says a lot about his approach. See also his answer to why Snoke's character is insubstantial. He's very focused on telling one story - one story - the way he wants to tell it, but he has no thought process as to who these characters are ,or why they exist, outside of that storyline. He's always came off to me as if he can't care about who these characters are when his camera isn't rolling. I always felt one of Lucas' greatest skills was having an understanding these characters lead inner lives off-screen, even if that sometimes induced laziness at points - it also meant there were always story and development opportunities in other mediums that could feed into his core saga. At the very least, people like Abrams and Feige would probably tag those statements with a tease that the characters may have significance in the future.
This is a line of thinking that can be very effective for standalone films, so I can't criminalize it as much as I'd like, but I feel that it underlines how much Johnson's approach is that these characters are tools for storytelling and don't really exist on their own plane. They come into existence when he rolls a camera, fill the niche needs for his story, and disappear. They don't have an existence outside the specific situations he is creating for his story. There's a thousand movies where that's sound thinking, and that's part of why
Last Jedi connected with that kind of audience, and seemed so strong as an individual film, but it's just never been the approach
Star Wars has taken, not even under Abrams. Even at his worst, Abrams has always been very respectful that these characters, new and old, have lived broader lives.
(I really, really hate how much this whole post I've written here reads like some kid who can't get over
Last Jedi. I'm not that guy and I've never wanted to be
that guy.)