Why?

I like to think that 30 years after Its a Wonderful Life, George Bailey died by his own hand.

Because it effectively undermines the significance of the arc the character undergoes in the OT. Is it "believable" in real-world terms? Sure. But that doesn't really matter. Thematically, it creates a pretty grim picture of the rather beautiful growth at the core of the OT (McP pointed this out in the other thread). This was likely inadvertent, as I imagine the real reason behind this narrative choice was OT nostalgia - wanting the character to be the "lovable scoundrel" everyone knows. But that contradicts the lessons about growth in the OT. It sacrifices thematic depth in favor of hollow nostalgia. Much like everything else in TFA.

stop trying to pretend that SW aren't bubble gum action movies.

Geezes christ. He is still a hero. He's all those things. I dont get how you can say he completely through away all of his growth? he ended up, once again, being a fucking hero.

His growth wasn't just becoming a hero. His growth was becoming less of a cynic, and, finally, finding a home.

Never said they weren't. Doesn't mean they don't have themes and character arcs and depth and mythological power.

Right. Just like, if Luke Skywalker is portrayed as a whiny, bitter and impetuous ass in the next movie, everyone will think it's fine because 30 years and he still blows up the Empire, bro.

Jesus Christ, now that I think about it, the "We're home." line now seems really fucking clueless and depressing.

"its true, all of it"

no cynic.

Finding a home? We all find homes and shit happens. This is such a terrible gripe.

Guys, when RM picks who is who in the Star Wars Universe, I want McP to be General Grievous.

You haven't even seen the movie.

Do you guys know fiction works? Like, it's written by people who decide what happens. You know the characters are not real people and "shit" doesn't just "happen," right?

Whats your point? This is a very plausible human arc that makes complete sense and does not detract from the character that is han solo

You guys seems stuck on this idea of plausibility, as if my criticism is about whether or not Han's arc is believable. That has nothing to do with anything.

My point is nothing in TFA undermines the character that was and is Han Solo.

And my point is that the starting point of where Solo is in TFA absolutely undermines the message of his arc in the OT. At the end of ROTJ, his arc says, "If you lower your wall of cynicism and let people in, you can find your home/happiness/love." At the end of TFA, his arc now says, "Oh, but then that home will get destroyed and you will be killed by the offspring of your newfound happiness."

Happens all the time bro!

30 years!