Here's the difference in Han Shooting First, and then Shooting second.
I watched the edited versions before the originals, so always thought Han shot second. This first scene shown Han is his introduction, it tells you who the person is. This is true for all movie characters. When I see him have this dialogue, then waiting for greed to shoot, then him shoot first, it put into my mind everyone was out to get him and he was justified in protecting himself- as he was being pursued unjustly.
Then, I saw the originals. I watched the same scene, the same dialogue, and saw Han shoot first. It puts him in a completely different and dark light. He no longer has that air of pity around him. Rather, he is unpredictable and rather ruthless too. It makes his redemption at the end all the more sweet too, as he has more to turn from.
In the end, it is all in how GL wanted Solo portrayed, and it appears he wanted a sympathetic character intro, rather than a ruthless bounty hunter intro.
Exactly right. Its all about how GL wanted the character portrayed and therefore why that first scene is so important which establishes the lighter or darker 'tone' to him exactly as you say.
The problem is that the way GL wanted the character portrayed CHANGED between the original Star Wars and the ANH SE and in that time period hundreds of millions of people first saw the character portrayed one way and loved him that way and then GL changed his mind about how he wanted Solo portrayed and made the SE and millions more perhaps because they were younger first saw Solo that way and may have loved that and we and they literally don't see "Star Wars" the same way because of those changes. There's nothing wrong with the newer fans preferring the newer way - the HAN SHOT FIRST 'truthers' disagreement is with Lucas NOT fellow SW fans old or new - WE all love SW together eh?
The ANGER towards GL on the part of the 'old fans' is from feeling DISSED by GL - that he basically decided 'I've already tapped the wallets of the old fans for the old version...now I really care more about making more NEW money from a new generation of fans so I'll change what the old fans love to appeal to the new cuz I've already got the old fans old money who needs em anymore?' Basically we had been LOYAL to GL for many years but when he didn't need us anymore he had no problem being DISLOYAL to we who had made him a billionaire and 'star' and SW into a success in the first place.
The other aspect is a broader philosophy-of-art issue of an artist who changes their mind about their work then changing the work itself AFTER it has been shown to its audience.
Others have pointed out elsewhere that the prequels quality suffered as compared to the OT because GL became less willing to collaborate over the years and basically wanted to 'dictate' the Prequels like a 'one man show'. The problem with that is that anyone who has ever been to film school learns FIRST THING that filmmaking is integrally inherently a collaborative artform. From week one I had to work on film projects with other students and no one was a 'one man band'. Filmmaking is understood to be the most collaborative of ALL arts but it is just as true that ALL ART IS A COLLABORATION BETWEEN ARTIST AND AUDIENCE. The artist [or artists in the case of collaborative artforms like film] invests their creativity into the artwork and the audience invests their receptivity into the same work. This receptivity is no unimportant thing; Art creates Culture and Culture creates Civilization because Art has the power to change the human heart and mind so audiences opening themselves to receive art is a transformative event and the willingness to do so is an investment of Trust in the artist. At the moment any art is shown to the audience it becomes part of the audience as much as it was part of the artist before the artist made it. It no longer belongs to the artist alone but to the common culture of the World and the cultural heritage of Humankind.
To illustrate the point imagine that Van Gogh were still alive today and had maintained physical possession of his works after showing them in galleries and now decided "Hmmm...I used to but now don't like sunflowers anymore...I think I'll paint daisies over it".
Can you imagine the shockwave of outrage that roll across the planet? I promise you it would dwarf what we "Han Shot First" fans feel about GL. Van Gogh would go instantly from being 'the greatest artist of all time' according to Dr Who lol but certainly one of the greatest to being roundly considered the greatest art VANDAL in history...he would be universally HATED with an incandescent FURY by every art fan and cultured person on the planet and it wouldn't matter a bit how well painted the new "Daisies" was or even if it was objectively 'better' artistically than Sunflowers - in the common culture of Mankind the name of Van Gogh would burn in infamy forever after.
But Van Gogh is dead so he can't do that.
True...but somebody 'owns' Sunflowers today...if that 'owner' decided to repaint daises over it the outrage would be no less and it wouldn't matter except legally that he 'owns' it because in a very real sense AFTER it is shown to World a work of art 'belongs' to the World, not whoever made it or whoever bought it.
How much vandalizing a work of art matters partly depends on how 'important' the artwork is deemed to be which to culture is a measure on how much the work is considered 'transformative' and/or how much contribution it makes to culture-building which civilization depends upon.
Snooty art critics might disagree but I'll defend any day the proposition that Star Wars literally changed the world in 1977. That it changed the nature of filmmaking and the art of cinema itself. That it changed the culture of America and of the World. That it created a new Mythology and myth-making is as important today as it was to the ancient Greeks and that Luke Skywalker and Spock and Superman and Sherlock Holmes et al matter to our civilization as Apollo or Hercules or Achilles or Zeus/Jupiter mattered to Graeco-Roman civilization.
GL 'painting over' the REAL "Star Wars" might seem less 'important' in the grand scheme of human civilization but the PRINCIPLE of the thing would be and is exactly the same.
The prequels showed that GL doesn't seem to care about film being a collaborative artform but the SE shows he doesn't care about Art being a cultural collaboration with the audience so was willing to vandalize art which is terrible even if it was his own. That's sad about GL but also for all of us.