sonofjones said:
To all the people who are insisting Boba Fett was never meant to be named, one of the deleted scenes from ESB was Luke being tended to by Leia and her referring to Boba Fett by name, a scene that was more likely cut because it interrupted the flow of action in the finale than because it named this apparently nameless bounty hunter that every one on this site knows by name, and yet insists that he's supposed to be nameless. This is my issue, he's obviously supposed to have a name, but the movie simply forgot to say it. No, it dosen't matter what the name of some extra who only has one scene and does one thing is, but it does matter when a guy who is named in literally every single appereance of his, every time he's mentioned, except ESB. That's like trying to make Darth Maul nameless when everyone knows his name already, it's just pointless. Even when the Man with No Name IS named in the movies he appears in, everyone still just calls him the man with no name. The truth couldn't be more opposite with Boba Fett; the movie neglects to name him, and yet everyone knows who he is. The fact that they didn't name him feels more like a hiccup than an intentional story decision.
If you believe he's better off being nameless, then that's fine, to each his own. However, all I did was make one little suggestion which i thought would improve the edit (which as i understand is one of the main functions of this forum to begin with), and some have chosen to just be condescending and rude, which was entirely uncalled for. To those who would rather be condescending and rude, i ask you to remember one of the main goals of the revisited saga is to create an experience everyone can enjoy, not just the die hard fans.
Even if this deleted scene existed, it's irrelevant as it's DELETED. It was not in the final film and it's better for it. He hasn't needed to be named for over 3 decades. Why the hell would he need to be now? It adds nothing.
As for your comment about die hard fans, it's laughable that you think this is purely fanboy opinion. I couldn't give a damn about Boba Fett one way or the other. He serves his purpose and then goes away. He doesn't need a name to do that.
Yes we know his name - due to merchandising and books. That doesn't mean he needs to be named in the film.
sonofjones said:
This is my issue, he's obviously supposed to have a name, but the movie simply forgot to say it.
Again, you assert this "obvious" fact, without qualifying it with any evidence. If the movie was "supposed" to have him referenced by name, why didn't it?
sonofjones said:
Bingowings said:
Boba Fett is more menacing and cool unnamed just ask Clint Eastwood.
I honestly don't find that a valid argument, that's like saying "Darth Maul was a cool villain just ask James Earl Jones"
Eh? That makes zero sense. A comparision can at least be drawn between Fett and Eastwood (essentially a space cowboy with no name).
What's the connection between James Earl Jones and Maul? I think you're confused.