Well, it IS... but the problem is that there is nothing reasonable to bash Luca$ with this time so we gotta find other stuff. ;)

It doesn't sound better at all, it sounds really boring. If you really want to go from "one exotic planet to another exotic planet" why would you want to go from Tatooine (a desert planet) to Geonosis (another desert planet)? By going with the forest moon, it adds a contrast to the first half of the movie with takes place in the desert. A forest was one of the only major settings that hadn't been done yet, so it makes since. Plus, it makes for a great speeder chase sequence.

I don't see why everyone is so hung up on my Geonosis example. I just threw it out there. If you must insist on using it as an example, I will still say that the terrain and geography more than adequately sets it apart from Tattooine. There's plenty of contrast there. Secondly, it could have been any number of settings or Lucas could have even tried harder to make the forest setting look alien.

Also, I'm not "bashing Lucas" overall. I think he made two good "Star Wars" movies, then two crappy "Star Wars" movies, then two good "Star Wars" movies again. 4 out of 6 isn't bad at all.

Hmm...methinks he means to say ATTACK OF THE CLONES is good but RETURN OF THE JEDI isn't.

Whoa.

That's right, I would definitely put "Attack of the Clones" above "Return of the Jedi", without hesitation, and "Jedi" is only a hair better than "The Phantom Menace".

Whoa.

You really need to get over your hatred of trees. It's clouding your logic. And for the record, there were quite a few matte paintings and miniatures used to enhance the various Endor locations, the same way pretty much all other STAR WARS locations were enhanced.

I don't have a hatred of trees, I just don't think they're adequately exotic or alien for a "Star Wars" film. Endor is just a thoroughly uninspired and uninteresting setting.

And by your feeble logic, so are all of the STAR WARS locations, since they meet (or fail) the same ridiculous criteria you hold against Endor.

Exactly. By your logic, every planet in the SW galaxy would have to look like the inner workings of the factory from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

ALL the SW settings really exist and are exaggerated for the films.

No, because Endor has trees and vegetation that exclusively establishes it as an Earthly location. Like I said, I watch the Endor scenes and there's no suspension of disbelief, the fact that I could literally drive to where they shot all the scenes and literally be on Endor really hurts the setting as a whole. I'm all for the concept of a "Forest Moon", but the life on the planet needs to seem alien. The planet that Aayla Secure is killed on in "Revenge of the Sith" is what Endor should have been.

You're wrong. There's no exaggeration on Endor, models and matte paintings were used to add stuff like the shield generator and the Ewok village but nothing was done to make it look more alien. Tattooine wasn't exaggerated, either, but once again, I have to point out that there is no earthly lifeform there that is distracting. How cheap would it look if Artoo and Threepio would have walked past a cactus or a joshua tree instead of the Krayt dragon bones in Episode IV? How exciting would it have been if the Kaminoian was riding Shamu instead of that cool aquatic bird thing? Maybe the Banthas should have just been left as elephants in Episode IV? They should have also just used a horse for a Tauntaun in "Empire". Do you see my point? Earthly lifeforms take you out of the films, and Endor is setting full of earthly vegetation.

Putting aside the fact that trying to create that type of planet in the early 1980s would probably yield some pathetic results -- causing you to complain about poor matte paintings and obvious FX, rather than trees...

Lucas points out in the Episode III commentary that the particular planet you are talking about ('Felucia') was the FIRST time he had ever done a truely 'alien world' for Star Wars. It is the exception, not the rule.

Episodes 4-6: Desert planet, ice planet, forest planet. I don't see why the last one (specifically) should bother you.

MY logic? Huh?

Right, because massive Imperial shield generators and Ewok villages are so commonplace on Earth today. :rolleyes:

He's not exactly expressing it well (sorry), but I believe the distinction he's making is that the "forest" is entirely populated by earth based life forms - trees and plants evolved in a specific way based on the specific conditions of earth. An "ice" planet has no such problem, because hydrogen and oxygen are basic elements which can exist anywhere. And the desert is just sand and hot sun; again, things which can exist anywhere. The idea that trees would evolve exactly the same on several different planets ... not to say it's impossible, just extremely unlikely.

I think that's his point, right? He keeps saying earth life forms. Anyway, I'm not sure why that would bother him, but the way that Luke, Han, etc., resemble human beings wouldn't ...

I've always been a little bothered that each planet has precisely one type of climate ... the desert planet is all desert, the ice planet is all ice ... that seems unnatural. But maybe it's just un-earthlike.

There are days this time of year when I can go outside and the effect is not all that different from Hoth. There are also some nice sand dunes off of 95 that could double for Tatooine. If you LET you disbelief be suspended it will be.

And with 80's SFX tech it would have looked fake as hell.



That snake on Dagobah is SOO Earthly, it totally spoils the entire trilogy for me. Fuck you Luca$$!

Nope. Guru's logic. I'm with you on this one!

I was trying to think of a way of saying that. An entire planet of ice would have very little livable atmosphere for human beings, likewise a desert planet of a forest planet with no oceans. THAT is why you just have to shrug your shoulders and let yourself get away from the minutae. SW contradicts physical science. Shocker!

Well, all the previous environments wisely steered clear of too many earthly lifeforms. I already used the example of the lack of cacti, etc. on Tattooine. Shooting in Tunisia allowed them to show a setting that could be considered unwordly with only a slight concern for avoiding stuff like vegetation, etc. The setting of Hoth (Norway?) similarly avoided earthly lifeforms. Endor, which was a Californian forest, is literally packed full of recognizably-earthly lifeforms. Felucia may have been the first "truly alien" world of all the "Star Wars" movie, but my point is that you shouldn't do a forest unless you can make it alien. Tattooine is a barren wasteland. Hoth is a barren wasteland. Endor is full of life, life that I can see here on Earth. It makes the movie look cheap.


Adding an Imperial presence does not an interesting location make. As for the Ewok village, it's a completely standard, unoriginal setting. Kenner reused the Ewok village playset for their "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" toy line, because it's so bland and unoriginal that it could generally pass for something a bunch of medieval thieves could have built. Endor is an all-around lazy, uninspired setting. I'm not crazy about Kashyyyk but at the very least, the Wookiees had some distinctive buildings and technology. I already mentioned the horses in the "Ewoks" movies, but I also remembered that there are fucking RABBITS. They don't have a third eye glued onto their heads, they aren't dyed some weird shade of green, they're fucking rabbits bought from a petstore. Endor is teeming with life from Earth and that just doesn't cut it in my eyes.

Dagobah was a set. It has a mysterious, creepy quality to it. You never get the impression that Lucas just saw a picture of a swamp and said "find, let's set all those scenes here because it'll be cheap and easy". I get that impression when I'm watching the Endor scenes. I already pointed out that it was pretty weak to have real snakes and lizards on Dagobah but they only appear a handful of times, there's no constant "hey, you're on Earth" reminder on Dagobah like there is on Endor.

My whole point: if you're going to set your story on a planet with no life, or where you're going to populate the planet with aliens (like Tattooine or Hoth), that's fine, but if there's gonna be life there, make sure it's exotic and interesting.

Why don't you just come to the conclusion that you don't like it, and leave it at that. Arguing about how something should have been done more than 20 years ago is pointless. Besides, you're asking for the impossible. There's absolutely no way Lucas could have replicated the kind of worlds in the prequels with early 1980s technology, without it looking ridiculous.

You keep saying cheap and easy. There isn't a single thing that's cheap or easy about ROTJ. In fact, it has the highest budget and is the most ambitious in terms of scale, battles, effects, etc. Okay, you didn't like it. But it aint cheap and easy, pardon my english.

It may have the highest budget but that doesn't mean Lucas's location budget was necessarily raised along with it. The special effects are obviously more sophisticated and the actors all got paid more, so the additional budget may have all gone to those two factors or they may have even eaten into the budget, resulting in less budget actually ending up on-screen overall. The fact of the matter is this: unless you were the production accountant on "Return of the Jedi", you can't say how much money was spent on the locations. I've seen "Return of the Jedi" and I can say that in my eyes, Endor seems really cheap.

Not as cheap-looking as the tacked-on CGI of the SE/DVD versions...

Where do you see these lifeforms? Been a little while since I've seen Jedi, but the only lifeforms I vividly recall are the Ewoks. What else have you seen?

--THX

I was going to comment on that, too. Add to the list a volcano planet, an ocean planet, and even a planet that consists entirely of city. Naboo is one exception.

--THX

Now that I think about it, Alderaan is another.

--THX