I understand completely what Guru is saying. It doesn't ruin the movie for me but Endor looks cheap. Maybe it also has something to do with how badly Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher were acting in ROTJ or things like the Chewbacca Tarzan scream. Everything about the scenes on Endor scream cheap to me.

I love when people say things like, "Just say you don't like it and move on. There's no reason to talk about it." This is a board where we endlessly talk about the things in pop culture that we like and dislike.

Well, that's the first time I've seen Mark Hamill come off scot-free on the whole "bad actor" charge...

...by the way, this chick's funny. Do it again, Mrs. Nesbit (*claps hands and hops up and down*)!

Oh Hamill is bad but :
1. What do you expect from Mark Hamill?
2. He's not on Endor that much.
3. I'm a dude.

As far as acting per se, Ford, Fisher, and Hamill were much better in Empire than Jedi.

I can honestly say that acting never once pulled me out of any of the original trilogy films, except for maybe the Toshi Station line. Other than that, I think the performances were solid all around, and even better in ESB and ROTJ. But what do I know. I wouldn't call it great acting, but I believe every single performance in all 3 films. They all felt convincing, the characters felt real, and the relationships felt real. So I've never bought "the acting sucks in the original trilogy too" jive.

What does he think to himself. i'd rather download

compared to the PT, I don't think you can say there was any bad acting in OT. i thought it was about even in all three movies.

There is no science in Star Wars. And the characters should not be mistaken for human beings.

It was necessary for me to relearn this in order to enjoy Sith which, the first time I saw it, I absolutely hated.

Star Wars is heroic fantasy. Not drama, not science fiction. The characters are types, not people, and the technology is just a way of packaging magic.

This was easier to see 25 years ago when there wasn't so much fan- and market-generated noise around the franchise. When it wasn't a franchise, just a relatively low-budget movie with a cast of unknowns, trying to do something that had no precedent on the big screen.

An identical story could have been told using kings and princes, wizards and demons, dragons and flying horses. But the particular little kid in Lucas that wanted to make this movie thought spaceships were more fun.

Enjoyment of Star Wars decreases in direct proportion to the depth of analysis one tries to apply to it.

RichC

I think that Harrison Ford's performance in ROTJ is the definition of phoning it in. Still better than Hamill in anything other than voice work but still a sub par performance from a good actor. And yes the acting in the OT is a lot better than it was in the PT but that's not saying much. Love the movies despite what are, in my opinion, unacceptable flaws from films of this scale.

A) What the hell are you talking about?
B) Talking about bootlegging is not only prohibited here, it won't make you too many friends.

i agree. I think this is why all the "casual" fans who saw EP.3 really liked it. They didn't care about questionable acting (which i think the series has always had. Mark Hamill is just as whiny as Anakin in A New Hope, and his acting isn't exactly Nicholson/DeNiro levels.). They didn't whine because Lucas brought up midochlorians again. They just enjoyed the movie because it was fun, had some cool visuals, a couple nice lightsaber fights, and they got to see Darth Vader become evil.

How is a redwood forest more "cheap" than sand or snow? Redwoods are far more precious and exotic than sand or snow...or clouds and oceans, for that matter. I think the "cheapness" from the Endor scenes comes from the script, the direction and the performances. If you don't think a simple forest can look truly breathtaking, just pop in LEGEND, and then realize that it was all shot on a soundstage. So what I'm saying is, don't blame the location. Blame the execution.

I agree. I'm not a huge fan of JEDI but I think it's far better than ANY of the prequels. It's a mostly uninspired follow-up to EMPIRE but at least it has the original cast and a powerful, emotionally-involving third act.

Oh, it's better than that. How about the fact that all the planets have the same gravity??? I want to see Luke drag himself around under 10x earth's gravity, struggle to pull out his lightsabre, then collapse under the strain.

Of course, none of the planets get radical swings in temperature. For example, say 700 degrees F during the day, then –274 degrees F at night. That would be interesting wouldn't it? They're also the proper distance from the sun(s) and their atmosphere keeps things nice and... earth like.

Or how about the fact that all of the other alien life forms seem to have no trouble breathing on any of these other planets? Wouldn't it be funny to have some of them get out of their ships and suffocate to death? Or run around with big freakin' tanks on their backs? How likely is it that they could all breathe the same - dare I say it - earthlike air?

So what we have is a set of planets that share similar gravity, atmosphere, and earth-like climates that support life. Hmmm. No wonder there were trees on Endor. BTW, I liked Endor.

Pretty strong argument for Intelligent Design, eh?

RichC

That's pretty much the reason why I feel science fiction is to be enjoyed as entertainment, as it certainly does not hold up under scientific scrutiny. To support life, the planet needs plant life to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. Planets like Tatooine and Hoth with breathable air are impossible. (Where's the oxygen coming from?) Dagobah and Endor, however, require less suspension of disbelief to accept.

Plants and trees are lifeforms. It's as lazy as putting a horse or a rabbit in there and expecing people to buy that, too. The whole thing that sucks about Endor is that you're supposed to sit there and be wowed by the fact that you're watching action on a forest moon. You see trees on Naboo, Kashyyyk and Yavin but they're always just there. It's just totally underwhelming.

that's because only M-Class planets can support carbon based life

I have no idea what this thread is about anymore.

And M-Class planets have trees. So what's wrong with Endor, guys?

My anti-Endor opinion isn't even based on stuff like the plausibility of gravity, atmosphere, etc. That's where "suspension of disbelief" comes in. I'm a viewer that wants to be impressed and entertained and I am not impressed and entertained when I watch Endor for the reasons I've mentioned here. I expect more out of a sci-fi space opera. If you're going to show life, show alien life.

Then your comparison holds no water. Endor is just as "alien" as Tattooine, Coruscant, Hoth, Yavin, or any of the others.

How do you figure? The only one that is remotely close is Yavin and how much screentime does outdoor Yavin have in all of Episode IV? You see a couple shots of trees, big deal. Endor's "big draw" is that it's a forest. That is completely lame. If you can't see how Tattooine, Coruscant and Hoth are completley different, you obviously have some sort of mental disability. Take Coruscant for example. It's one big city that covers an entire planet. What would your reaction be if Lucas shot the Coruscant scenes in, let's just say, Detroit. You'd see Obi-Wan and Anakin running around modern-day buildings with no effort made to make them look interesting or exotic. That's basically what Lucas did with Endor.

It's probably why Coruscant isn't in the original trilogy. Lucus didn't have the technical ability to do it justice. Just as he didn't have the ablility to create Endor as a more exotic place. It's just a forest.

Ah, but it's a forest planet.

Nice personal attack.

As I and others have said, I see snow trees sand and city buildings regularly. Hoth is just as alien to me as Endor.