Best "Terrell Star Wars Post" ever!

p.s. I am not being sarcastic in any way. I was dumbfounded to see that I actually agreed with you for once in a Star Wars thread.

Which is why Lucas shouldn't have even attempted a "forest moon" until he could make it interesting.

Yeah, and Coruscant is a city planet, yet the city looks nothing like any city you would see on Earth.

And that's what he did with Tattooine and Hoth as well. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

Why is it so difficult for you go comprehend that sand and snow can exist anywhere but giant redwood trees only exist on Earth?

That wasn't your point. Your point was that a location of Redwood trees looked "cheap and lazy," a location you felt like you could get in your car and drive to. Well, you can do the same with the other STAR WARS locations as well. So that point is moot.

As for Redwoods only existing on Earth, by the same logic, only humans can exist on Earth, but that doesn't ruin the other STAR WARS films for you does it? Try coming up with just a shred of consistent logic and come back to us.

Wow...yet another thing to bitch about in these movies...

Umm...is this the DVD forum or the Movie forum???

I think I got lost on the way to see Oz.

Holy shit, I must be out of touch. What can I say, I love Star Wars to a fault.

Who is? Not a whole hell of a lot. The overwhelming majority of films ever made, even great films, don't have that caliber of acting.

I was always too busy enjoying the Star Wars trilogy to worry about this kind of stuff.

In a Universe where every planet has an earth-like atmosphere, almost every humanoid speaks English, and sound exists in the vacuum of space, I think it's not only possible but that it's probable that redwood forests might exist.

Arguing about whether sound really exists in space or whether a forest exists on other worlds, is akin to arguing that space slugs and jedi don't exist. It's fantasy. Who cares about this other stuff? Fantasys don't concern themselves with being scientifically accurate. Hell, most sci-fi films can't lay claim to be scientifically accurate all the time.

they should have never taken away the sub forum


jeez can we cut out a portion of a thread and move it to movies...

First of all, the existence of humans in the "Star Wars" films is a given. You see human rebel soldiers in some of the first shots aboard the Tantive IV in "A New Hope". Still, that's a rational leap to make, as a filmgoer I don't expect all the characters to be guys in masks. However, the more you start piling on the Earthly elements, the less impressive the films become.

Well, it does look cheap and lazy, but the difference between Tattooine/Hoth and Endor is Tattooine/Hoth: no lifeforms but the ones Lucas put there, Endor: recognizable Earth lifeforms. That's a pretty obvious difference right there.

You know, you're right, in "Star Wars" (especially in the EU) every writer has the option of just pulling any kind of planet they want out of nowhere. The possibilities are practically endless, and the practically infinite vastness of the "Star Wars" galaxy is often addressed within the stories themselves. So I have to ask, why did Lucas pick such a boring, uninteresting and underwhelming setting to stage his saga's ultimate climax? Hmm, perhaps because it was easy and cheap. The "Star Wars" galaxy is vast enough that practically every form of life and even society probably has it's place. I live in Wyoming and I'm sure there's a planet somewhere in the "Star Wars" galaxy that's just as boring and crappy as Wyoming but that doesn't mean I wanna sit there and watch Luke, Han and Leia run around there for the bulk of a 2 hour movie.

What are the so-called Earth lifeforms you keep talking about? There are no other lifeforms on Endor except for the ewoks, unless you're talking about the trees. I wouldn't call those recognizeable.

Yes, this discussion should be in the movie section. But it's a lost cause now.

Yeah, the trees, the grass, everything. There's nothing interesting, alien, or exotic about them. Even worse, they immediately scream out to the viewer "they are filming this in a forest in California". Also, if you care about such things (which you shouldn't) the (terrible) Ewoks movies have plain ol' horses and rabbits and shit running around Endor.

Hey, how about we keep saying the same things over and over again for another 2-3 pages? I'll start:

It's a fantasy movie. There's a sand planet and a ice planet, why not a forest planet? What lifeforms are you talking about? I like Endor. And rabbits.

I thought the planet of Ewoks was referred to as the forest moon of Endor...

After reading a bit, I don't either.



I thought that at one point, but it no longer seems to be serving that purpose.

Personal attacks are not allowed here at DVD Talk. In the future, please try to make your point without insulting other members.

MOD Note

Take the movie discussion to Movie Talk. If this thread doesn't get back on the topic of the DVD set, it will be closed.

To cop a line from MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING, wh-wh-why would you do that?

Ooh, this topic is like one of those movies where the last line is the same as the first line.

I can't understand the point of this release, if it is just the same as the previous box set, only with new art and sans the extras disc. Maybe we'll end up with as many versions of the original trilogy on dvd as there are versions of the Evil Dead trilogy!

The reason is to sell it at a lower price point. I don't believe this has been confirmed yet anyway.

There's likely a few of us wondering if the music glitches will be quietly fixed. If so, I'll likely be buying the new ones and selling my old box. I can find the bonus disc used.

As much as I hate the SE/DVD changes, I'd shell out the $30-40 for a fixed Star Wars boxset...