Wicket W. Warrick FTW

Whatever the fine detail of the argument in terms of time on screen. I think what is being said is that objectively speaking, a bunch of nomadic Santa's elves with fairy lights for eyes sqeaking "Utini!" might just be considered less imposing than a tribe of war-like man-eating voodoo bears ;-)

That being said, I don't have a problem with Ewoks, Jawas or Ugnaughts (Just Gungans), they are all fun little creatures that belong in the fun Star Wars universe.

and yes as has ben said many times the Ewoks do not defeat the Emperor's best troops, the Rebels best troops do that. The Ewoks merely get massacred causing a diversion.

Ryan McAvoy said:

and yes as has ben said many times the Ewoks do not defeat the Emperor's best troops, the Rebels best troops do that. The Ewoks merely get massacred causing a diversion.

Precisely.

I think if you return to the text and the author's stated intention you will find the Ewoks do slaughter the Imperials while the Rebels, when capable, fire some laser beams and get shot in the arm or robot (serves them right for not painting their robots green if you ask me).

Nothing too wrong with that if the Ewoks are a fierce warrior people and not slapstick comedy teddy bears capable of laying magic traps in a matter of moments under the full gaze of the troops that will be killed by them.

Jedi stinks.

The good moments it has are tied down by the stench of the sort of "It'll do", "It's only a movie", "It's for kids" mentality that would later lead to the worst prequel trilogy since... ever!

Bingowings said:

I think if you return to the text and the author's stated intention you will find the Ewoks do slaughter the Imperials while the Rebels, when capable, fire some laser beams and get shot in the arm or robot (serves them right for not painting their robots green if you ask me).

Nothing too wrong with that if the Ewoks are a fierce warrior people and not slapstick comedy teddy bears capable of laying magic traps in a matter of moments under the full gaze of the troops that will be killed by them.

Jedi stinks.

The good moments it has are tied down by the stench of the sort of "It'll do", "It's only a movie", "It's for kids" mentality that would later lead to the worst prequel trilogy since... ever!

QFT!

Saying that Ewoks are the same as Jawas is crazy. Jawas are mostly background entity that serves as a plot device for the droids to get from A to B. Ewoks are the reson the Alliance managed to defeat the Empire.

DominicCobb said:

defeat of some of, what are supposed to be, the Empire's best forces

I think it is reasonably to assume "best troops" was actually simply a reference to stormtroopers, since they were Empire's elite combat unit. And we already saw their "potency" in the previous two films.

Wexter said:

Saying that Ewoks are the same as Jawas is crazy. Jawas are mostly background entity that serves as a plot device for the droids to get from A to B. Ewoks are the reson the Alliance managed to defeat the Empire.

Like Ewoks contributed to the destruction of DS2, so did Jawas contribute to the destruction of DS1. As I said earlier, if Jawas didn't pick up the two droids in the desert they would easily be spotted and captured by imps and the rebels would not get the plans. This is completely equivalent to Ewoks providing distraction for the rebels to blow up the bunker and eventually DS2.

As I already said, they may have been a reason for Alliance to win the battle but they sure weren't the reason for the defeat of empire. My previous post explaining that:

imperialscum said:

And anyway the crucial point of Empire's defeat was not destruction of DS2 but the death of Emperor (which is entirely credited to Vader and Luke's influence on him). If he didn't kill him he would probably have escaped (even if DS2 was destroyed). Note that Emperor was not a proud guy like Tarkin, that he would stay on DS2 when there was a clear danger.

You guys arguing with impscum might be wise to remember a certain guy who insisted part two of a four part whatever was always the best no matter what.

What's an upnaught?

It's part of how babies are made.

DominicCobb said:

TV's Frink said:

You guys arguing with impscum might be wise to remember a certain guy who insisted part two of a four part whatever was always the best no matter what.

Hmm, what's a "four part whatever"?

Anything with four parts.

The point is that comparing Ewoks to Jawas is really silly, but good luck covincing this guy.

CO said:

My motto on ROTJ:

-When you compare it to most 3rd movies of a franchise its pretty damn good. 

-When you compare it to Star Wars and Empire, and it is average at best. 

My motto on ROTJ:

-When you compare it to all 3rd movies of any franchise its the best 3rd film ever made*. 

-When you compare it to Star Wars and Empire, and it is average at the very least.

(* Seriously name me another 3rd film that can match it from any other franchise. Even when GF2 was thought to be the ultimate sequel, GF3 dropped a massive b*llock)

Better than Goldfinger, Quatermass and the Pit, Day of the Dead? Really?

The only reason it's better than the PT is because it has the original cast in it but most of the time they are just going through the motions.

The only interesting new thing in it is Palpatine and he is just as good/bad in the PT...

...oh and Jabba who looks better than he does in TPM, has more to do but but you can't really hang a whole film's success on what he does.

Ryan McAvoy said:

-When you compare it to all 3rd movies of any franchise its the best 3rd film ever made

Goldfinger would like a word with you.

*edit*

Sorry about that Bingo.  I should have read through first.

Firstly 'Goldfinger' is just a random film in a series based on the 7th book and is not part of linked trilogy. There are worse bond films there are many that are better. ROTJ is better than it.

Secondly 'Quatermass and the Pit' was a remake of a BBC TV serial, not an orginal film but that's no reason to discount it. I've seen some of the Quatermass franchise but not that one, so I'll take your word for it being better than ROTJ.

Thirdly 'Day of the Dead' is inferior to both preceeding parts (Though still excellent). Nowhere close to ROTJ.

Fourthly 'Return of the King' is......    wait... you've got a point there. Damn fine film, first LOTR is better but ROTK is a massive improvement upon TTT. Still prefer ROTJ.

Fifthly 'Toy Story 3', that is a rare example of the 3rd film being the best by far yes. Still pants next to ROTJ.

Sixthly 'Last Crusade' is fun but not a patch on Raiders or Temple Of Doom. But it does actually rival ROTJ for shear entertainment, I'll give you that.

To offer something to this thread, I humbly resubmit this thread:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/In-Defense-of-Death-Star-II/topic/13065/

I humbly submit "spaceberg"...for something.

imperialscum said:

Wexter said:

Saying that Ewoks are the same as Jawas is crazy. Jawas are mostly background entity that serves as a plot device for the droids to get from A to B. Ewoks are the reson the Alliance managed to defeat the Empire.

Like Ewoks contributed to the destruction of DS2, so did Jawas contribute to the destruction of DS1. As I said earlier, if Jawas didn't pick up the two droids in the desert they would easily be spotted and captured by imps and the rebels would not get the plans. This is completely equivalent to Ewoks providing distraction for the rebels to blow up the bunker and eventually DS2.

Well, this is not "completely equivalent", since Ewoks voluntarily participated in a rather elaborate battle plan, while Jawas just collected two lost droids in a desert and tried to sell them for money, which is something they have been doing all their lives, R2 and 3PO or not.

Not gonna continue this discussion any longer, because I realize we are not going to agree on this, but I don't need this, I know I'm righ.

=>  ;-)