msycamore said:

imperialscum said:

For example, (to my knowledge) the new Ben's house shot uses a combination of model and matte painting which is the same technique extensively used in the original versions. So it looks just as "cartoony" as many similar original versions shots.

When I said cartoony crap I was referring to the stuff mostly seen in the 1997 Mos Eisley. The original shot of Ben's hut is nothing visually exciting, I give you that but ultimately it served its purpose. If you are indeed so sensitive to visual aspects in films as you say I simply cannot understand that you find this short transitional shot of Ben's hut in the original film so jarring but at the same time are not being taken out of the film by the pointless additions to Tatooine in the SE.

Star Wars is a fantasy and pretty much the main purpose of a fantasy is to generate a world where the audience can escape to. Despite being short, set establishing shots (e.g. Ben's house) and transition shots (e.g. sandcrawler, R2 in the canyon, approach to Mos Eisley) have a crucial role in that. These shots are the small window of opportunity to relay the information about the world to the spectator since the main scenes usually focus on the actors.

And I am not a fan of the CGI creatures added to some of the shots. But I can live with them. The crappy original shot of Ben's house just don't live up to similar scenes in ESB and ROTJ.