imperialscum said:

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.

I probably knew what "fantasy" was before you were even born so there's no need for lecture. I think we all are aware of what genre Star Wars belong to, and in that regard and up to that point in time Star Wars was pretty much the most brilliantly realized fantasy world ever created on film. It still to this day put a lot of imitators to shame.

I totally get that you don't like that shot of Ben's hut in the original film (I don't believe everyone did back then either) but what I'm trying to understand is how the hell can you find those shots in the original so displeasing and yet at the same time fully endorse those cartoony shots in the 1997 incarnation of Tatooine that to me completely break the "Suspension of disbelief" and find them so visually pleasing? You said that you are sensitive to visual aspects in film and yet... the Special Edition.

imperialscum said:

hairy_hen said:

You know, it continually amazes me how many so-called 'fans' of Star Wars don't actually seem to like Star Wars that much at all . . .

If it helps you, Star Wars is one of my top 3 favourite films of all time. The other two being Empire and Jedi of course.

What hairy_hen was trying to communicate was Star Wars the films not that laughable R&D project in the 90's.