Our Fault, Not George's? — Page 4

Anchorhead said:

As much as you may not care to hear it or accept it, there are some people who genuinely disliked Return when they saw it in the theater, myself among them.  We felt every bit as let down by it as you do by the prequels.

Our thoughts aren't cliche, they aren't invented, nor is our view a myth. For a great many people, the story & style of Return fits better with the prequels than they do with the first two films. That's been clearly demonstrated here and backed up with examples - not tired cliches.

 The one thing I noticed is what a person age when ROTJ came out really determines how much you love or hate the film.

I was 10 years old when it came, the perfect age for that movie at the time, too young to realize the Ewoks were too kiddy, too young to realize that there is major  difference in tone as compared to SW & ESB.  Just young enough to enjoy the whole movie, and at the time, I liked it better then Empire.  Of course that has changed in the past 20 years.

Anchorhead, I believe you are older then many of us here, so I can see a 16 or 19 year old walking into ROTJ thinking, "What the hell happened to the SW universe?"

I still contend that ROTJ is better then the PT simply because Lucas/Marquand got the Throne Room Sequence right, as that still is some great stuff that rivals the first two movies.  In the PT, he fucked up EVERY important scene (Anakins turn, building of Darth Vader, Padme losing the will to live, etc.) 

ROTJ still holds a special place in my heart because I do remember being totally amped that summer of 83 to see it, finally seeing it, actually remember where i was sitting, about 15 rows up and more to the left aisle-:), and walking out being on cloud 9.  Of course the movie is #3 compared to SW & ESB now, as I do see its flaws, but I will contend the Original Version works for me as the completion of my favorite trilogy.

Anchorhead said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think bashing ROTJ is a tired cliche...

 

a lot of inventing faults that weren't there...

 

It's a great film like the other two and I wish people would stop perpetuating the myth that it's the bad one in the trilogy.

As much as you may not care to hear it or accept it, there are some people who genuinely disliked Return when they saw it in the theater, myself among them.  We felt every bit as let down by it as you do by the prequels.

Our thoughts aren't cliche, they aren't invented, nor is our view a myth. For a great many people, the story & style of Return fits better with the prequels than they do with the first two films. That's been clearly demonstrated here and backed up with examples - not tired cliches.

I explained my thoughts here;

http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/How-would-you-have-done-ROTJ/post/370539/#TopicPost370539

 

Truthfully, when this came on the screen...

...it was all I could do to keep from walking out of the theater.

  "For a great many people, the story & style of Return fits better with the prequels than they do with the first two films. That's been clearly demonstrated here and backed up with examples - not tired cliches."

Not successfully demonstrated, not backed up with examples that prove the point. There is a huge gulf between the sincerity and seriousness that was in ROTJ (see the whole ROTJ Luke-Vader storyline for the best of it) and the ineffectual sweetness and unconvincing blandness and artificiality of TPM, let alone the utter soullessness of the later two prequels (which you really should see before you make generalizations about the prequels). TPM did have its stronger elements, most notably stuff involving Qui Gon and particularly his death, but that stuff was set in a sea of weak stuff that did not convince. ROTJ had its lighter elements (which people never cease giving it hell for), but they were set in a film which had strong real feeling aplenty and a convincing imaginative vision. ROTJ rang true, ewoks and humor and all. TPM did not. Whereas the later prequels (which are very different from TPM) had no hint of any sort of emotional depth and had a totally unconvincing imaginative vision that made TPM look convincing by contrast. ROTJ was vital and alive and heartfelt. TPM was mostly just plastic and the other two prequels were even less than that. I'll remind you that you claim to have not seen ROTJ in many years, whereas I have watched it recently and studied it carefully, and the same with the prequels.

ROTJ had somewhat childish elements set against a foundation mentality that was more emotionally serious. TPM was just childish. ROTJ is certainly different from ANH, but like ANH it is sincere and heartfelt. TPM was different from the later two prequels, but like them it did not ring true.

Re your ewok picture, picking on one creature that appears only briefly and is a very minor part of the film does not work as an argument to condemn the whole film. And while that baby ewok is perhaps a tad more cute than it needs to be, the reality is that there are baby animals that can look extremely cute similar to that, as if designed for cuteness, so it is not so unconvincing as a creature. Plus, the majority of ewoks did not look like that and actually looked rather serious and fierce (particularly if people bother to look them close in the face and read their facial expressions, which people don't seem to think of doing). That baby ewok is still miles better than cartoon creatures like Jar Jar who don't even look 3-dimensional and who are designed for humor to the point of looking like jokes. That baby ewok is alive and vibrant and looks like it has a mind of its own, not like Jar Jar. It is even better than the Trade Federation guys, who were not cgi, because it is cuteness in a creature you might expect cuteness in, while they were cartoon humor in villains. You picked on the worst of ROTJ and it's still way ahead of the prequels. 

I explained my thoughts here;

http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/How-would-you-have-done-ROTJ/post/370539/#TopicPost370539 

And I answered them in full weeks ago.

As for invention, cliche and myth, I must disagree. The same tired points are rallied against ROTJ endlessly, despite the fact that they are inaccurate in their view of the film and its specifics and refuse to recognize the merits (often at least) and overall nature of the film. The view of ROTJ as this lame utterly childish film that stinks compared to the other two is indeed a myth, one that simply does not take into consideration the true nature of the film and all the stuff in it that soundly refutes such a viewpoint. And I do see invention, where people look for faults that are not there or blow wildly out of proportion things which are not harmful at all. ROTJ has been beaten over the head unfairly for over a generation. One would think that after Lucas finally did put out films that fitted the derogatory description given to ROTJ, people would see the difference and forgive ROTJ for faults and quirks that are nothing compared to those of the prequels. Obviously, you're not going to agree with my views stated here, but that's how I feel on the matter and my view is the product of many viewings and much thought.

And yes I know some people disliked ROTJ in the theater, but they have been joined over the years by many people who originally liked the film. I think there has been subtle pressure to adopt a certain view about ROTJ. And as for people dislikng it in the theaters, that can happen with any film, no matter how great, so it says little. People who felt ROTJ was a huge let-down perhaps expected the wrong things of Star Wars. From the very beginning, Star wars was jokey, with 3PO and R2's comedy act in the first film and the blatant comedy elements in the Leia rescue/escape from the death star part of the story. The ewoks did not admittedly have precedent in the first film, but they are rather less purely cute than they are often given credit for, and I don't find it impossible to believe them as being in the same universe as the first film. Unlike Jar Jar, who is clearly just a Roger Rabbit transplant. The ewoks stretch the mold a bit, but they do not break it. Remember, the first film had some pretty dumb unconvincing creatures in the cantina -the devil and werewolf costumes come to mind. Those appeared only briefly, but then so did the baby ewok you showed above. The argument that Star Wars is for kids has been overused in recent times, used to pretend the OT's for-kids-but-designed-to-be-appreciated-by-adults targeting was the same as the PT's for-kids-and-morons mentality. However, it is fact that Lucas indicated as early as 1977 that Star wars was for kids. So it should not have been expected to keep entirely adult in taste. However even ROTJ is, if approached with an open flexible mind, a film that can be appreciated by adults. People overreact to the ewoks and react to a bit of humor and fun like it was paedophile porn spliced into the film.

And let's remember, the ewoks were NOT the cute Care Bears they were made into in the cartoon, nor were they stuffed toys like they were in the merchandising. They were fierce little fuckers who nearly ATE the main characters. And their facial expressions varied from the serious and oddly mature (Wicket) to the downright nasty-looking (Chirpa). There was a distinct streak of untamed dangerous wildness in them, very at odds with the cute stuffed toy image they are often laden with. Yes they were used for comedy, but so were R2 and 3PO from the first film onwards, and R2 was always designed to be cute, the stubby little droid with his cute little noises and comically independent personality.

I notice from your tone that you are getting a tad pissed off with me. There is no need to make this personal or heated. We disagree over a film, that is all. Admittedly we both feel strongly about it and the issue is personal to us, but I would hope we could get along.  

CO said:

Anchorhead said:

As much as you may not care to hear it or accept it, there are some people who genuinely disliked Return when they saw it in the theater, myself among them.  We felt every bit as let down by it as you do by the prequels.

Our thoughts aren't cliche, they aren't invented, nor is our view a myth. For a great many people, the story & style of Return fits better with the prequels than they do with the first two films. That's been clearly demonstrated here and backed up with examples - not tired cliches.

 The one thing I noticed is what a person age when ROTJ came out really determines how much you love or hate the film.

I disagree. There are many people who were very young when it came out, or were even born after it came out, who dislike it same as Anchorhead. And there are people who were in their twenties or thirties when it came out who like it fine.

Anchorhead said:

CO said:

Anchorhead said:

As much as you may not care to hear it or accept it, there are some people who genuinely disliked Return when they saw it in the theater, myself among them.  We felt every bit as let down by it as you do by the prequels.

Our thoughts aren't cliche, they aren't invented, nor is our view a myth. For a great many people, the story & style of Return fits better with the prequels than they do with the first two films. That's been clearly demonstrated here and backed up with examples - not tired cliches.

 The one thing I noticed is what a person age when ROTJ came out really determines how much you love or hate the film....

 

Anchorhead, I believe you are older then many of us here, so I can see a 16 or 19 year old walking into ROTJ thinking, "What the hell happened to the SW universe?"

I think that's a great point.  I was 21 when Return came out. The science fiction story I loved as a 15-year-old was now a children's story - and I had to say goodbye to it.

The Star Wars universe that was so mysterious and vast in 1977 had now become small, incestuous, and juvenile. I felt no emotional connection to it at all.

I had called in sick that day so I could go see it on opening day.  I distinctly remember thinking that I wished I had gone to work instead and just waited until that night.  I lost the price of my ticket and a full day's pay.

 

 I think that's a great point.  I was 21 when Return came out. The science fiction story I loved as a 15-year-old was now a children's story - and I had to say goodbye to it.

It was always a children's story.

The Star Wars universe that was so mysterious and vast in 1977 had now become small, incestuous, and juvenile. I felt no emotional connection to it at all.

Whereas I think Luke and Leia being siblings improved the story. ROTJ was full of emotional connection. It is saddening to hear you couldn't feel it.

The weird unspoken truth is that Lucas/lucasfilm is always baffled or annoyed when people take the whole thing too seriously (about Greedo shooting or jar jar or whatever) but the entire company is built on exactly that: people being way too serious about Star Wars! And you can't have it both ways. If Star Wars was allowed to just be six old summer movies that you can pick and choose to revisit as you like, and nothing more (which I would love) there's NO lucasfilm as we know it.

Gaffer Tape said:

I suppose I can sum up ROTJ in a word:  competent.  Most of it is overwhelmingly... competently done.  The beginning is a train wreck. 

 The beginning was some of the best stuff out of all three films.

Vaderisnothayden said:

It was always a children's story.

VINH, I have to respectfully disagree.  SW77' and ESB were not MADE for children, they were essentially made for an older teenager audience that kids and adults can enjoy.

Lucas had NO idea that children like myself would latch onto it in 1977, or else he wouldn't have marketed to at Comic Con back in 1976.  The demographic for that audience was teenage/early 20's comic/scifi geeks who were a niche audience.  Lucas even said if the movie made 50 million he would have been happy.

What happen to SW was an utter phenomenon, and I have always stood by the success of the movie to the masses was the worse thing to happen to the series, because essentially Lucas tried to please everyone.

SW & ESB are true hard hitting scifi movies that are edgy, yet have a touch of humor, but really not TARGETED to kids.  You don't have burning skeletons in a kids movie!  You don't have Luke get his hand chopped off in a kids movie!  Trust me, I watched alot of kids movies in the late 70's/early 80's, they were more in line with 'The Muppet Movie' and 'The Apple Dumpling Gang'.

You can see in the PT, and in some instances in ROTJ, that Lucas tried to please EVERYONE.   You have Anakin burning up in ROTS on Mustafar which is clearly not for kids, yet you have a cheesy villain like General Grevious who is clearly made for kids.  You have a cool villain like Darth Maul and then you have a character like Jar Jar Binks.  The PT is all over the place. 

xhonzi said:

 

After the movie, my wife and I were discussing our relative dissatisfactions with the movie and specifically the "turn."  She asked me how it could have been better.  My mind instantly went back to the Emperor's Throne Room.  It gave me an all new appreciation for how good that scene really was.  When Luke uses the Dark Side while putting the smack down on Vader... that feels very real, believable and... smooth.  It comes from the characters.  Luke using the Dark Side something that comes from the character, something that's been under the surface the entire movie.  Anakin's turn is something dictated by the script.

 This is exactly how I feel towards ROTJ, and probably why I sat there in utter belief when Anakin finally turned in ROTS, "OK, that was it?????"

Lucas sold the audience on the dark side back in 1983, you felt it building and building as The Emperor goated Luke for the last 20 minutes of the movie.  Once Luke goes apeshit on Vader, you got a taste of what the dark side can do to a person. 

Once Anakin turns in ROTS, it throws away everything that Lucas accomplished in 1983.  I know Zombie talked about this before about how Lucas re-shot the turn scene and everything that led up to that point because the first shot didn't work, and it felt uninspired.  Hey George, did you watch the re-shoots???  The same thing happened!

This was my point about the difference between the PT and ROTJ.  ROTJ has its flaws, and it is has that kiddy tone, but the last 45 minutes is absolutely fabulous.  Does it make a classic movie?  No, but good enough.

Sorry, I haven't put in an avatar after all these years, just call me lazy -:)

Anchorhead said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Not successfully demonstrated, not backed up with examples that prove the point. 

There are plenty of examples in this thread (and others) of people's reasons for feeling the way they do.  No need for me to quote them all.
And for the record, people's examples of what they dislike are not incorrect, myth, cliche', etc - they're people's examples of what they dislike.

People's opinions of a film - of anything - are not incorrect. If someone doesn't dig Eggs Benedict, they really don't dig it - it's not a myth or a cliche - it's a meal they don't care to eat.  Even if it's your favorite meal, it doesn't mean the people who don't like it are wrong.

You liking Return doesn't mean my reasons for disliking it are cliche - it means that in 1983 I didn't like the film. I've given you my reasons and I assure you, they are correct - they're actually the reasons I don't like it.  They're not final say on what the film is - they're my reasons for not liking it.

You're appreciation of the film doesn't render my dislike of it as incorrect. You can rest assured that no matter how many times you tell me my opinion is incorrect - it's not. I've disliked Return for 26 years. That dislike is genuine.

...the later two prequels (which you really should see before you make generalizations about the prequels).

Regarding my not having seen the last two prequels or the SEs - I always preface my limited comments on them with the statement that I haven't seen them and that I can only base my opinions on the one prequel I have seen.

 

Re your ewok picture, picking on one creature that appears only briefly and is a very minor part of the film does not work as an argument to condemn the whole film

It doesn't have to work as an argument to condemn the whole film - it only has to work as one of the reasons I dislike the film.

V - I find some of your comments and posts to be very interesting & insightful. My problem isn't with you or your defense, enjoyment, and feelings regarding Return.   My problem is you continually telling me that my thoughts & opinions are incorrect. They aren't.  With God as my witness - I honestly don't like Return. I was disappointed by it about 30 minutes into in 1983 and that has never changed, nor will it ever.

I notice from your tone that you are getting a tad pissed off with me.

Not at all.  However, if that ever does happen, you'll know immediately.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to pack.  I'm getting in about 300 miles of riding tomorrow and then I'm off to California for a week.

The issue is not whether you or anyone else dislikes ROTJ. The issue is whether that makes it an inferior film. I can't believe you don't realize that such dislike and the reasons for it are presented as reasons why the film is actually in reality inferior. You yourself have presented such reasons for dislike as reasons why the film is simply bad. Obviously I'm not arguing whether or not people dislike the film. I'm arguing with the assumption that the reasons they dislike the film make it a bad film. Those arguments when presented as reasons why the film is a bad film can indeed be cliched and incorrect and the view of the film they promote (as being this bad film with all these supposed damning faults) can indeed be a myth. Similarly, while people can give examples why they dislike ROTJ, they cannot and have not given examples that successfully prove it is a bad or inferior film. Which was what I was talking about. The whole topic of this discussion is not whether or not people dislike ROTJ. It's whether or not ROTJ is a bad film in actual reality.

Regarding my not having seen the last two prequels or the SEs - I always preface my limited comments on them with the statement that I haven't seen them and that I can only base my opinions on the one prequel I have seen.

Not in this discussion. You compared ROTJ to "the prequels", clearly speaking of the prequels in general, with no reference to the fact that you had not seen two of them and thus could not accurately make that generalization. And not watching them leaves you out of the loop on a major area of Star wars knowledge. You really should watch them to get the full picture.

It doesn't have to work as an argument to condemn the whole film - it only has to work as one of the reasons I dislike the film.

I disagree. It was presented as an argument why your dislike of the film meant the film was bad. As such it does have to work as an argument against the whole film.

My problem is you continually telling me that my thoughts & opinions are incorrect. They aren't. 

If your thoughts and opinions are presented as reasons why ROTJ is actually bad (as opposed to simply reasons why you dislike it) then I will certainly contend they are incorrect.

CO said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

It was always a children's story.

VINH, I have to respectfully disagree.  SW77' and ESB were not MADE for children, they were essentially made for an older teenager audience that kids and adults can enjoy.

Lucas had NO idea that children like myself would latch onto it in 1977, or else he wouldn't have marketed to at Comic Con back in 1976.  The demographic for that audience was teenage/early 20's comic/scifi geeks who were a niche audience.  Lucas even said if the movie made 50 million he would have been happy.

What happen to SW was an utter phenomenon, and I have always stood by the success of the movie to the masses was the worse thing to happen to the series, because essentially Lucas tried to please everyone.

SW & ESB are true hard hitting scifi movies that are edgy, yet have a touch of humor, but really not TARGETED to kids.  You don't have burning skeletons in a kids movie!  You don't have Luke get his hand chopped off in a kids movie!  Trust me, I watched alot of kids movies in the late 70's/early 80's, they were more in line with 'The Muppet Movie' and 'The Apple Dumpling Gang'.

Well, back in 77 Lucas said Star Wars was for kids, so that view is not a new development. And I don't think your arguments work as proof that it is not a kids film that was made to be appreciated by adults. As for being hard hitting science fiction movies that are edgy, I see ROTJ as being that. I think there's more room for different things in a kids film than you allow.

Also, it's been pointed out to me that the ending of ANH (big happy celebration, they all get medals) is hardly mature and is distinctly kiddy. While Leia's bikini outfit is certainly not a sign of a film that is aimed strictly at kids.

TPM WAS aimed strictlly at kids and there you get a guy being chopped in half. I don't see how that's so different from burning skeletons and a hand getting chopped off. And we had a guy burning up in the second ewok movie.

C3PX said:

I think the large (or perhaps "absolutely vast" is a better way to put it) number of teenage fans Star Wars had back in the late seventies (and we are not only talking about the "geeky" kids here) is a pretty big testament to Star Wars having not been a kids movie.

Name one single kids movie that was released in the last ten years that has wound up with a large number of teenage fans. This sort of thing just doesn't happen.

Perhaps Star Wars is hard to place because it was something so new, there really wasn't anything else like it back in its day. Sure, there were plenty of sci-fi films, but Star Wars had a certian unique quality to it. Star Wars really caught audiences off guard and they fell in love with it, young and old alike. Nowadays Star Wars' style is often emulated by kids movies, perhaps this makes it easier to retcon it as strictly a kids film, that adults just happened to like (which is what Lucas claims it was all along). But evidence still indicates that it was intended for an audience much larger than just children.

 "Name one single kids movie that was released in the last ten years that has wound up with a large number of teenage fans. This sort of thing just doesn't happen."

Just because something doesn't usually happen doesn't mean it can't happen.

"Nowadays Star Wars' style is often emulated by kids movies, perhaps this makes it easier to retcon it as strictly a kids film, that adults just happened to like "

There's a difference between saying it's a kids film designed to appeal to adults and saying it's strictly a kids film that adults just happen to like. Like I said, Lucas talked about it as for kids back in 1977, so that's not a recent retcon.

Anchorhead said:

Vaderisnothayden,

Since you've moved on to baiting & trolling, let me leave you with three things.

1. I'm never going to watch the second two prequels or the SEs.

2. You don't get to decide whether or not Return is a good film - just as I don't get to decide it's a bad film. Our thoughts can only represent our worlds.  In yours, you like the film and think it's good - in mine, I dislike the film and think it's bad. Those are truths that are not debatable, even though you continue to try.

3. I don't care about Return - at all. Watch it weekly if you want. I'm never going to watch it again.

 

Now, you'll have to champion the film without any further input from me.

Besides, I have a plane to catch.

 "Since you've moved on to baiting & trolling, let me leave you with three things."

Ok, you've lost me there. How in god's name did I move on to baiting and trolling? It seems to me like you're taking great offense at, well, nothing. Stuff that is not offensive and was never meant to be offensive. That is not fair behavior.

Edit: Just for the sake of fairness, I went back and carefully reread my last post to you which you had found so offensive, and I still cannot for the life of me see any sort of "baiting and trolling" in it.

1. I'm never going to watch the second two prequels or the SEs.

Why is that? If you see them you'll understand better what went wrong with the prequels and what has happened to Star Wars. Those last two films are quite an eye-opener. They go wrong so horribly and in so many ways. I find it very interesting to analyze their fucked-upness and their mentality and mood. I think you could get much out of watching them and finding out what people here are talking about. Certainly, I think it is unfair to say ROTJ is similar to "the prequels", which indicates similarity to the dreadful later two prequels (along with the first), without having seen the two films you are comparing it to.

You don't get to decide whether or not Return is a good film - just as I don't get to decide it's a bad film. Our thoughts can only represent our worlds.  In yours, you like the film and think it's good - in mine, I dislike the film and think it's bad. Those are truths that are not debatable, even though you continue to try.

I am entitled to my opinion on how good ROTJ is and entitled to express that opinion. And when somebody says something totally at odds with that opinion I am entitled to convey my belief that they're mistaken. As for deciding ROTJ is a bad film, that's precisely what you've been doing. Nor have I ever debated whether you dislike the film and think it's bad (I explained very clearly in my last post to you that I wasn't doing that). I merely debated that your reasons for disliking it do not make it in actual reality a bad film.

I don't care about Return - at all. Watch it weekly if you want. I'm never going to watch it again.

That sounds to me like you care about it rather a lot, even if only in the negative. I think you said you last watched it twelve years ago. I think if you're going to be passing judgement on it you need a more recent look at it. Like for example I watched it today while keeping in mind the criticisms of yourself and other people here, my aim being to give those criticisms and similar ones a chance. My conclusion was that while the film has childish elements, it transcends the problem of those elements and ultimately comes through with flying colors and contributes much to the saga. Unlike the prequels, it is a vibrant, sincere and heartfelt film. And damn desperately good-natured, which makes the hatred of it seem all the more unfair.

C3PX said:

xhonzi said:

CO, you really need an Avatar.  You've been around too long to still look like a n00b upon first glance.

 

Yeah, seriously CO, especially since the avatar's size has just been blown up beyond all reason and now covers a huge portion of each post's real estate. I honestly didn't even realize you had no avatar until the things got jumbo sized a few days ago. Weren't you a Snowtrooper back in the days of the old software (back when I was a red eyed Ewok with a cowboy hat)? Perhaps someone should make you a lovely Snowtroper avatar that you can use, since you are too lazy to do it yourself. Oh, I have a great avatar of the Pope with a very Palpatinian look on his face that I am not using if you want it...

I also have a fine selection of Planet of the Apes related avatars, and I think I might even have a South Park Stormtrooper (which goes nicely with my South Park Cylon).

The void of all these blank faces around this place is starting to disturb me... Massive avatars might be a cool idea for a forum, if you have a forum where your members actually use avatars... Perhaps Jay should come up with a default avatar that all non-avatared user get. It could just be text stating something to the effect of "This user lacks technical know-how and/or the will to setup an avatar. Get over it."

 "Oh, I have a great avatar of the Pope with a very Palpatinian look on his face that I am not using if you want it..."

Lol! I have a friend who keeps saying the pope is very reminiscent of the emperor. People are always drawing comparisons between Palpatine and real-life people. For my part, when Obama got elected and Biden got up there on the dais with him, Biden's grin reminded me instantly of Palpatine, particularly Palpatine in TPM in full-on politician mode. 

The void of all these blank faces around this place is starting to disturb me... Massive avatars might be a cool idea for a forum, if you have a forum where your members actually use avatars... Perhaps Jay should come up with a default avatar that all non-avatared user get. It could just be text stating something to the effect of "This user lacks technical know-how and/or the will to setup an avatar. Get over it."

Some forums have a lot of stock avatars which people can choose from if they don't want to create a custom avatar, like avatars of lots of different characters, etc. But setting up such a selection might be a big project.

ROTJ was badly written, badly structured, directed in an anodyne way and at times it's painfully cartoonish (Henson style puppets around that time were very much the equivalent to the CGI creatures of today. ESB Yoda = LOTR Gollum, ROTJ Jabba's court = TPM Jar-Jar and most of the Pod Racers including Anakin).

While some of the special effects were amazing achievements those that were were undermined by some really sloppy work mixed in.

If it wasn't for the original cast (some of which are not doing their best) and Ian (who does a lot more work in the film than people give him credit for) it would be just as bad as the PT.

No major characters were killed in ESB but there is a palpable feeling of danger throughout.

Almost every loose end character is dispatched in ROTJ but at no point (even when I was 13) did I feel that our heroes were in serious danger.

The way Yoda is removed from the picture is almost comical in it's current form.

After a few weeks training Luke in the previous film and waiting for him to save Han, Yoda hangs on just long enough to die after a few sentences..."Hi Luke, nice to see you back, I've got a bit of a cough, I'm a bit old, actually I'm going to die right now, oh yeah Vader's your dad...Ben will explain the rest byeee!".

The whole film just feels like a giant post-it note floating in space saying, "Contractual Obligation Finale" in big amber letters.

George Lucas doesn't get Star Wars (he hates the "I know" line).

It's the heavy weight champion of paradoxes.

He gave us all this amazing toy and then charges us cash once in while to watch him smash it in front of us and we still come back for more.