twooffour

!!! ^^

Thanks :)

Thing is, though, the source of that reference is pretty lame, and so is my screenname :DD

hey, i think i'm tired of coming up with clever pretentious stuff about highlighting the biggest plot holes in Palpatine's plan in each movie or whatever... let's just call them:

EpI: sux, has stupid kid in it

EpII: boring crap, Anakin's an awful actor!

EpIII: Total steaming pile of sith, I mean, this is just sucks, the noo, the dialogue... SHIT!!!

Wow, just came up with the best, wittiest titles ever.

k...

... coffee!!

You see, this thread ain't really ab- 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoBoMvY0U10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoBoMvY0U10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoBoMvY0U10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoBoMvY0U10

°_°

Who... ME???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xuvbAhYlx4

NNNNNeevaaaar!

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

You know, fuck that crap - I've seen a few of that guy's posts, seen this one, and posted what I always post in comparable situations: an incredulous rebuttal starting with a formulaic "not sure whether you're trolling, but..."; why do I do that? Well, in part because, in case the individual happens to be a troll, I don't want to look stupid to said troll by showing them that I fall for their theatrics :D

skyjedi is not a troll.  But even if he was...I guarantee no one here would have said "jeez, that new twooffour guy fell for his bullshit" if you had just kept your mouth shut.

And neither would he - but he would've thought it ;)

Hey, come on, man, relax, I've already "got it" the first time you said that... not planning to bring it up again, either.

twister111 said:

Lame article, was Lame.


Title of

17 images that will ruin your childhood

Not fulfilled. Article is epic fail. BTS pics =/= ruined childhood. Showing years later pics =/= ruined childhood.

@Article writer

 

That made me LOL :DDDD

Gaffer Tape said:

Anyway, the point Frink is trying to make here is that, like it or not, online forums, and any social circle for that matter, have something of a pecking order.  New people who come in have to earn their place in the community, develop a rapport with the locals.  And when you have, then the occasional "calling people out" can be seen as more tolerable, depending on the circumstances.  But there's little that ruffles a social circle's feathers more than for the new guy to harass one of their own.  Even if it's justified, it's not at all a way for a newbie to earn his stripes.  Just like making a sexually charged comment to a close friend is funny but saying that same thing to a stranger might get you arrested.  It's all about building relationships.

Thanks for your input. However, you see, I just so happen to cyberlive by the philosophy that this kind of "unspoken social rules" shouldn't apply on anonymous online chatboards, or at the very least, shouldn't be taken particularly seriously there.

Yes, we have our inherent human instincts that we spray everywhere we happen to pass by, and online forums often show the same kind of irrational, dumb herd behavior that we can find equivalents of in real life (like jumping on the bandwagon of harassing some perceived "forum dork" or whatever) - but on here, we are all just anonymous walls of text, having giant flatscreen monitors (and anonymity) to shield us from any kind of considerable emotional injury by others, and above all, united in talking about some movie franchise - not a group of real, vulnerable people living in the complexity inter-human relationships, complete with emotional attachments, and complete personal exposure to the outside environment.

... I know I am.

That's why I don't mind casually calling people morons for saying something silly on the intertubes, while certainly refraining from doing anything of that kind in real life, knowing fully well that it can lead both to escalation (especially when strangers are involved) and actual emotional injury (when friends are involved).

That's why, when being insulted on tah intarwibz, I just casually shrug it off and playfully write back a vitriolic response, while lightheartedly continuing a civil discussion with the same guy on another thread - and in the rare case of receiving some kind of serious insult from someone I know in real life, I might as well turn away and write off the person as one I don't want to waste time with anymore.

That's why, on the internet, "trolling" is usually ascribed to brainless basement teenyboppers with way too much time on their hands, while in real life (or celebrity spotlight), successful "trolling" will inadvertedly earn some respect for personality and successful real-life acting.

And in a case of hilarious irony, that's why I'll mostly shrug off any kind of "trolling on the intertubes" as some kind of fun pasttime by some dude somewhere, who enjoys leading some other dudes on the internet by the nose a bit, while in real life, such a person can very easily verge into the "manipulative jerkhole" territory depending on the context. 

And that's why, when coming on an internet board (especially one dedicated to movies, and not some kind of "lonely friends circle), I openly couldn't give a wet crap about some kind of "unwritten social circle rules", save for the Forum Rules of Conduct (although I can sure forget myself on occasion and post an image response or something), or whatever some butthurt, self-proclaimed "veteran" of said social cybergroup has to say to me about " having to know my place as a newbie in this community".

You know, fuck that crap - I've seen a few of that guy's posts, seen this one, and posted what I always post in comparable situations: an incredulous rebuttal starting with a formulaic "not sure whether you're trolling, but..."; why do I do that? Well, in part because, in case the individual happens to be a troll, I don't want to look stupid to said troll by showing them that I fall for their theatrics :D

Sorry if it offends anyone ;)

Hey, what's that? Don't want long walls of text, don't provoke me :DDDD b)

TV's Frink said:

^I'm not sure if you are a troll or not, but your behavior suspiciously looks like trolling.

No, it looks like suspiciously pulling your leg.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

nvm - it was a (very shitty and lame) inside-joke, certainly referring to something godawaful anyone who'd understand it would be probably ashamed of even knowing, anyway; so yea, no one cares about your, *ahem* mine, I said mine, er, my lame in-joke, because no one's lame enough to look at shitty stuff like the kind I watch! Yea.. !! 

fixxx0rt

Hey, you can't just go around quoting my posts and changing the text like that!

Plus, it's spelled "fixed", not "fixord" - we're not on some kind of silly geek forum here, you know...

Hey, buddy, quit whining so much, okay?

Here's something that might help:

Feeling better? Hopefully? :(

I've been called a troll numerous times by various people, as well, and mostly with a lot less justification than here.

For all it's worth, I didn't say he was a troll, I said "I'm not sure whether", which means as much as "this behavior suspiciously looks like trolling", and by "this behavior", I mean jumping onto some random Cracked article that had a bit of Star Wars in it, and complaining how it didn't also rip apart his behated prequels and Indy 4.

I mean, the FRIDGE, Lucas, THE FRIDGE... how'd it get nuked, how'd it get NUUUKED??!!

And I've seen a couple of this guy's earlier posts, as well - knowing damn well that if I started hopping into every discussion to shove down everyone's throat how "the OT had so many plot holes", no matter how appropriate in the context of the topic, I'd be quickly labelled as a POSSIBLE troll by quite a lot of people.

In a bit of whacky "fridge brilliance" here: you know, in a way, a guy who ends up behaving somewhat like a troll without any intentions of doing so... in a way, is much more of a troll than an actual troll! Think about this... a guy who unintentionally becomes a victim of his own obsession about something... an obsession that grows and metastasizes, and causes him to "grow and metastize" his obsessions all over the world... to a point until he's consumed by his anger, and obsession, and it grows and grows until it becomes a monster within... the person isn't a troll... he BECOMES the troll!!!!! From within!!!!!!!!

...

...

Nah, just kidding around here... hey skyjedi, in case you're reading this, no harm meant, I'm just rambling! :D

The point was, the article wasn't about shitty sequels. Full stop xD

nvm - it was a (lame) inside-joke only for the smart ones who are in *the* know :P

Not with this guy apparently :DD

TV's Frink said:

bkev said:

Wall of quoted text makes me a sad panda.

Glad I'm not the only one.

Makes me a very sad Borg, too... well, I cryalot in that dreamland with the horny Klingon, then I come back and remember nothing :DD

Akwat Kbrana said:

Asteroid-Man said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

So regarding the PT as badly-acted is elitist, but asserting with equal dogmatism that the entire saga is badly-acted is...what, fair & balanced?

 they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion.

See, in my opinion this is far more elitist than the manifold complaints about the PT's poor writing, acting, and execution. You're basically saying that those who prefer the OT over the PT don't have valid opinions because their opinions have been distorted by nostalgia. And that's a lot more elitist than anything RLM and his fans are saying.

First of all I never said the saga was "badly-acted", I said the acting wasn't it's strong point - for example, look at an ensemble cast like that of in BB/TDK and even LOTR and compare it to SW. Saying "the acting in SW is amazing" is just naive and biased. Look, I LOVE Star Wars, but even I can admit Hamill's acting in the SW and ESB wasn't anything special... ESPECIALLY his reaction to Vader's revelation.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying those who unconditionally see the OT as perfection and the PT as pure dribble have their opinions distorted by nostalgia - so if you think everyone at OT unconditionally loves the OT and sees it as perfect then I guess you would take it that way, but most people on these forums can point out the flaws to even the OT.

Ok, so you're talking mainly about the haljordan28 types, who really do assume that the OT is utterly flawless and the PT is utterly flawed. Well that makes a bit more sense then; I just thought you were being hyperbolic. In that case, your charge of elitism is probably pretty accurate. Then again, that mindset is really only displayed by the kook fringe, both in terms of Star Wars fandom at large as well as on this site in particular. I'd say the kind of knee-jerk OT = good / PT = bad mentality has so few adherents on this forum that you could count them on one hand. Most of the members here would be considered "bashers" by TFNers, but are actually pretty rational in approaching the SW saga and criticizing the PT. So why focus on the few loonies whose poorly-expressed ramblings are (in my opinion) not really even worth reading?

As for the acting merits of the OT...well, as Bingowings said we're obviously going to have to agree to disagree. I'll confess that the OT's acting may not be quite on par with, say, LOTR, but I wouldn't agree that it's inherently weak. Obviously what makes acting good or bad is partially subjective, but my criterion is this: good acting is that which effectively portrays characters as real people, and thus succeeds in suspending disbelief. Are some of Han's one-liners cheesy? Perhaps. But at no point in SW or ESB do I find the characters to be unconvincing or artificial. (ROTJ is admittedly a good deal weaker in this area.) When I'm watching Han, Luke, and Leia in these films, I see Han, Luke, and Leia. Quite to the contrary, when I watch the PT, all I can see is a group of actors trying valiantly to portray some poorly-written characters, and failing in that endeavor. In Ep. 1-3, the characters don't feel real to me. This, at least as far as I'm concerned, makes the PT acting incredibly bad.

Even at its weakest point (ROTJ), I don't think the OT approaches the level of poor acting that the PT evidences throughout its run. Carrie and Harrison do seem to be "phoning in" on this one, though its more noticeable in Carrie's case since Harrison's natural charisma allows him to coast a little without too much collateral damage. Moreover, Mark really pulled out all the stops in this one and delivered such an impressive performance that it almost makes up for the weak performances of his co-stars. IMO, at least.

/completely agree.

Additionally to that, the most impressive feat ROTJ pulled off was introducing this utter cartoon of a monster uber villain, complete with bad, black teeth, forced evil laughter and saying things like "foolly oparatayshanal battl stayshannn!" all while cackling like the witch from Snowy White or something, and making him come off as a CHILLINGLY MENACING IMPERSONATION OF EVIL that can make you feel like burning in the eternal flames of hell for millenia just by looking at you.

Jesus H. Christ... when I see the Emperor in that movie, I don't see a cackling cheesy cartoon that relies too much on overemphasized speech patterns and evil make-up to drive home the point that this character is EVIL... I get fucking scared.

Quite a feat.

Now EpIII is a whole other story... but I guess McDiarmid is just a really cool guy :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuL8aWWGUTQ

He looks a bit like Martin Short there...

Asteroid-Man said:

I didn't doubt the greatness of Star Wars... you just assumed that I did. I was just mentioning in response to people saying that "CW and PT" retcon everything that it's fair to make judgment like that as long as you can make judgment on the originals too, including it's acting, cheese and retcons in ESB and ROTJ - not doing so will only limit your own credibility.

You know, by this point I feel the need to askyou  the question directly: do you understand the difference between "bad" (or "not good") and "cheesy"? Because they ain't the same thing.

As for my previous response, I never said those movies were bad because of all the cheese, did I? Fact remains, there's a whole shitload of cheese and narm in LOTR, ST09 and Batman. And you said "virtually cheeseless"

That's kinda the image I had gathered so far xD

Well so is Star Wars - what's your point? ;)

Sorry if I just put it out there, but I think the "I am your father" works just fine within the confines of the film.

You get things that seemingly don't make sense (like that Yoda and Ben-ghost don't tell him before his departure), but then, Luke doesn't get it as well and constantly lampshades this fact himself after that scene.

He's hanging there alone and helpless, and Benghost doesn't help him despite earlier appearing to him in an earlier moment of physical desperation, and casually helping him out with the Death Star (one of the cheesiest moments of that film).

We get some sensation that it's because Luke transgressed his boundaries and now has to face the consequences alone, or maybe that Ben "can't" help him at the moment because something forbids him from doing that, so Luke can go through the "test" alone... whatever. It all leaves us as shocked and desperate as the protagonist himself, and then the movie just ends and we're left with a dark, depressed feeling and utter confusion - again, just like the main character.

It's only then, when ROTJ comes along, introduces the final nail in the coffin of universe-shrinking retcon, and fails to justify the stubborn silence from the last movie despite at least two infodump dialogues, that the "flaw" is seen for what it ultimately is.

Which only makes one wish they'd put more effort into that last one.

Asteroid-Man said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

So regarding the PT as badly-acted is elitist, but asserting with equal dogmatism that the entire saga is badly-acted is...what, fair & balanced?

 they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion.

See, in my opinion this is far more elitist than the manifold complaints about the PT's poor writing, acting, and execution. You're basically saying that those who prefer the OT over the PT don't have valid opinions because their opinions have been distorted by nostalgia. And that's a lot more elitist than anything RLM and his fans are saying.

First of all I never said the saga was "badly-acted", I said the acting wasn't it's strong point - for example, look at an ensemble cast like that of in BB/TDK and even LOTR and compare it to SW. Saying "the acting in SW is amazing" is just naive and biased. Look, I LOVE Star Wars, but even I can admit Hamill's acting in the SW and ESB wasn't anything special... ESPECIALLY his reaction to Vader's revelation.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying those who unconditionally see the OT as perfection and the PT as pure dribble have their opinions distorted by nostalgia - so if you think everyone at OT unconditionally loves the OT and sees it as perfect then I guess you would take it that way, but most people on these forums can point out the flaws to even the OT.

Bingowings said:

Asteroid Man

Sorry but that's daft.

The acting in ROTJ is a bit hit and miss at times but the acting the first two films is essentially cheese free but the important thing is it's acting.

The actors are creating realistic feeling characters rather than just reciting lines and avoiding or aiming for chalk marks on a green floor.

Carrie Fisher as Leia in SW was not good, neither was Anthony Daniels as C3PO in any of the films, or the extras (Kantina Bartender for example). In ESB, Hamill's acting in ESB is his worst performance I've seen (then again I don't really follow his career and I think his acting as the Joker is some of the best voice acting I've ever heard) - just look at his reaction to Vader's revelation.

And you REALLY think SW isn't cheesy? ...honestly? It's incredibly clicheed and formulaic - but the formula works, which is why the films appeal to so many people. 3PO is filled with nothing but cheese, Solo has a lot of cheesy one liners (which is what initially made him so appealing), and there are an incredible amount of re-occurring cheesy lines throughout the saga, like "I've got a bad feeling about this..." Better yet, from Luke blowing up the Death Star and onwards in the first film...

Look, I'm not pointing out the flaws in the PT because they needn't be addressed - everyone is aware of them... I'm trying to simply give people some insight on the sad reality - you want to compare SW to some virtually cheese-less and incredibly acting films (by the entire cast)?

Inception, Toy Story 3, The Lion King, The Dark Knight, Gladiator, Batman Begins, Lord of the Rings, 500 Days of Summer, The Count of Monte Cristo, Road to Perdition, The Prestige, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The Prince of Egypt, Hotel Rwanda, Equilibrium, Star Trek (the newest one), The Godfather, The Stoning of Soraya M and hell even Tron: Legacy (I'm just talking about the acting and the amount of cheesy moments - not to say those films don't have them either, just that if you compare those films to SW, you'll see a CONSIDERABLE difference.)

Um, Anthony Daniels not good? WHAT? His movement and voice acting pretty much defined an iconic character - sure the character is pure unadulterated cheese, but cheese has nothing to do with quality.

General Grievous is made of 100% ham and cheese, yet he's awesome for what he is.

Flash Gordon 1980 is made with the sole purpose of being as cheesy and silly as it gets, and it's 100% genuine awesomeness.

The Bartender had just like 1 minute on screen, but I honestly can't tell what problem you have with his acting - his role was the grim, gloomy barman from the smoky, gritty Western bar, where any moment a pistolero can enter through the double door and start making trouble, and he pulled it off marvelously.

Sure, nothing against that guy in Desperado... but hey.

Also I seem to be in the minority of people who actually don't laugh at Luke's Big No from ESB. Just like the Emperor in the last movie, the "overacting" could've easily come off as bad and silly, but because it worked, it didn't to me. But whatever...

let's look at that nice list of "virtually cheese-less movies" of yours, that contains both the Lion King and the Godfather in one sentence... good god.

Inception

Leo's acting was pretty cheesy - he just had this "cool" grim "troubled by life" expression on his face almost the whole time, I think it was cartoony and artificial. Good for the movie, I guess...

Toy Story 3,

Haven't seen those movies, but come on... the looks alone....

The Lion King,

Whaaaa-a-a-a-a-t?...

First of all, it's a fucking DISNEY CARTOON WITH TALKING ANIMALS. Good god... all the "acting" in there is over-emphasized and over-stated (like PT Yoda's), card-carrying, sinster-looking villain with a demonic fucking VILLAIN SONG, then those two obnoxious side kicks... what?!

The Dark Knight,

Bat's voice is, according to unanimous consensus, incredibly cheesy and takes one out of the movie.

The Joker, while considerably more "serious" than this character's other incarnations, is still pretty damn cheesy with his overstated acting and cartoony tongue-licking, compared to any kind of "serious" villain in a serious movie.

The best, least cheesy kind of villain behaves somewhat like a normal person (or maybe "somewhat" "different", see Uncanny Valley - if he's mad) and intimidates purely through his words and actions, and subtleties of behavior - not flashy, overstated mannerisms or saying things like "fly fly fly... fly fly fly".

Pretty hammy, the guy. Then, you've got lots of artificially inserted scenes like those kids playing with toy guns inside that car (WHY was it in the movie??), hamfisted patronizing catchphrases like "It's what we do, not who we are", or those two snobby guests complaining how they don't get to enter Bruce's panic room... geez.

NOWHERE in the league of the 60s's series, but come on... come on. 

Gladiator,

Haven't seen that one in ages, but pretty cheese-less as far as I can recall. Except for Ralf Moeller and his hilarious death scene.

 Lord of the Rings,

Those films are filled to the TOP with narm and cheese. Have you even watched them?

Road to Perdition, T

Extremely serious and cheese-less as far as I can recall. Not even crazy Daniel Craig. Or that assassin who makes photographs of his victims.

, The Prince of Egypt,

Um, that Disney's film about Moses? SERIOUSLY?

Hotel Rwanda

Haven't seen that one, but yea, I love how you put that movie on one list with fucking Lion's King.

, Equilibrium,

For a movie built entirely on cheese and style, I admit it was pretty damn slick.

Had they wanted to completely avoid cheese, though, they'd toned down the action shoot-outs and done without the techno soundtrack.

Star Trek (the newest one)

Everyone met at school? That green goblin thing who constantly sit on things? SIMON PEGG? Eomer "all I've got left is my bones" Urban? WICTOR WICTOR 2? "oral sensitivity on multiple occasions"? YOMAYO??! SIMON FUCKING PEGG???

Chekov alone was a pure, unadulaterated (and awesome) Russian cartoon. Jesus Christ man...

(I'm just talking about the acting and the amount of cheesy moments - not to say those films don't have them either, just that if you compare those films to SW, you'll see a CONSIDERABLE difference.)

Sorry, no. You can't just throw in Star Trek 09 and LOTR, then embellish your list with stuff like Godfather or Hotel Rwanda and then think you've made a point somehow.

LOTR is only one cheese level below SW, and that's if you exclude EpV. Sorry, just no.

Asteroid-Man said:

twooffour said:

Asteroid-Man said:

Because there are a lot of individuals who will say IV-VI are incredible, masterful and flawless and then talk about how cheesy, terribly acted and inconsistent the PT is, but in all honesty, the acting in ANY of the SW films was never it's strong point, cannon is just always being retconned, and they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion. Star Wars is in original and very rich story - one like never seen before - but some people (it's a small group, but it exists) will call the OT flawless and the PT nothing BUT flawed, simply because the "OT" is the "original" trilogy.

Ah, sorry, I thought you were referring to the "refuting" of ANY discontinuity in the Star Wars series, not just the new ones... so yea, my question was obviously how someone criticizing the retcons in ESB and ROTJ is an "elitist" if he just points out what is there... guess I was wrong :DDD

I'm only going to address the point I didn't cover in my other post:

I'm saying it's stupid to say the PT and CW retcon and not acknowledge the retconning ESB and ROTJ did... The biggest being Darth Vader being Luke's father...

Ah, then agreed. Although not sure if you can use the term "elitist"... I prefer the good ol' Fan Dumb ;)

I'm not sure I have that much of a problem with that one, though... Leia being his sister is much, much more problematic, so that means Vader can't be the "biggest" anymore ;)

Baronlando said:

Asteroid-Man said:

 I'm saying those who unconditionally see the OT as perfection and the PT as pure dribble have their opinions distorted by nostalgia -

Nostalgia can't make a person involuntarily giggle or yawn at the prequels. And this isn't like grading a math test. Nobody goes down a list picking out the number of flaws in one movie vs. another and arriving at a score. If people give a shit about Han being frozen temporarily but not Padme dying permanently, that's all she wrote, there's no nostalgia involved.

For what it's worth, the OT ain't perfection and the PT ain't a mass of 100% unadulterated shit, so I guess someone with as radical an opinion as described by Asteroid, does indeed operate on some form of bias, nostalgia or not.

Just saying - that doesn't mean it makes the two series equal or whatever...

Asteroid-Man said:

Because there are a lot of individuals who will say IV-VI are incredible, masterful and flawless and then talk about how cheesy, terribly acted and inconsistent the PT is, but in all honesty, the acting in ANY of the SW films was never it's strong point, cannon is just always being retconned, and they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion. Star Wars is in original and very rich story - one like never seen before - but some people (it's a small group, but it exists) will call the OT flawless and the PT nothing BUT flawed, simply because the "OT" is the "original" trilogy.

Ah, sorry, I thought you were referring to the "refuting" of ANY discontinuity in the Star Wars series, not just the new ones... so yea, my question was obviously how someone criticizing the retcons in ESB and ROTJ is an "elitist" if he just points out what is there... guess I was wrong :DDD

As for "cheesy", well, very obviously those movies are "cheesy" to some extent, but certainly nowhere near the extent of, say, the Flash Gordon movie with Brian Blessed. Now THAT one is "incredibly cheesy".

With Star Wars, you see the intent, overall tone and where it came from, but it manages to build a considerably believable and serious tone on its cheesy premise and elements - pretty much like the LOTR movies, which obviously have a rather cheesy fantasy premise (and above that, were considerable simplified in relation to the books), but manage to come off as dramatic and epic for the most part due to their execution - not to say they didn't have their amount of narm, as well.

Ash Nazg, turrrrrrrrimbattturrrrrr!!!!! I'm no man.. aahahhhhh!!!! :DD

Obviously, Star Wars retains some silliness despite of that, but I'd say the prequels are at their best when they manage to reach the cheese quality of their predecessors somewhat - and even Grievous comes off as more comical than Jabba. When they don't (Jar Jar), it's just stupid and obnoxious. No comparison there.

As for the acting not being their strong point - you must be completely crazy to claim that those movies didn't owe at least as much of their popularity and charm to Harrison Ford as they did to their special effects. Heck, ever last "admiral" type on any of the imperial ships is more interesting to watch than Obi-Wan throughout the entire PT.

Bingowings said:

Asteroid Man

Sorry but that's daft.

The acting in ROTJ is a bit hit and miss at times but the acting the first two films is essentially cheese free but the important thing is it's acting.

The actors are creating realistic feeling characters rather than just reciting lines and avoiding or aiming for chalk marks on a green floor.

Although I have to say, I do find Carrie Fisher's acting in ANH very cheesy, and quite a bit... dunno... "artificial". Hardly in ESB, but in that first one... definitely.

Then again, she wasn't the relatable, very human female lead from the sequels in that movie - she was the "assertive action girl SPACE PRINCESS in a space opera" complete with that infamous space slug hairdo.

Honestly, just watching the sequels and ignoring a few lines here and there, does anything she says or does in those movies really in any way point out that she's a "princess"? They made her a princess in that movie for no other reason than to stress that yea, this is a SPACE FAIRYTALE.

I pretty much think that all the cheese in any of the old films (certainly the first) is completely intentional, and I love it.

The only "cheesy" elements from the PT I enjoy are Grievous, Ham Sidious and that Techno Union Robot. And Sebulba with his pilot helmet. Everything else ain't "cheesy", it's just stupid and obnoxious.