In facts I didn't mention only that. But that is part of the film, and certainly it doesn't make a bad effect. The more real it seems, the more it helps the immersion in the context and the atmosphere. Not to mention that Episode IV owes part of its success (part! but a good part) to FX that were amazing in late 70s. Death Star run? for example? And don't tell me it wasn't appealing.
I want more in a film too. But I don't scream in pain if I see astounding visual effects, especially in such sort of movie.
And I tell you more... I am one of those who would love to see ALL the puppets removed from the original movies, except for Jabba the Hutt. I can't understand sentences like "it was perfect like that": no, it wasn't, it was just really good for that time. Can ben improved? yes, so why not?
Ah. As someone wants to see more than flashy visual. Let's talk about Episode VI screenplay. Han Solo stratagems to fool the stormtroopers (a pat in the shoulder). Ewoks. The bad copy of the Death Star assault in Episode IV. I just save Luke/emperor/Vader confrontation, which is really deep and intensive and dramatic, BUT it is shot so badly as it is ruined by the endor interludes.
And if I can agree with the fact that Episode II is mainly fights (good ones!) and bombs, just tell me why Episode III shouldn't be the most dramatic moment in the whole saga. Palpatine threads are magnificent and so is his McDiarmid performance. "I AM the Senate" is one of the heaviest sentences in cinema's history (ok ok, perhaps I'm too much a fan ) and the face of anakin before the confrontation with his old master is the portrait of anger and desperation. The final double fight is a lot of FX and CGI, yes, but how does this damage the show? ("Battle of the heroes" helps, yes).
I guess there's a lot of subjectivity in all of this, yes... as in anyone else opinion.