Response to RedLetterMedia's TPM Review (108 Page PDF)

[Loup Garou]

One assumes the viceroy know the limitations of human lung capacity is roughly 2 minutes before unconsciousness occurs and 6 minutes before death.

You DO know ordinary humans can hold their breath considerably longer than that without access to Force powers, right?

You DO Know that the people who have managed to accomplish that have specificly trained for it right?

Further, even assuming that the jedi entered into a meditative state to reduce the need for oxygen they came out of their pretty damm fast.

Further, you do realize that we've meandered away from how the jedi super speed is an editing mistake, and you are actually supporting why they should have been able to speedily move into the room, right?

Right?

[Imperial528]

Hey Loup, why would the Viceroy know the capacity of a human to hold his or her breath? He's a businessman, not a Bond villain. He probably figured: "We'll gas them and send in droids, either they'll get shot trying to hold their breath, or they'll breathe hard when trying to defend themselves and die!"

[Batman]

One assumes the viceroy know the limitations of human lung capacity is roughly 2 minutes before unconsciousness occurs and 6 minutes before death.

You DO know ordinary humans can hold their breath considerably longer than that without access to Force powers, right?

You DO Know that the people who have managed to accomplish that have specificly trained for it right?

Err-no. People holding their breath for three to five minutes is nothing extraordinary. That's easily enough to get Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon through the gas equence.

Further, even assuming that the jedi entered into a meditative state to reduce the need for oxygen they came out of their pretty damm fast.

Why would they have bothered?

Further, you do realize that we've meandered away from how the jedi super speed is an editing mistake

Err-you still have to establish the Jedi Super Speed is an editing mistake.

[Loup Garou]

Batman, do you belive that when movies go to the big screen that they can and do contain errors? Or do you belive that they are completely perfect?

This is a serious question.

[Batman]

Do you understand what Suspension of Disbelief actually means?

[Loup Garou]

Answer My question first.

[Batman]

I'll take that as a 'No', then.

[Loup Garou]

Ok.

[Formless]

This does help explain why so many here seem to have such a problem with RLM review. If you take the suspension of disbelief approach and try to merge it with an analysis of the film-making then of course you’ll end up with rebuttals like about how he’s a padawan and that should be enough.

Yeah, I'm starting to think that's a big part of the problem with the RLM review here and in this thread. Two entirely different outlooks on this subject (filmmaking vs in-universe) are at work here and failing to connect on either side

Protip: "Suspension of Disbelief" does not originate with this board. It is, in fact, a literary term, as is the "fourth wall" and other intellectual constructs that go into in-universe analysis. Point of fact the second, it is a common tactic of film/theater/literature critics to take the SoD point of view and show how well or badly the work maintains the illusion of reality. They do so by looking at internal consistency, logical coherency, comparisons to reality, and (though it does not come up often on this board) effectiveness of presentation. Whenever a critic asks "why didn't a character do x?" or "we are told Y happens but never see it, and in fact see the opposite happened" they are using that same outlook that Raynor and most of the people on this board use.

And guess what? Stoklasa made arguments of exactly that kind during his review, making it entirely appropriate to call him out for his bullshit and/or stupidity. Example: "Why don't they just steal the hyperdrive parts?" Stoklasa asks. Raynor shows us the actual size of said parts, and we can see Stoklasa wasn't paying any attention to the movie. Stoklasa suggests that the Jedi should just attack an entire army, and Raynor points out how utterly retarded that suggestion is when the two of them just got done running away from a mere pair of droidekas. Does this really sound to you like two people seeing the same film from two different perspectives?

And it gets better! If you had read the review (and its painfully obvious you, like most fanboys, haven't) you would know that not only does Raynor know how to analyze movies from a literary frame of reference, but that among Raynor's ur examples of Stoklasa's stupidity are Stoklasa failing to identify an obvious character archetype in Qui Gon Jin (the Father Figure) and obsessing over a flat shot of a hallway that takes up only a couple seconds of film time. You also failed to see several arguments throughout this thread that were essentially "why is this important to the story? Why do we need to know more about taxes [or whatever] when that was merely a plot device to justify conflict?" and so forth. We even had someone come in here already who got openly criticized for not understanding what a theme is! Make no mistake: people here know how to play this game from any angle you want to come at it from, literary or SoD. Painting us as the ones unable to see the validity of other points of view only shows your own unwillingness to read and comprehend what you are reading.

[TK421]

fanboys

I've seen this term thrown around in this discussion quite a bit. Is this some sort of insult? This is serious business, huh? 'Fanboy' of RLM? Sure, I like his reviews. 'Fanboy' of Star Wars? Sure, I can pretty much quote the originals from memory just like any other kid from the 80s.

Never once said or implied that suspension of disbelief originated on this board. You all just seem to be going far deeper into the universe than what an average moviegoer should rightfully be expected to in order to get it.

I did read the review. Well, skimmed it a couple of times (it's 108 pages). I think it's swell. Raynor certainly put some time and thought into it. And he was definitely somewhat less venomous there than he is in this thread, so that's good. I just disagree with him overall. There is NO right or wrong here. It's opinion. Period. There's no victory to be had.

I freely admit to only skimming over the posts in this thread about space taxes and jedi power levels and such, as they nearly put me in a coma; 35 minutes or 45 minutes...the point was it's too long; I disagree about Qui Gon being the main character. There was none. He was in charge though; I disagree about the Jedi being "cold". I don't doubt that that was what Lucas was trying to get at but it doesn't show through in the film...because everyone in the prequels, except fvcking Jar jar, is "cold" and wooden; The Jedi running super fast would indeed have come in handy when fighting Maul. there was no reason given to the audience for them not to; I couldn't have described characters in the prequels either; I do agree with Raynor about the opening of the movie being boring. I thought it was suitably mysterious. Not every movie has to open up like the original. I've disagreed with RLM about a number of things in their reviews. I wouldn't necessarily write a full page about any of them, I just sort of think "Hmmm, I disagree on that one" and press on.

[The Asiduo]

So this is the scenario:

1) Some random übernerd named Stoklasa makes a video critizing Star Wars Episode I, with gross comedy overtones, using satire to denounce both the movie and the nit-picky nerd style of reviewing. (That's his stated goal, as he himself has said it in interviews)

2) A lot of people find the videos funny, because it's a clear satire of nerd-rage, it has a dark sense of humor and because it makes some general valid points about the weakness of TPM.

3) But, another übernerd appears, with much less sense of humor, and makes a 108 page document, in virulent and aggressive style, to "refute this dishonest blah blah", and goes on rambling in a pedantic "minute by minute" refutation, and nit-picking in almost anything he said.

It's histerical, actually. It reminds me the video game reviewer "The Angry Video Game Nerd", laughing when he realized that his critic of "Castlevania 2" that he intended as a joke, attracted the rage of real "angry videogame nerds" who published also point by point refutals of his video.

I read your article, and it EXHUDES resentment against Stoklasa. It's almost childish at times. I recall one point when he made a criticism of the plot (He said he found the actions of the jedi questionable in the movie) and, instead of answer something, ignore the point saying: "Well, that's just his opinion", you answered: "Blah, blah, but he in xx:yy minutes of the review said something stupid, so, his opinion doesn't matter". Seems almost like: "Yeah... but your mom is ugly!"

I mean, come on, man, it's just a review in the Internet made for some cheap laughs. Of course, I've read answers such as:

"HA, YOU'RE AN HYPOCRITE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T MENTION THAT STOKLASA MADE A 70 MINUTE VIDEO RAMBLING ALSO"

Yeah, he made a video of 70 minutes rambling about Star Wars... acting as an homicidal 100-year old man who has an obsession with pizza rolls. Yeah: THAT'S serious business. Remember kids: Internet is SERIOUS business. Never publish any comment online without checking ALL THE FACTS. Or the Internet police will get you.

Oh, and of course, I've read some answers such as: "3 posts, just another RLM fanboy who comes to defend Stoklasa". Oh yeah, he paid us, you know?. Just as you have said in other threads that the guys in the segment of "Describe this character" were acting (Because, of course, no real people would find the "oh so deep" character of Qui Gon Jinn just BORING). Yeah, it's all part of a EVIL conspiracy of Stoklasa to destroy George Lucas.

[Knife]

lol, and we're back to the whole "who's more a nerd" argument? The obsessive nerd who makes a 70 minute video or the obsessive nerd who writes a 108 pages? You're a joke dude. If you take your argument even further, bothering to sign up for and post on a forum about the guy writing a 108 page rebuttal about a guy making a 70 minute you tube video criticizing a decade old science fiction movie makes you even lower on the totem pole, thus you more pathetic than Jim.

Seriously, can we get past the 'who's the bigger nerd' crap?

[The Asiduo]

lol, and we're back to the whole "who's more a nerd" argument? The obsessive nerd who makes a 70 minute video or the obsessive nerd who writes a 108 pages? You're a joke dude. If you take your argument even further, bothering to sign up for and post on a forum about the guy writing a 108 page rebuttal about a guy making a 70 minute you tube video criticizing a decade old science fiction movie makes you even lower on the totem pole, thus you more pathetic than Jim.

Seriously, can we get past the 'who's the bigger nerd' crap?

Hahahahahahhaa, yeah. THAT was my argument. Who is nerdiest. Yeah, in a science fiction forum. XD!!

My point, if you haven't realized was:

a) Some nerd makes a comedy video of 70 minutes acting as a homicidal 100-year old man to critize Star Wars.
b) Another nerd makes a virulent 108 page refutation of the comedy video made by the first nerd.

It's not a theme of "who is nerdiest" it's a theme of who has more or less sense of humor . And it's clear many people here doesn't have much. XD

Remember kids: Internet it SERIOUS BUSINESS.

P.S.: And yeah, getting into this forum was SO DAMN HARD. It took me three months to do it and another three months to post the answer above. XD!!

[Formless]

You know, its funny watching someone post criticisms Raynor predicted right in his opening statements:

Why do you care what he thinks about a movie?

I will be upfront about my opinion on TPM. I liked the movie, and consider it a worthy part of the Star Wars saga despite its flaws. I also think that the movie is very underrated by some vocal fans on the internet. Fans who denounce the film as unwatchable garbage, calling it the "worst movie ever" and crudely claiming that it "raped their childhood." These claims always seemed exaggerated and overdramatic to me, especially given the movie's box office success, the positive feedback from audience polls, and the continued popularity of the Star Wars franchise. Despite the movie's mainstream success, and its mixed but not horrible reviews from critics (62% favorable, qualifying as "Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes), the false perception of the movie as a complete failure that everyone hates has spread throughout the internet.

I'll also admit to not liking Stoklasa's style. I find his Mr. Plinkett character extremely annoying, with a dull voice that sounds horrible even if it's intentional. He also mispronounces words on purpose, making things even more of a chore to listen to. I don't understand how anyone can bash Jar Jar Binks on one hand but like Mr. Plinkett on the other. In pretty much any other piece of entertainment, annoying impressions are brief and last only long enough to make their points. Annoying characters are shunted into mere supporting roles. In Stoklasa's review, the annoying impression comes from the narrator, and runs throughout the whole thing. I think his voice is a one-note joke. If it was ever funny to begin with, it certainly doesn't make me laugh after he carries on with it for over an hour. Nor do I laugh at his disgusting jokes about murder and rape.

But my opinions about TPM and Mr. Plinkett aren't why I'm writing this. I'm writing this lengthy response to Stoklasa's review because it's massively overrated, and simply wrong and even dishonest on numerous points. Episode I detractors have rallied around the review, with numerous people praising it as a devastatingly intelligent and insightful critique of the movie. I've even seen URL links to the video being posted on internet forums, as a way to silence Episode I supporters and end debate on the movie. All this despite the fact that Stoklasa's review is full of shoddy work and awful analysis, which I will explain in the course of my response.

...

During some geeky online arguments, I've seen some people take Stoklasa's statements at face value, mindlessly parroting his words as truth. Even though his review betrays a shocking lack of knowledge about TPM's themes and most basic plot points, as well as a number of other subjects that touches on. People who took a casual glance at the RLM review liked it and said why. People who didn't like it, or saw it for the lousy work that it is, either didn't care to talk about it or were shouted down by the masses.

Stupidity, exaggeration, getting overrated by sheep-like followers...the RLM review of TPM basically covers all of my pet peeves. It's not even hard to show why it's dumb, because some of the things in that review are just really dumb. But still, many people think that it's the greatest and smartest fanboy work ever. I've seen it being said that videos, especially long ones, are a lousy medium for online discussion. That's because someone often has to watch large parts of a video just to find the few moments that he's looking for. While a written response such as this one can also be long, it is far easier to skim and quote from using search functions. That increases transparency and makes the truth easier to see. So I guess I'll have to be the one who points out that the emperor has no clothes, and that Stoklasa's review isn't as smart as a lot of people think it is.

...

Don't you realize that the review is supposed to be comedy?

Of course it's intended as comedy (I don't care to argue over opinions of whether it's actually funny). So was Freddie Got Fingered. Most people don't look to Tom Green movies for intelligent commentary - hell, most people don't even like Tom Green. If you're going to use the "comedy" excuse as a defense of Stoklasa's review, then that deflates its credibility as a source of commentary. If something is stupid because it's meant to be stupid, it doesn't change the fact that it's still stupid.

The "comedy" excuse is also often disingenuous. Too often, it is resorted to by desperate people who have run out of better excuses to defend something with. Something's just a stupid comedy? Fine. Then stop pointing to it as proof of anything, or as a guide on how to think. Don't flip-flop later on, when it's convenient for you to act as if it's not just a stupid comedy.

...

I just want it to be known that I didn't obsessively work on this response nonstop. It was written intermittently, over the course of more than half a year. I stopped numerous times, either because I had something better to do or because I just didn't feel like working on this. Listening to Mr. Plinkett over and over again wasn't my idea of a fun night or weekend afternoon. There were entire weeks or months when I didn't touch this at all.

So if any RLM-lover says that I've gone too far by doing this, he's full of crap. Especially if he's posting from a scifi, fantasy, or comic book forum.

And really, if its all about who has more of a sense of humor how come Raynor had so many Darths and Droids style screencaps interspersed throughout his review?

P.S. criticizing someone for treating something as "serious business" is the kind of hypocrisy that frankly pushes my buttons. If you really believed that its wrong to treat it so seriously, why are you here giving us you two filthy cents? And I must ask, how is it that everyone on the internet seems to think they have mind-reading powers?

[The Asiduo]

You know, its funny watching someone post criticisms Raynor predicted right in his opening statements:

And really, if its all about who has more of a sense of humor how come Raynor had so many Darths and Droids style screencaps interspersed throughout his review?

P.S. criticizing someone for treating something as "serious business" is the kind of hypocrisy that frankly pushes my buttons. If you really believed that its wrong to treat it so seriously, why are you here giving us you two filthy cents? And I must ask, how is it that everyone on the internet seems to think they have mind-reading powers?

Yeah, yeah. I mean. It's SO DAMN HARD to register in a forum. It took me six months

In any case, I think (and this is MY opinion, guys ) the problem with Raynor's "doctoral thesis" about Stoklasa's Review is that it took itself TOO DAMN SERIOUS. The jokes feel totally forced. Some of them were kind of funny, I guess, but I just can't find the pictures funny, inserted in middle of a rambling and angry argument of how "dishonest" and "deceitful" Stoklasa is.

What's the difference with Plinkett?, well, I think the difference is that Plinkett also gets angry and makes nitpicky points... ONLY HE'S A FICTIONAL CHARACTER IN A VIDEO MADE FOR LAUGHS. In Raynor's case, the jokes are comic reliefs, I guess, in middle of resentful and boring diatribes. In Stoklasa's case, THE WHOLE VIDEO IS A JOKE.

I remember a couple of years ago I saw a comedy of some american dude who impersonates Winston Churchill in World War II. I thought it was pretty boring and not funny, but I wouldn't criticize the movie for being "deceitful" or "dishonest" for pretending that the voice of Winston Churchill was an american guy. Why not?, because it's a fucking comedy, not a documentary.

You think Stoklasa was deceitful in his main critique?. Well, many REAL and PROFESSIONAL critics had made the SAME main points of Stoklasa in critiques:

- The characters are dull and boring.
- The story doesn't make sense and seems underdeveloped.
- The main impression is that the story is just an excuse for showing special effects.

If Raynor wants to make a defense of TPM, why won't he refute REAL CRITICS instead of a random nerd who is clearly just joking?. It would have been a lot more interesting to read a positive defense of Star Wars: Episode I, with highlights of the good points of the movie. For example, I've read some articles about the screenwriting and the filming that makes me appreciate more some aspects of the movie, such as the inspiration for the designs, the evolution of the plot, etc. But all we got from Raynor is:

"Blah, blah, bad Stoklasa, you are dishonest"

Look, it took me one line to summarize the entire text.

P.S.: Yeah, I have a crystal ball to see if some guy is taking an Internet discussion seriously. I've seen Raynor and his supporters almost ALWAYS resorting to calling names when some one disagrees with them. Yeah, you dudes are the guys with more sense of humor of the world. XD

[Havok]

Oh and here come the 'oh man you guys name call you are humorless and too serious'. Man, I love when new people post.

And classifying his videos as a complete joke is highly inaccurate. He is conveying his thoughts on the movie in a joking manner, but he doesn't like the movie, unless you are claiming that he is merely parodying reviews and reviewers that truly don't like it.

Oh and 'REAL CRITICS' hahahahahaha who the fuck are they? People that get paid to give you a subjective opinion instead of people that do it for free?

[nygma619]

What was being argued was that my response to his review (which quoted and responded to practically all of his points) was somehow off base for missing some "main point" that was really Stoklasa's safe, subjective opinion that the movies just didn't engage him. A defense which completely falls apart when I show, over the course of a hundred pages, that Stoklasa was trying to portray Lucas as a complete idiot by pointing out a long stream of nitpicks. Nitpicks that weren't just about insignificant minutia, but were often completely illogical and factually incorrect.

Yeah some of those pages are taken up by your horribly unfunny comic strips which contribute nothing to the review. And some of those justifications just don't ring true, keep in mind I said some, NOT ALL.

A defense which completely falls apart when I show, over the course of a hundred pages, that Stoklasa was trying to portray Lucas as a complete idiot by pointing out a long stream of nitpicks.

There's another problem of yours Jimmy, you believe your own hype.

Like whining about how Qui-Gon didn't have just cause to claim an invasion (after almost being murdered and seeing the invasion army), insulting the Jedi's tactics while suggesting Rambo-like idiocy as an alternative, or claiming that the visuals didn't show the Royal Ship being hit when they in fact showed multiple hits.

They didn't show the ship being fired at AFTER R-2 fixed it (which WAS his complaint). Also you don't have to repeat the things multiple times, I read the thing. So why go through all this if it's not going to change anything? It's almost like your trying to compensate for something.

Complete verbal garbage that went far beyond simple statements that the movies just didn't "engage" him or whatever.

Again, some of that is just your opinion. Yes some of things you said make sense, but some of them don't. BUT thats MY opinioin.

I write out a list full of examples of Stoklasa's stupid nitpicking (as opposed to some mythical "main point" about being bored)...and you respond with an incredulous little line about me being "fucking annoying."

I called you fucking annoying because you listing all those things was pointless, I've read through that stuff already in your review. I already know it exists, you just responded with a knee jerk reaction, because someone dared tell you you missed the point, so you respond the only way you know how, by saying the same thing over and over again. Like you just did beforehand by bringing them up again.

If you can't keep up then don't bother posting anymore. Everyone here can see right through you.

Funny, I don't remember you representing "EVERYONE". And your the only one who has said anything about it. But sure, continue with your classless insults. Thats the surest way to win hearts and minds.

I don't know where you come from (since it's apparent that you just came here to defend the honor of RLM), but over here people are expected to back up what they say. If the discussion is about whether or not Stoklasa's review was full of nitpicks, then me posting a list of his dumb nitpicks is completely relevant. You responding in turn with one stupid sentence about me being "fucking annoying" makes you look like a punk.

I also said you were wasting your time because your list wasn't going to change a thing. And it hasn't. Ya see their Jimmy, I gave a reason why I thought you were annoying. Just in case you wanted me to spell it out for you.

And again you display your bias, by calling me out on my 108 pages of writing. As if sticking up for a guy who wrote a 70 minute (followed by 90 minute and nearly 2 hour reviews) is somehow consistent with that.

People doing reviews on movies is not unheard of, people doing 108 page reviews ON A REVIEW is unheard of.

Stunning logic you have there. Repeatedly insinuating things about Lucas's personal and professional relationships, with no proof whatsoever, doesn't make Stoklasa a "scumbag" because some other guy out there was even more ridiculous in his mudslinging.

I get it man. You're a fanboy of a fanboy.

Says the star wars prequel fanboy.

You ACTUALLY tried to excuse Stoklasa's unsupported insults by saying that he's not AS bad as some freak who accused Lucas of being a PEDOPHILE.

It's no worse than when you tried to claim that the people in his reviews were bribed or biased WITH NO PROOF TO SHOW FOR IT. I guess that makes you a scumbag as well.

I'm not the one telling people about pedophile-oriented slander.

No, but your the one who's willing to go out of his way to insult anyone who disagrees with you (GOD FORBID ), and falls back on the plinkett fanboy excuse, and go into the tired I'm more worthy than you are, because your a fan of RLM crap.

So when presented with points that are completely supported by the movie itself...you try to change the subject. The contrivance of Qui-Gon landing on Tatooine has nothing to do with his reasons for trusting Anakin later on. It's also no worse than the string of contrivances that led to R2 meeting up with Obi-Wan and Luke in ANH.

Who's changing the subject now? I never said ANYTHING about them being on Tatooine being contrived. I said Qui-Gon feeling he needed to go through all that pod-racing crap as a way to get off tatooine was contrived, because in all honesty he could've traded their ship with Watto for a less fancy but functional ship (done off the books of course), I'm sure Watto would've been fine getting a ship like their's with only a part or two needed. And luxury wasn't an issue for the queen and her people, getting to corrison and helping her people was. That and there were other possibilities in getting off the island that didn't need to involve taking a chance by putting the ship up for bid that Qui-Gon could've LOST.

Racing isn't the same as defeating a Sith Lord, is it? This is irrelevant to the point being made, which was that Anakin was a growing boy with huge Force powers, and that Qui-Gon believed in him.

No, but your the one who started with the comparison. And I don't believe the force makes up for everything. Including the factors I brought up before hand.

Uh...yeah that was totally the point. Qui-Gon wanted Anakin trained, did he even say earlier in the movie that Obi-Wan had to be the one to do it?

So why did they make Obi-Wan specifically someone who just became a jedi knight? Contrivance much?

The point was that Qui-Gon was different than the other Jedi for believing in Anakin and wanting him to be trained from the start, and that his actions played an important part in the story.

Qui-Gon might've been slightly different, but not compelling as main lead material. His actions played a part in getting Anakin off Tatooine, but they didn't play a distinctive part in what happened on Naboo or Corrison. The stuff with Anakin was just a glorified sub-plot, which you could only argue would have bearing in setting up the next two films.

In case you didn't notice, a significant portion of the movie is about Anakin letting go of his humble background on a journey to achieve greater things.

And yet Lucas couldn't get that to intersect with the main plot of the movie in a believable way?

Subjective opinion so there's nothing to argue here. Anakin got swept away on an adventure and blew some things up to save the day. Like it or hate it, I don't care.

How is claiming Anakin had no good reason to be on Naboo, subjective? You said it yourself in your review that there's never a good justifiable reason for him to be there.

LOL at your buddy from this other mystery forum, who thinks I'm a "classless act." He probably only knows me from what I've written about Stoklasa's movie reveiw. He's probably a RLM-defender as well...

He's from toonzone and has a friend who posts here, if you care. He wouldn't tell me who it was though.

I'm "classless" for responding to people's often-insulting posts at me, demanding that they be logically consistent and back up what they say. Meanwhile, Stoklasa makes an hour long review full of poopie, rape, and murder jokes, as well as unsupported allegations about Lucas's professional relationships with his employees. Nope, not "classless" at all.

Two wrongs (assuming I think RLM's wrong, I don't entirely) suddenly make a right? Stoklasa's review was part satire. And I also think your taking the stuff about Lucas and his employees too personally. In fact it seems like your the only one taking it personally.

And also there's this thing called turning the other cheek or not resorting to the name calling. Or calling every single person you disagree with a moron. Or actually showing some professionalism. You don't see Mike Stoklasa responding to every single person who disagrees with him.
I think you'd be better served in showing some tact in how you respond to people on a personal level, but I don't think that makes you a moron, in fact there hasn't been one part where I said you were. Others might have but I haven't.

And oh yeah, I'm not the one who brought PEDOPHILIA into this thread.

Oh for God's sake I only brought that up as an example of something that is actually tasteless, I didn't go into details about it. Grow some thicker skin.

[Knife]

My point, if you haven't realized was:

a) Some nerd makes a comedy video of 70 minutes acting as a homicidal 100-year old man to critize Star Wars.
b) Another nerd makes a virulent 108 page refutation of the comedy video made by the first nerd.

It's not a theme of "who is nerdiest" it's a theme of who has more or less sense of humor . And it's clear many people here doesn't have much. XD

LoL, you guys need to get your story right, is it some big picture point we 'defenders' are all missing, or is it some big joke on the world we don't get. LoL, sense of humor. Nice bias there though, comedic homicidal 100 year man and virulent 108 page refutation. While Jim's paper was hardly a stand up script, virulent it isn't.

Remember kids: Internet it SERIOUS BUSINESS.

LoL, remember kids, when your sacred cow is pummeled, flail around until there is nothing left to say but it was all one big joke on those guys and they're to dumb to get it. Yeah, cuz that always works. LoL.

[Knife]

What are we on, page 18? Good lord people, you can't articulate a 'big picture' point past 'I don't like the movie' yet? If you don't like the movie, fine. It's OK. But to oscillate between some vague 'big picture' to 'it's satire' or 'lol nerd rage', it comes off as nonsense and is asinine.

[Darth Tedious]

What are we on, page 18?

Only 90 to go!

[Loup Garou]

Oh and 'REAL CRITICS' hahahahahaha who the fuck are they? People that get paid to give you a subjective opinion instead of people that do it for free?

Oh yes. the "The Critics Aren't saying nice things about the thing I like so the critics are wrong" speech. I heard it first from mitch gitelman a few years ago about shadowrun, which is funny because the first thing he said was when you play the game it will be the most amazing thing since masturbation.

Anyways, Film critics are people who have actually studied cinema enough to be able to judge it objectivley and earn good money by reporting what is good and bad inside of the film without being blinded by the good looks of the stars, the flashiness of the special effects, or the scale of the set peices.

According to the website rotten tomatoes, the phantom menace holds an average rating amongst critics of 5.9/10. This suggests that (positive and negative outliers aside) while the film was passable it wasn't particularly good, and if we were to go through the 160 critical reviews together we would see that they consistently hit on the same flaws that the phantom menace has.

Even if you don't trust the Critics, the viewers report an average mark of 3.2/5, which again suggests that what we have here is a film that gets some things right but is flawed (though I suspect that a lot of the fan reviews would be about how irritating binks was).

Or are all these people too stupid to grasp the subtle glory of TPM?

[Knife]

The funny thing is, though, no one is arguing it is a masterpiece. Most of the defense of the movie in this thread is indirect due to the people making the argument of how horrible it is making stupid arguments, and the defenders pointing out how stupid their argument is. Granted, I may have missed the posts where someone came in and was waxing poetically about how perfect a film it was, but to my knowledge most here accept that TPM was less than perfect and has it's flaws, just not the silly nit picky ones being brought up.

[The Asiduo]

Oh and here come the 'oh man you guys name call you are humorless and too serious'. Man, I love when new people post.

And classifying his videos as a complete joke is highly inaccurate. He is conveying his thoughts on the movie in a joking manner, but he doesn't like the movie, unless you are claiming that he is merely parodying reviews and reviewers that truly don't like it.

Oh yeah. I should remember to take seriously videos made with a guy who is pretending to be a 100-year old murder who has an obsession with pizza rolls.

I think the problem is as follows: Stoklasa made a funny (depends on the taste anyway) video attacking "TPM" in his gross sense of humor. The video goes viral, because it's kind of funny, and, in general, compises many points why some people (including myself) find the prequels poor movies. Then some of these people uses the video as some kind of argument in Internet discussions and stuff. Of course, the "rational" answer in this case is "Dude, you're using a video of a guy pretending to be a 100-year old murderer as an ARGUMENT. Come on!". Instead, the people who likes TPM find it "offensive", "dishonest" and "deceitful", so, instead of making defenses of the movie (Which I insist: it's not THAT hard, just highlight some points that the regular viewer may have missed, such as the background for the designs or the story), they devote to the rather useless exercise to make a 108 page review of a review, with vitriolic and aggressive style.

A couple years ago, I saw a stupid series called "Popetown" about the pope being a child who ate his own poop. It's a kind of critique against the Catholic Church?. Yes. It's a joke also?. Yes. If I'm a catholic: should I feel ofended for this crap and make a 108 page rebuttal of the concept of the pope eating his shit?. I find it rather pointless, considering there are many more intelligent and subtle critiques of the Catholic Church to address, rather than a caricature of a child eating shit.

And yes, Stoklasa IS also parodying the nerdy style of reviewing and finding everything wrong. He himself has said it.

I just happened to not like the 3 prequels and I’m explaining why in a fun and different way; in terms of traditional movie reviews -it’s as simple as that. I don’t hate people that like the prequels; you can like whatever you want. I’m also doing my reviews in the character of a crotchety old man. I think people calling my reviews anti-Star Wars “propaganda” is taking it a bit too far. I have no greater goal other than to just get my opinion out there. So far though, just one person I can think of posted that he would punch me in the gut if he ever met me, but other than that nothing major as far as Star Wars fan rage goes. I think most people are pretty rational and understand the Plinkett reviews for what they are, even people that liked the films.

(...)

When I’m editing I’ll notice a few new things here and there, but it’s not like I go through the movie over and over. That’s kind of the one misconception is that I take a ton of time meticulously researching everything, reading things on the film, cross checking facts, etc. That’s not really the case and, in fact, I avoid reading or watching any prior reviews on the movie altogether. I just like watching the film myself and using that as the only basis for what I, as an audience member, am expected to understand. That and to make sure my ideas are my own and that something that someone else noticed doesn’t seep into my brain.

Poor Mike. He hasn't realized that "WHEN YOU SAY SOMETHING IN THE INTERNET, YOU HAVE TO BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE, BECAUSE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS"

Oh and 'REAL CRITICS' hahahahahaha who the fuck are they? People that get paid to give you a subjective opinion instead of people that do it for free?

So, the movie critics shouldn't be given credit. Doesn't matter they're professionals, that most of them should know about movies, storytelling, etc. Nope?. Oh, well, then I guess all this is just a matter of opinion...

Isn't it just all his opinion?. NO

Oh... I guess when it's about random nerds making funny videos, it's NOT a matter of opinion, but when it's about professional critics, it is.

[The Asiduo]

What are we on, page 18? Good lord people, you can't articulate a 'big picture' point past 'I don't like the movie' yet? If you don't like the movie, fine. It's OK. But to oscillate between some vague 'big picture' to 'it's satire' or 'lol nerd rage', it comes off as nonsense and is asinine.

Hahahahahaha, come on, a lot of people has summarized pretty clear "the big picture" in Stoklasa's reviews, which is pretty simple, actually:

- The story is convoluted and doesn't seem to make much sense.
- The characters are flat, boring or just stupid. The protagonists are boring, the comic relief is annoying and the evil characters are underdeveloped.
- Overall, the movie, while craftly made, seems like a bunch of special effects without a good story. Stoklasa, in another video says: "(in Citizen Kane) the visual effects are used to show us a story. (in the Star Wars prequels) the story is used to show us visual effects".

And, I must stress, these points are NOT so damn original. Many professional critics had made this same points. The funny thing with RLM, is that they made a (again, matter of taste) bunch of funny videos stressing these points, using also nitpicking and cheap jokes. Was it meant to be taken seriously?. Nope. As Stoklasa himself said: "Just a way to say my opinion in a different way".

[Formless]

You think Stoklasa was deceitful in his main critique?. Well, many REAL and PROFESSIONAL critics had made the SAME main points of Stoklasa in critiques:

If a "real" movie critic getting paid and everything speculated on a director's professional life the way Stoklasa did with Lucas, he'd get fired or at least called on to apologize you asswit. Its called "slander" and its something you can get sued for (not that Lucas ever will thanks to the internet hate machine spewing this crap on a daily basis). But I guess you missed that point in the review. BOTH reviews.

Oh, and don't think I missed the part where you moved on from the hypocrisy of calling us bad for taking this seriously to criticizing us for insulting you when you are nothing but insults and poorly articulated mockery. Go back under your bridge, troll.