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

[The Asiduo]

More if they should be taken seriously at all. Asiduo and Emerson think he made salient points against TPM and think those should be taken seriously, but that everything that turns out to be bullshit when exposed to any scrutiny was obviously a joke, absolving it of all stupidity.

Or something. Their arguments seem terribly inconsistent. Another mark for Bible Apologist comparisons.

Nope. I said he shouldn't be taken literally, and that the stupid things are for highlight stupid thing in the movie. Understand that requieres understand the context of the review: a satirical piece narrated by a 100 year old rapist.

But, yeah, yeah. Go on with the Bible Apology comparison. I find the following comparison is more akin:

- The Lord of the Rings a stupid, dishonest and unscientific novel. The things that narrates never happened.
- Dude, come on, is just a fantasy work.
- But you've said it deals with some interesting issues.
- Yeah, it deals with ecology, the nature of power, etc.
- So, when it suits you, it deals with real issues, but when not, it's a fantasy work. You're a Bible Apologist.
- What?

[Ryushikaze]

Once again, I find you responding only to the very final sentence of the things you quote, ignoring

Unless it's a pure piss take, his commentary should be judged according to a basic standard, one which other comedic reviewers should and are held to. If it IS a pure piss take, it shouldn't be taken as a legitimate critique of the movie.
Hell, even if it's a pure piss take, it should judged on the merits of its humor or lack thereof, not on whether it makes any legitimate criticisms of the movie- It's a piss take. You want to have your cake and eat it too, Asiduo.

Not only that, but Raynor made the same point in the very beginning of his meta review.

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.

Come on: he's calling Stoklasa an idiot, moron, dishonest, etc. in his review almost any time he can, and he keeps repeating the same attacks over and over again. It's almost creepy.

Oh, but he was joking. I mean, he made jokes here and there. Can't you tell it was for comedy purposes?
Seriously, your best argument that he was angry was that he called shit stupid and dishonest?

I don't know: ask that to the guy who wrote a 108-page refutation to a video made for comedy purposes.

You keep leaping to this criticism of Raynor and other strawmen instead of answering my questions. Do not do that. It is transparent bullshit, and does not actually address the fact that a comedy review needs as much review as it does comedy to be good. You don't become immune to criticism of your review content just because you're cracking wise. You open yourself up to both sides.

I forgot I was on the Internet: "Serious-land"

Your shit sarcasm doesn't deflect from the point that there are people who think his suggestions on the movie are made earnestly and would be an improvement.

Yeah, he "fixed" the plot holes making up stuff: such as inventing that the ship that goes through the blockade is so special.

He didn't invent that. Since ANH there's been a ship expressedly called a 'Blockade Runner' in the Star Wars Franchise, and the idea of Blockade Runners is something that exists in our world. It's also completely unlike fighting the entire blockade.

All I've said over, and over again, of RLM's reviews is:

- Are funny.
- Are made for comedy purposes.
- They guy is just trying to mix opinions with jokes.
- He makes good points
- He's nitpicky on purpose.

That's all. Now, send him an email complaining that you can't make distinction when he's serious, or when he's joking.

Point number 4 is the problem there. He doesn't make very good points. He tries to pillory the characters for running from a fight against an army, saying they could have won against the army because they later.... run from a fight.
That's not a good point about the movie.
He tries to say that it was pointless to fix the shields because they don't get hit afterwards... while showing the ship getting hit after the shields are fixed. It's shit like that that makes up the majority of the film's running time.
Actually, point number 3 is a problem too. He's not presenting this shit as just his opinion. He's exited the realm of pure opinion and is making statements and claims. That makes him fair game.

[Ryushikaze]

More if they should be taken seriously at all. Asiduo and Emerson think he made salient points against TPM and think those should be taken seriously, but that everything that turns out to be bullshit when exposed to any scrutiny was obviously a joke, absolving it of all stupidity.

Or something. Their arguments seem terribly inconsistent. Another mark for Bible Apologist comparisons.

Nope. I said he shouldn't be taken literally, and that the stupid things are for highlight stupid thing in the movie. Understand that requieres understand the context of the review: a satirical piece narrated by a 100 year old rapist.

But, yeah, yeah. Go on with the Bible Apology comparison. I find the following comparison is more akin:

- The Lord of the Rings a stupid, dishonest and unscientific novel. The things that narrates never happened.
- Dude, come on, is just a fantasy work.
- But you've said it deals with some interesting issues.
- Yeah, it deals with ecology, the nature of power, etc.
- So, when it suits you, it deals with real issues, but when not, it's a fantasy work. You're a Bible Apologist.
- What?

And now we get the massive strawman too. I'm gonna have Apologist Bingo before the day is out. In fact, I get another square for the self defeating argument.
Note in your strawman, the reasonable person is presented as showing that LOTR is both fantasy AND as Dealing with salient points affecting the real work. So Plinkett being a humor reviewer is no shield because in his review are both jokes AND points against the movie, and jokes making points against the movie, and anything not explicitly a non sequitor joke is fair game.

[The Asiduo]

Oh, but he was joking. I mean, he made jokes here and there. Can't you tell it was for comedy purposes?
Seriously, your best argument that he was angry was that he called shit stupid and dishonest?

Yes. If you're trying to make a somewhat "intellectual" refutation of sorts, that kind of stuff is not funny: it's creepy. Even Stoklasa didn't call "stupid, asshole, imbecile" to George Lucas every five minutes in his review, and he was intentionally posing as an angry fanboy. Raynor in his review just can't resist to call names to Stoklasa in every page.

But, of course, that's not the least angry...

You keep leaping to this criticism of Raynor and other strawmen instead of answering my questions. Do not do that. It is transparent bullshit, and does not actually address the fact that a comedy review needs as much review as it does comedy to be good. You don't become immune to criticism of your review content just because you're cracking wise. You open yourself up to both sides.

I say, if you want to criticize a comedy review, first, understand he's making jokes and ironic comments. If you take seriously every comment he makes, you'll make a fool of yourself.

Your shit sarcasm doesn't deflect from the point that there are people who think his suggestions on the movie are made earnestly and would be an improvement.

Yeah, yeah. I said it once, I say it again: if you guys think that: "The Children must be protected from Stoklasa's awful and dishonest review" a more fitting take would be making an overall defense of TPM, highlighting common criticisms, and resalting nice stuff, not writing an angry fanboy 108-page rebuttal to a guy making rape-jokes.

He didn't invent that. Since ANH there's been a ship expressedly called a 'Blockade Runner' in the Star Wars Franchise, and the idea of Blockade Runners is something that exists in our world. It's also completely unlike fighting the entire blockade.

I'm not arguing if the thing is a plot hole or not (I still think it is, but whatever), I'm arguing the comment of fighting all droids was highlighting that point.

Point number 4 is the problem there. He doesn't make very good points. He tries to pillory the characters for running from a fight against an army, saying they could have won against the army because they later.... run from a fight.
That's not a good point about the movie.
He tries to say that it was pointless to fix the shields because they don't get hit afterwards... while showing the ship getting hit after the shields are fixed. It's shit like that that makes up the majority of the film's running time.
Actually, point number 3 is a problem too. He's not presenting this shit as just his opinion. He's exited the realm of pure opinion and is making statements and claims. That makes him fair game.

So, you haven't read all the times I've brought the interview in which Stoklasa says: "I just happen not to like the prequels and made reviews about them in a funny and different way. I have no further goal that just get my opinion out there". Damn

And, about the good points: he makes some general good points on the issues of the movie: boring characters, boring story and the idea of a movie made to show eye-candy instead of a good and interesting story. The rest are jokes and nitpicking, yeah, but it's funny (at least for me, and I'm aware that's just a matter of taste). Are those points so original?. Nope, many movie critics or reviewers have made those same points. So, I could sum the idea of making an "intellectual" refutation of RLM's review in two words: "Entirely Pointless".

And now we get the massive strawman too. I'm gonna have Apologist Bingo before the day is out. In fact, I get another square for the self defeating argument.
Note in your strawman, the reasonable person is presented as showing that LOTR is both fantasy AND as Dealing with salient points affecting the real work. So Plinkett being a humor reviewer is no shield because in his review are both jokes AND points against the movie, and jokes making points against the movie, and anything not explicitly a non sequitor joke is fair game.

Let's translate, then, if you still don't get it.

- The Stoklasa's reviews are stupid and dishonest. The things that the guy says are stupid.
- Dude, come on, is just a comedy review.
- But you've said it deals with some interesting issues.
- Yeah, it deals with the characters, the plot holes, the boring story...
- So, when it suits you, it deals with real issues, but when not, it's a comdey work. You're a Bible Apologist.
- What?

I rest my case. You guys keep arguing that either he's serious and literal, or he's bullshit. I say he's mixing comedy with review, so, he shouldn't be taken literally, but he makes some good points.

Edit: some quotes badly placed.

[Jim Raynor]

This was supposed to be a comeback? I repeat: The RLM defenders seem to pick meaningless little parts of the review, and ascribe more intelligence and meaning to them than there actually is.

No one wants to write a 108 rebuttal to your rebuttal. So you’re going to have to deal with people picking a point in your PDF and using it as an example of your overall inability to understand RLM’s review.

Oh man, is this guy for real?

Did you really mean to say this? "I'm too lazy to do the work and properly refute what you wrote. So I'm just going to vaguely cherry pick an insignificant part of the RLM review, ascribe some kind of profound meaning to it, and claim that you missed some mythical 'main point.'"

What does the opening crawl say? Oh yeah, the taxation of trade routes is in dispute.

So how does taking over a planet end the taxes?

How does rioting on the street put food in your mouth? Please stop asking dumb questions.

I "glossed it over" because he was decompressed. He used up 4 minutes repeating a basic subjective point that could've been explained in 4 sentences.

He did this to emphasize his point and you obviously didn’t understand this because you go on to suggest the lead is Qui-Gon despite the fact that his character has no arc.

Funny, where I come from the "lead" is the character with the most focus and screentime. Man, Arnold Schwarzeneggerr movies must not have a "lead" since he starts and ends most of his movies as a stiff musclebound badass.

Anakin has about as much idea why these two factions are fighting over as my 6 year old son does about the middle east conflict.

Anakin doesn't need to know about the taxes. The taxes are NOT what the movie is about. Anakin understands that people on Naboo are being oppressed and killed. This also is not the same as Stoklasa misleadingly stating that Anakin has NO idea what is going on. While selectively editing in a few seconds of footage trying to make it look like Anakin is just stumbling around without a clue.

Also aren’t you the one that said “Apparently Stoklasa has never witnessed the real life phenomenon of adults talking about children when they're in the same room.” So he understands everything but when people are talking about him right in front of him.

What the hell? My parents talked about me too, when I was a kid in the same room. I understood what they were saying. Didn't stop them from talking about me though, so don't try to twist this as if it's at all relevant to the point.

On top of it he accidentally destroyed the TF ship, its doubtful he even knew what the mission was because he certainly didn’t mean to end it.

Anakin "didn't mean" to end the fight and to kill the Trade Feds now. Really? Really?

Whining about the practical value of a child's gift to his mother as if most gifts that kids give to their moms are practical? Such a focus on this "main point"...whatever it's supposed to be now.

His point here was how dumb it is to shoe horn C3PO into this movie by having Anakin build it.

Which is not the same thing as stupidly arguing about the practical value of a child's gift to his mother, and further compounding that stupidity by not being able to recognize the practical value of a humanoid droid able to do manual work like any human.

It's his OPINION that having a pathetic down on his luck protaganist being picked on by others makes an action adventure movie better.

It’s also the premise of his argument. By dismissing his premise you’re missing the point argument.

You are so desperate, you know that? Me repeatedly stating that I didn't have a problem with his subjective opinion in that one part of the review, and thus gave him a pass on it is now me "dismissing his premise." Give me a break.

If not outright stupid and ignorant of the entire SW saga's themes, such as his suggestion that Qui-Gon just sit around doing nothing for most of the movie.

RLM was talking about how Obi-Wan should have been the main character and if Qui-Gon HAD to be in the movie he could have played his “father figure” role more like Yoda. This is total opinion, a subject you said you wouldn’t comment on in your rebuttal I might add.

It betrayed a complete ignorance of SW's themes. If you don't remember, he suggested Qui-Gon sitting around and not doing anything (besides occasionally dispensing wisdom to Obi-Wan), before being killed at the end. Therefore, according to Stoklasa, it would set the stage fore "a poorly trained Anakin." Which actually does the following things:

1) It makes Obi-Wan look incompetent, rather than stern and hard headed like many actual fathers are.
2) It makes Anakin look like an even bigger incompetent idiot, ON TOP of being someone who couldn't couldn't control his anger and resist the Dark Side.
3) It waters down the saga's themes about father/son relationships, finding your own way, and overcoming your personal issues. Replaced with the characters just being stupid and "poorly trained."

Do you really think having Obi-Wan being distrustful of Anakin over the course of the trilogy is better than having them be genuine friends… you know like what’s his name said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVZHUKYR_zA&t=2m59s

LOL, you really do sound like a brainwashed follower of Stoklasa's. I say that because he brings that up in his AOTC review. Which is a stupid argument disguised as some kind of strikingly clever observation.

Ooh, Obi-Wan briefly called Anakin "a good friend"...while lying his butt off in a scene which wasn't even ABOUT Anakin's character, but rather his awesome combat prowess. The point of that scene was that Anakin was a cool awesome Knight and that Luke could be a cool awesome Knight as well, kicking butt and having adventures. Obi-Wan's eyse immediately shift to the lightsaber right after he mutters that "good friend" bit. When viewed in the context of TESB and ROTJ, it's obvious that Obi-Wan was saying what he could to recruit Luke.

Yet we have people like Stoklasa focusing on that trite little sentence fragment, and people like you mindlessly following him. And while failing to recognize what the scene was actually about, or that Obi-Wan was giving a white washed story to Luke, also failing to recognize the nuances of relationships. Obi-Wan and Anakin do not hate each other, as prequel bashers often exaggerate. Their relationship is big brother and little brother, or father and son. I've seen real people say far worse things to their sons or fathers, yet still they care about each other. They criticize BECAUSE they care.

But oh no, Anakin and Obi-Wan didn't pal around despite never being peers going as far back as ANH (where Vader calls Obi-Wan an "old man," look I can play with quotes too!). Guess they weren't "genuine friends."

I think Darth Tedious has a good point. It’s a review and shouldn’t be taken anymore seriously than a review by ebert.

Ebert does not have people going around saying that his reviews are just jokes and not meant to be taken seriously, then turning around and saying that those same reviews of his are so observant and insightful or whatever.

Which is why it’s so funny that someone wrote a 108 page rebuttal. A rebuttal that attacks the logic of each line as though each suggestion is meant to be taken literally.

Your reading comprehension is either unbelievably bad, or you're just repeating yourself in a stubborn effort to carry on. I already said that my response was aimed at showing people that the arguments of the RLM review are awful, and that the "joke" excuse doesn't change that.

Oh I’d be happy if there were no taxes in this movie, but if there has to be I’d like to know what’s and stake and why.

What's at stake is that the planet has been invaded. You don't see people criticizing movies about the American Revolution for not explaining the Stamp Act or the Tea Tax or the colonist's representation in Parliament.

[Jim Raynor]

I'm "creepy" now for calling Stoklasa stupid, while clearing showing why his arguments are stupid. Yet Stoklasa's perfectly cool for insinuating all sorts of crap about what happened behind the scenes between Lucas and his employees. The hypocrisy and wannabe psychic mind reading never ends.

[Darth Tedious]

I say he's mixing comedy with review, so, he shouldn't be taken literally, but he makes some good points.

Assuming you are correct, we can actually address your translation of one of the points he made.

Thesis: My stupid idea of just fighting all droids and steal a ship
Antithesis: Stupid action in the movie with similar level of reckless

Synthesis: In this movie, the threats aren't feel dangerous.

Not only is that a massive logical leap, it completely ignores context within the movie. The Jedi had been sent to assess the situation, negotiate if possible, and report back the Council.
After the negotiations failed and the Jedi managed to reach the Naboo, they learned that all communications had been cut off. The only way for the Jedi to report back to the Council (which was part of their intitial mission) and the only way for Amidala/Padme to plead their case with the Senate (which was an essential to the situation) was to attempt to run the blockade.
Was it highly dangerous? Yes.
Was it stupid? No. Doing nothing would have been stupid. Naboo was being invaded, and they only way to contact the Senate was by running the blockade.
Was it reckless? No. It was a neccesary action, and a calculated risk.

Claiming that this was a plothole demonstrates a complete ignorance of the plot.

As for your logical leap, I think I understand how you arrived at your conclusion. Not wishing to build a strawman, I must ask if this is a correct interpretation:

Thesis: The risk of fighting all the droids
Antithesis: The risk of running the blockade
Synthesis: The characters take to many big risks.
HOWEVER: They seemed to run the blockade very easily
Therefore: The threats in this movie aren't believeable

Is this how you reached your conclusion?

[Darth Tedious]

I think Darth Tedious has a good point. It’s a review and shouldn’t be taken anymore seriously than a review by ebert.

That was not my point.
As you seem to have absolutely no reading comprehension, I will spell it out (for the third time):

My point was twofold.
On one hand, the review was intended mainly as comedy, not as a serious review (unlike Ebert's reviews which I never made any mention of). Because of this it should not be taken seriously.
On the other hand, the review does attempt to make some points about the movie which can be viewed seriously. These points are not valid ones, as Raynor has proven in his rebuttal. Thus, the review should not be taken seriously.

My conclusion was:
The review should not be taken seriously.
I did not say "the review should be taken no more seriously than Ebert's reviews". Your attempt to twist my words is pathetic.
I said the review should not be taken seriously at all.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

I can't respond to everyone just now, too busy but rest assure I'll be back to answer everyone's responses. I love you all that much. But I just had to respond to one point real quick.

On top of it he accidentally destroyed the TF ship, its doubtful he even knew what the mission was because he certainly didn’t mean to end it.

Anakin "didn't mean" to end the fight and to kill the Trade Feds now. Really? Really?

Have you watched the movie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4h3_y7SauA&t=5m36s

After accidentally crash landing in the TF ship he power up and fires at the robots attacking him. When he hits the reactor he says oops. When was the last time you said "oops" while doing something on purpose? In the scene before he didn't even know where the pilots had gone, the auto pilot being the only reason he ended up there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf2-upmDYyU&t=6m0s

He never once shows any type of forethought as to how he's going to bring down the ship or that he's even trying too. And you really want to claim he knew what he was doing?

[Elfdart]

Well to me and a lot of other people. But correct from the beginning of our discussion I thought I made that clear, but I’m tending to notice some posters on this thread miss the point much too often. You and elfdart (I think, elfdart...you’re all blending together at this point) offered the failure challenge and I excepted. Elfdart’s challenge being:

Feel free to show by what standard The Phantom Menace "failed".

To which I provided the top critics score, whether he agrees with the critics doesn’t matter it’s a standard by which it failed. You offered:

Do you have any objective measure at all by which to show the movie was a failure?

To which I provided the above measure. Now that we’re out of the maze, if you want we can discuss storytelling and if you think RLM argument is valid.

So when asked to provide an objective measure by which TPM was a "failure", you cite opinions -actually, cherry-picked opinions.

[Elfdart]

I want to see how it's even any sort of measure of financial success. Comparing it to the 19 films ahead of it... does that mean there have only been 19 successful movies ever in the history of cinema?

But of course! According to Red Letter Moron, the movies business should have shut down in 1983 -maybe with James Cameron allowed to do a couple of movies.

[Batman]

I'm impressed. Really, I am. I mean Hollywood apparently managed to be profitable despite all of 19 movies in all of-call it three quarters of a century?- actually being financially successful. And here I thought the definition of financial success was if the movie actually made, you know, worthwhile amounts of money compared to how much it cost to do.

[Elfdart]

Wait.

Are we actually discussing whether or not the plinkett reviews should be taken 100% seriously or not?

More if they should be taken seriously at all. Asiduo and Emerson think he made salient points against TPM and think those should be taken seriously, but that everything that turns out to be bullshit when exposed to any scrutiny was obviously a joke, absolving it of all stupidity.

Or something. Their arguments seem terribly inconsistent. Another mark for Bible Apologist comparisons.

Which reminds me that I've seen this kind of thing before: The YouTube videos of VenomFangX, the creationist jerk-off who posted one video after another filled with lies and stupidity about how evolution is false. When Thunderf00t called him on his bullfuckery in detail, VenomFangX and his little cockgoblins started attacking him, but since they had no facts to back up their claims, they resorted to spam, trolling and posting lengthy videos where they spew incoherent horseshit while pretending to be fictional characters, while accusing Thunderf00t of being the one with a weird fixation.

I wonder if Red Letter Moron is going to dress like Heathcliff in an upcoming video, since he's so fond of imitating his voice.

[NecronLord]

On a little more reading of this, I don't think I've seen anything terribly actionable to date, but remind Emerson et al that not supplying evidence (or conceding) in an thread such as this is against the board rules and repeat offenders have been and will be banned. In short to continue this debate it is essential that you answer demands for proof of what can be written off as a joke.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

"Why they just don't fight all the droids and steal a ship?. It's not such a bad idea, considering they later in the movie run through the whole blockade with just one small ship."

It's not so hard to get: it's a basic dialectical contrast, one of the most basic ways of joking. Even if you don't think the joke is funny, you can guess he's not talking literal in every single comment. If you guys can't understand that, and insist on the literal interpretation of everything, then Stoklasa was right to just answer, mocking all of you, in a video saying: "You just don't get it"

While that's a reasonable argument for determining what is and is not a joke, if you think a wholly literal interpretation is not valid, you may stop reading; the topic presupposes that it is, save where there is some kind of objective and clear determination of when this guy is joking. Which unless there's a laugh track, there isn't. It is serious unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

Your interpretation, though reasonable, does not satisfy the demand that Emerson explain how he is determining what is and is not valid according to him in a consistant way.

I’ve been trying to provide evidence, by explaining tone. The idea that everything a comedian says should be taken literally until proven otherwise might be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Four examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG1AWVLnl48&t=1m49s

Are we to believe that “Gay Robots” is an homage to classic adventure serials of the past? There’s no drumroll to tell me that he’s making a joke, but I’d be hard pressed to believe anyone on this forum would think he’s being serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&t=2m40s

Is he literally saying that Kevin Bacon, the actor, is an example of a good protagonist? If taken literally then RLM must assume tremors is a documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORWPCCzSgu0&t=3m18s

When RLM says “I tried to warn you” Is he being serious? Does the reviewer think he actually tried to warn the fictional characters that it was a diversion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBvp1r2UpiQ&t=0m8s

Does RLM actually think Qui-Gon is the phantom menace? Is he making a legitimate claim that he believes Lucas’s story points to Qui-Gon as the hidden enemy?

Do you have any “kind of objective and clear determination of when this guy is joking.” In the above clips? It is absolutely absurd to try to provide “evidence” beyond tone that these are also jokes. There isn’t a universal identifier and as I mentioned to Raynor, no one is going to go point by point through his review to explain it. To the line people seem to have the most issue with about “fighting them all” I once again recognize the junior delegate from science lab:

The biggest fault in his comparison was that running the blockade (which involved outmanuevering the enemy) is analogous to the Jedi avoiding fighting all the droids (which involved outmanuevering the enemy).
Had the blockade runner blasted its way through the blockade and annihilated the Lucrehulks (which would have involved unrealistically Rambo-ing the enemy), it would have been analogous to the Jedi fighting all the droids (which would have involved unrealistically Rambo-ing the enemy).

This is actually a good rebuttal to RLM’s point. I’ll disagree but I think his point is valid because he’s debating the comparison RLM is making and not taking the line as a literal suggestion as to what would make the movie better. However it is not what Raynor is doing in his review and it is not what Formless was debating or Vympel is jerking off too.

While I know Darth Tedious has a soft spot for me he at least seems to be willing to debate the argument RLM set forth. Fighting all the robots = as much danger as the blockade run. Not the idea that Fighting all the robots is the most logical thing for the Jedi to do right now, so why didn’t they do it.

On a little more reading of this, I don't think I've seen anything terribly actionable to date, but remind Emerson et al that not supplying evidence (or conceding) in an thread such as this is against the board rules and repeat offenders have been and will be banned. In short to continue this debate it is essential that you answer demands for proof of what can be written off as a joke.

I appreciate you not condemning an innocent man, besides the mob is having too much fun I’d hate to deprive them of more. I will have to disagree that I’m not providing evidence, I have provided examples of imagery juxtaposed for comedic effect, sarcasm as an example of tone and word choice as an example when someone is comparing something to when someone is making a literal suggestion. Asking for an all encompassing piece of evidence is impossible.

Now I would like someone to explain WHY we should take everything RLM says literally.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

Which reminds me that I've seen this kind of thing before: The YouTube videos of VenomFangX, the creationist jerk-off who posted one video after another filled with lies and stupidity about how evolution is false. When Thunderf00t called him on his bullfuckery in detail, VenomFangX and his little cockgoblins started attacking him, but since they had no facts to back up their claims, they resorted to spam, trolling and posting lengthy videos where they spew incoherent horseshit while pretending to be fictional characters, while accusing Thunderf00t of being the one with a weird fixation.

I wonder if Red Letter Moron is going to dress like Heathcliff in an upcoming video, since he's so fond of imitating his voice.

I love thunderf00t! His creationist are stupid videos crack me up. However, I think your casting is wrong. See in this scenario you’re Vemonfangx.

Vemonfangx takes the bible literally
You take the RLM review literally

Vemonfangx makes scientists have to prove that the bible should not be taken literally
You insist that I prove RLM shouldn’t be taken literally.

See I can point the apologetic finger too. If I’m the venomfangx of RLM (although this comparison makes no sense I have yet to make one youtube video in costume) than Raynor is the less sucessful Lee Strobel of TPM.

I feel the need to keep us in the failure loop. There have been a lot of claims on this thread that the majority of Americans like TPM (something like 94%). So I did a small completely unscientific test. Since TPM is coming out in 3D I figure twitter might have something to say about it. So I searched "Phantom Menace", surely if it was big a hit as claimed on this forum there would be a lot of excitement about this announcement. I’ve pulled all the positive and negative comments (and the ones that seem to fall in between) from the first few pages to see what a general sampling of the public thinks. I ignored anything that just stated a fact,like "TPM is coming out in 3D"

Lets take a look!

Negatives:
1. Matt_Wheel I can't get the "but sir is that Leeeegal" line from Phantom Menace out of my head. More reasons I wish I'd never seen it...

2. Killgraft @PacManPolarBear If DA2 is "great" voice acting, then the entire cast of Phantom Menace should be Oscar winners.

3. y0ssarian42 @osama_jamil loved the original Tron. Hated Phantom Menace and will still be talking about it 20 years from now.

4. IanMenard @netflix The Phantom Menace. So we can sit and mock it together.

5. karlbeeton Check this video out -- Star Wars: The Phantom Menace Review (Part 1 of 7) http://t.co/efXzExQ via @youtube

6. astrotomato Oh it's Nick Ferrari in the #bbcqtcuntchair. Nice to see he has a career after The Phantom Menace http://bit.ly/gO0NeH

7. Starfleetmom @sherlockfreak at first I thought you were talking about Phantom Menace so I almost ignored you again.

8. KayleeWattles76 @KiMnAuGuStA 'The Phantom Menace' Set to Hit Theaters in 3D Next - Fuck you George Lucas Fuck youuuuuu http://amzn.to/hFdGXa?=QQbgl http://twitter.com/KayleeWattles76/stat ... 7551663105

9. rbgayle The best thing about Phantom Menace - it made Quicktime trailers at Apple dominate http://wp.me/pdMsm-4HO

10. ChristinFaletti @downdivadown George Lucas is re-releasing The Phantom Menace in 3-D. or 4-D if you add the one-dimensional ? http://amzn.to/hFdGXa?=QQbgl

11. itsDanOades Filling out my census form, considered putting Jedi under religion, but I lost all faith after The Phantom Menace.

12. MarioTirino7750 @courtney2809 The 'Phantom Menace' is being re-released in 3D. Now George Lucas can disappoint us all in a w? http://amzn.to/hFdGXa?=9X3Qo

13. ALofTheDead RT @Foywonder: Channing Tatum as Peter Pan, Doom & Tomb Raider getting remade, Phantom Menace in 3D, a Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade movie: cinema weeps

14. Velcrobinson I like him, but then I remember @ebertchicago gave PHANTOM MENACE a glowing review.

15. LudivinaGatzow9 @YA_Ledy : The Phantom Menace getting a 3D re-release in 2012! George Lucas really has gone demented hasn't? http://amzn.to/hFdGXa?=QQbgl

16. FrancineBiven30 @iamrachelwho George Lucas announced 3D re-release of The Phantom Menace. Excited to be bored and disappoint? http://amzn.to/hFdGXa?=IQrA7

17. KennethSalome21 @vitao32_v5 *epic sigh* -> : Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace returns to theaters in 3D February 12, ? http://amzn.to/hFdGXa?=coAmU

18. Plus2Comedy am I the only who's sick of the "the prequels were meant for kids" argument? I was eleven when Phantom Menace came out, and it still sucked
19. Edorams If the cinemas would re-show all the Star Wars films I would gladly buy a ticket =D Except the Phantom Menace, that's quite boring.

20. DannielleWiesem @erjordan2 The Phantom Menace is getting rereleased in 3D. Fool me once, George Lucas... http://amzn.to/hFdGXa?=9X3Qo

21. Carlo_Wrestling @Liiiiiiiiiiiisa was better than Star Wars: Episode 1 The Phantom Menace. That's when her career went wrong for me.

22. SuCalrk5984 @aaronn602 Oh boy, Phantom Menace is coming back to theaters! Suck our dicks, George Lucas. ALL OF THEM. http://amzn.to/hFdGXa?=QQbgl

23. ThePopeOfPants The Line 6 required registration for software updates is about the most confusing and infuriating thing since The Phantom Menace.

24. anonymiss8 RT @divx: What's your take on 'Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace' in 3D? Can 3D save or further damage Ep 1: http://bit.ly/ehogic

25. MintaHaley3768 @sblackburn 'The Phantom Menace' Set to Hit Theaters in 3D Next - Fuck you George Lucas Fuck youuuuuu http://amzn.to/hFdGXa?=QQbgl

26. LavadaTietze180 @Dj_Saf After seeing Unknown...... I can finally forgive Liam Neeson for Phantom Menace. #badass http://amzn.to/gZnZhN?=ePJeh

27. bbriannichols 30 more min until midnite premiere of PHANTOM MENACE!!! Been waiting n line for 6 hrs, but I KNOW it will be worth it! #tweetsfromthepast

28. sopho_suave Just watched Star Wars (Phantom Menace). Jaja Binx makes me want to die...

29. GinetteRiculfy8 @GreatAKHolidays Diane Lane cast in Superman. Brilliant. Phantom Menace getting 3D treatment. Yikes. http://amzn.to/iifPsI?=hyOtE

30. samwise24 RT @WicketFTW: The Phantom Menace arrived. The front of the disk featuring Darth Maul's face is unfortunately the coolest thing about the movie.

31. markjeffrey Dear resumes: I want to like you. I really do. But I also wanted to like Phantom Menace. And I have that JarJar feeling again.

32. alexjestnation Dear George Lucas; I know I said The Phantom Menace was woefully two dimensional but I fear you may have misunderstood #phantommenace3D

33. Mission_Direct Filling q.20 of Census without bogus claim of Jedi affiliation - "I am not ashamed of the Gospel" (besides Phantom Menace was pants...)

34. geeknoisebox @ThomButler If in doubt combine both ideas (sci-fi space opera and Liam Neeson) and watch Episode 1: Phantom Menace. Just kidding - play ME2

Positive:
1. IsaiahLemasters Star Wars The Phantom Menace! Oh yeahhh

2. KathrineCoggan8 @StanGill , As a fellow 12-yr-old fan of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, I too am appalled at the thought of? http://amzn.to/gz2PB7?=YiNlf

3. bg_ohthehorror Mad about Lucas releasing The Phantom Menace in 3D? Chill out, bro: http://bit.ly/eDklD0 #StarWars

4. DoreneValenzvel @ab5474 Watching Phantom of the Menace. Got all giggly when Liam Neeson said "MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU" :3 http://amzn.to/huloZ1?=HhZ4L

5. MargeretGillen4 @jillyjellybean => Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace in fucking 3D #Yeah! http://amzn.to/hFdGXa?=coAmU

6. Jacci_O Just started The Phantom Menace! Know what that means?? Jar jar binks!!! #Hateallyouwantilovehim

Somewhere in the middle:
1. doommaria Phantom Menace is pretty stinky but we sure do watch it a lot!

2. rcosgrove @BittrScrptReadr That's nothing: I know a filmmaker who says Phantom Menace was a really good film. And he doesn't work for Lucas.

3. mrbootybass Rocky Dennis the Phantom Menace.*

Interesting... not what I would have thought since it was such a huge success. I guess RLM got to everyone...

[Elfdart]

First TPM is a failure because 19 films earned more money. Now it's a failure because of some web comments. What's next? TPM was a failed movie because you hear voices in your head?

[NecronLord]

I’ve been trying to provide evidence, by explaining tone. The idea that everything a comedian says should be taken literally until proven otherwise might be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

If you dismiss it as a work of comedy in its entirety, then very well. Cease participating in this debate. If you believe it's a work of criticism with some comedic element, then you must justify it when you dismiss a criticism by going "that's a joke."

I can't believe I'm being drawn into this, I don't really want to be. But... that's not tone, that's content. The Plinkett character, in my limited exposure, and in your examples, has minimal variations in tone, in the vocal sense, it is in fact, the very definition of monotone. There are text to speech units with more tonal range. The reason I dismissed it when I first saw it after four minutes was because it sounds like having Adobe PDF reader read something to me, except he stops to breathe now and then.

Do you have any “kind of objective and clear determination of when this guy is joking.” In the above clips? It is absolutely absurd to try to provide “evidence” beyond tone that these are also jokes.

The humour in them is evident from the non-sequiturs and context. NOT the tone. The guy uses much the same tone when he's being serious.

While I know Darth Tedious has a soft spot for me he at least seems to be willing to debate the argument RLM set forth. Fighting all the robots = as much danger as the blockade run. Not the idea that Fighting all the robots is the most logical thing for the Jedi to do right now, so why didn’t they do it.

Like I said, I'd rather not be drawn into this, but... what the hell. There's an obvious difference in that not charging at every battle droid yelling ancient jedi war cries is possible, avoiding the blockade is... kind of not, given that the ship doesn't possess a cloaking device.

On a little more reading of this, I don't think I've seen anything terribly actionable to date, but remind Emerson et al that not supplying evidence (or conceding) in an thread such as this is against the board rules and repeat offenders have been and will be banned. In short to continue this debate it is essential that you answer demands for proof of what can be written off as a joke.

I appreciate you not condemning an innocent man, besides the mob is having too much fun I’d hate to deprive them of more. I will have to disagree that I’m not providing evidence, I have provided examples of imagery juxtaposed for comedic effect, sarcasm as an example of tone and word choice as an example when someone is comparing something to when someone is making a literal suggestion. Asking for an all encompassing piece of evidence is impossible.

Now I would like someone to explain WHY we should take everything RLM says literally.

Because you are using it as a defence. Therefore you must justify it.

[The Asiduo]

I say he's mixing comedy with review, so, he shouldn't be taken literally, but he makes some good points.

Assuming you are correct, we can actually address your translation of one of the points he made.

Thesis: My stupid idea of just fighting all droids and steal a ship
Antithesis: Stupid action in the movie with similar level of reckless

Synthesis: In this movie, the threats aren't feel dangerous.

Not only is that a massive logical leap, it completely ignores context within the movie. The Jedi had been sent to assess the situation, negotiate if possible, and report back the Council.
After the negotiations failed and the Jedi managed to reach the Naboo, they learned that all communications had been cut off. The only way for the Jedi to report back to the Council (which was part of their intitial mission) and the only way for Amidala/Padme to plead their case with the Senate (which was an essential to the situation) was to attempt to run the blockade.
Was it highly dangerous? Yes.
Was it stupid? No. Doing nothing would have been stupid. Naboo was being invaded, and they only way to contact the Senate was by running the blockade.
Was it reckless? No. It was a neccesary action, and a calculated risk.

Claiming that this was a plothole demonstrates a complete ignorance of the plot.

As for your logical leap, I think I understand how you arrived at your conclusion. Not wishing to build a strawman, I must ask if this is a correct interpretation:

Thesis: The risk of fighting all the droids
Antithesis: The risk of running the blockade
Synthesis: The characters take to many big risks.
HOWEVER: They seemed to run the blockade very easily
Therefore: The threats in this movie aren't believeable

Is this how you reached your conclusion?

Again, please: read what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the dialectical analysis is right or wrong: that's irrelevant for the point I'm making. What I'm saying is: "The guy uses contrast between stupid ideas and stupid things in the movie for comedic and critic effect". Again, in my opinion the whole "running through the blockade" stuff is pretty boring, but I would not make a big argument there: it's just an opinion. The same thing, I guess, Stoklasa made in his review: he thought the whole "blockade" plot was stupid, so he made a comparison with a stupid and reckless idea. If you want to insist in the details of why the blockade plot is entirely consistent inside the "Star Wars Universe", I think it's great. I also think the fact that the jedis so easily defeat war-droids probably is consistent inside the "Star Wars Universe", but the point is not arguing of the consistency, but if is a good plot device. In my opinion?, it's boring, and makes the movie dull and the threats aren't feel real. And yes, that's just an opinion.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

I’ve been trying to provide evidence, by explaining tone. The idea that everything a comedian says should be taken literally until proven otherwise might be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

If you dismiss it as a work of comedy in its entirety, then very well. Cease participating in this debate. If you believe it's a work of criticism with some comedic element, then you must justify it when you dismiss a criticism by going "that's a joke."

I have been justifying it. However, if you're going to refute something you should also be able to justify taking it literally. Saying you have to take everything literally until proven otherwise during a comedic critique makes little sense.

I can't believe I'm being drawn into this, I don't really want to be. But... that's not tone, that's content. The Plinkett character, in my limited exposure, and in your examples, has minimal variations in tone, in the vocal sense, it is in fact, the very definition of monotone. There are text to speech units with more tonal range. The reason I dismissed it when I first saw it after four minutes was because it sounds like having Adobe PDF reader read something to me, except he stops to breathe now and then.

I clarified this distinction earlier. I’m not talking about tone in the sense of vocal range.

Elements of tone include diction, or word choice; syntax, the grammatical arrangement of words for effect; imagery, or vivid appeals to the senses; details, facts that are included or omitted; extended metaphor, language that compares seemingly unrelated things throughout the composition.

Do you have any “kind of objective and clear determination of when this guy is joking.” In the above clips? It is absolutely absurd to try to provide “evidence” beyond tone that these are also jokes.
The humour in them is evident from the non-sequiturs and context. NOT the tone. The guy uses much the same tone when he's being serious.

I agree the context as illustrated by the arrangement of words creates a comedic effect. Just like the use of hyperbole (Why not attack ALL of them) of a crazy idea as a comparison to the movie’s actual crazy idea (a single ship vs a blockade) is meant to be funny. Not to be taken literally.

Like I said if we want to debate if the comparison is a good critique that’s one thing. Instead Raynor took the line as a literal interpretation and ran with it for the entire rebuttal.

Like I said, I'd rather not be drawn into this, but... what the hell. There's an obvious difference in that not charging at every battle droid yelling ancient jedi war cries is possible, avoiding the blockade is... kind of not, given that the ship doesn't possess a cloaking device.

I’ll try not to draw you in to deeply. Since you seem like a decent guy/gal and we’ll be arguing opinion, I’m more than happy to agree to disagree. There is also an obvious comparison in his critique as well. That of overwhelming odds, while the tactic for facing these odds differs the sheer likely hood of surviving against these odds is the comparison.

Because you are using it as a defence. Therefore you must justify it.

Raynor doesn’t have to prove his attack, but I must prove my defense?

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

My point was twofold.
On one hand, the review was intended mainly as comedy, not as a serious review (unlike Ebert's reviews which I never made any mention of). Because of this it should not be taken seriously.

I thought we established that comedy can still be a critique.

On the other hand, the review does attempt to make some points about the movie which can be viewed seriously. These points are not valid ones, as Raynor has proven in his rebuttal. Thus, the review should not be taken seriously.

The review does make serious points, some of which Raynor refutes/agrees with/offers a differing opinion on or misses the point of. The ones he misses the point on are the focus of this thread. So despite your sweeping statement that Raynor has “proven” them invalid doesn’t change the fact that his critique can be taken seriously. As seriously as Ebert. Meaning you can take his review as seriously as Eberts. You know why? They’re both opinions on the film making. I might even go so far as to say if Raynor wrote a glowing review of Phantom Menace I would take it as seriously as I would RLM or Ebert. Then I would fire up the Rifftrax, watch Phantom Menace and laugh.

My conclusion was:
The review should not be taken seriously.
I did not say "the review should be taken no more seriously than Ebert's reviews". Your attempt to twist my words is pathetic.
I said the review should not be taken seriously at all.

This is opinion. Do you have any objective proof?

[Darth Tedious]

The whole thing is a joke, but that doesn’t disqualify it from being a critique. You guys just miss the point because you take everything literally.

Even once you and The Asiduo translated Plinkett's bullshit into some sort of coherent statement (which I was willing to accept even with no actual proof on your part that it was what he was actually trying to say), it was an easy point to refute, because it was based on massively flawed logic and an ignorance of context within the movie. Neither you nor The Asiduo have even made any attempt to counterargue what I said, even though you stated that you disagreed.

The review does make serious points, some of which Raynor refutes/agrees with/offers a differing opinion on or misses the point of. The ones he misses the point on are the focus of this thread. So despite your sweeping statement that Raynor has “proven” them invalid doesn’t change the fact that his critique can be taken seriously. As seriously as Ebert. Meaning you can take his review as seriously as Eberts. You know why? They’re both opinions on the film making.

The difference being that Plinkett's opinions are based on faulty observations and false conclusions. Opinios can be taken seriously, if they have some kind of logical grounding to them. Unless you wish to contend that Ebert's reviews are made on flawed grounds.

This is opinion. Do you have any objective proof?

I didn't claim it as fact. It is a logical and reasoned conclusion drawn from both sides of the debate. Do you have a logical and reasoned counterargument with which to dispute it?

[The Asiduo]

The whole thing is a joke, but that doesn’t disqualify it from being a critique. You guys just miss the point because you take everything literally.

Even once you and The Asiduo translated Plinkett's bullshit into some sort of coherent statement (which I was willing to accept even with no actual proof on your part that it was what he was actually trying to say), it was an easy point to refute, because it was based on massively flawed logic and an ignorance of context within the movie. Neither you nor The Asiduo have even made any attempt to counterargue what I said, even though you stated that you disagreed.

The review does make serious points, some of which Raynor refutes/agrees with/offers a differing opinion on or misses the point of. The ones he misses the point on are the focus of this thread. So despite your sweeping statement that Raynor has “proven” them invalid doesn’t change the fact that his critique can be taken seriously. As seriously as Ebert. Meaning you can take his review as seriously as Eberts. You know why? They’re both opinions on the film making.

The difference being that Plinkett's opinions are based on faulty observations and false conclusions. Opinios can be taken seriously, if they have some kind of logical grounding to them. Unless you wish to contend that Ebert's reviews are made on flawed grounds.

This is opinion. Do you have any objective proof?

I didn't claim it as fact. It is a logical and reasoned conclusion drawn from both sides of the debate. Do you have a logical and reasoned counterargument with which to dispute it?

Dude, Stokalsa is expressing opinions. Opinions are not refutable, because opinions as those are subjective. If Stoklasa or me, or anyone thinks: "I think the thing in the whole 'blockade' thing is dull and stupid", then, that's an opinion and it's irrefutable. You guys can made up thousand of arguments of why the scene is consistent or logical inside of the "Star Wars Universe", but, I, at least, don't care: I still think it's boring: why?, because I don't care the least for the characters, and also, I still think that a single ship going so easily through a blockade makes the whole "blockade" plot a fiasco. Plus, I think if a scene requieres so much justifications and explanations, it makes the scene even more boring: good scenes in movies should be self-explanatory, in my opinion.

So, we return to the same point. Stoklasa thinks a thing is stupid or dull in the movie (which is irrefutable, because is his opinion), so he makes a silly comparison with a stupid idea he made up: If you guys are taking those comparisons seriously, you're wasting your time, because he's just giving opinions and joking (and, in case you say I'm "reading his mind", I've posted over and over again the interview where he says just that). If you're trying to refute that the things he finds stupid or boring are NOT boring, then, again, you're wasting your time, because opinions such as: "I think that's dull" are not refutable. If you want to criticize his main critiques against the PT, identify and deal with those main points, and don't waste time arguing about nitpicking made for some cheap laughs.

Which are the main points?, I've said them over, and over again, so again:

a) The characters are dull and underdeveloped.
b) The plot is unengaging and also seems underdeveloped.
c) The main feel is a movie made as a showcase of special effects without a good story.

And, again, Stoklasa is not the only one making those point: those have been made by a lot of "serious critics", even Ebert, I think.

So guys, cut the crap of: "He's being serious and literal, or he's just talking bullshit". He's just giving opinions and comments, mixed with jokes. That's it.

[Darth Tedious]

Dude, Stokalsa is expressing opinions. Opinions are not refutable, because opinions as those are subjective.

They're also not logically defendable. So why are you even here?

So guys, cut the crap of: "He's being serious and literal, or he's just talking bullshit". He's just giving opinions and comments, mixed with jokes. That's it.

I have said repeatedly that he shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Darth Tedious]

Seeing as how Ebert's name kept getting thrown around, I thought I'd have a look at his review of TPM.

Here's a sampler of what he had to say:

"Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace," to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking.

At the risk of offending devotees of the Force, I will say that the stories of the "Star Wars" movies have always been space operas, and that the importance of the movies comes from their energy, their sense of fun, their colorful inventions and their state-of-the-art special effects.

Yet within the rules he has established, Lucas tells a good story.

What he does have, in abundance, is exhilaration. There is a sense of discovery in scene after scene of "The Phantom Menace," as he tries out new effects and ideas, and seamlessly integrates real characters and digital ones, real landscapes and imaginary places.

As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day.

Yeah! Top reviewers hated TPM!
If you read the whole thing, you'll notice that Ebert actually addresses a lot of the issues that people had with the movie, and explains why they aren't really a problem within the context of the Star Wars saga.
Of course, the principle difference between Ebert and Plinkett is that Plinkett's reviews are 'a funny way for Stoklasa to get his opinions out there', and Ebert's reviews are made as completely serious critiques.