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

[Agent Sorchus]

Nah, having Anakin as a hot shot young pilot is in my mind a little too much of Luke. I also can't stand the pathos that was attempted by having Anakin as a slave, it just was boring and too simplistic. If this is supposed to be a time of strife make Anakin a refuge alongside his mother. Gives him excellent motivation to want to fight even if he is still a teenager and works to keep the pacing by throwing him into the conflict on Naboo sooner.

The biggest flaw in the prequels in my mind is that there is no villain build up from movie to movie. Suddenly Dooku, suddenly Grievious, all while palpatine is too far into the shadows to be in direct conflict with the heroes. The original trilogy had a strong central villian that opposed the heroes at every step, was active and identifiable by the heroes as something to rally against. Grievious works similarly as the monster that goes against the heroes, but he is tacked on at the end and doesn't feel like some one with a history of conflict with the heroes.

[Knife]

Am I stupid because I don't need to read your nitpicks of his nitpicks to know that my opinion of TPM will remain unchanged? Likewise, I don't have to agree with the entirety of RLM's review to generally agree with his overall point.

No, but if you don't read his article and continue to argue against it while generally agreeing with RLM's points, you do come off sounding stupid. Don't want to do a nitpick v nitpick, no problem. If you want to generally agree with RLM's point and mock Jim without reading his general point, boo on you.

This is only my third post in this thread and I've neither argued with or mocked Jim, but I've been reading his stuff since back when RLM's first review was posted here so I think I know his general position pretty well by now without having to read 108 more pages of it.

I might be mixing this thread with the other thread, so I apologize.

[Simon_Jester]

Hmm. I think I agree with Sorchus; if anything, the problem is even larger than he says. It's not just villains that are discontinuous across the three movies of the prequel; it's everything except the very abstract overarching themes.

Episodes IV, V, and VI were all in many ways similar. In each movie we see a unity of themes not just in character development, but in the kinds of places the characters go. The heroes spend a lot of time trying to make contact with people they need in 'low places' (lawless Tatooine for Luke and Bespin for Han and Leia, or the wilderness of Dagobah and Endor). They are constantly forced to divert from their enemies' strengths to their weaknesses (running from stormtroopers on the Death Star, running from stormtroopers on Hoth, having to find a rear entrance to the shield bunker on Endor). The young hero who is the story's main protagonist is repeatedly forced to go confront powerful enemies in their place of greatest strength (the Death Stars, Bespin, Jabba's Palace). So there's a lot of self-similarity, which helps bind the overall arc together.

For example, we see Luke going into the villain's lair to confront him repeatedly: as a callow youth in the first Death Star, as an overconfident young warrior on Bespin, as a more mature, self-confident warrior in Jabba's Palace, and as an enlightened warrior in Palpatine's throne room on the second Death Star. This helps to illustrate how the character evolves over time.

The first time Luke goes to face an enemy in a place of power, he does it for essentially juvenile reasons (to rescue a 'princess' he's never met) and is relatively ineffective: he pulls his own weight, but most of the real work is done by Obi-Wan, Han, Leia, and Chewie. When he faces defeats, such as the loss of Obi-Wan, he reacts poorly. Only with the help of his allies at every turn does he succeed- he's just a boy.

It happens again during the fighter attack on the Death Star. He still needs plenty of help from his friends to succeed, and when he confronts a powerful foe (Darth Vader), he's at an impossible disadvantage. But here we see Luke more in his element: the first hints that he's capable of being a powerful warrior, and that he has hidden power beyond what his age and appearance would suggest. Still a boy, but a boy with potential.

The next time this happens is on Bespin. Here, we see that Luke has matured into a competent fighter: "Obi-Wan has taught you well." But he is still far from the practiced competence of Vader, and his abilities as a strategist are still undeveloped. Therefore, he is easily lured into traps by Darth Vader and only escapes by brute-force use of his abilities. Due to his overconfidence in his own powers and his failure to recognize a trap, he is drawn into confronting his powerful enemy again... but without the help of his friends, and he is defeated. This was the mistake of a boy, but now we see the potential strength of the man Luke is becoming: he is strong enough to stand against Vader if not to defeat him, and wise enough to resist the lure of the dark side.

Next we see Luke going into Jabba's palace. We see that he has become even more capable as a fighter. He still needs his friends, but now he has learned to strategize, to come up with backup plans and improvise when his plans fail. He manages to defeat a powerful monster (the Rancor) entirely on his own, and plays a critical role in the destruction of Jabba and his barge. While Luke is still a young man with a young man's weaknesses- still relatively easy to entrap- he is indisputably a man and not a boy.

Finally, we see Luke go into a fifth stronghold: the second Death Star. But this is very different from the way he entered previous strongholds. This time, he comes to the villains entirely of his own free will, specifically planning to face and overcome them, without being forced into it by the desire to rescue his friends. He is shown to be firmly in command of his wits, strong enough to defeat Vader entirely and wise enough to resist the Emperor's powerful temptations. Now his abilities as a fighter are tempered with a degree of enlightenment: we see that this is the kind of heroic figure a Jedi Knight in his prime is supposed to be.

So by tracing Luke's journeys through his attempts to beard the lion in its den by attacking strong enemies in their places of power, we can get a sense for how Luke evolves from a boy into a man, from a peasant to warrior and warrior to enlightened warrior-monk, from an unthinking lump of muscle into a clever tactician.

We could do the same thing for other characters, or other situations: explore how Luke interacts with the wilderness or how Han's reaction to having someone to protect evolves. And this is made much easier to do by the fact that the characters wind up having broadly equivalent experiences, in stories of the same general tone and type.

The prequels, not so much. Episode I is an adventure story, Episode II is a detective story, and Episode III is a war story. The three movies are highly episodic, too; the ten year jump between I and II makes practically everything the heroes accomplished in the first movie irrelevant by the time the second one comes around. Villains come and go, with no persistent antagonists who can evolve over time. Characters don't find themselves taking on the same roles in the same kind of situations, which makes it harder to draw comparisons between what they were like before and what they're like now.

[CyanideBlizzard]

First and foremost, let's get this out of the way.

Yes, I joined here because of the link slashfilm provided. Yes, I am posting now because I honestly cannot read any further without ruining my desk from banging my head on my desk.

With that out of the way I have to ask one question. Why so much rage?

When you get down to it both Jim's response to RedLetterMedia's review and RLM's review are pointless and un-necessary. Neither of them will truly change anything that has happened or really offer any true reflection towards what they are aiming for. Oh sure they might in certain aspects, but it's pretty obvious that they most likely will not. Do I respect both of them? Yes. I think it's pretty bold to take the time and effort to the up a 108-page rebuttal and make it as entertaining and insightful as Jim has. Do I think RLM's reviews are decent? Yes, I enjoy the dark humor to the and the good points they make. I honestly don't mind the monotone or the length itself, and it's even something I'll have playing in the background while doing work on my computer. I think both gentleman (Mike and Jim) offer great insight to what they are aiming for. However we get to this one perspective that's truly key to this entire situation.

It all comes down to opinion.

I've been a fan RML back when Mr.Plinkett was only known for his Star Trek movie reviews and personally speaking I find them to be more so my favorites than the prequel reviews. Do I also enjoy the prequels? In a way, yes I do. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, but I've always appreciate the series for what it is and I enjoy the games, regardless of canon material or not. That's simply how I feel about it though.

I'm sitting here skimming some of the comments and it's really amazing how angry people are getting about either RLM's review, or Jim's review of RLM. We all know that the internet allows us time to think before we post a comment, so why not have a civil discussion about this instead of ragging on one or the other.

In their own rights, they are both good and in their own rights, they have flaws.

So, can't we all just get along?

[Srelex]

You see, the above is the sort of analysis that would actually be worthwhile, in comparison to Stoklasa going through the movie making inane nitpicks. But, of course, that wouldn't keep the Youtube monkeys entertained.

Still, I feel after seeing his 'reponse' that it's slightly ironic that he bashes Lucas for not taking criticism, although I guess it's likely that he couldn't be bothered to go through what he assumed to be the whining of a fanwhore. Still, I trust that Raynor predicted that he'd get some of the reaction he has so far.

[Stark]

Come on, people are seriously joining just to say 'because I agree with this guy, it doesn't matter that he lies or misrepresents situations. He's funny!'

Does it get any fatter than that?

[ProfessorKaos64]

What's next then, can we rip on Robot Chicken for his comedic representations of star wars? I think a lot of the people want to point out that its a break.com/funny or die just silly video where he makes fun of a sloppily made movie. I personally think he's laughing his ass off at every hardcore nerd trying* to make sense of his "reviews." Some of you are as bad as those people you bring to the movies and talk the whole time , "psssst. That totally is not real, that doesnt fit the plot or the LOTR universe at all...snargggg". I'm getting such a kick out of all of you.

[Aaron]

Come on, people are seriously joining just to say 'because I agree with this guy, it doesn't matter that he lies or misrepresents situations. He's funny!'

Does it get any fatter than that?

*shrug* If you didn't like them before the RLM review, chances are that Raynor's rebuttal won't change your mind. And vice versa. If he lied, well I can't say I'm impressed but whether he did or not my opinion of the PT is still the same.

[Imperial528]

What's next then, can we rip on Robot Chicken for his comedic representations of star wars? I think a lot of the people want to point out that its a break.com/funny or die just silly video where he makes fun of a sloppily made movie. I personally think he's laughing his ass off at every hardcore nerd trying* to make sense of his "reviews." Some of you are as bad as those people you bring to the movies and talk the whole time , "psssst. That totally is not real, that doesnt fit the plot or the LOTR universe at all...snargggg". I'm getting such a kick out of all of you.

That's a bad comparison, since Robot Chicken is a comedy TV show that makes fun of everything, even the writers make fun of themselves. Robot Chicken makes no attempt to criticize or review what it uses as fodder for it's comedy routine. Also note that is an entity, not a person.

[Stark]

What's next then, can we rip on Robot Chicken for his comedic representations of star wars? I think a lot of the people want to point out that its a break.com/funny or die just silly video where he makes fun of a sloppily made movie. I personally think he's laughing his ass off at every hardcore nerd trying* to make sense of his "reviews." Some of you are as bad as those people you bring to the movies and talk the whole time , "psssst. That totally is not real, that doesnt fit the plot or the LOTR universe at all...snargggg". I'm getting such a kick out of all of you.

If he wasn't trying to be accurate, why are nerds trying to harsh on someone for pointing out he isn't accurate? Is a direct attempt to 'review' something now comparable to a fucking comedy show?

Frankly I doubt more than half a dozen people on this website like the PT. That doesn't mean being factually incorrect is somehow more acceptable; but then since this is a pretty clear cause of fatty tribalism expecting rationality is probably foolish. People have been saying how TPM sucks for seriously a decade without lying, after all.

[ProfessorKaos64]

I know, but you see he was just trying to make us laugh, and I think he KNEW fanatics were going to go ape shit over the details. In my opinion he is the most successful troll Ive ever seen.

[Stark]

So in your own fictional invention of a motive you ascribe to someone you've never met, it's all cool because it was for lols?

And, somehow, being a troll means its lame to highlight errors?

They say people on the internet are stupid...

[ProfessorKaos64]

Yes its stupid to laugh at RLM's "reviews", dear me I am so sorry. So its wrong to realize his reviews were just to make us laugh and bring out crazy outcries from fanatics. Yes that is so stupid. Forgive me for laughing at his videos and taking them for what they are, playful jokes against the movies. Why does everyone have to be so factual about them? In many ways , he probably did that one PURPOSE.

[Srelex]

So if his videos are just elaborate trolling, why do some people consider them incredibly intelligent pieces of insightful film-related writing? If anything I think that Raynor was targeting his essay to such individuals.

[Stark]

Care to quote where I said it was stupid to laugh at the reviews? There are rules.

And it is wrong to 'realise' something with no evidence simply to avoid criticism. How is it not lame to make a giant tiresome review for no reason than to troll nerds? I mean, aside from the fact that nobody would care if it wasn't Star Wars, beloved of lamers.

[Squiggly_P]

Being kind, soft spoken, nurturing, trusting, independent, and strong-willed doesn't describe his personality?

I didn't get any of that from his character. "Stern" was used in the review because that's how he talks. His line delivery is terse and matter-of-fact. "Stoic" was used because he just stands around most of the time. Almost all of the characters are stoic. If you got more than that from the film, then it's no surprise that you think he's a great character. Do you think that's the fault of all of the various people who saw the film and didn't like his character, or is that a problem with the writing?

His winnings were the parts he needed, and Anakin's freedom. Anakin's mother didn't figure into that, and Watto outright refused to bet her in addition to her son.

Yeah, but see, he left Watto ruined. He could have gotten his mother at some point and never did. Why not pick up some cash at Coruscant and rescue her on the way back to Naboo? Or after they save the day?

It's really character stuff if he decides to beat the people he can, and run away from massive armies instead of "fighting all of them." I hate the way certain people look at characterization, and think that a character has to do everything in a certain exactly according to their assigned "personality." Real people are not like that.

You don't have to have them behave in exactly the same way, but you have to give them characteristics and then make those characteristics visible. Otherwise you can't write a good, complex, interesting character. When Han shows up at the end of ANH and takes out Vader, it's something that his character wouldn't have typically done, but that out of character moment shows us that he's grown to care about Luke, and to a lesser extent maybe the rebellion. I don't feel that any of the characters in TPM could ever have a moment like that because I personally don't really feel like I know anything about any of them aside from the fact that they're jedi or a queen or whatever.

These are OK subjective points, but I will disagree that "it's relevant here." Because the scope of my essay was his Episode I review. If he didn't say it in his Episode I review, then I don't have to give him credit for that when responding to just that review.

The fact that there's no subtext and that characters just stand around not doing anything IS relevant because it happens in this movie.

2)No, the taxes were a near irrelevant MacGuffin and nothing more. It's really strange how you put so much emphasis on the taxes, going so far as to label them "the basic plot of the film," when the actual movie practically dispenses with them within the opening crawl. Because by the end of the crawl, the Jedi are sent to deal with the blockade, not the taxes. The Jedi were not there to discuss tax laws, as Stoklasa tried to make things look. They were there to intimidate the Trade Federation into backing down from their aggressive actions. The movie is about those aggressive actions getting out of hand, and a small group of heroes who try to fix things.

Uh, it's really not that hard to guess that the treaty that was explicitly intended to make things legal would hamper prosecution against the Trade Federation.

What? You're smarter than this. Don't make up stupid questions when you know damn well that the treaty is to cover the Trade Federation's butt and keep them from facing the consequences of their invasion.

Oh no. The Trade Federation is hindering prosecution and thus it will be difficult for us to punish them for the invasion of Naboo... Riveting stuff. I'm at the edge of my seat. Why were they invading Naboo again?

I've dealt with this dumb question again and again on this very forum. They want to get their version of the "word" out there, after they have the butt-covering treaty.

So what's their version of "the word" and how is it different from... Naboo's? The Senate's? I still don't see how Naboo is involved in this at all.

The Trade Federation is in deep water because they just invaded a planet. It's already been done. No, the MacGuffin isn't "discarded," because they still want the Queen to legitimize it.

How are they supposed to legitimize it after the queen has escaped? She can't sign the treaty if she's not there. She's at the senate complaining about the invading forces. The only way they can stone wall her is apparently to question the validity of the invasion, but that whole plot point makes no sense because there were jedi there who told the Chancellor that the TF had invaded. Regardless, the Trade Fed can't just assume she's going to come back because, frankly, it would be kind of dumb. The only way the good guys were able to win at the end is because for some reason the Trade Fed decided that pulling all of their blockade ships off the planet would be smart, leaving only one ship to attack. If they hadn't made that stupid decision then there would have been no way for such a small force to destroy the control ship. Another instance of the villain making some huge mistake because the plot requires them to do that because otherwise there would be no possible way for the good guys to win.

Frankly, putting all of this Galactic Senate stuff in the film is just a way to make the movie look more complicated than it is. There's no way you would want to end this movie with some kind of legislative victory where they vote to pass sanctions against the Trade Federation and/or call for an investigation into the incident and put out warrants for Gunray's arrest. That would be a boring resolution. If they really wanted all of this senate / treaty stuff to pay off then that's how the movie should have ended. If you're not gonna pay off all that stuff, then why bother crafting the plot around it in the first place?

It's stupid and idiotic for the Trade Federation to do, even before the decision to kill the Jedi.

Why would that be a stupid way to kill the jedi? Or are you saying that the act of killing the jedi itself is stupid? Or that everything the trade federation has done is stupid? Also, the guy says "They must be dead by now"... if we've established that they've got cameras and sensors all over the ship, why can't they just peek in there or scan for life signs or whatever? Or ask the droid. "Hey silver 3PO lady! Are they dead yet?"

Stoklasa's own alternative suggestions were far worse - the Trade Fed admitting its wrongdoing to the Senate, and the Jedi going Rambo through the ship. He has nothing to stand on.

I'm not really trying to defend RLM's review. The rebuttal you wrote seems to suggest that what he's saying - that the trade federation are morons - is incorrect. The film doesn't demonstrate this. Regardless of whether he's right or wrong, it damages the movie. The bad guys are incompetent, their armies are ineffective, their motivations are unclear. There's no fear of them at all.

If the American colonists had a problem with taxes, why wouldn't they take it up with the British Parliament? Why would they resort to rebellion and war?

These guy's aren't "attacking britain" tho. It would be like the American colonists have a problem with british taxes, so they attack the smallest, furthest british colony they could. In that scenario, tho, I doubt the americans could have them sign a treaty that would make the invasion legal.

I don't know about you, but when I watch movies I don't want every insignificant stupid detail spelled out for me as if I'm stupid. They're on a ship with numerous crewmembers and battledroids, and we just saw the Jedi on a security camera!
Yeah, the movie would have been better served with some pointless scenes of the no-name Trade Fed henchman looking into some computer monitors first in order to justify a throwaway line that had no effect on the plot either way.

Maybe you want things spelled out for you.

That's what Lucas is doing throughout the entire film, tho. He's constantly having characters blatantly say things that a good writer would let the audience figure out through visuals and context. He DID spell it out for you. He had a character say "They went up the ventilation shaft" instead of showing a couple of robed figures jump into some kind of duct. Granted, I haven't seen the film in a long time, so maybe he did show them going into a duct. If he did, tho, then that line is even worse.

Qui-Gon said that R2 had the readout on the parts, then Qui-Gon and R2 go out with Watto to look for parts. It's obvious...nevermind that the 3D picture device that Stoklasa based his criticism on didn't even show up until later in the movie. There was absolutely nothing casting doubt on the idea that R2 was used for the purpose that Qui-Gon said he would be used for.

You don't think he could have used some kind of little hand-held device to bring that information with him, tho? My point is that they only said that to justify R2 being in those scenes. Otherwise, why bring him in to town?

Are you kidding me? Running the blockade was about R2, and couldn't have been in the movie for any other reason? Such as providing another action scene, in an action movie?

I'll guarantee you that Lucas had a list of scenes he wanted in the film. He wanted the podrace scene. He therefore needed to get to Tatooine to have that scene. Sure it could have taken place on some other planet, but Tatooine was a pre-existing star-warsy planet that fit the bill. So he had to write some crap to justify them going to Tatooine. Remove Tatoine from the story entirely and have them meet Anakin on Naboo. I just cut 20-30 minutes from the film without affecting the plot or character development or anything at all.

If all you're trying to do is shoehorn scenes and characters into a movie, then the logistics of that become far more important than telling a good story. I don't know for certain, but the way the trade federation had a ton of blockade ships at the beginning, and then one ship at the end of the film tells me that they added the blockade scene to generate some reason to have their ship get damaged and thus require fixing - intro R2D2. What were all of those other ships there for in the story otherwise? What did they do with them beyond the blockade run? Nothing.

Wait. You did not just say that. Anakin's only a kid to justify him building C-3PO as a gift for his mom? WHAT?! He's not a kid to show the character's humble beginnings, or the childhood dreams that would eventually lead to his downfall. He's not a cheery, idealistic kid to contrast with the monster that he would be as Darth Vader. He's not a kid to be a surrogate son for Qui-Gon, or to write a story about a mother letting go of her son so he can move on to greater things. He's not even a kid to appeal to a big target audience of kids...Lucas just made Anakin a kid because of some irrelevant, minute-long cameo for C-3PO. Give me a break.

I don't think that's the only reason Anakin is a kid in this movie, but I don't think Lucas was writing his movie to make Anakin some surrogate son for Qui-Gon or to show how innocent and wide-eyed Vader was when he was a kid. The target audience thing is a likely argument. 3PO was probably more of an afterthought in the film. "oh, I know! I'll have him making 3PO! Then we can have 3PO in the movie! People will love that!" He probably pegged Anakin as a kid from the get go, cause that would make for an awesome poster image, you know. But that's who the guy writes. He's not really trying to tell a story here; That's my point. He's just got stuff he wants to put in the movie and then he fills in all the gaps and tries to fix any glaringly obvious plot holes with glaringly obvious crutches like "Bombs in your brain", convenient sand storms, pilots being held in the hangar bay cause he forgot he needed some pilots, guns in the throne cause they needed some convenient guns, etc.

You can try to explain away all of this stuff, but it's still blatantly obvious convenience. It's lazy writing.

You said it yourself. Movies are intentionally written not to be weird and boring. And what flaw in logic are you talking about? Qui-Gon clearly states that he doesn't want to go around town talking to the big dealers and attracting attention. Despite that he is shown walking around town trying to find other ways to get his needed parts, after leaving Watto's shop. This was already dealt with in my PDF.

It's just incredibly convenient is all.

Don't make better arguments for Stoklasa than he actually did. He made stupid nitpicks, as far as I can see. Also, I love how you say that "the ENTIRE FILM is wrong" because it used a chance occurence to put Qui-Gon and Anakin together. It was a reason that made sense, and every movie comes up with reasons to have things happen the way it wants.

No, this one thing isn't the reason the entire film is wrong. The entire film is wrong because it wasn't written to be a film. It was written to be a series of engaging action sequences with some kind of dumb plot sorta squeezed in there to try to make all of it kinda make sense somehow. Anakin should not be a kid, the trade federation is a boring impotent villain, the political 'intrigue' is not intriguing, the characters are shallow, the dialogue is 90% exposition and 9% annoying crap that Jar Jar says, the action sequences accomplish nothing at all, the film's style is generic blandness, the CG backgrounds are lifeless.... the movie is a train wreck.

You want to know contrived? R2-D2 being captured by desert midgets, who just so happen to sell them to Luke's family, who just so happens to come across Obi-Wan Kenobi while looking for R2 later. What horrible writing.

They could have sold R2 to anyone, and that anyone could have assumed the role that Luke plays in the movie.
R2 was in the process of trying to find Kenobi, thus it makes sense that Kenobi would be in the neighborhood when Luke was attacked.
Neither of these are contrivances.
In fact, Luke's uncle wasn't going to buy R2 until 3PO suggested he get him.
Besides, I'm not arguing that the original films were flawlessly executed works of brilliance.

So...action scenes in an action movie are pointless...If you and Stoklasa think that, then fine it's your opinion. Most people do not think like that, at all.

There are certain action films that most people absolutely love, and action films that most people absolutely hate. If you take these two types of films and compare them, one of the most common differences is going to be how they handle their action sequences. Look at films like The Matrix, the original Star Wars films, Fight Club, Inception, Raiders of the Lost Arc, Die Hard, etc... Almost all of the action sequences in these films drastically alter the characters, their predicaments or their relationships to each other. The action bits have a specific reason to exist in the context of the plot and character development of the films.

Now look at some terrible movies like Last Airbender, Jumper, Clash of the Titans, Boondock Saints (both of them, but the second especially), the Transformers films, 2012, etc... You see a lot of action set pieces that don't really have any effect on the characters. Their relationships aren't challenged or strengthened by them, they don't change the way they see anything, they don't learn anything, the story isn't really affected much by them... You could probably cut the action scenes out of the movie and replace it with a bit of narration that says "and then there was an action sequence" and people would still be able to follow right along. I'm speaking generally, here, and you can probably point out a scene or three that have some dramatic impact (Jumper has a couple useful sequences), but hopefully you get my point.

Editors usually look at a movie, find all the stuff that doesn't add anything to the film and try to cut it out. If they were being honest, most of them would probably insist on cutting out action sequences that don't add anything to the film, but as you say, it's hard to make an action movie sell if there's no action involved.

Anyway, I'm not going to convince you that this movie is bad any more than you can convince me that it's great, and I don't want you to think that's what I'm doing. I just want you - and others - to understand that the RLM reviews illustrate pretty well the reasons that people don't like these movies. There may be some very subtle things in the films that most people don't pick up on, but if those things are relevant and necessary for the enjoyment of the film, then they are too subtle. It's not about being smart enough to 'get' the movie, it's about successful communication of ideas. Some films are purposefully obtuse, like cinematic riddles. TPM isn't one of those films, in my opinion. It just doesn't communicate it's ideas well enough.

I'm not saying that you're wrong or that I'm right or that RLM is right or whatever. I'm just disagreeing with you. It's all opinion. I've never seen someone articulate this particular opinion of TPM with this much detail, so I found it hard to NOT try to debate it.

Actually, I forgot to mention before, but the captions on some of the pictures in your rebuttal are friggin hilarious.
"I find your lack of customer service disturbing"

[Jim Raynor]

Or maybe your review didn't say anything worthwhile? It really can't be called a rebuttal if you don't manage to disagree with his main, overall statements on the quality of the movie. You're just kind of shouting at him for thinking and talking a certain way, which is totally appropriate for forum posts, but somewhat uninviting in civilized discussion.

Whopping total of 3 posts...let me guess, you're one of those RLM fanboys who signed up on this forum just to defend their idol.

My response didn't say anything worthwhile about his review? Have you read the whole thing, or even significant parts of it? Because I have a hard time believing that, seeing as how I basically covered almost everything he said. At the very least, he ought to have something more to say if he's going to respond to me at all.

[Vympel]

I don't know about you, but when I watch movies I don't want every insignificant stupid detail spelled out for me as if I'm stupid. They're on a ship with numerous crewmembers and battledroids, and we just saw the Jedi on a security camera!

There's some great hypocrisy here on RLM's part, too. In his Star Trek Nemesis review, he rakes the film over the coals for "assuming the audience is stupid" - referencing where Picard is bald in his academy days (i.e. audience too stupid to figure out a picture of Picard is a picture of Picard if he has hair, despite the characters in the scene saying its a picture of Picard).

Apparently, not bothering to show a security camera feed of the guys entering the ventilation staff is noteworthy and not at all simply Lucas assuming the audience can put two and two together.

[Jim Raynor]

It continually amuses me that RLM supporters keep referring to some vague, intangible "main point," "big picture," or "overall statements," when the vast majority of his review is nothing but inane nitpicks. Makes me suspect that most people, even the RLM fans, haven't even watched most of his review.

You know what? I have actual statistical evidence to support that suspicion of mine. It's the number of YouTube views:

Part 1: 2.84 (million views)
Part 2: 1.26
Part 3: 1.06
Part 4: 1.01
Part 5: 0.95
Part 6: 0.93
Part 7: 0.95

Now, I don't know how many of these are repeat viewers and how many are actually unique people. But the numbers suggest that only about one-third of the people who started Part 1 stayed to watch Part 3 and beyond. Part 2 got less than half of the views that Part 1 did.

While I saw some stupid things in Part 1 as well (which are all explained in my PDF), that part's probably the least stupid and offensive one of them all. Stoklasa spent a lot of time in that one not even talking about TPM, but rather what he likes to see from movies in general. No wonder so many people have an inflated opinion of this guy's work. Most people never even saw the whole thing through. Most of them probably just saw the least crappy part and declared it a work of genius.

The massive dropoff from Part 1 to Part 2 also leads me to believe that there's a silent majority of people who couldn't stand it, or the sound of Plinkett's voice. Whatever the case, most people didn't bother watching past the first part.

[Jim Raynor]

2. Space cover up, no Pinkerton was pretty much spot on with his criticism, blowing the ship up in the cargo and trying to posion the jedi were bond villian level dumb ideas. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread there were sooo many better ideas to use if you need to kill two jedis.

The ship's destruction could be covered up, although I would agree that the Trade Federation's actions weren't foolproof. Still, I would say that they were better than Stoklasa's suggestion of sending the Jedi back to Coruscant to rat them out.

3. Splitting up makes no sense because it does double the chances of detection, AND once one Jedi is detected you have a simple solution to finding the other jedi. Splitting up does make their chances worse because if one jedi is found the other jedi will be found as well. Unless the villians are again mouth breathing morons they are simply going to stop the landers and inspect them in deep space where your running away options are highly limited.

The ships probably won't even be taking off all at the same time, nor were we ever shown that the landing process was a lengthy one. This counter that you suggest would also mean the Trade Federation stalling the entire invasion process, which isn't a bad consolation. Assuming that they even find one of the Jedi. That's a better failure than both of them immediately being killed at once, upon discovery.

4. Eight guards, you don't send your high value captive out of the city with only eight of your terrible version of guards. This was recently captured city, the chances of a resistance are high. You escort the queen and Co with your best until you have them in a secure facility in a convey if needed. The escort was laughable even WITHOUT the Jedi. Similar numbers of droids have been defeated by no-name red-shirt soldiers before. Eight should have been eighty with the entire route secured and over-watched by your heavy weaponry.

This is actaully a better argument than Stoklasa made, which was that eight battledroids are stupid just because of the Jedi. However, the drop off in threat level between a Jedi and a no-name Naboo guard is very large. While Naboo guards could kill droids, the droids could also take them. At the very least, a no-name soldier isn't going to wipe out an entire squad of droids and rescue the Queen within moments, like a Jedi would.

5. Hiring a transport ship, no sorry Raynor but he's spot on. Even if Republican credits are mostly useless on the planet they can hire a transport ship to take them to a Republic world where they can pay their transport pilot in raw goods or his or her choice of payment. No Plinkett is correct, hiring a transport was a valid alternative. Not as if they need to dress the queen up for the voyage. Just have her slum, catch the first transport out of there and have the Jedi's ride herd on the Captain. For every dishonest trader there is at least half an honest tradesmen and at least hundredth a Han Solo. Jedi's seem to be good judges of characters being tuned into the force and all.

Paying transportation fares after a trip, and possibly not even in money, raises suspicion. Where would such a deal even be made? Because privacy isn't guaranteed, and Qui-Gon seemed adamant about not drawing attention (Tatooine was immediately identified as a mob-controlled world). I will agree that this part of the movie wasn't explained as well as it could have been, however.

[Mr Bean]

One point I want to respond to tonight

This is actaully a better argument than Stoklasa made, which was that eight battledroids are stupid just because of the Jedi. However, the drop off in threat level between a Jedi and a no-name Naboo guard is very large. While Naboo guards could kill droids, the droids could also take them. At the very least, a no-name soldier isn't going to wipe out an entire squad of droids and rescue the Queen within moments, like a Jedi would.

Actually no, the number of droids present, their tactics, the weaponry and how easily they go down. Given the demonstrated numbers (I don't have the film on hand but lets say 12) I could ambush and destroy that squad with the queen's ground troopers we see later in the movie with small arms and no more than a ten man advantage.

The droids are SLOW, slow taking cover, slow advancing and their demonstrated sensors are barely better than MK 1 eyeball. Even if they have 200 meter True Vision(TM), a standard ambush scenario should be able to tilt the odds in my favor sharply and quickly. These type of small unit special forces engagements are planned by real world spec-ops teams all the time.

[Squiggly_P]

He states a few general opinions of the film and then spends the rest of the review citing examples that prove his points. It's not just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, he's providing evidence of his previous assertions. If he hadn't done that, then you would just say "but he didn't show any examples of what he means! He's just talking out his ass!" Your rebuttal is mostly nitpicks of his nitpicks. You don't even attempt to understand WHY he's pointing this stuff out, you're just trying to offer excuses that explain how the little flaws are meant to be that way, or you try to make the glaringly obvious plot devices and conveniences sound like they make perfect logical sense and weren't like that because the writer was lazy.

You really think that Anakin's having a bomb in his head was a great plot device? Why? It never comes up again. You'd think that would alter the dynamics of the story later, having a bomb in your head. Did they remove it? They don't say that they do. You'd think that later on, when he turns to the dark side, that maybe blowing the bomb up would be an effective way of killing him off. Was the bomb still there when they burned his corpse on Endor? Good thing the flames didn't set it off, yeah? It's just dinner table conversation in the movie. "How's the potatoes? Good... Can you pass the salt? Thanks. Oh, I've got a bomb in my head, btw. I don't like sand..." The other characters barely even seem to give a crap. "Oh, bomb in your head? That's lovely. More tea?"

When writing a movie, you don't put something like that into your script unless you're gonna PAY IT OFF LATER. Movies are set ups and pay-offs. They set up the bomb, then never pay it off. They set up all kinds of stuff they never pay off, and then they suddenly "pay off" stuff that they never set up, like the guns in the throne. They just pull it out of thin air. I don't really care if you don't mind it, or that you can explain it away. It's very poor writing. That is not opinion, it's fact. It's the craft of screen writing. You can get away with things like that occasionally in a film, but that stuff is going on in just about every single scene. That's not bending the rules or being stylistic, that's just being a bad writer.

[Vympel]

Pretty sure the bomb in the head is just to explain why Qui-Gon can't just grab him and run off with him. Presumably Watto would have to agree to the sale, and deactivate it. You don't really need a "pay off". Not every single point of exposition in a movie is Chekhov's Gun. That's not screenwriting, that's idiocy.

[Formless]

Actually no, the number of droids present, their tactics, the weaponry and how easily they go down. Given the demonstrated numbers (I don't have the film on hand but lets say 12) I could ambush and destroy that squad with the queen's ground troopers we see later in the movie with small arms and no more than a ten man advantage.

The droids are SLOW, slow taking cover, slow advancing and their demonstrated sensors are barely better than MK 1 eyeball. Even if they have 200 meter True Vision(TM), a standard ambush scenario should be able to tilt the odds in my favor sharply and quickly. These type of small unit special forces engagements are planned by real world spec-ops teams all the time.

Bean, your average moviegoer doesn't know how many bullets an assault rifle has in its magazine or realize how fast you run through them, let alone know all about advanced special forces tactics. That's why we can get scenes where the Action Hero goes rock and roll for minutes on end without people blinking an eye. Sometimes this desire for realism can get a little bit too obsessive, when as far as the story goes that scene serves its purpose-- Obi Wan and Qui Gon rescue the Queen, enabling the rest of the movie. Better tactics from the battle droids would be an improvement sure, but not a critical one. More important, I think, would be to get rid of the slapstick humor throughout the movie that draws attention to their ineffectiveness in the first place.

[Squiggly_P]

Maybe, but if "Bomb in his head" is the best thing you can come up with to prevent the escape of a slave, then you're doing it wrong. It's kind of extreme for just a simple explanation, isn't it? You sorta expect a revelation like that to get some kind of resolution. Again, the point being that the had some scenes on notecards pinned to a corkboard and wrote stuff in to fix the glaring plot holes.

You don't have to set up everything, but if you set something up there should be a reason.

The phrase "Chekhov's gun" is often interpreted as a method of foreshadowing, but the concept can also be interpreted as meaning "do not include any unnecessary elements in a story." Failure to observe the rule of "Chekhov's gun" may be cited by critics when discussing plot holes.

There's a bomb in my head. It may not be Chekhov's gun, but that's one hell of an Ass Pull