Elfdart wrote:
Raynor can speak for himself, but my "vehemence" is aimed at the lies, trolling and stupidity of Heathcliff's groupies. People don't like a movie, fine. If they claim that their dislike for a film means that the movie is a failure, or that the person making it is incompetent (or just a bad person), then they're in the realm of making factual claims and when someone does that, their claims deserve scrutiny. If they keep making the same bullshit claims, or ones that are unbelievably stupid (like the one about TPM being a box office failure because it's only the 20th highest-grossing film ever made) then the one making the claim deserves scorn and ridicule for being an asshole.
I definitely agree, making factual claims means one must be willing to back themselves up. Personally? I didn't like the prequels, but hey that's just me. I'm not going to lie and say I didn't pay to see all three of them, but I didn't enjoy them when I did see them. I personally don't tend to judge a film's merits based on box office success, however. To quote, I believe, Alexander Hamilton, "The masses are asses."
For example, we elected George W. Bush once, technically twice, didn't we?
Elfdart wrote:
People do fight over all of these things when it comes to war in real life. I take issue, though, with the specific example of the American Revolution. As Channel72 states, the biggest issue was the lack of representation in the British Parliament that drove the Americans over the edge. Of course, legislation such as the Quartering Acts (which required American colonists to quarter British soldiers if told to do so), the Navigation Acts (which, among other things, stated that American vessels on the high seas could be taken over by the British if they chose to do so), and the Declaratory Act (which stated that England could make whatever laws for the colonies that they wanted, no matter what) also contributed to the hatred towards the crown which spurred the American Revolution. These laws had nothing to do with taxes, but were just as important to the cause. This, of course, is also without mentioning important historical events such as the Boston Massacre, in which 3 colonists (Samuel Gray, James Caldwell, and Crispus Attucks) were killed instantly by British soldiers and two more died as a result of injuries sustained during the shootings.
Basically, the idea that American Revolution is a worthy comparison to the Naboo situation suggests a very miniscule understanding of either United States history, The Phantom Menace itself, or both. Again, it must be stressed that the colonists had zero meaningful representation in the British Parliament in the years leading up to the Revolution, whereas both the Trade Federation and the people of Naboo are seemingly equal in their representation in the Senate. If anything, the implied influence the Trade Fed has over the Senate perhaps places them in a considerably more powerful position than the Naboo.
All this might be relevant, except that Raynor didn't claim the Federation's attack on Naboo was just like the American Revolution. He used the Revolution as a real-life example of people fighting wars because of taxes. The fact that there were other issues in play in 1775 doesn't nullify this point since taxes weren't the only reason for the attack on Naboo either. The desire for Palpatine to foment chaos and play the victim is the main reason for the attack, even though Gunray doesn't know it.
I included my quote in its entirety so you can see that I was arguing for the idea that there were other factors at play besides for taxes in the Naboo situation. The original point being made was that the American Revolution was only about taxes, and I was refuting that. Yes, taxes were one of the many reasons for the war, but it was not THE reason for the war. If you had included Mr. Raynor's previous quote, you would have seen that he said as much himself. Observe:
11/23/2011 @ 9:57am
Jim Raynor wrote:
Stop playing dum. All the details don't have to line up exactly for a comparison to be made. Fact is, in actual history, people have been willing to fight long wars and die over things like taxes, or simple economic gain.
Elfdart wrote:
This point is confusing to me mainly because the film never states what side of the tax dispute the Naboo are on. In fact, pointing to Mr. Raynor's criticism of RLM, the taxes themselves are nothing more than a MacGuffin, an object that exists solely to drive the plot but in reality has no actual effect on the plot itself. The taxes are the reason for the story to begin, to use another dramatic term they are what is known as the "inciting incident." In any case, the Trade Fed is blockading Naboo because they expect to see the trade laws revised in their favor using Sidious's influence in the Senate. At least, that is a logical conclusion necessitated by the fact that the film never tells us why the Trade Fed is following Sidious's orders.
This is true, but only if you're severely retarded. Those who aren't can easily deduce from what's shown in the movies that:
a) like real-life businesses, the TF opposes taxes on trade
b) the TF, like many businessmen in real life, will do illogical, stupid or utterly insane things to avoid paying taxes and/or to punish those who displease them by supporting the taxes
c) a common theme in myths, fairy tales and religion is someone being gullible and greedy and making a deal with evil supernatural forces (who promise all kinds of outlandish things as long as the supplicant does as his master tells him), and becoming the slaves of those powers
What does a non-retard gather from what's shown in the movies? That the Federation joined forces with the Sith out of foolish greed and ended up being just another of Sidious' disposable flunkies.
Which is what I argued, of course. I was saying that they joined Sidious because I'm assuming that he promised them he would help with the trade laws in the Senate. Again, the films never tell us why they are working for him, I am just assuming that in this prototypical "Deal with the Devil," the Trade Fed were promised a revision of the tax laws in their favor for helping the Sith Lord.
How about this? For all we know Palpatine is the one who pushed the ludicrous tax laws through the Senate, because he knew it would incense the weak-minded Trade Fed leaders and inspire them to accept his deal. Seems plausible, right? Again, we don't know where those unfavorable tax laws came from, just like we don't know what the Trade Fed was promised in return for their cooperation. We can speculate, though, which is what I'm doing.
Elfdart wrote:
In any case, I feel both Raynor and his adversary (I believe it is Channel72 here, but the quote does not say) are both wrong in this situation, Raynor for trying to say that the Naboo are on the opposite side of the trade argument, and Channel72 for saying that it is impossible to explain how the blockade of Naboo will result in favorable tax laws. While this explanation is never explicitly stated, when one considers it, it seems to make a good deal of sense. After all, Sidious says he can "make the blockade legal" in the Senate; how hard would it be to think the Trade Fed assumes he can get taxes lowered as well?
It doesn't really matter if Naboo was in fact supporting the tax on trade routes. Going by just the movie, it's
possible that they supported the TF all along and Gunray blockaded Naboo anyway just to be a dick to his own side to make others fear him (the same reason Massala betrayed his friend Judah in Ben-Hur). The point is that the TF lashed out at a small, weak planet because they agreed to a pact with a monster and he demanded it.
I was just addressing Mr. Raynor's point, I saw an inconsistency and I pointed it out. Going by just the movie, we do not know which side of the dispute the Naboo were on. This is, of course, what I said at the beginning of the last section of my post you quoted. You never addressed my point about Sidious possibly promising he'd get the taxes lowered. I assume you thought it was a good one then?
By the way, in one of my other paragraphs in the same post I mentioned the bullying aspect of the strong Trade Fed taking advantage of the weak Naboo in this situation. I suppose you must have missed it? No that can't be right, because you quoted it a little further down here...
Elfdart wrote:
Before I attempt to discuss the idea of blockades versus ground wars, I want to say that since we are working under the assumption that Sidious ordered the ground war as the next step of the plan, should he not have forseen the possible involvement of the Gungans in a war on the planet's surface?
This is the same guy who underestimated the Ewoks 32 years later.
Hey, fair point, totally forgot about that. That's actually a pretty great link to the OT right there, something I completely missed.
Elfdart wrote:
Finally, lifting the blockade as a result of the ground war beginning is not exactly that much of a boon financially, considering how little effort the blockade seemed to require on the part of the Trade Fed.
If you can land troops and occupy the ports, you don't need a blockade -just enough spacecraft to maintain the garrison. I'd imagine it's much cheaper to occupy a weak and mostly defenseless planet than to maintain all those gargantuan cargo ships surrounding the planet.
To me, it really depends. What I mean is we don't know about the costs of any of these actions, financially speaking, in the Star Wars universe. After all, it is just a bunch of droids, they don't need food like living beings do and I won't pretend to know how they're powered. To me, though, it just seemed like a waste of time to send the leader of the Trade Fed to the ground when he could have remained safe in the ship. I just disagree with the whole invasion plan in general. I know it was to get the treaty signed, but I just think it would have been easier to just keep the blockade up, personally.
On the other hand, if it was really too costly to keep the ships in orbit, then invasion would have been the better plan, I can agree on that point.
Elfdart wrote:
Furthermore, on the subject of the Naboo people's resistance, using a historical example might be appropriate, seeing as how historical comparisons have been attempted in this discussion already. Once more preceding the Revolutionary War in America, in the wake of such events as the Boston Massacre, Great Britain closed the ports of Boston. The city was almost entirely cut off from the outside world, and the people within became restless. While one might argue that the Naboo did not possess very advanced military technology (being a peaceful people), they did possess a capacity for a sophisticated elective monarchy complete with regional governors and term limits on the monarch themselves. My point being that the Naboo seem to be pretty advanced and intelligent. Battledroids, on the other hand, have never exhibited what I would call intelligence; they basically follow whatever orders are given to them by the droid control ship. The people could have organized resistance groups (such as the Sons of Liberty, again from the American Revolution) and fought against the droid army using subterfuge, sabotage, and spying. Hell, even the Boston Tea Party managed to get a message across, and that was a couple of colonists dressed as Native Americans taking on the biggest power on the face of the Earth. What I'm saying is that there are a potential host of other problems that arise when the battle is taken to the planet's surface. At least from space if anyone tried to attack the blockade they would get gunned down immediately (theoretically, and also assuming the ship wasn't carrying the main characters of a space opera onboard, of course
).
Panaka said that Naboo guards and others had formed resistance movements.
Well then my point was accurate, right? I think it would have been cool to see some of that. One of the main problems we the audience has at sympathizing with the people of Naboo is that we never see them. Any of them. The only citizens of Naboo we see in the film are those aboard the queen, the governor and advisors or whatever, the handmaidens, the pilots, and technically the Gungans if you mean the whole planet and not just the city. Where are the commoners in the streets? Where are the resistance fighters? That would have been so awesome to see, common people standing up to the droids and trying to take back their homes. THAT would have made for a great story, don't you think? Instead we are just told about suffering and forced to accept that it is, indeed, happening. We are told in one scene that the people have formed resistance movements, but we never see them in action. We are told so many things, but actions speak louder than words. Just look at what Pixar did with the first half hour or so of
WALL-E; such incredible storytelling, all done without the utterance of a single line of dialogue. Sometimes we want to see things, not just hear about them. Would the assault on the Death Star have been nearly as poignant if we didn't see Luke nail that shot into the exhaust port firsthand? What if we had been in the command room with Leia when that happened, and we just heard it had happened from one of the people watching a monitor?
This is the difference between meaningful and pointless action sequences. I want to see the resistance, I want to see some real drama and struggle. When the people realize that nobody is coming to help them, I want to see the moment when someone decides to step up and fight back. I just personally think that would have been cool.
Elfdart wrote:
Ok so moving on to the concept of blockade vs. ground war. While true that we can not defend the statement that a blockade is less expensive than a ground war in the context of Star Wars, turning once more to history may shed light on the matter (again, just going on precedent here). Look at the events leading up to World War II. The League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations) continually attempted to appease Adolf Hitler's various demands, with weak leadership in France and Great Britain, as well as the USA's refusal to join, allowing it to continue. The war did not start officially until Germany invaded Poland, a country who was forced to fight tanks with cavalry (literally), on September 1st, 1939. Of course, the turning point in the war came when Hitler spread his forces too thin by invading the Soviet Union, coupled with the USA's entry into the war. The invasion of a weak and ill-equipped nation only served to inspire other to take up the cause in their defense! Open defiance against a bully nation picking on the weak was also exhibited before the American Revolution, when events such as the Boston Massacre caused the rest of the colonies to call the First Continental Congress in 1774 (minus Georgia, who did not attend).
Anyway, it seems that ground wars can get pretty costly, especially when other nations get involed. Don't forget, the American Revolution would not have been possible if the French hadn't gotten involved once the actual ground war started by sending troops and military advisors who had experience fighting the British; after all, the British/French rivalry was the longest-running feud in European history at that point.
Why not give us an equally irrelevant treatise on the St Bartholemew's Day Massacre while you're at it?
Well, I thought it was relevant since real-world history had been brought up once before by other people on the forum. I was just trying to put forth some evidence to support my claims about a blockade
possibly being less costly than a ground war. Again, we don't know what kind of costs we are talking about in the Star Wars universe, but if it happens to function anything like in the real world, I figured some real examples would be appropriate. Forgive me for trying to use some evidence, rather than to just make claims based on nothing.
I suppose I should have added to my original post that I felt it odd that no other nations were doing anything useful to help Naboo. The people of the Star Wars universe must not have much sympathy for the suffering of other because they are stuck "endlessly debating" rather than helping out the defenseless Naboo. I feel like I just want to believe that in real life people would want to help a nation in such a predicament, like the rest of Europe did in World War II by declaring war after the invasion of Poland.
Elfdart wrote:
To digress from Star Wars itself and talk about RLM, I take issue with people reading too much into the reviews, which seems to be going on in both camps here. Mr. Stoklasa, of RLM, has not made a secret about his dislike of the prequels, that much is true for sure. One thing that people must remember is that the reviews of the prequels, as well the "Mr. Plinkett" character itself, are parodies of stereotypical fanboy arguments. Hyperbole, even gross hyperbole (such as saying something occurs 45 minutes long, when it is actually 12 minutes, eh Mr. Raynor?) is just one characteristic of parody. By hyperbole, I am of course talking about the way Mr. Plinkett gets the timings wrong, the way he describes the Original Trilogy with such rose-tinted glasses, and the way he blasts George Lucas (in a manner similar to people who claim the director "raped their childhood"). Plinkett's laughably boisterous reactions to the prequels are clearly mimicking incensed Star Wars fans everywhere who were offended by them.
Bullshit. Heathcliff himself said the "humor" was meant to advance his claim that Lucas is an incompetent filmmaker and that the prequels were failures.
Well, all I can say is that I don't see it that way. Then again, I'm not one of the people that will sit and talk about how perfect and correct those reviews are. I took those reviews as entertainment, but I form my own opinions, as all people should.
By the way, did you see the interview RLM did with the director of
The People Versus George Lucas? In it, the director of the film says that Lucas has personally acknowledged his limitations as director, and even mentions that Lucas attempted to contact other directors to work with him on the prequels, but nobody wanted to do it, so he was forced to go it alone. Again, I would never say that the guy who created Star Wars has zero talent and creative vision, but at the same time I have to say that he has made a lot of questionable choices regarding Star Wars over the years, especially with the constant re-releases with all the pointless changes. This is why Lucas frustrates me sometime; I want to acknowledge his legacy and lasting impact on the art form of film for the rest of history, but at the same time I must also acknowledge his continuing attempts to sabotage something he should be guarding with his very life.
Elfdart wrote:
Ok first of all, in a place where people are trying to have a reasoned debate there is no room for name-calling on either side. Both sides of this issue have used terms such as "stupid," "illiterate Fuck" and "complete idiot." Come on people, be better than that.
So that's my first post, I only ask that if you plan on replying please refrain from name-calling and other juvenile tactics, as I have tried to do myself.
Ah go fuck yourself.
[/quote]
Guess I should have read the rules first? Thank you? In any case, despite what the rules say, insulting someone doesn't mean you have a better argument.
Moving on, I also wanted to address some of what Channel72 said in his last post.
Jim Raynor wrote:
Channel72 wrote:You can't even explain how invading and occupying Naboo would result in lower taxes without blurting out speculation after speculation. I guess it was supposed to be: 1) blockade Naboo, 2) invade Naboo, 3) make Padme sign treaty legalizing invasion, 4) [insert Jim Raynor fan-fiction "analysis"] 5) Senate lowers taxes.
"Speculation after speculation." Yeah, like "Naboo is on the other side of the trade dispute, or the Senators on the other side don't want to see the world blockaded." Oh wow, that was sooo hard to explain.
Channel72 wrote:
I already highlighted the type of bullshit speculation you spout out. And once again you're begging the question by conflating the blockade (which we all agree IS explained) with the invasion (which we DON'T agree is explained.)
While the movie definitely does not explain the invasion, is it not illogical to assume that it was either part of Palpatine's plans all along, or that he just decided to make them do it because the involvement of the Jedi necessitated swifter action? But then again, it seems like they were already taking steps to prepare the invasion when the Jedi boarded the ship, so I guess it's a tough call.
Jim Raynor wrote:
Channel72 wrote:
This coming from someone who literally just wrote over 100 pages of pure speculation to explain the plot to TPM. I never claimed the ground invasion was too expensive or hard for them to reasonably make. I said that, obviously, a ground invasion is a lot more expensive than a blockade. Do you really need me to defend that statement?
You CAN'T defend that statement. You're arguing that the invasion was unreasonable, because it's "more expensive" than the blockade. Despite those troops already being deployed on those blockading ships (hell, the ground invasion allowed them to LIFT the naval blockade), and the fact that the Naboo can offer no serious resistance to the invasion and occupation. So the Trade Fed obviously thought that the increase in effort required to invade was acceptable. And your argument against this is what? Oh yeah, you insist it's irrational. Your conclusion is your argument.
Channel72 wrote:
No idiot, I'm not arguing the invasion was necessarily unreasonable. I'm arguing that the script never provides a solid reason for the invasion, beyond Palpatine told them to do it. We don't have a clear idea of what's in it for them. Since an invasion is more work than a blockade, and since it's the primary conflict in the movie, it would be nice to have a clear explanation.
I definitely agree here. I'm not saying the film has to blatantly spit out every single detail, but one thing about effective villains is that they have motivations that are either clear from the beginning or become clear over time. Unfortunately for this film, the villain (Palpatine) does not really reveal his true motives until the second or even third movie, unless you count it as early as the end of this film when he becomes Chancellor I guess. The thing is, we who have seen the OT know Palpatine's motives, but I feel that sometimes part of the point of criticism is to take on the perspective of someone who has never seen the film in question. How would someone watching Star Wars for the first time know that Palpatine is really the evil Emperor?
And I can't really say that we were intended all along to know Sidious was Palpatine, because he is always hidden behind his hood. Again, put yourself in the position of someone who has never seen the OT.
Personally, I never subscribed to the theory of these movies being aimed solely at children (
Star Wars was originally released in 1977, after all). As such, the only way someone could possibly say that the PT was only for kids, in my opinion, is if they also acknowledged that Lucas made these movies to sell toys and make money, with no other motive. Otherwise, these films were for the people who grew up watching the OT too, right?
Kids watching Episode One as their first experience with the franchise had no clue who Palpatine would go on to be, also. In the end, it is definitely logical to assume that, as I said in my last post, Palpatine promised the Trade Fed that he would help revise or rescind the trade laws in dispute if they went along with his plan, but we don't know for sure.
Channel72 wrote:
You are SUCH a troll. The clearly useless Senate is stuck "endlessly debating" the situation, as was clearly written out onscreen.
And oh yeah, a ground invasion is an escalation of force to get things going with the hopes of achieving the objective sooner. This is like saying "why did the US send ground troops into Kuwait, if they could just keep bombing Saddam?"
No it's not. Saddam already invaded Kuwait, and the US sent in troops to expel the Iraqis. But of course, we know the details involved in that situation, but we don't know much of the details involved in the Naboo situation. Again, from the audience's perspective, all that happens is the Jedi arrive, the TF flips out, and then Palpatine tells them to kill the Jedi and invade Naboo - with no explanation provided.
Again, what was the original plan? 1) Blockade Naboo. 2) If Senate doesn't respond in X days/months, invade Naboo? 3) Get Queen to sign treaty. 4) Senate lowers taxes?
What if the Queen just signed the treaty? How would that get Palpatine elected? Mike Wong has some interesting ideas about the original plan being to kill the Queen. You have interesting ideas about Palpatine using the opportunity to look like a hero in the Senate. Who's right? Who knows...the movie never says.
That's really the only important point here, and you're doing everything possible in your power to avoid or gloss over that central point.
One thing first before I comment: this definitely reminds me of the South Park episode where the Underpants Gnomes outline their plan of "Step One: Collect Underpants, Step Two: ?, Step Three: Profit." Haha, classic.
Anyway, I definitely think it was all a ploy to make Palpatine look like a great guy where Valorum was failing. The fact that Palpatine is from Naboo, of course, is the reason why this works so well, as it is his own home planet that is being victimized. They elect him to replace Valorum, no doubt, because of the strong will and determination he showed in the face of his home planet's greatest crisis. Palpatine is the quintessential politician in these movies, a slimy and manipulative bastard who will do anything to get what he wants. I definitely think that his character was handled pretty well in the prequels, at least until Episode Three when he almost turned into a cartoon villain. The buildup to that conclusion was pretty decent, though.
Channel72 wrote:
Anyway, in the case of TPM, it's the writer's responsibility to generate interest in the plot and characters: a viewer shouldn't need to speculate about critical plot elements.
While I tend to agree with this, some degree of ambiguity is always welcome. At the same time, the integrity of the narrative shouldn't be compromised in favor of clouding the main issues. While it is definitely reasonable to assume many things about the reason for the invasion (such as that it was part of Palpatine's original plan and that the Trade Fed was expecting to be rewarded with lower taxes), the audience really shouldn't have to make that leap, which involves considering not only the Trade Fed's motivations but also Palpatine's, while taking into account one offhand remark that Palpatine will "make the blockade legal," a remark which I might add is never addressed again to my best recollection. That one remark does signal to me that the Trade Fed is aware, at least to a degree, of some of Palpatine's influence over the Senate.
