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

[ProfessorKaos64]

Thanks for picking a post from me saying something others are also saying to post something useless like 'lol I thought it was funny'!

Frankly if Jimbo is right on even half the shit he says in his 'nerdy screed', the RLM review is not only not funny, it's actively misleading. You can say TPM sucks without lying, you know.

People seem to think that the reason people think its funny is because of his criticisms, its not just that, his tone of voice, the "kidnappings", and the way he splices the video all make for an entertaining video montage. Take it with a grain of salt, people here are acting like this is an attack on the bible, lighten up guys.

[Formless]

If you think kidnapping and rape is funny, I don't know what more needs to be said. You are a disgusting human being, and should be shunned.

[ProfessorKaos64]

If you think kidnapping and rape is funny, I don't know what more needs to be said. You are a disgusting human being, and should be shunned.

Um it was a joke video? It was meant* to be funny, not serious. If YOU take everything to be that serious YOU have issues sir. Its called discerning reality from fiction. Wow. Did you luaugh when Sam Jackson and The Rock jumped off the roof in "The Other Guys" , yes? I hope so, because it was meant to be funny. Now if you twist around and go, "well jumping off a roof to your death is not funny" ...wake up , thats how the scene was setup, to be a joke, funny. WOW MAN.

[Formless]

First off, the box office generally only says how the film was marketed and how strong the name of the series is. Look up any year's box office numbers and you'll have a mindless sequel near the top. Lucas also isn't the only person making the films, he's just a single person in a larger team.

"Mindless" is a subjective judgment based on your point of veiw, and says nothing to whether or not he has talent. That he can find an audience REPEATEDLY shows that at some level, he has talent, whether its at amusing people or getting massive attention for his movies. Again, how is that not evidence of talent?

Serious question: have you ever actually studied these films? Like, from a perspective of sitting down with people who are either movie makers or a highly trained enthusiast?

Turns out that "highly trained entheusiasts" is a code word for "I'm better than you, Nahnah nah!"? Sorry to burst your bubble, but literary analysis isn't so hard you need a degree in it. Otherwise, literature and film would have died out ages ago as artforms and all we would have left is porn.

Not that that's entirely a bad thing.

There were quite a few major themes going on, such as the power of the weak but clever, Luke's acceptance of the force, Han Solo actually being a good person (before this he's all about money, and he does shoot first), loss among the brave etc. The pacing and action was nothing really special, in fact it was heavily derivative of WWII Airplane movies (this isn't a bad thing, he chose what to mimic well). You say there was no inner struggle, but I think Han coming back and Luke's choice between technology and the force both adequately fit that description.

Except we see NONE of those things. Sure, Han comes back; but we aren't privy to him making that descision. For all we knew, he was gambling on getting payed a second time. Or maybe he still didn't have enough cash for Jabba. Likewise, Luke isn't weak-- he's loaded out with a fighter more heavily armed than Vader's and at least as sophisticated. Also, the clever person was whatever rebel technician who identified the exhaust port, not Luke or any other main character. This was the conclusion of that theme, not the beginning of it. And the acceptance of the Force? Uh, yeah, while its interesting when put into perspective of the other movies, at that point we didn't even know what the heck the "Force" was. Admit it: when you look at this from the perspective of a moviegoer circa the 1970's there was far more style than substance to this part of the movie. And that's all it needed to carry it into film canon.

Um it was a joke video? It was meant* to be funny, not serious. If YOU take everything to be that serious YOU have issues sir. Its called discerning reality from fiction. Wow. Did you luaugh when Sam Jackson and The Rock jumped off the roof in "The Other Guys" , yes? I hope so, because it was meant to be funny. Now if you twist around and go, "well jumping off a roof to your death is not funny" ...wake up , thats how the scene was setup, to be a joke, funny. WOW MAN.

Go ahead. Make a rape joke on any other area of the board, or hell try ARSE for maximum effect. When rape stops being horribly painful and humiliating, maybe then it will be fair game for comedians. Until then, I have no regrets calling you scum.

[ProfessorKaos64]

Also I did say "kidnapping" if you can actually quote me right. No where did I say rape, or did RLM imply she was being rapped, just kidnapped. I'm not sure why you decided to implicate me and put words in my mouth. Not sure if you fantasized that when you thought of those joke scenes in the guys basement.

See below;

"People seem to think that the reason people think its funny is because of his criticisms, its not just that, his tone of voice, the "kidnappings", and the way he splices the video all make for an entertaining video montage. Take it with a grain of salt, people here are acting like this is an attack on the bible, lighten up guys."

So , in inventing those words that you put in my mouth and calling me scum for something I did not say or took place, is SCUM. I feel very sorry for you.

[adam_grif]

If you think kidnapping and rape is funny, I don't know what more needs to be said. You are a disgusting human being, and should be shunned.

Your tough guy posturing is getting pretty old. But thanks for telling me what is and is not funny, I'm glad we've finally got an authority on these kinds of things. Finding RLM reviews enjoyable obviously means we think real world kidnap and rape are hysterical, thanks for showing us the light idiot.

[Formless]

Calling out morally reprehensible jokes =! tough guy posturing, fuckwad. And frankly I saw the AotC review. The shooting style and things the guy depicts make it painfully obvious what the subtext is, and its not even shot like its a joke. I'm sick and tired of having to point out the fucking obvious to you, Grief. Go to hell, and don't come back.

[Galvatron]

Faux outrage is funny.

I admit, I haven't read Jim's tome, but then I never said I would. It's the very definition of tl;dr to me.

On the other hand, is anyone else reading the comments at Slashfilm and laughing their asses off?

[Paradoxical]

Here's a rough transcript of the video reviews preface and it's section on characters. I'll hack at the rest in bits when I have the time. It's like transcribing your girlfriend when your dick is in her mouth, so there may be some errors.

Red Letter Media: Star Wars The Phantom Menace Review

Preface

Star Wars The Phantom Menace was the most disappointing thing since my son. I mean how much more could you possibly fuck up the entire back story of star wars?

While my son eventually hanged himself in the bathroom of a gas station. The unfortunate reality of the Star Wars prequels is that they'll be around... forever. They will never go away. It can never be undone.

If someone under the age of twenty says his least favourite film in the series is the Empire Strikes Back because it was the most boringist one. Then I suggest you shut this review off right now before I carefully explain how much of a fucking idiot you are.

Where do I possibly start? Nothing in the Phantom Menace makes any sense at all. It comes off like a script written by an eight year old.

It's like George Lucas finished the script in one draft, like turned it in and they decided to go with it without anyone saying that it made no sense at all, or was a stupid incoherent mess.

I guess at this point no one is going to question George or tell him what to do.

Video clip.

Blondie “I take it you say action after you roll camera?”

George Lucas “I'll say it. Sometimes I forget.”

Blondie “(Mumbling) People forget.”

George Lucas “If I forget to say action or cut, just step in and say action or cut.”

He controls every aspect of the movie, probably got rid of those people who questioned him creatively a long time ago. I also think that everyone just assumed a Star Wars prequel would be an instant hit regardless of what the plot was. Really, how hard could it be to screw up? Like screwing up mashed potatoes. You boil the water, you pour the packet...

1. The Characters

The biggest and most glaring problem of the Phantom Menace is the characters. This is like the most obvious part of movie making. But I guess I gotta explain it when talking about this turd.

Lets start at movie making 101, shall we. You see in most movies the audience needs a character to connect with. Typically this character is something called a protagonist. When you're in a weird movie with like aliens and monsters and weirdos. The audience really needs someone who's like a normal person like them to guide them through the story. Now of course this doesn't apply to every movie, but it works best in the sci-fi, superhero, action, and fantasy genres.

I've picked a few examples to illustrate this point. Arty McFly, John McClane, Billy Peltzer, Sarah Connor, Neo, Charlie Bucket, Peter Parker, Cliff Secord, Johnny Rico, Rocky Balboa, and Kevin Bacon.

So in addition to being an everyday kinda schlub, usually the protagonist is someone that's down on their luck, in a bad place in their lives, or someone where everything just doesn't go perfectly for them.

Eventually they'll be confronted with some kind of obstacle or struggle that they gotta deal with. If we like them we hope they succeed. The drama in the film is the result of us rooting for them against opposition.

Eventually our protagonist will find themselves in the lowest point where it seems like all is lost. But eventually they'll pull through and conquer whatever force opposes them. It's satisfying when a hero gets ahead from where they started off at. They make like a change. This is called an arc. Often too they'll get the girl in the end as icing on the cake.

Now I hate to explain that I don't think all movies should be the same or conform to the same kind of structure. But it works well in certain kind of movies. So unless you're the Cohen brothers, David Lynch, Paul Thomas Anderson, Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, Lars Von Trier, David Cronenberg, Gus Van Sant, Quinton Tarantino, John Water, Wes Anderson, Sam Peckinpah, Terry Gillian, Martin Scorsese, Werner Herzog, or Jim John Lush, you really shouldn't stray away to far from this formula. Especially if you're making a movie that's aimed at children and has a cartoon rabbit in it that steps in the poopy.

This is all of course completely applicable to the original Star Wars films and the character of Luke Skywalker. This was accomplished even without all the wonders of CGI. Now with all you've just learned, in this video I've made for educational purposes...

I want you to tell me who the main character of The Phantom Menace was. I can tell you it's not the Jedi. They we're just on some boring mission that they didn't really care about. Plus their fucking boring themselves. Wasn't Queen Amidala, she was some foreign queen who the movie was certainly not specifically about either. I might be thinking that it's Anakin. Cause he was like a slave and saved the day at the end by accidentally blowing up the starship. But the audience doesn't meet Anakin until forty-five minutes into the movie. And then the things that are happening around him are pretty much out of his control or understanding. If the protagonist has no concept of whats going on or whats at stake, then there's no real tension or drama. Without that there's no story. So the conclusion is that there isn't one.

Before the movie opened I was really exited to hear that Scottish actor Ewan McDonald was going to be playing Obi Wan Kenobi. I thought that was a great choice and he'd be perfect as the lead of this movie, but he wasn't really. He just sat on the ship and complains a lot.

So you may like the characters, you know, if you're stupid. So lets ask some real people about the Star Wars characters and see what they say. I posed this simple challenge to them. Describe the following Star Wars character without saying what they look like, what kind of costume they wore, or what their profession or role in the movie was. Describe this character to your friends like they ain't never seen Star Wars. The more descriptive they could get the stronger the character eh.

Han Solo.

Blue Cap: “He is a rouge.”

Purple Jacket: “He is very arrogant, uhh but charming.”

Beardy: “Roughish, if you will.”

Girl: “Han Solo is... totally dashing.”

Beardy: “Wannabe dashing. He fancies himself a playboy”

Green Jacket: “So like he's a smarmy, cock sure, uh, um, womanizer.”

Blue Cap: “Sssss.... Scoundrel.”

Beardy: “Um he is a pigheaded.”

Girl: “Completely sexy, in like a bad boy sort of way. Where like he's gonna ride the line.”

Blue Cap: “He's got a bit of a, a ,a dark streak to him, um, shooting Greedo in the bar.”

Beardy: “But also, a deep down he has a, he's a thief with a heart of gold. That's his character really.”

Qui Gon Jinn

Blue Cap: “He is.... stoic.”

Girl: “I don't remember that character.”

Interviewer: “OK. It's Liam Neeson, with the beard.”

Girl: “Ohhh... yes.”

Purple Jacket: “Well he has a beard.”

Beardy: “Qui Gon Jinn and... a he was..”

Green Jacket: Laughs out load.
“Umm.. umm.. Stern?

C-3PO

Beardy: His character is the uh, is kinda the bumbling sidekick.”

Blue Cap: “Afraid, scaredycat... timid.”

Girl: “C-3PO is... anal-retentive.”

Blue Cap: “He's prissy.”

Purple Jacket: “Um, well C-3PO is, is prissy. He's uh used a lot as comic relief.”

Beardy: He's, he's comic relief.”

Girl: “High strung.”

Beardy: “He's bumbling, and effeminate.”

Queen Amidala

Blue Cap: “That is going to be fucking impossible because she doesn't have any character.”

Beardy: “She... she is um... she's Natalie Portman.”

Girl: “Yeah, like uh, like just kind of...”

Blue Cap: “Um, Well I can't say she's a queen. I was gonna say she's a queen.”

Girl: “Normal I guess. Kinda normal.:

Blue Cap: “Make-up can't be a description. I was gonna describe the makeup but...”

Purple Jacket: “Uh, her desribe... Queen Amidala's character, um, monotone.”

Beardy: “She is the.”

Purple Jacket: “She looks a lot like Keira Knightley.”

Green Jacket: Laughs. “I can't answer that and you know it.”

Girl: “So...”

Beardy: “Uh she issss.... This is funny by the way and I get it.”

Is riding the line some sort of sex slang I'm not familiar with?

I won't pick apart every bit of info like Raynor has. However the two main arguments in the characters section I feel deserve attention.

1. The film lacks a protagonist to guide the viewer through the story. Therefore there is no story.

I disagree with both RLM and Raynor on this as well. Raynor claims the protagonist is Qui-Gon.

The film lacks a protagonist because the film has an ensemble cast. (See movie making 102) Now using an ensemble cast isn't as popular as the standard protagonist/antagonist struggle. Instead of a singular perspective you have multiple people in a struggle against a common foe. Instead of seeing the personal story of one individual, you see the perspective of multiple characters. Franchises such as Star Trek, Star gate, and Lord of the Rings do this. Arguably The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi take this route as well. Hell even the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles find ways to craft stories in this format. And I fucking dare you to name the main character in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

2. How strong a character is depends on how easily it is to describe him without saying what they look like, what kind of costume they wore, or what their profession or role was.

Interestingly I came away with the complete opposite viewpoint from what RLM was trying to convey.

Think of your co-workers and use the same guidelines. Having trouble? It's because they're real people. Real people don't normally exhibit the extreme behaviors we tend to see in film.

So what does it mean when you can easily identify a fictional character with one adjective? I think it means they're shallow, lack depth. That the writer didn't bother to progress any further from a simple archetype. In the case of Star Wars it's even spelled out in Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy. Luke is the young boy set out to explore the world. Obi Wan is the old wizard who will teach the boy. Leia is the princess in distress. Those archetypes are so old they're medieval. Does this make them strong? Well, maybe as strong as cardboard.

[Bakustra]

If you think kidnapping and rape is funny, I don't know what more needs to be said. You are a disgusting human being, and should be shunned.

Um it was a joke video? It was meant* to be funny, not serious. If YOU take everything to be that serious YOU have issues sir. Its called discerning reality from fiction. Wow. Did you luaugh when Sam Jackson and The Rock jumped off the roof in "The Other Guys" , yes? I hope so, because it was meant to be funny. Now if you twist around and go, "well jumping off a roof to your death is not funny" ...wake up , thats how the scene was setup, to be a joke, funny. WOW MAN.

Setting aside people's senses of humor and lecturing on the subject, the problem is that the reviews are poor reviews, not that they are unfunny, which is solely a matter of taste. The problem is that people treat it as a serious review as well, and frankly it seems that any criticism would be met by dancing back and forth between it being a joke and it being serious.

Calling out morally reprehensible jokes =! tough guy posturing, fuckwad. And frankly I saw the AotC review. The shooting style and things the guy depicts make it painfully obvious what the subtext is, and its not even shot like its a joke. I'm sick and tired of having to point out the fucking obvious to you, Grief. Go to hell, and don't come back.

Formless, are you really saying that you think Plinkett was being completely serious about kidnapping, raping, and murdering somebody? You may need to take some time off from the thread- you're not making much sense here.

[adam_grif]

Calling out morally reprehensible jokes =! tough guy posturing, fuckwad.

Right, swearing at people and telling them they deserve social ostracism / eternal damnation for finding something you consider to be tasteless amusing is a perfectly reasonable and level headed response. Do you also get upset when people watch Dexter or tell Dead Baby Jokes?

[Jim Raynor]

Uh...wow. I didn't think it would spread this much without some effort on my part. I posted the thing on Wednesday, came back on StarDestroyer.net a couple days later for a few brief responses...then forgot about the whole thing for the entire weekend. I'm pleasently surprised that people outside of this forum have already seen it.

I read the comment thread at SlashFilm, and it's just hilarious how they go out of their way to defend RLM. Most of the reviews of my work are positively scathing...because from what I've seen they focus on how nerdy I am, or say that I missed "the big picture" (despite going through the entire thing point-by-point). And oh yeah, there are the people who claim that I'm just asskissing TPM, when I outright stated in my essay that I don't care if someone likes a movie, but rather that they avoid being stupid and dishonest when reviewing it.

Look at this guy:

As to RLM's Plinkett character. I don't know if RLM did it on purpose, but it has served as a brilliant filter to siphon out the simplistic 'rubes' who make up a majority of Prequel defenders. These are the non-discerning, easily-entertained Star Wars fans who also guffaw moronically over the LOLCAT pix they email each other. They, like 'Jim Raynor' are quickly spotted, because they are so easily distracted by 'Plinkett' and attempt to use the character as some sort of condemnation to RLM's valid critique of the Prequels as film and franchise.

Not liking disgusting jokes about murdering or kidnapping women shows that you're stupid. I use "Plinkett" disgusting nature to condemn the review...and not the numerous idiotic arguments within it.

Even I found some of the 'Plinkett' sideline somewhat over-the-top and unnecessary but still appreciated it as an entertaining and satirical jab at the archetypical ‘basement-dwelling, misogynistic, no-life nerd’ who may dangerously obsess over HIS geeky pastime.
The fact is, the RLM reviews are wasted on the likes of ‘Jim Raynor’ and his ilk. Their blind love and defense of Star Wars (with only the reluctant forfeiture: “despite its flaws”) makes them no greater a fan, and in fact, less so, than those of us who openly critique the Prequels for what they are, and for what RLM exposes them as. As a smart poster, above, put it…Raynor’s feeble attempt at discounting RLM is like a Creationist Museum. The Prequels didn’t just contain flaws (as all movies do), but cancerous, fatal flaws that rotted the whole system. You have to pick through the corpse to find any bits of untainted meat rather than ignore some slight blemishes on an otherwise healthy beast.

I have a "blind love" for the movie, and my work is like something out of the Creationist Museum. Meanwhile, practically deifying RLM and refusing to examine the logic of his review isn't a "Creationist" mindset.

Do these sheep even think before they post? Don't bother answering that.

[Bakustra]

By the "big picture", they're probably referring to the overall idea that the various weaknesses add up to make TPM a bad movie (excuse me, one of the worst movies of all time, which causes cirrhosis, syphilis, and Creutzfeld-Jakob disease in viewers). But that's immaterial to whether Plinkett's review is a good review or not.

[Formless]

Formless, are you really saying that you think Plinkett was being completely serious about kidnapping, raping, and murdering somebody? You may need to take some time off from the thread- you're not making much sense here.

I'm saying that if someone finds the kiddnapping/abuse scenes (sorry, you are right in that no form of sexual assault is actually depicted, though it treads the line) actually funny, they need to get their head checked. So kinda the opposite of what you think I'm saying. When it comes to reasons I can't stand to watch RLM, the voice doesn't even compare to that. Its just not something I think should be made fun of.

I guess this is dragging the thread off topic, so I will drop it. But I stand by what I said.

[Squiggly_P]

Like some of the others here, I've obviously just registered to discuss this document and talk about the RLM reviews.

To get a couple things out of the way before I start in on this:
1) I did not like the prequels. At all. Return of the Jedi was one of the first films I ever saw in a theater when I was a wee lad.
2) I like Plinkett's reviews and his style. I do think he misrepresents certain things, but I think they're funny, so blah.
3) I've read quite a lot of this document, and I want to address certain points that I feel are of particular interest and revealing about the intentions and mindset of the author (not a negative thing, mind you, just observations).
4) I haven't seen this film in a long time, so I may not remember certain things, but I'm generally pretty good at keeping stories straight in my head.

I should probably also mention that I'm a huge film nut in general, and writing scripts and treatments for my own film ideas is a bit of a hobby, so I've studied a lot of film theory and writing and watch a hell of a lot of movies old and new. I'm one of those guys who loves Citizen Kane and M and old stuff like that. I'm gonna approach TPM from a general film writing point of view without the context of any of the other films to brace it. If the film can't stand on it's own merits and storytelling, then it fails ultimately as a film.

1) The Characters
So to start out, I want to address the way that the characters are dealt with. In the RLM review he asks several people to describe the characters. They attempt to describe Qui-Gon and Amadala. When describing the Original Trilogy characters, these people are describing their personalities with short, simple words and phrases. The rebuttal to this review spends several paragraphs for each character while failing to describe the characters personalities. Qui-gon being compassionate is the closest you come, and I personally don't see that in the film. He leaves Anakin's mother on Tatooine when he could surely afford to buy her after having won his bet, leaving Watto broke and desperate (so desperate that he sold her to some poor moisture farmer out in the middle of nowhere). You could say that he is stubborn, but it's not really shown in his personality, either. He goes against the Jedi Counsel (multiple times, apparently), so he's maybe got some issues with authority, etc.

The problem is that you never know what the hell he's doing. In any given situation you kinda know that Han Solo is gonna do something that Han Solo would do. You might not know exactly what he's gonna do, but you know he's gonna do something IN CHARACTER. When dealing with Qui-gon, I rarely ever felt like I knew how he was going to react in any given situation. Would he be patient and strategize? Would he jump in a be spontaneous? Would he try to go around an enemy and avoid a conflict, or would he try to take them on? He does all of that stuff throughout the movie and never has to think about any of it. One minute he's saying that it would be best to be patient and think about a plan, the next minute he's charging into a hangar bay full of droids. Some times he's careful and sometimes he's risking everyone's lives.

What RLM should have done is get people to describe Jar Jar. They would have come up with a ton of stuff. Jar Jar is annoying, used for comedy relief, clumsy, not too bright, gets into trouble, etc. Simply put, he's the most well fleshed out character in the film. He stays in character the whole time and does what you'd expect him to do.

The characters' relationships are also left out in the cold. How a character feels about the other characters will affect how we perceive that character and give them personality and add interest and depth to the characters. The relationships in TPM aren't developed much at all. Most of the dialogue is exposition used to advance the plot. There's little to no subtext in any given scene. The characters just stand there delivering lines of exposition to each other with little emotion. They don't move around or do anything while they're talking. The scenes with Padme talking to Jar Jar have her kindof doing something, the scene in Watto's shop has some stuff kindof happening in the background I guess... There's not much happening outside people delivering lines and maybe walking. This is addressed in the Episode 3 review, but it's relevant here as well. In the original films there was all kinds of crap going on. Characters were doing something while they talked, they'd express themselves with emotion, they'd talk about one thing when really they were thinking about something else, etc. That just doesn't happen in TPM. Characters just flatly say what they mean and that's it.

2) The plot
Not to be confused with the story, which is an entirely different thing (and pretty much missing entirely from the Phantom Menace). The plot is the events in the film that drive the story. The basic plot of the film is all that stuff about the taxes and the Trade Federation and space politics and all of that crap. The RLM review makes a case that the plot doesn't make any sense while the rebuttal makes the case that it does if you're paying attention to the movie. First, a number of things are inferred from the film that the film itself doesn't actually explain or aknowledge. The part where it's refuted that the Treaty can't just be forcibly signed, that they need to make it look legit, etc is moot because the film describes a different scenario. The film states blatantly that they are confident that the Senate will ratify the treaty. That statement means that all they want is to get the treaty signed. The further insinuations that the treaty makes sense because it would give the Trade Federation an unfair advantage or whatever is also moot, because the movie never states or implies this at any point. It states only that the treaty would "make the invasion legal". Somehow.

So the author of the rebuttal is kinda-sorta doing the exact same thing he's criticizing RLM of doing, in that he's kinda making shit up that isn't necessarily stated as fact in the film. While I can appreciate one's desire to have a film they like make sense and thus be willing to fill in the gaps of a loosely treated plot, if the film isn't making it's own case then it's either 1) not important to the story at all or 2) is a matter of poor writing. If you're writing a film and your plot hinges on your audiences' understanding of some political device like a treaty, then it's in your best interest as a film maker to make sure that the audience understands the implications of having the treaty signed and/or making the invasion legal vs it's being illegal. If the audience isn't aware of the consequences of either scenario, then those consequences don't exist and there is no dramatic tension to derive from that plot element. The film spends a lot of time on having senators talk about getting things signed, getting things voted for, having senators make their case for this or that, but they never explain the consequences or what's at stake if the treaty were to actually be signed or what would happen if it were never signed. Without knowing this, you can't even really call it a MacGuffin because the motivations aren't explained.

In the original film, the MacGuffin was the Deathstar plans, and you know exactly why having the deathstar plans would be valuable to either side of the conflict - especially after you see the deathstar take out a freaking planet.

In TPM, getting the treaty signed is a MacGuffin, but we don't know WHY. What do they get out of it? Will the bad guys win if it's signed? Will they gain some ultimate power? It's never explained what they want from Naboo. There's no reason to fear the treaty because the movie never gives you one. You can guess, and I supposed that's what you do in the rebuttal, but the film is supposed to fill in that blank itself. Motivations are extremely important to the story and characters of a film, and it's omission from this film is just a really basic, screenwriting 101 flaw. You could argue, I guess, that the specifics don't matter, but I would have liked to have seen some consequences for failure - the same way they set up the deathstar. There needs to be consequences.

If - as you say - they are merely protesting some taxes then why would they try to prevent word of their protest from getting to the senate? You'd think you'd want the senate to know you were protesting their taxes, yeah? More importantly, tho, if all this was was simply a protest, and they just picked some weak planet to attack, then right off the bat you've created an antagonistic force that is totally impersonal. The relationship between the supposed villains and the supposed protagonist is one of bureaucratic indifference. Further, the MacGuffin is discarded after queen escapes from Naboo. Unfortunately, the Trade Federation now has no motivation for continuing it's aggression. It's plot has already been foiled. I suppose plan B was just to conquer the planet, but it doesn't seem like that's what they actually wanted. It would help to know what exactly they were after in the first place.

You don't actually NEED to know why a character is after something, but it's rare to have that sort of MacGuffin in a film. You usually want to give a specific reason because the whole point is to generate motivation.

3) Specific issues with the rebuttal
Pages 36 and 37 deal with the attempted assassination of the Jedi and the initial fight sequence.
You make a claim that the Jedi might know some stuff about dioxis and that they might know about droids, etc. The problem with assumptions like that in any film is that the film hasn't specifically clued the audience in to those things. Dioxis might very well be a quick-acting gas, and the jedi might know exactly how many droids are outside the door, but the film hasn't shown me that they know that stuff. You may think "well, you don't have to be told everything like that", but the best films ALWAYS do that. It may not be more than a glance that a character gives, but it's almost always something that happens in any film. You have to keep the audience in the loop. Certain things are a given, but I wouldn't already know about the toxicity of some fictitious gas, and I didn't know how many droids were out there until they cut to them out there. Qui-Gon never said anything about droids, and he didn't look at the door in a knowing manner or anything, so I can only assume he had no idea. Simple as that.

However, my real gripe with this is that you apparently misunderstand RLM's suggestion later that they simply tell the jedi they won't negotiate and that should just blow up their ship when they try to leave. You seem to believe that he meant that they should do this after they had already tried to kill them. I do believe that the suggestion was that they should have done that INSTEAD of blowing up their ship and trying to gas them. They had already decided that they were going to kill them at that point, so tell them to leave and then blow them up. The REAL reason for the various suggestions that RLM gave for the multiple alternative methods of killing the jedi was to point out the fact that the story required that the Trade Federation make obviously bad decisions, thus making them feel like less of a threat - or in order for the writer to be able to figure out some way to save his main characters from what would have otherwise been certain death. Making the villains screw up in order to save your main characters is not an effective way to set up a bad guy.

Page 38. You say the opening crawl states that the Trade Federation is hoping to resolve their tax problem. This doesn't actually explain why they are taking orders from this mystery hologram, nor why they would need to invade a planet or have a treaty signed to make that legal. If they do have a problem with the taxation of trade routes, why would they not just take it up with the Senate instead of invading some random backwater planet that would otherwise have nothing to do with their dispute about taxes? Was Naboo instrumental in passing some new tax laws or something?

Page 39: The thing in the mouthface says "They've gone up the ventilation shaft". You suggest this creature knew this due to security cameras or sensors. However, the point is that WE - THE AUDIENCE - were not given this information. We had to be told by that thing. That is bad practice in a film. Show the audience, don't tell it. How hard would it have been to have some monitors and have the thing looking at the monitors? We see the jedi go up a shaft, and then the thing tells it's boss. Or better yet, the thing DOESN'T tell it's boss. They don't do anything about them once they're in the ventilation shaft, do they? It's just information that's spit out at the audience. They didn't even have to know that they went up the shaft. Maybe the thing in the mouth-face was looking at another screen at the time and never caught it. Now they really have no idea where the jedi went.

Maybe a small point, but it's indicative of a lot of the problems the movie has. It spends a lot of time telling us stuff that they should be showing us, or telling us stuff that we just saw happen, but little time at all explaining things that we actually need to know to make sense of the political machinations of the plot.

Page 59 or so: On Tattoine, you talk about R2 having the readout and maybe they pulled the readout off screen while the camera was looking at the Padme / Anakin scene. Again, you're doing the same thing that you accuse RLM of doing by assuming things that aren't in the movie to be true, even though the movie has given no indication that what you're assuming has actually taken place. I point this out, tho, to explain WHY this thing with R2D2 bothers me in particular.

R2 should not have been in these movies. Period. He's only in them because Lucas thought fans would expect him in there. He wrote his story to include these characters, but the plot doesn't actually need them. In the original film, R2 has the plans in him. He was the object of desire. They were in the other two movies because they had interesting personalities and the stories could still use them to good effect. There is no logical need for R2 in the prequels beyond him just being R2 and thus a Star Wars character. What this means, of course, is that while writing these movies, various things had to be done to shoehorn them into the story. If you didn't need R2, then would you have had to have a "Running the Blockade" scene? If you didn't need 3PO, then would you have needed Anakin to be a kid, building him for his mom? If you didn't want Jabba, then would you have had to go to Tattooine at all? Anakin could have been born on Coruscant or Alderan or any other planet. Hell, why couldn't he have been a citizen of Naboo?

Page 69-70-ish: Watto is using an older than dirt sales tactic. No, the reason RLM is bringing up the fact that Qui-Gon could just go to another dealer is because he could just go to another dealer. Would you have written it like that in the movie? No. It would have been weird and boring. BUT... to assume that people won't be bothered by such an obvious flaw of logic while watching a movie is a very bad thing to do when writing a movie. Later on It's suggested that they trade the Naboo ship for another ship and you talk about how the sandstorm popped up which would have prevented them from doing that...

I think you may not realize that this is a movie. It has a script. The sandstorm only happened because the script said it had to because they needed to contrive some lame-ass reason to have Qui-Gon give a shit about Anakin and if they had actually gotten off the planet, then they would have never had a Vader. See, Qui-Gon only decided to use Watto's part because he wanted to try to get Anakin thrown into the deal. He sensed something, or whatever. The point that RLM is continually making in their review of this film is that it could and should have been written much more simply. Basically, the ENTIRE FILM is wrong, and the whole concept should have been thrown out and started over, because the characters have to do things that would not make any logical sense, but are somehow forced to do these illogical things due to some incredibly miraculous happenstance that limits them to some singular choice.

This film was not written to be a story about Anakin and Obiwan and their early adventures before Anakin was tempted to a darker path. That's what it should have been. What it IS is a film where there's a fight with some droids, then a blockade run, then we meet R2, then we go back to tattooine, then there's a pod race, then there's an intro to darth maul, then we get to Coruscant, then there's some political stuff, then there's some jedi stuff, then we all go back to Naboo and have a big fight sequence with lots of explosions and stuff and a really neat lightsaber fight, and then Quigon dies, and then Yoda agrees to to allow Anakin's training. He took a bunch of ideas for stuff he wanted in the film cause it would have been "cool" and "popular", and then wrote the movie around it. Poorly.

Really I don't want to go on. I've already wasted enough time typing all this stuff.
I do find the debate interesting, and you do make some interesting points, but you don't take basic film making fundamentals into account for a lot of your arguments, and there are a few things you say that REALLY illustrate that you just refuse to understand concepts that RLM is trying to get across. For instance at the end:

"... while I'm not one to bash the lightsaber fight in ANH, I would say that if you're trying to defend it then pointing out the sacrifice that comes isn't a very strong argument. Arguing like that suggests that the fight's merit comes not from the fight itself, but something that happened only after the actual fighting."

Yeah. That's EXACTLY the point.

A fight scene is totally worthless to a movie. Hell, almost every action scene is worthless to a movie. Nothing happens during action sequences unless the guy writing the movie is smart enough to know that action sequences are dangerous. The duels in the original trilogy have characters learning about themselves and their enemy. There's STORY advancement. There's character development. In TPM the only significant thing that happens during the final duel is Qui-Gon dies. The rest of the fight is just pointless stick hitting and cartwheels. The space battle is pointless up until the part where Anakin blows up the ship to advance the plot, but he doesn't grow or learn anything during that experience. The fight between the droids and the gungans is pointless. Nothing at all happens to affect the plot or the story. Jar Jar doesn't change. He COULD have changed a little to become a better leader or whatever, but he doesn't. He does the same stuff he's always done. Padme you can argue breaks out of her little prison (you mention it in your rebuttal), but that's not a very significant change, and there's no real build-up to it in the film. She just flips a switch and takes control. It actually feels out of character, like "wait a minute, what the hell is going on with her all of a sudden?". Again, tho, her conflict doesn't do much more than advance her little portion of the plot.

These action sequences are, therefore, going to be boring to anyone that realizes that it's just an action sequence. You want a character to exit a scene different than they were when they entered. There's always some change that needs to take place. Not in every single scene - and sometimes a lack of change is ultimately the whole point of a character's role in a film - but especially with action sequences, you need something to happen to the character(s) that is significant. Qui-Gon dies. The queen leads for once? That's the net result of the last 18 minutes of big stupid action sequences.

I understand that you like the movie, tho, and that's fine. While I personally don'tlike this movie, and I believe it to have been poorly written and poorly executed, I'm not gonna sit here and say that people who like it are dumb or whatever. I don't like it when people say stuff like that. I enjoyed Tron: Legacy, through all it's faults, just cause it looked neat and had neat music and Jeff Bridges and stuff. I like a lot of movies that I would say are pretty poorly made or poorly written. Sometimes it'll just click.

So I guess that's it.

TL;DR: Nuh-uh!

[Bakustra]

You seem to be switching back and forth between "this is such a dumb movie" and "this movie demands too much out of the audience!". On the one hand, you complain about the lack of character development in the fight scenes, but then you complain that the plot lets the audience fill in the blanks. Man, ANH sure sucked, since it didn't explain exactly what the Senate was or what the Clone Wars were- and it didn't have the episode IV subtitle on the initial release either. Complaining about "dioxis" or the fact that we don't get a minutes-long rundown of the contents of the treaty is on the same grounds. In fact, whining about the treaty is like complaining that we never see the inside of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. All we have to know is that it's valuable to the characters in the story, the definition of a MacGuffin.

On a deeper level, these criticisms encapsulate the problems that exist with most prequel criticism and with the Plinkett reviews; obsessing over minor details rather than the deeper flaws. Plinkett managed to go deeper with criticizing the cinematography, but the majority of time is spent on minor details. I mean, if I were criticizing the Special Editions, I wouldn't go over every added scene, but rather focus on how a lot of the added scenes don't mesh well because of the disparity between the CGI aftereffects and the original effects and puppetry, probably focusing on Han/Greedo and Jabba's Palace. This also adds the suggestion of "I demand high literary quality in my Star Wars", which speaks for itself.

The characters- well, if you can describe a character in only a few words, then sorry, but they're, at best, two-dimensional. Complaining that the characters aren't two-dimensional... well, I can't say all that much to it, but you're missing the actual problem. Characters are usually defined by their actions or interactions with other characters. That's how we know Han Solo is a roguish type when we first meet him, and the same with all the characters in the OT- they're defined by how they interact with others.

The prequels, then, have the problem that in TPM, you have fairly awkward performances by Lloyd and to a lesser extent Portman. The cause is unimportant, but the problem is that without the ability to bounce off of Lloyd and Portman, Qui-gon's intended role as the wise mentor falls apart. If Hamill had delivered his lines as awkwardly and inappropriately as Lloyd did (and not to harsh too much on him, after all he was only about ten), then Obi-wan wouldn't have been as memorable by comparison. In other words, going on about the characters is a superficial criticism.

The ROTS final battle is another. Putting more effort in would have revealed that it was one of the shortest closing sequences, which would allow an examination of why it feels so much longer.

[Jim Raynor]

1) The Characters
So to start out, I want to address the way that the characters are dealt with. In the RLM review he asks several people to describe the characters. They attempt to describe Qui-Gon and Amadala. When describing the Original Trilogy characters, these people are describing their personalities with short, simple words and phrases. The rebuttal to this review spends several paragraphs for each character while failing to describe the characters personalities. Qui-gon being compassionate is the closest you come,

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

and I personally don't see that in the film. He leaves Anakin's mother on Tatooine when he could surely afford to buy her after having won his bet, leaving Watto broke and desperate (so desperate that he sold her to some poor moisture farmer out in the middle of nowhere).

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.

The problem is that you never know what the hell he's doing. In any given situation you kinda know that Han Solo is gonna do something that Han Solo would do. You might not know exactly what he's gonna do, but you know he's gonna do something IN CHARACTER. When dealing with Qui-gon, I rarely ever felt like I knew how he was going to react in any given situation. Would he be patient and strategize? Would he jump in a be spontaneous? Would he try to go around an enemy and avoid a conflict, or would he try to take them on?

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.

The characters' relationships are also left out in the cold. How a character feels about the other characters will affect how we perceive that character and give them personality and add interest and depth to the characters. The relationships in TPM aren't developed much at all. Most of the dialogue is exposition used to advance the plot. There's little to no subtext in any given scene. The characters just stand there delivering lines of exposition to each other with little emotion. They don't move around or do anything while they're talking. The scenes with Padme talking to Jar Jar have her kindof doing something, the scene in Watto's shop has some stuff kindof happening in the background I guess... There's not much happening outside people delivering lines and maybe walking. This is addressed in the Episode 3 review, but it's relevant here as well.

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.

It really seems to me that some people are going out of their way to defend this guy, and make better arguments for him than he actually made himself.

2) The plot
Not to be confused with the story, which is an entirely different thing (and pretty much missing entirely from the Phantom Menace). The plot is the events in the film that drive the story. The basic plot of the film is all that stuff about the taxes and the Trade Federation and space politics and all of that crap.

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.

The RLM review makes a case that the plot doesn't make any sense while the rebuttal makes the case that it does if you're paying attention to the movie. First, a number of things are inferred from the film that the film itself doesn't actually explain or aknowledge. The part where it's refuted that the Treaty can't just be forcibly signed, that they need to make it look legit, etc is moot because the film describes a different scenario. The film states blatantly that they are confident that the Senate will ratify the treaty. That statement means that all they want is to get the treaty signed.

Leap in logic. Sidious telling the Trade Federation that he's confident a treaty will be ratified does not mean "do any stupid thing you want and not even TRY to make the treaty look legit."

The further insinuations that the treaty makes sense because it would give the Trade Federation an unfair advantage or whatever is also moot, because the movie never states or implies this at any point. It states only that the treaty would "make the invasion legal". Somehow.

And making the invasion legal isn't an unfair advantage for the Trade Federation?

So the author of the rebuttal is kinda-sorta doing the exact same thing he's criticizing RLM of doing, in that he's kinda making shit up that isn't necessarily stated as fact in the film.

Maybe you should think things through before talking all this trash. Because your points here are lousy.

If you're writing a film and your plot hinges on your audiences' understanding of some political device like a treaty, then it's in your best interest as a film maker to make sure that the audience understands the implications of having the treaty signed and/or making the invasion legal vs it's being illegal. If the audience isn't aware of the consequences of either scenario, then those consequences don't exist and there is no dramatic tension to derive from that plot element.

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.

In TPM, getting the treaty signed is a MacGuffin, but we don't know WHY. What do they get out of it? Will the bad guys win if it's signed? Will they gain some ultimate power?

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.

If - as you say - they are merely protesting some taxes then why would they try to prevent word of their protest from getting to the senate?

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.

Further, the MacGuffin is discarded after queen escapes from Naboo. Unfortunately, the Trade Federation now has no motivation for continuing it's aggression. It's plot has already been foiled.

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.

3) Specific issues with the rebuttal
Pages 36 and 37 deal with the attempted assassination of the Jedi and the initial fight sequence.
You make a claim that the Jedi might know some stuff about dioxis and that they might know about droids, etc. The problem with assumptions like that in any film is that the film hasn't specifically clued the audience in to those things. Dioxis might very well be a quick-acting gas, and the jedi might know exactly how many droids are outside the door, but the film hasn't shown me that they know that stuff. You may think "well, you don't have to be told everything like that", but the best films ALWAYS do that.

It may not be more than a glance that a character gives, but it's almost always something that happens in any film. You have to keep the audience in the loop. Certain things are a given, but I wouldn't already know about the toxicity of some fictitious gas, and I didn't know how many droids were out there until they cut to them out there.

How many people think "poison gas" and not think "it's going to kill you fast?" Even if there was absolutely nothing I could say in the film's defense on this part...it's just a momentary thing before a big action scene. I really don't care, and audiences don't care about things ten times dumber than this in other action movies.

However, my real gripe with this is that you apparently misunderstand RLM's suggestion later that they simply tell the jedi they won't negotiate and that should just blow up their ship when they try to leave. You seem to believe that he meant that they should do this after they had already tried to kill them. I do believe that the suggestion was that they should have done that INSTEAD of blowing up their ship and trying to gas them.

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

The REAL reason for the various suggestions that RLM gave for the multiple alternative methods of killing the jedi was to point out the fact that the story required that the Trade Federation make obviously bad decisions, thus making them feel like less of a threat

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.

Page 38. You say the opening crawl states that the Trade Federation is hoping to resolve their tax problem. This doesn't actually explain why they are taking orders from this mystery hologram, nor why they would need to invade a planet or have a treaty signed to make that legal. If they do have a problem with the taxation of trade routes, why would they not just take it up with the Senate instead of invading some random backwater planet that would otherwise have nothing to do with their dispute about taxes? Was Naboo instrumental in passing some new tax laws or something?

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?

Page 39: The thing in the mouthface says "They've gone up the ventilation shaft". You suggest this creature knew this due to security cameras or sensors. However, the point is that WE - THE AUDIENCE - were not given this information.

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!

Maybe a small point, but it's indicative of a lot of the problems the movie has. It spends a lot of time telling us stuff that they should be showing us, or telling us stuff that we just saw happen, but little time at all explaining things that we actually need to know to make sense of the political machinations of the plot.

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.

Page 59 or so: On Tattoine, you talk about R2 having the readout and maybe they pulled the readout off screen while the camera was looking at the Padme / Anakin scene. Again, you're doing the same thing that you accuse RLM of doing by assuming things that aren't in the movie to be true, even though the movie has given no indication that what you're assuming has actually taken place. I point this out, tho, to explain WHY this thing with R2D2 bothers me in particular.

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.

R2 should not have been in these movies. Period. He's only in them because Lucas thought fans would expect him in there. He wrote his story to include these characters, but the plot doesn't actually need them. In the original film, R2 has the plans in him. He was the object of desire. They were in the other two movies because they had interesting personalities and the stories could still use them to good effect. There is no logical need for R2 in the prequels beyond him just being R2 and thus a Star Wars character.

True, R2 wasn't important. This wasn't what Stoklasa was arguing - nor did R2's presence really detract from the film.

What this means, of course, is that while writing these movies, various things had to be done to shoehorn them into the story. If you didn't need R2, then would you have had to have a "Running the Blockade" scene?

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?

If you didn't need 3PO, then would you have needed Anakin to be a kid, building him for his mom? If you didn't want Jabba, then would you have had to go to Tattooine at all? Anakin could have been born on Coruscant or Alderan or any other planet. Hell, why couldn't he have been a citizen of Naboo?

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 didn't think the C-3PO cameo was necessary either, but it didn't detract from the movie in any significant way for me either. I didn't care.

Page 69-70-ish: Watto is using an older than dirt sales tactic. No, the reason RLM is bringing up the fact that Qui-Gon could just go to another dealer is because he could just go to another dealer. Would you have written it like that in the movie? No. It would have been weird and boring. BUT... to assume that people won't be bothered by such an obvious flaw of logic while watching a movie is a very bad thing to do when writing a movie.

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.

Later on It's suggested that they trade the Naboo ship for another ship and you talk about how the sandstorm popped up which would have prevented them from doing that...

I think you may not realize that this is a movie. It has a script. The sandstorm only happened because the script said it had to because they needed to contrive some lame-ass reason to have Qui-Gon give a shit about Anakin and if they had actually gotten off the planet, then they would have never had a Vader. See, Qui-Gon only decided to use Watto's part because he wanted to try to get Anakin thrown into the deal. He sensed something, or whatever. The point that RLM is continually making in their review of this film is that it could and should have been written much more simply. Basically, the ENTIRE FILM is wrong, and the whole concept should have been thrown out and started over, because the characters have to do things that would not make any logical sense, but are somehow forced to do these illogical things due to some incredibly miraculous happenstance that limits them to some singular choice.

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.

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.

I do find the debate interesting, and you do make some interesting points, but you don't take basic film making fundamentals into account for a lot of your arguments,

I didn't go to film school, but I believe "not spelling out insignificant details for the audience" and "not going with alternative plans that are even dumber" are a couple of filmmaking fundamentals.

"... while I'm not one to bash the lightsaber fight in ANH, I would say that if you're trying to defend it then pointing out the sacrifice that comes isn't a very strong argument. Arguing like that suggests that the fight's merit comes not from the fight itself, but something that happened only after the actual fighting."

Yeah. That's EXACTLY the point.

A fight scene is totally worthless to a movie. Hell, almost every action scene is worthless to a movie. Nothing happens during action sequences unless the guy writing the movie is smart enough to know that action sequences are dangerous. The duels in the original trilogy have characters learning about themselves and their enemy. There's STORY advancement. There's character development.

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.

[Jim Raynor]

I saw RLM's response to my response...I might have actually cared if he said anything. Basically, all he seemed to do was point out the length of my essay and portray me as some snooty know-it-all whining about how he didn't get a movie that only I got. Yawn.

I think it says something that in the beginning of my essay, I openly invite criticism and attention to detail from anybody reading it. Meanwhile, Stoklasa is just playing to his base. And that base is the stupid, "tl;dr" crowd. Two completely different mindsets here.

[hamtaro]

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.

[Mr Bean]

Finished reading it last night.

Points I agree with on you on Raynor (With a few caveats)

1. Characterizations of characters except for the Queen, she still seems like a blank slant to me, but that might be my dislike of her umm "acting" which like the kid Anakin I thought was terrible.

2. Pinkertons inane "plans" for the trade federation and Rambo Jedi

3. Selling the Gungans on the threat against them, the other explanations are suspect to say the least

4. Shield generator nonsense on the Queens yacht.

5. Qui-Gon using Jedi Mind tricks left and right.



Points I disagree with you on

1. Dioxis, it's still a WTF in my mind that Qui-Gon knows the poison gas in question, to me it's less in universe dumb then bad writing. We are pumping the room full of posion gas, I have Qui-Gon say what it is instead of just letting the visuals rest on their own. Also it cuts Qui-Gon or Obi-won from having a fun one liner. As for detecting driods per EU at least the Jedi can't detect droids, they can detect the threat hostile droids represent but not the droids themselves due to not being force beings and all that lovely space religion stuff.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Galvatron]

Meanwhile, Stoklasa is just playing to his base. And that base is the stupid, "tl;dr" crowd.

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 assessment.

[Knife]

Read most of it last night, 80/108 pages. First, any complaint bout the size of 108 pages is absurd. Took about an hour to read that far into it, it read easy enough, was interesting and humorous at times. If you are interested enough in the subject to watch 70 minute video's on You Tube, an hour of reading isn't that taxing; if you're literate. Secondly, seems pretty fair, recognized fair points often.

Over all it seems the whole situation is the nerd versions of Shakespeare professors arguing about what they read between the lines of the Bard. Most of RLM's points against TPM seem like nitpicks or solutions in search of a problem. He misses large themes (forest) through the nitpicks (trees). Young child (Anakin) with a destiny being pulled between various interests and making the wrong decision (TPM-RotS) , as opposed to older child (Luke) being pulled between competing interests and making the right decision (ANH-RotJ). Qui Gon as a sympathetic father figure to the fatherless child taken away and replaced with a more strict and less sympathetic figure in Obi Wan; as opposed to harsh Uncle Owen being replaced by a sympathetic father figure of old Obi Wan with Luke.

Or the theme of a incremental obstacles or tasks that Hercules...er Luke/Anakin must accomplish that each brings an important lesson he uses on the next task, that bring him closer to making his epic decision (right/wrong).

Or greedy commercial interests doing paramilitary operations, evil politics, or any other 'Bond-villain' theme. The very notion that 'Bond level villainy' could be out of bounds in a space opera is silly.

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.

[Bakustra]

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.

So what is his main point then? What exactly is this ephemeral focus that is totally independent of his... oh, you mean that he thinks the movie sucks? That has nothing to do with his superficial criticisms, yes, but the point of a review is to explain why you have your opinion of something's quality. If all that Raynor argued against was irrelevant... then his review is even more worthless, trending into net negative value, since it apparently took him 70 minutes to say "I think this movie sucks guys". Tl;dr indeed.

Meanwhile, Stoklasa is just playing to his base. And that base is the stupid, "tl;dr" crowd.

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.

That depends. Do you assume that you must either hate the prequels with all your heart and believe that they can kill people at close range or love them with all your might and insist that they have no flaws? Not to mention that an overall point... look, if I posted a review of Sex and the City 2 that was wrong in every detail but concluded that the movie sucked, would my "overall point" outweigh the fact that I got everything wrong?

[Galvatron]

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.

[Darksider]

Galvatron, out of sheer curiosity, exactly what was it you didn't like about the prequels? IIRC one of your major gripes was making Anakin a kid, which is something I agree with.

If i were given creative control over SW, I'd have probably made him a young hot-shot Naboo pilot cadet about the same age as luke was in the beginning rather than a slave boy, which would mean you could cut out the IMHO completely unnecessary Tatooine scenes from TPM, (don't get me wrong, as a sheer visual spectacle, the Pod Race scene was amazing, but taken as part of the larger film it just seems like filler.) but other than that the Prequels would remain largely unchanged. Exactly what would you do differently?