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

[Bakustra]

Vader is not a developed character in ANH. Not one bit. He's flat as a board. He looks menacing and he comes into direct conflict with the heroes near the middle and at the climax.

Guess what? All of that applies to Maul. The significant differences are that Vader gets more lines than Maul does, that he gets to kill a few people, and that the effects of the conflicts are reversed. All we know about Vader as a character in ANH is that he's a devout believer in the Force and is willing to kill for what he wants. A whole two things, compared to the one thing we know about Maul. Yeah, that's the makings of a deep and subtle character right there!

Except that since we see him doing more and taking an active part in the movie we LEARN things about him. We learn that he has a deep connection to the force and that he had a relationship with Ben. We learn that he is either the partner of or subservient to Grand Moff tarkin. We learn that he is skeptical about the death star's capabilities.

Now I'm not saying that you need a shit ton of dialogue to develop a character (though in the case of Vader it was somewhat neccesary since he had no facial expression); Kurt Russel did an excellent job in the movie soldier just by subtle facial expression, but Maul just lacks anything to help give him any sort of character.

Deep connection to the force: Depending on what you mean, this is either not demonstrated or covered under devotion.
Relationship with Kenobi- not learning anything about his character.
Subservient to Tarkin- not learning anything about his character.
Skeptical about the Death Star's capabilites- covered under devout believer.

So far you are zero for four, but I'm guessing things will become more lopsided as the post goes on.

Villains also don't need to be characters to be effective, either, but that's a little beyond your ability to grasp, I think.

If they're supposed to be this great and massive threat then I kind of expect them to have more then a few shots of them sneaking about. Otherwise they're little more then a lame thug.

In the movie and film No Country for Old Men, the villain, one Anton Chigurh, is not much of a character, getting exactly one scene which gives us any hint of character. Yet the film and book are highly praised, and Chigurh is regarded as an effective villain. This is because he is representative of random violence. But you don't get what I was saying anyhow, so I don't know why I bothered. 0 for 5.

You also don't get what Havok was talking about with his comparison. His point is that you're castigating the prequels for "flaws" that the original trilogy demonstrated! We don't know what the original game plan was for finding the rebel base in ANH- yes, they ended up tracking the heroes, but that's clearly a response to their earlier failures. But nobody cares about that.

It's pretty clear that they were going to blow up the planet/bombard the hell out of it (or was yavin a moon? can't remember off the top of my head) since the empire had a zero tolerance policy with regards to rebels. Hell, they threatened to blow up alderan to get leia to talk and then did it anyways.

What you posted has no relation to what I posted. Get a blog if you want to ramble. 0 for 6.

[Loup Garou]

I think I'm going to leave for a bit, since Bakustra doesn't appear to understand what constitutes a developed character and keeps misconstruing my arguements.

[Bakustra]

I think I'm going to leave for a bit, since Bakustra doesn't appear to understand what constitutes a developed character and keeps misconstruing my arguements.

So you're seriously saying that Darth Vader is a deep, well-developed character at the end of ANH? We know very little about him as a person. Explain what we know about him as a person at the end of ANH beyond the two things I mentioned. There is one trait that I forgot- he has a sense of humor. But we also know something more about Maul: he's quiet. It takes the other films to develop him as he becomes the main villain. We know even less about Tarkin, and in the overall context Maul fills the same role as Tarkin at the end.

PS: You insisting that I'm misconstruing you is pretty funny.

EDIT: Let's take a look at your argument. You insisted that Maul was a crappy villain because he's not developed, and I pointed out that Vader is barely developed in ANH either. I then pointed out that a good villain doesn't even need to be a character in the traditional sense. You also complained about how the plan wasn't clear, and I pointed out that Tarkin's plan to find the Rebel Base before the Millennium Falcon arrived was hardly clear either, to which you posted something entirely unrelated. I'm having a hard time figuring out what I'm misconstruing here.

[Havok]

I said this exact same thing, but my posts "are hard to read whaaaaaa".

[Havok]

Where, pray tell, have you established the alleged 'filmic mastery' of the OT, and by what standards did you determine it, pray tell? The OT was massively popular. Guess what-so was the PT.

"Pray tell"? Are you a parody of a dork? You and the guy who has to include a reference to how he's getting some from somebody's mom, in every post.

Have a nice day you acne-speckled virgins

I missed this, but I just want to point out that Batman is German and English is his second language I believe. That aside? Really, admonishing someone for using proper English and grammar?

Oh and nice dodge on answering his question. Is that ball fun to play with all by yourself at home?

And apparently one post is 'every' post. This pretty much sums up this guy's level of intelligence and being able to actually comprehend what he is reading and seeing.

[Batman]

In all honesty, the double use of 'pray tell' was pretty shoddy english.

[Havok]

In all honesty, the double use of 'pray tell' was pretty shoddy english.

It's still better than my American.

[Darth Tedious]

LoL, took about two seconds for me to remember the droves of gangsters he waded through on Tatooine at the Sallac pit.

Tattooine. Above the Sarlacc pit.

And it took me two more seconds to remember Luke getting wrapped up by Boba Fett and shot in his robot hand. Sure just wadded through them.

Having just watched RotJ tonight, I'd suggest you spend another few seconds remembering what happened immediately after those two events.

Luke was wrapped up by Fett for a few seconds (at the most) before he cut himself free and knocked Fett over, then proceeded to jump to the other skiff that was flying past and Chuck Norris his way through the guards on board.

And he was shot in the prosthetic hand by the last remaining guard on Jabba's sail barge while he was instructing Leia to point the blaster cannon to the deck. He then turned, diced the guard and swung himself and Leia to freedom- besides a momentary wince, he was unaffected.

I think it is pretty fair to say he waded through them.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

Having just watched RotJ tonight, I'd suggest you spend another few seconds remembering what happened immediately after those two events.

Luke was wrapped up by Fett for a few seconds (at the most) before he cut himself free and knocked Fett over, then proceeded to jump to the other skiff that was flying past and Chuck Norris his way through the guards on board.

And he was shot in the prosthetic hand by the last remaining guard on Jabba's sail barge while he was instructing Leia to point the blaster cannon to the deck. He then turned, diced the guard and swung himself and Leia to freedom- besides a momentary wince, he was unaffected.

I think it is pretty fair to say he waded through them.

I would say it was more of light backstroke than a wading. My point being is while Luke over came those obstacles with relative ease he was still in a modicum of danger. They wrong move and he could be in real trouble. It made the action more tense and exciting. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan pretty much walked up the the battle droids and cut them in half, unless they were to lazy to walk then they just force pushed them to the ground. Even the Droideka's didn't pose a threat so much as an annoyance.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

In all honesty, the double use of 'pray tell' was pretty shoddy english.

I think it's fine. Stephen Fry put it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

[Darth Tedious]

Light backstroke! Wahahahahaa! I'll pay that!

But as far as danger goes, I do think the Droidekas were more than an annoyance. It's somewhat unclear whether they could have been taken on by Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan from what we see in TPM, but in RotS, we get to see a veteran, war-hardened Ani and Obi-Wan confronted by a few Droidekas, and they back the fuck up pretty quick. I don't think I recall a Jedi actually taking on a Droideka at any point during the PT.

[Vympel]

You see Jedi dealing with Droidekas more in TCW. They'll avoid it if they must, but Obi-Wan used (shielded) droidekas as wrecking balls by force pushing them, whilst Ashoka took one out by simply shoving her lightsabre partially through the shield and then turning it on (it was preoccupied at the time, obviously).

[Jim Raynor]

It made a lot of money because everyone was eagerly anticipating it. And once you buy a ticket, whether you end up liking the movie or not, the studio made their money. This is why box office may be a crappy barometer of a film's artistic merit.

There are other statistics besides plain total box office. There is the difference between first and second night box office, as well as the percentage drop between weekends. TPM did well by both of these measures. It is normal for a movie to drop 50% in its second (and subsequent) weekends. TPM's average drops were in the twenties.

And people have already brought up the point about audience polls and the continued success of the SW franchise.

Not to rub salt in the wound of the prequels' terribleness, but if the internet word-of-mouth machine was as well developed in 1999 as it is today, TPM would have BOMBED after the opening weekend.

The internet was around and kicking in 1999 already. And did AOTC bomb? Don't tell me, next you're going to claim that internet word of mouth in 2002 wasn't well developed either.

So you're complaining that something that happened in the middle of one movie wasn't as tense as the ending of another?

As for Raynor, come on. Saying Qui-Gon "kicks ass all across Naboo." This is more laughable than your whole 108 page nitpickstravaganza.

You are such a fanboy of a fanboy, don't even try to hide it. A direct response to exactly what Stoklasa said is a "nickpickstravaganza." Will you apply that term to his review?

Qui-Gon does nothing and is a total cipher. The way you project a "kindly father figure" onto the character is slightly disturbing.

My points about Qui-Gon were all supported, complete with examples multiple direct quotes from the movie. Don't just deny that and state the opposite, topping it off with a completely baseless insult. That's how a child argues.

You defend the 4-way pileup ending of TPM by saying it "gave the whole ensemble cast something to do"? Yeah that's Plinkett's point restated. We didn't need to see Jar-Jar be a slapstick hero especially if it detracted and distracted from the REAL climax of the film.

I disputed Stoklasa's butt kissing of the "perfect" ANH ending (which sidelined every single character except for Luke), as well as his dishonest portrayal of the behind-the-scenes editing process at Lucasfilm. That the various parts of the ending battle conflicted with each other is a subjective opinion which really can't be argued. My point was that Stoklasa overplayed his hand and used despicable methods to make his case.

And again you act like such a fanboy of a fanboy. It's "disturbing" of me to state what the movie clearly characterized Qui-Gon as ( ), but I don't see you saying a thing about Stoklasa making unsupported insinuations about George Lucas's professional relationships.

[Jim Raynor]

See, the problem I have with Qui-gon "kicking ass all across Naboo", is that the "asses" that he's kicking belong to the battle droids who are so completely inept that the "fights" become incredibly dull. Contrasted with any of the fights involving say... storm troopers and you got the impression that the heroes were facing a serious threat since they were forced to take up defensive stances or fight them in small groups.

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan do nothing BUT fight small groups of battledroids. They run away from two Droidekas, and then they KEEP running away after every little fight they win. But don't let the facts get in your way.

[Jim Raynor]

And that cherry picking of the Boss Nass "planet core" line is really amusing. The movie didn't treat it like the actual planet core, at all, but that's neither here nor there.

I can’t believe you continue to defend this line. Really the movie didn’t treat it like the actual Planet core? Qui-Gon seems too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E67Wq3DsALM&t=6m38s
“We need a navigator to get us through the planet’s core” Notice he says “Planet’s core” not Planet Core. The apostrophe implies a possessive relationship in this case the planet possessing a core.

What the hell? There's supposed to be some significance between "Planet's core" and "Planet core" now? Again, even if you want to hold the movie to the literal meaning of "planet core," nothing in the movie actually treats it as such. As I said in my previous post, it was "neither here nor there" regarding the specific point being argued at the time.

From the moment the pilot says “Deflector shield’s up at maximum” they do not get hit again. Now you could argue that the shields were up at max when they went green, but RLM’s edit is not incorrect.

Stop the lies and excuses already. Stoklasa's evaluation of that scene was inept and ridiculous on multiple levels:

1) "Maximum" is not the same as having shields at all, period. To make a statement about the necessity of R2's repairs based only on the shields being at "maximum" power is stupid, when before R2 made his repairs, the ship didn't have shields at all.

2) The pilot's mouth is not a ship system. When he says something about the ship is not the same exact moment that it happens. We SEE the ship's power displays turning from red to green, before the pilot says that the shields are back at "maximum." He very well could have said that the shields were back at maximum power, after seeing the display turn green and noting that the ship withstood more laser hits.

3) Yes, the ship gets hit more than once, in the seconds both before AND after the pilots says the shields are back at maximum. Or do you think a loud crashing sound, the cockpit lighting up, and the ship rocking (like all those OTHER times the ship was hit) comes from something other than being hit?

I see we have another guy spreading the revisionist history that nobody liked the prequels.

For such a highly regarded film its amazing that it’s a running punchline for the Star Wars franchise. So much so that you felt the need to defend it, by writing a 108 page rebuttal to a popular online review.

So Stoklasa making a stupid 70 minute fanboy review somehow equates to "nobody liked the prequels." What was it that I said in my previous posts, about fanboys having an inflated opinion of themselves?

I don’t know if this would actually be the case. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was getting terrible word of mouth after opening night and it still managed 300 million.

More revisionist history trying to exaggerate Lucas's failures. If it comes down to actual audience surveys, or your word, I'm going to stick to the audience surveys. Crystal Skull received a "B" Cinemascore from opening night audiences. Which isn't great at all, but isn't bad either. It's the same grade that a lot of movies get. Unless you think it somehow makes sense for people to think that a movie was "terrible" and still grade it a "B."

[Jim Raynor]

So Sidious having the Trade Fed leaders, blockade a planet, gas the heroes, attack the heroes, land an invasion army, capture the Queen isn't evil? How about then sending his minion to track, attack and kill the Jedi? Not evil? I mean, can you just listen to yourself?

:sigh:

When we don't know anything about him, it's incredibly difficult for me to give a shit about him as a villain. For all I know (going into the movie without any foreknowledge) he has a legit grudge with the planet of naboo.

Sidious was just trying to right a wrong committed against him by the Naboo.

Do you SEE the words that you're typing onscreen? Do you actually believe this nonsense? Or are you just saying anything you can to avoid admitting that you don't have much of a case here?

On top of that, I have no idea why the trade federation is doing anything this guy says. If some creepy hologram guy called me up and said "Go blockade this planet for me and prepare to invade it with a horde of borderline useless droids" I'd probably say "No" or "screw you" or "why the hell should I?"

Because the Trade Fed was just doing everything for Sidious's benefit, and didn't have their own motivations. That was the way Stoklasa senselessly saw things (to the point where he recommended that the Trade Fed openly admit their crimes to the Senate for no benefit to themselves), but it wasn't the movie. The opening crawl says why they're blockading the planet right away.

And to be perfectly honest with ourselves, palpatine basicly had no real power in TPM; he was senator of a podunk world that nobody really cared about and had a secret apprentice sith. At best he can try and sic Maul on them but at that point I'd be calling up the jedi to have them kick the shit out of maul and pointing out that there is a creepy old sith guy out their.

Sidious says that he can sway the Republic Senate very early in the movie.

[Scottish Ninja]

If Palpatine had no real power in the Senate, how did he manage to get elected Chancellor over all the other guys who, presumably, had "real" power and wanted the job? Or does nobody have any "real" power in the Senate, and no one else wanted the job?

As for Qui-Gon, I think part of the issue here is that while Raynor's analysis is solid, but those things didn't make a strong impression on most people, certainly not strong enough to be felt almost twelve years later - the last time most people saw the movie. (But of course there are obvious exceptions, to borrow a phrase from Scott Adams.)

I think that's a strong reason why Stoklasa gets away with the crap in his reviews, particularly in the case of TPM - it's been so long since most people have seen the movie that they don't pick up on the bullshit. Who remembered, when he suggested "steal the parts from Watto's shop" that it took two draft animals to get the hyperdrive parts back to the ship? He doesn't show that in his review.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

But as far as danger goes, I do think the Droidekas were more than an annoyance. It's somewhat unclear whether they could have been taken on by Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan from what we see in TPM, but in RotS, we get to see a veteran, war-hardened Ani and Obi-Wan confronted by a few Droidekas, and they back the fuck up pretty quick. I don't think I recall a Jedi actually taking on a Droideka at any point during the PT.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen RotS, but I do believe they started making the droids a bit more formidable in AotC. In each of the PT it seems like Lucas at least learned from some of his story telling mistakes to where RotS was almost enjoyable for people like me.

But in TPM they really are only used to block a path, less it seems to create creditable tension and more to force the story in a different direction. The reason the Jedi scene works for me is 1. The fact that Luke gets shot shows there is a chance of failure. 2. His shot hand plays a part later in the movie. It’s just much more clever storytelling than the PT.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

What the hell? There's supposed to be some significance between "Planet's core" and "Planet core" now? Again, even if you want to hold the movie to the literal meaning of "planet core," nothing in the movie actually treats it as such.

Except when Qui-Gon treats it as such.

As I said in my previous post, it was "neither here nor there" regarding the specific point being argued at the time.

It does however validate RLM point of asking why the army landed on the opposite side of the planet.

Stop the lies and excuses already. Stoklasa's evaluation of that scene was inept and ridiculous on multiple levels:

1) "Maximum" is not the same as having shields at all, period. To make a statement about the necessity of R2's repairs based only on the shields being at "maximum" power is stupid, when before R2 made his repairs, the ship didn't have shields at all.

If you want to argue RLM critiques than you’ll have to listen to what he says.

2) The pilot's mouth is not a ship system. When he says something about the ship is not the same exact moment that it happens. We SEE the ship's power displays turning from red to green, before the pilot says that the shields are back at "maximum." He very well could have said that the shields were back at maximum power, after seeing the display turn green and noting that the ship withstood more laser hits.

No but he’s the only indication that the shields are at “maximum” you don’t know anymore than RLM if the green indicates the shield are at their full potential.

3) Yes, the ship gets hit more than once, in the seconds both before AND after the pilots says the shields are back at maximum. Or do you think a loud crashing sound, the cockpit lighting up, and the ship rocking (like all those OTHER times the ship was hit) comes from something other than being hit?

That crashing sound you heard sounds an awful lot like a spaceship kicking into high gear to me. The light flashing is no indication that the ship was just stuck, merely that blast went by the cockpit. My point being that RLM didn’t lie.

So Stoklasa making a stupid 70 minute fanboy review somehow equates to "nobody liked the prequels." What was it that I said in my previous posts, about fanboys having an inflated opinion of themselves?

Nope, but you having to write a 108 page rebuttal because so many people spread “the false perception of the movie as a complete failure that everyone hates” seems to indicate there are quite a few people out there who do think it’s an awful movie.

More revisionist history trying to exaggerate Lucas's failures. If it comes down to actual audience surveys, or your word, I'm going to stick to the audience surveys. Crystal Skull received a "B" Cinemascore from opening night audiences. Which isn't great at all, but isn't bad either. It's the same grade that a lot of movies get. Unless you think it somehow makes sense for people to think that a movie was "terrible" and still grade it a "B."

So you like KotKS? No memory of the new “nuke the fridge” handle? Oh that’s right a popular show like South Park making a parody of Lucas raping Indiana = zero relevance to how society viewed the film.

But cinemascore is your gold standard. A rating system where “Most movies get easily a B-plus” and is entirely based on people’s expectation going into the movie.

“The Cinemascore data is no real determinant of quality, or even popularity. For one, they're highly misleading, in that they're only surveying those who bought tickets to see these films on opening weekend.”

http://missmediajunkie.blogspot.com/201 ... -mean.html

So please stop citing your arbitrary rating system as some type smoking gun. I know you want to think Lucas can do no wrong, but there is a big difference between what he created with the cinematic vision of OT and Raiders and the market callousness of PT and KotKS.

Because the Trade Fed was just doing everything for Sidious's benefit, and didn't have their own motivations. That was the way Stoklasa senselessly saw things (to the point where he recommended that the Trade Fed openly admit their crimes to the Senate for no benefit to themselves), but it wasn't the movie. The opening crawl says why they're blockading the planet right away.

The TF was just there to do everything Sidious said, show me a point where they wouldn’t? If Sidious told them to openly admit their crime there is NO indication that they wouldn’t. They follow every order given to them by a hologram, even if they’re worried it isn’t legal. So, how is RLM wrong in assessing that the TF is there just to do everything Sidious says? I mean maybe if we understood their motivation it would make some kind of sense.

[DudeGuyMan]

Not to rub salt in the wound of the prequels' terribleness, but if the internet word-of-mouth machine was as well developed in 1999 as it is today, TPM would have BOMBED after the opening weekend.

Everytime fanboys bleat that their "childhood is being raped" the culprit movie (Indy 4, Transformers, etc.) makes half a billion dollars. Yet whenever they get excited about some geek-chic flick like Scott Pilgrim, Serenity, or whatever, it fucking flops.

What a fucking self-important twat. Internet fanboys mean jack fucking shit. If anything, their liking something means flop ahoy.

Oh shit Cracked did a chart.

[Vympel]

^ I endorse this post heavily. Oh man that made my night

(I'm one of those heathens that think Indy 4 is decent)

Correction - Kick Ass made 96 million, not 48 - 48 was only its domestic gross. It was also expected to do 100 - 150 million in DVD sales, so all up, around 250 million for a 28 million investment (plus marketing, which wasn't particularly heavy). That movie was a success - indeed, the sequel has already been green-lit.

[DudeGuyMan]

Yeah it's not that the "fanboy community" can't ever latch onto anything successful. God knows there have been enough huge superhero movies. The problem is that some of them, like this guy, just can't see outside of their fishbowl and have a drastically exaggerated notion of their community's importance. They think they're making or breaking these movies, when really they're just a niche market.

The Star Wars prequels and Crystal Skull made shitloads of money. "Well lots of shitty movies can make money!" Okay but they also got generally positive reviews. "Well critics don't know everything!" All right fine, but if you reject the input of both the general public and professional critics, quit pretending you're spewing anything but your own subjective opinion or that some silent majority secretly agrees with you.

[Jim Raynor]

What the hell? There's supposed to be some significance between "Planet's core" and "Planet core" now? Again, even if you want to hold the movie to the literal meaning of "planet core," nothing in the movie actually treats it as such.

Except when Qui-Gon treats it as such.

Yeah, sayng "planet core" (or "planet's core" or whatever as if that apostrophe means something) isn't the same as the characters in the movie treating it like they were going how many thousands of kilometers through the middle of the planet. The movie showed it as a brief trip through some underwater caves. I for one do not even really care about whether you want to interpet those words literally. As I said before, it was neither here nor there regarding the point I was discussing there.

1) "Maximum" is not the same as having shields at all, period. To make a statement about the necessity of R2's repairs based only on the shields being at "maximum" power is stupid, when before R2 made his repairs, the ship didn't have shields at all.

If you want to argue RLM critiques than you’ll have to listen to what he says.

I did listen to what he said, far closer than you did.

2) The pilot's mouth is not a ship system. When he says something about the ship is not the same exact moment that it happens. We SEE the ship's power displays turning from red to green, before the pilot says that the shields are back at "maximum." He very well could have said that the shields were back at maximum power, after seeing the display turn green and noting that the ship withstood more laser hits.

No but he’s the only indication that the shields are at “maximum” you don’t know anymore than RLM if the green indicates the shield are at their full potential.

Which, going back to point #1 above (which you so clearly glossed over with a one liner), is irrelevant. Stoklasa's argument is that R2-D2 accomplished nothing in that scene. My counter argument is that it's stupid to nitpick over the words "maximum power" given all the factors I listed, as well as the fact that before R2 made his repairs, the ship didn't have shields at all.

3) Yes, the ship gets hit more than once, in the seconds both before AND after the pilots says the shields are back at maximum. Or do you think a loud crashing sound, the cockpit lighting up, and the ship rocking (like all those OTHER times the ship was hit) comes from something other than being hit?

That crashing sound you heard sounds an awful lot like a spaceship kicking into high gear to me. The light flashing is no indication that the ship was just stuck, merely that blast went by the cockpit.

So you just made up your own interpretation with no proof, and act as if that's a rebuttal...while not even bothering to respond to the other two clear laser hits.

My point being that RLM didn’t lie.

If not then his analysis was still poor and misleading.

So Stoklasa making a stupid 70 minute fanboy review somehow equates to "nobody liked the prequels." What was it that I said in my previous posts, about fanboys having an inflated opinion of themselves?

Nope, but you having to write a 108 page rebuttal because so many people spread “the false perception of the movie as a complete failure that everyone hates” seems to indicate there are quite a few people out there who do think it’s an awful movie.

It's all relative. I saw more people on geeky internet forums worshipping Stoklasa as the last word on the prequels than I liked, given what I had seen from him. Those people are still a tiny minority compared to the general population. Not even close enough to justify an exaggerated statement like "nobody liked the prequels."

More revisionist history trying to exaggerate Lucas's failures. If it comes down to actual audience surveys, or your word, I'm going to stick to the audience surveys. Crystal Skull received a "B" Cinemascore from opening night audiences. Which isn't great at all, but isn't bad either. It's the same grade that a lot of movies get. Unless you think it somehow makes sense for people to think that a movie was "terrible" and still grade it a "B."

So you like KotKS? No memory of the new “nuke the fridge” handle?

I love how you change the subject from what the general audience thought of the movie (which I supported by citing its CinemaScore), to questioning me on whether or not I liked the movie as if that's automatically a bad thing.

For the record I did like the movie. The fridge nuking scene was ridiculous, but I thought it looked cool. I don't expect realism in a movie series where an inflatable raft is an OK way to get yourself out of a plane crash.

Oh that’s right a popular show like South Park making a parody of Lucas raping Indiana = zero relevance to how society viewed the film.

So a cable show is your big rebuttal in an argument that we weren't even having about the Crystal Skull's quality. I didn't watch that episode (I don't even watch South Park), but from what I hear it was also bashing overdramatic geeks in the show's usual fence-sitting way.

But cinemascore is your gold standard. A rating system where “Most movies get easily a B-plus” and is entirely based on people’s expectation going into the movie.

“The Cinemascore data is no real determinant of quality, or even popularity. For one, they're highly misleading, in that they're only surveying those who bought tickets to see these films on opening weekend.”

Keep whining. Fact is, lots of people were surveyed on their opinion, and the average grade for Crystal Skull was "B." Which I brought up in response to your statement that Crystal Skull was getting "terrible" word of mouth after "opening night". "B" is terrible now? People hate a movie and grade it B?

That little quote of yours is irrelevant. "No real determinant of quality" you say? I didn't know movie "quality" could be objectively determined beyond people's mere opinions of it! And calling CinemaScore "misleading" for "only surveying those who bought tickets on opening weekend" is stupid, when we're discussing the word of mouth of people who saw the movie in the theaters after opening night.

So please stop citing your arbitrary rating system as some type smoking gun. I know you want to think Lucas can do no wrong,

Nice strawman.

Because the Trade Fed was just doing everything for Sidious's benefit, and didn't have their own motivations. That was the way Stoklasa senselessly saw things (to the point where he recommended that the Trade Fed openly admit their crimes to the Senate for no benefit to themselves), but it wasn't the movie. The opening crawl says why they're blockading the planet right away.

The TF was just there to do everything Sidious said, show me a point where they wouldn’t?

You're a terrible debater. Don't change the subject. The point being discussed was whether or not the Trade Fed had their own reasons to act the way they did. Not whether they stood up and refused to do with what Sidious said. Sidious was ostensibly on their side, working for compatible goals. A lack of dissension is not the same as following someone for no reason.

If Sidious told them to openly admit their crime there is NO indication that they wouldn’t.

LOL. Now you're challenging me to prove a negative, apparently on some silly idea that a lack of evidence to the contrary is the same as evidence against.

They follow every order given to them by a hologram, even if they’re worried it isn’t legal.

He reassures them that he can make it legal, and we clearly see the Senate being useless in the movie.

I mean maybe if we understood their motivation it would make some kind of sense.

I have to believe that you're being deliberately dense. The MacGuffin explanation of "taxes" isn't really that hard to figure out.

[DudeGuyMan]

Crystal Skull's fridge scene was silly and the stuff about aliens seemed foreign to the Christian religious mythos of the series. Totally unlike Temple of Doom, with realistic scenes like falling out of an airplane and hitting a mountain being okay because you're in a rubber raft, and evil Hindu wizards with real working pagan sorcery that can actually rip your heart out. Hur hur.

[DonZabu]

Crystal Skull's fridge scene was silly and the stuff about aliens seemed foreign to the Christian religious mythos of the series. Totally unlike Temple of Doom, with realistic scenes like falling out of an airplane and hitting a mountain being okay because you're in a rubber raft, and evil Hindu wizards with real working pagan sorcery that can actually rip your heart out. Hur hur.

The question then becomes "Which fits better with the overall tone of the films better?", not "Which one was more realistic?". It'd be like if in Lord of the Rings, flying saucers suddenly came and abducted Gandalf; both flying saucers and magic and equally unrealistic, but one of them fits in with the rest of the story better.

Also, going through the other posts here, I would not have expected a forum for Star Trek and Star Wars fans to hate geeks so much.