RedLetterMedia's 70-minute TPM review

[Uraniun235]

I could be getting in way over my head here, but what's the basic disagreement here? Is it over the validity of charges that certain aspects of TPM are flawed? Is it over whether a film can actually be judged good or bad independently of the financial results or artistic goals of the creator? It seems like a lot of the points and counterpoints are irrelevant; would Elfdart's position really change if (hypothetically) it were conclusively shown that George Lucas was indeed a power-mad control freak surrounded by sycophantic yes-men?

I just have one question. Who the hell has the patience and the auditory resilience to listen to this for 70 fucking minutes? I mean, I can barely bring myself to watch a music video on Youtube without tabbing away to something else in the middle of it. And this guy's voice is... euragh. Not good at all.

I know what you mean, at first I thought "oh jesus not another terrible nerd-narrator", but I got into it after awhile and found it amusing. I'm pretty sure that's not what his actual voice sounds like; he really is playing a character of sorts.

[McC]

Why? Because you say so?

<...all the way to...>
Either it wasn't much of a flaw or Lucas and the editors fixed what was wrong with the rough cut because even most of the people who panned the movie liked the last part of it.

Concession accepted.

In your opinion it was done poorly.

Um...yes? And?

The video claims that having four parallel story lines is an example of bad moviemaking. I pointed out one great movie made by George Lucas that does just that.

This is a lie. The video claims that having four parallel story lines building toward different emotional climaxes that are not adequately juxtaposed is an example of bad movie making. It has nothing to do with the number of stories, but with how they all match up.

Who says he didn't? Besides, why should Lucas give a flying fuck what a producer thinks?

I'm happy to concede both of these points. Maybe he did speak up, and maybe Lucas did ignore him. I said as much in my last post, too, but since it would derail your moronic tirade, you overlooked that.

It was a screening of the rough cut, not the finished movie. When Star Wars was first screened in rough cut form, most of the people in attendance ridiculed the movie or offered condolences for Lucas' "failure".

I don't necessarily doubt this, but I'm not about to start letting you make claims and just swallow them whole cloth, given how much other horseshit you've had in your posts. Post proof or retract.

Again your Nerd Rage slip is showing. A re-edited version?
Typically, when a person doesn't like a movie, they don't watch it again, period. They do not track down a copy that's been custom edited by the type of wanker who thinks he should have a say in making the actual movie. Only a Nerd Rager does something so idiotic. It's like buying a music CD that you claim to dislike, then overdubbing your own singing or playing onto the disc.

I watch re-edits of movies I love, too. I find re-edits interesting on an academic level: can clever re-editing alone fix a flawed movie to the point where it's better?

If you don't, fine. Don't pin your fantasies of being surrounded by nerd ragers on me for it.

For someone who claims to work in "commercial art", you seem awfully surprised that an executive producer and a director might have arguments about making a movie. I hope you're sitting down when you hear the news that actors often get into arguments with directors, too.

Darth Yan answered this line of horseshit.

On the other hand, you, Galvatron and the delusional fuckwit who wrote the e-book Galvatron has been pimping for over a year are trying to paint George Lucas as some sort of hapless loser who can't make a movie without the aid of [insert name of the Nerd Ragers' latest cipher].

Yeah, heaven forbid the guy do some independent research, factually backed up by a ton of sources, and that just so happens to very closely line up with the same findings published by the authorized version of the same book, written by J.G. Rinzler. On this, you are factually, unarguably wrong. Concession accepted.

The richness of the prequels is undeniable. They're astonishing, in that regard.

Not according to Heathcliff.

False. Part 2, 2:20
McCallum: It's so dense. Every single image has so many things going on
Narrator: This is part of the reason why I find the special editions so fucking offensive. 'cause you're into what's happening in the movie and they keep shoving more shit on the screen to distract you. It reminds me of a child waving his arms in the background for attention. Doesn't Lucas realize that cluttering the frame up with shit is not what makes Star Wars good?

And he's correct in that regard: Star Wars isn't good because of all the stuff on screen. But that all that stuff being on screen in the prequels isn't rich is an entirely different matter.

An army? Try three people: Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, who did a script polish on Star Wars, and Brian DePalma, who re-wrote part of the opening crawl. The story, characters and almost all of the dialogue were written by Lucas. What's at work here is an attempt by the Nerd Ragers to insinuate that George Lucas didn't "really" create Star Wars rather, it was the work of many. This way, they can indulge their fantasies about how if only George Lucas had listened to a mob of Nerd Ragers, who know so much more about creating stories and making movies than he does, maybe the movies would be more like the fan fiction that has been dancing in their heads for many years.

Of course Lucas created Star Wars. This is a retarded strawman and I will happily join you in lambasting anyone who claims otherwise.

But Lucas did not craft Star Wars, whole cloth, as a lot of Lucaswankers like to pretend. The story was the work of many, with input from many (Lucas's frequent gathering of director-friends, for example, which included some of those you mentioned and many more). Further, you omitted Marcia Lucas, a key behind the scenes player in Star Wars as well. Or do you want to just ignore her Academy Award for film editing on Star Wars and pretend that the guy's wife wouldn't have had a hand in helping polish the work?

You know this how, exactly?

It's called inference. Look it up. Do you have evidence to the contrary? No? Concession accepted.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

The shoe that fits best here is the one painting you as the nerd rager, but coming from the opposite direction. "zomg they r insultin mah idollll!!1!!1!! rar attack!"

The story Kasdan scripted is the same one Lucas gave him.

Emphasis added.

No one is denying that Lucas can spin a good story. Indiana Jones, Willow, the OT all serve as testament to this. What's in question is whether or not he can, himself, write a good script without his former network of support, and especially post-divorce. I don't think he can.

Lucas was a "full writer" on Star Wars. The only movie in the series to be nominated for Best Original Screenplay.

And isn't that interesting, given how many people--even just counting the ones you're actually willing to acknowledge--were involved in the script polish. And before you go off on some other tangent, no, I'm not insinuating that Lucas is trying to "cover up" anything, or take undue credit. I'm just pointing out that movie credits are not tell-all when it comes to screenplays.

I don't understand how anyone can look at the behind the scenes stuff and not immediately pick up on the fact that Rick McCallum is a worthless sycophant who should've lost his job years ago.

I guess you and McC have Jedi Powers or something. Intelligent people know better than to try to read the body language of a total stranger and try to guess the stranger's motives.

Right, because reading body language isn't something human beings naturally do when encountering another human being. Oh wait. Concession fucking accepted.

what's the basic disagreement here

My stance is that the prequels are weaker films than the originals on the grounds that fewer people helped shepherd Lucas's screenplay, as they had on the original trilogy. They were subject to less stringent revision, and suffered for it. When making this statement, I didn't expect it to be at all controversial, but I didn't count on someone who made fapping at the Altar of Lucas a daily ritual.

[Tiriol]

what's the basic disagreement here

My stance is that the prequels are weaker films than the originals on the grounds that fewer people helped shepherd Lucas's screenplay, as they had on the original trilogy. They were subject to less stringent revision, and suffered for it. When making this statement, I didn't expect it to be at all controversial, but I didn't count on someone who made fapping at the Altar of Lucas a daily ritual.

Then you were foolish. You made a statement about a very subjective matter - about the strengths and weaknesses of a creative work - and rather strong ones at that, and you didn't expect anyone to disagree?

In my own opinion, both trilogies show Lucas's strengths and weaknesses and he readily admits so himself. But the Prequels suffered from one fact: the unbelievable expectations they had to live up to. Everyone waited for another world-shattering film like ANH when TPM premiered; everyone expected to witness ESB's dark undertones and presence; everyone wanted for the same epic clash of good and evil like in RotJ. Of course it was going to be a disappointment at some level - many expected and WANTED the old trilogy, but they got a new one.

[McC]

Then you were foolish. You made a statement about a very subjective matter - about the strengths and weaknesses of a creative work - and rather strong ones at that, and you didn't expect anyone to disagree?

Perhaps I was, because no, I didn't. By way of analogy, I don't really expect to encounter a problem when I walk into a roomful of atheists and say, "I don't believe there is a god," either. Little did I realize there was also a right-wing Christian evangelical in the room.

[Gramzamber]

guess you and McC have Jedi Powers or something. Intelligent people know better than to try to read the body language of a total stranger and try to guess the stranger's motives.

No, I read what the guy has SAID in every single interview he's ever made. He always praises Lucas as a god on Earth we mortals should not stare upon lest our faces melt under his holy gaze.
And any twat can see McCallum's and all of Lucas' staff's reactions to him in the making of videos. They walk on eggshells around him. They're in awe of him. This is not how you produce good fiction.

The irony is that Lucas is clearly not an unreasonable man. He listened to the Jar Jar hate after all and relegated the idiot to the back row, only coming forth to help ruin the Republic.

Translation: Why didn't he make the movie for meeeeeeeeeee!

Why? Because I want the man to have some oversight in his decisions?

So McCallum is a douche for not telling Lucas what he thinks, but he's also a douche because his ideas are "rock-stupid"?

My point is the only thing McCallum ever fought for was an idea so stupid that Lucas himself cut it out after it was filmed.

[Tiriol]

Then you were foolish. You made a statement about a very subjective matter - about the strengths and weaknesses of a creative work - and rather strong ones at that, and you didn't expect anyone to disagree?

Perhaps I was, because no, I didn't. By way of analogy, I don't really expect to encounter a problem when I walk into a roomful of atheists and say, "I don't believe there is a god," either. Little did I realize there was also a right-wing Christian evangelical in the room.

The analogy is flawed since all the atheists believe that there is no God or similar divine being(s); however, in this case the atheists would be comparable to people who like Star Wars, not just the OT (or the PT). There are many who don't believe that the TPM or the PT is such a magnificent turd that was shat out by the Hound of the Baskervilles' carcass; indeed, many may like it just as much as the OT and still recognize that it lacks the same cultural punch and impact like the OT. I dare say that a minority might even prefer the PT.

It's a matter of subjective tastes. For example, I just can't sit through that video since the voice grates on my nerves so much; yet many have done so and come to like it. It's their cup of tea, not mine.

Personally I think that the OT is the stronger trilogy out of them, but I don't loathe the PT. I can watch it without suffering from, what Elfdart has coined as "nerd rage". In fact, I don't even hate Jar Jar. Sure he is a stupid character, but then again Lucas never intended to shoot a dark and edgy movie full of grimdark from the far future where only war and Matrix and Skynet and possibly several Ragnaröks reign; he had the whole family in mind (and taking into account the current Clone Wars series, I think he might prefer children as an audience).

[Dooey Jo]

Saying that the prequels are inferior because they were subject to less stringent revision is not an expression of subjective opinion, it is a claim about the production process of the films, and quite open to debate.

And what's a "yes man" even supposed to be in this context? Someone who lets Lucas do the films he wants to do? Why would he surround himself with people who wouldn't share his vision? That would be moronic, not to mention expensive. The rough cut of Star Wars was apparently a disaster, but the editor didn't want to cut it Lucas' way, so he replaced him. Does that count as surrounding oneself with yes men? Or when Ben Burtt wanted to have a weird percussive audio track for the Droid Factory sequence in AotC, but Lucas didn't think it worked so they scrapped it (but reused the idea for the arena fight)? Or is it only when "bad" decisions are made that it's due to Lucas' unwillingness to listen to other opinions, or whatever?

Because in the real world, "yes man" means sycophant, but I don't see how you could judge something like that based on the available material (a couple of hours of interviews, compared to what, nine years of production?). Is it perhaps Rob Coleman's enthusiasm in the AotC extra material? The man's an animation supervisor at ILM, he has to be charismatic and he most likely loves his job; of course he's enthusiastic. Ben Snow, another effects supervisor, acts just the same (but fatter) in the Van Helsing extra material as he does in AotC's (maybe that film also sucked because no one told Sommers to STFU). Why would McCallum talk about any disagreements that occurred during the production, or criticize Lucas, when he's doing interviews like those? Or maybe he did and the editor rightly cut it out for being irrelevant.

Christ.

Why not bring up the old but hilarious "should have used models instead of CGI (because I'm real good at special effects and didn't notice TPM made extensive use of models)" argument, too?

[Gramzamber]

McCallum freely talks of the one disagreement that makes him look like a complete imbecile because he has a weird Yoda fetish, so why wouldn't he?
And you're saying he wouldn't be proud to say "Well Lucas and I didn't agree on this but in the end I managed to convince him"? He certainly took time out to bitch and moan about how we don't get to see Yoda do something we already know he did.

Yes I am saying he surrounded himself with yes men. If he hadn't, then Jar Jar Binks would not exist. TPM wouldn't be so horribly disjointed as it is. These are both things that are fixed in the latter two movies. But they're also blatantly obvious things that should've been cut out while the script was still being drafted. There was no need for Jar Jar, there was no need to make TPM an ensemble piece where you end up relating to none of the characters. And since Lucas proved he was willing to change his methods to an extent, I can only surmise that nobody in his employ had the balls to go up to him and suggest that he might be wrong.

[Vympel]

Why not bring up the old but hilarious "should have used models instead of CGI (because I'm real good at special effects and didn't notice TPM made extensive use of models)" argument, too?

That's the reason why TPM, even though it's easily the worst film of the three, actually looks the best. Because they did use models and they didn't somehow process the shit out of everything so even the stuff that was real looked CGI. IMO, the CGI really only matured in RotS.

Yes I am saying he surrounded himself with yes men. If he hadn't, then Jar Jar Binks would not exist. TPM wouldn't be so horribly disjointed as it is. These are both things that are fixed in the latter two movies. But they're also blatantly obvious things that should've been cut out

Exhibit A: The "planet core" scene. Makes no sense on any level, contributes nothing to the plot at all, it's just a pointless special effects wank.

[adam_grif]

Even in RotS I still don't think some of the character movements were all that convincing. Many of the backgrounds were flawless though.

[Darth Yan]

ROTS was probably the best of the prequals. the order 66 scenes were beautifully executed, and the final duel was pretty good for the most part.

[Galvatron]

In fact, I don't even hate Jar Jar.

Neither do I since he was really no more ridiculous than a lot of the creatures in Jabba's palace, but I do dislike how heavily used he was. After all, I'm pretty sure the relative apathy I feel towards Sy Snootles would change if she had ended up tagging along with our heroes for the remainder of ROTJ.

As for the look of TPM being superior to the other prequels, I have to disagree on one major point: Yoda. It's amazing that they couldn't craft a puppet that matched the quality of the one they used in TESB almost 20 years prior.

[Gramzamber]

I recall seeing some behind the scenes interview where they basically admitted they fucked up on the Yoda puppet, they tried to be clever and make a different, younger Yoda and it ended up looking nothing like him and faker to boot.

[blacksun2175]

Exhibit A: The "planet core" scene. Makes no sense on any level, contributes nothing to the plot at all, it's just a pointless special effects wank.

Exhibit B: well the rest of it.

There is a lot in the movie that makes no sense what so ever. Not to mention the Droid army is completely ineffective and unthreatening.

Even George Lucas says they are completely useless.

Still this is a great review and brings a lot of things to light. I had also completely forgoten that there was a scene where Jar Jar steps in poop.

My favorite line is from George Lucas "A special effect with out a story is a pretty boring thing" you can see it at the end of part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORWPCCzSgu0

[adam_grif]

ROTS was probably the best of the prequals. the order 66 scenes were beautifully executed, and the final duel was pretty good for the most part.

The prequels improved from one to the next, TPM being the worst and ROTS being the best. I still don't think ROTS was a good movie, but it was watchable, on par with a standard summer blockbuster for entertainment value.

It benefited greatly from cutting out the horrific plot tumour that was the Anakin / Padme romance.

[Oskuro]

One exercise I'm trying after watching the review is to picture TPM as a non-Star Wars related movie, and try to think about how it would have fared.

So far I'm of the opinion that, without fans blaming it for nailing-puppies-to-trees levels of wickedness, it would have probably been an average sci-fi movie.

[Galvatron]

AOTC review trailer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxQ6HYDwIA

[Vympel]

ROFLMAO.

Can't wait.

[Darksider]

barring the god-awful romance subplot, AOTC was a pretty fun movie. I hope the review is more than just 70 minutes of "Lucas can't write romance." And I still can't stand that fucking voice. It's like nails on a fucking chalkboard.

[Oskuro]

Wonder what he'll say about my favourite scene from that movie: Yoda kicking ass! (aka Darth Wong's avatar)