Phantom Menace and bad writing

[Jim Raynor]

Tarkin looks as terrifying as only Peter Cushing can pull off, but he also blows up a planet and orders torture casually. He commits evil actions to go with his menacing look. The TPM villains don't really do much that's menacing.

You just got done saying that TPM's villains didn't do much, then you talk up Tarkin who was all talk (in several brief scenes). "Tarkin looks as terrifying as only Peter Cushing can pull off?" Funny, his appearance to me never went beyond "old guy." He can order torture, that was done entirely offscreen and left Leia looking perfectly fine in her next scene? How is that different than the talk about Trade Fed atrocities on Naboo?

Seems to me that people are willing to be generous with the OT, which is often seen through rose-tinted glasses. Meanwhile the PT gets slammed over anything and everything.

Jango Fett had a lightsaber? And what was Dooku's "gimmick?"

He's old? He has a curved lightsabre handle?

"Old" is not a gimmick or even a distinguishing trait, especially compared to all the other Jedi and Sith in the movies. Nobody would even notice his curved lightsaber handle unless they were a geek.

[starfury]

I actuall found the TPM villians had the same problem of ANH in that well, the destruction of Alderaan didn't get the quite the really evil reaction either, as the Tone was pretty light too and well I only know leia from the planet, so it still feels like pyrotechnicas as opposed to addding to Tarkin's or Vader's threat, Spike often reruns all the Movies and I ususally skip to Just TESB and ROTS, as I didn't the other that much of both Trilogys.

As I stated before, I my problem was the entire TPM and AOTC conflict felt like exposition and the battles was more sound and fury till ROTS and incidently the till final Dogfight in ANH, the run from the death star was thrilling but not all that tense either, it was only when the Death star directly threatened the Rebel base in ANH that I really cared for the Heros in ANH. But Dooku and Maul WERE undeveloped since the actual Clone Wars was not shown in the prequels, just the Beginning and end and that was for me more structural then character problems.

I only noticed the TPM trade fed army lining to crush the annoying gungans who had to the nerves to put a monkey wrench in their plans and just wanted to remove them without overstepping the line and giving the republic complete excuse to intervene, need to fugde it as much as possible, but as I stated before the light feeling was not that far from ANH and Frankly I found arrogant dismissive atitude far more menacing then the fact that he destroyed the planet, it was just business as usual

[adam_grif]

He's old? He has a curved lightsabre handle? He was hired under Title XVII of the Republic Code, under the section forbidding age discrimination in the workplace, with the section Ca provisions for secret societies?

No, his gimmick was more "he's Christopher Lee". My sister practically squealed with glee when he first showed up in a scene.

I can't believe this discussion about the planet's core has gone on for more than one page. Mistake or not, it was a momentary line that the movie quickly breezed through before going on to other things. The vast majority of the audience probably either didn't notice or didn't didn't give a shit.

That's because while I casually menetioned it as an example of bad writing, Formless decided to go on a tirade about how stupid I was for taking the line at face value, and how I should have just swept it under the rug and assumed the character was mistaken, not the writer. Then followed the several pages of discussion. The multi-page discussion has nothing to do with the degree to which the line was significant in making the movie bad.

I'd say it's a pretty minor thing compared to some of the more glaring problems the movie has, like boring characters and canyon sized plot holes.

You just got done saying that TPM's villains didn't do much, then you talk up Tarkin who was all talk (in several brief scenes). "Tarkin looks as terrifying as only Peter Cushing can pull off?" Funny, his appearance to me never went beyond "old guy." He can order torture, that was done entirely offscreen and left Leia looking perfectly fine in her next scene? How is that different than the talk about Trade Fed atrocities on Naboo?

The fact that it's casually mentioned in passing and we get no details? It's something to the effect of "my people are suffering". Fantastic. I feel really bad for you and your people now that you've told me that they're suffering.

Tarkin literally blows up a planet full of people on screen. Oh sure, it would have been more effective if we'd seen characters from the planet before it explodes, but it does its job in the story, pushes Tarkin beyond the moral event horizon and now he's a threatening villain who is willing to crush the rebellion at any cost.

[Galvatron]

Seems to me that people are willing to be generous with the OT, which is often seen through rose-tinted glasses. Meanwhile the PT gets slammed over anything and everything.

I think it's been said several times so far that TPM's minor problems (like the planet core thing) would be easily forgiven if the movie was otherwise coherent and entertaining.

[Channel72]

I can't believe this discussion about the planet's core has gone on for more than one page. Mistake or not, it was a momentary line that the movie quickly breezed through before going on to other things. The vast majority of the audience probably either didn't notice or didn't didn't give a shit. As I've said before, people find things to complain about in TPM.

Did you actually read through this thread? Nobody here is saying the bit about the "planet core" is what makes TPM a bad movie. I think it was adam_grif who originally brought it up, but he mentioned it only in passing as part of a larger point. The only reason the discussion ballooned the way it did is because people here started claiming that the writer(s) intentionally inserted that line into the script, knowing it made no scientific sense, in order to demonstrate a point about the relative inferiority of the Gungans. If you read through the thread, you'll find that the primary reasons people consider the movie disappointing is because of the somewhat nebulous and uncompelling plot, uninteresting characters, and overall lack of tension or drama.

I saw the Star Trek reboot a few days ago, and that was a "turn off your brain" movie if I ever saw one. Gaping plot holes that make Naboo's core look like nothing (including the primary driving force of the plot, which is that Kirk is awesome despite being a thuggish punk who demonstrates no actual skills) ran throughout the movie but were excused by most people because the movie was "fun."

Hey, you'll get no argument from me there. I found the new Star Trek movie incredibly depressing; it basically turned Star Trek into a full-fledged, mindless action franchise in a way even the TNG movies failed to do. In many ways it was even worse than TPM, but that's another discussion.

[RedImperator]

I can't believe this discussion about the planet's core has gone on for more than one page. Mistake or not, it was a momentary line that the movie quickly breezed through before going on to other things. The vast majority of the audience probably either didn't notice or didn't didn't give a shit. As I've said before, people find things to complain about in TPM.

Oh, and I guess that's all the fault of the people making the criticism, rather than those trying to defend it, right? After all, if it's such a piddledick little thing, none of the film's fans should care about it. As I've never said before, but might start now, fanboys find excuses for TPM's faults.

But yes, you are right that it's a comparatively minor thing. Just like Han's 12 parsec line was a minor thing in ANH. TPM's real problems are lame villains, wooden acting, crummy pacing, and annoying comic relief. Which, you know, has been brought up by numerous people in this thread.

I mean, if we're going to lambast TPM over an insignificant little line that could easily be rationalized or outright dismissed, why don't you do that to other movies? I saw the Star Trek reboot a few days ago, and that was a "turn off your brain" movie if I ever saw one. Gaping plot holes that make Naboo's core look like nothing (including the primary driving force of the plot, which is that Kirk is awesome despite being a thuggish punk who demonstrates no actual skills) ran throughout the movie but were excused by most people because the movie was "fun."

And the phasers didn't have trigger guards, either!

Did anybody in this thread actually say the reason they disliked TPM was because of the planet core line? Anyone at all? Does anybody dislike ANH because of "12 parsecs"? For all I know, maybe there are, but I haven't seen any in this thread. The whole planet core thing came up as part of a broader discussion of the quality of writing in TPM. It got dragged out for two pages because--wait for this--people debated it. On a debate board. Imagine that.

Incidentally:

...But the actual details of the plot...there's just way too many total groaners. Even if you give the science a pass (and honestly, why should I? If you want to write science fiction, you could at least look up what a black hole actually is), there's just too many coincidences and lucky breaks for the heroes. Honestly, when I read that the script was rushed and then couldn't be revised for the writer's strike, my first thought was, "Ah-ha, that explains it." The script smells like a first draft.

I also think Roger Ebert had a point when he wrote that nTrek, with its by-the-numbers wham-bam action story, missed an opportunity to explore something deeper, which Trek at its best always did.
...
Bottom line: an enjoyable movie with some pretty glaring flaws and a missed opportunity to do something a little grander. I'd probably give this an 8 if the script were more polished; as it stands, it probably deserves a 6, but Trek nostalgia and successfully reviving the franchise is good for one bonus point. Final score is 7.

So yeah, you can stuff all this crying about geek hypocrisy. I even admitted my score was subject to fanboy inflation.

Incidentally, if people are willing to overlook nu-Trek's flaws because they think it's fun, and they're not willing to overlook TPM's, what does that tell you about what they think of TPM?

So the ST reboot is the new standard in geek cool, but TPM is "the worst movie ever" that "raped" people's childhoods? Oops, I forgot that TPM aimed for all-ages including children, while the Trek reboot aimed to be hip and cool to the twenty/thirtysomething crowd. I guess that's the difference.

Oh God, this fucking excuse again. You know what other movies were aimed for the all-ages crowd? A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. For that matter, Revenge of the Sith, despite its PG-13 rating. Since when does being a kids' movie mean shitty writing is excusable? I know some of TPM's defenders like to think all its critics are a bunch of basement-dwelling neckbeards crying in their Hot Pockets because the prequels weren't grittygrimdark grimdark, but believe it or not, some people just don't think it's a very good movie.

[adam_grif]

Seems to me that people are willing to be generous with the OT, which is often seen through rose-tinted glasses. Meanwhile the PT gets slammed over anything and everything.

I think it's been said several times so far that TPM's minor problems (like the planet core thing) would be easily forgiven if the movie was otherwise coherent and entertaining.

Certainly.

When I first watched TPM I liked it, because I was young and naive. Going back and watching it years later after I'd been exposed to other, better movies suddenly I didn't like it anymore. I hate that feeling when something you fondly remember from your youth turns out to be good only when you watch it through your nostalgia goggles, and it actually turns out that grown-up-you hates it.

[Galvatron]

Tarkin literally blows up a planet full of people on screen. Oh sure, it would have been more effective if we'd seen characters from the planet before it explodes, but it does its job in the story

Even then, we still get pained and horrified reactions from Leia and Ben.

[Formless]

That's because while I casually menetioned it as an example of bad writing, Formless decided to go on a tirade

Goerge Lucas rubbing his ass over your childhood

Shut the fuck up. You have lost the right to say who is and is not on a tirade, asshole.

[adam_grif]

That's because while I casually menetioned it as an example of bad writing, Formless decided to go on a tirade

Goerge Lucas rubbing his ass over your childhood

Shut the fuck up. You have lost the right to say who is and is not on a tirade, asshole.

Right, because the Midichlorians sidetrack was totally what this thread was about. I am so sorry.

[Formless]

Right, because the Midichlorians sidetrack was totally what this thread was about. I am so sorry.

Nevertheless, don't try and place the blame for your own trolling on others.

[Galvatron]

Let us not forget that Lucas actually wrote some good lines for Vader. Maul? Nada.

[adam_grif]

Let us not forget that Lucas actually wrote some good lines for Vader. Maul? Nada.

I can only think of one line he spoke. Was there more?

Nevertheless, don't try and place the blame for your own trolling on others.

Are you denying that your decision to argue about the "Planet Core" line was the reason this thread went on for multiple pages? I'm not insulting you for doing it, it's just another argument (and that's what SD.net is about). It's right there in this thread for anybody who wants to see it.

Lets not turn this into another tangent.

[Formless]

Nevertheless, don't try and place the blame for your own trolling on others.

Are you denying that your decision to argue about the "Planet Core" line was the reason this thread went on for multiple pages? I'm not insulting you for doing it, it's just another argument (and that's what SD.net is about). It's right there in this thread for anybody who wants to see it.

Lets not turn this into another tangent.

And your stubbornness is there for all to see, yes. It takes two to go on a tangent. Don't accuse me of going on a tirade when you yourself were on a tirade.

And no, we actually started that argument over your assertion that Goerge Lucas had a significantly diminished role in the creative process going into Empire, and the conversation evolved towards the "core" tangent and the midichlorien's argument when I challenged you to show me examples of bad writing in TPM that were worse than AotC. In fact, almost every example you chose to cite until the end of our dispute were nitpicks, and perfect examples of what Jim Raynor was talking about: finding things to whine about when there are far more valid criticisms of the movie.

[Channel72]

The big difference is Vader did shit, and Maul was a nobody.

Yeah, the villains in the Prequels were uncompelling precisely because they were all one-note gimmicks who were promptly killed off before they could amount to anything interesting. Darth Maul is an extreme example of an underdeveloped villain; he literally has no character. It's not even an exaggeration to say that he had about one line of dialogue throughout the entire film. Worse yet, it's unclear why he was even fighting the Jedi at the end of TPM; after all, the Queen had already fulfilled her purpose in Palpatine's master plan. I suppose there was a bit more going on with Dooku and Greivous, but that isn't saying much.

To compare any of these idiot characters to the villains in the OT is ridiculous. Forget about Vader, even fucking Jabba the Hutt, who probably had less than 40 minutes of screen-time, was a better developed, more fearsome character than any Prequel villain. Within the span of about fifteen minutes, the audience is already convinced that Jabba is a despicable, fearsome psychopath. He kills one of his dancers for no reason other than that it amuses him to do so; he tortures a protocol droid, and laughs when the bounty hunter threatens him with a thermal detonator. Even though he's only a secondary villain, he's a lot more compelling than any of the bullshit, one-dimensional villains in the prequels, with the exception of Palpatine.

[Havok]

In fairness to Lucas, what I think was doing with the villains in the PT was using them to drive Anakin to the Dark Side. They were more plot devices than characters. That doesn't excuse their complete lack of development, but it may be the reason they were used the way they were.

I

[Bakustra]

Tarkin looks as terrifying as only Peter Cushing can pull off, but he also blows up a planet and orders torture casually. He commits evil actions to go with his menacing look. The TPM villains don't really do much that's menacing.

You just got done saying that TPM's villains didn't do much, then you talk up Tarkin who was all talk (in several brief scenes). "Tarkin looks as terrifying as only Peter Cushing can pull off?" Funny, his appearance to me never went beyond "old guy." He can order torture, that was done entirely offscreen and left Leia looking perfectly fine in her next scene? How is that different than the talk about Trade Fed atrocities on Naboo?

Seems to me that people are willing to be generous with the OT, which is often seen through rose-tinted glasses. Meanwhile the PT gets slammed over anything and everything.

Is there some kind of constitutional requirement for you to ignore my major points and concentrate on my side issues? Let me run this down for you in a condescending tone, since you're being a pluperfect ass.

1. My point with the "as terrifying as only Peter Cushing can pull off" was in response to your garbage about how the villains are awesome because they look cool. You then decided to jump on it, apparently because anybody criticizing TPM are neckbeards or something.
2. You decided to ignore him blowing up Alderaan in favor of my secondary point, just so that you can go on about the single line about Trade Federation atrocities, which are never seen on screen, which are never discussed, and which are dismissed as lies in the novelization by Qui-Gon, if I remember correctly. Either way, it's a flaw, because it fails to come up beyond a single mention. If it's intended to be true, then provide some revelation of it, and if it isn't, then have Qui-Gon or somebody else dismiss it on-camera. Leaving it as trivia doesn't help the film.
3. So what did Maul do all movie? The Trade Fed did do one thing, though: they kicked the Gungans out of their homes. Well, the problem is that it is presented as a displacement without any consequences for the Gungans. These are things that can be solved in single lines as well, if they are presented appropriately. This can even explain why the Gungans have such a pitiful army.
4. If you're going to be an absolute ass about everything anybody does with criticism, then why post in the thread? Is it some kind of intellectual masturbation, since you appear to be unwilling to actually respond to criticism of the film beyond the superficial level?

Jango Fett had a lightsaber? And what was Dooku's "gimmick?"

He's old? He has a curved lightsabre handle?

"Old" is not a gimmick or even a distinguishing trait, especially compared to all the other Jedi and Sith in the movies. Nobody would even notice his curved lightsaber handle unless they were a geek.

That was a joke. Next time, I recommend reading the entire sentence before smashing your fists on the keyboard in rage. On the other hand, given the content of your posts so far, you no doubt would still be driven into a keyboard-crushing fury by the mere presence of japery within this hallowed thread.

In general, I will say that I don't consider TPM a bad film, but that's because so many of its problems are easily fixed with minor changes to the script. Of course, that's using my personal definition of a bad film, but whatever.

In fairness to Lucas, what I think was doing with the villains in the PT was using them to drive Anakin to the Dark Side. They were more plot devices than characters. That doesn't excuse their complete lack of development, but it may be the reason they were used the way they were.

That's an interesting idea. However, that still doesn't excuse them being introduced one-at-a-time, especially since you have perfect opportunities to set up Dooku and Grievous in the films immediately prior to their debut.

[Elfdart]

I guess Shane had a shitty villain in Jack Wilson (played by Jack Palance). He only had a few lines, and all he did was shoot a hog farmer in the street.

[Bakustra]

I guess Shane had a shitty villain in Jack Wilson (played by Jack Palance). He only had a few lines, and all he did was shoot a hog farmer in the street.

What was his purpose in the film? Is he a menacing figure? It's not necessarily a matter of having lines, or of grandious acts of villainy, but of their relationship to the story and how menacing/effective they are within the context of the film. The villains of Westerns and romance films and most comedies and dramas pale in comparison to the plots of action movie villains, who often kneel before the villains of fantasy and sci-fi films. It's a matter of relativity. I would argue that the Trade Fed themselves shouldn't be particularly menacing, and the story should focus on them being businessmen, rather than generals or mystical warriors. Having them be frightening presences would be less effective than having them be cold and collected presences.

But hey! Keep up the sniping! I'm sure that's the way to productive discussion.

[Channel72]

I guess Shane had a shitty villain in Jack Wilson (played by Jack Palance). He only had a few lines, and all he did was shoot a hog farmer in the street.

For God's sake, it's not as if each villain has some objective "bad-ass" metric, it's all about the impression the villain leaves on the audience. And Darth Maul has nothing going on beyond the utterly superficial qualities of looking like Satan and jumping around like Bruce Lee while twirling a highly-marketable double-edged lightsabre. He doesn't even fucking talk.

Seems to me that people are willing to be generous with the OT, which is often seen through rose-tinted glasses. Meanwhile the PT gets slammed over anything and everything.

Oh please, the OT had it's problems sure, but TPM really takes it to a new level. I don't even really care about Jar Jar or midichlorians. When I say "TPM sucks" I mean that TPM took uninteresting characters, a nebulous, uninvolving and often boring plot, and compounded that that with an annoying kid and a shitty, second-rate antagonist, resulting in a horrifying convergence of multi-layered cinematic mediocrity.

I suppose Darth Maul's (lack of) character brings us full circle to the original point the RedLetterMedia review was trying to make about the plot. Not only is Darth Maul a complete blank-slate character-wise, his purpose in the plot is as undefined as his motive. TPM fanboys have been trying to make sense of the plot throughout this thread, but Maul's role only serves to further exacerbate the ambiguity here.

Why the fuck mas Maul even in this movie? Why did he follow the Jedi to Tatooine? Let's try to break this down, shall we?

So, Palpatine's actions are motivated by two inter-dependent, and possibly conflicting objectives: 1) Lead the Trade Federation to invade Naboo and force the Queen to sign a treaty, legalizing the invasion. 2) Produce dissatisfaction with the current Chancellor, in order to get himself elected.

As for the Trade Federation itself, their objective is essentially: Invade Naboo, force Queen to sign treaty, .... profit?

The first problem is that it's difficult to tell which of Palpatine's actions are in the cause of his first (ostensible) objective, and which are in the cause of his second (actual) objective. It's also totally unclear which events in the movie were part of his overall, far-seeing, Sith-inspired master plan, and which events led him to adjust his plan in an ad hoc manner. Did he intend for the Queen to escape and cast her vote, or was his original plan only a vague attempt to stir up disillusionment in the Senate?

The second problem is that even though it's clear that Palpatine is playing the Trade Federation for fools, his first (ostensible) objective seems to be at odds with his second (actual) objective. If the Queen actually signs the treaty, wouldn't that neutralize the crisis and counteract his ambitions to become Chancellor? If so, Palpatine must be walking a fine line between convincing the Trade Federation that they must force her to sign the treaty, and taking other off-screen precautions to ensure that she escapes. Otherwise, it's unclear exactly what the ramifications would be if the Queen were actually to sign the treaty.

...which brings me back to Darth Maul. So the Queen escapes Naboo, causing a hiccup in Palpatine's ostensible objective, but (seemingly) playing right into his actual objective. So Palpatine tells the Trade Federation he'll send Darth Maul to track her down so they can force her to sign the treaty. But why the hell does he actually send Darth Maul to track down the Queen? He's playing the Trade Feds for fools, but surely at least he and Darth Maul are on the same page? The only explanation seems to be that Palpatine really did want the treaty to be signed, or at least wanted to prevent the Queen from getting to Coruscant. But why? If the Queen never gets to Coruscant, how does Palpatine get elected Chancellor? Perhaps his original plan was simply to stir up disillusionment, causing someone else to cast a vote of no-confidence? But the Naboo Queen herself could only help in this regard, so it would be in Palpatine's best interest to have her plead her case to the Senate. So again, why the fuck does he send Darth Maul after her? Palpatine doesn't really care about getting the treaty signed, does he? So was Maul's excursion to Tatooine just to reveal the presence of Sith to the Jedi, with no real connection to the Trade Fed plotline, or was Maul actually after the Queen? None of this shit is clear.

In fact I recall back in 1999 when TPM came out, Sidious's actions seemed so incongruous with Palpatine getting elected that many fans speculated they were actually two different characters, with differing agendas, despite the fact we all knew Palpatine would end up as Emperor. (It seems silly now, but at the time it seemed too obvious that Palpatine and Sidious were one person.)

All of these problems don't even really amount to plot holes, because the plot is too amorphous to punch holes in. It's utterly boring to watch these characters do anything because their already bland personalities are exacerbated by incomprehensible motivations. Again, I'm not interested in some convoluted, fanboy explanation that makes sense of all this; I'm sure it all made sense somehow in Palpatine's warped, evil mind, but the audience is left utterly clueless.

[Jim Raynor]

As I've never said before, but might start now, fanboys find excuses for TPM's faults.

Give a break. The people defending TPM are generally of the position that "you're exaggerating, it's nowhere near that bad," NOT "TPM is an awesome movie now let me grasp at straws coming up with bullshit reasons why." There is one side crying pedophilic rape over this movie, and it's not the movie's defenders.

Repeating someone else's words when you can't an equal point isn't a clever parody.

Oh, and I guess that's all the fault of the people making the criticism, rather than those trying to defend it, right? After all, if it's such a piddledick little thing, none of the film's fans should care about it. As I've never said before, but might start now, fanboys find excuses for TPM's faults.

If someone makes a fucking retarded nitpick, and someone else offers a rebuttal showing how even if you want to nitpick it, it might not even be a mistake, then the conversation should end right there. You could make a point that everyone on either side was carrying on. But the side defending the movie from what is blatantly an insignificant nitpick isn't as bad as the people making the nitpick in the first place.

TPM's real problems are lame villains, wooden acting, crummy pacing, and annoying comic relief. Which, you know, has been brought up by numerous people in this thread.

Which is opinion. A person's right to like/dislike those things, or the amount that they detract from the movie's overall quality, can't be argued objectively. Still, people have been addressing some of these criticisms, when they got more specific than just stating a like/dislike. Such as that fucking bullshit about how you can't describe Qui-Gon beyond his job title.

Did anybody in this thread actually say the reason they disliked TPM was because of the planet core line? Anyone at all?

OK, I'll admit that no one explicitly stated that as a reason to dislike the movie overall. It's still overblown to bring it up as an example of bad writing in response to someone else's more plot-based criticism of another movie.

Incidentally:

...But the actual details of the plot...there's just way too many total groaners. Even if you give the science a pass (and honestly, why should I? If you want to write science fiction, you could at least look up what a black hole actually is), there's just too many coincidences and lucky breaks for the heroes. Honestly, when I read that the script was rushed and then couldn't be revised for the writer's strike, my first thought was, "Ah-ha, that explains it." The script smells like a first draft.

OK, so YOU'RE willing to admit the movie's flaws. I obviously wasn't talking specifically about just you and Roger Ebert. Many people have called Trek a "great movie," there has been talk about how it should have been nominated for "Best Picture" at the Academy Awards, it has a 94% score at RottenTomatoes, and I've seen several reviews calling it a "scifi classic" and one of the best movies of the decade.

This is for a movie where the plot doesn't even withstand the barest level of analysis, where the hero is a blatantly unqualified punk whose capabilities are basically just informed attributes who all the other characters talk up. Where the plot doesn't even fucking bother trying to make sense, only to thrust greatness and admiration upon Kirk no matter what he does.

Incidentally, if people are willing to overlook nu-Trek's flaws because they think it's fun, and they're not willing to overlook TPM's, what does that tell you about what they think of TPM?

Is this supposed to prove a point? OBVIOUSLY they felt differently about the Trek reboot than they did TPM. My entire point so far is that the fanboy population is inconsistent and overlook plotholes that are far bigger than the ones that they do bitch about.

Since when does being a kids' movie mean shitty writing is excusable?

I didn't make that fucking strawman.

I know some of TPM's defenders like to think all its critics are a bunch of basement-dwelling neckbeards crying in their Hot Pockets because the prequels weren't grittygrimdark grimdark, but believe it or not, some people just don't think it's a very good movie.

When the movie was a huge box office hit, the next two prequels were also hits, and SW remains a viable licensing franchise to this day? When kids are frequently said to have loved the movie. When the god damn fucking CRITICS even gave it a mixed but "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes? When forum posters are the ones making the dramatic statement that George Lucas sexually violated their childhoods? Somehow, I get the idea that TPM bashers have a higher proportion of fucking dorks.

[Jim Raynor]

Is there some kind of constitutional requirement for you to ignore my major points and concentrate on my side issues?

WHAT "major points?" Don't talk up your scant little post (inflated with huge block quotes) as if it was somehow substantial. It's on the previous page, I and anyone else can just make a little click and see it for what it really is. Where you brought up Dooku being old and having a curved lightsaber handle (that nobody but the geeks would even see) as a "gimmick" of his?

Oh noes, I didn't bother refuting your comments about how Trade Fed corporate suits weren't menacing, something I never disputed in the first place! And oh my God, I didn't bother quoting you when you made that little point about how Tarkin can't be a "minor" villain because he made a few lines ordering Alderaan to be destroyed!

Tarkin has no backstory, never does anything himself, has no story arc, and wasn't even given any kind of a final scene. He was just unceremoniously blown up on the Death Star along with everyone else on it. Ask the average person who "Grand Moff Tarkin" is and they wouldn't be able to answer you. He is a supporting character, and I don't think someone is justified in dismissing ALL of the prequel trilogy's villains (such as Dooku, minor as he was as well) while talking Tarkin up like that.

1. My point with the "as terrifying as only Peter Cushing can pull off" was in response to your garbage about how the villains are awesome because they look cool. You then decided to jump on it, apparently because anybody criticizing TPM are neckbeards or something.

Did it occur to you that I may have jumped on it because I never fucking saw Tarkin as terrifying at all?

2. You decided to ignore him blowing up Alderaan in favor of my secondary point,

I "ignored" it because it didn't mean shit. I mean, wow, one Imperial officer out of many says a few lines to get someone else to shoot the planet, and never actually does anything else himself (and later gets killed without anyone giving a shit at the end). All the quibbling about whether he was a "minor" villain or not is just fucking semantics; there's no way to quantify that.

So again we're back to stupid ass opinions. But like I said before, if someone's opinion gets deeper into specifics, then others will have grounds to criticize it. Such as saying that the prequel trilogy was bereft of decent villains as if Tarkin was far more substantial than Dooku.

3. So what did Maul do all movie?

Stalk the heroes then fucking kill the main protaganist after a protracted duel?

The Trade Fed did do one thing, though: they kicked the Gungans out of their homes. Well, the problem is that it is presented as a displacement without any consequences for the Gungans.

What the fuck? Somebody conquers city and drives its inhabitants (who were NOT in any way the focus of the movie) out, and that somehow needs to be spelled out?

These are things that can be solved in single lines as well, if they are presented appropriately. This can even explain why the Gungans have such a pitiful army.

The Gungans were primitives who resented the Naboo humans. This was made clear in the movie. It does NOT need to be spelled out in a stupid way, such as suggesting that their army was crap BECAUSE they were kicked out of their city.

4. If you're going to be an absolute ass about everything anybody does with criticism, then why post in the thread? Is it some kind of intellectual masturbation,

Go fuck yourself, you self-righteous cunt. This is SD.net, and I haven't said anything beyond the kind of shit that regularly goes on in this forum or has happend in this thread itself.

since you appear to be unwilling to actually respond to criticism of the film beyond the superficial level?

Fuck you. I've directly responded to quite a few criticisms in this thread. But I'm such a baaad man for choosing not to waste time responding to someone when he says something as inconsequential as Tarkin not being a "minor" villain because he said a few lines to get someone else to kill a bunch of offscreen people with almost negligible consequences to the movie's tone. That's not "superficial?"

That was a joke. Next time, I recommend reading the entire sentence before smashing your fists on the keyboard in rage.

I read the whole fucking thing. And I've seen enough jackasses on the internet sticking little goofy smiley faces at the end of everything while trying to make genuine points.

But you, self-righteous cunt, are falling back on that cliche internet tactic of pretending that you're fucking PSYCHIC, and that you can see through computer screens and know that the other guy is lashing out in incoherent RAGE because he's arguing against you and couldn't tell if your lame little attempt at a "joke" was real or not.

[Elfdart]

I guess Shane had a shitty villain in Jack Wilson (played by Jack Palance). He only had a few lines, and all he did was shoot a hog farmer in the street.

What was his purpose in the film?

The same as Darth Maul's purpose: he's the heavy who is sent to do the main villain's dirty work.

Is he a menacing figure?

Yes. In fact, he's so much like Darth Maul that it's one reason so many people caught on that TPM owes quite a lot to Shane.

It's not necessarily a matter of having lines, or of grandious acts of villainy, but of their relationship to the story and how menacing/effective they are within the context of the film. The villains of Westerns and romance films and most comedies and dramas pale in comparison to the plots of action movie villains, who often kneel before the villains of fantasy and sci-fi films. It's a matter of relativity. I would argue that the Trade Fed themselves shouldn't be particularly menacing, and the story should focus on them being businessmen, rather than generals or mystical warriors. Having them be frightening presences would be less effective than having them be cold and collected presences.

Oh bullshit. A character like Jack Wilson or any number of other villains would be right at home in Star Wars. All you'd have to do is change the costumes and props. Jabba the Hutt is nothing more than a giant latex Sidney Greenstreet or latter-day Edward G. Robinson: the fat, ogreish, decadent gangster.

But hey! Keep up the sniping! I'm sure that's the way to productive discussion.

Yeah, fuck you too.

For God's sake, it's not as if each villain has some objective "bad-ass" metric, it's all about the impression the villain leaves on the audience. And Darth Maul has nothing going on beyond the utterly superficial qualities of looking like Satan and jumping around like Bruce Lee while twirling a highly-marketable double-edged lightsabre. He doesn't even fucking talk.

He does talk -only not much. He has maybe three or four lines in TPM. Jack Wilson has maybe three or four more lines and is in Shane for at most five minutes. Jack Palance stole the show to the point where he not only upstaged fine actors like Van Heflin and Alan Ladd, but he got an Oscar nomination for one of his first parts in a movie. So yes, being a menacing-looking dude with style can make a very effective heavy -no matter how little face time and how few lines in the script. Darth Maul has about as many lines as Boba Fett had in TESB and was much more of a menacing figure. What's really funny is that I remember many of the people who panned the movie though Darth Maul was cool and wanted to see more of him. That's the sign of a well-done character.

[Jim Raynor]

The second problem is that even though it's clear that Palpatine is playing the Trade Federation for fools, his first (ostensible) objective seems to be at odds with his second (actual) objective. If the Queen actually signs the treaty, wouldn't that neutralize the crisis and counteract his ambitions to become Chancellor?

It's not in conflict at all. The treaty was mere bullshit to manipulate the Trade Federation leaders with, that was NEVER in doubt to me. I think this was dealt with already in this thread. Invading and then getting a treaty signed doesn't mean shit unless you honestly believe that legalism is all that matters. ALL such treaties are just the result of one side not being able to defend itself against the other side's violence.

Treaty or not, the Republic would still be undermined because it couldn't protect one of its member worlds.

...which brings me back to Darth Maul. So the Queen escapes Naboo, causing a hiccup in Palpatine's ostensible objective, but (seemingly) playing right into his actual objective.

Only if you assume that he was sure that Padme would do what he said, and that she wouldn't turn against Chancellor Valorum.

[Bakustra]

I guess Shane had a shitty villain in Jack Wilson (played by Jack Palance). He only had a few lines, and all he did was shoot a hog farmer in the street.

What was his purpose in the film?

The same as Darth Maul's purpose: he's the heavy who is sent to do the main villain's dirty work.

How much of a presence did the main villain have?

Is he a menacing figure?

Yes. In fact, he's so much like Darth Maul that it's one reason so many people caught on that TPM owes quite a lot to Shane.

Interesting. However, is he present throughout the film? I wouldn't have any problem with Maul if he had been present from the start. As it is, I don't necessarily think that he's bad as a villain in and of himself, but the other villainous presences are anemic. If the Trade Federation weren't played for comedy, or if Sidious had more of a role, then Maul would be excellent.

It's not necessarily a matter of having lines, or of grandious acts of villainy, but of their relationship to the story and how menacing/effective they are within the context of the film. The villains of Westerns and romance films and most comedies and dramas pale in comparison to the plots of action movie villains, who often kneel before the villains of fantasy and sci-fi films. It's a matter of relativity. I would argue that the Trade Fed themselves shouldn't be particularly menacing, and the story should focus on them being businessmen, rather than generals or mystical warriors. Having them be frightening presences would be less effective than having them be cold and collected presences.

Oh bullshit. A character like Jack Wilson or any number of other villains would be right at home in Star Wars. All you'd have to do is change the costumes and props. Jabba the Hutt is nothing more than a giant latex Sidney Greenstreet or latter-day Edward G. Robinson: the fat, ogreish, decadent gangster.

For a heavy, sure. Jango Fett wouldn't be too out of place in a Western as well. Would it have been appropriate, though, for Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly to be searching for the gold as part of his master plan to destroy the world? The primary antagonist's goals and actions should be in context with the overall film.

But hey! Keep up the sniping! I'm sure that's the way to productive discussion.

Yeah, fuck you too.

You did answer my questions, so I'll apologize.

For God's sake, it's not as if each villain has some objective "bad-ass" metric, it's all about the impression the villain leaves on the audience. And Darth Maul has nothing going on beyond the utterly superficial qualities of looking like Satan and jumping around like Bruce Lee while twirling a highly-marketable double-edged lightsabre. He doesn't even fucking talk.

He does talk -only not much. He has maybe three or four lines in TPM. Jack Wilson has maybe three or four more lines and is in Shane for at most five minutes. Jack Palance stole the show to the point where he not only upstaged fine actors like Van Heflin and Alan Ladd, but he got an Oscar nomination for one of his first parts in a movie. So yes, being a menacing-looking dude with style can make a very effective heavy -no matter how little face time and how few lines in the script. Darth Maul has about as many lines as Boba Fett had in TESB and was much more of a menacing figure. What's really funny is that I remember many of the people who panned the movie though Darth Maul was cool and wanted to see more of him. That's the sign of a well-done character.

I don't think he's bad as a character independently, but was Wilson the sole antagonistic presence in Shane? Maul is weak because the other villains don't really support him. The other serious villain gets less screen time than he does, and the remaining villains are primarily comic relief. That's pretty much the totality of my problems with Maul.

The second problem is that even though it's clear that Palpatine is playing the Trade Federation for fools, his first (ostensible) objective seems to be at odds with his second (actual) objective. If the Queen actually signs the treaty, wouldn't that neutralize the crisis and counteract his ambitions to become Chancellor?

It's not in conflict at all. The treaty was mere bullshit to manipulate the Trade Federation leaders with, that was NEVER in doubt to me. I think this was dealt with already in this thread. Invading and then getting a treaty signed doesn't mean shit unless you honestly believe that legalism is all that matters. ALL such treaties are just the result of one side not being able to defend itself against the other side's violence.

Treaty or not, the Republic would still be undermined because it couldn't protect one of its member worlds.

...which brings me back to Darth Maul. So the Queen escapes Naboo, causing a hiccup in Palpatine's ostensible objective, but (seemingly) playing right into his actual objective.

Only if you assume that he was sure that Padme would do what he said, and that she wouldn't turn against Chancellor Valorum.

On the other hand, doesn't the fact that people don't really pick up on any of the subtext in TPM indicate that Lucas was perhaps too subtle with it? I noticed it (but on rewatching, since I first saw it in theaters), and you noticed it, but there are many people who don't.