Distressed Watcher reviews star wars

[Kane Starkiller]

Maybe George Lucas overestimated your intelligence. Everything you need to know about the Sith is explained in one scene: When Qui-Gon Jinn tells the Jedi Council that his attacker was "well-schooled in the Jedi arts" and thus a Sith Lord. Then the Council mentions that the Sith haven't been seen in a thousand years. So if you had bothered to watch the movie, you would know that (a) the Sith have abilities very much like the Jedi and (b) they have been in hiding for centuries. What more do you need to know?

So again what is the difference between a "Sith Lord" and a Jedi gone bad? Is any person attuned to the force but doing evil things automatically a Sith Lord? "Revenge" of the Sith? Revenge for what?

So the fact that Palpatine pushes different buttons with different people is bad storytelling?
I suppose he could have tried telling Luke that the only way to save his pregnant wife from an untimely death was to join the Dark Side but uh, Luke didn't have a pregnant wife in mortal danger.

Except that button pushing what pathetic.
"Did I ever told you about Darth Plaegius? He was awesome and could stop people from dying. I don't actually know how to stop people from dying but I'm pretty sure I'll learn. Did I convince you? Good. Now slice off the hand of your Jedi Master and go and kill the children in Jedi Temple."
Lucas pretends that Palpatine is this master manipulator when anyone with an ounce of brain could see through his empty promises. With Luke Vader and Palpatine don't try some fancy quasi intelligent argument, they simply taunt him with threats against his friends and sister in the hopes his raw anger will lead him to the dark side.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

Sure I do. Lucas cuts corners at every turn by not building real sets even when CGI obviously isn't up to the task like Jedi Temple interior, Kamino corridors closeups etc. but then turns around and crams every scene with as much different toy-to-be CGI as possible.
The realism of the movie comes closer to post LOTR B-grade fantasy movies like Dungeons and Dragons than the original trilogy.
Maybe the time and money spent into the creation of the fake-ass Wrex character which served absolutely no purpose (it would be more logical to have Yoda or Mace Windu know about Kamino then some coffee shop owner we know nothing about and never see again) into creating real sets.
This brings me to another point: Lucas keeps introducing needless characters into the plot (why have a shapeshifting assassin on top of Jango Fett, why have Wrex a character introduced for the sole purpose of telling Obi Wan where the arrow came from) to create an illusion of the multilayered mystery plot when there isn't one.

There would be a huge problem, since the STORY is about how one generation of characters fucks everything up because of their character flaws and a new generation (one more virtuous and empathetic) makes things right again.

I have no problem with flaws he actually had any redeeming qualities we saw on the film. He was reckless, disobedient, ungrateful, stupid, arrogant...the list goes on.
Nothing in the entire three films made me like this character or actually feel bad that he turned to the dark side. Obi-Wan for his part displays none of the warmth or class that old Ben Kenobi had Ewan's attempts to mimic Alec's accent and Ben's one-liner recycling notwithstanding.

If the Force was in balance, the Jedi wouldn't be waiting for their messiah to bring balance now would they?

But what the fuck does it mean? Apparently there is a "prophecy" about returning the balance so Force being out of balance was a long time situation not something that occurred with Palpatine. But it is never explained what this imbalance is all about.

Watch the fucking movie!
Gunray and his flunkies made a Faustian bargain with Sidious: They use force against Naboo; Sidious promises to cover their asses politically. THEY know he's a Sith Lord and rightly fear him. One of them even tells Gunray that they shouldn't have made a pact with the Sith.

But how did they made the pact? What did Palpatine promise them in the first place, notice that invasion of Naboo is something that Palpatine orders them only after the movie starts and Gunray is surprised by the order. How did Palpatine demonstrate his power? Why do they use the force against Naboo? What is their (the Trade Federation not Palpatine) goal? To annex Naboo? To protest against the taxes? We are never told. And in AOTC they now want to secede from the Republic and new factions only mentioned by name join them. Why? How did Palpatine manage to install yet another of his flunkies (Dooku) as their leader? Why do separatist leaders allow themselves to be ordered around by other flunkies (Griveous)? How exactly did Palpatine get this kind of influence over the separatists that he can basically order them around like his personal army, send his stooges to simply deactivate their armies when they are no longer necessary etc. etc.?
Even between Imperial officers there were worries that Emperor won't be able to control starsystems without bureaucracy but in the prequels when we should finally learn how Palpatine rose to power he commands the separatist even more thoroughly then the Galactic Empire.

[Jim Raynor]

So again what is the difference between a "Sith Lord" and a Jedi gone bad?

Here's the thing: it doesn't fucking matter. According to the canon (bullshit) EU comics, the Sith started out as a fucking race that blah blah blah got turned to the Dark Side and eventually got recruits from other races. Or something. That's how irrelevant their backstory is, that you can plug in any bullshit and it would still fit. It quite frankly doesn't matter how the Sith started out. Did they originate as Jedi gone bad? Are they a different, Darkside-worshipping cult? It changes nothing either way.

In the original trilogy that NOBODY criticizes or nitpicks nearly as much, we didn't even get an origin for Vader, Palpatine, or the Empire. The viewer was just supposed to get that they were the bad guys, and the evil counterparts of the Jedi. As brief as TPM's info on the Sith was, it expanded our knowledge of them beyond anything we saw over the course of 3 movies, that people were perfectly content with for two decades.

Is any person attuned to the force but doing evil things automatically a Sith Lord?

Obviously not, since the Sith are clearly another order with their own rules and titles (rule of two, master and apprentice, "Darth"). Again, this isn't even good nitpicking. Rather it is just missing obvious things from the movies.

"Revenge" of the Sith? Revenge for what?

The Sith were thought to be extinct for a thousand years. Why do you think that's the case?

Except that button pushing what pathetic.

He told an emotionally unstable young man, whom he has known for years and gotten on the good side of ("You're getting too close to the Chancellor"), exactly what he wanted to hear during a time of distress. That's worse than "COME ON GET MAD!" to you? Because that's basically all they did to Luke. Oh yeah, Luke will HATE them so much, a hate so strong he'll try to KILL them in uncontrollable rage...that he makes the choice to join them? Don't act like the original trilogy makes so much more sense in comparison.

Sure I do. Lucas cuts corners at every turn by not building real sets even when CGI obviously isn't up to the task like Jedi Temple interior, Kamino corridors closeups etc. but then turns around and crams every scene with as much different toy-to-be CGI as possible.
The realism of the movie comes closer to post LOTR B-grade fantasy movies like Dungeons and Dragons than the original trilogy.

Funny, I never noticed how the CGI "obviously isn't up to the task." Practically every summer blockbuster movie in the past decade has had worse and more blatant CGI than that.

Maybe the time and money spent into the creation of the fake-ass Wrex character which served absolutely no purpose (it would be more logical to have Yoda or Mace Windu know about Kamino then some coffee shop owner we know nothing about and never see again) into creating real sets.

The whole point was that Kamino was a nearly unknown planet on the ass-end of the galaxy, and had been wiped from the Jedi archives. Which was supposed to demonstrate the villains' plotting and betrayal, as well as the Jedi's complacency and arrogance in thinking that Dooku would never go bad.

This brings me to another point: Lucas keeps introducing needless characters into the plot (why have a shapeshifting assassin on top of Jango Fett, why have Wrex a character introduced for the sole purpose of telling Obi Wan where the arrow came from) to create an illusion of the multilayered mystery plot when there isn't one.

Why introduce Jawas, bounty hunters, space slugs, Jabba's entire gang, etc? Don't act like this is anything new. I mean, wow, Jango had a partner. So distracting from the plot!

...Nevermind that it would have been even more retarded if Jango had fought the Jedi himself on Coruscant. He's the clone source (something that wasn't necessary either, but was obviously throwing a bone to the fans). Your suggestion is piling even more stupidity into the plot, rather than making it more elegant.

But what the fuck does it mean? Apparently there is a "prophecy" about returning the balance so Force being out of balance was a long time situation not something that occurred with Palpatine. But it is never explained what this imbalance is all about.

Making assumptions and creating your own false dilemmas once again, when the answer was already given in ROTJ. Anakin's final fate is to kill Palpatine, thus ending the Sith and making room for Luke to restart a new, more compassionate Jedi Order.

A prophecy about the Force becoming imbalanced and needing a Chosen One to restore it does not require that imbalance to exist long in advance of the movies. Furthermore, the movies themselves allow for your assumption anyway. The Sith have existed and grown in power and influence over the thousand years when they were supposed to be extinct. The Jedi meanwhile have grown arrogant, complacent, and emotionally distant. The galaxy (the Force is generated by all living things) is in horrible shape as shown in TPM.

Once again, the supposed plothole is actually clearly addressed in the movies themselves.

But how did they made the pact? What did Palpatine promise them in the first place

Does it fucking matter? Holy shit. And obviously Palpatine promised them some help in lifting the taxes and getting the government off their asses, things that the text and dialogue continually mention.

notice that invasion of Naboo is something that Palpatine orders them only after the movie starts and Gunray is surprised by the order. How did Palpatine demonstrate his power?

By having someone killed? By manipulating the government, a capability he explicitly mentions onscreen? There are a shitload of obvious ways he could've impressed the Trade Federation, and none of them matter for the plot either.

Why do they use the force against Naboo?

Because the Naboo are wealthy, glamorous, influential, and militarily pussy? Stop asking questions as if the easy answers don't exist.

What is their (the Trade Federation not Palpatine) goal? To annex Naboo? To protest against the taxes? We are never told.

Second and third sentences in the freaking movie:

"The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute. Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo."

Stop acting as if this is subtle, because the Star Wars movies are anything but. This was written at a level so that kids could understand it.

And in AOTC they now want to secede from the Republic and new factions only mentioned by name join them. Why?

Why did the American colonies secede from the British Empire? Why did the Confederates secede from the USA? AOTC hads some blatant allusions to the American Civil War (Confederacy, "Grand Army of the Republic"). Don't act like people have never fought over taxes and economic reasons.

How did Palpatine manage to install yet another of his flunkies (Dooku) as their leader?

He's a freaking noble (people don't all you "Count" for no reason) with obvious wealth and influence. The Jedi mention that he is a "political idealist" at the beginning of the movie. It's obvious that he's been running around as an activist during the 10 years between TPM and AOTC.

Why do separatist leaders allow themselves to be ordered around by other flunkies (Griveous)?

That's GENERAL Grievous. Do you seriously have problems understanding why a high-ranking military commander can order people around?

How exactly did Palpatine get this kind of influence over the separatists that he can basically order them around like his personal army,

They're a bunch of disgruntled businessmen pussies who want the change he promises and are also terrified of him. Palpatine is the brains and balls of the operation.

send his stooges to simply deactivate their armies when they are no longer necessary etc. etc.?

You mean after Vader massacred the Separatist leadership at their command center?

Even between Imperial officers there were worries that Emperor won't be able to control starsystems without bureaucracy but in the prequels when we should finally learn how Palpatine rose to power he commands the separatist even more thoroughly then the Galactic Empire.

He's LORD SIDIOUS to the Separatists. To the Republic, he's Palpatine, the benevolent and sympathetic Chancellor.

Stop creating plot holes that are easily answered with a casual viewing of the movies.

[Channel72]

So again what is the difference between a "Sith Lord" and a Jedi gone bad? Is any person attuned to the force but doing evil things automatically a Sith Lord? "Revenge" of the Sith? Revenge for what?

The hilarious thing is that people who defend these ridiculous movies argue that anyone can easily figure out who the Sith are and why they want revenge. Well sure, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Sith are evil force users, and (I can only guess) they want revenge because 1,000 years ago the Jedi defeated them somehow.

That's really all we need to know to understand that the Sith are dangerous. But it's not enough knowledge to really hold anyone's interest in the story. Now, that might be a subjective statement, but the funny thing is that no other movie/story of similar scope, popularity or mass appeal has ever produced a primary antagonist with so little backstory or explanation. In LOTR, right off the bat we're told who Sauron is, how he was initially defeated, and why he wants the ring. In Terminator we're given endless exposition about what the Terminator is, why it wants to kill the protagonist, and what it's capable of doing. Even in the Original Star Wars we're told through exposition that Vader was a former pupil and friend of Kenobe who murdered Luke's father and destroyed the Jedi knights.

The only time a "mysterious" antagonist with little or no explanation actually works dramatically is when the mystery itself lends to the suspense or horror of the film. Movies like Alien or Predator purposely give the audience very little information about the antagonist, because the suspense of the movie is driven to a large extent by the fact that nobody knows what they're up against.

But in a fantasy/action movie like Star Wars, it makes no sense to explain so little about the antagonists. And the problem doesn't stop with the Sith; we have very little understanding about what motivates the Separatists. Why are they seceding from the Republic? (Oh yeah, something about taxes, right?) Is their primary goal to conquer the Republic, or just secede from it? But it's okay, these movies are for children and of course a four-year can figure it all out.

[Jim Raynor]

That's really all we need to know to understand that the Sith are dangerous. But it's not enough knowledge to really hold anyone's interest in the story. Now, that might be a subjective statement, but the funny thing is that no other movie/story of similar scope, popularity or mass appeal has ever produced a primary antagonist with so little backstory or explanation. In LOTR, right off the bat we're told who Sauron is, how he was initially defeated, and why he wants the ring. In Terminator we're given endless exposition about what the Terminator is, why it wants to kill the protagonist, and what it's capable of doing. Even in the Original Star Wars we're told through exposition that Vader was a former pupil and friend of Kenobe who murdered Luke's father and destroyed the Jedi knights.

What the fuck IS Sauron? And please don't give me a Tolkien-reading geek's explanation. I admit my memory of the movies is hazy (I watched FOTR once 9 years ago with no background in the novels) so I don't remember. I doubt many people who casually watched the movies in the theater can give a good explanation either.

Vader was a former Jedi who went bad...WHY? Who is this Emperor, who is only briefly mentioned in ANH, shows up for a minute as a hologram in TESB, before finally appearing in person in ROTJ? How did the Empire come to power? What is its political ideology? Why did the citizens of the galaxy allow this? What has it been doing that's so bad that has led to the creation of a rebel movement?

Vader being a Jedi gone bad is about as vague as the Sith being Dark Side Force users who were killed off a thousand years ago and have been plotting ever since. Again, don't act as if the original trilogy gave us so much more, because it didn't. At least the prequels had the benefit of using familiar concepts already accepted from the originals (Dark Side, "Darth," Palpatine).

But in a fantasy/action movie like Star Wars, it makes no sense to explain so little about the antagonists. And the problem doesn't stop with the Sith; we have very little understanding about what motivates the Separatists. Why are they seceding from the Republic? (Oh yeah, something about taxes, right?)

Yes, it was the fucking taxes. Is that soooo hard to understand?

Is their primary goal to conquer the Republic, or just secede from it?

What part of the word "Separatist" do you not understand? God damn.

[Channel72]

What the fuck IS Sauron? And please don't give me a Tolkien-reading geek's explanation. I admit my memory of the movies is hazy (I watched FOTR once 9 years ago with no background in the novels) so I don't remember. I doubt many people who casually watched the movies in the theater can give a good explanation either.

He's a big flaming eye on top of a mountain. Who cares exactly what he is? The point is, the movie explains why he wants the ring, and what the consequences will be if he gets the ring. The movie even gives an historical narrative detailing how he was initially defeated by the combined forces of Middle Earth, and we have countless other scenes which provide further exposition about Sauron's history and motives. In contrast, the Prequels never explain what the Sith are beyond the minimal fact that they are evil force users who are in some way antagonistic towards the Jedi.

Vader was a former Jedi who went bad...WHY? Who is this Emperor, who is only briefly mentioned in ANH, shows up for a minute as a hologram in TESB, before finally appearing in person in ROTJ? How did the Empire come to power? What is its political ideology? Why did the citizens of the galaxy allow this?

Now you're just exaggerating the level of detail we're demanding from the Prequels. Nobody is saying the Prequels should explain all the political minutiae of the Star Wars galaxy. But for God's sake, give us something to make the Sith/Jedi saga interesting. Even a few lines explaining that the Sith used to have a vast Empire which was overthrown by the Jedi thousands of years ago would go a long way towards generating some depth to the story.

What has it been doing that's so bad that has led to the creation of a rebel movement?

Yeah, that's never explained at all.

Vader being a Jedi gone bad is about as vague as the Sith being Dark Side Force users who were killed off a thousand years ago and have been plotting ever since. Again, don't act as if the original trilogy gave us so much more, because it didn't. At least the prequels had the benefit of using familiar concepts already accepted from the originals (Dark Side, "Darth," Palpatine).

The exposition about Vader given in ANH is a lot more than we're ever given about the Sith in the Prequels. The fact that we're told he killed the protagonist's father is alone enough to hold the audience's interest in Vader's character.

[Jim Raynor]

He's a big flaming eye on top of a mountain. Who cares exactly what he is?

That's exactly my fucking point. I never needed to know what he was.

The point is, the movie explains why he wants the ring, and what the consequences will be if he gets the ring. The movie even gives an historical narrative detailing how he was initially defeated by the combined forces of Middle Earth, and we have countless other scenes which provide further exposition about Sauron's history and motives.

What the fuck are those rings again? They control people, or something. Who created them again? Sauron was some freakishly big animated suit of armor in that history. Again, what the fuck is he? Oh yeah, these bullshit little details are vague and of little consequence.

In contrast, the Prequels never explain what the Sith are beyond the minimal fact that they are evil force users who are in some way antagonistic towards the Jedi.

The fact that there are all TWO of them now, and that each Sith is ultimately in it for THEMSELVES (directly tied into Vader's temptation of Luke in TESB) shows how important the concept of the Sith Order actually is. The true villain is Palpatine.

Now you're just exaggerating the level of detail we're demanding from the Prequels.

Bull fucking shit I am. You've actually questioned something as retardedly simple as the Trade Federation's motivations (because not liking taxes is such a hard concept to grasp ), yet you say nothing about the fact that the Empire is a completely vague entity with no background other than killing Jedi, and no apparent motivations for evil. They're the bad guys, that is all.

But for God's sake, give us something to make the Sith/Jedi saga interesting.

You're still not getting it. The "saga" is the failed Christ figure who falls to Satan's temptation and eventually finds redemption. If you think Palpatine himself even gives a fuck about the Sith, when he engineers the deaths of his own apprentices, you're missing the point.

Even a few lines explaining that the Sith used to have a vast Empire which was overthrown by the Jedi thousands of years ago would go a long way towards generating some depth to the story.

That's not depth at all. What is important is that the Sith were wiped out by the Jedi, not what they actually had before. Actually, that's not even important because again the "Sith Order" is really Palpatine and his rotating cast of disposable tools apprentices.

Yeah, that's never explained at all.

Ooh, they're ruthless against their enemies...WHY? Who are their enemies? Why are they fighting? What does the Empire want? See how stupid pointless questions like this can EASILY be asked about the original trilogy as well?

The exposition about Vader given in ANH is a lot more than we're ever given about the Sith in the Prequels. The fact that we're told he killed the protagonist's father is alone enough to hold the audience's interest in Vader's character.

He's a former Jedi, and he killed Luke's (unseen, later revealed to be fictional) father. Wow, so much information. Nevermind that Luke doesn't even confront Vader personally during the course of the movie. See how you're just dismissing the original trilogy's vagueness?

I noticed that you didn't mention a damn thing about the taxes, or how you failed to know the definition of "separatist." Starting to realize the level of the bullshit you were pushing before?

[Channel72]

What the fuck are those rings again? They control people, or something. Who created them again? Sauron was some freakishly big animated suit of armor in that history. Again, what the fuck is he? Oh yeah, these bullshit little details are vague and of little consequence.

Your entire argument here is one big conflation between two concepts. You think people are complaining about the lack of explanation for background details, when in fact people are complaining that not enough information is provided to build a compelling attachment between the audience and the characters/villains. Notice how nobody complains that the Prequels don't explain how light-sabres work or who picked out Nute Gunray's wardrobe.

In contrast, the Prequels never explain what the Sith are beyond the minimal fact that they are evil force users who are in some way antagonistic towards the Jedi.

The fact that there are all TWO of them now, and that each Sith is ultimately in it for THEMSELVES (directly tied into Vader's temptation of Luke in TESB) shows how important the concept of the Sith Order actually is. The true villain is Palpatine.

The Sith are important for the same reason the Jedi are important: the main character is going to become one of them. Or do you think Lucas wasted an hour of the audience's time exploring Jedi philosophy on Dagobah in ESB? If we don't understand what the Sith order is and what they believe, then nobody cares when Anakin turns into one of them.

Bull fucking shit I am. You've actually questioned something as retardedly simple as the Trade Federation's motivations (because not liking taxes is such a hard concept to grasp ), yet you say nothing about the fact that the Empire is a completely vague entity with no background other than killing Jedi, and no apparent motivations for evil. They're the bad guys, that is all.

Again, you seem to think that people are complaining about a lack of background detail when in fact people are complaining that on-screen actions lack any compelling motivation. Everyone knows corporations hate taxes. But the Trade Federation, who are important antagonists throughout the first Prequel, are never given any comprehensible motivation for their actions beyond "we do whatever Palpatine says." Nobody knows what they're getting out of invading Naboo. This makes it tedious to watch them do anything. In contrast, the actions of the Empire in the Original Trilogy are always backed up by comprehensible motivations. We know exactly why they do everything they do. They attack Leia's ship because they want the Death Star plans. They kill Luke's Aunt and Uncle because they're looking for the droids. Then they blow up Alderaan as a demonstration of their new superweapon. Their actions for the rest of the movie are driven by their need to recover the plans and find the Rebel base.

You're still not getting it. The "saga" is the failed Christ figure who falls to Satan's temptation and eventually finds redemption. If you think Palpatine himself even gives a fuck about the Sith, when he engineers the deaths of his own apprentices, you're missing the point.

If Lucas doesn't find it necessary to flesh out the circumstances surrounding the fall of his main character, then it will be hard for people to really get emotionally involved with these movies, as is demonstrated by the widespread negative reaction we've all observed. It also doesn't help that the Christ figure himself is an obnoxious dickhead.

Ooh, they're ruthless against their enemies...WHY? Who are their enemies? Why are they fighting? What does the Empire want? See how stupid pointless questions like this can EASILY be asked about the original trilogy as well?

No, the only thing I'm seeing here is your ability to manufacture meaningless questions in a misguided attempt to try and parallel complaints about the Prequels, while continuously missing the point.

He's a former Jedi, and he killed Luke's (unseen, later revealed to be fictional) father. Wow, so much information. Nevermind that Luke doesn't even confront Vader personally during the course of the movie. See how you're just dismissing the original trilogy's vagueness?

Again, you're confusing a lack of background detail with a lack of character motivations and/or motivations for on-screen actions.

I noticed that you didn't mention a damn thing about the taxes, or how you failed to know the definition of "separatist." Starting to realize the level of the bullshit you were pushing before?

AOTC never mentions anything about taxes. We just have to assume the Separatists want to secede due to some sort of discontent with the Republic, possibly related to taxes since that seemed to be an issue 10 years earlier in TPM. Really, this shit isn't very interesting or well explained.

[Kane Starkiller]

Here's the thing: it doesn't fucking matter. According to the canon (bullshit) EU comics, the Sith started out as a fucking race that blah blah blah got turned to the Dark Side and eventually got recruits from other races. Or something. That's how irrelevant their backstory is, that you can plug in any bullshit and it would still fit. It quite frankly doesn't matter how the Sith started out. Did they originate as Jedi gone bad? Are they a different, Darkside-worshipping cult? It changes nothing either way.

In the original trilogy that NOBODY criticizes or nitpicks nearly as much, we didn't even get an origin for Vader, Palpatine, or the Empire. The viewer was just supposed to get that they were the bad guys, and the evil counterparts of the Jedi. As brief as TPM's info on the Sith was, it expanded our knowledge of them beyond anything we saw over the course of 3 movies, that people were perfectly content with for two decades.

Who said Lucas needed to show how they started out? Or how the Jedi started out? The question is WHAT are they beyond force users that are evil and wear black robes.
Nobody nitpicks the original movies for their origins since that was never what the original movies were about. The original movies were about how Empire disappeared and that was all shown in great detail.
The prequels on the other hand set out to "explain" how the Empire came to be but it doesn't really do anything since "Emperor somehow tricks people to get into power" is something we could assume even when watching the original films.
If they weren't going to explain what the Sith were why even introduce them? Have Palpatine as simply an evil man which happens to be a powerful Force user and have him coopt Anakin.

Obviously not, since the Sith are clearly another order with their own rules and titles (rule of two, master and apprentice, "Darth"). Again, this isn't even good nitpicking. Rather it is just missing obvious things from the movies.

Really so who determines who is the real Sith? It's not as if they are Republic sanctioned organization so there are official Jedi.
Again if they were going to introduce some antithetical organization to the Jedi then at least explain it and its motives in greater detail. Otherwise what's the point? Simply have Paplatine be an evil man.

The Sith were thought to be extinct for a thousand years. Why do you think that's the case?

I don't know, the movie never states.

He told an emotionally unstable young man, whom he has known for years and gotten on the good side of ("You're getting too close to the Chancellor"), exactly what he wanted to hear during a time of distress. That's worse than "COME ON GET MAD!" to you? Because that's basically all they did to Luke. Oh yeah, Luke will HATE them so much, a hate so strong he'll try to KILL them in uncontrollable rage...that he makes the choice to join them? Don't act like the original trilogy makes so much more sense in comparison.

Yes it is worse. Because in the original trilogy there was never any pretense that this was anything rational. The point is clearly that Force users are vulnerable to uncontrolled emotions and can go to Dark Side. In the prequels Lucas tries to have Palpatine trick Anakin by vague promises of great power and the dope actually believes him. There is no sense that the Force is at work here only Anakin's stupidity.

Funny, I never noticed how the CGI "obviously isn't up to the task." Practically every summer blockbuster movie in the past decade has had worse and more blatant CGI than that.

But those blockbusters didn't use CGI to that extent so when you combine some CGI with everything else being real sets or scale models then you don't notice CGI as much. But when you put Natalie Portman in front of a blue screen and then past that cartoon assembly line it just looks ridiculous. Was I supposed to feel tension in that scene?

The whole point was that Kamino was a nearly unknown planet on the ass-end of the galaxy, and had been wiped from the Jedi archives. Which was supposed to demonstrate the villains' plotting and betrayal, as well as the Jedi's complacency and arrogance in thinking that Dooku would never go bad.

So they have Obi-Wan talk to a coffe shop owner who was never established as a character and who we never see again? And it must be a cartoony CGI character naturally not a real actor which could at least try to bring some life into the character?
Why does he know where the dart comes from? Who is he? Oh right a toy.

Why introduce Jawas, bounty hunters, space slugs, Jabba's entire gang, etc? Don't act like this is anything new. I mean, wow, Jango had a partner. So distracting from the plot!

...Nevermind that it would have been even more retarded if Jango had fought the Jedi himself on Coruscant. He's the clone source (something that wasn't necessary either, but was obviously throwing a bone to the fans). Your suggestion is piling even more stupidity into the plot, rather than making it more elegant.

How would it be less elegant? If Lucas wanted to do a fan service and introduce "Boba" Fett then why not have him do the assassination stuff and actually give him screen time? In the end Lucas has him shoot the shapeshifter and leave a trace by which Obi Wan tracks him down. This is not just the case with Jango: Lucas introduces Qui-Gon when he should've given more screen time to Obi-Wan and Anakin becoming friends in TPM, he keeps killing off main villains (Maul,Dooku,Grevious) instead of allowing one villain to grow through the films.
Jawas or space slugs were never on screen unless some of the protagonists was also in the scene. But if we had Jawas hire sand people to hire the Hutts to capture R2D2 then yes that would've been needless stupidity.

Making assumptions and creating your own false dilemmas once again, when the answer was already given in ROTJ. Anakin's final fate is to kill Palpatine, thus ending the Sith and making room for Luke to restart a new, more compassionate Jedi Order.

A prophecy about the Force becoming imbalanced and needing a Chosen One to restore it does not require that imbalance to exist long in advance of the movies. Furthermore, the movies themselves allow for your assumption anyway. The Sith have existed and grown in power and influence over the thousand years when they were supposed to be extinct. The Jedi meanwhile have grown arrogant, complacent, and emotionally distant. The galaxy (the Force is generated by all living things) is in horrible shape as shown in TPM.

Once again, the supposed plothole is actually clearly addressed in the movies themselves.

Wrong. He is the Chosen one the "one who will return the balance to the Force" not the "one who will return the balance to the Force if and when it becomes imbalanced". Furthermore even if Palpatine is the one the prophecy is talking about why do they need the "Chosen one"? Mace seemed to have no problem with subduing Palpatine? There was nothing intrinsically "chosen" about him other than being at the right place at the right time. Any Jedi could've done that, no need for him to be created by immaculate Force conception.

Does it fucking matter? Holy shit. And obviously Palpatine promised them some help in lifting the taxes and getting the government off their asses, things that the text and dialogue continually mention.

Yes it fucking does matter since that is what the prequels are about: how Palpatine came to power and created the Empire and how Anakin fell to the Dark Side.
Passing of your own assumptions about what Palpatine might've promised them doesn't cut it. Not to mention that promising them political favors doesn't in any way explain why Trade Federation and later Separatists obey his every command.

By having someone killed? By manipulating the government, a capability he explicitly mentions onscreen? There are a shitload of obvious ways he could've impressed the Trade Federation, and none of them matter for the plot either.

Impressed them enough to want to do business with him off screen I'd accept bot not impressing them enough so he can bark orders at them. That I wan't to see explained.

Why did the American colonies secede from the British Empire? Why did the Confederates secede from the USA? AOTC hads some blatant allusions to the American Civil War (Confederacy, "Grand Army of the Republic"). Don't act like people have never fought over taxes and economic reasons.

LOL. So the next time someone makes a movie about American Civil War all they have to do is mumble something about taxes and that's it. We can't complain because it's all in the history books!

[Jim Raynor]

Your entire argument here is one big conflation between two concepts. You think people are complaining about the lack of explanation for background details, when in fact people are complaining that not enough information is provided to build a compelling attachment between the audience and the characters/villains. Notice how nobody complains that the Prequels don't explain how light-sabres work or who picked out Nute Gunray's wardrobe.

Rather, your entire argument is based on a bullshit elevation of unimportant background details, while misunderstanding the true nature of the plot and conflict. The history of the Sith is not important. Anybody connected with their conflict against the Jedi, 1,000 years ago is dead. Those people's children are dead. Their children's children's children are dead. Several dozen generations have passed since then. The "Sith Order" is TWO guys, or rather ONE master and whoever he picks as an apprentice. That ONE guy is Palpatine, who is a carryover villain from the original trilogy. The same original trilogy that never even NAMED what Vader and Palpatine were, or shed any light on their history or motivations. The same original trilogy whose vagueness was accepted by fans for two decades before the prequels, because the SW story is concerned about the present, with things happening in the here and now. And that story is Anakin's fall and redemption, as well as Luke's hero's journey. To say that the SW saga is Jedi vs. Sith, as you seemed to say before, is missing the point.

You know that original trilogy? The one where Palpatine is some guy mentioned in passing, before he was a hologram, before he was "The Emperor" without having his name even mentioned onscreen? The original trilogy that left things so open that decades of EU just called Vader and the Emperor "Dark Jedi" because they were evil counterparts to the Jedi, which was all that mattered?

The Sith are important for the same reason the Jedi are important: the main character is going to become one of them. Or do you think Lucas wasted an hour of the audience's time exploring Jedi philosophy on Dagobah in ESB? If we don't understand what the Sith order is and what they believe, then nobody cares when Anakin turns into one of them.

The same way nobody cared if Luke would succumb to Vader and the Emperor's temptation in the original trilogy, despite their "philosophy" not being described beyond embracing the power of your rage. That IS the Sith's philosophy in case you weren't paying attention. Only the original trilogy that you give a free pass to didn't even bother naming the Sith. For two decades the Sith were running around without a name, defined by a mere two people, one of whom was never even properly named onscreen. Yet now you complain about how the prequel trilogy didn't give you anything to care about...when it was using the SAME villain as the original trilogy and in fact shed light on his rise to power.

Again, you seem to think that people are complaining about a lack of background detail when in fact people are complaining that on-screen actions lack any compelling motivation. Everyone knows corporations hate taxes.

Given the wild fanfiction I'm seeing in this thread about how it was REALLY about annexing Naboo I'm seeing here, I don't think everyone "knows."

But the Trade Federation, who are important antagonists throughout the first Prequel,

Despite the fact that the Sith Lord (who wears the same robes, has the same voice, and is played by the same actor as the Emperor in the original trilogy) is clearly in charge.

are never given any comprehensible motivation for their actions beyond "we do whatever Palpatine says." Nobody knows what they're getting out of invading Naboo.

Second and third sentences of the fucking movie. They literally spell the words out onscreen for you. I already mentioned this, the movie mentioned this 11 years ago, but judging from all of this your reading comprehension is pathetic.

If Lucas doesn't find it necessary to flesh out the circumstances surrounding the fall of his main character, then it will be hard for people to really get emotionally involved with these movies,

Anakin's fall is no less detailed than the attempts to tempt Luke in the original trilogy. In fact it's FAR more detailed because the prequels have the benefit of reusing familiar concepts from the original trilogy while also focusing a lot more on Anakin's downfall.

as is demonstrated by the widespread negative reaction we've all observed.

Fanboy geeks have an overinflated sense of their own opinion. I have NEVER heard this level of extensive bitching over how the Trade Federation's tax dispute was soooo hard to understand, or how the Sith (the same fucking guys from the originals, only now we have an actual onscreen name!) need to have their insignificant, disconnected thousand-year history spelled out for people, before. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess: are you guys getting this from Retarded Letter Media?

Fanboy whiners think these movies were too vague to understand, children watched these movies just fine. Fanboys dramatically proclaim these movies to be "the worst movies ever" that "raped our childhoods"...normal people paid money to see thse movies in the theaters en masse. And before you say that money does not equate to liking the movie, I'd like to point out that AOTC's CinemaScore (actual statistical exit polling of audiences, compiled from results in 25 major cities) was an A-. That's right, bet you didn't hear that on the revisionist history-propagating geek forum posts. CinemaScore is actually regarded as a very good gauge of mainstream audience reaction, so much that movie studios actually pay to receive this information after opening night to tailor their marketing campaigns. Good thing for the rest of us that such no-name publications as The Los Angeles Times and Entertainment Weekly make a regular habit of leaking the following week.

Every performance metric, such as the massive box office holding strong throughout the first weekend (movies that perform badly go down after Friday from bad word of mouth) and the small, sub-50% drops between weekends (50% is normal, lower than that is good) indicates a movie that most people enjoyed. And oh yeah, AOTC made $300 million domestic. And hell, even the critic's 66% Rotten Tomatoes rating isn't that bad.

Now, this doesn't "prove" that the movie was "good," because movie quality is subjective and can't be proven. And some movies that I've personally hated (such as the Pirates of the Carribean sequels) have gotten A's in CinemaScore too. But I'm honest enough to admit that my opinion of those movies do not reflect the majority's. What CinemaScore does indicate is that most people were not part of this "widespread negative reaction" that cloistered geeks have fooled themselves into believing to be the "prevailing opinion."

No, the only thing I'm seeing here is your ability to manufacture meaningless questions in a misguided attempt to try and parallel complaints about the Prequels, while continuously missing the point.

Again, BULLSHIT. Again, from the original movies, we never know how the Empire came to power, who the Emperor is, what the Emperor's name even is, why Vader turned evil and decided to follow him, etc. They were the bad guys, that is all that mattered.

Again, you're confusing a lack of background detail with a lack of character motivations and/or motivations for on-screen actions.

TELL ME WHAT VADER'S MOTIVATION IS. That's right, it isn't explored and is so vague that Lucas was able to make an entire prequel trilogy out of it 20 years after the fact. And again, the "motivations for on-screen actions" are retardedly simple and easily understood for children. The greedy Trade Federation doesn't like taxes, and made a deal with the Devil (one that they even worry about, onscreen) in the hopes of lifting them. Palpatine wants to take over the Republic.

AOTC never mentions anything about taxes. We just have to assume the Separatists want to secede due to some sort of discontent with the Republic, possibly related to taxes since that seemed to be an issue 10 years earlier in TPM.

Do you HONESTLY believe that the taxes (that were apparently so bad that the Trade Federation was willing to fight over them) magically disappeared after the TF lost at the end of TPM?

Really, this shit isn't very interesting or well explained.

It was a MacGuffin motivation for the true villain's STOOGES, and was well-explained enough for anyone with reading comprehension greater than the average child's.

EDIT: spelling

[Donal]

No, the tax dispute, the very reason for the conflict in Episode 1, was never explained. You're just assuming The Trade Federation was opposing some new taxes. That is never stated at all. For all we know, the Trade Federation was imposing a tax on the outlying systems and Naboo was refusing to pay. All we know is that they are "greedy". That doesn't really make them evil.

In fact, their blockade was perfectly legal. This is why Chancellor Velorum tried to use back channels to resolve rather than go through the Senate. The Jedi were not government agents but were sent to settle a tax dispute? Quite honestly, if the government was using back channel intimidation tactics to force the Trade Federation out of perfectly legal action, then secession might have been a perfectly reasonable option.

And this is another central problem. We're just told who the bad guys are. We are lead to believe the Jedi wiped out the Sith 1,000 years ago (although, this is never really stated). Shouldn't that make the Sith sympathetic characters? Are we supposed to assume a group of people that wiped out another religion are the good guys?

We don't see a Sith do anything truly evil until Episode 3 when the Jedi Temple is attacked. We're simply told they're evil the rest of the time. We see the Jedi use intimidation tactics to push their agenda and attempt to usurp the democratically elected government.

Contrast this with A New Hope. We have an opening crawl that tells us the "evil Galactic Empire" has an ultimate weapon capable of destroying an entire planet. The "Death Star". We are told Princess Leia is racing home pursued by "sinister agents" trying to stop her from "restoring freedom to the Galaxy". That sums up the situation pretty nicely. No vague references to tax disputes that are never clarified.

Then, we see them actually be evil. We see Vader choke Captain Antilles to death. Stormtroopers slaughter Jawas and murder Luke's family. and, to top it all off, Tarkin has Alderaan destroyed. And that is all before we even hit the half way point. We aren't just told they are evil. they are indeed evil.

[Jim Raynor]

Who said Lucas needed to show how they started out? Or how the Jedi started out? The question is WHAT are they beyond force users that are evil and wear black robes.

The same question that wasn't answered in the original trilogy? The answer that nobody demanded for two decades?

Nobody nitpicks the original movies for their origins since that was never what the original movies were about. The original movies were about how Empire disappeared and that was all shown in great detail.

Nobody (normal) nitpicks the prequel movies for their origins, since that was never what the prequel movies were about. The prequel movies were about how a weak and ineffective Republic and an extremely flawed but ambitious young man were corrupted, and that was all shown in great detail.

The prequels on the other hand set out to "explain" how the Empire came to be but it doesn't really do anything since "Emperor somehow tricks people to get into power" is something we could assume even when watching the original films.

Oh bullshit. I love how you just dismiss EVERYTHING with a bold claim that you guessed it all already. Did you guess Anakin's attachment issues and fear of loss? How Obi-Wan's stern and critical treatment of him drove Anakin even further down the wrong path (this thread proves that some people assumed the OPPOSITE of that given all the bitching over how Anakin was "a good friend"). The Jedi growing arrogant, complacent, and out of touch? The Senate being pathetically bureaucratic and corrupt? What exactly the Clone Wars were (more likely you were one of those guys who assumed that the main character Jedi all got cloned ).

What a lame little one-liner from you, in place of an actual rebuttal.

If they weren't going to explain what the Sith were why even introduce them? Have Palpatine as simply an evil man which happens to be a powerful Force user and have him coopt Anakin.

The Sith were introduced in the 1970s. For 3 movies and two decades, they were just two guys without a name for themselves, one of whom didn't even have a PERSONAL name. The fans accepted this. The prequels build on this same material, with the same characters.

You're also not fucking getting it. The saga is NOT Jedi vs. Sith, it's one extremely evil and ambitious man corrupting one well-intentioned but extremely flawed younger man and the corrupt, complacent society that they live in.

The "Sith" matter to this story only because they provide a mechanism for Palpatine to have training and Jedi-like powers (despite never being a Jedi, since he operates as a public figure). And apprentices that Palpatine doesn't care for either and disposes of as he pleases, which was carried on from ROTJ.

Really so who determines who is the real Sith? It's not as if they are Republic sanctioned organization so there are official Jedi.

What the fuck. Are you seriously asking this fucking question? OBVIOUSLY, from onscreen evidence, there is an actual Sith Order with its own traditions (and all of one follower after the one master). If some other hypothetical guy wants to call himself a "Sith" despite having NO connection to this, why should anybody care?

Again if they were going to introduce some antithetical organization to the Jedi then at least explain it and its motives in greater detail. Otherwise what's the point? Simply have Paplatine be an evil man.

That's the fucking point, and the original movies aren't any different about it.

The Sith were thought to be extinct for a thousand years. Why do you think that's the case?

I don't know, the movie never states.

The evil guy with the title of DARTH shows up and immediately fights a Jedi, and you seriously wonder about things. It's not ambiguous just because Lucas didn't pander to the retards out there.

Yes it is worse. Because in the original trilogy there was never any pretense that this was anything rational. The point is clearly that Force users are vulnerable to uncontrolled emotions and can go to Dark Side. In the prequels Lucas tries to have Palpatine trick Anakin by vague promises of great power and the dope actually believes him. There is no sense that the Force is at work here only Anakin's stupidity.

Nor is there such a pretense in the prequels, you idiot. Do you seriously think that human decisions are either rational or emotional? Your emotions can affect your conscious thoughts, but your conscious thoughts can also affect your emotions. Don't fucking tell me you've never gotten yourself angrier about something while brooding over the perfectly valid (or even invalid) reasons why you should be displeased with something. Anakin is an emotional guy; his emotions are constantly clouding all of his decisions.

But those blockbusters didn't use CGI to that extent so when you combine some CGI with everything else being real sets or scale models then you don't notice CGI as much.

LOTR, Spider-Man, Pirates, Transformers, Matrix, just to name a few. Give me a break.

So they have Obi-Wan talk to a coffe shop owner who was never established as a character and who we never see again?

God damn, the detective hitting up some friend with a past at some dive for information is so common it's cliche. Do you SERIOUSLY need to see this diner owner again? The point of that is to briefly show that Obi-Wan has experience, and has been places and seen people.

How would it be less elegant? If Lucas wanted to do a fan service and introduce "Boba" Fett then why not have him do the assassination stuff and actually give him screen time?

Once again you ask the retarded question for which the easy answer already exists. Once again you think you're making some kind of insightful nitpick when in fact you're just displaying your ignorance and failing at basic common sense.

Jango is the fucking source of the clone army. It already stretched credibility enough for him to risk himself on Coruscant, even if that female assassin was doing the real work. Having him actually getting his hands dirty risks him being captured and squealing on the whole conspiracy. Yet you would have him taking out hits by himself and fighting the Jedi some more.

...I'm glad fans like you didn't write this movie. We might have gotten a drawn-out exposition scene spelling out the Trade Federation's tax dispute, I mean annexation attempt.

In the end Lucas has him shoot the shapeshifter and leave a trace by which Obi Wan tracks him down. This is not just the case with Jango: Lucas introduces Qui-Gon when he should've given more screen time to Obi-Wan and Anakin becoming friends in TPM,

Not to say that TPM handled things perfectly (it didn't) but Qui-Gon had a purpose. He was meant to be the ideal father figure that made a big impression on Anakin at a young age, before getting killed. Obi-Wan can't live up to that, which contributes to Anakin's anger.

he keeps killing off main villains (Maul,Dooku,Grevious) instead of allowing one villain to grow through the films.

I already addressed this several posts up. Having another big, persisting villain draws focus away from Vader and Sidious. Maul was a weapon, and not required for the plot. He died and took Sidious's secrets with him for another decade. Dooku DOES serve a purpose: he's the face of the Separatist movement. Kind of hard to do that when you're a known terrorist to be killed on sight by the Jedi (after fighting them in Episode I, if we're going to go with this one villain idea). Dooku also demonstrates the Jedi's arrogance and complacency. Their insistence that he could never go bad because he used to be one of them shows that. Grievous doesn't serve much of a plot purpose, but he does give another face to the Separatists.

Wrong. He is the Chosen one the "one who will return the balance to the Force" not the "one who will return the balance to the Force if and when it becomes imbalanced".

You say I'm "Wrong" when I point out your false dilemma, then go on to repeat that same false dilemma.

"Return balance to the Force" fucking says nothing about when or how the Force becomes imbalanced. Furthermore, I already addressed this anyway, by pointing out that Palpatine had been growing in power and influence for a long time (when the Sith were supposedly gone forever), the Jedi had grown out of touch, and the Republic had grown weak and corrupt.

Furthermore even if Palpatine is the one the prophecy is talking about why do they need the "Chosen one"? Mace seemed to have no problem with subduing Palpatine? There was nothing intrinsically "chosen" about him other than being at the right place at the right time. Any Jedi could've done that, no need for him to be created by immaculate Force conception.

Wow, more stupid ass questions with easy answers. The Jedi do NOT all believe in the prophecy, which is why the Council doesn't want to have anything to do with Anakin during TPM. Furthermore, the prophecy doesn't say that the Chosen One is needed and the only fucking thing that can ever set things right, only that the Chosen One WILL.

Does it fucking matter? Holy shit. And obviously Palpatine promised them some help in lifting the taxes and getting the government off their asses, things that the text and dialogue continually mention.

Yes it fucking does matter since that is what the prequels are about: how Palpatine came to power and created the Empire and how Anakin fell to the Dark Side.

THIS sentence is correct; it's about how Palpatine came to power and corrupted Anakin. It doesn't do a damn thing strengthen your case on those other points about the nitty gritty of how Palpatine made his deal with the fucking Trade Federation.

Passing of your own assumptions about what Palpatine might've promised them doesn't cut it. Not to mention that promising them political favors doesn't in any way explain why Trade Federation and later Separatists obey his every command.

I'm getting a VERY strong impression of you that you're someone who's severely lacking in knowledge, experience, or even common sense. From failing to get basic plot points, to not understanding how human emotions can mix with thoughts, and now this. Lord Sidious is the fucking alpha male. He presents himself as the smartest and ballsiest guy in the group (not hard when he has real control over the Republic, and he intentionally chooses cowardly allies). The others fall in line because of that, especially after they've already damned themselves by crossing the Republic.

This is basic group interaction. It's not some fucking mystery.

LOL. So the next time someone makes a movie about American Civil War all they have to do is mumble something about taxes and that's it. We can't complain because it's all in the history books!

You are some special kind of stupid. Once again, the prequels are NOT about the fucking Trade Federation, they're about Palpatine and what he does to Anakin and the Republic.

[Jim Raynor]

No, the tax dispute, the very reason for the conflict in Episode 1, was never explained. You're just assuming The Trade Federation was opposing some new taxes. That is never stated at all. For all we know, the Trade Federation was imposing a tax on the outlying systems and Naboo was refusing to pay.

Palpatine, Senate scene:
"Supreme Chancellor, delegates of the Senate. A tragedy has occurred, which started right here with the taxation of trade routes, and has now engulfed our entire planet in the oppression of the Trade Federation."

The taxes were passed by the Senate itself. There goes your theory about the Trade Federation passing taxes on its own. And even if that line didn't exist, who cares? It's a MacGuffin reason. The Trade Federation could be protesting taxes. Or they could be trying to enforce their own taxes on an unwilling planet. The story remains the same either way.

All we know is that they are "greedy". That doesn't really make them evil.

Aggression, conspiracy to commit murder, yeah I think they're evil.

In fact, their blockade was perfectly legal.

The Trade Federation Viceroy says it's legal. Defense lawyers and greeyd corporate types will try to pass anything off as legal.

Meanwhile, the opening text states "While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events." So obviously there are a lot of people who don't see this as "perfectly" legal and noncontroversial.

This is why Chancellor Velorum tried to use back channels to resolve rather than go through the Senate.

"While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events." The Senate is corrupt, bureaucratic, and impotent.

The Jedi were not government agents but were sent to settle a tax dispute?

And who said that the Jedi aren't government agents?

Quite honestly, if the government was using back channel intimidation tactics to force the Trade Federation out of perfectly legal action, then secession might have been a perfectly reasonable option.

There's a thread on this forum right now about stupid Imperial apologists. What are you, a Trade Federation apologist? God, I never knew that existed.

And it doesn't matter if the TF had some decent reasons to secede (despite clearly being greedy assholes who use force to intimidate others themselves). The best schemes are built around nuggets of truth.

And this is another central problem. We're just told who the bad guys are. We are lead to believe the Jedi wiped out the Sith 1,000 years ago (although, this is never really stated). Shouldn't that make the Sith sympathetic characters?

The Allies wiped out the Nazis, I guess the Nazis must be sympathetic people...

We have three original trilogy movies showing what utter assholes the Sith are. We have the Sith plotting to murder people, masterminding invasions, and destabilizing the Republic in TPM. I think it's pretty freaking clear that they're the bad guys.

We don't see a Sith do anything truly evil until Episode 3

WTF.

Contrast this with A New Hope. We have an opening crawl that tells us the "evil Galactic Empire" has an ultimate weapon capable of destroying an entire planet. The "Death Star". We are told Princess Leia is racing home pursued by "sinister agents" trying to stop her from "restoring freedom to the Galaxy". That sums up the situation pretty nicely.

I get it now. You're another guy who likes things spelled out for you.

[Elfdart]

So again what is the difference between a "Sith Lord" and a Jedi gone bad?

It's the difference between someone who turns his back on his or her own country on one hand, and someone who joins an organization dedicated to destroying that country?

Is any person attuned to the force but doing evil things automatically a Sith Lord?

Was Luke automatically a Sith Lord when he lashed out in anger at his own father?

"Revenge" of the Sith? Revenge for what?

Today boys and girls, we are going to learn how to put two and two together:

In TPM, it is explained in simple terms that (a) the Sith are very much like the Jedi, only they are evil and they crave power, (b) that they have not been seen or heard from -let alone held any position of power- for over a thousand years and (c) they have a grudge against the Jedi, who DO have a position of power and influence, but act as servants -not as masters over others.

Yeah, it's really difficult to figure out why the Sith want revenge. I find it hard to believe that anyone is so fucking stupid that they can't put these obvious clues together.

Sure I do. Lucas cuts corners at every turn by not building real sets even when CGI obviously isn't up to the task like Jedi Temple interior, Kamino corridors closeups etc. but then turns around and crams every scene with as much different toy-to-be CGI as possible.

There is no studio on the face of the earth big enough to reproduce such huge interiors. Filming partial interiors and using mattes to fill in the rest has its own issues: such as the fact that it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) to have the two elements match. Matching the colors alone is a monster headache, to say nothing of the lighting and focus.

Like I said, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Maybe the time and money spent into the creation of the fake-ass Wrex character which served absolutely no purpose (it would be more logical to have Yoda or Mace Windu know about Kamino then some coffee shop owner we know nothing about and never see again) into creating real sets.
This brings me to another point: Lucas keeps introducing needless characters into the plot (why have a shapeshifting assassin on top of Jango Fett, why have Wrex a character introduced for the sole purpose of telling Obi Wan where the arrow came from) to create an illusion of the multilayered mystery plot when there isn't one.

So he went to a source he knows and trusts about obscure weapons: one who happens to work in a diner where he's a regular customer. What is the problem?

I have no problem with flaws he actually had any redeeming qualities we saw on the film. He was reckless, disobedient, ungrateful, stupid, arrogant...the list goes on.
Nothing in the entire three films made me like this character or actually feel bad that he turned to the dark side. Obi-Wan for his part displays none of the warmth or class that old Ben Kenobi had Ewan's attempts to mimic Alec's accent and Ben's one-liner recycling notwithstanding.

Tough titty for you.

But what the fuck does it mean? Apparently there is a "prophecy" about returning the balance so Force being out of balance was a long time situation not something that occurred with Palpatine. But it is never explained what this imbalance is all about.

Prophesies are often vague, misleading and have a habit of coming true in the strangest ways. The Jedi thought this "balance" was going to be a good thing for them. They thought wrong. When the king of Lydia heard the prophesy that if he went to war against a neighboring state a great kingdom would be destroyed. He took it as a favorable sign, attacked and did in fact destroy a great kingdom: his own.

But how did they made the pact?

OK, I get it: you're just trolling now. In that case I'll play along:

The same way other pacts are formed.

What did Palpatine promise them in the first place, notice that invasion of Naboo is something that Palpatine orders them only after the movie starts and Gunray is surprised by the order.

He promised them political cover ("I will make it legal.") for the blockade and the invasion.

How did Palpatine demonstrate his power?

Card tricks. Works every time.

Why do they use the force against Naboo?

Because asking nicely didn't work.

What is their (the Trade Federation not Palpatine) goal?

Money.

To annex Naboo?

No.

To protest against the taxes?

Yes, and to punish Naboo.

We are never told.

Yes we are.

And in AOTC they now want to secede from the Republic and new factions only mentioned by name join them. Why?

Money.

[Donal]

No, the tax dispute, the very reason for the conflict in Episode 1, was never explained. You're just assuming The Trade Federation was opposing some new taxes. That is never stated at all. For all we know, the Trade Federation was imposing a tax on the outlying systems and Naboo was refusing to pay.

Palpatine, Senate scene:
"Supreme Chancellor, delegates of the Senate. A tragedy has occurred, which started right here with the taxation of trade routes, and has now engulfed our entire planet in the oppression of the Trade Federation."

The taxes were passed by the Senate itself. [/quote]

Still doesn't say what the taxes were. Or how they were passed. If anything, the Senate passing them makes them legit.

Why would Naboo be blocked by TF if the Seante passed the taxes?

There goes your theory about the Trade Federation passing taxes on its own.

Not really. It could just mean the TF is a NGO that acts as the Commerce Department for the Galactic Republic and the Seante ratified taxes the TF passed. We don't the role of the TF or its relationship with Naboo or the GR.

And even if that line didn't exist, who cares?

People that hate crappy writing?

It's a MacGuffin reason.

A MacGuffin is a plot device, not the plot itself.

The Trade Federation could be protesting taxes. Or they could be trying to enforce their own taxes on an unwilling planet. The story remains the same either way.

Not really. If the blockade is perfectly legal, then the Jedi and the Chancellor are just using their swing to get their friends special favors from the government.

Aggression, conspiracy to commit murder, yeah I think they're evil.

Which the Jedi also did.

The Trade Federation Viceroy says it's legal.

and the Chancellor and Jedi seem to agree, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for the cloak and dagger.

Defense lawyers and greeyd corporate types will try to pass anything off as legal.

Everyone says that when it is in their own interest. And you still point out that it was illegal.

Meanwhile, the opening text states "While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events." So obviously there are a lot of people who don't see this as "perfectly" legal and noncontroversial.

Did I say it wasn't controversial? Please don't put words in my mouth.

That said, you only point out that the issue is delicate.

"While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events."

This is what legislative bodies do. If it was so cut and dry that the TF was doing something illegal, action would have been taken immediately .

The Senate is corrupt, bureaucratic, and impotent.

How do we know? Oh, ya, Palpatine tells us this while he manipulating Padme. But, we can obviously take his word for it.

And who said that the Jedi aren't government agents?

The Jedi. Remember in Episode 3 their response to Palpatine wanting Anakin on the Jedi Council?

also, in Episode 1, they don't appear to have much standing in the Senate since they want another investigation, which even the Chancellor calls for, even after the Jedi WHOM THE CHANCELLOR SENT come back to tell the story of the invasion.

we never know what exactly the role the Jedi play in society, but it is made clear they work outside the government.

There's a thread on this forum right now about stupid Imperial apologists. What are you, a Trade Federation apologist? God, I never knew that existed.

I'm just not a crappy writing apologist. And if I was a fan of an organization driven by money that uses soulless machines to do all the work, I'd enjoy the Prequels more.

I never actually say I'm sympathetic to the TF. I am pointing out Lucas does a lousy job setting them up as bad guys.

And it doesn't matter if the TF had some decent reasons to secede (despite clearly being greedy assholes who use force to intimidate others themselves). The best schemes are built around nuggets of truth.

Huh? You mean they were wrong to secede because they were right to do it?

The Allies wiped out the Nazis,

No, they didn't. Some Nazis were actually protected in order to help the West and the Soviets make advancements in science and technology. Do we really need to go into NASA's history?

I guess the Nazis must be sympathetic people...

Damn, I don't think Evel Knieval would have tried that jump.

We have three original trilogy movies showing what utter assholes the Sith are.

which come later on. And we are shown they are evil, not just told.

We have the Sith plotting to murder people,

Like the Jedi did.

masterminding invasions,

Of questionable legality.

and destabilizing the Republic in TPM.

I thought it was already impotent and blah blah blah.

I think it's pretty freaking clear that they're the bad guys.

Ya, at the end.

WTF.

What did they do that the Jedi don't?

I get it now. You're another guy who likes things spelled out for you.

No, I like stories to make, you know, sense.

[Jim Raynor]

Still doesn't say what the taxes were.

They're taxes. On trade routes. That's it.

Or how they were passed.

The Senators voted for them. Duh.

If anything, the Senate passing them makes them legit.

What does that have to do with anything?

Why would Naboo be blocked by TF if the Seante passed the taxes?

Hold it hostage and make demands from the government.

Not really. It could just mean the TF is a NGO that acts as the Commerce Department for the Galactic Republic and the Seante ratified taxes the TF passed. We don't the role of the TF or its relationship with Naboo or the GR.

You're going WAY off with your speculation here. The TF is obviously not a government agency. They have a trade franchise, and a Senator. The easy explanation is that they're another group of worlds in the Republic that are heavily reliant on shipping.

And even if that line didn't exist, who cares?

People that hate crappy writing?

Yeah, it's "crappy writing" because the MACGUFFIN reason isn't given exposition.

It's a MacGuffin reason.

A MacGuffin is a plot device, not the plot itself.

Because the plot is built around the nitty gritty of the Trade dispute, and not what is actually happening to Naboo, the conspiracy to destabilize of the Republic, or that kid who's a blatant Jesus metaphor.

The trade dispute IS a plot device.

The Trade Federation could be protesting taxes. Or they could be trying to enforce their own taxes on an unwilling planet. The story remains the same either way.

Not really. If the blockade is perfectly legal, then the Jedi and the Chancellor are just using their swing to get their friends special favors from the government.

Holy shit. Again, the Trade Federation scumbag says its legal. That does not make it "perfectly" legal. Again you fail to read, and need things spelled out for you.

Aggression, conspiracy to commit murder, yeah I think they're evil.

Which the Jedi also did.

Got ourselves a Sith apologist here!

The Trade Federation Viceroy says it's legal.

and the Chancellor and Jedi seem to agree, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for the cloak and dagger.

"While the Congress of the Republic ENDLESSLY DEBATES this alarming chain of events."

ENDLESSLY DEBATES. I showed you this quote twice already.The Senate is slow, bureaucratic, and useless. This is outright stated onscreen during the movie. THAT'S why the Chancellor had to go outside the normal process to get things done.

Meanwhile, the opening text states "While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events." So obviously there are a lot of people who don't see this as "perfectly" legal and noncontroversial.

Did I say it wasn't controversial? Please don't put words in my mouth.

1) What you're doing is MAKING UP the unsupported claim that what the Trade Federation was doing was "perfectly legal," based on the words of a villain.
2) The law has loopholes. So even IF it was legal, it wouldn't be right. The Senate decides what is legal or illegal. If they turned around and said it was illegal, it would become illegal.

"While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events."

This is what legislative bodies do.

Here we have an example of someone failing to see the clear implication. "Endlessly" is a word with clear negative connotations. It's outright stated during the movie that the Senate is corrupt and useless. Yet here you are completely missing the point and acting as if this is normal.

If it was so cut and dry that the TF was doing something illegal, action would have been taken immediately .

The planet gets invaded with all communications jammed, and the Senate still wants to make a commission rather than doing anything. The movie beats you over the head with how fucked up and stupid these Senators are, yet you don't seem to get it.

The Senate is corrupt, bureaucratic, and impotent.

How do we know? Oh, ya, Palpatine tells us this while he manipulating Padme. But, we can obviously take his word for it.

And here you are outright denying what is seen onscreen and even stated in the opening text. But I already know you're not a normal person looking at what is clearly shown to us. You've already come out as a Sith and Trade Federation apologist.

And who said that the Jedi aren't government agents?

The Jedi. Remember in Episode 3 their response to Palpatine wanting Anakin on the Jedi Council?

I just watched this scene. They say no such thing. Furthermore, the Chancellor was able to appoint Anakin to the Jedi Council..

also, in Episode 1, they don't appear to have much standing in the Senate since they want another investigation, which even the Chancellor calls for, even after the Jedi WHOM THE CHANCELLOR SENT come back to tell the story of the invasion.

1) The corrupt, stupid Senate not giving a crap about the Jedi says NOTHING about whether or not they actually work for the government.
2) The Jedi were sent IN SECRET (holy shit) to circumvent the Senate's normal process.
3) The same Senate, in the same scene, disregards the words of the QUEEN HERSELF, and quickly jumps at the chance to give Chancellor Valorum the boot. They don't like the Chancellor, they don't give a damn about the crisis, and they certainly aren't open to hearing about what he's found.

There's a thread on this forum right now about stupid Imperial apologists. What are you, a Trade Federation apologist? God, I never knew that existed.

I'm just not a crappy writing apologist. And if I was a fan of an organization driven by money that uses soulless machines to do all the work, I'd enjoy the Prequels more.

You're clearly stretching to make excuses for villains who are clearly shown to be evil (the Sith don't do anything evil until Episode 3 ).

I never actually say I'm sympathetic to the TF. I am pointing out Lucas does a lousy job setting them up as bad guys.

Yeah, because blockading a world over some taxes, invading it and cutting off all communications, working with the evil wizard from the original trilogy, and trying to murder the main characters doesn't get across the point that they're the bad guys.

Huh? You mean they were wrong to secede because they were right to do it?

No, I'm saying that they may have actual reasons to secede, because Palpatine is the one orchestrating this whole conspiracy so that they will secede

The Allies wiped out the Nazis,

No, they didn't.

Way to miss the fucking point.

I guess the Nazis must be sympathetic people...

Damn, I don't think Evel Knieval would have tried that jump.

And here you are pretending to be astounded at my supposedly outrageous analogy...when YOU'RE the one who said that the Sith were "sympathetic" and don't believe that they did anything evil until Episode 3.

We have three original trilogy movies showing what utter assholes the Sith are.

which come later on. And we are shown they are evil, not just told.

Because conspiring to destabilize the government, masterminding an invasion, and ordering murder isn't evil...

We have the Sith plotting to murder people,

Like the Jedi did.

masterminding invasions,

Of questionable legality.

and destabilizing the Republic in TPM.

I thought it was already impotent and blah blah blah.

"Like the Jedi did." I love how the guy who doesn't see the BLATANT examples of Sith villainy is willing to make up unsupported bullshit alternate-universe fanfic about how the Jedi were supposedly just as bad...

Seriously, just stop talking. You're just embarrassing yourself.

EDIT: quotes

[Channel72]

Rather, your entire argument is based on a bullshit elevation of unimportant background details, while misunderstanding the true nature of the plot and conflict. The history of the Sith is not important. Anybody connected with their conflict against the Jedi, 1,000 years ago is dead. Those people's children are dead. Their children's children's children are dead. Several dozen generations have passed since then. The "Sith Order" is TWO guys, or rather ONE master and whoever he picks as an apprentice. That ONE guy is Palpatine, who is a carryover villain from the original trilogy. The same original trilogy that never even NAMED what Vader and Palpatine were, or shed any light on their history or motivations. The same original trilogy whose vagueness was accepted by fans for two decades before the prequels, because the SW story is concerned about the present, with things happening in the here and now. And that story is Anakin's fall and redemption, as well as Luke's hero's journey. To say that the SW saga is J

There was never any vagueness as to Vader or Palpatine's nature in the Original Trilogy, because there was no concept of a "Sith". There was simply a Light Side and a Dark Side of the Force, both of which were thoroughly fleshed out in ESB and ROTJ. Yoda explains what the Force is, and how the Light Side comes from a peaceful attunement with the Force. He also explains that the Dark Side relies on anger, fear, and aggression, and it is therefore easier and more seductive. All of this shit is made painfully clear to the audience. There was never any question as to why Vader was evil; nor is there any question why the Ring is so tempting in LOTR, or why Eve ate the fruit in the Old Testament. Everyone understands the temptation of power, as well as the good/bad, ying/yang dynamic; this understanding is inherent in the human condition and a feature of every dualistic religion since Zoroastrianism.

You know that original trilogy? The one where Palpatine is some guy mentioned in passing, before he was a hologram, before he was "The Emperor" without having his name even mentioned onscreen? The original trilogy that left things so open that decades of EU just called Vader and the Emperor "Dark Jedi" because they were evil counterparts to the Jedi, which was all that mattered?

It is seriously astonishing to me how you keep missing the point. For the 1000th time, nobody is complaining about a lack of background details. We don't care where Vader was born, or what his Social Security number is, or even who his boss is (in ESB). The point is, every action he takes on screen has crystal-fucking-clear motivations behind it. But in the Prequels, most of the actions taken by the villains have extremely hazy or broad motivations behind them. We can only infer why they're doing what they're doing, and this makes the movies less enjoyable.

The same way nobody cared if Luke would succumb to Vader and the Emperor's temptation in the original trilogy, despite their "philosophy" not being described beyond embracing the power of your rage. That IS the Sith's philosophy in case you weren't paying attention. Only the original trilogy that you give a free pass to didn't even bother naming the Sith. For two decades the Sith were running around without a name, defined by a mere two people, one of whom was never even properly named onscreen. Yet now you complain about how the prequel trilogy didn't give you anything to care about...when it was using the SAME villain as the original trilogy and in fact shed light on his rise to power.

The reason the original Trilogy doesn't name the Sith is because they didn't even exist at the time, beyond a mere label in Lucas's head or in the ANH screenplay. As far as the audience knew, Vader and Palpatine were simply Jedi who embraced the Dark Side. There was nothing else to explain.

Given the wild fanfiction I'm seeing in this thread about how it was REALLY about annexing Naboo I'm seeing here, I don't think everyone "knows."

No, we all know corporations hate taxes. It's just that you seem to think yelling "taxes!" magically solves all of the overwhelming writing issues which plague the Prequels. I mean, for Christ's sake, the Prequels are so fucking vague that when people first saw TPM it wasn't even clear that the Trade Federation was a fucking corporation. Even the owner of this website, who is a fan of the Prequels and devotes a lot of time to sci-fi analysis, writes in his analysis of TPM:

Very little is known about the Trade Federation. Is it a corporation? Is it a species? Is it the government of a planet? What are the motives of its leaders, and what is their grievance with Naboo or the Republic? We know only a handful of things.

Then, only after 7 paragraphs of in-depth analysis and speculation, he finally goes on to conclude that the Trade Federation is probably some type of shipping corporation controlled by a single species. You really fucking think an average movie-goer is going to even understand exactly what the Trade Federation is, let alone their reasons for invading Naboo, if even the owner of fucking stardestroyer.net wasn't initially certain?

Yeah, it doesn't take 7 paragraphs of analysis to demonstrate that the Empire from the OT is a militaristic, authoritarian dictatorship. That was made clear in one fucking scene. Jesus, I don't think even Lucas fully understands what the fuck happened in Phantom Menace.

But the Trade Federation, who are important antagonists throughout the first Prequel,

Despite the fact that the Sith Lord (who wears the same robes, has the same voice, and is played by the same actor as the Emperor in the original trilogy) is clearly in charge.

Are you denying that the Trade Federation plays a very important role in TPM? If they aren't important, then we shouldn't have to watch countless scenes of them deploying military equipment, marching battle droids around the city, and threatening people all the time. I mean, the entire sense of urgency which drives the film is based on the implication that the Trade Feds might be ruthless conquerors who are exterminating the Naboo populace.

But the Trade Federation, who are important antagonists throughout the first Prequel, are never given any comprehensible motivation for their actions beyond "we do whatever Palpatine says." Nobody knows what they're getting out of invading Naboo.

Second and third sentences of the fucking movie. They literally spell the words out onscreen for you. I already mentioned this, the movie mentioned this 11 years ago, but judging from all of this your reading comprehension is pathetic.

Bullshit. The opening crawl explains that the Trade Feds are protesting taxes by setting up a blockade to stop all shipments. You (and many other Prequel apologists) seem to be under the bizarre impression that this sentence somehow also explains 1) Exactly what the Trade Federation is, 2) What the Trade Feds gain by invading the planet, 3) Why they are taking orders from Palpatine.

Sure, all of this can be inferred to some extent by analyzing the movie; but the average movie-goer doesn't have time for that shit, and if the script doesn't make it obvious who the villains are and what motivates their on-screen actions, then the movie fails miserably.

Anakin's fall is no less detailed than the attempts to tempt Luke in the original trilogy. In fact it's FAR more detailed because the prequels have the benefit of reusing familiar concepts from the original trilogy while also focusing a lot more on Anakin's downfall.

I was talking about Anakin joining the Sith. If the nature of the Sith isn't important beyond the mere fact that they are evil force-users, then why introduce the term at all? Why suggest that the Sith were some sort of ancient race/order which has been extinct for 1,000 years and wants revenge for something? If the Sith aren't important, then the Prequels should have excised them altogether and simply continued with the simpler Light Side/Dark Side dynamic from the OT.

Fanboy geeks have an overinflated sense of their own opinion. I have NEVER heard this level of extensive bitching over how the Trade Federation's tax dispute was soooo hard to understand, or how the Sith (the same fucking guys from the originals, only now we have an actual onscreen name!) need to have their insignificant, disconnected thousand-year history spelled out for people, before. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess: are you guys getting this from Retarded Letter Media?

As much as I enjoyed the RLM reviews, the truth is there's really very little that is original in his analysis. He's popular because he's funny and somewhat insightful; not because he's really saying anything new. Most of the stuff in his reviews are the same complaints I've heard for years, minus the bitching about Jar Jar. If you actually think RLM is saying anything original, you must have been living in a cave for the past 10 years. I mean, the entire RLM review is summed up nicely by this review from 1999. Here we have all the familiar complaints: uninvolving characters, inexplicable plot, no real villains, etc. This guy even complains that:

The plot has something to do with a trade embargo being waged against a small planet called Naboo, an embargo that turns out to be a disguise for a planned full-scale invasion. We're never told what this tiny planet could possibly be worth to the enormous Trade Federation (the way we understand, in the first "Star Wars," what the baddies stand to gain from the elimination of the rebel forces), so the story's basic conflict has no weight.

Gee...sound familiar? I repeat, RLM may be funny, but he's not saying anything new.

Fanboy whiners think these movies were too vague to understand, children watched these movies just fine.

Bullshit. Children don't need to understand anything beyond "Darth Maul is awesome" in order to enjoy the movie.

Fanboys dramatically proclaim these movies to be "the worst movies ever" that "raped our childhoods"...normal people paid money to see thse movies in the theaters en masse.

The popularity of the Prequels is simply an extension of the popularity of the originals. Without the originals, nobody would care about these movies. Anyway, I don't think they're the "worst movies ever." I simply find them incredibly disappointing, if only because of the sharp contrast in quality with the originals. It's the same reason I found the new Star Trek movie disappointing - it utterly failed to live up to the material that preceded it.

And before you say that money does not equate to liking the movie, I'd like to point out that AOTC's CinemaScore (actual statistical exit polling of audiences, compiled from results in 25 major cities) was an A-. That's right, bet you didn't hear that on the revisionist history-propagating geek forum posts. CinemaScore is actually regarded as a very good gauge of mainstream audience reaction, so much that movie studios actually pay to receive this information after opening night to tailor their marketing campaigns. Good thing for the rest of us that such no-name publications as The Los Angeles Times and Entertainment Weekly make a regular habit of leaking the following week.

Firstly, you can't exactly judge the reaction to the Prequels in a vacuum. If it wasn't for the pre-existing Star Wars mythos, the Prequels would probably have done much worse than they did.

Secondly, exit polls are more of a measure of initial reaction than how well the films stand up over time. When I first saw TPM I didn't really hate it; I was just a bit underwhelmed. Although I certainly enjoyed the ending light-sabre battle on a purely visual level. But the movie simply doesn't stand up for long. Once the "gee-whiz" factor of the visuals wears off, the barely-intelligible plot and blank characters are revealed, and the movie has very little rewatchability. In contrast, most of the Original Trilogy was so well done that, not only do the films stand up over time, they've become monumental cultural icons. Both Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back are mentioned alongside movies like Citizen Kane and The Godfather in AFI top 100 lists. Do you seriously envision any of the Prequels ever reaching such heights?

Secondly, regardless of your attitude towards it, the fanboy reaction is, if anything, more significant than the general reaction. Fanboys are people who know and care more about these films than general audiences. General audiences can be pretty much wowed by anything (Pirates of the Carribean sequels or that abysmal new Star Trek movie). But if even the loyal Star Wars fanboys hate these movies, it says a lot about their quality.

Every performance metric, such as the massive box office holding strong throughout the first weekend (movies that perform badly go down after Friday from bad word of mouth) and the small, sub-50% drops between weekends (50% is normal, lower than that is good) indicates a movie that most people enjoyed. And oh yeah, AOTC made $300 million domestic. And hell, even the critic's 66% Rotten Tomatoes rating isn't that bad.

There's a pretty obvious contrast between the respective Rotten Tomato scores for the Prequels versus the Originals. 62% versus 94%, 66% versus 97%, and finally 80% versus 77%. Only Revenge of the Sith, which is widely considered to the best of the Prequels, barely manages to score above the worst of the originals.

Again, BULLSHIT. Again, from the original movies, we never know how the Empire came to power, who the Emperor is, what the Emperor's name even is, why Vader turned evil and decided to follow him, etc. They were the bad guys, that is all that mattered.

See above.

TELL ME WHAT VADER'S MOTIVATION IS. That's right, it isn't explored and is so vague that Lucas was able to make an entire prequel trilogy out of it 20 years after the fact. And again, the "motivations for on-screen actions" are retardedly simple and easily understood for children. The greedy Trade Federation doesn't like taxes, and made a deal with the Devil (one that they even worry about, onscreen) in the hopes of lifting them. Palpatine wants to take over the Republic.

Vader was tempted by the allure of the Dark Side; it's pretty simple.

AOTC never mentions anything about taxes. We just have to assume the Separatists want to secede due to some sort of discontent with the Republic, possibly related to taxes since that seemed to be an issue 10 years earlier in TPM.

Do you HONESTLY believe that the taxes (that were apparently so bad that the Trade Federation was willing to fight over them) magically disappeared after the TF lost at the end of TPM?

I have no idea; the movie doesn't say. AOTC begins by talking about some sort of turmoil where thousands of star systems want to secede from the Republic. The audience is given no indication whatsoever that this is somehow related to the conflict from TPM. In fact, we're explicitly led to believe that is an entirely different matter, via the dialogue about Count Dooku's political idealism. Only later in the film do we find out that the Trade Federation from the first movie is also somehow involved, and even then it's unclear what their role is in the whole conflict. But yeah, just keep on screaming "taxes" and hope that fixes the script.

[Jim Raynor]

There was never any vagueness as to Vader or Palpatine's nature in the Original Trilogy, because there was no concept of a "Sith".

So they're not vague...because there was almost no information on them. Great argument there.

There was simply a Light Side and a Dark Side of the Force, both of which were thoroughly fleshed out in ESB and ROTJ.

Which ceases to exist by 1999, right?

It is seriously astonishing to me how you keep missing the point. For the 1000th time, nobody is complaining about a lack of background details.

In this thread, I've had a gaggle of retards, including you, asking me a list of questions including:
-What the taxes were. (taxes on trade routes)
-Who passed the taxes. (really?)
-Why the Sith were extinct. (because the Jedi killed them)
-Why the Trade Federation cowards listened to Sidious. (because they're cowards and he's smarter and braver than they are)
-How Sidious first impressed the Trade Federation. (He's fucking Palpatine and controls the Republic)
-What is the prophecy. (watch ROTJ)
-Who made the prophecy (Jedi Master Bob did, OK?)
-Why GENERAL Grievous has verbal clout among the Separatists (I guess they just gave him a rank for fun)

So you can take your bullshit claim about how "nobody is complaining about a lack of background details" and shove it straight up your ass.

We don't care where Vader was born, or what his Social Security number is, or even who his boss is (in ESB). The point is, every action he takes on screen has crystal-fucking-clear motivations behind it.

Besides the fact that he betrayed the Jedi Order and joined the nameless Emperor...for some reason.

But in the Prequels, most of the actions taken by the villains have extremely hazy or broad motivations behind them.

Palpatine wants to seize control of the Republic. Trade Federation stooges want money. This isn't fucking rocket science.

The reason the original Trilogy doesn't name the Sith is because they didn't even exist at the time, beyond a mere label in Lucas's head or in the ANH screenplay. As far as the audience knew, Vader and Palpatine were simply Jedi who embraced the Dark Side. There was nothing else to explain.

So, a movie that comes two decades later, that uses and builds off the SAME characters that you've known for years, suddenly needs MORE explanation.

No, we all know corporations hate taxes. It's just that you seem to think yelling "taxes!" magically solves all of the overwhelming writing issues which plague the Prequels.

You're a brainless fucktard. There is no "overwhelming writing issue."

I mean, for Christ's sake, the Prequels are so fucking vague that when people first saw TPM it wasn't even clear that the Trade Federation was a fucking corporation.

They have a fucking trade franchise that they don't want revoked. It's fuckign OBVIOUS that they're looking after a business.

Even the owner of this website, who is a fan of the Prequels and devotes a lot of time to sci-fi analysis, writes in his analysis of TPM:

Very little is known about the Trade Federation. Is it a corporation? Is it a species? Is it the government of a planet? What are the motives of its leaders, and what is their grievance with Naboo or the Republic? We know only a handful of things.

Then, only after 7 paragraphs of in-depth analysis and speculation, he finally goes on to conclude that the Trade Federation is probably some type of shipping corporation controlled by a single species.

Oh look, invoking Mike Wong himself as some kind pseudo appeal to authority! The fact is that he goes over the simple facts and gets the right conclusion, they have a corporation. He made a SW website specifically to go into in-depth nitty gritty analysis, of both movie and EU sources. I could have arrived at the conclusion that they have a business after "They have a trade franchise." Or hell, just the name TRADE Federation. But that wouldn't make a very engaging fan website, would it?

Wong went into more detail than he had to, and even talked about things like their 2-mile wide ships and the level of immorality in their actions, which are irrelevant to the simple matter of whether they have a business.

You really fucking think an average movie-goer is going to even understand exactly what the Trade Federation is,

I understood it right away in the fucking theater, as a pimply shitbrained kid.

Are you denying that the Trade Federation plays a very important role in TPM?

You're a goddamed retard. Of course they play a part in the movie. Their motivation is fucking simple, immediately stated in the opening text, and of no consequence to the plot.

Bullshit. The opening crawl explains that the Trade Feds are protesting taxes by setting up a blockade to stop all shipments. You (and many other Prequel apologists) seem to be under the bizarre impression that this sentence somehow also explains 1) Exactly what the Trade Federation is, 2) What the Trade Feds gain by invading the planet, 3) Why they are taking orders from Palpatine.

But, but, but...No one here is demanding little bullshit background details!
1) They have a business and don't like taxes, that's all that matters.
2) Palpatine fucking told them to. They were fucking spooked by the Jedi at that point, and were convinced that they had to raise the stakes.
3) They're cowards and stupid businessmen who are out of their league. Palpatine presents himself as smarter and braver than they are. If you're not a fucking social retard you would realize that acting like this around pliable pussies can get them to listen to you.

Sure, all of this can be inferred to some extent by analyzing the movie; but the average movie-goer doesn't have time for that shit,

The average movie-goer knows they hate taxes and are using a show of force to get their way. Then they move on and watch lightsaber battles and explosions instead of bitching like some obsessive, aging fanwhore who wants an Expanded Universe encyclopedia inserted into the fucking movie itself.

I was talking about Anakin joining the Sith. If the nature of the Sith isn't important beyond the mere fact that they are evil force-users, then why introduce the term at all? Why suggest that the Sith were some sort of ancient race/order which has been extinct for 1,000 years and wants revenge for something?

Holy fucking shit. The Sith are Palpatine. Palpatine is the Sith. The Sith LITERALLY comes down to Palpatine and the one guy he chooses as his apprentice. Palpatine likes power and feeds off of anger. This was all established in the 70s and 80s.

As much as I enjoyed the RLM reviews, the truth is there's really very little that is original in his analysis.

I've seen very little that's mentally competent either.

He's popular because he's funny and somewhat insightful;

I suspect he's "popular" (nobody in the mainstream knows who the fuck he is) because retarded fanboy geeks identify with his nerdboy freakass persona. You will not find ANYONE in any other "entertainment" who talks like he does (droning on in the same freakass voice, I mean one-note "joke" for 70 straight fucking minutes, ooh "funny"). And from what I've seen, he knows his audience and is quite adept at the use of loaded language and bullshit editing techniques to make himself "look" like he's making a better point than he really is.

Fanboy whiners think these movies were too vague to understand, children watched these movies just fine.

Bullshit. Children don't need to understand anything beyond "Darth Maul is awesome" in order to enjoy the movie.

You say "bullshit"...then you follow with a sentence that supports my statements. You're hilarious. Kids and normal people watched these movies for action and adventure, and don't give a flying fuck over what the taxes were (as if "taxes" is such a vague fucking concept).

The popularity of the Prequels is simply an extension of the popularity of the originals. Without the originals, nobody would care about these movies.

Which is why actual audience polls gave these movies good grades, kids love them, and SW is still big business to this day. With a fucking TV series about the prequels, and not the original trilogy.

Firstly, you can't exactly judge the reaction to the Prequels in a vacuum. If it wasn't for the pre-existing Star Wars mythos, the Prequels would probably have done much worse than they did.

So, when I show actual evidence that most people like the movie, you respond with some UNSUPPORTED little sentence about how the prequels would have "done much worse" without the originals. This is SD.net, not some run-of-the-mill dipshit forum. Back up your fucking claims.

Of course a successful previous movie in the franchise helps, but that does NOT refute the evidence that people liked the movie.

Secondly, exit polls are more of a measure of initial reaction than how well the films stand up over time.

Yeah, and the small weekend drops don't matter either, right?

Once the "gee-whiz" factor of the visuals wears off, the barely-intelligible plot

You mean once the "gee-whiz" factor of the visuals failed off, and your barely-intelligent subhuman mind failed at further analysis.

Secondly, regardless of your attitude towards it, the fanboy reaction is, if anything, more significant than the general reaction.

Fanboys are a tiny fraction of the population, prone to bitching over nitty gritty bullshit. Also, geek does not equate to being smart; from my experience in various versus debates on forums many geek fanboys are utter retards.

Fanboys are people who know and care more about these films

Not here in this thread, where some fucktards actually asked me how GENERAL Grievous can order people around, and repeatedly stated that the Sith didn't do anything evil until Episode III. Or failed to wrap their tiny brains around the concept that old Obi-Wan was lying to Luke...

Effort and level of obsession does not equate to actual understanding, as proven by the laughable failure of a few fanboys here to understand some fucking simplisitic plot devices that don't go past the fucking surface.

Again, BULLSHIT. Again, from the original movies, we never know how the Empire came to power, who the Emperor is, what the Emperor's name even is, why Vader turned evil and decided to follow him, etc. They were the bad guys, that is all that mattered.

See above.

Your answer is "See above." You're fucking hilarious.

TELL ME WHAT VADER'S MOTIVATION IS. That's right, it isn't explored and is so vague that Lucas was able to make an entire prequel trilogy out of it 20 years after the fact. And again, the "motivations for on-screen actions" are retardedly simple and easily understood for children. The greedy Trade Federation doesn't like taxes, and made a deal with the Devil (one that they even worry about, onscreen) in the hopes of lifting them. Palpatine wants to take over the Republic.

Vader was tempted by the allure of the Dark Side; it's pretty simple.

OH WOW THAT'S FUCKING DEEP MAN.

You obviously can't see your hypocrisy, or the bullshit streaming out of your mouth.

I have no idea; the movie doesn't say. AOTC begins by talking about some sort of turmoil where thousands of star systems want to secede from the Republic. The audience is given no indication whatsoever that this is somehow related to the conflict from TPM.

[/quote]

Despite the SAME guys from the Trade Federation showing up again. Despite earlier scenes in the movies referencing the fallout of TPM, and casting suspicion on the Trade Federation Viceroy as someone who may want revenge on Padme. Despite the Trade Federation losing at the end of TPM and NOT getting its way. Despite the Republic Senate being blatantly pathetic as a form of central government, that fails to look after the interests of its own member worlds. Despite Palpatine, the former senator of NABOO, who was elected after pointing out the Senate's failure to stop the Trade Federation's previous antics, being the fucking CHANCELLOR for TEN years.

But no, we don't have any idea why the Separatists want to secede.

EDIT: quotes

[Srelex]

As an unrelated side note, the fat whiner behind this video has now done a review of Crystal Skull. Because the world needs more nerd-whining on that.

[Jim Raynor]

As an unrelated side note, the fat whiner behind this video has now done a review of Crystal Skull. Because the world needs more nerd-whining on that.

Someone please tell me if he bitched about how "unrealistic" UFOs are, as if the mythological sky fairy isn't.

[Channel72]

There was never any vagueness as to Vader or Palpatine's nature in the Original Trilogy, because there was no concept of a "Sith".

So they're not vague...because there was almost no information on them. Great argument there.

There was simply a Light Side and a Dark Side of the Force, both of which were thoroughly fleshed out in ESB and ROTJ.

Which ceases to exist by 1999, right?

Whatever point you're trying to make is utterly lost in the way you've snipped up this post. What are you saying here? I complained originally that the Prequels fail to provide the necessary information to make the Sith compelling villains. You then responded that the originals never even mention the Sith at all. To this, I responded by essentially saying that the Originals are under no obligation to clairvoyantly explain stupid Prequel bullshit. The Originals had no concept of the Sith order; they simply had a Light Side and a Dark Side, which was very well explained in ESB and ROTJ. So what is your point then?

In this thread, I've had a gaggle of retards, including you, asking me a list of questions including:
-What the taxes were. (taxes on trade routes)
-Who passed the taxes. (really?)
-Why the Sith were extinct. (because the Jedi killed them)
-Why the Trade Federation cowards listened to Sidious. (because they're cowards and he's smarter and braver than they are)
-How Sidious first impressed the Trade Federation. (He's fucking Palpatine and controls the Republic)
-What is the prophecy. (watch ROTJ)
-Who made the prophecy (Jedi Master Bob did, OK?)
-Why GENERAL Grievous has verbal clout among the Separatists (I guess they just gave him a rank for fun)

So you can take your bullshit claim about how "nobody is complaining about a lack of background details" and shove it straight up your ass.

Some of these questions are not necessary. We don't need to know why Grievous was appointed a General. Nonetheless, the motivations which drive on-screen actions in the PT are not very clear. It's hilarious how you can't see the obvious contrast in clarity between the motivations in the OT versus the PT. Every single action taken by Darth Vader in the OT has crystal-clear motivations behind it, from his initial assault on the Tantive IV, to his attack on Hoth. In contrast, the Prequel villains have only vague, broad motivations backing up their on-screen actions. You still can't explain exactly why the Trade Federation invaded Naboo, other than to vaguely infer that Palpatine promised them favors, or somehow convinced them it would be a profitable venture. The OT has none of this vague shit. Darth Vader attacked the Tantive IV because he wanted the Death Star plans; end of story. He attacked Hoth because he wanted to destroy the rebels and capture Skywalker; very clear.

But in the Prequels, most of the actions taken by the villains have extremely hazy or broad motivations behind them.

Palpatine wants to seize control of the Republic. Trade Federation stooges want money. This isn't fucking rocket science.

What utter bullshit. How do you go from "wants money" to "invades backwater planet"? How do you bridge that fucking gap? Oh that's right, you don't, except with vague non-answers like "Palpatine promised them something."

The reason the original Trilogy doesn't name the Sith is because they didn't even exist at the time, beyond a mere label in Lucas's head or in the ANH screenplay. As far as the audience knew, Vader and Palpatine were simply Jedi who embraced the Dark Side. There was nothing else to explain.

So, a movie that comes two decades later, that uses and builds off the SAME characters that you've known for years, suddenly needs MORE explanation.

It does if it's introducing a new order of force users called the "Sith" who have been extinct for 1,000 years who will play a direct role in the fall of the main character.

Oh look, invoking Mike Wong himself as some kind pseudo appeal to authority! The fact is that he goes over the simple facts and gets the right conclusion, they have a corporation. He made a SW website specifically to go into in-depth nitty gritty analysis, of both movie and EU sources. I could have arrived at the conclusion that they have a business after "They have a trade franchise." Or hell, just the name TRADE Federation. But that wouldn't make a very engaging fan website, would it?

Wong went into more detail than he had to, and even talked about things like their 2-mile wide ships and the level of immorality in their actions, which are irrelevant to the simple matter of whether they have a business.

You obviously have no idea what an appeal to authority is, and it's painfully obvious that you're just trying to dodge the point here. You've made the bullshit claim that anyone, even a child, should have no difficulty understanding the character motivations in this movie. And yet, here we have a dedicated sci-fi geek going on for 7 fucking paragraphs, quoting both the film and the novelization, to justify a conclusion derived from "sketchy evidence" (his words) about what the Trade Federation is and why they're invading Naboo. Your attempt to pass this off as merely a result of "nitty gritty" analysis is beyond pathetic. Sorry, but you don't see anyone writing "nitty gritty" articles which try to figure out exactly what the Empire is and why they want the Death Star plans, do you? No, because there's nothing to figure out: it's fucking obvious. There's nothing "sketchy" about the OT at all.

And the name "Trade Federation" doesn't imply a company. It sounds more like some mercantile organization composed of Republic member worlds similar to the WTO or EFTA or something. In reality, those organizations don't have a military, but neither do real life corporations. Yeah, the line about their "franchise" and the protestation of taxes suggests a private corporation, but it's not like this is patently obvious given the other things we see which suggest something more than a company, such as Senate representation and a private military. The point is, it's not even obvious what the Trade Federation is, let alone why they're invading Naboo. Contrast this bullshit with Alien where it's plainly spelled-out that "The Company" is an interstellar, mega-corporation that values profit over human-life, and wants the alien specimen for their bio-weapons division.

You really fucking think an average movie-goer is going to even understand exactly what the Trade Federation is,

I understood it right away in the fucking theater, as a pimply shitbrained kid.

That's because you're a brilliant genius who truly appreciates the misunderstood masterpiece that Lucas blessed us with.

Bullshit. The opening crawl explains that the Trade Feds are protesting taxes by setting up a blockade to stop all shipments. You (and many other Prequel apologists) seem to be under the bizarre impression that this sentence somehow also explains 1) Exactly what the Trade Federation is, 2) What the Trade Feds gain by invading the planet, 3) Why they are taking orders from Palpatine.

But, but, but...No one here is demanding little bullshit background details!
1) They have a business and don't like taxes, that's all that matters.
2) Palpatine fucking told them to. They were fucking spooked by the Jedi at that point, and were convinced that they had to raise the stakes.
3) They're cowards and stupid businessmen who are out of their league. Palpatine presents himself as smarter and braver than they are. If you're not a fucking social retard you would realize that acting like this around pliable pussies can get them to listen to you.

Bullshit background details? You mean the motivation behind the invasion of Naboo...which is basically the entire plot of the movie? Yeah, "background details."

Anyway:

So in other words, you don't know exactly why they're invading other than "Palpatine told them to." Regardless, your answer to number 2 is bullshit anyway. The movie clearly suggests that their plan all along involved invading the planet; the Trade Feds were preparing for the invasion well before the Jedi arrived. They weren't "spooked" into doing anything, other than accelerating their preexisting plan for the invasion. We're never told why they're invading in the first place. But it's okay, I understand that you're a bit confused; this movie does that to people.

The average movie-goer knows they hate taxes and are using a show of force to get their way. Then they move on and watch lightsaber battles and explosions instead of bitching like some obsessive, aging fanwhore who wants an Expanded Universe encyclopedia inserted into the fucking movie itself.

There you go, trying to pretend that we're talking about background details rather than critical plot elements and character motivations. Since you're evidently too retarded to understand this simple point, perhaps you'd like to try taking the following Star Wars quiz and we'll see how well you do.

1) Why did Darth Vader attack the Tantive IV?

• A) Because Palpatine told him to
  B) To avoid taxes
  C) Profit
  D) Because he suspected they were carrying secret military schematics that could endanger the Empire

2) Why did Jabba the Hutt hire a bounty hunter to capture Han Solo?

• A) Because Palpatine told him to
  B) Taxes
  C) Profit
  D) Because Solo lost valuable cargo which belonged to Jabba and delayed paying him back

3) Why did Vader pursue the Falcon in Empire Strikes Back?

• A) Because Palpatine told him to
  B) To avoid taxes
  C) Taxes!!!
  D) Because he was after Skywalker and wanted to turn him to the Dark Side.

4) Why did the Trade Federation invade Naboo in The Phantom Menace?

• A) Because Palpatine told them to
  B) To avoid taxes
  C) Profit?
  D) Because they were after a secret Gungan mystery orb which held the key to Galactic domination

Hmm... it seems that the correct answer to every question except (4) is something concrete and tangible that drives the plot forward, whereas the correct answer to (4) is just some vague bullshit that doesn't interest anyone except Prequel apologists.

I was talking about Anakin joining the Sith. If the nature of the Sith isn't important beyond the mere fact that they are evil force-users, then why introduce the term at all? Why suggest that the Sith were some sort of ancient race/order which has been extinct for 1,000 years and wants revenge for something?

Holy fucking shit. The Sith are Palpatine. Palpatine is the Sith. The Sith LITERALLY comes down to Palpatine and the one guy he chooses as his apprentice. Palpatine likes power and feeds off of anger. This was all established in the 70s and 80s.

What's your point here? In the 70s and 80s Palpatine was a Dark Jedi. The Sith were only introduced (cinematically) in the Prequels, and they apparently have some history which is never explained beyond a few lines of dialogue. If the Sith aren't important, then why this talk about a 1,000 year absence, rule of two, Darth Plagueis, etc.?

I suspect he's "popular" (nobody in the mainstream knows who the fuck he is) because retarded fanboy geeks identify with his nerdboy freakass persona. You will not find ANYONE in any other "entertainment" who talks like he does (droning on in the same freakass voice, I mean one-note "joke" for 70 straight fucking minutes, ooh "funny"). And from what I've seen, he knows his audience and is quite adept at the use of loaded language and bullshit editing techniques to make himself "look" like he's making a better point than he really is.

Yes, yes, you don't like him. I get it. Don't worry, I'm sure one day you'll expose "Retarded Letter Media" for the sinister, deceitful editor he is. (Tip: you can also use "Retarded Lame Media" or "Red Letter Moron").

Anyway, I take it by your silence that you concede the point that RLM's specific criticisms regarding the Trade Federation's motivations are nothing new?

You say "bullshit"...then you follow with a sentence that supports my statements. You're hilarious. Kids and normal people watched these movies for action and adventure, and don't give a flying fuck over what the taxes were (as if "taxes" is such a vague fucking concept).

In other words, you can't really explain a lot of the shit that happens in these movies beyond vague, non-answers, and so you have to resort to this bullshit where you claim that "normal" people love this movie, and don't care about things like "character motivation" and "plot".

Yeah, I guess "normal people" obviously means people who agree with you, right? All those critics who voiced similar opinions about the movie's unintelligible plot details are obviously "abnormal" fanboys in league with "Retarded Letter Media".

Which is why actual audience polls gave these movies good grades, kids love them, and SW is still big business to this day. With a fucking TV series about the prequels, and not the original trilogy.

That's fine; it's good that Lucas is providing entertainment to a lot of children these days. He's obviously decided to take the franchise in a more "kid-friendly" direction; he's bound to have a lot of success with that. I've even seen a few episodes of the Clone Wars CGI series on the Internet, and I was actually pleasantly surprised. The effects are wonderful, and Anakin doesn't come off as a belligerent, whiny asshole. He's actually likeable as a character. Where the fuck was this Anakin when I was watching the Prequels?

But don't kid yourself; unless Lucas starts caring again about things like "character development" and "dialogue", the Star Wars franchise will never reach the cinematic heights of the Original Trilogy. The Clone Wars TV series is pretty good for a kid's show from what I've seen, and the Prequels are mediocre with some okay moments, but the Original Trilogy will probably be remembered as a classic for hundreds of years to come, whereas all of the Prequel-related material will probably fade into obscurity along with all the other pop-culture garbage of this decade.

So, when I show actual evidence that most people like the movie, you respond with some UNSUPPORTED little sentence about how the prequels would have "done much worse" without the originals. This is SD.net, not some run-of-the-mill dipshit forum. Back up your fucking claims.

Of course a successful previous movie in the franchise helps, but that does NOT refute the evidence that people liked the movie.

Don't lecture me about evidence when you obviously need a lecture about reading comprehension. My original statement wasn't intended to refute evidence that people liked the movie; it was intended as an explanation for the evidence you presented. Since you seem to AGREE with me that the success of the previous movies in the franchise contributed to the success of the Prequels, you're not even debating me here; you're just spewing meaningless bluster.

Fanboys are people who know and care more about these films

Not here in this thread, where some fucktards actually asked me how GENERAL Grievous can order people around, and repeatedly stated that the Sith didn't do anything evil until Episode III. Or failed to wrap their tiny brains around the concept that old Obi-Wan was lying to Luke...

Effort and level of obsession does not equate to actual understanding, as proven by the laughable failure of a few fanboys here to understand some fucking simplisitic plot devices that don't go past the fucking surface.

I really wouldn't trust you to make such a judgment, as so far you haven't proven capable of even understanding such simple concepts as "character motivation."

Despite the SAME guys from the Trade Federation showing up again. Despite earlier scenes in the movies referencing the fallout of TPM, and casting suspicion on the Trade Federation Viceroy as someone who may want revenge on Padme. Despite the Trade Federation losing at the end of TPM and NOT getting its way. Despite the Republic Senate being blatantly pathetic as a form of central government, that fails to look after the interests of its own member worlds. Despite Palpatine, the former senator of NABOO, who was elected after pointing out the Senate's failure to stop the Trade Federation's previous antics, being the fucking CHANCELLOR for TEN years.

But no, we don't have any idea why the Separatists want to secede.

You're full of shit. Unless the screenplay comes out and says it clearly, or somehow demonstrates it through on-screen character actions, then it's not going to be obvious to anyone except hardcore fans. I doubt most casual movie-goers had any understanding of why the Separatists wanted to secede. But don't worry, I know you didn't have any problem because you're obviously a genius who appreciates these misunderstood masterpieces on their own terms.

Anyway, I checked the script, and the secession is discussed three times throughout the film, each time in extremely vague terms. The opening crawl says nothing of the Trade Federation or taxes; it only mentions Count Dooku, who at this point is an unknown new character. Then there is a discussion in Palpatine's office; here they discuss possible culprits for Amidala's assassination attempts and Dooku's political idealism. Again, nothing about taxes or the Trade Federation is mentioned here. Finally, we have a scene involving the new Queen of Naboo where at last some information about these Separatists is divulged.

Yet very little is actually explained here either, other than the fact that the Separatists may "turn to" the Commerce Guild or Trade Federation for military assistance, which implies the Trade Federation isn't necessarily even involved at this point. Again, no mention of taxes, so you're obviously just bullshitting as usual. At this point, there's no reason the audience should connect this current crisis with some shit that happened 10 years ago in the previous movie. Again, you give this movie a lot more leeway in terms of exposition than is usually considered acceptable for a mainstream blockbuster movie, and again, I challenge you to give me an example of a similarly successful movie which fails to provide clear exposition for the motivations behind the main conflict in the film.

Anyway, finally, we have the scene on Geonosis where the various corporate leaders, along with Count Dooku, discuss their plans to create a unified droid army. It seems like we're getting somewhere, but again, no reason is given for their secession, other than apparently a desire to overthrow the Jedi. (Why these corporations give a shit about the Jedi is not explained; maybe they're using "Jedi" and "Republic" interchangeably.) Again, nothing is mentioned about taxes, so you're inferences, while probably correct, are not explicit in the film and you can't possibly expect general audiences to figure out exactly why the Separatists want to secede beyond the basic fact that these are all "bad guys" apparently.

[Jim Raynor]

There was never any vagueness as to Vader or Palpatine's nature in the Original Trilogy, because there was no concept of a "Sith".

So they're not vague...because there was almost no information on them. Great argument there.

There was simply a Light Side and a Dark Side of the Force, both of which were thoroughly fleshed out in ESB and ROTJ.

Which ceases to exist by 1999, right?

Whatever point you're trying to make is utterly lost in the way you've snipped up this post. What are you saying here?

You don't understand because your reading comprehension is utter ass. As has been proven throughout this entire thread here. Get back on the short bus you god damn retard.

I complained originally that the Prequels fail to provide the necessary information to make the Sith compelling villains. You then responded that the originals never even mention the Sith at all. To this, I responded by essentially saying that the Originals are under no obligation to clairvoyantly explain stupid Prequel bullshit.

Which is bullshit, BECAUSE THE ORIGINALS DON'T EXPLAIN THE EMPIRE, THE NAMELESS EMPEROR, OR VADER EITHER. Which was my fucking point, not your bullshit about how the originals hve to "clairvoyantly explain" the prequels.

The Originals had no concept of the Sith order; they simply had a Light Side and a Dark Side, which was very well explained in ESB and ROTJ.

"Very well explained." Yeah, the bad guys (whatever they are or how they came to be) feed on fear and aggression...that's it. You're a hypocrite.

So what is your point then?

Point is that the originals were just as vague, and also that the prequels are building off of what has ALREADY been accepted in the originals.

Some of these questions are not necessary.

None of them are necessary.

We don't need to know why Grievous was appointed a General.

So call that other guy a fucktard for asking me how a fucking GENERAL (must be a fake honorary rank, I presume ) can order people around. Because that's what he is.

Nonetheless, the motivations which drive on-screen actions in the PT are not very clear. It's hilarious how you can't see the obvious contrast in clarity between the motivations in the OT versus the PT. Every single action taken by Darth Vader in the OT has crystal-clear motivations behind it, from his initial assault on the Tantive IV, to his attack on Hoth. In contrast, the Prequel villains have only vague, broad motivations backing up their on-screen actions. You still can't explain exactly why the Trade Federation invaded Naboo, other than to vaguely infer that Palpatine promised them favors, or somehow convinced them it would be a profitable venture.

Oh my fucking God. I can't explain why the TF invaded Naboo...to make a show of force and strongarm the Republic into lifting the taxes. Holy shit, we've gone over this how many times? Sidious convinces them that he'll have their back ("I'll make it legal"). This isn't fucking hard.

What utter bullshit. How do you go from "wants money" to "invades backwater planet"? How do you bridge that fucking gap?

You keep asking the same question, even after the easy answer has been shoved in your face again and again. Either you're fucking trolling, or you're a moron with the reading comprehension of a drug-addled retard.

Oh that's right, you don't, except with vague non-answers like "Palpatine promised them something."

NO YOU FUCKTARD. It's the completely non-vague answer of "we'll use force to make things go our way."

It does if it's introducing a new order of force users called the "Sith" who have been extinct for 1,000 years who will play a direct role in the fall of the main character.

You're an idiot. ONCE AGAIN, the Sith are Palpatine, Palpatine is the Sith. We see EVERYTHING we need to know about how they operate in the here and now, in the original trilogy (by YOUR admission, since you think the original trilogy tells us everything we need to know about its villains).

I've already said it before, but apparently you're reading-impaired: The Sith allow Palpatine to have training and Jedi-like powers, without ever being a Jedi. This is essential for the story because Palpatine operates in the open as a public figure, not as an ex-Jedi. The audience ALREADY knows how these Sith work.

You obviously have no idea what an appeal to authority is, and it's painfully obvious that you're just trying to dodge the point here.

I'm not dodging shit here. If anyone is full of shit it's you. You've taken a page right out of Retarded Letter Media's propaganda playbook, with your bullshit about how Wong needed "7 paragraphs" to figure out what the Trade Federation is. I'll do it in a few sentences:

-They have Senate representation. They must be a bunch of worlds in the Republic.
-They have "Trade" in their name, they oppose taxes on trade, and they have a trade franchise. They operate in the trade business.
-Conclusion: They're either a powerful corporation with a private army, or a group of worlds held together by trade agreements. Could be both.

Wow, that took sooooo fucking long. Go fuck yourself you little shit. Actually, go fuck your favorite fanwhore crush Retarded Letter Media.

And the name "Trade Federation" doesn't imply a company. It sounds more like some mercantile organization composed of Republic member worlds similar to the WTO or EFTA or something. In reality, those organizations don't have a military, but neither do real life corporations.

No such thing as the East India Trading Company? No such thing as mercenaries or security divisions, right? No such thing as state-run businesses? Go fuck yourself again, for your ignorance.

You really fucking think an average movie-goer is going to even understand exactly what the Trade Federation is,

I understood it right away in the fucking theater, as a pimply shitbrained kid.

That's because you're a brilliant genius who truly appreciates the misunderstood masterpiece that Lucas blessed us with.

Look. It's not that I'm so fucking smart. It's that you set the bar so fucking low. The movie is fucking simple and written for children, yet you continually display your ignorance and abnormal thought processes with the way that you just don't get it.

Bullshit background details? You mean the motivation behind the invasion of Naboo...which is basically the entire plot of the movie?

NO YOU FUCKTARD!!!! The "entire plot" of the movie is the conspiracy to destabilize the Republic and fucking Jesus boy.

And again, the supposedly-elusive motivation is to make a show of force and protest the the taxes. You're a fucking idiot.

Regardless, your answer to number 2 is bullshit anyway. The movie clearly suggests that their plan all along involved invading the planet; the Trade Feds were preparing for the invasion well before the Jedi arrived.

Palpatine of course included it in the plans. The Trade Federation was hesitant to actually go that far, and wasn't even sure if they could pass it off as "legal." You god damn idiot.

They weren't "spooked" into doing anything,

Sure they weren't.

4) Why did the Trade Federation invade Naboo in The Phantom Menace?

• A) Because Palpatine told them to
  B) To avoid taxes
  C) Profit?
  D) Because they were after a secret Gungan mystery orb which held the key to Galactic domination

E: You're a brainless fucktard who doesn't understand that they were making a bigger show of force in the hopes that the Republic would concede to their demands.

The Sith were only introduced (cinematically) in the Prequels, and they apparently have some history which is never explained beyond a few lines of dialogue. If the Sith aren't important, then why this talk about a 1,000 year absence, rule of two, Darth Plagueis, etc.?

TO LET PALPATINE HAVE JEDI-LIKE POWERS WITHOUT EVER BEING A JEDI.

I've gone over this how many times now? Try to keep up.

Anyway, I take it by your silence that you concede the point that RLM's specific criticisms regarding the Trade Federation's motivations are nothing new?

If by "silence" you mean "trash talk" Retarded Letter Media is an example of an extremist who goes way too far in BAD analysis, asking stupid questions everywhere when the easy answers exist. Sorry, I don't know many (if any) other people like him.

Yeah, I guess "normal people" obviously means people who agree with you, right? All those critics who voiced similar opinions about the movie's unintelligible plot details are obviously "abnormal" fanboys in league with "Retarded Letter Media".

I heard lots of bitching over Jar Jar, "wooden" acting, kiddie Anakin, CGI, etc. Not "ZOMG I'M TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND TAXES"...and if a critic says that too, then yes he's also a fucktard.

Don't lecture me about evidence when you obviously need a lecture about reading comprehension.

ROFLMAO!

This coming from the idiot who thinks that "taxes" are some kind of mysterious concept.

I really wouldn't trust you to make such a judgment, as so far you haven't proven capable of even understanding such simple concepts as "character motivation."

"I really wouldn't trust you to make such a judgment."

Are you DENYING that some fucktard didn't know what a GENERAL rank entails? Or that some other fucktard doesn't know that ObiWan was lying?

You're full of shit. Unless the screenplay comes out and says it clearly, or somehow demonstrates it through on-screen character actions, then it's not going to be obvious to anyone except hardcore fans.

Translation: You need things spelled out for you.

I doubt most casual movie-goers had any understanding of why the Separatists wanted to secede.

You think everyone is as dumb as you.

[Elfdart]

In contrast, most of the Original Trilogy was so well done that, not only do the films stand up over time, they've become monumental cultural icons. Both Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back are mentioned alongside movies like Citizen Kane and The Godfather in AFI top 100 lists. Do you seriously envision any of the Prequels ever reaching such heights?

You really are an ignoramus, aren't you? A number of the films on the AFI lists were panned or got lukewarm reviews when they were first released. John Ford's The Searchers is #1 on the Westerns list and #12 overall. On top of that, it's arguably the most influental film of the last 50 years with Lawrence of Arabia, Once Upon a Time in the West, Taxi Driver, Star Wars and countless other movies copying the film in one way or another. Even people who despise John Wayne think it's a classic. Yet it got mediocre reviews, wasn't nominated for any awards and only did so-so at the box office. The same can be said for The Wizard of Oz.

There's a pretty obvious contrast between the respective Rotten Tomato scores for the Prequels versus the Originals. 62% versus 94%, 66% versus 97%, and finally 80% versus 77%. Only Revenge of the Sith, which is widely considered to the best of the Prequels, barely manages to score above the worst of the originals.

This bullshit has already been debunked on this site before. When the OT films were released the got MUCH worse reviews than the ones they got recently:

Tomatometer Ranking of Star Wars Series Based on Critical Reaction During Original Release Dates:
83% - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
79% - Star Wars
65% - Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
62% - Star wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
52% - The Empire Strikes Back
31% - Return of the Jedi

Not that I really give a greasy goat's dick what movie critics think. But then, I have the advantage of being able to think for myself rather than letting critics -or worse yet- Heathcliff do it for me.

[Darth Yan]

His main claim about the aliens is that they seemed out of place; the other 3 had fantasy, this was too hard sci fi. I actually felt similar and I ENJOYED the movie

[Big Orange]

The so-called Distressed Watcher (also known as the Amazing Athiest on YouTube) has done a review on The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Not impressed, I can't be fooked to see the review through properly. I kinda found him alright when he had Trailer Failure, but he's gone off the rails bigtime in recent months: as loathsome as Tramsformers: Revenge of Fallen is, him ranting about wanting to send fans of that shit movie to deathcamps was crossing the line, no wonder the TGWTG team and forum members had tried to vote him off the site on two occasions. He comes across as a genuinely anti-social dick - the Cinema Snob has a "conscending prick" act, but at least he has a trinkle in his eye and seems wittier - the DW just seems to rant at the camera.

[Srelex]

I found his Signs review decent enough, if only for the bit at the end, but now he's just become a speaking version of your standard whiner on an IMDB board.