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

[Googley]

Jesus fucking christ, slicing an argument up sentence by sentence is just plain asinine. Take note folks: this is what it looks like when someone misses the bigger picture.

The taxes and Palpitine's politicking are a PLOT DEVICE just like the stolen Death Star Plans. More detail wouldn't solve things, because at the end of the day it would still be a mere diversion from the actual story. Palpitine is obviously motivated by power and gaining more of it, the Trad Fed are obviously motivated by money and getting more of it. The taxes, regardless of whether Naboo supported or hated them, are merely a means to an end for Palpitine-- he is, after all, the senator for goddamn Naboo. The rest is, as you put it, HOW questions and therefor irrelevant nitpicky shit.

You sliced up someone elses argument last page. You're misusing "therefor". There is no such emperor as Palpitine. Oh, and your mother dresses you funny.

[Formless]

Wow, I haven't seen a post so devoid in content or thought in a long time. No attempt to respond to my point, skips straight to the insults... hmmm... quite the intellectual heavyweight, isn't this one?

Also, responding to individual points in an argument and cutting up a post into its constituent sentences are two different things. I won't claim I'm perfect, but man that's pretty disingenuous if you can't see the difference.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

Jesus fucking christ, slicing an argument up sentence by sentence is just plain asinine. Take note folks: this is what it looks like when someone misses the bigger picture.

The taxes and Palpitine's politicking are a PLOT DEVICE just like the stolen Death Star Plans. More detail wouldn't solve things, because at the end of the day it would still be a mere diversion from the actual story. Palpitine is obviously motivated by power and gaining more of it, the Trad Fed are obviously motivated by money and getting more of it. The taxes, regardless of whether Naboo supported or hated them, are merely a means to an end for Palpitine-- he is, after all, the senator for goddamn Naboo. The rest is, as you put it, HOW questions and therefor irrelevant nitpicky shit.

I'm assuming you support Raynor's rebuttal so I find it odd you'd be upset by someone slicing up an argument to address each point.

You're correct, the taxes and politicking are plot devices. They're just not very good ones. Lucas could have made the Trade Federation anything he wanted, a rouge system out to conquer the peaceful naboo or a greedy corporation that wanted naboo's resources, really anything that clearly defined their motivation. All the tax stuff was just ridiculous and confusing, sure in the end you get the point "TF is evil, they work for the main bad guy" but the man had 30 years to write this story and he came up with a trade route dispute as his first plot device? And you really want to defend that?

As for it being a diversion from the actual story... what is the actual story? Because it seems like the story is the battle of naboo and the rise of a phantom menace in the senate, both of which are tied to that first plot device of tax routes that no one seems to have a clear grasp on. That when the plot device becomes a plot hole.

[Lagmonster]

Smarmy one-liner by Darth Fanboy put in the Barrel.

[Formless]

I'm assuming you support Raynor's rebuttal so I find it odd you'd be upset by someone slicing up an argument to address each point.

I do support Raynors rebuttal-- RLM is one of two people who has managed to improve my opinion of the Prequels due to how horrible his reviews are. The other was Mike Wong for the opposite reason.

However, there is a difference between slicing up an argument into its constituent points and slicing it up into its constituent sentences, especially when you are arguing on a forum. The first allows you to go through an argument piece by piece, and the pieces are relevant. When you do it by the sentences, you are just arbitrarily inflating the length of the post and making it a headache to read (for the same reason as the TL;DR effect, but worse IMO). You might notice that Raynor only quotes a select few statements by Plinkett that summarize what Plinkett has to say in that section of the review, rather than every word that comes out of his mouth. Its for the same reason: its already 108 pages long, it would do no good to make it longer.

Yes, the former can be misused and unnecessary too, and that's why I stopped using it in this thread. But the latter is almost never necessary and almost always hinders communication.

Now, as for your arguments:

1) That the Trade Federation could have been anyone.

Technically, yes. They could have, but I don't see how "greedy businessmen with a private army" is a particularly bad choice. Especially considering that Lucas wanted to inject a little modern political subtext-- politicians bowing to special interests and corruption? Hmm, that does sound a lot like the modern political atmosphere. Or at least like some interpretations of it, I won't argue if you have a different one. That's beyond the scope of this thread.

2) That the taxes as a plot device added unnecessary confusion to the movie.

It has been a while since I watched the movie, but I don't remember ever really having a problem with this. It sounds like people were confused because of Palpitine's behavior and language on the Senate floor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that scene was pretty straightforward. No one liked Chancellor Valorum. Naboo didn't like him because he wouldn't stop the Trade Federation blockade, the Trade Federation didn't like him because he wouldn't repeal the taxes they were protesting or even come to a compromise. So when Palpitine got up to speak and call for a Vote of No Confidence, the various motivations of the different parties became of secondary interest to him so long as he could convince them they had a common enemy in Valorum-- consistent with his own motives and manipulative skillset. His language was chosen to appeal to as many people in that room as possible, even those people who were enemies otherwise.

3) Lucas had 30 years to work on this, and this was the best he could do?

I highly doubt he spent all of the time between 1983 and 1999 thinking about the Star Wars Saga. He produced many other movies between that time, like the Indiana Jones trilogy, and there is the special edition release to consider. By the way, those are the release dates between RotJ and TPM-- 16 years, not 30, and the script writing process for TPM obviously started quite a bit sooner than that.

4) What is the story of TPM?

The actual story is... well, that's a little harder to define. Star Wars has an ensemble cast rather than one protagonist, which makes things more complicated by nature. You do have the rise of Palpitine, and as I already explained its not all that complicated-- Palpitine leveraged his way into power by playing off everyone's mutual enemy, Valorum. That involved the Taxes, but they weren't of central importance like people think. You also have the story of Anakin; how he managed to escape slavery, became a hero and ultimately a Jedi. You have the story of how Obi Wan came to be in charge of Anakin and had to suffer the loss of his mentor. Padme's story of how she learned responsibility and independence. And so on. Now, we can debate how well the movie deals with these various threads, but that would be a very different conversation than debating how confusing the taxes and politicking were or weren't.

[Elfdart]

How is the stuff about Qui-Gon not in the movie? Qui-Gon is an obvious father figure and his role in the plot (particularly his religious views and role towards Obi-Wan) are explicit.

To be fair, you have an entire generation where the overwhelming number of depictions of father figures in movies and TV shows portray them as bungling fools, inept losers and domineering brutes. The idea of a kindly father figure who isn't a putz is pretty alien to many people of a certain age.

[Elfdart]

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

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

Heathcliff seems awfully thin-skinned.

[Elfdart]

Boba Fett wants the Bounty on Han Solo's head.
Jabba the Hutt wants Solo to pay for dumping his illegal cargo and not paying up.

Their motivations are clear

You still can't even tell me what the Trade Federation is doing there.

You see the problem? No, of course you don't. Because you're a moron.

Since you obviously haven't watched the movie, maybe someone should explain it to you:

When one company/corporation/political entity is forced to pay a tax that others are exempted from paying, they tend to resent it. Why did they pick on Naboo? Well, using the powers of deductive reasoning one would conclude that Naboo doesn't fall under these taxes (either Naboo itself is exempt, or it has access to a trade route outside the control of the Federation).

Imagine if, during the bad old days when the Teamsters and the Mob were joined at the hip, and Congress had passed a new tax on all freight carried by the Teamsters. Not only would non-union drivers face the wrath of the Teamsters (slashed tires, burned/looted stores, drivers beaten/killed, etc), but so would businesses who used drivers who weren't Teamsters.

Does the EU suddenly matter?

In the movie, Palpatine said this: "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."

Why would he say that if the taxation was his idea? It sounds to me like he didn't even support it.

So why was Naboo was singled out by the Trade Federation? The movie is clear as mud on this point.

Who knows if he did or he didn't? It doesn't matter since (a) he would have exploited it either way and (b) shameless hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand: real life Senators support one measure or another only to denounce those same things later.

Yes, it is vague, which also means unclear. That's my point.

Did Naboo support or oppose the taxes? Palpatine said that the tragedy started with the taxation, which implies the latter, so why would the Trade Federation blame their political allies?

Yes, I need it spelled out for me. Kinda like in how ANH when we're actually told why Alderaan is being destroyed.

See above.

I think it's more likely that we're simply not intelligent enough to grasp the complexxxxity of Palpatine's ingenious plot.

You and Heathcliff both.

[Elfdart]

Yes that is his over all point. People can't connect with these movies because no one cares about any of the characters because they're all a bunch of jackasses.

Again, a totally subjective point, lots of people like the characters and lots don't. Saying 'People can't connect' is silly, some obviously do and just don't agree with you.

Well hell if you got choked up when Amidala is like "Hold me, hold me like you did on Naboo" then good for you but I prefer real people to crap dialogue and boring characters.

What the hell kind of stories do you read/watch?

Interesting ones with real human beings.

If you want "real people", why the fuck are you watching Star Wars?

[dworkin]

Can someone explain to me what's so hard to understand about taxes? The Trade Federation is the East India Trading Co. in space, or the bloody Ferengi if your education is somewhat lacking.

The EITC did this sort of thing and had their own ships and troops just like the TF. Hell, you could write a TNG episode where the Enterprise is present when the Ferengi turn up with their ships to 'discuss' trade privileges and lowering of taxes on them.

And fuck it, no one in the bloody English speaking world is fucking confused by what Nottingham is doing in your typical Robin Hood yarn.

People don't like taxes. They really don't like what they see as unfair taxes. And if they have the will, weapons and occasionally ships they do go to war over it.

[Ford Prefect]

Heathcliff seems awfully thin-skinned.

Prrrretty certain he just thinks Jim is an obsessed nerd and that actually arguing with a person who freely writes a thesis length rebuttal to some video review would be a waste of his time.

[Elfdart]

Heathcliff seems awfully thin-skinned.

Prrrretty certain he just thinks Jim is an obsessed nerd and that actually arguing with a person who freely writes a thesis length rebuttal to some video review would be a waste of his time.

And Heathcliff shows his contempt for this "obsessed nerd" by uploading a YouTube video about him?

[Ford Prefect]

Is there something wrong with your brain? That video you're talking about spends one minute mocking the very idea of a novel length counter argument. So ... yes, I imagine Stoklasa is showing contempt for the obsessed nerd by uploading a YouTube video 'about' him.

[Jim Raynor]

I'm assuming you support Raynor's rebuttal so I find it odd you'd be upset by someone slicing up an argument to address each point.

Two whole posts. So you're another RLM fan who signed up just to defend him with the same old excuses? The irony of someone complaining about me supposedly nitpicking him is just great. As if his entire review wasn't a long stream of nitpicks.

If it hasn't been made clear by now, there is no "big picture" to his review. It's one long, disjointed mess that repeatedly picks the oddest little insignificant details to complain about, often raising questions that show a complete ignorance of what actually happened in the movie. The part where he wrongly claimed that Qui-Gon couldn't be described with a single word has nothing to do with his stupid idea that the Jedi should just Rambo their way out of the Droid Control Ship, which has nothing to do the misleading statements about how the Royal Starship wasn't hit after R2's repairs or his unsupported mudslinging regarding George Lucas's professional relationships with employees.

As I said in my own response, the parts where he stayed within the safe subjective territory that the film just didn't emotionally appeal to him were the least objectionable. Those parts make up a few scant minutes of his 70-minute review. Most of it was just inane nitpicking. Which I responded to in a comprehensive manner.

[Jim Raynor]

Is there something wrong with your brain? That video you're talking about spends one minute mocking the very idea of a novel length counter argument. So ... yes, I imagine Stoklasa is showing contempt for the obsessed nerd by uploading a YouTube video 'about' him.

What's funny is that I've barely even thought about this whole thing since releasing my response. Even with it going "viral" in a minor way and popping up on numerous websites and forums. I'm glad that people have seen it and that it has opened some people's eyes about the RLM review when it once had an unquestioned and entirely undeserved reputation of authority. But this isn't some big serious matter. Which is why I've been checking this forum at most once every other day, and hardly at all on weekends.

I believe I also pointed out right in the introduction of my response that my 108-page PDF is geeky, just like making an hour-long review of a decade old movie is. If Stoklasa can dish it out, he ought to be able to take it. Not that I care if he can take it, or ever bothers making an actual response to me. He'd have a hard time defending his bizarre idea that Qui-Gon didn't have just evidence to claim a Trade Federation invasion, or that the Viceroy should've sacrificed himself for Palpatine's benefit with no reward in return. The thing is, Stoklasa's ideas are actually far less "important" than other peoples' impression of his ideas.

[Elfdart]

No, at least no moreso than the one between Anakin and Obi Wan, and perhaps a bit less. To a large degreee, they were just one more spectacle in a movie full of spectacles. They weren't Wire Fu, to be sure, but then again they didn't have to compete with The Matrix back in the day. I don't know where this idea came from that they were all about the emotions of the characters, let alone inner struggle. RotJ? Maybe, on account of it being a ploy to turn Luke to the Dark Side. Empire? Nope, Luke is there to kick ass and take names, and Vader is trying to capture him. In literary terms we call this kind of conflict "MAN AGAINST MAN". It isn't until after the fight is done that there is any indication that this is personal by either of the combatants with the most cliche reveal in history. Really? Vader is Luke's father? I think people have forgotten how much this sounds like a bad soap opera plot. Just saying, if you're going to be harsh to the prequels this is what you have to compare them to. Even if the presentation was good, it wasn't exactly groundbreaking storytelling.

I don't think The Matrix had anything to do with the fight scenes in TPM, since the prequel was being filmed before The Matrix. The fight scenes were little more than an extension of what was already shown in TESB and ROTJ -only the prequels were depicting the Jedi in their prime, and with the new special effects they could show those backflips and somersaults with medium shots instead of closeups to hide the wires and harnesses.

The person who suggested the force ghost thing... was the ACTOR. Good god, where did this nugget of ignorant shit come from? Its no secret that Alec Guinness loathed Star Wars. He was hoping that by getting killed off he wouldn't have to speak any more bad dialogue ("bad" being his point of veiw). They even went over this in the "Making of Star Wars" documentary IIRC.

Actually, the force ghost thing was a last minute change by Lucas because after the fight with Vader, the injured Obi-Wan basically stood around and did nothing for the rest of the screenplay. Not only did killing off Ben eliminate that problem but it also heightened the drama.

I do call bullshit on the idea that Mrs Lucas had anything to do with the decision, which was made while Star Wars was being filmed in England, since at the time Marcia Lucas was in the US working on Taxi Driver.

Is there something wrong with your brain? That video you're talking about spends one minute mocking the very idea of a novel length counter argument. So ... yes, I imagine Stoklasa is showing contempt for the obsessed nerd by uploading a YouTube video 'about' him.

Which only shows what a complete fucktard Heathcliff really is. Uploading hours of video bitching about Star Wars is kewl, but rebutting Heathcliff's bullshit is not? His reaction to Jim Raynor is quite telling, and reminds me of this quote:

'First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.' -Mohandas Gandhi

Looks like Heathcliff skipped the first part and went straight to the second.

[Darth Yoshi]

I thought Alec Guinness hated Star Wars because afterward nobody remembered that he was a veteran actor who had done plenty of other roles? Maybe I'm confusing him with Harrison Ford and/or Patrick Stewart.

[Srelex]

I think that was the case. But I'm sure that Lucas even admitted that he took the idea for Obi-Wan's death from Guinness on the Empire of Dreams documentary.

[Ford Prefect]

I thought Alec Guinness hated Star Wars because afterward nobody remembered that he was a veteran actor who had done plenty of other roles? Maybe I'm confusing him with Harrison Ford and/or Patrick Stewart.

While that was certainly a part of it, Guinness once said in an interview that he felt the material was terrible. At the same time he predicted that it was going to be a real hit, and cast and crew have praised him for his professionalism in the making of the film. I think Lucas even credited Guinness with being part of the reason why filming was completed, which is pretty gushy.

[Formless]

I thought Alec Guinness hated Star Wars because afterward nobody remembered that he was a veteran actor who had done plenty of other roles? Maybe I'm confusing him with Harrison Ford and/or Patrick Stewart.

While that was certainly a part of it, Guinness once said in an interview that he felt the material was terrible.

Yeah, that's what I had heard too. He thought the screenplay was at best average and the dialogue was almost absurd sounding. In fact, some of the other actors like Harison Ford thought the same thing; only when you put the dialogue in context of the finished movie does it sound natural. Outside that context it sounds rightfully silly to talk about space stations that blow up planets, wookies, hyperdrives, lightsabers, "the Force" and so on. But they were all professional enough not to let that get in the way of their performance, especially Alec Guinness.

Skip forward a little bit, that screenplay turned out to be a massive success and a film classic spawning two sequels and tons of merchandising. But there is a such thing as too successful if you are an actor. Everyone involved played such an iconic role that they were guaranteed to be remembered as That Guy Who Played In Star Wars. For Mark Hamill, between Star Wars and his stint on Broadway the only way he could continue to act was by going into voice acting where no one could see his face. Carrie Fisher hasn't exactly had an impressive career for a lot of the same reasons. Harrison Ford was successful because he saw it as an opportunity to get his career off the ground, and didn't care if he got typecast or not. But for an actor as distinguished and established as Alec Guinness, you can imagine how insulting that must have been to have that kind of association hanging over his head. Especially when the movie was, in his opinion, average at best.

[marcia]

Someone earlier claimed that

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html

was an unreliable article because it was a blog that didn't 'quote sources.'

So you support the claim by posting a link to... a blog. A blog is, at best, a secondary source; and this blog doesn't even post sources of its own. Please excuse me if I don't trust a word of it.

This is absolute nonsense and proves that Formless can't read. The article is littered with sources throughout the text. Check this out:

The research for the article came mainly out of the following sources, though many others appear in smaller doses, most of which are cited in the end notes:

Baxter, John. Mythmaker: The Life and Work of George Lucas. New York: Spike/Avon Books, 1999

Biskind, Peter. Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1998

Pollock, Dale. Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas, New York: Harmony Books, 1983

Worrell, Denise. Icons: Intimate Portraits, New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1989

End Notes

I. Pollock , p. 228
II. Worrell, p. 191
III. Worrell, p. 192
IV. Pollock, p. 63
V. Pollock, p. 64
VI. Pollock, p. 64
VII. Pollock, p. 64
VIII. Pollock, p. 64
IX. Pollock, p. 64
X. Pollock, p. 61
XI. Pollock, p. 62
XII. Pollock, p. 63
XIII. Pollock, p. 62
XIV. Pollock, p. 62
XV. Pollock, p. 63
XVI. Pollock, p. 63
XVII. Pollock, p. 67
XVIII. Pollock, p. 65
XIX. Pollock, p. 65
XX. Baxter, 70
XXI. Pollock, p. 64
XXII. Worrell, p. 192
XXIII. Pollock, p. 66
XXIV. Pollock, p. 65
XXV. Pollock, p. 65
XXVI. Pollock, p. 65
XXVII. Pollock, p. 65
XXVIII. Pollock, p. 82
XXIX. Pollock, p. 82
XXX. Pollock, p. 83
XXXI. Pollock, p. 83
XXXII. Pollock, p. 83
XXXIII. Pollock, p. 82
XXXIV. Pollock, p. 84
XXXV. Biskind, p. 100
XXXVI. Pollock, p. 83
XXXVII. Biskind p. 102
XXXVIII. Biskind p. 235
XXXIX. Pollock, p. 117
XL. Pollock, p. 120
XLI. Baxter, p. 132
XLII. Biskind p. 253
XLIII. Biskind p. 235
XLIV. Biskind p. 235
XLV. The Making of Taxi Driver, Taxi Driver 1999 DVD
XLVI. Baxter, p. 66
XLVII. Pollock, p. 84
XLVIII. Pollock, p. 84
XLIX. The Filming of American Graffiti" by Larry Sturhahn, Filmmakers Newsletter, March 1974
L. Pollock, p. 147
LI. Pollock, p. 147
LII. "Mark Hamill Walks Down Memory Lane With Film Freak Central" by Walter Chaw, Filmfreakcentral.com, March 20th, 2005, http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/mhamillinterview.htm
LIII. Pollock, pp. 65-66
LIV. Pollock, pp. 66
LV. A&E Biography, George Lucas, 2002
LVI. The Force Behind Star Wars" by Paul Scanlon, Rolling Stone, August 25th, 1977
LVII. Baxter, p. 167
LVIII. Mark Hamill Walks Down Memory Lane With Film Freak Central" by Walter Chaw, Filmfreakcentral.com, March 20th, 2005, http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/mhamillinterview.htm
LIX. Worrell, p. 191
LX. Pollock, p. 228
LXI. Rinzler, The Making of Star Wars, 2007, p. 220
LXII. Rinzler, p. 220
LXIII. Rinzler, p. 221
LXIV. Rinzler, p. 226
LXV. Rinzler, p. 226
LXVI. Rinzler, p. 226
LXVII. Baxter, p. 233
LXVIII. Peecher, The Making of Return of the Jedi, 1983, p. 89
LXIX. Rinzler, p. 230
LXX. Biskind, p. 330
LXXI. Baxter. P. 216
LXXII. Biskind, p. 334
LXXIII. The George Lucas Saga" by Kerry O' Quinn, Starlog, July 1981
LXXIV. "Off the Screen", People, July 18, 1977
LXXV. The Empire Strikes Back and so Does Filmmaker George Lucas with his Sequel to Star Wars," by Jean Vallely, Rolling Stone, June 12, 1980
LXXVI. Baxter, p. 277
LXXVII. Baxter, p. 277
LXXVIII. Pollock, p. 217
LXXIX. Baxter, pp. 306-7
LXXX. with Mitch Tuchman and Anne Thompson, Film Comment, July/August 1981
LXXXI. Biskind, p. 208
LXXXII. Pollock, p. 232
LXXXIII. Baxter, p. 333
LXXXIV. Pollock, p. 239
LXXXV. Worrell, p. 192
LXXXVI. Worrell, p. 192
LXXXVII. The George Lucas Saga" by Kerry O' Quinn, Starlog, July, 1981
LXXXVIII. Pollock, p. 267
LXXXIX. Pollock, p. 240
XC. Baxter, pp. 333-4
XCI. Pollock, p. 243
XCII. Worrell, p. 191
XCIII. Baxter, p. 333
XCIV. Baxter, p. 333
XCV. Biskind, p. 423
XCVI. Biskind, p. 423
XCVII. Worrell, p. 175
XCVIII. 60 Minutes, March 28, 1999
XCIX. 60 Minutes, March 28, 1999
C. Biskind, p. 381
CI. Pollock, p. 240
CII. Biskind, p. 423
CIII. Biskind, p. 423
CIV. Biskind, 422
CV. Biskind, 423
CVI. Baxter, p. 70
CVII. Pollock, p. 240

Basically I am calling out Formless, who either can't read or ignores the truth in order to further his/her own poorly-framed arguments.

Formless, you are shabby as hell.

[Formless]

Oh, I see now. There was a link at the end of the blog that took you tyo all the notes. I skimmed straight to the end texpecting to see the notes section out of habit (because who the hell links to their citations on a separate webpage? And you call me sloppy) and they weren't there. Sorry, but that's not sloppiness, that's just how I avoid having my time wasted when confronted with conspiracy loons. Look directly at their sources (if they have any), then read what they have to say. It saves a lot of time, frankly. If you are reading, say, a site that advocates the 911 conspiracy theory and you see a link or citation to "Loose Change" you can pretty much ignore it because its evidence is worthless trash.

Also, I still don't believe a word of it. You blow a lot of steam about how bad my arguments are, but you haven't addressed any but one of them or the points made by Bakustra and Elfdart. A lot of people are needed to make a movie good, and you've given all the credit to one woman (who you use as your screen name, as if advertising your bias were something to be proud of). Your premise is that the original trilogy was better, but we've repeatedly shown that when you apply the same standards that people use to judge the Prequels the OT do not necessarily fair much better. Even Empire, the best movie in the series by fan concensus, has a huge gaping plot hole in it that would put the Prequels to shame*. In fact, the only role Marcia indesputedly played on these movies (was that she is listed as editor of the first and third movie of the OT, but its the second that most people agree was the best. She may be a good director and editor, but that says something about how much input other people must have had.

And then there is Elfdarts point that she was working on her own projects during the making of the original, making one wonder how much input she really could have had.

Really, calling someone lazy or dishonest when you haven't bothered addressing their key points is not the way you want to start you life on a board like this.

* The scene where the Millenium Falcon goes to Bespin. Its implied that it didn't take long (despite not having a hyperdrive). BUt at the same time, Luke was being extensively trained by Yoda. How long did the Falcon's trip actually take? Or does Yoda just let Luke go after a week of training?

[marcia]

Oh, I see now. There was a link at the end of the blog that took you tyo all the notes. I skimmed straight to the end texpecting to see the notes section out of habit (because who the hell links to their citations on a separate webpage? And you call me sloppy) and they weren't there. Sorry, but that's not sloppiness, that's just how I avoid having my time wasted when confronted with conspiracy loons. Look directly at their sources (if they have any), then read what they have to say. It saves a lot of time, frankly. If you are reading, say, a site that advocates the 911 conspiracy theory and you see a link or citation to "Loose Change" you can pretty much ignore it because its evidence is worthless trash.

So you went to the end of the article and missed the link. Okay, but it did say 'End Notes,' and there were citations throughout the text - you would have seen them even scrolling through. That is not thorough at all. I would guess that you saw the title and dismissed it out of hand, rather than looking for notes, because if you had been looking for notes, you would have found them, and also because you said they didn't have any citations. You can bluster all you like, but you aren't convincing anyone.

Also, I still don't believe a word of it. You blow a lot of steam about how bad my arguments are, but you haven't addressed any but one of them or the points made by Bakustra and Elfdart. A lot of people are needed to make a movie good, and you've given all the credit to one woman (who you use as your screen name, as if advertising your bias were something to be proud of).

I used it as my screen name because the point I wanted to make was directly related to the article in question and nothing more.

Your premise is that the original trilogy was better, but we've repeatedly shown that when you apply the same standards that people use to judge the Prequels the OT do not necessarily fair much better. Even Empire, the best movie in the series by fan concensus, has a huge gaping plot hole in it that would put the Prequels to shame*. In fact, the only role Marcia indesputedly played on these movies (was that she is listed as editor of the first and third movie of the OT, but its the second that most people agree was the best. She may be a good director and editor, but that says something about how much input other people must have had.

No, my premise is that you dismissed the article and claimed it did not quote sources or have notes, and this was patently untrue. You will notice I haven't said anything about Star Wars. I am critiquing your criticism of the article.

And then there is Elfdarts point that she was working on her own projects during the making of the original, making one wonder how much input she really could have had.

Really, calling someone lazy or dishonest when you haven't bothered addressing their key points is not the way you want to start you life on a board like this.

You are arguing with me about all the wrong things. I think that you are not addressing my key point (that you are a liar) and instead are deflecting with a bunch of Star Wars arguments.

not the way you want to start you life on a board like this.

From the board tagline:

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people

Bolded the funny part.

[Formless]

So you went to the end of the article and missed the link. Okay, but it did say 'End Notes,' and there were citations throughout the text - you would have seen them even scrolling through. That is not thorough at all. I would guess that you saw the title and dismissed it out of hand, rather than looking for notes, because if you had been looking for notes, you would have found them, and also because you said they didn't have any citations. You can bluster all you like, but you aren't convincing anyone.

Notes=/=citations. Citations are references to other material used as evidence within the article. Notes are extra bits of information the writer thought you might be interested in, but wasn't directly relevant to the passage. You saw me use an asterisk in my post? That was a note. Do you see the difference?

Now, obviously the person who made that website put his/her citations where he/she advertised his/her notes would be. Great, they are there but they are mislabeled. Anyone who has been in or is in college could have made that mistake, especially if you happen to have a life offline that needs attending to. Its pretty much the normal way of organizing articles in an academic setting, at least where I live.

Now, are you done acting smug? I've already conceded the article had citations, I see no reason to linger on that issue.

I think that you are not addressing my key point (that you are a liar)

You need some pretty hefty positive evidence to prove that point. You have yet to supply that evidence. You might also want to know that I have ADD, I've mentioned that on this forum before and my brother (Agent Sorchus) can confirm for you if you wish. These kinds of things happen, even to better posters than I. Also, if I were a liar, why would I have conceded that the article does in fact cite sources?

If this is just a pet peeve of yours, fine. I get it. We can talk about Marcia Lucas' contributions if you want. But no one benefits from going right for accusations of dishonesty; not you, not me, not Raynor, or any other person who might want to read or contribute to this thread. Its a serious accusation here, and a great way to start a flamewar. Maybe you already know that, maybe not. Now you do.

[Elfdart]

I thought Alec Guinness hated Star Wars because afterward nobody remembered that he was a veteran actor who had done plenty of other roles? Maybe I'm confusing him with Harrison Ford and/or Patrick Stewart.

That was the line he took in his autobiography that came out a few years before he died, where he talks about how he dreaded the "thud" of the huge pile of Star Wars fan mail he got every week. It's also where he talks about telling a kid who told him he had watched the movie many times that he should never watch it again. Of course he also claimed he didn't like the role of Colonel Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai. Guinness appears to have been a prickly character , which is why Ian McKellen called him a snob:

Alec Guinness was annoyed that he became so closely identified with his role in ''Star Wars.'' Do you worry that after ''Lord of the Rings'' you'll be remembered as Gandalf and your Richard III will be forgotten?

Perhaps a clearer way of putting it would be to say, Would I regret forever more being associated with Magneto in ''X-Men''? I'm not perhaps as much a snob as Alec Guinness, and I have perhaps more catholic tastes in entertainment than he had. I don't make any distinction between what I do and what a hoofer on Broadway does. We are all in the business of keeping an audience quiet for two and half hours.

Now here's what Alec Guinness was saying about Lucas, the script and his involvement in Star Wars in 1984 [7:48]:

And the I opened it [the script] and saw it was science fiction and groaned. I thought "Oh no, they've got the wrong man". I started to read it and I thought some of the dialogue was rather creaky but I kept turning the pages -I wanted to know what happened next and then I met George Lucas and fell for him and surprised, I thought he was a man of enormous integrity. And bright and interesting and I found myself involved and thank God I did.

So he couldn't have been that put off by the role or how Lucas treated him, if seven years later he still extols the virtues of George Lucas.

As far as when the decision was made to kill Obi-Wan, Lucas says he thought of it while filming in Tunisia, when it occurred to him that Kenobi does almost nothing after the escape from the Death Star [6:15]:



His wife was on set in Tunisia so it is possible she suggested to him the idea of killing off Obi-Wan. Not that it matters. The idea that Marcia Lucas or Gary Kurtz or some other avatar of Nerd Rage was the real talent and real creative force behind Star Wars is so mind-numbingly stupid that I have a hard time believing that the person making such a claim really believes it. It's just a troll comment.