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

[marcia]

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.

I am sorry you have ADD. I am also sorry that unless you live in a cargo cult, you have no idea about academia. Welp.

"Also, if I were a liar, why would I have conceded that the article does in fact cite sources?"

Because you got caught out, bro.

*peels out in a landspeeder-shaped car which you can't see because a dinosaur butt is obscuring your view*

[Formless]

You know something? Elfdart is right. You are simply here to troll, and won't stop repeating the same old shit until the end of days. I asked you to put up evidence for your little childish accusation of dishonesty, told you that it was a serious accusation around here, and yet you didn't do that. Put up, or shut up asshole. Until you do, this conversation is over.

[thejester]

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.

Holy shit dude you would be hard pressed to find a single history book published in recent memory that does not have its citations at the end of the book and labelled as 'end notes'. The difference between notes and citations if virtually non-existant anymore - and indeed plenty of authors combine the two - and it's so common that to suggest it's 'mislabeled' is total rubbish.

[TK421]

Another new member here who likes the RLM reviews. But I've been lurking at this board off and on for years. This thread is just what got me to finally sign up.

I happen to like the RLM reviews. All of 'em, including Baby's Day Out. I also like his TNG reviews including Generations and First Contact which are both movies that I like a lot. He makes good sharp observations about things in my opinion. I happen to like his sense of humor. I even like the Plinkett voice.

I really hated the prequels and agree with RLMs criticism of them. Other people liked the prequels and I think that's great. I'm glad they enjoyed them. Some people disagree with the RLM reviews and that's fine too.

I don't see the need for any of the hostility I see from both camps on this, let's face it, silly debate

Anyway, I read this interview with Mike Stoklasa yesterday and thought I'd share.
http://geekpropaganda.net/?p=1100#more-1100

[Formless]

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.

Holy shit dude you would be hard pressed to find a single history book published in recent memory that does not have its citations at the end of the book and labelled as 'end notes'. The difference between notes and citations if virtually non-existant anymore - and indeed plenty of authors combine the two - and it's so common that to suggest it's 'mislabeled' is total rubbish.

Bolded the important bits for you. Try to keep up; academia is far more consistent about this kind of thing, and if that's what you are used to then that's what you're going to expect. If it had been labeled as an index, for example, then yeah I wouldn't have an excuse for making that mistake. But its not, and its not my fault if idiots think the two are the same thing.

[thejester]

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.

Holy shit dude you would be hard pressed to find a single history book published in recent memory that does not have its citations at the end of the book and labelled as 'end notes'. The difference between notes and citations if virtually non-existant anymore - and indeed plenty of authors combine the two - and it's so common that to suggest it's 'mislabeled' is total rubbish.

Bolded the important bits for you. Try to keep up; academia is far more consistent about this kind of thing, and if that's what you are used to then that's what you're going to expect. If it had been labeled as an index, for example, then yeah I wouldn't have an excuse for making that mistake. But its not, and its not my fault if idiots think the two are the same thing.

Haha I love it when you say 'academia' in this lame attempt to try and establish your superiority over the people you're arguing with. Protip: all those history books are published by academics in academia. Putting your citations in a block at the end of the work labelled as 'end notes' is the overwhelmingly popular way of doing it in published work and frankly I'm baffled that anyone living in an 'academic setting' such as yourself could not have known this.

[Formless]

I love how you jump to conclusions about why or why not I would bring up academia, like you can read minds or something stupid amazing like that. Protip: history books are not the sum of all academia. Another protip: the word "notes" and the word "citations" do not mean the same thing. What about this are you not getting? Just because its popular convention among some people doesn't mean the format is universal or any less confusing if you haven't seen it a thousand times.

I amazed that anyone who isn't just being a gigantic dick would still be waving theirs over such a trivial matter when I already conceded that the goddamn article had citations. Can't you move on? We aren't even talking about the reason that article got brought up (i.e. whether or not Marcia Lucas had anything to do with Star Wars' success). You aren't proving anything worth proving.

[ronindave]

108-page rebuttal to a review on a Star Wars movie?

Ah, the nerdrage is strong with this one.

[Knife]

108-page rebuttal to a review on a Star Wars movie?

Ah, the nerdrage is strong with this one.

Hahhahahahhahaha. Whose the Nerd, the nerd, the nerd who follows the nerd, the nerd who doesn't like the nerd, or the nerd who follows the first nerd and is mad at the third nerd not liking him, or the nerd................. well you get the point.

[Jim Raynor]

108-page rebuttal to a review on a Star Wars movie?

Ah, the nerdrage is strong with this one.

13 whole posts and two sentences of trash talk?

Ah, the RLM brown nosing is strong with this one.


In all seriousness, I hope you're not some RLM fanboy (of a fanboy). Because then you'd be a hypocrite. And as bad as Stoklasa's review was, posts like this don't do him any favors.

[ronindave]

13 whole posts and two sentences of trash talk?

Ah, the RLM brown nosing is strong with this one.


In all seriousness, I hope you're not some RLM fanboy (of a fanboy). Because then you'd be a hypocrite. And as bad as Stoklasa's review was, posts like this don't do him any favors.

Not a bit thin-skinned are we? Is this how you deal with criticism to the Prequels now - dismiss them as RLM fanboyish? Your rebuttal from much that I have read is just one long "RLM is so stupid" rant. I don't find your points very convincing and some are downright laughable like the one over the planet core.

[Spoon of Bombadil]

I read your entire 108 page rebuttal. I thought it made some valid points that made more sense than RLM at times. I found the movie to be decent at best to be honest. My problem was that there was too much emotion against RLM. This made it come off as "oh it's just some PT fanboy being whiny" to most people (it only helped the OT and RLM fanboys). Even RLM acknowledged and made fun of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTpWzg4aiEU I thought the comic strips were pretty funny. If you were more moderate with your approach then many more people would take it seriously.

[Darth Yoshi]

Have you actually read his rebuttal? Because all you've posted so far in this thread is irrelevant crap that serves no purpose but inflating your own ego. If you have read it, then explain why the rebuttal is weak. If not, then put your dick back into your pants and let the adults talk, because nobody cares what someone who has no idea what the hell he's talking about thinks.

[ronindave]

inflating my ego? Do you even understand what that means? How am I inflating my ego by criticizing this guy's rebuttal? If I had said "MY review is better" or something along lines of comparing myself to him that would qualify. If anyone is inflating anything around here, it's you inflating his ego while inflating the air in your head. Learn how to use idioms properly.

What I say in the rebuttal where lots of personal attacks and the word stupid repeatedly thrown around ad nauseam. Some of his points are just laughable like the one about the planet core. At the risk of nitpicking the nitpick of a nitpick -

I refer you to page 1132, section 5, paragraph 3, sub-section d:

1:54
Plinkett: "Yes, I said the other side of the planet, because..."

Gungan Leader: "The speediest way to the Naboo is going
through...(taking an ominous tone) the planet core."

Stoklasa takes what the Gungan leader says literally and runs with it, pointing out how
the core would be far deeper, at the center of the planet under big molten layers. He
also uses the Gungan submarine traveling through the "core" to question why the Trade
Fed would have landed their troops on the other side of the planet.

All that...over one word spoken by a fat idiot from a backward society. Who was
explicitly shown to be weak minded by Qui-Gon's successful use of a Jedi Mind Trick in
that same scene. Who sounded like he was using a spooky nickname for the region
that they'd be traveling through, to ratchet up tension. Spoken words are not to be
taken literally all the time, and even if they were it was just a momentary thing.

huh? This is a joke right? Is this a serious rebuttal to Plinkett's point of the stupidity of the characters and the plot of having an army landing on the complete other side of the planet when they have the capability to land an entire army right outside the capital city? His answer is that the Gungan was stupid? So when George was penning this did he seriously think that "The Gungan doesn't really mean the planet core as he's just a fat idiot from a backward society. I'm sure the audience will understand that perfectly... on to the next scene!"

Spoken words are not to be taken literally all the time

Except when they are meant to be No but seriously that is a very weak rebuttal with a big assumption of what the character was thinking and what the writer was intending. There is no evidence in the script that Boss Nass meant anything other than the planet core nor that he was mistaken. I bring this up because it just shows how nitpicking he is. If I were him, I'd have let something like this one go and focused on more debatable points but he seems bound and determine to argue every single point almost in review hence the reason it's a whopping 108 pages long.

Overall a defense of the Phantom Menace would have been better than a point-by-point nitpicking of another person's review. A lot of what he misses like with his nitpick of the blockade scene is that at the end of the day much of the film is just boring and pointless to many viewers. I saw the film 5 times between its release and the Episode III. Once I even watched it to critique what was wrong with a friend. Despite these multiple viewings I had almost completely forgotten about that blockade scene other than R2D2 was in it. It was such a forgettable tension-less scene.

The reason why many people like RLM's review is 1) it's funny; 2) it confirms what a lot of people thought was wrong with the film(s); and 3) it's insightful in the way stories are told and films are made. If anything he does a good job in re-confirming people's love of the old trilogy.

[Galvatron]

huh? This is a joke right? Is this a serious rebuttal to Plinkett's point of the stupidity of the characters and the plot of having an army landing on the complete other side of the planet when they have the capability to land an entire army right outside the capital city? His answer is that the Gungan was stupid? So when George was penning this did he seriously think that "The Gungan doesn't really mean the planet core as he's just a fat idiot from a backward society. I'm sure the audience will understand that perfectly... on to the next scene!"

Wow. I'm just surprised that Jim had the nerve to use that particular defense again when it was pretty soundly defeated way back in this thread by RedImperator.

[ronindave]

Wow. I'm just surprised that Jim had the nerve to use that particular defense again when it was pretty soundly defeated way back in this thread by RedImperator.

Was that thread/argument before the 108-page rebuttal? I really don't know the timeline (or really care). That particular part in the Rebuttal Novel sticks out as representative of the overall tone.

Most of it is too nitpicky to really get at or want to bother with but a few shine out like page 2341, section 23, paragraph 10, section a-3:

6:17
Plinkett: "This is wrong for so many reasons. I'm gonna list three of them. So the
idea is that Anakin built C-3PO to help his mom around the house.

Anakin: "He's a protocol droid to help mom."

Plinkett: "But a protocol droid is typically used for etiquette and protocol...they're
basically like robot diplomats, not very handy technically...Says he's human-
cyborg relations. He doesn't say he cleans dishes! C-3PO is clumsy, awkward,
and useless. Unless you need someone to translate a language."

Anakin stated the basic type of droid that C-3PO was, and that the droid was simply
intended to help his mom. Wow, contradiction! Give me a break. It's a sweet little gift
from a child to his mother. Have this guy ever seen some of the gifts that little kids
make for their moms in real life? I seriously doubt that Anakin cared if C-3PO didn't
have high-end physical performance. In ANH we see that C-3PO can lift things like
dead Jawas. What's funny is that even in this part of Stoklasa's review, he shows a clip
of a Trade Federation protocol droid serving drinks. Just the sort of thing that a house
assistant would be doing.

Building C3PO is not the same as giving your mother a clay ashtray you made even when she doesn't smoke. And I don't think she needed a droid to serve drinks to her frequent house quests which with her being a slave was about none save the occasional wandering Jedi and fugitive Queen in disguise. Lucas just wanted to shoehorn C3PO into the film and the way it was done was ridiculous. The main point of this was to just show ridiculous it would be that of all the kinds of droids for Anakin to make from his imagination and to help his mother just happened to be a protocol droid C3PO!

7:31
Plinkett: "And to add to that, Watto already owned a protocol droid.

A clip is with a broken protocol droid inside Watto's shop is shown.

Plinkett: It's laying there in the garbage dump. Why not just fix that one?"

Yeah, Anakin should steal property slave master's shop for his own personal use at
home. Does this guy even understand what being a slave is supposed to mean?

Well how did he build C3PO and a whole freaking pod-racer, and some brain scanner without Watto knowing and where did he get the parts to begin with? Considering the shop he was working at i think making off with parts is not beyond reason especially if it's lying in the garbage dump. Again it's just to show how ridiculous it was to shoehorn C3PO in this fashion and have him being built by Darth Vader I mean Anakin.

[Vympel]

Most of it is too nitpicky to really get at or want to bother with...

Uh huh. Or you're simply incapable of addressing anything other than one or two marginal points, because your opinions on RLM's review are based purely on subjective "I didn't like the prequels" truthiness, so you think making a few random nitpick shots whilst putting on airs of not caring will hide it. Here's an idea - stop acting like a smarmy little dickcheese:-

That particular part in the Rebuttal Novel sticks out as representative of the overall tone.

Translation: "if I can pick the Achilles tendon of a 108-page .pdf, the entire edifice collapses!". Bullshit. You are nitpicking, which is super rich coming from someone who's pretending nothing Jim has said has any merit because "it is too nitpicky".

You're welcome to have a discussion of any particular point you like, but don't try and pretend doing so somehow casts aspersions about the entire thing. And your arguments are retarded:-

Building C3PO is not the same as giving your mother a clay ashtray you made even when she doesn't smoke.

Why isn't it? Heck, building C3P0 (even if a totally unnecessary inclusion, as I think it was) is better than that because he actually serves a damn purpose in the home. I like it how you're so damn obtuse that you see the reference to the droid serving drinks to guests on the TF Battleship and facetiously imply that must be what Jim thought 3P0 was doing? Clearly, 3P0 can help her around the house.

Well how did he build C3PO and a whole freaking pod-racer, and some brain scanner without Watto knowing and where did he get the parts to begin with? Considering the shop he was working at i think making off with parts is not beyond reason especially if it's lying in the garbage dump. Again it's just to show how ridiculous it was to shoehorn C3PO in this fashion and have him being built by Darth Vader I mean Anakin.

Who cares where he got the parts? He could've been scrounging scrap from scrapped shit that Watto had no use for, for all we know. The notion that another scrap metal protocol droid (whose condition is entirely unknown) in Watto's shop somehow serves as a stunning indictment of C3P0's presence makes no sense. It's a total red herring.

[ronindave]

Or you're simply incapable of addressing anything other than one or two marginal points,

Oh, good grief!
Damned if you, damned if you don't. I get called out for not elaborating why I thought Raynor's master thesis was bad and when I point out in detail why I think it was bad I get accused of nitpicking. There's no pleasing some people.

[Darth Hoth]

No, he meant only that in order to be able to fairly reject the 108-page dissertation, you need to produce a tract of equal length and conclusively demonstrate by thoroughgoing analysis, paragraph by paragraph, why every other line of it is wrong.

As for me, I did not watch the review and did not read the thesis, and intend to do neither. I do confess to being impressed by its sheer volume, in a vaguely nerdish way; I do not believe I have even written that much SW fanfiction in my entire online career, let alone commentary on some guy's youtube videos. The effort amply demonstrates the author's affection for the prequel films, if nothing else.

[Galvatron]

Was that thread/argument before the 108-page rebuttal?

Yes, it was shortly after the debut of RLM's TPM review.

[ronindave]

a few more random nitpicks of nitpicks of nitpicks worthy of a chuckle:

7:41
Plinkett: "So Qui-Gon manages to pull off the most convoluted bet ever, and
somehow wins everything except for Anakin's mother. Even at the end of the
movie when they save the day and probably could get the cash to buy the mom
from Watto, they don't go back for ten years."

Maybe Qui-Gon didn't go back because he was dead at the end of the movie. As for
the rest of the Jedi, they not only never knew Shmi but they also saw Anakin's
attachment issues as dangerous. As Yoda explains, emotion and personal attachment
are paths to the Dark Side. While those things are true if taken to the extreme, the point
of the prequel trilogy is that the Jedi Order has grown cold, personally detached, and
unyielding in its devotion to its doctrines. Oh yeah, I forgot that Stoklasa apparently
missed those things, along with how Qui-Gon's compassion was contrasted against the
other Jedi.

The point of the prequel trilogy is that the Jedi Order has grown cold....? Really? At what point in the films does that ever come up? The only people who criticize the Jedi are the emotionally-unstable Anakin and Chancellor Palpatine, not exactly the most trustworthy of characters at the best of times. How could Stoklasa miss something that was never there - and to quote RLM, "don't tell me it's in the fucking book!" That's a copout. With Qui-Gon's case, it turns out he was wrong and they were right to begin with. Was he compassionate or simply irrational?

2:42
Viceroy: "We are sending all troops to meet [the Gungan army] assembling
near the swamp."

Plinkett: "Why would you meet them? Why not just ignore them? You have a
fortified position. Can't you see an obvious ploy to draw away your protection?"

More ignorance from Stoklasa. He has only the vaguest idea of the strategic situation
based off of one line (that there's a Gungan army out there somewhere), yet he makes
accusations of stupidity.

The Trade Federation army has tanks and superior firepower. Technologically superior
armies typically prefer to face their enemies in open, direct combat. If you have
superior weapons, then it is sensible to use those superior weapons on the enemy army
and crush it right away. It's not a difficult concept

God, can you imagine how a guy like Stoklasa would run an actual war?

Or you or that Federation guy? Using diversions is one the basic textbook tactics of warfare. Then you couple your own appalling ignorance of military tactics with a US military officer saying the Taliban are massing in the desert and that they could end the war today but his commander orders them to stay in their bases. Actually your stupid caricature of a general is smarter than you are. If something seems to good to be true - guess, what? It probably fucking is! And in this case, it WAS! You did watch the movie, right?

Didn't ya learn nothing, dude, from ROTJ? You had a seemingly defenseless and inoperative Death Star protected by a shield generator guarded supposedly by a small garrison of troops. Seemed pretty tempting to take it out in one fell swoop before the Empire knew what hit them. Too good to be true. Problem was as our buddy Admiral Akbar would say "It's a trap!!!!" That Gungan army was the seemingly weak Death Star ie the bait but it was a trap/diversion to get the Federation's main army away from the city. You shouldn't be lecturing RLM or anyone on military tactics because you failed Basic Tactics 101 - oh, waitaminute, nevermind, let's play Command&Conqueror, shall we? I like the way you think.

The Trade Federation army has tanks and superior firepower. Technologically superior
armies typically prefer to face their enemies in open, direct combat.

And air support. they could have strafed the ground-bound Gungans from the air or bombed them from space.

If you have
superior weapons, then it is sensible to use those superior weapons on the enemy army
and crush it right away. It's not a difficult concept

Except all the technology in the universe doesn't mean a damn thing if you are wasting them on a diversion. Another thing not brought up by RLM but once the attack occurred in the city, why did they bother going ahead with the battle and powering up the droids? The gungans - you know the ones you said were from a backward society in your review of the review - were mainly on foot with some cavalry. They could and should have hightailed it back the minute Padme launched her attack. The battle with the Gungans became pointless for the Federation at that point (like it wasn't already since it had nothing to do with the Naboo and the signing of the treaty and the tax disputes)

5:40
Plinkett: "Yeah, you're such a peaceful people that you keep guns in the armrests
of your throne. Yeah, peaceful and paranoid?"

So a leader having some personal security measures means your society can't be
peaceful...I get that Stoklasa is trying to be sarcastic and funny, but he's still not making
any clever observations here.

So does the Queen of England keeps an Uzi under her cushions of the Throne of England?

[Pebkio]

I... have just found out about the 108-page rebuttal (counterargument, actually, how did a site full of geeks not correct that by now?). I have also just found out about this site. I have NOT been able to download the PDF from MU (sorry) which has led me to think about asking someone here for an email with the document as an attachment. Alas, I won't be making any comments about the essay (yet) as to keep my integrity.

Just to let people know, I didn't really like the prequels, and I liked the Plinkett reviews. I especially liked them when Stoklasa went into the technical aspects of screenwriting and movie-making. What I liked least was the nitpicking about the details of the story (yes, I hate midichlorians as much as the next guy, as well as C3P0's origin story, but he could've covered those in broader subjects titled "Ruining the Force" and "Ruining the old characters" respectively).

However, I have seen a few posts of rage that I think I should rebut.
---
1: Any post by Formless that is a direct counterargument to anyone's post. Formless, buddy, you're bad at providing a defense and you repeatedly insult everyone no matter how they addressed you so much that you come off as a troll yourself (especially whenever you accuse someone of trolling). However, I'll only speak to the worst of your offenses; namely, whenever you utter the word "subjective".

This entire thread is a collection of personal arguments about a subjective 108-page essay that is a response to a 70-minute long review made by ONE guy about a fantasy movie about space aliens with super powers not remotely based in provable science. I dare you to defend any of those three things (essay/review/movie) with an objective argument. In fact, those last two sentences could be taken as an objective argument as to why you should get off your high-horse and stop demanding that everyone, opposed to your viewpoint, be objective or show proof. Even all of your original argument for the essay are subjective.

Admittedly, your original arguments are mostly spot on. This leads me to remind of the phrase "quit while you are ahead".
---
2: I'm... not actually sure why everyone is absolutely sure that the Trade Federation was against the space taxes. Even Stoklasa makes the mistake of assuming.
(This point might get a bit long and complicated)
Nowhere in the movie do they say definitively that the Trade Federation isn't all for these taxes. We don't know how devastating the taxes might be, who the taxes cover, what is being taxed, who is enforcing the taxes, who proposed the taxes, why the taxes were needed/wanted, what percentage of the tax went where, etc...

I'm not saying the movie needed those details, but you cannot make any argument about why the situation (that was the base setting of the plot) was good or bad... except maybe beyond pointing out that there is a distinct lack of described motivations. Hence why everyone who talks about the motivations of the Trade Federation is just making shit up. We don't know anything beyond the fact that there is a new space tax and this has caused the greedy Trade Federation to put up a blockade around Naboo.

Yes, this topic got long, so I'm going to put the rest into my next post, which'll be purely about the opening motivations.
---
3. Jim Raynor, you wrote a 108-page essay covering (allegedly) all the points made by Stoklasa. You wrote 108 pages... about all the points Stoklasa had made. Why, after spending all the time it would take to write 108 pages, do you need to clarify your arguments on this forum? I would think that all the detail I could put into 108 pages would allow me to respond to any and all criticisms with "Look at my 108-page essay"... and maybe also giving a page number.

You don't really see Stoklasa defending himself. Do you know why? Because making nerdy nitpicking reviews about movies that came out a decade ago is SERIOUS BUSINESS!! He doesn't mean to be taken seriously, he's making a comedy web series called "Plinkett Reviews" and basing the topic on something in which he has an interest.

You didn't write a 108-page counterargument! You wrote a 108-page review about a webisode you didn't like! Gratz, man.

[Knife]

The point of the prequel trilogy is that the Jedi Order has grown cold....? Really? At what point in the films does that ever come up? The only people who criticize the Jedi are the emotionally-unstable Anakin and Chancellor Palpatine, not exactly the most trustworthy of characters at the best of times. How could Stoklasa miss something that was never there - and to quote RLM, "don't tell me it's in the fucking book!" That's a copout. With Qui-Gon's case, it turns out he was wrong and they were right to begin with. Was he compassionate or simply irrational?

Actually the film makes a lot of effort to spell this out. Qui Gon is set up as the outsides, rogue, crazy uncle of the Jedi Order; while Obi Wan is set up as the poster child of what the Jedi want. Qui Gon would 'be on the council if he'd just follow the code.", but "will do what I must, Obi Wan." Jedi follow the rules, but Qui Gon does what he deems right, not necessarily what the rules say. This is evident with Qui Gon taking Jar Jar with him after going to the Gungan city. He convinced Jar Jar to take him there, getting Jar Jar into trouble for it. But Qui Gon then took time, earning the comment from Obi Wan about not having time for this, to get the Gungan out of the trouble Qui Gon had gotten him into.

All other instances about rules and doctrine of the Jedi have them strictly following the rules. They have become cold.

[ronindave]

Actually the film makes a lot of effort to spell this out. Qui Gon is set up as the outsides, rogue, crazy uncle of the Jedi Order; while Obi Wan is set up as the poster child of what the Jedi want. Qui Gon would 'be on the council if he'd just follow the code.", but "will do what I must, Obi Wan." Jedi follow the rules, but Qui Gon does what he deems right, not necessarily what the rules say. This is evident with Qui Gon taking Jar Jar with him after going to the Gungan city. He convinced Jar Jar to take him there, getting Jar Jar into trouble for it. But Qui Gon then took time, earning the comment from Obi Wan about not having time for this, to get the Gungan out of the trouble Qui Gon had gotten him into.

All other instances about rules and doctrine of the Jedi have them strictly following the rules. They have become cold.

a lot of effort or a lot of assumption on the part of people who try to fill in for the film's failings? Many things in this film and the following two are rarely shown well. I'm sure there is a large percentage of viewers who never thought about the Jedi having grown cold - one main reason because they never had any other Jedi to compare them to!!! I don't even think you thought the Jedi had become cold until you either read the above post or the rebuttal because it's a pretty weak if non-existent theme.

Where in any of the films was the notion that they had grown cold or that they had been less cold than before? If they had always been this cold or that Yoda and Obi-wan represented this type of cold Jedi, than they weren't that great bunch of folks to begin with and why should we care for their return especially if influenced by the survivors of the last bad bunch? Hmmm... the return of a cold emotionless cult who are against sex and want to train Jedi at age 2? I think I'll pass, thank you very much.

But still if this was SUPPOSE to be a theme which i doubt a little better script writing could have fixed this - have Qui Gon say to the Obi-Wan "the Jedi weren't always this way. They have forgotten that compassion is also an important virtue of a Jedi...." and yadda yadda yadda presto! You have a theme! and more importantly you show how something has changed.

[Pebkio]

I've gotten the PDF, now I'm reading it; no need for an email.

As I said before, any facts mentioned about why the trade federation is there is just made up bull... or maybe read in the novelization (thpppppt).

However, all of the assumptions I've seen are weird and lacking, which leads to people being confused or accusing the movie on relying on convenience. So, in the spirit of this forum, I am going to make some shit up. Before I do though, I'm going to point out my assumptions:

A: The Senate is responsible for making laws that set up new space taxes
B: The Trade Federation does not have an army run by two idiots... it is an army run by two idiots
B: The Trade Federation is not a conglomeration of different trade companies because it's an army run by two idiots
C: The Trade Federation has to eventually answer to the Senate
D: The Trade Federation is, therefore, in charge of regulating trade for the Republic... including the enforcement of spaces taxes passed by the Senate
E: Naboo is under the jurisdiction of the Republic and it's laws (including taxes) due to them demanding that they receive protection

Now, here's a list of events that explains what the Trade Federation was doing and why they were portrayed as the bad guys.

---

The Senate passes space taxes. Mostly, things go well; people pay the extra tax, the Trade Federation gets a moderate cut of those taxes, and everyone's lives are a bit duller. However, Naboo doesn't like the taxes, they think it's corrupt and that the Trade Federation has too much power. So, instead of using a Republic regulated shipping companies like Space SWIFT, Naboo uses smugglers and shady shippers... basically, they break the law. The Trade Federation sees this as an opportunity to tighten control set up a blockade around Naboo... but without getting permission from the Senate (those upstarts).

Meanwhile, the only thing that the Senate gets official proof of is that there is a trade dispute between Naboo and the trade federation. Valorum has his suspicions, though, so he sends two Jedi instead of two diplomats just to make sure.

Back at the Blockade, two idiots are getting nervous about foolishly setting up a blockade, so they get help from an apparent "expert" in being an asshole; enter Darth Sidious. Note, it could also go down that Darth Sidious could've suggested that the Trade Federation set up the Blockade in the first place. Darth Sidious tells them that the only way to absolve themselves is to get the Naboo to sign a treaty that makes them follow the law. This would make the Naboo look like the villains for not originally paying taxes while justifying the blockade and/or invasion.

By the time the Jedi arrive, the two idiots are just beside themselves on how to proceed with this risk that they've taken, eventually falling into the comfortable habit of letting Darth Sidious dictate the "best" course of action. By the time he suggests an invasion, Sidious knows that Valorum sent two Jedi instead of diplomats, and so, orders the idiots to murder two Jedi. This original plan probably was to get word back to the Senate that maybe two Jedi had died, leaving Valorum open to a vote of no confidence by anyone when he fails to act on impulse.

Later on in the movie, after the Jedi escape with Queen Amidala, he enacts a similar but altered plan except it'll be Amidala herself putting in a vote of no confidence. In fact, you could say that it was always a backup plan because it was probably Palpatine that convinced Amidala that the new tax was corrupt, etc etc. After the vote of no confidence was put forth, Palpatine would have no more use for the trade federation at all, none... except maybe to use them again in the next movie. As long as he stayed with them, they wouldn't have felt abandoned and would blame Padme instead of Sidious.

---

And that is my interpretation (made up shit) about what the motivations might've been. But, as I said before, none of this was never-ever explained in the movie. In my opinion, even if the motivations were explained in the novelizations as being that the Trade Federation didn't like space taxes, my guess is better.

As it stands with the Trade Federation not liking the space tax, that would mean that they blockaded and invaded a tiny planet just because they're meany heads. Who really thinks that it's proper plot development that an entire army would waste time and resources doing something that would never ever change the laws about space taxes? Why would they be so nervous about representatives from the Republic if all they were doing was picking on a group of people who maybe possibly had more rights than them? Why would they care about invading at all... or making the blockade legal?

If they wanted to change the situation of getting taxed... what... at... all... would... blockading... a... pissant... planet... do... to... change... anything? No, my version is better. That way it would be understandable as to why everyone did what they did (mostly).