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

[Knife]

TPM contrast between Qui Gon the compassionate rogue and Obi Wan the rule following poster child.
TPM Obi Wan not caring about 'pathetic lifeforms' in two instances, not the consequences of the actions they are taking.
TPM Jedi council refusal to train Anakin, even acknowledging he may be the chosen one, because it's against the rules.
TPM Jedi not freeing slaves on Tatooine, not part of the Republic.


AotC that Obi Wan doesn't want to exceed his mandate from the council to investigate the assassination attempt, just protect the Senator.
AotC with Obi Wan concerned about his Padawan off on his own and Yoda saying arrogance is a flaw in a lot of Jedi, too sure of themselves.
AotC where Anakin is telling Padme about compassion of the Jedi, unconditional love and later with aggressive negotiations.
AotC where Anakin is ordered by the council to not go after Obi Wan.

RotS the whole conflict with Anakin being on the council by Palpatines edict but not being a Master because the council didn't like it.
RotS with Yoda telling Anakin to embrace the potential loss of a loved one, when Anakin was in obvious pain about it.


You are beaten over the head with the notion that the Jedi are aloof and isolate themselves in the movies. You are slapped upside the head in the movies that the Jedi follow a strict code and rules that dictate their behavior even when it violates the spirit of the rule they follow the letter of the rule, with minor exceptions of Qui Gon and Anakin Skywalker.

I find it funny that a lot of these RLM people are arguing about how they are great story tellers and the prequels are horrible stories, and yet have very little skills in analyzing fiction. These are easy things to pick out of the movies, explicitly stated in the novelizations, and yet some people either can't see them, or won't see them because it will screw up their preconceived notions of the story. It's even funnier that some of these simple things needs to be explicitly spelled out for some people who are great critics of story telling. You don't need a throw away line for every single fucking theme, that makes them plot points not themes.

[ronindave]

TPM contrast between Qui Gon the compassionate rogue and Obi Wan the rule following poster child.

Not much and not very convincing as both character were rather wooden and didn't really develop in the story.

TPM Obi Wan not caring about 'pathetic lifeforms' in two instances, not the consequences of the actions they are taking.

Pathetic? Those are your words not the script's or Obi-wan's

TPM Jedi council refusal to train Anakin, even acknowledging he may be the chosen one, because it's against the rules.

They also refused to train him because they sensed great danger and unclear future - how conveniently you overlooked that.

TPM Jedi not freeing slaves on Tatooine, not part of the Republic.

Let me refer you to Raynor own words for that: "Shmi is not a Republic citizen, and Tatooine is not Republic territory. " and As for the rest of the Jedi, they not only never knew Shmi but they also saw Anakin's attachment issues as dangerous."

AotC that Obi Wan doesn't want to exceed his mandate from the council to investigate the assassination attempt, just protect the Senator.
AotC with Obi Wan concerned about his Padawan off on his own and Yoda saying arrogance is a flaw in a lot of Jedi, too sure of themselves.
AotC where Anakin is telling Padme about compassion of the Jedi, unconditional love and later with aggressive negotiations.
AotC where Anakin is ordered by the council to not go after Obi Wan.

RotS the whole conflict with Anakin being on the council by Palpatines edict but not being a Master because the council didn't like it.
RotS with Yoda telling Anakin to embrace the potential loss of a loved one, when Anakin was in obvious pain about it.

none of this is very convincing as the Jedi having grown cold ie having changed. all you're telling me is tidbits which seem more put in there for plot conveniences. if you are saying these were points to prove that "the point of the prequel trilogy is that the Jedi Order has grown cold, personally detached, and
unyielding in its devotion to its doctrines." then why in hell should we care that they get wiped out or that they should be brought back in the Original Trilogy? This just kills any sympathy we might have for the Jedi BUT I don't think this is what Lucas was going for despite you and Raynor wishing it to be. You guys ideas makes for even a worse storyline than the one we already got.

You are beaten over the head with the notion that the Jedi are aloof and isolate themselves in the movies. You are slapped upside the head in the movies that the Jedi follow a strict code and rules that dictate their behavior even when it violates the spirit of the rule they follow the letter of the rule, with minor exceptions of Qui Gon and Anakin Skywalker.

No I'm beaten upside the heads by those who continually make excuses for bad film making while they pull things out of thin air to support their arguments.

These are easy things to pick out of the movies, explicitly stated in the novelizations, and yet some people either can't see them, or won't see them because it will screw up their preconceived notions of the story.

If you need a novel or TV series to explain a story point, a theme, or flesh out an under developed character than it says that the film failed in its purpose in telling its story

[Pebkio]

So, I've gotten to page 75 and I'm going to take a break to discuss a few things.

The first thing I noticed is the most obvious: This is not an essay. I was being naively kind to this 108-page grouping of forum posts. Jim Raynor spent (on-and-off) six months of his life typing arguments at a video review. This is not an intricate insightful response to what he claims is babble. He's babbling right back, and the only reason why it was 108 pages is because he babbled about every tiny thing that Plinkett babbles about in the video. It was tripe that was on the very same level intellectually as the review itself.

Well, there's my thoughts about the Plinkett Review in general: I thought that the Plinkett Review was tripe that wasn't very intelligent. Sure, I think he made good points, but I would never ever hold up the video in a serious discussion... especially as support for my arguments. And if I were arguing for the movie, I would not use this 108-page waste-of-time to support those arguments. I am personally disappointed in this entire thing, because I see all the time spent as potential for clear-minded counterargument... then seeing that all it features is some guy's manuscript of what he was mentally yelling at his monitor. At least (this is opinion) the movie review was funny at times.

Note: I did laugh at the "I find your lack of customer support disturbing" joke. That was pretty funny.

---

However, there was a big reason why I stopped and the reason is this:
Jim Raynor continually writes-off significant questions about character motivations and plot development with the fact that the audience expects them to do it or that it'll get them to the next scene.

There are several instances that I'll point out directly.

When the question of why the Trade Federation looks and acts like a military (not like a conglomeration of merchants and trade unions), Jim explains that it's because they're the direct threat and need to feel like an oppressive force of evil. Fine sure, but that's why the Storyteller would want them to be a militaristic group, not why the logically would be a militaristic group. This section is one of the reasons why people feel the 108-page-long forum post missed the mark. The question was not directed as to why they should feel that way, the question was why would they feel that way. In the real world, if you were to ask a Private Military Company why they felt like a military, they would not turn around and say "because the screenwriter thinks we should so that the audience can easily tell who the bad-guys are".

When the point that Obi-Wan is making up shit to get the Gungans to cooperate, Jim explains that the character's motivation was to get the Gungas to cooperate. The story called for it, so that's what Obi-Wan did. But that's why a director tells an actor to do something, not why a person in any real-life situation would do anything. No matter the medium used for telling a story, the characters in that story aren't supposed to follow the direction of the pages (except in extremely artsy stories like Heinlein's "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls"), they follow their own motivations based on their personalities.

I could get into more detail but the point was that Jim Raynor used (basically) the answer of "because it's in the script", which is very very lazy and shows a distinct lack of imagination.

---

Why I stopped specifically at page 75 also comes with a reason:
I wholeheartedly disagree with Jim's point about not saving Shmi Skywalker.

Now, I didn't want to directly argue against a point that Jim made, but this was just wrong. He portrays the Jedi Council as stupid. More than stupid, he assumes that the Jedi council is trying so very hard to be cold that it'll drive them to making poor choices. This section (pages 74-75) puts forth the idea that the Jedi council is uncaring to the point of evil by not saving a woman from slavery. A child's parents will always represent a personal attachment. The personal attachment could be very weak if the child was taken at age 2 and never-ever allowed to see the parents again, but it would still be there. Which, by the way, brings up as to why would anyone in a democratic-republic would ever give their children to such an evil organization as the Jedi Order who basically kidnap the kids - never to be seen again.

I digress, because Anakin had been living with his mother for six years; she was very obviously going be a strong personal attachment no matter where she was. So, intelligently, where would YOU want to place a strong personal attachment that'll influence a potentially dangerous Jedi who has anger problems: In the heavily monitored and very safe central planet -or- in the hands of a slaver who lives on a dangerous back-water desert planet in which the indigenous creatures regularly kidnap and torture people?

---

Anyway, back to reading...

[Terralthra]

TPM contrast between Qui Gon the compassionate rogue and Obi Wan the rule following poster child.

Not much and not very convincing as both character were rather wooden and didn't really develop in the story.

TPM Obi Wan not caring about 'pathetic lifeforms' in two instances, not the consequences of the actions they are taking.

Pathetic? Those are your words not the script's or Obi-wan's

QUI-GON : Start getting this hyperdrive generator installed. I'm going
back...some unfinished business. I won't be long.
OBI-WAN : Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic life form...?

(emphasis mine)

Oh, but that's just the script. It's not as if that exact line is in the movie or anything.

[Pebkio]

And there it is, I'm finished. Took me an extra bit of time because dumb ol' life got in the way.

First and foremost, I can't say that I hate anything completely and incorruptibly. There's something I liked in this 108-page counterargument. I liked that Jim Raynor attempted to make a point about a method that Stoklasa used to get people to agree with him during the review. Specifically, the method concerning saying something negative and then instantly correcting yourself (bonus points if the correction is also negative). Note that I did not say that I liked the attempts themselves, because Jim babbled them without any interest in remaining civil.

Now, onto the bad points:

1: Raynor continually dismisses potent points with lazy call backs to a three-sentence opening crawl or the script.
See previous post.

2: Raynor nitpicks clearly as much as Stoklasa did. When Plinkett nitpicked, it was because the character was nitpicky in this webisode of "Plinkett Review". When Jim nitpicked, he did it more to remove credibility form Stoklasa himself. Even sometimes stooping as low to call out how someone in-character worded an argument poorly (using "ending" instead of "climax") as an example of idiocy. This brings me to my next point...

3: Raynor relies way too much on calling Stoklasa a moron/idiot/retard/brain-dead-fucking-asshole-piece-of-shit-bitch-man. If you couldn't tell, that last one wasn't actually featured in the 108-page collection of stuff, I was just making a point about how much nerd rage seeped into this dissertation-lengthed argument. Please note that the point is not lessened by the literal absence of those exact words and I am not a moron/idiot/retard/brain-dead-fucking-asshole-piece-of-shit-bitch-man for mentioning the general feeling I got from Jim's insults.

4: Raynor takes every word Plinkett says way too literally. I will point out two instances this time. When Plinkett says "why not fight them all and steal a ship", the comment was more commentary about how useless the foot-soldiers of the robot army was made to be and how easy it was to run the blockade anyway. Next example is when Plinkett said "why doesn't Qui Gon use force to steal the part ... physically chokes Watto while grabs the part and runs". This point was also not made to be taken literally, in no way was Plinkett actually suggesting that the characters should've done all of that, but was pointing out that Qui Gon's abusing of his Force powers to get everything that he wants all the time is akin to him holding Watto at gunpoint and mugging him for the money, the boy, the pod, his shop, the part for the ship, and anything else Watto had that he wanted.
(This point is a big reason why some people think Jim really missed entire points when writing this counterargument)

5: Raynor follows the same trappings he accuses Stoklasa of following. Most notably is his ignoring, later in the argument, points he made earlier in the counterargument. I will site one example, mostly because I don't wish to argue the details. One of his first points is that the Gunrays are cowards, which he then shortly re-enforces. However, much later into the review, he accuses Stoklasa of being a moron for suggesting that the Gunrays would've used the entire army to protect themselves... forgetting completely about his point that the Gunrays are the most cowardly things in the universe since the Gunrays one minute before.

6. Raynor uses many of the same tricks for gaining support (humor, hiding fallacies behind rhetoric) that Stoklasa used. The first point is a comic featuring the Star Trek character complaining about the plans during the battle. Very clearly this part in the Plinkett Review happened before the battle, not during, and Jim tried to confuse the point by using humor. The second point is the Fear->Anger->Hate->Suffering. Jim used brackets [like this] to fill in the definitions based on different events. Guess what... I can do that too:
---
Anger [at the various obstacles preventing your goals] leads to Fear [that the intense anger you feel may consume you] which leads to Suffering [internally trying to stop basic human emotions] eventually ending in Hatred [of the people who conditioned you to resist those basic human emotions]. Tada! And I must say, this is a better explanation of what eventually happened to make Anakin become Darth Vader than that weirdness Raynor used as "proof" that Yoda's logic path is the only one.
---
Reiterating the unspoken definitions of a phrase does not prove the phrase to be infallible. I'm pretty sure Raynor knew this and used a second example of these bracketed sentences to gloss over the obvious.

I've gotten way into "too long; didn't read" territory again, so I'll cut it short; and as brevity is the soul of wit: Boingo boingo whoopsy knickers.

[Knife]

Not much and not very convincing as both character were rather wooden and didn't really develop in the story.

That seems to be your opinion; however, I've given quite a few accounts of the depth of the two characters in your various threads, so I'm not sure why you believe it but whatever...

Pathetic? Those are your words not the script's or Obi-wan's

Actually those are Obi Wan's words, some times I wonder if we've both seen the same movie we're talking about here.

They also refused to train him because they sensed great danger and unclear future - how conveniently you overlooked that.

I didn't over look it, they used their rules they are enslaved to as cover to make that decision. The fact that some of them thought Anakin was dangerous is not part of my point, they used their devotion to their rules as an excuse to not do 'the right thing'.

Let me refer you to Raynor own words for that: "Shmi is not a Republic citizen, and Tatooine is not Republic territory. " and As for the rest of the Jedi, they not only never knew Shmi but they also saw Anakin's attachment issues as dangerous."

Just like above, they used the letter of the their law to excuse themselves from doing the spirit of the law. Sounds pretty cold and aloof to me, not sure why you ain't getting this.

none of this is very convincing as the Jedi having grown cold ie having changed.

Lol, all of it points that direction. Holy crap, Yoda does all but directly says it in AotC and yet you still can't pick it out.

all you're telling me is tidbits which seem more put in there for plot conveniences. if you are saying these were points to prove that "the point of the prequel trilogy is that the Jedi Order has grown cold, personally detached, and unyielding in its devotion to its doctrines." then why in hell should we care that they get wiped out or that they should be brought back in the Original Trilogy? This just kills any sympathy we might have for the Jedi BUT I don't think this is what Lucas was going for despite you and Raynor wishing it to be. You guys ideas makes for even a worse storyline than the one we already got.

You know, for someone who keeps bitching about how bad the story line is and it should have been better, you really have a hard time picking out simple plots and easy themes. I really don't think you have a clue about what is and what isn't a good story, you just didn't like this one.

No I'm beaten upside the heads by those who continually make excuses for bad film making while they pull things out of thin air to support their arguments.

Lol, I'd love for you to point out some of those things that made it a bad film that doesn't take three minutes for me to come up with a 'uhm, it says right here in the dialogue that that isn't so'. So far you've pretty much flailed about waving your arms about how bad the story is and how bad Jim's rebuttal is, but can't come up with anything that isn't nit pickery. Every time you go off about how bad the story is, you trip over yourself not to recognize simple plot and theme elements in the movie that a lot of people, including my children, got easily. Basically, you suck as a critic, so don't quit your day job.

If you need a novel or TV series to explain a story point, a theme, or flesh out an under developed character than it says that the film failed in its purpose in telling its story

Go reread that part of my post, it said it's in the movie as well as explicitly in the novelization of the movie. I just think you don't know how to watch/read/ interpret a story that isn't spoon fed to you or has pop up pictures to entertain you.

[ronindave]

Let me refer you to Raynor own words for that: "Shmi is not a Republic citizen, and Tatooine is not Republic territory. " and As for the rest of the Jedi, they not only never knew Shmi but they also saw Anakin's attachment issues as dangerous."

Just like above, they used the letter of the their law to excuse themselves from doing the spirit of the law. Sounds pretty cold and aloof to me, not sure why you ain't getting this.

Actually no one mentions anything about freeing her or nor freeing her

Lol, all of it points that direction. Holy crap, Yoda does all but directly says it in AotC and yet you still can't pick it out.

Actually all he said that was that some Jedi were arrogant not cold nor become rigid to their rules

You know, for someone who keeps bitching about how bad the story line is and it should have been better, you really have a hard time picking out simple plots and easy themes. I really don't think you have a clue about what is and what isn't a good story, you just didn't like this one.

Simple plots and easy themes Ah, the apologist's ultimate weapon of saying "you are too stupid to understand the films." Yeah, that's it. You're one of the few elites who "gets" the brilliance of these films with their simple plots and easy themes. Bet you feel special, don't you?

The Jedi in the films are shown as stiff and cold but were they anything but that from their beginning which begs the question - are they heroes? Are they worth bringing back? And more importantly is that the way Lucas wanted them portrayed or is that just how they came out on film - cold and lifeless due to a cold and lifeless script? In the Original Trilogy we were given clear-cut heroes and villains with personalities, motivations, devotion mainly this was due to a better script, direction, and acting.

If the intention was to show that the Jedi had changed, it was not done well. The way they come off in the prequels is that they have always been that way which doesn't make them very heroic or worth reviving. There are no references to the past or to any changes except we are told (not shown) that some Jedi have grown arrogant which is not the same as cold and rigid. The only one we are shown who has grown arrogant is Anakin and we all know where that goes.

Ultimately there is little reason to nitpick a film for a bit of dialogue here or there that somehow supports all this. The fact is when the overall films are boring and don't grab many of the viewers' attention, is it the fault of the viewer for being bored and missing a few strands of dialogue or the fault of the film maker for being boring and losing the audience's attention while not effectively getting their point across?

I missed Obi-wan saying the word "pathetic" despite having seen the first film 5 times and in various clips. Why? Because the film was so forgettable and the characters uninteresting. Such themes of the prequels like the Jedi Order becoming cold and rigid could have come off better under the hands of a better script writer and director. I think people like you have become so infected over the years with the novelizations and EU that you think you see these themes clearly in the films which those of us who haven't bothered with the filler EU don't see because it was poorly done.

[Knife]

Simple plots and easy themes Ah, the apologist's ultimate weapon of saying "you are too stupid to understand the films." Yeah, that's it. You're one of the few elites who "gets" the brilliance of these films with their simple plots and easy themes. Bet you feel special, don't you?

lol...

Most people got them, young children got them, so I think you have that elitist title backwards dude. Everyone got these simple plots and themes, nobody but you and RLM wannabes needed detailed explanation about the motivations of the Trade Fed or the cold aloofness of the Jedi, or an evil Bond-villain monologue detailing his evil plot.

The Jedi in the films are shown as stiff and cold

Errr... haven't you been arguing for a page or two that they weren't cold?

but were they anything but that from their beginning which begs the question - are they heroes?

Er... Jedi Knight, Light Side, swords, Guardians of Peace and Justice... come on dude. They are hero's in the same vein as Ajax and Achilles, good soldiers who fought for the glory of Greece, but really a bunch of assholes. Or hero's of Norse myth who drank, fucked, and fought epic battles. All hero's but flawed hero's.

Are they worth bringing back?

No, another theme in the movie that was pretty obvious.

And more importantly is that the way Lucas wanted them portrayed or is that just how they came out on film - cold and lifeless due to a cold and lifeless script?

If you were as awesome a critic as you think you are, you should be able to pull apart bad dialogue and bad characterization from themes and plot points. Anakin's painful expressions of love, let alone dialogue at the arena in AotC doesn't diminish all the throw away lines that set up an aloof, cold, and distant Jedi Order.

In the Original Trilogy we were given clear-cut heroes and villains with personalities, motivations, devotion mainly this was due to a better script, direction, and acting.

I agree the original trilogy was better, just disagree that the prequel was as bad as you say. And they were not clear cut, Han Solo the rogue wasn't clear cut, nor was Lando, nor was Palpatine's in ESB and RotJ. Really his plot to bring everyone to Endor was as dumb and arrogant as he said the Jedi were in the prequel. An entire legion against an entire tribe of teddy bears who had pre-emplaced siege equipment set up on their secret hidden base.

If the intention was to show that the Jedi had changed, it was not done well.

Your opinion, totally subjective though. Jar Jar sucking has shit all to do with themes of an old and dying political structure.

The way they come off in the prequels is that they have always been that way which doesn't make them very heroic or worth reviving.

They're not, again what movie are you watching? Luke's will be a rebirth, a new Order without all the old dogma.

There are no references to the past or to any changes except we are told (not shown) that some Jedi have grown arrogant which is not the same as cold and rigid. The only one we are shown who has grown arrogant is Anakin and we all know where that goes.

Why do you need a history lesson in a film?

Ultimately there is little reason to nitpick a film for a bit of dialogue here or there that somehow supports all this. The fact is when the overall films are boring and don't grab many of the viewers' attention, is it the fault of the viewer for being bored and missing a few strands of dialogue or the fault of the film maker for being boring and losing the audience's attention while not effectively getting their point across?

Unfortunately for your argument, lots of people saw, understood, liked, and watched repeatedly the movie. You seem to be a small minority that didn't.

I missed Obi-wan saying the word "pathetic" despite having seen the first film 5 times and in various clips. Why? Because the film was so forgettable and the characters uninteresting. Such themes of the prequels like the Jedi Order becoming cold and rigid could have come off better under the hands of a better script writer and director. I think people like you have become so infected over the years with the novelizations and EU that you think you see these themes clearly in the films which those of us who haven't bothered with the filler EU don't see because it was poorly done.

So you want to argue about a movie that you were so uninterested in you missed major plot points, major themes, and major dialogue explaining shit you're arguing about?


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha. You're a troll.

[ronindave]

lol...
Most people got them, young children got them, so I think you have that elitist title backwards dude. Everyone got these simple plots and themes, nobody but you and RLM wannabes needed detailed explanation about the motivations of the Trade Fed or the cold aloofness of the Jedi, or an evil Bond-villain monologue detailing his evil plot.

Do you honestly think the dislike of the prequels stems from RLM? People hated those films the moment they came out.

Errr... haven't you been arguing for a page or two that they weren't cold?

No I was arguing against Raynor's saying that was the point of the prequels whereas I say they are cold and lifeless due to bad writing and therefore not intentional. there is big a difference.

The way they come off in the prequels is that they have always been that way which doesn't make them very heroic or worth reviving.

They're not, again what movie are you watching? Luke's will be a rebirth, a new Order without all the old dogma.

a new Order? Was this ever brought up or that the old order was flawed in the OT? Luke was trained by Obi-wan and Yoda who showed no signs that the old order was flawed certainly not poster-child Obi-wan as you called him. If the Jedi Order of the Prequels was flawed then so were Obi-wan and Yoda and therefore their training of Luke would have been flawed and his new order would be fundamentally flawed as the last Order.

Why do you need a history lesson in a film?

It's something called storytelling. The original trilogy had it, remember? Clone Wars, Luke's father turning to the Dark Side, the extinction of the Jedi. We kind of needed it to understand the story universe we were in.

Unfortunately for your argument, lots of people saw, understood, liked, and watched repeatedly the movie. You seem to be a small minority that didn't.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, apparently. Until the 108-page rebuttal backlash against RLM came out I wasn't aware that there was this kind of passionate and delusional defense of these prequels. I thought prequel defenders were a much smaller minority than they actually are - and really you are. In the past what few prequel defenders there were just came off as kids who just liked the films because they couldn't see past the flashy light sabers and Yoda leaping around. But you other type of defenders take the proverbial cake. You have built almost a completely different version of reality supported by all the EU and novelizations. You have convinced yourselves these are good films and that they don't punch huge holes in the storyline's continuity. It's absolutely amazing this level of self-deception!

So you want to argue about a movie that you were so uninterested in you missed major plot points, major themes, and major dialogue explaining shit you're arguing about?

Again you are delusional. I had no intentional of going into any of these movies and disliking them. I wanted to like them. With TPM I went in already having heard about Jar Jar. I was determined to ignore that and enjoy the film anyway. Despite this I still left unsatisfied. If a film fails to satisfy someone who wants to be, is that the viewer's fault or the film maker's?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha. You're a troll.

Yes, hahahaha-whatever. At the last recourse claim troll and run. How typical

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

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.

It was straight forward in the sense that in the end you understood that Palpitine took Valorum's position, but as for motivations behind why/how that happened its up for debate. As is evidenced by this thread no one knows what the TF wants. The princess felt Valorum was the naboo's biggest supporter (he did send jedi to help after all) sure she was pissed he didn't send troops right away but even after Palpitine was nominated he basically said there was nothing he could do either. So the vote of no confidence didn't even matter because she needed to go free her people on her own anyway. It's like lucas wanted to throw in political intrigue but realized he had no way of setting it up because the audience has no idea how their political system works. Yeah you get the point, Palpitine rises to power but it's done in poorly written and directed.

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.

Well I was counting from 1977 since he started with part 4 and in theory knew what happened in parts 1-3, but whether it's 30 years of 1 the script is not very good. It's not the worst script ever but when you're making the most anticipated film in history taxes seems like an odd way to go.

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.

I agree the story is all over the place and it's a different argument than space taxes. That's why so many people agree with RLM review. If lucas had focused on anyone of the above elements as the main arc it would have been a vastly better movie.

[ronindave]

Er... Jedi Knight, Light Side, swords, Guardians of Peace and Justice... come on dude. They are hero's in the same vein as Ajax and Achilles, good soldiers who fought for the glory of Greece, but really a bunch of assholes. Or hero's of Norse myth who drank, fucked, and fought epic battles. All hero's but flawed hero's.

Sorry missed this little gem. Just a bunch of assholes, eh? Wow, incredible analyses there. Those heroes reflected the cultural values of their times hence the reason they were considered heroes and not assholes to the people of their times. They were heroes to aspire to be as in the same way the Jedi as they were perceived to be in the OT were for our times. That's what made the Jedi so popular in the first trilogy - they were heroes.

Yes heroes have flaws but those flaws are to make them more human not less. The Jedi that Lucas created for the Prequels whether intentional or just thru bad writing have no heroic qualities to aspire to nor does anyone in those films really.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

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

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 a couple things

1. Sorry I haven't posted more, but I've got job to feed and kids to work and as much as I like nerd debates I can't post all the time.

2. I wasn't complaining about you nitpicking. I was merely pointing out that one of your defenders was complaining about someone rebutting sentence by sentence when you did the same thing to the RLM review. Nothing wrong with that, I just thought it was strange that your defender was so upset by someone doing the same thing.

3. I like your review, I also like RLM videos. I'm glad TPM was made just so I could watch the review and I was equally glad that I watched a 70 minute review so I could then read your 108 page rebuttal. When I heard about it the first thing I thought... well there's no way he could defend the speed running force power but you did and I think it sums up your thinking pretty well on RLM and TPM.

"He labels the Jedi's super speed as a cop out by the writer, although it seems to me that it was more of a momentary "cool effect." If the writer wanted the Jedi to run away...then the Jedi would simply run away, super speed or not. The Droidekas were standing still while shooting; there was no implication at all that the Jedi couldn't otherwise outrun them."

If someone is writing to just have a "cool effect" that later could be used by the character to save the life of someone they care about, that's called shitty writing.

"5:06 RLM: "But we never see them run fast again."
Fair point, although you can say that about all the other Force powers. Why don't the Jedi and Sith use telekinesis or lightning at every moment during every fight? The
simple explanation is that the Jedi's powers aren't limitless, and you can't just pull out any Force power at any given moment."

Never in the movies does anyone say the force is limited. It's not mana that can be drained. You're just making stuff up, which I believe is something you kept complaining the RLM did.

"A clip is shown, of Obi-Wan not being fast enough to rejoin Qui-Gon before an energy shield cuts him off.
But Stoklasa also doesn't mention the factors leading up to the specific part that he's complaining about here. Obi-Wan is kicked in the face by Darth Maul. He then falls several dozen feet down, slamming hard into another walkway below him which he barely grabs hold of in order to avoid falling even more. Obi-Wan then pulls himself up, before using the Force to leap high up again. So excuse him for not using the Force again several seconds after just using it, and not long after taking some hard hits."

Your wrong again. After Obi-Wan gets up to the platform and the energy shields come on for the first time. Everyone stops and catches their breath. Fucking Qui-Gon grabs a seat and start meditating. So even if you were right and the force was limited he had more than enough time to build up his mana and speed run to save his master.

"Now, this part wasn't a big deal. But it's yet another tiresome example of Stoklasa making a nitpick without mentioning the easy explanation that already exists."

The easiest explanation does exist and RLM mentioned it. A terrible screenplay that forgets its own logic.

You seem to want to protect Phantom Menace so badly you will go to great lengths refute the irrefutable. The fast running is a big deal because it is symptomatic of so much that is wrong with TPM. A bad screenplay that could have easily been fixed. Is it as bad as RLM said, most likely not but he review is funny because it unleashed every nit picky piece of nerd rage people like me had at how utterly disappointing TPM was.

[ronindave]

You seem to want to protect Phantom Menace so badly you will go to great lengths refute the irrefutable. The fast running is a big deal because it is symptomatic of so much that is wrong with TPM. A bad screenplay that could have easily been fixed.

That's a very good point and one I have trouble getting my head around. I can understand people just saying "I like the film but if you don't, whatever!" There are several films I like that are generally hated but I don't defend them. I actually like the infamous Star Trek V - parts of it at least but in no way will I defend it because I can perfectly understand why people don't like it especially after the much better Star Trek IV plus many of their criticisms are valid. If someone just likes the Prequels, fair enough but don't try to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn.

But with the prequels the levels people will go to defend them is astonishing. They can't admit that the plot makes no sense and is simply a victim of bad writing. They fill their heads with their own assumptions and with the novelizations written by other writers to explain what wasn't in the films. And if that fails just say that it's obviously part of Palpatine's superduper secret plan. They so desperately want these Prequels to be a reality whereas many others are happy to think they don't exist and have no bearing on the originals.

Then there are others who are willing to argue against the very heart of Star Wars. They want to defend the cold rigid Jedi in the Prequels as being that way intentional rather just bad film-making. The Jedi of the OT both in the film and what we heard about were heroes in the true sense of the world. The ones in the Prequels aren't even tragically flawed heroes because they have no emotion. There's nothing for us to care about them. Why would anyone want to defend this depiction of the Jedi whether intentional or not since it completely destroys what made them so great initially. All this just to defend some crappy movies and pointless TV show about soulless robots and clones duking it out.

Does anyone defend Star Trek Generations with this level of intensity?

[Metahive]

For the PT era Jedis being cold and uncaring I must say that's refuted quite strongly by the CG Clone Wars series, they do care a lot even about their own mass-produced throwaway clone troopers, just watch episodes like Ambush or Shadow of Malevolence. Then there's also the fact that they, as high-ranking commanders, are still always found fighting at the very front lines, risking the most to fight for their cause.

[ronindave]

For the PT era Jedis being cold and uncaring I must say that's refuted quite strongly by the CG Clone Wars series, they do care a lot even about their own mass-produced throwaway clone troopers

Don't tell me. Tell that to Raynor who thinks that is the point of the prequels and to Knife who thinks the Jedi are basically a-holes.

But does that mean the series is canon and the prequels aren't? Or is it just the CLone wars trying to compensate for the bad writing and characterization of the films?

[Srelex]

Does anyone defend Star Trek Generations with this level of intensity?

You'd be surprised. Hey, there are people who vehemently defend Transformers 2.

[Metahive]

I don't think the PT portrays the Jedi as cold and uncaring, it fails to give the Jedi any sort of overall characterisation at all since besides Qui-Gon, Obi Wan, Anakin and Yoda the lot of them doesn't have scenes that aren't tied to perfunctory exposition. All plot no characterisation. At one point in AOTC Yoda laments that the Jedi have become arrogant yet nothing ever follows that portrays them as being so, a classic "show don't tell" type filmmaking blunder.
So no, in the movieverse they aren't assholes, they're ciphers.

It's also hard to take any criticism of the Jedi or the dogma in the PT seriously when the movies themselves go out of their way to show they were completely in the right, first about not wishing to train Anakin and right about forbidding attachments since disregarding both eventually led to twenty years of brutal oppression and the death of most Jedi.

[Knife]

It's also hard to take any criticism of the Jedi or the dogma in the PT seriously when the movies themselves go out of their way to show they were completely in the right, first about not wishing to train Anakin and right about forbidding attachments since disregarding both eventually led to twenty years of brutal oppression and the death of most Jedi.

It's interesting you view it like that. Not a dig, actually interesting. I viewed it as more symptoms of how the Order was broken than in the end they were right about Anakin, a self fulfilling prophecy if you will. I don't individual Jedi were bad, cold, and aloof; rather, I think the Order was. The status of the Jedi reflect the status of the Republic writ large, the Republic was rotten from the core, what used to be good ideas, principle, and a general force for good had crumbled. The Jedi, as a part of the Republic, suffered from the same symptoms. I took it that the Jedi weren't so much right about Anakin, but their attitudes about Anakin helped push him over the edge that ended up with the removal of the Republic and the Jedi.

[Metahive]

That would serve as an explanation but unfortunately there's only one Jedi who continously views Anakin with suspicion and that's Mace Windu who himself is already a special case. The others treat him as an equal and when Anakin himself voices his complaints about the order it's about Obi-Wan specifically "holding him back", he never complains about any sort of rejection by the order as a whole. What you say here is probably what Lucas intended to show it's just that it isn't portrayed all that well. Look at it also this way, the Republic might be rotten and corrupt, but the two alternatives we are presented with are the ruthless and frankly insane CIS and the murderous, fascistic galactic empire the Republic eventually morphs into, so sticking to the Republic and its dogmatic Jedi Order isn't really a hard moral choice.

[Pebkio]

Okay...

How about this? Let's assume that the Jedi Order in general were a group of people who continuously "broke the code" and imposed their will upon their galaxy because they can sense what's best for everyone.

Why yes, I would like to clarify myself. The Jedi, even with their diminished use of the Force, could still sense dark feelings in most people and they're physical use of the force still seemed to be tops. Also, this argument would assume that the Jedi would've been enforcing their will for much longer than the time-line of when the prequels started. So the diminished force wouldn't have been in affect.

So, lets say that 50 in-movie years before TPM, the Jedi stopped meditating in the towers, removed every darker thinking or easily manipulated senator they could find (peacefully, even), and then spent all that time cleaning up all the injustices in the galaxy that they decided with their wisdom were injustices.

...actually, before I go ahead and describe what would happen next, why doesn't someone (who's been defending the idea that the Jedi are cold) describe what might happen first.

[Elfdart]

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?

You can start with Qui-Gon Jinn telling Anakin's mother that he didn't come to Tattooine to free slaves. You can then go on to the Jedi Council telling Anakin that his worries about his mother are a path to the dark side of the Force. Then you can go to the scene where Jinn and Kenobi are sent to follow Queen Amidala back to Naboo to try to draw out the Sith Lord who attacked the group earlier: The Queen and the Gungans and the Naboo themselves take a back seat to this. Jinn himself tells Amidala that he's only there to guard her, not fight a war for her. But that's just Episode 1.

In AOTC when Anakin tells Obi-Wan that he's having nightmares about his mother, Kenobi tells him something to the tune of "Ah, you'll get over it". When Anakin shows that he's rather fond of Padme, Kenobi's only reaction is to tell him to forget about it. Whether it's traveling to Tattooine or trying save Padme or even saving Obi-Wan himself, Obi-Wan Kenobi is more concerned with berating Anakin about his duty to the Jedi than anything else.

In ROTS Yoda completely blows off Anakin when the young Jedi tells him that he's having premonitions about the death of someone close to him. Yoda tells him that death is no big deal and anyway, a Jedi isn't supposed to be so attached to others. Later on, Obi-Wan balks at the idea of trying to kill Anakin since the two were like brothers. Yoda tells him essentially "tough titty, he's a bad guy now -kill him".

In ANH, when Luke realizes his aunt and uncle are in mortal danger and runs to help them, Ben doesn't lift a finger to help. He's more than willing to let Owen and Beru get killed rather than risk losing Luke. In this case it didn't matter because his aunt and uncle were already dead, but Kenobi didn't know that.

In TESB when Ben and Yoda keep telling Luke to forget about his friends and finish his studies and Luke shoots back "And sacrifice Han and Leia?", Yoda says yes. Ben and Yoda are quite willing to throw Han and Leia under the bus.

In ROTJ, Ben and Yoda insist that Luke has to fight Vader one more time. When Luke balks at the idea of killing his own father, Ben says that in that case the Emperor has already won. The Jedi are eager to send a young man to kill his own father.

Now these are major plot points in some of the most well-known movies ever made. If Heathcliff (and his admirers) are too stupid to catch on to the obvious Tragic Flaw of the Jedi, then it says more about his stupidity than it does about the film-making of George Lucas.

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.

I guess you missed the bit about the deflector shield the Gungans deployed. It was strong enough to deflect fire from tanks, so more than likely it would have deflected strafing fire from the air.

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.

Who says the Gungans wouldn't have chased after them? When the enemy breaks and runs it's customary to run them down if possible -especially since it's so much easier to fight an enemy who turns his back.

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?

Maybe you should try to kidnap her and find out.

Seriously though, for over 150 years a number of judges in the US have kept guns hidden under the bench for personal protection. This was quite common during Reconstruction.

[ronindave]

I guess you missed the bit about the deflector shield the Gungans deployed. It was strong enough to deflect fire from tanks, so more than likely it would have deflected strafing fire from the air.

You mean the deflector shields that the robots just walked through? If they can walk thru them you can fly thru them. Besides how would the Trade Fed even know they had those things? Not the kind of thing you'd expect folks from a backward society to have.

Who says the Gungans wouldn't have chased after them? When the enemy breaks and runs it's customary to run them down if possible -especially since it's so much easier to fight an enemy who turns his back.

chased after them on what? Most of them were on foot and their cavalry was living creatures whereas the droids had mobile vehicles which I think would be a fair bit quicker than the gungans on foot and their equivalent of horses. Besides when the battle becomes staggeringly obvious to be a diversion you shouldn't bother fighting it full force but go after the main danger. One rear guard could have been sacrificed to slow the slow-moving gungans.

Maybe you should try to kidnap her and find out.

Seriously though, for over 150 years a number of judges in the US have kept guns hidden under the bench for personal protection. This was quite common during Reconstruction.

Seriously though it was a pointless nitpick over a funny line. Just Raynor once again taking potshots at just about every single line of Plinkett and missing points by miles.

As for the rest about the Jedi, bravo! You have given the audience hardly a reason to give a damn about the Jedi - some heroes! But again I don't think was intentional in the prequels, only badly written. As someone said they aren't like that in the Clone Wars shows.

In ANH, when Luke realizes his aunt and uncle are in mortal danger and runs to help them, Ben doesn't lift a finger to help.

Maybe because Luke doesn't give him a chance and strands him out there without any vehicle? Ben didn't want him rushing rashly back into a possible slaughter but that's moot point since Luke rushed off anyway stranding Ben.

In TESB when Ben and Yoda keep telling Luke to forget about his friends and finish his studies and Luke shoots back "And sacrifice Han and Leia?", Yoda says yes. Ben and Yoda are quite willing to throw Han and Leia under the bus.

under a bus is your interpretation. Yoda actually says "if you honor what they fight for, yes." And Ben said Luke couldn't tell if they would die. And they were right all along! Plus they also knew it was a trap and that Luke wasn't ready to meet Vader which he wasn't and he lost his hand because of it. And noticed they didn't stop Luke. They cautioned him and then advised him when his mind was set.

If you noticed his arriving didn't change anything. Han was already frozen and in Bobba Fett's ship. Leia had escaped when Lando changed sides. All of this without Luke's help. The point of that narrative was to show that Luke cared about his friends but that he was also headstrong and rash thus he lost his hand because of it. Now that is a good flawed hero! And it more importantly it was effectively portrayed on screen.

In ROTJ, Ben and Yoda insist that Luke has to fight Vader one more time. When Luke balks at the idea of killing his own father, Ben says that in that case the Emperor has already won. The Jedi are eager to send a young man to kill his own father.

Yoda only said he had to confront Vader and Obi-wan said to face him. Only Luke says he can't kill him which can be taken as not facing him at all. And while Obi-wan tells Luke to bury his feelings out of concern they can be used by the Emperor he says those same feelings are commendable. With the OT Jedi of Obi-wan and Yoda I feel safer in giving them more credit and assuming killing Vader is not what they meant "from a certain point of view" but that Luke had to face him and thereby set in motion the events that would led to Vader's redemption and the downfall of the Emperor.

[Terralthra]

I don't think the PT portrays the Jedi as cold and uncaring, it fails to give the Jedi any sort of overall characterisation at all since besides Qui-Gon, Obi Wan, Anakin and Yoda the lot of them doesn't have scenes that aren't tied to perfunctory exposition. All plot no characterisation. At one point in AOTC Yoda laments that the Jedi have become arrogant yet nothing ever follows that portrays them as being so, a classic "show don't tell" type filmmaking blunder.

Other than Mace Windu leading a bunch of Jedi into the middle of an army of battle droids and super battle droids, and then all just igniting their lightsabres and striking cool poses, as if the mere sight of them would make the enemy stand down. Far too many of them paid with their lives for that bit of hubris.

[Bakustra]

In TESB when Ben and Yoda keep telling Luke to forget about his friends and finish his studies and Luke shoots back "And sacrifice Han and Leia?", Yoda says yes. Ben and Yoda are quite willing to throw Han and Leia under the bus.

under a bus is your interpretation. Yoda actually says "if you honor what they fight for, yes." And Ben said Luke couldn't tell if they would die. And they were right all along! Plus they also knew it was a trap and that Luke wasn't ready to meet Vader which he wasn't and he lost his hand because of it. And noticed they didn't stop Luke. They cautioned him and then advised him when his mind was set.

If you noticed his arriving didn't change anything. Han was already frozen and in Bobba Fett's ship. Leia had escaped when Lando changed sides. All of this without Luke's help. The point of that narrative was to show that Luke cared about his friends but that he was also headstrong and rash thus he lost his hand because of it. Now that is a good flawed hero! And it more importantly it was effectively portrayed on screen.

In ROTJ, Ben and Yoda insist that Luke has to fight Vader one more time. When Luke balks at the idea of killing his own father, Ben says that in that case the Emperor has already won. The Jedi are eager to send a young man to kill his own father.

Yoda only said he had to confront Vader and Obi-wan said to face him. Only Luke says he can't kill him which can be taken as not facing him at all. And while Obi-wan tells Luke to bury his feelings out of concern they can be used by the Emperor he says those same feelings are commendable. With the OT Jedi of Obi-wan and Yoda I feel safer in giving them more credit and assuming killing Vader is not what they meant "from a certain point of view" but that Luke had to face him and thereby set in motion the events that would led to Vader's redemption and the downfall of the Emperor.

I'm going to home in on these two, because here you're making excuses. Let's take a look at what would have happened if Luke stayed on Dagobah. Well, for one thing, he wouldn't have encountered Vader again until Endor. The revelation of their relationship then would have seen him dead at the Emperor's feet or else the Emperor's new apprentice. His fight on Bespin with Vader gave him what he needed to defeat the Emperor in RoTJ. So you're simply wrong- had he done as Yoda and Kenobi wanted, they would have failed and Luke would have probably died. That's also ignoring that Vader doesn't want to hurt Luke, but doesn't care about Leia or the others at this point, so they could well have been shot down leaving Bespin without Luke there.

In the second case, you're ignoring everything else they say about Vader- that he's inhuman, "more machine than man", and they're dismissal of Luke sensing some good in him. Attributing a master plan of redemption is not really supportable when looking at the movie. The implications in the scene are obvious- Yoda and Kenobi want him to kill Vader and the Emperor.

This then leads in to the idea of the prophecy from the prequels and the whole of the story is revealed- the idea behind the Jedi is that you should use the Force without emotion and you should avoid emotional attachment, so that you can draw upon the Light Side. The Dark Side is all about emotion. Here we have yin and yang minus the sexuality. So at the end of RoTJ, Luke rejects the Dark Side- but then calls out to his father. An emotional connection, which grants him a victory over the Emperor.

By Jedi standards as presented, that is a Dark action- the true Jedi would have said nothing, and died for it. So Luke has rejected both Light and Dark alone, and mastered them both, being able to call upon rational light and irrational dark and using them to temper one another and prevent the distant douchebaggery of the Jedi and violent rages of the Sith. The Force is then, and only then, in balance, for the new Jedi that will come after Luke will learn from him and learn to master both and let neither dominate, thus achieving their own balance.

This does not make the prequels good movies, but instead it transfigures them from abominations unto the eyes of God and man, plagues upon all who walk this Earth, films straight from the studios of hell itself, into poorly-executed but not fundamentally flawed films. So I predict rejection of this. But no matter. Ultimately, the idea that the prequels are totally inconsistent with the character of the OT is personal, but I doubt that you can reasonably say that the Yoda or Obi-wan of the prequels is completely unprecedented in their characterization in the OT.

[Elfdart]

I guess you missed the bit about the deflector shield the Gungans deployed. It was strong enough to deflect fire from tanks, so more than likely it would have deflected strafing fire from the air.

You mean the deflector shields that the robots just walked through? If they can walk thru them you can fly thru them.

Obviously not, since the hovertanks held back. Going by what you actually see, slow-moving objects can wade through; fast-moving objects cannot. So unless a droid fighter was going slow down and hover through the shield at low speed -making itself an easy target for ground fire- it couldn't just fly through.

Besides, the droid fighters were preoccupied.

Besides how would the Trade Fed even know they had those things? Not the kind of thing you'd expect folks from a backward society to have.

Apparently shield technology is fairly common. In real life, backward societies often have modern weaponry -it's often the only modern thing they do have. Not that it matters: shield or no shield, the Federation's tanks and troops were more than enough to rout the Gungans even without air support.

chased after them on what? Most of them were on foot and their cavalry was living creatures whereas the droids had mobile vehicles which I think would be a fair bit quicker than the gungans on foot and their equivalent of horses. Besides when the battle becomes staggeringly obvious to be a diversion you shouldn't bother fighting it full force but go after the main danger.

The mounted Gungans would have been more than fast enough to run down fleeing battle droids before they could make it to their transports. That would leave only the tanks, but it appears that the duckbill creatures were fast enough to keep pace with the droid tanks, since a mounted Gungan was able to overtake the droid tank and try to rescue Jar Jar.

One rear guard could have been sacrificed to slow the slow-moving gungans.

Yeah piss away part of your land forces in order have them hightail back to the palace to do... what, exactly? The extra tanks wouldn't have stopped Padme's forces since they were already breaking into the palace long before the droid army could do anything. Sure the tanks and maybe the transports could have raced back to the palace, then sit outside as the shootouts carried on inside. Or they could have fired on the palace, but that would have more likely hit their own troops than Padme's.

Seriously though it was a pointless nitpick over a funny line. Just Raynor once again taking potshots at just about every single line of Plinkett and missing points by miles.

Like Heathcliff and his fanboys did with TPM, right?

As for the rest about the Jedi, bravo! You have given the audience hardly a reason to give a damn about the Jedi - some heroes!

So seriously flawed heroes need not apply? I hope you and Red Letter Moron's other groupies never read any Greek mythology -your heads would explode.

In TESB when Ben and Yoda keep telling Luke to forget about his friends and finish his studies and Luke shoots back "And sacrifice Han and Leia?", Yoda says yes. Ben and Yoda are quite willing to throw Han and Leia under the bus.

under a bus is your interpretation. Yoda actually says "if you honor what they fight for, yes." And Ben said Luke couldn't tell if they would die. And they were right all along! Plus they also knew it was a trap and that Luke wasn't ready to meet Vader which he wasn't and he lost his hand because of it. And noticed they didn't stop Luke. They cautioned him and then advised him when his mind was set.

If you noticed his arriving didn't change anything. Han was already frozen and in Bobba Fett's ship. Leia had escaped when Lando changed sides. All of this without Luke's help. The point of that narrative was to show that Luke cared about his friends but that he was also headstrong and rash thus he lost his hand because of it. Now that is a good flawed hero! And it more importantly it was effectively portrayed on screen.

Were it not for R2-D2 fixing the hyperdrive, Leia and the others would have been reeled in by Vader's ship as they tried to escape. Refresh my memory: How exactly did R2 make it all the way from Dagobah to Bespin?

On top of that, the fact that Vader was busy waiting for Luke and fighting him meant that for a very brief time, the imperial troops in Bespin were leaderless. If Luke isn't on his way, Vader more than likely sees to it personally that Leia and Chewie are taken to his ship. Or he could have just killed them since his plan to use them as bait wasn't working and they were no longer of any use to him.

In ROTJ, Ben and Yoda insist that Luke has to fight Vader one more time. When Luke balks at the idea of killing his own father, Ben says that in that case the Emperor has already won. The Jedi are eager to send a young man to kill his own father.

Yoda only said he had to confront Vader and Obi-wan said to face him. Only Luke says he can't kill him which can be taken as not facing him at all. And while Obi-wan tells Luke to bury his feelings out of concern they can be used by the Emperor he says those same feelings are commendable. With the OT Jedi of Obi-wan and Yoda I feel safer in giving them more credit and assuming killing Vader is not what they meant "from a certain point of view" but that Luke had to face him and thereby set in motion the events that would led to Vader's redemption and the downfall of the Emperor.

Now who's pulling things out of his ass that aren't in the movie?