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

[Purple]

Who ever agrees with this guy should look up chuck's intro to his review of Threshold.
That pretty much covers all the major points.

To drop you a hint. The prequels require you to use your brain for them to be entertaining. And most people who agree with this guy claim that this is bad. Well it is not!

[TK421]

I "get" the prequels just fine. I think most people do. I just think they're boring, monotone, poorly executed, and don't feel like Star Wars. Complexity doesn't automatically equal entertaining (neither does simplicity).

[The Asiduo]

Who ever agrees with this guy should look up chuck's intro to his review of Threshold.
That pretty much covers all the major points.

To drop you a hint. The prequels require you to use your brain for them to be entertaining. And most people who agree with this guy claim that this is bad. Well it is not!

Oh, yeah, they're SO DAMN DEEP.

The prequel is rather simple, actually. It tells the story of the rise and fall of Darth Vader. That's the main motif. So let's dissect each movie.

1- Palpatine is trying to gain political power using the TF as pawns in a plan never fully explained. The heroes meet each other, we meet Anakin for the first time and the heroes foil the pawn's actions, but making Palpatine succeed anyway

2- Palpatine, is in the same again. He's using devices such as the "clone army" plot and the "separatists" to gain even MORE power in the senate. In another rather disjointed plotline, Padme and Anakin fall in love. It converges to a strange battle, with rather dull consequences (one of the evil dudes escapes and the other AGAIN gains more political power). And, surprise: all the plot threads about the clone army are quietly dropped in the next movie.

3- Palpatine in the SAME THING AGAIN. Now, he uses Anakin, fooling him into the dark side with a vague promise of "defeating death" without any real evidence, exploiting Anakin's fears. The other plot threads (Grievous, Wookie plant, blah blah) are totally irrelevant. In the end, Anakin falls into the Dark Side, kills a lot of people (including children again), tries to kill Padme (the reason for him turning to the Dark Side, making inconsistent the plot), and finally gets into the Darth Vader suit, which, seems, was the whole reason for this movie to be made.

The plots aren't incredibly deep. They're just BORING. Each time Palpatine is manipulating all the bozos in the movie, and each time, he succeed. That's it. In fact, Palpatine is the ONLY CHARACTER which we know what motivates him, and the only one actively doing something to achieve it. And, it's pretty lame: He wants power because he's EEEVIL (I mean, you saw the OT, right?. He's EEEEEVIL). That's it. Anakin is just a frustrated annoying guy, each movie getting more frustrated than the last one, and finally he is duped into the Dark Side. The rest seem just stupid or flat.

Yeah, rather deep movies, eh?.

[The Asiduo]

You think Stoklasa was deceitful in his main critique?. Well, many REAL and PROFESSIONAL critics had made the SAME main points of Stoklasa in critiques:

If a "real" movie critic getting paid and everything speculated on a director's professional life the way Stoklasa did with Lucas, he'd get fired or at least called on to apologize you asswit. Its called "slander" and its something you can get sued for (not that Lucas ever will thanks to the internet hate machine spewing this crap on a daily basis). But I guess you missed that point in the review. BOTH reviews.

Oh, and don't think I missed the part where you moved on from the hypocrisy of calling us bad for taking this seriously to criticizing us for insulting you when you are nothing but insults and poorly articulated mockery. Go back under your bridge, troll.

What the...?. I mean... Stoklasa found the movies bad. He made some comments on videos about the making off of the prequels... and now turns out he is legally slandering Lucas and he could be SUED. COME ON!. XD!!

"Oh, I'll sue this guy because in an Internet video made for comedy purposes he said that the employees surrounding me have scared faces". Yeah, talking about "Frivolous Lawsuit". XD!!

Yeah, yeah, I have insulted A LOT of people here. I mean to say: "Hey guys, have some sense of humor" it's a heavy insult. But "YOU RLM FANBOYS ARE STUPID FANBOYS ASSHOLES", it's just classy.

[Formless]

Dude, this is falling into Wall of Ignorance territory. You have no idea how to debate, do you? The only reason Lucas doesn't sue guys like Stoklasa when they say things like

5:24
Plinkett: "You can really see this in the behind-the-scenes videos [a few clips are shown]. People look scared around George...they laugh at his bad jokes. When he comes into the room there's like silence, and fear, terror. Every so often you'll catch some looks of confusion and mistrust. You gotta wonder what some of these people were thinking."

is because there are just too many people who do it online to make it worth the hassle, and most people who watch his films don't care enough for the harm to be substantial. Its still slander by any reasonable definition. And no, just because Stoklasa can immediately backtrack and admit that he wasn't there doesn't make it all better-- its obvious what impression Stoklasa wants to give people about Goerge Lucas the man. All you have is style and no substance, repeated criticisms and no logic to support them. When you take your head out of your ass, I'll get back to you.

[The Asiduo]

Dude, this is falling into Wall of Ignorance territory. You have no idea how to debate, do you? The only reason Lucas doesn't sue guys like Stoklasa when they say things like

5:24
Plinkett: "You can really see this in the behind-the-scenes videos [a few clips are shown]. People look scared around George...they laugh at his bad jokes. When he comes into the room there's like silence, and fear, terror. Every so often you'll catch some looks of confusion and mistrust. You gotta wonder what some of these people were thinking."

is because there are just too many people who do it online to make it worth the hassle, and most people who watch his films don't care enough for the harm to be substantial. Its still slander by any reasonable definition. And no, just because Stoklasa can immediately backtrack and admit that he wasn't there doesn't make it all better-- its obvious what impression Stoklasa wants to give people about Goerge Lucas the man. All you have is style and no substance, repeated criticisms and no logic to support them. When you take your head out of your ass, I'll get back to you.

Yeah, yeah. Talking about "taking the head out of your ass", I wonder where the hell you've got your definition of "legal slandering" for USA laws. So, if in the Internet I say to some random dude:

"I think your mom is ugly"

That has a legal basis for a lawsuit?. Damn, laws in USA are REALLY TOUGH. XD!! But, I digress. I used to think that these kind of things, used for entertainment and satirical purposes, were protected under the USA Laws on Free Speech. Larry Flint went away with some satirical accusation of incest against Jerry Falwell. But alas, poor Mike, he could never beat George Lucas on a trial for the HORRIBLE CRIME that it is to suggest in some video that: "He thinks the guys surrounding George Lucas in a video look scared". XD!! I wonder why he hasn't sued some of the old producers or staff that have characterized him as a "guy who is surrounded of people who doesn't challenge him". Perhaps he's just a nice dude. Perhaps it's because the whole idea of "express a negative opinion on someone is a causal of lawsuit" is total bullshit. Who knows. XD

Oh, and watch out, guys. I've seen Raynor and you calling "stupid" and many other insults and slander against users here. Raynor even accussed Stoklasa of faking the sequence of "Describe the Character" in his TPM video. Maybe you'll get sued! XD

[Formless]

Wow, someone who doesn't understand the difference between an insult and slander. Not surprising, since you appear to be of the camp who thinks Stoklasa can do no wrong.

Let me explain in few words so your dinosaur brain can keep up. An insult is just an expression of opinion directed at another person. "I don't like you," essentially. Calling someone stupid is an opinion about their intelligence, and a reasonable person is open to changing their opinion. Raynor opened this thread in part to see if anyone could convince him otherwise; no one has yet succeeded.

Slander on the other hand is when you make a claim of fact about another person that harms their reputation in a measurable fashion and the claim of fact isn't a fact. Notice that last part? If what you claim about another person is true, then its not slander. Even with his weasel word tactics of saying "but I wasn't there," what has been said cannot be unsaid. Stoklasa still committed an act of slander that no professional movie critic would get away with because there is no basis of fact for his insinuations that Lucas is an intimidating director who only wants yes men around. Calling Stoklasa dishonest, on the other hand, is a reasonable interpretation of his actions when he shows a selective version of events in a movie to his audience. That is not slander.

Don't like the definitions? Too bad, they aren't going to change any time soon. There is a limit to free speech, and it lies where words cause harm.

[The Asiduo]

Wow, someone who doesn't understand the difference between an insult and slander. Not surprising, since you appear to be of the camp who thinks Stoklasa can do no wrong.

Let me explain in few words so your dinosaur brain can keep up. An insult is just an expression of opinion directed at another person. "I don't like you," essentially. Calling someone stupid is an opinion about their intelligence, and a reasonable person is open to changing their opinion. Raynor opened this thread in part to see if anyone could convince him otherwise; no one has yet succeeded.

Slander on the other hand is when you make a claim of fact about another person that harms their reputation in a measurable fashion and the claim of fact isn't a fact. Notice that last part? If what you claim about another person is true, then its not slander. Even with his weasel word tactics of saying "but I wasn't there," what has been said cannot be unsaid. Stoklasa still committed an act of slander that no professional movie critic would get away with. Calling Stoklasa dishonest, on the other hand, is a reasonable interpretation of his actions when he shows a selective version of events in a movie to his audience. That is not slander.

Don't like the definitions? Too bad, they aren't going to change any time soon. There is a limit to free speech, and it lies where words cause harm.

So... in your logic, if Stoklasa finds out that Raynor here accussed him of having his friends lying in his first video, he could actuallY SUE him?. Wow, talking about rigid laws. XD

In any case, I've read about the "slander laws" in USA in just one quick Wikipedia search, and I found out that "slander laws" apply mainly in cases of "criminal slander" that is, falsely accussing the other person of engaging in criminal activities (as far as I know, being some kind of control freak is not criminal in the US per se ) and, in "damaging slander", which is pretty subjective anyway. And, the cherry of the cake, it has to be "Malicious slander", this is, in order to be a "crime" it has to be proven that the guy who made the "slander" was intentionally saying something he knew it was FALSE, in order to cause DAMAGE to the other person.

So, wasn't Stoklasa just giving an opinion, and opinions per se are subjective?... Who knows. I insist: maybe it's because of this simple fact that Lucas hasn't sued his ex-employerers or ex-producers for saying he surrounds himself of "yes-men". Or perhaps he's just a nice guy. Who knows.

Well, consider yourself lucky that I don't live in the USA, because I would sue you for making the malicious slander that I have my head in my ass.

[Formless]

Did I say this was malicious slander? No, I claimed it was "damaging slander", which is a civil liability issue not a matter of criminal law. Where are you from, anyway? America isn't the only place with libel laws.

But anyway, you seem to have missed the point. Stoklasa can get away with shit that a professional movie critic couldn't. Yet people still treat his opinion as authoritative. That by itself is good enough reason to write a 108 page critique of a critique.

Man, I can just see you bringing something like this to court. The court costs would be on you, you wouldn't be able to claim enough money to even break even, and the phrase was obviously non-literal rather than a claim of fact so it would get laughed out of court. You are hilarious. And very petty.

[The Asiduo]

Did I say this was malicious slander? No, I claimed it was "damaging slander", which is a civil liability issue not a matter of criminal law. Where are you from, anyway? America isn't the only place with liable laws.

But anyway, you seem to have missed the point. Stoklasa can get away with shit that a professional movie critic couldn't. Yet people still treat his opinion as authoritative. That by itself is good enough reason to write a 108 page critique of a critique.

Hahahahahahahahha. Fine, fine. So, we return to the same point. A parody video with some critiques, deserves a 108 page refutation?. IMHO, nope. If some one uses it as an "authorative source" in some serious discussion, I would think it deserves some comment as: "dude, WTF?. This is a video narrated by a 100-year old rapist: come on". Depends of the context, anyway.

But, I repeat my point: a well crafted defense of Star Wars Episode I without the whole RLM context would have been more refreshing that just 108 pages of rambling and: "Uuuh, he's a bad, bad man".

Man, I can just see you bringing something like this to court. The court costs would be on you, you wouldn't be able to claim enough money to even break even, and the phrase was obviously non-literal rather than a claim of fact so it would get laughed out of court. You are hilarious. And very petty.

Oh my god. I finally found you. You must be "Mister Ican'trecognizeasarcasticcommentintheInternet". That explains why you're so pissed off at Stoklasa. XD

[Formless]

Hahahahahahahahha. Fine, fine. So, we return to the same point. A parody video with some critiques, deserves a 108 page refutation?. IMHO, nope. If some one uses it as an "authorative source" in some serious discussion, I would think it deserves some comment as: "dude, WTF?. This is a video narrated by a 100-year old rapist: come on". Depends of the context, anyway.

For once we do not disagree, but unfortunately that tactic just doesn't go anywhere with a lot of people. So here we are. RLM posts crap that people take more seriously than the content deserves, and guys like Raynor are forced to stoop down and sacrifice a little dignity to show exactly why that material doesn't deserve its reputation.

But, I repeat my point: a well crafted defense of Star Wars Episode I without the whole RLM context would have been more refreshing that just 108 pages of rambling and: "Uuuh, he's a bad, bad man".

Well, if that is what you are after Mike Wong (he goes by Darth Wong on the board) has defended it that way before. He's just not around so often anymore. Mostly for him it boils down to "its a family movie. You appreciate it better when you have kids to see it with." I am paraphrasing him, though. His homepage got updated recently and his "favorite movies" list (where he lists the whole Saga as a favorite) hasn't been put back up yet. I think that's where he talked about it, but it might have been on the board instead.

Oh my god. I finally found you. You must be "Mister Ican'trecognizeasarcasticcommentintheInternet". That explains why you're so pissed off at Stoklasa. XD

See, here is where that whole "why does everyone on the internet think they can read minds" thing comes in. I never said I was pissed off at Stoklasa. I don't like his character, and I think his reviews of Star Wars are stupid and disingenuous. I haven't seen his other material, though, so maybe its better than that (though I wouldn't bet on it considering his Plinkett character). But I don't actually know the guy, so I have no reason to hate him or get pissed off at him, only his criticisms.

Also, sarcasm doesn't work very well in text. I thought that was common knowledge. And even if it did, well, don't make sarcastic comments you are dumb enough to actually say?

[seanrobertson]

Apropos Jedi "super-speed":

How is running fast much different than jumping dozens of meters?

The new folks crowing about how a scene in the film should be ignored because it supposedly doesn't fit with other superphysical Jedi feats haven't taken a hard enough look at the other things we've seen Jedi do in the prequel trilogy.

-Sean

[Bakustra]

Apropos Jedi "super-speed":

How is running fast much different than jumping dozens of meters?

The new folks crowing about how a scene in the film should be ignored because it supposedly doesn't fit with other superphysical Jedi feats haven't taken a hard enough look at the other things we've seen Jedi do in the prequel trilogy.

-Sean

Bear in mind that at least some of the people so doing do not necessarily object to it as inconsistent with Jedi abilities in the rest of the movie as they desire to attack the concept of in-universe/"SoD" analysis. The transient, background nature of this provides an excellent way for them to do so, unlike clearer effects shots. On a broader level, this serves as a means for them to attack a board orthodoxy that they feel goes unexamined and is mindlessly repeated by intellectual lightweights. The new fish do so because it's transient, background, and comes from TPM, from what I can tell.

[Bakustra]

But, I repeat my point: a well crafted defense of Star Wars Episode I without the whole RLM context would have been more refreshing that just 108 pages of rambling and: "Uuuh, he's a bad, bad man".

1) It's not a defense of the movie so much as a criticism of the review, which are two related but clearly distinct concepts.
2) If you post a thread, I at least would be willing to put some work into a defense of TPM and the prequels in general.
3) But. I would not try to defend them as good films so much as films that are better than they are given credit for, so I doubt that it falls under what you would consider a defense anyhow.

[Adam Reynolds]

Well, if that is what you are after Mike Wong (he goes by Darth Wong on the board) has defended it that way before. He's just not around so often anymore. Mostly for him it boils down to "its a family movie. You appreciate it better when you have kids to see it with." I am paraphrasing him, though. His homepage got updated recently and his "favorite movies" list (where he lists the whole Saga as a favorite) hasn't been put back up yet. I think that's where he talked about it, but it might have been on the board instead.

The response you are referring to is presumably this one: http://web.archive.org/web/200001151917 ... eview.html

It was taken down at some point after TPM had been out awhile.

[Jim Raynor]

Please. If that was his honest opinion...then Stoklasa is a paranoid conspiracy weirdo like I said he sounded like. Stoklasa stated that he saw "terror" and "mistrust" on the faces of perfectly normal looking LFL employees. He put words in McCallum's mouth and made statements about what the guy was supposedly thinking. He kept making comments about what was going on during the production, which he played no part in. Stoklasa insinuated a lot of things then covered his ass by saying he wasn't there, after already painting an ugly picture for everyone. That was one of his standard tactics throughout the review.

He also kidnapped a hooker and fvcked a cat.

The ever-shifting tactics used to defend the RLM review are amusing. Now you equate Stoklasa's weaselly character assassination of George Lucas to his over-the-top "comedy" scenes about kidnapping and rape...So are you saying that Stoklasa was just talking BS then, when he was commenting on Lucas's professionalism? Is that your defense?

Gotta love the idea that something is somehow better because it's SO blatantly stupid. If you thought it was funny, then that's your opinion. Just don't come back to me later telling me that it was intelligent and insightful commentary.

It's so funny how Stoklasa has a free pass to talk crap about Lucas and and his employees...but me pointing out what he's doing makes me horrible and mean in some people's eyes here.

He's making jokes, saying people look scared, etc. You're actually calling people dumb, stupid, scumbag, etc., and seemingly getting really bent out of shape over a goofy movie review type thing.

You really don't understand the concept that "comedy" is often just a thin-shield for insults and genuine commentary? Any jerk out there can just say "haha I was joking." Doesn't change what he said.

So either Stoklasa was using the "comedy" excuse to cover his unsupported and insulting comments...or he was being a total comic buffoon. Neither of these alternatives reflects well on Stoklasa.

Really, stop making excuses for his behavior. Especially when these personal insults were hardly even necessary for making a movie review.

If he had just been making a straight forward movie review. Instead he made something that functions as a piece of entertainment in its own right. Some people didn't find it entertaining, that's fine, but some people didn't find the prequels entertaining.

So your entire defense boils down to you finding the RLM review "entertaining." Thanks for telling me that you like it when some guy makes up BS and while attacking someone else's character and professionalism.

[Jim Raynor]

I say you are litigous because you spent an incredible amount of time studying a review you disagreed with and then proceded to attack virtually every point that was made by RLM conceding basicly nothing to the reviewer.

After Stoklasa made a 70-minute video review nitpicking TPM to death...

He's an editor. Nitpicking is basicly what he is paid to do. In fact, the better he is at picking nits the more likely he is to gain further employment. This can and will make him an ass to watch a movie with since editors have an innate skill for finding flaws in movies.

So he's making an "ass" out of himself (your word) for entirely cynical reasons...just to gain attention for himself. Is that supposed to be a proper defense of his character, or the quality of his movie commentary?

And as I pointed out numerous times throughout my response, most of his nitpicks weren't even good. You seem to be going down the route that he's a professional editor or whatever. Well I have no filmmaking background whatsoever, and I was able to point out a ton of errors in the work of this "editor." This "editor" thought that a mass of big metal parts requiring two camel beasts to drag through the desert could fit in the hands of a small teenage girl. This "editor" claimed that the Royal Starship was never hit after R2's repairs, while using video clips that showed otherwise. It's just sloppy work, which is one of several reasons why I don't respect that review.

Ooh, I "argue each and every" point brought up by people who came to me with criticism! Would that be better than...not arguing with them? What am I supposed to do, in your opinion? Again, focus on the evidence and reasoning, rather than the simple fact that I am responding when called out.

Allow your review to stand on it's own merits?

Wait, so if someone criticizes my review based on questionable logic, and I refute that criticism using evidence from my review, that's not my review standing "on its own merits."

Why don't you just be open and say that you came to this thread expecting to have your way. Well sorry, that's not how things work. If you want people to accept what you say, then make it convincing and back it up.

[TK421]

The ever-shifting tactics used to defend the RLM review are amusing....

My "tactic" hasn't changed a bit since my first post - I find the RLM reviews entertaining and I think he makes good points about the movies he reviews. I don't agree with every single point he makes and not every joke hits the mark. But overall, yeah, it's good shit in my opinion.

I don't see him saying Lucas' employees looked uncomfortable is some sort of dastardly character assassination. It's certainly not "scumbag" worthy.

[Jim Raynor]

What was being argued was that my response to his review (which quoted and responded to practically all of his points) was somehow off base for missing some "main point" that was really Stoklasa's safe, subjective opinion that the movies just didn't engage him. A defense which completely falls apart when I show, over the course of a hundred pages, that Stoklasa was trying to portray Lucas as a complete idiot by pointing out a long stream of nitpicks. Nitpicks that weren't just about insignificant minutia, but were often completely illogical and factually incorrect.

Yeah some of those pages are taken up by your horribly unfunny comic strips which contribute nothing to the review.

Anyone notice the complete change in topic here?

Oh no, some guy didn't think my comic strips were funny...that's totally relevant to the fact that the vast majority of the RLM review was insignificant nitpicking rather than some vague "main point" about how the movie just didn't touch him.

A defense which completely falls apart when I show, over the course of a hundred pages, that Stoklasa was trying to portray Lucas as a complete idiot by pointing out a long stream of nitpicks.

There's another problem of yours Jimmy, you believe your own hype.

Talk is cheap. Back up what you say.

Like whining about how Qui-Gon didn't have just cause to claim an invasion (after almost being murdered and seeing the invasion army), insulting the Jedi's tactics while suggesting Rambo-like idiocy as an alternative, or claiming that the visuals didn't show the Royal Ship being hit when they in fact showed multiple hits.

They didn't show the ship being fired at AFTER R-2 fixed it (which WAS his complaint).

Nice try. The ship was struck multiple times after the repairs. The screenshots (from the same video clips used by Stoklasa himself) were posted in my response.

Complete verbal garbage that went far beyond simple statements that the movies just didn't "engage" him or whatever.

Again, some of that is just your opinion. Yes some of things you said make sense, but some of them don't. BUT thats MY opinioin.

No, not just my opinion. Proven by the fact that the vast majority of the review's running time was spent on (attempted) logical criticism of movie events.

And if this is all just a matter of "opinion," then what are you arguing about?

I called you fucking annoying because you listing all those things was pointless, I've read through that stuff already in your review.

I post them again because you keep ignoring them. Calling me "fucking annoying" isn't a rebuttal.

I don't know where you come from (since it's apparent that you just came here to defend the honor of RLM), but over here people are expected to back up what they say. If the discussion is about whether or not Stoklasa's review was full of nitpicks, then me posting a list of his dumb nitpicks is completely relevant. You responding in turn with one stupid sentence about me being "fucking annoying" makes you look like a punk.

I also said you were wasting your time because your list wasn't going to change a thing. And it hasn't.

So you admit you're hard headed?

I love how so much of this long post of yours isn't actually dealing with the points that were in dispute, but rather just whining toward me.

And again you display your bias, by calling me out on my 108 pages of writing. As if sticking up for a guy who wrote a 70 minute (followed by 90 minute and nearly 2 hour reviews) is somehow consistent with that.

People doing reviews on movies is not unheard of, people doing 108 page reviews ON A REVIEW is unheard of.

Thanks for confirming your bias. Nope, hour to two-hour long video reviews full of dorkish stuttering and unsupported character-smearing aren't normal. I certainly never heard of such a thing until I saw the RLM review.

You ACTUALLY tried to excuse Stoklasa's unsupported insults by saying that he's not AS bad as some freak who accused Lucas of being a PEDOPHILE.

It's no worse than when you tried to claim that the people in his reviews were bribed or biased WITH NO PROOF TO SHOW FOR IT. I guess that makes you a scumbag as well.

Oh please. I called RLM's interviewees "amateur actors" in a few brief statements due to their suspiciously shallow answers, such as not knowing who Qui-Gon was, or not being able to come up with a single word to describe him other than the laughably off-base "stern." I even considered the possibilities that "if it wasn't an act, then these people were either oblivious, or they didn't put any effort into this."

To you that's as bad as spending quite a bit of time putting words into people's mouths, smearing Lucas as a tyrannical boss who instills "mistrust" and "terror" into his employees. Yeah, whatever.

And you're still absolutely ridiculous for trying to defend Stoklasa's smears by bringing up PEDOPHILIC SLANDER as the standard to judge him against. Imagine if we all applied that when judging anyone else. "Hey, he's not such a bad guy, at least he doesn't go around accsuing people of molesting little boys!"

I'm not the one telling people about pedophile-oriented slander.

No, but your the one who's willing to go out of his way to insult anyone who disagrees with you (GOD FORBID ),

I don't insult people for simply disagreeing for me. I repeatedly gave Stoklasa a pass on things in his review that came down to mere subjective opinion. When it comes to pure opinion, there's nothing to logically argue.

I throw out the insults when I see someone attempting to make logical points that are factually incorrect if not downright dishonest.

So when presented with points that are completely supported by the movie itself...you try to change the subject. The contrivance of Qui-Gon landing on Tatooine has nothing to do with his reasons for trusting Anakin later on. It's also no worse than the string of contrivances that led to R2 meeting up with Obi-Wan and Luke in ANH.

Who's changing the subject now? I never said ANYTHING about them being on Tatooine being contrived. I said Qui-Gon feeling he needed to go through all that pod-racing crap as a way to get off tatooine was contrived,

If that was your point before, I didn't see it. Whatever, I'll deal with it now.

because in all honesty he could've traded their ship with Watto for a less fancy but functional ship (done off the books of course),

Qui-Gon made freeing Anakin a priority, in case you didn't know. And Watto was never shown to have a functional ship. He's a junk dealer who sells used spare parts.

Racing isn't the same as defeating a Sith Lord, is it? This is irrelevant to the point being made, which was that Anakin was a growing boy with huge Force powers, and that Qui-Gon believed in him.

No, but your the one who started with the comparison. And I don't believe the force makes up for everything.

You don't believe. You're not Qui-Gon now, are you?

Are you even trying for real? I curious. Because the things you're saying don't even sound like good comebacks.

Uh...yeah that was totally the point. Qui-Gon wanted Anakin trained, did he even say earlier in the movie that Obi-Wan had to be the one to do it?

So why did they make Obi-Wan specifically someone who just became a jedi knight? Contrivance much?

What does that have to do with anything? I thought we were talking about how Qui-Gon was different than the other Jedi, and how he affected in the plot. And how is Obi-Wan being promoted at the end a contrivance? Older Jedi can train new recruits, as shown in the movie when Qui-Gon suggested that he could train Anakin himself.

The point was that Qui-Gon was different than the other Jedi for believing in Anakin and wanting him to be trained from the start, and that his actions played an important part in the story.

Qui-Gon might've been slightly different, but not compelling as main lead material. His actions played a part in getting Anakin off Tatooine, but they didn't play a distinctive part in what happened on Naboo or Corrison. The stuff with Anakin was just a glorified sub-plot, which you could only argue would have bearing in setting up the next two films.

Qui-Gon is only "slightly different" from the rest of the Jedi who ruined his career advancement for doing his own things and not listening to them Hey, I guess it's a matter of "opinion" again.

How is claiming Anakin had no good reason to be on Naboo, subjective? You said it yourself in your review that there's never a good justifiable reason for him to be there.

I said there wasn't a good reason for Qui-Gon to bring him there. But Anakin was there, and he played a part and ended up saving the day. That ties into the whole idea of him having great potential and having to leave his home behind to fulfill his destiny, doesn't it...

LOL at your buddy from this other mystery forum, who thinks I'm a "classless act." He probably only knows me from what I've written about Stoklasa's movie reveiw. He's probably a RLM-defender as well...

He's from toonzone and has a friend who posts here, if you care.

I don't care. Especially when these statements about me being "classless" come from a guy who actually tried to weasel his way through an argument by bringing up pedophilic slander as the standard to compare people's behavior to.

And also there's this thing called turning the other cheek or not resorting to the name calling.

You're now the second guy to tell me to turn the other cheek for you all. So let me get this straight: You can come here and criticize me, and I'm just supposed to take it from you? What's this thread even for then?

Or calling every single person you disagree with a moron.

Did I say everyone who disagrees with me is a moron? I believe I said that, haven proven the RLM review to be full of stupid and illogical points, anyone who thinks of it as sensible commentary wasn't knowledgable enough to see through the BS.

Or actually showing some professionalism. You don't see Mike Stoklasa responding to every single person who disagrees with him.

Responding to comments is a BAD thing again.

And Stoklasa, who supposedly shows more "professionalism" than me, makes videos with rape and murder jokes as well as unsupported insinuations about other people's character.

I think you'd be better served in showing some tact in how you respond to people on a personal level,

Says the guy who thought that calling someone "fucking annoying" was a proper response?

[The Asiduo]

But, I repeat my point: a well crafted defense of Star Wars Episode I without the whole RLM context would have been more refreshing that just 108 pages of rambling and: "Uuuh, he's a bad, bad man".

1) It's not a defense of the movie so much as a criticism of the review, which are two related but clearly distinct concepts.
2) If you post a thread, I at least would be willing to put some work into a defense of TPM and the prequels in general.
3) But. I would not try to defend them as good films so much as films that are better than they are given credit for, so I doubt that it falls under what you would consider a defense anyhow.

1) That's the problem. What's the idea of making a 108-page critique of a video made for comedy purposes?. Also, Plinket's TPM review is, actually, of the whole "Plinkett reviews saga", the most nitpicky, and the one which less deals with main storytelling issues. I guess the main problem here is that Raynor is just angry because a lot of people using RLM's reviews as a trolling device: dude, the way dealing with trolls is ignoring them, not making virulent 108-page refutations.

2) A thread about what?. If someone posted a thread about: "What's good in TPM" I would read it and give my opinion. My opinion is that the movie is below average, so I shouldn't be the one making threads defending it.

3) When I read about the visual inspirations of Lucas for the designs in TPM, that makes me appreciate the movie a little more: I think Lucas is a much better visual designer than a director or a writer. Perhaps a discussion of the original drafts of the script of TPM would be revealing. Perhaps a discussion about the links between the first drafts of ANH and the concepts introduced in TPM would have been revealing. I'm just throwing ideas, but in my opinion, topics such as these would serve as "defenses" of the prequels. Much more interesting than just: "Oh, he made a review saying bad things. He is a bad, bad man".

[Spoon of Bombadil]

The funny thing is, though, no one is arguing it is a masterpiece. Most of the defense of the movie in this thread is indirect due to the people making the argument of how horrible it is making stupid arguments, and the defenders pointing out how stupid their argument is. Granted, I may have missed the posts where someone came in and was waxing poetically about how perfect a film it was, but to my knowledge most here accept that TPM was less than perfect and has it's flaws, just not the silly nit picky ones being brought up.

Exactly. I thought it was an okay film with some major flaws but nothing too terrible. The hate has more to do with disappointment and bias than anything else. There is certainly people that have a bias for them like Star Wars fanboys but it seems that most people found them not good but not terrible either.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

The problem really seems to be in universe logic vs story telling analysis. Raynor seems to be confused by what to take literally and what is being used a hyperbole for comedic effect because you take everything in the RLM review as an attack on in universe logic rather than what it is a joke about the movie's inept story telling. You do this despite the fact that RLM goes to great lengths to talk about what elements tend to make a good story for this type of genre.

Here are just some examples.

“1:10 Unsupported statements that Lucas "controls every aspect of the movie" and "probably got rid of those people that questioned him creatively a long time ago" are made. Basic smear tactics.”

It’s a pretty well documented fact that Lucas controls his movies very closely.

http://books.google.com/books?id=P2P7pw ... frontcover

Making a joke based on George’s known need to control his films is hardly a smear tactic. You seem obsessed with protecting Lucas from RLM's opinion on how it appears Lucas works.

"I can tell ya that it's not the Jedi, they were just on some kinda boring mission that they didn't really care about."
The Jedi didn't care about their mission? They were just there drinking tea, and not fighting? It's really nice to see him make his first real point against the movie in such a fair and honest way.

This is his opinion and it’s perfectly fair and honest. The jedi seemed unconcerned and blasé about the whole situation. He’s making a joke about how uninteresting they are after spending 4 minutes talking about what make a good prototypical hero (which your glossed over completely) for this type of movie and the Jedi do not fit that distinction. You may think Qui-Gon is the hero but you still can’t tell me what his character arc was.

But the audience doesn't meet Anakin until 45 minutes into the movie."
Wrong. Anakin shows up at almost exactly 32 minutes into the movie.

Jesus. Well that changes everything doesn’t it.

"And then the things that are happening around him are pretty much out of his control or understanding. If a protagonist has no concept of what's going on or what's at stake, then there's no real tension or drama” He's knows what's going on. The Naboo crisis was very simple (at least in the way that it appeared to all the heroes). Anakin is told that the other heroes are on a "very important mission" for the Republic early on during the dinner table scene.

Yes, just like when I tell my kid “Mommy and Daddy need alone time” I'm sure he knows that means we’re fucking. Anakin has about as much idea why these two factions are fighting as my 6 year old son does about the middle east conflict. Also aren’t you the one that said “Apparently Stoklasa has never witnessed the real life phenomenon of adults talking about children when they're in the same room.” So he understands everything but when people are talking about him right in front of him. His point was that Anakin isn't a suitable hero since he's a child that doesn't really even know what's going on.. beyond "being on an important mission"

"What kind of supplies were so crucial to the Naboo? What was it like, medical supplies? "Was there some kind of plague? Did they not have the capacity to survive on such a lush planet with a huge power reactor for one DAY without space trade? See, I would've accepted the idea of a mystery villain if the basics were at least clearLook, here he is creating his own problems and mysteries again when there doesn't have to be any. Stoklasa is basically just making up the need for the Naboo to be denied some specific, all-important supply that's explained by the plot, when any idiot out there can understand the concept that being blockaded is bad.

Sure blockades are bad, but as he stated in the lines you left out. Knowing the role each of these people play is important to telling a good story. Does he really care what supplies are so important? No, he's just making another joke about how the audience has no idea what's going on or what anyone's motivations are, you know the foundation of good drama.

Stoklasa's Sidious Imitation: "Tell the Jedi that there will be no negotiations. Tell them that you plan to invade the planet next. And then send them back to Coruscant to inform the Senate."This guy seriously thinks that Sidious should've told the Trade Federation to admit their plans to the Jedi, and not even bother trying to cover their tracks.

Once again making a joke about how ridiculous the senator’s plan was. And really if the TF was going to illegally invade a planet on this mysterious guys whim, it seems like they’d just do anything he said… see because we don’t know their motivations apart from being greedy and taking orders from a hologram.

"Instead he tells them to do the exact opposite of what will help his plan. Like he wanted [Queen Amidala] to sign the treaty, right?...He seemed really intent on having her sign the treaty to make the invasion legal. So what if she was like a total coward and then actually signed the treaty? Like right away?Then the crisis would be over and there would be no need for a vote of no confidence. See what I mean, this sounding like an eight-year-old wrote it?" The Nazis got treaties out of the people they invaded, was that OK and tolerated by other nations?

Yes until the nazi’s attacked those countries as well.

...You really have to be nitpicking to even analyze all of this so much. But if you're going to nitpick, then at least do it well. RLM brings the picky attitude, but he doesn't bring the intelligence and true depth of analysis that ought to come with good nitpicking. When you get so picky and delve so far into the nitty gritty, it just looks stupid when you can't even think things through correctly.

He’s making jokes about the shitty story telling. You can make all the excuses in the world about how “if you think about it, Palpatine could have done this or that…” RLM point (the one you missed) is that the story is convoluted, we have no idea what Palpatine’s end game is so what he could have done is pointless. We don’t know the motivations behind the blockade, we don’t know palpatine’s plan to rise to power from it, everything just seems to happen on accident, leaving us with no tension or drama. Kind of like an 8 year old wrote it.

"Then the dumbest line in the movie is said:" Viceroy: "They must be dead by now. Destroy what's left of them."Plinkett: "What does that mean? Hey asshole! Why don't you leave the door closed for like four hours. And then if they try to cut through the door, start shooting them in the face. Then pump in more gas, and keep pumping it in."
Another nitpick. "They must be dead by now" implies that the Jedi had already been left in that room for a period as long as, or perhaps a bit longer, than the gas usually takes to kill someone. The Viceroy thought that the Jedi were dead. So a movie villain underestimated the heroes, in an early fight. Uh...OK?

No… not ok. Destroy what’s left of them? Really? You’re going to defend that line as a nitpick? It’s the dumbest line in the movie, it makes the enemies seem incompetent and thus not threatening. And didn’t you spend like a page talking about how scared the Viceroy was of the Jedi… seems like awfully shitty writing for them to now be underestimating them.

Why don't the Jedis just start fighting all of them, then steal a ship and head back to Coruscant to tell the Galactic Senate what's going on. It's not so crazy because later in the film they attempt to run the blockade and they make it through. The fact that they even tried that makes this a possible option."
Read that quote. Seriously, read it. Take time to process the utter insanity involved in saying something like that.

Hyperbole. His joke being that the jedi take other insane risks why not take them all on. They could just run with superspeed right by them

Alright I can’t go any further. The rebuttal is just full of you just not understanding the main point or the jokes. If you don’t think it’s funny that’s fine, but for god’s sake back off the suspension of disbelief when someone is arguing storytelling not in universe logic.

One final thing

And as I pointed out numerous times throughout my response, most of his nitpicks weren't even good. You seem to be going down the route that he's a professional editor or whatever. Well I have no filmmaking background whatsoever, and I was able to point out a ton of errors in the work of this "editor." This "editor" thought that a mass of big metal parts requiring two camel beasts to drag through the desert could fit in the hands of a small teenage girl. This "editor" claimed that the Royal Starship was never hit after R2's repairs, while using video clips that showed otherwise. It's just sloppy work, which is one of several reasons why I don't respect that review.

It is vastly clear you have no film making background, because I don’t think you know what an editor is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LefM1yEUGk&t=7m2s

From the moment the pilot says “Deflector shield’s up at maximum” they do not get hit again. Now you could argue that the shields were up at max when they went green, but RLM’s edit is not incorrect. As for the Hyperbole about stealing the part that doesn’t even have anything to do with the skill of his edit.

[Vympel]

It’s a pretty well documented fact that Lucas controls his movies very closely.

http://books.google.com/books?id=P2P7pw ... frontcover

Making a joke based on George’s known need to control his films is hardly a smear tactic. You seem obsessed with protecting Lucas from RLM's opinion on how it appears Lucas works.

LOL. On what planet is "[he] probably got rid of those people that questioned him creatively a long time ago" not a baseless smear? Or do you have the page number in the book you linked to which substantiates said statement?

In any event, your post is another exercise in "everything stupid in the review is a joke because I know Stoklasa's mind, and everything that isn't stupid is serious". It's total bullshit, nothing you say in relation to what is and isn't a joke has any basis apart from your say so.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

It’s a pretty well documented fact that Lucas controls his movies very closely.

http://books.google.com/books?id=P2P7pw ... frontcover

Making a joke based on George’s known need to control his films is hardly a smear tactic. You seem obsessed with protecting Lucas from RLM's opinion on how it appears Lucas works.

LOL. On what planet is "[he] probably got rid of those people that questioned him creatively a long time ago" not a baseless smear? Or do you have the page number in the book you linked to which substantiates said statement?

In any event, your post is another exercise in "everything stupid in the review is a joke because I know Stoklasa's mind, and everything that isn't stupid is serious". It's total bullshit, nothing you say in relation to what is and isn't a joke has any basis apart from your say so.

On the planet earth, when making a joke, based on his documented "intense need to control and personally oversee every aspect of his film".

You can't just write the words RLM says and ignore the tone in which he says them.

[Havok]

You mean that directors/producers have an intense need to control their movies? *GASP*

And what you are saying is that he is clearly joking, so he doesn't actually mean it? Or he is clearly joking so he is clearly exaggerating?