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

[Darth Tedious]

You need to clarify your stance a little here.

Nygma619 having thin skin and being a whinny cunt about it doesn't happen to have a rule behind it.

*whining* At least Formless has shown some class. *more whining*

Wasn't it Formless you made your intitial 'classless' comment about?

Usually people who say stuff like this get referred to the board motto, but lets take a different tack. A few titles of threads from the current first page of Parting Shots:

"LionElJohnson has absolutely no shame"
"[Boombaye] Read the Fucking Rules"
"[avianmosquito] Headshots: a lesson in Stupidity"
"[marsh8472] Bye, asshole"
"globalafrikanpower's Racist Hatfuckery"
"Worthless Spammer[Schuyler Colfax/ElitePwnage]"

And of course, there is the content of those threads which you can read on your own time. Does that answer your question?

So this gives everyone the excuse to be as classless as possible, got it.

Was Formless being classless, or was that just a generalised comment?
And didn't I say:

...and stop whining.

For fuck's sake!

[nygma619]

George Lucas never "rebelled" against the system, he got so fucking rich that he could do what he wanted without it. As the rest of Hollywood still is the 'system' and that is what 95% of people still work through, Lucas has hardly 'become "the system"'.

If controlling everything on his projects is not becoming the system then what is it?

My gawd, do people really look on the OT with that much nostalgia that they can't recognize that the acting in it is about one step above the PT if at all?

The acting wasn't oscar calibar, but I thought it was WAY better than all the mediocre wooden acting in the prequels.

And relate-able characters? You mean like the kid that is home sick? The awkward kid that is cast off from society? The teenager that has issues with his father(figure)? The teenager that has issues with his teachers? The teenagers that can't properly express their love? Come the fuck on.

Those sound more human than the boring stiff cardboard characters in the trilogy. And all those premises of human interaction that were supposed to grab us in the prequels, were portrayed HORRIBLY. Mostly because those characters aren't portrayed as terribly likable.

The dialogue: See the comment on acting above.

I don't remember anything that made my ears bleed like "I don't like the sand, it's coarse, rough, and it gets everywhere. Not like here, everything is smooth." Nobody says shit like this in real life.

Hell even George Lucas has admitted that he's not that good with writing dialogue.

The CGI is fucking fine.

Not when it looks likes actors have no clue what is supposed to be happening in front of them, or they don't convey what CGI they're interacting with naturally.

The OT NEVER had the problem of people acting naturally.

[Formless]

Look, I have to get some sleep, I'm just going to note that in your last few replies to Havok and myself your arguments are getting increasingly reliant on appealing to your personal opinions on the acting, dialogue, whatever and trying to pass that off as fact rather than what it is. This is not how one debates unless one is a textbook trolling fucktard.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

Because he’s creating a hypothesis for why TPM failed, why the originals worked and what he feels went wrong.

In what way did the movie fail? Because Heathcliff didn't like it?

It’s his opinion about Lucas, lots of people have them.

The whole thing is a joke, but that doesn’t disqualify it from being a critique. You guys just miss the point because you take everything literally.

No you lying piece of shit. Red Letter Moron and his little cockgoblins (yes, this includes you) try to pass off their opinions as fact -such as the claim that TPM "failed". By every objective standard the movie was successful:

The only movie that has earned more at the domestic box office since TPM was Avatar.

The movie did well with audiences and critics, earning overall favorable reviews -better than TESB and ROTJ did when they were first released.

Feel free to show by what standard The Phantom Menace "failed".

Wow struck a nerve there. The only ones on this forum pretending they have giant fact dicks around are people like you. You think it was a success because it made a bagillion dollars, that’s your opinion. I’m of the opinion that it was a failure in film making.

But since you like to have things laid out for you because you live in a universe where TPM is the most beloved movie of all time and George Lucas is the patron saint of film making how about some of these example for why RLM and his “cockgoblins” might view TPM as a failure.

A 70 minute video on youtube went viral because it made fun of the shitty film making in TPM. Unless… are there a lot of 70 minute reviews that get 3 million hits, write-up in entertainment weekly and interview with MTV, AV Club and IFC? If not then I suppose there’s nothing special about it and no one identified with RLM's point of view.

If that’s the case maybe you need “stats”

Episode VI - Return of the Jedi 76%*
Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back 88%
Episode IV - A New Hope 88%
Episode III - Revenge of the Sith 67%
Episode II - Attack of the Clones 40%
Episode I - The Phantom Menace 40%

*Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics Metric Unless 40% is now considered objectively successful.

[nygma619]

You need to clarify your stance a little here.

*whining* At least Formless has shown some class. *more whining*

Wasn't it Formless you made your intitial 'classless' comment about?

Well If you don't want to hear anymore whining now why would you ask a question about it?

Anyways yes it was, but I at least acknowledged that he showed better etiquette when responding.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

If you can’t tell when Plinkett is changing his tone, this explains everything. I wouldn’t even know where to begin, but how about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&t=4m26s

That’s Charlie Bucket in the lower right hand corner. He’s not a girl, despite what Plinkett said about getting the girl in the end of a movie. This juxtaposition is what makes it funny

What the fuck are you droning on about? What the does him showing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (haha pedophile joke ) have to do with the fact that his monotone voice makes it neigh impossible to distinguish between his jokes and his honest complaints? Are your reading comprehension skills just that damn bad?

See the tone of his voice over is serious, but the tone of the visual is comedic. Are you catching on yet? Tone isn’t just about the way people talk. Although really if you can’t distinguish between his jokes and his honest complaints then you might have a hearing problem. May want to check that out.

Because he’s creating a hypothesis for why TPM failed, why the originals worked and what he feels went wrong. It’s his opinion about Lucas, lots of people have them.

And the hypothesis rests on slander-- in that link you provided he repeats the assertion that Lucas had "total control" over the production in spite of the fact that LucasFilm has a marketing department, an art department, an SFX department, etc and every step of the way Lucas has total control?!! Are you completely out of your mind? Are you on drugs? Did your mother drop you on your head as a child? What is it that makes a human being this fucking stupid? I mean, even if you are just being dishonest, you would still be one of the stupidest people around for thinking that idiocy would escape anyone even slightly sane.

Do you understand film making in the slightest? You do realize all of those department answer to one person right? Yes, Lucas has total control over the end product (George doesn’t literally create everything in those departments, but they all answer to him at the end of the day)

Since I know you like “sources now” asshole. Here’s one:

http://money.cnn.com/1999/05/19/fortune ... _starwars/

"It's pretty much unprecedented in film -- or I think in general entertainment history," Pollock said. "There's never been a showman like George Lucas who had this degree of control over his creative intellectual property."

Someone better tell CNN Money they were slandering George back in 1999.

It’s ok, I understand there’s a chance you might be mentally handicapped. Maybe you don’t understand how film hierarchies work or you’re really confused by what slander is. “Famous people or “public figures” must prove in an action for defamation that a publisher of news acted with “actual malice” or a reckless disregard for the truth.”

I’m sure the courts would love to hear about the damages Lucas received from an internet review (opinion) done in the character of a murdering, cat fucker.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

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

It’s not s surprise that an artist wants control of his work, but Lucas is one of the few cases of someone who has control of both the business and the creative. So he quite literally has complete control of every aspect of the film.

Wait, so because he actually does have control over every aspect, that somehow equates to it being "intense need to control and personally oversee every aspect of his film"? Lucas is a bad man because he doesn't delegate responsibility.

And quite honestly, this a ridiculous argument as Hollywood is wrought with power battles over creative control of movies. To say Lucas is a unique case simply because he actually does is asinine.

Oh for fuck sake, did you even read the post? Do you need me to sum up what we’re talking about again?

The topic was whether or not RLM was using a “smear tactic” I stated it’s been clearly documented lucas likes to control all aspects of his films, if you don’t like the quote then don’t read the book I linked too.

Is he a bad man? nope, just a bad film maker when he has no one to challenge his ideas.

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?

What I’m saying is he is using Hyperbole for effect. When he says they should fight the entire army it because he equates this with being as plausible as taking the risk of running an entire military blockade with one ship.

Oh christ. "so he is clearly exaggerating?" "No, he is using extravagant exaggeration Hyperbole for effect."

Looks like it is definition time.

hy·per·bo·le
noun \hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē\
Definition of HYPERBOLE
: extravagant exaggeration (as “mile-high ice-cream cones”)

Bonus definition:

block·ade–run·ner
noun \-ˈkād-ˌrə-nər\
Definition of BLOCKADE-RUNNER
: a ship or person that runs through a blockade

Where would Lucas possibly get the idea that this was plausible?

You forgot to add “It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.”

Sure that's a plausible reason lucas wrote it, but that doesn't change the fact that the act is incredibly dangerous. So dangerous in fact that a reviewer might use extravagant exaggeration about the situation for comedic effect.

[nygma619]

I'm just going to note that in your last few replies to Havok and myself your arguments are getting increasingly reliant on appealing to your personal opinions on the acting, dialogue, whatever and trying to pass that off as fact rather than what it is.

Oh so people do spew crappy dialogue like that in real life, or they do act like that unnaturally, or people are that unlikable (well maybe around here, but not everywhere)?

This is not how one debates unless one is a textbook trolling fucktard.

It's the way some people on both sides have been debating in this thread for the past 1 or 2 pages, Havok's recent post was guilty of it as well. Also it didn't seem to take long to go back to low brow insult mode.

[Darth Tedious]

Well If you don't want to hear anymore whining now why would you ask a question about it?

Anyways yes it was, but I at least acknowledged that he showed better etiquette when responding.

I actually had high hopes that you might answer my question without whining. And I honestly appreciate that you did. Thankyou for the clarification.

You think it was a success because it made a bagillion dollars, that’s your opinion. I’m of the opinion that it was a failure in film making.

Making a 'bagillion' dollars is objective, measurable and quantifiable proof of a movie's success. Your opinon is not.

If that’s the case maybe you need “stats”

Episode VI - Return of the Jedi 76%*
Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back 88%
Episode IV - A New Hope 88%
Episode III - Revenge of the Sith 67%
Episode II - Attack of the Clones 40%
Episode I - The Phantom Menace 40%

*Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics Metric Unless 40% is now considered objectively successful.

The opinions of critics are still just that, opinions. Opinions are subjective, and a billon people sharing the same opinion doesn't suddenly make it objective. You still haven't provided any objective proof of the film's failure.

...because you live in a universe where TPM is the most beloved movie of all time...

How many times do people have to point out that TPM isn't anyone's favourite movie.

[Havok]

George Lucas never "rebelled" against the system, he got so fucking rich that he could do what he wanted without it. As the rest of Hollywood still is the 'system' and that is what 95% of people still work through, Lucas has hardly 'become "the system"'.

If controlling everything on his projects is not becoming the system then what is it?

The people that made the Blair Witch Project controlled everything. Does that make them 'the system'.? The original Misfits controlled everything about their records, including pressing and distribution. Does that make them 'the system.'? Stop being an idiot. George Lucas is an independent film maker. The fact that his movies make millions upon millions of dollars is absolutely irrelevant to that fact.

My gawd, do people really look on the OT with that much nostalgia that they can't recognize that the acting in it is about one step above the PT if at all?

The acting wasn't oscar calibar, but I thought it was WAY better than all the mediocre wooden acting in the prequels.

Take off the rose colored glasses. Outside of Guiness, Ford, Cushing and McDiarmid the acting is crap. PT: Take out McDiarmid, McGregor and Nieson and the acting is crap. Not much of a difference.

And relate-able characters? You mean like the kid that is home sick? The awkward kid that is cast off from society? The teenager that has issues with his father(figure)? The teenager that has issues with his teachers? The teenagers that can't properly express their love? Come the fuck on.

Those sound more human than the boring stiff cardboard characters in the trilogy. And all those premises of human interaction that were supposed to grab us in the prequels, were portrayed HORRIBLY. Mostly because those characters aren't portrayed as terribly likable.

Outside of teenage Anakin, who isn't likable?

The dialogue: See the comment on acting above.

I don't remember anything that made my ears bleed like "I don't like the sand, it's coarse, rough, and it gets everywhere. Not like here, everything is smooth." Nobody says shit like this in real life.

Really? Nobody complains about how a certain place is coarse and rough and unlikable? I think you see the irony there. But to give you movie examples "Well if there is a bright center to the universe, you're on the planet it's furthest from." Really? Hear that kind of thing often? Please.

Hell even George Lucas has admitted that he's not that good with writing dialogue.

Completely irrelevant as I wasn't saying that the dialogue was good, merely that the PT dialogue isn't any worse than the OT dialogue.

The CGI is fucking fine.

Not when it looks likes actors have no clue what is supposed to be happening in front of them, or they don't convey what CGI they're interacting with naturally.

The OT NEVER had the problem of people acting naturally.

For one, this is a completely subjective statement, but please point out where this happens in PT.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

You think it was a success because it made a bagillion dollars, that’s your opinion. I’m of the opinion that it was a failure in film making.

Making a 'bagillion' dollars is objective, measurable and quantifiable proof of a movie's success. Your opinon is not.
[/quote]

It only qualifies it as a financial success not a cultural or critical one. If you want to equate a film's success strictly in monetary terms that's fine, I don't.

If that’s the case maybe you need “stats”

Episode VI - Return of the Jedi 76%*
Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back 88%
Episode IV - A New Hope 88%
Episode III - Revenge of the Sith 67%
Episode II - Attack of the Clones 40%
Episode I - The Phantom Menace 40%

*Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics Metric Unless 40% is now considered objectively successful.

The opinions of critics are still just that, opinions. Opinions are subjective, and a billon people sharing the same opinion doesn't suddenly make it objective. You still haven't provided any objective proof of the film's failure.[/quote]

Guess what, this is the standard metric by which people judge a film's critical success.

...because you live in a universe where TPM is the most beloved movie of all time...

How many times do people have to point out that TPM isn't anyone's favourite movie.[/quote][/quote]

Hyperbole again. After someone states "By every objective standard the movie was successful" I exaggerate.

[Darth Tedious]

It only qualifies it as a financial success not a cultural or critical one. If you want to equate a film's success strictly in monetary terms that's fine, I don't.

Critical acclaim is subjective. How would you define cultural success? And is it objective?

Guess what, this is the standard metric by which people judge a film's critical success.

Like I just said in this post (and the one before), critical acclaim is subjective.

Hyperbole again. After someone states "By every objective standard the movie was successful" I exaggerate.

You use a lot of hyperbole. You should present more actual points. You have yet to show any objective measure by which the film failed.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

It only qualifies it as a financial success not a cultural or critical one. If you want to equate a film's success strictly in monetary terms that's fine, I don't.

Critical acclaim is subjective. How would you define cultural success? And is it objective?

Guess what, this is the standard metric by which people judge a film's critical success.

Like I just said in this post (and the one before), critical acclaim is subjective.

Hyperbole again. After someone states "By every objective standard the movie was successful" I exaggerate.

You use a lot of hyperbole. You should present more actual points. You have yet to show any objective measure by which the film failed.

I like that you live in a universe where nothing has ever been considered a critical failure because criticism is subject. Do tell, what is “every objective standard?”

Here’s the thing, TPM financial “success” is also subjective. You might think it’s a success because it made its money back, but it’s 20th on the all time list (adjusted for inflation) so to someone else it may be deemed a failure (19 times over).

Or one could point out that compared to the original trilogy, (which RLM does) it failed since it did not gross more than any of those films.

Pretty subjective, to just assume it succeeded when you’ve failed to set up what the parameters are for success. Nevermind the fact that the post I responded too claimed it was also a critical success as if that were objectively the case.

As for cultural success I would define it as how the film is treated by the public. Is it a running punchline? Can a 70 minute review making fun of the movie become successful? Were it’s character considered semi racist caricatures? Those types of things.

That of course is subjective, but if you spend your time on this board you might come to believe that TPM is regarded as a good film, since it was an “objective” success.

[Formless]

I'm just going to note that in your last few replies to Havok and myself your arguments are getting increasingly reliant on appealing to your personal opinions on the acting, dialogue, whatever and trying to pass that off as fact rather than what it is.

Oh so people do spew crappy dialogue like that in real life, or they do act like that unnaturally, or people are that unlikable (well maybe around here, but not everywhere)?

These are not facts. These are opinions you have about the movie. What part of this do you not understand?

Also, no movie has realistic dialogue. No book has realistic dialogue. I'm not just saying that-- pick up any book on writing fictional dialogue. All of them will tell you that the way people talk in real life contains too much filler, too much stuttering, too many grammar errors, too many uhs and err's, too many ... , too much beating around the bush, passive voice, incomplete sentences, awkward wording, and so on and so forth. We don't notice in everyday life, but when you are reading a novel or watching a movie/tv show it quickly turns people off and annoys the hell out of them. Plus, half the conversations people have are too mundane-- the textbook example of bad dialogue is one that starts with "hello Mr Smith" "Hello Mr Jhones, how was you day?" "oh, fine, see the football game?" "[etc. for two pages, at which point the editor has thrown your manuscript in the trash]".

It's the way some people on both sides have been debating in this thread for the past 1 or 2 pages, Havok's recent post was guilty of it as well. Also it didn't seem to take long to go back to low brow insult mode.

Because being a smug, condiscending dick is so much less insulting.

Edit: and by that I mean calling someone "low brow" for being insulting is hypocrisy of the first degree, even if people like to confuse it as politeness.

[Formless]

See the tone of his voice over is serious, but the tone of the visual is comedic. Are you catching on yet? Tone isn’t just about the way people talk. Although really if you can’t distinguish between his jokes and his honest complaints then you might have a hearing problem. May want to check that out.

I know what you mean by tone, you illiterate. I'm telling you that in neither his voice or his imagery does his tone change. He was trying to make a serious point, but at the same time throws in a pedophile joke. Throughout the review no matter how serious he is intending the point neither his tone of voice nor his editing makes a clear distinction between when he is being serious and when he is being fucking comedic (if you can call it that). Also, you yourself said that he was being both joking and critical at the same time. If that is so, why does it matter that he's being joking? We can still say he's being an idiot. You cannot have your cake and eat it too: you cannot say that he is being critical thus his arguments are good but he is also being joking so we can't take them literally. Either it doesn't matter that his arguments are made in a joking manner, or his review is worthless pandering trash cashing in on the popularity of PT bashing.

Do you understand film making in the slightest? You do realize all of those department answer to one person right? Yes, Lucas has total control over the end product (George doesn’t literally create everything in those departments, but they all answer to him at the end of the day)
Since I know you like “sources now” asshole. Here’s one:

http://money.cnn.com/1999/05/19/fortune ... _starwars/

There is a difference between theoretically having all the control of both a director and a producer and actually exerting that control to the point of being an intimidating boss who micromangaes every aspect of production and throws anyone who challenges his creative vision on the street. One is what he indisputably has: the other is what your dork-god Stoklasa implies he uses when he speculates on what made these films bad, even though that proposal lacks either evidence or (un)common sense. Your link is as red as the herring its made of, and your reading comprehension skills are deplorable.

ok, I understand there’s a chance you might be mentally handicapped. Maybe you don’t understand how film hierarchies work or you’re really confused by what slander is. “Famous people or “public figures” must prove in an action for defamation that a publisher of news acted with “actual malice” or a reckless disregard for the truth.”

I’m sure the courts would love to hear about the damages Lucas received from an internet review (opinion) done in the character of a murdering, cat fucker.

Oh, go buy a barbed wire butt plug and stick it up your ass, you legalistic prick. Just because Lucas is never going to actually sue Stoklasa doesn't mean we can't show that damage has been done to his image. This thread is ample evidence that people LIKE YOURSELF buy into the mythology Stoklasa presented, and came out of it with irrationally negative attitudes regarding Lucas's character. Even minor damage is still damage, and thus can be called a Bad Thing. Furthermore, only in cases of Malicious slander do you have to establish malicious intent, whereas with damaging slander it only matters that the person is irresponsible with their words.

But of course, you are never going to admit that Stoklasa can do wrong, so I don't see why I should even bother at this point.

[Elfdart]

Wow struck a nerve there. The only ones on this forum pretending they have giant fact dicks around are people like you. You think it was a success because it made a bagillion dollars, that’s your opinion. I’m of the opinion that it was a failure in film making.

So in other words, you can't name any way in which TPM was a "failure" other than the fact that you and Red Letter Retard didn't like it. You think your opinion is some kind of objective fact, which makes you a complete fucktard. I didn't like The Dark Knight -I thought it took itself way more seriously than any movie about a guy in a leotard fighting crime ought to. But in spite of my dislike for the movie, I would have to be a drooling imbecile to claim over and over that a movie that (a) sold millions and millions of tickets (b) was well-received by audiences and (c) got favorable reviews was somehow a "failure".

If that’s the case maybe you need “stats”

Episode VI - Return of the Jedi 76%*
Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back 88%
Episode IV - A New Hope 88%
Episode III - Revenge of the Sith 67%
Episode II - Attack of the Clones 40%
Episode I - The Phantom Menace 40%

*Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics Metric Unless 40% is now considered objectively successful.

Which is why I mentioned what the reviews were when the films were first released, asshole.

[Formless]

Ghetto edti: Woops, just realized that emersonlakeandbalmer never actually said that Stoklasa had to be acting out of malicious intent for it to be slander. My mistake. Though the rest of the point still stands. Never say I'm not fair.

[nygma619]

Wow struck a nerve there. The only ones on this forum pretending they have giant fact dicks around are people like you. You think it was a success because it made a bagillion dollars, that’s your opinion. I’m of the opinion that it was a failure in film making.

So in other words, you can't name any way in which TPM was a "failure" other than the fact that you and Red Letter Retard didn't like it.

There's people out there besides him and "Red Letter Retard" that didn't like it. Hell there were people that didn't like the film or the prequels before it came out.

You think your opinion is some kind of objective fact, which makes you a complete fucktard.

He ain't the only one in this thread. Not necessarily you, but people from both ends of the spectrum.

I didn't like The Dark Knight -I thought it took itself way more seriously than any movie about a guy in a leotard fighting crime ought to. But in spite of my dislike for the movie, I would have to be a drooling imbecile to claim over and over that a movie that (a) sold millions and millions of tickets (b) was well-received by audiences and (c) got favorable reviews was somehow a "failure".

Why do people equate how much something sold with being a success? Should we count how much Transformers Revenge of the Fallen made as success? I certainly wouldn't. I mean from a business standpoint yes, but a critical one? Well I don't think anyone here is in total agreement on that.

[nygma619]

Oh, go buy a barbed wire butt plug and stick it up your ass, you legalistic prick. Just because Lucas is never going to actually sue Stoklasa doesn't mean we can't show that damage has been done to his image.

I'm so sure Lucas is really worried about how an internet review might have "damaged his image".
Never mind the fact that the stuff Stoklasa said about Lucas isn't exactly stuff that hasn't been said before by other people in the past.

[Batman]

Yeah. I mean why would anybody judge the success of a movie that is created primarily for the purpose of making money by...the amount of money it makes. Patently silly. Absolutely.

And not only are my leotard days far behind me (at least where the movies are concerned, it's all about body armour these days) but I'd argue that any Batman movie that doesn't take itself way too seriously isn't a proper Batman movie.

[nygma619]

I'm just going to note that in your last few replies to Havok and myself your arguments are getting increasingly reliant on appealing to your personal opinions on the acting, dialogue, whatever and trying to pass that off as fact rather than what it is.

Oh so people do spew crappy dialogue like that in real life, or they do act like that unnaturally, or people are that unlikable (well maybe around here, but not everywhere)?

These are not facts. These are opinions you have about the movie. What part of this do you not understand?

Most of the things in this thread boil down to opinion, I haven't tried passing them as fact anymore than others in this thread. Just like others thinking because the prequels made money equates them as a success. I'll just say that I found the acting, dialogue more realistic and the characters more likable in the OT, and that is just "my opinion".

Because being a smug, condiscending dick is so much less insulting.

Edit: and by that I mean calling someone "low brow" for being insulting is hypocrisy of the first degree, even if people like to confuse it as politeness.

Calling someone immature is insulting. And since when was insulting people ever considered high brow or in between.

[nygma619]

Take off the rose colored glasses. Outside of Guiness, Ford, Cushing and McDiarmid the acting is crap. PT: Take out McDiarmid, McGregor and Nieson and the acting is crap. Not much of a difference.

See now that's just your opinion. IMO Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher did great with what they were given.

And relate-able characters? You mean like the kid that is home sick? The awkward kid that is cast off from society? The teenager that has issues with his father(figure)? The teenager that has issues with his teachers? The teenagers that can't properly express their love? Come the fuck on.

Those sound more human than the boring stiff cardboard characters in the trilogy. And all those premises of human interaction that were supposed to grab us in the prequels, were portrayed HORRIBLY. Mostly because those characters aren't portrayed as terribly likable.

Outside of teenage Anakin, who isn't likable?

How about majority of the Jedi because of their close mindedness, or boring life styles. And if they aren't unlikeable they're pretty boring. Again that's just MY OPINION.

I don't remember anything that made my ears bleed like "I don't like the sand, it's coarse, rough, and it gets everywhere. Not like here, everything is smooth." Nobody says shit like this in real life.

Really? Nobody complains about how a certain place is coarse and rough and unlikable?[/quote]

Not when comparing it to a womans body, to try and impress her.

Completely irrelevant as I wasn't saying that the dialogue was good, merely that the PT dialogue isn't any worse than the OT dialogue.

IMO I didn't think it was, mostly because at times actors like Ford ad-libbed.

The CGI is fucking fine.

Not when it looks likes actors have no clue what is supposed to be happening in front of them, or they don't convey what CGI they're interacting with naturally.

The OT NEVER had the problem of people acting naturally.

For one, this is a completely subjective statement, but please point out where this happens in PT.[/quote]

Stuff like the corrison chase, obi-wan and anakin don't look terribly concerned when they're thousands of feet in the air, or when jumping out of the window/car. Or stuff like when Grievous spins his 4 light sabers Obi-Wan doesn't react even though Grievous could've lunged at him during that motion and started trying to slice him up. Just MO of how it comes across.
Hell Liam Neeson in an interview even considered the acting in the phantom menace to come off as wooden because of them just shooting in front of a blue screen.

[nygma619]

Take off the rose colored glasses. Outside of Guiness, Ford, Cushing and McDiarmid the acting is crap. PT: Take out McDiarmid, McGregor and Nieson and the acting is crap. Not much of a difference.

See now that's just your opinion. IMO Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher did great with what they were given, and McGregor IMO was subpar.

And relate-able characters? You mean like the kid that is home sick? The awkward kid that is cast off from society? The teenager that has issues with his father(figure)? The teenager that has issues with his teachers? The teenagers that can't properly express their love? Come the fuck on.

Those sound more human than the boring stiff cardboard characters in the trilogy. And all those premises of human interaction that were supposed to grab us in the prequels, were portrayed HORRIBLY. Mostly because those characters aren't portrayed as terribly likable.

Outside of teenage Anakin, who isn't likable?

How about majority of the Jedi because of their close mindedness, or boring life styles. And if they aren't unlikeable they're pretty boring. Again that's just MY OPINION.

Really? Nobody complains about how a certain place is coarse and rough and unlikable?

Not when comparing it to a womans body, to try and impress her.

Completely irrelevant as I wasn't saying that the dialogue was good, merely that the PT dialogue isn't any worse than the OT dialogue.

IMO I didn't think it was, mostly because at times actors like Ford ad-libbed.

The CGI is fucking fine.

Not when it looks likes actors have no clue what is supposed to be happening in front of them, or they don't convey what CGI they're interacting with naturally.

The OT NEVER had the problem of people acting naturally.

For one, this is a completely subjective statement, but please point out where this happens in PT.[/quote]

Stuff like the corrison chase, obi-wan and anakin don't look terribly concerned when they're thousands of feet in the air, or when jumping out of the window/car. Or stuff like when Grievous spins his 4 light sabers Obi-Wan doesn't react even though Grievous could've lunged at him during that motion and started trying to slice him up. Just MO of how it comes across.
Hell Liam Neeson in an interview even considered the acting in the phantom menace to come off as wooden because of them just shooting in front of a blue screen.[/quote]

[Batman]

Why would they act concerned? They're Jedi. For them that's pretty much business as usual. As for Obi-Wan not reacting to Grievous showing off-Force Precog?

[Jim Raynor]

Two more pages without any new arguments from the RLM-defenders. Dissecting the tonal shifts of Plinkett's monotone voice? That's what this thread has turned into?

Again, I went over the "comedy" excuse right near the start. If everything in the RLM review is just stupid comedy that doesn't really mean what it says, then don't use it as a logical dissection of the movie. Funny how people regarded it as such anyway...except for all the parts of that review which were pointed out as stupid. Which make up most of the review's running time. Which somehow don't have to be accounted for when alluding to its "main point" which is so profound and insightful, really.

Let's cut the crap, okay? Anyone with a brain knows that "comedy" is still used to make genuine points. People have explained this simple truth already in this thread. When people mock Sarah Palin as stupid and Charlie Sheen as a drugged out egomaniac, they really do mean that Palin is stupid and Sheen is a drugged out egomaniac.