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

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

This was supposed to be a comeback? I repeat: The RLM defenders seem to pick meaningless little parts of the review, and ascribe more intelligence and meaning to them than there actually is.

No one wants to write a 108 rebuttal to your rebuttal. So you’re going to have to deal with people picking a point in your PDF and using it as an example of your overall inability to understand RLM’s review. Or you could go back to page 19 and see where I pick several meaningless parts to show how you missed the arguments of each.

What does the opening crawl say? Oh yeah, the taxation of trade routes is in dispute.

So how does taking over a planet end the taxes? How will lying to congress later about the invasion help them end taxes? If they get the treaty signed how does that end taxes? See since we don’t know what their situation, none of their decisions mean anything to the audience.

I "glossed it over" because he was decompressed. He used up 4 minutes repeating a basic subjective point that could've been explained in 4 sentences.

He did this to emphasize his point and you obviously didn’t understand this because you go on to suggest the lead is Qui-Gon despite the fact that his character has no arc.

saying that Qui-Gon couldn't be described with a single word (except "stern")

I don’t disagree with you here. I think he was trying to just find a funny way to present his point, I think it missed the mark, but I also don’t think they’re actors. However, they clearly hadn’t seen the movie in a while. I even lol’d at your pic of Qui-Gon saying get a dictionary. None of this changes the point, that the PT characters are far less defined than the OT ones or characters in similar genres.

claiming that Anakin was running around with no concept of what was going on in the movie.

Anakin has about as much idea why these two factions are fighting over 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.
Anakin may have been around the Jedi during the plan but it’s doubtful he really understood what was happening, because he says things like “there they are (meaning he didn’t even know where the pilots were headed) that’s where the autopilot’s taking us” On top of it he accidentally destroyed the TF ship, its doubtful he even knew what the mission was because he certainly didn’t mean to end it. RLM’s point was that Anakin isn't a suitable main character since he's a child that doesn't really even know what's going on.. beyond "being on an important mission"

Another lame attempted comeback. I see no effort to even refute my statement that this supposed main point, vague and subjective at best, doesn't really say much. Or that this supposed "main point" is not what the vast majority of the review spends its time on.

Almost his entire review is about the awfulness of the storytelling. Yes, you miss that point because instead of arguing the points RLM is making you’re arguing details of comedic hypotheticals like they are in universe logic. Like your favorite “kill them all” line… not a literal story suggestion, but rather used as a comparison to the dangerous action taken by trying to run a blockade with one ship.

I mean wow, nitpicking over when Watto read the list of parts stored in R2, then stupidly confusing a "readout" with a picture?

I agree with you this one is nitpicky. However, from a story perspective why is R2 there? Oh yeah so he can met C3PO.

Whining about the practical value of a child's gift to his mother as if most gifts that kids give to their moms are practical? Such a focus on this "main point"...whatever it's supposed to be now.

His point here was how dumb it is to shoe horn C3PO into this movie by having Anakin build it. It’s about C3PO, the other elements are just jokes about what an impractical gift it is to emphasize how much lucas is shoe horning the character. This one baffles me because you AGREE that C3PO is shoe horned in, yet you still somehow miss the point of the jokes.

It's his OPINION that having a pathetic down on his luck protaganist being picked on by others makes an action adventure movie better.

It’s also the premise of his argument. By dismissing his premise you’re missing the point argument.

If not outright stupid and ignorant of the entire SW saga's themes, such as his suggestion that Qui-Gon just sit around doing nothing for most of the movie.

RLM was talking about how Obi-Wan should have been the main character and if Qui-Gon HAD to be in the movie he could have played his “father figure” role more like Yoda. This is total opinion, a subject you said you wouldn’t comment on in your rebuttal I might add.

Qui-gon would this serve the same role you state in your rebuttal but now we follow our main character Obi-Wan, a jedi we’ll be with for the next three films. All the beats of Qui-Gon being a father figure could still exist in RLM version. Do you really think having Obi-Wan being distrustful of Anakin over the course of the trilogy is better than having them be genuine friends… you know like what’s his name said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVZHUKYR_zA&t=2m59s

The most reasonable conclusion which can be drawn from both sides of this discussion is that Red Letter Media's review should not be taken seriously. Whether it's because Stoklasa is a comedian who is not making serious points, or because he's a genuine critic who is full of shit makes little difference. Both sides of the debate end in the same conclusion.

That's it right there in a nutshell. The defense that the RLM fans have fallen back to (because they can't defend the review's quality on logical grounds) is that it was just meaningless comedy. Which doesn't defend the logic of it at all. Which means everyone should stop treating it as intelligent commentary, which was what I said right in the introduction of my response.

I think Darth Tedious has a good point. It’s a review and shouldn’t be taken anymore seriously than a review by ebert. Which is why it’s so funny that someone wrote a 108 page rebuttal. A rebuttal that attacks the logic of each line as though each suggestion is meant to be taken literally. The intelligent commentary is opinion and I know how you guys hate that.

The people complaining about the taxes the most are the same ones demanding a detailed explanation of them.

Oh I’d be happy if there were no taxes in this movie, but if there has to be I’d like to know what’s and stake and why.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

ANH is just eye candy as well. It was just eye candy no one had seen yet.
Honestly, and I don't know how old you are, but nobody had seen anything like Star Wars when it came out. NOTHING like it. It literally amazed audiences and it blew EVERYONE away. You HAD to go see it. But even then, no one claimed it as a storytelling triumph. Not even close. It was an event, but it was a visual one. TPM is the same thing. It was a visual and musical event. The problem, was it was nothing new. It was still Star Wars, it wasn't Star Wars.

I think this guy sums it up best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORWPCCzSgu0&t=9m40s

[Darth Tedious]

You seem to have missed my last post. It was in reply to The Asiduo, but I will reiterate it for you, if I must.

This debate is over RLM's review and Raynor's response. RLM's review has been analysed in two ways.
One is using complete suspension of disbelief, and taking the review as a very serious critique of the movie. This was the method Raynor used. His rebuttal was written to address and refute the points which Stoklasa raised (be they nitpicks or not) by taking them as if they were serious.
The other is a purely literary approach, observing that Plinkett is a comedy relief character, and that Stoklasa used his review as a funny way to get his opinions out to the world. This method does not regard Stoklasa's critiques as serious, but for comedic purposes.
Both methods, lead to the same answer.
On the literary side, we have the view that one should not take the opinion of Plinkett seriously, because he is intended as comedy (and this is backed up by statements given by Stoklasa himself, as quoted and referenced earlier by The Asiduo).
Using suspension of disbelief, Raynor has analysed Plinkett's criticism and found it to be repeatedly faulty (as one could possibly expect from a crazy geriatric catfucker), and thus should not be taken seriously.

Both sides of the argument lead to the same conclusion.
Red Letter Media's review of The Phantom Menace should not be taken seriously.

As for your continued claim that TPM was an objective financial failure, you will now explain how your method of assessing it as such is unbiased.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

You seem to have missed my last post. It was in reply to The Asiduo, but I will reiterate it for you, if I must.

This debate is over RLM's review and Raynor's response. RLM's review has been analysed in two ways.

I love how much of a science you think this is. I’m not so sure about your theory though.

One is using complete suspension of disbelief, and taking the review as a very serious critique of the movie. This was the method Raynor used. His rebuttal was written to address and refute the points which Stoklasa raised (be they nitpicks or not) by taking them as if they were serious.
The other is a purely literary approach, observing that Plinkett is a comedy relief character, and that Stoklasa used his review as a funny way to get his opinions out to the world. This method does not regard Stoklasa's critiques as serious, but for comedic purposes.
Both methods, lead to the same answer.
On the literary side, we have the view that one should not take the opinion of Plinkett seriously, because he is intended as comedy (and this is backed up by statements given by Stoklasa himself, as quoted and referenced earlier by The Asiduo).
Using suspension of disbelief, Raynor has analysed Plinkett's criticism and found it to be repeatedly faulty (as one could possibly expect from a crazy geriatric catfucker), and thus should not be taken seriously.

I agreed with you in my reply to Raynor but I too will reiterate if I must. RLM should be taken no more seriously than any other review of a movie. However, it doesn’t mean his comedic points are without merit. I have shown over and over that Raynor often missed the argument RLM was making with his "nitpicks" by treating them all literally.

Both sides of the argument lead to the same conclusion.
Red Letter Media's review of The Phantom Menace should not be taken seriously.

I agree, now we’re debating the merits of Raynor’s rebuttal. In the end its all meaningless.

As for your continued claim that TPM was an objective financial failure, you will now explain how your method of assessing it as such is unbiased.

I compared it to the 19 films ahead of it on the boxoffice list of highest grossing films of all time adjusted for inflation. Each time I compared the total adjusted box office number TPM failed to have a higher number.

[Darth Tedious]

As for your continued claim that TPM was an objective financial failure, you will now explain how your method of assessing it as such is unbiased.

I compared it to the 19 films ahead of it...

You have yet to explain how this is unbiased.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

As for your continued claim that TPM was an objective financial failure, you will now explain how your method of assessing it as such is unbiased.

I compared it to the 19 films ahead of it...

You have yet to explain how this is unbiased.

I want to see how it's even any sort of measure of financial success. Comparing it to the 19 films ahead of it... does that mean there have only been 19 successful movies ever in the history of cinema?

[Metahive]

Both sides of the argument lead to the same conclusion.
Red Letter Media's review of The Phantom Menace should not be taken seriously.

...which should not take a 109 page rebuttal to figure out considering SW is after all fluff entertainment and not the friggin' theory of evolution.

[Ryushikaze]

Both sides of the argument lead to the same conclusion.
Red Letter Media's review of The Phantom Menace should not be taken seriously.

...which should not take a 109 page rebuttal to figure out considering SW is after all fluff entertainment and not the friggin' theory of evolution.

It also shouldn't take 70+ minutes to review the movie, either, but RLM did. And then people started taking the reviews seriously.

[Metahive]

What do you mean with "taking the review seriously"? Was there any sort of concrete threat for life, love and happiness of anyone that the RLM reviews presented? Is PT bashing going to get inserted into regular school curricula? Is anyone unable to appreciate the PT properly unless all of its critics are silenced?

I again remind people that we're talking about fluff entertainment here, not about something of consequence.

[The Asiduo]

It also shouldn't take 70+ minutes to review the movie, either, but RLM did. And then people started taking the reviews seriously.

Comedy purposes vs angry pseudo-intellectual refutation.

That's the difference.

And: "Taking serious" != "Taking literally".

Comments of: "Fighting all droids", "kill Watto", etc. are jokes, which serve the purpose of highlight plot holes perceived by Stoklasa. If you don't think the plot holes are such, argue that, don't take the guy literally: that's silly.

[Ryushikaze]

It also shouldn't take 70+ minutes to review the movie, either, but RLM did. And then people started taking the reviews seriously.

Comedy purposes vs angry pseudo-intellectual refutation.

Unless it's a pure piss take, his commentary should be judged according to a basic standard, one which other comedic reviewers should and are held to. If it IS a pure piss take, it shouldn't be taken as a legitimate critique of the movie.
Hell, even if it's a pure piss take, it should judged on the merits of its humor or lack thereof, not on whether it makes any legitimate criticisms of the movie- It's a piss take. You want to have your cake and eat it too, Asiduo.
Again, I notice you keep ascribing Raynor as angry, and yet his tone in the rebuttal was rather even, granting the review valid points where it made them.
Also, the length definitely goes against RLM reviews being good comedy. He has one schtick he runs with for 70+ minutes, and it gets old very very quickly.

That's the difference.

And: "Taking serious" != "Taking literally".

No one said it was.

Comments of: "Fighting all droids", "kill Watto", etc. are jokes, which serve the purpose of highlight plot holes perceived by Stoklasa. If you don't think the plot holes are such, argue that, don't take the guy literally: that's silly.

Except there's really no indication in the review to indicate that these are not serious suggestions. They are delivered in the same flat monotone as comments which aren't jokes.
And Raynor did argue that the 'plot holes' these 'jokes' were meant to highlight were not plot holes, so I'm not sure why you say he should when he did and has.

Y'know, I'm getting Deja Vu here to arguing against 'Biblical historians' who suddenly find that any part of the bible that doesn't make sense is figurative or Allegorical but the rest is real and honest history, by gum!

[Ryushikaze]

What do you mean with "taking the review seriously"? Was there any sort of concrete threat for life, love and happiness of anyone that the RLM reviews presented? Is PT bashing going to get inserted into regular school curricula? Is anyone unable to appreciate the PT properly unless all of its critics are silenced?

I again remind people that we're talking about fluff entertainment here, not about something of consequence.

I'm aware as well. Which is part of why the 70+ minute reviews on said fluff entertainment come off as excessive and nitpicky, especially since their humor doesn't hold up for anything close to the entire length of the review.

And no, none of that shit needs to happen for people to take the reviews more seriously than they deserve, but nice strawman anyways.

[Formless]

And for the 62'd time, the troll returns to defend his idol. What a shock.

I'm just going to deal with the most important bits, to make it easier for people to follow.

Haha. Good because I’m tired of answering it.

...

So this seems to be a pattern with you. You ask a question, somebody responds and then you demand more “evidence” because you either misinterpret, ignore or plain just didn’t understand. Since I’m aware of your condition I’ll humor you one more time. I mean I could go on forever really, but I understand you are ”not asking again”.

I’ll use a normal font size if that’s alright, I don’t want you to get distracted and focus on one element and miss the whole idea. I may bold or italicize some words, those are visual cues… I’m going to let you guess what they mean.

You're tired of answering something you have never answered, refuse to answer, and mock me for even asking when its a valid point and the rules prohibit one from ignoring points. *feigns shock*

Kurtz used to work with Lucas = fact *
Kurtz was/is critical of the direction lucas took the films = fact *
Kurtz no longer works for lucas = fact *
You can see fear in the eyes of Lucas's employees in behind the scenes footage =! fact
Lucas is an overbearing micromanaging boss =! fact
RLM hypothesis that this is one of the reasons the prequels suck = Opinion based on the above facts *

No, its a leap in logic. So sorry, emerson, but you still have not accounted for the fact that RLM felt the need to add a disclaimer "but I wasn't there". *feeds more rope*

I’m used to this by now, but maybe you don’t understand the words you’re using.

the·o·ry
1. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
2. contemplation or speculation.
3. guess or conjecture.

So when you ask if I think a theory can come down to a matter of opinion, the answer is going to be yes because a theory is conjecture. p.

What are you, a fucking creationist? That's the definition of a hypothesis, you dishonest sack of shit. The way layfolk use the word is not the way I use it, or anyone else on this board, nor the way anyone should use it. Only an apologist posts incorrect definitions and hopes no one calls them out on it. And even if it is a hypothesis, the hypothesis rests on assumptions abotu Lucas's character that you can't back up, and nor could RLM. What's more, you yourself use the word "hypothesis" earlier in your post!:

The hypothesis is not presented as fact, because it’s a hypothesis. If you keep calling me a liar I may have to sue you for libel.

I might add, while I'm at it, that have quite some balls and little sense to make a joke (assuming that was a joke) about having to sue me for libel when your behavior in this thread is of a textbook apologist.

I’ve given repeated citations of how far his control reaches.

How many citations was that? Oh, yeah, three. One was about marketing, one was about Lucas's desire to have greater creative control, one is Gary Kurtz. Not enough evidence.

Really, Lucas said he wanted… interesting, as far as I can tell nothing is in that quote about how he didn’t want to add it.

He changed the scene twice, not once, and the second time had Han shoot first. Once again, trying to find anything at all that you think you can win at, when the rest of the details defy you.

I don’t remember quoting Kurtz.

You only prop him up as evidence in this very post. Nice strawman, too, since I never claimed you quoted Kurtz, only that you used his words as evidence.

So now, after saying that Gary Kurtz's words are fact *, denying that they were ever presented as fact *, you are now back to them being fact * again...

What, do you think you can just put words into my mouth and get away with it? The original post is right fucking there where everyone can read it, asshole.

Y'know, I'm getting Deja Vu here to arguing against 'Biblical historians' who suddenly find that any part of the bible that doesn't make sense is figurative or Allegorical but the rest is real and honest history, by gum!

Yup, and the same constant attempts to twist definitions, weasel around backing up claims, and other nonsense biblical apologists use as well.

Maniac… I see what you did there. Very clever. Are you a writer?

Its a hobby of mine, yes.

[Formless]

Uh, if they're too stupid to take them literally, then why are you taking them literally?

Because I see no indication that he didn't mean them literally. Hence why I think RLM is an idiot. Alternatively, a lot of his fanbase seems to think he meant them literally, which would make them idiots. Plus, all three of the alternative interpretations of his arguments that you suggest in your post are idiotic in their own right.

The non-literal interpretation of the first point on your list (it's commentary on the generally useless and non-threatening nature of their enemies and situations) has been mentioned more than once. Why does that seem so much less likely to have been the actual intent of the comment to you? Especially when you consider RLM complains at many times about there being "no tension" in various scenes, and the suggested "Rambo tactics" would be basically guaranteed to suck any tension out of the scene.

They aren't non-threatening (in particular, when they start fighting the gungans who themselves aren't just a pack of Jar Jar Binks's), they just come off that way because of the slapstick humor. If that is what he meant, its still unbelievably stupid.

The "steal from Watto" point was actually after he brought up the possibility of someone saying, "the ends justify the means" in relation to attempting to mind-trick Watto into accepting useless currency. RLM was actually morally critical of even what Qui Gon did do in the movies.

And? If that is so it still highlights that he wasn't paying attention to the movie, because there is no way they were just going to steal the parts they needed. Moreover, if that was his point it further highlights that he has absolutely no understanding of the characters and can't tell the moral difference between a mind trick and theft or even armed robbery. Raynor went over this too, I might add. "I find your lack of customer service disturbing." Ring any bells? Of course it probably didn't, you probably didn't read the PDF.

What RLM actually suggested about Qui Gon was that his character should not have existed at all, and his important traits should have simply been incorporated into Obi Wan. He's not even the first person to suggest Qui Gon and Obi Wan should have just been rolled into a single character. Having Qui Gon sit around "being wise" was only if, for some reason, it were absolutely necessary to include him in the movie.

Which is fucking stupid. What, Obi Wan was always a wise old man, even as a youth? Bullshit.

So basically, he's just suggesting that Obi Wan be a more important and fleshed out character.

No, what you are saying is that he should just be a cardboard cutout of the character as seen in ANH, eliminating any possible character development of Obi Wan through the next two movies. I shouldn't have to tell you why that's a retarded idea.

Come on now, Highlander never got even remotely as big as Star Wars, and its sequel wasn't evenly remotely as anticipated as the prequels were. Granted, it's certainly a worse movie than TPM (and it is rather amazing they managed to make even worse movies with End Game and The Source), but the only people who cared about Highlander 2 existing at all were Highlander fans; everyone was interested when Star Wars came out.

See highlighted part. I was commenting on the fact that TPM is not in fact the worst movie or even the worst sequel to hit theaters. By comparison, Highlander 2 essentially made sure that the series would never be taken seriously any more, even by its fans. It would be like if Terminator 2 was a failure, only with more swords.

[The Asiduo]

Unless it's a pure piss take, his commentary should be judged according to a basic standard, one which other comedic reviewers should and are held to. If it IS a pure piss take, it shouldn't be taken as a legitimate critique of the movie.
Hell, even if it's a pure piss take, it should judged on the merits of its humor or lack thereof, not on whether it makes any legitimate criticisms of the movie- It's a piss take. You want to have your cake and eat it too, Asiduo.
Again, I notice you keep ascribing Raynor as angry, and yet his tone in the rebuttal was rather even, granting the review valid points where it made them.
Also, the length definitely goes against RLM reviews being good comedy. He has one schtick he runs with for 70+ minutes, and it gets old very very quickly.

Finding RLM's review funny or not is just a thing of taste. If you don't think is funny, fine I guess, but let's stop the argument of: "He made something of 70 minutes, then is so serious".

No one said it was.

Oh yeah?. Tell that to Raynor, who doesn't get the idea of a review with jokes and stupid comparisons. Again: he's comparing a stupid idea, with a stupid event in the movie. Why you guys find that so hard to get?

Except there's really no indication in the review to indicate that these are not serious suggestions. They are delivered in the same flat monotone as comments which aren't jokes.
And Raynor did argue that the 'plot holes' these 'jokes' were meant to highlight were not plot holes, so I'm not sure why you say he should when he did and has.

Y'know, I'm getting Deja Vu here to arguing against 'Biblical historians' who suddenly find that any part of the bible that doesn't make sense is figurative or Allegorical but the rest is real and honest history, by gum!

Yeah, yeah. There is no indication he's mixing jokes with movie comments. It's clear he's doing all the review straight-forward and seriously: someone should call the police to help the prostitute in his basement.

P.S.: The difference with the bible, dude, is that no one here is arguing that Stoklasa should be taken more seriously than just opinions made from some random nerd in the Internet.

[Ryushikaze]

I start this post with a repeat of a chunk of my post that seems to have been ignored by Asiduo, though it was quoted.

Unless it's a pure piss take, his commentary should be judged according to a basic standard, one which other comedic reviewers should and are held to. If it IS a pure piss take, it shouldn't be taken as a legitimate critique of the movie.
Hell, even if it's a pure piss take, it should judged on the merits of its humor or lack thereof, not on whether it makes any legitimate criticisms of the movie- It's a piss take. You want to have your cake and eat it too, Asiduo.
Again, I notice you keep ascribing Raynor as angry, and yet his tone in the rebuttal was rather even, granting the review valid points where it made them.

Finding RLM's review funny or not is just a thing of taste. If you don't think is funny, fine I guess, but let's stop the argument of: "He made something of 70 minutes, then is so serious".

If the entire thing isn't serious at all, then why take anything he says as anything other than a piss take? That's why this defense smacks of Apologism. Stoklassa might be attempting to be a humor reviewer, but inherent in that is the reviewer just as much as the humor.

And even if Stoklassa isn't being serious in his criticisms of the film, people are taking them as serious criticisms, and they should be addressed as such to show why they don't work as such.

Oh yeah?. Tell that to Raynor, who doesn't get the idea of a review with jokes and stupid comparisons. Again: he's comparing a stupid idea, with a stupid event in the movie. Why you guys find that so hard to get?

The part where he's suggesting something even more stupid as a replacement without a trace hint of irony in his flat monotone, a serious flaw in the delivery of those who wish to mix humor and actual criticism. And no, Raynor never said serious must equal literal.

I note you omit responding to the point where I point out Raynor did address the reviews claims of Plot holes in addition to discussing the inanity of the alternate suggestions.

Yeah, yeah. There is no indication he's mixing jokes with movie comments. It's clear he's doing all the review straight-forward and seriously: someone should call the police to help the prostitute in his basement.

You twist my words, rather blatantly, at that. I said there's nothing to distinguish between comments on the movie which are intended as humor and those which are serious, as he delivers them in the same flat monotone. This is not to say there is no indication that there are jokes mixed in, just that he makes no distinction between jokes at the movie's expense and his legitimate criticisms, which is again a terrible practice.

P.S.: The difference with the bible, dude, is that no one here is arguing that Stoklasa should be taken more seriously than just opinions made from some random nerd in the Internet.

Except you are taking it more seriously than just the opinion of a random nerd on the internet. You're here defending him and his take on TPM. And I never said there was any particular similarity with the bible here, just the apologists thereof.

[The Asiduo]

Unless it's a pure piss take, his commentary should be judged according to a basic standard, one which other comedic reviewers should and are held to. If it IS a pure piss take, it shouldn't be taken as a legitimate critique of the movie.
Hell, even if it's a pure piss take, it should judged on the merits of its humor or lack thereof, not on whether it makes any legitimate criticisms of the movie- It's a piss take. You want to have your cake and eat it too, Asiduo.
Again, I notice you keep ascribing Raynor as angry, and yet his tone in the rebuttal was rather even, granting the review valid points where it made them.

Come on: he's calling Stoklasa an idiot, moron, dishonest, etc. in his review almost any time he can, and he keeps repeating the same attacks over and over again. It's almost creepy.

If the entire thing isn't serious at all, then why take anything he says as anything other than a piss take? That's why this defense smacks of Apologism. Stoklassa might be attempting to be a humor reviewer, but inherent in that is the reviewer just as much as the humor.

I don't know: ask that to the guy who wrote a 108-page refutation to a video made for comedy purposes.

And even if Stoklassa isn't being serious in his criticisms of the film, people are taking them as serious criticisms, and they should be addressed as such to show why they don't work as such.

I forgot I was on the Internet: "Serious-land"

The part where he's suggesting something even more stupid as a replacement without a trace hint of irony in his flat monotone, a serious flaw in the delivery of those who wish to mix humor and actual criticism. And no, Raynor never said serious must equal literal.

I note you omit responding to the point where I point out Raynor did address the reviews claims of Plot holes in addition to discussing the inanity of the alternate suggestions.

Yeah, he "fixed" the plot holes making up stuff: such as inventing that the ship that goes through the blockade is so special.

You twist my words, rather blatantly, at that. I said there's nothing to distinguish between comments on the movie which are intended as humor and those which are serious, as he delivers them in the same flat monotone. This is not to say there is no indication that there are jokes mixed in, just that he makes no distinction between jokes at the movie's expense and his legitimate criticisms, which is again a terrible practice.

Except you are taking it more seriously than just the opinion of a random nerd on the internet. You're here defending him and his take on TPM. And I never said there was any particular similarity with the bible here, just the apologists thereof.

All I've said over, and over again, of RLM's reviews is:

- Are funny.
- Are made for comedy purposes.
- They guy is just trying to mix opinions with jokes.
- He makes good points
- He's nitpicky on purpose.

That's all. Now, send him an email complaining that you can't make distinction when he's serious, or when he's joking.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

You're tired of answering something you have never answered, refuse to answer, and mock me for even asking when its a valid point and the rules prohibit one from ignoring points. *feigns shock*

I answered Tone and provided a few examples, but you didn’t understand what tone meant thus you missed the point. So last post I had to spell it out for you. Like I would a child. When you miss what the point is, is that the same as ignoring the point? Because I might need to have a talk with the captains of this ship about how you “break” the rules.

You can see fear in the eyes of Lucas's employees in behind the scenes footage =! fact
Lucas is an overbearing micromanaging boss =! fact
RLM hypothesis that this is one of the reasons the prequels suck = Opinion based on the above facts *

No, its a leap in logic. So sorry, emerson, but you still have not accounted for the fact that RLM felt the need to add a disclaimer "but I wasn't there". *feeds more rope*

You see when he says the words “but I wasn’t there” or “probably” those are indicators that he’s stating opinion. Once again you have shown you are incapable of interpreting the things you see and hear.

What are you, a fucking creationist? That's the definition of a hypothesis, you dishonest sack of shit. The way layfolk use the word is not the way I use it, or anyone else on this board, nor the way anyone should use it. Only an apologist posts incorrect definitions and hopes no one calls them out on it. And even if it is a hypothesis, the hypothesis rests on assumptions abotu Lucas's character that you can't back up, and nor could RLM. What's more, you yourself use the word "hypothesis" earlier in your post!:

Hypothesis
—Synonyms
1. See theory.

But I forgot you’re a scientist and the internet is serious business so you meant the scientific definition. So please do tell me how you plan to repeatedly tests (by experiments) the theories of the behind the scenes activity around the white house and use it to make predictions about natural phenomena of going to war with Iraq.

You guys are so awesome. I love how you act like everything is a science experiment. The Newton’s of Sci-Fi. The Einstein’s of suspension of disbelief.

How many citations was that? Oh, yeah, three. One was about marketing, one was about Lucas's desire to have greater creative control, one is Gary Kurtz. Not enough evidence.

I’m not writing you a book. You can’t even provide 1 piece of evidence to the contrary.

He changed the scene twice, not once, and the second time had Han shoot first. Once again, trying to find anything at all that you think you can win at, when the rest of the details defy you.

He changed… HE = LUCAS. Please show a citation that says it wasn’t his idea to flip flop back and forth. You claimed a mysterious worker told him it would sell better if Han was less morally ambiguous while Lucas preferred the original take. Do you have a citation for this? As you put in large ass font last post “show us that you don’t just pull shit out of your ass”

You only prop him up as evidence in this very post. Nice strawman, too, since I never claimed you quoted Kurtz, only that you used his words as evidence.

You said I used Kurtz’s words. In order for me to do that I’d have to quote him. I used Kurtz’s history as evidence. Again Kurtz used to work for Lucas. He’s vocal about his criticism of what lucas did with the films. He no longer works for lucas.

So now, after saying that Gary Kurtz's words are fact *, denying that they were ever presented as fact *, you are now back to them being fact * again...

What, do you think you can just put words into my mouth and get away with it? The original post is right fucking there where everyone can read it, asshole.

No one put words in your mouth, you do stupid all by yourself. Again. I never said Kurtz’s words were fact. I said his history with Lucas is fact. But thanks for reposting it so everyone can see one more time, how little you understand.

Yup, and the same constant attempts to twist definitions, weasel around backing up claims, and other nonsense biblical apologists use as well.

Kind of like how superfans use suspension of disbelief to justify bad writing.

Uh, if they're too stupid to take them literally, then why are you taking them literally?

Because I see no indication that he didn't mean them literally. Hence why I think RLM is an idiot. Alternatively, a lot of his fanbase seems to think he meant them literally, which would make them idiots. Plus, all three of the alternative interpretations of his arguments that you suggest in your post are idiotic in their own right.

No indication other than the words he uses and the tone. Please see previous post if you don't know what tone is.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

And even if Stoklassa isn't being serious in his criticisms of the film, people are taking them as serious criticisms, and they should be addressed as such to show why they don't work as such.

His criticisms are legitimate, just not always literal. So when you think everything he says is a legitimate suggestion for the character to do or say you miss the argument and the criticism. As even Raynor pointed out comedy can still be a legitimate critique, you guys just don’t understand what elements are being criticized.

I note you omit responding to the point where I point out Raynor did address the reviews claims of Plot holes in addition to discussing the inanity of the alternate suggestions.

That’s because Asiduo explained that Raynor missed the argument RLM is making by taking those “suggestions” literally. I really don’t understand how all you raynor apologists continue to miss that. Then I remember the rebuttal and the fact that you think TPM is good.

[Vympel]

My god are you a gigantic bullshit artist:-

So this seems to be a pattern with you. You ask a question, somebody responds and then you demand more “evidence” because you either misinterpret, ignore or plain just didn’t understand. Since I’m aware of your condition I’ll humor you one more time. I mean I could go on forever really, but I understand you are ”not asking again”.

I’ll use a normal font size if that’s alright, I don’t want you to get distracted and focus on one element and miss the whole idea. I may bold or italicize some words, those are visual cues… I’m going to let you guess what they mean.

You haven't responded in any meaningful way whatsoever. All your prattle in this thread amounts to "I'm able to discern that his tone establishes that every moronic thing Plinkett says in the review isn't meant to be taken seriously."

You're being asked how you're able to discern that. And what do you do? You quote some natter about what 'tone' means, and then say you can interpret tone. That's not an answer, that's just fucking repeating yourself. Which is what you and your fellow apologist idiots have been doing from day one.

The fact of the matter is you have no fucking idea. You merely don't like that Raynor calls out idiotic arguments made by Plinkett, and so repeatedly and unendingly insist that you are able to divine what is and isn't meant to be taken seriously at any given moment in his review (so that - and its so convenient - every single moronic statement he plops onto the internet just happens to be a joke and not merely stupid).

Its like the Church of the Infallible RLM. It really is pathetic, especially when so much of your debate capital seems to be invested in the idea that you're somehow superior to Jim, or anyone that agrees with him that the review, on balance, is actually pretty shite.

Tell you what, you've got one more chance - explain how you know a specific RLM-stupid-nitpick in his review is a joke, because of your awesome understanding of tone.

[Darth Tedious]

As for your continued claim that TPM was an objective financial failure, you will now explain how your method of assessing it as such is unbiased.

I compared it to the 19 films ahead of it...

You have yet to explain how this is unbiased.

You seem to have ignored this. I demanded a logical explanation for your bullshit claim. This isn't a Youtune comment thread you're arguing on here. Either make a logical assertion, or concede the point.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

You seem to have ignored this. I demanded a logical explanation for your bullshit claim. This isn't a Youtune comment thread you're arguing on here. Either make a logical assertion, or concede the point.

I compared two numbers, one failed to be higher than the other. Numbers are unbiased.

[Vympel]

You seem to have ignored this. I demanded a logical explanation for your bullshit claim. This isn't a Youtune comment thread you're arguing on here. Either make a logical assertion, or concede the point.

I compared two numbers, one failed to be higher than the other. Numbers are unbiased.

You really are a complete fucking idiot. So according to you, it is entirely logical to declare a movie a 'financial failure' because it did not make more money than 19 more successful movies? So, as was put to you earlier by SilverwingSeraph, and which you ignored - there have only ever been 19 financially successful movies in the history of cinema?

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

My god are you a gigantic bullshit artist:-

So this seems to be a pattern with you. You ask a question, somebody responds and then you demand more “evidence” because you either misinterpret, ignore or plain just didn’t understand. Since I’m aware of your condition I’ll humor you one more time. I mean I could go on forever really, but I understand you are ”not asking again”.

I’ll use a normal font size if that’s alright, I don’t want you to get distracted and focus on one element and miss the whole idea. I may bold or italicize some words, those are visual cues… I’m going to let you guess what they mean.

You haven't responded in any meaningful way whatsoever. All your prattle in this thread amounts to "I'm able to discern that his tone establishes that every moronic thing Plinkett says in the review isn't meant to be taken seriously."

You're being asked how you're able to discern that. And what do you do? You quote some natter about what 'tone' means, and then say you can interpret tone. That's not an answer, that's just fucking repeating yourself. Which is what you and your fellow apologist idiots have been doing from day one.

The fact of the matter is you have no fucking idea. You merely don't like that Raynor calls out idiotic arguments made by Plinkett, and so repeatedly and unendingly insist that you are able to divine what is and isn't meant to be taken seriously at any given moment in his review (so that - and its so convenient - every single moronic statement he plops onto the internet just happens to be a joke and not merely stupid).

Its like the Church of the Infallible RLM. It really is pathetic, especially when so much of your debate capital seems to be invested in the idea that you're somehow superior to Jim, or anyone that agrees with him that the review, on balance, is actually pretty shite.

Tell you what, you've got one more chance - explain how you know a specific RLM-stupid-nitpick in his review is a joke, because of your awesome understanding of tone.

I will give you one example because I'm tired and you're still not going to understand.

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.

All those words in bold tell me he isn't actually proposing this seriously, because he goes into great detail to point out how dangerous and stupid it is that they run a blockade with one ship. If you take that first line literally then you're an absolute moron because why would RLM recommend a tactic that he says is just as crazy as a tactic he's about to make fun of for it's stupidity. If you can't understand that then we have nothing more to talk about because you'll never understand the RLM review.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

You seem to have ignored this. I demanded a logical explanation for your bullshit claim. This isn't a Youtune comment thread you're arguing on here. Either make a logical assertion, or concede the point.

I compared two numbers, one failed to be higher than the other. Numbers are unbiased.

You really are a complete fucking idiot. So according to you, it is entirely logical to declare a movie a 'financial failure' because it did not make more money than 19 more successful movies? So, as was put to you earlier by SilverwingSeraph, and which you ignored - there have only ever been 19 financially successful movies in the history of cinema?

I didn't ignore it jackass but I'm not going to repeat myself to everyone in Raynor's harem. In fact I'm not going to repeat myself to you. Go back and read my posts, pretend you understand words and you'll find the answer.