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

[Vympel]

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.

So this is your big explanation? What I like about this is your complete failure to miss the point of what Raynor attacked him over. To spell it out in crayon:-

Saying they should just try and run the blockade with one ship isn't what Jim pillories him for. The "just start fighting all of them" is the chief problem with his idiotic idea. Or is running a blockade directly applicable to fighting a hangar full of battle droids?

Of course, anyone can see that nothing of what you said goes toward explaining how you are able to discern the appropriate 'tone'. All you are really saying, at the end of the day, is: "if you think Stoklasa is a moron for proposing something objectively moronic, then you are a moron because Stoklasa isn't because ... he wouldn't do that."

It's tautological nonsense, and its only basis is your desire to mindlessly defend the review.

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.

LOL. So when backed into a corner you ... throw a big whiny tantrum and insist your "posts" explain things sufficiently.

You:-

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.

For those capable of reading English, that's (but one example) of your argument that TPM is an objective financial failure because it didn't make as much money as 19 films ahead of it on the box office list of highest grossing films of all time, adjusted for inflation.

Therefore, you are a raving dumbfuck imbecile of the highest order. It's not really rocket surgery - the inevitable conclusion from this avalance of stupid you keep farting out is that you think there have only been 19 financially successful films in the history of cinema - according to you, every film that made less money than TPM is also an objective financial failure.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

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.

So this is your big explanation? What I like about this is your complete failure to miss the point of what Raynor attacked him over. To spell it out in crayon:-

Saying they should just try and run the blockade with one ship isn't what Jim pillories him for. The "just start fighting all of them" is the chief problem with his idiotic idea. Or is running a blockade directly applicable to fighting a hangar full of battle droids?

You're so fucking stupid it hurts my brain. I know Jim was talking about the fighting them all line. But that line is followed by RLM direct comparison to running the blockade. Mean he completely missed the point as as I predicted you still don't understand this simple concept.

Of course, anyone can see that nothing of what you said goes toward explaining how you are able to discern the appropriate 'tone'. All you are really saying, at the end of the day, is: "if you think Stoklasa is a moron for proposing something objectively moronic, then you are a moron because Stoklasa isn't because ... he wouldn't do that."

The difference is I understand the meaning of sentences and how they relate to the ones the proceed and follow the ones around it. You it's almost like they're connected to one thought and that thought goes beyond "fight them all".



LOL. So when backed into a corner you ... throw a big whiny tantrum and insist your "posts" explain things sufficiently.

You:-

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.

For those capable of reading English, that's (but one example) of your argument that TPM is an objective financial failure because it didn't make as much money as 19 films ahead of it on the box office list of highest grossing films of all time, adjusted for inflation.

Therefore, you are a raving dumbfuck imbecile of the highest order. It's not really rocket surgery - the inevitable conclusion from this avalance of stupid you keep farting out is that you think there have only been 19 financially successful films in the history of cinema - according to you, every film that made less money than TPM is also an objective financial failure.[

I was given one request. "Do you have any objective measure..."

I found one and now you guys are sad because I punched a little loop hole in your game.

[Vympel]

You're so fucking stupid it hurts my brain. I know Jim was talking about the fighting them all line. But that line is followed by RLM direct comparison to running the blockade. Mean he completely missed the point as as I predicted you still don't understand this simple concept.

It hurts your brain? What fucking brain? Who gives a shit about it being followed by a direct comparison to running the blockade? Its not the same fucking thing. You're still an idiot, and so is Plinkett.

The difference is I understand the meaning of sentences and how they relate to the ones the proceed and follow the ones around it. You it's almost like they're connected to one thought and that thought goes beyond "fight them all".

Remember that you picked the example. It's not my problem you think you can bluff your way through arguments by insisting that the sentence after it somehow absolves it of all idiocy.

I was given one request. "Do you have any objective measure..."

I found one and now you guys are sad because I punched a little loop hole in your game.

ROFLMAO. The only hole you've punched is the one in your skull, through which whatever congealed rotted soup you call a brain has by now all leaked out. To declare a film a financial failure with an "objective measure" that happens to be fucking retarded - which is what everyone has been saying in response to your drivel - doesn't serve to make you look clever, for obvious reasons.

[Havok]

Wait. Is he really trying to say that because TPM is only the 19th most successful movie of all time, it is a financial failure? Does he think that is some kind of magnificent coup de gras in the argument? Wow.

[Vympel]

Wait. Is he really trying to say that because TPM is only the 19th most successful movie of all time, it is a financial failure? Does he think that is some kind of magnificent coup de gras in the argument? Wow.

Heh, he was asked for an 'objective' standard and apparently thought that in such request there was no requirement that said objective standard not be pants-on-head retarded.

[TK421]

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.

Yeah, I just re-watched that part of the review and I don't see how else it can be taken. The "...it's not so crazy, because later in the film..." coupled with him later making fun of that later part of the film seems pretty clear to me.

But you've also got people calling you idiot, motherfucker, piece of shit, etc, over a discussion about a review of a movie about space wizards, so, you can keep going but I don't think you're going to get anywhere.

[Vympel]

Yeah, I just re-watched that part of the review and I don't see how else it can be taken. The "...it's not so crazy, because later in the film..." coupled with him later making fun of that later part of the film seems pretty clear to me.

But you've also got people calling you idiot, motherfucker, piece of shit, etc, over a discussion about a review of a movie about space wizards, so, you can keep going but I don't think you're going to get anywhere.

I continue to marvel at the idiocy of dumbasses like you thinking "well he's referring to something he nitpicks later in the movie so that justifies interpreting his nitpicking something earlier in the movie as a joke!" constitutes cogent reasoning.

Since emerson is too stupid to breathe, maybe you'd like to explain just what running a blockade later in the movie has to do with just fighting all the Battle droids in the hangar?

[Darth Tedious]

Wait. Is he really trying to say that because TPM is only the 19th most successful movie of all time, it is a financial failure? Does he think that is some kind of magnificent coup de gras in the argument? Wow.

Heh, he was asked for an 'objective' standard and apparently thought that in such request there was no requirement that said objective standard not be pants-on-head retarded.

I wouldn't have minded the retardation, but his assessment wasn't even objective. It's as valid as saying that India has a low population because China's is higher. And then he tried to debate the definition of objective...

Yes Havok, he really thinks he's winning this one.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

Yeah, I just re-watched that part of the review and I don't see how else it can be taken. The "...it's not so crazy, because later in the film..." coupled with him later making fun of that later part of the film seems pretty clear to me.

But you've also got people calling you idiot, motherfucker, piece of shit, etc, over a discussion about a review of a movie about space wizards, so, you can keep going but I don't think you're going to get anywhere.

I continue to marvel at the idiocy of dumbasses like you thinking "well he's referring to something he nitpicks later in the movie so that justifies interpreting his nitpicking something earlier in the movie as a joke!" constitutes cogent reasoning.

Since emerson is too stupid to breathe, maybe you'd like to explain just what running a blockade later in the movie has to do with just fighting all the Battle droids in the hangar?

Both things a incredibly stupid actions that could result in the death of the characters. Your turn. Explain to us why we should take the line literally. Idon’t have long though, because I’m not sure how ling I can remember to breathe.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

Wait. Is he really trying to say that because TPM is only the 19th most successful movie of all time, it is a financial failure? Does he think that is some kind of magnificent coup de gras in the argument? Wow.

Heh, he was asked for an 'objective' standard and apparently thought that in such request there was no requirement that said objective standard not be pants-on-head retarded.

I wouldn't have minded the retardation, but his assessment wasn't even objective. It's as valid as saying that India has a low population because China's is higher. And then he tried to debate the definition of objective...

Yes Havok, he really thinks he's winning this one.

I’m sorry you’ll have to provide object proof of a winner. Maybe you and formless can team up and test some theories in your fortress of sci-fi science?

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

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.

Yeah, I just re-watched that part of the review and I don't see how else it can be taken. The "...it's not so crazy, because later in the film..." coupled with him later making fun of that later part of the film seems pretty clear to me.

But you've also got people calling you idiot, motherfucker, piece of shit, etc, over a discussion about a review of a movie about space wizards, so, you can keep going but I don't think you're going to get anywhere.

At this point I’m just amusing myself. I try and guess what innocuous part of the argument one of them will latch onto that spins us off topic. That’s how we ended up talking about boxoffice scores. They still don’t actually know what that debate was originally about. They’re so ready to defend anything negative said about TPM or the reviews that they just start swinging around like a blindfolded child trying to hit a piñata.

I think your comment earlier says it all

I liked the RLM reviews of Generations and First Contact and I liked both of those movies. But I'm under no illusions that those movies don't have flaws and I agreed with many of Plinkett's criticisms (and disagreed with some too). Something can have flaws and still be enjoyable, including movies and weird comedey internet movie reviews.

I like Point Break, but I couldn’t imagine trying to defend it with the amount of earnestness seen here.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

Wait. Is he really trying to say that because TPM is only the 19th most successful movie of all time, it is a financial failure? Does he think that is some kind of magnificent coup de gras in the argument? Wow.

Hey buddy, good to see you again. As usual you might want to go back and read the thread and... you know what... yep that's what I was saying. Good detective work Lou!

[Darth Tedious]

Wait. Is he really trying to say that because TPM is only the 19th most successful movie of all time, it is a financial failure? Does he think that is some kind of magnificent coup de gras in the argument? Wow.

Hey buddy, good to see you again. As usual you might want to go back and read the thread and... you know what... yep that's what I was saying. Good detective work Lou!

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people

She may yet be of some use to us...

This just gets funnier and funnier!

But seriously, I think if you weren't making everyone laugh so hard, you would have been told to put up or shut up with your argument by now. You should probably do so anyway, in the near future, lest you stop being so amusing.

[NecronLord]

Emerson,

I have been formally requested to review your actions here. Wheras I have work and a highly important game of Rogue Trader to attend to today, essentially meaning my whole day is accounted for, I shall be doing so some time later today or tonight. Nonetheless, from an initial survey of your posts in this thread, I must ask if you're aware of the rules here?

Link, for your edification if not.

I particularly point you at Debating Rule #3 'Miss Manners does not live here' - your claim that someone has libeled you on a web-board is farcical, given that you are unlikely to suffer any real-life consequences, and, by participating on Stardestroyer.net you functionally agree to be insulted, within reason (as defined by the board staff). If you do not like being insulted so much that you find cause to take legal threats, I have a suggestion: leave the board.

Beyond that, in any reasonable standard of debate it is naturally to be expected at some point an opponent will asset that you are not telling the truth. The idea that this is in some way defamation is hilarious.

Additionally should you refuse to explain on what basis you decide if a comment made in this youtube video is intended as humour, when asked various times, you will be in violation of Debating Rule #5. If you have no evidence, for example, a drumroll after each joke, then you must concede that you are making an argument based on your subjective interpretation, or you will be in violation of the rules.

~NecronLord

[The Asiduo]

So this is your big explanation? What I like about this is your complete failure to miss the point of what Raynor attacked him over. To spell it out in crayon:-

Saying they should just try and run the blockade with one ship isn't what Jim pillories him for. The "just start fighting all of them" is the chief problem with his idiotic idea. Or is running a blockade directly applicable to fighting a hangar full of battle droids?

Of course, anyone can see that nothing of what you said goes toward explaining how you are able to discern the appropriate 'tone'. All you are really saying, at the end of the day, is: "if you think Stoklasa is a moron for proposing something objectively moronic, then you are a moron because Stoklasa isn't because ... he wouldn't do that."

It's tautological nonsense, and its only basis is your desire to mindlessly defend the review.

It's not so hard to get, and it's not tautological.

1- The video is made for comedy purposes. If you guys don't agree with this point, stop reading.
2- But, he also wants to give his opinions.
3- He's mixing jokes with comments. If you guys don't agree with this point, stop reading.
4- He made a comparison, dialectical contrast if you prefer, with a stupid idea he made up "fight all the droids" with a stupid plot device in the movie "a single ship can go through a blockade made speciffically to stop ships to do that"
5- The main point is: "In this movie, threats are not feel dangerous".

How do we get to the point 5?: Not hard, we understand that this is for comedy purposes, we add up he wants to give an opinion, and also he's mixing jokes with his comments. So, instead of saying:

"This movie is stupid. The threats aren't credible. For example, look at how easily they defeat the droids. And then, the terrible blockade, the thing that causes all this political crisis, is run through by a single ship with a shield device. Yeah, in this movie, the tension is felt"

Which is boring, he says joking:

"Why they just don't fight all the droids and steal a ship?. It's not such a bad idea, considering they later in the movie run through the whole blockade with just one small ship."

It's not so hard to get: it's a basic dialectical contrast, one of the most basic ways of joking. Even if you don't think the joke is funny, you can guess he's not talking literal in every single comment. If you guys can't understand that, and insist on the literal interpretation of everything, then Stoklasa was right to just answer, mocking all of you, in a video saying: "You just don't get it"

[TK421]

I continue to marvel at the idiocy of dumbasses like you thinking "well he's referring to something he nitpicks later in the movie so that justifies interpreting his nitpicking something earlier in the movie as a joke!" constitutes cogent reasoning.

Both things a incredibly stupid actions that could result in the death of the characters. .

^This.

When he says they should just fight them he immediately says it's not that crazy because they later run the blockade...something he thinks is stupid and should get them killed. I can't even believe I'm having to try and walk someone through this.

[NecronLord]

The Asiduo,

I was going to reply to you, but for the sake of neutrality I'll cut it short:

While that's a reasonable argument for determining what is and is not a joke, if you think a wholly literal interpretation is not valid, you may stop reading; the topic presupposes that it is, save where there is some kind of objective and clear determination of when this guy is joking. Which unless there's a laugh track, there isn't. It is serious unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

Your interpretation, though reasonable, does not satisfy the demand that Emerson explain how he is determining what is and is not valid according to him in a consistant way.

[TK421]

At this point I’m just amusing myself. I try and guess what innocuous part of the argument one of them will latch onto that spins us off topic. That’s how we ended up talking about boxoffice scores. They still don’t actually know what that debate was originally about. They’re so ready to defend anything negative said about TPM or the reviews that they just start swinging around like a blindfolded child trying to hit a piñata.

I think your comment earlier says it all

I like Point Break, but I couldn’t imagine trying to defend it with the amount of earnestness seen here.

Have you seen Clerks 2? The part where Elias is telling Randall about the pussy troll and Randall's got that hooooly shit, creeped out look on his face and the Shining music starts playing? That's kind of how I'm starting to feel reading this thread.

I loves me some cheesed out Point Break too.

[TK421]

I particularly point you at Debating Rule #3 'Miss Manners does not live here' - your claim that someone has libeled you on a web-board is farcical, given that you are unlikely to suffer any real-life consequences, and, by participating on Stardestroyer.net you functionally agree to be insulted, within reason (as defined by the board staff). If you do not like being insulted so much that you find cause to take legal threats, I have a suggestion: leave the board.

It is farcical. Emerson was making a joke based someone in this thread saying RLM libeled George Lucas

[Darth Tedious]

It's not so hard to get: it's a basic dialectical contrast, one of the most basic ways of joking.

di·a·lec·tic (plural di·a·lec·tics)

noun
Definition:

1. tension between conflicting ideas: the tension that exists between two conflicting or interacting forces, elements, or ideas

2. investigation of truth through discussion: the investigation of the truth through discussion, or the art of investigating truths through discussion
3. debate resolving conflict: debate intended to resolve a conflict between two contradictory or apparently contradictory ideas or parts logically, establishing truths on both sides rather than disproving one argument ( takes a singular verb )

4. Hegelian process: the process, in Hegelian and Marxist thought, in which two apparently opposed ideas, the thesis and antithesis, become combined in a unified whole, the synthesis

5. Socratic method for revealing truth: the methods used in Socratic philosophy to reveal truth through disputation

There are many other dictionaries I could quote that enforce this, but I think you might get the idea.

Any kind of dialectic statement (whether joking or not) is an attempt to reveal truth. He was (joking or not) actually trying to critique what he saw as a flaw in the movie. Yet you complain when people address that statement as such. Once again, you are trying to have things both ways.

The biggest fault in his comparison was that running the blockade (which involved outmanuevering the enemy) is analogous to the Jedi avoiding fighting all the droids (which involved outmanuevering the enemy).
Had the blockade runner blasted its way through the blockade and annihilated the Lucrehulks (which would have involved unrealistically Rambo-ing the enemy), it would have been analogous to the Jedi fighting all the droids (which would have involved unrealistically Rambo-ing the enemy).

The fact that his 'dialectical contrast' (and I honestly don't see how this qualifies as one) was badly flawed might be the reason most of the people here didn't find it funny. Observational humour (which actually is a common form of joke) tends to only be funny if the observations are accurate.

[The Asiduo]

The Asiduo,

I was going to reply to you, but for the sake of neutrality I'll cut it short:

While that's a reasonable argument for determining what is and is not a joke, if you think a wholly literal interpretation is not valid, you may stop reading; the topic presupposes that it is, save where there is some kind of objective and clear determination of when this guy is joking. Which unless there's a laugh track, there isn't. It is serious unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

All right. I had no idea that we should assume that the guy is speaking seriously unless we can prove otherwise. My initial post here was that the whole issue of "108-page refutation" was derived from lack of sense of humor, but then everyone start to ask me to "provide evidence", that Stoklasa's not talking seriously. In the case of Plinkett's review (Again, a purposeful comedy sketech made by a nerd trying to explain why he thinks a movie sucks), I think that it should be the other way around: we should assume he's mainly joking, with the purpose of highlight "plot holes" he thinks are in the movie, and if you want to find something "serious" there we should be examining, not taking literally. But, if in this topic is mandatory the assumption that he's serious (without any evidence, and actually against the evidence: the guy himself says he's making comedy), well, let's stop argue then. But, I must repeat: This is as pointless as making a refutation of why the physical antics on "It's a Mad Mad Mad World" are impossible.

[The Asiduo]

There are many other dictionaries I could quote that enforce this, but I think you might get the idea.

Any kind of dialectic statement (whether joking or not) is an attempt to reveal truth. He was (joking or not) actually trying to critique what he saw as a flaw in the movie. Yet you complain when people address that statement as such. Once again, you are trying to have things both ways.

The biggest fault in his comparison was that running the blockade (which involved outmanuevering the enemy) is analogous to the Jedi avoiding fighting all the droids (which involved outmanuevering the enemy).
Had the blockade runner blasted its way through the blockade and annihilated the Lucrehulks (which would have involved unrealistically Rambo-ing the enemy), it would have been analogous to the Jedi fighting all the droids (which would have involved unrealistically Rambo-ing the enemy).

The fact that his 'dialectical contrast' (and I honestly don't see how this qualifies as one) was badly flawed might be the reason most of the people here didn't find it funny. Observational humour (which actually is a common form of joke) tends to only be funny if the observations are accurate.

I'm not arguing if the comparison is right or wrong: what I'm arguing he's using a stupid a idea, to make a comparison to highlight a thing he think is stupid and to make a joke. Get it?. He's contrasting there, not actually suggesting.

And dialectical contrast, without the whole philosophical fuss, is just comparing two ideas If you want to get techincal about it, I would say the main idea is:

Thesis: My stupid idea of just fighting all droids and steal a ship
Antithesis: Stupid action in the movie with similar level of reckless

Synthesis: In this movie, the threats aren't feel dangerous.

When you're watching a Harry Potter movie, and you see something you think is stupid, and you comment to a friend something like: "Ha, I wonder why they just don't use their sticks and bring a fucking dragon or something", you're using the same dialectial schema: you're proposing a stupid idea, to highlight the stupid thing you've just seen in the movie.

But then again, now assuming that Stoklasa's serious the whole time is mandatory, so, I'll stop arguing.

[NecronLord]

It is farcical. Emerson was making a joke based someone in this thread saying RLM libeled George Lucas

Perhaps.

George Lucas however has not joined SDN, and implictly accepted being insulted. A youtube video is very different from a posting on a web-forum.

[Loup Garou]

Wait.

Are we actually discussing whether or not the plinkett reviews should be taken 100% seriously or not?

[Ryushikaze]

Wait.

Are we actually discussing whether or not the plinkett reviews should be taken 100% seriously or not?

More if they should be taken seriously at all. Asiduo and Emerson think he made salient points against TPM and think those should be taken seriously, but that everything that turns out to be bullshit when exposed to any scrutiny was obviously a joke, absolving it of all stupidity.

Or something. Their arguments seem terribly inconsistent. Another mark for Bible Apologist comparisons.