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

[Havok]

What's interesting is that you brought up him being gay at all.

And oh no, a 9 year old kid said 'oops'.

Try this: Banking left. Oh shit!
A 9 year old doesn't talk like a military pilot. That is the crux of this entire tangent of your argument. My gawd you are just a dumb fuck.

And again, you avoid the points. At least you are good at something.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

What's interesting is that you brought up him being gay at all.

RLM review mentioned it and from my understanding I need to take everything literally until proven otherwise.

And oh no, a 9 year old kid said 'oops'.

Try this: Banking left. Oh shit!
A 9 year old doesn't talk like a military pilot. That is the crux of this entire tangent of your argument. My gawd you are just a dumb fuck.

Luke didn’t say “shit” or drop f-bombs. Yet ANH made it clear that he understood the mission and had a plan.

And again, you avoid the points. At least you are good at something.

I’m sorry I was waiting for a point to address, do you have one? Or was your point to compare Anakin and Luke without anything to back it up? If that’s the case you have succeeded.

Or do you still think Anakin building a robot to shoehorn C3P0 into the movie is a good enough explanation for why Anakin displayed zero tactical effort to bring down the TF ship and in fact verbalized the exact opposite?

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

Yet, everything Anakin did, on his own, helped him accomplish the mission.

I'm sorry, I think I skipped this line because it was so fucking stupid my mind simply ignored it. What did Anakin do on his own again? Allow the auto-pilot to take him to the battle? Have R2 disable the auto-pilot and get shot down? Accidentally fire the torpedoes that brought down the main reactor he wasn't even trying to hit? That is hero material if I've ever seen it.

[Tritio]

Wow, I've just finished reading Jim Raynor's response to RLM's TPM review and I'd like to say thank you for spending the time and effort to write it and expose the crap that's in it. Have you ever written reviews of any of the Star Wars films? If you have, I'd be interested in reading those.

[Justice]

It's not meant to be logical or correct: is just a guy joking and giving opinions of why he thinks the PT sucks. If you think it's a dumb joke, fair enough: I think RLM's reviews are funny videos, but that's a matter of taste. If you don't think "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" is funny, it's okay. But please, don't write a 108 page essay explaining why the movie is "dishonest" or "stupid" movie just because the physicial antics don't make sense.

Now I haven't watched the entirety of the video (nor read the entirety of Raynor's response, but that's because I just can't watch the review itself and its unfair to read one side without the other), your "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" thing is still off-base and a poor analogy. Even though it's not meant to be serious, making the movie was a serious endeavor. It had a serious goal (to make money), despite being comedic. Please, stop acting like because something is comedic doesn't mean it lacks a serious goal or requires any less effort. RLM's goal was obviously to show the flaws of TPM as well as getting exposure, and was done in such a fashion that you have to believe they felt reasonably strong about it. A comedic 70-minute review is still a 70-minute review which the creator has already says reflects his reviews in some way (Trying to get his opinion out there, right? Has he said this review doesn't reflect his real opinion, like the Cinema Snob occasionally does?). You really can't rip someone's 108 page review when you are defending someone who made a 70-minute review in the first place (and comedy does not magically wipe away the 70-minute part, nor that it still has a serious goal despite being humorous).

I can't comment on anything else more directly relating to the review yet (Working up the patience to watch the damned thing), but this is something I can comment on.

[The Asiduo]

Now I haven't watched the entirety of the video (nor read the entirety of Raynor's response, but that's because I just can't watch the review itself and its unfair to read one side without the other), your "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" thing is still off-base and a poor analogy. Even though it's not meant to be serious, making the movie was a serious endeavor. It had a serious goal (to make money), despite being comedic. Please, stop acting like because something is comedic doesn't mean it lacks a serious goal or requires any less effort. RLM's goal was obviously to show the flaws of TPM as well as getting exposure, and was done in such a fashion that you have to believe they felt reasonably strong about it. A comedic 70-minute review is still a 70-minute review which the creator has already says reflects his reviews in some way (Trying to get his opinion out there, right? Has he said this review doesn't reflect his real opinion, like the Cinema Snob occasionally does?). You really can't rip someone's 108 page review when you are defending someone who made a 70-minute review in the first place (and comedy does not magically wipe away the 70-minute part, nor that it still has a serious goal despite being humorous).

I can't comment on anything else more directly relating to the review yet (Working up the patience to watch the damned thing), but this is something I can comment on.

And again the argument "70 minutes make it serious". I know the dude should have put some effort in the making of his review (but, now-a-days, with all the movie editing tools and the fact the guy is a professional film editor, I think it's not so damn hard: he's not the first or the last guy making "long movie reviews in the Internet". I haven't seen "108-page refutations of Distressed Watcher's 90-minute review of the whole PT".). His stated goal, as I have repeated over and over again is: "he just wants to get his opinion out there, which is: The OT are lousy movies. And he's doing it in a fun and different way: in character of a 100-year old rapist": it doesn't get more serious than that. So, yeah, the thing is just a statement of opinions mixed with jokes. He makes some more "intellectual" arguments (mainly in the following reviews), but he's mainly joking, nitpicking and commenting the things he thinks are stupid in the movies. If you think (as Raynor) that all his comments about the movie are "literal" then you're acting as if "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" is a documentary of the police department in the 60s.

[seanrobertson]

And again the argument "70 minutes make it serious".

Don't strawmander, please.

*snip yapping*
His stated goal, as I have repeated over and over again is: "he just wants to get his opinion out there, which is: The OT are lousy movies. And he's doing it in a fun and different way: in character of a 100-year old rapist": it doesn't get more serious than that. So, yeah, the thing is just a statement of opinions mixed with jokes.

So? As I asked you OVER AND OVER, how does that exempt what he says from criticism?

You know what -- don't answer that now. Let's look some examples first.

0:53
Plinkett: "Nothing in The Phantom Menace makes any sense at all. It comes off like a script written by an eight-year old. It's like George Lucas finished the script in one draft, like he turned it in and they decided to go with it, without anyone saying that it made no sense at all, or it was a stupid incoherent mess"


Jim:
As you will see later on, TPM made far more sense than Stoklasa gives it credit for. The alternative stories that he suggests actually make less sense than the actual thing.[/i]

And as you should be able to see, Jim didn't attack the "eight-year old" joke, the one draft joke or the general hyperbole that the movie made "no sense at all." (I think the film's half-assed opposite the OT, but not because it made "no sense at all." Simply because a plot's not strong doesn't mean it's hopelessly retarded.)

What did Jim do instead? Just as you insist he should, he focuses on the meat; i.e., Stoklasa's claim that the movie didn't make sense.

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

Stoklasa wasn't "joking" here, and I think he is partly right. I honestly doubt George's flunkies would challenge him the way Kershner did. And I'd say like any big-time director, he probably is a bit of a control freak.

But Jim is right to cite this for what it is: Stoklasa either being dishonest or ignorant. As people pointed out many pages ago, Lucas acknowledged that he's not a good actor director. He wanted to bring in someone else to handle that task for Ep. 1 IIRC. Thus, to say the guy has to be in complete control and all that stuff is simply exaggerating. (Don't give me that Tu Quoque about how movie critics often exaggerate for effect. Preschool Johnny has no business drinking bourbon. That his dad knocks back a fifth every night has no bearing on that fact.)

1:53
The review abruptly jumps to its first part, "1. The Characters."
Plinkett talks about movie "Protagonists" (annoying pronounced "Pro-toe-gone-ist"). He makes some fair points about the value of having likable, identifiable protagonists who the audience roots for, though he's very decompressed as he runs off a long list of movie heroes and shows numerous short clips from various movies. Mostly he shows a bunch of teenage and young adult Regular Joe characters taking crap from people early in their movies, before their adventures start. This takes up most of the next four minutes.

Ah, okay. Jim notes he's annoyed by Plinkett's senile mind struggling with pronunciations, which is a "joke." But, whoops: look what he says next? Rather than focus on the stupid joke, Jim addresses and acknowledges Stoklasa's point -- that is, movies greatly benefit from good protagonists.

He goes on to criticize the manner in which RLM does this, whatwith the laundry list of recognizable movie heroes and what ensues.

Was he incorrect to pick at this? No, because RLM gilded the lily. After he'd made his point, he needlessly persisted.

Jim doesn't say it, but I think that's pretty disingenuous; by rambling on with even more examples, Plinkett compares TPM's protagonist to a whole HOST of other time-tested heroes.

The problem in so doing is that those heroes are great for different reasons (consider the differences between Indiana Jones and Marty McFly). This plants a pernicious little seed in the Plinkett viewer's mind: by comparing the TPM character to those very different protagonists, one subconsciously measures the former against ALL of them. Opposite the principled but naive rookie from "Training Day," resourceful MacGuyver-type, fearless warrior-king Conan, smart-assed NYC-saving Peter Venkman, wacky but ever-reliable Leo Getz and brave underdog Frodo Baggins, of course the Menace character will seem lacking by comparison

Clever trick, if that's what he intended to do -- but still misleading in the extreme.

5:33
Plinkett: "I want you to tell me who the main character of The Phantom Menace was."
He goes through the various characters of TPM, starting with the two Jedi, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi:
Plinkett: "I can tell ya that it's not the Jedi, they were just on some kinda boring mission that they didn't really care about." [A short clip is shown of Qui-Gon taking a Trade Federation servant droid's drink, as he was sitting down for planned negotiations]

Jim: The Jedi didn't care about their mission? They were just there drinking tea, and not fighting? It's really nice to see him make his first real point against the movie in such a fair and honest way. He's totally not trying to start things off by putting misleading impressions in people's heads...

He also calls the Jedi "boring." That's OK if that's his opinion, although being "boring" doesn't disqualify someone from being a main character.

Here's a secret: Qui-Gon is the main character and big hero of this movie, which spends most of its time following him.

While this is purely a guess on my part, I could almost grant that Stoklasa wasn't being "100% serious" here. In other words, I doubt he literally thinks the Jedi simply didn't give a shit about their mission. It's more a comment on how bland the first few minutes of the movie were -- especially opposite the OT's openings, which Plinkett gushes about at least once.

But guess what? Even if Stoklasa's "in character" here and not entirely serious, you're still wrong to suggest Jim should let this slide.

Why?

Read the quoted selection again. RLM asks a [potentially complex] question about the movie's lead character. Then, he disregards Qui-Gon, who is clearly the main character, on the basis how boring he was in the first few minutes of Menace. That IS incredibly misleading, just as Jim says. Do I really need to explain why?

I probably will, so here goes.

During the most recent election, my aunt had finished voting and was in a parking lot, walking toward her car. On the way, a jackass who'd also just left the polls started talking on a cell phone. He motioned to her and asked, "Excuse me, what town is this?" My aunt was puzzled but nonetheless told him. He turned away and said into the phone, "Okay. We're leaving 'Gastonia' in a minute. We're going to Shelby next." My aunt watched him and some others get onto a church bus, which was already packed.

The man didn't even know where he was, so he was obviously guilty of voter fraud. Given what my aunt overheard, it's highly likely he and the other people ambling onto that bus were going to another city to perpetrate the same crime.

The prick on the phone and people on the bus were black. On that basis, then, what would you say if I said black people (or people riding church buses) are criminals?

Among other fallacies, I'd be wrong to draw that conclusion because it is a hasty generalization: even if everyone on that bus broke the law that day, 40 or so people are not representative of all black folk or people who ride church buses. Other examples of hasty generalizations include:

*That French woman who lived to be one hundred-something smoked most of her life. Therefore, smoking isn't harmful to anyone's health.

*Bob drank himself stupid one night and got home safely. Therefore, drunk driving is safe.

*Every redhead I've met was crazy, and I've met a bunch. Therefore, all redheads crazy.

Similarly, assuming Qui-Gon isn't the protagonist on the basis of a few "boring" minutes is presumptuous; it often takes more time to establish a connection to a new character. Was Luke especially engaging the first few minutes he was onscreen?

But let's back up. I've already demonstrated that even when we don't take a particular comment literally, that does not mean what you suggest it must.

What's next, then? Ah, yes: jokes. Where were the jokes in this passage? I don't see any. Nope. Nothing so subjective as "peach ice cream is my favorite" such as to exempt RLM from counter-criticism, either.

But let's keep going. I want to give you ample opportunity to back up this goofy "it's just a joke" excuse.

5:47
Plinkett: "It wasn't Queen Amidala, cuz she was some foreign queen the movie was certainly not really about specifically either."
Jim: True, she's just a supporting character.

5:54
Plinkett: "Ya might be thinking that it's Anakin, cuz he's like a slave, and saved the day at the end, by accidentally blowing up the starship. But the audience doesn't meet Anakin until 45 minutes into the movie."

Jim: Wrong. Anakin shows up at almost exactly 32 minutes into the movie. Anakin's resentment at being regarded as a "slave" and not as "a person," as well as his piloting skills and his dreams of leaving Tatooine are quickly introduced. Stoklasa could've made an honest mistake, or he could've been exaggerating to make his case look stronger than it really is.

Again, how are any of Plinkett's comments "just jokes" that we shouldn't take "literally" here? Was RLM kidding when Plinkett says Anakin was a slave or that he "accidentally [blew] up the starship"? Was he joking or less than literal when he says Anakin doesn't even show up for awhile? (Neither did Luke in ANH, so I guess Luke can't be the pro-toe-gon-ist. D'oH.)

No. So, how's Jim off base this time?

Plinkett: "And then the things that are happening around him are pretty much out of his control or understanding. If a protagonist has no concept of what's going on or what's at stake, then there's no real tension or drama. Without that there's no story. So the conclusion is that there isn't one." [very short clips of Anakin being dwarfed by the adult characters, and his eyes shifting around, are shown]

Jim: Another biased portrayal of what happened in the movie. It's amazing how casually Stoklasa passes off false statements during his review, which can go undetected because most people aren't looking at everything so critically. He makes false statements about what is a main character's is thinking, and even about his very motivations. I almost let this one go myself, before realizing that it was completely untrue.

Certain things were out of Anakin's control, but Jim's also right because Anakin was nowhere near as clueless as RLM says. As Jim notes later in his piece, Anakin was very the person who pushed for the podrace, which was key to advancing the story! So, yeah, yet again, Stoklasa's exaggerating to beef up his case. Consequently, Raynor is spot-on for like the tenth time now: Stoklasa's review isn't as smart or insightful as a lot of people think it is.

I'm tempted to continue, especially since the next part focuses on Plinkett using his frien -- err, I mean actors -- to contrast prequel and original trilogy characters. I guess when the one actor stupidly says Jinn was "stern," that was just a joke too, right? I mean, the Q&A bit wasn't at all meant to support the perfectly rational claim that TPM's characters were dull and unmemorable Like Jar-Jar, who was so forgettable as to be almost universally hated

He makes some more "intellectual" arguments (mainly in the following reviews), but he's mainly joking, nitpicking and commenting the things he thinks are stupid in the movies.

I'm interested in your definition of "intellectual argument." I think you earlier suggested Jim's arguments weren't intellectual because he cursed.

More fallacious reasoning at work An intellectual argument needn't be any more complicated than a simple syllogism:

One of my cats likes rat meat.
My other cat does not.
Therefore, not all cats like rat meat.

I think your understanding of logic's been unduly influenced by what you've seen on Star Trek, with the "emotionless but logical" Vulcan drivel.

See, logic and emotion are not mutually exclusive. Further, logical arguments or simple statements of truth and bad language are NOT mutually exclusive. If I said, "You're a stupid fuck for not knowing 2+2 = 4," is my math wrong? No. Since you're an adult, if you didn't know 2 and 2 is 4, yeah, you'd be stupid

So, what particular to that statement is illogical or anti-intellectual?

If you said "nothing," you answered correctly. The "fuck" part is incidental. Is it polite? Of course not, but that has no bearing on how "intellectual" a statement is. I would thank you to stop suggesting otherwise.

Back to RLM:

No, he's not "mainly joking" when he talks about the films. Not even CLOSE. I think I cited a large enough sample size as to accurately represent his approach and Jim's.

Just as you said, Stoklasa is nitpicking and commenting on things he thinks are stupid. The key word there is THINKS. Most of the time he says, "Such and such sucks," he cites premises to support his conclusions. That means REASONING is taking place.

Consequently, even if it is "just his opinion***," you unwittingly admitted that most of what he says is fair game.

***You seem to think an "opinion" is necessarily something that can't be pinned down or critically evaluated; e.g., your favorite movie, color, food, tit man or ass man. That is not so. An opinion can be something purely individual and immeasurable, but it can also be very well-reasoned, backed with plenty of concrete evidence. Contrarily, an opinion can involve nonsense evidence and so-so reasoning, in which category a lot of Plinkett's "opinions" fall.

Therefore, in addition to dropping the "it's just a joke" defense, would you kindly stop saying "it's just his opinion" as if that somehow shields what he says? Freshman year deductive logic students are taught that's among THE lowest forms of argumentation. I think a good old-fashioned ad baculum is arguably better, and that's snake-belly low.

If you think (as Raynor) that all his comments about the movie are "literal" then you're acting as if "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" is a documentary of the police department in the 60s.

That analogy again? It's so fucked up I don't know where to begin

In this post, I went through about 13 pages of Jim's review, which is over one-tenth. At NO POINT in the course of those 13 pages was Jim guilty of what you suggest. He gave Stoklasa credit when due and when he criticized the RLM review's logic, he shot down Stoklasa's reasoning effectively.

Unless you're willing to claim Jim continuously drops the ball sometime after p. 13 -- and you're willing to cite specific examples that I can look up and verify for myself -- I think you should concede this one.

[Justice]

Now I haven't watched the entirety of the video (nor read the entirety of Raynor's response, but that's because I just can't watch the review itself and its unfair to read one side without the other), your "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" thing is still off-base and a poor analogy. Even though it's not meant to be serious, making the movie was a serious endeavor. It had a serious goal (to make money), despite being comedic. Please, stop acting like because something is comedic doesn't mean it lacks a serious goal or requires any less effort. RLM's goal was obviously to show the flaws of TPM as well as getting exposure, and was done in such a fashion that you have to believe they felt reasonably strong about it. A comedic 70-minute review is still a 70-minute review which the creator has already says reflects his reviews in some way (Trying to get his opinion out there, right? Has he said this review doesn't reflect his real opinion, like the Cinema Snob occasionally does?). You really can't rip someone's 108 page review when you are defending someone who made a 70-minute review in the first place (and comedy does not magically wipe away the 70-minute part, nor that it still has a serious goal despite being humorous).

I can't comment on anything else more directly relating to the review yet (Working up the patience to watch the damned thing), but this is something I can comment on.

And again the argument "70 minutes make it serious". I know the dude should have put some effort in the making of his review (but, now-a-days, with all the movie editing tools and the fact the guy is a professional film editor, I think it's not so damn hard: he's not the first or the last guy making "long movie reviews in the Internet".

Just because it takes him less effort does not mean it's still not a considerable undertaking. Not only that, just because it is comedic does not mean it lacks any serious content or a serious message.

I haven't seen "108-page refutations of Distressed Watcher's 90-minute review of the whole PT".).

Again with the "108-page refutations makes it overly serious". I know the dude put some effort in making his counter-argument of the review (but, now-a-days, with all the word-processing tools and the fact that the guy is fairly literate and obviously a faster tiyper, I think it's not so damn hard: he's not hte first or the last guy making "long as internet rebuttals").

Yeah, you can't make your argument without conceding the same to Raynor. Whatever you want to believe, people will write a ton; his might come out to 108 pages, but it's still as legitimate as the 70-minute review itself. It's a counterpoint; when you have a long argument, any critique (or counter) will likely be just as long.

His stated goal, as I have repeated over and over again is: "he just wants to get his opinion out there, which is: The OT are lousy movies. And he's doing it in a fun and different way: in character of a 100-year old rapist": it doesn't get more serious than that.

And if I were critiquing Sarah Palin's foreign policy... as a 100-year old rapist, just because I'm doing it in a character doesn't mean that I am suddenly forgiven of all moronic and untrue things I say. I am not exempt from someone saying "Sarah Palin's a fucking moron, but you are completely off-base with what you are saying about her."

You've already admitted that he wanted to get his opinion out there. Even if it is done through a character, he is attempting to make valid points about something. Raynor is attempting to counter these points. It doesn't matter whether or not he's doing them in a clown suit, he's reviewing a movie, and since he's already stated that it reflects his own views, he's accountable. He is not suddenly exempt from saying stupid shit because he does it in a soul-crushingly dull monotone.

So, yeah, the thing is just a statement of opinions mixed with jokes.

Yes, the problem is that the humor is not him making up shit about the movie, but in the way he reviews the movie. He is supposed to be a serial-killer-rapist-whatever making valid points about a shitty movie, right? Thus, because he is making valid points, he is not immune to criticism. If Raynor were saying "Wow, this guy doesn't deserve to review the movie because he's a fucking psycho!", you'd have a point about the humor insulating him: that's how the humor is derived. But the fact remains that the humor doesn't come from him just making shit up, but him making real points despite the fact that his character is a complete whackjob ("Yes, even the serial killer understands the flaws of the prequel trilogy!").

He makes some more "intellectual" arguments (mainly in the following reviews), but he's mainly joking, nitpicking and commenting the things he thinks are stupid in the movies. If you think (as Raynor) that all his comments about the movie are "literal" then you're acting as if "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" is a documentary of the police department in the 60s.

Again, the comparison doesn't work. One is a critique of something, the other is a fictional work. Are both comedic? Yes. But that's about where the comparison ends. The movie isn't meant to be a critique of something; it's simply made to make money. It doesn't have a point besides that. The RLM review has a point beyond comedy or money, and you've already admitted it: He was trying to get his opinion out.

Here, let me give you a comparison that works: If I were to watch the Nostalgia Critic review Revenge of the Sith (And he fully admitted that that was his real opinion) and I wrote a counter-argument on my blog, is that all that stunning? If I wrote a counterargument to a David Edelstein review which used humorous prose, do you think it would be fair of him to say "Well you can't critique me, I was only trying to get a laugh"?

[Crazedwraith]

Umm... They have breathing masks? That we saw in the film.

Edit: that was in response to the question why did they survive travelling on droid ships. A post I think was probably at the start of the first page or something

[Justice]

Umm... They have breathing masks? That we saw in the film.

Edit: that was in response to the question why did they survive travelling on droid ships. A post I think was probably at the start of the first page or something

Do they even need them? If it's an inhalant, it's not out there for Jedi to have some sort of breath control mastery. It's a rather common feature of most martial arts legends, which the Jedi take inspiration from. I don't see the problem in them being able to hold their breath through mental training ala countless monks of legend.

Edit: The point I'm making is without even looking at the EU, this shouldn't something outside of the suspension of disbelief when talking about space warrior-monks.

[Agent Sorchus]

Lets put this 108 page bullshit to rest once and for all. Yes it looks like a lot, however it is both a large font (and format) and filled with pictures. Don't think that RLM put any less effort into writing his script, editing and cutting clips together. As a amateur actor I know how long a script he (RLM) had to be working from and I think you'd find that Jim put far less effort into it than did RLM. So if you want to treat Jim's response as overly serious for being printed up with Elementary school kids in mind (if not for the language) and inflating the size to 108 pages than we must also treat RLM's initial work as being all too serious also.

[The Asiduo]

Just because it takes him less effort does not mean it's still not a considerable undertaking. Not only that, just because it is comedic does not mean it lacks any serious content or a serious message.

Again, I'm failing to see what is "so serious" about some random nerd giving opinions on the Internet.

Again with the "108-page refutations makes it overly serious". I know the dude put some effort in making his counter-argument of the review (but, now-a-days, with all the word-processing tools and the fact that the guy is fairly literate and obviously a faster tiyper, I think it's not so damn hard: he's not hte first or the last guy making "long as internet rebuttals").

Yeah, you can't make your argument without conceding the same to Raynor. Whatever you want to believe, people will write a ton; his might come out to 108 pages, but it's still as legitimate as the 70-minute review itself. It's a counterpoint; when you have a long argument, any critique (or counter) will likely be just as long.

You're missing my point. My point is not so much about the LENGTH of Raynor's "rebuttal" is about the "tone". As you haven seen or read any of the works being discussed here, all you're doing is arguing about the "length" of both works, which is a pretty superficial way of analyzing, IMHO: "it's 70 minutes long, so it must be serious".

And if I were critiquing Sarah Palin's foreign policy... as a 100-year old rapist, just because I'm doing it in a character doesn't mean that I am suddenly forgiven of all moronic and untrue things I say. I am not exempt from someone saying "Sarah Palin's a fucking moron, but you are completely off-base with what you are saying about her."

You've already admitted that he wanted to get his opinion out there. Even if it is done through a character, he is attempting to make valid points about something. Raynor is attempting to counter these points. It doesn't matter whether or not he's doing them in a clown suit, he's reviewing a movie, and since he's already stated that it reflects his own views, he's accountable. He is not suddenly exempt from saying stupid shit because he does it in a soul-crushingly dull monotone.

Imagine you're making a video making fun of Sarah Palin's ignorance. Then, you make a joke such as: "I think if she would have been elected our vicepresident, she would have taken more pro-USA measures, such as... nuke the french!". Imagine then a "rebuttal" by a republican taking that joke and saying: "It's a stupid and dishonest work. Nuke the french?, That's stupid!", and then keep insisting in the issue, when it was an obvious joke. That is the tone of "Raynor's review of the review": he just wastes time taking everything literally.

I think the problem is that you haven't read Raynor's essay or watched Plinkett's review: you said it. So, all you're doing is "comparing the size". It's not about the size, it's about the tone.

Again, the comparison doesn't work. One is a critique of something, the other is a fictional work. Are both comedic? Yes. But that's about where the comparison ends. The movie isn't meant to be a critique of something; it's simply made to make money. It doesn't have a point besides that. The RLM review has a point beyond comedy or money, and you've already admitted it: He was trying to get his opinion out.

Here, let me give you a comparison that works: If I were to watch the Nostalgia Critic review Revenge of the Sith (And he fully admitted that that was his real opinion) and I wrote a counter-argument on my blog, is that all that stunning? If I wrote a counterargument to a David Edelstein review which used humorous prose, do you think it would be fair of him to say "Well you can't critique me, I was only trying to get a laugh"?

Imagine the NC in the hypotetical review of the RTS, in the scene where Anakin comes and sees Mace Windu fighting Palpatine, then NC makes this comment:

"Come on, Palpatine, just tell him 'do it', and he'll kill everyone there"

It's a joke, right?, based on the fact Palpatine made that comment earlier in the movie. The point of the joke?: the characters are stupid. There, is not so hard to get.

Imagine now a guy writing a "rebuttal" to NC's review, and he says the following about that comment:

"Dude, is NC an imbecile?. If Palpatine would have said that it would be COMPLETLY OUT OF CHARACTER... blah blah blah"

What would be your opinion on that?

"This guy doesn't realize that the comment was a joke, and that NC was not making a literal suggestion"

There, that's the point of my comparison with: "It's a mad mad mad mad World": if you want to criticize something, you have to understand the context first. If you want to criticize "Plinkett's reviews" the first thing you have to get the guy is making jokes, stupid comparisons and not making literal suggestions all the time, as Raynor thinks. And that's why I think Raynor's critique is on the level of criticizing the physical antics of "It's a mad mad mad World": he completely misses the tone of the review, and takes everything literally, making his refutation a mess of poorly written nitpicks of nitpicks.

[Jim Raynor]

Just drop the "it was all a joke" excuse already. As seanrobertson showed, Stoklasa was far more focused on making real criticisms of the movie than you want to admit. And for the hundredth time, if it was all a stupid joke then that doesn't help its case as real, quality criticism.

I really do love how the nature of the RLM support has turned around so much. Not so long ago a bunch of people were running around acting like they were the observant and insightful segment of online fandom, who understood the art of movie making and looked into things deeper than everyone else. Now the review was a big dumb joke and I'm such a square for supposedly not recognizing it as such...and looking deeper than they have.

[The Asiduo]

Just drop the "it was all a joke" excuse already. As seanrobertson showed, Stoklasa was far more focused on making real criticisms of the movie than you want to admit. And for the hundredth time, if it was all a stupid joke then that doesn't help its case as real, quality criticism.

I really do love how the nature of the RLM support has turned around so much. Not so long ago a bunch of people were running around acting like they were the observant and insightful segment of online fandom, who understood the art of movie making and looked into things deeper than everyone else. Now the review was a big dumb joke and I'm such a square for supposedly not recognizing it as such...and looking deeper than they have.

Again: "Being serious" != "Being literal"

You seem to have problems to grab the concept. But, it's only natural you'll keep insisting: "He's either literal, or he's dumb!", otherwise, your review would be an unintentional subject for study on "fanboy stupidity".

[Justice]

So essentially your entire argument here hinges on the idea that everything Raynor rebuts is essentially an intentionally silly or stupid joke by Plinkett, and that while he claims that he's trying to get his views out there with this review, it is in fact not full of any of the legitimate criticisms he wants to bring up? To wit, the only thing which actually represents his view is when he states that "TPM sucks", while all the actual points are poor jokes which are completely inconsequential and unrelated to the fact that he dislikes the film?

You don't see how that is patently ridiculous? While NC does make ridiculous jokes every now and then, he does focus on a lot of legitimate criticisms. You're saying Plinkett attempted to make no legitimate criticisms in his review outside of a broad brush "this sucks" statement.

Oh, and your IAMMMMMMW thing still falls completely flat, no matter what you take on this. At the very least, revise that part because it is so obviously wrong and different from what you are trying to say. The fact that it isn't a review or critiquing anything completely throws out any comparison in this case.

[The Asiduo]

So essentially your entire argument here hinges on the idea that everything Raynor rebuts is essentially an intentionally silly or stupid joke by Plinkett, and that while he claims that he's trying to get his views out there with this review, it is in fact not full of any of the legitimate criticisms he wants to bring up? To wit, the only thing which actually represents his view is when he states that "TPM sucks", while all the actual points are poor jokes which are completely inconsequential and unrelated to the fact that he dislikes the film?

You don't see how that is patently ridiculous? While NC does make ridiculous jokes every now and then, he does focus on a lot of legitimate criticisms. You're saying Plinkett attempted to make no legitimate criticisms in his review outside of a broad brush "this sucks" statement.

Oh, and your IAMMMMMMW thing still falls completely flat, no matter what you take on this. At the very least, revise that part because it is so obviously wrong and different from what you are trying to say. The fact that it isn't a review or critiquing anything completely throws out any comparison in this case.

My comparison with "IAMMMMW" is on the grounds of "if you want to make a criticism about something, please first understand the tone first". It's not so much about that "Plinkett Reviews" are a comedy as IAMMMMW, rather, the fact that if you want to criticize the reviews, you must understand he's not being literal the whole time, is nitpicking and he's mainly joking.

Again, I think Stokalasa makes good points in his reviews (which aren't that original, many have made the same points over and over again), but Raynor's "rebuttal" is under the assumption that EVERYTHING Plinkett says is literal. So, yeah, I think it's pretty silly.

You guys are creating a false dilemma: "He's either serious and completly literal, or he's just talking bullshit". I say: "He's mainly joking, but he's trying to make his point, which is, mainly: these movies are fucking boring and stupid, and he does this using jokes, comments and nitpicks".

Darth Tedious made the criticism that the "main point" in Plinkett's reviews is somewhat lost in midst of all the nitpicking: he did that in just one paragraph, but it was way more enlightning than anything Raynor put in his "108-page review of the review": I don't think Plinkett's reviews are "perfect masterpieces", but I think they're enjoyable, and I agree with the main points of why the prequels fail as movies (and please, that's an opinion, let's not bring the whole "these movies are successful because they made a lot of cash" argument)

[The Asiduo]

Sorry, double post.

[Justice]

My comparison with "IAMMMMW" is on the grounds of "if you want to make a criticism about something, please first understand the tone first". It's not so much about that "Plinkett Reviews" are a comedy as IAMMMMW, rather, the fact that if you want to criticize the reviews, you must understand he's not being literal the whole time, is nitpicking and he's mainly joking.

And that's fine to say, but you still need to make a different comparison. Use a Penny Arcade comic, a Zero Punctuation review, or something that is trying to make a statement or commentary on something. For the love of God, that's all I ask. Using something which is really completely unrelated outside of being comedic just... irks me. I don't know why, but it just does.

Again, I think Stokalasa makes good points in his reviews (which aren't that original, many have made the same points over and over again), but Raynor's "rebuttal" is under the assumption that EVERYTHING Plinkett says is literal. So, yeah, I think it's pretty silly.

Fine, but your defense of "It's just comedy" is really just as overarching. Again, I need to finish the review, but I'm sure that vast majority of it are points he's really trying to make. I've never seen a comedy review where the majority of things the reviewer said were complete jokes and not meant to be taken as actual criticisms of the movie in some way.

You guys are creating a false dilemma: "He's either serious and completly literal, or he's just talking bullshit". I say: "He's mainly joking, but he's trying to make his point, which is, mainly: these movies are fucking boring and stupid, and he does this using jokes, comments and nitpicks".

Even if he is using jokes, that does not mean he is not making a serious point. That's exactly what I'm saying, and you can't have it both ways. I think many of us can concede that not all of his suggestions are likely meant to be taken seriously, but the problem here is you are trying to say "He's not serious and he's just trying to be funny" and "All his jokes combine to make a legitimate point", which doesn't add up. If they are jokes but he's trying to actually make a criticism instead of just saying something nonsensical (As you seem to imply for the first part), then the point he is making is a legitimate target for criticism. If that isn't true, then he isn't supporting this overarching idea outside of stating it.

You keep making the blanket statement against Raynor that the review is just for comedy purposes, but then say he's really trying to make a point. If he's trying to make a point, Raynor should be able to criticize it. Even if most of the review is superfluous to the point he's actually trying to make, then yes Raynor is missing the point.

But I'm fairly sure that Raynor isn't missing his legitimate points; he seems to have gone through the thing with a fine-tooth comb. At some point, you have to concede that Raynor is criticizing points that he actually meant to make. You have to, otherwise he isn't building to a great point outside of "Hey, I can nitpick a movie to death and make nonsensical suggestions!"

Here: Either show the actual supporting points he was making in his review (Not the ridiculously broad and brief statement of "This movie sucks!") and we can compare them to what Raynor said. That way we aren't confusing any comedic part and we can actually look at his opinion rather than his off-topic jokes. Fair?

Darth Tedious made the criticism that the "main point" in Plinkett's reviews is somewhat lost in midst of all the nitpicking: he did that in just one paragraph, but it was way more enlightning than anything Raynor put in his "108-page review of the review":

To turn it back around on you, Plinkett took 70 minutes to say what you put in a single sentence: these movies are fucking boring and stupid. Again, you can't criticize one for being lengthy without criticizing the other. At the very least, Raynor was trying to make real points. I can credit that. You're saying that most of Plinkett's review doesn't actually support his real review and is just superfluous.

I don't think Plinkett's reviews are "perfect masterpieces", but I think they're enjoyable, and I agree with the main points of why the prequels fail as movies (and please, that's an opinion, let's not bring the whole "these movies are successful because they made a lot of cash" argument)

I suppose that I should put my opinion on the prequels: I dislike them, but I don't think they are absolutely horrible movies (Well, outside of Attack of the Clones. That collection of scenes is hard for me to watch). They had some bad acting and stupid concepts which are roughly offset by their high points and good acting (And, particularly in the first one, there is some pretty good acting). The only time I've really ever put them on consciously is to use them as background noise when I'm doing something else.

Critically speaking, the movies were mixed (RT isn't always accurate. Right now, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull holds a 77%.). Financially, they were a success. Their failure really lies in the legacy they damaged; they didn't live up to the original trilogy. They were tonally different and didn't add anything; if anything, they hurt it. That's why they were a failure, and little else.

But again: If you are criticizing Raynor for making such a long piece (which is really only long in page count, as I'm browsing through it right now. A college dissertation this ain't...), you can't defend Plinkett for doing the exact same thing with less focus and relevance. Just because it's "comedy" isn't a defense if it fails as a review and doesn't support the message he's trying to promote. You can't have it both ways.

A final note: I'm going to make the effort to watch this thing tomorrow. I'll have time and I'm going to download it from blip. At the very least, if I'm going to criticize the criticism of the criticism of the review, I need to start at the beginning .

[The Asiduo]

Fine, but your defense of "It's just comedy" is really just as overarching. Again, I need to finish the review, but I'm sure that vast majority of it are points he's really trying to make. I've never seen a comedy review where the majority of things the reviewer said were complete jokes and not meant to be taken as actual criticisms of the movie in some way.

One final comment: Imagine yourself in the following scenario, you're watching a Harry Potter movie, and you think something is stupid in the movie, so you make the following comment to a friend who's with you watching the movie:

"Dude, I wonder why they just don't use their sticks to create a dragon or some shit"

That's a joke, right?. Yeah, and a joke meant as a criticism to the stupid thing you've seen in the movie, right?. Instead of saying: "That's stupid", you're making a comparison of the movie with some stupid shit you've just made up. Are you joking?. Yes. Are you making a comment of the stupid thing in the movie?. also yes. That's the tone of Stoklasa's reviews.

Raynor's review is like if your friend would scream at you:

"YOU ARE STUPID AND DISHONEST. THAT WOULD BE COMPLETLY OUT OF CHARACTER AND IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE HARRY POTTER UNIVERSE"

That's my criticism of Raynor.

[Justice]

One final comment: Imagine yourself in the following scenario, you're watching a Harry Potter movie, and you think something is stupid in the movie, so you make the following comment to a friend who's with you watching the movie:

"Dude, I wonder why they just don't use their sticks to create a dragon or some shit"

That's a joke, right?. Yeah, and a joke meant as a criticism to the stupid thing you've seen in the movie, right?. Instead of saying: "That's stupid", you're making a comparison of the movie with some stupid shit you've just made up. Are you joking?. Yes. Are you making a comment of the stupid thing in the movie?. also yes. That's the tone of Stoklasa's reviews.

1) That's not really a joke. That's sort of a poor, completely random observation. Is this what's in store for me?

2) No, that's not like his (at least, the ones I've read in this thread). If I said "This movie is stupid because they should just create a dragon or some shit", then it would be the same. It's not just that I'm making the comment, I'm critiquing the movie by making an observation. You have this weird habit of forgetting that he's supposed to make a criticism in there. This is why you can't just write it off as a joke, because he's, presumably, trying to make some sort of statement against the movie. Please, think your comparisons through more thoroughly.

3) If that sort of thing is indicative of his review (i.e. not actually having a criticism), then is it really a review, or just a random assortment of comments after he makes an opening statement of "This movie sucks". I fail to see how that sort of random comment is going to support an overarching idea that the movie is flawed in some way without a) referring to the movie as being flawed and b) actually pointing out the flaw.

Raynor's review is like if your friend would scream at you:

"YOU ARE STUPID AND DISHONEST. THAT WOULD BE COMPLETLY OUT OF CHARACTER AND IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE HARRY POTTER UNIVERSE"

That's my criticism of Raynor.

See, I disagree. Raynor's review would be like this:

"This is stupid. Why don't they summon a dragon or something?"

"They can't summon a dragon because they've never been shown to know the spells for it and, hell, it's not established that they even can. If they could just summon a dragon, why the hell would they keep in a cage for that tournament instead of just summoning it into the middle of the ring? Seriously, man, if you're going to rip on the movie, don't be a fucking dumbass."

[The Asiduo]

1) That's not really a joke. That's sort of a poor, completely random observation. Is this what's in store for me?

2) No, that's not like his (at least, the ones I've read in this thread). If I said "This movie is stupid because they should just create a dragon or some shit", then it would be the same. It's not just that I'm making the comment, I'm critiquing the movie by making an observation. You have this weird habit of forgetting that he's supposed to make a criticism in there. This is why you can't just write it off as a joke, because he's, presumably, trying to make some sort of statement against the movie. Please, think your comparisons through more thoroughly.

3) If that sort of thing is indicative of his review (i.e. not actually having a criticism), then is it really a review, or just a random assortment of comments after he makes an opening statement of "This movie sucks". I fail to see how that sort of random comment is going to support an overarching idea that the movie is flawed in some way without a) referring to the movie as being flawed and b) actually pointing out the flaw.



See, I disagree. Raynor's review would be like this:

"This is stupid. Why don't they summon a dragon or something?"

"They can't summon a dragon because they've never been shown to know the spells for it and, hell, it's not established that they even can. If they could just summon a dragon, why the hell would they keep in a cage for that tournament instead of just summoning it into the middle of the ring? Seriously, man, if you're going to rip on the movie, don't be a fucking dumbass."

"Dude, chill out, it was a joke: don't act as an angry fanboy"

So, you still want to assume that Stoklasa's either literal and serious or "stupid". If you'll keep assuming that, then, there's nothing more to argue: at least I've brought up evidence, you just keep repeating the same and just "assuming" that. Yeah, yeah, he's stupid and dishonest. Your next target should be attacking MST3K or Rifftrax: they also make some "random comments" and "stupid suggestions", when watching a movie: how stupid or dishonest they are.

[Ryushikaze]

MST3K and Rifftrax are not trying to make serious criticisms. They are not reviewing the films. They are snarking them.

You keep trying to retreat into the defense of 'It's comedy!' Asiduo, but simply being comedic doesn't mean it's not also a review. Guess what, RLM's reviews are presented and labeled as reviews. They are just as subject to criticism as any other comedic reviewer, including TGWTG, Zero Punctuation, or SFDebris. If the point made with the humor is invalid, then the point is still invalid, regardless of the humor.

He doesn't have to be literal or 'absolutely serious' for his points to be judged on their own merits or lack thereof, and the humor does absolutely nothing to change that fact.

I think Justice has an excellent point here.

Here: Either show the actual supporting points he was making in his review (Not the ridiculously broad and brief statement of "This movie sucks!") and we can compare them to what Raynor said. That way we aren't confusing any comedic part and we can actually look at his opinion rather than his off-topic jokes. Fair?

But my question is- Are there any? Is is nothing more than one big joke? If so, then it shouldn't be treated like a review, which people are doing. If it IS a review, then it is subject to its own critique as a review.

[Justice]

"Dude, chill out, it was a joke: don't act as an angry fanboy"

"That was a joke? Where the hell was the joke part? That's just a random observation. Trace Beaulieu you are not."

So, you still want to assume that Stoklasa's either literal and serious or "stupid".

No, I want you to show me the actual supporting details that he brings up in his reviews. You assert they are there, I and others just want to hear them. If you read what I said rather than simply parroting what you said before, I'm sure he's making jokes via his nitpicks. If you can bring us the ones which actually are meant to be the reviewing part, we'll be just fine.

If you'll keep assuming that, then, there's nothing more to argue: at least I've brought up evidence, you just keep repeating the same and just "assuming" that.

What evidence? Your entire case is built around a completely flawed analogy you yourself made up. That's not evidence. I'm asking for evidence to your claim (His nitpicks are meant to build to an overall idea that the movie is bad), and you have done nothing but avoid and dance around it. Is there some part of our conversation that I've missed, because most of it has been you falling back on a poor analogy and nothing else.

Yeah, yeah, he's stupid and dishonest. Your next target should be attacking MST3K or Rifftrax: they also make some "random comments" and "stupid suggestions", when watching a movie: how stupid or dishonest they are.

Well, I'd argue that one is meant to be a comedic review, while the other is simply a comedy act which, through observations can expose how poor a film is done. I suppose I will yet again explain the difference:

If MS3TK did a stupid joke which was completely flippant, it's okay: They are there simply to make jokes. They aren't actually reviewing it, though often times their jokes do bring up legitimate criticisms of the film. For example, if I were to use the "We'll have to sell all this stuff to Whamo!" or the "Gentlemen, we all can't be the Honey Nut Cheerios Honey Bee." joke from Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, I really can't use those as a way of showing a flaw in the film. They are simply jokes for the sake of jokes, and that's the purpose of the show: anything further is more of an unintentional side-effect, because they aren't doing a critical review. They are comedians just making jokes.

When RLM does the same, it's fine... but then he's not really building a case for his purported opinion, is he? Nitpicking does not mean you are building up to something; it means you are nitpicking. All I want is you to give me some actual, specific points that he brings up. You keep saying he's building a case for this movie sucking, and that's fine: He said he was, and he said it was his opinion. I just don't see why it is so hard to bring anything to the table other than "Look, you can't criticize him. It's not for you." like this review was the internet version of Jersey Girl or something. Show us the points, we can look at Raynor's counterpoints, and settle this quickly and painlessly.

If you can't, then just don't come back. I'm really tired of trying to educate you in how to make a simple comparison and/or analogy.

[seanrobertson]

I'm with Justice, "Asiduo." I think up 'til the last day or so, we've all treated you with kid's gloves, especially in light of your M.O.:

1. Your "it's just a joke/not literal/Stoklasa's opinion" argument is some of the most blatant circular logic I've seen in months if not years.

Asiduo: Duhhhh, you guys are wrong to criticize Stoklasa's review like this.
Us: Oh? Why's that?
Asiduo: Because he's making jokes and just stating his opinion!
Us: Err ... what the fuck difference does that make?
Asiduo: Well, duhhhhh, you're not supposed to take jokes and opinions seriously!

I was going call you on the question-begging from the start, but I actually hoped you might follow through and offer some "evidence" to support your case (which, as Justice said, you never have).

On that note ...

2. When I pressed you for specifics, you were too fucking lazy to actually cite examples to support your moronic apologism -- even though that's kinda, y'know, against those pesky board policies with which you've struggled.

Instead, you hacked up pathetically weak analogies ("It's a .... World" and some drivel about an imaginary person blithering about a Harry Potter movie), strawmandered the shit out of everybody's statements and, by your own admission, simply repeated yourself ad nauseum. That brings me to how, also contrary to the rules, you ...

3. Shamelessly employ broken record tactics.

If you said something intelligent and actually had a point, that wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately ...

4. Almost everything coming out of your pie hole are ignorant non sequiturs. Examples include:

A. "Opinions are irrefutable." That's a fallacy within a fucking fallacy -- something I'd expect from a CHILD, not a grown man. You ARE an adult, are you not?

B. "An 'intellectual' criticism should not use harsh language." That speaks for itself.

And arguably worst of all ...

5. You cherry-pick what you want to respond to, evidenced by how you outright IGNORED my post -- a post which machine-gunned your every insipid "Stoklasa's review is all jokes/not literal/just his 'opinion'" claims to oblivion.

That pushed you over the edge as far as I'm concerned. That you completely disregarded what I said out of hand and persisted with the broken record bullshit makes me think you're lying, stupid, trolling or a combination of the above.

But, hey, go ahead and keep lying about offering "evidence." Keep tirelessly regurgitating mind-numbingly stupid things like "opinions are irrefutable" and spewing pathetically inaccurate analogies. Keep strawmandering the living fuck out of what Jim's document actually does and persist in whining about how those big meanie cuss words somehow render a cogent argument null and void.

Yeah ... I hope that works out really well for you

[The Asiduo]

I'm with Justice, "Asiduo." I think up 'til the last day or so, we've all treated you with kid's gloves, especially in light of your M.O.:

1. Your "it's just a joke/not literal/Stoklasa's opinion" argument is some of the most blatant circular logic I've seen in months if not years.

Asiduo: Duhhhh, you guys are wrong to criticize Stoklasa's review like this.
Us: Oh? Why's that?
Asiduo: Because he's making jokes and just stating his opinion!
Us: Err ... what the fuck difference does that make?
Asiduo: Well, duhhhhh, you're not supposed to take jokes and opinions seriously!

Yeah, circular logic. Except for the fact that Stoklasa HIMSELF has stated in interviews he's doing this reviews in a light mood. But yeah, I tend to forgot how we nerds tend to make incredible fuss for things.

And i said you'r not supposed to take jokes LITERALLY. But you guys seem confused about that. For you "Literal" = "Serious", I guess. In this case the "oh so funny" joke made by Raynor of Qui-Gonn asking you to get a dictionary comes fitting.

I was going call you on the question-begging from the start, but I actually hoped you might follow through and offer some "evidence" to support your case (which, as Justice said, you never have).

On that note ...

2. When I pressed you for specifics, you were too fucking lazy to actually cite examples to support your moronic apologism -- even though that's kinda, y'know, against those pesky board policies with which you've struggled.

Yet AGAIN, I post this interview:

http://geekpropaganda.net/?p=1100

And AGAIN I quote what Stoklasa himself has said

I just happened to not like the 3 prequels and I’m explaining why in a fun and different way; in terms of traditional movie reviews -it’s as simple as that. I don’t hate people that like the prequels; you can like whatever you want. I’m also doing my reviews in the character of a crotchety old man. I think people calling my reviews anti-Star Wars “propaganda” is taking it a bit too far. I have no greater goal other than to just get my opinion out there. So far though, just one person I can think of posted that he would punch me in the gut if he ever met me, but other than that nothing major as far as Star Wars fan rage goes. I think most people are pretty rational and understand the Plinkett reviews for what they are, even people that liked the films.

That’s kind of the one misconception is that I take a ton of time meticulously researching everything, reading things on the film, cross checking facts, etc. That’s not really the case and, in fact, I avoid reading or watching any prior reviews on the movie altogether. I just like watching the film myself and using that as the only basis for what I, as an audience member, am expected to understand. That and to make sure my ideas are my own and that something that someone else noticed doesn’t seep into my brain. I’ve also never read a Star Wars book or even played a Star Wars video game.

Yeah. YOU guys are the ones who just keep repeating over and over again: "Bring evidence he's not being serious, literal or whatever". I've brought over and OVER again this interview, in which Stoklasa says:

- He's just giving opinions.
- He's making comedy
- He's not taking this thing too seriously.

Yeah. I've noticed that the "board rules" are invoked only when you're a fan of the PT.

4. Almost everything coming out of your pie hole are ignorant non sequiturs. Examples include:

A. "Opinions are irrefutable." That's a fallacy within a fucking fallacy -- something I'd expect from a CHILD, not a grown man. You ARE an adult, are you not?

Subjective opinions ARE irrefutable. If a guy comes and say: "I think The Godfather is a lousy movie", you can't refute that, because it's a subjective opinion. We can argue why he thinks that, but you can't say: "That's not TRUEE!!" because that's also your opinion. You can say: "I have a different opinion, for blah blah", and that's it.

Yes, I'm an adult, and I have a Science Degree. In SCIENCE is where personal opinions are not valid. This is not science, this is just a review of a review of a movie "made for kids": in these grounds, it's all opinions and subjective statements, some better explained than others, but nothing more.

And arguably worst of all ...

5. You cherry-pick what you want to respond to, evidenced by how you outright IGNORED my post -- a post which machine-gunned your every insipid "Stoklasa's review is all jokes/not literal/just his 'opinion'" claims to oblivion.

That pushed you over the edge as far as I'm concerned. That you completely disregarded what I said out of hand and persisted with the broken record bullshit makes me think you're lying, stupid, trolling or a combination of the above.

But, hey, go ahead and keep lying about offering "evidence." Keep tirelessly regurgitating mind-numbingly stupid things like "opinions are irrefutable" and spewing pathetically inaccurate analogies. Keep strawmandering the living fuck out of what Jim's document actually does and persist in whining about how those big meanie cuss words somehow render a cogent argument null and void.

Yeah ... I hope that works out really well for you

Whatever, dude. I'm just saying: "If you guys want to make an intelligent critique of something, first understand the context: in this case is comedy, so it's not a good idea to take everything literal". That's it. Now, i'm bored to have to repeat the same things again and again, and bringing the same evidence again, just to face angry and trolling responses such as these saying: "Your're lyiiiiiiing, you're dishonest", etc. Whatever, dudes: keep on your crusade against Stoklasa's dishonest reviews, and good luck.