New Redletter Media video about Lucas

[Darth Yoshi]

Wait, are you implying that the whole Naboo fiasco had no percentage in it for them, but was just something they did for Palpetine in exchange for other favors?

Not saying that doesn't fit, but it seems like that would make figuring out that there was a shadowy manipulator pulling the strings a lot easier. I would have expected better of Palpetine.

Then again, this period in history has apparently never heard the phrase "follow the money", so they need to actually fight a Sith Lord before the Jedi realize something screwy's going on.

I'm saying that was their original motivation for colluding with Palpatine, but by the time TPM rolls around they no longer have any choice but to listen to Palpatine.

So why doesn't anybody remark on how strange it is that they're blockading a planet for no reason? Because that's what you're suggesting is going on in TPM. If that's not what you meant to suggest, then you still have the question of what the blockade gains them, which TPM never explains. Even if you want to go ahead with "blockade for no reason", arguably they should have mentioned what they were getting out of the deal, then. And for all the idiots whining about how this would take too long and dominate the movie, you know how you handle exposition like that? Two, three lines where one of Gunray's subordinates asks whether reason X is worth all this trouble. Hey, that explains things and goes with the "deal with the devil" motif!

Blockading Naboo gets the TF the opportunity to not have Palpatine send assassins after them for being loose ends.

[Bakustra]

You didn't answer my question. People don't comment on how strange it is for the Trade Federation to be doing something that doesn't help them in any way, which is what you're suggesting they're doing. Therefore, there has to be something that they could get out of the blockade, and all the stuff you're putting out is entirely unsupported by the film.

[Jim Raynor]

Serious question. Are you mentally handicapped in some way? You seem capable of writing but do you know how to read? The only person bringing hunting wildlife, jamming communication, and Bail is you.

Blatant lying. I'm calling people on it over and over again, but they were the ones who actually embarassed themselves by saying those things first.

Destructionator XIII recanted his Bail stuff (not once but twice you dishonest, non-reading piece of shit)

Go tell the others to recant their stupidity about jamming during a military attack, or why a blockade doesn't matter because you can hunt animals, or how seeing troops landing on a planet after an attempt to murder you isn't just cause to think that there's an invasion going on. Then tell the others not to try so hard to come up with stupid wannabe film critic analysis again.

So do me a favor, bring something new to the table,

Who is bringing anything new to this table? You guys are all still caught up on the taxes like a bunch of obsessive compulsives.

I don't care if you copy and paste from your 108 page piece of garbage rebuttal,

LOL, the same rebuttal that was pretty much a word-for-word response to the RLM review that you probably loved? Wouldn't call that garbage, would you?

Once again, the Trade Federation with a trade franchise has a problem with taxes on trade routes. It follows that they don't like taxes, and are acting out so that the taxes are repealed.

Underlining words doesn't change their meaning. Please direct me to the scene that says who is getting taxed.

You have got to be trolling. Nobody needs things spelled out for them this badly.

[Jim Raynor]

You ask that like it's a hard question. The Death Star plans are a MacGuffin. You can remove them from the movie and still have basically the same story. Because all you need is for Luke to leave home, save the princess, then fight the Empire's big superweapon at the end.

Wow.

Okay... well, I guess this statement here reveals that you simply process storytelling in a way that is impossible for me to comprehend.

I "process storytelling" like the average person in the theater. Plot, themes, and action matter, not trifling little MacGuffin set ups that the movie moves beyond within the first minute. If anything, you guys and your ever growing list of pointless nitpick criticisms are the ones who "process storytelling" in a bizarre way.

You really think ANH would be "basically the same" if the Deathstar plans were removed?

Yes, it would have. Because the Death Star plans are either not needed for most scenes, or aren't even what the characters focus on throughout the movie. Vader attacks Leia's ship. The plans don't need to be there, the ship's full of Rebels anyway. Leia puts the plans on R2 and sends him to Tatooine, along with a mission to find Obi-Wan Kenobi. Right there is another reason for the droids to be there, without the plans. Vader takes Leia away, not even caring to stay on Tatooine to oversee the operation to recover the plans. What he actually cares about is Leia telling him where the Rebel base is. The entire operation to recover the plans stays mostly offscreen, as does the killing of Luke's aunt and uncle. Why did they have to be killed? The movie could have written in "they were Rebel sympathizers," "they were suspected of harboring Rebels," or "just because, since Stormtroopers are a bunch of violent sadistic assholes."

The Millenium Falcon is captured by the Death Star. Despite looking exactly like the ship suspected of leaving Tatooine with the plans, it's apparently such a low priority that Vader, Tarkin, or any of the high ranking officers don't even take notice of it. No, a stupid "scanning crew" lugging a big box of who knows what (if this had happened in the prequels, fanboys would be whining about it to no end) goes onboard and gets taken out without any real supervision. Onboard the Death Star, Luke and Han's priority isn't even to protect the Death Star plans. They just leave the droids sitting alone in a room while they go to save the princess, because Luke feels it's the right thing to do. The heroes shoot their way through the Death Star, and it's only after they leave that it's said that the whole thing was a ruse. The Empire doesn't even care about recovering the Death Star plans (another plot point that fanboys would be whining about had it happened in the prequels). They only care about destroying the main Rebel base, which goes back to what Vader was interrogating Leia about.

It is so very clear that most of the movie doesn't care one bit about the plans. It's one of the most transparent plot devices I've ever seen, and one that Lucas didn't even really have to bother with. Yet we have guys like you acting shocked that someone would question how the movie could've possibly worked without it. I would say that it's you guys who "process storytelling" in an unusual way. Thinking that minor details which are neither here nor there are actually critical to storytelling. ANH is about a teenage farmboy leaving home, going out into the world, and having a big awesome adventure. It's not about the damn plans or whatever contrived reason was made for them to be fighting.

Thank God most films aren't written with you in mind. No, they usually take the time to explain to the audience why the things they see on screen are happening.

No, they care about telling a story. Showing characters interacting or moving toward a goal or some kind of development. Entertaining people with cool effects and action scenes. Stuff that's critical to that entertainment is explained. Trifling little details and MacGuffins are glossed over or breezed through.

[Jim Raynor]

You know, Ridley Scott released a director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven on DVD to make sense of what many thought was an incomprehensible theatrical version. It's a shame that Lucas never had the stones to swallow his pride and do something similar with TPM. No, he just continues to make stupid modifications to the movies that never needed them.

I saw Kingdom of Heaven once had no problem understanding it. But whatever. You realize that "director's cuts" aren't the norm for most movies, right? I love how you take the fact that Lucas didn't take his highly successful movie aimed at ten year olds and add fanboy-demanded exposition to it as not having the balls to "swallow his pride."

What you're left with is that tiny little tribe of fanboys who will fanatically defend everything SW against all opposition,

Please. The two sides in this stupid argument here aren't the same in their extremism. Most people who like TPM are aware that it's not perfect. The people defending TPM here are of the opinion that you shouldn't care that much to the extent that you get caught up in stupid little irrelevant details.

It's the movie's bashers here who want to keep inventing more and more ludicrous things to complain about. Who have deified a low brow comedian/critic who thinks acting up like a developmentally stunted freak while making unsupported insinuations about George Lucas's professional relationships for over an hour is good film critique. The prequel detractors here have all watched the RLM nonsense. Some of you guys signed up on this forum specifically to white knight for him and defend his honor after I dared point out that he's not the end-all to prequel discussion. I don't see any of you guys coming clean on the fact that many of his critiques are dumb if not dishonest.

Who's the real fanatic here?

[Jim Raynor]

I ask again: what are the themes of TPM?

Standing up for what you believe in. Being independent and self sufficient, instead of relying on corrupt bureaucracies and backward institutions to do everything for you. Believing in the people you mentor. Letting go of your past. Putting aside differences to work with other people for a common goal. How easy it is for the truth to get lost when dishonest people are in charge.

All of these things are made very clear in the movie. Some of these things are the kind of simple morals taught to children.

I'm really getting tired of this broken record, dishonest spam that simply refuses to actually answer anything at all.

Wait, aren't you the guy who admitted to trolling? I've gotten all of you guys mixed up in my head, since all of you just keep saying the same things over and over again. You want to talk about a "broken record?" It's been HOW many weeks now, and you guys are still caught up on the TAXES?

You know, when your big gripe against the movie is that the nearly irrelevant MacGuffin (that the movie left behind in the dust as early as the end of the OPENING CRAWL) wasn't spelled out, maybe, just maybe the movie isn't as completely horrible as you want to convince yourself that it is?

[Anguirus]

No point in trying to argue with a Wall of Ignorance.

What Wall of Ignorance would that be? What fact are you espousing that I refuse to acknowledge? That's what "Wall of Ignorance" means.

You're the one who brought EU into this thread. I doubt anyone would accept EU info about Gunray as forgiving away TPM's flaws (I sure wouldn't).

My central point regarding Tarkin is that his motivation is just as ill-defined (and essentially not needed) as Gunray. They are both ambitious pawns of Sidious or the Empire, and that's all we really need to understand the movies.

What am I leaving out? As we already know, TPM handwaved the Villainous Plan, which was almost comically straightforward in ANH, but we still know what Gunray's motivations are. Even you folks will admit that he clearly wants to either tax more, or be taxed less, which amounts to the same damn thing from his perspective ("I like money").

Raynor: you are dead right that the DS plans are basically a MacGuffin. The only distinction from sort of the classic MacGuffin is that it's clearly tied to an important location and plot element in the film, but this distinction is not of great importance.

[Bakustra]

I ask again: what are the themes of TPM?

Standing up for what you believe in. Being independent and self sufficient, instead of relying on corrupt bureaucracies and backward institutions to do everything for you. Believing in the people you mentor. Letting go of your past. Putting aside differences to work with other people for a common goal. How easy it is for the truth to get lost when dishonest people are in charge.

All of these things are made very clear in the movie. Some of these things are the kind of simple morals taught to children.

Are you simple? A theme is something that is reinforced throughout a work. It is not something that pops up for one or two scenes. The relationship between the Gungans and the Naboo only comes up in two scenes, each very distant from one another. So two of your "themes" break a leg right out of the gate and are sent to the glue factory. Similarly, the movie doesn't reinforce "Believe in the people you mentor", since the relationship between Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan is already established as one of trust and Anakin does what he does that is heroic largely accidentally and against the wishes of Qui-Gon, so that doesn't really make that prominent as a theme. "Being independent and self-sufficient" was what the villain used to manipulate Amidala into doing what he wanted, so if you took that as a theme the movie was espousing, then, well, because it's you, that's because you're an utter failure as a viewer, but if it weren't you, then that would be a problem with the movie.

"Standing up for what you believe in" was a good try on your part, since it's so generic that millions of things could be considered to have it, but even then, what does Amidala stand up for? Or Qui-Gon? Or Obi-Wan? What do they believe in that they stand up for, that this can be considered a major theme?

"How easy the truth can get lost"? There's one scene, where the point was to show the bickering and useless nature of the Senate. That's not a message about censorship, and there's no thematic element about the truth.

If I took those seriously as actual themes that were intended to be communicated by the movie, then TPM would be on the same level as Manos: the Hands of Fate, an utter bungling of craft. But I don't, because I can recognize the shared themes of Star Wars as a whole that it continues, though those are not individual themes of the movies.

It's the movie's bashers here who want to keep inventing more and more ludicrous things to complain about. Who have deified a low brow comedian/critic who thinks acting up like a developmentally stunted freak while making unsupported insinuations about George Lucas's professional relationships for over an hour is good film critique. The prequel detractors here have all watched the RLM nonsense. Some of you guys signed up on this forum specifically to white knight for him and defend his honor after I dared point out that he's not the end-all to prequel discussion. I don't see any of you guys coming clean on the fact that many of his critiques are dumb if not dishonest.

"You're a fucking liar, Raynor", is what I would say if I were indeed as distorted an individual as you. Instead, I will simply say that I have never seen any of RedLetterMedia's reviews of any Star Wars movie, or indeed of anything, and I have no intention of doing so, and that it is a sign of your feeble grasp that you believe that characterizing all of your opponents as components of a hivemind is devastating rather than pathetic.

But Raynor, you're, like Elfdart, mentally adding things to this bizarro-ANH. You miss the point of the question altogether, which to me suggests that you know, deep down in the shrivelled, purpled and bruised thing you call a heart that the question of motivation is an entirely relevant one, and you're just putting on a brave face rather than admit the truth to yourself. Well, Raynor, if you wish to live a life of lies, on the internet or in real life, it will eventually destroy you. Thought you might like to know that.

I "process storytelling" like the average person in the theater. Plot, themes, and action matter, not trifling little MacGuffin set ups that the movie moves beyond within the first minute. If anything, you guys and your ever growing list of pointless nitpick criticisms are the ones who "process storytelling" in a bizarre way.

Character motivation is not a nitpick, and indeed, the fact that you think that action is more important than character explains why you don't grasp any criticisms based on motivation. To you, it is simply unimportant. You would watch a movie with cardboard cutouts as long as there was a hackneyed plot with enough explosions and a tedious moral. You are shit at being a viewer. A living sack of shit in how you react to stories. Fuck you, for unlike the unwashed who refuse to watch any "talky" movies out of ignorance, you reject them consciously, knowing what you do. Celluloid and digital cinema alike are wasted upon you.

[Stark]

Do the RLM things even make similar criticisms? I thought people just knee-jerked everyone who doesn't like TPM into RLM zombies because it made them feel better.

I don't know how they deal with the fact that people thought TPM stank from the day it came out. Defend the hive!

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The amusing part is that apparently Raynor considers himself an 'average viewer'. Yet, when you look at the reviews for TPM (zomfg, not the RLM one!), what does the 'average viewer' think? Well, it's pretty, but lacks any real depth in plot, characterization, themes and motivation. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 61%, not horrible, but not very good either. Compare that to the 94% of ANH, 97% of ESB and 79% of RotJ.

While it's not nearly the negatives we've been pouring on it, I'm pretty certain none of us are pretending to be the 'average viewer'. Still, it seems popular opinion is that the movie just wasn't very good , for lighter versions of the reasons we're pointing out.

[Bakustra]

The amusing part is that apparently Raynor considers himself an 'average viewer'. Yet, when you look at the reviews for TPM (zomfg, not the RLM one!), what does the 'average viewer' think? Well, it's pretty, but lacks any real depth in plot, characterization, themes and motivation. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 61%, not horrible, but not very good either. Compare that to the 94% of ANH, 97% of ESB and 79% of RotJ.

While it's not nearly the negatives we've been pouring on it, I'm pretty certain none of us are pretending to be the 'average viewer'. Still, it seems popular opinion is that the movie just wasn't very good , for lighter versions of the reasons we're pointing out.

Honestly, I'd give it around a 50-60%. It, and the rest of the prequels, aren't really bad movies so much as they're mediocre blockbuster sci-fi. I'm harsh on them because the original movies are so good that they suffer in comparison. If they weren't Star Wars, then they'd be hanging around with Lost In Space '98 and American Godzilla on the dumb sci-fi shelf. But since they are, they're really a massive disappointment.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

That pretty much mirrors my own reasons for picking on them: They're just mediocre movies with some nice eye-candy and little else going for them. I'd leave it at that except they have a habit of getting a lot of attention in certain niches, and since the spotlight to this day occasionally shines on them, I'll offer my own not-so-positive views on the subject.

Pretty much the same thing with Twilight, really. Though objectively I consider the Twilight series far, far worse than the prequels, for what that's worth.

[Elfdart]

*snip*

So why doesn't anybody else treat it as illegal? They treat this as a matter for negotiation, initially, to "force a settlement" in the script.

Two reasons:

1) The Senate is already bogged down, so even though something is illegal, there's not much that can be done about.

2) There are degrees of illegality. A blockade in and of itself might cause the head of state to send representatives to tell -not ask- them to stop it. Invading and occupying might provoke the Senate to do something if it's convenient for the different senators to do so (apparently this was not the case with Naboo, showing that the planet didn't have enough clout and the TF/Sidious had much more). Murdering a head of state who is just an adolescent girl would provoke more outrage and possibly more action.

Amidala's advisors believe that an invasion would cause the Senate to severely punish the Trade Federation. Why wouldn't they do this if the blockade was illegal? In the script, they have to vote on whether to allow the Trade Federation to continue their blockade. Why would they have to do that if it was clearly illegal? Hell, Amidala is focused on negotiating a settlement with the Trade Federation. The evidence does not point towards it being obviously illegal, except for you pretending that it does.

There's a HUGE difference between something being illegal and whether a government is going to do anything about it.

Without changing the rest of the movie, you illiterate!

You're the one in need of a remedial reading course, fucktard. Here's what Jim Raynor wrote:

You can remove them [the Death Star plans] from the movie [ANH] and still have basically the same story.

Instead of trying to move the goalposts, why don't you shove them up your ass?

You're changing the movie, and that's not what I asked. You can't include any scenes to explain why they know about the vulnerability, you can't add any dialogue, you can only delete any references to the Death Star plans.

Why? Because you feel the need to change the terms? That just proves you're a douche.

Is the movie still crystal-clear, then? Answer me, fucker.

Shorter Bakustra: When getting schooled, I'll change the terms of the discussion and become a hysterical little prick.

[Metahive]

What's the theme of Star Wars? The allure of great power. That's the theme of the OT and it ought to be the theme of the PT too (a mirror version of it, Luke overcomes the allure of power while Anakin succumbs to it), but due to the shoddy writing the real theme of the PT is "Evil triumphs because good is dumb".

Has anyone here ever read any of those horrible, horrible Left Behind books? Well, the primary villain of those is the "anti-christ" called Nicolae Carpathia. The first few books concern his plot to obtain supreme power over the whole globe. How does he accomplish that? He asks all the nations in the world to destroy 90% of their weapons and give him the remaining 10%. That's it. The nations of the world of course...comply with that order implicitily without any fuss. Just because he asked them nicely, no mind-control or anything supernatural involved at that point in the books. Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? That's almost the same way Palpatine gets anything he wants in the PT! People do what he wants just because he asks them either nicely or sternly to. Besides Anakin none of his "pawns" are even promised anything in return. What does the TF get ouf their "bargain"? What does Dooku get? The CIS? Nothing. They obey him although he has zero leverage and nothing to offer other than a bossy 'tude.

Once you take clues from Left Behind as to how to structure your work, you know you've reached the bottom of the barrel.

[Bakustra]

Elfdart, why did you refuse to address my second paragraph? Let me repeat it for your benefit:

Anyway, Gunray is perfectly willing to object to the invasion on the grounds of legality, so if the blockade was obviously illegal, then he's either an idiot who can't remember Sidious assuring him of his ability to make the blockade legal earlier, or he conveniently grows an abbreviated spine for that one scene. Both are bad writing- if Gunray is supposed to be a complete idiot, the movie does not communicate that well, and inconsistency in character is never a good thing. Far more likely is that the blockade is legal, or of dubious legality, while the invasion is obviously illegal, since that makes sense with the reactions of people in the movie, and the alternatives do not.

Now let me also repeat the question that I initially asked:

Answer me this question. If you removed the Death Star Plans from ANH, would it still be a good movie?

Apparently, for the benefit of the Raynor-Elfdart Brain Trust, I should have made explicit that the point was not to replace the Death Star plans with something else, but simply to excise them and see whether the movie works.

I guess that you're just one of the storygaming swine after all, if you know what I mean.

[Anguirus]

Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? That's almost the same way Palpatine gets anything he wants in the PT! People do what he wants just because he asks them either nicely or sternly to. Besides Anakin none of his "pawns" are even promised anything in return. What does the TF get ouf their "bargain"? What does Dooku get? The CIS? Nothing. They obey him although he has zero leverage and nothing to offer other than a bossy 'tude.

Did you forget that you're talking about a guy who does have immense magical powers of persuasion? :lol

TF: was supposed to get money, got cold feet, got screwed over, then apparently turned on him during Episode II...but mistakenly fell in with Dooku and wound up a pawn of him again.

Dooku: He gets to be Sith Lord #2. This is quite sufficient motivation: for reference see all G-canon and EU entries in the Star Wars saga, as well as any fantasy story with evil wizards in it. Then Sidious betrays him in favor of Anakin.

CIS: Chafed under Republic laws, bought Dooku's hype about the Republic being too corrupt to survive, also see TF entry.

Episode II is actually a lot more bullshitty and handwavey than Episode I. You either have to really squint, go with the "mind trick" scenario, or consult EU for it to make sense...which is BAD remember.

[Elfdart]

Elfdart, why did you refuse to address my second paragraph? Let me repeat it for your benefit:

Because it's so goddamned stupid I thought you were joking.

Gunray asks for political/legal cover for the invasion BEFORE he carries it out ("Is that... legal?", "I will make it legal!"). Since the blockade is already established when the opening credits roll, it should be obvious to non-retards that Gunray sought (and got) similar assurances from Lord Sidious before they set up the blockade. Remember, the invasion AND the blockade were Sidious' idea in the first place (Haako: "This scheme of yours has failed Lord Sidious -we dare not go against the Jedi!").

Answer me this question. If you removed the Death Star Plans from ANH, would it still be a good movie?

Apparently, for the benefit of the Raynor-Elfdart Brain Trust, I should have made explicit that the point was not to replace the Death Star plans with something else, but simply to excise them and see whether the movie works.

Bullshit. You're trying to move the goalposts because it would take about fifteen minutes to edit the plans out of the screenplay and still have a coherent story about Luke Skywalker's call to adventure. Now you're saying you meant to cut any mention of the plans and leave that part of the script blank, which is not only dishonest, but moronic too.

Heathcliff's stupidity isn't the only thing that's contagious; his dishonesty can pass from victim to victim as well. Cutting any part of a script can screw up a movie unless those gaps are either filled with something else, or other parts of the script are altered to compensate for the missing material. Whether this would work has more to do with execution. I already explained how a lack of DS plans could be finessed without changing the basic story of the movie. In The Hidden Fortress (the movie that inspired much of Star Wars), the MacGuffin is a bunch of gold bars hidden in bundles of firewood by the Princess and her followers. Without altering the main story that much, you could just as easily swap the Death Star plans for the treasury of the Princess (which she wants to smuggle to safety so she can use it to fund the war effort) and Luke's Hero's Journey is still intact.

[Channel72]

The point of a MacGuffin is that in most cases, you could easily swap it out with something else and the story would remain pretty much the same. In Hitchcock movies they're so interchangeable that many Hitchcock fans can't remember if it was uranium or microfilm in North By Northwest. Get rid of the Death Star plans and Leia still has reason to seek out Obi-Wan (her father asked her to bring him to Alderaan). Vader still has reason to attack her ship (he found out she was looking for Kenobi). The droids would still have reason to escape the blockade runner and find Obi-Wan. Luke would still be brought into the picture by buying the droids. Even the plan used to attack on the Death Star could simply be discovered by reconnaissance or an Imperial defector or whatever. So yes, you could do without the Death Star plans and still have the same basic story.

Obviously if you change around the story enough you don't need the Deathstar plans. That's obviously not the point you stubborn shithead. The point is that if you take the script as is, but simply delete all references to the Deathstar plans, you'd have something similar to what we find in TPM: villains doing lots of "evil" things on-screen for no explicit reason.

Ironically, if the invasion was written as a simple greedy land-grab by the Trade Federation, (or an attempt to mine some unobtainium on Naboo), nobody here would be complaining about this issue.

Bullshit. The level of incoherent ass-hurt from Red Letter Morons shows that if TPM had spelled out in detail the exact terms of the deal between Sidious and the TF, Heathcliff and his cockgoblins would simply grope for something else to bitch about.

TPM has so many problems with it, the entire thing would probably need to be rewritten for it to be reasonably beyond criticism. But if the script at least spelled out that the Trade Federation invaded Naboo to mine unobtainium or something, then no, we wouldn't be complaining that the villains have no motivation for their actions.

So basically we're supposed to care about a conflict which has no emotional force because we don't understand what the TF stands to gain from anything they're doing.

Yeah, I was put off by Star Wars because they didn't explain why Greedo wanted to rob and kill Han Solo. I just couldn't understand what Greedo stood to gain from his actions.

Greedo's motivation is explicitly clear: he was hired by Jabba the Hutt to bring in Han Solo, because Han Solo lost some valuable cargo. This is fucking spelled out clearly *in dialogue* you obtuse piece of shit. In TPM, nobody ever explains how invading Naboo furthers the Trade Federation's interests.

[Stark]

That's a pretty hilarious example, since it's not just dialog; it's fucking subtitled. Indeed, the scene exists for no other reason than to give Han Solo context!

"Jabba doesn't like guys who drop shipments"
"He wants you dead"
"I'll take your ship"

I wonder what Greedo stands to gain? Why is he doing this?

It's a good example of how simple and quick it is to establish context if you're not amazingly stupid, though.

[Metahive]

Did you forget that you're talking about a guy who does have immense magical powers of persuasion? :lol

Who? Palpatine or Carpathia? The latter is even said to have direct mind-control powers and yet that's not how he got the nations to give up their weapons, their respective currencies AND their religion in favor of his new, made-up one. No, he really does nothing but ask them nicely to do so. O yeah, and he can recite long, boring lists from memory in ten different languages. Wouldn't you trust such a person with the fate of the planet immediately?

TF: was supposed to get money, got cold feet, got screwed over, then apparently turned on him during Episode II...but mistakenly fell in with Dooku and wound up a pawn of him again.

Money? Where's money being made in invading Naboo? Quote me something from the movies for that. Also, at the end of ROTS we see they're still directly beholden to Sidious, so mistakenly nothing.

Dooku: He gets to be Sith Lord #2. This is quite sufficient motivation: for reference see all G-canon and EU entries in the Star Wars saga, as well as any fantasy story with evil wizards in it. Then Sidious betrays him in favor of Anakin.

In a critique of the movies, EU-stuff is understandably completely irrelevant. When I watch a movie, nothing should require me to hunt down a bunch of random, horribly written novels just to make sense of something as basic as the villain's motivations.

CIS: Chafed under Republic laws, bought Dooku's hype about the Republic being too corrupt to survive, also see TF entry.

I can't agree, the corruption of the Republic worked in the favor of the corporate bigwigs. Why attempt a risky and expensive armed insurrection instead of simply bribing or blackmailing a few more senators, the courts or whoever to get what they want? Unanswered question, except for the TF, whose price for entry was...Padme's head (which they don't even get). Economic and strategic genius, all of them. Not.

Episode II is actually a lot more bullshitty and handwavey than Episode I. You either have to really squint, go with the "mind trick" scenario, or consult EU for it to make sense...which is BAD remember.

No argument from me.

[Channel72]

I "process storytelling" like the average person in the theater. Plot, themes, and action matter, not trifling little MacGuffin set ups that the movie moves beyond within the first minute. If anything, you guys and your ever growing list of pointless nitpick criticisms are the ones who "process storytelling" in a bizarre way.

Jesus Christ, just stop this strawman nonsense already. You keep pretending that people here are complaining about minor details. At this point I can't even tell if you actually believe this, or you're just lying/not actually reading posts in this thread. What we're complaining about IS plot, themes and actions. In TPM, the major plot, themes and actions are only BARELY coherent. The plot of the movie is the invasion of Naboo, and yet you still can't answer the simple question "what does the Trade Federation gain by invading Naboo?" without making shit up, because the script just glosses over these "minor details". You then pretend that the OT is similarly handwavey when it comes to plot mechanics.

It is so very clear that most of the movie doesn't care one bit about the plans. It's one of the most transparent plot devices I've ever seen, and one that Lucas didn't even really have to bother with. Yet we have guys like you acting shocked that someone would question how the movie could've possibly worked without it. I would say that it's you guys who "process storytelling" in an unusual way. Thinking that minor details which are neither here nor there are actually critical to storytelling. ANH is about a teenage farmboy leaving home, going out into the world, and having a big awesome adventure. It's not about the damn plans or whatever contrived reason was made for them to be fighting.

Yeah, it's clear you don't expect much from the plot-mechanics department. But at the end of the day, the fact is that ANH does mention the Deathstar plans, because this does help significantly to establish a concrete motivation for Vader's actions in ANH. Even fucking Transformers explains that the bad guys are after the spark cube or whatever it is. You personally might not think it's important for a film to explain specifically what the villains stand to gain from their nefarious deeds, but your personal preferences don't line up with most actual movies out there. TPM is a grotesque exception to normal storytelling: the villains oppress the good guys, but we don't know what they stand to gain by doing so. This is why many of the initial negative reviews for TPM, aside from complaining about the usual things like wooden-characters or overt slapstick, also complained about the incoherent and uninvolving nature of the plot. RLM certainly wasn't the first reviewer to complain that the Trade Federation had no clear motivation.

[Anguirus]

Who? Palpatine or Carpathia?

Palpatine. Don't know squat about Left Behind, though I think I heard that Carpathia is the anti-Christ. Good for him?

Money? Where's money being made in invading Naboo? Quote me something from the movies for that. Also, at the end of ROTS we see they're still directly beholden to Sidious, so mistakenly nothing.

Money to be (indirectly) made from invading Naboo is implicit in the premise of the film that the conflict started over taxation. I'm still waiting for one of you guys to make me give half a shit whether Nute Gunray wants to tax more or be taxed less. Either way, it's the same motivation...follow that?

As for the scene in Episode III, I agree that scene didn't make any sense on the surface considering what happened in Episode II (where it is reasonably clear at least that Gunray hooked up with Dooku to fuck over Sidious). The only thing that almost excuses it is that by Episode III Gunray is pretty broken, just wants to sue for peace at any cost, and must have already realized that he's been played for a fool too late to do anything about it.

In a critique of the movies, EU-stuff is understandably completely irrelevant. When I watch a movie, nothing should require me to hunt down a bunch of random, horribly written novels just to make sense of something as basic as the villain's motivations.

Um...I completely agree. For reference, see everything I've written in this thread.

I'm not sure how you misunderstood me so badly, but I have a suspicion. To confirm it, allow me to ask: are you familiar with the term "G-canon"?

If not, don't worry...it's a geeky term and I shouldn't have assumed everyone on the site knew it. What I meant to say is that the movies themselves confirm this all over the place (or else why was Anakin ever "seduced?") and mentioning that the EU as well as all other fantasy fiction ever written also confirm the validity of this motivation was really just extra. Becoming the apprentice of the most powerful evil wizard in the universe is a motivation.

I can't agree, the corruption of the Republic worked in the favor of the corporate bigwigs. Why attempt a risky and expensive armed insurrection instead of simply bribing or blackmailing a few more senators, the courts or whoever to get what they want? Unanswered question, except for the TF, whose price for entry was...Padme's head (which they don't even get). Economic and strategic genius, all of them. Not.

Who's to say corruption doesn't work both ways? It always seemed to me that Naboo wielded power in the legislature way out of proportion with its apparent military and economic power. Palpatine even has a double identity so he can give with one hand and take away with the other, no one suspecting. Also, and I agree this isn't much of an explanation...there IS an evil wizard sitting across from them. In fantasy fiction, evil wizards simply have patsies and pawns. It's just in Star Wars everything is turned up to eleven.

Actually, the more relevant point is probably that seizing the Republic SHOULD have been child's play with their droid production. Maybe they were just sold on how easy the thing would be. They were clearly not prepared for the Republic to have an army to attack them with at all.

But yeah, Episode II totally bungled all of its explanations, in such a way that Episode III suffered (see above).

[Jim Raynor]

I ask again: what are the themes of TPM?

Standing up for what you believe in. Being independent and self sufficient, instead of relying on corrupt bureaucracies and backward institutions to do everything for you. Believing in the people you mentor. Letting go of your past. Putting aside differences to work with other people for a common goal. How easy it is for the truth to get lost when dishonest people are in charge.

All of these things are made very clear in the movie. Some of these things are the kind of simple morals taught to children.

Are you simple? A theme is something that is reinforced throughout a work. It is not something that pops up for one or two scenes. The relationship between the Gungans and the Naboo only comes up in two scenes, each very distant from one another.

I love your arrogance, even as you play stupid semantic games. Oh no, that stuff about the Gungans and the Naboo coming together wasn't the CENTRAL point of the movie, even though it was but one of SEVERAL things I brought up! I must be soooo "simple."

So two of your "themes" break a leg right out of the gate and are sent to the glue factory. Similarly, the movie doesn't reinforce "Believe in the people you mentor", since the relationship between Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan is already established as one of trust

So because the movie supports its point...it somehow doesn't "reinforce" it. LOL.

Obi-Wan openly questions and argues with his mentor. Going so far as to tell his mentor to compromise his beliefs just because he might get a promotion to the Jedi Council by conforming. Qui-Gon remains calm and patient with Obi-Wan throughout all of that, and even praises him. Which is the complete opposite of how Obi-Wan handles disputes in AOTC.

and Anakin does what he does that is heroic largely accidentally and against the wishes of Qui-Gon, so that doesn't really make that prominent as a theme.

So Qui-Gon trusting Anakin to win the pod race, then arguing with the Jedi Council about training him, doesn't make it a "prominent" theme. Yeah, whatever you say.

"Being independent and self-sufficient" was what the villain used to manipulate Amidala into doing what he wanted, so if you took that as a theme the movie was espousing, then, well, because it's you, that's because you're an utter failure as a viewer, but if it weren't you, then that would be a problem with the movie.

Please. Amidala's entire arc was to stop being a sad powerless princess hoping that the Republic would save her planet, and to get up and save it herself. The movie clearly portrays it as a good thing that she saved Naboo. Palpatine's election doesn't change that fact. He wasn't even revealed as the villain until the last few seconds of the penultimate scene.

I hope you know that the alternative to saving Naboo was to let her people rot and die, while Palpatine STILL milked the situation for sympathy and political gain.

"Standing up for what you believe in" was a good try on your part, since it's so generic that millions of things could be considered to have it,

Don't change the goal posts. Being generic doesn't change the fact that it's still there. BTW, how many generic action movies for kids are about the constraints of tradition, and institutional decay?

It's the movie's bashers here who want to keep inventing more and more ludicrous things to complain about. Who have deified a low brow comedian/critic who thinks acting up like a developmentally stunted freak while making unsupported insinuations about George Lucas's professional relationships for over an hour is good film critique. The prequel detractors here have all watched the RLM nonsense. Some of you guys signed up on this forum specifically to white knight for him and defend his honor after I dared point out that he's not the end-all to prequel discussion. I don't see any of you guys coming clean on the fact that many of his critiques are dumb if not dishonest.

"You're a fucking liar, Raynor", is what I would say if I were indeed as distorted an individual as you. Instead, I will simply say that I have never seen any of RedLetterMedia's reviews of any Star Wars movie, or indeed of anything, and I have no intention of doing so, and that it is a sign of your feeble grasp that you believe that characterizing all of your opponents as components of a hivemind is devastating rather than pathetic.

LOL. So because you don't suck up to RLM, I'm a "liar" for saying something that does apply to other people here?

I "process storytelling" like the average person in the theater. Plot, themes, and action matter, not trifling little MacGuffin set ups that the movie moves beyond within the first minute. If anything, you guys and your ever growing list of pointless nitpick criticisms are the ones who "process storytelling" in a bizarre way.

Character motivation is not a nitpick, and indeed, the fact that you think that action is more important than character explains why you don't grasp any criticisms based on motivation. To you, it is simply unimportant.[/quote]

The exact nature of the taxes is not "character motivation." The movie clearly shows that the Trade Fed thinks that throwing its military might around can allow it to get its way on political and economic matters. Everything they do after the invasion (which comes in the first few minutes) is all about escaping legal consequences. That's also clear. You can understand the movie just fine right there. Most people did.

But nooo, we need more details on the taxes, otherwise the "character motivation" isn't clear. Despite being literally written out onscreen.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

So I take it you can't name a scene where anyone mentions, infers or out right says the blockade is illegal? You know why that is? Because it doesn't exist. Because the blockade is legal.

I already did, fuckwit. You just chose to ignore it and maintain your wall of ignorance. Now go play in traffic.

No you didn't. You you just repeated the word TRADE like it meant something. You cited scene about the invasion, but not the blockade. You simple made shit up out of thin air. There is nothing in the movie that points to the blockade being illegal it is simply your opinion that it was. So once again I ask you to give me evidence or concede that you have no proof the blockade was illegal.

[Jim Raynor]

Do the RLM things even make similar criticisms? I thought people just knee-jerked everyone who doesn't like TPM into RLM zombies because it made them feel better.

I don't know how they deal with the fact that people thought TPM stank from the day it came out. Defend the hive!

The RLM review says the same stupid things, and more. It sinks to the level of outright denial or fabrication. RLM literally says that Qui-Gon was "making shit up" for stating that an invasion was going on, after Qui-Gon escaped an attempt on his life and saw the Trade Fed army landing. RLM gets so nitpicky as to make criticisms about laser beam visuals that appear for a couple of frames, only he's incompetent at that as well so he shows clips that flat out contradict him and exonerate the movie on his stupid points against it there. If the movie does or says one thing, the RLM review will take the contrarian position without any sense. It's one of the biggest steaming loads I've ever seen, but you have pseudointellectuals and would-be filmmakers holding it up as the standard on movie analysis.

I've said again and again that TPM isn't perfect, and that you can make perfectly fair criticisms about it. But if you dislike the movie, pick a better champion than this guy.