StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Kane Starkiller wrote: The point is that in say ROTJ battle things happen during the battle other than simply Luke and Vader swinging lightsaber at each other. Luke first refuses to fight and hopes to turn Vader, Emperor then goads Luke into attacking him, Vader intervenes and now Luke fights him even though he doesn't really want to, he then hides from Vader, Vader taunts him with his sister and Luke loses it and lashes out at Vader, Emperor is gloating, Luke refuses ultimately to turn, Emperor is now enraged at the turn of events and tortures Luke, Vader decides to save his son even at the cost of his own life.
In ESB Luke is confident, Vader taunts him, we learn that Vader is just toying with him, Luke manages to seemingly get an upper hand by knocking Vader of the carbonite machine, Vader then demonstrates his true power by ripping shit off the wall and throwing it at Luke, then he cuts of Lukes hand and reveals he is his father, Luke refuses to join him and instead jumps into the abyss.
Each of these events is basically a new battle with new emotional state for the characters and the audience.
In ROTS Anakin and Obi-Wan just keep swinging ligtsabers at each other without any new event changing the nature of the battle. Instead of changing characters' emotional states like in ESB and ROTJ Lucas changes the scenery: they are in the room, now they are on a bridge, bridge is falling, they are dangling on cables, now they are floating in a river of lava. In the end it is boring since no matter how cool the scenery looks it is still scenery.

Christ, you Red Letter Mobboys are full of shit. Its like the closest you've ever come to watching RotS is in you're cult leader's horrid reviews. Lets ignore the fact that ironically it is you who have missed the point by not reading which claim Raynor was rebutting. The RotS battle may not have long pauses between the different phases of the duel like RotJ or Empire, but that's only because it would fuck up the pacing of the goddamn film.

1) First you have the pre-fight, where most of the dialogue happens to establish why they are fighting. Anikan hurts Padme when he sees Obi Wan. Obi Wan stalls him by arguing while they circle one another so he can get to Padme and see if she is alive. The argument itself highlights the political subtext and the ideological differences between the Jedi and Sith-- and more importantly between Anikan and Obi Wan.

2) Then the fight starts, and we get the sword swinging. Yes, at this stage in the fight they are just swinging swords at each other. Its a duel, that's what you do when you duel! Also, its a Star Wars movie, boo fucking hoo if you don't like having a spectacle in a goddamn Star Wars movie. I don't need to hear constant one liners being slung between Obi Wan and Anikan, and with Christian Haydenson's acting that would have been horribly grating on the ears. He's not exactly James Earl Jones. By a long shot. But he does at least know how to make faces, and most of the emotions at this point in the duel are conveyed non-verbally. The sheer viciousness with which the two fight (as contrasted not only with previous movies but previous fights in this movie) establishes the sincerety of their earlier argument.

3) Next phase, the doors open and the mining facility's safety protocalls have been damaged/shut off. Obi Wan now starts playing a game of chicken with Anikan to see who will make the fatal mistake and fall into the lava. The stakes are rased multiple times, and the spectical increases each time to keep it visually interesting (and again, boo fucking hoo to anyone who hates seeing a spectacle in a goddamn Star Wars movie). As Mike pointed out in his initial reactions to RotS * this phase shows three things about Anikan and Obi Wan: Obi Wan is smarter, Obi Wan understands Anikan better than Anikan does him, and Obi Wan doesn't even seem to care if he dies or not as long as Anikan goes with him.

4) The two of them manage to escape every one of the potential pitfalls of fighting over lava. The two fighters (and the audience) get a short breather from all the action while Anikan and Obi Wan rehash some of their ideological differences again. This time however, Obi Wan finally admits his own culpability in Anikan's fall to the Dark Side. ("I have failed you, Anikan. I have failed you.") Anikan shows he either can't hear him over the roaring of the volcano, or doesn't care. Incidentally, the platforms on which they speak give a few cues to who holds the upper hand/moral high ground. Obi Wan is standing on a proper platform; Anikan is standing on a droid that barely has enough width to carry him.

5) The previous phase ends with Anikan jumping onto Obi Wan's platform to resume the duel. A little bit of sword slashing, and cue the infamous "I have the higher ground" line. Anikan gets cocky, and we all know how that works out. Obi Wan monologues, and gives us some closure on their relationship.

Now, I know that a lot of that was conveyed by the action itself. The same thing applies to the Empire duel when Vader starts throwing shit with his mind. No one complains that you have to infer his state of mind from his actions there, but apparently it soars over their heads when the slightest bit of CGI or spectacle is thrown into the scene. I had little trouble figuring this stuff out the first time I saw it (though perhaps my reading the novelization before hand helped things) even if I missed a few of the nuances.

Frankly, its telling that everyone likes to compare the duels of the prequel movies to Empire and RotJ. If you want to see a shallow confrontation, look no further than ANH. The duel between Vader and Obi Wan there is cold, barely emotional at all, and of course lacked the kind of high intensity choreography of even the other two OT movies. Its short. It ends with a sacrifice... but we don't even know at this point why we should care! We've known Obi Wan for less than an entire movie before he lets himself die (oh yeah, because the actor hated the role and hoped this would mean he wouldn't have to show up in any more Star Wars movies. The joke is on him, I guess). In retrospect Lucas managed to make it meaningful by filling us in on the relationship between the two characters and by having Obi Wan's ghost tutor Luke. But frankly, I came to appreciate it far more when I watched it with the RotS duel in mind.

Yes, I said it: the prequel actually increased my appreciation of the original Star Wars.

* Incidentally, they give a much better impression of what the movie was like than any years after the fact review, given that they weren't written with... what's the opposite of rose tinted glasses?

Also, do I really need to state the obvious? Anikan is not Luke. Anikan is ballsy and fighting is just what he does. If someone pisses him off, say by betraying him, he will lash out. Luke is calmer. He has fought for the rebel cause, but he very much wants to hold onto his morality. The RotJ duel plays this up the whole time, as Vader trys to get his son to give in to the Dark Side. Anikan has already given into the Dark Side, and Obi Wan doesn't have Luke's faith in Vader's inner goodness. Also, unlike the Empire duel, Vader doesn't want anything to do with Obi Wan, let alone convert him to the Dark Side, so naturally he isn't going to hold back like he did with Luke (who, it should be stated, isn't necessarily the kind of master swordsman Anikan and Obi Wan were). Really, why should the PT duels emulate the OT duels? They serve entirely different purposes, and come from entirely different time periods (both in universe and out). It would just feel like more of the same, and then people would accuse Lucas of being too derivative.

Formless wrote:

Kane Starkiller wrote: The point is that in say ROTJ battle things happen during the battle other than simply Luke and Vader swinging lightsaber at each other. Luke first refuses to fight and hopes to turn Vader, Emperor then goads Luke into attacking him, Vader intervenes and now Luke fights him even though he doesn't really want to, he then hides from Vader, Vader taunts him with his sister and Luke loses it and lashes out at Vader, Emperor is gloating, Luke refuses ultimately to turn, Emperor is now enraged at the turn of events and tortures Luke, Vader decides to save his son even at the cost of his own life.
In ESB Luke is confident, Vader taunts him, we learn that Vader is just toying with him, Luke manages to seemingly get an upper hand by knocking Vader of the carbonite machine, Vader then demonstrates his true power by ripping shit off the wall and throwing it at Luke, then he cuts of Lukes hand and reveals he is his father, Luke refuses to join him and instead jumps into the abyss.
Each of these events is basically a new battle with new emotional state for the characters and the audience.
In ROTS Anakin and Obi-Wan just keep swinging ligtsabers at each other without any new event changing the nature of the battle. Instead of changing characters' emotional states like in ESB and ROTJ Lucas changes the scenery: they are in the room, now they are on a bridge, bridge is falling, they are dangling on cables, now they are floating in a river of lava. In the end it is boring since no matter how cool the scenery looks it is still scenery.

Christ, you Red Letter Mobboys are full of shit. Its like the closest you've ever come to watching RotS is in you're cult leader's horrid reviews. Lets ignore the fact that ironically it is you who have missed the point by not reading which claim Raynor was rebutting. The RotS battle may not have long pauses between the different phases of the duel like RotJ or Empire, but that's only because it would fuck up the pacing of the goddamn film.

You seem really angry about this. There's no cult, just a lot of people who've seen everything Lucas has done since Marcia left him and realized that she was the real talent.

1) First you have the pre-fight, where most of the dialogue happens to establish why they are fighting. Anikan hurts Padme when he sees Obi Wan. Obi Wan stalls him by arguing while they circle one another so he can get to Padme and see if she is alive. The argument itself highlights the political subtext and the ideological differences between the Jedi and Sith-- and more importantly between Anikan and Obi Wan.

2) Then the fight starts, and we get the sword swinging. Yes, at this stage in the fight they are just swinging swords at each other. Its a duel, that's what you do when you duel! Also, its a Star Wars movie, boo fucking hoo if you don't like having a spectacle in a goddamn Star Wars movie. I don't need to hear constant one liners being slung between Obi Wan and Anikan, and with Christian Haydenson's acting that would have been horribly grating on the ears. He's not exactly James Earl Jones. By a long shot. But he does at least know how to make faces, and most of the emotions at this point in the duel are conveyed non-verbally. The sheer viciousness with which the two fight (as contrasted not only with previous movies but previous fights in this movie) establishes the sincerety of their earlier argument.

3) Next phase, the doors open and the mining facility's safety protocalls have been damaged/shut off. Obi Wan now starts playing a game of chicken with Anikan to see who will make the fatal mistake and fall into the lava. The stakes are rased multiple times, and the spectical increases each time to keep it visually interesting (and again, boo fucking hoo to anyone who hates seeing a spectacle in a goddamn Star Wars movie). As Mike pointed out in his initial reactions to RotS * this phase shows three things about Anikan and Obi Wan: Obi Wan is smarter, Obi Wan understands Anikan better than Anikan does him, and Obi Wan doesn't even seem to care if he dies or not as long as Anikan goes with him.

4) The two of them manage to escape every one of the potential pitfalls of fighting over lava. The two fighters (and the audience) get a short breather from all the action while Anikan and Obi Wan rehash some of their ideological differences again. This time however, Obi Wan finally admits his own culpability in Anikan's fall to the Dark Side. ("I have failed you, Anikan. I have failed you.") Anikan shows he either can't hear him over the roaring of the volcano, or doesn't care. Incidentally, the platforms on which they speak give a few cues to who holds the upper hand/moral high ground. Obi Wan is standing on a proper platform; Anikan is standing on a droid that barely has enough width to carry him.

5) The previous phase ends with Anikan jumping onto Obi Wan's platform to resume the duel. A little bit of sword slashing, and cue the infamous "I have the higher ground" line. Anikan gets cocky, and we all know how that works out. Obi Wan monologues, and gives us some closure on their relationship.

Now, I know that a lot of that was conveyed by the action itself. The same thing applies to the Empire duel when Vader starts throwing shit with his mind. No one complains that you have to infer his state of mind from his actions there, but apparently it soars over their heads when the slightest bit of CGI or spectacle is thrown into the scene. I had little trouble figuring this stuff out the first time I saw it (though perhaps my reading the novelization before hand helped things) even if I missed a few of the nuances.

You haven't really described what any of those mean, though. Sure, Anakin was angry and Obi Wan was sad, but where is the emotional conflict, are there any strong metaphors etc.

Frankly, its telling that everyone likes to compare the duels of the prequel movies to Empire and RotJ. If you want to see a shallow confrontation, look no further than ANH. The duel between Vader and Obi Wan there is cold, barely emotional at all, and of course lacked the kind of high intensity choreography of even the other two OT movies. Its short. It ends with a sacrifice... but we don't even know at this point why we should care! We've known Obi Wan for less than an entire movie before he lets himself die (oh yeah, because the actor hated the role and hoped this would mean he wouldn't have to show up in any more Star Wars movies. The joke is on him, I guess). In retrospect Lucas managed to make it meaningful by filling us in on the relationship between the two characters and by having Obi Wan's ghost tutor Luke. But frankly, I came to appreciate it far more when I watched it with the RotS duel in mind.

I'm not sure you understand how the lightsaber fights in the OT worked. They were all about the emotional state of the characters, portraying the inner struggle in an easily understandable fashion etc. There are no fair fights, and nobody dies because they just got out fought.

Also, Lucas' plan for the "I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine" was supposed to be him coming back in essentially super saiyan mode. The whole force ghost thing (much like Luke being a young farmer rather than an old general) came from his wife and the people he worked with.

Mr Bean wrote:

PhilosopherOfSorts wrote:

Were the dropships specifically designed for droids, or were they just something the Trade Federation had on hand and repurposed, like their battleships? If the dropships were pre-existing equipment and had life support, I can't see the penny-pinching Nemoidians spending the money to have it ripped out.

Even that would make little sense as the life support equipment would cost money to remove. You might not run it, but it makes no sense to take it out. It's like taking out the air condition of a car just because you live in Alaska. Yes I suppose it costs you some extra gas mileage over the life of the car in weight. But does it make sense to spend 1000$ removing a feature that comes built in even if you never use it? Because it's not going to cost 1000$ to be put back in.

Umm, I think we just agreed past each other. To be more clear, if the dropships were pre-existing equiment, and came from the shipyard with life support systems, I don't think the Nemoidians would have taken the life support out, because that would cost money but not dramaticly increase cargo space. Also, it would make the dropships suitable only for droids and other cargo that doesn't need to breathe.

novembermike wrote:You seem really angry about this. There's no cult, just a lot of people who've seen everything Lucas has done since Marcia left him and realized that she was the real talent.

1) I call you a mob and compare you to a cult because you are the [edit]third[/edit] fourth person to sign up to this board just so you could defend RLM in this thread. Also, every time RLM comes up in a thread the conversation rapidly goes to shit due to certain fanboys defending him against all reason, hence why Raynor even made this document. Hint: mocking rabid fanboys for herd behavior is a common pastime around here.

2) How can someone be a no talent when his movies routinely top the box office? Sure, a cynical person might say that his talent lies in marketing, but that's still talent.

3) Look back a few years. Ever notice how, the closer to the release of the films, the less heated the criticism of Lucas's movies are?

4) Evidence please on the claim that his wife had anything to do with his success with the OT. Its shit like that that makes internet fanboys look like they are just out to slander the man.

You haven't really described what any of those mean, though. Sure, Anakin was angry and Obi Wan was sad, but where is the emotional conflict, are there any strong metaphors etc.

You know, I was going to put together a longer post that included an analysis of Anakin and Obi Wan's characters and the themes of the movie, but frankly it would be redundant when Mike has an entire page devoted to that and more which I linked to in the post you quoted.

I was also going to point out that I already gave (some of) those details in that post and the follow up, and you simply ignored them.

I'm not sure you understand how the lightsaber fights in the OT worked. They were all about the emotional state of the characters, portraying the inner struggle in an easily understandable fashion etc. There are no fair fights, and nobody dies because they just got out fought.

No, at least no moreso than the one between Anakin and Obi Wan, and perhaps a bit less. To a large degreee, they were just one more spectacle in a movie full of spectacles. They weren't Wire Fu, to be sure, but then again they didn't have to compete with The Matrix back in the day. I don't know where this idea came from that they were all about the emotions of the characters, let alone inner struggle. RotJ? Maybe, on account of it being a ploy to turn Luke to the Dark Side. Empire? Nope, Luke is there to kick ass and take names, and Vader is trying to capture him. In literary terms we call this kind of conflict "MAN AGAINST MAN". It isn't until after the fight is done that there is any indication that this is personal by either of the combatants with the most cliche reveal in history. Really? Vader is Luke's father? I think people have forgotten how much this sounds like a bad soap opera plot. Just saying, if you're going to be harsh to the prequels this is what you have to compare them to. Even if the presentation was good, it wasn't exactly groundbreaking storytelling.

For that matter, look at the dogfight between Luke and Vader in ANH. Sure, its not a swordfight, but its a duel nonetheless, between two characters who will later make up for the lack of swords this time twice in the next two movies. What is the emphasis on? Not the emotions, that's for sure. Not the epic, inner struggles which were never there. Its just Vader sensing Luke's strength in the force, and Obi Wan encouraging Luke from beyond the grave to use that strength. Wow. What meaningful inner conflict you have there. Again, if you are going to be this harsh to the prequels, this is what you have to compare them to.

And yet, no one complains because (aside from being a bit too long) the Death Star dogfight was Cool with a capital "C".

Also, Lucas' plan for the "I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine" was supposed to be him coming back in essentially super saiyan mode. The whole force ghost thing (much like Luke being a young farmer rather than an old general) came from his wife and the people he worked with.

The person who suggested the force ghost thing... was the ACTOR. Good god, where did this nugget of ignorant shit come from? Its no secret that Alec Guinness loathed Star Wars. He was hoping that by getting killed off he wouldn't have to speak any more bad dialogue ("bad" being his point of veiw). They even went over this in the "Making of Star Wars" documentary IIRC.

Formless wrote: 4) Evidence please on the claim that his wife had anything to do with his success with the OT. Its shit like that that makes internet fanboys look like they are just out to slander the man.

Hello

As you will notice, I have just registered, mostly for the purpose of answering this question as I feel it is fairly important. You can find that information here:

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html

Yes, I am a fan of RedLetterMedia and was intrigued by your discussion. I have not read Raynor's work, and so have no intention of discussing that (at least not yet). By the same token, I won't defend RedLetterMedia until such time that I will have read this review of a review.

Cheers,

Formless wrote:The duel between Vader and Obi Wan there is cold, barely emotional at all, and of course lacked the kind of high intensity choreography of even the other two OT movies.

That's a good point. Anakin/Vader hasn't seen Obi-Wan in twenty years, but their last meeting still ended with Anakin being horribly maimed and burned. The battle should really be more filled with animosity and hatred (for obvious real world reasons, it wasn't).

Seems like this response to RLM has now been reported by slashfilm.com.

Really ... how odd? This has become a mini ... internet ... thing!

Fire Fly wrote:Seems like this response to RLM has now been reported by slashfilm.com.

It's popping up all over the net. Just do a Google search for 108 page red letter media.

On a related note. Would anyone happen to know where I can get my hands on a transcript of the RLM review? This guys character voice is fucking annoying, and his childish attempts at humor just make me wish he'd get to the damn point.

At least with the written word I can skim over the authors bullshit and cut to the main argument.

Paradoxical wrote:

Fire Fly wrote:Seems like this response to RLM has now been reported by slashfilm.com.

It's popping up all over the net. Just do a Google search for 108 page red letter media.

On a related note. Would anyone happen to know where I can get my hands on a transcript of the RLM review? This guys character voice is fucking annoying, and his childish attempts at humor just make me wish he'd get to the damn point.

At least with the written word I can skim over the authors bullshit and cut to the main argument.

I've been looking for such things too, but no luck.

I've also noticed Raynor's rebuttal cropping up. So far, I've noticed people dismissing it as nerd ramblings without reading it, apparently, and laugh at what a geek he is before praising the mighty Plinkett for being so cool.

Srelex wrote:I've been looking for such things too, but no luck.

I think I'll have to just take it in a little at a time. I'd prefer to slough through it before reading Raynor's response.

I've also noticed Raynor's rebuttal cropping up. So far, I've noticed people dismissing it as nerd ramblings without reading it, apparently, and laugh at what a geek he is before praising the mighty Plinkett for being so cool.

My favorite line of attack that I've seen so far is that Raynor's written response isn't entertaining enough to bother reading. Apparently it's somehow necessary to prop up your arguments with bullshit theatrics. You gotta make sure you pander to the little shits with ADD after all.

I thought it was pretty entertaining, personally. Especially the pictures - the one where he's talking about RLM's idiotic "just fight them all" remark still makes me crack up when I think about it.

"Let's start with the two we just ran away from!"

Paradoxical wrote:

Srelex wrote:I've been looking for such things too, but no luck.

I think I'll have to just take it in a little at a time. I'd prefer to slough through it before reading Raynor's response.

I've also noticed Raynor's rebuttal cropping up. So far, I've noticed people dismissing it as nerd ramblings without reading it, apparently, and laugh at what a geek he is before praising the mighty Plinkett for being so cool.

My favorite line of attack that I've seen so far is that Raynor's written response isn't entertaining enough to bother reading. Apparently it's somehow necessary to prop up your arguments with bullshit theatrics. You gotta make sure you pander to the little shits with ADD after all.

Meh, Plinkett's review has the advantage that I can play it in the background while I do something else. With Raynor's I'll have to sit and actually read it and that's honestly not something I'm prepared to do right now. I applaud him for posting it (I thought he was just posturing) and I'm glad he enjoyed the PT but I think I've already spent enough time on these things.

novembermike wrote: You seem really angry about this. There's no cult, just a lot of people who've seen everything Lucas has done since Marcia left him and realized that she was the real talent.

You haven't really described what any of those mean, though. Sure, Anakin was angry and Obi Wan was sad, but where is the emotional conflict, are there any strong metaphors etc.

I'm not sure you understand how the lightsaber fights in the OT worked. They were all about the emotional state of the characters, portraying the inner struggle in an easily understandable fashion etc. There are no fair fights, and nobody dies because they just got out fought.

Also, Lucas' plan for the "I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine" was supposed to be him coming back in essentially super saiyan mode. The whole force ghost thing (much like Luke being a young farmer rather than an old general) came from his wife and the people he worked with.

Thanks a lot for ignoring Lawrence Kasdan, Joe Johnston, Gary Kurtz, John Dykstra, and all the other people that contributed to Star Wars. Nope, it was just Marcia Lucas who did everything, provided all the creative ideas, and single-handedly built up Star Wars and Indiana Jones, all from editing ANH and an unknown amount of work on ESB and ROTJ. Man, this is like the antimatter version of the people The Secret History of Star Wars criticizes. Also, apparently Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was the second-worst Indy movie, with only Kingdom of the Crystal Skull being worse.

This is why I find it hard to really feel that criticism of the prequels is well-thought-out. So much of it is just people flailing around, seizing on anything to justify their distaste, and producing idiotic ideas like this, or a horde of nitpicks. Plinkett's reviews do the same thing, spending too much time on nitpicks rather than on the substantive critiques of cinematography or other aspects of the film. But I forgot that anything bad in his reviews was just comedic, and anything insightful was dead serious. I'm pretty sure that this is why Raynor focused on the nitpicks and arguments about the in-universe actions, because he may well agree with Plinkett's substantial critiques, or at least feel that arguing against them is pointless.

Throwing in pieces from the old scripts is pretty hilarious as a criticism of Lucas. I bet that you could do the same for a lot of movies, and that doesn't necessarily reflect on the quality of the screenwriter, just as reading a first draft doesn't necessarily reflect on the quality of a published novel. And in both cases, revisions occur as part of a process of group critique. But clearly if I find an awkward first draft of, say, Ulysses or The Sound and the Fury, then James Joyce and Faulkner were quite obviously talentless hacks.

Aaron wrote: Meh, Plinkett's review has the advantage that I can play it in the background while I do something else. With Raynor's I'll have to sit and actually read it and that's honestly not something I'm prepared to do right now. I applaud him for posting it (I thought he was just posturing) and I'm glad he enjoyed the PT but I think I've already spent enough time on these things.

I can definitely understand that critique.

While I can't speak for everyone, I'm surprised as many people here have spoken against RLM's review as there has been. The fact of the matter is that the prequels were pretty bad. Whether by fault of the director, the actors, or whoever, there is very little redeemable about them. Personally, the only positive thing I cared for was the Episode II cross-section finally ending the whole Star Wars/Star Trek thing.

A 108-page rebuttal also seems kind of pointless. It's not like RLM will give any real response and the only ones who will care what's written on it are the die-hard Star Wars fans. I can't see anyone else looking at it as anything other than "Oh look at the nerd who got mad at an internet video."

Mutant Headcrab wrote:While I can't speak for everyone, I'm surprised as many people here have spoken against RLM's review as there has been. The fact of the matter is that the prequels were pretty bad. Whether by fault of the director, the actors, or whoever, there is very little redeemable about them. Personally, the only positive thing I cared for was the Episode II cross-section finally ending the whole Star Wars/Star Trek thing.

A 108-page rebuttal also seems kind of pointless. It's not like RLM will give any real response and the only ones who will care what's written on it are the die-hard Star Wars fans. I can't see anyone else looking at it as anything other than "Oh look at the nerd who got mad at an internet video."

Does that make his reviews any better, though? If I were to write a "review" of say, Indiana Jones IV, insisting that it gives you cancer Videodrome-style, then would I be immune from criticism because many people disliked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? So too with Plinkett focusing overmuch on details and thus bloating his reviews, which opens him up to criticism regardless of how the prequels were disappointing/molested you right there in the theater, depending on how hyperbolic you want to be. Then there are the people that detest his style of comedy.

Bakustra wrote:

Mutant Headcrab wrote:While I can't speak for everyone, I'm surprised as many people here have spoken against RLM's review as there has been. The fact of the matter is that the prequels were pretty bad. Whether by fault of the director, the actors, or whoever, there is very little redeemable about them. Personally, the only positive thing I cared for was the Episode II cross-section finally ending the whole Star Wars/Star Trek thing.

A 108-page rebuttal also seems kind of pointless. It's not like RLM will give any real response and the only ones who will care what's written on it are the die-hard Star Wars fans. I can't see anyone else looking at it as anything other than "Oh look at the nerd who got mad at an internet video."

Does that make his reviews any better, though? If I were to write a "review" of say, Indiana Jones IV, insisting that it gives you cancer Videodrome-style, then would I be immune from criticism because many people disliked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? So too with Plinkett focusing overmuch on details and thus bloating his reviews, which opens him up to criticism regardless of how the prequels were disappointing/molested you right there in the theater, depending on how hyperbolic you want to be. Then there are the people that detest his style of comedy.

Way to completely miss the point of the RLM "reviews" they were just there to point out a few fishy things, make you laugh, and snap you out of the delusion that the prequels were good star wars movies, let along good movies to begin with. You can put all the sprinkles you want on a turd, but it is still a turd.

Formless wrote:

novembermike wrote:You seem really angry about this. There's no cult, just a lot of people who've seen everything Lucas has done since Marcia left him and realized that she was the real talent.

1) I call you a mob and compare you to a cult because you are the [edit]third[/edit] fourth person to sign up to this board just so you could defend RLM in this thread. Also, every time RLM comes up in a thread the conversation rapidly goes to shit due to certain fanboys defending him against all reason, hence why Raynor even made this document. Hint: mocking rabid fanboys for herd behavior is a common pastime around here.

Except I've never even referenced the RLM review. Sure it was entertaining, but the voice he did was a bit grating and he went over the top with the story elements.

2) How can someone be a no talent when his movies routinely top the box office? Sure, a cynical person might say that his talent lies in marketing, but that's still talent.

First off, the box office generally only says how the film was marketed and how strong the name of the series is. Look up any year's box office numbers and you'll have a mindless sequel near the top. Lucas also isn't the only person making the films, he's just a single person in a larger team.

For that matter, look at the dogfight between Luke and Vader in ANH. Sure, its not a swordfight, but its a duel nonetheless, between two characters who will later make up for the lack of swords this time twice in the next two movies. What is the emphasis on? Not the emotions, that's for sure. Not the epic, inner struggles which were never there. Its just Vader sensing Luke's strength in the force, and Obi Wan encouraging Luke from beyond the grave to use that strength. Wow. What meaningful inner conflict you have there. Again, if you are going to be this harshto the prequels, this is what you have to compare them to.

And yet, no one complains because (aside from being a bit too long) the Death Star dogfight was Cool with a capital "C".

Serious question: have you ever actually studied these films? Like, from a perspective of sitting down with people who are either movie makers or a highly trained enthusiast? There were quite a few major themes going on, such as the power of the weak but clever, Luke's acceptance of the force, Han Solo actually being a good person (before this he's all about money, and he does shoot first), loss among the brave etc. The pacing and action was nothing really special, in fact it was heavily derivative of WWII Airplane movies (this isn't a bad thing, he chose what to mimic well). You say there was no inner struggle, but I think Han coming back and Luke's choice between technology and the force both adequately fit that description.

Bakustra wrote:Thanks a lot for ignoring Lawrence Kasdan, Joe Johnston, Gary Kurtz, John Dykstra, and all the other people that contributed to Star Wars. Nope, it was just Marcia Lucas who did everything, provided all the creative ideas, and single-handedly built up Star Wars and Indiana Jones, all from editing ANH and an unknown amount of work on ESB and ROTJ. Man, this is like the antimatter version of the people The Secret History of Star Wars criticizes. Also, apparently Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was the second-worst Indy movie, with only Kingdom of the Crystal Skull being worse.

I didn't ignore those people. I referenced Marcia Lucas twice, once in relation to all of the films Lucas has made, and once along with the rest of the team George worked with. Star Wars and his other movies were as successful as they were because they had strong personalities that could oppose Lucas. In the prequels he had absolute control over everything, and that is almost always a bad thing (creativity thrives from adversity, not limitless freedom).

Does that make his reviews any better, though? If I were to write a "review" of say, Indiana Jones IV, insisting that it gives you cancer Videodrome-style, then would I be immune from criticism because many people disliked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? So too with Plinkett focusing overmuch on details and thus bloating his reviews, which opens him up to criticism regardless of how the prequels were disappointing/molested you right there in the theater, depending on how hyperbolic you want to be. Then there are the people that detest his style of comedy.

Yeah, Plinkett's comedy is pretty weak at times, but it's generally easy to tell when there's hyperbole ("I'll mail you some pizza roll") when there's a fact that isn't really important to check up on (the exact timestamp for when anikin comes on screen) etc. I wish he'd gone a little less over the top on the voice and everything though.

Eithos wrote:Hello

As you will notice, I have just registered, mostly for the purpose of answering this question as I feel it is fairly important. You can find that information here:

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html

So you support the claim by posting a link to... a blog. A blog is, at best, a secondary source; and this blog doesn't even post sources of its own. Please excuse me if I don't trust a word of it.

See also: Bakustra's point. Where is the love for Irvin Kershner? If you didn't know, he was the director of The Empire Strikes Back, A.K.A. the best damn movie in the series by fan concensus. This was the guy in charge of shooting, blocking, editing, and otherwise setting up the movie. This is the movie everyone loves, and if there is any person who deserves credit for making it transcend its script, would't it logically be the man hired to put it together?

Any time you see a blog with the words "secret history of" in the title, conspiracy theory warning bells should be ringing inside your head at full volume.

Yes, I am a fan of RedLetterMedia and was intrigued by your discussion. I have not read Raynor's work, and so have no intention of discussing that (at least not yet). By the same token, I won't defend RedLetterMedia until such time that I will have read this review of a review.

Cheers,

Well, thank you for being honest and for not dismissing us out of hand. That's greatly appreciated, believe me.

Mutant Headcrab wrote:While I can't speak for everyone, I'm surprised as many people here have spoken against RLM's review as there has been. The fact of the matter is that the prequels were pretty bad. Whether by fault of the director, the actors, or whoever, there is very little redeemable about them. Personally, the only positive thing I cared for was the Episode II cross-section finally ending the whole Star Wars/Star Trek thing.

A 108-page rebuttal also seems kind of pointless. It's not like RLM will give any real response and the only ones who will care what's written on it are the die-hard Star Wars fans. I can't see anyone else looking at it as anything other than "Oh look at the nerd who got mad at an internet video."

Are you serious? Fanboy factionalism at it's worst. TPM is a shit movie; the RLM 'reviews' are both shit and WORTHLESS.

The 70m RLM reivew also seems kind of pointless. It's not like George Lucas will give any kind of real response and the only ones who will care what's said in it are die-hard Star Wars fans. Oh, and those who can put up with his fucking horrible delivery and are swayed more by alleged 'humour' than fact or accuracy.

Turns out you're a fucking moron?

Stark wrote:

Mutant Headcrab wrote:While I can't speak for everyone, I'm surprised as many people here have spoken against RLM's review as there has been. The fact of the matter is that the prequels were pretty bad. Whether by fault of the director, the actors, or whoever, there is very little redeemable about them. Personally, the only positive thing I cared for was the Episode II cross-section finally ending the whole Star Wars/Star Trek thing.

A 108-page rebuttal also seems kind of pointless. It's not like RLM will give any real response and the only ones who will care what's written on it are the die-hard Star Wars fans. I can't see anyone else looking at it as anything other than "Oh look at the nerd who got mad at an internet video."

Are you serious? Fanboy factionalism at it's worst. TPM is a shit movie; the RLM 'reviews' are both shit and WORTHLESS.

The 70m RLM reivew also seems kind of pointless. It's not like George Lucas will give any kind of real response and the only ones who will care what's said in it are die-hard Star Wars fans. Oh, and those who can put up with his fucking horrible delivery and are swayed more by alleged 'humour' than fact or accuracy.

Turns out you're a fucking moron?

I don't think that it was worthless. TPM was a pretty intensely disappointing movie, and to see someone who apparently enjoys both film and Star Wars-style storytelling go through the movie, one underwhelming lightsaber fight at a time was pretty cathartic. George Lucas's prequels killed my Star Wars fandom, and RLM's reviews are the equivalent of an EMT banging on its chest, screaming "Don't die on me!" The reviews were necessary, and in a way, this 108-page rebuttal was necessary as well.

Are you serious? Fanboy factionalism at it's worst. TPM is a shit movie; the RLM 'reviews' are both shit and WORTHLESS.

They were highly entertaining. I would argue that means they are no more or less worthless than any other form of entertainment.

Thanks for picking a post from me saying something others are also saying to post something useless like 'lol I thought it was funny'!

Frankly if Jimbo is right on even half the shit he says in his 'nerdy screed', the RLM review is not only not funny, it's actively misleading. You can say TPM sucks without lying, you know.

Formless wrote: So you support the claim by posting a link to... a blog. A blog is, at best, a secondary source; and this blog doesn't even post sources of its own. Please excuse me if I don't trust a word of it.

That's okay. I should have said more about it.

That page is just a part of a book written by Michael Kaminski. The actual length of the book is around 400 pages as far as I know --I haven't read it myself.

Formless wrote: See also: Bakustra's point. Where is the love for Irvin Kershner? If you didn't know, he was the director of The Empire Strikes Back, A.K.A. the best damn movie in the series by fan concensus. This was the guy in charge of shooting, blocking, editing, and otherwise setting up the movie. This is the movie everyone loves, and if there is any person who deserves credit for making it transcend its script, would't it logically be the man hired to put it together?

I will make no claims of possessing extensive knowledge surrounding Star Wars history, but yes, I am aware that Irvin Kershner directed the ESB. I have been doing some research these last few weeks. In fact, if I recall correctly, RLM had pointed towards the video of an Irvin Kershner interview concerning SW, which you can find here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-g0nlreeUo

Formless wrote: Any time you see a blog with the words "secret history of" in the title, conspiracy theory warning bells should be ringing inside your head at full volume.

That may be true, but I assure you the tone implied by "secret history of" in this case is not at all conspiratorial. I guess what I've gleaned from the author's own words is that much of Star Wars history is generally unknown and/or not cohesively documented. Consider it an attempt to shine light on what has previously been scattered and lacking cohesion.

In his own words, "I called the book the cliched "The Secret History of" because, at its simplest, this perspective of the series has never been told. Some of these items have been known for a few years in small circles of "Star Wars scholars," I guess you could say, but the overarching history of the series has never been collected and explained in a cohesive synthesis the way this book has done."

- (http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/faq.html)

It is also not an attack on George Lucas. You may feel the earlier link I provided to you was, but then again Marcia Lucas did win an Oscar for her work and this author is doing her justice by providing some historical perspective.

If you are truly interested in knowing whether it's worth it or not, you could look it up. It's a book that has been out for several years and gained wide popular attraction, as far as a quick google search has revealed. Also, if you're curious, I've also just found out that the first 100 pages are up as a free sample.
(http://www.legacybookspress.com/Books/T ... Sample.pdf) And if you are actually still wondering, this book has tons of sources! But I encourage you to research it yourself, there's a lot of information out there about this book.

My apologies to Raynor for steering this thread away from his own work. I have actually begun reading some parts, and it is not what I expected; it's different in the sense that it analyzes in a comprehensive way, which is good. The only thing that takes away from it, sadly, is the attitude at certain places, which I feel could be less angry. When your analysis is deep as it is, there's really no need to call RLM's review dumb, annoying and so forth if your analysis can speak for itself. Additionally, I feel a little spited when he says something like "getting overrated by sheep-like followers".

Anyway, I haven't read the whole thing, not close; but it certainly is interesting so far.