Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
It's pretty fucking stupid to appeal to an episode of Spaced - one of the nerdiest shows ever made, written and acted by a self-avowed, proud nerd - as evidence of some sort of mass popular opinion about Star WarsThe Spaced episode about how he was so utterly disappointed with Ben-hur?
emersonlakeandbalmer wrote: He never asked for an objective measure of failure. He said:
I don’t think it was a boxoffice failure, the data does. If you compare it strictly by the numbers it under preformed the entire original trilogy. You only like numbers when they prove your point, you demand stats then take a subjective stance on what success is. It’s almost like the use of the words success and failure are subjective in this case.
Oh, so that's why you claimed that the movie was a failure because it didn't earn as much as the OT films.But whatever. I’m tired of being in the semantic maze with you guys. I was and have always been, talking about TPM as a story telling failure.
Moving the goalposts already? You asked for examples of the following:Could you please point me to the viral 70 minutes reviews, please?
Before there was YouTube, people satirized popular movies or novels in print, on TV or in other movies. For example, Gone With the Wind was still being parodied a good 30-40 years after it was released by, among others, Carol Burnett:As for cultural success I would define it as how the film is treated by the public. Is it a running punchline? Can a 70 minute review making fun of the movie become successful?
GWTW? Yes, for obvious reasons -the movie and the novel it was based on were love letters to The Old South, which was depicted as a white supremacist Camelot with happy slaves who were content with their lot in life.Were it’s character considered semi racist caricatures? Those types of things.
Let me know where the Patton Oswald stand up routine is about how he wanted to go back in time and beat David O. Selznick to death with a shovel before he could make Gone with the Wind.
Who cares if some semi-literate shut-in wants to call for the death of a character? The opinion of such a person is about as valuable as the opinion of a homeless panhandler huffing glue from a paper bag. In other words, slightly more than Red Letter Retard's views.The sites calling for the death of Gollum because he was shitty shitty character? The Spaced episode about how he was so utterly disappointed with Ben-hur? That last one is ridiculous... Spaced wasn't on in the 50s, so the Father Knows Best episode will do.
The opening crawl only said they were greedy. not evil, check it out:emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:I didn’t feel it necessary to summarize the countless back and forth posts about the TF that led nowhere except back too “it doesn’t matter, they’re evil, and greedy, says so in the crawl!” A good story usually multidimensional characters with clear motivation.
But no matter. How about an example of infinitely better 'multidimensional characters with clear motivation'-The opening crawl wrote:Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo.
Wow! So much more detail given there! Oh, wait! There's more...A much better opening crawl wrote:It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.
Evil and sinister! Well, if that's not multidimensional, I don't know what is.The much better opening crawl also wrote:Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy....
No he didn't. I did. You've yet to produce one. He also said that the movie succeeded by every objective standard. You've yet to refute that.emersonlakeandbalmer, speaking in reference to Elfdart wrote:He never asked for an objective measure of failure.
Can you fucking read?emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:So I cited the critics. But that apparently wasn’t enough because you pretended there’s no such thing as a critical failure because it’s subjective.
Fuck, you quoted me saying this in your last post! I don't deny that a movie can be a critical failure. Critical failure is not an objective measure. You fucking broken record. Again, you can shove this poorly-made strawman up your arse and set fire to it. Why must I repeat myself to you?I wrote:Stick your strawman up your arse. I never claimed that a movie can't be a critical failure. I pointed out that criticism is subjective, after you had claimed criticism as an objective measure of a film's success.
The data gathered by opinion polls is objective, too. What do they measure? Fucking opinions, you moron. Objectively measuring the numbers of opinions does not change the fact that the opinions themselves are subjective.emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:While critical reviews are subjective the quantitative data on the percentage of positive to negative is objective.
You then proceed to lie through your teeth:A Critical Analysis of Qualitative Research wrote:The differences stem primarily from the fact that qualitative methods are not objective. Consequently, the non-objective evidence that qualitative researchers consider "data" is not what quantitative researchers consider "data."
Two things are wrong with your statement-emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:I don’t think it was a boxoffice failure, the data does.
So would top 10 qualify for success in your worthless opinion? As I already pointed out:emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:You’ve spun us into a semantic nightmare about what qualifies as failing.
Then you got really contradictory...I wrote:It beat every other movie ever made in the history of film.
Really?emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:You only like numbers when they prove your point...
Trying to use only specific numbers that would prove your point any? Compared to almost any other movie in cinema history, it was a resounding success. Look at the list of 'failures' Elfdart posted, if you need more proof of the stupidity of your point.emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:I don’t think it was a boxoffice failure, the data does. If you compare it strictly by the numbers it under preformed the entire original trilogy.
Whatever, indeed. The whole issue, as was pointed out pages ago, is people like you spouting their opinions as facts. The only thing you've managed to back yourself up with is... other people's opinions. While everyone here has refuted you with facts.emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:But whatever.
Have you now?emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:I was and always heve been talking about TPM as a story telling failure.
You tried to claim the movie was a 'cultural' failure. Make up your mind what your stance is. In any case, you considering the movie a 'story telling' failure is: *emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:As for cultural success I would define it as how the film is treated by the public. Is it a running punchline? Can a 70 minute review making fun of the movie become successful? Were it’s character considered semi racist caricatures? Those types of things.
Your opinion. * Haven't you figured out yet that your opinion isn't worth a scrap of ratshit to anyone here?Another thing to keep in mind is that Star Wars was re-released in theaters several times: 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982 -and this doesn't include the opening release that lasted well into 1978. With home theaters and DVD versions of movies being available mere months after initial release, it's highly unlikely that anything released in the future will come anywhere close to ANH's box office totals.Yet still, you forget one crucial factor in your statistics: The OT were released twice in cinemas, 20 years apart, remember? Box office performance for the OT counts both the original theatrical releases and the special edition re-releases. They are not viewed as seperate films. Even though they went to the box office twice. An entire second generation of people got to go to the cinemas and see the OT, generating a massive boost in ticket sales. Shit, people who'd seen ANH in '77 took their kids to see it in '97! The PT only went to the box office once. So for TPM to have performed even half as well as the OT actually speaks volumes about its success.
Then again, what's the point with all this "refutation"?. What's the point of going "intellectual" with a guy who is not taking this stuff so seriously?Havok wrote:He may not have put a lot of thought into his review or whatever, but he sure put in a lot of time. The fact that he decided not to back up that time with intelligence is his own fault.
This says absolutely nothing pertaining to the points being raised in this thread. Ooh, he doesn't hate the people who like the prequels, and he hasn't gotten many threats of physical violence. Irrelevant.The Asiduo wrote:[So, once again, I'll quote Stoklasa himself about the purposes and methods on his reviews.
Mike Stoklasa wrote: I just happened to not like the 3 prequels and I’m explaining why in a fun and different way; in terms of traditional movie reviews -it’s as simple as that. I don’t hate people that like the prequels; you can like whatever you want. I’m also doing my reviews in the character of a crotchety old man. I think people calling my reviews anti-Star Wars “propaganda” is taking it a bit too far. I have no greater goal other than to just get my opinion out there. So far though, just one person I can think of posted that he would punch me in the gut if he ever met me, but other than that nothing major as far as Star Wars fan rage goes. I think most people are pretty rational and understand the Plinkett reviews for what they are, even people that liked the films.
Also irrelevant. Basically just his excuse about not having to read the Expanded Universe books again, in other words. Stoklasa's statements about the movie showed an ignorance of things that were apparent, from watching the movie. His attempts at logical criticism are lousy. This is a guy who attacked the movie because Qui-Gon sought help from a nearby city, instead of trying to trek through the wilderness while avoiding an entire army by himself. And who actually stated that the Jedi had no reason to claim an invasion was taking place after seeing the invasion itself. Who didn't seem to understand that they were trying to persuade the Gungan leader for help, despite going to the Gungans for the clear purpose of seeking help. The review was stupid.Stoklasa wrote:That’s kind of the one misconception is that I take a ton of time meticulously researching everything, reading things on the film, cross checking facts, etc. That’s not really the case and, in fact, I avoid reading or watching any prior reviews on the movie altogether. I just like watching the film myself and using that as the only basis for what I, as an audience member, am expected to understand. That and to make sure my ideas are my own and that something that someone else noticed doesn’t seep into my brain. I’ve also never read a Star Wars book or even played a Star Wars video game.
But, but, I thought he was a professional "editor" who was insightful and intelligent and knew so much about filmmaking! So are you admitting to us that this guy was just talking crap now?The Asiduo wrote:So, this is the situation. This guy made these videos as a "creative" and "funny" way of get his opinions "out there". He didn't took a lot of time analyzing every aspect or details of the movies,
It's "personal" if I write a long response to his long nitpicky movie review. Please. I didn't make things any more personal than he did by implying and insinuating all sorts of crap about George Lucas. I don't know Mike Stoklasa or care who he is. All I know is what he said in that review, which is what I was responding to.No, Stoklasa is not a victim. I guess he just thinks that taking this thing to "personal level", calling names and writing 108 pages
Where did I say he's an asshole for not liking Qui-Gon, you little liar?refutations implying that "he's an asshole for not realizing how great character Qui-Gonn is",
Are you pulling my leg?The Asiduo wrote: Then again, what's the point with all this "refutation"?. What's the point of going "intellectual" with a guy who is not taking this stuff so seriously?
"It's a mad mad mad world" it's a 250-minute long movie.seanrobertson wrote:
Are you pulling my leg?
Stoklasa made a 70-minute movie to criticize another movie.
Think about that for a moment. Do you have any idea how much effort is involved in putting something like that together?
Based on sheer time expenditure alone, yeah: I'd say he's "taking this stuff" very seriously indeed. It's idiotic to suggest his Plinkett shtick indicates anything to the contrary.
Correct. Things can be successful and people can think they aren't very good. Just like TPMJim Raynor wrote: Nevermind that his statements were hardly as good as he thought they sounded. Running punchline? Maybe to the online nerd niche, but obviously not the majority of the population who paid money to see TPM and its sequels and spinoffs.
RLM's review is "successful?" If the RLM is "successful" it's not because it's actually good (as I have shown in my response).
The annoying back and forth that's been going on about what constitutes success and failure keeps falling back to this idea that the only objective way to determine success is by monetary means. If RLM is now making money based on the success of his videos by the standards laid down in the previous posts, it's a success. Negligible for sure, because really success is subjective despite what some of the members of this forum think.And the standard for "success" when it comes to internet memes is negligible in the grand scheme of things. In more than a year on YouTube, the RLM review has just low single-digit million views, and there's got to be numerous repeat clickers (I must have clicked more than a dozen times while responding to it). As I've pointed out before, each part of the RLM review had less views than previous ones, until by the end it retained only about a third of its initial viewers. This is so miniscule compared to the total population. Internet geeks have a tendency to inflate their own importance.
Mesa tinks dats da smertist dings yousa say all day!Racist? I'm not going to even entertain that idiocy.
http://geekpropaganda.net/?p=1100#more-1100How long did it take to put together the Revenge of the Sith Review?
What is the process?
Well, it starts with watching the movie, of course, and extensive use of the pause button. My friend Rich will usually watch the movie with me and take notes down as I shout things at him. Rich also serves as a good logic barometer. We’ll talk about a scene and whether or not it made sense to both of us. With the Star Wars prequels I think we paused on almost every line cause nothing made any sense at all. It took maybe 5 hours to watch the whole Revenge of the Sith film I’d say. Then I’ll take the hand written notes and write a script out of it in the Plinkett character. I’ll have two or three pages of notes, just to jog my memory on the specifics, and then I’ll write a 20 or 30 page script from that. Then I’ll record the voice over and the begin putting things together. I’ll always go back and change a line or two here and there, add bits, move sections around, improvise while recording, etc. I go back and forth until I get it the way I want it.
How many times did you have to watch that horrible movie?
I think I just watched it that one time in its’ entirety, but I had seen it before in the theater, of course. When I’m editing I’ll notice a few new things here and there, but it’s not like I go through the movie over and over. That’s kind of the one misconception is that I take a ton of time meticulously researching everything, reading things on the film, cross checking facts, etc. That’s not really the case and, in fact, I avoid reading or watching any prior reviews on the movie altogether. I just like watching the film myself and using that as the only basis for what I, as an audience member, am expected to understand.
Weak analogy. That film isn't trying to make dozens of reasoned criticisms against another media, is it?The Asiduo wrote: "It's a mad mad mad world" it's a 250-minute long movie.
It's funny?. Yes. Is meant to be taken seriously?. Nope, it's a comedy film.
You totally missed the point.So, the length is not the only factor to adscribe "seriousness". It's about something called "tone" or "context" (because some people thought that when I talked about "tone" I was talking about the tone of voice of Plinkett). If the context is about a nitpicky 100-year old character, I guess the thing is not so serious or intellectual, after all.
), frankly, who gives a damn if that's "framed" by the "lolzPlinkettisteholdancrazE!" shtick? That doesn't change the fact that Mike's idea is poorly conceived. Why shouldn't Jim or anyone else call him on it, then? Huh?But, then again, Stoklasa also makes some "insightful" or "serious" points in his reviews (mostly in the following reviews): a good refutation should "isolate" these points and discusse them, not make a rather selective and angry "nitpicking of the nitpicks".
I have to pick insignificant parts, because the whole thing is insignificant.Jim Raynor wrote: Don't you guys just love how these RLM-defenders keep picking insignificant little parts of the review and ascribing intelligence and profound meaning to them? Like how there's some mythical "main point" out there that I supposedly avoided...which they can't articulate better than Stoklasa not liking the movie?
What are those profits? Money? Control of the planet? Ending the trade taxes? If it's so obvious why don't we know? Really nobody in the audience cared? Is that why you had to write a 108 rebuttal to an internet video because all of his nitpicks were so obvious?The "bargain" was obvious, and there's no story there that demanded to be told. The Trade Feds are greedy and are looking out for their own profits. Which is a pretty basic motivation that works for everybody in real life. Nobody in the audience about the minutia of a deal that wasn't shown to be complicated in any way.At one point the TF even says “we should not have made this bargain” What bargain? For better or worse these are our main villains, but we have no idea their motivations beyond what the open crawl says about being greedy.
No one said you didn't agree with this part. I said you glossed it over. He was setting up a premise for his argument about characters, which you seemed to miss because to you it was only "a bunch of teenage and young adult Regular Joe characters taking crap from people early in their movies"What the hell? I agreed with him and gave him a pass on that part of the review, as fair subjective opinion. Yet that's somehow "missing his point."When people accuse you of missing the “main point” of the RLM review it’s because you seem to take so much of what RLM says as criticism of the in world logic as apposed to criticism of it as a film. When he talks about character you paraphrase it:
“He makes some fair points about the value of having likable, identifiable protagonists who the audience roots for, though he's very decompressed as he runs off a long list of movie heroes and shows numerous short clips from various movies. Mostly he shows a bunch of teenage and young adult Regular Joe characters taking crap from people early in their movies, before their adventures start. This takes up most of the next four minutes.”
The reason he goes on for four minutes about character is to show what the universal character traits/arcs are for a hero in this type of movie.
And yes, your idol was decompressed. I didn't need to see redundant and repetitive movie clips, or the names of numerous directors rattled off.
Yes. it misses the point, because this is about character and looking for the the main one in TPM. Not the exact time the kid shows up. If you had made a joke about at least I could forgive it, but you wrote it with such seriousness, but I guess that makes it funny as well.Fact checking and calling him on his misstatements is missing the main point now...when the "main point" boils down to him not liking the movie. Which I let him off on, because there's nothing much to really say about it.By glancing it over and focusing on things like “Anakin shows up 32 minutes not 45 minutes” of course people are going to accuse you of missing the main point.
There's no reason to debate the logic of a fictional place either, but this board sure seems to love doing that.EDIT: And again, this whole "main point" stuff is lame. If his main point is that he just didn't like the movie, then there's nothing to talk about and there's no reason to put weight in his words. Especially when he spends the vast majority of the review talking nonsense which goes far beyond his supposed "main point."
Because that's what he set up as the premise for his argument.Why does Plinkett get to dictate how movie protagonists ought to be handled?You stated that Qui-gon was the protagonist. What was his arc then? How did he grow from the start of the film to the end? How is he in any way like the characters Plinkett references in those 4 minutes?
Good point and one that RLM made as well, in the part you agreed with but missed the point of. He points out in an action adventure movie of this type a character who has an arc works best. So can you tell us what Qui-Gon's arc was?I've seen numerous movies where the hero is just a man with a job or a cause to fight for, and he does it without having to be dumped on by everyone as a self-insert character for troubled geeky teenagers.
NopeAre you for real?Someone should sue those people for Slander.Let's cut the crap, okay? Anyone with a brain knows that "comedy" is still used to make genuine points. People have explained this simple truth already in this thread. When people mock Sarah Palin as stupid and Charlie Sheen as a drugged out egomaniac, they really do mean that Palin is stupid and Sheen is a drugged out egomaniac.
It was just a comment on: "Length doesn't imply seriousness"seanrobertson wrote: Weak analogy. That film isn't trying to make dozens of reasoned criticisms against another media, is it?
All right, but again: that's the general tone of "Plinkett Reviews" is "comedy". So, you shouldn't take everything literally. I'll give an example after the next quote.You totally missed the point.
Stoklasa himself said his intent was to point out the flaws in those movies. That he tries to do so in a humorous way does NOT mean his CLAIMS about the movies are any less serious or "intellectual," nor are they magically exempt from counter-criticism.
Let's say I want to do an online review of Titanic, for which I assume the role of Pennywise the Clown. While I'm talking about the movie, I periodically wig out and go all slasher-flick on neighborhood kids. In one such instance, I'm back on camera, calmly explaining why I think the movie was poorly written. To wit, I note Billy Zane's ridiculously two-dimensional character. But, oops! All the while I'm talking, I'm dripping with blood and seemingly oblivious to it! Ha, ha, ha!
Now, tell me: what part of all of that incidental horseshit changes the fact that I made a rational claim about Zane's badly-written Snidely Whiplash?
That claim stands independent of all the blood and creepy clown stuff. Similarly, when Stoklasa/"Plinkett" picks at TPM over stupid things (e.g., his suggestion that Qui-Gon and compnay steal the hyperdrive parts needed to fix the royal cruiser
Example of "angry nitpicking on nitpicks" in Raynor's review.Huh?
I have no idea what you're going on about now. What's an "angry 'nitpicking of the nitpicks'"? And why does it matter if it's emotional or not? It sounds to me like you're not only confusing tone for intent, you're mistaking style for substance.
Why does a corporation have senate representation? They're a system whose only business is trade? No other commodities? Crystal clear, I feel like I know the enemy so well. Evil corporation who has no clear motivation other than to follow orders.Jim Raynor wrote:They have a trade business and they govern territory, just like Naboo which has Senate representation.Oh I read his summary and all the posts in this thread talking about the TF. And no one knows who they are,
So they're for them or against them? I don't recall the movie saying. If you could link me to the part of the film that would be great.The explicitly greedy Trade Federation with a trade franchise has a problem related to taxes on trade routes. It's not that hard.if they’re for or against the taxes,
Cool, and what are they preventing them from getting, everything? And why Naboo?Naboo. It's not that hard.what they’re blockading,
I thought they set up the blockade to protest taxes (I'm taking this from you, because the movie doesn't say)? Now they want Naboo? Where in the movie do they say this? Again why Naboo?They invade Naboo and he makes sure that they get away with it. It's not that hard.or what deal they made with the hologram they obey.
I'm sorry you can't be arsed to read the thread when it by itself-- and that includes your own behavior-- is evidence of damage to Lucas's character and the very lack of credible evidence towards Stoklasa's assertions shows he didn't care about the truth of them.emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:I wasn’t just mocking. I was asking for evidence of slander.
You didn't ask if they made money, you asked if they were successful. You need a marker for success I choose the OT as that marker. Prove TPM didn't fail to make more money than the OT.Elfdart wrote:emersonlakeandbalmer wrote: He never asked for an objective measure of failure. He said:
I don’t think it was a boxoffice failure, the data does. If you compare it strictly by the numbers it under preformed the entire original trilogy. You only like numbers when they prove your point, you demand stats then take a subjective stance on what success is. It’s almost like the use of the words success and failure are subjective in this case.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, Heathcliff's stupidity claims yet another victim. According to this cretin, not only is every movie released since 1999 was a "failure" except for Avatar, but every movie that didn't earn as much at the box office as the OT is also a "failure", including (among others):
The Sting
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Jurassic Park
The Graduate
Fantasia
The Godfather
Forrest Gump
Mary Poppins
The Lion King
Grease
Thunderball
The Dark Knight
The Jungle Book
Sleeping Beauty
Shrek 2
Ghostbusters
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Love Story
Spider-Man
Independence Day
Home Alone
Pinocchio
Cleopatra (1963)
Beverly Hills Cop
Goldfinger UA
Airport
American Graffiti
The Robe Fox
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Around the World in 80 Days
Bambi
Blazing Saddles
Batman
The Bells of St. Mary's
The Lord of the Rings:
The Towering Inferno
Spider-Man 2
My Fair Lady
The Greatest Show on Earth
National Lampoon's Animal House
The Passion of the Christ
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
Back to the Future
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Sixth Sense
Superman
Tootsie
Smokey and the Bandit Uni.
Finding Nemo
West Side Story
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Lady and the Tramp
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Lawrence of Arabia
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Rocky
The Best Years of Our Lives
The Poseidon Adventure
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Twister
Men in Black
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Swiss Family Robinson
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
M.A.S.H.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
Mrs. Doubtfire
Aladdin
Toy Story 3
Ghost
Duel in the Sun
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
House of Wax
Rear Window
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Spider-Man 3
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Sergeant York
How the Grinch Stole Christmas
Toy Story 2
After all these failures I can't help but wonder just how the studios stayed in business.
Nope that's what you guys did, when you started bringing up numbers as the only means of measuring success or failure. If you don't like numbers don't bring them up.Oh, so that's why you claimed that the movie was a failure because it didn't earn as much as the OT films.But whatever. I’m tired of being in the semantic maze with you guys. I was and have always been, talking about TPM as a story telling failure.
I also said "Those types of things." Implying there are more. Goal posts were always on wheels. Also, unless you can prove that a 70 minute review of all of those movie can be successful, you've failed the All part to answering yes to all those questions. Sorry, I've learned you have to be a stickler on these boards.Elfdart wrote:Moving the goalposts already? You asked for examples of the following:Could you please point me to the viral 70 minutes reviews, please?
None of these are 70 minutes long.Before there was YouTube, people satirized popular movies or novels in print, on TV or in other movies. For example, Gone With the Wind was still being parodied a good 30-40 years after it was released by, among others, Carol Burnett:As for cultural success I would define it as how the film is treated by the public. Is it a running punchline? Can a 70 minute review making fun of the movie become successful?
Fifty-seven years after GWTW was released, it was still used as a punchline in movies like Cold Comfort Farm:
To this day -seventy-two years later- Tara's Theme is itself a standard punchline whenever someone wants to take a jab at overwrought melodrama:
It's frequently used as a drop on The Howard Stern Show, too.
While we're on the subject, the fact that everyone from Mel Brooks to the Zucker Brothers to SNL has parodied the old Star Wars films must mean that they suck pretty hard, right?
You must know since I misspelled his name but your got it right! I'll post it for those people who like to have fun. Some might not like it, he slanders Lucas by accusing him of being a liar. there was no ice cream.Let me know where the Patton Oswald stand up routine is about how he wanted to go back in time and beat David O. Selznick to death with a shovel before he could make Gone with the Wind.
Who is Patton Oswalt?
Or as valuable as a 108 page rebuttal on an obscure internet forum. I'll accept the racist accusations, but really I should have specified as related to the time period. I still need running punchlines about what a disappointment the films were, parody of the style isn't the same as joking about how awful it was.Who cares if some semi-literate shut-in wants to call for the death of a character? The opinion of such a person is about as valuable as the opinion of a homeless panhandler huffing glue from a paper bag. In other words, slightly more than Red Letter Retard's views.The sites calling for the death of Gollum because he was shitty shitty character? The Spaced episode about how he was so utterly disappointed with Ben-hur? That last one is ridiculous... Spaced wasn't on in the 50s, so the Father Knows Best episode will do.
The opening crawl also said jedi knights. Plural. No one said multidimensional characters come from the opening crawl, but most Raynor apologists on this boards seem to think the opening crawl is enough to explain who they are and what they want.Darth Tedious wrote:The opening crawl only said they were greedy. not evil, check it out:emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:I didn’t feel it necessary to summarize the countless back and forth posts about the TF that led nowhere except back too “it doesn’t matter, they’re evil, and greedy, says so in the crawl!” A good story usually multidimensional characters with clear motivation.
We find out they are a totalitarian government ruling over the galaxy. The TF might be merchants that own a planet... maybe. They could just be lobbyists with an army.You have to be careful critiquing the PT in ways which apply equally well to the OT. Who are the Trade Federation Galactic Empire? The bad guys.
We see the empire being evil. Choking people, torturing them for info, blowing up a planet. The TF's greed is shown by... um... well the open crawl said they were greedy. Not sure how they were going to make money defying the senate and doing whatever a hologram says... but I have to assume they'd make money or get less taxes, maybe they were offered more comic relief robots for the army.Why are they so greedy evil? Because the opening crawl says so.
Vader wants the plans for the deathstar that were stolen. He wants to know the location of the rebel base to destroy it. Nute Gunray wants money, maybe... less taxes... maybe... control of Naboo... maybeWhat is Nute Gunray's Darth Vader's motivation? He works for Palpatine.
True he wants power, the rebellion is in his way, he needs his commanders to find them and to destroy them. In TPM he wants to be Supreme Chancellor but he needs to start taxing peoples? to start a war to have a treaty signed? or have the leader escape to get a vote of no confidence? Crystal clear.What does Palpatine want? Power, and control of the whole galaxy. Why? He's evil (see opening crawl).
So did it succeed in making more money than the 19 other movies in front of it? No i failed too. So by the objective standard of did it fail to make more money it did. Now if the question is did it make its money back or did it beat every other film in history but the 19 ahead of it the answer is it was successful in doing so. Whether or not it was re-released is irrelevant to the number of dollars pulled in.Darth Tedious wrote:Trying to use only specific numbers that would prove your point any? Compared to almost any other movie in cinema history, it was a resounding success. Look at the list of 'failures' Elfdart posted, if you need more proof of the stupidity of your point.
Yet still, you forget one crucial factor in your statistics: The OT were released twice in cinemas, 20 years apart, remember? Box office performance for the OT counts both the original theatrical releases and the special edition re-releases. They are not viewed as seperate films. Even though they went to the box office twice. An entire second generation of people got to go to the cinemas and see the OT, generating a massive boost in ticket sales. Shit, people who'd seen ANH in '77 took their kids to see it in '97! The PT only went to the box office once. So for TPM to have performed even half as well as the OT actually speaks volumes about its success.
I never said my opinion was fact.Whatever, indeed. The whole issue, as was pointed out pages ago, is people like you spouting their opinions as facts. The only thing you've managed to back yourself up with is... other people's opinions. While everyone here has refuted you with facts.
I've never seen a statement of such definitive fact. "what he feels went wrong" Feels, everyone knows when you use that word you're laying down a universal truth.me wrote:Because he’s creating a hypothesis for why TPM failed, why the originals worked and what he feels went wrong.
It's your opinion that I'm flogging a dead horse. Could you please prove it with facts?Darth Tedious wrote:You tried to claim the movie was a 'cultural' failure. Make up your mind what your stance is. In any case, you considering the movie a 'story telling' failure is: *
It isn't worth any more, but my opinion is that TPM could have been better. Who fucking cares? I'm relatively new here myself, but I can give you a hint- We don't debate opinions here. This isn't Youtube. You're flogging a dead horse with your opinion. Nobody cares. Every point you've tried to make to support your opinion so far has been shot down. Either start backing up what you're saying or shut the fuck up.
You'd have to prove that RLM was responsible for my opinion shift of Lucas for it to be evidence.Formless wrote:I'm sorry you can't be arsed to read the thread when it by itself-- and that includes your own behavior-- is evidence of damage to Lucas's character and the very lack of credible evidence towards Stoklasa's assertions shows he didn't care about the truth of them.emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:I wasn’t just mocking. I was asking for evidence of slander.
I never said he doesn't make earnest points. I said you can't detect tone or comprehend meaning so you don't know the difference. You wanted citations for proof that Lucas controls his franchise I provided you with a couple, but you either misread them or dismissed them because they didn't fit your point of view of Lucas.The rest of your post(s) is beneath my contempt. And that's even considering that you were right about the marketing bit-- you only address the parts of the argument where you think you can win, when in fact the larger point escapes you (that you have only established that he exerted control over marketing, that it would be absurd to suggest that he micromanages every aspect of the film's production, etc., or on another argument that even in the limited case where its possible to pick out Plinkett's tone [such as when he is being sarcastic-- and its possible even in text to do this once in a while] his tone doesn't preclude him from making earnest yet stupid points), and repeat yourself endlessly like the staunch defender of Teh Internet God Plinkett you are.
Actually, no. Because there are other people in this thread who have come out to defend this and other points who were evidently swayed by RLM's review. Furthermore, even if Stoklasa wasn't the first person to convince you that Lucas is a micromanaging control freak who gets rid of employees who challenge his creative vision, the fact that you use the same weak evidence as Plinkett does is evidence that Stoklasa helped cement that opinion at the every least; repeating slander is no better than inventing it yourself. You are defending Stoklasa's statements and doing so quite fervently, I might add. I mean, you are arguing with what? Five? Six people now? If Stoklasa wasn't convincing to you, you wouldn't be here, and neither would a lot of the people in this thread. Furthermore, I don't strictly need to prove damage in the first place, because this is not a court of law but rather a matter of the integrity of Stoklasa, which has already been demonstrated. I am doing so because frankly it shows that you don't have a leg to stand on even if we want to get pedantic about such things.emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:You'd have to prove that RLM was responsible for my opinion shift of Lucas for it to be evidence.
And already you simplify the points to make your position look stronger than it is. I asked you how you expect us to determine his "true" meaning (which frankly rates right up there with the vague "bigger picture" everyone claims RLM had in mind when he demonstrably did not) and the answer you stand by is the retarded "Tone" bullshit. I asked for evidence that he micromanages the franchise AND gets rid of people who challenge him, and you give evidence that he controls ONE area of business-- marketing, an area which doesn't relate to the movie itself-- and for the second all you give me the words of Gary Kurtz who has not worked with Lucas since before the last OT movie was done filming. This isn't me dismissing things that don't fit my preconceptions of Lucas-- I don't have any preconceptions of Lucas, you son of a bull's shit! I don't know the man! Hell, when it comes right down to it I found TPM to be boring above all else, and found AotC to be the worst Star Wars movie in hindsight. This is you being asked for evidence of very specific talking points (because bluntly that seems to be all they are to you), and you giving evidence that is about as strong as a wet noodle.I never said he doesn't make earnest points. I said you can't detect tone or comprehend meaning so you don't know the difference. You wanted citations for proof that Lucas controls his franchise I provided you with a couple, but you either misread them or dismissed them because they didn't fit your point of view of Lucas.
The feeling is more than mutual.I try to address all parts of the argument, but there is only some many times you can drive in a circle with someone.