The Asiduo wrote:
And again the argument "70 minutes make it serious".
Don't strawmander, please.
*snip yapping*
His stated goal, as I have repeated over and over again is: "he just wants to get his opinion out there, which is: The OT are lousy movies. And he's doing it in a fun and different way: in character of a 100-year old rapist": it doesn't get more serious than that. So, yeah, the thing is just a statement of opinions mixed with jokes.
So? As I asked you OVER AND OVER, how does that exempt what he says from criticism?
You know what -- don't answer that now. Let's look some examples first.
0:53
Plinkett: "Nothing in The Phantom Menace makes any sense at all. It comes off like a script written by an eight-year old. It's like George Lucas finished the script in one draft, like he turned it in and they decided to go with it, without anyone saying that it made no sense at all, or it was a stupid incoherent mess"
Jim:
As you will see later on, TPM made far more sense than Stoklasa gives it credit for. The alternative stories that he suggests actually make less sense than the actual thing.[/i]
And as
you should be able to see, Jim didn't attack the "eight-year old" joke, the one draft joke or the general hyperbole that the movie made "no sense at all." (I think the film's half-assed opposite the OT, but not because it made "no sense at all." Simply because a plot's not strong doesn't mean it's hopelessly
retarded.)
What did Jim do instead? Just as you insist he should, he focuses on the meat; i.e., Stoklasa's claim that the movie didn't make sense.
1:10
Unsupported statements that Lucas "controls every aspect of the movie" and "probably got rid of those people that questioned him creatively a long time ago" are made. Basic smear tactics.
Stoklasa wasn't "joking" here, and I think he is partly right. I honestly doubt George's flunkies would challenge him the way Kershner did. And I'd say like any big-time director, he probably is a bit of a control freak.
But Jim is right to cite this for what it is: Stoklasa either being dishonest or ignorant. As people pointed out many pages ago, Lucas acknowledged that he's not a good actor director. He wanted to bring in someone else to handle that task for Ep. 1 IIRC. Thus, to say the guy has to be in complete control and all that stuff is simply exaggerating. (Don't give me that Tu Quoque about how movie critics often exaggerate for effect. Preschool Johnny has no business drinking bourbon. That his dad knocks back a fifth every night has no bearing on that fact.)
1:53
The review abruptly jumps to its first part, "1. The Characters."
Plinkett talks about movie "Protagonists" (annoying pronounced "Pro-toe-gone-ist"). He makes some fair points about the value of having likable, identifiable protagonists who the audience roots for, though he's very decompressed as he runs off a long list of movie heroes and shows numerous short clips from various movies. Mostly he shows a bunch of teenage and young adult Regular Joe characters taking crap from people early in their movies, before their adventures start. This takes up most of the next four minutes.
Ah, okay. Jim notes he's annoyed by Plinkett's senile mind struggling with pronunciations, which is a "joke." But, whoops: look what he says next?
Rather than focus on the stupid joke, Jim addresses and acknowledges Stoklasa's point -- that is, movies greatly benefit from good protagonists.
He goes on to criticize the manner in which RLM does this, whatwith the laundry list of recognizable movie heroes and what ensues.
Was he incorrect to pick at this? No, because RLM gilded the lily. After he'd made his point, he needlessly persisted.
Jim doesn't say it, but I think that's pretty disingenuous; by rambling on with even more examples, Plinkett compares TPM's protagonist to a whole HOST of other time-tested heroes.
The problem in so doing is that those heroes are great for
different reasons (consider the differences between Indiana Jones and Marty McFly). This plants a pernicious little seed in the Plinkett viewer's mind: by comparing the TPM character to those very different protagonists, one subconsciously measures the former against ALL of them. Opposite the principled but naive rookie from "Training Day," resourceful MacGuyver-type, fearless warrior-king Conan, smart-assed NYC-saving Peter Venkman, wacky but ever-reliable Leo Getz and brave underdog Frodo Baggins, of
course the Menace character will seem lacking by comparison
Clever trick, if that's what he intended to do -- but still misleading in the extreme.
5:33
Plinkett: "I want you to tell me who the main character of The Phantom Menace was."
He goes through the various characters of TPM, starting with the two Jedi, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi:
Plinkett: "I can tell ya that it's not the Jedi, they were just on some kinda boring mission that they didn't really care about." [A short clip is shown of Qui-Gon taking a Trade Federation servant droid's drink, as he was sitting down for planned negotiations]
Jim: The Jedi didn't care about their mission? They were just there drinking tea, and not fighting? It's really nice to see him make his first real point against the movie in such a fair and honest way. He's totally not trying to start things off by putting misleading impressions in people's heads...
He also calls the Jedi "boring." That's OK if that's his opinion, although being "boring" doesn't disqualify someone from being a main character.
Here's a secret: Qui-Gon is the main character and big hero of this movie, which spends most of its time following him.
While this is purely a guess on my part, I could almost grant that Stoklasa wasn't being "100% serious" here. In other words, I doubt he
literally thinks the Jedi simply didn't give a shit about their mission. It's more a comment on how bland the first few minutes of the movie were -- especially opposite the OT's openings, which Plinkett gushes about at least once.
But guess what? Even
if Stoklasa's "in character" here and not entirely serious, you're still wrong to suggest Jim should let this slide.
Why?
Read the quoted selection again. RLM asks a [potentially complex] question about the movie's lead character. Then, he disregards Qui-Gon, who is clearly the main character, on the basis how boring he was in the first few minutes of Menace. That IS incredibly misleading,
just as Jim says. Do I really need to explain
why?
I probably will, so here goes.
During the most recent election, my aunt had finished voting and was in a parking lot, walking toward her car. On the way, a jackass who'd also just left the polls started talking on a cell phone. He motioned to her and asked, "Excuse me, what town is this?" My aunt was puzzled but nonetheless told him. He turned away and said into the phone, "Okay. We're leaving 'Gastonia' in a minute. We're going to Shelby next." My aunt watched him and some others get onto a church bus, which was already packed.
The man
didn't even know where he was, so he was obviously guilty of voter fraud. Given what my aunt overheard, it's highly likely he and the other people ambling onto that bus were going to another city to perpetrate the same crime.
The prick on the phone and people on the bus were black. On that basis, then, what would you say if I said black people (or people riding church buses) are criminals?
Among other fallacies, I'd be wrong to draw that conclusion because it is a hasty generalization: even if everyone on that bus broke the law that day, 40 or so people
are not representative of all black folk or people who ride church buses. Other examples of hasty generalizations include:
*That French woman who lived to be one hundred-something smoked most of her life. Therefore, smoking isn't harmful to anyone's health.
*Bob drank himself stupid one night and got home safely. Therefore, drunk driving is safe.
*Every redhead I've met was crazy, and I've met a bunch. Therefore, all redheads crazy.
Similarly, assuming Qui-Gon isn't the protagonist on the basis of a few "boring" minutes is presumptuous; it often takes more time to establish a connection to a new character. Was Luke especially engaging the first few minutes he was onscreen?
But let's back up. I've already demonstrated that even when we don't take a particular comment
literally, that does not mean what
you suggest it must.
What's next, then? Ah, yes: jokes. Where were the jokes in this passage? I don't see any. Nope. Nothing so subjective as "peach ice cream is my favorite" such as to exempt RLM from counter-criticism, either.
But let's keep going. I want to give you ample opportunity to back up this goofy "it's just a joke" excuse.
5:47
Plinkett: "It wasn't Queen Amidala, cuz she was some foreign queen the movie was certainly not really about specifically either."
Jim: True, she's just a supporting character.
5:54
Plinkett: "Ya might be thinking that it's Anakin, cuz he's like a slave, and saved the day at the end, by accidentally blowing up the starship. But the audience doesn't meet Anakin until 45 minutes into the movie."
Jim: Wrong. Anakin shows up at almost exactly 32 minutes into the movie. Anakin's resentment at being regarded as a "slave" and not as "a person," as well as his piloting skills and his dreams of leaving Tatooine are quickly introduced. Stoklasa could've made an honest mistake, or he could've been exaggerating to make his case look stronger than it really is.
Again, how are any of Plinkett's comments "just jokes" that we shouldn't take "literally" here? Was RLM kidding when Plinkett says Anakin was a slave or that he "accidentally [blew] up the starship"? Was he joking or less than literal when he says Anakin doesn't even show up for awhile? (Neither did Luke in ANH, so I guess Luke can't be the pro-toe-gon-ist. D'oH.)
No. So, how's Jim off base this time?
Plinkett: "And then the things that are happening around him are pretty much out of his control or understanding. If a protagonist has no concept of what's going on or what's at stake, then there's no real tension or drama. Without that there's no story. So the conclusion is that there isn't one." [very short clips of Anakin being dwarfed by the adult characters, and his eyes shifting around, are shown]
Jim: Another biased portrayal of what happened in the movie. It's amazing how casually Stoklasa passes off false statements during his review, which can go undetected because most people aren't looking at everything so critically. He makes false statements about what is a main character's is thinking, and even about his very motivations. I almost let this one go myself, before realizing that it was completely untrue.
Certain things
were out of Anakin's control, but Jim's also right because Anakin was nowhere near as clueless as RLM says. As Jim notes later in his piece, Anakin was
very the person who pushed for the podrace, which was key to advancing the story! So, yeah, yet again, Stoklasa's exaggerating to beef up his case. Consequently, Raynor is spot-on for like the tenth time now: Stoklasa's review isn't as smart or insightful as a lot of people think it is.
I'm tempted to continue, especially since the next part focuses on Plinkett using his frien -- err, I mean
actors -- to contrast prequel and original trilogy characters. I guess when the one actor stupidly says Jinn was "stern," that was just a joke too, right? I mean, the Q&A bit wasn't
at all meant to support the perfectly rational claim that TPM's characters were dull and unmemorable
Like Jar-Jar, who was so forgettable as to be almost universally hated
He makes some more "intellectual" arguments (mainly in the following reviews), but he's mainly joking, nitpicking and commenting the things he thinks are stupid in the movies.
I'm interested in your definition of "intellectual argument." I think you earlier suggested Jim's arguments weren't intellectual because he cursed.
More fallacious reasoning at work
An intellectual argument needn't be any more complicated than a simple syllogism:
One of my cats likes rat meat.
My other cat does not.
Therefore, not all cats like rat meat.
I think your understanding of logic's been unduly influenced by what you've seen on Star Trek, with the "emotionless but logical" Vulcan drivel.
See, logic and emotion are not mutually exclusive. Further, logical arguments or simple statements of truth and bad language are NOT mutually exclusive. If I said, "You're a stupid fuck for not knowing 2+2 = 4," is my math wrong? No. Since you're an adult, if you didn't know 2 and 2 is 4, yeah, you'd be stupid
So, what particular to that statement is illogical or anti-intellectual?
If you said "nothing," you answered correctly. The "fuck" part is incidental. Is it polite? Of course not, but that has no bearing on how "intellectual" a statement is. I would thank you to stop suggesting otherwise.
Back to RLM:
No, he's not "mainly joking" when he talks about the films. Not even CLOSE. I think I cited a large enough sample size as to accurately represent his approach
and Jim's.
Just as you said, Stoklasa is nitpicking and commenting on things he
thinks are stupid. The key word there is THINKS. Most of the time he says, "Such and such sucks," he cites premises to support his conclusions. That means REASONING is taking place.
Consequently, even if it is "just his opinion***," you unwittingly admitted that most of what he says
is fair game.
***You seem to think an "opinion" is necessarily something that
can't be pinned down or critically evaluated; e.g., your favorite movie, color, food, tit man or ass man. That is not so. An opinion can be something purely individual and immeasurable, but it can also be very well-reasoned, backed with plenty of concrete evidence. Contrarily, an opinion can involve nonsense evidence and so-so reasoning, in which category a lot of Plinkett's "opinions" fall.
Therefore, in addition to dropping the "it's just a joke" defense, would you kindly stop saying "it's just his opinion" as if that somehow shields what he says? Freshman year deductive logic students are taught that's among THE lowest forms of argumentation. I think a good old-fashioned ad baculum is arguably better, and that's snake-belly low.
If you think (as Raynor) that all his comments about the movie are "literal" then you're acting as if "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" is a documentary of the police department in the 60s.
That analogy again? It's so fucked up I don't know where to begin
In this post, I went through about 13 pages of Jim's review, which is over one-tenth. At NO POINT in the course of those 13 pages was Jim guilty of what you suggest. He gave Stoklasa credit when due and when he criticized the RLM review's logic, he shot down Stoklasa's reasoning effectively.
Unless you're willing to claim Jim continuously drops the ball sometime
after p. 13 -- and you're willing to cite specific examples that I can look up and verify for myself -- I think you should concede this one.
.
-- a post which machine-gunned your every insipid "Stoklasa's review is all jokes/not literal/just his 'opinion'" claims to oblivion.