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

[The Asiduo]

It’s a pretty well documented fact that Lucas controls his movies very closely.

http://books.google.com/books?id=P2P7pw ... frontcover

Making a joke based on George’s known need to control his films is hardly a smear tactic. You seem obsessed with protecting Lucas from RLM's opinion on how it appears Lucas works.

LOL. On what planet is "[he] probably got rid of those people that questioned him creatively a long time ago" not a baseless smear? Or do you have the page number in the book you linked to which substantiates said statement?

In any event, your post is another exercise in "everything stupid in the review is a joke because I know Stoklasa's mind, and everything that isn't stupid is serious". It's total bullshit, nothing you say in relation to what is and isn't a joke has any basis apart from your say so.

It's not a thing about "reading Stoklasa's mind". It's simple a four letter word: "TONE".

The review is narrated by a character, impersonating a 100-year old murder. Yeah, that CLEARLY sets the tone for "serious review".

The review is just a "tongue-in-cheek" critique of Star Wars Episode I, which is so popular because it's funny (matter of taste, anyway), and makes good general points about the plot holes and the stupid things in the movie.

I think the main reasons of why this movie generates so much hatred are:

a) It was massively overhyped before release.
b) The story seems rather vague and pointless in the main Star Wars story.
c) Many plot devices (midichlorians, C3PO, R2D2, Jar Jar, Trade Federation, etc.) are just stupid.
d) The characters of the movie are dull and underdeveloped.

And, pretty much, Stoklasa covered all these points. And yes, he made it using nitpicking, jokes and opinions. And, (oh the humanity!), he made comments suggesting Lucas being surrounded by "yes-men". Considering that similar comments have been made by people who worked with Lucas personally, I don't think that's such a "great revelation".

[Formless]

It's not a thing about "reading Stoklasa's mind". It's simple a four letter word: "TONE".

Tone?? TONE??!! Are you fucking kidding? Plinkett says everything in a monotone. Its literally impossible to tell when he is being serious and when he is kidding based on his tone of voice because it never changes. And frankly, before you try and claim that everything he says is a joke, the fact that he felt it necessary to add the disclaimer "but I wasn't there" to some of his statements (even though again that does not excuse his words) means at least some of his review was either serious or he knew people would take him seriously.

Eidt:

Considering that similar comments have been made by people who worked with Lucas personally, I don't think that's such a "great revelation".

Source now asshole.

[The Asiduo]

Tone?? TONE??!! Are you fucking kidding? Plinkett says everything in a monotone. Its literally impossible to tell when he is being serious and when he is kidding based on his tone of voice because it never changes. And frankly, before you try and claim that everything he says is a joke, the fact that he felt it necessary to add the disclaimer "but I wasn't there" to some of his statements (even though again that does not excuse his words) means at least some of his review was either serious or he knew people would take him seriously.

Oh, boy, here we go again XD!!. Have you heard the idea of a word having two different meanings?. For example:

A mother arguing with his son: "Don't use that tone of voice with me, Mister!"

A book review on the Hobbit: "I think the tone of the book was light and funny until the end when it got darker."

In the first case, we're talking about "voice": you know, that thing with "sound" and related to "mechanical waves", "wavelength", etc., stuff like that. In the second case, we're talking about the "feel" we got from the book: it's not like the book is talking, and had a voice, you know?.

Then, in the subject at hand. What was the "tone" from Plinkett review on TPM?. I don't know, it's a matter of opinion, I guess. But, IMHO, a review that begins with jokes such as:

"Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, was the most disappointing thing since my son...".

I would guess it's not a "dead serious" tone. Perhaps I would guess that it has a "dark comedy" tone. Who knows?. I hope I won't get sued for this.

Considering that similar comments have been made by people who worked with Lucas personally, I don't think that's such a "great revelation".

Source now asshole.

All right, it's not like we're arguing for some stupid nerd stuff: This is SERIOUS BUSINESS. Thank heavens I found the link on Google, or perhaps George Lucas could have sued me!. XD!!!

http://www.filmthreat.com/interviews/8/

Oh, we had lots, lots of confrontations. I think one of the problems that Lucas has
now, in the Lucas Film empire, is the fact that he doesn’t have more people around him who really challenge him

It's not like it was the same quote that Stoklasa used in his video... oh wait, it is.

[Formless]

Oh, boy, here we go again XD!!. Have you heard the idea of a word having two different meanings?. For example:

A mother arguing with his son: "Don't use that tone of voice with me, Mister!"

A book review on the Hobbit: "I think the tone of the book was light and funny until the end when it got darker."

In the first case, we're talking about "voice": you know, that thing with "sound" and related to "mechanical waves", "wavelength", etc., stuff like that. In the second case, we're talking about the "feel" we got from the book: it's not like the book is talking, and had a voice, you know?.

Then, in the subject at hand. What was the "tone" from Plinkett review on TPM?. I don't know, it's a matter of opinion, I guess. But, IMHO, a review that begins with jokes such as:

"Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, was the most disappointing thing since my son...".

I would guess it's not a "dead serious" tone. Perhaps I would guess that it has a "dark comedy" tone. Who knows?. I hope I won't get sued for this.

You are a fucking imbecile. Its entirely possible, common even, for comedies to contain parts that are intended to be funny and parts that are intended to be serious, or even to use the serious parts to set up the jokes. Especially when the comedian doubles as a critic. When, say, Chuck Sonnenburg makes a joke about how a piece of technobabble would make just as much sense as saying [insert absurdity here] he is taking a true statement and making it funny through observation. When, say, the Nostalgia Critic, Spoony, and Linkara reviewed Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark they made a sarcastic comment about how the film's ending shot ripped off The Evil Dead; but they didn't just say so, they showed both pieces of footage so no one could say they made that accusation up. Furthermore, all four of those web-reviewers/comedians make some efforts to research their material before commenting on it especially if they are talking about the backstage production issues. Unless you can show that all the things said in the RLM TPM review were intended to be farcical, I am not buying this pathetic excuse for an argument.

All right, it's not like we're arguing for some stupid nerd stuff: This is SERIOUS BUSINESS. Thank heavens I found the link on Google, or perhaps George Lucas could have sued me!. XD!!!

http://www.filmthreat.com/interviews/8/

Oh, we had lots, lots of confrontations. I think one of the problems that Lucas has
now, in the Lucas Film empire, is the fact that he doesn’t have more people around him who really challenge him

It's not like it was the same quote that Stoklasa used in his video... oh wait, it is.

Gary Kurtz has not worked with Lucas since Empire. He is in no position to talk about Lucas's career or backstage behavior with regards to the prequels. Try again.

[The Asiduo]

You are a fucking imbecile. Its entirely possible, common even, for comedies to contain parts that are intended to be funny and parts that are intended to be serious, or even to use the serious parts to set up the jokes. Especially when the comedian doubles as a critic. When, say, Chuck Sonnenburg makes a joke about how a piece of technobabble would make just as much sense as saying [insert absurdity here] he is taking a true statement and making it funny through observation. When, say, the Nostalgia Critic, Spoony, and Linkara reviewed Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark they made a sarcastic comment about how the film's ending shot ripped off The Evil Dead; but they didn't just say so, they showed both pieces of footage so no one could say they made that accusation up. Furthermore, all four of those web-reviewers/comedians make some efforts to research their material before commenting on it especially if they are talking about the backstage production issues. Unless you can show that all the things said in the RLM TPM review were intended to be farcical, I am not buying this pathetic excuse for an argument.

Hahahahahahahhahahahaha XD!!!, oh man, this is so funny!. XD!!

Right, right. You win: Stoklasa REALLY thought Star Wars TPM was the most dissapointing thing since his son who hanged himself in a Gas Station. XD!!!

I think it's rather pathological you focus all your poison against Stoklasa in the final 5 minutes of his review when he shows some backstage footage and uses the Kurtz's quote. The first time I saw those "EEVIL" comments I laughed and thought he was just making tongue-in-cheek comments of the thing. But hey, what the hell: I guess he's just an EEVIL guy, trying to discredit Lucas. Just like Palpatine is just EEVIL because he's a Sith... Mmmm, now I understand why you get so angry when people criticizes TPM.

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.

I rest my case. Poor Mike. There goes your idea about "rational people" understanding the idea of Plinkett reviews.

Gary Kurtz has not worked with Lucas since Empire. He is in no position to talk about Lucas's career or backstage behavior with regards to the prequels. Try again.

Hahahahahahaha, all I said was: "people who worked with Lucas said that he was surrounded by yes-men". Gary Kurtz worked with Lucas, and he said something like that. If you don't think Gary Kurtz it's a credible source (the guy who produced ESB and work with Lucas in his finest days), be my guest.

(Please don't tell George Lucas about this or he'll sue me XD!!!)

[Formless]

I haven't seen this much flailing about looking for an excuse to ignore the point in a long while. I mean, once again you make an argument that Raynor predicted in his opening statements:

Isn't it all just his opinion?
No, the things stated in the RLM review aren't just Stoklasa's opinion. I'm going to go over the subject of opinions now, since this is an excuse that I've already seen too many times.

An opinion is just personal belief, that doesn't have to be justified by anything at all. If someone simply says "I like the color red," then who are you to dispute that? How can anyone even dispute that? You can't. Similarly, if someone just says "I didn't like Episode I," then he is entitled to that opinion. Pure opinions reside in safe territory, and can't be disputed on logical grounds since they aren't based on any logic to begin with.

The flip side to that is that pure opinions are also utterly unconvincing. Who cares if someone likes the color red, or doesn't like a certain movie? Everybody has opinions. No one should be able to convince anyone else that their opinion is the "correct" one if it isn't founded on anything consistent and external to themselves.

But the RLM review doesn't stay within the safety of pure opinion, and its supporters do think that it's a very convincing denunciation of TPM. The bulk of the RLM review is spent on nitpicking the movie's plot, in an effort to show that TPM makes no sense and that George Lucas is a terrible writer. When you argue that something in a movie doesn't make any sense, you are making claims about how it relates to other things, onscreen or in real life. Things which exist outside of yourself, and can be observed by everyone. You have stepped away from pure opinion, and into the realm of factual statements. That makes your statements fair game for analysis and criticism.

(emphasis of the end paragraph is mine)

Also, you completely ignored the fact that I was asking for citations that people who have worked with him recently think he is a controlling boss surrounded by yes men, which you seem to think validates the claim that he is in fact surrounded by yes men. You gave exactly one person making that claim, and that person has not worked with Lucas recently enough to comment on the backstage goings on of the prequels. Even Stoklasa wasn't satisfied to have merely Gary Kurtz word for it, or he wouldn't have said:

5:24
Plinkett: "You can really see this in the behind-the-scenes videos [a few clips are shown]. People look scared around George...they laugh at his bad jokes. When he comes into the room there's like silence, and fear, terror. Every so often you'll catch some looks of confusion and mistrust. You gotta wonder what some of these people were thinking."

stupid and conspiratorial as his thinking was. You want to stand by your claim that "Considering that similar comments [on Lucas being surrounded by Yes Men] have been made by people who worked with Lucas personally, I don't think that's such a "great revelation" [that Lucas is surrounded by Yes Men]" you show your work. Who said it, and why should we take their word for it?

[Formless]

So be it. I'll let the moderators deal with you now.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

You mean that directors/producers have an intense need to control their movies? *GASP*

It’s not s surprise that an artist wants control of his work, but Lucas is one of the few cases of someone who has control of both the business and the creative. So he quite literally has complete control of every aspect of the film.

And what you are saying is that he is clearly joking, so he doesn't actually mean it? Or he is clearly joking so he is clearly exaggerating?

What I’m saying is he is using Hyperbole for effect. When he says they should fight the entire army it because he equates this with being as plausible as taking the risk of running an entire military blockade with one ship.

Tone?? TONE??!! Are you fucking kidding? Plinkett says everything in a monotone. Its literally impossible to tell when he is being serious and when he is kidding based on his tone of voice because it never changes.

If you can’t tell when Plinkett is changing his tone, this explains everything. I wouldn’t even know where to begin, but how about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&t=4m26s

That’s Charlie Bucket in the lower right hand corner. He’s not a girl, despite what Plinkett said about getting the girl in the end of a movie. This juxtaposition is what makes it funny.

And frankly, before you try and claim that everything he says is a joke, the fact that he felt it necessary to add the disclaimer "but I wasn't there" to some of his statements (even though again that does not excuse his words) means at least some of his review was either serious or he knew people would take him seriously.

Actually it does excuse his words, because once he says, “I wasn’t there” or “probably” you know he’s stating opinion. I don’t think anyone accepts his opinion on the behind the scenes footage as a factual account. He watched the behind the scenes footage and makes a hypothesis as to why TPM was a bad movie based on a number of factors, one of them being the fact that Lucas owes and controls every aspect of the Star Wars franchise.

Raynor left out an important part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIWKMgJs_Gs&t=7m20s

If he wasn't there, then why does he talk so much about how things might have happened? It doesn't matter if he eventually admits his lack of knowledge, because he has already done the job of smearing Lucas's image and giving viewers the impression that he wanted.

Because he’s creating a hypothesis for why TPM failed, why the originals worked and what he feels went wrong. It’s his opinion about Lucas, lots of people have them.

The whole thing is a joke, but that doesn’t disqualify it from being a critique. You guys just miss the point because you take everything literally.

[Elfdart]

Because he’s creating a hypothesis for why TPM failed, why the originals worked and what he feels went wrong.

In what way did the movie fail? Because Heathcliff didn't like it?

It’s his opinion about Lucas, lots of people have them.

The whole thing is a joke, but that doesn’t disqualify it from being a critique. You guys just miss the point because you take everything literally.

No you lying piece of shit. Red Letter Moron and his little cockgoblins (yes, this includes you) try to pass off their opinions as fact -such as the claim that TPM "failed". By every objective standard the movie was successful:

The only movie that has earned more at the domestic box office since TPM was Avatar.

The movie did well with audiences and critics, earning overall favorable reviews -better than TESB and ROTJ did when they were first released.

Feel free to show by what standard The Phantom Menace "failed".

[Formless]

If you can’t tell when Plinkett is changing his tone, this explains everything. I wouldn’t even know where to begin, but how about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&t=4m26s

That’s Charlie Bucket in the lower right hand corner. He’s not a girl, despite what Plinkett said about getting the girl in the end of a movie. This juxtaposition is what makes it funny

What the fuck are you droning on about? What the does him showing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (haha pedophile joke ) have to do with the fact that his monotone voice makes it neigh impossible to distinguish between his jokes and his honest complaints? Are your reading comprehension skills just that damn bad?

Because he’s creating a hypothesis for why TPM failed, why the originals worked and what he feels went wrong. It’s his opinion about Lucas, lots of people have them.

And the hypothesis rests on slander-- in that link you provided he repeats the assertion that Lucas had "total control" over the production in spite of the fact that LucasFilm has a marketing department, an art department, an SFX department, etc and every step of the way Lucas has total control?!! Are you completely out of your mind? Are you on drugs? Did your mother drop you on your head as a child? What is it that makes a human being this fucking stupid? I mean, even if you are just being dishonest, you would still be one of the stupidest people around for thinking that idiocy would escape anyone even slightly sane.

[Formless]

Ghetto edit:

The whole thing is a joke, but that doesn’t disqualify it from being a critique. You guys just miss the point because you take everything literally.

Nice try, dipshit, but it was The Asiduo who was trying to deny that any of it could be taken seriously because it was a joke, not Raynor myself or anyone else. If it can be both a critique and a joke, then its still a critique and a horribly stupid and dishonest one at that. Also, what parts of that should be taken literally and what parts shouldn't? Give me some criteria, because when the whole thing is monotonous that's a pretty tall order.

[nygma619]

Nice try, dipshit

Seriously is everyone here THIS immature when responding to someone? How about this as a simple answer, SATIRE!

For example RLM showed a clip Han Solo being prepared for frozen carbonation and uses that when saying he probably got rid of people he questioned a long time ago. His point was about getting rid of the people who questioned him creatively, only he used a clip to greatly exaggerate the extremes he might go to. Obviously everyone (including him) knows no sort of torture happened to people he did business with.

It's similar how people like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert might've played a clip of Dick Cheney marching and them playing "March of the empire" in the background, to show "how evil" he is, because of actions he has taken. Obviously we all know thats not exactly true, and even JS & SC would know this, but they greatly exaggerate this for comedic effect.

Just like people have been exaggerating "how dumb" George W. Bush is for years because of certain perceived bumbling actions he has taken. Now we all know deep down (at least I HOPE WE DO) that the former president is not AS dumb as exaggerated.

Anyways my point is if your going to call what RLM portrayed George Lucas as, and calling him a scumbag. You might as well call the above people I pointed out (JS & SC) above for being scumbags.
Personally I think the people calling him a scumbag, or saying that RLM is using smear tactics against him are either being overly sensitive and/or are reading way too much into those things.

[Formless]

Seriously is everyone here THIS immature when responding to someone?

Usually people who say stuff like this get referred to the board motto, but lets take a different tack. A few titles of threads from the current first page of Parting Shots:

"LionElJohnson has absolutely no shame"
"[Boombaye] Read the Fucking Rules"
"[avianmosquito] Headshots: a lesson in Stupidity"
"[marsh8472] Bye, asshole"
"Show Trial #1231 for Rueben."
"globalafrikanpower's Racist Hatfuckery"
"Worthless Spammer[Schuyler Colfax/ElitePwnage]"

And of course, there is the content of those threads which you can read on your own time. Does that answer your question?

Anyways my point is if your going to call what RLM portrayed George Lucas as, and calling him a scumbag. You might as well call the above people I pointed out (JS & SC) above for being scumbags.

I believe I already explained the difference between a mere insult and slander on the last page, and posted Raynor's explanation for why RLM's review went beyond mere opinion on this page.

[nygma619]

Seriously is everyone here THIS immature when responding to someone?

Usually people who say stuff like this get referred to the board motto, but lets take a different tack. A few titles of threads from the current first page of Parting Shots:

"LionElJohnson has absolutely no shame"
"[Boombaye] Read the Fucking Rules"
"[avianmosquito] Headshots: a lesson in Stupidity"
"[marsh8472] Bye, asshole"
"globalafrikanpower's Racist Hatfuckery"
"Worthless Spammer[Schuyler Colfax/ElitePwnage]"

And of course, there is the content of those threads which you can read on your own time. Does that answer your question?

So this gives everyone the excuse to be as classless as possible, got it.

I believe I already explained the difference between a mere insult and slander on the last page, and posted Raynor's explanation for why RLM's review went beyond mere opinion on this page.

So you and he didn't get it either?
Also for someone who's willing to go out of their way to call someone a scumbag, guys like you and Raynor certainly seem to have no problem in cursing at people, and/or viciously insult someone just because you guys might not see eye to eye with someone who disagrees with you.

[Darth Tedious]

So this gives everyone the excuse to be as classless as possible, got it.

Seriously, go read the board rules. And stop whining.

[Formless]

So this gives everyone the excuse to be as classless as possible, got it.

No, actually, the board draws the line very precisely. For starters, no hate speech (what some of those guys were banned for). But yes, the board owner values intelligence over politeness, as does most (though not all) the members of this forum. If you would like to know more, he even wrote a blog post about it recently which happens to contain no fouler words than "idiotic". You can read that here.

(You might also note that I have yet to swear at you in either of these posts. Simply because I can doesn't mean I do it all the time. You might find most people are that way here)

So you and he didn't get it either?

What don't I get? That you don't accept arguments you don't like, from people you don't like?

Also for someone who's willing to go out of their way to call someone a scumbag, guys like you and Raynor certainly seem to have no problem in cursing at people, and/or viciously insult someone just because you guys might not see eye to eye with someone who disagrees with you.

And our language has anything to do with the validity of our statements how? (here is a useful phrase for you: Ad Hominem Fallacy)

[Havok]

You mean that directors/producers have an intense need to control their movies? *GASP*

It’s not s surprise that an artist wants control of his work, but Lucas is one of the few cases of someone who has control of both the business and the creative. So he quite literally has complete control of every aspect of the film.

Wait, so because he actually does have control over every aspect, that somehow equates to it being "intense need to control and personally oversee every aspect of his film"? Lucas is a bad man because he doesn't delegate responsibility.

And quite honestly, this a ridiculous argument as Hollywood is wrought with power battles over creative control of movies. To say Lucas is a unique case simply because he actually does is asinine.

And what you are saying is that he is clearly joking, so he doesn't actually mean it? Or he is clearly joking so he is clearly exaggerating?

What I’m saying is he is using Hyperbole for effect. When he says they should fight the entire army it because he equates this with being as plausible as taking the risk of running an entire military blockade with one ship.

Oh christ. "so he is clearly exaggerating?" "No, he is using extravagant exaggeration Hyperbole for effect."

Looks like it is definition time.

hy·per·bo·le
noun \hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē\
Definition of HYPERBOLE
: extravagant exaggeration (as “mile-high ice-cream cones”)

Bonus definition:

block·ade–run·ner
noun \-ˈkād-ˌrə-nər\
Definition of BLOCKADE-RUNNER
: a ship or person that runs through a blockade

Where would Lucas possibly get the idea that this was plausible?

[nygma619]

So this gives everyone the excuse to be as classless as possible, got it.

Seriously, go read the board rules. And stop whining.

Yes I know there's certain boundaries here but I'm not talking about rules in general (and/or what you can get away with), I'm talking about actual maturity and/or decency. Regardless if the rules give you permission to be rude or obnoxious.

[Havok]

So this gives everyone the excuse to be as classless as possible, got it.

Yes I know there's certain boundaries here but I'm not talking about rules in general (and/or what you can get away with), I'm talking about actual maturity and/or decency. Regardless if the rules give you permission to be rude or obnoxious.

Look dude, if you don't like it here then fucking leave. This is not a 'Miss Manners" board, but we do have rules. Here though things that matter have the rules behind them like plagiarism, homophobia, racism, breaking real life laws (even though they are just Canadian laws). Nygma619 having thin skin and being a whinny cunt about it doesn't happen to have a rule behind it.

Ghetto edit: To add more whining.

[Darth Tedious]

...and stop whining.

For fuck's sake!

[nygma619]

So this gives everyone the excuse to be as classless as possible, got it.

(You might also note that I have yet to swear at you in either of these posts. Simply because I can doesn't mean I do it all the time. You might find most people are that way here)

And believe me, I actually appreciate that. But if most people are that way at this forum, it's certainly not THIS THREAD.

So you and he didn't get it either?

What don't I get? That you don't accept arguments you don't like, from people you don't like?[/quote]

That not everything in the 70-minute review was made with the sole purpose of attacking George Lucas. Mike Stoklasa even mentioned it in an interview how his reviews weren't anti-Star Wars propaganda.

And our language has anything to do with the validity of our statements how? (here is a useful phrase for you: Ad Hominem Fallacy)

"He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

So your saying that there is "no truth" to the theory that George has become "the system", the very thing he rebelled against?

I think there's some truth to Lucas surrounding himself with yes men who patronize him (like laughing at his bad jokes), or how there's a certain lack of energy in some of the behind the scenes features. But I feel that really comes across, not in the behind the scenes features, but in the actual movies. The actors performances for the most part come across as static, lifeless, and boring in their performances. Whether it's great actors like McGregor, Neeson, Portman, Jackson, Lee or people I consider terrible actors like Christenson, or Lloyd. Besides it's been documented elsewhere from some of the actors (like McGregor) that working on the prequels wasn't that much of a joy for them.

I'm not saying Lucas doesn't take any criticisms people have with the films seriously at all. We saw less of Jar Jar after the Phantom Menace. All I'm saying is that I wish he'd consider the larger criticism's as well (the acting, the characters who feel unrelatable, the dialogue, the gratuitous use of CGI, etc.).

[nygma619]

Nygma619 having thin skin and being a whinny cunt about it doesn't happen to have a rule behind it.

I'm guessing you don't have much in the way of people skills outside of the internet, if this is how you respond to someone who didn't say anything to you in the first place. At least Formless has shown some class.

Yeah no one says I have to be here but no one says you have to respond either. But you certainly feel like your obligated to.

[Havok]

George Lucas never "rebelled" against the system, he got so fucking rich that he could do what he wanted without it. As the rest of Hollywood still is the 'system' and that is what 95% of people still work through, Lucas has hardly 'become "the system"'.

My gawd, do people really look on the OT with that much nostalgia that they can't recognize that the acting in it is about one step above the PT if at all?

And relate-able characters? You mean like the kid that is home sick? The awkward kid that is cast off from society? The teenager that has issues with his father(figure)? The teenager that has issues with his teachers? The teenagers that can't properly express their love? Come the fuck on.

The dialogue: See the comment on acting above.

The CGI is fucking fine. Again how much can nostalgia cloud the mind. If Lucas had used stop motion in the PT people would have pitched a fit about how he didn't innovate like he did on the OT. Oh wait, he did try to use old EFX. How did Yoda work out in TPM? Oh that's right.

Come the fuck on.

[Havok]

Nygma619 having thin skin and being a whinny cunt about it doesn't happen to have a rule behind it.

I'm guessing you don't have much in the way of people skills outside of the internet, if this how you respond to someone who didn't say anything to you in the first place. At least Formless has shown some class.

Yeah no one says I have to be here but no says you have to respond either. But you certainly feel like your obligated to.

Oh no I have no class?!?!

I'm tired of the same bullshit whining from new members when people here don't agree with them. "OMG you are all such meanies!" The difference is I like it here and I like the way it is. You have the problem with it.

[Formless]

And believe me, I actually appreciate that. But if most people are that way at this forum, it's certainly not THIS THREAD.

At least Formless has shown some class.

You realize I wasn't being polite for your benefit, right? I was doing it to show that choice of language can be changed at a moments notice, and says nothing about the intelligence or honesty of the person, you stupid smug little dipshit. Also, what the hell does "its certainly not THIS THREAD" even mean?

That not everything in the 70-minute review was made with the sole purpose of attacking George Lucas. Mike Stoklasa even mentioned it in an interview how his reviews weren't anti-Star Wars propaganda.

Another useful phrase for you: Strawman Fallacy. None of the people criticizing Stoklasa or his wretched review claimed that the whole thing was an attack on Lucas, but that they do contain such attacks. Contrary to whatever Stoklasa might say, he clearly wasn't being honest in his portrayal of the movies in several aspects (characterization, the plot, the themes), leading one to think he might just be lying through his cockbiting teeth about his intentions.

"He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

"He who cannot think for himself should not repeat cliche's, lest he reveal his shortcoming." Quote by Formless, circa 2011.

So your saying that there is "no truth" to the theory that George has become "the system", the very thing he rebelled against?

What does this have to do with anything? I mean, anything?

I think there's some truth to Lucas surrounding himself with yes men who patronize him (like laughing at his bad jokes), or how there's a certain lack of energy in some of the behind the scenes features. But I feel that really comes across, not in the behind the scenes features, but in the actual movies. The actors performances for the most part come across as static, lifeless, and boring in their performances. Whether it's great actors like McGregor, Neeson, Portman, Jackson, Lee or people I consider terrible actors like Christenson, or Lloyd. Besides it's been documented elsewhere from some of the actors (like McGregor) that working on the prequels wasn't that much of a joy for them.

Simply repeating an assertion till your opponents eyes bleed doesn't mean there must be a grain of truth to it. Did you not notice that someone else got HoS'd for this shit just today? And no, I don't see it in the actors performances, though I must thank you for revealing your emotional bias. Really, at the point where you think you can the read minds of actors you've never met, something clearly isn't working between your ears.