New Redletter Media video about Lucas

[Jim Raynor]

Who's handwaving here?

I'll quote you handwaving in a few seconds...

Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and come clean about the fact that you hadn't even read my rebuttal yet, and how your excuses for the RLM review thus far have basically brushed off the vast majority of its content? This isn't kindergarten, the "yeah you too!" argument doesn't get you off scot free.

Where did I brush anything off as stupid comedy? Some of the RLM review is just comedy, but there are also many serious points.

Then deal with those serious points, if you want to argue about my overall evaluation of his review. From the start, I've been the one encouraging a closer analysis of this. I'm not the one conveniently trying to ignore everything while alluding to a vague "overall point."

Because Palpatine wanted to share credit with someone ELSE who would valiantly stand up for Naboo? Because Palpatine could be 100% sure that Amidala would throw her friend Valorum under the bus? Because Palpatine could count on winning a hasty election with no time to prepare? Don't fail to consider all the facts then insist that something has to be a certain way.

Behold the handwaving. As I said, you're just filling in missing plot details (i.e. making shit up), because TPM itself isn't very clear. You can argue that this isn't a problem for you as a viewer, but you obviously can't refute the point.

Oh please. You made a strong statement that Amidala's testimony "would only help Palpatine's plan," with no support or logic of your own to back that statement up. To refute that statement, all I have to do is point out some reasons why Amidala surviving and testifying on Coruscant could be harmful to Palpatines plan. I don't need to prove each and every one; not all of them have to even be true. The possibility validity of any one of those reasons is enough to refute your accusation of a plot hole. I even forgot to state an even MORE obvious one: Sidious regards the Trade Federation as useful for the time being, and doesn't want them immediately taken down. Criminals tend to look out for their cronies.

And BTW, none of this stuff even has to be addressed to understand the movie, as it plays out. "Palpatine" is not a name that was ever uttered in the original trilogy. It was just "the emperor," that spooky guy in robes with the spooky music. Who looks just like Sidious. Even if you do know the Sidious-Palpatine connection, it's not something the movie ever focused on or required that you understand. Someone watching TPM for the first time, without being steeped in EU lore, would probably just see Palpatine doing what he can to help Naboo, and how dysfunctional the Republic government is. The thrust of that scene is the government dysfunction, and the Trade Federation's obstructionism.

The movie even makes a point of highlighting Palpatine during Qui-Gon's funeral scene, as Mace Windu and Yoda talk about the possibility of another Sith Lord out there. That is supposed to be the twist revelation, the "ah ha!" moment that's supposed to send the viewer guessing and going back to piece clues together.

I'm the "moron"...when YOU are the one absolutely refusing to even address all the points. You insist on your own made up "big picture" which strangely doesn't include the vast majority of the review.

What points?? What are the points you want me to address? Pick a point made by RLM which you feel is completely erroneous and I'll respond.

I wrote a hundred page PDF, showing why the majority of the review is a load of BS. You lazily have not made the effort to even read that, yet you apparently felt the need to come in here to dispute me and defend the honor of the RLM review. As I said before, I don't even care if you agree with him on a few subjective points, or find his poopie and murder jokes funny. Just come clean about the validity and honesty of his points, if you want to keep insisting that it's so great.

Yeah, the same guy who struggled to take down one woman in a car. The same guy who repeatedly screws up during the fighting on Geonosis, gets captured, tied, and has his arm chopped off. The movie even made a plot point out of the fact that Anakin was not all powerful, and couldn't do everything he wanted.

Yeah, the same guy who jumps out of moving vehicles, and falls thousands of feet while his buddy shrugs it off like nothing serious happened.

We've gone through this already. I distinctly remember the previous thread, where you put up a brick wall and refused to acknowledge that that particular feat required prep time and a predictably-moving target.

Also, as I have already stated, Anakin immediately got himself into trouble as soon as he grabbed the speeder, and was clearly not in control of the situation. He screws up and gets smacked around throughout the movie. So your accusation of him being like "Superman" is just a total exaggeration.

The duel in ANH obviously isn't that spectacular, but the point is that it was still very personal: a student versus his former master.

So personal that none of it translates onscreen, and both characters just stand there facing each other in a rather calm way.

The fact that you actually make this argument is utterly baffling to me. I'm starting to think you have entirely different expectations out of drama than I do, or anyone I've ever known does. Do you really not understand the dramatic difference between a set-piece light-sabre duel and an encounter with random henchmen in an action sequence?

Oh please. Be consistent now, and stop straining to make up ever-more particular criticisms and complaints against the prequels. You argued that a personal connection between the hero and his enemy as some kind of big element in having "drama" or "emotion" in a fight scene.

So going by THAT logic, I can only guess that Luke and Han shooting up Stormtroopers or TIE fighters is not dramatic. Thing is, I think you and Stoklasa are just reaching for things to complain about it there. Go on, say it. But I bet you won't.

EDIT: quotes

[Jim Raynor]

That's like asking why people riot or protest in real life, instead of negotiating with the Senate.

Yeah, I actually saw Chuck Schumer rioting in the street just yesterday.

Oh, wait, he argues things in the Senate, because he's a senator. The Trade Federation also had a senator. Presumably, they tried that first and it failed, but if the door opened back up, wouldn't they try it again?

You said it yourself, the political process failed and the Trade Fed presumably didn't get its way. And don't give me a lousy analogy like this. Like armed groups in unstable and ineffectively governed countries have never taken up arms when the political process failed.

And finally, this is another example of you missing the point. Nitpicking a specific example, even if you were dead on target (which you aren't here and often weren't when nitpicking Mr. Plinkett), doesn't invalidate the main point: a character's goal and motives ought to consistently influence their decisions.

Stop the act, you're not fooling anyone smart enough to read through this thread. Was it you who used that "32 minutes" cherry pick to supposedly invalidate my hundred page PDF, or one of the other RLM defenders? Because it almost makes it seem like certain people are trying to avoid dealing with the points while going for the cheap rhetorical trick.

Why did killing the Jedi help this? Couldn't they have just said to them "we'll back off if you give us a tax break" and you know.... negotiated with the negotiators?

The Jedi THEMSELVES stated their intention to intimidate the Trade Federation into backing down. The Trade Fed suspected the same, and was freaking out at the possibility of the Jedi attacking them. Sidious talked them into striking first.

The only demands the Trade Federation even made was making her sign a treaty to legalize the invasion (which they abandoned the instant Sidious told them to) - so, what was the invasion supposed to do in the first place? Why aren't they pressuring her to sign a tax cut?

Stop asking stupid questions. Amidala is a planetary queen and not even a member of the Galactic Senate. Who knows or cares about the very particular details of the political process. Anyone can watch the movie and just understand that they were using force to protest taxes.

Escaping prosecution isn't a clear goal.

Wait, so he was a wanted man in TPM? Why didn't the Jedi come with an arrest warrant then? I thought it was a tax dispute...

You can cut the wiseguy act, because you know well that I'm talking about getting off for things like attacking Naboo in the beginning of the movie.

Clearly being a part of an EVIL CONSPIRACY to undermine the Republic isn't clear.

That's the what, not the why. Did the Republic wrong him in the past? Did he disagree with the Jedi faith or something?

Wow man. Seriously. Dooku turned to the Dark Side and was working with the future Emperor. The Emperor who eventually overthrows the Republic and creates a dictatorship. Dark siders are evil and power hungry, that kind of goes with the whole "dark" thing. Did you ask why the Emperor, or Vader, were evil in the original trilogy? Again, you go out of your way to ask the silly question that you wouldn't ask of the original trilogy.

I already suspected you of deliberate trolling. Posts like this do not make me think otherwise.

They spent multiple movies exploring Anakin and showing why he was dissatisfied with his life.

No, they didn't.

Aaaand here is the point where I just stop responding to you, because you MUST be trolling. At least I hope you are...

[Channel72]

Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and come clean about the fact that you hadn't even read my rebuttal yet,

There's nothing to "come clean" about: I already told you up front I didn't read it.

Regardless, since then I've read part of it. I'll admit: I'm impressed.

Then deal with those serious points, if you want to argue about my overall evaluation of his review. From the start, I've been the one encouraging a closer analysis of this. I'm not the one conveniently trying to ignore everything while alluding to a vague "overall point."

Again, I've read through some of your rebuttal. The sheer volume of all this is too large to address properly in a back-and-forth format on an Internet forum, so by necessity I have to either focus on one particular issue, or address overall "big-picture" issues. I'd rather do the latter.

In general, I admire your commitment to be objective throughout (even if you can't help insulting RLM every few paragraphs...). I'll also admit that your description of Qui-Gon's character traits is a fair point. Overall, I agree with RLM's point that the Prequel characters are lacking in personality, however Qui-Gon is probably the biggest exception. Liam Neeson's performance allowed the character's compassion to show through, and RLM's point would have been much stronger if he picked Obi-Wan instead of Qui-Gon.

However, it's around page 30 of your rebuttal where you just totally lose me. I think RLM's point about the incoherence and uninvolving nature of the plot stands, and your attempted refutation simply strengthens this conclusion.

You write: "Here, we have another example of bad, lazy analysis. Once again, Stoklasa creates problems that don't have to exist, while ignoring or failing to realize the easy answers that are already available."

You then proceed to offer explanations for why the Trade Federation created a communications black-out, and then follow this up with various explanations for the actions of the Senate, etc.

What you don't seem to realize is that by having to explain this AT ALL you're proving RLM's point. You have to make multiple, non-obvious mental leaps to explain all this, since the movie itself doesn't bother. For example, you offer one possible explanation for why the Trade Federation would jam communications. Fair enough, but RLM's point is NOT that no explanation is possible; rather, RLM's point is simply that no explanation is explicitly provided.

A significant portion of your rebuttal in this section boils down to this fundamental misunderstanding. You offer explanation after explanation for the events in TPM - and few or none of the explanations you provide are explicit in the film - they all have to be inferred. So, at the end of the day, our disagreement (as well as your disagreement with RLM), comes down to how much inference is tolerable in a film like this while still maintaining audience interest. This seems to be a very subjective question. You obvious don't mind making all these inferences - but I do. And I'm not alone here. Forget about RLM, many people have made this same criticism of The Phantom Menace. I think I quoted this to you earlier, but way before RLM was ever on the Internet's radar, a 1999 film critic made the same criticism:

The plot has something to do with a trade embargo being waged against a small planet called Naboo, an embargo that turns out to be a disguise for a planned full-scale invasion. We're never told what this tiny planet could possibly be worth to the enormous Trade Federation (the way we understand, in the first "Star Wars," what the baddies stand to gain from the elimination of the rebel forces), so the story's basic conflict has no weight.

Source

Again, I also mentioned to you how even the owner of this site (who seems to be a TPM fan) writes how little we really know about the Trade Feds or their motivations: Very little is known about the Trade Federation. Is it a corporation? Is it a species? Is it the government of a planet? What are the motives of its leaders, and what is their grievance with Naboo or the Republic? We know only a handful of thing.

Last time I pointed this out, you simply dismissed it as an argument from authority. Of course, that's total bullshit: my point is to demonstrate that RLM isn't making some kind of novel or unique argument here: many people found it difficult to get involved with TPM because the plot is very opaque.

Again, you do nothing to disprove this general point: you simply provide possible explanations. But that doesn't counter RLM's point here! I can provide explanations too. Earlier I asked you why Darth Maul went to Tatooine, when on the face of things it would seem that Amidala's Senate testimony played right into Palpatine's plan. So here's a possible explanation: Palpatine's original plan was to get Jimmy Smits to call for the vote of no-confidence, so he didn't need Amidala. See? I can make up things too. The problem is that the movie doesn't say either way, so it's sort of difficult to get involved emotionally when I basically have to mentally write half the god damned script.

Again, this is basically a disagreement over the degree to which audience inference is acceptable in a film of this nature. We'll obviously never reach an agreement on that, because it's subjective. I think that TPM goes WAY beyond what is acceptable in terms of forcing the audience to put together the pieces, especially for what amounts to a space-opera pop-corn film.

However, even though you don't share my opinion on that particular matter, you still have to deal with the objective fact that the OT never demanded such a degree of audience inference. The plot to ANH, for example, is extremely straightfoward, and the actions of all the characters and their driving motivations are spelled out VERY clearly. You don't need to infer the answers to questions like "why did Darth Vader attack the Tantive IV", or "why did Tarkin blow up Alderaan", or "why are the Stormtroopers after the droids", because all of that shit is spelled out clearly. However, you can ask questions like "why did the Trade Federation invade Naboo" or "why did the Trade Federation jam communications" because these issues are not spelled out clearly - rather, the audience is required to infer the answers to these things.

Again - WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS A BAD THING - you can't deny this simple objective reality. And so, for the most part, you haven't done much to counter RLM's point. All you've done is infer possible explanations.

Since that's really the fundamental disagreement between us, and because my response is already getting long, I won't respond to most of the rest of your post unless you really think I missed a key point.

Except for this:

Oh please. Be consistent now, and stop straining to make up ever-more particular criticisms and complaints against the prequels. You argued that a personal connection between the hero and his enemy as some kind of big element in having "drama" or "emotion" in a fight scene.

So going by THAT logic, I can only guess that Luke and Han shooting up Stormtroopers or TIE fighters is not dramatic. Thing is, I think you and Stoklasa are just reaching for things to complain about it there. Go on, say it. But I bet you won't.

Seriously, give me a break. There's a huge dramatic difference between a SET-PIECE LIGHTSABRE BATTLE and random henchmen in an action sequence. You can't possibly tell me you don't see this crucial distinction. I guess I have to once again spell it out for you and demonstrate why the grass is fucking green: A one-on-one duel is a lot more interesting if the combatants already know each other, or have some personal history together. (As an example, just watch any fucking movie where you have a final showdown between the hero and the villain. For god's sake, Homer figured this out in ~800 BC.) This rule obviously doesn't apply to a hero's encounter with random henchmen, like Stormtroopers.

Come on man, this is so fucking obvious I can't believe you'd make such an argument.

[Panzersharkcat]

Surely passing the tax required hundreds of senators to vote yes - why single out Naboo?

Because it's a weakly defended planet with no army whatsoever. It makes for a damn fine hostage.

[Elfdart]

You said it yourself, the political process failed and the Trade Fed presumably didn't get its way.

"Presumably", so you're making shit up.

No, he's just capable of figuring it out because unlike you, he (a) didn't watch the movie with his head up his ass and (b) can think his way out of a wet paper bag. Oh, and he's not trolling -something you're attempting to do but just don't have the knack for, Mr Tryhard.

Dude, I'm not even j/k'in. The Trade Federation has their own fucking senator who was able to get his way every other time. They *are* the system.

Explain how having a senator precludes the use of force when they have every reason to believe they can do so and get away with it. United Fruit Company had quite a few real-life politicians in their pocket and it didn't stop them from hiring mercenaries to attack the government of Guatemala. The point of Trade Federation in TPM is to make clear to anyone who is NOT Full Retard is that the Republic is corrupt.

Palpatine says right out that the "true rulers of the Republic" are "on the payroll of the Trade Federation". Sure, he's probably lying or at least exaggerating to manipulate Queen Ooba-Dooba here.... but, Valorum did concede the point to the Trade Federation senator.

The political system *did* work for them here. If they have the kind of influence to cover up an invasion, couldn't they apply that influence to the tax problem too?

Have you considered cleaning your ears? Sidious tells the TF that he would gum up the works in the Senate on their behalf. So (I realize this requires simple deductive reasoning that you and other AHFBs aren't really up to, so just bear with me) obviously they didn't have quite enough clout to get their way -WHICH IS WHY THEY MADE A FAUSTIAN BARGAIN WITH A SITH LORD IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU FUCKING IMBECILE!

This brings us back to not knowing what's going on. Are these Republic taxes or Naboo's independent taxes?

You should have watched the movie and paid attention you fucking imbecile.

The latter makes a lot more sense,

Only to you, because you're a fucking imbecile.

but you aren't even arguing that, and if you were, you'd be wrong - Palpatine says the problem started "right here [in the Galactic Senate], with the taxation of trade routes". What the hell does Naboo even have to do with the situation?

If you weren't such a complete fucking imbecile, you would be able to surmise that Naboo is either:

a) Exempt from the taxes which the TF has to pay
b) In business with others who are exempt
c) A supporter of the taxes
d) A weak planet -one perfect for a bully to make an example of
e) A link in a tax-exempt trade route
f) All of the above

The TF could have simply picked Naboo at random and decided to smack them around just because they're so pissed off at the taxes. I mean, what did Iraq have to do with the 9/11 attacks? Governments and corporations often decide to do things, and then make up excuses to justify those acts. There's no reason to assume that they're acting rationally. Qui-Gon Jinn himself says there's no logic to what the TF is doing to Naboo.

Surely passing the tax required hundreds of senators to vote yes - why single out Naboo?

Why not? They're weak and the Federation is stronger. They have every reason to believe they can do it without repercussions.

Christ, it makes less and less sense every minute!

That's because you're a fucking imbecile.

No, they weren't. If they were protesting taxes, they would have actually said something about the taxes outside the opening crawl. They would have wanted Amidala to sign a repeal of the taxes.

Amidala can't repeal the taxes herself, you fucking imbecile.

I'm not talking about the very particular details of the political process. I'm talking about them just mentioning their goal at least once through the movie.

They want money and they want to be able to get it by hook or by crook, which you would have known if you weren't a fucking imbecile.

I'm not kidding:

No, you're just trolling -and not very well, I might add. Probably because you're a fucking imbecile.

Search for "tax" as any part of a word. There's seven matches... 5 of which are the word "taxi" and two are "taxation". That's right, the script uses "taxi" more than twice as often as "tax", but ANYONE who watches the movie can OBVIOUSLY see it's all about taxes.

How many times is the Galactic Empire described as "evil" in the OT? Once: In the opening crawl. Now, how many people needed more than that single mention of the "evil Galactic Empire" to realize that the Empire was in fact evil? That's because most people are smart enough to see pay attention to a movie: it saves them the humiliation of saying "Uh, is the uh, Empire the bad guys or something?"

You, on the other hand, have no problem with asking such idiotic questions because you're a fucking imbecile.

Speaking of this Senate scene, why the hell does the Senator from Alderaan second the vote of no confidence? Is he manipulated by Palpatine too? I guess maybe Alderaan was similarly unhappy with Valorum, but it would have been great if the movie actually showed us that.

Does it matter? Apparently Valorum was already on thin ice and all it took was Naboo switching from supporting him to opposing him to tip the balance. As in real life, not everyone acts for the same reasons.

You can cut the wiseguy act, because you know well that I'm talking about getting off for things like attacking Naboo in the beginning of the movie.

Which wouldn't have logically happened if their motivations were about taxes!

Really? So the American Revolution, which started as a dispute over taxes on tea "wouldn't have logically happened if their motivations were about taxes"?

Sometimes, one bad decision can snowball out of control, but usually the characters will still talk about their original intention.

Because at Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill et al, they were still talking about the tea tax.

The Trade Federation didn't mention taxes even once in the movie. The only time they asked if it was worth getting deeper into shit was when Sidious said he was sending Darth Maul to meet him. Then and only then, they said "we shouldn't have made this bargain".... but even so, they never actually said what was in it for them!

What are corporations for? To make money. Why do they meddle in politics? To make money. Why do they do illegal and immoral things up to and including starting wars? To make money. Why do they oppose taxes? Because they want to make money. Since you need this spelled out for you, then you are a fucking imbecile.

Dooku turned to the Dark Side and was working with the future Emperor.

He was a Jedi, whom Mace said wouldn't assassinate people because it wasn't in his character. This is the guy who trained Qui-Gon Jinn, who seemed to be a pretty decent guy. We were told these things in the movie.

When people are seduced to the Dark Side, there's some event that tips them in that direction. You know, a seduction, rather than a sudden, out of the blue change.

Anakin was turned (allegedly) by the loss of his mother and the potential loss of his wife and children. Palpatine told him dark magic could save them, where the Jedi couldn't.

The Emperor tempted Luke to the dark side with something similar: he said his friends were being slaughtered before his eyes, and the only way to help them was to give in to his anger and strike him down.


What was the analogous situation to Count Dooku? We were told he was a good guy, like Anakin allegedly was. His story could have not only influenced his decisions, but also served as a mirror of what would happen to Anakin.

Great, another movie for 10-year-olds that you didn't understand. Dooku craves power, just like Palpatine and eventually Anakin does. Since the movie is mainly about Anakin, his motives are explored in detail. Since the movie is NOT about Dooku, his motives are not -just like Tarkin's and even Palpatine's are not.

[Knife]

Not that some debaters would care, but Dooku's motivations are explicitly spelled out in the novel. Dooku is a sociopath, he views people as either useless to him, or those that can help him attain power. He see's a new Republic with Palpatine running the show and he, Dooku, in charge of a new Jedi/Sith Order. It didn't even occur to him that that paradigm was going to be shit canned by Palpatine. Hell, it didn't even occur to him that Palpatine was setting Dooku up as the fall guy till Anakin was standing over him with two lightsabers about to cut his head off.

[VF5SS]

Mein fuhrer I has an idea.

What if instead of completely disposing of Ray Park after The Boring Menace they actually had him come back more and more borgified over the course of the movies. So instead of having three henchmen we care nothing about we get one whose development mirrors what is happening to Whinikin as he turns to the dark side. Then we can have a cool Vader style cyborg whose cyborgness actually matters unlike General Coughingbot.

but really i just want to see Ray Park in more good movies

less king of fighters

(i know some comic gave Maul mechalegs but you don't get credit for things not in the movie)

[Knife]

Mein fuhrer I has an idea.

What if instead of completely disposing of Ray Park after The Boring Menace they actually had him come back more and more borgified over the course of the movies. So instead of having three henchmen we care nothing about we get one whose development mirrors what is happening to Whinikin as he turns to the dark side. Then we can have a cool Vader style cyborg whose cyborgness actually matters unlike General Coughingbot.

but really i just want to see Ray Park in more good movies

less king of fighters

(i know some comic gave Maul mechalegs but you don't get credit for things not in the movie)

I actually agree with that. I would have preferred some continuity between the three prequels. Dooku should have been in episode one and your idea about Maul would have been nice as well.

[Knife]

Not that some debaters would care, but Dooku's motivations are explicitly spelled out in the novel.

I've heard the novels are much better stories than the movies. Haven't read any myself though.

Though, it would be fair to say I don't care - a good book doesn't excuse a bad movie.

Meh movies have pacing problems more so than a book does. Tolkien gets picked on for spending 30 pages describing a mountain with a white fluffy cloud above it, but that would be amplified in a movie. Spending considerable percentage of time in a 2 hour movie explaining motivations for secondary or tertiary characters quite simple wastes time; therefore, a lot of arch types and symbolism gets used.

Now you can argue that in your subjective opinion that those arch types and symbols didn't just do it for you, but that's not the same thing as saying there were no motivations to those characters. Dooku was described as a political idealist, the Jedi in their arrogance couldn't see that that meant he had some serious power lust going on, but it is shown quite obviously that he did covert power enough to ditch the Jedi and seek more power from a darker source that would give it too him. He would seek political power as the head of a large political movement, and he would seek more political power through manipulating powerful organizations through diplomacy, treachery, and war.

[Galvatron]

I actually agree with that. I would have preferred some continuity between the three prequels. Dooku should have been in episode one and your idea about Maul would have been nice as well.

I'll go further than that and say that Dooku, Maul and Grievous should have all been in Episode 1. They'd have made a credible triumvirate of villains even without Sidious calling the shots behind the scenes (which could have been revealed in Episode 3).

[VF5SS]

Maybe that was an edict from Hasbro that they needed new villains in each movie :v

But yeah like I said before, AOTC and ROTS are really just one mediocre movie with a ton of filler. And TPM is really useless because nothing in it couldn't be covered in the other movies. Except for Whinikin being afraid to lose his mother, but you know that doesn't take a half hour to establish. Actually even that was pretty clear from AOTC so again TPM is useless :3

[Jim Raynor]

So, in this thread we have some people seriously (or trollingly) making such astute points as:

-Asking why is Obi-Wan conformist, in a Jedi Order that encourages conformity.
-Asking why Dooku, a Sith Lord, is evil and helping the other Sith Lord.
-Once again begging for a nitty gritty explanation of the practically irrelevant, MacGuffin taxes.
-Arguing that a military blockade is no big deal, because you can be "self-sufficient" and sustain your people and economy by HUNTING WILDLIFE.
-Angrily telling me to use the name of a psychotic fictional character, instead of referring to the real person who I'm actually talking about.

And some people wonder why I wrote them off as trolls. I hope the guys who made those points are just trolling, because you should be embarrassed for actually saying those things. If you actually thought these things or want them explicitly explained in the movie, you're not being keen or observant. You're just being dense.

[Jim Raynor]

You then proceed to offer explanations for why the Trade Federation created a communications black-out, and then follow this up with various explanations for the actions of the Senate, etc.

What you don't seem to realize is that by having to explain this AT ALL you're proving RLM's point.

No, it doesn't. Stoklasa was being incredibly dense by actually questioning the communications jamming, when the Trade Fed was INVADING. Jamming is a normal part of military operations, and his supposed argument against it was that jamming would keep the word from getting back to the Senate. Which ignored the fact that the Trade Fed clearly wanted to get their version of the word out, when they wanted it, which would be after they got a legal protection from a treaty.

None of this stuff "had" to be explained, as I held to in the rebuttal itself. Anyone watching the movie could get what was going on. Stoklasa's basic procedure was to slow down at every point and act like he was being observant and analytical, when in fact he was just asking the brain-dead question most of the time. The problem with Stoklasa is that he WANTS to look thorough, when he actually doesn't even go all the way and is understanding the movie less than a ten year old in the target audience.

Last time I pointed this out, you simply dismissed it as an argument from authority. Of course, that's total bullshit: my point is to demonstrate that RLM isn't making some kind of novel or unique argument here: many people found it difficult to get involved with TPM because the plot is very opaque.

Lots of the prequel's most vocal detractors are also incredibly dense or straining to make up new criticisms for it. Like the people here who actually asked how Obi-Wan could've possibly grown up to be authoritarian and conformist.

Also, "the plot" of the movie is a big powerful faction picking on a defenseless world, and a Jedi befriending and trying to get a boy trained despite the opposition of his superiors. This tax stuff is not "the plot."

Oh please. Be consistent now, and stop straining to make up ever-more particular criticisms and complaints against the prequels. You argued that a personal connection between the hero and his enemy as some kind of big element in having "drama" or "emotion" in a fight scene.

So going by THAT logic, I can only guess that Luke and Han shooting up Stormtroopers or TIE fighters is not dramatic. Thing is, I think you and Stoklasa are just reaching for things to complain about it there. Go on, say it. But I bet you won't.

Seriously, give me a break. There's a huge dramatic difference between a SET-PIECE LIGHTSABRE BATTLE and random henchmen in an action sequence.

A fight scene is a fight scene to me. And don't talk about how a certain battle is "set piece" when hero-on-henchman action is what makes up the climax in the original movies as well.

And all of this stuff is just a side issue anyway, when the question still is "does the scene have emotion, or something going on?" That's a subjective topic, but I can very easily point out that TPM offers something for the audience to care about. Qui-Gon Jinn, the main character and nice guy, the only one looking out for the kid who might be the Chosen One, was fighting for his life. Whether or not Qui-Gon had personal history with Darth Maul is irrelevant to that.

[Bakustra]

So you're saying that you can't tell the difference between a confrontation between the hero and mooks and the hero and the villain, and you scoff at the idea that a connection between the hero and the villain adds to the dramatic tension of a scene. I'm not sure why we should take your word about anything regarding movies, as you pretty clearly have something wrong with your ability to digest fiction. Tell me, did somebody have to tell you that Bambi's mother died? Because you seem to have some major troubles in picking up subtext or emotional content, judging by what you're saying.

[Panzersharkcat]

Mein fuhrer I has an idea.

What if instead of completely disposing of Ray Park after The Boring Menace they actually had him come back more and more borgified over the course of the movies. So instead of having three henchmen we care nothing about we get one whose development mirrors what is happening to Whinikin as he turns to the dark side. Then we can have a cool Vader style cyborg whose cyborgness actually matters unlike General Coughingbot.

but really i just want to see Ray Park in more good movies

less king of fighters

(i know some comic gave Maul mechalegs but you don't get credit for things not in the movie)

I actually wouldn't mind that. Maul was my favorite prequel character and all. Christopher Lee is awesome and all but Count Dooku is... well, yeah.

[Darth Tedious]

To be fair, there was a little bit of emotion in the final saber fight of TPM.

After Maul killed Qui-Gon, there was that whole MUST AVENGE MY MENTOR thing going on with Obi-Wan...

Granted, it's not a long as fuck history like Ani/Obi, but saying it was completely emotionless and akin to a mook fight is reaching a little.

[Elfdart]

Explain how having a senator precludes the use of force when they have every reason to believe they can do so and get away with it.

They are assured the Senate will pass what they shovel to them.

So, why pass some roundabout treaty instead of using that power on the tax problem directly? I think there actually is an answer, as you'll see later on. (unless you snip this short again lol)

This is why movie theaters need to bring back ushers: It's pretty inconsiderate to allow fucktards to sit through a two-hour movie with their heads up their asses. Not only does this leave them incapable of understanding a movie made for 10-year-olds, but it's also unpleasant for the non-retards watching the movie, who can grasp that:

a) Sidious wants an attack on Naboo so he can play the victim and milk public outrage for all it's worth.

b) The Trade Federation has a beef with Naboo, and thanks to Sidious egging them on, they finally work up the nerve to blockade the planet.

c) Sidious uses promises to not only give the TF what they want, but political cover for what are illegal acts (Gunray: "Is that legal?", Sidious "I will make it legal!"). The Federation's leaders get cold feet at every turn, which is why Sidious has to bully them into doing what he wants: the invasion and occupation of Naboo. To make it absolutely clear to representatives from other systems that the TF is doing something dastardly, Sidious wants a bullshit gunpoint treaty signed -something that will prove the invasion took place AND show the utter humiliation of Naboo. Apparently, he also wanted to have Amidala killed -what better way to make Gunray out to be the bad guy than to have him abduct, coerce and finally murder an adolescent girl? Palpatine would have a whole wardrobe full of bloody shirts to wave.

The problem with these movies isn't that you can make up a bunch of shit. Making shit up is sometimes quite ok. It's that none of it makes any fucking sense.

Maybe not to you, but that has more to do with your status as a trolling fuckwit.

If you weren't such a complete fucking imbecile, you would be able to surmise that Naboo is either:

Nope, all of those are wrong. Maybe you should have paid attention to the movie.

Naboo was picked by Sidious because he was from there himself and wanted some bullshit to put to the Senate for sympathy. I find it pretty hilarious that you stupid motherfuckers make crap up instead of just saying the two things the movie did say - the TF is not logical and Sidious is pulling the strings.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Trade Federation.... so, what do they get by going along with it? The treaty Sidious promised (then took away to no opposition whatsoever) would just legalize the invasion, so they aren't prosecuted according to Mr. Raynor, but they could avoided prosecution much more easily by not invading in the first place.

I was explaining why the Federation might have been hostile to Naboo in the first place, asshole.

NOTHING the Trade Federation does is about taxes.

The point (which you are too stupid to grasp) is that the taxes are a Maguffin. They might be of interest to some of the minor characters but of little if any interest to the person watching the movie. Unless of course you're a trolling fucktard.

Absolutely nothing. They don't talk about it and they don't act like they care.

Nothing? What did the TF do in response to the taxes levied on their trade routes? They sought help from the leader of a diabolical sect, blockaded Naboo, tried to kill two representatives of the chancellor, did destroy a diplomatic ship and kill the crew, invaded Naboo, occupied Naboo, herded the people of Naboo into camps, tried to kill the queen, and chased the Gungans out of their homes. Oh, and waged a battle in the capitol. That's nothing alright.

Does it matter [why Alderaan seconded the motion]?

Jimmy Smits played a somewhat recurring character, and one we were told about in the original movie. Fleshing him out a little bit would make things more interesting, and could further legitimize the conflict, by showing us a clear pattern.

You do realize that there is a finite amount of time in a movie, right? And that the smart filmmaker only includes what is necessary to tell the story and keep the audience entertained, right? How is the story helped (or the movie made more entertaining) by discussing the political motives of a character who does not appear in the movie, and is not all that important up to that point?

Really? So the American Revolution, which started as a dispute over taxes on tea "wouldn't have logically happened if their motivations were about taxes"?

You are profoundly ignorant of American history.

So says a trolling fuckwit who is unaware of the fact that the Revolution started in April of 1775 as a response to the Coercive Acts which were passed in reaction to the Boston Tea Party, while the Declaration wasn't signed until July 1776. So while it might not seem logical to you that people might resort to force to oppose taxes they think are unfair, that's exactly what happened in real life and in TPM.

Great, another movie for 10-year-olds that you didn't understand.

Hahaha, the other fanboy defense.

It's not a "defense", it's a statement of fact: You are clearly too stupid to understand the plot of a movie aimed at grade schoolers. Don't just take my word for it -here's Darth Wong in reference to your guru, Heathcliff:

Jesus Fucking Christ, is this guy honestly that goddamned stupid? He can't understand the plot of a Star Wars film? We're not talking about "Rashomon" here, for fuck's sake. The plot is as linear as they come. If anything, the film tries too hard to fill in all the gaps. This guy must be a flaming retard.

Since the movie is mainly about Anakin, his motives are explored in detail. Since the movie is NOT about Dooku, his motives are not -just like Tarkin's and even Palpatine's are not.

It's not exactly writing science that characters and situations often mirror each other. There were often comparisons made between Luke and Vader. In shitloads of television episodes, the a-plot and the b-plot are pretty much the same story with the details changed so we can do a compare and contrast of the characters.

Dooku was a great opportunity for this. They could have expanded the Anakin story while also making a villain actually somewhat interesting - something the PT failed at over and over again.

Hell, the draft of the script I linked to even had some dialog showing Lucas apparently wanted to actually go in that direction!

But, it was cut from the final film. Apparently, he just didn't care about these things. We need more lightsabers.

Tough titty -the movie is about Anakin. It would have been nice to see more scenes with Tarkin in ANH to see what made him tick (or with Biggs for that matter) but the movie wasn't about Tarkin or Biggs -it was about Luke.

[Gunhead]

And the trainwreck just keeps on giving. I agree with Bakustra, but my view is more of the less I know the better. In the OT Obi-Wan and Yoda both more or less just sage our young hero on his path and Vader is the recurring villain. The whole Jedi / Sith split is not a main focus in any way giving way to valiant rebels fighting against an oppressive regime mixed with a farmboy turns into a hero.
Thinking back I should have listened to that little nagging voice in the back of my head that was whispering "you know it's going to feature the Jedi and the Sith". I really hoped they'd bring something new to the table, some interesting twist, I mean.. anything. Well no chance, everything about the Jedi and the Sith is just as bland and uninteresting as ever. Then again this is pretty much in line with everything I've read about them even before the prequels came out. What makes the prequels even more lame, is how the Jedi are given a opponent which they can mow down in droves without any thought to the whole "Keepers of peace" etc.
Then we have a whole galactic civil war we don't get to see. This brings up the notion of the Jedi as military leaders and if you buy in the least bit into Jedi claims of pacifism / peace / yaddayadda the whole idea of them being military leaders is pretty laughable, but good thing they again are given the easy way out, clones are just droids made of flesh so it's easy to maintain emotional detachment from them. This barring of course they can maintain their emotional detachment no matter the circumstances, then I might believe they could be war leaders. KOTOR at least entertained the notion that the Jedi should keep out of war and going to war was a major reason why Revan went to the dark side.

-Gunhead

[Jim Raynor]

So you're saying that you can't tell the difference between a confrontation between the hero and mooks and the hero and the villain, and you scoff at the idea that a connection between the hero and the villain adds to the dramatic tension of a scene.

What I said was that when hero-on-henchman violence makes up large parts of the main or climactic battles, I'm going to expect people to use consistent standards for them as well. Was all that dogfighting at Yavin unemotional and uninvolving? The Battle of Hoth? The ground and space battles at Endor?

You know, it's perfectly fine if people generally enjoy fights that have a "personal" dimension to them, with history and bad blood between the hero and villain. I do as well. What I'm just pointing out is that that's not the only way to generate emotion in a battle, or make a fight scene "matter" by having consequences to the story.

Why can't someone be involved with the TPM duel, because they like Qui-Gon and want to see him live to take care of the boy, being the only one who's actually looking out for him? Maybe that doesn't work for you. The whole topic of whether or not that provides sufficient emotion is completely subjective. But I see people pointing out the lack of personal animosity between Qui-Gon and Maul as some kind of failing in and of itself.

If that's the kind of attitude you take toward movies, then what do you think of most other movies out there? Final battles where the hero goes up against an army of nameless troops, or inhuman monsters? You can't just root for the hero to win and survive?

I'm not sure why we should take your word about anything regarding movies, as you pretty clearly have something wrong with your ability to digest fiction.

Not as wrong as the guy who thinks that a Sith Lord working for another Sith Lord needs an explanation, or that the taxes should've been dwelled on even more, or that jamming during an invasion (conveyed in a mere couple of lines) somehow needs explanation.

The nature of some of these complaints is downright bizarre.

Tell me, did somebody have to tell you that Bambi's mother died? Because you seem to have some major troubles in picking up subtext or emotional content, judging by what you're saying.

On the contrary, I'm the one who seems to pick up on the movies a whole lot better than some of the other guys in this thread. I'm not the one demanding that minutia, or the backstories of characters who don't even appear onscreen needs to be spelled out.

[Jim Raynor]

The point (which you are too stupid to grasp) is that the taxes are a Maguffin.

(from wikipedia)

"a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction".

Fail and fail.

It's a MacGuffin the way the mysterious briefcase, or "the package," or "the papers" are in numerous other movies. An utterly irrelevant thing that provides something to fight over without actually mattering to the plot.

"the audience should care about [a macguffin] almost as much as the dueling heroes and villains on-screen" -- George Lucas

Why is it that Stoklasa and his defenders always resort to tactics that seem to come straight out of propaganda films, or political attack ads? You seem to think that you've "caught" George Lucas in a contradiction, even as you seem to be using his previous words as some kind of appeal to authority to win on this point. I don't care what Lucas said before. He can say whatever he wants, and if we go by this attitude then Greedo shot first and the scene was better that way (ZOMG). Doesn't change the fact that MacGuffins are often completely irrelevant in many movies, and that those movies would not be made significantly better if they were spelled out.

If Gunray said "the Naboo supported these taxes so we'll blockade them until the taxes are lifted," would the movie be SO MUCH better? Something that doesn't advance the plot, spells out something that could be easily inferred, and bogs the movie down in taxes rather than moving on to interesting things like armed conflict. Makes me wonder why people spend so much time complaining about this.

They did that stuff because Sidious told them to. NEVER, not once, does a Trade Federation character utter a single word about taxes.

Because most people can understand the opening crawl, which literally spelled out "taxation" on screen.

How is the story helped (or the movie made more entertaining) by discussing the political motives of a character who does not appear in the movie, and is not all that important up to that point?

The story would be a little less bullshit.

Wait, is this part actually about Bail Organa of all people?

Ask the average person on the street who Bail is, and they wouldn't even be able to answer you. Man, what BS. What the movie really needed was more exposition on Bail Organa of all people.

[Bakustra]

Every Star Wars movie prior to TPM had a personal connection between the individuals coming into conflict. Luke was fighting Vader, who'd killed Obi-Wan, his mentor, in ANH. He fights Vader again in ESB, learning that Vader is his father. He fights Vader for the final time in ROTJ, seeking to redeem him and turn him away from evil. To contrast, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan fight Maul just because he's in the way. They're not fighting a character, they're fighting a mook with a name and some sweet design work. If you made Maul or Dooku or Grievous a character of some kind (or better yet, merge them into one character who appears through all three of the PT), then you would have more emotionally effective moments. Even in ANH, we still had the dialogue between Vader and Obi-Wan in their duel to give us a hint of the connections. Ideally, the PT would have set up these connections very well, allowing we the audience, seeing ANH in light of its prequels, to have a greater investment in that duel. While we cannot introduce an infinite regression of prequels, we can nevertheless use cues and backstory introduced in later films to tell us, as an audience, why this is something we should care about.

Again, if the Star Wars movies are the story of Darth Vader, then the prequels offered chances to make the villains reflective of Vader. We can see this with Dooku the fallen Jedi and Grievous the cyborg, but these are brief sketches rather than actual characters and their effectiveness is diluted by this and their brief appearances and their misuse.

So here's an outline for making people care about the villainous presence in the PT. In TPM, Maul/Dooku is the figure manipulating the Trade Federation (who would have clearer motives for why they'd go along with him). When they bungle several attempts to kill/capture Amidala, Dooku/Maul himself steps in, introducing his boss, Lord Sidious, as well. Qui-Gon recognizes Dooku/Maul, they duel, and Qui-Gon is killed. Anakin witnesses this. In the process of the duel, Maul/Dooku is severely injured.

In AOTC, Maul/Dooku is an ex-Jedi who leads an anti-Republic movement, as in the original. He now has an artificial leg as a result of the injuries he suffered. Anakin learns that Qui-Gon was taught by Maul/Dooku, and when he figures out that the man who killed Qui-Gon is Maul/Dooku, he tells the Jedi this. He, personally, hopes for revenge for Qui-Gon. The Jedi deny that one of their number, even one who's left, could have done such things. Anakin is ordered to stay away from Dooku/Maul, while Obi-Wan, who has become his teacher and is considered one of the greatest of the Jedi, is sent to investigate this. While Anakin is resting, he receives a frightening vision about Obi-Wan being tormented and breaks the rules to investigate. While he ends up getting in over his head, he rescues Obi-Wan and though he ends up losing an arm to Dooku/Maul, Maul/Dooku is seriously injured in the process.

Finally, in ROTS, Dooku/Maul has replaced large parts of his body with cybernetic replacements, with deliberate callbacks to "more machine than man now." He ends up getting killed as a result of Palpatine tempting Anakin with the desire for revenge, which is the point at which Anakin should clearly begin walking down a dark road. Then we go to the unveiling of Palpatine and becoming Vader, which can happen fairly similarly to ROTS as it stands.

Meanwhile, the reasons that Dooku/Maul left the Jedi are because he felt that the Republic and Jedi have become too corrupt to continue existing, and it should be made clear that he is sincere in what he believes, but violent, fanatical, and emotional, except on the field of battle, as a deliberate mirror of Vader in the OT. Sidious was thus able to work together with him because they both sought to destroy the Republic, though at the end they would have split over what to replace it with.

These are predicated on other changes to the overall structure of the PT and of the specific films, but they are what they are and I'll outline the rest of those ideas for changes if anybody likes.

[Channel72]

What you don't seem to realize is that by having to explain this AT ALL you're proving RLM's point.

No, it doesn't. Stoklasa was being incredibly dense by actually questioning the communications jamming, when the Trade Fed was INVADING. Jamming is a normal part of military operations, and his supposed argument against it was that jamming would keep the word from getting back to the Senate. Which ignored the fact that the Trade Fed clearly wanted to get their version of the word out, when they wanted it, which would be after they got a legal protection from a treaty.

Yes, jamming might be a normal military procedure, but RLM wondered why the Trade Federation would jam communications because he'd already seen the movie, and had prior knowledge of Palpatine's overall scheme. If Palpatine's goal was to generate sympathy over the invasion, why try to conceal the invasion? It's a legitimate question. The explanation you provide, that the Trade Federation wanted to make sure their story got out first, is certainly plausible. But you still just made it up - it's not in the movie. So basically you're just engaging in apologetics here, as usual.

But whatever - the communication jamming isn't even that important considering we don't know how the whole invasion even benefits the Trade Federation at all. Again, you don't seem to care: for you, it's enough that the Trade Fed was promised "something", and whatever it is, it makes the invasion worthwhile. But I don't like movies where the villains do things for reasons which aren't established clearly.

None of this stuff "had" to be explained, as I held to in the rebuttal itself. Anyone watching the movie could get what was going on.

You keep acting as if people here are complaining that they don't understand the basic premise of TPM, but that's a total strawman. Everyone understands TPM on a basic level: 1) evil galactic corporation invades defenseless planet due to shady business deal, 2) adventure ensues...

Everyone gets that. What people are complaining about is that this evil galactic corporation is basically the primary antagonist, and yet their motives are entirely opaque. I don't give a shit about fictional tax codes, I just would like to watch villains do things for reasons which are explicit.

You can dismiss this as a subjective preference, but you should at least concede the point that the OT was much more explicit. And please don't strawman me with some bullshit counter-point like "the OT never tells us what Darth Vader's social-security number is" or whatever. The fact is, every ON-SCREEN ACTION taken by Vader has an explicit, clear motivation, which is unambiguously established through dialogue. In other words, you don't need to make shit up to answer questions like "why did Vader attack the Tantive IV?", since the dialogue (and the opening crawl) tell us that he did so to capture the stolen Death Star plans. Thus, it's actually interesting to watch him stomp around threatening people, since we know what is motivating him.

With TPM, we have to watch countless scenes of robots marching around and TPM officials threatening people, yet we don't even really know why they're even invading Naboo, or what they hope to gain, except in the very vaguest of terms. (They made a shady business deal with a mystery villain, and they're evil, I guess.)

To be fair, TPM is obviously written to be somewhat of a mystery, so it's understandable that not everything would be spelled out. But I find it totally unacceptable that the main villains (the Trade Federation) have no clear motivation for their actions other than "they were promised something." This is particularly ridiculous since the invasion of Naboo is basically the entire focal point of the movie's plot, in the same way that getting the Death Star plans to the Rebel Alliance is the focal point of ANH.

Also, "the plot" of the movie is a big powerful faction picking on a defenseless world, and a Jedi befriending and trying to get a boy trained despite the opposition of his superiors. This tax stuff is not "the plot."

I agree - the tax stuff is only background information. The "plot" is basically the invasion. Everything that happens in the movie is oriented around the invasion - an invasion which has no clearly established reason.

A fight scene is a fight scene to me. And don't talk about how a certain battle is "set piece" when hero-on-henchman action is what makes up the climax in the original movies as well.

That's bizarre to me; we obviously have totally different expectations when it comes to watching films. If a film has a set-piece with a one-on-one duel, I expect the combatants to have some significant history together. I can't even think of a movie (other than the Star Wars prequels) where this isn't the case. Whether it's Luke versus Vader, Batman versus the Joker, or fucking George McFly versus Biff, there's always an established, built-up, personal animosity before the showdown. I can't even think of another movie where there's a major confrontation between two characters that DON'T have some sort of history together.

And all of this stuff is just a side issue anyway, when the question still is "does the scene have emotion, or something going on?" That's a subjective topic, but I can very easily point out that TPM offers something for the audience to care about. Qui-Gon Jinn, the main character and nice guy, the only one looking out for the kid who might be the Chosen One, was fighting for his life.

Fair enough.

Whether or not Qui-Gon had personal history with Darth Maul is irrelevant to that.

I would say it's relevant if there's going to be a long, drawn-out, epic battle between, complete with opera music in the background. Seriously, I can't even think of another successful movie which does something like this.

[Darth Tedious]

If Palpatine's goal was to generate sympathy over the invasion, why try to conceal the invasion? It's a legitimate question. The explanation you provide, that the Trade Federation wanted to make sure their story got out first, is certainly plausible. But you still just made it up - it's not in the movie.

The answer to that question is actually one of the things that is in the movie. And it doesn't require any inference at all.

It's like this:

-Concealment of the invasion allows the TF to deny it.
-Other dudes say HEY LETS MAKE A COMMITEE AND FIND OUT WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON.
-Amidala cracks the shits and says THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT! Y U NO TAKE ACTION?
-She places a vote of no confidence in Vellorum (which Palpatine suggested she do).
-Those who are already sympathetic (or just pissed with Vellorum) vote in favour.
-HEY PRESTO PALPATINE IS GRAND CHANCELLOR!

And that's why Palpy wanted the invasion covered up, because it wasn't just about sympathy, it was about playing on the bullshit politics to advance himself into UNLIMITED POWAHH.

AND, it works for the TF, because we already know they want to cover their arses (IS THIS LEGAL??!!??!1) at least until Palpy MAKES IT LEGAL.

Granted, we never quite get what the TF is doing with Naboo (something about taxes?? They must have been pretty upset, whatever), but the cover-up side of things is really quite well explained by the events of the movie.
Shit, it's about the ONLY thing that's expalined so thoroughly.

[Metahive]

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Why should the chance of replacing Valorum be higher when there's no evidence for Naboo's plight presented? Don't you think pictures of people starving in the streets or getting brutalized by battledroids would have a much bigger effect than just Amidala throwing a hissy fit and overreacting to a reasonable proposal? Also, we see that one person demanding a vote of non-confidence is enough to get one held, he doesn't even need to have any valid reasons ("I don't like this government" suffices, ha! It doesn't even have to be a member of the senate who does it!), and Valorum was supposedly already in a weakened position, so...that whole elaborate plot of Palpatine was unnecessary, some shmuck senator could have done it, best motivated by a generous bribe.

If all, the way it happened in the movie should have lowered Palpatine's chances of becoming chancellor since the whole drama should have given the rather blatant impression that Amidala's real motive was to maneuver a more pliable lackey into power for selfish reasons. I mean look at it, Amidala goes before the senate, tells some outrageous tale of a private company invading her planet and when the reasonable offer is made to have a commission assess the matter and the potential evidence she immediately blows it off, overthrows the government and what's more, one of her lackeys coincidentally becomes a candidate for chancellorship. Yeah sorry, but for a third party that looks like nothing more than an naked power-grab.

Politics and Star Wars don't mix well.

[Darth Tedious]

But if there had been evidence of Naboo's plight to show, Vellorum would have taken action, nobody would have voted no confidence in him, and Palpy would remain just a senator.

It's not like I presented some theory I cooked up, it's what happened in the film.

I never said it was well-written.