StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Jim Raynor wrote:Good God man! Stop pretending to be smart already. If you have any intelligence, you're not bringing it to this thread. You repeatedly assert how right and analytical you are, by your inability to grasp a movie written for ten year olds.

Cool, we're getting further along. Lucas write like a 10 year old. I'm glad you're coming around to our side of the argument.

LOL, the fact that I've deprioritized this thread down to "something I might do once or twice a week, if I even remember or give a crap about it" speaks to that fact.

We get it. You have lots of important things to do that don't involve writing on forum about Star Wars. I'm sure whatever take priority over this is important, was it the adidas stormtrooper helmet thread?

Some people here, on the other hand, delude themselves into thinking trivia obsessions are not only normal, but the defining element in filmmaking or film watching. They express their geekiness in unintelligent (make that frighteningly dumb), failed attempts to analyze the movie. Not understanding that "blockade = bad," something I got just fine in elementary school.

I'll try analyzing like you.
Raynor=person entertained stories for 10 year olds.

Shit Raynor Doesn't Know wrote:"How does the blockade get them money? Please provide an answer from the film that explains how they benefit financially from the blockade. If you or Elfdart could simply do this or concede the point we can move on to something else you don't understand about the RLM review."

Opening crawl: "Hoping to resolve this matter [the tax dispute]"

Stop reveling in your lack of grade school reading comprehension.

Nope. That does not tell us how they get money out of blockading. That just tells us how they are addressing the taxation of trade routes (which we don't know if they are for or against) please try again or concede the point.

You continue to be an idiot. But then again you've already stated you like your stories at a 10 year olds level.

The answer to those questions is 'who cares'? The whole point of the blockade and the invasion was to show that the Asian Accent People were the Bad Guys, nothing more. Their motivation is irrelevant. The movie would have worked if the Trade Federation had blockaded Naboo because the Naboo refused to declare 19 a colour, or ban airspeeders as a breakfast food or whatever you want to pick. The details of the tax issue are completely irrelevant. The Asian Accent Guys (sorry, I just can't remember how to properly spell that species' name) are the villains of the piece. This clearly gets across (to those of us with functioning braincells anyway) and frankly that's all the important information.

Jim Raynor wrote: It amazes me that certain people try so hard to come up with fan-made theories, when all anyone needs to know to get the movie is that a tax dispute escalated into armed conflict. Man that was tough.

Yep that is some good storytelling. Why not start with the armed conflict if the taxes aren't important? Oh I bet he left it in there to entertain the 10 year olds he was writing this for.

emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:

Jim Raynor wrote: It amazes me that certain people try so hard to come up with fan-made theories, when all anyone needs to know to get the movie is that a tax dispute escalated into armed conflict. Man that was tough.

Yep that is some good storytelling. Why not start with the armed conflict if the taxes aren't important? Oh I bet he left it in there to entertain the 10 year olds he was writing this for.

When, exactly, has anybody ever claimed that TPM was good storytelling? All I've seen so far is people arguing that TPM gave you everything needed to understand the story, which it did (at, as has been repeatedly stated, a level a 10 year old could comprehend).

Yes, I realize they planned to resolve this in their favor, but we're still in the territory of:

1. Steal underpants
2. ???
3. Profit!

I'm asking you to elaborate a bit on step 2.

Given that it's so simple that I must be retarded for not knowing this already, it should be a trivial matter for you to provide that elaboration.

Batman:
I'd actually prefer pretty much any of the reasons you listed, because they would be actual reasons. I don't need them to be sane reasons, just reasons.

Nobody sane gives a flying fuck about their reasons. Their whole purpose in the movie is to be evil, nothing more.

Batman wrote:When, exactly, has anybody ever claimed that TPM was good storytelling? All I've seen so far is people arguing that TPM gave you everything needed to understand the story, which it did (at, as has been repeatedly stated, a level a 10 year old could comprehend).

Here:

Raynor wrote:Stoklasa's basic opinion was not the reason I took issue with his review. It was his try-hard attempt to argue Lucas not only as a flawed filmmaker, but a complete and utter imbecile who couldn't string together a basic series of events in a story.

Lucas can't. The taxes are just one example of Lucas not being able to string together a basic series of event into a story.

Batman wrote:Nobody sane gives a flying fuck about their reasons. Their whole purpose in the movie is to be evil, nothing more.

No. Ten year olds and people who like movies for ten year olds don't give a fuck. Also, please can we stop with this bullshit about TPM somehow being aimed at children. The smurfs is aimed at children, the chipmunks movies are aimed at children. TPM was meant to have a wide appeal.

You did notice that one of the prime protagonists of TPM (the guy to save thew day by blowing up the Droid control ship-pretty much by writer's fiat, no less) was...a child. Which kinda sorta hints at the child audience being in their thoughts when they contemplated which audience to target the movie at. Nobody said TPM was exclusively a kid movie but yes it most definitely was geared towards that age audience.

emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:

Batman wrote:When, exactly, has anybody ever claimed that TPM was good storytelling? All I've seen so far is people arguing that TPM gave you everything needed to understand the story, which it did (at, as has been repeatedly stated, a level a 10 year old could comprehend).

Here:

Raynor wrote:Stoklasa's basic opinion was not the reason I took issue with his review. It was his try-hard attempt to argue Lucas not only as a flawed filmmaker, but a complete and utter imbecile who couldn't string together a basic series of events in a story.

Lucas can't. The taxes are just one example of Lucas not being able to string together a basic series of event into a story.

Does not follow. The problem is that unlike you, Lucas actually realizes what is and isn't important to storytelling. The taxes are not.

Gargamel's motivations were always abundantly clear.

Gargamel is also greedy. He wants gold. Because he wants gold, he tries to kidnap the smurfs.

Now, if we left it at that, we would be on the same level as TPM, but the Smurfs didn't leave it at that. They elaborated. You see, Gargamel has a magical formula that will let him create gold, but he needs six smurfs as ingredients for the spell.

And the Smurfs was written for ten year olds.

Batman wrote:You did notice that one of the prime protagonists of TPM (the guy to save thew day by blowing up the Droid control ship-pretty much by writer's fiat, no less) was...a child. Which kinda sorta hints at the child audience being in their thoughts when they contemplated which audience to target the movie at. Nobody said TPM was exclusively a kid movie but yes it most definitely was geared towards that age audience.

Yeah I noticed that. You ever see Aliens? There was a child in that movie too. How about The Exorcist? I should give that to my niece since its about a 10 year old girl? After that I'll give her Let the Right One In. What about the movie UP was that aimed mostly at the elderly or was it more for talking dogs?

Shit. All Pixar movies are marketed to kids, but they somehow still manage to be written with adults in mind too. Imagine that.

Yes, but Gargamel was actually the main villain of the Smurfs. The Asian Accent Guys from TPM were stooges.

Batman wrote:Does not follow. The problem is that unlike you, Lucas actually realizes what is and isn't important to storytelling. The taxes are not.

Which is it, does he write for 10 year olds or does he realize what is or isn't important to storytelling? Which one lead him to bring on another screenwriter for Ep 2 and 3? If the taxes aren't important why are they in the movie? If Lucas is such a genius storyteller, please impart that wisdom on to me.

emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:

Batman wrote:You did notice that one of the prime protagonists of TPM (the guy to save thew day by blowing up the Droid control ship-pretty much by writer's fiat, no less) was...a child. Which kinda sorta hints at the child audience being in their thoughts when they contemplated which audience to target the movie at. Nobody said TPM was exclusively a kid movie but yes it most definitely was geared towards that age audience.

Yeah I noticed that. You ever see Aliens? There was a child in that movie too. How about The Exorcist? I should give that to my niece since its about a 10 year old girl?

Yep. The girls in Alien and the Exorcist absolutely served the same storytelling purpose in their respective movies that Anakin did in TPM. It's totally not like Newt was a little girl that needed to be rescued in Aliens and Whatshername in The Exorcist was the victim of demonic possession or something. No, that's totally comparable to a young boy turning out being the one to break a planet-wide blockade.
Aliens and The Exorcist: Child=victim. TPM: Child=hero. Yeah, absolutely comparable.

emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:Here:

Raynor wrote:Stoklasa's basic opinion was not the reason I took issue with his review. It was his try-hard attempt to argue Lucas not only as a flawed filmmaker, but a complete and utter imbecile who couldn't string together a basic series of events in a story.

Lucas can't. The taxes are just one example of Lucas not being able to string together a basic series of event into a story.

No, this is an example of you being too fucking stupid to read. Or you're just a lying troll and all-around fucktard.

emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:

Batman wrote:Does not follow. The problem is that unlike you, Lucas actually realizes what is and isn't important to storytelling. The taxes are not.

Which is it, does he write for 10 year olds or does he realize what is or isn't important to storytelling? Which one lead him to bring on another screenwriter for Ep 2 and 3? If the taxes aren't important why are they in the movie? If Lucas is such a genius storyteller, please impart that wisdom on to me.

Whoever said Lucas was a genius storyteller? It is generally agreed among fans that the PT is far weaker than the OT (possibly excepting ROTS).
And why shouldn't the taxes be in the movie? The Trade Federation needed some reason to blockade/invade Naboo, why not taxes?
Also, you assuming that 10 year olds don't know what's important about storytelling is arrogant like nobody's business. I rather suspect they know a lot more than you or I do, because they still focus on the story rather than the trappings surrounding it.

Batman, you're right. The Trade Federation did need some reason to blockade/invade Naboo.

All I'm saying is that it'd be better if the movie let the audience in on what that reason was, rather than vaguely alluding to it kinda maybe existing somewhere in the Republic tax code.

Batman wrote:

emersonlakeandbalmer wrote:

Batman wrote:You did notice that one of the prime protagonists of TPM (the guy to save thew day by blowing up the Droid control ship-pretty much by writer's fiat, no less) was...a child. Which kinda sorta hints at the child audience being in their thoughts when they contemplated which audience to target the movie at. Nobody said TPM was exclusively a kid movie but yes it most definitely was geared towards that age audience.

Yeah I noticed that. You ever see Aliens? There was a child in that movie too. How about The Exorcist? I should give that to my niece since its about a 10 year old girl?

Yep. The girls in Alien and the Exorcist absolutely served the same storytelling purpose in their respective movies that Anakin did in TPM. It's totally not like Newt was a little girl that needed to be rescued in Aliens and Whatshername in The Exorcist was the victim of demonic possession or something. No, that's totally comparable to a young boy turning out being the one to break a planet-wide blockade.
Aliens and The Exorcist: Child=victim. TPM: Child=hero. Yeah, absolutely comparable.

You're right Hitgirl is a much better example. She's a hero and actually knew what she was doing. Anakin rose to the occasion of accidentally blowing up the bad guys, what a great protagonist.

Why? Yes, a lot of the people on this board would be happier if there were a more detailed explanation of why they did so (I personally couldn't care less one way or the other as I don't particularly like TPM) but I have yet to see any indication that was needed to make the movie work. Star Wars movies aren't, and never have been, intellectually challenging. You have the Good Guys, and the Bad Guys, and as per TPM, the Trade Federation are the Bad Guys (as established in the opening crawl). Who cares why they've ended up as the Bad Guys? They are.

I care because the opening crawl pointed it out.

If they'd just stuck with "The Evil Trade Federation does Evil things because they're Evil" like they did back in ANH, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Unfortunately, because the Trade Federation were patsies, the way they were manipulated into serving the real villain's goals is important. Likewise, we don't know whether the real villain's goal was impacted positively or negatively by the Trade Federation's defeat at the end of this movie.

Defining the stakes of your conflict is important to making the audience care about what happens in your piece of fiction.

I don't particularly care for TPM either, Batman. The difference is that I don't care for it because it was a crappy movie. You don't care that it was a crappy movie because you didn't care for it.

Could any of the people posting pure blatherskite about how the TF are "patsies" and thus nobody's criticisms of them apply explain how it's good storytelling to take the antagonists who actually interact with the protagonists and make them secondary, and giving the primary antagonist role to a guy who appears for a couple minutes at most and never interacts with anybody besides the other antagonists?

Also, if Raynor or Elfdart could stop pretending that people criticizing the film didn't understand it, that would be great, but expecting honesty and integrity from you two clowns is somewhat like expecting a muskrat to express gratitude.

Cesario wrote:I care because the opening crawl pointed it out.
If they'd just stuck with "The Evil Trade Federation does Evil things because they're Evil" like they did back in ANH, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Unfortunately, because the Trade Federation were patsies, the way they were manipulated into serving the real villain's goals is important.

Um no it's not? The fact that they were is. The way is completely irrelevant.

Likewise, we don't know whether the real villain's goal was impacted positively or negatively by the Trade Federation's defeat at the end of this movie.

Which is relevant how, exactly?

Defining the stakes of your conflict is important to making the audience care about what happens in your piece of fiction.

We're talking about a piece of fiction where the Villain winning is a foregone conclusion. About the only think the PT could do was deliver eye candy and maybe some personal drama (which I thing the Clone Wars cartoons did a lot better than the PT) and at least on the eye candy, it delivered.

I don't particularly care for TPM either, Batman. The difference is that I don't care for it because it was a crappy movie. You don't care that it was a crappy movie because you didn't care for it.

That makes no sense. And it wasn't a crappy movie (yes, okay, it probably was), but more importantly it was a pretty not at all thralling Star Wars movie.

Batman wrote: Whoever said Lucas was a genius storyteller? It is generally agreed among fans that the PT is far weaker than the OT (possibly excepting ROTS).
And why shouldn't the taxes be in the movie? The Trade Federation needed some reason to blockade/invade Naboo, why not taxes?
Also, you assuming that 10 year olds don't know what's important about storytelling is arrogant like nobody's business. I rather suspect they know a lot more than you or I do, because they still focus on the story rather than the trappings surrounding it.

Arrogant? That might be the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read. Yes most adults know more about everything than 10 year olds but if you want to make that your benchmark be my guest.

Ok great, TPM isn't good. Then why do the defenders give a fuck about RLM making fun of the shitty writing? Why do you defend it if it's shitty?

The taxes shouldn't be there because they're irrelevant. They need a reason to attack a planet true, why taxes if they can't even provide proper motivation for the villains? And despite working for someone more evil they are still the main antagonist.

At which point have I defended TPM's writing? All I'm saying is that your (as in the people who think that for some arcane reason the Tax issue should have been elaborated on) are nuts. The Blockade/Invasion established what it was intended to establish-show the TF guys are the Villains. Mission accomplished. Yes. TPM is on a 10 year old's intellectual level. So are all the other Star Wars movies. Have been since ANH was simply known as Star Wars. It's easily identified Bad Guys vs easily identified Good Guys, and always has been.