New Redletter Media video about Lucas

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

I don't see the how giving more expose on the tax issue would have improved the movie in any meaningful way. Sure, I think it would have been nice to know more about the whole political situation that led to the blockade and so forth, but the movie would still have been boring as fuck and no amount of background information can change that. In all these prequel threads there has been a strong undertone of people seeing the potential what could have been a great movie, only to be dragged down by the half assed way it was done.

I don't disagree. Taxes are a terrible idea to start off an epic space opera, understanding wouldn't make the film much better but at least it would have displayed competent writing. I mean all he had to do was copy Joseph Campbell like he did 30 years ago, instead its like he wrote a stream of conscious marketing campaign. I think the pro RLM posters are more arguing that with small changes George Lucas wouldn't have made as big a mess, but rather a story that had any sense of structure. Then we would just be arguing how it was boring as fuck, instead of what Nute Gunray's 999 tax plan was (topical comedy!).

[Panzersharkcat]

I don't see the how giving more expose on the tax issue would have improved the movie in any meaningful way. Sure, I think it would have been nice to know more about the whole political situation that led to the blockade and so forth, but the movie would still have been boring as fuck and no amount of background information can change that. In all these prequel threads there has been a strong undertone of people seeing the potential what could have been a great movie, only to be dragged down by the half assed way it was done.

I don't disagree. Taxes are a terrible idea to start off an epic space opera, understanding wouldn't make the film much better but at least it would have displayed competent writing. I mean all he had to do was copy Joseph Campbell like he did 30 years ago, instead its like he wrote a stream of conscious marketing campaign. I think the pro RLM posters are more arguing that with small changes George Lucas wouldn't have made as big a mess, but rather a story that had any sense of structure. Then we would just be arguing how it was boring as fuck, instead of what Nute Gunray's 999 tax plan was (topical comedy!).

This I can agree with. I kind of like Metahive's idea of the Trade Federation acting like a (cliched) plunder the planet corporation. It'd give a bit more urgency to the plot. Instead of annoying occupation with people in camps, it'd be a horribly polluted occupation with people in camps. Or, Hell, pull off a Darths and Droids and have Naboo potentially turned into a Mustafar-type planet as a consequence of failure.

[Elfdart]

No. What happens is that the invasion is obviously illegal, and it seems likely that the blockade was legal, since Gunray, when talking to Sidious, questions the legality of the invasion. If he were already doing something blatantly illegal, that would not be a concern of his, regardless of Elfdart's belief that Gunray is a pathological liar.

In real life, government officials have sought legal cover for doing things that are obviously illegal such as torture, assassination, etc. So it's quite the opposite: Gunray knows he's doing something criminal and wants legal and political cover from Sidious. And no, Gunray's efforts to cover his own ass don't make him a pathological liar, they make him a corporate/government crook who will lie to get his way. He's supposed to be a foolish patsy, but even foolish patsies in matinee movies aren't stupid enough to come right out and say:

Look Lord Sidious, you know this is illegal and so do I. If I'm going to go through with this I need your assurance of some kind of political or legal cover.

or

Yeah Queen Amidala, I've got an illegal blockade around your planet, so how do ya like those apples?

A somewhat plausible bad guy will swear up and down that he's not breaking the law, like Nixon when he said he broke no laws because if a President does it, it's not illegal.

Explain why this is more plausible than the TF levying a tax on planets from their greed and Naboo refusing to pay.

Because in the movie, Palpatine says the problem began in the Senate with the tax on the trade routes, meaning the Senate levied the tax.

[Elfdart]

I haven't watch TPM in a while, but doesn't the Senate argue for over a month whether or not the blockade is legal? I think they then come down to the conclusion that it isn't right?

In real life government officials lie when it's useful or convenient, no matter how preposterous the lie. One of the major plot points of the prequels is that the Republic is corrupt and rotting from within. Gunray tells Amidala two outrageous lies:

1) He hasn't seen any ambassadors from the chancellor

2) He would never do anything without the approval of the Senate -implying that the Senate approves- but his own flunkie lets the cat out of the bag when he says: "She's right, the Senate will never..."

So Gunray is lying like a cheap rug. Later, when Amidala tries to make her case before the Senate, that the Federation has invaded her planet, the TF's senator says "This is outrageous!", implying that Gunray hasn't invaded Naboo. Apparently the notion that movie villains will lie is a real shocker to some of the special needs moviegoers.

[Elfdart]

So I take it you can't name a scene where anyone mentions, infers or out right says the blockade is illegal? You know why that is? Because it doesn't exist. Because the blockade is legal.

I already did, fuckwit. You just chose to ignore it and maintain your wall of ignorance. Now go play in traffic.

[Elfdart]

You ask that like it's a hard question. The Death Star plans are a MacGuffin. You can remove them from the movie and still have basically the same story. Because all you need is for Luke to leave home, save the princess, then fight the Empire's big superweapon at the end.

Wow.

You're dumbstruck by something that's so fucking obvious?

Okay... well, I guess this statement here reveals that you simply process storytelling in a way that is impossible for me to comprehend. You really think ANH would be "basically the same" if the Deathstar plans were removed? It doesn't occur to you that if this were the case, we wouldn't know why the fuck Darth Vader was doing anything we saw him do (beyond an extremely vague "he wants something from the rebels")? Jesus, I guess you really just don't care. (Either that, or you're just lying.) Thank God most films aren't written with you in mind. No, they usually take the time to explain to the audience why the things they see on screen are happening.

The point of a MacGuffin is that in most cases, you could easily swap it out with something else and the story would remain pretty much the same. In Hitchcock movies they're so interchangeable that many Hitchcock fans can't remember if it was uranium or microfilm in North By Northwest. Get rid of the Death Star plans and Leia still has reason to seek out Obi-Wan (her father asked her to bring him to Alderaan). Vader still has reason to attack her ship (he found out she was looking for Kenobi). The droids would still have reason to escape the blockade runner and find Obi-Wan. Luke would still be brought into the picture by buying the droids. Even the plan used to attack on the Death Star could simply be discovered by reconnaissance or an Imperial defector or whatever. So yes, you could do without the Death Star plans and still have the same basic story.

Ironically, if the invasion was written as a simple greedy land-grab by the Trade Federation, (or an attempt to mine some unobtainium on Naboo), nobody here would be complaining about this issue.

Bullshit. The level of incoherent ass-hurt from Red Letter Morons shows that if TPM had spelled out in detail the exact terms of the deal between Sidious and the TF, Heathcliff and his cockgoblins would simply grope for something else to bitch about.

But instead, the motive for the invasion is totally opaque.

It's about as "opaque" as the motives of most other movie villains. They're greedy and they foolishly thought that doing the bidding of a Sith Lord would make them richer.

So basically we're supposed to care about a conflict which has no emotional force because we don't understand what the TF stands to gain from anything they're doing.

Yeah, I was put off by Star Wars because they didn't explain why Greedo wanted to rob and kill Han Solo. I just couldn't understand what Greedo stood to gain from his actions.


Are you really that retarded?

Whatever. At this point, you've basically been reduced to broken record nonsense where you just admit that we don't know what the fuck is going on in TPM, but then claim that it doesn't matter because there's other things to care about (like lightsabers and a pod-race.) Well, if that's really your opinion that's fine, but don't claim the OT was written the same way, or that the opaque plot of TPM represents some kind of normal standard for storytelling.

If you think TPM's plot is too "opaque" for you, stay away from A Man For All Seasons. In fact, stay away from movies in general.

[Cesario]

Yeah, I was put off by Star Wars because they didn't explain why Greedo wanted to rob and kill Han Solo. I just couldn't understand what Greedo stood to gain from his actions.


Are you really that retarded?

What?

Greedo didn't want to rob and kill Han Solo. He was a bounty hunter hired to kill Han Solo and bring his head back to Jabba the Hutt due to a debt Jabba believes Han owes him over a matter of dumping a shipment of smuggled cargo.

How do you not fucking know this?

This was explained in the movie.

Admittedly, half the conversation was in subtitles, and thus requires reading.

[Elfdart]

Yeah, I was put off by Star Wars because they didn't explain why Greedo wanted to rob and kill Han Solo. I just couldn't understand what Greedo stood to gain from his actions.


Are you really that retarded?

What?

Greedo didn't want to rob and kill Han Solo. He was a bounty hunter hired to kill Han Solo and bring his head back to Jabba the Hutt due to a debt Jabba believes Han owes him over a matter of dumping a shipment of smuggled cargo.

How do you not fucking know this?

This was explained in the movie.

Admittedly, half the conversation was in subtitles, and thus requires reading.

I guess you missed the part where Han tells Greedo he has the money and Greedo says "If you give it to me I might forget I found you"

What do you think that means, fucktard? He wants to take the money for himself and shoot Solo -something he would almost have to do if he took the money for himself. Heathcliff claims yet another victim with his contagious stupidity.

[Cesario]

Yeah, I was put off by Star Wars because they didn't explain why Greedo wanted to rob and kill Han Solo. I just couldn't understand what Greedo stood to gain from his actions.


Are you really that retarded?

What?

Greedo didn't want to rob and kill Han Solo. He was a bounty hunter hired to kill Han Solo and bring his head back to Jabba the Hutt due to a debt Jabba believes Han owes him over a matter of dumping a shipment of smuggled cargo.

How do you not fucking know this?

This was explained in the movie.

Admittedly, half the conversation was in subtitles, and thus requires reading.

I guess you missed the part where Han tells Greedo he has the money and Greedo says "If you give it to me I might forget I found you"

What do you think that means, fucktard? He wants to take the money for himself and shoot Solo -something he would almost have to do if he took the money for himself. Heathcliff claims yet another victim with his contagious stupidity.

Greedo was trying to pull a shakedown in addition to his normal duties as a bounty hunter.

Here's the important bit, though. Greedo was greedy. Just like the Trade Federation. Unlike the Trade Federation, every action Greedo performs in this movie makes sense in light of that motivation.

Wanting money, he takes a contract to kill Han Solo for Jabba the Hutt, because Jabba the Hutt will give him money for killing Han Solo.

Wanting money, he shakes Han down for some before trying to kill him, which leads to Han being able to surprise him by shooting him under the table and escape.

Now, can you trace as clear a path between the Trade Federation's actions and their desire for money?

[Elfdart]

Switching from plans to Kenobi works pretty well, until he dies. Once he's dead, what's the rush to get to the Rebel base? Would it be worth risking being followed just to bring Leia back to the office?

Perhaps you could argue they went there specifically to lure the Death Star into a trap, but that'd be a pretty weird move. If it's just a trap, it could have happened anywhere, any time. Wouldn't have to go to a main base right now.

Once the heroes break Leia out of prison and escape, they'd want to find the Rebellion since at this point they're all on the Imperial Shit List. Either that or they'd have to run off and hide on their own.

Now, them going directly to the base is a bit of a minor open question anyway, with the real movie, but we don't worry about it much because the urgency of the plans (and the pacing of the film) provides an easy cover.

Or the heroes might have discovered the weak spot themselves while sneaking around the Death Star and wanted to alert the Rebels to attack ASAP.

Without that, you might just say "wait a god damned minute that's not a smart move at all".

In either scenario running for Yavin wasn't the smartest move, but that's been hashed over many times.

Why would Vader board the ship? He has been following them the whole time, so he knows they haven't picked up any passengers. Kenobi obviously isn't aboard the ship.

To torture and kill Rebel spies and collaborators.

Why plot-reap Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru? Owen would probably tell them where to find Kenobi,

Or not. Killing and burning an entire family might be standard stormtrooper procedure.

and besides, Vader can sense him on the Death Star... so wouldn't he be able to sense him on the planet too?

Vader might be called back to the DS like he was called to talk to the Emperor in TESB and had to obey.

Fuck it, why bother going down to the planet? Just intercepting Leia prevents her from delivering her message to him. Movie over.

Unless her two droids escape from her ship and carry the message for her, like in the movie.

So, I take it back, he doesn't work. If you swap him out, you have to change the events of the movie for it to contine making sense.

But nothing major.

[Elfdart]

Now, can you trace as clear a path between the Trade Federation's actions and their desire for money?

Yes, they make a harebrained pact with a Sith Lord and do what he says (sometimes against their own judgement) because they're scared of him.

Boy that's so fucking complicated. I, Claudius eat your heart out!

[Cesario]

Now, can you trace as clear a path between the Trade Federation's actions and their desire for money?

Yes, they make a harebrained pact with a Sith Lord and do what he says (sometimes against their own judgement) because they're scared of him.

Boy that's so fucking complicated. I, Claudius eat your heart out!

How does this get them money?

Or more accurately, how do they think this will get them money? Since Greedo never saw any money either.

[Darth Yoshi]

Um, guy's got pull with the Senate? Can you say, favorable tariffs? Or perhaps, exclusive shipping deals? Of course, by the time they realize that Sith Lords are in fact, bad for business, they're stuck.

[Gunhead]

You're representing this as "the whole movie should be about taxes lolololol", which is charitably a misrepresentation, and uncharitably a lie. I'm sorry that you can't comprehend that it is possible to give exposition without slowing things to a crawl.

-Someone who thinks manually signing a post is the sign of an unbalanced mind

And I'm sorry you obviously hit yourself on the head with that broom handle you call a "light saber" and missed the part where I pretty much said I don't see how more expose on a single issue in the movie would make it better if the movie is otherwise left as is. But since you're suffering a brain trauma, I guess I have to make this really clear to you. I don't see how more or better expose on this single issue would have in itself resulted in a better movie, if the movie is otherwise left unchanged. By this I mean the whole tax issue is not the fundamental problem in the movie. Since I need to explain everything to you, the whole joke was prompted by this really long thread where people are vehemently arguing the whole tax issue and I find this amusing as I find the whole issue pretty much irrelevant as far as the quality of the movie goes. So put the broom back in the cabinet before you damage yourself any further.

-Gunhead who thinks Bakustra is a butt hurt little fanboy

[Cesario]

Um, guy's got pull with the Senate? Can you say, favorable tariffs? Or perhaps, exclusive shipping deals? Of course, by the time they realize that Sith Lords are in fact, bad for business, they're stuck.

Wait, are you implying that the whole Naboo fiasco had no percentage in it for them, but was just something they did for Palpetine in exchange for other favors?

Not saying that doesn't fit, but it seems like that would make figuring out that there was a shadowy manipulator pulling the strings a lot easier. I would have expected better of Palpetine.

Then again, this period in history has apparently never heard the phrase "follow the money", so they need to actually fight a Sith Lord before the Jedi realize something screwy's going on.

[Bakustra]

*snip*

So why doesn't anybody else treat it as illegal? They treat this as a matter for negotiation, initially, to "force a settlement" in the script. Amidala's advisors believe that an invasion would cause the Senate to severely punish the Trade Federation. Why wouldn't they do this if the blockade was illegal? In the script, they have to vote on whether to allow the Trade Federation to continue their blockade. Why would they have to do that if it was clearly illegal? Hell, Amidala is focused on negotiating a settlement with the Trade Federation. The evidence does not point towards it being obviously illegal, except for you pretending that it does.

Anyway, Gunray is perfectly willing to object to the invasion on the grounds of legality, so if the blockade was obviously illegal, then he's either an idiot who can't remember Sidious assuring him of his ability to make the blockade legal earlier, or he conveniently grows an abbreviated spine for that one scene. Both are bad writing- if Gunray is supposed to be a complete idiot, the movie does not communicate that well, and inconsistency in character is never a good thing. Far more likely is that the blockade is legal, or of dubious legality, while the invasion is obviously illegal, since that makes sense with the reactions of people in the movie, and the alternatives do not.

Explain why this is more plausible than the TF levying a tax on planets from their greed and Naboo refusing to pay.

Because in the movie, Palpatine says the problem began in the Senate with the tax on the trade routes, meaning the Senate levied the tax.

Or that the Senate gave the Trade Federation the right to collect tariffs and Naboo refused to pay, which also counts as originating in the Senate. You have nothing to tilt it either way. Both are equally plausible, though the one at least is more interesting.

The point of a MacGuffin is that in most cases, you could easily swap it out with something else and the story would remain pretty much the same. In Hitchcock movies they're so interchangeable that many Hitchcock fans can't remember if it was uranium or microfilm in North By Northwest. Get rid of the Death Star plans and Leia still has reason to seek out Obi-Wan (her father asked her to bring him to Alderaan). Vader still has reason to attack her ship (he found out she was looking for Kenobi). The droids would still have reason to escape the blockade runner and find Obi-Wan. Luke would still be brought into the picture by buying the droids. Even the plan used to attack on the Death Star could simply be discovered by reconnaissance or an Imperial defector or whatever. So yes, you could do without the Death Star plans and still have the same basic story.

Without changing the rest of the movie, you illiterate! You're changing the movie, and that's not what I asked. You can't include any scenes to explain why they know about the vulnerability, you can't add any dialogue, you can only delete any references to the Death Star plans. Is the movie still crystal-clear, then? Answer me, fucker.

Um, guy's got pull with the Senate? Can you say, favorable tariffs? Or perhaps, exclusive shipping deals? Of course, by the time they realize that Sith Lords are in fact, bad for business, they're stuck.

So why doesn't anybody remark on how strange it is that they're blockading a planet for no reason? Because that's what you're suggesting is going on in TPM. If that's not what you meant to suggest, then you still have the question of what the blockade gains them, which TPM never explains. Even if you want to go ahead with "blockade for no reason", arguably they should have mentioned what they were getting out of the deal, then. And for all the idiots whining about how this would take too long and dominate the movie, you know how you handle exposition like that? Two, three lines where one of Gunray's subordinates asks whether reason X is worth all this trouble. Hey, that explains things and goes with the "deal with the devil" motif!

[Darth Yoshi]

Wait, are you implying that the whole Naboo fiasco had no percentage in it for them, but was just something they did for Palpetine in exchange for other favors?

Not saying that doesn't fit, but it seems like that would make figuring out that there was a shadowy manipulator pulling the strings a lot easier. I would have expected better of Palpetine.

Then again, this period in history has apparently never heard the phrase "follow the money", so they need to actually fight a Sith Lord before the Jedi realize something screwy's going on.

I'm saying that was their original motivation for colluding with Palpatine, but by the time TPM rolls around they no longer have any choice but to listen to Palpatine.

So why doesn't anybody remark on how strange it is that they're blockading a planet for no reason? Because that's what you're suggesting is going on in TPM. If that's not what you meant to suggest, then you still have the question of what the blockade gains them, which TPM never explains. Even if you want to go ahead with "blockade for no reason", arguably they should have mentioned what they were getting out of the deal, then. And for all the idiots whining about how this would take too long and dominate the movie, you know how you handle exposition like that? Two, three lines where one of Gunray's subordinates asks whether reason X is worth all this trouble. Hey, that explains things and goes with the "deal with the devil" motif!

Blockading Naboo gets the TF the opportunity to not have Palpatine send assassins after them for being loose ends.

[Bakustra]

You didn't answer my question. People don't comment on how strange it is for the Trade Federation to be doing something that doesn't help them in any way, which is what you're suggesting they're doing. Therefore, there has to be something that they could get out of the blockade, and all the stuff you're putting out is entirely unsupported by the film.

[Jim Raynor]

Serious question. Are you mentally handicapped in some way? You seem capable of writing but do you know how to read? The only person bringing hunting wildlife, jamming communication, and Bail is you.

Blatant lying. I'm calling people on it over and over again, but they were the ones who actually embarassed themselves by saying those things first.

Destructionator XIII recanted his Bail stuff (not once but twice you dishonest, non-reading piece of shit)

Go tell the others to recant their stupidity about jamming during a military attack, or why a blockade doesn't matter because you can hunt animals, or how seeing troops landing on a planet after an attempt to murder you isn't just cause to think that there's an invasion going on. Then tell the others not to try so hard to come up with stupid wannabe film critic analysis again.

So do me a favor, bring something new to the table,

Who is bringing anything new to this table? You guys are all still caught up on the taxes like a bunch of obsessive compulsives.

I don't care if you copy and paste from your 108 page piece of garbage rebuttal,

LOL, the same rebuttal that was pretty much a word-for-word response to the RLM review that you probably loved? Wouldn't call that garbage, would you?

Once again, the Trade Federation with a trade franchise has a problem with taxes on trade routes. It follows that they don't like taxes, and are acting out so that the taxes are repealed.

Underlining words doesn't change their meaning. Please direct me to the scene that says who is getting taxed.

You have got to be trolling. Nobody needs things spelled out for them this badly.

[Jim Raynor]

You ask that like it's a hard question. The Death Star plans are a MacGuffin. You can remove them from the movie and still have basically the same story. Because all you need is for Luke to leave home, save the princess, then fight the Empire's big superweapon at the end.

Wow.

Okay... well, I guess this statement here reveals that you simply process storytelling in a way that is impossible for me to comprehend.

I "process storytelling" like the average person in the theater. Plot, themes, and action matter, not trifling little MacGuffin set ups that the movie moves beyond within the first minute. If anything, you guys and your ever growing list of pointless nitpick criticisms are the ones who "process storytelling" in a bizarre way.

You really think ANH would be "basically the same" if the Deathstar plans were removed?

Yes, it would have. Because the Death Star plans are either not needed for most scenes, or aren't even what the characters focus on throughout the movie. Vader attacks Leia's ship. The plans don't need to be there, the ship's full of Rebels anyway. Leia puts the plans on R2 and sends him to Tatooine, along with a mission to find Obi-Wan Kenobi. Right there is another reason for the droids to be there, without the plans. Vader takes Leia away, not even caring to stay on Tatooine to oversee the operation to recover the plans. What he actually cares about is Leia telling him where the Rebel base is. The entire operation to recover the plans stays mostly offscreen, as does the killing of Luke's aunt and uncle. Why did they have to be killed? The movie could have written in "they were Rebel sympathizers," "they were suspected of harboring Rebels," or "just because, since Stormtroopers are a bunch of violent sadistic assholes."

The Millenium Falcon is captured by the Death Star. Despite looking exactly like the ship suspected of leaving Tatooine with the plans, it's apparently such a low priority that Vader, Tarkin, or any of the high ranking officers don't even take notice of it. No, a stupid "scanning crew" lugging a big box of who knows what (if this had happened in the prequels, fanboys would be whining about it to no end) goes onboard and gets taken out without any real supervision. Onboard the Death Star, Luke and Han's priority isn't even to protect the Death Star plans. They just leave the droids sitting alone in a room while they go to save the princess, because Luke feels it's the right thing to do. The heroes shoot their way through the Death Star, and it's only after they leave that it's said that the whole thing was a ruse. The Empire doesn't even care about recovering the Death Star plans (another plot point that fanboys would be whining about had it happened in the prequels). They only care about destroying the main Rebel base, which goes back to what Vader was interrogating Leia about.

It is so very clear that most of the movie doesn't care one bit about the plans. It's one of the most transparent plot devices I've ever seen, and one that Lucas didn't even really have to bother with. Yet we have guys like you acting shocked that someone would question how the movie could've possibly worked without it. I would say that it's you guys who "process storytelling" in an unusual way. Thinking that minor details which are neither here nor there are actually critical to storytelling. ANH is about a teenage farmboy leaving home, going out into the world, and having a big awesome adventure. It's not about the damn plans or whatever contrived reason was made for them to be fighting.

Thank God most films aren't written with you in mind. No, they usually take the time to explain to the audience why the things they see on screen are happening.

No, they care about telling a story. Showing characters interacting or moving toward a goal or some kind of development. Entertaining people with cool effects and action scenes. Stuff that's critical to that entertainment is explained. Trifling little details and MacGuffins are glossed over or breezed through.

[Jim Raynor]

You know, Ridley Scott released a director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven on DVD to make sense of what many thought was an incomprehensible theatrical version. It's a shame that Lucas never had the stones to swallow his pride and do something similar with TPM. No, he just continues to make stupid modifications to the movies that never needed them.

I saw Kingdom of Heaven once had no problem understanding it. But whatever. You realize that "director's cuts" aren't the norm for most movies, right? I love how you take the fact that Lucas didn't take his highly successful movie aimed at ten year olds and add fanboy-demanded exposition to it as not having the balls to "swallow his pride."

What you're left with is that tiny little tribe of fanboys who will fanatically defend everything SW against all opposition,

Please. The two sides in this stupid argument here aren't the same in their extremism. Most people who like TPM are aware that it's not perfect. The people defending TPM here are of the opinion that you shouldn't care that much to the extent that you get caught up in stupid little irrelevant details.

It's the movie's bashers here who want to keep inventing more and more ludicrous things to complain about. Who have deified a low brow comedian/critic who thinks acting up like a developmentally stunted freak while making unsupported insinuations about George Lucas's professional relationships for over an hour is good film critique. The prequel detractors here have all watched the RLM nonsense. Some of you guys signed up on this forum specifically to white knight for him and defend his honor after I dared point out that he's not the end-all to prequel discussion. I don't see any of you guys coming clean on the fact that many of his critiques are dumb if not dishonest.

Who's the real fanatic here?

[Jim Raynor]

I ask again: what are the themes of TPM?

Standing up for what you believe in. Being independent and self sufficient, instead of relying on corrupt bureaucracies and backward institutions to do everything for you. Believing in the people you mentor. Letting go of your past. Putting aside differences to work with other people for a common goal. How easy it is for the truth to get lost when dishonest people are in charge.

All of these things are made very clear in the movie. Some of these things are the kind of simple morals taught to children.

I'm really getting tired of this broken record, dishonest spam that simply refuses to actually answer anything at all.

Wait, aren't you the guy who admitted to trolling? I've gotten all of you guys mixed up in my head, since all of you just keep saying the same things over and over again. You want to talk about a "broken record?" It's been HOW many weeks now, and you guys are still caught up on the TAXES?

You know, when your big gripe against the movie is that the nearly irrelevant MacGuffin (that the movie left behind in the dust as early as the end of the OPENING CRAWL) wasn't spelled out, maybe, just maybe the movie isn't as completely horrible as you want to convince yourself that it is?

[Anguirus]

No point in trying to argue with a Wall of Ignorance.

What Wall of Ignorance would that be? What fact are you espousing that I refuse to acknowledge? That's what "Wall of Ignorance" means.

You're the one who brought EU into this thread. I doubt anyone would accept EU info about Gunray as forgiving away TPM's flaws (I sure wouldn't).

My central point regarding Tarkin is that his motivation is just as ill-defined (and essentially not needed) as Gunray. They are both ambitious pawns of Sidious or the Empire, and that's all we really need to understand the movies.

What am I leaving out? As we already know, TPM handwaved the Villainous Plan, which was almost comically straightforward in ANH, but we still know what Gunray's motivations are. Even you folks will admit that he clearly wants to either tax more, or be taxed less, which amounts to the same damn thing from his perspective ("I like money").

Raynor: you are dead right that the DS plans are basically a MacGuffin. The only distinction from sort of the classic MacGuffin is that it's clearly tied to an important location and plot element in the film, but this distinction is not of great importance.

[Bakustra]

I ask again: what are the themes of TPM?

Standing up for what you believe in. Being independent and self sufficient, instead of relying on corrupt bureaucracies and backward institutions to do everything for you. Believing in the people you mentor. Letting go of your past. Putting aside differences to work with other people for a common goal. How easy it is for the truth to get lost when dishonest people are in charge.

All of these things are made very clear in the movie. Some of these things are the kind of simple morals taught to children.

Are you simple? A theme is something that is reinforced throughout a work. It is not something that pops up for one or two scenes. The relationship between the Gungans and the Naboo only comes up in two scenes, each very distant from one another. So two of your "themes" break a leg right out of the gate and are sent to the glue factory. Similarly, the movie doesn't reinforce "Believe in the people you mentor", since the relationship between Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan is already established as one of trust and Anakin does what he does that is heroic largely accidentally and against the wishes of Qui-Gon, so that doesn't really make that prominent as a theme. "Being independent and self-sufficient" was what the villain used to manipulate Amidala into doing what he wanted, so if you took that as a theme the movie was espousing, then, well, because it's you, that's because you're an utter failure as a viewer, but if it weren't you, then that would be a problem with the movie.

"Standing up for what you believe in" was a good try on your part, since it's so generic that millions of things could be considered to have it, but even then, what does Amidala stand up for? Or Qui-Gon? Or Obi-Wan? What do they believe in that they stand up for, that this can be considered a major theme?

"How easy the truth can get lost"? There's one scene, where the point was to show the bickering and useless nature of the Senate. That's not a message about censorship, and there's no thematic element about the truth.

If I took those seriously as actual themes that were intended to be communicated by the movie, then TPM would be on the same level as Manos: the Hands of Fate, an utter bungling of craft. But I don't, because I can recognize the shared themes of Star Wars as a whole that it continues, though those are not individual themes of the movies.

It's the movie's bashers here who want to keep inventing more and more ludicrous things to complain about. Who have deified a low brow comedian/critic who thinks acting up like a developmentally stunted freak while making unsupported insinuations about George Lucas's professional relationships for over an hour is good film critique. The prequel detractors here have all watched the RLM nonsense. Some of you guys signed up on this forum specifically to white knight for him and defend his honor after I dared point out that he's not the end-all to prequel discussion. I don't see any of you guys coming clean on the fact that many of his critiques are dumb if not dishonest.

"You're a fucking liar, Raynor", is what I would say if I were indeed as distorted an individual as you. Instead, I will simply say that I have never seen any of RedLetterMedia's reviews of any Star Wars movie, or indeed of anything, and I have no intention of doing so, and that it is a sign of your feeble grasp that you believe that characterizing all of your opponents as components of a hivemind is devastating rather than pathetic.

But Raynor, you're, like Elfdart, mentally adding things to this bizarro-ANH. You miss the point of the question altogether, which to me suggests that you know, deep down in the shrivelled, purpled and bruised thing you call a heart that the question of motivation is an entirely relevant one, and you're just putting on a brave face rather than admit the truth to yourself. Well, Raynor, if you wish to live a life of lies, on the internet or in real life, it will eventually destroy you. Thought you might like to know that.

I "process storytelling" like the average person in the theater. Plot, themes, and action matter, not trifling little MacGuffin set ups that the movie moves beyond within the first minute. If anything, you guys and your ever growing list of pointless nitpick criticisms are the ones who "process storytelling" in a bizarre way.

Character motivation is not a nitpick, and indeed, the fact that you think that action is more important than character explains why you don't grasp any criticisms based on motivation. To you, it is simply unimportant. You would watch a movie with cardboard cutouts as long as there was a hackneyed plot with enough explosions and a tedious moral. You are shit at being a viewer. A living sack of shit in how you react to stories. Fuck you, for unlike the unwashed who refuse to watch any "talky" movies out of ignorance, you reject them consciously, knowing what you do. Celluloid and digital cinema alike are wasted upon you.

[Stark]

Do the RLM things even make similar criticisms? I thought people just knee-jerked everyone who doesn't like TPM into RLM zombies because it made them feel better.

I don't know how they deal with the fact that people thought TPM stank from the day it came out. Defend the hive!