New Redletter Media video about Lucas

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The amusing part is that apparently Raynor considers himself an 'average viewer'. Yet, when you look at the reviews for TPM (zomfg, not the RLM one!), what does the 'average viewer' think? Well, it's pretty, but lacks any real depth in plot, characterization, themes and motivation. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 61%, not horrible, but not very good either. Compare that to the 94% of ANH, 97% of ESB and 79% of RotJ.

While it's not nearly the negatives we've been pouring on it, I'm pretty certain none of us are pretending to be the 'average viewer'. Still, it seems popular opinion is that the movie just wasn't very good , for lighter versions of the reasons we're pointing out.

[Bakustra]

The amusing part is that apparently Raynor considers himself an 'average viewer'. Yet, when you look at the reviews for TPM (zomfg, not the RLM one!), what does the 'average viewer' think? Well, it's pretty, but lacks any real depth in plot, characterization, themes and motivation. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 61%, not horrible, but not very good either. Compare that to the 94% of ANH, 97% of ESB and 79% of RotJ.

While it's not nearly the negatives we've been pouring on it, I'm pretty certain none of us are pretending to be the 'average viewer'. Still, it seems popular opinion is that the movie just wasn't very good , for lighter versions of the reasons we're pointing out.

Honestly, I'd give it around a 50-60%. It, and the rest of the prequels, aren't really bad movies so much as they're mediocre blockbuster sci-fi. I'm harsh on them because the original movies are so good that they suffer in comparison. If they weren't Star Wars, then they'd be hanging around with Lost In Space '98 and American Godzilla on the dumb sci-fi shelf. But since they are, they're really a massive disappointment.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

That pretty much mirrors my own reasons for picking on them: They're just mediocre movies with some nice eye-candy and little else going for them. I'd leave it at that except they have a habit of getting a lot of attention in certain niches, and since the spotlight to this day occasionally shines on them, I'll offer my own not-so-positive views on the subject.

Pretty much the same thing with Twilight, really. Though objectively I consider the Twilight series far, far worse than the prequels, for what that's worth.

[Elfdart]

*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.

Two reasons:

1) The Senate is already bogged down, so even though something is illegal, there's not much that can be done about.

2) There are degrees of illegality. A blockade in and of itself might cause the head of state to send representatives to tell -not ask- them to stop it. Invading and occupying might provoke the Senate to do something if it's convenient for the different senators to do so (apparently this was not the case with Naboo, showing that the planet didn't have enough clout and the TF/Sidious had much more). Murdering a head of state who is just an adolescent girl would provoke more outrage and possibly more action.

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.

There's a HUGE difference between something being illegal and whether a government is going to do anything about it.

Without changing the rest of the movie, you illiterate!

You're the one in need of a remedial reading course, fucktard. Here's what Jim Raynor wrote:

You can remove them [the Death Star plans] from the movie [ANH] and still have basically the same story.

Instead of trying to move the goalposts, why don't you shove them up your ass?

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.

Why? Because you feel the need to change the terms? That just proves you're a douche.

Is the movie still crystal-clear, then? Answer me, fucker.

Shorter Bakustra: When getting schooled, I'll change the terms of the discussion and become a hysterical little prick.

[Metahive]

What's the theme of Star Wars? The allure of great power. That's the theme of the OT and it ought to be the theme of the PT too (a mirror version of it, Luke overcomes the allure of power while Anakin succumbs to it), but due to the shoddy writing the real theme of the PT is "Evil triumphs because good is dumb".

Has anyone here ever read any of those horrible, horrible Left Behind books? Well, the primary villain of those is the "anti-christ" called Nicolae Carpathia. The first few books concern his plot to obtain supreme power over the whole globe. How does he accomplish that? He asks all the nations in the world to destroy 90% of their weapons and give him the remaining 10%. That's it. The nations of the world of course...comply with that order implicitily without any fuss. Just because he asked them nicely, no mind-control or anything supernatural involved at that point in the books. Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? That's almost the same way Palpatine gets anything he wants in the PT! People do what he wants just because he asks them either nicely or sternly to. Besides Anakin none of his "pawns" are even promised anything in return. What does the TF get ouf their "bargain"? What does Dooku get? The CIS? Nothing. They obey him although he has zero leverage and nothing to offer other than a bossy 'tude.

Once you take clues from Left Behind as to how to structure your work, you know you've reached the bottom of the barrel.

[Bakustra]

Elfdart, why did you refuse to address my second paragraph? Let me repeat it for your benefit:

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.

Now let me also repeat the question that I initially asked:

Answer me this question. If you removed the Death Star Plans from ANH, would it still be a good movie?

Apparently, for the benefit of the Raynor-Elfdart Brain Trust, I should have made explicit that the point was not to replace the Death Star plans with something else, but simply to excise them and see whether the movie works.

I guess that you're just one of the storygaming swine after all, if you know what I mean.

[Anguirus]

Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? That's almost the same way Palpatine gets anything he wants in the PT! People do what he wants just because he asks them either nicely or sternly to. Besides Anakin none of his "pawns" are even promised anything in return. What does the TF get ouf their "bargain"? What does Dooku get? The CIS? Nothing. They obey him although he has zero leverage and nothing to offer other than a bossy 'tude.

Did you forget that you're talking about a guy who does have immense magical powers of persuasion? :lol

TF: was supposed to get money, got cold feet, got screwed over, then apparently turned on him during Episode II...but mistakenly fell in with Dooku and wound up a pawn of him again.

Dooku: He gets to be Sith Lord #2. This is quite sufficient motivation: for reference see all G-canon and EU entries in the Star Wars saga, as well as any fantasy story with evil wizards in it. Then Sidious betrays him in favor of Anakin.

CIS: Chafed under Republic laws, bought Dooku's hype about the Republic being too corrupt to survive, also see TF entry.

Episode II is actually a lot more bullshitty and handwavey than Episode I. You either have to really squint, go with the "mind trick" scenario, or consult EU for it to make sense...which is BAD remember.

[Elfdart]

Elfdart, why did you refuse to address my second paragraph? Let me repeat it for your benefit:

Because it's so goddamned stupid I thought you were joking.

Gunray asks for political/legal cover for the invasion BEFORE he carries it out ("Is that... legal?", "I will make it legal!"). Since the blockade is already established when the opening credits roll, it should be obvious to non-retards that Gunray sought (and got) similar assurances from Lord Sidious before they set up the blockade. Remember, the invasion AND the blockade were Sidious' idea in the first place (Haako: "This scheme of yours has failed Lord Sidious -we dare not go against the Jedi!").

Answer me this question. If you removed the Death Star Plans from ANH, would it still be a good movie?

Apparently, for the benefit of the Raynor-Elfdart Brain Trust, I should have made explicit that the point was not to replace the Death Star plans with something else, but simply to excise them and see whether the movie works.

Bullshit. You're trying to move the goalposts because it would take about fifteen minutes to edit the plans out of the screenplay and still have a coherent story about Luke Skywalker's call to adventure. Now you're saying you meant to cut any mention of the plans and leave that part of the script blank, which is not only dishonest, but moronic too.

Heathcliff's stupidity isn't the only thing that's contagious; his dishonesty can pass from victim to victim as well. Cutting any part of a script can screw up a movie unless those gaps are either filled with something else, or other parts of the script are altered to compensate for the missing material. Whether this would work has more to do with execution. I already explained how a lack of DS plans could be finessed without changing the basic story of the movie. In The Hidden Fortress (the movie that inspired much of Star Wars), the MacGuffin is a bunch of gold bars hidden in bundles of firewood by the Princess and her followers. Without altering the main story that much, you could just as easily swap the Death Star plans for the treasury of the Princess (which she wants to smuggle to safety so she can use it to fund the war effort) and Luke's Hero's Journey is still intact.

[Channel72]

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.

Obviously if you change around the story enough you don't need the Deathstar plans. That's obviously not the point you stubborn shithead. The point is that if you take the script as is, but simply delete all references to the Deathstar plans, you'd have something similar to what we find in TPM: villains doing lots of "evil" things on-screen for no explicit reason.

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.

TPM has so many problems with it, the entire thing would probably need to be rewritten for it to be reasonably beyond criticism. But if the script at least spelled out that the Trade Federation invaded Naboo to mine unobtainium or something, then no, we wouldn't be complaining that the villains have no motivation for their actions.

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.

Greedo's motivation is explicitly clear: he was hired by Jabba the Hutt to bring in Han Solo, because Han Solo lost some valuable cargo. This is fucking spelled out clearly *in dialogue* you obtuse piece of shit. In TPM, nobody ever explains how invading Naboo furthers the Trade Federation's interests.

[Stark]

That's a pretty hilarious example, since it's not just dialog; it's fucking subtitled. Indeed, the scene exists for no other reason than to give Han Solo context!

"Jabba doesn't like guys who drop shipments"
"He wants you dead"
"I'll take your ship"

I wonder what Greedo stands to gain? Why is he doing this?

It's a good example of how simple and quick it is to establish context if you're not amazingly stupid, though.

[Metahive]

Did you forget that you're talking about a guy who does have immense magical powers of persuasion? :lol

Who? Palpatine or Carpathia? The latter is even said to have direct mind-control powers and yet that's not how he got the nations to give up their weapons, their respective currencies AND their religion in favor of his new, made-up one. No, he really does nothing but ask them nicely to do so. O yeah, and he can recite long, boring lists from memory in ten different languages. Wouldn't you trust such a person with the fate of the planet immediately?

TF: was supposed to get money, got cold feet, got screwed over, then apparently turned on him during Episode II...but mistakenly fell in with Dooku and wound up a pawn of him again.

Money? Where's money being made in invading Naboo? Quote me something from the movies for that. Also, at the end of ROTS we see they're still directly beholden to Sidious, so mistakenly nothing.

Dooku: He gets to be Sith Lord #2. This is quite sufficient motivation: for reference see all G-canon and EU entries in the Star Wars saga, as well as any fantasy story with evil wizards in it. Then Sidious betrays him in favor of Anakin.

In a critique of the movies, EU-stuff is understandably completely irrelevant. When I watch a movie, nothing should require me to hunt down a bunch of random, horribly written novels just to make sense of something as basic as the villain's motivations.

CIS: Chafed under Republic laws, bought Dooku's hype about the Republic being too corrupt to survive, also see TF entry.

I can't agree, the corruption of the Republic worked in the favor of the corporate bigwigs. Why attempt a risky and expensive armed insurrection instead of simply bribing or blackmailing a few more senators, the courts or whoever to get what they want? Unanswered question, except for the TF, whose price for entry was...Padme's head (which they don't even get). Economic and strategic genius, all of them. Not.

Episode II is actually a lot more bullshitty and handwavey than Episode I. You either have to really squint, go with the "mind trick" scenario, or consult EU for it to make sense...which is BAD remember.

No argument from me.

[Channel72]

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.

Jesus Christ, just stop this strawman nonsense already. You keep pretending that people here are complaining about minor details. At this point I can't even tell if you actually believe this, or you're just lying/not actually reading posts in this thread. What we're complaining about IS plot, themes and actions. In TPM, the major plot, themes and actions are only BARELY coherent. The plot of the movie is the invasion of Naboo, and yet you still can't answer the simple question "what does the Trade Federation gain by invading Naboo?" without making shit up, because the script just glosses over these "minor details". You then pretend that the OT is similarly handwavey when it comes to plot mechanics.

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.

Yeah, it's clear you don't expect much from the plot-mechanics department. But at the end of the day, the fact is that ANH does mention the Deathstar plans, because this does help significantly to establish a concrete motivation for Vader's actions in ANH. Even fucking Transformers explains that the bad guys are after the spark cube or whatever it is. You personally might not think it's important for a film to explain specifically what the villains stand to gain from their nefarious deeds, but your personal preferences don't line up with most actual movies out there. TPM is a grotesque exception to normal storytelling: the villains oppress the good guys, but we don't know what they stand to gain by doing so. This is why many of the initial negative reviews for TPM, aside from complaining about the usual things like wooden-characters or overt slapstick, also complained about the incoherent and uninvolving nature of the plot. RLM certainly wasn't the first reviewer to complain that the Trade Federation had no clear motivation.

[Anguirus]

Who? Palpatine or Carpathia?

Palpatine. Don't know squat about Left Behind, though I think I heard that Carpathia is the anti-Christ. Good for him?

Money? Where's money being made in invading Naboo? Quote me something from the movies for that. Also, at the end of ROTS we see they're still directly beholden to Sidious, so mistakenly nothing.

Money to be (indirectly) made from invading Naboo is implicit in the premise of the film that the conflict started over taxation. I'm still waiting for one of you guys to make me give half a shit whether Nute Gunray wants to tax more or be taxed less. Either way, it's the same motivation...follow that?

As for the scene in Episode III, I agree that scene didn't make any sense on the surface considering what happened in Episode II (where it is reasonably clear at least that Gunray hooked up with Dooku to fuck over Sidious). The only thing that almost excuses it is that by Episode III Gunray is pretty broken, just wants to sue for peace at any cost, and must have already realized that he's been played for a fool too late to do anything about it.

In a critique of the movies, EU-stuff is understandably completely irrelevant. When I watch a movie, nothing should require me to hunt down a bunch of random, horribly written novels just to make sense of something as basic as the villain's motivations.

Um...I completely agree. For reference, see everything I've written in this thread.

I'm not sure how you misunderstood me so badly, but I have a suspicion. To confirm it, allow me to ask: are you familiar with the term "G-canon"?

If not, don't worry...it's a geeky term and I shouldn't have assumed everyone on the site knew it. What I meant to say is that the movies themselves confirm this all over the place (or else why was Anakin ever "seduced?") and mentioning that the EU as well as all other fantasy fiction ever written also confirm the validity of this motivation was really just extra. Becoming the apprentice of the most powerful evil wizard in the universe is a motivation.

I can't agree, the corruption of the Republic worked in the favor of the corporate bigwigs. Why attempt a risky and expensive armed insurrection instead of simply bribing or blackmailing a few more senators, the courts or whoever to get what they want? Unanswered question, except for the TF, whose price for entry was...Padme's head (which they don't even get). Economic and strategic genius, all of them. Not.

Who's to say corruption doesn't work both ways? It always seemed to me that Naboo wielded power in the legislature way out of proportion with its apparent military and economic power. Palpatine even has a double identity so he can give with one hand and take away with the other, no one suspecting. Also, and I agree this isn't much of an explanation...there IS an evil wizard sitting across from them. In fantasy fiction, evil wizards simply have patsies and pawns. It's just in Star Wars everything is turned up to eleven.

Actually, the more relevant point is probably that seizing the Republic SHOULD have been child's play with their droid production. Maybe they were just sold on how easy the thing would be. They were clearly not prepared for the Republic to have an army to attack them with at all.

But yeah, Episode II totally bungled all of its explanations, in such a way that Episode III suffered (see above).

[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.

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.

I love your arrogance, even as you play stupid semantic games. Oh no, that stuff about the Gungans and the Naboo coming together wasn't the CENTRAL point of the movie, even though it was but one of SEVERAL things I brought up! I must be soooo "simple."

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

So because the movie supports its point...it somehow doesn't "reinforce" it. LOL.

Obi-Wan openly questions and argues with his mentor. Going so far as to tell his mentor to compromise his beliefs just because he might get a promotion to the Jedi Council by conforming. Qui-Gon remains calm and patient with Obi-Wan throughout all of that, and even praises him. Which is the complete opposite of how Obi-Wan handles disputes in AOTC.

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.

So Qui-Gon trusting Anakin to win the pod race, then arguing with the Jedi Council about training him, doesn't make it a "prominent" theme. Yeah, whatever you say.

"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.

Please. Amidala's entire arc was to stop being a sad powerless princess hoping that the Republic would save her planet, and to get up and save it herself. The movie clearly portrays it as a good thing that she saved Naboo. Palpatine's election doesn't change that fact. He wasn't even revealed as the villain until the last few seconds of the penultimate scene.

I hope you know that the alternative to saving Naboo was to let her people rot and die, while Palpatine STILL milked the situation for sympathy and political gain.

"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,

Don't change the goal posts. Being generic doesn't change the fact that it's still there. BTW, how many generic action movies for kids are about the constraints of tradition, and institutional decay?

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.

LOL. So because you don't suck up to RLM, I'm a "liar" for saying something that does apply to other people here?

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.[/quote]

The exact nature of the taxes is not "character motivation." The movie clearly shows that the Trade Fed thinks that throwing its military might around can allow it to get its way on political and economic matters. Everything they do after the invasion (which comes in the first few minutes) is all about escaping legal consequences. That's also clear. You can understand the movie just fine right there. Most people did.

But nooo, we need more details on the taxes, otherwise the "character motivation" isn't clear. Despite being literally written out onscreen.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

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.

No you didn't. You you just repeated the word TRADE like it meant something. You cited scene about the invasion, but not the blockade. You simple made shit up out of thin air. There is nothing in the movie that points to the blockade being illegal it is simply your opinion that it was. So once again I ask you to give me evidence or concede that you have no proof the blockade was illegal.

[Jim Raynor]

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!

The RLM review says the same stupid things, and more. It sinks to the level of outright denial or fabrication. RLM literally says that Qui-Gon was "making shit up" for stating that an invasion was going on, after Qui-Gon escaped an attempt on his life and saw the Trade Fed army landing. RLM gets so nitpicky as to make criticisms about laser beam visuals that appear for a couple of frames, only he's incompetent at that as well so he shows clips that flat out contradict him and exonerate the movie on his stupid points against it there. If the movie does or says one thing, the RLM review will take the contrarian position without any sense. It's one of the biggest steaming loads I've ever seen, but you have pseudointellectuals and would-be filmmakers holding it up as the standard on movie analysis.

I've said again and again that TPM isn't perfect, and that you can make perfectly fair criticisms about it. But if you dislike the movie, pick a better champion than this guy.

[Jim Raynor]

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.

No you didn't. You you just repeated the word TRADE like it meant something. You cited scene about the invasion, but not the blockade. You simple made shit up out of thin air. There is nothing in the movie that points to the blockade being illegal it is simply your opinion that it was. So once again I ask you to give me evidence or concede that you have no proof the blockade was illegal.

This whole argument about whether the blockade is illegal is stupid and meaningless. It's pretty funny that you think you're right, and that it even matters.

The opening crawl calls the blockade an alarming chain of events, something that the Senate "endlessly" debates and which forces the Chancellor to secretly deploy Jedi Knights. It's pretty clear that the Senate, for all its corruption, ISN'T really that cool with it. Who the hell makes a military blockade over mere economic matters? Conflicts do flare up over economic factors, but that's the point. The Trade Fed is escalating things and making threats of violence in what was originally a non-violent issue. They're the aggressors. The opening crawl outright calls them "greedy." We're meant to sympathize with the Naboo.

As Elfdart said, the only person in the movie saying the blockade is legal is the head of the Trade Federation. The lying villain. Never mind that legality can be a vague and fluid thing. Especially when within minutes, Darth Sidious flat out says that he can manipulate what is "legal" or not.

Who the hell cares? Oh yeah. You.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

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.

Yeah who would declare their motivations in a movie scene! I mean I could only think of 3 off the top of my head.

LA Confidential:

BUD
I don't have one. Lefferts looked beat-up Christmas Eve, but didn't act it. How come?
PATCHETT Do you care about criminal matters peripheral to Susan's murder?
BUD No.
PATCHETT Then you wouldn't feel obligated to report them?
BUD That's right.

Wow, offers to help the cop as long as he won’t report other criminal activity. Who needs this stupid scene, just telling him and get to some ACTION!

Dark Knight:

DENT 'What they were gonna do'? You're
the second cop to say that to me. What, exactly, did you think they were going to do?
RAMIREZ I'm sorry- they got me early on. My
mother's medical bills and my-
DENT Don't!
Dent FLIPS his coin.
RAMIREZ I took a little from them- once
they've got you, they keep you. I'm sorry.
Dent looks at his coin. Good side.
120.
DENT Live to fight another day, officer.

Pttth! I don’t care why she worked for the Mob! She’s evil we get it! I can just assume she’s a patsy, why even bother trying to make her a three-dimensional character. It’s a movie about a dude who dresses up as a Bat!

Heat:

HANNA
What do you got?

RAOUL (conspiratorial)
This crew's ripping Porsches out of Orange County. Horrell, Piper and Voight. They're working in the back of a trim shop on Irvine. Somebody was to pay him a visit this weekend, they'd find a metallic blue Turbo...

RAOUL TORENA,
Albert's brother, is a thirty-five-year-old with crew-cut black hair and a Varri Uomo sport jacket. WIDEN To INCLUDE Hanna.

HANNA
...lookin' for me to rid you of
your competition?

RAOUL
I'm a good citizen.
HANNA
You got something to say, or
what?

RAOUL
Mi carnal: if I tell you what I
got to tell you, how do I know
you gonna do what the fuck I just
told you I need to get done?

Hanna's gaze drifts up into Raoul's eyes: it's deadly.
ALBERT (alarmed)
Raoul, Hanna do what he say! That's why I reached for you..

HANNA
I'm not your 'carnal, you little
motherfucker. (beat)
And you 'know' 'cause I say so...
after I hear what you got to tell me!

Gawd! Who cares if they’ll do you a favor, rat out the other crew, admit you're a crimal and get on with it. This movie is like 3 hours long and there isn’t even any laser sword wizards, just two old guys chasing each other! BORING!

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.

Except in confessing that the president can’t break laws he was basically confessing to breaking the law. That is a terrible example.

[Bakustra]

I love your arrogance, even as you play stupid semantic games. Oh no, that stuff about the Gungans and the Naboo coming together wasn't the CENTRAL point of the movie, even though it was but one of SEVERAL things I brought up! I must be soooo "simple."

You most definitely have something wrong with your brain, since you didn't even bother to finish reading my post before jamming your finger down on "reply" and breaking it. Did it hurt, Raynor? Did you have to go to the hospital? Did the nurse laugh when you explained how it happened? Tell me about your mother.

So because the movie supports its point...it somehow doesn't "reinforce" it. LOL.

Obi-Wan openly questions and argues with his mentor. Going so far as to tell his mentor to compromise his beliefs just because he might get a promotion to the Jedi Council by conforming. Qui-Gon remains calm and patient with Obi-Wan throughout all of that, and even praises him. Which is the complete opposite of how Obi-Wan handles disputes in AOTC.

So Qui-Gon trusting Anakin to win the pod race, then arguing with the Jedi Council about training him, doesn't make it a "prominent" theme. Yeah, whatever you say.

See, when you're trying to communicate a theme, you communicate more than one aspect of it. In order to say "believing in the people you mentor is a good thing", you have to show disbelief as a bad thing for it to be truly effective. Instead, we never get a situation where Qui-gon doubts in Obi-wan or Anakin, and so it only presents such belief as a natural thing, rather than as a theme to be communicated, and so it cannot be said to be a theme of The Phantom Menace.

Please. Amidala's entire arc was to stop being a sad powerless princess hoping that the Republic would save her planet, and to get up and save it herself. The movie clearly portrays it as a good thing that she saved Naboo. Palpatine's election doesn't change that fact. He wasn't even revealed as the villain until the last few seconds of the penultimate scene.

I hope you know that the alternative to saving Naboo was to let her people rot and die, while Palpatine STILL milked the situation for sympathy and political gain.

No, the alternative was to let Naboo sit in limbo because the movie never shows any negative effects of the Trade Federation invasion. Which is another criticism your tiny, decayed brain cannot adequately address. PS: Palpatine was revealed as the villain from the very moment his name is mentioned, since he was the Emperor in the OT. Only idiots and people unfamiliar with the previous movie believed otherwise.

But the whole point is that she did what the villain wanted her to do. That cannot be said to be an endorsement of the action, unless you're mentally handicapped in some way.

Don't change the goal posts. Being generic doesn't change the fact that it's still there. BTW, how many generic action movies for kids are about the constraints of tradition, and institutional decay?

You are mentally handicapped, or else dishonest. Having read through the whole post, you are clearly dishonest. So I doubt I'm going to treat your posts with anything regarding seriousness, since you're perfectly willing to chop up sentences to make dubious points. So, uh, go stick your hand into a sausage grinder and indulge in a little cannibalism, you sick freak.

"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.

LOL. So because you don't suck up to RLM, I'm a "liar" for saying something that does apply to other people here?

No, you're a liar now because you lied about what I just said. I have helpfully bolded the critical clause if you're really so conveniently illiterate as to not grasp it, but you'd still be a liar for presenting yourself as a literate individual.

But you miss the point, which is that calling your opponents a hivemind is pathetic. Like, now I can see you, sitting in your computer chair, squeaking out your posts in your prepubescent voice, chuckling at your "jokes", and you lean back, ready to hug yourself at the "hivemind" zinger- that'll get them for sure!!- and your chair falls over. You blubber a little, before righting it and pretending nothing ever happened, like a cat with all the lovability surgically removed.

The exact nature of the taxes is not "character motivation." The movie clearly shows that the Trade Fed thinks that throwing its military might around can allow it to get its way on political and economic matters. Everything they do after the invasion (which comes in the first few minutes) is all about escaping legal consequences. That's also clear. You can understand the movie just fine right there. Most people did.

But nooo, we need more details on the taxes, otherwise the "character motivation" isn't clear. Despite being literally written out onscreen.

The lack of information on the taxes means we have an unclear motivation as to what the Trade Federation wants and how they are going to get it beyond ridiculously broad parameters, and the fact that the three defenders of TPM here can't agree on what the motivation of the Trade Federation is puts the lie to your claims. Maybe you should take this up with Anguirus and Elfdart, seeing as those two are clearly wrong about Trade Federation motives according to your very post. But that would require you to have more than a Cracker-Jack prize version of integrity, now wouldn't it?

[Jim Raynor]

The amusing part is that apparently Raynor considers himself an 'average viewer'. Yet, when you look at the reviews for TPM (zomfg, not the RLM one!), what does the 'average viewer' think? Well, it's pretty, but lacks any real depth in plot, characterization, themes and motivation. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 61%, not horrible, but not very good either. Compare that to the 94% of ANH, 97% of ESB and 79% of RotJ.

While it's not nearly the negatives we've been pouring on it, I'm pretty certain none of us are pretending to be the 'average viewer'. Still, it seems popular opinion is that the movie just wasn't very good , for lighter versions of the reasons we're pointing out.

The funniest thing about internet fanboys is the inflated view they have of themselves. The lack of self awareness, and the belief that whatever they obsess over is normal for the general population. I rolled my cursor over your hyperlink, and I already knew that I was in for a laugh.

Internet posts are not "the average viewer." The average viewers are the bulk of the people who watch the movie in the theater, on TV, or on DVD. Family audiences. The kids. The moms. The grown men who have better things to do then complain about the same movie a decade after that fact. The kind of people who would be flat out disgusted by the crap that passes for "comedy" in the RLM review. If I mentioned "Rotten Tomatoes" to most of my family, they wouldn't even know what it is. The younger twenty-thirtysomethings would, but they don't whine about movies on it. The internet is for FaceBook. THAT'S the average person.

And despite the fact that rating and reviewing movies online isn't what the "average" person does with their time, even the Rotten Tomatoes user ratings aren't terrible. 3.2/5, with 65% of users liking the movie. Oh noes.

[Bakustra]

The amusing part is that apparently Raynor considers himself an 'average viewer'. Yet, when you look at the reviews for TPM (zomfg, not the RLM one!), what does the 'average viewer' think? Well, it's pretty, but lacks any real depth in plot, characterization, themes and motivation. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 61%, not horrible, but not very good either. Compare that to the 94% of ANH, 97% of ESB and 79% of RotJ.

While it's not nearly the negatives we've been pouring on it, I'm pretty certain none of us are pretending to be the 'average viewer'. Still, it seems popular opinion is that the movie just wasn't very good , for lighter versions of the reasons we're pointing out.

The funniest thing about internet fanboys is the inflated view they have of themselves. The lack of self awareness, and the belief that whatever they obsess over is normal for the general population. I rolled my cursor over your hyperlink, and I already knew that I was in for a laugh.

Internet posts are not "the average viewer." The average viewers are the bulk of the people who watch the movie in the theater, on TV, or on DVD. Family audiences. The kids. The moms. The grown men who have better things to do then complain about the same movie a decade after that fact. The kind of people who would be flat out disgusted by the crap that passes for "comedy" in the RLM review. If I mentioned "Rotten Tomatoes" to most of my family, they wouldn't even know what it is. The younger twenty-thirtysomethings would, but they don't whine about movies on it. The internet is for FaceBook. THAT'S the average person.

And despite the fact that rating and reviewing movies online isn't what the "average" person does with their time, even the Rotten Tomatoes user ratings aren't terrible. 3.2/5, with 65% of users liking the movie. Oh noes.

Convenient, that you render it impossible for TRUE OPINIONS on movies to be known. You are literally the Richard goddamn Nixon of the internet, babbling about silent majorities.

Good job on declaring that only young people use the internet for things, let alone to communicate their opinions of movies, though!!

[Jim Raynor]

Bakustra, the way you move goalposts and substitute insults in place of real points is hilarious.

See, when you're trying to communicate a theme, you communicate more than one aspect of it. In order to say "believing in the people you mentor is a good thing", you have to show disbelief as a bad thing for it to be truly effective. Instead, we never get a situation where Qui-gon doubts in Obi-wan or Anakin, and so it only presents such belief as a natural thing, rather than as a theme to be communicated, and so it cannot be said to be a theme of The Phantom Menace.

I love how you dispute that it was a prominent theme, because now the movie's required to show the other side of the argument. As if Obi-Wan and the Jedi Council don't present the other side.

No, the alternative was to let Naboo sit in limbo because the movie never shows any negative effects of the Trade Federation invasion.

LOL, your whining about the way something was presented doesn't mean you get to alter the reality of what the movie shows. Naboo is not "in limbo," it's been conquered, with its people killed or herded into camps. The Gungans were forced out of their cities. That all happened, whether you liked it or not. And let's stay on topic here, the question was whether Padme had done something good by saving her planet.

The lack of information on the taxes means we have an unclear motivation as to what the Trade Federation wants

There are taxes on trade routes. The Trade Federation doesn't like them. Wow, what a mystery.

the fact that the three defenders of TPM here can't agree on what the motivation of the Trade Federation is puts the lie to your claims.

Funny, because I see an agreement that they were using military force to get the taxes repealed. We don't care about whatever irrelevant pieces of backstory there are to this. The basic situation is clear and easy to understand.

[Jim Raynor]

Convenient, that you render it impossible for TRUE OPINIONS on movies to be known. You are literally the Richard goddamn Nixon of the internet, babbling about silent majorities.

Good job on declaring that only young people use the internet for things, let alone to communicate their opinions of movies, though!!

Love the dramatics and strawmanning. I simply disputed that whining on Rotten Tomatoes represents "the average viewer." Let's cut the nonsense here. You and I both know that the average person, as in most people out there, do not spend their time posting about movies online. Especially movies that are more than a decade old.

I am this close to just writing you off as a troll like that other guy here. Your dramatics, your sentence structure, and your choice of words is just bizarre.

[emersonlakeandbalmer]

This whole argument about whether the blockade is illegal is stupid and meaningless. It's pretty funny that you think you're right, and that it even matters.

The opening crawl calls the blockade an alarming chain of events, something that the Senate "endlessly" debates and which forces the Chancellor to secretly deploy Jedi Knights. It's pretty clear that the Senate, for all its corruption, ISN'T really that cool with it. Who the hell makes a military blockade over mere economic matters? Conflicts do flare up over economic factors, but that's the point. The Trade Fed is escalating things and making threats of violence in what was originally a non-violent issue. They're the aggressors. The opening crawl outright calls them "greedy." We're meant to sympathize with the Naboo.

As Elfdart said, the only person in the movie saying the blockade is legal is the head of the Trade Federation. The lying villain. Never mind that legality can be a vague and fluid thing. Especially when within minutes, Darth Sidious flat out says that he can manipulate what is "legal" or not.

Who the hell cares? Oh yeah. You.

First thanks for admitting there is no evidence. Second people who like good storytelling care, you don't care if your villains have motivation, that's totally cool. However, that takes you out of the running when arguing about storytelling, because to you nothing matters unless its a laser sword fight.

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.

Someone mentioned it once. You proceeded to bring it up about 800 times, really in almost every single post. Its pathetic really.

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

See we're staying on topic, not repeating ourselves on topics no one gives a shit about. You want to bring some real evidence to what the taxes about or do you want to concede the point and admit its never made clear? Want to talk about how the taxes don't matter, cite some examples from other movies where the main villain has no motivation but still makes for effective storytelling and maybe we can get somewhere.

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?

Yes, I would. Because you don't understand irony, sarcasm or hyperbole so how could you understand his review?

Wait, aren't you the guy who admitted to trolling?

Read the post where he "admitted" to trolling and then reread my assessment above.

[Jim Raynor]

Good thing Lucas literally gave the viewers a cheat sheet, since this is a movie for ten year old kids and all.

The taxation of trade routes to outlying systems is in dispute.

Hoping to resolve the matter with a deadly blockade of battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo.

Wow, whatever could this be about? The Trade Federation is in a dispute over taxes on trade. They're making a blockade, because of this dispute over taxes on trade. This is some truly deep, esoteric stuff over here. The "motivation" is so very unclear.

And oh yeah, the blockade is "deadly," and the Trade Federation is "greedy." The planet being blockaded is "small."

Gee, I wonder who the bad guy in this is? Who would even ask such a stupid question? Oh yeah, the RLM review and its mindless followers actually DO. How do the Jedi know how to mediate tax issues? There's no invasion going on! Maybe the Naboo committed some kind of atrocity against the Trade Federation!

While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events

Taxes don't sound "alarming," but I would guess that a "deadly" military blockade is. See that? The movie ITSELF has already moved beyond the pointless details of the taxes, leaving them in the dust. The focus is on the military conflict. So jarring in a movie titled "Star Wars."

Man, that was all so unclear. I am 100% sure you guys will come back and tell me that it was, too.