Red Letter Media RotS Review Up

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

There's also the fact that American Gaffiti is an episodic slice-of-life picture of beloved Americana, while The Phantom Menace is (theoretically) an epic space opera. One has different storytelling requirements than the other, and one can function without a recognizable protagonist, while the other cannot. A film made using literary cut-up technique can be compelling, but it would be probably be shitty for an archetypal heroic myth told with spaceships and laser-swords (I dunno, maybe somebody could make it work).

[adam_grif]

Speaking of that, has anyone tried the RiffTrax for the prequels? My experience with RiffTrax in general is hit or miss so I've been reluctant to buy them before I've heard anyone else's opinion about them.

The episode III one is fantastic, but IMO I and II were a bit lackluster. There should be some sort of "Best of..." compilation on Youtube or a preview of some kind.

[Jim Raynor]

You know what your problem was? You came in here guns blazing and thought we would be enlightened by your vitriol. It's fucking pathetic.

No, my problem is the bullshit and lazy unwillingness to actually debate that was thrown at me. Go back to the first page of this thread. Read it. See my first post here? I insult nobody but RLM myself, insults that I have backed up with real points in both posts and private messages.

See the very next post after that? A cocky, dismissive joke of a post, about how you either understand what RLM is saying, or you're one of those people who like the prequels (the implication being that liking the prequels means you're not smart enough to understand RLM). A post that also acted as if the very possibility of me refuting what RLM has said is laughable.

Then a whole bunch of people come in with lame excuses for RLM, such as trying to dismiss all his bad arguments as intentional jokes (so he's never wrong), or misportraying the whole thing by acting as if nitpicks don't make up the bulk of his work.

I posted about ROTS - see my post about Anakin's characterization during the Battle of Coruscant, as well as my questions on what RLM thought the Jedi should have done about Palpatine. Nobody responded to either one, nor did they post about anything else pertaining to ROTS. So it's not like I'm singlehandedly taking this thread away from ROTS.

I think the criticism is more that fear can lead to a wide range of different feelings and responses, and trying to act as if those three feelings always follow each other in such a predictable and linear sequence is stupidly oversimplified.

It doesn't matter one damn bit whether fear can lead to other feelings, which I don't believe is what RLM was saying anyway (again I'm reminded of that thing I keep on pointing out here, that of people ascribing better arguments to him than there actually exists). The point is that fear, especially excessive and uncontrolled fear, can and often does lead to anger, hatred, and suffering. The movie is making a point here, using Anakin. Notice how nobody else in the movies falls to the Dark Side, except for him.

It's not good criticism to act like that theme doesn't make any sense, by pointing out that fear and anger doesn't always result in murder spree a holocaust. That kind of criticism is just being a smartass, and is what is actually simplistic. I don't remember everything, but wasn't that one of David Brin's old criticisms? It was stupid before and it's no better now.

From what I can tell, you seem to care a lot more about what this guy says than pretty much anyone else in this thread.

I "care" about it in that I've seen way too many people praising his review for making smart or "insightful" criticism, as well as way too many people lazily posting links to his review in various SW forums as some kind of debate ender. I "care" about his review because it's an example of someone fooling people with sheer length, and not actual logic. I should've rephrased that line that your'e responding to: "I see no reason why people should put any weight in what RLM says about SW, since he lacks a basic understanding of the movies' plot points and even their main themes."

[Jim Raynor]

Its a theme that ran through all three films, theres no sense of danger or anything for the characters. Remember when Skywalker jumps out of the speeder when their chasing the bounty hunter? AAnd he falls through all the traffic and shit? I never got the sense that he was in any actual danger.

I dealt with this at length in a previous thread. It's a baseless criticism.

The chase scene up to that point was primarily from Obi-Wan's perspective. And he's nearly killed, and definitely scared of Anakin's recklessness.

Now, onto Anakin's feat where he made his big jump onto the assassin's speeder. As I pointed out before, Anakin took a short cut, stopped at a spot where he knew the assassin would fly under, looked downward and timed his jump for a good 12 seconds before jumping down, and still had to actively glide and adjust his course on the way down. Of course it didn't nearly kill him; he knew what he was doing and had ample time to prepare that move.

No, the danger comes immediately after Anakin grabbed onto the speeder. Within seconds, he goes from completely sure of himself to losing control of the situation. Anakin barely holds on, grunting in exertion. The assassin nearly flips him off, before pulling out a gun and shooting at him. Barely holding onto a speeding vehicle while being shot at - that's considered "danger" in just about every other action movie.

I pointed out in that previous thread that Anakin was actually in more danger than Peter Parker was during that chase scene in Spider-Man, one of AOTC's contemporaries and regarded as a very good film. I've never seen anyone saying that Peter wasn't in enough danger while chasing down the thief's car.

[Aaron]

Yeah, maybe you got the sense that he was in danger. I never did. Turns out that its subjective.

[DudeGuyMan]

The whole thing is an obvious hatchet job meant to make "baw baw George Lucas ruined my life" nerds feel good about themselves since neither the critics nor box office really backed them up. The whole bit about how Palpatine's rise to power fooled everyone, even Padme, is all you really need to see that.

Yeah gee, you might have expected Padme to say something rueful about the death of liberty in that scene, and... I don't know... some sort of Rebellion against Palpatine to eventually take place. Oh wait--

[Galvatron]

See the very next post after that? A cocky, dismissive joke of a post, about how you either understand what RLM is saying, or you're one of those people who like the prequels (the implication being that liking the prequels means you're not smart enough to understand RLM). A post that also acted as if the very possibility of me refuting what RLM has said is laughable.

That was me.

Is it my fault that your childish tantrum and (upcoming?) 70-page rebuttal is an amusing overreaction? Additionally, I don't think you're too dumb to understand RLM, but you're definitely too emotionally invested.

It doesn't matter one damn bit whether fear can lead to other feelings, which I don't believe is what RLM was saying anyway (again I'm reminded of that thing I keep on pointing out here, that of people ascribing better arguments to him than there actually exists). The point is that fear, especially excessive and uncontrolled fear, can and often does lead to anger, hatred, and suffering. The movie is making a point here, using Anakin. Notice how nobody else in the movies falls to the Dark Side, except for him.

What about Dooku? He was a Jedi master. Did the movies ever sufficiently explain how, when and why he fell to the dark side and became a Sith Lord?

[Elfdart]

I just looked up American Graffiti, and while it was indeed directed by GL, it was made in 1973. I think most people who harp on the prequels, including RLM (though I can't say for certain his position) view GL as being a bad or mediocre director as of the making of the prequels, not that he had always been bad. The common view seems to be something along the lines of George Lucas having lost his mind somewhere in his sea of money.

It think it's mostly just simple good old inexperience. When Lucas started to do the PT, he hadn't directed anything for 20 years. He directed only the first one of the OT, unless people forget, and before that he had directed only two feature length movies. So, here we have a director with an experience of exactly three features with the last of them done 20 years earlier.

What bullshit. You make it sound as though Lucas was living like a cloistered monk during that time when in fact he was working on a number of films (producer, executive producer, editor, 2nd unit director) with Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard and Francis Coppola.

Even more importantly, this Lucas' lack of directing experience shows that he almost certainly does not like the job of a director very much any more. This may have been different when me made American Graffiti, but for some reason he lost his passion for directing while doing ANH and probably would have never directed anything else if he hadn't insisted on it with the PT. He has concentrated on being an exec producer, and although that capacity still allows a person to be involved, it's by definition a lot less hands on job than being the director. His writing credits are not much more impressive either; between ANH and TPM he contributed almost exclusively stories only, not full screenplays. Even RotJ was co-written with Lawrence Kasdan.

Again, not true. He did invite others to direct and write the screenplay -and was turned down.

David Hare: You're very good, aren't you? You really are good! Nobody has ever asked me this question. Ever.


Beaks: I didn't realize you'd done one until I saw it there on the IMDb. I would've never put this together otherwise. How did that opportunity come along? And did you ever... because Tom Stoppard has done some rewriting for George Lucas over the years. Did Lucas ever come to you and--


Hare: Do you want a real scoop?


Beaks: Sure! Why not?


Hare: I was asked to co-direct STAR WARS IV.


Beaks: The fourth, so that's--


Hare: The fourth STAR WARS. And I was asked to write the fifth and sixth, but I didn't.


Beaks: So you were asked to co-direct THE PHANTOM MENACE?


Hare: Whichever one got the series going again, that's the one. George said would I co-direct it with him. I would direct the actors, and he would direct the action. So you have a scoop. (Laughs) Nobody has ever asked me that question.


Beaks: Did you seriously consider it?


Hare: I didn't think it was my thing. I shot an episode for George's series, which I really did because I knew I could get some fantastic actors and thought it would be fun. I enjoyed working with him, and he asked me to work more seriously with him. But that is so not what I do. It was a lovely idea that he would be able to do all the action and the stuff that he loves. He loved the fact that the acting was so good in my episode. He said, "You really love actors. I never really feel I understand actors as well as you do, so why don't you direct the actors and I'll do the action." It was a lovely offer, and it would've made me very, very rich. I would be sailing in a yacht on the South of France.

The other two I was just asked to rewrite, but I just couldn't. I just don't think they're me. I like things that, as with Stephen [Daldry]... we go through a long process together. I'm better at that stuff. I don't think I'm a very good rewriter.

So you're just talking bullshit.

This brings us to another one of RLM's better points: Lucas almost certainly gets too much credit for the OT, too. He made it possible and painstakingly filmed the first movie in difficult conditions, that is for sure, but making something possible is not the same as actually making it, let alone making it well.

Heathcliff claims another victim.

So who exactly deserves credit for Star Wars? The story and characters were created by George Lucas. The movie was written and directed by Lucas. Without him, Star Wars would never have existed, let alone sequels he allowed others to direct or write.

[StarshipTitanic]

Hare: I didn't think it was my thing. I shot an episode for George's series, which I really did because I knew I could get some fantastic actors and thought it would be fun. I enjoyed working with him, and he asked me to work more seriously with him. But that is so not what I do. It was a lovely idea that he would be able to do all the action and the stuff that he loves. He loved the fact that the acting was so good in my episode. He said, "You really love actors. I never really feel I understand actors as well as you do, so why don't you direct the actors and I'll do the action." It was a lovely offer, and it would've made me very, very rich. I would be sailing in a yacht on the South of France.

Hey, let's not ignore this rather revealing admission from Lucas that corroborates one of RDM's points regarding the prequels: Lucas can't direct actors.

[Elfdart]

Hare: I didn't think it was my thing. I shot an episode for George's series, which I really did because I knew I could get some fantastic actors and thought it would be fun. I enjoyed working with him, and he asked me to work more seriously with him. But that is so not what I do. It was a lovely idea that he would be able to do all the action and the stuff that he loves. He loved the fact that the acting was so good in my episode. He said, "You really love actors. I never really feel I understand actors as well as you do, so why don't you direct the actors and I'll do the action." It was a lovely offer, and it would've made me very, very rich. I would be sailing in a yacht on the South of France.

Hey, let's not ignore this rather revealing admission from Lucas that corroborates one of RDM's points regarding the prequels: Lucas can't direct actors.

No, he said he can't do it as well as David Hare. Most directors can't.

[StarshipTitanic]

Hare: I didn't think it was my thing. I shot an episode for George's series, which I really did because I knew I could get some fantastic actors and thought it would be fun. I enjoyed working with him, and he asked me to work more seriously with him. But that is so not what I do. It was a lovely idea that he would be able to do all the action and the stuff that he loves. He loved the fact that the acting was so good in my episode. He said, "You really love actors. I never really feel I understand actors as well as you do, so why don't you direct the actors and I'll do the action." It was a lovely offer, and it would've made me very, very rich. I would be sailing in a yacht on the South of France.

Hey, let's not ignore this rather revealing admission from Lucas that corroborates one of RDM's points regarding the prequels: Lucas can't direct actors.

No, he said he can't do it as well as David Hare. Most directors can't.

Would you say Lucas directs actors well? Just curious.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It think it's mostly just simple good old inexperience. When Lucas started to do the PT, he hadn't directed anything for 20 years. He directed only the first one of the OT, unless people forget, and before that he had directed only two feature length movies. So, here we have a director with an experience of exactly three features with the last of them done 20 years earlier.

What bullshit. You make it sound as though Lucas was living like a cloistered monk during that time when in fact he was working on a number of films (producer, executive producer, editor, 2nd unit director) with Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard and Francis Coppola.

Even more importantly, this Lucas' lack of directing experience shows that he almost certainly does not like the job of a director very much any more. This may have been different when me made American Graffiti, but for some reason he lost his passion for directing while doing ANH and probably would have never directed anything else if he hadn't insisted on it with the PT. He has concentrated on being an exec producer, and although that capacity still allows a person to be involved, it's by definition a lot less hands on job than being the director. His writing credits are not much more impressive either; between ANH and TPM he contributed almost exclusively stories only, not full screenplays. Even RotJ was co-written with Lawrence Kasdan.

Again, not true. He did invite others to direct and write the screenplay -and was turned down.

This brings us to another one of RLM's better points: Lucas almost certainly gets too much credit for the OT, too. He made it possible and painstakingly filmed the first movie in difficult conditions, that is for sure, but making something possible is not the same as actually making it, let alone making it well.

Heathcliff claims another victim.

So who exactly deserves credit for Star Wars? The story and characters were created by George Lucas. The movie was written and directed by Lucas. Without him, Star Wars would never have existed, let alone sequels he allowed others to direct or write.

Yeah, like I didn't say that he has concentrated on being an exec producer, admittedly with an occasional try at editing and producing. Still does not change the fact that he did not direct any feature length movies between ANH and TPM, or that he had an experience of only three movies before TPM. He had all the opportunities and resources in the world to direct a bunch of movies like his buddy Spielberg did during the 1980s and 1990s, but he didn't. Not even a single movie. This is a very clear sign that he simply does not like the job of a director too much. The same goes for actually writing complete screenplays instead of just storylines.

Also note what exactly he did offer to David Hare. He offered co-directing, where Hare's role would have been that of character director, a fairly limited role in an action-packed adventure movie. I am not surprised he turned it down and neither should you. He also offered the position of re-writer / script editor, which is also a fairly limited capacity. If wanted to get a good screenwriter involved, he should have just offered the storyline and let the writer do her job. But then again, writers are not very high on the Hollywood hierarchy, so if you actually want to get a writer, you can just hire one. Even the average non-famous Hollywood screenwriter would have been better at dialogue writing than Lucas himself.

As for the who should get the credit question, please note that I was talking about he entire original trilogy, not just about ANH. Lucas deserves full credit for that as well as for establishing the franchise, but do you really think that it's a pure coincidence that ESB, which is almost universally considered the best movie of the whole series, is also the one where Lucas had the most hands-off approach, in other words he didn't write the final screenplay and did not direct?

[StarshipTitanic]

I missed this:

The whole thing is an obvious hatchet job meant to make "baw baw George Lucas ruined my life" nerds feel good about themselves since neither the critics nor box office really backed them up. The whole bit about how Palpatine's rise to power fooled everyone, even Padme, is all you really need to see that.

Wrong, it's obviously a tool the guy uses to promote his independent movie business. That's why several people think it's absurd that anyone would go to such lengths as a 70 page rebuttal (I know that's not you) in reply. The nerd fury he generates plays right into his hand. No wonder he does such a good Palpatine impression.

Yeah gee, you might have expected Padme to say something rueful about the death of liberty in that scene, and... I don't know... some sort of Rebellion against Palpatine to eventually take place. Oh wait--

You mean the scene where Palpatine goes to the Senate and claims that the Jedi tried to take over so he had them all murdered (children, included) and then offers no evidence? After he spent the last decade or so gathering power to himself. And then the majority of the Senate votes for him to be Emperor without questioning him? Who cares what Padme said because a clear majority of the Senate is composed of morons.

[Purple]

You mean the scene where Palpatine goes to the Senate and claims that the Jedi tried to take over so he had them all murdered (children, included) and then offers no evidence? After he spent the last decade or so gathering power to himself. And then the majority of the Senate votes for him to be Emperor without questioning him? Who cares what Padme said because a clear majority of the Senate is composed of morons.

Kind of reminds you of our governments here on earth does it not?

[StarshipTitanic]

You mean the scene where Palpatine goes to the Senate and claims that the Jedi tried to take over so he had them all murdered (children, included) and then offers no evidence? After he spent the last decade or so gathering power to himself. And then the majority of the Senate votes for him to be Emperor without questioning him? Who cares what Padme said because a clear majority of the Senate is composed of morons.

Kind of reminds you of our governments here on earth does it not?

Not really.

[Purple]

I guess our governments are different than.

Where I live the senators/council members/MP (or how ever it translates) only care about the interests of their own personal wealth, their own town/region and their own party in that order with the well of the whole being a distant fourth. And quite a lot of earth governments have it that way as well. You are just lucky I guess.

And we have seen evidence in Ep.1 of just that kind of behavior. Even commented on by Palpatine.

[StarshipTitanic]

I guess our governments are different than.

Where I live the senators/council members/MP (or how ever it translates) only care about the interests of their own personal wealth, their own town/region and their own party in that order with the well of the whole being a distant fourth. And quite a lot of earth governments have it that way as well. You are just lucky I guess.

And we have seen evidence in Ep.1 of just that kind of behavior. Even commented on by Palpatine.

But if the Star Wars Senators benefited from corruption and deadlock in the government, why would they vote to make Palpatine an all-powerful Emperor?

[Purple]

Maybe he promised them something better? Like say that he would use his power to make them/their system wealthy?
Or maybe the population was tired of war and they saw a way of ending it and bringing peace as a way of keeping their terms next time around.
They may have even been honest people that were burned by the bureaucracy like Amidala was and just honestly believed that anything is better than the scheming dead locked senate that existed. (not at all implausible considering how long it took for the Emperor to disband the senate)

[StarshipTitanic]

Maybe he promised them something better? Like say that he would use his power to make them/their system wealthy?
Or maybe the population was tired of war and they saw a way of ending it and bringing peace as a way of keeping their terms next time around.
They may have even been honest people that were burned by the bureaucracy like Amidala was and just honestly believed that anything is better than the scheming dead locked senate that existed. (not at all implausible considering how long it took for the Emperor to disband the senate)

Maybe, but it's all speculation, right? That's one of RDM's point: there are a lot of important details that are left unexplained or ignored for no good reason and it makes the characters look like idiots. Lucas could have done something as simple as having clone troopers shove the senators into their pods for the vote. Instead the situation is:

The Jedi, guardians of peace and justice etc. for a thousand generations years, heroically lead troops all over the galaxy in the war.
Four Jedi confront Palpatine when it's revealed that he's a Sith.
Palpatine has every Jedi from adult to child murdered in cold blood.
The Senate elects Palpatine emperor.

[Gunhead]

Maybe he promised them something better? Like say that he would use his power to make them/their system wealthy?
Or maybe the population was tired of war and they saw a way of ending it and bringing peace as a way of keeping their terms next time around.
They may have even been honest people that were burned by the bureaucracy like Amidala was and just honestly believed that anything is better than the scheming dead locked senate that existed. (not at all implausible considering how long it took for the Emperor to disband the senate)

As this is a thread about a review, promising systems xyz something better was never shown or even implied in the movies. If they really wanted peace they could have instigated a vote on the matter, forcing the republic to negotiate. To the last point I have to ask, how much does the action of the senate affect a given planet. There are hundreds or even thousands of systems represented in the senate, so there is no reason for them in general to get mixed up in local politics. As I understand it Naboo was an exception and even then the planet itself was not important rather the question was how much can the trade federation get away with in it's dealings with systems that are a part of the republic.

-Gunhead

[Purple]

Maybe, but it's all speculation, right?

But it is not unreasonable speculation.
I mean, looking at it his ascend to the position of Emperor was more like that of Augustus proclaiming him self Dictator for life while keeping the Republic than an actual take over. He even kept the senate for quite a long time.

That's one of RDM's point: there are a lot of important details that are left unexplained or ignored for no good reason and it makes the characters look like idiots.

I would disagree.

Yes the things were not explored in great detail but Episode 1 shows us indications that something like what I described is quite possible. Furthermore, during the whole 3 episodes the recurring theme is that the Emperor is on Corusant constantly plotting with the various senators and politicians. So there is no need to specifically show what is already implied.

The implication stands that he used all the time he spent there to actually get support. It's much more far fetched to assume he was just standing there doing nothing for all that time.

The Jedi, guardians of peace and justice etc. for a thousand generations years, heroically lead troops all over the galaxy in the war.

Four Jedi confront Palpatine when it's revealed that he's a Sith.

Is it? As far as I am aware he is not reveled to be one to the public at all. And he acts against the Jedy to fast for them to get it out.

Furthermore, for the average citizen of the galaxy the difference between Jedi and Sith would not be so clear. It seems to be little more than the color of your light saber and the side you are fighting on.

And the Jedi are acting like generals in the army. So while they are heroes they are also in a position that gives them a lot of power. And that shifts the entire balance of power in the society. In episode 1 I forgot who of them says that they are not an army. But by the end of ROTS the Jedi do effectively have a grand army loyal to them and under their control.

And some of the more scheming and dishonest senators (read as: the lot of them) might see this as a threat to them. And we know from the EU that an armed Jedi takeover of the Republic is not out of the question at all.

So when Palpatine comes out and proclaims that he has just been attacked by a Jedi Master (and has the scars to show for it) and that the Jedi have launched a rebellion he has through his quick action stopped it certainly does present a credible story.

And had it been done better, that much I will admit it would have seemed completely fluent.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Maybe, but it's all speculation, right?

But it is not unreasonable speculation.
I mean, looking at it his ascend to the position of Emperor was more like that of Augustus proclaiming him self Dictator for life while keeping the Republic than an actual take over.

I thought this was going to bring you the Wrath of Thanas, but on second thought he will probably not even bother. So I will just tell you not to mix up Julius Caesar and Octavian, and then go look what the latter actually did in order to keep the power in his hands. It was quite clever and nothing like Palpatine did. But then again, Octavian was a real life master politician, not a screen caricature.

A slightly closer real life analogy would be Adolf Hitler, but of course his rise to power still required quite a bit of careful political maneuvering to gain the support of the moderate conservative parties, as well as his own party to support him and win in the elections with a landslide. Perhaps the 'war faction' in the Imperial Senate was something similar to Palpatine, but that also remains a speculation.

[Purple]

I thought this was going to bring you the Wrath of Thanas, but on second thought he will probably not even bother. So I will just tell you not to mix up Julius Caesar and Octavian, and then go look what the latter actually did in order to keep the power in his hands. It was quite clever and nothing like Palpatine did. But then again, Octavian was a real life master politician, not a screen caricature.

I apologize for the mix up. I was typing two posts at the same time and forgot to think. And when you do that mistakes do happen.

A slightly closer real life analogy would be Adolf Hitler, but of course his rise to power still required quite a bit of careful political maneuvering to gain the support of the moderate conservative parties, as well as his own party to support him and win in the elections with a landslide. Perhaps the 'war faction' in the Imperial Senate was something similar to Palpatine, but that also remains a speculation.

That is what I was talking about actually. You say it better than I do.

On the other hand, just how much political intrigue can you include into a 2 + something hour movie without boring the audience that came for the light sabers and the dog fights.

[Marcus Aurelius]

On the other hand, just how much political intrigue can you include into a 2 + something hour movie without boring the audience that came for the light sabers and the dog fights.

I agree with you on that, but since Lucas apparently was at least trying to make the RotS for older audiences, I think there could have been a bit more without making it a political thriller. It's not really a major point, though, and belongs to the nitpick section of criticism rather than to central shortcomings of the movie.

[Gunhead]

They should have made the political field clear in the phantom menace. Once the war gets hot they should have shown it's impact on the republic. By revenge of the sith both points are pretty much in the background since it is about Anakin becoming Vader, destroying the Jedi and bringing about the empire. They've should have squeezed in some relevant bits about the Jedi and the Sith as opposing entities by RotS.

-Gunhead