StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I think this thread needs to collectively chill the fuck out. Christ.

I was happy that the rapist/serial killer jokes were toned down in this one, especially the uber lame "plot" about whats her face. TBH I thought she never should have even had a speaking role in the first review, it was funny when the camera just went past her unconscious body. Then it took over in AOTC review...

@Jim Raynor: Why not just start a new thread entitled "Rebuttal to RLM" or whatever? You don't even have to post your whole mammoth file, just the main points; I'm sure plenty of people would respond.

I've got to say though, based on what I recall of previous RLM threads, I think you tend to miss the forest for the trees. The shield generator, for instance; you yourself point out that it only occupies 2 minutes out of a 70 minute review, or a little less than 3%. It seems kind of odd to bring it up as if it is some major component of his overall criticism of the movie. I would say the main point of bringing that up was just to point out yet another way in which the movies give a sense of flat, cliched, false drama. Shields are down! We have to repair it quick, while in combat! Hey, that never happens in sci-fi. Oh, and the enemies can apparently shoot well enough to pick off the droids, but not well enough to actually hit the ship. That's convenient. Of course, R2 is the only survivor, and miraculously fixes the shields just in time for them to... fly past the blockade and not get shot anymore anyway. Yay! That wasn't trite or pointless at all.

And there is a very obvious intent of comedy present in these reviews, which would be his "schtick." I mean, they could obviously be condensed considerably just by having him speak at a normal pace and cut out all the weird serial killer stuff and pizza rolls and cat raping etc etc, so it is clearly there deliberately. I can understand it not working for a lot of people (within 5 seconds of hearing his voice, I was convinced I wouldn't be able to go 5 minutes into his review, but I actually found enough substance to keep going; this was actually his Avatar review, not the SW ones; I didn't watch those till later. I also disliked Avatar a fair bit, which probably helped), but I also think that ignoring it or acting like it is somehow completely irrelevant to his review is a very fair approach.

I'm fucking geeky as well but I refuse to identify with his sort of people. Nitpicky, pseudointellectual, and obnoxious.

Er, sorry, but I can't help seeing a certain amount of irony here.

Online hostility can be acceptable (this is SD.net after all, where we constantly bash all sorts of stupid people), but only when it's backed up with intelligence. This guy isn't smart, he's downright ignorant.

RLM really doesn't seem that hostile to me. I mean, sure his character gets hostile sometimes, but that is kind of to be expected when portraying a demented serial killer. Otherwise, he seems more sad and disappointed than anything.

You, on the other hand, sound extremely hostile. You'd almost think the guy ran over your dog or something.

Regarding the Jedi vs. Emperor, the main point I can remember right now was suggesting the Jedi simply try to use the system against him. Instead of confronting him in private in his own quarters, simply publicly demand he relinquish his power like he's supposed to. If he refuses, well, then there should still be legal channels to have his emergency power removed when there is no emergency, right? He also suggested having Jimmy Smitts put in a vote of no confidence, like with Vallorum. At some point, he also suggested arresting Palpatine for being a Sith publicly instead of privately, so that if he fought back, he'd basically be proving them right.

He also pointed out the stupidity of Obi-Wan and Yoda separating instead of ganging up on Sidious, that Yoda was an idiot for not noticing how screwed up Anakin was when he came to him for help, how stupid the Jedi and Anakin seemed for not realizing that the power-hungry guy who is surrounded by the Dark Side, knows all about the Sith, and considers good a "point of view" just might be a Sith himself.

Up to part 2 one of his main points seemed to basically just be how relatively lifeless the movies were due to being shot almost purely in green/blue screen, and that it really seemed to hamper the actors more than anything, and overall just felt fake.

That's all I can recall right now. I actually wasn't paying that much attention to a lot of it.

adam_grif wrote:I was happy that the rapist/serial killer jokes were toned down in this one

Indeed, one thing that I actually found really irritating in the AotC review was the frequent cuts to all the girls doing pointless stuff. I felt it really broke the flow of the review and was just excessive. I mean, the nature of the gag is already kind of borderline for me as is. Unfortunately, I also feel a little more bored with this one than I did with TPM. It feels like there are fewer salient points, and it almost seems (amazingly enough) even less structured. Maybe I'm just not in the mood though, so I'll watch part 3 tomorrow and see how that goes.

I also have to say, I think except for TPM, I enjoyed his Star Trek reviews more. Still fairly thorough, without being bloated to the point of absurdity. 90 minutes really is pretty crazy for a review, even one like this.

Bluewolf wrote:The fanatical vigour you must possess to actually create a 70 page defence over a film would make even make the most fundamentalist christian look like Richard Dawkins. I have no idea why you are so enraged about RLM's reviews or how many inches it made your nerd penis shrink but you are pretty much vindicating the very nerd stereotype he mocked in the reviews themselves. What did he invite you to his basement.

I'm glad JR has written it. I've been in a number of debates about TPM on the web (on other forums), and you always have someone pull out "TPM sucks, here's some dork's over-long 70-minute video review why". I'm grateful that someone actually bothered to write out a full response to it, as opposed to simply saying "Fuck you, make your own arguments instead of passing the buck to some dude on youtube".

I dunno. I'm not a fan of the RLM reviews either, but what Jim's doing seems a tad...excessive. I mean, I just usually turn a blind eye to them. If he was rebutting his ROTS review, that could be just about understandable, but is TPM really worth it?

Guardsman Bass wrote:
I'm glad JR has written it. I've been in a number of debates about TPM on the web (on other forums), and you always have someone pull out "TPM sucks, here's some dork's over-long 70-minute video review why". I'm grateful that someone actually bothered to write out a full response to it, as opposed to simply saying "Fuck you, make your own arguments instead of passing the buck to some dude on youtube".

As long as its engaging, then yeah. Part of the reason I watch the RLM reviews is that I find them humorous while at the same time making good points. If the rebuttal is just a dry commentary or nitpicking without a way to get me interested, I won't read it. I can go to SWTC or Darkstar's snoozefest for boring technical details.

Remember guys, it's just about the big picture. That's why it's important to defend even his stupid nitpicks that has nothing to do with the big picture.

Also that it apparently takes four hours just to say "roffle plot not engaging, characters bland" is obviously a point in RLM's favour.

I personally think that RLM's nitpicking on 'illogical' parts of the plot are just self-irony and commentary of the fatty nerd habit to nitpick plot points that normal people do not care about. The commentary he makes about character direction, the lack of emotional investment in the characters and the difficulty of making good scenes in front of the blue screen show that he does understand perfectly well what actually makes a lasting and classic cinematic story telling, aside from just big box office returns. At this point it is already clear that the prequels will not get any kind of classic status and the only reason why anyone would remember them 20 years from now is the fact that they are a pretty integral part of the SW franchise and will therefore piggyback the original trilogy into movie history.

I do think that the reviews are overly long. He could have said all his central points in a single 30-45 minute review instead of stretching them to a feature film length. The serial killer shtick was a bit overdone in the earlier reviews, although it is also clear that the theme was specifically picked because some people would find it tasteless. It was fun in the beginning, but got old fast.

Not all of his criticism is really relevant, but a lot is. The RotJ review is better in that regard, probably because it sums up the common failings of all three prequels. He does not acknowledge enough the fact that especially Phantom Menace does work as a film for the 7-11 year old audience fairly well, just because it has so much exciting visual stuff, goofiness and less graphic violence than the two other films. His criticism towards them is more valid, because they are clearly directed at somewhat older audiences, although like he points out RotJ still has odd goofy moments especially during the first scene, which feel out of place in that movie. It's okay to have humor in a generally dark story, but not slapstick...Well, unless it's a slapstick dark comedy. He's also right that the love story in AotC works so badly primarily because of poor writing and dialogue, as well as the well-known problems of performing in front of the blue screen, and not so much because Christensen is a bad actor. Portman pulls off the love scenes only slightly better and we know that she can be a very good actress.

So yeah, like Dooey Jo said, many good points but also many irrelevant about the plot details (even if it's done satirically you should limit it somewhere), too long. A bit like the SW prequel movies

When I found out he was going to do an RotS review, my first reaction was "what more can be said?" At the end of the AOTC review, he pretty much summed up everything there is to say about the Prequels, so I expected this review to be like beating a dead horse. But I was really impressed, especially with the cinematographic analysis over the camera angles. That's something I never even noticed before, and it really helps explain why you get the sense that nothing interesting is happening in these movies. I remember how in Empire Strikes Back, for example, when Han and Leia had a conversation it was often integrated into the action, (like they were running down a hallway, or screaming at each other on the Millenium Falcoln, etc.), but just about every conversation in RotS is two people sitting/walking around in front of a bluescreen with two alternating camera angles.

Unfortunately, the RotS review wasn't nearly as funny as the other two, but it was definitely very insightful.

I think he makes valid points, many which to me are at the core why the prequel trilogy sucks ass, the serial killer thing does get old very fast. I used to get more worked up on the subject, but nowadays I view the prequel trilogy as a series of bland uninteresting movies with forgettable plot and cast. Going over their faults (again) is to me utterly pointless. I know why I don't like them, which is to say I'm sure people have different reasons for not liking the prequels or even liking them.
I'm sort of curious why Raynor seems to hate RLM so much. I'd be hard pressed to read a 70 page review on a subject, let alone one that is a counter to a review, so it's the kind of interest reserved for car crashes and train accidents.

-Gunhead

Bluewolf wrote:Wow Jim you are amazing. I have never seen anyone in my life get into such a sheer nerd rage over someone posting something they don't like.

Kindly shut the fuck up and stay out of this thread if you don't want to bother to reading anything. Pointing out shoddy work and stupidity in criticism is not the same thing as "nerd rage" over the basic opinion of not liking a film. I've made that point clear already.

The fanatical vigour you must possess to actually create a 70 page defence over a film would make even make the most fundamentalist christian look like Richard Dawkins.

As opposed to the fanatical vigour that it must have taken to make multiple 70-90 minute video reviews?

I have no idea why you are so enraged about RLM's reviews or how many inches it made your nerd penis shrink but you are pretty much vindicating the very nerd stereotype he mocked in the reviews themselves.

It's frankly a shame that RedLetterMedia and all his stuttering dorkish dramatics isn't outright rejected by online geeks. His review is what makes us all look like fucking freaks.

Edit: Also I forgot to mention this. While you are still probably brewing your amazing take down of RLM then please consider that the actual vital points of story mechanics, acting, sets, tone etc completely flew over your head.

I've actually quoted through almost all 70 minutes of his fucking video, and no, the bulk of it is lousy ignorant analysis. Again, if you haven't done your homework then shut the fuck up.

In fact hilariously enough, you spout on about how RLM is a nitpicking fatty nerd that put most hardcore DnDers to shame...only to proceed on and focus on nitpicking.

You keep it up and make yourself look like more of a dumbass. Again, since your reading comprehension seems to be nonexistent, I wrote up a comprehensive response to what he already wrote. It's worse for him to come out first with such pathetic (and stupidly incorrect) nitpicks as bitching about how he doesn't understand how lasers can shoot down a shield.

Jim Raynor is certainly going overkill in his/her dislike of RLM, however I also find RLM to be overly cantankerous and selective in his reviews of the Star Wars Prequels, with some poorly thought through criticisms if he gets so easily confused by Palapatine's massive conspiracy and the invasion of Naboo, etc, even if his general argument that the Prequels just lack something special in relation to the more earthy, creatively fresher OT by relying too much on green screen effects and having characters who are too emotionally distant - with half of them reserved aristocrats and Zen-esque warrior monks - is quite valid.

I find RLM as an online critic OK in small doses, I far prefered his reviews of Baby's Day Out, Avatar, Star Trek: Insurrection, and Star Trek IX. And his off beat, dark humour is alright but definitely an acquired taste. His review of The Phantom Menace is the only SW review I've properly seen, but it certainly didn't shatter my image of the movie, and I certainly think The Phantom Menace was a lot better than Wild Wild West that came out in the same year, for example. I'd say The Phantom Menace is similar in quality to Alien 3 (and both had Ralph Brown in supporting roles).

[quote="FreefallI've got to say though, based on what I recall of previous RLM threads, I think you tend to miss the forest for the trees.[/quote]

Again I have gone through the entire shitty review, something I doubt most people have actually done. I know his bullshit better than anyone.

The shield generator, for instance; you yourself point out that it only occupies 2 minutes out of a 70 minute review, or a little less than 3%.

A real critic who doesn't waste time with decompressed nerd bullshit could review the entire movie in a few minutes.

And do you think my entire response is predicated on that? He doesn't just bitch and act up like a dork in those two minutes, he does it again in other parts. It's not an isolated event. And it's just as dumb each time he does it. Do that stupid shit enough times and you have a 70 minute review.

And just fucking watch it. This garbage qualifies as criticism?

It seems kind of odd to bring it up as if it is some major component of his overall criticism of the movie.

It seems kind of odd that you portray that as a "major component" of my response, and not just another example.

I would say the main point of bringing that up was just to point out yet another way in which the movies give a sense of flat, cliched, false drama. Shields are down! We have to repair it quick, while in combat! Hey, that never happens in sci-fi.

I would say that people are ascribing all sorts of excuses and strained explanations in to RLM in an effort to protect their dork idol. No, he's a fucking moron. He actually argues that it's stupid for a character to be concerned about how a loss of shielding makes them "sitting ducks," because if they had shields then they supposedly wouldn't be sitting ducks and could "breeze" through the blockade. That kind of black-and-white idiocy is the kind of shit I wouldn't even expect from a child.

Oh, and the enemies can apparently shoot well enough to pick off the droids, but not well enough to actually hit the ship. That's convenient.

They hit the actual ship, you idiot. That's why it was damaged in the first place.

Of course, R2 is the only survivor,

OMG Luke and Han survived their firefights. So contrived.

and miraculously fixes the shields just in time for them to... fly past the blockade and not get shot anymore anyway.

I can see that you've been fooled by dork idol's lies. In fact they do get shot more than once after R2 reconnects the shield generator. Nerdboy's own edited footage shows this, and contradicts his lies that they were never hit again.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:I personally think that RLM's nitpicking on 'illogical' parts of the plot are just self-irony and commentary of the fatty nerd habit to nitpick plot points that normal people do not care about.

This was what I was talking about in my previous post, about people ascribing their own things to RLM to make him seem like more than he actually is. He's an unlearned ignoramus talking about many things he doesn't actually understand. To give him a free pass on all his lousy criticism as some kind of stealthy self-deprecation is giving him too much credit.

That serial killer/rapist shit is intentional "comedy." Spending an hour nitpicking plot points in the movie? Those are actual arguments against the movie's quality that he's making.

I do think that the reviews are overly long. He could have said all his central points in a single 30-45 minute review instead of stretching them to a feature film length.

He could've said it all in 10 minutes if all he was saying was that the story and characters didn't touch him the way the OT did.

Raynor, you can refute all the million little nitpicks to your heart's content, but from where I'm standing, what's important is what people remember about RLM's reviews a month after watching them. What I remember from the TPM review is that there is no main character for the audience to relate to, and what I remember from the AOTC review is that the prequels take things about the Jedi and the Force that were magical and intangible and reduce them to "Level 12 Sith Lord vs Level 15 Jedi Master," and what sticks in my head about the ROTS review is the mechanical, lazy cinematography in dialogue scenes helped to keep the movie from being engaging. If you can refute those kind of big points, I'd be interested in reading it. Past that, I only see the RLM reviews as an entertaining way to waste an hour here or there - much like the Star Wars prequels themselves.

And while criticizing criticism may not be "nerd rage," that's not actually what you've done in this thread - you've exhibited "nerd rage" while assuring everyone you have a big 70-page document of criticism somewhere, and maybe you'll post it sometime.

Master Fatty wrote:Kindly shut the fuck up and stay out of this thread if you don't want to bother to reading anything. Pointing out shoddy work and stupidity in criticism is not the same thing as "nerd rage" over the basic opinion of not liking a film. I've made that point clear already.

Calm down diddums. Most of the posters in this thread have already pointed out that your reaction to this review has been over the top to say the least. You either cry about specific nitpicks about the shield point in Episode 1 and then nitpick yourself or you fail to see the greater picture. The shield point for example was partially talking about how the actions of R2 were meaningless in the plot. Yes you can criticise the "shields drained by lasers" point and that'd be fair. However you are doing it in such a nitpicking manner while still frothing at the mouth and even MISSING the point that came with it.

PS: Also fantastic work there. You proclaim you are not in a nerd rage then start flaming almost from the start. Yeah it's allowed but it really reflects poorly on you.

As opposed to the fanatical vigour that it must have taken to make multiple 70-90 minute video reviews?

Not really. It could be perfectly argued that RLM takes too long but he doesn't just put minor nitpicks into his reviews. Remember that his serial killer acts, large analogies, tangents, points about the film making and film history, film mechanics and other stuff takes up a fair portion of the review. When I look at his reviews I don't see a sweaty, Cheeto fuelled rage against the Star Wars prequels. He is following the internet comedian reviewer act that the AVGN and TGWG took or hell, even the route Chuck took with Star Trek. RLM is not in a fury against Lucas in the same well that James Rofle is in a fury against LJM. It's mainly an act and it's mainly showing what he disliked about the Star Wars prequels and why. You may be the same but again, your attitude here discredits that in our eyes.

It's frankly a shame that RedLetterMedia and all his stuttering dorkish dramatics isn't outright rejected by online geeks. His review is what makes us all look like fucking freaks.

I guess someone who tries to look at the actual filmmaking aspects, talked to regular people about characters, rejected the EU rubbish and mocks many nerd reasoning is some sort of dorkish dramatic now. His review makes many nerds look like total "fucking freaks" merely because people like you scream like howler monkeys and focus on the trees instead of the forest.

I've actually quoted through almost all 70 minutes of his fucking video, and no, the bulk of it is lousy ignorant analysis. Again, if you haven't done your homework then shut the fuck up.

Oh I am sorry. Did I make you spill your Mountain Dew all over the floor? The idea of making a 70 page document on a review that was supposed to entertain, inform and give opinion is not my idea of a good discussion. Maybe if you constructed a thread and posted some of your points from your brick of an essay, then we could have a fun and good discussion about them. That way we can get rid of the pollution of this thread that is your impotent rage. God, and I thought Elfdart was the person who wrecked these threads.

You keep it up and make yourself look like more of a dumbass. Again, since your reading comprehension seems to be nonexistent, I wrote up a comprehensive response to what he already wrote. It's worse for him to come out first with such pathetic (and stupidly incorrect) nitpicks as bitching about how he doesn't understand how lasers can shoot down a shield.

Well then, while he is off having a life and have people actually understand him, please post some of your points into another thread so we can discuss them. I'd rather not have you spill more shit in this thread then you already have. Maybe someone could give you your ritalin and a doll to show where Harry touched you.

As an aside you also are amusing as hell in the fact that you seem to equate that anyone who dares defend RLM is some sort of dick sucker to him where I see no such evidence that his has taken place here. People have said that they like his reviews but have disagreed on parts with far more coherency and civility then you could ever muster and this thread was doing alright until you spilled your bile.

Jim Raynor wrote:I would say that people are ascribing all sorts of excuses and strained explanations in to RLM in an effort to protect their dork idol. No, he's a fucking moron. He actually argues that it's stupid for a character to be concerned about how a loss of shielding makes them "sitting ducks," because if they had shields then they supposedly wouldn't be sitting ducks and could "breeze" through the blockade. That kind of black-and-white idiocy is the kind of shit I wouldn't even expect from a child.

Relax. You're acting like there's some colossally stupid flaw of reasoning in the RLM review that should be obvious to anyone - yet you're really the only one who seems to notice it.

I just watched the scene in question, and I'm not understanding your criticism here. I hate getting into this level of fine-grained detail here because it's not really the point of the reviews, but you keep harping on this point over and over again like it's some sort of major flaw that everyone should care about.

This is what RLM says:

Ship Captain: If we can't get the shield generator fixed we'll be sitting ducks!

RLM: Okay wait, how will you be sitting ducks without a shield generator? Are you implying that with the shield generator you wouldn't be sitting ducks? That you would be able to breeze through this blockade somehow? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a blockade if any ship with an operational shield generator would suddenly not be a sitting duck and go through the blockade? I would think that with Trade Federation ships of that size and quantity you'd get blown to fucking pieces with or without shields if they all fired on you. So anyway, R2-D2 sticks a thing in a thing and fixes the shield generator. Then the dude says "deflector shields up at maximum!" Okay, so then that suddenly relieves all the tension in the scene, and allows them to escape the blockade.

I don't see what's so wrong with this. He's basically saying that:

1) Having a fully working shield generator (on that small ship) shouldn't make much of a difference when going up against the entire Trade Federation Armada. It would be like trying to drive through a blockade of tanks using a Honda Civic, and complaining that you might not make it because the Honda has a broken windshield. It just doesn't matter, because you're going to get blown to pieces regardless. Yet, all the tension in the scene seems to hinge on getting the shield generator fixed quickly.

2) Once they fix the shield generator, they immediately make it past the blockade with no further problems. So why should the audience even be afraid of this blockade? It's evidently not that hard to run through it, so the whole shield generator scene seems to be around just to kill time and generate false tension.

That's how I interpret what he's saying here. Is he wrong? I don't know - I have no idea about the firepower involved, or whether or not the Queen's ship should have any chance of making it through or not, but this is hardly some kind of "epic" criticism of RLM here. What I do know is that this scene has nowhere near the same sort of visceral, emotional impact as the Asteroid Belt sequence in ESB, where we actually see countless TIE fighters get blown to bits. It probably would have helped if we saw a couple of other ships try to run the blockade and get shot down. Regardless, it's not really a big deal. I guess we'll have to chalk it up to more Trade Federation incompetence, which is just another symptom of the overall lack of interesting villains.

Now, I really think you need to relax before you have a heart attack.

That's how I interpret what he's saying here. Is he wrong? I don't know - I have no idea about the firepower involved, or whether or not the Queen's ship should have any chance of making it through or not,

Specific firepower calculations wont make much of a difference. The average person the audience will see the small silver ship and then those massive ring ships (I am specifically not using their proper names as the audience usually wont). People tend to assume size=more powerful (this was used to good effect at the start of episode 4). Unless you somehow establish in the meantime that ships like the Naboo one can survive, then audience will assume they will get blown to bits.

In fact you get another example of this size to power concept in A New Hope. When Han is trying to escape the two approaching ISD's over Tatooine there is tension that they will get him and he wont make it. People don't assume that the Falcon will have magical shields that will survive gigaton blasts. They will assume that those two ships would squash his small ship like a bug.

Yet another Falcon example in Empire is where Han charges straight at an ISD in the Asteroid Field so he can hide on it. There is even the fun C3PO odd joke to go with it.

Morilore wrote: What I remember from the TPM review is that there is no main character for the audience to relate to,

You could see Obi Wan as arguably the closest thing to a the main character to the PT, out of an ensemble cast. And it's not as if the LotR trilogy didn't buckle under many sets of characters and that didn't stop the popularity of the books/movies.

@Bluewolf, yeah, I agree. I'm just trying to give Raynor some benefit of the doubt here.

Big Orange wrote:

Morilore wrote: What I remember from the TPM review is that there is no main character for the audience to relate to,

You could see Obi Wan as the main character to the PT, out of an ensemble cast. And it's not as if the LotR trilogy buckled under many sets of characters and that didn't stop the popularity of the books/movies.

That wasn't his point, it was that TPM explicitly lacked a main character. Yeah, you could say Kenobi was the main character of RoTS and AOTC but he does fuck all in TPM except cut Maul in half.

Channel72 wrote:*snip*

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.

Jim Raynor wrote:Yes, this thread isn't about TPM review, which is another reason I didn't post my preview list or my total work so far. Which is why I asked for someone to quickly post RLM's points about how the Jedi should have deposed Palpatine in ROTS, something that NO ONE has responded to yet.

Because no one cares to do your homework for you. Go watch it yourself.

Jim Raynor wrote:Contrary to you and RLM, the world doesn't operate in black-and-white fallacies. My response defends TPM against many of his points, but I've never seen it as a "defense of TPM." It is primarily a denouncement of an overrated, dishonest retard.

Well just finish it and post it in a thread about The Phantom Menace, not Revenge of the Sith. Or find something to complain about in the review that's relevant to this thread.

Aaron wrote:

Big Orange wrote:

Morilore wrote: What I remember from the TPM review is that there is no main character for the audience to relate to,

You could see Obi Wan as the main character to the PT, out of an ensemble cast. And it's not as if the LotR trilogy buckled under many sets of characters and that didn't stop the popularity of the books/movies.

That wasn't his point, it was that TPM explicitly lacked a main character. Yeah, you could say Kenobi was the main character of RoTS and AOTC but he does fuck all in TPM except cut Maul in half.

Even if it had lacked a main character, that would have made it like ESB or ROTJ, but now it's just a retarded point to make because it's pretty obvious that Qui-Gon is the main protagonist in TPM. Are people seriously buying into the crap that he's disqualified from being a protagonist because he's not Jesus but still dies at the end?

I can't speak for anyone else but I completely forgot about Qui-Gon.

How can you forget about Qui-Gon, the awesomest character of all

(Guess that says something about the rest of them)

Guess I didn't find him all that memorable, really I haven't seen TPM in years, probably the better part of a decade. I'm not really a fan of the PT like I am of the OT anyways.