Red Letter Media RotS Review Up

[Stofsk]

I can't agree. Leia stated they were being tracked with complete confidence. It stretches credibility to breaking point that with the life of the Rebellion at stake, she would simply not press the issue at all because Han said "not this ship, sister" - an incredibly stupid non-argument which doesn't make a smidgen of sense. What does that even mean? Is the Millennium Falcon singularly immune to having a homing beacon placed aboard? Is it magic? Seriously, if you were her, would you accept that ... "argument"? I'd call him the biggest fucking idiot in the galaxy.

Remember earlier in the movie Han spent a good amount of time losing the ISDs which chased them after they left Tatooine. He came into the Falcon's lounge and told them that they could all relax now because he had lost the pursuit. It's possible to track ships in Hyperspace and to pursue them, but Han demonstrated earlier that he's adept at foiling that pursuit. When Leia goes 'they must be tracking us' she didn't necessarily mean there was a tracking device on board, I mean how would she know that? She inferred that they were let go too easily and thus the Empire wanted to let them go because they were tracking them through some means. They might have had hyperspace scout ships chasing them for all she knew, and that could have been what Han assumed. At least that's how I interpret the scene, with him going 'not this ship, sister' - the Falcon's the fastest piece of junk in the galaxy after all.

Them simply not considering the possibility in all the excitement doesn't make them fucking idiots, it merely makes them fallible (in a less obviously moronic way, as opposed to being aware of the clear risk and simply ignoring it when its raised) and surprised by the villains - I highly doubt anyone watching the movie at first instance would think "ahah, you're being tracked!" until Tarkin and Vader explicitly said so. And effective villains make for a good story, which is one of the reasons the prequels fail so much in comparison.

I'm not sure we can agree here. I think the scene works especially well as is, and if it were changed so that the conversation in the cockpit didn't happen it wouldn't highlight great character moments like Leia and Han having a quarrel.

So fuck you I like my rose-tinted glasses just fine thank you very much.

I like em too EDIT: my real problem is that there are many substantive criticisms you can make about the prequels and all the ways they're mediocre, but most of the nitpicks are just inane.

I can agree with that though.

[StarshipTitanic]

Easy:- "I gave a small shit because the previous movie established that the Separatists were some kind of organization of cartel-sounding people with Dooku as head."

How am I supposed to interpret this, as opposed to "what I saw of their leadership before the war even started should set in stone their leadership in all matters in RotS"?

It's a bloody stupid, petty, and baseless complaint, sorry. And you go on to repeat it below!

-----

LOL of course! So that must mean that Gunray should be a military leader, right? I mean, his title is Viceroy, we've never seen him actually command anything (your inability to tell the difference between him merely presiding over an invasion and actually commanding it aside), and General Grievous' actual title is General, but why pay attention to obvious things like rank and what they do in the movie (Grievous = commands Separatist fleet, has a lightsabre collection, can face Jedi in single combat / Gunray = does nothing, can't fight for shit) when there's whiny, petty complaining about minor characters to be done, yeah?

I'm sorry but I didn't see any quotes from me in here where I state that "I think AOTC implied that the Separatists had no generals" so I take it that you gave up on trying to find something you made up? Ok, good.

By the way, if you want to go into what titles imply then "viceroy" implies that Gunray is a lieutenant to someone even though he is consistently treated as the leader of the TF. It also implies that the TF is a monarchy. I don't really care because I don't expect many things to make sense in the prequels. But feel free to use these observations as a reason to send me another apoplectic fit about how I don't understand prequel logic. I won't respond to it but I'll be amused.

And Gunray personally gave the order that let the Jedi recapture the Queen and he personally ordered the Theed garrison to engage the Gungans, leaving the city vulnerable to inflitration. Or was he also presiding over himself? God your points are so ignorant of the movies.

He threatens Gunray with violence.

According to you then a Secret Service agent carting off the President of the USA to a secure location must have political authority, right? The Jedi talk of having to kill Grievous to end the war because he's the commander of the Separatist military, not because he leads the Separatist movement.

You don't get to treat Grievous like the "Secret Service" after he threatens the "President" with violence to encourage obedience. You want to try that rationalization again? Go for it.

And I thought the Republic victory was inevitable and the Separatists were losing anyway? So why is killing Grievous so important if victory is as certain as it was during 1944?

Your totally made-up-in-your-head impression of the Separatist leadership from AotC, before the war even began, has absolutely no bearing on the situation in RotS, no matter how much you insist it does. Again - why do we need to know when/where the Emperor put Grievous in charge?

Ok so stuff I saw in AOTC should have "absolutely no bearing" in ROTS. Well I agree that that is basically what we got so I guess we're in agreement that the movies suck.

That's an idiotic analogy. Anyone who paid attention in the movie can see for themselves that the Separatists obviously aren't winning. They lost that battle, their Sith Lord is dead, their General is in hiding, and you think their cause is in the asendnance? Huh? Simply because there was still fighting?

Of course it was an idiotic analogy. I was aping yours.

So the Separatists obviously aren't winning when the opening crawl says that the Republic is "crumbling" and then we are shown that the Separatists are so powerful that they almost succeeded in kidnapping the Chancellor? And then when the Wookiees were invaded, the Jedi except for Anakin seemed pretty worried about the Separatists regrouping. And everyone seemed pretty emphatic that to end the war, they had to get Grievous not "oh well we almost have them whatever."

Why again should I take your word for it that the Separatists were crumbling?

Uhuh, so now the movie's stupid because the Separatist military can't protect its leaders, right (and you of course, gloss right over my main point, i.e. Jedi/ assassins finding them, as opposed to a military assault)? Because of course, if you have a military in a movie, then that must mean said military must be at an arbitrary level of strength compared to its opponent, no matter what, or else the movie is stupid.

Yeah, the movie is stupid if the antagonist forces are so ineffectual that there is no tension. Next point...

That means both Leia and Han are fucking morons of the highest order. Rose-tinted glasses, anyone?

It doesn't make that sense for Leia to insist on stopping at a spaceport to find the tracking device. If there is a tracking device, then the Imperials will know where they stopped and there's a risk of the plans being recaptured. If there isn't a tracking device, then it's a huge waste of time and no progress is made in finding a weakness. So there's no 100% safe course of action for her to take.

And it worked in the movie because it paid off in the end by 1) Moving events to the conclusion and 2) Having Han's character evolve from mercenary asshole to more brave and noble. I don't give prequel contrivances as much credit because they are shallow and I don't give a shit about the characters. Anakin was always a serial killer, Obi Wan was always a whiner, we know exactly how Palpatine is behind everything, etc.

So let me get this straight - knowing the particulars of how and when General Grievous got his job is serious business that requires valuable screentime...

Yeah, I want to know who the antagonists are and why they should impress me. If you disagree, then we have nothing more to talk about on this point.

[Galvatron]

It doesn't make that sense for Leia to insist on stopping at a spaceport to find the tracking device. If there is a tracking device, then the Imperials will know where they stopped and there's a risk of the plans being recaptured.

Or the Death Star might show up while they're tearing into the sofa cushions and destroy the entire planet for being a suspected rebel base.

No planet is a safe haven. I thought that was the point.

[Vympel]

I'm sorry but I didn't see any quotes from me in here where I state that "I think AOTC implied that the Separatists had no generals" so I take it that you gave up on trying to find something you made up? Ok, good.

Who cares? That's the clear implication of your argument, that there should be no General Grievous because of what you saw in AotC. That remains baseless and nonsensical. What we saw in AotC was pretty basic - Count Dooku discussing the progress of the Separatist movement with the heads of the various groups and ... that's it. Apparently, from this solid base you decided that the existence of a quasi-droid general who commands Separatist forces and kills Jedi is totally unbelievable?

By the way, if you want to go into what titles imply then "viceroy" implies that Gunray is a lieutenant to someone even though he is consistently treated as the leader of the TF. It also implies that the TF is a monarchy. I don't really care because I don't expect many things to make sense in the prequels. But feel free to use these observations as a reason to send me another apoplectic fit about how I don't understand prequel logic. I won't respond to it but I'll be amused.

What "Viceroy" ("Trade Viceroy" accoridng to the TPM script) specifically means within the Trade Federation is irrelevant, all that matters is that he is not a military officer.

And Gunray personally gave the order that let the Jedi recapture the Queen and he personally ordered the Theed garrison to engage the Gungans, leaving the city vulnerable to inflitration. Or was he also presiding over himself? God your points are so ignorant of the movies.

Ordering his forces to do something is not the same as commanding forces and fighting in battle, which he never does.

You don't get to treat Grievous like the "Secret Service" after he threatens the "President" with violence to encourage obedience. You want to try that rationalization again? Go for it.

I don't need to treat Grievous like "secret service", all I need to do is note that your conclusions are unjustified. There is nothing inherent in Grievous sending them to the Mustafar system, under Sidious' orders, that somehow justifies the conclusion that Grievous is a political leader of the Separatists. None.

And I thought the Republic victory was inevitable and the Separatists were losing anyway? So why is killing Grievous so important if victory is as certain as it was during 1944?

To hasten the end of the war by ridding them of their head commander. Wow, this is just so hard to understand, isn't it?

Ok so stuff I saw in AOTC should have "absolutely no bearing" in ROTS. Well I agree that that is basically what we got so I guess we're in agreement that the movies suck.

Facetious bullshit. Why should your made-up-in-your-head impressions of what you saw in AotC preclude the existence of a droid general in a position of command authority? You keep scoffing incredulously at this question with facetious non-answers. Care to give an actual answer anytime soon?

Of course it was an idiotic analogy. I was aping yours.

So the Separatists obviously aren't winning when the opening crawl says that the Republic is "crumbling" and then we are shown that the Separatists are so powerful that they almost succeeded in kidnapping the Chancellor? And then when the Wookiees were invaded, the Jedi except for Anakin seemed pretty worried about the Separatists regrouping. And everyone seemed pretty emphatic that to end the war, they had to get Grievous not "oh well we almost have them whatever."

Why again should I take your word for it that the Separatists were crumbling?

I'd hate to break this to you, but what the opening crawl says is not indicative of a permanent state of affairs throughout the whole movie. It's saying what the situation is right then. What's next, would you like to complain that the opening crawl says Count Dooku was launching attacks on the Republic and General Grievous launched an assault on Coruscant when in the actual movie we see that this attack failed, resulting in the death of Dooku, the rescue of Palpatine and the escape of Grievous into hiding?

Holy shit, stuff actually happens in a movie whilst you're watching it! Amazing!

Yeah, the movie is stupid if the antagonist forces are so ineffectual that there is no tension. Next point...

This I would agree with in general terms, though your basis for calling the antagonists forces ineffectual in this particular case is based on nothing but your own assumptions.

It doesn't make that sense for Leia to insist on stopping at a spaceport to find the tracking device. If there is a tracking device, then the Imperials will know where they stopped and there's a risk of the plans being recaptured.

Oh please, the risk of the Imperials finding the Falcon before the homing beacon is located is minimal. Furthermore, its perfectly viable for Leia to simply change ships, taking R2D2 with her.

If there isn't a tracking device, then it's a huge waste of time and no progress is made in finding a weakness. So there's no 100% safe course of action for her to take.

You say that as if they're in a race against time - they're not. There's no evidence or reason to believe the Death Star is going to blow up another planet. If they don't find a tracking device the time they've wasted looking for one has cost them nothing, and is not dangerous for them in the least.

And do you notice how you're just inferring stuff that no one said or implied in the movie? You won't allow that for RotS, so why are you allowed to do it for ANH? Rose-tinted glasses.

And it worked in the movie because it paid off in the end by 1) Moving events to the conclusion and 2) Having Han's character evolve from mercenary asshole to more brave and noble. I don't give prequel contrivances as much credit because they are shallow and I don't give a shit about the characters. Anakin was always a serial killer, Obi Wan was always a whiner, we know exactly how Palpatine is behind everything, etc.

And yet for some reason you are intent on the idea that knowing when Generla Grievous came onto the scene will somehow pay off or move events to their conclusion? For who?

And btw, the exchange between Han and Leia would've worked just fine without the tracking conversation. The important part of the conversation, which developed his character, was where Leia says "Its not over yet" and Han proceeds to explain that as far as he's concerned, it is, and he's in it for the money. The tracking risk has nothing to do with it. That conversation could easily have been reworked.

Yeah, I want to know who the antagonists are and why they should impress me. If you disagree, then we have nothing more to talk about on this point.

We know who Grievous is - he's a general with the Separatists. That's explicitly stated in the movie, and that's all any reasonable person needs to know. Why should he impress you? YMMV, but one would've thought the lightsabre collection and the way everyone treats his existence would clue anyone in to the fact that he's a dangerous opponent who has obviously made quite a name for himself during the war.

[Vympel]

Remember earlier in the movie Han spent a good amount of time losing the ISDs which chased them after they left Tatooine. He came into the Falcon's lounge and told them that they could all relax now because he had lost the pursuit. It's possible to track ships in Hyperspace and to pursue them, but Han demonstrated earlier that he's adept at foiling that pursuit. When Leia goes 'they must be tracking us' she didn't necessarily mean there was a tracking device on board, I mean how would she know that? She inferred that they were let go too easily and thus the Empire wanted to let them go because they were tracking them through some means. They might have had hyperspace scout ships chasing them for all she knew, and that could have been what Han assumed. At least that's how I interpret the scene, with him going 'not this ship, sister' - the Falcon's the fastest piece of junk in the galaxy after all.

This is a better rationalization, and it works. It reduces the central problem of the exchange, but doesn't eliminate it completely (i.e. risk of being tracked, still lead enemy right to Rebel secret base which you wouldn't give up even when tortured). There's way more "huh?!" moments in the OT, as you say, of course - most have been highlighted by Family Guy/ Robot Chicken now.

I'm not sure we can agree here. I think the scene works especially well as is, and if it were changed so that the conversation in the cockpit didn't happen it wouldn't highlight great character moments like Leia and Han having a quarrel.

Well as I noted to StarshipTitanic, the quarrel wasn't even about that - you could've kept that discussion, which was all about the question of Han and money, without the initial thingy of being tracked.

[StarshipTitanic]

Who cares? That's the clear implication of your argument, that there should be no General Grievous because of what you saw in AotC.

I am utterly baffled by this. So now because you know your claim that I said "I think AOTC implied that the Separatists had no generals" is wrong it's now that I implied that statement? I'm not keeping up with your succession of make believe here.

I'm going to type this part very slowly so you understand:

You wondered why anyone gave two shits about where Grievous came from because we don't need how he got his job explained to us.

I gave a small shit because the previous movie had Dooku discussing things with various cartel leaders but in ROTS Grievous is clearly superior to those cartel leaders despite ostensibly being their military commander. He bosses them around and threatens them. That's not how a subordinate acts.

The small issue for me is why this guy who fell from the sky is in charge of the people who own the droids. I have no idea, and will never have any idea, why you're talking about implications about there being no generals. I don't know why you came to believe this, why you keep talking about it, and why you expect me to care. Just stop making up different variants of "durh no generals." Nothing you say will entice me to answer your imaginary statement that I never obviously made, amply made, clearly made, amply implied, obviously implied or clearly implied.

So stop bringing it up, ok?

Ordering his forces to do something is not the same as commanding forces and fighting in battle, which he never does.

LOL of course! So that must mean that Gunray should be a military leader, right? I mean, his title is Viceroy, we've never seen him actually command anything (your inability to tell the difference between him merely presiding over an invasion and actually commanding it aside)

First we've never seen him command anything, which was wrong. Now he has to command forces and fight in battle? Well I thought Gunray was commanding when he commanded his army to engage the Gungans and when he was in the bunker on Geonosis but I guess those scenes amply implied something else that clearly makes whatever version of your statements true obviously. I'm going to guess that you'll soon define "command" and "preside over" for my edification and those definitions will corroborate whatever your current story is. Glad that will soon be settled.

I don't need to treat Grievous like "secret service", all I need to do is note that your conclusions are unjustified. There is nothing inherent in Grievous sending them to the Mustafar system, under Sidious' orders, that somehow justifies the conclusion that Grievous is a political leader of the Separatists. None.

GENERAL GRIEVOUS stands before the COUNCIL OF SEPARATISTS, including NUTE GUNRAY, RUNE HAAKO. POGGLE THE LESSER, SHU MAI, SAN HILL PO NUDO, WAT TAMBOR, and PASSEL ARGENTE. OBI-WAN hides above the assembly and watches intently.

GENERAL GRIEVOUS: It won't be long before the armies of the Republic track us here. I am sending you to the Mustafar system in the Outer Rim. It is a volcanic planet which generates a great deal of scanning interference. You will be safe there.

NUTE GUNRAY: Safe? Chancellor Palpatine managed to escape your grip, General, without Count Dooku. I have doubts about your ability to keep us safe.

GENERAL GRIEVOUS: Be thankful, Viceroy, you have not found yourself in my grip . . . Your ship is waiting.

Pretty bossy for a subordinate. Grievous had authority over the political leaders. Does this not give him political authority? I think it's implied. If we don't agree, who cares? Are you going to keep insisting that you know the secret DaLucas code to the proper interpretation of his prequel works?

To hasten the end of the war by ridding them of their head commander. Wow, this is just so hard to understand, isn't it?

By the looks of his humiliating defeat over Coruscant, having Grievous in charge would probably help hasten the Separatist decline more than if he was removed from power. And the Jedi talk about him like he's constantly running away. He doesn't sound like much of an asset to the Separatists to me so it's pretty hard to understand why he's so vital to their war effort.

Facetious bullshit. Why should your made-up-in-your-head impressions of what you saw in AotC preclude the existence of a droid general in a position of command authority? You keep scoffing incredulously at this question with facetious non-answers. Care to give an actual answer anytime soon?

That wasn't what you meant to imply? I mean, if you say that I can't understand AOTC without you there next to me telling me the sole correct interpretations then there's really no point to discussing this particular issue.

I'd hate to break this to you, but what the opening crawl says is not indicative of a permanent state of affairs throughout the whole movie. It's saying what the situation is right then. What's next, would you like to complain that the opening crawl says Count Dooku was launching attacks on the Republic and General Grievous launched an assault on Coruscant when in the actual movie we see that this attack failed, resulting in the death of Dooku, the rescue of Palpatine and the escape of Grievous into hiding?

Holy shit, stuff actually happens in a movie whilst you're watching it! Amazing!

Holy shit, the Republic went from "crumbling" to cruising towards a victory within 20 minutes because one guy died and one battle was lost? What a shitty movie.

[Vympel]

I am utterly baffled by this. So now because you know your claim that I said "I think AOTC implied that the Separatists had no generals" is wrong it's now that I implied that statement? I'm not keeping up with your succession of make believe here.

I'm going to type this part very slowly so you understand:

You wondered why anyone gave two shits about where Grievous came from because we don't need how he got his job explained to us.

I gave a small shit because the previous movie had Dooku discussing things with various cartel leaders but in ROTS Grievous is clearly superior to those cartel leaders despite ostensibly being their military commander. He bosses them around and threatens them. That's not how a subordinate acts.

The mere fact that he stood up for himself when Gunray questioned his ability to keep them safe does not somehow magically translate into him being somehow their boss. As the military commander, Grievous has the authority to determine where the Separatist leaders should go and why, and despite belly-aching about it, Gunray accepted his judgment. Your steadfast insistence that this single solitary exchange somehow proves Grievous was their leader is sheer bloody-mindedness and complaining for the sake of complaining.

First we've never seen him command anything, which was wrong.

No, it wasn't. Where has he directed a battle?

Now he has to command forces and fight in battle? Well I thought Gunray was commanding when he commanded his army to engage the Gungans and when he was in the bunker on Geonosis but I guess those scenes amply implied something else that clearly makes whatever version of your statements true obviously. I'm going to guess that you'll soon define "command" and "preside over" for my edification and those definitions will corroborate whatever your current story is. Glad that will soon be settled.

Please point out where in your imaginary super-special edition of AotC Gunray was acting as a general, because its certainly not in my copy.

Pretty bossy for a subordinate. Grievous had authority over the political leaders. Does this not give him political authority? I think it's implied. If we don't agree, who cares? Are you going to keep insisting that you know the secret DaLucas code to the proper interpretation of his prequel works?

I find it funny you think I'm the one insisting I know the "DaLucas code" given your repeated insistence that an exchange between Grievous and Gunray where he explicitly sends them to a planet to keep them safe somehow proves he has political authority. Keeping your leadership safe is a military, not political, decision. Can you even tell the difference?

By the looks of his humiliating defeat over Coruscant, having Grievous in charge would probably help hasten the Separatist decline more than if he was removed from power. And the Jedi talk about him like he's constantly running away. He doesn't sound like much of an asset to the Separatists to me so it's pretty hard to understand why he's so vital to their war effort.

The mere fact that he succeeded in launching a surprise attack on Coruscant and kidnapping Palpatine is more than enough to establish his credibility as a capable commander, and there's no reason for anyone to characterize his defeat over Coruscant as "humiliating", unless you have super-special secret knowledge about the battle to show that Grievous somehow proved himself thoroughly inept. Or do you think every defeat is a humiliation and every general who retreats is a useless coward? Realistic!

That wasn't what you meant to imply? I mean, if you say that I can't understand AOTC without you there next to me telling me the sole correct interpretations then there's really no point to discussing this particular issue.

Sure there is, I can tell you your interpretation is bullshit. If you can't deal with it, that's fine.

Holy shit, the Republic went from "crumbling" to cruising towards a victory within 20 minutes because one guy died and one battle was lost? What a shitty movie.

Because of course, the loss of Count Dooku, the leader of the Separatists who built that alliance in a massive battle would in no way effect the outcome of the war. I mean, its not like General Grievous explicitly said "But the loss of Count Dooku ..." to Sidious when discussing the possibility of 'victory' as he defined it. And the word "crumbling" can only be interpreted to mean that the Republic is losing the war (because a nation only crumbles when its losing?).

EDIT: Generally, its also worth noting that the Separatist leaders were almost certainly in on the assassination of the Jedi Order. The first thing Gunray says to Palpatine on Mustafar is that "The plan has gone as you had promised, My Lord." The only thing that had changed at that point was the execution of Order 66.

[StarshipTitanic]

The mere fact that he stood up for himself when Gunray questioned his ability to keep them safe does not somehow magically translate into him being somehow their boss. As the military commander, Grievous has the authority to determine where the Separatist leaders should go and why, and despite belly-aching about it, Gunray accepted his judgment. Your steadfast insistence that this single solitary exchange somehow proves Grievous was their leader is sheer bloody-mindedness and complaining for the sake of complaining.

You finally get on topic just to tell me that I should trust your impression of the movie over what can be observed in the sole scene that explores the Grievous-political leadership dynamic? I'm not going to trust you. Looks like we're done here.

No, it wasn't. Where has he directed a battle?

---

Please point out where in your imaginary super-special edition of AotC Gunray was acting as a general, because its certainly not in my copy.

Oh now it's "directed a battle"? I thought the threshold was "command anything"? Or was it "command anything and fight a battle"? This is goalpost moving, right? Is that the name?

When have we seen Grievous direct a battle? Never. All he did was micromanage his ship before he fell out of it. I guess "general" must mean "lightsaber pinwheel" in the Star Wars galaxy.

The mere fact that he succeeded in launching a surprise attack on Coruscant and kidnapping Palpatine is more than enough to establish his credibility as a capable commander, and there's no reason for anyone to characterize his defeat over Coruscant as "humiliating", unless you have super-special secret knowledge about the battle to show that Grievous somehow proved himself thoroughly inept. Or do you think every defeat is a humiliation and every general who retreats is a useless coward? Realistic!

Grievous launched a surprise attack on Coruscant where he kidnapped Palpatine? I'm going to let you figure that one out by yourself.

Because of course, the loss of Count Dooku, the leader of the Separatists who built that alliance in a massive battle would in no way effect the outcome of the war. I mean, its not like General Grievous explicitly said "But the loss of Count Dooku ..." to Sidious when discussing the possibility of 'victory' as he defined it. And the word "crumbling" can only be interpreted to mean that the Republic is losing the war (because a nation only crumbles when its losing?).

EDIT: Generally, its also worth noting that the Separatist leaders were almost certainly in on the assassination of the Jedi Order. The first thing Gunray says to Palpatine on Mustafar is that "The plan has gone as you had promised, My Lord." The only thing that had changed at that point was the execution of Order 66.

I'm going to ignore your whole bizarre "crumbling doesn't imply losing" bullshit at the end because I'm just so impressed that you finally told me something that is actually in the movie to counter my point. Something I could see and hear for myself.

I'm not sure why you noted the possible Order 66 knowledge among the Separatists. Other than to show how the movie is even more retarded, that is. You'd think the Separatists would start asking questions if Sidious talked about his ability to influence all the clones in the galaxy.

[Vympel]

You finally get on topic just to tell me that I should trust your impression of the movie over what can be observed in the sole scene that explores the Grievous-political leadership dynamic? I'm not going to trust you. Looks like we're done here.

This isn't about "trust", this is just your being stubborn because your interpretation is unjustified and you don't like getting called on it. Do you think I didn't notice how you totally snipped the point I made that:

I find it funny you think I'm the one insisting I know the "DaLucas code" given your repeated insistence that an exchange between Grievous and Gunray where he explicitly sends them to a planet to keep them safe somehow proves he has political authority. Keeping your leadership safe is a military, not political, decision. Can you even tell the difference?

The only conclusion I can draw is that you have no way to defend the idiocy of assuming sending the Separatist leadership to a safe location somehow establishes political leadership of the Separatists.

Oh now it's "directed a battle"? I thought the threshold was "command anything"? Or was it "command anything and fight a battle"? This is goalpost moving, right? Is that the name?

Your inability to understand what I mean when I say command in the context of what a general does is your problem, not mine. Do you have any actual argument here, apart from whining about goalpost shifting? Of course not. I notice you just glossed over me calling bullshit on your saying Gunray ever acted as a general. That's happening a lot lately ...

When have we seen Grievous direct a battle? Never. All he did was micromanage his ship before he fell out of it. I guess "general" must mean "lightsaber pinwheel" in the Star Wars galaxy.

Lol whut? It was Grievous who commanded the attack on Coruscant, as was made clear in the opening crawl. As for your comments about what "General" means, lets note the Jedi are referred to as generals and fight on the front lines, as does General Veers in TESB. Or are you going to start bitching and moaning that all Veers did was micromanage his AT-AT, therefore he's never directed a battle? I think those rose-tinted glasses which inform your glaring, biased double standards might be literally fused to your skin.

Grievous launched a surprise attack on Coruscant where he kidnapped Palpatine? I'm going to let you figure that one out by yourself.

Why, because Palpatine was in on it? So what, Grievous still had to plan, execute and launch the attack. Or does the fact that Palpatine was in on it somehow lead inexorably to the conclusion that Palpatine micromanaged the entire attack from go to woah?

I'm going to ignore your whole bizarre "crumbling doesn't imply losing" bullshit at the end

It doesn't. Nations can crumble during warfare without losing. Casulaties and damage happens.

I'm not sure why you noted the possible Order 66 knowledge among the Separatists. Other than to show how the movie is even more retarded, that is. You'd think the Separatists would start asking questions if Sidious talked about his ability to influence all the clones in the galaxy.

The Separatists knowing that there's been a Jedi Rebellion which has been put down doesn't mean they know Sidious has personal control of the clonetroopers.

[StarshipTitanic]

I miss stuff because you like to split what I say down to component sentences and I miss things. Maybe you do this to strip away context for your benefit. I'm not actually sure, though. I try not to do it myself and I sometimes try to put together what you split up.

And sometimes I ignore when you huff and puff, like I'm about to do now:

The only conclusion I can draw is that you have no way to defend the idiocy of assuming sending the Separatist leadership to a safe location somehow establishes political leadership of the Separatists.

I've already explained where I saw the implied political power and this is the last time I'll reiterate it: It was when Grievous ordered Gunray around and overruled Gunray's doubts forcefully. When the military makes decisions while refusing to consider the political leadership's doubts, then the military may have political power because it can influence the behavior of political players. I know you don't agree with the implication I see, but you (should) know very well by now that I don't care how much you bleat "idiot" or "clearly" at me when you have nothing on screen to talk about. This is it for real this time, ok?

Your inability to understand what I mean when I say command in the context of what a general does is your problem, not mine. Do you have any actual argument here, apart from whining about goalpost shifting? Of course not. I notice you just glossed over me calling bullshit on your saying Gunray ever acted as a general. That's happening a lot lately ...

Are you mocking me for not understanding what you meant when you've changed what you've meant three times? Gunray did command something, so you were wrong to say he didn't command anything. Why should I address the stuff you added later on? I'm not going to. I don't care if you're too inarticulate to express yourself the first time.

Lol whut? It was Grievous who commanded the attack on Coruscant, as was made clear in the opening crawl. As for your comments about what "General" means, lets note the Jedi are referred to as generals and fight on the front lines, as does General Veers in TESB. Or are you going to start bitching and moaning that all Veers did was micromanage his AT-AT, therefore he's never directed a battle? I think those rose-tinted glasses which inform your glaring, biased double standards might be literally fused to your skin.

If one of your criteria for a general was that we saw when he "directed a battle" I thought it was only fair that you provided an on screen example of General Grievous directing a battle. I know you can't, which was my point. Obviously the crawl implies he was in command of the fleet, though that isn't obvious by his actions on screen since he deals with the Jedi and his own ship exclusively. This is a weakness of the movies.

It amuses me that my overarching point is that the movies are weak because they imply a lot but show little but you zero in on these nerd nitpicks. It's hard to believe Grievous is a credible antagonist because:

1) We the audience know that his major achievement, the battle over Coruscant, was orchestrated by Palpatine. It didn't matter what happened to Palpatine because we understand that the result was his intention.
2) We aren't shown him being a "devious" general at any point in the movie.

Do we agree there? If not, let's discuss those two issues instead. If you do decide to discuss this, I'll take that as an implicit agreement to drop the rest of these quibbles.

Now I'm going to do what you did only because the faults in this next bit require individual attention. I apologize in advance:

Why, because Palpatine was in on it?

Yeah? Do I have to explain how Palpatine was not surprised and how he chose to be kidnapped?

So what, Grievous still had to plan, execute and launch the attack.

Got any proof of the first part? No, you don't.

Or does the fact that Palpatine was in on it somehow lead inexorably to the conclusion that Palpatine micromanaged the entire attack from go to woah?

No. Palpatine being in on the attack does lead inexorably to the conclusion that the battle does not "establish [Grievous's] credibility as a capable commander." The battle was rigged.

The Separatists knowing that there's been a Jedi Rebellion which has been put down doesn't mean they know Sidious has personal control of the clonetroopers.

I'll ignore you putting words in my mouth like "they know Sidious has personal control of the clonetroopers." How about you just explain what "in on the assassination" means if it doesn't mean knowing Sidious had influence over the clones so I know what you mean?

[Vympel]

I miss stuff because you like to split what I say down to component sentences and I miss things. Maybe you do this to strip away context for your benefit. I'm not actually sure, though. I try not to do it myself and I sometimes try to put together what you split up.

And sometimes I ignore when you huff and puff, like I'm about to do now:

I've already explained where I saw the implied political power and this is the last time I'll reiterate it: It was when Grievous ordered Gunray around and overruled Gunray's doubts forcefully. When the military makes decisions while refusing to consider the political leadership's doubts, then the military may have political power because it can influence the behavior of political players. I know you don't agree with the implication I see, but you (should) know very well by now that I don't care how much you bleat "idiot" or "clearly" at me when you have nothing on screen to talk about. This is it for real this time, ok?

Grievous didn't order Gunray around nor did he overrule Gunray's doubts forcefully. All that happened is Gunray belly-ached and insulted Grievous, and Grievous stood up for himself. And don't think I didn't notice your backpedal - you've gone from saying that Grievous is their clear leader to now saying that Grievous has "political power because it can influence the behavior of political players". A General of a military doesn't have "political power" because he tells a politician "you're not safe here, go here instead". Political power, nevermind leadership, means the ability to set policy for the government. There's no evidence Grievous has such authority.

Are you mocking me for not understanding what you meant when you've changed what you've meant three times? Gunray did command something, so you were wrong to say he didn't command anything. Why should I address the stuff you added later on? I'm not going to. I don't care if you're too inarticulate to express yourself the first time.

I wasn't aware there was some principle of argument that allows you to just flat out ignore what your opponent is saying because you find it inconvenient when he tells you that your understanding of his argument is bullshit. On that basis, your concession is accepted.

If one of your criteria for a general was that we saw when he "directed a battle" I thought it was only fair that you provided an on screen example of General Grievous directing a battle. I know you can't, which was my point. Obviously the crawl implies he was in command of the fleet, though that isn't obvious by his actions on screen since he deals with the Jedi and his own ship exclusively. This is a weakness of the movies.

I notice how you just glossed over my referring to General Veers in TESB. Why? Because it shows your double standards? Yes, I think so!

It amuses me that my overarching point is that the movies are weak because they imply a lot but show little but you zero in on these nerd nitpicks. It's hard to believe Grievous is a credible antagonist because:

1) We the audience know that his major achievement, the battle over Coruscant, was orchestrated by Palpatine. It didn't matter what happened to Palpatine because we understand that the result was his intention.

I'll deal with this below.

2) We aren't shown him being a "devious" general at any point in the movie.

Who said he was devious, and why is this important?

Yeah? Do I have to explain how Palpatine was not surprised and how he chose to be kidnapped?

Yeah, you do. Well, not really, that's a rhetorical statement. See below.

Got any proof of the first part? No, you don't.

So let me get this straight - you think its reasonable to assume that, what, Palpatine planned the attack? He just handed Grievous a fully formed battle plan, eh?

No. Palpatine being in on the attack does lead inexorably to the conclusion that the battle does not "establish [Grievous's] credibility as a capable commander." The battle was rigged.

LOL- so Palpatine making himself available to be captured leads to the conclusion that every single Jedi, soldier and ship commander at the Battle of Coruscant was also in on it and simply didn't fight very effectively, because Palpatine told them not to, without ever wondering why.

I'll ignore you putting words in my mouth like "they know Sidious has personal control of the clonetroopers." How about you just explain what "in on the assassination" means if it doesn't mean knowing Sidious had influence over the clones so I know what you mean?

You ignore a lot of things, but I've got to laugh at this hairsplitting between "personal control of the clonetroopers" and "influence over the clones", as if the latter didn't mean the former. My point stands - they already know Sidious has influence in the Republic from TPM, that's perfectly sufficient.

[StarshipTitanic]

I'm glad that you agreed to narrow the scope of this exchange, though you seemed eager to claim the last word on them. Very well, I wouldn't want your hurt feelings to distract you even more from thinking rationally and expressing yourself articulately. These increasingly large posts were tiring me out, personally. Now let's continue. I'm assuming that I pruned the correct replies to my point 1 here:

So let me get this straight - you think its reasonable to assume that, what, Palpatine planned the attack? He just handed Grievous a fully formed battle plan, eh?

LOL- so Palpatine making himself available to be captured leads to the conclusion that every single Jedi, soldier and ship commander at the Battle of Coruscant was also in on it and simply didn't fight very effectively, because Palpatine told them not to, without ever wondering why.

Why don't you understand that if you state "Grievous still had to plan... the attack" then you have to prove this? It's plausible, certainly. Then again, Palpatine wanted the battle to go a specific way. Maybe Grievous planned the battle and told Sidious what he was going to do and that's how Palpatine could anticipate what to do? Or maybe Sidious told Grievous what to do as extra assurance that the battle would go the way Sidious wanted? Who knows for sure? Not you.

And anyway, what do your nerd fantasies about who got an author's credit on the battle plans have to do with why I should believe Grievous is a credible antagonist? He was led into an engagement he was intended to lose (which he lost). He fled to a planet and got too distracted by a duel (which he lost) to direct a battle which his army lost.

Who said he was devious, and why is this important?

Oops, I misremembered "fiendish" in the opening crawl as "devious." I apologize for that. He was fiendish in a tepidly nonthreatening, Snidely Whiplash sort of way. That's indisputable, I will concede to you.

[Galvatron]

why I should believe Grievous is a credible antagonist?

Didn't you watch the cartoon?

[Vympel]

I'm glad that you agreed to narrow the scope of this exchange, though you seemed eager to claim the last word on them. Very well, I wouldn't want your hurt feelings to distract you even more from thinking rationally and expressing yourself articulately. These increasingly large posts were tiring me out, personally. Now let's continue. I'm assuming that I pruned the correct replies to my point 1 here:

Well, I notice you finally abandoned your unsubstantiated claim that Grievous determines policy for the entire Confederacy because he was testy with Nute Gunray, that's something.

Why don't you understand that if you state "Grievous still had to plan... the attack" then you have to prove this? It's plausible, certainly. Then again, Palpatine wanted the battle to go a specific way. Maybe Grievous planned the battle and told Sidious what he was going to do and that's how Palpatine could anticipate what to do? Or maybe Sidious told Grievous what to do as extra assurance that the battle would go the way Sidious wanted? Who knows for sure? Not you.

And? So? Therefore? All you're doing with this foot-stomping is making clear, again, your double standards for what is and isn't 'stupid' in a film. There are all manner of things we "don't know for sure" in the original trilogy, this does not make them flawed - unless you insist on the single most retarded interpretation of any possible plot point for the specific purpose of making said plot points look worse than they actually are. The opening crawl states Grievous launched the attack, that's a perfectly reasonable and plausible basis for him planning it. Why you think this is a point worth arguing really is beyond me- is it because you had to cover up for how silly it was to think Palpatine being in on his own kidnapping meant the entire Republic army was too?

And anyway, what do your nerd fantasies about who got an author's credit on the battle plans have to do with why I should believe Grievous is a credible antagonist? He was led into an engagement he was intended to lose (which he lost). He fled to a planet and got too distracted by a duel (which he lost) to direct a battle which his army lost.

And? I hate to break it to you, but most minor and even major antagonists in movies generally lose. He's obviously a dangerous opponent, as his lightsabre collection attests, and as Obi-Wan's difficult fight with him proves. Still, Grievous is just a tool, and as I said before, and which obviously went over your head, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). The actual antagonist of RotS is Palpatine, in case you didn't notice. But as far as Grievous is concerned, he served his purpose.

[StarshipTitanic]

why I should believe Grievous is a credible antagonist?

Didn't you watch the cartoon?

Lucas should have a "Do you want to know more?" button pop up from time to time that leads me to the Amazon.com page for whatever merchandise I need to buy for the full story.

And? So? Therefore? All you're doing with this foot-stomping is making clear, again, your double standards for what is and isn't 'stupid' in a film. There are all manner of things we "don't know for sure" in the original trilogy, this does not make them flawed - unless you insist on the single most retarded interpretation of any possible plot point for the specific purpose of making said plot points look worse than they actually are.

And you have to prove your claims. So you have to prove your claims. Therefore you have to prove your claims. I think I got all the questions about why I insist on proof when you make claims to know, factually, things you do not know. Last time I checked, this thread is about problems in Revenge of the Sith so I don't see why I'm obligated to talk about Leia or Veers or anything else merely because you bring them up to go "A-hah, I don't understand why these things make more sense than the prequels ever did!" If you want to talk about plot holes in the original trilogy, go make a thread about it. Maybe I'll notice and talk about it there. This is the last time I'm going to indulge your irrelevant rants regarding the original movies. Do you understand?

The opening crawl states Grievous launched the attack, that's a perfectly reasonable and plausible basis for him planning it. Why you think this is a point worth arguing really is beyond me- is it because you had to cover up for how silly it was to think Palpatine being in on his own kidnapping meant the entire Republic army was too?

And? I hate to break it to you, but most minor and even major antagonists in movies generally lose. He's obviously a dangerous opponent, as his lightsabre collection attests, and as Obi-Wan's difficult fight with him proves. Still, Grievous is just a tool, and as I said before, and which obviously went over your head, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). The actual antagonist of RotS is Palpatine, in case you didn't notice. But as far as Grievous is concerned, he served his purpose.

I don't know why I have to cover up some implication you invented. What is your point here, other than uselessly pointing out that the clone soldiers were probably surprised? What you actually said before was: "The mere fact that he succeeded in launching a surprise attack on Coruscant and kidnapping Palpatine is more than enough to establish his credibility as a capable commander..." All he succeeded in doing was failing when he was designed to fail. How does this establish credibility. Many minor and major antagonists in moves generally win a few victories first just to prove that they're credible.

How was he obviously dangerous opponent and how does his lightsaber collection attest to that? You will make a specific claim that demonstrates a link between dangerousness with his lightsaber collection. Don't insinuate something so you come back and say I got it wrong. I don't like that game.

[Vympel]

And you have to prove your claims. So you have to prove your claims. Therefore you have to prove your claims. I think I got all the questions about why I insist on proof when you make claims to know, factually, things you do not know. Last time I checked, this thread is about problems in Revenge of the Sith so I don't see why I'm obligated to talk about Leia or Veers or anything else merely because you bring them up to go "A-hah, I don't understand why these things make more sense than the prequels ever did!" If you want to talk about plot holes in the original trilogy, go make a thread about it. Maybe I'll notice and talk about it there. This is the last time I'm going to indulge your irrelevant rants regarding the original movies. Do you understand?

I refer to the OT to illustrate that reasonable people don't need to "prove their claims" about the plot of a movie in order to rebut idiotic arguments about them. None of your arguments in relation to the downright idiotic way you interpret RotS plotpoints have come with anything that would constitute proof. Your hypocrisy is glaring.

I don't know why I have to cover up some implication you invented. What is your point here, other than uselessly pointing out that the clone soldiers were probably surprised?

What you actually said before was: "The mere fact that he succeeded in launching a surprise attack on Coruscant and kidnapping Palpatine is more than enough to establish his credibility as a capable commander..." All he succeeded in doing was failing when he was designed to fail. How does this establish credibility. Many minor and major antagonists in moves generally win a few victories first just to prove that they're credible.

I love this, I really do - I pointed out that the Republic soldiers and Jedi were surprised because you're the brainstrust who thought that Palapatine being in on his own kidnapping somehow made the battle easy. And when I rebut that by pointing out the obvious, all of a sudden, pointing out same is "useless", eh? Why don't you just accept you made a stupid argument and drop it with a modicum of grace?

How was he obviously dangerous opponent and how does his lightsaber collection attest to that? You will make a specific claim that demonstrates a link between dangerousness with his lightsaber collection.

Wow, I actually have to explain something that obvious, do I? Where do you think he got those lightsabres? By killing Jedi. He explicitly says he's been trained in the Jedi arts by Count Dooku. And then, as I said before, and which you ignored (a running theme for your posting on this thread), Obi-Wan (one of the Jedi's most capable fighters) didn't effortlessly defeat him. Therefore, he is a dangerous opponent.

[Kane Starkiller]

You are now engaging in the heinous, unforgiveable crime of assuming things in the movie that aren't stated. My point is made- people cut the OT a break because they're simply better movies and treat them with kid-gloves, but because the PT simply isn't very good, they will exaggerate every single plot question mark out of all proportion and refuse to infer anything in the plot or the character's decisions/ motivations that hasn't been spelled out to them in crayon. Its clearly biased fanboy behavior.

That said, its simply bad writing - the appropriate thing to do (there are a few ways to attack it) would be to not have any of the heroes address the possibility of being tracked at all - only have Vader and Tarkin talk about it.

That there was a tracking device on board and that Leia suspected that they are being tracked but couldn't prove it are facts. Based on those facts you claim that not stopping to look for the device was stupid. I pointed out that looking for a device they weren't sure existed could've just as easily resulted in disaster. I made no more assumptions than you did.
Why you think this is analogous to Sidious barking orders at supposedly sovereign Trade Federation without a shred of explanation is beyond me.

*sigh* An analogy doesn't have to be exact in every single particular. In any event, Gunray is not Grievous' superior, Grievous is not Gunray's superior. They both do Sidious' bidding. They both give lip to each other.

Which doesn't make a lick of sense. How did Sidious get into position of appointing Separatist leaders and giving orders to them? I mean how Sidious got to power is only the entire point of the prequels.
And none of this explains the stupidity of them hiding on some remote planet away from main Separatist force instead of hiding in the capital. No matter how bleak the situation is it is still safer than hoping an anonymous under a hood will keep you safe.

The Separatists are boring and I personally don't think fleshing them out would've made a better movie.

They are boring because they consist of Nute Gunray, 5 CGI cartoons and slapstick comedy droids which are probably the least threatening henchmen in the movie history.
If the movie is about Palpatine playing both sides against the middle then portraying one side as cartoony henchmen means movie fail.

The war was over because Sidious wanted it that way, since he made up the whole thing from the start.

But the degree to which he controlled everything was stupid. Instead of showing him manipulating both sides, one side is basically his personal army and then he embezzles money from the other side to buy himself another personal army. So Palpatines two personal armies are now fighting each other instead of real people on both sides with independent motivations and desires being tricked into fighting which would actually make the war tragic and movie more interesting.

And? You're talking as if forces that are within an order of magnitude can't ever start losing. What, was the war going to go on forever?

No but even if you are making a WW2 movie you don't cut from battle of Stalingrad to Mossad agents hunting Eichman in Argentina without an explanation of what is going on. Sure we can assume and even read a history book but it would still make for a disjointed movie.

[Vympel]

That there was a tracking device on board and that Leia suspected that they are being tracked but couldn't prove it are facts. Based on those facts you claim that not stopping to look for the device was stupid. I pointed out that looking for a device they weren't sure existed could've just as easily resulted in disaster. I made no more assumptions than you did.

Exactly. You are making assumptions, as I am.

Why you think this is analogous to Sidious barking orders at supposedly sovereign Trade Federation without a shred of explanation is beyond me.

This insistence that the Trade Federation following a plan Sidious laid out for them needs "a shred of explanation" beyond what is in the films is simply baffling to me. The Trade Federation is conspiring with Sidious for mutual benefit. Part of their deal necessarily requires that the Trade Federation will do what Sidious says, because he's the leader of the conspiracy. This does not mean the Trade Federation has somehow given up its "sovereignty".

Which doesn't make a lick of sense.

How does it not make sense? For fuck's sake, this sort of minor crap simply does not need explaining. He's simply a cyborg General that someone on the Separatist side presumably created and he was given command of Separatist military forces. Why do we need to know more than this? What in the world does it add to the film, apart from totally pointless backstory that adds nothing to the plot whatsoever?

How did Sidious get into position of appointing Separatist leaders and giving orders to them?

See above.

I mean how Sidious got to power is only the entire point of the prequels.

No, its not. The fall of Anakin Skywalker is the major part.

And none of this explains the stupidity of them hiding on some remote planet away from main Separatist force instead of hiding in the capital. No matter how bleak the situation is it is still safer than hoping an anonymous under a hood will keep you safe.

It was Sidious who told Grievous where to move them, but it was Grievous who told them that they were being moved. His reasoning is explicitly stated in the film on Utapau - it won't be long before the Republic armies track them there. Therefore, they should run and hide elsewhere, in the Outer Rim. That is all the reasoning we need to conclude that the Separatists think it safer for them to hide where they cannot be found than paint a big target on their head on "capital planets" that may or may not even exist as places they can go to. Given Dooku was just killed in a battle, I cannot understand that you think its inconceivable stupidity to prefer hiding.

They are boring because they consist of Nute Gunray, 5 CGI cartoons and slapstick comedy droids which are probably the least threatening henchmen in the movie history.
If the movie is about Palpatine playing both sides against the middle then portraying one side as cartoony henchmen means movie fail.

That's not what the movie is about at all. Its about Anakin Skywalker = Darth Vader.

But the degree to which he controlled everything was stupid. Instead of showing him manipulating both sides, one side is basically his personal army and then he embezzles money from the other side to buy himself another personal army. So Palpatines two personal armies are now fighting each other instead of real people on both sides with independent motivations and desires being tricked into fighting which would actually make the war tragic and movie more interesting.

That's personal opinion, there's no point arguing about that.

No but even if you are making a WW2 movie you don't cut from battle of Stalingrad to Mossad agents hunting Eichman in Argentina without an explanation of what is going on. Sure we can assume and even read a history book but it would still make for a disjointed movie.

We do have an explanation of what's going on. Its right there in the movie.

[Vympel]

Anyway, some things I don't like about RotS:-

* Opening space battle was a let-down;
* Dialogue between Anakin & Padme for the most part remains awful;
* Anakin's turn to the Dark Side was too fast;
* Script was sloppy. e.g. If I hear a variant of "this time you won't get away" in a movie more than once by the same person (Obi-Wan), something is wrong.
* Pointless distracting CGI:- e.g. the swarm of mouse droids preceding Vader's entry into the Separatists' room on Mustafar, or the lava-floaty droid thingy appearing and making annoying noises whilst Obi-Wan and Vader are duelling outside (before the structure falls into the lava river).
* Anakin in the temple needed more screentime. Killing Jedi establishes his evil much more than killing Separatists who we don't like anyway.

[StarshipTitanic]

I love this, I really do - I pointed out that the Republic soldiers and Jedi were surprised because you're the brainstrust who thought that Palapatine being in on his own kidnapping somehow made the battle easy. And when I rebut that by pointing out the obvious, all of a sudden, pointing out same is "useless", eh? Why don't you just accept you made a stupid argument and drop it with a modicum of grace?

What does whether or not the battle was easy or hard (which I made no claim about and which isn't really apparent in the movie) have to do with Palpatine orchestrating its ultimate conclusion? It does nothing to change the fact that Grievous lost the battle that Palpatine set him up to lose. Not very impressive. It would have been impressive if Grievous somehow pulled off a win despite overwhelming odds and his whole attack being anticipated by the Republic's leader.

You know, it actually makes Grievous look better if Sidious gave him the battle plans because at least then Grievous was operating under the assumption that Sidious used his inside knowledge to form genuinely effective plans.

By insisting that Grievous conceived the attack, then you concede that Grievous' planning skills sucked since he failed to plan for stronger than expected resistance from the Republic and he failed to adequately secure the Chancellor despite forewarning from Dooku that the Jedi would attempt a rescue.

Wow, I actually have to explain something that obvious, do I? Where do you think he got those lightsabres? By killing Jedi. He explicitly says he's been trained in the Jedi arts by Count Dooku. And then, as I said before, and which you ignored (a running theme for your posting on this thread), Obi-Wan (one of the Jedi's most capable fighters) didn't effortlessly defeat him. Therefore, he is a dangerous opponent.

You mean like how he took Anakin and Obi Wan's lightsabers by killing them? Let me pose this alternative: Grievous is a pretty pompous guy, right? "You're DOOMED!" and all that. And his army has the numbers necessary to overwhelm a Jedi with blaster bolts, yeah? And he's a known coward. Constantly running away. So maybe he usually had his army blast a Jedi to pieces and then scooped up the lightsaber to compensate for his cyborg dick. Then he gets lessons from Dooku to indulge delusions of grandeur.

That's how I appreciated Grievous' fight scene with Obi Wan and it was the only moment where I thought he was interesting. He puts on a big flashy pinwheel show for Obi Wan, but Obi Wan considers the situation, rapidly cuts off two of Grievous' hands, and then uses the Force to completely disarm him. Then Grievous flees literally like a lowly insect to his big wheel. I thought it was funny when the pompous gasbag tried to take on an elite Jedi and got his ass handed to him within two minutes.

If you want to think Grievous' performance there was impressive, well, who am I to say what should impress you?

[StarshipTitanic]

Anyway, some things I don't like about RotS:-
* Anakin's turn to the Dark Side was too fast;

Yeah. I would have liked a little more references to his previous mass murdering experience to help Palpatine turn him. Something like:

Anakin: I can't kill my friends.
Palpatine: Padme's life hangs in the balance. What about the Tusken Raiders who kidnapped your mother? If someone stands between you and someone you love, they must die.
Anakin: Yeah, ok.

[Vympel]

What does whether or not the battle was easy or hard (which I made no claim about and which isn't really apparent in the movie) have to do with Palpatine orchestrating its ultimate conclusion? It does nothing to change the fact that Grievous lost the battle that Palpatine set him up to lose. Not very impressive. It would have been impressive if Grievous somehow pulled off a win despite overwhelming odds and his whole attack being anticipated by the Republic's leader.

The objective of the attack was kidnapping Palpatine - in that, he succeeded. Having him succeed more in kidnapping Palpatine when we already know that was the whole point would change nothing, and you would still be saying that Palpatine let himself get kidnapped, wouldn't you?

You know, it actually makes Grievous look better if Sidious gave him the battle plans because at least then Grievous was operating under the assumption that Sidious used his inside knowledge to form genuinely effective plans.

By insisting that Grievous conceived the attack, then you concede that Grievous' planning skills sucked since he failed to plan for stronger than expected resistance from the Republic and he failed to adequately secure the Chancellor despite forewarning from Dooku that the Jedi would attempt a rescue.

Nonsense. First of all, there is a difference between 'conceiving' an attack (which is pretty clear what Palpatine and Dooku did, so he could get kidnapped and draw Anakin into a confrontation with Dooku) and planning it. Furthermore, it is simply unjustified to call any plan which does not result in victory evidence of 'planning skills sucked' - apparently you think every good plan for a battle must succeed, and there are no other factors at play in deciding victory or defeat. Like what the enemy does.

You mean like how he took Anakin and Obi Wan's lightsabers by killing them? Let me pose this alternative: Grievous is a pretty pompous guy, right? "You're DOOMED!" and all that. And his army has the numbers necessary to overwhelm a Jedi with blaster bolts, yeah? And he's a known coward. Constantly running away. So maybe he usually had his army blast a Jedi to pieces and then scooped up the lightsaber to compensate for his cyborg dick. Then he gets lessons from Dooku to indulge delusions of grandeur.

Yeah that's a very reasonable inference - Grievous simply takes the lightsabres off of any Jedi he manages to capture or his other droids shoot (even though we see him tell his droids who would've simply shot Obi-Wan to death to back off so he can deal with Obi-Wan himself, which is hardly the act of a complete coward) and despite having been trained in Jedi arts by a Sith Lord, he has never in fact killed one - because all Jedi = Obi-Wan Kenobi. Yup.

[StarshipTitanic]

The objective of the attack was kidnapping Palpatine - in that, he succeeded. Having him succeed more in kidnapping Palpatine when we already know that was the whole point would change nothing, and you would still be saying that Palpatine let himself get kidnapped, wouldn't you?

Grievous succeeded in kidnapping Palpatine but just didn't "succeed more" because he didn't keep Palpatine once Palpatine didn't want to be kidnapped anymore? Whatever, this is going no where.

Nonsense. First of all, there is a difference between 'conceiving' an attack (which is pretty clear what Palpatine and Dooku did, so he could get kidnapped and draw Anakin into a confrontation with Dooku) and planning it. Furthermore, it is simply unjustified to call any plan which does not result in victory evidence of 'planning skills sucked' - apparently you think every good plan for a battle must succeed, and there are no other factors at play in deciding victory or defeat. Like what the enemy does.

Grievous is a good planner because his plans might have been good even though he lost Palpatine, lost the battle and then he lost another battle. Got it.

Yeah that's a very reasonable inference - Grievous simply takes the lightsabres off of any Jedi he manages to capture or his other droids shoot (even though we see him tell his droids who would've simply shot Obi-Wan to death to back off so he can deal with Obi-Wan himself, which is hardly the act of a complete coward) and despite having been trained in Jedi arts by a Sith Lord, he has never in fact killed one - because all Jedi = Obi-Wan Kenobi. Yup.

The problem is both of our pet theories hinge on just one fact: Grievous owned lightsabers. We both also accept that they were owned by Jedi that he was in some way responsible for killing. The rest we make up based on what makes the movie work better for us.

However, I know that my rationalization isn't provable. You, on the other hand, seem to make the claim that Grievious obtained his lightsabers by personally killing Jedi and he accomplished this with the Jedi arts. But this is all your evidence:

• Grievous possessed lightsabers. This is a fact.
• Count Dooku trained Grievous in the Jedi arts. Oops, that's just something Grievous said. He could have using a psychological tactic to scare Obi Wan since Dooku knocked Obi Wan out of two lightsaber fights. To use their powers effectively, Jedi must remain focused and calm. We could even see this play out in the lightsaber fight as Obi Wan becomes more surefooted and summons the concentration for a Force push.
• Obi Wan didn't effortlessly defeat Grievous. Eh maybe through the extended fight, but Obi Wan did quickly and decisively end the "Jedi arts" portion of the battle and Grievous' immediate reaction was to flee. See here. Doesn't say much for this supposed training by Dooku.

I'm not trying to prove your scheme of events wrong. I'm not trying to prove my scheme is right. But I will request evidence for your bolder claims.

[Vympel]

Grievous succeeded in kidnapping Palpatine but just didn't "succeed more" because he didn't keep Palpatine once Palpatine didn't want to be kidnapped anymore? Whatever, this is going no where.

How do you fuck up reading comprehension this badly?

Grievous is a good planner because his plans might have been good even though he lost Palpatine, lost the battle and then he lost another battle. Got it.

More idiocy. What I said was that simply because Palaptine got away, as he intended, does not mean Grievous was somehow incompetent or a bad planner. I mean, its not like Grievous said "just as Count Dooku predicted" when the Jedi got aboard his ship- oh wait.

The problem is both of our pet theories hinge on just one fact: Grievous owned lightsabers. We both also accept that they were owned by Jedi that he was in some way responsible for killing. The rest we make up based on what makes the movie work better for us.

However, I know that my rationalization isn't provable. You, on the other hand, seem to make the claim that Grievious obtained his lightsabers by personally killing Jedi and he accomplished this with the Jedi arts. But this is all your evidence:

• Grievous possessed lightsabers. This is a fact.
• Count Dooku trained Grievous in the Jedi arts. Oops, that's just something Grievous said. He could have using a psychological tactic to scare Obi Wan since Dooku knocked Obi Wan out of two lightsaber fights. To use their powers effectively, Jedi must remain focused and calm. We could even see this play out in the lightsaber fight as Obi Wan becomes more surefooted and summons the concentration for a Force push.

ROFLMAO. Do you have any idea how fucking stupid you sound right now? "oh well yeah Grievous could simply be lying!"

What the fuck? So part of your argument for declaring Grievous to not be a credible threat is directly predicated on assuming the character is lying, i.e. assuming the script is trying to deceive you for no damn good reason.

You really are acting like a total idiot.

[*]Obi Wan didn't effortlessly defeat Grievous. Eh maybe through the extended fight, but Obi Wan did quickly and decisively end the "Jedi arts" portion of the battle and Grievous' immediate reaction was to flee. See here. Doesn't say much for this supposed training by Dooku.[/list]

Nonsense. Obi-Wan is one of the greatest Jedi of the Order. That he was able to defeat Grievous despite Grievous' abilities is a credit to Obi-Wan, not a knock against Grievous, who despite his training is not a Jedi or a Sith and has no force abilities.

I'm not trying to prove your scheme of events wrong. I'm not trying to prove my scheme is right. But I will request evidence for your bolder claims.

"I will request evidence for your bolder claims!"

"Grievous has been trained in the Jedi arts by Count Dooku."

"He could've been lying!"

Just ... idiot.

[Jim Raynor]

I'm late to this but whatever.

Wait you actually think you made valid points above?
Trade Federation was "reluctant" to go with the plan. So that was not their plan, right? Sidious suddenly decided to invade (or planned it all along) and Trade Federation just accepts the newly hatched plan of planetary invasion and all it took was some vague promise from a shadowy guy. And that's not retarded?
So again: why the fuck did Trade Federation decide to invade the planet? It wasn't their original plan (which we don't even know) and we don't even know what was the rationalization for the new plan.

It was not a newly hatched plan. Sidious clearly told them to "accelerate" their plans by launching the invasion. The invasion was a part of the plan all along. The Trade Federation was reluctant at the moment to go ahead, but Sidious pushed them along.

And you STILL haven't even begun to answer why Trade Federation would just agree to murder two Jedi Knights.
The point Stoklasa is making is that if Nute Gunray is so moronic to just agree to a planetary blockade, then agrees to a sudden order to murder Jedi Knights and then to a sudden order to invade an entire planet then he should have no problem to obey Sidious' order to openly invade the planet. It makes Trade Federation no more idiotic than the original plot and it works better for Sidious.

Please stop making up arguments for Stoklasa. I'm also not seeing the logic behind going along with a couple of murders (that can be covered up or brushed aside), and openly admitting major military aggression against an entire world before proceeding to do so.

What the hell can two guys do against a blockade? What they were going to take on the fleet with their lightsabers? Is this the level of argument we can expect from you in that 70 page rebuttal?

You need to come up with better stuff. The Jedi deceptively boarded the Droid Control Ship under the guise of mere "ambassadors." The Chancellor and the Jedi were gambling that the Trade Federation would be too spineless and frightened to do anything once they were there. A gamble that almost paid off. They didn't predict that they would have to "take on the fleet," Qui-Gon outright calls the Trade Federation "cowards" and predicts that the "negotiations will be short."

Murderous obsessions are indeed supposed to make sense if you want your movie to not suck.

So movies suck if a supporting bit character's murderous obsessions don't make a whole lot of sense? A murderous obsession that's practically played for comic effect?

As it was attempts on Amidala's life actually start the entire investigation then the audience is expecting for some logical tie in with the mystery.

Do you seriously see no other benefit in plotting Padme's murder other than to satisfy Gunray? Padme is a Senator leading the movement against the militarization act. She seeks to defuse all the hostilities and end the Separatist movement through peaceful means. Palpatine wants an army and a war. Did you really ignore all these important things while going after Nute freaking Gunray?

"Pledging" support is not the same as signing a treaty. Nute Gunray clearly states he is not signing any treaty unless he has her head.

Jesus Christ. I already went over this in my previous post. If you aren't stupidly taking every single word literally, you would see that Gunray was just being a nagging bitch. If he was serious about not signing the treaty, then you'd think that maybe he would speak up during the big meeting? Instead of just letting Dooku talk for him, and make promises for the Trade Federation?

Again: repeated murder attempts are what startes the entire investigation. It's fucking stupid to try and murder a public figure when you are trying to secretly build an alliance and when the public figure in question is unwittingly playing into your hands by opposing the creation of Republic army.

It's stupid that you can't seem to understand things. Dooku is a traitor playing both sides, OK? He's working for Palpatine, and his only actual objective is to cause a war.

And Padme's motivation doesn't end at stopping her own government from militarizing and protecting itself. She's a loyal Republic Senator. Her objective is to peacefully destroy the Separatist movement with dialogue. Her death could be used to increase hostilities on both sides, since the Republic (under Palpatine's control) blames the Separatists for her murder.

"Be thankful, Viceroy, you have not found yourself in my grip . . ."

This is not how a general speaks with his civilian leader.

With Dooku dead, the Separatist fleet routed at Coruscant, the Outer Rim under siege, and the Separatist leaders on the run for their very lives, I seriously doubt Grievous gave a shit about paying proper respect by then.

I would not even bitch about his power if I actually knew how he got it. He just fell from the sky in episode 3 and now he is somehow in charge

I demand an explanation for how Admiral Ozzel got to where he was.

LOL you actually thought I was being literal when I said "button". Yes I know he had Anakin send a "message" but that's the point: how the fuck can he send a message and have the entire Separatist army shut down? What did he make a prank call or something? Why the fuck did Separatist government just accept a call from some unknown doofus?

He's an "unknown" now? Funny, because I remember him being previously announced to the Separatist leadership. He's in a Separatist command center, and Sidious would have no doubt given him whatever access and passwords or codes he would've needed.

Yes Gunray said the war was over which is yet more movie stupidity. The opening crawl said the Republic was crumbling but then Dooku was killed and then later Griveous and now the war is over? How? Where? It would be kinda nice if we saw the ultimate battle that ended the war. Was it the one over Coruscant?

The top civilian and military leaders are dead. The fleet and the army were defeated in major battles. The war might not have even been going well for the Separatists up to that point. A very general statement about the Republic "crumbling" in the opening crawl as its capital is besieged does not mean that everything is going well for the Confederacy everywhere else.

Sidious promises his new apprentice Darth Vader will take care of them. And idiot Gunray believes him? After all the failures?

You mean Gunray's own failures? Any of a thousand or a million other people's failures? Nevermind that military defeats have no bearing anyway as to whether a Sith Apprentice will help them. Gunray has experience showing him that the Sith will in fact protect him. Dooku had been at his side for years, and Darth Maul died fighting for him on Naboo. Him and Sidious go way back, and it's even implied in AOTC that Sidious/Palpatine had helped Gunray beat the court charges against him.

He doesn't flee for his capital and have what's left of his fleet guard the planet?

Read what you're saying here: Flee to the most obvious place, and have "what's left of his fleet" protect him. Stay in one place and hope that your already battered forces can somehow beat back the Republic.

I love it when people criticize the movies for being stupid - then suggest alternatives that are quite dumb as well.

EDIT: typo