PT Rebuttal: RLM's Attack of the Clones Review

The difference is, Ellis isn't using American Psycho as an example of how people should be behaving. Stoklasa actively uses stereotypes to justify his arguments, such as when he says that the only thing men (and thus Anakin) care about is "Is she hot?" and "getting off" when that's clearly not the case in the film and for most guys in general. Similarly, he uses stereotypes about women ("women want guys who are assertive" and "nervousness gets old fast") to describe why Padmé has no reason to like Anakin -- not to mention all the BS he brings up about cars, jobs, etc. Or when he says women "like to talk about themselves a lot and don't really care what you have to say." He actively uses stereotypes as arguments. And you might say it's just humor, but then he really has no argument at all, since almost everything he is critiquing Anakin and Padmé for is not falling into line with stereotypes. And even the humor isn't an excuse because his points aren't even funny.

Ellis was satirizing the yuppie and 80s culture by showing that it promoted a culture so self-centered that people wouldn't even notice if a psychopath was among them. In no way was it endorsing chainsawing people, though. On the contrary, Stoklasa consistently uses stereotypes about men and women as evidence for why the romance in AOTC doesn't work. And he doesn't even have the decency to be funny while doing it -- it's just crass.

It's a tragedy how many people (not just bashers) completely miss the fact that Anakin was the only person in TPM who really acknowledged Padmé as a character on her own and was interested in her on a personal level. Everyone else, including Qui-Gon, only cared for her Queen-alter-ego.

Exactly.
I think it was a nice way to remind the viewer about their very contrary childhoods (which, in part, led to their problematic situation in AOTC) and Anakin's origins as a slave on a planet with nothing but his mother and lots of annoying sand.

I don't watch Family Guy, FWIW. And I'll defend the "right to have a sense of humor." However, humor is supposed to be funny, and Plinkett's fans, from what I've seen, take him very seriously when they use his comments on the PT as some sort of gospel affirming their opinion that it is bad.

Besides, people who make sexist, racist, homophobic comments and then try to absolve themselves by claiming they were "joking"? That's not being a comedian, that's being an ***hole. And if it's "popular," that would explain why the issues of racism, sexism and homophobia aren't even close to getting solved in this country. It's one thing to do a Jon Stewart and make fun of people's political views, as those can be helped, but making bigoted statements about someone's skin color, genitalia or orientation? About as far from being funny as I can think of.

Even I haven't thought of that Very insightful!
To think that there's still discoveries to be made... I love Star Wars!

Regarding the latest portion of the review:

Most of that crap has nothing to do with the actual movies, so I'll just ignore those parts.
I noted a few real complaints amidst all the rambling:

- Mace is a boring, pointless character.
- The trilogy tries too hard to please everyone.
- The trilogy has nothing to say except "Buy more Star Wars products".

1. I think that Mace is an intriguing character. He may not be the most exciting character in these movies, but he does what he's supposed to do, which is represent the Jedi Order and illustrate its downfall. He's one you can sympathize with if you want to, but he can also be severely disliked - at the same time. I love that kind of duality. It has a large presence in the PT as a whole, but Mace, to me, stands out as one of the "grayest" characters (although his gray-ness doesn't peak until his death scene).

2. The OT is ripe with silly fun in stark contrast with the truly grim. I don't hear anyone complain about that. It's the style of Star Wars.
That being said, the PT does have a deliberate, gradual progression from innocently lighthearted to tragically grim. Jar Jar-esque antics, for example, are pretty much confined to TPM, with Threepio carrying on that legacy to some degree in AOTC. In ROTS, that kind of stuff is kept at a minimum. Each episode is darker than the last and I think it's well done.

3. If there's nothing in these movies that you feel is worthwhile, then they're simply not for you. I don't know how many hours I've spent watching, analyzing and discussing this trilogy, but if I'd been paid ten dollars an hour for it, I would definitely have been rich by now. There's tons of stuff in there! It's an emotional rollercoaster, for starters. It raises questions regarding morals and philosophical dilemmas. It has loveable characters, spectacular action scenes, fantastic worlds... It's the adventure of a lifetime!





ROTS - it has minimum
/LM

Well, I agree. This country is extremely immature. Sex and drugs are the be-all end-all. The less money you have, the more reason to party. You call someone a slut, we joke about the size of your penis. We're cruel and thin-skinned all at once. There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere.

But more than that, we should be able to
1) separate "humor" from criticism. in Plinkett's case, it's not that hard
2) not care what people think about the prequels, much less what other people think about a trashy review of them

All of that is irrelevant to the post you quoted. I didn't say anything about Stoklasa's reasons for writing Mr. Plinkett as a psychopath or the validity of his humor. Regardless of whether or not he's funny, writing or playing a depraved character doesn't make the author depraved. It's befuddling to see Stoklasa derided as a misogynist and failure with women just because he plays a fictional character with those qualities. Does joking about horrible topics really make someone a horrible person now?

Bigotry isn't immature, it's mean. Immature people are not always mean, and they are not always bigots. The two are separate.

Archie Bunker in All in the Family was a bigoted character who was written that way to be funny--because his character was a caricature of bigots and an example of exactly the type of people we do not want to emulate. Plinkett is not written as an Archie Bunker. A few people probably did agree with Archie Bunker when All in the Family was still in the running, but few if anyone would dare admit it. How many people have owned that they agree with Plinkett? Worse, how many people have said that he speaks for them, and have used his garbage as a reference in arguments against the prequels? Can you imagine anyone holding up Archie Bunker's statements as an example of why you should hate your black neighbors?

And no, I don't really care if people hate the prequels. Taste in film is irrelevant in the grander scheme of things. I do care that people think it's OK to make racist, sexist and homophobic jokes and then accuse people who are offended of being "insensitive." Tolerance of bigotry has a lot more bearing on society than taste in film--which is why I will chalk up the latter to difference in opinion but protest the former as loudly as possible.

*Sigh*

That wasn't my point at all. I can recognize that Stoklasa is playing the part of a murderous, degenerate psychopath for comedy. That's fine. Have you seen me criticize when he ties up a women and forces her to watch the movie as part of this act? No, because I recognize that this is just part of the character, just part of his brand of humor (although I personally don't find it funny, but your mileage may vary). The issue I have is when he uses stereotypes as arguments. For example, when he criticizes the Anakin/Padmé romance because Anakin begins talking about his Jedi training and Stoklasa says that this is a bad move because women don't care what guys have to say. He uses stereotypes to give legitimacy to his arguments -- such as the notion that women find nervousness off-putting and want guys to be assertive. This is where I take issue with his analysis -- because it isn't analysis. It's lazy and just relies on (unfortunate) stereotypes about women. Like he does with Anakin and men by saying that the only thing Anakin would care about is "Is she hot?"

He's not a "horrible person" for making jokes. He has horrible analysis because he relies on trite, outdated stereotypes.

It's definitely the devil's advocate in me, but I cannot protest anyone's right to offend me, or to have a sense of humor that differs from mine. Furthermore, I have lost my taste for troll bait. Villainizing people who disagree with you will NOT cause understanding, and it often comes off as bigoted in itself.

That's cool but I'm not sure why you're telling me. I never said anything about his analysis, I just questioned the logic of attributing the intentionally reprehensible characteristics of a fictional character to his author. As far as I know, Mike Stoklasa does not abduct and murder women or approve of that behavior irl.

I understand that. I was just pointing out that one can take legitimate issue with his use of sexist stereotypes beyond the use of his psycopath character Mr. Plinkett. The arguments made in the RLM videos are Stoklasa's after all. He uses Plinkett as a comedic medium, but it's clear that he intends it to be taken as a critique of the prequels. And I find his arguments highly problematic in this regard. So although Mike Stoklasa does not abduct and murder women or approve of that behavior, his dissection of the prequel films (and the romance in particular) does make use stereotypes and those I will attribute to Stoklasa himself.

Did you really just call me a troll? If so, there is hardly a point in continuing this conversation. Talk about "villainizing people who disagree with you."

And I hardly villainized Stoklasa because he "disagreed with me." Plenty of people disagree with me about the prequels--and you know what? That's cool. Some of my favorite people on these boards disagree with me about the prequels, Anakin Skywalker, and many other subjects. I find many of the conversations intellectually stimulating and I can actually learn something from their perspective--and often have.

But when your (general "your") dislike of the prequels includes reasons such as "Anakin and Padme's romance didn't work because women don't like nervous guys, and the only thing about women that 19-year-old men care about is their looks"--and that is the entire basis for that segment of your argument--then there is no good exchanging of ideas to be had. He's not merely "disagreeing with me," he's being an ass.

And I find it ironic that a dislike of stereotypes makes me a bigot, when bigotry by definition is perpetuated by the tolerance of negative stereotypes.

But you're welcome to prove my point that I'm a bigot by telling me which group of people that I'm stereotyping; I've only seen in my post protests against Stoklasa himself.

You're misunderstanding things consistently in order to become offended, and that's exactly what I'm trying to get you to stop doing. You're not a troll. I didn't call you one. People who say offensive things often have troll-like intentions, and I won't get bent out of shape over something nobody means. Stolkassa's comments about "womenz" or whatever are such things. Offensive by design, cartoonishly shallow, but we know what he's getting at. He may not even mean exactly what he said or how he said it, but we can tell that he thinks Anakin's behavior is kinda creepy. You may disagree with his sense of humor, you may not even understand it, but calling him an ass is reactionary and does not promote understanding.

OK, what?

No, I'm not doing anything in order to become offended. That's a waste of time. I don't know if this is some chicken-or-egg scenario that you've got backwards, but if someone is being a bigoted ***hole, how is it the fault of the person or people who are calling his behavior on what it is? That seems along the lines of saying that it's OK to be a bigoted ***hole as long as you (general "you" again) think you're funny while you're doing it. Or to put it another way, it's acceptable to be offensive to large groups of people, as long as it's "by design."

If he thinks Anakin's behavior is creepy, why in the hell does he need to stereotype women in order to say so? Why could he not just say that he didn't like Anakin's behavior? That would have made his point. If he has to stereotype people in order to "prove" that Anakin's behavior was creepy, maybe his point isn't valid.

Pretty much. I'd even go as far to say it's GOOD to offend large groups of people, especially in the name of humor.

Not over an aspect that they can't help, such as gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Honestly you've totally lost me there. It sounds like you're saying that making fun of people due to their personal characteristics is a good thing. I can't possibly see how.

I'm saying people should not take themselves or others so damn seriously.

Sounds like W's "won't get fooled again" moment.

Probably not, but Stoklasa's method is not the way to make that happen. I see his brand of "humor" as an excuse to be an ass and then say "But it was just a joke" afterwards. It's extremely disrespectful to those large groups of people that you were talking about. And it's far different from making fun of oneself. Case in point, Jeff Foxworthy makes fun of Southern rednecks all the time, and it's hilarious--because Foxworthy is from Georgia, and as he says, "You can make fun of rednecks if you are one--and I are one." (And I'm Southern, which is a big part of the reason I appreciate his humor.) If Foxworthy made fun of, say, Buddhists living in China, it would not be funny at all.

Well, there's something assy about telling offensive jokes, but it's also assy to say what is and isn't funny.

So anyone who is offended by bigoted jokes and says so, is being an ass? Really? We should all just pretend that making fun of people due to factors they can't help, is just bloody hilarious?

I'm 5'6" and I love Randy Newman's song "Short People". It's not funny BECAUSE it's offensive, but it doesn't become unfunny because it's about me.

If you cannot laugh at yourself, you might as well copulate with yourself. Yes. Being a wet blanket is tantamount to being an ass.

Did you read my post about Jeff Foxworthy? And my point about being Southern, and thinking that his jokes are funny precisely because I am Southern? He is one of my favorite comedians because of that--he makes fun of people who grew up as I did and where I did, and because he's Southern as well, he's making fun of himself.

I am not offended by women making jokes about women, Southerners making jokes about Southerners, or geeky librarians making fun of geeky librarians--hell, I'll join them. I am offended, however, by your assumption that I can't laugh at myself or that I don't have a sense of humor because I don't think that a 40-year-old man making "jokes" women only liking a certain type of man, or 19-year-old men only liking women for their looks, is funny. Stoklasa is not a woman, and he is not a 19-year-old man. If he wants to make fun of 40-year-old men who are small-time filmmakers, he might be hilarious. But because he insists on throwing out stereotypes about groups of which he is not a part, that doesn't make him a comedian, it makes him a bigot. And I'd rather be a "wet blanket" than laugh at a bigot who reminds me of the worst kind of high school bully, making a "joke."

But you do realizing you're attempting to bully (insert any sentiment that differs from yours) out of existence, right? You will not move mountains by protesting one molehill at a time.

No, I don't. What I see is that if so-called comedians continue to make demeaning sexist jokes, racist jokes, etc. and are excused for it because "it's just a joke!", the process of eradicating sexism and racism will be slowed. And should racism and sexism be fought against--"bullied out of existence" as you put it--or merely tolerated as "sentiments that are different"? A lot of very good people in history have fought to eradicate racism and sexism from our society. I fail to see how this is such a bad thing. Unless, of course, you're still assuming that my biggest issue with Stoklasa is that he doesn't like the prequels, when that sentiment of his is barely on my radar at all.