PT Rebuttal: RLM's Attack of the Clones Review

Yeah, that's right, I forgot about Sido-Dyas!
I suppose GL thought that it would seem stupid for the Jedi to know for sure that no real Jedi placed the order and still tell Palpatine about the clone army. This might be the reason for this slight, but significant, altering of the plot. He wanted to make it seem as though the clone army could have been ordered by a Jedi, so that Yoda and Mace wouldn't look all braindead for acting the way they do.
After all, they seemed to think that the Republic was in need of an army: "We're keepers of the peace, not soldiers." Therefore, telling the Senate does make some sense. With the impending threat from the Separatists, they seemed to have little choice.





Sidofo-Dyas - he's a Jesidith
/LM

 

None of that makes any sense at all. He was hired by Tyranus, not Sifo-Dyas. He can tell the Kaminoans that all he wants, it's still not going to give him any knowledge of Sifo-Dyas. It's not hard to imagine the Kaminoans not feeling the need to tell the template anything about the person who ordered the army; the script says that they were told to keep the Jedi's involvement a secret. And it is absurd to suggest that there was any doubt as to "why he was there".

I didn't say anything about the books. The film simply does not confirm your preferred theory. Hiding behind a tired anti-EU stance won't change this fact.

I'll take that as a "yes" answer to my question: movies can only portray certainties, and cannot leave anything in doubt. However, this is an imaginary rule. Film is art, and art is often ambiguous. That it bothers you does not mean that it violates "rules of filmmaking" or constitutes a failure on the part of the film.

Wrong. When Obi-Wan says that he was under the impression that Sifo-Dyas died before the army was ordered, I accept that as a true statement - that he was under the impression that Sifo-Dyas died before the army was ordered. His statement only conveys what his impression is. I need no further proof of the nature of his impression. But you can't handle uncertainties so you assume that in the SW universe impressions must always be correct. That's only an invention on your part. It is not accurate, in SW or in any other universe.

 

Ah, one of the big misconceptions of the prequels is that GL failed to "explain" the sifo-dyas thing in ROTS, when in fact he did.

Obi-Wan: The Chancellor was behind everything, including the war.

I am not sure why everyone feels like all of the intracacies of the sifo-dyas ordering of the clones thing had to be spelled out. Whether it was Dooku who posed as Sifo-Dyas or if Palpatine did it all himself is irrelevant. The fact is that Palpatine was behind it and had the order for the clone army placed under the name of a jedi who had been killed or passed away, is all that really matters. Thats really all there is to it. As Obi-WAn stated, he was behind it, so that is all that matters.

End of story.

 

Just want to add that Palpatine had almost nothing to do with the attempts on Padme's life, nor does her opposition to the creation of a military for the Republic. The only reason she was targeted was because Nute Gunray wanted revenge for her having defeated and humiliated him in the first film. Dooku ordered the assassination to get the Trade Federation to join the Separatists. That's all.

 

Or Sifo-Dyas ordered the army after being manipulated by Palpatine.

Or he ordered the army after being manipulated by Plagueis.

It is not an established fact that Sifo-Dyas was dead when the army was ordered. It's just that most people ignored Yoda, made up their minds, and reject any scenario which conflicts with their concept of what happened.

 

No, the complaint would have actually been that it was "spoonfed", hence the main issue I have with the haters of the PT. I belong to another community where the word "spoonfed" is a common term there used with the haters pertaining to the PT. They are always accusing Lucas of having "spoonfed" tons of uneccessary things in PT, and "patronising" the audience. Yet, when you have something like this Syfo-Dyas thing, they complain that it was not explained thoroughly enough. It has become a catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation.

 

"Nordom, you're just a RLM cultist/fan-club member!!!"

Really, you make a good a point, Nordom. One didn't hear back in the OT days, "you've got to read book X to get point Y!" , in response to critics of the OT (who were by and large, not fans of "space movies" in the first place, rendering such advice ("read book X!") pointless to said group).


To Arawn_Fenn:

As one who has made his stance clear on these forums regarding the Katie Lucas "Han NEVER shot first!" fiasco, you should be wary of needlessly tarring rhetorical opponents with the "RLM fan-club" label. One could easily imagine a discussion/scenario that goes like this:

Arawn_Fenn: "Han NEVER shot first!" is a patently false statement (or are truth/facts "so yesterday"???).

Butt-Hurt PT/SE fan: "You RLM/Stoklasa/Plinkett cultst/fan-club member!!!"

Not this particular time, at any rate.

Actually, it's your tired "bathroom" analogy* which fails to answer anything here, and not any "anti-EU" stance.

* the "we never see people in SW go to the bathroom...therefore, people never go to the bathroom in the SW Universe!" failed analogy

 

It may be something to consider though, if one would like a movie franchise to have an appeal beyond that of dedicated fans to said franchise.

 

But you're not exactly a non-Star Wars fan moviegoer, are you? Thus you wouldn't have the perspective of a non-fan.

I understand what you mean, but Nordom and myself are using 'stand alone' in a different sense than the above sense that you are using. We're talking about the films 'relying' on the films, and not on books or Lucas interviews/commentaries.

 

Exactly. So what do we call it when people ignore what I actually said "this particular time", pretend I said something else, and respond to what they're pretending I said?

I wish we had a name for that.

Yeah, that. Now you're doing it.

You're the one calling it an analogy, so at least you realize it is one. That's the whole point. So what makes it a "failed" analogy, exactly? Because it goes against the anti-PT orthodoxy. End of story.

 

So Nordom is keeping in mind your predilection for using EU or...wait, ahem "canon" (non-film) material to bolster your argument, which you've done in just about any other discussion involving SW.

I don't know what "we" call it, but just to let you know, 'straw-Man' is a noun, not a verb, so no "straw-manning" from you....

Wait a minute, was I the one who said the following to Nordom:


"Movies can only portray certainties, and not leave anything ambiguous? Another imaginary rule from the imaginary RLM's Big Book of Filmmaking."

???

Talk about lowering one's expectations. I wouldn't exactly shout that one from the roof-tops if I were you. False analogies exist, though you may not "realize" it.

One can assume that people/creatures/animals go to the bathroom in a fictional universe, being that it's a natural, re-occurring, everyday phenomenon. One cannot assume the same thing with NON-recurring phenomena like 'investigations' - which are not 'normal, everyday' occurrences - unless one resorts to special-pleading.

"Yeah, that. Now you're doing it."

More like:

you:
"Han NEVER shot first!" is a false statement (or are facts/truth "so yesterday"?)

PT "defender":
RLM cultist! anti-PT orthodoxy crusader!!

 

Make up whatever name you want for it. Then think about responding to what someone actually says instead of what you wish they had said.

Yes, I know all about false analogies and how they are defined. An analogy is "false" when it contradicts anti-PT fallacies. When analogies don't do that, they are considered acceptable. Simple.

Imaginary rules also exist, if anything imaginary can be said to exist in the first place. "Didn't see it, didn't happen" is one of those rules. It's not true in any universe, with SW being just one small example. If you think you can make it a legitimate rule through rhetorical games, you're wasting your time.

 

"Didn't see it, didn't happen" is another one of those straw-men/red-herrings. As such, harping about this "imaginary rule" refutes nothing that Nordom said.

As for the "bathroom" analogy, I've already explained why it's false, to which you've yet answered. Here it is again:

"One can justifiably assume that people/creatures/animals go to the bathroom in a fictional universe, being that it's a natural, re-occurring, everyday phenomenon. One cannot assume the same thing with NON-recurring phenomena like 'investigations', or Qui-Gon explicitly telling Obi-Wan that Anakin still 'resides within' Vader, etc. - which are not 'normal, everyday' occurrences - unless one resorts to special-pleading."

Oh, the irony. "Rhetorical games" is calling ideas/arguments/positions names*, and pretending that doing so refutes the argument in question.

*anti-PT orthodoxy, RLM rule-book, Basher-theory-du-jour, Basher agenda, etc.

 

There you go again bringing the EU into it. Why should I have to read a book to follow what you're talking about? The film should stand on its own. Besides, that conflicts with the film, in which Qui-Gon said, "Anakin doesn't reside within Vader, Anakin is Vader. And don't make me do my Mr.Ed impression!"

What we can assume is the following: allegations that the Jedi did not investigate are not proven by "we didn't see it".

No, it's just something you don't want to admit. Because if "didn't see it, didn't happen" is not actually the basis for saying something didn't happen, then what is the basis? The only other option would be something like characters saying "we do not do any investigations". Do they say that? No. So this reduces the basis for the "argument" to literally nothing at all. Just another case against the Jedi based on nothing other than hot air. RLM would be so proud.

Didn't see it, didn't happen didn't survive logical scrutiny. Corollary: Didn't see Jedi investigate, Jedi didn't investigate didn't wash.

 

I see your point. Yes, with the prequels by nature being the back-story to the OT, it was probably inevitable that it would mostly cater to SW fans. But I see that as a somewhat of a 'constraint' on how well they worked in terms of 'films-as-films', and not just as "SW films". A 'constraint' that I don't think the original films (especially ANH/SW) were inherently 'saddled' with.

 

anakinfansince1983, I have responded to your last post above this one.

Let's try this.

I see your "Mr. ED" Qui-Gon and I'll 'raise' you with "Anakin-Was-Redeemed-By-His-ChildREN(plural)" Lucas:

ROTJ Blue-Ray 2013 "30th Anniversary" (a.k.a. Saga "Shoe-horn" version):

Docking Bay, DSII -

Anakin: "Luke, you and Leia were RIGHT about me. Tell your sister, you AND HER were RIGHT....(!)"

Lesson for the day: one doesn't need Qui-Gon telling us that "Anakin IS Vader" to glean that truth from ROTJ.

Too bad Mr. Lucas won't do the same.*

* "they want Han to be a cold-blooded killer" (curse that Han/Greedo thing!!! or, "they wanted to watch three movies of Darth Vader running around killing people."

No, but it takes more than mere special-pleading to establish that they DID investigate. As Nordom notes, in ANH/SW, we were at least TOLD that the Emperor had dissolved the Senate.

Showing it happen, or, failing that, talking about it having happened...too easy.

Also known in logic as the "excluded middle".

Just another case of what's called 'poisoning-the-well' and calling a position names, as if it refutes anything.

Once again, the scenario you'd do well to avoid:

you:
"Han NEVER shot first!" is flat-out wrong.

PT "defender":
Prequel-hate-machine!

you:
I seriously doubt Kevin Smith when he says that he's "always" thought that something was "missing" from Vader/Anakin's redemption in ROTJ, but that Vader's "NOOOOOOO!" added to that scene makes it all 'fall into place' for him! When has he ever said this prior to 2011?

PT/SE "defender":
Basher! RLM cultist!!


Arawn_Fenn posted:
"Didn't see it, didn't happen didn't survive logical scrutiny. Corollary: Didn't see Jedi investigate, Jedi didn't investigate didn't wash."

More like: Assume with little to no justification that the Jedi investigated = special-pleading. 'Special-pleading', because if they did NOT investigate, the Jedi look needlessly clueless and dumb. We can't have that, so we must assume that they investigated.

 

can we halt this derailment?

 

Yes, please.





Derailing - it happens
/LM

 

We don't need Qui-Gon when we have Mr. Ed.

Is this the "I learned it by watching Lucas" defense???

If that works both ways, the same goes for establishing that they did not investigate. Yet somehow "we didn't see it" is alleged to be good enough. No anti-PT bias to see here, move along.

"Didn't see them talking about it" is assumed to be a part of the overall "Didn't see it".