PT Red Letter Media and other Prequel Reviews

An actual (DVD-style) commentary? RedLetterMedia has already put out a full-length TPM commentary:

http://redlettermedia.com/phantom-phriday-mr-plinketts-phantom-menace-commentary-track/

The simple solution to copyright infringement is to do what Mike Stoklasa has done: put out the commentary WITHOUT imagery.

I mean, sure, you can use some clips here and there, and still put your commentary out on YouTube or wherever, even if it's just you talking against a blank screen, but I don't think you can really get away with chatting over an entire movie. Technically, the original sound may not be there, but the entire picture would be, first frame to last, and I don't think any film company looks too highly on that sort of thing.

I wish you well in your endeavour, G-FETT. But I don't think you can really expound on any of the prequel films in a meaningful fashion without taking it slow, and talking at length about particular chunks. In other words, NOT a rolling commentary as the film plays, but more of an academic, film-seminar, stop-to-point-at-flowcharts kind of thing. And on the latter, there is already material that suffices, like the Lard Biscuit essays, and the writings of Jedi_Ford_Prefect over at http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/. Then there are the collected works of Paul McDonald, the Chapter-By-Chapter discussions on this site, and a great nexus of writings as seen at The Saga Journal.

Defending the prequels and/or arguing their worth is a tricky business. No-one really wants to hear about the alleged depth or elegance of these films. They never have. Well, that's an overstatement, but not much of one. Those inclined to bash them or look at them with a measure of unease are, in my experience, the least likely to entertain another point of view; much less when that point of view requires them to sift through a 2,000-word essay or reserve an hour of their time listening to someone ramble in a podcast. Do not underestimate the streak of anti-intellectualism that courses through life. Or the power of emotional attachment that chokes open-mindedness and disables rational judgement. (Hello, PT!).

On the other hand, I've been thinking, for quite a while, now, about starting up a website, like an access-restricted wiki or something, that is viewable to all and sundry, but open only to PT fans that I or a small group hand-pick to add or modify existing content. There would be different sections, looking at cinematography, costuming, dialogue, production history, political themes, visual motifs, etc., and I imagine you could build up quite the database given enough time (and effort). I mean, there's all kinds of nuggets I'd like to collect from this board alone! So much so that what I set up should probably be considered a spin-off or companion piece to TFN. I was also approached by an intelligent someone on IMDb last year to help with an anti-RLM/pro-PT they said they were putting together; but I haven't heard back from them since. However, they're exactly the sort of person I would love to bring on board, if I put my idea into practice.

I was also thinking about launching an updated and expanded edition of Jim Raynor's PDF, incorporating more of his comments he's made here and at the stardestroyer.net BBS; and maybe adding some of my own, too. But I don't know if I'd re-submit it as a PDF. I'd be more inclined to make a web page or web section out of it, with accompanying text boxes and pictures. Though, of course, it could still be condensed into a PDF file and offered that way, also. A site like The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is inspiring in its thoroughness. I was wondering, recently, if something similar could be done with the PT, going scene-by-scene over the movies, and every shot and line of dialogue, as a sort of strait-laced reference guide that people could easily jump to at any point they choose (an online "vade mecum" -- yes, it's Latin). Where the author of that site breaks access down according to all the various books of the Bible, along with various sub-sections intended to antholo

 

@ G-FETT and Cryogenic
Those are great ideas. I'd love to see that. Star Wars is easily my favourite series and it would be great to have a 'home-base' as Cryogenic described. An anti-RLM review would be very welcome also. Haven't got much else to say, but keep at it, both of you

 

Thanks, HD! I must admit, I've been mulling over this idea for the past 2-3 years. That's what I'm exceptionally practiced at: mulling. Ask anyone that knows me! One thing you have to credit Mike Stoklasa for is determination. He had an idea and he saw it through. You can't just build a media company and put together 70-minute video parodies overnight. Guy has a lot of acumen. The easiest way to do something like this, I suppose, is by taking one step at a time: focusing (*cough* Qui-Gon *cough*) on the moment more than the long-term outcome. There's such an extraordinary wealth of material out there already. If someone could just gather it up -- hell, an index of links on a page somewhere would be a good start -- then that would already be a gesture worth taking the time to have made.

 

I would like to see Jim and Stoklosa sit down to do a video debate viewable on youtube. The RLM reviewer himself vs, the guy who wrote the rebuttle of that review. Something tells me Mr. Stoklosa wouldn't want anything to do with that debate. Who wants to bet that Jim would be more than willing and Stoklosa would turn it down?

 

Thanks Cryo. You've given me lots to think about. You really should get on with your project. Sounds like a great idea.

I've been doing some digging around looking at copyright law and "Fair Use" policy. This site seems to set things out quite clearly.

Key passage is this;

"ONE: COMMENTING ON OR CRITIQUING OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION: Video makers often take as their raw material an example of popular culture, which they comment on in some way. They may add unlikely subtitles. They may create a fan tribute (positive commentary) or ridicule a cultural object (negative commentary). They may comment or criticize indirectly (by way of parody, for example), as well as directly. They may solicit critique by others, who provide the commentary or add to it.

PRINCIPLE: Video makers have the right to use as much of the original work as they need to in order to put it under some kind of scrutiny. Comment and critique are at the very core of the fair use doctrine as a safeguard for freedom of expression. So long as the maker analyzes, comments on, or responds to the work itself, the means may vary. Commentary may be explicit (as might be achieved, for example, by the addition of narration) or implicit (accomplished by means of recasting or recontextualizing the original). In the case of negative commentary, the fact that the critique itself may do economic damage to the market for the quoted work (as a negative review or a scathing piece of ridicule might) is irrelevant.

LIMITATION: The use should not be so extensive or pervasive that it ceases to function as critique and becomes, instead, a way of satisfying the audience's taste for the thing (or the kind of thing) that is being quoted. In other words, the new use should not become a market substitute for the work (or other works like it)."


Seems you can use as much copyrighted material as you want for commentary, critique, parody or satire. This explains how RLM gets away with his vids.

However, the final passage of "Limitation" does give a caveat and if I did some sort of commentery, I think I would have to do it by way of breaking up the footage, cutting out some of the footage in some way or cutting the audio of the movie so that it can't become a substitue for the finished movie.

Given I'm living in the UK and the vids would be made in the UK (assuming I do this project) I thought I'd better look at how "Fair Use" policy works in the UK.

This sets out the UK position. Important part is this:

iii.Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
?The work has been made available to the public.
?The source of the material is acknowledged.
?The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
?The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review


It certainly seems that a commentary of TPM is viable, even using images/footage of the movie. The only question is how much footage would be "fair use" Would it be fair to comment on the whole movie, using the whole movie? Thats a gray area.

 

I don't think he cares that much.

 

A bit harsh, but I got a decent chuckle out it nonetheless. Say what you want about him, but I think he'd be a fun dude to hang out at the pub with.

 

Too bad Jim was refuting Plinkett's claims of illogically written sccenes rather than his opinion of the movie. Its amazing that Stoklosa admits he didn't bother to read Jim's entire essay, but yet seemed well versed enough to comment on it andjump to conclusions on it based on a few little snippets. If Stoklosa would have bothered to read the whole thing, he would know that Jim's rebuttle presented many arguments that are backed up by things already presented in the movie that the RLM conveniently missed. Also, intersting to note the personal swipe taken at Jim at the end. I expect nothing less from that guy.

 

I don't blame him for not bothering to read the entire rebuttal. He spent a significant amount of time producing his videos, and he simply wants to ignore the backlash. I would likely do the same thing if I were him. He simply doesn't care about one fan's opinion, and why should he? It's not as though his own views would be altered, nor would he miraculously post a retraction. His personal attack was slightly scathing, but I wouldn't expect any less from him. I think it's time to take his reviews for what they are: one man's opinion that many seem to share; and just let it go. The more you talk about it, the more you empower him.

 

Well, Jim's rebuttle was not really about his opinion. Jim's rebuttle is a series of bullet points where he explains how the logical faults of TPM that RLM accuses the movie of are incorrect. Remember that the RLM reviews aren't really just opinion pieces of the films. They also accuse the films many times of having illogically written scenes and presents these misgivings as fact. That is actually what the RLM reviews use as their mojo to have gotten so many people backing them up and praising them. If it was just any other opinion piece, no one would have given those reviews a second though. Its because they made such specific claims about the films and presented them as sort of a comprehensive take on the films in that respect is what has made the reviews such phenomenons sadly.

 

Yeah, there's an inarguable contradiction there. Stoklasa wastes no time slamming the rebuttal, with the sort of sentiments you'd only expect a full reading of the document to confer on a reader, but then claims with perfect insouciance not to have read "the whole thing". It's this transparent "I'm so much cooler than you are/than this movie is" bravado -- mixed with smug indolence -- that gets some people's backs up; and no wonder. This sort of commentary goes right along with the actual videos, and it immediately marks the videos out, under the interpretative lens of "serious film criticism", as superficial at best. The derisive remark about "mysterious facts and leaps of logic" is also about as silly as it is hollow. There's a difference between "leaps of logic" and inference; just as there's a difference between "mysterious facts" and implied ones. Stoklasa massages truth and comes out with distorted representations of things. This is a persistent and deliberate feature (seemingly) of everything he's known for; his modus operandi, in effect. Arguing against Plinkett or Stoklasa, in the end, is like calling out Andy Kaufman. Where does the (comedic) persona finish and the (serious) person begin?

 

When I watched the RLM reviews, I took what the Plinkett character said as statements of opinion and not fact. His way of conveying his opinions comes off as though he is stating the facts, but that's simply his style.

For example, the main one that people seem to argue about the most- the issue of the movie not having a clear protagonist (on the interwebs, it's now referred to as "protagon-gate")- I understood that statement as his opinion. Of course, everyone has their own perspective, and nobody is wholly wrong. Stoklasa's opinion is that there was no clear protagonist and I had to agree with him on that one. His opinion was also that this particular type of movie would have been better served with a hard-on-his-luck sort of "everyman", who the audience could relate to, and whose journey we follow as they complete a character arc of sorts. I agree with this opinion as well. Again, he states things as though they are truths, but I understood that he was only conveying his opinion on the matter.

As for his argumnents over the illogical aspects of the story, or what he perceived as illogical decisions made by the characters, I again understood these as expressions of his personal opinion. For the most part I agreed with him, but not in all cases. However, in all cases, I understood that he was being comical (and he was rather successful in that department, IMHO).

Have you ever seen "Mystery Science Theatre 3000"? On that show, they play a B-movie on the screen, while three wise-cracking characters sit in the front row of the "theatre" and make sarcastic remarks about the appearance of the film's characters and of illogical pieces of the plot. It's a very clever show. In no way are these wise-crackers correct about every remark they make, and they don't have delusions that they are. I saw the Plinkett character as a similar sort of concept. Plinkett is a wise-cracking jerk, and that's his shtick. In no way did I ever feel that what he was saying was the gospel truth in cinema, but he raised some very good arguments.

 

That would entail meeting him in person, something that I have no desire or curiosity to do (and for all I know we might be on different sides of the country). I would agree to a structured text debate: one of us posts something and the other responds, with a limited number of rounds to keep the thing from dragging out forever. But that would probably be pointless anyway, since Stoklasa and his base don't seem to care very much for logic and reason.

And that's probably all I'd be willing to do. I wrote my rebuttal because some people on my home forum were bugging me with their attitude that RLM was infallible, as well as to give something to the community of fans who like the prequels or can give them a fair shake. I did that, it's in the past, and I've been spending my time on other things since then.

I never saw this before, but then again I never bothered trying to find out what Stoklasa thought about me. The only thing I ever saw was his YouTube response that was posted days after my rebuttal went online (which someone showed to me on a forum), when he took the typical anti-intellectual position of "TL;DR," brushing off my entire PDF just on the basis of it being over 100 pages. Something that was so lacking in substance that I didn't feel offended at all, just disinterested.

Catherine, you've expressed support for RLM before, haven't you? Do you have a problem with the way he conducts himself here? Hiding behind the "opinion" card when I called him out on numerous factual assertions? He also says that he was just "joking"...yet he and his fans stand behind that review as some kind of great logical takedown of the movie. Which one is it? I made it clear in the intro to my rebuttal that it doesn't matter either way; if the whole thing is just "stupid comedy" then people should just take it as such instead of anything smart.

Or how's about the obnoxious way that he pretends to be all cool (like so many people on scifi forums try to do), questioning my dating life? This guy doesn't know me. I may have written a 108-page PDF, but he has made numerous hours-long video reviews. Pot calling kettle? I'd be just as justified in accusing him as an obsessed manchild with a crazy vendetta against Lucas, but I don't need to entirely rely on speculative insults like that, do I? Funny how the guy who stutters like a weirdo while whining about a decade old scifi movie suddenly wants to talk about scoring girls.

You have no problem posting this, seemingly in defense of Stoklasa. You don't find him just a little bit dishonest or evasive? The guy isn't just being a jerk - he's a walking series of cliches.

You've come out as a RLM fan before, and you seemed reluctant or hesitant to acknowledge any fault on his part, even when his errors were pointed out. Unless you did it in the most mild, forgiving or positive language possible. Look, I don't really care if you like RLM. But you don't

 

I agree. Unfortunately, most people are unable to make this distinction.

Or they claim to make it, only to then propagate -- i.e., buy into -- everything he says.

And yet he complains about far too many lightsabers being whipped out far too often!

His observations are comical, I'll give him that.

Seriously, though...

As satire, the videos are damn funny. It is difficult to fault them (in my opinion) on that level.

The "very good arguments" you claim he has raised require context-sensitive evaluation. Given the character's serial-killer tendencies, his crankiness, his obsessive nature, his mauling of basic facts (e.g., confusing The First World War with The Cuban Missile Crisis), I think you have to take EVERYTHING he says with rather a large dose of salt.

On the other hand, the Jim Raynor rebuttal is a necessary counterpoint to unguarded endorsements of broad proclamations from would-be authority figures: idol worship. Hence Raynor's well-chosen subtitle: "A Study in Fanboy Stupidity". He clearly outlined good, solid reasons for writing it in the introduction; which is, in the main, what an introduction is for.

While people go on hyping up the RLM material, or shoving it into a discussion to silence all debate, the Jim Raynor document needs to exist. It is the yin to the RLM crowd's yang. And reasonable proof that every coin has two sides. If the RLM videos and the Raynor rebuttal are shouting over each other, maybe that's the only way it can be. Neither is the final word on the prequels; or film criticism for that matter. But again, while the former exists and is venerated in the manner as it has been and still is, so should the latter.

 

It's quite easy to differentiate opinions from statements of fact. If he said "I thought Jake Lloyd sucked" or "the movie was boring," there's really nothing I can say about that. I acknowledged the parts that were pure opinion throughout my rebuttal.

No, most of the RLM review were (poorly thought out) arguments about why the events in the plot didn't make sense. That can be refuted. Stoklasa might play the "opinion" card, and even get away with it since his followers are all so like-minded. But it's easy to see when he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

How is this the "main" part of the RLM review? It certainly wasn't the focus of my rebuttal, or most of the forum discussions I've been in. It wasn't even a large part of the RLM review - literally a few minutes in the first part (out of seven).

Why do RLM supporters always fall back on this part as if it's representative of the whole? Well, I think I know the answer to that already. It's the most safely subjective part (though I would argue to still be exaggerated). And it's probably the only part that many people bothered seeing or paying attention to.

When he claims that the Trade Fed should've just openly acknowledged their illegal aggression against the Naboo, despite the movie clearly showing us that they want to escape legal consequences for their actions, that's not just his "opinion."

When he claims that it would've been not just sane, but smart to "just start fighting all" of the battledroids in the docking bay, despite the Jedi having to run from just two Droidekas, that's not just his "opinion."

When he claims Qui-Gon is unforgiveably stupid for seeking help in a Gungan city instead of walking through miles of enemy infested forests on foot, it's not just his "opinion."

I recall you making an almost identical post to this one before. And I responded with points just like the ones above. Look, I already know you're on RLM's side here, and have trouble acknowledging the possibility that he might just be wrong on a lot of things. I get that, but do you? I'm not trying to be hostile here. But the way you repeatedly stick up for him while bringing up the same excuses that people have responded to before isn't proving anything.

 

Did I say "fan"? I don't remember. I enjoyed his videos and I "get it". I understand his schtick, and I think the guy is funny. I also happen to agree with many of his critiques of the films. Does that make me a "fan"? I suppose, but I'm not going to: follow him on Twitter, like him on FaceBook, listen to his podcasts, try to meet him and acquire his autograph, or even bookmark his website. I don't idolize him by any means, nor am I a member of this supposed "cult" that people keep referring to. I think he made some very entertaining reviews (albeit scathing) of some films that fell short of my expectaions and that I felt could have been much better. I've also clearly stated that I don't agree with everything he says; the difference between me and you is that I don't take it to heart. If I defend him on this board, it's because I'm trying to convey my opinion about his work, which I believe has merit. Somebody has to argue the other side of the issue, or else there would be no discussion. Where's the fun in that?

As far as my remark about having some beers with him at the pub... His humor falls in line with my own in many ways, as I have a strong sarcastic side. I like to nitpick movies, even the ones I love, and many of my friends are the same way. We also like to poke fun at each other- "taking the piss", to quote our British mates. In my world, an insult can be comedy gold. Yes, there are limits that I would not cross, but one should be able to laugh at oneself in order to truly appreciate and understand oneself.

 

Nothing gets "the ladies" going like an O-OT purist!

 

We agree on something? Will wonders never cease?

Hey now! Did I say that?! LOL

Hmmm... Where's Cryo, and what have you done with him?

Guess what? I agree with you. That's three times that we agree in a single post! This is some sort of record.

I think there is merit to both the original reviews and Jimmy's rebuttal.

 

You can like the RLM reviews as stupid comedy. What I've noticed is the way you always have to play down criticisms against its points. The review is outrageously wrong or dishonest in several parts. Are you able to say that? If you want to couch it in the "comedy" label, then fine. Much of the RLM review was really, stupid comedy that people shouldn't take as a serious analysis of the film. The people who do treat it as such are wrong.

"Discussion" doesn't require someone to be an outright contrarian, or defend something that's wrong.

Context. The two of us are not friends. We've never met in person, or even directly communicated online. In the same statement, he claims that my rebuttal of his review is wrong (without bothering to explain why), then characterizes me as a loser who can't get a date. Why should I take this insult as something other than what it is?

"Stoklasa's review was dumb and totally wrong. And oh yeah, he's probably some creepy loser with a George Lucas stalker shrine in his closet." HA HA! Hey man, can't you take a joke?

 

That's not what I said. I didn't say it was the main focus of the reviews. I said that it's the main issue that people argue about. That's based strictly on my observation.

I don't know, buddy. I think those points do sound an awful lot like opinion to me. *shrug*

In have repeatedly acknowledged that I don't always agree with his opinions. *shrug* What more can I say? Agree to disagree?

 

*spits tea*
That was awesome.

 

Good work digging up the relevant fair use rules. With this gray area, just save yourself the potential trouble and avoid it. You can do a lengthy and extensive movie review with say, 75% of the footage. That's probably still overstating things, since 75% of TPM comes out to an hour and forty minutes. If anything, your review would probably benefit if you put some effort into what you want to clip. You don't need to talk over every single minute of the film. You can just start a scene, turn off the audio when you want to insert some comments of your own, and clip out some parts that you don't have any commentary of. I'd avoid lengthy amounts of dead time, when you don't have anything to say. Just show enough of the movie to make your points for you.

 

I'm not a big fan of the prequels, and I laughed harder than I have in a long time watching the RLM reviews. That said, I still probably disagree with half of his points at least. If I want to look at a serious review which I really agree with, I watch the Confused Matthew reviews. I think getting fans to rant and fuel the discussion about his reviews was just what he wanted. To put it simply, he is an awesome, awesome troll.

 

Alright. It's not what I've seen though.

He is saying that something does not make sense in those parts of the movie. He is asserting that the characters would've benefitted (not in any entertainment aspect, but in an in-universe way) if they followed along with his alternative suggestions instead. Those statements can be objectively evaluated. That's not a pure opinion.

You can try not brushing off poorly thought out statements about what the characters should be doing instead as "opinion."

 

I like the reviews as both "stupid comedy" and insightful critique. I realize that your opinion of the latter part of my previous sentence differs greatly from mine. In all honesty, I can't admit that he was "outrageously wrong or dishonest" in several parts because I don't believe he was. I disagree with some of what he said, but again, I took his words as opinion and not truth.

Opinion.

Touché.