PT Red Letter Media and other Prequel Reviews

You don't understand? Several people have explained it to you in multiple posts already. I explained it in my very last post. I will explain it to you again, right here:

Stoklasa was never an innocent party to begin with, since his own review is full of offensive and insulting language. When I called Stoklasa or his arguments stupid, I did so on the basis of his actual points. I stayed on topic, and I backed up what I said.

When Stoklasa responded to me in that interview, he dismissed my entire rebuttal without explaining why. He then jumped right into an obnoxious cheap shot about my ability to get a date. People here are calling him on that, because he is being hypocrital (he's one to talk, for someone who has made multiple hour long videos whining about old scifi movies) and blatantly evasive. People are pointing out his inability to address criticism. As I said on this very page, it would've been one thing if he had insulted me in the course of a proper response, with actual substance in it. It's another thing if he has nothing but posturing and tired insults.

I am done explaining this to you. Just a little while ago, you yourself said that you would probably "cry" if I ever insulted you about your sex life, something I have not stooped to. Yet here you turn around and try to make it look like Stoklasa isn't doing anything wrong.

 

But he does it in character! That makes it perfectly fine. Right?

 

.

This is one of the many reasons why I will never watch IT'S reviews or even acknowledge IT by name or as a human being. I have no desire to debate IT on anything I have no use for anything IT has to say. If IT gets IT'S jollies by being belligerent towards others go right ahead it's IT'S life. I really don't understand why some people are so frustrated by IT posting reviews, I get amused at when people use IT's reviews as IT is some sort of messiah. At my age I could care less for what anyone or thing has to say about anything, I am confident enough to make up my own mind without being influenced by some random thing making internet rants in a moronic voice. Their are many detractors of the PT who can make their points in a civil way like a actual human being without acting sub-human about what they are trying to say. Not to go on a political rant but I also dislike the same tactic made by Bill Maher, now I am not Republican or Democrat, I am a independent and I have views that differ than him, it is sad that people can't make their arguments and points in a eloquent way, I guess on rude, condescending, sub-human behavior attracts people's attention these days, any success made by these THINGS are a defeat for civil human beings.....

 

Not at all. I know that you're one of the "good" ones on here. You're always respectful, and when you're not, there's a good reason for it.

But he did put that big X over Jar Jar. Or it wasn't an X, actually, it was one of those circles with the red line through it... What are those things called anyway?

I didn't mean to sound condescending. Sorry if you took it that way.


And you are right. I asked for opinions, and you gave them. Very much appreciated! And also... thanks for being the Kirk to my Kahn on here (I prefer thinking that I'm Kirk, but seeing as we're on the PT board, I'll let you be the good guy).

MrF

 

Thank you, Mr. F!

But what do you mean, one of the "good" ones?

Just yankin' yer chain. Again, thanks.

You're right. He did do that. But it's confusing to see shots of the film playing out behind him that he is re-working in his commentary at the same time. Yes, he bars Jar Jar -- bars the jar? -- but Jar Jar, or whatever else he is talking about, is still there. My mind goes, "I'm watching TPM", even though there's this film geek gassing away about how inadequate TPM is, and all the ways it needs to be altered. I think the RLM videos do a far better job of this. Despite all of Stoklasa's distortions, you at least feel that the film is under a microscope, and that actual issues are being pointed out along the way. The RLM material is fun; it takes you on a journey. This video reviewer's material is reasonably compact, and reasonably extensive, in its own way, but it's also trite and banal. (Yet here I am, having wasted so much time talking about it!). That's just my opinion, though.

BTW: That symbol is called the "no symbol"; or the "nooooo! symbol", or, indeed, the "do not want symbol".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_symbol

Overview:

Going deeper...

 

For all the criticism RLM gives the prequels, he seems to forget that the OT is just as un-perfect. When Luke leaves Yoda in ESB, Yoda says Luke's training is incomplete, yet when Luke returns in ROTJ Yoda says "No more training do you require". Eh? That's rather convenient to cut short his training. (Something that Yoda is fond of doing as we find out in TPM regarding Obi) The media hated Luke's whining in ANH, they hated C-3PO whining in ESB, and they sure didn't like the Ewoks in ROTJ.

My point is that all 6 movies are equally flawed and quite frankly one of the reasons I personally love them all.

 

Wow, very thorough. Now I know what to call it. However, I don't think I'll call it the "no symbol" in regular conversation---

"Maybe we should put a picture of it up, with a no symbol over it."
"What? A nose symbol?"
"No, a NO symbol. You know, like yes and no. No. No symbol."
"There's a symbol for the word "no"?"
"Yes, the red circle with a backslash through it. It means something is prohibited."
"Oh! Why didn't you just say that, then! The circle slash thingy."

"You've managed to kill everyone else, but like a poor marks

 

Glad you took something from that, Mr. F.

I must agree with you. "No symbol" is so incredibly vague.

I prefer to call it the "strikeout symbol" or the "forbidden symbol".

However, "no" makes sense, ultimately: e.g., "No Right Turn", "No Smoking", "No Children", etc.

It's one of the more memorable -- albeit, staunchly melodramatic -- moments in Star Trek history.

You needn't worry about starting any kind of ST/SW war. Most people who post online at forums like these seem to have an affection for both. I know I do.

 

Just gotta comment on this by saying....

C'mon

True, he doesn't pop up every now and then and have a showdown with the good guys, but he was never meant too. He's mysterious, but he is a consistent baddie from the get go. He hates the Jedi with every midichlorian in his body. He's the one to be afraid of. The other villains and antagonists, Anakin included, turn out to be little more than pieces in his game.

It would have made the threat a lot more concrete, but IMO that would have made it less interesting and detracted from Palpatine's importance. I get how that might appeal to some, but it's very straightforward and sacrifices a lot of subtlety. Instead of a mysterious dark lord whose existence can only be guessed at by the growing shroud of darkness over the Force, the Jedi would have simply been looking for Maul to arrest him for killing a Jedi.

"No luck catching them Sith, then?"
"It's just the one Sith actually."

 

Look at what the character of Darth Vader did for the OT and for the SW franchise as a whole. Everyone and their grandmother has heard of Darth Vader (with some wacky exceptions, like one of the girls on my office... let's not go there), and part of the reason is the build up of his stature over the course of the three OT films. Vader was the poster boy for the Empire. The main baddie, essentially.

Palpatine was always there too, but in the background, holding the strings. Our introduction to him was gradual, from next to nothing in ANH, to a brief appearance in hologram form in TESB, to a gradually increasing presence in ROTJ that became nearly god-like by the end.

I think the PT could have benefitted from a similar narrative, with Maul sort of serving Vader's function as the main antagonist. His presence and stature in the pop culture would could have continued to grow to nearly Vader-like proportions had he been given the chance. He was a very popular character as it is, and I am of the opinion that he could have grown to be one of the most popular SW characters of all time. Whereas Vader was the poster boy for the Empire, Maul would be the poster boy for the Galactic Reformation.

Of course, Palpatine would also be there in the PT, in the background, pulling all the strings as always. And again, his presence would grow gradually over the course of the three prequel films until the fulfillment of his god-like status is achieved--- when he turns Anakin to the dark side and replaces Darth Maul with a new apprentice. I think our exposure to Palpatine in the PT is absolutely fine the way it is; the way his villainy grows with each film. However, I think the main focus should have been diverted to another character, i.e. Darth Maul, until such time as the true power of Darth Sidious was revealed.

Of course, there is no right or wrong. I just feel that the movies would have worked better that way.

 

Fair point about Vader, but IMO, we've already seen that trilogy, and it was great. The PT takes an entirely different approach, and I think it does so to great effect. In the originals, the conflict is clear: Rebellion vs. the Empire. In the prequels, the conflict is muddled. The good guys are forced into battles that they do not fully understand and are a step behind the villains the entire way.

Having Maul as the poster boy would have been cool, but it would come at the direct expense of Dooku's character. Grievous is fun, but ultimately a throw-away villain. The only reason that Maul could not have played his role is that it would have made the Separatist movement an overtly Sith-driven operation. I don't think that an ancient enemy of the well-established and largely feared Jedi order would garner enough political support to make a war possible. The Separatists seem to be motivated by money, power, idealism, or possibly a combination of these factors. As Gunray's dying words said, "Lord Sidious promised us peace." Sure, he was a murdering scumbag, but even he feared the Jedi, and I doubt that he or anybody else would have knowingly initiated a crusade to destroy them. Dooku, though a known user of the Dark Side, is never revealed to the Jedi as having an association with the Sith. They merely suspect as much. They know a man named Tyrannus was involved in creating the Clone Army. If they knew that Tyrannus had the prefix "Darth" attached to it, the jig would be up. For all we know, the only people who were aware that the Emperor was a Sith were Vader, Ben, and Yoda.

Dooku, as far as anybody knew, was an idealist, an eloquent and powerful leader who was formerly a member of the Republic and the Jedi Order but became fed up with the corruption in both and departed. He even spins it to Obi-wan that he is trying to fight against the Sith, who now control the Republic. The audience can only guess at his actual motivations. Darth Maul, as much as I love him, is not capable of generating that kind of complexity. His motivations are clear from the start. He could merely snarl a "The Jedi will fall" kind of comment and continue fighting.

Thematically, having the conflict become a simple one of good vs. evil is not congruent with the shades of gray that envelope the prequels. Anakin's loyalties have to be torn. He must be confused, and his faith must be tested. He spent three years fighting to preserve the Republic, not the Jedi. I don't think he even realized that Palpatine was playing both sides of the war. In any case, his choice must be something that he can convince himself is morally right. All of that is lost if Maul becomes the center player.

On your last sentence, I agree that it's possible that the films would have been more widely iconic or popular in that case, but it would nullify most of what makes the prequel trilogy interesting as it stands.

 

Fair enough. I know many people in here agree with your stance, and I can't say that your view lacks merit by any means.

Just speaking for myself (and some others that I know of), the magic of the OT was mainly in its simplicity: overtly good vs. overtly evil, with some shades of grey thrown in between. I felt like the OT was more character driven than plot driven, and I have always preferred character pieces. I saw completed character arcs for most of the main figures, and the movies were chock full of wonderful banter due to the well crafted dialogue (mostly) that helped build a personal connection with them.

The prequels felt more plot driven than character driven. I never felt as connected with the characters, and their dialogue seemed unrealistic at times. Not to mention that I was unhappy with many of the plot elements that I found muddled and sometimes silly. The bottom line is that it did not feel like Star Wars to me.

 

Good lord, you guys are actually admitting this is all a matter of personal tastes. I think you fellows are my new Internet Heroes.

 

I've always felt that this whole debate comes down to personal taste. As for being your hero... I have some 8x10 glossies that I'm autographing. $10 each. Let me know.

 

I think that this is why many OT fans are not able to get into the PT. They are fundamentally different films, despite including many of the same elements. Personally, I don't think the characters get enough credit. Anakin, Qui-gon, and Dooku are wonderfully complex and infinitely debatable, but I agree that the story is the main draw here. The manipulations, the mystery, the decisions people make and their consequences. I notice something new about McDiarmid's performance every time I watch one of the films, and posters on these forums point out things about the saga that I never would have noticed.

For what it's worth, I would have loved an action/adventure PT starring Obi-wan as the protagonist (something Lucas has talked about since he ever mentioned the prequels) with a Maul-like villain and a blood-pumping good vs. evil storyline. It's why I loved the OT after all. The only reason I would argue against it now is because I love the trilogy that we currently have and I think the current approach is more appropriate to the story content. It's much more sophisticated and intriguing than I would have expected from Star Wars with plenty of layers that I have yet to peel away.

@Mond, I'm selling my autographs for $9.

 

Excellent.

That's actually in my experience a somewhat less common stance in this discussion all over the internet, at least among the more vocal (I think your stance is probably in fact the mainstream/vast majority position, but that sort of person is unlikely to heatedly discuss space wizard movies on the internet). More often you run into the whole "logical critical analysis proves that the prequels were objectively bad". I'm not kidding. People actually use the ridiculous oxymoron "objectively bad", and the phrase is not intended to be satirical.

At any rate, you have my respect (for whatever that's worth).

 

Lucas himself said it best on The Daily Show a couple years ago: "It's not real. You can either like it or not like it."

 

Oh! Hell, damn, and blast! I accidentally deleted the majority of my post.

Sorry if any of this reads as terse. I may have been a little more blunt second time around.

Splendidly said, thegoat! You are one to watch!

One thing I'd just like to add is that I prefer there being different antagonists in each film because, to me, a different antagonist in each gives each prequel film its own identity. By contrast, I think the OT feels a little boxed-in. Works perfectly fine for those movies -- in fact, it's a delightful contrast -- but I think it would have been a mistake in the PT. Also, while the pattern is relatively straight-forward, it's not quite as simple as one-villain-dies-and-next-dude-steps-up in a simple pass-the-baton-style. Because Maul dies in TPM and that's the end of him, but Dooku survives AOTC to fight another day. Which is an appropriate serial tradition (AOTC being the most serial-like; to me). It also allows Lucas to throw the audience off when Dooku is suddenly killed by Anakin in the "light hearted" opening to ROTS. The message is simple: expect the unexpected. Ostensible good guys aren't always good; an

 

Moving this over from the thread that was locked:

Wow, this getting out of hand. I just saw this today from Kyle Newman on facebook:

http://www.slashfilm.com/topher-grace-edited-star-wars-prequels-85minute-movie/

After reading that, it appears this would have made the PT worse. Too many people have the perception that certains parts of the PT are pointless and un-needed, which couldn't be further from the truth. Taking out the politics and much of Anakin's story? Starting the movie in the middle of the Darth Maul duel? And RLM's accusation that PT doesn't make sense and is poorly written...what does that make this? Unbelievable.

That being said, after now having a chance to watch the video at the end of the article with Newman and the other guys discussing it, Kyle indicated that Topher meant no disrespect to Lucas or the prequels and even indicates Topher is a fan of them...

 

Mr. Grace is likely sincere in this effort, since he's already famous and doesn't have to do the "Lucas bashing as a career springboard" thing that has become epidemic.

 

Despite its crippling size (crippling when you've got massive bandwidth restrictions), I did just download the video and am shortly to watch it. For the time being, I can only assume this whole thing was done as some kind of parody, or as a grand music video experiment or something; or, more likely, for attention. No fan could seriously believe deleting entire reels of the prequel movies -- or ANY movies they happen to be a fan of -- is a good thing, right? It's like a kind of societal brain-surgery. With fans like these, who needs enemies?

 

You downloaded the video of those guys discussing it?

 

Agreed. Grace made this as a tribute to GL, more than anything else. However, I can't help but notice the changes and cuts that he made. Conspicuous by their absence are many of the scenes and elements that stick in the craw of PT detractors. Heck, most of TPM itself landed on the cutting room floor. Interesting. I'm curious to see the film.