PT RLM provides a brilliant satire of prequel bashing, not an actual critique of the prequels!

Having just watched a few of his videos, I have to say that it certainly seems that way. If I were to be glib about it, I'd ask: am I meant to expect original thoughts from a person wearing a crude stormtrooper helmet over his head sporting multiple "In J.J. We Trust" t-shirts?

But if that seems rude, then I'll note it's interesting how, in his "Inside Revenge Of The Sith" video, published May 23th 2015, he asserts at the end, "Episodes One, Two, and Three don't exist in my Star Wars lore," but he still continues to talk about them, like in his "Viewing Order" video, published two weeks later on June 5th 2015.

Why can't people simply move on from something they dislike? Why the incessant bashing, the constant sniping, the sly re-framing and demoting? It does seem to be all about garnering attention and gathering clicks.

Okay. Nien Nunb just looks like a guy with three layers of melted tortilla bread over his face and a couple of olives for eyes. I don't detect a hint of racial stereotyping. What gives?

I can see why some would have an issue with Watto in comparison, but the character himself is very amusing, in my opinion, and if Watto is a conscious satire of anyone or anything, it's Mafioso tough guys, not people of Jewish descent.

I can understand the guy's point in the video; even if I disagree with him.

The ring theory is not entirely new or particularly radical (his contention), but it is a pretty erudite synthesis of existing ideas that have been bandied about, but not formalized in an explanatory framework, for some time. While not intellectually on the same level, it's a bit like slamming Charles Darwin for being unoriginal, because there were other theories of evolution kicking around, going back to ancient times, and naturalists before Darwin recognized that the animal kingdom fit into a family tree.

The guy also contends that knowledge of an arcane theory can't make you like a film better. It doesn't have that power, no. But what it should, at a minimum, do, is to stop you in your tracks for a little while, and encourage you to think a little deeper about what you might have formerly been dismissive of. And at least respect the fact that other people are willing to invest positively in these movies and come up with pearls.

Furthermore, the idea of there being numerous poetic, linking devices in Star Wars is a pretty neat thing, in my opinion. And I don't think you can just find this in the average entertainment; though you could probably contort to finding patterns in anything you look at long enough, sure. The more fundamental "take home" message with the ring theory, in my view, is that Star Wars is a highly structured set of films, with an unappreciated formalism.

Again, I don't think a theory like this can ever give you the warm and fuzzies if you're looking for a deeper emotional connection that isn't there, but it's another way in, another way for your mind to take flight. It sometimes amazes me that a few more people don't stand in awe at how tightly-woven the movies are. Yeah, yeah. Subjective. But look at the repeating elements. Then notice the variation. And how all this variation is integrated to tell the story.

I don't know. If I say that Star Wars is an epic poem, is that enough for people to grasp that it's significantly different to James Bond, to Star Trek, to Batman, to the Marvel movies, Harry Potter, The Matrix, and yes, even to the filmed versions of LOTR and The Hobbit? Do people not notice Threepio being broken apart and then clumsily re-assembled and dragged against his will in the middle episodes? The Skywalkers' loss of a limb? Violence in caves? Ill-judged rescue attempts? Mists and water planets? Similarly-composed ending sequences (ships taking off, four people -- two "Skywalkers", two droids -- looking off to a gleaming vista)? They say they do, of course; but have they contended with how extensive it is; how these very blocks and their interconnected structure is art in itself? I think it's more than a little clever.

The precision and density of the interweaving is what makes Star Wars unique. Not that it has these links in the first place. After all, make any film sufficiently long enough, and you're bound to create some of these links by accident. But the positioning and timing of them all in the existing SW movies? That takes a bit of chutzpah. Maybe even a touch of genius. IMO, anyway.

 

A hack, I don't know. But pretentious? I would say yes since the very first video he posted on his channel was this one in which he makes a rant againt the PT fans because they are using the phrase: "You're not a true Star Wars fan".



Even if I agree with him that the "true Star Wars fan" phrase is silly, why does he come moaning about this on the internet?

He seems to be forgetting or ignoring that a lot of OT fans are also using the "true Star Wars fan" phrase and keep saying to others who like the prequels: "you have no taste".

Even if I've been slapped at many times on the internet for saying that I liked the prequels, I'm not the one who will go immediately on the internet and make a rant against those people like he did on his channel.

 

I also hated when he went on about how the PT destroyed the original intent of the OT which was to honor the legacy of flash Gordon and other 50s space sci flicks. To Sam: SHUT THE **** UP AND JUST JUDGE THE FILM AT IT OWN MERIT!!!

I rather watch Confused Matthew because at least kind of a enjoyable stupid and pretentious watch his original Lion King review to know what I am talking out.

 

I subscribe to Sam's channel primarily because he's one of the few brave enough on the internet to proclaim the truth--that Tobey Maguire was the better Spider-Man/Peter Parker than Andrew Garfield. But I admit, his PT stance is no different than many other internet ramblers.


I never got the whole "Watto is a Jewish stereotype" thing. He's clearly talking with an Italian accent. "Letta me taka you out back,huh?" He's like the fast talking Italian con man Chico Marx portrayed back in the day.

At any rate it's a far cry from "You want I should take you out back? What's with the Republic Credits? Could I spend it?"

 

Ha! That's actually a pretty good refutation in itself.

That plus Watto's disgruntled remark to Anakin: "Outlanders! They think they know everything."

He's not exactly in a mood to deal with Qui-Gon under just any circumstance; he is, in fact, a little weary of this self-assured stranger.

And then he lets Anakin go home early. That Watto. Always thinking of the bottom line.

 

I can't believe anyone could actually be persuaded by that...

 

There's more than 50 000 views on this video, so there must be a lot of people persuaded by that. Even I, since Attack of the Clones was the movie with which I had more difficulties.

But the reason why I say that he took a lot of content from RedLetterMedia is because he told in one of his podcast that he used to watch a lot and like Attack of the Clones before. He said that after watching the RLM review, he stopped watching it and started to dislike the movie.

 

Obviously, everyone noticed the parallels to the OT right from the beginning. But did anyone before Klimo notice that the entire Star Wars saga seems to be consciously constructed as an actual, formally rigorous chiasmus? I thought that was a pretty new insight, and an artistically compelling one, because it's not like Lucas was just throwing in random callbacks wherever he could squeeze them in. He was using a rather sophisticated rhetorical technique to craft a complementary narrative using the very structure of the plot itself, and he did in it a way that makes sense and actually adds to the story. I don't think that's something any bozo with a camera and a budget can accomplish. It's objectively noteworthy.

 

Just a sad story in my estimation. Somehow because of the heavy use of bluescreen AOTC is less interested in telling its story than TPM and is more interested in digital wizardry? What a silly nonsensical conclusion. Then there's the rubbish about AOTC being more fun than TPM, but still a worse film and "it's not even close". I think hating AOTC is just what's in vogue, and it's whatever, but this coupled with RLM's utter nonsense just demoralizes me for the simple fact that they're basing a lot of criticisms on conjecture and not solid critiquing. And also it comes off as lazy, just so incredibly lazy.

Edit: Oh, and the comparison between AOTC and ROTJ scenes just comes off as completely disingenuous. Like AOTC doesn't have strong character moments like Anakin saying good-bye to his mom or his argument with Obiwan over whether sacrificing the mission is worth saving Padme's life. Once again, just absolute nonsense.

 

You won't get an argument from me. I find it a little bit sad and annoying how anything interesting anyone ever says about Star Wars is usually shot down with faint praise at best. And people tend to act like these things are self-evident, in spite of the basic fact that no-one has ever pointed them out before. But that's people for you.

I've really started to tire of all these armchair geekboy reviews. Seriously, I've heard enough of them to last a lifetime. I simply refuse to waste time listening to new ones. I guess I'm turning into that guy.

But I will just say -- to nuance SW Saga Fan's remark -- that 50,000 views, in this day and age, isn't a lot. It's enough to register some basic interest, which suggests the films remain popular (an interesting point in itself), but I don't think you can say these individuals have a massive following.

And as Jim Raynor, author of the TPM rebuttal, once pointed out, the first part of the RLM TPM review had at least double the views of the second and all subsequent parts. In fact, let's do a breakdown right now. As of this writing, via the official RedLetterMedia YT channel:

Part 1 = 6,036,429
Part 2 = 2,755,496
Part 3 = 2,336,719
Part 4 = 2,179,059
Part 5 = 2,048,719
Part 6 = 2,062,987
Part 7 = 1,974,696

Oh, dear. Look at that drop. From just over six million on the first part, to just under two million on the last. As Jim Raynor suggested at the time, it seems like a lot of people clicked onto the first part, didn't particularly care for what they heard, and clicked out.

Which isn't to deny the popularity of the RLM material. But beware fanboy overrating.

 

Yet neither do numbers ever tell the whole story. I watched the whole thing. Hardly means I liked it or agreed with the content.

 

They don't tell the whole story, no.

But they are concrete, objective data -- which is more than most people usually provide.

Here, it can reasonably be conjectured, I think, that some people were dissuaded from going further than the first part.

If the RLM material really is some masterful analysis, it seems 50% of people viewing it didn't arrive at that view. Worth noting, I think.

 

Yikes. I don't seem to remember that part for some reason though maybe it's because I haven't watched the video in awhile. I don't mind when someone makes fun of the films but when you make fun of the fans because they like the PT is when I have a problem.

 

I think this says sooo much and really exposes something that many PT-haters (and even some of the more reasonable dislikers) dont like to admit.. That is that there is a social element to their opinion that is independent of their 'natural' interpretation and enjoyment of the PT... or any popular culture content for that matter. This surely isnt unique to SW. There is a sort of critical opinion orthodoxy that determines what is deemed good and bad in pop culture. It's something that has always existed, but is now far more dominant and influences more ppl as a result of the internet IMO. There are hundreds of these amateur and semi-professional youtube pop culture critics and very few of them stray far from the popular critical consensus. If you are moderately pop-culture savy you can pretty much correctly predict what their general opinion on a movie will be 9 times out of 10.

 

Say remember that crazy during the the early 21s century when everybody took those silly RLM reviews of that old prequel trilogy seriously? It was really kind of sad looking back on it I mean for one thing people still remembered star wars without having to have watched them in film class during that time.

 

Ugh, sorry forgot I was using my time machine.

 

Nice prediction, BBK. Contrary to what several PT defenders claim here 'group think' and 'pop culture' are hardly the only reasons why one may dislike or like less the PT. No matter how some push that it doesn't make it universal fact nor is it a crime to be impressionable.

 

In fairness RLM fans have a very strong faith in their masters ability convert people to redlettermedianism. I was mostly referring to those those. Also you can dislike the PT without agreeing with RLM.

 

You don't know the power of the Plinkett side? They must obey their master?

There is always an element of hero worship in these things: one branch on the tree of group-think. Every movement must have its authority figures.

And yes, you can dislike the PT without agreeing (or even knowing about) RLM.

 

I didnt and dont claim that "group think" (a term i wouldnt independently use if my life depended on it) is the only reason to dislike the PT. But I think there is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence (or for the example I was utilizing, concrete evidence) to suggest it is actually a significant influence on those who tend to self-identify as pop-culture** critics (be it amateur or professional). The fact that the majority of these critics all hold an extremely narrow range of opinion is highly suspect to me. The fact that some of them actually discard or reject past held opinions as a sort of 'right of passage' into this critic's milieu is, IMHO, damning. Now at this point the impressionability itself is not a "crime"... the "crime" happens when that person then takes the next step to go out of their way to publicly crusade against those things they once enjoyed - often in a very self-righteous manner.

**Pop-culture is a value-neutral descriptive term.. eg. SW is to pop-culture as baseball is to spoets (or baseball is to pop-culture for that matter ). Im not sure why you used it as you did in quotes the same way you did for "group think".

 

I have no qualms using the term "group-think", because people do tend to think in terms of how other people think, or what they believe they should think, based on what they imagine others think, and upon how they have been told to think -- religion being numero uno. That said, your earlier post described the situation perfectly, as far as I'm concerned.

There is absolutely nothing crazy about the notion of people being swayed by the opinions of others. We are an ape species; mammals. Apes learn through mimicry and have social hierarchies where certain behaviours may allow you to rise to "alpha", while others can get you killed or banished.

So it's in an individual's best interests to discover what constitutes a "socially acceptable" position and what doesn't. The better for being able to survive, earn protection, and keep your share of the spoils of the tribe (food, sex, shelter).

Plus, the world is a complex place, and we can't just intuit every last thing in advance. Like which are the safe mushrooms to eat; and which will kill you in a New York minute. We have to rely, to some extent, on elders and ancestors: those who can guide us in the right direction and dispense useful knowledge with real survival value; without us taking the risks ourselves.

This has profound implications for the way we think; and even, to some extent, what we're capable of thinking about. Group-think is pernicious and it is a real phenomenon. It might be nice to believe otherwise, but that's just a failure to deal in reality. None of us (I think I said this before) are islands. We are unconsciously influenced by the opinions and attitudes around us; and we quickly discover which are the "cool" (and less cool) opinions and behaviours to adopt. (This means I'm agreeing with you. Just plugging in my defence of the "group-think" term along the way ).

Jar Jar is somewhat about this conscious and unconscious moulding of our behaviour to make ourselves more acceptable to others. He calls to mind the idea that we are all repressed children. That adulthood is a bit of a sham state. That we hide and treat rather cruelly ("Who do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?") those who don't seem to be at the same point in the game. (And Jar Jar is one reason I look upon the prequels as particularly profound compared to a lot of films out there).

As much as people are capable of having independent thoughts, our thoughts still exist in a wider social pool of opinion. Group-think is very real surrounding these movies, in my -- group-inspired? -- opinion.

 

To clarify, I dont disagree with the concept of "group think", I just dont like the actual term. My objection is somewhat petty and silly. I have a background in far-left politics and within that milieu, the term (not concept) is viewed by many as somewhat of a cliche, similar to someone spelling America - "AmeriKKKa". I think this is due to it's over use by petty-bourgeois leftists and right-wing conspiracy theorists. The inside joke is that "Goodwin's law" applies more to "group think" than it does to Hitler.

I think you and many others who use the term in this forum use it in a correct and useful manner. I would never actually even mention my obscure opinion on the term, had it not been implied that I used it myself. Like I said, im aware that it's kind of a silly opinion.

 

Oh, I have semantic hang-ups like that, from time-to-time. I'm trying to think of a present, burning example. But it's not coming. My brain is peculiar, though.

Well, fair's fair. A lot of words and phrases are put out there as thought-terminating clichés. It's easy to find a word or phrase grating.

There is this Platonic aspect to words which I think Cushing's Admirer was, perhaps, subtly reviling.

A word is merely a signifier; and that which it signifies may be loosely-defined or only loosely-applicable.

But we get carried away with out little toolbox of terms, as if throwing out a particular set of words tidily deals with a problem or issue.

I wouldn't wish to stamp on anyone for having a mere difference of opinion over some movies. That said, yeah... social pressure. It'd be disingenuous to overlook it.

 

Who is supposed to take such guys seriously and not consider them weak-minded? Either they're just stupid, unable to identify "bad movies" for themselves or they are abulic followers. Anyways, totally inappropriate for a "movie reviewer" - even on You Tube.

Seriously, I've never heart of these guys before ... Sam and whatever was the name of the guy with the mask ....and all of the others who might be on YT thinking of themselves as way more important than they really are. They won't be recognized and remembered by 99%+ of people on earth. On the other hand, there is the Academy Award nominated winner of the Irving G Thalberg Award George Lucas who will forever be remembered for not just creating making Star Wars, making the lives of millions more pleasurable, but also for movies like THX 1138 and American Graffiti.

It's laughable.

 

Contrary to how some seem to be acting I never said people aren't influenced regarding PT. I said that being impressionable isn't a crime and that the terms some throw around so easily here aren't the *only* casual factors why one doesn't/won't like PT. I think people on both 'sides' credit RLM waaay too much. People take in input all the time but nearly always make up their own minds past a certain age. I don't consider disliking the PT some horrid conspiracy as it seems a handful here do but whatever. Differences aren't inherently awful in matters of taste.