Star Wars fans - Anyone have a link to the review rebuttal?

[Skykid]

Dantes: please stop.

The redlettermedia reviews are exceptionally well produced critical analyses on a site that does reviews of movies. The question of 'nerdism' is irrelevant when the content presents a thoughtful and relevant breakdown from a point of objectivity. Were you well versed with RLM and that particular set of reviews, you'd find that it's not just a criticism of 'Star Wars Movies' but a criticism of film in general. There are plenty of enlightening and insightful elements in those reviews that look at pacing, scripting, cinematography, character development, and the general template formula that shoots American commercial movies in the foot over and over. Your rebuttal is assessing the product as a Star Wars movie, but he demonstrates no knowledge of film, making it worthless.

That you keep labelling the Plinkett reviews 'nerdy' and lumping them in the same pot illustrates that you just don't understand them. Being in-depth and accurate (and covering the topic of SW) is not the same as a fanboy who, if YOU read the 108 page diatribe, admits to liking the movie right off the bat, and presents himself as a geeky zit who has nothing better to do than write a tome trying to debunk a review that was written with higher knowledge and wit.

It's unnecessary to read any of his rant beyond the first two pages, which declare well-enough that he has no brain for genuine criticism and instead intends to nitpick and clumsily try to shoot holes in the details while failing to grasp the bigger picture.
With no film appreciation or education on which to base an argument, he comes at the work in question with a massively biased view because he's a Phantom Menace fanboy. One has to ask themselves, considering these facts, why the fuck they'd waste their time.

Please desist with this whole 'why is one nerd more important than another' fixation and view the two pieces for what they are: one worthy of attention, the other pointless crap that has a justified magnetism for trashcans.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

We all have different thresholds where the effort put into saying "you're wrong" begins to get a little creepy and worrisome. My threshold is ~30-40 pages, more than a couple afternoons. That's when I'm personally concerned for someone's asperger's (and note we're all sperglords already, otherwise we wouldn't be here); 108 on the surface of it is terrifying.

Please tell me the font's ginormous and lots of pages are just diagrams and such

I'm too afraid to look : (

Could be worse; at least it wasn't a rebuttal written as a fanfic.

I remember rewatching the original trilogy and thinking that they were pretty darn mediocre, but still nowhere near as atrocious as the prequels. I guess they were popular because they were light on plot but heavy on memorable visuals? There's a lot of moments that are noteworthy in pop culture, but the plot really doesn't really do anything deep or meaningful. It's a space opera without any of the intelligent or really interesting writing you'd expect from someone competent in the genre. Seriously, pick up any Isaac Asimov or Jack Vance novel (or even some of his short story writing) and you'll find it way more imaginative and interesting than Star Wars' attempt at a plot.

At least some of the Star Wars video games were cool. I remember playing the shit out of Shadows of the Empire until I had all challenge points on all difficulties. Fun N64 game. :3

[Edmond Dantes]

Hey, I said it's epic nerdism (and god it is) but I didn't actually criticize the work itself.
Icarus's insane Garegga strategy guide goes even deeper in nolife-ism IMO, and it's fucking a-w-e-s-o-m-e.

At least I hope you are happy I used my superhuman google skills for you !?
(else I'm going to cry for my lost 5 minutes )

I actually am thankful for the link. Thanks!

Enjoying the read so far, but I can't help feeling this would be better if it were narrated by Slowbeef and Diabeetus.

Could be worse; at least it wasn't a rebuttal written as a fanfic.

Yeah I'm not really a fan of Joseph Conrad's work either.

I remember rewatching the original trilogy and thinking that they were pretty darn mediocre, but still nowhere near as atrocious as the prequels. I guess they were popular because they were light on plot but heavy on memorable visuals? There's a lot of moments that are noteworthy in pop culture, but the plot really doesn't really do anything deep or meaningful. It's a space opera without any of the intelligent or really interesting writing you'd expect from someone competent in the genre. Seriously, pick up any Isaac Asimov or Jack Vance novel (or even some of his short story writing) and you'll find it way more imaginative and interesting than Star Wars' attempt at a plot.

At least some of the Star Wars video games were cool. I remember playing the shit out of Shadows of the Empire until I had all challenge points on all difficulties. Fun N64 game. :3

Star Wars was basically a 1940s theatrical serial done in movie form. If you've ever seen Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers (the latter of which inspired the familiar Star Wars text crawl, as you'll see at the beginning of episode 2) then you get the idea. Depth or meaningful themes weren't really the point.

And speaking cool Star Wars video games, ever played X-Wing or Dark Forces? (or Star Wars Chess)?

We all have different thresholds where the effort put into saying "you're wrong" begins to get a little creepy and worrisome. My threshold is ~30-40 pages, more than a couple afternoons. That's when I'm personally concerned for someone's asperger's (and note we're all sperglords already, otherwise we wouldn't be here); 108 on the surface of it is terrifying.

Please tell me the font's ginormous and lots of pages are just diagrams and such

I'm too afraid to look : (

Actually, some of the 108 "pages" are just a single image with either a comic-like balloon or a caption, usually to demonstrate some point. So it really isn't as long as it seems. And yeah its a pretty sizey font.

Besides... 108 pages. Besides being one page for every Outlaw of the Marsh (which is awesome, because anything that mirrors chinese literature is awesome, even though I doubt its intentional), that's barely the length of a Goosebumps book or one of those old hint guides that Infocom used to make you mail them money for.

This is the exact kind of response that allows people like AVGN and sites like Hardcore Gaming 101 to convince people that old games are unrealistically hard when they're really not, you know that right?

I didn't know they were convincing anyone of anything.

Sega fans have it rough because of the AVGN and his one-sided view of the console wars and particularly of the Sega CD, and I've heard that there's been similar issues with his review of the Atari 5200, where he convinced people the entire production line of the console was faulty just because the one he happened to have didn't work.

Both sources have also convinced far too many people that older games were ridiculously hard or impossible to play and wind up scaring off people who would otherwise be interested. To be honest I have more of a beef with HG101 over this, as NES-era RPGs are one of my favorite genre and that's one era they like to spread the myth of "endless grinding" and "first monster instant-kills your party" which classics like Wizardry are already suffering from. Basically, anyone who is actually having those issues simply doesn't know how to play the games, but because of unqualified reviewers like these, a lot of people play the game once, get killed due to their own stupidity, and then claim the game is unbalanced.

Granted, you could argue that the problem is sheepherd mentality and not the sources themselves, but honestly I feel like if a person chooses to be a reviewer then they should try to be honest and objective. But that's not what's "in" nowadays--people want cheap lulz.

(To be fair, I like AVGN quite a bit, and sometimes enjoy HG101 articles, but way too often do I have to read past the bullshit when I really shouldn't have to. Nostalgia Critic is way more of a problem IMO).

... Yeah, I just went off on a tangent... so, how about them Star Wars?

[BareKnuckleRoo]

It's unnecessary to read any of his rant beyond the first two pages, which declare well-enough that he has no brain for genuine criticism and instead intends to nitpick and clumsily try to shoot holes in the details while failing to grasp the bigger picture.

Even just skimming it through, it's a painfully stupid read.

they like to spread the myth of "endless grinding" and "first monster instant-kills your party" which classics like Wizardry are already suffering from.

Er, Wizardry I does actually have both those. I get the point that your average NES rpg's grind time and difficulty is overrated by today's standards, but speaking as someone who's played and beaten the original Wizardry on multiple platforms (Apple II, DOS, NES, SNES, PSX, was a bit obsessed with seeing the version differences), the first monster group you meet does actually have the potential to wipe a level 1 party if they surprise you and get some lucky crits in, and you can usually expect to have at least one person die in your very first fight with a level 1 team. I enjoy the game, but there's no denying it is brutally difficult for the unprepared and the most reliable winning strategy basically consists of grinding constantly on level 1 against Murphy's Ghosts until you've got a team that can all Haman and Mahaman your way to victory. Usually at least level 15-16 so you can cast it a few times, but this literally takes forever since you'll want to dualclass a Fighter to a Mage so your Mage actually has HP or vice versa, and you need a few Clerics so you have some healing because healing is well, important. It makes your average NES rpg grind look like a speedrun - grinding for a solo thief run in Final Fantasy is less painful than this is.

the rest of this is all tl;dr to anyone who doesn't give a fuck about wizardry

Spoiler

The first game is all about Haman, and in ports after the Apple II one, instead of getting a wish picked at random, you get a choice from a list of three out of five possibilities, three of them being offensive gamebreakers, namely eliminating all enemy magic resistance or silencing all enemies for the entire fight, or instakilling all enemies, all of which work 100% of the time on all enemies including the final boss. It drains a level just to use the spell and you need to be level 13 minimum for it to work, but it's the best attack spell in the game (and Mahaman is the best healing spell in the game if you're lucky to get the full party heal/resurrection spell that works in battle and never fails to revive). Unlike enemy level draining, you don't lose HP from casting these either, so the only downside is having to grind for more levels to actually use these, which takes freaking forever since levelling is ridiculously slow in Wizardry I even if you're hunting down giants and will o wisps in the lower levels.

Trying to get stronger by finding actually cool items means going up against shit that can instantly kill you in a heartbeat (there's ways of getting around that like deathproof gear, namely Armor of Lords, or using Haman on anything remotely scary, but this is not newbie friendly in the slightest and Haman drains levels which take forever to grind for, and you can still get party wiped by getting surprise attacked by scary shit, especially in versions like the Apple II that let enemies cast spells and use breath attacks during a surprise encounter).

Once you get high level and find some of the really cool gear though, you can get one hell of a badass team, but this takes a lot of time, seriously the early Wizardry games tend to be more about finding cool loot for your team than actually beating the games themselves.

And then there's Wizardry IV, which is basically an RPG designed for masochists who want to experience the joy of juggling multiple save files while worrying about an invisible instadeath monster that stalks you while getting into fights where thieves can permanently steal items you need to beat the game forcing you to constantly reload old saves. Wizardry IV is probably the hardest rpg to legitimately beat without following a guide because it is so fucking obtuse and unforgivingly difficult in a stupid way, there's no real reason to play it unless you like the videogame equivalent of hammering rusty nails into your genitals.

Some of the Wizardry games are pretty cool, but even the later ones really are not newbie-friendly crpgs. The class customization options are pretty nifty, specially in the later ones, but they can be daunting for the inexperienced. And then there's the really weird, ultra situational shit like the ridiculously powerful Cane of Corpus that's restricted to Ninja Faeries (solo the game as one for super extra funtimes).

[Edmond Dantes]

.... My hat is off to you for that awesome dedication to Wizardry. All I can say is I've beaten the MS-DOS (Ultimate Wizardry Archives) version and I honestly never had to dual-class to do it, altho I remember a lot of brute-forcing and pure luck being involved.

(and yeah, Wiz4 is nuts, no debate there. No surprise its only console port was for the PC Engine).

You wouldn't happen to have recorded runs of the PSX port would you? Been curious to see it.

....

I'm actually not sure what's dumb about that quoted bit from the rebuttal. Stoklosa is complaining that the scene relieves tension, Raynor responds with basically "that's the point!" I'll be the first to admit that there's probably some context I'm missing, since I don't remember the actual scene that well.

[Mischief Maker]

Even just skimming it through, it's a painfully stupid read.

That quote reminds me of this hilariously misogynistic interview of Louis CK where he goes off about how humor is about inflating and conflating something to a comedic level. Cutting down a joke by taking it literally is the easiest and most worthless thing you can do.

The Redlettermedia review made perfectly clear with the opening line, "The Phantom Menace is the most disappointing thing since my son," that its main purpose is to entertain with comedy and the serious film criticism portions are secondary. That's why he can go one minute discussing the visual storytelling techniques of the original Star Wars to hilariously point out the ineptitude of TPM's never-ending dribble of monotone exposition, the next minute saying, "What's wrong with your faaace???"

Taking the joke literally and saying, "You fool! The details of the pod race bet were perfectly clear if you'd paid attention, allow me to now explain the mechanics of the bet in clear detail..." is the most tedious and boring and worthless thing any human being could do...

...and I think I just figured out why he's such a huge fan of the Phantom Menace.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

You wouldn't happen to have recorded runs of the PSX port would you? Been curious to see it.

Nope, sorry, but there's video online of it.

The PSX Japanese versions are basically the original difficulty of the MS-DOS version (unlike the SNES version which has easy monsters in the second scenario for some reason, instead of high level monsters that expect you to have a level 13+ team imported, SNES also lets Thieves make hiding melee attacks from back row like in Wiz V). You can make them look pretty graphically but they also have options for oldschool wireframe + MS-DOS monster sprites in the options menu, as well as language options for both Japanese and English (same with the SNES Japanese version). You don't need a translation patch to play, set the game to the original English text and the only stuff that's in Japanese is easy to navigate like the save/load menu, or the PSX-specific monster bestiary/item collection logs you open up as you fight enemies and find stuff. The SNES version also has the option to change how Dumapic/Malor work, either via the easy overhead map view way, or the classic coordinate based system, which in addition to its changes on the enemy encounters in the second scenario, make the SNES port probably the easiest of any version. The PSX port's probably my fave version of Wizardry I/II/III, it's a lovely refined console port whose difficulty stays true to the original game.

altho I remember a lot of brute-forcing and pure luck being involved

The main issue with clearing the game is magic resistant enemies. Stuff like Giants and Greater Demons have 95% resistance (the final boss has 70%) so spells will almost never touch them, rendering your super awesome nukes like Tiltowait and Malikto effectively useless. In fact, tons of enemies on the last floor have ridiculous magic resistance % values, which really hurts considering offensive spells are damn effective against enemies normally, so the only non-luck based way of dealing with them is to use methods that aren't reliant on luck, i.e. use spells that ignore magic resistance. You've got the accuracy boosting Morlis and Mamorlis that makes enemies easier to hit, but with Greater Demons that can throw massively damaging spells or enemies that can behead you, the safe way is to finish it in one turn by having two people cast Haman - you're virtually guaranteed to get the instakill option that way, if not at least get Mute Enemies + Remove All Magic Resistance (which means you can then Tiltowait the shit out of whatever you're fighting without it getting resisted).

(and yeah, Wiz4 is nuts, no debate there. No surprise its only console port was for the PC Engine).

Actually, it had a PS1 port too. There's a number of uploaded videos of various endings for it (in Japanese). In addition to the compilation of the first three games, they also had a IV & V compilation called New Age of Llylgamyn (they may not have english language text settings though, not played it yet so I can't say for sure).

There were actually a whole bunch of Japanese Wizardry games released, including some Japanese-only releases (Empire on PS1, a few for Gameboy Color I think too?) as well as a Wonderswan version of the first Wizardry that seems to have a whole extra downloadable dungeon or something. Not sure if a console port of Wizardry VI was ever, but Wizardry VII got a wacky PS1 port (apparently Japanese language only) with all the portraits being made anime style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltlQfsqcIU4

And there's even an anime based on Wizardry I apparently. O_o

[Edmond Dantes]

Nope, sorry, but there's video online of it.

That... actually looks pretty fucking awesome.

The PSX Japanese versions are basically the original difficulty of the MS-DOS version (unlike the SNES version which has easy monsters in the second scenario for some reason, instead of high level monsters that expect you to have a level 13+ team imported, SNES also lets Thieves make hiding melee attacks from back row like in Wiz V).

From what I understand, the SNES version is based off the Famicom version, which had revised maps and monster levels because they anticipated people might buy Wizardry II first. Altho I remember also finding it annoying that the SNES version switches the order of scenarios II and III. Actually, I'm wondering if they fixed that in the PSOne versions?

While we're on the subject... is there any reason to prefer Wizardry Gold over the original Wizardry VII? I have both (thanks to the Ultimate Wizardry Archives) and after giving both a test-run, I honestly found Gold to be... kind of annoying. But I'm wondering if it has any significant improvements (IE new quests or otherwise new content, comparable to Might and Magic: World of Xeen) or if its just the same game with voice acting.

I'm not sure about the PSOne, but I heard that there was a Saturn compilation of Wizardry VI and VII.

There were actually a whole bunch of Japanese Wizardry games released, including some Japanese-only releases

Yeah, I'm aware. I honestly would just about pay money for someone to translate the four "Wizardry Gaiden" games (the first three being Gameboy, the fourth Super Famicom).

Tales of the Forsaken Land (Busin: Wizardry Alternative) is on my "must get" list.

Not sure if a console port of Wizardry VI was ever, but Wizardry VII got a wacky PS1 port (apparently Japanese language only) with all the portraits being made anime style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltlQfsqcIU4

And there's even an anime based on Wizardry I apparently. O_o

As I said earlier, I'm pretty sure VI was included in a compilation with VII at some point. There was also a Super Famicom version, tho from what I know of it there's no reason to prefer it over the PC version.

That PSOne version of VII... looks kinda ass to be honest. I dunno why, but somehow the way its done just feels wrong. I'm gonna look for a video that has music though, that might change my mind.

By the way, ever play the PC Engine version of Might and Magic?

EDIT: Re: the OVA... That answers one question. I was always confused by this bit in the Wizardry VII / Wizardry Gold manual (the part titled "Memory Lane") where the author briefly mentions that Wizardry inspired "a movie, a TV series" among other things. I guess this must be what he meant.

It's kinda odd that RPGs aren't usually subject matter for anime or movie adaptations, when a lot of them clearly have potential.

EDIT: It's also kinda odd that this OVA never got released stateside, considering that one of the co-creators of Wizardry (Robert Woodhead I believe) was also the chairman of AnimEigo, IE the company that brought us Bubblegum Crisis, Urusei Yatsura, and the first good DVD of Macross.

Taking the joke literally and saying, "You fool! The details of the pod race bet were perfectly clear if you'd paid attention, allow me to now explain the mechanics of the bet in clear detail..." is the most tedious and boring and worthless thing any human being could do...

...and I think I just figured out why he's such a huge fan of the Phantom Menace.

Pointing out again: Refuting a review is not the same as liking the thing being reviewed.

I mean, someone here pointed out that the Silver Surfer game isn't as hard as AVGN made it out to be, but that doesn't mean he's saying its good.

And actually, if I may say so, I find your premise flawed. Good comedy is based in truth. George Carlin didn't become a master by making shit up, he became a master by commenting on real things in a funny way.

If I may go on another tangent, there's an episode of Animaniacs that always annoyed me. It's this one about a bear hosting a garage sale. Part of the setup is that the bear is made out to be a greedy bastard... because he won't give refunds... at a GARAGE SALE. Even as a kid I found that situation utterly stupid, because only a douche would ask for a refund at a garage sale, and yet we're supposed to believe the bear is evil for something that goes against all real-life experiences and common knowledge. For that reason alone, the episode just isn't funny. In fact this is pretty representative of why I never liked that cartoon, even as a kid.

Likewise, with online reviewers, they often annoy me when they make jokes that are based in ignorance, misrepresentation, or... or just whatever. Nostalgia Critic's Sailor Moon review for example was so full of errors that it was hard to enjoy, and saying "it's meant to be funny" is pretty much a cop-out. You can't on one hand say its a good review that accurately summarizes the subject matter, then turn around and excuse its errors by saying its for the sake of comedy (indeed, this is yet another point that Jim Raynor already addressed in his opening statement).

Bottom line: Good comedy is based in truth, because truth is funny. Jokes about Rosie O'Donnell's girth are funny because she actually IS fat. If she were skinny and people still made fat jokes, they would all fall flat. Q.E.D.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Actually, I'm wondering if they fixed that in the PSOne versions?

The PS1 version is basically a port aimed at authenticity, so yes, the second scenario is the difficult one that's an expansion to the first with the third scenario being more of a standalone (you can import level 1 versions of old characters in I think).

While we're on the subject... is there any reason to prefer Wizardry Gold over the original Wizardry VII? I have both (thanks to the Ultimate Wizardry Archives) and after giving both a test-run, I honestly found Gold to be... kind of annoying. But I'm wondering if it has any significant improvements (IE new quests or otherwise new content, comparable to Might and Magic: World of Xeen) or if its just the same game with voice acting.

I only have the original CD-ROM version I got by chance at a bargain bin sale (I didn't really play it since I'd never heard of Wizardry before, it was too complex when I was younger to really get good at), but from what I've read, Wiz Gold is basically just a slightly altered version in terms of appearance. It plays the same, though it may have some more bugs or such.

By the way, ever play the PC Engine version of Might and Magic?

Nope. Literally the only PC Engine game I've played is Super Star Soldier.

Pointing out again: Refuting a review is not the same as liking the thing being reviewed.

The problem is he doesn't really refute the general premise of the review, that the plot is frankly shit and the characters are unlikeable shit. Many of the things he 'refutes' are attempts at being humorous or end up missing the point, like with the one I posted about how idiotic it is for major shield damage to be magically fixed by R2-D2 with his magic screwdriver and suddenly their shields are a-okay despite their shield generator supposedly being damaged to hell a few seconds ago (this happens in a lot of space movies for some reason, shields work however the plot wants them to?). And now with their shields they are able to fly through a major blockade that can't stop one small ship and oh god my head, fuck that plot.

He constantly missed the point of what the original review is complaining about in terms of lazy/shit plot writing, shit pacing, shit characterization, etc, to focus on nitpicky and largely unimportant details. Basically, his refutation is the epitome of the expression of not seeing the forest for the trees.

[Edmond Dantes]

I am glad to FINALLY see someone point out a legitimate fault with the refutation! Good going, Roo!

I think I used to have that particular budget release of Wiz7...

And so far this Wizardry OVA is looking damn sweet.

(Yeah, a topic about Star Wars is now officially about Wizardry. I like it like that)

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I am glad to FINALLY see someone point out a legitimate fault with the refutation! Good going, Roo!

You mean Skykid, right?

It's unnecessary to read any of his rant beyond the first two pages, which declare well-enough that he has no brain for genuine criticism and instead intends to nitpick and clumsily try to shoot holes in the details while failing to grasp the bigger picture.

Because literally all I did was re-iterate what he said earlier with an example.

Further to the shield generator thing: Plinkett: "If you'll notice though, after the shields are back up at maximum, they don't get hit again." Reviewer goes on to bitch and moan with 3 screencaps of oh look Plinkett is wrong, the ship does get hit by lasers, look at the ship rocking and flashing, of course it got hit... which of course completely misses the point that no, the ship does not sustain any further noteworthy damage after the shields are magically repaired in an instant despite still being under a barrage, because R2-D2 is the super bestest robot ever or something.

This sort of thing happens throughout this embarrassing document to the point where it's impossible to take this 'refutation' seriously as anything other than a fanboy's desperate attempt to protect and legitimize his obsession.

[Edmond Dantes]

It's not about who sets the foundation, Roo, its about who does something with it. Skykid's post set down the broad strokes but you gave it substance.

... By the way, for anyone who wants to see discussion (including Raynor himself responding to criticism) of this thing, here's the Stardestroyer topic where the document was originally announced. Unfortunately the Rapidshare link in the OP doesn't work, and most of page one has a lot of people agreeing with Raynor, but things get fun near the bottom when people start criticizing the rebuttal more.

Also just downlaoded the RLM review. Still wish I could find a download of this PDF. (why all the emphasis on downloads? Because I'm not in a circumstance where I can get online whenever I want so I like having things on my hard drive). Watching reviews and reading rebuttals is something I like to do when I'm cooking, an activity where I can't concentrate on much else.

[greg]

Lol that thing's real.

http://www.slashdocs.com/tnznp/red-lett ... idity.html

Epic nerdism.

Oh no. Here's what the guy says up front:

"I will be upfront about my opinion on TPM. I liked the movie, and consider it a worthy part of the Star Wars saga despite its flaws."

He can cram his rebuttal up his butt. He calls his efforts "geeky," but that is incorrect. Geeky is saying, "I like Star Wars." Coming up with a long dissertation about Star Wars is nerdy. I wrote one. Here it is, if anyone wants to read it. But coming up with a huge document that attempts to refute RLM's videos, line by line, is a bit far out there.

I wasn't aware of the Plinkett reviews until Skykid or somebody on here posted a link in a prior prequel discussion. Skykid or whoever it was has my deep gratitude. I have watched these reviews so many times. Coming up with a review that's longer than the actual movie does not bother me at all, because he dismantles it completely. If I write an essay of my interpretation of a poem, am I confined to writing something that must be shorter than the poem? Of course not. The reviews are great, although the whole serial killer tangents were a bit distracting. I watched the Star Trek reviews and they give a back story of the Plinkett character that builds up to the prequel reviews.

There are some things I didn't agree with in the Plinkett reviews. No, the Trade Federation guys aren't going to be just happy with trade, that's why they're blockading the planet to force Naboo to pay tariffs and such. Of course Palpatine is going to lead the Trade Federation guys to not get Amidala to sign the treaty. He couldn't care less about them, and is just using them as pawns to get what he wants. Yes, of course Qui Gonn knew all along that Padme is Amidala. That's why he baits her. (The acting sucks, but you can still see it. "The queen trusts my judgement; you should too," etc.

But overall, the analysis is great. TPM has no main character, and the main character of the prequel trilogy should have been Obi Wan. Qui Gonn should've been just a support character, as well as Anakin. The whole Palpatine story as it was told, was stupid. It kinda made sense, but it was weak as hell. George Lucas has tried to put Palpatine into some sort of Hitler guy. Hitler didn't come to power by duping everyone with some elaborate conspiracy. People followed Hitler because they believed he was what was best for Germany. He took a country that was in ruins after World War I and built it up into an economic superpower strong enough to take on half the world. My parents once met a couple who had lived in Germany and had been to the Hitler youth rallies as was expected of them. The advice given to them was to bite the insides of their cheeks so hard that the taste of blood would snap them out of the trance-like state everyone was in, and to prevent them from raising their hands. Hitler had that much power over people. People were mesmerized by him.

But in the prequels, Palpatine just tricks everyone. It's all a big practical joke. Plinkett shows how utterly weak and absurd it is. The effects of the war aren't even felt on Coruscant. Palpatine's rise to power could've been handled so much more convincingly than how it was shown. Anakin turning to the Dark Side could've been far more convincing, but he's just tricked into joining the Dark Side. He's an idiot. The Jedi are a bunch of dull, celibate, monotone babysnatchers who sit around on Ikea furniture all day mumbling to each other about how their use of the Force has become limited.

One part of the RLM reviews shows a montage of several dialogue scenes from the original trilogy, and you can instantly remember what exactly is being said in those scenes. Then it shows a montage of several dialogue scenes from the new movies, and hell if I could remember what was being said in each. And it's not like I didn't watch the movies enough, because I did. Over and over again, trying to convince myself that I liked them and that they'd grow on me. No dice.

Anyhow, here is my Star Wars rant. Read it. And I made a point to not just repeat everything said in the RLM reviews.

[Skykid]

It's not about who sets the foundation, Roo, its about who does something with it. Skykid's post set down the broad strokes but you gave it substance.

Rubbish. You're such a tool Dantes. You live up to your Youtube image and then some.

You always do this: stubbornly stand your ground on a basis of little else but ill-informed belligerence. I remember in a previous thread where you kept crowing "but examples, I want examples, give me examples" even though everyone had already perfectly justified a common-sense counter argument on a broader and more effective basis so as to render your nitpicking irrelevant.

Why don't you just admit you read posts with tainted views because Skyboy, and therefore lack an objective ability to digest the words in front of your eyes.

You're defending an internet speck who wasted his time on a monologue of super nerdiness, for no reason except you probably share some common ground. If you really want to read that shit, knock yourself out, but I'd recommend actually watching the fucking Plinkett reviews as an educational alternative.

[Mischief Maker]

The 5 Stages of Watching the Phantom Menace:

1. Denial

What are you talking about? It had light sabers, it had droids, it had 'splosions. It's a Star Wars movie! What more could you want?

2. Anger

Only NEEEEERDS got pissed that the Force was revealed to be a bacterial infection!

3. Bargaining

C'mon! Return of the Jedi had Ewoks. Were the original movies really any better?

4. Depression

Might as well watch the prequels because the bar's been set so low, nobody is gonig to make original action movies with decent writing ever again.

5. Acceptance

These prequels suck and I'm not going to waste a single minute of my life watching them ever again. Let's go watch that new movie "Prometheus!"

[BryanM]

A nitpicky nerd vid on the originals, has some nice bits in it.

TPM has no main character

You can make a pretty strong argument that it's Jar Jar. Seems to have the most screen time, and is the only thing on screen that has anything approaching a soul.

The story is basically just about some random dude who wanders onto the scene after getting high somewhere offscreen, and the movie is about him slowly coming down from it and becoming sober.

It's possible that everything's so fucked up since we're seeing things from his distorted, drug-influenced point of view. The queen never thanked a trash can because there was never a blockade to begin with. The asspull victories in combat by "mistake" were just a delusional fantasy of his baked little mind.

C'mon! Return of the Jedi had Ewoks. Were the original movies really any better?

Not that much better. Obi-Wan lets himself get murdered so he could transform into a ghost and whisper to the dreamy farmboy "Shoot the thing in the hole. If you shoot the thing into the hole, then you will win." Thanks a lot. Maybe you could have put a hole into Vader instead and then we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with, eh?

And the recycled plot.

"Let's destroy the Death Star."
"... I feel like we just did that 20 minutes ago."

It's a bunch of pretty action set pieces, nothing more. The quality of each of these movies is measured by how often a plodding segway scene is used - cut them out from the prequels and it's all the same kind of stuff; Empire is the only one with any depth of plot and character at all.

If someone felt as much empathy for C3PO or Luke as they do for John's angry stepparents who got 3 minutes of screen time in Terminator 2, that would be a little odd.

[greg]

It's possible that everything's so fucked up since we're seeing things from his distorted, drug-influenced point of view. The queen never thanked a trash can because there was never a blockade to begin with.

The Rifftrax commentaries are the only reason why I haven't tossed out my prequel DVDs. When Padaka or whatever his name is is praising R2-D2 in front of the queen, the Rifftrax guy (forget which one) says, "We also have a photocopier that saves us $35 a month!"

There really wasn't a blockade to begin with. One ship went right through the "blockade" while being constantly pelted by laser fire, which had really no effect on the ship until suddenly the shield generator was hit. Then suddenly all the lasers are no longer scoring direct hits and only hitting the droids. Then once the shield generator was back up, then there is no longer any threat whatsoever, and the ship even flies right past the enemy ship. Then at the end of the movie, they inexplicably packed up and went home, leaving only one ship there. Maybe it's because they didn't want to make the blockade obvious or something. Maybe I'm giving it too much credit.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I just realized that Anakin's whole motivation for going evil would be rendered meaningless if he hadn't been too stupid to think of suggesting Padmé get an abortion. Even if by 'force', lol, also do Jedi have a thing against contraceptives?

"ohnoes babe, u die from babies, let's just adopt" /happilyeverafter

Watched the Plinkett reviews, the ones of the second and third prequels are even better at pointing out how shit the cinematography is in the prequels. George Lucas really is a terrible director and his early movies only were good because he wasn't given free reign to fuck it up with his incompetence.

[Ed Oscuro]

That's the thing that makes me most disappointed in the Phantom Menace (and its fans).

You take an original movie which was just developed enough that people (including fans) could run with it and expand it in interesting ways, or just daydream. Tatooine is not really an impressive concept, but the sketch is more important than the details. It's like classic-school horror, which gets a lot of mileage out of rustling curtains and noises from another room. Too many vivid shots and you've destroyed the role of the imagination.

So then Lucas suddenly finds himself on top of a media empire, invested with the power and money to determine the ultimate fate of work critically refined by other people also, and then he decides (or doesn't realize) that there is value in delegating decisions and letting other people be the experts.

The point that kills me is this: The 'explanations' the prequels are so heavy on fail the laugh test. Accepting things in the SW franchise at face value is a long-established tradition in the fandom, but you can't totally destroy the suspension of disbelief with halfassed concoctions. Roo mentions the abortion out - well, then how about the idea that with the Force, and ridiculously advanced technology, and clone technology being a real thing, that there is absolutely no reason we'd expect a healthy young woman (with loads of money and options) should die in childbirth? Lucas didn't know what genre he was in anymore. Is this Tolkien fantasy? Is it hard science-fiction (it seems a lot of hard sci-fi minded, but pulp, authors made their hay writing the Expanded Franchise)? Or is it a musical? Back in 1935, The Phantom Empire pulled it all off, more or less, but in large part because it didn't take itself too seriously. In fact: "The idea for the plot came to writer Wallace McDonald when he was under gas having a tooth extracted." (Teh Wiki.) How much gas was Lucas under when he thought that his ideas and general enthusiastic floundering around in aspects of the creative process he wasn't that good at were good?

Not that much better. Obi-Wan lets himself get murdered so he could transform into a ghost and whisper to the dreamy farmboy "Shoot the thing in the hole. If you shoot the thing into the hole, then you will win." Thanks a lot. Maybe you could have put a hole into Vader instead and then we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with, eh?

That's good - very good! Still, I think there's a difference between having to connect the dots yourself, and still have recourse to say "well, it's some mystical bullshit I don't get," and then have Lucas yelling directly into your ear what the correct reading is, which makes it basically impossible to escape the dumb.

[BryanM]

I'd agree to that. To linger and prolong the weakest parts of the originals (the exposition and segway sequences) was a losing proposition. Like having vast parts of a Matrix movie not set inside the matrix, or a Godzilla flick with human vs human sequences.

That all wraps back around that the premise of prequels was terrible to begin with. If it had started with Darth Plagueis in film one, with Anakin only showing up toward the end of the trilogy, that could have been tenable. But at the end of the day no one much cares how Vader became Vader, they just wanted a new pulp adventure series.

On that note, I keep thinking there's going to be a new Remo Williams movie, but it never seems to show up...

[Skykid]

I like that one part where Anakin sends Padme over a CG apple and then has a wet dream about his mom.

Playah.

[BryanM]

Guess that kind of thing must run in the family.

[CMoon]

C'mon! Return of the Jedi had Ewoks. Were the original movies really any better?

Gotta say the real problems with ANH is the lack of pay off in RotJ. I'd hope at this late point in the game we can accept that RotJ isn't a very good film. Not the hollow piece of shit that the prequels are (better not to speak of them), but an an utter failure as a conclusion to what was up to that point a damn fine attempt at a trilogy. Now we have RotJ: Where's the depth? Where's the sacrifice? Wasn't Han supposed to die in Jedi? What happened to the planet of wookies? Vader repents at the end??? A seriously missed opportunity for cinema, but not for Lucas's toy franchise.

In post mortem: ANH had some amazing ideas, imagery and accessibility for a mid 70's film; how much Lucas himself is responsible for, I have no idea. Empire is a few notches up the ladder and easily belongs on a 100 greatest american films list, but Lucas didn't direct it. What does the rest of Lucas's career tell us? Honestly I've thought the guy was a very lucky hack since my high school years. The prequels weren't so much a surprise but a reaffirmation.

[Ed Oscuro]

I always thought RotJ was fine as more escapist fun, a total scene change from the previous films.

I know a lot of people like their continuing stories, and indeed that's one of the things that Lucas should have paid more attention to as it was an art well-developed in the classic b&w serials he adores.

But personally I don't care about it. I see a film through its running length - I'm OK with that being the end. You can throw the same characters into a different situation and I'm fine. I think "the story" and "consistency" are two of the worst things to have dictating what you are doing with film. It's supposed to be fun, damnit, not an exact history.

Edit: A note about Lucas: George Lucas is an astute historian of film, a great editor (or, at least, he once was!) with a well-known focus on technical aspects rather than emotional drama (the things that a film, and a director, need to have in large quantities to be complete). In 1988, he appeared before Congress to urge the enactment of laws to protect films as a common cultural heritage, rather than the sole property and plaything of rights owners. I think that was perhaps not a visionary thing to say, but in this era it is as relevant as ever. However, somewhere down the line, things changed.

Further tangent: How he allowed Lucasarts to thrive, at the same time that he allowed it to be stifled, is an amazing story of its own. Possibly the critical part of that story is that he was manipulated by his staff (there's been some discussion on that front in the wake of the recent collapse of Lucasarts). Not allowing the Lucasarts staff to work on SW projects seems breathtakingly idiotic, but then again, I am much happier that the staff was forced to find their own inner voices instead.

Love him or lump him, George Lucas represented the same kind of moment that Walt Disney did. But while we might say that Disney was far more capable of directing a workplace ethic that persisted after his death, it needs to be said that both men represented a point where society's fascinations crystallized and one person was given, for better or worse, much of the attention. Quite reasonably we can either say that we should cherish the good in such a system - or we could say that, like monarchies, the potential for disaster outweighs any branding convenience of having one person dictating the creative lives of so many others. "Too Big To Direct."

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Gotta say the real problems with ANH is the lack of pay off in RotJ. I'd hope at this late point in the game we can accept that RotJ isn't a very good film.

None of them are really good movies as far as writing goes. They're memorable for their visuals and the occasional scene, but not for the overarching plot or slick writing. The first movie is a generic kid gets thrust into saving princesses with a ragtag band of heroes, second movie is spent mostly running from the empire while Luke goes off to Sesame Street to chill out spiritually with Grover, and RoTJ is about rescuing princess Han from an obese slug that sexy stripper Leia strangles before going off to hang out with midget teddy bear people while Luke gets over his daddy issues. Nothing is really explored in terms of Vader's motivations or feelings on being part of the dark side (there's that bizarre scene in Empire when Luke goes into the cave, wasted opportunity), we're supposed to assume that because the emperor is dead that the whole empire's been stopped (isn't the empire supposed to have vast galactic control, not just a few battleships?) and Leia as a possible Jedi gets briefly mentioned (cause it's in her blood) then never to be explored again. Does Luke go on to rebuild the Jedi? Does anyone ever give a shit about furries with bandoliers and speech impediments? Seriously, the characterization is supremely thin, we're never even sure how a hidden, separated orphaned Leia is supposed to be a princess (great way to make her a target), but this is what you get when you get script writers making up shit as they go to try and flesh out scarecrows.

The original trilogy were adventure flicks that were entertaining because they kept up a brisk pace and had great visuals, but the writing was never really deep by any means. There was never any real hope of a payoff in RotJ because none of the plot groundwork needed to have a satisfying payoff was laid at any point, so there was no hope of having the last movie be little more than an action flick about defeating the emperor and saving the midget teddy bears. There was no way Vader would ever say reconcile with Luke and turn good again, because his motivation for being evil is basically "cause I like black and I was too dumb to get my wife an abortion", we literally know nothing in the original trilogy about how or why he became evil, and all we're ever really told by Grover and dead old dude is that he turned evil at some point and he had his kids hidden from him by Jedi Protective Services. The only meaningful connection to Luke he has is that he's Luke's biological dad which is why Luke surrendering to try and win daddy dearest back to good comes as flat because all he can say is "well I know you're still good inside!". Then come the prequels which try, and fail miserably, to flesh things out interestingly and only end up making it worse by making Anakin a brat with severe emotional issues and Padmé a whore with a fetish for boys who qualify as damaged goods.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think we've gone seriously off the rails if we're suggesting that the moviewatching public, or George Lucas, should have really wanted a deep insight into the motives of a genocidal maniac. No, rather the problem is that Lucas (and some of his fans) thought it wise to try to explain Vader at all. Some character types don't deserve or warrant an explanation. Vader can be as much of a presence on the screen while still ultimately being worthless garbage, in translated-to-real-people-but-why-would-you-do-that-seriously terms. Thought must be given to the attention span and emotions of even the most intelligent and dedicated viewer: The original Star Wars trilogy might not have aimed very high in some areas, but they mostly hit the mark on the areas that counted - I don't fault anybody for thinking that an enjoyable spectacle ranks higher than understanding the Dracula of the franchise.

I don't think the writing is problematic when it just aims for the reasonable assertion that there is bad, good, and often a chaotic relationship between the two - bad things can happen to good people; Skywalker didn't need any fault, and Vader's own attempt at redemption surely could have been handled better, but let's not forget either how vivid some moments from that relationship have become in consumer culture. Rather, the inability to just let go of the notion that obvious stereotypes need to be something more than stereotypes causes a proliferation of useless cares.

Some of the messages that get put out there about the films' supposed lack of reasonable writing don't hit the mark, either. Poor characterization? It's Star Wars, not a Hercule Poirot mystery - and I find that Suchet's filmed adaptations of the Belgian detective are often best when at their most whimsical - and despite the protestations about the "psychology," the characters have always served as entertaining vehicles for skewering the British upper classes, even in the recent "moody" series. Speaking of parody, where did Alec Guinness come off calling the series garbage, after his own early experiment in excessive scenery-chewing (partial transgenderism, but that's cool!) as a series of extraordinarily thin and mostly unlovable aristocratic stereotypes in "Kind Hearts and Coronets?" Perhaps he wouldn't have called that his best film either - but come on, there's crap all over. It's like that quote about Laurence Olivier bitching because he didn't cure cancer - hey, you're an actor, and a person; nobody controls their own destiny alone and entirely. Kind Hearts also broke some new ground in the area of forced directorial cuts (at the behest of the studio, in this case, though) cover the entire range of possibilities for the ending - sending the film's tone from darkly moralistic, smack-upside-the-head "how could we miss this?!" to cheerfully celebrating a little thing like a whole spate of murders, and further alternate endings cover a few shades inbetween. It frankly makes "Greedo shoots first" look like a simple matter.

Inability to emotionally connect with Muppets a problem? Well, apparently nobody told that to Jim Henson, whose wildly ambitious Dark Crystal turned out to be nothing much more than a collection of song-and-dance routines peppered over a collection of moody set pieces - still a great film though. It's a different focus than Star Wars - but ultimately some of the same fundamental design (although I am ready to grant that more of these choices were deliberate in The Dark Crystal, I have yet to go back and finish the film after one of the vultures has decided to convince the heroes that he's really undergoing a true face turn - don't judge a book by its cover and all that).

At some point I think we have to accept that one or two poorly-thought-out character motivations and you've probably sunk your chances of really making the characterizations interesting enough to carry a movie, and at the same time you've killed all the buzz because you're thinking about all those dead space people. Not much payback for the investment really. From a purely logical standpoint, it would seem good to strive to perfect everything about a screenplay as far as possible - but in reality it's probably not a desirable thing even if you could pull it off as some elements of what can be called "exceptional writing" are probably incompatible with other quality goals for a production. People have written some absolutely stunning things about a stroll through Dublin, or somebody just sitting in a chair - I think there's something to be said about getting your marketing right. Are we doing The Tell-Tale Heart, or are we doing a grand spectacle? There's Shakespearean musings by villains, and then there's "Let off some steam, Bennett," and when Arnold did Shakespeare, well...

[Skykid]

In defence of the original SW series, it's important to recognise that in the grand scheme of movies up to 1977, Lucas managed to establish a commercial style utilising sound, editing and visual effects that was assimilated by Hollywood and remains largely in-effect to this day.

If you look at movies of the 1970's, films like Straw Dogs, The Wicker Man and Dirty Harry, Star Wars came at the end of a very experimental decade. The 70's was full of shit, but was respectably challenging for the Hollywood system: but Star Wars established the 'blockbuster' template it was looking for.

To that end, I think they have a deserved place in cinematic evolution, for better or worse. When I watch them even today, I'm still impressed with how modern they are from a technical perspective: pacing, visuals, and general assembly.

The reason they're so enduringly popular beyond this, is of course strength of concept. They may have plucked plenty from 50's TV serials, but they still established an original fantasy vernacular as strong as anything Tolkien came up with, in a completely different setting.

There's a lot of grandeur in those films, and I disagree with anyone who says Empire isn't a very well-handled movie. Kirshner managed a little poetry with the material on offer. I think BryanM is right to call nostalgia, but wrong in his assessment of the trilogy's overall quality.

The prequels are, as Plinkett outlines so clearly, shit films through and through. There's absolutely nothing more worth saying about them, and any in-depth discussion on 'why they're so bad' is a waste of all our time - which is why it's so easy to laugh at dimwits who concoct lengthy essays that search desperately for virtues.

[Ed Oscuro]

They may have plucked plenty from 50's TV serials

Make that '30s singing-cowboy-and-sci-fi film serials

Agree with your general points completely, of course.

[Obiwanshinobi]

the most intelligent and dedicated viewer

Who could that be?

[CMoon]

Gotta say the real problems with ANH is the lack of pay off in RotJ. I'd hope at this late point in the game we can accept that RotJ isn't a very good film.

None of them are really good movies as far as writing goes. They're memorable for their visuals and the occasional scene, but not for the overarching plot or slick writing.

I think good writing doesn't have to be incredibly deep or grand. The first two Star Wars films give us just enough for us to imagine a world around them and the same is true of the characters. It really depends on what genre you are working with--the efficacy of the writing really depends on the type of story you're trying to tell.

I don't think Star Wars needs a lot of emotional depth or characterization; I don't really need to understand anything about Darth Vader other than he is the bad guy. Consider The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: The only well defined character is Tuco, the others barely have names and beyond Angel Eyes clearly being 'bad', we don't really need to know anything else. In fact, we probably relate more to the characters in films like these because we know less about them.