TheBoost said:
twooffour said:
... ...
Uuuhm.. Boost... did you even read what I wrote to you? I understand you left most of it out and replaced it with a "..." for clarity purposes, but does the "..." actually stand for "tldr" again? Why the heck did I just waste half a page on you??
Now, if you read between the lines there, he's just ridiculing this lack of exposition and the inexplicable "power reactor" that just pops up in the palace. Playing additionally dumb on an already threadbare, lazy plot, is an effective and obvious ironic device.
I've read your posts.
Primarily, I disagree that a lengthy, poorly done, and unfunny review deserves my hard work to 'interpret' and 'read between the lines' and what he might mean. I did my time doing that with Melville in college. If RLM wants me to notice that the Jedi are dressed the same as moisture farmers (I already did) then he shouldn't say dumb shit like 'how did the robot know they were Jedi?'
Inventing stupid things to complain about is not a brilliant rhetorical device with biting irony and satire worthy of Oscar Wilde. It's just inventing stupid things to complain about.
And in a movie that has faster-than-light travel, magic powers, a planet covered with a giant city, a large "power reactor" (is that what that is?) under the city doesn't seem that odd, let alone "inexplicable." Why are there bottomless pits in the Death Star and Cloud City? Death Star doesn't even have rails!
Point is, the fact we even have to "figure anything out ourselves" (which, in this case, translates to "guess the script for the scriptwriter"), is the movie's flaw.
So I'm supposed to stay up all night trying to decode what RLM's reviews mean, but watching this movie nothing can be implied, it all must be (wait for it) SPELLED OUT TO ME?
Lets take a look at what's implied but not stated in the OT.
- Ben lives near Luke to look out for his friends son.
- Boba Fett guessed where Han was going and beat him there.
- The Death Star can't blow up the gas giant Yavin.
- Mon Mothma is a leader in the Rebellion
- Long-Nose in Mos Eisley probably got paid for selling out the heroes.
In 33 years has anyone ever asked "Why did Long-Nose guy sell out the heroes? Why wasn't his relationship with the stormtroopers more clearly defined?"
Could you honestly not figure out why the TF would want an investigation sent to Naboo by the Senate?
I actually don't even remember if I ever brought that up. Where did I say that?
Just something else RLM said, I assumed you agreed with. One of the 800 ridiculous points he raised.
If you mean the motivations of the main villains and the sense behind the whole plot of the movie, then, um, no, it's actually one of the FUNDAMENTAL flaws of this movie.
Lets pretend for a moment that the motivations of the villains aren't perfectly clear in every respect. Let's say that it's not explicitly stated in the movie (which it is) that the cowardly TF made a bargain with the shadowy Sidious to blockade and invade Naboo. Lets pretend that we don't plainly see that it directly results in Palpy/Sidy increasing his own political power and also that we have no idea what possible benefit the TF could get from being allied with a powerful politician.
Seriously, if there were that 20 seconds of dialogue where Sidy says something like "As you know Nute, we had agreed previously that if you use this blockade, which is effective since much of Naboo's economy is based on exporting wheat, as a ruse to invade and deliver this signed treaty, I will use it to promote my own political goals, secret to you along with my identity, but I will arrange the lifting of the taxes you find so objectionable and help you in other ways. Anyways, here is my apprentice Darth Maul." (info I and an 8 year old understood through implication) you think this would have suddenly been a FUNDAMENTALLY better movie? You would have been FUNDAMENTALLY more satisfied? Would one person in the whole world have actually liked TPM better because of it?
Primarily, I disagree that a lengthy, poorly done, and unfunny review deserves my hard work to 'interpret' and 'read between the lines' and what he might mean.
Lengthy - what did you just say about this site? ;) Irrelevant.
Poorly done - yet to QED. Irrelevant.
I don't give a scratching screw if you find the review "unfunny" - finding something unfunny doesn't prevent one from recognizing an attempt at humour and where it aims / what it can possibly entail between the lines. And by this kind of interpretation, I don't mean GUESSING a meaning for it to make sense, I mean look at the actual statement/joke and deduce from it the single, or few possible interpretations.
In a review that's clearly meant comedic and is full of snarky exaggerations, taking everything stubbornly at face value is completely absurd - if anything, you can take single parts and treat them both at face value and with a grain of salt, if the case isn't clear.
For example, when he bitches about kids in movies, and ho no one likes them and they're the kiss of death for every movie (while listing Charlie from the chocolate factory in an earlier positive example), you're left to choose whether it's a genuinely stupid statement that contradicts a previous point, or a tongue-in-cheek snarky remark that clearly stems from the fact that this particular kid happens to be superfluous and annoying. This is one of the clear cases for the latter, as far as I'm concerned.
As for whether it deserves your "hard work", well, you know, if you're gonna criticize it on an open forum and get involved in discussions, then, uh dunno, YES.
Ultimately, I know quite a few people in RL (and outside of it) who don't give a flying fuck about Star Wars, and wouldn't waste two seconds debating about those old "campy" space battle films, let alone some stupid review of those. Thing is, they also won't get involved in discussions about 'em ;)
I did my time doing that with Melville in college.
An Olympic champion who enters Special Olympics and loses, still loses the Special Olympics. If you can't be bothered applying thought here, go back to analysing serious works of classical literature.
Inventing stupid things to complain about is not a brilliant rhetorical device with biting irony and satire worthy of Oscar Wilde.
Don't know Oscar Wilde, but inferior irony is still irony.
Some people will say "Star Wars ain't the Godfather", so might as well just drop all debates and start drooling over lightsabers and dark helmets. Why are you even on this board? Isn't all this campy stuff kinda below? :p
If RLM wants me to notice that the Jedi are dressed the same as moisture farmers (I already did) then he shouldn't say dumb shit like 'how did the robot know they were Jedi?'
Actually, he says that. "Even though every character wears robes in Star Wars" (cut to Owen, Jawas, the blue nose guy etc.).
Then he says "maybe it's not a disguise but whatever" - either he's weaseling out of his point because he realizes the Jedi actually weren't disguising themselves as they put down their hoods pretty quick... or he makes fun of how the Jedi put down their hoods as soon as the robot leaves after entering all hooded, and then don't bother putting it up again even though the robot comes back, making the whole thing with the dramatic face reveal pretty nonsensical and silly. If it's gonna be irony and tongue-in-cheek and reading inbetween lines, this is about the ONLY obvious reading there is.
Oh and yea, the robot couldn't know they were Jedi, and they also didn't flash her with their lightsabers contrary to what you had suggested, so his point still stands :D
And in a movie that has faster-than-light travel, magic powers, a planet covered with a giant city, a large "power reactor" (is that what that is?) under the city doesn't seem that odd, let alone "inexplicable."
That power reactor or whatever isn't exactly unbelievable in that place, and RLM never even hints at it being so. It does, however, severely feel like it's been shoehorned into the movie for stylistic purposes, and while it fit perfectly into the "space station" setting in the previous movies, here it almost felt like they had entered some space ship from that palace door.
It's a minor stylistic thing, and is addressed correspondingly marginally in the review. With a few ironic remarks, not nitpicking or actual criticism.
Having that said, in the review, mentioning it along with the Naboo's needs didn't seem consequent or meaningful to me. Think they did it without any further thought.
So I'm supposed to stay up all night trying to decode what RLM's reviews mean, but watching this movie nothing can be implied, it all must be (wait for it) SPELLED OUT TO ME?
Actually, the review spells it out to you - the problem is that the movie doesn't tell us anything.
After delving into some baseless theorizing, he retreats and says "point is, I'm still not sure what they donut ships are here to do. And don't tell me it's been better explained ..."
About the TF's motivations: "oh, we're never told, are we" "I understand that Palpatine basically used the Traders (he calls them Shatnerians for some reason... do they speak like Shatner??) to advance himself politically... but the blockade and subsequent invasion are THE ENTIRE MOVIE! Understanding [...] is important." Yea, he spells it out for you as clearly as possible. No "playing dumb", no "searching for problems".
In 33 years has anyone ever asked "Why did Long-Nose guy sell out the heroes? Why wasn't his relationship with the stormtroopers more clearly defined?"
No one ever said the OT didn't have its own fair share of plot holes, contrived coincidences and expository flaws.
Having that said, the OT has been dissected and made fun of for 33 years, so I'm pretty sure that long nose guy got his fair share, as well ;)
EDIT: That, and there's a vast difference between some hired dude that does something for 3 minutes in a movie never to be seen again (with whom, in fact, it's not known whether it was a one-time job, or he was on their payroll, or they threatened his family, or whatever else - basically, "the Empire has eyes everywhere", just like real-life dictatorships and archetypal examples) and an important player in the ENTIRE PLOT OF THE TRILOGY, who constitutes the CENTER OF THE FIRST MOVIE, with whom we don't even know if it's a one-time job, a stage in a long collaboration, what they want, etc...
In one case, it's a briefly included scene that fits into a recognizeable archetype and has a clear place in the story, in the other, it's the central part of Lucas' ambition to write an interesting (and supposedly "complex") story about how the Empire we know from the OT came about through intrigue and exploitation of corporate greed and political interests rather as opposed to a simpler scenario of old cackling Emperor coming from beyond teh space and subjugating the free world.
Minor lacking exposition about an extra vs. entire movie plot consisting of nothing but cliff notes = see no difference??!
Actually, you've pulled the same thing before by bringing up the "blockade runner"'s pretense mission, and were corrected by another user who explained to you exactly why it wasn't a valid comparison for more than one reason (I can think of three such reasons).
The fact you're still trying it is either a transparently disingenuous move, or proof that you're not learning from your debates. Which kinda amounts to... PLAYING DUMB.
Just something else RLM said, I assumed you agreed with. One of the 800 ridiculous points he raised.
You're probably referring to him complaining about VALORUM agreeing with the TFs. Which I've already ADRESSED IN MY PREVIOUS POINT.
Respond to it, or leave it.
Let's say that it's not explicitly stated in the movie (which it is) that the cowardly TF made a bargain with the shadowy Sidious to blockade and invade Naboo.
So congratulations you've actually NOT been reading my posts.
Um no, those cliff notes are obvious in the movie, and clearly acknowledged by RLM. They are also THE ONLY THING WE GET.
Lets pretend that we don't plainly see that it directly results in Palpy/Sidy increasing his own political power
Actually, RLM addresses it - twice :DDDDD
Well actually, at least three times :PPPPPP
and also that we have no idea what possible benefit the TF could get from being allied with a powerful politician.
That's one of the numorous mistakes RLM does in that review - he says "he couldn't have promised them political favours, because that'd give away who he is". In the movie, he mentions to them several times how he's gonna influence the senate or whatever, so the possibility of political favours is, in fact, a possibility.
Having that said, we don't actually know whether they actually wanted political favours from him, or they just asked him for help with their own crisis, or he even threatened them with his political influence. Or they were collaborating on some larger scheme. The movies DOESN'T TELL US, and we're left guessing around these completely contradictory possibilities. I'VE SAID THAT NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY.
Don't tell me you're reading my posts if you don't.
Seriously, if there were that 20 seconds of dialogue where Sidy says something like "As you know Nute, we had agreed previously that if you use this blockade, which is effective since much of Naboo's economy is based on exporting wheat, as a ruse to invade and deliver this signed treaty, I will use it to promote my own political goals, secret to you along with my identity, but I will arrange the lifting of the taxes you find so objectionable and help you in other ways. Anyways, here is my apprentice Darth Maul." (info I and an 8 year old understood through implication) you think this would have suddenly been a FUNDAMENTALLY better movie? You would have been FUNDAMENTALLY more satisfied? Would one person in the whole world have actually liked TPM better because of it?
That'd be a start, but would still get lots of flak for being cheesy, shoehorned infodump, had it been done THIS way. Had this sort of info (save for the wheat) been organically distributed through the movie, it'd certainly be better.
Showing how the Separatists arised, and whether they are a completely separate ploy from the TF crisis or there's some connection apart from the toad guys and Palpy, would be a start for the sequels. Once again, WE'RE LEFT WITH NOTHING.
Now if you had read my posts, as you're professing to have done (yet obviously haven't), you would know that what you've described above is just ONE of many possibilities (in fact, you just contradicted yourself, because earlier you said something about them doing the whole thing to profit from his influence, and now it's just resolving their tax issue), and what you and that kid thought you had "understood", by "implication", you had actually, literally GUESSED FOR THE SCRIPT. There is literally nothing in the lines said that point to one possibility over another, and all we really get is that "Sidious manipulates TFs". That's it.
Having that said, Plinkett didn't address the worst plot hole: PALPATINE COULD'VE WAITED UNTIL VALORUM'S TERM EXPIRATION. Oh wait, I guess since we don't know how long the chancellors' terms are (nothing in TPM, implied 10+ years in AOTC, Palpatine suspiciously staying after term expires in ROTS... whatever).
If they had to do a movie about some marginal, kinda unrelated ploy by Palpatine to get elected in place of Valorum, the question is why they aimed at some specific period in Valorum's... 10 year term? where it had been enough years since election, and yet enough years until re-election? Why couldn't Palpatine do it like 4 years ago? Why did the movie make him have to do the whole convoluted Naboo crisis thing AT THAT POINT?
Just another proof that Lucas really didn't think shit through. The entire plot of TPM and its "crisis" hangs on a paperthin connection to the following movies, being a kind of "prologue" to the "actual plot", and even that connection is severely hampered by suck.
