SW blu-rays have changes to the films again

[CorporalCaptain]

No, sorry. One-half times zero equals zero. [/nerd]

 

[TremblingBluStar]

I have two kids, an 11-year-old boy and an 8-year-old girl, and they have absolutely no love for JarJar. They don't hate him, they're just "meh" about him. They hardly ever watch TPM, but they watch the other five flicks (and the Clone Wars 'toons, both drawn and CG versions) all the time. Interestingly enough, while they have no love for JarJar, they find all the antics of the droids and the Ewoks to be hilarious. Go figure.

Yeah. My son was seven when Clones came out, and I took him to see it in the theater. He liked the light saber fights, and was pretty hyped up about them for the rest of the day, but he didn't become a huge Star Wars fanatic, and has no desire to see the film again.

I'd love to see a scientific analysis of how much the prequels impacted kids compared to the originals. I'd wager that they had very little impact compared to Power Rangers, Pokemon, or whatever else was popular at that time.

I work in schools right now. I saw one kid with a Darth Vader backpack, and when I asked him where that was from he said Star Wars. He's the only one I've seen with Star Wars related clothing in the two years I've been at that school.

It's so common that you have yet to produce a single one made by Red Letter Media about the Phantom Menace.

Put up or shut up.

This argument is quickly approaching the point of diminishing returns.

 

[Guartho]

This argument is quickly approaching the point of diminishing returns.

Yep. He's continuing to refuse to either put up or shut up so I guess I'll just be the one to shut up. If Set Harth wants to post one of the many obvious lies I'll cop to it if it's legit. (After all, I only asked for proof. I didn't start saying he was wrong until the proof persisted in its absence.) Otherwise I consider the argument over.

 

[Professor Zoom]

This argument is quickly approaching the point of diminishing returns.

Yep. He's continuing to refuse to either put up or shut up so I guess I'll just be the one to shut up. If Set Harth wants to post one of the many obvious lies I'll cop to it if it's legit. (After all, I only asked for proof. I didn't start saying he was wrong until the proof persisted in its absence.) Otherwise I consider the argument over.

Don't give up! Never surrender!

 

[OsmiumJohnnycake]

I've never watched more than a couple minutes of the RLM reviews (found it pretty irritating right off the bat, so I stopped) but this conversation about a document that one party has read and claims lists lies by RLM in his reviews and another party (or more) has only read a portion of and said they didn't see anything has finally made me break down and go look at the document if for no other reason than to stop the "show me"/"look for yourself" exchange which is threatening to be longer than the pdf in question.

So I skimmed a bunch of the PDF. Haven't even watched TPM in awhile, so I can't vouch for accuracy, but it does seem like a lot of the lies Raynor uncovers are exaggerations. But mostly it comes across like a person showing where the RLM review is focused on sometimes misleading jabs in the service of making the movie look dumb. And there are some things RLM states in a clear way that Raynor goes on to point out as inaccurate (again, I haven't seen the movie in awhile, but I assume this is the sort of thing that the "show me one example" people are looking for).

So here's one example (there are screenshots in the review that I have replaced with the word SCREENSHOT because I'm assuming the text will be enough):

5:46

Plinkett: "So anyways, R2-D2 sticks a thing in a thing and fixes the shield generator. Then the [pilot] says 'Deflector shields up at maximum.' Okay, so that suddenly relieves all the tension in the scene, and allows them to escape the blockade."

Uh, yeah, it was SUPPOSED to relieve the tension in the scene, seeing as how the heroes' Naboo ship escaped the blockade just seconds after the pilot says that. It was a triumphant statement to indicate that they had gotten past that obstacle.

6:00

Plinkett: "If you'll notice though, after the shields are back up at maximum, they don't get hit again. So really, R2 fixing the shield generator did nothing at all. Ma-Maybe it gave them the confidence to escape?"

I actually let this statement slide the first time I saw this part of the review. Then I decided to check the actual movie for verification. Unsurprisingly, Stoklasa is making things up once again. This is a screenshot of the shield generator's power display, right after R2 makes his repairs:

SCREENSHOT

It turns from red to green, clearly indicating that power has been restored. As the pilot says, "Power's back!" After that, the movie switches to show the cockpit window:

SCREENSHOT

As you can see, a laser makes a direct hit on the window, lighting up the cockpit. Seconds later, the cockpit is struck again by another laser:

SCREENSHOT

Here is a shot right after the pilot declares "Deflector shields up at maximum."

SCREENSHOT

A moment later, we hear a crashing sound, the ship rocks, and we see the cockpit lighting up again from yet another laser hit:

SCREENSHOT

But yeah, R2 really did nothing, according to Stoklasa's sloppy, dishonest analysis of this scene. He tries to present himself as an insightful person, but apparently he couldn't be bothered to observe what actually happened in the movie before opening his mouth and attempting to nitpick the visuals.

And you want to know what else is pathetic about this portion of his review? All of the above screenshots can be found in the same exact clips that Stoklasa used for this part of his review. Visuals from his own review directly shoot down what he's saying.

This is the kind of crap that he gets away with, up until someone actually puts in the effort to fact check him...God, I feel dirty for even closely addressing this ridiculous nitpicking. Even assuming that what he says here is correct, it would've had no effect on the plot. No normal person even thinks about this stuff while watching a movie.

So there, that's my contribution to this discussion!

 

[doubleohfive]

It is clear to me now that this will not be won by our knowledge of debate but with our skills with the light-saber.

 

[Guartho]

So here's one example (there are screenshots in the review that I have replaced with the word SCREENSHOT because I'm assuming the text will be enough):

Thanks Osmium. It IS pretty pedantic, but I never ruled out pedantry. It looks like there is at least one thing that qualifies as a factual statement about TPM in the RLM review that can be shown to be false by checking the film. I'm surprised Set Harth couldn't find that since you say you found it just by skimming. But regardless, looks like I was wrong and there's at least one thing that technically qualifies as a lie in the RLM review.

 

[Brian]

I tried watching those reviews and couldn't get past the first few minutes. I found them completely annoying, and not funny.

 

[Set Harth]

I'm surprised Set Harth couldn't find that since you say you found it just by skimming.

You're still dwelling in a fictive reality. I'm not the one who couldn't find instances of misrepresentations of the film. That was you.

I was the one who said there were false statements in the review in the first place:

I'm talking about specific false statements made about the films

Stoklasa's many misrepresentations of the film were already documented and also previously listed in this forum.

I'm mostly referring to claims made about TPM which can be found to be factually inaccurate by checking the films

You've read about 1/4th of the rebuttal, right? That means you've seen a few.

I knew that because I had already read the document, which you flat out refused to do, and only conceded that Stoklasa misrepresented the film when someone read it for you. I wasn't simply guessing like you were, even though you chose to assume that.

 

[Guartho]

Wow.

Just wow.

I knew that because I had already read the document, which you flat out refused to do, and only conceded that Stoklasa misrepresented the film when someone read it for you. I wasn't simply guessing like you were, even though you chose to assume that.

I didn't assume that. I concluded that after quite awhile based on your bizarre behavior.

And no, I did not flat out refuse to read the document. I refused to keep reading the document. I read the first few pages and the last few pages and the bit with the Star Trek officer because he caught my eye. In my sampling I found none of what you claimed was there and a whole lot that was painful to read.

This would have been a whole lot easier on everyone, especially and including you if you would have just rattled off one of the many facts you claimed to be aware of. But I don't think you were actually interested in enlightening anybody. I think you just wanted to argue. It's the only explanation for your repeatedly choosing the path of most resistance.

 

[Dream]

But I don't think you were actually interested in enlightening anybody. I think you just wanted to argue.

Nope, that's TremblingBluStar. He even has the most posts in this topic.

 

[Set Harth]

Pfffft.

Is that the sound of RLM's infallibility deflating?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Hey RLM is a cool reviewer, and he brings many good points and arguments in an entertaining and even edgy way. No one is infallible, but his main points are well-spoken, particularly about the failure of the prequels to connect with the audience as the originals did. i love the montage at the end of his Sith review illustrating this point.

 

[Set Harth]

He may entertain his fans, but generally speaking his arguments aren't very "good". They make prequel haters feel good, which is a different animal entirely.

 

[Dream]

I don't get why people even read reviews/rants of movies they hate. I mean what's the point?

You won't ever see me reading a bashing review of Batman and Robin. That would be wasting my time since already know it sucks.

But a review that loves the movie might be good for a laugh.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

It turns from red to green, clearly indicating that power has been restored. As the pilot says, "Power's back!" After that, the movie switches to show the cockpit window:

SCREENSHOT

As you can see, a laser makes a direct hit on the window, lighting up the cockpit. Seconds later, the cockpit is struck again by another laser:

SCREENSHOT

Here is a shot right after the pilot declares "Deflector shields up at maximum."

Ummm... I'll have to watch the scene again, but is he talking about the cockpit lighting up as they accelerate away? If so, that isn't from a laser bolt. It's from the cockpit lights. I'll have to watch the actual movie to check, however.

Nope, that's TremblingBluStar. He even has the most posts in this topic.

I don't like to argue.

I'm just easily trapped into having pointless ones.

I don't get why people even read reviews/rants of movies they hate. I mean what's the point?

You won't ever see me reading a bashing review of Batman and Robin. That would be wasting my time since already know it sucks.

I guess for the same reason people like watching others get roasted - it's entertaining. It's the foundation for sites like That Guy with the Glasses, The Agony Booth, and Television without Pity.

But I don't enjoy only negative reviews. I like watching Terror Obscura's recaps of horror films just because I grew up with the movies and enjoy his analysis.

He may entertain his fans, but generally speaking his arguments aren't very "good". They make prequel haters feel good, which is a different animal entirely.

Wrong on all accounts. Except the first one.

 

[Set Harth]

Ummm... I'll have to watch the scene again, but is he talking about the cockpit lighting up as they accelerate away? If so, that isn't from a laser bolt. It's from the cockpit lights. I'll have to watch the actual movie to check, however.

No, the ship gets hit. It's not a sudden and unexplained power surge in the "cockpit lights". That's what happens when you take a knee-jerk "Stoklasa must be right" position without checking the actual movie. But in Stoklasa land it doesn't matter, because arguments based on false statements about the films are still "good" arguments.

Wrong on all accounts. Except the first one.

Well, the first one is the same as the last one, so I guess that one's both right and wrong simultaneously? And RLM's arguments are in no way "good" unless that just means they make prequel haters feel good. That's covered in the rebuttal as well ( in the parts in between the citations of outright falsehoods ).

 

[Guartho]

Look Set Harth, we can enjoy the reviews even if they're not 100% perfect. Something doesn't have to be 100% perfect for people to enjoy it. Why do you put so much effort into bashing the Plinkett reviews and so little effort into backing up your bashings?

Do you believe TPM is 100% perfect? Is that a prerequisite of your enjoyment? I ask because your posts in this thread give the impression that you think it's flawless art.

I've seen religious arguments in TNZ that had more room for give and take than you have for the Plinkett reviews.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Well, the first one is the same as the last one, so I guess that one's both right and wrong simultaneously? And RLM's arguments are in no way "good" unless that just means they make prequel haters feel good. That's covered in the rebuttal as well ( in the parts in between the citations of outright falsehoods ).

Are you ever going to offer up a cognizant and logical argument about why his arguments are in no way "good"?

I don't know why I'm even asking. I know the answer.

But I find it quite ironic that you are using the same charged language and rhetoric that you accuse RLM of.

 

[Trekker4747]

I think many of the arguments the Plinkett reviews made were good, sure there's some where his shtick and hyperbole exceed the underlying point but there's time he makes good arguments.

One comes in I think the third movie's review where he compares the way characters/actors interacted with live environments and each other in the OT as compared to the CGI environments and some CGI characters in the PT.

And also the point of how 'defined" the characters are int he OT as compared to the PT. There's the roguish anti-hero, the destined hero, the tough princess.

The characters in the PT aren't very well defined or just bland.

Sure he may go over board in some respects but I think his underlying point is mostly clear and correct.