Rank the greatest jedi in a top five

Originally posted by Arhael
The Future is always in motion, there was possibility of Anakin not falling. Yes, there is will of the force but there are, also Force abusers doing things against its will. Republic downfall was inevitable regardless of Anakin.

Originally posted by Arhael
How Windu discovered about Palpatine? Correct, because of Anakin. And if Windu won once, it doesn't make him the winner by default...

This is what's wrong with the Prequels. The movies make no sense and can't even ensure their own credibility. They rely on the EU and the fanbase to make excuses and explanations for then.

Originally posted by Nephthys
And that makes them not dumb?

It makes half of them dumb..

We need more proof that all of them were dumb 😛

Lord Lucien
This is what's wrong with the Prequels. The movies make no sense and can't even ensure their own credibility.

The prequels are hardly without flaw but the overall narrative is coherent and credible enough. That you criticise them disingenuously or rely wholly on Stoklassa (whose words with respect to TPM were largely refuted by Jim_Raynor) doesn't change that truth. The dialogue may be substandard, the acting may be wooden, and the films may rely too much on CGI, but all you've done is cite examples of where characters failed or where there was potential for failure. If that constitutes a bad film, then you should take heart: the prequels are in good company, as they sit alongside The Dark Knight and the original films, which each have their share of immense PIS.

Given that the prequels were marketed as a tragedy, I fail to see how the failure of the Jedi to stop the Sith is indicative of a poor story.

Lol, Jim_Raynor just whined for a hundred pages and offered up reaching arguments.

Nephthys
Lol, Jim_Raynor just whined for a hundred pages and offered up reaching arguments.

And Stoklassa bitched for 3+ hours, spending an absurd amount of time, effort, and money on editing, to criticize a movie made by a man whose success he will never equal. Criticisms that Raynor largely proved to be as dishonest as Lucien's reproach that the Jedi should be burned in effigy for not trusting Dooku while at the same time arguing Anakin should be similarly condemned for trusting Palpatine.

We can sit and play armchair referee between these two all day and each of us can take turns and vilify the opposition. As far as I know, I'm the only one of the three of us (Lucien, you, and myself) who has read all of Raynor's rebuttal and watched all of Stoklassa's reviews. At the end of the day, the prequels have endured Stoklassa's rants and continue to make major bank. If that's not a victory for Lucas, I don't know what is.

Or we can actually discuss the content honestly.

Well no, Stoklassa used actual analysis and a knowledge of film to criticise the movies, whereas Raynor just handwaves his criticism. While he makes some good points, not that I can recall any, most of what I read wasn't supported by the text and he had to reach for things that weren't there.

A good example I can think of is when he argues that Amidala's character has a lot of pathos because she is seen staring out of a window. According to Raynor this shows her anquish at the plight of her people and how she failed them. However, the wooden acting doesn't support this assertion. Portman just doesn't bring that across to the viewer and as Stoklassa points out, at no point do we see any suffering Naboo citizens. So how can these non-existant peoples plight resonate in any way with the audience and how can the audience be expected to recognise Amidala feeling pain for said non-existant people?

Also if monetary success were evidence of worth then Micheal Bay is a fantastic director and Stephanie Meyer is a better writer than Stover and Luceno combined. Stoklassa's reviews are much more entertaining than the movies he's reviewing and are critically and publically well-recieved.

Of course saying that, I agree that simply providing his review as evidence for why the Prequels suck isn't too impressive. I just don't think that Raynor 'countered' RedLetterMedia at all.

Edit: I remember now. I think it was his explanation of Qui-Gon Jinns character that I quite liked. But then I do like Qui-Gon. Liam Neeson is so manly. God I would.

The prequels don't suddenly increase in quality just because you can think of flaws in other movies.

The prequels were made knowing they'd end in a tragic story, but what makes them a poor story isn't the genre, foregone conclusion, or intention behind their creation. It's the poorly written characters, incoherent structuring, careless pacing and genuinely unlikeable and unrelatable screen presences. "Bad Story" is a generalized term. 300 was full of CGI, but it was enjoyable. Kung Pow lacked any semblance of sense, but it was enjoyable. The Dark Knight was overly convoluted, but was enjoyable. Kind Hearts & Coronets was black and white and the romantic subplot was exaggerated, but it was enjoyable. Glengarry Glen Ross had a very boring story, and what was happening in the world around the characters wasn't too interesting--but the characters themselves were. I return to these and so many other films not because of their stellar 'story' or their amazing soundtrack, or the idea behind them... I return to them because the characters in the films keep me entertained. Either through humour, horror, drama, thrill, insight, intrigue, or just an all around great performance by the actor.

What makes a movie enjoyable is first and foremost the characters. They drive a story. They connect with the audience. The prequels didn't have characters, they had moving props. The prequels are not enjoyable because the characters are not enjoyable. It's the plot discrepancies, it's not the CGI, it's not Lucas' intentions. It's not the characters--or rather, lack thereof.

My nitpicks at the stupid plot or story f*ck up are just that: nerdy nitpicks. My real dislike for the movies is that^.

^ Indeed.

Which is why I never liked RLM's reviews as almost all he does is nitpick. But when it comes to evaluting the chracters he uses a cheap cop out.

I actually don't understand how you guys can take the RLM reviews so seriously, as if they're some legitimate petition or report compiled by a bunch of scientists. They're fanboy nitpicks paired with cinematic criticism delivered through a specific form of comedy. That Raynor guy either has a very unfortunate disorder, or his ego is so threatened by the criticism of his choice of fandom that it feels compelled to actually compose a serious essay.

The only way to fight comedy is by being offended, it seems.

Did you not defer one poster to RLM's reviews for valid criticisms against the prequels? And now they're just to be viewed for comedic purposes?

Raynor addressed this as well. You can either regard those reviews as valid criticism dressed in comedy, in which case Raynor's rebuttal was not inappropriate, or you can regard it as comedy dressed with invalid criticism, in which case Raynor's response was inappropriate and you shouldn't cite the videos as a valid source of criticism.

Which is it?

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Did you not defer one poster to RLM's reviews for valid criticisms against the prequels? And now they're just to be viewed for comedic purposes?

Raynor addressed this as well. You can either regard those reviews as valid criticism dressed in comedy, in which case Raynor's rebuttal was not inappropriate, or you can regard it as comedy dressed with invalid criticism, in which case Raynor's response was inappropriate and you shouldn't cite the videos as a valid source of criticism.

Which is it?

There we go. I regard them as valid criticism (against both story and film making) dressed in comedy.

And actually, if you find for me a comprehensive list of criticisms other than RLM--like in bullet point--then I'll refer anyone from now on to that. I agree with their criticisms on top of enjoying their delivery, but I understand that that method isn't for everybody. When I enter in to a relevant discussion, I find it would save time (and prevent me looking like a plagiarizer) if I just refer the other person to something far more comprehensive than what I could put together

You should know better than to criticize the PT in this new member whom we have never met before's presence.

You've brought this smash upon yourself.

Lucien
The prequels don't suddenly increase in quality just because you can think of flaws in other movies.

I never claimed that they did. I was simply (and smugly, yes) pointing out that the harsh standards/nitpicks you apply to the prequels can be easily applied elsewhere with devastating effect. I'm American and it pleases me to know that I can bring utter ruin to everything you love. 😐

Lucien
The prequels were made knowing they'd end in a tragic story, but what makes them a poor story isn't the genre, foregone conclusion, or intention behind their creation. It's the poorly written characters, incoherent structuring, careless pacing and genuinely unlikeable and unrelatable screen presences. "Bad Story" is a generalized term. 300 was full of CGI, but it was enjoyable. Kung Pow lacked any semblance of sense, but it was enjoyable. The Dark Knight was overly convoluted, but was enjoyable. Kind Hearts & Coronets was black and white and the romantic subplot was exaggerated, but it was enjoyable. Glengarry Glen Ross had a very boring story, and what was happening in the world around the characters wasn't too interesting--but the characters themselves were. I return to these and so many other films not because of their stellar 'story' or their amazing soundtrack, or the idea behind them... I return to them because the characters in the films keep me entertained. Either through humour, horror, drama, thrill, insight, intrigue, or just an all around great performance by the actor.

What makes a movie enjoyable is first and foremost the characters. They drive a story. They connect with the audience. The prequels didn't have characters, they had moving props. The prequels are not enjoyable because the characters are not enjoyable. It's the plot discrepancies, it's not the CGI, it's not Lucas' intentions. It's not the characters--or rather, lack thereof.

I'm not saying you have to enjoy the prequels or any other film for that matter. What is enjoyable is a completely subjective conclusion and it differs from person to person. Critics panned the prequels; they didn't enjoy them. Yet each film was a monumental box office success, indicating plenty of people did. Who's right, who's wrong? Neither of them are in this respect because no one has the authority to license what is enjoyable and what is not.

Lucien
My nitpicks at the stupid plot or story f*ck up are just that: nerdy nitpicks. My real dislike for the movies is that^.

And as I explained, your list of nitpicks was completely disingenuous. Which alludes to what Raynor explained vividly in his essay and what Ares has mentioned succinctly: the nitpicks espoused by you and RLM can be largely answered away.

I couldn't care less if you hate the prequels and masturbate to Batman or vice versa; that's your decision based on your choice and who am I to tell you otherwise? What I do care about is that when one criticizes a narrative, one's complaints or nitpicks should be a little more honest.

How are his nitpicks "disingenuous"?

From what I can see, they are all valid examples of bad writing within the movies.

I get the impression that you're implying that he dislikes the movies purely for the sake of disliking them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
There we go. I regard them as valid criticism (against both story and film making) dressed in comedy.

As do I, in that I honestly believe Stoklassa was trying to genuinely criticize the films and be funny at the same time.

But the payoff there is that Raynor's refutation is hardly inappropriate. If the videos contain valid criticism, then there is a serious/mature element to them beyond the pizza rolls and sociopaths, which means Raynor can hardly be blamed for responding, even as thoroughly as he did.

RE: Blaxican
How are his nitpicks "disingenuous"?

For one example, Lucien condemns Anakin for trusting one Sith (Palpatine) and in turn condemns the Council for not trusting another Sith (Dooku), without any explanation as to why each acted stupidly. The fact that Sidious was deceitful and Dooku was not (in this case) doesn't change the basis of the decision. What reason would they have had to trust him? Furthermore, why shouldn't Anakin have trusted Sidious?

Ah geez, we're slicing up the posts. This is gonna get untidy.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
I never claimed that they did. I was simply (and smugly, yes) pointing out that the harsh standards/nitpicks you apply to the prequels can be easily applied elsewhere with devastating effect. I'm American and it pleases me to know that I can bring utter ruin to everything you love. 😐

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
I'm not saying you have to enjoy the prequels or any other film for that matter. What is enjoyable is a completely subjective conclusion and it differs from person to person. Critics panned the prequels; they didn't enjoy them. Yet each film was a monumental box office success, indicating plenty of people did. Who's right, who's wrong? Neither of them are in this respect because no one has the authority to license what is enjoyable and what is not.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
And as I explained, your list of nitpicks was completely disingenuous. Which alludes to what Raynor explained vividly in his essay and what Ares has mentioned succinctly: the nitpicks espoused by you and RLM can be largely answered away.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
I couldn't care less if you hate the prequels and masturbate to Batman or vice versa; that's your decision based on your choice and who am I to tell you otherwise? What I do care about is that when one criticizes a narrative, one's complaints or nitpicks should be a little more honest.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
For one example, Lucien condemns Anakin for trusting one Sith (Palpatine) and in turn condemns the Council for not trusting another Sith (Dooku), without any explanation as to why each acted stupidly. The fact that Sidious was deceitful and Dooku was not (in this case) doesn't change the basis of the decision. What reason would they have had to trust him? Furthermore, why shouldn't Anakin have trusted Sidious?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I thought the future's always in motion? Why can't there have been a future without Anakin that still resulted in Palpatine's death before he could strike? It doesn't matter, because Qui-Gon's supposed "Will of the Force" caused years of suffering.

No, it wasn't Qui-Gon's "will of the Force" that caused years of suffering, it was fault of the Sith. Galaxy was in crisis long before Qui-Gon.

The "Will of the Force" had to rely on a Sith-experiment in biology to eventually stop Palpatine? Why didn't the "Will of the Force" simply lead the Jedi to Palpatine and reveal him as Sith?
[/B]

Unfortunately, life is not that simple. There is always good and bad balancing one way or another. The war is part of sentinel life and it is inevitable no matter what. Old republic reigned for 25000 years but nothing can exist infinitely. There are countless possibilities and, unfortunately, Anakin's downfall is what happened.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
For one example, Lucien condemns Anakin for trusting one Sith (Palpatine) and in turn condemns the Council for not trusting another Sith (Dooku), without any explanation as to why each acted stupidly. The fact that Sidious was deceitful and Dooku was not (in this case) doesn't change the basis of the decision. What reason would they have had to trust him? Furthermore, why shouldn't Anakin have trusted Sidious?

Most importantly, how does this show his statements to be "disingenuous"? If it's not a valid criticism than it's not, that doesn't make it "disingenuous" though. "disingenuous" implies an ulterior motive. So how do his criticisms imply that he has an ulterior motive?

Originally posted by Arhael
No, it wasn't Qui-Gon's "will of the Force" that caused years of suffering, it was fault of the Sith. Galaxy was in crisis long before Qui-Gon.

Unfortunately, life is not that simple. There is always good and bad balancing one way or another. The war is part of sentinel life and it is inevitable no matter what. Old republic reigned for 25000 years but nothing can exist infinitely. There are countless possibilities and, unfortunately, Anakin's downfall is what happened.