Christopher Lee was a very fine meatbag. I would have cried over killing him. (thankfully the Reaper beat me to it - and he was probably just offering tips over how to play himself*)
*Christopher Lee voiced Death in the Discworld adaptions.
This is what bugs me about the prequels, and it's worse in the sequels and more films today. It's largely what
@Cyril Sneer and I were autistically slap fighting over in the Star Wars thread too.
Blank Canvas writing.
Let's use the prequels as an example. Let's take this statement: "suffered from being leashed by the senate and clinging to past dogma"
If I were to ask anyone to back up the statement with scenes or actual lines within the movies themselves, you really can't. At best you would be able to take a line here or there and construct an explanation from it, BUT (and this is key), I or anyone else could take those same lines (or a few others) and construct a counter explanation that would be just as valid.
Let's use a counter example. Let's use the statement: "Leia Organa is Luke Skywalker's sister." Can that be proven? Quite. You can use lines from RotJ and the actual scenes of them being born, named, and given away in RotS. This is a plot statement backed up by the text.
Now, I do know there is the extended universe, and a LOT of plot holes were filled in there. That's another topic. The point is that a story should be self contained, and any exploration outside of the story should be a bonus for fans, not a requirement for viewers.
This doesn't mean you have to go into long autistic details of exposition on every minute detail, but you do have to make sure you cover a bare minimum for the plot to function. The OT is a master class in this as it has the moff council scene. Are we told every little detail about galactic politics? Nope, we're told just enough to make it all work. Contrast this with the Prequels which don't explain shit. Take the opening crawl about "taxes and trade routes." Why exactly is the Trade Federation messing with Naboo over taxes? Oh sure you can find in supplementary material that it was Palpatine sponsoring the tax bill that pissed off the trade federation,
but that is no where in the movie. (heck it could have been one added sentence in the opening crawl)
I trust from here you can start to see how it gets even worse with the Sequel trilogy.
That's what makes discussions about these films (and many others) so frustrating. Scott Adams has used the phrase "1 screen, 2 movies" in the past to describe reality, the problem is that it actually describes movies nowadays as well. We can both see the same movie, but if we both have to construct additional points in our head to make the film work, then obviously there's going to be 2 different movies. Because the framework I constructed for the plot is going to be different from the framework you constructed for the plot. i.e. In your mind, the hero had a dead wife to motivate him, while in my mind it was a dead little sister that was motivating the hero.
I think the worst part is that people are becoming so accustomed to it, they're doing it to movies that don't even require it. So you get things like people hating on
Bright for seemingly reasons of the movie they constructed in their mind, even though the text of the film is pretty explanatory on the whole. (I'd say there's about... 2-3 points that are a little too blank and needed details.)
Anyway, all this to say, part of why I like RLM and even MauLer is that they are popular youtubers doing their part to fight this blank-canvas scourge.
