Debunking anti-PT articles/videos

I suppose. The problem is: People look at words differently. And the term "hater" has been used so abundantly in the online Star Wars community, with a specific set of connotations, that I still feel like I ought to avoid using it. Nevertheless, I may give in and go with it. Some kind of mocking undercarriage would be good to have in the title. 

They have other prequel reviews? I don't even want to look right now. I don't feel I need to read them to get a better grip on their psyche or their pet hates. Their opinion is already "revealed" in their AOTC hit-piece. 

Perhaps I'll read their other ones in a day or two -- once I'm finished with my response. I don't want to be overly inspired to craft more withering putdowns! I should probably continue to pretend they're just picking the worst prequel (or what they implicitly consider to be the worst) and using it to spill their feelings about all three. 



As you've divined, it's a mixture of the two. Perhaps my response has a split personality (which would be somewhat appropriate for Episode II -- think Threepio in the arena), but in order to make it a rebuttal with some gravity, I naturally had to lean a little on the academic side of things, crafting what amounts to advocating for the merits of the film, and not simply hitting back at the reviewer for their compressed sneering. That said, my response is structured in a linear fashion, wherein the basic flow of it is determined entirely by the order of criticisms and sentences in the original review. I literally respond to every snippet, one line or sentence-block at a time (just as Jim Raynor, incidentally, responds to the RLM TPM review in his own rebuttal). I guess responding in this fashion was an excuse to write a thesis, but one that comports exactly with the train-track of the specific critique I'm delivering a rebuke of. Perhaps you could call it an (annotated) thesis-rebuttal.



I did? I thought there was a lot of fat/padding there. But based on your recommendation, I'll consider it! I was actually going to have both an intro and an outro to my response, but some days ago, I decided to scrap the outro, because I thought I was able to bring my response to a succinct end without it. An intro is still planned, however. It's literally one of the last pieces I'm about ready to lay down. Perhaps I could think of expanding my intro or reversing my earlier decision to scrap the outro. However, I also think this thread serves as a neat commentary piece. Although I may want to attach more to my actual piece, especially as I'm now fully committed to giving it its own thread. 



Yeah. Perhaps I just have tunnel vision here, but I want it to work reasonably well in the context of this site, or its slightly mercurial board software, first and foremost. I don't think, in the full-blown era of social media, smartphones, YouTube, etc, we have to be too academic on items like this. But facts and citations need to be correct and clearly laid out. In some ways, I wish I'd just posted it without warning and surprised everyone. It might be too built-up now. I can already see areas in my response where I could add more. But I do need to bring myself back to reality and seal it up now. Things can always be improved without limit, but there comes a point when you have to call it quits and let what you've already done escape from under you and speak on its own terms. Lots of TROS spoilers around right now. In fact, this is a strange time to post a 60,000 word prequel rebuttal (that's more or less where the word count is now), but I also like that timing -- obsessed with the prequels, and defending the prequels, right as the Sequel Trilogy is wrapping up. There's a part of me that wouldn't have it any other way. It seems almost like fate.