X-wings are clearly modeled after WWII fighter jets. Star Destroyers are clearly modeled after WWII naval battleships.

The prequels are incredibly visually dynamic movies with consummate shot design. They just happen to be shot in a classic "Golden Age of Hollywood" style, which rubs people who grew up with films dominated by the aesthetic of Michael Bay the wrong way.

James Bond is a male character.

Come on, man. Just use your words. Give me a basic run-down about what the video's central point is so I know if I'm wasting my time or not. This really shouldn't be that hard. You don't have to be eloquent, you just have to give a basic summary of the video. I had to do stuff like this in college all the time.…

So what you're saying is….it's not not your job to educate me?

I mean, I know the AV Club does jokey headlines…but this is less "a joke" and more "making it look like someone said a thing when they actually said the complete opposite of that thing." Pretty sure that's not a journalistically kosher thing to do even when it's just a dumb entertainment news story about Nerd Hitler.

Sorry, I don't really feel like watching some long-ass video review. Please summarize the point in your own words or direct me to a specific part of the video that you want to use to make your point.

George "Shot/Reverse-Shot" Lucas's first Star Wars movie was apparently good enough for J.J. Abrams to rip off. Even though the camerawork in A New Hope is even less creative than that in the prequels.

It's not about being loyal. It's okay if people don't care for George Lucas. The weird, overly personal vitriol against him and the dishonest fan narrative about his supposedly deserving minimal credit for the originals is very, very ugly, though.

This headline is fairly misleading.

Point out where I've erred in my reasoning, then. This shouldn't be that hard. Don't post unless you actually have something substantive to say.

You sure took a lot of time out of your day to write that absolutely gargantuan, rambling first reply to me, but now you won't take three seconds to admit you were wrong? I don't think I'm the one with the problems here.

I'm allowed to condescend to you because you're clearly neither very smart nor very intellectually curious. I was just giving you some friendly advice, really. If you hadn't condescended to me like you had, you wouldn't have ended up looking so stupid when I rebutted you. I'm trying to help you out, friend.

"It’s a motif of the movies. In this case it’s a physical manifestation but in the rest of [the movies], it’s either an emotional manifestation or a personality manifestation, somebody who’s sort of ripped themselves apart and is trying to put themselves back together again. So it’s fun when you can take a literal…

I didn't mention the Death Star part because it's obvious.

Did he point out how the OT does the exact same thing? The ROTJ duel between Luke and Vader is almost a shot-for-shot remake of the ESB duel. It's essentially a visual rhyme whose purpose was to show how Vader's and Luke's roles have reversed since the last film. It's the same method being used here, only Lucas…

It doesn't matter if a composition is simple or complex. It only matters if it's good. No one ever explains how the complex compositions in the prequels are ACTUALLY bad. They just wave their hands vaguely and call them "busy," as if that makes their badness self-evident.

Okay, so which is it, then? Because people here are saying two different things.

So what you're saying is, "Literally every shot in the films doesn't rhyme with each other, so that means no shots rhyme with each other, even when the compositions and contexts of the shots are nearly identical."

Do it. I'm waiting.