Who is like God arbour wrote:
Your only argument in your whole video seems to be, that it would be boring (or unfitting), if the movie would have shown scenes as you have created them.
It's not surprising that you missed the entire point of the video, based on your obvious bias, and your myopic view in general. The point of the video is to highlight the utter absurdity of Robert's hilarious webpage on the subject. The video follows his timeline exactly, BTW.
Who is like God arbour wrote:
Why could it be impossible, that the Emporer has decided (off screen), to let Luke be put in a cell until shortly before the Alliance arrives?
Show me any canon or official proof anywhere that Luke was not meant to stand before the Emperor until the fleet arrived. Not self-serving, fanon, cargo-cult silliness.
Why could it be impossible, that the task force on Endor has needed much more time (off screen) than a few minutes to find the shield control room without being detected by the enemy?
You're seriously subscribing to the notion it took 12 HOURS for Han and co. to get to the control room from the bunker entrance, that it would take 12 HOURS for the Imperials seen running in to the bunker to 12 MORE HOURS to reach the same control room to arrest Han and co., and Han set the charges and ran at full tilt for 12 MORE HOURS outside the bunker before the control room blew? If so, the question of your employment in anything higher than baggage boy at a supermarket seriously comes in to question. (I know Robert snuck in "different Imperials" that arrested them, without any proof whatsoever, which makes it even more hilarious.)
Why could it be impossible, that Leia, as she has said any moments and not, as you have falsified, any minutes, wasn't sure about the exact time, the Alliance will arrive?
I love how you try to invent a gigantic conspiracy issue with moment/minute. As the video clearly states, The strike team, (according to Robert's timeline) the Rebels would have blown the generator room FOUR FULL DAYS before the Rebel fleet arrived. I'm not familiar with the nuances of Germanic timekeeping, but does the word "moment" mean "days" in Germany? Let's use that in a sentence from a receptionist in an office: "Yes sir, I'll be with you in a moment." Now, does the customer stand there for four days, or be taken to a cell to wait out the four days?
Why could it be impossible, that, as it happens often in movies, the shown scenes aren't played back in the order they have happened?
That happened in TESB, and its quite obvious when it does. What scene are you referring to in ROTJ? (This should be good.) If you are referring to some scenes being shot weeks apart from another, you've just admitted that Robert's Endor timeline is ridiculous, especially when referring to shadows from one scene to the other.
It's a pity that you have not countered important arguments, which confirm the notion, that more time than a few minutes have passed.
Again, the entire point of the video wizzed by your head. The video itself was a counter to the entire ridiculous concept.
I think, the most important argument is, that it should be impossible for the Ewoks to build their traps as shown in the movie and described in the novel in a few hours without alerting the enemy.
As shown with the net trap, Ewoks already have
traps laying around to deal with very large predators. The fact that they lured the stormtroopers to them also bears this out.
Maybe you should have shown, how the Ewoks could have done it.
Maybe the webpage the video was based on should have shown any proof whatsoever that the Ewoks actually did took four days to construct huge traps, undetected, around an area where Rebel activity has just been discovered.
And maybe you should have explained the changing shadows between the time, the Alliance Task Force enters the tunnel and the time, the Imperials are entering the tunnel.
What about your lament above where you plead for understanding on when scenes are shot? The entire "shadows" thing is ridiculous when you consider that those scenes weren't shot on the same day. Let's look at Star Trek for instance. When Scotty's pointy-nosed nephew leaves a blood-stain on Kirk's uniform, why does it suddenly change size and shape? Why when Kirk is next seen on the bridge, we see the stain not only changed shape, but moved UP from where it was previously?
Should I write a ridiculous webpage about Peter Preston's magical blood stain? Should we speculate that from the time we see him grab Kirk's uniform, Kirk went to his quarters, changed his tunic, then ran back to Sickbay to stand near Scotty just as some other dying crewmember left yet another
stain on Kirk's new uniform?
Or how about this oddity in ST:TMP:
Spock smashes his console in one scene:
Yet, in the very next scene
the console is undamaged:
Did Scotty run in there between scenes and fix the console?
No, these continuity issues are diffcult if not impossible to control, like outdoor settings. How about things you CAN control, such as FX shots:
Look at that! In one scene, Jupiter's moons aren't bathed in the sun's glow. Yet in another, they are! I wonder if I should write a webpage discussing how extremely long it too for the Enterprise to pass Jupiter?
These arguments are known to you. They won't vanish only because you ignore them. To be honest, your video is preposterous and doesn't show much sharpness.
It must be so comforting to hide behind nanny-speak. That's what real
men do, after all.
Who is like God arbour wrote:
And even if the video's purpose were only comedy, does that mean, that its stupidity schouldn't be brought up in a critique? If you see a cabaret or a satire, don't you expect, although it is funny, a minimum of profoundness? Is not the truth in a comedy show what it makes it so funny?
The webpages the video is based on automatically make it comedy.