I just saw the Disneycember Return of the Jedi video in which Doug offers up the ways he would change the plot to improve the movie (this also results in him suggesting changes for the end of The Empire Strikes Back).
NO! Especially with Empire Strikes Back! That's the best of the original trilogy!
He acts like he's the ultimate authority in storytelling, and he's all-knowledgable. "Here's what
I'd do differently." Honey, "Kickassia" and "Suburban Knights" proves that you can't. Like did he actually study this--plot, characters, beats, dialogue, genres, storytelling, tone, theme?
Some movies are allowed to be "not perfect." Like, when he reviews well-received blockbuster movies (especially ones that Ebert gave a bad review to), he doesn't understand that blockbusters are specifically written to cater to a broad audience during the summer months, are supposed to have huge spectacle, they are supposed to be fun and enjoyable, not "The English Patient." Not that there are bad movies that either grossed high or were intended to be blockbusters.
It takes a lot of balls to say you can do better than Lucas in so public a way (and on the original trilogy, no less).
Umm.... considering the prequels.... I think it doesn't take a lot of balls for that at least. Those are easy targets. Not for the originals, though.
You know, it's funnier when he reviews stuff that's actually bad. It's like he wants to seem smart for having a dissenting opinion. And I think Doug should acknowledge his weaknesses--he's great at writing rants, but he sucks at doing a full on story and comedy. Like does he actually have someone look over the script besides him? Or does everyone just suck his cock and treat him like he's Wes fucking Anderson?
Also, WHY SNOB, WHY? Although, Brad actually does make films, with an actual process and everything, so maybe the writing will be good...