Mr Plinkett Talks About Rogue One

I disagreed with Plinkett a lot this time. His checkmarks (Characters, story, emotion) are so subjective that it would be incredibly easy for someone who even mildly enjoyed the film to have a complete opposite answer as him. I mean, I for one thought the characters were interesting, and just because we know the end from the beginning doesn't mean we were denied a story... And don't get me started on emotion, I think this film handled it very well.


I think oversimplifying things to a binary system of checkmarks was a huge mistake, and disappointing for Plinkett. I figured he'd have a more pessimistic view of the film (which I was totally fine with) but I honestly feel like this was just lazy.

The only thing that I think he brought up a good point with was the differences in banter between the ANH scene and the Jedha fight. I do think that the banter in ANH added a lot to the scene, and I cannot say for certain that not having it in R1 was for the best. However, and know I'm not trying to "defend" R1 at all- there are two things that should be noted.

1) This film was supposed to be more of a serious war movie. Of course there'd be more emphasis on action (and I don't know why Plinkett thinks a scene of just fighting stormtroopers can be a bad thing).

2) While enjoyable, the banter in ANH can sometimes come across as pretty catty. Luckily, the characters were given the chance to develop their relationships later in the film (and in later movies), but a lot of the time they just seem like strangers who hate each other.

So yeah, that's really the one point that I think he made that was any good, and while I agree with it, I can at least see why the banter may have been minimized.

 

Sure, the pacing may have been a little iffy at points. But I'm just not getting some of the arguments. Rich Evans' statement that the GFFA is inherently small, in apparent contrast to the MCU, because the GFFA keeps using the same vehicles and imagery, and the MCU has all sorts of different characters and locations... that just left me scratching my head. It strikes me as a very shallow and facetious argument.

Sure, the MCU has multiple "series" with different lead characters, but it's drawing on many different comic series, each with decades of mythology behind them, and largely operating independent of each other. Disney has made 16 MCU movies so far. And a lot those films boil down to the same "save the world from being conquered/destroyed" plot.

Star Wars has been around for a much shorter period than all of the Marvel comic series. It has always had a generally unified narrative, with the players and events interconnecting regardless of time period- some of those pieces fit together better than others, but you can see how events lead from one to another. Disney has only been onboard for two Star Wars films so far. I just don't buy the argument that the GFFA is small because the factions and vehicles seen so far have been the same/similar. That's like saying that there's no point to WWII films. Also, the claim that the MCU has a lot of diverse locales... each film seems guaranteed to use at least one of New York, Washington, or Asgard as a setting for at least part of the film. Honestly, it's a little ridiculous.

Ultimately, I think this is a very shallow, even intellectually dishonest argument. And I can't help but wonder if part of their disdain for the film is that it heightens the emotional impact of a film that they have subconsciously placed on a pedestal- or because the people making the review just hate the idea of the Mouse making movies that are successful and well-received by critics and audiences alike.

 

Yeah, ultimately I kind of get the impression that RLM established this character with Plinkett that is grumpy and talks about Star Wars, and they think that's what people want. The thing is, I don't know if Plinkett knows what he wants himself! A lot of what he addressed in the prequel critiques is actually stuff that the fanbase was already feeling, so it resonated with people. So far, Disney has done a pretty good job of addressing those concerns, yet Plinkett has found more stuff to complain about.

I get that it's a character. I get that it's supposed to be comedic. But to me, it represents the most insufferable kind of fan who cannot just enjoy something for what it is, no matter how good it might be. I have enough people that I know like that in real life, I don't need to go to YouTube to find them.

 

Yeah, but the creators are separate from the character. I can understand them wanting to do a negative review for the character that was just for entertainment, but they did a Plinkett review that doubled down on the complaints in the regular review.

I also don't get the "studio manufactured film" complaint, because Lucasfilm told Gareth Edwards that he had no guidelines or mandates for the film, and could do whatever he wanted or felt was necessary to preserve continuity. So rather than a film that got made by committee, like the DCCU seems to be operating, but the studio actually gave the creator complete freedom to make the film as he saw fit.

 

And yet, the Disney suits had insisted that he reshoot some of the film.

 

I don't have issues with them having problems with the film. While I loved it, and only love it more with each consecutive viewing, I can see why others may not have loved it as much.

Some of their arguments are pretty lame though, especially Rich Evans' argument about Star Wars being very small. Star Wars isn't small, although people like him want to try and keep it small. While I have definite issues with the Prequels, one argument that I've never agreed with is when people say that this piece of technology or that particular spaceship doesn't "feel" like Star Wars. The Star Wars galaxy is a huge place full of incredibly diverse cultures. There's room for the gritty used fighters of the Rebels and the sleek N-1 starfighters of Naboo in the same universe.

The same goes for the type of stories that can be told in the Star Wars universe. Star Wars is already a beautiful mishmash of bits and pieces of tons of different genres. There's no reason that every film or story told in the universe "has" to cover all the same bases that we see in the OT. To try and put Star Wars in a little box is doing a great disservice to what is one of the greatest, if not the very greatest fictional universes ever created.

Granted, there are certain things that we probably never need to see in a Star Wars movie, like gruesome, realistic violence or full frontal nudity and copious F bombs(plus they would use different swear words anyhow). But there are still tons of things that can be done in the universe. I'm glad that most of the moviegoing audience isn't as cynical as guys like Evans when it comes to trying different things in the Star Wars universe.

As for those of us who have read excellent EU and canon book series like the X-Wing series and others that have looked at things from a different angle. We realize just how much can truly be done with the universe.

As for complaints about characters, while I liked them, I can more easily see where others are coming from when they don't feel as attached to them. That in turn will definitely affect their overall impression of the film. I can also understand the reservations that some have with CGI Tarkin and Leia. They didn't bother me much(although there is some crazy uncanny valley with Leia), but I won't argue with the people that found them distracting.

 

This argument again?

Tell me, what exactly was reshot? Because, to the best of my knowledge, these reshoots did not necessarily change the story.

In fact, it's a common practice to reshoot parts of a film. If you've ever written a paper, you'd know that the first draft is often edited, sometimes up to several drafts later. Film is no different- the reshoots were to give us as good of a film as possible, yet now they've become this buzzword for lay people to pretend like The Man is chancing Star Wars.

 

I don't disagree with your sentiment at all, but there is some pretty clear evidence (at least to me) that at least one very significant change was made:

I may have mentioned this in another thread, but the trailers included dialogue that made it pretty clear the original cut of the movie probably did not involve our merry band of heroes going "rogue" (meaning unsanctioned by the Rebellion) at all. In those cut (and likely re-shot) scenes, Mon Mothma tells Jyn Erso words to the effect of "We have a mission for you." In the final cut, Jyn Erso is never given that mission (likely to try to steal the Death Star plans) and the Rebellion leaders shot down her call to action, so she and her comrades in arms take it upon themselves and actually go "rogue."

Again, I don't really care for the idea that somehow "Disney executives" exerted creative control over the filmakers, but in all fairness, I found this to be likely as at least one significant "re-shoot."

 

Edwards was under the assumption for most of it that they wouldn't let him kill off EVERYONE...everyone?

Any excuse for Oldman.

But when they agreed it made more sense to off the crew entirely, he re-worked a lot of things to make it more, "well of course there's no escaping this."
They also re-shot Saw to die sooner to explain his absence at the end, with the new everyone dies ending.

 

Everyone dies. What were you hoping for, mutilation, gore, and torture? Because we got a lot of that, regardless!

It's Star Wars, it's about fun, not realism. Even if your hypothetical version of a grittier movie was true, I'm glad they made the changes. Rogue One was great, but I don't think it should have been much darker.

 

Weird, your mindreading powers seem to be failing. That's not the only reason I thought it was great. Concentrate harder, you should.

 

Please tell me what the "non-Disney" version would have been like. Specific changes, please, not just "it would be darker." Darker than the entire main cast dying?! Hardly what I would call "family friendly."

 

Mr. Plinkett's review was pretty entertaining (like all of them) but this time he's way waaaay off. I get the feeling that despite criticizing some aspects of TFA (very fair points), the man is in love with the movie, and is now bothered by anything that deviates from the formula that makes him happy. I'm serious. There's just no other explanation, some of the arguments against RO are plain ridiculous and obviously coming from someone who doesn't want, or can't be subjective (TFA looove is in the aaair...). He used to look at SW movies with a very objective eye, but something must have happened along the way. I say it was TFA. And the other guys just go along with him because he runs the show. It's kinda funny, kinda cute, but also sad because now I wonder when we'll get a fair, truly hilarious review again.

 

"Remove important parts of a movie and it will suck"

Bold statement. Wonder how many movies this will work for.

 

Yes.. indeed it does..

Getting warmed up; a full post is comming..

 

Yeah, that's what I don't get. People aren't going to Star Wars to see a war movie, or sci-fi, or space opera, or what have you. Almost everyone who goes to see Star Wars is specifically going to see STAR WARS. The fact that Rogue One gave us the Star Wars we wanted isn't a fault of the film, it's a strength. I wonder if the critics would've been happy if at the beginning of the film, Spock walked out of a TARDIS, grabbed the one ring, and said "We're going to Hogwarts, it's under attack by the cylons and we need to charge our lantern rings."