HUMOR Mr. Plinkett: The Force Awakens Review

I liked it, and I think Red Letter Media also liked TFA

 

They did liked on their Half in the Bag review back in December, so it was a no-brainer that this Plinkett review would not be as harsh as the previous, many people are thinking this is their worse of all the Plinkett reviews, I kinda agree, but still had some good moments.

 

i kinda wished he'd separated out the ring theory stuff from TFA, but i can see how it all ties together too.
while i am sympathetic about his objections regarding "the machine" and think they are a fair criticism, i also think as consumers we can choose to engage in that insanity or leave it on the shelves. i don't let that stuff impact my analysis or enjoyment of the film on its own merits.

this was fun stuff and i agree with @andrea.conti.91 ~ clearly his nitpicks are largely nitpicks (the thing about the helmets falling off made me laugh out loud). despite the marketing and the soft-reboot feel of it all, plinkett appears to approve of the film with the caveat that the subsequent ST films provide us with something really new now that TFA has onboarded the next generation.

 

I watched it earlier today (discovered that it was posted by accident). I agree with @FN-3263827, the marketing is not related to the quality of the movie...
One nitpicking I have is that it had a lot of non-TFA stuff there. It shouldn't have been called a TFA review...Otherwise. Very entertaining and I watched it with interest.

 

Hilarious, and quite good.

One thing that left me scratching my head is this claim that Disney was hyping the prequels after the sale. When did this happen!?

 

His prequel reviews are mostly about the films. I think his main beef in the video at least was the corporate retail aspect of the Star Wars franchise. I can understand that. Overall, it was a funny video. And yeah, RLM did like TFA for the most part.

 

If you look closely, it actually is NOT called TFA review, but "The Star Wars awakens Review" and it says "A review of the Force Awakens and much much more" on the thumbnail...

As many nitpick-able things there are in TFA, it just doesn't have the massive technical and story shortcomings of the prequels to tear it apart for 2 hours.

 

Right. I was not accurate in saying it was "called" a review of TFA. Technically the video is not titled review of TFA, however it is still set up as if it will be a TFA review, including the tumbnail wording you cite, and more importantly, the very beginning of the video starts as if it will be that, but in effect it turns out to be more "much much more and also a TFA review"...which is what I meant by my comment...(Also, I noticed different outlets promoting the video as a review of TFA, so hence my comment...)

 

it should have been titled, plinkett v lucas: dawn of the ring theory... and few thoughts about TFA.

 

Honestly, I did not see how ring theory ties in with TFA unless I am supposed to interpret poetry and ring theory as the same thing. I don't.
And again, I fail to see how Disney is involved with ring theory. Ring theory was proposed way back in 2001 and had simply been gaining adherents amongst interested parties in the fandom since. I haven't heard anything new about Ring Theory since TFA dropped as said interested parties are more interested in declaring the prequels to be "completely original" and that doesn't gel with ring theory. And if I am understanding this material correctly TFA is in violation of the ring theory anyway as the ring is "completed" with RotS.
I do like his dismantling of ring theory and he correctly showed how each prequel is just a mishmash of two OT films.. just as TFA is a mishmash of the entire OT.

 

I enjoyed the review overall. I do agree with many others that maybe it shouldn't have been called a TFA review, as over half of the runtime seems devoted to other things. Still good stuff though. I especially enjoyed his takedown of the Ring Theory nonsense that has been going around for a while now. Even if all of that stuff was true, it still wouldn't address why many people don't like the Prequels or actually make them good movies.

 

Another classic mix of SW criticism, satire and hyperbole from RLM.

Their suggestion for how TFA might have been improved (1:15:10) suprised me as one of the better and more thoughtful criticisms I've heard.

 

True.

But actually, the story of the Starkiller built by the Republic could turn to be in part true. If Benicio Del Toro's character is rumored to be a Republic general or something, but ambiguous in his targets, then a major part of the financial issues of the FO could really be solved by the Republic itself. Or, at least, by a double-playing part of the Senate. This would also explain why nobody knew anything about the Starkiller. They didn't because someone was covering the FO from the inside of the Senate itself.

It makes sense.

 

Alright can anyone here on board with the 1st half of this video answer me this:

Why do RLM go out of their way to pick on the easiest targets that there is... are?

The ring theory - tinfoil or not (it's tinfoil), it only revolves around subtext anyway. It's not about any "central aspects" of filmmaking/storytelling quality.
Why address a tract about how the costume design contains a hidden message about the 1996 elections or whatever? It's a peripheral subject.

The fluff defence articles are at least eligible, but they're the weakest type there is - refuting or mocking a bunch of vacuous list things isn't that hard.

Even the half baked 108p rebuttal had a lot more substance than that - remember how he dealt with that one? Mocked it for its "my opinion is right and yours wrong" attitude (even though that's exactly RLM's attitude as well, incl. in this new one), invented some "complex game of chess" strawman and moved on.

So he'll dismiss something more challenging in 1 minute, but devote an entire section to a bunch of weak, vapid listicles?


Then he mentions various "reviews that followed in his steps" - Armchair Directors made a cameo, and Sam's Channel is about on the same level; both posted positive/mixed reviews of the 3rd movie.
And a lot of others certainly had some bit more nuance in their slatings.

So, why not refute those? Why have an entire section devoted to refuting these "reconsiderations", and spend 20 minutes on fluff but go out his way to avoid any material with substance?

How about he dissects some of the mixed/positive reviews from '99-'05? Reaffirming that he's the one who's right, and those were all shills / hyped up / whatever.




Well I've got the answer ready: it's because RLM's viewpoint isn't some solid informed position, but fragile nonsense.
In the context of this whole "debate", they're the zealots, not the voice of reason - and a bit of common sense and questioning attitude is all it takes to see through that.

So that's why they're relying on fringe crackpot theories and skipping over already already lame clickbait fluff - because put against any piece or statement that actually has some substance and makes sense, they'll immediately start looking ridiculous by comparison and that would be the exact opposite of what the TPA trailer and the 1st half of this review set out to reassert ; - )

 

that's how/why he tied the two together.

i had to laugh at the SEX thing, though. he was so focused on the Finn debacle, i think he was distracted from other possibilities.
though that montage of hugging made me think he was mostly kidding anyway.

i feel like he addressed all that in the previous critiques; this was more just a "why ring theory" doesn't make it any better.

i think either people get what he's saying and understand that despite all the axe-murdering and hooker nonsense he's a pretty astute critic, or they're going to dismiss the very sound aspects of his commentary because he's not flashing his pedigree and taking it seriously enough. his early comparison of the PT to the Star Trek reboot was practically prophetic. there are minor issues i take with some of his preferences, but overall he knows exactly what he's talking about and has a very good grasp of what makes and breaks movies.

 

If he's such an astute critic, why did he pick a crackpot theory that isn't even about how good the movies are, in favor of something more substantial?

What if they're not sound - would that be because of all the axe-murdering and hooker nonsense?

He knows what he's talking about? So when he's talking about the 2nd movie, does he know whether Ob1 is:
a) bland and has no personality, hence a questionable lead; or
b) is teeming with emotions the whole movie, which contradicts the (alledged) no emotions clause?

That's a pretty big deal, wouldn't you say.


Good grasp of what makes or breaks movies?
So an emotional lead character makes a movie, and an emotionless breaks a movie? Is that correct?

 

Contrary to the contrarian point of view, I think the general consensus is the comedy is to break up the hour and half's worth of spot on analysis. Humour, its funny isn't it.

 

I was making fun of the airheaded "either you get the axemurdering doesn't detract from the spot on analysis, or you're like kind of you know cnjkfhdkcncs" dichotomy that was made there - so it can't be that the analysis is shoddy, but that has nothing to do with axe-murders detracting from anything?

Anyway, the analysis is far from spot on is kind of the main point here.

 

Because entertainment.