1. Notification emails are working properly again. Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam". This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. IMPORTANT! To be able to create new threads and rate posts, you need to have at least 30 posts in The Cantina.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Before posting a new thread, check the list with similar threads that will appear when you start typing the thread's title.
    Dismiss Notice

Mr Plinkett's Last Jedi Review

Discussion in 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' started by Adam812, Sep 1, 2018.

  1. redwinger

    redwinger Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2015
    Posts:
    169
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    1,182
    Credits:
    509
    Ratings:
    +311 / 25 / -23
    Kathleen Kennedy is on the same culpability level as Johnson.

    (Overall, she's obviously the most responsible, but you qualified it with 'in the past year'.)

    Ridiculous claim 'upvoted' due to generic positivity. Johnson very clearly damaged the brand/franchise.

    I have no idea of this poster's opinion on TLJ, so as of now this isn't directed at him/her, but there is a reason for 'online' - AKA 'non-traditional' media - reviewers in particular using the specific phrase 'trolling' (as in, is RJ trolling?) when it comes to the writing of TLJ. This phrase carries some additional weight when said reviewer has studied writing/filimmaking, and even more weight when said reviewer has at least consistently shown aptitude for commenting on any film's writing, as RLM have done. The reason they use that specific phrase, 'trolling', is this:

    TLJ is poorly written to the point that it is hard for another professional to judge whether or not it is incompetence or trolling.

    and for even more granular purposes:

    TLJ is poorly written to the point that it is hard for another high-level professional to judge whether or not it is incompetence or incompetent trolling.

    Take a long minute or even several minutes - heck take a week - to think about/process that. For the average poster on The Cantina unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of writing, it's best to think about it and try to imagine it in the context of your own daily life. A co-worker, a boss, a trainee. A supplier if you're in business. A wedding planner if your wedding's coming up. Think about someone doing such a weird job that it's hard to tell if they kind of know the job but are stupid/new or actively trolling to make someone else's life difficult. Now think about someone in your line of work WHO YOU ALREADY KNOW IS BAD AT THEIR JOB doing the same thing.

    Think of the malice/stupidity quote: Never attribute to malice what could be explained by stupidity.

    Again, think of any profession, from plumbing to cooking, and imagine a 'professional' doing such a strange job that other professionals can't tell whether it's another professional trolling, or a layman who knows some stuff about some things and has looked other things up online and in the end tried to do the job him/herself and botched almost everything 'under the hood', and due to human decency, those professionals opting to give the offender the benefit of the doubt, as in surely he can't be that stupid, it must have been on purpose.

    For emphasis: the attitude of 'Surely he can't be that stupid, it must have been on purpose' is fellow professionals BEING POLITE. TLJ has enough markers pointing towards stupidity. ('Enough' in the previous sentence is also being polite. TLJ is riddled with them.)

    Hence the quote (parapharased) about TLJ 'being written by a high-schooler, but, like, a pretty smart high schooler' (They're being polite)

    As we saw with the prequels, which this poster pointed out him/herself, bad/terrible writing can and will damage a franchise.

    Many here have probably heard the adage, prove you understand the rules before you break them. TLJ's writing is so bad that it's - politely speaking - hard (it's easy) to tell if this is simply someone who erroneously believes they are beyond this step or someone who doesn't understand the rules at all.

    Believe it or not, TLJ's writing is on another level of bad compared to the prequels.

    Also, the sequel to TFA would have done about the same box office or higher regardless of director/script. Box office has little to no meaning in the discussion of the film's quality.
     
    • Great Post Great Post x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Unoriginal Unoriginal x 1
  2. metadude

    metadude Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Posts:
    226
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    1,577
    Credits:
    637
    Ratings:
    +577 / 11 / -3
    It's funny how things move isn't it?

    There's definitely a reason for using any loaded epithet; it's a rhetorical appeal substituting emotion for actual argument: e.g. that argument is so stupid I need not even address it. It's an attempt to play on emotion instead of reason because that usually works better to whip the emotional humans into your conclusion corral. It's a really old rhetorical device kind of like a Jedi mind trick. Even has the same flaw. It only works on the weak minded.

    But you invite a paradox here. How do you then explain the fact that most "professional" critics (e.g. the aggregtor darlings) priased the film and don't mention noticing any "terrible writing"? Was China behind it, countering Russia's meddling hand? Seriously, is it a conspiracy? What about the multitude of 'online' - AKA 'non-traditional' media that also highly regarded the film? Why did they not notice such obvious terrible writing?

    And the weight carried by the reviewers stating the opposite? What happens to that weight? I mean, said reviewers have studied writing/filmmaking, and said reviewers have at least consistently shown aptitude for commenting on any film's writing, so?

    Quick side question: When these reviewers differ in their conclusions, how do you determine which one is "right"? I'm talking about Jay and Mike (and we can throw in Rich for fun). Since the accolades you're tossing around apply to all of them, yes?

    Because they're using a rhetorical device.

    Took me 0.00035 seconds to process it. Still rhetorical.

    Ah but your analogue is based on work that is objectively evaluated. Art isn't the same. We call that a false analogy where I'm from. Then someone uses a shovel to put it in a bag and throw it in the refuse where it belongs.

    I assure you I will never attribute malice to a post on this or any other forum. Though, for the record, I believe the opposite of that saying to be less offensive. I find that a person would be more inclined to be regarded as malicious rather than stupid.

    Again, these are examples of objective measures of objective work. Instead, think of a musician who writes a song that some people love, some people like, some people don't like and some people hate. Now think of the ones that hate the music claiming, "A terrible composer I can't tell if he is trolling me with this 'jazz' of his!" See now? There you have a true analogy. Smells like roses.

    That is some serious politeness for sure.

    Examples? Always open to watch the work of a well-oiled reason machine. I'm like that. I love work. I could watch it all day long.

    A fine rule.

    I'm ready to believe! All you have to do now is show me that well-oiled reasoning machine just humming away. Because, let's be honest, so far it's all been rhetoric.

    That depends on your criteria for determining the quality of a film. But I'm sure we can both agree to jettison box office as a legitimate measure in the case of evaluation. So let's do this thing I'm so tired of seeing awful reasoning being spewed from every direction let's see some solid reasoning at work!

    [​IMG]
     
    #62 metadude, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:38 AM
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018 at 7:51 AM
    • Like Like x 6
    • Great Post Great Post x 4
  3. Maximus

    Maximus Jedi General

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,445
    Likes Received:
    41,738
    Trophy Points:
    164,927
    Credits:
    5,513
    Ratings:
    +45,731 / 17 / -6
    Rian Johnson made a movie.. it's that simple. that's all he did.

    I don't see the brand or franchise as damaged. I don't have Star Wars blinkers on, and i'm not drunk (not right now anyway).
    I enjoyed the movie, and i look forward to the next one.

    I do however think that the fan base is damaged (fubar if we're being honest), and has been since the prequels.

    just my humble opinion though ;)
    there are levels of bad writing? do you have a link to this list of bad writing so that i can have a look at it please?
    Opinion decides if something is written well or written badly.. and we all have our own.

    you're entire post comes across as very condescending and frankly.. belittling. maybe you didn't mean it to be, or maybe I've misread it.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  4. Andrew Waples

    Andrew Waples Jedi General

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Posts:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    25,290
    Trophy Points:
    149,042
    Credits:
    10,635
    Ratings:
    +26,818 / 33 / -19
    Funny, remember when people said that George Lucas himself destroyed Star Wars? How can you destroy something thats already been destroyed? :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Wise Wise x 1
  5. Rellum

    Rellum Clone Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2017
    Posts:
    136
    Likes Received:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Credits:
    306
    Ratings:
    +245 / 6 / -2
    I think this review is on the money. Which, in a shock aligns with my own feelings on the film.

    I think the Red Letter guys review of Rogue One is garbage. Which in another shock is not anything like my feelings on Rogue One.

    It is a review. If you don't agree with it.......move on.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. metadude

    metadude Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Posts:
    226
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    1,577
    Credits:
    637
    Ratings:
    +577 / 11 / -3
    Look, suppose a guy writes a piece of music and plays it at a concert of musicians. Some in the audience love the piece, some like it, some don't like it, some hate it. Everything is fine because, hey, that's the way it goes. Everything is a subjective reaction relative to the individual. Now suppose a couple of the people who hated it start loudly stating, "This is bad music and this guy can't write music. Because he has written in 6/8 time which is bad music. I studied music and music must be written in 3/4 time. Why was this guy even invited when his music is obviously terrible because he doesn't write it like it should be written the way I like it!" Another one loudly joins in "Yeah his guitar isn't even in tune! He can't even tune a guitar and he's invited to play music?! This is a middle finger right in our faces, the sponsers are giving us the middle finger right to our faces!" (The guitar is in tune, by the way)

    Now some bystanders who aren't sure are getting emotionally drawn into the protest. "What they says sounds right to me!" "Yeah, I think his guitar isn't even in tune, either!" One guy who didn't like the song shouts "I think their review is right on the money!" They start pointing fingers at the musician "You're a fraud!" "You're a hack you can't write music the way it's supposed to be written!" They start booing the musician and shouting for him to be removed from the venue permanently. The concert descends into discord as people begin to leave, others who liked the song begin to defend the musician and his piece, the haters begin screaming and chanting "Tune the guitar! Tune the guitar!" The concert is ended and the haters stand outside angrily shouting about the musician who ruined the concert for everyone and "killed the venue". "This mess is all HIS fault! He is the one to blame for everything!" "And his producer shares culpability!"

    Now to some, the actions of the haters might be seen as "A review. If you don't agree with it ... move on." But to me, it's a symptom of something more, something which affects, everything. You might look at a tiny virus and say "It's so small, just move on and leave it be" but I'm saying "That little virus can and does do big damage, and it can become systemic in no time at all." The fact that I'm using a Star Wars movie as an illustration is completely incidental. That "review" is just a singular component of a much larger problem. It's a problem of ignorance being passed off as intelligence, being used to con the naive.

    The people who made this movie have done nothing wrong, and are being falsely accused. I have to defend those that are being falsely accused no matter how seemingly trivial the false accusations may seem to others. Injustice is injustice and bad judgment is bad judgment, wherever it is no matter the size. The real point here is not to get people to 'like Star Wars' but to get people to like, no, love, reason and right judgment. You may think, but one person is so small, and this scenario so seemingly insignificant, what is the point? Well, a single atom on the atomic scale given a specific trajectory can cause a big effect.

    And just to be clear, the problem isn't someone not liking something. The problem is how that dislike is presented and the effect that presentation can have. Because things tend to, ripple outward. It's when ignorance masquerades as intelligence in order to cause discord and ill-will, and to falsely accuse others, and get others (even the naive) to falsely accuse others with them. You see a movie review; I see people hurting people, and getting others to hurt people with them. And they're pretending (knowingly or not) that their attacks are 'objectively justified' which only furthers to corall the naive into their attack. This is the root of the problems we face as a people. People using bad reason to justify attacking others, and to get the ignorant to jump on their 'righteous' bandwagon. I'll challenge it. I don't want to but I have to. No matter how seemingly small or insignificant it appears to others.

    "I don't like Star Wars"? Fine. "I don't like Star Wars because it's too boring for me." Fine. "I don't like Star Wars because I don't like innaccurate science" fine.

    "Here is my pseudo-objective rationale for why you have no excuse to disagree, and should agree that X is objectively bad, and let's accuse the people involved as being terrible, and let's try to do damage to their project, and maybe we can get them removed and possibly ruin their lives!" Ignorant. Infantile. Unacceptable at any stage of the line of reasoning for any scenario at any time or any place directed toward any people.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Great Post Great Post x 3
  7. eeprom

    eeprom Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Posts:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    3,101
    Trophy Points:
    10,717
    Credits:
    3,119
    Ratings:
    +4,690 / 26 / -9
    What I think a lot of people are missing about this is: whether you agree or disagree - RLM is laughing at you. If you’re taking any of it in earnest, then you’re part of the punchline. The Plinkett “Reviews” aren’t reviews, they’re skits. They’re not about perpetuating some critical angle on cinema, they’re irreverent jabs at prepackaged art and its fevered consumers. It’s mockery of our pop-culture obsessed society - how irrationally deep so many people are fervently invested in the truly trivial (themselves included). I’d like to think if RJ or KK watched this video, they’d be amused, not offended. They’d be aware enough to be in on the joke.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
  8. Rellum

    Rellum Clone Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2017
    Posts:
    136
    Likes Received:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Credits:
    306
    Ratings:
    +245 / 6 / -2
    My post was refering to the half in the bag reviews.

    I would say the mr plinkett reviews are slowly morphing into more review like territory, less weird guy in a basement.
     
  9. metadude

    metadude Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Posts:
    226
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    1,577
    Credits:
    637
    Ratings:
    +577 / 11 / -3
    You're sure you're not thinking of CinemaSins, because RLM doesn't seem to me to be satire. The character of Plinkett is clearly exaggerated in his vulgarity, but the criticisms themselves are those of Stolaski(?). Bear in mind that I'm not saying that I dislike these guys (or, anyone for that matter). I'd like to think I'm on friendly terms with everyone. It's not the people, per se, it's the attitude creating an environment of hostility which is based on ignorance acting as "prosecution" leading to false accusations which create hostility toward actual people who are in the end, innocent of all charges.

    Again, it's not about a subjective review, it's when people criticizing something move from subjectivity to the role of prosector making an objective case against something or someone. If a critic is moving from "I think this movie was boring" to "there are real pacing problems in this movie and the writer has not followed the rules of pacing and has produced a film which technically suffers from his incompetence" then they're objectively wrong. If a critic says "nothing happens in this film and the characters are at the same place as when the film began" then they are objectively wrong. If the guy in my analogy says "you cannot write music in 6/8 time" then he is objectively wrong. And anyone that claims his review is "accurate" is as objectivley wrong as he is.

    Now, I couldn't tell you who would laugh at what, but what I do know is that as I said before this is like a virus. It's the same procedure of prejudiced thought that leads to any type of injustice that exists. That's why, to me, it's important to challenge this mindset wherever it may crop up. Because it's the mindset responsible for discord, ill-will, and ultimately hurting innocent people. Of course, no one is being physically hurt but you know what? Which is worse, to physically hurt someone, or, to hurt someone emotionally or psychologically? We have laws against physically hurting someone, but emotional harm is the far worse type of harm, and people can do the worse crime with seeming impunity, which is even worse when most of them don't realize what it is they're doing because they can't see the damage with their eyes.

    In this scenario, I don't think Johnson and Kennedy would be laughing at any trouble to which they may be subject because of this. I don't think Kelly Tran or Daisy Ridley are laughing at the experiences. I don't think Hayden Christensen or Jake Lloyd or Ahmed Best or George Lucas have found things hilarious. The "fans" that attack people like Kelly are just the proverbial blossoms of an ugly and corrupt tree that has its roots in "benign" criticism which is in fact based on incompetent judgment and false accusations. As I said, there would be no problem if these things were truly opinions, but they are not being presented as such, they're presented as "objective prosecution" which only fuel the "righteousness" of the "fact-driven" angry mob. But the prosection is based on incompetent judgment and the facts are false accusations. You won't see me challenge someone who says "I didn't like the movie" I couldn't care less. But when people start standing up like they're prosecutors making a "fact-based" case for why the movie is "bad" and then pointing at specific people as "guilty", then if I see it I'll jump up and say "I'm the defense."

    I could go on and on but I won't because I think I've at least clarified my own position enough. I just do not like ignorance (especially when it masquerades as intelligence) which sprouts to "justify" unjust judgment which grows to "righteous" discord which branches to false accusations of guilt which blossoms in physical/emotional/psychological harm to those who are innocent. In fact I hate it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Jedi77-83

    Jedi77-83 Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Posts:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    2,992
    Trophy Points:
    8,962
    Credits:
    4,047
    Ratings:
    +4,673 / 127 / -35
    Their best skit is when they do a mock review of Rogue One as each one of them yell a fan service element out like they saw it for the first time since 1977:

    "Death Star!!!!"

    "AT-AT's!!!!!"

    "Darth Vaderrrrr!!!!!!"

    "Grand Moff Tarrrrrkkkkinnn!

    "Tie Fighters!!!!"

    "Mon Mothma's back!!!!"

    :p:p:p:p
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...

Share This Page