Mr Plinkett's 'Phantom Menace' Review.

I enjoyed them taking on the ring theory stuff, that has always been inconsistent and completely pointless as it relates to why one movie connects to an audience better than another movie, which is really what we discuss as fans. Not to mention that it undercuts some of the criticism of TFA - although I would argue originality is overrated and not what SW is really about - its more referential to comics, westerns, horror films, samurai films and mythology than it is some 'original' masterpiece.

I feel a big point of their criticism of TFA is that things like SW and Marvel are now more 'self-referential' (i.e. when they complain about the 'blaster ball' and Falcon being big pieces of the plot) than referential to other fanboy-scifi genres like the original was in certain ways. Its somewhat unavoidable considering these universes are now their own genres defined by their own tropes.

Maybe that's worthy of a topic actually - Self-Referential vs. Externally Referential: And how can it even avoid being self-referential after 6+ movies and 4+ generations of fans?

 

for me, i don't mind that stuff as long as its in small doses and more in the background. finn finding the "blaster-ball" and tossing it aside made sense because it was just a random piece of junk in that world. it certainly made more sense then seeing yoda teaching a whole class of younglings with it in AotC. now, having a third death star and han cracking jokes about it is a little too much...

overall though, i think you hit the nail on the head. star wars is a victim of its own success in a way. we expect to see certain things in specific ways because we don't like things that are different. lucas wanted to push beyond that while at the same time oddly shrinking the universe. disney seems to be to going the opposite direction, restricting the ability to grow beyond its tropes while trying to expand the universe. i'm still holding out hope that rian johnson will be the one that breaks the mold and takes us into a bold new world.

 

It was fine until they went into another trench, that's when it crossed the line.

But....after recently watching it again, the detail they put in the oscillator trench was pretty awesome - seeing stormtroopers manning the guns in the trench is amazing.

What's crazy is it already became self-referential in 1983 when they started on Tatooine and then ended up on a Death Star (II) where the mission had to be saved by an entity we weren't sure we trusted (Han in ANH shooting Vader out of the trench, and the Ewoks coming to Han/Leia's rescue on the Endor Moon)

 

1) You DID make them mutually exclusive though - you said I can't refute something that has no credibility at all.

So I can refute George Carlin because he also makes serious points - but I can't refute RLM because there is NO creidibility there


Oh - so you were saying part was serious and part was not?
Well, so which bits are serious, in your mind, so I don't have to address the rest?

2) So this one was pretty much "logical discourse" and you're ignoring it - eh.
https://thecantina.starwarsnewsnet....phantom-menace-review.7216/page-3#post-311837

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 3, 2016 ---

ESB was already quite self-referential, though not quite as directly and more thought put into why it was referencing SW, and in what ways it would put a spin on it.

 

You must have an unlimited supply of grain in order to construct this endless army of ‘straw men’. You were promoting the false dichotomy that an opinion piece can either be sincere or irreverent - as if there isn’t an entire universe of gradience in between. That’s what I’m speaking to.

I was drawing an analogous comparison. You can attempt to refute George Carlin just as well as you could RLM. You could attempt to refute whatever inanity this world has to offer. There’s truly no shortage of it. You could write a 3,000 page dissertation indicting My Little Pony’s inaccurate depiction of hippology if you were so emboldened. But what would be the point exactly? Who are you trying to convince? Why would you bother exerting the effort of discrediting something that already lacks credibility? The act of treating the videos as something worthy of refute only lends more credence to them.

<sigh> Yes, when someone tries to lead you down a rabbit hole of tangential nonsense in the guise of actual discourse, you ignore it.

If you don’t get it at this point, then I have to conclude you’re either incapable or unwilling. Either way, I think I’m done contributing to this vortex purposelessness.

 

But you mentioned gradients - so where on the gradient of credence (ore credibility) do you think the Redletters lie?

Or, easier, can you just name the points that you think were actually serious, or half-serious with you aware of the true meaning behind them?

Nice excuse, very prissy.



So yea this is what it boils down to, I don't care as much about whether RLM's points are intentional bullshite or accidental bullshite, as long as it's established that in their present form, they're bullshite - amusingly enough, they themselves largely don't think that, and vast portions of the online movie culture doesn't think that.

So yea, away with all this psycho obscurantism and philosophizing and hair splitting - the parameters are simple and straightforward, and if you've got nothing to say anymore, then I guess that concludes this chapter ; - )

 

Wait - telling someone to quit beating around the bush and respond concretely, to concrete points, with concrete points, is trolling now?

The answer is, it's anti-trolling.

 

Episodes 1-3 are bad movies, all you have to do is watch them to realise that, there's no need to devote lots of time and thought to this question, it shouldn't even be a question really. Problem is there are those amongst us who when confronted with an unpalatable truth, prefer to live in denial, instead of just accepting and dealing with reality. Or contrarians - those that upon receiving a bucket of sh*te over their heads would go off and write multiple theses on the merits of feces - stinking up the whole place in the process - instead of just going for a wash like everyone else.

 

Irony's on you, for being the one with the wrong / agenda driven opinion.

I'm the one who "looks at reality", and given my track record of being correct on all the objective / obvious / easily verifiable issues so far, this is quite a reliable statement if I do say so myself.


Apologism isn't the only for forms of denial and delusion within fandoms - there are others.

 

Lol, yeah and you're gonna have to keep on saying it yourself because I doubt anyone else will.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

 

Says who? You? Other fans? Why does everyone have to agree on every aspect of the movies' qualities? Everyone has to think the same? Is this some kind of fandom law?

 

It was meant to be "is not the only form of", if I do say so myself.

 

I honestly have no respect for Mr Plinkett's/RLM...

 

I've got a minor question btw:


In Episode II, Part 6, at 4:20 what does he say there? Is it really "the wrong role of suck"? As in "He can give a really powerful performance if put in the right role; the wrong role of SUCK!"?

And if I heard correctly, what does that mean exactly?




And also what movie is that guitar playing clip from?

 

I love those reviews, I think I've listened to the ones for AOTC and ROTS at least 5 times each. They're fair and beyond hilarious, just comedy gold. I laughed so hard the first time I heard "then Dracula says.... " It's in ROTS, when Anakin pledges his allegiance to the graveyard smash ha ha ha ha So many lines will stick with me forever.

 

Great! So have you gotten what he's saying there - "the wrong role of suck", or did I mishear?

 

"The wrong role would suck!". I just went on Youtube and deciphered the mystery

 

Yea it's weird cause "the wrong role would suck" is how it's written on the reddit transcript - but then I listened to it several times and clearly heard "of" instead.

I don't know, not an important issue or anything but it was already bugging me 5 years ago so I thought I'd clear it up lol

 

Well, he always talks like he's drunk so half of what he says comes out wrong

 

Okay I just listened to it again, multiple times actually, and it's definitely "the wrong role of suck" - there's no "w" after the L, and a prolonged "f" before the even more prolonged S

Also "the wrong role would suck" wouldn't make any sense either - like, what "would", isn't he talking about a role that DOES already suck, according to him?



I guess I should clarify a bit here, it's not just "some detail that bugged me", it actually is fairly relevant - because when he says "he can give a really powerful performance when put in the right role", there's a clip of him playing some kind of old, wise guitar player; isn't that supposed to be like a counterexample, that he can actually be good in a reserved or calm role?

And right after that, "oppression of the Sith will never return" - definitely not a "calm and wise" line either; thus a counterexample to "he's good in aggressive roles", since this happens to be an aggressive line that actually sounds corny?





So again, he's saying "wrong role of suck" and I'm just not getting what exactly it means, especially in that specific context?