PLINKETT REVIEWS-Valid Criticisms Or Stupid Opinions

The actual satire portions of the reviews are very funny. I often MST3K films myself.
The pedophilia jokes, the cat raping, all the Nadine B.S, I don't find funny. Not my cup of tea.
As for whether his points are valid, in the Star Wars reviews themselves, this is the problem I have with them:

When your poking holes in the OT to get to the PT, there's something wrong with your logic. Ree Yees touched on this already, but seriously, I'm supposed to believe that "Establishing shot, Shot, Reverse shot" is one of the fundamental problems with the PQs? I'll try and remember that while I'm watching "You've got some nerve.." in ESB. In fact, I'll try and remember that while I'm watching the whole damn OT. Or every other film ever made for that matter. And I would ballpark that ~70% of his points have this problem.
No, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so its pretty clear something else is wrong. And to be fair, Plinkett does make a very good and valid point, but not in these reviews. It's "Part time!" from his Indy4 review. The PQs are 'sanitized': wooden 'PC' dialogue, constant fighting with unintimidating robots, the Jedi Order, no blood, list goes on. "Part time!" is basically George Lucas losing his touch. Possibly his grip, too..

Now, this thread was predicated on Crumb wanting to 'bridge the gap' between PQ lovers and haters. Crumb, your asking the other side do devote over ~200 minutes to watching Stoklasa talk smack about films they like. Yet you openly admit that when it comes to Jim Raynor's written rebuttal, you could only bring yourself to "skim" the writing and declare it to be "nonsense" based on your "skim". Assuming you read as the rate of a normal human, ~2min a page, it should take you about the same amount of time to read Raynor's paper. I've actually read his paper front to back; its rather angst filled but his deconstruction of Plinkett's points are well thought out and I concur with ~50% of his counterpoints. So if you can't bring yourself to dedicate 200 min to what the other side thinks, even if you hate reading it the whole way, why the hell should PQ fans dedicate 200 min of their time to watching Mr. Plinkett? I think that, like you, they'd rather "skim" those videos and declare them to be "nonsense."

 

I often say his reviews are the only good thing to come out of the Prequels. They are infinitely more entertaining.

I'm thankful to him because they cover anything I could say about them and they are much more entertaining and interesting then I ever could be, so I just point people to them. The best part is it saves me from ever having to discuss the prequels with anyone and having to explain what ******* ****** they are for liking them.

 

There's some valid criticism... but very little. 90% of it is nitpicking to the level that any movie would look bad, and the reviews are constructed with the purpose of making them look completely awful, by twisting things around, ignoring basic logic, assuming the audience is stupid, and totally creating problems that don't exist. That video Talon posted is a fantastic example, as is Jim Raynor's rebuttal.

Plinkett does have some really funny stuff, I can't deny that. And I have no problem at all with negative reviews of the prequels - provided they're actually decent reviews. RLM's prequel "reviews" are honestly among the worst pieces of criticism I've encountered. His fanboys don't help.

 

I wouldnt say "very little" I would say... over some peoples heads. There is a lot of rambling about film-making, camera angles, and technical stuff in the Plinkett reviews that most peo0ple wouldnt even notice him talking about. I rather enjoy the Plinkett reviews personally, but more as pieces of entertainment.

there are parts though where its clear the writers just were pissy that the prequel films were not identical to their childhood prequel film fan fictions. (that were probably never written and existed only in their heads)

 

Plinkett grinds my gears.

His voice makes it almost intolerable, but he literally just criticizes everything under the guise that he ACTUALLY knows what he's talking about.

It plays to the ignorance of people who know little about the film making and writing process, as well as their preconceived dislike of the PT in general.

HAve you seen his review of the TFA teaser? Yeah...either he has zero clue about the production, rumors, and speculation, or it confirms that he only cares about being incredibly negative just to get views.

His comments on tone are laughable. Not because he's confused about what tone is, but rather that he is exaggerating it.

For instance: in his ROTS review he complains about the seriousness juxtaposed with the humor in the beginning. Oh...because the OT never does that...nope. And when he compares it to other movies, he makes it out as if those films...or ANY film for that matter...stick to a specific tone 100% of the time.

It's highly disingenuous and actually insults my intelligence watching him pontificate to the masses because they think he's "educating" them and "confirming" their beliefs.

What's the old saying? Ignorance breeds ignorance?

 

There are also parts of the reviews where (on occassion) he insults the films for things they... didnt do.

For some reason during the Attack of the Cloens review he sidetracks himself, its unreal what he says... something along the lines of "could they have crammed anymore romantic imagery into this planet? oh of course they could have, they could have had the nabooful tower" then he proceeded to complain about stuff that could have been there to make the film worse... but wasnt, but acting like it was...

And in his Phantom Menace review he chops up the conversation between Watto and Qui-gon to make the deal that proceeded the pod race seem far more confusing than it actually was. Even as a child I understood what was happening in the deal, but he had to change the scene to make it as confusing as he was claiming it was.

Oh and there was the part of the review where he made fun of the fact that during production the gungans were called gungas instead.... who gives a f**k that something was different in production than it was in the film?

 

RLM doesn't criticize the PT, it sets up a string of strawmen and knocks them down and then announces "Finished". The problem with prequel critics is that they have a special sliding scale that always outweighs any positive evaluation of the films, so discussing the subject with them is a futile waste of time. Most PT haters are not very well read or culturally versed, they get bored when you start pointing out the historical, literary, mythological, cinematic and visual references that are vital to understanding the PT. Their eyes glaze over and they just go back to asserting their lame catechism. The truth is that if you're a vocal PT critic you're probably a middle aged white dude from the burbs with a Jr College degree in something or other and you simply didn't get the movies and because of our asshat culture of entitlement you are unable to shut up about this subject. Profiling you is easy. You're still living in 1985 and it angers you that shaky matte lines and rubber puppets don't give everyone else a hard on. So yeah, RLM holds no water for me and to answer the original post, why we who love and appreciate the films keep getting baited by you sorry nobody's is that you use inflammatory language to spark arguments that you know you can bully the other person into "losing" to make yourself feel better. What else is there to say? If a serious, scholarly critique of the PT emerged then we could engage in a discussion. You idiots keep starting flame wars and you wonder why we're defensive. Grow up, buy a clue, read a book that doesn't have spaceships or vampires in it, visit some museums and art galleries and learn how to state your case without dropping the F-bomb every other word and telling me I'm stupid and have no taste two seconds into a conversation maybe we'll take you seriously. Maybe.

 

I think... I think you need to slow down a bit Dace...

I think everyone needs to slow down a bit here, I think that these reviews honestly do make some good points... but they also make a fair number of bad points as well.

The prequel trilogy, is not as good as the original trilogy. But the problem with prequel haters isthat they treat it like its an abomination against cinema, the films are honestly moderate failures at best. In another thread I pointed out that... compared to some of the worst things in fiction, the prequel trilogies are vereitably gold. The biggest problem with the Plinkett reviews is he treats these films like they are as bad as Pink Flamingos or something... but they aren't.

Honestly, when the complaints about the movie being "clean" and "polished" compared to the originals came up I wanted to punch the screen though. Seriously it pisses me off, because people seem to mistake the lower quality of film from the era, and the film grain... for the world actually being dirtier. Death Star, Cloud City, they were all very clean and beautiful places...

The onlydirty places were backwater worlds and criminal bases and such... places that nobody could reasonably expect to be clean.

On a side note... why doe severy critic want me to give more of a sh**t about Jar Jar than is physically possible? He barely does anything in any of the movies and you could just forget about him, he isnt even as memorably offensive as they pretend he is for gods sake.

 

"The prequel trilogy, is not as good as the original trilogy." LOL Gee thanks for clearing that up for me, now I know what to think.

IMO the PT is deeper, richer and more rewarding than the OT and the PT/CW lend the OT a depth that was simply not there originally.

 

I disagree, but I do think that the PT made the original trilogy far more watchable.

It provided a valuable cohesion to the empire and the Sith, and thus made it easier to quantify the threat that the rebels faced in the original trilogy... thus making the original trilogy more rewarding to watch, and an ultimately more satisfying experience.

So I definitely agree that the prequels added something to the overall series and we ultimately a good thing despite their shortcomings.

 

Yeah that whole "they're the worst thing ever" view point is what is infuriating.

I suppose they don't know that only Siths deal in absolutes

 

I don't think the PT is any more "flawed" than the OT. There are lots of corny lines and weak performances and plot holes and kiddie humor in the OT. I refuse to start flinching every time I talk about the PT ("I admit they're not perfect" - WTF is "perfect"?!?! Name one objectively perfect work of art for me; I've heard critics say that Michelangelo's "David" and the Mona Lisa are overrated - nothing is universally accepted as perfect so stop insisting that we who appreciate the PT have to preface every statement with a caveat) to appease an obnoxious, uninformed, abrasively vocal minority.

 

okay someones going to need to go through the plinkett reviews and adressevery single thing he says.

 

They are valid but I like the prequels anyway. I have learned to appreciate the things I like about them and ignore or laugh at the ridiculous stuff.

When they came out I really was firmly in the 'Starwars has been destroyed' camp, but now I just point and laugh and watch them for fun.

Hopefully episode VII is a return to form and a bridging of the gulf between ot, pt, and the possibilities of the st

 

Obviously you can't handle someone having a different opinion than you, so you resort to insulting and trying to establish youreslf as being intellectually superior, but you just come off as pretentious & immature.

 

It's been done, numerous times. It's pointless.

Must've hit pretty close to the mark to get you so riled up.

I don't care how I come off, I call it like I see it. The average person who can't keep their borrowed opinion to themselves on this subject is invariably a pop-culture junkie "Geek" with a motor mouth and a puffed out chest aiming to dominate a conversation.The RLM "reviews" are apropos of nothing, they don't engage with the films at all, they simply set up an arbitrary set of subjective standards and blast the films for not conforming to them. They spawned a legion of uninformed bullies who simply keep repeating the same things over and over again, disrupting discussions, defacing the comments section of videos created to display appreciation for the films and other obnoxious behavior. I'm sick and tired of it as are many others. Don't like the movies? Adios! Don't bother the people who do.

 

Yet, just like them you spew your venomous opinions all over the place, this is not a hate thread. There are no hate threads on this site that i know of. Your anger of them has driven you to act in a similar fashion. "The average person who can't keep their borrowed opinion to themselves" Your opinions aren't original, i've seen lots of people drone on saying the same things as you, you're not the first. I really hope you can see that you're acting just as toxic as the people you seem to despise so much. But i'm not here to get in a fight, you haven't said anything here to make me that mad, doubt you could at this point. Am just disappointed that you're letting your emotions turn you into a shadowy reflection of what you seem to hate so much. like you said, calling it like i see it.

 

Out of curiosity (because I've always enjoyed your style @Duke Groundrunner going back to the pre-cantina comment section days) what is your opinion about this subject? I'm sure you saw mine and considered it just as pretentious.

Afterall...shouldn't a REAL Star Wars fan enjoy every thing about it?

 

Opinion on the Plinkett reviews, well they have some valid criticism but they come off more like a celebrity roast, more or less comedic entertainment not as something to be taken as law to rebel against or take as an authority.

 

Please find one statement that is "toxic" or "hateful" in the post you highlighted, thanks.
I never said I was the first to point out the obvious fact that the PT has depth. If it sounds like "droning" to you, I can't help that.