Plinkett's next review is revealed here....

The Olsen Twin masturbation joke was a bit too much, I'll admit. Probably went on a touch further than it should have, but didn't bother me too greatly.

Okay review, I still think the "character" needs to focus more on the review and such. The pizza roll/serial killer stuff is just too much.

 

I thought the review was funny as hell.

I also think he makes some very good points, and while I liked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I can understand Plinkett's exasperation with what could have been a really great film. Like I said, I do like the film, but I can see where all the tasty vegetables don't quite add up to a superlative, prize winning stew.

 

Don't forget though, the reviews are designed as a means of marketing himself and his film making skills.

 

You noticed the Annie Wilkes thing to, eh?

Possibly. He IS a failed filmmaker after all.

 

^ The fact that RLM has actually financed and made a couple of independent films, in addition to various web series (all of which seemingly gained enough of a profit for them to continue), would suggest that they haven't failed at all and achieved what they were going for.

 

Making films doesn't make you a successful filmmaker. Making successful films makes you a successful filmmaker.

Check Mike's IMDB profile, and tell me that's a profile of a successful indie film maker.

 

His film-making skills would probably be perceived as being better if his main character was someone likable that one can identify with. That's why, for me, The Angry Video Game Nerd, The Nostalgia Critic, The Cinema Snob, and Spoony all work for me. They're all, on some level, likable and someone I can identify with. Twenty/Thirty-somethings angry and enraged by crappy video games/movies/whatever. It's a whole lot harder to identify with a sociopathic octogenarian who kills hookers and is obsessed with pizza rolls.

That's all I'm saying. The videos themselves and the ideas and opinions they point out are good and I think the film-making flaws pointed out on all of these movies are very valid. (Like in the Episode III review he points out that interaction between the actors and the B/G, how dully expositionary dialogue is presented and Lucas' "directing" from a chair looking at a bunch of monitors.

He makes valid points. Very valid ones. But they get diluted somewhat with the "side-story" of Plinkett's proclivities. It's one of the problems I have with Linkara's "Atop the Fourth Wall", I like watching his videos and reviews of crappy comics but I find myself bored when the episodes get side-tracked and lost in Linkara's story and ongoing plot(s).

 

Woah there. Some might say that actually being able to finance and make your own film more than once is a success. He is obviously not aiming for the top 10 at the box office so he is achieving his own goals. Everyone is at different levels and can achieve success at those points. He is certainly getting the attention for his work which is a pretty good starting point.

 

Ten different people might say ten completely different things, yes. Success, in the end, is a subjective thing. If you set a goal for yourself, and you achieve it, than you can say you succeeded.

So if your goal is to make a film that fifteen people will see, and at least three of them will like, then I guess you have a pretty decent shot at succeeding.

RLM were a bunch of nobodies before their TPM review became a YouTube sensation. That much is undeniable.

 

Screw that.. those other guys don't have nearly the edge Plinkett has. It's like trying to compare Kes to Quark.. one has an edge, one doesn't. The Video Game nerd is ok, and when he does Cinemassacre I usually agree with every point he makes, but he is still dull as dishwater compared to Plinkett. I'll take the tasteless with the valid any day. I mean the whole point of humor is that it rubs you the wrong way, and screws your sensibilities.

 

No, that's not the whole point of humor. Not in the slightest. It's one of the aspects of humor. But it's not required.

Again, the "humor" Plinket drives himself with isn't my type of humor. I've no problems with humor that pushes my tastes or sensibilities just that Plinket doesn't do that in the right way. It's just being crass and vulgar for the sake of doing it.

The jizzing into the young Olsen Twins TV for example. I can see how that could be funny, but the manner in which Plinkett did it here wasn't funny to me as it was too far, too extreme and far too vulgar to be funny.

For me.

Again, the points he makes on these movies are good points and he makes very strong points that make a lot of sense. But the serial killer old-man stuff, for me, is not funny and the episodes tend to dive back to that too much. It's not interesting or entertaining.

 

Oh, yeah. That was his pitch for the film from way back when it was in production! Plinkett does a great job of showing that the formula for Indiana Jones films, which KoTCS follows to the letter doesn't match 50's scifi at all.

I have no problem with genre blending (huge Firefly fan, after all), but Indiana Jones was already part of the historical adventure genre. There was no reason to change this for the third sequel!

 

I think the idea was that since the first movies were set in the 40s those Indy movies were based on adventure serials of that time, since KOTC was set in the 50s it was decided to make the movie like the Sci-Fi "B-Movie" that were around at the time.

Except for the fact, as pointed out, this movie was nothing at all like Sci-Fi "B-Movies" of the 50s.

 

Every film maker was a nobody before he or she found that one idea that became a hit.

Further, despite what we are fed in the media about how wealthy and glamorous it is to be in the film industry, I'd say 95% of those in the industry make next to nothing and would by all accounts be considered a failure. We don't know what the guys at RLM do for a living, but most film makers I know in the indie community have day jobs, and so are not overly concerned with being a huge commercial success

Agreed. Except that the first films were set in the 1930's.

The fourth is set 20 years after the first.

 

Well, okay, the first movies are centered around 1930s adventure serials.

 

So I take it I'm the only one who thinks that sounds awesome, huh? Little green men from Mars, flying saucers, ray guns, cheesy robots, etc. Sure, it's different, but change is a good thing.

The 30's adventure serials had already been done extremely well in the first three films, so why not go a completely different route? It was set in the 50's, so cheesy sci-fi does make sense. Give Indy some aliens to fight.

 

I would be all for that, except this isn't what they did. Instead we have the standard Indy adventure of exploring ruins, dealing with dangerous primitives, discovering ancient secrets, with a half-assed alien plot point tacked on at the end.

I have an idea - if Lucas wants to make a homage to 50's scifi, why not start a whole new series? You know, he used to be good at that sort of thing once upon a time.

 

the Plinkett character isn't supposed to be someone to identify with. He's supposed to be a funny, outrageous character who keeps the reviews interesting so it's not just endlessly droning on about story criticisms and plot points.

He's like that chef guy's exclamation of "bam!" to keep viewers' attentions.

 

That was a long time ago.

 

Because Ford is twenty years older and there's not that much difference from running from commies/natives/aliens and running from nazis/natives/the supernatural.