a video of why the film sucked

[The Squire of Gothos]

So this is just a typical case of a basher (RLM) finding fault where no such fault exists

Finding an internally consistent reason for lots of light sabres (lots of Jedi = lots of Jedi weapons) doesn't make the criticism less valid. If the film couldn't help but make the use of the sabres less pleasing than before, it doesn't really excuse it from doing so.

Furthermore, the Original Trilogy takes great pains to establish the lightsaber as the weapon of a Jedi knight, not "a weapon used by certain Jedi as a matter of personal preference". So this is just a typical case of a basher (RLM) finding fault where no such fault exists.

It's not so much the fact that every Jedi has one, just that not every Jedi looks like he/she/it could handle one convincingly.

Big deal. I've been citing that for years.

Perhaps, but he does it with a nice fan-made video, so he scores points over you for that

 

[JarodRussell]

I was just supposing that the car was a 23rd century replica. I'm a big fan of 60's and 70's musclecars and absolutely hated seeing them destroy that car. I would hope that in the 23rd century that a truly original Corvette would be in a museum and drivable. Not in some Iowa farmboy's barn where it could get scratched or damaged.

Same here; that Corvette should have been a 2010 Corvette instead. One of my pet peeves about movies in general is how they destroy classic cars in movies like these; the Dukes Of Hazard movie could have had them tool around in a 2008 Dodge Charger or Magnum, and so could have the first Fast & Furious movie. But no, they have to destroy classic cars! Destroy new ones; there should have been enough new Corvettes left after WWIII for Frank to buy and Jim to destroy.

If Kirk drove a 2010 sports car it would have been shameless product placement. I'm flashing back to Will Smith's dreadfull (circe 2007!) shoes from iRobot.

I would have been happy with Kirk driving a 2050s or 2100s sports car. Much less a case of tiny universe (or tiny history) syndrome then.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

If Kirk drove a 2010 sports car it would have been shameless product placement. I'm flashing back to Will Smith's dreadfull (circe 2007!) shoes from iRobot.

You mean like the shameless Nokia phone product placement in the Corvette? Or the shameless Budweiser product placement in the bar and on the Abramsprise via the "Budgineering" section?

 

[Set Harth]

Finding an internally consistent reason for lots of light sabres (lots of Jedi = lots of Jedi weapons) doesn't make the criticism less valid.

It does if the criticism is "lots of lightsabers".

If the film couldn't help but make the use of the sabres less pleasing than before, it doesn't really excuse it from doing so.

That in itself is not a substantive criticism; "less pleasing than before" is merely deification of opinion.

It's not so much the fact that every Jedi has one, just that not every Jedi looks like he/she/it could handle one convincingly.

However, RLM's problem was that every Jedi had one. So the prequels are being faulted here not for contradicting the OT but for agreeing with it; that is, for contradicting the basher rewrite of the OT ( as is usually the case ).

Perhaps, but he does it with a nice fan-made video, so he scores points over you for that

The point was that the RLM groupies, being typical bashers, hadn't noticed that fact on their own.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

Finding an internally consistent reason for lots of light sabres (lots of Jedi = lots of Jedi weapons) doesn't make the criticism less valid.

It does if the criticism is "lots of lightsabers".

I don't follow, what's wrong with that as a criticism?

If the film couldn't help but make the use of the sabres less pleasing than before, it doesn't really excuse it from doing so.

That in itself is not a substantive criticism; "less pleasing than before" is merely deification of opinion.

It is though. If you're just copying and pasting (literally actually in this case) you're diluting what was a pretty strong element of the original trilogy, you can't help but notice.

Also, "deification of opinion"?

It's not so much the fact that every Jedi has one, just that not every Jedi looks like he/she/it could handle one convincingly.

However, RLM's problem was that every Jedi had one. So the prequels are being faulted here not for contradicting the OT but for agreeing with it; that is, for contradicting the basher rewrite of the OT ( as is usually the case ).

Again, you'll have to translate; "contradicting the basher rewrite of the OT".

Perhaps, but he does it with a nice fan-made video, so he scores points over you for that

The point was that the RLM groupies, being typical bashers, hadn't noticed that fact on their own.

"RLM groupies, being typical bashers"

I'm going to guess you've spent a little too much time fuming over the RLM videos. I don't know what bashers are, or how anyone who disagrees with you is apparently automatically one.

Do you have some rebuttals of the RLM reviews elsewhere that don't consist of a simple, "No, that's just basher talk"?

 

[Set Harth]

I don't follow, what's wrong with that as a criticism?

It's complete nonsense ( you admit that more Jedi = more sabers ) and is contradicted by the Original Trilogy.

The problem here is a tendency to portray RLM as totally wrong when it comes to, say, First Contact, but totally right when it comes to Star Wars.

It really doesn't work that way.

Whatever it is that makes RLM's "criticism" questionable in the case of Star Trek, it's still there when he's talking about Star Wars. He doesn't suddenly become credible in the case of one product but not the other.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

I don't follow, what's wrong with that as a criticism?

It's complete nonsense ( you admit that more Jedi = more sabers ) and is contradicted by the Original Trilogy.

Yes, more Jedi = more sabres = less impact when they appear. Just because that's internally consistent, doesn't mean that its a good thing.

The Matrix trilogy had the same problem. Neo ended up as a superman in the first, when he acted like one in the second and third it all seemed like a bit of a let down. Yes, he's a superman, yes he should act like a superman, yes when he does it all the time it gets a tad boring...

The problem here is a tendency to portray RLM as totally wrong when it comes to, say, First Contact, but totally right when it comes to Star Wars.

It really doesn't work that way

I've not really seen anyone talk as much about his Trek reviews on here. I'm not sure what's so bad about them in comparison.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm sorry - who's the social retard in the video, anyway?

Unless, of course, he's a member here in which case he's entitled to his erroneous opinion.

 

[Ryan8bit]

"Erroneous opinions"?

Whatever it is that makes RLM's "criticism" questionable in the case of Star Trek, it's still there when he's talking about Star Wars. He doesn't suddenly become credible in the case of one product but not the other.

I don't think any of his reviews are all that questionable, and I like most of the movies he's reviewed. He's just nitpicking, and he does it in the brilliant guise of being a psychopath loser.

 

[Amaris]

"Erroneous opinions"?

Whatever it is that makes RLM's "criticism" questionable in the case of Star Trek, it's still there when he's talking about Star Wars. He doesn't suddenly become credible in the case of one product but not the other.

I don't think any of his reviews are all that questionable, and I like most of the movies he's reviewed. He's just nitpicking, and he does it in the brilliant guise of being a psychopath loser.

That is what makes his reviews so much fun. Even if I don't agree with some points of his reviewing, he is a lot of fun to watch, and for me, far more credible than the "reviewer" listed in the OP.

 

[Broccoli]

^ Yeah, at least in the Plinkett reviews, if he doesn't like how something is done or is nitpicking, he generally has an argument for it. He is not just going "Oh, it sucks, because I didn't like it!" like so many people online do.

Also, the one thing in the Plinkett reviews that have made them somewhat popular is that they are entertaining, regardless if you agree or disagree with him.

 

[Amaris]

^ He is certainly quite entertaining at that.

 

[Satyrquaze]

5. Challenging the logic of a pre-pubescent kid in destroying his stepdad’s property is hardly confirms this as a reason that the movie sucks.

4. Pointless as the Nero of this new universe wouldn’t be born for at probably another 30 years. Besides, what’s the Romulan government’s track record for trusting outsiders claiming to be from the future? He planned on getting to it anyway, right after he destroyed every Federation world. He had a century to get around to it.

3. It wasn’t the Romulan sun.

2. Is Spock is part of an endangered species he’s STILL AN OUTSIDER. His genetic and cultural make-up has not changed in the slightest. He just carries a bit of survivor’s guilt now. Your theory only makes a lick of difference if Vulcans decide to inter-breed with humans.

1. It’s not a new timeline. It’s an ALTERNATE timeline. The old universe is still there.

You hateful idiot.

 

[M'Sharak]

I don't think this one really needs to be brought back to life after more than a year, does it?