Plinkett gets REVENGE

[flemm]

BINGO! Plinkett's role in these videos wasn't that of a reviewer/critic, but of a prosecutor, making a case against the prequels and going for death penalty.

Did a very good job, I might add. If I were him, I'd seriously consider career change. Untalented filmmakers are a plenty, but courts could always use another sleazeball lawyer or two.

Mind you, I think the PT is terrible for the most part and enjoy many aspects of Plinkett's reviews. But the reviews are extremely biased, I don't think there is any doubt about that. Your prosecutor analogy is actually fairly apt, I think, if we were to remove the "death penalty" part (I don't really see what that could apply to). Again, I like many aspects of the reviews, but they make a case against Lucas. That is their main goal.

As for that long list of "lies" above, it's really hard to make a convincing case that Plinkett is distorting or warping the reality of what is on film if you are going to present such a warped view of reality yourself. Most of what you list there cannot remotely be construed as lies. They are misinterpretations (maybe), exaggerations, more or less trivial errors, etc. Many are points on which one might reasonably disagree.

 

[Bishop76]

Yeah, I have yet to see any proof of lying. There are interpretations, like any movie, and exaggerations for comedic effect, but not a single thing on that list is a lie. And in fact, Stoklasa's interpretations tend to line up with the vast majority of interpretations of these films so it's not like they're even close to off-base interpretations. What this comes down to, again, is fan rage at an adept dissection of these lousy-ass movies.

 

[infinix]

wasn't this thread closed twice by the mods already? or was there another plinkett thread that I was thinking about.

But on topic, I'm surprised one person reviewing a set of pretty bad movies (I think we at least have consensus on that PT were terrible, right?) can be so polarizing. This guy is ripe for a career as a political pundit.

 

[Mach5]

there was no clear villain.

Palpatine aka Darth Sidious

there was no villain in the film having a clear motivation.

Lust for power. One of the clearest motivations imaginable.

Anakin had no concept of what was going on in the film.

He did. A nice lady's home planet was invaded by droids, and some evil people called the Sith have appeared. He knew this, and it's perfectly enough for a kid character.

Queen’s ship didn’t get hit after R2 reactivated the shields.

I'm too lazy to check...

there was no conceivable reason to train Anakin.

If Anakin being the chosen one who will bring balance to the force isn't reason enough, then fuck it.

there was no reason for Obi-Wan’s unwillingness to defy the Council.

A 800 year old Jedi master called Yoda, revered for his visdom, WAS THE COUNCIL. Defying someone like Yoda doesn't sound prudent, especially so someone as smart as Kenobi.

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan went back to Naboo for no reason.

Stoklasa believes Amidala isn't worth protecting. That's just, like, his opinion, man.

Yoda’s dialogue didn’t make sense.

Hmmmm... Which part of it? I've heard people dismiss that "fear leads to anger" thing, but those people probable know nothing of how emotions work. Or Buddhism. Fear of loss is the very core of suffering, according to Buddhist teachings.

Qui-Gon was depicted as having questionable moral values.

no one likes kids. ( We call that projection. )

That was just serial killer talking. Let it go.

Trade Federation would have been pleased with the idea of higher taxes.

We all love paying taxes, so does Nute Gunray.

He lied when he said that 29 minutes into ANH we’d been with Luke almost the whole time.

He actually said that?

Gungans wouldn’t be affected by the droid attack on the Naboo.

He had no basis for that assumption.

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan didn’t know the droids were invading by the time they were in Otoh Gunga.

Didn't they land on the planet together with the invasion forces?

Stoklasa is a proven liar.

Nah, he just didn't pay attention.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I'm surprised one person reviewing a set of pretty bad movies (I think we at least have consensus on that PT were terrible, right?) can be so polarizing. This guy is ripe for a career as a political pundit.

Occasional fact mixed with hyperbole, misrepresentation, distortion, and convenient omission of facts to support a predetermined point of view? "Pundit" sounds about right!

Seriously, though, polarization is an almost inevitable result of irrational commentary -- even if that commentary's primary intent was to entertain.

 

[Thestral]

...not a single thing on that list is a lie.

Maybe not a lie then, but ridiculous bullshit (though perhaps entertaining bullshit).

Occasional fact mixed with hyperbole, misrepresentation, distortion, and convenient omission of facts to support a predetermined point of view? "Pundit" sounds about right!

 

[Mach5]

polarization is an almost inevitable result of irrational commentary

Indeed.

I don't find the prequels good. I don't mind people hating them.

I DO mind when people who hate them talk down to those who like it. I DO mind when people try to impose their hatred on others, and I most certainly DO mind when they resort to deliberate misrepresentation, distortion, and convenient omission to accomplish that.

 

[Gaith]

Well, then there's this exhaustive rebuttal to / condemnation of RLM's Ep. 1 review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OhGaziXl4Q

 

[Greylock Crescent]

BRILLIANT!

 

[flemm]

Maybe not a lie then, but ridiculous bullshit (though perhaps entertaining bullshit).

Any discussion of these points would have to take into account, though, that Plinkett's whole style involves a certain amount of hyperbole and distortion that he is not trying to disguise or hide from the viewer. On the contrary, he flaunts that aspect of his reviews, so denouncing him for it as if he were trying to con or deceive the unsuspecting viewer strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Stoklasa is a proven liar.

He lied when he said that midichlorians were the Force. Midichlorians are not the Force, and no SW film ever said that they were.

He lied when he said that TPM had no story because it violated his imaginary rules.

He lied when he said there was no clear villain.

He lied when he said there was no villain in the film having a clear motivation.

He lied when he said that Anakin had no concept of what was going on in the film.

He lied when he said the Queen’s ship didn’t get hit after R2 reactivated the shields.

He lied when he said the lightsaber duel in ROTS was 45 minutes in length.

He lied when he said there was no conceivable reason to train Anakin.

He lied when he said there was no reason for Obi-Wan’s unwillingness to defy the Council.

He lied when he said that Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan went back to Naboo for no reason. A theme emerges…

He lied when he said Yoda’s dialogue didn’t make sense.

He lied when he said that Qui-Gon was depicted as having questionable moral values.

He lied when he said the characters didn’t engage in any planning until they reached Naboo.

He lied when he said that no one likes kids. ( We call that projection. )

He lied when he said the Trade Federation would have been pleased with the idea of higher taxes.

He lied when he said that 29 minutes into ANH we’d been with Luke almost the whole time.

He lied when he said the Gungans wouldn’t be affected by the droid attack on the Naboo.

He lied when he said that Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan didn’t know the droids were invading by the time they were in Otoh Gunga.

There are numurous things wrong with thios post. I'll begin with this.

When a filmed story is really good, really well-told, I am willing to grant a little leeway on the tiniest details that were unclear, or just don't fit. Take "In the Pale Moonlight" a DS9 episode. A very well-written and performed piece that almost has a rhythm to its execution. it is for this reason that when Sisko says that Starfleet gave his plan their blessing, I wasn't too perturbed that this line was not elaborated on.. I mean what did he say to them? It needed more explanation, really, but that would slow the story's rhythm.

Then you can nitpick smaller details, and in a weak episode you might feel satisfaction doing so. Like in "In the Pale Moonlight" how did Sisko and vreenek get down to the Holosuite to watch the fabricated meeting? all the holosuites on teh station that we've ever seen are in quarks, and I doubt that 52 Baker through 62 Baker includes Quark's and, even if it did, I doubt that Sisko would escort this Romulan to the holosuites. It's a valid nitpick, sure, and someone could wirte three pages to explain it away. But it's not necessary because it's in a good story, one that is well-told overall. On the other hand if I nitpick a story and it comes across as just poor writing all along, with inconsistencies and all of that, all the explaining away of the various points won't do shit to cover the fact that the points I brought up are the result of bad writing. That's what Plinket was doing when he brings them up. What's more, he seems to be taking the role of someone who might just want to walk in the theater and watch a good movie, so they shouldn't have to weed through all those explanations in their minds. The overall story is not good enough for that. I could nitpick the hell out of 'Inception" but I'm so happy the film was made because it is well-made and it gets people to think.

 

[Thestral]

Maybe not a lie then, but ridiculous bullshit (though perhaps entertaining bullshit).

Any discussion of these points would have to take into account, though, that Plinkett's whole style involves a certain amount of hyperbole and distortion that he is not trying to disguise or hide from the viewer. On the contrary, he flaunts that aspect of his reviews, so denouncing him for it as if he were trying to con or deceive the unsuspecting viewer strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.

Not unlike the Nostalgia Critic taken up to 11, eh? The problem is - at some point the bullshit factor outweighs the entertainment factor, and I'm not going to try and argue whether or not these reviews are entertaining (which I'm sure they are).

That's what Plinket was doing when he brings them up. What's more, he seems to be taking the role of someone who might just want to walk in the theater and watch a good movie, so they shouldn't have to weed through all those explanations in their minds.

The fact that Mach5 came up with answers to each of those points so quickly and easily is important. I mean, I was 14 when TPM came out, and I could've countered all those points. Let's criticize the Prequels for what they actually did wrong (wooden directing, bland storyline, ohgodohgod the dialogue) - or throw peanuts at it but don't complain when somebody calls you on your entertaining but invalid criticisms.

 

[flemm]

The problem is - at some point the bullshit factor outweighs the entertainment factor, and I'm not going to try and argue whether or not these reviews are entertaining (which I'm sure they are).

I wasn't referring to the entertainment value of the reviews, which is entirely subjective. What I was pointing out was that the whole character he presents is that of a wacko who is a bit unbalanced and gets carried away. So, cherry-picking a couple of minor details from one of his tirades and pointing out that what he says could be interpreted differently or might not be literally true doesn't say much of anything at all about the quality of the review or the validity of some of the broader points he is making.

For example, what you list as things the PT actually did wrong (wooden directing, bland storyline, awful dialogue, etc.), those are exactly the things that Plinkett's reviews mainly focus on, with analysis and opinion as to why, specifically, the directing is wooden, the storyline bland and the dialogue so awful. He also nitpicks, but that is not the emphasis (or the most effective part of his reviews). So, nitpicking the nitpicks doesn't really go very far toward rebutting his arguments. Neither does taking a blatant exaggeration from the reviews and calling it a lie (when it wasn't presented as a literal truth in the first place).

 

[Gaith]

^^ But the criticisms are valid - from a certain point of view.

Really, you'd think we were discussing the fate of the Palestinian territories here. Some people like the PT and others don't; one group is more enlightened than the other, IMHO, but both are ultimately okay. I mean, we're all pro-puppies, right? Puppy cruelty is bad. Even the Flanneled One would doubtless agree.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^^ But the criticisms are valid - from a certain point of view.

Valid? Yes. Entertaining? Potentially. Objective? No.

And really, that's the only worthwhile critique of RLM -- and it's not even a critique. It's simply making sure we call a spade a spade.

Some people like the PT and others don't; one group is more enlightened than the other, IMHO, but both are ultimately okay.

That's a rather pompous statement. Just because I like a flawed film doesn't make me any less enlightened than someone who doesn't like the same flawed film. Think about the flawed films you like (such as, say, Dead Man's Chest )... I'd say you're no less enlightened for your tastes.

 

[Gaith]

You're right - I should have specified "more enlightened within the specific confines of Star Wars fandom" - but even there, I was deliberately being (obtusely and in failed fashion) tongue-in-cheek).

Anyway, puppies.


Edit: also, good to have you back, hombre.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Yeah, I wasn't sure where you were going with that ... At any rate, it's all good.

Except for the puppies. Can't stand'em. With their slobbering and yipping and being all puppy-ish. Gimme kittens, instead. At least you don't have to walk them.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Flying Spaghetti Monster has the right answer: tell a good story, and you can get away with anything. Tell a crap story and the internet nerds will peck you to death like mangy starlings.

Let's criticize the Prequels for what they actually did wrong (wooden directing, bland storyline, ohgodohgod the dialogue)

Plus terrible characterization, off-kilter pacing, and screwing up a story that had great potential so badly that people rarely if ever mention the missed potential as one of the PT's faults, since they probably can't envision a PT that was not only tolerable but actually great.

Basically, the PT did all the BIG stuff wrong. It's worse when a movie does the big stuff wrong, whereas who cares if there are a few inconsistencies here and there.

 

[Thestral]

For example, what you list as things the PT actually did wrong (wooden directing, bland storyline, awful dialogue, etc.), those are exactly the things that Plinkett's reviews mainly focus on, with analysis and opinion as to why, specifically, the directing is wooden, the storyline bland and the dialogue so awful.

Ok, but when the examples he apparently uses are so blatantly wrong (no reason for Obi-Wan not to defy the council, no reason for the Jedi to return to Naboo, no clear villain or villain with motivation, for example) then what's he using to support his argument?

You can miss a forest for the trees, but you also can't have a forest without trees.

Let's criticize the Prequels for what they actually did wrong (wooden directing, bland storyline, ohgodohgod the dialogue)

Plus terrible characterization, off-kilter pacing, and screwing up a story that had great potential so badly that people rarely if ever mention the missed potential as one of the PT's faults, since they probably can't envision a PT that was not only tolerable but actually great.

I figure terrible characterization is covered by wooden directing and rotten dialogue meeting bland storyline. The potential for good characters is there in each one of TPM characters (and I would say that Qui Gon at least is a decent character - made far better in the novelization of course). And I figure the screwing up a story is covered by bland storyline.

 

[flemm]

You can miss a forest for the trees, but you also can't have a forest without trees.

We know there is a forest: the movies are terrible. For a lot of the reasons that Plinkett identifies. Those reasons are obvious in any event, for the most part. People like the reviews because they clearly articulate a bunch of stuff they already knew from watching and disliking those movies, but had never taken the time to think through in detail or connect to specific examples.

For the most part Plinkett doesn't even talk about stuff that is debatable, really. The characters in the Phantom Menace are not as clearly defined or as memorable as the characters in the original Star Wars movie. Is there any real debate about this? Plinkett's review just illustrates this obvious point in a way that many find amusing. Ditto for the opening sequences. Can anyone really argue that TPM's opening sequence is anywhere near as memorable or as cleverly conceived as that of Star Wars?

This is the kind of thing that Plinkett spends most of his time on: in other words, the forest.

Sometimes he uses hyperbole because his character is a wacko crazed maniac. So, when he says no clear villain, he does not mean that it is impossible to identify who is the villain. He means that the villain is not presented in a compelling way that draws the audience into the story (the way Vader's entrance does in the original movie). When he says that the villain has no motivation, he doesn't mean that, literally, no motivation can be attributed to him, but rather that it is not presented in a compelling way and is bogged down in a convoluted plot that won't really pay off until the next movie (if then). This is all really obvious when you listen to the reviews.

And he's right. Star Wars is compelling for the same reasons that really good heroic fantasy can be compelling: it's clear, simple and elegant. Naive, almost like a fairy tale, but, like actual fairy tales, with a bit of darkness at its core. What Plinkett is saying is that the prequels do not have that quality (and they don't). He's not saying that it is impossible to figure out what is going on.