it might be your settings. looked more white to me. normal
SW blu-rays have changes to the films again
- Thread starter Whofan
- Start date
- Status
Watched ESB today and the detail was amazing. Noticed a lot I had been able to see before, notably textures and detailing on the Executor model and some of the matte paintings. I didn't notice any blue coloring issue. Sabers look great. Also noticed some odd interlacing-type effect when Vader contacts Ozzel and Piett (and ends up choking Ozzel) from his chamber...maybe it was always there.
Totally. People tend to comment on Plinkett's videos with phrases like, "oh God, so true!", "wow, that's so SPOT ON, LOL!", but when someone challenges them with valid, factual counterarguments, they're all like "what, you took that literally?", "You really don't get it" etc.
I really don't know any more, if those videos ARE supposed to be taken seriously, or not. When I first saw Plinkett's TPM review, I believed it was just meant to ridicule that movie, make fun of it, not offer serious analysis... I mean, who on Earth would be THAT stupid, to actually bother dissecting something that was never meant to hold up under scrutiny in the first place?
But then came the people who not only took it seriously, but called it things like "an eye-opening experience" and whatnot. Like some of them were actually living a lie all this time, and Plinkett (Stolaska, whatever) helped them see the light. Not to mention all the "childhood rape victims"* who saw him as their messiah... It's like he became a voice of the oppressed or something. A patron saint of Star Wars nerds, if you will...
*sarcasm
Yeah, I feel that way about the PT. If Lucas didn't insist on shoving it into the OT I wouldn't despise the PT as much.
This latest addition of the ROTS "NOOOO" is just the latest attempt to try and force the two trilogies together. Please, just leave the embarrassing stuff in the PT where it belongs.
I've just took the time to check this out:
http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-the-people-vs-george-lucas-and-star-wars-discussion/
Some good stuff in there, actually. Alexandre Philippe seems like a really cool guy.
But I've noticed a rather disturbing pattern. This guy Stolaska... Watch him and listen closely, every time he starts talking about Lucas. He perpetually calls him names, like "narcissistic egomaniac", "obsessive compulsive", etc. and I could swear I've seen his pupils dilate every time he mentions his name. That shit can't be healthy. I mean, for fuck sake man, did this guy molest you when you were a boy, rape your sister, ran over your mom with his Ferrari or something?
Being nerdy myself, I can understand nerdrage, but this... There's more to life than Star Wars, goddammit.
http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-the-people-vs-george-lucas-and-star-wars-discussion/
Some good stuff in there, actually. Alexandre Philippe seems like a really cool guy.
But I've noticed a rather disturbing pattern. This guy Stolaska... Watch him and listen closely, every time he starts talking about Lucas. He perpetually calls him names, like "narcissistic egomaniac", "obsessive compulsive", etc. and I could swear I've seen his pupils dilate every time he mentions his name. That shit can't be healthy. I mean, for fuck sake man, did this guy molest you when you were a boy, rape your sister, ran over your mom with his Ferrari or something?
Being nerdy myself, I can understand nerdrage, but this... There's more to life than Star Wars, goddammit.
I'd have to watch the video again, because I didn't notice him always calling Lucas names. But if he used the term egomaniac, well, that's probably because Lucas is. I mean, it isn't entirely his fault. He spent decades being told he's a genius and the one and only person responsible for Star Wars. Of course he's going to get a big ego!
Just watch the Confused Matthew video on the bluerays, and skip to the George Lucas interviews where he is asked about the criticism the prequels have gotten.
LOL, that guy is such a dufus.
LOL, that guy is such a dufus.
Yeah, but what do you think about Matthew?
Oh snap.
Which one?LOL, that guy is such a dufus.
Both are pretty out of touch with reality! But at least Lucas can't deny he said the things shown in this interview.
Well, okay. He can deny them. And probably will if asked.
It's like, hard for me to believe you really watched it.
Or maybe this humor is just flying over your head.
Regarding your last statement, did you NOT get the joke when other half in the bag dude left to do stuff instead of stick around and talk about Star Wars? Or how about the jokes about how they should be in straight jackets for talking about this so much? Or how about the very end when Phillippe leaves and they are talking about how they are gonna sit around watch some horrible movie- basically making fun of themselves?
Ok, how about when Stolaska stated he didn't hate or love George Lucas but he really liked to talk about why George makes the decisions he does?
I don't know, maybe your whole post is sarcasm and the jokes on me. It's either that or you are just missing the humor and much of the point of the videos.
I stopped watching a couple of minutes before the end of part one.
"YOU'RE MISSING TEH POINT!!!1111!!!"
BTW, your condescension is forgiven, NHF.
People are unironically recommending this guy again? He's pretty much the epitome of lazy and incoherent fanboy whining that's on the bottom tier of video reviewers. He loathes No Country for Old Men because, and I quote, 'nothing happened' (rinse, lather, repeat this phrase, several times, and one has a Matthew opinion). He's the kind of guy who will throw around words with a dim or exaggerated sense of what they should mean.
Red Letter Media was fine up to a point (I did like his review of The Phantom Menace but I simply didn't have the patience to sit through Revenge of the Sith), but that stuff's pretty dire. Nerd rage is all well and good, but if your nerd rage is so pathetic it makes me root for the unscrupulous billionaire against whom a credible case can be made, well...
I don't think Pan And Scan DVDs were ever released in the UK. The first Widescreen sets were out here mid 1990s.
And I'm asking you to give me one of those because I've watched all 3 reviews all the way through, but only once and I can't think of a single thing that isn't a gag like "qui-gon booze" or an opinion like "that doesn't make any sense"
I have yet to see it challenged with a valid, factual counterargument. Closest I've seen is a long and wordy variation of "Yes huh it does make sense."
I really don't have any stake in whether RLM's fictional psycopath told a lie about the content of a Star Wars movie or not. I haven't pinned my life on RLM's reviews. I didn't make them and I didn't make Star Wars. I would just like to know what one of these specific false statements are.
I put forth two criteria because some people confuse their opinions with facts and because I know that there are some false statements in the reviews that are meant to be obvious jokes and I think we should all agree that claiming "They said Qui-Gon was a drunk!" should be off the table in any serious discussion of a non-serious movie and its even less serious review.
Well, he does have some good videos. Watch his reviews of the Matrix sequels. He analyzes the films using knowledge of philosophy that I found fascinating. Plus his Lion King review was hilarious!
Well, I watched an hour of Old Men, and I didn't think nothing happened. It was rather boring, but that is because I just didn't get into the characters. I'd never tell anybody they were wrong for enjoying the film.
Matthew tore through 2001: A Space Odyssey in a similar fashion, crying that nothing happened. That was the point where I sort of stopped watching his videos.
He did a lovely review and analysis of Pan's Labyrinth. I'd recommend that video if you are a fan.
I was watching the first few parts of the TPM review, and he does nitpick a bit about some things that weren't that big of a deal, but does so in such an entertaining fashion it can be forgiven.
For example, how did Qui Gonn know what gas the Trade Federation was using before breathing it. I don't know - maybe it's standard poison gas for evil types in the SW universe. Not a big deal. Mostly used for a setup for his carbon monoxide gag.
How did the droid know they were Jedi knights when nearly everybody in SW uses robes? Maybe she heard Obi Wan say "master" to Qui Gonn and put 2 and 2 together. I don't know.
Why did the thing in the face lady know they were in the air shafts? Scanners?
Why separate to go down to the planet? I guess so if one is caught, the other still has a chance to warn the Naboo.
Why was Obi Wan called a Jedi knight in the opening crawl - Lucas screwed up!
So you can argue against a few of his points, but you shouldn't have to. If the script were well written and well thought out, there would be no need for conjecture and wondering about the points he brings up.
For example, the droid guessing they are Jedi. If another writer took a look over the script, he might have suggested to George that the line makes no sense. It would have been better to have the droid say "they are certainly Jedi Knights".
And maybe a hypothetical second writer could have suggested the Trade Federation shoot their ship immediately upon docking, since they were going to kill everybody anyway. That could set up an action piece where the Jedi survive the bombardment, jump out the back of the ship, and immediately fight off battle droids before escaping into the air shafts.
No pointless scenes about negotiations - just jump right into the action!
Prompted by the Blu-Ray release, I did some tedious legwork and managed to get a copy of Harmy's 'despecialized' editions of the first three films. What a revelation! Crisp, clear 720p visuals with none of the fuckery that Lucas perpetrated over the years. Star Wars even features the original crawl that omits the 'episode iv' title card. If you're interested in seeing the originals, I highly recommend these fans edits.
I guess his name isn't meant to be ironic.
TremblingBluStar said:
Stoklasa's many misrepresentations of the film were already documented and also previously listed in this forum. Why should I spoon-feed you the contents of a document which you outright refuse to read? Nothing suspicious about that? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of someone writing the document in the first place? Have I become your designated reader? Furthermore, what would that ultimately accomplish, given that the next Stoklasa groupie to appear will just demand the same pointless re-transcription of Raynor, as they always do?
TremblingBluStar said:
You're overlooking another possibility: Stoklasa simply doesn't care if his statements are factually true or not. Back in the day, this kind of thing used to be called "dishonest", but in these more enlightened times it goes by the term insightful. To use the terminology of Stephen Colbert, many of Stoklasa's claims may not be true, but they have a high degree of "truthiness", meaning they "feel right" to their intended audience regardless of their factual inaccuracy.
Last edited:
- Status
