Is the Star Wars saga better with Episodes I to III or worse?

[Bishop76]

Wait a minute - the criterion for being called a "successful filmmaker" is now homemade videos bitching nonsensically about the PT?

Well, you wouldn't think so, but there it is, right? Oh, I see what you're doing there. It's internet defense #14 - deny, deny, deny.

Doesn't the fact that you called him Stoklasa kind of proves that he's successful? Most people just refer to them as the Plinkett reviews or the Red Letter Media reviews. And as far as I know, no one else in this thread has called him Stoklasa yet.

The simple fact is, his reviews are far more amusing and far better put together than the prequel trilogy and I'd rather watch his reviews than any of those films any day of the week.

(and Dennis, Mike Stoklasa is the guy who puts out the lengthy prequel reviews that pretty much deconstruct them)

 

[Mach5]

The simple fact is

Is it?

The only thing that can really be called "fact" here is that you just stated an opinion and called it "simple fact".

That's not how you discuss shit with people, you know.

I, for one, enjoyed Stoklasa's (Plinkett's) Phantom Menace review for about 20 minutes or so, but then it just started to feel dragged out, at least to me.

Also, not everyone finds his stile of humor amusing, because sense of humor is strictly subjective. That being said, I found the whole serial killer thing to be borderline retarded, if not appalling.

All in all, I must say that I enjoyed The Phantom Menace a hell of a lot more than Plinkett's review, despite all its flaws (which I not only acknowledge, but have also pointed out myself in my own review that I've written for a certain Croatian sci-fi site).

 

[Bishop76]

Didn't I just say a few posts ago that his humor isn't for everyone? I'm pretty sure I did...

The use of the phrase "simple fact" was just that - a turn of phrase. Don't take it too much to heart.

I'd love to see your rebuttal to Plinkett's review, btw. Any chance of getting it in English? Usually, the responses to his stuff are good for a laugh too.

Edit: Sorry, misunderstood your post - I thought you reviewed the Plinkett review.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Okay lessee here...

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Here's what makes more sense: fear leads to suffering (because fear itself is an uncomfortable thing to experience). Suffering leads to resentment of whatever causes the fear. This leads to both anger and hate (kinda at the same time, I'd guess) of the thing being resented.

But you know how Yoda shuffles words around willy nilly. Relevant to him the word order was not.

 

[davejames]

I voted "better" because I think the PT is enjoyable and pretty cool most of the time. Granted, it has its flaws but I think a lot of people just nit-pick the thing to death. To me, any flaws are easily overlooked due to all the greatness contained within. In fact, when I first saw these films I thought that they were pretty much flawless. Then again I was young and impressionable so maybe I'm biased.

One of my college roommates was also a big star wars nut and we would watch the prequels all the time and had no complaints. Plus without the PT there would be no Battlefront or ROTS video games that me and my friends enjoyed playing.

Who knows, maybe Lucas was smarter than we thought, and knew exactly the right way to reinterpret SW for the next generation and keep the franchise going strong.

I just think it's a shame he couldn't craft something that the original fans could enjoy as well, and that was more in keeping with the fun, lighthearted spirit of the OT.

 

[Bishop76]

Okay lessee here...

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Here's what makes more sense: fear leads to suffering (because fear itself is an uncomfortable thing to experience). Suffering leads to resentment of whatever causes the fear. This leads to both anger and hate (kinda at the same time, I'd guess) of the thing being resented.

But you know how Yoda shuffles words around willy nilly. Relevant to him the word order was not.

Pretty much my point - you can organize these almost any way you want to and they can still make sense. One does not necessarily lead logically into the other.

 

[Set Harth]

Well, you wouldn't think so, but there it is, right? Oh, I see what you're doing there. It's internet defense #14 - deny, deny, deny.

Deny your standard for "successful filmmaker"? Which is anyone with a grudge against the PT? Guilty as charged. In my day words used to mean things, and to be considered a successful filmmaker you had to have made your own films, as opposed to nonsense-ridden youtube videos bitching about someone else's.

Doesn't the fact that you called him Stoklasa kind of proves that he's successful?

It actually gets better! He's a successful filmmaker because I know his name!!!

Remind me not to sit next to the Unabomber at the Academy Awards!

 

[Bishop76]

Deny your standard for "successful filmmaker"? Which is anyone with a grudge against the PT? Guilty as charged. In my day words used to mean things, and to be considered a successful filmmaker you had to have made your own films, as opposed to nonsense-ridden youtube videos bitching about someone else's.

I actually never said "successful filmmaker" - I said "internet success"... you put your own little spin on that, chief, and then tried to put those words into my mouth. Additionally, he also has made his own films. Just thought you might like a bit of a heads up before you continue talking out of your ass.

Doesn't the fact that you called him Stoklasa kind of proves that he's successful?

It actually gets better! He's a successful filmmaker because I know his name!!!

Remind me not to sit next to the Unabomber at the Academy Awards!

I'm not even really sure what that means. I'm guessing you're trying to be funny? Maybe? I'll just assume you're trying to be funny.

At any rate, knowledge of a man's work would kind of indicate that that work has had some level of success, so yeah - I'm pretty sure you knowing specifically that the filmmaker's name is Stoklasa is an indicator of his INTERNET success (figured I'd emphasize that word again seeing as you have some trouble reading).

 

[Bishop76]

Who knows, maybe Lucas was smarter than we thought

 

[Mach5]

Edit: Sorry, misunderstood your post - I thought you reviewed the Plinkett review.

Reviewing other people's reviews isn't really my thing

However, some guy who calls himself Jim Raynor did just that a few weeks ago. It mostly just earned him ridicule, but he did raise some good points, IMO.

What ever, I it's not like I ever took Plinkett too seriously anyway. He was only making fun of the movie that gravely disappointed him, but I think he took it too far at times.

His videos have that really weird vibe sometimes... It's like, you can actually taste all his hate and resentment for this movie, which he's trying to sugar-coat with humor.

Anyway, like I said, I acknowledge the issues surrounding the prequels, but The Phantom Menace holds a certain amount of sentimental value to me, mostly because I remember having a great time at the theater with some very dear friends back then.

My expectations were, to be honest, almost non existent. The only thing I actually expected from that movie was a thrill ride, and it friggin' delivered (uhm, I was 14).

I do remember thinking; "yeah, I guess they must be keeping all the seriously good stuff for the sequels" and with this in mind, it was Episode II that really disappointed me.

I expected a movie about two best friends doing heroic things which made them legendary, but instead I got a movie about a whiny brat with an attitude problem.

Still, I don't "hate" Episode II. I actually found some enjoyable bits in that one too, though I didn't hesitate trashing it in my review, which even got me some angry fanboy feedback.

Returning to the topic at hand, I think the prequels' greatest contribution to the Star Wars saga is making people love and cherish The Original Trilogy even more that they ever did before.

You know what was the first thing I did, after coming home from seeing Episode I back in 1999? I rewatched "Star Wars" (ANH) and felt really good about being a Star Wars fan.

 

[Set Harth]

I actually never said "successful filmmaker" - I said "internet success"... you put your own little spin on that, chief, and then tried to put those words into my mouth.

Nice try, slick, but you were responding to a post that called him a failed filmmaker:

And all this has absolutely nothing to do with him being a failed filmmaker.

I'm not sure that I would call him failed though - he's turned down some solid offers after his Internet success

It's funny - because of the proximity of these posts I actually thought they were part of the same conversation.

Additionally, he also has made his own films. Just thought you might like a bit of a heads up before you continue talking out of your ass.

So he's made his own films, eh? Are they successful? I guess not... because I don't know their names! That's the standard we're using, right?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Who knows, maybe Lucas was smarter than we thought, and knew exactly the right way to reinterpret SW for the next generation and keep the franchise going strong.

By boring us with politics and trade federations and one scene after another of people standing around and talking? If that is what kids like nowadays, you'd think C-SPAN would get better ratings.

TCW is much more the way to go - don't ignore the Clone Wars, jump right into it! Give us lightsaber fights and space dogfights and big ass cruisers bombarding planets! Show us a mind-blowing array of insane looking planets! Show us Anakin and Obi-Wan in action, being cool, fun guys who are also serious but not too serious (especially Anakin). Give us some politics and psychology, yeah yeah whatever, but really make an effort to bring in all the mystical craziness of the Force and destiny and prophecies and all that crap. Blow us away with the sheer cosmic power of it all!!! Anakin should charm us and then scare the shit out of us!

 

[Bishop76]

Anyway, like I said, I acknowledge the issues surrounding the prequels, but The Phantom Menace holds a certain amount of sentimental value for me, mostly because I remember having a great time at the theater with some very dear friends back then.

Stoklasa's sense of humor isn't for everyone, and I totally get that. I do think that without the goofy voice and character that he raises a LOT of really good points, though. Points I agreed with for years, and even though myself, but was unable to articulate as well as I think he did.

I also actually have fond memories of episodes 2 and 3 not for the movies themselves (I personally think they're as abysmal as the RLM reviews spell out), but I did have a great time with some great friends waiting in line and hoping for greatness so I totally get that.

I just can't in good conscience say the movies were good, despite the fun I had with the people I went to see them with.

 

[Bishop76]

I actually never said "successful filmmaker" - I said "internet success"... you put your own little spin on that, chief, and then tried to put those words into my mouth.

Nice try, slick, but you were responding to a post that called him a failed filmmaker:

And all this has absolutely nothing to do with him being a failed filmmaker.

Additionally, he also has made his own films. Just thought you might like a bit of a heads up before you continue talking out of your ass.

So he's made his own films, eh? Are they successful? I guess not... because I don't know their names! That's the standard we're using, right?

Nice try, slick? WTF? Ah, internet fanboy defense 23 now... change what the other guy said to your advantage. Clever girl...

All you have to do is go back and look at what I posted. I never said he was a successful filmmaker. Reading is fundamental.

 

[Set Harth]

All you have to do is go back and look at what I posted. I never said he was a successful filmmaker.

No, you just questioned him being called a failed filmmaker.
*cue Jeopardy music*

 

[Bishop76]

Well, that's probably because he's not a failed filmmaker. Disagreeing with that statement doesn't mean I think he's a successful filmmaker. He's an amateur filmmaker who's had gobs of internet success with his review films.

You see, in my day, words used to mean things...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Indeed, and "filmmaker" didn't mean people who post home videos on the Internet.

 

[Bishop76]

Indeed, and "filmmaker" didn't mean people who post home videos on the Internet.

It still actually shouldn't. It technically shouldn't be used unless actual film is being used in my opinion, but with the advent of digital tech it can get pretty murky.

Edit: and again, just to be clear, he's not posting "home videos on the internet" - he's actually putting films together and using editing techniques, etc...

 

[Neroon]

All you have to do is go back and look at what I posted. I never said he was a successful filmmaker.

No, you just questioned him being called a failed filmmaker.
*cue Jeopardy music*

How about you both try this instead... step away from your respective keyboards and take a break. Go for a walk. Grab some dinner. Then return to the discussion with Auto-snark turned off.

In the mean time, returning to the actual topic.....

 

[Mach5]

Indeed, RLM is an actual production company owned by Stoklasa. A company whose original works no one cares about.

A company that, if it weren't for the TPM review, no one would ever even heard about.

I really have nothing against Plinkett himself, or his reviews, to be honest. It's the people whom he helped see the light that annoy me. Many people started talking trash about the prequels only after talking trash about them became fashionable and cool.