Or Indiana Jones.
Plinkett gets REVENGE
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
- Status
Or Indiana Jones.
^ Now Squeeeeaalll like a pig!!
Oh wait that was Spielberg. Same difference
Oh wait that was Spielberg. Same difference
Well, the difference there is that Sin City was able to pull it off and Lucas wasn't. In the prequels, the use of claustrophobic sets and 'tennis ball' stand-ins for CGI characters clearly dictated direction with deleterious results, as expertly pointed out in the Plinkett review.
How did Sin City avoid those shortcomings, while the prequels didn't? First of all, Sin City didn't use 'false backgrounds' in the same manner - that is, to use a small, confined studio to stand in for a giant arena of a background. Most scenes in SC took place in settings arguably no larger than the set itself - an apartment, a bar, a car, a small warehouse, and so on. The Star Wars prequels put characters in gigantic caverns, and forced them to talk to CGI characters, aka, tennis balls. Almost every scene in Sin City is compatible with the size of the set, and there's no weirdness in which an actor talks to a skeleton rig that serves as a stand-in.
That and the actors were probably directed to, well, act instead of just stand there and read dialogue and we'll put the "story" and background in during post.
That's true, but hey, it's called acting. On stage, I've seen people talking to puppets as if they were real people, I've seen actors give stirring speeches to troops that we did not see, I've seen all kinds of amazing shows where actors, through the strength of their acting skills, were able to force you to see people and things that did not exist. Acting with tennis balls is NOTHING.
George Lucas can't direct actors, he doesn't talk their language, he doesn't understand their craft, but the skilled actors he hired should have been able to give better performances nonetheless.
It has to be a combination of factors. There were some excellent actors in these movies, but to varying degrees, they were all terrible or incredibly bland and disinterested.
Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine is the only exception, at least in RotS, though even he has some painfully awkward scenes in that movie. Of course, Palpatine is the only character who has a sense of purpose, drive and motivation, and is not asked to play the fool. So that is suggestive, I think, that part of the problem is that the script is so bad.
Awful script, lack of competent direction and green screens everywhere combine to create a nightmare situation for the actors. What are you going to work with? You can't see your surroundings. The script is cringe-worthy and glaringly amateurish. The director doesn't know how to work with actors and is more interested in the CGI anyway. I can only imagine what the off-the-record comments from somebody like Liam Neeson would be. Mostly expletives I'm sure.
Talking to tennis balls is one thing, but what's a poor actor supposed to do when they're forced to wing it? I still wonder if Hayden Christensen just decided to interpret Anakin his own way: a whiny, horrible douchebag who would make the audience want to throw their popcorn at him.
Well, that's one way of performing a "bad" person. And it wouldn't be a bad idea in a different movie. But in this case, the whiny douchebag is the main character and has to carry the movies, and maintain audience sympathy almost all the way through; has to be convincing as a love interest; has to be convincing as a military hero; and has to synch up convincingly with Darth Vader so we believe he is essentially the same character.
On top of that, the core of the story actually takes place in Anakin's mind - it all hinges on what his mindset is, and why he falls to the Dark Side - something that still completely mystifies me. It probably mystified Christensen, too. I doubt Lucas bothered to explain anything to him. So we're left with the impression that Anakin was either stupid, insane or both - which isn't exactly a satisfying reason for the fall, even if that impression was intended.
Put it all together, and Anakin would be one hell of a challenge to pull off if you had a writer and director at the very top of their game, working perfectly in synch with a very well cast actor who had the innate charisma to grab the audience's sympathy even as he's doing questionable things. Instead, the acting, writing and directing were completely discombobulated and wouldn't have pulled off a much simpler, traditional hero type character well.
And what does an actor like Natalie Portman do with a character who is written so badly as Padme was? On top of the absurd writing (she wills herself to die with two newborn babies to care for???) she has to deal with inadvertent sabotage from her co-star who is performing his role in such a way that her character ends up looking like a total moron or at the very least, someone with terrible taste in men.
The PT serves as an excellent example of the collaborative nature of movies. By showing us what happens when the elements are all careening off in different directions, we can better appreciate the challenge of making it all synch up, in movies where they do all synch up beautifully!
Exactly. Unless you're writing comedy, all major characters in fiction should be given the courtesy of being allowed by the writer to be smart, have a goal that they are actively working towards, and being depicted as competent and able to achieve that goal (if not for the obstacles in their way). Then you make sure those goals clash for the villain vs hero, and for others, they don't have to clash but shouldn't be exactly in synch. There's your drama. Then the challenge is, how to get a group of characters and the conflicts generated by their goals, to form the plot you want them to. Writing a story so that nothing feels contrived, and the plot seems to unfold as the natural result of all the competing characters' unique personalities and goals is hard work.
Poor writers use BS tricks to avoid the challenge of coming up with a plot that will still work even if everyone is at the top of their game. Characters who are stupid or insane are a couple of big red flags - stupid and crazy characters are far too easy for a writer to manipulate into doing whatever he wants them to do. Sane, smart characters are a harder challenge to work into a coherent plot.
Contrivances are another sign of a poor writer. The way the Jedi don't question finding a clone factory for their use, or why a war happened for no apparent reason. Shit like that really makes me lose respect for a writer. Doesn't pass the smell test.
And really lazy writers won't bother to give characters any sort of goal. Characters without goals come off as bland and interchangeable, which is why all the PT characters are exactly that, except for Palps.
Last edited:
Please. RLM does raise some valid criticisms, but it is most definitely not objective with respect to Star Wars reviews. The reviews have a very specific and explicit perspective and there's no significant (or objective) deviation from the intent. Even your "example" is yet another instance of "hey, the actor is usually good -- but the PT ruined his performance somehow".
Temis the Vorta said:
Bad rule, don't agree with it. Since it's on my mind from just using it as an example somewhere else, what about The Great Gatsby? Gatsby's goal was illusory, he never could have achieved it, and he's kind of an idiot anyway.
I guess Hero's Journey type stories typically rely on a competent character though.
True. The focus is what a mess Lucas made of Star Wars in the PT, so the intent (more or less conscious) of his comments regarding the actor is to keep the focus on Lucas' ineptitude. He made be right, but the bias is clear.
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.
Man, you guys are REALLY butthurt by these reviews, aren't you? Hilarious. Any time one of these RLM/Plinkett threads pops back up, the yipping jackals return, sounding like broken records. RLM is popular and insightful, the prequels are garbage, thanks for your time.
RLM is popular and insightful, the prequels are garbage, thanks for your time.
RLM is a proven liar, the reviews are garbage, thanks for your time.
Each of you gets an infraction for trolling. Comments to PM
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.
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.
Is it important?
To some people it may not be. To others it may be. Simple as that.
I believe this to be a deliberate exaggeration, not a lie. Everything else is mostly spot on, though I wouldn't call it "lying" (sounds way to harsh). It's just "bullshit".
Only when someone tries to assert that these reviews are "objective" or "definitive" or ought to be taken as serious commentary. RLM uses an obvious bias (one could even say an outright prejudice) against the PT in order to create reviews that are intended to entertain. Whether or not one is entertained is up to the viewer. But while there are valid points raised in the reviews, the notion that they represent a clear, academic, or an otherwise reasonable critique is erroneous.
- Status
Similar threads
