Plinkett gets REVENGE

[Broccoli]

This:

 

[Bishop76]

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.

Perfectly said.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Stoklasa is a proven liar.

He lied when he

Is it important?

To some people it may not be. To others it may be. Simple as that.

Then the level of vitriol is silly. Let's get some perspective.

 

[Broccoli]

Then the level of vitriol is silly. Let's get some perspective.

Hey...this isn't politics or a discussion on human rights! We're talkin' Star Wars here. Does anything else matter?

DOES IT?!?!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

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.

Truer words were never spoken. I was about to post something very, very similar, but you said it so well here.

 

[flemm]

Perfectly said.

Lies.

Truer words were never spoken.

More lies.

Spoiler: the lies quoted above

Actually, it was more hyperbole Very kind of you in any event, gentlemen

 

[Mach5]

This:

I've been thinking about this... I'm neither 2 or a 3 really... More like 2.7

 

[Set Harth]

And in fact, Stoklasa's interpretations tend to line up with the vast majority of interpretations of these films

I take it the appeal to majority fallacy somehow has the power to convert an untrue statement ( what some here have called "bullshit" ) into a true one. I guess "truth" is really just a matter of how many people you have on your side.

people rarely if ever mention the missed potential as one of the PT's faults

That statement makes no sense at all. In fact, whenever someone says there was something wrong with the PT, they're saying it should have been done differently, because it had the potential to be done differently. Every criticism of the PT is a case of alleged "missed potential".

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

The inconsistencies in question are between Stoklasa's version of the films and reality. Who cares if there are inconsistencies between Stoklasa's allegations and the truth? Some people do care about the truth.

Sometimes he uses hyperbole because his character is a wacko crazed maniac.

Or he's hiding behind a "character" in an ill-fated attempt to provide cover for his distortions. "It wasn't me, it was the character!"

So, when he says no clear villain, he does not mean that it is impossible to identify who is the villain.

Of course not. Because that would be lying. And we know Stoklasa would never, ever do such a thing. Whatever he actually says, what he really means is always 100% true. Convenient, eh?

He means that the villain is not presented in a compelling way that draws the audience into the story

So why doesn't he just say that? Could it be that a charge such as "not compelling" would be too easily seen through as being just one person's subjective opinion and not based on any actual objective facts?

When he says that the villain has no motivation, he doesn't mean that, literally, no motivation can be attributed to him

Of course not. He never means any of the false statements that he makes.

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

So why doesn't he say that? And it pays off in the same film, but who's counting?

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.

Ah yes, the "I know you are but what am I" defense. But it's not hard at all to make a case that Stoklasa is distorting or warping the reality of what is on film. It's the opposite of hard, but it does take watching the film ( which may be hard for some ). All it takes is fact-checking his claims against the actual film. That "forest" out there turns out to be nothing more than a bunch of cardboard cutouts of trees, propped up by the flap in the back which folds out, easily knocked over and revealed for what they are. If you want to switch out the concept of dishonesty and replace it with a lack of comprehension or Stoklasa simply "not paying attention", go right ahead. It would reflect equally negatively on the alleged validity of the reviews.

 

[Thestral]

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.

Examples that would actually stand up to the most cursory of debunking I assume?

Regardless, the amount of bandwith that's been spent on trying to convince people that "No, Plinkett's review has shown me the light and if you disagree it's because you're nitpicky/unintelligent!" is a bit bizarre. Maybe I'm just tired of the Prequel bashing, since it's been going on for almost half my life now and equally bad movies have come out but don't get the same vitriol.

 

[Bishop76]

Set Harth, I'm just going to wish you well and be on my merry. Your ability to bend reality around yourself would make Neo proud. Good on ya.

I don't think Plinkett fans were "shown the light" or guided to the truth by these reviews. We're mostly big fans of the OT who were burned by the PT and now we have a reviewer that makes entertaining reviews bashing those foul films with a little but of film theory thrown in for good measure. It's more of a catharsis than it is enlightenment. Plus, to a lot if us, they're far more entertaining than the films. I'll watch any one of the Plinkett reviews again before I'd even think of watching any of the prequels. There have been a lot of foul movies over the years, but none with the excitement/anticipation to letdown ratio that these films represent.

 

[infinix]

Or he's hiding behind a "character" in an ill-fated attempt to provide cover for his distortions. "It wasn't me, it was the character!"

But the premise of that is Stoklasa thought his reviews would get him in trouble so he premeditated a defense for himself before filming those reviews. Its hard to imagine that being the case. He wasn't making anything that would get him sued by anybody. I think in your anger, you attribute motive when there couldn't be any.

So why doesn't he just say that? Could it be that a charge such as "not compelling" would be too easily seen through as being just one person's subjective opinion and not based on any actual objective facts?

All reviews are subjective, be it movies, books, music, or art. This isn't a science, this is opinion. The *lies* you accredit to Stoklasa aren't really lies. Those were his interpretations of the events of the movie.

Take midi-chlorians for example. TPM made midi-chlorians the conduits of the Force and without midi-chlorians, neither life nor knowledge of the Force was possible. Sounds like the tree falls in a forest analogy. Even if midi-chlorians were NOT equivalent to the Force, without these little organisms, Force might as well not exist since nobody would know it.

BTW, that is a VERY different interpretation of what Obi-Won said in ANH "It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." How can micro-organisms bind together a galaxy? See, the Force can only influence through the Midi-Chlorians, and there sure as hell couldn't be any midi-chlorians in a star or a rock or a X-Wing. So the Force could have exert any influence on anything inanimate, so the Force couldn't have anything to do with binding a galaxy together.

So while you are technically correct that Midi-Chlorians aren't the Force, per se, it isn't lying to extrapolate that interpretation from the TPM.

 

[Mach5]

How can micro-organisms bind together a galaxy?

You might be taking it too literally. When Obi-Wan mentioned the galaxy, he may have meant "all life in the galaxy".

See, the Force can only influence through the Midi-Chlorians

There is no mention of that anywhere in Star Wars. All we know of midichlorians is that they influence people's awareness of the force. The more of the you have, the more you feel it. The more you feel it, the more you can use it.

 

[infinix]

You might be taking it too literally. When Obi-Wan mentioned the galaxy, he may have meant "all life in the galaxy".

Can't argue with assumptions.

There is no mention of that anywhere in Star Wars. All we know of midichlorians is that they influence people's awareness of the force. The more of the you have, the more you feel it. The more you feel it, the more you can use it.

Qui-Gon's words were "Without the midi-chlorians, we would have no knowledge of the Force." So without Midi-Chlorians, (first of all, live would not even exist) there would be no way to learn the will of the Force or manipulate the Force or to even be aware of the Force.

If all living beings, collectively have absolutely no knowledge of the existence of the Force, if they, collectively are not even aware of their lack of knowledge of the Force, then the Force effectively do not exist, as far as those living beings are concerned.

 

[Mach5]

If all living beings, collectively have absolutely no knowledge of the existence of the Force, if they, collectively are not even aware of their lack of knowledge of the Force, then the Force effectively do not exist, as far as those living beings are concerned.

Metaphysics. Thanks, but I'll rather leave it to the philosophers.

 

[JarodRussell]

How can micro-organisms bind together a galaxy?

You might be taking it too literally. When Obi-Wan mentioned the galaxy, he may have meant "all life in the galaxy".

The Force binds the galaxy. Midichlorians only enable humans to use the Force.

 

[Bishop76]

I think the fact that there's debate about just what MCs are just kind of goes to show that they were a pretty poorly written, undeveloped plot point. And a useless plot point that never plays out anywhere to boot.

 

[JarodRussell]

I think the fact that there's debate about just what MCs are just kind of goes to show that they were a pretty poorly written, undeveloped plot point. And a useless plot point that never plays out anywhere to boot.

Interesting reasoning. Look at how much debate there is about Star Trek 2009. Must be a pretty poorly written, underdeveloped movie.

 

[infinix]

I'll ask my question in my own thread. People are obviously focused on one thing here.

 

[Timby]

I think the fact that there's debate about just what MCs are just kind of goes to show that they were a pretty poorly written, undeveloped plot point. And a useless plot point that never plays out anywhere to boot.

Interesting reasoning. Look at how much debate there is about Star Trek 2009. Must be a pretty poorly written, underdeveloped movie.

Well, it was a pretty poorly written, underdeveloped movie. (Granted, I enjoyed the hell out of it for all the fan service, but I'd never call it particularly good. )

 

[JarodRussell]

I think the fact that there's debate about just what MCs are just kind of goes to show that they were a pretty poorly written, undeveloped plot point. And a useless plot point that never plays out anywhere to boot.

Interesting reasoning. Look at how much debate there is about Star Trek 2009. Must be a pretty poorly written, underdeveloped movie.

Well, it was a pretty poorly written, underdeveloped movie. (Granted, I enjoyed the hell out of it for all the fan service, but I'd never call it particularly good. )

Strange, there are also people who think it's a perfect friggin' masterpiece. What's poorly written and underdeveloped seems to be a matter of opinion.