Plinkett is back

[Professor Zoom]

True, but what I like about Plinkett is it's obvious (to me anyway) that he knows film fairly well, and knows the mechanisms of the film industry from conception to distribution and everything in between. That he chooses to show it this way is a matter of personal taste, but he knows his stuff, and I enjoy his reviews. That said, I love Ebert and consider him a national treasure.

My critisism isn't aimed at the Plinkett reviews, which I enjoy for the reasons you stated. It's the new reviews, even though it's done by the same person, there's a lot less meat in them. So they become like ever other internet reviewer.

Unfortunately, whatever his experience in film may be, Stoklasa's level of understanding and knowledge is somewhat lacking when it comes to the SW films themselves.

Mmmm. No. He seems to support his statements quite well through the reviews. Disagree with him or not, but, he does create a very well argued case.

 

[Amaris]

True, but what I like about Plinkett is it's obvious (to me anyway) that he knows film fairly well, and knows the mechanisms of the film industry from conception to distribution and everything in between. That he chooses to show it this way is a matter of personal taste, but he knows his stuff, and I enjoy his reviews. That said, I love Ebert and consider him a national treasure.

My critisism isn't aimed at the Plinkett reviews, which I enjoy for the reasons you stated. It's the new reviews, even though it's done by the same person, there's a lot less meat in them. So they become like ever other internet reviewer.

I haven't watched his latest reviews, so I may be missing something. I'm hoping the quality of his reviews hasn't dropped. He's one of a very few number of internet critics that gets things.

 

[Bishop76]

Unfortunately, whatever his experience in film may be, Stoklasa's level of understanding and knowledge is somewhat lacking when it comes to the SW films themselves.

I'd say that his knowledge of the Star Wars films is pretty dead on. He doesn't bring any knowledge of any of the EU comics or novels to the table, admittedly, but for a movie to be good you shouldn't necessarily need to read all of the tie-in material.

True, but what I like about Plinkett is it's obvious (to me anyway) that he knows film fairly well, and knows the mechanisms of the film industry from conception to distribution and everything in between. That he chooses to show it this way is a matter of personal taste, but he knows his stuff, and I enjoy his reviews. That said, I love Ebert and consider him a national treasure.

My critisism isn't aimed at the Plinkett reviews, which I enjoy for the reasons you stated. It's the new reviews, even though it's done by the same person, there's a lot less meat in them. So they become like ever other internet reviewer.

I haven't watched his latest reviews, so I may be missing something. I'm hoping the quality of his reviews hasn't dropped. He's one of a very few number of internet critics that gets things.

He started what is going to be a weekly series of short reviews done as himself with his buddy, drinking beers. It's short form, so it doesn't really have any of the depth that the longer reviews have, but the first episode he does hits on Drive Angry and The Adjustment Bureau, so it seems he's just trying to hit current films and do what I would consider "normal" reviews of films. The first episode was solid enough, but not blow-your-socks-off good like the Plinkett reviews are.

 

[FalTorPan]

It's a shame Plinkett sounds so off, but some of the digs at the prequels were hilarious.

Plinkett sounds off because he's played by a different actor in the epilogue than the person who voices the character in the movie reviews.

Mr. Plinkett predates the prequel films, and he's been portrayed by Rich Evans. For whatever reason when Red Letter Media decided to review various films, the character was voiced by Mike Stoklasa.

 

[Bishop76]

^ Dead on. In an interview with MTV, Stoklasa says there was some thought to dubbing over Rich's voice, but that it would be too time consuming to do.

(Also in that interview, he seems to take a bit of a jab at Trek fans who can't comprehend the new timeline of Trek XI as well - pretty funny)

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/16...tt-branches-out-with-weekly-review-show.jhtml

 

[Set Harth]

Mmmm. No. He seems to support his statements quite well through the reviews.

Not at all. Just one classic example out of the many fallacious points is the oft-repeated misrepresentation that midichlorians are the Force. The problem is that TPM never said that. TPM changed nothing about the Force as defined by the OT. It avoided defining the Force itself, almost as if it assumed the audience had seen the OT at some point. Furthermore, inherited Force sensitivity is not a new concept; it's been fully canon since ROTJ (1983). If Stoklasa's faulting the film for something it never did in the first place, how exactly is that a well-supported allegation?
If a film does "X" and a reviewer criticizes it for doing "Y" because they have a problem with "Y", is their problem really anything to do with the actual film or with their own misrepresentation of the film? The vast majority of Stoklasa's other points are similarly free of merit. These include character expectations that don't seem to accept or understand the essential moral distinction of the Jedi, the jurisdiction of the Republic, etc. It's important to note that many of his positions are not simply reflective of a failure to accept the PT but are actually inconsistent with the ideas of the OT. While his statements appeal to those who already share the anti-PT sentiment, that isn't the same as having factual support. And I'm skeptical of those who claim they always had a problem with the PT but couldn't put their finger on what was wrong until Stoklasa explained it. If something's really wrong you know why it's wrong, it's not a big unsolved mystery for eleven years. Or to put it another way, if you were the inventors of Facebook, you would have invented Facebook.

 

[Bishop76]

Sure, why not - let's travel down this worn down path once more...

You're missing the forest for the trees. The meta point being made has more to do with the fact that they introduce a plot point that has absolutely no payoff for no real reason. This goes back to basic filmmaking or the literary technique known as "Chekhov's Gun". "One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it." In other words, why make a point show a character with a gun in scene 1 when he never uses it? By that same token, why explain what the Force is when no one was wondering to begin with and it has no impact or bearing EVER on the plot? Yeah, I think he was also trying to say that the idea of midi-chlorians was stupid and ruined a lot of the mystical, mysterious element of the force and most people agree. But again, the main point was, why bother in the first place?

 

[Set Harth]

By that same token, why explain what the Force is when no one was wondering to begin with and it has no impact or bearing EVER on the plot?

Funny, I thought I just said in my last post that TPM does not explain "what the Force is", as if assuming people knew that from the OT, but you're ignoring that and just repeating the same misrepresentation made by Stoklasa as though criticism of this misrepresentation suffices as criticism of the actual film. Not only that, but you're betraying an apparent unfamiliarity with the plot of the actual film, because midichlorians do indeed have a significant bearing on the plot.

It's increasingly clear that the film you're referring to is indeed worthy of the criticism which it's received. It's just that that film is not TPM. It's a funhouse-mirror parody of TPM which only exists in your imagination and for which Lucas is not responsible.

Yeah, I think he was also trying to say that the idea of midi-chlorians was stupid and ruined a lot of the mystical, mysterious element of the force and most people agree.

Unfortunately, biologically inherited Force sensitivity doesn't detract from the mystical nature of the Force in any way. It wasn't said to have done so in 1983, at any rate - probably because that film didn't have Jar Jar in it. Meanwhile, an appeal to majority fallacy doesn't constitute factual or logical support for Stoklasa's claims.

 

[Tulin]

Unfortunately, whatever his experience in film may be, Stoklasa's level of understanding and knowledge is somewhat lacking when it comes to the SW films themselves.

You DO understand that when he refers to "General Grievance" and "Pad-a-mé" that that is all part of the act, right? It's the characters way of saying, "I care SO DAMNED LITTLE for these wastes of digital storage that I won't even bother getting the contrived and ridiculous names right."

I have seen comments on youtube from(obviously very young 'net surfers)that disparage Plinkett because he gets the names wrong, thus he does not know what he is talking about. I guess they are the same pre-adolescents he refers to early in one of the reviews who think TESB is "the most boringest".

As to whether you are basing your judgment of him on whether he has not filled in the Death Star-wide holes in the PT storyline from information in the EU dreck, he states at least twice in his reviews he has NO interest in that, nor should the casual movie-goer who wants an entertaining two hours out.

Whether Dexter Jettster knew Ooly Frabooble and made underhand deals that explain a plothole in AOTC involving clones should be neither here nor there.

Fact is, Plinkett absolutely EVISCERATES the PT in a deft and entertaining way. The great irony about these reviews is that they are far more enjoyable than the "films"(*spits*)they review.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Unfortunately, biologically inherited Force sensitivity doesn't detract from the mystical nature of the Force in any way[/QUOTE]
except the most important way, and that is how the audience perceives it. After all, the typical audience member will remember that the force is a mystical energy field that surrounds us and minds us, and now he's talking symbiotic lifeforms that live inside the cells. Of course that's not technically the Force per sae, but it still will be perceived by the audience that way.

 

[Bishop76]

Not only that, but you're betraying an apparent unfamiliarity with the plot of the actual film, because midichlorians do indeed have a significant bearing on the plot.

I hate it when I betray my familiarity. No, I'm quite familiar that 2 movies and 6 years later Palpy tells Anakin a story that may or may not be true and may or may not imply that Anakin was created by midi-chlorian manipulation. Which is, in itself, a completely pointless, meaningless plot point that was brought up for no reason and goes nowhere. So again, how exactly were midi-cholorians important to the plot?

Unfortunately, biologically inherited Force sensitivity doesn't detract from the mystical nature of the Force in any way. It wasn't said to have done so in 1983, at any rate - probably because that film didn't have Jar Jar in it. Meanwhile, an appeal to majority fallacy doesn't constitute factual or logical support for Stoklasa's claims.

No, the biological inheritance was acceptable because it wasn't explained and it didn't need to be. No one cared. It was just accepted that was how the Force worked. No one wanted the explanation given. And it's intellectually dishonest to deny that there wasn't any implication as to how the Force worked by trying to explain living connection to it by micro-organisms.

 

[Bishop76]

Whether Dexter Jettster knew Ooly Frabooble and made underhand deals that explain a plothole in AOTC involving clones should be neither here nor there.

Fantastic. The horrifying thing is that Ooly Frabooble sounds like a name he actually might have used somewhere in the PT.

 

[Gaith]

Unfortunately, whatever his experience in film may be, Stoklasa's level of understanding and knowledge is somewhat lacking when it comes to the SW films themselves.

You DO understand that when he refers to "General Grievance" and "Pad-a-mé" that that is all part of the act, right? It's the characters way of saying, "I care SO DAMNED LITTLE for these wastes of digital storage that I won't even bother getting the contrived and ridiculous names right."

And who doesn't love it when he talks about Shinzon's plan to kill Spock in XI?

 

[Tulin]

Wow - I never picked that up! I guess it was because of the fact that Shinzon and Nero were pretty much interchangeable!


Red Letter Media reviews - they just keep on giving, don't they?

 

[Set Harth]

You DO understand that when he refers to "General Grievance" and "Pad-a-mé" that that is all part of the act, right? It's the characters way of saying, "I care SO DAMNED LITTLE for these wastes of digital storage that I won't even bother getting the contrived and ridiculous names right."

That wasn't what I meant. I was referring to errors of a more substantive nature.

As to whether you are basing your judgment of him on whether he has not filled in the Death Star-wide holes in the PT storyline from information in the EU dreck, he states at least twice in his reviews he has NO interest in that, nor should the casual movie-goer who wants an entertaining two hours out.

That's the second time this EU strawman has appeared. I said nothing about the EU in the context of Stoklasa.

I hate it when I betray my familiarity. No, I'm quite familiar that 2 movies and 6 years later Palpy tells Anakin a story that may or may not be true and may or may not imply that Anakin was created by midi-chlorian manipulation.

No, I was talking about the bearing on the plot of TPM itself. I don't blame you for being unfamiliar with it. Why should you watch something you apparently hate?

And it's intellectually dishonest to deny that there wasn't any implication as to how the Force worked by trying to explain living connection to it by micro-organisms.

What's intellectually dishonest is switching out an explanation of how Force sensitivity works and replacing it with "how the Force works" or "what the Force is".

No, the biological inheritance was acceptable because it wasn't explained and it didn't need to be. No one cared. It was just accepted that was how the Force worked. No one wanted the explanation given.

If the biological inheritance was acceptable then, it should be acceptable now, unless it wasn't really accepted as biological inheritance in the first place. However, there was no question in ROTJ that Leia was potentially strong in the Force. Going from the dialogue, it was considered automatic due to her bloodline. The existence of further detail doesn't detract from the mystical nature of the Force any more than the established existence of biological inheritance of potential did in the OT era. As the OT shows, the Force is still just as mystical even if some people have Jedi potential and others do not. The midichlorians have a unique relationship to the Force.

except the most important way, and that is how the audience perceives it. After all, the typical audience member will remember that the force is a mystical energy field that surrounds us and minds us, and now he's talking symbiotic lifeforms that live inside the cells. Of course that's not technically the Force per sae, but it still will be perceived by the audience that way.

Then that's the audience's mistake, not Lucas' fault. He never said the Force was midichlorians. Essentially, by extension this means that he's not allowed to introduce new information about anything, for fear of the audience twisting it into something else. ( Case in point: the Mortis arc of TCW. ) Furthermore, the audience is not a monolithic entity. Don't assume all audience members were equally confused.

 

[Professor Zoom]

You DO understand that when he refers to "General Grievance" and "Pad-a-mé" that that is all part of the act, right? It's the characters way of saying, "I care SO DAMNED LITTLE for these wastes of digital storage that I won't even bother getting the contrived and ridiculous names right."

That wasn't what I meant. I was referring to errors of a more substantive nature.

I'm not going to respond to all of the post, but, basically, someone upthread said it best: you're missing the forest for the trees.

The thrust of Plinkett's reviews weren't the details of the plot, but rather HOW the plot was told, HOW the story was structure, about the CHARACTERS, and even the mechanics of PACE for an action movie were lacking the in the prequels.

Personally, I think the midicholrians are dumb, but, if everything else had worked for me, I don't think I would care. If the characters engaged me, if the pace moved (I mean, seriously, you think the Palapatine might be a Dark Lord of the Sith, which is big news, but, let's just keep walking gingerly to the ship?)

Plinkett looks at them as movies first and why they don't work as movies.

 

[JarodRussell]

Plinkett looks at them as movies first and why they don't work as movies.

We're talking about movies, not rocket science. There are no rules as to how a movie "works". Apparently, they were good enough to gain a shitload of money at the box office (just like nuTrek, or Transformers, or Twilight, or Avatar, or Dark Knight, or Harry Potter, etc...) . I don't like them as much as the originals, but I've seen worse movies. A lot worse.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

There are no rules as to how a movie "works".

Wrong. There are very strict rules to how a movie works, which are even stricter that the rules to how fiction in general works. Screenplays (at least ones that the writer hopes to ever have made into TV episodes or movies) are expected to follow a downright draconian format compared with the much looser rules governing novels, but there are overall rules that always apply, even to novels such as: the audience/reader must sympathize with at least the main character, at least in some way if not totally (otherwise they'll get bored and find something else to watch/read); the drama must be driven by some kind of conflict; don't have your characters do stupid or implausible things just because you can't figure out how to get the plot from point a to point b otherwise (unless you're going for a surreal or comic effect); and put all the information the audience/reader needs to understand the story into the story. I'm still amazed that George Lucas didn't even manage to do that last one, which is so fundamental and obvious that it isn't generally listed as a rule per se.

The notion that there are no rules to how a story works or doesn't work is just flat-out silly. It's true that adventurous writers who have already mastered the rules can start breaking them. This happens a lot more often in novels than in movies and TV series, simply because novels are cheaper to produce and the consequences of the rule-breaking inhibiting their commercial success are much less dire. If you want to send a rule-breaking screenplay to a studio and hope to get it made, your name better be Steven Spielberg or JJ Abrams.

And I'm just talking about the rules to writing screenplays and novels. Obviously movies have rules in other areas as well - music, cinematography, costuming, hair, makeup.

Anyone who is unclear about the rules should read these two basic texts, just for starters. Then come back and tell us how there are "no rules."

The Art of Fiction, John Gardner

Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting by Syd Field

(just like nuTrek, or Transformers, or Twilight, or Avatar, or Dark Knight, or Harry Potter, etc...)

Read Syd Field and it will become abundantly clear how all those movies, plus every other one you've ever seen, follows the rules in lockstep formation. Even bad movies generally follow the rules; the rules don't guarantee a movie won't suck. George Lucas is a very unique entity in that he owns his own studio, without even a board of directors or a CEO to boss him around, and can make movies that suck because they break the rules. Maybe if he'd followed the rules they would still have sucked, but not as catastrophically.

The PT movies would never have been made at a "normal" studio that is driven by profit motive rather than the whims of one guy. The screenplays would have been revised to at least bring them up to the level of acceptable craft. They might have been just the usual crass, commercial crap like the Transformer movies, or the normal type of misfire like the last Indiana Jones, but even that would have been an improvement. The PT movies have gone down in film history as truly unique in their awfulness, and badness on that scale will never be seen again, unless Lucasfilm does it.

 

[JarodRussell]

Yeah, you win. Who could ever dare to argue with Syd Field.

See, these are golden rules. They are "would be nice if" and not "it's a must have". These rules are also not strict. Yeah, well, they are strict in Hollywood, I give you that. You are defending the Hollywood creative black hole right now. "Every movie needs three acts, umpf!" Which is why the rules don't guarantee a movie won't suck. I'm glad you at least realized that. If the prequels, according to you, objectively sucked so badly, how were they so successful? It's all just opinion, Termis. And with opinions there is no right or wrong. And since there is no right or wrong, there are also no laws how to make a good movie (which is the word I should have used to begin with).

The screenplays would have been revised to at least bring them up to the level of acceptable craft.

The screenplays would have been revised to conform to the studio norm.

The PT movies have gone down in film history as truly unique in their awfulness, and badness on that scale will never be seen again, unless Lucasfilm does it.

Wow, you really take this so seriously as if your life depended on it, don't you?

the audience/reader must sympathize with at least the main character

And where is defined at what point the audience sympathizes with a main character?

the drama must be driven by some kind of conflict

And that wasn't the case in the prequels?

have your characters do stupid or implausible things just because you can't figure out how to get the plot from point a to point b otherwise

This has happened in virtually every movie I've seen, including Oscar winning pictures.

and put all the information the audience/reader needs to understand the story into the story

Strange, I got everything I needed to know. What's so hard to understand about the rather paint by numbers story in the prequels?

 

[Bishop76]

No, I was talking about the bearing on the plot of TPM itself. I don't blame you for being unfamiliar with it. Why should you watch something you apparently hate?

True that. That being said, I have watched the film and am quite familiar with it. Please enlighten me as to how midi-chlorians are in any way important in the movie. They use them to show that Anakin has a lot more midi-chlorians than Yoda? Whoop-dee-shit. The same thing could have been accomplished by someone just saying they feel great power from the boy - power to rival that of Master Yoda. I mean, really, if there's any point to MCs other than that, please enlighten me.

As to the rest of the arguments, I'll be honest. It's not worth discussing. Your mind is made up that the arguments in the 108 page rebuttal are gospel truth while simultaneously damning us for thinking that the RLM reviews are gospel truth. You don't think the RLM arguments are substantive and we all know the rebuttals arguments aren't substantive. If you're okay with excusing crap, then by all means, revel in crap.

JarodRussell, In all of the Star Trek 09 threads, you argue that financial success doesn't mean a thing as to the quality of a film and here you argue that financial success proves that these movies weren't sucktacular. Which one is it?

Temis laid out a well thought out post that explains fantastically why rules do need to apply to a film when you have the screenwriting ability of a 6 year old. Darren Aronofsky doesn't need to follow these rules. GL probably should. Now, you're going to disagree and then probably post something extra about why Star Trek 09 sucked, so if you'd like to save yourself the time of typing it up, we can just assume that you have and move on from there.