Plinkett is back

[Set Harth]

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.

There's a contradiction in them thar hills. Why not simply admit that your recollection of the film's plot is not exactly the best, due to outright avoidance? Where's the shame in that? Or do you in fact regularly watch this film you detest so much?

It's not worth discussing.

The accuracy of Stoklasa's allegations isn't worth discussing, eh? Convenient.

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 act as if the truth of any situation is something unknowable that comes down to a matter of opinion. However, some statements are provably true, and others are provably false. If Stoklasa makes an allegation about the film which happens to be factually untrue, it's not a matter of opinion. As to whose mind is really made up:

we all know the rebuttals arguments aren't substantive.

Who's the "we" in the above sentence? A group so steeped in prequel hate that it no longer has any interest in objective truth? The rebuttal simply does what anyone could do for themselves if it hadn't already been done for them. It fact-checks Stoklasa's ill-advised claims against the films themselves. As has already been revealed, the vast majority of his claims are either factually untrue or in conflict with the characterizations and values of the films, the "holy" original trilogy included.

 

[Alex1939]

Just want to say I'm surprised so many that get upset over Plinkett's reviews. They are obviously for a niche audience, those that disliked TNG movies and Star Wars prequels (or haters if you prefer) and/or those with a certain sense of humor.

I liked Generations and First Contact but can still laugh at the critical reviews due to the style in which they are presented.

 

[Gaith]

^ Agreed.

 

[David cgc]

Just want to say I'm surprised so many that get upset over Plinkett's reviews. They are obviously for a niche audience, those that disliked TNG movies and Star Wars prequels (or haters if you prefer) and/or those with a certain sense of humor.

I think it's a relation of the Firefly backlash. I tried the Episode I review, and I couldn't make it in more than a few minutes. The voiceover was grating, and the vast, vast majority of the stuff was things I'd already seen on forums like this over the prior decade. But, still, I keep getting told by my friends, "No, no, you'll love it, it gets better! Come on, let's load up the YouTubes and watch it now!" No. I fucking don't want to watch it now, or at all. I'm allowed. Accept it. Move on to something we both enjoy.

It ended up, the way I got the message to finally sink in was we loaded up the Generations review, managed to get about five minutes in with me calling all the criticisms beforehand (Oh, my God! The Enterprise-B is the only ship in range while next to the capital of the Federation! I have never noticed that before! What a gaping, goatse-like plot-hole! What a revelation! It is by no means a widely known cliche that is included in many drinking games!).

So, yeah, it's annoying Firefly fans all over again. And, as with Firefly, the stereotype and ill-will will persist long after the actual era of evangelization has stopped.

 

[Bishop76]

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.

There's a contradiction in them thar hills. Why not simply admit that your recollection of the film's plot is not exactly the best, due to outright avoidance? Where's the shame in that? Or do you in fact regularly watch this film you detest so much?

So you just continue to ignore the very simple question asked of you. In what way is the midi-chlorian plot point important in The Phantom Menace? My recollection of the plot is just fine despite not having watched the movie in a long while, so why don't we just table that straw man, okay?

You act as if the truth of any situation is something unknowable that comes down to a matter of opinion. However, some statements are provably true, and others are provably false. If Stoklasa makes an allegation about the film which happens to be factually untrue, it's not a matter of opinion. As to whose mind is really made up:

And as soon as you can tell me what he says that is factually untrue, maybe I'll give a lick of shit. Of course a lot of this is opinion based - it's a review. Just as the rebuttal is opinion based retaliation. A review of a review. Please, point out to me where anything in the RLM reviews is false that doesn't involve humor, sarcasm, or interpretation.

Who's the "we" in the above sentence? A group so steeped in prequel hate that it no longer has any interest in objective truth? The rebuttal simply does what anyone could do for themselves if it hadn't already been done for them. It fact-checks Stoklasa's ill-advised claims against the films themselves. As has already been revealed, the vast majority of his claims are either factually untrue or in conflict with the characterizations and values of the films, the "holy" original trilogy included.

Where is this objective truth you keep talking about? In some fanboy's long-form rebuttal to these reviews? The one that starts out with such witticisms as "It’s not even hard to show why it’s dumb, because some of the things in that review are just really dumb." Fantastic... No wonder dialogue like "I wish I could just wish away my feelings" is acceptable to you folks.

 

[Set Harth]

(Oh, my God! The Enterprise-B is the only ship in range while next to the capital of the Federation! I have never noticed that before! What a gaping, goatse-like plot-hole! What a revelation! It is by no means a widely known cliche that is included in many drinking games!).

^ This. Singling out Generations for a plot hole so common in Star Trek films that it's almost a traditional prerequisite is exactly the kind of bullshit I'm talking about.

My recollection of the plot is just fine despite not having watched the movie in a long while

Now how did I ever guess that? Still seems like a contradiction.

And as soon as you can tell me what he says that is factually untrue, maybe I'll give a lick of shit.

I already gave you one example. Emphasis on the word example. Now, predictably, you're acting as if you expect me to rewrite the rebuttal by debunking each one of Stoklasa's misrepresentations all over again.

Of course a lot of this is opinion based - it's a review.

I don't know if this should be called "missing the point" or "ignoring the point".

Just as the rebuttal is opinion based retaliation.

Wrong. The rebuttal, or at least the part I'm focusing on, is largely fact-based. You're projecting your own preference for opinion over facts onto the rebuttal.

Where is this objective truth you keep talking about?

I get that you don't believe in objective truth. I already addressed that in my last post. Whether you believe it or not, some statements are untrue and can be fact-checked. Truth isn't wholly dependent on opinion. If Stoklasa had such a strong case he wouldn't need to misrepresent the facts. Alternatively, if he's not deliberately misrepresenting the facts, then it becomes an issue of his poor comprehension.

 

[Bishop76]

Please, feel free to answer the question any time now.

 

[Broccoli]

After reading through this thread of people reacting to the RedLetterMedia's Star Wars review videos, I created this easy-to-follow chart on prequel reaction. I am sure with actual research, I can create a solid bell curve.

 

[Bishop76]

Just want to say I'm surprised so many that get upset over Plinkett's reviews. They are obviously for a niche audience, those that disliked TNG movies and Star Wars prequels (or haters if you prefer) and/or those with a certain sense of humor.

I think it's a relation of the Firefly backlash. I tried the Episode I review, and I couldn't make it in more than a few minutes. The voiceover was grating, and the vast, vast majority of the stuff was things I'd already seen on forums like this over the prior decade. But, still, I keep getting told by my friends, "No, no, you'll love it, it gets better! Come on, let's load up the YouTubes and watch it now!" No. I fucking don't want to watch it now, or at all. I'm allowed. Accept it. Move on to something we both enjoy.

It ended up, the way I got the message to finally sink in was we loaded up the Generations review, managed to get about five minutes in with me calling all the criticisms beforehand (Oh, my God! The Enterprise-B is the only ship in range while next to the capital of the Federation! I have never noticed that before! What a gaping, goatse-like plot-hole! What a revelation! It is by no means a widely known cliche that is included in many drinking games!).

So, yeah, it's annoying Firefly fans all over again. And, as with Firefly, the stereotype and ill-will will persist long after the actual era of evangelization has stopped.

Yeah, I have no problem with this point of view. They're not for everyone. It's definitely a different sense of humor. The Generations review, being his first, is pretty weak overall when compared to later ones, without a doubt. Though I'm not sure it's Firefly related backlash, really (for people other than you). I think it's just a lot of fanboy butthurt about the prequels being pretty awful and it being pointed out in a surgical fashion and the fact that the Plinkett reviews are really popular doesn't help it either.

 

[Bishop76]

Blah blah blah, straw man, nothing important

You seem to like to raise straw men while in no way answering any questions or responding to any points. You still have yet to mention why midi-chlorians are important in any way to the plot in The Phantom Menace. Come on, champ. Knock it out of the park.

 

[Set Harth]

nothing important

To you, maybe. I assure you that some people find it very important indeed that Stoklasa's allegations against the PT do not stand up to fact-checking.

Please, feel free to answer the question any time now.

Or you could actually research this thing about which you claim to be such an expert. You know, so that your claim of familiarity with the material would actually be true. There's that seemingly unimportant concept again: the truth.

 

[Gepard]

After reading through this thread of people reacting to the RedLetterMedia's Star Wars review videos, I created this easy-to-follow chart on prequel reaction. I am sure with actual research, I can create a solid bell curve.

Now make one for the Trek Xi forum.

 

[Bishop76]

nothing important

To you, maybe. I assure you that some people find it very important indeed that Stoklasa's allegations against the PT do not stand up to fact-checking.

Please, feel free to answer the question any time now.

Or you could actually research this thing about which you claim to be such an expert. You know, so that your claim of familiarity would actually be true. There's that seemingly unimportant concept again: the truth.

I'm not even sure why I tried to discuss anything rationally with you again. Clearly your debate style is the internet equivalent of plugging your ears and saying "nuh uh", so I'm just going to move on and call it a day. Protip: if you have a point to make, don't tell someone to research your point without you ever actually making it.

Let me know if you feel like making that point at any time or if you just enjoy coming into Plinkett threads and flinging your shit around.

 

[Set Harth]

if you have a point to make

I thought my point was clear, but I'll try again. If Stoklasa says "the PT is bad because X", then X should be a verifiably true statement, or at least a statement which cannot be definitively proven as true or false, as opposed to a verifiably false statement. If his case rests on verifiably false statements, he has no case at all.

Clearly your debate style is the internet equivalent of plugging your ears and saying "nuh uh"

I'm not the one refusing to acknowledge Stoklasa's lack of factual accuracy.

 

[Kelthaz]

After reading through this thread of people reacting to the RedLetterMedia's Star Wars review videos, I created this easy-to-follow chart on prequel reaction. I am sure with actual research, I can create a solid bell curve.

So, so true. I've been a member here for almost 6 years now and it still amazes me that people can fight over a movie. Amazes is the nice way to say it.

And I'm a 2 by the way.

 

[Thestral]

^ I'm a 3, myself.

Get some more opinions and maybe we'll have a bell curve going.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I'm a 3...lol.

 

[JarodRussell]

After reading through this thread of people reacting to the RedLetterMedia's Star Wars review videos, I created this easy-to-follow chart on prequel reaction. I am sure with actual research, I can create a solid bell curve.

So, so true. I've been a member here for almost 6 years now and it still amazes me that people can fight over a movie. Amazes is the nice way to say it.

And I'm a 2 by the way.

I think this still misses two images. Normal faces, but with "I don't like the Prequels (no good parts)" and with "I love the prequels (no flaws)". Those can be normal opinions, too, without the crazy hateful stuff.



I love Bishop76. He works as a mirror for me regarding my reactions to Star Trek 2009.

 

[Neroon]

I'll probably get some hate for this, but oh well.

I realize the prequels are not that good. Terrible acting, convoluted plots, etc. However, I enjoyed them for what they were. If anything, it's Star Wars. When they are re-released on 3D starting next year, yeah, I'll probably go and see them. Why? Because it's Star Wars. On the Big Screen. In 3D.

Say what you will about the prequels (and, as Plinkett pointed out, there is a lot!), but I bet those films are going to be worth seeing just for the 3D aspect. The effects were amazing when they first came out. I'm sure LucasFilm will spiffy them up a bit. And, knowing the dedication LucasFilm puts into their product, I bet the 3D transfer is going to look amazing as well.

You sound very much like my son, who is perhaps one of the biggest SW fans I know. He fully recognizes the PT's limitations - or rather those deemed shortcomings by so many - and yet he enjoys them for what they are: more Star Wars.

 

[Mach5]

You sound very much like my son, who is perhaps one of the biggest SW fans I know. He fully recognizes the PT's limitations - or rather those deemed shortcomings by so many - and yet he enjoys them for what they are: more Star Wars.

Dad? is that you?



I'm a 3, BTW.

I assure you that some people find it very important indeed that Stoklasa's allegations against the PT do not stand up to fact-checking.

Hear hear!

I've read some of that 108-page rebuttal, and while the author does sound a bit silly at times, he makes some pretty good points.

For example (slightly abridged):

Plinkett: "And then the things that are happening around him are pretty much out of his control or understanding. If a protagonist has no concept of what's going on or what's at stake, then there's no real tension or drama. Without that there's no story. So the conclusion is that there isn't one." [very short clips of Anakin being dwarfed by the adult characters, and his eyes shifting around, are shown]

Rebuttal guy: On the Naboo Royal Starship, Anakin is in the room while Padmé watches the hologram reporting widespread deaths on Naboo. To be fair he might not have been paying attention (he was suffering from the coldness of space at the time), but Padmé goes on to directly about the suffering of the Naboo people.

--

Plinkett: "Describe the following Star Wars character WITHOUT saying what they look like, what kind of costume they wore, or what their profession or role was in the movie. Describe this character to your friends like they ain't never seen Star Wars."
(Plinkett then implies that it's not possible to describe Qui-Gon Jinn that way, but the rebuttal guy easily proves otherwise)

Rebuttal guy: [Qui-Gon] can basically be summed up as an idealized father figure. Strong, brave, in control, but also kind and soft spoken. The type of man many people probably wished their dad would be like when they were kids. Qui-Gon is calm and patient when dealing with others, and he believes in the people he takes under his wing. He quickly saw Anakin's potential and believed that the boy would go on to do great things. His faith in Anakin was so strong that he trusted the boy to win the podrace and save the mission.

--

Plinkett: "So the Jedis are there to do what exactly? According to the opening title crawl, it was to settle a dispute over the taxation of trade routes. So what makes the Jedi Knights experts in intergalactic trade laws."

Rebuttal guy: Actually, the opening crawl states that they were sent to "settle the conflict." The problem is not the taxes but the blockade, because by then the opening crawl had already switched to the blockade, stating that the Chancellor sent the Jedi in secret because the Republic Congress was useless and just "endlessly debates" without resolving "this alarming chain of events" (the blockade).

--

Plinkett: "Also, moments earlier the Jedi willingly drank tea that was given to them."

(The rebuttal guy makes a point about how Qui-Gon explicitly stated that he didn't sense any danger)

Qui-Gon: "I sense an unusual amount of fear for something as trivial as this trade dispute."
​

Plinkett:"Hey, you guys got any rat poison lying around? Put it in the tea! Put it in the tea!"

Me (not the rebuttal guy, he's beating around the bush too much here): Darth Sidius' order to KILL THEM IMMEDIATELY came AFTER the fucking tea had already been served.

This shit goes on and on, and if anything, the rebuttal guy proves that a lot of Plinkett said is either disputable, subject to interpretation, or 100% bullshit.