I find the very idea frighting.
SW blu-rays have changes to the films again
- Thread starter Whofan
- Start date
- Status
Plus, RLM spends so much time bashing the prequels because of a certain affection they have for the franchise and filmmaking.
To understand what I mean, I could spend all day criticizing the logic and the plot of Inception, but I somehow would give it four stars. However, I hate most Adam Sandler films and Wouk just say 'that sucked' and leave it at that. If you have passion for something, you can do more.
To understand what I mean, I could spend all day criticizing the logic and the plot of Inception, but I somehow would give it four stars. However, I hate most Adam Sandler films and Wouk just say 'that sucked' and leave it at that. If you have passion for something, you can do more.
That scene always looked great, in my opinion. I think the only part that bothered me was the Luke and Leia puppets they used for far away shots, and I didn't even notice that until I saw the behind the scenes footage years later.
By the way, did the BD of RoTJ have the horrible Falcon matte painting replaced?
Last edited:
I can deny it, since their reviews are done for entertainment. The reviews are done as a character that is supposed to be a bit crazy, thus you can chalk up the length to the review being done by a psychopath.
In that much detail? Probably not.
Such as? I consider myself a pretty logical and intelligent person. Even though I don't care for the prequels, if I saw a case where someone was nitpicking a plot hole that they pulled out of their ass, I would disagree despite not liking the films.
Much of RLM's review are their personal opinion of how the films "should" have been. For example, when they say that Qui Gonn and Obi Wan should have been one character, that is their opinion. They present a reasonable argument about why that would have made the film better, but how can anybody tell them "you are wrong"?
No you can't, because even though Mr. Plinkett may be a fictional character, the fact remains that his creator invested countless hours in producing these videos, which are, despite the humorous tone, basically just a "Why the prequels suck 101".I can deny it, since their reviews are done for entertainment. The reviews are done as a character that is supposed to be a bit crazy, thus you can chalk up the length to the review being done by a psychopath.
Like I indicated, they did it because they care about filmmaking and Star Wars in general. I doubt they would have one the same for the Police Academy films
lol @ people bitching about people that review Star Wars prequels that bitch about the prequels.
RLM is HILARIOUS. Half in the Bag is hilarious. The Avatar review was hilarious and spot on. Even the dumb Cop Dog movie review was pretty damn funny.
It is comedy. Some people think Dane Cook is funny and I think he sucks. Since I think he sucks I don't watch him. If you think RLM sucks that is what you should do.
Instead it's just completely hypocritical to be bitching about them doing reviews. It's obviously something they enjoy doing and obviously they have an audience for it. Get over it already.
RLM is HILARIOUS. Half in the Bag is hilarious. The Avatar review was hilarious and spot on. Even the dumb Cop Dog movie review was pretty damn funny.
It is comedy. Some people think Dane Cook is funny and I think he sucks. Since I think he sucks I don't watch him. If you think RLM sucks that is what you should do.
Instead it's just completely hypocritical to be bitching about them doing reviews. It's obviously something they enjoy doing and obviously they have an audience for it. Get over it already.
The Plinket reviews go into great detail and greatly articulate what is wrong with the movies, that's something you can't do "in 500 words" or even in a 10-20 minute video review like The NC, Spoony and Cinema Snob do.
The only thing I don't like about the Plinkett reviews is how "side-tracked" they get with the murderous oldman sociopath "plot" which can chew up quite a bit of the video's length and, frankly, I don't find very entertaining.
But the Plinkett reviews do a good job of showing why the prequels are so bad and why they failed.
The only thing I don't like about the Plinkett reviews is how "side-tracked" they get with the murderous oldman sociopath "plot" which can chew up quite a bit of the video's length and, frankly, I don't find very entertaining.
But the Plinkett reviews do a good job of showing why the prequels are so bad and why they failed.
And? He invested countless hours for several reasons: 1. he is passionate about the subject matter (Star Wars and films), 2. personal gain. He obviously wanted to create a product that would get him attention as a film maker. Given the number of entertainers, from the Angry Video Game Nerd to MST3K to everybody on That Guy with the Glasses, there are plenty of people out there who find the mockery of bad entertainment entertaining in it's own right.
It's in that 108 page thing that you're not about to read.
Sorry. I'm not going to devote hours of my life on some guy's mental breakdown and inability to deal with criticism leveled at something he enjoys.
It's weird how the suckage of the prequels has become internet dogma and it's prequel fans who are put on the defensive. Those of you who are OT fans only - if some annoying character made full-length reviews tearing Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi to pieces, pointing out plot holes, corny dialogue, and poor writing and direction, what would you do? Sit back and say "Yup, they speak the truth, these movies suck!" Or would you defend the films you have enjoyed?
I like the originals. I like the prequels. I (mostly) like the Special / DVD editions (haven't gotten the Blu-Rays yet). George Lucas has created the greatest six-movie series ever, in my opinion. But hey, we can disagree. If you despise the prequels, just assume we get it - you don't need to post that sentiment in every single Star Wars thread. Hate the CGI changes in the Special Editions, DVDs, and Blu-Rays? Ok, we heard you the first time. It might be hard to accept, but your peers, who are otherwise normal, intelligent people, might actually like them.
I like the originals. I like the prequels. I (mostly) like the Special / DVD editions (haven't gotten the Blu-Rays yet). George Lucas has created the greatest six-movie series ever, in my opinion. But hey, we can disagree. If you despise the prequels, just assume we get it - you don't need to post that sentiment in every single Star Wars thread. Hate the CGI changes in the Special Editions, DVDs, and Blu-Rays? Ok, we heard you the first time. It might be hard to accept, but your peers, who are otherwise normal, intelligent people, might actually like them.
Depending on the claims the reviewer/character made I'd be open to listening to them. But, I doubt they'd have much to go on beyond the Ewoks being slightly stupid and annoying.
Does that really compare to Jar-Jar Binks, long boring senate scenes, and an opening crawl with the bombastic Star Wars theme mentioning taxes, trade blockades and negotiating diplomats being the onset of the new adventure?
Can it really compare?
And let's be "fair" here and go with the Original Original Trilogy. We're introduced to Qui-Gon, Obi-Won and Jar-Jar in the first 30 minutes or so of the movie as our core cast of heroes who we're going to follow for the movie.
By the time they meet up with Amadala -our other main character- what all has really happened? What do we know about our main characters and why do we care about them?
We've seen Qui-Gon and Obi-Won really do nothing or say anything important to give us a sense of where this adventure is going, Jar-Jar has offered nothing at all, the Queen wants to speak with the Senate about the trade blockade and the Jedis are there to help. Yay... adventure?
Now let's look at A New Hope.
By the end of the first act we've learned the following:
There is a galactic war going on between and oppressive empire and rebels trying to restore freedom, they have plans to a enemy battle station and want to get it to the rebel leaders.
There's a young man on an isolated world who dreams of adventure and is cast into it by the circumstances of what is going on around him and the death of his family.
There's a wise, sage-like, old man with a strong belief in a mystical thing called "The Force."
There's a roguish man who owes money to some scary characters and seems to value his own gains over the gains of others. His only interest in this adventure is learning of a lost princess and the windfall that awaits him.
There's a kidnapped princess with information to help the rebels and whose homeworld was destroyed in an attempt to illicit information from her.
Watch the two movies up until the "end of the first act" (which I'd call the Queen's ship breaking the blockade for TPM, and the MF leaving Tattooine for ANH) and see if the two movies compare in how they set-up the characters, the story, what is happening and what is at stake.
As seen in the Plinkett reviews the first time we meet Han Solo we know who he is and what he is. He's a rogue, an anti-hero, a man with simple cares and worries.
By the time he dies near the end of TPM do you really have that much feel for who or what Qui Gon is and his role in the bigger picture? Obi-Wan? Jar-Jar? Amadala?
I'd be very interested to see Plinkett-style reviews of the OT because I'd love to see if they can be deconstructed and torn apart the same way the PT is. Because I don't see how it can happen as the PT's flaws are pretty big and deep.
The opening crawl for ANH is:
That has adventure written all over it! Civil war! Rebels! Evil empires! Secret plans stolen! A princess in distress! Freedom of the galaxy at risk!
The Phantom Menace:
Disputed trade routes. Dispatched knights to settle the dispute. As I've said before, it reads with all of the excitement of the business section of your local paper.
Yes, that's not the real motives behind the blockade and all of that (the Palpatine was really trying to gain power through a Rube Goldbergian series of events beginning with this blockade) but that opening crawl mentions trade disputes and blockades. A lot different than a princess being in distress in her mission to get secret plans to a rebel uprising.
Does that really compare to Jar-Jar Binks, long boring senate scenes, and an opening crawl with the bombastic Star Wars theme mentioning taxes, trade blockades and negotiating diplomats being the onset of the new adventure?
Can it really compare?
And let's be "fair" here and go with the Original Original Trilogy. We're introduced to Qui-Gon, Obi-Won and Jar-Jar in the first 30 minutes or so of the movie as our core cast of heroes who we're going to follow for the movie.
By the time they meet up with Amadala -our other main character- what all has really happened? What do we know about our main characters and why do we care about them?
We've seen Qui-Gon and Obi-Won really do nothing or say anything important to give us a sense of where this adventure is going, Jar-Jar has offered nothing at all, the Queen wants to speak with the Senate about the trade blockade and the Jedis are there to help. Yay... adventure?
Now let's look at A New Hope.
By the end of the first act we've learned the following:
There is a galactic war going on between and oppressive empire and rebels trying to restore freedom, they have plans to a enemy battle station and want to get it to the rebel leaders.
There's a young man on an isolated world who dreams of adventure and is cast into it by the circumstances of what is going on around him and the death of his family.
There's a wise, sage-like, old man with a strong belief in a mystical thing called "The Force."
There's a roguish man who owes money to some scary characters and seems to value his own gains over the gains of others. His only interest in this adventure is learning of a lost princess and the windfall that awaits him.
There's a kidnapped princess with information to help the rebels and whose homeworld was destroyed in an attempt to illicit information from her.
Watch the two movies up until the "end of the first act" (which I'd call the Queen's ship breaking the blockade for TPM, and the MF leaving Tattooine for ANH) and see if the two movies compare in how they set-up the characters, the story, what is happening and what is at stake.
As seen in the Plinkett reviews the first time we meet Han Solo we know who he is and what he is. He's a rogue, an anti-hero, a man with simple cares and worries.
By the time he dies near the end of TPM do you really have that much feel for who or what Qui Gon is and his role in the bigger picture? Obi-Wan? Jar-Jar? Amadala?
I'd be very interested to see Plinkett-style reviews of the OT because I'd love to see if they can be deconstructed and torn apart the same way the PT is. Because I don't see how it can happen as the PT's flaws are pretty big and deep.
The opening crawl for ANH is:
That has adventure written all over it! Civil war! Rebels! Evil empires! Secret plans stolen! A princess in distress! Freedom of the galaxy at risk!
The Phantom Menace:
Disputed trade routes. Dispatched knights to settle the dispute. As I've said before, it reads with all of the excitement of the business section of your local paper.
Yes, that's not the real motives behind the blockade and all of that (the Palpatine was really trying to gain power through a Rube Goldbergian series of events beginning with this blockade) but that opening crawl mentions trade disputes and blockades. A lot different than a princess being in distress in her mission to get secret plans to a rebel uprising.
Trekker, you're right that the sound of TPM's opening crawl is hardly a fitting preface to an adventure story. But that is not really sufficient evidence to dismiss people's opinion that the prequels are also enjoyable films. Or that one might, if so inclined, find stuff in the OT that could be labeled bad plotting, kiddie stuff or whatever other claim that is regularly thrown at the PT.
Film criticism (whether professional or casual) is always part objective observation, part subjective perception. Certain deficiencies in the filmmaking crafts can indeed be objectively identified, such as sloppy or sluggish editing (examples of which I just discovered last night when I watched the A New Hope BD, by the way); compositions of shots that do not give the audience the information it needs; clunky, cliched dialogue, what have you. What you make of these flaws is in the realm of the subjective. How else could certain b-movies acquire a cult following? Or daytime soaps, for that matter?
Consider Roger Ebert, one of the foremost film critics. He gave TPM 3.5 out of 4 stars. He does criticize the story's political backdrop because it seems to "diminish the size of the movie's universe--to shrink it to the scale of a 19th century trade dispute." He also points out that one doesn't go into a lot of depth with the characters. And he calls the dialogue "pretty flat and straightforward." All of these are points of criticism made by fans since 1999, but where they go on to examine every last detail of the film and take each contested decision (this joke, that Jar Jar moment, this casting choice, that CG effect) and present them loudly to the world as if they were exhibits in a court case against a motion picture and its director, Ebert manages to enjoy the heck out of the film despite all his observations. And why wouldn't he? He says:
"At the risk of offending devotees of the Force, I will say that the stories of the "Star Wars" movies have always been space operas, and that the importance of the movies comes from their energy, their sense of fun, their colorful inventions and their state-of-the-art special effects. I do not attend with the hope of gaining insights into human behavior. Unlike many movies, these are made to be looked at more than listened to, and George Lucas and his collaborators have filled "The Phantom Menace" with wonderful visuals."
Many PT-critical fans however have lost the ability to appreciate that, it seems. This has mostly to do with disappointment of exaggerated expectations. But first of all, that is firmly on the audience's side of its "conversation" with that film - your mom can't be blamed for cooking mashed potatoes for dinner when you were secretly hoping for spaghetti, no? You still have a right to be disappointed, and you may point out to her that she left some lumps in the potato mash - which she knows you hate - but nevertheless, you wouldn't swear off ever eating mashed potatoes again.
The problem people have in the OT/PT debate is that they're constantly comparing the two. Film series of course invite internal comparisons. But one should also remind oneself that each film is also an entity of its own, made in its time and under special circumstances and that consequently, results will vary. To go off on a little tangent: I personally consider Star Trek: First Contact to be the worst Star Trek film. What, you ask? The film that is generally considered one of the best in the series? Yes. Because, while I enjoy it (because it is a ST film), I take issue with the awkward combination of its A and B stories, its rushed opening, its missed opportunities and its rather uninspired Aliens-cum-TV movie execution. I mean to say: If one looks closely enough, one can find fault with films that can be objectively supported. I imagine many rabid fans of FC would, upon close inspection and with some degree of knowledge about film directing, agree that the film is made with a TV director's eye. But even this only becomes a problem because previous ST films aimed higher. If they had always gone down that path, I wouldn't notice. But at that time, going for wall-to-wall action on a rather modest budget and with little production time was the m.o., so I can take it or leave it on those terms. In any case, my personal opinion doesn't detract from other people's utter enjoyment of it. I wonder why Star Wars fans seem so unable to understand why someone would enjoy the prequels just as much as the OT.
Edit to say: Oh, and that was a "quick reply". LOL. I tend to ramble.
Film criticism (whether professional or casual) is always part objective observation, part subjective perception. Certain deficiencies in the filmmaking crafts can indeed be objectively identified, such as sloppy or sluggish editing (examples of which I just discovered last night when I watched the A New Hope BD, by the way); compositions of shots that do not give the audience the information it needs; clunky, cliched dialogue, what have you. What you make of these flaws is in the realm of the subjective. How else could certain b-movies acquire a cult following? Or daytime soaps, for that matter?
Consider Roger Ebert, one of the foremost film critics. He gave TPM 3.5 out of 4 stars. He does criticize the story's political backdrop because it seems to "diminish the size of the movie's universe--to shrink it to the scale of a 19th century trade dispute." He also points out that one doesn't go into a lot of depth with the characters. And he calls the dialogue "pretty flat and straightforward." All of these are points of criticism made by fans since 1999, but where they go on to examine every last detail of the film and take each contested decision (this joke, that Jar Jar moment, this casting choice, that CG effect) and present them loudly to the world as if they were exhibits in a court case against a motion picture and its director, Ebert manages to enjoy the heck out of the film despite all his observations. And why wouldn't he? He says:
"At the risk of offending devotees of the Force, I will say that the stories of the "Star Wars" movies have always been space operas, and that the importance of the movies comes from their energy, their sense of fun, their colorful inventions and their state-of-the-art special effects. I do not attend with the hope of gaining insights into human behavior. Unlike many movies, these are made to be looked at more than listened to, and George Lucas and his collaborators have filled "The Phantom Menace" with wonderful visuals."
Many PT-critical fans however have lost the ability to appreciate that, it seems. This has mostly to do with disappointment of exaggerated expectations. But first of all, that is firmly on the audience's side of its "conversation" with that film - your mom can't be blamed for cooking mashed potatoes for dinner when you were secretly hoping for spaghetti, no? You still have a right to be disappointed, and you may point out to her that she left some lumps in the potato mash - which she knows you hate - but nevertheless, you wouldn't swear off ever eating mashed potatoes again.
The problem people have in the OT/PT debate is that they're constantly comparing the two. Film series of course invite internal comparisons. But one should also remind oneself that each film is also an entity of its own, made in its time and under special circumstances and that consequently, results will vary. To go off on a little tangent: I personally consider Star Trek: First Contact to be the worst Star Trek film. What, you ask? The film that is generally considered one of the best in the series? Yes. Because, while I enjoy it (because it is a ST film), I take issue with the awkward combination of its A and B stories, its rushed opening, its missed opportunities and its rather uninspired Aliens-cum-TV movie execution. I mean to say: If one looks closely enough, one can find fault with films that can be objectively supported. I imagine many rabid fans of FC would, upon close inspection and with some degree of knowledge about film directing, agree that the film is made with a TV director's eye. But even this only becomes a problem because previous ST films aimed higher. If they had always gone down that path, I wouldn't notice. But at that time, going for wall-to-wall action on a rather modest budget and with little production time was the m.o., so I can take it or leave it on those terms. In any case, my personal opinion doesn't detract from other people's utter enjoyment of it. I wonder why Star Wars fans seem so unable to understand why someone would enjoy the prequels just as much as the OT.
Edit to say: Oh, and that was a "quick reply". LOL. I tend to ramble.
Whilst you are right to a certain degree, if you look at each film seperatly. However if you think of TPM as Act 1 of 6, which each movie being a subsequent act then as with quite a few movies it has a slower first act.
I personally can easily ignore criticism of any film I enjoy personally. Take Serenity, for example. When that film came out in 2005, there was a virtual war at this very site with threads regularly being bombed by people trying to destroy the fan's excitement over the film. When it finally came out, and didn't meet expectations financially, you couldn't discuss the movie without that being rubbed in your face.
I got into a few conflicts with other members, was given a few warnings, and eventually bowed out of discussing the movie because it wasn't worth the aggravation. So I know how prequel fans feel. I'm a fan of quite a few movies that weren't received well by scifi fans.
I think the difference is, I don't let the knowledge that such criticism exists ruin my enjoyment of the films. Nor do I see much point in spending hours of my time defending a movie from people whose mind will never be changed.
At the very least, fans of the prequels can be secure in the fact that the films were a financial hit. Nobody can take that away from you or change it. So why get so upset?
Last edited:
By the same token, Ebert gave Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within 3.5 stars, praising the film's then state of the art visuals while tearing apart the story and inconsistencies. Ebert is not a fan of scifi. He doesn't get scifi. He likes pretty special effects, and having tons of great visuals will make him raise his score of a film. For example, he enjoyed the first Bay Transformers movie (gave it 3 stars), but hated the two sequels.
I think the guys at RLM explained this pretty well in their reviews as well by saying that special effects are no longer a special thing - and special effects with no strong story to back them can no longer carry a film.
The past two decades has seen a vast improvement in CGI and computer visuals to the point where it is over saturation. Look at films like Suckerpunch, which had some of the most impressive visuals I have ever seen. If it were released 20 years ago it would have wowed audiences. Today, it bored them to tears with it's incomprehensible story and reliance on special effects.
So I guess my point is, if Lucas failed to tell a compelling story, that is hardly the fault of the audience members who were no longer wowed by the pretty visuals.
Because Ebert has retained his, hm, "general audience-ness". He gives entertaining films good ratings, plain and simple. Saying he doesn't get scifi is unfair.
I wouldn't care and I also wouldn't watch it because I would have no interest.
Why does it bother you that RLM bashes the prequel trilogy and people enjoy RLM?
Saying he gives all entertaining films good ratings is a bit unfair as well. Ebert has his opinions. His opinions are not gospel. There have been a slew of action fests he hated just as much as he enjoyed Sith.
Oh, and he has said several times he doesn't get scifi.
- Status
