Speculation Mr. Plinkett's review of Episode VII

I stated it was a perception and I gave justification of my perception. I very well could be wrong. I think IMDB rating or (current) Rotten Tomatoes ratings is as good as any indication unless there was a published scientific field poll out there.

 

First, PiettsHat, thanks for the response. You argued your points well and you didn't insult me to do it. You're aces in my book; where you go astray for me is on a few points, and I'll be happy to discuss them further. Second, let's just go into this agreeing that we'll never convince each other of the "rightness" of our views; all we can do is explain them to each other as best we can, passionately AND with civility. Let's see if we can continue that now.

To start with, I'm afraid you're resting your response in part on a basic assumption that I was going into the prequels "expecting" something in particular; I wasn't, honestly. I wanted them to be good, yes, but that doesn't automatically mean I wanted to be transported back to my childhood innocence. I wouldn't mind it, true enough, but that was never my hope. I just wanted to leave the theater feeling like I'd had a great cinematic experience. I just didn't get that. And I was left to wonder what it was about the whole exerience that left me wanting. Like you suggest, I did, for a while, ask myself if it indeed was me; was I asking too much? Because the people who answered this for me at the time (and they mention this argument in The People vs. George Lucas) stated outright to me that it was because I was an older fanboy who's forgotten what it's like to be a child, or that I was wanting to see things the way I saw them when I was a child, and I couldn't be a child again, and that's why I was upset. For instance, director Frank Darabont, in interviews, came right out and stated that it was because people were expecting to have their Star Wars virginity back so it could be broken again, and that just wasn't the case. Not with me. Not, I suspect, with a lot of others who felt similarly to me. I'm not saying that isn't true for some, but does it have to be true of everyone who was disappointed? Can't I be disappointed because the film itself had flaws? That's rather like saying (and let me stress that it's NOT what you meant at all; it's just an illustration) that if I oppose Obama, it's because I'm a racist; can't I just disagree with his policies and have that be a sufficient reason? What I'm saying is that such things had nothing to do with why I didn't like the prequels; I didn't like them because they didn't deliver for me on basic filmmaking levels, not because I wanted my childhood innocence back. That particular argument is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making; it's used a heck of a lot to rebut people in my camp, but it's still not relevant.

Second, I just can't accept the argument that "the OT can just as easily be picked apart in such a manner as the PT" because Plinkett has already done that, or started to. He recorded a commentary track for ANH in which he had as much freedom of opinion as he had in anything else he's done, and he held back nothing. But there was less to complain about for him because there were less problems. He does do it, but because the film itself is so good in terms of quality, construction, editing, characterization and in every other term you care to name, it's a lot harder to find things to argue against. And when something's done right, he'll say as much. So, again, not relevant to my point.

Third, I'm not into Plinkett because I'm after "objective truth." I'm perfectly aware that my view is not monopolistic. And neither a film, nor a review of said film, whether pro or con, is objective or ever can be. I don't offer these reviews up as examples of objective truth. I state that these reviews filled a gap in my knowledge that helped me come to terms with what I felt in the theater. As you say, he clarified my feelings; that's all. I embrace the man because he verbalized something that I already knew, but could not verbalize because I was not capable of using the language to do so; I'm an artist, but I'm not a filmmaker, so how can I possibly describe proper writing and improper writing? Or proper and/or improper editing? I'm not Syd Field, for crying out loud! And if I, who came into the theater predisposed to like the film, came out going "huh?" then by definition an explanation became necessary. What Stoklassa did was to properly provide that explanation in a way that concretized what lay beneath the surface already; and he did so for more people than just me, or again, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes, seriously. I wrote it and I meant it. Because, yes, Lucas does indeed have the right to have his movies the way he envisioned them (you'll note that I conceded that in my last post). But here's the catch: once they entered the marketplace, they became subject to criticism of this kind. Because I don't have to like what he did to make his films the way he envisioned them. And I stand by my statement that he imposed these things on a viewership which was not unanimous in liking them. If I didn't like Greedo shooting first and I got it anyway, then by definition it was imposed on me. And I can't just go watch the originals to make myself feel better, because those aren't available for me to watch unless it's procured illegally. I don't have to do that with a hell of a lot of other films that don't represent the directors' "vision." I can watch other versions of Brazil, or Blade Runner, or E.T. whenever I want to because they're allowed to be shown; they're included in the DVD set if I want it. In those cases, the directors in question were less sensitive and prickly about it. But I can't do that with Star Wars, and that decision too was imposed on me, just because the director cringes when he watches them and he's so sensitive about it that he essentially went Orwell and tried to erase them from history. I didn't choose that; someone else did that for me. And correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the points of Star Wars, particularly the prequels, is that people have not only the right, but also the obligation, to openly oppose things they disagree with, or else the Rebel Alliance should have just sat down and shut up and let the Empire do what it wanted. We have a right to disagree with things that rankle with us, and not to be called "not true Star Wars fans" because we feel how we feel (that's not what you're saying at all, let's get that settled right now, but it was said a lot back in the day and I had to take it). And yes, this segment of fandom dislikes this situation and has had its fill of just sitting down and shutting up. So yes, from the moment Lucas made these decisions, opposition was inevitable. And because Lucas (until last week) was in complete control of every aspect of these decisions, it was also inevitable that said opposition would point right at him, and him alone. It happened that a guy from Milwaukee (IIRC) became a voice (not the only one) of that segment of fandom by using, of all things, a drunken serial murderer character he had already invented to state that opposition, because in my opinion no one else was doing anywhere near as good a job in stating WHY there was opposition at all.

So to those of you who dislike Stoklassa/Plinkett for any reason at all, I completely understand and accept your viewpoint. Not for a moment will I try to change your minds; your opinion is yours and yours alone, and I have no right to dismiss it. But remember this: your opinion too is not unanimous any more than mine is. There really is a segment of fans out there that feels like I do. It doesn't matter to me if I'm in the majority or the minority; it doesn't even matter to me if I'm alone in this. What matters to me is that for me, Plinkett is rewarding, educational, informative, and entertaining. To me, he really does have something to contribute to the art of film criticism, and I both can't and won't change my mind on that point. People can disagree with him, his reviews, his humor, and his conclusions all they want to, because that's their right. Please continue to feel as you do, PiettsHat, and speak freely about it all you like; I won't jump on you for it. But at the same time, I was damned if I was going to let Mike Stoklassa go undefended. My opinion in this also matters; and like it or not, so too does his.

 

No, you stated "most people" and when asked for a source, you gave IMDB's top 50 sci-fi movies (which, unlike you said, doesn't justify any possible generalization you could make). That's why I questioned your reasoning.

 

I imagine we won't agree about the PT, and that's okay. To each his own.
I do think, though, that Stoklassa's analysis isn't all that great and that he utilizes far too many rhetorical tricks to the point that he doesn't truly produce anything insightful.

Perhaps it is merely the way you worded your statements, but when you said:

"These reviews assured me that no, I'm not crazy, it was never my perception that was off, it was not that I'd forgotten how to be a kid. It was never me; it was Lucasfilm, always and only, that had been in error."

It seems like you are saying that because you were unable to appreciate the PT on the same innocent, child-like level as the OT, that Lucasfilm had somehow failed. The implication is, of course, that the PT was somehow supposed to be received by you as an adult the same way that the OT was received by you as a child, as though the 18 years of maturity you experienced would not in any way color your perception. I say this because, while I recognize that the issues people have with the PT are varied, in your description, you particularly pointed our how you were concerned that you had "forgotten how to be a kid." I can't help but feel, personally, that this sets expectations that are impossible to meet.

If you didn't like the films, you didn't like them. And that's a legitimate opinion, nothing wrong with that. From your description, though, it seemed to me that you wanted PT to recreate the emotional response that you felt to the OT. And I just wonder if that is even possible -- you've changed as person in 18 years and you won't experience things the same. That's not to say that it's the entirety of your disappointment with the prequels, but I can't help but wonder if it played a part.

Sure, if you didn't like the films you didn't like them. But I don't think it's anyone "fault" is all. There's nothing wrong with you for not liking the films, but the fact that you didn't like it doesn't really say anything about the film itself. For example, I did not particularly like the last Harry Potter film (which is sitting at 97% on rottentomatoes.com). I think it is an enormously overrated film. But, I do adore Pan's Labyrinth (which sits at 95% on rotten tomatoes.com). My preferences do not make Potter any worse of a film nor do they make Pan's Labyrinth any better. I don't think it's a question of "good" or "bad" but "like" versus "dislike." Because two people can look at the exact same thing and come to completely opposing conclusions.

I agree. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who disagree with Obama do so because of his policies. It's the extremists, however, that I question. People who paint Obama as a socialist, depict him as Hitler, and scream about him and the debt (rather than discussing things rationally) and then ask for the birth certificate. It's the intensity of the response that I find troubling. It's one thing to go after a man's policies (such as by disagreeing with Obama's tax plan for instance), but quite another thing to go after the man himself (the birth certificate). I see a similar pattern with George Lucas. People can criticize the PT all they like, but where I become a bit perturbed is when they feel the need to go after Lucas himself -- they call him greedy for instance or a hack. And that I find troubling. In particular, one of the largest reasons that the RLM reviews lose credibility for me is that they try to paint Lucas as someone who is unwilling to listen to the ideas of others and terrorizes them (the TPM review, in particular, had some moments). That's where I don't believe that people simply "dislike" the PT. You don't fall into that mold. But, for me, RLM does. He tries to paint Lucas in a specific manner to advance his own narrative about the PT and that I find objectionable, personally.

Dislike of the films, though, is fine by me.

I can understand that. You prefer that some specific filmmaking conventions be maintained. And that's perfectly fine. Where I dislike the RLM reviews, though, is that they lambast the prequels as though it is a failure that they do not fall in line according to those conventions. And that's where I disagree. There are many legitimate ways to look at a film, one might work for you and one might not, but I think it's unwise for anyone to try to speak for the audience as a whole, as RLM does.

I think you'll appreciate, though, that Plinkett is subject to his own bias and he looks at the films through a particular lens. I prefer the PT to the OT and I can tell you that I can certainly find plenty to complain about if I go in looking for flaws. But it's the way you approach the film. What are you looking to get out of it? For example, many people have expressed the desire for a new "rogue" character in the ST. I don't particularly care for the idea though. Some prefer villains like Vader, who intimidate you with their overwhelming physical presence. I have always much preferred Palpatine (especially in the prequels) as a villain.

I think, though, that you're restricting yourself too much in terms of Stoklassa's opinion of what is proper or improper editing or proper/improper writing. For example, he often criticizes Lucas, in ROTS, for using a "shot-reverse shot" set-up or not having the characters be more energized in certain scenes. I, however, appreciated these aspects because they made the film easier for me view -- one of my favorite examples is when Lucas intercuts between the absolute insanity of the Grievous/Obi-Wan fight to the very quiet, low-key Anakin-Palpatine conversation. I think it would be overwhelming and destroy the mood if he did more energized intercutting in the Anakin-Palpatine scene. One movie, for example, that can often be a bit overwhelming in its pacing (for me) is Moulin Rouge, a film which I otherwise liked, but I wish that there weren't so many cuts and the director would have let up a bit to let us enjoy the set composition.

That's not to say that you can't still dislike the way the prequels handled the editing or writing. But I don't think Stoklassa's is the only method to approach it by. He is not the final arbiter on proper/improper editing or writing.

I do not contest your right to criticize any changes Lucas makes. Where I do think you're incorrect, though, is in saying that Lucas has in any way forced you to accept them. You don't have to. You aren't forced to watch the PT anymore than you are forced to watch the ST when it comes out.

Or, as another example, when I heard Lucas had added a "No!" to Vader in ROTJ, I didn't like it. So I waited over a year to buy the Blu-Rays confirmed my suspicions that I truly didn't like it, and simply went back to watching the DVD (I gave the Blu-Ray to my brother as a gift). Will I be able to enjoy ROTJ in HD? No, but that doesn't overly concern me. The same is true for TPM's Yoda puppet.

Honestly, I don't understand this. I have the laserdisc transfers of the OT sitting in my desk drawer right now. You can buy it used from amazon.com for about twice the list price. A bit steep, I know, but there are books I'd like to purchase that aren't available anywhere for less than 7 times their list price. Or look on ebay -- I saw plenty of offers. What I'm asking is simply this: what obligation does Lucas have to provide you with the original, unaltered trilogy?

That's true. But what, in effect, is so wrong about Lucas focusing on the Special Editions? Is there anything wrong with focusing on those versions that you prefer as an artist? The VHS and laserdisc transfers aren't up to par with today's quality, no, but I just can't see how that somehow means Lucas is imposing upon you.

If he wanted them erased from history, then why would he rerelease them in the 2006 box set? They weren't in the highest quality possible, to be sure, but he's doing a pretty poor job of erasing them from history. What I'm saying is, is it really so wrong to want to focus on the version that he prefers? When Tolkien changed The Hobbit to better suit Lord of the Rings do you think he did so because he "so sensitive" about the original or for artistic reasons?

I understand your perspective her and I agree -- it doesn't matter whether you are in the majority or minority.

If you feel you got something out of Plinkett then more power to you. But I will say that my biggest objections to Plinkett are not necessarily to do with his opinion, but how he frames his arguments:

I don't agree when he tries to speak for the audience, when he states that there is a certain way to do things and to not do them this way is "bad" or "wrong," when he tries to use behind the scenes footage to paint a certain picture of Lucas, etc.

People are certainly to dislike the PT, to criticize the Special Editions, to request that the O-OT be released. I do take issue, though, with the sense of entitlement and the personal attacks (which can run both ways to be fair). And RLM plays heavily into the latter, unfortunately.

 

Great post.

 

There's something more than a little odd about people who seemingly have no problem expressing themselves saying things like "I never liked the movies, but couldn't put it into words before RLM nailed everything perfectly". I knew more or less precisely what aspects of TPM and the other prequels I didn't like. I could put it into words, and did so often, on this site and others. I didn't walk out of the theater going "I didn't like that but I have no idea why". I'd go so far as to suggest that some of the problems with the film are so obvious that claiming to have not understood the nature of the problem lacks a certain degree of credibility.

 

Oh come on. You've never had a "It doesn't appeal to me, but I can't put my finger on why" moment? I have those moments all the time. It must mean I lack credibility as a person.

 

Seriously guys??? Plinkett is a dork. His reviews are a little funny in places yes, but are totally disrespectful and stupid. He doesn't talk about anything positive in his TPM review when there is tons of positive things to say. I can't believe there is already a thread about this years before the movie is even released. Groan.

 

Oh, I assure, on this point we're in agreement: I adored Pan's Labyrinth too; I treat that film like a fine wine I uncork on special occasions. In fact, it's the perfect proof that I can still receive the emotional response I wanted from the prequels; I do maintain that it isn't a question of wanting the same thing I got when I was a kid; it's more akin to hearing what could have been a particularly good performance of a piece of classical music that I like, except for the one or two really bad musicians in the orchestra who just keep JARRING ON ME. Did you see the first couple of minutes of the film Red Dragon? That.

As for the rest, I don't see any further point in refuting it; as I said, we won't convince each other. But I think we can both push back from the table with our honor intact. And one thing I'll agree with you on: MacDiarmid's performance in the prequels was unquestionably the best part of those films. I too prefer watching Palpatine, whatever film he's in, to Vader in any film; always have. What I wanted from those films, I got from Ian MacDiarmid. His performance was pitch-perfect. Plinkett says as much as well, of course, but that's not why I think that; it's because he delivered a performance that was appropriate to the film he was in, and it was so magical to watch that I could have cared less how much scenery he was chewing. I just wanted to watch him keep eating, LOL.

 

Yes, however, the anticipation is killing me

 

I don't think I've ever agreed with someone on a forum more than I do with you right now.

 

Mr. Plinkett agrees with JJ Abrams!

 

I was just about to post this. LOL.

 

edit:
Oh, I already posted here a long time ago.

 

The mass majority of the people I've posted with on this forum tend to frown upon RLM for whatever reason. However, I've since realized that the reason people don't like Plinkett or his reviews or anything is because this is a Star Wars forum, comprised of Star Wars fans, many of whom are probably fans of the Prequels. Most of the other forums I've visited have a great amount of respect for Plinkett and his views on the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. They also understand the characters he uses within his reviews and what message he's trying to convey. Posting a thread in support of Plinkett on a Star Wars forum really isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

That being said I'm not certain if he'll make a new "Mr. Plinkett" analysis of the new trilogy. He's moved onto analyzing broader movies and what not and has even made a couple of indie comedy flicks (I believe) so I can only see him being dragged back if Episode VII is genuinely awful and I doubt that will happen.

 

^ 2500 thumbs up to 139 thumbs down. The math (which is science) shows people think he's funny. You can't argue with science - It's like....factual and stuff.

 

This is not to say that Stoklosa is not entitled to his opinion of disliking the prequels. But his reviews, which make accusation after accusation of the 3 films' plot points is now proven to be full of inaccuracies and Stoklosa simply not paying close enough attention to the actual movies (thanks to Jim Raynor's fabulous 108 page rebuttal). The RLM reviews are terrible excuses for reviews.

 

It's your opinion that they're sexist. Not everybody shares your opinion. Just because you believe something is sexist doesn't mean it is. Just because you're offended doesn't mean you are right. I could cry racism at the Plinkett reviews if I wanted to or even cry racism with the Original Trilogy and Prequel Trilogy. And I have. But at the same time that doesn't prevent me from understanding Plinkett's critiques or enjoying the movies. I also understand that my opinion is nothing more than an opinion and that I could be wrong. I've met plenty of women who enjoy Plinkett's reviews and aren't offended. Maybe you're just offended because Plinkett doesn't like the PT and he uses possibly edgy humor as a way to express his distaste.

Again, that's your opinion. You have a predisposition to enjoy the prequel movies, right? Which is why you're more likely to side with Jim Raynor. If you looked at RLM's other reviews you'd see that he has a firm understanding of how the film industry works, how films are made and the process of making a movie and telling a story. The way he deconstructed RoTS and Citizen Kane was nothing short of brilliant. He has made other reviews of other films where he's done the exact same thing. His "Mr. Plinkett" character isn't for everyone but there's no denying the fact that he's done his research and put an awful lot of time and effort into deconstructing movies in general.

 

That is not my opinion. His PT reviews ARE filled with false claims. I could go down the list in which he tries to make a claim about one of the plots which is not true at all. Such an ignorant review.

You are better off being a regular movie critic and to write a review for a website or publication and state you felt the movie was poor due to bad direction and acting. Making inaccurate claims about the plot and story only makes your review invalid and you lose credibility.

 

Go down the list then. I have time.