Speculation Mr. Plinkett's review of Episode VII

Yeah Mr. Plinkett is not for everyone. There have been a few times during his reviews where I have been like "Okay that might be going a little too far". His review of Star Trek: Insurrection on the other hand is pretty damn funny.

 

For me, I think the biggest problem I have with RLM is not necessarily his points and the fact that people agree with his opinion, but that he feels the need to try to assassinate George Lucas' character based on a few clips pulled from the DVD and his own 3rd hand (at best) knowledge of the man. That, especially, is contemptible behavior to me, and I don't understand why people would hold RLM himself in such high regard when he uses such tactics. It's one thing to agree with some of his opinions of the films, but quite another to hold him up as some sort of nerd icon.

Then again, George Lucas gave people something to love while RLM gave them something to hate but the former is reviled while the latter is celebrated by those same people. So maybe I'm expecting too much.

 

To each their own, I suppose; I can think of examples that look real to me, and it's an improvement over TPM, such as in its rendering of a battle between two CG armies.

But back to the original point: "everything" done with CGI really means too much CGI for your taste, even if there were also a great many physical sets, models and miniatures.

Well, you get points for anticipating the inevitable response to your argument. The PT represents a snapshot in history and apparently this came at an inopportune time. I don't find your desire to have had this technological milestone occur only in films you don't care about to adequately substitute for substantive criticism, though. On some level, criticizing the level of CGI in the prequels is like criticizing the frame rate of The Hobbit. It's a technical issue that is separate to the question of whether the other aspects of the film are made well.

Uh, no. That you assume everyone who saw The Hobbit shares the same opinion is not a good sign. Just another unlikely and apparently misguided belief? Don't assume that a few cranky reviewers speak for the entire populace.

Well, let's see...

In the PT, heroes are heroes (check), villains are villains (check), and you know what's happening (check). Although maybe that should more properly be "I" know what's happening as opposed to the colloquial "you", given that it seems Stoklasa... didn't?

The PT is not exactly abstract art or some kind of brain teaser. How is Stoklasa's confessed inability to understand what's happening to be considered a problem with the films, as opposed to a problem with Stoklasa? The same goes for an inability to distinguish heroes from villains, which is really an epic level of fail in either trilogy.

There are many people on this site and others who will tell you they had no problem in the area of knowing what was happening. Would you assume them to be lying?

It feels more like the product of an extreme basher mentality which is often based on emotion rather than substance. Artists tend to understand their own work.

 

RLM didn't make me hate anything. Lucas did that with certain aspects of TPM. I really hate using acronyms as well, on the topic of hate. Honestly I don't think I "hate" the prequels they were more of a let down. It's not like I'm in a dark room with glowing red eyes, steam shooting from my ears whilst in a state of machination thinking about Lucas. It's just.... I'm not a sycophant or a "extreme basher" my main complaint was articulated in this thread. I don't think it was slander or hate. Just an opinion.

Arawn_Fenn o, I think people who are unwilling or unable to criticize the prequels might be basing their "loyalty" on emotion. Granted RLM was over the top but Lucas just isnt the best writer/director when he isolates himself like he did with the prequels, as in, surrounded himself with YES people who wouldn't question any of his decisions. He should have brought on more writers and different people do direct, people not in aww when Lucas walks into the room. Thats really the bottom line and that problem is now fixed as one man isnt running the entire show. If mistakes in writing come up it will be addressed, if the directing is going in the wrong direction some one will speak up. With the OT Lucas didnt have god like status so it was more of a democratic film making process with Lucas captaining the ship but not in the same manner as with the prequels. The guy is a genius, has a great imagination he simply muffed up the back story on Darth Vader but I suppose it's his character it's just.....many of us imagined Anakin's turn to the dark side was a lot different. Lucas created the best villain to ever hit theaters and the three films he made in order to tell that villains story weren't very believable. It's like, "this is Darth Vader? Seriously?"

Blah blah. Darth Spoiled Brat? Darth Whiny? Darth 17 year old emotional basket case? It just wasn't the way I envisioned Darth Vader.

 

Perhaps "hate" was not the right term, but I do think that while George Lucas is constructive and positive, RLM is destructive and negative (at least in terms of his reviews). Mostly because, quite honestly, RLM's "reviews" aren't really reviews since they mention no positive aspects of the PT. I just think it's deeply ironic that some in the fandom hold a man who tears down a part of something they purport to love in higher regard rather than the man who created it in the first place. What a sad state of affairs that is.

Being disappointed with the prequels, that I can certainly understand. I was very disappointed with The Legend of Korra following Avatar: The Last Airbender (although I'm waiting to see where it goes before I make a final decision). And yet, I still have nothing but respect for Michael Dante Dimartino and Bryan Konietzko. And you know what? I certainly wouldn't mind reading a critique of the character development or plot (both of which I had major issues with), but I'll also recognize that there were plenty of good and successful things about the series. And I certainly wouldn't go and try to discredit or maliciously imply things about the creators. Nor would I support someone who did, even if I agreed with their opinion on Korra.

I don't think that's necessarily true, though. I can criticize many things about the prequels:

--In TPM, I think some of Jar Jar's antics in the final battle should have been cut

--In AOTC, I don't much like the droid factory and would much rather have had Padmé's scenes

--In ROTS, I think the fight with General Grievous goes on for too long and would have preferred to see it cut

I love the PT, but I certainly don't think it's perfect. Nothing is.

And it's fine to have an opinion. You can say that Lucas isn't the best writer/director, but some of us will disagree. I think, though, that you have no right to say he surrounded himself with YES people when you weren't there. That's just speculation.

In regards to Anakin, again, it's your right not to like him. But you not liking something doesn't mean it is bad necessarily. As an example, I know lots of video gamers who didn't like the best rated video game of all time (and a personal favorite of mine). They found it boring and un-engaging. But I don't think that this says anything about the game developers in particular. Different people will like different things.

You don't need to say that the creator "hated" his work, or was surrounded by nothing but "YES" people, or forgot the meaning of his earlier work, or was a tyrant in order to explain why you don't like something.

 

Yeaaaaaaaahh.... no.

You have to understand that while a lot of "bashers" do not get tired of railing on the prequels day after day, year after year, for over a decade. there are many of us who have been LIVING with the criticism. I call it Prequel Traumatic Stress Disorder. "Bashers" were traumatized by their dislike of the movies. "Gushers" were traumatized by the backlash that never, ever, ever seems to end, and seems to creep into every corner of pop culture. And the dust never seems to settle on this issue.

And trust me: it's not about being unable to criticize. if you've been on the JCF since 1999, you've heard every complaint that these video-making jabronis could ever make. You've responded to the complaints, lived with them, and come to terms with them. Anyone who's been involved in this community since 99 and still loves the prequels isn't a sycophant. They're veterans of a long fought war that has only made their will stronger.

And frankly I'd rather watch Doug Walker's videos. He's made it clear long ago that he understands that any snarky review of TPM would just petty and tired.

 

WWF (or is it WWE now?) references and American flags. Well, can't argue with that. I'd feel like some sort of communist if I criticize the prequels now. So be it They should have Darth Vader professional wrestler, have him be stoic and quiet in the ring for years. Very threatening, defeats every opponent he faces hands down. Like that Kane wrestler. The one who never talked for about five years. Then , one day, do an interview with the Vader Wrestler and have him, under the mask, be....well. Have you seen Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome? Where they force him into the arena to fight that huge guy with a helmet on? Max finds out that the huge helmet guy doesn't like high pitched sounds so he has a whistle and after blowing it he's able to get the helmet off the big beast in order to kill him....he pries the helmet off and gets ready to give the death blow but realized the man under the helmet has severe down syndrome and is smiling back at Max. That moment, the look on Max's face, the disbelief, thats the sort of disbelief I had after watching all three prequels. That under that helmet...all along was just a poor fool with the mind of a child. Not necessarily the greatest foundation for the most epic villain of all times ya know?

 

Your name Anakin fan since 1983 would lead me to believe you've been an Anakin fan since 1983 which would kinda necessitate you being familiar with OB1's description of Lukes father in the OT. Compare OB1's description of Anakin and Darth Vader's actually personality in the OT with the Anakin of the prequels and let me know if you think it's a good match. "If the glove does not a fit you must acquit". I rest my case your honor.

 

Well I'm glad you picked up on the funny, but...

Really, dude? You read what I just wrote and thought "say, this person just probably hasn't heard the RIGHT kind of prequel criticism, so I'll give him a Thunderdome analogy"? Come on, that's just tacky. Bad form, sir, bad form.

 

It wasn't very politically correct but I think the Thunderdome analogy is spot on. I should copyright it and make a youtube video. Call it "Strong Vader Enters/ Weak Vader Leaves". I just want the old Vader back...that's all...... *begins crying and complaining about OB1 being jealous*

 

I am sure I will be one of the unpopular ones, but I find the RLM reviews funny, even when I don't agree with all of the things he says (and sometimes goes too far). I agree with pretty much everything he said in his review of TPM, the love story of AOTC, how emotion was really missing from most of the prequels, the way Anakin was written, how he became Vader and some of the comical Jedi theatrics.

With that said, like what you like people. Don't let a guy on the net deter your love for the prequels. Personally, I still love ST First Contact and he assaulted it. I still found things he said funny and some good points were made. Even his review of the new Star Trek had his share of criticisms. What I care about is how I like Episode VII. I have really high hopes.

 

Well, I was once forbidden by a mod from talking about Jar Jar, and it wasn't because I was being generous.

Exactly. And shortcomings/issues/failings aside, he's fighting on the side of good the whole time until he turns, including in the opening sequence of ROTS. People seem to imagine that Obi-Wan said a great deal about Anakin's character in the films, but in ANH he said nothing about it at all.

 

There are people who are butthurt over the prequels and then there are people who are butthurt over Plinkett. The cycle will never end.

 

It's a symbiotic circle of midichlorian manipulation that depends on ones point of view.

 

My butt never hurt watching either phenomena. I think RLM is freakin' hilarious and the humor does NOT come from agreeing with the criticisms. There's nothing funny about agreeing with someone's critique. The humor comes from seeing how the character would think and say them. Like watching Beavis and Butthead.

 

Thankfully I don't suffer from either butthurt.

 

Are they? The "heroes" are cold, unfeeling, detached monks who steal children from their families to indoctrinate them into their cult. Oh and they preach not to love people and not to feel sad when they die. Great heroes. The "hero" and arguable pro-ta-gone-ist in TPM, Qui Gon is not only cold, distant, and stoic, but as the review points out, morally corrupt as witnessed by his use of subterfuge, lying, deception, gambling, and cheating in everything he does on Tattooine. Then he leaves mom to rot in slavery. Great hero there! The queen? A stoic zombie in pancake makeup who can't make a decision to save her life, let alone anybody else's. Obi-Wan doesn't really do anything so it's hard to say if he's a hero. He heroically stayed on the ship and worked the midichlorian counting machine, I suppose.

The villains? Sure, you've got Maul as a mustache twirler but he's the definition of one dimensional. People weren't even sure Palpatine was Sidious after TPM when it came out. So what was that about a clear Villain? We didn't even know who the main bad guy was, let alone what his motivations were, why he was doing it, why he even hated the Jedi. Then there are the puppets, the Nemoidians. Their motivations are even less clear. As RLM say in the ROTS review, "what, who are you? Why am I listening to you? Where are you broadcasting from?". Dooku? He used to be good but is now kind of bad like your senile grandfather I guess. The same dynamic applies to the rest of the Confederate baddies. Maybe Grievous is another mustache twirler and equally as one dimensional as Maul.

You want the official seal of ambiguity straight from the horse's mouth?

War! The Republic is crumbling
under attacks by the ruthless
Sith Lord, Count Dooku.
There are heroes on both sides.
Evil is everywhere.

Yup, clear refutation of "heroes are heroes and villains are villains" straight from the screenwriter himself.

By the way where were the heroes on the Confederacy side? Is the hero one of the characters we're being told is a villain? Is Dooku a hero? Is Grievous a hero? Maybe it's Watt Tambor or Nute Gunray.

Evil is everywhere... Does that include the Jedi? So much for "heroes are heroes", eh?

One has to wonder how the man who created the OT also created the PT. Maybe he didn't really understand his own work. Or more accurately he took more credit for the work of others (Dykstra, Burtt, Kasdan, Oz, et al) and by the time of the PT anybody who could challenge him or tell him NO was purged. I'm looking at Rick McCallum (and curiously he seems to have disappeared in the Disney World Order).

This feeling is summed up in the RLM reviews when discussing the beginnings of TPM and ANH's Star Destroyer opening. The small size of the rebel ship, the enormous Empire ship, the low camera angle, all were so genius and said everything you needed to know without saying a word that George Lucas probably fought against having it in the movie. LOL.

With the passage of time I'm convinced George really didn't fully understand what made Star Wars great. Start with the way he derisively calls light sabers "laser swords" time and time again in behind the scenes footage. Gungas! Goongas!

Another example to drive this home is the disaster of giving Yoda a baby sized "laser sword" and giddily making him fight. Once again, the man who allegedly created Yoda didn't understand what made him great. This is perhaps the greatest argument that the artist DIDN'T understand his own work. Which makes me think it wasn't so much of his work in the first place.

 

He was absolutely surrounded by yes men during the making of the PT and boy did it show. We all need other people to bounce ideas off of, no matter who we are. If one thing was proven by the PT's mixed reactions, it was how much of the OT's success was down to others.

 

I didn't even know who this guy was until I saw this thread.
Watched his review of TPM and AOTC.

Well, he's pretty much right. I don't like his "extreme humor," all that with basement and women being chained down there - that is just plain dumb and unfunny. Not really something to joke about in such a manner.
I just skip those parts.

That aside, the guy actually raises some good points in his analysis, most of them being quite on the spot.

 

Well, just to take a step back for a moment (and to give some credit to Plinkett's detractors, as well), I think that's the one area where Plinkett and I most definitely part ways. I have issues with Lucas' handling of the PT; I can't then go back to the OT and say that just because he was slipping during the PT (if you endorse that concept), that then meant that he had no positive contibution to the franchise he himself invented ever. I will grant that it's a conclusion one can reach based on the fact that when Lucas had total control, the results weren't as good as they were when he didn't have total control; one then must ask why the OT works better for some than the PT does if they both have the same man at the helm; what are the variables? The simplest conclusion would be the other people involved in the production.

But to be perfectly honest, for the most part Lucas hasn't taken credit for other peoples' work; I can't agree with janstett, say, when he says that he took the credit for John Dykstra's work; it's common knowledge that Dykstra had a bunch of his own problems (partly start-up related) and Lucas had to step in to help just to keep him on track, and when ANH was done, so was Dykstra - TESB lost Dykstra and kept the high effects quality of ILM without the problems caused under his administration of it. One can't make the case that Lucas took credit for Dykstra's work in that instance. He never took credit for the work of Ben Burtt or Lawrence Kasdan; he certainly never took credit for John Williams. There are places in the RLM reviews where the logic does indeed break down under facts; it's the one area where Plinkett undermines himself by going too far in attempting to explain why Lucas made poor decisions on the PT.

Where the entire sentiment of Lucas not really doing all that much for Star Wars comes from is largely the sour grapes of producer Gary Kurtz, who was either let go or freely resigned after he and Lucas began developing problems working together on TESB. The dispute between them was essentially this: Kurtz spent money freely in attempting to realize Lucas' ideas (and the available documentation, by the way, makes it clear that they were largely Lucas' basic ideas, set to the music of Kasdan's words); Lucas became concerned that Kurtz wasn't paying attention to the budget; and this film was entirely financied with Lucas' own money, so a failure of any kind at that point meant his personal ruin (in a manner equal or worse to that of Francis Coppola's financial desperation during the filming of Apocalypse Now) and the ruin of everyone who worked with him. One can sympathize with both ends: Lucas had a right to be concerned that everything he worked for was going to vanish; Kurtz had a right to be concerned about the quality of the film first (as he puts it), and the ultimate film speaks for itself. Still, Lucas and Kurtz parted ways, and Kurtz moved on to The Dark Crystal, then Return to Oz, and then he fell off my radar entirely. They haul him out every now and then to comment during anniversaries and important occasions, and he can't help spilling dirt on how they parted ways over the changing vision of Star Wars; and because we don't have the documentation to prove who said what, we'll never know if he's telling the truth or not.

Suffice it to say, people like Stoklasa and Alexandre Phillipe have picked up Kurtz's repeated claims that Lucas no longer has anyone in his employ who'll challenge him, call him out, or say his ideas don't work when they don't. Kurtz has never been shy about telling people that, and so when we're left with a PT that some people think is subpar next to the OT, we're forced to adapt whatever explanation fits. There's gotta be some kind of explanation, right? And Kurtz didn't work on those films, so it can't be his fault. Who's fault was it, then? Where does the buck stop in this instance?

And by the way, it really doesn't help matters when there are demonstrable incidents (depending on one's point of view) of Lucas actually having a tug-of-war with someone else over credit for good ideas on rare occasions: in ANH, the idea of killing Obi-Wan Kenobi off was either suggested to Lucas by his then-wife Marcia, or it was his idea. Depends on who you ask. Some say Marcia; some say George. The fact that this confusion even exists, in a situation where we have two people with an obvious grudge against each other and we have no idea who's side to take, just doesn't help the people who feel that Plinkett is saying too much that isn't true.

It also doesn't help that Rick McCallum did act like his nose was browner than Kurtz's, that he did act like a yes-man when Kurtz clearly wasn't. The man looked like a brown-noser; if this was the man filling Kurtz's old shoes, it seemed he was eloquently making Kurtz's case without Kurtz having to say anything. Again, there's no documentation to back up whatever Plinkett says or doesn't say about him, but based on his demeanor alone, I do smell some truth to it: McCallum probably was a liability, and I have to believe that LFL knew it at some point. Small wonder that when he left LFL this year, it was out the back door with a rather perfunctory send-off letter; the acclamation and praise on it just reads hollow to me. It's nothing compared to the hoopla surrounding the ST announcements; it seems that LFL is clearly regarding McCallum as being yesterday's news.

So if I don't believe what Plinkett says regarding Lucas never having any talent to begin with, then what do I believe? Where do I assert my own ideas over Plinkett's? Well, it seems far more likely that, like so many artists, he had a slump. That's it. Not every artist makes a painting perfect every time. It just rubs me the wrong way because I don't accept, on principle, the idea that we shouldn't expect a perfect Star Wars film every time. That slump hit him at the worst possible moment. It was partly his own fault: he may have needed to take some time to raise his children after ROTJ and his divorce from Marcia, but he should have still kept his skills sharp. He directed nothing for years; no artist allow their skills to atrophy so much over so long a time (and producing things for other people during that time doesn't count as Lucas' own work; I care about what Ridley Scott directs, for example, not what he produces on behalf of other directors). An artist either makes art or he isn't an artist - PERIOD. He didn't have to make Star Wars movies all that time, but he should have directed something, put his creative energies into some film that spoke to him in some way. But he didn't; as a result, he was totally out of shape when Episode I became a project at last, and the flaws revealed in that film, which Plinkett examined, inevitably tainted the rest of the PT and his attempt to revive his career. He had his desire to do good work, true enough, but his instincts to do it properly were severely atrophied. I don't think he really got his mojo back until The Clone Wars series, and then I saw stories and characters that felt like Star Wars to me. And if they're saying that it's on the back of this experience, constantly coming up with stories for that series that have some really good ideas, that Lucas was finally inspired to plot out Episodes VII-IX, in this creative environment, then I have a suspicion that half the problems the PT had won't be in the ST for that reason alone - he devised them while on a creative high note, with his powers back at their peak (or as at their peak as they're gonna be).

So there are limits to how much I take what Plinkett has to say as fact; but I'm sorry, I just can't ignore the flaws in the PT for that reason alone. One can be wrong about one thing and right about another. Plinkett can be right on the problems and wrong on what those problems say about Lucas' character; Lucas can be wrong on his approach to the PT and right in other areas. Both sides on this forum are quick to defend their chosen side, and that's proper for a topic of this nature; we'll be fine, though, as long as both sides are willing to admit that their respective standard-bearers, George W. Lucas and Harry S. Plinkett, have their drawbacks as well as their good and valid points.

 

Yes, they are. Not being able to tell the difference doesn't exactly count as insightful criticism. A lot of people in the audience have a big problem telling good guys apart from bad guys in real life. It's not surprising that they bring this moral confusion into the theater with them, but in what way is that a reflection on the film?

Lying to make a case doesn't work, you see, because when the argument is based on a lie the conclusion is also suspect.

See above.

As this post points out, Stoklasa's twisted view of morality does not a problem with the film make. Let's not conveniently forget that Qui-Gon was attempting to free an entire planet from occupation, which likely outweighs "cheating" a slaveowner.

The Jedi don't have jurisdiction outside the Republic and most definitely don't have a mandate to go around freeing slaves in Hutt space. As the film takes pains to point out, he did not have the financial means to free her - unless, of course, you're suggesting that he do so by "subterfuge, lying, deception, and cheating". But I'm sure you're entirely consistent and would give him a pass on that, right?

You're right, that clearly makes her a villain. ( There's that twisted sense of morality again. )

Most people were, including people who read the OT novelizations in their initial release or pre-PT EU. A few misguided conspiracy theorist types insisted they were different people, despite the fact that the film makes it fairly obvious they were one and the same. But the film is not responsible for the existence of whack jobs in the audience.

Don't assume that "we" had the same problems with the film that you and Stoklasa apparently did. We knew who the main bad guy was. We saw a film with a clear villain. ( In all likelihood you did too, and are just thoughtlessly parroting Stoklasa's claims as though they cannot possibly be inaccurate. Good luck with that. )

[sarcasm]Yeah, that's a big problem.[/sarcasm]

No, that's the product of the re-writer, who took "there are heroes on both sides" and rewrote it into "heroes and villains are indistinguishable". Which, as if by sheer coincidence, happens to be the re-writer's preexisting bias. Amazing! Or not. But if for some reason opening crawls are all-important while the behavior of characters in the rest of the film has no relevance, it seems odd that you don't apparently recall the opening crawls of the OT, which established that the Empire was evil.

TCW addressed this point. Failing that, you would have to figure it out yourself.

I'm not holding my breath.

To you, it does. But your up-is-down, black-is-white inability to distinguish betwen Jedi and Sith is your problem, not anything that can be blamed on the films.

And maybe monkeys are about to fly out of my butt.

Right, because what you call a lightsaber is one of the things that made Star Wars great. Too much!

You mean the single greatest audience-approval moment in the whole film, only hampered by its brevity? The one where, as accurately reported in the commentary, you couldn't hear anything in the theater on opening night because people were going nuts?

"Disasters" ain't what they used to be, I guess.

Or that you're simply not paying attention ( or are ignorant of cut material from TESB ). Both Obi-Wan and Palpatine said in the OT that the lightsaber was the weapon of a Jedi. Not the weapon of some Jedi. Not the weapon of inexperienced Jedi. Not "oh, a lot of Jedi use this, but the really advanced ones don't". A Jedi's weapon.

In fact, people can be wrong about multiple things! *gasp*

Stoklasa can be wrong about the problems and possibly wrong about Lucas' character; Stoklasa's groupies can be wrong about Stoklasa's points.