Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Feb 12, 2012.
Their are plenty of people who can express their opinion in a more civil human manner, Plinkett and it's followers are subhuman I refuse to acknowledge Plinkett at as him going forward. I have defended the PT on various threads and 99.999999% of people have their minds solidly made up at this point on their opinions on the films so I ask what is the point? Nobody is going to change their view positive or negative. And not to across as pompous I don't feel the need to justify my opinions on a message board....
Nobody's asking you to justify your opinion. You just don't have to call Plinkett and his "followers" (me amongst them) subhuman. I find it ironic because Plinkett goes out of his way to act subhuman in his videos as a commentary about Star Wars fans in general and to try and be funny. I can understand why his humor isn't everyone's cup of tea but if you look at his other videos and projects it's kind of evident that he knows what he's talking about when it comes to film analysis. You can at least respect his arguments but still not agree with him instead of just tossing around insults. I do the same with people who disagree with me and have valid points.
So everyone has to agree with it's points?! So you are saying noone should be allowed to call Plinkett's points not valid and nobody is allowed to call the points for the most part retarded?Everyone who watches the reviews has to say that Plinkett's views are gospel. That is what you are trying to say and I don't have to respect anyone's arguments for anything don't dictate to me what I have to respect , your lack of independent thinking is frighting. In fact if you feel this way I suggest you live in a third world country under a dictatorship and than you can be forced to respect....
All I said is that respect is an important aspect of debating. All I'm saying is that you can disagree with me/Plinkett without calling me subhuman. Also claiming that I lack independent thinking is kind of moronic seeing that you are actively reflecting the ideas/opinions that pro-PT people have on this forum all the time. I don't mind that you have them and I am trying to respect your opinion. But calling me subhuman and saying that I lack independent thinking is not an opinion or argument. It's an insult. All you're doing is contributing to the whole idea of there being a rabid fan base willing to insult someone just because they disagree.
Wrong again skippy I said their is nothing wrong with displaying displeasure with the movies in a human manner, their are plenty of individuals who can articulate themselves as such. Better yet their are many people who can like or dislike whatever they want without the influence of a media outlet or a retarded youtube video, if someone wants my respect than they should tell me how they formulated their opinion ON THEIR OWN!
See, here's where it gets really difficult to have a discussion. Whether you intended to or not, you just implied that those individuals who like the PT are putting their loyalty to the film franchise over film analysis. You're basically saying that those who like the PT are willingly ignoring its "flaws" and are not willing to look at it from a critical standpoint. And I vehemently disagree that this is the case. I've spent a lot of time reading over criticism of the PT and discussing what people like or don't like about them and I can tell you that, even going through Plinkett's humor, I find exceedingly few of his points to be valid. His analysis is both poorly informed and heavily biased, in my view, and I do not take him seriously as a film critic. At best, he's just another guy with an opinion.
Where I find your stance peculiar, though, is that you call for respect, and yet you count yourself a follower of a man who says that individuals who like the PT are "idiots" or "babies." It's difficult to have a civil conversation when the instigator insists on insulting you, to be honest.
Plus, your statement that people are putting the franchise over analysis is ill-founded. I became a fan of Star Wars through the PT. I had no particular attachment to the franchise prior to viewing them and I had no reason to dismiss "plot holes" (which are no more prevalent than in the OT) or "poor acting/storylines" (which I think are superior to many other films -- including the OT).
Yeah,please stop insulting folks like me and implying we are simply "fanboys" or "fangirls" without an ounce of critical thought. Most of Plinkett's "points" are ill-thought out, ill-supported, or plain stupid and childish. I won't say they all are because I have no patience to listen to the whole rant - oh, excuse me - humor thing.
I DID have an attachment to the franchise before the PT and I still do - to the Saga as a whole. None of them are "perfect" (I prefer a bit more characterization to the wa-ho hijinks) but on the other hand, this is a combo space fantasy/space opera franchise and the movies aren't meant to be deep character pieces. There's enough of that subtext underneath the action to provoke some intelligent and illumining debate on these boards on those aspects that this genre can only gloss over.
So, no, Star Wars isn't "Schindler's List" or whatever you'd put as an example of a great movie.
And darn it to Hoth and back, I am quite frankly tired of having to "show" my "objectivity" by throwing in the standard disclaimer that yes, there are parts of the PT that I dislike or think could have been handled better to prove I'm not a mindless, uncritical fan who just adores all three movies and each scene within it. The PT could be better in parts, I'll grant you. So could the OT, in my opinion.
Live with it.
I'm a Star Wars fan. Not an OT fan, not a PT fan, neither a basher nor a gusher. Just a fan.
Obviously that's the behaviour of a serious "film critic"
windu4, have you ever considered you may put a film fanchise ahead of film analysis when it comes to the OT?
I'm not suggesting you do, but I hope you see my point.
Referring to Plinkett as a "film critic" is a stretch (or was it not meant seriously? ).
He's a bag-lady screaming at traffic. No more, no less.
Then Plinkett and those that hold his "argument" up as gospel should keep that in mind. It's a two-way street, after all.
Yeah, I keep hearing the argument that Plinkett talks that way because he's preaching to the choir and his commentary isn't meant for people who disagree with him, but that's still no excuse for calling people ugly names because they disagree with him on a film franchise.
I just said that I don't see one group higher or better than the other. I still don't understand why everyone is being insulted by Plinkett years after the video. I never said he was God. Nor do I agree with everyone he said. I never said any of you were idiots or babies. If you watched the Plinkett videos you would see that he does spent a great deal of time deconstructing movies in general. Whether it was analyzing Citizen Kane and comparing it to Anakin Skywalker's fall or explaining the purpose of lightsaber duels as manifestations of emotional conflict. Overall I haven't called any of you subhuman or members of group think or anything. All I said is that I like Plinkett's work and that I agree with him on some points. Then everyone is ganging up on me like I've said the exact same things Plinkett did and that I don't like Star Wars or the PT or anything like that.
Then again I guess suggesting I'm not a big fan of PT in the PT forum is kind of dumb so it must be my fault.
I would respect Plinkett's opinions more if 1) they were contained in a video not filled with scenes I personally find offensive (sorry I don't find the idea of kidnapping young women that funny, but that's just me) and 2) his points were not factually wrong or subjective. Also, if someone has to resort to insults to get his point across then his opinion means absolutely nothing to me. You can give a smart, concise critical analysis of something without lowering yourself to insulting the person whose work you're analyzing. Once you do that you are nothing more than a bully in my eyes.
The problem is that you delineated people into groups in the first place. You basically said that those who liked the PT were film franchise fans who ignored the flaws in the plot/story-telling/acting in contrast to people who were willing to honestly analyze the films. And that simply isn't true: there aren't two groups of people who are either blindly devoted to the films or looking at them analytically. That's patently false and it's unfair for you to imply such a thing. If it wasn't your intention to imply this, then I apologize, but I hope you can see how your post could be construed in such a manner.
Because many people on this forum do very much like the PT and are capable of analyzing it honestly. Just look at our thread on RLM's review of AOTC and you'll see as much -- people describe, at length, their reasons for disagreeing with him and their reasons for enjoying the PT.
Where we find it difficult to stomach your calls for respect is that you are asking us to extend this to a man who frequently calls PT fans "idiots" and "babies" simply for liking a set of films he does not. It kind of falls flat for a lot of people to be honest.
And then there's the implication that we haven't watched the RLM reviews -- "if you watched the Plinkett videos you would see that he does spent [sic] a great deal of time deconstructing movies in general" -- and no, I don't agree at all. I have watched the RLM reviews, multiple times, and I've read transcripts of his reviews and written up responses of my own. I do not agree with your assessment in the slightest. And yes, I have watched other reviews of his -- such as Titanic, Avatar, and Star Trek. And I still do not agree with his opinion. He is a propagandist, his views are subjective and (at times) manipulate (such as by his continued insistence on saying "we" and "the audience" instead of "I"), and highly subject bias.
What I'm simply saying is that, whether you intended to or not, your post perpetuates the idea that one can't legitimately like the PT with intellectual honesty -- that you either have to willfully ignore the "flaws" to enjoy them or if you don't like them, it is because you have analyzed the films. And this isn't true -- such a dichotomy doesn't have to exist.
I've posted it elsewhere, but I'll say it again here. Part of my issue is that people will lob criticisms at the PT while holding up the OT as perfect and without flaws; while ignoring that those very same criticisms where being applied to the OT as that trilogy came out. And not a hint of the irony involved in this will occur to them.
Wooden acting. Stilted dialogue. Over-use of visual effects. Low-brow humor. Aimed at children, or child-minded. Yeah, all of this (among other things, I'm sure) was being said of the OT as well.
I would respect Plinkett's opinions more if 1) they were contained in a video not filled with scenes I personally find offensive (sorry I don't find the idea of kidnapping young women that funny, but that's just me)
100 percent agreed.
i have watch redlettermedia's review of the Phantom Menace, and I have to say I didin't even bother going to the other 2. Honestly all it was to me was a big "Lets hate on the prequels" documentary rather then an actual review. If you want a true review of these movies check this out http://www.lardbiscuit.com/lard/ilovetpm.html
I agree with you 100% with that statement, I said it before and I'll say it again Star Wars has been and always will be aimed at FAMILIES and their will always be characters that are for a younger audience if you don't like it and you feel it is not "mature" enough for you than by all means don't watch any Star Wars movie. People like to believe their revisionist history but I keep on telling people that these same criticisms were levied on the OT but they let the media revise history as they please....
This is another thing people do. They devalue the OT to justify the existence of the PT. Whenever one's dislike of the Prequel Trilogy is announced someone always says "Well the OT wasn't perfect either". When the OT came out it revolutionized cinema as we know it and ushered in a new era of special affects and sci-fi/fantasy. You literally cannot say the same for the PT.
As a child I very much preferred the adventures of Luke Skywalker to the adventures of Anakin Skywalker. I could relate to the characters better, I loved the dialogue and I loved the action.
The OT had C-3PO, R2 and Chewbacca for comedic relief. The PT has racist caricatures like Jar Jar Binks. You don't need low-brow humor like Jar Jar tripping and falling all over himself to make people laugh. The OT got along fine without that. I would say even better. Trying to put OT and the PT on the same level of quality is just ridiculous.
Also: The OT didn't rely on special effects. Less is more. That was George Lucas' philosophy back then. The realism why his special effects were groundbreaking is because you didn't really notice they were there. They drew you in to the story instead of being a distraction. Think about the Rebel Headquarters on Hoth or the space battles. They were all interesting sets that were unique and awesome to look at. Compare that to the Jedi Temple which didn't even look real because most of it was digitally created. The special effects that were utilized in the OT were not utilized in the PT. Period.
Who's devaluing the OT? I still love the OT to this day. Two of the films in that trilogy are still in my personal top 3 of the Saga. With all three being inside the top 4. And pointing out that the very same criticsims against the PT were said of the OT isn't an attempt at anything other than pointing out facts. There is a Youtube clip at the top of this page. Watch it if you don't believe me.
And no, George didn't believe in "less is more" when it comes to special effects. He included as many as he possibly could. That's simply revisionist history at its worst.
I saw the youtube clip but just because the criticism was leveled against the OT doesn't mean it was true or valid.
Please tell me you see the irony in you pointing that out.