|
LolitaSama posted:Is this red letter media Mr.Plinkett really worth the 2 hour watch. Any videos out there that compile the best parts? Almost all RLM is worth a watch.
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
The prequel trilogy one is legit humorous even if a lot of it is exaggerated and the "comedy" sketch characters appear more and more as it goes on. The editing is really good on it, I love the part about him asking random people to describe original trilogy characters vs. prequel trilogy ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The whole thing is great if you're not obsessed with subtext and are OK with the idea that some films are actually bad. Er...they're still pretty good even if not, and I am pretty sure even SMg has said they are good, although he thinks that their analysis is flawed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 04:34
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Er...they're still pretty good even if not, and I am pretty sure even SMg has said they are good, although he thinks that their analysis is flawed. I have written a 108 page response to this so-called post. I SHALL NOW READ IT ALOUD.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:The prequel trilogy one is legit humorous even if a lot of it is exaggerated and the "comedy" sketch characters appear more and more as it goes on. The editing is really good on it, I love the part about him asking random people to describe original trilogy characters vs. prequel trilogy ones. I showed it to some Star Wars obsessed friends and their opinion was that the "Plinkett is a serial killer" parts were hilarious and that he brought up some good points. They still like the movies/universe as a whole but accept that the prequels were poorly made films. One of those guys was actually saddened that the EU was made non-canon before I reminded him that he should be used to it as the exact same thing has happened several times in the DC/Marvel Comics he reads religiously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:Is this red letter media Mr.Plinkett really worth the 2 hour watch. Any videos out there that compile the best parts? They actually total at over 4 hours. They're compulsory viewing so you should probably watch them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
The third one isnt really worth it because by that point he's already gone over all the pertinent criticisms and ROTS isnt substantially different from 1 and 2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
massive spider posted:The third one isnt really worth it because by that point he's already gone over all the pertinent criticisms and ROTS isnt substantially different from 1 and 2. It's pretty much the best one because he's already discussed the minor details to death, so it's more of a reflective essay. stev fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
I really enjoy RLM videos, even the ones I disagree with their opinion are still entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:It's pretty much the best on because he's already discussed the minor details to death, so it's more of a reflective essay. This. If you are going to watch only one, make it the 3rd one. He does a bit of summary before it and most of his best points about the structure of the movie and what it could have been are in the 3rd. The first 2 are heavy on nitpicking, which is necessary to build up to his final points. His explanation of movie pacing and mood are absolutely 100% spot on. The "Plinkett" character is just a smoke screen and to add entertainment value. The man behind Plinkett is actually very insightful and probably knows more about movies than any of us ever will. IMO sometimes he takes it too far with the "serial killer" stuff, but it does keep the viewer interested. I also highly recommend his reviews on the Star Trek movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
I thought the RLM videos were satirizing the over the top hatred people have over the sequels. That's what I took from it anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Even if you only give half a gently caress about Wars / Trek, the Plinkett reviews are worth a watch because they're drat well done and funny to boot.Yaws posted:I thought the RLM videos were satirizing the over the top hatred people have over the sequels. That's what I took from it anyway It's not about hatred, it's about pointing out how those movies suck and being funny while doing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Pasco posted:It's not about hatred, it's about pointing out how those movies suck and being funny while doing it. The actual humor is on the level of memes and doing silly voices. The main appeal of it is similar to the "google Ron Paul" types - there's now a large amount of media from a seemingly trusted source that Agrees With You about something, and odds are anyone who actually gets through all x hours of it will probably agree with you about it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The actual humor is on the level of memes and doing silly voices. Nah, even if you don't like the humor (I didn't) the RLM videos make some salient points about the prequels. It's not a perfect deconstruction but it adequately sums up why some people don't like them. They're pretty comprehensive. This is coming from someone who like the PT overall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Nah, even if you don't like the humor (I didn't) the RLM videos make some salient points about the prequels. It's not a perfect deconstruction but it adequately sums up why some people don't like them. They're pretty comprehensive. It made accurate points ("Lucas didn't make Star Wars as fun adventure movies") but not fully accurate points ("Lucas wasn't aiming to make that kind of Star Wars"), and then peppers it in with "Lucas is an autist" rhetoric that is debunked or debatable at least. It's fine to not like the direction that Star Wars went, but saying that Lucas poo poo on cultural legacy or whatever is bunk because that's just wrong (Star Wars is as popular as ever).
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The actual humor is on the level of memes and doing silly voices. Yeah I don't dislike RLM so much as the perception that the videos constitute some kind of objective proof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
I think my favorite version of star wars at this point in time is Chinese knock-off comic star wars.  Here we see Aunt Beru cook a duck in a toaster oven while Luke and Uncle Owen argue about Luke's prospects in the Imperial Academy.  Read more about it here: http://www.mcgreene.org/?p=296 View the whole thing in 4 parts here: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 G-III fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 19:55
|
|
Yaws posted:I thought the RLM videos were satirizing the over the top hatred people have over the sequels. That's what I took from it anyway Nope. Maxwell Lord posted:Yeah I don't dislike RLM so much as the perception that the videos constitute some kind of objective proof. They constitute a very strong argument presented in an entertaining fashion. Kind of like Last Week Tonight, but for poo poo that doesn't matter.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Entire (20 year) Star Wars comics run for 300$ (the licence is going to Marvel, so this sale is the last hurrah) https://digital.darkhorse.com/profile/5400/
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Nope. But most of his arguments actually suck if you divorce them from a comedic context. edit: Like, why didn't he ask any of those "random" people to describe Qui-Gon Jinn and then describe Ben Kenobi in A New Hope? It seems to me like that would have been a fairer and more instructive comparison. The answer is "because it wouldn't have been as funny, since Qui-Gon is, if anything, a slightly more complex character than Ben Kenobi in A New Hope." The reviews are comedy first and legitimate critique second. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:But most of his arguments actually suck if you divorce them from a comedic context. You do understand that their whole point wasn't really about "complexity" of the characters? It was actually kind of the opposite, it tried to point out how clearly defined the characters in the originals were for the most part while the prequels lacked this to a large extent. It's also kind of "funny" that for your argument you pick a character who is only a relevant character in the 1st prequel and in many ways already a copy of Obi-Wan's character (even down to the unusual/asian name for a white dude).
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
On the subject of RLM, they just did a couple of Best of the Worst videos on the Star Wars Holiday Special where they get the drunkest I've seen them (it is so poo poo they spend the entire first video avoiding talking about it; seguing into the Dustin Hoffman movie Ishtar, and 9/11) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CtUd0yuYN4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW4m0oYK0WQ twoot fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
LinkesAuge posted:You do understand that their whole point wasn't really about "complexity" of the characters? It was actually kind of the opposite, it tried to point out how clearly defined the characters in the originals were for the most part while the prequels lacked this to a large extent. Yes, that was a slightly poor word choice, but I think you probably knew what I meant anyway. The complaint about Qui-Gon is that he is a completely blank character with few identifiable traits, while characters like Han Solo and C-3PO are fully-realized characters with a variety of identifiable traits. Agreed? So let's ignore whether or not we can characterize these differences as being due to "complexity" or "simplicity" or whatever. The point is, Ben Kenobi is a poor character by this standard, and so he was pointedly ignored in the video even though the comparison would have made more sense. I picked Qui-Gon because that's one of the two prequel characters Plinkett picked in his review (the other was Amidala). I fail to see why it matters if he's only relevant in the first prequel (this isn't strictly true), given that Ben Kenobi is also primarily only relevant in the first movie of the original trilogy (in the others he mainly acts as a plot device or source of exposition). They're analogous characters, in the same way that Anakin and Luke are analogous characters. There is actually nothing wrong with making two characters in a story similar to each other in order to draw comparisons between the two. Anyway, nothing you've said is all that relevant to whether or not Plinkett's argument was a good one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
RLM is entertaining even though I disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
The RLM reviews are a good starting point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
That's one of the main RLM complaints I don't get. Qui-Gon is probably more fleshed out than Kenobi (in the OT) simply because he's given more screen time. The problem is he's not really given memorable lines so he comes across kinda boring. He certainly isn't etched into pop culture the way Alec Guiness' Ben Kenobi was. Still, most of the RLM reviews make some solid points. computer parts posted:"Lucas is an autist" rhetoric that is debunked or debatable at least Have you ever seen an interview with him? Or listened to the commentaries? He comes across as exactly the type of guy who wrote all that bad dialogue. The guy ain't articulate or charismatic, that's for sure. Yaws fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
For Christmas JJ Abrams sent me the Bebe or whatever practical effect they're using, it's just a soccer ball attatched to a rope. I'm not supposed to reveal it it though so keep this under wraps
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Yes, that was a slightly poor word choice, but I think you probably knew what I meant anyway. The complaint about Qui-Gon is that he is a completely blank character with few identifiable traits, while characters like Han Solo and C-3PO are fully-realized characters with a variety of identifiable traits. Agreed? So let's ignore whether or not we can characterize these differences as being due to "complexity" or "simplicity" or whatever. The point is, Ben Kenobi is a poor character by this standard, and so he was pointedly ignored in the video even though the comparison would have made more sense. Obi-Wan had a clear and easy enough archetype to play (old, wise master who guides Luke) in the originals and that's why he isn't a "poor character" by this standard because he did what he was supposed to do in the story in a charming enough way. Qui-Gon on the other hand was much more of a protagonist in the sequels and that's exactly the problem. Qui-Gon wasn't a poor character, he was simply underdeveloped and kind of unnecessary when you look at the bigger picture. What you are doing now is basically saying that the comparison is unfair because the prequels put the character of Qui-Gon in a bad psosition to begin with and the originals made Obi-Wan as character look good due to his role. But that's the whole point, the prequels often didn't make proper use of their characters or used them in a way which did frustrate the audience. quote:I picked Qui-Gon because that's one of the two prequel characters Plinkett picked in his review (the other was Amidala). I fail to see why it matters if he's only relevant in the first prequel (this isn't strictly true), given that Ben Kenobi is also primarily only relevant in the first movie of the original trilogy (in the others he mainly acts as a plot device or source of exposition). They're analogous characters, in the same way that Anakin and Luke are analogous characters. There is actually nothing wrong with making two characters in a story similar to each other in order to draw comparisons between the two. It matters that he is only in the 1st movie (as far as the audience is concerned) because the audience doesn't get the chance to connect with him while that's exactly what they could do with a character like Obi-Wan who was a central character in Luke's mission through all movies. A role Qui-Gon couldn't play because it was already taken by Obi-Wan. You might call this "source of exposition" or "plot device" but neither of those things are wrong for a character and still made Obi-Wan relevant especially because he was the connection between Luke and Vader. What is Qui-Gon except a "plot device"? He finds Anakin, talks about Sith and gets killed. You could replace him with any other Jedi and that's the problem. He didn't have any space between Yoda and Obi-Wan and could only work to some degree in the 1st movie because Obi-Wan was too young and Yoda's role too limited which everyone knew would change. So of course analogous characters can work but they require a goal and a proper setup. Yoda for example might not have worked if he already had been introduced in ANH because his role would have overlapped too much with Obi-Wan's but he could at least give the whole Jedi thing a different angle and was already in his appearance and language very unique. Qui-Gon on the other hand was really just another white and wise Jedi and TOO much like the older Obi-Wan. It could have been interesting to have a Jedi like Mace Windu find/train Anakin because he'd bring something else to the role as Jedi master. In reality the reason Qui-Gon was created as character wasn't because the audience was supposed to draw some great insight from the comparison of two similar characters, it was done because Obi-Wan worked in the originals and Lucas wanted to recreate this with Qui-Gon and have at the same time a character he could sacrifice for more drama which did work btw. The relationship between Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan was for me one of the few ones in the prequels that actually worked and got good emotions from the audience but looking at the bigger picture it's just a distraction from the main story and is what we wanted from Obi-Wan/Anakin. LinkesAuge fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
LinkesAuge posted:Obi-Wan had a clear and easy enough archetype to play (old, wise master who guides Luke) in the originals and that's why he isn't a "poor character" by this standard because he did what he was supposed to do in the story in a charming enough way. Qui-Gon on the other hand was much more of a protagonist in the sequels and that's exactly the problem. Qui-Gon wasn't a poor character, he was simply underdeveloped and kind of unnecessary when you look at the bigger picture. What you are doing now is basically saying that the comparison is unfair because the prequels put the character of Qui-Gon in a bad psosition to begin with and the originals made Obi-Wan as character look good due to his role. But that's the whole point, the prequels often didn't make proper use of their characters or used them in a way which did frustrate the audience. Would you say Ned Stark was similarly undeveloped? Because that's essentially the role Qui-Gon fills.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
LinkesAuge posted:Obi-Wan had a clear and easy enough archetype to play (old, wise master who guides Luke) in the originals and that's why he isn't a "poor character" by this standard because he did what he was supposed to do in the story in a charming enough way. Qui-Gon on the other hand was much more of a protagonist in the sequels and that's exactly the problem. Qui-Gon wasn't a poor character, he was simply underdeveloped and kind of unnecessary when you look at the bigger picture. What you are doing now is basically saying that the comparison is unfair because the prequels put the character of Qui-Gon in a bad psosition to begin with and the originals made Obi-Wan as character look good due to his role. But that's the whole point, the prequels often didn't make proper use of their characters or used them in a way which did frustrate the audience. RLM didn't just choose protagonists or whatever, because obviously Luke is left out of the mix, and 3PO is a supporting character as well. He didn't even really choose equivalent characters in the story because I really wouldn't say Qui-Gon fills the Han Solo role, and 3PO definitely isn't the Padme equivalent. He intentionally chose some of the most boring, one dimensional characters in the PT and the most dynamic characters from the OT for comedic purposes. Again it's not a bad point - those characters from the PT suck - but it's not really "fair" and it's certainly not meant to be anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Yeah again obviously he has an opinion and will use information that he feels makes his opinion seem more correct which is what anyone having a conversation will do. That said, I would say Qui Gonn is basically the closest thing to a Han Solo in Phantom Menace itself where he makes those comparisons. He's the savvy wheeling and dealing guy to Obi Wan's barely there straight man. It does fit with one of his other points though. The early parts of the film establish that Qui Gonn is so awesome, and Obi Wan is less experienced and said to be reckless and such towards the beginning of the movie. Yet Obi Wan, who is by default is the most potentially interesting character in the movie because he's an adult in both trilogies (so his actions in the prequels could actually shed a lot of light on why things are what they are in the originals) spends a big chunk of the movie standing by a spaceship. But again I think a lot of that is more because Phantom Menace isn't the story most people (myself included) wanted. Like if you asked me to to describe main characters in the Clone Wars series I could totally do that with attributes and not "is a Jedi."
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Wow guy #3 does not like guy #2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Rich Evans, while above Jack and Wizard, is the third wheel to the main duo of Mike and Jay. #RLMFacts #TheForceAwakens #December2015
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:Wow guy #3 does not like guy #2. Mike doesn't like Rich? I assume Rich wouldn't work for RLM or be in the videos if Mike didn't like him since Mike owns and runs the business. However, Rich is sort of the butt of a lot of jokes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
LinkesAuge posted:It matters that he is only in the 1st movie (as far as the audience is concerned) because the audience doesn't get the chance to connect with him while that's exactly what they could do with a character like Obi-Wan who was a central character in Luke's mission through all movies. A role Qui-Gon couldn't play because it was already taken by Obi-Wan. You might call this "source of exposition" or "plot device" but neither of those things are wrong for a character and still made Obi-Wan relevant especially because he was the connection between Luke and Vader. What is Qui-Gon except a "plot device"? He finds Anakin, talks about Sith and gets killed. You could replace him with any other Jedi and that's the problem. He didn't have any space between Yoda and Obi-Wan and could only work to some degree in the 1st movie because Obi-Wan was too young and Yoda's role too limited which everyone knew would change. So of course analogous characters can work but they require a goal and a proper setup. Yoda for example might not have worked if he already had been introduced in ANH because his role would have overlapped too much with Obi-Wan's but he could at least give the whole Jedi thing a different angle and was already in his appearance and language very unique. Qui-Gon on the other hand was really just another white and wise Jedi and TOO much like the older Obi-Wan. It could have been interesting to have a Jedi like Mace Windu find/train Anakin because he'd bring something else to the role as Jedi master. Honestly, all characters are plot devices, from a certain point of view  . But Qui-Gon is no more a plot device than Ben Kenobi was. He is in many ways put forth as the wise, fatherly wizard character, much like Ben Kenobi was in Episode IV. But he's also more than that. He's presented as an unorthodox example of a Jedi--he's more compassionate, more willing to bend the rules, more willing to take risks. These things bring him into conflict with the Jedi Council and with his own rule-bound apprentice. Though he's not perfect, he serves as an example of someone the Jedi would be wise to emulate. Then he dies, and his absence has dire consequences for the rest of the trilogy. The Jedi continue to become more arrogant and less compassionate, they continue to focus on the future at the expense of the present, and they completely bungle Anakin's training because they refuse to believe in him the way Qui-Gon did. Qui-Gon's influence echoes throughout the remaining two episodes, even if he doesn't appear in the flesh. In many ways he does fill the Ben Kenobi role, but with a twist that makes things interesting. Obi-Wan couldn't have filled this role in TPM, or any other movie in the PT, because it's a prequel telling the story of how Obi-Wan became the man we meet in A New Hope. He can't start off as the wise master, because then the character has nowhere to go. And we already know from the OT that Obi-Wan failed in his training of Anakin, so clearly there were problems. The PT explains this as being partially because Obi-Wan was essentially an inferior replacement for Anakin's preferred father figure, Qui-Gon Jinn. It turns out Obi-Wan was basically a reluctant parent who simply inherited Anakin from his mentor. He "took it upon himself," sure--he even defied Yoda's advice not to--but he was inspired more by a promise to his master than by any innate desire to train the boy. I know the Anakin/Qui-Gon relationship is what a lot of people wanted for the Anakin/Obi-Wan relationship; but audience expectations are irrelevant when it comes to what's best for the story. Lucas intentionally subverted those expectations with the Qui-Gon character, and I think it made for a better, more interesting series of movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:Wow guy #3 does not like guy #2. I think they've all been close friends for a number of years. Also Rich is the best one but is usually wrong about video games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Qui-gon is fine. There are other, way worse examples (Windu, Grievous, Dooku). Fortunately, they aren't really that important. Their underdevelopment doesn't hurt the plot too much. Windu serves his purpose of making the Jed out to be assholes in the mind of Anakin. Grievous serves his purpose of being a plot device and action set piece. Dooku is sorta there I guess but he has a red light saber so all can be forgiven. The biggest failing is how Anakin is treated. His major development occurs in between the films, or at an extremely rapid pace halfway through ROTS. KaptainKrunk fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Would you say Ned Stark was similarly undeveloped? Because that's essentially the role Qui-Gon fills. Ned Stark had about, I'm not sure, two to three hours of scenes just to develop his character? Comparing the development of TV and film characters is kind of a mug's game, honestly, because there's a very clear difference there. e: In case you were talking about the trash novels, they had even more chances to develop his character. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
I think the main problem with Qui-Gonn, and Mike points this out over and over, are his unclear motivations. He's a respected Jedi, but he also seems to disagree with the council about everything. We don't know why, or how that dynamic works, there aren't really any lines about how he's a loose cannon or anything. His delivery of the awful dialogue is so low-key it makes Alec Guiness look like MC Hammer, but he's a take-charge guy who makes bold decisions. He lacks all emotions like all the PT Jedi, but he immediately gets attached to Anakin despite Anakin just being, to the audience, some annoying kid who's kinda good with machines. Like, we basically don't follow why he does anything he does in the entire film. That's not complexity. That's just frustrating nonsense. He's closer to something like a character from one of the Matrix sequels than he is to Obi-wan in the original film. Plus he spends half the movie talking about politics in a bored voice. Lurdiak fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
That's not really true. There's nothing specifically said, but you can extrapolate a lot about Quigon's relationship with the council from what he, Obiwan, and later Dooku say about it. There is disagreement, but it is tempered by great respect. Dooku shows the kind of path he may have followed had he not died and been unable to reconcile with thw council. And his motivations regarding Anakin couldn't be any more clear: he is convinced he has found the chosen one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 02:46
|
|
