Nindoriel Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I think he means Red Letter Media, that famous Prequel dissection video blog thingy that everyone cites, as it basically contains everything that's bad about the prequels. He may presume you know it, and also identify the acronym. Or he's really trying to make you crazy. Ah. Thank you. I don't agree with everything Plinkett said - for example he said Hayden Christensen isn't a bad actor. But in all seriousness, I can't just say I generally agree with it. I guess it makes sense from Plinkett's point of view. And he makes a lot of good points. He seems to know what makes a good movie and he knows the characters better than Lucas does (Like the Obi-wan/Anakin role reversal in Episode II). I think we shouldn't take his reviews too seriously, a lot of the things he says is for comedic purposes. I still find something enjoyable in the prequel trilogy, but I prefer the original trilogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matth_Stil Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 A la Princess Leia, Nindoriel, you have powerful friends, it would seem (MY posts were removed!?). One way to win an argument, I guess. Well, I suppose we've better things to do - onwards and upwards... and may the Force be with us all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nindoriel Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) A la Princess Leia, Nindoriel, you have powerful friends, it would seem (MY posts were removed!?). One way to win an argument, I guess. Well, I suppose we've better things to do - onwards and upwards... and may the Force be with us all! My posts were removed just as well. Sure that were my "friends". Edited February 26, 2012 by Nindoriel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matth_Stil Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 My posts were removed just as well. Sure that were my "friends". The ones that followed my 'spam', true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nindoriel Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 The ones that followed my 'spam', true. If I ask you what RLM means and instead of explaining you beat around the bush, it's clear you are not interested in any discussion and just want to annoy me. You shouldn't be surprised, that I reported you and that our posts were removed, because it wasn't going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matth_Stil Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) If I ask you what RLM means and instead of explaining you beat around the bush, it's clear you are not interested in any discussion and just want to annoy me. You shouldn't be surprised, that I reported you and that our posts were removed, because it wasn't going anywhere. Forgive the Kenobi-ism, but from a certain point of view it was you - a senior member - who "...beat around the bush" by purporting not to know what RLM means. That guy has been a red-hot topic of Star Wars debate for a while now, as well a senior member surely knows. Edited February 26, 2012 by Matth_Stil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nindoriel Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I never pretended not to know it, I just didn't know the abbreviation meant RedLetterMedia. But I'm sure you know that. Now would be the moment to resume a constructive discussion, if you're still interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matth_Stil Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I never pretended not to know it, I just didn't know the abbreviation meant RedLetterMedia. But I'm sure you know that. Now would be the moment to resume a constructive discussion, if you're still interested. Ironically, the guy / gal I originally quoted hasn't responded - guess that member realized their faux pas. I'm always up for constructive discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurfer Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) The new prequels are a joke; regarded as a joke in the movie industry. People don't take them seriously; they have practically destroyed George Lucas's legacy. The original series are cinema legend and masterpieces of film making that are used today in universities to teach the best and the brightest about master film making and design. Don't even compare the two; it's like comparing Michael Jordan to some little league kid. Edited February 27, 2012 by Kurfer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stercogburn Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I did chuckle at the original post. Cheers for the mirth with my afternoon coffee I also have a blueberry muffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelakh Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Ah. Thank you. I don't agree with everything Plinkett said - for example he said Hayden Christensen isn't a bad actor. But in all seriousness, I can't just say I generally agree with it. I guess it makes sense from Plinkett's point of view. And he makes a lot of good points. He seems to know what makes a good movie and he knows the characters better than Lucas does (Like the Obi-wan/Anakin role reversal in Episode II). I think we shouldn't take his reviews too seriously, a lot of the things he says is for comedic purposes. I still find something enjoyable in the prequel trilogy, but I prefer the original trilogy. Why not take the reviews seriously, though? Well, as seriously as any other review. And before I go any further, let me say: I'm not a Star Wars fan. I don't get excited about the toys or books or movies. I shake my head in incredulity at the fanbois that dress up in stormtrooper armour or Darth Maul paint to go to the movie. I can take SW or leave it. I'm the "Dark Side" - a Star Trek fan. But that's important because it lets me remain objective about Star Wars. That said: Mr. Plinkett is right. Absolutely right. Every point he makes, although presented with a great deal of humour, is spot-on. The prequels are very different from the original trilogy in that the story not only is pathetically thin but is at the same time so full of glaring plot holes it seems like Lucas had an eight-year-old write them. That, combined with poor character development (virtually none), and things that seem to flatly contradict things established in the originals (Kenobi: "And he was a good friend." vs. the Kenobi/Anakin relationship in the prequels where Obi-wan spends most of the time angry with or annoyed by Anakin, for example; or the fact that R2 seems to have forgotten that he could fly by the time we get to ANH in the timeline), makes the prequels pale in comparison to the original trilogy. So no, the prequel trilogy - which was all about CGI effects, barely-characterised characters we don't have a reason to care about, and highly-coreographed lightsabre fights that were devoid of any meaningful relevance - is in no way superior to the original trilogy - which was all about coming-of-age, personal and interpersonal conflict, romance, moral struggle and redemption. Edited February 27, 2012 by Stelakh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinitian Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I agree to a great extent with the original poster, and I personally prefer the prequels (yes, despite Jar-Jar and the rest, but to be honest, ROTJ had Ewoks...) due to its much deeper story and highly Machiavellian political plotting (see it as a light-version of a political thriller, a very light one occasionally...). Especially anyone who has studied political history on university level or above should really appreciate the underlying plot of the PT. Still, I hold the OT in very high regard, and consider these also some of my favourite movies. Both trilogies are really good, and in one way, I would compare the OT to a T-Model Ford and the PT to a Ford Mustang (first generation). In one way, the Mustang is far better than the T-Model, especially when it comes to pure technology, which makes sense after a few decades of continuous development and research. However, the Mustang would never be able to match the impact of the T-Model when it was launched; suddenly the average American could afford a car, and the idea of the assembly line revolutionised our modern society. In many ways, it was the first modern car. The Mustang was just another one; it may have been a good one, but it was not unique, nor did it revolutionise the 60s. My point: decades of development (and a significant increase of budget for the movies) make a direct comparison between the OT and the PT rather unfair, but while the PT did not really alter our way to look at sci-fi movies, nor computer animation, etc., the OT really did change entirely our conception of sci-fi, of heroics and epic stories, of computer animation in movies, and it did perhaps even change the movie industry itself. I would therefore say, depending on what you look at, depending on what you consider, the OT as well as the PT could be seen as the better. Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matth_Stil Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 The new prequels are a joke; regarded as a joke in the movie industry... Considering their titanic box office, I'd say it's George Lucas who had the last laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalonSaber Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Saw the first prequel didn't really like it , saw half of the second couldn't watch he rest still haven't seen the third. Now the clone wars cgi show started off cheesy but has really grown into an interesting series. Oh though you who do enjoy the movie maybe you can explain why padme or however you spell it didn't really age and the lil kid mutated into that hayden fellow ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nindoriel Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Why not take the reviews seriously, though? Well, as seriously as any other review. And before I go any further, let me say: I'm not a Star Wars fan. I don't get excited about the toys or books or movies. I shake my head in incredulity at the fanbois that dress up in stormtrooper armour or Darth Maul paint to go to the movie. I can take SW or leave it. I'm the "Dark Side" - a Star Trek fan. But that's important because it lets me remain objective about Star Wars. That said: Mr. Plinkett is right. Absolutely right. Every point he makes, although presented with a great deal of humour, is spot-on. The prequels are very different from the original trilogy in that the story not only is pathetically thin but is at the same time so full of glaring plot holes it seems like Lucas had an eight-year-old write them. That, combined with poor character development (virtually none), and things that seem to flatly contradict things established in the originals (Kenobi: "And he was a good friend." vs. the Kenobi/Anakin relationship in the prequels where Obi-wan spends most of the time angry with or annoyed by Anakin, for example; or the fact that R2 seems to have forgotten that he could fly by the time we get to ANH in the timeline), makes the prequels pale in comparison to the original trilogy. So no, the prequel trilogy - which was all about CGI effects, barely-characterised characters we don't have a reason to care about, and highly-coreographed lightsabre fights that were devoid of any meaningful relevance - is in no way superior to the original trilogy - which was all about coming-of-age, personal and interpersonal conflict, romance, moral struggle and redemption. I said not take them "TOO seriously" because he's exaggerating a lot, he's nit-picking about details and much of what he says is just to make fun. "OMG whats wrong with your face" I totally agree with a lot of what he says. Lots of things I never really thought about before he mentioned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Considering their titanic box office, I'd say it's George Lucas who had the last laugh! Michael Bay is laughing too, considering how much the Transformers films have been dumped on by critics. That doesn't mean they're good films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matth_Stil Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Just because some schmuck gets his opinion posted on Yahoo doesn't mean that his opinion holds and more weight than it would on these forums. Just imagine if he posted that garbage up here. It's not difficult to get anything less than a coherent sentence published on the web. The author's a "...schmuck" because his / her opinion differs from yours!? Wow. Just. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matth_Stil Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Michael Bay is laughing too, considering how much the Transformers films have been dumped on by critics. That doesn't mean they're good films. *read my signature* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 *read my signature* Some points of view hold more weight than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FenraelWolfmien Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 That review operates under the false assumption that IV, V and VI are inferior because I, II and III are somehow more nuanced and elegant as regards the current political climate. The original 3 remain so popular because they are what most great enduring stories are - a version of the Hero's quest archetype. Lucas lucked into getting the ILM guys going, some great actors to carry his inarguably terrible dialogue and you ended up with a classic sci-fi that can appeal to nearly anyone, independent of the era they were born in. Films that have something to say about a culture or political climate either don't endure well, or have other elements that keep them relevant once their own point in time has progressed. Logans Run, Capricorn One and Stepford wives, while all still retaining a message people can identify with, don't appeal as strongly now as they did at the time they were released because they were released into an audience particularly attuned to those issues. Capricorn One, especially, is a movie that should easily be appreciated in that regard but I doubt half the people who would applaud the nuance, complexity and intellectual ambiguity of the new SW movies have even seen or heard of it, and I wonder how many would identify with the political message it sends over the dismissal of conspiracy theories. There isn't even much message to the new movies. They didn't make me or anyone I know feel particularly uncomfortable about their role in society. The Trade Federation and Republic didn't mirror much of anything. Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson didn't leave a lasting impression the way Alec Guinness and Harrison Ford did, and Christopher Lee didn't have enough screen time to lend the kind of awesome James Earle Jones did to the original trilogy. FX were not new by 1999, and the fact is, if you're going to write a story with "nuance, complexity, or intellectual ambiguity" it needs to be written well to be considered a good story (Unless you're Cormac Mccarthy and bludgeon your readers with punctuation abuse and stupidly brutal social commentary until they think you're a genius) and Star Wars is about as straightforward a premise as it gets. Dark vs Light. Really, how did someone think deviating from that "dangerously simplistic moral absolutism" was a good idea? It's like taking the chocolate flavor out of chocolate and replacing it with subtle hints of lime, aromatic chives and tomato soup. It's chocolate. People freaking want chocolate. You can mix other things in with chocolate, but when you get right down to it, they don't buy reeses peanut butter cups for the peanut butter. If that's too simplistic then too bad since I am almost out of time to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matth_Stil Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Some points of view hold more weight than others. Should one subscribe to them, true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Should one subscribe to them, true. No, I mean it as a general statement. For example, the viewpoint of the average 10-year-old child wouldn't and generally shouldn't be held in the same regard as that of the average 30-year-old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghep Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Oh yeah? I'm such a big star wars fan that I don't like any of them. I only acknowledge the original unedited screenplay where Han Solo solo was a frog man, and C3P0 sold used speeders.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matth_Stil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 No, I mean it as a general statement. For example, the viewpoint of the average 10-year-old child wouldn't and generally shouldn't be held in the same regard as that of the average 30-year-old. 'Tis true that you're like a dog with a bone, then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 'Tis true that you're like a dog with a bone, then... No, it's more like a dog with a litter of puppies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts