Why do people hold his original reviews up as if they're some sort of kino?

Why do people hold his original reviews up as if they're some sort of kino?

Yes, I agree there were flaws in the prequel trilogy, but they could be made (and were years before Plinkett did it) in the span of 5-10 minutes). By making 70 min videos, he controls the attention span of even the deepest autist.

- The dialogue, particularly between Anakin and Padme, was shitty
- Jar Jar was annoying
- The flaws of the Jedi system and why they frsutrated Anakin and were exploited by Sheev could have been better explained

There, I did the best arguments from his 210 minute videos in three lines

90% of his shit is repeating the same basic point, or complaining about things that are directly addressed in the films if you go back and rewatch them.

eg:
- Plinkett complains that the Neimoidians underestimated the Jedi at the start of episode 1
- The Neimoidians underestimating the Jedi is literally a plot point of episode 1, mentioned directly in the film

- Plinkett complains that Obi-Wan jumps out of a window in a rash action at the start of Ep2, and then rouses on Anakin for being rash
- Obi-Wan being unfair on Anakin is literally one of the reasons why Anakin got fed up with the Jedi and was regularly moody at him

- Plinkett complains that the Jedi were stupid to appoint Anakin to watch over Palpatine in Episode 3, and they should have recognised Palpatine as a threat and that he was after Anakin
- The Jedi did recognise Palpatine as a threat, hence why they wanted someone on the High Council watching over him to report to them. They didn't want to appoint Anakin, but he was the only one who wouldn't arose suspicion in Sheev. Futhermore, they prevented him from being a full Jedi. This is not only mentioned in Episode 3, but is a major plot point.

I could go on, but if you care enough, go watch his reviews again, then watch the prequels again. 90% of his shit is addressed in the movies. The 10% which are legitimate criticisms were made back when the movies came out.

OK shill.

Enjoy your children's movies if you'd like.

The reason they had to be so long is that autists like you would throw a bitch fit over every point.

Let's go though yours-

The Neimoidians underestimating the Jedi is literally a plot point of episode 1, mentioned directly in the film

Why would they underestimate them? The Jedi have existed for thousands of years. There is also no reason to kill the Jedi. Plinkett explained this but you ignored it.

- Obi-Wan being unfair on Anakin is literally one of the reasons why Anakin got fed up with the Jedi and was regularly moody at him

And Obi-Wan describes him as a good friend. We see them have 1 or 2 friendly moments in TPM and AotC combined. It seems like they hated each other.

The Jedi did recognise Palpatine as a threat, hence why they wanted someone on the High Council watching over him to report to them. They didn't want to appoint Anakin, but he was the only one who wouldn't arose suspicion in Sheev. Futhermore, they prevented him from being a full Jedi. This is not only mentioned in Episode 3, but is a major plot point.

So they scorned Anakin, who had been fighting a war for 3 years, who was known to be angry and impulsive and had talked with Yoda about his feelings. They then put him next to a master manipulator, who was a close friend and had provided him with constant support while all the Jedi did was scorn him. The Jedi are retarded.

We get it. You are a millenial. Now shoo.

he was the first snarky blockbuster reviewer. that's it.

his fanboys need to stop treating his opinions as the Bible. he's really dated and needlessly negative by today's standards

There is a huge difference between 'reviews', 'video essays', 'retrospectives', and confused people who mash all three or bits of each into a single 'variety hour' type show (Almost all "that guy with the glasses" bullshit is like this, just a confused mashup of all three of these ideas done poorly).

RLM is a retrospective video series, yeah every single one of their content formats are like this similar to Mystery Science Theater. They're never serious, they lampoon seriousness, they're cynical, they focus a lot on skits and sketches whether they're non-sequitur to the subject of their retrospective or not (again MSK3000 style) and not one of their shows uses video essay or Siskel/Ebert review style content unless they're making fun of those formats.

Video Essays are more like Your Movie Sucks or Lindsay (Nostalgia Chick) where there is an attempt at making actual deconstruction points and backing up arguments - RLM rarely does this seriously and frankly aren't very good at it.

Reviews are more like Ralph the Movie Maker or Good/Bad flicks (actually, there are tons of reviewers but these stand out as kind of 'standard' on youtube - they don't reveal the plot of the films they review without any purpose and they always focus on the qualitative merits of their subject.) Ralph's whole thing is reviewing movies and revealing how terribly mainstream films are built and how easy it would be for amateur filmmakers to do better just by applying a little self awareness. Good/Bad Flicks is all about how so-called 'bad' films have their place as quality entertainment in casual contexts and his exploration series is near documentary level reviews of more impacting cult or 'bad' films that have stood the test of time.

TLDR: RLM don't review shit, they entertain using film criticism as a medium. It's more about goofing and joking and cynically chiding than it is being a serious review or video essay.

>RLM
>Kino
>Star Wars
Great thread you got here.

> Why would they underestimate them? The Jedi have existed for thousands of years. There is also no reason to kill the Jedi. Plinkett explained this but you ignored it.

Why would they be aware of the Force? They would probably presume the Jedi were just strong soldiers. We see in the OT that Han original doesn't know what the Force is, and in the Disney movies even Luke Skywalker has become a legend after 20 years.

Their reason for killing the Jedi (from the Neimoidians POV was because they was ordered to and because the Jedi were a threat. The reason for Sheev to order them was because it would further escalate the situation, which is exactly what he wanted.

> And Obi-Wan describes him as a good friend. We see them have 1 or 2 friendly moments in TPM and AotC combined. It seems like they hated each other.

Why do people act like telling rather than showing is something new to Star Wars? In the OT we see maybe 2 scenes where Han and Lando are actually friends with each other. The rest we learn from back story (e.g., as Han is flying into Cloud City). You only have a certain amount of time to tell your story, you have to cut some aspects and have them filled in through character explanation.

>So they scorned Anakin, who had been fighting a war for 3 years, who was known to be angry and impulsive and had talked with Yoda about his feelings. They then put him next to a master manipulator, who was a close friend and had provided him with constant support while all the Jedi did was scorn him. The Jedi are retarded.

I'm not sure what point you're making here because you seem to contradict yourself. First you start by saying Anakin's been a soldier for several years, which implies they should trust him, then you say he's angry and impulsive, which implies they shouldn't. Then you say they shouldn't have put him with Sheev, which they openly fretted about and were forced to do so as a last resort, which is mentioned in the film.

People like it because it makes them laugh. It doesn't even need to be factual.

For example, Plinkett announces "ANAKIN COMES INTO TO MOVIE LIKE AN HOUR IN HERPA DERPA DERP" : more seriously, he says it's at 45 minutes.

It's at 31 minutes. That's an easy fact to check, but it's not about 'fact'. It's about making up some bullshit that assuages the feelings of angry OT fans, "DAE THESE SHIPS ARE LITRALY DONUTS HERPA DERP" ... they laugh, and it sets off some dopamine reaction in the brain where the line that may not even be factually true 'feels' right.

>It seems like they hated each other.

Really? It seems more like a complex Older Brother/Younger Brother relationship in II - the younger bristling against the older, pushing boundaries. By III, they're obviously at a different stage - more equals.

I like that instead of just saying "the movies were bad" he actually takes the time to explain what he means in detail and illustrate his points.

For this reason, I don't like OP's post because it's lazy and fails to prove anything he says by backing his claims with evidence or proof. I'm just supposed to take the word of some anonymous asshole as fact? No, fuck that.

Also, when you say "I could go on," everyone knows you've blown your load and have nothing else.

To many, the original reviews is movie theory 101. It uses the prequels as an example to show bad structure, writing and composition.
It's part educating and part entertainment.

The mistake Mike makes is that he believed he put the final nail in the coffin in regards to what needed to be said about the prequels.
This is why, instead of treating The Force Awakens the same as the prequels (looking at structure, composition, etc) he nitpicks some "plot holes" but ultimately says no one wants to see a video of that.

Instead he spends the majority of the plinkett review trying to re-instate the opinion that he said all that needed to be said about the prequels.
He neglects to note his own cultural backdrop and experience surrounding the prequels.
People that weren't even born when The Phantom Menace came out are now beginning to watch these movies with more opinions, disregarding them as just stupid millennials won't make them think Mike said all that needed to be said.

As more time passes, new people will find new things to say about the movies because of their experience. A post-Trump generation will look different at the movies than someone that grew up with Bill Clinton.

Let's think back to the late 2000's when Internet personalities and online film critisism was a bland as IMDb message boards.

Maybe the occasional 10 minute YouTube video of someone trying to point out flaws.

Then comes a 60 minute "humorous" "in-depth" look behind the scenes of the film as a whole. This had traction, even remember a /film article about it within its first few weeks.

Their content has gotten stale in the years since then, but when that first review came out it changed how internet nobodies can present an encompassing "so, how the fuck did we get here" deconstruction.

Mind you most of this starts to get stale within the second review, and the
Amount of backtracking and re-re-view the 3rd is almost unwatchable.

>but they could be made (and were years before Plinkett did it) in the span of 5-10 minutes)

that's such a retarded argument, yes you can say "the dialogue sucked" but that doesn't mean anything unless you show examples and elaborate what you say, it is no different than saying "the movie was boring"

and that isn't even the full extent of the review, he goes into detail about how everything was wrong, such as the excessive use of CGI to the point where it hampers the actor's performances, how the dialogue and exposition scenes are all shot and edited in a boring way (almost all in shot reverse shot, two people walking and talking or sitting on a couch, etc), the overemphasis on lightsabers and reducing the Force into a series of video game powerups, how nonsensical the Anakin/Padme romance was considering Anakin was basically a megalomaniac, how nonsensical the assassination plot with Jango Fett was, how nonsensical the entire plot of the Phantom Menace was, the excessive use of "pottery" where Lucas basically just recycles iconic scenes and imagery from the original trilogy, how we never really get to see Anakin as a good person before his downfall, etc.

>He neglects to note his own cultural backdrop and experience surrounding the prequels.

That is at the heart of why his vids should be seen as comedy bits, not 'criticism'.

Asking your friends if the guy they grew up with - one of the most famous film characters of all time played by one of the biggest blockbuster actors of all time who's had a couple generations to percolate in the collective consciousness - is more preferable to Qui-Gon Jinn is fucking dumb.

The reason you see 'generally' far more positive appraisals of the prequels these days, the reason every second fucking Sup Forums thread is about them, is because their first 'native' generation is now online. That perspective makes a difference.

somebody post that 400+ page rebuttal to plinket review.

It's called the "Seinfeld's Not Funny" effect: it seems unoriginal because since it's been released, his points and style have been so widely imitated, the original seems stale itself.

Why is RLM so afraid of serious films?

Serious film doesn't make money.

You're a millenial

Yeah, you said it better than me.
No one can predict how the next generation will consider a piece of work. It will be interesting to see how the sequels will be remembered by the kids now growing up with it.

Are people typing out these long posts right now?

Jay likes them. Mike and Rich just want popcorn entertainment.

The example i always use is the Luke/Leia relationship.

Imagine you went to see TDKRises, and you find out after all that that Rachel Dawes ... was actually Bruce's sister.

Most people would consider that kind of plotting absolutely fucking idiotic. In fact, most people would ascribe that kind of logic to the plotting in Lucas's prequels ... but that's precisely the kind of thing SW fans embrace unironically when they watch the OT. It's just taken almost 'completely' for granted.

No-one "thinks" they're blinded by nostalgia, and you have a different relationship to a movie you watch at 4 than something you see at 24.

Both Mike and Jay are excited for Logan

pls

autism