quote:

---

Originally posted by Destineer:
Just watched the first 2/3 of this. Good, but it really hurts his cred when he compliments "Die Another Day."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Destineer:
Just watched the first 2/3 of this. Good, but it really hurts his cred when he compliments "Die Another Day."

---

He compliments the 'to the blood' fight scene in die another day.

---

So that's what Ep3 needed to make it better: Madonna.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
That swordfight in "Die Another Day" was a joke of a scene that completely threw off the tone of the movie.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I would have preferred that the movie actually had the tone of that scene, personally, but I agree that it didn't match the film.
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
Yep. But that's not the point. Even if it isn't great, it's still a lot more visceral than anything in Revenge of the Sith. And the point was about the tangibility of the scene as a contrast, not about how it fit in the film it was set in, or even about whether that film was any good.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I really liked this review. It's much more like I would like movie reviews to be, especially the comparisons and the suggestions for improvement.

His Star Trek review I agree with but he comes to a different conclusion-- he liked it.
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
ROTS's fight scenes are so bad that they managed to make "Die Another Day" look good by comparison. I suspect this is Mr. Plinkett's point.

Loved the "two people sitting on sofas... talking" bit. It really hammers home the utter incompetence of George Lucas as a director of dialogue. It's not just that he isn't an "actor's director." It's that he literally has no idea (or rather, has forgotten) how to do anything more interesting than a basic shot-reverse shot setup. On a couch.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Mary Cate and I rung in the new year watching this.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teshi:
I really liked this review. It's much more like I would like movie reviews to be, especially the comparisons and the suggestions for improvement.

His Star Trek review I agree with but he comes to a different conclusion-- he liked it.

---

Soo you didn't like it?

I think the thing with Plinkett that you have to keep in mind is that for him, and his persona, liking and not liking are sort of tangential to the crux of the issue. If you like something that is actually garbage, that's bad, because the reasons you like it, or that you respond positively to it, are not good reasons. In these films for instance, the positive response comes mainly from the way in which familiar concepts are used and reused to present what is meant to be a pleasing atmosphere. But in actually telling a story, or in even having a story, these familiar elements are no help at all. If you didn't like Star Wars or know Star Wars already, this crap would really look like crap. As it is, it's more just confusing and disturbing because it contains so many elements of things for which you already have positive feelings. The original trilogy presented iconic images and characters that are still remembered today. The difference with the prequel trilogy is that this time the films *contained* iconic characters and images that are still remembered today. That doesn't make a good film. The characters and images are not iconic for what they are, but for the films and stories they were in before. So, as Plinkett points out very emphatically, Darth Vader is utterly meaningless in these films, and that's why his final appearance in them is laughable and strange and deplorable, because all he cache is built on stories that have nothing to do with these.

On the other hand, if you don't like something, but that something, say Star Trek XI, is actually well done, then that's ok too. You don't have to like the story or feel positively towards the background, but the fact is that it's a piece of work that stands on its own with strong elements of story telling and character is important. The thing he objects to most in Star Wars I II and III is that they are not honest attempts at telling stories- they are so confusing partly because they come from no creative direction at all. They advance no point, move no character forward, and work only towards fitting themselves with what is already known and understood, and with what in fact already stood on its own- so they feel insidious and dishonest. Star Trek XI approached its subject, even as a reboot, with forward movement. The story of the past is gone- this film does not seek to advance a point already made.
 

---

Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
 
Wow, am I grateful for having seen that. I never knew why I didn't like the pretrilogy. It just felt off.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I knew there was a fundamental problem with characterization - that was obvious, but watching all three reviews (yes, all three! I took it in stages and did it over the last couple days) has opened my eyes to other things I did not consciously notice - like the "density" of shots, the overuse of light sabers, the copying of shots from Empire but with no emotional depth, etc. I found the persona a bit annoying, the whole pizza roll thing and the schtick with the women tied up - I thought it was pointless and detracted from great reviews, but maybe I'm just not in on an inside joke or something.
 

---

Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
 
Yeah, He's entertaining, but the Ed Gein character he plays is disturbing, and I think that's an understatement. I've watched other reviews and I'm sure those are running jokes. I still added Red Letter Media to favorites.

Those movies are not going to age well. Future filmmakers may watch them as examples of what not to do.

What's sad is that Lucas thinks how he did what he did was dramatic! Sitting on couches? Real life drama occurs rather low key like that, but movies are supposed to be a visual and audio feast, especially Star Wars. Everyone spoke as if they had just finished a Thanksgiving meal and were ready for a nap. And that's what it looked like with all those awful couches!
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I found myself wondering what it was like being a set designer for a movie that was almost entirely CGI, except for the living room furniture. Would you resent being called upon to design a dozen different space couches, or would you appreciate the challenge?
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Reader:
What's sad is that Lucas thinks how he did what he did was dramatic! Sitting on couches? Real life drama occurs rather low key like that,

---

Real life drama can occur on couches. But so can movie drama! It's sometimes even represented rather well on couches. The King's Speech had some riveting dramatic dialogue on couches.

The real thing is that, well, whether or not it happened on a couch, or just standing around, the dramatic dialogue was dry, flat, and horrid. No real depth to it at all. The cinematic equivalent of eating straight starch paste.
 

---

Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
 
I hope I'm around decades from now, when someone does a Star Wars prequel reboot that basically makes the movies that Plinkett suggests ought to have been made
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I hope that whoever would have the skill and interest in such a project would do the right thing, and invest their energies in something new and better.
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
Indeed. You'd have to basically make utterly different movies, with virtually nothing in common, to do it right.

Everything down to the concept of the Jedi Council are things never hinted at originally, that are so central to the plot that jettisoning them means jettisoning much of the plot.

That would be a good thing.

But then, by the time you're done, you'd be making something connected in name only.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
Indeed. You'd have to basically make utterly different movies, with virtually nothing in common, to do it right.

---

quote:

---

problem: image of jedi knights has not been graced by my awesomeness

solution: have the entire jedi order show how wicked cool they are by charging into the middle of a colosseum (it will be a betterer more cgi colosseum than gladiator, which makes my movie betterer) and end up trapped standing there in the middle of it with no cover while getting massacred by drones

this is sure to make lightsabers seem practical rather than impractical, and it is sure to make jedi seem awesome rather than pretty much useless

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Reader:
What's sad is that Lucas thinks how he did what he did was dramatic! Sitting on couches? Real life drama occurs rather low key like that,

---

Real life drama can occur on couches. But so can movie drama! It's sometimes even represented rather well on couches. The King's Speech had some riveting dramatic dialogue on couches.

The real thing is that, well, whether or not it happened on a couch, or just standing around, the dramatic dialogue was dry, flat, and horrid. No real depth to it at all. The cinematic equivalent of eating straight starch paste.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
Well, if someone was to remake it, of course they'd' have jedi and lightsabers.

Maybe done so that they are as cool as they can be.

---