I haven't watched the RLM reviews yet, so I can't disagree with his analysis of the prequels, but there is something to be said as to watching the prequels as an extended flashback sequence, to be watched between 5 and 6. Like there is an alright relationship between Obi Wan and Anakin in there somewhere, and there are some pretty cool moments. Someone with a knack at editing could probably cut the prequels down to a couple of hours and just have them serve the purpose of a 'fourth' film in the original trilogy, explaining where Vader comes from.
Whilst it could be said there is a somewhat fundamental flaw in empathising with this guy who is the ultimate evil at one point, really it shouldn't be a problem what with the end of Return and all that.
The problem is there isn't enough to make a realistic fall. You have Anakin acting like an ass and some horrible romance scenes. There is little establishing a mentor and student relationship between Anakin and Obi Wan or a friendship. There is that scene where they talk about their adventures.
Yeah you're probably right. Wouldn't really mind someone else redoing the prequels, or at least that 2 hour long flashback film that I'd quite like to see.
troubleking on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited January 2011
Y'know.
For all of Lucas's fetish for sticking minor OT characters in places they didn't belong for the prequels, one kinda strikes me as conspicuously absent.
For a guy who was practically second in command of the Empire, and pretty much the main mastermind villain in ANH, Tarkin had exactly one scene in the prequels where he silently stares out a window.
Yeah you're probably right. Wouldn't really mind someone else redoing the prequels, or at least that 2 hour long flashback film that I'd quite like to see.
As I've gotten older, I've come very comfortably to terms with the notion that the prequels don't count. They happened, and I saw them. But, they're something spiritually, artistically apart from the classics. Sufficed to say, they weren't what Obi Wan kept reflecting on in "Star Wars."
I kind of interpret the prequels as how the story might have been told by somebody during the OT era who pieced it all together from a whole lot of hearsay and conjecture, tinged with legend and myth.
I can't get past the first minute of those video reviews. I just can't.
Skip to the second minute?
His schtick is grating, but he's as good at cinematic theory and deconstruction as any film school professor.
Yeah, I just fast-forward through the whole serial killer pizza roll parts. He should really tone that part down.
But the rest of the reviews are really well done, IMO. As someone said upthread, the Plinkett reviews put into words all of the various things that bugged me about the PT. Most of us never bothered to sit down and flesh out all the things that were wrong with the trilogy, we just knew it didn't work.
I enjoyed the stuff in his Star Trek reviews better because it was much more low key. It slowly built up over the course of the reviews where you realised he had actually murdered his wife.
I think he went way overboard with it in the Star Wars reviews.
Doesn't change the fact that his analysis is dead on.
I read about the first 1/4, skimmed to about 1/2, and basically it comes down to: are you willing to fill in everything that Lucas left open? How far is your suspension of disbelief willing to go? The writer of the rebuttal apparently is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to justify silly, stupid, incoherent plot, and fill in depth of characterization not present in the films.
If so, that's fine I guess, but it's not a very persuasive defense.
Fartacus on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I read about the first 1/4, skimmed to about 1/2, and basically it comes down to: are you willing to fill in everything that Lucas left open? How far is your suspension of disbelief willing to go? The writer of the rebuttal apparently is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to justify silly, stupid, incoherent plot, and fill in depth of characterization not present in the films.
If so, that's fine I guess, but it's not a very persuasive defense.
I don't think I've seen or read a single defense of the PT that didn't involve some or all of the following:
- appeals to "childlike wonder"
- accusations of cynicism
- direction to extracurricular information, a la the EU
- remonstration for being "unable to just enjoy movies"
I could have summed all that up in far less than 108 pages. I shudder to think what actually was said in all that.
The funny thing is, Plinkett rips all that apart as well, especially the "unable to just enjoy movies" thing since mainly he nails the PT for just not being enjoyable to watch because they are so poorly made.
shryke on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The funny thing is, Plinkett rips all that apart as well, especially the "unable to just enjoy movies" thing since mainly he nails the PT for just not being enjoyable to watch because they are so poorly made.
It's the go-to accusation for those who literally have nothing else to use in defense. It's cousins are the old tropes, "You just can't turn your brain off," and "This isn't for you."
It's nice, because it seeks to turn something that's obviously a sign of critical failing into some kind of admirable quality, akin to something as ridiculous as, "You're just jealous because I have tuberculosis!"
Anybody see that new Clone Wars episode tonight? It was pretty good I liked it. It'll be interesting to see where they take this new arc with Dooku's new apprentice.
The biggest problem I would imagine many would have with the prequel trilogy (and whatever spinoffs it has wrought) is that there is inherently no dramatic tension. I believe Plinkett addressed this, but you know what's going to happen to everyone already. We knew for 30 years. I think the big question he posed in the Episode III review "Did these films need to be made?" is the most resonant and impactful thing anyone could ask.
Any kind of explanation of Lucas's screen writing logic is usually done with using material not put in the actual movies themselves. It is said as much by Plinkett. While it could all be understood by a TV show and a book series and a comic series and a blah blah blah, why would most people give a shit?
When I originally watched the OT, my one main question was "how did Darth Vader get injured?" That's what I asked my dad, and as he had found out through some other means, I assume when the movies came out, that Obi Wan had knocked him into some lava. Pretty much everything else I was willing to roll with.
The annoying justification to it all is the potential "The force guided all the events" which makes the force out to be more like a God than just an all permeating power that can be guided and altered by those sensetive to it.
The annoying justification to it all is the potential "The force guided all the events" which makes the force out to be more like a God than just an all permeating power that can be guided and altered by those sensetive to it.
I can't get past the first minute of those video reviews. I just can't.
You aren't the only one, Elki. They just aren't funny and he's not saying anything that hasn't already been said ad naseum for the past ten years.
I disagree. I think his ROTS review, at least, is a really great piece of film criticism. I can take or leave the skits, certainly (though sometimes they warrant a chuckle), but honestly I think he does a pretty solid job of elucidating the root causes of the emotional sterility of the movies, and the inability for the movies to connect with the audience. The other reviews are a bit simpler, more focused on plot holes and technical detail, but the ROTS review is, in my opinion, a really solid work of criticism.
The biggest problem I would imagine many would have with the prequel trilogy (and whatever spinoffs it has wrought) is that there is inherently no dramatic tension. I believe Plinkett addressed this, but you know what's going to happen to everyone already. We knew for 30 years. I think the big question he posed in the Episode III review "Did these films need to be made?" is the most resonant and impactful thing anyone could ask.
I disagree; it's possible to make an interesting and engaging movie with the audience already knowing how it ends. You just have to shift the focus of interest. Instead of it being about "how will it end", it has to be about "how will we get to the end". A lot of movies and tv episodes start by showing you the ending, and then make it all about how that ending came to be. How many times have we seen a show open with a strange (typically action) scene, and then cut to a different (typically more peaceful) scene with a subtitle "X hours before"? Hell, Greek tragedies were all about being given a prophecy at the beginning and watching how it came true. Everyone knew from the start that Oedipus would end by killing his father and marrying his mother, but no one says the story is boring and should not have been written on account of that. Because the story isn't about whether Oedipus would do those things, but how he would end up doing them.
It is not inherently impossible to have dramatic tension in a work where you already know the ending.
But of course, for the PT Lucas went with the "will Anakin become Vader and what will happen to the Jedi and the Republic" plot, which was just plain stupid since we did know that for 30 years. Just one more reason why those movies are made of concentrated fail.
I can't get past the first minute of those video reviews. I just can't.
You aren't the only one, Elki. They just aren't funny and he's not saying anything that hasn't already been said ad naseum for the past ten years.
I disagree. I think his ROTS review, at least, is a really great piece of film criticism. I can take or leave the skits, certainly (though sometimes they warrant a chuckle), but honestly I think he does a pretty solid job of elucidating the root causes of the emotional sterility of the movies, and the inability for the movies to connect with the audience. The other reviews are a bit simpler, more focused on plot holes and technical detail, but the ROTS review is, in my opinion, a really solid work of criticism.
The biggest problem I would imagine many would have with the prequel trilogy (and whatever spinoffs it has wrought) is that there is inherently no dramatic tension. I believe Plinkett addressed this, but you know what's going to happen to everyone already. We knew for 30 years. I think the big question he posed in the Episode III review "Did these films need to be made?" is the most resonant and impactful thing anyone could ask.
I disagree; it's possible to make an interesting and engaging movie with the audience already knowing how it ends. You just have to shift the focus of interest. Instead of it being about "how will it end", it has to be about "how will we get to the end". A lot of movies and tv episodes start by showing you the ending, and then make it all about how that ending came to be. How many times have we seen a show open with a strange (typically action) scene, and then cut to a different (typically more peaceful) scene with a subtitle "X hours before"? Hell, Greek tragedies were all about being given a prophecy at the beginning and watching how it came true. Everyone knew from the start that Oedipus would end by killing his father and marrying his mother, but no one says the story is boring and should not have been written on account of that. Because the story isn't about whether Oedipus would do those things, but how he would end up doing them.
It is not inherently impossible to have dramatic tension in a work where you already know the ending.
But of course, for the PT Lucas went with the "will Anakin become Vader and what will happen to the Jedi and the Republic" plot, which was just plain stupid since we did know that for 30 years. Just one more reason why those movies are made of concentrated fail.
Yeah, I agree, but Plinkett addresses that too. I think one point he made that was particularly strong was that the three movies were essentially a character study -- but with a weak, ill-defined, and poorly-written main character who didn't really have much of an arc. He was sort of an asshole from as soon as he was an adult in the second movie, and just became more of an asshole. He wasn't even seduced by the power of the Dark Side so much as he was tricked into it.
The story of a hero's fall can be gripping and interesting, but there wasn't much of a fall, really. The movies just constantly felt so convenient and ill-planned. Nothing seemed to matter -- they have a feeling of being on rails. Actions carry no weight, no tension, no emotion.
Anakin could have been one piece of a larger story and a richer universe, or they could have made a genuine character study, but they didn't really do either. Lucas just screwed the pooch.
And yeah, the shot-listing of the PT is just inexcusable. A/B coverage of people walking slowly or people sitting in a room for virtually every conversation. Film students can do better than that.
I can't get past the first minute of those video reviews. I just can't.
You aren't the only one, Elki. They just aren't funny and he's not saying anything that hasn't already been said ad naseum for the past ten years.
I disagree. I think his ROTS review, at least, is a really great piece of film criticism. I can take or leave the skits, certainly (though sometimes they warrant a chuckle), but honestly I think he does a pretty solid job of elucidating the root causes of the emotional sterility of the movies, and the inability for the movies to connect with the audience. The other reviews are a bit simpler, more focused on plot holes and technical detail, but the ROTS review is, in my opinion, a really solid work of criticism.
It feels unique for its comprehensiveness, and many of its insights, but then again I've never read an EU book or posted on a Star Wars forum or anything. I'm sure the community has said this all before.
Maybe the ten year argument makes sense for the Phantom Menace, but I don't think so when you talk about Revenge of the Sith which I feel has gotten a general pass from a lot of people because of how it's compared to Episode I and Episode II. Frankly, I thought it was the movie with the most wasted potential of them all. Episode I was essentially filler. Episode II was just awful because it had no real direction. Episode III really was the episode everything had to happen, and it seemed like everything was leading up to just happening in Episode III and all of what we've been waiting for happened in like a 10 minute window with the rise of the Empire and the fall of Anakin.
So I read the entire review of RLM's PT review while watching it, reading it point-by-point.
I honestly feel like both sides make great and stupid arguments, both make subjective statements and both tend to try and twist what they're saying to sway you to agree with their side. Either way, is just comes back to film being subjective as an art form.
At the end of the day, I can tolerate parts of The Phantom Menace, but I do enjoy AOTC and ROTS (excluding the romance scenes from both films, not even going to try and defend those).
I think if you dubbed over the original audio with a better story you could get something out of the prequels, but right now the film makes everyone look like a dull-minded idiots and the background information and political "intrigue" are ridiculous.
Just give it the Kung Pow! Enter the Fist treatment...except, you know, make it good.
In my dreams there's a post-trilogy trilogy that covers the Zahn EU stuff.
It won't happen, but I that series.
I'd kill for a well done mini-series that covered TIE Fighter and it's expansions
And I'd help you.
Count me in. Or at least a proper sequel to X-Wing and/or TIE Fighter. Damn those were some fun games. Definitely had a few close calls in X-Wing with systems knocked offline, struggling to order the repairs in a way that'll let me complete the mission.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
So I read the entire review of RLM's PT review while watching it, reading it point-by-point.
I honestly feel like both sides make great and stupid arguments, both make subjective statements and both tend to try and twist what they're saying to sway you to agree with their side. Either way, is just comes back to film being subjective as an art form.
Do you agree with Fartacus's point:
I read about the first 1/4, skimmed to about 1/2, and basically it comes down to: are you willing to fill in everything that Lucas left open? How far is your suspension of disbelief willing to go? The writer of the rebuttal apparently is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to justify silly, stupid, incoherent plot, and fill in depth of characterization not present in the films.
Because my impression was that basically the guy was finding ways to rationalize the plot holes. Frankly, with enough time and energy, a person can fill in the blanks with whatever nonsense they want to connect two points to have it make sense. Let's do it now.
"Let's split up and take two ships down" problem. How to solve it? The force guided him to this path. Solved.
"Let's send our main prisoners to some dubious camp of some type instead of keeping them here under guard." They could know some secret hatch in the palace that could allow them to escape and the camp might be better guarded to protect from the Jedi that are around.
"Let's fill the room with a poisonous gas that has odor and color instead of just blowing up the ship." They didn't know that Jedi were on the ship until they got off. There might have been a number of important people on that ship whose death would have made things super impractical. That was the only poisonous gas they had available because they didn't think they'd need to assassinate any Jedi. Maybe they had some assurance no Jedi would be coming.
All of those are somewhat rational solutions.
Are they good though?
No. Not at all. Frankly, this kind of movie shouldn't require me to rationalize so much seemingly illogical action while I'm watching the movie.
In my dreams there's a post-trilogy trilogy that covers the Zahn EU stuff.
It won't happen, but I that series.
I'd kill for a well done mini-series that covered TIE Fighter and it's expansions
And I'd help you.
Count me in. Or at least a proper sequel to X-Wing and/or TIE Fighter. Damn those were some fun games. Definitely had a few close calls in X-Wing with systems knocked offline, struggling to order the repairs in a way that'll let me complete the mission.
I could have sworn that I've read this exact post less than a month ago
So I read the entire review of RLM's PT review while watching it, reading it point-by-point.
I honestly feel like both sides make great and stupid arguments, both make subjective statements and both tend to try and twist what they're saying to sway you to agree with their side. Either way, is just comes back to film being subjective as an art form.
At the end of the day, I can tolerate parts of The Phantom Menace, but I do enjoy AOTC and ROTS (excluding the romance scenes from both films, not even going to try and defend those).
What about RLM's review seems subjective and twisting?
I'm trying to think, and it mostly seems logical and consistent.
I'm serious, tell me what you thought was unnecessarily manipulative?
Count me in. Or at least a proper sequel to X-Wing and/or TIE Fighter. Damn those were some fun games. Definitely had a few close calls in X-Wing with systems knocked offline, struggling to order the repairs in a way that'll let me complete the mission.
I could have sworn that I've read this exact post less than a month ago
There's a non-zero chance, and a nearly equal chance that I posted it.
I believe I'm contractually obligated to discuss my love of TIE Fighter/X-Wing and Timothy Zahn whenever Star Wars is referenced.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So I read the entire review of RLM's PT review while watching it, reading it point-by-point.
I honestly feel like both sides make great and stupid arguments, both make subjective statements and both tend to try and twist what they're saying to sway you to agree with their side. Either way, is just comes back to film being subjective as an art form.
At the end of the day, I can tolerate parts of The Phantom Menace, but I do enjoy AOTC and ROTS (excluding the romance scenes from both films, not even going to try and defend those).
What about RLM's review seems subjective and twisting?
I'm trying to think, and it mostly seems logical and consistent.
I'm serious, tell me what you thought was unnecessarily manipulative?
And to clarify, enjoyment of art is subjective, artistic techniques are not (though this isn't really directed at you, but the poster in your quote).
Saying many of RLM's points of contention are the viewed through subjectivity is like saying an architect's comments on the structural integrity of a wall are subjective.
Meaning, if the PT was a building, it would collapse in a soft breeze.
So I read the entire review of RLM's PT review while watching it, reading it point-by-point.
I honestly feel like both sides make great and stupid arguments, both make subjective statements and both tend to try and twist what they're saying to sway you to agree with their side. Either way, is just comes back to film being subjective as an art form.
At the end of the day, I can tolerate parts of The Phantom Menace, but I do enjoy AOTC and ROTS (excluding the romance scenes from both films, not even going to try and defend those).
What about RLM's review seems subjective and twisting?
I'm trying to think, and it mostly seems logical and consistent.
I'm serious, tell me what you thought was unnecessarily manipulative?
The only really good point I saw in the review review was the criticism that RLM just had a bunch of people in the interview pretending that they couldn't describe the PT characters thoroughly. That part was correct, but I think it was misconstrued. It is much easier to describe Qui-Gon Jinn than those people (who happen to also be actors in RLM's movies) portrayed, however they can go ahead and describe the hell out of the PT characters, that doesn't make them interesting. They're still bland and just so unworthy of any ammount of caring on my part.
So that's one good point Raynor made in his review. It's just too bad that it has no way of changing my mind anyway due to the film's inherent flaws.
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
Posts
I can only imagine the shock and horror you must have felt when Han Solo guns down an innocent bounty hunter in cold blood.
This. So much this.
It's more the-
"Oh, um, no we totes can't release the original versions. They're, uh, too badly damaged. Yeah, that's it"
*everyone buys the re-release versions of the OT*
"Oh! Hey guess what guys! We restored the originals and you can buy them now!" thing.
The original release versions of the OT are going to be on Bluray, but not until after sales on the re-release version sales have died down :P
Whilst it could be said there is a somewhat fundamental flaw in empathising with this guy who is the ultimate evil at one point, really it shouldn't be a problem what with the end of Return and all that.
I dunno, probably talking bollocks.
For all of Lucas's fetish for sticking minor OT characters in places they didn't belong for the prequels, one kinda strikes me as conspicuously absent.
For a guy who was practically second in command of the Empire, and pretty much the main mastermind villain in ANH, Tarkin had exactly one scene in the prequels where he silently stares out a window.
As I've gotten older, I've come very comfortably to terms with the notion that the prequels don't count. They happened, and I saw them. But, they're something spiritually, artistically apart from the classics. Sufficed to say, they weren't what Obi Wan kept reflecting on in "Star Wars."
I kind of interpret the prequels as how the story might have been told by somebody during the OT era who pieced it all together from a whole lot of hearsay and conjecture, tinged with legend and myth.
It won't happen, but I
I'd kill for a well done mini-series that covered TIE Fighter and it's expansions
I enjoyed the stuff in his Star Trek reviews better because it was much more low key. It slowly built up over the course of the reviews where you realised he had actually murdered his wife.
I think he went way overboard with it in the Star Wars reviews.
Doesn't change the fact that his analysis is dead on.
I read about the first 1/4, skimmed to about 1/2, and basically it comes down to: are you willing to fill in everything that Lucas left open? How far is your suspension of disbelief willing to go? The writer of the rebuttal apparently is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to justify silly, stupid, incoherent plot, and fill in depth of characterization not present in the films.
If so, that's fine I guess, but it's not a very persuasive defense.
I don't think I've seen or read a single defense of the PT that didn't involve some or all of the following:
- appeals to "childlike wonder"
- accusations of cynicism
- direction to extracurricular information, a la the EU
- remonstration for being "unable to just enjoy movies"
I could have summed all that up in far less than 108 pages. I shudder to think what actually was said in all that.
It's the go-to accusation for those who literally have nothing else to use in defense. It's cousins are the old tropes, "You just can't turn your brain off," and "This isn't for you."
It's nice, because it seeks to turn something that's obviously a sign of critical failing into some kind of admirable quality, akin to something as ridiculous as, "You're just jealous because I have tuberculosis!"
When I originally watched the OT, my one main question was "how did Darth Vader get injured?" That's what I asked my dad, and as he had found out through some other means, I assume when the movies came out, that Obi Wan had knocked him into some lava. Pretty much everything else I was willing to roll with.
The annoying justification to it all is the potential "The force guided all the events" which makes the force out to be more like a God than just an all permeating power that can be guided and altered by those sensetive to it.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
Still better than midi-chondrians.
You aren't the only one, Elki. They just aren't funny and he's not saying anything that hasn't already been said ad naseum for the past ten years.
I disagree. I think his ROTS review, at least, is a really great piece of film criticism. I can take or leave the skits, certainly (though sometimes they warrant a chuckle), but honestly I think he does a pretty solid job of elucidating the root causes of the emotional sterility of the movies, and the inability for the movies to connect with the audience. The other reviews are a bit simpler, more focused on plot holes and technical detail, but the ROTS review is, in my opinion, a really solid work of criticism.
It is not inherently impossible to have dramatic tension in a work where you already know the ending.
But of course, for the PT Lucas went with the "will Anakin become Vader and what will happen to the Jedi and the Republic" plot, which was just plain stupid since we did know that for 30 years. Just one more reason why those movies are made of concentrated fail.
Yeah, I agree, but Plinkett addresses that too. I think one point he made that was particularly strong was that the three movies were essentially a character study -- but with a weak, ill-defined, and poorly-written main character who didn't really have much of an arc. He was sort of an asshole from as soon as he was an adult in the second movie, and just became more of an asshole. He wasn't even seduced by the power of the Dark Side so much as he was tricked into it.
The story of a hero's fall can be gripping and interesting, but there wasn't much of a fall, really. The movies just constantly felt so convenient and ill-planned. Nothing seemed to matter -- they have a feeling of being on rails. Actions carry no weight, no tension, no emotion.
Anakin could have been one piece of a larger story and a richer universe, or they could have made a genuine character study, but they didn't really do either. Lucas just screwed the pooch.
And yeah, the shot-listing of the PT is just inexcusable. A/B coverage of people walking slowly or people sitting in a room for virtually every conversation. Film students can do better than that.
It feels unique for its comprehensiveness, and many of its insights, but then again I've never read an EU book or posted on a Star Wars forum or anything. I'm sure the community has said this all before.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
I honestly feel like both sides make great and stupid arguments, both make subjective statements and both tend to try and twist what they're saying to sway you to agree with their side. Either way, is just comes back to film being subjective as an art form.
At the end of the day, I can tolerate parts of The Phantom Menace, but I do enjoy AOTC and ROTS (excluding the romance scenes from both films, not even going to try and defend those).
Just give it the Kung Pow! Enter the Fist treatment...except, you know, make it good.
I just want to know what happens at the end now. Why was the "celebracion" at the movie theater? What's going on there?
And I'd help you.
Plus, it has some of the best use of happy Han in the EU.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Count me in. Or at least a proper sequel to X-Wing and/or TIE Fighter. Damn those were some fun games. Definitely had a few close calls in X-Wing with systems knocked offline, struggling to order the repairs in a way that'll let me complete the mission.
Do you agree with Fartacus's point:
Because my impression was that basically the guy was finding ways to rationalize the plot holes. Frankly, with enough time and energy, a person can fill in the blanks with whatever nonsense they want to connect two points to have it make sense. Let's do it now.
"Let's split up and take two ships down" problem. How to solve it? The force guided him to this path. Solved.
"Let's send our main prisoners to some dubious camp of some type instead of keeping them here under guard." They could know some secret hatch in the palace that could allow them to escape and the camp might be better guarded to protect from the Jedi that are around.
"Let's fill the room with a poisonous gas that has odor and color instead of just blowing up the ship." They didn't know that Jedi were on the ship until they got off. There might have been a number of important people on that ship whose death would have made things super impractical. That was the only poisonous gas they had available because they didn't think they'd need to assassinate any Jedi. Maybe they had some assurance no Jedi would be coming.
All of those are somewhat rational solutions.
Are they good though?
No. Not at all. Frankly, this kind of movie shouldn't require me to rationalize so much seemingly illogical action while I'm watching the movie.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
I could have sworn that I've read this exact post less than a month ago
What about RLM's review seems subjective and twisting?
I'm trying to think, and it mostly seems logical and consistent.
I'm serious, tell me what you thought was unnecessarily manipulative?
There's a non-zero chance, and a nearly equal chance that I posted it.
I believe I'm contractually obligated to discuss my love of TIE Fighter/X-Wing and Timothy Zahn whenever Star Wars is referenced.
And to clarify, enjoyment of art is subjective, artistic techniques are not (though this isn't really directed at you, but the poster in your quote).
Saying many of RLM's points of contention are the viewed through subjectivity is like saying an architect's comments on the structural integrity of a wall are subjective.
Meaning, if the PT was a building, it would collapse in a soft breeze.
The only really good point I saw in the review review was the criticism that RLM just had a bunch of people in the interview pretending that they couldn't describe the PT characters thoroughly. That part was correct, but I think it was misconstrued. It is much easier to describe Qui-Gon Jinn than those people (who happen to also be actors in RLM's movies) portrayed, however they can go ahead and describe the hell out of the PT characters, that doesn't make them interesting. They're still bland and just so unworthy of any ammount of caring on my part.
So that's one good point Raynor made in his review. It's just too bad that it has no way of changing my mind anyway due to the film's inherent flaws.