It’s important to note that the main value of the Plinkett reviews was they were essentially a compendium of salient critiques about the Prequels. I don’t think Plinkett actually introduced a single original point of criticism. I don’t say that to disparage the reviews at all - rather, I say it to refute the oft-heard claim that widespread dislike of the Prequels resulted from the viral popularity of the RLM reviews, or that Prequel criticism could be reduced to parroting a list of Plinkett points.
A 1999 movie review of Phantom Menace articulates almost every main Plinkett point about TPM, a decade before Plinkett.
And multiple 2004 posts from this very website bring up the “no main character” criticism.
And anecdotally, most of Plinkett’s Prequel criticisms are things my friends and I talked about privately throughout the 2000s, before the Plinkett reviews. A lot of these criticisms are just obvious - especially the CGI stuff and the overall “feel” of these movies in comparison with the OT.
The main value of these reviews was that (1) they compiled all the most salient criticisms in a single video, (2) the criticisms attacked the fundamental problems with the Prequels, rather than the more common mainstream “Jar Jar is stupid” critiques, (3) they used a unique, comedic framing to express these criticisms, rather than the typical 2000s “rage critic” where the reviewer just screams and rants about how the movie sucks, and (4) they employed some really hilarious editing techniques, like cutting off a rambling point mid-sentence to move on to another segment.
Of course, regarding point (3), it seems a lot of people were put off by the “Buffalo Bill” serial killer voice. I personally found it pretty funny (I thought the comedic device of exaggerating the obsessive sci-fi nerd stereotype by merging it with a deranged, pizza-roll eating serial killer was brilliant at the time). But I’ve seen many people say the reviews were unwatchable due to the voice, which perhaps somewhat limited their audience appeal.
However, as I said, we’ve arrived at a point where these reviews need to be watched with some historical context in mind. Nowadays, Youtube is a career and countless movie reviews with 1-hour or more runtimes exist. But in 2008/2009, the idea that someone would actually make a 1-hour movie review about Star Wars or Star Trek would register as insanely anti-social to many. Only an extremely anti-social obsessive sci-fi nerd - a real-life incarnation of “Comic Book Guy” from the Simpsons - would ever do something as anti-social as that. The reviews therefore leaned into this by employing dark humor, making the narrator a deranged psychopath who watched Star Wars movies with his victims, and casually discussed Star Wars action figures while one of his victims was tied up in the background.