This is a huge tangent but yes the problem is they’re old and drunk and don’t have good memories outside of Star Trek trivia. Even if they did remember why bother bringing it up? Does a deleted scene even count? They don’t care any neither does anyone else. Which goes for most SW fans these days.
Bringing is neatly back on topic, why should I care? I’m never going to watch a new SW project unless it’s genuinely ‘good’, or to put it another way gets universal acclaim.
That side of the fandom has shrunken a lot over the past ten years.
Unfortunately it’s shrunken so much that people can’t seem to separate the originals from the prequels and a lot of the actual subtext in the originals themselves are lost on them due to being retconned (I used to be one of those!). So you could be talking about the same movie but not actually. Which is a shame because the originals separate from the prequels are better.
Star Wars, Paleontology, Superhero, Godzilla fan. Darth Vader stan. 22. ADHD. College Student majoring in English Education.
My Star Wars Fan-Edits
I know we’ve gotten on a huge tangent here, but regarding RLM; I really think they’re old and out of touch these days.
I just watched their review of Alien Romulus, for instance, and they were asking questions like “where did all these new facehuggers come from?” When the movie clearly stated that they were genetically engineered using dna from “big chap.” At one point they also go “the first film clearly established that every alien hive needs a queen,” when that was really only established in the second film. They completely forgot about the egg-morphing from the deleted scene of the first (which I’m pretty sure is on the director’s cut, which they claim to have seen).
That’s just one of several examples of how lately they’ve been making more mistakes/ overlooking details. Their memories are getting hazy, and they seem to have a harder time actually paying attention to the things they’re watching/ reviewing… IDK, they just act really old now. Too old, too ignorant, too grumpy, etc.
They’ve been that way for a long time and it really pissed me off. They really just do not pay attention, and I think they do it because they think it’s funny and relatable to act confused. They would also do that a lot with information they’re not directly familiar with. They have an encyclopedic knowledge of certain dumb and obscure things, but the idea that Taskmaster was a popular Marvel villain, for example, gets played up into this crazy wild nerd concept for them to act baffled about. I don’t even care most of the time, it’s just annoying when they pretend like having some information or context is somehow beneath them.
My original point with the RLM tangent was that the criticisms of the prequels were mostly correct. No one has really disagreed with that, just disliked the presentation.
My original point with the RLM tangent was that the criticisms of the prequels were mostly correct. No one has really disagreed with that, just disliked the presentation.
The criticisms are soo true and precise that when friends would ask me “What do think of the prequels?” I would just send them those videos. It was a relief at the time to have those around…saved me about 3 hours of ranting. Someone use to have edits on youtube of the RLM reviews where they cut out all the odd Plinkett skits…far more digestible.
“It all happens so fast you probably didn’t even notice it…but your brain did” - Mike Stoklaska
My original point with the RLM tangent was that the criticisms of the prequels were mostly correct. No one has really disagreed with that, just disliked the presentation.
I mean, I dislike the presentation, but the critiques are exceptionally valid. The whole bit with “the urban market” is something I’ve brought up when talking about tokenism/Hollywood racism.
But it does raise a point—if the reviews hadn’t been presented like they were, would they have been noticed to the same level?
They’ve been that way for a long time and it really pissed me off. They really just do not pay attention, and I think they do it because they think it’s funny and relatable to act confused. They would also do that a lot with information they’re not directly familiar with. They have an encyclopedic knowledge of certain dumb and obscure things, but the idea that Taskmaster was a popular Marvel villain, for example, gets played up into this crazy wild nerd concept for them to act baffled about. I don’t even care most of the time, it’s just annoying when they pretend like having some information or context is somehow beneath them.
Mr. Sunday Movies does it well where they have James as the one who knows everything (be it from researching it or existing knowledge) and explains it to Mason, and you get a funny back and forth out of that. Superhero Stuff You Should Know does a similar thing but they’re not particularly funny, just informative. If no one on the show knows what they’re talking about to fill in the others, it becomes a problem.
My original point with the RLM tangent was that the criticisms of the prequels were mostly correct. No one has really disagreed with that, just disliked the presentation.
Nah, the Plinkett reviews had excellent presentation and idiotic arguments.
Do not DM me for edits. Whatever you’re looking for I don’t have it.
They’ve been that way for a long time and it really pissed me off. They really just do not pay attention, and I think they do it because they think it’s funny and relatable to act confused. They would also do that a lot with information they’re not directly familiar with. They have an encyclopedic knowledge of certain dumb and obscure things, but the idea that Taskmaster was a popular Marvel villain, for example, gets played up into this crazy wild nerd concept for them to act baffled about. I don’t even care most of the time, it’s just annoying when they pretend like having some information or context is somehow beneath them.
If no one on the show knows what they’re talking about to fill in the others, it becomes a problem.
I’ve dropped shows and podcasts because of getting basic stuff wrong. Those fans didn’t spend hours pumping wikis full of info for people to not bother using them!
My original point with the RLM tangent was that the criticisms of the prequels were mostly correct. No one has really disagreed with that, just disliked the presentation.
Nah, the Plinkett reviews had excellent presentation and idiotic arguments.
Do you have some examples of the bad arguments? I can see how a lot of it can be less-than-convincing for some.
I know we’ve gotten on a huge tangent here, but regarding RLM; I really think they’re old and out of touch these days.
Get off my lawn.
My original point with the RLM tangent was that the criticisms of the prequels were mostly correct. No one has really disagreed with that, just disliked the presentation.
I mean, I dislike the presentation, but the critiques are exceptionally valid. The whole bit with “the urban market” is something I’ve brought up when talking about tokenism/Hollywood racism.
But it does raise a point—if the reviews hadn’t been presented like they were, would they have been noticed to the same level?
Probably not. But then, any 90 minute review would have been novel at the time, because back then these long-form reviews were quite rare. In some interview I read ages ago, Mike Stoklasa said he initially started doing his first review (which was a Star Trek review) using his normal voice, but he decided it sounded too boring, so he invented this Plinkett character (who was based on the earlier Rich Evans version to some extent).
RLM’s review was also simply the most insightful. You have to remember what was available back then - you basically had low-effort, superficial stuff like Nostalgia Critic and some guy named “Confused Matthew”. The average Phantom Menace review was basically just somebody ranting about how Jar Jar sucks for 10 minutes.
Nah, the Plinkett reviews had excellent presentation and idiotic arguments.
That’s bait. 😁
My original point with the RLM tangent was that the criticisms of the prequels were mostly correct. No one has really disagreed with that, just disliked the presentation.
I mean, I dislike the presentation, but the critiques are exceptionally valid. The whole bit with “the urban market” is something I’ve brought up when talking about tokenism/Hollywood racism.
But it does raise a point—if the reviews hadn’t been presented like they were, would they have been noticed to the same level?
Probably not. But then, any 90 minute review would have been novel at the time, because back then these long-form reviews were quite rare. In some interview I read ages ago, Mike Stoklasa said he initially started doing his first review (which was a Star Trek review) using his normal voice, but he decided it sounded too boring, so he invented this Plinkett character (who was based on the earlier Rich Evans version to some extent).
RLM’s review was also simply the most insightful. You have to remember what was available back then - you basically had low-effort, superficial stuff like Nostalgia Critic and some guy named “Confused Matthew”. The average Phantom Menace review was basically just somebody ranting about how Jar Jar sucks for 10 minutes.
I liked “Confused Matthew”. And I would only call it low effort because of the explosion of technical production and editing that followed TPR (The Plinkett Review). At the time it seemed just fine.
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
This is a huge tangent but yes the problem is they’re old and drunk and don’t have good memories outside of Star Trek trivia. Even if they did remember why bother bringing it up? Does a deleted scene even count? They don’t care any neither does anyone else. Which goes for most SW fans these days.
Bringing is neatly back on topic, why should I care? I’m never going to watch a new SW project unless it’s genuinely ‘good’, or to put it another way gets universal acclaim.
Deleted scenes don’t count. Aliens require a Queen to lay eggs. Period.
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
Make Star Wars Great Again.
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
Do you have some examples of the bad arguments? I can see how a lot of it can be less-than-convincing for some.
I saw them once ages ago, I just remember thinking their arguments were a whole lotta nothing so of course none of them stuck in my head.
Nah, the Plinkett reviews had excellent presentation and idiotic arguments.
That’s bait. 😁
No, I can assure you I am dead serious.
Do not DM me for edits. Whatever you’re looking for I don’t have it.
Do you have some examples of the bad arguments? I can see how a lot of it can be less-than-convincing for some.
I saw them once ages ago, I just remember thinking their arguments were a whole lotta nothing so of course none of them stuck in my head.
Nah, the Plinkett reviews had excellent presentation and idiotic arguments.
That’s bait. 😁
No, I can assure you I am dead serious.
Well, if you can’t even remember anything…what are we talking about? Hah
I recall back in the day the most controversial claims from Plinkett were related to how a lot of the whole Naboo invasion plot doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. I agree with RLM on this one, but that point always received lots of backlash by Prequel fans eager to explain Palpatine’s amazingly nebulous and malleable master-plan that could really be whatever you want it to be.
I recall back in the day the most controversial claims from Plinkett were related to how a lot of the whole Naboo invasion plot doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. I agree with RLM on this one, but that point always received lots of backlash by Prequel fans eager to explain Palpatine’s amazingly nebulous and malleable master-plan that could really be whatever you want it to be.
There’s this Youtuber, Sheev Talks, who in his TPM video did a response to a lot of Plinkett’s points. He accused Plinkett of not paying attention, and claimed that the opening crawl made the conflict perfectly clear.
I don’t agree. The crawl does not explain the situation well. It was never clear to me whether the Trade Federation was for or against the trade route taxes, and the movie never specifies. It tells us the taxation is in dispute. That’s all.
And the guy then goes on to explain the specifics of Palpatine’s plans and contingencies, a lot of which feels more like conjecture than anything else, then acts like it’s all perfectly obvious.
Yeah I agree, strange since he still agrees it’s a bad movie.
He went on like a 10 minute tangent about how determinism ruins Star Wars when it’s very simple: it’s soft-determinism. As Lucas says, “We all have a destiny, if we choose to follow it.” The Force test’s people’s characters and their choices determine their fate. Like how Luke fulfilled his destiny while Anakin/Vader didn’t until 23 years later. The Force has a will but is not omnipotent. It’s like a river. Also, it was introduced in the OT.
And in the same video he says TPM should be judged in the context of having seen the OT first, but then also later admits that Lucas wanted this to be the first movie. It should be judged as the latter, which is where the movie becomes even worse, because it’s a bad introduction to Star Wars.
Star Wars, Paleontology, Superhero, Godzilla fan. Darth Vader stan. 22. ADHD. College Student majoring in English Education.
My Star Wars Fan-Edits
I recall back in the day the most controversial claims from Plinkett were related to how a lot of the whole Naboo invasion plot doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. I agree with RLM on this one, but that point always received lots of backlash by Prequel fans eager to explain Palpatine’s amazingly nebulous and malleable master-plan that could really be whatever you want it to be.
There’s this Youtuber, Sheev Talks, who in his TPM video did a response to a lot of Plinkett’s points. He accused Plinkett of not paying attention, and claimed that the opening crawl made the conflict perfectly clear.
I don’t agree. The crawl does not explain the situation well. It was never clear to me whether the Trade Federation was for or against the trade route taxes, and the movie never specifies. It tells us the taxation is in dispute. That’s all.
And the guy then goes on to explain the specifics of Palpatine’s plans and contingencies, a lot of which feels more like conjecture than anything else, then acts like it’s all perfectly obvious.
It’s fair to say something like “ahhh, it’s a long story and it gets complicated, but just to summarize it was about taxes.” Real-life disagreements about politics and business are often technical and focused on minor points. But that isn’t very exciting and doesn’t get the audience engaged for an action adventure movie.
I will say that the Darth Plagueis book does a magnificent job of turning the prequels into a coherent setting where almost everything does actually make sense in context, but that’s just the issue, it takes an entire extra book’s worth of context. People that have read that book are going to retroactively imagine details in the movies that were never there and were not explained at all.
There’s a reason why these things are debated…because I was there opening day for TPM and nobody understood the crawl or were excited. There’s also a reason why the OT didn’t have soo much question about the events during those years. You don’t watch ANH OR ESB and go “wait, what?” constantly…like the prequels, sequels and the majority of Disney+ offerings. When it’s written tight and cohesive the audience isn’t pulled out by questioning characters making stupid decisions or dialogue while also being confused what the single plot is doing.
I don’t agree. The crawl does not explain the situation well. It was never clear to me whether the Trade Federation was for or against the trade route taxes, and the movie never specifies. It tells us the taxation is in dispute. That’s all.
They’re a large corporation literally named the Trade Federation. It feels implicit to me they’re against taxation.
And in the same video he says TPM should be judged in the context of having seen the OT first, but then also later admits that Lucas wanted this to be the first movie. It should be judged as the latter, which is where the movie becomes even worse, because it’s a bad introduction to Star Wars.
I genuinely don’t believe Lucas intended TPM to be viewed first and personally think that’s an incorrect viewing order for first time viewers (I prefer doing chronological rewatches).
Do not DM me for edits. Whatever you’re looking for I don’t have it.
I genuinely don’t believe Lucas intended TPM to be viewed first and personally think that’s an incorrect viewing order for first time viewers (I prefer doing chronological rewatches).
He literally said it’s meant to be watched 1-6 on camera (Chosen One featurette).
I agree that first time viewers need to watch the original trilogy first. That’s not what’s up for debate.
Star Wars, Paleontology, Superhero, Godzilla fan. Darth Vader stan. 22. ADHD. College Student majoring in English Education.
My Star Wars Fan-Edits
I recall back in the day the most controversial claims from Plinkett were related to how a lot of the whole Naboo invasion plot doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. I agree with RLM on this one, but that point always received lots of backlash by Prequel fans eager to explain Palpatine’s amazingly nebulous and malleable master-plan that could really be whatever you want it to be.
There’s this Youtuber, Sheev Talks, who in his TPM video did a response to a lot of Plinkett’s points. He accused Plinkett of not paying attention, and claimed that the opening crawl made the conflict perfectly clear.
I don’t agree. The crawl does not explain the situation well. It was never clear to me whether the Trade Federation was for or against the trade route taxes, and the movie never specifies. It tells us the taxation is in dispute. That’s all.
And the guy then goes on to explain the specifics of Palpatine’s plans and contingencies, a lot of which feels more like conjecture than anything else, then acts like it’s all perfectly obvious.
Yeah, that is exactly how most Prequel fans defend this. Or they say “it doesn’t matter, it’s just background details”. Except, it’s not background details. It’s actually like… the entire plot. Plinkett emphasizes this at one point, saying something like (paraphrasing) “the Trade Federation invading Naboo is the entire plot of the movie so it’s important to understand what everyone’s motivation is and why they’re doing it.” I recall countless debates about this on online forums in the “Dark Age” pre-social media era of the Internet.
The Phantom Menace portrays the Trade Federation as the bad guys, and shows us Trade Federation armies marching through Naboo and bossing people around. We know they’re the bad guys, and the entire movie revolves around defeating them and freeing Naboo. But it’s hilarious how nobody can provide a straight answer to the question “WHY are they even invading Naboo at all?” Possible Prequel-defense answers include: