It’s basic math. It’s not just that there’s one more person. If you have a scene with two people, person A, and person B, then you have only one relationship: relationship AB. But if you have three people, you have tripled the number of relationships. By simply adding person C to the equation, you still have relationship AB, but you now also have relationship AC, and relationship BC. Increase this one more time, to four people, and you suddenly have six relationships: AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, and CD. So yes, this statement makes sense. Because it’s not just keeping your camera fixed on one more person, especially in an action scene. It is also about conveying information regarding the constantly shifting nature of these relationships. In a scene with two people, if person A punches person B, then I’m pretty sure person B will respond. But in a scene with three, it’s not that simple. So that’s your geometry lesson for the day.
why does everyone think this was a dumb point? a fight with 3 people at the same time wasn't done before and requires more impressive choreography. it is a great setpiece, I don't get all this hate for things that weren't even bad. I get why people didn't like a lot of the choices made storywise, but hating on the fact the action fight scenes got more elaborate? don't get it
@@silverlightsinaugust2756 Your point would be valid if the relationships you talk about meant something. When I watched the movie in the theater, I was utterly bored because by that point we didn't actually know anything about these characters. The failure is in the writing.
@@maxxam3590 I don’t disagree with a single point Mike makes in his Plinkett review. These characters are shit. But my point isn’t that 3 is better than 2 always. My point is simply that the choreo between 2 characters is literally less complex and therefore generally less impressive than that between 3. There’s some 3 person fight scenes that fucking suck. Like when Johnny and Mark just drag Chris R to jail in The Room.
An example to back up my thought would be; Mr. Plinkett says eh doesn't understand why Jedi are arnt allowed to love, and it was never explained when the movies SHOW why; Love is an attachment that changes Anikan for the worse. Emotion Clouds you're mind etc. That's is explained in the movies. A long with some other things he missed, that I dont think Mike really Identifies with.
I mean in episode 2, you can see even in the romance scenes he probably won't do well but with good dialogue, it can be tolerable. Episode 3, he I felt did well just being a villain. Aside from Star Wars though, I've seen him in some heist movie with Adrian Brody which of course isn't from a known studio. Also, the movie kinda sucked you can tell which scenes were used for the trailer just by the way the shot them lmao.
The difference here is that Mike Stoklasa is a film graduate. He's actually critiquing these films not just trying to make funny/stupid comments about them to get an audience. The Plinkett commentary on the Star Wars prequels were legitimate criticism of how bad and lazy the writing was, how the characters acted well out of character, what didn't make sense about the plot, etc.
+Carlos Roberto "And yet he praised that abomination of Star Trek reboot." This praise, I think, would be in the context of dumb summer action films. For a popular reboot of Star Trek, it was probably what we should have expected. The Star Wars prequels, on the other hand, only were successful at selling toys.
Dr. Dhoom Not really. "Dr. Professor is a scientist. He analyzed this problem using the scientist method." The former part is supposed to explain the latter characteristic which is viewed as superior. If he said, "Mike is a film graduate, therefore, his opinion is superior," that would be an appeal to authority.
The Nostalgia Critic says vague things in his criticisms like the stuff is 'cool' and 'awesome'. Mr. Plinkett specifies exactly what he finds good and what he finds bad, AND why. Point to the Pizza Pocket guy.
Exactly. Doug is not saying that the STAR WAR SEQUELS are good...but just pointing out some elements with potential and some good value, that he was able to enjoy. (That why he said cool a couple of times) (also..he also had some nice arguments)... Mr pickle is commenting about the films overall. That doesnt make him more smarter...( I like his thoughts and other reviews) ..but its just more of the same that A LOT of other fans have already pointed out . Both are valid opinions.
William Hunter So first of all, why would you expect any negative criticisms in a video with the title: "11 good things in Star Wars Prequels"? Secondly, those 11 things sure seemed quite specific, and i would accept "cool" and "awesome" as valid opinions, because they are. I don't get what is vague about "the fight beetween Maul and the guys from Modern Talking being cool"? But let me help you out buddy: he was entertained by that particular scene, so much so, that he started his '11 good things in SW Prequels" list with that. And he thought that his feelings were best described by the word "cool". Because you are able to operate a keyboard, i will assume that you got that part. From here, there are only 3 options: 1. You aren't even talking about these two videos, but in general about the two guys. And that would be just fine, except for the fact that in your last sentence you give Plinkett only one point, which totally contradicts the in general possibility. 2. You find "cool" and "awesome" vague, in which case i would really love to listen to a conversation in your social circles, when you guys specify to each other what you mean by cool every time you use the word. "Pulling the skin on the shaft really fast, is what i meant by awesome. But of course, with an unfortunetaly timed entrance from my mom, things can can akward, just to also specify the bad." - Am i doing good? 3. You have the cognitive capabilities of planctons and you fail at the most basic levels of comprhension. Stupid fuck. #EveryTownNeedsItsTaygetos
Chris LeRose His style of comedy. Why does Plinkett intentionally talk with a muffled voice and often bring some random plot-holed "dark humor" device into his videos or goes off on a trail about random shit?
Yeah, I suppose it comes down to difference in taste. To me the nostalgia critic is like nails on a chalkboard, while I know from showing people the Plinkett reviews he's def annoying to some.
Doug Walker is afraid to offend anyone where as Mike has a better understanding of acting and film making. Just watch an episode of Half in the Bag and a skit by Doug Walker and you see the huge difference in talent. Doug just yells a lot and the teenagers seem to like that sorta thing.
In the hierarchy of annoying voices, it goes: 1. the guy who voices Hiccup in "How to Train Your Dragon" 2. that bitch from "The Nanny" 3. The Nostalgia Critic
A lightsaber cuts you the shit in half, that's why I always thought they were so timid with them. It made sense. The flashdance of the prequels just looks goofy to me.
EXACTLY I always thought they were slow in the original trilogy because the weapons could end you in a single second. Like at the end of Kill Bill part 1 the actual fighting between the two main characters is mostly nothing but the standoff. When they strike each other its almost instantaneous. It looks real. The same way the original trilogy's fights feel more real
They aren't Jedi for no reason. They have the force and are trained to fight like they do in the prequels. But in episode 4,5, and 6 the ''Jedi Art'' has been lost due to the Empires takeover.
G@H Productions BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE SENSE Who would they fight against? No one uses swords and the Sith were supposed to be extinct. The lightsaber was supposed to be a symbol of authority. Maybe they could stop laser fire but other lightsabers? Why would they train for that if the Sith have been gone for thousands of years? Contextually it doesn't make sense
Peter Diamond was replaced by Nick Gillard, who completely rethought the Jedi fighting styles. George Lucas envisioned that during this time period, the Jedi had reached their peak in terms of martial arts development, so the choreography had to be a great deal faster and more sophisticated. Gillard wanted to convey the sense that the Jedi had studied every single style of swordplay available, his idea being that since they had chosen such a short-range weapon, they would have to be so good if they're up against ray guns and lasers. Gillard choreographed the duels as what he described as "a chessgame played at a thousand miles an hour," with every move being analogous to a check.
I realize they wanted it to be intricate but that doesn't make us connect to the characters any better or give the fights more meaning. The Jedi were supposed to change the world around them through wise intellectual influence and force influence. Whenever someone watching sees the fight scenes its overwhelming because of how much fancy bs happens in 5 seconds. It looks fake because in the intricacies of it there is barely any humanity. The first fight scene in A New Hope didn't even focus on the lightsabers. It focused on the two characters with a lot of personal history talking to each other for the first time in decades. The fighting style didn't even mater
Just demonstrates how Doug makes blanket statements to not piss anyone and Mike makes blanket statements to piss everyone and both reach the conclusion that who cares Hollywood sucks.
By that logic shouldn't that make all the action scenes in RWBY terrible? I mean RWBY is a pretty divisive series in general but everyone (even those who hate it) agrees that action scene's are great. So I don't really see how being choreographed makes it bad
TeamTowers1 You can't compare RWBY and Star Wars. They're so completely different it makes no sense to equate them. If you want examples of good sword fights that don't feel like choreography, watch Seven Samurai, Die Another Day, the fight between Maximus and Commodus in Gladiator, or (ironically) The Empire Strikes Back. A fight that looks choreographed is bad because it breaks immersion. The point of movies is to be convincing and if you're watching a sword fight and keep thinking that the fight looks rehearsed then you will be unconvinced about its authenticity. Real fights don't look choreographed.
100legodude I wasn't comparing RWBY to Star Wars in general I was only comparing the action scenes. So explain to me why it's cool for them to do or these unrealistic moves and not cool for Star Wars characters to do them.
TeamTowers1 When you compare the fight scenes and why one type of fight sequence is more appropriate in one of the movies, then you have to look at the movie/show on a broader scale and analyze *why* they would use a realistic or unrealistic fight sequence in that specific context. This is because the fights serve a different purpose in (for example) RWBY compared to Star Wars. In RWBY, the action is easily probably the most important thing in the entire series, with Star Wars and the other movies I listed as good examples of sword fights done well, it is much more about the characters and character motivations. The fight is not as important as the characters and the end result. If the fight is drawn out, it adds nothing to the story, if the fight is too choreographed, it breaks the immersion of the viewer. We begin to realize that these are not real people, we become less able to relate to them. With action-centric shows and movies such as RWBY, this is not the case. We already acknowledge that the characters are not real and the main reason that we are watching is for the exciting action. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with these kinds of films, I am just arguing that unrealistic sword fights do not have a place in films that are more focused on the plot and characters.
100legodude Every movie that has been, or will ever be considered great have all included characters that were fully developed, and memorable. The prequels had none that qualified, and without characters you bond with, how can you get invested in the story?
They should have had Yoda only fight the Emperor and they both should have not used lightsabers. It would be cool to have a fight between two people using the force.
Exactly, we see their use for a bit, with Yoda dodging Sidious and only using the force when necessary, followed by that intense lightning clash. If that was the entirety of the duel it would have been so much better. Especially considering how the fight started, with each using the force on each other.
Gavin Petrie I think it should have just kept him as a teacher like when it showed him teaching younglings, interspersed with a few conversations with Obi Wan and council members where he just inputs some of the wisdom he was iconic for. Though if they did still make him fight the Emperor, it really should just be purely force based. Theres a reason both are so iconic after all.
Okay I'm going to get this out of the way right now: I like BOTH The Nostalgia Critic (Doug Walker) and Mr. Plinkett (RedLetterMedia). I think they both have a unique and intelligent way of doing funny reviews. Of course they are both very different. The comedy from The Nostalgia Critic comes more from his over-the-top Looney-Tunes style anger (which some might consider annoying, but I rather enjoy it). Mr. Plinkett's humor is more subdued and much darker (which can be very off-putting to some viewers, but again I enjoy it). But the both of them clearly have a strong understanding of film and emote a good amount of intelligence in their work. This video was made to play off of their differing opinions about the Star Wars movies rather than put anyone down.
The fact that two famous critics on the internet (Mr. Plinkett and Nostalgic Critic Guy) can't agree on both the good and bad stuff about the prequels demonstrates that this trilogy will still remain the most discussed of all time. Unless... the sequels (Episode 7, 8, 9) are released and then many people will find out that the sequels are different from the originals and will start complaining about something else... You can never make the exact same series twice. People who are stuck with the originals don't realise that the original and prequel trilogy were made at two different time period in our real world and things were very different 37 years ago (hell, internet didn't even exist back then!). And the sequel trilogy which is made now 10-15 years after the prequels will also be different from the two previous trilogies. Things are never the same as they once were. I'm not saying that the prequels couldn't have been better. No, there was a lost opportunity with the prequels and it's a shame. But it cannot be the same as the originals. You know, you don't have to love the new Star Wars movies (prequels and sequels). But it is very surprising sometimes at how vehemently people get if they are not satisfied, which is scary! And that is why I won't be surprised if we see a new group of "sequel haters", the same as the "prequel haters", after the release of Episode 7.
Great video, thanks for putting it together. I agree that it feels like showing differing opinions, not trying to put anyone down. I happen to agree with the Plinkett side of the argument the vast majority of the time, but it doesn't feel like it's insulting either side. NC can get enjoyment out of the action scenes, taking them for the visual spectacle that they are, even if the story surrounding them is terrible, while Plinkett can't help but feel that there's no tension or stakes because of the shallow, poorly written story and sterile CG environment. It's 'different strokes for different folks'. Seems like some people aren't realizing that NEITHER OF THEM LIKE THE PREQUELS.
Well, if you take the excerpts in this video, it's clear that with Mr. Plinkett "quality of story" ranks higher than, say, in your face exciting surfaces (e.g. amazing CGI, great battle scenes). Anybody can understand exciting surfaces, it's just there, just like adrenaline, but it takes a brain attuned to drama to grasp the former. And it's interesting how Nostalgic Critic Guy, described as Looney-Tunes above, in his critique style also uses an in-your-face approach. It's style over content and I find that super-fucking-annoying, in the movies i watch, the movie critics I browse or the woman (i don't) date - a great chick doesn't need any makeup, because that's what she is, a great chick. But we live in a cry-out-loud-media environment and I repeat myself, it's super-fucking-annoying.
You say that but you clearly edited your video to make NC look like a buffoon in this. I like both as well but I have to side with RLM on this topic, LordoftheJimmyRustler.
***** What was lacking in the prequels was the character development, their charisma, and an easy plot to follow for the audience. I like the ideas behind the story told in the prequels, but it was badly exposed in Episode 1 & 2 and that is why it's confusing and difficult to follow. Episode 3 finally got it right, it only focused on the story of Anakin and that was the movie I was waiting all this time after being disappointed by the two previous prequels. When I compare the prequels to the animated Clone Wars series directed by Dave Filoni, I think to myself that many of the elements exposed in this series should have been in the movies. I prefer this series than Episode 1 & 2. For me The Clone Wars and Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith are the prequel trilogy. About the sequel trilogy (Episode 7, 8 & 9), the danger behind it is that it repeats almost the same story as in the original, just in order to satisfy old fan boys from the 1980's or the "prequel haters". But by repeating the same story, some people will finally say: "You know Disney doesn't have any ideas. They only want to sell movies..." And that is what I fear the most. After having seen all 6 previous films I thought to myself that there was nothing more to say. I didn't pay any attention to the expanded universe material. For me, the story of Star Wars is the story told in all 6 films plus the Clone Wars. That is why I was surprised as many by the announcement of Episode 7. The 3 trilogies (prequels, originals & sequels) will be the core films. The spinn-off and stand-alone films that Disney wants to produce will be off series. So they have to keep the story evolving from Episode 1 to Episode 9, not repeating the same story trilogies after trilogies.
I'm glad that someone compiled a comparison of these two reviews. Plinkett is definitely more in-touch with the spirit of the film, whereas NC is more superficial in his analysis. Even though I used to agree with the NC-style interpretation, Plinkett convinced me that his perspective is more valid. He simply has more evidence to support his reasoning, as he draws comparisons from the original trilogy, the prequels, and the George Lucas context regarding production. Both views are valid to an extent, but as an analysis, the RLM review holds more merit.
You have to remember though that neither reviewer liked the movie; Nostalgia Critic was just taking a Devil's Advocate stance, which is an admirable attempt that can lead to deeper understanding of a work or of the culture surrounding the work. I'm not saying either is better than the other; I quite like both. But one is arguing for a point he agrees with, while the other is arguing for a point he largely disagrees with, is how I interpreted the video.
Plinkett demolished Nostalgia Critic. The Red Letter Media's Star Wars reviews are the best reviews I've ever seen. They're practically as long as the movies yet they are even more watchable. There are moments where I'm falling out of my chair laughing at the disturbingly dark humor. I enjoyed his reviews more than the movies and that's a pretty insane accomplishment
Sam Non Yes...finally the Prequels are good for something. The Plinkett reviews are the best movie analysis EVER and now we know we needed super-crappy Prequels to allow these fantastic criticisms to exist.
AkimboCorndogs He's doing a fantastic job of EXPOSING the Prequels in meticulous detail. He's taking garbage and turning it into Art. George Lucas deserves to be rebuked in such a thorough way for making that crap. It's brilliant because it's like watching Lucas get spanked on his ass until it's bright red THREE times in a row.
+AkimboCorndogs Wrong. You're missing the talent that it takes to review them as well as he did. His analysis doesn't just come off as some wannabe director who attacks Lucas because he's jealous. Plinkett points out, in entertaining fashion I might add, how the various elements of the prequels fail to live up to even basic storytelling and directing criteria. Plinkett is AMAZING.
I think Mike Stoklasa has a lot more experience and wisdom about movies and making them. He put a lot more work into his reviews. I love Doug and what he does but I don't think he's seeing it from as objective a standpoint. You can just tell by the way they handle the information they are presenting that Mike has a lot better grasp on both writing a review and being funny without pandering. Nostalgia Critic is hilarious, but he panders a lot and sometimes just glazes over more in-depth possibilites. "it's awesome" is not really a good way to make your point. This video was great and I gotta say it shows how much better Mike is at this than Doug.
Yeah, I think the difference is pretty clear. The guy in the glasses reminds me of one of my nerdy coworkers attempting to sound intelligent while ranting about a film. Plinkett comes off more as the type that wouldn't say anything unless he knew what he was talking about in the first place.
Of course, it should be noted that Nostalgia Critic is a character. I think everybody knows Plinkett is a character (hopefully... otherwise, they'd be calling the cops after watching any of his reviews!), but not everybody knows NC is a character. Doug Walker, the guy portraying him, is actually a pretty calm and normal guy when he's not playing the character. He does the high-pitched annoying yelling on purpose, and has said that NC is supposed to not be taken seriously. The character is that of the typical film nerd who takes everything too seriously, over-reacts to problems in the films, childish at times, etc. The opinions being expressed are pretty much what Walker believes, but the way it's presented is supposed to be taken as at least somewhat of a parody. So when he says things like, "I don't care if it doesn't make sense, this is AWESOME!", it's not necessarily supposed to taken as Doug Walker's best argument. It's just meant to appeal to that nerdy sensibility. That being said... I agree that Stoklasa and the rest of RLM are funnier and more insightful most of the time.
That's a good point man. I will say that I've watched Doug Walkers OOC videos where he talks about movies and though he is definitely more insightful than NC is, he uses a lot of the same reasoning. I LOVE his presentation of the information that's what makes him funny, I guess I just think Plinkett's translates better to movies that require far more depth in their critisism
"as objective". Your deflections into semantics aside, you're only mostly wrong. Subjective yes, but there is degrees on subjectivity like saying "I like turtles so TMNT is good" is pure subjective because it has nothing to do with anyone else but you. The point is that Mike is better at speaking from a more general audience persepective
That's why almost everybody (including people who liked Critic back in the day) now find him unbearable. His humor genuinely doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's at about the same level as a bad Adam Sandler movie or post-revival "Family Guy," where there's no actual jokes. There's almost never any insightful criticism, so all you're left with is Doug's "comedy" repertoire, which consists solely of 1) yelling, 2) yelling swear words, and 3) making banal pop culture references. There's also no build-up or downtime, so all his videos are just a relentless barrage of obnoxious screaming and terrible non-jokes. I can't say I ever liked the Critic that much back in the day but now he grates on me like chicken wire across the plumbs. His humor can only appeal to children or mentally subnormal adults.
+Star Wars Episode 1 Legend of the Sith Amulet I think he has. He talked about the original plinkett videos during his video about the films he'll never review.
Nostalgia Critic is a parody of himself, and a hypocrite. He's everything he criticizes. His humor is cliche, his skits are overproduced and contrived, and he strikes me as having a very limited understanding of film as an art form. All of that is in sharp contrast to the character of Plinkett. The humor of Plinkett balances his very poignant observations and analysis.
The funny thing for me is, that the CGI-Movies are in fact aging faster than the older ones. EP I-III are looking more and more fake to me and the old CGI really looks more and more lifeless then the old models. Perhaps the great age of CGI (which is hopefully over now) was also the time were this technologie was not fully developed and only created colourfull grafics but not the ilusion of life.
I guess in order to make CGI believable, it needs to be combined with an interesting story or interesting characters or both... if it's just shit flying everywhere (like the transformers movies) after some time you eventually stop caring for the thing that's happening...we usually need a reason or interest in the characters to make CGI believable.. Like some people here mentioned Spiderman 2, Jurassic Park, etc... as kids we liked these movies because they had a ton of action and CGI and all that... but as adults, we can really get into the stories that these movies tried to tell and the themes that they tried to explore.. and how well they executed these movies.. practical effects that are well done will always be superior sure.. but in a well constructed movie with okay CGI, I think people can overlook the CGI elements of it..
+gsimon123 Agreed. Mike isn't a god or anything, but he knows more about film than Doug will ever know. Speaking of trapped basements, have you planned your next Fun Jet Vacation?!
Some of the best editing I've seen on UA-cam ever. You managed to make these two completely different videos of different reviewers play off of each other as if it were a crossover review or something. Excellent
Struggled watching this as Nostalgia Critic's smug, over-sold delivery gets on my tits, but this is required viewing if you want to understand why Mike Stoklasa is one of the best, most imaginative film critics working today.
He is an actual genius. Which is something different from being talented. Doug undeniably (was) talented and witty, but he got lost in his own ego. Mike is someone truly special. Not trying to kiss his ass for the sake of it, just my observation.
Nostalgia Critic can be an okay comedian at times, but it's obvious that he doesn't know much more about film than anyone with an intermediate interest in the medium. I know more about movies than he does, and I'm not a professional critic. The RLM crew blow him out of the water in both comedic chops and just the quality of their criticism. They know film on a technical and artistic level that NC just doesn't seem to get. They're orders of magnitude better.
Sorry but I disagree. RLM's comedy can be obnoxious, annoying and really childish in a lot of times. And sometimes they give very poor reasons when they critique a movie, so please stop the RLM worship.
No mate. Doug Walker. ...KNOWS about movies. Just because he is trying to see something positive in these bad movies...it doesnt mean he is stupid or something else. ..its just a Valid Opinion from a Film Goer. ....Mr picklet (who just like the Nostalgia critic is ALSO a character) is just looking for the bad stuff. And thats valid too. .... finding reasons to support why he never enjoyed those films.(...but...unable to see that every movie can have merits or a positive value i some kind of form)
The best complement I can come up with for Yoda is this. When we first meet Yoda in Empire, he is quite clearly a puppet. But the more we see Yoda the less and less this is obvious. By the time Luke leaves Dagobah to fight Vader I find it hard to believe he's still a puppet. That is powerful cinema.
It is all in your fucking nostalgia goggles and you deciding to like it. My father saw ESB in theaters when he was 14 and he thought Yoda and the whole movie was incredibly childish... And to still to this day he thinks only the original he saw when he was 11 is the only Star Wars movie that is bearable or enjoyable. There is so much clever stuff in the OT but so much childish stuff, oversimplifications and akward dialoque and acting too. You just overlooked it because they were the movies that set the standard and the expectations for these modern movies we currently scrutinize... People's reactions to the PT are overreactions while the OT is super overrated. Not implying that OT didn't do the broad strokes right or the PT movies aren't traditionally bad movies, but the statement is true regardless.
@@kungolaf4499 The brilliant thing is that we can all watch the movies still to this day, and judge for ourselves. I know when I first watched the original trilogy in the early 90's as a kid, I didn't think it was childish at all. Nor did most of the people who watched them in theaters when they originally were shown. I can't fathom how your father would like the first one, but not Empire, as Empire is clearly the least childish Star Wars movie ever made, and the one with the most serious, somber tone. I mean, if your criticism of the OT is that "it's childish," then the first movie definitely fits that better than Empire. But whatever, everyone's entitled to their opinion. You can go on your little rant about how flawed the OT is. Nobody has ever claimed that it is flawless. They're just far better movies. And despite the technical limitations of the time, they hold up very well even today. That's because the core of the story (at least in the first two movies, less so with Return of the Jedi) is the centerpiece of the trilogy and it's done very well. There's not tons of scenes of dialog dumping exposition rather than showing us what is actually happening, unlike the prequels. You can always tell when someone loves the prequels because they'll sit there telling you how overrated the original trilogy is and how the prequels aren't actually all that bad. The problem is that this just isn't true. The OT is loved for good reason; they're great films. The PT is loathed because they're not. That's just reality.
@@rars0n Or maybe there are people like me who know while the PT isn't as good as the OT trilogy they aren't bad films. Telling information isn't always a bad thing and in a trilogy with some serious political themes, of course it would happen.
@@Jdudec367 I'm sorry, but from a filmmaking perspective, the prequel trilogy ARE objectively bad. The dialogue is terrible, the shot framing is basic and terrible, and the character interaction with everything CGI sticks out like a sore thumb. There are many more examples of technical deficiencies that I won't bother to go into. Lucas was on autopilot when he made them, and it's evident in nearly every shot. The original Star Wars movie was actually a mess when it was first put together. Marcia Lucas had to come in and re-edit the whole thing in order to turn it into the movie we got. Her creative ideas are arguably a large part of why Lucas' earlier movies were so successful. The political stuff in the prequels is stupid. It makes practically zero sense and much of it was shoehorned in so that Lucas could try to make some kind of political analogy to the Bush presidency. The more you examine it, the more it falls apart. The fact that all of the associated dialogue is so boring (a problem with MOST of the dialogue in those movies) is all the more reason why it should have been edited or cut completely, but by that point, nobody around Lucas wanted to challenge him at all. That's why you have endless political nonsense in a movie trilogy designed specifically to appeal to kids.
@@rars0n They aren't objectively bad. The dialogue isn't all bad, the shot framing isn't terrible or that basic. It doesn't all stick out or stick out badly. He wasn't on autopilot but he should have had some more help with the films, although not like he didn't' try to get more help with the films. I know that. The political stuff isn't stupid and it does make sense, it wasn't shoehorned in and it wasn't a political analogy of the bush presidency since the prequel films were filmed before bush even became president. It doesn't fall apart the more you examine it. Not all of the associated dialogue is boring, a lot of it really isn't. More people should have challenged Lucas but the political stuff wasn't nonsense and it's clear despite what Episode 1 was like, the trilogy wasn't meant for little kids.
The Nostalgia Critic should not review movies. It's clear that he knows nothing about what makes a movie good. You can tell by the way he thinks screaming and shouting like a 3 year old counts as humour, and the way thinks things going boom makes it look impressive. He acts like a 10 year old boy, he doesn't care unless it looks "awesome and cool".
@You tuber I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not lmao. Doug is one of the dumbest people on the planet, knows nothing about film, and is CRIMINALLY unfunny in every piece of trash he has ever shat out onto the internet
@You tuber I definitely don't always agree with Plinkett, he does get a little "inside" for me at points, specifically when he generalizes how a moment effects the audience, when that is more an individual thing then a fact. Walker, man I tried, but I just can't listen to him. For me, he's too easily dismissive of things, almost too much of a big picture guy. TLDR: I disagree with Mike when he tells me what I should feel, and I disagree with Walker because he always seems to tell me not to care.
+Ana Gonçalves Pereira You know, the first time I heard his episode I review 9I've listened to it countless times since) I thought that there was no way I could get through it, even though the content was incredible. But then I got into Red Letter Media's other stuff, and at this point Mr, Plinkett (Mike) sounds normal to me. It's even kind of soothing. It is jarring the first time you hear it though.
And people are too blind to accept that Nostalgia Critic slipped in quality after Demo Reel. When you think about it, Nostalgia Critic is the Channel Awesome equivalent of what SpongeBob is to Nickelodeon. A once-kickass show (despite a couple rotten apples) that slipped in quality after a major project, and in subsequent years, fans have endured episodes that were mediocre or complete sh*t (we're looking at you, Blues Brothers 2000 review).
Kyle Pittman The only Let's Play content that's worse than his Simspons: Bart's Nightmare video is Let's Plays by DSP. If you look up This Is How You DON'T Play, you know what I'm talking about.
Kyle Pittman The last recent one I saw from him other than the Top 11 Good Things About the Star Wars Prequels was the Old v New on Spider-Man. Sooner or later, he'll realise that Amazing Spider-Man 2 was so shit, it completely ruined Sony's plans for the series, which mean NO Sinister Six movie, NO Amazing Spider-Man 3 and that the Sony hacks of last year proved the troubled production of the film. Goes to show you what happens when a studio doesn't give a damn about its audience, source material or their own credibility.
Red Letter Media hit the Star Wars prequels right on the nose. I remember going to see Star Wars episode 1 in the movie theaters and it depressed me, the whole movie lacked any emotion, it seemed like every scene was just filler to get to the light saber fight scene. Star Wars episodes 1-3 all lacked emotion, I could not connect to the characters. Believe me I have tried. Most of the scenes in the prequels were filmed in a studio against a green screen, and all the characters made the same movements, they sat down, got up, walked to a window, stared out the window, rinse and repeat. There was no sense of urgency, they walked everywhere. The light saber fight scenes lacked all emotion, it was too choreographed. The script was terrible. The droids as enemies was a terrible mistake, they posed no threat to the Jedi at all and seemed like a nuisance to them more than anything. It would have made more sense if the clones were the enemies, and the Republic had to draft people to fight against them. After all it is called " the Clone Wars" you would think that they would be fighting clones. Yoda was supposed to be a Jedi Master, and Darth Sideous was supposed to be a Sith Lord, it would have been a thousand times better if they showed off their knowledge of the force in a mage like fight scene instead of another choreographed light saber fight scene. The light saber fight scene between Anakin and Obi Wan was waaayyyyy to long it bored me to sleep. To sum it all up, the prequels were just terrible. It seemed like George Lucas just half assed everything. No matter how much CGI, bright colors, or choreographed light saber fight scenes are in the prequels, nothing can redeem those movies.
It's like RLM says in one of the reviews. "If you're under the age of twenty and you think The Empire Strikes Back is the worst of the series, because it's the most boringest of the series. Then you need to turn this review off, because I'm going to explain how much of a fucking idiot you are." So true. The only people I've ever met who staunchly defend the prequels are kids who didn't grow up with the originals. All they care about is the energy drink fueled lightsaber dance off. It might as well have been Star Wars Episodes 1-3. You just got served. Shitty acting, shitty direction, shitty writing. Even Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman coudn't save these films. That's how bad they were. But hey, you were six. I get it. I was too when Jedi came out. (and let's not forget, old school fans. You hated Ewoks too.) But it's time to admit it. They were badly conceived. The originals weren't great either. Stop being a fan boy, watch critically, and try to find enjoyment where you can. Not schlub out twenty bucks of your hard earned money on someone going. "EPIC POPULAR FRANCHISE THAT YOU GREW UP WITH! NOSTALGIA! WATCH IT IN FIVEDMOTIONSURROUNDEARSPLITTINGTHX! BUY THE MERCH! YOU NEED A LIGHTSABER TO BE FULFILLED!!! BUY IT NAO!!!"
ArkhamCircle I am not coming at this from nostalgia, I am coming at this from a movie fan perspective. Star Wars episodes 4-6 had good flow, the script was solid, it had feeling, emotion, and they filmed it on location and not in some studio with a green screen. Hell even Luke Skywalker's final duel with Darth Vader had more emotion than Obi-Wan and Anakin's fight scene. Luke showed anger, he pounded Darth Vader into submission and cut off his hand. Luke Skywalker in episode 4 was a character we all could relate to on some level. He was a young Man trapped on Tattooine farming with his father. We as the audience can feel his tension, his desire to be free, to leave and to be a pilot to fight against the tyrannical Empire. We could also relate to his adopted father ( his uncle) trying to keep Luke out of the war by any means necessary because he loved him. Anakin in episode 1 was a character no one can relate to, in fact he served no real purpose in the film other than to introduce the character. In episodes 2 and 3 Anankin was nothing more than an annoying, whiny, immature turd that no one cared for.
"I'd rather see Episode III than blood in my urine." I would actually have an emotional response to pissing blood. Star Wars hasn't raised my pulse since the last millennium.
@@CIRILLABRUCE 😁 I see what you did. That franchise is so finished, you can't even remember which Episode is which. Seriously, though, that musical number in Jabba's Palace was so fuckin embarrassing, I almost killed myself in the theater.
In my opinion I do see shades of good elements in the Prequels. However, Return of the Jedi has problems but overall it's strengths out weigh the bad. The Prequels have this problem only in reverse, there's just so much dumb crap that it completely outweighs any good elements they may have underneath.
I mean, Return of the Jedi may be a flawed gem, especially flawed in the first half, but it's still my favorite movie in the entire franchise, particularly for most of the events in the second half, with my favorite scene in any Sci-fi movie ever being the duel between Luke and Vader on board the second Death Star.
Doug Walker hasn't been watchable since like 2011 tbh. And that's being generous. Loved NC back in the day but the humor has long since withered away. No ones fault, it's just very '2000's' ya know?
+justinjacques766 In terms of his older reviews being better, check out the ones from 2008 like "Shazam", "Batman and Robin", "Tom and Jerry Movie", etc.
Old NC was juvenile and painfully internet white boy with an axe to grind. Shit was cringey. New NC is thought provoking at times, still juvenile at times, and less internet white boy with an axe to grind. Much less cringey now.
Roger Smith Sure, from one perspective a bunch of fanboys have their heads up their own asses and from the other it's the prequels that are full of shit.
+Gakoranus I think it's a lot more than that. It's not a simple black and white question as to whether or not the prequels as an entirety were good or not. I'm speaking on a point-to-point basis, but I guess that alluded (my apologies: eluded) you.
Roger Smith Actually things are real black and white when one side blatantly refuses to the arguments of the other without any basis. The explanations for why all of your so called points are bullshit are in the very video we're commenting on and yet somehow I'm supposed to have been "eluded" (good thing I'm not a grammar nazi pal). People with an ounce of sense in their heads hate the prequels not just because they were terrible pieces of shit, but because they actively ruined every part of a legendary tale (not perfect, but definitely legendary) that they touched.
Roger Smith Then why the fuck are you replying? "both Plinkett and the Nostalgia Critic raise some interesting points about the films" That would be the bullshit point right there. Are you blind?
+Lachie Hurburgh It depends, both people use their opinions to make films look better/worse, there's no fundamental right/wrong in film, it's art, not science
+Tom Brearley-Smith I actually quite liked him when he was on Movie Fights. But yeah in his videos I've seen it basically seems like he has a very different taste to me. The impression I get is that you'll have him sold if you put some CGI in it and add some backflips and roundhouse kicks to the fight; but I could be mistaken - he might be a contrarian too (but as a general rule I think contrarians are more persuasive and offer stronger arguments than those he offered here). Personally I have seen much better arguments defending the prequels - but they do so by invoking what could of been, for example the Jar Jar sith theory which has recently exploded... They don't try and suggest that the bad parts of the movies are actually good which NC seems to try and do.
MrAlternateTheory Y'know, I was thinking in terms of his reviews, Doug has completely changed after Demo Reel. When you compare his reviews from 2008 to 2013 onward, the difference in quality is astounding. If you look up the Listal review: "From Comic Genius to Comdeic Hack", I'm sure you would be proven further information why that may be the case.
I totally agree with Nostalgia Critic about the "preggers" scene. It's pretty much the only human scene in the prequels. The dialogue is real and the actors are given enough space to deliver it and work within the silence. Also the only good direction/editing of dialogue because this is the type of scene where "shot; reverse-shot" works because there's really no tension or conflict between the characters; it's all about "person A says something; person B processes the information, then their emotions, then says something; then person A processes, then says something". And I also agree with both reviewers that it's not fair to blame Hayden's acting. Just watch one minute of dialogue (that isn't exposition, because delivering exposition is a lot more about writing and direction than acting) and then write down the dialogue on a piece of paper. Read that dialogue and then realize that blaming acting for the outcome is like getting upset at your meal when you tell your chef they can only use dog shit, broken glass, and two-year-old mayonnaise for ingredients.
+Keifbowl Roadrunner "I totally agree with Nostalgia Critic about the "preggers" scene. It's pretty much the only human scene in the prequels." LMAO "The dialogue is real and the actors are given enough space to deliver it and work within the silence. Also the only good direction/editing of dialogue because this is the type of scene where "shot; reverse-shot" works because there's really no tension or conflict between the characters; it's all about "person A says something; person B processes the information, then their emotions, then says something; then person A processes, then says something"." So is it the only human scene, or just one where A says B and then B says A? Make up your stupid mind like. Where the fuck did you get the idea that "shot reverse shot" or whatever stands in the way of "conflict", but not "organic interaction"? "And I also agree with both reviewers that it's not fair to blame Hayden's acting. Just watch one minute of dialogue (that isn't exposition, because delivering exposition is a lot more about writing and direction than acting) and then write down the dialogue on a piece of paper. Read that dialogue and then realize that blaming acting for the outcome is like getting upset at your meal when you tell your chef they can only use dog shit, broken glass, and two-year-old mayonnaise for ingredients." Awesome, so which horrible dialogue you referring to?
Every light saber duel in the original trilogy was epic because of the meaning and feeling behind every duel. They meant something. The flipping, flying billion strike saber play in the prequels meant nothing...and it was obvious when you watched it. The younger generations criticism of these old duels is indicative of a culture that is losing it's understanding of substance. This same dynamic plays out in every aspect of their new culture. The dying of the light.
Andy Appleton Or in the original trilogy you have 3 fights: 1st fight, an old master Jedi who hasn't fought someone with a saber for years on the cusp of ascending to being a force ghost vs a machine man who hasn't fought an opponent wielding a saber for years on the decline of his power (not a recipe for an action packed fight) 2nd fight: a literal novice with absolutely no formal saber training and a rudimentary grasp of using the force vs a master who isn't trying to kill him but actually trying to convert him (this is Vader toying with Luke trying to get in his head, this wasn't actually a fight) and 3rd fight: a knight level force user whose only saber training had to come from the holocron that showed him how to craft his new saber vs a sith apprentice who knew his master was planning to replace him with his son. (Vader has given up at this point, he knows the emperor only sees this ending in one of two ways, either he kills his son or his son kills him. His job is to push Luke to the dark side, and if he can't ,then kill him. Vader gets overpowered during the first part, as he's attempting to turn Luke. so it never actually progresses to a real fight.) Prequel Fights: two orders of supernatural warrior monks who have spent millennia refining their abilities and techniques. Only a complete moron would want OT style fights in these movies.
Lantz J If you honestly don't understand that the prequels are bad writing, then you're a lost cause. Didn't think you whiny millennials would be crying so hard. But then again, it's not much of a shock, being that your whole generation is wrapped up in self-absorption and delusions of grandeur.
The prequels were just a momeymaking-machine for Lucas, made for an audience of spoiled and indifferent citizens of the new millenia. A typical product of the consumers society. The only good thing about EP I-III is, that it inspired Mr.Plinkett to one of the most perfect reviews ever made about a movie.
Ultimately, the biggest problem with the prequel trilogy, IMO, is that we have no underdogs. That's one of the key elements of a good story. The protagonist has to be facing seemingly insurmountable obstacles as the result of being in over their head. In the original trilogy, Luke was just learning about the Force. He wasn't a master or a prodigy, he was just a learner with a lot of potential. He didn't know how to fight very well, he couldn't Force push anybody, he could only just barely Force pull his light sabre out of the snow. So when he goes up against Darth Vader, he's in over his head. He's an underdog. As Plinkett explains in his reviews, Darth Vader could kill Luke at any time, but he chooses not to. He wants him alive. This adds an interesting angle to the fight. All of this is clearly established and played out dramatically. Luke is up against a titan and his struggle to even just stay afloat in the fight is obvious. When he gets his hand chopped off, it's because he didn't know how to defend himself against Vader once Vader actually tried. He makes Vader mad by hurting him and Vader reacts by cutting his hand off. Luke has no defence because he's in over his head here if Vader isn't holding back. Whereas in the prequels, we have a bunch of seemingly invincible superheroes. Anakin is SORT OF played like an underdog, but he's really not. He's a prodigy who's great at fighting, has a very competent mastery of the Force, he's Force pushing and throwing things around all the time, he gives Dooku a run for his money and only gets his arm chopped off as a result of what comes off as just a momentary loss of concentration or maybe even just a fluke... because prior to Dooku pretty much just HAPPENING to manage to get Anakin's arm, they were fighting like two titans who were pretty evenly matched. Even if the story suggests that Dooku may have been holding back so as not to kill Anakin at Sidious' request... that doesn't show in the fight. And this is the primary problem with the approach that Lucas took to the light sabre fights: all of them had to be awesome. All of them had to be fast and expertly choreographed and intense. But that doesn't necessarily always make sense with the story, or make for interesting drama. It's just entertainment value, and that's it. This is why Plinkett is right when he says that these movies can only be enjoyed by nerds who only watch Star Wars for the cool shit and not the story... or by children. When Luke fights Vader in RotJ, he's STILL not quite at Vader's level. But again, Vader had a purpose in this fight, so he doesn't kill Luke. He's trying to get Luke to come over the Dark Side. He's tempting Luke into giving into his hate and anger. And when Luke DOES give into his anger and attack Vader, this is the FIRST TIME that Luke actually gives Vader a run for his money. This is the culmination of Luke's story, so it's the ONLY appropriate time for him to become the titan, because that's the payoff. But all good payoffs need to have a twist. The twist here is that Luke only becomes a titan by giving into his hate and anger, and almost falling to the Dark Side in the process. Once he realizes this, he chooses not to go down that path and throws his light sabre away. Effectively saying that everything he aspired to become (a powerful Jedi) is not actually what he wanted. What he really wanted all along was just to prove himself, and he realizes that he doesn't do that by becoming a big dangerous titan like Vader or the Emperor did... he does it by having the strength to remain true to himself and uphold the values of the Jedi that Yoda taught him. And think about everything that Yoda said: "Wars not make one great." "Your weapons. You will not need them." [cut to Yoda using weapons to fight wars in the prequels...] All of that stuff makes the movie so much more interesting. The fight can be cool, but if it doesn't have any weight or thematic ideas behind it, then it's just a cool fight to entertain. It's not a story. When Anakin and Obi-Wan fight in RotS, there could have and should have been so much weight behind that fight. And there's a certain amount of weight there by default of the fact that they're former friends and allies who are fighting each other now... but that's about it. There's no real growth or drama during this fight. We don't have any moments where Obi-Wan struggles with the fact that he's fighting a friend. We don't see any hesitation when he gets the opportunity to cut Anakin's legs off. He just does it and then afterwards starts shouting at him. The only thing that adds any emotionality to it in the slightest is Ewan McGregor's performance. But there's little to no emotion to the scene itself as scripted. We get cliched, hollow lines like, "You were my brother, Anakin! I loved you!" Really? When did you love him? When you were criticizing him all the time, arguing with him, complaining about him behind his back, generally seeming annoyed with him a lot of the time... oh wait, maybe that is love... No, but seriously, Plinkett's right when he says in the AotC review that we never actually see a genuine relationship develop between them. This fight could have been so much more powerful if it hadn't been so much about the spectacle, but more about the characters and their relationship, like the Luke and Vader fights were. Instead, we just get the invincible superheroes fighting like titans in a ridiculously dangerous environment (I know they're Jedis, but they can still get burned, as Anakin goes on to do... You're telling me not a single speck of lava landed on them when a huge wall of it comes crashing down on the structure they're standing on and is flying around in the air all over the place... I'm sure that when people used to hear that Anakin needed the suit as a result of a fight on a volcano, they probably pictured something a bit more plausible). And it's just not interesting, because we've seen both of them fight like titans before. It's not like this is the first time Anakin has become angry enough to give Obi-Wan a run for his money. It's not like Anakin is still just an underdog learner (remember: "When I left you, I was but the learner. NOW I am the master."). Just like with Dooku, they seem pretty evenly matched. It's only the result of a dumb mistake, a momentary lapse in expert warrior titan-ism, that Anakin gets beaten. Whereas if the prequels had been done right, then Obi-Wan would be the clear master and Anakin would be the underdog, struggling to fight him. Obi-Wan can't bring himself to harm Anakin out of having developed a strong relationship with him (legitimizing the line, "He was a good friend."). Until finally, Obi-Wan really pisses Anakin off somehow and Anakin loses it, pounding Obi-Wan into submission, until Obi-Wan finally has no choice but to desperately swipe at Anakin, taking his legs off. But yeah, that's what I think ultimately makes the prequels tensionless. You don't get any tension when it feels like all the characters can handle themselves just fine, no matter what comes their way. Battle droids and Sith Lords alike are never really a huge problem, and our heroes only ever get hurt by chance. Even Padme is "on top of things" against a huge tiger creature. Where's the tension? There's no underdogs here. Oh well... hopefully the new trilogy will be back in form. At least they had the good sense to bring Lawrence Kasdan on to write. I do hope he hasn't lost his touch.
Superbly argued. Going from the denouement of ROTJ wherein Luke throws his lightsabre away and refuses to fight on, to the endless sword bashing of all three prequel films is as clear indication of just how little Lucas understood about his own series. Thank god for Lawrence Kasdan, Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand.
***** He's been confirmed as screen writer. But I'm also hearing that his script is the darkest Star wars ever, which has a slightly worrying Man of Steel-esque "let's make everyone miserable" feel about it.
I don't normally read such long winded diatribes, but that was worth the time. The kid in me likes the prequels for their ridiculous Jedi action. The adult in me hates just about everything else.
AWS Vids 100% correct. Congratulations, you have a better understanding of storytelling than Lucas. I guess that's hardly a compliment, but take of that what you will. And jeez, after watching the whole vid you gave a better critique of the movie than that blathering idiot Nostalgia Critic.
Pinkett sounds like he went to film school. He knows what he's talking about. Nostalgia's arguements mostly amount to "oh, looks so pretty". He's in over his head here.
+George McFly To be fair, the NC's video was about finding the few things he liked about the prequels. He doesn't actually like them, but he knew that other reviews, especially RLM's, were already pretty exhaustive so he decided to not bother reviewing them even though they're some of his most requested films to review. However, he thought that doing a countdown of the things he thought were okay about the prequels would be a new, fresh perspective, so that's what he decided to do a video on. So yeah, Doug wasn't trying to defend the prequels as a whole, just point out the things he actually enjoyed since other reviewers like Mr. Plinkett have already broken down everything wrong with them.
PullThePower As someone who watches him regularly and lives in Chicago, I can confirm he's from Chicago and mentions so several times. Watch him a bit more before making stupid comments.
Literally like... This comments section illustrates the problem with opinions these days - either you're right, or you're wrong. There no recognition that subjectivity exists. Sure i think the prequels are absolute shite, but some people like them and i respect that. Can't we just realise some people like them and some people don't? People getting butthurt over criticism of the prequels are just as bad as people getting butthurt over praise of the prequels. Just chill tf out.
No, you're right, a person that has a degree in film study making objective criticisms of the films is definitely an opinion. Just like when a person with a degree in chemical engineering says something about creating chemical compounds, that's just their opinion.
@@kaihedgie1747 Absolutely, when I want to learn more about the craft of filmmaking and how to get better, I go to my local Baker because obviously a Baker knows way more about filmmaking than someone who has studied and/or made films for a very long time. In fact, I think college courses should be taught exclusively by people who have no background in the subject because their contribution is just as valid as someone who studied and taught the material for many many years.
I definitely respect Doug Walker, and I enjoy his body of work. I've seen most episodes of The Nostalgia Critic, as well as his various other videos and video-blogs. I'm familiar with him and RedLetterMedia both. But I believe that Mike and the collective team at RedLetter have a more firm grasp of film-study and the art of movie making. As well as a better grasp of the subject matter of Star Wars. The points made in the Harry S. Plinkett are so biting because they're accurate. They're accurate because they're pose by a group that has both studied film and obviously cares very much about the subject of Star Wars.
Team Plinkett all the way. I don't mean to say that The Nostalgia Critic is wrong. Not at all. In fact, I think it's great that he's a little more upbeat about certain things. The thing about the prequels that disturbs me, is that there really was no drive to make them any good. Lucas already knows he's got your fuckin' money. Why bother making a decent film? I call this Michael Bayconomics. He don't give a shit either. Why should he? This formula is the death of Hollywood.
Nono you were seeing the future Which you describe is the disney sequels: first one is a rehash of a new hope to get your money, second one is subverting expectations and baiting fans to get your money, third one tries to please everyone and retcon the second movie to get your money
6:08 the fact that the nostalgia critic decided to include that completely irrelevant scene to his list of “what’s good in the star wars prequels” speaks volumes
Plinkett sounds like he actually knows what he's talking about, Douge just shoehorns in lame jokes and disguises his opinion with terrible sketches. Gonna have to go with Plinkett on this, tbh.
Mr. Plinkett > Nostalgia Critic. Not even a contest. I can't believe how diluted the Nostalgia Critic guy is. Hey dude, you've been duped by special effects!
To be honest, Doug is more of a "the prequels happened, let's go from there" while Mike is "can't we just be astonished at what a masterpiece we could've gotten?"
I'm sorry, but the landscapes from the prequels DID NOT look realistic. Tatooine was a barren, desert world. Exotic landscapes wouldn't exist on a world like that. The original trilogy is more believable, because there isn't any focus on "backgrounds." You accept that it's a boring, desolate, barren wasteland. No need to emphasize the background, because it's just more of the same. Hoth was a barren, frigid cold ice world. Exotic landscapes wouldn't exist on the world like that, either. There's no empahasis on the backdrop, because it's unimportant. The audience need only know that we're on an ice world. Shoehorning wide-angle shots of exotic backdrops doesn't convince me we're on another world. It's just meaningless, pointless window dressing. Endor was a forest moon. It wasn't exotic, it was just a moon covered in dense forests. Depicting Naboo, Coruscant, or any of the other worlds as these exotic, fantasy-laden planets isn't realistic. Naboo looked like world comparable to a wet, rain forests environment. There aren't any exotic waterfalls or towering rock faces. Coruscant was basically a planet covered in one large city, but it shatters the entire Star Wars story by depicting business as usual in every shot. As Plinkett points out, it's as if 90% of the population weren't even aware of the rise and fall of both the Jedi Order and the Empire. They probably just read a one-column article on it in their morning newspaper.
It also didn't help that the CGI itself looked really terrible and unrealistic. It looked like a videogame in a bad way, made even worse and less believable by how poorly the real actors were meshed against the backdrop. It pulled you out of the movie every time you saw the actors walking against rendered backgrounds that failed to seem like real places they were in.
trouty606 Agreed. One other youtuber noted how badly the contrast was between shots of the actors up close and CGI-littered wide shots. Imagine the painstaking work that went into the wide angle shot of the Cloud City landing platform in "The Empire Strikes Back." A life-sized Falcon, a correctly-lit walkway, and a seamless matte painted background.
Digital Intent Almost all of those pics are from The Phantom Menace and AotC. Now show me the practical effects used in the final battle between Kenobi & Anakin. Besides, I don't know what you're trying to prove; the fact that *SOME* practical effects were used doesn't diminish the fact that an over-reliance on CG was a big minus for the prequels. The Battle Droids pictured were used as stand in, not for versions in shots that would be moving. Moving Battle Droids were 100% CG. Yoda was CG. Dex was CG. Entire sequences in AotC & RotS were 100% CG. And I love how you CG ass kissers like to bring up that blue screens were used in the original trilogy, as if no one knows that. NO fucking shit, Sherlock! You don't think I'm aware that the speeder chase on Endor was shot against a blue screen?! Your post proves nothing, nor does it change anything. I stand by what I said - the wide-angle shots of Naboo and Coruscant depicting lush, exoctic backdrops looked as fake as a 3 dollar bill. Where's your practical FX pics from the opening battle sequence to RotS? Sequence looked 100% CG, because it was.
Digital Intent *Not sure if compliment or insult* I'm not one to say "everything was CGI!" and I'm not one to dismiss it altogether. Films like Jurassic Park and Terninator 2 proved that CGI has it's place in film, but there comes a point like "Battleship" or "Transformers" where it just becomes overkill. As many people often describe, the story becomes built around the CG FX, rather than the CG FX being used to aid in telling the story. In the forum's defense though, I think one poster summed it up pretty consisely. I was a bit stunned that much of the volcano work was practical and not CG, but the problem is that it's been so heavily altered digtially that it *ALL LOOKS CG.* The final shot of the volcanoes looked 100% CG because it had been too heavily doctored. For comparison, examine the wide-angle shot of the Falcon on the landing pad at Cloud City as Han approaches Lando. It was a seamless mix of full-size sets with a matte painting for the city in the distance. It's the two elements combined. We only HEAR cloud cars zooming overhead, but don't actually SEE them in frame. It doesn't overcrowd the shot, and thus the shot looks believable. (After all, the point of the shot is too capture Han venturing away from his personal sanctuary (the Falcon) to greet Lando, someone he sincerely hopes he can trust. The shot wasn't meant to give you a crash course in goings-on at Cloud City) The CG-edited shots in the PT just contrasted so badly against the close-ups shot on actual sets, because in the close ups, the backgrounds are bland with very little happening, whereas the wide shots fill the entire frame with shit happening, and it just becomes a few seconds of sensory overload. Once again, for comparison, I'll turn back to the Cloud City example: In the wide angle shot of the Falcon, we see other towers in the distance, a skyline, and very little else happening in the background. In the following close-up shots that cover the exchange of dialogue between Han & Lando, the backgrounds are ALSO relatively devoid of activity, and so the two respective shots mesh together seamlessly. You follow? I'd also like to add that an over-reliance on CG wasn't the only reason I dislike the prequels. The stories themselves is perhaps my biggest gripe.
Digital Intent Wasn't trying to act like an ass. I apologize if it came across that way. Yes, I ramble too much. Occupational hazard, I'm afraid. It's nice to hear someone else notice the pesky color grading. It's something I've become more critical of in recent months, because it's beginning to look like we're going from black & white television to color television to cyan/yellow television. Haven't seen Battleship, eh? You're not missing anything. Seriously. It's a CG laden 2 hr advertisement for the US Navy. Saw Transformers once because I grew up with the cartoons as a kid. Considering how brutally Bay butchered it (and the Ninja Turtles now, it seems), I had no desire to see the others.
I like Doug. Really. But I think Plinkett is even a Little bit more funny and a Little bit more direct, honest and maybe competent. That Scene in the opera was...so bad. And you dont even get the time to see what those fucking Mon Calamari are doing in that strange waterball. And like Plinkett said. Why does Palpatine know all this fucking things?
The Jedi (at least in the prequels) were meant to be like samurai. Those who had total control over their emotions, therefore total control over their blade. What Lucas didn't realize is that samurai still had wives and other "attachments". So the idea that they weren't allowed to love is bullshit, and only exists as an excuse to piss Anakin off.
I can see and appreciate both sides of the argument on the lightsaber duels. I don't care if the fights in the prequels were choreographed, they're freakin awesome! I've always been a balls to the wall kinda guy, so I love the long duels with all the flips and kicks and lava! It make me want to stand up and scream "YEAH!!!!!!" On the other hand, I'd be lying if I said I didn't agree with Plinkett about what the light saber duels were about in the original trilogy. They were as much a battle of wills as well as battles with swords. They were philosophical debates as much as they were physical duels. Sometimes, they were dueling with their own emotions as much as they were their opponents. I hope the new trilogy can strike a good balance between them, but even if it doesn't, I still think both should be appreciated for what they are.
+Joshua Caleb They do. There are two duels in the the new movie: one between Finn and Ren, and then another between Rey and Ren. Without knowing anything about their characters and taking the battles completely out of context, you can get a good grasp of the characters just by how they fight. In both duels, Ren completely outclasses his opponents but he is far from efficient. He's flashy and sadistic, showing how much power he has over whomever he's fighting against and how much better than them he believes himself to be. Finn, his first opponent, is not force sensitive but has incredible resolve. He has no idea what he's doing and almost loses to a Stormtrooper with a vibroblade, but he's incredibly determined and keeps trying to fight Ren despite being clearly outclassed. Rey was slightly better and eventually gained the upper hand because Ren underestimated her abilities; granted, she was still outclassed and Ren was at his physical limit, but the point is that she gained confidence and found her center over the course of the duel. This is also expertly choreographed, because Abrams knows how to work with actors where Lucas only knows how to make things he wants to see. The prequel fights had a huge problem with Flynning to the point where the fights didn't look realistic. The movements in the new movie are much more varied and the actors portray the emotions through their fighting pretty well. Finn uses a bunch of large slow strokes, showing he's pretty in experienced. Rey is more experienced fighting with her staff, and tries fighting with the saber in a similar manner despite the weapons being completely different. She jabs and uses quicker movements, but without the counterweight of the rest of the staff behind her she does come off as awkard, just like as if she's been training to fight using the wrong weapon.
I do have to agree, both Yoda and Palpatine were more Force orientated and never showed much interest in lightsabers. The only part the Yoda Palpatine duel did right was the Force struggle with the flying objects.
Even in the Force Unleashed games they showed Sidiouse only uses a Light Saber as a defense against other Light Sabers. Once the SaberLock has ended or he deflects a blow he quickly switches to the Force. With obvious preference to Force Lightning. As for Yoda, any game he has been in shows him with a light saber but most of those games take place before Episode 4. With the exception of Unleashed 2 where he simply guides Starkiller in a similar manner to Luke Episode 5 Style
Seeing people praise these movies on the IMDb discussion pages turned me into a misanthrope. These are some of the most boring movies I've ever seen because the characters are terribly written and the action is overblown, exhausting, and devoid of context and consequences. Just compare the ending of New Hope with Anakin's ending in Phantom Menace. In New Hope they have a briefing scene where they explain that they're going to fly to the Death Star and shoot rockets into its reactor core. If they fail this delicate and dangerous task, the planet where the rebel base and presumably lots, if not all of the rebels are will get blown to pieces and everyone will die. High stakes and lots of tension, all made very clear to the audience ahead of time. In Phantom Menace Anakin accidentally turns on a ship which flies itself to the one ship out of an entire fleet of identical ships that controls all the droids somehow. He accidentally flies into the ship, accidentally shoots a structure that happens to be important enough to destroy the entire ship, accidentally flies out to safety which accidentally saves the day. And what were the stakes? Well, Padme and her team had already captured the Viceroy, so they weren't in trouble and Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon weren't fighting droids. The only real consequence is that the Gungans, including Jar-Jar might die... Well, I'm on the edge of my seat.
I really don't understand why people just can't stand even the saying of liking prequel series. Just like it's your right to hate it, it's our right to like it. Don't try to hammer in your taste as we clearly don't demand you to like it.
@@SuperTonyony I agree with you. It's just that I see more good in them than other people do and appreciate them more, even if I am very eell aware of their flaws.
Both sides bring up good points, stop talking. Stoklasa as Plinkett is legendary for how well-thought out his reviews are on how Lucas has changed the Star Wars movies with the prequel trilogy, and while Mr. Plinkett does say that he isn't a fan of CG, he does acknowledge in one of his reviews that you can create a stylistic perspective using CG (showing 300 as an example), which is what the Nostalgia Critic was trying to say about the CG, except NC was also trying to say that CG can create vast believable worlds when done right, and Plinkett does mention in this video that shooting on location is a pain the a55.. Also, haters need to acknowledge that if the Star Wars Prequels (ex Phantom Menace) had a good story with the SAME ACTION, they would not complain about it at all. This says that the action itself wasn't bad, but the direction of the movie itself and confused a good amount of movie-goers.They both have good takes on film in general. And stop hating on the Nostalgia Critic, he has good reviews and constantly comes out with reviews on a regular basis (every 2 weeks), nowadays his reviews are 30+ minutes each, as well as daily vlogs on recommended children's tv shows (the good ones) and has 2+ full movies available to watch for free off his website.
grievous549 Fuck you. People like you are the reason everyone hates us Prequel haters. "if you prefer the prequels you don't deserve to breathe the same air as me." What an arrogant shithead. If you really care so much about someone's movie preference then I suggest you to Google "Are movies real".
I like Nostalgia Critic because he reviews lots of old crappy movies but his comedy style is not very good. Constantly rehashing jokes like Chuck Norris or the BK King and screaming and acting hysterical is just annoying. Mr Plinkett's comedy is much darker and intelligent. I just like NC because he reviews lots of awful movies. I would say AVGN is better at reviewing films than NC.
+carlwinslo Have you ever watched any episode of Best Of The Worst ? It's a series of videos in RLM's channel, where they watch three bad movies, then talk about which is the best (most entertaining, most weird, funny.... lots of criteria) of the worst. You'll be laughing almost the whole way through.
+Jeffrey Lebowski Best of the Worst is the best of the best. Anything that gives me 40 minutes of internet superstar Rich Evans' patented laughing at b-movie schlock is good in my book.
+carlwinslo Plinkett's humor is funny at times... but a lot of it's really stupid. Rape jokes. Jokes about killing his wife, etc. Not really that funny. It's not that it's offensive it's just not very funny.
+carlwinslo From what little of Plinkett I've watched it just seems like the guy's honest opinion but the character is put on as if it were some sort of buffer against backlash.
+carlwinslo Clearly, you have no idea how much Doug's humor has evolved lately. And even in his early years, he didn't solely resort to "rehashing jokes" or "screaming and acting hysterical". That's a grossly over-generalized accusation, relying on uninformed stereotypes.
So here's my thing, both are right in certain regards. When it comes to lightsaber fighting you can go both ways with it because well, you have somewhat dull love tapping (particularly talking about New Hope here) vs something that grants more but it results in being more distracting, this is where Episode VII in my opinion got it right, because it had that good pacing but with a proper scale that doesnt get carried away with itself. Jar Jar: Lucas is a shitlord for that, I will agree with Mike. Yoda fighting: Yet again, can go both ways, if they had done the fight better and not go so over the top, it would have been fine because Yoda needed to do something as opposed to sitting on his ass and letting evil win (which inevitably happens in the movie), but personally Im mixed on those scenes, its nice to see him kick ass but its also not good to see him break character. The bar scene: Who the fuck cares? Anakin and Padme: I know the Revenge of the Sith episode was done quite a while ago, its pretty much just so your own personal feelings cant be used as a leverage against you in attempts to stray you from the Jedi way. However Mike was right when he says that everything was so forced, but this can boil down to Lucas being shitty again. Because in my opinion, there is potential in that area but its a matter of poor execution. Hayden Christensen: Im agreeing with critic, he is a good choice, and he is a solid actor but, yet again, George fucking Lucas. In the scenes where he wasnt really talking you did see him get emotionally invested just a bit and the potential showed. But the shitty directing of Lucas didnt save him in this regard. Revenge of the Sith opening: Personally, I dont agree with either side on this point. The way I see it, you go all practical and do it right, go all CGI and do it right, or do both and nail it like the way it should be. In my opinion the strict ends of the effects spectrum are wrong when it comes to doing things like this. If you use the right balance of CGI and practical effects the end result would be perfectly fine and potentially beautiful, I mean look at Lord of the Rings trilogy and Mad Max: Fury Road for example, using both types of effects to their fullest and blending them together to create something beautiful. Also, those who hate CGI, stop bitching about how it takes so little work, because truth is 3D animation isnt exactly a cakewalk either, it just less time consuming and even more important to producers, cheaper, as sad as it is thats just the reality of the situation. Ewan McGregor: Okay, I personally think that he was a perfect choice and executed what he had well but like Christensen, he fell to the problem that was George Lucas, The Emperor: Agree with both, personally thought it was just a blast to watch the Emperor's actor just have fun with every second he had. Different Worlds: Yet again, this is a balancing act that just ended up falling on the wrong end. I agree that alot of the environments just shoved crap into your face 24/7 but, were it not so focused on and so grandiose to the point of being annoying, they would look perfectly fine. And when it came to green screening, yeah that got very very fuckin annoying, yet again here comes the balance of CGI and practical coming into play. I would love to see these environments done well, they all have neat ideas behind them but it ended up looking hideous in the end. Opera Scene: I agree with critic to a point, I would like it more if Anakin had more to do with the scene itself rather than just sitting there like an exceptional person, but the atmosphere, music and pacing of the scene is what grabbed me in it. Also, one critic point you forgot to mention was the music, which Im pretty sure we dont even need to talk about here. By the way, fan of both Critic and RLM so Im trying not to show any bias. However, Critic was right on the last note about how we should be able to recognize both the strengths in a massive shitstorm, does it save it? Oh fuck no, but it does show that there is a silver lining to every shitty fucking Jar Jar ridden storm.
most of nostlgia's critic's "good" things come down too "it's good because it could of been even worse"...that's like saying your addiction to smoking crack is a good thing because you don't inject heroin...
"Instead of two people fighting, it's three"
I cannot believe this is an actual statement
Don't forget "Think about how much Lucas doesn't like to go back on an alteration he's already made."
It’s basic math. It’s not just that there’s one more person. If you have a scene with two people, person A, and person B, then you have only one relationship: relationship AB.
But if you have three people, you have tripled the number of relationships. By simply adding person C to the equation, you still have relationship AB, but you now also have relationship AC, and relationship BC.
Increase this one more time, to four people, and you suddenly have six relationships: AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, and CD. So yes, this statement makes sense. Because it’s not just keeping your camera fixed on one more person, especially in an action scene. It is also about conveying information regarding the constantly shifting nature of these relationships.
In a scene with two people, if person A punches person B, then I’m pretty sure person B will respond. But in a scene with three, it’s not that simple.
So that’s your geometry lesson for the day.
why does everyone think this was a dumb point? a fight with 3 people at the same time wasn't done before and requires more impressive choreography. it is a great setpiece, I don't get all this hate for things that weren't even bad. I get why people didn't like a lot of the choices made storywise, but hating on the fact the action fight scenes got more elaborate? don't get it
@@silverlightsinaugust2756 Your point would be valid if the relationships you talk about meant something. When I watched the movie in the theater, I was utterly bored because by that point we didn't actually know anything about these characters. The failure is in the writing.
@@maxxam3590 I don’t disagree with a single point Mike makes in his Plinkett review. These characters are shit. But my point isn’t that 3 is better than 2 always. My point is simply that the choreo between 2 characters is literally less complex and therefore generally less impressive than that between 3. There’s some 3 person fight scenes that fucking suck. Like when Johnny and Mark just drag Chris R to jail in The Room.
Moral of the story: if you want me to send you a pizza roll, please leave me a message on my web zone.
***** leave me ur P.O. box and 500 bucks and we'll talk
loo
l GrandusHoopus why tenk u sir
You subverted my expectations! I’m satisfied now!
Where's my pizza roll you hack fraud?
Doug is so dense. Every single synapse has so little going on...
OH SHUT YER FUCKIN FACE
GOLD.
Highly underrated comment lmao
I like Doug but I also love this comment. Because you can like something and criticize it. And you can like RLM and NC.
Lmao
The difference is that Mike actually knows what he's talking about it.
And his humor is a personality trait, and not a try-hard necessity that comes with the job.
No he doesn't.
Jokes and fancy editing =/= checking your thought process for errors.
I always thought that Mr. Plinkett is just a character, an exaggeration.
An example to back up my thought would be; Mr. Plinkett says eh doesn't understand why Jedi are arnt allowed to love, and it was never explained when the movies SHOW why; Love is an attachment that changes Anikan for the worse. Emotion Clouds you're mind etc. That's is explained in the movies. A long with some other things he missed, that I dont think Mike really Identifies with.
They both agree that Hayden C is basically a good actor and this mess was not his fault.
exactly.
Lucas can't write or direct for SHIT
+DogOfHades
He still didn't do a good performance though.
And his career has been pretty much over.
Brandon Dozier he did, he was just given terrible dialogue
I mean in episode 2, you can see even in the romance scenes he probably won't do well but with good dialogue, it can be tolerable. Episode 3, he I felt did well just being a villain. Aside from Star Wars though, I've seen him in some heist movie with Adrian Brody which of course isn't from a known studio. Also, the movie kinda sucked you can tell which scenes were used for the trailer just by the way the shot them lmao.
And yet we havent seen him since.
The difference here is that Mike Stoklasa is a film graduate. He's actually critiquing these films not just trying to make funny/stupid comments about them to get an audience.
The Plinkett commentary on the Star Wars prequels were legitimate criticism of how bad and lazy the writing was, how the characters acted well out of character, what didn't make sense about the plot, etc.
why doesn't your comment have more likes??
+fuzzywzhe yeah, the nostalgia guy just went full pleb.
+fuzzywzhe "The difference here is that Mike Stoklasa is a film graduate. "
And yet he praised that abomination of Star Trek reboot.
+Carlos Roberto "And yet he praised that abomination of Star Trek reboot."
This praise, I think, would be in the context of dumb summer action films. For a popular reboot of Star Trek, it was probably what we should have expected. The Star Wars prequels, on the other hand, only were successful at selling toys.
Dr. Dhoom Not really. "Dr. Professor is a scientist. He analyzed this problem using the scientist method." The former part is supposed to explain the latter characteristic which is viewed as superior. If he said, "Mike is a film graduate, therefore, his opinion is superior," that would be an appeal to authority.
The Nostalgia Critic says vague things in his criticisms like the stuff is 'cool' and 'awesome'. Mr. Plinkett specifies exactly what he finds good and what he finds bad, AND why. Point to the Pizza Pocket guy.
+William Hunter
You never watched past the 1st point did you.
Exactly. Doug is not saying that the STAR WAR SEQUELS are good...but just pointing out some elements with potential and some good value, that he was able to enjoy. (That why he said cool a couple of times) (also..he also had some nice arguments)... Mr pickle is commenting about the films overall. That doesnt make him more smarter...( I like his thoughts and other reviews) ..but its just more of the same that A LOT of other fans have already pointed out . Both are valid opinions.
William Hunter
So first of all, why would you expect any negative criticisms in a video with the title: "11 good things in Star Wars Prequels"?
Secondly, those 11 things sure seemed quite specific, and i would accept "cool" and "awesome" as valid opinions, because they are. I don't get what is vague about "the fight beetween Maul and the guys from Modern Talking being cool"?
But let me help you out buddy: he was entertained by that particular scene, so much so, that he started his '11 good things in SW Prequels" list with that. And he thought that his feelings were best described by the word "cool".
Because you are able to operate a keyboard, i will assume that you got that part.
From here, there are only 3 options:
1. You aren't even talking about these two videos, but in general about the two guys. And that would be just fine, except for the fact that in your last sentence you give Plinkett only one point, which totally contradicts the in general possibility.
2. You find "cool" and "awesome" vague, in which case i would really love to listen to a conversation in your social circles, when you guys specify to each other what you mean by cool every time you use the word.
"Pulling the skin on the shaft really fast, is what i meant by awesome. But of course, with an unfortunetaly timed entrance from my mom, things can can akward, just to also specify the bad." - Am i doing good?
3. You have the cognitive capabilities of planctons and you fail at the most basic levels of comprhension.
Stupid fuck.
#EveryTownNeedsItsTaygetos
It’s like you didn’t even watch the video
❤👍
Admiral Bone-to-Pick is my new favorite villain.
I'm still very partial to Captain I'm-a-Bad-Guy
No fucking way. Commander Nefarious is a far more interesting character.
*Admiral Bohn T'pik.
Way better than Commander Plasma or whatever the hell it is
Gen. Eric V Laine is the best in my opinion.
Why does the nostaligia critic talk like a children's entertainer?
Chris LeRose His style of comedy. Why does Plinkett intentionally talk with a muffled voice and often bring some random plot-holed "dark humor" device into his videos or goes off on a trail about random shit?
Yeah, I suppose it comes down to difference in taste. To me the nostalgia critic is like nails on a chalkboard, while I know from showing people the Plinkett reviews he's def annoying to some.
Doug Walker is afraid to offend anyone where as Mike has a better understanding of acting and film making. Just watch an episode of Half in the Bag and a skit by Doug Walker and you see the huge difference in talent. Doug just yells a lot and the teenagers seem to like that sorta thing.
Mr. Plinkett is a character he uses for reviews. Mike has other content where he acts and talks like himself.
In the hierarchy of annoying voices, it goes:
1. the guy who voices Hiccup in "How to Train Your Dragon"
2. that bitch from "The Nanny"
3. The Nostalgia Critic
Nostalgia Critics voice actually makes my head physically hurt
It’s so fake and automated we all know his voice isn’t that high pitched and “friendly”
That’s how many youtubers operate their entire cadence is disingenuous and artificial
At least he wasn't screeching yet
it’s so fake holy shit
It's funny how Mr plinketts voice which is like supposed to be annoying is way less annoying than the nostalgia critic
A lightsaber cuts you the shit in half, that's why I always thought they were so timid with them. It made sense. The flashdance of the prequels just looks goofy to me.
EXACTLY
I always thought they were slow in the original trilogy because the weapons could end you in a single second. Like at the end of Kill Bill part 1 the actual fighting between the two main characters is mostly nothing but the standoff. When they strike each other its almost instantaneous. It looks real. The same way the original trilogy's fights feel more real
They aren't Jedi for no reason. They have the force and are trained to fight like they do in the prequels. But in episode 4,5, and 6 the ''Jedi Art'' has been lost due to the Empires takeover.
G@H Productions BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
Who would they fight against? No one uses swords and the Sith were supposed to be extinct. The lightsaber was supposed to be a symbol of authority. Maybe they could stop laser fire but other lightsabers? Why would they train for that if the Sith have been gone for thousands of years? Contextually it doesn't make sense
Peter Diamond was replaced by Nick Gillard, who completely rethought the Jedi fighting styles. George Lucas envisioned that during this time period, the Jedi had reached their peak in terms of martial arts development, so the choreography had to be a great deal faster and more sophisticated. Gillard wanted to convey the sense that the Jedi had studied every single style of swordplay available, his idea being that since they had chosen such a short-range weapon, they would have to be so good if they're up against ray guns and lasers. Gillard choreographed the duels as what he described as "a chessgame played at a thousand miles an hour," with every move being analogous to a check.
I realize they wanted it to be intricate but that doesn't make us connect to the characters any better or give the fights more meaning. The Jedi were supposed to change the world around them through wise intellectual influence and force influence.
Whenever someone watching sees the fight scenes its overwhelming because of how much fancy bs happens in 5 seconds. It looks fake because in the intricacies of it there is barely any humanity.
The first fight scene in A New Hope didn't even focus on the lightsabers. It focused on the two characters with a lot of personal history talking to each other for the first time in decades. The fighting style didn't even mater
regardless of what you think of Mr plinkett and nostalgia critic, this was a pretty good contrast of their opinions. good job dude!
can´t stump the trump
Phreaker1997 cool story, bro
Phreaker1997 who gives a shit if you don't like Trump?
Though I personally like the prequels (actually I love RotS, but don't like the other two), I agree with Mr Plinkett
Just demonstrates how Doug makes blanket statements to not piss anyone and Mike makes blanket statements to piss everyone and both reach the conclusion that who cares Hollywood sucks.
I liked sword fights in OT more, because they look like a sword fight, and not like a choreography
By that logic shouldn't that make all the action scenes in RWBY terrible? I mean RWBY is a pretty divisive series in general but everyone (even those who hate it) agrees that action scene's are great.
So I don't really see how being choreographed makes it bad
TeamTowers1 You can't compare RWBY and Star Wars. They're so completely different it makes no sense to equate them. If you want examples of good sword fights that don't feel like choreography, watch Seven Samurai, Die Another Day, the fight between Maximus and Commodus in Gladiator, or (ironically) The Empire Strikes Back. A fight that looks choreographed is bad because it breaks immersion. The point of movies is to be convincing and if you're watching a sword fight and keep thinking that the fight looks rehearsed then you will be unconvinced about its authenticity. Real fights don't look choreographed.
100legodude
I wasn't comparing RWBY to Star Wars in general I was only comparing the action scenes. So explain to me why it's cool for them to do or these unrealistic moves and not cool for Star Wars characters to do them.
TeamTowers1 When you compare the fight scenes and why one type of fight sequence is more appropriate in one of the movies, then you have to look at the movie/show on a broader scale and analyze *why* they would use a realistic or unrealistic fight sequence in that specific context. This is because the fights serve a different purpose in (for example) RWBY compared to Star Wars. In RWBY, the action is easily probably the most important thing in the entire series, with Star Wars and the other movies I listed as good examples of sword fights done well, it is much more about the characters and character motivations. The fight is not as important as the characters and the end result. If the fight is drawn out, it adds nothing to the story, if the fight is too choreographed, it breaks the immersion of the viewer. We begin to realize that these are not real people, we become less able to relate to them. With action-centric shows and movies such as RWBY, this is not the case. We already acknowledge that the characters are not real and the main reason that we are watching is for the exciting action. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with these kinds of films, I am just arguing that unrealistic sword fights do not have a place in films that are more focused on the plot and characters.
100legodude Every movie that has been, or will ever be considered great have all included characters that were fully developed, and memorable. The prequels had none that qualified, and without characters you bond with, how can you get invested in the story?
“Jar Jar is the funniest character we’ve ever had”-George Lucas
“Well...”-Someone standing in the corner
And that person was immediately taking out bacl and shot in the head...
If only they got Jar Jar to work...
But what if they did?
If only you hadn't gone too far in a few places
Jar Jar could have been the best twist villain
If only they got Doug to work
I like how they both agree that Palpatine was the best part of these movies.
don't forget the child murder
And Hayden Christensen being an actual good actor! xD
And Ewan McDonald good as Obi-Wan xD
He's the only person in the whole series with a pulse lol It's hard not to.
The prequels really are Palpatine's story.
They should have had Yoda only fight the Emperor and they both should have not used lightsabers. It would be cool to have a fight between two people using the force.
I agree
+TrevorSpace Animation
I second that.
Exactly, we see their use for a bit, with Yoda dodging Sidious and only using the force when necessary, followed by that intense lightning clash. If that was the entirety of the duel it would have been so much better. Especially considering how the fight started, with each using the force on each other.
+TrevorSpace Animation
I would have preferred no Yoda in the films, at all. Make it look like he's a legend, but now retired to another planet.
Gavin Petrie I think it should have just kept him as a teacher like when it showed him teaching younglings, interspersed with a few conversations with Obi Wan and council members where he just inputs some of the wisdom he was iconic for.
Though if they did still make him fight the Emperor, it really should just be purely force based. Theres a reason both are so iconic after all.
Okay I'm going to get this out of the way right now: I like BOTH The Nostalgia Critic (Doug Walker) and Mr. Plinkett (RedLetterMedia). I think they both have a unique and intelligent way of doing funny reviews. Of course they are both very different. The comedy from The Nostalgia Critic comes more from his over-the-top Looney-Tunes style anger (which some might consider annoying, but I rather enjoy it). Mr. Plinkett's humor is more subdued and much darker (which can be very off-putting to some viewers, but again I enjoy it). But the both of them clearly have a strong understanding of film and emote a good amount of intelligence in their work. This video was made to play off of their differing opinions about the Star Wars movies rather than put anyone down.
The fact that two famous critics on the internet (Mr. Plinkett and Nostalgic Critic Guy) can't agree on both the good and bad stuff about the prequels demonstrates that this trilogy will still remain the most discussed of all time. Unless... the sequels (Episode 7, 8, 9) are released and then many people will find out that the sequels are different from the originals and will start complaining about something else...
You can never make the exact same series twice. People who are stuck with the originals don't realise that the original and prequel trilogy were made at two different time period in our real world and things were very different 37 years ago (hell, internet didn't even exist back then!). And the sequel trilogy which is made now 10-15 years after the prequels will also be different from the two previous trilogies. Things are never the same as they once were. I'm not saying that the prequels couldn't have been better. No, there was a lost opportunity with the prequels and it's a shame. But it cannot be the same as the originals.
You know, you don't have to love the new Star Wars movies (prequels and sequels). But it is very surprising sometimes at how vehemently people get if they are not satisfied, which is scary! And that is why I won't be surprised if we see a new group of "sequel haters", the same as the "prequel haters", after the release of Episode 7.
Great video, thanks for putting it together. I agree that it feels like showing differing opinions, not trying to put anyone down. I happen to agree with the Plinkett side of the argument the vast majority of the time, but it doesn't feel like it's insulting either side.
NC can get enjoyment out of the action scenes, taking them for the visual spectacle that they are, even if the story surrounding them is terrible, while Plinkett can't help but feel that there's no tension or stakes because of the shallow, poorly written story and sterile CG environment. It's 'different strokes for different folks'. Seems like some people aren't realizing that NEITHER OF THEM LIKE THE PREQUELS.
Well, if you take the excerpts in this video, it's clear that with Mr. Plinkett "quality of story" ranks higher than, say, in your face exciting surfaces (e.g. amazing CGI, great battle scenes). Anybody can understand exciting surfaces, it's just there, just like adrenaline, but it takes a brain attuned to drama to grasp the former. And it's interesting how Nostalgic Critic Guy, described as Looney-Tunes above, in his critique style also uses an in-your-face approach.
It's style over content and I find that super-fucking-annoying, in the movies i watch, the movie critics I browse or the woman (i don't) date - a great chick doesn't need any makeup, because that's what she is, a great chick. But we live in a cry-out-loud-media environment and I repeat myself, it's super-fucking-annoying.
You say that but you clearly edited your video to make NC look like a buffoon in this. I like both as well but I have to side with RLM on this topic, LordoftheJimmyRustler.
***** What was lacking in the prequels was the character development, their charisma, and an easy plot to follow for the audience. I like the ideas behind the story told in the prequels, but it was badly exposed in Episode 1 & 2 and that is why it's confusing and difficult to follow. Episode 3 finally got it right, it only focused on the story of Anakin and that was the movie I was waiting all this time after being disappointed by the two previous prequels. When I compare the prequels to the animated Clone Wars series directed by Dave Filoni, I think to myself that many of the elements exposed in this series should have been in the movies. I prefer this series than Episode 1 & 2. For me The Clone Wars and Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith are the prequel trilogy.
About the sequel trilogy (Episode 7, 8 & 9), the danger behind it is that it repeats almost the same story as in the original, just in order to satisfy old fan boys from the 1980's or the "prequel haters". But by repeating the same story, some people will finally say: "You know Disney doesn't have any ideas. They only want to sell movies..." And that is what I fear the most.
After having seen all 6 previous films I thought to myself that there was nothing more to say. I didn't pay any attention to the expanded universe material. For me, the story of Star Wars is the story told in all 6 films plus the Clone Wars. That is why I was surprised as many by the announcement of Episode 7. The 3 trilogies (prequels, originals & sequels) will be the core films. The spinn-off and stand-alone films that Disney wants to produce will be off series. So they have to keep the story evolving from Episode 1 to Episode 9, not repeating the same story trilogies after trilogies.
I'm glad that someone compiled a comparison of these two reviews. Plinkett is definitely more in-touch with the spirit of the film, whereas NC is more superficial in his analysis. Even though I used to agree with the NC-style interpretation, Plinkett convinced me that his perspective is more valid. He simply has more evidence to support his reasoning, as he draws comparisons from the original trilogy, the prequels, and the George Lucas context regarding production. Both views are valid to an extent, but as an analysis, the RLM review holds more merit.
You have to remember though that neither reviewer liked the movie; Nostalgia Critic was just taking a Devil's Advocate stance, which is an admirable attempt that can lead to deeper understanding of a work or of the culture surrounding the work.
I'm not saying either is better than the other; I quite like both. But one is arguing for a point he agrees with, while the other is arguing for a point he largely disagrees with, is how I interpreted the video.
Dualgunner
But he had very bad and weak arguments... not much of a surprise here.
Karl Karlos Well to be fair to the NC their aren't many good things to find in the Prequels.
There aren't many good things in the prequels period. Nor weren't any good thing in his redundant top 11 list.
Karl Karlos
Ewan Mcgreggor, The Emperor and The Theatre I agreed on, the rest not so much.
I hate sand
I H A T E D U S T
Me personally, I love sand.
"That's how we win Finn, not by fighting the ones we hate, but fighting for those we love"
Like how your sister did Rose???
We live in a real world...come back to it!
I like to fuck my cat
Plinkett demolished Nostalgia Critic. The Red Letter Media's Star Wars reviews are the best reviews I've ever seen. They're practically as long as the movies yet they are even more watchable. There are moments where I'm falling out of my chair laughing at the disturbingly dark humor. I enjoyed his reviews more than the movies and that's a pretty insane accomplishment
Sam Non Yes...finally the Prequels are good for something. The Plinkett reviews are the best movie analysis EVER and now we know we needed super-crappy Prequels to allow these fantastic criticisms to exist.
He's reviewing the Star Wars prequels, it's not that big of an accomplishment.
AkimboCorndogs He's doing a fantastic job of EXPOSING the Prequels in meticulous detail. He's taking garbage and turning it into Art. George Lucas deserves to be rebuked in such a thorough way for making that crap. It's brilliant because it's like watching Lucas get spanked on his ass until it's bright red THREE times in a row.
+AkimboCorndogs Wrong. You're missing the talent that it takes to review them as well as he did. His analysis doesn't just come off as some wannabe director who attacks Lucas because he's jealous. Plinkett points out, in entertaining fashion I might add, how the various elements of the prequels fail to live up to even basic storytelling and directing criteria. Plinkett is AMAZING.
+Sam Non uh no, I would enjoy getting punched in the face more than the movies. Literally anything would be better. It's no accomplishment at all.
Plinkett actually gives you insight into movies in general, Nostalgia critic is more like a teenage boy, "That was so cool! I love the 'splosions!"
I think Mike Stoklasa has a lot more experience and wisdom about movies and making them. He put a lot more work into his reviews. I love Doug and what he does but I don't think he's seeing it from as objective a standpoint. You can just tell by the way they handle the information they are presenting that Mike has a lot better grasp on both writing a review and being funny without pandering. Nostalgia Critic is hilarious, but he panders a lot and sometimes just glazes over more in-depth possibilites. "it's awesome" is not really a good way to make your point. This video was great and I gotta say it shows how much better Mike is at this than Doug.
Yeah, I think the difference is pretty clear. The guy in the glasses reminds me of one of my nerdy coworkers attempting to sound intelligent while ranting about a film. Plinkett comes off more as the type that wouldn't say anything unless he knew what he was talking about in the first place.
Of course, it should be noted that Nostalgia Critic is a character. I think everybody knows Plinkett is a character (hopefully... otherwise, they'd be calling the cops after watching any of his reviews!), but not everybody knows NC is a character. Doug Walker, the guy portraying him, is actually a pretty calm and normal guy when he's not playing the character. He does the high-pitched annoying yelling on purpose, and has said that NC is supposed to not be taken seriously. The character is that of the typical film nerd who takes everything too seriously, over-reacts to problems in the films, childish at times, etc. The opinions being expressed are pretty much what Walker believes, but the way it's presented is supposed to be taken as at least somewhat of a parody. So when he says things like, "I don't care if it doesn't make sense, this is AWESOME!", it's not necessarily supposed to taken as Doug Walker's best argument. It's just meant to appeal to that nerdy sensibility.
That being said... I agree that Stoklasa and the rest of RLM are funnier and more insightful most of the time.
That's a good point man. I will say that I've watched Doug Walkers OOC videos where he talks about movies and though he is definitely more insightful than NC is, he uses a lot of the same reasoning. I LOVE his presentation of the information that's what makes him funny, I guess I just think Plinkett's translates better to movies that require far more depth in their critisism
Jeremy R There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to judgments on fiction. It's completely and utterly subjective.
"as objective". Your deflections into semantics aside, you're only mostly wrong. Subjective yes, but there is degrees on subjectivity like saying "I like turtles so TMNT is good" is pure subjective because it has nothing to do with anyone else but you. The point is that Mike is better at speaking from a more general audience persepective
Doug doesn't get Star Wars. At all.
+charlesandhisworld He completely misses the point on why the prequels were so lackluster in comparison to the original trilogy.
Norwegian Sorry, was that a textual representation of you shitting down your mouth? That's the only way this sentence makes sense.
Norwegian uhhhhh
lmao
+charlesandhisworld Stokalsa knows about as much about Star Wars as Donald Trump knows about women.
Well, I'm pretty sure he knows they just want your money :'D So that's why he fucked more 18yo girls than all of us together.
Mr Plinkett wins and he didn't even have to suffocate the nostalgia critic like the girls in his crawl space...
I've never heard of this nostalgia critic, but first impressions: he appeals to people under the age of 13
That's why almost everybody (including people who liked Critic back in the day) now find him unbearable. His humor genuinely doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's at about the same level as a bad Adam Sandler movie or post-revival "Family Guy," where there's no actual jokes. There's almost never any insightful criticism, so all you're left with is Doug's "comedy" repertoire, which consists solely of 1) yelling, 2) yelling swear words, and 3) making banal pop culture references. There's also no build-up or downtime, so all his videos are just a relentless barrage of obnoxious screaming and terrible non-jokes. I can't say I ever liked the Critic that much back in the day but now he grates on me like chicken wire across the plumbs. His humor can only appeal to children or mentally subnormal adults.
That's how old me and my friends were when we were fans a decade ago
He prefers them under the age of 13
He remembers it so you don't have to
pretty spot on since i havent watched one of his videos since i was about 14
I have to wonder if Doug has seen this.
+Star Wars Episode 1 Legend of the Sith Amulet
I sent it to him, don't know what he thought of it.
+Star Wars Episode 1 Legend of the Sith Amulet I think he has. He talked about the original plinkett videos during his video about the films he'll never review.
BaronPraxis8492 No, what I am asking is did he see Plinkett's reviewed paired up with his video about the good things regarding the trilogy.
Star Wars Episode 1 Legend of the Sith Amulet
I have no idea.
If he read the email I sent him, he must have seen at least a little bit of it.
Nostalgia Critic is a parody of himself, and a hypocrite. He's everything he criticizes. His humor is cliche, his skits are overproduced and contrived, and he strikes me as having a very limited understanding of film as an art form. All of that is in sharp contrast to the character of Plinkett. The humor of Plinkett balances his very poignant observations and analysis.
tightlypackedcoil exactly.
tightlypackedcoil
Screencapped your comment for future use via copy-paste, cause I couldn't have said it better myself!
RussianGuyovich spread the word! 😅
tightlypackedcoil
I'll spread your arsecheeks, matey.
Ahoy indeed~
tightlypackedcoil limited understanding of film as an art form? Lol, have you even watched anything with him except his parody reviews?
The funny thing for me is, that the CGI-Movies are in fact aging faster than the older ones. EP I-III are looking more and more fake to me and the old CGI really looks more and more lifeless then the old models. Perhaps the great age of CGI (which is hopefully over now) was also the time were this technologie was not fully developed and only created colourfull grafics but not the ilusion of life.
Spider-Man 2 Still holds up.
Jurassic park too
Toy story still holds up
I guess in order to make CGI believable, it needs to be combined with an interesting story or interesting characters or both... if it's just shit flying everywhere (like the transformers movies) after some time you eventually stop caring for the thing that's happening...we usually need a reason or interest in the characters to make CGI believable.. Like some people here mentioned Spiderman 2, Jurassic Park, etc... as kids we liked these movies because they had a ton of action and CGI and all that... but as adults, we can really get into the stories that these movies tried to tell and the themes that they tried to explore.. and how well they executed these movies.. practical effects that are well done will always be superior sure.. but in a well constructed movie with okay CGI, I think people can overlook the CGI elements of it..
I don't see how that's the case at all really. EP l-lll still looks life like.
Thanks to you, I finally know who Nostalgia Critic is without having to ever click on one of his videos.
Nostalgia Critic is a character that Plinkett would have trapped in his basement for his shitty movie reviews.
+gsimon123 Dress him into a Na'vi costume then put him in a microwave oven.
Shitty reviews indeed. Mr. Plinkett is far better than that hack.
+BrickBros101 59 MINUTES!!!!!
+gsimon123 Agreed. Mike isn't a god or anything, but he knows more about film than Doug will ever know.
Speaking of trapped basements, have you planned your next Fun Jet Vacation?!
No. But I'll send you a pizza roll over e-mail
Some of the best editing I've seen on UA-cam ever. You managed to make these two completely different videos of different reviewers play off of each other as if it were a crossover review or something. Excellent
I used to watch NC for mild entertainment when bored, but I found him sort of annoying. When it comes to comparing RLM with NC, RLM wins hands down.
Struggled watching this as Nostalgia Critic's smug, over-sold delivery gets on my tits, but this is required viewing if you want to understand why Mike Stoklasa is one of the best, most imaginative film critics working today.
He is an actual genius. Which is something different from being talented. Doug undeniably (was) talented and witty, but he got lost in his own ego. Mike is someone truly special. Not trying to kiss his ass for the sake of it, just my observation.
Nostalgia Critic can be an okay comedian at times, but it's obvious that he doesn't know much more about film than anyone with an intermediate interest in the medium. I know more about movies than he does, and I'm not a professional critic.
The RLM crew blow him out of the water in both comedic chops and just the quality of their criticism. They know film on a technical and artistic level that NC just doesn't seem to get. They're orders of magnitude better.
Yeah you said it man.
Sorry but I disagree. RLM's comedy can be obnoxious, annoying and really childish in a lot of times. And sometimes they give very poor reasons when they critique a movie, so please stop the RLM worship.
No mate. Doug Walker. ...KNOWS about movies. Just because he is trying to see something positive in these bad movies...it doesnt mean he is stupid or something else. ..its just a Valid Opinion from a Film Goer. ....Mr picklet (who just like the Nostalgia critic is ALSO a character) is just looking for the bad stuff. And thats valid too. .... finding reasons to support why he never enjoyed those films.(...but...unable to see that every movie can have merits or a positive value i some kind of form)
+Darkmesscoming Oh look a redlettermedia worshiper who probably has no opinion of his own.
mounir maged I very much like to hear about these “very poor reasons” RLM puts out. Please, do give examples.
The best complement I can come up with for Yoda is this.
When we first meet Yoda in Empire, he is quite clearly a puppet.
But the more we see Yoda the less and less this is obvious. By the time Luke leaves Dagobah to fight Vader I find it hard to believe he's still a puppet.
That is powerful cinema.
It is all in your fucking nostalgia goggles and you deciding to like it. My father saw ESB in theaters when he was 14 and he thought Yoda and the whole movie was incredibly childish... And to still to this day he thinks only the original he saw when he was 11 is the only Star Wars movie that is bearable or enjoyable.
There is so much clever stuff in the OT but so much childish stuff, oversimplifications and akward dialoque and acting too. You just overlooked it because they were the movies that set the standard and the expectations for these modern movies we currently scrutinize...
People's reactions to the PT are overreactions while the OT is super overrated. Not implying that OT didn't do the broad strokes right or the PT movies aren't traditionally bad movies, but the statement is true regardless.
@@kungolaf4499 The brilliant thing is that we can all watch the movies still to this day, and judge for ourselves. I know when I first watched the original trilogy in the early 90's as a kid, I didn't think it was childish at all. Nor did most of the people who watched them in theaters when they originally were shown.
I can't fathom how your father would like the first one, but not Empire, as Empire is clearly the least childish Star Wars movie ever made, and the one with the most serious, somber tone. I mean, if your criticism of the OT is that "it's childish," then the first movie definitely fits that better than Empire. But whatever, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
You can go on your little rant about how flawed the OT is. Nobody has ever claimed that it is flawless. They're just far better movies. And despite the technical limitations of the time, they hold up very well even today. That's because the core of the story (at least in the first two movies, less so with Return of the Jedi) is the centerpiece of the trilogy and it's done very well. There's not tons of scenes of dialog dumping exposition rather than showing us what is actually happening, unlike the prequels.
You can always tell when someone loves the prequels because they'll sit there telling you how overrated the original trilogy is and how the prequels aren't actually all that bad. The problem is that this just isn't true. The OT is loved for good reason; they're great films. The PT is loathed because they're not. That's just reality.
@@rars0n Or maybe there are people like me who know while the PT isn't as good as the OT trilogy they aren't bad films. Telling information isn't always a bad thing and in a trilogy with some serious political themes, of course it would happen.
@@Jdudec367 I'm sorry, but from a filmmaking perspective, the prequel trilogy ARE objectively bad. The dialogue is terrible, the shot framing is basic and terrible, and the character interaction with everything CGI sticks out like a sore thumb. There are many more examples of technical deficiencies that I won't bother to go into. Lucas was on autopilot when he made them, and it's evident in nearly every shot.
The original Star Wars movie was actually a mess when it was first put together. Marcia Lucas had to come in and re-edit the whole thing in order to turn it into the movie we got. Her creative ideas are arguably a large part of why Lucas' earlier movies were so successful.
The political stuff in the prequels is stupid. It makes practically zero sense and much of it was shoehorned in so that Lucas could try to make some kind of political analogy to the Bush presidency. The more you examine it, the more it falls apart. The fact that all of the associated dialogue is so boring (a problem with MOST of the dialogue in those movies) is all the more reason why it should have been edited or cut completely, but by that point, nobody around Lucas wanted to challenge him at all. That's why you have endless political nonsense in a movie trilogy designed specifically to appeal to kids.
@@rars0n They aren't objectively bad. The dialogue isn't all bad, the shot framing isn't terrible or that basic. It doesn't all stick out or stick out badly. He wasn't on autopilot but he should have had some more help with the films, although not like he didn't' try to get more help with the films.
I know that.
The political stuff isn't stupid and it does make sense, it wasn't shoehorned in and it wasn't a political analogy of the bush presidency since the prequel films were filmed before bush even became president. It doesn't fall apart the more you examine it. Not all of the associated dialogue is boring, a lot of it really isn't. More people should have challenged Lucas but the political stuff wasn't nonsense and it's clear despite what Episode 1 was like, the trilogy wasn't meant for little kids.
I like Plinketts commentary way better
He used the same “it looks cooler” defense for he final ‘action’ scene in his 2016 Ghostbusters review.
The Nostalgia Critic should not review movies. It's clear that he knows nothing about what makes a movie good. You can tell by the way he thinks screaming and shouting like a 3 year old counts as humour, and the way thinks things going boom makes it look impressive. He acts like a 10 year old boy, he doesn't care unless it looks "awesome and cool".
Redlettermedia all the way!
Mike Stoklasa > Doug Walker
Mike > Jar Jar >>>>>>> Doug
@You tuber I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not lmao. Doug is one of the dumbest people on the planet, knows nothing about film, and is CRIMINALLY unfunny in every piece of trash he has ever shat out onto the internet
@@reek4062 Rich > everyone and everything in this world
@You tuber I definitely don't always agree with Plinkett, he does get a little "inside" for me at points, specifically when he generalizes how a moment effects the audience, when that is more an individual thing then a fact. Walker, man I tried, but I just can't listen to him. For me, he's too easily dismissive of things, almost too much of a big picture guy.
TLDR: I disagree with Mike when he tells me what I should feel, and I disagree with Walker because he always seems to tell me not to care.
Mr. Plinkets's voice sound beautiful compared to Doug's voice. He's so f*cking anoying!
+Ana Gonçalves Pereira
Thank God I'm not the only one thinking this. That high-pitched voice and his simpering tone is fucking obnoxious.
+Ana Gonçalves Pereira You know, the first time I heard his episode I review 9I've listened to it countless times since) I thought that there was no way I could get through it, even though the content was incredible. But then I got into Red Letter Media's other stuff, and at this point Mr, Plinkett (Mike) sounds normal to me. It's even kind of soothing.
It is jarring the first time you hear it though.
And people are too blind to accept that Nostalgia Critic slipped in quality after Demo Reel. When you think about it, Nostalgia Critic is the Channel Awesome equivalent of what SpongeBob is to Nickelodeon. A once-kickass show (despite a couple rotten apples) that slipped in quality after a major project, and in subsequent years, fans have endured episodes that were mediocre or complete sh*t (we're looking at you, Blues Brothers 2000 review).
Kyle Pittman The only Let's Play content that's worse than his Simspons: Bart's Nightmare video is Let's Plays by DSP. If you look up This Is How You DON'T Play, you know what I'm talking about.
Kyle Pittman The last recent one I saw from him other than the Top 11 Good Things About the Star Wars Prequels was the Old v New on Spider-Man. Sooner or later, he'll realise that Amazing Spider-Man 2 was so shit, it completely ruined Sony's plans for the series, which mean NO Sinister Six movie, NO Amazing Spider-Man 3 and that the Sony hacks of last year proved the troubled production of the film. Goes to show you what happens when a studio doesn't give a damn about its audience, source material or their own credibility.
Red Letter Media hit the Star Wars prequels right on the nose.
I remember going to see Star Wars episode 1 in the movie theaters and it depressed me, the whole movie lacked any emotion, it seemed like every scene was just filler to get to the light saber fight scene.
Star Wars episodes 1-3 all lacked emotion, I could not connect to the characters. Believe me I have tried.
Most of the scenes in the prequels were filmed in a studio against a green screen, and all the characters made the same movements, they sat down, got up, walked to a window, stared out the window, rinse and repeat.
There was no sense of urgency, they walked everywhere.
The light saber fight scenes lacked all emotion, it was too choreographed.
The script was terrible.
The droids as enemies was a terrible mistake, they posed no threat to the Jedi at all and seemed like a nuisance to them more than anything. It would have made more sense if the clones were the enemies, and the Republic had to draft people to fight against them. After all it is called " the Clone Wars" you would think that they would be fighting clones.
Yoda was supposed to be a Jedi Master, and Darth Sideous was supposed to be a Sith Lord, it would have been a thousand times better if they showed off their knowledge of the force in a mage like fight scene instead of another choreographed light saber fight scene.
The light saber fight scene between Anakin and Obi Wan was waaayyyyy to long it bored me to sleep.
To sum it all up, the prequels were just terrible. It seemed like George Lucas just half assed everything. No matter how much CGI, bright colors, or choreographed light saber fight scenes are in the prequels, nothing can redeem those movies.
My sentiments exactly on every point.
It's like RLM says in one of the reviews. "If you're under the age of twenty and you think The Empire Strikes Back is the worst of the series, because it's the most boringest of the series. Then you need to turn this review off, because I'm going to explain how much of a fucking idiot you are." So true. The only people I've ever met who staunchly defend the prequels are kids who didn't grow up with the originals. All they care about is the energy drink fueled lightsaber dance off. It might as well have been Star Wars Episodes 1-3. You just got served. Shitty acting, shitty direction, shitty writing. Even Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman coudn't save these films. That's how bad they were. But hey, you were six. I get it. I was too when Jedi came out. (and let's not forget, old school fans. You hated Ewoks too.) But it's time to admit it. They were badly conceived. The originals weren't great either. Stop being a fan boy, watch critically, and try to find enjoyment where you can. Not schlub out twenty bucks of your hard earned money on someone going. "EPIC POPULAR FRANCHISE THAT YOU GREW UP WITH! NOSTALGIA! WATCH IT IN FIVEDMOTIONSURROUNDEARSPLITTINGTHX! BUY THE MERCH! YOU NEED A LIGHTSABER TO BE FULFILLED!!! BUY IT NAO!!!"
ArkhamCircle
I am not coming at this from nostalgia, I am coming at this from a movie fan perspective.
Star Wars episodes 4-6 had good flow, the script was solid, it had feeling, emotion, and they filmed it on location and not in some studio with a green screen.
Hell even Luke Skywalker's final duel with Darth Vader had more emotion than Obi-Wan and Anakin's fight scene. Luke showed anger, he pounded Darth Vader into submission and cut off his hand.
Luke Skywalker in episode 4 was a character we all could relate to on some level. He was a young Man trapped on Tattooine farming with his father. We as the audience can feel his tension, his desire to be free, to leave and to be a pilot to fight against the tyrannical Empire. We could also relate to his adopted father ( his uncle) trying to keep Luke out of the war by any means necessary because he loved him.
Anakin in episode 1 was a character no one can relate to, in fact he served no real purpose in the film other than to introduce the character. In episodes 2 and 3 Anankin was nothing more than an annoying, whiny, immature turd that no one cared for.
The Exapnded Universe is better than the films though.
Dark Jedi for dorks maybe. for storytelling, no.
"I'd rather see Episode III than blood in my urine."
I would actually have an emotional response to pissing blood. Star Wars hasn't raised my pulse since the last millennium.
Yeah cuz ewoks are sooooo thrilling
@@CIRILLABRUCE 😁 I see what you did. That franchise is so finished, you can't even remember which Episode is which.
Seriously, though, that musical number in Jabba's Palace was so fuckin embarrassing, I almost killed myself in the theater.
@@brandonobaza8610 i hear ya at least we have our memberberries
Ok Boomer
@@the4thindustrialrevolution225 is this a bot? Am I being hacked?
Sorry Nostalgia Critic but Mr Plinkett wins this one.
Nope.
Billy Barnett Plink won... if you're over 12.
Joe Swanson I'm 21.
Billy Barnett And dyslexic it seems.
Joe Swanson The hell? I'm not dyslexic, I have tourettes.
I really want to see Plinkett play Willy Wonka.
You can see Plinkett/Mike wearing a Willy Wonka hat and juggling in "Thomas and the Magic Railroad".
I can WHAT
The UA-cam comments: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy
+dannyreegs101 and stupidity.
+dannyreegs101 You don't know much about politics do you?
Hey McFly, I thought I told you never to come in here.
+dannyreegs101 4chan /pol/'s neo-nazis are good place to start looking. Porn story archive sites are probably the end of that search though.
Have you ever seen the Newgrounds comments?
In my opinion I do see shades of good elements in the Prequels. However, Return of the Jedi has problems but overall it's strengths out weigh the bad. The Prequels have this problem only in reverse, there's just so much dumb crap that it completely outweighs any good elements they may have underneath.
I mean, Return of the Jedi may be a flawed gem, especially flawed in the first half, but it's still my favorite movie in the entire franchise, particularly for most of the events in the second half, with my favorite scene in any Sci-fi movie ever being the duel between Luke and Vader on board the second Death Star.
Doug Walker hasn't been watchable since like 2011 tbh. And that's being generous. Loved NC back in the day but the humor has long since withered away. No ones fault, it's just very '2000's' ya know?
agreed. His old reviews were much better. The skits in the new reviews are just annoying
+justinjacques766 In terms of his older reviews being better, check out the ones from 2008 like "Shazam", "Batman and Robin", "Tom and Jerry Movie", etc.
Tom Brearley-Smith yeah, they were all hilarious compared to his new ones
Damn right.
Old NC was juvenile and painfully internet white boy with an axe to grind. Shit was cringey. New NC is thought provoking at times, still juvenile at times, and less internet white boy with an axe to grind. Much less cringey now.
This is a nice edit. You're making something new out of two different reviewers which I can appreciate.
Are people just unaware this is fanmade? The comment section is literally a bash fest.
RolliePollieOllie you don't say?
?
Godjeera r/woosh
You can tell how simple minded and over generalise the nostalgia Critic's reviews are these days.
A video titled "Top 11 Good Things About the Star Wars Prequels" lists off good things in the Star Wars Prequels. I can't believe it.
@@LoN3wOlF5tudi0s OP was not referring to that video alone. You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.
Hate the prequels? Hate? Hate leads to the path of the dark side.
Yoda you fuck, why do you need the Kane you fucking hack fraud
Maybe it leads to anger.
Ehh....I guess I'll join Dooku then
You can disapprove without hate
The dark side is better
Mr. Plinkett really opened my eyes about Star Wars and film making in general. Mike is really insightful.
Plinkett understands Star Wars much better than the Nostalgia Critic
They both raise good points about the prequels, in my opinion. It's just a matter of perspective.
Roger Smith Sure, from one perspective a bunch of fanboys have their heads up their own asses and from the other it's the prequels that are full of shit.
+Gakoranus I think it's a lot more than that. It's not a simple black and white question as to whether or not the prequels as an entirety were good or not. I'm speaking on a point-to-point basis, but I guess that alluded (my apologies: eluded) you.
Roger Smith Actually things are real black and white when one side blatantly refuses to the arguments of the other without any basis. The explanations for why all of your so called points are bullshit are in the very video we're commenting on and yet somehow I'm supposed to have been "eluded" (good thing I'm not a grammar nazi pal). People with an ounce of sense in their heads hate the prequels not just because they were terrible pieces of shit, but because they actively ruined every part of a legendary tale (not perfect, but definitely legendary) that they touched.
Roger Smith Then why the fuck are you replying? "both Plinkett and the Nostalgia Critic raise some interesting points about the films" That would be the bullshit point right there. Are you blind?
Why are there so many dislikes? They both bring up good points and it's interesting to compare
+Lachie Hurburgh It depends, both people use their opinions to make films look better/worse, there's no fundamental right/wrong in film, it's art, not science
***** I find all the inbetween bits I can think of showing his house quite funny. I think those with a dark sense of humour would.
Am I the only one who thinks Nostalgia Critic is overrated?
+Tom Brearley-Smith
I actually quite liked him when he was on Movie Fights. But yeah in his videos I've seen it basically seems like he has a very different taste to me. The impression I get is that you'll have him sold if you put some CGI in it and add some backflips and roundhouse kicks to the fight; but I could be mistaken - he might be a contrarian too (but as a general rule I think contrarians are more persuasive and offer stronger arguments than those he offered here).
Personally I have seen much better arguments defending the prequels - but they do so by invoking what could of been, for example the Jar Jar sith theory which has recently exploded... They don't try and suggest that the bad parts of the movies are actually good which NC seems to try and do.
+MrAlternateTheory Don't contrarians usually hate things just because they're popular? That doesn't make them smart, it makes them an ass.
MrAlternateTheory Y'know, I was thinking in terms of his reviews, Doug has completely changed after Demo Reel. When you compare his reviews from 2008 to 2013 onward, the difference in quality is astounding. If you look up the Listal review: "From Comic Genius to Comdeic Hack", I'm sure you would be proven further information why that may be the case.
+Tom Brearley-Smith Solid Snake
***** Kept you waiting, huh?
I totally agree with Nostalgia Critic about the "preggers" scene. It's pretty much the only human scene in the prequels. The dialogue is real and the actors are given enough space to deliver it and work within the silence. Also the only good direction/editing of dialogue because this is the type of scene where "shot; reverse-shot" works because there's really no tension or conflict between the characters; it's all about "person A says something; person B processes the information, then their emotions, then says something; then person A processes, then says something".
And I also agree with both reviewers that it's not fair to blame Hayden's acting. Just watch one minute of dialogue (that isn't exposition, because delivering exposition is a lot more about writing and direction than acting) and then write down the dialogue on a piece of paper. Read that dialogue and then realize that blaming acting for the outcome is like getting upset at your meal when you tell your chef they can only use dog shit, broken glass, and two-year-old mayonnaise for ingredients.
Oh my god another person with a brain. Run from these comments sir they will ruin our abilities to use logic. RUN I TELL YOU RUN...lmao
+Charles Hollister George Lucas stopped his characters from using logic.
+Keifbowl Roadrunner
"I totally agree with Nostalgia Critic about the "preggers" scene. It's pretty much the only human scene in the prequels."
LMAO
"The dialogue is real and the actors are given enough space to deliver it and work within the silence. Also the only good direction/editing of dialogue because this is the type of scene where "shot; reverse-shot" works because there's really no tension or conflict between the characters; it's all about "person A says something; person B processes the information, then their emotions, then says something; then person A processes, then says something"."
So is it the only human scene, or just one where A says B and then B says A?
Make up your stupid mind like.
Where the fuck did you get the idea that "shot reverse shot" or whatever stands in the way of "conflict", but not "organic interaction"?
"And I also agree with both reviewers that it's not fair to blame Hayden's acting. Just watch one minute of dialogue (that isn't exposition, because delivering exposition is a lot more about writing and direction than acting) and then write down the dialogue on a piece of paper. Read that dialogue and then realize that blaming acting for the outcome is like getting upset at your meal when you tell your chef they can only use dog shit, broken glass, and two-year-old mayonnaise for ingredients."
Awesome, so which horrible dialogue you referring to?
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Doug the nostalgic?
Every light saber duel in the original trilogy was epic because of the meaning and feeling behind every duel. They meant something. The flipping, flying billion strike saber play in the prequels meant nothing...and it was obvious when you watched it. The younger generations criticism of these old duels is indicative of a culture that is losing it's understanding of substance. This same dynamic plays out in every aspect of their new culture. The dying of the light.
I thought Anakin and Obi Wan's fight was powerful even if it did kinda go on for a bit with the lava pads and such.
Andy Appleton hahahahahaha! wow that was utterly pathetic you nostalgia blind fanboy
Andy Appleton Or in the original trilogy you have 3 fights: 1st fight, an old master Jedi who hasn't fought someone with a saber for years on the cusp of ascending to being a force ghost vs a machine man who hasn't fought an opponent wielding a saber for years on the decline of his power (not a recipe for an action packed fight) 2nd fight: a literal novice with absolutely no formal saber training and a rudimentary grasp of using the force vs a master who isn't trying to kill him but actually trying to convert him (this is Vader toying with Luke trying to get in his head, this wasn't actually a fight) and 3rd fight: a knight level force user whose only saber training had to come from the holocron that showed him how to craft his new saber vs a sith apprentice who knew his master was planning to replace him with his son. (Vader has given up at this point, he knows the emperor only sees this ending in one of two ways, either he kills his son or his son kills him. His job is to push Luke to the dark side, and if he can't ,then kill him. Vader gets overpowered during the first part, as he's attempting to turn Luke. so it never actually progresses to a real fight.)
Prequel Fights: two orders of supernatural warrior monks who have spent millennia refining their abilities and techniques. Only a complete moron would want OT style fights in these movies.
***** You're intellectually worthless so I don't bother with you. Run along now and listen to your genius "Kanye"
Lantz J If you honestly don't understand that the prequels are bad writing, then you're a lost cause. Didn't think you whiny millennials would be crying so hard. But then again, it's not much of a shock, being that your whole generation is wrapped up in self-absorption and delusions of grandeur.
Great video and cool editing!
temyi75 Thank you!
+LordoftheJimmy Why are you saying thank you when all you did was upload someone else's work?
It's so dense. Every single frame, there's so many things going on
OH SHUT YOUR FUCKING FACE
Y'know it's like poetry.
Daniel Ryan It's like a poem....everything has to rhyme
+AJ Miller It's going to be great.
It's gonna be great.
The prequels were just a momeymaking-machine for Lucas, made for an audience of spoiled and indifferent citizens of the new millenia. A typical product of the consumers society.
The only good thing about EP I-III is, that it inspired Mr.Plinkett to one of the most perfect reviews ever made about a movie.
"Instead of 2 people, it's 3" - Genius
Plinkett rules.
Ultimately, the biggest problem with the prequel trilogy, IMO, is that we have no underdogs. That's one of the key elements of a good story. The protagonist has to be facing seemingly insurmountable obstacles as the result of being in over their head. In the original trilogy, Luke was just learning about the Force. He wasn't a master or a prodigy, he was just a learner with a lot of potential. He didn't know how to fight very well, he couldn't Force push anybody, he could only just barely Force pull his light sabre out of the snow. So when he goes up against Darth Vader, he's in over his head. He's an underdog. As Plinkett explains in his reviews, Darth Vader could kill Luke at any time, but he chooses not to. He wants him alive. This adds an interesting angle to the fight. All of this is clearly established and played out dramatically. Luke is up against a titan and his struggle to even just stay afloat in the fight is obvious. When he gets his hand chopped off, it's because he didn't know how to defend himself against Vader once Vader actually tried. He makes Vader mad by hurting him and Vader reacts by cutting his hand off. Luke has no defence because he's in over his head here if Vader isn't holding back.
Whereas in the prequels, we have a bunch of seemingly invincible superheroes. Anakin is SORT OF played like an underdog, but he's really not. He's a prodigy who's great at fighting, has a very competent mastery of the Force, he's Force pushing and throwing things around all the time, he gives Dooku a run for his money and only gets his arm chopped off as a result of what comes off as just a momentary loss of concentration or maybe even just a fluke... because prior to Dooku pretty much just HAPPENING to manage to get Anakin's arm, they were fighting like two titans who were pretty evenly matched. Even if the story suggests that Dooku may have been holding back so as not to kill Anakin at Sidious' request... that doesn't show in the fight. And this is the primary problem with the approach that Lucas took to the light sabre fights: all of them had to be awesome. All of them had to be fast and expertly choreographed and intense. But that doesn't necessarily always make sense with the story, or make for interesting drama. It's just entertainment value, and that's it. This is why Plinkett is right when he says that these movies can only be enjoyed by nerds who only watch Star Wars for the cool shit and not the story... or by children.
When Luke fights Vader in RotJ, he's STILL not quite at Vader's level. But again, Vader had a purpose in this fight, so he doesn't kill Luke. He's trying to get Luke to come over the Dark Side. He's tempting Luke into giving into his hate and anger. And when Luke DOES give into his anger and attack Vader, this is the FIRST TIME that Luke actually gives Vader a run for his money. This is the culmination of Luke's story, so it's the ONLY appropriate time for him to become the titan, because that's the payoff. But all good payoffs need to have a twist. The twist here is that Luke only becomes a titan by giving into his hate and anger, and almost falling to the Dark Side in the process. Once he realizes this, he chooses not to go down that path and throws his light sabre away. Effectively saying that everything he aspired to become (a powerful Jedi) is not actually what he wanted. What he really wanted all along was just to prove himself, and he realizes that he doesn't do that by becoming a big dangerous titan like Vader or the Emperor did... he does it by having the strength to remain true to himself and uphold the values of the Jedi that Yoda taught him. And think about everything that Yoda said:
"Wars not make one great."
"Your weapons. You will not need them."
[cut to Yoda using weapons to fight wars in the prequels...]
All of that stuff makes the movie so much more interesting. The fight can be cool, but if it doesn't have any weight or thematic ideas behind it, then it's just a cool fight to entertain. It's not a story.
When Anakin and Obi-Wan fight in RotS, there could have and should have been so much weight behind that fight. And there's a certain amount of weight there by default of the fact that they're former friends and allies who are fighting each other now... but that's about it. There's no real growth or drama during this fight. We don't have any moments where Obi-Wan struggles with the fact that he's fighting a friend. We don't see any hesitation when he gets the opportunity to cut Anakin's legs off. He just does it and then afterwards starts shouting at him. The only thing that adds any emotionality to it in the slightest is Ewan McGregor's performance. But there's little to no emotion to the scene itself as scripted. We get cliched, hollow lines like, "You were my brother, Anakin! I loved you!" Really? When did you love him? When you were criticizing him all the time, arguing with him, complaining about him behind his back, generally seeming annoyed with him a lot of the time... oh wait, maybe that is love... No, but seriously, Plinkett's right when he says in the AotC review that we never actually see a genuine relationship develop between them. This fight could have been so much more powerful if it hadn't been so much about the spectacle, but more about the characters and their relationship, like the Luke and Vader fights were. Instead, we just get the invincible superheroes fighting like titans in a ridiculously dangerous environment (I know they're Jedis, but they can still get burned, as Anakin goes on to do... You're telling me not a single speck of lava landed on them when a huge wall of it comes crashing down on the structure they're standing on and is flying around in the air all over the place... I'm sure that when people used to hear that Anakin needed the suit as a result of a fight on a volcano, they probably pictured something a bit more plausible). And it's just not interesting, because we've seen both of them fight like titans before. It's not like this is the first time Anakin has become angry enough to give Obi-Wan a run for his money. It's not like Anakin is still just an underdog learner (remember: "When I left you, I was but the learner. NOW I am the master."). Just like with Dooku, they seem pretty evenly matched. It's only the result of a dumb mistake, a momentary lapse in expert warrior titan-ism, that Anakin gets beaten.
Whereas if the prequels had been done right, then Obi-Wan would be the clear master and Anakin would be the underdog, struggling to fight him. Obi-Wan can't bring himself to harm Anakin out of having developed a strong relationship with him (legitimizing the line, "He was a good friend."). Until finally, Obi-Wan really pisses Anakin off somehow and Anakin loses it, pounding Obi-Wan into submission, until Obi-Wan finally has no choice but to desperately swipe at Anakin, taking his legs off.
But yeah, that's what I think ultimately makes the prequels tensionless. You don't get any tension when it feels like all the characters can handle themselves just fine, no matter what comes their way. Battle droids and Sith Lords alike are never really a huge problem, and our heroes only ever get hurt by chance. Even Padme is "on top of things" against a huge tiger creature. Where's the tension? There's no underdogs here.
Oh well... hopefully the new trilogy will be back in form. At least they had the good sense to bring Lawrence Kasdan on to write. I do hope he hasn't lost his touch.
Superbly argued. Going from the denouement of ROTJ wherein Luke throws his lightsabre away and refuses to fight on, to the endless sword bashing of all three prequel films is as clear indication of just how little Lucas understood about his own series. Thank god for Lawrence Kasdan, Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand.
***** He's been confirmed as screen writer. But I'm also hearing that his script is the darkest Star wars ever, which has a slightly worrying Man of Steel-esque "let's make everyone miserable" feel about it.
I don't normally read such long winded diatribes, but that was worth the time. The kid in me likes the prequels for their ridiculous Jedi action. The adult in me hates just about everything else.
AWS Vids 100% correct. Congratulations, you have a better understanding of storytelling than Lucas. I guess that's hardly a compliment, but take of that what you will.
And jeez, after watching the whole vid you gave a better critique of the movie than that blathering idiot Nostalgia Critic.
AWS Vids Brilliant brilliant essay, my friend. You've successfully put my, and I'm sure many other Star Wars fans thoughts into words.
Pinkett sounds like he went to film school. He knows what he's talking about. Nostalgia's arguements mostly amount to "oh, looks so pretty". He's in over his head here.
+George McFly To be fair, the NC's video was about finding the few things he liked about the prequels. He doesn't actually like them, but he knew that other reviews, especially RLM's, were already pretty exhaustive so he decided to not bother reviewing them even though they're some of his most requested films to review. However, he thought that doing a countdown of the things he thought were okay about the prequels would be a new, fresh perspective, so that's what he decided to do a video on. So yeah, Doug wasn't trying to defend the prequels as a whole, just point out the things he actually enjoyed since other reviewers like Mr. Plinkett have already broken down everything wrong with them.
Plinkett's argument is no different from your usual, average youtuber "critic"
'So Anakin, have you ever heard the story of Darth Plagueis the Wise?'
'No sir, I've never heard of him.'
'Have you ever seen a grown man naked?'
Have you ever been in a Wookie Prison?
Plinkett>Nostalgia Critic
original Plinkett > hackfraudmedia > later Plinkett >>>>>> Nostalgia Critic
I may agree on Plinkett with just about everything, but I still can't deny that the intro to Revenge of the Sith with those war drums is amazing.
The Nostalgia critic must be from the West coast where human beings all act like phony game show hosts for some reason.
Actually, he's from Chicago.
As someone on the West coast, I can confirm this.
PullThePower
As someone who watches him regularly and lives in Chicago, I can confirm he's from Chicago and mentions so several times. Watch him a bit more before making stupid comments.
No, what I meant was that we all act like game show hosts on the west coast.
basedkaz
And Mr. Plinkett resides in New Joyyyyyzzzze
Literally like... This comments section illustrates the problem with opinions these days - either you're right, or you're wrong. There no recognition that subjectivity exists. Sure i think the prequels are absolute shite, but some people like them and i respect that. Can't we just realise some people like them and some people don't? People getting butthurt over criticism of the prequels are just as bad as people getting butthurt over praise of the prequels. Just chill tf out.
No, you're right, a person that has a degree in film study making objective criticisms of the films is definitely an opinion. Just like when a person with a degree in chemical engineering says something about creating chemical compounds, that's just their opinion.
@@PurpleIsALetter You do know Appeal to Authority is a fallacy, right?
@@kaihedgie1747 Absolutely, when I want to learn more about the craft of filmmaking and how to get better, I go to my local Baker because obviously a Baker knows way more about filmmaking than someone who has studied and/or made films for a very long time. In fact, I think college courses should be taught exclusively by people who have no background in the subject because their contribution is just as valid as someone who studied and taught the material for many many years.
Harry McDonough subjectivity does not come into play when making objective observations, dumbass. Learn what words mean
As Plinkett once said, “it’s a matter of opinion, but mine is right.”
I definitely respect Doug Walker, and I enjoy his body of work. I've seen most episodes of The Nostalgia Critic, as well as his various other videos and video-blogs. I'm familiar with him and RedLetterMedia both.
But I believe that Mike and the collective team at RedLetter have a more firm grasp of film-study and the art of movie making. As well as a better grasp of the subject matter of Star Wars.
The points made in the Harry S. Plinkett are so biting because they're accurate. They're accurate because they're pose by a group that has both studied film and obviously cares very much about the subject of Star Wars.
Team Plinkett all the way. I don't mean to say that The Nostalgia Critic is wrong. Not at all. In fact, I think it's great that he's a little more upbeat about certain things. The thing about the prequels that disturbs me, is that there really was no drive to make them any good. Lucas already knows he's got your fuckin' money. Why bother making a decent film? I call this Michael Bayconomics. He don't give a shit either. Why should he? This formula is the death of Hollywood.
Nono you were seeing the future
Which you describe is the disney sequels: first one is a rehash of a new hope to get your money, second one is subverting expectations and baiting fans to get your money, third one tries to please everyone and retcon the second movie to get your money
6:08 the fact that the nostalgia critic decided to include that completely irrelevant scene to his list of “what’s good in the star wars prequels” speaks volumes
Nostalgia critic saying “dripping” at 20:40 made me uncomfortable
Plinkett sounds like he actually knows what he's talking about, Douge just shoehorns in lame jokes and disguises his opinion with terrible sketches.
Gonna have to go with Plinkett on this, tbh.
I don't know who this "Nostalgia Critic" is, but boy am I not ever going to find out!
Mr. Plinkett > Nostalgia Critic. Not even a contest. I can't believe how diluted the Nostalgia Critic guy is. Hey dude, you've been duped by special effects!
The handsome, beautiful soul that is Mr. Plinkett. Could watch his reviews 100 times over.
Boring
Oh, to be his cat.
Plinkett > Nostalgia critic
The Virgin Nostalgia Critic vs. The Chad Mr Plinkett
To be honest, Doug is more of a "the prequels happened, let's go from there" while Mike is "can't we just be astonished at what a masterpiece we could've gotten?"
"A young youth".
Doug Walker: Wordsmith
Yeah that hurt to listen to
I'm sorry, but the landscapes from the prequels DID NOT look realistic.
Tatooine was a barren, desert world. Exotic landscapes wouldn't exist on a world like that. The original trilogy is more believable, because there isn't any focus on "backgrounds." You accept that it's a boring, desolate, barren wasteland. No need to emphasize the background, because it's just more of the same.
Hoth was a barren, frigid cold ice world. Exotic landscapes wouldn't exist on the world like that, either. There's no empahasis on the backdrop, because it's unimportant. The audience need only know that we're on an ice world. Shoehorning wide-angle shots of exotic backdrops doesn't convince me we're on another world. It's just meaningless, pointless window dressing.
Endor was a forest moon. It wasn't exotic, it was just a moon covered in dense forests.
Depicting Naboo, Coruscant, or any of the other worlds as these exotic, fantasy-laden planets isn't realistic. Naboo looked like world comparable to a wet, rain forests environment. There aren't any exotic waterfalls or towering rock faces.
Coruscant was basically a planet covered in one large city, but it shatters the entire Star Wars story by depicting business as usual in every shot. As Plinkett points out, it's as if 90% of the population weren't even aware of the rise and fall of both the Jedi Order and the Empire. They probably just read a one-column article on it in their morning newspaper.
It also didn't help that the CGI itself looked really terrible and unrealistic. It looked like a videogame in a bad way, made even worse and less believable by how poorly the real actors were meshed against the backdrop. It pulled you out of the movie every time you saw the actors walking against rendered backgrounds that failed to seem like real places they were in.
trouty606 Agreed. One other youtuber noted how badly the contrast was between shots of the actors up close and CGI-littered wide shots.
Imagine the painstaking work that went into the wide angle shot of the Cloud City landing platform in "The Empire Strikes Back."
A life-sized Falcon, a correctly-lit walkway, and a seamless matte painted background.
Digital Intent
Almost all of those pics are from The Phantom Menace and AotC. Now show me the practical effects used in the final battle between Kenobi & Anakin.
Besides, I don't know what you're trying to prove; the fact that *SOME* practical effects were used doesn't diminish the fact that an over-reliance on CG was a big minus for the prequels.
The Battle Droids pictured were used as stand in, not for versions in shots that would be moving. Moving Battle Droids were 100% CG.
Yoda was CG. Dex was CG. Entire sequences in AotC & RotS were 100% CG.
And I love how you CG ass kissers like to bring up that blue screens were used in the original trilogy, as if no one knows that.
NO fucking shit, Sherlock! You don't think I'm aware that the speeder chase on Endor was shot against a blue screen?!
Your post proves nothing, nor does it change anything. I stand by what I said - the wide-angle shots of Naboo and Coruscant depicting lush, exoctic backdrops looked as fake as a 3 dollar bill.
Where's your practical FX pics from the opening battle sequence to RotS?
Sequence looked 100% CG, because it was.
Digital Intent
*Not sure if compliment or insult*
I'm not one to say "everything was CGI!" and I'm not one to dismiss it altogether.
Films like Jurassic Park and Terninator 2 proved that CGI has it's place in film, but there comes a point like "Battleship" or "Transformers" where it just becomes overkill.
As many people often describe, the story becomes built around the CG FX, rather than the CG FX being used to aid in telling the story.
In the forum's defense though, I think one poster summed it up pretty consisely.
I was a bit stunned that much of the volcano work was practical and not CG, but the problem is that it's been so heavily altered digtially that it *ALL LOOKS CG.*
The final shot of the volcanoes looked 100% CG because it had been too heavily doctored.
For comparison, examine the wide-angle shot of the Falcon on the landing pad at Cloud City as Han approaches Lando. It was a seamless mix of full-size sets with a matte painting for the city in the distance. It's the two elements combined. We only HEAR cloud cars zooming overhead, but don't actually SEE them in frame.
It doesn't overcrowd the shot, and thus the shot looks believable. (After all, the point of the shot is too capture Han venturing away from his personal sanctuary (the Falcon) to greet Lando, someone he sincerely hopes he can trust. The shot wasn't meant to give you a crash course in goings-on at Cloud City)
The CG-edited shots in the PT just contrasted so badly against the close-ups shot on actual sets, because in the close ups, the backgrounds are bland with very little happening, whereas the wide shots fill the entire frame with shit happening, and it just becomes a few seconds of sensory overload.
Once again, for comparison, I'll turn back to the Cloud City example:
In the wide angle shot of the Falcon, we see other towers in the distance, a skyline, and very little else happening in the background.
In the following close-up shots that cover the exchange of dialogue between Han & Lando, the backgrounds are ALSO relatively devoid of activity, and so the two respective shots mesh together seamlessly.
You follow?
I'd also like to add that an over-reliance on CG wasn't the only reason I dislike the prequels.
The stories themselves is perhaps my biggest gripe.
Digital Intent
Wasn't trying to act like an ass. I apologize if it came across that way.
Yes, I ramble too much. Occupational hazard, I'm afraid.
It's nice to hear someone else notice the pesky color grading. It's something I've become more critical of in recent months, because it's beginning to look like we're going from black & white television to color television to cyan/yellow television.
Haven't seen Battleship, eh? You're not missing anything. Seriously. It's a CG laden 2 hr advertisement for the US Navy.
Saw Transformers once because I grew up with the cartoons as a kid. Considering how brutally Bay butchered it (and the Ninja Turtles now, it seems), I had no desire to see the others.
I think you can have both good, believable choreography and a meaningful fight
Great job on the editing. It really feels like a conversation, reaction shots and everything.
Lol the look of contempt on Mikes cat @20:21. That cats just like _“The antics I gotta put up with”_
I like Doug. Really. But I think Plinkett is even a Little bit more funny and a Little bit more direct, honest and maybe competent. That Scene in the opera was...so bad. And you dont even get the time to see what those fucking Mon Calamari are doing in that strange waterball. And like Plinkett said. Why does Palpatine know all this fucking things?
Plinkett was right on all points.
The Jedi (at least in the prequels) were meant to be like samurai. Those who had total control over their emotions, therefore total control over their blade. What Lucas didn't realize is that samurai still had wives and other "attachments". So the idea that they weren't allowed to love is bullshit, and only exists as an excuse to piss Anakin off.
I can see and appreciate both sides of the argument on the lightsaber duels. I don't care if the fights in the prequels were choreographed, they're freakin awesome! I've always been a balls to the wall kinda guy, so I love the long duels with all the flips and kicks and lava! It make me want to stand up and scream "YEAH!!!!!!"
On the other hand, I'd be lying if I said I didn't agree with Plinkett about what the light saber duels were about in the original trilogy. They were as much a battle of wills as well as battles with swords. They were philosophical debates as much as they were physical duels. Sometimes, they were dueling with their own emotions as much as they were their opponents.
I hope the new trilogy can strike a good balance between them, but even if it doesn't, I still think both should be appreciated for what they are.
+Joshua Caleb They do. There are two duels in the the new movie: one between Finn and Ren, and then another between Rey and Ren. Without knowing anything about their characters and taking the battles completely out of context, you can get a good grasp of the characters just by how they fight. In both duels, Ren completely outclasses his opponents but he is far from efficient. He's flashy and sadistic, showing how much power he has over whomever he's fighting against and how much better than them he believes himself to be. Finn, his first opponent, is not force sensitive but has incredible resolve. He has no idea what he's doing and almost loses to a Stormtrooper with a vibroblade, but he's incredibly determined and keeps trying to fight Ren despite being clearly outclassed. Rey was slightly better and eventually gained the upper hand because Ren underestimated her abilities; granted, she was still outclassed and Ren was at his physical limit, but the point is that she gained confidence and found her center over the course of the duel.
This is also expertly choreographed, because Abrams knows how to work with actors where Lucas only knows how to make things he wants to see. The prequel fights had a huge problem with Flynning to the point where the fights didn't look realistic. The movements in the new movie are much more varied and the actors portray the emotions through their fighting pretty well. Finn uses a bunch of large slow strokes, showing he's pretty in experienced. Rey is more experienced fighting with her staff, and tries fighting with the saber in a similar manner despite the weapons being completely different. She jabs and uses quicker movements, but without the counterweight of the rest of the staff behind her she does come off as awkard, just like as if she's been training to fight using the wrong weapon.
Pirate Squid No, i remember that. It just looked like he managed to overcome the wound by the time he fought Rey.
+shunkwugga spoiler warning?
***** SPOILER ALERT THE GOOD GUY FIGHTS THE BAD GUY
Here's another spoiler. *Clears throat
BAD GUYS DO A BAD!
I do have to agree, both Yoda and Palpatine were more Force orientated and never showed much interest in lightsabers. The only part the Yoda Palpatine duel did right was the Force struggle with the flying objects.
Even in the Force Unleashed games they showed Sidiouse only uses a Light Saber as a defense against other Light Sabers. Once the SaberLock has ended or he deflects a blow he quickly switches to the Force. With obvious preference to Force Lightning. As for Yoda, any game he has been in shows him with a light saber but most of those games take place before Episode 4. With the exception of Unleashed 2 where he simply guides Starkiller in a similar manner to Luke Episode 5 Style
Not quiet sure if Unleashed 2 is before E4 but its definitely after E3
Seeing people praise these movies on the IMDb discussion pages turned me into a misanthrope. These are some of the most boring movies I've ever seen because the characters are terribly written and the action is overblown, exhausting, and devoid of context and consequences.
Just compare the ending of New Hope with Anakin's ending in Phantom Menace. In New Hope they have a briefing scene where they explain that they're going to fly to the Death Star and shoot rockets into its reactor core. If they fail this delicate and dangerous task, the planet where the rebel base and presumably lots, if not all of the rebels are will get blown to pieces and everyone will die. High stakes and lots of tension, all made very clear to the audience ahead of time.
In Phantom Menace Anakin accidentally turns on a ship which flies itself to the one ship out of an entire fleet of identical ships that controls all the droids somehow. He accidentally flies into the ship, accidentally shoots a structure that happens to be important enough to destroy the entire ship, accidentally flies out to safety which accidentally saves the day. And what were the stakes? Well, Padme and her team had already captured the Viceroy, so they weren't in trouble and Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon weren't fighting droids. The only real consequence is that the Gungans, including Jar-Jar might die... Well, I'm on the edge of my seat.
I really don't understand why people just can't stand even the saying of liking prequel series. Just like it's your right to hate it, it's our right to like it. Don't try to hammer in your taste as we clearly don't demand you to like it.
@@kristofgriffin384 But the prequels are objectively bad.
@@SuperTonyony I agree with you. It's just that I see more good in them than other people do and appreciate them more, even if I am very eell aware of their flaws.
Both sides bring up good points, stop talking. Stoklasa as Plinkett is legendary for how well-thought out his reviews are on how Lucas has changed the Star Wars movies with the prequel trilogy, and while Mr. Plinkett does say that he isn't a fan of CG, he does acknowledge in one of his reviews that you can create a stylistic perspective using CG (showing 300 as an example), which is what the Nostalgia Critic was trying to say about the CG, except NC was also trying to say that CG can create vast believable worlds when done right, and Plinkett does mention in this video that shooting on location is a pain the a55.. Also, haters need to acknowledge that if the Star Wars Prequels (ex Phantom Menace) had a good story with the SAME ACTION, they would not complain about it at all. This says that the action itself wasn't bad, but the direction of the movie itself and confused a good amount of movie-goers.They both have good takes on film in general. And stop hating on the Nostalgia Critic, he has good reviews and constantly comes out with reviews on a regular basis (every 2 weeks), nowadays his reviews are 30+ minutes each, as well as daily vlogs on recommended children's tv shows (the good ones) and has 2+ full movies available to watch for free off his website.
*stop talking sh*t everybody.
grievous549
Fuck you. People like you are the reason everyone hates us Prequel haters. "if you prefer the prequels you don't deserve to breathe the same air as me." What an arrogant shithead. If you really care so much about someone's movie preference then I suggest you to Google "Are movies real".
grievous549
God am I stupid.
How did I not notice an obvious troll.
Excuse me for my retardness, Internet.
The Nostalgia Critic said that Christopher Nolan is losing his touch as a director, so I would take his reviews with a tiny bit of salt.
Nostalgia Critic is about as funny as finding blood in your shit.
+R_u_s_s_e_l_l Yeah, shitting blood always cracks me up, too! I laugh and laugh and eat my burrito in the bathroom.
I never knew that finding blood in my shit chould be so funny, thanks for the heads up :)
wtf?
I like Nostalgia Critic because he reviews lots of old crappy movies but his comedy style is not very good. Constantly rehashing jokes like Chuck Norris or the BK King and screaming and acting hysterical is just annoying. Mr Plinkett's comedy is much darker and intelligent. I just like NC because he reviews lots of awful movies. I would say AVGN is better at reviewing films than NC.
+carlwinslo Have you ever watched any episode of Best Of The Worst ? It's a series of videos in RLM's channel, where they watch three bad movies, then talk about which is the best (most entertaining, most weird, funny.... lots of criteria) of the worst. You'll be laughing almost the whole way through.
+Jeffrey Lebowski Best of the Worst is the best of the best. Anything that gives me 40 minutes of internet superstar Rich Evans' patented laughing at b-movie schlock is good in my book.
+carlwinslo Plinkett's humor is funny at times... but a lot of it's really stupid. Rape jokes. Jokes about killing his wife, etc. Not really that funny. It's not that it's offensive it's just not very funny.
+carlwinslo From what little of Plinkett I've watched it just seems like the guy's honest opinion but the character is put on as if it were some sort of buffer against backlash.
+carlwinslo Clearly, you have no idea how much Doug's humor has evolved lately. And even in his early years, he didn't solely resort to "rehashing jokes" or "screaming and acting hysterical". That's a grossly over-generalized accusation, relying on uninformed stereotypes.
So here's my thing, both are right in certain regards.
When it comes to lightsaber fighting you can go both ways with it because well, you have somewhat dull love tapping (particularly talking about New Hope here) vs something that grants more but it results in being more distracting, this is where Episode VII in my opinion got it right, because it had that good pacing but with a proper scale that doesnt get carried away with itself.
Jar Jar: Lucas is a shitlord for that, I will agree with Mike.
Yoda fighting: Yet again, can go both ways, if they had done the fight better and not go so over the top, it would have been fine because Yoda needed to do something as opposed to sitting on his ass and letting evil win (which inevitably happens in the movie), but personally Im mixed on those scenes, its nice to see him kick ass but its also not good to see him break character.
The bar scene: Who the fuck cares?
Anakin and Padme: I know the Revenge of the Sith episode was done quite a while ago, its pretty much just so your own personal feelings cant be used as a leverage against you in attempts to stray you from the Jedi way. However Mike was right when he says that everything was so forced, but this can boil down to Lucas being shitty again. Because in my opinion, there is potential in that area but its a matter of poor execution.
Hayden Christensen: Im agreeing with critic, he is a good choice, and he is a solid actor but, yet again, George fucking Lucas. In the scenes where he wasnt really talking you did see him get emotionally invested just a bit and the potential showed. But the shitty directing of Lucas didnt save him in this regard.
Revenge of the Sith opening: Personally, I dont agree with either side on this point. The way I see it, you go all practical and do it right, go all CGI and do it right, or do both and nail it like the way it should be. In my opinion the strict ends of the effects spectrum are wrong when it comes to doing things like this. If you use the right balance of CGI and practical effects the end result would be perfectly fine and potentially beautiful, I mean look at Lord of the Rings trilogy and Mad Max: Fury Road for example, using both types of effects to their fullest and blending them together to create something beautiful. Also, those who hate CGI, stop bitching about how it takes so little work, because truth is 3D animation isnt exactly a cakewalk either, it just less time consuming and even more important to producers, cheaper, as sad as it is thats just the reality of the situation.
Ewan McGregor: Okay, I personally think that he was a perfect choice and executed what he had well but like Christensen, he fell to the problem that was George Lucas,
The Emperor: Agree with both, personally thought it was just a blast to watch the Emperor's actor just have fun with every second he had.
Different Worlds: Yet again, this is a balancing act that just ended up falling on the wrong end. I agree that alot of the environments just shoved crap into your face 24/7 but, were it not so focused on and so grandiose to the point of being annoying, they would look perfectly fine. And when it came to green screening, yeah that got very very fuckin annoying, yet again here comes the balance of CGI and practical coming into play. I would love to see these environments done well, they all have neat ideas behind them but it ended up looking hideous in the end.
Opera Scene: I agree with critic to a point, I would like it more if Anakin had more to do with the scene itself rather than just sitting there like an exceptional person, but the atmosphere, music and pacing of the scene is what grabbed me in it.
Also, one critic point you forgot to mention was the music, which Im pretty sure we dont even need to talk about here.
By the way, fan of both Critic and RLM so Im trying not to show any bias.
However, Critic was right on the last note about how we should be able to recognize both the strengths in a massive shitstorm, does it save it? Oh fuck no, but it does show that there is a silver lining to every shitty fucking Jar Jar ridden storm.
most of nostlgia's critic's "good" things come down too "it's good because it could of been even worse"...that's like saying your addiction to smoking crack is a good thing because you don't inject heroin...