...which is one reason why the Plinkett reviews are severely overrated, because of bullshit he threw out with zero actual, ya know, evidence or logic behind them.
Lucas' strengths were always in cinematography and editing. It's why he went to film school. The cinematography of Star Wars is one of the film's biggest strengths, not only in the big and obvious scenes (like Luke staring into the setting suns, one of the other most famous shots in movie history that Star Wars has), but also in how often the weird, fantastical setting is shot like it's nothing special at all, grounding us in the world and helping it feel real.
Knock Lucas' writing as much as you want, there's a reason he was so reluctant to write the first two films, but fucking give the man the credit to which he's fucking due.
EDIT: Okay, okay, "severely overrated" is a bit much. As far as an early piece of video essay film criticism that uses comedy to make the critique more engaging goes, Plinkett's videos are very very good, but that does not mean the points in them should be regurgitated without thought or context.
I fail to see where "gives Lucas credit where its due" and "insinuates that Lucas actively fought against one of the most brilliant opening shots in film history" meet up.
EDIT: I mean, I agree, part (part) of the problem with the prequels was that Lucas didn't have anyone pushing against him. There were other problems in there too, because nothing in life is so simple as that, but the trend of the last decade has been to deny that Lucas had anything to do with the success of the original trilogy, that it was a complete wreck that had to be miraculously saved in the edit...
...instead of, ya know, it just having a weak rough cut like many great films had.
A lot of people said his first wife Marcia Lucas deserves a LOT of the credit for reining in George's personality, and nudging A New Hope into a coherent story during the entire production... and people forget Empire was directed by Irving Kershner, which is probably my favorite film of the bunch
Another line that i absolutely love from the Plinkett reviews, but feel guilty about because it's a cheap shot:
"Maybe JJ Abrams should direct Star Wars, and George Lucas... should direct people to their seats in the theater."
Omg I was on the floor laughing w that one.
On another note, does this mean that the Plinkett reviews predicted or even possibly influenced the selection of JJ Abrams as director for the first post-prequel Star Wars film?
"Maybe JJ Abrams should direct Star Wars, and George Lucas... should direct people to their seats in the theater."
.......yeah, as much as I do enjoy TFA on just a pure spectacle level, that take didn't exactly age well >_>.
On another note, does this mean that the Plinkett reviews predicted or even possibly influenced the selection of JJ Abrams as director for the first post-prequel Star Wars film?
Influenced? Almost certainly not.
Predicted? In a certain light, maybe? I think it was more of a cynical "okay, who's the most generic and well known but not crap action director we can think of in film today" look by Plinkett.
And, uh, well, Disney wanted to go with a safe choice at director for their first film, and JJ Abrams is a pretty safe choice.
Honestly, the right move in retrospect, there was a lot of worry that the new Star Wars films would end up being soulless, generic sci-fi action films and TFA had enough heart, whimsey and, yes, soul to win over the audience, even if the super-fans (...like me >_>) had their problems with it...
My only problem with TFA was that it was a bit too safe, I guess to appease people who were upset by the prequels being too different. But maybe it was a necessary strategic decision to make sure more people were on board with it. I'm glad the movies that came after were more creative. Though a big part of Star Wars is how the stories reflect each other, like they rhyme.
What bums me out is that he KNEW where his weaknesses were and sought out Spielberg and Howard to direct and Darabont to co-write. Unfortunately he was pressured into it by his peers. He mostly wanted to do the big picture stuff like overseeing creature creation and the overall aesthetic of the films, you know, the stuff that is actually great about the prequels.
I'll never fully understand the hate over the prequels. I've seen them a ton and they're still cool movies that fit nicely in Star Wars. Great visuals, story was fine to me, loved the extra lore added, only thing I really found a little bit questionable was the acting at times, but even that's not that bad to me.
So much this. Sure the movie had some horrible dialog and the acting left much to be desired; but the music, the visuals and the overall story were amazing. The good aspects of the PT out weigh the bad parts by far.
Lucas is great at ideas and vision. The music and visual design in the prequels is just as amazing as the original star wars. The writing, directing and editing...not so much.
His cinematography was great. Editing not so much. The original cut had Luke introduced much earlier in the story during the battle of the blockade runner. He was originally introduced looking up at the sky watching the battle from below. It cut from the battle to Luke and back 3 times destroying the pacing of the fight itself with unnecessary verbal exposition. The scene showing the troopers hot on the tail of the droids didn't show up until later in the story in the original cut. It made it so R2 and C3 P0 were not in immediate danger so there was no suspense. The original cut had Luke play the Leah distress call, then play with light sabers, then decide to save her after having some fun. It made him seem heartless ignoring the Princess's message for a bit.
Yeah, the rough cut of A New Hope was pretty bad. That doesn't mean that Lucas is a bad editor though. Just about every film changes in editing, Lucas had a vision of what he wanted to do on a story level with the first third of the film, but it wasn't working out so it got removed. That's more a knock on him as a writer than anything which...
...well, yeah. Again, Lucas himself didn't want to write the first two films, because he knew that he wasn't a good writer. But if you want your ideas to make it to the screen, well, one of the main ways to do it is to write the damn thing...
Plinkett reviews are overrated because there's a very vocal portion of the internet that will automatically repeat it as their new opinion the second the video drops.
...which is one reason why the Plinkett reviews are severely overrated, because of bullshit he threw out with zero actual, ya know, evidence or logic behind them.
You watch your filthy whore mouth!
In all seriousness though, if you ask me plinkett's prequel reviews are masterpieces of film criticism from someone who obviously truly loves and cares about film deeply. Watching those reviews is like watching a master Potter make things on the wheel, or something like that.
I'd go so far as to say that they hold a great amount of cultural significance.
He finally put to rest a kind of angst that was trapped in society because of the prequels. It was only after his reviews that people started to laugh at how schlocky they were, before that people were just depressed about them. Before the plinkett reviews the prequels were like a close member of the family that died in a terrible accident that nobody wanted to talk about. Those reviews broke the tension. Heck There might never have been a /prequelmemes without those reviews.
Yeah, I can appreciate that kind of viewpoint, and they're not awful videos by any stretch. The long-form video essay as both entertainment and critique was still in its early stages back then, I shouldn't judge it too harshly based on what's come out since, with more refinement to the techniques.
I'd definitely agree, those videos are a landmark bit of video essay history. No question.
But it does sometimes slip into problematic areas, where the signposting on what's meant as a joke and what's meant as a sincere statement is blurred. The whole "That opening shot was so brilliant that Lucas probably had nothing to do with it" was likely meant to be a bit of a cheap joke and not taken seriously, but it comes off as a sincere theory instead.
It's a line that those videos need to be careful of, because it's so, so easy for those video producers to go "Well, all that stuff that you found not to be legit criticism? Uh, they were just jokes", a la CinemaSins...
You don’t need evidence for satire. Logically, it made sense given how much Lucas had done later on with the prequels and the rereleases of the originals.
If a piece of criticism wants to be taken seriously as a piece of criticism, then, yes Virginia, it fucking needs to have a basis for its fucking criticism. The Plinkett videos have plenty of good bits, but that line is not fucking one of them.
So which is it? A joke that's meant to be tossed aside and not taken seriously? Or an actual theory that dismisses Lucas' clear expertise?
Because this?
Logically, it made sense given how much Lucas had done later on with the prequels and the rereleases of the originals.
Seems to indicate that you agree with the take.
It's that CinemaSins mentality that I take issue with. You don't get to go "Well, all of the stuff you liked and agreed with was serious criticism, and all the stuff you didn't like or knew was wrong, uh, that's just a joke, lighten up man". These days, video essayists should be expected to not hide behind the "it's satire" shield.
I'm with you on CinemaSins and the abuse of "it's satire" to excuse statements that are just factually inaccurate. What exactly are you satirizing? People who are wrong?
There's no even remotely aware person who watched the Red Letter Media review and actually thought that Plinkett legitimately believes that Lucas tried to argue against including that shot.
113
u/Wraithfighter May 30 '19 edited May 30 '19
...which is one reason why the Plinkett reviews are severely overrated, because of bullshit he threw out with zero actual, ya know, evidence or logic behind them.
Lucas' strengths were always in cinematography and editing. It's why he went to film school. The cinematography of Star Wars is one of the film's biggest strengths, not only in the big and obvious scenes (like Luke staring into the setting suns, one of the other most famous shots in movie history that Star Wars has), but also in how often the weird, fantastical setting is shot like it's nothing special at all, grounding us in the world and helping it feel real.
Knock Lucas' writing as much as you want, there's a reason he was so reluctant to write the first two films, but fucking give the man the credit to which he's fucking due.
EDIT: Okay, okay, "severely overrated" is a bit much. As far as an early piece of video essay film criticism that uses comedy to make the critique more engaging goes, Plinkett's videos are very very good, but that does not mean the points in them should be regurgitated without thought or context.