The MR. PLINKETT & RED LETTER MEDIA Discussion - Page 24

Of a broken heart caused by Lucas.

Doctors couldn't explain it. It appeared he lost the will to live.

um, what about the scene from Empire Strkes Back with Vader in his little pod thing while the helmet is being lowered down?

He meant no scenes from A New Hope.

Pretty sure Star Wars means Episode IV in this instance. You know, the one Lucas directed.

ETA : Ryan beat me to it. Obv.

Branding overwhelming a film's intrinsic worth is a new thing? People watched Rudolph Valentino films because they were Rudolph Valentino films. Hitchcock is a brand, John Wayne, Bette Davis. Big dollar movies actually being good have always been a happy by-product.

But the brand doesn't interest people in more cinema, or the next thing that isn't that if what you're selling is nostalgia. Neither Star Wars, nor Spider-Man made anyone stars - These are successful movies that don't do much for anyone's career involved.

I certainly wouldn't mind more brands like Christopher Nolan, but that's not what we're getting. Shyamalan was one, but that collapsed on itself.

I'm quite certain you haven't merely overlooked this, so I'm curious to know why you think Star Wars didn't make Harrison Ford a star.

Look at his films right after Star Wars and tell me which ones opened off of his name. Star Wars certainly put him on the map, but you could argue he didn't become a bona fide star until after Empire or maybe even Raiders.

EDIT: Here's his films between Star Wars and Empire and their gross:

Heroes -- $33.5 million
Force 10 from Navaron -- $7.2 million
Hanover Street -- $3 million
The Frisco Kid -- $9.3 million

Not exactly setting the world on fire there.

I assumed Damon was just referring to the prequels.

I assumed he was referring to the franchise as a whole.

Well, the prequels helped Jake Lloyd find a different career, which was certainly good for everybody.

I took his mentioning of nostalgia as a cue that he was really just talking about the way brands are used today.

YIPPEE!!!

Star Wars made Ford and company famous, but it didn't make them movie stars in the sense that they could open other films. It was the franchise and characters (the brand) that people knew and were the draw. Raiders helped Ford establish that he cold be more than just Han Solo. The Twilight franchise has made some people famous, but can they guarantee a huge opening weekend for the films they headline?

Worth noting that the prequels cast 'name' actors in most of the principal roles. Neeson, McGregor and even Portman were well-established at the time. Contrast this with Star Wars' stable of unknowns, accented by old pros Guinness and Cushing.

Wasn't Crowe down to the last 2 for Obi-Wan at one point? Could have been interesting and he may have have stood up to Lucas a little more.

Russell Crowe? Wow, I'd never heard that.

I think he was definitely part of the process, although I could be confusing rumour with fact. there's definitely concept work with Crowe's likeness (although there's also Hopkins and Fiennes work from the same stage). But I certainly remember reports of Crowe being considered for a while. Or am I taking arse?

This is a little misleading. They were hardly household names. Their stars rose significantly with just the news that they had been cast. That was the big difference between the two casts. Star Wars was such a big deal by the 90's that a simple casting announcement could lead to more work. By the time The Phantom Menace came out, the principle actors were worth far more than Lucas had contracted with them for. Neeson was the exception; he was the Alec Guinness of the group.

By 1996, around when he would have been cast, McGregor had Shallow Grave and Trainspotting. He was a hot property. And Portman had Leon plus strong notices for Beautiful Girls.

In 1975, Mark Hamill was a TV nobody, Ford was a (well-connected) bit player on the fringes, and Fisher had had one good line in Shampoo. The story that they were cast over bigger names because of their chemistry (a factor shockingly absent from the prequels) may have an element of spin, but I believe it.

Nostalgia has always been a draw at the movies. During the 60s, THE SOUND OF MUSIC and THE MUSIC MAN harkened back to an earlier time and were subsequently wildly successful. You're right about the rise of stars associated with these pics, but while that changed, people flocking to the cinema to try to lose themselves in the past certainly hasn't. INDIANA JONES and STAR WARS and the like are going to draw on an audience based on that, and because film executives are going to keep on pushing that (until the inevitable crash when the audience shifts) that isn't likely to change for a while. But 'forward movement' in cinema will always be there, either in response to stultifying films or despite it.

Lastly, about these movies "punking" the audience. Is it really punking if both the (general) audience and the film industry get what they want? A pleasurable time in the movies and steady income respectively?

I find that most of the nostalgia pictures aren't great (specifically Indiana Jones, and Star Wars in their most recent iterations). It's a reunion tour sensibility. I don't think reunions tours lead to people being interested in - say - Sleigh Bells. It's about getting people out for what they already feel comfortable with.

But also, if you look at what's in development, and what studios are most interested in, it's the safest stuff, which means that Inception is the exception. And to a certain extent I prefer on a number of different levels art that fails because it tried to do something and it didn't work, than reheatings.Right now American cinema is all about comfort food that is ultimately unhealthy.

I guess this is my natural inclination against malthusian arguments, but mediocrity was the norm before, is the norm now, and will be the norm in the future. Movies act as comfort food for the majority of the population. As to how that food is delivered, THAT's subject to change. But the intrinsic worth of the most popular properties? Probably not.

And the reverse is true. Quality will shine in the cracks, as it always will.

So, no one thinks that an hour-and-a-half excoriation of one of the prequels is a tad excessive?

The third 30 minutes should have been the whole thing. This was nuts.

As I noted above, he could have pretty much cut Part 2.

I think the key ingredient missing from films like the recent Indiana Jones flick are a genuine passion for the project. Films like Rocky Balboa and Grand Torino, while perhaps not perfect, at least seem to reflect a genuine care for their characters and a desire to see them off respectfully (be it Rocky or the "Dirty Harry" archetype of Clint). Remove that element, and what you've got is exactly what you said, reunion tours regurgitating mediocre version of past hits.

Yeah, he could be Han Solo in a hat.

Bit too long maybe, but the Citizen Kane stuff and the numb horror that is the couch/walk to window schtick was most excellent. Overall great stuff.

 

Now I wish never to think about Star Wars again. Apart from maybe fond memories playing Tie Fighter and being briefed by the gay Nazi from 'Allo Allo.

 

Best bit in this latest review? George almost beginning to stutter like a schoolboy explaining away his homework to his teacher, when talking about supposed script rewrites to a glowering, rather pissed off looking Hayden. 

It was pretty hilarious. In fact, I reckon you could piece together a great montage from all the Prequels' behind the scenes footage. Lucas would just be blathering away in that same monotone from beginning to end, but you'd see everyone else's faces progress from confusion in the TPM era, becoming increasingly haggard and depressed-looking as the years go by.

 

All I know is, the TPM documentary alone has given me an enduring twitch every time I hear the phrase 'tone poem'. Imagine listening to the guy for six years.

 

 

I would like this guy's reviews more if it weren't for that damn voice (seriously, it's like a mix of Ben Stein and Napoleon Dynamite) and the fact that I'm sick to death of people bitching about the prequels. We get it, they suck (in your opinion, at least, I still enjoy the spectacle of them). Can we please fucking move on?

 

Still, what I have been able to sit through with this guy is informative and entertaining enough, mostly his Trek reviews.

Funny.  I've actually gotten kinda attached to that voice.  

He does the same voice in the Trek reviews, so if you enjoy those but don't like the Prequel ones, you must be a secret fan or something.  ...wait, you admitted you liked them.  Nevermind.

The more I think about it, the more my favorite point is the one about Vader suddenly becoming the center of the universe.  And it happened way before the prequels.  In the first film, he's little more than a minor luminary, knuckling under to the station's military commander.  Suddenly, in Empire, he's leading a fleet and executing officers.  That's a pretty big promotion for a guy who royally fucked up his previous assignment.

To be fair, the advertising for the original film pushed the Vader imagery pretty hard. The perception of the character was always greater than his actions. But yes, in Empire he definitely gets a 'fan-favorite' upgrade.

 

Of course, we don't know what story he told the Emperor. "Tarkin went crazy and hit the self-destruct!"

Wait, that's not right. Vader is a pretty significant force in the first movie--he's supposed to be the Emperor's right-hand man right from the start, and obviously the fact that he has magical powers and enough clout to choke out a fucking admiral has to count for something.

 

And I'm pretty sure the first Death Star was considered Tarkin's fuckup, not Vader's.

 

I'll definitely agree that Vader seems to have gotten a promotion above Grand Moff by Jedi, though. Unless he and the Grand Moffs are sort of co-equivalent, and Tarkin just had the balls to keep him in line, but the new guy didn't.

The Trek reviews are also shorter (or at least they SEEM shorter), so that helps a lot. Either way, I think the guy's OK but massively overrated. Carry on, gentlemen...

I've always felt that the prequels were missed opportunities, and I always knew that the story was shit. I used to point at stupid plot points as my reasoning. My favorite example of shitty, lazy storytelling: the ability of the two Jedi to enter Grevious' shield protected ship by blowing up a generator that should be being protected by said shields.

 

The walking, sitting in couches, standing by windows, shot/reverse shot, and sense of smallness in the huge CG sets as displayed in the last part of the review have opened my eyes to the true problem of the prequels. I just never had the time or need to watch them enough to realize this.

 

Lucas in a chair watcing two monitors with coffee firmly in hand = the reason these movies sucked. Lucas was lazy in every aspect of this prequel series. I appreciate Plinkett opening my eyes to this.

 

No, I see your point.  And to be fair, I might actually *appreciate* the Trek ones more, because they aren't such obvious whipping boys (see: First Contact), especially when he uses obscure TNG episodes to make his points.   

The continuing adventures of Palpantine and Plinkett.

Oh man, I hope that joke about CRYSTAL SKULL comes true. I want either that or TRON LEGACY next, please, Mr. Plinkett.

I would like to see him review Forrest Gump. I've always had a problem with a movie that says being stupid is good.

posted in wrong forum ...

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoK_LTyVYB4&feature=related]...erm...[/url]

 

And that hippies deserve AIDS.
 

There are so many awful blockbusters that he could dissect. Crystal Skull is probably the most likely, because of the Lucas connection. Hell, he could even do non-awful movies. He seemed to like Avatar to a degree, and it was still a good review.

 

Looking around at RLM-related stuff, I can't help but notice that they seem to be making a narrative Plinkett movie. And it looks exactly as cheap as you'd expect.

I remember seeing the Phantom Menace review over a year ago and spamming AICN and the IMDB, trying to get people to watch it because I thought it was soo brilliant. I was worried that the Attack of the Clones review wouldn't live up to the quality of the first but it was even better IMHO.

 

I'm sad to say that, although Mr. Plinkett's analytical skills are still as sharp as ever, his Revenge of the Sith review wasn't nearly as funny nor were there enough psychotic POV non sequiturs for my liking. The two main problems are that, for all of the build up, the return of Nadine went nowhere and it would have been better if he just hadn't of bothered. The second problem is that the review had no theme to it, in that, the first was primarily about The Phantom Menace's failures of narritive and how, with all of his money, Lucas did a better job when he was struggling while making the fisrt Star Wars. His AofC review worked because he mocked the ridiculous love story while developing the relationship between Nadine and Harry.

 

The RofS review was much too dry for my liking and the best gag was the cat fucking. It seems that the guy behind RedLetterMedia was too busy doing a low budget Horror movie to really give Reveng of the Sith the attention it needed.

Quote:

 

Haha, imagine if that really was the message of Forrest Gump. It'd be a comedy of the most epic proportions.

 

It says a lot about the USA that they fell in love with a movie about a simpleton who achieves success with no effort (run Forrest run!), never questions authority, joins the army, get's his ass literaly shot off in an imperialist war, becomes rich through luck, only has sex for pro-creation and gains little or no insight about himself or the world around him despite all of his incredible experiences while Jenny is an independent free thinking liberal lefty that experiments with drugs and protests against the army because she was molested by her father, allows herself to be physically abused by her boyfriend and has a child out of wedlock with a retard before getting A.I.D.S. (probably from doing beastiality flicks) and dying.
 

I have to wonder if Zemekis really bought into that ideology or was he just fucking with people?

 

I say they make a sequel where he gets elected President and is reading Curious George to school children when he learns that the World Trade Center has been attacked. 

Forrest Gump made more money overseas than domestic.  Just sayin'.