Slashdot Mirror

I could have eaten a bowl of alphabet soup and shat a better plot than that.

Actually, 1-3 literally have no plot. They are just a combination of random, usually conflicting and confusing words, and images.

Don't believe me? Check these out. The narrative voice is annoying as all hell, and the reviews are very long, but he does an absolutely wonderful job of analyzing those "movies." Literally, they have no plot. If a film student were to produce that shit, they would be ejected from school.

Plinkett covered this in detail via http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/ His reviews were easily the best thing about episode 1-3, GL is a great business man and nobody will take that away from him but he is the Microsoft of the film world.

Check out the excellent Plinkett reviews pf the prequels: http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

The only thing related to SW worth watching are Red Letter Media's reviews of episodes 1-3. http://redlettermedia.com/ If you haven't seen them yet, I can't recommend them enough.

But there is a hidden bonus to watching the prequel Star Wars: one would definitely enjoy the reviews which are by far more interesting than the prequels themselves.

He still doesn't get it. For whatever reason, he continues to equate incredible special effects with incredible results. Even if he were to spend that massive budget for each episode, I strongly doubt the result would be anywhere near as good as something like Battlestar Galatica, Babylon 5, etc.

If you somehow haven't seen them, I recommend Red Letter Media's review of the Star Wars: Episodes 1-3, which does a better job of explaining why those films are miserable piles of crap than I could ever hope to do myself. Also relevant clip from an episode of South Park.

I think the RedLetterMedia/Plinkett Reviews are the best thing the come out of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. I found the review to be much more entertaining and higher quality than the films themselves.

It's not just Jar Jar and the wooden acting, it's the complete and utter lack of proper storytelling and cinematography, caused by a director obsessed with green-screens and special effects. Note that from the old movies only A New Hope was directed and written solely by George Lucas (though allegedly his former wife also had a big influence as editor).

Watch the RedLetterMedia reviews for a detailed and hilarious analysis of all three movies.

If you think about it, really, really think about it, Jar Jar wasn't the problem with the prequels. Sure, he was annoying and obviously there for kids but he was just one tiny aspect in an overwhelmingly poor movie. I'd rather not go on because I feel I'm just regurgitating material from this: http://www.redlettermedia.com/phantom_menace.html

You'll want to watch the other reviews as well. They're enlightening and funny (if extremely crude at times). If it sounds like I'm doing a plug, well, it sort of is but only because I found the reviews far more entertaining than the movies reviewed and stands up to repeat viewings.

These are excellent movie reviews and to be fair to the Star Wars fanboys he does the later Star Trek movies as well. Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and the newest one as well.

These are excellent movie reviews and to be fair to the Star Wars fanboys he does the later Star Trek movies as well. Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and the newest one as well.

These are excellent movie reviews and to be fair to the Star Wars fanboys he does the later Star Trek movies as well. Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and the newest one as well.

These are excellent movie reviews and to be fair to the Star Wars fanboys he does the later Star Trek movies as well. Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and the newest one as well.

That dull drivel has some entertainment value though not at all due to the efforts of Lucas and Co. Might I direct your attention to reviews (with a meta-story among these and other reviews) of The Phantom Menace, The Attack of the Clones, and The Revenge of the Sith? These are video reviews and very much NSFW (but still very analytical and all the movies are thoughtfully picked apart). They are also rather long, each over an hour.

That dull drivel has some entertainment value though not at all due to the efforts of Lucas and Co. Might I direct your attention to reviews (with a meta-story among these and other reviews) of The Phantom Menace, The Attack of the Clones, and The Revenge of the Sith? These are video reviews and very much NSFW (but still very analytical and all the movies are thoughtfully picked apart). They are also rather long, each over an hour.

That dull drivel has some entertainment value though not at all due to the efforts of Lucas and Co. Might I direct your attention to reviews (with a meta-story among these and other reviews) of The Phantom Menace, The Attack of the Clones, and The Revenge of the Sith? These are video reviews and very much NSFW (but still very analytical and all the movies are thoughtfully picked apart). They are also rather long, each over an hour.

Poor Plinkett. Guess he'll have to figure out another witty way of saying, "What's wrong with your face?"

"What's wrong with your mug?" just doesn't work the same.

For one there's just the problem with browser based MMOs seeming to universally suck. However also the fact that there's a lot of Trekkies is not a good thing IMO. Trekkies, or really anyone over devoted to a given universe/philosophy/whatever have a tendency to get a little dogmatic. Things have to be "right" above all else. Well in a game, that isn't how it should be. Things have to be fun above all else. That can mean some major changes to franchises sometimes. This is something people like Trekkies (ESPECIALLY Trekkies) don't like.

We'll see what happens, but I remain skeptical till I see the product.

Also I would direct your attention to Plinkett's review of Star Trek http://www.redlettermedia.com/star_trek_09.html for a comment on screwing with the Star Trek universe. Namely, that is screwed with itself extensively even before the new reboot. While there are various iconic things (such as how the ships look and the general idea of exploration) it is very much an "anything goes" universe.

By the way, if you haven't seen the Red Letter Media Star Wars reviews yet, shame on you. At the least, set aside an hour and watch the Phantom Menace review. He goes above and beyond a normal video review (Menace is an hour, Clones is almost 90 minutes) explaining exactly why the movies fail so horribly.

The Star Trek movie reviews are also fantastic -- even better than the Star Wars ones, I think. Funny as hell, dead on the mark, and well worth the time to watch them.

There is a lot of objective criticism for film, though. He's right - Avatar's plot was predictable and without suspense. Its characters were shallow, especially the villian of the piece who was as unmotivated as the villian in a Shakespeare comedy - pure "he'd the bad guy because the film needed one". There was more character development than, say, Predator, but the character growth was frankly cliche.

More subjectively, the fight scenes were fairly dull (beyond the cool effects), with no real sense of interaction between opponents in most of the combat. Of course, fight choreography in animation is hard, so that sort of comes with being (mostly) an animated film.

Of course, the Red Letter Media guy has a far more learned and entertaining review. "Avatar tells the story of Dances with Wolves in space, in order to further a director's already vast ego and advance movie technology further in the wrong direction." By his standards it's not a particularly harsh review, but his analysis is always insightful.

Learn basic film: http://www.redlettermedia.com/phantom_menace.html