__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
That guy's commentaries are just horrible. Every single point he makes is wrong and/or forced. Just atrocious in construction. I can't believe those vids got so many views.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
If course you two don't like what I have to say because I loved the PT and you two didn't. Obviously, you will agree with his fail. Most people would not disagree with opinions that coincide with their own. That would be weird if you did.
To be more on topic, I once considered making a massive youtube reply to all of his videos to point out why he's such an insufferable idiot and baby. That video posted in this thread has so much wrong with it that I literally could not agree with a single point of his and I can point out why he's such a fail idiot on all his points. He did not make a single legitimate point in his video. That is how forced most of his stuff really is.
yeah. their opinions don't count since they differ from your opinion. maybe you should type lots of stuff now.
__________________ "Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage."
Holy shit... are you the guy who wrote the 108 page counter-essay?
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
If I wrote the counter reply to his videos, it would probably take closer to 300 pages.
Almost every point he makes would require 1 paragraph, at least, to reply.
But where is this counter essay? I don't want to reinvent the wheel. I took off of school this semester so I will have a lot more time on my hands...a LOT more. I could add to his or use it as a base if I decide to make a youtube video reply.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Actually, this is what is wrong about it: some people take SW too seriously. A lot of fans were disappointed, others were not. I think Stoklasa/Plinkett voiced the disappointment of a lot of fans very well. And it's quite clear where he comes from: he considers SW a simple movie, with simple constructions and clear cut characters. Like they were in the OT.
I guess in the PT Lucas tried something else, maybe he tried to elevate the material, I dunno. Personally I think he failed big time, basically for all the reason Stoklasa pointed out.
And yet, Stoklasa doesn't go out and rant. No he makes a simple video satire about an old man who kills people in his basement and makes comments, not without a lack of tongue-in-cheek, that are from a storytelling point of view quite valid.
But of course, you don't have to agree with him. But as avid PT-defenders point out that a lot of people went to see the PT and a lot of people love the PT, the same argument goes for Plinkett's adventures: a lot of people watched it and a lot of people agreed with him.
I think he did great: he made his issues with SW into a form of popular entertainment. And it's like with the PT: you don't HAVE to like it.
But there is one thing you gotta admit about the PT: you certainly need a lot of background from interviews and EU to fully understand what Lucas was trying to do. The problem is that a lot is not IN the movies or it is so subtle that is really passes by a lot of people. It is certainly flawed storywise, and I do believe blind fandom kinda masks these flaws. And that is fine, but I was disappointed and still am. And WHY I am disappointed, well... watch Plinkett's reviews. He voices my feelings and opinions very well. AND... in an entertaining way. At least as important.
BTW... I hear the 100 page rebuttal isn't great literature either, just a guy ranting because someone didn't like his favorite movie. Well...
__________________
Last edited by queeq on Jan 15th, 2013 at 10:01 AM
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
And it's not great; I read the first two pages when it came out and had to stop. The guy seemed to really take the reviews personally. He probably invested himself in the prequels to such an extent that he couldn't stand it when they were deconstructed.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
My rebuttal is 109 pages. Got him beat by 1 page just cause I had to.
Nah, I'm kidding. I will admit that I think some, not all, but some of Stoklasa's points are just way too nitpicky, and some of the points are really valid. At the end of the day, the character he plays for the review is hilarious, and it's hard not to be somewhat entertained by it, even if one doesn't necessarily agree with everything he says.
I mean in one of his Star Trek reviews, he's complaining because Picard enters the bridge of the Enterprise from the left side instead of the right. Things like that are what I'm talking about. He even ripped "First Contact" apart and I think that was by far one of the better Star Trek movies. Just my opinion though.
He makes many valid points, and some that are too nitpicky in my opinion, but like I said, he's funny and entertaining.
Nitpicking is part of the whiny Plinkett character though, part of the entertainment. If you watch the Half-in-the-Bag reviews, you see the other side of Stoklasa the Reviewer.
I also liked the Plinkett ambiguity in his very recent Titanic review: "the best and worst film ever made"... clever and valid on both counts.
Oct 31st, 2012 09:54 AM
Obviously, you will agree with his fail. Most people would not disagree with opinions that coincide with their own. That would be weird if you did.
