Star Wars Again: meta-meta-meta review

I’m not really sure what category this belongs to, but Star Wars has once again appeared on my radar so here goes.

A while ago, a colleague introduced me to the strange world of Mr. Plinkett, a deranged pizza-roll-eating movie reviewer with a hilarious habit of “taping” his reviews over the top of kidnapping, rape, torture and bestiality footage featuring his cat and various abducted women.

Among his film reviews are some extremely long-winded and highly entertaining critiques of Episode I, Episode II and Episode III, which are cruel and unusual in just about every sense of the term. Well recommended to anyone with a bit of time or the opportunity to leave them playing in the background while you work. Not exactly the sort of footage you want to accidentally share on your desktop during a meeting, of course. But what is, these days?

The reviews so entertained some people, and so enlivened the Anti Prequel Party, that one loyal Star Wars enthusiast took it on himself to write a hundred-odd page rebuttal to Plinkett’s review of The Phantom Menace – a review of the review, to which Plinkett filmed a brief counter-rebuttal.

Now, I didn’t care much for the Prequel Trilogy. It was full of BSTs and action and that was a lot of fun for a shallow and tacky film-viewer such as myself … but I guess I, like so many other Star Wars fans, had been waiting so long to see new movies that my expectations were just way too high.

As discussed elsewhere here, it’s really dubious to pin down exactly where the old movies “won” and the new movies “lost”. Annoying-arse kid, even-more-annoying-arse teenager, annoying-arse Jar Jar Binks and rather too much CGI fakery, sure. Those are easy, sweeping, subjective remarks to make.

But I was swayed by the reasonableness in the meta-review. It still got a bit ad hominem, and I rather think it was the work of a true fanboy. A new age fanboy, perhaps, while Plinkett’s reviews may be more accurately described as the work of an old school fanboy, but it stuck to its guns and it stuck to the facts.

Plinkett’s reviews do fub some points, focus on others way too much, create more confusion than needed and ignore some things entirely. Some of his objections and criticisms were actually made up, and it’s not exactly an intellectually enriching piece. A bit of fact-checking – which our new age fanboy did in spades – shed a lot of light on what initially looks like a multitude of sins, but turns out in fact to just be an average movie that could never live up to its legend.

As the disgruntled rumblings of a disenchanted old school fanboy, Plinkett’s review sums up the confusion and disappointment I know a lot of people felt on seeing these films. I felt it myself, to some degree or another, in between going “oooh, look at the shinies.” So it’s not an objective and intellectually honest piece of critique … fine. As long as I’m not thinking of it that way, I don’t mind if other people do. Our new age fanboy obviously minds.

Plinkett also preferred the older Star Trek movies to the Next Generation ones, although his review of the Trek prequel film was pretty reasonable and positive for someone the new age fanboy meta-reviewer calls so many nasty names. And a lot of Plinkett’s criticisms of the Next Generation films seemed pretty clear, as opposed to his more vague and rambling objections to the Prequel Trilogy’s plot minutiae.

His use of the puzzled Trek officer in pointing out flaws, incidentally, was also nothing short of brilliant.

Comic Sans? Really, Captain?

Points to the new age fanboy and his meta-review, though, overall. His work may not have been as funny or elaborate, but it was closer to an actual review and it showed he’d done his homework. And Plinkett’s homework, too. I’m going to pay Plinkett’s reviews as hilarious, clever and well done, but the meta-review still whips them on facts.

New age fanboy could have been nicer about it, but hey. Plinkett wasn’t very nice, and that was one of the things that made his review so damn funny. That meta-review was obviously the work of many months and a lot of frustrating conversations about Plinkett’s films, so I can’t begrudge him a little snarkiness. And Plinkett’s meta-meta-review was way off base, since that was not what new age fanboy’s meta-review was all about (but again, can’t really blame him because his actual reviews were even more work, and it’s very easy for someone to just come along and criticise … which is just what Plinkett did to Lucas, who put even more work into his films … whoa, I am falling into a meta-hole).

I have a feeling Plinkett read the meta-review in spite of his dubious response to it. I know I would, if our situations were reversed and someone put that much effort into destroying something I’d made – if only on academic grounds.

But it all comes down to one thing: do you like the three-movie Star Wars saga, or the six-movie Star Wars saga? There are people who refuse to acknowledge that the Prequel Trilogy even happened, and that’s their right. There are people who refuse to acknowledge that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and that doesn’t affect my life in any concrete way.

Personally, my conclusion about the Original Trilogy vs. the Prequel Trilogy is summed up by one thing: the Lego.

The old movies had droids and machines and ships and things that already looked like they were made of Lego. You could make most of the things out of grey Lego pieces without much need for special packs, and when you wanted to get creative, you could make all sorts of hybrids and other stuff as well. That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone of a certain age: this is what Lego is meant to be for.

The new movies’ props, however, are very much what I call “new Lego”: you get a packet with about six pieces of Lego in it, each piece can attach in exactly one way, to make exactly one thing: the prop from the movie, all cartoony and slick. You can’t use the top half of a Naboo fighter ship to make anything else (except possibly a Battle Droid with a hilarious head). It spoils your imagination.

The Prequel Trilogy in a nutshell? You decide.

This entry was posted in Hatboy's Movie Extravaganza, Hatboy's Nuggets of Crispy-Fried Wisdom, Kussa mun hopoti?. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Star Wars Again: meta-meta-meta review

  1. dreameling says:

    I was perfectly happy and content with feeling manly fan love for Plinkett and mostly agreeing with his points (selective and biased as they may be) and breezily writing the rebuttal off, without actually having read it, as some sad person’s sad justification of their sad devotion to that ancient rel– I mean, to all things Star Wars. Now I’m reconsidering. I think I want to read the rebuttal. You’re making me a better person. I hate it.

    Btw., the Lego analogy is brilliant.

  2. stchucky says:

    The thing is, on general attitude, Plinkett is spot on and his review is very clever – from, as Obi Wan himself once said, a certain point of view.

    But his facts are off. If you’re going to nitpick, be prepared for other people to nitpick you right back. And the meta-reviewer was right in that Plinkett’s reviews are so big, few people actually bother to nitpick the nitpicks. I’m just glad somebody did.

    It in no way spoiled the reviews for me, I still think they’re funny and their message is still strong. The Prequel Trilogy suffered from many, many problems. And the meta-review was by no means academically perfect or objective. Only in the actual facts was it objective, and there are a lot of those. It’s pretty dry reading, but get yourself a hot chocolate and make yourself comfortable, and enjoy!

  3. dreameling says:

    I’ve yet to read the rebuttal, so I’ve no idea what facts Plinkett gets wrong and how, but the reason I generally agree with his criticism is that it so closely matches my own experience of watching and rewatching the prequels. I may not agree on all the specifics, and he obviously touches on only so many things, which sometimes feel quite random, but his “general attitude” is something I sympathize with, since it correlates with my overall response to the prequels, both emotional and intellectual — especially where the things the prequels get wrong are concerned.

    Of course, Plinkett really only focus on what the prequels do get wrong and he does it pretty selectively and viciously to boot, so it’s not like his reviews sum up the prequels in their totality. But, at least for me, they do sum up the … let’s call it the dark side of the prequels.

    And, for the record, part of me likes the prequels, especially Episode I. They do get some things right. And they do look pretty.

  4. dreameling says:

    I finally read new age fanboy’s rebuttal to the RLM review. Color me underwhelmed and mostly unconvinced.

    My biggest issue with new age fanboy’s rant is that he seems to project so much into the movie. In order to explain the plot, the characters, and the world, he projects logic and reason and context that is simply not there (as far as I can see) or that you really need to want to be there to see it. And even supposing that the movie really does fully provide the information required to explain itself, that new age fanboy’s truths really are valid and follow logically from what the movie presents, the information is buried under so much shoddy cinematic storytelling that there’s no way you can catch it, much less understand it, during the two hours it takes to watch the movie. You can always pick a movie apart after the fact in your own time and show that it really does make sense after all, but that does not make it a good movie. Quite the opposite, in fact. New age fanboy took who knows how much time to make sense out of the movie, to think things through and check the facts, but that’s not something you can afford to do while you’re watching the movie, especially for the first time. (No. TPM is not one of those dense, layered, cerebral movies that require you to actively participate in their meaning-making process.)

    So, new age fanboy interprets. In fact, he interprets no less than Stoklasa, which makes the rebuttal no less an opinion piece than the RLM review. He sets his review up as some kind of irrefutable truth based on observable fact, but all he really does is expound upon his view of the facts as he sees them. His confidence of writing from some privileged position of absolute reality is something that really bugs me.

    By obsessing on the facts, new age fanboy also misses the whole point of the RLM review and, indeed, that of movies themselves. A movie is not the sum total of whatever facts of story, plot, character, or world it contains. These are merely the raw material. The key is how the movie presents and represents this material, how it weaves its narrative around it, how it filters the information, how it connects the dots (or fails or refuses to). Now, perhaps all the required information to make sense of things is there in TPM, but the movie nevertheless fucks up the narrative presentation of that information. And this is what the RLM review captures for me. Sure, it may have its problems, and it may get some of its facts wrong, but the whole works, since it’s more than the sum of its parts. New age fanboy’s review is the opposite. It may make some valid points, and it may get the raw facts right, but ultimately it’s just a series of gripes. Here, the whole never transcends the sum of its parts.

    Moreover, the RLM review is an intentionally provocative opinion piece framed as a kind of short film. I doubt its raw information content, the body of facts as selected and presented by Stoklasa, was ever meant to fully stand against rigorous, analytic scrutiny. If you really want to rip it apart, you do it on the same terms — you create your own vicious little meta-mock-review.

    Finally, new age fanboy’s rhetoric is just awful. His constant and overbearing reliance on such extreme and polarizing value judgments as “wrong”, “bad”, “stupid”, and “idiotic” only serve to undermine his credibility and alleged objectivity. In a vicious little meta-mock-review this kind of rhetoric would be fine, but remember that new age fanboy is going for mostly serious, fair-minded, point-by-point analysis here. Had he written his rant in a more engaging and adult style, he would have fared better, I think. It’s never just about the facts.

    Kinda lost some steam there toward the end, but I’m still done. And yes, I totally failed to offer proof by way of quotations to back up my arguments. But, hey, not going for academic or even semi-academic analysis here.

  5. stchucky says:

    > I finally read new age fanboy’s rebuttal to the RLM review.
    > Color me underwhelmed and mostly unconvinced.

    I only have a magenta-coloured crayon, so magenta it will have to be. We can tell everyone this specific shade of magenta is known as “underwhelmed and mostly unconvinced” if you like.

    > My biggest issue with new age fanboy’s rant is that he
    > seems to project so much into the movie. In order to
    > explain the plot, the characters, and the world, he
    > projects logic and reason and context that is simply
    > not there (as far as I can see) or that you really need
    > to want to be there to see it. And even supposing that
    > the movie really does fully provide the information
    > required to explain itself, that new age fanboy’s
    > truths really are valid and follow logically from what
    > the movie presents, the information is buried under so
    > much shoddy cinematic storytelling that there’s no way
    > you can catch it, much less understand it, during the
    > two hours it takes to watch the movie. You can always
    > pick a movie apart after the fact in your own time and
    > show that it really does make sense after all, but
    > that does not make it a good movie. Quite the
    > opposite, in fact. New age fanboy took who knows how
    > much time to make sense out of the movie, to think
    > things through and check the facts, but that’s not
    > something you can afford to do while you’re watching
    > the movie, especially for the first time. (No. TPM is
    > not one of those dense, layered, cerebral movies that
    > require you to actively participate in their meaning-
    > making process.)

    It’s true. New Age Fanboy is much closer to what I like to think of as a definitive fanboy, so adoring of the films and the franchise and the very Star Wars universe that he is often blind to reality. Plinkett is very much a disillusioned Old School Fanboy in this respect, as I think most of our conteporaries – and we ourselves – are, regardless of whatever guilty love we might still have for the Bubblegum Prequels.

    I did take him at his word, however, that his explanations and analysis here were just a response to the range of criticisms offered by Plinkett. When Plinkett went on his rant about how nonsensical the film was and New Age Fanboy disagreed, explaining how it all made sense to him on first watching as a teenager and attempting to lay it all out, I sort of bought it. But it could have been more analysis after the fact than instant understanding. No way to know really. We’re not going to get academic honesty from either party, are we?

    > So, new age fanboy interprets. In fact, he interprets
    > no less than Stoklasa, which makes the rebuttal no
    > less an opinion piece than the RLM review.

    Well, obviously! I didn’t buy his piece as Ultimate Truth and I certainly didn’t take it as objective, and I would be surprised at anyone who did. It did, however, fact-check a lot of the little points that made up Plinkett’s review. Like you say, it is easy to take an argument apart piece by piece and like I said originally, it doesn’t really affect the overall effectiveness or impact of Plinkett’s review … but it still happened.

    > He sets his review up as some kind of irrefutable
    > truth based on observable fact, but all he really
    > does is expound upon his view of the facts as he sees
    > them. His confidence of writing from some privileged
    > position of absolute reality is something that
    > really bugs me.

    As a Usenet veteran, I guess this is just something I’ve come to ignore as completely inevitable when fanboys collide. But you’re right, it is an annoying trait and in no way lends itself to a proper academic essay.

    > By obsessing on the facts, new age fanboy also
    > misses the whole point of the RLM review and,
    > indeed, that of movies themselves. A movie is
    > not the sum total of whatever facts of story,
    > plot, character, or world it contains. These
    > are merely the raw material. The key is how the
    > movie presents and represents this material,
    > how it weaves its narrative around it, how it
    > filters the information, how it connects the
    > dots (or fails or refuses to). Now, perhaps
    > all the required information to make sense of
    > things is there in TPM, but the movie
    > nevertheless fucks up the narrative presentation
    > of that information. And this is what the RLM
    > review captures for me. Sure, it may have its
    > problems, and it may get some of its facts
    > wrong, but the whole works, since it’s more than
    > the sum of its parts. New age fanboy’s review
    > is the opposite. It may make some valid points,
    > and it may get the raw facts right, but
    > ultimately it’s just a series of gripes. Here,
    > the whole never transcends the sum of its
    > parts.

    We’re in complete agreement here. No argument from me.

    > Moreover, the RLM review is an intentionally
    > provocative opinion piece framed as a kind of
    > short film. I doubt its raw information content,
    > the body of facts as selected and presented
    > by Stoklasa, was ever meant to fully stand
    > against rigorous, analytic scrutiny. If you
    > really want to rip it apart, you do it on the
    > same terms — you create your own vicious little
    > meta-mock-review.

    *wince*

    Don’t know about that. Film reviews don’t usually take the form of films themselves.

    Some people can do these things, some people can’t. Lack of proficiency in a certain form of media creation should not prevent the statement of opinion, and I don’t think New Age Fanboy should have learned how to video-edit just to get his point across.

    More to the point, can you imagine how long the meta-review would have been, if it took the same format as the PDF and went over every minute of Plinkett’s review and slammed each module of information one by one? No way.

    Sure, he could have been creative with it – just had a straight-up shouted-out list of Plinkett’s stated “facts” and the true information refuting them … I don’t know. We’ve put more effort into this than it is worth, which means New Age Fanboy certainly has, and so has Plinkett.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with a good bit of debating.

    > Finally, new age fanboy’s rhetoric is just
    > awful. His constant and overbearing reliance
    > on such extreme and polarizing value judgments
    > as “wrong”, “bad”, “stupid”, and “idiotic”
    > only serve to undermine his credibility and
    > alleged objectivity.

    True enough. Again, I sort of assumed this was what one could expect when a pair of Star Wars Fanboys lock horns. But it does go against his stated objectivity in the case. He had no call to make any commentary at all about whether or not the Plinkett review was funny. Oh sure, he could say it once for the record, that in his opinion it wasn’t funny, and then move on … but his harping on about it is pointless. It undermines his actual points of criticism. Which, I maintain, are quite valid.

    > In a vicious little meta-mock-review this kind
    > of rhetoric would be fine, but remember that
    > new age fanboy is going for mostly serious,
    > fair-minded, point-by-point analysis here.
    > Had he written his rant in a more engaging and
    > adult style, he would have fared better, I think.
    > It’s never just about the facts.

    Sure enough.

    > Kinda lost some steam there toward the end, but
    > I’m still done. And yes, I totally failed to
    > offer proof by way of quotations to back up my
    > arguments. But, hey, not going for academic or
    > even semi-academic analysis here.

    Aren’t you, by gum?

    • dreameling says:

      It’s true. New Age Fanboy is much closer to what I like to think of as a definitive fanboy, so adoring of the films and the franchise and the very Star Wars universe that he is often blind to reality. Plinkett is very much a disillusioned Old School Fanboy in this respect, as I think most of our conteporaries – and we ourselves – are, regardless of whatever guilty love we might still have for the Bubblegum Prequels.

      That makes me think of another thing I sort of sensed in the new fanboy’s rant. Whereas the RLM review looks at TPM from the outside in, albeit through glasses colored by disillusionment, new age fanboy’s perspective feels more like someone looking at the movie from the inside out. It feels like all he sees is the movie and its starwarsy universe. Any broader context beyond is obscured by the stuff of the movie, so anything in the movie is right and true by definition, or at least by default. Then again, I guess you could also argue that Stoklasa, or the Plinkett persona, is looking at TPM from within Original Trilogy Space, so obviously that’s what crowds his field of vision. Still, of the two, new age fanboy strikes me as the one with the narrower scope.

      Well, obviously! I didn’t buy his piece as Ultimate Truth and I certainly didn’t take it as objective, and I would be surprised at anyone who did.

      Did not mean to say that you did. My point was rather that new age fanboy seemed to at least implicitly set his account up as objective truth, unquestionable fact. Somebody needs to spank some philosophical perspectivism into him. Young people.

      We’re in complete agreement here. No argument from me.

      Dude, I totally agree with you agreeing with me.

      Lack of proficiency in a certain form of media creation should not prevent the statement of opinion, and I don’t think New Age Fanboy should have learned how to video-edit just to get his point across.

      Absolutely true. And kudos to new age fanboy for making the effort. We’re having a pretty nice discussion here, and it’s all thanks to new age fanboy. But still, in this particular case, it does not change the fact (or my view) that a different approach, something closer to the format and style of the particular target, would’ve been more optimal. Just the nature of the beast in this case. Most academic film criticism is textual, not film, and it obviously works fine that way, so it’s not like new age fanboy’s conundrum (as I see it) is a universal rule or anything.

      It undermines his actual points of criticism. Which, I maintain, are quite valid.

      I guess my stand here is that new age fanboy’s criticism about Plinkett’s review, while perhaps valid, is ultimately less meaningful with respect to its target than Plinkett’s criticism of TPM.

      Aren’t you, by gum?

      You should read my proper academic stuff. It’s all very formal and polite and full of quotations.

      • stchucky says:

        > Did not mean to say that you did. My point was
        > rather that new age fanboy seemed to at least
        > implicitly set his account up as objective truth,
        > unquestionable fact. Somebody needs to spank
        > some philosophical perspectivism into him.
        > Young people.

        Too true. I argue that way online all the time, but it is just an expression of how I bloody well consider myself to be right. If that’s all he was aiming at, then more power to him. If he was aiming at an academic and objective treatise on the issue of film quality, he should have written it better.

        >> We’re in complete agreement here. No argument
        >> from me.
        >
        > Dude, I totally agree with you agreeing with me.

        It’s not enough, we have to go deeper. *Leo squint*

        >> Lack of proficiency in a certain form of media
        >> creation should not prevent the statement of
        >> opinion, and I don’t think New Age Fanboy
        >> should have learned how to video-edit just to
        >> get his point across.
        >
        > Absolutely true. And kudos to new age fanboy for
        > making the effort. We’re having a pretty nice
        > discussion here, and it’s all thanks to new age
        > fanboy. But still, in this particular case, it does
        > not change the fact (or my view) that a different
        > approach, something closer to the format and style
        > of the particular target, would’ve been more
        > optimal.

        Of course, since he stated right out that he hated the format and style of the target and it was a recurring theme through his counter-review, maybe it would have been strange of him to try to emulate it.

        Still, there are alternatives.

        > Just the nature of the beast in this case. Most
        > academic film criticism is textual, not film, and it
        > obviously works fine that way, so it’s not like
        > new age fanboy’s conundrum (as I see it) is a
        > universal rule or anything.

        Actually, this whole line of discussion raises a new thought with me, but it’s quite a big one so I might have to make a whole new blog post about it. Woo hoo! Intelligent discussion pays off again!

        >> It undermines his actual points of criticism. Which,
        >> I maintain, are quite valid.
        >
        > I guess my stand here is that new age fanboy’s
        > criticism about Plinkett’s review, while perhaps
        > valid, is ultimately less meaningful with respect to
        > its target than Plinkett’s criticism of TPM.

        Factual content versus meaning. Now we’re heading into real litwank territory. Here there be dragons.

        I can agree, however, that while Plinkett’s review was a straight-up slamming of The Phantom Menace and New Age Fanboy’s review was a straight-up slamming of Plinkett (there’s a bit of a distinction right there, really), Plinkett’s work had more impact and pizazz while New Age Fanboy’s had more fact-checking. Obviously not enough to hold it up as a decent rebuttal, in your view, although Plinkett’s review, with more pizazz and less fact-checking, did hold up.

        > You should read my proper academic stuff. It’s
        > all very formal and polite and full of quotations.

        And English Major Armadillo thanks you for saying “quotations” instead of “quotes”.

  6. dreameling says:

    I argue that way online all the time, but it is just an expression of how I bloody well consider myself to be right. If that’s all he was aiming at, then more power to him. If he was aiming at an academic and objective treatise on the issue of film quality, he should have written it better.

    He was clearly aiming at something in between, serious and analytic if not academic. So no excuses there.

    >>> We’re in complete agreement here. No
    >>> argument from me.
    >>
    >> Dude, I totally agree with you agreeing with me.
    >
    > It’s not enough, we have to go deeper. *Leo squint*

    A quotation within a quotation within a quotation. That’s impossible.

    I can agree, however, that while Plinkett’s review was a straight-up slamming of The Phantom Menace and New Age Fanboy’s review was a straight-up slamming of Plinkett (there’s a bit of a distinction right there, really), Plinkett’s work had more impact and pizazz while New Age Fanboy’s had more fact-checking. Obviously not enough to hold it up as a decent rebuttal, in your view, although Plinkett’s review, with more pizazz and less fact-checking, did hold up.

    Right. Because I felt Plinkett slammed his target in a more meaningful manner than New Age Fanboy did his. More than the sum of its parts and all that. Fact-checking is just not enough. And let’s not forget that New Age Fanboy’s stuff is not all fact all the time.

    • stchucky says:

      >> I argue that way online all the time, but
      >> it is just an expression of how I bloody
      >> well consider myself to be right. If that’s
      >> all he was aiming at, then more power to
      >> him. If he was aiming at an academic and
      >> objective treatise on the issue of film
      >> quality, he should have written it better.
      >
      > He was clearly aiming at something in
      > between, serious and analytic if not
      > academic. So no excuses there.

      Fair enough. He was certainly more analytic than Plinkett, but not analytic enough to stand on that higher ground, perhaps. So he missed out on attacking Plinkett on his own turf, and missed out on taking it to a more objective intellectual level.

      Still wins on fact-checking. For entertainment I give it to Plinkett, though, as well as on grounds of “I agree with his interpretation of the movie”. Which is entirely subjective right there, too. I just have to accept that a lot of what Plinkett disagreed with in his review were things I can’t in good conscience agree with, because they were factually flawed. Just the overall vibe, I can agree with that. Which is less and less analytical as we go.

      >> I can agree, however, that while
      >> Plinkett’s review was a straight-up
      >> slamming of The Phantom Menace and New
      >> Age Fanboy’s review was a straight-up
      >> slamming of Plinkett (there’s a bit of
      >> a distinction right there, really),
      >> Plinkett’s work had more impact and
      >> pizazz while New Age Fanboy’s had more
      >> fact-checking. Obviously not enough to
      >> hold it up as a decent rebuttal, in
      >> your view, although Plinkett’s review,
      >> with more pizazz and less fact-
      >> checking, did hold up.
      >
      > Right. Because I felt Plinkett slammed his
      > target in a more meaningful manner than New
      > Age Fanboy did his. More than the sum of
      > its parts and all that. Fact-checking is
      > just not enough. And let’s not forget that
      > New Age Fanboy’s stuff is not all fact all
      > the time.

      Not at all. I refer only to the elements of his meta-review that *were* facts.

      Interested now, all over again, in the larger issue of how the review was “meaningful” while the meta-review was less so, but accept that there is a time and a place for extended discussion and philosophising on the topic. For me, it was more to do with the fact that I generally agreed with Plinkett’s attitude – I didn’t care for the prequel trilogy in comparison to the original trilogy, given the time Lucas had and the budget and the passion, to make it something great. So I am naturally going to be more receptive towards a funny movie slamming the film(s) than to a dry and occasionally snarky meta-review defending them to the very boundaries of sanity.

      But given how high expectations were and how far fans of the original trilogy have moved on, Lucas could never have won this. And I didn’t hate the prequel trilogy with the passion some do, and I don’t – can’t – agree with some of Plinkett’s reasons for panning it, especially not once New Age Fanboy pointed out the factual errors in those particular reasons.

      The vibe, though, and for entertainment value – not to mention for making a review in the same medium in which the original art form was made – sets me in Plinkett’s camp.

  7. Pingback: Hatboy's Hatstand

  8. Pingback: On Being Moffatty | Hatboy's Hatstand

  9. Pingback: Fan vs. Canon | Hatboy's Hatstand

  10. Pingback: Interlude: Rogue One, Part One | Hatboy's Hatstand

  11. Pingback: The Big Weekender of Meta Reviews, Part 2: Red Letter Media’s Turn | Hatboy's Hatstand

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s