• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Red Letter Media - The Star Wars Awakens Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
The criticism of TFA having too much comedy felt like a stretch to me. The original trilogy has plenty of comedic moments in it.

Film Crit Hulk's takedown of JJ Abrams and TFA is still the best critique of the movie and its flaws that I've found.

TFA has zero charm when you re-watch it. Even the prequels muster more Star Wars charm than TFA, despite having bad everything.

I don't know what I expected from Disney.
For you, maybe. I loved it and thought it had plenty of charm on re-watches.
 
The criticism of TFA having too much comedy felt like a stretch to me. The original trilogy has plenty of comedic moments in it.


For you, maybe. I loved it and thought it had plenty of charm on re-watches.

"Boring conversation anyway"

they would of gotten more money for two shorter videos instead of one long video

I was more taking the piss and saying that the whole video existed for the money. :P
 
It makes perfect sense that a movie made for millennials is as sexless as they are. Any sex in this movie would just make them uncomfortable.
 
Is him shitting on the prequels for half the video and complaining about their retreading some sort of meta-critique about TFA refusing to let go of the past?
 
I think the problem with Plinkett, or at least with this video, is that they already did their review and you know exactly what problems they had with it - it's a generic and average film. They also hate the whorish nature of film cinematic universes, so the first part could have just been about Marvel itself.

BB8 has more charm in his lighter thumb than everything in the prequels that wasn't McGregor or McDiarmid
BB8 is like Jar Jar without the racism.
 
Plinkett is not necessarily about critiquing movies, as much as it's a way for Mike to make commentary on different aspects of movies.

Kingdom of the Crystal skull was essentially about how Spielberg had grown as a filmmaker, and how trying to turn Indy into something it isn't, was a bad idea.

Titanic was about how movies started moving towards surgical filmmaking for maximum profitability.

This one felt like a rebuttal and meta-commentary on the Prequel-reviews, adding more depth to the critique of Lucas as a person and filmmaker, while also defending him and giving credit where credit is due.

I also got the same feeling that I got from EP7, which was that it felt very much like an extremely planned, but well made and earnest product, that was almost an after-thought to the hype in hindsight. It's almost like the review made a meta-commentary about this, by having the critique of EP7 just be a smaller part of a commentary on Star Wars being changed by Disney.
 
BB8 has more charm in his lighter thumb than everything in the prequels that wasn't McGregor or McDiarmid

Ron%20Falk%20%20Attack%20Clones%20(2002).jpg
 
Excited to watch. Starting as soon as the Dodgers finish up losing.
Also I hope they point out how the plot isn't just a rehash of IV, but the conflict is an unjustified excuse for more movies. When they could have just built on top of VI's ending and made something new, they took the safe way out and broke down its conclusion to reset everything to zero. The power of the First Order is just too unbelievable for me, so they just come off as an excuse to have the Empire again.

I actually think the movie is fun as you watch it, it just falls apart completely when thinking about it afterwards.
I was never able to get the words out properly, but this is just spot on.
 
Plinkett is not necessarily about critiquing movies, as much as it's a way for Mike to make commentary on different aspects of movies.

Kingdom of the Crystal skull was essentially about how Spielberg had grown as a filmmaker, and how trying to turn Indy into something it isn't, was a bad idea.

Titanic was about how movies started moving towards surgical filmmaking for maximum profitability.

This one felt like a rebuttal and meta-commentary on the Prequel-reviews, adding more depth to the critique of Lucas as a person and filmmaker, while also defending him and giving credit where credit is due.

I also got the same feeling that I got from EP7, which was that it felt very much like an extremely planned, but well made and earnest product, that was almost an after-thought to the hype in hindsight. It's almost like the review made a meta-commentary about this, by having the critique of EP7 just be a smaller part of a commentary on Star Wars being changed by Disney.

My sentiments exactly, the commentary about the industry and the culture behind the movie is part of his reviews.
 
The most valuable contribution this brings is the complete dismantling of all the absurd "The prequels were actually good" nonsense.
 
Force Awakens is up there with Empire Strikes Back and Revenge of the Sith as top 3 Star Wars films. Anyone calling it bland or soulless maybe needs to get some taste?

Force Awakens was also the 2nd best film of 2016 (just behind Mad Max: Fury Road). People try (and fail) so hard to tear it apart. Can't wait for Rogue One to flop so people can turn their attention to dragging it and leave Force Awakens alone.
 
For you, maybe. I loved it and thought it had plenty of charm on re-watches.

What's charming about it? How many times Disney managed to mash the nostalgia button in one movie?

How the Millenium Falcon is introduced is an example of something that bothers me. There's a cute fake out ("the garbage will do") but that doesn't work as well in subsequent viewings and it relies entirely on the nostalgia of the Falcon and its relationship with the audience. Instead of having Rey talk about an old modified freighter that they can use - even just briefly - to escape/I don't know if it's good enough/If we'll get far with it etc... they just went with this cheesy ass, force-fed jump into the chase sequence. Rey can fly the Falcon because... she can.

That cutting to the instant unearned gratification sets the tone for the entire movie, and it just wallows in it.

It 'works' but it doesn't work in the way you want a really good movie to work. Like a movie you expect to hold up over time to work. TFA makes almost no effort to be its own film and very little effort to appeal to new fans. It can't stand on its own. The best thing that can happen to TFA is to have Episode 8 redeem a bunch of the problems TFA has.

TFA is great on a technical level, but it could have been much, much better in terms of writing and how characters are handled.
 
An opinion piece in the La Times? And a single random study? I can't even with that right now.

i mean, at least they have a source and a study to reference

all you're saying is "naw, they fuckin' a lot"

Plinketts son is in jail? I thought he killed himself in the bathroom of a gas station.

That was before he hung himself

that's why eating taco bell always reminds him of his son
 
An opinion piece in the La Times? And a single random study? I can't even with that right now.

It's an opinion piece about this study. There was a sizeable thread about it on this board in fact. But yeah, your preconceived notions based on your gut should trump academic research. Definitely.
 
talking about fucking millenaials is getting us off track.

i'm glad they got this review out of their system. hopefully we see more best of the worst and re-views now.
 
I'm sure Disney wanted the diversity and you can look at it as a cheap corporate ploy, but I think JJ and Kennedy are the ones who really pushed for it and it's less cynical than the review makes it seem. Especially going by comments JJ has made in the past.
 
I think the vital difference is that Threepio was intended to be the annoying prissy character, whether you or I found him endearing in the process (I did, you didn't) is apart from his utility as a character. Whereas Jar Jar was literally crafted by Lucas to be some loveable oaf aimed at kids and failed miserably.

Except that tons of kids who grew up with the prequels do love Jar Jar. To an adult, his role in the film is superfluous, but he had a lot of fans around the 7-year-old range.
 
It's an opinion piece about this study. But yeah, your preconceived notions based on your gut should trump academic research. Definitely.

Given how far off-track some singular studies have been in the past (and used to ridiculous ends to justify a lot of heinous action), you'll excuse me if I question it. A singular study isn't an end all be all. If it were, then lots of nonsense that also has nothing to do with this topic would be open for discussion. When frankly speaking it's not. Even saying millennials are "sexless" feels like it has nothing to do with the topic. I really don't get why you even mentioned it.

Of course, I'm referring to studies that are far more politically charged and often utilized by the right-wing to their own nefarious ends but I digress. As it were, I'm far more interested in examining the studies methodology than just taking it blank-faced as though it's an end-all be-all point. What truly matters in examining any study is the merit of their process and how they reach the conclusions that they do. Suffice it to say, I find it hard to believe we aren't into sex. It's so incredibly explicit in culture and our way of life.

I gotta say though, I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned the tranny-reference.

ALttP did. And I quoted it saying I agreed with their post.
 
Except that tons of kids who grew up with the prequels do love Jar Jar. To an adult, his role in the film is superfluous, but he had a lot of fans around the 7-year-old range.

What? I've never seen a single human being that said they liked Jar-Jar. Even C3P-O is an annoying little shit that people only like because he's associated with the lovable R2-D2.

BB-8 is the real MVP anyways. Everyone and their grandma loves him.
 
talking about fucking millenaials is getting us off track.

i'm glad they got this review out of their system. hopefully we see more best of the worst and re-views now.

It's pertinent to some of the criticisms/points they brought up. It's more diverse and it contains less romance because of it's target audience. They got at this by wondering if a "protagonist (deuteragonist in this case) gets the girl" story would be off-putting to today's young people.
 
It's pertinent to some of the criticisms/points they brought up. It's more diverse and it contains less romance because of it's target audience. They got at this by wondering if a "protagonist gets the girl" story would be off-putting to today's young people.

A lot of media for millennials contains romance, it's just not done in the same way that it used to be.
 
It's pertinent to some of the criticisms/points they brought up. It's more diverse and it contains less romance because of it's target audience. They got at this by wondering if a "protagonist gets the girl" story would be off-putting to today's young people.

Is it? Companionship is really that outdated?
 
What's charming about it? How many times Disney managed to mash the nostalgia button in one movie?

How the Millenium Falcon is introduced is an example of something that bothers me. There's a cute fake out ("the garbage will do") but that doesn't work as well in subsequent viewings and it relies entirely on the nostalgia of the Falcon and its relationship with the audience. Instead of having Rey talk about an old modified freighter that they can use - even just briefly - to escape/I don't know if it's good enough/If we'll get far with it etc... they just went with this cheesy ass, force-fed jump into the chase sequence. Rey can fly the Falcon because... she can.

Don't agree at all here. There's no lean on nostalgia in that scene, just a reveal. If you've seen the other movies, you know something the characters don't about the ship they're about to steal, and that's a valid cinematic technique to use there. Yes, it was designed to get a cheer out of the audience, but it's part 7 in a series, and it's not unfair of the film to assume you know what the Millennium Falcon is.

As for Rey flying the Falcon, she's familiar with wartime tech from a lifetime of scavenging it, has worked on that ship before (hence why she knows it's garbage), isn't that great at flying it at first, and only succeeds due to her connection with the Force. And that last part is not any kind of bad thing, unless you think Luke hitting the exhaust port is an equally bad cop-out.

TFA wasn't great. It could definitely have been better in many ways. But it amazes me how people focus in on not just the wrong things, but things that are pure Star Wars about it. It has tremendous structural problems and by far the worst editing of all seven films. Rey being able to fly the Falcon is not even on my top 25 list of "things I would address in a fixed cut."

What? I've never seen a single human being that said they liked Jar-Jar. Even C3P-O is an annoying little shit that people only like because he's associated with the lovable R2-D2.

BB-8 is the real MVP anyways. Everyone and their grandma loves him.

Talk to people who were 7 in 1999. Find some 24 year olds and ask them. Hell, there's a whole documentary coming out about this, called The Prequels Strike Back, made by and about people who were children when the prequels were released and only found out they were supposed to hate the prequels when they got online as teenagers.

Totally with you on BB-8, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom