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

Red Letter Media - The Star Wars Awakens Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
Big One said:
It's a bit underwhelming but really not a whole lot can be said about The Force Awakens that hasn't already been discussed to death.

My only major problem with Plinkett shitting on the Ring Theory is not pointing out how having parallels to past work doesn't immediately make that specific work good. Just because something is "connected" thematically doesn't mean it's some work of genius. There has to be a level of quality to even be associated with genius storytelling and the prequels are severely lacking in that department.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though, if there's nothing to talk about, why are you talking, y'know?
 
I don't get why these guys insist on making reviews as long as the movies they're reviewing and people praising them for that. Whatever happened to being to the point?
 
Alex_Mexico said:
I don't get why these guys insist on making reviews as long as the movies they're reviewing and people praising them for that. Whatever happened to being to the point?
Click to expand...

See, that's not even a problem. If you have 145 minutes of criticism, then why not post it? The problem here is that the shortest Plinkett review would be too long for the criticisms they had.
 
thought this was pretty well done. TFA doesn't really have much plot compared to TPM, a lot is left intentionally vague, to good effect. i like how RLM admitted that they listened to a lot of those criticisms when making the new movie.

it was good to look back at the whole transaction from Lucas to Disney, and how this movie was marketed and sold, etc. the flaws very much felt baked-in to it, and i think they illustrate that. the movie was over-thought and very safe.

also glad they addressed prequel revisionists. what a lame trend.
 
Well, that was a Plinkett review alright. There wasn't much to the movie itself that they could add or spark up discussion about but talking about the selling of the brand and how a new genetation think of these movies at least brought something up. Kind of ironic how forced and safe the review was, very much like the Force Awakens itself. They should have just waited until the new trilogy was finished.
 
@Snowman Prophet of Doom; Re: Golden Age of Hollywood. Was chatting a bit with my friend about it and he brought up the fact that, you know, you materially undeniably can do more with films these days than you could back in the 40s or so. Just in terms of the sorts of politics you could express, or even your ability to shoot, distribute or simply view film. We've definitely leveled the entry costs for getting into film and that leads to more talent peculating.
 
ScherzoPrime said:
@Snowman Prophet of Doom; Re: Golden Age of Hollywood. Was chatting a bit with my friend about it and he brought up the fact that, you know, you materially undeniably can do more with films these days than you could back in the 40s or so. Just in terms of the sorts of politics you could express, or even your ability to shoot, distribute or simply view film. We've definitely leveled the entry costs for getting into film and that leads to more talent peculating.
Click to expand...

Good film doesn't just happen, though. Film is a collaborative medium that requires the work of artists and craftsmen undergirding the directorial vision, and producing films that are of any kind of quality is almost exponentially more expensive than it used to be.

As for politics - art can engage with many more ideas than politics, and besides that, the limitations of old Hollywood often forced creativity and subversiveness. All of this is not to even mention the ways in which movies have been video gameified, or the ways in which more "artistic" cinema has been Oprahfied.
 
My big problem with the film, even now, is how....well, fake the character interactions feel. Especially with Finn. Everyone is almost immediately all buddy buddy with one another for what feels to me not particularly good reason. Ignoring any trust issues why does Poe even like Finn? To Poe Finn should respesent everything he's been fighting against for the last few years of his life. The people who just slaughtered an innocent village to get at him and then presumably tortured him. I get that none of that is Finn's fault, and he's a pretty personable if awkward guy, but for that to NEVER come up just seems so strange. It's not like they had very long to get to know one another before they got separated.

And it feels like a missed opportunity to add some pathos and drama to these characters. Have Finn have to deal with his desire to be a "good guy" and fight the First Order with the realization that nobody in the Rebels trusts him and his background and upbringing leave him remarkably unprepared to live in a more normal society. Have Poe have to balance his desire to trust Finn with the reality that it's completely possible that Finn is an Imperial mole designed to use Poe to find the Rebels. Have Rey voice legitimate desire to want to pursue her own quest against getting caught up in a war between two political groups that have nothing to do with her.

The funny thing is, a lot of this stuff was in the old trilogy. Han, Luke, and Leia didn't all immediately get along. And they were still sniping and arguing with one another even well into ESB, even after growing closer. It made them feel so much more human that just having everybody be cool with each other from go.
 
I kind of feel this review (at least the TFA part) was doomed for mediocrity. Does Plinkett do reviews of movies he likes? Maybe he does, and if so, that kills what I'm saying. I'm not sure if a Plinkett review where he gushes over how good a movie is for an hour is something enjoyable. I think Plinkett's angle is breaking down movies he dislikes. How can he do that with TFA? He more or less enjoyed the movie enough (I think he disliked it more than he's letting on TBH, he doesn't seem to enthusiastically praise the film) TFA did pretty much everything he said SW should do (physical sets and set pieces, acting in a style more akin to the OT acting, less Lucas, etc). So if he makes a review ripping into TFA, what is going to be his angle? The movie did what he wanted. He found a workable angle (Star Wars going extremely corporate and safe at the hands of Disney) but clearly going off impressions of the review, not as many people are agreeing on that criticism as they agreed with his Prequel Trilogy criticisms
 
RareFantasy64 said:
I kind of feel this review (at least the TFA part) was doomed for mediocrity. Does Plinkett do reviews of movies he likes? Maybe he does, and if so, that kills what I'm saying. I'm not sure if a Plinkett review where he gushes over how good a movie is for an hour is something enjoyable. I think Plinkett's angle is breaking down movies he dislikes. How can he do that with TFA? He more or less enjoyed the movie enough (I think he disliked it more than he's letting on TBH, he doesn't seem to enthusiastically praise the film) TFA did pretty much everything he said SW should do (physical sets and set pieces, acting in a style more akin to the OT acting, less Lucas, etc). So if he makes a film ripping into TFA, what is going to be his angle? The movie did what he wanted. He found a workable angle (Star Wars going extremely corporate and safe at the hands of Disney) but clearly going off impressions of the review, not as many people are agreeing on that criticism as they agreed with his Prequel Trilogy criticisms
Click to expand...
He liked Star Trek '09, still reviewed it, and managed to justify that being a fairly long review even though he was still ultimately positive on it.
 
That part about diversity and, closely related, sex... Yikes. I barely know where to even begin with this. It's just so off the mark. "kids don't care". That's because kids accept whatever world they are given. It doesn't mean it won't affect them, or how they might subconsciously see themselves differently to have representation they directly relate to. This wasn't even funny, just cranky, heel-dragging, curmudgeon views on stuff that is changing for the better. I kinda thought they were sharper than this, but guess not.
 
A good half of this two-hour behemoth is either RLM reciting quotes from other articles ad nauseam so they can comment about how much they hate them, or more complaining about "forced diversity." Oh, or fanfiction about how they wish E7 went.

I kinda hate myself for watching this thing.

I liked when Plinkett reviews actually talked about cinematic techniques and methods of storytelling, as opposed to being a weird dude complaining about how the internet isn't the same as when he first got famous on it.
 
Eh, I enjoyed it. It wasn't as strong as the prequel reviews, but I'm still glad I watched it. I enjoy RLM's view on movies, even if I don't always agree with them.
 
Watched the first hour, pretty funny. I don't feel I need to watch any more if the TFA portion is just going to be "Here's some ways TFA is similar to the old Star Wars movies." That's been done to DEATH already.
 
Just finished.

I'll reread through the thread, but here are my initial thoughts.

Comedy, Diversity, and Originality were all the hot-button topics, and all were touched upon. Whether you want to categorize them as issues is entirely up to each individual. To me, they were valid points of discussion, which I'm glad were discussed.

The score and it's ups-downs wasn't brought up, but that's no biggie. It's a minor quibble, not really pertinent to anything. Plus, it's highly subjective.

I'm still a sucker for the pizza rolls gag.

Doesn't surprise me that nearly half the review was dedicated to the world around Star Wars (i.e. Disney, Prequel defense, fandom). I also caught the Half in the Bag first impressions review and - remembering my thoughts on the matter - you could tell TFA was well received. Meaning, less to really plunge in to.
 
Man Called Aerodynamics said:
Watched the first hour, pretty funny. I don't feel I need to watch any more if the TFA portion is just going to be "Here's some ways TFA is similar to the old Star Wars movies." That's been done to DEATH already.
Click to expand...
They honestly don't really spend that much time dwelling on that and actually say that TFA doing it is fine as long as it's the only one of the new movies that does.

That said, given what they end up spending the rest of the review talking about, you'd probably rather just have them ranting about it rehashing shit.
 
NEW PLINKETT REVIEW <3 <3 <3

I loved it. Need to send it to some of the crazy "At least the prequels TRIED TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT" people that I know. Jesus.

Unfortunately, we live in a different world now than we did when he first released the Plinkett reviews for the prequels. TFA has been analyzed TO DEATH, so he ultimately didn't have much new to say that already hasn't been said.

Luckily the RLM dudes are hilarious, so I still enjoyed the hell out of it.
 
I watched the whole review, and I think that it was a very good one. Mr. Plinkett's opening line about TFA being competent enough perfectly encapsulated my views on the film. I also think, unlike some people here, that Mike actually does have some problems with the film despite his glowing review almost a year ago, and isn't just nit-picking.

Speaking from experience, the first time I watched TFA, I liked it a lot myself, and thought it was good right after it finished. As time passed though, and especially after rewatching the original trilogy, my opinion on it soured quite a bit. This isn't the first JJ movie that does this either, with a frantic pacing that ends up boring me on rewatch. I had similar feelings to Mission Impossible 3, and Star Trek Into Darkness. For TFA, I'm not going to say it's as bad as the prequels or anything dumb like that, but it pales in comparison to the OT, and it's like Plinkett said: "competent". It was a good, well-made movie, but was lacking in what made the OT great and special. It seemed to overcorrect for the mistakes of the prequels, leading to problems like figuring out why the First Order got to where it was, which could have been solved with at least a little exposition. And before anyone says that exposition is what made the prequels bad, to quote Rich Evans in Previously Recorded's No Man's Sky review: "Just because George Lucas fucked it up doesn't mean space politics isn't interesting. Deep Space 9 was 7 seasons of space politics, and it was great".

This review and the Film Crit Hulk article truly nail down my feelings on TFA. It felt so safe that I couldn't find myself getting invested in the story, and the fanservice was way too blatant, instead of working it in so that it felt natural. I hope Episode 8 is better.

Also, I hate Starkiller Base. I thought the Death Star 2.0 in Return of the Jedi was pushing it, but it was too much. It felt like it was straight out of a bad fanfiction. I mean "It's like the Death Star, dude, but it destroys solar systems, which makes it so much better." But like Plinkett said in the RotS review: "Bigger isn't always better".
 
Safe is fine by me, if it means 8 and 9 don't play it safe. That's my thoughts, boiled down. You can't do safe again and again.

The whole Star Trek "Evil Doomsday Device" and "Bad Guy Out for Revenge" , as well as the mention that the prequels were at least different struck a nice cord. There's a chance to do something FRESH and BRAND-NEW in the Star Wars universe with these future movies. The big, bad weapon is already gone. This is where the story can really shine. I want to see it continued. I love the mystery and the setup.
 
The Scollard said:
I also think, unlike some people here, that Mike actually does have some problems with the film despite his glowing review almost a year ago, and isn't just nit-picking.
Click to expand...
But if he actually has serious problems with the movie, why doesn't he really talk about them? This is a review series that got popular because they were so thorough with picking apart every major flaw in the prequels and the Star Trek movies.

With this review, he briefly touches on the common complaint of it being too similar to ANH and then says that it's actually fine for this movie to be doing it (with the implication that it's fine for just this movie doing it) and then goes on to do really try and stretch out a few things that are, yes, nitpicky. To top it all of, we had an hour of him having a metadiscussion about things that have happened since he first started doing these reviews (which is a good discussion that is unfortunately saddled to this review) and a rant about the state of the film industry (which is something kinda tired for them). Basically, if Mike actually does have some problems with the film despite his prior glowing review, we would have gotten a much different Plinkett video than the one we got.
 
Jurassic World would've probably been a better Plinkett review like, but people like it for them to talk Star Wars.

JasoNsider said:
That part about diversity and, closely related, sex... Yikes. I barely know where to even begin with this. It's just so off the mark. "kids don't care". That's because kids accept whatever world they are given. It doesn't mean it won't affect them, or how they might subconsciously see themselves differently to have representation they directly relate to. This wasn't even funny, just cranky, heel-dragging, curmudgeon views on stuff that is changing for the better. I kinda thought they were sharper than this, but guess not.
Click to expand...
They've praised TFA a bunch of times for how well it's done minority representations with a female and a black lead.

Haven't watched yet but I suppose this is more nibbling for the funsies for hypothetical criticisms
 
Toxi said:
I was joking before, but can we actually get a Plinkett Review for this Plinkett Review?
Click to expand...
"The Plinkett review of Star Wars The Force Awakens was the most disappointing thing since my son. I mean, how much more could you possibly fuck up the entire review of The Force Awakens. And while my son eventually hanged himself in the bathroom of the gas station, the unfortunate reality of the TFA review is that it'll be around. Forever. It will never go away. It can never be undone."
 
JasoNsider said:
That part about diversity and, closely related, sex... Yikes. I barely know where to even begin with this. It's just so off the mark. "kids don't care". That's because kids accept whatever world they are given. It doesn't mean it won't affect them, or how they might subconsciously see themselves differently to have representation they directly relate to. This wasn't even funny, just cranky, heel-dragging, curmudgeon views on stuff that is changing for the better. I kinda thought they were sharper than this, but guess not.
Click to expand...

It's a weird, weird thing for them to look at how much Star Wars already appeals to all sorts of people of all races and genders and conclude "Well, I guess having diversity in Star Wars itself doesn't matter". As if diversity is purely a function of marketing appeal that's not needed in Star Wars' case because it already got big. They even frame the diversity of TFA as an obligatory, standard corporate move, which given the amount of pigeonholing and white-washing in the movie industry makes me wonder if we're even talking about the same Hollywood here?
 
Fudgepuppy said it best in this very thread:

Fudgepuppy said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Overly long, a retread of expected Plinkett jokes, not much interesting to say about TFA. The diversity argument was a big flailing mess, and the romance argument was weird, given Finn's clear interest in Rey. I guess you could shift the latter towards "passion" as some are saying, but then he framed his in-video argument in the wrong manner.

It's interesting to decry the marketing machine of Hollywood and then produce a review for largely the same reasons and with the same faults.

Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I mean, he explicitly says the diversity is a good thing, just that the way it's done feels kind of like marketing and that it's undermined by their shying away from an interracial romance.
Click to expand...

That makes little to no sense.

The script was done before Boyega was cast. The part of Finn wasn't written for a black actor and in fact, Boyega was the only black actor on the shortlist. There was no shying away, because there was no romance written in the first film.

Phasma was the same, in that the role was written for a male character (just the design really) and then they cast Christie. No rewrites were made post-Christie, so Phasma stood as the character you saw in the film.

It's argumentation about your perception of the film, not the actual facts surrounding it.
 
I thought it was funny. Hard to match the quality of the old ones, especially because there was so much material on how crappy the prequels were.
 
Nairume said:
But if he actually has serious problems with the movie, why doesn't he really talk about them? This is a review series that got popular because they were so thorough with picking apart every major flaw in the prequels and the Star Trek movies.

With this review, he briefly touches on the common complaint of it being too similar to ANH and then says that it's actually fine for this movie to be doing it (with the implication that it's fine for just this movie doing it) and then goes on to do really try and stretch out a few things that are, yes, nitpicky. To top it all of, we had an hour of him having a metadiscussion about things that have happened since he first started doing these reviews (which is a good discussion that is unfortunately saddled to this review) and a rant about the state of the film industry (which is something kinda tired for them). Basically, if Mike actually does have some problems with the film despite his prior glowing review, we would have gotten a much different Plinkett video than the one we got.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he had serious problems with the movie, I just said he had problems. The type of problems that bring down your enjoyment of the film, but don't ruin the movie for you. I think he covered the problems he had with the movie in the review, and I don't think those problems are nitpicks. The humour sort of took me out of TFA as well, so I was glad he covered that.

Again, I don't think TFA isn't a bad movie by any means, and I don't think Mike does either. It was an enjoyable watch the first time through, but I feel no reason to go back to it again. My problems with the pacing increased on my rewatch, and while it's a good film, it still has flaws that you can point out.
 
Boney said:
They've praised TFA a bunch of times for how well it's done minority representations with a female and a black lead.

Haven't watched yet but I suppose this is more nibbling for the funsies for hypothetical criticisms
Click to expand...

That's not what was here at all. It was an embarrassing mess of arguments. It honestly came across as "white dudes don't understand modern race and gender politics/dynamics".

Beyond even just the diversity, the "sex" stuff was equally dumb. Like, it's baffling how critics, who are by nature the ones who can often see the socio-political ties to art, had something as plainly obvious as the Rey-Finn subversive gender dynamics go over their head. Rey represents modern woman. Finn goes to save her. She kicks people's ass and even frightens him. It's turning the expectations on their head. It's statement and movement. Yet their analysis amounts to "yeah but but why aren't they boning. Saving princesses is cool.". It's entirely missing the point of the message and frankly makes them sound like old dinos stuck in the past.
 
MHWilliams said:
Overly long, a retread of expected Plinkett jokes, not much interesting to say about TFA. The diversity argument was a big flailing mess, and the romance argument was weird, given Finn's clear interest in Rey. I guess you could shift the latter towards "passion" as some are saying, but then he framed his in-video argument in the wrong manner.

It's interesting to decry the marketing machine of Hollywood and then produce a review for largely the same reasons and with the same faults.



That makes little to no sense.

The script was done before Boyega was cast. The part of Finn wasn't written for a black actor and in fact, Boyega was the only black actor on the shortlist. There was no shying away, because there was no romance written in the first film.

Phasma was the same, in that the role was written for a male character (just the design really) and then they cast Christie. No rewrites were made post-Christie, so Phasma stood as the character you saw in the film.

It's argumentation about your perception of the film, not the actual facts surrounding it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a good argument, just that that was the argument being made, and not what the poster had written.

While your points are valid, I think - I'm not sure - but I think what they were trying to get at is that Disney tried to profit off the idea that Star Wars was doing something new in having a diverse cast, while simultaneously not using that diversity to its full advantage by, say, actually showcasing or highlighting the femaleness of the badass woman villain, or letting there be some sexual or romantic tension, even if mild, between the two leads, who otherwise feel somewhat inhuman and sterilized, and not really realistic in how they're portrayed (i.e. Finn being comedic the whole movie despite spending his whole life as a First Order zombie). The way they argued this was incredibly, INCREDIBLY poor, but the whole review is kind of poor, so that's not surprising.
 
This was great. The wait was worth it.

The only part that was eye-rolling was their "meh, whatever" take on diversity. The importance of diversity is clearly lost on them and it's a shame.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I didn't say it was a good argument, just that that was the argument being made, and not what the poster had written.

While your points are valid, I think - I'm not sure - but I think what they were trying to get at is that Disney tried to profit off the idea that Star Wars was doing something new in having a diverse cast, while simultaneously not using that diversity to its full advantage by, say, actually showcasing or highlighting the femaleness of the badass woman villain, or letting there be some sexual or romantic tension, even if mild, between the two leads, who otherwise feel somewhat inhuman and sterilized, and not really realistic in how they're portrayed (i.e. Finn being comedic the whole movie despite spending his whole life as a First Order zombie). The way they argued this was incredibly, INCREDIBLY poor, but the whole review is kind of poor, so that's not surprising.
Click to expand...

If they did that, it'd just be decried as pandering. "They just added interracial relations to pander," etc.
 
Reading through the thread, it's clear this is not overly well received, and I'm not surprised.

Shitting on the prequels was always going to go over well, because the prequels for the most part are just poor movies. TFA? Not so much. Even if you dislike the film for whatever reason, it is still, objectively, an overall well made film.

There's only so much guys like RLM can do with a product like this. I mean, shit, they're complaining about diversity and too many hugs for several minutes... they clearly didn't have much to shit on about this movie.
 
This review was disappointing.

I feel like there's a lot that needs to be discussed regarding quality of this story's writing.

It's weird how he'll go on endlessly about his nitpicks regarding the prequels (even to this day), but glosses over the multitude of issues with TFA with the excuse that it's a soft reboot.

While predictable, I think it would have been better to retain the formula established with the Phantom Menace review.

I can't imagine Rey, Finn, and Poe passing the "describe X character to someone like they ain't never seen Star Wars" test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Star Wars: Eyes Like Stars announced
2
75
1K
AJUMP23 replied
Star Wars: Visions Volume 3
5
367
RagnarokIV replied
Original trilogy characters are coming to Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge
10
190
Fbh replied
Star Wars Original Trilogy Theatrical Version restoration in the works
2
75
1K
mitch1971 replied
George Lucas and James Cameron on Star Wars Rebels and Terrorists
2
56
1K
kevboard replied
Top Bottom