Why has he done a total 180 on SW: TFA and now pretends he hated it all along...

I don't care about Plinkett anymore and the TFA review sucked. It's all about Half in the Bag and re:view now.

It's not a TFA review.

He says in the video that it was a movie that when he first saw it he enjoyed it but upon rewatching it he caught how it was plot line for plot line trying to be A New Hope and was basically spelling out how none of the future Star Wars movies will ever try something new or push boundaries because Disney doesn't take risks generally.

there's a reason he hasn't done a plinkett review in a long time, the character is just played out and he's bored of it, and it's just not that funny anymore.

his first two star wars reviews came out of fucking nowhere and no one was expecting anything like it.

no, mike is plinkett.

Kill yourself autist.

sorry lad but plinkett is just a voice for his true opinion

people who fall for the hype are t r a s h. some of us knew it from the very beginning

>his first two star wars reviews came out of fucking nowhere and no one was expecting anything like it.
What? He'd done three Star Trek reviews before the Star Wars ones. The only real difference was the Trek reviews, while pointing out story flaws, were more sort of jokingly nitpicky, but in the Star Wars reviews he went really hard at the story and characterisation, and the nitpicks were light relief.

>picking apart the flaws of a film means you disliked the film
no

I don't think you understand how the Plinkett character works.

It's so dense

Because he wants more money

Because he stayed up all night the night drinking the night he did the half n the bag episode and didn't know what he liked.
Also go through other half n the bags he says he likes a lot of the movies with a similar directing style (he loved ninja turtles), but i think he only enjoys them upon first viewing and probably doesnt rewatch a lot of them. Upon rewatching TFA he noticed a lot of things he didnt like.

>make review
>trigger everyone
I like Mike more and more.

Jesus Christ, you'd be complaining if there was no review.

Either way you're retarded.

Plinkett is a fictional character.

Mike "Empty my nine on the welfare line" Stoklasa is a real person.

He said it was a safe soft reboot and cashgrab that was mostly fan service, unoriginal and took no risks.

He was just saying it was far better executed than the shitquels fags now try to defend, because its true.

All of which is true, and all of which the Cred Forums has been trying to explain to the 19 year old Cred Forums retards who need to make 4 threads a day asking why people hate the prequels.

>He was just saying it was far better executed than the shitquels fags now try to defend, because its true.

Lol you're fucking delusional

the movie was stale and DoA despite jerking off the """fans"""

>Finding fault with something means you hate it.
The review praised it more then half the time anyway. Get that stick out of your ass

This is a bizarre concept to a lot of people but you can enjoy something and still point out negative criticisms of it.

I just wish the review was better. He spends 90% of the air time just complaining uselessly about millennials. Plinkett reviews are supposed to be deep drives into structure and scripting, but it's just a super long winded rant at the industry.

It fucking sucked.

Nobody watched the Star Trek reviews until after he got recognition for the PM review series, they literally had like a few hundred views each.

This is Cred Forums. They can't understand the difference between a good movie and one that makes lots of money.

The review was basically just Disney = shit. Not that the movie itself was shit.

>the movie was stale and DoA despite jerking off the """fans"""

nice meme

Cred Forums is just buttmad because Mike BTFO of them by shitting on ring theory autists and millenial idiots who have to be so contrarian that they revere the genuine shit that are the star wars prequels. his critiques of TFA were fair, and within reason considering the movie was enjoyable but extremely safe.

His alternative story he sketched out was much a much better idea for where the story should have gone than the actual movie.

>his critiques of TFA were fair, and within reason considering the movie was enjoyable but extremely safe.

All 12 seconds he spends actually critiquing it in a 104 minute movie about critiquing it. If he wanted to review the industry at large he's welcome to, but for a guy who rails against clickbait and faux controversy that's about all that this movie engaged in.

needs to do more like this, fucking hillarious. youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0

Yeah, that's what I said. Still better executed than the shitquels.

kind of, but it was called The Star Wars Awakens a review of the Force Awakens and much much more, not the Force Awakens Review.

Most people knew he wasn't going to tear it apart, because it just wasn't anywhere near as bad as any of the prequels. You can't really deconstruct something that was that safe. You just can't really praise it all that much.

/thread

The prequels were much better executed and more memorable. I forgot most of TFA after I left the theater.

>kind of, but it was called The Star Wars Awakens a review of the Force Awakens and much much more, not the Force Awakens Review.

And clearly a lot of people are either angry or just disappointed in the direction. The only real way to enjoy this is to be on the anti establishment hate train, but that train's been going for years. It's old. They engage in it in every HiTB review of anything remotely tentpole.

A lot of people who like RLM like it because they do a lot of great work with film theory and manage to convey interesting opinions about what goes into the actual production of a movie. By the time they were railing against diversity casting (which went literally fucking nowhere, he just called it out as bad without stating a single fucking reason how it damaged the film) the 'review' was pure shit. It was just just a collection of past rants in a bad format sans context.

That's because you're not 12 anymore.

>A lot of people who like RLM like it because they do a lot of great work with film theory

They really don't know. Mike is barely literate and Jay is a normalfag.

I watched the prequels back-to-back with TFA yesterday and they stood out more.

What part of Youre Not 12 Anymore do you not understand.

What argument are you trying to make? The prequels stand up much better on a rewatch than TFA did.

>They really don't know. Mike is barely literate and Jay is a normalfag.

Incorrect. They may not be super accomplished, but the level of discourse is vastly higher than most review shit on youtube.

Yeah nostalgia works that way. Your brain is literally predisposed to release endorphins when re-experiencing something you are previously established as liking.

>By the time they were railing against diversity casting (which went literally fucking nowhere, he just called it out as bad without stating a single fucking reason how it damaged the film) the 'review' was pure shit.

They didn't even call it bad, I have no idea what the fuck the point was about that section of the movie. Not to mention how much of a stretch a lot of it was by picking out 'characters' that appeared in backgrounds for five seconds or Daisy being a minority, wtf

It seemed like a really fucking lame "ok we solved diversity NOW LET'S NEVER TALK ABOUT IT EVER AGAIN" which is absolutely retarded

What are you more likely to remember something horrible or something mediocre?

What are you more likely to remember some garbage you saw as a child or something bland as an adult?

>They didn't even call it bad, I have no idea what the fuck the point was about that section of the movie.

It's so fucking confusing. Either it was an intentional troll, a mistake, or Mike just has some politics he wanted to get across but was afraid to actually articulate. If you're going to go there at least say your peace, don't just go half way and then peter out to talk about how you wish there were more horny kids.

>why has he done a total 180 on SW: TFA and now pretends he hated it all along?

He didnt criticize tfa at all, only the production and shit outside the movie, after wasting over half his review on the prequels and ring theory

The movie is horribly written fanfic rehash, and it went right by him. He shat on youtube critics that have brought much better criticism to the table

he's a hack now

>nostalgia

Stop this. I hate plenty of movies that I liked when I was young.

I would have been fine he just shited on Ray and the actress that played her. That's all I wanted, she was the worst part of a very flawed soft reboot.

I Knew it was going to be like this, but I am still not prepared for it. Mike is now Punished Plinkett a fallen hero

If you take the Star Wars reviews and line them up with the actual movies,
>Phantom Menace review is ANH
>Attack of the Clones review is ESB
>Revenge of the Sith review is ROTJ
Which means
>Force Awakens review is the Phantom Menace

it's like poetry

I'm sorry he didn't validate your misogyny

that cute girl was great, all the main cast was great specially Kylo Ren

It's a two way street.

>I would have been fine he just shited on Ray and the actress that played her. That's all I wanted, she was the worst part of a very flawed soft reboot.

Rays actress was fine, her character was just underwritten.

>I Knew it was going to be like this, but I am still not prepared for it. Mike is now Punished Plinkett a fallen hero

Oh, is that what happens when someone releases the definitively worst product in a lengthy series by almost every vector? They peace out and become a hero?

How ducking bad can you be at watching a YouTube video. He didn't say diversity is bad, but he didn't shove it in for no reason either. He explicitly says he does not care much either way, but needs to brings the subject up since there was so much talk about the diversity in the media, prior to release. He tries to show how ridiculously insignificant it is to talk about in the first place, since those that praise it for diversity despite the fact that it did t do anything many other films don't, and those that rallied against it spent a lot of energy and effort campaigning for a literal non-issue, behaving like babies and appearing like racists. He was stating that both sides were bad, that it's cool there was diversity, but that it shouldn't make people feel better about the film.

He didn't do a complete 180. He still said it was a competent movie that he thought it was mostly good. He also said that he liked it a lot at first, but now that time has passed and the hype has died down he sees some cracks.

He actually brings up his Star Trek review, and how he liked the first Star Trek even though it was more action packed, but thought that that only worked as a reintroduction to Kirk and Spock and everyone else and that it was a mistake to do it all again in Into Darkness. The implication is the same with Star Wars- he thinks the Force Awakens and all of the references and rehashing of the previous movies makes it work as a reintroduction to Star Wars, but it won't work if they do it again for Episode 8.

>How ducking bad can you be at watching a YouTube video. He didn't say diversity is bad, but he didn't shove it in for no reason either. He explicitly says he does not care much either way, but needs to brings the subject up since there was so much talk about the diversity in the media, prior to release. He tries to show how ridiculously insignificant it is to talk about in the first place, since those that praise it for diversity despite the fact that it did t do anything many other films don't, and those that rallied against it spent a lot of energy and effort campaigning for a literal non-issue, behaving like babies and appearing like racists.

Except the cast was extremely well received and it was the largest box office success in movie history. So, y'know, it probably did a lot.

That entire section had no fucking point. He called out the diverse cast as being pandering despite the fact that it's basically the only successful sci-fi movie in the last 20 years to do that. The pandering thing would be to get Tom Cruise to shit it up while putting Solo on screen for 45 minutes.

> He was stating that both sides were bad, that it's cool there was diversity, but that it shouldn't make people feel better about the film.

Why the fuck shouldn't it? Seriously, there is nothing wrong with praising a film for not resorting to the same eight shitty white actors that are in every single sci-fi property. They took a gamble and it worked. People found the characters endearing and it didn't put people off by being white as snow.

funny, when I walked out of III I was thoroughly upset by how bad it was. Me and my friends talked about it for the next few hours. So yeah, I guess it was "memorable"

And when I walked out of II I forgot it all the next day. When I saw III I didn't even remember what happened in II. I still barely do.

I liked I though, at the time. Because I was in 5th grade.

What kind of retarded logic are you using were memorable = good btw?

Of course the cast was great. But it wasn't great because they were black, they were great because they were good actors for their parts. This is why the whole diversity thing is stupid, which is what he was getting at. It's getting blown way out of proportion, as if there's a political statement being made, that has to carry Hollywood forward. It's a marketing ploy, and diversity for diversitys sake is a weird fucking thing. It's because they made a show of it. If they'd cast the exact same people, but hadn't made a big deal about constantly describing themselves as diverse, the movie would be just as good. That's what he was getting at. Because otherwise the implication is still that it was diverse by quota, instead of naturally diverse.

Nope.