Red Letter Media

Favorite recurring character? (Select 4)

  • Jack / AIDSMobdy

    Votes: 225 23.7%
  • Josh / the Wizard

    Votes: 66 7.0%
  • Colin (Canadian #1)

    Votes: 416 43.8%
  • Jim (Canadian #2)

    Votes: 204 21.5%
  • Tim

    Votes: 354 37.3%
  • Len Kabasinski

    Votes: 190 20.0%
  • Freddie Williams

    Votes: 245 25.8%
  • Patton Oswalt

    Votes: 22 2.3%
  • Macaulay Culkin

    Votes: 474 49.9%
  • Max Landis

    Votes: 52 5.5%

  • Total voters
    949
They did. Simon Pegg showed the reviews to JJ Abrams and acted upon their recommendations. The evidence is there, you just ignore it because you're a fanboy.
Okay, humoring your insane ramblings: even if they did see the Plinkett reviews, they did a piss-poor job taking the criticism, because the sequels fail in the exact same way the prequels did.
 
The evidence is there, you just ignore it because you're a fanboy.
Or maybe you just happened to grow up with the prequels during your coming of age and have more of an investment in it?

I can't wait to see the Sequel defenders hit their 20's in the next 5 years and see what kind of crazy shit they say about why everyone hates their Star Wars.
 
Okay, humoring your insane ramblings: even if they did see the Plinkett reviews, they did a piss-poor job taking the criticism, because the sequels fail in the exact same way the prequels did.
Big disagree there.
  • Prequels: The plots generally make sense, but they're shot poorly
  • Sequels: The plots make no goddamn sense, but at least they're shot well
Although one way they're alike is that some of the dialogue is so bad it makes you hate the characters.
 
Big disagree there.
  • Prequels: The plots generally make sense, but they're shot poorly
  • Sequels: The plots make no goddamn sense, but at least they're shot well
Although one way they're alike is that some of the dialogue is so bad it makes you hate the characters.
You’re burying the lede here: they were both failures from the foundations of their writing, in that they both lacked an audience surrogate as well as a cohesive plan for how things end. The only benefit the prequels had was that they were needlessly about Darth Vader’s downfall.
 
The sequel trilogy’s biggest and most obvious issue is they didn’t have anything planned out and essentially had two directors fighting with each other via the films. Have an actual planned out story and plot would have done wonders for the sequels, even if the the story ended up being mid.
 
Okay, humoring your insane ramblings: even if they did see the Plinkett reviews, they did a piss-poor job taking the criticism, because the sequels fail in the exact same way the prequels did.
No, they fail in the opposite way, with absolutely no world-building and memberberries. The Prequels had very few memberberries and a completely different aesthetic to the OT. The OT had a lot of dirt and rivets everywhere, which the Prequels tend to avoid with slick, clean, sterile look, especially with Kamino and Coruscant. That's why Gen Xers immediately said it didn't look like Star Wars.
 
The Prequels had very few memberberries
I’m not gonna disagree with you about the aesthetic, because the overuse of CGI and greenscreens were a major issue, but between the origin stories put in for C-3PO, R2D2, Boba Fett, inserting Chewbacca into the third film, the blind helmet-blast ball training, ect the prequels had their own issues with memberberries.
 
The funniest thing about the whole "RLM MADE JJ DIRECT THE SEQUELS AND INFLUENCE THEIR DIRECTION" talks is that it implied JJ had complete control over everything. While there were things that were his fault like Luke Skywalker being a tease for the sequel and the mystery box shit.

It is pretty known that Bob Iger purposefully wanted The Force Awakens to be the same as A New Hope and even bragged about it in his book. JJ was mostly a yes man to Iger. Hell he wasn't even meant to direct The Rise of Skywalker, it was the director of the Jurassic World films who got fired for "creative differences".

JJ was also the safest choice in director given Hollywood saw his work on Mission Impossible and Star Trek along with other science fiction movies, that and he has connections to Steven Spielberg who has connections to Lucas Films.

What do you think is more likely?

Hollywood hiring JJ Abrams because e-celebs said he'd make a good Star Wars movie? Or Hollywood hiring a guy whose worked on big franchise films and has connections to one of the most respected Hollywood directors?

The most RLM could've influenced in the decision is confirmation bias to an already set decision, but they are probably not the only people that wanted JJ to direct Star Wars.
 
Even in the unlikely event Abrams was hired because some fat autist on the internet said he'd be a good fit, in the middle of a 90 minute dissertation about how a film for babies was bad (when he wasn't pretending to be a serial killer), he never said he should write the damn thing.

Everything retards insisting it's all RLM's fault that the Sequel Trilogy was shit point to as awful about TFA (mystery box writing, memberberries, girlboss character, ugly niggers in their Star Wars movie, tearing down the OT characters, ripping off A New Hope and twisting the setting into ribbons in the process), had jack shit to do with how the movie was shot and directed. It had to do with the writing and casting.

This movie was written by a bunch of Lucasfilm suits (with JJ's help) and they slapped Lawrence Kasdan's name on it as yet another memberberries move to draw in OT fans.
I want to be surprised that people would develop so much hatred towards someone because he's a nostalgic dork, whose praise for the Force Awakens amounted to "it looked like the OT and even though it is a total ripoff of a New Hope I hope the next movie builds on it", before dismissively panning the next two movies. But, then again, there's another set of zoomer idiots who think the only reason people hate the Prequel Trilogy is because of Mike, so I really should learn to have rock bottom expectations for Star Wars autists.
 
Last edited:
Star Wars: A movie franchise made for 12 year olds.
I’d say dismissing it like that is disingenuous. The stigma of the general audience as a euphemism for kids movies is a result of attempts to disassociate from Disney fare. Even then, smart writers used to have to make general audience movies appeal to adults in some way, because 12-year-olds don’t exactly have a lot of money.

Even then, the “argument” here is whether three midwestern fat guys had developed enough pop culture clout off of a video made almost twenty years ago to influence a multi-billion dollar purchase made a decade ago. Said singular decision resulting in what should have been a cultural slam dunk falling on its ass right out of the gate.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Flexo and Mola Ram
Or maybe you just happened to grow up with the prequels during your coming of age and have more of an investment in it?
This probably isn’t the conversation to bring this up but I believe half of the enjoyment of the sequels comes from kids enjoying the Lego Star Wars games and other games alike. It made the prequels actually feel action packed unlike the main films.

I don’t know if the sequels will have that same cushion, there’s not many games about the sequels and I don’t think most people care about them.
 
I’d say dismissing it like that is disingenuous. The stigma of the general audience as a euphemism for kids movies is a result of attempts to disassociate from Disney fare. Even then, smart writers used to have to make general audience movies appeal to adults in some way, because 12-year-olds don’t exactly have a lot of money.
Adults that continue to like Star Wars are afraid to admit that it's a franchise made for 12-year-olds (even under that specific age) because they assume that it belongs to other esoteric sci-fi franchises that expand to other stories (such as Star Trek, Blade Runner, Mad Max, Dune, Alien, Terminator, Stargate, etc.), but that's the thing, Star Wars doesn't expand its universe outside of the original trilogy of movies, where the stories of all three are just simple stories of some rookie being trained to become a hero to beat the villain and get the princess, a story that a typical child will understand
 
Adults that continue to like Star Wars are afraid to admit that it's a franchise made for 12-year-olds (even under that specific age) because they assume that it belongs to other esoteric sci-fi franchises that expand to other stories (such as Star Trek, Blade Runner, Mad Max, Dune, Alien, Terminator, Stargate, etc.), but that's the thing, Star Wars doesn't expand its universe outside of the original trilogy of movies, where the stories of all three are just simple stories of some rookie being trained to become a hero to beat the villain and get the princess, a story that a typical child will understand
I don’t get what you’re trying to say about expanding to other stories, especially when you list off a bunch that either only explored one concept, or largely failed at expanding from their initial installment. The appeal of the original Star Wars was that it developed characters, and that you cared about what happened to them. If your media can’t do that much (like the prequel and sequel Star Wars), then it’s a failure. If it can, then it’s perfectly valid for any age to enjoy.
 
Back