Red Letter Media

Favorite recurring character? (Select 4)

  • Jack / AIDSMobdy

    Votes: 256 23.9%
  • Josh / the Wizard

    Votes: 77 7.2%
  • Colin (Canadian #1)

    Votes: 459 42.9%
  • Jim (Canadian #2)

    Votes: 229 21.4%
  • Tim

    Votes: 385 35.9%
  • Len Kabasinski

    Votes: 208 19.4%
  • Freddie Williams

    Votes: 274 25.6%
  • Patton Oswalt

    Votes: 27 2.5%
  • Macaulay Culkin

    Votes: 540 50.4%
  • Max Landis

    Votes: 64 6.0%

  • Total voters
    1,071
Rise of Skywalker deserves to get an autopsy because it really was a massive failure. It failed to regain the audience TLJ lost, it shamelessly and incompetently brings back Harrison Ford, it awkwardly edits Carrie Fisher in when God had removed her from the movie, and the plot itself requires dumb plot devices like the WayFinder and I don't need to explain how dumb that thing is.

Mike Stoklasa isn't needed to explain it, either. Though it would be like shooting fish in a barrel (and get millions of views from middle-aged men who peaked when the Phantom Menace review came out), I doubt Mike will ever feel motivated to make a Rise of Skywalker review; simply because its flaws are so obvious and abundant and that any of us could record VO pointing them out in the Plinkett voice and produce the same audio track he would. Describing obvious plot holes and contrivances, then replying to yourself with "So...so why did you write it that way? Huh? Why? FUCKING TELL ME" is such a tired trope of Youtuber "criticism" that people would only be applauding out of nostalgia for the originator saying it.

Mike shitting on a Disney Star Wars film in the Plinkett voice for an hour would have no more twists, turns, or surprises than Dave Chappelle saying "Rick James, bitch" in a monotone. There's nothing more to Plinkett demand than people wanting to see the monkey dance one more time; and Mike's too much of a Gen X stereotype to give his fans what they want without half-assing it within some pretense of "irony."

Maybe that's why there really wasn't a ton of Plinkett style deep dives into it at all, there's almost nothing there.

I'd say that's the primary reason. Most of the clammering I've seen for a Plinkett ROS review in the years since the film's release don't care that there's nothing there for Mike to sink his teeth into - They merely feel entitled to hear their own grievances coming out of Plinkett's mouth (which is kind of a perfect burden for Mike; being as that's all Plinkett ever was to him).

I think TPM and AOTC could've been spliced into Anakin from kid, then flash forward to him as young teen and the start of the Clone Wars into one movie. ROTS was the only prequel that justified its length, and maybe even existence overall.

Many (including the he editor of The Phantom Edit) agreed.

I still don't understand their absolute hate for Rogue One which is still the best disney Star Wars movie IMHO.

I get that it's a low bar, but: What makes it the "best"? Like - when you watch it, what do you enjoy about it?

can someone explain to me why there being at-ats in Rogue One triggered them so fucking much but for some reason x-wings and tie fighter being used in a movie set 40+ years in the future was just fine to them?

They're fake film critics commentating through the lens of being fake Star Wars fans (I'm not sure even Rich had checked out EU stuff beyond Mike reading Wookiepedia entries for Vader's suit or LoBot as a joke in videos). So they're not actually going to notice what's out of place until they read someone else pointing it out, then either pretend they noticed it the first time or handwave it with "it doesn't matter. grow up nerds."
 
Last edited:
can someone explain to me why there being at-ats in Rogue One triggered them so fucking much but for some reason x-wings and tie fighter being used in a movie set 40+ years in the future was just fine to them?
They were deep in their "we're too cool for this man baby shit" mindset.

Which is funny, because the only people still obsessively upset about Star Wars in 2025 are the fucking manbabies they seem to desperately *not* want to be.
 
I'd go so far as to say that those movies exist purely as relics from when Toys R Us was in business.
The prequel reassessment is a combo of childhood nostalgia, actually good tv shows and video games (clone wars and battlefront) using the setting effectively, and the sequels being bad while trying to be more like the og trilogy.
 
The prequel reassessment is a combo of childhood nostalgia, actually good tv shows and video games (clone wars and battlefront) using the setting effectively, and the sequels being bad while trying to be more like the og trilogy.
Another thing is the world of the prequels is really appealing and interesting, the best tech of time and turn of the century design choices make for a cool world. How well people are placed into it or how it flows into the original trilogy, not so much but yeah it being the setting of battlefront and such helps a whole lot.
 
Sequels are better but are afraid to do anything new; prequels are worse but are far more interesting.

Sequels also look much better, thanks to being shot on film and real locations rather than just CGI advancements. However, for the first time, a Star Wars movie never pushed special effects forward in anyway.
 
I get that it's a low bar, but: What makes it the "best"?
I have to agree with the sentiment that Rogue One was alright.
•New characters, some are even interesting
•Filled in the most bitched about plot hole in the originals
•No Force users, just people (I don't remember if the blind guy was a Force user, thought he was just Space Chinese or whatever)
•Everybody died at the end
 
I have to agree with the sentiment that Rogue One was alright.
•New characters, some are even interesting
•Filled in the most bitched about plot hole in the originals
•No Force users, just people (I don't remember if the blind guy was a Force user, thought he was just Space Chinese or whatever)
•Everybody died at the end
The blind guy was a failed jedi trainee, he is force-sensitive, but can't control it, so he wasn't able to complete his training.
 
If they started calling out woke shit they'd lose their reddit audience and their gen-X contrarian nature won't let them call out woke shit because that's the popular thing to do now.
But they don't need to. They made a perfectly reasonable, insightful and funny video that condemned all of woke shit without ever saying the word "woke." It's the Plinkett review of Ghostbusters 2016. They said every single thing possible reason why it was a bad idea to make that movie in the first place. No mention that it was all women purely for political reasons but he didn't have to, the analysis would've been the same regardless. He had the exact formula needed but refuses to do it again. Given that they have had notorious spouse killer Patton Oswalt on their channel whose late wife whom he killed appeared in the movie, it's likely he denounced that review in what little sphere of Hollywood influence they're a part of. Hence why nothing has been as scathing since towards a target that would appease the chuds ever since.
 
But they don't need to. They made a perfectly reasonable, insightful and funny video that condemned all of woke shit without ever saying the word "woke." It's the Plinkett review of Ghostbusters 2016. They said every single thing possible reason why it was a bad idea to make that movie in the first place. No mention that it was all women purely for political reasons but he didn't have to, the analysis would've been the same regardless. He had the exact formula needed but refuses to do it again. Given that they have had notorious spouse killer Patton Oswalt on their channel whose late wife whom he killed appeared in the movie, it's likely he denounced that review in what little sphere of Hollywood influence they're a part of. Hence why nothing has been as scathing since towards a target that would appease the chuds.
And ask them if they'd make the same video today.

They wouldn't.
 
People argue about what's better the prequels or sequels when they're literally all dogshit
because people look at things comparatively and get stuck on shit A being better than shit B and end up at the conclusion that shit A is somehow good because it is not shit B.
 
•Filled in the most bitched about plot hole in the originals
I never even heard anybody call it a "plot hole" until the astroturfing for Rogue One. That the Death Star had a vulnerability that allowed the rebels to destroy it isn't what I would consider a plot hole.
 
The sequels are bad and not in a funny way. The prequels are bad but in a funny way. I'd rather watch the prequels a couple times than ever watch the sequels ever again.
 
I get that it's a low bar, but: What makes it the "best"? Like - when you watch it, what do you enjoy about it?
Battle of Scarif by itself is neat. And the plot itself is largely coherent. Its major problem is the laser-tight focus on Jyn Erso's daddy issues. Killing off Saw Guerra AND Galen Erso is a lot, especially when it sucks out the character development for everyone else. It also tries to explain the Death Star's weakness when it didn't need to be explained in the first place. Plugging exhaust ports with explosives will cause things to explode. It doesn't have to be an intentional act of engineering.

Republic Commando is better at what Rogue One does in the gritty war category and even characterization, but Rogue One isn't bad, strictly speaking.
 
The blind guy was a failed jedi trainee
Can't believe I wasted time reading Wookipedia fact checking this. Apparently untrue but it's total SNCA either way
I never even heard anybody call it a "plot hole" until the astroturfing for Rogue One. That the Death Star had a vulnerability that allowed the rebels to destroy it isn't what I would consider a plot hole.
You are young and trippin if so, I can think of x-boomer critiques mocking it throughout the years. It's not that there's an exploit, it's that it's so fucking retarded. Think of the scale of the operation. No one fucking notices, not even the engineers?
 
It's not that there's an exploit, it's that it's so fucking retarded. Think of the scale of the operation. No one fucking notices, not even the engineers?
Who said Luke's torpedo even had to hit its target? You're telling me you buy the official New Republic narrative that Luke Skywalker, while flying a starfighter for his sister's terrorist organization, blew up the most expensive and heavily defended battle station in history all while his father was flying behind him? His father also being the only Imperial to survive? If you believe that then I've got some beachfront property on Tattooine to sell you.

 
Can't believe I wasted time reading Wookipedia fact checking this. Apparently untrue but it's total SNCA either way

You are young and trippin if so, I can think of x-boomer critiques mocking it throughout the years. It's not that there's an exploit, it's that it's so fucking retarded. Think of the scale of the operation. No one fucking notices, not even the engineers?
I am a Gen Xer. Maybe the critique was common in the Star Wars autism community obsessed with the extended universe. Those people were geeks before it became fashionable and were to be mocked extensively. I never heard anybody talking about this "plot hole" in normal circles who just enjoyed the films as escapist space fantasy. This wasn't Star Trek where nerdism was part of the package.
 
The Death Star exhaust vent vulnerability always made sense to me as a simple design oversight on the part of the Empire. Thematically it made sense to portray the Empire as blinded by hubris, as they were so prepared to defend against a frontal assault by Rebel capital ships that they overlooked how a simple fighter could destroy the whole thing, which the Rebels uncover and exploit. This type of concept was used a lot in the type of pulp media Star Wars was based on.
 
Back
Top Bottom