RLM/Plinkett Review of Star Trek: Picard

[Straha]

It's more vicious than the Star Wars prequel reviews:

[ray245]

It's more vicious than the Star Wars prequel reviews:

Why do people pay attention to them? Given how they are partly to blame for the mess that is the sequel trilogy for Star Wars?

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course its vicious. He knows his audience, and he knows what they want: bitter fan bros looking for validation of their bitterness, entitlement and sense of ownership of the franchise.

I echo ray here- why does anyone listen to this guy? He's just a pretentious guy on the internet who became famous by validating other angry nerds on the internet.

[Straha]

Why do people pay attention to them? Given how they are partly to blame for the mess that is the sequel trilogy for Star Wars?

How, pray tell, are they to blame for the mess that is the sequel trilogy?

[ray245]

How, pray tell, are they to blame for the mess that is the sequel trilogy?

They were part of the chorus that keep pushing for JJ Abrams as this saviour of Star Wars? And their repeated attempt on how the only "true" Star Wars is all about the gritty outskirts on the edge of civilisation and how all politics about the state of the galaxy is boring?

[Ralin]

Why do people pay attention to them? Given how they are partly to blame for the mess that is the sequel trilogy for Star Wars?

The sequels were good and widely enjoyed outside of a vocal minority. Why should anyone listen to you after saying with a straight face that you think the prequel trilogy is better?

[Straha]

How, pray tell, are they to blame for the mess that is the sequel trilogy?

They were part of the chorus that keep pushing for JJ Abrams as this saviour of Star Wars? And their repeated attempt on how the only "true" Star Wars is all about the gritty outskirts on the edge of civilisation and how all politics about the state of the galaxy is boring?

... have you actually listened to their criticisms or are you building all of your information second hand?

[ray245]

... have you actually listened to their criticisms or are you building all of your information second hand?

I have seen their reviews for the prequels? Their "criticism" is mostly stupid.

[Straha]

Then, bluntly, I think you didn't comprehend what was said.

At no point did they 'keep pushing' for JJ Abrams as the saviour of Star Wars. They said, entirely accurately, that JJ Abrams' style of directing is in-congruent with the history of Star Trek (while praising his technical chops) but much more in-line with Star Wars. They criticized him, bluntly, for not being a good writer, an accusation which is Capital-T True.

They also never made any claims about true Star Wars being about 'grittiness' and I'm utterly baffled where you would have picked that up. Especially since their thematic attacks on grittiness for grittiness' sake makes up much of their criticism of Star Trek media.

Finally, politics in the Prequel Trilogies? A fucking snooze fest and incredibly poorly done. There is no background, there is political set-up, and there is context. It leaves viewers disorientated and bewildered, something to be avoided in a movie that's geared toward the 'action adventure' audience.

[darth_timon]

Of course its vicious. He knows his audience, and he knows what they want: bitter fan bros looking for validation of their bitterness, entitlement and sense of ownership of the franchise.

I echo ray here- why does anyone listen to this guy? He's just a pretentious guy on the internet who became famous by validating other angry nerds on the internet.

I don't take these guys seriously. I find them to be... well... the opinion police. Apparently theirs is the only right one. Typical of gatekeepers.

[ray245]

Then, bluntly, I think you didn't comprehend what was said.

At no point did they 'keep pushing' for JJ Abrams as the saviour of Star Wars. They said, entirely accurately, that JJ Abrams' style of directing is in-congruent with the history of Star Trek (while praising his technical chops) but much more in-line with Star Wars. They criticized him, bluntly, for not being a good writer, an accusation which is Capital-T True.

JJ Abrams style of directing is not a good fit for Star Wars, because he cuts world-building at the expense of moving the plot. Anyone who thinks he is a good fit is why the sequels end up being utterly aimless by ROS.

They also never made any claims about true Star Wars being about 'grittiness' and I'm utterly baffled where you would have picked that up. Especially since their thematic attacks on grittiness for grittiness' sake makes up much of their criticism of Star Trek media.

They harp endlessly about how Star Wars should be set on desert planets, snow planets and etc. This is why we have utterly boring planets in the sequels.

Finally, politics in the Prequel Trilogies? A fucking snooze fest and incredibly poorly done. There is no background, there is political set-up, and there is context. It leaves viewers disorientated and bewildered, something to be avoided in a movie that's geared toward the 'action adventure' audience.

The problem is not politics in the prequels. They have made a fanboy mistake of not being able to separate the distinction between Lucas' execution of the story from the overall concept and need for politics to be a part of the wider narrative. The sequel utter lack of any politics ( Lando's magic fleet out of nowhere) is also the reason why the sequels barely make any sense from a world-building perspective.

Good film criticism can recognise that the problem with the prequels is not the setting, but in the execution of the setting.

I see no reason to think of them as anything beyond a bunch of angry fanboys.

[Gandalf]

How much actual world building is in the OT, as opposed to a few decades of fans and EU filling in the gaps themselves?

[ray245]

How much actual world building is in the OT, as opposed to a few decades of fans and EU filling in the gaps themselves?

Enough to give people some idea what the political situation is in the galaxy. I am not saying you need the prequel level of politics, but you definitely need more context to give people an idea what on earth is happening in the galaxy than what the sequels offered.

[Gandalf]

Enough to give people some idea what the political situation is in the galaxy. I am not saying you need the prequel level of politics, but you definitely need more context to give people an idea what on earth is happening in the galaxy than what the sequels offered.

What "political situation" do we get though? There's an Empire of indeterminate composition, a Rebellion of indeterminate composition, and that's pretty much it.

[Straha]

Then, bluntly, I think you didn't comprehend what was said.

At no point did they 'keep pushing' for JJ Abrams as the saviour of Star Wars. They said, entirely accurately, that JJ Abrams' style of directing is in-congruent with the history of Star Trek (while praising his technical chops) but much more in-line with Star Wars. They criticized him, bluntly, for not being a good writer, an accusation which is Capital-T True.

JJ Abrams style of directing is not a good fit for Star Wars, because he cuts world-building at the expense of moving the plot. Anyone who thinks he is a good fit is why the sequels end up being utterly aimless by ROS.

Gandalf has noted this already, but I'll stress that we get next to no world-building in the OT. In ANH the closest we get to actual politics is that the Emperor has dissolved the Senate, but that is left uncontextualized. Lucas' shot construction and cinematography was powerful enough to do the messaging on its own terms.

Like, seriously, pull all that you can as quotes about the structure and makeup of the Galaxy in the orig trig and it maybe fills up a page, double-spaced.

Especially worth noting is that this was a deliberate choice as early scripts for ANH, and even some shot scenes, had a lot more on the politics of the Empire vs. Rebellion, and all of it was cut away.

They harp endlessly about how Star Wars should be set on desert planets, snow planets and etc. This is why we have utterly boring planets in the sequels.

No.

What they say is that the cinematography of the first two movies was such where a colour pallete was picked and committed to, breaking the movie thematically into easy to differentiate chunks. This was done, in the style of Flash Gordon, by picking themes for the planets people were on. (ANH: Tatooine -> Death Star, ESB: Hoth -> Dagobah/Asteroids -> Bespin, ROTJ: Tatooine -> Endor/Death Star).

This is not an original observation given that George Lucas used to bleat on about this in the 80s and 90s and books have been written about cinematography that explore how Star Wars did this and how by doing this it was able to get rid of a lot of set-up that was proven unnecessary and allowed for much faster pacing of the story.

Their point is that the thematic separation of the Sequel Trilogy lacks any similar coherence or forethought, and that this creates a much more incoherent movie.

Finally, politics in the Prequel Trilogies? A fucking snooze fest and incredibly poorly done. There is no background, there is political set-up, and there is context. It leaves viewers disorientated and bewildered, something to be avoided in a movie that's geared toward the 'action adventure' audience.

The problem is not politics in the prequels. They have made a fanboy mistake of not being able to separate the distinction between Lucas' execution of the story from the overall concept and need for politics to be a part of the wider narrative. The sequel utter lack of any politics ( Lando's magic fleet out of nowhere) is also the reason why the sequels barely make any sense from a world-building perspective.

Good film criticism can recognise that the problem with the prequels is not the setting, but in the execution of the setting.

1. You keep trying to set this up as a prequel/sequel distinction. They went after the sequels too, but were more nuanced about it because the sequels were, shockingly, much better executed.

2. You argument seems to be 'well, they should have focused on the execution!' which... they did. There was four+ hours of discussion of execution. The attack on the politics scenes was, indeed, not an attack on the idea of politics but rather the execution of the politics. Because the execution sucked. (Trailer crawl about a non-descript tax dispute, boring monologues in a boring CGI chamber, unclear execution and motivation from all parties.)

Your entire critique seems to be based on twin threads of misunderstanding ('They think Star Wars is about the periphery!') and strawmen ('NO POLITICS WHATSOEVER? So dumb!').

[Straha]

One of my paragraphs was put into a quote block by accident. Whoops.

[ray245]

Enough to give people some idea what the political situation is in the galaxy. I am not saying you need the prequel level of politics, but you definitely need more context to give people an idea what on earth is happening in the galaxy than what the sequels offered.

What "political situation" do we get though? There's an Empire of indeterminate composition, a Rebellion of indeterminate composition, and that's pretty much it.

Simple but effective set-up. On the other hand, the set up for the sequels is convoluted without giving any useful context.

Gandalf has noted this already, but I'll stress that we get next to no world-building in the OT. In ANH the closest we get to actual politics is that the Emperor has dissolved the Senate, but that is left uncontextualized. Lucas' shot construction and cinematography was powerful enough to do the messaging on its own terms.

Like, seriously, pull all that you can as quotes about the structure and makeup of the Galaxy in the orig trig and it maybe fills up a page, double-spaced.

Especially worth noting is that this was a deliberate choice as early scripts for ANH, and even some shot scenes, had a lot more on the politics of the Empire vs. Rebellion, and all of it was cut away.

See above.

No.

What they say is that the cinematography of the first two movies was such where a colour pallete was picked and committed to, breaking the movie thematically into easy to differentiate chunks. This was done, in the style of Flash Gordon, by picking themes for the planets people were on. (ANH: Tatooine -> Death Star, ESB: Hoth -> Dagobah/Asteroids -> Bespin, ROTJ: Tatooine -> Endor/Death Star).

This is not an original observation given that George Lucas used to bleat on about this in the 80s and 90s and books have been written about cinematography that explore how Star Wars did this and how by doing this it was able to get rid of a lot of set-up that was proven unnecessary and allowed for much faster pacing of the story.

Their point is that the thematic separation of the Sequel Trilogy lacks any similar coherence or forethought, and that this creates a much more incoherent movie.

And what their criticism did was to exclude any diverse and interesting planets that aren't monotonically bland. That is ultimately to the detriment of sequels.

1. You keep trying to set this up as a prequel/sequel distinction. They went after the sequels too, but were more nuanced about it because the sequels were, shockingly, much better executed.

I find it hilarious to think that the sequels were better executed when the overall narrative is a complete mess thanks to directors actively sabotaging each other.

2. You argument seems to be 'well, they should have focused on the execution!' which... they did. There was four+ hours of discussion of execution. The attack on the politics scenes was, indeed, not an attack on the idea of politics but rather the execution of the politics. Because the execution sucked. (Trailer crawl about a non-descript tax dispute, boring monologues in a boring CGI chamber, unclear execution and motivation from all parties.)

Your entire critique seems to be based on twin threads of misunderstanding ('They think Star Wars is about the periphery!') and strawmen ('NO POLITICS WHATSOEVER? So dumb!').

The sequels is hardly any better than the prequels in terms of its execution. The Abrams' film tries to make people forget about its shoddy execution by rapidly increasing the pacing of the movie to distract that from the audience. I'll take the prequels flaws over the sequels' utter lack of any vision any day.

[Civil War Man]

Enough to give people some idea what the political situation is in the galaxy. I am not saying you need the prequel level of politics, but you definitely need more context to give people an idea what on earth is happening in the galaxy than what the sequels offered.

What "political situation" do we get though? There's an Empire of indeterminate composition, a Rebellion of indeterminate composition, and that's pretty much it.

Here's what we can gather about the political situation using just dialog and visual cues from the original Star Wars.

1. There's an Empire and a Rebellion. The Empire is a galaxy-spanning totalitarian regime. This is all spelled out in the opening crawl, and deliberately reinforced by having Imperial characters possess a Nazi-like aesthetic.
2. The Empire was formed by usurping a previously-existing Republic. (Tarkin, re: dissolution of the Senate: "The last remnants of the old Republic have been swept away.")
3. The legislature is a hotbed of support for the Rebellion (Leia being a Senator and Rebel leader, Tagge expressing concern about the Rebellion's growing support in the Senate)
4. Due to the lack of concern about rival political factions other than the Rebel Alliance, the Empire is either in complete control of the entire galaxy or whatever other governments exist are not large enough, powerful enough, or organized enough to pose any significant threat.
5. The Rebels, meanwhile, have enough support and resources to be more than a mild annoyance. (Tagge concerns about the Rebels' support from senators previously mentioned, along with his questioning about the ability to maintain control without the senate, and the Alliance's potential to be able to exploit any weaknesses they might find in the Death Star plans)
6. The Republic that previously existed had a religious order that served as a sort of peacekeeping force, but that order was wiped out during the coup that gave rise to the Empire, in large part due to the actions of a member of that order who sided with the would-be Emperor.
7. There was, in living memory and prior to the fall of the Republic, a war that involved clones, though there are no other details beyond that.

That is significantly more setup of a political situation than just an Empire and Rebellion of indeterminate composition, even if it glosses over such minutiae as troop numbers or trade policies. And that's just touches upon the political situation with regards to the Empire and Rebels, and doesn't touch upon the political situation of, say, the criminal underworld, which we know exists, but don't have significantly more details than that since our only real glimpse of it is through Mos Eisley and Han Solo.

[ray245]

Here's what we can gather about the political situation using just dialog and visual cues from the original Star Wars.

1. There's an Empire and a Rebellion. The Empire is a galaxy-spanning totalitarian regime. This is all spelled out in the opening crawl, and deliberately reinforced by having Imperial characters possess a Nazi-like aesthetic.
2. The Empire was formed by usurping a previously-existing Republic. (Tarkin, re: dissolution of the Senate: "The last remnants of the old Republic have been swept away.")
3. The legislature is a hotbed of support for the Rebellion (Leia being a Senator and Rebel leader, Tagge expressing concern about the Rebellion's growing support in the Senate)
4. Due to the lack of concern about rival political factions other than the Rebel Alliance, the Empire is either in complete control of the entire galaxy or whatever other governments exist are not large enough, powerful enough, or organized enough to pose any significant threat.
5. The Rebels, meanwhile, have enough support and resources to be more than a mild annoyance. (Tagge concerns about the Rebels' support from senators previously mentioned, along with his questioning about the ability to maintain control without the senate, and the Alliance's potential to be able to exploit any weaknesses they might find in the Death Star plans)
6. The Republic that previously existed had a religious order that served as a sort of peacekeeping force, but that order was wiped out during the coup that gave rise to the Empire, in large part due to the actions of a member of that order who sided with the would-be Emperor.
7. There was, in living memory and prior to the fall of the Republic, a war that involved clones, though there are no other details beyond that.

That is significantly more setup of a political situation than just an Empire and Rebellion of indeterminate composition, even if it glosses over such minutiae as troop numbers or trade policies. And that's just touches upon the political situation with regards to the Empire and Rebels, and doesn't touch upon the political situation of, say, the criminal underworld, which we know exists, but don't have significantly more details than that since our only real glimpse of it is through Mos Eisley and Han Solo.

Yeah, the notion that there was no politics in the OT is a myth perpetuated by some fans that can't be bothered to look at the information that is presented in ANH. The OT is very good at conveying information with minimum fuss, but that does not mean it is not present at all.

Compare that to the Sequels. There is a resistance against the First Order, but somehow the New Republic is around, the FO is not merely just the imperial remnants, and the New Republic is somehow not in open conflict against the First Order. Oh, and the New Republic capital is some random planet that is not even named, that looks like Coruscant but not actually Coruscant. Oh and a mega fleet of ships appear out of nowhere just because Lando called them in. But Leia call for help is somehow ignored...but reasons?

[Straha]

Here's what we can gather about the political situation using just dialog and visual cues from the original Star Wars.

1. There's an Empire and a Rebellion. The Empire is a galaxy-spanning totalitarian regime. This is all spelled out in the opening crawl, and deliberately reinforced by having Imperial characters possess a Nazi-like aesthetic.
2. The Empire was formed by usurping a previously-existing Republic. (Tarkin, re: dissolution of the Senate: "The last remnants of the old Republic have been swept away.")
3. The legislature is a hotbed of support for the Rebellion (Leia being a Senator and Rebel leader, Tagge expressing concern about the Rebellion's growing support in the Senate)
4. Due to the lack of concern about rival political factions other than the Rebel Alliance, the Empire is either in complete control of the entire galaxy or whatever other governments exist are not large enough, powerful enough, or organized enough to pose any significant threat.
5. The Rebels, meanwhile, have enough support and resources to be more than a mild annoyance. (Tagge concerns about the Rebels' support from senators previously mentioned, along with his questioning about the ability to maintain control without the senate, and the Alliance's potential to be able to exploit any weaknesses they might find in the Death Star plans)
6. The Republic that previously existed had a religious order that served as a sort of peacekeeping force, but that order was wiped out during the coup that gave rise to the Empire, in large part due to the actions of a member of that order who sided with the would-be Emperor.
7. There was, in living memory and prior to the fall of the Republic, a war that involved clones, though there are no other details beyond that.

That is significantly more setup of a political situation than just an Empire and Rebellion of indeterminate composition, even if it glosses over such minutiae as troop numbers or trade policies. And that's just touches upon the political situation with regards to the Empire and Rebels, and doesn't touch upon the political situation of, say, the criminal underworld, which we know exists, but don't have significantly more details than that since our only real glimpse of it is through Mos Eisley and Han Solo.

Most of what you're saying is right. (Points 7 and 6 are partially incorrect, more on that in a bit)

This is, in fact, the point.

All of this information is given in passing while discussing other things and ratcheting up the tension of the main story which gives no message about what the politics at stake are. None of this lays out the political stakes of the rebellion: what is the political message of the Rebellion? What is the overarching goal of the Empire? This is why significant groups of people have come to the conclusion after watching the movie that the Empire isn't actually evil.

Indeed, a lot of the movie falls apart under fridge logic. To use just Leia as an example: What's a Princess doing restoring a Republic? If she's a princess shouldn't she be related to the Imperial family (a rebellious heir to the throne would fall right in line with the Flash Gordon ethos of the show.)? What's a member of the imperial senate doing on a 'consular ship' on a 'diplomatic mission'? If the Empire is Galactic then diplomacy like that is nonsensical (is Chuck Schumer on a diplomatic mission when he goes to Virginia?), and if Tatooine is outside of Imperial control why can the Empire just waltz in and act like they own the place?

The point is that all of this is dealt with in absolute passing so that the viewer can paint in what they imagine the political scene being. To go back to point 6: Lucas' notes actually had the Empire existing for a while and slowly falling into corruption. The Novelization of the movie has Obi-Wan praising the first Emperors and attacking later Emperors as becoming corrupt, indicating that the Jedi were never opposed to the Empire as an institution. Contemporary merchandise from ANH paints the Emperor as an unimportant figurehead who is controlled by a series of people around (playing into Tarkin and Vader as the real villains). The passing of the Jedi is also in the air, the Imperial officers call it 'ancient religion' whose fire 'has gone out', indeed Obi-Wan being alive is a point of shock to Tarkin, who notably calls Vader a Jedi to his face again muddying the 'Jedi were antithetical to the Empire' argument. This same ambiguity applies to point 7: the Clone wars get mentioned twice in the script, once by Obi-Wan when he gives Luke the lightsaber and once when Leia tells Obi-Wan that he fought with her father in the Clone Wars, but the beauty of the way it's shot is that everybody who watches it can imagine what they want about the Clone Wars, its importance in the story.


All of this is the power of the Original Star Wars: it didn't care about the politics except as the faintest of window dressing, but that window dressing was part of what drove the imagination forward and engrossed people in creating the world building. Put differently: Star Wars didn't world-build for you but had you world-build for it, and that's magical.

By contrast the Prequel trilogy ground to a complete halt whenever it was on Coruscant with no action, no compelling story, and a bewildering amount of partial construction that left people more disorientated and annoyed than anything else.

[Straha]

Simple but effective set-up. On the other hand, the set up for the sequels is convoluted without giving any useful context.

What, exactly, is your argument? Because as far as I can tell it's "The sequels sure did suck!" which... sure? But that's not a response to anyone but Ralin.

No.

What they say is that the cinematography of the first two movies was such where a colour pallete was picked and committed to, breaking the movie thematically into easy to differentiate chunks. This was done, in the style of Flash Gordon, by picking themes for the planets people were on. (ANH: Tatooine -> Death Star, ESB: Hoth -> Dagobah/Asteroids -> Bespin, ROTJ: Tatooine -> Endor/Death Star).

This is not an original observation given that George Lucas used to bleat on about this in the 80s and 90s and books have been written about cinematography that explore how Star Wars did this and how by doing this it was able to get rid of a lot of set-up that was proven unnecessary and allowed for much faster pacing of the story.

Their point is that the thematic separation of the Sequel Trilogy lacks any similar coherence or forethought, and that this creates a much more incoherent movie.

And what their criticism did was to exclude any diverse and interesting planets that aren't monotonically bland. That is ultimately to the detriment of sequels.

So, to be clear, you're painting a direct line of responsibility from RLM and Mike Stoklasa through Kathleen Kennedy, Disney, and J.J. Abrams and into the Sequel Trilogy?

And ignoring the broader work of film schools and cinematography about thematic development by colour selection (something that pre-dates, say, Wizard of Oz)?

I need you to unpack this more and draw those causal connections. I know this is a garden path and unrelated to the main thread, something I promise we'll come back to, but I really want to see how this chain of responsibility works.

1. You keep trying to set this up as a prequel/sequel distinction. They went after the sequels too, but were more nuanced about it because the sequels were, shockingly, much better executed.

I find it hilarious to think that the sequels were better executed when the overall narrative is a complete mess thanks to directors actively sabotaging each other.

Sure? To roll back to what you were saying before 'they should have focused on execution'. They did. As critics of film, and the Star Wars universe, they explored each of the movies and were willing to give TFA and TLJ credit for being well executed in how they were shot and constructed, and then ripped them hard for lack of vision and for failed execution on its critique of the SW Universe respectively. This is what nuanced critics do. Your criticism of them can't have it both ways, either these folks are hacks who don't recognize nuance or their recognition of nuance is something that means that they miss the big picture and get lost up their own ass. Pick a lane.

The sequels is hardly any better than the prequels in terms of its execution. The Abrams' film tries to make people forget about its shoddy execution by rapidly increasing the pacing of the movie to distract that from the audience. I'll take the prequels flaws over the sequels' utter lack of any vision any day.

Again, what's your argument? "The sequels are bad!" is not, in fact, a response to either the Picard video posted above or the critical qualifications of Mike Stoklasa, Jay Bauman, Rich Evans, et al.

[ray245]

What, exactly, is your argument? Because as far as I can tell it's "The sequels sure did suck!" which... sure? But that's not a response to anyone but Ralin.

That their criticism is rooted in the same fanboyism that led to the sequel trilogy, mostly notably ROS's flaws.

So, to be clear, you're painting a direct line of responsibility from RLM and Mike Stoklasa through Kathleen Kennedy, Disney, and J.J. Abrams and into the Sequel Trilogy?

see above.

And ignoring the broader work of film schools and cinematography about thematic development by colour selection (something that pre-dates, say, Wizard of Oz)?

Which has nothing to do with the idea that you should restrict yourself to depicting the planets on the outskirts of the galaxy.

Sure? To roll back to what you were saying before 'they should have focused on execution'. They did. As critics of film, and the Star Wars universe, they explored each of the movies and were willing to give TFA and TLJ credit for being well executed in how they were shot and constructed, and then ripped them hard for lack of vision and for failed execution on its critique of the SW Universe respectively. This is what nuanced critics do. Your criticism of them can't have it both ways, either these folks are hacks who don't recognize nuance or their recognition of nuance is something that means that they miss the big picture and get lost up their own ass. Pick a lane.

Except what they end up focusing more on is not the excution of the prequels, but the entire concept of the prequels. They want the prequels to be like the OT, when the prequels were never about trying to be the OT.

Again, what's your argument? "The sequels are bad!" is not, in fact, a response to either the Picard video posted above or the critical qualifications of Mike Stoklasa, Jay Bauman, Rich Evans, et al.

That their criticism is rooted in the same fanboyism that JJ Abrams shares. That their criticism is fundamentally not constructive, as evidenced by how someone that shares the same fundamental mentality as RLM gave us the mess that is the sequels.

[Straha]

That their criticism is rooted in the same fanboyism that led to the sequel trilogy, mostly notably ROS's flaws.

Okay, and how does that invalidate the critiques they made of both the prequels and sequels?

So, to be clear, you're painting a direct line of responsibility from RLM and Mike Stoklasa through Kathleen Kennedy, Disney, and J.J. Abrams and into the Sequel Trilogy?

see above.

No, you ascribed to them the responsibility of the sequels. Saying "they're fanboys!" is neither a substantive response to their criticism nor does it justify the causal chain you're creating.

Which has nothing to do with the idea that you should restrict yourself to depicting the planets on the outskirts of the galaxy.

Sure, which is an argument that they never made outside your own head. They are not responsible for how you misinterpret what they said.

Except what they end up focusing more on is not the excution of the prequels, but the entire concept of the prequels. They want the prequels to be like the OT, when the prequels were never about trying to be the OT.

Those are some empty assertions, please provide warrants for your claims.

That their criticism is rooted in the same fanboyism that JJ Abrams shares. That their criticism is fundamentally not constructive, as evidenced by how someone that shares the same fundamental mentality as RLM gave us the mess that is the sequels.

You make three arguments here:

- That their criticism is rooted in the fanboyism that JJ Abrams shares. Given their public disagreement with JJ Abrams and the radically different approach to the value of storytelling that they take viz-a-viz JJ Abrams, that's just flatly false. Hell, the entire opening of the video posted in this thread is a scathing critique of the JJ Abrams 'mystery box' method of storytelling. This is also straight dismissive. "Fanboyism bad!" except, I assume, when it's fanboyism of the prequels?

- That their criticism is not constructive. Which directly contradicts what you said about them creating the vision of the sequels. So, again, pick a lane. Are they constructive but bad critics or are they not constructive and merely exist to tear down?

- Then that the mentality of RLM gave us the sequels, which is just 'fanboyism bad' but with a twist, and also flat false given that the RLM critique of the Prequels was 'Hey, this is a bad story!' and the sequels had (with the exception of TLJ) no story so to speak.


You seem to display no actual knowledge of the content of their criticism. Have you actually listened to/watched their stuff? Because if not why should anyone take you seriously about this?

[ray245]

Okay, and how does that invalidate the critiques they made of both the prequels and sequels?

Their fundamental critique is based on how much of a departure the prequels were to the OT, and it essentially becomes nothing more than fanboy gate-keeping rather than to recognise the fact that the prequels never tried to be a carbon-copy of the OT. Their praise of TFA outright ignores the fundamental problems of establishing a weak world-building foundation for the sequels, because TFA gave them all the nostalgia they wanted.

No, you ascribed to them the responsibility of the sequels. Saying "they're fanboys!" is neither a substantive response to their criticism nor does it justify the causal chain you're creating.

Yes I did. While I certainly cannot claim they had a direct influence on Disney by any means, it is quite clear and easy to infer Disney has been actively listening to fanboys on the Internet with their decision making for the franchise.

Sure, which is an argument that they never made outside your own head. They are not responsible for how you misinterpret what they said.

I could have misremembered their comments, but I have no interest in wasting my time to check their videos again.

Those are some empty assertions, please provide warrants for your claims.

I'll happily drop that claim if it means I do not have to watch their video again, ever.

You make three arguments here:

- That their criticism is rooted in the fanboyism that JJ Abrams shares. Given their public disagreement with JJ Abrams and the radically different approach to the value of storytelling that they take viz-a-viz JJ Abrams, that's just flatly false. Hell, the entire opening of the video posted in this thread is a scathing critique of the JJ Abrams 'mystery box' method of storytelling. This is also straight dismissive. "Fanboyism bad!" except, I assume, when it's fanboyism of the prequels?

Disagreeing with JJ Abrams does not mean they fundamentally disagreed with him in how they approach Star Wars. I think fanboyism of the prequels is idiotic because the prequels have their fair share of their problems. I am dismissive of them because I find that kind of fanboyism criticism to be a complete waste of time.

- That their criticism is not constructive. Which directly contradicts what you said about them creating the vision of the sequels. So, again, pick a lane. Are they constructive but bad critics or are they not constructive and merely exist to tear down?

I do not think they "created" the vision of the sequels as much as they have limited the vision of the sequels. My contention is that the root of the problem with the sequels is that JJ Abrams "played it safe", and this in part is due to Disney being conservative and trying to appease fanboys like RLM. I think their criticism is rooted in an attempt at gate-keeping, and trying to recreate the nostalgia of the OT.

- Then that the mentality of RLM gave us the sequels, which is just 'fanboyism bad' but with a twist, and also flat false given that the RLM critique of the Prequels was 'Hey, this is a bad story!' and the sequels had (with the exception of TLJ) no story so to speak.

Sure. But as you said, their critique of the prequels is saying it is a bad story. I fundamentally disagree with such criticism because the weakness of the prequels is not in its story or wider narrative, but in its execution of that story.

You seem to display no actual knowledge of the content of their criticism. Have you actually listened to/watched their stuff? Because if not why should anyone take you seriously about this?

Because it has been years since I've watched their videos, and I have absolutely no interest in revisiting those videos and wasting my time. I fully acknowledge the possibility I have misremembered their arguments, but I have no interest in digging up their arguments just to have a debate on their criticism. That said, I am not inclined to change my mind about RLM due to my sheer dislike of the channel.

However, this does not distract from my initial reply in this thread, which is why should we care about your recommendation about their review about ST: Picard?

[Straha]

Okay, and how does that invalidate the critiques they made of both the prequels and sequels?

Their fundamental critique is based on how much of a departure the prequels were to the OT, and it essentially becomes nothing more than fanboy gate-keeping rather than to recognise the fact that the prequels never tried to be a carbon-copy of the OT. Their praise of TFA outright ignores the fundamental problems of establishing a weak world-building foundation for the sequels, because TFA gave them all the nostalgia they wanted.

Please tell me how this review praises TFA for giving them 'all the nostalgia they wanted'.

Yes I did. While I certainly cannot claim they had a direct influence on Disney by any means, it is quite clear and easy to infer Disney has been actively listening to fanboys on the Internet with their decision making for the franchise.

So, this gets back to why in the fuck you think "Disney is influenced by fanboys" is a reason not to engage with nuanced media criticism?

I could have misremembered their comments, but I have no interest in wasting my time to check their videos again.

I'll happily drop that claim if it means I do not have to watch their video again, ever.

As they say, concessions accepted.

Disagreeing with JJ Abrams does not mean they fundamentally disagreed with him in how they approach Star Wars. I think fanboyism of the prequels is idiotic because the prequels have their fair share of their problems. I am dismissive of them because I find that kind of fanboyism criticism to be a complete waste of time.

So, over the course of this conversation you've made clear that you've actually not engaged or understood their criticism which has plenty of nuance that you missed. You have blanketly painted into a corner as being critical of a thing you love for, perhaps, ulterior motives and then dismissed them outright.

So if your argument is 'fanboy critique is bad and should not be listened to', I guess the prior question is given the level of fanboyism you are portraying right now, why should anyone take you seriously?

I do not think they "created" the vision of the sequels as much as they have limited the vision of the sequels. My contention is that the root of the problem with the sequels is that JJ Abrams "played it safe", and this in part is due to Disney being conservative and trying to appease fanboys like RLM. I think their criticism is rooted in an attempt at gate-keeping, and trying to recreate the nostalgia of the OT.

You have, without knowing it, engaged in exactly the critique that they offer against JJ Abrams and Disney's control of the base. This seems to mean that either you're speaking from blanket ignorance or that you too are a fanboy who I should ignore. Which one is it?

Sure. But as you said, their critique of the prequels is saying it is a bad story. I fundamentally disagree with such criticism because the weakness of the prequels is not in its story or wider narrative, but in its execution of that story.

If a story is executed badly it is, almost by definition, a _bad story_. Discussing the misexecution of the story compared to what it could have been is the role of a critic.

Because it has been years since I've watched their videos, and I have absolutely no interest in revisiting those videos and wasting my time. I fully acknowledge the possibility I have misremembered their arguments, but I have no interest in digging up their arguments just to have a debate on their criticism. That said, I am not inclined to change my mind about RLM due to my sheer dislike of the channel.

So you admit you know nothing about what they actually say but that you still dislike them so much you will not engage?

Thicken your skin.

However, this does not distract from my initial reply in this thread, which is why should we care about your recommendation about their review about ST: Picard?

Because it offers a depthful nuanced take on why the story failed to deliver, the reasons behind that failure, why it is so jarringly discordant with the rest of the Star Trek universe, and more.

I'm not going to restate the core critiques that they make. I get paid when I tutor people on material. Watch it or don't, but do us all a favor and keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about.