ReadLetterMedia reviews Avatar

[takemeout_totheblack]

Mr. Plinkett reviews Avatar and reveals more of his psychotic antics!

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0

[NecronLord]

As with last time, I couldn't stand more than a fraction of that parody review. I wonder is it intentional that the guy criticizes Avatar's pacing when his own product is the most tedious thing since the queue was invented.

[takemeout_totheblack]

As with last time, I couldn't stand more than a fraction of that parody review. I wonder is it intentional that the guy criticizes Avatar's pacing when his own product is the most tedious thing since the queue was invented.

I think the idea is that he makes really good, well thought out points (which he does by the way) while sounding like an aged psychotic stroke victim.
I can see how the voice would be grating to some people though. One of those things I guess.

[NecronLord]

I recall no points, other than generally deriding the film for having a message; no doubt he also derides films that don't have some "message" too.

[takemeout_totheblack]

I recall no points, other than generally deriding the film for having a message; no doubt he also derides films that don't have some "message" too.

Well never mind then, a difference of opinion.

[adam_grif]

I can't get enough of the guy. TPM review was way better of course. It helps when the movie you're reviewing is genuinely terrible.

[Big Orange]

The Phantom Menace was a flawed movie and he put a lot of effort into it with his seventy minute review with all the complicated editing, but he has used his editing to bend and distort the actual truth, plus (as many said) his Richard Nixon stoner voice starts to really grate.

[Vympel]

I enjoyed this review, just like I enjoyed Avatar.

[Darth Wong]

I think the idea is that he makes really good, well thought out points (which he does by the way) while sounding like an aged psychotic stroke victim.

Could you list some of these really good, well thought-out points? I quite frankly hate watching Youtube videos to hear arguments, when I can read the written word much faster than some guy can speak it. Points made in a Youtube video are also extremely annoying for the point/counterpoint format of discussions on web boards like this, because you can't quote them.

[Srelex]

I think the idea is that he makes really good, well thought out points (which he does by the way) while sounding like an aged psychotic stroke victim.

Could you list some of these really good, well thought-out points? I quite frankly hate watching Youtube videos to hear arguments, when I can read the written word much faster than some guy can speak it. Points made in a Youtube video are also extremely annoying for the point/counterpoint format of discussions on web boards like this, because you can't quote them.

Youtube videos are only really appreciable in this respect when the person is being facetious or is aiming for more laughs than serious points. I presume this is not the case here.

[takemeout_totheblack]

Could you list some of these really good, well thought-out points? I quite frankly hate watching Youtube videos to hear arguments, when I can read the written word much faster than some guy can speak it. Points made in a Youtube video are also extremely annoying for the point/counterpoint format of discussions on web boards like this, because you can't quote them.

Don't get me wrong, I liked Avatar! The story was a bit simple but not nearly as flawed as detractors claim, and it was a bit preachy but that didn't really get to me, some things need to be reiterated, right?
It's just that the points about the Na'vi being engineered to be sympathetic (appearance-wise, oneness with nature, etc) was an interesting point, and the whole idea of a 'romance within a tragedy' being very effective media tool when it comes to winning the audience was something I found quite clever when I thought about it.

I found several of his points a bit nit-picky, like the inevitable 'I dun wanna message' complaint that gets thrown around so often by detractors, and his argument that the villains were too villainous and that the heroes were too pure and wonderful. Sometimes people like black and white moral stories! And his swipes at Cameron were a bit low, came off as sounding like he was running out of stuff from the movie to complain about and decided to attack the director; and his brief deriding of the technology used as 'going in the wrong direction' was a bit pointless.

I disagree with his 'Avatar sucked' vibe, but I still find the review entertaining.

I didn't post this to start an 'Avatar sucks' flame war or anything, I just thought some people here would find it entertaining and funny, as well as a leave a little room for a civil debate, no harm was intended.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, but without a description of his points, the potential for discussion here is limited. Not everyone wants to sit through a long-winded Youtube video which, in all likelihood, contains nothing more than arguments we've already seen before. That's why threads which link a Youtube argument instead of quoting a text article tend to get fewer responses, and what responses they do get tend to be of the low-quality "like/dislike" variety.

[takemeout_totheblack]

Noted for future reference.
Perhaps I'll give a summary of the points made in the video and then post a link next time.
Thank you for the input.

[stormthebeaches]

Edit: Sorry, double post. Could the moderators please delete this?

[Vympel]

And acting like TPM's climax was crap for having multiple simultaneous conflicts is bullshit. Did this idiot forget Luke dueling with Vader while the rest of the heroes tried to escape Cloud City? Or Luke dueling Vader again, while the Rebel and Imperial fleets engaged each other and the Ewoks were taking on Stormtroopers on the ground? I liked battles like this, which shows the epic scale of the conflict and builds the tension because everything could go to hell if just one set of heroes out of two or three went down.

He didn't forget anything, he referneced each climax of the original trilogy and how they compared. It includes a clip of Lucas & Co watching the climax themselves and realising that they did too much, but it being too late to change it.

Wasn't this supposed to be about Avatar?

[Oskuro]

Wasn't this supposed to be about Avatar?

I'd actually like to see what people here think of RedLetterMedia's reviews of the Star Trek movies and the points he makes.

As for both the Avatar and TPM reviews (as well as the Trek reviews, mind you), the guy makes interesting points when talking about movie making in general, but gets a bit carried away when talking about the plot. Of course, he is trying to make a humorous review, so I guess he might force some parts to make them funny.

As for describing the characters, people keep forgetting the rules. You can't say what a character looks like, nor can you say his profession. Describing Qui-Gonn as a rebel in the eyes of the Council does not meet this criteria, as it needs explaining the background more in depth to explain the character. The whole point of the exercise is to show that TPM characters lack a solid archetype, something I'd blame not only on the writing, but on the wooden performance.

And I love the Qui-Gonn GIN joke

[Vympel]

SW split to PSW.

[Darth Wong]

As for describing the characters, people keep forgetting the rules. You can't say what a character looks like, nor can you say his profession. Describing Qui-Gonn as a rebel in the eyes of the Council does not meet this criteria, as it needs explaining the background more in depth to explain the character. The whole point of the exercise is to show that TPM characters lack a solid archetype, something I'd blame not only on the writing, but on the wooden performance.

Again, however, I have to stress how monumentally ignorant that characterization is. Anyone who isn't a blinkered American fundie with no knowledge of the outside world could look at Qui-Gon and, if asked to slot him into an archetype, would instantly say "Buddhist". It's as plain as the nose on your face.

[Aaron]

Wasn't this supposed to be about Avatar?

I'd actually like to see what people here think of RedLetterMedia's reviews of the Star Trek movies and the points he makes.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I found him quite spot on. Especially in regards to Picard's character, I never noticed it before but series Picard is totally different then movie Picard. He's become some kind of geriatric action movie dude, ready to piss all over the values he apparently held dear in the series.

That is probably the greatest flaw in all of the TNG movies, the characters aren't the same guys we saw in the shows.

[Darth Wong]

At the risk of derailing the thread, I found him quite spot on. Especially in regards to Picard's character, I never noticed it before but series Picard is totally different then movie Picard. He's become some kind of geriatric action movie dude, ready to piss all over the values he apparently held dear in the series.

That is probably the greatest flaw in all of the TNG movies, the characters aren't the same guys we saw in the shows.

Lots of people have noticed that. I pointed that out in my Nemesis synopsis many years ago. Movie Picard does things that ran completely against everything TV Picard stood for.

Somehow, though, I think the TNG characters themselves were just intrinsically less lovable than the TOS characters. Make up whatever reason you want, but I think we all know that if the movie Picard were faithful to the TV Picard, that wouldn't have helped those movies much, if at all. Of all the TNG movies, the Picard in "Insurrection" is probably closest to the TV Picard, and that movie was godawful shit.

[Oskuro]

Again, however, I have to stress how monumentally ignorant that characterization is. Anyone who isn't a blinkered American fundie with no knowledge of the outside world could look at Qui-Gon and, if asked to slot him into an archetype, would instantly say "Buddhist". It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Well, to be fair, he is playing a fundie. A psychopathic one at that.

But then again, I concede (again) that the use of the "method" in the review is skewed towards the author's intent. I just think it is a nice method to use with my own characters, to make sure I'm crafting them well.

Somehow, though, I think the TNG characters themselves were just intrinsically less lovable than the TOS characters.

I think it had to do with the original show being campy and OK with it, and TNG being campy but trying to be serious.