So I thought this was a discussion on whether or not Nerrel is cut above the rest when it comes to movie critiques and that star wars just happens to be the film in which he shows his skill, and not a reahashing on whether or not TLJ is a good film. I will try to ensure that everything points back to Nerrel
My original comment that you seem to take issue with was this (but I will add emphasis with red text):
^^^For some reasons why I don't think Critical Drinker is balanced, have a look at some of
the recent posts in the Barbie thread.
Others clearly agree.
Why is he "much, much better"?
I specifically Highlighted what I "take Issue with" (as per your words), in my quoted post. I do not equate asking for clarification on a statement as to take Issue/offence as you have continuously tried to claim not just in this posts but prior posts. More on that later.
If you want to know what I "took issue with", well I said so right here.
You've just restated your opinion, admittedly with more detail. I was hoping you would explain it.
As for the comment on balanced. Well we have what (in this barbie example) CD has said and what you have said. The only way for me to judge what is actually a balanced take is to go see the film myself and to evaluate the comments for myself. So not much for me to comment on, with that regards.
You're right that in the first vid I posted (on the Last Jedi) there is a focus on themes and characters rather than focussing on plot. I think this is because a lot of criticism aimed at the film has been aimed at those two things
I have no idea what criticism you have seen that was aimed at the themes of TLJ. All of the critiques I have seen were aimed at either the plot or the characters or both. The only time I have heard about themes is in defense of TLJ or people mocking that defense.
I also completely disagree with the criticism in that vid re: Snoke's lack of backstory. I agree with Nerrel: Snoke didn't need a backstory... just like the Emperor didn't need a backstory in the original trilogy. Their primary purpose is for the development of the other characters.
I did bring up this point in my previous post but allow me to elaborate why I think this makes Nerrel look bad. Snoke, who is the leader of the first order and hence by extension the first order themselves are a pivtol role in the plot of these
sequel films and have significant impact on the world building for the Star Wars universe. A universe that consists of 6 prior films. It is incredibly reductive to dismiss him as just a device for character development, when he clearly has an impact on the world and story at large.
It is strange to me that people should just be content with Somehow snoke is now the most powerful darkside force user, and somehow snoke raised a massive army. These are sequel films, the story and world building should maintain continuity. That is why people take issue with Palpatine somehow returning for TRS. An explanation is necessary to show how things have moved on in-universe.
Nerrel doesn't address this and that makes his analysis flawed. A good movie critic, doesn't get to hand wave away important critiques pertaining to the story.
If you were to watch the second video, you'll see that Nerrel spends a lot of time dissecting and ridiculing the plot of Rise of Skywalker and indeed the whole trilogy, which seems to be your biggest complaint with the vid. This is where the aforementioned 'balance' comes in - the two vid complement each other. He notes that the complete ret-conned Luke's character for the final film, backed up by quotes from the directors
I've already spent time on one video and found it to be woeful. I am not spending time on a second video on the promise that it is better by the same person that suggested the first video. If there is anything in that video, that shows him to be competent at movie analysis then you are going to need to give me a time stamp.
As far the balanced comment, I've already said what I think in a previous post. Your statements here do not change that.
I would agree that certain aspects of the plot of Last Jedi required an intense suspension of disbelief and I'd agree that some events (notably the hyperspace sacrifice thing) do raise questions about past events in the trilogy. But I think these shortcomings in plot with the Last Jedi can mostly be explained away with more screen time. I don't think it's a good approach to perceive a film as nonsensical because I refuse to cut the film a bit of slack. And there are plenty of things that make little upon scrutiny in the original films, like walking outside the Millennium Falcon on the asteroid. But I would agree say that Rey's skill level was over the top.
That's fine but it has nothing to do with Nerrel, so no comment.
As for Poe, your post seems to defend his actions on the basis that they were made with good intentions. Indeed, they weren't malicious and he was trying to do the right thing. But the film was clearly making out that Poe needed to grow, going so far as to trash his X-wing in front of him (and the audience). And he does grow. Nerrel isn't criticising the character of Poe... he's actually praising his character arc.
My posts regarding Poe, was to show that Nerrel was not Nuanced in his takes and was just wrong in another one of his takes. Hence me specifically saying that in my post.
He has a goal and will take any piece of information he can get his hands on and twist it to reach the conclusion he desires. Ironic considering this is also appears to be your critque of CD.
Lets take the X-wing scene. When he brings that up I genuinely had a reaction of "oh that's clever". The idea is to show him that he doesn't need blow things up to solve every situation. And the situation does resolve itself without Poe getting in an X-wing.
However there is no way Poe could have accounted for the 12 inch thick carbon fibre reinforced plot armour and the staggering incompetence of the first order that allows the rebels to survive this exchange. They should have been dead, those tie-fighters should have been ripping them to shreds since they would have been able to take free "bombing" runs on the captial ship. They should have just been hammeing them with everything they've got. Once again the correct decision is to get in the X-wing and blow stuff up.
I quite frankly do not see the value character development whose basis is made on poor to downright incorrect plot points, that need to be massaged to fit neatly into place. Nerrel from what I remember simply ignores this and just expects the user to just go along with it
Ultimately, my own take aligns with Nerrel's - his summary of the characters and themes is why I enjoyed TLJ and I have never bought many of the zealous criticisms that are aimed at that film. However, I also align with Nerrel that Rise of Skywalker can't be defended and that the whole sequel trilogy was ultimately a mess.
So Nerrel echo's your own opinions, which from what I gather is why you like him. I can see why you didn't make this point intially. Fair enough, I'm not going to dog on you for that.
Finally, your post seems to take an exclusively critical take and is seemingly out to make a point - noting the emotive language surrounding your socks.
My post was to analysis whether or not Nerrel offers a level of analysis and nuance that placed him a cut above the pack as per what you told me.
I believe they show a level of nuance and analysis far greater than many other YouTubers.
Since when I asked you, you told me to go do my own research. I did. These are my findings. Now you say that I have an "
exclusively critical take" (I'm assuming you mean i only view the negatives). But then you, yourself have not offered much in the way of his defence outside of, "I agree with him". Just because you agree with a point doesn't mean the point is nuanced, in fact a nuanced point can still be disagreed with, which is how discussions come about. With regards to the exclusive comment, maybe there is nothing to praise.
The socks thing was literally a joke. We are in the summer, people aren't wearing socks indoors if they don't have to. Wow, we have got to this stage.
Now then let me address this.
Sorry if I rubbed you up the wrong way.
In your quote of me you even edited out my apology to you for rubbing you up the wrong way and
still proceed with an antagonistic tone - k
Maybe chill out and don't be so needlessly antagonistic towards somebody for just recommending a couple of videos?
You clearly have an idea in your head about how I feel. You have already selected the tone of my voice/posts and you've made it very clear that is what you think. Your consistent need to bring it up seems like you want me to say something about it.
So yes, I've heard you and I don't care about what ever story you've made up in your head about me. That is why I ignored your "apology".
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24726633/JAM_101_13109_R.jpeg)
www.theverge.com
www.cnbc.com
www.wsj.com
