I read up to the section in which he offers the page-long description of Qui-Gon's character in rebuttal to the scene in which the "people on the street" couldn't come up with an apt description. At that point I realized, the review would be mostly crap.
The author totally missed the point of that bit in Plinkett's review. Part of the reason ANH was so successful, was that the characters were strong archetypes. Luke was the hero, the young adventurer, whose life is irrevocably changed by the journey he embarks on. Obi-Wan, the mentor, the old wizard who guides the hero on his journey. Han, the dashing rogue who assists the hero. These are all standard roles and characters that appear in any epic tale. That bit in the TPM review was showing that the characters in ANH were quick, easy to identify archetypes. The fact that you can describe them in one word is to their benefit. So, offering a page-long description of Qui-Gon totally misses the point. Qui-Gon does not fit into a certain archetype. As much as Lucas tried to mirror the scenes into the PT, and tried to make scenes "rhyme", he totally missed the largest part of what made ANH such a classic tale.
Further, the author puts forth the idea that Qui-Gon Jinn was the main character of TPM, which just doesn't fit arc-wise. Oviously, Qui-Gon was set up to be Obi-Wan's analog, to fill that same role, the mentor that guides the hero . . . but then, the author states that Qui-Gon was the main character, so that doesn't make any sense. On top of that, Qui-Gon is killed in the climax, very few movies are able to pull off the "kill the main character in the climax" plot twist. Qui-Gon died in TPM because it mirrors Obi-Wan's death in ANH, and Obi-Wan's death directly affected Luke, raised the stakes for him and solidified his destiny, and Luke was the main character in ANH. But in TPM, Obi-Wan was NOT the main character, so what purpose did Qui-Gon's death serve??
I could go on with the things that make no sense, character-wise, but suffice to say, Qui-Gon's role is ultimately confusing. . . if he were the main character, as the author puts forth.
Even in the section quoted above me, the author is guilty of the same things he accuses Plinkett of doing. He's taking quotes out of their context and nit-picking them. The argument that Anakin is not the main character because we don't see him until 45 minutes into the movie, and the author disregards this point because that statement is false, because we actually see Anakin 32 minutes into the movie. That's not the point of what Plinkett is saying. How many movies are there that introduce the main character that far into the movie?? It's like me saying "The sky is blue because long ago, the gods threw blue crayons all up into space" and then you telling me "No, the sky is NOT blue. Your explanation is incorrect"
Lastly, even in those first few pages, there were at least 3 or 4 major grammatical errors, which really gave me the impression the author was just an angry ranting fanboy who didn't think his arguments through all the way.
