Star Wars fans - Anyone have a link to the review rebuttal?

[greg]

It's popular to bash ROTJ, but I must say that there are so many aspects of that film that are awesome. The whole Tattooine part of the movie was fantastic, despite Boba Fett getting a chump's death. The speeder bike chase in the forest was so exhilarating that I reenacted that scene far more than any other scene in the trilogy as a kid with my toys (or just me live action playing and being a spaz). The final confrontation between Luke and his father was very powerful and emotional. Sure, looking back now it seems pointless to rehash another Death Star, but those sequences in the film are so utterly cool with the ships flying into the superstructure to blow it up. Yes, it's a "well, here we go again" kind of a thing, but at least it looks so extremely cool. Finally, the fleets of ships facing off against each other was so extremely cool. I just wish that they had shown the B-Wings in action, torpedoing Star Destroyers and such. But the capital ship-on-ship fleet battle was so extremely cool! It's far better than the dumb opening of ROTS. They tried to make it so over-the-top that it was ridiculous. What could've been good action was replaced with battling with useless missiles that explode droids that use welders to try to rip a ship apart. I swear, putting M-80s in those droids would've made them more dangerous than what their purpose was. So stupid. It's also dumb that Jedi never wore flight suits in the prequels too... Sorry. I'm getting off track and just wanted to stick up for ROTJ a bit. One more thing I liked about ROTJ was how it showed so many races joining the Rebellion to work together to defeat the Empire.

[burgerkingdiamond]

reading this discussion spurred me to watch the TPM reviews again for about the 5th time. I'm not even a huge SW fan. I have a few fond memories of the original trilogy when I was a kid, but that's about it.

I don't have any particular hate for the new trilogy. Lucas didn't rape my childhood or anything. There's just something so entertaining about watching shitty movies get ripped to shreds by Mike S. at RLM. He's entertaining as hell while at the same time making great points.

[Obiwanshinobi]

May I ask - again - just how many "bad" films have spawned so many threads just like this one since the beginning of internet as we know it?
I'm trying to imagine someone born in, say, 1991 reading such a thread, then watching the original trilogy and - just - knowing what on Earth we're getting so upset about.

[Skykid]

May I ask - again - just how many "bad" films have spawned so many threads just like this one since the beginning of internet as we know it?
I'm trying to imagine someone born in, say, 1991 reading such a thread, then watching the original trilogy and - just - knowing what on Earth we're getting so upset about.

But 90s kids are idiots, so it's a null point.

[BryanM]

It's always more fun to break down and analyze bad things than the good. I know I had more fun with Hellgate: London than almost any other game I can remember, and that certainly didn't come from playing that poo.

Let's go back to Ghostbusters. What is there to even say. What scenes would you add, alter or remove to improve that movie?

The last season of Dexter turned into this. Now that... that's a conversation.

[Lord Satori]

But 90s kids are idiots, so it's a null point.

Insulting an entire generation of people is an extremely bad idea.

[trap15]

But 90s kids are idiots, so it's a null point.

Cool story, dick

[Xyga]

Thank you internet.

[Edmond Dantes]

But 90s kids are idiots, so it's a null point.

Insulting an entire generation of people is an extremely bad idea.

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

[Ed Oscuro]

the most intelligent and dedicated viewer

Who could that be?

I'm not calling out anybody, if you fear that. Rather I'm just making the (totally uncontroversial) point that a movie makes demands on its viewers - and there is only so much you can ask of a viewer before they are saturated. Could the original trilogy's writing be better at times? Well, I guess so - but aside from the moments where it loses its own plot, I think that it's often pretty workmanlike and gets the job done. There's always a missed opportunity in anything people do - but how big a deal is it? I will only start to be concerned when the writing is as bad as it was in the prequels. Anything else is Nitpicker's Guide stuff - fun for the trivia and continuity fans who really liked the franchise anyway. I like more out of films than the original trilogy provided, and I haven't felt a need to watch them in many many years, and I'm generally in agreement with Roo's points here - there's some easy low-hanging fruit that wasn't plucked, dramatically. But I want to put that in perspective.

[Skykid]

But 90s kids are idiots, so it's a null point.

Cool story, dick

Not being serious, fool!

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

This picture got stupider as I was setting it up:



^This book is my bread and butter. This is also my bread and butter.

I feel sorry for that one guy for whom the illusion was shattered when he recognised the hasegawa tank treads on the front of the Star Destroyer and realised he was looking at a toy. I also feel sorry for everyone who takes this level of artistry for granted.

If I was forced at gunpoint to try and think of something I liked about TPM - well, I guess it was the last of the films to feature significant miniature work, which is always a joy to see. Brent Burtt's genius sound design can't be faulted either. (Did he do Star Trek 2 or not?)

[Ed Oscuro]

Yeah, that miniature part detective work is fun to see. Good share there!

[Edmond Dantes]

You're defending an internet speck who wasted his time on a monologue of super nerdiness, for no reason except you probably share some common ground. If you really want to read that shit, knock yourself out, but I'd recommend actually watching the fucking Plinkett reviews as an educational alternative.

I really don't feel like getting in a mudslinging match with you. I mean, I love a good brawl as much as anyone, but... not with someone who already gets told "you should have stayed banned" like once a month as it is. Fighting you makes me feel like a bully.

For what its worth though, I did re-watch the Plinkett reviews... and honestly? Yeah, Raynor didn't need to write a response... because I don't see how anyone thought Plinkett's reviews were worth the bytes of code they're written on.

By part six (Youtube posting) I was sick of it. The humor wasn't funny and despite all your going on about how he's a "film critic" he didn't make any comments that were any more insightful than what most nerds on the internet could come up with. In fact this article, written almost immediately after the movie's original theater release, makes all the same points and more (because he doesn't spend ten minutes dwelling on points that he already made).

Let's face it, the only reason Plinkett's reviews got any fame at all was because he was picking on an easy target. If he had tried the same style with, say, Terminator 2 or Casablanca or some other respected movie, I'm sure there'd be a lot more Jim Raynors in the world. In fact for how supposedly great a reviewer Plinkett/RLM is supposed to be, the only reviews I ever hear people discuss are his Star Wars ones. Indeed, the person who introduced me to RLM... introduced me with the TPM review. I literally know of nothing not-Star Wars related this guy did.

People on the internet are legendarily easy to entertain, and in this case all it took was "LOL he's talking about the Prequel Trilogy and making jokes!" Crappy, unfunny jokes that wear on too long (doesn't he understand that the root of all comedy is timing?) and delivered in a voice more annoying than my own, but that's apparently what the Google generation likes. Just look at how long Linkara has been around.

....

Now that I'm actually reading the rebuttal, I'm discovering how disingenius some of the responses in this thread were, including Roo's quoting one dumb bit and making it representative of the whole article. I hate to say anything even slightly against another Wizardry fan, I mean us of the old guard should stick together, but truth is truth--saying one bad point discredits the entire article is like saying the racing sequence from Chrono Trigger makes the entire game shitty. Most of Raynor's points are actually solid.

Like this one, for example:

0:35Plinkett: "the Senate wanted to send an independent team to investigate whetheror not the invasion was real."

What the hell...did Stoklasa just say that? He doesn't mention that the investigation issuggested by the Trade Federation's representative. The clear implication is that the "investigation" wasn't supposed to genuinely determine whether an invasion had occurred, but was rather intended to waste time and buy the villains more time. No doubt the "investigators" would be on the take from the Trade Federation. More blatant dishonesty (or honest but unbelievably incompetent analysis, pick one) from Stoklasa. This is the big geek hero that fanboys are holding up for his supposedly wonderful insight?

Or this one (which, in the document, is followed by a hilarious comment illustrating Raynor's point):

Plinkett: "So anyways, when, when the guys told Palpatine that the Jedis were there, he should've said this:"

Stoklasa's Sidious Imitation: "Tell the Jedi that there will be no negotiations. Tell them that you plan to invade the planet next. And then send them back to Coruscant to inform the Senate."

Plinkett: "Instead he tells them to do the exact opposite of what will help his plan. Like he wanted [Queen Amidala] to sign the treaty, right?...He seemed really intent on having her sign the treaty to make the invasion legal. So what if she was like a total coward and then actually signed the treaty? Like right away? Then the crisis would be over and there would be no need for a vote of no confidence. See what I mean, this sounding like an eight-year-old wrote it?"

Stoklasa once again provides laughable analysis, that either ignores or fails to think of the straightforward answers to his own questions. This guy seriously thinks that Sidious should've told the Trade Federation to admit their plans to the Jedi, and not even bother trying to cover their tracks...The whole point of the cover up and treaty was to shield the Trade Fed from the law so that they would be willing to go along with Sidious's plan and fight. Stoklasa seems to think that Sidious should've neglected these protective measures and told the Trade Federation to sacrifice themselves for nothing in return.

And again, the Jedi were obviously sent there to help Naboo by providing intimidation. The Trade Federation's frightened second-in-command tells Sidious himself that "the blockade is over" because the Jedi are there. Now, what do you think the Jedi are going to do if you tell them to screw off, and that you're going to invade the planet thatthey're trying to help? They could walk off back to the Chancellor like Stoklasa suggests...or they could fight like they actually did in the movie. Only in Stoklasa's scenario the decision to fight is available for the Jedi to make on their own, and they won't be taken by surprise because they've just been warned of the Trade Fed's intentions.

<Goes on to talk about how stupid it is to think a treaty immediately resolves all conflict>

Tell me these points aren't valid, then show me how. Unlike the section Roo quoted, these ARE representative of the whole.

Really, it seems like most people who know of this document (not just here, but across the internet as a whole) never go into it honestly and instead just look for the first reason to dismiss it for the sole reason that it disses their hero. It reminds me of how Michael Crichton suddenly became hated by everyone after he stated publicly that he thinks environmentalism is a religion, with suddenly every environmentalist group looking to discredit him... and in many cases, the best they could come up with is "his recent books aren't as good."

Which leads me to one last thing... I also saw the video where Stoklosa "replied" to the rebuttal. And by "replied" I mean he invented a strawman so he could say his critics are all stupid. Funny, isn't this exactly the behavior people hated about Chris Bores (aka The Irate Gamer)? Even if it isn't, it succeeds in making Stoklosa look like an insecure man with an easily bruised ego who needs to lash out at anyone who questions him. Any reviewer who lashes out like that is worthless and clearly has nothing intelligent to say, and should thus never be taken seriously--or even seen--by anyone.

And +10 respect points to anyone who sees the irony of the preceding paragraph.

I've gone on too long, so I'm gonna end with this quote, again from the rebuttal:

...You really have to be nitpicking to even analyze all of this so much. But if you're going to nitpick, then at least do it well.

[Skykid]

You're ignorant.

[Edmond Dantes]

Whatever.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I'm discovering how disingenius [sic] some of the responses in this thread were, including Roo's quoting one dumb bit and making it representative of the whole article.

It is representative of the whole article, that was the whole fucking point I was making and is exactly what I said. Are you functionally illiterate, or do you just skim over people's posts entirely and ignore the bits you don't find interesting? Also, don't try to sound intelligent by using big words unless you actually know how to spell them because you come off as a pretentious moron instead.

I hate to say anything even slightly against another Wizardry fan, I mean us of the old guard should stick together

"Us"? No. This is not My Little Pony - us being fond of the same videogame does not automatically make us bestest friends. I was responding to a misconception about its difficulty (no, old rpgs are not automatically hard, but yes, wizardry is fucking hard), then you went on to praise me for pointing out something that literally was just a reiteration of something Skykid (Skyboy? lol) said in a previous post that you dismissed entirely.

For what its worth though, I did re-watch the Plinkett reviews... and honestly? Yeah, Raynor didn't need to write a response... because I don't see how anyone thought Plinkett's reviews were worth the bytes of code they're written on.

Considering your enjoyment of ponies, handguns, and preference for boringly linear jRPGs, it's not an issue with the reviews, it's an issue with you having bad taste. I'm apathetic about the crazed murderer bit of the Plinkett reviews, and I still seriously enjoyed them for pointing out technical aspects, especially in some of the later reviews that showed how bland the cinematography in the prequels is, even compared to the originals. Regardless of whether you find the humour enjoyable, the reviews themselves are very interesting to watch and clearly the writer knows his cinematography.

Stoklasa seems to think that Sidious should've neglected these protective measures and told the Trade Federation to sacrifice themselves for nothing in return.

Like Raynor, you completely miss the subtleties and therefore the various points that Plinkett was making. The issue with the plot re: Trade Federation blockade is that the movie makes a half-assed attempt at making a political intrigue plot that's more ambitious than bad guy steals princess, but never goes into detail enough with it for anyone to care or really know what the fuck is everyone's underlying motivations. When you write more complex political plots, you need to actually make sure we have enough details to give a fuck about them. Naboo decides to tax trade and instead of a boycott or refusing to trade with them, the Trade Federation makes a planetary blockade? What the hell exactly IS the Trade Federation supposed to gain from one senator's wishes, or are we just going with the excuse of "he's an evil sith so he made them do it", and since when are Jedi going to be seen as good moderators in a conflict? They carry deadly beam swords - that's like saying you want to resolve a political conflict by sending a trained assassin in to a resolution meeting! That isn't conflict resolution, that's an open threat. Everything about the plot is fucking absurd, and the movie doesn't really seem to care if it's remotely coherent or not, we're basically just told to go with it. The idea of a "Trade Federation" going to war with an entire planet smacks of nonsense to begin with (evil corporations usually screw over their enemies in more subtle, interesting ways), and to be told that the senate doesn't know about a blockade in a futuristic environment with hyperspace travel and holographic communication is as idiotic as Anakin not just getting Padmé a fucking abortion. Does the galactic senate not have a goddamn telescope or a satellite to see that yes, Naboo is blockaded?

It might not have been as ambitious plot-wise, but at least the original trilogy kept things enjoyable by keeping its plot relatively simple but well-executed.

[Skykid]

Roo, bestest buddy, my previous post was borne of a realisation that this discourse will get you nowhere. I wasn't trying to insult Edmund by calling him ignorant, I just thought if he'd come to terms with the fact we might all be saved pointless cyclical arguments in a vain attempt to educate people disinterested in being educated.

After all the bronie blah, skyboy fanfics, and ridiculous pro-gun arguing, I'm beginning to think we're the stupid ones for continuing to engage him so charitably.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Fuck it, you're right, I could be playing more shmups instead.

[Skykid]

Fuck it, you're right, I could be playing more shmups instead.

:high five:

[Edmond Dantes]

It is representative of the whole article,

Except that it isn't. Insisting that it is won't make it so.

And even Dickens mispelled words. Picking on typos is below you. I know you're better than that.

"Us"? No. This is not My Little Pony - us being fond of the same videogame does not automatically make us bestest friends. I was responding to a misconception about its difficulty (no, old rpgs are not automatically hard, but yes, wizardry is fucking hard), then you went on to praise me for pointing out something that literally was just a reiteration of something Skykid (Skyboy? lol) said in a previous post that you dismissed entirely.

I have to admit something... when I suggested Skykid contributed anything, I was making a goodwill effort. Skykid's post that you and he think I should acknowledge was nothing more than four paragraphs of "I really like this guy!" That's an empty statement, it proves nothing. And it's a known problem with Skykid's post. A quote from a PM I received months ago:

Skykid has spent years opening threads that are usually based on some drivel like the video he posted (never pieces he read, notice this detail), while trying to sound outraged about something reported in said video. By this point, I take it that his incredibly simplistic, uninformed opinionated and well, dumb approach to any topic has alienated everyone.

The author can make himself known if he wants, I'll only reveal that its someone who has said openly that he wants Skykid re-banned, and I'm quoting it to stave off suggestions that I'm biased--if I am, then clearly I'm not the only one.

And since you and he keep bringing up "Skyboy," I need to point out something:

I'm guessing you missed the significance of my Joseph Conrad reference earlier. Conrad is an author whose work is considered literature by pretty much any intellectual institution you can name. So are Jonathan Swift, George Orwell, Ayn Rand, Aesop, even some parts of the bible, legends of Robin Hood etc. These are all works that comment on real people and issues. In fact its been recognized since literally the dawn of civilization that using works of fiction to make such a point is not only valid, but a very damn good way of doing so.

That you think my using a story (that four people commented was accurate, BTW) to illustrate a point about his debate tactics somehow makes me pathetic just gives the image that you're uneducated--which again, I can't believe. It's more likely you're getting temperamental and its causing you to make mistakes.

Please, just don't. Unlike Skykid, you actually are pretty cool to talk to sometimes, and it would be "all the time" if you could only keep your temper under control.

Considering your enjoyment of ponies, handguns, and preference for boringly linear jRPGs, it's not an issue with the reviews, it's an issue with you having bad taste.

See? Getting angry, making mistakes. Let's assume those statements are true for a moment... who do they convince? Pretty much, just you and Skykid. Meanwhile you've alienated any bronies or jRPG fans who happen to be reading this. Is that really a good trade-off?

And FWIW... Ponies? I've hated the show since season 2. Handguns are a political issue and have nothing to do with "enjoyment," and the RPG thing is a half-truth at best. So besides using ad hominems that won't convince anyone, they aren't even really true.

I know you're better than this.

Like Raynor, you completely miss the subtleties and therefore the various points that Plinkett was making. The issue with the plot re: Trade Federation blockade is that the movie makes a half-assed attempt at making a political intrigue plot that's more ambitious than bad guy steals princess, but never goes into detail enough with it for anyone to care or really know what the fuck is everyone's underlying motivations. When you write more complex political plots, you need to actually make sure we have enough details to give a fuck about them.

All this is true... except for the part about "missing the subtleties" because, you see, everything you just said here is your own thought and wisdom. It's not present in the Plinkett review at all, you're projecting it into the review and mistakenly thinking its there.

Naboo decides to tax trade and instead of a boycott or refusing to trade with them, the Trade Federation makes a planetary blockade? What the hell exactly IS the Trade Federation supposed to gain from one senator's wishes, or are we just going with the excuse of "he's an evil sith so he made them do it", and since when are Jedi going to be seen as good moderators in a conflict? They carry deadly beam swords - that's like saying you want to resolve a political conflict by sending a trained assassin in to a resolution meeting! That isn't conflict resolution, that's an open threat. Everything about the plot is fucking absurd, and the movie doesn't really seem to care if it's remotely coherent or not, we're basically just told to go with it.

Naboo didn't tax trade. The TRADE Federation did. Naboo was against it, thus the blockade. This is pretty obvious.

What is the TradeFed gaining from a senator? Political favors, obviously.

And we see Obi-Wan negotiate with Han Solo in the original trilogy. In fact Jedi are modeled after Samurai (who were often expected to double over as diplomats and have an education beyond knowing how to swing a sword) so the idea that the only thing they're good for is fighting is completely unfounded.

This has put me in the uncomfortable position of seeming to defend a movie I hate, but just because a movie is bad doesn't mean any and all criticisms are valid. And it goes back to what I said earlier... Plinkett only got attention because he was picking on a movie that was legendarily bad, and that's why the problems with his review aren't more apparent to more people. Again I would love to see a Plinkett review for a movie like Rocky, and see just how long it goes before people start calling him a hack.

It might not have been as ambitious plot-wise, but at least the original trilogy kept things enjoyable by keeping its plot relatively simple but well-executed.

This I can completely agree on ^__^

[Skykid]

See?

[Skykid]

I should mention I'm honoured to be being discussed in PM's.

You little video game playing people are soooo cuuute!

The author can make himself known if he wants, I'll only reveal that its someone who has said openly that he wants Skykid re-banned, and I'm quoting it to stave off suggestions that I'm biased--if I am, then clearly I'm not the only one.

Although you're genuinely short on brain Edmund, being equally absent-minded certainly won't do you any favours. I've never been banned, I was suspended once for three days when Friendly and Siren2011 baited me into a pissing match.

The "general consensus" you keep flogging like that limp member of yours doesn't quite correlate with the forum response at the time.

Anyway, you enjoy reading that. Remember to get all sweaty and red in the face, gnash your teeth a bit and dig your toes into the carpet. Maybe send a few PM's, shoot a gun, and write some insane fanfiction as a purge. I'm off to the arcade to play some Burst happy in the knowledge you're always thinking about me, when I barely recognise you as human.

[Mischief Maker]

The thing with the Plinkett reviews is that they started with Star Trek Generations and moved their way down the next gen movies one by one. In the first video he lets slip by accident that he murdered his wife. Slowly over the course of the videos he's revealed to be more and more horrible. By the time he did The Phantom Menace Plinkett had already gone through 3 wives and revealed a pathological obsession with pizza rolls. Starting fresh with The Phantom Menace meant you were coming into the joke late.

So for those of us who had been watching since the Star Trek reviews, seeing a hooker tied up in the basement this time was a laugh-out-loud moment. Meanwhile people coming in late were confused and maybe even offended. Hopefully everyone here laughed at the Mary Kate and Ashley scene in the Crystal Skill Plinkett review.

And I repeat, absolutely nobody is defending Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, but that movie was fundamentally better than the Phantom Menace. Why the double standard, internet?!!

[Skykid]

^ Stop trying to explain things! There's no progress to be made.

Are you functionally illiterate, or do you just skim over people's posts entirely and ignore the bits you don't find interesting?

Here's a clinical example of Roo's appraisal.

Skykid Wrote:

"The redlettermedia reviews are exceptionally well produced critical analyses on a site that does reviews of movies. The question of 'nerdism' is irrelevant when the content presents a thoughtful and relevant breakdown from a point of objectivity. Were you well versed with RLM and that particular set of reviews, you'd find that it's not just a criticism of 'Star Wars Movies' but a criticism of film in general. There are plenty of enlightening and insightful elements in those reviews that look at pacing, scripting, cinematography, character development, and the general template formula that shoots American commercial movies in the foot over and over. Your rebuttal is assessing the product as a Star Wars movie, but he demonstrates no knowledge of film, making it worthless.

That you keep labelling the Plinkett reviews 'nerdy' and lumping them in the same pot illustrates that you just don't understand them. Being in-depth and accurate (and covering the topic of SW) is not the same as a fanboy who, if YOU read the 108 page diatribe, admits to liking the movie right off the bat, and presents himself as a geeky zit who has nothing better to do than write a tome trying to debunk a review that was written with higher knowledge and wit.

It's unnecessary to read any of his rant beyond the first two pages, which declare well-enough that he has no brain for genuine criticism and instead intends to nitpick and clumsily try to shoot holes in the details while failing to grasp the bigger picture.
With no film appreciation or education on which to base an argument, he comes at the work in question with a massively biased view because he's a Phantom Menace fanboy. One has to ask themselves, considering these facts, why the fuck they'd waste their time."




What Edmund gleaned from the above:

I have to admit something... when I suggested Skykid contributed anything, I was making a goodwill effort. Skykid's post that you and he think I should acknowledge was nothing more than four paragraphs of "I really like this guy!"

It's embarrassing. This thread needs no further discussion, since the only one disagreeing with the consensus can't even read.

[CMoon]

Conrad is an author whose work is considered literature by pretty much any intellectual institution you can name. So are Jonathan Swift, George Orwell, Ayn Rand, Aesop, even some parts of the bible, legends of Robin Hood etc.

(bold mine)

*sighs*

You can sneak as many authors around Ayn Rand as you want, it still doesn't make her a good author, or her writing 'literature'.

[Mischief Maker]

You can sneak as many authors around Ayn Rand as you want, it still doesn't make her a good author, or her writing 'literature'.

But you've gotta admit, without Ayn Rand to prop up the story the Bioshock series went to shit.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I like how Edmond brought up one PM as evidence for "nobody likes you skyboy" when I remember the stuff that was said when that creepy fanfic came up was far more damning for Edmond (and I don't mean on the forums). Let's be honest here, does anyone in the forum do more than politely tolerate his presence?

I'm guessing you missed the significance of my Joseph Conrad reference earlier. Conrad is an author whose work is considered literature by pretty much any intellectual institution you can name. So are Jonathan Swift, George Orwell, Ayn Rand, Aesop, even some parts of the bible, legends of Robin Hood etc.

The main reason he's probably thought this up is one of his white knights posted a comment on his blog after that gun/fanfic debacle, I remembered seeing this back then.

Did you see the posts where they’re calling you insane because of that “fanfic?” Holy shit, these guys are retarded.

Jonathan Swift, Charles Dickens, Niccolo Machiavelli, these guys all wrote works that were Take Thats at people they knew.

No, Edmond, you are no Swift or Dickens. You are not a celebrated author that wrote satire to address current issues that affected society, you're a pony fanfic writer that wrote a shitty self-insertion fanfic filled with strawmen arguments about little girls' ponies telling us how magical handguns are in order to cure his butthurt on an internet forum for being mocked for his insanely flawed opinions. The only person to blame for your unfortunate reputation is yourself. You're also an Ayn Rand fan apparently, goddamn.

And here we are again, you making an ass of yourself defending something idiotic by ignoring or misunderstanding what other people have said.

[Skykid]

Now this is social justice.

[CMoon]

You can sneak as many authors around Ayn Rand as you want, it still doesn't make her a good author, or her writing 'literature'.

But you've gotta admit, without Ayn Rand to prop up the story the Bioshock series went to shit.

Here's where we just need a 'like' instead of a whole response. I'm thinking how Rand's greatest legacy might be Bioshock.