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

[Wasserkopp]

I can criticize these movies better than you or RLM, which is actually one of my thesis' central points.

Wasserkopp is clearly insane.

/thread

-think you're the reasonable critic confronted with an irrational believer
-find out his pro-arguments are better than your anti-arguments
-find out his anti-arguments are better than your anti-arguments
-doesnotcomputedoesnotcomputedoesnotcomputedoesnotcomputedoesnotcomputedoesnotcomputedoesnotcompute

^^Good explanation for above post I think.

[Mischief Maker]

Watto is portrayed as a grey character, and since the slavery he practices (whether according to goody-goody laws or his own character) seems to be of the benign kind + plus, slaves appear to be better off in that society than a lot of the free ones, when you consider what Sebulba said.

Goddamnit, I went and let myself get trolled like a noob.

I was already convinced you were a troll after the blood sausage posts, but when you did that "let's relocate this conversation to its proper thread" thing after the mods started giving warnings, I foolishly thought, "oh, maybe this is legit and he's just got Asperger like a motherfucker." Well played.

To crib a line from Casino, you'd be harder to spot if you weren't so greedy. You were pushing plenty of buttons with your passive aggression, dismissive attitude, and prequel defense, but there are always more buttons you can't help but press. Creationism? Slavery apologia? I'm sure if the thread continued as normal you'd eventually say, "I just think the jury's still out on whether the holocaust actually happened..." just so you could push as many buttons as possible and balloon this thread to a hundred pages.

Not Asperger, not insane, just a troll.

*Drops the mic*

[BareKnuckleRoo]

"I'm right, you're all wrong" - the slavery apologist who thinks slaves implanted with explosives have it pretty okay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

Not Asperger, not insane, just a troll.

I would like that to be true. I want to believe that people can't be this stupid. But I'm proven wrong so very often.

[Wasserkopp]

I haven't watched Attack of the Clones in forever (thankfully) so I forgot that Anakin gets her knocked up before having his spooky premonition dreams.

Actually that was revealed in an early scene from ROTS

But the point still stands - tell her to screw destiny and get a fucking morning after pill or an abortion. Anakin instead decides that turning completely evil is (for some reason) the only way to screw destiny.

I've already dealt with this issue towards the low end of this post here:
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p1150564

Brief summary in relation to this specific quote:
1) She was already way preggers when he arrived, morning after pill might not have worked.
2) Morning after pill isn't a dramatic concept that dates back to the stone ages as a powerful archetype - we're doing drama here, not nerd fanwankery about science.
3) The premise is that the death is an inevitability and can only be prevented supernaturally - and the dark side happens to be the only option in that area. You asked for a reason, here's the reason

He is not portrayed as an intelligent human being who succumbs to the temptation of some dark and evil powers - he's presented as an awkward, whiny, horny teenager who bangs the first thing he sees with a vagina once he hits puberty,

As someone who "hasn't seen Clones in ages", you have no excuse to imprint his personality from that movie onto his personality in this movie. Double hilarity if you never noticed the difference.

Not only is his personality changed, but the background plot in that movie is retconned as well - so none of that awkward mating ritual shite happened in this continuity.

and acts like a vapid, gullible imbecile whenever Palpatine is around.

He has a central motive and various psychological mechanisms compelling him to lower his skepticism on that one - people like RLM who misunderstand that for "stupidity" make me laugh.

Not to mention he was only like 6 when he first met Padmé - not only is she not creeped out, she also has zero love interests when he's old enough to fuck her brains out. Gee, how convenient. It's little wonder that Anakin and Padmé both end up being unlikeable and unrelatable.

And as the Plinkett review points out (about halfway into the second part of the AotC review), there's no way Anakin would have bagged this chick. He drops unbelievably creepy comments and painful delivery on lines from the get-go of meeting her.

None of that is relevant to III.

The point is that the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were both completely forgettable, badly executed films.

Jar Jar aside, only in regard of:

They could have done a better job on Anakin/Vader's backstory

even though

if they'd spent quality time in those films on character development instead of nonstop lightsaber and CGI battle sequences. They could have better shown his rise and fall that way, but instead, Anakin never becomes likeable or even relatable enough to the audience for anyone sane to care about what happens to him, or Padmé in the last movie.

Wrong analysis again - they spent plenty of quiet time on that character, to the dismay of most viewers in fact; the solution wasn't to buy even more time from the action scenes (the pace already worked fine), but to use the copious amount of time already available to do BETTER CHARACTERIZATION AND PERSONALITY instead.

Stop regurgitating your religious talking points about "too much CGI oh noes" and start thinking for yourself.


Also, when asked:

This statement is meaningless - of course "they had", that's the premise of the film; nothing about how well or badly it's executed...

about EPISODE THREE,
responding with a criticism of the OTHER TWO is obviously ineffectual.

Lol treating this like a continuity instead of a succession of retcons.

Are you saying that you don't expect prequels to even try to have a consistent narrative that fits with the rest of the series? Are you actually insane?

A sequel can take its liberties with the narrative just as a book adaptation - however even more important is recognizing when a sequel does just that, and not analyse it in a forced manner that makes no sense by tying it to the "continuity".

This goes for fans and haders alike.


______________

Luke is quite clearly a Jedi Master by the start of the film, and the audience can easily accept his off-screen development because we very quickly see him in action with Jabba the Hutt's Rancor, fending off Boba Fett, and being acknowledged as such by Yoda. This is in obvious, and stark contrast to the first two movies, and so easily shows how much he's grown. Good movies know how to cue the audience on these things.

Yes, and it's also obvious that ROTS is an origin story for Vader and takes place before his being a "lackey":

Like, actually showing some of his time as Palpatine's lackey more than when he's killing stuff. Or showing him coping with truly accepting the Dark Side. The problem is that they fail miserably to do so,

Plus everything else I've said in response to this

Anakin failed to be shown developing into Vader.

So where are your arguments to back this up, and I mean arguments I haven't dealt with yet?

At best, we get a dumbass teenager

Invalid - referring to his III personality as "teenager" is inaccurate, plus we've already seen your other descriptions such as "horny" or "whiny" which don't match EpIII even more obviously.

who was easily manipulated by an ugly old weirdo

This facetious description requires no response, particulary given how you had no problem wth this "ugly old weirdo" seducing Luke in VI, that great movie that does its storytelling properly.

who is told that he killed Padmé.

Seemed plausible - even to the viewers who thought the "heartache" explanation came out of nowhere
But now I see you have no problem with that one...

He's clearly still conscious enough by the end of it to care about Padmé, and Palpatine clearly didn't prevent Padmé's death - why would Vader still be loyal to Palpatine at this point?

1) Because he had other motivations than saving Padme, as I had already explained: ulterior motives such as lust for power / totalitarian control, life of significance, or a position where he's respected by his mentor, at first barely visible (for better or for worse), but that quickly swam to the surface as soon as the dam was broken.
2) Where else would he go, New Jersey?
3) In addition to having treated him with respect, giving him a prospect of power even now, and just having saved him from being a burned stump, Palpatine would also completely rek him if he started acting up like this.
Of course with this decreased motivation to lash out against Sidious, it also makes more sense to accept the blame instead of accusing others again... others that would kick his ass if he did.

Why is he not rightfully pissed off?

Rightfully? LMAO. He choked his pregnant wife himself.

And don't say "brainwashing" as an excuse to make up for this stupid script.

Don't say stupid script as an excuse for missing the brainwashing plot in a brainwashing plot - that's exactly what it is, and nothing else.
Well, it's "indoctrination" to be more precise.

However... it's not the explanation for him accepting the blame for her death, as just explained

This is what makes it so difficult to accept Vader's pure evil and loyalty to the Emperor later on, the prequels don't end with us seeing him absolutely devoted to the Dark Side, we're left with a Vader who

Actually we're left pretty much with the sad, paralyzed Vader from ROTJ - his ambitious plans in ESB were thrown in as a spontaneous thought to entice Padme, which either worked or didn't work in that regard.

should be rightfully pissed off at Palpatine, pissed off at himself,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

pissed off at losing Padmé... remember, he was willing to do anything to save Padmé, but we're expected to believe that he can get over her death without ever noticing that the Emperor manipulated him the whole way, including her death.

How did he maniplate him into killing her? There was some deleted scene, but that doesn't count.
Another invalid point - and notice how it's you who now makes stuff up to fit the views

And we already know that he has some sanity and self-will remaining even as Vader, so it makes even less sense in context.

All we see is that he's calmed down now - an additional reason why it makes sense for him to accept at least some of the blame now.

The last prequel ends on a fucking stupid note with this massive loose end just flailing away in the wind, and the audience is basically expected to just accept that because he's wearing the iconic suit, he's now Vader, the end. It's downright insulting.

Not sure what you mean by "loose end", but if it's him not being pissored at the Emperor, it's no loose end at all as I think we've all just understood.



Very weak argumentation so far...

[Wasserkopp]

Watto is portrayed as a grey character, and since the slavery he practices (whether according to goody-goody laws or his own character) seems to be of the benign kind + plus, slaves appear to be better off in that society than a lot of the free ones, when you consider what Sebulba said.

Goddamnit, I went and let myself get trolled like a noob.

I was already convinced you were a troll after the blood sausage posts, but when you did that "let's relocate this conversation to its proper thread" thing after the mods started giving warnings, I foolishly thought, "oh, maybe this is legit and he's just got Asperger like a motherfucker." Well played.

To crib a line from Casino, you'd be harder to spot if you weren't so greedy. You were pushing plenty of buttons with your passive aggression, dismissive attitude, and prequel defense, but there are always more buttons you can't help but press. Creationism? Slavery apologia? I'm sure if the thread continued as normal you'd eventually say, "I just think the jury's still out on whether the holocaust actually happened..." just so you could push as many buttons as possible and balloon this thread to a hundred pages.

Not Asperger, not insane, just a troll.

*Drops the mic*

Okay, quick interlude here before the mods start believing this nonsense:
1) Yes, Watto is an angel compared to most Game of Thrones characters. If you're unfamiliar with the concept of a GREY CHARACTER, time for you to grow up and/or stop making fun of Star Wars as a "simple good vs. evil fairytale" as I've seen some here do when you can't comprehend one with moral grey areas.

More on this topic later, but the idea that understanding grey morality = trolling is laughable.

2) You used "blood sausage" as a metaphor/idiom for... something, to describe Orlando Bloom's character in PotC.
I asked what you meant by that so I could respond comprehensively, and frankly it was your linking to actual blood sausages that came off as trolling.

3) Yea, I moved the whole RLM discussion from the thread about EpVII, to the thread about RLM. Wow.
The warnings had nothing to do with off-topic posts btw, maintaining some order this way was my own idea


4)
Passive aggressiveness is trolling, but your open derision is not? Okeydokey.

"and prequel defense,"
One of these is not like the other...
So when someone presents a different opinion (and is able to argue it AT LEAST as well as you), you interpret this as trolling - this says a lot about your level of rationaity, doesn't it.

"Creationism?"
Which you brought up - I merely responded that laymen "evolutionists" can be out-argued by wordy creationist debaters, and, in fact, are not educated enough to believe their position to the extent they often do.

If you don't understand that and think "picking the mainstream view" is what reason and science is about, you clearly know nothing about how science works.
Saying I'm troll for pointing out what every Dawkins and Hitchens and Dillahunty in the world would tell you? Mate, I just stopped taking you seriously.

[Xyga]

[trap15]

Shut up, nerd.

[Durandal]

Jumping from page 1 to 6 was such a mindfuck, I don't even want to know what happened in between those pages.

[Wasserkopp]

the slavery he practices (whether according to goody-goody laws or his own character) seems to be of the benign kind

slaves appear to be better off in that society than a lot of the free ones

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Not sure which type of naive moralist position you're arguing from, but Watto's neiher seen nor implied to mistreat or disrespect his slaves, and the only reason Sebulba doesn't beat him into a pulp is because slaves are expensive / someone else's property.

What do you think is better, being a slave of a wealthy land owner / businessman who lets you live in a nice house with opportunities of leisure and plenty of food, or being poor and on your own in a violent mob ghetto where the thugs aren't afraid to beat you up?

If you answered with "omg slavery apologist I can't even begin to deal with a question like thaaaaaat?", then that's your problem to work out, not mine - most people, even those sharing your views on Star Wars, would tell you to get some grip.

A good way of freeing a slave in a society that practices slavery, is to buy that slave and then free them.

The key word being 'free'. You don't then marry them because that's not freedom, that's buying a mail-order bride, which is exactly what Anakin's mother ended up becoming, something that apparently went clear over your head.

Dude... pretty sure they said he married her AFTER freeing her, so she was free to decline.

"I'm right, you're all wrong" - the slavery apologist who thinks slaves implanted with explosives have it pretty okay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

So who is that does the hilarious strawmanning, the Krueger or maybe rather the Dunning?

What part of GREY CHARACTER did you not understand?
What are these difficulties you have with the concept of being "fair for their time/environment"?
What were your problems recognizing the distinction between an amoral environment (or insufficiently moral at the very least), and someone living in that environment making the best of it, or almost?

You must be stunningly out of touch not to uderstand any of this, especially now that those type of themes have been brought into the very popcultural mainstream by Game of Thrones.

But I'm proven wrong so very often.

And now you've just been proven wrong again.

[Wasserkopp]

Saying "OR not well enough" is conceding the possibility that your interpretation might have been the authors intent, but intent and execution are not the same thing.

Sold not well enough - sold, but not well enough. Meaning: it was visible on screen, but could've been done better, or moar.

Not necessarily. Something can be on screen, but not visible. As in, it's so poorly done, so obscure, so unnecessarily "blink and you'll miss it" despite being crucial, that the audience fails to pick up on it and notice it, and thus fails to give a shit.

If it's blink and you miss it, then it's blink and you miss it and any review that notices that, is more valid than one that doesn't.

Needless to say, none of the examples I gave were blink and miss.

Anakin being sympathetic and a tragic hero was definitely the intention, but regardless of whether fear of Palpatine killing him (could he have escaped with Padme and gone into hiding? You could "headcanon" either way, since a lot of the nitty gritty is not gone into, and remember it's "high fantasy" so anything goes!) or "ambition" was the motive for Anakin going from "what have I done" over Mace's death to gleefully slaughtering kids and choking his wife, the vast majority of people did not pick up on anything remotely sympathetic about him. You can "explain" his actions or motivations all you like

You say he "gleefully" slaughters kids, even though he does that regretfully.
You say he gleefully chokes his wife, even though he does that in a fit of paranoid rage and even looks conflicted while he does it.

Now any audience member, or critic especially, that gets such obvious things, so incredibly wrong, has no point to argue - you can make all your little excuses like "oh but the audiences didn't notice so it's the movie's fault and the majority is right", but none of that shite flies.
Certainly any pretense of "being in the right" flies out of the window by that point.


He did plenty of sympathetic things in the first half and had a mostly strong and relatable cause to make the decision that he did - a whole bunch of scenes, glaring obvious moments, one after another, that you completely slept through and still think you have a leg to stand on talking with a condescending tone like that.


While the fear of being killed by Palpatine has never been implied, it's obvious that if he goes back to the Jedi now he's fack'd plus his wife dies - so this bridge burning factor facilitates sticking with the choice, ulterior motives such as resentment or ambition back it and then proceed to take over down the road; his belief that "the Jedi are taking over" has been built up in a structured and poignant manner and now can be accepted with sufficient motivation to do so, and Padme is still the driving cause at this stage.

So with all that already in mind, said transition happens as the realization that now it's between going back or achieving Palpatine's promises sets in, and occurs over the duration of an atmospheric scene in which Sidious is talking to him in an augmented voice (seemingly right into his mind, in addition to physically), uttering poignant lines such as "to cheat death", and all the while we see Anakin's changing facial expressions going from regret, to desperation/defeat, to glassy-eyed devotion, to gleeful satisfaction.


Now how do you convey such a "quick conversion"?
By buildiing it up to the point that the motivations are understandable and obvious, and filming and editing and stylizing the scene precisely in the way that it was done.


Were you unaware of all this? Or do you still wanna maintain that this is all blink-and-you-miss-it stuff hidden somewhere in a peripheral corner?

If it's "barely explained", then pointing to said explanation =/= making one up.

It might not be enough of an explanation, it might not excuse the fact that people don't like the direction you took (as with Starcraft), the "explanation" might be full of holes, there might be some doubt that the thing your pointing to is a legitimate explanation, there might be not enough talk to relate to the character, etc. etc.

Well, if you just stick to one of those and then argue your position, then that's just hunky-dorey. Your turn now

Point is, interpreting a way that something can "make sense" doesn't necessarily make it good or acceptable.

No, point is if it's there in whatever form, and you describe it in that exact form, then you're not making up anything and in fact, hold the correct position.

This is the moment where you pretend the mainstream shares your views despite the movie having an average rating of 70/80%.
And then shift the goalposts from mainstream to "the smart people", even though your arguments aren't solid, while ours are.

I've never met a single person who liked them. I was the first to dislike it, but after my parents saw it, they hated it more then me ("what the hell happened? Lucas must have gotten a big head" -my Mom). My Brother hated it. Friends I made later turned out to dislike it. People I met on the internet hated it...

I've never personally met anyone who significantly enjoyed the movies.

Selective personal experience is a common thing - go check out aggregator site ratings or read some contemporary reviews linked on Wikipedia for starters.

If someone "finds" something "not interesting", such an opinion holds no pretense and authority and hence isn't that interesting (or in fact possible, or worthy) to argue against.

I won't be attempting any amount of authority, because I don't believe in it.

Unlike Skykid (and despite disagreeing with him about this, I'd love see him come in here and give a beat down on why it is, just because its entertaining) , I don't believe that "quality" in entertainment is anything more then subjective taste.

Certain things like plot points are pretty much as factual as it gets, and a lot of face expressions, tones etc. aren't really up to wide debate.

Generally speaking, if you want to squeeze the most substance out of a discussions like this, it makes sense to treat anything that isn't "well I felt this way what can I say" as objective or at least contestable - because agreeing to disagree is something you can do at any point, and any chance to challenge various views and perceptions dies at that moment... until the next time.

But of course I've read your disclaimer, and shall adapt my attitude accordingly
But only now in the middle of this post, because that's more fun.

The RML reviews basically explain, in a quick, easy manner, why the majority of people (or at least, everyone I've ever met except you, if you want to get technical):

-Find Anakin utterly unlikable

With regards to I and II, that's a very obvious "Jar Jar sucked" point and not particularly interesting, though entertaining.

With regards to III, the radical change of character and personality wasn't acknowledged, the "backtracking" argument holds no water for various obvious reasons, and other than that what you said was explained, wasn't actually explained.

-Don't give a shit about the Trade Federation or whatever political whatever was going on and talked about at length

He didn't explain why people didn't give a shit about it, he focused on the lack of clarity about their specific motives - which is a valid point, but its importance to the overall quality was mightily exaggerated.

I can do a better job of explaining where those flaws lie, and what role they play in the overall product - he just sort of stumbled through that.

-Find the pace plodding and boring

Nothing about "pace" was said.

-Find the romance between Padme and Anakin to be boring, cringe inducing, and extremely difficult to swallow

-it's already not contested by anyone
-I can do a better job of that, too, but that doesn't matter because
-it was a comedy routine, less of an argumentation

-Have a hard time following the plot or caring about what's going on

That's a very general statement to make, and he's making that point pretty much throughout the 3 reviews, most of those points being complete bunk.

-Find the characters forgettable

Rather forgotten, by particular individuals

Are RML's reviews an authoritative reason why nobody should ever enjoy the films? No. They're a common sense explanation for while most people do not like the films. At All.

If you like them, more power to you. There's no sin in it.

[...]

But if your strategy for debating is to drown out everyone else's opinions in endless paragraphs (that are broken up into separate little quotes that are a total bitch to respond to) which essentially amount to "nuh uh, it makes perfect sense because reasons! you can't not like it!" then you're going to "win" every debate only because you're a massive nerd who never stops responding until everyone gets bored and goes back to their life. You won't convince anyone to like it though.

My advice would be to just accept that a lot of people don't share your taste on the films, and stop wasting time trying to change the entire Internets opinion about a series of movies.

I'm only interested in debating arrogant personalities that think RLM's or their own views are authoritative - curious fence sitters are okay too.

People who just have "their opinion" not so much, at least not in this context, and not in the form of a "debate".

And anyone who opts to bow out and gets tired, as well.... unless they keep making snide remarks about how they won, in which case they're of course good material for mockery, though that gets boring fast.


So the rest of your reasonable paragraph is misaimed at me.

TBH, narmy lines like "YOU WILL TRY" was the most I was entertained throughout the whole prequel trilogy.

Why not.

[Hagane]

My advice would be to just accept that a lot of people don't share your taste on the films, and stop wasting time

Good advice.

[Wasserkopp]

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p1150700:

Yeah, I think this is a good answer. In the end the Plinkett reviews are just very adept movie criticism, which I enjoy (as you probably know), and they're transmitted in a way that qualifies as genuine educational entertainment - a very rare thing. But while I think the SW reviews are the best of them, the other stuff is still good. I don't agree with everything Stolaska (or whatever) says about film. He thought Jurassic World was good - but there's no doubt he's on the money with the prequels. There's just so much material to work with.

That said I think it would be better for humanity if the prequels were never made. Really.

Actually least on the money - the other reviews were alright.
And Skykid's obviously having doubts now, despite denying categorically

It would certainly be better if the prequels had never been made. I can't think of a single positive thing about any of them.

Of course any look at contemporary reviews which had no trouble pointing out good bits, bad bits and mediocre okay bits (strangely arriving at an above average verdict), reveals this statement for the laughable secluded cultist opinion that it is.
Clearly someone who've found an echochamber on the internet and has ever once peaked outside.

They weaken the original films in so many ways,

All they are is inconsistent - weakening is a possible effect of inconsistencies that requires further arguments.

but I think I finally understand why some people like them.

Ok, by any critical thinking they are bad films... but they expand the lore. If you love cinema you can view the OT as good movies in their own right, that's the main thing, viewing them as pieces of cinema, products of their time. Their charm increases with age. Others see the films just as vehicles for characters and stories, it's not about cinema, it's about the universe.

Liking the worldbuilding is a completely separate aspect - and the mere suggestion that this is the only thing people liked or praised about it, is weird even for an RLM fanboi.

Even Mike Stoklasa has admitted to being "dazzled by the visuals", which doesn't stop his horde on the forums to quote an AV article on its "visual splendor" statement and thinking merely quoting it shows how out of touch and ridiculous the mere suggestion is

Pacing, editing, performance, composition etc. don't matter so much if you're into the world.

Nor does basic understanding of any of those matter to the poster being quoted here.

It's clear that Lucas thinks this. The reason he changed Han Solo to shooting first was because he didn't think it was right that a Princess marry a character like that. So he changes something in an actual film to fit something we don't even see (or care about). Btw, that was in an interview with Lucas the other day. That's why he's not ashamed of the prequels, because they expand the universe he created and please a certain type of fan. The fucking nerd fans.

What? He said he wasn't a good role model for children or not very heroic, where did he say anything about princesses?

[BryanM]

why would Vader still be loyal to Palpatine at this point? Why is he not rightfully pissed off?

Right, instant "change of heart" stories are ridiculous because people don't change in real life. Hillary Clinton doesn't get elected president and suddenly gives a shit about the working class. Dick Cheney doesn't suddenly give a shit about human life on his death bed. Nazis were just ordinary German citizens doing their 9 to 5 job like any "good worker" does, they didn't become evul for the lulz or drama of it.

You have to kind of assume that the Dark Side is the kind of thing that constantly pesters all Jedi all the time and they're always 10 seconds away from giving in. Like Moe's ghost in that episode of The Simpsons. "Hey, you know what you should do? Kill your whole family. C'mon. If you kill your whole family, I'll give you a beer."

There was a huge swathe of fundamentally wrong premises the prequels were built upon. Perhaps the biggest one is that we give a crap about characterization or morality or anything like that in what is just supposed to be a pulp action movie with laser swords. P'ew p'ew.

That would be like making a Matrix movie where a substantial amount of the runtime took place outside the Matrix with no supernatural kung fu.

[Wasserkopp]

why would Vader still be loyal to Palpatine at this point? Why is he not rightfully pissed off?

Right, instant "change of heart" stories are ridiculous because people don't change in real life. Hillary Clinton doesn't get elected president and suddenly gives a shit about the working class. Dick Cheney doesn't suddenly give a shit about human life on his death bed. Nazis were just ordinary German citizens doing their 9 to 5 job like any "good worker" does, they didn't become evul for the lulz or drama of it.

You have to kind of assume that the Dark Side is the kind of thing that constantly pesters all Jedi all the time and they're always 10 seconds away from giving in. Like Moe's ghost in that episode of The Simpsons. "Hey, you know what you should do? Kill your whole family. C'mon. If you kill your whole family, I'll give you a beer."

Wow... a reasonable opinion from you of all people! I'm impressed.
Great prose, too

There was a huge swathe of fundamentally wrong premises the prequels were built upon. Perhaps the biggest one is that we give a crap about characterization or morality or anything like that in what is just supposed to be a pulp action movie with laser swords. P'ew p'ew.

And this is the kind of comment that set up the surprise described ^^^^^^^.

Now you don't even sound serious when you say this nonsense, so let's just leave it there

That would be like making a Matrix movie where a substantial amount of the runtime took place outside the Matrix with no supernatural kung fu.

It's a Matrix movie, it's called Matrix it should take place in the Matrix! What did I pay my hard earned ticket fawh? It's called Matrix it should be in the Matrix! Cause it's called Matrix!
If it's called Matrix, it should happen in the Matrix, or why is it called Matrix then if it doesn't happen in the Matrix when it's called Matrix? Buuuuuuh - actual 30% on RT.
If it's called Matrix, it should be in the Matrix!

[Wasserkopp]

I honestly think the biggest reason is that they are a hit with little kids who love laser swords, spaceships, and CGI. Every adult I know groans about how lousy the prequels are, but all of the younglings in my family cannot get enough of it.

Yes, it's absolutely a barometer of good taste. There's no denying the original trilogy had action sequences and CGI,

Man... do you even know what CGI is? I kinda had the inkling that you didn't.
It's Computer Generated Imagery, the only computer stuff in the OT were the death star graphics in the briefing scenes.

but the quality of the filmmaking was so much more apparent. It was at least thoughtful about how things progressed, how it slowly built up tension.

So the opening sequence of EpI slowly builds up tension, the whole Tattoine segment does that Coruscant segment slowly builds up uncertainty while picking up from what came before, EpII gradually builds the mystery and suspense, and EpIII isn't episodic at all (unlike) VI and it's all one giant build-up and release.

Come on here, claim I-iII had no idea of "building up tension" or any other basic things along those lines, and you lose any credibility and authority to pontificate about "taste barometers" and "filmmaking quality".
All huff and puff, empty pretentious noise if this is the level of observation that stands behind it.

Lightsabers weren't ubiquitous and pulled out in nearly every scene.

That's a non-argument - sparing use, or ubiquitous and creative use, they're all different stylistic choices on the menu and have nothing to do withq quality on that basic level.

Always cute how your type fancies themselves "film critics" yet thinks "lololol they use that weapon very often" is saying anything of value at all.

We had memorable, genuinely enjoyable characters, not completely abhorrent or outright forgettable ones.

The only abhorrent characters are even unpopular among the fans - and with your inability to distinguish between the entirely different characters that are, for instance, Anakin in II and III, you have no credibility to suggest such basic laconic statements have any substance behind them.

Forgettable ones? You are completely unobservant, and what you "forget" says nothing about how "forgettable" it is.
There's a certain worth one needs to prove in themselves before one's forgetfulness starts mattering as a verdict about the thing being forgotten.

I'm actually disappointed they didn't jump ahead-in universe to a totally brand new cast. Instead it sounds like they're relying on the nostalgia appeal of the old series by having Han Solo show up... It was like the Star Trek reboot, it was actually disappointing when Leonard Nimoy showed up. Felt like they weren't confident enough to really stand on their own without having someone from the old series.

Spock in ST was an entirely different animal because he appeared as an alternate version of an already present character, later on in the movie, in what appeared to be an implausible sidequest coincidence.

This one, on the other hand, starts off with the older characters in changed states, giving over the staff to the next generation. These two are SO incredibly different from each other - the focus is SO changed between the two.
One has all grounds to be called artificial fanservice from the get go, the other has to screw up majorly before getting honored with such an appraisal.

But of course you suave, tasteful film buff critic can't be bothered to pick up on crucial difference of this nature, isn't that right?
Both old characters.... reappearing in new installments.... looks the same to me *shrug*



And this is the guy who's got the balls to call my opinions invalid, let alone insane - bro, you need to up your game IMMENSELY before your substance starts matching your arrogance.
Keep blowing off steam in the VII thread if you want - make some good arguments in this one.


But I'm not holding my breath.
You represent an ideological, laughably irrational and tone-deaf viewpoint in this debate, and I've never seen any of you deliver the goods so far, in any place I've been.

[Skykid]

Unlike Skykid (and despite disagreeing with him about this, I'd love see him come in here and give a beat down on why it is, just because its entertaining) , I don't believe that "quality" in entertainment is anything more then subjective taste.

Squire, you're a smart enough guy to know that's completely incorrect. Quality is not defined by taste, it is a constant and tangible thing. It's a question of whether the consumer of the object has the ability to discern what makes it good, or not - and the majority of people lack developed enough critical faculties to know or care if they're being fed shit.

Wasserkopp being a perfect case in-point. I have no idea why we're arguing the non-merit of a series of movies that are outright trash across two threads with an individual who is utterly deluded about the quality of their content and his own intellect.

I've been wanting to do a traditional beatdown for some time, but I'm busy at the moment. I had an deadline thrust on me all of a sudden.

But in a nutshell the issue is simple: he can't see shit when it's in front of him and he has no taste or understanding of film as an artform in all its varying shades of grey. Light entertainment can also be well made light entertainment, or poorly made. The OT were the former, the prequels the latter. There's no argument they exist on the same plane.

But Wasserkopp only knows about Star Wars and is using that as a barometer to justify his arguments. He clearly knows nothing about film, which is an altogether different discipline, or else those elements that ruin the prequels so painfully would be as visible to him as they are to us.

He doesn't understand acting, cinematography, dialogue, scripting, editing, casting and other important constituents of the medium as a whole. He only sees them as products within a sphere and how they relate to each other and their predecessors. You can make up inane logical reasons to justify why something that's bad was intentionally made that way, but it's a moot point because it doesn't make it any better.

Remember, some people think Nic Cage is a good actor, some people think There Will be Blood is boring, some people think that Twilight was a "pretty good movie".

There are plenty of people wrong in the world. Don't be one of them.

[Wasserkopp]

Until you get around to your "traditional beatdown", this entire essay you just wrote remains empty claptrap.

And so it will remain after you've tried, but let's not jump ahead just now...

[BryanM]

The bees! They're in mah mouth! Now they're stinging the inside of my mouth! How'd they get in there?!! Oh god the humanity!

[Skykid]

Until you get around to your "traditional beatdown", this entire essay you just wrote remains empty claptrap.

It's not an essay.

It's also not claptrap, but by identifying it as such you have reaffirmed everything it says about your non-ability to identify quality or a lack thereof. Not that that needed reaffirming - it's not every day we get someone deluded enough to try to defend the movie equivalent of dog shit.

[Wasserkopp]

The bees! They're in mah mouth! Now they're stinging the inside of my mouth! How'd they get in there?!! Oh god the humanity!

You wanna judge Cage's abilities go for 8mm or that Angel thing that he did (remake of German movie with Bruno Ganz). Serious Spaßbremse comment ende.

[Wasserkopp]

Until you get around to your "traditional beatdown", this entire essay you just wrote remains empty claptrap.

It's not an essay.

It's also not claptrap, but by identifying it as such you have reaffirmed everything it says about your non-ability to identify quality or a lack thereof. Not that that needed reaffirming - it's not every day we get someone deluded enough to try to defend the movie equivalent of dog shit.

So far I've backed up my smack talk, and you've not - and that's where it's at.

[Squire Grooktook]

Unlike Skykid (and despite disagreeing with him about this, I'd love see him come in here and give a beat down on why it is, just because its entertaining) , I don't believe that "quality" in entertainment is anything more then subjective taste.

Squire, you're a smart enough guy to know that's completely incorrect. Quality is not defined by taste, it is a constant and tangible thing. It's a question of whether the consumer of the object has the ability to discern what makes it good, or not - and the majority of people lack developed enough critical faculties to know or care if they're being fed shit.

Well, if by quality you mean such things as craftsmanship, professionalism, hard work to ensue a satisfying product, absolutely agree. Those are tangible and important.

But how well a piece of entertainment manages to fufill its ultimate goal of entertaining ultimately comes down to resonance with the individual. Something that's technically "perfect" in every tangible way could be completely boring to one person (although, this shouldn't stop one from recognizing its merits, even if you can't get into it yourself), while a poorly programmed, sloppily designed and tested rush job like Marvel Vs Capcom 2 or Battle Garegga (in many areas, lacking in quality) can entertain legions of the hardcore for decades if they just happen to fill the right niche.

I roll by the philosophy that analysis and criticism is valid and important for understanding what makes a work tick, why it appeals to those who enjoy it, appreciating the hardwork that went into it, etc. but I think ultimately one has to acknowledge that there is no universal formula for entertaining everyone. At a certain point, it just becomes personal.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Quality is not defined by taste, it is a constant and tangible thing.

Couldn't agree more. You can clearly tell the difference in quality in a work by the time, effort, and skill involved. That's not to say that taste doesn't exist; you can appreciate a high-quality work while not being a fan of it due to personal taste, but there's a distinct difference between not being a fan of a work because of personal taste while still recognizing quality workmanship, and hating a piece of lazy, inane garbage because you recognize it for what it is.

Likewise, I think you can objectively realize that you're a fan of something that you know really is rather poor and sloppily made, but still appeals to you for personal reasons. There's a few games like that for me; I know they're not terribly good, but for whatever reason they still amuse me.

I've been wanting to do a traditional beatdown for some time, but I'm busy at the moment.

The slavery apologetics are either a sign of completely incurable idiocy, or simply trolling. He's long past the point where he deserves any kind of response or attention. It'd be nice to see him banned at least for the constant and unnecessary doubleposting he's doing to inflate threads, though.

[BryanM]

The problem comes with the varying rate humans tire of things. To now quote Futurama, with my mighty robologic, I get sick of things far faster than you humans. 2 hours of my life to watch Star Wars 7? Goddamn.

What's "lazy, inane garbage" today was cutting edge entertainment in the good 'ole days. Such is the problem inherent to making a good new Terminator movie - it is impossible to make a better action movie than Terminator 2, you can only make a different action movie than Terminator 2. I'll come out and be blunt here: going over the top silly with the Terminator franchise is probably the correct strategy to use. Much like Nightmare on Elm Street, there's just nowhere else for them to go.

And it really is subjective at the end of the day. "Make what for who" applies in spades. Transformer movies, objectively horrible to anyone with an IQ over dogshit or a shred of decency. Every single one of them a top 100 grossing movie. Therefore, objectively an excellent movie for humans.

So we must conclude either

1) Humans are terrible.
2) Humans who pay money to watch movies are terrible.

At any rate, every Hollywood blockbuster must cater to the lowest common denominator and therefore can't be considered "objectively good" by those of us who like sniffing our own farts. Success denotes failure.

[BryanM]

What's "lazy, inane garbage" today was cutting edge entertainment in the good 'ole days.

Also note this is pretty much identical to the genre life cycle that applies to video games. Where to get blood out of a turnip already milked, you have to expend more money to create something increasingly niche that'll sell less copies.

Basically, that the distance between newbies (constantly created as new humans are constantly created) and genre enthusiasts constantly grows wider.

[Wasserkopp]

Transformer movies, objectively horrible to anyone with an IQ over dogshit or a shred of decency. Every single one of them a top 100 grossing movie. Therefore, objectively an excellent movie for humans.

So we must conclude either

1) Humans are terrible.
2) Humans who pay money to watch movies are terrible.

Oh no, god forbid someone wants to enjoy a movie about robots smashing up buildings while a hot woman runs around with a gun. That would make us STUPID - we must practice zen discipline to never sink to such low levels of IQ, even though IQs don't actually sink as a result... but we must pretend so, or someone might call us stupid.

Pfft - vapid, emptyminded snobbery is all this is.

Quality is not defined by taste, it is a constant and tangible thing.

The slavery apologetics are either a sign of completely incurable idiocy, or simply trolling. He's long past the point where he deserves any kind of response or attention. It'd be nice to see him banned at least for the constant and unnecessary doubleposting he's doing to inflate threads, though.

No, you already tried the whole hysterical moral outrage angle with "slavery apologist", you were disproven, had nothing to say in response, and now you're done.
Simiarly, you tried to engage me on the topic of this thread - you made poor arguments, and then bowed out in the wrong way: still pretending to have won despite having nothing more to say in your defense.

And now of course the predictable follow-up: unable to keep up in a debate you entered with such arrogance and swagger, now the most face-saving option is trying to get the account banned, for me to link to this thread as an example of how weak and insecure your general position is.

Well... now that you've admitted your own defeat, don't worry. With a mod this susceptible to mood swings, by their own admission, the second is...

[GaijinPunch]

The reason issue here is if someone is still maintaining the "Shmups Greatest Hits" thread, or whatever it was called. If this doesn't make it, I may just hit log out for the last time.

[Lord Satori]

To be perfectly honest, I was willing to give this guy a pass until he showed that he seems to have the same passion for the Transformers movies as well. Did you also find Pixels to be thoughtfully engaging and enjoyable?

This thread is depressing from all angles.

[Skykid]

I'm sure anyone trying to justify the prequels, Nic Cage's acting (in 8MM no less - what a load of garbage that was) and Bay's Transformers in the same thread is tempting some kind of world-ending anomaly.

Basically the guy doesn't know anything about anything except talking the talk, and he's exactly the target demographic and the exact same reason bad actors aren't scrutinised and bad products will continue to be successful.

Well, if by quality you mean such things as craftsmanship, professionalism, hard work to ensue a satisfying product, absolutely agree. Those are tangible and important.

But how well a piece of entertainment manages to fufill its ultimate goal of entertaining ultimately comes down to resonance with the individual. Something that's technically "perfect" in every tangible way could be completely boring to one person (although, this shouldn't stop one from recognizing its merits, even if you can't get into it yourself), while a poorly programmed, sloppily designed and tested rush job like Marvel Vs Capcom 2 or Battle Garegga (in many areas, lacking in quality) can entertain legions of the hardcore for decades if they just happen to fill the right niche.

I roll by the philosophy that analysis and criticism is valid and important for understanding what makes a work tick, why it appeals to those who enjoy it, appreciating the hardwork that went into it, etc. but I think ultimately one has to acknowledge that there is no universal formula for entertaining everyone. At a certain point, it just becomes personal.

I think we've had this discussion before and came to the same agreements and disagreements. You can acknowledge when something is good, or at least well-made, but also conclude that the subject matter isn't to your personal taste. Nothing wrong with that.

At the same time when you can't identify when something has failed and for what reasons, it's not then taste that will help you reap enjoyment from it - it's a lack of education. Wasserkopp doesn't know anything about actual filmmaking and has demonstrated so in every post he's made. He's only trying to prop up the narrative element, for whatever reason.

[BryanM]

(I'll just quietly reiterate for newcomers who don't wanna re-read this thread, that I never really understood all the hate Phantom Menace got at the time. To me it was marginally worse than A New Hope and better than the second half of Return of the Jedi.

While I don't have a Alec Guinness level of hateboner for them, I was one of the first to inhale his fart in a wine glass: It's like people were expecting the second coming of christ to complete their lives when the original movies were never that great to begin with.)

(It's not like they're Ash vs. Evil Dead, man.)