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

[Wasserkopp]

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.

LMAO, never watched Transformers and merely skipped through 8mm, I just said if anyone was stupid enough to judge his skills after Wicker Man then that's stupid.

Was 8mm garbage? Can't tell and don't care atm, but coming from you (and a forum that made laughable statements about other characters: http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p1149814) that statement means precisely dick:

Basically the guy doesn't know anything about anything except talking the talk,

Nope, that'd be you, pal.

At the same time when you can't identify when something has failed and for what reasons,

Well... 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.

Enjoyment comes from sound and images creating aesthetical sensations in the brain, and depicted characters and scenarios stimulating mirror neurons and various primal instincts - education is known to be very, very ineffective at preventing such reactions.

Wasserkopp doesn't know anything about actual filmmaking and has demonstrated so in every post he's made.

No, the only thing I've demonstrated is that I can argue my position.
You haven't demonstrated anything so far - including the supposed ignorance "about actual filmmaking" supposedly shown, well, anywhere.

He's only trying to prop up the narrative element, for whatever reason.

lolwat




Your continued willingness to claim victory BEFORE ever presenting your "classic beatdown", makes me suspect there's no classic beatdown stored up to begin with.
You'd be the first RLM fanboy so far to deliver the goods among all the puff and smoke - and we both know you won't, because there ain't any.

[Wasserkopp]

(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.)

Well obviously I don't consider your opinion reasonable either

Alec Guinness had no hateboner, that's just a popular myth; people buying into that myth tend to be either "lolololol fairytale for childrens lolololol" types, or fans trying to prove something to themselves and others (RLM, for instance).
The truth is that it was more of a lovehateboner / appreciationhateboner, and the hate tended to come out in the context of getting pestered by annoying fans or only being recognized for that role alone; he had mostly praise for IV, and did the other two for free from what I know.


Now I wonder whether your idea that I and IV are only marginally apart in quality, takes into account factors such as the tonal dissonance in TPM between normal stuff and elements considered by most over 10 to be viscerally obnoxious; or the butchered / neglected character arcs while those in IV are rock solid in comparison?

Are you aware of any of that, or just consider it not important enough cause stupid fairytale anyway lololololol?

[Lord Satori]

You should learn that once Skykid decides something, it's essentially an irrefutable fact as far as he's concerned, even if it's just an opinion. I don't think I've ever seen him concede to anyone.

You also seem to be completely cemented in your opinion as well. So what are you trying to accomplish? You burst into these forums and get everyone riled up like a bunch of birds (which was actually somewhat entertaining for a short period of time) but nonetheless disruptive. I don't think I've seen anyone else in this thread (or anywhere) arguing so heavily for the prequels. Even I, the guy infamous for actually not hating the prequels, wouldn't go that far.

I mean, this is an off topic section of a Shmups forum. Do you even know what those are? Or did you find us by googling "forums that have Starwars threads" and then proceeded to create accounts in order to start arguments in each one?

[Skykid]

I just said if anyone was stupid enough to judge his skills after Wicker Man then that's stupid.

You can judge his lack of acting ability in any of his roles. He can't act.

Was 8mm garbage?

Yes.

that statement means precisely dick

No, it's a statement about an actor's lacking ability. It's nothing to do with dicks.

Basically the guy doesn't know anything about anything except talking the talk,

Nope, that'd be you, pal.

Put it to the vote if you like?

At the same time when you can't identify when something has failed and for what reasons,

Well... you can't identify when something has failed and for what reasons.

Stellar argument there, well done.

it's not then taste that will help you reap enjoyment from it - it's a lack of education.

Enjoyment comes from sound and images creating aesthetical sensations in the brain, and depicted characters and scenarios stimulating mirror neurons and various primal instincts - education is known to be very, very ineffective at preventing such reactions.

You misunderstood the sentence. In layman terms it means if you're fucking retarded you'll enjoy the Star Wars prequels.

You haven't demonstrated anything so far - including the supposed ignorance "about actual filmmaking" supposedly shown, well, anywhere.

There's a 300 page movie thread waiting for you. Welcome to the forum.

He's only trying to prop up the narrative element, for whatever reason.

lolwat

lol that's all you've attempted to do. You have no comprehension of what actually makes a movie work, which is why you've only managed to argue your corner based around the events that occur in the movie. Events which are poorly conceived, worse executed, and as a whole amount to the sum total of moving wallpaper. I'm not interested in debating the narrative unless we're actually talking about the quality of the script, which all in all could have been handled with better grace by a twelve-year old.

You'd be the first RLM fanboy so far to deliver the goods among all the puff and smoke - and we both know you won't, because there ain't any.

Is that how you tend to view all opposition to your prequel pedestal, as "RLM fanboys"? As some kind of nemesis inextricably linked to the Plinkett reviews? I'm into criticism: the Plinkett reviews just happen to be an accurate thesis on why the prequels fail as film first and Star Wars movies second.

You're a little slow though, so I get the feeling you've been arguing your case all over the internet without actually realising this.

Your continued willingness to claim victory BEFORE ever presenting your "classic beatdown", makes me suspect there's no classic beatdown stored up to begin with.

We've already begun. You just don't know it yet.

[Wasserkopp]

You should learn that once Skykid decides something, it's essentially an irrefutable fact as far as he's concerned, even if it's just an opinion. I don't think I've ever seen him concede to anyone.

You also seem to be completely cemented in your opinion as well.

Lol no, if someone's got a good argument or even disproves mine, then I'm on board.
Too bad they've got none.

So what are you trying to accomplish? You burst into these forums and get everyone riled up like a bunch of birds (which was actually somewhat entertaining for a short period of time) but nonetheless disruptive.

Pfft, I'm confined within two threads (just one, really) so it's cool.

I mean, this is an off topic section of a Shmups forum. Do you even know what those are? Or did you find us by googling "forums that have Starwars threads" and then proceeded to create accounts in order to start arguments in each one?

Yup.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... cc73fa280b

Mod said he was fine with it, unless of course his "mood" changes... in which case I'm fack'd!

I don't think I've seen anyone else in this thread (or anywhere) arguing so heavily for the prequels. Even I, the guy infamous for actually not hating the prequels, wouldn't go that far.

Because you are weak, and I am strong

There's a 300 page movie thread waiting for you. Welcome to the forum.

Why would I wanna talk about 300? It's all CGI.
The actors suck, Leonidas is a potato, Faramir a sausage and Xerxes a queen cuckold.
And that traitor guy, he was just bland and lame.

They shoul've done more acting and not all CGI all the time.

lol that's all you've attempted to do. You have no comprehension of what actually makes a movie work, which is why you've only managed to argue your corner based around the events that occur in the movie.

Narrative = storytelling, structured arrangement of events and actions, tone and focus etc.
Events that occur in the movie = plot.

Events which are poorly conceived, worse executed, and as a whole amount to the sum total of moving wallpaper. I'm not interested in debating the narrative unless we're actually talking about the quality of the script, which all in all could have been handled with better grace by a twelve-year old.

You don't get it, do you?
You say something wrong about the events that occurred, I'll debunk it.
You say something invalid about the narrative quality, I'll refute it.
You say something insipid about pace or blocking, I'll rearrange it for you.
You say something worse about "executed", I'll be sure to explain your errors to you.

Whatever you bring up, it'll probably be bunk, and I'll have an easy time with it.

Is that how you tend to view all opposition to your prequel pedestal, as "RLM fanboys"? As some kind of nemesis inextricably linked to the Plinkett reviews? I'm into criticism: the Plinkett reviews just happen to be an accurate thesis on why the prequels fail as film first and Star Wars movies second.

You're a little slow though, so I get the feeling you've been arguing your case all over the internet without actually realising this.

Well the term applies to you then, doesn't it.

We've already begun. You just don't know it yet.

BarNuckle has begun, failed and run away - now all he's got left is moral hysteria about slavery. When the debate is lost, faux outrage becomes the tool of the loser.

You, on the other hand, admitted you had no time so you're still in the foreplay phase.
Squire admitted it's all subjective or something.


Work on your own self-awareness first, you might start seeing things at the long last

[dan76]

Humans are terrible.

[Giest118]

Skykid has a profound distaste for people who like stuff. I'm unconvinced that debating with him on topics of "what is worth liking" is actually all that productive.



The prequels can be enjoyed ironically. It's a total joy seeing all the missteps they took with the character of Anakin.

[Wasserkopp]

Well he announced some epic beatdown, so whlie he's trying to come up with one I'll be elsewhere then if that's cool

[Skykid]

There's a 300 page movie thread waiting for you. Welcome to the forum.

Why would I wanna talk about 300? It's all CGI.
The actors suck, Leonidas is a potato, Faramir a sausage and Xerxes a queen cuckold.
And that traitor guy, he was just bland and lame.

They shoul've done more acting and not all CGI all the time.

...I said it's a "300 page movie thread", not a movie thread about "300".

Reading is hard.

lol that's all you've attempted to do. You have no comprehension of what actually makes a movie work, which is why you've only managed to argue your corner based around the events that occur in the movie.

Narrative = storytelling, structured arrangement of events and actions, tone and focus etc.
Events that occur in the movie = plot.

That's quite amazing. You're not aware that narrative structure also constitutes events that occur in the plot? Come on man, don't waste my time. If you're as smart as you say you are, how about a demonstration.

You don't get it, do you?
You say something wrong about the events that occurred, I'll debunk it.
You say something invalid about the narrative quality, I'll refute it.
You say something insipid about pace or blocking, I'll rearrange it for you.
You say something worse about "executed", I'll be sure to explain your errors to you.

Just wow. This is your criteria for debate? Why would anybody bother?

Let's have a little experiment:

Dialogue: What lines in the prequels are as memorable as those in the OT?
Plot structure: Do you consider the prequel plotting to be more or less digestible for an audience than the OT?
Visual quality: Do you consider the prequels massive overuse of CGI to be superior to the practical effects work of the OT?
Acting and casting: Which actors in the prequels would you consider gave an excellent performance?
Cinematography: Do you consider the photography in the prequels to be on par or superior to the OT, and if so, can you give examples of why?
Directorial quality: What dramatic scenes or elements in the prequels do you consider on par or superior to the OT - for example: Han being encased in carbonite, Luke discovering Vader is his father, both Death Star assaults, Vader choking an unruly captain in the boardroom, Luke facing Vader's apparition in the depths of Dagobah, etc.
Finally, Characterisation: Which characters, in terms of depth, inimitability, charisma, and well-roundedness in the prequels do you consider to be on par with those in the OT, and can you give examples of parallels (for example XXX is equal to Han Solo because...)

Is that how you tend to view all opposition to your prequel pedestal, as "RLM fanboys"? As some kind of nemesis inextricably linked to the Plinkett reviews? I'm into criticism: the Plinkett reviews just happen to be an accurate thesis on why the prequels fail as film first and Star Wars movies second.

You're a little slow though, so I get the feeling you've been arguing your case all over the internet without actually realising this.

Well the term applies to you then, doesn't it.

You can't keep answering comments and questions with "you too!" - that doesn't work in the real world. I've never stepped outside this forum to ever discuss the SW prequels. Why would I care enough to do so?



Are you actually the guy who wrote that terrible 108 page RML rebuttal?

[pestro87]

I think that Disney should redo the prequels. Completely new story, new actors, less CGI etc. The best way to undo something is to replace it with something else IMHO.

[Wasserkopp]

Just wow. This is your criteria for debate? Why would anybody bother?

I dunno, you announced some kind of beatdown. *shrug*

Is that how you tend to view all opposition to your prequel pedestal, as "RLM fanboys"? As some kind of nemesis inextricably linked to the Plinkett reviews? I'm into criticism: the Plinkett reviews just happen to be an accurate thesis on why the prequels fail as film first and Star Wars movies second.

You're a little slow though, so I get the feeling you've been arguing your case all over the internet without actually realising this.

Well the term applies to you then, doesn't it.

You can't keep answering comments and questions with "you too!" - that doesn't work in the real world.

You called Plinkus an "accurate thesis" so you're one of those that back RLM, i.e. in the position to be labeled as such.

That's quite amazing. You're not aware that narrative structure also constitutes events that occur in the plot? Come on man, don't waste my time. If you're as smart as you say you are, how about a demonstration.

You were reducing the word narrative to events in the plot, so I corrected you - a narrative only arises when there's a particular pattern to those events.


____________________________________

Let's have a little experiment:

Dialogue: What lines in the prequels are as memorable as those in the OT?
Plot structure: Do you consider the prequel plotting to be more or less digestible for an audience than the OT?
Visual quality: Do you consider the prequels massive overuse of CGI to be superior to the practical effects work of the OT?
Acting and casting: Which actors in the prequels would you consider gave an excellent performance?
Cinematography: Do you consider the photography in the prequels to be on par or superior to the OT, and if so, can you give examples of why?
Directorial quality: What dramatic scenes or elements in the prequels do you consider on par or superior to the OT - for example: Han being encased in carbonite, Luke discovering Vader is his father, both Death Star assaults, Vader choking an unruly captain in the boardroom, Luke facing Vader's apparition in the depths of Dagobah, etc.
Finally, Characterisation: Which characters, in terms of depth, inimitability, charisma, and well-roundedness in the prequels do you consider to be on par with those in the OT, and can you give examples of parallels (for example XXX is equal to Han Solo because...)

These are all substantive questions for a different discussion from the one RLM "initiated", and you continued on this thread by sharing their general attitude and supporting their viewpoints.

For it's quite a huge leap from "this is a failure on every conceivable level of filmmaking at the most basic level", to "not on par with an acclaimed super classic".

I wonder if you realize this difference, or already making concessions to me knowing that you won't be able to uphold the former claim?

[Lord Satori]

I think that Disney should redo the prequels. Completely new story, new actors, less CGI etc. The best way to undo something is to replace it with something else IMHO.

That would be fucking amazing! I seriously doubt that's going to happen, though.

[Wasserkopp]

I think that Disney should redo the prequels. Completely new story, new actors, less CGI etc. The best way to undo something is to replace it with something else IMHO.

That would be fucking amazing! I seriously doubt that's going to happen, though.

They just need proper inspiration...

[Skykid]

Colour me disappointed Wasserkopp, are you defeated already?

Since entering into this discussion, you haven't engaged properly on a single point raised. You've sidestepped any pertinent points and literally responded with "no, you!" playground antics on several occasions.

Do you not understand that if you don't appraise the prequels as film first, and narrative second, there's no point in appraising them at all? You seem to be deluded into thinking that if you can explain away narrative deficiencies in a roundabout way, that will make them equal as films to the OT or other movies of value. It won't.

What you clearly don't understand is what makes film valuable, and you've demonstrated this by namedropping some real trash as alternate examples: Transformers, 8MM, Wolverine: Origins?

These are factory-line products with no artistic value. They're the movie equivalent of used toilet paper, and are meant to be discarded and forgotten the instant they've been glimpsed. History is meant to forget them.

Because the OT had such incredible resonance with audiences: thematically original, visually groundbreaking, and, along with Spielberg's features, went on to usher in a new age of movie editing that's still in effect today - they can be regarded as classics.

The prequels didn't offer any of those things. Bar Ian McDiarmid, who's admittedly a thespian and superb actor, there isn't a single worthwhile performance or piece of actor directing in the whole three movies. There are no standout moments of dialogue, there are no truly inimitable characters. George Lucas thought he could build the movie in the editing room, and therefore didn't actually 'direct' the actors at all, leaving all the delivery lifeless and flat. And those poor actors were already having to work twice as hard because they were standing inside of a green room talking to invisible entities.

You see, this is about components. If you think you understand the prequels, perhaps you should spend four years or so looking outside of anything Hollywood. Look at French cinema from the 50s, Japanese cinema from the 60s, and Taiwan and China's best underground directors from the last 30 years (especially those who were banned from the industry by the PRC). Examine American classics like Citizen Kane and a Touch of Evil, or even Welles' Othello - the opening scene of which is one of the most fantastic things committed to film - and then bring it up to date and see how Spielberg created a character out of an oil truck in Duel, a town in Jaws, and how he committed to character development for the entire first half of Jurassic Park.

I once opened a movie thread with my personal best of Asian cinema, split down into ease of access. You can take a look here:

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40949

What you'll find ultimately is that the prequels aren't poor Star Wars movies - they're just poor movies. They're poorly made in every respect, and as such artistically barren. This is why people couldn't connect with them and the backlash was so astounding. Lucas' laziness and inability to direct the production left us with an incredibly dislikable, totally flaccid piece of work that simply recounted a story using actors in a cartoon world. The tangibility and feel of the OT was lost. The magic of being transported to a Galaxy Far Far Away was replaced with a feeling of "I'm sitting in the theatre watching a slow motion train wreck". That's not fun, especially since SW has such an important following.

So, going back to the questions you completely avoided:

Dialogue: What lines in the prequels are as memorable as those in the OT?
Plot structure: Do you consider the prequel plotting to be more or less digestible for an audience than the OT?
Visual quality: Do you consider the prequels massive overuse of CGI to be superior to the practical effects work of the OT?
Acting and casting: Which actors in the prequels would you consider gave an excellent performance?
Cinematography: Do you consider the photography in the prequels to be on par or superior to the OT, and if so, can you give examples of why?
Directorial quality: What dramatic scenes or elements in the prequels do you consider on par or superior to the OT - for example: Han being encased in carbonite, Luke discovering Vader is his father, both Death Star assaults, Vader choking an unruly captain in the boardroom, Luke facing Vader's apparition in the depths of Dagobah, etc.
Finally, Characterisation: Which characters, in terms of depth, inimitability, charisma, and well-roundedness in the prequels do you consider to be on par with those in the OT, and can you give examples of parallels (for example XXX is equal to Han Solo because...)

You can't answer these because you don't have the answers. That's ok. They were designed to test your knowledge of the prequels as pieces of film rather than pieces of SW narrative.

If you can't answer these realistically and satisfactorily, I'll consider the argument closed. Please don't waste your time in future writing review rebuttals - RLM really don't give a fuck and you should be doing much better things with your time. Go exploring and try to figure out what makes film a great artform instead, and I promise you'll see the prequels completely differently thereafter.

[Lord Satori]

If the prequels didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to respond with "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." in political battles. So it isn't aa complete loss.

[Wasserkopp]

Skykid, Skykid... Skykid.
You are acting dishonestly.

You see I'm not some kind of OCD maniac who'll respond to anything written without further consideration, I prefer some order in my debates... wait what

For it's quite a huge leap from "this is a failure on every conceivable level of filmmaking at the most basic level", to "not on par with an acclaimed super classic".

Premise 1, Premise 2.

You seem to be deluded into thinking that if you can [...], that will make them equal as films to the OT or other movies of value.

You are using a strawman argument now: claiming I'm arguing against Premise 2, while I'm arguing for Premise 1.


If you can't be intellectually honest at such a basic level, I won't be humouring your long-winded sermons.









PS:

Do you not understand that if you don't appraise the prequels as film first, and narrative second, there's no point in appraising them at all? You seem to be deluded into thinking that if you can explain away narrative deficiencies in a roundabout way

And there you go forgetting what "narrative" means all over again. I thought you'd just understood it?

All that stuff you wrote about "Jaws town as character" or whatnot... that's "narrative". It's a universal concept that transcends media such as film, novel or vidya, while "filmmaking" is the tools and ideals specific to one medium.

[Skykid]

It's over. You've lost.

Faster than I thought too, but I think I may have overestimated you by some margin.

[Wasserkopp]

I've lost what?

[Skykid]

I've lost what?

Everything. You came to shmups forum and it spanked you. You're done.

You convinced absolutely no-one of your argument, you demonstrated ignorance on the subject of film and a lack of decorum in the discipline of debate. You failed to understand my posts even though they were completely on-topic and straightforward, and you failed to rise to the challenge of a single question I asked you on the subject of the prequels. Overall I'd say the only thing you actually achieved was making everyone hate the prequels even more than before you arrived, which is entirely counter productive to the purpose of your internet parade.

You're a loser bro, go home.

[Wasserkopp]

Everything..

Wrong answer... the correct one, of course, would've been: "the debate".
Upon which I'd ask: "the debate about which subject"?

And answering that one would then lead you directly to admitting your error / dishonesty - which is why you won't do it.

[neorichieb1971]

I've always seen ep1,2,3 as being ILM advertisements dressed up as movies.

There is always going to be SW fans out there that like the movies regardless of what state they came out in. I think what irks Skykid (as it does me) is that we keep on going to see sequels/prequels and spin offs to see something that appeals. We usually come out of the theatre/movie feeling insulted and don't want to admit we spent a bit of money that we would have rather have given to charity.

[Wasserkopp]

I think what irks Skykid

What irks Skykid is that he can't back up his position without relying on intellectual dishonesty and then being called on it.

[neorichieb1971]

I don't even 100% agree with Skykid, but I do understand his sentiment. Ultimately this forum allows self expression and some people blow off steam here. I think he likes playing with you. You would know if he was making a special case of you

[Skykid]

You would know if he was making a special case of you

No point on this one. Was a total non-starter. The kid doesn't have the smarts to properly engage in his own debate.

[Wasserkopp]

engage in his own debate.

About which subject?

[neorichieb1971]

Wasser, you've only got 67 posts on here. Why are picking fights at all? There should be some rule that you should offer something to the forum before you start picking fights with people.

[Xyga]

There should be some rule that you should offer popcorn to the forum before you start picking fights with SkyKid.

Fixed.

[EmperorIng]

Wasser, you've only got 67 posts on here.

And they are all about arguing semantics over Star Wars.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

If we're being technical, they're all about him pretending people actually care about his opinions.

[Skykid]

If we're being technical, they're all about him pretending people actually care about his opinions.

This, essentially.