StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Straha wrote: 2020-05-22 12:58pm Please tell me how this review praises TFA for giving them 'all the nostalgia they wanted'.

I do not want to give the channel any additional clicks, so I am not watching it.

So, this gets back to why in the fuck you think "Disney is influenced by fanboys" is a reason not to engage with nuanced media criticism?

Because I do not think they are "nuanced media criticism"?

As they say, concessions accepted.

That is not changing my mind about their channel.

So, over the course of this conversation you've made clear that you've actually not engaged or understood their criticism which has plenty of nuance that you missed. You have blanketly painted into a corner as being critical of a thing you love for, perhaps, ulterior motives and then dismissed them outright.

I did not see any evidence of nuance when I first saw the video years ago. I am not going to rewatch something I disliked watching 9 years ago just to argue against you. My bias is based on my reaction to the video a decade ago, and until I see a well argued defence of their criticism, this is going to be my view towards their channel.

So if your argument is 'fanboy critique is bad and should not be listened to', I guess the prior question is given the level of fanboyism you are portraying right now, why should anyone take you seriously?

You don't have to take me seriously. I am a mere Star Wars fan on the Internet after all. The question is why should anyone take RLM seriously?

You have, without knowing it, engaged in exactly the critique that they offer against JJ Abrams and Disney's control of the base. This seems to mean that either you're speaking from blanket ignorance or that you too are a fanboy who I should ignore. Which one is it?

Feel free to ignore me?

If a story is executed badly it is, almost by definition, a _bad story_. Discussing the misexecution of the story compared to what it could have been is the role of a critic.

There is a difference between the overarching plot and narrative of a story, and issues in execution ( acting, editing and etc). Lumping them as one is not good criticism.

So you admit you know nothing about what they actually say but that you still dislike them so much you will not engage?

Thicken your skin.

Why should I do something I do not enjoy?

Because it offers a depthful nuanced take on why the story failed to deliver, the reasons behind that failure, why it is so jarringly discordant with the rest of the Star Trek universe, and more.

And what evidence is there that they offered a depthful and nuanced take on the story when their entire shtick is making it look like a neck-beard complaining about something for over an hour?

'm not going to restate the core critiques that they make. I get paid when I tutor people on material. Watch it or don't, but do us all a favor and keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about.

Then I have no reason to feel inclined to change my mind based on what you've said.

ray245 wrote: 2020-05-20 12:55pm

Straha wrote: 2020-05-20 12:42pm How, pray tell, are they to blame for the mess that is the sequel trilogy?

They were part of the chorus that keep pushing for JJ Abrams as this saviour of Star Wars? And their repeated attempt on how the only "true" Star Wars is all about the gritty outskirts on the edge of civilisation and how all politics about the state of the galaxy is boring?

Umm, no.

ray245 wrote: 2020-05-22 01:15pm

Straha wrote: 2020-05-22 12:58pm Please tell me how this review praises TFA for giving them 'all the nostalgia they wanted'.

I do not want to give the channel any additional clicks, so I am not watching it.

So, straight up, you just haven't watched any of their criticism post the sequels, have you?

So, everytime you try to attack what they're saying you're either speaking from straight up ignorance and/or lying about even claiming to know what they're talking about?

Yiiiikes.

So, this gets back to why in the fuck you think "Disney is influenced by fanboys" is a reason not to engage with nuanced media criticism?

Because I do not think they are "nuanced media criticism"?

And, again, you are wrong.

I did not see any evidence of nuance when I first saw the video years ago. I am not going to rewatch something I disliked watching 9 years ago just to argue against you. My bias is based on my reaction to the video a decade ago, and until I see a well argued defence of their criticism, this is going to be my view towards their channel.

They offer nuanced takes from a background that is deep into film production and cinema criticism, and they are deeply fluent in both fields while presenting their arguments in a way that requires knowledge of neither (though it helps to get what they're saying).

You don't have to take me seriously. I am a mere Star Wars fan on the Internet after all. The question is why should anyone take RLM seriously?

I have stopped taking you seriously. See above for why they are taken seriously.

You have, without knowing it, engaged in exactly the critique that they offer against JJ Abrams and Disney's control of the base. This seems to mean that either you're speaking from blanket ignorance or that you too are a fanboy who I should ignore. Which one is it?

Feel free to ignore me?

Yeah, but at this point I want the answer to the question why you think your blanket ignorance and lies were worth inserting into this thread? Like, why not take your own advice here and ignore the post about RLM instead of spouting off randomly.

If a story is executed badly it is, almost by definition, a _bad story_. Discussing the misexecution of the story compared to what it could have been is the role of a critic.

There is a difference between the overarching plot and narrative of a story, and issues in execution ( acting, editing and etc). Lumping them as one is not good criticism.

Which is a thing they didn't do.

And what evidence is there that they offered a depthful and nuanced take on the story when their entire shtick is making it look like a neck-beard complaining about something for over an hour?

Watch the damn thing. Or watch their other reviews (Half in the Bag). The evidence is the amount of film folk who pay attention to what they say and interact with RLM externally, and the quality of the reviews itself. I'm not going to repeat their criticism verbatim for you when you can take it on yourself to engage with critical media that pushes you out of your comfort zone. And if you're not willing to do that then, idk, ignore it and keep your world closed I guess?

Straha wrote: 2020-05-23 08:26pm So, straight up, you just haven't watched any of their criticism post the sequels, have you?

So, everytime you try to attack what they're saying you're either speaking from straight up ignorance and/or lying about even claiming to know what they're talking about?

Yiiiikes.

All I can say is I was relying on a nine-year old vague memory. My 9-year old memory is telling me they were nothing but a bunch of fanboys, and everything I've read about them since has not convinced me otherwise.

And, again, you are wrong.

Maybe, but I've not seen any arguments that actually supports the idea that they are nuanced...other than your points which I find to be unconvincing.

They offer nuanced takes from a background that is deep into film production and cinema criticism, and they are deeply fluent in both fields while presenting their arguments in a way that requires knowledge of neither (though it helps to get what they're saying).

That is not what I remembered, and while my memory is certainly faulty, what I have read about them in various comments does not suggest they are.

Certainly not when I am coming across articles like this about them:

https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/mr-plinkett-last-jedi/

https://www.salon.com/2018/08/31/stop-o ... -fixation/

https://filmschoolrejects.com/spare-us- ... a0bda2fa1/

I have stopped taking you seriously. See above for why they are taken seriously.

What I am getting is repeated claims about their nuanced criticism, when I am hearing plenty of counter-arguments that they are merely nitpicking. Even our own forum has a long thread with plenty of people taking issues with their criticism.

https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=146990

Yeah, but at this point I want the answer to the question why you think your blanket ignorance and lies were worth inserting into this thread? Like, why not take your own advice here and ignore the post about RLM instead of spouting off randomly.

I think it's fine to challenge claims and recommendations that people are making? Certainly when the review itself is often hours long and is done in a voice that many people find to be outright grating?

Which is a thing they didn't do.

Did they not? Then why did I read about their criticism as amounting to this:

Then, while complaining that the lightsabers are overused in the prequels, Plinkett digresses into how he thinks that different races of Jedi should have different kinds of weapons customized to accommodate their varying sizes and physiologies. He thinks that Yoda is handicapped by having to use a scaled-down lightsaber. (Regarding Yoda’s saber fight “[Lucas] kinda seems like a retard who just wants to see neat things happen with his computer.” That’s a funny statement coming from the guy who just minutes earlier accused Lucas of artlessly making descisions based on audience appeal.) I grant that’s the sort of thing that geeks like to debate online, but it feels misplaced in the middle of a thesis about what’s wrong with the film.

A film is not bad if its sin is a failure to conform to your presumptions about the world in which it exists.

https://filmschoolrejects.com/spare-us- ... a0bda2fa1/

Watch the damn thing. Or watch their other reviews (Half in the Bag). The evidence is the amount of film folk who pay attention to what they say and interact with RLM externally, and the quality of the reviews itself. I'm not going to repeat their criticism verbatim for you when you can take it on yourself to engage with critical media that pushes you out of your comfort zone. And if you're not willing to do that then, idk, ignore it and keep your world closed I guess?

Why should I watch them, when they have left a terrible impression in my old memory, and I have not seen anything well-argued by anyone that really change my perspective? I watch Star Wars related materials because I enjoy them, and if I find a Star Wars related material to be unenjoyable, why should I spend hours watching it?

ray245 wrote: 2020-05-24 05:08am
Why should I watch them, when they have left a terrible impression in my old memory, and I have not seen anything well-argued by anyone that really change my perspective? I watch Star Wars related materials because I enjoy them, and if I find a Star Wars related material to be unenjoyable, why should I spend hours watching it?

If you can't be bothered to watch these reviews or at least a good summary why do you feel the need to make multiple posts condemning their content and claiming that they somehow ruined future Star Wars movies? Moreover, why do you think anyone should listen to your opinion on the subject?

Ralin wrote: 2020-05-24 09:40am If you can't be bothered to watch these reviews or at least a good summary why do you feel the need to make multiple posts condemning their content and claiming that they somehow ruined future Star Wars movies? Moreover, why do you think anyone should listen to your opinion on the subject?

Because I am giving my reasons as to why I am sceptical of anyone recommending their channel? I don't think anyone should listen to my opinion on the subject, I just think people should give good reasons why anyone should be checking out their hours-long review.

Especially when there is a 30 pages long thread on SDN with many of our own users outright mocking RLM and their reviews.

ray245 wrote: 2020-05-24 09:53am Because I am giving my reasons as to why I am sceptical of anyone recommending their channel?.

You are doing so through a position of complete and utter ignorance and you look foolish.

Prometheus Unbound wrote: 2020-05-27 12:34pm You are doing so through a position of complete and utter ignorance and you look foolish.

I don't care how I look. This is not about showing off whether I am well-versed in RLM. I am more interested in seeing actual valid points that can convince me that RLM is not a waste of time.

As for summaries, I've read a fair number of post on the SDN thread on RLM, and many of those poster's points have reinforced my scepticism.

ray245 wrote: 2020-05-24 05:08am

Straha wrote: 2020-05-23 08:26pm So, straight up, you just haven't watched any of their criticism post the sequels, have you?

So, everytime you try to attack what they're saying you're either speaking from straight up ignorance and/or lying about even claiming to know what they're talking about?

Yiiiikes.

All I can say is I was relying on a nine-year old vague memory. My 9-year old memory is telling me they were nothing but a bunch of fanboys, and everything I've read about them since has not convinced me otherwise.

Hey man, at least you're admitting you're full of shit. That is an improvement. Not one to celebrate, but I'll take it.

That is not what I remembered, and while my memory is certainly faulty, what I have read about them in various comments does not suggest they are.

Certainly not when I am coming across articles like this about them:

https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/mr-plinkett-last-jedi/

https://www.salon.com/2018/08/31/stop-o ... -fixation/

https://filmschoolrejects.com/spare-us- ... a0bda2fa1/

Did you read the reviews you quoted?

The first one says nothing negative about the review or the style except that it's aged. Which... yes.

The second one includes choice lines like:

" Their work is consistently funny, usually insightful and occasionally brilliant;"

"Yet when discussing their review for "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," the Red Letter Media video that must be brought up for comparison is arguably the most famous one from the website — their 2009 review of the 1999 blockbuster "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace." In addition to being the video that catapulted them to online fame, it also demonstrated how the internet can allow aspiring critics to take advantage of the liberties available to them in cyberspace to offer more thoughtful and detailed critiques."

"Instead it wisely focuses on the problems with the movie itself, which as I noted in my own review were myriad. This is as it should be, both because it allows Stoklasa to mine humor from the film's flaws — one often gets the sense that the weaknesses he highlights are selected as much for his ability to use them as the basis for jokes as they are because he is genuinely bothered by them ... Stoklasa makes it clear that he views "The Last Jedi" not as a political outrage, but as simply being a bad movie."

And then gives only a muted criticism for not exploring the sexist backlash of the fanbase more while excusing the review for making the editorial review to ignore it.

While the last one is surely critical of RLM it also A. states clearly that their critiques are valid and B. takes primary issue with execution and not the message, something you've made clear is a lesser critique.

If you're going to fucking post links to articles the least you could do is engage in the courtesy of reading them first.

What I am getting is repeated claims about their nuanced criticism, when I am hearing plenty of counter-arguments that they are merely nitpicking. Even our own forum has a long thread with plenty of people taking issues with their criticism.

https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=146990

Nobody has ever accused this board, ever, of being a halcyon of literary and media criticism. The culture of this board has always been of the brand of nerd that says "What happened on screen happened, and that's all that matters." and then goes into comparing the metrics and scientific meaning of the effects to try and determine how many jiggawatts were in any particular phaser blast. This board is, was, and was always meant to be a nest of fanboys and the posting of a 108 page nerd rage rebuttal to an online review was peak fanboyism.

Perhaps you don't remember that time on the board, but I do. And that incident was a fucking embarrassment for us all.

Yeah, but at this point I want the answer to the question why you think your blanket ignorance and lies were worth inserting into this thread? Like, why not take your own advice here and ignore the post about RLM instead of spouting off randomly.

I think it's fine to challenge claims and recommendations that people are making? Certainly when the review itself is often hours long and is done in a voice that many people find to be outright grating?

But you're not challenging the claims in the Picard review, nor any review. You get that right? You get that you've admitted to speaking from total ignorance, can't even find articles that properly back up your opinion, and have basically been stomping your foot declaring that they're fanboys without warranting out anything?

Like, gut check. If you're going to say you're challenging claims in the Picard review: what does the Picard review say? What are his critiques of it? Like, basic level, just describe to me what's going on here.

The grand total that you've said relevant to the Picard review is "I don't like the voice he puts on" which A. sure? But then don't watch it. and B. is a critique of execution which you've made clear isn't a real critique we should pay attention to.

Did they not? Then why did I read about their criticism as amounting to this:

Then, while complaining that the lightsabers are overused in the prequels, Plinkett digresses into how he thinks that different races of Jedi should have different kinds of weapons customized to accommodate their varying sizes and physiologies. He thinks that Yoda is handicapped by having to use a scaled-down lightsaber. (Regarding Yoda’s saber fight “[Lucas] kinda seems like a retard who just wants to see neat things happen with his computer.” That’s a funny statement coming from the guy who just minutes earlier accused Lucas of artlessly making descisions based on audience appeal.) I grant that’s the sort of thing that geeks like to debate online, but it feels misplaced in the middle of a thesis about what’s wrong with the film.

A film is not bad if its sin is a failure to conform to your presumptions about the world in which it exists.

Sure? And?

Your argument is that there are differences in critiques of "the overarching plot and narrative of a story and issues in execution". And then you accuse them of confusing the latter for the former. The section they're referring to A. doesn't lump together anything and B. critiques both separately, attacking the overuse of lightsabers as a question of execution and the forcing of Yoda into needless mindless fights as something that detracts from the ultimate message of Star Wars.

Like, at this point not only do you not understand what you're critiquing, I don't even think you understand your own critiques.

Why should I watch them, when they have left a terrible impression in my old memory, and I have not seen anything well-argued by anyone that really change my perspective? I watch Star Wars related materials because I enjoy them, and if I find a Star Wars related material to be unenjoyable, why should I spend hours watching it?

Because, judging from the knowledge you've displayed in this thread, your memory is flat wrong. And if you enjoy critical engagement with media this should interest you.

Straha wrote: 2020-05-27 05:33pm Hey man, at least you're admitting you're full of shit. That is an improvement. Not one to celebrate, but I'll take it.

I've never pretended I have a good memory to begin with.

Did you read the reviews you quoted?

The first one says nothing negative about the review or the style except that it's aged. Which... yes.

The second one includes choice lines like:

" Their work is consistently funny, usually insightful and occasionally brilliant;"

"Yet when discussing their review for "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," the Red Letter Media video that must be brought up for comparison is arguably the most famous one from the website — their 2009 review of the 1999 blockbuster "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace." In addition to being the video that catapulted them to online fame, it also demonstrated how the internet can allow aspiring critics to take advantage of the liberties available to them in cyberspace to offer more thoughtful and detailed critiques."

"Instead it wisely focuses on the problems with the movie itself, which as I noted in my own review were myriad. This is as it should be, both because it allows Stoklasa to mine humor from the film's flaws — one often gets the sense that the weaknesses he highlights are selected as much for his ability to use them as the basis for jokes as they are because he is genuinely bothered by them ... Stoklasa makes it clear that he views "The Last Jedi" not as a political outrage, but as simply being a bad movie."

And then gives only a muted criticism for not exploring the sexist backlash of the fanbase more while excusing the review for making the editorial review to ignore it.

While the last one is surely critical of RLM it also A. states clearly that their critiques are valid and B. takes primary issue with execution and not the message, something you've made clear is a lesser critique.

If you're going to fucking post links to articles the least you could do is engage in the courtesy of reading them first.

The thing is, I don't remember finding them funny to begin with? So whatever strengths they have on RLM doesn't interest me to re-engage with the channel.

If you can find quotes that say RLM isn't as bad as I remember it being, I find quotes that reinforce my own memory and perception.

Watching his review is unlikely to change anyone’s mind, although that’s usually not the aim of a piece of criticism. Those who hated the movie will feel justified by the criticism while those who loved it will get exasperated by the review’s cherry-picking of certain arguments.

Nobody has ever accused this board, ever, of being a halcyon of literary and media criticism. The culture of this board has always been of the brand of nerd that says "What happened on screen happened, and that's all that matters." and then goes into comparing the metrics and scientific meaning of the effects to try and determine how many jiggawatts were in any particular phaser blast. This board is, was, and was always meant to be a nest of fanboys and the posting of a 108 page nerd rage rebuttal to an online review was peak fanboyism.

Perhaps you don't remember that time on the board, but I do. And that incident was a fucking embarrassment for us all.

I don't pretend SDN is a hallmark of media and literary criticism. But based on their comments and response, it certainly seems to gel with my memory of how I reacted to RLM. And given I share a fair amount of cynicism about fan-cultures with some of the users in that thread, I am not interested in watching an hour long video by RLM.

But you're not challenging the claims in the Picard review, nor any review. You get that right? You get that you've admitted to speaking from total ignorance, can't even find articles that properly back up your opinion, and have basically been stomping your foot declaring that they're fanboys without warranting out anything?

Like, gut check. If you're going to say you're challenging claims in the Picard review: what does the Picard review say? What are his critiques of it? Like, basic level, just describe to me what's going on here.

The grand total that you've said relevant to the Picard review is "I don't like the voice he puts on" which A. sure? But then don't watch it. and B. is a critique of execution which you've made clear isn't a real critique we should pay attention to.

I've never challenged their claims regarding the Picard review in the first place? I ask why are they worth recommending when my perception of them is a bunch of angry fanboys? I said I can't stand the voice they deliberately put on for a whole hour to re-engage with their channel any further.

Sure? And?

Your argument is that there are differences in critiques of "the overarching plot and narrative of a story and issues in execution". And then you accuse them of confusing the latter for the former. The section they're referring to A. doesn't lump together anything and B. critiques both separately, attacking the overuse of lightsabers as a question of execution and the forcing of Yoda into needless mindless fights as something that detracts from the ultimate message of Star Wars.

Like, at this point not only do you not understand what you're critiquing, I don't even think you understand your own critiques.

I pick that section because it reinforce my view that their criticism with the prequels stems primarily from the idea that they have gotten the "true" message or vision of Star Wars, when it seems like there is merely their own personal vision of what Star Wars ought to be.

Because, judging from the knowledge you've displayed in this thread, your memory is flat wrong. And if you enjoy critical engagement with media this should interest you.

It could certainly be faulty, but it certainly does not distract from the fact that it is not a pleasant memory for me to revisit. I can enjoy critical engagement with the media without having to put up with a multi-hour long video with a voice that I STILL find to be grating? When there are plenty of other alternatives out there than can offer film and tv criticism in a manner that I enjoy a lot more, why should I care about RLM?

Go back and check if I have ever challenged their claims on Picard. Maybe they have made some really valid points about the flaws of Picard. I personally don't think Picard is a great show by any means. It has some nice moments, and seeing Patrick Stewart is nice, but it is not a show that I'll eagerly recommend to people by any stretch.

So having made my views on Picard clear, so why should I watch a video critiquing a show that I don't particularly like, nor do I actively dislike? Do they made points that I've not come across elsewhere amongst the Star Trek fandom?

ray245 wrote: 2020-05-27 06:40pm
So having made my views on Picard clear, so why should I watch a video critiquing a show that I don't particularly like, nor do I actively dislike? Do they made points that I've not come across elsewhere amongst the Star Trek fandom?

If you aren't interested in the video or the show it's critiquing why have you spent the past couple pages arguing about the video/the people who made it?

Ralin wrote: 2020-06-06 01:54am

ray245 wrote: 2020-05-27 06:40pm
So having made my views on Picard clear, so why should I watch a video critiquing a show that I don't particularly like, nor do I actively dislike? Do they made points that I've not come across elsewhere amongst the Star Trek fandom?

If you aren't interested in the video or the show it's critiquing why have you spent the past couple pages arguing about the video/the people who made it?

Because I'll like to see good reasons why the channel should be recommended?

ray245 wrote: 2020-05-21 04:11pm

Straha wrote: 2020-05-21 03:19pm What, exactly, is your argument? Because as far as I can tell it's "The sequels sure did suck!" which... sure? But that's not a response to anyone but Ralin.

That their criticism is rooted in the same fanboyism that led to the sequel trilogy, mostly notably ROS's flaws.

What does any of this shit mean? What is "fanboyism", "fan bros", etc.? What is all this crap you're talking about?

RLM just didn't like the Prequels for reasons carefully laid out over many videos. I didn't like the Prequels either. I agree with around ~75-80% of the criticisms made by RLM, but I don't agree with everything.

Is it possible for me to not like the Prequels, and also prefer certain traits of the OT, without being a "fanboy" or "fan bros" or whatever? If not, then your terminology is just meaningless insults.

Many people didn't like the Prequels for reasons which are often not quite articulated well, but overlap with sentiments like "we want more locations similar to the OT", "we want more stuff similar to the OT", "we don't like politics", etc. I understand what these criticisms are trying to say, even though I think they are poorly articulated.

When people say "more like the OT", what they REALLY mean is: We don't like the Prequels because they failed to capture a certain, hard-to-define "magic ingredient" in the OT, which, if you ask me, is basically this: A small group of characters with great chemistry who go on cool space adventures together while exchanging quippy dialogue. That's the Star Wars formula. I don't like the Sequels much either, but at least TFA sort of delivered on this. The opening escape sequence with Finn and Poe showed great chemistry between these two characters, with fun quippy dialogue. (Then inexplicably Poe and Finn were separated for most of the Trilogy, but whatever.)

When people say "we don't like politics" that doesn't mean there can't be any politics. RLM also likes Star Trek, but Star Trek has some of the best politics (see Star Trek 6, one of my favorite films). What people mean by "we don't like politics" is that the Prequels implemented politics very poorly, to the extent that it became very boring. Not because politics is inherently boring, but because the Prequels also give us a very rough sketch of a facade of politics - there's really not much deeper going on other than "Palpatine's manipulating everything offscreen, somehow".

The idea of a Republic decaying into an Empire via an elected Senator turning into a dictator is cool in theory, and in fact is pretty close to what happened in real life with ancient Rome, but the Prequels failed to execute this idea in a compelling manner.

Finally, when people say "we want OT locations" they don't mean we just want Tatooine over and over. They mean we just don't like the blatant overuse of CGI (see Battle of Geonosis) where a screenshot literally becomes indistinguishable from a video game.

Blaming older fans (or any fans really) for anything Disney does is ridiculous. By that logic, we should never give feedback ever to any movie we don't like, for fear that it may have undesirable consequences for future installments. Who the fuck operates like that? You see a movie you don't like and you criticize it, end of story. Are you saying in like, 2002, after Attack of the Clones came up, (which blatantly sucked) we should have been like "well this sucks..... but I won't say anything just in case JJ Abrams fucks up further things in the next decade". Jesus Christ, at the time, in the early 2000s, the Prequels came out and people reacted to them. The fact that many people didn't like them is nobody's problem except George Lucas'.

In fact, by your own logic, YOU should immediately stop criticizing the Sequel trilogy, in case by 2035 or something, some future director decides to apply your criticisms and totally fucks it up.

channel73 wrote: 2020-06-30 05:59pm What does any of this shit mean? What is "fanboyism", "fan bros", etc.? What is all this crap you're talking about?

This:

When people say "more like the OT", what they REALLY mean is: We don't like the Prequels because they failed to capture a certain, hard-to-define "magic ingredient" in the OT, which, if you ask me, is basically this: A small group of characters with great chemistry who go on cool space adventures together while exchanging quippy dialogue. That's the Star Wars formula. I don't like the Sequels much either, but at least TFA sort of delivered on this. The opening escape sequence with Finn and Poe showed great chemistry between these two characters, with fun quippy dialogue. (Then inexplicably Poe and Finn were separated for most of the Trilogy, but whatever.)

Star Wars is not the OT. It's a success because people wanted more of the world beyond the OT characters. Otherwise movies like Rogue One and TV shows like the Mandalorian, cartoons like the Clone Wars will never become a success.

The formula for the OT is simply the formula for the OT. Star Wars fan enjoyed the franchise in different ways, and no one standard formula can ever apply to the success of the franchise. I personally dislike the ST, but I have to admit ST still managed to generate fans and interest in the franchise. The PT might have "failed" according to people like you, but they got me into Star Wars.

Fanboyism is gate-keeping. It's about older fans trying to enforce one set of criteria for what makes Star Wars "good" for fans simply because that's their childhood. It's about viewing everything via nostalgia googles.

ray245 wrote: 2020-06-30 06:38pm

channel73 wrote: 2020-06-30 05:59pm What does any of this shit mean? What is "fanboyism", "fan bros", etc.? What is all this crap you're talking about?

This:

When people say "more like the OT", what they REALLY mean is: We don't like the Prequels because they failed to capture a certain, hard-to-define "magic ingredient" in the OT, which, if you ask me, is basically this: A small group of characters with great chemistry who go on cool space adventures together while exchanging quippy dialogue. That's the Star Wars formula. I don't like the Sequels much either, but at least TFA sort of delivered on this. The opening escape sequence with Finn and Poe showed great chemistry between these two characters, with fun quippy dialogue. (Then inexplicably Poe and Finn were separated for most of the Trilogy, but whatever.)

So "fanboyism" basically means liking the OT and disliking the PT?? You've just defined a word to mean whatever suits you.

Star Wars is not the OT. It's a success because people wanted more of the world beyond the OT characters. Otherwise movies like Rogue One and TV shows like the Mandalorian, cartoons like the Clone Wars will never become a success.

Nobody says all Star Wars has to be a retread of the OT. I actually like most of the Star Wars content you just listed here. Disliking the PT and saying it lacked certain valued traits of the OT is entirely different than saying everything must be a retread of the OT. In fact, TFA is most often criticized for being a blatant clone of ANH. RLM makes this precise criticism multiple times.

Fanboyism is gate-keeping. It's about older fans trying to enforce one set of criteria for what makes Star Wars "good" for fans simply because that's their childhood. It's about viewing everything via nostalgia googles.

Nobody is forcing you to not like things. I'm only responding to your weird criticism that anyone who dislikes the PT but prefers the OT is guilty of "fanboyism". I dislike the PT and prefer the OT. Didn't know I was "gatekeeping".

Anyway... the last couple of minutes of that Picard Plinkett review is genuinely emotionally moving. It's extremely sad to watch. I can't believe Star Trek: Enterprise actually seems like thoughtful science fiction in comparison to this crap.

Galactic treaty indeed.

channel73 wrote: 2020-06-30 06:52pm So "fanboyism" basically means liking the OT and disliking the PT?? You've just defined a word to mean whatever suits you.

No it is not. It is more specifically this kind of attitude:

ray245 wrote: 2020-06-30 06:38pm they failed to capture a certain, hard-to-define "magic ingredient" in the OT, which, if you ask me, is basically this: A small group of characters with great chemistry who go on cool space adventures together while exchanging quippy dialogue. That's the Star Wars formula.

It's treating the OT as the only formula to tell Star Wars stories.

Nobody says all Star Wars has to be a retread of the OT. I actually like most of the Star Wars content you just listed here. Disliking the PT and saying it lacked certain valued traits of the OT is entirely different than saying everything must be a retread of the OT. In fact, TFA is most often criticized for being a blatant clone of ANH. RLM makes this precise criticism multiple times.

Yet that is exactly what you said in the earlier post. You defined the OT as the Star Wars formula, when other Star Wars stories that didn't stick to the OT formula still manage to create interesting stories that people enjoy. It's why TFA end up as a ANH clone, because of fans who acted as gate-keepers and basically encouraged filmmakers to do the same thing all over again.

I disagreed with idea that the valued traits of the OT ought to be that highly valued. It's a type of story-telling that works well in the story the OT is trying to tell. Different eras needs its own type of traits to tell different kinds of stories.

Nobody is forcing you to not like things. I'm only responding to your weird criticism that anyone who dislikes the PT but prefers the OT is guilty of "fanboyism". I dislike the PT and prefer the OT. Didn't know I was "gatekeeping".

I never said people who dislikes the PT but prefers the OT is guilty of fanboyism. Prefering the OT is fine and very understandable. It's seeing the OT as the only model of storytelling to follow that makes it a gate-keeping problem. As said in the Rebels vs Empire thread, that conflict is one that works for the OT. Trying to recreate the same type of conflict for the ST era ended up making things more complicated and weaker than it needed to be.

While I do enjoy the PT, I would not think it is necessary for the ST to tell a story similar to the PT. It's about understanding there is not a single formulaic way to tell Star Wars stories.

ray245 wrote: 2020-06-30 08:13pm

channel73 wrote: 2020-06-30 06:52pm Nobody says all Star Wars has to be a retread of the OT. I actually like most of the Star Wars content you just listed here. Disliking the PT and saying it lacked certain valued traits of the OT is entirely different than saying everything must be a retread of the OT. In fact, TFA is most often criticized for being a blatant clone of ANH. RLM makes this precise criticism multiple times.

Yet that is exactly what you said in the earlier post. You defined the OT as the Star Wars formula, when other Star Wars stories that didn't stick to the OT formula still manage to create interesting stories that people enjoy.

Wrong. I merely explained why some people like the OT better than the PT. I never said all future Star Wars installments need to be retreads of the OT. The OT has certain traits that the PT lacks and some people believe the PT could have been improved by borrowing certain traits from the OT (like better chemistry between characters, more dialogue/character driven humor instead of slaptstick, etc.). It's extremely simple.

And I use "Star Wars formula" to refer to what people liked about the OT at the time the PT came out. Obviously, "Star Wars" was synonymous with the OT at that time, since no other Star Wars existed to compare the PT with. But I guess for you, preferring X over Y = "fanboyism".

It's why TFA end up as a ANH clone, because of fans who acted as gate-keepers and basically encouraged filmmakers to do the same thing all over again.

Or maybe JJ Abrams just wanted to remake ANH? (He sure loves remaking things.) Or maybe Bob Iger demanded it? You have no idea. You're just making shit up.

Even if you had some definitive proof that Bob Iger and Disney explicitly hired RLM as consultants in secret, who cares? Are you claiming we just should NEVER criticize any movie because some future director or executive may take our criticism and do something stupid with it? If so, please immediately STOP posting any criticism about the Sequel Trilogy. By your own logic, some future director may read your comments and fuck up a future Star Wars sequel in 2035.

I never said people who dislikes the PT but prefers the OT is guilty of fanboyism. Prefering the OT is fine and very understandable. It's seeing the OT as the only model of storytelling to follow that makes it a gate-keeping problem. As said in the Rebels vs Empire thread, that conflict is one that works for the OT. Trying to recreate the same type of conflict for the ST era ended up making things more complicated and weaker than it needed to be.

I completely agree the Sequel Trilogy should NOT have been an Empire vs Rebels story. I would have preferred something more like the Thrawn story, or whatever, or something with the New Republic playing a major role at least. That is quite a different sentiment than thinking that the PT was badly executed and could have been improved by borrowing certain valued traits from the OT.

channel73 wrote: 2020-06-30 09:59pm Wrong. I merely explained why some people like the OT better than the PT. I never said all future Star Wars installments need to be retreads of the OT. The OT has certain traits that the PT lacks and some people believe the PT could have been improved by borrowing certain traits from the OT (like better chemistry between characters, more dialogue/character driven humor instead of slaptstick, etc.). It's extremely simple.

Except that's not the bulk of people's criticism of the PT. There's a big fuss made about how the setting is no longer on run-down planets, with things looking too shiny, or they made comments about midichlorians. Or how there's too much politics and so forth. Or there's too much CGI. Yes, the acting in the PT is not exactly the strongest, but main comments we hear on fan forums and etc is "too much CGI" and those kind of complaints.

And I use "Star Wars formula" to refer to what people liked about the OT at the time the PT came out. Obviously, "Star Wars" was synonymous with the OT at that time, since no other Star Wars existed to compare the PT with. But I guess for you, preferring X over Y = "fanboyism".

Yes there is? By the time Ep 3 came out, we had loads of other Star Wars media from EU novels to video games. We even have an entire own era of Star Wars in video game released in 2003 ( Knights of the Old Republic).

Or maybe JJ Abrams just wanted to remake ANH? (He sure loves remaking things.) Or maybe Bob Iger demanded it? You have no idea. You're just making shit up.

There's a lot of comments and fan pressure on the internet and the media saying Star Wars should return to its "roots" in some way or another. There's a lot of pressure to "play it safe" at the time. That Disney adopted a strategy at remaking the OT is not surprising given what fanboys are saying over the internet.

Even if you had some definitive proof that Bob Iger and Disney explicitly hired RLM as consultants in secret, who cares? Are you claiming we just should NEVER criticize any movie because some future director or executive may take our criticism and do something stupid with it? If so, please immediately STOP posting any criticism about the Sequel Trilogy. By your own logic, some future director may read your comments and fuck up a future Star Wars sequel in 2035.

Who said anything about not criticising any movie? That's a big strawman of what I am saying. All I am saying is not all critics make good criticism about movies, especially if it is relating to a franchise in which nostalgia can massively cloud their judgement. We know at times, even top filmmakers can end up making weaker films because they were so massively caught up in nostalgia that it has a big impact on their writing and direction. JJ Abrams is one of them. Even Peter Jackson made a weaker film with King Kong because he's such a childhood fan of the original Kong movie. I'm saying nostalgia can have a big and possibily negative effect on our judgement. I like the PT as a fan, but even I have to admit nostalgia has a big role to play in how I view and perceive those movies. I can fully acknowledge my own personal bias.

On the other hand, I don't think some critics are all that interested in even admitting they have a nostalgia bias.

I completely agree the Sequel Trilogy should NOT have been an Empire vs Rebels story. I would have preferred something more like the Thrawn story, or whatever, or something with the New Republic playing a major role at least. That is quite a different sentiment than thinking that the PT was badly executed and could have been improved by borrowing certain valued traits from the OT.

I agree the execution of the PT wasn't perfect by any stretch. But I do not think you can improve on its execution by borrowing from the OT. Instead, they ought to borrow from other successful movie covering the same kind of stories. The prequels are not a happy action-adventure movie about how a bunch of underdog heroes managed to defeat a big evil empire. It's a story about decline of the heroes and the Republic, and about tragedy.

It needs to borrow from movies that manage to tell those stories well. It's need to tell a story about institutional rot, about heroes falling into darkness and etc. It's about understanding the PT can never be like the OT by any stretch because its a fundamentally different story.

ray245 wrote: 2020-07-01 06:04am There's a big fuss made about how the setting is no longer on run-down planets, with things looking too shiny, or they made comments about midichlorians. Or how there's too much politics and so forth. Or there's too much CGI. Yes, the acting in the PT is not exactly the strongest, but main comments we hear on fan forums and etc is "too much CGI" and those kind of complaints.

The number one complaints about the Prequels from 1999 until now was that Jar Jar sucks and the acting is bland. All other complaints are a distant third beyond that. Yes, people also complain about too much CGI. This is a legitimate complaint. Just because it doesn't bother you personally, doesn't mean the complaint is invalid. The Clone Troopers and the entire Battle of Geonosis in AOTC look pretty bad, even worse than some modern video games. So if a movie over-uses CGI or has bad CGI, it's now "fanboyism" if we point this out? Do you even hear yourself? You basically just take any criticisms you personally don't like and just call it "fanboyism".

Yes there is? By the time Ep 3 came out, we had loads of other Star Wars media from EU novels to video games. We even have an entire own era of Star Wars in video game released in 2003 ( Knights of the Old Republic).

Relatively few people cared about the EU, especially before the Prequels.

There's a lot of comments and fan pressure on the internet and the media saying Star Wars should return to its "roots" in some way or another. There's a lot of pressure to "play it safe" at the time. That Disney adopted a strategy at remaking the OT is not surprising given what fanboys are saying over the internet.

Translation: People liked certain things about the OT better, and complained about it on some Youtube videos, therefore it's "fanboyism"? Okay. Better not complain about anything we don't like, ever, I guess?

Who said anything about not criticising any movie? That's a big strawman of what I am saying. All I am saying is not all critics make good criticism about movies, especially if it is relating to a franchise in which nostalgia can massively cloud their judgement.

Circular nonsense. Most criticism I see of the Prequels actually is good criticism. You basically just take any criticisms you personally don't like and just call it "fanboyism".

I agree the execution of the PT wasn't perfect by any stretch. But I do not think you can improve on its execution by borrowing from the OT.

Yes you could. Make it more character-driven and generate humor with dialogue instead of slapstick. Make the story center around Anakin and Obi-Wan going on space adventures or fighting in the Clone Wars while exchanging quippy dialogue. (They actually did this in the cartoons, and it was better than the movies.) Problem solved. This also improves the overall tragedy of the story, since spending more time with our heroes makes it hurt even more when they fight at the end.

channel73 wrote: 2020-07-01 03:28pm The number one complaints about the Prequels from 1999 until now was that Jar Jar sucks and the acting is bland. All other complaints are a distant third beyond that. Yes, people also complain about too much CGI. This is a legitimate complaint. Just because it doesn't bother you personally, doesn't mean the complaint is invalid. The Clone Troopers and the entire Battle of Geonosis in AOTC look pretty bad, even worse than some modern video games. So if a movie over-uses CGI or has bad CGI, it's now "fanboyism" if we point this out? Do you even hear yourself? You basically just take any criticisms you personally don't like and just call it "fanboyism".

The too much CGI complaint would be valid if those fanboys are actually aware of just how much practical effects was used for Ep 1. So I am not inclined to view their complaint as all that valid considering they cannot tell practical effects from CGI effects apart.

Relatively few people cared about the EU, especially before the Prequels.

We are talking about the hardcore Star Wars fans here, are we not?

Translation: People liked certain things about the OT better, and complained about it on some Youtube videos, therefore it's "fanboyism"? Okay. Better not complain about anything we don't like, ever, I guess?

Wrong translation.

Circular nonsense. Most criticism I see of the Prequels actually is good criticism. You basically just take any criticisms you personally don't like and just call it "fanboyism".

I've laid out my reasons why I think those criticism are fanboyism. I do not need to repeat my arguments.

Yes you could. Make it more character-driven and generate humor with dialogue instead of slapstick. Make the story center around Anakin and Obi-Wan going on space adventures or fighting in the Clone Wars while exchanging quippy dialogue. (They actually did this in the cartoons, and it was better than the movies.) Problem solved. This also improves the overall tragedy of the story, since spending more time with our heroes makes it hurt even more when they fight at the end.

No you cannot. The Clone wars had over 8 seasons to tell the stories about the adventures of Anakin, Obi-wan and Ahsoka. The prequels had 3 movies. The Clone Wars also didn't have to do the job of establishing the setting of the Prequels. An action-adventure movie featuring Anakin and Obi-Wan would massively detract from the wider story of how the Republic fell.

ray245 wrote: 2020-07-01 03:50pm The too much CGI complaint would be valid if those fanboys are actually aware of just how much practical effects was used for Ep 1. So I am not inclined to view their complaint as all that valid considering they cannot tell practical effects from CGI effects apart.

I don't give a shit how many practical effects there are. If there are 10,000 practical effects and 1 shitty CGI effect, it is still valid criticism to complain about that one shitty CGI effect. I even mentioned a specific example from AOTC. All the Clone Troopers and most of the backgrounds for the Battle of Geonosis is shitty CGI. I don't care if every other scene is all practical effects, the complaint stands.

I've laid out my reasons why I think those criticism are fanboyism. I do not need to repeat my arguments.

No you haven't. You've just said any criticism you don't like is "fanboyism" or based on nostalgia, without addressing any specifics.

No you cannot. The Clone wars had over 8 seasons to tell the stories about the adventures of Anakin, Obi-wan and Ahsoka. The prequels had 3 movies. The Clone Wars also didn't have to do the job of establishing the setting of the Prequels. An action-adventure movie featuring Anakin and Obi-Wan would massively detract from the wider story of how the Republic fell.

This is more circular reasoning along the lines of "I can't imagine it, therefore it's not possible". Also, it assumes that the story of the fall of the Republic should have been the primary focus in the first place, which to me is up for debate. I argue the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker should have been the main focus, since it ties in with the ultimate payoff in Return of the Jedi. But I guess I'm not allowed to have that opinion because it's "fanboyism".

channel73 wrote: 2020-07-01 04:01pm I don't give a shit how many practical effects there are. If there are 10,000 practical effects and 1 shitty CGI effect, it is still valid criticism to complain about that one shitty CGI effect. I even mentioned a specific example from AOTC. All the Clone Troopers and most of the backgrounds for the Battle of Geonosis is shitty CGI. I don't care if every other scene is all practical effects, the complaint stands.

Except the bulk of the comments is not bad CGI, in fact many people think it was good CGI at the time. What they complaint about is the overuse of CGI.

No you haven't. You've just said any criticism you don't like is "fanboyism" or based on nostalgia, without addressing any specifics.

Yes I have. I critique the idea of a Star Wars "formula" that you and some other people are championing. I am arguing that that the notion of the "formula" for Star Wars is rooted in nostalgia.

This is more circular reasoning along the lines of "I can't imagine it, therefore it's not possible". Also, it assumes that the story of the fall of the Republic should have been the primary focus in the first place, which to me is up for debate. I argue the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker should have been the main focus, since it ties in with the ultimate payoff in Return of the Jedi. But I guess I'm not allowed to have that opinion because it's "fanboyism".

You've completely ignored the argument that that kind of story-telling you proposed requires a massive amount of time that simply isn't possible with three movies. The fall of the Republic needs to be a central focus because it's the central event that happened in the time frame, similar to the way the struggle of the Rebels vs the Empire is the central focus of the OT.

ray245 wrote: 2020-07-01 04:16pm Except the bulk of the comments is not bad CGI, in fact many people think it was good CGI at the time. What they complaint about is the overuse of CGI.

Absurd. Nobody would complain about too much good CGI. If the CGI is that good, you'd barely even notice it was CGI. The Mandalorian uses CGI to depict various fauna or alien creatures, as well as to augment landscapes and locations, and in my opinion it looks amazing. Nobody complains about good CGI. You are just misunderstanding. People complain that the Prequels have bad CGI, and worse - the bad CGI is fairly ubiquitous throughout the films. Even worse, much of this bad CGI is not even necessary. They could have just used actual actors in Clone Trooper uniforms instead of using CGI.

I critique the idea of a Star Wars "formula" that you and some other people are championing. I am arguing that that the notion of the "formula" for Star Wars is rooted in nostalgia.

Prove it's rooted in nostalgia, and not just something people like better. Otherwise I can dismiss all your arguments by saying "you just defend the Prequels because you grew up with them." This works both ways.

You've completely ignored the argument that that kind of story-telling you proposed requires a massive amount of time that simply isn't possible with three movies. The fall of the Republic needs to be a central focus because it's the central event that happened in the time frame, similar to the way the struggle of the Rebels vs the Empire is the central focus of the OT.

More circular reasoning. I disagree the Fall of the Republic needed to be a central focus, any more than the Fall of the Empire was a central focus in the OT. I argue the movies should be character driven, focusing primarily on Anakin and Obi-Wan. I would say leave the political intrigue stuff (which I also find interesting, BTW) to be fleshed out in the cartoons. That's simply my opinion, and I argue that this type of approach better ties into the payoff at the end of ROTJ. I get that you disagree, but I probably wouldn't dismiss your opinion as "fanboyism".