Page 3 of 4

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 11:36am
by lGrand Anhoop
Galvatron wrote:
Crazedwraith wrote:
Prometheus Unbound wrote: that's the point; I wouldn't expect anyone to do so at all, because it's a) pointless and b) unbelievably sad.
I'm always astound at what geeks will look down on other geeks for. How is it more pointless or sad than any of the other countless pages of discussions here?
Effort. Our posts here are basically effortless, stream of consciousness discussions about minutia. That's a far cry from a dead serious 108-page monologue rebutting a tongue-in-cheek (albeit very long) movie review.
Now am I crazy, or might you have a potential motivation for thinking this way?

Go ahead, tell us all why they're "inaccurate" for jeering at that cinematic piece of shit.
Hmm...

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 11:41am
by Galvatron
I've made no secret of my "motivation" over the years. I hate the prequels. Whether any those videos are "accurate" or not is irrelevant. They resonate. With a HUGE audience. And Disney knows it.

And here you are demonstrating Herculean effort to refute those other videos for us. In real time. Go you.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 12:11pm
by lGrand Anhoop
Galvatron wrote:I've made no secret of my "motivation" over the years. I hate the prequels.
So your whole "oh noes it's sad and creepy arguing against videos that that say how bad those are" might just be motivated by that? Hm.
Whether any those videos are "accurate" or not is irrelevant. They resonate. With a HUGE audience.
If their accuracy is irrelevant, then the intelligene of that huge audience Disney's supposedly catering to is irrelevant.
And here you are demonstrating Herculean effort to refute those other videos for us. In real time. Go you.
You asked for it.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 12:23pm
by Galvatron
I asked for it because you seemed like you had to get something off your chest like someone just took huge Cleveland Steamer on it. I never promised to read it though.

And, by all means, question the intelligence of the unwashed masses that Disney is catering to. All that matters to me is that Star Wars is fun again.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 12:44pm
by lGrand Anhoop
Galvatron wrote:I asked for it because you seemed like you had to get something off your chest
I was never gonna waste my time on half-arsed phoned in bullshite like Chris Stuckman, I just did that because you asked so nicely ; )
And, by all means, question the intelligence of the unwashed masses that Disney is catering to. All that matters to me is that Star Wars is fun again.
So in other words you're boring.


K whatever, let's see if anything interesting comes up in this thread.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 01:00pm
by Galvatron
And on that note, I'll bow out of the thread with this parting gift in observance of the holiday season...


Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 01:22pm
by Prometheus Unbound
Yes I'll stop too - no one's gonna change minds here

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 02:21pm
by lGrand Anhoop
Image


So in case this is gonna end here, anyone know some proper ant-PT forums where people think they're right and gonna start flaming like sailors?
Unless naming other forums is against the rules here, in which case nvm.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 05:40pm
by Galvatron
Here you go. See the comments section and have fun...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD7bpG-zDJQ

/just trying to help

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 06:21pm
by lGrand Anhoop
Can't post on YT because they require mobile phone now :(

But been on other comment sections (articles etc.) and those tend to be a letdown mostly, after a while people just stop replying and it all dies down...

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 06:32pm
by Batman
Um no they don't? WRT the phone I meant. I just posted with my PC.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 06:34pm
by lGrand Anhoop
Made an account there a month ago, can't post any comments without being told to type in a phone number...

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 06:49pm
by Batman
You on gmail?

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 07:04pm
by lGrand Anhoop
That's the same as Googlemail right? Yea I tried by making an account there, and they still required a phone number.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 07:14pm
by Batman
'Asked' for, or actually 'required'? Gmail These days is notorious for pestering you for phone numbers, allegedly to make sure you're account is actually safe. So far I've always been able to just tell them to get lost.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 07:16pm
by Galvatron
Yeah, but you're masked and intimidating.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 07:20pm
by Batman
I had to give my damn photo ID when I finally broke down and switched to my real name. I don't think they were all that intimidated.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 07:31pm
by lGrand Anhoop
What, what photo ID??

Anyway, it was like months ago so the memory's a bit blurry, I'm pretty sure there was no way to just remove the pop-up and start posting... and I googled whether it cold be circumvented and commenters were like "I managed to do that some time ago but now the leak got closed" or something like that.

But won't hurt to try again...

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 07:43pm
by Batman
Yup. Photo ID. There was quite a brouhah about it back when it happened if I remember correctly. Something along the lines of 'bla bla honesty bla bla members need to know you're actually who you claim to be'.
Yes, 'of course' I'm not actually Matches Mallone. He's a freaking fictional character and everybody hanging around my wall knows that.
But this is getting seriously off topic.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 07:46pm
by Galvatron
I know a lot of people at Arkham and Blackgate who'd be interested in this thread now...

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 07:51pm
by Batman
Oh please. About the only one who doesn't know my secret identity by now is probably Harley.

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-26 08:10pm
by lGrand Anhoop
Ah, I vaguely remember that, I had a YT account back then, mainly to watch lesbians (left some comments here and there, though), but now can't seem remember the password... or the handle.
Anyway, there was some weird thing going on with "real names", but I don't remember any Photo IDs, or any inability to tell the pop ups to fuck off... unlike now apparently.

But that photo thing is history now, right?


"But this is getting seriously off topic"
Yeah but who gives a fuck about the topic anymore lol

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-27 02:06pm
by lGrand Anhoop
Awesome!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxS4I_Nw0k0

Don't know what I did wrong last time - either I didn't type in an additional email address and it insisted on the number instead, or I tried to make a new YT account by typing in the Gmail, instead of going to YT and then just sign in.


So this is quite swell - however, if anyone thinks of some forum that'd also be quite acceptable 8)

Re: a new, better and The Reasonable refutation of the Plinkus reviews... maybe?

Posted: 2015-11-27 09:13pm
by NecronLord
Guys. Knock the spam on the head. You guys are so far off topic that the topic can't even see you any more.

UO

Posted: 2015-11-28 09:56am
by lGrand Anhoop
Ok so this thread's dead, but I can't resist doing a bit of suggestive necroing to cement said circumstance - so here's some responses to a particular user from the old 108 thread, who came over here from the RLM board and was as unresponsive there due to general haplessness, as he'll be here due to obvious obliviousness:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1#p3490051
The part where Raynor tries to make Qui-Gon into the protagonist is just sad...

RAYNOR: Here's a secret: Qui-Gon is the main character and big hero of this movie, which spends most of its time following him.

You're right. That is a secret!

Does Raynor have any better reason for calling Q-G the hero other than that he has the most screentime?
I have.

This if of course a lot of fun, because the situation here is as following:
1) The Plinkus fan thinks he's got the rational view on this issue - he and his like-minded have figured it out, and now let's see who's capable of questioning them.
2) Jimbo makes weak fanboyish arguments (at least as presented here), confirming 1)'s impression that they've got the truth and the opponents are irrational fanbois.
3) In fact both of them are unobservant and say nothing but ludicrous hogshite all day - and when someone like myself comes along to set things straight, the reactions are revealing.



He basically concedes that the movie does not focus on Padme ("just a supporting character")
Except it does - this is of course another one of 108's faults, when he's not being reasonable, or irrationally defensive of the movies, he makes stupid concessions to RLM, which are stupid.
Anakin ("he wasn't handled as well as he could have been")
In a TFN post which I could dig up if I tried, he said Anakin was the other main character - which is of course laughable, though nowhere as much as Plinkett saying Jar Jar's the only character with an arc in his audio commentary, when actually he's the only one WITHOUT.
It seems that he arrives at Qui-Gon by process of elimination: none of the other characters were prominent enough, so the protagonist must be Qui-Gon!
This approach is, of course, quite backwards.

Raynor then gives us a list of character attributes for Q-G. For example: he calls him compassionate for taking in Jar-Jar. He calls him trusting for allowing Anakin to race. And he calls him wise for accepting Obi-Wan's apology.

Q-G isn't compassionate, trusting or wise. At least, those aren't his defining character attributes. The underlying commonality in all these situations is Q-G's passivity as a character.
Of course he isn't "trusting" in that one - he's found this talent which he thinks is really significant in the grand scheme of things; it's a way for that talent to prove himself or advance somewhat, and he'S "trusting" in him because of his religious conviction / what he sensed in him and what is confirmed in the blood test.

Which leads us directly to:
Q-G does not seem to have strong motivations, passions or goals. This is why people call him calm or stoic
Neither does Jar Jar, yet people don't call him stoic :D :D :D :D
He does a lot of talking and advising, and comparatively little doing.
He leads the whole rescue mission all the way from seeing the invasion army first to the Naboo escape, and is THE proactive character on Tattoine.
On Coruscant he's actively invested in having said talent trained, because he's the only one really invested in fulfilling that prophecy.

Now that's 3/4ths of the movie of leading the team, making all the decisions and being invested into a messianic prophecy... so as we see, there's no need for any eliminative approaches, the defining characteristics have been overlooked, Admiral's full of shite, and so is Jimbo.

A mentor is a supporting character by definition. Who is Q-G a mentor to? Well, no one really, because neither Obi-Wan nor Anakin can qualify as the protagonist hero of the film.
This bullshit of course has been dealt with by other users there, but another example of a mentor-protagonist would be Anthony Hopkins in Zorro - or, rather, he's a protagonist along with his apprentice, though takes a bit of a backseat in that regard.
This, of course, isn't really the case in Name of the Rose which has a close relative of the master-apprentice relationship in EpI, except that both were fleshed out in that one (one of them even literally).

The movie clearly INTENDS for Anakin to be the protagonist, because his is the character that participates in the most action scenes, and grows the most during the film (from slave to padawan).
Um, yeah no - being accepted into a school isn't growth; Amidala, the other main character, has the most growth as she goes from relying on the system to taking action and succeeding; Obi-Wan also has one albeit not before the duel starts.

He's maybe a secondary protagonist in the Tattoine segment which is a sidequest itself, and delivers the moneyshot of the threeway attack heist even though he only blows up the ship by accident - but that hardly accounts, if anything it's like 1/10th of what they do with Obi-Wan at the end.
He's clearly supposed to be a supporting character like the Kid in the Matrix, and that's what he is... even though a particularly lame version, despite having a few moments.

However because Lucas made Anakin a preteen, he can only get involved in the action of the movie through extraordinarily contrived situations.
Now that didn't stop HP1 from happening, did it you dumbass.
And because the script focuses on the relationship between Q-G and Anakin, Obi-Wan becomes a third wheel.
1) Yeah no - except on Tattoine where he stay behind and gains some level of autonomy, he's Qui-Gon's sidekick all the way until that, and after that as well - he only interacts with Anakin in the Midichlorians scene, and then when telling him to hide; with Ob1 there are two poignant scenes and then the entirety of the duel. He wins in that regard, even though he's less of his own character than Anakin otherwise... until the duel.

Obi-Wan receives almost no characterization in TPM, and would practically be a cipher of a character to anyone who didn't know the original trilogy.
Horseshit - without having seen the other movies, he's Qui-Gon's alternately sarcastic and reserved/concerned sidekick partner. Very much a supporting role, but so what? There's plenty of those around.

RLM is right when he says “If you ask me, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi should have been combined into one character, called Obi-Wan Kenobi." As it exists on screen, TPM is an awkward mess, with neither of the three male leads qualifying as a hero or protagonist.


These are the kinds of big-picture criticisms that RLM lobs at the prequels. Raynor doesn't have an answer.
:D :D :D :D