StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The parking lot bit was funny, but the best single panel has to be:

"It's over Anakin! This high grounds adds a +5 to my agility!"

"HAX!"

Kuja wrote:The parking lot bit was funny, but the best single panel has to be:

"It's over Anakin! This high grounds adds a +5 to my agility!"

"HAX!"

Obviously, their bashing it because they dont get it, but its still funny.

Lord Zentei wrote:The bit about the handicap parking was the best bit.

Oddly enough, I didn't find the "Nooooooooooooo!" corny or poorly done. I still found the VGCats bit funny as hell though =D.

Lord Zentei wrote:You know, as I pointed out earlier, the turning began way back in RotS. Hell, Yoda even sensed the potential for evil when he was a snotty nosed little brat in TPM. When Anakin executed Dooku it is just another step in a looong journey downhill. It wasn't meant to indicate the turning point, it was meant to indicate how far he had gone already. That's the vibe I got anyway.

Never looked at it that way, that's a good point. I still would've liked a little more though -- there wasn't enough emotion in Anakin's face (anger, whatever) to make it believable for me. Just kinda happened.

Pure Sabacc wrote:Obviously, their bashing it because they dont get it, but its still funny.

It is possible to spoof stuff without bashing it. I got a mad cackle out of that one myself... even pondered sigging it.

Yeah, satire isn't always done for the purpose of mockery, a lot actually stems from admiration.

If VG Cats wanted to be really scathing of the film, they could have.

If VG Cats wanted to be really scathing of the film, they could have.

I thought that it might have just been a satire, but the bit where they're sitting in the theater made me wonder......

Yeah, that does really give the impression that he didn't like it, although in my opinion, the Vader parking ticket gag does make up for that. So at the least he still made it funny.

The VG Cats strip came off to me as satire mainly. It was funny all the same, and if someone doesn't like the film, so be it. It doesn't change the fact that I liked it. It's crossing the line when you critique with stupid examples or simply flame someone for liking crap without justification for it. Maddox here simply didn't seem to have a clue and explaining it won't help (plus he seems to dislike the films anyway).

Maddox has an image and reputation to keep up, so he would never cave or conceed to feedback or criticism at all.

I liked The Editing Room's script, if only because they always used the name of the actor rather than their character for the lines. Especially "Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson".

You know, I thought that Maddox's review was not only pretty much completely correct in it's criticisms, but also hilarious.

I enjoyed the movie, but the problems he pointed out WERE there. I chose to ignore them, but they certainly existed.

Thirdfain wrote:You know, I thought that Maddox's review was not only pretty much completely correct in it's criticisms, but also hilarious.

I enjoyed the movie, but the problems he pointed out WERE there. I chose to ignore them, but they certainly existed.

I disagree. The points Maddox raised were:

1) Yoda cannot detect the conspiracy. This point was explained by the Sith shroud, that was mentioned or referenced numerous times in AotC and RotS. This is NOT a rationalization, it is a core plot point that was explained to the point of being belaboured.

2) Bad acting and comedic releif. This point is fair enough.

3) A movie that is allegedly for kids with graphic violence and horror galore. The "for kids" referred to episodes 1 and 2, as has been pointed out already.

4) "Senator Palpatine seduces Anakin to the dark side in about as much time as it takes for you to finish reading this sentence". This is bullshit as I and others have covered previously on the thread.

5) The point where Anakin tries to kill Padmé being under the sway of the darkside, yet asks about her afterwards. See it is stated numerous times that the darkside consumes whoever ventures down it's path, causing them to act irrationally/destructively/etc. The conflict between Anakin and his dark side continued up unitil he realizes the Emperor is all he has left and resumes in RotJ. Again, a core plot point that was explained again and again. If he doesn't get it he is either not paying any attention or is a retard.

6) "Episode III had no special effects" because they are not "special" if they occour in every scene. This is just semantic drivel.

7) The name of General Grevious is campy. Whatever. That is part of the appeal of Star Wars. People can get with it or go watch a arty farty movie with French umbrellas in it instead.

As for whether the review was funny or not, bah. I found the VGCats comic funny, so it is not as though my reaction to Maddox's page had anything to do with the fact that he dissed RotS. Also, I have found previous Maddox tracts funny, but recently he hasn't cut it.

I see a pattern developing!

*satiracle website puts out a "negative" ROTS review*

*fanboys get angry and bash "reviewer"*

*somebody points out that it was in fact satire, ie: "not serious"*

*fanboys backpedal and say it wasn't funny*

If it were just another gushing Kevin Smith-esque review would it be any different than the sea of other fluff about an obviously popular movie?

Funny or not, you've got to admit the artwork is fantastic!

This thread is proof positive that Maddox got the reaction he wanted.

Kurgan wrote:I see a pattern developing!

*satiracle website puts out a "negative" ROTS review*

*fanboys get angry and bash "reviewer"*

*somebody points out that it was in fact satire, ie: "not serious"*

*fanboys backpedal and say it wasn't funny*

If it were just another gushing Kevin Smith-esque review would it be any different than the sea of other fluff about an obviously popular movie?

Funny or not, you've got to admit the artwork is fantastic!

I did state that I found VGCats funny, and I'm well aware that Maddox is, as ever, satirical. None of which changes Maddox's bashability: if he puts up a shitty tract (i.e. badly researched and unfunny) we bash him.

I'm frankly unaware of any "backpedaling" on my part, or the part of anyone else here, for that matter.

Lord Zentei wrote: 1) Yoda cannot detect the conspiracy. This point was explained by the Sith shroud, that was mentioned or referenced numerous times in AotC and RotS. This is NOT a rationalization, it is a core plot point that was explained to the point of being belaboured.

It was still pretty lame. "Why can't the Jedi figure out this plot? Because of the evil Sith shroud." Their troops were mass produced without their knowledge, and they made no efforts to try to find out what was going on there?

2) Bad acting and comedic releif. This point is fair enough.

3) A movie that is allegedly for kids with graphic violence and horror galore. The "for kids" referred to episodes 1 and 2, as has been pointed out already.

Yet this movie included the retarded "Talking Battledroids" and plenty of lame, kid's shit comic relief not worthy the name.

4) "Senator Palpatine seduces Anakin to the dark side in about as much time as it takes for you to finish reading this sentence". This is bullshit as I and others have covered previously on the thread.

I was unconvinced by both the acting and the plot behind Anakin's conversion. He did know Palpy was a Sith Lord. He may have been self-interested and so on, but I find it hard to believe a Sith Lord's promise and some ugly dreams would make him change his tune.

5) The point where Anakin tries to kill Padmé being under the sway of the darkside, yet asks about her afterwards. See it is stated numerous times that the darkside consumes whoever ventures down it's path, causing them to act irrationally/destructively/etc. The conflict between Anakin and his dark side continued up unitil he realizes the Emperor is all he has left and resumes in RotJ. Again, a core plot point that was explained again and again. If he doesn't get it he is either not paying any attention or is a retard.

I got it, fair enough, it just wasn't made believable on screen.

7) The name of General Grevious is campy. Whatever. That is part of the appeal of Star Wars. People can get with it or go watch a arty farty movie with French umbrellas in it instead.

Asking for character names which don't sound like they come from a 4-year-old's pasteboard book? How is that "Arty Farty?" He didn't use many such lameass names in the OT, why now?

I think Maddox makes great points. ROTS was an OK popcorn flick, and nice for series fans, but it still is a pretty crappy movie. Pirates of the Carrribean was a better popcorn flick, for chrissakes.

As for whether the review was funny or not, bah. I found the VGCats comic funny, so it is not as though my reaction to Maddox's page had anything to do with the fact that he dissed RotS. Also, I have found previous Maddox tracts funny, but recently he hasn't cut it.[/quote]

Thirdfain wrote:He didn't use many such lameass names in the OT, why now?

The DEATH STAR immediately comes to mind.

Thirdfain wrote:

Lord Zentei wrote: 1) Yoda cannot detect the conspiracy. This point was explained by the Sith shroud, that was mentioned or referenced numerous times in AotC and RotS. This is NOT a rationalization, it is a core plot point that was explained to the point of being belaboured.

It was still pretty lame. "Why can't the Jedi figure out this plot? Because of the evil Sith shroud." Their troops were mass produced without their knowledge, and they made no efforts to try to find out what was going on there?

Presumably they did. Doesn't mean shit for the point regarding force use. And yet, Obi Wan did quite a bit of sleuthing in AotC regarding the clone army, and people complained about that.

Thirdfain wrote:

2) Bad acting and comedic releif. This point is fair enough.

3) A movie that is allegedly for kids with graphic violence and horror galore. The "for kids" referred to episodes 1 and 2, as has been pointed out already.

Yet this movie included the retarded "Talking Battledroids" and plenty of lame, kid's shit comic relief not worthy the name.

Whatever. It is meant to be campy. Not my problem if people don't realize it.

Thirdfain wrote:

4) "Senator Palpatine seduces Anakin to the dark side in about as much time as it takes for you to finish reading this sentence". This is bullshit as I and others have covered previously on the thread.

I was unconvinced by both the acting and the plot behind Anakin's conversion. He did know Palpy was a Sith Lord. He may have been self-interested and so on, but I find it hard to believe a Sith Lord's promise and some ugly dreams would make him change his tune.

For fuck's sake Thirdfain, read the goddamned thread. It wasn't just Palpy's promise and some ugly dreams. Anakin's road to the darkside began way back in TPM and AotC.

Thirdfain wrote:

5) The point where Anakin tries to kill Padmé being under the sway of the darkside, yet asks about her afterwards. See it is stated numerous times that the darkside consumes whoever ventures down it's path, causing them to act irrationally/destructively/etc. The conflict between Anakin and his dark side continued up unitil he realizes the Emperor is all he has left and resumes in RotJ. Again, a core plot point that was explained again and again. If he doesn't get it he is either not paying any attention or is a retard.

I got it, fair enough, it just wasn't made believable on screen.

Oh? <shrug> Even after he veers between badmouthing Obi-Wan and the Council one moment and fighting heroically on their behalf the next while acting like he doesn't really know what he wants the whole time? Whatever.

Thirdfain wrote:

7) The name of General Grevious is campy. Whatever. That is part of the appeal of Star Wars. People can get with it or go watch a arty farty movie with French umbrellas in it instead.

Asking for character names which don't sound like they come from a 4-year-old's pasteboard book? How is that "Arty Farty?" He didn't use many such lameass names in the OT, why now?

Really? How about "Darth Vader"? Or Han "Solo"? Or Luke "Skywalker"? As for "arty farty" I was obviously being sarcastic for crying out loud. Again, I point out that Star Wars is meant to be campy. This is a movie series where people can parry gunshots with swords, where you have Evil Space Black Knights™ and Evil Space Sorcerers™, Space Princesses In Distress™and planets that are made to explode like firecrackers for crissakes. Nobody whines about the names in James Bond movies where you have chicks called "Plenty" and "Onatopp" and "Bambi", now do they? Or if they do, they are dissed quite rightly for not "getting" it.

Thirdfain wrote:I think Maddox makes great points. ROTS was an OK popcorn flick, and nice for series fans, but it still is a pretty crappy movie. Pirates of the Carrribean was a better popcorn flick, for chrissakes.

Was it now. Perhaps you feel this way knowing that it didn't take itself too seriously, while assuming wrongly that Star Wars does take itself seriously?

Thirdfain wrote:

As for whether the review was funny or not, bah. I found the VGCats comic funny, so it is not as though my reaction to Maddox's page had anything to do with the fact that he dissed RotS. Also, I have found previous Maddox tracts funny, but recently he hasn't cut it.

Is this meant to be a rebuttal? Try being more articulate.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:

Thirdfain wrote:He didn't use many such lameass names in the OT, why now?

The DEATH STAR immediately comes to mind.

There are many other names that are equally goofy yet don't seem so because we take them for granted.

"Jabba the Hutt"

"Greedo"

"Boba Fett"

"Chewbacca the Wookiee"

"Bib Fortuna"

"Obi-Wan Kenobi" (aka the man with the second silliest name in the Galaxy, after Ooby-Doob Scooby-Dooby Kenubi)

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:

Thirdfain wrote:He didn't use many such lameass names in the OT, why now?

The DEATH STAR immediately comes to mind.

How about Lando Calrissian? That name always bugged me until Count Dooku came along and made it look mainstream.

The name thing is probably the weakest criticism you could come up with for SW.

Sean Howard wrote:

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:

Thirdfain wrote:He didn't use many such lameass names in the OT, why now?

The DEATH STAR immediately comes to mind.

How about Lando Calrissian? That name always bugged me until Count Dooku came along and made it look mainstream.

The name thing is probably the weakest criticism you could come up with for SW.

And "Star Destroyer"

Star Wars names are meant to be like that.

I'm currently waiting for the Maddox apologists to start bitching about names like"Jaws" and James "Bond" and "Dr No" and "Auric Goldfinger".

I think Maddox makes great points. ROTS was an OK popcorn flick, and nice for series fans, but it still is a pretty crappy movie. Pirates of the Carrribean was a better popcorn flick, for chrissakes.

I think how you enjoy a movie, especially this movie, depends greatly on how you watch it. I shall break down the four categories as I see them:

A) Hateful SOB: This group of indaviduals went into ROTS fully expceting, and even hoping that the movie would be awful. Perhaps they were badly jaded by the first two prequels, perhaps the hate SW in general on some ridiculous principle, or they simply wish to bash it so they can take on something popular. Virtually everyone who saw it in this light will hate it, completely disregarding the good elements and greatly exaggerating the bad. Maddox is one of many of these indaviduals.

B) Star Wars Uber-Fanboy: This type (you may recognize them by their costumes and cheeto stains) are fans who go far beyond normal fandom, and will completely ignore any failings ROTS might have had, and it had some to be sure. They are extremely sensitive about insult toward the movie, and will take any criticism as a personal insult. Due to the inordinate and inceribly biased bad press SW often gets, they are justified to be defensive, but they take it too far.

C) Casual Movie-Goer: This group, which encompasses two thirds of those who will view the film, are those who saw it because it was a summer blockbuster, or perhaps they like Star Wars, just not in a fan's sort of way. Their reactions are mixed, sometimes biased by bad press and a few scathing reviews, sometimes not. Their enjoyment will vary, some will love it because they love effects, they like dark stories, etc. and others will dislike it, because perhaps they dont like computer effects so much, or are overly distracted by the acting of some of the players or qiuckness of the story. Some of the latter will latch on to the negative points and devolve into one of category A (perhaps you are doing so Thirdfain, or perhaps you simply wish to have you opinion known,) but most, whether they hate it or like it, will move on, maybe buying the DVD or something. As I said, mixed reactions. But for those who like it, I believe you will find somewhat of a consensus it was better than Pirates.

D) SW Fans and Deep-thinkers: This final group, to which I belong myself, watch ROTS not as just a summer blockbuster, but as an element of a larger story. We watched the characters we had grown to enjoy change and even die, we saw an epic tale move into it's second phase. Certainly some were still distracted by some of its less than perfect qualities, and others were infected by the Uber-Fan bias, but overall, one who looks at ROTS this way, who considers Anakin's long, multifilm progression, Palpatine's far reaching mechanations, Yoda's spiritual conflict, will enjoy the movie, and find it a welcome part of the SW universe.

Lord Zentei wrote:I'm currently waiting for the Maddox apologists to start bitching about names like"Jaws" and James "Bond" and "Dr No" and "Auric Goldfinger".

And "Pussy Galore"!

Dooey Jo wrote:

Lord Zentei wrote:I'm currently waiting for the Maddox apologists to start bitching about names like"Jaws" and James "Bond" and "Dr No" and "Auric Goldfinger".

And "Pussy Galore"!

Classic Bond!

Galvatron wrote:This thread is proof positive that Maddox got the reaction he wanted.

Bingo, Galvatron gets it. It doesn't matter to Maddox whether his "review" is actually spot on, in fact, it not being spot on makes it more effective. After all, it's made the intended target even more cheesed off.