Things that become "Untouchable"

[NinjaStylerobot]

Does anybody have some pet peeves with some movies/ Shows and such that become "untouchable". Your not allowed to even criticize them at all because of huge fan-bases or the like?

[Soras Teva Gee]

No not really.

Its pretty hard to find something without detractors. I find most things that approach being untouchable don't actually have much in the way of active fandoms out there to defend them anyways, everyone considers it phenomenal and moves on. Most devout fandoms seem to form around media with plenty of flaws. Case in point the original fandom, Star Trek.

Regardless I find the general complaint boils down to: "they're overrated"

Which I always found rather thin as a criticism. Mostly because I suspect it comes from said detractor going in over skeptical in the first place. When you are determined to prove something isn't as great as everyone says you are sure to find evidence of that.

[Mewtarthio]

There are the home videos of insane dictators. That's pretty much it, though. Did you have any specific examples in mind?

[NinjaStylerobot]

2001: A space Odyssey

Yup. I went there.

[Eakin]

2001: A space Odyssey

Yup. I went there.

So slow! Soooooo booooooring! Trust me you aren't alone in not liking that one.

If you were to come into a forum and start screaming about how terrible Firefly is, I doubt that would end really well for you. I thought it was good, but I don't understand how people are still super passionate and into it a dozen years later. Oh, and Serenity wasn't so great.

[Grinner]

If you were to come into a forum and start screaming about how terrible Firefly is, I doubt that would end really well for you. I thought it was good, but I don't understand how people are still super passionate and into it a dozen years later. Oh, and Serenity wasn't so great.

Here's the thing...Not everyone saw Firefly when it came out a decade ago. Some may have been just introduced to it.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Pet Peeves within a fandom or the entire fandom?

Because if it's within a specific fandom I'd have to say Ezio from Assassins Creed, people do not like it if you don't consider him godly and amazing and good through and through.

Entire fandom? Ever gone on a book related forum, especially one where fantasy is rather popular and said the Lord of the Rings isn't all that? (I could list all my reasons, but it's not relevant here so I won't.) Head's will roll.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Anything. Another one of mine that usualy swells up a gigantic protective spere of fan excuses is NGE.

[tensai_oni]

For me it is less what you dislike and more why you dislike it.

[NinjaStylerobot]

For me it is less what you dislike and more why you dislike it.

That its a pretentious piece of work that has a plot that sounds like something from turkish star wars. The characters don't grow, the message is dumb and its hype is entirely reliant on fans finding their own forced reasons why its good instead of a couple of unified ideas.

[Dumbledore lives]

That its a pretentious piece of work that has a plot that sounds like something from turkish star wars. The characters don't grow, the message is dumb and its hype is entirely reliant on fans finding their own forced reasons why its good instead of a couple of unified ideas.

I'm not going to argue with most of your reasons because of the large argument that would surely ensue that would leave neither of us happy, instead I will object to your last reason. Fans finding their own reasons for liking things is a great thing, and definitely not a negative thing. I guess it has some to do with my liking of the Death of the Author theory of analysis, but people liking a thing for many different individual reasons may actually indicate a stronger work.

[NinjaStylerobot]

I mean that its more like somebody TELLS people that its amazing and then they find their own explanation for the stuff.

Because I see no pattern for reasons why its good.

Thats what Im talking about.

No pattern suggests its up to the audience to make their experience good or not. Not the movie.

[Dumbledore lives]

I mean that its more like somebody TELLS people that its amazing and then they find their own explanation for the stuff.

Because I see no pattern for reasons why its good.

Thats what Im talking about.

No pattern suggests its up to the audience to make their experience good or not. Not the movie.

I'm sure you can see some good things about it, for example the animation is very well done and it has some effective moments. I'm not sure how relevant it is now, but surely you can realize how a deconstruction of the mecha genre could have been effective at the time? What I'm saying is that it has positive points, which is why people like it.

[Velaryon]

2001: A space Odyssey

Yup. I went there.

Not only do I agree with you, I would go one step farther and include all of Stanley Kubrick's films. One of the most overrated directors ever in my opinion.



So slow! Soooooo booooooring! Trust me you aren't alone in not liking that one.

If you were to come into a forum and start screaming about how terrible Firefly is, I doubt that would end really well for you. I thought it was good, but I don't understand how people are still super passionate and into it a dozen years later. Oh, and Serenity wasn't so great.

Also agreed. Firefly was good. It didn't last long enough to become truly amazing. And Serenity was watchable, but did not live up to the standards of the show. And some of the deaths seemed unnecessary and purely for shock value rather than advancing the plot in any meaningful way.



Entire fandom? Ever gone on a book related forum, especially one where fantasy is rather popular and said the Lord of the Rings isn't all that? (I could list all my reasons, but it's not relevant here so I won't.) Head's will roll.

I have not gotten into any arguments about it, but I do feel the same way. I respect the immense influence Lord of the Rings had on the fantasy genre, and I do like parts of it, but the greatest books ever they aren't. There are huge swaths of completely unimportant time-wasting (looking at you Tom Bombadil), far too much deus ex machina for my liking, and the most dragged-out ending I have ever seen. It's still a good story, but not perfect and not immune to criticism.

[Dr.Epic]

2001: A space Odyssey

Yup. I went there.

That's it. I'm sending you into the swirling light vortex to turn you into a baby.

[Dienekes]

Not only do I agree with you, I would go one step farther and include all of Stanley Kubrick's films. One of the most overrated directors ever in my opinion.

And I rather like Kubrick, and think he does possibly the greatest atmosphere work of any director I've seen. Clockwork Orange, Shining, and Spartacus being among my favorite movies of all time. But I will say he is slow, and not for everyone.


Also agreed. Firefly was good. It didn't last long enough to become truly amazing. And Serenity was watchable, but did not live up to the standards of the show. And some of the deaths seemed unnecessary and purely for shock value rather than advancing the plot in any meaningful way.

Since when has death only been necessary and plot advancing? I actually rather like when authors aren't afraid to kill off characters, especially when they are repeatedly put in dangerous situations. Sometimes death just happens, I don't see why portraying that is in any way negative.

[Velaryon]

And I rather like Kubrick, and think he does possibly the greatest atmosphere work of any director I've seen. Clockwork Orange, Shining, and Spartacus being among my favorite movies of all time. But I will say he is slow, and not for everyone.

I respect your opinion there, but disagree entirely. I can certainly name worse directors, but still have no use for any of his films. The Shining in particular is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.


Since when has death only been necessary and plot advancing? I actually rather like when authors aren't afraid to kill off characters, especially when they are repeatedly put in dangerous situations. Sometimes death just happens, I don't see why portraying that is in any way negative.

How about when it removes an interesting character from the film while contributing nothing worthwhile in exchange? Not sure if I need to use spoilers for a movie that's going on seven years old and most people around here have likely seen, but just in case:

Wash's death did nothing for the film other than drag it down. If the movie were the exact same except that he weren't randomly killed by a spike jutting through the cockpit, nothing of value would be lost and the movie would have been better. It was a pointless death that added nothing of value IMO and subtracted one of the more interesting characters. Hardly the worst decision Joss Whedon has ever made, but Serenity could still have been a heck of a lot better.

[NinjaStylerobot]

I'm sure you can see some good things about it, for example the animation is very well done and it has some effective moments. I'm not sure how relevant it is now, but surely you can realize how a deconstruction of the mecha genre could have been effective at the time? What I'm saying is that it has positive points, which is why people like it.

100% mate. I completely understand. Also the early action is very good.

[Sunken Valley]

Non-Cars Pixar. Overrated.

One could also say that the Order of the Stick is annoying in that.....

I will go back to my fun.

[0Megabyte]

Speaking of Serenity, we actually study it in film class now. It was awesome. Even if the teacher was barely aware of the tv show, and so held it up as it's own work. (He seemed to understand just fine, btw.)

Anyway, the apoilered event DID have a very effective purpose: it made the audience doubt the safety of the characters in the dangerous climactic scene. One could more easily be afraid for the characters. It certainly worked for me. That it doesn't work for everyone is a given, as even much better plot turns in fiction have naysayers (I hear people whining that Berserk isn't dark enough anymore. Berserk!) but that doesn't mean it isn't a useful purpose.

As for NGE... short version: one way to think of greatness in art is that there are several aspects: Cultural impact, popularity, intrinsic excellence, etc. Eva helium is certainly culturally significant, and definitely popular. Intrinsic excellence is harder, because you'll disagree with me on it. But ot is, especially for it's time, very well done. Perfect? No. Not in the least. The director, I think, even agrees with me that it isn't. Hence the remake. Is it a happy accident that some of the less important aspects fascinated Westerners who watched it, when they were added for flavor? Well, no less than anyone adding serious symbolism to their art. Bur from a scholarly perspective, seeing what the creator decided to keep in the remake is very significant, and examining both the original and the rebuild in their contexts, and what they say as reactions to the time they are made, and to it's own previous incarnations, I'd probably worth a thesis paper in it's own right. A full-fledged, no holds barred, "I spent 108* hours working on it, yes the numbers are symbolic what of it?"

*More like 250. But symbolism!

[Traab]

I think the main problem is the location of your complaints. You go to a forum dedicated to the discussion of a movie or series, one that hasnt descended into snarkhood, and are surprised when you get jumped on for bashing it? Its a forum full of fans! That would be like coming here and bashing the hell out of the order of the stick. The target in question isnt untouchable, you are just attacking it in a place full of its supporters, so its only reasonable to expect that they would be quick to defend it. You want to attack the new york yankees? Go to a red sox forum and do it. Trust me, you will get a great reception there. Not so much if you try to do it on the official yankees forum.

[KnightDisciple]

I think the main problem is the location of your complaints. You go to a forum dedicated to the discussion of a movie or series, one that hasnt descended into snarkhood, and are surprised when you get jumped on for bashing it? Its a forum full of fans! That would be like coming here and bashing the hell out of the order of the stick. The target in question isnt untouchable, you are just attacking it in a place full of its supporters, so its only reasonable to expect that they would be quick to defend it. You want to attack the new york yankees? Go to a red sox forum and do it. Trust me, you will get a great reception there. Not so much if you try to do it on the official yankees forum.
It's not just "location location location".

It's also how all of you are describing these things.

I'll take the comments on Lord of the Rings as an example:

Instead of saying "I find sections with Tom Bombadil uninteresting and don't see how it fits into the story; it's just not enjoyable for me", you're saying "this section is completely unimportant time-wasting".
The first statement is subjective, that is, it's coming from your perspective as a reader and how you personally enjoy the work.
The second statement is worded as an objective fact. You're not telling these people what you think, you're trying to tell them what is.
Is it any wonder they get more defensive if you use language like that? Some would surely get argumentative over the subjective statement, but I'd wager many would politely disagree and point out their viewpoint of the worth of this thing or that thing. But when you dictate what is and isn't "worthwhile" in the story, you're drawing a much harder line that means fewer people will be willing to discuss things, and are instead now ready to debate things.

I'm not trying to make stuff purely subjective vis a vis quality, but you've got to at least think about how you present these things, especially when you're dealing with people who are fans of the series, who find enjoyment in everything about it.

Just some food for thought, folks. :smallwink:

[Serpentine]

2001: A space Odyssey

Yup. I went there.My ex is a huge Kubrick fan, and absolutely adores 2001. And yet, when he finally showed it to me, he skipped over the ridiculously long acid trip bit because he found it boring and silly.
I'm not sure how often you actually do find people who cannot see any flaws in their favourite things - although you may well find many for whom those flaws are not actually detrimental, or who just don't care about them, which is exactly as reasonable as those same flaws being unbearable to someone else. And, of course, if someone marches in and declares "this thing you love sucks, here is why", those people - who, most likely, are already well aware of anything you could point out or simply disagree - are going to respond accordingly.

Personally, I find more annoying this impression of "disliking things is cool" and "making sure everyone knows everything wrong with things makes you smart" I get from a lot of people, who often also seemed determined to deprive other people of their enjoyment. I'd rather be on the less fussy side of things, for the simple reason that it means I enjoy more. Of course, if you gain enjoyment from tearing things apart, disliking stuff will give you more pleasure, but it isn't, and it doesn't make you, any better.

[Dienekes]

I respect your opinion there, but disagree entirely. I can certainly name worse directors, but still have no use for any of his films. The Shining in particular is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Fair enough, but if that's one of the worst movies you ever seen may I suggest some actually terrible movies? Like Plan 9, the Room, Troll 2, and Attack of the Clones.


How about when it removes an interesting character from the film while contributing nothing worthwhile in exchange? Not sure if I need to use spoilers for a movie that's going on seven years old and most people around here have likely seen, but just in case:

Wash's death did nothing for the film other than drag it down. If the movie were the exact same except that he weren't randomly killed by a spike jutting through the cockpit, nothing of value would be lost and the movie would have been better. It was a pointless death that added nothing of value IMO and subtracted one of the more interesting characters. Hardly the worst decision Joss Whedon has ever made, but Serenity could still have been a heck of a lot better.

The emotions of sadness, shock, and rage are worthwhile and necessary emotions in life. It was the director's goal to give these emotions while emphasizing the violence and potential for tragedy of the situation. In that he succeeded. Now honestly, I have some problems with the movie (and the tv show as well) but portraying a slightly more accurate depiction of death is not one of them. The crew was in the most dangerous situation it had ever faced, it makes sense losses were had. Honestly it doesn't make sense in how few losses but hey, it's a movie.

[Mx.Silver]

I'm not sure if I've come across anything that gets called 'untouchable'. Hell, if a thing's been popular for long enough then it's almost inevitable that a group of anti-fans will be around as well - often quite a vocal one. The closest thing I can think of would be Neil Gaiman, as that is the only time I can recall where saying I disliked some of his work (mostly American Gods) provoked an example of Godwin's Law as a response.

[Tengu_temp]

There is no such thing as untouchable fiction. Everything has rabid fans and reasonable fans, haters and people who dislike it for valid reasons. Different stuff has different proportions of these people, but they're always present.

Another fun fact: if you like something, you most likely consider everyone who doesn't like it to be a stupid hater. If you don't like something, you most likely consider everyone who likes it to be a rabid fanboy.
This is a trap. Don't fall into it.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Not true. I respect other peoples opinions.

The first time I saw 2001 I didn't know it was some famous film. I posted my respectful opinion (on a different forum) and I was pounced on and essentially people told me I was wrong. That I could not criticiZe the work.

This is the stuff that bugs me.

[Dienekes]

Not true. I respect other peoples opinions.

The first time I saw 2001 I didn't know it was some famous film. I posted my respectful opinion (on a different forum) and I was pounced on and essentially people told me I was wrong. That I could not criticiZe the work.

This is the stuff that bugs me.

Folks on the internet (and off) can get weird. Nothing is above criticism. For instance I detest both the Titanic and Romeo and Juliet (among many many other things). In general the Playground is a bit more respectful than other forums, though heated arguments still do pop up. Now I enjoyed 2001, it had an interesting atmosphere, some confusing visuals, and an interesting villain. But it is slow. It is crazy. And it is not for everyone. If you didn't like it, groovy. Nothing wrong with that. However for almost every work of entertainment out there, people will pop up to defend it, except FATAL. All you can do is surround yourself who can at least talk cordially about their differences of opinion.

[Tengu_temp]

Not true. I respect other peoples opinions.

That was general advice, not aimed at anyone in particular. If you're not in that trap, good.


The first time I saw 2001 I didn't know it was some famous film. I posted my respectful opinion (on a different forum) and I was pounced on and essentially people told me I was wrong. That I could not criticiZe the work.

Did those people tell you "no, you're wrong, shut up", or did they explain why they think you're wrong? Because the latter is perfecty acceptable response to reasonable criticism. The former, on the other hand, is a good response only to haters who don't bother to come up with any arguments other than "I hate it, it's stupid".

[Traab]

Folks on the internet (and off) can get weird. Nothing is above criticism. For instance I detest both the Titanic and Romeo and Juliet (among many many other things). In general the Playground is a bit more respectful than other forums, though heated arguments still do pop up. Now I enjoyed 2001, it had an interesting atmosphere, some confusing visuals, and an interesting villain. But it is slow. It is crazy. And it is not for everyone. If you didn't like it, groovy. Nothing wrong with that. However for almost every work of entertainment out there, people will pop up to defend it, except FATAL. All you can do is surround yourself who can at least talk cordially about their differences of opinion.

Wait, which romeo and juliet? If its the leonardo dicaprio version, you are not allowed to dislike it, for it is the sheer essence of all that is awesome. Ok, the opening scene at the gas station had some really dumb parts, but other than that, NO DENYING ITS AWESOMENESS!

[Giggling Ghast]

"Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most respected cinematic achievements of all time. For generations of audiences, it's also really, really boring (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFNtf95roQk)."

[Dienekes]

Wait, which romeo and juliet? If its the leonardo dicaprio version, you are not allowed to dislike it, for it is the sheer essence of all that is awesome. Ok, the opening scene at the gas station had some really dumb parts, but other than that, NO DENYING ITS AWESOMENESS!

The silly scene at the gas station is the only scene I like about that movie. Though truth be told, I dislike the play "Romeo and Juliet" in just about every incarnation I've seen it in, from an accurate stage depiction, to several movies, including the Romeo + Juliet you seem to like, as well as when the story is changed to gnomes, or oddly dance crazed gang members. I really really think the whole story is ridiculous and the characters are infuriating imbeciles who while I guess technically do not deserve their fate make me feel nothing but relief after the protagonists get to the end of their short miserable lives and in turn end the overlong annoying play. I have absolutely no idea how it has become so popular and to me is one of Shakespeare's (who I really like) weakest plays, if not the absolute weakest. There are a total of 2 interesting characters both of which die in the first half, and one of which is only interesting because he's so ridiculously one-note and aggressive. There are also only 2 interesting scenes the beginning (I still use "I bite my thumb at you, sir" as an insult), and the Queen Mab speech. Other than that? Nothing of interest comes from it. At least, to me.

[Madara]

Must not be pointing out the irony in this thread...

BAaahhrg

anyways, there are also the "undefendable", in which 9/10 of the fandom decides a character sucks(sasuke *cough), and those that believe otherwise will drown in the seas of repeated counter arguments and no support.

[Jaros]

I always try to avoid posting my opinion of "Star Wars is alright" for fear of getting attacked.

I@m with Dienekes on Romeo & Juliet. I absolutely love Mercutio (and Tybalt a little) but hate pretty much everything else.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The silly scene at the gas station is the only scene I like about that movie. Though truth be told, I dislike the play "Romeo and Juliet" in just about every incarnation I've seen it in, from an accurate stage depiction, to several movies, including the Romeo + Juliet you seem to like, as well as when the story is changed to gnomes, or oddly dance crazed gang members. I really really think the whole story is ridiculous and the characters are infuriating imbeciles who while I guess technically do not deserve their fate make me feel nothing but relief after the protagonists get to the end of their short miserable lives and in turn end the overlong annoying play. I have absolutely no idea how it has become so popular and to me is one of Shakespeare's (who I really like) weakest plays, if not the absolute weakest. There are a total of 2 interesting characters both of which die in the first half, and one of which is only interesting because he's so ridiculously one-note and aggressive. There are also only 2 interesting scenes the beginning (I still use "I bite my thumb at you, sir" as an insult), and the Queen Mab speech. Other than that? Nothing of interest comes from it. At least, to me.

Every good play critic and English teacher knows that Romeo and Juliet is about two teens with a massive crush on each other who didn't think things through. Romeo and Juliet is also about two young people committing suicide over complications with feuds between nobility. It's good because Shakespeare made them regular teenagers with a lot of privilege, not adults with a lot of life experience that just look like teens and are the age of teens.

[Dienekes]

Every good play critic and English teacher knows that Romeo and Juliet is about two teens with a massive crush on each other who didn't think things through. Romeo and Juliet is also about two young people committing suicide over complications with feuds between nobility. It's good because Shakespeare made them regular teenagers with a lot of privilege, not adults with a lot of life experience that just look like teens and are the age of teens.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact the story and characters were flat out boring, and by the end I am always looking forward to when the main characters get exterminated so I don't have to sit through more of its nonsense. If you liked it, good on you, but for me it's becoming this sort of painful hazing that occurs whenever I took a class on Shakespeare in high school and college.

[Whiffet]

The silly scene at the gas station is the only scene I like about that movie. Though truth be told, I dislike the play "Romeo and Juliet" in just about every incarnation I've seen it in, from an accurate stage depiction, to several movies, including the Romeo + Juliet you seem to like, as well as when the story is changed to gnomes, or oddly dance crazed gang members. I really really think the whole story is ridiculous and the characters are infuriating imbeciles who while I guess technically do not deserve their fate make me feel nothing but relief after the protagonists get to the end of their short miserable lives and in turn end the overlong annoying play. I have absolutely no idea how it has become so popular and to me is one of Shakespeare's (who I really like) weakest plays, if not the absolute weakest. There are a total of 2 interesting characters both of which die in the first half, and one of which is only interesting because he's so ridiculously one-note and aggressive. There are also only 2 interesting scenes the beginning (I still use "I bite my thumb at you, sir" as an insult), and the Queen Mab speech. Other than that? Nothing of interest comes from it. At least, to me.

I don't care much for that play either, but I suspect I would have liked it more if pop culture hadn't given me an inaccurate idea of what it was like.

That's probably why it's "popular." The inaccurate reading, I mean. People use Romeo and Juliet as a shorthand for saying that two people are in love when the stupid authority figures or cultural norms in their lives want to keep them apart, the implication being that the two people definitely do belong together and authority/society is stupid. Of course, in the actual play the characters acted rashly, decided they were IN LOVE!! immediately after meeting, and made a series of dumb decisions that led to their deaths. Also Romeo just before meeting Juliet was all, "WAHHHH The girl I love doesn't like me!! I will never love anyone but her!" Silly pop culture, from my point of view it looks like Romeo and Juliet are just immature teenagers who don't know anything.

Oh, I like the one with oddly dance-crazed gang members, but mostly because it's so ridiculous and I like some of the songs. :smallbiggrin:

On topic, I've never found something that I couldn't criticize anywhere. Back in middle school it felt like I was the only one in school who didn't care for Harry Potter, but... yeah, Harry Potter is far from untouchable.

[Soras Teva Gee]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact the story and characters were flat out boring, and by the end I am always looking forward to when the main characters get exterminated so I don't have to sit through more of its nonsense. If you liked it, good on you, but for me it's becoming this sort of painful hazing that occurs whenever I took a class on Shakespeare in high school and college.

I believe there is an appropriate trope for the Bard and his many terrible terrible plays. Oh its entry even supplies me with an apt quote:

I don't know what the big deal with Hamlet, it's just one famous saying after another. -Old Joke (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny)

That said I would hazard a lot of literary scholars would consider Romeo and Juliet as one of the weaker parts of the collection. Still though for the supposed classic story of young love it has the most epic of subversion. What's this... making a fool over yourself for some hot piece of opposite gender gets you killed... I thought True Love Conquers All!

(Also I can only speculate that it is popular with educators as they fondly delude themselves that it would be more interesting to teens/YAs then some old rag about king whoever the Nth or a magic island)

[Coidzor]

Anything. Another one of mine that usualy swells up a gigantic protective spere of fan excuses is NGE.

Oh 12 gods how I hate that show. I hate it all the more for beating out Cowboy Bebop in popularity polls.

[1dominator]

It's not just "location location location".

It's also how all of you are describing these things.

I'll take the comments on Lord of the Rings as an example:

Instead of saying "I find sections with Tom Bombadil uninteresting and don't see how it fits into the story; it's just not enjoyable for me", you're saying "this section is completely unimportant time-wasting".
The first statement is subjective, that is, it's coming from your perspective as a reader and how you personally enjoy the work.
The second statement is worded as an objective fact. You're not telling these people what you think, you're trying to tell them what is.
Is it any wonder they get more defensive if you use language like that? Some would surely get argumentative over the subjective statement, but I'd wager many would politely disagree and point out their viewpoint of the worth of this thing or that thing. But when you dictate what is and isn't "worthwhile" in the story, you're drawing a much harder line that means fewer people will be willing to discuss things, and are instead now ready to debate things.

I'm not trying to make stuff purely subjective vis a vis quality, but you've got to at least think about how you present these things, especially when you're dealing with people who are fans of the series, who find enjoyment in everything about it.

Just some food for thought, folks. :smallwink:


In the former your stating what you think, in the latter your telling people what they should think.

[Triscuitable]

Pet Peeves within a fandom or the entire fandom?

Because if it's within a specific fandom I'd have to say Ezio from Assassins Creed, people do not like it if you don't consider him godly and amazing and good through and through.


I'm going to find a hidden blade now.

Oh, and MLP: Friendship is Magic. Okay series, not nearly good enough to warrant the obsession it has.

And I'm tempting fate here, but anyone who criticizes Katawa Shoujo has earned themselves a spot on my hate list. :smallwink:

[Hiro Protagonest]

I believe there is an appropriate trope for the Bard and his many terrible terrible plays. Oh its entry even supplies me with an apt quote:

I don't know what the big deal with Hamlet, it's just one famous saying after another. -Old Joke (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny)

That said I would hazard a lot of literary scholars would consider Romeo and Juliet as one of the weaker parts of the collection. Still though for the supposed classic story of young love it has the most epic of subversion. What's this... making a fool over yourself for some hot piece of opposite gender gets you killed... I thought True Love Conquers All!

(Also I can only speculate that it is popular with educators as they fondly delude themselves that it would be more interesting to teens/YAs then some old rag about king whoever the Nth or a magic island)

One big part about Romeo and Juliet wasn't that it was a great story. It was that it really shook the meanings of the words "comedy" and "tragedy". Back then, comedies were about young people in love, and tragedies were about important people losing everything or dying, and you didn't mix them. Shakespeare took a big risk, and it marked him down in history for millennia (if I spelled that wrong, spellcheck was acting up and saying every version of the word was wrong).

[Soras Teva Gee]

Oh 12 gods how I hate that show. I hate it all the more for beating out Cowboy Bebop in popularity polls.

Amusingly I hold the opposite view and consider Cowboy Bebop to have very irritating flaws that no one else seems bothered by. Let spend many episodes building a cast and having fun adventures only to throw it all away at the last minute to pretend we had a plot all along though not one that even deal with the larger world we've so busily set up. All kind of Shaggy Dog Story.

(Yes I know the last bit didn't come from nowhere, that was kind of the problem. It underlined that nothing ties everything together)


One big part about Romeo and Juliet wasn't that it was a great story. It was that it really shook the meanings of the words "comedy" and "tragedy". Back then, comedies were about young people in love, and tragedies were about important people losing everything or dying, and you didn't mix them. Shakespeare took a big risk, and it marked him down in history for millennia (if I spelled that wrong, spellcheck was acting up and saying every version of the word was wrong).

One would even argue he didn't quite succeed since its a timeless love story by reputation. But yeah Romeo and Juliet has all the bones of "everyone gets married" and instead you get "everyone dies." I understand that Shakespeare today would probably occupy a position like 'always controversial director' as opposed to 'universally acclaimed' or whatever.

However ultimately while its not that Shakespeare is immune to criticism, just that whatever faults one find have to be viewed through the lens of everybody copying his notes for a few hundred years.

(Oh and everybody knows that Shakespeare is only famous because he made a deal with an anthromorphic incarnation of an existential idea)

[McStabbington]

If I were to pick anything that nerds find untouchable, it's the attempts to fix flawed things that they love. The most obvious example I can think of are the various patches that the novelizations did on the scripts for the Star Wars prequel trilogy. I will spoiler the full explanation for length, but the short short version is that the prequel novelizations are nothing but Voodoo Sharks designed to obscure the fact that George Lucas can't actually write a compelling plot, so instead he derailed the characterization of the entire Jedi Order in order to make them dumb enough to fall for his hacky plot instead. And Star Wars fans really don't like it when you point that out to them.


It's a rare geek that will actually defend the prequels as is. But a surprisingly large number of geeks will defend the novelized versions of those same prequels, and if you attack the prequels, it's become almost de rigeur to trot out the explanations in the prequel novels to explain why the movies were terrible. The problem is that these geeks have fallen for a Voodoo Shark.

The term Voodoo Shark originated from SF Debris' review of The Cloud (http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/voy-the-cloud-review-5702092) (Warning: NSFW Language) which should be required viewing for understanding the problem, but I'll lay out the gist here. On occasion, plot writers create a gaping plot hole. If you remove the hole, you remove the plot. So generally, you fix it by handwaving the problem or hanging a lampshade on it. But sometimes the handwave or the lampshade hanging is in itself so ridiculous that it actually makes the plot hole more, rather than less, glaring. When you've done that, you've just birthed a Voodoo Shark.

Unfortunately for Star Wars fans everywhere, as Voodoo Sharks go, the prequel novelizations are absolute doozies. The most obvious one is that Palpatine is laying down some kind of Sith force fog to cloud the Jedi's connection to the Force. The fact that this is a handwave becomes obvious once you notice two things: what they're covering up, and just how ridiculous the things that they are covering up are.

The plot hole in this case is that Yoda is the quintessential wise mentor. And said quintessential wise mentor is not able to piece the following plot elements together that were explicitly stated in Episode II:

1) a bounty hunter tried to kill Senator Amidala before she voted on the creation of an Army of the Republic,
2) said bounty hunter fled to a planet that's been purged from the Jedi archives,
3) the people on the planet say they are creating a secret army at the behest of a dead Jedi Master,
4) the bounty hunter then heads directly to the headquarters of the Secession movement,
5) where the leader of said movement says that a) the Chancellor of the Senate is a Sith Lord and b) has been arming both sides in an attempt to create a war that will allow him to take control of the Republic.
6) And Yoda's explicit response: use the secret clone army to fight the war.

Ladies and gentlemen of the geek jury, I submit that this is not only a plot hole, but the most gaping damn plot hole any of us have ever seen in a movie. If I strung those facts together, an average eight year old of ordinary, reasonable intelligence could tell you that the clone troops should be destroyed. Even if Dooku is lying, his bounty hunter agent just tried to snuff a Senator and then fled straight to the facility where they are being made. The idea that you can use them against Dooku seems far-fetched. And Yoda has 800+ years, a connection with the Force, and a reputation for wisdom and thoughtfulness that he earned in ESB in spades on said eight-year old. And yet he does precisely the opposite of that average eight year old of ordinary, reasonable intelligence would. This is the hole that the Force Fog is supposed to patch.

And yet, how does the Force Fog do this? Well, there's no technical explanation for it, but basically it jams a Jedi's wi-fi to the Force. But here's the thing: even without the Force, Yoda has 800+ years of memory. In that time, he's learned stuff, he's grown as a person, and he at some point had to learn the basics of logical induction. It really does not require a great deal of thought to conclude that the clone troops are Trojan Horses at best. And none of us have Force wi-fi. So if you swallow the Force Fog explanation, what you are accepting is not simply that it's jamming Yoda's Force modem. It's also apparently sucked out every last ounce of common sense and reasoning ability. Ladies and gentlemen, this Force Fog, and everything else that these prequel novels have introduced, are Voodoo Sharks designed with only one purpose in mind: to paper over the fact that George Lucas derailed Yoda as a character, and by extension the Jedi Order as an institution, in order to make his contrived plot work. Fans, meet Voodoo Shark.

[An Enemy Spy]

What I always found funny about the prequels is that the people who hate it are so freaking obsessed with them that they seem to know every single detail of the movies inside and out, as if they watch them every single day just so their hate can fester and grow stronger and stronger. I like these movies, and I don't think I know half the detailed intricacies you people know.
Seriously though, a movie came out over a decade ago and you didn't care for it. I think it's time we all move on.

[GenericGuy]

Dr. Who

I don’t hate the show and I don’t like it, but some find my complete indifference to it as a form of nerd blasphemy. I just don’t understand why the show is popular enough to illicit any reaction?

[MCerberus]

Hannah Barbara cartoons post Johnny Quest (or Tom & Jerry if you don't like that one). They seem to get a giant nostalgia pass, but they're almost all unwatchable and terrible. I just don't get where all the positive thoughts about this era in animation comes from.

The rare time something doesn't end up awful it was copied and run into the ground. It was just bad until their studios entered the "Cartoon Cartoon" era.

[Coidzor]

What I always found funny about the prequels is that the people who hate it are so freaking obsessed with them that they seem to know every single detail of the movies inside and out, as if they watch them every single day just so their hate can fester and grow stronger and stronger. I like these movies, and I don't think I know half the detailed intricacies you people know.
Seriously though, a movie came out over a decade ago and you didn't care for it. I think it's time we all move on.

I would be considered to hate them and haven't watched them since the last time one of them flashed onto the television while I was channel surfing. :smalltongue:

[NinjaStylerobot]

did they explain why they think you're wrong?

Its sort of problematic with films like 2001. They said I couldn't call it too slow or boring at many times because it was made to be too slow or boring.

I brought up that the first star Trek is disliked for the very reason. THEN they said shut up.

[Fatebreaker]

What I always found funny about the prequels is that the people who hate it are so freaking obsessed with them that they seem to know every single detail of the movies inside and out, as if they watch them every single day just so their hate can fester and grow stronger and stronger. I like these movies, and I don't think I know half the detailed intricacies you people know.
Seriously though, a movie came out over a decade ago and you didn't care for it. I think it's time we all move on.

I somewhat agree with you. But there's some fairly legit reasons to learn those flaws. Fans of all the stuff that goes into movies (as opposed to fans of movies) can learn a lot by watching what the prequels do wrong.

Check out Red Letter Media for an example (NSFW):


http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

Disclaimer: The reviewer is actually a character from some independent(ish) films that the reviewing company has made, so you can ignore the weird meta-plot that runs throughout the review. But the comments and critiques he makes of the movie itself are worthwhile.

I've always believed that learning why you like something (or why you dislike other things) only helps you enjoy your hobbies all the more.

More on-topic to the OP:

Harry Potter. Bleargh.

[MLai]

I didn't realize you're supposed to watch Romeo/Juliet (or any play in general) for plot. Stage plays typically have simple plots and have been supplanted entirely by cinema/books/comics which have a thousand much more advanced and subtle storytelling techniques. The only reason plays had existed was because film had to be invented, and books/comics could not exist without widespread literacy.

Read any Shakespeare. Seriously plotwise they're all simple as ****. And the characters are all tropes nowadays. Not only because they were copied to death, but also because they were limited by their medium (stage plays).

The only reason I like Shakespeare (and the DiCaprio movie) is because of his wordplay. 1000 years later his incredible prose is still relevant.

[Coidzor]

I'll admit, I never quite got what the deal with hating Romeo & Juliet was, wasn't my cup of tea, sure, but it wasn't really noteworthy enough in what happened for me to feel much of anything for it.

Now, the vapid 12 year old girls and the people who make money off of selling the idea that this is totes the kind of romance and relationship they should want, on the other hand, those are things for which I've always had an instinctive dislike.

[Thrawn183]

My hate list:
- NGE
- Hamlet
- 2001
- The second half of TTGL
- Superman comics (but not the character)
- Batman the comic character (but not the comics)
- The Beetles

I am not very popular on the internet.

[Axolotl]

- Superman comics (but not the character)Just out of curiosity if you like the character do you hate all the comics or just the in-continuity ones?

[DomaDoma]

Alan Ginsberg and any other poet who deals in so much histrionic hyperbole they can no longer offer a coherent image. Political relevance doesn't make for good art; indeed, it makes good art much less likely.

[Jaros]

Just out of curiosity if you like the character do you hate all the comics or just the in-continuity ones?

I can see this. I think he means that he has no problem with the character, just that he dislikes the way he's usually used for whatever reason.

For example, I really like the Green Lantern mythos (mainly since the introduction of the 7 different corps) but am not really interested in the stories themselves.

[MCerberus]

I wonder which Batman you don't like, since that character goes through insane amounts of mood-whiplash depending on how society is at the time.

[Dienekes]

I didn't realize you're supposed to watch Romeo/Juliet (or any play in general) for plot. Stage plays typically have simple plots and have been supplanted entirely by cinema/books/comics which have a thousand much more advanced and subtle storytelling techniques. The only reason plays had existed was because film had to be invented, and books/comics could not exist without widespread literacy.

Read any Shakespeare. Seriously plotwise they're all simple as ****. And the characters are all tropes nowadays. Not only because they were copied to death, but also because they were limited by their medium (stage plays).

The only reason I like Shakespeare (and the DiCaprio movie) is because of his wordplay. 1000 years later his incredible prose is still relevant.

I'd argue that actually. They vary on level of simplicity, Rom and Jules being very simple as well as King Lear, while MacBeth and his Histories being much more complex in nature. But having a simple plot is in no way bad thing, having a boring plot is. I have never cared one jot about the two randy teens, both of which spend most the play whining about how they're not together. They are to me completely annoying. The kind of people I would tell to shut up, while shaking them, and then likely try to avoid for the rest of my life.

And that's what Shakespeare is known for, characters whose stories you find interesting through their actions and his masterful wordplay. I enjoy watching Hamlet's madness and revenge. I get excited hearing Henry V's rousing speech, and am endlessly amused by Falstaff's antics and clever wordplay. I can even, on some level, relate to Timon and appreciate the stories moral. But Rom and Jules? Boredom, absolute boredom.

[Omergideon]

I agree that in nerdom/fandom it is more often LIKING certain things that will turn you into a pariah than disliking them.

For instance, I think Twilight is not too bad as a whole, the Star Wars Prequels to be excellent and entertaining at best, merely enjoyable at worst, Enterprise had more than enough good moments in S1/2 and so on.

For having such positive feelings, and not seething rage, I am often thought a moron.


Though I have noticed that any criticisms of "the classics" like 2001, Dune (book) LoTR and so on get you labelled a cretin. Even when you can explain them.

Then again I think there are next to no facts that make films/books/anything objectively good or bad. In fact the very things some people think are a works greatest strengths others may call a horrible flaw.

For instance, I dislike greatly the latter part of nBSG because of the very flawed nature of the characters (at best). I thought it interesting at first but it went to far. And even then I preferred spending time on screen with the more noble ones. Others cite this and the oppressive atmosphere as a great virtue.

Or a non movie example, Beef. Some beef is very tender. Commonly this is called good cooking (it melts in your mouth). I really hate tender beef and prefer it tougher to chew.

It is all mere opinion. If you can explain yours then great. If not, then probably can be ignored most of the time.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Still though, I do agree that you need to back up opinion by explanation.

[Shadow of the Sun]

For me, there's really only one show that is 'sacred' like this, and even then, I'll accept that it's not for everyone, and that's The Wire.

[Thrawn183]

Just out of curiosity if you like the character do you hate all the comics or just the in-continuity ones?
Spoilered for people who don't care:

Superman's the guy everyone else can look to. He serves as a foil to pretty much every other character for judging their actions (you may be strong, but that doesn't make you better than anyone else). I think Superman is a really important character to the DC setting, but mostly as a background character.

While Superman is a good character to have around, the comics centered on him don't work out so well. I think Superman is a good person, I also think some of his actions are heroic. Unfortunately, most of his actions aren't heroic. Superman stopping a bank robbery is like me picking up a piece of trash and dropping it in a bin. Superman stopping a battle by conventional forces is like me noticing my neighbor has left their dog out in the sun all day and bringing it some water. These are definitely good deeds, but they aren't heroic.

This really leaves two directions for Superman comics to go. They can focus on Superman facing fairly mundane threats, which are boring because there is absolutely no risk whatsoever. The comics can also focus on Superman facing incredibly dangerous threats. In these cases Superman is pretty much always heroic. Again, I'm won't ever claim he isn't a hero. The problem is the way all these fights go down. Either you have setting where there's a threat to the entire planet under every rock where superman isn't special and still makes it through so many battles essentially unscathed (and it doesn't even make sense that less powerful heroes are even still alive), or you have "fight-throttling" where Superman just holds back. I really hate when I find out a character has been holding back the whole time, just so that a writer can create the illusion of suspense that Superman might actually lose.

Most of the Superman (and Supergirl) comics I've read have pretty much just turned into monster of the week style writing. Or time travel. And I hate time travel.

I've been thinking about reading the story where Superman lands in the Soviet Union, as I think that would be much more interesting to me. It seems like it would be less about who he's fighting than why and what it does to the setting as a whole.

[Tyndmyr]

Amusingly I hold the opposite view and consider Cowboy Bebop to have very irritating flaws that no one else seems bothered by. Let spend many episodes building a cast and having fun adventures only to throw it all away at the last minute to pretend we had a plot all along though not one that even deal with the larger world we've so busily set up. All kind of Shaggy Dog Story.

(Yes I know the last bit didn't come from nowhere, that was kind of the problem. It underlined that nothing ties everything together)

I view it more as a coupla episodes of decent plot with a LOT of filler. Pretty decent filler, sure...but yeah, it's the same basic issue. I love the show, the music, the whole ball of wax...but they didn't really bother to tie it all together well.

Edit: On the superman topic...forget Superman. Read Irredeemable. It's superman done right.

[Tiki Snakes]

Amusingly I hold the opposite view and consider Cowboy Bebop to have very irritating flaws that no one else seems bothered by. Let spend many episodes building a cast and having fun adventures only to throw it all away at the last minute to pretend we had a plot all along though not one that even deal with the larger world we've so busily set up. All kind of Shaggy Dog Story.

(Yes I know the last bit didn't come from nowhere, that was kind of the problem. It underlined that nothing ties everything together)

Personally, I loved Cowboy Bebop, but I've no idea why the last sequence focused on that largely unimportant background character. :smallwink:

[Serpentine]

Hannah Barbara cartoons post Johnny Quest (or Tom & Jerry if you don't like that one). They seem to get a giant nostalgia pass, but they're almost all unwatchable and terrible. I just don't get where all the positive thoughts about this era in animation comes from
...
It was just bad until their studios entered the "Cartoon Cartoon" era.
An excellent example of this:

It's also how all of you are describing these things.

I'll take the comments on Lord of the Rings as an example:

Instead of saying "I find sections with Tom Bombadil uninteresting and don't see how it fits into the story; it's just not enjoyable for me", you're saying "this section is completely unimportant time-wasting".
The first statement is subjective, that is, it's coming from your perspective as a reader and how you personally enjoy the work.
The second statement is worded as an objective fact. You're not telling these people what you think, you're trying to tell them what is.
Is it any wonder they get more defensive if you use language like that? Some would surely get argumentative over the subjective statement, but I'd wager many would politely disagree and point out their viewpoint of the worth of this thing or that thing. But when you dictate what is and isn't "worthwhile" in the story, you're drawing a much harder line that means fewer people will be willing to discuss things, and are instead now ready to debate things.

I'm not trying to make stuff purely subjective vis a vis quality, but you've got to at least think about how you present these things, especially when you're dealing with people who are fans of the series, who find enjoyment in everything about it.

Just some food for thought, folks. :smallwink:

[The Succubus]

Things that become untouchable - you meen like MC Hammer? :smallconfused:

[Reverent-One]

Things that become untouchable - you meen like MC Hammer? :smallconfused:


Stop.




...Hammertime.
:smalltongue:

[HandofShadows]

Amusingly I hold the opposite view and consider Cowboy Bebop to have very irritating flaws that no one else seems bothered by. Let spend many episodes building a cast and having fun adventures only to throw it all away at the last minute to pretend we had a plot all along though not one that even deal with the larger world we've so busily set up. All kind of Shaggy Dog Story.


Cowboy Beebop is a story that goes by the concept "It’s not the end that matters, but the journey that is most important." I can see how some people may not like that or really don't understant it.

[MCerberus]

An excellent example of this:

Then how about I'll say that I think the entire system was a cavalcade of terrible animation made cheaply, where the heads were all chopped off so they can be fit on a variety of walk sequences where the colors don't even match.

Furthermore, I find, as a blanket statement, all of the characters unlikable. The most memorable ones to me were the ones that laughed at the 'camera' to remind you that there was a joke.

The worse part in my opinion has to be the repetition. Jokes are repeated until you can't stand them anymore (guess who lost her glasses? again). Entire series were copy/pasted changing the setting and how the characters look and nothing else. The ones that could be considered the best of the bunch were driven into the ground until they were no longer culturally relevant, whether from increasingly wacky adventures with an alien or another episode where they meet the Globetrotters.

Credit where it is due, however, H&B are responsible in some of their earlier work on showing comedic cartoons can appeal to adults, and by successfully marketing a pulp-comic in 30 minute cartoon form.

[McStabbington]

What I always found funny about the prequels is that the people who hate it are so freaking obsessed with them that they seem to know every single detail of the movies inside and out, as if they watch them every single day just so their hate can fester and grow stronger and stronger. I like these movies, and I don't think I know half the detailed intricacies you people know.
Seriously though, a movie came out over a decade ago and you didn't care for it. I think it's time we all move on.

In my defense, I'd just spent a great deal of time engaging in an ever-more-exasperated attempt to discuss what value someone found in the EU that's been built up around the prequels. And my argument was that nobody should pay any attention to the EU, because it's built on the crappy prequels. From there it went into an ever-more arcane discussion about whether the novelizations actually fixed the problems of the prequels. I haven't actually watched Attack of the Clones since . . . about a year after it came out on DVD, if I recall correctly. I only remember the details because when I saw it in theaters, I chalked up the plot not making any sense to the fact that I hadn't had more than twelve hours sleep that week, so I paid extra close attention.

But since you don't like that example, let me think of another one. . . Battlestar Galactica is overrated. I don't mean with Seasons 3 and 4. I mean Seasons 1 and 2. The acting is top-notch. The detail is top-notch. The scripts are really good. But it was apparent from the first five episodes that the grand "plan" that the Cylons that every episode alluded to was being cobbled together on a purely ad hoc basis, and at some point the whole juggling act was going to come crashing down. Which made every scene between Chip Six and Baltar feel like it was just jerking my chain. What's worse? The show didn't need some grand cosmology: if it had just been about Cylons trying to wipe out the last 50,000 humans, the humans trying to escape, and people trying to keep up their hopes about a mythical Earth, it would have been just fine. That was impetus enough for the show.

[Weezer]

I don't think anything is untouchable and I hate when people can't deal with critiques of their favorite things.

Oddly enough I can probably talk about the flaws of things I love (McStabbington's mention of BSG is a perfect example of this) far more than of things I dislike. If I don't like it I'll discard it and think about it no more, if I love it then I'll re-watch/reread it many, many times, dissecting every little bit. I really enjoy breaking apart things I enjoy and figuring out everything I can about them. I can't understand people who don't enjoy it (actually got into a bit of a tiff with my ex about this and HP, she didn't appreciate my critique of Rowlings writing/magic/plot holes). Oh well.

[Coidzor]

Alan Ginsberg and any other poet who deals in so much histrionic hyperbole they can no longer offer a coherent image. Political relevance doesn't make for good art; indeed, it makes good art much less likely.

I dunno, Guernica was pretty nifty.

[cleric_of_BANJO]

What I always found funny about the prequels is that the people who hate it are so freaking obsessed with them that they seem to know every single detail of the movies inside and out, as if they watch them every single day just so their hate can fester and grow stronger and stronger. I like these movies, and I don't think I know half the detailed intricacies you people know.
Seriously though, a movie came out over a decade ago and you didn't care for it. I think it's time we all move on.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think that the ONLY way to justify hating something I love is if you know enough about it to make an educated decision. If you've seen the movie once, and you were half drunk and falling asleep, then you shouldn't hate on it. I'm not saying you should be obsessed, but you should be able to explain why you hate it with concrete examples from the movie.


For me, there's really only one show that is 'sacred' like this, and even then, I'll accept that it's not for everyone, and that's The Wire.

Couldn't agree more; I was actually going to post that, but you beat me to it. And the fact that nobody even raised an eyebrow clearly says you're right. I have yet to meet anyone who's actually watched the Wire and hated it. Some people might be indifferent about it, but nobody hates it.

[Seraph]

Alan Moore.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I view it more as a coupla episodes of decent plot with a LOT of filler. Pretty decent filler, sure...but yeah, it's the same basic issue. I love the show, the music, the whole ball of wax...but they didn't really bother to tie it all together well.

Edit: On the superman topic...forget Superman. Read Irredeemable. It's superman done right.

See here's the thing I don't think "filler" applies here. The numerous stand alone episodes are where the series has its strength. Its a independent series so its not like they are padding out an adaptation to not overtake a manga. In a series you don't need to have everything to the Plot Arc, that's part of what makes something a series if you will. Many of my all time faves like GitS:SAC do a great job of using episodes not related to the main plot to flesh out the world without any of the dissonance that I'll say characterizes true filler.

The problem is that Bebop's actual plot is IMHO a good deal weaker then or at least underdeveloped compared to strong single episode stories. Yet ultimately you can't escape that it has one


Personally, I loved Cowboy Bebop, but I've no idea why the last sequence focused on that largely unimportant background character. :smallwink:

You mean Vicious? Replace love with like and you've summed up my feelings pretty exactly

[Tiki Snakes]

You mean Vicious? Replace love with like and you've summed up my feelings pretty exactly

I mean Spike. :smallwink:
Not entirely serious, but I did enjoy the rest of the crew more most of the time.

[Killer Angel]

Instead of saying "I find sections with Tom Bombadil uninteresting and don't see how it fits into the story; it's just not enjoyable for me", you're saying "this section is completely unimportant time-wasting".
The first statement is subjective, that is, it's coming from your perspective as a reader and how you personally enjoy the work.


The real problem arises when you say the first sentence, and the others react as if you're saying the second one...

[DigoDragon]

I found the animated film "Ponyo" to be a bit short and lacking in details on what was going on with the world's balance. I usually rate it as one of the weakest of the Studio Ghibli films, but a lot of my friends think I'm just being too picky.
Nostalgic Critic (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com) recently reviewed Ponyo and puts a humorous spin on how much resistance fans put up against critical analysis of the Ghibli movies. :)

[hamishspence]

In my defense, I'd just spent a great deal of time engaging in an ever-more-exasperated attempt to discuss what value someone found in the EU that's been built up around the prequels. And my argument was that nobody should pay any attention to the EU, because it's built on the crappy prequels. From there it went into an ever-more arcane discussion about whether the novelizations actually fixed the problems of the prequels.

It's worth remembering that much of the EU predates the prequels.

In fact, if novelizations qualify as EU, the EU even predates the first movie (The Star Wars novel came out before the Star Wars (later named A New Hope) movie did).

The part of the EU that is built on the prequels though, is just as variable in quality as the rest of the EU. Some is good, some less so.

[Serpentine]

I found the animated film "Ponyo" to be a bit short and lacking in details on what was going on with the world's balance. I usually rate it as one of the weakest of the Studio Ghibli films, but a lot of my friends think I'm just being too picky.
Nostalgic Critic (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com) recently reviewed Ponyo and puts a humorous spin on how much resistance fans put up against critical analysis of the Ghibli movies. :)My main problem with Ponyo (and other Ghibli movies, and a couple of other, often (I think) indy-type animations) is a lack of a proper ending. Got Beginning and Middle down, but... just has no end.
I still adore Ghibli, though.

Also the constant presence of great big drippy things. That's a quirk rather than a negative point, though.

[McStabbington]

It's worth remembering that much of the EU predates the prequels.

In fact, if novelizations qualify as EU, the EU even predates the first movie (The Star Wars novel came out before the Star Wars (later named A New Hope) movie did).

The part of the EU that is built on the prequels though, is just as variable in quality as the rest of the EU. Some is good, some less so.

And just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in.

My argument was strictly about the part of the EU that's built around the prequels. I love the Thrawn trilogy as much as the next Star Wars fan, although quality or no, I think the story really should have ended there. To stay strictly on point, however, my critique of the prequel-based EU was that even at it's best, it's like a well-constructed house built on a dungheap. However impressive an architectural achievement it may be, you can't get around in the end that it's got a foundation made of crap. No matter how sturdily you build your stories, you're still inevitably going to have to deal with the movies, and the movies have not so much plot holes as plot chasms that cannot be spanned or safely built around.

[Grogmir]

Things I dislike that others find 'untouchable'.

The New Battlestar G. I'm sorry but I hate it. I just can't watch it? Why, cause the freaking camera shaking and zooming in and out just makes me puke. Plus, its in space.

The LOTR films, 2nd and 3rd. If I have one more person tell me "He had to make them changes for the good of the film. I'm going to sneakattackheadbutt them. He ruined them and made fundemental changes to underlying character concepts that just didn't need to be done.

And a little closer to home but long since lost the rage on this one. But 3.5, to me, (Please reread that. TO ME, you're all intitled to disagree) but 3.5 was a character building powerhunger ego trip that made everything thats bad about DnD a million times worse. 4th was a breath of fresh air, Allowing my group and I to relax and actually, you know. Roleplay. I got involved in the edition wars to my shame... But that time has passed. Each to their own. and i'm sure I'll be ranting about 5th as soon as it comes out.

~ ~ ~

To spin it. Things I fin untouchable. But Bob Dylan, and telling me he can't sing normally sends me spinning into a "Head rage" repeating they've probably only ever heard Blowin' in the Wind.... they've probably only ever heard Blowin' in the Wind.... they've probably only ever heard Blowin' in the Wind....

[Hiro Protagonest]

And a little closer to home but long since lost the rage on this one. But 3.5, to me, (Please reread that. TO ME, you're all intitled to disagree) but 3.5 was a character building powerhunger ego trip that made everything thats bad about DnD a million times worse. 4th was a breath of fresh air, Allowing my group and I to relax and actually, you know. Roleplay. I got involved in the edition wars to my shame... But that time has passed. Each to their own. and i'm sure I'll be ranting about 5th as soon as it comes out.

4e doesn't have any less op potential than 3.5, it's just that it's
A) harder to find than looking through the wizard's powers
B) focused on raw numbers, not flexibility

4e can just as easily be a powerhunger ego trip as 3.5, not in the fact that it can be against other players (wizard and fighter), but in the fact that NPC #355 must bow down and worship them or be blasted to ashes like NPC #354.

[NinjaStylerobot]

NOOOO! Edition wars haunt me!

Look Jade, I had my own opinion as well- but I left it out of this thread because this isn't about 4e.

Not trying to be disrespectful.

[Reverent-One]

And just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in.

My argument was strictly about the part of the EU that's built around the prequels. I love the Thrawn trilogy as much as the next Star Wars fan, although quality or no, I think the story really should have ended there. To stay strictly on point, however, my critique of the prequel-based EU was that even at it's best, it's like a well-constructed house built on a dungheap. However impressive an architectural achievement it may be, you can't get around in the end that it's got a foundation made of crap. No matter how sturdily you build your stories, you're still inevitably going to have to deal with the movies, and the movies have not so much plot holes as plot chasmso that cannot be spanned or safely built around.

Depends on how connected the novels are to the prequels, a number of them only indirectly touch plotlines from the movies. Even the ones that directly relate to movie plotlines may only have that be a minor aspect of the novels. For example, Darth Maul: Shadow hunter is a good read, even though it's about Darth Maul hunting down loose ends that could reveal the plot to blockade Naboo/Sidious's involvement. And in an extreme case, I've heard good things about the Ep. III novelization and how it reworks scenes and generally improves upon the movie.

[hamishspence]

And in an extreme case, I've heard good things about the Ep. III novelization and how it reworks scenes and generally improves upon the movie.

It does- though some of what makes it good is stuff that can't be shown in a movie- character thoughts, inner monologue, and so on.

[NinjaStylerobot]

It does- though some of what makes it good is stuff that can't be shown in a movie- character thoughts, inner monologue, and so on.

Yet its still episode III.

[MLai]

@ Shakespeare's simple plots:
No, Macbeth did not have a complicated plot. The characters are also tropes. It may be because they were copied to death, but in general I don't so much "feel" the characters as "listen" to them talk about how they're feeling. In cinema that's bad movie-making. In stage plays, that's the only real way you can communicate to the audience.

The wife keeps on urging Macbeth to kill kill kill, like a poisonous shrew. Then suddenly we see her so wracked with guilt she's sleepwalking and talking crazy. WTF. Why would she even feel guilty? I wouldn't feel guilty at all, if I was an evil b**** like her. The more realistic reaction would have been fear of being revealed.

Macbeth is just a dark brooding cardboard. I guess he was tempted by power, though he seemed reluctant all the way through. Then he decides to be an evil villain in the end and have a showdown with the good guy in his castle of despair. You go, Mr. End Boss.

However, the words. The words make the simple stories all worthwhile.

@ Superman:
Yes, he's like Zeus. Zeus is good to have around, to be a plot mover as when required. But you never saw the Greeks make up "The Adventures of Zeus, The King of The Gods Who Cannot Lose."

Hey that rhymed...

@ Cowboy Bebop:
As said, the last story arc is no more important than all the other 1-shot episodes before it. That's the story structure of the series. Why demand that the last story arc and its catalyst characters be more important, just because it's the last? That would be breaking the 4th wall.

But I also agree that Spike is no more important than any of his shipmates. The series simply tells all of their stories in turn.

[McStabbington]

Depends on how connected the novels are to the prequels, a number of them only indirectly touch plotlines from the movies. Even the ones that directly relate to movie plotlines may only have that be a minor aspect of the novels. For example, Darth Maul: Shadow hunter is a good read, even though it's about Darth Maul hunting down loose ends that could reveal the plot to blockade Naboo/Sidious's involvement. And in an extreme case, I've heard good things about the Ep. III novelization and how it reworks scenes and generally improves upon the movie.

For the love of Mike, it's happening again!

. . .Just go back to the last page, scroll up, and look at the section I spoilered for length. It goes into the RotS novelization, why it's a Voodoo Shark, and why being a Voodoo Shark is a bad thing. I really don't want to go into it any more, nor derail the thread.

[hamishspence]

The plot hole in this case is that Yoda is the quintessential wise mentor. And said quintessential wise mentor is not able to piece the following plot elements together that were explicitly stated in Episode II:

1) a bounty hunter tried to kill Senator Amidala before she voted on the creation of an Army of the Republic,
2) said bounty hunter fled to a planet that's been purged from the Jedi archives,
3) the people on the planet say they are creating a secret army at the behest of a dead Jedi Master,
4) the bounty hunter then heads directly to the headquarters of the Secession movement,
5) where the leader of said movement says that a) the Chancellor of the Senate is a Sith Lord and b) has been arming both sides in an attempt to create a war that will allow him to take control of the Republic.
6) And Yoda's explicit response: use the secret clone army to fight the war.

Ladies and gentlemen of the geek jury, I submit that this is not only a plot hole, but the most gaping damn plot hole any of us have ever seen in a movie. If I strung those facts together, an average eight year old of ordinary, reasonable intelligence could tell you that the clone troops should be destroyed.

Wouldn't this be epically immoral, to destroy them before they've done anything to warrant it?

The Jedi Order being destroyed is something that's built in to the main plotline of the first movie "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Emperor haunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights ... Now the Jedi are all but extinct". So somehow it has to happen.

[MLai]

{{scrubbed}}

[NinjaStylerobot]

UGH!

My one weakness (I am a hypocrite)- Clones from star wars!

The clones are possible the most inhumane and monstrous things in the galaxy.

Neither way they exist makes them other then abominations.

If they have feelings and emotions then a huge chunk of the clones would be rebeling (Or incinerated). You are sending Thousands of men to their deaths and you don't care.

Or their mentally brainwashed into mindless warfare.

Destroying them all would be a mercy kill.

edit:

You could have had Darth vader tell the jedis to not breath. Then they all die from lack of air. Its disrespectfull that they died to such a stupid plot.

[hamishspence]

The clones are possible the most inhumane and monstrous things in the galaxy.

Neither way they exist makes them other then abominations.

If they have feelings and emotions then a huge chunk of the clones would be rebeling (Or incinerated). You are sending Thousands of men to their deaths and you don't care.

Or their mentally brainwashed into mindless warfare.

Destroying them all would be a mercy kill.

It's both- they have feelings, they have emotions- but they're brought up from birth to regard serving in the clone army as the highest good.

There's still a few clones that rebel at various points. And yes, it does seem pretty immoral to create the army- but "mercy killing" them when, despite a degree of brainwashing, they're still human beings with the potential for growth, seems almost equally immoral.

[NinjaStylerobot]

So sending them all to die in a war they where born to fight and ONLY to fight is A OK.

In fact they even age faster so even if they survive thel still wither into nothing.


This is monstrous.

[An Enemy Spy]

Can we just get away from Star Wars for once? It seems like every thread always turns into a long discussion about Star Wars here.

[MLai]

This is true: The Jedi is all about peace and justice and righteousness... and here we see Yoda, without hesitation, accepting the mass production of living innocent human beings whose sole involuntary purpose is to fight in horrible wars, and die horribly without anyone batting an eye, ever.

Clones are human beings. Just because they're genetically identical to the donor, doesn't mean they're somehow machines without minds/souls. Here we see the Jedi Order condoning human babies being mass-replicated and then mass-brainwashed into killing machines. Like a planetful of Agent 47's.

Even the Empire subsequently stopped using clones. Holy ****.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Can we just get away from Star Wars for once? It seems like every thread always turns into a long discussion about Star Wars here.

Sorry. Its my weak spot.

[Omergideon]

Yet its still episode III.

A point in it's favour if I ever saw one ;)

Seriously I never understood the hate the prequels get. I mean I understand people not liking them. I honestly do. There are flaws, for instance I will say Lucas' dialogue is not that good. But I found the plots to be solid, entertaing and fun.

But having this positive opinion of a fandom pariah is something that seems to render me "untouchable" on some forums. Why is this do we think?

[hamishspence]

Can we just get away from Star Wars for once? It seems like every thread always turns into a long discussion about Star Wars here.

True- maybe refresh the EU thread.

Stuff that seems not so much "untouchable to criticism" as "untouchable to applause"- the Brian Herbert & Kevin J Anderson Dune prequels.

They seem to come in for a huge amount of ire- but I thought them an entertaining read.

[Reverent-One]

For the love of Mike, it's happening again!

. . .Just go back to the last page, scroll up, and look at the section I spoilered for length. It goes into the RotS novelization, why it's a Voodoo Shark, and why being a Voodoo Shark is a bad thing. I really don't want to go into it any more, nor derail the thread.

None of that addresses my point. I'm not saying a specific explanation (Force Fog) from the EU fixes a movie plot hole, I'm just disproving your point that being related to the prequels at all means that a novel can't be good.

[hamishspence]

I don't think it's the Episode III novel that explains exactly what the Sith have been doing to ensure that "The dark side clouds all".

That line is simply dropped by Yoda in the second prequel movie.

It's not till the Darth Plagueis novel that we find out what was being done.

[LordVader]

Batgod really annoys me, personally.

[Soras Teva Gee]

@ Superman:
Yes, he's like Zeus. Zeus is good to have around, to be a plot mover as when required. But you never saw the Greeks make up "The Adventures of Zeus, The King of The Gods Who Cannot Lose."

Hey that rhymed...

Well Zeus has his certain tales and feats aside from getting it on with pretty boys and girls... Supes bares far more resemblance to a certain progeny of then to said demigods father.

And I'm continually dismayed by how people think there are no compelling Superman stories told. Its a true injustice to the character.


@ Cowboy Bebop:
As said, the last story arc is no more important than all the other 1-shot episodes before it. That's the story structure of the series. Why demand that the last story arc and its catalyst characters be more important, just because it's the last? That would be breaking the 4th wall.

But I also agree that Spike is no more important than any of his shipmates. The series simply tells all of their stories in turn.

Because its given more time, attention, and set-up for not being any stronger. The equation doesn't work out for me. Its not "oh this is the last episode" its "this is what we've been building too" but instead of using the cast and setting its built up it harshly throws them aside so the whole series becomes rather Shaggy Dog esque.

Which can be done well but I challenge wasn't. This isn't a case of "its about the journey" its "don't throw away what you have... stupid" with a case in point laid out, but one I don't feel was created quite organically enough to make the point well.

I always Spike was somehow felt psychically aware he was being railroaded by the plot and just went along with it, rather then truly making any decisions that would lead to the conclusion. Or sufficient building it as an actual inevitability.

[An Enemy Spy]

Batgod really annoys me, personally.

You mean how everyone treats Batman like he's perfect and infallible?
What I really hate is the whole idea that any vs. discussion with Batman always devolves into "Well batman can beat Superman/Darth Vader/God if he has enough prep time."
Guess what buddy, anyone can beat someone with enough prep time. That's why they call it prep time. Batman should not be given any concessions another character wouldn't have in a theoretical discussion.

[LordVader]

You mean how everyone treats Batman like he's perfect and infallible?
What I really hate is the whole idea that any vs. discussion with Batman always devolves into "Well batman can beat Superman/Darth Vader/God if he has enough prep time."
Guess what buddy, anyone can beat someone with enough prep time. That's why they call it prep time. Batman should not be given any concessions another character wouldn't have in a theoretical discussion.

Yup, exactly that.

This "prep time" invariably involves calling in all sorts of favors from all sorts of other characters, which in and of itself defeats the whole point of a one-versus-one scenario. If Batman can call in favors or rely on allies, then it's not Batman vs. Spider-Man/Iron/Man/what have you, it's Batman and the Justice League and assorted Superfriends vs. Spider-Man.

Batman's an awesome superhero, but it's really irritating when people insist on treating him as some sort of unbeatable deity. In my humble opinion, Batman is at his most interesting when he's a low-key superhero in dark, realistic settings, something which the recent Batman movies do marvelously well.

[Copper]

While, we're on the topic of Star Wars- Star Wars.

I do not like those movies. I don't hate them, I just find them dull. I can't invest in any the characters and I find the plot bland and formulaic. Again, I don't despise, I just can't understand why people like it.

While it's not media, I also dislike Pluto and believe it never should've been a planet. That's not the best thing to bring up on an angry internet forum.

[Hiro Protagonest]

While, we're on the topic of Star Wars- Star Wars.

I do not like those movies. I don't hate them, I just find them dull. I can't invest in any the characters and I find the plot bland and formulaic. Again, I don't despise, I just can't understand why people like it.

While it's not media, I also dislike Pluto and believe it never should've been a planet. That's not the best thing to bring up on an angry internet forum.

Why the heck do you dislike Pluto? It's a hunk of rock hurtling through space. And it has its own gravity and isn't a star, size doesn't matter, it should be a planet.

As for Star Wars, George Lucas is a bad storyteller, that's why his movies were tampered with so much by other people before the release. But Lucas is an excellent world-builder. The best part of Star Wars is that it feels like the characters are in a universe, with things going on all around them not shown on screen.

[Gnoman]

True- maybe refresh the EU thread.

Stuff that seems not so much "untouchable to criticism" as "untouchable to applause"- the Brian Herbert & Kevin J Anderson Dune prequels.

They seem to come in for a huge amount of ire- but I thought them an entertaining read.

I was actually unable to stomach the original Dune before reading the House X books. There's something about Herbert's writing style that I've always found difficult. It's almost always worth it (For example, Greenslaves is probably one of the greatest works of short Science Fiction I've ever read) but it is difficult. the prequels got me interested enough in the universe to be able to tackle the original work.

The Butlerian Jihad books, while they had many excellent ideas, are far more deserving of ire, and seem to draw most of it. (Of course, a lot of it is haitmng KJA for being KJA.

[Mx.Silver]

You mean how everyone treats Batman like he's perfect and infallible?
What I really hate is the whole idea that any vs. discussion with Batman always devolves into "Well batman can beat Superman/Darth Vader/God if he has enough prep time."
Guess what buddy, anyone can beat someone with enough prep time. That's why they call it prep time. Batman should not be given any concessions another character wouldn't have in a theoretical discussion.

I cannot agree with this enough.

[Goosefeather]

The New Battlestar G. I'm sorry but I hate it. I just can't watch it? Why, cause the freaking camera shaking and zooming in and out just makes me puke. Plus, its in space.


That's a negative point? Doesn't that greatly restrict the sci-fi you can appreciate?

[LordVader]

I was actually unable to stomach the original Dune before reading the House X books. There's something about Herbert's writing style that I've always found difficult. It's almost always worth it (For example, Greenslaves is probably one of the greatest works of short Science Fiction I've ever read) but it is difficult. the prequels got me interested enough in the universe to be able to tackle the original work.

The Butlerian Jihad books, while they had many excellent ideas, are far more deserving of ire, and seem to draw most of it. (Of course, a lot of it is haitmng KJA for being KJA.

For what it's worth, I love the first two Dune books, but they really drop off in enjoyment for me after that. Things just get too weird, and all the characters I liked are no longer the focus.

[H Birchgrove]

Personally, I don't think there are untouchable fandoms and works, but there are hatedoms that come close.

Take for example the hatedom against Frank Miller, and how he depict women in his comics. Usually fair and deserved criticism, but if you mention positive portrayal of women in his comics, especially his and Dave Gibbons' Martha Washington, then that doesn't count because that character is "wooden" in their opinion. Ad hoc arguments are not cool, kids. :smallsigh:

That being said:


Alan Moore.

This. So much this.

Also: Neil Gaiman.

[NinjaStylerobot]

>.>
<.<

The Legends system RPG.

*Puts on helmet*

[kpenguin]

Why the heck do you dislike Pluto? It's a hunk of rock hurtling through space. And it has its own gravity and isn't a star, size doesn't matter, it should be a planet.

...by this reasoning any piece of rock that makes it into outer space should be a planet. Because everything with mass has its own gravity. From the tiniest particle to the largest star.

And... then we'd have to consider every meteor, comet, asteroid, satellite, etc. to be a planet. The current definition of planet is far more useful by being far more exclusive, even if it excludes a body that would traditionally be one.

[turkishproverb]

I respect your opinion there, but disagree entirely. I can certainly name worse directors, but still have no use for any of his films. The Shining in particular is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.


Try watching Manos: The Hands of fate and Nukie.

[Grogmir]

That's a negative point? Doesn't that greatly restrict the sci-fi you can appreciate?

Sorry goose, half finished sentence. Was mean't to say... "Its it space, so why the 'eck does the camera move around so much? Esp on them shots of the outside of the ship they use to cut between scenes?"

~ ~ ~

Just thought of another one. Iphones... if I heard another person go on about their Iphone... ITS A PHONE. get over it :smallfurious::smallyuk:

[hamishspence]

...by this reasoning any piece of rock that makes it into outer space should be a planet. Because everything with mass has its own gravity. From the tiniest particle to the largest star.

And... then we'd have to consider every meteor, comet, asteroid, satellite, etc. to be a planet. The current definition of planet is far more useful by being far more exclusive, even if it excludes a body that would traditionally be one.

Pluto qualifies for one bit "enough gravity to pull itself into a roughly spherical shape" but not the other "has cleared its own orbit (mostly) of debris)".

That's why it, and a few other Kuiper Belt Objects, are "minor planetoids" whereas the rest of the Kuiper Belt Objects aren't- due to being too small for gravity to shape them into spheres back when they first formed.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Just thought of another one. Iphones... if I heard another person go on about their Iphone... ITS A PHONE. get over it :smallfurious::smallyuk:

For me its reverse

"I get it futurama. The Iphone sucks. GET ON WITH IT"

[DigoDragon]

My main problem with Ponyo (and other Ghibli movies, and a couple of other, often (I think) indy-type animations) is a lack of a proper ending. Got Beginning and Middle down, but... just has no end.
I still adore Ghibli, though.

Also the constant presence of great big drippy things. That's a quirk rather than a negative point, though.

I think half of Anime in general has a hard time coming up with a good ending. I call them "King Endings", named after Stephen King who also seems to have odd endings/non-endings to some of his work. His works start and middle well, but I kind of feel sorry for the state of Maine in the last chapters.


As for the quirk of drippy things, ever notice none of it is dripping chocolate?

[Soras Teva Gee]

Pluto qualifies for one bit "enough gravity to pull itself into a roughly spherical shape" but not the other "has cleared its own orbit (mostly) of debris)".

That's why it, and a few other Kuiper Belt Objects, are "minor planetoids" whereas the rest of the Kuiper Belt Objects aren't- due to being too small for gravity to shape them into spheres back when they first formed.

Let's face it the problem is that the IAU didn't bother to ask a market executive before screwing things up. Namely we will support having more planets so rather then demoting with the term "dwarf" they should have been promoting Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris as Type [something] planets to emphasize they were adding to the number of planets.

Unfortunate choices of words will earn you the hate of the common man (and his Pluto loving schoolchildren) any day.

[MLai]

Seriously I never understood the hate the prequels get. I mean I understand people not liking them. I honestly do. There are flaws, for instance I will say Lucas' dialogue is not that good. But I found the plots to be solid, entertaing and fun.
Your standards seem to be kind of low.
Heck, I'm not even going to ask you to watch the Red Letter Media videos. Just re-read my post #96.


I always Spike was somehow felt psychically aware he was being railroaded by the plot and just went along with it, rather then truly making any decisions that would lead to the conclusion. Or sufficient building it as an actual inevitability.
OTOH, I felt that aspect of his behavior was part of his character. He's kind of infuriating that way, but throughout the entire series it was already established that that's the kind of man he is. Right in eps. 5 (Ballad of Fallen Angels), you saw it. This is a man who is living his life staring out the rear window of his car. Other ppl look out the front windshield to see things in the distance get closer; Spike looks out the back to see the past get further away, and everything the car passes he sees as things that rush away, becoming smaller, towards that past. You want to slap him and tell him to snap out of it, but that's how he lives.


But Lucas is an excellent world-builder.
Don't give the man undue credit.

1. Lots of ppl helped construct this world with/for him. You think George Lucas painted Coruscant?
2. World building is f'ing easy. Storywriting is hard. Just look at most fantasy webcomics out there. Most of them try to build some epic world with walls of text, and they're probably pretty detailed and consistent. Do you want to read them?
3. Look at how much of his own world the man ruined. He's more of an excellent world-ruiner. Oh look a midichlorian.

[Serpentine]

I think half of Anime in general has a hard time coming up with a good ending. I call them "King Endings", named after Stephen King who also seems to have odd endings/non-endings to some of his work. His works start and middle well, but I kind of feel sorry for the state of Maine in the last chapters.Yeah, it's definitely not only Ghibli. And the two main examples I can think of are the no-brand-name Anastasia and an otherwise beautifully executed Celtic-type animation, which I forget the name of but involved a book and a wolf.
Maybe mainstream Western animation is the exception...

As for the quirk of drippy things, ever notice none of it is dripping chocolate?Now I'm sad and hungry :smallfrown:

[polity4life]

Sorry goose, half finished sentence. Was mean't to say... "Its it space, so why the 'eck does the camera move around so much? Esp on them shots of the outside of the ship they use to cut between scenes?"


Although I enjoyed the new Galactica, there were parts that irked and one was the setting shots of ships that happened oh so often. The camera centers a ship, goes wobbly, and does a sloppy zoom nearly 100% of the time. The show's technique on letting the viewer know that what is happening is taking place somewhere particular always made the scene start sour for me because of the execution with that damned wobbly-cam zoom.

I also didn't like how so many episodes could be summed up as follows:

Adama or Roslyn: "You can't do that!"
Any given person: "Yes I can! WAAAH!"
--thirty minutes of ham--
Adama or Roslyn: "You can break the rules and have carte blanche for whatever it is you think is a good idea, regardless of cost."
Any given person: "Sentimental response."

[Soras Teva Gee]

OTOH, I felt that aspect of his behavior was part of his character. He's kind of infuriating that way, but throughout the entire series it was already established that that's the kind of man he is. Right in eps. 5 (Ballad of Fallen Angels), you saw it. This is a man who is living his life staring out the rear window of his car. Other ppl look out the front windshield to see things in the distance get closer; Spike looks out the back to see the past get further away, and everything the car passes he sees as things that rush away, becoming smaller, towards that past. You want to slap him and tell him to snap out of it, but that's how he lives.

Yes I know all this and I don't think it actually y'know works.

It doesn't diminish the feeling for me that as far as his personal arc (and just his personal arc) goes Spike is not a human in his own universe, but an actor giving a lazy performance reading from the script. Its not authentic its one of countless places where anime as a medium just sets a condition and expects everyone to go along with it. Sometimes that works (and is why anime is so random actually) and sometimes it just makes me want to strangle the Japanese cultural stoicism that allows it. This is the latter case.

[An Enemy Spy]

Your standards seem to be kind of low.
Heck, I'm not even going to ask you to watch the Red Letter Media videos. Just re-read my post #96.

Why does everyone always refer people to RLM whenever the prequels come up. How come it's ok to have our own opinions on things unless it's the prequel trilogy in which case we are poor misguided souls who must be shown the light.

Guess what. WE. DO. NOT. CARE. We enjoy these movies. We understand its flaws. We don't have to be constantly explained to uswhy we are wrong.

I don't care what RLM thinks. That is their opinion. They are entitled to it. That's wonderfulfor them. Let us have that same right without being criticized a decade after the stupid movie came out. It's getting really old, I have to tell you.

[MLai]

It doesn't diminish the feeling for me that as far as his personal arc (and just his personal arc) goes Spike is not a human in his own universe, but an actor giving a lazy performance reading from the script. Its not authentic its one of countless places where anime as a medium just sets a condition and expects everyone to go along with it. Sometimes that works (and is why anime is so random actually) and sometimes it just makes me want to strangle the Japanese cultural stoicism that allows it. This is the latter case.
Ok, but I keep getting the feeling that your definition of "it doesn't work" is "I don't like it and I wish he would act the way I approve of."

This isn't his behavior just in the last arc. It's his behavior throughout the entire series. Why does he seem so emotionally distant all the time? How come he seems to have such a casual disregard for his own safety, even when he doesn't seem to have much to gain? It's not because he is being a cool laid-back daddy-o when you approve of his choices, and then being a lazy actor phoning in a script when you disapprove of his choices.


Why does everyone always refer people to RLM whenever the prequels come up. How come it's ok to have our own opinions on things unless it's the prequel trilogy in which case we are poor misguided souls who must be shown the light.
1. Because by just saying RLM, it saves us from typing pages and pages. Because that's how much wrong there is in the PT.

2. Because that's like saying it's your opinion that Twilight is great, Eragon is great, D&D (the movie) is great, and then also saying LOTR/Aliens/T2/ESB is great. Using the same exact definition of "great."

What I mean is, by being in this forum and saying you like Star Wars (in general), you have identified yourself as someone with interests akin to mine/ours. You like sci-fi, games, comics, etc. We tend to think these things have value and merit, and that our preferences are educated. But if you then say "PT are movies with good plots", then you devalue the sense of self-worth of all of us. Because our brains cannot accept that someone who otherwise shares our values can accept such distillation of condescending schlok, movies which are practically tailor-made to piss on the very concept of fandom.

That's my hypothesis.

[An Enemy Spy]

1. Because by just saying RLM, it saves us from typing pages and pages. Because that's how much wrong there is in the PT.

2. Because that's like saying it's your opinion that Twilight is great, Eragon is great, D&D (the movie) is great, and then also saying LOTR/Aliens/T2/ESB is great. Using the same exact definition of "great."

What I mean is, by being in this forum and saying you like Star Wars (in general), you have identified yourself as someone with interests akin to mine/ours. You like sci-fi, games, comics, etc. We tend to think these things have value and merit, and that our preferences are educated. But if you then say "PT are movies with good plots", then you devalue the sense of self-worth of all of us. Because our brains cannot accept that someone who otherwise shares our values can accept such distillation of condescending schlok, movies which are practically tailor-made to piss on the very concept of fandom.

That's my hypothesis.

One, I'm not the one who said the PT is great. I just said I enjoy it.
In other words, if I like one thing you like, that means I have to like everything you like and hate everything you hate or else your entire worldview is shattered. I would say something incredibly disrespectful here, but I like to think I'm above that.

[hamishspence]

What I mean is, by being in this forum and saying you like Star Wars (in general), you have identified yourself as someone with interests akin to mine/ours. You like sci-fi, games, comics, etc. We tend to think these things have value and merit, and that our preferences are educated. But if you then say "PT are movies with good plots", then you devalue the sense of self-worth of all of us. Because our brains cannot accept that someone who otherwise shares our values can accept such distillation of condescending schlok, movies which are practically tailor-made to piss on the very concept of fandom.

This seems like a severe exaggeration.

Much simpler to regard the other person as having good taste, but with a few exceptions. Nobody is perfectly consistant, after all.

As to what qualifies as "good taste" and what doesn't, that can be very subjective.

[Dienekes]

One, I'm not the one who said the PT is great. I just said I enjoy it.
In other words, if I like one thing you like, that means I have to like everything you like and hate everything you hate or else your entire worldview is shattered. I would say something incredibly disrespectful here, but I like to think I'm above that.

For the record saying "I'd like to say something disrespectful but I'm above that" is about as disrespectful a thing you can say. Personally I'd rather just be cussed out than have someone dancing around an insult with a misplaced sense of superiority about them.

Anyway on the prequels, yeah some of the detractors can get a bit much even if I agree with them. But for me the prequels just kind of stick with you on some of the very obvious flaws. Even before I have even heard about Red Letter Media the flaws were obvious and painful. Hell I can still remember seeing Phantom as a kid and coming out saying how much I thought Jar-Jar was stupid. But ultimately yeah, go enjoy them if you do. I'd be curious what about them you like, and if I found your argument insufficient I would argue that. For example I've heard someone argue that the Parme+Ani romance was well done and enjoyable. Of course I'm going to express my opinion that it was vapid and uninteresting and go on from there.

[Maxios]

Jaws
The Two Recent Batman movies: The only actor I thought was good was Heath Ledger. I really dislike this movies, but everytime I mention it I either get given weird looks or trolled.
Shakespeare: A few weeks ago, I started reading Romeo and Julit. The only reason I haven't chucked it out the window (and this is going to sound really, really childish) is I want to see if there's going to be any more lines like "Grab my weapon, ho!"

Also, I liked the Prequel Trilogy. To tell you the truth, my favorite Star Wars movie is The Phantom Menace. I don't understand all the hate on the Prequel trilogy. They're movies, you either like them or dislike them. There's no reason to go on forums and start saying the PT urinated on fandom.

[An Enemy Spy]

One, I'm not the one who said the PT is great. I just said I enjoy it.
In other words, if I like one thing you like, that means I have to like everything you like and hate everything you hate or else your entire worldview is shattered. I would say something incredibly disrespectful here, but I like to think I'm above that.

Actually, no. Let's dive into this a little.

If I am to assume you are correct, then that means that the only way to enjoy something is if it has been unanimously declared "good". Because obviously there is no one in the world who dislikes "good" movies like Alien or Raiders of the Lost Ark. And if they do, well then their opinion is wrong. In fact, it is not only wrong. It is downright offensive because if someone declares something "bad", then that means anyone who enjoys it must enjoy a bad movie.
Except that's not true at all, is it?
Fortunately, you clearly are in the elevated position to decree whether or not their personal likes or dislikes are valid or invalid, because you and others like you have the final say on whether or not anyone is allowed to like a movie.
Elitism, thy name is MLai.
And frankly, what is the point in being elitist about a somewhat cheesy sci fi film series that is basically about wizards with laser swords and beeping trash cans whose only reason for its extreme popularity is the fantastic special effects?

[An Enemy Spy]

Jaws
The Two Recent Batman movies: The only actor I thought was good was Heath Ledger. I really dislike this movies, but everytime I mention it I either get given weird looks or trolled.
Shakespeare: A few weeks ago, I started reading Romeo and Julit. The only reason I haven't chucked it out the window (and this is going to sound really, really childish) is I want to see if there's going to be any more lines like "Grab my weapon, ho!"

Also, I liked the Prequel Trilogy. To tell you the truth, my favorite Star Wars movie is The Phantom Menace. I don't understand all the hate on the Prequel trilogy. They're movies, you either like them or dislike them. There's no reason to go on forums and start saying the PT urinated on fandom.

The only characters I liked in Romeo and Juliet were Tybalt and Mercutio. They're just so much fun to play. They hve great lines, and great death scenes. Shakespeare should have written a spin off play where they team up and solve mysteries together.

[Axolotl]

And frankly, what is the point in being elitist about a somewhat cheesy sci fi film series that is basically about wizards with laser swords and beeping trash cans whose only reason for its extreme popularity is the fantastic special effects?Because it's arguabley the biggest film franchise in the history of the medium and accepting a huge decline in quality for it without response is an indicator for Hollywood as a whole to lower it's standards for big budgeted films thus causing future films to be made to a worse standard? To quote The Critic "If you stop going to bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies.".

Personally I like big budgeted sci-fi action films, and sadly the only place that can really make those is Hollywood. So personally I think I have pretty good reasons to care when the premier science fiction franchise in the western world that all others are compared to become utter tripe.

[LordVader]

Because it's arguabley the biggest film franchise in the history of the medium and accepting a huge decline in quality for it without response is an indicator for Hollywood as a whole to lower it's standards for big budgeted films thus causing future films to be made to a worse standard? To quote The Critic "If you stop going to bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies.".

Personally I like big budgeted sci-fi action films, and sadly the only place that can really make those is Hollywood. So personally I think I have pretty good reasons to care when the premier science fiction franchise in the western world that all others are compared to become utter tripe.

I think this is an entirely fair and accurate assessment of the situation.

It doesn't matter how cheesy the subject matter is; encourage crap, and people will make more crap. That's not good.

[An Enemy Spy]

Because it's arguabley the biggest film franchise in the history of the medium and accepting a huge decline in quality for it without response is an indicator for Hollywood as a whole to lower it's standards for big budgeted films thus causing future films to be made to a worse standard? To quote The Critic "If you stop going to bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies.".

Personally I like big budgeted sci-fi action films, and sadly the only place that can really make those is Hollywood. So personally I think I have pretty good reasons to care when the premier science fiction franchise in the western world that all others are compared to become utter tripe.

See, now that's a legitamate complaint. You took issue with the films themselves, and not the fact that someone has a different opinion than you. I applaud you sir.

I don't know though. Bad movies have been being made ever since the invention of film, but that's never stopped people from making good movies. For every Superman IV, there's a The Dark Knight(ok, not every bad movie has a good movie to make up for it), and I don't agree with the notion that things are getting worse. I believe that there's always been crap, but as time goes by the crap gets forgotten so that when we look back at the Sixties, all we see are the Beatles and 2001: A Space Oddysey, and then comes the fallacy that everything from that time was the good stuff, when really, the reason those things stand out is because they islands of quality in a sea of crap.
When people thirty years from now look back, they're going to remember things like Inception and the Dark Knight Trilogy, and forget that we also produced movies like Skyline.

[NinjaStylerobot]

I do not respect george, and I do not respect the prequels. I don't loose respect if you say that you like the movies.

I bash them because its fun. :smallsmile:

Thats pretty much it.

[MCerberus]

Jaws
The Two Recent Batman movies: The only actor I thought was good was Heath Ledger. I really dislike this movies, but everytime I mention it I either get given weird looks or trolled.

I'd agree that there are a lot more enjoyable superhero movies around these days, especially the first of the two. However, the Ledger joker was a frightening monster of a satirist, and you hated him because of how often he had a point. Just seeing someone make the statement that the world is too materialistic by burning a mob boss alive on a pile of money is just... brilliantly creepy.

In my opinion the most powerful scene was when the Joker was wrong (the boats), but the Batman part of the movie... eh.

[LordVader]

When people thirty years from now look back, they're going to remember things like Inception and the Dark Knight Trilogy, and forget that we also produced movies like Skyline.

The difference, though, is that Skyline is not representative of an established franchise that has absolutely massive cultural capital.

The prequels are, and they do a disservice to one of the most well-known elements of American pop culture.

[hamishspence]

The prequels are, and they do a disservice to one of the most well-known elements of American pop culture.

Were the original movies really so good that the prequels, by existing, are doing them such a "disservice".

I've seen more than a few criticisms of dialogue and plot from the original movies.

Notably Vader's "They must be trying to return the stolen plans to the princess".

- first- that's not what they were doing, they were trying to deliver the stolen plans to Alderaan (which got destroyed while they were in transit).

Second- isn't that a rather silly conclusion for Vader to reach? It requires that Vader think the Rebels are complete idiots, and that once they've gotten plans from someone who has been captured, they'll try and return the plans to the captured victim.

[An Enemy Spy]

Yeah, I've been of the opinion that Star Wars is fairly silly franchise that gained massive popularity not through its writing and story, but because of the special effects. Had the prequels come out then (with special effects adjusted for time period of course, I think it would have been an identical effect.)
I'm not ragging on the Origianl Trilogy, I'm just saying you shouldn't put it on some grand pedestal. There's a lot of snark bait to had in them too.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Yes, and people do. People that liked SpaceBalls still like the classics.

Their not perfect movies.

But the prequels cannot be parodied. Simply because the things to parody would be the annoying plot canyons and dull characters.

[Axolotl]

See, now that's a legitamate complaint. You took issue with the films themselves, and not the fact that someone has a different opinion than you. I applaud you sir.

I don't know though. Bad movies have been being made ever since the invention of film, but that's never stopped people from making good movies. For every Superman IV, there's a The Dark Knight(ok, not every bad movie has a good movie to make up for it), and I don't agree with the notion that things are getting worse. I believe that there's always been crap, but as time goes by the crap gets forgotten so that when we look back at the Sixties, all we see are the Beatles and 2001: A Space Oddysey, and then comes the fallacy that everything from that time was the good stuff, when really, the reason those things stand out is because they islands of quality in a sea of crap.
When people thirty years from now look back, they're going to remember things like Inception and the Dark Knight Trilogy, and forget that we also produced movies like Skyline.I'm not saying things are getting worse, 2012 has one of the most kick-ass line up of action films I've ever seen. But I don't want things to get worse, and things don't improve without critisism. Consider this, The Dark Knight is great and we're getting a sequel that promises to be equally great but we only got the Nolan Batman films because Batman and Robin failed so badly, if it hadn't then the merchandise driven, stunt-casting and bad writing would have continued and instead of Bale and Hardy we would prbably be looking at the likes of Cruise and Jackman, as well as however many characters they thought they could cram in to make toys out of.

Now there'll always be good movies, film is an art form and it attracts artists who value quality. However a good Batman films requires more than just artists, they require money and unless the viewers have standards there's no reason for the people with that money to give it to Nolan instead of say Uwe Boll.

[hamishspence]

But the prequels cannot be parodied. Simply because the things to parody would be the annoying plot canyons and dull characters.

The Tag & Bink comics dealing with the prequels were pretty hilarious.

And Darths & Droids (http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0001.html) is good as well.

[An Enemy Spy]

I'm not saying things are getting worse, 2012 has one of the most kick-ass line up of action films I've ever seen. But I don't want things to get worse, and things don't improve without critisism. Consider this, The Dark Knight is great and we're getting a sequel that promises to be equally great but we only got the Nolan Batman films because Batman and Robin failed so badly, if it hadn't then the merchandise driven, stunt-casting and bad writing would have continued and instead of Bale and Hardy we would prbably be looking at the likes of Cruise and Jackman, as well as however many characters they thought they could cram in to make toys out of.

Now there'll always be good movies, film is an art form and it attracts artists who value quality. However a good Batman films requires more than just artists, they require money and unless the viewers have standards there's no reason for the people with that money to give it to Nolan instead of say Uwe Boll.

I love Hugh Jackman! What's wrong with him? Did you see him in The Prestige?

[NinjaStylerobot]

Its not really that much of a parody as much as a DD game parody.

Just it seems that most people that like the prequels open up a gigantic can of worms to cover up the plot holes of the movie.

I don't mind the plot holes of the classics, even though there are some.

Though that does shed some insight on people who like the prequels. The just don't mind the plot holes. :smallsmile:

[An Enemy Spy]

Its not really that much of a parody as much as a DD game parody.

Just it seems that most people that like the prequels open up a gigantic can of worms to cover up the plot holes of the movie.

I don't mind the plot holes of the classics, even though there are some.

Though that does shed some insight on people who like the prequels. The just don't mind the plot holes. :smallsmile:

Exactly. As long I have my Jedi and clones and flying R2-D2, plot holes don't matter.

[LordVader]

Were the original movies really so good that the prequels, by existing, are doing them such a "disservice".

I've seen more than a few criticisms of dialogue and plot from the original movies.

Notably Vader's "They must be trying to return the stolen plans to the princess".

- first- that's not what they were doing, they were trying to deliver the stolen plans to Alderaan (which got destroyed while they were in transit).

Second- isn't that a rather silly conclusion for Vader to reach? It requires that Vader think the Rebels are complete idiots, and that once they've gotten plans from someone who has been captured, they'll try and return the plans to the captured victim.

I can't speak for you but I find them to be far more entertaining movies, so I'd say so.

Please do not mistake my statement that the originals are far superior to the prequels to be an assertion that the originals are completely logical and free of plot holes.

The originals are better because they grab your imagination to a much greater degree and have far more "soul". I know that's nearly impossible to quantify, but that's how I feel about it. This entire discussion is completely subjective, after all.


Yeah, I've been of the opinion that Star Wars is fairly silly franchise that gained massive popularity not through its writing and story, but because of the special effects. Had the prequels come out then (with special effects adjusted for time period of course, I think it would have been an identical effect.)
I'm not ragging on the Origianl Trilogy, I'm just saying you shouldn't put it on some grand pedestal. There's a lot of snark bait to had in them too.


Original Star Wars is like Doctor Who. The writing often isn't the greatest, and you could drive a Mack truck through some of the plot holes, but they both grab your imagination nonetheless. That's why the originals are so popular, and that's why they play such a massive role in pop culture.

[The Glyphstone]

Jaws
The Two Recent Batman movies: The only actor I thought was good was Heath Ledger. I really dislike this movies, but everytime I mention it I either get given weird looks or trolled.
Shakespeare: A few weeks ago, I started reading Romeo and Julit. The only reason I haven't chucked it out the window (and this is going to sound really, really childish) is I want to see if there's going to be any more lines like "Grab my weapon, ho!"


Wait, there are people who don't read R+J expressly for the lewd innuendos?:smallconfused:

[NinjaStylerobot]

Exactly. As long I have my Jedi and clones and flying R2-D2, plot holes don't matter.

Though clones are my weakspot.

Screw the clones. They make the Jedi monsters AND total idiots.

But I bash everything else for fun.

[An Enemy Spy]

I can't speak for you but I find them to be far more entertaining movies, so I'd say so.

Please do not mistake my statement that the originals are far superior to the prequels to be an assertion that the originals are completely logical and free of plot holes.

The originals grab my imagination in a way that the prequels just don't, and that's why I don't look fondly upon the prequels.

Myabe because you were younger when you saw them? I first saw the originals when the Special Edition came out in 1997, so I know how much nostalgia plays in here. I love the orginals. Star Wars shaped my entire childhood in a way the prequels never could because they came out when I was entering my teens. Well, except for Phantom Menace. I was still pretty young when that one came out.
But to the kids of today, Star Wars doesn't have to be divided into two trilogies anymore. Now it can all just be Star Wars to them.
This is why I don't mind the 3D rerelease. It gives a new generation of kids a chance to see Star Wars in the theatre, how it was meant to be viewed. A lot of people hate the Special Editions, but if it weren't for them, I never would have had that opportunity.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Yes you would. Lucas could have Digitaly removed bumping stormtrooper, updated the tech (Look at my advanced atari starfighter).

They could have not sucked.

[An Enemy Spy]

My sister-in-law never saw Star Wars as a kid, and she thinks they all suck.
My dad said that you have to watch them when you're young so you can build up that background of loving them that helps you see past all the stupid when you get older.

[hamishspence]

I read the A New Hope novel before seeing the Star Wars movie.

And with the second and third movies, I'd read the (illustrated with screencaps) shortened books far more than I'd seen the films.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Well. I gotta reveal a personal grudge against LUCAS (Chika chka).

Thing is. My very first movie I remember watching was episode 1. And I loved the prequels as a kid. But as a older kid rewatching them I felt....Betrayed.

Because all that was shown to me was "SPASM INDUCING ACTION LOOOLOOOLOOOLOOOLOOO"

And while as a kid I didn't care, as an older guy im against showing stupid things to kids simply because you can get away with it.

[HFool]

No, not reallly. Everything is a fair target with the people I talk to.

[Omergideon]

Its not really that much of a parody as much as a DD game parody.

Just it seems that most people that like the prequels open up a gigantic can of worms to cover up the plot holes of the movie.

I don't mind the plot holes of the classics, even though there are some.

Though that does shed some insight on people who like the prequels. The just don't mind the plot holes. :smallsmile:

I have watched some of the RLM reviews and found them uninspiring and unfunny when attempting comedy, but somewhat interesting when focusing on analysis. He raise some decent issues, glosses over some points in the movies favour, and I think is unfair in many places without allowing for differences in taste. This is not at Ninja, but another earlier commenter.

And yeah, I think the stories are solid. Nothing dramatic or amazing on a par with the Silmarillion or Shakespere. But solid. I do not think the flaws are too gaping in the main story. There are odd hiccups and issues, and a fair number of questionable (but IMO justifiable because of character flaws) character decisions. But no more than any other major franchise. Though there is less emotional depth to the prequels than the OT I would say. At no point in the movies was I confused why something was happening, or why character x did what they did. I found it to be explained or built up to adequately. Hence solid plots. Workable. Acceptably built. But no more than that.

And I don't find Jar Jar all that annoying. I even think he is funny more often than not. Irritating at times yeah, but Even Jar Jar had serious moments as well. Just saying.


But yeah, Ninja sums up my view somewhat nicely. I can usually overlook a small number of plot holes. If they are the type of thing I don't notice at the time (i.e. Fridge Logic) then I do not let them affect how much I enjoy a movie or book etc. If the ride is fun enough, and the story acceptable, I can forgive them. In fact I enjoy trying to justify a number of plot holes as an intellectual exercise. But since I overlook them I enjoy the films. Kinda like how I enjoy the Transformers films.

But I think what pulls Star Wars up compared to much Sci-Fi, even better written stuff, is that when a star wars movie comes on it feels like an event. It really does. The sweeping plots and high stakes make it feel like the events matter in a way smaller scale but more intelligent sci-fi (like many of Asimovs short stories) cannot.

And Lucas is one hell of a visual Director when he puts his mind to it I think, creating striking and impressive images with the best of them. Give him a good soundtrack, and have someone else write the dialogue, and I think he does pretty good work.

But only RoTJ makes it into my personal Top 10*, and that is iffy at times. The rest I just find entertaining and fun, with some decent lines that provoke me to think.

*In fact I would say that the only proper Sci-Fi in my top ten stories is the Foundation Saga of Asimov, with Tolkien and Narnia representing Fantasy. Aside from that I favour action, comedy or more usually fight movies and Disney.


And I generally think the term "plot hole" is used far too often by many people. At least if I can justify it with no more than 10 seconds thought I wouldn't call it a plot hole. Just something that was not explained straight away. Not saying what is or is not one in Star Wars or any other media, just a general impression.

[Axolotl]

I love Hugh Jackman! What's wrong with him? Did you see him in The Prestige?There's nothing wrong with him (I loved him in The Fountain) he's just one of the first neams to spring to mind as someone they'd cast because they want his name on a poster rather than because he's good for the part. I mean George Clooney was just up for an Oscar this year but he wasn't cast as Batman for his acting talent.

[An Enemy Spy]

Jar Jar really annoys me in Episode 1, but he's a lot more toned down in the later ones that he isn't really an issue anymore. At the very end when he's at Padme's funeral I always though was a pretty powerful moment, actually. It kind of showcases how the story has gone from being light and peppy to being dark and horrible.
I still hate him though.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Thread officially derailed. :smallcool:

One thing I also dislike is Dr Horrible.

[Omergideon]

Thread officially derailed. :smallcool:

One thing I also dislike is Dr Horrible.

Happens eventually. Every Time.




On Topic, I do find that criticising Anime often leads to a "you just hate it cos it is foreign" response from the fans of said Anime. Whatever type. Often this happens in my view. Much like saying you find a certain feature (skin colour, eye shape, hari colour or so on) unattractive leads to accusations of Racism. now this annoys me greatly because the level of mind reading implied by the accusation is staggering. And nothing annoys me more than other people assuming I like/dislike something for whatever reason I have not stated.

I cannot often, and try not to, read subtext in people without serious work. As such I try to avoid it in my words. Assuming something about me I have not said is wrong more often than not. So I get annoyed when people do it.

[hamishspence]

Main reason I'm not too keen on it is it's much harder to read what a character's saying- the mouth just doesn't move right.

[NinjaStylerobot]

I dislike it for the lack of innovation. Ive seen few shows that did't feel like a worse/ slightly better version of what already happened.

Plus that stupid pink hair.

[Omergideon]

Now now, lets not simply bash things. This is to comment on fandoms, not the things they are fans of :smallwink:

[An Enemy Spy]

Tron.

I don't know what's supposed to be so great about this movie. With the exception of Flynn, I found all the characters shallow and boring. I honestly had trouble telling who was who at times because everyone looks the freaking same. The story was dull and uninteresting, and the effects don't come anywhere near standing the test of time. They actually look downright stupid.

I thought the sequel was far superior in every way.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Now now, lets not simply bash things. This is to comment on fandoms, not the things they are fans of :smallwink:

BASH BASH BASH! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[BRC]

On the general subject of "Untouchability", it's an iffy concept because, very frequently, what is said and what is heard can be very different things, and when people talk about things it's a lot easier to criticize it's flaws than to praise it's successes, especially when it comes to separating individual aspects of the work from the experience as a whole.

For example, Alice says "I thought the Star Wars prequels had bad writing".
Bob hears: "The Star Wars prequels are terrible".
From Alice's perspective, she made one complaint, and so Bob's response comes off as irrational. From Bob's perspective, she only stated complaints.

Here's another one, Alice says "I don't like the Star Wars Prequels"
Bob Hears "The star wars prequels are terrible, and you are wrong for liking them".
This, I think, is a big one. People have an easier time acknowledging Taste than they do Opinion, if somebody says "I don't like science fiction movies", nobody questions it, because some people just don't like science fiction movies. If you say "I don't like Star Wars", especially if you DO like other science fiction, then fans can see that as an attack. Since you apparently have similar tastes, it's assumed that you're viewing things wrong. Then both sides are asked to justify their opinions, which usually brings with it the implication that quality can be objective.

Also, it doesn't help that lots of works mentioned here have plenty of baggage attached to them. Star Wars is more than just movies or a franchise,it is one of the (If not the) single most successful "Geek" franchises out there. Star Wars is a cultural touchstone, an ultimate success story, and a cherished childhood memory. Think of how much time and money is spent on Star Wars, star wars books, Star Wars action figures, Star Wars video games and T-Shirts and who knows what else. There is a LOT of star-wars stuff out there, and it's all based on the idea that Star Wars is good. You may be criticizing a movie, but they are defending the entire subculture, and greater culture influence, that the movie in question has spawned.

[An Enemy Spy]

Those are good points, but sometimes the person really is saying, "I don't like X, therefore you are stupid because you do."
This is why I don't watch the Distressed Watcher, because he made the claim that anyone who likes the movies he was making fun of were morons.

[LordVader]

Tron.

I don't know what's supposed to be so great about this movie. With the exception of Flynn, I found all the characters shallow and boring. I honestly had trouble telling who was who at times because everyone looks the freaking same. The story was dull and uninteresting, and the effects don't come anywhere near standing the test of time. They actually look downright stupid.

I thought the sequel was far superior in every way.

Tron's impressive for how revolutionary its special effects were at the time; it's important to keep the context in mind for that one.


Myabe because you were younger when you saw them? I first saw the originals when the Special Edition came out in 1997, so I know how much nostalgia plays in here. I love the orginals. Star Wars shaped my entire childhood in a way the prequels never could because they came out when I was entering my teens. Well, except for Phantom Menace. I was still pretty young when that one came out.
But to the kids of today, Star Wars doesn't have to be divided into two trilogies anymore. Now it can all just be Star Wars to them.
This is why I don't mind the 3D rerelease. It gives a new generation of kids a chance to see Star Wars in the theatre, how it was meant to be viewed. A lot of people hate the Special Editions, but if it weren't for them, I never would have had that opportunity.

I saw the original Star Wars movies at around the same time A Phantom Menace came out.

I plain just don't like the prequels as much, no nostalgia goggles involved. The soul just isn't there.

Also, Anakin is a whiny, annoying sack of angst.

[Omergideon]

I can't say I have too much sympathy for the statement "x was revolutionary and impressive and influential" when used as a defence for someone saying a film was not entertaining. not saying this is what is going on always, but I do not like it. I seperate influence and quality into very distinct categories and one need not influence the other for me.

Or in other words, however famous something is, if I think it is rubbish, it is rubbish. However influential it is.


Much like how often a person may suggest that a criticised element of an adapted work is acceptable because it was in the original. I do not buy that. Sometimes it would be because the element is medium specific (talky scenes work better in print than film IMO for instance). Sometimes I think it sucked in the original as well. And that is more important to me. If a thing is bad it is bad, whether or not it existed in the "book" version or whatever.

At least this is how I feel about it.

[Battleship789]

Tron's impressive for how revolutionary its special effects were at the time; it's important to keep the context in mind for that one.



I saw the original Star Wars movies at around the same time A Phantom Menace came out.

I plain just don't like the prequels as much, no nostalgia goggles involved. The soul just isn't there.

Also, Anakin is a whiny, annoying sack of angst.

Agreed on the original Tron.

On the "Untouchable Hatred," liking Cars is punishable by maiming on this board. :smalltongue:

I won't say anything on Star Wars, so we don't derail this anymore. :smallwink:

[Copper]

My sister-in-law never saw Star Wars as a kid, and she thinks they all suck.
My dad said that you have to watch them when you're young so you can build up that background of loving them that helps you see past all the stupid when you get older.

I saw them when I was 11 and found them uninteresting. My dad saw them as a teenage boy in the 80's and disliked them.

It really depends on the person.

[The Underlord]

@ star wars, i actually liked the prequels, but I'll save some time and say, let's agree to disagree.

OT For me, the hunger game series often seems 'untouchable'. People stare at me in horror when I say I think Mockingjay sucked.

[LordVader]

I can't say I have too much sympathy for the statement "x was revolutionary and impressive and influential" when used as a defence for someone saying a film was not entertaining. not saying this is what is going on always, but I do not like it. I seperate influence and quality into very distinct categories and one need not influence the other for me.

Or in other words, however famous something is, if I think it is rubbish, it is rubbish. However influential it is.


The thing is, though, criticizing Tron for poor special effects is like criticizing silent films for having to use intertitles. They did the best they could within the constraints they operated under.

Criticize the plot, writing, dialogue, and characters all you want, but don't criticize the special effects; they were downright revolutionary for the time, and absolutely the best possible that could have been done.

Criticism implies that something is not as good as it could have been, and that's frankly not the case at all with Tron's special effects.

[turkishproverb]

Shakespeare: A few weeks ago, I started reading Romeo and Julit. The only reason I haven't chucked it out the window (and this is going to sound really, really childish) is I want to see if there's going to be any more lines like "Grab my weapon, ho!"

Don't use that play to judge the man's work. It's the worst thing he ever wrote. By far. And don't read Shakespeare. See it performed, the way it was meant to be experienced.

[MCerberus]

Another problem with The Bard's work is that it's easy to get caught up in the language and trappings of an era you can't really understand. This isn't to say that the period piece works that try to update them are any good (they range from tolerable with '8 things I hate about you' to obscenely bad, mostly the latter).

[Nai_Calus]

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic seems fairly untouchable. I tried to watch an episode of that once. I couldn't make it through and found it unenjoyable. But gods forbid you mention not liking it, or six different 20-something guys jump down your throat. :smalltongue:

I'm not a massive Star Wars fan, but that's probably because we're a Star Trek family. My 'original trilogy' is Wrath of Khan, The Search For Spock and The Voyage Home. :smallwink:

Plus it's kind of annoying how many times they've changed everything in the original Star Wars movies. :P

[Omergideon]

The thing is, though, criticizing Tron for poor special effects is like criticizing silent films for having to use intertitles. They did the best they could within the constraints they operated under.

Criticize the plot, writing, dialogue, and characters all you want, but don't criticize the special effects; they were downright revolutionary for the time, and absolutely the best possible that could have been done.

Criticism implies that something is not as good as it could have been, and that's frankly not the case at all with Tron's special effects.

Earlier comment got eaten by the system.

In essence my point was that I believe I can state that poor fx can cause problems for our ability to enjoy a film. Whether or not they were impressive for the time (assuming it was CG mostly, never seen Tron) they may still detract from the quality of a scene. If CG effects are not good enough to provide immersion or verisimilitude then practical FX should have been used. It is a legit complaint.

For instance the CG at the climax of Blade was about as good as was humanly possible. And yet it still looks hideously fake. And yet the non-cg effects were all excellent and do stand the test of time.

I hold that if the FX do not look good an alternative should have been used to provide immersion.

Plus CG is notorious for aging badly, while practical effects do not.

So saying the CG was a poor choice, even if they were good for the day, is a fair critique of a movie.

[Tiki Snakes]

Earlier comment got eaten by the system.

In essence my point was that I believe I can state that poor fx can cause problems for our ability to enjoy a film. Whether or not they were impressive for the time (assuming it was CG mostly, never seen Tron) they may still detract from the quality of a scene. If CG effects are not good enough to provide immersion or verisimilitude then practical FX should have been used. It is a legit complaint.

For instance the CG at the climax of Blade was about as good as was humanly possible. And yet it still looks hideously fake. And yet the non-cg effects were all excellent and do stand the test of time.

I hold that if the FX do not look good an alternative should have been used to provide immersion.

Plus CG is notorious for aging badly, while practical effects do not.

So saying the CG was a poor choice, even if they were good for the day, is a fair critique of a movie.

I'm not sure if I entirely agree that the effects at the end of Blade really were that good, I distinctly remember thinking it looked terrible even at the time. Might just have been for reasons other than the fact that it was computer generated though, as the general design and plot twist element of the whole moment was pretty horrible too.

And yeah, it's entirely possible to look back and say that early (or otherwise) CG is, looking back, worse than what might have been done in a film otherwise. That said, Films like Tron, which have a place in history because of their pioneering nature have a value above and beyond what it otherwise would have, so while you can validly and accurately say it's a bit ugly and the CG is creaky and unconvincing, that doesn't diminish it's importance. I find it best when watching films like that to keep in mind the time they were made and the general context of the film if possible.

There's no right way to watch a film though, and it's been years since I saw Tron.

Some silent films are suprisingly impressive, actually, even as far as effects go. Metropolis looks fantastic for the most part, the only element that I felt the need to 'tolerate' because of it feeling weird and out-dated was actually the character design for the main character, who very much would have made sense at the time but just seems vaguely ridiculous otherwise. :smallbiggrin:

[NinjaStylerobot]

I think that black and white makes a film look sharper.

[LordVader]

So saying the CG was a poor choice, even if they were good for the day, is a fair critique of a movie.

Again, I can't agree. How do you tell that story without the special effects?

Tron is a movie whose CG was downright revolutionary for the time, and you absolutely cannot watch that movie without placing it in its historical context to gain an appreciation for its technical side.


Hmmm, this reminds me of another thing that is often held up as untouchable: Zelda.

Ocarina of Time is a damn fine game, but it certainly isn't one of the best ones ever made.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Tron is one of the only things thats justified in the mass use of CG. Its SUPPOSED to look fake.

I also find it a perfect mirror to computer technology in the 80s and how legacy compares to it now shows computer advancement in the same way.

From chunky lines and blocks to smooth lines.

[Terraoblivion]

On Topic, I do find that criticising Anime often leads to a "you just hate it cos it is foreign" response from the fans of said Anime. Whatever type. Often this happens in my view. Much like saying you find a certain feature (skin colour, eye shape, hari colour or so on) unattractive leads to accusations of Racism. now this annoys me greatly because the level of mind reading implied by the accusation is staggering. And nothing annoys me more than other people assuming I like/dislike something for whatever reason I have not stated.

I'd say that this is probably a product of two things. One is that anime used to be a lot less accepted than it is now, making a lot of older fans touchy about being made fun of for enjoying cartoons despite being adult. The other is that rather often people who say they don't like anime don't really know much about it, often calling anime fans out as liking stuff that said fans also despise, which is never a pleasant position to be in.

[super dark33]

I have one:*
I used to watch the mondo-media mini show called ****-figures. its a stick figures comedy of 3 min length videos on youtube, currently on its 3rd season.

1st season: Nice and funny, gatherd a 1m fanbase
2nd: ummm were losing it there guys... fanbase grow a little.
3rd: Many fans left it. the rest turned it to untouchable, that even the slightest criticizem provokes them to rage.
I remember commenting " the first season was way better then what the show looks like now, it used to be really funny, creative and original but now its just re-doing jokes and bulls**t."
Someone also replied to my comment (removeing all the cuss words) : " stop trying to brainwash us, the show is perfect what do you know anyway, i question your sexual perferences*"

* not actual words used. but same meaning.

[Philistine]

Were the original movies really so good that the prequels, by existing, are doing them such a "disservice".

I've seen more than a few criticisms of dialogue and plot from the original movies.

Notably Vader's "They must be trying to return the stolen plans to the princess".

- first- that's not what they were doing, they were trying to deliver the stolen plans to Alderaan (which got destroyed while they were in transit).

Second- isn't that a rather silly conclusion for Vader to reach? It requires that Vader think the Rebels are complete idiots, and that once they've gotten plans from someone who has been captured, they'll try and return the plans to the captured victim.
Sorry for the backtrack, but... People seriously don't get where this is coming from? I can't imagine how, unless they for some reason think all the characters know everything the audience does. Spoilered for length:
It's Vader's line, so let's consider it from his POV. What does he know?

Well, the stolen Death Star plans were last seen above Tatooine, the same time and place where the Princess was captured. He took her back to the Death Star, then blew up Alderaan because it was her home planet. But - and this is critical - he also knows that the only people who know any of this are aboard the Death Star.

Then, shortly after Alderaan's destruction, a light freighter pops out of hyperdrive, blunders into range of the Death Star's tractor beams, and is captured. Wonder of wonders, this freighter has just come from Tatooine(!), and arrived in the Alderaan system(!!) after making a very very fast run(!!!). It has to be a Rebel ship; more, it has to be carrying the Death Star plans. (Tarkin comes to the same conclusion, hence the "let them go, but with a tracking device" plan.)

But then the question is, why Alderaan? Why not go straight to the Hidden Rebel Base? The only explanation is that they were trying to return the plans to the Princess on Alderaan, not knowing that 1) she's a captive and 2) the planet is gone.

So, when Vader hears that there's an armed disturbance in the brig, specifically in the block where the Princess is being held? Well, the Rebels couldn't have known before coming aboard that the Princess was here, but they clearly do now. And since he knows they do have the plans and were trying to return them to her before their ship was captured, said returning will still happen if the impromptu rescue mission is successful. Not because the Rebels are idiots who would try to return the plans to someone who was in Imperial captivity, but because they didn't know the situation before they got caught up in it.

[MLai]

{scrubbed}

[NinjaStylerobot]

Look Mlai. There is one thing you are wrong about:

LIKING something doesn't make that person worse. Keep that in mind.

[MLai]

Look Mlai. There is one thing you are wrong about:
LIKING something doesn't make that person worse. Keep that in mind.


MLAI: I forgot that subtlety is completely lost on the internet without brackets. You obviously didn't notice the detached tone, the place of blame more on the majority than on the errant minority, and the entire word of "hypothesis."

See quote. Unless you were referring to something else?

[Omergideon]

Again, I can't agree. How do you tell that story without the special effects?

Tron is a movie whose CG was downright revolutionary for the time, and you absolutely cannot watch that movie without placing it in its historical context to gain an appreciation for its technical side.

A combination of Mat paintings, Black and white to distinguish reality from computer, limited fx moments, or practical effects with odd colours? Simply applying a filter to wash out or enhance colours is an old technology and could easily be apllied to create an otherworldly digital look to the thing. Perhaps. I am no effects guru but I can think of a few things that could have been done. The key is to make the worlds distinct from each other and the needs of the story have been met. Though Ninja mentions a valid reason for relatively poor CG being a point in the films favour. Having not seen the film much I cannot comment. I am being mostly theoretical here, not specific.

And I can watch it without that, depending on why I watch the film. If I choose to watch it for entertainment alone then ignoring the historical context is a valid choice. If I decide to think more deeply about it from a film making context I can legitimately question the choices made.


And M'Lai, I did not say poor FX made Tron a bad movie. By suggesting such you are attempting telepathy and failing at it. Rude? Maybe. I will say that I have not seen Tron in it's entirety and made NO comment on the quality of the film. Suggesting such is wrong, and I would appreciate you not doing so again. My actual opinion is that criticising the FX of Tron is a perfectly valid activity for a modern reviewer, and if they harm your enjoyment of the film that is acceptable to me. I am speaking theory, not specifics.

And I think the CG in AOTC is overdone and at times distracting. AOTC is the weakest prequel film to me. But I do not think it is terrible and enjoy if for reasons unrelated to the FX.

And I am not too annoyed by Jar Jar. What is so awful about this? Or does this just put us too far apart to have a meaningful discussion about the films?

[LordVader]

A combination of Mat paintings, Black and white to distinguish reality from computer, limited fx moments, or practical effects with odd colours? Simply applying a filter to wash out or enhance colours is an old technology and could easily be apllied to create an otherworldly digital look to the thing. Perhaps. I am no effects guru but I can think of a few things that could have been done. The key is to make the worlds distinct from each other and the needs of the story have been met. Though Ninja mentions a valid reason for relatively poor CG being a point in the films favour. Having not seen the film much I cannot comment. I am being mostly theoretical here, not specific.

Right, but then you just end up with a bunch of guys in jeans and t-shirts running around in black and white and color; how does that resemble a digital world at all? CG is necessary.



And I can watch it without that, depending on why I watch the film. If I choose to watch it for entertainment alone then ignoring the historical context is a valid choice. If I decide to think more deeply about it from a film making context I can legitimately question the choices made.

I would question the idea that ignoring the historical context of a film is ever a valid choice, even if you're watching it for pure entertainment.

Even if you're watching Rambo, a movie about as stereotypically brainless entertainment as they get, you should still know the context of the film.

[Hiro Protagonest]

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic seems fairly untouchable. I tried to watch an episode of that once. I couldn't make it through and found it unenjoyable. But gods forbid you mention not liking it, or six different 20-something guys jump down your throat. :smalltongue:
Which episode? If it was episodes 1 and 2 of either season, shame on you. If it was some random episode from season 1 like the one where they fight over the Grand Galloping Gala tickets or the one where Trixie comes to town, yeah, those are bad.

Plus, Princess Celestia is either a mostly benevolent ruler who's remarkably short-sighted, or she's a massive troll.
Plus it's kind of annoying how many times they've changed everything in the original Star Wars movies. :P

And by "they" you mean "George Lucas". Who isn't exactly all he's cracked up to be.

[Omergideon]

Right, but then you just end up with a bunch of guys in jeans and t-shirts running around in black and white and color; how does that resemble a digital world at all? CG is necessary.


I would question the idea that ignoring the historical context of a film is ever a valid choice, even if you're watching it for pure entertainment.

Even if you're watching Rambo, a movie about as stereotypically brainless entertainment as they get, you should still know the context of the film.

there are 2 types of historical context.
1) The history that is necessary to understand and comprehend the plot of a film such as in Rambo. The plot of Rambo is meaningless without some knowledge of who or what Vietnam s.......well not meaningless. Less meaningful. So understanding a little about Roman history may be needed to get exactly what is going on in Gladiator for example.
2) The context of the time the film was made to understand WHY certain choices were made or how they impacted a product. But such things need not affect how much we enjoy a movie. They may be things like "film x was before talkies were produced" or "the history of the director can be expressed in scene y". Or we can discuss why the film had the impact it did. But I do not see how this aspect is necessary for every viewing of a film, and why a viewpoint of pure entertainment need include it.


And my paintings etc are just a few ideas. Using costumes, lighting effects and a myriad of other aspects an otherworldly impression could be made. CG may well be a good choice in this films case. But again, if someone thinks poor CG detracts from the immersive nature of the film I think it is a valid thing to raise. Otherworldy images and realms have been created in movies for decades using practical effects I believe. So the CG was not essential, though it makes some sense as a choice. I merely defend the right of people to say it was a bad choice.

[turkishproverb]

Right, because I can absolutely understand WTF anyone/everyone is saying, when it is performed on-stage.

Shakespeare is absolutely much better when read. When watching a play I immediately zone out, because it is so mindbogglingly difficult to internalize the speech (and then appreiate it!) in real time. The only reason I can do it (and thus enjoy it) for Romeo + Juliet is because I'm so familiar with it in script form.

...

No...just...no.

Most of those "odd old words" are much easier for the viewer to pick up than a reader of the same words, properly performed and contextualized.

The only likely reason you'd have that type of problem with Shakespeare performed is if you have a problem with almost any play. Which, in turn, suggests either that everything you've seen has been so disastrously staged as to not count, or you hate all film as well for having dialog you haven't already practically memorized.

[Nai_Calus]

Which episode? If it was episodes 1 and 2 of either season, shame on you. If it was some random episode from season 1 like the one where they fight over the Grand Galloping Gala tickets or the one where Trixie comes to town, yeah, those are bad.

Plus, Princess Celestia is either a mostly benevolent ruler who's remarkably short-sighted, or she's a massive troll.

And by "they" you mean "George Lucas". Who isn't exactly all he's cracked up to be.

It was the first episode. Which proves my point here. :P

And yes, he's definitely not.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It was the first episode. Which proves my point here. :P

But we got to see Applejack's family! :smallfrown:

My favorite part of the entire show is when Rainbow Dash breaks the speed of sound. Also, a guy who's a fan of that and a certain Street Fighter song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iof5pRAIZmw) did this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bjkM_y-Wps). :smallamused:

[HFool]

Which episode? If it was episodes 1 and 2 of either season, shame on you. If it was some random episode from season 1 like the one where they fight over the Grand Galloping Gala tickets or the one where Trixie comes to town, yeah, those are bad.

Plus, Princess Celestia is either a mostly benevolent ruler who's remarkably short-sighted, or she's a massive troll.

And by "they" you mean "George Lucas". Who isn't exactly all he's cracked up to be.

What do mean "shame on you"?

[Hiro Protagonest]

{scrubbed}

[HFool]

{Scrubbed}

[Velaryon]

Oh, and MLP: Friendship is Magic. Okay series, not nearly good enough to warrant the obsession it has.

I have never seen MLP because I have no interest in it. However, the sheer omnipresence of the fanbase gets on my nerves sometimes. It seems like I can't go anywhere on the internet without running into a whole bunch of bronies. It's almost as hard as trying to find a youtube video where there are no comments about how this video is better than Justin Bieber. No offense to fans of the show, but do they have to congregate on every single website I like to go to?


I think half of Anime in general has a hard time coming up with a good ending. I call them "King Endings", named after Stephen King who also seems to have odd endings/non-endings to some of his work. His works start and middle well, but I kind of feel sorry for the state of Maine in the last chapters.

So true. Many a good King novel has been ruined by a terrible ending. It's happened enough that I suspect he just doesn't know how to write a good ending. There have been some that were good, although it has been a few years since I've read much of his work and can't think of any off the top of my head, but I definitely remember that more often than not the endings were terrible. It really sticks out in my mind there, as up until the last few chapters it was some of the most amazing horror I had ever read, and then all of a sudden it just went to hell.


...

No...just...no.

Most of those "odd old words" are much easier for the viewer to pick up than a reader of the same words, properly performed and contextualized.

The only likely reason you'd have that type of problem with Shakespeare performed is if you have a problem with almost any play. Which, in turn, suggests either that everything you've seen has been so disastrously staged as to not count, or you hate all film as well for having dialog you haven't already practically memorized.

Actually I agree with him that Shakespeare can be easier to digest in written form. While reading doesn't give you the emotional inflections of the actors to help you understand what's being said, you have the ability to take your time, reread a line a few times if necessary to digest it. Whereas if you're watching a play, it's progressing constantly and if you have trouble following the dialogue you will get left behind. It's not as though you can stop the actors and ask them to repeat a line that you didn't quite understand the first time.


Back to the original topic of things that are considered "untouchable," whenever I express dislike of The Eagles, The Doors, or especially Pink Floyd, I usually get told I'm wrong. Likewise whenever I express the opinion that Nirvana wasn't that great, and that Jimi Hendrix, while quite a good guitarist, was not the best ever, my opinion is generally not well received.

[NinjaStylerobot]

The reason they are terrible is that although the buildup is always interesting due to a lack of information, when you find it out its always going to be disappointed.

[Soras Teva Gee]

But all the cons on the criminals boat deciding not to press the button? Are you ****ing kidding me? Obviously the writer has never met cons or been in prison.

Are you speaking from experience then?

I've not one myself but I've met a few on occasion and they were still well within the range of being normal people. Criminals on the whole aren't Hannibal Lecter and shouldn't be painted as such. People commit crimes for fairly specific reasons. That's far still quite far from being anymore likely then the rest of us to just callously blow up a bunch of people they don't even know. Which if a rather melodramatically handled was a point that should have been made.

Of course the whole scenario is so removed from reality it doesn't really serve as the analogue they intend so you have a point more broadly. I can't recall if something disallowed this, but I know I'd only be on a boat with a serious issue as long as it took me to remove clothing I wasn't going to swim in. And nobody I recall brought up that people on the boats might be afraid of being charged with murder afterward, I sure would be.


Right, because I can absolutely understand WTF anyone/everyone is saying, when it is performed on-stage.

Shakespeare is absolutely much better when read. When watching a play I immediately zone out, because it is so mindbogglingly difficult to internalize the speech (and then appreiate it!) in real time. The only reason I can do it (and thus enjoy it) for Romeo + Juliet is because I'm so familiar with it in script form.

As long as you recognize you are going patently against the intent of the work knock yourself out.

However they aren't merely written lines, but lines with a specific style to make them better suited for reading aloud. Iambic Pentameter is what helps make them so memorable because its play of emphasis is a mnemonic to help one remember them. If you just read a Shakespeare like a book you are factually doing it wrong.

And speaking from personal experience having done some theater, being understood verbally on stage isn't even Acting 101 its remedial level that will never get before an audience. Were talking below kids pageant level into the realms of "never rehearsed, ever" to reach that ineptitude. Its integral to the mere act of performing on stage that the sort of problems that plague normal conversation evaporate.

So any problem with comprehension on stage I can only imagine coming from the antiquated language that would plague reading it as well.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

I have never seen MLP because I have no interest in it. However, the sheer omnipresence of the fanbase gets on my nerves sometimes. It seems like I can't go anywhere on the internet without running into a whole bunch of bronies. It's almost as hard as trying to find a youtube video where there are no comments about how this video is better than Justin Bieber. No offense to fans of the show, but do they have to congregate on every single website I like to go to?

Nah... we just have to congregate on every single website period. :smalltongue:

But yeah, us pony fans can get a tad touchy about the series. Probably due to the amount of hating the fanbase got earlier on. And I say earlier on because I've seen very little pony bashing lately. But that's just my own experience. Mileage no doubt varies.




So any problem with comprehension on stage I can only imagine coming from the antiquated language that would plague reading it as well.

Harldy. On stage you have the issue of real time. If the actor uses a word you don't understand (due to antiquatedness) you can't politely ask them to stop while you dig up a dictionary or go over the last few lines to deduce meaning from context. Reading does allow for this.

[MLai]

And M'Lai, I did not say poor FX made Tron a bad movie.
So what are you saying? Let's see, here's what you're saying, carefully phrased by yourself:
"My actual opinion is that criticising the FX of Tron is a perfectly valid activity for a modern reviewer, and if they harm your enjoyment of the film that is acceptable to me."
So basically, you're saying (paraphrase) "If someone feels the dated poor FX of Tron makes him unable to enjoy it (i.e. a bad movie for him), it's a valid criticism on his part that I will accept."
Do you agree with that? So basically the only thing I got wrong is that you don't feel it personally, you're just saying it as a devil's advocate. Because you've never seen the movie.


Suggesting such is wrong, and I would appreciate you not doing so again...
And I am not too annoyed by Jar Jar. What is so awful about this? Or does this just put us too far apart to have a meaningful discussion about the films?
I think the fact that you get all riled over perceived insults makes me not want to have a meaningful discussion with you.
So I said you think "a movie is bad," for partially incorrect reasons. Wow, that necessitates comments like "By suggesting such you are attempting telepathy and failing at it. Rude?" Did I remark you're bad, or rude, or fail, for saying Tron is whatever? I merely posed a question on how you view SFX.
Maybe, I dunno, you could've just replied with "My actual opinion is that criticising the FX of Tron is a perfectly valid activity for a modern reviewer, and if they harm your enjoyment of the film that is acceptable to me." Period?
I don't like wasting time replying to personal atacks. This post is overlong because I had to.


The only likely reason you'd have that type of problem with Shakespeare performed is if you have a problem with almost any play. Which, in turn, suggests either that everything you've seen has been so disastrously staged as to not count, or you hate all film as well for having dialog you haven't already practically memorized.
That's a bit of generalization thar.
Let's take a look at a typical Shakespeare passage:
I do not know
One of my sex; no woman's face remember,
Save, from my glass, mine own; nor have I seen
More that I may call men than you, good friend,
And my dear father: how features are abroad,
I am skilless of; but, by my modesty,
The jewel in my dower, I would not wish
Any companion in the world but you,
Nor can imagination form a shape,
Besides yourself, to like of. But I prattle
Something too wildly and my father's precepts
I therein do forget.
Maybe you're an English major. I'm not. By reading the above at my own speed, I can understand what she's talking about (and appreciate the prose). No single word is foreign to me. But if you want me to listen to that at normal-conversation speed, for 2 hours (movie length), fuggedaboutit.


Are you speaking from experience then?
I've not one myself but I've met a few on occasion and they were still well within the range of being normal people. Criminals on the whole aren't Hannibal Lecter and shouldn't be painted as such.
Some experience. Do you live in the United States of America?
I lived in New York City. I also worked in Harlem for a while. My line of work also brought me in contact with cons as well as mentally ill people.
Criminals and ex-cons are perfectly capable of acting like civilized human beings. They'll also be very nice and congenial to you, if you're doing something good for them and treating them with respect.
However, take them out of the context of a civilized controlled environment, and put them in a prison. See how they change. They have to; it's prison.
When I see those guys on the jailboat, I'm thinking a New York prison.
All it would take is one guy to stand up in that jailboat, and make a plausible rationalization such as "Man, that other boat is filled with a bunch of white folks who live on 5th Ave and don't give 2 ****s about us!" He'll have everyone rallying behind him in a minute. It's Gotham City, so I'd expect the class warfare and social discontent simmering under the surface to be as high as the worst periods of NYC.


However they aren't merely written lines, but lines with a specific style to make them better suited for reading aloud. Iambic Pentameter is what helps make them so memorable because its play of emphasis is a mnemonic to help one remember them. If you just read a Shakespeare like a book you are factually doing it wrong.
Actually I agree with this. I was going to mention it but you said it first. However, that still means I can read it at my speed and however many times I need to, and pause to ruminate if I need to.


So any problem with comprehension on stage I can only imagine coming from the antiquated language that would plague reading it as well.
Uhh, yes? That was my entire point?
Oh, did I imply that my comment applied to modern-English plays as well? If I did, I didn't mean to. I am specifically addressing Shakespeare.
I am much better at understanding him now, because I've been studying Middle English for fun. But seriously, Shakespearean English to an average person? WHOOSHHH.

Lastly... Hey, can ppl stop insulting me? I don't recall insulting anyone. I can see why HFool blew his top. :smallmad:

[Omergideon]

So basically, you're saying (paraphrase) "If someone feels the dated poor FX of Tron makes him unable to enjoy it (i.e. a bad movie for him), it's a valid criticism on his part that I will accept."
Do you agree with that? So basically the only thing I got wrong is that you don't feel it personally, you're just saying it as a devil's advocate. Because you've never seen the movie.


I think the fact that you get all riled over perceived insults makes me not want to have a meaningful discussion with you.
So I said you think "a movie is bad," for partially incorrect reasons. Wow, that necessitates comments like "By suggesting such you are attempting telepathy and failing at it. Rude? Maybe " Did I remark you're bad, or rude, or fail, for saying Tron is whatever? I merely posed a question on how you view SFX.

You phrased your question about FX in a way that came across as somewhat condescending and/or rude to me. It seemed to imply you knowing stuff about my thoughts and feelings that were not true. It seemed rude to me and I wanted to draw your attention to that. I tried to phrase that fairly, dispassionately and explain why I did not like what you wrote, but if you thought I was being improper I apologise for that. Had you been "mind-reading" you would not have been the first person, and it is personal pet peeve of mine when people attribute opinions to me I have not expressed. A possible over reaction on my part, but one on a very sore point with me and online discussions.


But to make it clear how I thought you were being rude. The way you phrased your question implied a lot of opinions about AoTC and Tron that were not in my post. It implied I was a hypocrite by liking one and not the other. Especially as I had clarified my stance in later posts made before you replied to me.That was how it came across. This may not have been your intention of course, but then perhaps..........I dunno you could have phrased it better.


And about the FX in Tron specifically, I think you have it right. I was discussing a kind of viewpoint, using Tron as an example because it was mentioned. But not so much Devil's Advocate as using Tron as a starting point to discussing a concept. I just hope any perception of rudeness on either side is a mere misunderstanding.





But moving on.

The comment an anime makes sense I guess. Any group that has been unfairly maligned in the past over any issue is probably going to be oversensitve to comments about it. I understand it. But I think we all jump to conclusions much too easily on such issues. I know that I have before had to catch myself from responding with an "indignant" response when a valid critique of a thing I like is made, especially when it is often hated on.

Though I still think that liking things declared by fandoms as objectively bad leads to accusations of stupidity more often than disliking the fandom beloved. Especially with characters.

Do we think characters are often the most protected or untouchable things in Fandoms?

[Tiki Snakes]

Whilst reading Shakespear does give you the chance to look things up as you go, I've no real interest in doing so. Conversely, I've always felt good at picking things up from context, so I can definately see the validity in arguments that performed well, it should be much easier to understand what's going on in it's intended form.

At least for me, anyway.

As for the topic of endings, well, you may have a point about Steven King. To be fair, the ending is often the weakest point for so much fiction, they are difficult things to do well without resorting to cheap tricks.
But I don't think that's the issue with Anime and Japanese fiction in general. They simply have a different (and all too often incredibly unsatisfying) approach to endings. I'm sure a more scholarly type could analyse and write about such traits in japanese fiction for a long time and point out many interesting things along the way. All I can say is that I first started to think of it as the "japanese ending" when I saw the Final Fantasy Spirits Within film, recognising in that similarities to several other anime I'd seen. It crops up now and again.

I think it might go hand in hand with what seems to be a tendancy in Anime to fake depth. So many come across with this great, mysterious presence, proposing but never answering any number of questions. When you really look at them however, all too often there are actually much fewer questions than you were assuming and the answers are either have simple probable answers or clearly do not have an answer because the author/s of the work didn't actually ask that question either.

The important thing to remember about Bronies is that all too often they have bought into their own myth. "Love and Tolerance" is supposed to be the motto of the group, but neither of those things comes naturally to people. At best, it is an ideal to live up to. The show has a generally positive message and a refreshing sincerity, sometimes that seems to bring out the evangelist in people who feel the need to spread the joy they feel to others. It can be annoying I'm sure, but they mean well.

All too often when someone encounters what seems to be an "Untouchable subject" it's simpy because they are coming across wrong, or are coming across as trying to talk other people out of liking it. This is especially the case when the person in question posts their negative opinion somewhere dedicated to the show/etc in question. If you don't like Nickleback*, then great. But if you register on their official fan forums and post a thread about how you gave them a try but still think they're a bit rubbish, you're going to get flack.

*Purely random example. Can't remember the last time I heard a nickleback track.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I think it might go hand in hand with what seems to be a tendancy in Anime to fake depth. So many come across with this great, mysterious presence, proposing but never answering any number of questions. When you really look at them however, all too often there are actually much fewer questions than you were assuming and the answers are either have simple probable answers or clearly do not have an answer because the author/s of the work didn't actually ask that question either.

Not that I disagree, anime is often claimed to be deeper then it really is (which isn't to say there aren't cases where it is) however there is another factor here.

Namely that at some level a mystery is more interesting then its answer. Not knowing engages you mentally and draws you into something via your speculation. The problem of course being that this creates a feedback in expectations that is not easy to meet. Particularly because you can't operate in the same mindset as another person and people have a tendency to reject things not in line with their own opinions.

Witness every time someones precious fanon is Jossed and they frantically try to preserve it.

[hamishspence]

People seriously don't get where this is coming from? I can't imagine how, unless they for some reason think all the characters know everything the audience does.

It is true that Vader hasn't seen Leia's message- so he may not know that the message explicitly states, roughly "I'm being captured". Wouldn't be that hard to guess though.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Thats mostly because raising questions is easier then answering them.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked for review, and probably permanently.