AOTC Bashers- Everyone Read

AOTC is a very good film, despite its flaws, so that's why you see the bashers becoming more desparate. IMO.

No. The reason people are "bashing" the flick is because they did not like it thanks to the glaring faults it so obviously has. It is a far easier film not to like than TPM.

 

Bashers aren't desperate with AOTC. There is plenty to go around of things to bash in any Star Wars movie. AOTC's just the topic of the day.

I loved AOTC, but I love to bash certain things occasionally. It is far from a perfect film. It's ok to balance your feelings, Yoda isn't gonna come to your house and kick your ass if you aren't completely on the light side gushing all day.

It's all about what you bash. If you gush, no matter where you are in life, prepare to be bashed. Humans are a cynical lot. When you are here at JC, just try to limit the bashings to the film and not the people who come here to bash or gush. personal attacks on the net are lame.

 

Check this review out. It's classic basher syndrome. The guy hated Episode I, but he says he still went into AOTC with an open mind. Yeah, right

 

Jesus craz Duckman, why are you posting that review in every thread? This is the third thread I've seen it in. Like it or not, that guy makes some good points, and anything relating to his gun fixation is ad hominem and is therefore irrelevant. Happy hunting everyone.

 

Ducks, are you out to irritate everyone again?

You know better than to try to fiat motivations on people (remember Go-Mer's bannings due to him making wildly inaccurate and unfounded claims about bashers in the TPM forum?). Why is it so hard to take someone at face value when he/she says that he/she went in with an open mind?

I disliked most of TPM (40% like / 60% dislike), but I went into AOTC with an open mind. I liked it more than TPM (60% like / 40% dislike), and I have faith that this trend will continue with Ep. III (if the pattern holds true, I should be at about 80%/20%). And I will go into that film with an open mind, too.

Dislike of TPM is not necessarily a bias against AOTC. Just read the posts of all of the TPM "bashers" who love AOTC in the Sanctuary.

 

I'm about 50% like/50% dislike with TPM and 99.9% like/0.1% dislike with AOTC.

 

who love AOTC in the Sanctuary.

I dont know why but I found that funny

 

My comments weren't wildy inaccurate or unfounded, they were just not all-inclusive.

But that's how all generalizations are.

 

Go-Mer - You accused everyone who disliked JJB of being intolerant, multiple times in multiple threads. cbjedi spanked you for making wildly off-base assertions about the psychological make-up of people who weren't as happy with the film as you were, accusing us of willfully ignoring the "patently obvious".

Regardless of the spin you put on it, you got slapped because you argued that there were psychological problems with those with whom you disagreed. I've got screen shots of some of these, and a bevy of other members (mods and general members) who remember what you posted.

However, that particular argument isn't worth revisiting. The point is that there is demonstrable evidence that disliking TPM did not bias people against liking AOTC.

 

If someone is consistantly bashing AOTC, can a mod please ban them and put them out of their misery? I mean, it must be depressing for them to spend so much time discussing a movie they didn't like or even hated!

Just curious

 

SWF2002-

I think you're missing the point of this thread (and perhaps of these forums). Discussion about the films necessarily entails discussing both the good and the bad. Fandom is generally a standard bell curve - the extreme positions (those who loved/hated everything) are scant, most fans are in the middle.

Further, basherdom/gusherdom is relative to the poster making the accusation. I would sincerely doubt that anyone here thinks of him/herself as being anything but normal and moderate in their fandom. If I happen to state that I disliked Yoda's duel (and I did), there are, no doubt, people who will brand me as an AOTC basher, even though I liked 60% of the film.

Your proposal is too extreme and illogical. If we weren't SW fans, we wouldn't be at this site. If we didn't want the films to be as good as they can be, we wouldn't be discussing their strengths and weaknesses. If we don't want discussion to descend to vapid threads like

"I like Lucas!
Me too!
Me too!
Me too!
+1
+1
+1"

you have to allow for dissent. Engage in reasonable discussion, if only to test and reaffirm your enjoyment of the film.

 

Of course not. I was doing no such thing. I never suggested people had mental "issues". I only said that the problems many had with TPM were not problems with the film itself, but with the people who didn't like the film. I figure they were really problems with the film itself, I would agree with them that the film sucked hard.

With Jar-Jar, I was saying that there were many people who were intolerant of him, and that isn't exactly stretching anything now is it?

You would then come in and "explain" to everyone that I was not suited to make phychological observations about other posters, and then CB Jedi couldn't differentiate between what I was actually saying, and what you were telling everyone I was saying. That's why I was banned. After talking him through what I was ACTUALLY saying, he unbanned me.

I agree with you on the need to keep the forum diverse, but if you really feel diversity is great, I don't understand the need to hide out in "sanctuaries".

I mean if we should have to deal with all the constant whining from those of you who don't get why any of the SW films are really great, then you should have to deal with people like me trying to figure out what your issues with any of these films really are.

Are they with the film? Or are they issues within yourself?

I mean really if 50% of a group liked a film and the other 50% didn't like the film, does that mean the film failed? Or is it really the people who didn't like it that failed?

 

Q-Sith,

I completely understand you point. I agree that discussion and opinionated critisicm is a major, and often fun, aspect of these boards. However, some people here NEVER have anything good to say about SW. What's even worse, many of those same people attack GL himself. That goes too far, imho. And if someone's hatred of the prequels is that strong, then it might be better for them to not spend their time on these boards.

 

Please, Go-Mer, that most assuredly is *not* what you were doing. It's a shame that the old Phantom Edit thread was cut - you had some real gems in there.

Are they with the film? Or are they issues within yourself?

Gee, Go-Mer, let me guess which one you're going to propose? By the way, exactly how does this not demonstrate that you were making categorical assessments of those disaffected with the film, considering that you suggest that the latter is true for everyone who didn't like the films?

I mean really if 50% of a group liked a film and the other 50% didn't like the film, does that mean the film failed? Or is it really the people who didn't like it that failed?

Gee, let's toss is some bad causality, to boot. Exactly how does one "fail" as an audience member, Go-Mer? We all went into the film wanting SW with an open mind; some people felt it measured up, some didn't. Reactions were all across the board, so your argument doesn't hold up. There are some who love the film categorically. There are some who felt it made magnificent eye candy, but was weak in terms of literary theory and mythology. There are some who feel that the film was overly reliant on CGI, but that the depth and literary elements were stellar. There are some who disliked everything but Palpatine and the DOTF. You are blissfully ignoring the myriad reasons why people liked and disliked the film.

It's not a matter of a litmus test for fandom; it's not a matter of some audience members possessing qualities that others lacked - the film just failed to resonate with people.

I'll gleefully ask Stryphe, TrueJedi, stone_jedi, Malthus, and Patrick_Russell to address this argument, since it's about the eighteenth time I've seen you use it.

SWF2002- I see where you are coming from. If posters are trolling (as per the definitions in the Welcome forum), then they aren't abiding by the TOS. If, however, it's a question of perception, then it's debatable. Are my suggestions that Lucas isn't as good as he used to be, or that he's a revisionist historian when it comes to the saga trolling? I can provide compelling arguments to justify my opinions, so I don't think that

 

If you didn't have expectations, then how is it the film could not meet them?

 

Let's just overgeneralize about everything, shall we?

Lucas creates a standard with the films he puts out twenty years ago. These films establish the benchmarks for artistry, characterization, and chemistry for the films.

Lucas then says he is creating more SW films.

Exactly how are we not supposed to expect them to be on par with the others?

You're equivocating here on "expectations" - qualitative expectations are not the same as thematic expectations. Not enjoying Natalie's performance is not the same as being upset by the introduction of midiclorians - one is a technical matter, the other is thematic.

We all had qualitative expectations - we were expecting SW, and not Ishtar. If the viewer had seen a SW film before, that expectation was set (which means that even you, Go-Mer, had expectations). We did not all have thematic expectations. Many of us avoided all spoiler materials - I didn't know that there was a new Sith Lord until I saw the first commercials featuring a red sabre.

Which kind of expectations are you accusing us of having that you did not, Go-Mer?

 

Okay, so you could probably say you and I both expected the new films to be on par with the classic trilogy installments.

Now how would you explain the difference in our perception of what was delivered? I mean my expectations were more than met, and yours were not.

Is that because you have a better grasp on what a SW film needs to have to pass muster? Or is it because you had an unrealistic perception of just how good the original films were to begin with?

I mean all of the SW films have been lambasted for their ludicrous story points, their wacky dialogue, and their dicey performances right? So what did TPM or AOTC do that was so much worse than what happened in the classic trilogy?

 

I mean all of the SW films have been lambasted for their ludicrous story points, their wacky dialogue, and their dicey performances right? So what did TPM or AOTC do that was so much worse than what happened in the classic trilogy?

I think you're overgeneralizing here. Sure, ROTJ may have had it's weaknesses, but if ANH and ESB were as flawed, and I'm not talking about superficial flaws, but the serious flaws that are strong enough to ruin the story and characters (which, in my opinion, is what TPM and AOTC had), I doubt people would be hailing ESB/ANH as masterpieces if they were "equally flawed." I personally don't think all SW films are equally flawed. I think that after ESB, the weaknesses became more defined and grew more rampant.

 

ESB would probably still get pretty good review today (critics like dark, slow-paced films). But I think, without the benefit of nostalgia, ANH and ROTJ would be heavily criticised. In fact, there are plenty of critics now who think ANH is a shallow and badly acted film. I remember Peter Travers in Rolling Stone reviewing the special edition and saying the film lacked heart. Lucas just doesn't make films for critics. Never has.

 

Quixotic Sith -- Your response above where you Quote Go-Mer was classic. It's laughable that he just ignores you disproving him once again and moves on to another topic.

Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal at all to criqique the films. It's art. It's entertainement. It's subject to various opinions.

SWFan2002- So what if someone has NOTHING postive to say about SW? What does that mean? Why is that person not entitled to come here and express their negative opinions? Why are you anymore entitled to express your positive opinions? You're not.

I don't know how you could see an SW movie with ZERO expectations after seeing the OT and knowing that the PT is "the story of Anakin Skywalker".

And I do also agree that there are flaws in the PT that are well beyond anything in the OT.

Let the debates continue...

 

It's just like old times with Quix and gome getting into it....

Seriously, I guess if Gomer thinks the Matrix sucks, or any other movie for that matter, then he certainly must believe that it's his fault as a viewer, and not the films fault, because hey, 50% of people liked it, and 50% didn't. Am I right??

 

Axiom: Films are made for an explicit or implicit purpose, to be realized by the audience.

Theorum: Audience satisfaction is in some measure dependent upon how that explicit/implicit purpose is realized.

Corollary: The more the audience realizes (apprehends/enacts) the explicit/implicit purpose of the film, the greater their satisfaction.

Corollary: For any given audience where half is satisfied and half is dissatisfied, only free variables should be analyzed. The film itself is a constant.

If Go-Mer's argument is true...

...then audience members who were dissatisfied with Spice World are wrong, and somehow defective as an audience member.

...then audience members who were dissatisfied with Ishtar are wrong, and somehow defective as an audience member.

...then audience members who were dissatisfied with Battlefield Earth are wrong, and somehow defective as an audience member.

...then audience members who were dissatisfied with Rollerball are wrong, and somehow defective as an audience member.

...then audience members who were dissatisfied with The Avengers are wrong, and somehow defective as an audience member.

...then audience members who were dissatisfied with Dungeons and Dragons are wrong, and somehow defective as an audience member.

Quix's Free Variable Theorum: Maybe, just maybe, taste is subjective, and some people will like elements that others don't.

Corollary: Some people have bad taste, and so enjoy bad movies.

Corollary: There is no other compelling reason why individuals like Carrot Top, David Arquette, and Yahoo Serious can make movies.

The point being, Go-Mer, that different reactions to the same "catalyst" does not necessarily reveal or indicate a defect or shortcoming in dissatisfied viewers.

 

From Green_Destiny_Sword:
SWFan2002- So what if someone has NOTHING postive to say about SW? What does that mean? Why is that person not entitled to come here and express their negative opinions? Why are you anymore entitled to express your positive opinions? You're not.

Yes, I AM

Anyway, all I'm saying is that if someone has nothing positive to say about SW, then they may want to think about spending less time on a SW FAN forum, and more time somewhere else.

After all, a SW FAN forum should probably consist of SW fans, and people with nothing good to say about SW are not, by any reasonable definition, SW fans.

 

SWF2002-

There are a few objections to that.

1. A distinction must be made between those posting negative statements to cause a ruckus (trolling, as per the forum definitions) versus those posting negative statements to further discussion (legitimate posts).


2. Frequently posters who express dissatisfaction with a particular film (or more than one film) are told that they are not SW fans. The retort is more inflammatory than the post. Disliking a film is not the same as disliking SW. A distinction must be made between those who dislike particular films and those who dislike SW (which then must go through the distinction above).


3. Dissatisfaction with a particular element does not necessarily constitute dissatisfaction with the entire film, as per the 60%/40% discussion above. All too frequently, posters have been accused of "hating" a film because they didn't like the acting. These are separate issues.
4. Dislike of GL and/or his decisions does not bar a particular person from being a SW fan, much in the same manner as dislike/dissatisfaction with the President bars one from citizenship.

There are myriad reasons why someone could be posting negative things about the films. Without having gone through each member's post history and reading each post, it's a little disingenuous to say that a poster has nothing positive to say, or that they aren't contributing to the discussion. Duckman, for example, is extremely flippant and occasionally irritating; however I would be remiss were I to say that his posts are *always* wrong or misguided. These are the very generalizations about fans that Go-Mer and I are discussing.

I'm not trying to deny what you are saying - I haven't spent more than a few hours in here. I've just seen too many of the above types of problems in the TPM forum, so I am certain that they are occuring here. If what you say is true and they are just causing a ruckus, remind them of the TOS and talk to a mod. If they aren't simply causing a ruckus, but actually are trying to make a point, then there is no issue but one of mutual respect.

 

Actually, Q-sith, what you wrote above makes perfect sense. Thanks