Did TPM give birth to the now-common bashing movement?

gez, I think what it boils down to is this.

Basher and gusher started out as negative terms, but now I've noticed things in the Basher's Sanctuary like "I'm proud to be a basher" and "there's good bashing going on", and quite a few gushers will call themselves gushers if asked to choose a side.
We've adopted the terms as our own.
I'm Italian by heritage. This means I'll joke around and call myself a wop or a guinea....

I used "bashing" in my thread title was to try and keep the title concise AND to bring it back home to the TPM forum. I certainly do not think every self-proclaimed "basher" in this forum behaves that way, or has the same opinion of non-SW movies (e.g. Matrix, LOTR) as other bashers.
Seeing as Quix hasn't asked me to rephrase, and he'd be the one with the power to, I like to think I made myself clear from the start, but perhaps it is not the case.


Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Be true to thy known self.

Which, for the most part, everyone in the forum has been, as they have expressed their opinions; popular or not.

Certainly, it cannot be argued that Episode One did give Star Wars fanboys (like myself) something to argue about other than who's a better pilot: Han or Luke? or which is faster Luke's landspeeder or the scout bike.

 

I agree with both gez and adam. The terms basher and gusher are fine, except when used in a derrogatory(sp) fashion. I consider myself a basher, but would be angered by someone that implies that bashers are trolls, or super-geeks, or whatever. I imagine gushers agree when the tables are turned.

 

adam,
Okay I've read your posts again, and if I understand you correctly, you're talking about bashing, not bashers (as we understand the term here). Because the militant troll behavior you've mentioned is something 'gushers' do too, and the ripping into P Jackson and the Wachowskis is also something that 'gushers' do.

So to clarify : you're not talking about 'bashers' of this site, but the angry, insulting etc. behavior of some posters, particularly on other sites where they allow more profanity etc. -- Yeah? Am I right so far?

Well I don't know. I think the sort of posting you're talking about was already happening at places like AICN before '99, wasn't it? And I don't think they would call it bashing over there anyway, would they?

g

 

If you're mean bashing films in general, then the answer is No!

If you're talking only StarWars movie, then the answer is still NO!

They've been people bashing StarWars since '77. The thing now is the internet has an international open forum where you can bash instantly.

 

you're not talking about 'bashers' of this site, but the angry, insulting etc. behavior of some posters, particularly on other sites where they allow more profanity etc. -- Yeah? Am I right so far?

Correct on every account. This applies to every movie, every message board, and doesn't neccesarily have to do with one's opinion of SW.

Well I don't know. I think the sort of posting you're talking about was already happening at places like AICN before '99, wasn't it? And I don't think they would call it bashing over there anyway, would they?

Indeed. But I wonder if that's merely a function of the Internet existing.

I suppose I should try to dig back to AICN's very first articles...

And incidentally the term bashing IS used over there on occasion, though I don't know if they grabbed it from TFN.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Still, bashers can get pretty snarky. I can't stand seeing Lucas's name spelled with a dollar sign. I know he's a hard-as-nails business man, and lord nows he's been neglectful with the prequels, but I see nothing wrong with his putting his products out there, if people are willing to keep buy 'em. And no matter what folks say, I can't imagine money being his prime motivator for making the prequels (or for that matter the occasionally terrible ideas he's put in them). It's not like he didn't have the kabillions, or Gates-like, he's intent on ever expanding. Quite the opposite.

Snarky. I like that. It sounds so much less bannable than 'childish', or 'infantile'. But I use those words only in reference to using the dollar sign thingee, and definitely NOT in reference to anyone's opinion of the films. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who realizes just how silly the whole changing the "s" to a dollar sign is. I thought we stopped making fun of someone's name around kindergarten or first grade, but perhaps I was wrong. What is the minimum age around here anyway?

Part of what I don't understand is what exactly they are saying with that dollar sign. Are we mad because we have to pay for stuff? Then why aren't we mad at every single filmmaker out there? Like $teven $pielberg, Jame$ Cameron, Peter Jack$on or the Wachow$ki$? And why stop at just filmmaker$? How about $ear$, or Wendy'$? Don't you have to pay there? Aren't they doing what they do to make money? The whole thing is just kinda $illy.

Anyway, $orry for being off-topic. $han't happen again.

 

$'ok man... we $han't hold it again$t you...

 

lol Monkey, I totally agree.

I once said that I (as a hopeful future filmmaker) was really glad my name didn't have an S anywhere in it.
MeBeJedi countered with Berto¢¢i.
Much hilarity ensued.


Rick McCallum love$ you!

 

JediMonkey-
I thought we stopped making fun of someone's name around kindergarten or first grade, but perhaps I was wrong. What is the minimum age around here anyway?

I find it curious that you wonder about the level of maturity round here since I remember back in the Summer on the Trilogies Discussion thread you calling the Wachowski Brothers "The Whatsit Brothers" and "The Whatsits". So I find your remarks somewhat hypocritical.

Part of what I don't understand is what exactly they are saying with that dollar sign. Are we mad because we have to pay for stuff? Then why aren't we mad at every single filmmaker out there? Like $teven $pielberg, Jame$ Cameron, Peter Jack$on or the Wachow$ki$? And why stop at just filmmaker$? How about $ear$, or Wendy'$? Don't you have to pay there? Aren't they doing what they do to make money? The whole thing is just kinda $illy.

You say it's silly, but just a couple of days ago in the Basher's Sanctuary you were complaining that Peter Jackson was greedy because he's putting out 2 versions of the LOTR DVDs.
Pot, Kettle, Black.

g

 

You say it's silly, but just a couple of days ago in the Basher's Sanctuary you were complaining that Peter Jackson was greedy because he's putting out 2 versions of the LOTR DVDs.
Pot, Kettle, Black.

Perhaps you failed to notice that Mr. Jack$on's name is on my list as well? I know that happens sometimes when we're in a hurry to post our imagined hypocracies on the message boards though, so I won't hold your error against you.

Also, if you want to say Lucas is greedy, fine. That's your opinion and I have nothing to say about that. I was merely commenting on the silly, childish practice of making fun of his name. Not on the opinion behind it. Yes, I do think Jack$on is being every bit as greedy as people claim Lucas is being, but the only time I am using the $ in his name is when I am pointing out just how silly it is. If you had actually read all the posts you would have noticed that little fact. You would have noticed that I am NOT saying anything about people's opinions of whether Lucas is greedy, only the silly $ thingee. Perhaps if you had done that, this whole conversation would have been unnecessary. But alas, that's not the way it happened.

I find it curious that you wonder about the level of maturity round here since I remember back in the Summer on the Trilogies Discussion thread you calling the Wachowski Brothers "The Whatsit Brothers" and "The Whatsits". So I find your remarks somewhat hypocritical.

And I find it curious that you can remember that, but choose not to remember my response when questioned about it. I believe I admitted I used that because I did not know their names, and couldn't bring myself to care enough about them or their movies to go and find out what they were. Since then though, since we have all heard the names of these hacks until most of us are ready to puke in our soup, I have actually used their correct names, so I'm afraid this "point" of yours is also meaningless, and really has nothing to do with the current conversation. There is no "pot, Kettle, Black" in this instance. Next time when you want to point out how 'hypocritical' I am being, try posting all the relevent information, although I DO realize that then it won't support your accusation, which might be a problem for you and your credibility. Sorry. But thanks for playing, and even though you didn't win the grand prize, here's a copy of our home game for you.

 

Jedi Monkey -
And I find it curious that you can remember that, but choose not to remember my response when questioned about it. I believe I admitted I used that because I did not know their names, and couldn't bring myself to care enough about them or their movies to go and find out what they were. Since then though, since we have all heard the names of these hacks until most of us are ready to puke in our soup, I have actually used their correct names

Ohh?. you didn?t know their names ?right.
Well ?let?s just see, shall we.
Remember ? I was on that thread posting quite a bit, so I remember it.
Anyway - I had a look back at the Trilogies Dicussion thread for May and I quickly found the relevant posts. Bear in mind you had been talking about Reloaded and the Directors for quite a number of posts by this time, and had already used their proper name, but then you decided to switch to ?Whatsits? and it led to this exchange between you and Darth Insidious.
(I?ve highlighted relevant portions)

5/28 3.53pm
Darth Insidious: How hard is it to remember the name "Wachowski"?

Jedi Monkey: Why does it bother you so?

5/29 10.55am
Darth Insidious: It doesn't. I just don't see why you can't say "Wachowski".

JediMonkey: Ah, but you took the time to mention it, so it must bother you. You have mentioned it now more than once

(Then a few lines later in the same post you say

Sensai's simply don't spout drivel like that. It is nothing more than fortune cookie "wisdom" that the Whatsits are trying to impress us withand all I'm saying is it's not working on me.

So you didn?t know their their names ?
Even though you?d made numerous posts on them and their films, even though Insidious asks you why you can?t say the name Wachowski. Twice! then a few lines later you call them the ?Whatsits? again.


Next time when you want to point out how 'hypocritical' I am being, try posting all the relevent information, although I DO realize that then it won't support your accusation, which might be a problem for you and your credibility.

Were the above quotes relevant enough for you?
My credibility?s fine, thanks.
How?s yours?

You claim that people should?ve stopped making fun of people?s names by the time they?re out of kindergarten.
I said your remarks were hypocritical and why.
But instead of saying ?okay, my mistake?? You try and cast doubt on my credibility.
Well now I?ve shown proof.
So unless you?re still in Kindergarten, I say your remarks are hypocritical.

Sorry. But thanks for playing, and even though you didn't win the grand prize, here's a copy of our home game for you.

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

g

 

Another member is taken off the high road.

 

Ah, now I remember you from the other discussion. I had to go back and look but I do remember the twisting of words, and the small, barely noticeable omissions to change the meaning of something. The seemingly intentional misinterpretations of things that people you disagree with would say. Yes I remember now, and it seems like nothing has changed.

The first few times I used the 'Whatsit' thing, it was because, as I have stated, I didn't care enough to go and find out how to spell their name. All I knew was it started with a "W". I wasn't even about to expend the energy necessary to look it up in a previous post, because of how little I cared about them. After that, in the LAST post where I can recall using "Whatsit" instead of Wachowski, it was there just to bug Insidious, because it obviously was doing so. You said you went back and read through those posts, so you saw that. If you really read the ENTIRE post, that is. That's the problem with dragging things in from another conversation that ended MONTHS ago, and posting it out of context. It never says the same thing it originally did IN context. Especially when you WANT it to sound different than it originally did.

So was that one use childish? Perhaps it was. And if it was, then I apologize. But at least I managed to grow up and not keep doing it after I did learn their actual name. Can you do the same thing? The name is LUCAS, with an "S" at the end, and not a dollar sign. Can you and the other people perpetuating this silliness bring themselves to stop? I certainly have my doubts, considering some of the attitudes involved.

Ohh?. you didn?t know their names ?right.

By the way, before you try accusing me of lying, know what you are talking about. The stupid little winking face doesn't change the intention behind your statement.

Also, remember when I asked you to post ALL the relevent information? How come you still weren't able to do that? You simply picked and chose what supported your claims, with little regard for the WHOLE truth. But while looking back through the thread you mentioned, and re-reading your previous posts, I find myself unable to be surprised by this. It's the same tactic you employed in that thread. You say I had been discussing the films and the Wachowskis prior to the few lines you re-posted. However, I went back several pages in that thread to find this, and lo and behold I couldn't! Imagine my surprise. So you added things that never happened to try and pad your argument, which is also something you have done before, so I am not surprised.

But you know what? I just don't care anymore. I like a good debate as much as anyone, but this isn't a debate. My comments were generally directed at no PERSON in particular, and echoed by other people here. Yours were a personal attack targeting myself and no one else, which makes debate somewhat more difficult. Add to that the fact that some of what you are presenting as facts, in reality never happened, and debate becomes impossible. So I am not going to get into yet another volley of personal attacks with you, and I am not going to be a party to dragging this thread off-topic any further. If you wanna discuss this further, or continue to attack me, I'd suggest a PM. Although if you are going to do that, try to include some examples of things that actually happened the way you say they did, instead of distorting things or just making stuff up. Otherwise I'm just going to laugh at you and go on with my life.

My apologies to the rest for my part in dragging this off-topic.

 

All I know is I'm glad that The Matrix has fallen victim to the same level of bashing as the prequels, because it shows people how unfairly Lucas and his films was treated. And Revolutions doesn't even have good reviews or decent box office to fall back on! Doesn't it seem amazing now that back in 99 people were calling The Matrix this generation's Star Wars?

 

^^^

Bloody hell- they're all coming out of the woodwork lately...

 

All I know is I'm glad that The Matrix has fallen victim to the same level of bashing as the prequels, because it shows people how unfairly Lucas and his films was treated. And Revolutions doesn't even have good reviews or decent box office to fall back on! Doesn't it seem amazing now that back in 99 people were calling The Matrix this generation's Star Wars?

Just goes to show, no one should be immune to criticism, not even Lucas.

 

WOW Duckman, you must have a sad life depending upon the views of critics (who don't have any special insight indicating a movie's worth) or the tally of the box-office as evidence that a movie is good or bad. Movies are NOT mathematical.

strilo edit: Telling people they have a sad life is a not cool. Please discuss the topic and not the posters.

 

Did you actually read Duckman's post?

 

I will say that I kind of feel justified by all the Matrix bashing going on these days. Everything said about the sequels is how I felt about the first one. But I don't see the point in going on message boards and constantly bashing them. I didn't like the movies, I moved on.

BTW, my post on the first page of this thread was my 2000th.

 

Judging by your post Pika you haven't moved on.

Yes 3eyez I did.

 

Everything said about the sequels is how I felt about the first one. But I don't see the point in going on message boards and constantly bashing them. I didn't like the movies, I moved on.

[Thick sarcasm]Last time I checked, there weren't six episodes of The Matrix, and you didn't even like the first one. Point not found...[/Thick sarcasm]

There have been many sequels to other movies I haven't liked and I easily
moved on. This Star Wars thing is different. It's not really helpful to try to explain "why" people "bash" because there are so few other franchises out there to compare it to -- name another series that have been released like this saga (six episodes seperated by over two decades and a few different collaborators). One quite possibly the most popular and influential trilogy out there, another that has really caused a split in the fanbase. (eh, I wanted to use another word but not today. )

 

Interesting thread. I tend to think that the bashing took hold with STAR WARS: THE SPECIAL EDITIONS, but maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

I can see your argument R2-12point, but it is true what another post said, there are many great films being made in the shadows of shallow blockbusters.

I do feel that you are unfair on LOTR though, I wouldn't mention it together with such films as The Matrix or the prequels.

Ooooh and by the way, I really enjoyed 'Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle' last night

 

Well - since Jedi Monkey?s post was full of accusations about me inventing stuff I feel I should respond.

You say I had been discussing the films and the Wachowskis prior to the few lines you re-posted. However, I went back several pages in that thread to find this, and lo and behold I couldn't! Imagine my surprise. So you added things that never happened to try and pad your argument, which is also something you have done before, so I am not surprised.

You made this sort of accusation several times in your post. I DID NOT add things that never happened, you WERE discussing Reloaded and it?s directors PRIOR to calling them ?whatsits?,

You were regularly posting on a thread where Reloaded and the name Wachowski were being mentioned frequently by various posters. In the pages I looked at you made at least a dozen posts about Reloaded between 5/20 and 5/28, some quite lengthy, you debated it with Insidious and JenX amongst others, and referred to the directors a number of times etc. etc.
The posts are there for anyone to see (THE TRILOGIES DISCUSSION THREAD ? it?s there in the banner.)

Also, remember when I asked you to post ALL the relevent information? How come you still weren't able to do that?

Well if you insist ? there was some other information, and this also relates to your claim that you didn?t know their name. These quotes (from the same thread) were just a few days before you started calling them the ?Whatsits? (highlights mine) :

5/20 11.39am
Jedi Monkey?..(The Watchowski's know how to hire professionals, don't they?)?.

Jedi Monkey:.?No, the Watchowski's and Joel Silver didn't neglect an ad campaign, ?.

Jedi Monkey:?..Whomever the original credit goes to, the point is the Watchowski's get sooo much credit for being original, and they weren't?..

Then here?s a quote from the next day:

5/21 8.53am
Jedi Monkey: They had a really interesting idea that the Wachowski's stole somewhere?

Perfect spelling that time !
So you did know their name.

The above examples prove 2 things: you did know their name and you did talk about them prior to calling them the ?Whatsits?.

So your accusation is false ? I DID NOT add anything or make anything up.

And ? if anyone thinks I?m harping on about this please bear in mind that JediMonkey accused me of making stuff up, so I felt I had to respond.

g

 

That is enough harping back and forth between you two, gezvader28 and Jedi-Monkey. I would suggest taking it to PM if you need to explore it further. Let's get this thread back on topic.