Hate Remarks Towards Lucas Concerns

I don't think that suggesting someone could have changed over the years is a personal attack.

I don't think that suggesting people can become more jaded and cynical over the years is a personal attack.

I don't think that suggesting one must not have the best sense of humor if they find Jar-Jar "offensive" is a personal attack.

 

I like Don Quixote and Guernica, but not Mademoiselles d'Avignon. Am I therefore not a Picasso fan? Same artist, different works, different reactions.

The difference is that Star Wars is one saga, not several different stories. Your metaphor is more akin to saying, "I like Star Wars, but Indiana Jones left me cold, and I really hate Willow." Or, take it the other way, it's like saying, "Well, I really like the bull in Guernica, and the woman is pretty good, but the rest of the painting annoys me." More accurately, it's like saying, "I like Chapter One of Lord of the Flies, but by the time it gets to 'The Cry of the Hunters,' it pretty much lost its steam."

 

Quix,

I addressed that. It's one thing to say, "I preferred this piece over this piece, by the same artist," and quite another to say, everything Picasso painted was trash after he turned 30, and to say so on a fan site dedicated to Picasso's works. You're just asking for trouble. It's trolling. By any definition in the book. Do you not see the difference? I certainly can. heh heh heh

 

JG-

I disagree fundamentally. Ask Go-Mer about Lucas revisiting similar subjects with different themes. It's one of the few things he argues with which I agree.

The films are different, although similar themes run through them. Even if we use the "same book, different chapters" argument, it is still apropos and germane to argue that a particular chapter jolts the narrative and/or is of sub-par quality. I skip over the chapter in Mody Dick where Melville goes on and on about the whiteness of the whale. I got it in the first paragraph - I don't still need to "get it" in the seventh. It is, IMHO, a lesser chapter than the one which reveals the depths of Ahab's desire for revenge and descent into madness.

EDIT:

I addressed that. It's one thing to say, "I preferred this piece over this piece, by the same artist," and quite another to say, everything Picasso painted was trash after he turned 30, and to say so on a fan site dedicated to Picasso's works. You're just asking for trouble. It's trolling. By any definition in the book. Do you not see the difference? I certainly can. heh heh heh

No, it wouldn't be trolling to go to a Picasso site and say that my honest opinion is that his pre-Cubist work was generally better. It may not be a popular opinion, but it is an honest statement by someone who overall enjoys Picasso's work; one might even be so brave as to call this person a fan.

The point being is that you're setting arbitrary criteria for what constitutes fandom, and said criteria just happens to exclude those with whom you disagree. I consider us both SW fans, you don't seem to feel the same way (at least not to me). Again, I ask you, which definition will cause more harm and strife on these boards?

 

Lesser does not equal trash. See, some bashers don't know the difference between tactfully stating their disappointment and just coming in, guns'a'blazin, saying everything Lucas is doing these days is garbage (tack on here what Jedi Galadriel said) geared specifically to sell, sell, sell! I'm sorry, that isn't a legitimate criticism. It's a blanket statement, without proof, without substance, that merely plays on the negativity and attracts those of like mind. Soon, the place is brimming over with naysayers and it's supposed to be a fan site. You know F_A_N site. (redundancy is mine, saith the Star Wars fan)

 

Again, give me specific examples. The tendency I've seen in discussions like this is for sweeping generalizations to be made regarding what the "other side" always says, only to find such statements as being unfounded.

 

I agree with Quixotic that fans don't have to like everything about the films.

Most of the "self proclaimed bashers" genuinely like aspects of TPM. The Basher's Sanctuary came into being to try and create a place where they could be critical without having to worry about upsetting the "gushers", and vice versa.

The only thing I take issue with is the idea that suggesting someone has grown out of the ability to roll along with a SW flick and anjoy it for what it is constitutes a "personal attack".

If people can go on and on about how Lucas is more concerned with the SFX than the story, or that he doesn't care as much as he used to, then I don't see the problem with suggesting the same -could- be true of the viewers who feel that way.

I actually had one of my threads closed for saying that Jar-Jar is funny to people who haven't lost their sense of humor.

It seems the only "acceptable" discussions are ones that attribute one's disatisfaction to Lucas or the film itself, when art is a two way street. A viewer's general attitude DOES play a part in their final appraisal, and to ban people for bringing that dynamic up and calling it a personal attack makes for a very one-sided forum.

 

The films are different, although similar themes run through them.

The films are different, but they are different parts of the same story. The theme is the whole point of the thing, the throughline, the thing that matters. And that has not changed. There were several threads that could have been picked up after ANH, and Lucas lost some viewers when he chose not to follow those. More threads had to be abandoned when he made the choices for RotJ. Still more were abandoned for TPM. That's the essence of making choices as you go further into telling a story--you have to find what the most important thread is. Dropping the other threads to focus on it doesn't make it a different story.

Even if we use the "same book, different chapters" argument, it is still apropos and germane to argue that a particular chapter jolts the narrative and/or is of sub-par quality. I skip over the chapter in Mody Dick where Melville goes on and on about the whiteness of the whale. I got it in the first paragraph - I don't still need to "get it" in the seventh. It is, IMHO, a lesser chapter than the one which reveals the depths of Ahab's desire for revenge and descent into madness.

I managed to miss Moby Dick in school (don't ask me how), so I can't really address that particular chapter, though it sounds like a mid-chapter thing to me. The progressive dislike of the prequels is more like opening a book, thinking it's going to go one way, and becoming progressively more disappointed as the author takes it another way. That's fine--whatever floats your boat--but why say you like the book? I liked the beginning of Bean's story (the "Shadow" series) by Orson Scott Card, but the longer it goes on, the less I like it, to a point where I don't call myself a fan of the "Shadow" books.


EDIT:
If people can go on and on about how Lucas is more concerned with the SFX than the story, or that he doesn't care as much as he used to, then I don't see the problem with suggesting the same -could- be true of the viewers who feel that way.

Which is why I don't think either is a good idea. I think if it's not okay for Go-mer to make psychological judgments about other posters, then it's not okay for those other posters to make psychological judgments about Lucas, either.

I think a moratorium should be voluntarily called on things that boil down to

• Why someone else likes/does not like the prequels or the classic or the EU, etc. It's fine to say why you personally aren't into it, but speculating on what another person is thinking and feeling is always a recipe for disaster.


• Why Lucas does what he does, whether we like it or not. Speculations on Lucas's motives are just as obnoxious as speculating on a fellow poster's.

 

JG...
"The difference is that Star Wars is one saga, not several different stories."

Point of clarification...
I hope by that you mean that that this "one saga which is not several different stories" begins some millions of years prior to ANH and currently extends as far beyond Return of the Jedi as the New Jedi Order and is covered in movies, computer games, roleplaying games, action figures, ccg's, tcg's, novels, magazines, e-books, novellas, video games, comic books, etc.

And this "one saga which is not several different stories" includes the several different stories about Exar Kun, Naga Sadow, Marka Ragnos, Ludo Kressh, Ulic Qel-Droma, Nomi Sunrider, Luke Skywalker, Mara Jade, Grand Admiral Thrawn, Admiral Daala, Bria Tharen, Han Solo, Lando Calrissian, R2-D2, C3-PX, K3-PX, Kyle Katarn, et. al. and characters played by Art Carney, Billy Dee Williams, Starship, Wilfred Brimley, etc.

I just wanted to make sure we all know what is meant by "the one saga."

Or, is that even clear?

 

I could probably post almost anything by Jabbadabbado and have a healthy example. I'd prefer not to single out anyone else because this isn't a trial of any one person or groups of people but of the rules, themselves. I think Jabba can handle it, else I wouldn't have used him as an example. I don't think any one individual is wrong! I think what is wrong is there isn't enough definition of what this site is supposed to represent. People who are Star Wars fans by the current definition, come here, only to find just as many naysayers as proponents. Heck, they can find negativity about Star Wars in almost any mainstream critic's review of Star Wars. Why would they come to a fan site to read more of the same?

I suppose what I'm getting at is, if there isn't a clearer definition in the rules, new arrivals will continue to be unpleasantly surprised, both those for and those against the PT, the OT, GL or Star Wars in general. The trouble will continue apace and escalate until someone clarifies it.

Just HOW much trashing should be allowed on a fan site?

 

The only thing I take issue with is the idea that suggesting someone has grown out of the ability to roll along with a SW flick and anjoy it for what it is constitutes a "personal attack".

That is a rather remarkable euphamism for what happened. The actual debate and discussion involved a lot more positing of motivations and capabilities than that. Plus it occured on several occasions, which made it questionable why you chose to repost theories that got you in trouble.

If people can go on and on about how Lucas is more concerned with the SFX than the story, or that he doesn't care as much as he used to, then I don't see the problem with suggesting the same -could- be true of the viewers who feel that way.

But you don't *know* this to be true, and you made this argument time and time again, even in light of significant contraindicating evidence. I could say that you possessed attributes that painted you in a much more negative or outlandish light than how you truly are, and because of internet anonymity, for all they know, it *could* be true. That wouldn't make it acceptable.

I actually had one of my threads closed for saying that Jar-Jar is funny to people who haven't lost their sense of humor.

Again, that's a rather superficial and euphamistic description of what happened. When you suggest that the truth is that a poster's sense of humor is dead you're going beyond the realm of the acceptable.

EDIT

It seems the only "acceptable" discussions are ones that attribute one's disatisfaction to Lucas or the film itself, when art is a two way street. A viewer's general attitude DOES play a part in their final appraisal, and to ban people for bringing that dynamic up and calling it a personal attack makes for a very one-sided forum.

No, art isn't a two-way street. It's self-expression, and the issue is whether the artist/artists managed to convey the theme/message/intent. Bringing up the dynamic is one thing; suggesting that the receptive capacity is lacking is another.

 

This is exactly what I have a problem with.

Nobody "knows" that Lucas has become more focussed on the SFX than the story, or cares less about this saga now either.

The only difference is Lucas isn't a member here.

 

I could probably post almost anything by Jabbadabbado and have a healthy example. I'd prefer not to single out anyone else because this isn't a trial of any one person or groups of people but of the rules, themselves. I think Jabba can handle it, else I wouldn't have used him as an example. I don't think any one individual is wrong! I think what is wrong is there isn't enough definition of what this site is supposed to represent. People who are Star Wars fans by the current definition, come here, only to find just as many naysayers as proponents. Heck, they can find negativity about Star Wars in almost any mainstream critic's review of Star Wars. Why would they come to a fan site to read more of the same?

Quite the contrary. I think there is ample evidence of what this site is meant to represent. Read the forum description again and tell me if it isn't clear, especially in light of the Terms of Service. Again, the bone of contention in this thread doesn't seem to be an issue of clarity, but of indignation towards a nebulously-defined subjective concept, with demands that something be done to ban certain fans (in my sense of the term) from participating in these forums.

I suppose what I'm getting at is, if there isn't a clearer definition in the rules, new arrivals will continue to be unpleasantly surprised, both those for and those against the PT, the OT, GL or Star Wars in general. The trouble will continue apace and escalate until someone clarifies it.

Just HOW much trashing should be allowed on a fan site?

The rules are quite clear, and while they admit some plasticity, they explicitly state that mutual respect is the order of the day. And to answer your closing question, enough to convey honestly the totality of every SW fan's experience with the movies in question.

 

Nobody "knows" that Lucas has become more focussed on the SFX than the story, or cares less about this saga now either.

Which is why such comments are quite often prefaced with statements like "I think that...," "In my opinion...," "It seems to me..."

Further, such statements are discussions of his efforts in his craft, not him as a person. The general consensus thus far (from both sides of this discussion) seems to be that statements like "GL = fat" are abusive, and may exceed the TOS, context dependent. Statements like "He's more concerned with FX than story" aren't in the same ballpark.

 

So all I have to do is preface my theories with IMHO?

 

So all I have to do is preface my theories with IMHO?

No. Reread my second paragraph in the above post. You make your comments about posters as people; the comments you complain about concern artistic endeavor.

though it sounds like a mid-chapter thing to me.

J-G: Nope. It's an entire chapter. Pages and pages of description of the whale's color. While statements like "Dude, it was white" would have been far worse, the amount of space devoted to stressing that it was a rare white whale was excessive and made the narrative drag.

 

Quix,

The problem is, you are only speaking for yourself. You are speaking from your own experience, your own set of moral values and what constitutes and differentiates "trash" from legitimate criticisms. So far, you haven't said anything that offended me even though you and I may not agree on what is and isn't good about Star Wars these days. But there are several who do not think as you do. Who don't temper their critcisms with any form of social niceties. Who find myriad things, some entirely ridiculous, to complain about that serve only to rile up people and insult them on a regular basis. They need to read rules that tell them specifically what constitutes a legitimate criticism and what constitues trashing. It is trashing to say GL's work is trash these days. It is not trashing to say you prefer the OT to the PT. You SEE the difference? Sure you do.

 

I am simply unable to understand how you can present that double-standard with a straight face Quix.

 

The problem is, you are only speaking for yourself. You are speaking from your own experience, your own set of moral values and what constitutes and differentiates "trash" from legitimate criticisms. So far, you haven't said anything that offended me even though you and I may not agree on what is and isn't good about Star Wars these days. But there are several who do not think as you do. Who are don't temper their critcisms with any form of social niceties. Who find myriad things, some entirely ridiculous, to complain about that serve only to rile up people and insult them on a regular basis. They need to read rules that tell them specifically what constitutes a legitimate criticism and what constitues trashing. It is trashing to say GL's work is trash these days. It is not trashing to say you prefer the OT to the PT. You SEE the difference? Sure you do.

Which demonstrates that your position may be just as untenable. Deciding what is "trash" and what isn't is far too subjective to create an a priori rule. There was already common consensus that discussing GL's daughters' weight was beyond the scope of the TOS, that comments about his motivations and decisions might be, and that comments explicitly about the artistic endeavor are not.

I am simply unable to understand how you can present that double-standard with a straight face Quix.

Go-Mer:

There is no double standard. Offering opinions about the choices made in artistic expression is not the same as offering opinions about posters as people. Four other moderators of the TPM forum agree with me on the matter. Why press on with this drama? Four of us have told you that offering opinions on bashers as people is unacceptable, and you think *we're* the ones with the problem?

 

I just wanted to make sure we all know what is meant by "the one saga."

Or, is that even clear?

Not in the least.

That's why canon arguments are so heated. I reject the EU entirely as part of the saga, and only consider movies produced by Lucas to be the saga--the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. I consider the EU and fanfic to be interpretations and drashes on the story, approximately on the same level. Some is entertaining, some is not, mileage varying appropriately. But Lucas is the "author" of this story, and as such, he's the one who creates it and determines its "true" form. The rest of us, whether paid or not, just play around in his sandbox.

J-G: Nope. It's an entire chapter.

I meant mid-chapter as in "middle of the book" chapter. Something that might rankle stylistically, but doesn't spoil the story.

Offering opinions about the choices made in artistic expression is not the same as offering opinions about posters as people.

There is a huge and self-evident difference between saying, "I think GL chose not to have Anakin cry at his mother's funeral because he wanted to keep the character more sympathetic, but I think that was a miscalculation" and saying, "GL is only making these movies out of a cyncial profit motive" or "GL hired Hayden Christensen because his daughter has a crush." The latter two may be true or they may be false, but neither is actually related to the issue of whether or not that scene works or achieves its objective.

 

J-G:

I see what you mean. Unfortunately, it *does* bring the narrative to a complete stop, IMHO.

 

It also sounds like it was not ultimately tied to the theme/plot of the book. There's no time in SW to make a whole chapter not tied to the theme.

 

Cogent arguments have been made that TPM is much the same way (i.e., connected, but only tangentially); there are arguments that suggest that only a handful of common elements return from TPM to AOTC. There's a thread in my forum concerning the relation of TPM to the rest of the saga.

 

I don't see how (and don't especially enjoy that sort of argument; I don't see the point in arguing whether chapter A or Chapter B of a book is supposed to be there--I assume the author did what he did for a reason, and take critical analysis from there). The thread left at the end of RotJ was "How did the good man Anakin Skywalker end up as Vader, and why was it right to redeem him?" That question can't be answered without going back to the root--his slavery, his separation from his mother, his marked difference in life pattern from the other padawans. Nothing in AotC makes sense without TPM.

 

Slove this we may not be able to. To many different views we have.