Star Wars - Rescue on Endor is now finished!!!!

"Do I agree with the decision about hosting? First, it's not my place to do so, as I don't see the same playing field that they do."

Ahh, you're skirting around the question. I didn't agree with your rating, so what? Who cares. That's not the point. People naturally agree/disagree with critics. I think you wrote a good/thorough review, I just didn't like the end ranking, big deal.

The point of my question to you is: Do you agree/disagree with TFN's decision to reject the film?

I am ONLY asking you this solely based on your high rating. If you gave the film a poor rating, I never would of asked you this in the first place.

I think I've asked you a valid question. Do you disagree with TFN's actions?

- Kevin

 

From the various FAQs on the main site:

HOW TO CRITICIZE

The key to criticism being taken well on these boards is providing two S-words:

Specifics (exactly what you didn't like)
Solutions (what to do to make what you didn't like better)
It's best to have both of these components when criticizing. If you don't, you risk angering the filmmaker who put a lot of work into his film, you may not be adding anything insightful, and people may be angered. Think before you post.
BAD:
"I hated your fan film. It sucked."

GOOD:
"I think that your fan film's acting could have used a lot of work. I've read a great book called Acting: The First Six Lessons by Richard Boleslavsky that could help a lot. It's an excellent resource."

You don't need to say why you didn't like a film, but it is preferred. On the other hand, saying that films "sucked" or using other immature language is never preferred, and action will be taken against the more tactless posts.

And then, on another note:

Why did you choose to host that film?

Not everyone will agree on what is a good film and what is not. We choose films because we think they are good in several fields. Very rarely will a film have all the elements so everyone can agree that it is a great fan film.

 

And I'm saying that until looking at the same playing field or specific areas of the film, no one would be able to make that kind of call in any kind of informed fashion.

Maybe they're sitting on four similar submissions and had to reject three. Maybe they're inching closer to having to setup a new server deal to handle films, so they're having to keep it narrow. Maybe there's some specific absolute criterion that the film missed that I'm not familiar with. Without seeing it from the POV they were coming from, it's not possible to make that call, and anyone doing so is speaking from a place of ignorance and presumption. Unlike some, I'm not going to make that kind of presumption.

You want me to comment on TFN's decision? Show me the basis *for* that decision, and I'll certainly do so, point-by-point if desired. Barring that, it's like someone asking me "Don't you think such and such movie should've been rated PG-13 instead of R?" before bothering to familiarize me with the rather odd criteria that the MPAA uses for such determinations. Any comment in absence of that determining point of view would be predominantly baseless conclusions. I prefer not to speak in ignorance. I'd prefer to actually know the basis of a situation before offering any honest criticism thereof. Both the film's creators and the TFN staff certainly deserve that consideration.

Now, if *I* had a fan film hosting site and the resources of TFN Fan Films, would *I* host it? Yes. But then again, I'd have entirely different content standards, as I prefer "darker" tales, I'd want to give audio equal time, I'd steer less toward parodies, and I'd probably not have accepted certain films that TFN accepted. But y'know, that'd be an entirely different site with an entirely different administrative staff and different people to answer to, server-wise. *That* I can answer. I'd host it on "my site with TFN FF's resources," but then, I'd also host "Tripping the Rift" if I could, so it's hardly a valid comparison.

Now, are there actual TFN critiques to address, or are you just blowing smoke?

 

"Now, if *I* had a fan film hosting site and the resources of TFN Fan Films, would *I* host it? Yes."

Alright, that's all what I needed to hear, so by and large, you disagree with TFN's decision.

(See, that's the thing about people nowadays, the TWO most DANGEROUS words to say are YES and NO, everyone feels that they have to throw in a gazillion disclaimers before they can even muster up the courage to say YES or NO).

Thanks for answering my 'yes/no' question.

- Kev.

 

"Alright, that's all what I needed to hear, so by and large, you disagree with TFN's decision."

Incorrect. You are reading to pull out what you *want* to hear, rather than what was actually said.

I believe I'd said, twice now, that without knowing on what basis that decision was made, I can't rightly agree, nor disagree, even if it were my place to do so.

You received no "yes," "no," or anything remotely of the kind to that question, as it's not one that can be answered without further information.

You're making the mistake of thinking preference is agreement/disagreement. I would *prefer* that TFN Fan Films hosted fan audio dramas. However, they decided not to do so, and had valid reasons for not doing so. In light of the basis for that decision, I may *prefer* that they'd made a different decision, and I might *disagree* on what order of priorities they may have that helped lead to that decision, but in light of their basis and that "that's how they make those decisions," I would have to *agree* that they made the best decision available to them.

Preference does not equal agreement/disagreement, any more than sequence can be the only criterion that determines causation, rather than simple correlation.

In other words, "you assume too much."

 

"Incorrect. You are reading to pull out what you *want* to hear, rather than what was actually said. I believe I'd said, twice now, that without knowing on what basis that decision was made, I can't rightly agree, nor disagree, even if it were my place to do so. You received no "yes," "no," or anything remotely of the kind to that question, as it's not one that can be answered without further information. You're making the mistake of thinking preference is agreement/disagreement. I would *prefer* that TFN Fan Films hosted fan audio dramas. However, they decided not to do so, and had valid reasons for not doing so. In light of the basis for that decision, I may *prefer* that they'd made a different decision, and I might *disagree* on what order of priorities they may have that helped lead to that decision, but in light of their basis and that "that's how they make those decisions," I would have to *agree* that they made the best decision available to them. Preference does not equal agreement/disagreement, any more than sequence can be the only criterion that determines causation, rather than simple correlation."




Alright then, so a question as basic as 'do you disagree with TFN's decision to reject RESCULESS' is beyond your thinking parameters (In other words, you're being a politician)

Hey, it's alright buddy, you're just too scared to make a stand for anything by saying 'yes' or 'no'.

You're only giving me 'kinda/sorta', whatever the case, you're doing everything you can now to backpaddle from whatever impact your statement could of had.

In the end, like I said...the two most difficult words to say are 'YES' and 'NO'. People would rather just cover their statements up in a pile of babble.

That's all what your reply was...just a big steaming pile of incomprehensible blathering. Nothing you wrote had any definites, it was all just 'kinda/sorta'.

Seriously! Every single thing you wrote you attempted to justify everything else.

That's total politics. (Not good)

Which in the end...how can I possibly trust your review if you can't even give a basic answer to a basic question? I'm not asking you human genome DNA questions or anything.

- Kev.

 

kubrick, I will take a stand.

NO, you have not served any purpose in this thread.
NO, you have not responded to my previous points.
NO, you have not provided anything that makes us want to listen to your opinion, as we have no idea of your likes, dislikes, history or community participation. Your entire contribution to the fan film community is negative vibes toward this film and the posters in its thread. Not the best start, kid.

YES, I have PMed ChrisHanel about the possibility of locking this thread and starting a new one that will be about the movie and not the surrounding drama. My PM also mentioned sorting out some of the garbage (from both 'sides') that has tainted this thread since last night.

Come on, Chris, log on.


YES, Rick McCallum loves you!

 

The question "as basic" as you are asking, isn't something that can, or should, be answered without facts in-hand. If you want to make baseless comments, be my guest. I'm not going to do so. Period. I have more integrity than that, and more respect for those whose work, be it the film or the site, that would be being called into question without all evidence in front of us.

Again, if you want the answer, give me the information. What I'm doing is called "showing respect." What *you* are doing is called "spin." You'll find, if you ask around on the board, that I am often brutal in my honesty, but I do make it a point to be honest in my comments and respectful enough to actually make sure there is evidence on-hand before making any assumptions that may prove baseless, especially when the comments I'd make would cast any kind of reflection upon possibly innocent individuals.

Your efforts to twist plain english into entirely new meanings, or to dismiss those opinions you don't agree with, are commendable, and I'd hope you'll find a wonderful career with a political extremist group someday, so your "spinning" skills will not go to waste.

But, sorry, I'm not taking the bait. As far as I'm concerned, as Bill O'Reilly might say, you've entered a "no spin zone" when discussing this matter with me.

As for how you can "trust" my review, I'd suggest that you keep two things in mind:

First, I don't *care* if you trust my review. If you use a review as anything more than a look at someone *else's* opinion, and don't bother to formulate your own and acknowledge differences in those opinions, you're a lot further in need of a reality check than one might imagine.

Second, keep in mind that I came into that review without one thing you have in abundance: bias. I hadn't spoken to the cast/crew, had only seen the first "outburst" of the director on this thread, and wrote not out of obligation but because, frankly, I felt like it and had the time to do so.

If you don't consider me capable of "honest" reviews, I'd note that among my reviews are several wherein it would have been *very* easy to have had a conflict of interest: a film by Bertocci, who works with me on the review site; a film by Kevin Blades, who was a partner of StarWarz.com at the time, as I am; and a production that I now host and had a small part in. In each of those cases, the films ended up with even "worse" ratings (no offense to them) than RoE received. Why? Just my honest opinion, looking at the film objectively, then trying to keep the objective/subjective balance in the review itself.

If you want to read any of those, let me know. I'll PM them to you.

 

"The question "as basic" as you are asking, isn't something that can, or should, be answered without facts in-hand."

The 'basic' question is (third time I mention it):

"Do you agree/disagree with TFN's decision to reject Rescue On Endor?"

We already know EVERYTHING ELSE as to what you think/feel/emote over TFN/Rescue, etc...but I still haven't the foggiest clue as to what you think over TFN's decision.

Let's make the clean assumption that whoever reads this board has already read this thread. I am now taking what you are writing out of context.

I am just asking you a BASIC QUESTION (fourth time now):

"Do you agree/disagree with TFN's decision to reject Rescue On Endor?"

In essence, what you are saying is that this question is impossible for you to answer (I do believe you are a person of above-average intelligence), so it must be political.

What you are telling me now, is to trust a guy who reviewed a film, and yet could NOT answer a pertinent/basic question associated with the film.

I'm just trying to cut to the chase. How can I be putting a 'spin' on it?

- Kevin

 

"NO, you have not responded to my previous points."

Sorry, I generally ignore your posts out of habit! Whoops!

To answer your question as to where I read the 'negative' reviews...ahem...have you read this thread?

Here's an example:

Sau-Den

ACTING: B (Just because you have Ben Fletcher)
STORY: D-
SET & COSTUMES: A-
SOUND: C-
SPECIAL FX: C+

OVERALL GRADE: D+
__________________________
KubrickisGod:

RESCUE ON ENDOR

RATING: BOMB
__________________________

Eizo1987:

1) The story was bollucks
2) Sound was not cracked up to what it was made out to be
3) Over hyped
4) You over-reacted a lot and pissed off a lot of people
5) The whole thing could have been given a re-think
6) You caused all this tension


And of course, TFN's own reasons which they too didn't like the film.

You've been Kevinated!

 

"In essence, what you are saying is that this question is impossible for you to answer (I do believe you are a person of above-average intelligence), so it must be political."

Not political. Respectful..

You show me their REASONS for why they rejected it, and I can certainly answer. I'm not going to say that they should or shouldn't have done something without knowing why they did it.

You're not asking a "basic question" for a "basic" answer. You're asking for an *assumption of motive* in order to measure the merits of a decision without any knowledge of the *basis* for that decision.

Presuming that such a question can or should be answered without information in hand is just plain ignorant, and entirely disrespectful to both the RoE creators and the TFN Fan Films staff.

Again, if you can provide the basis for the decision not to host the film, I'll give you an answer with *basis,* but, sorry, I'm not in the business of presuming or judging other people's motives or decisions without actually knowing *what* those motives were. The adult world doesn't work like that, outside of, as you're finding, "spin."

And, by the way, you just cited two negative reviews, and there have also been at least two positive reviews. Oddly, the positive reviews gave reasons, other than the director's actions. That's what I mean when I say that a reviewer needs to be *objective*.

 

That's... three people.

One of whom is you.

And one of whom makes six points, only TWO OF WHICH are related to the film itself.


On the other hand, for positive comments... drippyzeo, Nathan, MoffJake, durbnpoisn. There's positives in here.


And how can you ignore my posts out of habit? What habit? You've been here two days!


If being Kevinated means that I had a very lame post thrown together to counter my more compelling one, than yeah, I've been Kevinated.



Rick McCallum Kevinates you!

 

"In essence, what you are saying is that this question is impossible for you to answer (I do believe you are a person of above-average intelligence), so it must be political."

Not political. Respectful.."

Oh wow! That's all what I needed to hear!

Good luck running for primaries in 2004! You need a LOT of work.

Best of luck!

-You've been Kevinated!

 

Yes, apparently "kevinated" does mean "lame and unresponsive."

Perhaps instead of whining, you'd actually do well to gather the information you would actually need to provide to make it possible to answer with due respect to those involved.

Spinning does no one any good, other than your post count, which, oddly, includes only this thread . . .

Interesting . . .

Interesting . . .

Someone doing an IP check soon, I hope?

If "respectful" is a synonym for "political," the English language must've changed in the last few minutes. That or "Kevinating" is a matter of a God complex and rewritting the rules of English as one sees fit.

 

"On the other hand, for positive comments... drippyzeo, Nathan, MoffJake, durbnpoisn. There's positives in here."

Alright...so what you are saying then...is that there are more people who LIKE Rescuelosers On Endor than those whom don't like it?

Alright then...if that's the case, then TFN's decision would be in acceptance with a minority rather than a majority.

That's what you're saying.

What I do know is this...if TFN we're to have a VOTE as to whether or not they should host RescueCrap on Underwear, I already know that it wouldn't float. The Nays would have it over the Yay's

Doesn't matter what you say or do, I get the last laugh. TFN won't host it and nothing you can say will change a thing.

YOU have been KEVINATED!

 

Y'know, let's point out one helpful thing for the tact-challenged here:

You don't lend any credence to your spin or baseless assumptions by peppering your posts with childish terms like "Rescuelosers" or "RescueCrap."

You sound like an elementary schooler.

 

TFN won't host it and nothing you can say will change a thing.

When did I say that I wanted TFN to host it? My post on 7/14 at 7:04 AM clearly states quite the opposite!

Post based on fact, not assumption, and you might get somewhere in this community.

I am responding to the point you made about the D+/BOMB ratings that I've been seeing for it.

Now respond to my points, not your own.

Also, how old are you, Kevin?



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

"Y'know, let's point out one helpful thing for the tact-challenged here:

You don't lend any credence to your spin or baseless assumptions by peppering your posts with childish terms like "Rescuelosers" or "RescueCrap."

You sound like an elementary schooler."

Only out of RESPECT am I replying to your post...

"**************", is a dog and it's not just that...it's a dog with fleas...and not just that...those fleas have been eating that dog for days now because there's something special about that dog...

IT'S BEEN DEAD FOR DAYS!

So doesn't matter what I call it, it won't get seen and hopefully the three more e-mails I wrote today to the other Star Wars fansites will respond and concur with the other two I already have backing me up.

Along with TFN, that makes three so far.

The saddest thing about replying to you...

is that...

there is NOTHING for me to KEVINATE!

It's already been KEVINATED!

 

"**********"

Okay, THAT's clever. One point to you.



Rick McCallum loves you!

EDIT: It's not clever, it's the exclamation point to a series of posts brimming with bad judgement.

 

1. You saying "out of respect" is about equivalent to the military officers in films assuming that if they say "with all due respect," then say something asinine, the former negates the latter. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

2. You've just basically proven the point about lack of maturity in one post. Congratulations. E-mailing other film hosting sites, in and of itself, is entirely childish. You're now on par with the original actions of the director. However, the director has since tried to return to a sense of civility. You remain in toddler-mode.

Sad. Utterly sad.

 

Oh DEAR GOD! HELP ME!!!!

"1. You saying "out of respect" is about equivalent to the military officers in films assuming that if they say "with all due respect," then say something asinine, the former negates the latter. Sorry, doesn't work that way."

I am looking...Oh please sweet Lord Jesus almighty...grant me the serenity to get through this post (I slowly reach for the drawer...that old bottle of Jack Daniels...NO! Not again! I'll get through this one sober!)...

"2. You've just basically proven the point about lack of maturity in one post. Congratulations. E-mailing other film hosting sites, in and of itself, is entirely childish."

Ack! Had to take a break...layed on the kitchen floor, felt the cool tiles on my naked back. Ahh yes, the sweet ceiling to look at...so fascinating...oh dear...I really should get back to that letter...NO! It's just a bad dream!

"You're now on par with the original actions of the director."

NO! IT WASN'T A DREAM!!!! (Time to say goodbye to sobriety!)

"However, the director has since tried to return to a sense of civility. You remain in toddler-mode. "

Alright, I've frankly had it! There is NOTHING here for me to KEVINATE! Nothing!

"Sad. Utterly sad."

I'm dying here! You're killing me with these posts!

help me...please!

Maybe I'll watch ****************, just to FORGET this post you wrote...

ANYTHING!!!

- Kevin (ator-less)

 

And, I do believe the banning lines have been crossed.

Until you post maturely or provide the info that would allow the agree/disagree answer, consider me done with preschool for the day.

Actually, no, my girlfriend's daughter's in pre-k, and she acts more maturely than Kubrick here.

Consider me done with "daycare." That's more accurate.

I'd expect a mod will be around eventually to lock it up, hand out a few bans, and do some IP checks. Enjoy your last few posts, hours, days, or outbursts on the board, Kubrick. Don't let the door hit you in the hind on the way out.

 

Do you have anything useful to add, or are you going to continue to respond to his pertinent posts with more worthless insults? If it's the latter, please leave. We don't need another one of you here.

EDIT: That was aimed at Kubrick; you're too quick on the draw, Nathan .

~Neszis~

 

I think we've had enough of this....

 

I will warn everyone who went a little crazy in this thread. The fine line between bad social skills and flaming was being pushed. Please restrain yourselves a little more in the future.

This thread is now over. If any participants wish to continue their "discussion", please use the Private Message system or the Chat server.