Why the Double Standard?

Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by rpeugh, Dec 17, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    Shakespeare's plays generally feature unoriginal or even clicheed stories. Romeo and Juliet's story is not any different to a soap opera or a TV movie of the week
    I think you're getting this backwards...Shakespeare (and other classics) are the original material that today's media is trying to mimic.

    The standard is now the emergence of an adult genre of filmmaking that blends a well directed story with FX. LOTR blends this well. the PT does not and is considered, in short, juvenile.
    Again, I think you're looking at this the wrong way...as children, we grew up on SW because it was a story that we could get wrappe dup in. Only now (as adults) so many are EXPECTING (almost demanding) that SW change to a more adult audience. This "standard" of an "adult genre" cannot be applied to the entire SW saga...because the audience has changed over the years.
  2. Philip023 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2002
    star 3
    Again, I think you're looking at this the wrong way...as children, we grew up on SW because it was a story that we could get wrappe dup in. Only now (as adults) so many are EXPECTING (almost demanding) that SW change to a more adult audience. This "standard" of an "adult genre" cannot be applied to the entire SW saga...because the audience has changed over the years.

    Not so and, in fact, the reverse is true of LOTR - depending on what you think LOTR is. Is it more "grown up" than SW? If so how?

    I never disparaged the subject matter of either one. I merely said that LOTR are better movies because of directing, story, writing, editing, and acting. that has nothing to do with subject matter or how I perceived the SW films when I was younger.

    for the record, I still think the OT is the best movie trilogy of all. My expectation is for a good film, nothing more. The PT is a good film but it does not compare with ANY of the LOTR movies - critically, storywise, acting, dialogue, editing and especially direction.
  3. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    I merely said that LOTR are better movies because of directing, story, writing, editing, and acting. that has nothing to do with subject matter or how I perceived the SW films when I was younger.
    It has everything to do with your personal perception of how "good" the SW film were/are...because many people feel threatened by the possibility OT will lose some of it's "timelessness" if another movie comes around with any kind of large following.

    What is so difficult to understand that the SW saga (both trilogies as one) and LOTR trilogy are both good movies...with their own differences? The Double Standard exists because to some fans nothing can compare to their favorite childhood memories of watching "Star Wars"...even the prequels that answer questions we've all had for years.

    depending on what you think LOTR is. Is it more "grown up" than SW?
    To answer your question...I think LOTR is a great movie trilogy (even if Jackson releases a hacked up version in theaters...then "fixes" everything for the DVD...EXCEPT trailers youJackson idiot!) that I enjoyed watching. In terms of epic moviemaking...I think it is on-par with the SW saga, in terms of it's ability to become a timeless classic.
  4. Chancellor_Palpster Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 12, 2003
    star 2
    Philip023, it's with posts like one of your latest that really makes me wonder about this entire debate....and that underscore the significance of this thread title.

    in addressing PT vs LOTR:

    Is the resolve to portray near everything in special format (FX) and not the emotions of the characters diluting the story? Absolutely. (for the PT)



    what's amazing is that, as I'm reading this, I'm thinking YES, the resolve is to portray nothing but empty effects at the expense of the plot, but for LOTR! And SPECIFICALLY NOT for the PT....(althought I HATE separating the PT and OT in discussion,s I'll have to just for the sake of clarity)

    The use of digital effects enhances the story rather than simply being inserted into the film.

    I would say that pertains to the PT....and that the PT exemplifies this, but you wouldn't.

    Was their any point in the film where you didn't think the protagonists in the PT would pull through?

    oh, you can't go there. Everyone knows the protagonist will pull through - thats the point to every movie. I mean, if that ring never made it into the lava, Jackson would be getting death threats.

    Certainly one can assume that the heroes in LOTR will emerge victorious (especially if you read the books) but at what cost. In the PT, we already know how it is going to shake down, we just don't know how it will happen.

    perhaps that is the problem.


    I fail to see how that's a problem. Secondly, this isn't a great PT bash since NONE of us have been watching Star Wars in its intended order....but in the future, most people alive will have. I can imagine there will be a significant measure of surprise to learn of the cost of that the characters' choices has on them.


    But there is no double standard. The standard is now the emergence of an adult genre of filmmaking that blends a well directed story with FX. LOTR blends this well. the PT does not and is considered, in short, juvenile.

    to me, you're so wrong its not even funny. TPM, which by the way was released before LOTR ever began its assault on the masses, hooked me on visual effects because, for once, it showed me how they can be used to tell a story, rather than be the story. When you have a two hour battle in a movie whose function towards the plot is ZERO THEN you're dealing with a movie that has empty effects, one that doesn't use fx to tell a story.

    Lucas needs to take the gloves off in EP3 if he is going to have any shot of redemption.

    yeah, after the fifty percent bore-assness that was ROTJ, I'd say he redeemed the saga by helming his own bloody camera and showing them how its done in the PT.

    If anything, I'm sure critics are scratching their heads, wondering and pleading in their hearts, asking, "why can't George do this

    critics only prove to me that they are blind and simple.
  5. SkottASkywalker Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 3, 2002
    star 4
    The PT is a good film but it does not compare with ANY of the LOTR movies - critically, storywise, acting, dialogue, editing and especially direction.

    I disagree and as far as storywise goes and as far as the dialogue goes, these are some of the areas I feel STAR WARS has it's biggest advantages over THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
  6. Formerly_Tukafo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 10, 2003
    star 1
    Hang on a sec. I can accept that some people prefer the PT to LOTR. I can accept that for some people JarJar Binks is funny. I can accept that some people love watching pod races for hours on end. I can accept that there are some people who think that LOTR is boring because "it hassnt gott pott races and the people talk toooo mutch and stuff" but one thing I cannot accept as a valid opinion no matter how hard I try - that the PT has better dialogue than LOTR. Guys, wake up!! "Esqueeze me!!!! Yousa my massa, mesa you humble servant, Miss Scarlett" is not and never will be better than "I did not pass through Fire and Death to bandy cricket words with a witless worm". Or is it that some people just don't know what all those words mean
    "Bandy? Huh? What a crap word! Must be crap. PT is better"
  7. Obi_Frans Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2003
    star 4
    at least the PT has consistent dialogue

    When viewing the LOTR films it is painfully obvious where Jackson takes direct quotes from the book & where he put his own stuff in it(Dwarf-tossing ?? Seriously ?!?).

    'The battle for Helms Deep is over,' says Gandalf. 'The battle for Middle-earth is about to begin. And all our hopes depend on two little hobbits lost in the wilderness?' McKellen can hardly disguise his contempt for the line as he delivers it.

    The manner of dialogue changes every scene(Theoden being a perfect example) and this interferes with the characterization & pulls you(or me in this case) out of the movie.

  8. jariten Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 23, 2000
    star 4
    and some of the dialogue is the same.

    "what does your heart tell you?" is in both ROTK and TPM.

    " "Esqueeze me!!!! Yousa my massa, mesa you humble servant, Miss Scarlett" is not and never will be better than "I did not pass through Fire and Death to bandy cricket words with a witless worm". Or is it that some people just don't know what all those words mean"

    youre using a ridiculous example to try to make a point. you cant even compare the two characters- JJ would never come out with a 'Gandalf like' piece of dialogue.
  9. DarthSapient Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 26, 2001
    star 10
    Please refrain from calling someone's post and/or argument ridiculous. Thank you.
  10. Formerly_Tukafo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 10, 2003
    star 1
    "at least the PT has consistent dialogue "

    well, consistently bad, yes.

    There's no doubt that some of the lines in the LOTR films are poor (an example I hate is the "Meat's back on the menu" line in TTT. A menu? In Middle Earth?)but I think it's very polemic to pick the two worst lines out of thousands of great lines and try to sell it as the norm. Dwarf tossing jokes are not the norm, they're glitches in an otherwise wonderfully written piece. What you're doing is like the guy who tries to prove that Michael Jordan was a poor player by picking the two games where he didn't score as an example. That he however was outstanding in thousands of others is just something he convienently ignores.

    by the way, the best lines in the films are not always by Tolkien, the line I give as an example above for example isn't (even though Tolkien has a similar line in a similar vein). Gollum's dialogues with himself are all written by Walsh and use practically no Tolkien lines, the wonderfully written prologue is entirely written by the scriptwriters. All in all there are very very few lines in these films that are verbatim from the book. And I'm glad as Tolkien's prose is often awkward. I'm glad Eowyn in the movie only says "I am no man" and not also "Beforth, you dimmerlaik" or something
  11. DarthSapient Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 26, 2001
    star 10
    Peter Jackson can always blame Tolkien. Lucas can only blame himself. 8-}
  12. Philip023 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2002
    star 3
    critics only prove to me that they are blind and simple.

    Incontrovertable proof that "homers" will never listen to an opinion that even slightly dishonors SW, particularly the PT.

    yeah, after the fifty percent bore-assness that was ROTJ, I'd say he redeemed the saga by helming his own bloody camera and showing them how its done in the PT.

    Hmm, I think you're pointing a finger at Kasdan for his directorship of ROTJ. Yeah, ROTJ was 50% awful, especially those Ewoks (which were Lucas' idea).

    Everyone knows the protagonist will pull through - thats the point to every movie.

    Is it? Good always defeats evil? Why go see EP3 then, because we know the bad guys are gonna win? We know good eventually triumphs over evil in the OT. Unless we've read the books, we don't know what will happen to the main protagonists in LOTR, do we? On the other hand, we know Mace dies, Anakin transforms, Yoda and Obi are exiles, Padme dies. The formula does not provide for serious drama or peril.

    I'm thinking YES, the resolve is to portray nothing but empty effects at the expense of the plot, but for LOTR!

    Um, well this is opinion but I think my opinion is backed up by people unassociated with this board or fan base: critics. Look at any critical review of either the PT or LOTR and they will say that there is either a lack of emotional depth of the characters in the PT or there is too much FX at the expense of the former. LOTR meanwhile provides a good synthesis of the two or, at least, that's what critics say. But I would refer everyone to my first quote of you on your opinion of critics.

    Well again, there is no double standard. They are held to the same. TPM came first in terms of advancing special effects. But that's pretty much all it advanced. AOTC did a better job of advancing the story.

    Don't blame critics for wanting a good story. Its actually amazing that they even like LOTR. Normally a film laden with fx always garners criticism. That says there is something else there about the movie that goe beyond any double standard critics or even movie goers might have.

    Now, if you ask me what kind of standard EP3 is now going to be held to, I'd say there is now a higher standard that Lucas, fairly or unfairly, must live up to - in terms of overall filmmaking, just as other directors looked to him during the 1970s/80s.
  13. SkottASkywalker Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 3, 2002
    star 4
    Hang on a sec.

    Nope.

    What you're doing is like the guy who tries to prove that Michael Jordan was a poor player by picking the two games where he didn't score as an example. That he however was outstanding in thousands of others is just something he convienently ignores.

    Which is what you did in your previous post to the one this quote of yours comes from.

    Incontrovertable proof that "homers" will never listen to an opinion that even slightly dishonors SW, particularly the PT.

    Incontrovertable proof that you have a problem with opinions/facts that you don't agree with?

  14. Lukecash Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2001
    star 4
    Philip023

    [blockquotes]Hmm, I think you're pointing a finger at Kasdan for his directorship of ROTJ. Yeah, ROTJ was 50% awful, especially those Ewoks (which were Lucas' idea). [/blockquotes]

    Two misconsceptions here. 1)Richard Marquand
    directed Return of the Jedi, not Lawrence Kasdan ...who co-wrote the story with Lucas.

    2) Lucas originally was going to use Wookies, but decided that they were too advance to play the primative vs hi-tech. He went through several designs(Including the ewoks) In From Star Wars to Jedi- Lucas commented that he really hated the idea of the teddy bears,but decided to go with it. It has been said, its Spielberg who convinced him to run with the Ewoks. I'm not letting him off of the hook-but younger views seem to think that Ewoks fit in quite normally with Star Wars. I've met guys in their 20s who said they never had a second thought about Ewoks or thought them too childish. Most of them saw the movie on video tape when they were 5 or so.

    Lord of the Rings has had one thing that Lucas hasn't....almost 50 years of other artist and a writer to actually develop a world. The thing that Jackson had to do was to distill it into a vision that would make it into the movies. He did a great job, and although I personally hated the changes in the plot and characterizations- the movies are a great ride. But so are Star Wars.

    I am not expecting a life altering movie from Lucas...that can only happen once and that happen to me almost 30 years ago...when Star Wars came out. Nothing since then has touched me on all levels. I am just wanting to see the entire story told. We DON'T know what will become of Mace, Padme, Jar-Jar or any of the other characters...except Anakin, Obiwan, Yoda, Palpatine, Beru, Owen, Bail Sidious.-we know that most of these meet a sad end!

    When I watch the First Three- I know know what a glorious place the Republic was, when it was shiny and whole. I feel a sadness when Yoda talks a bout friends, long past... Or the evil of Palpatine ans he attempts to corrupt Luke the way he corrupted Anakin.

    Tolkiens work was a masterpiece. Jackson tranlated the best he knew how. Lucas has deliverd the cinematic equivalent. When it is all said and done, most collectors will have Both Star Wars and LOTR on their shelves.
  15. Icebreaker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2001
    star 4
    Hmm...I just want to hit on a few random points that have been brought up throughout this rather long and tedious discussion. These really aren't directed at anyone in particular, but I just wanted to add to the ongoing conversation:

    Let's begin with the Gollum CGI issue. While VISUALLY Mr. Gollum may not be the best of CGI creations ARTISTICALLY he is beyond anything that has been created before. Yoda in AOTC looked better in the majority of his scenes when compared to Gollum (but only very slightly), but his performance was nowhere near that of Gollum. Just take these two scenes and compare them: The scene with Yoda just after Anakin slaughters the Tuskens and the scene when Frodo first calls Gollum, Smeagol. Just look at the expressions...The Gollum character knocks its performance out of the park, whereas the Yoda character, while intriguing, is nowhere near that of Gollums.

    I have to admit, throughout AOTC I was always saying 'Wow! Yoda CGI looks great...look at those effects!' but when I watched LOTR I wasn't saying a thing...instead I was in awe at the depth of the Gollum character and the range of emotion he displayed. This means the guys at WETA succeeded and the ones at ILM didn't quite. The goal of CGI is to make you forget that you are watching CGI and WETA accomplished this with Gollum.

    As for those trying to compare the plot, storyline and everything else between SW and LOTR...its really a no brainer.

    An epic novel created over 20 years with quite possibly hundreds of underlying themes that was written by a professor of the English Language vs. A Sci-Fi-Fantasy-Adventure saga loosely based on Christian ideals by an average guy (ol' GL)

    Its not even close. LOTR is by far a greater story, in nearly all respects. SW can't match it. But the thing is, thats not why I love SW (or why the majority of you love it either). We love it for something completely different, the pure escapism and vast scale of it all. The adventure, the awe, the action...Star Wars is just an all around fun adventurous saga that you can kick-back, relax and enjoy. Whereas LOTR was always meant for closer evalution (I am talking about the novels).

    Its been said thousands of times, but its comparing apples and oranges.


    ~ICeBReaKeR
    You burnt all the food...the shade...the RUM!
  16. Chancellor_Palpster Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 12, 2003
    star 2
    me: critics are dumb

    you: Incontrovertable proof that "homers" will never listen to an opinion that even slightly dishonors SW, particularly the PT.

    me: LOTR's use of effects hurt the movie.

    you: Um, well this is opinion but I think my opinion is backed up by people unassociated with this board or fan base: critics. Look at any critical review of either the PT or LOTR and they will say that there is either a lack of emotional depth of the characters in the PT or there is too much FX at the expense of the former. LOTR meanwhile provides a good synthesis of the two or, at least, that's what critics say. But I would refer everyone to my first quote of you on your opinion of critics.


    ohhhh how very clever.

    First of all, calling me a homer for disagreeing with critics also makes you a homer for thinking that I'm a homer just for not agreeing with critics.

    Secondly, you insult me (I didn't take it seriously, or personally, but 'insult' is the word I'm using anyways) for disliking the critics then you ally yourself with them, and remind everyone that I'm stupid just for not agreeing with the critics, and consequentially, with you....SOoooOOOOooo...that makes you a homer on TWO COUNTS now!

    mmmmmmmmmmmmmm 64 slices of American PT bashing..........63...............2.....1......I think I'm bliiind

    AND THIRDLY, THE PIRATE'S CODE IS MORE WHAT YOU'D CALL GUIDELINES than actual rules.

    And fourthly, I listen long and hard to what critics have to say against Star Wars. Then I re-assess it for myself taking what they said into consideration. My previous opinions of Star Wars always remain intact, because the critics seem to really suck at convincing me that the PT sucks. What I don't expect, or accept, is for the critics to sweep those same points of criticism, that were falsely made against the PT, under the rug when they appear bright and clear in LOTR.

    What makes me a SW basher's worst nightmare, is that I constantly try to rip down the prequels in my mind, challenging everything I believe that is good about them, and considering what is wrong with them, yet after it all, the prequels, as compared to the OT, remain virtually unscathed in my mind.

    so when someone is going all anti-PT on me...which is basically my entire history on this forum, even though, ironically, this is a place for star wars fans, KNOW that you're butting heads with the most STUBBORN and most RESOLVED of all the PT-allies.

    MWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    MWHAHAHAHAAhahahahAHAH!

    HAHAHHA!!!!

    haha

    ha

    h.

  17. jariten Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 23, 2000
    star 4
    "Let's begin with the Gollum CGI issue. While VISUALLY Mr. Gollum may not be the best of CGI creations ARTISTICALLY he is beyond anything that has been created before"

    i think the CG work was great in both movies. with that in mind...

    I think what we really need to discuss here is this-

    1. how important to their respective movies were Gollum and Yoda?

    2. how much of the their respective movies did they have to carry?

    Gollum had to support Rings a lot- he was a pivitol, vital character who was in way more scene of the movie, and who had a lot more dialogue, and who was required to do a lot more 'acting'. Yoda, on the other hand, was a minor character at best. we were more overwhelmed with Gollum because we saw so much more of him.in that respect, its an unfair comparison. yet, look at Yodas scenes, the 'acting' is excellent throughout- he easily accomplishes what is required of him in each scene without any pointless mugging (as is what happened with JJ occasionally in TPM). for another example, look at Watto when he meets Anakin again. This is a terribly underatted scene, but watch it again, the subtle movement of the eyes, the realisation, its fantastic.
  18. SkottASkywalker Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 3, 2002
    star 4
    Chancellor_Palpster, great post.

    Gollum was incredibly well done. One of the best things about THE LORD OF THE RINGS movies. Even so, I still give the advantage to STAR WARS special effects. Watto is a great example that some seem to overlook. Or are they conveniently ignoring the great job done with Watto?

    Its not even close. LOTR is by far a greater story, in nearly all respects. SW can't match it.

    To you. Not to me. [face_mischief] :)
  19. MatthewZ Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2003
    star 4
    Icebreaker,

    I couldn't disagree more with you. LOTR is simply a fantasy advanture story. While on the other hand SW is a mythic tale with so many subtleties people have spent 25 years discussing them and books have been written about it.

    If you don't see the depth and the human aspect of the SW sage you're missing half of the movies themselves.
  20. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    What you're doing is like the guy who tries to prove that Michael Jordan was a poor player by picking the two games where he didn't score as an example.

    He's not a poor player. But there have been others that have been and will always be better then him. Players that set the standered for people like Michael to live up to. Same with Wanye Grzyite(sp) he's a good hockey player. But he is not the best to ever play the game. He is just trying to live up to the standered that was set by players that came before him that set records and so on.

    So if someone feels that SW is better then LOTR and feels that the dialogue is better there is nothing wrong with that.
  21. DarthSapient Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 26, 2001
    star 10
    How about they're two different genres of films, each great in their own rights, enjoyable, a great diversion from life, and nothing worth getting upset over?
  22. Chancellor_Palpster Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 12, 2003
    star 2
    MatthewZ, here here! I agree.

    As a matter of fact, I've always felt that, despite its roots in literature, and its many many many pages of writing, the story of LOTR was always really simple and somewhat flatter than Star Wars in comparison....just by viewing its movies (and we are comparing movies here, so no one go telling me that I cant say anything if I didn't read the books. Besides, I'm not a masochist).

    Maybe Tolkien was one of those profs who like to hear their own voice. Nevertheless, he may have been a professor of english, but Mr Lucas (or, Mr Joe Blow, I guess...not sure how having some letters after your name makes you more of an individual and less of just a guy, though) was mentored, I believe, by Joseph Campbell. Campbell! He's THE myth guy! The dude is where it's at in terms of literature, and its pretty clear that lots of Campbell things made it into the story of star wars, because there's TONS of rich things to read into, that I believe are more apparant in star wars than there are in LOTR, even if just by virtue of the fact that its a tragedy with a full hero quest in one.
  23. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    An epic novel created over 20 years with quite possibly hundreds of underlying themes that was written by a professor of the English Language vs. A Sci-Fi-Fantasy-Adventure saga developed as a way of passing on the various classical myths and morality tales of humanity.

    Give GL more credit then your version. Anyone who has read "The Magic of Myth" knows that the characters, story, and design of SW is a reflection of a variety of classic and modern tales, history, and religions.

    they're two different genres of films, each great in their own rights, enjoyable, a great diversion from life, and nothing worth getting upset over?
    I'm cool with that! What's so difficult about simply enjoying BOTH films without trying to rank them...comparing strengths/weaknesses is a different matter (good debate)
  24. Philip023 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2002
    star 3
    Chancellor Palpster:

    me: critics are dumb

    Please explain how.

    First of all, calling me a homer for disagreeing with critics also makes you a homer for thinking that I'm a homer just for not agreeing with critics.

    Did anyone else not get this sentence?

    Secondly, you insult me (I didn't take it seriously, or personally, but 'insult' is the word I'm using anyways) for disliking the critics then you ally yourself with them, and remind everyone that I'm stupid just for not agreeing with the critics, and consequentially, with you....SOoooOOOOooo...that makes you a homer on TWO COUNTS now!

    Again, I'm lost. You're rambling is worse than mine.

    mmmmmmmmmmmmmm 64 slices of American PT bashing..........63...............2.....1......I think I'm bliiind

    ramble (p.s. you forgot another . at the end of bliiind)

    My previous opinions of Star Wars always remain intact, because the critics seem to really suck at convincing me that the PT sucks. What I don't expect, or accept, is for the critics to sweep those same points of criticism, that were falsely made against the PT, under the rug when they appear bright and clear in LOTR.

    Ok, here we go. See people. The famous "false criticism" and "inate hate by critics of SW films" argument. False criticism, "critics suck because they try and poison my mind that the PT sucks."

    Please find another argument than the blame game. It's your forte, but its old. Find another one.

    What makes me a SW basher's worst nightmare, is that I constantly try to rip down the prequels in my mind, challenging everything I believe that is good about them, and considering what is wrong with them, yet after it all, the prequels, as compared to the OT, remain virtually unscathed in my mind.

    Um, you're not my worst nightmare. In fact, you're not the best "adversary" I've faced on this board. There are plenty of other "gushers" that can make a more sensible argument than you. You constantly tear down the prequels? Boy, I don't even do that. PT v. OT = are we on that again? The website has moved on.

    so when someone is going all anti-PT on me...which is basically my entire history on this forum, even though, ironically, this is a place for star wars fans, KNOW that you're butting heads with the most STUBBORN and most RESOLVED of all the PT-allies.

    I've never gone anti-PT but you confirm everything I've said about a person having a less favorable view of the PT being regarded as ANTI-PT. You're no fan. You're beyond fan. You are, indeed, a "homer" (you may regard that as an insult). One who is unwilling or unable to fashion a coherent argument beyond personal opinion to support his belief.

    [insert diabolical sounding laughter]
  25. Chancellor_Palpster Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 12, 2003
    star 2
    lookit, sorrry you don't get my ramblings, although they have some sense in them, they were primarily just levity.

    "critics suck because they try and poison my mind that the PT sucks."

    No, they suck because they try to, but can't.

    And I'm not a worst nightmare because I argue well (my ego is not THAT big) but because I'm so STUBBORN. I suspected you might have taken it the personal route and use it to say that I can't argue. I was being light with that comment, it was stupid-humour. I'm sure you have some levity in you! And I'm most certainly not insulted with you saying that I cannot argue, whatsoever. Sorry, though, if that disappoints you.

    Ok, here we go. See people. The famous "false criticism" and "inate hate by critics of SW films" argument. False criticism, "critics suck because they try and poison my mind that the PT sucks."

    Please find another argument than the blame game. It's your forte, but its old. Find another one.


    Well if you don't like that, then why'd you post in this thread at all?...because the first SENTENCE of it was practically that.

    You constantly tear down the prequels? Boy, I don't even do that. PT v. OT = are we on that again? The website has moved on

    Quite apparantly NOT! All thats been spoken of is how the PT is worse than LOTR, but not the OT. When comparing Star Wars to LOTR, ANYONE in that discussion who puts LOTR over SW is COMPLETLEY AXING the OT from SW, and using only the PT. PT vs OT is alive and well, so long as one has the vision to see it. Furthermore, I've recently made several mentions about SW being the PT and OT as ONE story, and I've found resistence IMMEDIATLEY. Don't tell me the board has moved on, because I would like to think they have, although its as clear as your agression that they haven't.

    you are not a fan

    A HAH! the FAN debate! boy, that's something we certainly have moved on about. Don't be so retro! (and for god's sake don't take that so heavily, too.)

    One who is unwilling or unable to fashion a coherent argument beyond personal opinion to support his belief.

    I never use solid opinion in an argument. Every argument, however IS an opinion, but is based on fact. You cannot make an argument of solid opinion, and based on opinion, unless your post is "I think Star Wars is better" PERIOD. None of my posts are like that, they all use fact. By merely writing off every argument of mine (as if you've even read them all!...please tell me, though, that you haven't!) as opinion, in an attempt to strip them of their validity, is implying that the arguments showing a more agressive side to the PT (for fear of riling you up again, I won't call them ANTI's...this board is developing its on PC code now!) is FACT. Now, some bashers make some good points, that I sustain, and we make points that they sustain. I KNOW people on this board are not that ignorant, so please do them justice and not make them sound as if they believe that everything they say is fact just because they've conjured it up, and because the loudest critics agree.

    Yes, yes, poo poo this as my ramblings, but they are perfectly sensical.

    I've never gone anti-PT but you confirm everything I've said about a person having a less favorable view of the PT being regarded as ANTI-PT.

    No, you're right. They're pro-PT..............LOL............ Obviously, you CAN not be huge fan of them, but also not despise them, which makes someone a disappointed fan, not an ANTI nor a PRO. But was I even talking about these people? I was talking about those that are hell-bent on trying to flush the PT down the toilet. Surely, if someone HATES something, they can be called ANTI-something. I'm anti-eggplant. That doesnt make me a homer for saying it.

    You are, indeed, a "homer" (you may regard that as an insult).

    Oh, I may? I'm so thankful. You've certainly insulted me.

    anyway, lighten up a bit on this thread. It's just an exercise, and you didn't have to take my levity and get all tied up into a knot over it
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.