Akwat Kbrana

Dammit! That is so incredibly stupid. So, counting Frodo, Galadriel, Saruman, and Legolas, that makes four characters cast in this movie who do not appear in the original book, but who did star in the previous LOTR trilogy. Anyone else getting PT vibes yet?

So Elijah Wood is confident "in whatever they're going to do in terms of bringing in any familiar characters back, just knowing their sense of upholding integrity." Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe...but I'm dubious. Seems to me that these familiar characters and familiar actors are being brought back for one of two reasons, or likely both: (1) Because of nostalgia (it's been well over a decade since LOTR was shot, and I'm sure everyone's looking forward to "getting the old group back together."; (2) To lend the new films some of the credibility of the old, and thus "tie the two together."

In my opinion, neither of these reasons is a good reason to make a casting or writing decision. These decisions need to be made on the basis of good storytelling. And I certainly have more faith in PJ's ability to make good storytelling decision than, say, GL's. But I'm still dubious.

"I have a bad feeling about this."

+1

I don't like sand.

"There is no twooffour."

:P

Yeah! I kinda liked the nostalgia idea!

Don't worry; he's not so very far away...

He's also a big supporter of film preservation. Haven't you heard? ;)

Ditto. They look great; definitely light-years ahead of the GOUT, both in terms of colorization and overall picture quality. I'm really excited about this set.

tl;dr

Actually, I'm planning to read it. Not because I'm a fan of the prequels, but because both the films and reviews are within my scope of interest, and I prefer viewing both critically at any time - documents such as these can open new perspectives, if written well.

Well that's not exactly surprising. Most of your posts on this forum have been extremely long, boring walls of text arguing with TheBoost over whether or not RLM's reviews are any good. Personally, I've skipped over most of them because of their excessive verbosity, and the fact that they're dull, uninteresting, and not entertaining in the slightest. And also because I've actually got a life; why would I even care what some random dude on the internet thinks of someone else's opinion of a youtube review of a Star Wars movie? Plenty of other things to spend my time on (including the manifold other posts on OT.com that actually have something interesting to say).

So I'm unsurprised that a 108 page document about someone's youtube review of a Star Wars movie is something you'd find appealing. But I doubt there are many like you.

As for people watching the reviews cuz they ain't text - fuck that, what you're writing right now is text. Packing content into an easly digestable, amusing package can help attract people's interest, but that doesn't mean people who're already interested in the topic aren't taking a look anyway. A negative side-effect of being charismatic and entertaining is that the stupider folk ends up attached to your persona and becomes uncritical, protective fan dumb.

Congratulations on going off half-cocked and completely missing my point. Yes, my post did indeed comprise written text. It was also roughly two to three paragraphs long. My contention was not that written text is bad; only that very few people are likely to be interested in reading a book-length document that discusses perceived inadequacies of a freaking youtube movie review.

Personally, I think your comment is "sad", and "frikkin' hilarious" - in its premise, 50 times more blindly fanboyish than the object at hand, and completely superfluous: 

Indeed. Who are you again? And why should I give a rat's ass? Are you seriously contending that my having taken about thirty seconds to shoot off a comment on a Star Wars message board is more fanboyish and pathetic that someone sitting down and painstakingly typing out 108 pages of text concerning the inadequacies of someone else's opinion about a Star Wars movie?

Well, you certainly have a "unique" point of view. Not that that's always a good thing...

if you're not gonna read it, don't comment.

And what the hell is this supposed to mean? By your own logic, if you didn't like my post, then you shouldn't have responded to it. Go back to the shallow end of the pool.

Here's one I whipped up for JediTray:

Offended Ric, was Offended.

Not to get too off-topic, Ady, but since you mentioned it...

Would the Gkar capture of the '97 SE be a viable source for the Seb Shaw force ghost scene at the end of ROTJ?

Also, I agree that 2016 might be a bit too optimistic. By just saying "after ROTJ:R is done," you might be able to avoid a lot of those demanding "when's the damn edit gonna be done" posts...

Quackula said:

Plus, the title of his rebuttal is "A Study in Fanboy Stupidity".

LOL! I'm sure his little rebuttal is a study in fanboy stupidity...the title is apropos, just not in the way he intended.

Seriously, how sad is this? Does he really think anyone besides his fellow Lucas gusher nerds is going to care? The reason so many people watched RLM's reviews is that they are 1) Video, not text; and, 2) Amusing in their own right. So they're easy & enjoyable to watch.

But virtually no one is going to want to read through 100+ pages of some geek's "rebuttal" of a youtube video review of a Star Wars movie. Personally, I doubt I'd even be all that interested in watching a video rebuttal, and he expects people to slog through a book-length document just to find out why he disagrees with someone's negative review of TPM? Frikkin' hilarious.

It seemed pretty obvious to me, but a huge number of TFNers were absolutely convinced that Sidious would turn out not to be Palpy. This bold and provocative twist was supposed to be the capstone of "George's genius," and make all of us "bashers" realize what ignorant philistines we'd been not to have realized the unprecedented artistic merits of the PT and the underlying cinematic genius of its creator. This hypothesis was preached incessantly and regarded by its adherents as not merely speculative conjecture about an upcoming film, but as an inevitability as reliable as the sun's rising. It was as though they had received this information in a prophetic dream from the mouth of God Himself. They placed no less confidence in their assertions to this effect than our dear friend kenkraly places in his assertions that the blurays will have "fixed colars."

I kinda wish I'd stuck around to see how much humble pie was ingested after the release of the ROTS theatrical trailer, but by that time I'd been banned from TFN for being a "basher." It probably wasn't very entertaining though; more than likely they all just decided to forget the hypothesis had ever existed, and never spoke of the matter again. No doubt the fact that palpy did turn out to be Sidious is now regarded as the capstone of George's "creative genius," where before it was considered to be too obvious and anticlimactic a plot device for a screenwriter of such depth and sophistication.

Just had a footlong oven roasted chicken sandwich on Italian herbs & cheese bread with the works from Subway, along with a fresh pot of Godiva coffee. As Bill & Ted would say, "Excellent."

JediTray (I do assume you're still reading this thread):

I think it's time someone explained to you how the internet works. Now this may come as a shock to you, but in fact there is not, nor has there ever been, an intricate conspiracy on the part of OT.com regulars to exclude you. Here's the deal: in online communities, a person is judged by his or her behavior. Those who behave rationally, make reasonable and/or interesting contributions, and just generally seem to have a cool head, will inevitably find acceptance. On the other hand, those who act creepy, whiny, or clingy, will not. Attention whoring falls into the latter of the two categories. So does stalking regular members and harassing them incessantly.

Here's where it can get confusing for some people, so pay attention. Claiming to have debilitating problems in real life does not excuse inappropriate online behavior. For one thing, why should anyone believe that alleged problems exist in the first place? For an example of what I'm talking about, just read through the Dayv cancer thread. For another thing, even if someone claims to have horrible problems in real life and those claims happen to be true...well, so what? How does that have any bearing on whether behavior is appropriate or not? You don't seriously think you're the only person on here that has problems in the real world, do you? Life is complicated. I happen to be going through some pretty dire financial straits at the moment, but you don't hear me bringing them up every other post. Why? Mainly because it has no bearing on the ongoing discussion here. And because it's nobody's business but my own. And most of all, because on an online forum like this one, behavior is more important than life circumstances. Take you, for example. You seem very eager to make mention of your various health problems. Well gee, ok, sorry to hear about that, but so what? Poor health doesn't constitute license to act weird, creepy, and needy. Or to go attention whoring. Or to stalk and harass other members of the forum. 

I guess all I'm really trying to say is that OT.com isn't actually a members-only club as you so shrilly purport; it's really more of a non-sociopaths-only club. But then again, where on the internet isn't that the case? And the only stardard of judgment that an online community can really go with is an individual's behavior. As God said to Cain, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" Of course Cain didn't do well, so he got banished. Similarly, failure to do well on this forum (and others) will get you banned. But I suppose you already knew that.

Good luck socking, and remember what I said. It's your behavior that turns people against you. Nothing less, and nothing else.

Bob said:

Why do female homosexuals get a cool word like "lesbians" while the males get stuck with....what?  Gay?  That applies to females too.  Why don't the guys get a unique word too?

 

No gay-bashing answers to that question, plz.

thats because gays r t3h suck

(Heh. Get it? Get it??)

^I did the same. Initially, I thought there must be something horribly wrong with my television set. Later, I discovered the flaw was in the product itself. Pretty frickin' irritating.

Heh. Just ran across this and thought it oddly apropos to this thread. Hopefully your kids, and mine, won't end up like this:

Tallguy said:

(None of the stormtroopers in Star Wars were ever mean.)

You mean besides murdering all those jawas, blowing up Luke's boyhood home, and burning the flesh off of a kindly old farmer and his wife? ;)

Tallguy said:

Now look at all of the people posting on this board:  Have any of us met before now?  Any unknown relatives?  Did anyone take anyone else's job or know anyone else's cousin?  Does anyone own my old Firebird?  And we're only separated by thousands of miles.  In Star Wars we're talking the freaking galaxy!

Waaaaait a minute. Tallguy? As in Rob Tallguy?? Dude! It's me, Alistair Balderdash, your long-lost second cousin thrice removed! I'm only using "Akwat Kbrana" as a pseudonym because I'm in hiding from our mutual great-uncle, Count Vendetta, who sometimes lurks on these forums since he, in a weird coincidence, happens to be married to Jay's ex.

Don't tell anyone.

sorry, I didn't see the edit before I posted.   I apologize for snapping at you, I'm in a bad mode

No worries, man. And FWIW, I hope you'll reconsider leaving the forum. I'm still pretty bummed out about C3PX's departure and VFP's mysterious dissapearance; the last thing we need right now is for a respected regular member to leave. If the current atmosphere on the forum is getting to tangled for you right now, maybe it would be beneficial to take a brief hiatus to allow enough time for some bad water to flow under the bridge? I'd hate to see ya leave long-term.

Akwat, could you please delete your signature?   I really don't find it funny.

You got it. No offense was intended; I was merely trying to convey my amazement at the level of drama (some might say soap-opera-level drama) that that thread managed to generate, without actually posting in it and thereby getting caught up in it myself. But it wasn't meant to be offensive, so in light of your request I'll delete it post-haste.

Phew. I think I've spoken my peace. Sorry for all the long posts. I'm moving on now...