Mrebo

twooffour said:

xhonzi missed something obvious, and I caught on to something obvious.

Vice versa.

twooffour said:

Actually it is, if you have common sense, and if you'd have read my previous post.
Jokes like this are made CONSTANTLY, by A LOT OF PEOPLE. Most of whom probably wouldn't mind boobs, but play up their hypersexuality for purpose. It's just a common trope.

You're a common trope. I'm not denying such jokes are made often by lots of people. I'm saying, 'so what.'

So what's the more likely conclusion, that he employed that device, or that one of the most well-known critics read by a wide audience would accidentally slip his sexual fantasies about sex in children's movies in reviews read by a wide audience?

I don't think it's accidental.

You know what, doesn't seem like sarcasm to me. It reads like someone's genuinely confused by Ebert's "recent oddity".

I think you're just saying he was being sardonic so you can have a point against me.

I was mocking your line of reasoning. I assure you I have no concern with winning points against you. A picture of a dancing clown wins points against you.

Fink has you pegged.

But I don't know what to do with those tossed salads and scrambled eggs.

twooffour said:

Mrebo said:

 

twooffour said:

For those too thick to get it - this is just another instance where I'm not the one starting to post off-topic personal bullshit in someone's thread ;)

What twooffour started with:

twooffour said:

Xhonzi, you've been a weirdo since I first read your posts about raising OT children, and you're still one now.

If you wanna read crazy perverted sex fantasies into a few sardonic remarks about a topic made fun of all the god damn time, please continue to do so. Whatever floats your boat.

Now explained as:

twooffour said:

Yea, that was a few personal jabs in the context of an on-topic response. You just jump in randomly with nothing more to say than "oh this mean twofour, this mean twofour, he so annoying please go away, clownpicture".

Calling names and being dismissive is not the same as being on topic, twooffour. Your first post boils down to "You're a weirdo. You're wrong. Whatever."

That's not responsive. Saying, 'it's not perverted, it's sardonic' is not an argument. It's just a way of saying, 'you're wrong and I'm right' and then you use that to say, 'so that's why I get to call you names.' And we've seen this from you time and again.

And then you claim you didn't start off-topic personal nonsense...except for calling into question one of xhonzi's approaches to parenting, of course.

I agree with CP3S that a person should be banned if they constantly drag the forums down.

Yes, I was rather appealing to common sense than any hard "logic", but then, common sense is the name of the game here, and I don't see what more is required.

A movie critic makes a few sardonic remarks about chaste romance in a few movies (also described as having bland romance by other people who've seen them).
A lot of people do that.
It's also connected to issues like parental guidance and pandering to different target audiences while making bucks, so that's an additional reason for it to be the butt of a lot of jokes.

Pretending to be a sex-obsessed maniac in contexts like that (I don't even have to reference the Filthy Critic for that), is a very common device, too.


So I'd expect anyone who's kinda been watching movies, participated on forums, or read through some internet reviews, to catch that sort of thing - or at the very least, consider the high probability that IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THAT SERIOUS.

But this one, no, "he mentions sex so it must be genuine obsession, what else could it be??"
Well, common sense and basic experience says that it very well may have been humor. Roger Ebert is heterosexual, and probably doesn't mind boobs, and you don't need more of a "true core" for it than that.

What "arguments" do I need to make in addition to that? It's just common sense. Insisting on sex obsession despite all of that is weird and hilarious. Wanna argue with that?



As for the other issue, again, there's a huge difference between making a few provoking remarks (or references to earlier threads) BEFORE PROCEEDING TO MAKE A POINT ON TOPIC, and just jumping in to say how much a given user suxx0rs without caring about the topic, or what said user had to say about it.

And if you can't see the obvious difference, then you're lost.
Sorry, I'll be more careful to point out that "you were the first to derail this thread by making a post BUILT SOLELY AROUND FLAMING A USER", so you won't have to make any effort to understand what should go without saying for anyone with half a brain.

"You're a weirdo. You're wrong. Whatever."

It wasn't phrased as an ad hominem. And yes, insisting on reading sex obsession into what most probably (and very often) is hyperbolic humor, is pretty weird.

 

xhonzi was clearly being sardonic. You're the one reading serious accusations of perversity into it (xhonzi merely raised the possibility that Ebert wants to see boobs). You don't have to agree, but wanting to see more sex in several family-friendly PG-13 movies is odd. This is common sense. Now I get to call you a fool.

Was Ebert just being sardonic about the topic of sex in several family-friendly movies? It's certainly a possibility. But that doesn't make it "common sense." Nor a "high probability." That others have addressed this topic has nothing to do with Ebert in the context of several reviews of family-friendly movies. That you want to give Ebert the benefit of the doubt is nice of ya, but not common sense.

You don't have to use impeccable logic, though your insistence that 'common sense is the name of the game' is just silly as common sense can mean whatever the speaker insists it means. What you failed to consider in this thread is 'the high probability that xhonzi MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THAT SERIOUS.' He raised a possibility. You raised a competing possibility and called xhonzi names and dismissed his sardonic observation.

twooffour said:

Yea, that was a few personal jabs in the context of an on-topic response. You just jump in randomly with nothing more to say than "oh this mean twofour, this mean twofour, he so annoying please go away, clownpicture".

Calling names and being dismissive is not the same as being on topic, twooffour. Your first post boils down to "You're a weirdo. You're wrong. Whatever."

That's not responsive. Saying, 'it's not perverted, it's sardonic' is not an argument. It's just a way of saying, 'you're wrong and I'm right' and then you use that to say, 'so that's why I get to call you names.' And we've seen this from you time and again.

And then you claim you didn't start off-topic personal nonsense...except for calling into question one of xhonzi's approaches to parenting, of course.

I agree with CP3S that a person should be banned if they constantly drag the forums down.

As concepts, midichlorians are infinitely worse than a wookiee Life Day.

But the Holiday Special simply isn't watchable. My local library had a VHS of it to loan (weird, I know) and I excitedly brought it home and I literally couldn't watch for more than about 10-15 minutes. Feeling anger about midichlorians is better than intense boredom.

I actually was reminded of the Holiday Special today as I stumbled across "Legends of the Superheroes" for the first time today and imagined it would be in the same painfully boring style (it's actually pretty funny).

skyjedi2005 said:

Well George has not completely had the novelizations rewritten for the original trilogy yet, he just had new junior novelizations made instead.

But well the original novelizations, comic adaptations, and first 2 radio dramas as well as the original screenplays pre special edition are no longer canon.

Canon should have very little meaning for Star Wars fans at this point.

If this is going to be continued in this rickrolling thread, can it possibly be resolved by a full explanation?

"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

twooffour said:

Xhonzi, you've been a weirdo since I first read your posts about raising OT children, and you're still one now.

If you wanna read crazy perverted sex fantasies into a few sardonic remarks about a topic made fun of all the god damn time, please continue to do so. Whatever floats your boat.

It is Ebert injecting sex into critiques of fantasy movies not about sex. "Hehe", he thinks the characters aren't intimate enough or he likes to muse about slimy alien sex. It does appear to be something of an obsession for him. What topic do you think he is making fun of? American morality and the attendant rating system? Lacking reality of intimate relations (albeit in fantasy movies)? Ebert's commentary is overdone. Maybe Ebert enjoys watching "The Brown Bunny" all day long, but many of us don't find the topic so compelling it must come up in Captain America, Green Lantern, X-Men, etc. They are designed to appeal to children as well as adults. Maybe Ebert is ever so witty he raises the issue in reviews of Disney movies as well.

Judas rickrolled Jesus?

Good thread. I think PT Yoda might have had it backward when he said "hate leads to suffering."

I think back to May 19, 1999, I skipped school (my only absence of the year) with two classmates to see a midday showing. I sat there excited to see the new Star Wars. I walked out wanting to not feel disappointed, trying to process what I just saw. It just wouldn't make sense. I became more disillusioned after II, III, and the passage of time. I certainly hate Jar Jar. I resent what they did to Star Wars. I want to ignore them, wish they never happened that way. But they're still there. Over the years I thought maybe they could be salvaged by a fan edit but have come around to thinking that is a lost cause.

Still I can't say that I hate them. Not in the sense of feeling angry if I see them on TV or burning Jar Jar in effigy.

Worst was probably Anakin describing how he slaughtered Tusken women and children to which Padme unemotionally responds, "to be angry is to be human."

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Oh, and leave the C3-P0ns alone, they at least manage to bring out a chuckle or two... I think... the serious ones are just a drag ;)

*facepalm*

I never chuckled at anything C3PO said.  I just got mad.  Thankfully the best fanedits never let him leave the ship.

I'm quite beside myself.

RedFive said:

Mrebo said:

Went to the link and it played a Macy's commercial for Ralph Lauren denim. Watched that and then came back here before the advertisement ended. That was some nice rickroll protection.

If you get AdBlockerPlus you don't have those annoying ads.  Not anywhere.  Not on here either. 

It's awesome!

I never see ads on here, but I do use NoScript.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRFrNZ_Br94

Went to the link and it played a Macy's commercial for Ralph Lauren denim. Watched that and then came back here before the advertisement ended. That was some nice rickroll protection.

Darth Bizarro said:

It really sucks that this is what fandom has devolved into.  It seems like everyone is either a total hater or a total gusher and it really sucks to be floating in the middle drifting back and forth like a plastic bag in the wind from TFN to OT.com helplessly trying to find a place to fit in as the polarized world of Star Wars fandom rips itself in two.       

Darth Bizarro, I blame the prequels for the schism - not the fans. I agree with much of what twooffour writes for once. While you may not be calling for a united fandom, as you explain below, I don't think you can expect less passion from fans:

I don't see Doctor Who fans who prefer the old and new serials throwing jelly babies back and forth at one another.  They may not all agree, but they at least can get along and accept each other's differences in their fandom.

 There is a good example in Doctor Who as to the kind of split we're talking about. For purposes of analogy, imagine if there were only two series of Doctor Who. Imagine that fans got to know and love Doctor Who via Tom Baker. They were excited when the learned there would be a new series. And Colin Baker happened. There would be a rift between fans. There would be gushers and haters. There would be those who recognize the new series' flaws but enjoy the time traveling police box (despite its occupant) just as PT fans get excited by seeing lightsabers and Yoda.

The fact that Doctor Who is a TV serial which has featured many different doctors and many episodes dilutes that kind of fight. Even in a 2 Doctor universe, fans could have the realistic hope of a 3rd Doctor to redeem the show. Movies are a different kind of animal. Doing a movie episode wrong is different than doing a TV episode (or even series) wrong.

mfastx said:

The prequels were doomed from the start. We already know what happens. We already know who lives, and who dies.

It's hard to get in to a sequence with, say, Obi-Wan Kenobi, because we know that he lives, so he can't die. It's hard to get into a movie when you already konw what happens.

But we didn't know what happens. We didn't know what the Clone Wars were. We didn't know the important characters of the PT who didn't make it to the OT. The problem was that the PT failed in its own right, as well as being inconsistent with the OT.

We all basically knew Luke wasn't going to die as we watched the OT for the first time. But that never hurt the enjoyability. And in the PT we would similarly know that Obi Wan wouldn't die. While we would know that Anakin turns to Vader, we really had no idea why/how.

Solid character development, introduction of new characters, witty and engaging dialogue...these are what draw us in.

There is a thread (in Off Topic) about a recent study which suggested that knowing the twist of a story increases its enjoyability. One "member" disputes the breadth of the study's applicability and/or its methodology (or something), but in any event, its not necessarily a constant mortal threat that makes a story enjoyable. I hope it's not your contention that all prequels are failures.

More succinctly:

xhonzi said:

THERE IS MORE TO DRAMA THAN WHO LIVES/WHO DIES!

twooffour said:

It's questions the study should've been asking if it wanted truly significant results.

That is too funny. The study didn't study what you wanted it to study, so the results are not "truly significant."

12 selected stories with no examination of their specific content? Sorry.

No need to apologize! The point is that 11/12 stories were rated more highly after knowing the twist. That is pretty significant. Are you saying at least 11 of the stories had twists of low quality? Or that at least 11 of the stories were of a markedly different character than stories in general? There were a variety of stories by different authors.

I think the cleverness of a twist might only be determinant when that's all the story has going for it, like the punchline of a joke.

Well what do you base this sweeping statement on again?

If you noticed how I started my sentence ("I think"), it is clearly a supposition.

How about the story has to offer a lot, but the twist adds even more to the enjoyment?
LOST had to offer a lot, and I'd like some study on that showing that people who already knew the flashsides were a con and a duck, enjoyed it just as much.
What if the story is so engaging, it allows you to suck in the twist with loving passion without scrutinizing its crude underpinnings? The quality of the twist would matter in a lesser story, but less so here.

Sometimes research rebuts our personal feelings. As I said, I prefer to not know the twists. But maybe, just maybe, I would rate a story more enjoyable knowing the twist ahead of time, nonetheless. Even recognizing this, I still maintain I wouldn't want to know the twists. I greatly enjoy Lost. If I had known that the flashsides were a ruse, I can't say that I would have rated it less highly. I think you're trying too hard to supplant research with personal feelings and anecdotes. There well may be an error in the research, but you haven't identified it.

Then, of course, the are two components of the enjoyment, aren't there - before the twist, and after (or during). The surprise during the twist is what usually sticks in the memory the most.
So you'd have to ask the participants how they were feeling before the surprise, and how impressed they were with the WTF moment in the aftermath.

So you want to ask if the twist in isolation was more enjoyable knowing or not knowing - not whether the work as a whole was enjoyable. And this is the problem with your whole, "argument." I would think it obvious that a twist is more enjoyable not knowing it. But that wasn't the question. The question was whether the story as a whole is less enjoyable for knowing the twist. It is a significant question, even if it's not the more myopic question you would ask.

twooffour said:

 

So please, quit preaching at me and get over it.

 

I'm telling it how it is.

twooffour said:

If you wanna engage in black-and-white painting and say that there are good stories where spoilers don't matter on the one hand, and bad stories that solely rely on a twist on the other hand, then please be my guest.

Truth is, however, lots of stuff people avoid spoilers of, is in many ways mediocre, and even good works can have strong and weak aspects.

A proper scientific study has to take all of that into account, although I guess you can still proceed from this one for further research.

If you want to deny the role of the surprise element in the enjoyment of fiction as well as story, you're free to do that, too.

I don't know that anyone is denying the surprise element in the enjoyment of fiction. What I'm saying is that the point is irrelevant. You were the one who raised the specter of different kind of stories that would undermine the study's results. I speculated how you might be touching on something (which means I am the one engaging in "black-and-white painting" - huh? sorry for trying to give your point any credence I guess).

A "proper scientific study" must take into account relevant factors to the question it asks. I conceded that taking into account the cleverness of the twist might show variance in enjoyability by individuals. Just as knowing whether the students had read such fiction before. Just as knowing how many had eaten breakfast and were more or less alert. Just as knowing, etc, etc, etc. Whatever multitude of possible factors were at play, 11 of 12 stories were rated more enjoyable after knowing the twist. I think you're thinking of a question the study wasn't asking.

twooffour said:

Well I would've gladly taken some insults and ridicule for a crude mistake like that.

What you would gladly take is not the standard for communications with others. You might be willing to be called every name in the book, that doesn't give you license to be rude with others.

Last time when Frink posted about some LOST edit and I missed the part where he said he didn't write it, people were acting pretty fucking abusive about it, calling me a moron and posting pictures of bananas, but you didn't see me whine about it or deny my mistake because that (as soon as I realized it, that is) now did you?

You've absolutely built up a fair amount of ill will because you exhibited a lack of civility early and often. Sometimes we do go over the top, perhaps, but when you fail to engender any respect that can happen.

Because it was completely justified.
Sometimes you just have to take it, laugh at your mistakes, and not allow the "act cocky and go into denial if abused" defense mechanism to take over. It simply doesn't help.

Justified because people lack respect for you or because you made a reading comprehension error? Abuse is not justified for misreading. Maybe not even "justified" because people find you arrogant and rude, but that is why people respond to you as they do.

So no, we don't buy your argument that we're entitled to be nasty with one another over misunderstandings because that's your modus operandi. Stop trying to justify your rudeness. If you want an Nth chance at being treated civilly, you do have to earn it.

In high school I had a teacher who would say that it does not matter if we know the ending of a story if the story is well-written. The enjoyment is in the story as a whole. Any story that is 'ruined' simply by knowing the ending obviously wasn't much of a story.

twooffour's argument doesn't hold water. The students in the study read a dozen different stories by a number of quality authors. And 11 of the stories were rated more enjoyable after knowing the twist. To say that the cleverness of the twist makes a difference misses the point. The students were rating the enjoyability of the books overall.

I think the cleverness of a twist might only be determinant when that's all the story has going for it, like the punchline of a joke. We may find that the more clever the twist, an individual might rate a story differently than a story with a less clever twist. For instance, "A Chess Problem" featured a greater gap in enjoyment than "Rhyme Never Pays". Maybe this has to do with the cleverness of the twist. But in the end, both stories were rated more enjoyable after knowing.

I, like RedFive, enjoy trying to figure out the mystery and being surprised. Maybe I would nonetheless rate a story/film more highly if I knew the ending. I think a number of the reasons in the article make sense.

Would Star Wars be more enjoyable if someone told the audience ahead of time that Leia was Luke's sister and Darth Vader was their father (the way many experience nowadays)? It is a qualitatively different experience from just seeing the evil guy in black stroll down the corridor and strangle a man. It doesn't necessarily make Vader less bad, but changes perceptions of many events.

Still at the end, I don't think people rate Star Wars more poorly for knowing these things. Maybe people would rate it more highly simply because even though they know the twists, they are more engaged to see exactly how it's sorted out. They are anticipating Vader's turn to good and taking enjoyment in knowing Leia is Luke's sister before they do (haha, you kissed your sister!). It's a different kind of enjoyment - and one I'd prefer on second viewing - but not "worse."

I suspect many people would say they would prefer not to know the twist ahead of time even though they enjoy the stories more after knowing. I'm totally comfortable having this cognitive dissonance.

I needed one. I like Max Rebo and have used variations on his name in the past. Didn't want to use a name I use elsewhere. Also didn't look at the lurker suggested name thread.

I enjoy the 1966 movie for its great lineup of villains and ridiculousness.

xhonzi said:

And this one is just for MRebo.

:D

twooffour said:

greenpenguino said:

And, Obi-wan says the jedi have been around for a thousand generations but everyone in the prequels say a thousand years!

And, Obi-wan says that Anakin was a pretty cool dude in the original trilogy but he turns out to be a total asshole in the prequels!

1) RLM ripoff :D
It just crossed my mind, though, the REPUBLIC has been around for 1000 years... the Jedi for 1000 generations :D
But I'm sure that's more of a double slop than a consistency.

The quote is:

"For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic."