Mrebo

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."

As far as space travel, the 5 minutes it took to get from Tatooine to the remains of Alderaan bothers me. And they had to pay Han a small fortune for that tiny trip from Tatooine (at the edges of civilization). I just like to pretend it took a long time...

1. Star Wars trilogy

2. Groundhog Day

3. Indiana Jones (first 3.)

4. The Burbs

5. Beetlejuice

6. A Christmas Carol (aka "Scrooge" 1951)

7. The Goonies

8. Harvey

9. Throw Mamma From the Train

10. [Too much competition for this spot]

DuracellEnergizer said:

Nien Nunb is prune-faced?

twooffour said:

Mrebo said:

twooffour said:

I never claimed ALL sarcasm was this. Please quote me on saying that.

Want to know something HILARIOUS? I never claimed that you claimed that "ALL" sarcasm "was this."

I would never claim such insipid BULLSHIT.

You say plenty deserving this characterization.

[blathering]

Simple enough? Or do you need more Sensible Conversation 101?
All sarcasm is non-responsive... I can't believe this.

Maybe because I "NEVER" said what you pretend I said. "I can't believe this." LOL

And the Red, Red Robin Comes Bob, Bob, Bobbing Along.

Well, for the Aspies who may lurk around here (no offense):

"In lieu of responding to 2/4's sarcastic post (wait, doesn't 2/4 habitually criticize sarcasm as defensive and non-responsive? ah, oh well.)"

That bit very strongly insinuates that I'm being hypocritical by being "sarcastic", while "habitually" criticizing this in others.
Well, if you've learned ANYTHING from my response, you now know this is stupid.


If something is stupid, it doesn't matter whether you outright claim it, claim it only to 90%, or insinuate it, "wink wink nudge nudge", it's still stupid.

Sarcasm has NOTHING to do with it. It's ALL about the substance of the content. Sarcasm is a mere expression tool.

It strongly insinuates that you wrongly deride people's sarcasm when that sarcasm is justified. What I "learned" from your post is that you can offer reasoning to support the use of sarcasm. What you miss is that the same reasoning supports sarcasm used by many of us that you've derided in the past. You fail to recognize that.

I would have been easier if you just admit you misread my post than trying to find a reason to call what I wrote stupid. But you're missing the point that the sarcasm you've dismissed is justified for the reasons you now offer.

http://thewertzone.blogspot.com/2011/07/here-come-dwarves.html

Some of these look pretty good. But Kili?! Your thoughts on these dwarves and any others on canon vs. Hobbit movie.

twooffour said:

I never claimed ALL sarcasm was this. Please quote me on saying that.

Want to know something HILARIOUS? I never claimed that you claimed that "ALL" sarcasm "was this."

I would never claim such insipid BULLSHIT.

You say plenty deserving this characterization.

[blathering]

Simple enough? Or do you need more Sensible Conversation 101?
All sarcasm is non-responsive... I can't believe this.

Maybe because I "NEVER" said what you pretend I said. "I can't believe this." LOL

And the Red, Red Robin Comes Bob, Bob, Bobbing Along.

Tell me what you hope to never do again on ot.com.

I'm going to pre-empt myself and try to not talk about religion. In lieu of responding to 2/4's sarcastic post (wait, doesn't 2/4 habitually criticize sarcasm as defensive and non-responsive? ah, oh well.) I'll respond with a cheerful song.

Star Wars: 7

Empire Strikes Back: 8

Return of the Jedi: 7.5

The Phantom Menace: 3

Attack of the Clones: 1

Revenge of the Sith: 4

cthulhu1138 said:

The Aluminum Falcon said:

First of all, I wanted a different environment than Endor. Yes, I do see how this could be interpreted as being PT-ish, but by exotic, I meant somewhere not common on Earth. A New Hope has great deserts featured in it and Empire Strikes Back has an icy wasteland and a swamp. Perhaps ROTJ could have not just stuck to what looked like a typical forest. Maybe another swampland was a good idea or possibly a volcanic planet (which would have been shot on some mountains with lava/volcanoes matted in, NOT on a green screen).

 

 You're forgetting one thing. These movies are for multi-cultural audiences. Many of those cultures saw the desert as COMMON. Others saw Hoth as common (although probably not as many). The only real exotic environments were Dagobah and bespin because they are the only two that don't actually exist.

Well... and the Death Stars but we got a second one of them in ROTJ so that was sorta lame.

Also, redwood forests are pretty unique even here on Earth. To say that such a unique forest is less exotic than a desert, ice field, or swamp doesn't make much sense to me. When I see sci-fi fan films obviously set in forests I'm used to seeing on the east coast, it is off-putting. But the Endor forest was unlike forests I've been in. Forests do exist in Sci Fi and the redwoods provided the best exotic possibility.

ray_afraid said:

Mrebo said:

"Return of the Jedi" certainly refers to Luke's growth as a Jedi.

I've always thought it was referring to Vader's redemption. Leaving the Sith and returning to the Jedi. Or that it refers to Luke becoming a Jedi and therefore retuning the Jedi to the galaxy. Either way, I've always thought it was a lame title. Sounds too much like a generic sequel. Which... hmm...

Ignoring the PT (which was barely a glimmer in Lucas's eye when he made ROTJ) I don't know how one could think it referred to Vader.

Only at the very end of ESB did we have Vader declaring he was Luke's father. But even recognizing that Vader used to be Jedi Anakin (as told to us in ANH by Obi Wan), nothing indicated he would turn good. In ROTJ we get confirmation that Vader is truly Anakin, but still no indication he might turn from his evil ways until well into ROTJ.

Whether Vader might possibly turn good was not central to the story of Star Wars. Vader certainly was not thought of as "the Jedi."

The Jedi had been all but wiped out. Only Yoda was left. Luke was training to be a Jedi but wasn't done training in ESB. So it was most logical that it was the rebirth of the Jedi via Luke. That was what I meant.

And so much ROTJ hate! XD It's my favorite and I'm an unabashed Ewok lover. But to set aside a geekish debate, titles are another important consideration. At least Lucas didn't name it "Attack of the Jedi."

LforLiving said:

Wow I can't believe that the official Star Wars twitter accounted retweeted this:

https://twitter.com/#!/starwars/status/96643296104947712

RT @SciFiNow: Top 10 reasons #StarWars The #CloneWars is better than the entire prequel trilogy http://bit.ly/oL1I58

That. Is. Unfathomable.

Puppy!

Never got around to giving him a proper name, so still a Puppy at 16.

Great looking dog, Ziggy.

This is from a few years ago, but he just turned 16 today. Great old dog. Half Golden Retriever. Half Great Pyrenees.

Poor Isaac Asimov :(

Bingowings said:

^

Is that twooffour Ed Milibrand?