logo Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
27-Mar-2024
Posts
3,390

Post History

Post
#520020
Topic
The ot.com "If I do this again on the forum, please someone stab me in the eye with an icepick" Thread (Also: The twooffour Discussion Thread)
Time

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.

Post
#520010
Topic
The ot.com "If I do this again on the forum, please someone stab me in the eye with an icepick" Thread (Also: The twooffour Discussion Thread)
Time

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.

Post
#519995
Topic
The ot.com "If I do this again on the forum, please someone stab me in the eye with an icepick" Thread (Also: The twooffour Discussion Thread)
Time

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.

Post
#519457
Topic
How would you have done ROTJ?
Time

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.

Post
#518907
Topic
The Crawl
Time

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."

Post
#515231
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Time

CP3S said:

Mrebo said:

You're not doing a "nerdy, technical term deconstruction thing of the word 'opinion,'" you're confusing the definitions.

Oh, but he thinks he is doing a nerdy, technical term deconstruction thing of the word "opinion", and if he thinks it, it might as well be reality.

Precisely.

twooffour,

You missed the point again. Well you did catch the sarcasm (you used the word "sarcasm" or "sarcastic" 7 times in your post). The problem with replying to your previous post in a more substantive manner, as I tried doing for many previous pages on the topic of remakes is that you really cannot follow anyone else's argument but your own.

I explained why saying a pencil will fall to the floor when dropped is not a fact (its merely a prediction). Your rebuttal consisted of saying, 'well you know what I really meant, like in a everyday conversational sense and how dare you be intellectual about it!'

I'm not entirely clear on if you think my method of argumentation is too intellectual (as if that matters) or if my definition of fact is somehow too intellectual. If it's the former, that's not a rebuttal, that's whining. If it's the latter, well we are arguing over the definitions so calling my distinction too intellectual does not mean it's wrong.

Nonetheless, I offered an explanation for not using some kind of "everyday conversational" definition of "fact":

I thought we were talking about the difference between opinions and facts, not talking about how people might misuse those terms in everyday language.

You offer:

"How about both, since the two are kinda related?"

To which I can only say, so what? Yes...there is a relationship between the topic of what is a fact vs opinion and the topic of confusing the two ideas. But the question at hand was your misuse of the term fact, which you resist admitting to by calling me out for being "intellectual."

You continue your rebuttal to my above quote with:

"Like, because when someone's accusing me of confusing facts with opinions, and posts shitty flawed google graphics to support that, they're kinda misusing those terms... in the everyday language that is this board?

This isn't some academic forum here, and we're not posting peer reviews."

No duh. But just because this board is full of everyday language and silly graphics does not mean the rules of logic need to get muddled. You're just making poor excuses to ignore my argument.

When I explained the merit of using an intellectual approach:

"There will often be many variables involved in a situation which you cannot assume do not exist or may not think of. In everyday conversation, people will claim all kinds of things are facts."

You didn't really offer a rebuttal, except to say:

"As I JUST SAID, such "possibilities" are kinda considered, but NOT MENTIONED."

"The pencil will hit the floor" in everyday conversation = "this pencil will hit the floor unless blah blah blah".
Thanks you finally got that now, thanks."

So the possibilities are not mentioned that would prove your statement false, so they're assumed to not be there, so that you can be correct. Right, no circular logic there at all (this too is sarcasm). It is a fact that things fall due to gravity. That's not more or less intellectual or conversational, it's just precise. That a pencil will fall to the ground when you drop it is a prediction based on that fact, but not a fact itself. You smugly seem to think that your snarky "Thanks you finally got that now, thanks" actually addresses anything.

You offer an opening to continue the madness:
"But hey, where was that opinion that I treated as a "fact"? And I mean not just debunked (you can debunk an illogical opinion, too), I mean as FACTS?"

So you admit you have no knowledge of the basis for this discussion after being involved in it for a couple pages. This is the point it really feels like talking to a brick wall. You think my sarcasm is defensive or that I'm trying to weasel out answering your ever so cogent argument (again, sarcasm).

In reality it's a matter of the apparent futility of arguing with you when you admit you have no idea what the basis of discussion is, your rebuttals consist of personal attacks, you whine about something being too intellectual, and insist that we should blur the line between actual meanings of words and how they might be used in everyday speech. It's all a bunch of sophist (said it again) nonsense.

If you're wondering why I chose that single line from your post to criticize, it is because it is so obviously in error. The goal was to pin you down when you're obviously wrong to see how you would react. And as we see, it's by whining about intellectualism, imploring us to just know how you meant it (which is still wrong), and claiming ignorance of the basis of the argument (which is important to keep in mind for the discussion to make sense). The rest of that post is just as flawed (no matter how many times you link back to it).

At the very least, you can see my sarcasm was not defensive or an attempt to avoid your intellectual firepower.  It is honest frustration with your inability to admit error or even understand what is being discussed. It is fatigue with your personal attacks.

I actually meant my sarcastic post to hit quite close to the mark of your perception of yourself and it seems that it did. Thus it is amusing to me that after I said:

 

Where you tell it how it is but people can't handle the truth.


You replied with:

"An obliviously accurate statement meant as sarcasm - instant unintented irony hilarity awesomecake."

I said it because I believe that you hold that view. So it was a perspicacious observation. If me thinking you are wrong creates "awesomecake," you already have a lifetime supply. I think you know irony about as well as Alanis Morissette. Isn't that ironic?

Post
#514868
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Time

Please spend 7 pages doing it. I won't post a thing. We'll just read in awe. All of us who have criticized your rudeness and lacking coherence are certainly wrong about you. We're obviously the ones with problems. You should see no reason to take a step back and reevaluate your words. You undoubtedly face similar frustrations off the internet where few are as smart as you. Where you tell it how it is but people can't handle the truth. No one is quite as dynamic and open-minded as you.

Post
#514829
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Time

A paragon, a PARAGON, you say?

I thought we were talking about the difference between opinions and facts, not talking about how people might misuse those terms in everyday language. You're not doing a "nerdy, technical term deconstruction thing of the word 'opinion,'" you're confusing the definitions.

The issue is that you treat our opinions as facts that can be debunked. Thus you are rude and make nonsensical arguments.

When people try to explain opinion vs fact, you devolve into a discussion about everyday meanings of dropping pencils. And the "intellectual masturbation" is important in establishing a basic concept. There will often be many variables involved in a situation which you cannot assume do not exist or may not think of. In everyday conversation, people will claim all kinds of things are facts. But how about that one man or that one pencil that didn't hit the ground? Not because they were caught by a dove, but by some reasonable but unforeseen circumstance.

Post
#514805
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Time

twooffour said:

Mrebo said:

 

twooffour said:
Making a prediction that if I let go of my pencil, it'll drop to the floor, is a fact;

A prediction is not a fact. And that's a fact, not my opinion. But let us not take another 7 pages to fail to convince you on this point.

I'm not sure which terms scientists, or epistemologists use in this context, but yes, in everyday speech, the "fact" that if you jump out of the 9th floor, you'll fall to the ground, and "might" get a headache, is, indeed, a "fact".

Or at the very least a "certainty", which is what this is all about anyway, isn't it?

Surely you meant ornithologists. But don't ask me about what the fancy scientists say, you're the guy who said:

Yea, sure a pain in the ass to find out that the guy you're trying to spoonfeed with basic, common definitions, actually knows more about them than you do (about those basic, common definitions).

Now if you're asking me for my prediction, it is mighty likely the pencil and leaping man will fall. I assume nobody will be catching them. I assume there will not be a great gust of wind that would carry them to safety. And of course I assume that there is gravity. I have to assume that absolutely nothing intervenes between the pencil/man and gravity. And if we can make such broad assumptions, then any number of probable or even potential events become "facts," but it's all done by sophistry. Now if you're saying it is a fact that gravity will exert force on the pencil, then yes. But you went further than saying gravity exists. It is not a fact that the pencil or man will fall to the ground at all. Just highly likely.

I am serious about not wanting to take 7 more pages to fail to convince you.

Post
#514673
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Time

Oh god, that was fun reading.

Even explaining the difference between opinion and fact to twooffour becomes a tortured exercise.

The only thing that might be worth responding to in his last "response" is:

You either have the driest deadpan humor I've ever witnessed, or you're an unimaginably boring person.
I could make an educated guess based on the tone of the rest of your post, but I rather wouldn't.

You're clearly being rude (coy, but rude). This perfectly illustrates your manner of argumentation in which you absolutely misread and misconstrue everything (while being rude).

Has my tone been "boring"? You're surely entitled to your opinion (sorry I won't explain what that means). I have been civil, logical, and patient. Those may be boring qualities in your eyes. Certainly given the tone of the rest of your post...

The truth is I tend to have a dry deadpan humor. Don't know about the driest ever. Am I now amazing because I do apparently have the driest deadpan humor you've ever witnessed? Of course not. Need you rethink the "boring" tone of the rest of my post? Don't trouble yourself. We've agreed to disagree so I'm moving on to organize my rock collection.

Post
#514113
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Time

twooffour said:

Playing around with something already recorded is like playing around with a movie already made - see Fan Edits forum. Or look at the "Special Editions" which were not remakes.

Aside from the fact that there is no particular reason to think that remixes, or "fan edits" are inherently any better than remakes (isn't that also bastardizing the original? how much creativity is involved in piecing already finished scenes from an already complete movie together?), NO, WRONG.

Playing around with a recording = remixing = fan edits, special editions.
What *I* meant was... taking an original recording... and PLAYING IT YOURSELF. Performing in front of an audience, doing another recording, essentially "putting your own fingerprints" on that, too. SAME WITH SONG COVERS.

I dunno, are you intentionally mixing up the analogy, or is your reading comprehension really this bad?

You appear to be the one confusing the analogy and being unable to understand what I've been saying. You are trying mightily to blur the distinction between playing a cover of a song and somehow playing the recording itself, by which you really mean playing a cover (which I addressed in my previous post but you said I had missed the point)? Or you are saying that there is no difference between sampling, remixes, and playing it as a cover? Perhaps because now you're talking about degrees of creativity?

And when you say things like "NO, WRONG." and "no, dismissed" I just wonder who the hell do you think you are. I know you've convinced yourself. But an idea cannot be absolutely dismissed or declared wrong unless it is a factual issue. If I were saying that George Bush is still president and is trying to pass a law to make us all wear funny hats, your tone and language would be absolutely justified. But because I don't see this issue exactly as you do does not make it wrong.

There is no factual issue in contrasting remakes with edits. I'm arguing that they are fundamentally different. You believe that they exist on a scale of creativity.

If you cannot see the distinction here, there's not much more I can say on the matter.

I see the distinction, but I also see the similarities.

So it is a matter of the significance of those similarities and differences.

Some people say the Wizard of Oz should never be remade

Others say LOTR should've never been put to film.
Obviously, Jackson's trilogy didn't REALLY live up to the challenge.

So I could argue against ecranizations of novels, just as well.

Yes...and my point wasn't that what people say they want should be determinative. It just wasn't. Seriously, I have to continue to explain the same points ad nauseum because you refuse to understand them. You confuse any number of issues and accuse me of doing so.

Maybe the theory I've been floating (and you've been trying to push under the water) is flawed. I've accepted this from the get-go.

Well it's official now, so accept it.

More of this? Seriously? It's official because you say so?

I've already argued that I think music is more like plays which are by their nature are to be adapted infinite times.

Yes, and I rebutted that. It's an invalid, and completely arbitrary position that isn't justified by anything whatsoever (it also doesn't hold water).

You offered something resembling a rebuttal, but no you didn't rebut it.

A published score, yes.
An original recording, or performance, ESPECIALLY an improvized one? NO. THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF A FINISHED MOVIE. Got it?

Got it? I've suggested that myself! So again, you have failed to understand the argument.

Your position seems to be that any remake might be good. That it basically depends on the people making it. That remakes of Star Wars, Love Story, Toy Story, whatever, are all potentially good ideas.

It sure MIGHT be good.
"Potentially good" only in the sense that, well, it CAN turn out good. Specific "ideas" how to do it, can obviously just as well be poor.

Not sure why you're stressing "MIGHT" and superfluously providing a definition of "potential." I clearly understood your point and so used the words "might" and "potential." Not sure what other definition of "potential" you thought could have been implied. Oh well.

Having that said, adapting a play, or a book, that's already been adapted in this medium, is maybe only a step more "creative", in that it's easier to ignore the other renditions (but not very easy).

But, hey, you know...

Why wouldn't it be very easy? Bringing a book to life on the screen is infinitely more creative than bringing a movie to life on the screen again.

If something is already made and made well, why copy it just to put one's own fingerprints on it?

The part with the fingerprints IS THE CREATIVE PART.

If it's just about putting fingerprints on it, it is minimally creative, as I already argued.

All your arguments are pretty arbitrary, and uninteresting both to criticism, and the creative process (as far as I can judge that last one... and probably the former, too) - you say "all they can do is imprint their own fingers", but "doing the same with different fingerprints" is own the entire appeal in the first place, and still has a lot of room for creativity.

It only sounds arbitrary because you refuse to understand the argument. If uninteresting, please feel free to drop out of the thread.

You say I said, "all they can do is imprint their own fingers...doing the same with different fingerprints." This is about the 5th time you've made up a quote I didn't say. It is evidence that you do not understand what I'm saying because you feel the need to invent quotes. Those invented quotes do not represent what I've argued.

Yea, there's probably more "room for creativity" in re-adapting an original play, or book - but I see that as a mere matter of proportions.

No, wrong, dismissed.

See what a silly and rude thing it is to respond to an idea in that fashion? I think the room for creativity is a major factor in whether a project is worthwhile.

As for the Wizard of Oz, well, I remember seeing the original as a little kid, at 9 I think, and already then I found it horribly cheesy.
Haven't seen any remakes, but if they'd make one that's actually exciting and engagin, and doesn't make you wanna slit your wife's wrists, then hey, you've got my blessings.

You have an interesting view of the word "cheesy." While there could be many reasons to not like the movie, I suspect you'd be in a distinct minority of people who would find it "cheesy." Perhaps you give that word a broader meaning than most people.

Your views on violence against women and your blessing for a new Oz movie are duly noted. There is a prequel in the works.

As far as my argument goes (and my ability to argue it), do not take me for some conjurer of cheap tricks. You have failed to understand the argument and appear more eager to be proven right rather than to engage in civil discussion. I think it best to "agree to disagree" - such a stupidly useful idea.