SophieSopho

Just because a character like Darth Vader is more well-known among students or the general public, it does not necessarily mean that Vader is objectively better or more interesting than other characters such as General Grievous.

The speaker seems to be arguing that the appeal to popularity is not a valid argument when it comes to art or entertainment, as the value of a work of art or a character in a story is subjective and cannot be determined solely by the number of people who know about it or like it.

They then provide an example of an actor in a movie called “Warriors of Virtue” who they believe is a more entertaining villain than Grievous, even though the movie is relatively unknown.

Overall, it seems like the point being made is that popularity or public recognition does not necessarily equate to quality or value, particularly when it comes to subjective matters such as art and entertainment.

I don’t support “Birdemic: Shock and Terror” (2010). How can anybody like its poor special effects, wooden acting, and nonsensical plot. The film tells the story of a small town that is attacked by birds, but the birds are depicted in the film through the use of cheap, poorly animated computer graphics. So I see the film’s plot as a nonsensical and poorly written one.