The Moore mocking is funny, but I'm worried they might try stuffing a bunch of simplistic moral messages into the movie too. (Also, I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly.)
lordjedi said:I think it's a bit of bullshit that I get attacked for having a strong argument against govt healthcare and it being "our" problem, but the "Emperor" gets a pass for his snide remarks. You're entitled to your opinion, but I fired back the way I did because of your snotty remarks. If you want socialized healthcare so much, move to Canada. I hear it's great as long as you don't get sick.
C3PX made "snotty" remarks and Jay made "snide" remarks? You should give people the benefit of the doubt more. I also think you're being overly defensive. The world isn't helped by winning arguments alone. Truth is what's actually important and if people want to express their emotions and look down on others, that's their ridiculous prerogative. Even if you're right about what you feel is coming from others, you can be better than that. Why behave in an equally meaningless manner?
My philosophy, when it comes to individual cases that seem wrong, is to simply say that shit happens. The girl losing assistance is sad, but the fact that we use government to assist people is also sad. The world moves on. There are bigger problems than one girl and yet just one more example of corrupt, government assistance.
Hayes was married four times and fathered 12 children, according to Us magazine. He is survived by his current wife Adjowa, whom he married in 2005 and with whom he had one child.
Good Lord.
Well, I hope Chef is at peace in his next plane of scientological existence.
Nanner Split said:As Doug Stanhope once said, the only people who are anti-drug (anti-weed, more specifically) are those that have never tried it, and those that sucked at doing it. Which one are you, GhostAlpha?
Hmm, you could use a phrase like that to dismiss any opposition. "The only people apposed to self-mutilation are those who never tried it, and those who sucked at doing it." Or, "Those who are apposed to raping women have either never tried it or suck at doing it." :)
Edit: Damn, Nanner, you made me forget what a stupid thread this is. The title doesn't match the singular topic worth discussing in it. GhostAlpha should change the title as Darth Solo suggested. (Otherwise a moderator should lock it.)
GhostAlpha, I can honestly say I derive no pleasure from you losing an argument (as you clearly seem to be thinking based upon your behavior). I try not to rely on other people in that way. I wasn't trying to bother you either. If I enjoy anything about this whole ordeal, it's just my own weird things (like discussing logic).
Apart from the way you treat people, and the way you try to win arguments at any (and all) cost, I find that you have positive things to offer. I wouldn't throw that away.
Sorry if I offended you unjustly anywhere. Otherwise, if you want to mock me or whatever, you can do that, but I won't really bother replying. Later.
GhostAlpha26 said:Tiptup said:
Well, perhaps that's true, but, as C3PX said, it definitely seems like you're arguing that after the fact. You're devoting far more text and emotion to this than I am. If your point was to waste my time, you've only wasted more of your own.
Oh, also, I generally think logic is worth promoting even when the source I'm correcting is being purposely illogical. I just now have the added bonus of seeing you admit how illogical you were/are being. Thanks. :)Perhaps? HAHAHAHAHAHA, that is too good. Whose wasting time, this is moderately entertaining. It means something to you that someone your speaking to online that you dont know admitted to being illogical on a internet forum...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The pleasure has been all mine :)
Perhaps....that was great hahaha
"Perhaps?"? "Whose wasting time"?
I don't know you anymore. . . . . . . . GhostAlpha26, . . . you're breaking my heart. You're going down a path I can't follow.
Rob said:
By "The attentive audience", they mean simply those who are tuned to international and financial news, not those who are "looking at issues in detail or arguing them well" as you previously stated. In other words they are saying only that 38% of Republicans follow the hard news, while 30% of Democrats follow the hard news.
I believe that better arguing and a knowledge of details follows the watching of more "hard" news since it gives more ammunition and/or opportunites for them. It also helps explain why, again anecdotally, I see conservatives willing to engage in thoughtful debate more often than not.
Rob said:
You have made the mistake of mentally joining one of the two "teams". Turn of your fucking talk radio and think for yourself. Don't you realize that you sound identical to a "liberal" retard who is railing on about the heartless, unenlightened, unedjucated, conservative lemmings.
Ahh, see? Now, here's the interesting part. I never said coservatives were automatically right, or automatically using correct logic just because they focus on the details of issues a bit more. In fact, I believe people tend to reassure themselves too much when they expose themselves to additional information. Also, a lot of what they learn while getting the news is general groupthink (ideas and arguments that might not be true but fit a group's sensibilities). I'm not claiming that's a good thing.
I'm just trying to explain life as I see it.
Just made a post with a link right now and it worked just fine. The biggest bonus is I won't have to copy and paste other people's links anymore. Thanks. :)
[b]GhostAlpha26 said:
If you couldnt tell I have not cared nor taken this "argument," seriously at all with you.
Rob said:
The fact that you would even entertain such laughable stereotypes makes you sound like a real dunce. And a big queer.
The stereotype may be laughable, but that doesn't mean that it can't be true:
http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized
This is from the fourth page:
"The attentive audience for political, international and financial news tends to be better educated and middle-aged. Whites and blacks express comparable levels of interest (32% for whites, 35% for blacks), but Hispanics are less apt to follow hard news closely (23%). Republicans pay somewhat more attention (at 38%) than do Democrats or independents (30% each)."
I don't how they calculate that last bit, but PEW is a pretty respected source. Perhaps you can tell me how they're wrong.
Anecdotally speaking, my experiences have backed up these studies and so i've never felt the need to look at them closely. (That's probably not something I should do, but . . . eh.) If I want to know which side is arguing hard data, events, and logic, I look to the republican and conservative side. If I want to see who is repeating mindless chants and phrases at rallies, dinging chimes over dead soldiers, or simply expressing raw emotion or general nastiness, I look to socialists. If that makes me a dunce and a queer, then perhaps I need to be educated. In the meantime I don't think my perception is wrong.
He's a great actor. I hope he's okay.
GhostAlpha26 said:Tiptup said:GhostAlpha26 said:
I can not have an ill-favroed statement be directed towards me that is meaningless and do nothing.
Correction: You were unable to have what you incorrectly understood to be an "ill-favored" statement and should apologize for having assumed too much (in light of how seriously you take the offense of personal assumptions). There was nothing in what Ash said that required any interpretation of ill-favor.
On the contrary, you can get stabbed for being a called a "nit picker" from where I come from:p It has such negative connotation and implies so much about a person.
Sweet the ignore feature works.
Me being a nitpicker is not logically "contrary" to anything I've said, but thanks for trying again.
Oh well, whether you're ignoring this or not, you're a crybaby. Being an asshole won't solve that for you. :P
I was going to, but I decided to not even bother purchasing GOUT.
Rob said:
Tiptup said:
Just as studies have shown, there's only a degree that the Democrat-ish side of the U.S. population tends to care about looking at issues in detail or arguing them well (or with persistence for that matter).
Ahhh yes, these studies were no doubt conducted by the Limbaugh Institute.
Sorry, no, these studies were done by media analysts. Your average american of the conservative persuasion is much more interested in the details of issues and the news than the other side for whatever reason. I'm convinced that's why Fox News made so much money and why the other news networks tried to have programming that would attract conservatives (at least for a while).
Taolar said:
Why should we have to deal with corporate welfare regardless of which viable party I choose?
That is a crime. The Democrats claim to look out for the little guy and Republicans claim to support the free market and yet they both engage in this. When it comes down to it, politicians like power and spending money, no matter the party. It's disgusting. The only thing more corrupt in my mind would be all the earmark spending and the way the parties use hot-button issues to mobilize their extremist factions while never doing anything real about those issues.
GhostAlpha26 said:
I can not have an ill-favroed statement be directed towards me that is meanlingless and do nothing.
Correction: You were unable to have what you incorrectly understood to be an "ill-favored" statement and should apologize for having assumed too much (in light of how seriously you take the offense of personal assumptions). There was nothing in what Ash said that required any interpretation of ill-favor.
negative1 said:
i was born in an asian country,
lived in canada for about 10+ years, then moved to africa, the middle east,
and settled in the USA for about the last 3 decades.............i'm actually a
dual citizen of canada-us........................and on top of that i lived in texas,
and picked up a few speech mannerisms from there.................there are
you as confused as i am....??
and of course, i did see 'star wars' in Canada, where they have different accents also...............eh? ok hoser, get off my chesterfield ! (ha!)
Okay, well, now I know why you misunderstood stuff that should be easy for a child. English and certain figures of speech can be very odd to someone who wasn't raised with them first-hand. It's also why I'm not going to read your comments in this thread anymore. You're trying to lecture us on something you're not as personally familiar with. Considering your background, your English skills are good, but practically with each post you keep illustrating how much you don't know as well (you might want to start adopting some humility).
If you truly see no difference in quality between the prequels and the originals, then I'll simply say that I'm happy you can enjoy the prequels that much. I'm done otherwise and will return to enjoying the original intent of this thread. Thank you.
I like forums with strong political discussions. Even though my willingness to engage in them is seemingly random, I'll still enjoy reading them most of the time. If people don't want to read this stuff then they don't really have to.
I find the way you started this thread to be offensive, Janskreet. You think that you're entitled to have your personal viewpoint fought for wherever you go? Sometimes you have to fight for stuff yourself. The range of political types on this board is large (among party types I'd say 50/50 Republican-ish/Democrat-ish), but, just as studies have shown, there's only a degree that the Democrat-ish side of the U.S. population tends to care about looking at issues in detail or arguing them well (or with persistence for that matter). Don’t blame “right-wingers” for that problem.
To finish, do you think you own terms like communist or socialist? From everything I can tell, you are clearly a socialist, Janskreet; you clearly fight for what I understand to be socialist values. So, how is that term not legitimate?
GhostAlpha26 said:
Thank you all knowing Internet masterbater I mean debater. Thank you for putting me in my place youve done a great justice to the Internet, you can sleep well knowing thats the most constructive thing youve probably accomplished in a while. I have seen the light from someone who has mastered himself on the net. Forget Baracak we have a new Messiah and it is TipTup. You have shown how I have effectively tarnished my image on an Internet forum, whoa is me.
Tarnish yourself? I'm concerned about what was being said, not you. As far as personal things go, I'll be the first to admit that I can be an asshole as well and I don't really care.
I was simply reading the discussion and didn't like the way you preached about logic when you were twisting it terribly. The misuse of logic is one of my pet peeves (I can be very anal about it as I'm sure you remember). You were assuming things about Ash that went way beyond anything he assumed about you. Otherwise, before that point, I thought your impressions of the actual movie were easily worth reading.
Why?
Oh, and maybe you should go first?
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
negative1 said:
no, i did not watch the movie again, i just pulled up a reference, and commented on them...
That explains why many of them were quoted incorrectly. If you go back and watch the movie, you'll find that many of them were actually considerably different in the movie than how they were listed in your reference.
No it doesn't explain that, actually. More than half of negative one's stated problems with the lines were plainly wrong even in text form. He misunderstood clear figures of speech and clear logic in some really odd ways.
The lack of seeing the rest of the lines in action may explain his problems there, but even then, he had to go into some very complicated reasoning to invent his problems. A more unbiased look at those lines might have been confused by them, but not to the degree negative one tried to argue.
GhostAlpha26 said:
We were discussing a movie, not peoples personal motives, you were the one who took the discussion out of context, I didnt make anything personal before you made a personal statement about me. Its rather illogical to expect to understand someones personal feelings and reasoning as to why they liked or disliked something when you dont even know that person. And you did assume, you made an assumtion as to why I diskliked the movie without knowing what you were talking about. That is out of line to start making personal statements about why someone acted the way they did without having any background on it. If your statements were to hold up then anyone could make any statement based on no actual knowledge of what they are speaking about. If you cant understand that you made a unfavorbale personal statement towards me, then its starting to make sense how you can ignore so many holes in this movie. And Ive mired this thread enough with an argument with someone who can not see reasoning with anything logical.
lol, you condemn a benign personal statement, falsely and directly accuse someone of absolutely "assuming things" and having poor "character," and yet, in the process, you're turning right around and doing all of those same things yourself. That's what you call being logical?
His perception of you as someone who isn't giving the movie a chance is a valid perception to mention in the context of this discussion. You're both talking about the flaws you mentioned and Ash doesn't think they were bad enough to actually ruin the movie as much as you think it does. He never claimed that his perception of you was the actual truth and he wasn't saying that in a way to attack you. He's simply trying to understand why you have such a strong opinion of it all (particularly in light of the fact that he defended his thoughts logically before that point). Your personal statements, on the other hand, are clearly hostile and designed to demean others (by comparison). Grow up.
(Yes I just said you're immature. Cry about it if you want.) :)
JediSage said:
Tiptup said:
JediSage said:
I didn't speak to the tree again. Yes, I solved the Earth temple first. Very frustrating.
All I can think is that you need to speak to him. I remember that when you do he gives you a message to go looking for Makar.Still nada. I spoke with the tree and asked the questions that were available. Makar's in the waterfall, I swing in, we talk, he plays, I conduct the Wind God's Aria (^,^,v,>,<,>) and he asks me to keep his practicing a secret. I'm ready to go back to the Wind Temple to make certain I've got the melody right, but I've consulted several walk-throughs and they all indicate the tune I'm playing.
Wait, you did go to the Wind Temple's entrance first, right? You have to play in front of that rock and talk to the ghost dude. You'll know if you did by going to your inventory screen. One of the colored notes should be the Wind God's aria if you got it. If you didn't, head to Gale Isle.
negative1 said:
there are EQUALLY BAD IF NOT WORSE moments all throughout the original trilogy also..
Not even close. The worst moments of the PT have nothing "equally" as bad in the original trilogy. Don't make me laugh.
Star Wars is one of your favorite movies, negative? Do like it more or less than the prequels?
What have you been doing since this thread was originally posted? Watching the movie and writing down lines you felt you could criticize?
the negative one said:
Luke: But what if this Obi-Wan comes looking for him?
Uncle Owen: He won't. I don't think he exists anymore. He died about the same time as your father.
Luke: He knew my father?
how does someone 'die' about the same time as someone else? either they died at the same time, or they didn't?
What? Are you being serious?
People can die "about the same time" in all sorts of ways. For instance, soldiers who “died” in World War II can be said to have “died about the same time” (since even a period of a few years can be “about the same time” in comparison to the 65+ years that have passed since then). I'm not sure why you'd have trouble understanding that.
the negative one said:
Governor Tarkin: The Jedi are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion.
'their fire has gone out of the universe' ? is that supposed to be poetic?
Yes, and it's very good poetry. Why?
the negative one said:
General Tagge: What of the Rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical reading of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it.
what is this, monty python? how much more explanation do you need?
Uhh, it’s too much explanation?
This wasn't in the movie as a way to explain anything to the audience (if that’s what you mean). It was to show how arrogant the empire was about the station's lack of vulnerabilities. Otherwise, military commanders discuss and explain strategy to each other all the time (so if that’s what you mean then you’re being dumb). Whatever you meant, there is no problem with the way this line explains anything.
The line is a bit long and goofy, if you ask me, but it's nothing so bad that I'd cringe or laugh at it. It's more than acceptable and realistic.
the negative one said:
Obi-Wan: Yes. I was once a Jedi knight, the same as your father.
Luke: I wish I'd known him.
Obi-Wan: He was the best star pilot in the galaxy, and a cunning warrior. I understand that you've become quite a good pilot yourself.
come on obi-wan, get to the point......................why do keep changing the subject so much, just stick to one thing, why the unnecessary speculation about whether luke is a good pilot or not?
First, this exchange of dialogue is great. It makes sense, it sounds good, it’s interesting, and it's well-acted.
Otherwise, your question is absurd. Where did Obiwan change the subject in some terrible way? Everything he says seems logically connected to me. I can easily see an old man reminiscing about an old friend and then talking to his old friend's son about how he is a similarly good pilot. You can't see that?!
the negative one said:
C-3PO: And I am C-3PO, human-cyborg relations. And this is my counterpart R2D2.
no really? and we couldn't figure that out by ourselves, did you have tell us that?
Luke did not know who C-3PO or R2D2 were. I don't even think the movie mentioned their names before that point, so even the audience didn't know that. So, in your mind, what's wrong him telling "us" that?
the negative one said:
Darth Vader: Several fighters have broken off from the main group. Come with me!
[the pilots follow Vader to the hangar]
duh? do they really need to be told that enemy fighters are going to blow them up?
He didn't tell them that enemy fighters were “going to blow them up.” Where on earth did you get that from?
He tells them that some "fighters" are doing something threatening and then he orders them to come and help him stop them. It’s very simple and straightforward. It should easily make sense to you (since it makes sense to everybody else).
the negative one said:
Imperial Officer: We count 30 Rebel ships, Lord Vader, but they're so small they're avoiding our turbolasers!
Darth Vader: We'll have to destroy them ship to ship. Get the crews to their fighters.
i guess 'turbolasers' are somehow 'faster' than regular laser guns????????
Turbolasers are heavy canons designed to target capital ships. The turrets were big and therefore weren't mobile enough to hit small fightercraft. (You seriously didn't understand that? I guess movies do have to explain everything for some people. Wow.)
the negative one said:
Luke: You don't believe in the Force, do you?
Han Solo: Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen *anything* to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. 'Cause no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.
gee, Han, have you really seen everything in the galaxy? why do tell Luke later on 'may the force be with you'????? who said it was a mystical energy field?
He never said he saw “everything.” Han Solo is simply a cynical guy who only believes in what he's seen. And . . . wow . . . he says "may the force be with you" later as a way to be nice to Luke (and to show that maybe he was starting to believe in the "nonsense"). (I can't believe I have to actually tell you this stuff. A two-year-old should be able to grasp it.)
the negative one said:
Han Solo: Great shot, kid, that was one in a million!
no han, it was ONLY one shot out of one......not one out of a million
Uhh . . . what?! You do understand what a statistic is . . . right?
Han Solo is using the statistic of "one in a million" as a way to exaggerate how difficult the "shot" was as he throws praise at Luke.
the negative one said:
Princess Leia: This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn't you have a plan for getting out?
no really leia, we didn't make any plans to get you out, we just came up with half a plan....duh
Actually, they didn't have a detailed plan to get her out. They were improvising as they went. And, even if they had had a plan, it obviously wasn’t working and she's a bit cranky.
the negative one said:
Han Solo: Hokey religions, and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.
well han, hokey lines and metaphors/analogies aren't really much better are they?
There's no metaphor or analogy in that line. I don't get why you're saying that there is. It’s imply a good piece of crass dialogue being well acted. It illustrates an important part of Han Solo's philosophy in life. (Great to quote.)
the negative one said:
Luke Skywalker: If there's a bright center to the universe, you're on the planet that is farthest from.
i'm not sure, but is luke trying to channel yoda-speak here? how about, 'this planet is the farthest from the bright center of the universe'
That's not a grammatical error that puts the predicate before the subject (as Yoda would do in the PT). It's a highly poetic way to structure a statement of how far out the planet is. It stresses that the planet is out in the middle of nowhere.
the negative one said:
Darth Vader: I've been waiting for you Obi-Wan. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete; when I left you, I was but the learner, now I am the master.
Ben "Obi-Wan" Kenobi: Only a master of evil, Darth.
gee ben, i'm sure Darth vader was really insulted by that snappy come-back...............i can almost hear the rim shot after he said it..
That line wasn't meant to be “snappy.” It's actually one of the best lines in the whole movie. It shows how Ben is defiant to Darth’s evil and confident about the inevitable triumph of goodness. Star Wars was so fantastic in its time because it pitted good versus evil (like an old fashioned legend would have). I can't believe you'd actually criticize a golden line like this. (Though, it definitely shows where you must be coming from I guess.)
the negative one said:
Darth Vader: Your powers are weak, old man.
oh no really, ben is old? say it isn't so !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He was obviously taunting him, slow mind. (Woops, I just called you something obvious. Better call the dialogue police!) ;)
the negative one said:
Red Six: I got a problem here.
Biggs: Eject!
Red Six: I can hold it.
Biggs: Pull up!
Red Six: No, I'm all right... ahhh!
gee, don't get too descriptive now
Well, when your life is on the line in a situation as tense and as fast as a dogfight, or the life your friend is endangered during such a situation, we'll see how much time you devote to being "descriptive." In the meantime, your criticism of this line is worthless and laughable.
the negative one said:
Stormtrooper: Close the blast doors!
[the doors shut just after Han and Chewie run through the doorway, locking the Stormtroopers out]
Stormtrooper: Open the blast doors! Open the blast doors!
can't seem to make up your mind now, can you?
First, that line isn't in every audio mix of the films. Second, I like it a lot. It was written to be funny and it is.
the negative one said:
Princess Leia: The Imperial Senate will not sit still for this. When they hear you've attacked a diplomatic...
Darth Vader: Don't act so surprised, your highness. You weren't on any mercy mission this time. Several transmissions were beamed to this ship by rebel spies. I want to know what happened to the plans they sent you.
Princess Leia: I don't know what you're talking about. I am a member of the Imperial Senate on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan...
Darth Vader: You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take her away!
well gee Darth vader, if you already knew all that , why did you bother asking in the first place, and why don't you just use the force, and get the answers without all the drama???????????
the negative one said:
Stormtrooper Officer: Someone *was* in the pod. The tracks go off in this direction.
Stormtrooper: [holding up a ring of metal] Look, sir: Droids.
someone? what do you mean someon? if it was a 'droid', it wasn't really a person was it? do you really have to make it that obvious? when they were sent down, they knew that no persons were on the escape pod, since there was no life readings on it? did they not get the message? and then they have to tell us that its 'droids'?????????
The first trooper doesn't know it was a droid. One statement came after the other. You can follow that, right?
This sequence is only seconds long. It's certainly not good, but it is so short and so incredibly unimportant that it is not something anyone spends their time thinking about directly. But, even then, as far as an explanatory scene goes, it's not as bad you're making it sound. Plus, the tiny scene enhances the rest of the movie by making viewers worry about the fact that the Empire will be looking for the droids. It works for what it does.
the negative one said:
Uncle Owen: Did he take those two new droids with him?
Aunt Beru: I think so.
Uncle Owen: Well, he'd better have those units in the South Ridge repaired by midday, or there'll be hell to pay.
how do you have 'hell' to pay? and where would you pay it? and what would you pay it with???????????
the negative one said:
Han Solo: Where did you dig up that old fossil?
Luke: Ben is a great man.
Han Solo: Yeah, great at getting us into trouble.
yeah, han, but you're not so great at repeating dialogue or coming up with new lines
So, you think he's neither good with repetition nor improvisation? If so, you’re contradicting yourself.
Uhh, otherwise, I don't even get why you're quoting this. The line is great and wonderfully acted. (It’s very fun to quote because it’s memorable and likable.)
the negative one said:
[approaching the Death Star]
Luke: I have a very bad feeling about this.
i have a very bad feeling we'll be hearing this line a few hundred more times in the future
Maybe Luke is in touch with his feelings and often speaks before thinking. Also, people don't ever repeat themselves where you come from?
This line isn't great, but it’s realistic, easy to overlook, and it works for the movie. (It’s also fun to quote when I’m being goofy with friends. Goofy can sometimes be endearing.)
the negative one said:
leia “Aren’t you a little short for a stormtrooper?”
no really, i passed the stormtrooper fitting, what do you think? what difference does his height make?
He was shorter than most stormtroopers.
This line's not really what I'd call a good one, but it's not laughably bad (as a lot of the stuff in the PT is) and it's certainly not important to the story in any way.
the negative one said:
Han Solo: Damn fool, I knew you were going to say that.
Obi-Wan: Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?
i don't know, who comes up with more vague lines, that don't really amount to more than platitudes?
That line is one of the best in Star Wars! Its sarcastically pious nature was why Han called him an "old fossil" right after that. Also, any potential that line had for being cheesy was eliminated by the way it was brilliantly acted by Sir Alec Guinness.
the negative one said:
C-3PO: We've stopped. Wake up! Wake up!
[R2D2 beeps]
C-3PO: We're doomed.
yes, you're doomed to repeating more lines of dialogue like this...
This line certainly isn't great, but it's not supposed to be. It's totally believable since C-3PO is established as an overly-dramatic boob from the very beginning of the movie. The reason we accept that personality is because he's a robot.
the negative one said:
Luke: I'm Luke Skywalker. I'm here to rescue you.
Princess Leia: You're who?
are you just hard of hearing? or did you miss the first part............'luke skywalker'..
Uhm . . . are you saying you wouldn't be disoriented from sitting in a prison cell for hours on end?
I find it totally believable that someone would ask that question of some guy who just barged into her cell, stared at her, and then took off a storm trooper helmet and said he was there to rescue her. Her question was not because she didn't hear him, or because she missed something, it's more combination of the fact that she doesn't recognize the name with the fact that she’s in a state of shocked disbelief.
the negative one said:
you just have to consider that things / speech / drama was a lot different back in the 70's compared to now...
Hardly. Speech hasn't changed that much in 25 years. If anything, the original Star Wars sounds better than most movies from today.
the negative one said:
don't get me wrong , i LOVE 'star wars' for all its flaws, corny dialogue, mistakes, matte lines, imperfect effects, flaws, and
everything else that adds character to it..
Well, at least you like something.
the negative one said:
pointing out random fragments of bad dialogue from the prequels is easily just as pointless....
Mocking bad dialogue from the prequels is as pointless as . . . what? As pointless as mocking lines you just singled out? As I've just shown, your mocking made no sense and was far more pointless. Epic fail.