imperialscum

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

If Leia is Force Sensitive why did Vader not pick up on that in STAR WARS?

Where did this question come from? Anyway, some percentage of population is force sensitive (or if you take Lucas’ word, everyone is force sensitive). I don’t see why would he get “upset” by something completely normal.

The Force would have to be exceptionally strong with Leia as it was with Luke. Seeing as how he noted it during the Battle of Yavin why wouldn’t he note Leia’s strong connection to the Force when he was in even closer proximity to her? It made sense in STAR WARS because it wasn’t planned that Leia and Luke were related at that juncture but Return of The Jedi completely makes that part of STAR WARS nonsensical and that’s something the PT is notorious for.

I still don’t see where are you trying to get with this. There were billions of individuals in the galaxy who were exceptionally strong with the force. What was he supposed to assume when he encountered one? I hope you don’t try to imply he should assume that everyone strong with the force should be his children. I mean he shouldn’t even have any reason to assume he had any children.

I didn’t say anything about him assuming she was his offspring. I was asking why he didn’t pick up on how strong she was in the Force and why would he note Luke’s strength in the Force and not Leia’s.

Who says he didn’t sense it? Just because he didn’t spell it out load for you it doesn’t mean he didn’t pick it up. It was just insignificant in the situation. He only said it out loud in case of Luke to inform his TIE flight because it was relevant to the battle. Luke was a serious potential threat because of it.

We make fun of Ric being Captain Obvious in PT and spelling everything out loud, but it seems there are people here that actually need it.

It was a construction site. You cannot spend twice as much effort and resources to protect it and obstructing the process. That is like trying to take a shit and trying figuring out how to not getting your ass dirty. It will get dirty one way or another. It is better to finish it quickly and then clean it afterwards.

Of course you can when you have the resources that The Empire did. I can understand you saying that when it first started being built but when the Emperor decided that it would be instrumental in the annihilation of the Rebel Alliance he should have taken precautions so that it couldn’t have been destroyed.

Well it is not just a matter of resources. It also depends how much time they had. And they have taken serious precautions… that is why there was a massive fleet guarding it.

The fleet was only there to stop them from escaping.

That might have been a secondary objective during the battle. But the primary objective before the battle was obviously protection.

AK-47 compared to jet fighters and helicopters is just as big gap. And which part of “ewoks were merely a distraction, while rebels (Chewie) did most of the job defeating them” you did not get?

I was actually talking about the Vietnamese vs US ground Troops. The Ewoks didn’t have anything close to blasters and were still able to kill multiple Storm Troopers. When factoring in the speeder bikes and the AT-ST’s the Ewoks were able to destroy 2 of them and take over another and was able to destroy at least two speeder bikes. That’s more than a distraction; they were instrumental in the deflector shield being disabled.

They were indeed instrumental. I have never claimed otherwise. However, the fact is that rebels did the main part.

Well merely calling them a distraction understates their importance.

Distraction can still be crucial.

Well it does. Whether you like it or not.

Can you provide an example?

SE scenes.

Take out the supposed time jump to where everyone is celebrating at the same time (where it’s not even stated or even hinted at that’s it’s any time later than right after the Battle of Endor) and what do you have? Nothing. There are no scenes in the OT where many months or years has passed so why would they do it for that one scene? You’re obviously projecting your headcanon into what’s actually in the film.

Just because there are no other scenes before, it doesn’t justify your self-made-up “rule” where Star Wars cannot have such scenes. Just because I haven’t eaten this specific fish until today, it doesn’t mean I couldn’t possibly eat it today.

Smithers said:

Guys just quit replying to the special snowflake that is impscum, nothing good can come from trying to reason with someone who refuses to be reasoned with.

I am the reason.

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

If Leia is Force Sensitive why did Vader not pick up on that in STAR WARS?

Where did this question come from? Anyway, some percentage of population is force sensitive (or if you take Lucas’ word, everyone is force sensitive). I don’t see why would he get “upset” by something completely normal.

The Force would have to be exceptionally strong with Leia as it was with Luke. Seeing as how he noted it during the Battle of Yavin why wouldn’t he note Leia’s strong connection to the Force when he was in even closer proximity to her? It made sense in STAR WARS because it wasn’t planned that Leia and Luke were related at that juncture but Return of The Jedi completely makes that part of STAR WARS nonsensical and that’s something the PT is notorious for.

I still don’t see where are you trying to get with this. There were billions of individuals in the galaxy who were exceptionally strong with the force. What was he supposed to assume when he encountered one? I hope you don’t try to imply he should assume that everyone strong with the force should be his children. I mean he shouldn’t even have any reason to assume he had any children.

It was a construction site. You cannot spend twice as much effort and resources to protect it and obstructing the process. That is like trying to take a shit and trying figuring out how to not getting your ass dirty. It will get dirty one way or another. It is better to finish it quickly and then clean it afterwards.

Of course you can when you have the resources that The Empire did. I can understand you saying that when it first started being built but when the Emperor decided that it would be instrumental in the annihilation of the Rebel Alliance he should have taken precautions so that it couldn’t have been destroyed.

Well it is not just a matter of resources. It also depends how much time they had. And they have taken serious precautions… that is why there was a massive fleet guarding it.

AK-47 compared to jet fighters and helicopters is just as big gap. And which part of “ewoks were merely a distraction, while rebels (Chewie) did most of the job defeating them” you did not get?

I was actually talking about the Vietnamese vs US ground Troops. The Ewoks didn’t have anything close to blasters and were still able to kill multiple Storm Troopers. When factoring in the speeder bikes and the AT-ST’s the Ewoks were able to destroy 2 of them and take over another and was able to destroy at least two speeder bikes. That’s more than a distraction; they were instrumental in the deflector shield being disabled.

They were indeed instrumental. I have never claimed otherwise. However, the fact is that rebels did the main part.

Well it does. Whether you like it or not.

Can you provide an example?

SE scenes.

Lord Haseo said:

If Leia is Force Sensitive why did Vader not pick up on that in STAR WARS?

Where did this question come from? Anyway, some percentage of population is force sensitive (or if you take Lucas’ word, everyone is force sensitive). I don’t see why would he get “upset” by something completely normal.

OMG. It was a damn construction site… it wasn’t even half-finished…

Given that it had liter gaping holes and was going to be attacked by the Rebel Alliance you would think that some countermeasures would be implemented so that it couldn’t be blown up from the inside. I’m sure they did something about the exhaust port though…

It was a construction site. You cannot spend twice as much effort and resources to protect it and obstructing the process. That is like trying to take a shit and trying figuring out how to not getting your ass dirty. It will get dirty one way or another. It is better to finish it quickly and then clean it afterwards.

Ewoks were adults, not children. Using term “children” referes to mental capacity and is therefore stupid. Anyway, average Vietnamese solder was “physically unformidable” compared to an average US solder (both in size and weight). Not to mentioned technological equipment.

Ewoks were as strong as children and children could conceivable make the same types of weaponry if you put enough of them in the same place. Also the Vietnamese actually had guns while the Ewoks had spears and sling shots to fight against Storm Troopers with armor plating.

AK-47 compared to jet fighters and helicopters is just as big gap. And which part of “ewoks were merely a distraction, while rebels (Chewie) did most of the job defeating them” you did not get?

Yes really…

Did you see a time-stamp on that scene? No. I have already established that such thinking is beyond you mental capacity so this might come as big surprise to you… the scene could be 5 years in future.

Above all, it is a SE scene.

It could be but Star Wars doesn’t show random scenes from months or years in the future.

Well it does. Whether you like it or not.

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:
He did THE good thing. He killed Emperor, which caused Empire’s collapse.

But that still doesn’t undo all of the horrid things he did. There should have been a lengthy redemption period and a period in which both Luke and Leia were still on the fence about Anakin and all the things he did. Leia did go through this in Bloodlines though.

Please wake up and fasten your seatbelt as we are going to land in Reality. In reality things aren’t as flowery as you imagine them. Von Braun used slave labour to build V2 rockets that bombed civilians. Was there any “lengthy redemption period”? No, after war he was recruited immediately by US to make rockets for them. He eventually ended up being a man who brought humanity to land on Moon.

Yoda’s and Obi-Wan’s plan was never to use Luke to defeat Vader and Emperor (because that was impossible). They simply used him as a tool to trigger Anakin’s return, who could kill Emperor (and did).

When the fuck did they say that shit?

If you want everything spelt out to you like to a 5 year old, then such complexity really isn’t for you. You are better off with stuff like TFA.

the fact Death Star 2.0 exists

That’s the most stupid complaint about ROTJ ever. The fact that Death Star 2.0 exists is a good story telling as it follows a basic logic. When IJN sunk USN aircraft carriers during the initial stages of Pacific War, did USN stop building aircraft carrier? No… they built newer and bigger ones.

Which would have been fine if the Death Star didn’t have a Millennium Falcon sized hole and a unprotected reactor core. I could forgive the rehashing had they made up for it in other ways. The 2nd Death Star didn’t even feel as threatening as the first and it was way bigger.

OMG. It was a damn construction site… it wasn’t even half-finished…

Also why did it take like 2 decades for the First Death Star to be built and like 5 for the second one to be built to the point in which it was operational.

Look at my reply to jeebus.

the fact teddy bears somehow overcame the best legion of Storm Troopers The Empire had

There are numerous real life examples when apparently much weaker enemy defeated stronger. And if you actually paid attention to the film, you would see that teddy bears were more of a distraction. Rebels (Chewie in particular) did most of the job. As for “best legion”, Emperor would obviously say “best” to demoralise Luke even if they were “cripple battalion”. There might be a legion-sized unit on the planet guarding different sectors of the huge shield generator complex (film clearly shows it was huge), but that particular back door was obviously guarded by a company-sized unit (which we see in the battle).

Can you point to an example in which primitive children (which have roughly the same amount of combative prowess as Ewoks) defeated a much technologically sophisticated enemy? I don’t think you can. Also had the Ewoks been more formidable physically I could let the obvious technological edge the Empire had slide a little.

Ewoks were adults, not children. Using term “children” referes to mental capacity and is therefore stupid. Anyway, average Vietnamese solder was “physically unformidable” compared to an average US solder (both in size and weight). Not to mentioned technological equipment.

Vader, Palpatine in a few Star Destroyers means the war is over etc.

Juts because you came to such a dumb conclusion, it doesn’t mean it is actually the case.

Oh really?

Yes really…

Did you see a time-stamp on that scene? No. I have already established that such thinking is beyond you mental capacity so this might come as big surprise to you… the scene could be 5 years in future.

Above all, it is a SE scene.

The death of the Emperor caused a gradual collapse of the Empire. If Emperor survived, the outcome of this battle would be insignificant. This point connects to Luke being used to trigger Anikan’s return who killed Emperor and saved the galaxy.

And this rationale only came about the with the EU and NuEU. As it pertains to the films and the films alone The Empire fell at the Battle of Endor.

No. You come to this rationale if you just use your brain. I came to it way before I knew EU existed. And EU authors used ROTJ and their brain too to logically come to the same obvious conclusion and then make their stories based on it.

Jeebus said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:
There are no story telling problems. It is all in your mind my friend.

the fact Death Star 2.0 exists

That’s the most stupid complaint about ROTJ ever. The fact that Death Star 2.0 exists is a good story telling as it follows a basic logic. When IJN sunk USN aircraft carriers during the initial stages of Pacific War, did USN stop building aircraft carrier? No… they built newer and bigger ones.

It took 20 years to build the first Death Star, and then they build a new one in only 3 years. That’s kinda silly. It could’ve been remedied if at the end of RotS they had two Death Stars, one less finished than the other.

I really don’t want to sound condescending, but is it really difficult to make a very minimal thinking effort to connect the obvious dots?

1. First death star was built under the “transition” era. Some of the republic’s political and bureaucratic elements still existed, therefore you can imagine it would be harder to allocate resources into such project. In ANH, all that elements were cleansed and Emperor could do whatever he wanted and therefore such projects could get extreme priority.

2. If you were an engineer you would know that when you are building something for the first time, it takes a lot of correction, revisions, adjustments, etc. When you are building it for the second time, you have the experience and things go much easier and faster.

3. It took 4 years not 3 years to be exact. From the model used in the film it is pretty clear that the thing was half-finished at best (I would say even 1/3 finsihed).

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:
There are no story telling problems. It is all in your mind my friend.

The fact that Vader did one good thing and get’s into Force Heaven

He did THE good thing. He killed Emperor, which caused Empire’s collapse.

the fact that Yoda is okay with Luke not finish his training even though he said a couple of sentences prior (and in ESB) that only a fully trained Jedi Knight will conquer Vader and his Emperor

Yoda’s and Obi-Wan’s plan was never to use Luke to defeat Vader and Emperor (because that was impossible). They simply used him as a tool to trigger Anakin’s return, who could kill Emperor (and did).

the fact Death Star 2.0 exists

That’s the most stupid complaint about ROTJ ever. The fact that Death Star 2.0 exists is a good story telling as it follows a basic logic. When IJN sunk USN aircraft carriers during the initial stages of Pacific War, did USN stop building aircraft carrier? No… they built newer and bigger ones.

the fact teddy bears somehow overcame the best legion of Storm Troopers The Empire had

There are numerous real life examples when apparently much weaker enemy defeated stronger. And if you actually paid attention to the film, you would see that teddy bears were more of a distraction. Rebels (Chewie in particular) did most of the job. As for “best legion”, Emperor would obviously say “best” to demoralise Luke even if they were “cripple battalion”. There might be a legion-sized unit on the planet guarding different sectors of the huge shield generator complex (film clearly shows it was huge), but that particular back door was obviously guarded by a company-sized unit (which we see in the battle).

the fact that somehow losing the Second Death Star

It is as unrealistic as losing the first one in ANH or as unrealistic as rebels escaping the Hoth blockade in ESB.

Vader, Palpatine in a few Star Destroyers means the war is over etc.

Juts because you came to such a dumb conclusion, it doesn’t mean it is actually the case. The death of the Emperor caused a gradual collapse of the Empire. If Emperor survived, the outcome of this battle would be insignificant. This point connects to Luke being used to trigger Anikan’s return who killed Emperor and saved the galaxy.

I can’t pick apart SW and ESB to that degree; I can only really nitpick as it pertains to story and how it’s executed.

ROTJ is a complex film, even more so than ANH and ESB. From you reply, it is obvious you simply can’t handle this kind of complexity.

It actually makes sense now why you like TFA so much and why I dislike it so much. Because TFA is an empty over-simplistic crap.

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

Earl said:

"ROTJ is on the same level as ESB and ANH"

Oh

That is a force kick my friend.

Nope.

I am sorry that you can’t handle the truth.

Earl said:

"ROTJ is on the same level as ESB and ANH"

Oh

That is a force kick my friend.

Lord Haseo said:
That’s inconsequential in comparison to the story telling problems it has.

There are no story telling problems. It is all in your mind my friend.

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

Quality of a product (and its properties) must be measurable, otherwise it is not quality. If it is measurable, it has to have an objective measure. Completely subjective things (like film) do not have an objective measure. There is no objective measure for properties such as story, acting, dialogue, music, sound, etc.

Then what term other than “quality” would you use for measuring how good you think something is?

The term “opinion”. And you don’t measure anything. You simply think how good something is.

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

You believe all of the OT films are of the same quality?

First, quality is non-existent property when it comes to art (i.e. completely subjective things).

It’s nonexistent in the fact that it’s not something physically tangible but it exists in the mind and that is all that is pertinent for this conversation.

Quality of a product (and its properties) must be measurable, otherwise it is not quality. If it is measurable, it has to have an objective measure. Completely subjective things (like film) do not have an objective measure. There is no objective measure for properties such as story, acting, dialogue, music, sound, etc.

I’m going to have to disagree with you saying that film is completely subjective.

I don’t mind you disagreeing with the truth. It is just not good for one’s mental health.

Don’t embarrass yourself.

Whether you like something is totally different from if it is a good thing. You can like an objectively bad film. I can say that the dialog in the prequels is objectively bad: It’s stale, it doesn’t make sense, etc. Just like with other fields, film has objective qualities that can be measured.

So then, provide me the objective measure for dialogue and acting.

(A friendly hint: there isn’t one and I would highly recommend you don’t further embarrass yourself)

I think there’s certain things, such as pace, how much subtext vs text there is, etc… that can tell if dialog and acting is good or not.

That is all subjective crap. I am sorry you chose to further embarrass yourself. One person likes this kind of pace, the other person like that kind of pace. One person prefers minimalistic text, while other prefers lots of text. One person likes some subtext, while other dislikes it. One person sees certain subtext, while other sees some different subtext. Etc. Etc.

You don’t understand the very basic concept of “objective measure”. I will give you an example. Object has properties, such as length and mass. There are objective measures for those two properties (completely independent of personal opinion), such as meters and kilograms. You use meters to measure two objects and you can compare which one is larger in meters. Same for kilograms.

Think of a bad movie. Tell me why it’s bad.

If a person thinks that a certain film is bad it is simply an opinion. There is no objective measure for “badness” or “goodness” of the film.

Huh, dodged the question. So I repeat:

Think of a bad movie. Tell me why it’s bad.

This question is completely off-topic and I answered it indirectly within the topic. But I will now grant you a direct answer.

AOTC is a bad film. It is bad because I think it is bad. I think it bad because I didn’t like it. I didn’t like it because of <various subjective reasons>.

Give me the reasons.

I won’t.

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

You believe all of the OT films are of the same quality?

First, quality is non-existent property when it comes to art (i.e. completely subjective things).

It’s nonexistent in the fact that it’s not something physically tangible but it exists in the mind and that is all that is pertinent for this conversation.

Quality of a product (and its properties) must be measurable, otherwise it is not quality. If it is measurable, it has to have an objective measure. Completely subjective things (like film) do not have an objective measure. There is no objective measure for properties such as story, acting, dialogue, music, sound, etc.

I’m going to have to disagree with you saying that film is completely subjective.

I don’t mind you disagreeing with the truth. It is just not good for one’s mental health.

Don’t embarrass yourself.

Whether you like something is totally different from if it is a good thing. You can like an objectively bad film. I can say that the dialog in the prequels is objectively bad: It’s stale, it doesn’t make sense, etc. Just like with other fields, film has objective qualities that can be measured.

So then, provide me the objective measure for dialogue and acting.

(A friendly hint: there isn’t one and I would highly recommend you don’t further embarrass yourself)

I think there’s certain things, such as pace, how much subtext vs text there is, etc… that can tell if dialog and acting is good or not.

That is all subjective crap. I am sorry you chose to further embarrass yourself. One person likes this kind of pace, the other person like that kind of pace. One person prefers minimalistic text, while other prefers lots of text. One person likes some subtext, while other dislikes it. One person sees certain subtext, while other sees some different subtext. Etc. Etc.

You don’t understand the very basic concept of “objective measure”. I will give you an example. Object has properties, such as length and mass. There are objective measures for those two properties (completely independent of personal opinion), such as meters and kilograms. You use meters to measure two objects and you can compare which one is larger in meters. Same for kilograms.

Think of a bad movie. Tell me why it’s bad.

If a person thinks that a certain film is bad it is simply an opinion. There is no objective measure for “badness” or “goodness” of the film.

Huh, dodged the question. So I repeat:

Think of a bad movie. Tell me why it’s bad.

This question is completely off-topic and I answered it indirectly within the topic. But I will now grant you a direct answer.

AOTC is a bad film. It is bad because I think it is bad. I think it bad because I didn’t like it. I didn’t like it because of <various subjective reasons>.

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

You believe all of the OT films are of the same quality?

First, quality is non-existent property when it comes to art (i.e. completely subjective things).

It’s nonexistent in the fact that it’s not something physically tangible but it exists in the mind and that is all that is pertinent for this conversation.

Quality of a product (and its properties) must be measurable, otherwise it is not quality. If it is measurable, it has to have an objective measure. Completely subjective things (like film) do not have an objective measure. There is no objective measure for properties such as story, acting, dialogue, music, sound, etc.

I’m going to have to disagree with you saying that film is completely subjective.

I don’t mind you disagreeing with the truth. It is just not good for one’s mental health.

Don’t embarrass yourself.

Whether you like something is totally different from if it is a good thing. You can like an objectively bad film. I can say that the dialog in the prequels is objectively bad: It’s stale, it doesn’t make sense, etc. Just like with other fields, film has objective qualities that can be measured.

So then, provide me the objective measure for dialogue and acting.

(A friendly hint: there isn’t one and I would highly recommend you don’t further embarrass yourself)

I think there’s certain things, such as pace, how much subtext vs text there is, etc… that can tell if dialog and acting is good or not.

That is all subjective crap. I am sorry you chose to further embarrass yourself. One person likes this kind of pace, the other person like that kind of pace. One person prefers minimalistic text, while other prefers lots of text. One person likes some subtext, while other dislikes it. One person sees certain subtext, while other sees some different subtext. Etc. Etc.

You don’t understand the very basic concept of “objective measure”. I will give you an example. Object has properties, such as length and mass. There are objective measures for those two properties (completely independent of personal opinion), such as meters and kilograms. You use meters to measure two objects and you can compare which one is larger in meters. Same for kilograms.

Think of a bad movie. Tell me why it’s bad.

If a person thinks that a certain film is bad it is simply an opinion. There is no objective measure for “badness” or “goodness” of the film.

Don’t embarrass yourself.

Don’t worry, I never do.

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

You believe all of the OT films are of the same quality?

First, quality is non-existent property when it comes to art (i.e. completely subjective things).

It’s nonexistent in the fact that it’s not something physically tangible but it exists in the mind and that is all that is pertinent for this conversation.

Quality of a product (and its properties) must be measurable, otherwise it is not quality. If it is measurable, it has to have an objective measure. Completely subjective things (like film) do not have an objective measure. There is no objective measure for properties such as story, acting, dialogue, music, sound, etc.

I’m going to have to disagree with you saying that film is completely subjective.

I don’t mind you disagreeing with the truth. It is just not good for one’s mental health.

Don’t embarrass yourself.

Whether you like something is totally different from if it is a good thing. You can like an objectively bad film. I can say that the dialog in the prequels is objectively bad: It’s stale, it doesn’t make sense, etc. Just like with other fields, film has objective qualities that can be measured.

So then, provide me the objective measure for dialogue and acting.

(A friendly hint: there isn’t one and I would highly recommend you don’t further embarrass yourself)

I think there’s certain things, such as pace, how much subtext vs text there is, etc… that can tell if dialog and acting is good or not.

That is all subjective crap. I am sorry you chose to further embarrass yourself. One person likes this kind of pace, the other person like that kind of pace. One person prefers minimalistic text, while other prefers lots of text. One person likes some subtext, while other dislikes it. One person sees certain subtext, while other sees some different subtext. Etc. Etc.

You don’t understand the very basic concept of “objective measure”. I will give you an example. Object has properties, such as length and mass. There are objective measures for those two properties (completely independent of personal opinion), such as meters and kilograms. You use meters to measure two objects and you can compare which one is larger in meters. Same for kilograms.

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

You believe all of the OT films are of the same quality?

First, quality is non-existent property when it comes to art (i.e. completely subjective things).

It’s nonexistent in the fact that it’s not something physically tangible but it exists in the mind and that is all that is pertinent for this conversation.

Quality of a product (and its properties) must be measurable, otherwise it is not quality. If it is measurable, it has to have an objective measure. Completely subjective things (like film) do not have an objective measure. There is no objective measure for properties such as story, acting, dialogue, music, sound, etc.

I’m going to have to disagree with you saying that film is completely subjective.

I don’t mind you disagreeing with the truth. It is just not good for one’s mental health.

Whether you like something is totally different from if it is a good thing. You can like an objectively bad film. I can say that the dialog in the prequels is objectively bad: It’s stale, it doesn’t make sense, etc. Just like with other fields, film has objective qualities that can be measured.

So then, provide me the objective measure for dialogue and acting.

(A friendly hint: there isn’t one and I would highly recommend you don’t further embarrass yourself)

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

You believe all of the OT films are of the same quality?

First, quality is non-existent property when it comes to art (i.e. completely subjective things).

It’s nonexistent in the fact that it’s not something physically tangible but it exists in the mind and that is all that is pertinent for this conversation.

Quality of a product (and its properties) must be measurable, otherwise it is not quality. If it is measurable, it has to have an objective measure. Completely subjective things (like film) do not have an objective measure. There is no objective measure for properties such as story, acting, dialogue, music, sound, etc.

Second, I like them all equally.

SW and ESB I can understand because the have advantages over the other. SW is funnier, more visually interesting, has a catchier soundtrack and has the aura about it. It’s the epitome of classic Star Wars. ESB has a better written script, is better paced, has way better acting and dialogue.

On contrary, EBS is visually more interesting, while ANH has overall superior acting (there is just nothing in ESB remotely comparable to Cushing and Guinness). As for pacing, it is just a different approach. ESB is jumping slow-fast-slow-fast, while ANH is gradually progressing from very slow to very fast.

I don’t really consider ROTJ as being in the same league. At it’s best it exceeds a lot of moments that came before it but other aspects of the film leave a sour taste in my mouth.

Well you may not consider it, but it is.

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

Lord Haseo said:

You believe all of the OT films are of the same quality?

First, quality is non-existent property when it comes to art (i.e. completely subjective things).

Commence objectivity argument in 3… 2… 1…

I stated the truth. Any arguments against it would be futile.

Lord Haseo said:

You believe all of the OT films are of the same quality?

First, quality is non-existent property when it comes to art (i.e. completely subjective things).

Second, I like them all equally.

1. OT

Why did you round it up then?

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

Tyrphanax said:

My bad everyone.

You are not forgiven.

You aren’t included in “everyone.” He meant “everyone relevant to the forum.”

If you paid attention to the grammar, you would notice I used passive and therefore I did not speak for myself. I was stating the truth.

Tyrphanax said:

My bad everyone.

You are not forgiven.

TV’s Frink said:

You’d be my favorite recurring guest.

Hosting the truth as a guest would probably make the show kinda boring.

This thread’s name sounds like a TV show with Frink as a host.