twooffour

Not the entire forum (although things like that are possible), just you.

No :)

RedFive said:

Rogue-theX said:

^ As funny as the first day i saw it!

Especially in the 2/4 context!

Hate to say it, but I'm afraid it's the other way round... that is, for those not suffering from delusions brought on by hurt feelings.

RedFive said:

I feel bad for you, that's a great book. 

I'm yet an ignoramus on this, but all I know from it is the rat scene, and I couldn't stop to wonder... what? After that build-up? "It's the worst thing"... and they're gonna bring in a rat because they know you're afraid of them?


Okay... but I'm sure it's very significant in capturing totalitarianism, so I guess that doesn't matter :)

I think another factor that should be considered in research like this: the second viewing.

If a movie is good, the story is good, etc., a second viewing will always be worthwhile whether you've been told the spoiler, or have actually seen everything that's to come.
The question should be, in what way does the first viewing with spoilers, differ from a second viewing after seeing it without spoilers?

Sure, in a second viewing, attention will be paid to the elements and aspects you've already seen, rather than an abstract concept you've been told about (or even a scene shown from the ending) consciously anticipated.
It's a major difference.
Then, you can be told different things in advance, from the final twist, to the entire synopsis.

Still, again, when I was viewing the 6th Sense, I couldn't shake off the feeling that I'm kinda viewing it a second time.
I already knew what it was coming to, and what the little deceptive elements were there to do, and I feel I'd been watching it about the same way had it been a second viewing.


So that's another important factor ;)

Then, with Lost or Shutter Island, I knew the twists, but hadn't read the synopsis of either, AND, the way the illusion was staged was more convincing without the "dead-giveaways" like the wife not responding to Bruce Willis, so... there was a cognitive dissonance involved there. "I know this is how it's gonna turn out, but I can't imagine how, this is just not where it's going... not it must be flash-sideways, the spoilers must've been wrong".

And there yet another example how knowing the spoiler can have different impacts on enjoyment depending on structure and implementation :)

Should've been the main villain... Qui-Gon Jinn was a relative bore, in my opinion.

Oh, and... "the president of Gotham City, is a PENGUIN??! Penuin's president, and the whole city is, going, bats.."
.. lol

You're repeating yourself.

AND SIN NO MORE!! :)

Does anyone agree, though, that Cillian Murphy outplayed them all in that movie?
Sure, Bruce Wayne and Michael Caine, those were cool, but he was just so slick and venomous it's awesome.
Should've made him the main villain or something.

And he was cooler as Cillian Murphy without the potato head.

Well that's how it was.

Also cribbed a bit from Romeo&Julia and Othello. The latter one was particularly obvious when, all of a sudden, he started getting jealous of Obi-Wan even though no relationship between him and Padme had been established.
Not that angry psychos don't get jealous easily... but still.

Elsa in Lohengrin dies of a broken heart, as well as Isolde in... that one, but that's probably just a trope.

At the same time, there is definitely an effort to be eccentric and campy, with Grievous, Darthham Sidious, the Neimoidians etc. - it doesn't even disturb me (ROTJ had the Emperor and Jabba - there's no reason you can't have a campy robot henchman as a side plot), but the drama was done, so, badly.

Just to throw in my few cents here, I don't think II or III were made for children no matter how many people claim that.

I think II mainly pandered to teens (what "kid" would sit through the Anakin/Padme scenes, PLEASE), and III attempted to be a dark drama for all ages, probably the older ones (and it was, just with lots and lots of weak points and failures).

The darkness in the OT I can take as fitting into the "for children" concept, as it was basically a magical, escapist fairytale where the hero had to step into the "dragon's lair" a couple times.

The PT, especially the latter two movies, however is chock-full of political allegories and attempts to be some kind of Shakespearean tragedy.

Heh, what a dreadful scene that was.

Although, giant pig cows looking like ticks has something to it :D

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.

Abuse is not justified for misreading.

TheBoost said:

I ignored Twooffour (or as I call him, Halfie) quite some time ago. Am I missing any interesting or amusing butt-holery, or just more of the same?

Well, right now, Frink and RedFive temporarily derailed two threads with false complaints and criticisms, blaming it on me. One of them still hasn't realized that.

When you ignored me, you were pissed that I was winning a discussion with you.

So more of the same, indeed. But then, you wouldn't know since you don't peek, eh.

She'd slap you for that ;)

It's questions the study should've been asking if it wanted truly significant results.
12 selected stories with no examination of their specific content? Sorry.

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.

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 found the motionless sarlacc scarier, actually.

That's for sure :D

It's interesting to note that I watched the film in theatre when I was 9, and the announcer actually annoyed me while Jar Jar didn't ;)

You just shouldn't forget to feed... alright, let's ditch that :DD

I guess I'd add the exterior shots at the rebel base in ANH.
It was kinda foggy and boring in the original, and a few sparks in the background were supposed to be the "leaving ships". That was kinda dodgy, and the new footage fit well into the context.

What else? I doubt there was anything. The Wampa annoyed me, because it looked kinda funny, and seeing it sucked out all the horror out of the original version.

That's it, I think. I liked the added Jabba scene, but it only works as a deleted scene.
The ROTJ ending could've done with the changed music alone - I'd suppose it'd take a bit more time for the entire galaxy to burst out in celebration as soon as the death star asploded? And cut out Jar Jar, please.

Well, in the context of the critic's quote, I believe he was referring to stuff like the Flash Gordon serials, which weren't "tacky" in terms of stupid droid antics, but rather cheesy the naive dialogues, campy costumes etc. - which I think the prequels managed to avoid for the most part.

I guess you could call the prequels "tacky" for the gadget gags, the embarassing love dialogue etc., just not in the same way as in the quote above, I think.

... bite people?

Oh, wait, sorry, my brain had a massive black-out when I wrote that... just ignore it :D