twooffour

sonnyboo said:

twooffour said:

Having that all said, don't you think you're acting a bit too defensive for a dude who started his own thread about 10 reasons why chocolate is better than vanilla ice cream? :D

No. I think you are projecting your opinion of what I'm writing as being defensive.

I do not think you or anyone else is 'wrong' for liking JEDI or disagreeing with my opinions. I simply have my opinions that are entirely subjective, as you do yours. Your opinion is in no way objective or absolute for anyone other than yourself and those who share your point of view.

 

Well, you posted a list of 10 arguments why ROTJ was supposed to suck, and didn't like the mere fact that someone challenged that list.

That's the very definition of defensive.

"Well stand by your opinion then, I doubt you can make any solid case for it."

"I was never trying to convince you or anyone else to change their minds. That was never my intention. I merely expressed my opinions, as they are."

You start out the thread by... making a case, but as soon as that case is challenged, you back off and insist on how you're not obliged to do any more of that.
Well, of course you're not, but then you have a weak case ;)

Did I ever say you expressed your opinions as they were not? ;)

I do not think you or anyone else is 'wrong' for liking JEDI or disagreeing with my opinions.

I simply have my opinions that are entirely subjective, as you do yours.

ur opinion is in no way objective or absolute for anyone other than yourself and those who share your point of view.

Just because it isn't "absolute" doesn't mean it's not better backed up than yours, and when you cite flaws in ROTJ that supposedly make it worse than the prequels, while those exact flaws are even worse in the prequels (according to the parameters you yourself defined), then I smell a contradiction.

Oh FUCK, the one from Big Bang Theory? Didn't even recognize her...

Ok, unscientific as I am, here's my brief response to the 10 points without having read the previous rebuttals / responses - have fun with the unorganized mess!

10. and the dramatic tension lasts almost 3 whole seconds before Han Solo, a well known scoundrel, gives up and apologizes right away. No waiting until they're in the battle and she gets shot to make up, thus creating some much needed drama.

First, it's the character development the lack whereof (??) you proceed to complain about - he isn't the amoral scoundel in ESB that he was in the first half of ANH, he makes yet another step shortly before being frozen, and is obviously a better person after being unfrozen.

His apology after being a jealous ass is yet another piece of character development, or maybe an example of it showing the "nice guy" who genuinely cares for Leia taking over the douchebag.

Could his character and development have been made more interesting than it was? Sure, but making him fall out with Leia over some minor issue until some crisis of life and death could've easily, EASILY devolved into artificial dramatic tension.

And that was my second point :)



9&8
Ok, please let's talk about the fake-looking CGI in the prequels now.
°_°

7 If you consider the prequels, Vader was shown to be a good guy (sort of) before he murdered children.
If you watch the backstory in ANH, he was a good guy before. Now that he's Luke's father, the appeal of that may even be higher for Luke (who may well operate under a delusion, considering that Yoda and Ben disagree), plus there was some hint of fatherly "affection" after the battle was over.

This thread continues on in this movie, and at the end, Luke TURNS OUT to be right.
At the end of the day, Luke SENSED the good in Vader with Magic Force Thingy, and yes, it could've been built up better.

But let's talk about Anakin's sudden conversion in Sith and how his capability to murder children as well as his total lack of critical faculties was built up in the previous movies (and his wangsty arrogance before that), and it all makes ROTS a better movie ;)


6. Lando didn't die, so the movie is the worst of all 6. Okay, not even going to.
ESB was just as bad, because Solo survived and Luke got his hand back.

5. Meh. The "in defense of DSII" thread had good points.
Have the prequels attacked the same kind of starship in two long action sequences? I guess not, so they're better movies.

4. Because the prequels handled romance and love triangles so much better.
Look how Anakin's jealousy for Obi-Wan was built up throughout the plot. And the dramatic tension in Clones? OMG! He's a Jedi, she's a SENATOR!

3. Ford wasn't at the top of his game, so let's prefer the prequels with Jake Lloyd, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman who's acting just a little bit less inspired than in her other movies.

2. Okay, so TPM focused just as much on the Gungans, who were at least as good as the Ewoks, right??

1. Yea, that alternate scene would've been better, but then again, Luke should've said "so why didn't you tell me that they would make it without me? And if you didn't know, how was my move wrong?"

At any rate, the prequels are rather good at resolving conflicts in a credible way, and having characters immune to absurd relativism.
So when Palps tells Anakin that "good is a point of view", he just nods, so it's a better movie.



..

Yea, right. It's a decent list of "10 things that bug me about ROTJ", but if you wanna claim it's worse than the prequels, you need more than that.

And yes, you NEED it, because I'm an international dictator, and got my minions everywhere.

/agree

Yea, looked like a bug.

Bugs have nothing to do with conspiracy, right? So chill...

Darth Bizarro said:

twooffour said:

Well stand by your opinion then, I doubt you can make any solid case for it.

The great thing about opinions is that you don't have to.  

Well that's what you think, but wait till my Nazi sqads knock at your house. You really think you have freedom of speech? In this place?

Darth Bizarro said:

twooffour said:

Having that all said, don't you think you're acting a bit too defensive for a dude who started his own thread about 10 reasons why chocolate is better than vanilla ice cream? :D

Don't you think you're behaving a bit to offensively for a thread about a FREAKING MOVIE.

I don't see how I'm being particularly "offensive", except in the regular way of joining in and saying something makes no sense, which is a fairly regular thing to do when talking about a freaking movie ;)

Mrebo said:

sonnyboo said:

twooffour said:

Well stand by your opinion then, I doubt you can make any solid case for it.

I was never trying to convince you or anyone else to change their minds. That was never my intention. I merely expressed my opinions, as they are.

Is that what you do? Try to make people 'prove' beyond all doubt that their subjective opinion is right or wrong? Why not debate which is better, chocolate or vanilla ice cream?

Okay, well he does do that. But I happen to agree with him here.

There is a legitimate criticism that you claim RoTJ is worse than 5 other movies...without contrasting them with those 5 movies. Instead you express your opinion about how RoTJ could have been better. You're entitled to think whatever you want (of course), but there is a big gap between what you assert and the reasons for it. To say vanilla ice cream is the worst flavor because it doesn't have chocolate chips in it signifies that you like chocolate chips, not that vanilla is so terrible.

Conceptually and in execution, the PT was a mess. I also pointed out how similar "flaws" you identify exist in other SW movies. RoTJ was fun, made sense, had a lot of great effects, had great emotional scenes (Yoda's death, duel with Vader), and decent to good acting.

Just to clarify, I really don't care if someone watches a movie I consider shitty and enjoys it overall (i.e. happiness hormones), it's just when one starts making arguments attempting to quantify something, that fallacies can be made, and misjudgement becomes possible.

And I really don't think anyone should have a problem with people objecting to their opinions if they put their opinions out there in the first place.
I mean, I recently watched Pirates 4 and enjoyed it (I hardly even followed the plot, but I enjoyed the witty lines and entertaining acting, along with atmosphere and action... you know, the stuff that doesn't require too much thought), I regularly watch NC reviews just for fun, without knowing the movie or digging into the points presented, and I may even express my opinions on a forum, but I'll also realize my fallibility and won't mind getting corrected or bashed.

__

And yea, I agree with the above post, too.
Sometimes, you just start thinking about a movie, articulate some ideas you've had in the back of your head, and write them down in a post.
It's still very possible to overlook flaws within these arguments, or forget to compare them to the other objects you're referring to in the post title, and then someone points out and BAM.

Having that said, nah, I don't demand that he writes an essay before he dares to post a thread or anything, I'm just saying that I've read through the list and think that the leap from this to "worst SW movie" is giant and makes no sense.

Thx.

Why not debate which is better, chocolate or vanilla ice cream?

That's not a valid analogy - the preference of food depends entirely on taste, the evaluation of movies also includes a great portion of thought, argument and attention.

I.e., I may watch through a movie while eating pizza and get high on happiness hormones, but miss a lot of bad stuff that might have downgraded my opinion of the movie overall had I noticed them.
Hence, me saying "wow, this movie is awesome" is worth less than a thought-out review focusing on its various aspects. I'm only good enough to say "this movie is good to have fun for two hours with a pizza and lots of green tea".


Having that all said, don't you think you're acting a bit too defensive for a dude who started his own thread about 10 reasons why chocolate is better than vanilla ice cream? :D

Tyrphanax said:

Kaley Cuoco

 

I really don't find her all that attractive, really, but I have a serious thing for nice stomachs, so this picture does it for me.

Totally looks like:

sonnyboo said:

xhonzi said:

However, I have to also remind myself that the reviewer is basing this wacky opinion on RotJ2011, which I guess I can maybe start to understand.  Last time I tried to watch RotJ2004, I had to turn it off because it was making me angry instead of happy. 

RIP RotJ1983.

I stand by my opinion that ANY version of RETURN OF THE JEDI is the worst of the 6 movies to me.

None of the "changes" made in 1997, 2004, or 2011 fixed or addressed any of my top 10 reasons why the movie sucks.

Well stand by your opinion then, I doubt you can make any solid case for it.

I don't see Lando as "kill the black guy" as much as "kill a lead character", to the point originally made.

Well, yes, but you also can't say they cast Dee without any intention of having a "cool black hero" in their movie, now can you? :)

As a side note, Lando is the first (and, I think, only) traitor in the plot... if you count out the elephant from Tattoine. And he redeems himself by helping out the white people... OMG!!!

TheBoost said:

 I think it was in an interview with author Matthew Stover that he said, (and I paraphrase) if you can't make dramatic tension without killing the main characters, you're a crummy writer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlruR2zQxpE :D ;)

Darth Bizarro said:

While I don't think it's fair to compare Empire to the prequels, as far as I'm concerned, it was the same line of thought that produced both. 

Flawed thinking, imo.

There would've been nothing wrong with the prequels, had they been as good as ESB.
Blaming ESB for the whackjob they did with the prequels, is almost bordering on insane troll logic.

Aside from that, you said it yourself - it was conceived as (and modeled after) serials and comics, and Flash Gordon had on-going storylines throughout its "episodes" as well.
So what would've stopped them from going back and filming the story arc that was ALREADY MENTIONED IN THE FIRST FILM? ANH already introduced the backstory element, Empire only added the "father" part to it.



We can all wonder what would happen if they made the sequels in the same tone with stand-alone plots, and compare it to other film series such as Rush Hour or Fantomas (just to name a few), and if maybe it could've been better, but naming the prequels that followed 20 years after as an argument... is simply ludicrous.

skyjedi2005 said:

Beyond Lucas horrible scripts and directing, David Tatterstall's boring ho hum cinematography, i think the absolute worst actually is Ben Burtt editing and too much sound effects and not enough John Williams.

Burtt instead of being a collaborator as in the original trilogy is largely solely responsible for the final mixes.

I actually enjoyed the penetrant soundwork everywhere except maybe the arena scene.

Those "sound-only" sequences were probably among the most enjoyable aspects of the prequels.

Mrebo said:

Because such flaws can be found in all the OT and because there is so much greatness in RoTJ. In ANH, Luke defended Obi Wan as a great man against Solo's disparagement. What did Obi Wan do that was so great in the day or two that Luke knew him? Acted nonchalantly after Luke's family was killed? How about when they all jumped into the garbage chute and the Imperials would have easily figured out where they were but sort of disappeared for awhile? How about Alderaan's destruction barely mentioned again? How about how quickly they trusted Lando at the end after he sold them out?

Heh, awesome! Interestingly enough, all of those had crossed my (subconscious) mind, but were never present at the surface.

With the first few, I'd say that it fits Luke's character to be wide-eyed and naive and quickly find trust to his newfound pleasant "mentor" (look how he gets, well, a bit butthurt when Solo disbelieves in the Force, even though Luke never saw a demonstration of it), and it fits Obi-Wan's character to be calm and consoling - probably realizes the grief and doesn't want to annoy him with long speeches.

If anyone is too nonchalant about their death, it'd be Luke. He also doesn't care too much about the death of his friends in the dogfight, it seems, and Alderaan doesn't get mentioned, but all of these are sort of excusable by the fact that the characters have shit to do almost all the time until the end.
Probably started grieving after the parade... or inbetween.

With the garbage shaft, I've always thought the Imperials had launched the death trap to kill the rebels inside, instead of jumping down with them... could've thrown a bomb, though.

But yea :)

skyjedi2005 said:

Sonnyboo's argument is very valid imho, when viewed through the saga 1-6 mentality Lucas has been using since the later 1990's.

My Star Wars Saga i grew up with is 1977-1983 and that is the valid way i watch the films.

Not really, because, all the inconsistencies aside, the prequels actually show an Anakin who was originally good (a bit douchey, but overall a quite alright chap), so, say, Vader having something good in him doesn't come as that much of a surprise.

Didn't bother me that much, to be honest - you could already see some brand of "affection" towards his son when he tried to turn him after hacking off his hand (hey, it was a fair duel), and then even more when they were communicating telepathically after that.

We already knew that Vader was originally good, and now that he's the protagonist's father and ESB sort of paved the way, having Luke believe that "something good is in him" isn't in any way absurd.



At any rate, I don't think it makes sense because I cannot reasonably comprehend how someone can consider ROTJ worse than the prequels.
And I'm saying this as someone who probably liked more stuff in the prequels than most others here.

Ford may have been phoning it in in a few scenes, but nothing in Jedi even compares to the horrendous stiffness and boringness of prequel acting at its worst, or even average.
ROTJ still had a clear character arc, even if sort of flawed (Vader suddenly stopping being rebellious, retcons etc.), but consistent with itself.
The prequels' plots were badly communicated and way too disjointed, the main characters sucked most of the time, and well, COME FRIGGIN' ON.

As people tend to say, the clear matters tend to be resolved with hard evidence, and the less clear (but not entirely subjective) ones with rhetorics and discourse.
I don't see how you could make a solid case for ROTJ being worse than the prequels.

*tear*

sonnyboo said:

twooffour said:

If it said "the worst of the THREE movies", I would maybe read it.
Worse than the prequels, though? I call bullshit on that, without even looking.

Love your open mind. I call "ignorance" on that statement.

As with all of these things, they are purely opinions, neither right nor wrong on any side.

I respect other people's opinions because it is all subjective. There is no objective, absolute right or wrongs about these interpretations or likes and dislikes.

People who like Ewoks are okay. People who love Return of the Jedi are cool with me too. I do not hate the movie entirely, as there are many things that are kick ass in the movie. It's just from the Blu Ray and over 6 years since I last saw Return of the Jedi, it surprised me that I placed it lower than Phantom Menace, for the reasons described.

Phantom Menace is a train wreck too, but there were only a few tiny, slight reasons why I put it above JEDI. Mostly, just scenes with Palpatine. The language suddenly grows up and gets collegiate, much like the way people spoke in A NEW HOPE.

Because they're better than the Palpatine scenes in ROTJ?

But yea, whatever floats your boat, mate.

asterisk8 said:

twooffour said:

 

That's a common cliché, but it isn't accurate - some people's minds ARE wired in a way that drives them to do evil all the time.

 

If a criminal's mind is just wired that way, can they really be punished for doing something they have no control over? The threat of the death penalty or chemical castration wouldn't be a deterrent to someone "wired" to commit criminal acts, and deterrence is usually the primary reason given for instituting harsh punishments.

The trouble with attributing criminal behavior to hard-wiring is that it puts them in the same class as the mentally disabled. They have a disorder, a "malfunctioning" brain, which forces them to behave in ways they are not capable of changing. They become victims of their own malfunctioning brain, no more responsible for the crime they commit than a person who has a stroke while driving and kills a pedestrian.

Additionally, I don't believe you can call a person hard-wired to misbehave "evil". The word implies a willful/conscious/deliberate choice to disregard moral code and cause harm. Someone hard-wired like you suggest can't help it. Would it be appropriate to call an autistic person an "asshole" for ignoring you? They can't help it either.

Not trying to start an argument, just putting some thoughts out there.

1) Come on, I said it in response to "there are no evil persons, just evil acts".
Obviously, there are different personalities with different "preferences", and someone who wants to do evil all the time and does so is different from someone who couldn't ever do it, at least under "normal" circumstances.

2) However, if you wanna take this into a discussion about free will and responsibility, listening to Sam Harris' "free will" lecture may be of help.

The basic idea being, the reason a person commits evil acts is still that person's central personality.
If someone has a blackout and suddenly realizes he committed a murder on autopilot, this act would be inconsistent with his overall personality, while those of a normal offender would be consistent with it and make "him" more responsible.

So there's no way any of that affects responsibility, but yea, if you wana deny that our personalities and actions result from our brains, then good luck with that.

I just stated the obvious - that someone who shows complete lack of empathy or a strong drive towards sadistic acts, obviously has a brain that causes this, which makes them different from the "normal" person".
If you wanna claim that someone is less responsible for a murder just because his personality makes him derive satisfaction from that, then again, good luck with that.

3) Threats or chemical influences obviously influence our thoughts and actions.
Suggesting anything else would be simplifying the brain.

4) Well, maybe the problem lies with my usage of the word "wired"? I was basically just trying to be a smartass, my main point being that there, indeed, "evil persons", the brain kinda being the obvious place where it's decided.
I'm not talking specifically about mental disorders, nor am I talking about some kind of unalterable brain features that stay there no matter what.

A gullible dumb person may become critical and intelligent, by improving memory, acquiring self-reflection, asking questions, being able to absorb more information etc. (I myself have difficulties to focus on complex texts, and am often too lazy to memorize/write down sources or question them) - and by the end of that process, the brain will be physically different from what it was before, as well.

Same with anything having to do with morality, "moral code", or how much emphasis one puts on empathy, etc. etc.



But yea, again, someone who wants to murder people and would say that it's alright for him unless he gets caught, and I can go fuck myself, is obviously different from, well, you.
Why can't I call such a person evil for all intents and purposes? Or are all supposed to be complete blank states who just go through life "committing acts"?

DuracellEnergizer said:

Methinks that castration - of any sort - would fail to be a foolproof measure against child molestation.

I heard of a case where a man became a rapist, targeting and assaulting countless women. Thing was he was impotent - unable to "get it up" from complications arising from diabetes - and it was noted that he became a rapist primarily because of his inability to achieve sexual satisfaction.

So castration, in some cases, could serve to make things worse.

I thought this "chemical castration" was about reducing the sexual DRIVE?

If it said "the worst of the THREE movies", I would maybe read it.
Worse than the prequels, though? I call bullshit on that, without even looking.

1) And I would be an idiot for doing so - which was my whole point to begin with. :)

2) Well, I refer to my two points above:
How would you call direct observations of altruism (as well as unjustifed aggression) in animals? If you want to avoid anthopomorphizing them, you'll have to take the word and invent some other word for it.
"Altruismwithxes", maybe? What would be the point? It would be still a cognitive mechanism with the same observable effect, just like everything within our own minds.

If they did a measurement of brain functions as I've described, what would you conclude? And how would it not be scientific?

The only question here seems to be the hard problem of consciousness, but that's another thing completely.
Maybe dogs are all zombies? Or they feel compassion, but it's a completely different sensation of "compassion" than ours? So what?



3) Well, it's not so much adding "human properties", as finding common properties.
Apes have arms and legs, does that mean attributing human properties to them? Apes have hierarchical social structures and also follow authority figures and engage in rivarly. Are those "human properties", properties we share with them to a degree, or some other mysterious unknowable hovering phenomenon thing that looks like something human but really is something completely else?

Three guesses which approach seems most reasonable to me ;)


But yea, this thread is about pedomen, not pedobears - so continue this line of discussion with caution, and not at the expense of personal taste :D

1) First, you can observe animal behavior - if they tend to help other animals without a clear reward for themselves (such as in the case of dolphins), you can conclude them to have compassion.

Second, compassion in humans can be verified in the brain - where the observation of another being experiencing something (say, painful) is accompanied by the activation of the same regions that are also activated when the subject experiences said thing himself.
Don't know whether they've done that with animals, but that would be a way to go on without knowing what it's like to be a bat.


2) I asked whether I would be justified to think that, not what some stupid backward superstitious cultures "thought".
The point being, we don't like a lot of things, but calling someone "evil" (I mean in the real sense, not the "he has evil eyes" kind) requires some kind of infliction of pain and suffering, i.e. a strongly negative personal experience on someone else.

Reminds me when the Amazing Atheist once said something to the effect of "evil is whatever stands in the way of my/your perfect" world, and I was screaming at the screen... lol.


3) Now that's just silly.
An olive has no personality at all. Bacteria or insects could be described as "programmed biological mechanisms". Advanced animals such as killer whales / dolphins, or primates, or cats'n'dogs, already resemble too many typically human displays of individuality and personality, and WE EVOLVED FROM THEM.

One dog is peaceful and non-aggressive, another will bite out your guts if left off the leash, unprovoked - but nvm that, they're like two olives.

...

4) In that sense, yea, if you wanna define good and evil on a purely intellectual basis, then yes.
But we don't put this limit on humans (some aggressive psychopath who happens to have no conception of "ethics" and just acts on his drives is still evil in our books), so why do that with animals?

Ok, ok :)

It's just an argument I've seen people make sometimes - that "evil" is a cartoony outdated term associated with "religion" and "simplistic thinking", and we have evolved beyond that or whatever.
So I thought.. but yea :)


It has animal instincts and reflexes as humans do but it has a very different sense of society (if any) it has a very different sense of self and empathy (if any).

Cats have been observed to show grief towards other cats (who dieded) and, I think, humans, too.

Generally, I'd consider a cat more capable of "evil" than, say, a spider (those have been observed to vary in personal behaviors, but you couldn't call that personality).
Advanced animals already have the same recognizeable instincts of empathy, aggression etc., but you can't blame them for failing to apply moral philosophy to their actions, that I agree with.