twooffour

RedFive said:

tl;dr

tl;dr

CP3S said:

TV's Frink said:

Just now?  Have you never read a typical twooffour post?

"You must be an idiot if you think that..."
"You are so obviously wrong that..."
"It must be hard to be so wrong all the time..."
"Considering how obviously right I am in this instance."
"You're fighting on the wrong side right now"

And on and on and on.

 

 

Well, what's the matter with me saying that, if it happens to apply? :P

Yes, "sense of humor", in the context of someone taking a joke at face value, really does mean "being able to tell a joke from a serious statement".
NOT "laughing only at the good ones", and neither "being unable to tell a serious statement from a bad joke".

Unless you can argue against that, well, quoting douchey remarks of mine is really all you got left :p

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

and he has an annoying tendency to pass his opinions as established facts all should agree with
No.

Hahaha! He quoted me then provided an example demonstrating just what I was referencing!

That is awesome!

The unintentional irony here is so awe-inspiring, I'm starting to get really concerned about the fabrics of reality.

So it's just my opinion that I don't try to pass my opinions as facts... but your accusation of me doing exactly this, was not?
"And he has an annoying tendency"... sounds pretty "factual" to me.


I mean this nicely, talking as someone who you once quite liked (which I deeply care about, too):
You're not having your best day right now. Quit this before you make more and more of an embarassment of yourself, with more and more "ironic" remarks like this.
I'm serious.

:)

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

Wow, that's quite a butthurt defensive rant for someone who missed an obvious (lame) joke, don't you think? If you really thought that I'd seriously post such a dumbshit crackpot statement, despite the fact that I've been posting here for about half a year now (with a short break inbetween, for implying that that someone may be a DUNCE), you've probably never read ANY of my posts while sober, and shouldn't be forming any opinions about me, or my posts, in the first place.

It wasn't as obvious as you think, I am afraid. You really do come off a bit ignorant much of the time, with nearly a half a year of reading your posts, I think I had good reason to suspect you were using "predecessor" in the wrong way unintentionally. Isn't that big of a deal, not sure why you are being an ass, throwing around insults, and blowing things up like this. I meant no disrespect with my comment, and like I said, I thought well enough of you before you started insulting me. Part of me thinks maybe you were just embarrassed for using that word incorrectly, and are overcompensating with all these insults.

When you said you took "a short break 'inbetween'" for calling someone a "dunce", is that to say you've already been banned for personal insults once before?

As for the comment about never having read "ANY" of your posts sober, that is a very interesting comment to make. Any particular grounds for using that particular path to invalidate my opinions regarding you and your posts?

 

The way you're getting all offended by my dumbshit stupid "X-ray" remark, really tells it all.

What exactly does it tell?

I wasn't offended by your comments, but they certainly rubbed me the wrong way and erased every inkling of respect I had for you. I am not a fan of people who don't know me or anything about me insulting me out of the blue for no good reason. I think you'll probably find the vast majority of the world's population feel the same way as I do on that one. People are crazy like that.

It wasn't as obvious as you think, I am afraid.

Obvious to anyone who's half familiar with my previous posts, like you claimed to be.
I may have established myself as a condescending smartass around here, but certainly not as a prequel-defending, Lucas-sucking Star Wars crackpot who can't tell 1977 from 99.

If you got the first part, no way you could've missed the second.


Part of me thinks maybe you were just embarrassed for using that word incorrectly
Except if I had meant it seriously, it wouldn't just be an incorrect usage of a word, it would've been GENUINELY BELIEVING THAT EPI CAME OUT BEFORE EPIV.
Part 4 as in "3rd sequel", like Scary Movie 4, that comes after its "predecessors"... you know.

It was just goofing around with fanboys' perception of "the saga being conceived in its chronological order", but hey, believe that I'm a crackpot with no sense of time, if you so want to. At least then your common sense won't be in jeopardy, anymore... OR WOULD IT??



I meant no disrespect with my comment

And neither did I with my neutral "humor transplant" remark, but instead of just accepting it, you had to insist on how "unfunny" my "joke" was (it was; I just couldn't think of any other good 4th parts at the moment, so I just wrote EpIV).

That's the part where you got silly, and everything that came after, you pretty much had coming.

Isn't that big of a deal
Exactly.


I wasn't offended by your comments, but they certainly rubbed me the wrong way
... lol.


insulting me out of the blue for no good reason
Which, again, confirms that you actually took that silly X-ray remark any seriously, which, in turn, "tells it all".
You need an X-ray to find your brain... wow, THAT "rubbed you the wrong way"?

It's only after that post you got really pissed and serious, like "what the fuck's your problem mayan", so don't lecture me about "respect" or "insults".



As for the comment about never having read "ANY" of your posts sober, that is a very interesting comment to make. Any particular grounds for using that particular path to invalidate my opinions regarding you and your posts?

Yes, it's called benefit of the doubt / being nice.
Because if your attention is always this bad, even when you don't happen to be completely drunk, then, oh boy.



When you said you took "a short break 'inbetween'" for calling someone a "dunce", is that to say you've already been banned for personal insults once before?

Wow, Sherlock Holmes, is Sherlock.

CP3S said:

TV's Frink said:

Wow, twooffour, what the fuck is your problem? I liked you well enough before but you've now just earned your place as my least favorite member.

Just now?  Have you never read a typical twooffour post?

"You must be an idiot if you think that..."
"You are so obviously wrong that..."
"It must be hard to be so wrong all the time..."

And on and on and on.

His posts are usually really long, poorly formatted, kind of a pain to read, contribute no useful thoughts, and he has an annoying tendency to pass his opinions as established facts all should agree with, so I've got in the habit of just skimming over them or skipping them altogether unless it was a topic I had particular interest in. But still, I had no beef with him and liked him well enough prior to this.

and he has an annoying tendency to pass his opinions as established facts all should agree with
No.

But I can probably tell how you reached this conclusion:
I've got in the habit of just skimming over them or skipping them altogether

unless it was a topic I had particular interest in
Well then you probably have no interest in any topic having to do with Star Wars, otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to tell me that the prequels aren't "predecessors", and SW 77 was, indeed, the "first" movie.

You reading skills are certainly way sloppier than my worst writing.


But still, I had no beef with him and liked him well enough prior to this.
Prior to what, telling you how obvious the lame joke was that you missed, and felt the need to "correct" in the most pedantic, condescending way imaginable?

I've never really noticed you, or told you apart from the many other names here, prior to this, but now, with just a couple of posts, you've found your way into the "eternal humorless douche, from the internet" department of my memory. Congratulations, nice first impression there. :)

RedFive said:

Most questionable?  Everything after season 4 sucked assholes..

Questionable in a political, and moral sense. There was just WAY too much fucked up shit in there.
Jack Bauer tortures a guy he caught at a suspicious place, against the (rightful) objections of an Amnesty attorney, and he just happens to know "where Marwan" is.

That was probably the most fucked-up shit they've done. and as far as I remember, it's never gotten this bad again.
5 and 7 were awesome, I kinda enjoyed 6, and 8 had its cool moments (as well as some of the lamest plot devices ever).


But yea, haven't watched that stuff in a while...

TV's Frink said:

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

greenpenguino said:

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

doubleKO said:

Episode IV... How dare you.

Kinda better than its three predecessors, in fact!

Please look up the word "predecessor". Thanks.

twooffour said:

Please get a humor transplant, thanks.

That was meant to be funny??? It looks like we'll need a humour archaeologist to find the funny in that statement.

Humor = it wasn't meant seriously. If you need an archaeologist to figure out that,  you might as well try to use an X-Ray to find your brain.

Wow, twooffour, what the fuck is your problem? I liked you well enough before but you've now just earned your place as my least favorite member.

Just now?  Have you never read a typical twooffour post?

"You must be an idiot if you think that..."
"You are so obviously wrong that..."
"It must be hard to be so wrong all the time..."

And on and on and on.

Which is kinda ironic, considering how obviously right I am in this instance.

No sense of humour = no ability to detect something that isn't meant seriously. That includes lame, or unfunny remarks, as well.
Me calling the prequels "predecessors" or "just kinda worse than the ANH" - an absurdity to anyone who's ever read my posts. And you have to read them if you want to make me "the least favorite member on this board".

If you wanna argue against that, be my guest, but I'd say you're fighting on the wrong side right now ;)

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

greenpenguino said:

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

doubleKO said:

Episode IV... How dare you.

Kinda better than its three predecessors, in fact!

Please look up the word "predecessor". Thanks.

twooffour said:

Please get a humor transplant, thanks.

That was meant to be funny??? It looks like we'll need a humour archaeologist to find the funny in that statement.

Humor = it wasn't meant seriously. If you need an archaeologist to figure out that,  you might as well try to use an X-Ray to find your brain.

Wow, twooffour, what the fuck is your problem? I liked you well enough before but you've now just earned your place as my least favorite member.

Between you and me, you do tend to say a bunch of dumb shit, so I wouldn't have been surprised if you were calling the PT predecessors to Star Wars. If your going to try to be funny by making yourself sound like an idiot, at least use a little bit more hyperbole; by exaggerating the stupidity of your comments it will become more obvious that you are making an effort to be a dolt in the name of humor, rather than just appearing to be someone who has never seen a dictionary. 

Wow, that's quite a butthurt defensive rant for someone who missed an obvious (lame) joke, don't you think?

If you really thought that I'd seriously post such a dumbshit crackpot statement, despite the fact that I've been posting here for about half a year now (with a short break inbetween, for implying that that someone may be a DUNCE), you've probably never read ANY of my posts while sober, and shouldn't be forming any opinions about me, or my posts, in the first place.

The way you're getting all offended by my dumbshit stupid "X-ray" remark, really tells it all.

TV's Frink said:

I don't think television seasons should count.

Season 4 of 24 was probably the bleakest, and most questionable, of them all.

(24 counts, as each season is basically like a long movie.)

greenpenguino said:

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

doubleKO said:

Episode IV... How dare you.

Kinda better than its three predecessors, in fact!

Please look up the word "predecessor". Thanks.

twooffour said:

Please get a humor transplant, thanks.

That was meant to be funny??? It looks like we'll need a humour archaeologist to find the funny in that statement.

 

I've heard PotC 4 is pretty lame, too...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A23queljQ7Y

Humor = it wasn't meant seriously. If you need an archaeologist to figure out that,  you might as well try to use an X-Ray to find your brain.



...




...

Please get a humor transplant, thanks.

I've heard PotC 4 is pretty lame, too...

doubleKO said:

Episode IV... How dare you.

Kinda better than its three predecessors, in fact!

Others:
Star Trek IV
Star Wars Episode IV

...

Scary Movie 4's the bomb!

Heh, I was just surprised as I'd thought from various reviews that the 4th kinda sucked :)

FUCK, Scary Movie 4 is the bomb, too!!

Playing around with something already recorded is like playing around with a movie already made - see Fan Edits forum. Or look at the "Special Editions" which were not remakes.

Aside from the fact that there is no particular reason to think that remixes, or "fan edits" are inherently any better than remakes (isn't that also bastardizing the original? how much creativity is involved in piecing already finished scenes from an already complete movie together?), NO, WRONG.

Playing around with a recording = remixing = fan edits, special editions.
What *I* meant was... taking an original recording... and PLAYING IT YOURSELF. Performing in front of an audience, doing another recording, essentially "putting your own fingerprints" on that, too. SAME WITH SONG COVERS.

I dunno, are you intentionally mixing up the analogy, or is your reading comprehension really this bad?




If you cannot see the distinction here, there's not much more I can say on the matter.

I see the distinction, but I also see the similarities.



Some people say the Wizard of Oz should never be remade

Others say LOTR should've never been put to film.
Obviously, Jackson's trilogy didn't REALLY live up to the challenge.

So I could argue against ecranizations of novels, just as well.






Maybe the theory I've been floating (and you've been trying to push under the water) is flawed. I've accepted this from the get-go.

Well it's official now, so accept it.






I've already argued that I think music is more like plays which are by their nature are to be adapted infinite times.

Yes, and I rebutted that. It's an invalid, and completely arbitrary position that isn't justified by anything whatsoever (it also doesn't hold water).

A published score, yes.
An original recording, or performance, ESPECIALLY an improvized one? NO. THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF A FINISHED MOVIE. Got it?


Your position seems to be that any remake might be good. That it basically depends on the people making it. That remakes of Star Wars, Love Story, Toy Story, whatever, are all potentially good ideas.

It sure MIGHT be good.
"Potentially good" only in the sense that, well, it CAN turn out good. Specific "ideas" how to do it, can obviously just as well be poor.





But there are elements of it that I think raise legitimate considerations for why a remake may, in principle, be a bad idea. One is the lack of creativity.

I never said there weren't any downsides, or risks - lack of creativity is one, it's also a possible excuse to do a remake instead of something original.

Having that said, adapting a play, or a book, that's already been adapted in this medium, is maybe only a step more "creative", in that it's easier to ignore the other renditions (but not very easy).

But, hey, you know...

If something is already made and made well, why copy it just to put one's own fingerprints on it?

The part with the fingerprints IS THE CREATIVE PART.

In your zeal to be correct, I think you are refusing to see even a sliver of validity in these kinds of considerations.

I see a lot of validity in "considerations" like "attempting a remake of a really good movie, is a hard spot to hit, for this and this reason". No validity in "remaking a work in its own medium is wrong" at all.
All your arguments are pretty arbitrary, and uninteresting both to criticism, and the creative process (as far as I can judge that last one... and probably the former, too) - you say "all they can do is imprint their own fingers", but "doing the same with different fingerprints" is own the entire appeal in the first place, and still has a lot of room for creativity.



Yes. I mentioned that in the very first post in which I raised them. To explain yet again: I referenced them to offer a potential reason for why remaking (in the sense I've been talking about) movies would generally be a bad idea.

Ah, well sorry 'bout that, then.

Yea, there's probably more "room for creativity" in re-adapting an original play, or book - but I see that as a mere matter of proportions.
It's EASIER to blend out the other adaptions, while it's more CHALLENGING to be creative with the movie as your basis.
Doesn't make any of those somehow "inherently wrong".

A nice example would be the LOTR trilogy, which actually borrowed imagery from the Bakshi cartoon. He could've avoided it like pestilence, but no, he took the same "Foolish Took" scene from Moria, but actually made it BETTER.
From comically OTT, to FUCKING AWESOME.

Could've taken the book version, too (Pippin just drops some stones into a well, and then they're attacked days after - it's never really answered whether it was his fault.) Or done some middle thing that's both more exciting, and doesn't make Pip responsible for Gandalf's death.
But hey... I back him on that one.


As for the Wizard of Oz, well, I remember seeing the original as a little kid, at 9 I think, and already then I found it horribly cheesy.
Haven't seen any remakes, but if they'd make one that's actually exciting and engagin, and doesn't make you wanna slit your wife's wrists, then hey, you've got my blessings.


(edited)

Serj Tankian.

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

HERE'S A PIC OF ME AND MY FIANCE...

Sorry. I'm so sorry.

greenpenguino said:

Tyrphanax said:

Part three of your mom was pretty good.

Greenie-T said:

Hold on, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Don't bring anyone's mother into this, she ain't here. And if it weren't for your mother, you wouldn't be here. So remember when you're putting down one mother, you're putting down mothers all over the world

*breaks out into rap song*

But, wait, does that mean I once called all mothers a "dunce"? Holy shit, I'm afraid Mr. T's gonna come for me now... :O

Moth3r said:

Alright then, thought I might as well join in, heh:

Heh, nice!

Scary Movie 3 is pretty fucking awesome.
Austin Powers 3 was just fucking hilarious - the series got better and wittier with each installment.
Scream 3 was pretty damn good, as I remember, along with its predecessors.

All of which makes me think that maybe people should quit trying to establish "rules" like "Part 3 sucks, if Part 2 is good, after a bad original". There are some patterns, but that's all there is.

The written composition is made to be adapted - ie played by an instrument. In playing the instrument, just as an actor acts in a play, there will be variation and in instances of improvisation. That is the nature of music. Just as I've not argued that a play must only be acted once!

You must've missed out on at least a half of my post, then.

Didn't I make a clear distinction between a written score, and a RECORDING? Like, the score is the play/script, the recording is the movie?
A composer writes his own composition, performs it, records it, and may or may not release a score (if he doesn't, people will make their own). It's not "meant to be adapted" in any way.

At least not any more than a director might find it cool if his movie gets remade, or reimagined, somewhere down the line (as it seems to be a popular trend nowadays).



But they really can't "remake" it.

Well, neither can you a movie.
It's already been made, and it's here to stay. Has Jackson really "remade" King Kong, if a song cover can't be called a remake, either?



This is clearly highly offensive to you.

Who ever said anything about "offensive"? I just don't see any purpose, or sense.



I do think a script is fundamentally different from a written play. Certainly a script can be treated similarly as a written play.

Well, a play is written as a finished product that is to be adapted by directors and actors.
A script is part of pre-production (well, not technically, but essentially) aimed at making a specific film - things can be easily changed and altered if something works better in a movie, or with the hired actors.

At the end of the day, though, both can be adhered to word by word, and both can be altered during execution.
With the play, adhering is easier because if something about it stinks, you can still blame the author, as you're just doing your job - and altering is harder, because it involves a lot of issues concerning the writer's intellectual property, the director's responsibility of "presentingt the original work" to audiences, etc., all things that don't exist with a script.

And both can be taken and adapted into something new.
A play was written for that purpose, a script, you can still "strip out" and make something new out of it, even if it's already been done.



What if you've got a movie where half of the dialogue was improvised, and then you read the script, and find actors that can also improvize over it, but completely differently - wouldn't that be worth a shot, too?

Again, a music analogy:
The play is the official score published by a composer.
The script is what a band might write down, before they try it out, practise and record it in the studio.

Normal "covers" mostly aren't based on buying a score at the store. It's taking the ALREADY FINISHED SONG, and making it into something new.



"Maybe because True Grit is an adaptation of a book?"
Oh...

Well, so are Willy Wonka and Apes. So your "bad examples of remakes" were also book adaptations ;)



"So what remakes did you enjoy or not enjoy, twooffour?"
Well I just named 12 Angry Men, but then I had the revelation ;)

King Kong is neither demeaning, nor absurd, nor uncreative. And all it took for it to be this, was... good ideas and execution.
Doesn't that really say everything about your "media shouldn't be remade into the same media" maxim, that should be said?

Yea yea, I was just kidding - hadn't originally noticed that, as well :D

Ooook, before things get too awkward here, let's change the subject for a moment... NC just released a new review today, it's hilarious!

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/31671-milk-money


Ok, back to the topic. So how's the characters??