twooffour

TV's Frink said:

tl;dr, except...

twooffour said:

NO ONE CARES WHO'S ON YOUR IGNORE LIST.

If this were true, there wouldn't be a lengthy off-topic thread on the subject.  Anyway, I always interpreted ignore announcements as a polite way to say "this guy is acting like a dick."

Well, it's just it's also a very dumb way to say something no one's really going to care about anyway (I honestly couldn't give a fart how many people call me a "dick" or my "behavior bothersome", as long as it's just mere "ur a meaniehead" without proper criticism I can look at and evaluate), because, well, /ignore isn't an effective tool and completely meaningless to anyone who happens not to be using it at the moment, and it simultaneously comes off as a "I'm IGNORING you, and I want to LET YOU KNOW, that I'M IGNORING YOU so it HURTS!! Look, I'm so important and better than you, I'm NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU SAY! And I care to ANNOUNCE IT TO YOU!!"

Plus, that's the way it's usually meant in 80% of the time, anyways :D

As for the "ignore thread", I don't know about it, and I don't really care - sorry to now be insulting your intelligence, but as I said, "no one cares" really is a more impolite, dismissive and sweeping way of saying "there isn't any reason why anyone should give a crap about it".

Tell me, why should I care who ignores me or not? Either I won't notice, or I'll notice the person in question making a dunce out of himself for continuing posting on a topic without knowing what's just been said, especially addressed at themselves (as just seen with TheBoost). I'll then proceed to make fun of them, and if they manage not to peek in, the irony is lost on them, if not, it hits them double hard - not my loss either way, right?

At any rate, I don't think you should be calling anyone a "dick" for a quite a while now, after that last one you pulled :p

xhonzi said:

My only question is this: Why is this so personal to you, twooffour?  You seem to be very upset about.  I've read your other posts around the forum and you seem to mostly be a pretty sensible guy.  Why does this subject (Raising my kids in a PT free environment) elicit such angst from you?

For the record, if I hadn't been reading and enjoying a lot of whatelse you'd have to say, your conduct in this thread would cause me to put you on ignore. 

It's not personal to me, doesn't cause anything resembling "angst", and doesn't "upset" me outside the confines of this forum - getting condescending and angry is just my usual, natural reaction to reading something stupid, like display of considerable fanboyism, bigotry, bias, circular logic, or, indeed, treating something like a bunch of SF entertainment films way too seriously.

Whether you realize it or not, you're just playing the usual "why are you so angry?" card that is so often used as an excuse to dismiss everything a discussion opponent has to say (very often used by Christians against atheists - one gets a bit too excited in an argument, and the Xtian rubs his hands and posts something like "wow, so much hate and anger, did something happen to you? (maybe you need Jesus in your life!); variations include using the amount of research or post length by the opponent as proof that the opponent is "way too obsessed lol" and a lame, transparent excuse for an attempt to replace debat with ridicule), and no, sorry, I'm not interested in that.

Hey, how about I ask you why you take Star Wars so seriously, you put so much effort in your kids forming a certain opinion of it the first time they're ever exposed to anything associated with it? Why does it matter so much what they think about "Star Wars"? Does the term "serious business" tell you anything? Mind how in my case, I get "upset" about a nerd topic on a nerd forum, while in your case, you actually put some effort into this IN REAL LIFE, in the upbringing of YOUR KIDS.

Yea, how about you talk about that instead of trying to distract with useless ad hominems, because, you know, that's the topic you started. Did you honestly expect full 100% support and no contentions at all from anybody?

Thanks for "reading and enjoying" some bunch of other posts I've written about something. Had you read any of what I wrote HERE, you now certainly wouldn't be waving around with the "threat" of "ignoring" me right now :D

For those who still don't get it:

The /ignore function is just a tool to make your eyes hurt less if you don't feel like putting up with someone's postings, not a triumphant flag of avenged butthurt to wave around in an obnoxious, demonstrative tone - at no point are you more than a click away from viewing a given post, or unignoring the user altogether, and everyone including the user you're "ignoring" knows that, so believe me when I say that NO ONE CARES WHO'S ON YOUR IGNORE LIST.

DuracellEnergizer said:

twooffour said:

Did JANGO "TANGO-WITH-A-MANGO" FETT really have to be the main assassin? Or why did he have to fly off in the jetpack for everyone to see, insead of just hiding somewhere?

Fixed ... and then some =D

Calling Jango Fett Boba is an old inside joke, you dunce ;)

Bingowings said:

Are you watching the same film ducks?

The command centre is providing cover for the escaping ships.

The Imperials cannot bombard the planet because of the shield generator so they land the space camels to take out the shield generator and ground troops to take out the the ion cannon which the being operated from the command centre.

Luke and his friends have to slow down the space camels to allow the Rebels enough time to evacuate as many people as possible, the command centre has to remain manned to provide cover for the evacuating Rebels.

We have no idea how many TIEs the fleet has or how many can be deployed from one ship (considering the relatively small amount deployed by a much larger number of capital ships in ROTJ I don't imagine they could send wave after wave) and how many were in pursuit but were not close enough to be seen?

The one thing we know is that the fleet which had been previously deployed attempting to shoot down Rebels over Hoth had been ordered to track, slow down and capture the Falcon but not destroy it.

If they fired too much and in the wrong place Vader would not be able to get what he wants, he either imagines or senses (depending on if you want to kick in the Leia sister retcon yet or not) a Skywalker on the ship and every Imperial officer and pilot knows what will happen if they accidentally got too good a shot in.

The action makes sense in terms of the story.

Why a beweaponed bounty hunter would get another bounty hunter, armed with a big space rifle to guide a robot, carrying poison bugs, to open a window with space lasers and hang around to deploy them to poison a senator and then allow a Jedi to hang onto the droid long enough to be spotted and then shoot the droid (not the Jedi) etc, etc, etc, makes no sense at all.

Well if you actually take a closer look at the single elements, how easily the "first transporter" manages to breeze through the supposed blockade by having a magical cannon on the planet surface firing at one single ship who was firing but didn't hit the transporter (and obviously couldn't be used against the space camels), and the rebels' strategy in attacking the camels from the front and all, lots of things don't make perfect sense in that scene, but no, I wasn't saying the whole sequence didn't make sense from scratch, I said too much FOCUS was dedicated to whacky, fun adventure stuff and less to things that actually mattered, or could've provided some tension.

Luke takes down two camels all by his clever tricks (and we never see any of them being taken down by anyone not cooperating with Luke, so he's the Mary Sue all again, I suppose), but they still manage to fire some super blaster at the rebel base, or their shield generator, and the rest of the attackers doesn't really seem to bother the rest of hte camels, so in the end it's just a bunch of action stuff with no real tension or consequence.

We see Han and Leia escape, but the rest of the rebels, who are just extras anyway, either escape with incredible ease (in a scene that's basically saying "yea the rebels escaped that so that's where the space base later on comes from), or aren't shown being stopped, destroyed or arrested anywhere.

At the end of the day, the essence of the scene is: rebels are put to rout from their base, and a bunch of fighters somewhat slow down the attack. Which one should've been the logical focus, and which would've contained more tension?

As for the other thing, you really just rely on assumptions at this point - come on, so we are to believe that neither the death star nor the executor can send off more than 4 stupid TIE fighers?? We just have to ASSUME that there are "more" out there, but "we just don't see them"? Nah... there were 4 fighters, full stop. They were sent to capture the heroes, but were pwned all too easily, and in the end the scene was just a spectacle with cool music and one-liners.

As for the assassination plot in Clones, sure, again, the plot holes and nonsense in the PT is infinitely worse than in the OT, I've said that, but if you look at the whole chapter, it's not so much the whole premise behind the scene that doesn't make sense, it's its execution.

They could've easily had the assassin try to shoot Padme from the window, or something like that, or use her shapeshifter skills and intrude the building, and then the two Jedi would've chased her through the city after she took off - but no, they added the centipedes and flying robot and all the other stuff in it to make it more diverse and intereesting, I guess, and ended up butchering up the logic.

Did BOBA FETT really have to be the main assassin? Or why did he have to fly off in the jetpack for everyone to see, insead of just hiding somewhere?

So again, they could've easily had a chase sequence there, but the way its executed, and the (non-)way the whole assassination plot ties into the rest, are more than enough to disqualify the whole thing, and then some.

Bingowings said:

The Imperials have been given new orders, to capture the Falcon (not to destroy it or allow it to escape).

The fleet prior to that had been scattered to pick off the Rebels evacuating the base (we only see the first transport escape unscathed it doesn't follow that all of them did).

The aim is to knock out the hyperdrive (which they don't know isn't working) and to slow the ship down so it can be caught in the tractor beam of one of the capital ships.

The new orders and coupled with the prior orders make the sequence entirely consistent with the plot.

So why don't we see the rebels getting "picked up", and instead watch Luke flying around space camels? Wouldn't that be kinda important? But no, we only see the one transporter that makes it through the blockade with far too much ease, and that's the impression the viewer takes away from the whole thing in the end.

The asteroid chase, again, is a bit pointless because the TIEs are far too useless and easy to crash into asteroids, and you know for sure that had the Empire had a sense to send off like 3 times more TIEs, the film would've been a lot shorter.

Hence - plot convenience. Hence - plot serving the action to a degree. Hence - spectacle over substance.

Now, that of course would lead us to the next point - the characters themselves, especially Han Solo, are, to a large part, a "spectacle", too. Solo might've gone through a change and all, but neither his role in the story nor his character development is particularly deep, or important to anything, we first and foremost enjoy watching him being a swashbuckler and care about the romance.

So THAT spectacle is obviously very well balanced with the audiovisual spectacle, and that's what makes the original films such a good piece of entertainment.

In the PT, obviously, the characters were bleak, and the action sequences often made even less sense and felt more artificial.

twooffour said:

TheBoost said:

zombie84 said:

The Boost, no disrespect to you, but I don't believe you when you say you won't allow your kids to see "crap." This is the exact sort of thing I am talking about. You let your kids see crap every day, probably. If they watch kids films or kids TV shows, they will mostly see crap, because most of them are dumb. And that's okay.

My kids 20 months old. He doesn't see anything except Elmo. I never said I'm going to somehow shield him from all crap in the world. But during the age he's basically provided entertainment by me (probably until early grade-school) I won't be providing him the PT. As I said in my first post in this thread, he can see them when he's old enough to watch them at a friends house.

But tooling a Yoda toy to remove the lightsaber is cool. Even seeing the PT Yoda's a cooler toy without it.

And why is no one jumping to defend "Darkman 3: Die Darkman Die"?

Well, technically you never said anything about shielding your kids from the PT, and no one else said anything about having to actively introduce your kids to the PT, so can we settle this side of the argument, yet?

Your kid certainly doesn't need to see Jar Jar Binks to have a normal development, especially if he's not interested in seeing those movies himself or asking you to rent it (and would he really before entering grade school? that's like what, at age 6? how's that in your country?) - thing is, what's really important, DON'T SHOW HIM ESB. LOL

Hey, hadn't you watched TPM with some kid relative of yours? Or was it a friend's kid? Like, you know, that one who "got" what the Trade Federation was all about "from implication" :D

...

why did you do that??

TV's Frink said:

I kinda like the PT.

Nah, sorry - what gets on the internet, stays on the internet.

...

:P

Ziggy Stardust said:

twooffour said:

Gaffer Tape said:

With the complete nosedive this conversation has taken over the past few days, it's beginning to make me glad that I don't have kids and don't intend to have any...

Welcome to the club!

Can I join?

Sure you can! And in our new club, we shall play a game, called "how would we influence and educate our kids we'll never have"?

I know what I'd do. I'd wait until he's like 7, then I would tell him to watch Flash Gordon 1980, or he's not getting any ice-cream. If he says something like "daaad, i dun like it, its silly!" or "whats up with this weird guy with the beard, he on crack", he gets his head chopped off. It's a CAMP movie, it's SUPPOSED to be silly you idiot head!

Hey ain't so bad, you can always make more kids, right?

I mean, good think I'm never having any, isnt't it?!

TheBoost said:

zombie84 said:

The Boost, no disrespect to you, but I don't believe you when you say you won't allow your kids to see "crap." This is the exact sort of thing I am talking about. You let your kids see crap every day, probably. If they watch kids films or kids TV shows, they will mostly see crap, because most of them are dumb. And that's okay.

My kids 20 months old. He doesn't see anything except Elmo. I never said I'm going to somehow shield him from all crap in the world. But during the age he's basically provided entertainment by me (probably until early grade-school) I won't be providing him the PT. As I said in my first post in this thread, he can see them when he's old enough to watch them at a friends house.

But tooling a Yoda toy to remove the lightsaber is cool. Even seeing the PT Yoda's a cooler toy without it.

And why is no one jumping to defend "Darkman 3: Die Darkman Die"?

Well, technically you never said anything about shielding your kids from the PT, and no one else said anything about having to actively introduce your kids to the PT, so can we settle this side of the argument, yea?

Your kid certainly doesn't need to see Jar Jar Binks to have a normal development, especially if he's not interested in seeing those movies himself or asking you to rent it (and would he really before entering grade school? that's like what, at age 6? how's that in your country?) - thing is, what's really important, DON'T SHOW HIM ESB. LOL

Harmy said:

I totally wouldn't buy my kid a toy that I thought was crap and I'd rather buy some toy that I thought had more value for the same prize, because I would think buying the crap toy is a waste of money, just like buying or renting the PT or Power Rangers, when there's hundreds (possibly thousands) of better movies to buy or rent.

Um, you realize that when boying toys for your kid, you buy them for... the kid, who generally cares more about the FUN he/she might gain from playing with the toy, not so much its "quality" and "how well it's made with the given budget", right? ... right?

I mean, I'm not saying you can't just like, "hey, let's buy this toy instead, it's much more fun and betterer!", and your kids like "heck yea dad, let's buy this one", or "no do not want" but then you come home and he's like "wow, you're the most awesomest dad ever!!" and you'll like to a Santa Christ laugh or something, since, you know, kids easily hop on stuff and forget about just as easily, but somehow inadvertedly, you come off as a giant snob when saying things like "I'm only going to buy quality toys for my quality son, for my hard-earned quality money!"

Talk about "serious business"...

I mean, you do realize that quality isn't by any means the only factor playing a role in why someone, be it adult or kid, takes an interest in a given product, right? Maybe it's what his friends are talking about, or is popular at the moment, and we wants to have a part in it? But can't borrow cause it's like a video game, or cos everyone's a meaniehead? Just because there's some better kids' cartoon / shoot them all flick out there, doesn't mean the kid or adult will necessarily switch their concrete interest from the "inferior" to the "superior", especially if that judgment is passed by someone else, like yourself, right?

I'll often watch some mediocre movie, or snippet, or music video, just to get a reference, or what everyone's talking about, and I'll derive enjoyment and be glad I've seen it either way - and I happen to be lucky to "be able to arrange it" for myself, knowing a couple online sites and being 21 and all, you know.

Why deny your kid that same privilege just because YOU think something is "worse"? You should really go back and read Zombie's posts again, I think you might understand a great many things after that :D

Bingowings said:

To rip into the PT and not ROTJ seems like a double standard to me but I am not he.

Well, he never said those movies were without flaws or plot holes when bitching about the new ones, did he? He often brought up the original trilogy as a positive example for some general, narrative aspect, including ROTJ, and it was always right on the money, so I don't complain.

I agree that mentioning the plot weaknesses of the old trilogy, and not just ROTJ, and putting them into perspective along with the PT's, would've made for a "fairer" and more interesting series of reviews, but hey - watch his ST09 review and you already know what his OT reviews would look like.

;)

Harmy said:

twooffour said:

The central question is, what do you mean exactly by "arranging it for themselves"? Does it mean "being able to understand dialogue"? Or "rightfully concluding that the PT is inferior garbage"?

 

I mean arrange it for themselves to watch it, in other words find a way to watch it, like seeing it at a friend's house or borrowing it from someone or buying the Blu-Rays for their own money or renting it or whatever. I'm not going to play it to them myself or even tell them about it but I'm not gonna stop them from watching it either, if they find some way. Just like I'm not going to show them or even tell them about other movies that I think are shit but I don't care if they find their own way to see them.

But I'm totally gonna show TMNT to my kids but I wouldn't buy and show them Power Rangers or Pokemon but I don't give a bull's crap if they see it on TV in the morning.

Well, you know what, it's just a bunch of movies, so fine, doesn't really matter. I don't have any huge issue with what you're saying because I don't think this is a matter of full life consequences or anything, but I guess I'm really just puzzled by this whole "I'm gonna show my kids TMNT but not Power Rangers" thing.

I mean sure, you don't actively show your kids movies you loathe, but it's when they CAN'T arrange it for themselves, but learn about it from somewhere and are then like "Dad, can you buy me that one please, my friends don't have it and I'm too young to rent a movie!", and you REFUSE on the sole basis of disliking said movies yourself, that the whole thing becomes officially weird.

I mean, you don't refuse to buy your kid car toys that are cheaply, unimaginatively constructed or have cheesy captions on them, either, right?

I just don't get the fuss. Don't show them EMPIRE. Don't show them how Luke gets violently tortured to near death and screams in unbearable agony for 3 minutes, not at an age where they're too young to go rent a movie. To the firy pits of hell with Jar Jar :D

Gaffer Tape said:

With the complete nosedive this conversation has taken over the past few days, it's beginning to make me glad that I don't have kids and don't intend to have any...

Welcome to the club!

zombie84 said:

twooffour said:

Just for the record, I don't think that taking *some* measures in order to avoid your kid bumping into giant spoilers in general is inherently "creepy" or anything, it's just this over-obsession with the "Star Wars experience" that should be "protected" from being "tainted" by the "exposure" to the "false and horrible prequels", that I find very odd, and very inviting for ruthless mockery.

 This is my POV as well. It's the sort of thing that if people not from OT.com were to come here and read would think that we are obsessive and crazy.

The Boost, no disrespect to you, but I don't believe you when you say you won't allow your kids to see "crap." This is the exact sort of thing I am talking about. You let your kids see crap every day, probably. If they watch kids films or kids TV shows, they will mostly see crap, because most of them are dumb. And that's okay. Almost all children's cartoons are dumb, and live action shows are usually unintelligent and juvenile. Other, more conservative parents, might also say they are unnecessarily violent, shorten children's attention spans, and overstimulate them with advertising and video media. If you are a good parent and pay close attention to what they watch, guess what? 90% of it is still likely to be as crappy than the prequels. There is nothing inherantly offensive in the prequels other than the fact that they disappointed us--they are fairly technically accomplished and well composed pieces of entertainment, way more than some movies your son sees. Children's programming even in the best examples is usually not very good by adult standards. That's because they aren't meant for adult standards but children's.

When I was a kid, I watched Power Rangers and Ninja Turtles. Bad acting, silly stories, dumb graphics, lots of violence, potty humour, whatever. They are in general dumb, shitty shows as far as adults are concerned. That is why they are for kids. They were dumb but also fun as hell, and formed a big part of my enjoyment of childhood, and the childhood of 100 million other kids in the early 1990s. Of course my dad would not have liked them. How many shows that kids watch are ones their parents would enjoy themselves, or even approve of in terms of dramatic quality? I can only think of two or three from my childhood. But it would have been infinitely silly and weird if he not only dissuaded me but prevented me from seeing them just because he didn't think they were well made. Every time you let your child select a show or movie they like or they would like to see, you are probably exposing them to a stupid, dumb program whose dramatic integrity you would question. Which is why it's self-serving to "hide" your kids from the "damage" of the "PT", totally unable to see the films beyond your own, adult-oriented experience from ten, twenty years earlier. Hell, the Droids cartoon show was fucking bad, bad acting, dated animation, and it doesn't really fit in with the OT storyline or world, but if your kid really, really, REALLY wanted to see Droids I am sure most people would say, "okay."

In fact, in a bizarre way, you are robbing them of the one thing everyone here wishes: a prequel trilogy that is good. Imagine having that? That's what kids have, and I am frankly jealous. I am also jealous that they have legitimately well-done SW cartoons like the Clone Wars. Well, when TPM came out I was 14 and I loved the film, thought it was awesome. I was young enough that I didn't see or care that it had elements questionable to adults. I laughed at Jar Jar a couple times. Lucasfilm sold the most toys this year out of any company without a movie--think about that. The PT-era is one designed for kids, and the one area where Lucas succeeded. When they are adults, they may realise the PT isn't as good as they thought, just like I realise now that Power Rangers is shitty, even though I watched Power Rangers ten times more than I watched Star Wars from 1993-1995.

I agree with not volunteering the PT on kids. You can show them much better things. And if they ask about it, I agree with offering the advice that they are better off without it. But if they are really into it and really show an interest, to actually go to any length to "shield" them from it, and in some cases reported here actually actively manipulate them into not seeing it despite their strong desire to--that strikes me as a super weird thing that most normal people might even say is selfish. Kids will love the prequels and the cartoons, the only real audience that will get the full enjoyment out of them is the one between the ages of five years old and fifteen. Just let them be kids and stop acting like weird adult-fanboys totally too wrapped up in an anti-PT crusade to stop and think that maybe your son or daughter might actually find enjoyment from it all.

/hats offs and lots of respects, as always!

One thing I might add to what you've already said, I've seen TPM when I was 9, and after watching the original trilogy on TV / recorded VHS, it was my first cinema screen experience and I was literally BLOWN AWAY by it. 

I've seen it like 5 times in the theatre, then couldn't wait until it gets released on VHS and then started watching it over and over at home. I was even a really obsessed fanboy of that movie, getting kinda annoyed and agry at negative reviews and scorn this movie received.

The fact that I hardly understood the dialogue helped :D I really enjoyed the "feel", the flow, the rhythm and the atmosphere, and the action. Never disliked the originals, but thought the new movie was, in ways, more "slick" and exciting to watch.

I think two parts I disliked already back then were the sappy podrace ending and the annoying double-headed commentator, and that scene where they all kneel down before Boss Nass - always made me cringe, for some reason.

So guess what? I grew out of it. Then watched me some RedLetterMedia, discussed some stuff, have found the joy in exposing flaws and plot holes in BOTH trilogies and any movie for that matter, analyzed other bits, and that all added even more additional perspective.

I can now freely waste my time on boards, discussing how both trilogies had flaws, only the PT's are infinitely worse. How the PT had some good things in it, but the OT was basically just a really good movie series overall. There's some nostalgic appreciation in some of the slicker TPM scenes and images, I guess, so that's the "taint" I got from it I suppose. Who cares? *yawn*

Know what I really like? My Dad kinda showed me the OT on TV, cos he kinda liked Empire back then, and took me to cinema in 1999, but otherwise he doesn't have any glaring interest in any of those movies or anything of that kind, and while we have a casual conversation about some movie or music or whatever, I usually don't bother him with my new plot hole discoveries during supper because I know he doesn't care that much - I mean, he likes to collect old coins and stuff, but he's not some kind of SF geek stuck in his teens, trying to goad me in some specific opinion about a bunch of action movies, and THAT'S WHAT I REALLY FIND COOL. I'm actually a bigger nerd than my Dad, who could've imagined such a thing? :DD

So parents, don't be such huge nerds, and you'll earn your kids' respect :D

Harmy said:

Xhonzi and TheBoost, I'm on your side on this issue. I think kids can't always make smart decisions for themselves and when I have kids, they're definitely gonna see the OT first and then they can watch the PT, when they're old enough to arrange it for themselves, I'm not gonna show it to them. And I would totally remove the lightsabre from the Yoda figure.

The central question is, what do you mean exactly by "arranging it for themselves"? Does it mean "being able to understand dialogue"? Or "rightfully concluding that the PT is inferior garbage"?

Why can they watch the OT BEFORE they're "old enough" to "arrange it for themselves", appreciate its quality or understand its themes or what's going on?

Sure little kids can't always make "smart decisions", but does it really matter in a case where there are virtually no actual consequences to a "dumb decision"? If you wait until they can make a decision to watch a movie before showing them the OT (is there really any reason to do it prior to that?), why make any efforts to prevent them from making the "dumb decision" of watching the PT first? Is there any specific reason why they shouldn't?

What if they'll like the PT more for a while? What if they then watch the OT, and end up liking more? And then in one year, as it it is with kids, their opinions might be radically changed in EITHER direction?

I mean, hey, show your kids whatever movies in whatever order you want, it's not a big deal - just make sure you don't show them Episodes V, VI and III too early, they might not take the electroshock torture too well :D

TheBoost said:

Harmy said:

Xhonzi and TheBoost, I'm on your side on this issue. I think kids can't always make smart decisions for themselves and when I have kids, they're definitely gonna see the OT first and then they can watch the PT, when they're old enough to arrange it for themselves, I'm not gonna show it to them. And I would totally remove the lightsabre from the Yoda figure.

I dont even think its about "smart choices." In the myriad world of diversions my kid might watch, why intentionally expose him to what I think is crap?

When he's old enough to say "Pop, I heard some skuttlebutt that there are these other Star Wars movies" he's old enough to see them. He's also old enough to see "Darkman 3" if he can find a copy. It's not my job to show him any crap.

ps. Twobyfour

If any of your posts are addressed at me, please know that I've had you on ignore for a couple days. Perhaps I'll unignore someday if, with coaching by Frink and others, you learn how people talk at the grown-up table.

Well since you've got me on ignore and aren't reading this, I'm afraid the irony of having just been told that NO ONE HERE IS TALKING ABOUT *INTENTIONALLY* EXPOSING YOUR KIDS TO THE PT OR ANY OTHER RANDOM MOVIE and yet repeating the same dense strawman in your next post because you hadn't read the rebuttal, is lost on you - as it just so happens, obviously not on anyone else reading this :D

Yea, guess what, having a user on ignore and yet continuing posting on the topic, especially with while taking jabs at and referencing the ignored user, can actually make you look like an idiot! What did you know... :DDDD

Just for the record, I couldn't care less if you or anyone else puts me on ignore, but as soon as you start openly BRAGGING about ignoring a specific user, TOWARDS THIS USER, you instantly defeat the entire purpose behind /ignoring someone, and make a laughing stock out of yourself.

I mean, why /ignore a user if you're still going to react to his posts?? Just with the disadvantage of not knowing what you're reacting to? I mean, it just gives off the impression that you still care about the user and still want to "win", but somehow think you can accomplish it without any effort of going through their actual posts, just by insulting said user's supposed ego by telling them in the face that you don't care about his posts (why obviously to everyone, you still do). Really? You think that works?

You see, you can always put someone on ignore if you don't feel like reading their posts, and you can always revert and peek inside if you're still curious for some reason - it's just something you do for yourself and no one's gonna care. But everyone knows damn well that you're always just a click away from peeking at said user's post, or unignoring them for that matter, so any sort of childish, naive "haha I've ignored you so I have no idea what you just said, I'm afraid you just wasted your breath, hahaha!!" won't be taken seriously in the least, and will only serve to make yourself look like a complete dunce.

Especially since this ain't private messaging here and everyone else can see what you can't :D

PS: I don't see why I should listen to anything TVFrink has to tell me about "behaving like an adult" after that last post of his. Posting wide-eyed crazy accusations of trolling and sock-puppeting, and immediately treating those as factual and valid excuses to dismiss everything a user has to say, simply isn't the way to go, and the guy has lost any authority he might've still had on "proper civil forum conduct" with that last one, as far as I'm concerned.

The fact you obviously don't care about that, take any such authority away from you, as well. Here a few more guidelines for avoiding douchebaggery on an internet forum:

-if you've aborted a debate with somebody, avoid acting smug and arrogant towards said user, especially while making references to the aborted debate

-if you want to abort a debate, simply abort the debate and don't attempt to do it in a snarky and insulting manner like quoting the post just to comment it with a "tldr" or a similarly dismissive remark

-if you put users on /ignore, remember to really completely *ignore* said users in your posts, and avoid boasting about the /ignore in public

-don't voice suspicions of trolling of sock-puppeting except in the mild form of expressing your suspicion as a possible, and reasonably backed-up option; ideally, back it up with reasoning and arguments ifpossible 

You and Frink have a lot to learn about sensible forum posting, I'm afraid. Take a step back and get some perspective, then you can talk about "behaving like adults".

Just for the record, I don't think that taking *some* measures in order to avoid your kid bumping into giant spoilers in general is inherently "creepy" or anything, it's just this over-obsession with the "Star Wars experience" that should be "protected" from being "tainted" by the "exposure" to the "false and horrible prequels", that I find very odd, and very inviting for ruthless mockery.

No, you're not supposed to sit down with your kid and specifically tell him that "it was his sled" until you make sure he ain't gonna forget about it anytime soon - the problem is, you have to consider the amount of effort to actively SHIELD someone from the sheer amounts of omnipresent popcultural osmosis (which, in itself, is pretty much as fun a byproduct of the original work as the shocks and angst of a first, original, unprepared viewing of said original work), and whether it's really worth going through all the hard work just so the kid one day reads Harry Potter and is shocked by Dumbledore's death.

What if you give him a great bunch of other archetypal magic stories instead, so he'll just kinda read that part and think "ah, I recognize this trope from this work and that story, nod nod kewl"? Would you really take anything away from him and his experience of a bunch of fiction?

I mean, I'm glad that I've somehow magically avoided the knowledge about the plot of "Psycho" so I could experience that shock and surprise when I watched the film (basically, the female protagonist is unexpectedly stabbed to death in a shower halfway through the film - if you haven't seen the film yet, don't read the previous sentence), but on the other hand, the experience of a good chunk of the sheer amount of "split personality psycho villains" in thrillers, crime shows and superhero schlock in subsequent pop culture, left me pretty unimpressed and slightly amused by the guy's lengthy explanation of Bate's psyche and how "his one personality doesn't know of the other" or whatever. I suppose it was designed to come off as really cool and bold at that time?

What if I had accidentally bumped into a spoiler prior to viewing it? Couldn't I have still appreciated it for what it is, or maybe be left amazed and dazzled by how disturbing and shocking the murder scene was after having seen it lampooned in endless parodies? How about if I had taken a class in film history and cinematography prior to that, wouldn't that have opened a completely new level of appreciation for me when watching it for the first time, fully knowing the spoilers and osmosis?

I know the spoiler to Citizen Kane by now (it was his sled), but hey, I'm sure the film has a lot more going for it than "the reveal" and has some significant rewatching value, so why should I be upset about it? That's life, time passes on, things get out, new perspectives are opened. What was once shocking and radical, is now common knowledge and can be looked at as a piece of history and origin of subsequent references and ideas - is that really a bad thing?

Is the experience of viewing SW for the first time after hearing so much about it, and seeing the entertaining characters, humor and small chunks of camp and cheese, in their original form, really that much worse than being blown away by the effects on a large screen in 1977? How about you shield your kids from any special effects films until they've seen Star Wars, so they're blown away by it like you were back then?

Hey while we're on this page, why not first feed them a lot of 30s' SF with shiny environments, so they appreciate the "used universe" in Star Wars?

I've never watched the Flash Gordon serials, yet I enjoyed the movie - would you say I've gone the "wrong" path, and one should first show one's kids Flash Gordon before letting them know Star Wars exists? Isn't that the way it was conceived? Isn't that background as important to the viewing experience of this otherwise very well made movie that can stand on its own feet, than the lack of the prequels back then?

Well fuck you then, I still had a great time, and I'm sure I'll have a great time when I get around to those old serials and star recognizing the "origins" of so much of the SW imagery I'm familiar with.

Like 10 years ago, I remember being a complete 24 fanboi and drooling over the shocking "twists" without really paying attention to some of the political and narrative problems in the story - but does that mean if I ever have kids I'll make conscious efforts to prevent them from learning about the spoilers from TVTropers, just so they can have the experience I had as a naive kid? Why should they have?

Hey, how about I give them something to read about narrative techniques, so they recognize those twists for the cheap and sloppy plot devices they are the first time they view it (if they do at all)? Oh boo hoo, I've ruined the epic "twists" for them - so what, they've gained so much more.

The point I'm trying to make in this somewhat lengthy post with a lot of examples is that, there are many different perspectives you can view an artwork from, you can watch it wide-eyedly for the first time and be completely immersed in the experience, or you can approach it from above, analytically comparing it to lots of things you've seen and learned before, and with the large amount of films, books, music and so on, you'll ALWAYS take SOMETHING out of it, and it'll always contain a good chunk of either enjoyment or interest.

There's absolutely no point or sense in getting all obsessed about a particular set of films, and everyone having to view it from the exact same angle as you once did, or ending up with the same opinion of it - they'll watch it, or they won't, they'll get something out of it, and their views and opinions will inevitably change over the course of time, and good is.

No need for them to agree that "the OT was better and the PT sucked", especially if they don't end up being too much into writing or cinema.

I'm aware this thread isn't about spoilers, or all those other stories and films I've mentioned, but point is, if you take that "raising kids in a PT-free environment", nothing prevents you or anyone to take it further and, indeed, extend it to forcing 50s SciFi in your kid before he ever hears of Star Wars. I mean, why not? Are you up to it, as well? Or only as far as the PT is concerned? Why? Why go through all this effort in the first place?

Just throwing some perspective out there.

TheBoost said:

For people who are so opposed to a "PT Free" environment, let me ask: Why does a kid need to see the PT? Why, of the thousands of entertainments that xhonzi's, mine, or any kid, might enjoy and yet will never see, does the PT hold some important rank?

If someone said "I will never show my kid the animated 3 Stooges cartoons!" would there be this outcry?

Stop being disingenuous. No one on here ever said anything about having to actively push one's kids towards the PT - we're only laughing and shaking our heads at any ACTIVE EFFORT TO LIMIT THEIR EXPOSURE TO THE NEW FILMS IN ORDER TO INFLUENCE THEIR EXPERIENCE.

Like refusing to buy them a Phantom Menace DVD despite the kid asking for it. Wow... really? Talk about giant mantweens better considering not having any kids... "I don't like playing with toy cars, I think it's silly, so you're not getting this cool remote control car you've seen in the commercial - I'm only buying you the toys I like myself!"

On a broader level, we laugh at any instance of a parent taking a series of space adventure fun so seriously that they consider making any conscious effort at all to "raise their kids in a certain controlled environment" to ensure they get a specific impression from those movies, no matter in what direction it goes.

Whether it's painstakingly avoiding exposure to any piece of popculture that might reveal who Vader is so one day their kid watches it and is hopefully totally blown away by "the epic reveal", or, indeed, removing the lightsaber from a Yoda action figure, NOT because they kid's all on your sleeves and like "oh please please, i want a yoda figure without a lightsaber, please make it away!", but because you want to make sure that your kid's "image" of Yoda isn't "tainted" by the "PT's bastardization of the character from a wise mentor who was above video game stuff into a toy-wielding cartoon frog" by seeing a Yoda action figure with a lightsaber.

And no, no one's supposed to turn into giant ham and make an impression of Tommy Wiseau - the talk was about TAKING A STEP BACK, and realizing how nonsensical and ludicrous such a degree of obsession and "serious treatment" of what is basically a bunch of cool space adventure films, really is.

I honestly don't even remember if that example was hypothetical, or had actually been seriously brought up earlier in the thread, but come on, how intellectually dishonest does one have to be to purposefully misunderstand the angle of the example above?

Forgive me for being potentially ignorant, but did the SE really add THAT much to the originals in terms of "effects"?

Sure, there are matt paintings replaced by similar looking CG landscapes or something, but I mean essentially?

ESB only has the Wampa (who was terrifying when not seen on screen, but now just kinda looks funny), and... anything else? ROTJ has, um, that one song in Jabba's palace replaced, which wasn't as disturbing in effects overload as it was in style.

SW had that Mos Eisley arrival bit, which was stupid, few giant cows walking around the screen, stormtroopers inexplicably riding giant cows... and... wasn't that shot with the departing X-Wings way cool? Then a few added stormtroopers in the death star... maybe a few weebo robots flew by thee stormtroopers here and there (which is really not that much of a stretch from that toy car in the DS later on)... anything else that's significant?

Just to throw it out there, the OT wasn't entirely guiltless when it comes to "action scenes for the sake of it", either - for example, the Death Star segment would've been a lot more believable and suspensful had they not cramped like 10 shootout scenes into half an hour, each of which is a major contributor to the stormtrooper meme.

But they went for cool, actioney swashbuckling, and way, it added fun, but took away a good portion of seriousness and suspense. "Alternative to fighting", yea?

Then, the TIEs attacking the Falcon... not that out of place, but it's just kinda thrown at us with questions like "did those guys go voluntarily on a suicide mission? or are they pussies like the rest?", and then at the end they're all like "we diid iiiit!!" as if they knew no more fighters would come chasing them... dunno, felt more like an excuse to have a super cool space battle scene than anything else.

The dogfight at the end I found unnecessarily stretched out and boring - obviously a show-off of some degree, as well.

Then, the robot camel attack on Hoth... now, the main point is that the rebels get attacked and eventually flee towards a new base - there is no tension involved in the rebels' escape, because they just breeze through the "blockade" or whatever in like 10 seconds, and the rest is just a lot of flying around and fighting - Luke pulls off some cool tricks and blows up two space camels, the rest is just background fighting and at the end, the Empire kinda wins - do we ever see the camels win and eradicate all the attackers, though? At the end, Luke and a few other pilots are just chillin' in the snow without worrying about anything, so my impression of that battle was that it had a bit too little consequence and tension involved. The main heroes flee, the majority of the rebellion makes it... to a space base that never gets attacked or even found by the Imperials from there on.

Again, had they focused on the escape and evacuation and a bit less on bringing down camels with cool tricks, with no avail at the end, I guess it would've turned out better narratively. We also wouldn't be laughing at the somewhat funny-looking robot camels today. 

Then, the asteroid chase sequence - again, this time clearly no one's trying to "let them escape", and they just send 4 TIE fighters? Who look like pussies and crash into the first asteroid that happens to float on their way? Why not send like 20 of them, there would've been enough left to at least track the ship to the dinosaur's belly, but then again, we couldn't have had that prolonged and completely absurd and pointless scene inside the monster, right?

Again, feels more like just an action scene pushed into the movie for the sake of it, and I can't say I felt any tension watching it, either.

But none of that compares to how useless most of the PT action is in relation to its necessity to the plot - sure, not all of them, but a very good chunk.

Oh wait, gee, zombie's the guy behind Secret History? Damn it, can't believe I forgot that, I sure enjoyed reading that little debate he had with VINH over at the RLM thread!

Seriously, do you even realize that my FIRST POST ON THIS FORUM on that very thread was a rebuttal to everything VaderHayden had said in there months ago?? Yea, you talk your talk about the relevance of "track records", might as well walk the walk and look it up ;)

In fact, I just found this forum when stumbling onto that thread when googling for stuff about RedLetter Media, and that guy's waaay overblown disdain towards Plinkett's "misogyny" (how can anyone even like this guy's jokes, it DISGUSTS ME!!), his fanboyish, laughable defense of the TPM characters and the constant talk about "herd mentality" without any willingness to elaborate on specifics (doesn't the guy realize that there are many, many more forms of bias than "follow-the-herd"? like "strive-against-the-stream" for example?) made me so fucking angry, it was probably one of the reasons I was so eager to create an account here and post a long rebuttal months after dust had covered the crap.

So that's why everyone keeps talking about VINH all the time? I had gotten the impression that it was like some weirdo that kinda stopped posting a while ago so everyone kept wondering when he's gonna post again? Whatever.

You know, you're talking about "track records" and all - but now, you've got "aggressive form of recurring troll paranoia" towards a guy you've known for a bare month, directly preceded by a smug, berating criticism of someone else committing the same crime after having known a certain personality on here for... a bare month, on yours.

Congratulations, sir.

And you know what's the irony? Hold on... hold on... the guy you're paranoid about, and the guy you said shouldn't be paranoid about the same thing.. is... iiss... okay, I can't do it.

If we stick with 1), then hey, you know what, I couldn't give two craps about who is "sick of my attitude", I save caring about popularity crap for, you know, real life.

So next time you feel like whining and complaining about how much you dislike someone's attitude or whatever, save that for yourself, because no one CARES.

I'm condescending and derisive towards posts I find laughable and stupid, and I'm certainly showing respect for well written, thought-out contributions like zombie's lately when I see them. I also gladly partake in conversations in a light and casual tone unless it involves such giant wall-bangers that they make you wanna 

You know, if I see you post just one other "tldr" in response to something, or tolerate anyone else doing that for that matter, I defy you to stop using this account, create another one, then go to TV Frink's "sensible posting" thread and say "Hi, I'm new to this board! Wow, this is a great set of rules I hadn't considered, I'll try to consider them when posting on this thread and building up my track record, thanks!"

I know you won't do it :P

That could've been very cool!

I'm forwarding this to Lucas now, hopefully he can remake those original movies somehow to fit with th- oh...

:D

Quackula said:

Obi-Wan doesn't necessarily have to be the villian to have killed luke's father.

Sure, you could've then dicked out and give it a context in a ROTJ-like, more lighthearted follow-up, but really, what DOES the "Obi-Wan killed your Father!" and subsequent shocked reaction really imply at first glance? And what kind of shock value does "they were in a space battle and Obi-Wan kinda blew him up while trying to fend off buzz droids" reall have?

Also there would be a kind of narrative problem with yet another backstory jedi having turned evil at the same time as Vader, and then the other one killed, along the lines of second death star.

But not saying either alternative would've been inherently bad, depends on how it would've been continued and wrapped up, obviously.

I prefer "hack" :D

He's, like, putting completely wrong ideas into his new films, adding changes to the originals with completely absurd rationalizations, keeps talking about "movie for kids", about his "vision" and how the original versions should best cease to exist, despite two of them not being technically his, how he just makes Dooku roast Anakin for no other reason other than having Obi-Wan fight him alone for a while, then includes a space prophecy for no reason that he doesn't establish in the movie, but explains in a completely laughable DVD feature, then suggests to watch the prequels first while they're clearly written as PREQUELS building on top of what is coming after... he doesn't know what he's doing, he just does and says random things without any justification or thought - he's a hack :D

Now do I like the idea of the established set-up from the first movie remaining as it is, and things playing out the way you said? Yea sure, why not, could've been really cool.

But in that case, I'd prefer they'd have no "twist" shoehorned into the story at all - let Vader just tempt Luke with ruling the Galaxy or whatever, and then continue spinning the plot.

To the question "which" twist I find better, I can definitely say the one that was in the movie. Surely, Obi-Wan being the bad guy all along would've been more SHOCKING, but think about it - it would be a more disturbing case of reframing and retconning than even the worst "hot pants Leia's your sister" boner killer.

The warm-hearted, fatherly, good mentor from the first movie... that keeps hovering around you as a helpful guide ghost... is the VILLAIN? Shocking, but so shocking that it turns right around to cheap.

Vader Luke's father? Pretty shocking. But exactly as much as it needs to be.

Just for the record, I'm not saying you can't have a story where the hero's mentor is an evilhead, or that it isn't an archetypal trope, as well. Or that it doesn't make sense.

Spiderman 1-2 did it, but went the easy route of "alter egos". Batman Begins did it, but the hero's relationship with Qui-Gon Jinn was only established in like a short montage prologue, and the guy once again acted with such understatement, and the ninja clan revealed as villaneous so early in the movie, that it lost any effectiveness whatsoever. Matrix 3 could've done it with the Oracle, but didn't dare apparently.

In this csae, if you just took the movies as they are, and "swapped the twists" in an otherwise almost identical scene, the one with Obi-Wan would certainly, certainly be worse.

Quackula said:

Well you sometimes make points that could be summed up in a sentence or two as opposed to a paragraph or two. It kind of seems like you type as the thoughts come to you.

Plus when you act condescending, it doesn't do much for your persuasiveness. You might be more effective at getting your points across if you acted a bit more respectful towards folk.

I'm kind of rambling myself here, but yeah, just sayin'.

There's certainly less pre-planning work in my posting than was in writing Star Wars - LOL.

I guess the thing is, I don't particularly make any efforts to artificially cut down my posts to make them shorter, just because they COULD've been shorter. I've written the post, I see to it following a logical line and making the points it was supposed to make the best I can, and then click on "post".

Why? Maybe because I myself don't mind others' long posts - I'm just as likely to read them as I am to read an entire thread, or articles of 4 times the length, and the length doesn't particularly bother me. If it does, or I just lack the necessary interest, I just drop it and go do something else without leaving snarky remarks.

Maybe because some of the most awesome forum contributions in my memory were overly lengthy and snarky rebuttals to myself, at which I later looked and thought "wow, I was a dork back then!"

Dunno..