twooffour

Quackula said:

Couldn't you criticize the retconning and reframing of any movie that has sequels?

You can certainly criticize it in a lot of sequels, that's for sure :D

But point is, at the end of the day, had the storywriters put more thought in, say, the "reveals" in the OT, that story would be more consistent, or at least the plot holes not as huge and obvious. 

But hey, look at Men in Black II? Now I haven't analyzed its plot holes or anything (surely, any such "memory gambit" plot with twists and reveals is highly susceptible to gaping mistakes), but does it really "reframe" the premise of the first? Or even retcon anything significant?

Also, note that "reframing" isn't always a bad thing - for example, I don't have any particular problem with Alien 2 being in a different genre than its predecessor, it's sure an interesting concept.

With Riddick, wasn't it cool that they took that claustrophobic space horror movie, and then set the main character into a much larger context? I mean, can't you get into a dungeon full of snakes in real life and then 5 years later get involved in fighting the evil empire that happens to occupy your land, in real life? Why not?

At the end of the day, I just thought the actual movie was kinda cheesy and lame, though. Riddick is Win, obviously :D

Quackula said:

Look, I understand the motivation, you want your children to appreciate the things you grew up with. The OT was obviously a huge part of xhonzi's childhood, and I can totally understand him wanting his children to experience them the way he did.

But when you go to such lengths as dremeling off the lightsaber on a Republic Heroes Yoda toy, I think it's worth taking a moment to step back and get some perspective.

That was better put and more useful than my entire body of posts on this thread :D

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

At any rate, what I find a bit tiring of you right now (and that after one short paragraph already), is that you use this general "teen boppoer without kids commenting on parenting" template of a situation in order to pass me off as "smug", while completely ignoring that the entire discussion revolves around RAISING CHILDREN IN A PREQUEL-FREE ENVIRONMENT.

Don't put words in my mouth.  I had no idea how old you were.

I know that, we all know that - what about a bit of an artistic license? Hey, look, I know that, deep inside, once you learned that I was a wet-behind-the-ears t(w)een, in addition to having no kids, you felt a flush of glee flowing through your fingers, rubbed your hands with a sardonic grin on your face, twirled your huge black mustache and cackled: "HA! Well NOW... we've got meself one easy target!"

So I figured "why not" :P

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

You seem like a friendly fellow, so can you explain me this: why does the length of posts come up as an issue so often?

Tip #26 is part of it, especially if you are going to compare yourself to zombie.

Tip 26? I'm sure you do mean number 16?

Furthermore, in your tip number 21, you have this to say:

21) Don't Quoting Massive Walls Of Text, Especially If You Just Say "I Agree"

That's a cool one. There should really be a 21a) though, that states: Don't quotE massive walls of text, or in fact, respond or react to massive walls of text in any way, just in order to say "tldnr".

If you ask me, that one's infinitely more important, and more condescending and insulting on a forum, than stupid ol' "/agreed".

In fact, I've looked through your list, and nowhere do you say "don't join in a debate or respond to a user just in order to state that their post(s) are useless, or hampered by some generalized, unsubstantiated disqualifier - or in fact, post any kind of dismissve remark that allows you to put down the user without having to deal with what they wrote".

Oh, gee, was that a bit lenghthy for a "number 21a)"?

Hey, let's take rule 16 again, where you make an emphasis on "rambling". How about you show me why the length of my posts was due to "rambling"? Because just complaining about length doesn't cut it, and is Lame.

TV's Frink said:

Quackula said:

Would twooffour actually being a parent have really changed whether his thoughts on the idea of refusing to allow your children to see things based on your opinion of them are valid or not?

I think it could, theoretically.  Having a child and interacting with that child on a daily basis changes a lot of your views on things, and not all these things are "serious parenting issues."

xhonzi's decision is a parenting issue, no matter how minor the issue may be (to you or him).  He's not dealing with another adult.  To call his parenting decision absurd is condescending, insulting, and frankly....absurd.

So according to this logic, calling any kind of parenting decision absurd is condescending, insulting and absurd, simply for the act of criticizing someone else's approach to parenting, right?

I hope, and I'm sure I do NOT need to elaborate any further ;)

And you would have to come up with a bit more than "maybe, theoretically, you know, his opinions could somehow CHANGE on a lot of things if he had a child" in order to justify your mild attack on my posts.

I mean, you're posting on a forum here, bring something interesting to the table! Whether it's an actual response to someone's post, or a nice, helpful explanation HOW having kids could change one's opinions on influencing their kids' popcultural preferences in questionable and logically inconsistent manners!

Because this sort of generalized "well, you're not a parent, so technically, you know, maybe" is simply not interesting at all.

Hey, I sure do comprehend the INSTINCT. We're all potential nerds, we're all potential fanboys, and we all potentially like to share our preferences with others, or influence their opinions in a way we find good, or want.

At our simplest, we also really like and feel relief when someone else likes what we like, or is blown away but what we're blown away by.

So then, you get kids... you really, really love bigband but hate, hate hair metal, so the natural impulse is, obviously, starting exposing your offspring to bigband, and trying not to draw their attention too much to hair metal.

It's at this point you're supposed to USE YOUR CRITICAL THOUGHT, look at yourself, and ask: "Am I really doing what is best for my child, or am I trying to imprint too much of myself on him? Am I responsibly raising a human being here, or am I creating a mini-me in my image? Ok, guess it's okay that he kinda grows up in my environment so stuff gets imprinted regardless, and we all like sharing stuff with our friends, too, right? But at what point am I OVERDOING it? At what point does the joy of sharing stuff turn into a struggle for self-affirmation by trying to make someone else agree with me that A New Hope is "genius"?"

And then, of course, the obvious one: "Am I an educated cineast striving for good taste and critical thought, or am I just a huge Space Nerd with a opinionated views?" :P

And that's really what it all boils down to, isn't it? Somehow, if you look at this way, your suggestion that I might change my views if I were an adult and had children seems to carry a hidden, and certainly unintentional implication - that, if I were an adult, and a parent, I'd also be a huger nerd :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDPPPP

Quackula said:

Would twooffour actually being a parent have really changed whether his thoughts on the idea of refusing to allow your children to see things based on your opinion of them are valid or not? Whether he's actually a parent I think is irrelevant, for this particular situation at least.

His overly-lengthy and mostly condescending tone aside, I agree with twooffour. Shielding your kids from certain movies and shows just because you don't like them is just completely absurd.

Well, thanks :)

You seem like a friendly fellow, so can you explain me this: why does the length of posts come up as an issue so often?

Setting aside the fact that my posts here, save for one, are hardly longer than zombie's contributions, it seems to me that the accusation of length is mostly brought up with a clear implication of "wow, you're really angry and upset about this aren't you, why don't you get a life" as an attempt to disqualify an opponent in a discussion (I guess the fact that more thorough argumentation, information and example citing can make a post longer conveniently doesn't count here) - either that, or as an excuse to weasel out with a tired, cheap "tl;dnr".

Often, 5 comments in a row on Youtube is automatically perceived as "angry" and "obsessed" for some reason - a length that would amount to little more than a quiet fart on any regular forum :D

hairy_hen said:

Yeah, OBVIOUSLY . . . but the caps-lock was very helpful in setting me straight.  *massive eye roll*

So then why do you keep talking about the "self-consistency of the original trilogy", when it's all but self-consistent and it's "obvious" to you?

hairy_hen said:

TheBoost is absolutely right--while the visual and audio changes to the movies can be very annoying at times, the most disturbing aspect is the revisionism of their history and reframing the context of the story into something that was never part of how it was created in the first place.  When watching the classic versions, it is best to firmly divorce all notions of anything related to the prequel films and let the story speak for itself.  This way, it maintains creative integrity and a greater degree of self-consistency.  Keep in mind particularly how it is a story about the adventures of Luke Skywalker, not some overblown 'tragedy of a whiny twit posing as Vader'.  This point is very important to the cultural context of the films.

If you have a decent ear, you'll also notice that the quality of sound mixing in the first movie was originally much better.  ;)

 

@ Mielr: I'm convinced that Youtube comment sections are the rubbish dumps of the internet, where the uninformed and imbecilic gravitate to compete for the title of dumbest person alive.

Obviously, you missed the fact that TheBoost was criticizing the retconning and reframing WITHIN THE ORIGINAL TRILOGY.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

That doesn't answer the question.

I hoped it did :D

Well, obviously you meant you don't have kids, but do you really think there aren't a lot of 21-and-under parents in the world?

Anyway, I find your superior-than-thou attitude tiring, especially considering that you don't have kids.  I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, but it sure is easy to be smug when you don't have to think about the consequences of your opinions.

I realize it, I also realize that parent at 21 isn't "teenage pregnancy" anymore, but I still think having kids at this age is somewhat "questionable" in general and it's very rare in the social circles I stumble around - hence the "i hoped it did" in the sense of "hey, i'm just 21, really normal, so i don't have kids and shouldn't be expected to have any, either".

At any rate, what I find a bit tiring of you right now (and that after one short paragraph already), is that you use this general "teen boppoer without kids commenting on parenting" template of a situation in order to pass me off as "smug", while completely ignoring that the entire discussion revolves around RAISING CHILDREN IN A PREQUEL-FREE ENVIRONMENT.

Would I comment on any serious parenting issues, except maybe a few timid "idea" type of contributions with a clear question mark on them because, well, I'm no one to talk? No.

Would I even comment on the exposure of kids to sex and violence in media? Obviously there would always be things to say about the interpretations of or comparisons between particular movies, but I'm neither particularly familiar with psychological research in this area (nor any area for that matter), nor do I have the experience of having a child to raise, and I'd be the first to come out and say it, AS A DISCLAIMER, were I to post in such a thread.

But trying to... raise one's kid in a... "PT-free environment"... and trying to... "persuade" one's kids that the PT are stupid and "uninteresting"... because one doesn't LIKE them? Sorry man, that's just STUPID, and even if not, it certainly has very little to do with some kind of "serious parenting topic" that one has to experience before daring to open one's mouth.

If I were a parent, I'd certainly do my best research on psychology and the psychological influence of media on personal development, but I can honestly say having my hypothetical kids liking or disliking some disposable piece of entertainment would be the LAST thing I would care about, no matter how much I enjoyed given piece of entertainment.

You're talking about the "consequences of my opinions", like I said something along the lines of "you should let your kids watch any horror movie they want!" or "let them try drugs, certainly won't hurt!" - when all the "consequences" to be counted with here are really just "omg, what if he doesn't like the OT after that?"

Yes, I claim my right to be smug about this, and I don't see why not. This ludicrous worry about one's children's opinion about STAR WARS is a classic example of a parent who apparently hasn't quite grown up yet - so the irony is inviting :D

PS: For all it's worth, I refuse to ever have kids, because I don't see myself as ever being capable of responsible parenting, and I wouldn't want myself for a father.

TheBoost said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

If anyone else (that is to say, anyone who makes a habit of sensible posting) wants to continue to discuss this issue, I stand by my earlier comments. If I have strongly negative preferences regarding a particular film, I see no reason to go out of my way to secure a copy so my child can watch it. And I certainly don't think regulating what movies I do or don't show my children constitutes manipulation.

I'm not certain that a child needs to see any piece of entertainment. I don't plan to show my son "AOTC" "Nine and Half Weeks" "Dragon Ball Z" "Starship Troopers" or season two of "Duck Tales" all for different reasons. He might enjoy any of these, but there's no obligation. 

My son won't watch "Barney the Dinosaur" because it annoys me. I don't see how someone using their personal film prefrences asa  guide is somehow sinister.

 

Gee, looks like twooffour wrote a couple of his trademark novel-length posts in response to something I said. I hope you weren't planning on a response; in case you didn't notice, I put you on my ignore list a long time ago due to the condescending, conceited tone of every post of yours I've ever observed.

It's for the best.

In your case, "best" probably means that you don't get to see yourself getting pwned so much.

Point is, there is a world of difference between not pushing your kid to watch a particular movie because you don't like it, and refuse to buy it for him because you don't like it. Even though both are referred to as "going out one's way".

TV's Frink said:

That doesn't answer the question.

I hoped it did :D

Leonardo said:

twooffour said:

Then, I love how you say "TV WOULD not exist in my home"... like, if you can watch everything online, TV ain't supposed to exist in your home already now, right? ;)

I do not live alone.

Ah, ok then! :D

;)

TV's Frink said:

Do you have kids, twooffour?

I'm 21.

wink-wink smiley only response - but now has text!

It shows.

I never said anything about forbidding them to use them.

That's like the only alternative to "not having one in your home" that would still result in your kids not watching any TV, that's why I brought it up.

That caused me, and still causes me, nothing but trouble.

If you're gonna raise kids, you'll need to have overcome your laziness by that point.

However, a board game requires two or more people, so why not?

And that's different from watching TV together how? Is that supposed to make one less lazy than watching a movie?

What about those teamplay games that REQUIRE more than one person to  play?

 They wanna tell me what to watch? Screw them. I watch all my entertainment online, or on Dvd.

So I agree with that, but how is watching movies online or on DVD make one any less lazy or unhealthy than on TV?

Does it make a difference if your kid browses through Youtube, or channels? Whether he watches films at funmoviesite.com or on TV after looking at the program?

Then, I love how you say "TV WOULD not exist in my home"... like, if you can watch everything online, TV ain't supposed to exist in your home already now, right? ;)

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

At any rate, guessing you can repost your comments now :)

adywan said:

I have no interest in resubmitting my response only for it to be deleted again.

 

But since they've stopped deleting negative posts... ;)

You know, at the of the day, it's comments like these that really say everything there is to say:

"As some of you may recall, I have struggled to create a PT-free environment in which to raise my children- AKA the next generation of OT fans- AKA our only hope."

"... that the "Clone Wars one" wasn't worth watching.

SON: You said they were dumb.
ME : ... 
SON: Aren't they?
ME : Oh!  Oh, yes.  They are really dumb.  They're not worth watching."

Hmm, most interesting... maybe it took them a while to realize that they were being stupid? At any rate, guessing you can repost your comments now :)

Akwat Kbrana said:

Gee, looks like twooffour wrote a couple of his trademark novel-length posts in response to something I said. I hope you weren't planning on a response; in case you didn't notice, I put you on my ignore list a long time ago due to the condescending, conceited tone of every post of yours I've ever observed. So when you address one of your posts to me, this is all I ever see of it:

Just FYI.

If anyone else (that is to say, anyone who makes a habit of sensible posting) wants to continue to discuss this issue, I stand by my earlier comments. If I have strongly negative preferences regarding a particular film, I see no reason to go out of my way to secure a copy so my child can watch it. And I certainly don't think regulating what movies I do or don't show my children constitutes manipulation.

So I take it you clicked on the "click here" button, then, because somehow you know my responses were long, right? Hey, man, I know how easy and seductive it is to click on that small button... "hey, I know this guy wrote something... and I'm one click away from finding out! is it long? or is short... ah damn, now i clicked it!"... I really know how completely useless that makes this so-called "ignore function"... don't worry, I'm not telling anybody, I've got a thin skin, too...

I mean, hey, you know, if you don't want to read something that directly relates to you and what you have to say, because it's "too long" - does everyone need to cater to your ADD syndrome? - or is in "condescending tone" - 'cause you're not reading anything that doesn't bother to show respect for you, the reader, even if it may be relevant to the issue!  - then you have no one else to blame than yourself! ;)

I mean, if you purposefully ignore what's said to you, you run the risk of ending up looking like a complete dunce when saying things like:

If I have strongly negative preferences regarding a particular film, I see no reason to go out of my way to secure a copy so my child can watch it.

Everyone else who's read the response will think "lol, what this guy said about imposing his preferences on his kids, that just got validly compared to buying toy cars LOL, and this guy just obliviously repeats the same thing again!", and you'll just be like "haha, i have no idea what this guy sed, i do not listen, lala! i didn't click the click button... i didn't, didn't click the click button..."

Whatever, man. If someone else explains to you thoroughly how what you're doing is "manipulative", remember to get all butthurt about the "condescending tone", put them on ignore, too, and then continue on saying "lol everyone's telling me it's manipulative, but i don't see how! anyone wanna tell me?"

I see kids playing outside in the yard the whole day (in summer), do I have to conclude from this that their parents have no computer in their home, or forbid them to use it? Like, at all?

Hey, how are computers any different from board games for that matter? If a kid's just lazy and prefers sitting on his ass all day, then hey, no excuse is too bad, isn't it?

A couple of fallacies you make in your thesis:

-TV and computers only serve distraction and entertainment, and nothing useful can be gained from them.

-it's impossible to restrict their time, or, to an extent, guide their activities in those mediums, so the only solution is getting rid of them completely - along the way, sacrificing anything useful that may come out of them.

adywan said:

twooffour said:

Back then, I've left a whole bunch of comments and responses there, each last of them negative, derisive and snarky, and yet none of them has been removed to this day as far as I can tell - the only ones that hadn't been published in the first place, had cuss words in them.

I then had a brief exchange with the admin, and he confirmed that my post was deleted because of profanity, and they basically only deleted messages when they violate their rules of conduct.

 

So could it be that Adywan just swore a lot? Because they're obviously not removing comments for criticism and snarky attitude... in that case, I'd say don't count with his comments being "reposted" :D

He can, of course, resubmit them without the cuss words anytime :D

There was not a single swear word, or anything that could be mistaken for a swear word in my response. It merely blew his pathetic theories out of the water using facts that are out there from interviews etc and not some made up rubbish like his article was. It was removed for no reason at all. I didn't even verbally attach the writer of the original article in my response, just showed him that his interpretations were wrong. Nothing i wrote would have violated their rules of conduct.

I have no interest in resubmitting my response only for it to be deleted again.

That's very strange, then, because if you look over at the comment section, the MAJORITY of those comments is negative towards the article and keeps rebutting its points; I have posted a fair share of derisive stuff myself, including in direct response to McLeod himself who posted a few comments there - and yet none of that stuff was deleted.

But hey, I'm just saying it'd just be strange of them to delete yours while leaving all the others, if intolerance towards criticism was really the motivation behind this.

Leonardo said:

I know this will sound like another topic, but I feel it's related.

 

 

So, I'm no father, but if I ever become one, I want my kids to experience just one thing.

 

Something I never had.

 

 

no TV. no personal computers.

 

any thoughts on this?

Oh, sorry, I had thought you'd say "posing for pedobear pics". My bad..

So um, no, there's nothing wrong with TV or PCs as long as the time spent on them is kept at a healthy dosis. The internet is a rich education tool, as well (when you know how to use it, that is).

What kind of asinine idea is that?? You can still go out and play in the grass even when there's a computer in your room. For Christ's sake...

Akwat Kbrana said:

zombie84 said:

I'm not saying either of those things. I'm just saying, if kids want to watch something that will probably give them entertainment and fun times, it seems counter-intuitive to go to such lengths to manipulate them into not having that experience just because you didn't have it.

Rather stringent language, don't you think? How is it manipulative or excessive to educate my child about the Star Wars current state-of-affairs and explain my negative opinions of the PT to him? Just because my child "wants to watch something that will probably give [him] enjoyment and fun times", that doesn't necessitate that I go out of my way to procure specific movies and let him watch them, especially movies that I happen to dislike. For example, one of the worst films I've ever had the displeasure of seeing is Beowulf (1999) starring Christopher Lambert. If my son one day expressed a desire to watch that film, I would explain that (a) it's a very stupid, uninteresting movie, and (b) we don't own it, and (c) I'm not going to spend good money to rent a crappy movie. If he decides to watch it at a friend's house then I'm not going to do anything to stop him, but he'd be doing it with the knowledge that his dad thinks it's a crummy movie, so he's only got himself to blame if he ends up hating it. Same scenario applies to the PT...how exactly is that "manipulative"?

How it's "manipulative"? How about when you said you'd like to PERSUADE your kid into how stupid the prequels were?

Next, you proceed to express the sentiment that you can't be bothered to buy a movie FOR YOU KID, if YOU happen to dislike it, or find it "uninteresting"... Really? Hey, isn't that the whole point of buying toys, nintendos or whatever else FOR YOUR KIDS, that it's something YOUR KIDS are interested in and will spend time on, whether you yourself find it interesting or not?

Are we suppose to take from that that you aren't going to buy your son toy cars unless you enjoy playing with them, too?

Aside from that, the "good money" needed to buy an older movie is like 7 bucks, and the entire SW series is on Youtube, anyway - so is it really financial considerations that bother you about this?

but he'd be doing it with the knowledge that his dad thinks it's a crummy movie, so he's only got himself to blame if he ends up hating it.

I just crapped my pants reading that... what, SERIOUSLY? Hey, what if he DOES like the movie, then he'll think "wow, my dad's kind of a dunce for not liking this awesome flick", what then? You'll probably think something like "gee, I kind of did a mistake when trying to make him put far more weight on my personal opinions about stuff than he reasonably should, didn't I? now whenever there's a difference in reaction between us two, he'll think I'm a complete dunce who shouldn't be listened to at all when it comes to movies - it's not like he should develop his own thought and not invest himself into the opinions of others, even his parents, so much, that's completely right by me as long as he just feels thankful or guilty whenever I'm proven right - but I'M NOT A DUNCE, I DON'T WANT HIM TO THINK OF ME THIS WAY!!!"

Hey, why should anyone have anyone to BLAME for seeing a bad movie, anyway? I mean, geez, now you've seen this movie (everyone else is talking about), you've learned just one bit more about film history, you have a new experience to talk about, and you can start enjoying ripping it a new one from that day on... what's so bad about that?

I've seen a fair share of bad movies myself, either because some asshat reviewer said it was cool, or because everyone was saying it was bad; I don't blame anyone for motivating me to watch any of that stuff, I can certainly go ridicule the dumbhead reviewers for being so naive or whatever, but NOW I'VE SEEN IT AND HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT AND REFERENCE. 

Jesus H., it's just movies, not getting your teeth ripped out. Like "hey, how about I'll just ask the doctor to withhold the anesthetic during a dental procedure so I know how it feels"? "don't do son" "I will dad!" "Don't, I'm warning you." "*does* ooh.."

Akwat Kbrana said:

Well Xhonzi, since everyone else is getting on your case about what an obsessive person you are and how your efforts are doomed to futility, let me just say that I for one completely agree with your approach, and that this is how I plan on raising my children as well. My son is only fourteen months old at present, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he will be raised in a PT-free environment. I suppose if he's bound and determined to watch them he could always see them at a friend's house and there's not much I could do about that, but I'm hoping that this can be preempted by educating him about the situation and persuading him that the PT is pretty stupid and not worth watching.

My rationale is probably the same as yours. It's not a matter of censoring the movies he watches (beyond what a responsible parent should do anyway) or trying to force my views down his throat; it's more a matter of wanting him to be able to appreciate the magic of Star Wars exactly how it was before the PT came along and ruined it. Personally, I wish to high heaven someone had prevented me from ever seeing the prequels, since it irreversibly alters the context within which the OT occurs. I know you can always say "Well just ignore the PT; problem solved!" but that's really easier said than done. Whereas pre-1999 there was a lot of mystery and intrigue involved whenever I watched Star Wars ("I wonder what the clone wars were like," etc.), I now have to make a conscious decision not to think about the official crappy backstory. So while it is possible to enjoy the OT while ignoring the PT, it's still not as interesting/exciting/magical as it was in the days of pre-1999 blissful ignorance. And that's the untainted Star Wars universe that I want my kids to experience.

 

Well, there's always a solution to that "watching them at a friend's house" problem, isn't there? just be like "don't go there, kid; they all say it's just party - but the things they do there... we need to talk, son".

Anyways, "ruined"? Really? I don't think so. Did Phantom Menace really ruin Empire? Did the "noooo" really ruin "your SISter"?

How about I say Star Wars ruined Empire? Because, you know, the living, breathing, relatable person in this movie that contributes so much to the fun and charm of the "bickering willtheyorwontthey" romance and goes through angst and tragedy, was basically a space princess action girl in that previous one, with a completely ludicrous hairdo at that. Do I even need to mention ROTJ? 

So yea, how about we cut away the rest of the OT and just show him Em- oh wait, that's too dark for a kid, I guess. Hey, WHY SHOW YOUR KID A MOVIE WHERE A MAIN CHARACTER GETS ELECTROCUTED AND SCREAMS THROUGH THE FUCKING DOOR???!!

I mean, dunno, maybe it's just me, but I can always throw in my Matrix DVD inside my player, and enjoy the sense of "mystery" so deliciously pervading the first 40 minutes of that film - without having it "ruined" by the somewhat more humorous, campy and mundane / video game elements of the rest of the film, or the cringe-inducing ending - and certainly not the sequels with their boring soap opera shit in Zion.

Lambert Wilson is just such a joy to watch, do I care there's some horrendously acted angry commander type on the other side of the planet, at that very moment? Even Smith was somewhat over-the-top and eyeroll-inducing in this movies, yet his appearence in the first film isn't "ruined" for me, as well.

The opening scene of Star Trek 09 is just so incredibly awesome (at least until they get to Kirk's mum) and epic, and contains such a capturing sense of threat, shock and havoc, I certainly couldn't care less for the sillier elements of the rest of the movie (heck, even that inane carjack scene right after) "ruining" it somehow.

Heck, the Starfleet segment was really fun and entertaining until it got cut off by that distress signal - certainly not getting the bedroom scene with the green chick "ruined" for me by Spock in the Ice Planet.

I really love the opening shot of Star Wars, and the droid chapter on Tattoine, and the Death Star was really fun - I'm not getting that "ruined" for me by "we did it", or the horribly boring dogfight at the end.

Get what I'm saying? None of that really matters that much. Who's to say your kid will have just as much difficulty to severe their attachment to shittier movies when watching the OT, as you do? Who's to say your kids aren't a savvy bunch who'll reject cheesy, silly stuff right away and might even laugh at how retartedly the stormtroopers move about in that first movie (I certainly remember my own childhood and how I hated anything that's "childish" and "dumb", to the point I couldn't stand anything that's drawn or animated for a while - an over-the-top reaction as I've long realized, but still.)

So what if they won't like the OT from the scratch (or wouldn't have), would you have grabbed your head in despair, then? Why?

I'm hoping that this can be preempted by educating him about the situation and persuading him that the PT is pretty stupid and not worth watching.

That just made me LOL. PERSUADING him??

What, really? Are you going to start lecturing your little kids on the vast plot holes, lacking characterization and insufficient exposition coupled with lazy story structure? Or will it be more like "hey, look at Anakin there... you're a kid, too, and you shouldn't be talking with that voice, because it's really ANNOYING! and look at that double-headed guy making stupid jokes during the podrace... he's STUPID, don't you see? wait, you find him funny? well, he's STUPID!!"

Or is it gonna be more like "you see, we're supposed to root for a protagonist in a movie, and it's impossible to do so if the main character goes through a battle with an attitude identical to playing a videogame, and accomplishes everything by a series of completely random accidents - where's the drama? in the first original film, Luke's kinda introduced as a good, learning amateur planet, but never really as a trained tactical genius, and so his victory and sole survival at the end of the film, despite being the least experienced of the group, comes off as unrealistic; but that's the whole point, because Star Wars is meant to be an "escapist adventure", in space, where we live out our dreams of escaping from our bleak everyday reality and going on epic adventures, and performing amazing feets, making everyone else around draw their jaws, without also imagining the hard work and experience that go into such accomplishments - so it's good; and it's not the same as in EpI, because we never dream about stumbling through life like retards and accidentally accomplishing great things - our success in life depends on luck more than we'd like to admit, and that's the whole point, we don't DREAM about being lucky, we dream about being AWESOME and just like to think away all the major difficulties that real life might and will offer; so Anakin blowing up the donut ship isn't good, it's just STUPID"?

Hey, isn't acting out a video game kinda kid's dream, too? You're sitting there in the cockpit, hit random buttons, and then you blow up the evil ship and everyone cheers at you? Except it happens in a real environment, but any feel of genuine threat would ruin it?

I mean, you know, how about, if anything, you educate your kids on CRITICAL THINKING, and viewing a movie critically, with an eye for consistency and narrative techniques? Now THAT's an education. They'll learn to think and not be passive sheep accepting anything that's dumped on the screen, and they'll feel how such a thing pays off to oneself pretty quickly - yea, I remember somewhat discussing stuff, or stupid stuff, in a movie when I was 12, too.

Not in... "experiencing the magic of Star Wars". I mean, seriously?

In your case, you're an adult, and should be able to apply critical thought with ease; if you can't think away a bunch of new movies that meddled with the orginals' continuity, and thoughts of Jar Jar Binks always creep inside your head when you watch Luke getting his hand chopped off, your thought process isn't sufficiently developed and it's something you need to work on yourself.