Akwat Kbrana said:
Actually, I'm planning to read it. Not because I'm a fan of the prequels, but because both the films and reviews are within my scope of interest, and I prefer viewing both critically at any time - documents such as these can open new perspectives, if written well.
Well that's not exactly surprising. Most of your posts on this forum have been extremely long, boring walls of text arguing with TheBoost over whether or not RLM's reviews are any good. Personally, I've skipped over most of them because of their excessive verbosity, and the fact that they're dull, uninteresting, and not entertaining in the slightest. And also because I've actually got a life; why would I even care what some random dude on the internet thinks of someone else's opinion of a youtube review of a Star Wars movie? Plenty of other things to spend my time on (including the manifold other posts on OT.com that actually have something interesting to say).
So I'm unsurprised that a 108 page document about someone's youtube review of a Star Wars movie is something you'd find appealing. But I doubt there are many like you.
As for people watching the reviews cuz they ain't text - fuck that, what you're writing right now is text. Packing content into an easly digestable, amusing package can help attract people's interest, but that doesn't mean people who're already interested in the topic aren't taking a look anyway. A negative side-effect of being charismatic and entertaining is that the stupider folk ends up attached to your persona and becomes uncritical, protective fan dumb.
Congratulations on going off half-cocked and completely missing my point. Yes, my post did indeed comprise written text. It was also roughly two to three paragraphs long. My contention was not that written text is bad; only that very few people are likely to be interested in reading a book-length document that discusses perceived inadequacies of a freaking youtube movie review.
Personally, I think your comment is "sad", and "frikkin' hilarious" - in its premise, 50 times more blindly fanboyish than the object at hand, and completely superfluous:
Indeed. Who are you again? And why should I give a rat's ass? Are you seriously contending that my having taken about thirty seconds to shoot off a comment on a Star Wars message board is more fanboyish and pathetic that someone sitting down and painstakingly typing out 108 pages of text concerning the inadequacies of someone else's opinion about a Star Wars movie?
Well, you certainly have a "unique" point of view. Not that that's always a good thing...
if you're not gonna read it, don't comment.
And what the hell is this supposed to mean? By your own logic, if you didn't like my post, then you shouldn't have responded to it. Go back to the shallow end of the pool.
Well that's not exactly surprising. Most of your posts on this forum have been extremely long, boring walls of text arguing with TheBoost over whether or not RLM's reviews are any good. Personally, I've skipped over most of them because of their excessive verbosity, and the fact that they're dull, uninteresting, and not entertaining in the slightest.
I was mainly writing it for myself, and in the context of the circumstance that I had entered a debate with another user and wanted to make sure my arguments stand on both feet. Other than that, for anyone who might be interested to read it for whatever reason.
If you're not interested, then great - I never had any intention to specifically entertain you with my posts.
Now, I'm saying all of that as someone who does occasionally enjoy following some internet debate, or internet fight, about something, or between users, if I feel like it - but just to keep things in perspective, the majority of people wouldn't even care to read two posts of this very thread if linked to it, and won't give two shits about the entire forum for that matter. And, you know what? They don't have to read it.
It's all relative.
And also because I've actually got a life;
That's awesome for you, but you can't prove it here, and it doesn't matter here. Apparently, the demands of your "life" don't prevent you from getting on this forum about Star Wars, and getting involved in personal quarrels and arguments about unimportant stuff ;p
What a clichéd and useless remark.
why would I even care what some random dude on the internet thinks of someone else's opinion of a youtube review of a Star Wars movie?
You obviously cared enough to write this response, and you also cared enough about "someone else's opinion of youtube review of a star wars movie" to put your own opinion of that opinion out there ;)
And you didn't do that with the clearminded savvy attitude that no one would or should care about your comment ;)
And not one along the lines of "I don't have time for this, and not really interested, but nvm move on.", but clearly "this dude is an idiot for writing something I'm not interested in". :p
So I'm unsurprised that a 108 page document about someone's youtube review of a Star Wars movie is something you'd find appealing.
Well, it's a youtube review I highly enjoy and care about, of a movie I've seen and talked about quite a few times. So yea, not particularly surprised either.
But I doubt there are many like you.
Well no one said they have to read it, right?
Although, to be fair, whoever spends some time on discussing about Star Wars and these particular reviews, or often uses these reviews a stick to beat SW fans with, or any other comparable variant, would have an intellectual obligation to look at the article if he wanted to continue debating and pointing to the review :)
Plenty of other things to spend my time on (including the manifold other posts on OT.com that actually have something interesting to say).
So... your "life", huh? :p
If I may suggest, how about you go read those posts on OT.com that you're so interested in?
Ironical how I, despite being aware of being on a forum that is mainly devoted to the preservation of the OT, fan edits of the PT and meticulous shot-by-shot comparisons between the various versions of the films, am not particularly interested in any of those (although can't say entirely desinterested, either) and yet I don't go on those threads and tell everyone how uninteresting I find those efforts.
Mainly probably because I recognize the value of it, and why some are, in fact, interested.
So, next, you quote a section of my post which first off-handedly mentions how everything you write and read here (and NOT just your last post, but the entirety of text) is text, and arguable often boring text as well, and then mainly deals with the issue of charismatic, entertaining presentation and its ups and downs.
Obviously, you only respond to the former ;)
Congratulations on going off half-cocked and completely missing my point. Yes, my post did indeed comprise written text. It was also roughly two to three paragraphs long. My contention was not that written text is bad; only that very few people are likely to be interested in reading abook-length document
No, actually you said that only "mindless Lucas gushers" would read that sort of fanboi crap, and the guy was a sad idiot for doing it at all.
Big difference to a dry observation about how many people aren't likely to get to read the article. You actually litereally said the guy sucked because he wrote something you have no interest in.
that discusses perceived inadequacies of a freaking youtube movie review.
Yea, that "freaking youtube review" that you found so entertaining, right? The one that goes on for 70 minutes itself, providing kinda lots of material for potential analysis or rebuttals?
Add to that the gleeful and kinda butthurt (am I reading between the lines there?) tone of your post, and the fact that the article in question isn't just a long article about the review but one that is aimed against it, and how it apparently supports "Lucas gushers", and the very penetrant image arises that actually, you care, you kinda don't like the fact that someone attempted to dissect that entertaining video review that's against the star wars prequels, and your whole post was clearly aimed at putting down the guy who wrote it.
Indeed. Who are you again? And why should I give a rat's ass?
Well don't, then :P ;)
Are you seriously contending that my having taken about thirty seconds to shoot off a comment on a Star Wars message board is more fanboyish and pathetic that someone sitting down and painstakingly typing out 108 pagesof text
Yes, because fanboyism is a qualifier of someone's thought process and how opinions and arguments are formed, and the person's motivations behind doing so - not the length and quantity of it.
Fanboyism is defined by a combination of specific fallacies, circular logic / dogmatism, self-contradictions / hypocrisy, dishonesty etc. caused by logically unjustified admiration of, emotional attachment to and personal investment in a given work, or given artist or person.
If there's any derogatory word for investing disproportionate time on something arguably "unimportant" in a larger context (that is if you can prove it actually is unimportant, and doing the work destroyed the life and health of its author), it would be "nerdy".
People who're all obsessed about Star Trek and know everything about its canon and get terribly upset about some new movie "violating" it, are called "nerds" because they invest way too much passion into a bunch of (mediocre and campy) fiction.
Although even then, it's really because of the obsession with fictional stuff being correct or regarded, not savvy insightful criticism of writing quality. But hey, people invested in classical music history are called "nerds", too. Whatever.
concerning the inadequacies of someone else's opinion about a Star Wars movie?
Well technically the RLM reviews are at least as much opinion as they are attempts at actual objective reasoning and analysis. Actually, the latter overweighs significantly.
In fact, the writer of the rebuttal put a disclaimer on that in his intro, but then, you wouldn't know since you haven't read it, right?
By your own logic, if you didn't like my post, then you shouldn't have responded to it.
Congrats on falling into the very predictable trap, sir.
No, see, there's a crucial difference between "don't like don't comment" and "don't care don't comment", especially since "comment" here is equivalent to "bash".
As in "don't like don't bash" (which is nonsense and a frequent fanboi defense against criticism - not liking is the very reason for the bashing, and no one is obligated to only watch and comment on things they like, because both of the above are determined by interest, not approval or enjoyment) and "don't care, don't bash" (which is spot on, because if you don't care, and don't care enough to look at it, you have no feet to stand on if you're gonna "bash" it, and only make yourself look like a dunce).
I never actually said I didn't "care" about your comment (obviously I cared just enough to write a response, and then some), and the reason I responded and deconstructed it is not so much because I didn't "like" it, but because it's utter biased nonsense consisting of nothing but fallacies.
Obviously, in the grand picture of things (things like that pdf rebuttal of some review), your comment doesn't really matter ;)
Welcome to the internet.
