|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Nov 26, 2019 22:11:59 GMT
Hello there!
I came across a staunchly negative review of Attack of the Clones earlier, which made incredible claims, and I thought it might be wise to open up a discussion of it here to all on this growing forum. Many of us have our disagreements on the ST, which was inevitable to some degree, so its times like this where we remind ourselves that we are united in our rejection of the abhorrent slandering of the PT and George Lucas. This one comes from Entertainment Weekly, which is quite disappointing considering the prequel cover they'd put out for their latest magazine issue.
Given that Episode IX - what we're told is the final instalment of the saga - will be shortly upon us, I suspect many more rewatches/reviews of the prequels will be coming (which can be linked here). It's going to be interesting to see what the assessment will be like given that the PT generation has found a voice online (starting about 2016 I would argue) and to how much that has affected the critic class. Or it may just be terrifying, as this EW one seems to indicate.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Nov 26, 2019 22:58:40 GMT
This article is total crap, excuse my rudeness.
I didn't bother to read carefully after the leade as itself is full propaganda cliche. Why? becuase it attacks the opening title of the movie with no arguments, there are just exclamations and irony. "Belittle the opponent in all ways": is aold and relatively efficient trick only here it doesn't work at all. ""Several thousand! On this side of the screen, we only ever get to experience the one. And our system’s shrinking: When Star Wars: Attack of the Clones hit theaters in 2002, there were still nine planets"". And this should be some compliment but it sounds like ironic remark. And later it becomes even worse and pretentious, so pretentious that is even stupid. Is an irony as the author greatest complain is that there some "stupid"things in the movie.
Actually I don't want even to discuss the utter stupidities later in this disjointed chaotic essay (I use this word as it means an attempt in French as you know) because that would mean that is worthy to discuss it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Nov 27, 2019 0:40:02 GMT
1,944 words of garbage. Here it is for your convenience, with my annotations:
“Several thousand solar systems,” reads the opening crawl, “have declared their intentions to leave the Republic.” Several thousand! On this side of the screen, we only ever get to experience the one. And our system’s shrinking: When Star Wars: Attack of the Clones hit theaters in 2002, there were still nine planets.
A non sequitur. What a fantastic start.
So credit this second prequel for expansive possibility. The Phantom Menace contracted its cinematic universe into parliamentary hotel hallways. There was also that return trip to Tatooine — and Return of the Jedi started this retreading years earlier, another adventure propelling desert to Death Star.
There is no war without politics behind it. The Phantom Menace did extraordinary well in showing us how a galactic-spanning civilisation might be governed, and the design of those "parliamentary hotel hallways" showed us how sleek and vibrant everything was before its collapse. I'm looking out for that "dessert to Death Star" label in your TFA review.
The high I’m chasing with Star Wars demands new thrills: Worlds within worlds, glimpsed outside a speeding window between blaster fire. And Clones has sequences that tap the primal Glance-Around-the-Cantina energy. The ships look cooler, for one thing. Senator Amidala (Natalie Portman) flies a mirror-plated galacti-yacht, which floats downward over cloudy Coruscant in the moody opening scene. Later, Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) floats between starscapes in an insectile vessel powered by giant swirling parachute. A sailboat for space? That’s the smart kind of silly, a hysterical travesty against logic.
Couldn't hand out praise without hurling in some negativity, could you?
Whereas: So much about Attack of the Clones is the silliest version of smart. Here’s another parade of dignitaries, long conversations on terrible couches, banal governmental hyperrealism crafted by someone who hates politics too much to understand it. George Lucas internalized all the Phantom Menace criticisms, and his response runs deeper than reducing the role of Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best). Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) begs his mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) not to give him “another lecture” on “the economics of politics.” That line comes right before Obi-Wan jumps headfirst through a 700th floor window into a multi-elevation car chase. You sense a direct response to any Too Slow-niks in the audience: You wanted action? Here’s a fast and furious Jedi!
George hates politics? Are you kidding me? Do you not realise how effective the Prequel Trilogy is at mirroring the fall of the real-life Weimar Republic? That's right, you don't, because because you've never bothered to pay any attention to European political history. That "hyperrealism" serves as a important lesson to what can happen to a country. And what on Earth is wrong with showing how a stubborn young Jedi would behave? Star Wars often jumped into action during the OT, so you Mr. Reviewer, are the one nit picking.
Then the hot-rodding ends, and we’re into a goofball counterplot web. Obi-Wan shows up at a hidden planet, where a race of X-Files aliens have bio-engineered an entire clone army for the Republic. That army, it emerges, grew from the DNA of Jango Fett (Temuera Morrison). Jango just tried to assassinate Padmé: Quite a coincidence!
Throwing insults at the X-Files. Real classy.
I suppose you can’t blame clones for the murderous actions of his source-material bio-daddy. Still, imagine: You trip, fall, and land on an army big enough to assault several thousand solar systems. The army belongs to you now, and by the way, this planet-scorching space force sprouted from the genetic code of a guy who just tried to kill your friend.
You might ask some follow-up questions. Assume the worst about the Jedi High Council, though. Are they supposed to be ridiculous yes-man saps cut off from society with no awareness of the problems facing Republic citizens, or is that just a fascinating narrative accident? Padmé asks why an explosion just incinerated her fellow citizens, and Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) monotones a brush-off explanation: “Our intelligence points to disgruntled spice miners on the moons of Naboo.” Well, one may well inquire, will we be responding somehow to this disgruntlement? And what has occurred in the spice industry to disgruntle the miners so?
The Jedi Council were happily shown to be flawed as early as TPM. Their reluctance to accept Anakin into the Order for being "too old" is very hash, yet that's the way a strict institution would operate. Although I might disagree with much of the behaviour of the Council in its final years, I find absolutely nothing ridiculous or absurd about it. If Anakin was eventually going to turn on the Jedi, then there needn't to be something unlikeable about them that the audience could also feel.
Instead, the senator firmly declares her (accurate) theory that renegade ex-Jedi Count Dooku was behind the attempt. “He’s a political idealist, not a murderer,” says that tall-headed toady Ki-Adi-Mundi (Silar Carson). Right, because when have ideological extremists advocating for a society-splitting secession ever murdered anyone?
Political schemers do not always preach the need for violence. If they have enough wealth and connections, they may not need to resort to any assassination. This is the essence of Ki-Adi Mundi's argument, and his believe that Dooku wouldn't turn to thuggish means is shaped by the considerable time he knew him as Jedi. The lack of suspicious of Palpatine then is an even greater nativity that everyone is guilty of.
You could go crazy pondering the Clone Wars. There have been wonderful close reads of the logistical incoherence therein. And plot nonsense does not have to be a problem! I’ve only recently caught up with Genndy Tartakovsky’s 2003 Clone Wars spin-off, a blitzkrieg burst of science-fantastical majesty set in the prequel time frame. A few strung-together three-minute episodes of that short-run cartoon could feature skulltech biker gangs, subaquatic scuttle tanks, midair lightsaber duels, a monolithic quake-tank stabbing pits into a battlefield like a giant tectonic hole-puncher. (Not currently on Disney+, sadly.)
There is no "plot nonsense" in the development of the Clone War. It may be a ludicrous war designed by a single person, but if you'll allow yourself to read-up on that thing you're so ignorant of called history, you'll see that World War I was hardly any more logical. You can take your 2003 Clone Wars ramble elsewhere, you're padding your narrow-minded review here.
The problem with Attack of the Clones is a total lack of personality. This isn’t just a stylistic critique: It’s the whole narrative. In this movie, armies are industrialized toward inhumanity: Soldier droids on Geonosis, behavior-modified clones on Kamino. They’re identical Nobody militaries. We’re not looking for War and Peace here. One frequent complaint about the prequels was the lack of a Han Solo archetype, all flagrant fun. I think what you really miss, though, are second-tier recognizables like Kenneth Colley’s scaredy-cat Admiral Piett, or Jabba’s shirtless Rancor trainer (Paul Brooke) crying for his monster baby, or even the X-Wing pilots with nifty personalized helmets.
Do you even understand how science fiction works? Clones and robots are common features, and it is entirely logical that they would be abused by someone as wicked as a Sith Lord. How else do you think he's going to come to power? Where do you think all the spaceships and technology the Empire had in the OT came from, thin air? We can say with a badge of honour that this is War and Peace and boy has it never looked more terrifying.
As for the lack of a Han Solo, have you ever picked up on the trolling of Obi-Wan? I would much rather a new idea than the copy and paste you're wishing for. The prequels have plenty of second-tier recognizables in Dexter Jetster, Watto and Captain Panaka, who all have their own memorable personalities.
In Attack of the Clones, there are generals and then there are faceless soldiers. And even the people in charge are mass-manufactured. The Jedi knights, turns out, are an emotionless priestly overclass raised in a society of parentless tutorials. Anakin’s big issue, amazingly, is that he really misses his mother — a big no-no. In Phantom Menace, Mace Windu declared prepubescent Anakin “too old” for training. Say, just what kind of indoctrination ritual are they running in this freak temple, where you take a vow of celibacy sometime around kindergarten?
They are also the guardians of peace in the Galaxy, making them a special kind of police force. They are perfectly entitled to have their own rules, which has largely been an enormous success for both them an the Republic's wellbeing. Would you rather the Jedi as a rogue force-wielding organisation under no supervision? It sounds like you would. Again, I have my own issues with the Order, which I've explained in-depth on another thread, but what else do you expect from a group envisioned in the OT as a blend between Samurai and medieval monks? You wanted the Jedi to be helpless victims of the downfall of the Republic? I think it's immensely better that they were part of the problem that created Darth Vader.
This hyper-specialization is a cultural norm. Padmé recalls her first-ever preteen love, Palo: “We were both in the legislative youth program.” That phrase stinks of Old Etonian aristocracy. Anakin and Padmé will have a couple kids, and one notional tragedy we attach to those children is that they are orphaned, growing up separated into foster families. There’s evidence, though, that this would’ve been their destiny in regular Republic society: shuttled off to boarding school for babyfaced benevolent despots, getting midichlorian measurements for potential Padawanhood just in time for their sixth birthday.
Oh, so you're upset by the idea of a boarding school? You sound like some bitter old Marxist here, out of touch, and perhaps angered that society doesn't conform to your archaic doctrine. This paragraph saids so much about the snarky individual you probably are in real-life, always with a chip on your shoulder, and never willing to see things in another light. I wasn't orphaned, but if I was I think I would be quite upset about your highly insensitive use of the term.
Here, then, is the final battle of Attack of the Clones: a showdown between multiple assembly lines. Perhaps you’re inclined to excavate military-industrial thematics here. Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) is the secret benefactor behind all these shell companies, running both sides of the war. There’s a dismissive sourness here, though, too morose for satire. We’re at the outer limits of Lucas’ imagination, and all he can do is fill in the blanks with blanks.
Yeah, it's called "Star Wars". There tends to be battles, buddy...
And remember: This is another bad Star Wars prequel that would prove stunningly influential for film productions, leading theaters around the world to convert to digital (or die). And you have to remember the essential reason for the cinematic transition away from shooting on celluloid: Digital video was cheaper. That doesn’t immediately mean worse, of course. But despite a $100-million-plus price tag, Attack of the Clones is the first Star Wars that feels cut-rate. All the human action in the gladiatorial finale looks painful, the worst possible combination of community theater stage combat with Virtua Fighter. The big battle scene is all digital ragefuzz firing fleshless energy rocketry. Of course, nobody needs an artist on the assembly line.
"That doesn’t immediately mean worse, of course". Why the heck have you gone on this tirade then? If the quality hasn't dropped, why did you feel the necessity to include a cinema history in a review? That's right, you've found yourself a lame excuse to blame George Lucas for the fall of cinema itself.
—————————————————
There is one fascinating possibility you cannot overlook here. Remember: Anakin Skywalker is a terrible human being, an eventual mass murderer running military maneuvers for a genocidal Empire. He’ll strangle his commanders, and slice off his son’s hand. Lucas (and Luke Skywalker) would argue that he was redeemable. You wonder what the citizens of Alderaan would say about that, or the families of Rebel pilots gunned down by Vader’s bespoke TIE fighter. I know, I know, Darth Vader is cool — but you wouldn’t want to stage a philosophical defense of his actions. (The argument turns into “He vas only following orders!” faster than you think.)
Attack of the Clones is our first proper introduction to Anakin Skywalker as an adult. And it turns out this incredibly superpowerful young man, raised with messianic potential by a lawman caste of spiritual zealots, is… a lovesick proto-fascist egomaniac, with a habit of killstreaking through tribal humanoids on the principle that they are “like animals.”
Credit that second bit as a vengeful overreaction from a grieving son. Seriously, though, is he supposed to be a such a creep? Certainly, he’s a walking How-To-Not for young men with a crush. The first thing he says to Padmé Amidala — a powerful politician he’s tasked with to guarding — is that she’s “grown more beautiful.” Okay, okay, some tongue-tied banter from a guy raised without social niceties. (It’s almost textual that Anakin’s a never-been-kissed virgin.) This is his whole move, though: “You’re exactly the way I remember you in my dreams,” he might say, or this choice exchange:
PADMÉ: Please don’t look at me like that.
ANAKIN: Why not?
PADMÉ: It makes me feel uncomfortable.
You can explain away this material. Lucas was terrible with love dialogue, so he and co-writer Jonathan Hales are coughing up rom-com banter sans rom and com. Portman is a good actress playing a bland character, and Christensen is a bland actor playing a bland character, so they’ve got the chemistry of two chess pieces. There’s a tangible effect created by the artistic lacking, though. Re-examine these close-ups, right before Anakin kisses Padmé for the first time:
Can you sense a strong emotional divide here? How would you describe the look on her face? I read boredom, disbelief, even an eye-roll. Later, Anakin cries over how the kiss was her fault:
I’m in agony. The closer I get to you, the worse it gets. The thought of not being with you makes my stomach turn over. My mouth goes dry. I feel dizzy. I can’t breathe. I’m haunted by the kiss you should never have given me. My heart is beating, hoping that kiss will not become a scar. You are in my very soul, tormenting me.
That’s gaslighting behavior. Too harsh? Even if you’re cutting serious slack for (awful) melodrama, certain lines jump out now for pure Inappropriate Andy awkwardness. Here’s Anakin outside Padmé’s bedroom: “She covered the cameras. I don’t think she liked me watching her.” Not to worry, though, his powers offer total surveillance: “I can sense everything going on in that room.” How fun for her — or anyone, for that matter, who dares to close the door on a Jedi knight.
Actually: Is this why Jedi are sworn against relationships? Are their abilities dangerous, a gateway to Orwellian omniscience — or, hell, subtle telepathic suggestions? Padmé asks Anakin, “You gonna use one of your Jedi mind tricks on me?” Holy hell, does that ever happen?
While you’re pondering that, don’t forget the symbolic triangulation entrapping Anakin between his mom (Pernilla August) and Padmé. “I keep dreaming about [my mother],” the young Padawan says, before noting, “I’d rather dream about Padmé.” Later, Anakin will say, “I saw my mother. She is suffering, Padmé. I saw her as clearly as I see you now.” Freud would have a field day — and then Anakin jumps onto Amidala’s bed with his lightsaber out.
I know this is a rabbit hole, but with 2019 eyes, there’s a tangible new terror underlying Attack of the Clones. It’s there when you discover, casually, that Luke Skywalker’s grandmother was a slave who married the farmer who owned her — Faulknerian family history, left freakishly unpacked. Anakin Skywalker is a very modern grotesque, the obsessive romantic who isn’t shy about declaring that democracy blows.
And consider poor Padmé Amidala, a woman surrounded by men she can’t depend on. She says Count Dooku tried to assassinate her — and the Jedi hand-wave her home, in time to miss a crucial civilization-altering vote about a military armament. Obi-Wan doesn’t trust her, because she’s a politician. Anakin’s making goo-goo eyes. The chancellor is too busy for her theories, slash he’s secretly a Dark Lord of the Sith. Can someone find this poor woman just one ally? “Representative Binks, I know I can count on you,” she says: Her death warrant, signed. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Dec 10, 2019 0:34:45 GMT
this was my reply in the comments section of the article...
Why is it that you have to be so purposefully obtuse in order to regurgitate the old and tiresome talking points about this movie. This movie is top 4 for me in Star Wars movies. I love the people that sit there and complain about the love story in this movie. I say this every time someone talks about how bad Anakins lines are in this movie when it comes to his interaction with Padme.. Guess what, those lines are meant to be like that, because that is how most young men, whom have had very little romantic interaction, act. I love seeing the endless critiques of Anakins dialogue coming from an army of men, as if every single one of these men were smooth talking operators that were able to land every woman they ever talked to with the best lines ever heard. I love how every thinks they are a Lando Calrissian, but in the end, the reality is you were nothing but another Anakin Skywalker, falling over your own tongue with incomprehensible babble.
Anakin was creepy? As opposed to the actions of Han Solo? Whom has his own #metoo moment in ESB when he corners Leia, and without consent, touches here, does not listen when she says stop, than proceeds to push himself on her for a kiss...a move that Harvey Weinstein would appreciate! But he is a hero, he is lovable... Anakin... lusts after a woman, makes some googly eyes, and OMG.. he is creepy.. he is horrible,
The description of the events in AOTC in this article is purposefully ignorant in order to prove it's narrative. If the author of this article had half a brain, they would have realized that the Jedi have no say in whether the Clones were used or not. That is up to the Senate, not the Jedi. Guess what, the Senate is more worried about the reality that the Separatists were creating their own army, they did not care where the Clones came from, they did not care what the circumstances were. The Senators were more worried about self-preservation than that of asking the correct questions. The Jedi were along for the ride. It is clear the Jedi have many questions about the origin of the army, however, they are not the Senate, they are not the Republic, they do not get a vote in the Senate, which is perfectly shown when all Yoda and Mace can do is watch the Senate vote from a doorway.
I could go on and on, but it is really hard taking articles like this serious when they can't seem to put enough brain power into watching the movie and paying attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 10, 2019 4:00:00 GMT
This article is total crap, excuse my rudeness. I could go on and on, but it is really hard taking articles like this serious when they can't seem to put enough brain power into watching the movie and paying attention. Don't stress, guys. I'm working on a big response to this. The reviewer makes a cavalcade of idiotic assertions, but that hasn't stopped me taking them on. In fact, I somehow seem to have been inspired! Arch Duke already knows about my upcoming response. In fact, I started writing it at his request -- though I was a little reluctant to get going at first. Mainly because, as prequel fans, we've all been down this road a million times before. "Purposefully obtuse" puts it quite well. This is very much a regurgitation of old and tiresome talking points. The author appears to have an ideological axe to grind, as Tony suggested ("propaganda cliches"). But again, stay tuned. My response is almost done. I challenge anyone to read it in a single sitting. If you don't think Cryo has gone completely crazy this time, just wait till I hit that "Create Post" button again, in a few days. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Dec 12, 2019 5:27:20 GMT
The never-ending influence of The Phantom Menace
Revenge of the Sith turns a hero into a special effect for thunderous applause
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Dec 13, 2019 16:08:48 GMT
I suppose this is a thread about what not to click on. Don't forget that giving them clicks is giving them money.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Dec 13, 2019 22:45:19 GMT
I suppose this is a thread about what not to click on. Don't forget that giving them clicks is giving them money.
That's a fair point, Alex, but like the bully in the school yard, ignoring them is usually easier said than done. Sometimes you've just got to stand up to them, which is a message Lucas preaches in the Original Trilogy.
I'm fine with other people thinking differently on the PT (or the ST), but in the case of these recent ones from Damian at Entertainment Weekly, they've gone way over the top in their vitriol. Cryogenic has long enjoyed taking these loosers down a few pegs, and I think we'd be foolish to discourage him.
As for clicks, I can transcribe the other articles onto here if you'd like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 13, 2019 23:46:58 GMT
I suppose this is a thread about what not to click on. Don't forget that giving them clicks is giving them money. That's a fair point, Alex, but like the bully in the school yard, ignoring them is usually easier said than done. Sometimes you've just got to stand up to them, which is a message Lucas preaches in the Original Trilogy. Exactly. It was the likes of these articles spreading their extremely one-sided talking points and smug vitriol that caused a lot of damage from the start, and then subsequently enabled the bashing fan hordes in a negative feedback loop: a sort of dark, Sith-like symbiotic parasitism. Even Disney cynically cashed in on it. As yourself (Alex) were at pains to point out some months ago, Ahmed Best wasn't wounded only from repetitious fan blather, but rather, his career prospects were shot down by rampant disdaining and naysaying in the wider geek-media. It was the latter, you contended, that had the larger impact on his mental health, taking him to a very bleak moment in his life. While I don't think it necessarily makes good sense to counteract and argue down each and every new hit-piece that appears, I think we have an obligation, as dedicated prequel fans, to at least mount a defence against some of them, if only to prove to others it can be done. It's also easy to hide behind a cynical mantra and adopt a shoulder-shrugging attitude. Factually, what you're saying may not be exactly wrong, but I think there's a broader spirit of principled resistance you're gainsaying against. Flipping your objection around, it's also what some fans with negative views of these films have said in the past: i.e., "Don't keep spending your money on Star Wars merchandise. You're just lining Lucas' pockets." I do think it's unfortunate such negativity gets financially incentivised and rewarded, but I'm not sure, at this instant, what I can do about it. A lot of money in the world is put to dark purposes. But in a democratic space, people are entitled to speak out -- indeed, people need to speak out. Again, that's not to say I'm foisting this view down the throats of other fans. But I do think, on balance, they should use their voice, when they can, and consider it a kind of public service, by disputing the bad, chanting the good, and protecting what are -- really -- extremely valuable and politically profound films in this most disquieting and troubling of times. I can hardly dispute this reading. And thanks for the compliment/recognition. I've derived some personal satisfaction over the years getting into the mud and wrestling back against the rhetoric of people like this reviewer -- who, as you just said, has gone way out of bounds in their supercilious bile. My article is almost finished now. I've been saying it for a few days, I know, but the end is swinging into sight. However, due to how busy this thread has suddenly become, I may have to abandon my original intent of posting my response here. I was originally going to drop it right here, in this very thread, without commenting in advance, as a hefty surprise. But I've already announced the thing, and this thread just happened to explode to life at the same time. I am now increasingly persuaded that my response (which is now in excess of 50,000 words) deserves a dedicated thread of its own. Not sure who's going to sit there and read the full thing, but it should at least be a useful (and, hopefully, inspiring) reference piece. |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Dec 14, 2019 0:33:09 GMT
CryogenicPlease Publish it i would like to read it
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 14, 2019 1:00:40 GMT
@cryo Please Publish it i would like to read it Thank you, Joe.  It's coming up very shortly! Early Xmas present for all PT/Naberrie Fields fans! |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Dec 14, 2019 1:02:28 GMT
If anyone has any reason as to why Cryo and his rebuke should NOT be posted to another thread, please speak now or forever hold your silence.
You know, I feel this sort of gleeing anticipation now for what is in reality only a long takedown of a review, and that maybe I should be reserving for TROS ("nervous" is the emotion to describe me for that one). Is this what it feels like to be eagerly awaiting a Plinkett review?
You should title the thread "Debunking an anti-AOTC review" or maybe "Refuting a hater of Attack of the Clones". Short and Simple. Would anyone be willing to send the refutation to the reviewer in question, Darren Franich? I think if we're serious about this, we should - there is no need to be ashamed about our writing. Maybe somebody who is on Twitter can do so? Or maybe Cryo might try emailing him it (or a link to it)? If we are polite and cordial about this, there's no reason to think he'll ignore us.
After such an exhausting effort for AOTC, I worry you might go the Donald Trull route, and only give us a half measure for his scathing review of ROTS. There are 3 parts to this, and I think it would be a terrible shame to let him off on other prequels. I mean, I'm willing to do one of those for you, but my 2,000 word annotations just isn't a Cryogenic 5,000-er, not to mind anything larger! You could even make this an important writing project if you wanted? At this stage, there's no reason to back down: throw the whole kitchen sink at it, and do not be surprised if some of us end up sending it to podcasters or people of influence within the fandom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 14, 2019 2:05:36 GMT
If anyone has any reason as to why Cryo and his rebuke should NOT be posted to another thread, please speak now or forever hold your silence. Most kind! Besides, I'd only be cluttering up your thread, otherwise, detracting from its wider purpose -- of capturing these various hit-pieces, and maybe encouraging "soft" responses. Mine has definitely turned into a "hard" defence. If I were doing Brexit, I'd be out Johnsoning Boris Johnson, right now! Too soon?
HA! I remember when they were coming out for the first time -- yes, I'm that old, and I have the battle scars to prove it. Well, I have a fairly clear memory of the ROTS one going up, and a member summarising it in an RLM thread on the dreaded TFN in the PT forum (I was heavily involved in aforesaid thread). The others, I certainly remember when they got posted, especially the TPM one, but mainly because of how it earned "celebrity" approval from Damon Lindelof and Simon Pegg -- also eagerly reported in the geek-media. I'd like to think they somewhat regret those eager affirmations, in retrospect, ten years later.
Dang! Yes... It's almost the tenth anniversary of the TPM one coming out! Took Jim Raynor a year to muster his legendary 108-page rebuttal. I suppose I was loosely inspired by his example. Just as he saw fit to defend the charms and the basic plot logic of TPM at length, so I have gone a little crazy sticking up for the middle prequel. What we need, as you might have been hinting at, below, is someone as equally impassioned to burn a blazing hole in the Internet and defend ROTS up a storm, in a third and final response. Three responses by different authors, in different contexts, might be interesting.
My projected title is something like: "Fan Rebuttal To Typical AOTC Hater Review" Tipping my hat to Raynor's earlier rebuttal, I could also subtitle it: "Another Study In Fanboy Stupidity" I'm perhaps more likely, concerning the main title, to make reference to the publication. I know, it's free publicity, but it pins it more to a particular thing. Raynor did that, too. His full title was: "Red Letter Media's Episode I Review: A Study In Fanboy Stupidity" A nice little document, which I still have -- caused quite a stir at the time, but is largely forgotten today. That's the way of the Internet, though. At the moment, I wouldn't recommend anyone sending it to the reviewer himself. I mean, maybe, sure. But I do lob a few insults his way. It was my way of keeping the thing both light and impassioned. To send him a direct link might almost qualify as harassment. I'm already giving his lawyer ideas. But in the interests of free speech, insults are allowed -- if they weren't, we might as well be living in North Korea. However, perhaps a more neutral eye can go over my response, when it's published, and politely suggest where I might have erred. Of course, I am not saying my response is insult-laden. But in a few places, I can't resist calling his remarks "idiotic", or suggesting he's an ideological twit with an axe to grind. So perhaps I'll go back and tone a few sentences down. But not right now. I just want the thing done. However, with your suggestion here in mind, I'll try and take a more circumspect look, before I finally submit, and make sure I haven't gone over the top. I don't want anything to sound too offensive or recklessly hateful. I mean, in many ways, that's what prequel fans have spent twenty years fighting against. It's just... using the Dark Side a teeny bit is hard to resist.  That wasn't a pun there, was it? ROTS' opening shot... www.eeggs.com/items/44796.htmlWell, today, TPM and AOTC are my favourite Star Wars films, followed by TLJ, followed by ROTS, then the OT trailing with TFA. I don't even include the spinoffs. However, I do need to keep wider sharing in mind. So perhaps I can tune my response up some more after posting it. I already feel overwhelmed thinking about another defence, especially for a film I like a little less than I used to (but am still awed about and strongly admire overall). You know, as happens in life, your heart may (or may not) stay relatively centered, but your mind tends to re-position itself a bit and sometimes moves onto other things. Hell, I think I've always gotten more of a kick from defending TPM and AOTC, than I have ROTS. The latter kind of speaks for itself. TPM and AOTC remain the black sheep of the saga family -- well, until Rian Johnson dropped the art-bomb of TLJ on the world, anyway. I'm not above a big defence of all the prequels combined. As you know, I've been working on one for some time. This response is more of a distraction -- "for fun" -- that has overlap with that other project, but isn't exactly the same thing (though they are cut from the same cloth). For now, I want to rest easy after this response, for a bit. I don't want to sound as if I'm constantly blowing my own trumpet, but while I've written this thing very quickly, without too much struggle, I'm a little drained as I reach the finish line, and I suppose it does feel like I've just run a marathon in my mind. But yeah... If people want to promote it, that would be welcome! Just hope I haven't gotten too insulting. I was originally writing it for the amusement of a limited audience; but always with the possibility of wider sharing somewhere in the back of my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Dec 14, 2019 7:15:05 GMT
And I had no idea this document even existed, so I've never had the opportunity to forgot it. Could it be that this man too deserves to be knighted for his service to good prequel writing? Well, maybe not a knighthood, but surely a digital medal for producing a near-book length rebuttal of YouTube's original toxic fanboy. I love that he went to such an staggering length put them in their place, as if purely to belittle a seemingly long 90 minute video review.
While running a search for Jim I came across an interesting blog that had linked to his PDF. It turns out this chap, Nick Alimonos, who I believe is a published fantasy writer, has been defending Lucas and the TPM has far back as 2011 during peak basher season. He's got quite the litany of prequel writing, was heartbroken by the sale to Disney and questioned TFA when everyone else was happily under the spell of Jar Jar Abrams:
And in the spirit of all great bloggers, Nick has lead me to to another. This guy is Bob Clark, a film critic, and he's produced a 10,000-worder on AOTC that may be of use to your rebuke's arsenal of sources. And it was in 2010: just look at the large mob he attracts in the comment section. But you've already read it before, haven't you?
Back to your message
ROTS has never had an endure the kind of onslaught that TPM and AOTC did. It enjoys a grand reputation on the internet today, with even Abrams and Johnson speaking in-depth about the scenes they admire (ok, the former hasn't really spoken at length yet, but he has made a start). There really is no persistent need to go on the defensive because if a reviewer wants to bad mouth it, an army of internet users lies ready and willing to attack them almost immediately. That ain't the case with Clones, where you have to work your ass off to persuade one person. I believe Phantom has received an uptick in support this year, and the 20th anniversary definitely helped. Jar Jar and Midichlorians, even combined, do not match the vitriol levelled at the romantic plot (which includes critique of ROTS scenes).
Now we're talking.
You need to prepare two version: one for here, with all the profanity for to the amusement of the plebs, and then another for a more "civilised" audience, so you can be taken seriously, as a man of letters. Shall you be presenting it as a Word or PDF document? And I take it you're going full academic with citations and a bibliography of articles at the end? At 50,000 words - what is that, 70-80 pages at size 12? - why the heck not?
"You're going down a path I can't follow!" - Padmé
Reminds me of what he said about forgetting some of the common arguments we'd deployed against bashers. It's not like we stop caring, it's just that time passes and new interests come into focus to obscure the past ones. As long as our written stuff is documented and filed away correctly, a reawakening is possible. It's like re-reading a great novel.
"You can't stop the change any more than you can stop the suns from setting" - Shmi
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Dec 14, 2019 10:12:19 GMT
I would rather write a positive essay on the topic than respond to every single troll who for some reasons has access to media publishing (no matter how geek or marginal it is). Unfortunately these are popular. I don't have anything against an intelligent, normal discussion with arguments, but especially the first text quoted by Archduke is a perfect example of media trolling (the media writers do that a lot and no, I wouldn't call him journalist because this is not journalism, is trolling). And when someone is trolling he is even ignoring or lying about evident facts. So, writing a positive review helps more effectively. And of course if there is more and more positive reviews then great. If the reader is so stupid beyond limits so he cannot recognize the lack of sense in reviews like the infamous RLM, well, there is nothing that can be done then. This reader would go and see the most senseless movie branded with SW logo in which Luke Skywalker and Lando Calrisian sit on cantina in planet Toutaine and talk about the differences between green and blue milk and defeat the Emperor with green one.
There is no coincidence that the ST is what it is. Abrams is a director and producer who makes his movies to please the fans desires and whines and that is what we receive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Dec 14, 2019 14:54:36 GMT
That's a fair point, Alex, but like the bully in the school yard, ignoring them is usually easier said than done. Sometimes you've just got to stand up to them, which is a message Lucas preaches in the Original Trilogy. Yes, but this isn't standing up to them. It's not a one on one conversation. This is reacting to publications where the author doesn't care about reactions one way or the other. He cares about controversy and web traffic it generates on the website he works for. Whatever we say here (or elsewhere for that matter), the author is not aware of and even if he was, he doesn't care. Standing up would be taking it directly to the author, but in these cases, they don't have courage to stand up for what they said nor are they willing to discuss it. They will block you on sight if you approach them with that intention. Not saying we can't discuss these published diatribes among ourselves. I'm just saying that spreading the links around to be clicked is playing their game. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Dec 14, 2019 18:02:15 GMT
I would rather write a positive essay on the topic than respond to every single troll who for some reasons has access to media publishing (no matter how geek or marginal it is). Unfortunately these are popular.... So, writing a positive review helps more effectively. And of course if there is more and more positive reviews then great. If the reader is so stupid beyond limits so he cannot recognize the lack of sense in reviews like the infamous RLM, well, there is nothing that can be done then.
I agree with you, Tony. I've spoken at length about this kind of approach with Cryogenic recently, and I think we need to encourage more of it. We cannot maintain this "siege mentality" forever, yet the situation we're in, especially with AOTC, makes it more likely that one will, perhaps unconsciously, defend rather than celebrate. I wish things were different, but that's where we are, unfortunately.
As I note above, TPM has undergone a noticeable boost in public perception this year, and I can only hope that a similar positive campaign is leant to AOTC when it approaches it's 20th anniversary. For now, yes, we should do our best to highlight articles which praise Episode II and/or its characters, themes and visual language. That's why I've since set up a "Pro-Prequel articles" thread, which I would love to see more of you contribute to (we could open it up to positive videos/audio if you want to). I realise I may be stealing the idea from a famous SW forum, but I think it's important to have a balance when there is a negative thread like this.
Human nature undoubtedly swings towards the negative. Just look at how nobody has responded to the article I posted about Dexter in the pro-prequel thread - people would rather speculate negatively on supposed TROS leaks (which I'm done with).
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Dec 14, 2019 22:39:27 GMT
I would rather write a positive essay on the topic than respond to every single troll who for some reasons has access to media publishing (no matter how geek or marginal it is). Unfortunately these are popular.... So, writing a positive review helps more effectively. And of course if there is more and more positive reviews then great. If the reader is so stupid beyond limits so he cannot recognize the lack of sense in reviews like the infamous RLM, well, there is nothing that can be done then. I agree with you, Tony. I've spoken at length about this kind of approach with Cryogenic recently, and I think we need to encourage more of it. We cannot maintain this "siege mentality" forever, yet the situation we're in, especially with AOTC, makes it more likely that one will, perhaps unconsciously, defend rather than celebrate. I wish things were different, but that's where we are, unfortunately.
As I note above, TPM has undergone a noticeable boost in public perception this year, and I can only hope that a similar positive campaign is leant to AOTC when it approaches it's 20th anniversary. For now, yes, we should do our best to highlight articles which praise Episode II and/or its characters, themes and visual language. That's why I've since set up a "Pro-Prequel articles" thread, which I would love to see more of you contribute to (we could open it up to positive videos/audio if you want to). I realise I may be stealing the idea from a famous SW forum, but I think it's important to have a balance when there is a negative thread like this. Human nature undoubtedly swings towards the negative. Just look at how nobody has responded to the article I posted about Dexter in the pro-prequel thread - people would rather speculate negatively on supposed TROS leaks (which I'm done with).
There is room for all approaches, positive articles and responses to obviously trollish articles that lack any kind of sophistication like the EW one. I can only speak for myself, but, when I respond to those type of articles, I am not trying to change the mind of the author of said article. I am #1, doing my best to not let them control the conversation #2 speaking more to the readers rather than the author The author of those type of articles are too far gone to try and reach. Once they write an article like that, they are all in as far as maintaining their opinion. The people I hope to reach are the readers that read those articles. To show people that it is OK to buck the echo chambers. There is room for the "kill them with kindness" (or positive) mentality, sure, but also, there has to be people that don't mind getting down and dirty in order to argue against people like a Darth_Downunder over at TFN. When I argued with DD at TFN, it wasn't to change his mind, because that was never going to happen, it was to be that opposing voice against trolling the movies for the sake of trolling the movies, to break up the hive mentality that says Jar JAr sucks, or AOTC sucks because Anakin actually acts like real person, awkwardly navigating romance. etc etc. Combating the trollish articles and trolls like DD needs to be done, other wise they control the conversation and the narratives. That's what DD's purpose was in the Prequel forums on TFN, he wasn't really trying to give respectable criticism, he was just trying to control the narratives. There were plenty of people in the Prequels forums that had issues with the Prequels, and I talked to them in a respectable way, DD was a different story. As for your pro-prequel articles and people responding to it. You have to realize, that what has drawn us to this forum is our love for the prequels, it's a commonality. So it's hard responding to stuff we all agree with anyway. I read the article, I liked the article, and had nothing really to add, past a post saying I agree, or I liked it. Now, this is very important, so please make sure to understand this, I am not saying your thread is useless or that you should let it die, absolutely not! Your thread is needed, and anytime any of us come across a pro-prequel article we should add to it. It's just from my perspective it's hard to write a response to something that I agree with, and I know everyone else agrees with. It's not about enjoying negativity more, it's always going to be easier to write against a rub. As far as speculating, negatively, on supposed TROS leaks... I have to assume that this statement of yours is in no way a coincidence to the thread I started. Yes, I am responding negatively to that leak, because, to me, what has been leaked and is seemingly being proven true is another huge issue for me. This isn't just about my expectations for the story. This continues to be about Disney allowing these writers, artists, and filmmakers to tear down the common mythology that we as the fandom have shared for the last 40+ years. The rumor I write about isn't simply me complaining about me not liking Anakin being a whiny brat. My complaint is that, and always has been that Disney Star Wars has to tear down the old in order to prop up their new, and this rumor is just another example. This isn't just a star wars thing, this is a current Hollywood, SJW, cultural thing where our common stories, our common and modern mythologies are being turned upside down in order to push specific narratives in place of things we all can agree with. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but, that's how I see the ST and other nerd culture movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 14, 2019 23:54:43 GMT
And I had no idea this document even existed, so I've never had the opportunity to forgot it. Could it be that this man too deserves to be knighted for his service to good prequel writing? Well, maybe not a knighthood, but surely a digital medal for producing a near-book length rebuttal of YouTube's original toxic fanboy. I love that he went to such an staggering length put them in their place, as if purely to belittle a seemingly long 90 minute video review. Ah! I was wondering if you were aware of that rebuttal or not... See what I mean? It made a nice little splash when it came out, but then it was quickly forgotten about. It's not quite book-length, despite the fact that Raynor got immediately trashed by hateboys for crafting a "novel", and taking "a whole year" to do it (never mind the fact it took RLM more than ten years to come out with their review: the very thing that Raynor was responding to). It just so happened that he used large formatting. If you put his document into a PDF word-counter, it comes out at around 30,000 words. Presently, my response to this Entertainment Weekly review is on-course for about twice that word count. I guess I could try and release it as a PDF, too! Interesting. There were people calling Disney/TFA out from the beginning -- believe me. It's just that they were overwhelmed by an avalanche of approval when the movie came out. It took a while for things to settle and for the truth to emerge or be more honestly processed. Not only have I read it before, I've been re-reading it and quoting from it extensively in my forthcoming response! Bob has a couple of others you might be interested in, too: web.archive.org/web/20090902123052/http://www.theaspectratio.net/phantommenace.htmwondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/notes-on-the-duel-of-the-fates/You're probably right about that. ROTS has an army of supporters already. Not sure that felt so much the case ten years ago, but it's always been the most popular of the prequels, and in recent years, people seem to have spoken up a bit more in the movie's defence. TPM and AOTC remain the underdogs. The romance is probably disliked the most (though pure, on-paper hatred for Jar Jar and midi-chlorians is probably higher), but then again, it's a much more elemental aspect of Anakin's journey (Padme's, too), and harder to ignore in the context of AOTC itself. But with Episodes I and III, people can pretend the romance hasn't happened (TPM), or that there are less indigestible traces of it (ROTS). In addition, some people blamed AOTC, overtly or implicitly, for not only not fixing TPM's problems, but introducing a boat-load more of them. In their minds, after two rough rides, the prequels were now broken and could never be set entirely right. Not to mention an extra helping of hatred for how "digital" and "fake" Episode II has repeatedly been accused of looking. So yeah, all in all, AOTC might be the hardest sell of the entire PT/Lucas saga. LOL. Well, it's not final. The word "hater" sits a bit awkward for me, but it's probably the most direct, plain-spoken word to use in this context. Getting the presentation right is the hardest part. I've struggled with the quotes/citationing aspect. At the moment, I include a link, an author name, a year, and a page number (when relevant) for every quote in the body of the text, rather than doing anything fancy/professional at the bottom, as in a book or academic paper. I have, however, given thought to including a bibliography. But all that would be is just reprising all the links/references I've used, one time each, at the end of the document. Wouldn't take long to compile. It just might end up feeling a bit redundant. See, in some ways, a book is an outmoded format. Now we have the Internet and hypertext: links can be given on the fly, and integrated nicely within the main text, without putting anyone's wrist or eye out. Also, because the Internet is such a visual place, it's easy to notice them and click on them, and they can even make the whole piece look more pleasing and complete. Furthermore, it doesn't cost any extra money to set text in different colours, use bold or unusual type, etc., or to include pictures and video links. There are no printing costs whatsoever. Lastly, text can be easily searched with a simple "find" command -- something extraordinarily useful that doesn't exist in the analogue world of printed media. That said, to make it as professional as possible, I can't ignore the academic standards that are out there. But I'm not sure I'm going to bother. It's not like I'm completing a course module or getting paid for any of this. Obviously, if I do end up going the book route for my other document, I'll have to stick to certain rules, which is fine. I think, yeah, it's about 100 pages or something, in that text size. The average book length, by word count, is something like 100,000 words. So I've basically written half a book here. If I could muster this same effort for the other prequels, I'd truly have myself a finished book of respectable length. I could prepare a second, neutered version. Right now, my thinking is to slightly tone down some of those "insults", and to tread a little more gently in places. Just leave it as the one standard response, but without deliberately trying to put anyone's nose (too far) out of joint. "The Last Jedi" is a better movie than its haters say it is -- like the prequels! "You know it to be true!" A philosophical end! I approve.  Through the Internet, writings you will see. Other websites. The future. The past. Old arguments and rebuttals long gone. I would rather write a positive essay on the topic than respond to every single troll who for some reasons has access to media publishing (no matter how geek or marginal it is). Unfortunately these are popular. I don't have anything against an intelligent, normal discussion with arguments, but especially the first text quoted by Archduke is a perfect example of media trolling (the media writers do that a lot and no, I wouldn't call him journalist because this is not journalism, is trolling). And when someone is trolling he is even ignoring or lying about evident facts. So, writing a positive review helps more effectively. And of course if there is more and more positive reviews then great. My upcoming book (if I ever finish it) is intended as a positive response -- a sort of rolling essay that only thinly acknowledges the hatred head-on and argues for the prequels from a positive point of view. I see where you're coming from with articles like the one that Arch Duke posted to get this thread underway. They're basically bear-baiting, muck-racking, click-chasing trash. But I still don't think it's necessarily wise/correct to ignore all of them en masse. Believe me, I took your view at first. My initial response was more or less a polite "Thanks, but no thanks", when Arch Duke asked me for a direct response. However, once I formulated a few responses to a few of the reviewer's "points", I found myself wanting to write more, and pretty soon, I'd got a detailed document, getting more detailed by the hour. I then began to perceive that this article, dreadful as it may be, provides a useful occasion to dust off many of my old defences, and the defences of other prequel fans, and gather them in one place, for a hyper-concentrated rebuttal. "Concentrate all your firepower on the nearest starship." And throw up a lot more dust in the process... Hmm... But seriously, you accuse this person of trolling, and I'm not sure I disagree. In fact, I hold that to be as good a reason as any to stand up to their nonsense. Even Arch Duke acknowledged at the outset that this was a "staunchly negative" article that makes "incredible claims". In other words, this is one of the most extreme and vitriolic articles any of us has probably come across in a while. And further, as Arch Duke also pointed out, it was posted by Entertainment Weekly, who just put out a series of supposedly positive/celebratory saga covers that same month. So it was being thrown in people's faces already: positivity on the one hand, staunch derogation and declamation on the other. Therefore, any response to such festering garbage can be considered an instrument of education, and one more means of holding back the poisonous fumes of anti-intellectual belittling and the infinite dark that still tries to swallow these movies up. Pretending these articles don't exist is quite noble. It's good, in some ways, that there are prequel fans who refuse to take the bait. However, at the same time, if they aren't occasionally dealt with, opportunities for education are lost, and people can be left with the impression that there are few reasonable defences to such odium -- even if it's obvious that odium is exactly what we're confronted with here. Media trolling, as you term it, has a serious impact on the quality of many people's lives. I don't think it's right to let trolling slide and pretend there are higher paths. I mean, there may be, but that doesn't mean prequel fans can't or shouldn't wage a multi-pronged defence strategy. We don't have to be one thing or the other. All our prequel characters have many facets, after all -- just like the movies themselves. It's not always about stupidity. People aren't always stupid but also flaky, flighty, misinformed, confused, clinging to bad ideas, harbouring misconceptions, being actively led astray, etc. And then, of course, people are wired differently. Some are always going to dislike these movies no matter what. But there may be one or two in the middle who can be encouraged to take another look and venture a bit more deeply into the depths of their own heart -- i.e., there are people who probably want to like these movies, or did, but then got shamed out of it, or discouraged when they were on the cusp of one kind of revelation or another. If pieces like the one Arch Duke presented can do that kind of damage, and I think they can, then that's tragic, and should be fought. As for your Sequel Trilogy animosity: Well, look, I largely share it. But I think Abrams did come up with a few interesting characters, and one or two graces notes, here and there. I also think Rian Johnson took things to another level. But sadly, his film has been heavily denigrated (not unlike the PT), and unfairly given a much tougher time than TFA, which -- subjectively speaking (TFA) -- is a far worse offence to the saga and blockbuster filmmaking. "The Last Jedi", in my personal opinion, actually tries to do something and be something, which is more than I can say for TFA, commercial calculation aside. The fact it comes straight after TFA, with Johnson having to do something with those broken LEGO bricks, is even more of an achievement, if you ask me. There is room for all approaches, positive articles and responses to obviously trollish articles that lack any kind of sophistication like the EW one. I can only speak for myself, but, when I respond to those type of articles, I am not trying to change the mind of the author of said article. I am #1, doing my best to not let them control the conversation #2 speaking more to the readers rather than the author The author of those type of articles are too far gone to try and reach. Once they write an article like that, they are all in as far as maintaining their opinion. The people I hope to reach are the readers that read those articles. To show people that it is OK to buck the echo chambers. There is room for the "kill them with kindness" (or positive) mentality, sure, but also, there has to be people that don't mind getting down and dirty in order to argue against people like a Darth_Downunder over at TFN. When I argued with DD at TFN, it wasn't to change his mind, because that was never going to happen, it was to be that opposing voice against trolling the movies for the sake of trolling the movies, to break up the hive mentality that says Jar JAr sucks, or AOTC sucks because Anakin actually acts like real person, awkwardly navigating romance. etc etc. Combating the trollish articles and trolls like DD needs to be done, other wise they control the conversation and the narratives. That's what DD's purpose was in the Prequel forums on TFN, he wasn't really trying to give respectable criticism, he was just trying to control the narratives. There were plenty of people in the Prequels forums that had issues with the Prequels, and I talked to them in a respectable way, DD was a different story. Eloquently stated, Mike. Not all people protesting the prequels enter a conversation with the same mentality. Different people come with different agendas. As you put it, there needs to be room for more than one type of counter-approach. Darth Downunder is the perfect example of a bad faith actor who wanted to dominate every conversation he involved himself in. He deliberately set out to provoke prequel fans and undermine the parameters of healthy discussion. He flagrantly and routinely snuck in insults and snide putdowns under the noses of the moderators, and they did absolutely nothing to rebuke him. Instead, they accused people like you and me of being pro-prequel conspirators, as if our very presence was emboldening the likes of Darth Downunder, and we -- as loyal, faithful, long-term, passionate prequel fans, prepared to engage and discuss the films -- were the problem. In some circles, that's called victim-blaming. In addition, Darth Downunder would deliberately inflate the most minor of points into an endless argument, when it suited his purposes, such as ranting about Padme telling that clonetrooper that they needed to get to Dooku's hangar to apprehend him. How did she know about a hangar, he repetitively whined, while trying to think of hundreds of objections to any argument/defence to the contrary. That's not discussion -- that's petty carping, designed to seize control of a discussion space, and with the useless/corrupt mods of TFN, it worked (for a while) like a dream (for him and his followers). Of course, when it came to the precious sequels, the mods didn't remotely allow the same behaviour to take place. Anyway, yeah... Some people oppose things just for the sake of opposing them. And it's easier to do that when there are few people speaking out to the contrary. Articles like the one Arch Duke inaugurated the thread with are the perfect green light in this regard. See, they'll sneer. Many people still think these prequels were terrible, twenty years later. We need to be able to firmly respond, rather than pretend these articles are on the fringe and too absurd to bother with. Unfortunately, other people do take them seriously, and do derive their cues from them. We may not be able to get through to those people, especially if they're as dishonest and slippery as Darth Downunder, but there are other people we might reach. It's worth having as many defences out there as we can find the time to produce. Otherwise, negative voices win by default. Of course, being negative and venomous generally takes a lot less effort than being positive and constructive, but the latter is usually the better path. We like these films enough to have spent considerable chunks of our free time talking about them. We should have it within us to occasionally mount focused defences to risible statements uttered in crude "attack" articles, no matter how ill-informed, well-poisoning, and all-round dispiriting those statements and those articles may be. But in all that, I'm still not telling anyone else how to conduct themselves and use their time. It's entirely up to them. I do get the sense, however, that it's easier to pretend to be above such pieces, because it's far easier than crouching down and crawling into the weeds and taking these people on. So what's happening here is a classic hallmark of human psychology: i.e., finding some basic excuse not to engage (and excuses can always be found), rather than embracing the harder path of mud-tackling these trolls and putting out a decent counter-response. There's a huge differential in effort between the two. On some level, however, I'm just defending my own choice. Yes, responding to people like the EW reviewer does give them the oxygen of publicity, not to mention a few clicks/hits, but this same debate is had in science circles with creationism vs. evolution. I'm glad the debates are had, rather than every last scientist acting like they're above such nonsense and refusing to rebut. Some things have to be done for the public good. Then again, if it doesn't make you feel good doing it, you can always choose to not do it. We need freedom of choice, too, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Dec 15, 2019 3:39:55 GMT
But I think it sounds funny. It's not a good title without it. Ever since Taylor Swift released "Haters going to hate, hate, hate", I've been left with comical, cartoon villain connotations for that word. It's like a Halloween costume people dress up in, but for Twitter. It doesn't strike fear me into in the way "bigot" does. So I like "hater" in your title because it feels like your playing cheeky with the reviewer - that you're not there to blow off steam, but to educate and have fun. Have you read his reviews of TPM and ROTS? You might want to do so to get a better understanding of Mr. Hater's psyche and his pet hates.
Amongst all the chaos, it seems you've come to a purpose. I'm only left to wonder how much of your paper will be rebuke of an AOTC hater review as to a treatise on the film. With the sheer length it's escalated to, there must surely have been a tug towards the latter? Or did all those jabs of profanity serve to keep you ground in your original mission? I don't think they'd be enough for me, as much as I'd get a kick out of them, I'd like to think I could to rise beyond the pettiness of a silly review and reach for the heavens: a thesis on Attack of the Clones itself.
I would like to echo pretty much everything you said in your responses to Tonyg and Mikexamus. So many well-rounded, insightful, nuanced and cogent points, to pick one would be to do a disservice to all the others. There's a superb synthesis there of how prequel fans behave, have behaved and how they might better behave, that you'd do well to add as an appendix to your planned book. You nailed the psychology of the prequelist (sounds like a strong title for a spy novel, doesn't it?)
Going academic in your rebuke may well be going "too far in a few places". As long as it is presented nicely, of a consistent tone and with quotations from a versatile selection of authors, you should be on to a winner. Scratch the "let's email the author" approach too, I think Alexrd has given a solid reason why we shouldn't bother. Instead, I think we should go down the route that lead the Darth Jar Jar theory to fame: posting to Reddit. But which subreddit? You've put a lot of effort into this, and it would be a pity not to spread awareness of it. So what if it only gains mild interest, it's still worth pursuing and who knows what outlet might pick it up. Look at this one on Inverse which took from a Twitter thread that listed 100 reasons why the PT is good. Intriguingly, the Twiter user is an art historian - who said the prequel fans were know-nothings? Word of caution: keep away from any advertised article or automatically loaded one on that site, they seem eager to spoil TROS.
|
|
