|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jan 23, 2020 16:04:16 GMT
The analogy only works in your mind because you are set on the premise that I do not have cognitive ability to make an informed decision based on the hundreds of pages of articles, interviews, forum posts, detailed break downs of the movie. That somehow, someway, I am doing something wrong because I read that Rey kisses Kylo, on the lips in a passionate last moment between them, and I don't like that, and upon seeing the movie, my initial reactions are confirmed. There is nothing wrong with making a judgement on something before seeing it when I have the detailed breakdown of that something. You're making quite a leap there. It's not about cognitive ability. It's more about you spoiling the movie and going in with bad vibes in advance. I don't see how the movie could ever have acquitted itself and been well-regarded by you given the knowledge/baggage you went in with. That's all. Why do you care if the movie "could have ever acquitted itself" in my eyes? What does that have to do with you at all? In what way does it matter? If I had enjoyed the movie does it change your enjoyment? Are you here to protect it's virtue from the mean old Dragon named Mikeximus? Because mean old Mikeximus knew goign in what the movie was all about, and knew if it was all true, that he wasn't going to like it... Sorry to burst your bubble Cryo..It's a movie, it has no feelings as to whether or not I pre-judged it before going in. I did not hurt it's feelings. It's not insulted in any way shape or form. You are sounding eerily similar to DD when he concerned himself far far more with how the masses and others viewed the movies, wanting to make sure their visions lined up with his, instead of just talking to why he liked or didn't like the movie. Exactly. And Luke's morals are such that he sees Vader as a bad man: a creature, an entity, a wraith. He doesn't care about the wider totality of Vader or what's behind the mask. Hence him lashing out in the cave when the apparition of Vader steps toward him. Once again, you are assuming my cognitive ability to understand what the filmmakers are trying to do or say. Just another garbage thing to do Cryo. I don't care what message those morons are trying to send about looking beyond the mask or even redemption. I have 3 daughters, and the message that is on screen goes against everything I have tried to teach them. STAY AWAY FROM ABUSIVE MEN! Just because they they are cute, or have abs, or some sort of pouty, sad, boo hoo story as to why they are abusive is NO EXCUSE FOR BEING ABUSIVE! Rey LITERALLY... LITERALLY has no idea who Ben Solo is. She knows what he has done to her though! What he has done to others, this is not simply Rey finding forgiveness or even understanding for a broken man, that scene when put into context of TFA TLJ and the totality of ROS suggests that her emotional state for Kylo Ren goes far beyond forgiving the man behind the mask... He did tell him that. In the form of an illuminating koan. But Luke actively distrusts Yoda in that instant and disregards his warning. And as I've said twice now, Yoda tells Luke to cease all questioning, even before Luke gets anywhere near the cave or becomes aware of it. Of course, after Luke has placed Yoda down, it's then when Luke detects the cave and Yoda tells him he has to go inside. The point is made that Luke is only selectively listening to Yoda. No... Yoda did not tell luke exactly that. Which is my point. So again, no... the analogy is garbage. I did not go into the movie with cryptic warnings or vague advice. I went in with very specific and detailed information about what I was about to see. If you think you know the movie so well in advance, isn't seeing it a pointless exercise? Aren't you just paying for your ticket and sitting down to validate your pre-existing suspicions? You went into it with certain beliefs, and a desire to be proven right. That's what it sounds like to me. And now we are back to discussing me... another garbage thing to do as you once again presume to think you know me or anything about me... absolute garbage argument! Thanks. But this isn't about me. I'm not presuming to know you. I'm going exactly off what you said. You literally said you acquired every trinket of information you could on this movie in advance. There's a reason, perhaps, such material is generally referred to as "spoiler" material. I know what I said, and you are still thinking you are in some sort of position to tell me how I should go about making up my mind, or forming my opinions. And passing judgement on my ways. I have said it a few times. That is a garbage thing to do, and a garbage argument to make. It's just too freakin bad if you don't like the way I formed an opinion on something. Pontificate to someone else that cares about your opinion on how they form their opinions. You should have realized long ago, I am not someone that is like that! That's not the analogy of the cave. That's more the analogy of Luke encountering Yoda for the first time. I'm not presuming to know you. But you literally spoke about the film as if seeing it and intensely disliking it were simply a foregone conclusion. Other than that, carry on. When the specific dialogue that was quoted is set against what I said, the implication is that I am bringing my pre-judged "baggage" into the movie. The don't judge a book by it's cover theme is exactly the message that is being evoked here. You even referred to this very thing in your reply to me above, speaking to how does the movie have a fair shot if I had already decided I didn't like it before seeing it. Again, if you want to disagree with me on Reylo, that's fine, we can have at it. You want to disagree with my views on the movie itself, fair argument to have. However, I am not interested in your opinions on me as a person, or how I form my opinions. Those, once again, are garbage arguments to make if we are to have a civil discussion! |
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jan 23, 2020 16:08:18 GMT
Why read the book when you can read all the books about the book before the book is released and somehow decide exactly what the book is and that the book is bad based purely on those secondhand accounts? 🥴 Which is why I still went to see the movie. In your hurry to add to cryo's echo chamber did you miss that detail? |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Jan 23, 2020 16:27:28 GMT
Just another garbage thing to do Cryo. I may have "pontificated" on your intellectual approach, based on your own words, but I did so calmly and collegially, with no ill intentions. However, you appear to have gotten very wound up, just because I questioned your defensive stance on the matter of the analogy of Luke entering the cave not applying to you. So I apologise for rankling you. I like to come at discussions from different angles. You obviously didn't enjoy the movie. It happens. Life goes on. And, hopefully, this thread can return to normality, too. Can anyone remember when Star Wars used to be fun? |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Jan 23, 2020 16:35:48 GMT
Don't take it personally, Mikeximus. Anyone who comes online to brag about their confirmation bias is going to get a few laughs. Your cognitive ability or personal life never needed to be part of this conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jan 23, 2020 17:05:56 GMT
Don't take it personally, Mikeximus. Anyone who comes online to brag about their confirmation bias is going to get a few laughs. Your cognitive ability or personal life never needed to be part of this conversation. Right.. that's all it can be, confirmation bias... It can't actually be that I don't like the film, it's theme's, it's stories. No, my opinion has to be just outright dismissed as bias. Whatever helps you sleep better at night there sweetheart. If my big bad opinion hurt you in your feels, and calling it confirmation bias helps you cope, than okie dai. Or if working with your support group of three that have to seemingly circle their wagons around each other, to take on my 8 horrible words ( It was as I expected it to be) helps, so be it... lmao... |
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jan 23, 2020 17:30:22 GMT
Can anyone remember when Star Wars used to be fun? Yes.. when motives weren't attributed to how people formed their opinion... |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Jan 23, 2020 17:35:04 GMT
Why isn't the discussion about what's in the movie as opposed to the predisposition of who went to see it? Does it really matter if Mike went to see the movie expecting the worse? Had he left that detail out, isn't the end result the same? And considering that like myself, the negative opinion is a result of the leaked information that has been confirmed to be true, the fact remains that it's the content of the movie that led to a negative reaction. So let's discuss said content and the criticisms being made. Not even the criticisms I made in the early pages of this thread have been addressed (but my motivations or lack thereof, like Mike's, have been).
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jan 23, 2020 18:06:32 GMT
Why isn't the discussion about what's in the movie as opposed to the predisposition of who went to see it? Does it really matter if Mike went to see the movie expecting the worse? Had he left that detail out, isn't the end result the same? And considering that like myself, the negative opinion is a result of the leaked information that has been confirmed to be true, the fact remains that it's the content of the movie that led to a negative reaction. So let's discuss said content and the criticisms being made. Not even the criticisms I made in the early pages of this thread have been addressed (but my motivations or lack thereof, like Mike's, have been). Exactly.. I was expecting to get push back on Reylo, but who knew those 8 words would upset a few people. If I had said "I went in expecting it to be bad, but, it turns out I loved it".. Well than those same three people would be praising me. But because I said "It was as I expected it to be" well they don't like that and they don't like my opinion on ROS, than it's confirmation bias, and all about me and not about the movie. No one here knows me, yet they assume I don't have the capability to change my mind or have my mind changed. I really don't want to see people crying about their treatment over at TFA anymore, as some just did the same exact thing they have bitched about over at TFA! |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Jan 23, 2020 18:19:27 GMT
Why isn't the discussion about what's in the movie as opposed to the predisposition of who went to see it? Does it really matter if Mike went to see the movie expecting the worse? Had he left that detail out, isn't the end result the same? And considering that like myself, the negative opinion is a result of the leaked information that has been confirmed to be true, the fact remains that it's the content of the movie that led to a negative reaction. So let's discuss said content and the criticisms being made. Not even the criticisms I made in the early pages of this thread have been addressed (but my motivations or lack thereof, like Mike's, have been). Exactly.. I was expecting to get push back on Reylo, but who knew those 8 words would upset a few people. If I had said "I went in expecting it to be bad, but, it turns out I loved it".. Well than those same three people would be praising me. But because I said "It was as I expected it to be" well they don't like that and they don't like my opinion on ROS, than it's confirmation bias, and all about me and not about the movie. No one here knows me, yet they assume I don't have the capability to change my mind or have my mind changed. I really don't want to see people crying about their treatment over at TFA anymore, as some just did the same exact thing they have bitched about over at TFA! What was that you were saying about echo chambers? You and Alex appear to be having your own back-slapping conversation. I wasn't upset at what you said. And it doesn't look like stampid was, either. After all, we're not the ones calling aspects of the film "absolute trash", or labelling the filmmakers "morons". You do seem practised at vitriolic ad hominem. Such as using the word "garbage" no less than seven times in response to statements of mine made earlier. Which isn't the way forum buddies should behave toward one another, even when strong disagreements are had. I even apologised to you for causing offence, and you passed it over to dig your heels in further. So I'll just ignore your indignant, snowflake spewings from now on. They add precisely dick to the forum, anyway. And when you sober the hell up, you might realise that. Then again, probably not. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Jan 23, 2020 18:31:31 GMT
What was that you were saying about echo chambers? You and Alex appear to be having your own back-slapping conversation. There's no back-slapping going on. But I can relate when one's motivations are questioned (I'm not saying you did it) just because a movie is being criticized, specially when it has happened on this very thread. Just look at the first page. Me, Archduke, Mike, Tonyg criticized the movie (and not with short or brief posts that don't invite discussion). What happened after? Were the criticisms addressed? Was praise questioned? No. Our motivations were. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jan 23, 2020 18:40:29 GMT
Exactly.. I was expecting to get push back on Reylo, but who knew those 8 words would upset a few people. If I had said "I went in expecting it to be bad, but, it turns out I loved it".. Well than those same three people would be praising me. But because I said "It was as I expected it to be" well they don't like that and they don't like my opinion on ROS, than it's confirmation bias, and all about me and not about the movie. No one here knows me, yet they assume I don't have the capability to change my mind or have my mind changed. I really don't want to see people crying about their treatment over at TFA anymore, as some just did the same exact thing they have bitched about over at TFA! What was that you were saying about echo chambers? You and Alex appear to be having your own back-slapping conversation. I wasn't upset at what you said. And it doesn't look like stampid was, either. After all, we're not the ones calling aspects of the film "absolute trash", or labelling the filmmakers "morons". You do seem practised at vitriolic ad hominem. Such as using the word "garbage" no less than seven times in response to statements of mine made earlier. Which isn't the way forum buddies should behave toward one another, even when strong disagreements are had. I even apologised to you for causing offence, and you passed it over to dig your heels in further. So I'll just ignore your indignant, snowflake spewings from now on. They add precisely dick to the forum, anyway. And when you sober the hell up, you might realise that. Then again, probably not. Really? You inserted yourself in something that had nothing to do with you, that was over and done with, yet you decided to throw your 2 cents in with this: Someone can "charge" me? So now I am charged... which insinuates judgement is the next logical step Edit: I wanted to originally say, but forgot, I wasn't aware we were here to charge each other... The moment I returned home I complained about it? No you are absolutely wrong.. never said that, you just assumed it because of your bias, not mine. I actually saw the movie weeks ago, WEEKS cryo, this was the first time I actually sat down to write something about it. That was a direct attack on me that you made up yourself under assumption because YOU did not like what I had to say about the movie, as well as protecting your "forum buddy". But I had no reason to be upset.. I'm indignant. Negativity is the obvious choice? obligatory for Prequel fans to dislike them? This is calling dismissing someone's opinion without providing any evidence. You are lumping me into a group, than dismissing that groups rationales. It dismisses me as an individual, it dismisses my opinions as that of an individual. It's another garbage attack.. oops there's another one to add... keep counting, Finally, you even go on to point out the people you do like, because they do things that you approve of, and the rest of us that don't follow that preferable trend of yours... well our opinions don't count. All of that was even before I said one word to you. I said nothing to you, you decided to attack me, Not the other way around there, forum buddy...So save your sanctimonious BS for someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Jan 23, 2020 18:51:19 GMT
What was that you were saying about echo chambers? You and Alex appear to be having your own back-slapping conversation. There's no back-slapping going on. I know. I was being a little facetious. You're just in agreement on some issues. But when other people are in agreement, it's an "echo chamber" (not that you personally made that accusation, mind you). I can see why you'd feel put out about that. I wasn't involved in the discussion back then. I was still waiting to see the film. By the time I had, the discussion had moved on by several pages. I think what two or three other people with pro-TROS views picked up on, and recoiled against, was the tinge of prejudicial arrogance they detected in those remarks. Several people, on the very first page, were saying they hadn't seen the film, but were already dispensing severely negative views, essentially despoiling and contaminating the thread. Why do I say that? Because the topic starter, Arch Duke Of Naboo, specifically made the thread for post-judicial, not pre-judicial, reviews: When you've viewed the film for yourself, feel free to contribute below People were meant to see the film first, not rant about the Sequel Trilogy or sneer about the movie in advance. To make it clearer that Arch Duke was pursuing legitimate, post-viewing feedback/opinion, he even broke down his own thoughts into suggested sub-categories as a prompt for discussion. To have people come in, on the very first page, when the film was on release, only to protest they weren't going to see it, or maybe they would, but that they already knew what they needed to know (implying their opinion wouldn't change), reflects badly -- in my opinion -- on those individuals. So some other individuals (admittedly keen on the film) called them out on it. Was it fair? Was it decent? Was it the right path for the thread? I don't know. But I can see why it happened. I think I may have gone over several of your criticisms in later responses of mine, but I don't think I addressed all of them. However, only one or two people have addressed various points raised in my own posts. I don't feel bad about it. It is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Jan 23, 2020 20:14:06 GMT
The interesting social phenomenon I seem to be seeing developing, and correct if I'm wrong - I probably am, that's why I'm riffing with it here, is: a number of people who like the PT and the ST seem to carry the sentiment that all of those who loved and defended the PT all these years aught to, by extension or maybe even obligation, do the same for the ST now that public consensus on it is starting to dip into the negative. That by knowing how the public can be, they aught to know better than to act towards the ST like PT bashers did towards the PT. Like its a moral duty to be better than that? Or something. Whether or not the PT fans are doing that, and whether or not the PT+ST fans are being over sensitive is up for debate, but it'll be (morbidly) interesting to see how things evolve and eventually settle in this multi-divisional, fragmented Disney era future we now find ourselves in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Jan 23, 2020 20:17:01 GMT
I hate spoilers. No, it's more than that, as I can scarcely process the very notion. I honestly think I have some manner of genetic software in my brain that prohibits me in very real motor function terms from engaging any form of media content leaking narrative details, big reveals, scene descriptions etc. ahead of seeing the movie. If I am standing in line for a movie as the previous showing is getting out, and a group walks past me speaking excitedly (or mockingly) about this or that, said software actually converts the incoming audio into white noise ...without even my conscious command. It's like a pre-programed directive. I think I'm RoboCop. Or maybe Daryl. Any of you guys remember the movie D.A.R.Y.L.? Nah, probably not.
Anyways, I still went into Episode IX, at least intellectually, pretty much on the basis that it wasn't going to work for me. And it pretty much didn't. So then perhaps the cave analogy is more apt in my case, as I possessed no facts of the movie's story (beyond initial trailers) for me to judge concretely but, rather and regardless, already had a special home-baked bias of my own. Of course, I observe filmmaking and filmmakers compulsively, almost neurotically, and had since weighed fairly and retrospectively many times over the two prior ST installments—such being the foundation of my judging both the trilogy's final stretch trajectory and the helmsman steering the way.
So maybe I wasn't so much Luke in the cave on Dagobah as I was Indy in the temple in Peru: looked cool going in, casually brushed tarantulas off my shoulders and then checked-and-skirted all the booby traps ...only to fumble by sandbag swap for the golden idol before making a clumsy mad-dash for my life, scrambling over pits and nearly being crushed by a giant stone-sculpted pinball ...only to then lose my prize to a pompous Frenchman.
Yeah, that's my analogy.
Makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Jan 23, 2020 20:22:45 GMT
I know. I was being a little facetious. You're just in agreement on some issues. But when other people are in agreement, it's an "echo chamber" (not that you personally made that accusation, mind you). I'm not the type of person that seeks an echo chamber. Not that I'm looking for disagreements, but I like discussions. I like debates. I'm a "change my mind" type of guy. Not that my mind will necessarily be changed, but I enjoy seeing my takes being addressed with another viewpoint. I can see why you'd feel put out about that. I wasn't involved in the discussion back then. I was still waiting to see the film. By the time I had, the discussion had moved on by several pages. I think what two or three other people with pro-TROS views picked up on, and recoiled against, was the tinge of prejudicial arrogance they detected in those remarks. Several people, on the very first page, were saying they hadn't seen the film, but were already dispensing severely negative views, essentially despoiling and contaminating the thread. I don't see negative views as contamination. Specially when it boils down to valid criticisms over actual content from the movie, wether people had seen it or not. People were meant to see the film first, not rant about the Sequel Trilogy or sneer about the movie in advance. To make it clearer that Arch Duke was pursuing legitimate, post-viewing feedback/opinion, he even broke down his own thoughts into suggested sub-categories as a prompt for discussion. To have people come in, on the very first page, when the film was on release, only to protest they weren't going to see it, or maybe they would, but that they already knew what they needed to know (implying their opinion wouldn't change), reflects badly -- in my opinion -- on those individuals. I haven't seen the movie, but I know what happens in it. I've seen clips, full segments, I saw the leaks being confirmed to be true. So I am informed. Should I have lied and said that I had seen the movie in order for my criticisms to be addressed? Should I not express my criticisms about things that I know to be in the movie? I even asked repeatedly if I was wrong about any of it, assuming seeing the movie would have addressed the criticisms I made. I know it wouldn't. Why does it matter how, or if, one has seen the movie unless the criticisms don't apply? Shouldn't the contents of the movie be the topic of discussion? So some other individuals (admittedly keen on the film) called them out on it. Was it fair? Was it decent? Was it the right path for the thread? I don't know. But I can see why it happened. I know why it happened too. But I thought the point was to discuss the content, not how, if or why each one of us went see the movie and with what motivation. I think I may have gone over several of your criticisms in later responses of mine, but I don't think I addressed all of them. However, only one or two people have addressed various points raised in my own posts. I don't feel bad about it. It is what it is. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't demanding responses to my criticisms. I simply expected my criticisms (as opposed to myself) be the point of discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Jan 23, 2020 20:26:11 GMT
I remember DARYL. In fact I rewatched it a few years ago.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Jan 23, 2020 20:32:53 GMT
I remember DARYL. In fact I rewatched it a few years ago. He flew the SR-71 Blackbird in that movie. That was a rad scene.
Shit. I just leaked a spoiler.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jan 23, 2020 20:36:21 GMT
The interesting social phenomenon I seem to be seeing developing, and correct if I'm wrong - I probably am, that's why I'm riffing with it here, is: a number of people who like the PT and the ST seem to carry the sentiment that all of those who loved and defended the PT all these years aught to, by extension or maybe even obligation, do the same for the ST now that public consensus on it is starting to dip into the negative. That by knowing how the public can be, they aught to know better than to act towards the ST like PT bashers did towards the ST. Like its a moral duty to be better than that. Or something. Whether or not the PT fans are doing that, and whether or not the PT+ST fans are being over sensitive is up for debate, but it'll be (morbidly) interesting to see how things evolve and eventually settle in this multi-divisional Disney era future we now find ourselves in. I would agree with you on that social phenomenon. I have seen it as well. I think that it is important that a PT defender does remember where they came from. This is why my personal views on PT bashing never really included those that were critical of the PT. I don't think you're a basher just because you say you don't like something. I think what makes people bashers is when they attack people personally over the movies, attribute motives, tell people how to think about the movies. Another aspect of the bashers is a time element. If you find yourself in a forum 10 years after the film, yelling Jar Jar sucks, you aren't there for creative discussion. You're just there to start trouble as a basher. I am not saying that people can't use overly expressive language to get their point across or even to illicit a laugh. We all do it, we continue to do it. We do it in praise and in criticism. It's the asshats that run into a thread, yell Anakin sucks, and runs back out. I personally do not seek out conversations about TFA or TLJ anymore. No need to. I have said what I had to say about it. I don't care for the movies, so no need to keep looking for things that I don't believe are there. This is me not wanting to be a basher and learning from those that bash the PT. However,there's always the other side of the coin, and that is the some people who like the PT and ST are resorting to shaming other PT fans. That is also a very strange and creepy thing to do. I don't think anyone should be telling a PT fan that they are being hypocritical if they don't like the ST or express their feelings about the ST. This approach is more in line with the PT bashers who would question a defenders mental abilities for liking the PT. Over the years I have tried less and less to lump people into groups. This seems the way the world is going, and it is a very gross thing to do. Identity politics is, at least in my humble opinion, is very dangerous. Judging people on what group they belong too, rather as individuals is a dangerous precedent to set. So that mentality of Identity Politics might be creeping into the Star Wars universe, and might be causing more of a divide in the fandom. We shall see where it goes. |
|
rayo1
Ambassador
Posts: 65
|
Post by rayo1 on Jan 23, 2020 21:01:52 GMT
The interesting social phenomenon I seem to be seeing developing, and correct if I'm wrong - I probably am, that's why I'm riffing with it here, is: a number of people who like the PT and the ST seem to carry the sentiment that all of those who loved and defended the PT all these years aught to, by extension or maybe even obligation, do the same for the ST now that public consensus on it is starting to dip into the negative. That by knowing how the public can be, they aught to know better than to act towards the ST like PT bashers did towards the PT. Like its a moral duty to be better than that? Or something. Whether or not the PT fans are doing that, and whether or not the PT+ST fans are being over sensitive is up for debate, but it'll be (morbidly) interesting to see how things evolve and eventually settle in this multi-divisional, fragmented Disney era future we now find ourselves in. Yeah, that's basically the dilemma I find myself facing. Usually I enjoy subjective analyses on the sequels, particularly for The Last Jedi, and if I'm gonna criticize the films, I do it where I think it's appropriate and in a way that IS appropriate so as to not hurt ST lovers' feelings. I do, however, take issue with biases against the PT in favor of the ST. That is just straight up hypocrisy. How can one ignore plot holes and plot contrivances in one film but be okay bashing other films for that reason? |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Jan 23, 2020 21:14:20 GMT
I don't think you're a basher just because you say you don't like something. I think what makes people bashers is when they attack people personally over the movies, attribute motives, tell people how to think about the movies Exactly, it's why I said early in this thread that comparing what's happening with the ST with what happened with the PT is a false equivalence. Since when was film criticism an issue to PT fans, even in the PT days? Criticism of any film should be expected. The issue was never criticism in and on itself, criticism can be addressed and tackled, and fortunately the PT offers the answers to those complaints. That's one of the benefits of being part of a well planned, singular, consistent vision as opposed to a product by the masses for the masses (Oh, look. A THX 1138 reference). Besides, dismissing perfectly valid criticism as "sanctimonious whining" says more about the inability to address the problems that are being pointed out and it's needlessly insulting. |
|
