Post: #1926

(12-26-2018 12:54 PM)Syberpunk Wrote:  I wish the word fan was actually used in its real meaning, fanatic and when has that ever been a good thing? It has no negative connotations anymore.
I either like something or I don't, I am not a "fanatic".

That's why I never refer to my audience as 'fans'; they are neither fanatical, nor are they subservient to me. It's not a good term.

Post: #1927

The only fan I would describe myself being of is being a fan of hot young pussy. Aside from that - I like certain movies, writers and books. But even then - if the guy drops his standard or turns into a globalist faggot, then I simply don't like his more recent works - it's no biggie.

Hot young pussy however - that I am pretty sure that I will like always at least so long as I am human.

Post: #1928

Run by cucks

Post: #1929

(12-26-2018 12:40 PM)Thersites Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 10:28 AM)Kurgan Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 01:30 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Agree with Kurgan. Fantasy and SciFi fans can really be a bunch of ungrateful wankers sometimes.

It's not just Fantasy and SciFi Fans Eel, fandoms can be very toxic no matter what franchise it is.

(12-24-2018 01:30 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Agree with Kurgan. Fantasy and SciFi fans can really be a bunch of ungrateful wankers sometimes.

Its getting worse at this moment of time do to the increase narcissism prevalent in culture. Add in the combination increase mental instability of a subsection population, identity political, and projection of one's identity onto fictional characters its clusterfuck to be in fandoms in this day and age. Fans are believing their headcannons are the true and proper way for the show should follow. Prime example is Voltron reboot, a cartoon series, had fandoms boycott advertisers for the creators no pandering to LBQT crowd and favorite character paring not being written into the show. Good story be damn, give my representation and pander to my thoughts are en vogue.

Bingo.

Mix in narcissism and the associated weak identity with it, and people who have relatively little else going on their lives that's good will become obsessively attached to their favorite franchises; because they've invested so much of their identity in the show it's considered a personal affront if the show somehow fails to cover their own self-insert fantasies.


This phenomenon explains the success and failure of other media types. Overwatch is SJW-beloved because it's basically a game for children: A slate of bright, colorful, characters who have just enough personality to be distinct from each other but not enough to stop these people from having obnoxious self-insert fantasies.

On the table Warhammer is literally designed around self-insert narcissism. One of the reasons I see people say they love it is because of the ability to "customize your commander": to make your own named self-insert commander that leads the Army into glorious battle that the real dweeb would be lucky to survive two seconds in.

Post: #1930

(12-22-2018 09:22 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  FFS, give your $20 to a decent VPN company instead of a bunch of satanic globohomo organizations. There's no excuse for funding these imbeciles.

Yes. Even if by some strange twist of fate, the next Star Wars ends up being brilliant...Abrams pulls it out of a death dive.

It doesn't matter any more.

My goal is no longer to enjoy a movie or not. My goal is to hurt Disney.

Post: #1931

(12-26-2018 03:15 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 12:40 PM)Thersites Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 10:28 AM)Kurgan Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 01:30 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Agree with Kurgan. Fantasy and SciFi fans can really be a bunch of ungrateful wankers sometimes.

It's not just Fantasy and SciFi Fans Eel, fandoms can be very toxic no matter what franchise it is.

(12-24-2018 01:30 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Agree with Kurgan. Fantasy and SciFi fans can really be a bunch of ungrateful wankers sometimes.

Its getting worse at this moment of time do to the increase narcissism prevalent in culture. Add in the combination increase mental instability of a subsection population, identity political, and projection of one's identity onto fictional characters its clusterfuck to be in fandoms in this day and age. Fans are believing their headcannons are the true and proper way for the show should follow. Prime example is Voltron reboot, a cartoon series, had fandoms boycott advertisers for the creators no pandering to LBQT crowd and favorite character paring not being written into the show. Good story be damn, give my representation and pander to my thoughts are en vogue.

Bingo.

Mix in narcissism and the associated weak identity with it, and people who have relatively little else going on their lives that's good will become obsessively attached to their favorite franchises; because they've invested so much of their identity in the show it's considered a personal affront if the show somehow fails to cover their own self-insert fantasies.


This phenomenon explains the success and failure of other media types. Overwatch is SJW-beloved because it's basically a game for children: A slate of bright, colorful, characters who have just enough personality to be distinct from each other but not enough to stop these people from having obnoxious self-insert fantasies.

On the table Warhammer is literally designed around self-insert narcissism. One of the reasons I see people say they love it is because of the ability to "customize your commander": to make your own named self-insert commander that leads the Army into glorious battle that the real dweeb would be lucky to survive two seconds in.

Right on point with narcissism.

Post: #1932

(12-26-2018 12:54 PM)Syberpunk Wrote:  A Christmas present from Mauler, released yesterday.
Emphasis on reviewers:





"We can love a piece of media and yet be critical of it"
My response "Well if I'm critical of a piece of media, it usually mean I don't love or like it and its NOT good mostly."

Is this the Hegelian Dialectic?

No, it's not. It's the one moment in years of misandry when Sarkeesian actually said something approaching intelligent, and if you can sit through the entire Mauler video you'll see what that point is: emotional response to a piece of MediaShit being entirely separate to whether that piece of MediaShit actually tracks logically and how it stacks up as a piece of art. The key way most people defend gumming these two together is to defensively assert "in my opinion".

The main point of Mauler's 2 and a half hour rant (I thought it fails - I'll get to why soon) is that video essayists believe that if they liked a piece of work, as in, had a positive emotional reaction to it, that this therefore means it was successful as a piece of art in an objective sense. The reason for this bootstrap levitation is because narcissists cannot stand to think that their belief about something in the world is different from the reality that actually exists.

This is utter lunacy, albeit not unexpected when you think about stuff like AnonymousBosch's long-ago reflections on how society is spiralling into a state where sensibility rules all. Indeed in passing, Gerry Spence literally bases his whole approach to trial advocacy on this fact; he hammers juries with sheer conviction and words being carriers of emotion to people, rightly pointing out that if we're not credible, if we don't tell what we think are the facts with conviction, logic isn't going to convince anyone.

As said, emotional response =/= that the art was good. I like ice cream, but that doesn't change the hard fact that it is sugary shit that is doing damage to my heart and other organs, it's bad for me. My emotional response to the taste of ice cream is quite separate from whether it is actually a nutritious food or whether it is sweet or not.

(Ironically, the idea of the "guilty pleasure" seems to me to have been the first gumming-up of the two concepts. It means there's something we ought to dislike because it's bad, but we like it anyway, i.e.e. we're made to feel guilty because our emotions do not conform to a rational, objective standard of artfulness, i.e.e.e. we are stupid enough to think the two things are related in any way, shape or form, and i.e.e.e.e. we submit to a system of elitism that generates both The Atlantic and Donald Trump's rise alike.)

Anyway: yes, we can love (<---- emotional response) a piece of MediaShit and yet be critical (<----- analyse its merit as a piece of art from a craft and technical standpoint) of the same piece of MediaShit.

Sarkeesian, however, uses the word critical as meaning "we can whip it because its politics do not match my ideology", which is still getting it wrong but in another form. Both the emotional response and criticising something for its political agenda are addressing the extent to which your feelings are affected by the film. Criticising a piece of art's politics is something entirely different from analysing its craft and its success in delivering logic and narrative. So relax, that fat Canadian bitch still hasn't learned anything yet.

As I was saying, though, I think Mauler's video comes across as mostly petty at least until he actually gets started on The Farce Awakens critique itself (30 minutes for literally the first three minutes of the film, Christ alfuckingmighty).

On one hand I get his point: he thinks that by laying the foundations of his thinking out, by setting out his assumptions and his model for assessing a film, by identifying the holes in his critics' arguments, he in classic style has given the audience a solid platform from which to proceed.

But it mostly comes across a bit Gamma: essayists bitchslapping fat twentysomething soyboys and MGTOWs over the internet, using sledgehammers to crack walnuts. The soyfats he's razzing on these videos are doing better because he's acknowledging them - Barbra Streisand Effect and all that. If Mauler thinks his arguments are strong enough to stand up on their own, he shouldn't need to launch nukes at guys with slingshots. He should just get on with the show and put up the arguments. The guy has 100,000 subscribers off the back of one critique of TLJ, if he wants to build that he'll keep on putting up quality material, not go attacking the opposition other than by a passing remark or two.

I mean, he even defends the length of his videos because dickheads with ADD complain it's longer than 10 minutes. This he should've just dealt with by a raised eyebrow and carrying on: the length is part of the fucking charm, it illustrates beautifully how fucking bad a film is if you can literally spend more than the runtime of the movie pointing out its most egregious faults and not even getting to the rest of the complaints with it. He has a nice riposte by saying "Fuckwits quote and talk about scenes in movies for longer than the scenes themselves lasted, I'm doing no different", but it's still a counterpunch he shouldn't even have felt to make. It only exposes a weakness: that he is insecure about how long and verbose his videos are, and he shouldn't be. Long focused analysis is one of the few things that's going to save the world, or at least save the Internet.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #1933

Good analysis of the first 3 minutes of The Last Jedi which was not only a failure in terms of title crawl inconsistencies, basic story-telling, but even cinematography. The Farce Awakens also objectively committed the same errors. JarJar is certainly no genius movie creator and the biggest fart-sniffing success that will let him walk on cloud 7 is in fact the initial 2 bio. $ success of the movie which is fully bunked on the Star Wars lore and increased shilling of the joint media.

All the Disney-movies are - especially VII and VIII are idiocracy-level of film-making.



And the guy is right of course - if either one of those movies were the first to be made in the 1970s, then there wouldn't even be a sequel. Maybe there would be a B-movie straight-to-video seqel some day that hardly anyone would care about. But Starwars would be a dead brand from the start.

Post: #1934

I actually didn't mind Force Awakens, for me it was a passable movie that had set up some things to follow and had the potential to be a building block for something decent (but hey, I didn't hate the prequels either so...).

The Last Jedi though was pure and utter trash and perhaps the worst part of that trash, even above all the virtue signalling BS was that it systematically went about destroying every little glimmer of hope that was in the Force Awakens.

To the point where I absolutely will not be going to see the next one, I'll download it if the reviews suggest it's somehow good and salvages the mess but I'd probably say I'm closer to not wanting to watch it than anything else. Which is sad as a big Star Wars fan.

Post: #1935

(12-28-2018 10:57 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As I was saying, though, I think Mauler's video comes across as mostly petty at least until he actually gets started on The Farce Awakens critique itself (30 minutes for literally the first three minutes of the film, Christ alfuckingmighty).

On one hand I get his point: he thinks that by laying the foundations of his thinking out, by setting out his assumptions and his model for assessing a film, by identifying the holes in his critics' arguments, he in classic style has given the audience a solid platform from which to proceed.

I had the exact same reaction. In fact I skipped ahead to the part where he started the TFA critique and he kept bringing up those other retards I didn't care about. Just make your points FFS that's what I'm here to watch, not youtube drama.

I get that he wants to address criticisms and counter-arguments, and that's fine. But takedowns of youtube brainlets like HBomberguy should be in some other video.

Post: #1936

This guy goes into the reason why Disney or better put JarJarAbrams never had a plan for Star Wars.

Essentially the Farce Awakens set up his shitty "mystery boxes" that he himself hadn't even thought through. That is why Mark Hamill said that he had to fill in the blanks by himself when talking to JarJar. There was nothing behind that empty moron who got the hire and job because of being part of the tribe and a good obedient globalist stooge.









Or how would you explain why the First Order is now supposedly something to rebel against when the Rebels had thousands of systems under them and the entire army. Meanwhile the "Resistance" is now weaker than the rebels were.

Then there is the issue with Rey and her non-training where she simply downloads all the skills. There is no explanation for her that still makes sense why she was left on a fucking desert planet since age 6 (because one option would be to have her trained like crazy from age 6 to 18 and then mind-wiped). But no - she was a scavenger and had certainly no training. Her training must have been in the ages 0-6.

So fuck you JarJar! Stupid incompetent little shit that was just promoted by his tribe for (((bonus))) points.

Post: #1937

Why are people still watching this trash? The people making it hate you and you're giving them money.

Post: #1938

It sure is nice that people are finally coming around to what I - and others are here - said about these garbage films from the get go.

They're only three years, and millions of dollars in tickets too late.

Ain't it fun being a Cassandra, boys? Oh, but we only hated it because of the Strong Empowered Female Protagonist. You know, the same way we hated Eleanor Ripley, Samus Aran, and Princess Leia.

Post: #1939

I was thinking about a past post I did here recently. I wasn't try to make George Lucas a victim in regards to him getting bashed. I know that ESB and ROTJ were directed by different people. It was just he was given so much hell for doing things differently for the prequels and they have their issues, don't get me wrong and he just sold it to Disney.

I'm still not seeing Episode IX, I'll stick with the Legends stories and video games for the time being.

Post: #1940

Post: #1941

Vice Admiral Gender Studies Furry Carpetmuncher Holdo - actress Laura Dern - made "pew pew" noises during the movie. And the idiots did not even cut it out. Seriously - Rian Johnson makes the Room look like a masterpiece of cinematography.





Oh and yeah - she made those pew-pew noises, because she was a big "Star Wars fan". Right.

Those communists always telling you how the world is supposed to run.

"The birds are eating our harvest, Comrade Stalin!"
"Kill the birds!"
"We killed the birds, but the insects they would have killed are now really eating our harvest. Millions are dying in hunger."

----------

Comrade Rian Johnson and the comrades at Disney are telling you how much you should love the feminazi SJW crap created by JuJu and RianRoundhead.

"You will watch our propaganda movies and you will love it! Then you will spend billions on merchandise while praising WAMYN! Wamyn good! Men bad!"

Post: #1942

(01-04-2019 12:13 PM)Dr. Chim Ritchalds Wrote:  Why are people still watching this trash? The people making it hate you and you're giving them money.

It's on been on Netflix for awhile. I didn't see Solo. I won't bother with IX.

Either way, though, hateviews aren't going to recoup Disney's $4 billion investment in Star Wars. Star Wars, a Space Opera with universally accessible themes enjoyable by anyone, didn't become such a valuable franchise by courting controversy and doesn't thrive on having a divided, angry fanbase.

Kennedy is running this franchise into the ground without our help.

Post: #1943

Anyone that knows much about geek vulture should have been aware that putting the same guy (JJ Abrams) in charge of both Star Trek and Star Wars was going to spell trouble.

Post: #1944

Anyone that knows much about geek vulture should have been aware that putting the same guy (JJ Abrams) in charge of both Star Trek and Star Wars was going to spell trouble.

Post: #1945

Disney moving away from the Mary Soy Saga...?
The future is no longer female?

Money talks...

STAR WARS: Is the Sequel Trilogy Effectively DEAD to Lucasfilm?

Post: #1946

The franchise is in trouble. #7 sucked imo, but it made money because people wanted to see how shit turned out 30 years later. #8 really sucked. It was so bad it was insulting. But again, people went because it’s Star Wars. But something changed. Like fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... #8 didn’t make near as much money. Then there was Solo. That essentially flopped.

They’ll hype up and fake news the shit out of #9 to build enthusiasm. But I don’t see how it’ll work. I’ve already made up my mind. I won’t watch it. People think Abrams’ will salvage it. I doubt it. He’s not that good. And like I said, the force awakens kind of sucked too but we gave it a free pass because it was Star Wars.

I think that when #9 flops, Disney will cut their losses, shelve it, or sell it for a loss when they can optimize the benefits of doing so. The question is whether Kathleen Kennedy will take the fall, or if she’ll be rewarded.

Post: #1947

Kathleen better be given the boot, alongside the 75% women writing/brand support staff shown the door.

Disney's mishandling of a perfect lay up for one of the most beloved stories/franchise in history is going to be in business textbooks, alongside case studies in film.

Post: #1948

(02-06-2019 01:15 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  The franchise is in trouble. #7 sucked imo, but it made money because people wanted to see how shit turned out 30 years later. #8 really sucked. It was so bad it was insulting. But again, people went because it’s Star Wars. But something changed. Like fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... #8 didn’t make near as much money. Then there was Solo. That essentially flopped.

They’ll hype up and fake news the shit out of #9 to build enthusiasm. But I don’t see how it’ll work. I’ve already made up my mind. I won’t watch it. People think Abrams’ will salvage it. I doubt it. He’s not that good. And like I said, the force awakens kind of sucked too but we gave it a free pass because it was Star Wars.

I think that when #9 flops, Disney will cut their losses, shelve it, or sell it for a loss when they can optimize the benefits of doing so. The question is whether Kathleen Kennedy will take the fall, or if she’ll be rewarded.

Disney have hundreds of IP's on shelves that they haven't used in decades, Star Wars is theirs forever.

If you had that said back in 1983 there will be a Episode 7 years from now, but we will not have Luke, Han and Leia, Lando, the droids all occupying the same space on screen, people would have said "that's incredibly stupid, who's making these films?".

Yet that happened. They had all the actors alive, all the contracts signed, everybody on board, all the cards.....and nothing.

Quote:What exactly does that original story consist of? Dale Pollock, author of the Lucas biography, Skywalking: The Life And Films Of George Lucas, is one of the few people who was allowed to see Lucas’ private notes on the overall story, which at one point was 12 films. In an interview with The Wrap, he said the following:

It was originally a 12-part saga. The three most exciting stories were 7, 8 and 9. They had propulsive action, really interesting new worlds, new characters. I remember thinking, ‘I want to see these 3 movies.’

This will be taught in creative and business school as prime example NO1 as to how NOT to manage on ongoing story/series. There is nothing organic about where they went after Episode VI in universe.

Post: #1949

(02-06-2019 01:28 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  Kathleen better be given the boot, alongside the 75% women writing/brand support staff shown the door.

Disney's mishandling deliberate, thoroughly planned demolition of a perfect lay up for one of the most beloved stories/franchise in history is going to be in business textbooks, alongside case studies in film.

Fixed it for you.

Post: #1950

(02-06-2019 01:15 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  The franchise is in trouble. #7 sucked imo, but it made money because people wanted to see how shit turned out 30 years later. #8 really sucked. It was so bad it was insulting. But again, people went because it’s Star Wars. But something changed. Like fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... #8 didn’t make near as much money. Then there was Solo. That essentially flopped.

They’ll hype up and fake news the shit out of #9 to build enthusiasm. But I don’t see how it’ll work. I’ve already made up my mind. I won’t watch it. People think Abrams’ will salvage it. I doubt it. He’s not that good. And like I said, the force awakens kind of sucked too but we gave it a free pass because it was Star Wars.

I think that when #9 flops, Disney will cut their losses, shelve it, or sell it for a loss when they can optimize the benefits of doing so. The question is whether Kathleen Kennedy will take the fall, or if she’ll be rewarded.

I hope No 9 will finally allow people to figure that out. He's a derivative hack, with a creepy relationship to femininity.

...

...it occurs to me as I type this that I just explained his successes in geek culture.