yogabagaba
Freshman
@yogabagaba
Posts: 54
Likes: 12
|
Post by yogabagaba on Apr 19, 2017 16:08:58 GMT
Perhaps if you actually provided examples of how the EU was so great and superior to the Potter books (beyond inserting images of the Thrawn trilogy) I'd believe that you actually know something about it. Instead, your posts make it seem that you know little or nothing. Perhaps if you weren't busy being a douche bag to everyone else you would've noticed that examples have been given and discussed. Nobody has in this thread! The best we got was somebody posting those images of the Thrawn trilogy, which you quoted and added your oh-so-brilliant "mic drop" comment. There have been no details discussed here.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 19, 2017 16:36:26 GMT
Perhaps if you weren't busy being a douche bag to everyone else you would've noticed that examples have been given and discussed. Nobody has in this thread! The best we got was somebody posting those images of the Thrawn trilogy, which you quoted and added your oh-so-brilliant "mic drop" comment. There have been no details discussed here. Okay, so here we go: someone posited those examples in the face of your claim, and then 'member how I said that those novels are perfect examples to refute your claim? And then I supported that with some details? Without rereading it, I believe I said that they're basically more ambitious novels "in scope and execution" than the Potter books and added that the other Thrawn books deepen, broaden, and accentuate this idea. That was us/me trying to have a discussion with you, dude. The mic drop should've ended it, because anyone who's read both the Thrawn trilogy and the seven Potter books would either call it apples-to-oranges or a serious, sweeping adult science fiction epic compared to a whimsical, "magical" (for lack of a better word, derp) young adult book series.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Apr 19, 2017 16:38:56 GMT
Only in your mind, my young apprentice. That's not a fact! It's your highly subjective opinion. Film, books and other forms of related media are art. And all art is subjective! It's not something that can be quantitatively measured like the materials that a house was made of or the life expectancy and maintenance record of a car. A person can put whatever standards as proof of quality that they want to. Since art is completely subjective, the standards are as well. And yes, popularity and sales can be one of those standards if one so chooses. So, sorry to burst your argument's bubble, but you're wrong. Thanks for admitting you'll twist things to suit your agenda. You have no standards. Thanks for admitting that you'll run away from the truth and embrace the fallacy that only your personal standards are objective or factual. I have standards. But they sure aren't the same as the fallacious, echo chamber standards that you have, thank the maker! News flash! You don't get to decide other people's standards. And like other people in this thread have already told you, you haven't said anything factual or objective. Just keep spouting your opinion like it is. That is the sign of a self absorbed idiot. When you refuse to realize the difference between your opinion and objective facts, even after you've been figuratively slapped in the face with it over and over and over again. You talked about having standards. Try to reach the standard of not being a self absorbed idiot. Then maybe I take your comments for something more than condescending, ignorant foolishness.
|
|
yogabagaba
Freshman
@yogabagaba
Posts: 54
Likes: 12
|
Post by yogabagaba on Apr 19, 2017 17:07:11 GMT
Thanks for admitting you'll twist things to suit your agenda. You have no standards. Thanks for admitting that you'll run away from the truth and embrace the fallacy that only your personal standards are objective or factual. I have standards. But they sure aren't the same as the fallacious, echo chamber standards that you have, thank the maker! News flash! You don't get to decide other people's standards. And like other people in this thread have already told you, you haven't said anything factual or objective. Just keep spouting your opinion like it is. That is the sign of a self absorbed idiot. When you refuse to realize the difference between your opinion and objective facts, even after you've been figuratively slapped in the face with it over and over and over again. You talked about having standards. Try to reach the standard of not being a self absorbed idiot. Then maybe I take your comments for something more than condescending, ignorant foolishness. I've repeatedly said that my views are not objective truths. What I have said is that your buddy's arguments don't hold up. At all. Guess what, sales are not proof of quality. This can be proven time and again. Or are you going to tell me that McDonald's is some sort of gold standard for quality food? Are Adam Sandler films like "Grown Ups" or "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" quality art with great stories because they made money? In the case of both, the answer is no. Are ad hominems and continuing to spout off "it's just your opinion" all you really have when trying to debate? Good lord, I'd hoped that this forum would attract the older IMDBers who were on the boards before it became a festering cesspool over the last few years. Clearly that is not the case.
|
|
yogabagaba
Freshman
@yogabagaba
Posts: 54
Likes: 12
|
Post by yogabagaba on Apr 19, 2017 17:42:04 GMT
Nobody has in this thread! The best we got was somebody posting those images of the Thrawn trilogy, which you quoted and added your oh-so-brilliant "mic drop" comment. There have been no details discussed here. Okay, so here we go: someone posited those examples in the face of your claim, and then 'member how I said that those novels are perfect examples to refute your claim? And then I supported that with some details? Without rereading it, I believe I said that they're basically more ambitious novels "in scope and execution" than the Potter books and added that the other Thrawn books deepen, broaden, and accentuate this idea. That was us/me trying to have a discussion with you, dude. The mic drop should've ended it, because anyone who's read both the Thrawn trilogy and the seven Potter books would either call it apples-to-oranges or a serious, sweeping adult science fiction epic compared to a whimsical, "magical" (for lack of a better word, derp) young adult book series. You didn't provide a single example of how they are more ambitious, you merely asserted that they are. That warrants a "mic drop" in your eyes? And seriously, you felt it necessary to insult the Potter books with your "derp" comment? As if the Force isn't just as magical? That says a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Apr 19, 2017 18:34:37 GMT
Thanks for admitting that you'll run away from the truth and embrace the fallacy that only your personal standards are objective or factual. I have standards. But they sure aren't the same as the fallacious, echo chamber standards that you have, thank the maker! News flash! You don't get to decide other people's standards. And like other people in this thread have already told you, you haven't said anything factual or objective. Just keep spouting your opinion like it is. That is the sign of a self absorbed idiot. When you refuse to realize the difference between your opinion and objective facts, even after you've been figuratively slapped in the face with it over and over and over again. You talked about having standards. Try to reach the standard of not being a self absorbed idiot. Then maybe I take your comments for something more than condescending, ignorant foolishness. I've repeatedly said that my views are not objective truths. What I have said is that your buddy's arguments don't hold up. At all. Guess what, sales are not proof of quality. This can be proven time and again. Or are you going to tell me that McDonald's is some sort of gold standard for quality food? Are Adam Sandler films like "Grown Ups" or "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" quality art with great stories because they made money? In the case of both, the answer is no. Are ad hominems and continuing to spout off "it's just your opinion" all you really have when trying to debate? Good lord, I'd hoped that this forum would attract the older IMDBers who were on the boards before it became a festering cesspool over the last few years. Clearly that is not the case. Once again, you didn't follow my whole point. Is McDonalds art? No! And you won't find any Adam Sandler movies in the top 250 box office grossing movies of all time. So once again your argument is weak at best. Your examples (again) are largely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 19, 2017 20:38:07 GMT
Okay, so here we go: someone posited those examples in the face of your claim, and then 'member how I said that those novels are perfect examples to refute your claim? And then I supported that with some details? Without rereading it, I believe I said that they're basically more ambitious novels "in scope and execution" than the Potter books and added that the other Thrawn books deepen, broaden, and accentuate this idea. That was us/me trying to have a discussion with you, dude. The mic drop should've ended it, because anyone who's read both the Thrawn trilogy and the seven Potter books would either call it apples-to-oranges or a serious, sweeping adult science fiction epic compared to a whimsical, "magical" (for lack of a better word, derp) young adult book series. You didn't provide a single example of how they are more ambitious, you merely asserted that they are. That warrants a "mic drop" in your eyes? And seriously, you felt it necessary to insult the Potter books with your "derp" comment? As if the Force isn't just as magical? That says a lot. Nope, it was self-deprecating because I couldn't think of a less trite way to describe them. Cool your pies.
|
|
yogabagaba
Freshman
@yogabagaba
Posts: 54
Likes: 12
|
Post by yogabagaba on Apr 19, 2017 22:32:12 GMT
I've repeatedly said that my views are not objective truths. What I have said is that your buddy's arguments don't hold up. At all. Guess what, sales are not proof of quality. This can be proven time and again. Or are you going to tell me that McDonald's is some sort of gold standard for quality food? Are Adam Sandler films like "Grown Ups" or "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" quality art with great stories because they made money? In the case of both, the answer is no. Are ad hominems and continuing to spout off "it's just your opinion" all you really have when trying to debate? Good lord, I'd hoped that this forum would attract the older IMDBers who were on the boards before it became a festering cesspool over the last few years. Clearly that is not the case. Once again, you didn't follow my whole point. Is McDonalds art? No! And you won't find any Adam Sandler movies in the top 250 box office grossing movies of all time. So once again your argument is weak at best. Your examples (again) are largely irrelevant. There are plenty of people who argue there is an art to food, so by your own claim that every thing in art is objective, someone could probably argue that something as low as McDonald's is art. And no Adam Sandler film has had a brand name as large as Star Wars attached to it. A brand name to only exists thanks to the success of the original film.
|
|
yogabagaba
Freshman
@yogabagaba
Posts: 54
Likes: 12
|
Post by yogabagaba on Apr 19, 2017 22:34:28 GMT
You didn't provide a single example of how they are more ambitious, you merely asserted that they are. That warrants a "mic drop" in your eyes? And seriously, you felt it necessary to insult the Potter books with your "derp" comment? As if the Force isn't just as magical? That says a lot. Nope, it was self-deprecating because I couldn't think of a less trite way to describe them. Cool your pies. Translation: I have no actual arguments or examples to back up my claims, so I'll play it like I was mocking you the entire time. You're not fooling anyone... Except perhaps yourself.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 19, 2017 22:35:17 GMT
Nope, it was self-deprecating because I couldn't think of a less trite way to describe them. Cool your pies. Translation: I have no actual arguments or examples to back up my claims, so I'll pay it like I was mocking you the entire time. You're not fooling anyone... Except perhaps yourself. Yawn.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Apr 19, 2017 23:20:01 GMT
Once again, you didn't follow my whole point. Is McDonalds art? No! And you won't find any Adam Sandler movies in the top 250 box office grossing movies of all time. So once again your argument is weak at best. Your examples (again) are largely irrelevant. There are plenty of people who argue there is an art to food, so by your own claim that every thing in art is objective, someone could probably argue that something as low as McDonald's is art. And no Adam Sandler film has had a brand name as large as Star Wars attached to it. A brand name to only exists thanks to the success of the original film. There is an artistic quality to food preparation but food itself and meals are not an art. They can be measured quantitatively in nutritional value. And as obsessed as some modern cultures have become in monitoring that there's no denying foods ability to be quantitatively measured. That's just not true on any level for visual and performance arts. Quality is all subjective and artificial. And so it's open to any criteria. It's alll artificial created by the individual's personal criteria or the chosen set of criteria of some social group derived from that arts audience (no matter how small or how broad). Let me illustrate: ever heard of 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' or 'Sharknado'? These are movies that would be considered by the broadest audiences and critic groups to be mediocre, campy, even poor. But they do have cult followings, and within audiences and critics belonging to their cult followings, no doubt they have criteria they attribute to defining the entertainment quality of those movies. Let me illustrate again: ever heard of the Oscars, the Golden Globe Awards? They have their own different criteria for excellence and quality. Ever heard of the People's Choice Awards? What is that awards primary criterion for quality or excellence?... Popularity! If you're still not willing to admit that I am speaking from facts on this matter then, to quote ObiWan when Anakin told him he thought the Jedi are evil "Then you are lost!!"
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Apr 20, 2017 17:12:13 GMT
Wait, wait, You are calling J.K. Rowling a "one-hit wonder"?! Please, that's outrageous and absurd! She has already landed herself a spot in history as one of the greatest female authors of her time! Because of her, children became interested in reading books. Harry Potter is her one hit. She will never get lightning to strike twice. Rowling is not one of the greatest female anything. Children were already interested in reading before her. She in no way made them more interested in reading. It is not just one hit. She had seven hits and her Harry Potter Saga is a lifetime achievement. It is quite impossible to hit such a jackpot like she did more than once in a life. She has made (and still makes) a huge contribution to the way children started to read, appreciate stories and the written word in general. She is most definitely great!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 18:08:12 GMT
No, Tolkien was great. Rowling is a hack.
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Apr 20, 2017 18:08:51 GMT
No, Tolkien was great. Rowling is a hack. They are both great. She is most definitely NOT a hack. She is the definition of pure brilliance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 18:17:35 GMT
No, Tolkien was great. Rowling is a hack. They are both great. She is most definitely NOT a hack. She is the definition of pure brilliance. She's a successful writer, but not brilliant. If she were brilliant, people wouldn't be able to poke so many holes in her stories. Plus, Quidditch or however the hell you spell it is the most inane thing in the history of ever.
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Apr 20, 2017 18:19:25 GMT
People poke holes at everything whether there are holes or not. The story is quite whole without any holes. You spelled it right, and it is the game of a person with a cool and an intriguing imagination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 18:37:06 GMT
No, Quiddtich is the dumbest thing in the history of ever. I know if I were on a sports team where all my efforts on the field were invalidated by someone playing a completely different game with a different ball, I'd be pissed and quit.
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Apr 20, 2017 18:45:53 GMT
Okay. Good to know, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 20:08:19 GMT
Harry Potter is her one hit. She will never get lightning to strike twice. Rowling is not one of the greatest female anything. Children were already interested in reading before her. She in no way made them more interested in reading. It is not just one hit. She had seven hits and her Harry Potter Saga is a lifetime achievement. It is quite impossible to hit such a jackpot like she did more than once in a life. She has made (and still makes) a huge contribution to the way children started to read, appreciate stories and the written word in general. She is most definitely great! Meesa hears this often from Rowling/Potter fans, and meesa gets da point. But Captain finds this is often exaggerated. After all, it wasn't like there was an epidemic of childhood illiteracy going on in Western culture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 21:11:02 GMT
No, Quiddtich is the dumbest thing in the history of ever. I know if I were on a sports team where all my efforts on the field were invalidated by someone playing a completely different game with a different ball, I'd be pissed and quit. Let's put it this way: if The Force Awakens came out in 1999 instead of the The Phantom Menace, it would have bombed at the box office and gotten way worse reviews than Episode 1. Critics would have rightfully criticized the plot for being a rip-off of the original Star Wars and note the lack of innovation and imagination in the film. If The Force Awakens was the first Star Wars film ever coming out in 2015, Star Wars would never be given a second look.
|
|