Switch Theme:

The Last Jedi poll  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Did you like The Last Jedi?
Yes (under 25 years old)
Yes (25-45 years old)
Yes (over 45 years old)
No (under 25 years old)
No (25-45 years old)
No (over 45 years old)
Saw it, but feel conflicted about it.

View results
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Wicked Warp Spider





 Kilkrazy wrote:

I think we can all agree, that we can dislike or like things due to personal reasons, and we don't have to project those reasons and use them to claim that the things we dislike are objectively bad.

For example, I dislike Greek food. At the same time, I can recognise that millions of people love it (not even just the Greeks!) I can read a professional restaurant critic's piece on a Greek restaurant and understand intellectually that it contains objective truths (such as that the salad was fresh, the dressing was well made, etc) even though I still don't like the taste of Greek salad, and I won't go and eat there.

I can flip that and read the review of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, and understand that objectively it is a bad movie with a stupid plot, cliched dialogue and rotten special effects, but I can still like it myself.



I think that the one can appreciate bad movies (I surely do, I have a sweet spot for many B-movies - some should qualify as a C movie - from the 60s-80s).
But I think we should pay attention to subjectivity. One can like or not a certain dish, but we can be less objective on how that dish is prepared. I love very rare steak, some don't. But I guess that everyone can cut a steak and tell if is rare or not.
There could be a discussion to tell if is extra rare or rare, but not if is extra rare or well done.
One can like a movie that is a complete mess. What makes me wonder is the fact that I see many online defenders on blogs etc that just deny that the steak is well done, and tell me is rare.

One last observation about critics, that should be done. I think Gordon pointed it out somewhere... they are not all the same. We can read 2 articles online and think 2 different people have the same authority or background about movies but it's not necessarily true.

Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis! 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





A good or even half decent critic can explain why they subjectively do or don't like a movie while still analysing critically and objectively.

That said I don't really read what movie critics have to say anyway. Before I've seen a movie I don't really want to live through the movie vicariously through a reviewer, IMO it almost never enhances a movie watching experience for me and far too often reduces it. Then after I've seen a movie I usually don't care what they have to say about it anyway.

I care more about critics when it comes to things like video games which are a greater monetary and significantly greater time investment.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/26 14:55:03


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 BaconCatBug wrote:
TLJ is an unenjoyable, preachy movie, when all we want is some fun, drama or grit.
That's very well said.

I think everyone would prefer if SW films were "good" - in the sense of being fun rather than antagonistic.

Regarding critics, I think that profession is hopelessly compromised. First, it's not as if there is a Critics Guild that certifies qualification and upholds ethical standards. Second, and relatedly, criticism and marketing are no longer distinct concepts - maybe they never were but it's more blurry now than ever before. Thirdly, consumer content creators ("influencers") have been co-opted as "critics" specifically because they are as susceptible to marketing as their own audiences.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/26 16:00:42


   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

I greatly enjoy reading reviews "after the fact".

The late, great Roger Ebert's reviews are still on line, and make excellent reading. Interestingly, Ebert liked Star Wars and The Phantom Menace. It's a pity we can't know what he would have thought about The Last Jedi.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/26 16:03:25


I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert are greatly missed. No one has filled their shoes.

   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

sirlynchmob wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 Kaiyanwang wrote:
This is absolutely true, but I have one theory: the more time will pass, more people will dislike TLJ unless J.J. pulls a miracle for IX.
Stuff that is tolerated will become unacceptable in retrospect, a bit like with TFA. Also, as someone noted, is a movie that has different layers of problems so one does not realize them all at once. It happened with the prequels for many, too.


Not quite. I think you're missed what happened with the prequels, and its caused you to make an inaccurate prediction about the new films. The prequels at the time were hated, the vitriol those films copped was incredible. Over time the prequels haven't been thought of as worse. I'm kind of amused at your argument that the issues of the prequels only became clear over time - their crappiness was entirely obvious at the time and widely acknowledged. But how the prequels are treated has changed massively - at the time there was great energy, lots of attackers and a handful of defenders arguing endlessly over those movies. Nowaways they've just been largely forgotten. Not literally, of course, they're still part of SW canon, and the experience of such complete disappointment will never stop being part of geek folklore, but as films... these days no-one gives a gak.

If Episode IX fails to deliver then the same will happen to this trilogy. After all the heat dies down it'll just get forgotten. On the other hand if Episode IX delivers, then we'll still get the arguments, but in time the trilogy will retain its cache of fans who'll still watch it regularly.




Another interesting bit between the pre's and ep 8, when people said TPM was horrible they never got attacked for it, their motives and reasoning were never called into question. Yet now the people who defend the movie are trying to demonize people for not liking it. a weird phenomenon that seems to have started around the time the new ghostbusters came out. You can dislike all the movies you want no questions asked, just not those on the approved SJW viewing list, then you're a bad person for not liking them.

With PR like that I wonder if it will have an effect on ep 9's box office take.

yes these movies are canon, but just look at the people who claim a "best" viewing order, TPM is always left off the lists, or pushed to the end of it, or if there's still time spot. ep 2 suggests skipping to the attack on genosis. if 9 bombs, then the whole triology is easily left off the list, just stop on ep 6 and end the saga with a happy ending.






This is not true. In science fiction circles, there were plenty of prequel fans who attacked detractors. Often they would claim that anyone expecting slick dialogue or straightforward motivation from a former slave abducted by a cult or a child forced into political responsibility is a f--let's say they said "fooltoward". There were long articles written defending the prequels, and most of them turned against the criticism in the exact same ways that TLJ fans do, minus the claims of misogyny. People were angry that anyone could be offended by Watto or the Neimoidians or Jar Jar, and the backlash against the people who see racism in those characters is pretty funny considering the TLJ narratives. One guy wrote a hundred pages of commentary attacking Red Letter Media over TPM, and it was shared pretty widely.

The Internet was different back then, with social media less integrated into society at all levels, but the same dynamics were in play.

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

I'll just say that my memory is, the Prequels were not uniformly loathed upon release. RLM's TPM review was a genuine watershed and I think a lot of folks are retroactively adopting that analysis (from 2009) as their own (back in 1999). My own reaction to the Prequels at the time was to focus on how they thematically integrated, or failed to integrate, with the Original Trilogy ... I wish I could find my actual posts on the official SW forums from back then.

I think sirlynchmob is really on the right track, however, in that Lucasfilm had no marketing counterpunch back in the early 2000s, like Sony and Disney have developed these days, whereby criticisms of their products are recast as hatred and evil.

Kilkrazy mentioned that Roger Ebert liked The Phantom Menace so I looked up that review and re-read it. In a nutshell, Ebert excuses TPM's flat characters, convoluted plot, and puzzling story because, apparently, the point of the film was to be shiny. Star Wars is shiiiiiiny *jangles keys* so don't pay attention to the basic elements of narrative.

Ebert was a softy when it came to the wide-eyed wonderment the movies inspired in him and, he hoped, would inspire in others and I think that's why he took such a ludicrous position on TPM. I don't think anything nearly as warm and cuddly motivates the marketing-driven film criticism, which is often basically nameless, that studios have co-opted to sell their products.

And yet, if we follow Ebert's lead and judge Star Wars movies by how visually novel they can be, do these Disney movies actually rate or do they still disappoint? I'd say the latter. But Ebert apparently found TPM to be visually wonderful, and castigated those who didn't as basically ungrateful/unmindful. Which completely ignores the fact that movies can and do still visually wow us - I am thinking here of Fury Road and Blade Runner 2049. But also "lower brow" films like Kong: Skull Island and Thor: Ragnarok.

Ebert was a great critic but he was wrong about TPM. His review of Attack of the Clones almost reads like a retraction, in fact. But here we are, nearly twenty (!) years later with "critics" still demanding we like movies because they are (allegedly) shiny, despite grievous flaws in plot, characterization, and theme.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/26 18:07:41


   
Made in us
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 Kaiyanwang wrote:
This is absolutely true, but I have one theory: the more time will pass, more people will dislike TLJ unless J.J. pulls a miracle for IX.
Stuff that is tolerated will become unacceptable in retrospect, a bit like with TFA. Also, as someone noted, is a movie that has different layers of problems so one does not realize them all at once. It happened with the prequels for many, too.


Not quite. I think you're missed what happened with the prequels, and its caused you to make an inaccurate prediction about the new films. The prequels at the time were hated, the vitriol those films copped was incredible. Over time the prequels haven't been thought of as worse. I'm kind of amused at your argument that the issues of the prequels only became clear over time - their crappiness was entirely obvious at the time and widely acknowledged. But how the prequels are treated has changed massively - at the time there was great energy, lots of attackers and a handful of defenders arguing endlessly over those movies. Nowaways they've just been largely forgotten. Not literally, of course, they're still part of SW canon, and the experience of such complete disappointment will never stop being part of geek folklore, but as films... these days no-one gives a gak.

If Episode IX fails to deliver then the same will happen to this trilogy. After all the heat dies down it'll just get forgotten. On the other hand if Episode IX delivers, then we'll still get the arguments, but in time the trilogy will retain its cache of fans who'll still watch it regularly.




Another interesting bit between the pre's and ep 8, when people said TPM was horrible they never got attacked for it, their motives and reasoning were never called into question. Yet now the people who defend the movie are trying to demonize people for not liking it. a weird phenomenon that seems to have started around the time the new ghostbusters came out. You can dislike all the movies you want no questions asked, just not those on the approved SJW viewing list, then you're a bad person for not liking them.

With PR like that I wonder if it will have an effect on ep 9's box office take.

yes these movies are canon, but just look at the people who claim a "best" viewing order, TPM is always left off the lists, or pushed to the end of it, or if there's still time spot. ep 2 suggests skipping to the attack on genosis. if 9 bombs, then the whole triology is easily left off the list, just stop on ep 6 and end the saga with a happy ending.



This is not true. In science fiction circles, there were plenty of prequel fans who attacked detractors. Often they would claim that anyone expecting slick dialogue or straightforward motivation from a former slave abducted by a cult or a child forced into political responsibility is a f--let's say they said "fooltoward". There were long articles written defending the prequels, and most of them turned against the criticism in the exact same ways that TLJ fans do, minus the claims of misogyny. People were angry that anyone could be offended by Watto or the Neimoidians or Jar Jar, and the backlash against the people who see racism in those characters is pretty funny considering the TLJ narratives. One guy wrote a hundred pages of commentary attacking Red Letter Media over TPM, and it was shared pretty widely.

The Internet was different back then, with social media less integrated into society at all levels, but the same dynamics were in play.


That's the usual fan vs fan stuff, like the age old question of kirk vs picard to determine if you're a true trekkie, or if you're considered a gamer if you only play facebook games. (those are retorical btw, let's not go down those paths) people went from pondering if those characters were based on racist sterotypes, to being labeled racists for not liking a movie. As you noted though it lacked the claims of misogyny, and a article from George saying how we watched the movie wrong. Which seems to be a growing defense for horrible movies.


 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






 Manchu wrote:
Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert are greatly missed. No one has filled their shoes.


That brings another idea to mind for me about critics. I loved Ebert's reviews not so much for his personal opinion of a movie, but for 1) his writing-the man was a master of informal prose and 2) his ability to get me to pay attention to an overlooked detail before going in. For example, he told me to pay attention to Million Dollar Baby's lighting because it was interesting in some way, so I would make an effort to pay a bit more attention to that in addition to the plot on a first viewing. His tastes often aligned with mine, so that helped, but his perspective always gave me something to look at from a different angle. At times he got an initial viewing "wrong" and he was willing to go back and reassess. For example, he gave Clockwork Orange a pretty lackluster review initially, but still put it on his "Great Movies" list thirty years later.

Kael...yeah, she could express her personal experience with a film quite well, but for some reason, I just can't stand her. Part of it might have to do with her horrible lack of any sort of consistent or credible standards--see "Raising Kane" for a good example of how not to do research or evaluation.

That was kinda my point earlier (in this thread or the other one) that one should find a critic that one enjoys reading and is comfortable with. Never just look at the "score" or Tomato-meter to judge--those have all sorts of problems (fivethirtyeight.com has some interesting statistical data analysis on that front). Too often I read people just looking at some overall "rating" and making assumptions. Ignore the scores (it's not a game) and read what they say. A lot of reviewers never give actual scores at all (which is a dumb premise as all get out. Yup, Hamlet was definitely a 9.7, whereas Macbeth was only a 9.2), and RT just assigns them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/26 20:14:32


Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

You have identified two good points about Ebert that may relate to other professional critics too.

1. He was a really good writer.
2. He understood, identified and pointed out, elements of the "craft" of film-making that might easily be lost on a lay audience, such as the quality of lighting, locations, and so on.

Read the review of Lost In Translation, or Spirited Away, to understand something of what a good critic can bring to your appreciation of a film.

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-lost-in-translation-2003

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-spirited-away-2002

It helps me that these both are films I really love, but can't the newcomer to them begin to feel the spirit within?

To get back to Star Wars in general, I suspect that there are some films that will still be celebrated in 100 years -- The Life of O-Haru, Citizen Kane, Withnail and I, perhaps -- and a lot which are hugely popular and influential now, which will not be forgotten, but will no longer be regarded as pinnacles of the film-making art.

IDK where any of the SW episodes lie on this spectrum, but I think it is unlikely that any except episode IV will achieve the A list.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

 Manchu wrote:
Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert are greatly missed. No one has filled their shoes.


Have you read some of Film Crit Hulk's reviews? Someone linked to him in the John Carter thread, and I've found he had a lot to say about films, film criticism, and how the audience approaches films. I don't believe he has posted any reviews recently, but I would love to read his take on TLJ. He is one of those reviewers who excels at explaining what he feels works and doesn't work in a movie and why.

   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






I'm glad that you pointed to those two reviews specifically as they illustrate nicely that film review is an art form in its own right. And that they can, or cannot, be viewed as arbitrators of "good or bad" of what they are discussing. Or they can be viewed as others (Mr. Modron) as just a scheme to get you to pay your money. Read them. What do they say, discus, or inform you about. Nothing? Fine. Go to another. None of them? You haven't been reading closely enough. The best ones were/are poetry about the art form they love.

As to how SW will be assessed 100 yrs from now, it won't be. They aren't now (though TLJ, is getting a lot of attention in film academic circles right now and it feels a bit different ) other than products of a culture. They usually aren't assessed on their merits, unlike Spielberg's works which are going through a bit of a resurgence right now, though I would guess is mostly nostalgic based. I am a bit of an outlier here, but I see Temple of Doom and AI being reassessed quite favorably (AI in the publications already). Temple of Doom will take a bit more of cross pollination to comics in academia. Give it a few years. I wonder how much the academic circles color the general public and critics. In other words did The Red Shoes's discussion of the movie color the public's perception of the movie (I realize most of "the public' hasn't seen it).

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/01/26 21:42:15


Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you read some of Film Crit Hulk's reviews?
Yep, honestly not a fan. In short, the writing runs (gallops) to the maudlin.

On TLJ = https://filmcrithulk.blog/2017/12/15/the-force-belongs-to-us-the-last-jedis-beautiful-refocusing-of-star-wars/

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/26 21:24:34


   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






 Manchu wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you read some of Film Crit Hulk's reviews?
Yep, honestly not a fan. In short, the writing runs (gallops) to the maudlin.

On TLJ = https://filmcrithulk.blog/2017/12/15/the-force-belongs-to-us-the-last-jedis-beautiful-refocusing-of-star-wars/


In addition to the hyperbole that Manchu pointed out above, I would also steer away from people who are not willing to put their own names on stuff. It's fine if you want to brand something with a name, but put your own name to it as well if you want anybody to respect or cite it. I would actually like all forums to require real names. Gets rid of the crap. Makes Doxieing a thing of the past (in terms of sheer masses), and provides a way to establish credibility. If we are going to go with the "everybody is a celebrity" culture, we better damn well accept it or else everything is just "fake news".

In terms of this discussion it seems like "fake news" that people actually liked the last Star Wars movie.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/26 21:59:52


Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot





Michigan

extremely MEH. a more MEH movie has probably never been made. wont see it again, wont buy the DVD to add to my collection. A disappointment and a smear on the Star Wars franchise IMO.

Necrons - 6000+
Eldar/DE/Harlequins- 6000+
Genestealer Cult - 2000
Currently enthralled by Blanchitsu and INQ28. 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






And then we have insight like the above which will envitably be preserved for posterity. (Like check, don't like check)

Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Gordon Shumway wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you read some of Film Crit Hulk's reviews?
Yep, honestly not a fan. In short, the writing runs (gallops) to the maudlin.

On TLJ = https://filmcrithulk.blog/2017/12/15/the-force-belongs-to-us-the-last-jedis-beautiful-refocusing-of-star-wars/


In addition to the hyperbole that Manchu pointed out above, I would also steer away from people who are not willing to put their own names on stuff. It's fine if you want to brand something with a name, but put your own name to it as well if you want anybody to respect or cite it. I would actually like all forums to require real names. Gets rid of the crap. Makes Doxieing a thing of the past (in terms of sheer masses), and provides a way to establish credibility. If we are going to go with the "everybody is a celebrity" culture, we better damn well accept it or else everything is just "fake news".

In terms of this discussion it seems like "fake news" that people actually liked the last Star Wars movie.
I've been on forums where real names were required and still managed to be caustic and unpleasant places. The only difference was people who gave a crap about their real name didn't post there, but there were plenty others who didn't seem to mind being dicks while using their real name.

I think there's a lot of people who have good things to say but don't want it to be tied to their real name for whatever reason. A lawyer might have good insights on law but might not want to post under their real name. An engineer might have good insights on technical stuff but doesn't want to post under their real name because if they say something slightly incorrect it'll hurt them more than Joe Schmo who has no fething idea what they're talking about in the first place. Or a doctor who might hold certain insights that they can share anonymously but not under their real name.

Dakka at the moment has a lot of people who are experts in various fields who I think would stop posting if they had to have it tied to their real name. Then you're just left with all the idiots who don't care and have no repercussions for anything stupid they say.

EDIT: I actually think for me there's a slight element of respect for people smart enough not to tie their real name to what they say on the internet

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/27 03:48:30


 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






I can see that but I would think after a short time of adjustment, most people could get along fine. Most academics have no problem with putting up their views, even non tenured folks. I wouldn't. It might curb some of the stuff I say here, but then some of the stuff I say here probably should be curbed. And upon reflection, isn't something I should have said in the first place The mods would certainly have an easier time of things.

Put it this way, I wouldn't want to take legal, or medical or what have you advice from some anonymous source on the internet. I might get an interesting idea on stuff, but not the sort of idea I would really be comfortable on following up on.

Edit: for me there is a bit of respect given to someone who is willing to tie their name to their statements and still have the wherewithal to not post gak. Or at the least, not to post the first thing that pops into ones' mind.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/27 04:10:35


Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I can see that but I would think after a short time of adjustment, most people could get along fine. Most academics have no problem with putting up their views, even non tenured folks. I wouldn't. It might curb some of the stuff I say here, but then some of the stuff I say here probably should be curbed. The mods would certainly have an easier time of things.
The smartest academics I know say very little unless behind closed doors with people they know, and I'm sure it's in large part because they don't want to be quoted on stuff if they're slightly wrong.

It's one thing I've had to learn as a research engineer because it didn't come naturally to me; it's better to say nothing at all than say something that'll bite you in the arse later


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Put it this way, I wouldn't want to take legal, or medical or what have you advice from some anonymous source on the internet. I might get an interesting idea on stuff, but not the sort of idea I would really be comfortable on following up on.
Well of course you wouldn't want follow through on any advice obtained from an internet forum.... but I'd still rather it be there than those people simply packing up their bags and leaving because they're too afraid to say anything lest it be tied to their name forever, then we're just left with the idiots who don't mind what is tied to their names

As I said I've been a member of a "real name" forum before and it still had a bunch of uninformed dicks.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/27 04:09:30


 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






Well the world is filled with uniformed dicks. I would rather know their names so I can avoid them. As to saying nothing unless being pretty sure about it, count me in. That would be a pretty good world to live in. I say enough stupid stuff to myself every day, no need for others'. As I see it pretty much all the horrible stuff I see on the internet is tied to people who are willing to say/do things anonymously and all the greatest things about the Internet (most of the knowledge obtained by humanity) has been willingly cited. If one doesn't want to tie their name to it, one probably need not say it. Would your say it to someone's face, in other words.

Well crap I got this off topic. Move it along folks, nothing to see here.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/27 04:38:06


Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Well the world is filled with uniformed dicks. I would rather know their names so I can avoid them.
Well people still have usernames you can identify and ignore

As to saying nothing unless being pretty sure about it, count me in. That would be a pretty good world to live in.
The intelligent people who know the most are the only ones who stop saying stuff though, the dumb ones don't change

If one doesn't want to tie their name to it, one probably need not say it.
I disagree. I'd rather have an off the cuff comment from a knowledgeable person than them saying nothing at all because they don't want their name tied to it. There are many fields I know nothing about, there's others that I don't know 100% but still know better than 98% of the population, anonymity lets me comment on them without fear of it biting me in the arse down the track. Like, I know enough about mechanical engineering to critique and comment on someone's designs anonymously, it's not my own field of expertise but it's close enough to it that I wouldn't comment if it was in writing with my name tied to it (even though I might comment orally if someone asked me, the added factor of being in writing makes it worse, I'll make more off the cuff comments face to face than I would in an email for example).

When things are actually in writing most smart people will refrain from saying anything at all if it could come back to bite them Even things they might say face to face.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Well crap I got this off topic. Move it along folks, nothing to see here.
Maybe make a thread in nuts and bolts if you want to continue the discussion?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/27 04:57:56


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

It's probably fine at this point to close this thread since there is another going about the same film.

   
 
Forum Index » Geek Media
Go to: