william i am not being sarcastic or mean when i say i am fascinated by the fact that you seem to hold dear all the nerd candy i can't stand. how far does this rule extend? how do you feel about the star wars prequels, the original theatrical version of blade runner, and the ultimates 3?

 No offense taken. Star Wars Prequels were nowhere near as good as they should have and could have been, and not even close to being in the same league as the originals. That being said, I don't find them nearly as bad as people seem to think they are. I think it's an unfortunate case of something becoming an easy shorthand way of saying "Big disappointment".

I'm not too much of an expert on the various different versions of Blade Runner, but I like the version without the voiceover if that tells you anything. I think the recent "Final Edition" was good and I don't feel the need to own any of the others. I just hope Ridley's done tinkering with it, already. Move on, man!

I didn't read Ultimates past the first arc. i thought that was cool, but never felt particularly compelled to pick it up after that for some reason.

Oh, and I don't care for Dr. Who.

*runs away*

bam, we agree on blade runner. i'll cling to that.

which doctor who do you not like, the modern series has no relation to the classic imo. i'd be surprised if you disliked the recent stuff, it's basically a love letter to the whedon style

bam, we agree on blade runner. i'll cling to that.

which doctor who do you not like, the modern series has no relation to the classic imo. i'd be surprised if you disliked the recent stuff, it's basically a love letter to the whedon style

 Well, I never liked the classics (except for Tom Baker, who was very cool IMO), so I never bothered with the modern incarnation. If it's like you say, I'll have to check it out.

*waits for smoke to come out of Nefud's ears*

are you kidding? i save 99% of my rage for politically oppressive people, this is just a star trek thread.

i'd definitely say check out the new series, starting with the 2005 series. the head writer basically took doctor who and his massive buffy hardon and smashed them together as hard as he could. sometimes it's obscenely good, other times it's so bad it'll make your eyes bleed. but that first year is flawless

are you kidding? i save 99% of my rage for politically oppressive people, this is just a star trek thread.

i'd definitely say check out the new series, starting with the 2005 series. the head writer basically took doctor who and his massive buffy hardon and smashed them together as hard as he could. sometimes it's obscenely good, other times it's so bad it'll make your eyes bleed. but that first year is flawless

Thanks for the tip! I'll definitely check it out!

Who gets the other 1% of your rage?

are you kidding? i save 99% of my rage for politically oppressive people, this is just a star trek thread.

i'd definitely say check out the new series, starting with the 2005 series. the head writer basically took doctor who and his massive buffy hardon and smashed them together as hard as he could. sometimes it's obscenely good, other times it's so bad it'll make your eyes bleed. but that first year is flawless

Thanks for the tip! I'll definitely check it out!

Who gets the other 1% of your rage?

 .5% goes to attractive women who, for reasons unknown, are not currently having sex with me

the other .5% goes to people who dont like classic doctor who

Well, I never liked the classics (except for Tom Baker, who was very cool IMO)

To paraphrase Charlie Brooker: "Tom Baker used to play him as the sort of man you wouldn't wanna... well you wouldn't wanna have to use a bath-towel after him"

Well, I never liked the classics (except for Tom Baker, who was very cool IMO)

To paraphrase Charlie Brooker: "Tom Baker used to play him as the sort of man you wouldn't wanna... well you wouldn't wanna have to use a bath-towel after him"

the vast majority of the time tom baker plays the part, he's doing a harpo marx impression. once you see it, you can't unsee it and it makes it really clear he's not very talented

Hey, look at me! i get .5% of Nefud's rage! EAT IT, SUCKERS!    

I also get some of that rage.

William, your taste is great. Keep doing what your doing.  Nefud is just a whacko, albeit a loveable whacko.  What portion (percentage) of your rage pie do I take up, non-politically oppressed one? 

actually i have pretty exquisite taste. much like the fact that a guy with degree in engineering is better qualified to judge the structural integrity of a bridge, a guy with a degree in english literature (me) is better qualified to judge works for fiction.

i mean, you don't have to believe the structural engineer when he tells you that your bridge is shitty. but it's probably a good idea to just man up and admit you're not as qualified as he is.

actually i have pretty exquisite taste. much like the fact that a guy with degree in engineering is better qualified to judge the structural integrity of a bridge, a guy with a degree in english literature (me) is better qualified to judge works for fiction.

i mean, you don't have to believe the structural engineer when he tells you that your bridge is shitty. but it's probably a good idea to just man up and admit you're not as qualified as he is.

"Whoa..." - Keanu Reeves as multiple characters in multiple movies
 

"actually i have pretty exquisite taste"- translates to pompous ass.

I assumed it was a joke. But one can never be too sure with these ivory tower eggheads.

actually i have pretty exquisite taste. much like the fact that a guy with degree in engineering is better qualified to judge the structural integrity of a bridge, a guy with a degree in english literature (me) is better qualified to judge works for fiction.

i mean, you don't have to believe the structural engineer when he tells you that your bridge is shitty. but it's probably a good idea to just man up and admit you're not as qualified as he is.

Faulty analogy. Whether or not a bridge is structurally sound is a measurable objective fact. No matter how many degrees one has (and this is not a personal attack on you, Nefud, it's a generalization), works of literature/media, especially fiction, are open to subjective evaluation and interpretation by experts and laypeople alike. You can't state for a fact that Work Of Fiction X is somehow measurably and objectively good or bad. When you get down to where the rubber meets  the road, it still ultimately comes down to personal opinion and prejudices.
 

DAMNDAMNDAMNDOUBLEPOST!!!!!!!!!

actually i have pretty exquisite taste. much like the fact that a guy with degree in engineering is better qualified to judge the structural integrity of a bridge, a guy with a degree in english literature (me) is better qualified to judge works for fiction.

i mean, you don't have to believe the structural engineer when he tells you that your bridge is shitty. but it's probably a good idea to just man up and admit you're not as qualified as he is.

Faulty analogy. Whether or not a bridge is structurally sound is a measurable objective fact. No matter how many degrees one has (and this is not a personal attack on you, Nefud, it's a generalization), works of literature/media, especially fiction, are open to subjective evaluation and interpretation by experts and laypeople alike. You can't state for a fact that Work Of Fiction X is somehow measurably and objectively good or bad. When you get down to where the rubber meets  the road, it still ultimately comes down to personal opinion and prejudices.
 

 no sorry that's incorrect. there are storytelling conventions that are diagramable and well-documented (such as the work joseph campbell did). certainly no one can say what is or isn't enjoyable, but it's absolutely possible to assess artistic quality beyond whether or not it's enjoyable.

actually i have pretty exquisite taste. much like the fact that a guy with degree in engineering is better qualified to judge the structural integrity of a bridge, a guy with a degree in english literature (me) is better qualified to judge works for fiction.

i mean, you don't have to believe the structural engineer when he tells you that your bridge is shitty. but it's probably a good idea to just man up and admit you're not as qualified as he is.

Faulty analogy. Whether or not a bridge is structurally sound is a measurable objective fact. No matter how many degrees one has (and this is not a personal attack on you, Nefud, it's a generalization), works of literature/media, especially fiction, are open to subjective evaluation and interpretation by experts and laypeople alike. You can't state for a fact that Work Of Fiction X is somehow measurably and objectively good or bad. When you get down to where the rubber meets  the road, it still ultimately comes down to personal opinion and prejudices.
 

 no sorry that's incorrect. there are storytelling conventions that are diagramable and well-documented (such as the work joseph campbell did). certainly no one can say what is or isn't enjoyable, but it's absolutely possible to assess artistic quality beyond whether or not it's enjoyable. I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. 
 

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. 
 

 lots of plebs have that reaction when faced with a sophisticated opinion dont worry about it

child: all i want to eat is ice cream!!!

adult: ice cream is tasty, but it doesn't provide you with all the nutrients your body requi--

child: NO!!! I WANT ICE CREAM!!!! I KNOW BEST!!!!

Faulty analogy. Whether or not a bridge is structurally sound is a measurable objective fact. No matter how many degrees one has (and this is not a personal attack on you, Nefud, it's a generalization), works of literature/media, especially fiction, are open to subjective evaluation and interpretation by experts and laypeople alike. You can't state for a fact that Work Of Fiction X is somehow measurably and objectively good or bad. When you get down to where the rubber meets  the road, it still ultimately comes down to personal opinion and prejudices.
 

 no sorry that's incorrect. there are storytelling conventions that are diagramable and well-documented (such as the work joseph campbell did). certainly no one can say what is or isn't enjoyable, but it's absolutely possible to assess artistic quality beyond whether or not it's enjoyable.

I'm honestly not trying to butt heads with you, but when I start hearing words like "diagrammable" in this context I get queasy images of plot wheels and books that promise to give you the "secret formula" of how to write a great novel. Of course there are storytelling conventions, recurring themes and imagery. I've read a little Campbell myself (not a lot, so maybe I'm wrong), and I don't remember him objectively evaluating a story as to whether it was good or bad. I think that level of academia is extremely valuable for what it does in terms of revealing that the human mind works in a certain way, that every culture has the same idea of what a story is. But I don't believe it's function is to somehow pick and choose for the masses what's "good" and what's "bad". That sounds extremely elitist to me.

Funny thing is, I never post in the Politics Forum (no particular reason, I just never have), but I read it a lot and I think Nefud and I see eye to eye on more things than he might think.

WTF! What is with all the double posts lately?

How doth one ascend to your lofty perch atop the world so I can sneer down at the mere mortals below alongside your Excellency?  Hook a layman up, 'bro. 

EDIT - William, you are a double posting FIEND

- Doctor, it's an emergency, a woman is giving birth and you're the only one who is available to deliver the baby!
- But I'm not a proctologist!

EDIT - William, you are a double posting FIEND

 It's what I live for.