Straha wrote: ↑
Please tell me how this review
praises TFA for giving them 'all the nostalgia they wanted'.
I do not want to give the channel any additional clicks, so I am not watching it.
So, this gets back to why in the fuck you think "Disney is influenced by fanboys" is a reason not to engage with nuanced media criticism?
Because I do not think they are "nuanced media criticism"?
As they say, concessions accepted.
That is not changing my mind about their channel.
So, over the course of this conversation you've made clear that you've actually not engaged or understood their criticism which has plenty of nuance that you missed. You have blanketly painted into a corner as being critical of a thing you love for, perhaps, ulterior motives and then dismissed them outright.
I did not see any evidence of nuance when I first saw the video years ago. I am not going to rewatch something I disliked watching 9 years ago just to argue against you. My bias is based on my reaction to the video a decade ago, and until I see a well argued defence of their criticism, this is going to be my view towards their channel.
So if your argument is 'fanboy critique is bad and should not be listened to', I guess the prior question is given the level of fanboyism you are portraying right now, why should anyone take you seriously?
You don't have to take me seriously. I am a mere Star Wars fan on the Internet after all. The question is why should anyone take RLM seriously?
You have, without knowing it, engaged in exactly the critique that they offer against JJ Abrams and Disney's control of the base. This seems to mean that either you're speaking from blanket ignorance or that you too are a fanboy who I should ignore. Which one is it?
Feel free to ignore me?
If a story is executed badly it is, almost by definition, a _bad story_. Discussing the misexecution of the story compared to what it could have been is the role of a critic.
There is a difference between the overarching plot and narrative of a story, and issues in execution ( acting, editing and etc). Lumping them as one is not good criticism.
So you admit you know nothing about what they actually say but that you still dislike them so much you will not engage?
Thicken your skin.
Why should I do something I do not enjoy?
Because it offers a depthful nuanced take on why the story failed to deliver, the reasons behind that failure, why it is so jarringly discordant with the rest of the Star Trek universe, and more.
And what evidence is there that they offered a depthful and nuanced take on the story when their entire shtick is making it look like a neck-beard complaining about something for over an hour?
'm not going to restate the core critiques that they make. I get paid when I tutor people on material. Watch it or don't, but do us all a favor and keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about.
Then I have no reason to feel inclined to change my mind based on what you've said.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.