/sw/ - Star Wars

>>27182

Now that I rewatch those clips, I can't help but notice the use of the phrase "it was everything I hoped for." Really telling how many of these faggots just wanted a rehash of their childhood with the OT and not an original or good story.

>>27183

Shills, no normal person thought like this or would say that. What people wanted was a good movie with a compelling story and equally compelling characters not a rehash.

>>27180

Watched 2 hours so far, its good stuff.

>>27187

Its true, his TLJ videos are stupidly long. But this is only an issue for people with ADD or those like me with busy schedules. But this is the perfect weapon against Disneyfags who all suffer from ADD, so they won't be able to form a decent rebuttal against this shit since they won't have the patience to endure through it or properly deconstruct it.

>>27189

The length isn't an issue, it's the off-topic shit. If the title says it's about TFA, why waste so much time responding to every jewtuber who so much as makes a nagging tweet at you?

>>27191

From what I understand, he wanted to get his message loud and clear that this series is a complete objective view of the movie and is trying to knock the retarded "It's all subjective" post modern faggotry argument to the void. He's even agreed that it probably should be its own video and said he would upload it as so later on if he gets the chance.

>>27193

The strength of his arguments and the overall quality of his video are sufficient to throw off ridiculous claims about subjectivity or nitpicking. Devoting that much time throwing counterpoints at low-tier "critics" that most of us have never heard of (and none of us care about) just weakens the video overall. It's an "old-man-yells-at-cloud" moment that makes him look overly touchy and combative. It would have been better if he just stuck to the review and ignored the nobodies who are intentionally misrepresenting and misconstruing his arguments.

>>27192

I almost wanted to question why the fuck Carlos and Miss Frizzle were trying to tow the moon, but apparently it's a asteroid.

God, I haven't seen The Magic School Bus in years.

>>27192

shit I made that webm, nice to see it getting circulated.

>all those clips with the disney shills

So good.

>>27189

>>27190

He has a shorter, it's still 40 minutes more humorous criticism of TFA called "The Farce Awakens–An Unbridled Rage" on his channel that's more useful in terms of a quick breakdown of why the film is shit. This series is specifically for autistes and mouse-haters that really want to see every aspect of why TFA is garbage, and I can appreciate that very much.

>>27182

>Mark Kermode showering it with praise

Used to listen to that clown, thinking he was funny, until he just became insufferable. He famously hated the original trilogy for "ruining serious sci-fi cinema".

>>27200

He's also a Twilight fan, and a Communist.

>>27203

Quite right. Making the heroes the 600-pound gorilla and the villains the underdogs has great storytelling potential, and is an elegant way to make the villains formidable as they have the odds stacked against them. It's very effective, and pretty simple to execute. And you don't even need to be an original director to do it, a hack like JJ could pull it off because there's so much successful material for him to steal. Thrawn's counteroffensive campaigns, Zsinj's empire, one of the many other warlords. You don't even have to stick to Star Wars, Wrath of Khan was a wildly successful film that did exactly this as well, albeit on a smaller scale. But no, JewJew proved he doesn't even know how to rip people off the right way; he just took Shadow the Solo and some other bad parts of the EU and managed to make them even worse.

>>27194

>strength of his arguments

We are anons, that is how we operate (alongside liberal amounts of insult banter). For all his intelligence and wisdom, he is not. He is a public figure, unfortunately, and those are subject to different rules of engagement. He might also be arming his subscriber base against their tactics to ensure the discrediting goes further afield. Don't get me wrong, the video length is just silly, but there are reasons for that long section (even if it really should have been its own video).

>>27205

Too bad he hardly ever updates.

>>27201

I can't help but notice that most of MauLer's rivals are commie faggots. Biggest one so far that seems to almost have a grudge against him is Hcommieguy. Can't say I would be happy either if someone spent 10 hours going over in pain staking detail why my opinion on Dark Souls II is shit.

>>27204

At least people are starting to see how fucked TFA is now that it's been long enough for the initial hype to die down. The seeds of TLJ's utter disdain for the source material were sowed in TFA.

>>27218

New stuff is slow for now, it's fine. Who doesn't love keeping a zillion tabs open?

>>27192

>childern's

Please. All you needed to do was play the clips. You fucked up the one thing necessary.

>the guy who thinks Infinity War is great cinema is /ourguy/

Not a good look. Not a good look at all, /sw/

>>27193

>that this series is a complete objective view of the movie

>objective view of art

Retard has already lost. He seems to think because art is made with technology, that means its quality can be measured and quantified like the way a toaster can be rated. He also says Empire Strikes Back is objectively the best Star Wars film, which is the definition of a subjective opinion. If anything, A New Hope is the "objectively" best movie because it tells a complete story and works entirely on its own, while Empire merely sets up the next one. Empire also far worse cinematography than A New Hope.

>>27227

Ectually, he can. Or did you miss his commenting on the mangling of cinematographic language, the misusing of John Williams' talents into meaningless broadness, or the hilarious inconsistency over whether or not Stormtroopers are to be considered people? There are a wealth of things you can use to objectively grade a film.

>>27196

What is "childern"?

>>27225

Its saying that even a children's cartoon does a better job of portraying space physics than a movie meant for "mature" audiences.

Hey the site works again.

>>27236

>furfags

Why did this guy have to be the biggest TFA critique…

>>27238

Because severe autism is required to do 15 hour breakdown documentaries of a bad scifi movie.

>>27226

Everyone has their vice. Mauler's happens to be capeshit.

>>27227

You missed the point entirely, you doubleposting faglord. It's not just a matter of technology, there are aspects of art in general and cinema specifically that can be discussed objectively. A logical inconsistency in the script is something that objectively exists. Inconsistent characterization is something that objectively happens. Only the conclusions you draw, e.g. "Film X is not enjoyable because of plot holes Y and Z," are subjective, and even then subjective opinions are only worth broadcasting if they're backed up with objective elements. For instance, I can say "Rogue one has too many main characters for me to care about any of them," and back that up with several objective measures, such as comparing the number of protagonists to the numbers in other films, showing that the characters have no established personality besides one or two gimmicks, showing that none of them have their backstory expanded upon, showing that none besides possibly not-Jan go through any kind of arc, and so on. Even though the final conclusion is subjective because it's something I feel, it is backed up by objective observations about the films.

Also, he never says ESB is the cinematically the best film, the actor for Kylé El Katarno says that. Mauler just uses that as an example for someone being able to differentiate whether they liked a film or not (subjective feelings) from whether a film had any mistakes cinematically (objective observation).

>>27240

There are tons of logical inconsistencies in David Lynch's films, yet these people aren't saying that those movies are objectively bad. Stop pretending this shit is scientific, it's just opinions.

>>27246

Way to miss the forest for the trees. The Oro Woods are gone and will never come back, get over it. Script inconsistencies are far from the only example of this phenomenon, just the easiest to showcase, there are plenty of other aspects to film-making that can be performed demonstrably well or poorly. Lighting, pacing, setups without payoffs, arc of character, depth of character, color choices…all of these are provable, and exist independently from the observer. Therefore they must be objective.

>it's just opinions.

No. That is a modernist weasel-word used to deflect criticism away from shoddy quality in favor of how the art made someone feel. It is used by viewers who feel insecure about enjoying low-quality media, so they try to label obvious shortcomings as "opinions" so that their precious feelings can never be invalidated, and their sacred cow can never be harmed. Framing everything in terms of subjectivity, and whatever emotional high the audience happened to experience on first viewing, degrades the quality of art as there is no longer incentive to create a quality product, only something that makes people emote.

Along side the minimum talent required for success, art will steadily degrade, until it falls into one of two categories–that which is so bland and without substance that the audience may project whatever feelings they wish onto it, and that which is simply as offensive and attention-grabbing as possible. In art galleries, this means near-every exhibit is either an empty shoebox, or a naked woman shitting on a canvas to protest the patriarchy. In music, it's every Top 40 entry being either a shallow pop song with empty, repetitive lyrics, or a graphic account of how much money, drugs, and melanin-enriched brothers the artists has, and how many murders he has to his name and how many fathers he hasn't. In cinema this means every film is either explosions interspersed with Whedon quips, comedy revolving around sex and flatulence, or uninspired nostalgia cash-grabs. Or, in the case of hacks like Johnson, it's deliberately laughing in the face of filming convention and coherent storytelling, because you're so full of yourself that you don't think it matters how to get from nonsensical scene to the next, so long as the audience feels the right emotional highs from each one, whom the critics then praise for being "artsy" and "subversive" because his film was tone-deaf and couldn't match pace with a paraplegic marathon. There absolutely is such a thing as good films and bad films, it's not just a matter of opinions. Saying otherwise is to suggest that Wrath of Khan and Bob the Builder are identical in quality because the four year old who watched the latter felt just as happy as the dedicated hyperautist that watched the former.

>>27249

>Along side the minimum talent required for success

>he believes in meritocracy

JFL at just worlders.

>>27256

>These subhumans never gave an ounce of a shit about Star Wars, as they sit there quoting Plinkett reviews verbatim and lapping up Disney's diarrhea in their feeding troughs. Just like with anything else, they are only in it for the social points with their fellow peers, and only going to these films to keep up with their own inane water cooler chatter.

Exactly, they were all happy when Disney bought SW because "it was time to take the franchise out of Lucas' hands". Now that Disney has Fox, get ready to see the same argument when they'll get rid of Ridley Scott and make a sequel/reboot of Alien.

>>27253

Obviously there's no meritocracy in CY+3 Hollywood, didn't mean to imply that. Point is even with nepotism and tribe preference, there's generally a bare minimum level of competence you need to achieve. Modernist bullshit is helping push that minimum lower.

>>27215

Mark Kermode's the Boomer who works for the BBC

>>27190

That's what E;R is for.

>>27190

>The Plinkett Reviews, for all their faults, were successful in spite of their length because they were hilarious.

I'd rather watch HackFraudMedia than RLM's Plinkett. Mike was way to nice when he made that review of TFA (he spent 3/4 of the video shitting on the prequel and the fan theories).

>>27189

>for people with ADD

No. Being concise aids in getting your point across - that is precisely why we look for people to be concise. Ramble on and you risk losing the essence of what you want to say, regardless of the intelligence or attention span of your audience. There was much in the opening of this video that was entirely superfluous. And that is an objective fact.

>>27276

Which is why he tells the audience to skip over it at the start of the fucking video and tells them when exactly the actual critique starts.

>>27276

As has been said before, he's already made a shorter, funnier, more to the point critique of TFA for the normies. This isn't meant to be concise, it's by design an extremely autistic, minute by minute analysis for the kind of folks that appreciate this.

>>27287

>the actual critique

Does that include the part where he spends 7 minutes arguing with a strawman about the lighting in the dropships? And the repeated descents back into YouTube drama through the second half of the video?

>>27300

His "Unbridled Rage" videos are just collecting his thoughts after watching a movie. They aren't a concise version of the critique videos.

>>27313

>Please tell me people don't actually believe that unironically.

I don't know if anyone actually believes the shit he's trying to argue against, but whether they do or not, it's nothing but an irrelevant waste of time to me.

>>27312

Well, I don't know what to tell you. You want the 15 hour autismofest to be shorter and more focused on the more glaring issues, but you won't accept a shorter analysis of the film that for the most part does exactly that, because it wasn't created with the exact motivation you wanted. You're demanding far more creative control from a guy that just does it for the hotpockets than you really have a right to expect.

>>27314

You've probably wasted more time sperging here than you have watching the video by now.

>>27319

Go shill your shit somewhere else, your critiques are gay, tbh.

>>27322

The whole point is that he's the only critique bothering to shit on TFA. No one else is willing to take off the rose-tinted glasses and admit JJ is a fucking piece of shit and that his movie is a derivative piece of unoriginal cinema riddled with mystery boxes to mask its complete lack of direction and unoriginality.

>>27300

I have no problem with that, but it doesn't make the intro any less superfluous.

>>27325

Hence why the furfag says to skip it.

>>27324

There were others, E;R & Hackfraud and people that bitch about it in their videos such as Doomcock.

TFA was never as well received as what the media shills push most people saw it for the rip off it was the issue was that some were tricked by the shills and strung along with the promise that the next film would be a true Star-Wars film which would answer questions left by TFA and ultimately fix the story, characters, and give the audience the bad ass Luke Skywalker they wanted.TLJ and Lucasarts employees (after release) ended all illusions and subsequently ended any enthusiasm anyone had for the new films.

>>27340

Point is there were many youtube channels/people that became popular for criticizing TFA more so after the release of TLJ.

>>27187

>Guy needs to learn how to cut out the bullshit, or at least summarize what he wants to say. The video is 2 hours and 45 minutes long, and he spends the first hour rambling about shit that doesn't matter at all - stuff like YouTube drama, the comment sections on other videos, critiques about arguments he's made on past vids, how he plans to structure this video, etc. It's a huge waste of time, both his and his viewer's.

At around 5 or 6 minutes he says he's going to talk about all that shit and gives a skip mark to get to the actual analysis. Since I have never heard of him before and didn't care about his personal life/youtube account I skipped to the 1:05 mark where he starts the video.

>>27326

Still doesn't change the fact that the intro should have been made separately, as its own video.

>>27192

>can't move something in space because it's size and mass

That's not how it works at all. Also I've never seen that disney movie on the right (Rouge one I assume?) but that scene is fucking retarded.

>>27351

The real reason the asteroid won't move is because they're firing ther propellant mass into the asteroid; as it bounces off the rock and disperses randomly (being a gas at that point), it creates a near-zero net thrust.

>>27352

>because they're firing ther propellant mass into the asteroid

Wouldn't the emitted gases have less energy then the combustion reaction located right behind the thrusters? Even though there is conservation of mass there would be energy lost to heat and sound (vibrating the ship and asteroid) so the energy of the propelled gasses hitting the asteroid should have less energy. I'm not should how you would figure the momentum for this one though as the moment the rockets fire the momentum would be zero (relative to the viewer). But with a force applied on the ship from the rockets and energy lost in the combustion, there should be a net increase in force in the direction the rockets are facing.

At least I think, I know it's a children's show, and I've only done one semester of physics yet, but it's still an interesting question. However the rouge one case is stupid as hell, unless there's some explanation for why no one sitting at a turbo laser saw a ship flying towards them and didn't just fire a single shot, or why no one on the bridge was able to start the engines of the star destroyer which I assume would be powerful enough to overpower the small force of the rebel ship several thousands times over. But I suppose bigger and more is what disneyfags want and that's what disney will deliver because it looks neat.

>>27354

You're mostly correct and I was wrong to say 'near-zero thrust'. Also due to the size difference between the rock and the pod, most gas will disperse in the pod's direction, making it difficult to really say which side wins out without knowing engine/fuel specs. However, the reduction in thrust will still be significant and probably more than half (unless the engine nozzle was seriously shittily designed, but the flame pattern indicates it's fine).

>Even though there is conservation of mass there would be energy lost to heat and sound (vibrating the ship and asteroid) so the energy of the propelled gasses hitting the asteroid should have less energy

Exploiting relativity-stuff for propulsion is a VERY advanced topic (it interacts with quantum-bullshit a.k.a. 'WTF does any of this mean?'), here's some nerds arguing over it for reference;

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87259/does-decrease-in-temperature-affect-mass-e-mc2

>>27356

>VERY advanced

Reading more on it, I lied. It was actually pretty straight-forward, and does appear to be exploitable, which is fucking great for advanced travel systems.

>>27356

I mean also the fact that there is no friction or drag means that the longer the engines are firing the more momentum is being added to the system, the gases bouncing off the rock would remain the same amount of constant force (as long as the engines keep burning fuel at the same rate) so it should accelerate at an increasing rate. That's the idea behind solar sails and ion drives. You use the force from photons or elections pushing your ship which initially is basically zero but because there is no friction or forces opposing your thrust (unless it's opposite to gravity, but why would you do that?) the force is constant but the work and momentum keeps compounding until you're moving really fucking fast. So in this case I'd say that it's basically the same scenario but you have to first surpass the force the gasses apply on the asteroid which I imagine would take negligible time, and after that there is a constant force applied to the asteroid from the gasses but the force from the rockets would compound speed to the ship.

>unless the engine nozzle was seriously shittily designed, but the flame pattern indicates it's fine

I don't know much about actual rocket engines, we only very briefly hit on rocket mechanics and it was mostly the formula for changing mass with constant force. I suppose I could fuck around in KSP for a bit to see what happens but I''m not sure if the physics are still great or if gasses have any impact in the game. Because it is just a game after all not a simulator. **Going to shill for universe sandbox squared and SpaceEngine. The former is a ~30$ game on steam, I think, and models physics pretty well and lets you fuck around with orbits and gravity, the latter is a free simulation of the universe with trillions of procedurally generated planets, stars, moons, asteroids, nebulae, clusters, galaxies, ect and can be fun to fly around checking out random systems for planets or trying to find life.

>>27361

>rocket-in-a-cup

Forgot to explain this. The cup is acting as a secondary nozzle by forcing the propellant in the opposite dirction it was initially fired. The rock is also acting as an abstract secondary nozzle.

Guise , even if they could move asteroid/Star destroyer due to the difference in mass the smaller ship would get destroyed with very littler damage being done to the asteroid and or star destroyer.

>>27364

To clarify due to the difference in mass the smaller vessel would have been utterly destroyed by the impact when it rammed the larger ship. The larger ship on the other hand would not have suffered much damage therefore the video in which the tiny rebel ship successfully rams causes massive damage to SD while the rebel ship stays intact and furthermore is powerful enough to change the flight path of the SD which has its own active engines that are far larger than the size of the rebel ship itself is bullshit.

>>27460

This was the reason that Magic School Bus webm was created in the first place. Also, the force required for one SSD to slice through the other would have had to (structurally speaking) travel entirely through the slender neck of the rebel ship, meaning the hammerhead's structure would have to be about 1000x stronger than SDs for it to work.

>>27467

>SSD

*SD

>Star Wars not adhering to hard science

This is one thing I don't really care about, to be honest, so long as the universe's own internal rules are pretty consistent. The series was always envisioned as space fantasy, where people could survive in the vacuum of space with nothing but a breathing mask.

>>27470

Too bad the Disney films don't bother to even follow the world's own rules and logic.

>>27470

>survive in the vacuum of space with nothing but a breathing mask.

They were inside an exogorth. Or are you using the Rebels space scene as a fucking reference you pleb? That scene in Rogue One was just terrible, made even worse by the fact that the ships were obviously undetailed scans of real life buildable toy models that looked fake as shit.

>>27312

>>27350

>>27340

You all seem to be forgetting that Mauler already a made a short and accurate critique of TFA. The new videos coming out are just him doing extra long commentary that goes into detail by breaking down every issue with the film, including other shitty critics like the hack frauds and Angry Joe.

>>27192

The webm is wrong. The engines of the star destroyers in orbit of Scarif were disabled by the Y-wings so they were already losing their orbit. The SD needed a little push from the small ship and the gravity of the planet did the rest.

>>27488

It doesn't matter if the engines are activated or not, there's a little thing called inertia that you can't get around. For the same reason, it also doesn't matter whether or not the ship is being pushed in the direction of gravity. Even without engines it has an orbital trajectory and won't just fall straight down into the planet.

>>27489

>there's a little thing called inertia that you can't get around

I know but the ships weren't moving, they were stationned near the shield gate.

>>27490

>weren't moving

All matter is constantly in motion. Can a pebble move a boulder simply because the pebble is moving and boulder isn't? Use your fucking head, you mongoloid fuck.

>>27485

I'm talking about the original concept for Star Wars. George wanted those breathing masks to be a much bigger thing.

>>27499

It never happened.

>>27188

TFA is far worse than JJ Trek.

>>27725

TFA is an elaborate deconstruction and destruction of a vital piece of culture. JJ Trek is just a shit action movie since Trek was always pozzed.

For those of you who want to read the greatest TLJ breakdown I've seen yet, here's a link to John Wright's 16-part review of it. It's the best one because he goes into the SJW anti-whitemalehero agenda that the film espouses in an explicit way that every other reviewer had to tiptoe around (especially in part 15, which is entirely about the agenda and message of TLJ):

http://www.scifiwright.com/2018/07/the-last-straw-01-star-wars-anonymous/

I did some checking on the guy, he thinks the democrats are just commies pretending to be nice, and republicans only pretend to oppose them; he seems to be a Trumpfag as of 3 months ago, and somewhat limited in racial awareness, though not blind. In other words, he's second only to E;R from what we've got to choose from.

>>27800

>somewhat limited in racial awareness, though not blind. In other words, he's second only to E;R from what we've got to choose from.

Well you can read Counter Currents mate.

>At one point, the audience is invited to laugh along with the Oriental heavy weapons guy, who seems to be carrying an industrial vacuum cleaner on his back, as he shoots a helpless Stormtrooper in the head. It’s the same Jewish malevolence on display as was explicit in Inglorious Basterds as they battered a loyal Nazi to death.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2016/12/rogue-one-whites-at-war-with-ourselves/

>>27635

It says something about the spirit of Star Wars that George intended though. The "science" of the universe was to be more akin to old pulp adventure fiction than actual science. I think that's fine, as long as it's consistent, you stick to it, and you don't go changing rules on the fly.

>>27802

Thanks, will read.

>>27805

I'm glad that the universe's mechanics were just sensible and vague enough that it was possible to fill in the gaps in a way that turns it into borderline hard sci-fi.

>>27802

>read CounterCurrents

Sometimes you need to come up for air, Uncle /pol/.

>>27802

Huh, worth a read, especially because it triggers this retard >>27828

>>27828

CounterCurrents has good articles. It's not The Daily Stormer or something.

>>27828

Can we get that derailing faggot out already?

>>27828

I don't even like /pol/ since they're paranoid defeatists obsessed with taking us into a viking stone age, but CounterCurrents and E;R were one of the few bashing Disney Wars while everyone else was sucking its cock

Well then, it's easy to rile them up too.

>>27877

>>27889

Ah, someone who actually wants people to listen to them. Have proceeded to reading the article on you two's recommendation.

>DailyStormer

It's not, though it is irritatingly coarse at parts. Disrupts the flow a bit.

>E;R

He's fun, gets a good critique while working the anti-PC humor in a natural way.

Let's see…

>Empire atrocities are options of last resort to Rebel aggression. The Empire functions similarly to the Judges in Mega City One and the United States Army in various foreign occupations — showing up in force to bully and intimidate the locals into not getting any funny ideas about getting their own sovereignty, and then disappearing again to patrol some more pressing parts of the galaxy. Twice the Death Star nukes a city, both times at huge cost to the themselves, as a means of preventing the Rebellion from getting out of hand. Civilian lives and the lives of Force disciples matter not to Rebels when a tactical advantage is at stake, and they will push the Empire to its most destructive in their desperation.

Yep, they get the Imperial ethos pretty well. Why didn't you post stuff like this, >>27802 ? It's much more useful to understanding what this article's actually about, which is finding allegory and how Disneyfilm are hacks for trying to half-assedly toss in their interpretation of modern day events. Not a bad article.

Wright, meanwhile, is for the filmography autiste who wants a look into every major failure of the movie from a technical and narrative outlook.

>>27916

I consider E;R to truly be on our side for the most part. Doesn't support self-censorship and says what he wants without giving a damn about consequences, and best of all he was the only one at the time, even before MauLer, to give the mouse the middle finger. It got him a shit ton of views and a lot of hate, but he didn't give Jar Jar Abrams any mercy. He also supports the EU in the sense that it was a good source of inspiration that Disney callously tossed aside instead of using it as a reference or inspiration. But the fact that he was the only one at the time unaffected by the rose tinted glasses handed out with each ticket of TFA and never backs down is what genuinely makes me respect the guy the most. Too bad he rarely updates, but hopefully that whole PewDiePie drama will give him incentive to really aim for the top and produce more content (without sacrificing quality I hope).

>>27925

>I consider E;R to truly be on our side for the most part.

E;R willingly names the Gem in his reviews. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

>>27236

I get that the guy has on the nose opinions about SW, but its best to just make webms out of the things he says and post them without his credit, otherwise its gonna lead back to this furfaggotry and no one takes a furfag seriously.

>>27226

honestly i dug infinity war but i still recognize it as capeshit babby popcorn flicks

>>27227

one thing i've always argued is that george designed each star wars film to be able to be watched on their own, there's enough context thrown in that you don't need to watch a prior film to get a sense of where things are, and the disney films fail at this.

>>29025

Rags is a reply-girl. His entire youtube career is based on shitting on console fanboys. It's no surprise that he became one of Sargon's capos.

This faggots videos annoy the piss out of me. I want to see what he has to say about the movies. He has some good insight, but it's filtered through 7 layers of e celeb shit flinging. If you want to shit on the fanboys then by all means shit on them, but don't do it in your critique. It's like asking someone what's good on the menu and they bitch about their ex boyfriend. Who the fuck wants that?

>>29376

Really? The opening mocking the shill critics was probably the best (and only entertaining) part.

>>29385

Why would you want to watch e celeb drama? Might as well go watch drama watch or some shit.

>>29388

There was never a better compilation of TFA shills than that. It was needed to finally show how full of shit TFA defenders are.

>>29483

>not knowing a flippant post when you see it

>>29483

You scoff, but despite having its share of bullshit, a lot of Trek runs amusingly counter to anything resembling current leftist shit. It presents a world in which human races and cultures have remained separate and distinct from each other hundreds of years into the future, and in which it is normal for people to hold themselves to high standards of moral and ethical conduct.

Polite sage for drifting off-topic.

>>29492

Aggressive, rude, tumultuous sage for polite sage.

Part 2 is finally out. Huge improvement here in that there seems to be no eceleb bullshit clogging up the first half of it, as there was in part 1.

>>27187

agree. The first hour of his first video could have been a video on its own

>>31436

Very in-depth take as always. He's actually being more fair to TFA than I expected.

>>31443

It was actually made into a video of its own shortly afterwards.

>>31436

A little better than the first but it still has some e-celeb parts where I think he should have cut out. Argue against the common criticism instead of attacking the person directly. This is the one big problem that Mauler needs to fix in my opinion if he wants to be seen as fair. I have to say, the in-between with his other youtube friends I guess with the tapes are the worse part. Sure, they break up it being Mauler only speaking, but they have some of the shittiest opinions that I've ever heard.

Different perspectives and all that, but they self contradict the critique in what this whole video series is doing and really doesn't bring a counter argument to the critique that I can concede with "You have a point". When you say a bad movie is just a bad movie and that you shouldn't look too deep into it, you shit on those who have been analyzing movies since the start when it was beginning to be taken more seriously. I'd have to guess the people saying such comments come from a younger generation because in mine, we talked about what was good and what was bad about a film. We'd go even deeper into it if there was enough material to dissect. If we had conflicting arguments, we'd agree to disagree and move on. The only people who watch a movie once, and don't think about it afterwards has to be a rarity or a new breed of scum that I want no part of. The one reason why he have such an entertainment dystopia is because they haven't learned from the past. If you don't learn from previous successes and failures, how are you going to create something great that'll last years after?

>>31542

>If you don't learn from previous successes and failures, how are you going to create something great that'll last years after?

Because qUAliTY iS SubjECtIVE.

>>31439

I have no idea what Brianlet thought was even Monty Pythony about that scene. Is Monty Python for him just a british man making weird noises?

>>31949

i'm assuming it's the fact that a gag was shown to us within the opening moments of the film

because your mom jokes are totally monty python tier, you fucking manchild fascist