SFdebris Reviews "Generations".

[Landed]

This guy just shouldn't be doing reviews.

You shouldn't be posting here.

How do you figure?

Your statement aside, I actually do know what I'm talking about. I worked for several years as an on-air personality at a radio station, have done quite a bit of voice-over work and teach a class in broadcasting at a community college.

If the reviewer were a student of mine, I'd advise him to speak more slowly, concentrate on one point at a time, ease up on the attempts at humor (not a strong point by far) and work on his inflection. He's trying to sound smart but is coming off sounding like....well...I hate to say it...but he sounds like a douche. He needs to play to his strengths and, judging by this particular review, I'd advise him to either hire some voice talent or just stick to writing.

EDIT: Jeyl, are you the one behind the review or do you have a connection to him in some way? I'm not meaning to insult, just trying to offer a straightforward critique.

 

[DarylCarpenter]

Meh... SFDebris needs to moan "THAT'S...JUST...RETARDED!" or "FUCK YOU ROGER EBERT!" every couple of minutes, have at least two two temper tantrums per reviews, should start every review with a spoken word theme song, and become utterly befuddled at simple plot points.

 

[Jeyl]

EDIT: Jeyl, are you the one behind the review or do you have a connection to him in some way? I'm not meaning to insult, just trying to offer a straightforward critique.

lol. No, I don't have any relations with SFdebris nor have I ever been in contact with him or ever got him to review something I wanted him to review.

The whole point with the "You shouldn't be posting here" was to contrast your "This guy just shouldn't be doing reviews" quote. You can't really tell anyone that they shouldn't be doing things they enjoy like reviewing Star Trek, because it's pointless. Just like me telling you that you can't post here, or shouldn't. Doesn't stop you from doing it and I'm glad. I like SFDebris' reviews because he really does make some good arguments about an episode's strengths, weaknesses and in many cases their fatal flaws. And honestly, if you think he's too quick, check out just ONE of Yahtzee's reviews.

And if you don't like his style of reviews, that's fine. But I wouldn't say "you shouldn't be doing reviews" just because you don't like them. It would make more sense for me to say "You shouldn't be watching them" because you don't like them! Why express the though of having someone stop what they enjoy doing when you can simply not watch them? It's like Uwe Boll and his terrible movies. Just because they're bad doesn't mean I don't think he should stop making them, because he's living a dream of making movies! I would die to have a position like that.

So yeah. I wasn't being serious when I told you that you shouldn't post here. I'm just saying that making remarks like that is kind of pointless and counterproductive.

I think it's great that you have some critical criticisms in his presentation. Have you forwarded that to him?

 

[Landed]

^^ So, basically, while I'm able to cite why the guy should find another method for delivering his critiques, as his current means is not working for him and is beyond his talent level, you're only reason for telling me I shouldn't be posting here comes from simple vindictiveness? Does not compute.

Or perhaps you could point out where you disagree with what I've said about the review?

 

[Jeyl]

you're only reason for telling me I shouldn't be posting here comes from simple vindictiveness? Does not compute.

Let me reiterate. That post where I said you shouldn't post here? I DID NOT MEAN IT! I'm simply pointing out that it's pointless to tell someone they shouldn't do what they enjoy doing, just as me telling you not to post here was pointless.

So, basically, while I'm able to cite why the guy should find another method for delivering his critiques

No, you were not citing SFDebris' methods, you were saying he shouldn't deliver anything at all.

This guy just shouldn't be doing reviews.

I think this whole issue has more to do with his type of critiquing not living up to your standards. He's been doing these reviews for well over a year and has improved quite a bit since his first one. And over that length of time, his "method for delivering his critiques" does work for some viewers because he does get support from his fans.

If you have anything constructive you with to tell him, go ahead and tell him. But don't waste your time and his by saying he shouldn't be doing reviews.

 

[Landed]

I'm simply pointing out that it's pointless to tell someone they shouldn't do what they enjoy doing, just as me telling you not to post here was pointless.

So, one should not tell a blind man that he shouldn't be driving? You have to play to your strengths and, I'm afraid that our dear reviewer doesn't count audio reviews as one of them.

No, you were not citing SFDebris' methods, you were saying he shouldn't deliver anything at all.

Factually false. I did indeed cite his methods.

I think this whole issue has more to do with his type of critiquing not living up to your standards. He's been doing these reviews for well over a year and has improved quite a bit since his first one. And over that length of time, his "method for delivering his critiques" does work for some viewers because he does get support from his fans.

Not from what I've seen. It would appear that the opinion of those on this board alone is strongly in the negative.

If you have anything constructive you with to tell him, go ahead and tell him. But don't waste your time and his by saying he shouldn't be doing reviews.

Even though he shouldn't? Again, he needs to play to his strengths.

 

[scnj]

Does this guy do anything better or cite any different points than Red Letter Media? Plinkett seemed to have it covered.

 

[Trekker4747]

Gee. That review sucks.

 

[Jeyl]

So, one should not tell a blind man that he shouldn't be driving?

This is going nowhere.

 

[Kirk1980]

I enjoy his reviews because he does them with passion, has some intelligence and tries to explore what Trek means to him and why some of it does or doesn't work.

This ain't his job. It's a hobby. If he were a student of yours, he'd be looking to make it a profession. He's not. Again, he's just a guy doing his thing. People enjoy.

The end.

PS: I love his reviews. The sentiments he talked about in Tapestry got me a little misty-eyed.

 

[I am not Spock]

Not all Moore or Braga's fault.

Remember, Stewart and Spiner had it written into their movie contracts that both their characters would have significant personal story arcs in EVERY TNG Movie. That's why you get Picard & Data as the stars of the Movie Series, and this:
Gen - Picard's family dying / Data's emotion chip
FC - Picard vs the Borg / Data being tempted by the Queen
Ins - Picard's moral dilemma and love story / Data going renegade
Nem - Picard Clone / B-4

Of course, with Picard being the star, perhaps some of his would've been included anyway, but it was Spiner's greed (or, to be fairer, his business acumen at getting a good contractual deal) that ensured some Data nonsense had to be shoehorned into the plot.

Yeah. They tried to turn the TNG movies (with the Picard/Data emphasis) into a Kirk/Spock thing, even though TNG wasn't really that kind of a series. It was more of an ensemble cast.

 

[Boxyno1]

Yeah. They tried to turn the TNG movies (with the Picard/Data emphasis) into a Kirk/Spock thing, even though TNG wasn't really that kind of a series. It was more of an ensemble cast.

To put it simply, they didn't play to the strengths of TNG

 

[RAMA]

I genuinely like some things about the movie, unlike STV but STGEN was NOT a good start for the STNG franchise. Much to my sadness.