SW blu-rays have changes to the films again
- Thread starter Whofan
- Start date
- Status
It shouldn't have that tedious. They were only posted about a month ago.
I just found this online. What an idiot. 
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfqIZoFftLg[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfqIZoFftLg
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfqIZoFftLg[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfqIZoFftLg
There is no need to endorse illegal downloading.
Especially when it's inferior video and picture!
All it takes is going through some old threads. Some of RLM's points have been proven to be 100% bullshit, and no, I'm not talking about the obvious jokes.
TremblingBluStar said:
How old is he, 12?
Dream - And people thought the fans complaining about the Blu-ray changes wouldn't buy it! 
Those are as good as he gets, as he's mostly aware of what he's talking about - though even then, there's lines in those video reviews that suggest he doesn't quite get the philosophy he's defending (tending towards absolutist statements, which is a general Matthew problem). It is as good as he gets and as good as the internet's ever likely to be regarding the Matrix films.
That's also fairly dire. It seems predicated on the assumption that 1. the film is bad because children can't identify with self-absorbed jerks and 2. anyone still cares.
Quite. The issue is less not liking No Country for Old Men, and more being unable to articulate well why he didn't like it. (Repeating 'nothing happened' over and over does not constitute criticism, nor does it constitute entertainment.)
Those are as good as he gets, as he's mostly aware of what he's talking about - though even then, there's lines in those video reviews that suggest he doesn't quite get the philosophy he's defending (tending towards absolutist statements, which is a general Matthew problem). It is as good as he gets and as good as the internet's ever likely to be regarding the Matrix films.
That's also fairly dire. It seems predicated on the assumption that 1. the film is bad because children can't identify with self-absorbed jerks and 2. anyone still cares.
Quite. The issue is less not liking No Country for Old Men, and more being unable to articulate well why he didn't like it. (Repeating 'nothing happened' over and over does not constitute criticism, nor does it constitute entertainment.)
Someone should review the reviews, and then realize how stupid all of this is!
Someone already did, and it only got him ridiculed. Because there's a canonic law on the Internet forbidding ANY kind of defense of the prequels.
And I don't get why people even bother talking about this Matthew kid. From everything I've heard about him, 99% of board users around here are more qualified to critique movies than he is.
Nothing stupid about wanting the original films. But since we're given only the horrid "improved" versions, then yes there will be a lot of backlash. Even Spielberg's distancing himself from GL.
"Horrid"? Hyperbole aside, they're basically the same films.
lol, that's like saying dubbing "kowabungaaaa!" into 2001 when Bowman flies into the stargate would be "no biggie".
Hyperbole aside, of course they aren't.
Actually, there was no hyperbole in my post. It was the less hyperbolic post ever.
And there is nothing suspicious about making bold claims but refusing to bring proof? You know how this place works just as well as I do. You don't go into a forum and make a claim while telling people to "look it up for yourself". That is just lazy. Either bring proof, or admit your claim has no validity.
I did look up a few pages from the document in question on other web forums, and like others have said, it either misses the point, misinterprets a joke, or is a difference of opinion. I already know the guy's opinion is going to differ, so what is the point?
Then like I said, quit trying to convince people by bring up the document if you are going to refuse to bring proof.
I watched the same movies as he did. Like I said, if there were outright lies about the movies I would be willing to discuss them. But since I don't now of any, and you aren't willing to bring any up, this is a rather pointless topic.
Look at some of the refuting I did above from the first part of the RLM Phantom Menace review. I admit that you can refute his points - but it requires some real effort on the viewers part, and only answers questions that shouldn't have been left hanging by the writer.
See above. Most people here are fully willing to discuss any defense of the prequels or criticism of Stolaka and RLM you wish to bring forth. But telling us to look up the defense ourselves is a great way to have your opinions dismissed.
Why this crusade of hatred against RLM? Does Raynor have an equally passionate crusade of Prequel detractors?
Regardless what you think of him, at least he has the balls to start his own show and website and get his ideas out there. I applaud him for that, even if I disagree with some of his reviews.
Oh, and he reviewed the SW prequels a few years before RLM and basically brought up the same points. I guess he was lying.
Some of us just don't like to repeat ourselves, I guess... But Ok, since hitting the "search" button is obviously too much for some of you, I'll dig some stuff up when I find the time...
Starting a webcast takes balls these days?
Wow, someone should really start recruiting all those nerds on YouTube, millions of courageous people over there. Could be a formidable army, just give them real working phasers, disruptors and shit!
BTW, I've been doing film reviews for a full decade now (for a certain Croatian sci-fi portal), and had my share of "run-ins" with fanboys who disapproved of my views. Believe it or not, the last time I was "under fire" was back in January when I trashed AOTC (I was revisiting the PT)
It's here, you're welcome to run it through Google translator and laugh your ass off.
Well, like I said, don't bring up an argument you aren't willing to repeat! You are the one trying to convince me that this document proves RLM's review is 99% lies. So I'm asking you to point out some of these lies. Since you brought it up, I'm asking for your opinion!
Further, as I have said, I read 10 or so pages of content from the article and was not terribly impressed. Maybe I'll read the rest some day, but unless the pages I didn't read somehow redefine the laws of the universe or completely rewrite the prequels, I highly doubt it will change my opinion of these movies or RLM's review.
I'll give your AOTC review a read!
Just keep in mind that google-translated text is 66% pure gibberish.
Last edited:
Just keep in mind that google-translated text is 66% pure gibberish.
I really liked this part:
The correct translation of that would be something like:
The translation isn't even all that bad, all things considered.
- Status
