uhohnotgood.bsky.social

I don't understand this argument, less so having read the piece, which primarily summarizes the licensing history of this franchise. None of these games are anywhere near as good as the original trilogy or Andor, and there have been wayyy more dogshit Star Wars games than there've been classics

Also what kind of person says "I love Star Wars for its glorious combat." Like I think I get it but these aren't, like, martial arts movies. The big fights only land because you get invested in the world and, importantly, the characters

I don't understand this argument, less so having read the piece, which primarily summarizes the licensing history of this franchise. None of these games are anywhere near as good as the original trilogy or Andor, and there have been wayyy more dogshit Star Wars games than there've been classics

And who says people don't like Star Wars for its character building? The entire engine of those (pre-Disney) movies is character building. They mainly revolve around one scary guy's ability to grow and change

I don't understand this argument, less so having read the piece, which primarily summarizes the licensing history of this franchise. None of these games are anywhere near as good as the original trilogy or Andor, and there have been wayyy more dogshit Star Wars games than there've been classics

I also have so many questions about why one would think like this about the topic in general. What makes "gameplay" and "storytelling" binary categories? How do you/why would you separate them?

This is the kind of thing that drives me bonkers. Arbitrarily transforming the way every cutscene and environment is lit is a massive change. From what I can tell, scenes with hand-designed lighting have been replaced by a "realistic" simulation. The visual coherence of some scenes have changed

We're at the point where every remaster should generate at least some skepticism about what "upgrading" a game means, but instead the remaining press/YouTubers out there are totally incurious about even very basic aspects of the subject they cover

This is the kind of thing that drives me bonkers. Arbitrarily transforming the way every cutscene and environment is lit is a massive change. From what I can tell, scenes with hand-designed lighting have been replaced by a "realistic" simulation. The visual coherence of some scenes have changed

Regardless of whatever your analysis is of what he is doing in a functional sense, it's pretty obvious that both he and his detractors from both parties do not believe he is doing engagement bait. Very much worth looking into why that is before just dismissing the entire thing as irrelevant

One productive part of this phenomenon where everyone in the world is talking about one guy who they seem to know nothing about is that I really do think it reveals a lot of the people calling shots on here and elsewhere fundamentally do not know where the average person is at

Regardless of whatever your analysis is of what he is doing in a functional sense, it's pretty obvious that both he and his detractors from both parties do not believe he is doing engagement bait. Very much worth looking into why that is before just dismissing the entire thing as irrelevant

This post is wrong on like three levels. Pizza is an American invention, you can't really dunk on Americans by just making a shitty pizza. It's also not 'trolling.' Putting fries on pizza is an Italian thing not an American thing

One of the things that most annoys me about the Emily Wilson discourse is the argument that film criticism is this very specific, principled field, where your arguments have to be hyper incisive if the review is "mean." Non-scholarly film criticism has literally never been like that

Not to fold the entirety of film criticism into the most popular and hot take-oriented form it's ever taken, but like, in the beginning of this compilation Siskel says 'i don't like when movie adaptations go too far from the classics" with no qualifiers whatsoever

One of the things that most annoys me about the Emily Wilson discourse is the argument that film criticism is this very specific, principled field, where your arguments have to be hyper incisive if the review is "mean." Non-scholarly film criticism has literally never been like that

What a reactionary response to this review. If your first instinct when seeing a negative take is to pontificate about whether or not a person from such-and-such auxillary background to an adaptation "should" be able to discuss it, you're being an anti-intellectual weirdo

If you think the person who translated the source material for the script shouldn't be able to critique the movie from that perspective, then why should you care about the review at all except to invalidate it? Deal with the claims she made in the review directly or ignore it

Einstein is the grand champion of imaginary quotes on the internet. Orwell is a close #2 to be sure, but Einstein will always reign supreme because literally all of the fake quotes sound like nothing he ever said or wrote. The first part of this quote doesn't even make sense lol

I don't think the lesson here is 'if you don't control the narrative optimally the internet will make fun of you when you die,' the lesson is that Kirk never had an organic online following to begin with. People with no attachment to this guy were being asked to treat him like MLK Jr at gun point

Was always confused by the amount of pandering those freaks get considering how few of them there actually are but seeing this tweet - are all these politicians/pundits/companies' brains just fried because of Twitter? Do they actually believe Twitter is representative of the broader culture?

It's kinda upsetting how deeply entrenched low quality AI videos are in the 55+ side of the internet. It's always insanely uncanny pet videos or body horror-oriented political satire. And they're always just like "who gives a shit, ignorance is bliss!!!" about it when you point it out

Doesn't appear in the piece itself as much but the framing of this as a generational problem instead of a structural one is reactionary. Besides, there are a zillion artists writing material about this, everyone is doing that all the time actually lol, let me tell you about this guy Kendrick Lamar

Was going to say I think this writer exists in a very, let's say, suburban cultural bubble, but even at face value the argument is straight up just untrue. Have we already forgotten all the direct political commentary by Billie Eilish or Chappelle Roan?