[civilian_number_two]

I don't even know if I'd consider it Lucas Bashing. I don't really like that term. I love George Lucas. He may have ruined his movies in my eyes but he certainly gave me a lot of great work to admire throughout my childhood and early adult years.

I agree it's not really a "bashing" list, but the "fan criticism of George Lucas" article includes as criticism the very idea that Lucas is lying when he says that the entire series was planned and written back in the 70s. That's how narrow-minded the Star Wars fan community is. And when I say "narrow-minded," it's because anyone who has ever done any writing can easily recognise the tell-tale signs of retcon, and Star Wars is full of it.

So by their definition of Lucas Bashing, since your list assumes a s a basic axiom that Lucas was making the series up as he went along, and that the prequels break with established continuity in several ways, then your list is a bashfest par excellence.

Also, all through it you suggest that various story ideas are stupid. If you're not at least mildly bashing the writer when you say a thing like that, then either I don't know what you're doing, or what bashing is.

[Toru-chan]

I don't even know if I'd consider it Lucas Bashing. I don't really like that term. I love George Lucas. He may have ruined his movies in my eyes but he certainly gave me a lot of great work to admire throughout my childhood and early adult years.

I don't like the term either. George Lucas is a bit like a big brother to me. When I was growing up he was the coolest big brother you could have. By the time I'd finished puberty, I realized he made mistakes (Ewoks, anyone?), but still thought his movies excellent. Now, as an adult, I can recognize he isn't perfect, surrounds himself with yes-men, has a big ego, questionable judgment and digs his heals in when he makes mistakes. But he did make my childhood infinitely richer, and he'll always have my thanks for that.

At school he inspired a big group of us to go off and make movies. We were 16 years old, read books on film making and there were 4 or 5 film interchanging production groups active at our school. I've still got many of the scripts. Some of the guys were very good, and just checking I found one them in IMDB(!) I went into CGI, because I figured films and computers would one day merge. Lucas was an inspiration to many. And that's just my school!

Given that, it sucks that any criticism automatically becomes "Lucas Bashing".

I agree but I don't know if there's any room to have criticisms in wiki entries. You could link to my rant about Bob Dylan in his wiki entry but that wouldn't do any good. Linking to an article critical of a piece of work doesn't really belong in wiki. Wiki should be reserved for cataloging information about a subject.

Wiki is supposed to tell both sides, including criticism. If you look at an article and it says nothing bad about it at all, you're coming away with an incorrect perspective. "Hey I looked this thing up on Wiki and it's *cooool!*" Many articles handle this by having a controversy/criticism subheading written in as neutral a tone as possible. If it's more contentious, they split it entirely. Only know of this for [[Star Wars]] and [[Microsoft]].

They *do* try and include criticism in the [[Star Wars]] entry, they just don't do a very good job at it ;-). You are supposed to cite a reference for everything you say in Wiki, and pretty much all of the [[Star Wars]] criticisms are fleeting and uncited (as in "citation needed"). They could use RTHSW because you *do* break it down. It isn't "Don't see this movie it sucks". You actually analyse it with an incredible amount of detail. Agree there's not point linking to rants or "this sucks" web pages. Those add nothing. No more than "this is greeeeeat!" web pages either. (Hello TheForce.Net).

I think a large number of people do it well, but you'll always have a group that thinks they're the king of the world rather than just an admin on Wikipedia.

Probably more a reflection on the people editing an article than Wiki itself. I've done edits to anime and music articles. Anime in particular people have no problem loving an anime but still laughing at its faults. (Evangelion: "So why is a secret agent taking four school kids on a mission with her?") But for some reason, with Star Wars (and I guess Star Trek) you have fans that have some sort of mental condition; some bizarre manifestation of primitive group bonding and being able to feel you are important.

I think that some sections (Star Wars is probably a great example) lend themselves a little more to being run by people in this category for some reason.

They're very up themselves. If you saw the talk page, their argument was (1) the guy who deleted the link is a *WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR* and so doesn't need to justify himself to the likes of you, (2) I have been editing for years, but your account is only two weeks old, (3) I am *A STAFF MEMBER* of TheForce.Net, which HAS AN ASSOCIATION with LucasFilm. (I think he means Ben Burtt nearly ran over him in a parking lot once :-) Told him his opinion doesn't count an iota more or less than any other fan, or for that matter anyone else who has seen the films and wants to contribute.

You'll never change their minds of course. ===> Really: It's like arguing Religion. <====

This post has been edited by Toru-chan: 26 January 2007 - 08:39 PM

[Toru-chan]

So by their definition of Lucas Bashing, since your list assumes a s a basic axiom that Lucas was making the series up as he went along,

The extremely weak argument Obi-wan gave for not telling Luke that Darth was Daddy sticks out like a sore thumb. Even as a naive starry-eyed teenager, I saw through this. How could anyone not?

[Helena]

There's similar wankery going on in the KOTOR (Knights of the Old Republic) section of Wikipedia over whether it should include an article on female Revan (LucasArts has declared that the character is 'officially' male). I'm staying well out of it.

Welcome Toru-Chan, by the way.

[barend]

Worse, they're the sort of snivelling, self-important twerps that makes everyone else hate Star Wars fans. Hell! For the first time in my life, I know what a jock feels like when he wants to punch out a nerd.

the prequels turned me into a jock. I can argue all i want and validate all my reasons, but at the end of the day SW prequels/SEs have generated a new breed of stupid nerd that won't be reasoned with. So in all best interests it might be best to disintermediate any discussion and beat the crap out of them. IT's clearly what they want, given the manner of their weak contradictions to common sense and precident.

so I've refined my argument to: Either you like the Star Wars prequels or you have a soul.

There's similar wankery going on in the KOTOR (Knights of the Old Republic) section of Wikipedia over whether it should include an article on female Revan (LucasArts has declared that the character is 'officially' male). I'm staying well out of it.

Welcome Toru-Chan, by the way.

i think it defeats the purpose of having a choice on the matter when every NPC in KOTOR 2 seems quite addiment that Revan's a female.

[Slade]

Even people who enjoy the PT have souls, Barend. They're just a bit misguided. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that.

[Toru-chan]

Welcome Toru-Chan, by the way.

Oh hey thanks! Good to be here.

I just realized it now: "TheForce.net is the Empire. ChefElf is the Rebellion". Oh the irony!

the prequels turned me into a jock.

Me too. It's weird. Somewhere between childhood and adulthood we gain the ability to look at something and enjoy it but not be blinded by it. But something that shocked me when I first started working was me, a green 20 year old, dealing with 50 something year old adults that acted like babies. Some people never grow up.

I can argue all i want and validate all my reasons, but at the end of the day SW prequels/SEs have generated a new breed of stupid nerd that won't be reasoned with.

Amen. When we saw the originals we were all impressionable teenagers ('younglings' if you will) so we can be excused for our action figure collections. As adults, we should know better. This 'new breed of super nerd' (they really need a name) worships it with religious fervor. Literally!

Have you ever argued with anyone about religion? You never win of course. It's like that. Maybe even exactly the same thing? There's a book by Richard Dawkins called 'The God Delusion'. Dawkins says 92% of children have their religion imprinted on them because kids are just so damned impressionable. See where I'm heading?: I've got a Good Mind to rewrite it: 'The Jedi Delusion'. Now this could be fun...

Hey there is a sociology or psychology thesis in here somewhere.

There's similar wankery going on in the KOTOR (Knights of the Old Republic) section of Wikipedia over whether it should include an article on female Revan (LucasArts has declared that the character is 'officially' male). I'm staying well out of it.

Similar problems with Lord of the Rings. I learned my lesson and never went back, but the LOTR Wiki page has similar problems. Criticism is barred by the fanatics which run it like atheism. Heretics are shunted off to "Minority Criticism of Lord of the Rings". That's the actual name of the topic. "Minority" meaning only a small handful believe it, and so clearly it is wrong.

Think about 'The Jedi Delusion'. Maybe a per-chapter group effort? Could be fun.

Or if you're seriously bored, imitate a rabid fanboy on Wikipedia that'll even drive other fanboys mad! Start with minor corrections, and posting positive comments about other fanboys, then slowly work it up into fever pitch. Launch attacks on the Trekies Wiki pages in the name of Lucas. Heh heh h eh

(Maniacal Laughter)

This post has been edited by Toru-chan: 24 March 2007 - 06:12 AM

[makingfun22_sw]

i don't know what the nerds say but thank you chefelf making me laugh you gave me AT LEAST 10 more healthy years. You all must know that laughter is GOOD for your health.

[Hoth]

Toru-Chan I agree with you and I don't understand why everyone's saying that even a link to 'reasons' doesn't belong in the general Star Wars universe on Wikipedia...this isn't Lucas-bashing...it's not name-calling or childish slander...it's an intelligent, humerous, well thought-out, common-sense critique of the most pathetic and dissapointing movies ever put on film...

Chefelf I think you are being way too humble & modest here and I don't know how anyone can say they "add nothing to an understanding of Star Wars itself." Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't every single movie (any I have seen at least) on Wikipedia have a "Reception" section where it tells what kind of opinion the critics had of the movie, and how well it did at the box-office, whether good OR bad? Isn't that critical??? Why doesn't that same logic apply here??? Besides that if for no other reason they should be on there because, as Toru-Chan so eloquently states, Wikipedia is suppose to be un-biased in it's information, and not a proponent of ideals...which it obviously is...

By the way Chefelf you're still the greatest...it is very rare we get to actually witness common-sense in any type of movie reviews...as a matter of fact yours is a first for me...you have done for me with the prequels what G.L. did for me with movies as a child when I saw Star Wars for the first time...you gave me hope that someone out there really does "get it". THANKS!!!!!

[civilian_number_two]

Hoth, the article on STAR WARS doesn't even include a reference to theforce.net or other fan pages. The articles on films generally reference critical response in terms of metacritic ratings, but not specific critics. So no, the article on STAR WARS, the SW universe, etc doesn't need a reference to chefelf.

I agree that the page was clearly written by a delusional fanboy however because it makes the contradictory claims that in 1993 the prequels were "quite developed" and that Lucas began working on the storylines, deciding the protagonist and so forth in 1994. These contradictory statements are one sentence apart, reflecting the Orwellian Doublethink that clouds the mind of the fanboy. I suppose it could only be more perfect were they somehow placed in the same sentence. That would be the perect exp​ression of Doublethink.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 06 January 2009 - 12:23 AM

[Chefelf]

Once again, I appreciate the praise and I'm glad that people have enjoyed my articles. However, I still don't think there's any need to link to my articles on the main Star Wars page. If someone wants to make a Chefelf page on Wikipedia (which will promptly get taken down because I'm doubtlessly 'not notable' enough for Wikipedia) that would be fine. I just don't think my articles have any place on an article about Star Wars.

Thanks though for all the kind words! It doesn't go unappreciated that seven years later (holy crap, really?) my articles are still entertaining people.

[Hoth]

The articles on films generally reference critical response in terms of metacritic ratings, but not specific critics.

Actually yes, the articles on Wikipedia do reference "specific" critics...you are correct in saying that en entire article or section is not dedicated to a specific movie critc, but the articles do most certainly list/reference specific critics by name with what they had to say about a particular movie.

Again, I think it at least should be referenced, not only as a literary masterpiece but a true critique of the crap we now know as the prequels. It's really a mute point though because it isn't going to happen.

This post has been edited by Hoth: 05 January 2009 - 01:27 AM

[Toru-chan]

Actually yes, the articles on Wikipedia do reference "specific" critics...you are correct in saying that en entire article or section is not dedicated to a specific movie critc, but the articles do most certainly list/reference specific critics by name with what they had to say about a particular movie.

Again, I think it at least should be referenced, not only as a literary masterpiece but a true critique of the crap we now know as the prequels. It's really a mute point though because it isn't going to happen.

I started this thread so you can already guess my feelings...

I thought ChefElf's has given the most thorough breakdown of the plot holes, flaws and inconsistencies across the entire Star Wars double-trilogy-plus-TV-special. I say this in all seriosuness: It's of far more value than anything I've ever seen on theforce.net. When I made the original post, there was a lot of guff in the Star Wars entry. Theforce.net cabal have set their own little gauntlet around that article and simply revert any changes that doesn't agree with their own masturbations.

One of these snooty fanboys who kept reverting my changes bragged that he was a 'founding member of theforce.net'. Well so the f* what? I pointed out to said dork I saw the first film back in 1977 probably like him.

I've since learned this isn't unique to Star Wars. There are lots of Wikiwankers - Tin gods who have nothing better to do than stake their claim on an article and revert anyone else that dares contribute. You can't win with these people, unless you're willing to sacrifice your own life like theirs to camp bleary eyed in front of a PC less someone edit your precious article.

[njamilla]

Ah, confirmation. Sorry this is coming in so late, but what you've been talking about doesn't surprise me a bit.

I tried to add the name of a couple of SW writers (including myself) as a stub to be expanded, but they were promptly deleted.

A huge issue is affiliation with LFL and professionalism. Theforce.net obviously admits its affiliation as a platform for LFL. All decisions will therefore be made for economic reasons. I.e. anything that risks breaking that LFL link will be squashed. The other thing is that there is no scholarly background need to be a moderator.

One of the problems I've confronted as an independent non-LFL writer is that most websites only have room for officially sanctioned writing. In the writers section in theforce.net, only Lucasbook authors have threads. I (we) have to suffer ignorant bean counters who have no expertise in our fields. The google search of Reasons to Hate Star Wars is a case in point. The administrator 1) doesn't know how to do a proper search (he/she probably doesn't know what Boolean means), and 2) doesn't care to inform himself.

Chef's SW website has historical significance on the internet, as it was one of the first websites to act as a conduit between fandom and the franchise. That it is still here is testament to its significance, but that too had to evolve as his webpage became more focused on him, and not simply limited by SW. My webpage has undergone a similar "branding" change, focusing more on me, and not the limits of my books about SW.

Anyone who uses wikipedia as a source for a scholarly work needs to work on their researching skills. That's not to say that you can't start there and move on, but everything written in wikipedia has to be challenged and corroborated with a real source, and not simply with web-related links. That's googling, not researching.

The same thing has happened with the cable networks like history channel. It serves as an platform for the most extreme and least scholastic topics like bigfoot, UFOs, and conspiracy theories.

This post has been edited by njamilla: 04 June 2009 - 08:58 AM