At Least One Mostly Positive Review for SW: The Clone Wars

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:32 am

This review here gives this movie some hope that it'll be at least passable, if not fun.
-Mike

Mr. Oragahn · Post by **Mr. Oragahn** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:55 pm

Passable, while the others say it's terrible?

Considering my interest for late SW movies, I think I'll gladly skip.

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:46 pm

Did you even read the review given in the link above? The reviewer there never said it was merely passable, but given the dismal state of the ratio of good reviews to negative ones at Rotten Tomatoes, it is a rather glowing postive review, and makes a few good points that a few of the negative reviewers missed about this movie. Also Steve Fritz's review from Space.com is not to be found here, (at least one negative reviewer was twice counted) so that means there's still plenty of potential positive and negative reviews out there left to be tallied. I think the biggest common complaint that makes sense is that the SW:TCW is good TV fare, but not legit movie going material.
-Mike

2046 · Post by **2046** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:12 am

My tech and tactics review

l33telboi · Post by **l33telboi** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:51 pm

2046 wrote:My tech and tactics review

A word of advice. Dial down the hostility and negativity in what you write. You'll come off as more believable if you do. People tend to sense motive when it comes to these things, and seeing hostility like that (like using the word: "morons") tends to make people think you have an agenda and/or are clearly biased. There's no benefit to writing stuff in that style. Some fans of SW might even take up the polar opposite of your view just because they found what you wrote offensive.

Point out the shortcomings, but do so with less hostility.

Mr. Oragahn · Post by **Mr. Oragahn** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:49 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:Did you even read the review given in the link above? The reviewer there never said it was merely passable, but given the dismal state of the ratio of good reviews to negative ones at Rotten Tomatoes, it is a rather glowing postive review, and makes a few good points that a few of the negative reviewers missed about this movie. Also Steve Fritz's review from Space.com is not to be found here, (at least one negative reviewer was twice counted) so that means there's still plenty of potential positive and negative reviews out there left to be tallied. I think the biggest common complaint that makes sense is that the SW:TCW is good TV fare, but not legit movie going material.
-Mike

You said passable, if it's not from the review, then why do you say so?
Not that it matters much, the battle of Jesus Christland I've seen doesn't excite a single molecule of my body. It's just AOTC with less of what could have made AOTC a watchable movie, but which I dislike even after watching it fucking twice in a theater. Big waste of money mate.
I won't spend a penny on that Clown Whore stuff.

And Rotten Tomatoes are retards.

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:00 am

No, you misunderstood. I said "some hope that it'll be at least passable, if not fun".

If you don't like Rottentomatoes, then try IMDb, which only gives SW:TCW a 5.2 out of 10 stars. Better than Rottentomatoes, but still a fairly low rating all things considered.
-Mike

l33telboi · Post by **l33telboi** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:37 pm

The reviews on SB and SDN are becoming more and more positive, oddly enough. And from what I saw, the movie looked to be a lot of fun. If not what I would've wanted most from a SW movie.

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:33 pm

Based on what I've been reading and hearing from friends. The Clone Wars looks to be be good TV fare level material, and is not something that should be on the big screen. So while TCW may be fun, it doesn't sound like something I want to shell out 6-8 USD for. If I see it on the big screen, I'll wait until it goes to a cheap theater.
-Mike

2046 · Post by **2046** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:50 am

l33telboi wrote:
2046 wrote:My tech and tactics review
A word of advice. Dial down the hostility and negativity in what you write. You'll come off as more believable if you do. People tend to sense motive when it comes to these things, and seeing hostility like that (like using the word: "morons") tends to make people think you have an agenda and/or are clearly biased. There's no benefit to writing stuff in that style. Some fans of SW might even take up the polar opposite of your view just because they found what you wrote offensive.

Point out the shortcomings, but do so with less hostility.

Were we discussing things in a vacuum then yes, your words would make some sense in places. However, we are way, way past the point where I give a rosy red damn about the opinions of my SW-wank opponents.

In the past eight years, I have tried a wide variety of approaches meant to bring reason to the faithful. Those faithful are further off the track now than they were when I started. The derailing did not occur because I was insufficiently soothing. That train had hopped the track well before I took the field, and it continues into the wilderness of its own momentum. Nothing more.

Should someone read my words, find them "offensive", see the train gouging a path through the dirt and growth, and inexplicably conclude that they must board the train as well just to oppose me . . . well, my friend, I would say they're already lost.

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:10 am

I think to a degree RSA is right here on the particular point of attempting to be civil to certain members of the Wars opposition. I know the last time I had any kind of serious discussion of anything on ASVS, I certainly chose not to go into the thing with gloves on as the one lone militant Warsie, who at that time still patroling the place for heretics, decided that he was going to attempt to run me off with the usual vitrol, and got a suprise when I quite willingly turned it back on him.

Curiously enough, once he saw I wasn't going to deal with him from a position of weakness, he actually started to settle into a more productive mode of debate and discussion. Curious that. ;-)

However, that being said, this is a thread about positive and negative reviews for SW:TCW, and the whole issue of civility in Versus debates ought to be spun off into a thread of it's own where it can properly be examined, though I don't really think there is much to say about it than what has already been said elsewhere.
-Mike

Mith · Post by **Mith** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:37 pm

l33telboi wrote:
2046 wrote:My tech and tactics review
A word of advice. Dial down the hostility and negativity in what you write. You'll come off as more believable if you do. People tend to sense motive when it comes to these things, and seeing hostility like that (like using the word: "morons") tends to make people think you have an agenda and/or are clearly biased. There's no benefit to writing stuff in that style. Some fans of SW might even take up the polar opposite of your view just because they found what you wrote offensive.

Point out the shortcomings, but do so with less hostility.

I would normally agree, but after all the crap that SD.net have done, it really is understandable. Their lack of maturity brought it upon themselves. And remember, that is his blog, not per say the site itself. I would expcet that he'd provide a much less hostility in the actual article he wrote.