People wanted this guy to become a mod?
A Guy Just Said to me that Star Wars...
- Thread starter addictionary
- Start date
Ooooh snap. Okay, I'll stop. Wouldn't want you to deactivate your account for a couple of days.
Just saying, your pretentiousness and lack of range with movies is now seeping over into a disdain for capitalism.
How dare people buy toys of things they enjoy!
Nobody buys or sells Star Trek toys or memorabilia.
He has a point.
He has a point.
This is a sarcastic post, right?
Disdain for capitalism? lolz. Leave the grown up conversation to someone else. The point is, the series is and has always been, a machine designed carefully to extract the maximum amount of profit. Everything it includes it includes because a bunch of businessmen decided that's what's needed for children to eat it up. There is nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with Taylor Swift or Justine Bieber. But how it became revered by adults as a serious work of culture is beyond me. The fact you think that anyone who doesn't take seriously is "pretending" says more about you than it does me.
This is just wrong.
Also why would you use "pretending" in quotes when I haven't used that word to describe anything in this thread? I don't think you are pretending or trolling, I just think you are pretentious and have false belief of superiority on a subject that you clearly don't know as much about as you think.
Much more laughable than the things people usually argue about on here: sports, internet moderating, and entry level political topics?
Also, it's not arguing over Star Trek and Star Wars, it's arguing over the significance of Star Wars on modern film and the legitimacy and place it has in cinema.
Oh, so you just don't know what pretentious means. Gotcha. I'll help you out.
pre·ten·tious
prəˈten(t)SHəs/
adjective
attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
Also, there is nothing false about my belief of superiority. I am indeed VASTLY more intelligent and knowledgeable than you, in every conceivable metric, about most subjects. Just because it is gauche to say so doesn't make it false.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
No, you're right it's a masterpiece. The cast is nearly entirely male, and they dress the only woman like this:
Where is her white sensation dress?
They pack quite a punch.
Misa hungry!.
.
So I said "pretending"? If you are going to attempt to quote someone, get it right.
Pretentious means that I'm pretending to hold an opinion in order to impress. And I think this conversation has run its course.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
Hop on in.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
We're gonna plant a flaming letter "T" in front of Charles Xavier's house. It is a clear message of "Technology's advancing acceleration is fueling up and humanity owes it to you, sir."
I like the both. No fight needed. I hope to see a lot of good movies in the future from both franchises.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
#DatPoliticalResponse
If I had to choose I'd say star wars for the more immersive world. But I'm not a fanatic of either.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Um Are you ok? Srsly the dreaded Utah winter hasn't even hit us yet.
I'm a star trek guy as to these two franchises. That said:
The distinction isn't in which babble you like better (Star Wars demonstrates pretty conclusively that magic and science are indistinguishable from one another in this genre of fiction). It's what kind of story you want.
Star Wars has approx. 16 hours of total running time. It tells one generationally long epic story. That story is largely about a handful of important characters and is dressed up in a conflict about a civil war (the real trilogy) and some kind of merchant trade conflict (the second garbage pile). That story is what it is.
Star Trek has hundreds of hours of content spread across different centuries and characters that have loose connections to one another across those series. It not only has hundreds of episodes of television but a dozen movies on top of that, two of which take place in an alternate timeline. Fundamentally it's an anthology show. It exists to have one hour that's a courtroom drama, one hour that's a casino heist, and one hour that's a retelling of Casablanca starring Ferengi. Then hundreds more hours about all different topics at varying levels of serialization. It is doing something totally different than Star Wars.
The two, in my opinion, aren't even remotely comparable. We can talk about each of them on their own merits but the comparison as to each other is nonsensical.
The distinction isn't in which babble you like better (Star Wars demonstrates pretty conclusively that magic and science are indistinguishable from one another in this genre of fiction). It's what kind of story you want.
Star Wars has approx. 16 hours of total running time. It tells one generationally long epic story. That story is largely about a handful of important characters and is dressed up in a conflict about a civil war (the real trilogy) and some kind of merchant trade conflict (the second garbage pile). That story is what it is.
Star Trek has hundreds of hours of content spread across different centuries and characters that have loose connections to one another across those series. It not only has hundreds of episodes of television but a dozen movies on top of that, two of which take place in an alternate timeline. Fundamentally it's an anthology show. It exists to have one hour that's a courtroom drama, one hour that's a casino heist, and one hour that's a retelling of Casablanca starring Ferengi. Then hundreds more hours about all different topics at varying levels of serialization. It is doing something totally different than Star Wars.
The two, in my opinion, aren't even remotely comparable. We can talk about each of them on their own merits but the comparison as to each other is nonsensical.