|
for example, the school of rock! i had no idea what they were talking about in that movie!
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
PBS Newshour posted:for example, the school of rock! i had no idea what they were talking about in that movie! Nobody listens to rock for the lyrics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
PBS Newshour posted:for example, the school of rock! i had no idea what they were talking about in that movie! Okay, you put scare quotes around vaporous, are you arguing that it actually all makes perfect sense and any and all schools of philosophy and critical theory are valid and exactly as intellectually honest as they claim to be?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Beeez posted:Okay, you put scare quotes around vaporous, are you arguing that it actually all makes perfect sense and any and all schools of philosophy and critical theory are valid and exactly as intellectually honest as they claim to be? Probably about as intellectually honest as people arguing on internet fora. Regarding the dark side and Sithmans being an inherent imbalance, does that mean that Luke Force-choking dudes and Qui-Gon cheating is the "right" or balanced amount of the dark side?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
homullus posted:Probably about as intellectually honest as people arguing on internet fora. But internet forums have no sheen of legitimacy. I'm not even saying all of SMG's interpretations are bad and wrong, I'm just saying the notion of obscurantism being a problem in those fields doesn't seem that controversial to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
I don't understand what this "obscurantism" means. Can't you just speak plainly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I don't understand what this "obscurantism" means. Can't you just speak plainly? Haha okay, this is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Beeez posted:Are y'all really denying that much of philosophy and "critical theory" schools are full of vaporous jargon? Hbomberguy posted:Oh no! Wikipedia mentions that people criticised Lacan! He's been completely debunked! Interesting goalpost-moving though. You went from 'lacan is an obscurantist who's been throughly [sic] discredited' to 'oh come on, are you denying the existence of obscurantism in academia???' There's actually a happy medium: Obscurantism exists, and you are also wrong. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:No. I didn't deny your specific thing - I wrote this: Word.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
It would have been nice if we could have seen darth maul once his antlers had grown properly, like in the mating season or something. Then anakin could have chopped them off in the sequel, this would have been like a castration. Then in episode three he comes back and maybe anakin goads him about being Sheev's big dickhead eunuch, then holy poo poo, light saber antlers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
If there is anything that you do not understand, I will be happy to clarify.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Holy crap - the 35MM edit is like 20GB.  It actually looks really nice and its pretty low-fi but that was the point of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:If there is anything that you do not understand, I will be happy to clarify. I'm not speaking of you specifically, and my point is sometimes you can understand what someone's trying to say and still think it's rubbish no matter how well they couch it in the terms of a certain philosophy or theory. I was simply verifying if those guys took issue with the idea of debunking something using a Wikipedia article, or if they were taking issue with the general notion that sometimes philosophies or theories try to add an air of respectability or intellectual fortitude to their claims by using excessive verbosity or jargon that has very little actual substance. I understand much of what you're saying, and I find some of your points pretty good and others not so much, but it's all pretty interesting. Even if you are a contrarian, as some claim, your brand of it raises some interesting points most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:If there is anything that you do not understand, I will be happy to clarify. Are light sabers push to start/stop or do you have to hold the button down to make them stay on? It would be pretty bad if your light saber 'blade' disappears just when the other guy is swinging at your head because you've got sweaty palms or whatever and your finger slips. Equally though, if you drop it you'd probably prefer it not stay lit up and end up wedged in the floor or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
If you studied philosophy and psychology you would understand the jargon. That is the meaning of the word jargon. As for superfluous words, academics are paid by the word.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If you studied philosophy and psychology you would understand the jargon. I understand a lot of the jargon, although I don't think that's quite what jargon means anyway, I'm saying it doesn't make it an intrinsically sound point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Holy crap - the 35MM edit is like 20GB. The what now
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
"I understand the jargon, however: What does jargon mean?" Jargon ˈdʒɑːɡ(ə)n/ noun special words or expressions used by a profession or group that are difficult for others to understand. "legal jargon" synonyms: specialized language, technical language, slang, cant, idiom, argot, patter, patois, vernacular
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Beeez posted:sometimes philosophies or theories try to add an air of respectability or intellectual fortitude to their claims by using excessive verbosity they sure do
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:"I understand the jargon, however: What does jargon mean?" I wasn't expressing an inability to understand what jargon meant, I was referring to the fact that jargon also means "obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and long words." It doesn't only describe technical terms, it also describes a specific way of speaking. But I guess because we're now debating what jargon means, the use of that term has itself become obscured.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Linking to the criticism portion of wikipedia.com/lacan is the most obscurantist thing you could do. You purposefully avoided engaging with the discussion or actual quotes being used. If you'd like to explain what is specifically wrong with lacan, or the zizek quotes SMG brought up for that matter, you're welcome to. Since I quite like learning I am wrong about things, I'd love for you to give that a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
cargohills posted:they sure do Nothing I've said has obscured the point I'm making, nor have I tried to substitute verbose language for arguing said point. Snark doesn't make your claims accurate. Hbomberguy posted:Linking to the criticism portion of wikipedia.com/lacan is the most obscurantist thing you could do. You purposefully avoided engaging with the discussion or actual quotes being used. I am not the original guy who said that, I was just trying to verify if you guys took issue with his specific claims, as well as his use of Wikipedia, or the general idea that at least some schools of philosophy and cultural criticism might be obscurantist and lacking in substance. I guess I shouldn't have bothered asking, as this has gotten way out of hand. Beeez fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The what now http://thestarwarstrilogy.com/starwars/post/2016/01/15/Team-Negative-One-completes-35mm-Restoration-of-Star-Wars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OsKrhVKSEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxitcuq2J_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo24gFFk7WM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFp9bSp-fro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wjx01CuqDs Also: https://www.facebook.com/snl/videos/10153864149686303/ SNL put out some behind the scenes with their Kylo Ren skit! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
PBS Newshour posted:Didn't the clone wars kinda had an episode about the whole balance to the force thing, with those weird living embodiment of the force beings? Yes, Anakin gets a choice to cut all ties and live in a vortex forever managing a couple Force fairies (a Dark Side and a Light Side fairy), or to go on living out his life the normal way. At one point the Dark Side fairy shows him that he will become Darth Vader. Anakin ends up "balancing" the Force inside the vortex by killing all the fairies. Then his memory gets wiped in the end and apparently him and Obi Wan never mention this whole thing to the Jedi Council, or no one cares, or they all get their memories wiped or something so it was all meaningless! I say "fairy" because I don't know what else to call them, they are like inhuman SuperJedi who can travel through time and space, and they locked themselves in the vortex because they would rip the universe apart if they ever got out. It was a little weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Hot diggity that 35mm stuff looks drat good. Also, someone please gif Kylo Matt getting mad at the wall picture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Oh good to know. Don't have to pay attention to those major fields of philosophy anymore. They've been debunked on Wikipedia. Firstly, Lacan represents a source of ideas and a point of view in the field of psychiatry. He is not "a field." Unless you're trying to work in academia, you don't really need to pay attention to him, no. Probably his most important idea is that of the "mirror-stage" which is essentially a product of his imagination. There's no real evidence to back up this supposedly scientific piece of psychiatry. Freud is both fairly and unfairly dismissed in this modern era, and if anything Lacan is Freud on steroids. I hated him for his horrible writing which seemed to merely be a tool to dress up his ideas in rhetorical clothing of importance. Doing just a touch of research he seems even more horrible than I had imagined: http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/en/Shrink_from_Hell.htm "He chose to be a psychoanalyst where, instead of elucidating diagnoses, he could impose them. He fastened on Marguerite Pantaine, a tragically deluded woman who had attempted to kill a well-known actress. For a year, he and Marguerite were, according to Roudinesco, ‘inseparable’. (She had no choice, being in detention.) The elaborate story he concocted about her became the basis of an entire theory of the sick soul and formed his doctoral thesis. In the great tradition of psychoanalysis, ‘he listened’, Roudinesco says, ‘to no truths other than those which confirmed his own hypotheses’. More precisely, the truth was that which confirmed his hypothesis: into her case, ‘he projected not only his own theories on madness in women but also his own fantasies and family obsessions’. For this soul-rape Lacan was awarded his doctorate and his reputation was made. To the end of her days, Marguerite remained bitterly resentful of the use he had made of her. With good reason: Lacan’s crackpot theories, partly expropriated from Salvador Dali, probably prolonged her incarceration. To add insult to injury, he ‘borrowed’ all her writings and photographs and refused to give any of them back." Wikipedia is a good tool for finding out information about topics, and are representative of actual, real things in the world. Hegel is more important and more legitimate as a philosopher, but should be taken with a grain of salt. His lack of ability to communicate his ideas is a real problem, and this is reflective of his sometimes lack of ability in the communications of others. For example, in my opinion he really misunderstands Heraclitus. Hegel's legacy has been to be a philosopher used by both the left and the right for their own ends, claiming to be misunderstood first by one party, then another. Everyone claims the "real understanding" and therefore a legitimacy of thought. To me, what's important is that Hegel's own philosophy seems to be grounded in a deep sense of deism, and he struggles to make sense of the world given the dim light of scientific thought of his own time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
I'm sympathetic to claims of obscurantism because when I was at university nothing annoyed me more than having to puzzle through hefty paragraphs of academic English for relatively straightforward information. At the same time, I'm also someone who's been told in the past that my forum posts are a "word salad" and I should "dumb it down" a bit in real life, when in both cases I usually thought I was being direct. So yeah, I get that it's relative. (Or maybe I'm just incompetent.) But I wouldn't characterise the dynamic in this thread as a handful of troll posters using esoteric ideas and language to avoid honest, pointed inquiry by the general posting public. If anything, it feels like the opposite: substantial and detailed posts, often with visual evidence, explaining how the films concretely relate to principles of cinematography, composition, cultural criticism etc., handwaved away by posters who either "don't care" or actively disbelieve in that stuff and would rather talk about prosaic concerns like plot holes and the 'likeability' of characters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Oh good to know. Don't have to pay attention to those major fields of philosophy anymore. They've been debunked on Wikipedia. Hbomberguy posted:Oh no! Wikipedia mentions that people criticised Lacan! He's been completely debunked! These are insanely petty and emotional responses to suggesting that philosophy might hold no regards to being easily readable. Zizek isn't going to powerlevel you to Philosopher Comrade if you flippantly dismiss enough minor criticisms on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
I was being sincere. Id rather not read Hegel and Lacan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I'm sympathetic to claims of obscurantism because when I was at university nothing annoyed me more than having to puzzle through hefty paragraphs of academic English for relatively straightforward information. At the same time, I'm also someone who's been told in the past that my forum posts are a "word salad" and I should "dumb it down" a bit in real life, when in both cases I usually thought I was being direct. So yeah, I get that it's relative. (Or maybe I'm just incompetent.) I know no one probably cares, but my getting involved in the "obscurantism" thing wasn't a bid to disagree with anything you say here. I agree with your assessment of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Fair enough, and I don't think you're wrong either. But this derail started because another poster wanted to dismiss SMG and his 'team' by association.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I was being sincere. Id rather not read Hegel and Lacan. No u weren't...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:that just sounds like normal police activity to me. Truuuu
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Also, someone please gif Kylo Matt getting mad at the wall picture. Give me a timestamp of which thing you want bro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaOSCASqLsE
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
U got anything to say about Star Wars or u just like whining
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:Give me a timestamp of which thing you want bro I think its from the Facebook behind the scenes - I dont remember him ripping the poster off in the skit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Yeah its from the facebook BTS thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I'm sympathetic to claims of obscurantism because when I was at university nothing annoyed me more than having to puzzle through hefty paragraphs of academic English for relatively straightforward information. At the same time, I'm also someone who's been told in the past that my forum posts are a "word salad" and I should "dumb it down" a bit in real life, when in both cases I usually thought I was being direct. So yeah, I get that it's relative. (Or maybe I'm just incompetent.) I think you're giving the pro-prequel side of the discussion way, way, way too much credit. I handwave away SMG's supposedly serious discussion of the sequels because his entire rhetoric is an illusionist's trick, using obscure philosophies as a sort of justification for claiming that the subtext in the prequels is weightier than it actually is. There's very little of substance. The essential argument he has is that the prequels are a deconstruction of the original trilogy in a way to challenge our own innate desires, to make us question our own understanding of those desires. I have yet to be convinced, and in fact the great weight of evidence leans toward the idea that this experience of us questioning our own desires is rather a side-effect of storytelling so inept that it raises the very bar of what level of badness can exist in a film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:These are insanely petty and emotional responses to suggesting that philosophy might hold no regards to being easily readable. Come on. The dude who brought it up was accusing SMg of using these sources as a form of "rhetorical judo" to confound people who argued against his theories. This wasn't a situation where someone brought up an argument in good faith and other people poo poo on it to be obnoxious, the guy was specifically bringing up the subject to discredit SMg.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
CountFosco posted:I think you're giving the pro-prequel side of the discussion way, way, way too much credit. I handwave away SMG's supposedly serious discussion of the sequels because his entire rhetoric is an illusionist's trick, using obscure philosophies as a sort of justification for claiming that the subtext in the prequels is weightier than it actually is. There's very little of substance. The essential argument he has is that the prequels are a deconstruction of the original trilogy in a way to challenge our own innate desires, to make us question our own understanding of those desires. I have yet to be convinced, and in fact the great weight of evidence leans toward the idea that this experience of us questioning our own desires is rather a side-effect of storytelling so inept that it raises the very bar of what level of badness can exist in a film. Hat Thoughts posted:U got anything to say about Star Wars or u just like whining
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:15
|
|