I'm curious about it, because the news seems like it has done precisely what it was meant to. As I said though, it feels blatantly obvious that it is a gimmick, and probably one that will not live up to its expectations, a la Darth Maul, Grievous and others.
You're comparing a charaters that were on screen for 15 minutes of one film vs a character that will likely be in action for 20 hours (thats only about half...and likely an undersetimate) of a 100episode TV series + film.
You OT mongers should crawl back in your holes and go back to 1983. We'd all enjoy that very much. Quit your pointless speculative bitching and reconsider your baises.
All well and good of you to be a complete lemon about the situation Alliance, but your dodgy rhetoric is a little less Charlton Heston and a little more Chevy Chase; you're coming across as much more of a crazed delinquent than is fair for you. The cause of this riotous outburst? No sex! But the "cause" of this riotous outburst? Hmm, you have lost me there Patrick Kielty. The similar use of those characters in the promotion of their respective products is pretty obvious for anyone with an IQ above 75. It isn't implicit or written in brail or only visible in the Witching Hour you daft fishmonger, it's obvious. When did Darth Maul and Grievous not become a gimmick? Hell, are you even too much of a Kielty to realise that Star Wars is built on gimmicks and hooks? Probably - Where as the title scrawl and the John Williams Crescendo have longetivity, the said characters fell flat as soon as you watched the film. No substance, no character, no killer. Who is to say what is to happen with this new gimmick? Will she stay or will she go? If you really want to go with the cop-out "Big Bad People With Their Common Sense Hurt Alliance's Ears With Their Views On The Prequels" line, then go for it; you little pocketfisherman you.
Of course, your EgoDrivenIdiocyCanKiss my chumbabwamba kiddo.
Common sense is something you demonstrate little of. Your big bad stream of consciousness blathering is typical of someone with the inability to extend their insight past their own nose.
SW is built on gimmicks and hooks. It always has been. Thus, when your mental worms come slithering out of their holes to escape the flood of your intellectual oppression and make the blinding revelation that indeed, a new character might be used extensively in advertising....Praise be to Jesus.
Yet, perhaps the worm, before drowning or getting smashed beneath the black boot of insight, would manage to make the elementary distinction between a new cornerstone of personal development and the episodic villain of the week, who for all intents and purposes in the "blatant black and white nature of Star Wars" needs neither background nor depth, simply evilness. Thus, perhaps the tiny worm would be able, given the pervasiveness of gimmick in Star Wars, to distinguish between different types of gimmicks and make accurate comparisons between the two.
Lucas? Use marketing. For everything? BRILLIANT!
(for a four year old)
Yet, Ashoka will not fall flat because she is an integral part of the saga and a main vehicle of the audience's point of view. This interaction also takes place over a span easily 10-20 times the screen time she would have received in the films with her stature, which is probably 5 times more than Maul or Grievous received. A character falling flat is dependant on their treatment in the film, not in how that character is marketed prior to it. Any Dolly can make this distinction and frankly if you had any common sense, you could move beyond that simple distinction.
So, go wrap yourself in childhood nostalgia, pretending that SW once consisted of only good films that were immune to the "flaws" of the PT.
Oh no Mr.Paxman, please put the cross back in its place! Don't confuse yourself with people that can be illustrious and demonstrative in their own expression, because you ain't got no nollerin' credibility in that game jimmymedladle. I-I-ii Can only 'ope you 'ave the sense to slay your own crown.
Jokes to the last Superhans.
Oh woe for the prose! Oh how you elope your fleshy swab upon your crown and blow like the winds of a Vespa. Oh woe how you might 'mispaken' alike Hilary, to kill an argument with your own flesh swab of a criticism - that Kielty, is what you have done. There is a point where your caged wisdom feeds upon its own behind and that for you, was the zenith; advertising without representation! Marketing department clogging their own rectums with promotion without representation! A new character unveiled as an advertising tool is a double edged sword. No questions. Feed the prols with their own squalor for Alliance has stolen their bread and fuelled his Sarcasm Corbopoly Enterprise and drowned like Northern Rock.
Promotion with Representation! Kid Sampson packs his bags! The keystone of this bridge of plenty: Reception of Promotion! Not Reception of Product! Reception of Promotion! There are no two types of gimmick, pisspants, when considering the Promotion in the sense that you and your phallic worm are doing. Fleshy swab. A character falling flat is dependant on how their treament in the film reflects with the marketing of their character in ecent Star Wars. It will be the same for this bint.
Correction Kielty; there are only two good Star Wars films and whether they are new are old is simply moot.
Bravely Calling Actors By Their Second Names
Last edited by exanda kane on Apr 26th, 2008 at 08:26 PM
Now that is just egotistical of you to think I would dick on your own style Cameron. Remember, you're the one with no argument; remember, the part where you got all gooey "down there" when you were told that Jedi are as important as Linux? Oh, those were the days.
As for Alliance, no need for you to break a sweat spewing forth your planned mantra (show me a brief and I'll think you're an artist) - as said, this is a nicely marketed trick to spark interest in a pseudo-Star Wars movie. Whether you compare the bint to other failed characters or not, the so called "dynamic" between said bint and known Gallagher, Anakin, has been pushed as the only reason why this film must be seen. I hate to think you'd be couped up thinking otherwise with your little worm.
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Living my life, fighting my war.
That argument was an argument with no actual proof being presented on either side, just opinions and speculation. Through that exchange, I realised that there is no way that we will ever KNOW what Star Wars would be without the Jedi, Sith, Force, etc. but my belief has never changed.
Where my arguments have had little proof and been strongly opinionated (something that I am slowly trying to remedy) yours consist of little proof and much mud slinging. This is a fact. Through watching your posts I have come to see that you thrive on going to forums that you care little about, and causing conflict whenever you can in said forums. It is, as I have witnessed several times, a lamentable character trait of yours.
My apologies, but sometimes what must be stated must be stated, even if you tread on a few toes.
Last edited by Mandrag Ganon on Apr 28th, 2008 at 01:46 AM
But if Kapton JAC would like to resurrect his poor arguments for that thread, I would be simply obliged - so what if he couldn't lead a logical invesitgation of relevant questions relating to said debate, he tried! - but until then, Xrotom to you.