[004]
DukeNukem4ever
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Is anyone still playing this? I started in Tuesday, and besides a single zombie and a high level survivor I did not find any activity in this game.
to:
Is anyone still playing this? I started on Tuesday, and besides a single zombie and a high level survivor I did not find any activity in this game.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Is anyone playing this? I started in Tuesday, and besides a single zombie and a high level survivor I didn\'t find any activity in this game.
to:
Is anyone still playing this? I started in Tuesday, and besides a single zombie and a high level survivor I did not find any activity in this game.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I made that comment to point out that I\'m \'\'not\'\' a drooling defender. I\'m not even a fan. But I am familiar with the show, I have some experience with it, and I have watched a handful of episodes, more than enough to at least get the gist of their style and how they operate. I just wasn\'t fond of it. Seems my attempt to explain this didn\'t work, because you interpreted \
to:
I made that comment to point out that I\\\'m \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a drooling defender. I\\\'m not even a fan. But I am familiar with the show, I have some experience with it, and I have watched a handful of episodes, more than enough to at least get the gist of their style and how they operate. I just wasn\\\'t fond of it. Seems my attempt to explain this didn\\\'t work, because you interpreted \\\"I saw a couple episodes years ago, and even I know not every joke was making fun of the effects\\\" to mean \\\"All the cool people tell me it\\\'s genius!\\\" Please stop addressing me as if I\\\'m praising the show, because at no point did I even imply MST3K was good - only that it wasn\\\'t this trope, and furthermore that your attempts to place it here are made in error. For that matter, nowhere did I imply I wasn\\\'t familiar with the works of Roger Corman. [[AdHominem And even if I were completely unfamiliar with either, that wouldn\\\'t make my argument wrong.]]
As for your second paragraph... I am not exactly sure how to parse this because your wording\\\'s a dang mess, so I\\\'m gonna go through it bit by bit.
\\\"In the case of the idea of criticism not being parody,\\\"
This is true. \\\'\\\'Spaceballs\\\'\\\' was not made to criticize \\\'\\\'Star Wars.\\\'\\\'
\\\"modern video-essays (which MST inspired) editorialize and make comments especially in the case of creating fictional characters as mouthpieces and that makes it less of criticism than parody.\\\"
Um... what? So you\\\'re talking about something that is explicitly not MST3K, but some people who were inspired by them? And how does creating your own characters and having them be mouthpieces for you make something not criticism or parody? Neither definition excludes an AuthorAvatar; in fact, many classic works of both contain such things.
\\\"This is obvious in the case of MST where the video cut-outs are all about their makeshift characters and doesn\\\\\\\'t offer actual criticism.\\\"
So... you acknowledge that MST3K isn\\\'t always a work of critique? Great; that\\\'s my point, too. MST3K is not supposed to be a takedown, its purpose was to give the experience of sitting down and watching cheesy late-night movies with your friends. Moreover, having humorous skits or asides that don\\\'t deal with the parodied work doesn\\\'t mean the jokes or points made in the rest of the work invalid, especially (as in MST3K) if there is a clear delineation between the bits dealing with the movie and the bits that are just the writers goofing off.
\\\"Many of their comments often don\\\\\\\'t have anything to do with the films themselves, and it\\\'s often just Excuse Plot\\\"
What are you referring to? Are you referring to the skits? Because they don\\\'t impact it. Are you referring to the times in watching the movies where they\\\'ll offer a comment along the lines of \\\"Hey, that monster looks like Bruce Willis!\\\" or do an impression? Because if any parody to make jokes about something aside from the source material is shallow, then that\\\'s pretty much every parody ever made. Turns out \\\'\\\'Spaceballs\\\'\\\' is a ShallowParody of \\\'\\\'Star Wars\\\'\\\' because there are parts where they make jokes about Jewish culture. And furthermore, not only is that not the same as an ExcusePlot, but an ExcusePlot and a ShallowParody have nothing to do with each other.
\\\"but it\\\'s problematic because that show was the introduction many had about the earlier films, which obviously makes it right for people to call it a Shallow Parody.\\\"
No, it doesn\\\'t. A parody being a person\\\'s introduction to something does not make it shallow. It\\\'s hugely subjective, it\\\'s [[TheWeirdAlEffect not this trope]], and it\\\'s not the fault of the original work at all. Your argument seems to be that they were misrepresenting the original work by being its introduction for so many people, but again: still not this trope. Of course they were going to misrepresent it to some degree. The entire point of parody is to change something to make it funny.
If someone were to do a parody of a movie that got done on MST3K, and they only used the MST3K version as a source, \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' the original version somehow invalidated that person\\\'s parody (perhaps by virtue of a scene that\\\'d been edited out in that version), then \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' would be Shallow Parody. Not the MST3K version, just that person\\\'s parody. If you can find such a parody, you could add it. Good job!
At most, you seem to be referring to the culture that followed MST3K, and not MST3K itself. I might agree with you that the resulting culture was problematic, but again - that\\\'s not this trope.
As for your second paragraph... I am not exactly sure how to parse this because your wording\\\'s a dang mess, so I\\\'m gonna go through it bit by bit.
\\\"In the case of the idea of criticism not being parody,\\\"
This is true. \\\'\\\'Spaceballs\\\'\\\' was not made to criticize \\\'\\\'Star Wars.\\\'\\\'
\\\"modern video-essays (which MST inspired) editorialize and make comments especially in the case of creating fictional characters as mouthpieces and that makes it less of criticism than parody.\\\"
Um... what? So you\\\'re talking about something that is explicitly not MST3K, but some people who were inspired by them? And how does creating your own characters and having them be mouthpieces for you make something not criticism or parody? Neither definition excludes an AuthorAvatar; in fact, many classic works of both contain such things.
\\\"This is obvious in the case of MST where the video cut-outs are all about their makeshift characters and doesn\\\\\\\'t offer actual criticism.\\\"
So... you acknowledge that MST3K isn\\\'t always a work of critique? Great; that\\\'s my point, too. MST3K is not supposed to be a takedown, its purpose was to give the experience of sitting down and watching cheesy late-night movies with your friends. Moreover, having humorous skits or asides that don\\\'t deal with the parodied work doesn\\\'t mean the jokes or points made in the rest of the work invalid, especially (as in MST3K) if there is a clear delineation between the bits dealing with the movie and the bits that are just the writers goofing off.
\\\"Many of their comments often don\\\\\\\'t have anything to do with the films themselves, and it\\\'s often just Excuse Plot\\\"
What are you referring to? Are you referring to the skits? Because they don\\\'t impact it. Are you referring to the times in watching the movies where they\\\'ll offer a comment along the lines of \\\"Hey, that monster looks like Bruce Willis!\\\" or do an impression? Because if any parody to make jokes about something aside from the source material is shallow, then that\\\'s pretty much every parody ever made. Turns out \\\'\\\'Spaceballs\\\'\\\' is a ShallowParody of \\\'\\\'Star Wars\\\'\\\' because there are parts where they make jokes about Jewish culture. And furthermore, not only is that not the same as an ExcusePlot, but an ExcusePlot and a ShallowParody have nothing to do with each other.
\\\"but it\\\'s problematic because that show was the introduction many had about the earlier films, which obviously makes it right for people to call it a Shallow Parody.\\\"
No, it doesn\\\'t. A parody being a person\\\'s introduction to something does not make it shallow. It\\\'s hugely subjective, it\\\'s [[TheWeirdAlEffect not this trope]], and it\\\'s not the fault of the original work at all. Your argument seems to be that they were misrepresenting the original work by being its introduction for so many people, but again: still not this trope. Of course they were going to misrepresent it to some degree. The entire point of parody is to change something to make it funny.
If someone were to do a parody of a movie that got done on MST3K, and they only used the MST3K version as a source, \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' the original version somehow invalidated that person\\\'s parody (perhaps by virtue of a scene that\\\'d been edited out in that version), then \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' would be Shallow Parody. Not the MST3K version, just that person\\\'s parody. If you can find such a parody, you could add it. Good job!
At most, you seem to be referring to the culture that followed MST3K, and not MST3K itself. I might agree with you that the resulting culture was problematic, but again - that\\\'s not this trope.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I made that comment to point out that I\'m \'\'not\'\' a drooling defender. I\'m not even a fan. But I am familiar with the show, I have some experience with it, and I have watched a handful of episodes, more than enough to at least get the gist of their style and how they operate. I just wasn\'t fond of it. Seems my attempt to explain this didn\'t work, because you interpreted \
to:
I made that comment to point out that I\\\'m \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a drooling defender. I\\\'m not even a fan. But I am familiar with the show, I have some experience with it, and I have watched a handful of episodes, more than enough to at least get the gist of their style and how they operate. I just wasn\\\'t fond of it. Seems my attempt to explain this didn\\\'t work, because you interpreted \\\"I saw a couple episodes years ago, and even I know not every joke was making fun of the effects\\\" to mean \\\"All the cool people tell me it\\\'s genius!\\\" Please stop addressing me as if I\\\'m praising the show, because at no point did I even imply MST3K was good - only that it wasn\\\'t this trope, and furthermore that your attempts to place it here are made in error. For that matter, nowhere did I imply I wasn\\\'t familiar with the works of Roger Corman. [[AdHominem And even if I were completely unfamiliar with either, that wouldn\\\'t make my argument wrong.]]
As for your second paragraph... I am not exactly sure how to parse this because your wording\\\'s a dang mess, so I\\\'m gonna go through it bit by bit.
\\\"In the case of the idea of criticism not being parody,\\\"
This is true. \\\'\\\'Spaceballs\\\'\\\' was not made to criticize \\\'\\\'Star Wars.\\\'\\\'
\\\"modern video-essays (which MST inspired) editorialize and make comments especially in the case of creating fictional characters as mouthpieces and that makes it less of criticism than parody.\\\"
Um... what? So you\\\'re talking about something that is explicitly not MST3K, but some people who were inspired by them? And how does creating your own characters and having them be mouthpieces for you make something not criticism or parody? Neither definition excludes an AuthorAvatar; in fact, many classic works of both contain such things.
\\\"This is obvious in the case of MST where the video cut-outs are all about their makeshift characters and doesn\\\\\\\'t offer actual criticism.\\\"
So... you acknowledge that MST3K isn\\\'t always a work of critique? Great; that\\\'s my point, too. MST3K is not supposed to be a takedown, its purpose was to give the experience of sitting down and watching cheesy late-night movies with your friends. Moreover, having humorous skits or asides that don\\\'t deal with the parodied work doesn\\\'t mean the jokes or points made in the rest of the work invalid, especially (as in MST3K) if there is a clear delineation between the bits dealing with the movie and the bits that are just the writers goofing off.
\\\"Many of their comments often don\\\\\\\'t have anything to do with the films themselves, and it\\\'s often just Excuse Plot\\\"
What are you referring to? Are you referring to the skits? Because they don\\\'t impact it. Are you referring to the times in watching the movies where they\\\'ll offer a comment along the lines of \\\"Hey, that monster looks like Bruce Willis!\\\" or do an impression? Because if any parody to make jokes about something aside from the source material is shallow, then that\\\'s pretty much every parody ever made. Turns out \\\'\\\'Spaceballs\\\'\\\' is a ShallowParody of \\\'\\\'Star Wars\\\'\\\' because there are parts where they make jokes about Jewish culture. And furthermore, not only is that not the same as an ExcusePlot, but an ExcusePlot and a ShallowParody have nothing to do with each other.
\\\"but it\\\'s problematic because that show was the introduction many had about the earlier films, which obviously makes it right for people to call it a Shallow Parody.\\\"
No, it doesn\\\'t. If someone were to do a parody of a movie that got done on MST3K, and they only used the MST3K version as a source, \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' the original version somehow invalidated that person\\\'s parody (perhaps by virtue of a scene that\\\'d been edited out in that version), then \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' would be Shallow Parody. Not the MST3K version, just that person\\\'s parody. If you can find such a parody, you could add it. Good job!
At most, you seem to be referring to the culture that followed MST3K, and not MST3K itself. I might agree with you that the resulting culture was problematic, but again - that\\\'s not this trope.
As for your second paragraph... I am not exactly sure how to parse this because your wording\\\'s a dang mess, so I\\\'m gonna go through it bit by bit.
\\\"In the case of the idea of criticism not being parody,\\\"
This is true. \\\'\\\'Spaceballs\\\'\\\' was not made to criticize \\\'\\\'Star Wars.\\\'\\\'
\\\"modern video-essays (which MST inspired) editorialize and make comments especially in the case of creating fictional characters as mouthpieces and that makes it less of criticism than parody.\\\"
Um... what? So you\\\'re talking about something that is explicitly not MST3K, but some people who were inspired by them? And how does creating your own characters and having them be mouthpieces for you make something not criticism or parody? Neither definition excludes an AuthorAvatar; in fact, many classic works of both contain such things.
\\\"This is obvious in the case of MST where the video cut-outs are all about their makeshift characters and doesn\\\\\\\'t offer actual criticism.\\\"
So... you acknowledge that MST3K isn\\\'t always a work of critique? Great; that\\\'s my point, too. MST3K is not supposed to be a takedown, its purpose was to give the experience of sitting down and watching cheesy late-night movies with your friends. Moreover, having humorous skits or asides that don\\\'t deal with the parodied work doesn\\\'t mean the jokes or points made in the rest of the work invalid, especially (as in MST3K) if there is a clear delineation between the bits dealing with the movie and the bits that are just the writers goofing off.
\\\"Many of their comments often don\\\\\\\'t have anything to do with the films themselves, and it\\\'s often just Excuse Plot\\\"
What are you referring to? Are you referring to the skits? Because they don\\\'t impact it. Are you referring to the times in watching the movies where they\\\'ll offer a comment along the lines of \\\"Hey, that monster looks like Bruce Willis!\\\" or do an impression? Because if any parody to make jokes about something aside from the source material is shallow, then that\\\'s pretty much every parody ever made. Turns out \\\'\\\'Spaceballs\\\'\\\' is a ShallowParody of \\\'\\\'Star Wars\\\'\\\' because there are parts where they make jokes about Jewish culture. And furthermore, not only is that not the same as an ExcusePlot, but an ExcusePlot and a ShallowParody have nothing to do with each other.
\\\"but it\\\'s problematic because that show was the introduction many had about the earlier films, which obviously makes it right for people to call it a Shallow Parody.\\\"
No, it doesn\\\'t. If someone were to do a parody of a movie that got done on MST3K, and they only used the MST3K version as a source, \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' the original version somehow invalidated that person\\\'s parody (perhaps by virtue of a scene that\\\'d been edited out in that version), then \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' would be Shallow Parody. Not the MST3K version, just that person\\\'s parody. If you can find such a parody, you could add it. Good job!
At most, you seem to be referring to the culture that followed MST3K, and not MST3K itself. I might agree with you that the resulting culture was problematic, but again - that\\\'s not this trope.
