I feel on the fence as to whether Book should be recast. I get that Ron Glass was presumably well liked by cast and crew and fans. But it's not quite the same as recasting Chad Boseman's Black Panther. Book was part of an ensemble, and no offense to Glass or Book, not exactly the biggest part. I think he is the only character that didn't really got an A plot centered around them. I could see leaving his character out of the revival as respect but I could also see it as disrespect. I'd imagine the grief of losing Ron has faded with it being what, almost 10 years? It's probably best that Book take a sabbatical from his sabbatical. But I will miss them connecting the dots about Book's past as an apparently high-muckety-muck in Alliance circles and getting the details on what made him turn to being a preacher. I'd like to think he was like an anti-Mal...someone who was so on the side of the Alliance until he found himself doing something so horrible that he had to seek redemption and God. Maybe he was there at the battle of Serenity Valley for the other side.
I'm curious how this'll turn out, 10-15 years back, think I'd have been really excited, but it very much chimed with the libertarian ideology. And oh so many of those turned out not just to be LINO, but white nationalists to boot. Going to rewatch the series, try and get the fires back.
you've nullified an entire post before even typing it. I'm going to respond to this the same way I respond to FF's criticisms. Write me a story and post it here.
Ok... "There was once a WFer who couldn't refute any valid criticisms so instead she resorted to an Ad Hominem logical fallacy. Realizing the error of her ways she admitted there was no defense against Firefly's shortcomings. She apologized for her mistake and left in a space ship powered by antimatter and traveling at relativistic speeds. She was never seen again. The end." I hope I'm published soon.
Storytelling ability =/= critiquing ability, and vice-versa. There are very few T.S. Elliots in history.
Critiquing ability? Anyone who can speak, can bitch. And if you can bitch, you can critique. It’s very easy to say “I don’t like this” and most people can even say why. Most people cannot create what they think they will like. Regardless of what that thing is. The thing most people first attempt to create is something they think will taste good. We have lots of recipes and lots of critics. I don’t like the foods most people like, so food critics might as well be saying they on’t like the color blue for as much as their opinion effects me and what I might or might not eat. Anyone can bitch. It doesn’t take any great talent. Anyone who thinks it is talent, are confusing wittiness with credibilty.
Bitching and saying you don't like something is not really critiquing. Thus the difference between someone like Critical Drinker and someone like Red Letter Media.
My HS English teachers left comments on my papers that sounded more like CD and UA. Garamet in PM assumed I excelled at English, and I was like "hahhahaa!! No! No! Christ no! That was not happening! Haha! No. ".
How much is required? The Jordon Peterson Stans say you have to read all his books, and see all his videos, and follow him on tour like the Grateful Dead to have the cosmic secret revealed. I've seen tons of CD clips, and I knew I'd get the "taken out of context!! " shit, so I watched a whole video, and he said what he said. Whenever I peruse his thumbnail wall, it's an explosion in a Twitter-Nazi-AI-meme factory. Nothing that encourages further digging. Do I have to go Jordon Peterson deep, or can I stop at ten? Thirty? Forty?
Viewed? As in compared one “critique” vs another? I admit, my only observations, experiences, recieving information, is by reading or listening to literary articles or audio recordings of critics. And they all want to tell me why I should or should not like something that they liked or disliked. What I walked away from that, was that I can make my own decisions. I don’t need “critics” to tell me if I will like or dislike something. That isn’t to say they can’t be entertaining. A critic can be clever in the way they describe whatever it is that they are reviewing. And that absolutely will determine the critic’s popularity. But it in no fucking way makes their opinion more valid than mine.
You might see enough to know you won't like him, but that's a far cry from being able to speak with any depth of knowledge about the man. I suspect that distinction will be lost on you
Oh, fuck off with your standards you never lived up to. Being lectured by wretched Beavis & Butt-Head level trolls like they think they're the school principal is always absurd farce.
No argument with most of that, BUT I will continue to reject the notion that agreeing with anyone, "critic" or not, on one or several points, amounts to them telling you what to think.
I've watched quite a bit of RLM. Which makes sense as I'm subscribed to them. As for CT, I've watched his vids thru other commentary. I refuse to give him any of my views.
Because there is such a vast body of work from me presuming to know everything some podcaster AND his viewers is all about. But you don't watch, so you don't know the content of the "lecture."
Someone may not view that as being told what to think. The speaker may not view their actions as being told what to think. The only thing a rational person can do is be constantly questioning everything they think and why they think it.
In other words you have YouTubers tell you what to think. Something you accuse me of doing all of the time. I have watched Steve Shives and I don’t like him, but I don’t pretend to know what he’s thinking.
I don't need to watch a whole video from CT to know that the same guy who posts AI Blackface LOTR doesn't have anything of quality to say.
I generally only pay attention to critics who have experience/background in the thing that they're critiquing. Someone who's been there, done that. Some yob on YouTube who's only experience is buying a movie ticket or a television doesn't count. They're entitled to their opinion, but not to be taken seriously.
So only people in the industry are qualified to criticize it? FUCK that nonsense. They are selling a product. The opinions of the customers who pay their bills are actually more important. Maybe the final word. You might never work in a restaurant, but you know whether or not you liked that burger, and people agreeing with you is not some brainwashing grift conspiracy of individuals who can't make up their own minds. FUCK that elitist "qualified opinion" bullshit. That's just people in the industry jerking each other off and shielding their drek from criticism.
