Oh man what the hell is wrong with you.
Deary me, this sounds like an insult. I thought you were against being judgmental? Shame on you.
People can disagree with you and not be wrong. Calling people you disagree with stupid or apologists is ridiculously insulting.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this.
You can be objectively wrong according to a given standard. For example, if a group's standard for good food on a given night is "Anything unrelated to Italian," and they're served Italian food, then the food is bad unless the standard is changed. As far as storytelling goes, there are agreed-upon (though somewhat ambiguous) standards which we appeal to when making arguments about quality: pacing, character development, consistency, drama to make things compelling, etc. For the purposes of this discussion, you need to do two things:
1) Provide the standards you're using for quality storytelling.
2) Argue why Other M fits these standards.
This will turn your opinion into a strong opinion, one well-defended by argument and evidence.
Are you really THAT insecure?
Another insult, very nice. Incidentally, the "You're insecure!" defense is my personal favorite, because it always comes from the mouths insecure people. Delicious.
You're so confident in your own little selfish delusions that you can't possibly imagine a viewpoint outside your own.
So now I'm "selfish" and "delusional"? I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the word "hypocrisy" is really starting to come to mind.
It really doesn't matter either way, it's not like he's denying they exist. A lot of good stuff has been in alternate timeline spinoffs.
I'd agree with this, but a lot of fans would take offense to a mediocre game like Other M being a part of the "main" series with the expertly-crafted Prime trilogy thrown aside into spin-off territory.
And really, citing RedLetterMedia? Now the reviews are very informative on the nature of film and well put together. But just because they exist doesn't mean that you have to agree with every word he says, it doesn't make everyone else wrong, and it doesn't justify your sort of behaviour.
I can tell you're very, very new at debating based on these responses. No worries; I'm patient.
Remember those standards I provided above? They can be applied to RLM like a rubber glove: he's crystal clear about what he's looking for in a film, and then goes about deconstructing the Prequel trilogy in light of his standard. If you agree with his standard (and I'd argue that it's a pretty widespread one), then it's extremely difficult to accept these movies as anything other than wasted potential at best, trash at worst.
There are two ways to respond to RLM, as well as any well-constructed opinion:
1) Yell "Opinions are subjective!" and throw a temper-tantrum like a 14-year-old whose favorite television program was just insulted; discussion comes to a screeching halt.
2) Provide evidence about which standards best reflect true aesthetic quality, or perhaps why a given piece of art or entertainment, when seen from a different perspective, fits better into a standard than was originally realized; discussion moves along fluidly.
And frankly, it's my honest opinion.
No one doubts your frankness, champ. But if you're unwilling to commit to the rules of basic debate etiquette, then your energies would be better spent somewhere else.
--
Forever LOLphins
http://i.imgur.com/Uo04e.gif