Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[bledgor]

Why are you all getting so angry over this?

If you don’t like it nobody is forcing you to watch it. If it is then seen as having such horrible viewership numbers they will see that it is not being received well and either cancel or change direction (looking at the money spent probably change direction then see how viewership goes and then if it is still bad cancel it)

But the belief that just because something was made means you have to like it because you like other stuff in that genre or even IP doesn’t fit everything. It’s ok to not like something. It really is. Did I like it? Yeah it was ok. Will I watch season 2 probably. Did I like Harry Potter yeah I did, did I like the movies? No I didn’t. But that’s ok I just move on and let everyone else who liked the movies like the movies. You don’t have to go and argue about it with people trying to make everyone else hate it too because you did and tell them how they are wrong because of reasons or you are right because of reasons.

Aren’t you all tired of just arguing and getting nowhere?

I mean by your logic you are free to not post here. People are tired of the things they loved being vandalized by hypocrites in Hollywood who pretend to be a fan but honestly don't give two shits about the source material and are willing to butcher it to fit whatever image they have in their head. People are tired of producers/writers that believe they know better/think they are more talented than the author. Not to mention the sheer gaslighting war that Hollywood has started to engage in with their fans for daring to want adaptations closer to the source material than what we are getting.

People are passionate about things they care about, if you aren't that is fine, but recognize others are and they are just as justified in being pissed and wanting to vent as you are in being okay/not caring.

[Kumorii]

Why are you all getting so angry over this?

If you don’t like it nobody is forcing you to watch it. If it is then seen as having such horrible viewership numbers they will see that it is not being received well and either cancel or change direction (looking at the money spent probably change direction then see how viewership goes and then if it is still bad cancel it)

But the belief that just because something was made means you have to like it because you like other stuff in that genre or even IP doesn’t fit everything. It’s ok to not like something. It really is. Did I like it? Yeah it was ok. Will I watch season 2 probably. Did I like Harry Potter yeah I did, did I like the movies? No I didn’t. But that’s ok I just move on and let everyone else who liked the movies like the movies. You don’t have to go and argue about it with people trying to make everyone else hate it too because you did and tell them how they are wrong because of reasons or you are right because of reasons.

Aren’t you all tired of just arguing and getting nowhere?

I find the opposite to be more prevalent in this thread.
It's ok that people dislike something, you don't always have to come in and disprove their opinion or calling it invalid or find a minute discrepancy in their post to reduce the entire opinion down to blind hate etc etc...

Most arguments in this thread usually starts with "You are wrong to dislike this show for this reason".

[Veggie50]

It doesnt matter how many liked the show, not every show is to the taste of every single person and there are billions of ppl in the world, not all amazon prime members even use the streaming service, if 100 million ppl potentially want to watch the show then thats larger than most tv shows ever get.

All the data backs my claim, of those who have actually watched the show all the metrics show most viewers enjoyed it, why dont you prove me otherwise, all the reviews point the show to being between a 70-85% rating, if thats not considered good then you clearly have no idea on what you are even talking about.

- - - Updated - - -



If more ppl like something than hate it that makes it good, there is no way around that, personal tastes dont make something good or bad, plus too many ppl are ignorant and overly judgy on everything these days, the majority rules on what is considered a good tv/film series not the individual.

Thats a completely arbitrary definition of “good” and “bad”.

In 1938 nazi germany was approx 70 million people. Before the war started, most common people had no real opinion on them. So thats about 70 million thinking they’re pretty good, and maybe a couple million thinking they’re bad. By your definition, at 1938, nazis were good guys.

Yes, I’m aware of how ridiculous this sounds, but thats what you get when people “define” purely subjective terms.

For an example closer to home, look at cult films. These are movies widely regarded as garbage, but they have a clear cult following that love them. You honestly believe you would be correct to argue to them the movie they love is bad and they’re wrong?

[Fabinas]

Just watched it a week ago.

The show is exceptionally BAD, because :

• It's full of nonsensical events to drive the plot and story forward. Galadriel's character & choices are all over the place. Things just happen around the heroes and when the heroes do things, those just happen to advance the plot, despite not making sense.

• The casting is mediocre as far as looks/appearances are concerned. Elves don't look elvish. The choice of having two main actors being colored without integrating their existence in universe reeks of tokenism and diversity quotas. To be more specific, my problem is with just picking Arondir and Disa, without picking MORE colored actors as Elves and Dwarves with enough screen time, in order to establish the variety of skin colors in the series universe for those. Note that there's no complain about Sir Lenny Henry, as Harfoots are casted with a greater ratio of non-white actors.

• It's full of red herrings, in order to create mysteries that are not so mysterious. Establishing Halbrand as smith, without having another character with the same profession, especially around Celembrimbor, kinda gave his role away. Inserting Gandalf as a meteor-wrecked, befuddled castaway with no memories and identity, but with fire magic and animal connection traits was also a dead giveaway.

• No sense of time passing. People travel around too fast and arrive exactly at opportune times, which diminishes not only the scale of the world (known to us by the in-series maps), but the emergencies and the difficulties for the heroes.

I could go on, but most issues have been already covered in this thread (which i started to read after watching the show, skipping almost all of Kann's, Rogoth's and Rhorle's drivels and bad faith arguments). I was hoping for something better, and only found it in the Dwarf part of the show. One can't help wonder how this trainwreck was allowed, ddespite its financial cost, if compared to Andor and HotD. The latter have far better quality in most of their aspects, but especially in their stories, character development, casting and scenarios.

This post has already taken more than enough time than the show is worthy of.

[Adamas102]

I find the opposite to be more prevalent in this thread.
It's ok that people dislike something, you don't always have to come in and disprove their opinion or calling it invalid or find a minute discrepancy in their post to reduce the entire opinion down to blind hate etc etc...

Most arguments in this thread usually starts with "You are wrong to dislike this show for this reason".

That's pure, unadulterated bullshit. Not a single poster in this thread has told anyone that they can't dislike this show. However, the thing a lot of people in this thread don't seem to realize is that something doesn't have to be bad for them not to like it.

In the case of this show I'd say a lot of the dislike comes from people simply not getting what they wanted (which is par for the course with almost any adaptation). Unfortunately, they then come in here and try to rationalize their dislike by saying things like "the acting was bad" or "the directing was bad" when by any objective metric these were perfectly fine. Or, as the past few pages have shown, they'll post about user reviews as if that's a relevant metric for determining the quality of a show.

If you want to hate the show, that's fine. If you want to post on this forum that you hated the show, that's perfectly fine as well. If you want to instead claim that something was done poorly when it objectively wasn't then you're no longer in the realm of just having an opinion.

[Kumorii]

That's pure, unadulterated bullshit. Not a single poster in this thread has told anyone that they can't dislike this show. However, the thing a lot of people in this thread don't seem to realize is that something doesn't have to be bad for them not to like it.

In the case of this show I'd say a lot of the dislike comes from people simply not getting what they wanted (which is par for the course with almost any adaptation). Unfortunately, they then come in here and try to rationalize their dislike by saying things like "the acting was bad" or "the directing was bad" when by any objective metric these were perfectly fine. Or, as the past few pages have shown, they'll post about user reviews as if that's a relevant metric for determining the quality of a show.

If you want to hate the show, that's fine. If you want to post on this forum that you hated the show, that's perfectly fine as well. If you want to instead claim that something was done poorly when it objectively wasn't then you're no longer in the realm of just having an opinion.

Case in point.

[kenn9530]

You really need to learn how statistical sampling works lol

You need to learn that most ppl that have watched the show like it plain and simple.

- - - Updated - - -

You basically said the show is good because people liked it, you were refuted by numbers telling you people did not like it

your retort is to say they do not matter, despite your previous point saying they are all that matters, and now only the "certified" critics opinion matter

You claim there is not enough reviewers of countless of people, but think the few critics is enough

You think people who disliked the show are biased, but paid critics who just review good because amazon cash are unbiased.

The show is bad, the viewership was bad, the engagement in social media was bad, it's a bad show that people only talk about to mock it

It was so bad they are talking about changing the showrunners, this show is anything but a colossal failure for what wanted to be

You couldnt refute anything because you have nothing.

25 million ppl minimum watching a show it in it first weeks and throughout the whole season is to you considered bad, all the average ratings on the show are 7 or higher, you are obviously clueless on what is considered bad, the show was the number one show throughtout its release and the numbers will only continue to rise.

You have no say on whats a bad show or not because the facts simply dont support you.

A show being bad and you not liking it are 2 completely different things.

- - - Updated - - -

You've provided ZERO data. So all you're full of here is bullshit.

Simple as that.

The data is right in your face, takes 2 secs to check several review sites that proves the show is good, you have provided no data proving the show is bad because there is none.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats a completely arbitrary definition of “good” and “bad”.

In 1938 nazi germany was approx 70 million people. Before the war started, most common people had no real opinion on them. So thats about 70 million thinking they’re pretty good, and maybe a couple million thinking they’re bad. By your definition, at 1938, nazis were good guys.

Yes, I’m aware of how ridiculous this sounds, but thats what you get when people “define” purely subjective terms.

For an example closer to home, look at cult films. These are movies widely regarded as garbage, but they have a clear cult following that love them. You honestly believe you would be correct to argue to them the movie they love is bad and they’re wrong?

The show is rated pretty good and most ppl like the show that has watched it, ppl need to accept reality that more ppl enjoy the show than dont.

[Adamas102]

• It's full of nonsensical events to drive the plot and story forward. Galadriel's character & choices are all over the place. Things just happen around the heroes and when the heroes do things, those just happen to advance the plot, despite not making sense.

Can you elaborate? Plot conveniences exist in pretty much every fictional work. It's extremely convenient that Sauron decides to go looking for The One Ring after it passes on to Frodo and Gandalf is able to warn him, or that Strider finds the hobbits in Bree just before the Nazgul do, or that Glandalf shows up at Helms Deep just in time to save the day. The books are filled with plot conveniences, and if anything the movies play them up even more because those typically make for dramatic moments in visual medium.

As for Galadriel, she isn't a particularly complicated character, so her motivations are simple. She wants to make sure that Sauron is utterly defeated. It's what propels her quest at the beginning of the show, it's what leads her to jump from the boat, and it's what drives her to push the Numenoreans to rally a force to Middle Earth. That hyper focused desire for revenge begins to waver when Mount Doom erupts and turns victory into a retreat, and even more so when she is confronted with having helped Sauron himself into the house of the elves. It's not "all over the place".

• The casting is mediocre as far as looks/appearances are concerned. Elves don't look elvish. The choice of having two main actors being colored without integrating their existence in universe reeks of tokenism and diversity quotas. To be more specific, my problem is with just picking Arondir and Disa, without picking MORE colored actors as Elves and Dwarves with enough screen time, in order to establish the variety of skin colors in the series universe for those. Note that there's no complain about Sir Lenny Henry, as Harfoots are casted with a greater ratio of non-white actors.

You don't really seem to know what tokenism is if you think Arondir and Disa fit the bill. Token characters are irrelevant to the plot and are ONLY included for token representation. Arondir and Disa are pretty central characters to each of their plots. They're not background characters, when they're around they're usually right there at the forefront having meaningful interactions with other characters. So no, they're not an example of tokenism at all.
As for the idea that different skin tones need to be explicitly addressed, that's just an idea based on real world bias and the false notion that skin tone variation is such a differentiating factor that it can't simply exist (while at the same time, seemingly having no issue with eye or hair color variation). Arondir isn't an elf from some special dark skinned group of elves, he's just an elf and that's it. The idea that you have to adhere to real world genetic evolution when talking about a fantasy world where immortal humanoid beings are simply created is silly.

• It's full of red herrings, in order to create mysteries that are not so mysterious. Establishing Halbrand as smith, without having another character with the same profession, especially around Celembrimbor, kinda gave his role away. Inserting Gandalf as a meteor-wrecked, befuddled castaway with no memories and identity, but with fire magic and animal connection traits was also a dead giveaway.

You need to realize that the vast majority of people who watched this show have never read anything about the Second Age (probably never even read LotR or The Hobbit). The mysteries that were so easy for us folks who are familiar with the literature were indeed mysteries for many show watchers.

Even still, I think their decision to go the Halbrand route was a good one. On the page, Annatar isn't an interesting character. He shows up, some of the elves distrust him (we're not really told why, but they never do anything about it anyway), and he hangs out for a few hundred years teaching ring-crafting. Using Halbrand to link a Galadriel storyline with the Southland storyline and then eventually have him end up in Eregion was a decent attempt to tie what were originally divergent plots together.

As for Gandalf, the only concrete proof that it's him was pretty much just the "follow your nose" line. "Fire magic" and "animal connection" aren't even specific traits to Gandalf in the books or movies.

• No sense of time passing. People travel around too fast and arrive exactly at opportune times, which diminishes not only the scale of the world (known to us by the in-series maps), but the emergencies and the difficulties for the heroes.

Pacing is one of the aspects that I'd definitely say could have been improved. Depending on how the Gandalf/Harfoot storyline progresses, I think it probably would have been best to drop that one from this season and let the Galadriel/Elrond/Southland plots breathe a bit more. I never found it difficult to follow, but there were times when it felt like more time could have been given to certain scenes rather than cutting to a different plot/story line. It's something that happens in every show that tries to juggle more than 2 central plots.

One can't help wonder how this trainwreck was allowed, ddespite its financial cost, if compared to Andor and HotD.

Yeah, I think the writing and acting in Andor has been fantastic, even if the pacing in the first few episodes was particularly slow. As for HotD, there were definitely some standout performances there (Paddy Considine, amazing), but it also had some poorly filmed/edited scenes where it was somewhat difficult to follow what was going on. The time jumps also conveniently gloss over some unanswered plot threads (like why did no one do anything about Cole committing murder at a royal wedding, or why the Royces never followed up on the mysterious death of Rhea). Those shows are still good despite those weaknesses, and similarly RoP not being AS GOOD as those shows doesn't in turn make it bad (much less a train wreck).

- - - Updated - - -

Case in point.

So basically you don't know what you're talking and you believe that you can straight up lie and just pass if off as "just an opinion". Glad we got that out of the way.

[Syegfryed]

Can you elaborate? Plot conveniences exist in pretty much every fictional work. It's extremely convenient that Sauron decides to go looking for The One Ring after it passes on to Frodo and Gandalf is able to warn him, or that Strider finds the hobbits in Bree just before the Nazgul do, or that Glandalf shows up at Helms Deep just in time to save the day. The books are filled with plot conveniences, and if anything the movies play them up even more because those typically make for dramatic moments in visual medium.

The argument against some of the glaring issues of the show is to say the problems exist elsewhere, we already start great, didn't we?

Still, what you want to compare is a pound to a ton, a lake to an ocean, the plot conveniences of the show are retarded in many levels,

Like when just fucking jumps into the sea hoping to swim to the other continent, knowing it as impossible to do, but does anyway, and conveniently gets saved by an
wreckage, not on, but two times, THEN, when all hope seems los, they conveniently get saved by the numenorians

Not even amateurs' writers are bad enough to do this, and you have more across the season, of how she just happens to realize the mark is a map, despite having that for at least hundreds of years and never trying to look sideways.

The map for his people being marked by himself in her brother flesh is totally nonsensical and reeks of plot convenience as well, or how they manage to gather an army and save just so to happen the other protagonists at the right moment

Or how in the end it happens to have a numenorian abandoned base, they suddenly remember about there.

You don't really seem to know what tokenism is if you think Arondir and Disa fit the bill. Token characters are irrelevant to the plot and are ONLY included for token representation.

Thats exactly what they are, you remove then and nothing change from the plot, everything happens the same.

This also come to another case of plot convenience, when they kill all he elves who tried to escape, but no Arondir, h have to see Adar, for what fucking reason? none, just happens to be him, ah yes, the message, the ocs did not know about yet, thats what we call plot convenience.

Then he gets released with all his gear and weapons, and despite having being task to send a message, he still hunted by the orcs tried to kill him, you imagine they would be warned, but nooo

Arondir and Disa are pretty central characters to each of their plots. They're not background characters, when they're around they're usually right there at the forefront having meaningful interactions with other characters. So no, they're not an example of tokenism at all.

They are pointless characters, with pointless interactions, bcause they never existed in the lore and what they did changes nothing in the lore, his romance is just to pull yet another elf+human cringe relationship

And its completely bogus how they did not cast more black actors, unlike House of the dragon who did not handle perfectly, they did more than just one or two, you can see then everywhere, actually feeling organic.

You need to realize that the vast majority of people who watched this show have never read anything about the Second Age (probably never even read LotR or The Hobbit). The mysteries that were so easy for us folks who are familiar with the literature were indeed mysteries for many show watchers.

Anyone with half a brain knew he was sauron and you did not need to read anything to know hallbrand was sauron and meteor man is gandalf, hell you did not even kne to watch the movies, but if you did, you crack the case the episode they appear

Even still, I think their decision to go the Halbrand route was a good one. On the page, Annatar isn't an interesting character

Because discount Aragorn sure is a lot interesting, lets just rip-off Jackson version of Aragorn, not even the book one.

As for Gandalf, the only concrete proof that it's him was pretty much just the "follow your nose" line. "Fire magic" and "animal connection" aren't even specific traits to Gandalf in the books or movies.

Second episode he appear you already have blatantly proof its him with th same trick he pull on Bilbo in the movies.

Pacing is one of the aspects that I'd definitely say could have been improved. Depending on how the Gandalf/Harfoot storyline progresses, I think it probably would have been best to drop that one from this season and let the Galadriel/Elrond/Southland plots breathe a bit more. I never found it difficult to follow, but there were times when it felt like more time could have been given to certain scenes rather than cutting to a different plot/story line. It's something that happens in every show that tries to juggle more than 2 central plots.

An we go back to first point as trying to make less of a problem because other shos have a similar problem.

But i think he is talking bout time passing in the narrative not the pacing of the show

You have BS like elrond and Celebrimbor saying they should go to the dwarves and next scene is they already there, despite bing a days or weeks journey, they are in their everyday clothes, without supplies without travelling gear, they just teleport there

Same thing for the numenorian army, with their 300 people and 300 horses in 3 small ships, arriving at the southlands in the exact right moment, when there should be days of travel, or the horses would colapse


OR wait for it, i just remember, when Galadriel goes for Adar, they go first, Hallbrand follow then thereafter, bu he suddenly appears ahead of then how in the fucking hell he does that If Galadriel had to use magic to make her horse go faster, totally not stealing Arwen move?? Did he also teleport there? and that fact never crossed the head of our genius protagonist?

Thiis is bad in the levels of CW Flash, but that show did not have tha budget and did not took itself seriously.

but it also had some poorly filmed/edited scenes where it was somewhat difficult to follow what was going on. The time jumps also conveniently gloss over some unanswered plot threads (like why did no one do anything about Cole committing murder at a royal wedding, or why the Royces never followed up on the mysterious death of Rhea). Those shows are still good despite those weaknesses, and similarly RoP not being AS GOOD as those shows doesn't in turn make it bad (much less a train wreck).

Prtty balssy to say Hotd had poorly filmed and edited scenes while defending RoP m8, kinda seems like hypocrisy, did you saw the fight of Galadriel in the streets of numenor? (cause what else numenorians soldiers would train am i right)

No one did anything to Cole because if the velaryons did it would be blatantly the relationship of his son, they were probably gladly it happen, and the queen was backing him up, why would anything happen to him?

They did not follow the "mysterious" death of Rhea because it was not a mystery, and if they did, they would be fucked over by Daemon, he is the prince backed by the crown and would have taken the place if they insisted

Show definitely have weakness and we listen then in its thread, but ROP is a solid 3/10 and House is 8/10

[rhorle]

People are passionate about things they care about, if you aren't that is fine, but recognize others are and they are just as justified in being pissed and wanting to vent as you are in being okay/not caring.

There is a difference between venting and holding onto anger. There also is no gaslighting war with Hollywood. There are adaptations that are closer to source material just as there are some that are not. This is not some glorious war you are fighting here.

[Fabinas]

This is not some glorious war you are fighting here.

One of the richest comments in this thread.

Strong is the irony in this one.

[rhorle]

One of the richest comments in this thread. Strong is the irony in this one.

You honestly believe Hollywood is fighting a war with people? Lmao.

[MakeMeLaugh]

The show is rated pretty good and most ppl like the show that has watched it, ppl need to accept reality that more ppl enjoy the show than dont.

What's the point of discussing with someone that says something like this? That's a straight up lie.

[Fabinas]

You honestly believe Hollywood is fighting a war with people? Lmao.

Look in the mirror. Now read what i quoted in the first place.

[rhorle]

Look in the mirror. Now read what i quoted in the first place.

It is funny how you'll say a bunch of posters only act in bad faith when you are doing so yourself. At no point have I thought I've been fighting a war so I'm not sure what mirror I'm supposed to be looking into. All you are to doing is trying to deflect from the absurdity of another poster thinking they are fighting a war against Hollywood by playing an uno reverse card "what about u?!?!"

[Triceron]

It is funny how you'll say a bunch of posters only act in bad faith when you are doing so yourself. At no point have I thought I've been fighting a war so I'm not sure what mirror I'm supposed to be looking into. All you are to doing is trying to deflect from the absurdity of another poster thinking they are fighting a war against Hollywood by playing an uno reverse card "what about u?!?!"

Doesn't matter what you think, your actions speak louder than your words, Mr. 'Good conversation'

- - - Updated - - -

The data is right in your face, takes 2 secs to check several review sites that proves the show is good, you have provided no data proving the show is bad because there is none.

It takes less than that to call out the fact you haven't provided any proof for it being good.

And I don't have to provide any data for it being bad because I haven't said it was bad. I thought your point was that no one could know whether it was good or bad because of the millions of people in the world who have watched it?

[Orange Joe]

Case in point.

Not seeing the "Case in point" can you quote the text where he says you are wrong for disliking it?

[Kumorii]

Not seeing the "Case in point" can you quote the text where he says you are wrong for disliking it?

Sure

In the case of this show I'd say a lot of the dislike comes from people simply not getting what they wanted (which is par for the course with almost any adaptation). Unfortunately, they then come in here and try to rationalize their dislike by saying things like "the acting was bad" or "the directing was bad" when by any objective metric these were perfectly fine. Or, as the past few pages have shown, they'll post about user reviews as if that's a relevant metric for determining the quality of a show.

You are wrong for thinking acting was bad... I find the acting to be awful except for Disa, Erendil, During and Elrond.
But I'm wrong in thinking that even though it's a subjective thing. If someones acting ability works for you, it might not work for me and vice versa.

If you want to hate the show, that's fine. If you want to post on this forum that you hated the show, that's perfectly fine as well. If you want to instead claim that something was done poorly when it objectively wasn't then you're no longer in the realm of just having an opinion.

here he double downs on it.


I mean, 70% of the post is him saying it's objectively good. If something is objectively good you are wrong for thinking it isn't. Ergo, you aren't allowed to think the acting was bad...
But people tend to get subjective and objective wrong a lot, so it's understandable. When it comes to media it's barely anything that's "objectively good"...everything is influenced by personal taste, opinion and emotions. Making it subjective.

And no, even if 99% likes something, that doesn't make something subjective, objective.

Hence why I said that most arguments starts with "pro" people jumping in and saying how everyone is wrong for disliking something, because that's what happens and...case in point. He did it straight away. And I put an emphasis on 'most' because there sure are people doing the reverse, claiming it's objectively bad and people are wrong for liking it.

Sure, you can say "he didn't mean 'you' you, but general 'you'" to which my argument is the same, doesn't matter if it's me or someone else.


Bonus:

So basically you don't know what you're talking and you believe that you can straight up lie and just pass if off as "just an opinion". Glad we got that out of the way.

This was after my case in point though, but here he straight up give away his position... just confirming my case in point.
Claiming disliking it is lying and trying to disguise it as an "opinion" even though it is an...opinion.
Granted I've seen his posts throughout the thread so I kinda knew the angle he would come from even if it isn't obvious in isolation. So I have a bit more info to go on than a third-party just reading the posts between us.

Hopefully that clarified it a bit.

[Orange Joe]

Sure



You are wrong for thinking acting was bad... I find the acting to be awful except for Disa, Erendil, During and Elrond.
But I'm wrong in thinking that even though it's a subjective thing. If someones acting ability works for you, it might not work for me and vice versa.



here he double downs on it.


I mean, 70% of the post is him saying it's objectively good. If something is objectively good you are wrong for thinking it isn't. Ergo, you aren't allowed to think the acting was bad...
But people tend to get subjective and objective wrong a lot, so it's understandable. When it comes to media it's barely anything that's "objectively good"...everything is influenced by personal taste, opinion and emotions. Making it subjective.

And no, even if 99% likes something, that doesn't make something subjective, objective.

Hence why I said that most arguments starts with "pro" people jumping in and saying how everyone is wrong for disliking something, because that's what happens and...case in point. He did it straight away. And I put an emphasis on 'most' because there sure are people doing the reverse, claiming it's objectively bad and people are wrong for liking it.

Sure, you can say "he didn't mean 'you' you, but general 'you'" to which my argument is the same, doesn't matter if it's me or someone else.


Bonus:


This was after my case in point though, but here he straight up give away his position... just confirming my case in point.
Claiming disliking it is lying and trying to disguise it as an "opinion" even though it is an...opinion.
Granted I've seen his posts throughout the thread so I kinda knew the angle he would come from even if it isn't obvious in isolation. So I have a bit more info to go on than a third-party just reading the posts between us.

Hopefully that clarified it a bit.

No, it don't cause I don't see him saying you are wrong in your dislike? Is english not your first language?

[Koriani]

How the fuck do you contradict yourself in your own post this badly?

- - - Updated - - -

Who am I to tell people how statistics work, I guess! They know that you don't trust aggregated data over large numbers, you instead trust people whose professional success and livelihood depends on maintaining a good relationship with the people that have a vested interest in certain review outcomes. That's WAY more reliable.

Or something like that, I don't live in clown world so I wouldn't know. I trust the inhabitants to tell me how it works there.

Remember, this was the guy who said LOTR was unpopular and 'failure' as "just books", and not popular at all, until the Jackson movie released. (No matter what all the stats on the success of Hobbit/LOTR in the 50 years prior to the PJ movies say.)

Also he continues to insist that Star Citizen is the greatest gift to gaming since Pong.

He's a black-hole-bot of responses on why he's always right and everyone else isn't, so just give up now. Trust me, save yourself the headache. Pick ANYONE ELSE on the forums to argue in a circle with, they will at least be more interesting in their responses .