Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[SlackerinDeNile]

I seriously disagreed with Chuck's assertion that fans were pleased to see the sequel trilogy being announced. There were, and still are a lot of fans, a minority compared to the average moviegoer sure, but still a sizable chunk of outraged people furious that Disney rebooted the old EU in the process. Seriously, just google in "Legends EU Lucasfilm billboard" to get an idea what I mean.

I am sorry to say that not only was I a Star Wars fan who was excited about the Disney films, I ignored the naysayers thinking they were just being crotchety and old.
I must admit that with Last Jedi out of the way I'm now one of the naysayers, Star Wars has become even more manufactured than it was under Lucas's thumb. I also detest that EA are the only company currently allowed to publish Star Wars games, many of the games we got in the 90's and 2000's were fantastic and came from a lot of different publishers and developers, leading to a great variety of them. Now we've only got the two limited Battlefront games and some upcoming action-adventure which may very well be cancelled like the 1313 bounty hunter game we should have gotten.

[GandALF]

I seriously disagreed with Chuck's assertion that fans were pleased to see the sequel trilogy being announced. There were, and still are a lot of fans, a minority compared to the average moviegoer sure, but still a sizable chunk of outraged people furious that Disney rebooted the old EU in the process. Seriously, just google in "Legends EU Lucasfilm billboard" to get an idea what I mean.

I am sorry to say that not only was I a Star Wars fan who was excited about the Disney films, I ignored the naysayers thinking they were just being crotchety and old.
I must admit that with Last Jedi out of the way I'm now one of the naysayers, Star Wars has become even more manufactured than it was under Lucas's thumb. I also detest that EA are the only company currently allowed to publish Star Wars games, many of the games we got in the 90's and 2000's were fantastic and came from a lot of different publishers and developers, leading to a great variety of them. Now we've only got the two limited Battlefront games and some upcoming action-adventure which may very well be cancelled like the 1313 bounty hunter game we should have gotten.

The idea that Star Wars fans have a unified opinion on anything is ridiculous tbh.

Lucas' minimal regulation of the old EU was both a benefit and hazard, one the one hand creative freedom is always good but on the other it became a contradictory mess. particularly the older stuff that contradicted elements of the prequels along with other things like the Yuuzhan Vong which were divisive for not being Star Warsy enough.

[Draco Dracul]

Personally, I think Disney Star Wars has been uniformly better than anything Lucas has put out in my lifetime.

[Lizuka]

Another one that comes to mind - I really didn't like Madoka nearly as much as he did. I thought it was good certainly but some of its plotting was sloppy and I can't claim it was always at its most interesting. And even though I watched through the show itself ages ago I have yet to work up the desire to watch the movie.

[RobbyB1982]

As was said about Neelix, I think needs to be said about Torres as well.

I think a good chunk of ignoring character growth or change if its really minor and subtle, and going more for the farce parodies Chuck has created, has a lot to do with the fact these reviews jump around all over the place and have been done over the course of 10 years, for shows that go roughly 175 episodes.

If he was reviewing everything in order there'd be more place to slowly change how a joke works or what a version of a character is... but when you can be doing a season 7 episode one week and a season 1 the next and then season 4 the week after, and you might be doing a good, bad, and mediocre episode... well... there has to be some sort of more consistent middle ground to refer to. Especially when the eventual archive is show airing order rather than SFDebris production order.

In cases where a character only has a few episodes like Barklay (and he's doing them all at once as a theme) or there's a clear delineation point of major change that affects the character profoundly and significantly for the rest of the show, such as Bashir revealing he's an enhanced genius, its a little easier to break up how to treat a character that has changed in a significant way.

Or on TNG where you have the extremes of "season 1 sucks" and "season 7 they ran out of ideas" you can lump things together a little bit and have jokes and observations that go together well in those specific eras (like coming back to the idea of Thomas Riker sticking around) but you can't be wondering "what if they'd had Thomas in a season 4 episode" because he hadn't appeared yet and because speculating on that for that point makes no sense.

Something like Babylon 5 he manages to track better, but that show is shorter and super serialized... and he's actually done very large chunks of it in sequence... plus it has a very obvious production change over from season 1 to season 2... and again from season 4 to season 5. (Which he's only done one episode of.)

But little nuances are harder in this format, and while season 7 Neelix (or Torres) may be more tolerable and fleshed out than season 1 Neelix, it doesn't mean that stupid thing they did in season 3 isn't going to continue standing out, especially if it was reviewed recently.

[Sir Will]

I seriously disagreed with Chuck's assertion that fans were pleased to see the sequel trilogy being announced. There were, and still are a lot of fans, a minority compared to the average moviegoer sure, but still a sizable chunk of outraged people furious that Disney rebooted the old EU in the process. Seriously, just google in "Legends EU Lucasfilm billboard" to get an idea what I mean.

I am sorry to say that not only was I a Star Wars fan who was excited about the Disney films, I ignored the naysayers thinking they were just being crotchety and old.
I must admit that with Last Jedi out of the way I'm now one of the naysayers, Star Wars has become even more manufactured than it was under Lucas's thumb. I also detest that EA are the only company currently allowed to publish Star Wars games, many of the games we got in the 90's and 2000's were fantastic and came from a lot of different publishers and developers, leading to a great variety of them. Now we've only got the two limited Battlefront games and some upcoming action-adventure which may very well be cancelled like the 1313 bounty hunter game we should have gotten.

Indeed. Well, I like Rebels (Clone Wars is better though) and Rogue One was pretty good despite some pacing issues imo. TFA and especially TLJ, not so much.

[Nevix]

His claim that Dragon Age Origins is the successor to Kotor more so than Mass Effect doesn't work for me. It's definitely the successor to Baldur's Gate. While there are some lore/story similarities like the Tevinter/Rakata, the gameplay similarities have more to do with Kotor's gameplay being similar to BG, and you can't get around the fact that Mass Effect 1 is about a member of a galactic peacekeeping organisation hunting the relics of a dead race in order to stop a traitorous cyborg.

DA: Origins IS a sequel to Baldur's Gate, though they never mention it by name in game.

And I think Chuck was making more of a comparison based on the story structure and character arcs, which match up ridiculously well between the two games, which is why it's the successor to KOTOR.

It's like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. If you file the serial numbers off, it's hard to tell the difference. (From Software has admitted that they deliberately remade/renamed Demon's Souls when they made Dark Souls, because copyright issues.)

So... Both points stand. DA: Origins is a sequel to Baldur's Gate, but is also successor to KOTOR's storytelling/characters.

[Madner Kami]

Dragon Age Origins is an entity of it's own, not a sequel to Baldur's Gate. There're no references to the history of the Forgotten Realms whatsoever and the gods, as well as the origins of species are entirely different, not to even think about mechanical differences.

[GandALF]

And I think Chuck was making more of a comparison based on the story structure and character arcs, which match up ridiculously well between the two games, which is why it's the successor to KOTOR.

But more so than Mass Effect?

Some of Chuck's comparisons work like Shale and HK-47, but Morrigan and Bastila? The one is a self-interested atheist and the other is a dutiful warrior-monk, they're polar opposites! And Loghain and Revan is really stretching it.

The main arc of Origins is about gathering an army to stop an Archdemon whereas the main arc of Kotor is about searching for Rakatan star maps to stop the traitorous cyborg Sith Malak while Mass Effect's is about searching for Prothean beacons in order to stop the traitorous cyborg biotic Saren, there's even the common Lehon-Ilos hidden planet part where you learn more about how the dead civilisation died.

There is a sort of Bioware monomyth by which all of the games have similarities but I can't agree with his claim that Origins is more of a successor to Kotor than Mass Effect when Kotor and ME even had the same lead writer.

[Yukaphile]

Another area that I respectfully disagree with in regards to Chuck would be some, not all, of his views on women. Not that I think HE is sexist, don't get me wrong, but, well, to give you an example of what I mean, he seemed nonplussed and offended in his "Angel One" review when those female workers asked if he was uncomfortable working with women, like he couldn't understand why someone would think that way. While he himself is not misogynistic, there are sadly way too many men in today's world who still feel that way, that are uncomfortable working in a primarily female-dominated environment, or who think it conflicts with their views of what women "should" be like. Or criticizing Janeway's voice. I mean, I think it's a funny joke too, don't misunderstand, but then, I can understand lots of women and even men getting upset over criticizing a woman's voice when, well, we as a society are too hypercritical of women's appearance, especially when it comes to our female leaders, so that it hurts sometimes for those who understand that appearance is not what matters, but the content of someone's character. In the end, I guess this ties back to what he himself has admitted, that he is "not a particularly sensitive person by any means," while I like to think that I am. Minor thing overall, and it doesn't diminish my appreciation of the show, but it is something you notice.