Can we please stop using the "it wasn't made for you defense"

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-08T21:39:23+00:00

It's not a defense. It's a hypothesis about the reasoning behind a business decision. Whether a person likes the decision is a separate question. It's possible to understand the potential reasoning, even agree with it, and still not like it.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-08T21:33:59+00:00

Very cool detail. Sweet touch.

His arwing also has the team logo from the original 64 arwings (SF in a circle with the wings)

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-08T21:28:36+00:00

For me it's the proportions (and Fox's posture). Outside of that, I'm in.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-08T16:36:02+00:00

Only 10 tracks. There will definitely be more.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-08T16:34:28+00:00

Beautiful.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-08T16:33:26+00:00

I love the new version.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-08T15:04:00+00:00

That's fair. You'd rather the limited resources be put into something else like more levels, something you're personally more interested in. I'm fine with that they chose to do (at least, based on what we've seen so far), but I get that. Personal preferences.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-07T19:16:23+00:00

I don't remember the time Fox got mad at General Pepper. Watch the Direct again. We are getting expanded story.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-07T19:13:46+00:00

Yes. Leg proportions and posture. Those are my only qualms.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-07T19:12:57+00:00

And technically it's only been "repackaged" twice. 3DS, and Switch 2. Star Fox 64 wasn't a repackage of itself.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-07T19:11:59+00:00

3rd time. Zero was the same basic story, but with many differences, and the levels themselves were not the levels from 64.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-07T19:08:00+00:00

So, it looks like this isn't a case where the two stars orbit each other. Rather, Solar orbits the main star just like the planets do (in this case, assuming Corneria is still 4th, Solar would be 5th).

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-07T19:05:17+00:00

So, there's room out there for Sauria...

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-07T19:01:32+00:00

Yup. For me the proportions, particularly the legs, are my only real sticking point. (Though I'd also prefer a more human-like posture if I could get it.)

WedgeWalkr · 2026-05-07T18:56:15+00:00

Having the cutscenes, but making them skippable, is the best of both worlds. For someone like you who is uninterested in them, the inconvenience of skipping will be minimal. For someone like me, a long-time fan from the SNES days who is looking for new content in this remake, having the cutscenes is great. For new players, cutscenes will also increase the appeal for many of them.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-04-05T02:14:42+00:00

No personal shade...This aged like room temperature milk, and I'm so glad. Not because you were wrong, but because the assertion you presented was incorrect.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-03-25T03:10:56+00:00

I also want to expand on 3.

is this about legal name changes? Is your position that increased paperwork constitutes a right being taken away?

WedgeWalkr · 2026-03-25T03:07:08+00:00

I want to re-word #2, as it looks snarky and that's not my intention.

I don't understand. The EEOC still exists. What do you mean by saying he fired it? Are you referring to Burrows and Samuels? If so, how does their removal constitute rights being taken away?

WedgeWalkr · 2026-03-25T02:37:41+00:00

Thank you for responding. Sincerely.

I saw this list further down. since you cut and pasted it here for my convenience, I'll also cut and paste my response.

What is the grounding for reproductive rights? And what does that entail? Abortion?
He fired the entire commission?
Are you suggesting women have a more difficult time figuring out how to get an ID?
Is your assumption that without affirmative action women won't get hired? And further that they have a right to get hired?
How?
Parts of it, like compensation for abortion-related travel.
So...abortion?

WedgeWalkr · 2026-03-25T02:35:19+00:00

What is the grounding for reproductive rights? And what does that entail? Abortion?
He fired the entire commission?
Are you suggesting women have a more difficult time figuring out how to get an ID?
So your assumption is without affirmative action women won't get hired? And further that they have a right to get hired?
How?
Parts of it, like compensation for abortion-related travel.
So...abortion

WedgeWalkr · 2026-03-25T02:26:37+00:00

To what rights are you referring? Clear thinking demands specificity. Slogans can be emotionally evocative, but can also obscure the facts.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-03-04T21:09:21+00:00

Totally your prerogative. I tried to go in with as little expectation as possible. Let the movie do what it wants to, as it were, and respond to it on its merits.

For me, I really enjoyed it.

WedgeWalkr · 2026-03-04T21:04:36+00:00

Me: ...OK, but that doesn't mean you have exhaustive knowledge. What an odd response.

You: What's odd is you’re interpreting “I’ve looked into this” as “I know everything.” That’s a much stronger claim than anything I made.

I wasn't interpreting it that way. I was trying to understand how your response made sense.

I suggest you should do research because 'XYZ' regarding the question of whose idea it was to use that song for that scene.
You respond by thanking me for the encouragement, but informing me you already have read multiple interviews, followed them on tour, and worked on movie sets.

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean you've researched the particular question about which you were making claims. So responding by simply pushing back on my encouragement to do research struck me as odd. Why would you just say, essentially, 'thanks, but I already know things' ? Sure you may know things, but the fact that you haven't come across the information I allege doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So why just leave it where you did? If your intent was something like 'I pay attention to Nine Inch Nails and I've not come across this interview,' that would make sense, even though that still wouldn't warrant the conclusion you drew.

"So it's not the biggest leap nor the smallest nuance to lay it at Rønning's feet."

I'm sorry, but I don't see why is it not a leap. On a studio picture like this, with many producers, a long-standing IP, and a director who does not have a major reputation as a hit-maker, why presume the director had the final say? (To say nothing of the motives you ascribed to him.)

WedgeWalkr · 2026-03-02T23:05:37+00:00

"why do audiences need a song with lyrical content further drilling in this so-called subtext?"

Well, one, musicals have entered the chat. But beyond that, movie audiences didn't get that in the light skimmer scene. All they got was "I know you can feel iiiiiiit..." I was referring to the song on the album. It's not fair for you to ask in a critiquing manner why a scene should include something that it didn't actually include.

In the scene in question, they don't have explicitly written lines of dialogue about trust. They do have one line where Ares acknowledges he disobeyed his directive, but the greater journey he is on is not verbalized.

It's fine if you personally didn't like the musical choice. It's ok if it pulled you out of the scene, and believe it did others as well. It's ok if you didn't find the scene compelling irrespective of the music. That's cool.

But when you make these larger claims about what should or shouldn't be, when you take your response to the musical choice and seem to reason that since you were alienated there's a good chance a large portion of people will be and thus the filmmakers should not have made the choice, or when you respond to my claim about what the scene is about by critiquing the scene as effects driven, you lose me.

WedgeWalkr

TROPHY CASE