DocMoriarty:
While free speech in the First Amendment sense is not protected on these boards, Krug is entitled to his opinion. So long as he follows the basic rules, he's prety much free to state and discuss his opinion here. That's what the forum is for.
You don't do yourself, your position, or the conversation as a whole any favors by being rude. Calling people names and insulting them does not give you moral high ground.
Krug:
To me, this reads as simply more bashing with the "It's bad" club, but on a slightly smaller scale. You state the fact that you don't like the thing, but you don't say why. What about the dialog was trite? What made the love story banal? Why do you think the action sucked? What could have made these things better?
True critical thought invites thought. It requires more than a statement of your final opinion of the qualities, but why you came to those conclusions. If you want intelligent discussion, you must provide some insight as to your reasoning.
While free speech in the First Amendment sense is not protected on these boards, Krug is entitled to his opinion. So long as he follows the basic rules, he's prety much free to state and discuss his opinion here. That's what the forum is for.
You don't do yourself, your position, or the conversation as a whole any favors by being rude. Calling people names and insulting them does not give you moral high ground.
Krug:
The action sucks, the love story is BANAL, the dialogue is trite.
To me, this reads as simply more bashing with the "It's bad" club, but on a slightly smaller scale. You state the fact that you don't like the thing, but you don't say why. What about the dialog was trite? What made the love story banal? Why do you think the action sucked? What could have made these things better?
True critical thought invites thought. It requires more than a statement of your final opinion of the qualities, but why you came to those conclusions. If you want intelligent discussion, you must provide some insight as to your reasoning.