Welcome to Gaia! ::

You where implying you are on the 'same level' of 'non educated' Phans by saying things such as, "Yes, my superior attitude [..]" ? Your self declared attitude and your feelings on 2004 film Phans tends to contradict the bolded statement, in my opinion. If you where being sarcastic about your attitude I apologize for not picking up on that.

I address how being a better educated Phan in general is not an accomplishment. You have not claimed yourself as a better Phan, but certainly you have implied it.



You have not stated or tried to explain anything in regards to these recent posts other then



That does not sound arrogant and condescending, I didn't say it did as such. I find the 'My superior attitude' statement slightly arrogant, but over all I was not trying to "put you in your place" (or being "overly-impassionate with moralistic tirades") as I was rolling over the basics of my thoughts on the entire elitist attitude, which yes; you where a catalyst for. I Was not offended by your response. One does not have to be offended to address something.

And I am aware clique is a word, forgive my misread.

I beg to differ.



So, what you're saying is that I'm encrouching on your territory by saying fangirls who don't like Winslow as Winslow (instead try to make him more of a badass and the like) aren't really Winslow fangirls but general Phantom phangirls? (let's face it, there are a lot of other Phantoms ten times more badass-y than Winslow.) You call me an elitist, yet refuse to accept the term applied to yourself when you act in the exact same way. So, yes, I take objection to your attitude on some levels.



Honestly, I can see both sides. The reason I don't have as much respect for the movie is because it basically destroyed the integrity of the story presented by the book, while the book was the original, and the way it was meant to be told. Granted, I'm not going to come straight out and judge those who like the movie alone because, in my experience, some of those were very intelligent people who were simply only exposed to the 2004 film. Granted, I agree, no one can just say that someone else is a lesser fan than them, because measurements like these are all relative. All we can do is choose those fans we wish to talk to. There is, and will always be some form of "I don't think you are a real fan by my standards," which I engage in as well, I admit. But I will not say that they don't thave the right to say the same about me. What I believe in is opinion. And if one believes this, well, as long as they're not attacking anyone, it's fine. In the greater spectrum, though, I agree with you. Fandom is relative, and anyone who likes whatever the fandom is about is, technically, a real fan.




And now you're nitpicking, which, by the way, can go over the wrong way in an argument and start something bigger. Did the misuse really matter that much?



And I resent it when people *cough*Fox*cough* seem to feel the need to nitpick at every single little thing I create for my own enjoyment as being elitist or cliche or not good enough. Believe me, our little debates were fun for a while before you started picking apart everything I created, with the attitude of "you're not as intelligent as I, therefore you create these things. You call me overly defensive. Well, yes, especially when you're being overly offensive.

I was not aware of that. I have been inactive in this guild for a long time and do not know the new members and their relationships/post history with each other. I read it as an openly directed.

You must recognize though that sometimes being arrogant also implies to others that you see yourself as a 'better phan', unfortunately that is a connection people will make.



Gah! Then add some quotation marks or "" or something; now I'm a douche bag. Thanks. gonk



I don't see that. It is a version of the Phantom of the Opera original story (the book) and it is not cannon to the original story; but it is Phantom of the Opera in it's own right. The 2004 film is the story of The Phantom of the Opera; a retelling with differences. I see The Lord of the Rings as completely un-cannon to the book- how can it even be considered cannon? It wasn't written or created by the original author. Is it still The Lord of the Rings story? Yes. Are their Lord of the Rings book fans separate of the Lord of the Rings film fans? Yes. Are they all Lord of the Rings fans? Yes. At least; that's how I see it.

Oh, let's not get into this. I'm probably even worse on this issue right now, considering that I recently discovered how Winslowish Manson really is, yet how much of a poser he is to contradict that. Here's how it works: I don't like Manson. I never liked Manson. (Though, I will admit I find him quite...err...attractive now, if only he would take off that god damned makeup and lose the attitude.) I think he's obnoxious, since he's always trying too hard. And if he took his attitude into the role, he would not work. Problem is, he could come so close, and yet be so off that the flaws would be glaringly obvious. Granted, I could name worse people to play Winslow, now, but whatever.

And I might as well point out to you that the Manson fangirls are annoying as hell. I've talked to people who wanted him to play Winslow, and all they really cared about was getting someone "cooler" than William Finley in the role. It became a major annoyance.

Also, Manson has too much of his own reputation. Say his name and the first thing that comes to people's minds is "Goth...Satanist". Not the reputation we want associated with Winslow, now, is it?

Even assuming he did work perfectly, this last fact about reputation, as well as the ready-made Manson fangirls would ruin the whole thing.



Yes, but exactly what is it about my things that bothers you so much? I don't mind debates. I don't even mind being given suggestions to improve what I made. But the way you say it sounds just flat out "this is s**t" critical. I never said I don't want opinions on it, but again, you seem to be the only one who has a problem with me and what I create.

And I will not disagree that I am, to some extent, irrtational. But I will not say that you are so much more rational, nor will I say that I am terribly impressed by your so-called rationality. In fact, I find it rather irritating at times how you can not just let go and see something as being less-than-serious as it is. Everything for you seems to have to have some kind of practical reason, from which, I believe, some of our disagreements have come from.

STOP.

Cut the arguing. This thread is here to simply discuss what you as Phans don't like, not argue on who is most superior and whatnot.

Just please, if you want to continue on and throw acid at one another, do it over PM.

:...There are worse things...:

And then they still say Raoul is a fop is they read the book, because he cried a lot. Everyone cried a lot in the book, especially Erik.

There was something else I was going to mention, but the little soap opera in this thread made it disappear from my mind... ninja

:...Than a shattered chandelier...:

Eh, I'd still call Raoul a fop, but just because he's so... Foppish. In manner and dress. He and Erik are both sensitive, but at least Erik has a manly side...
>.>
In my opinion. If anyone here likes Raoul... Well, I've got a punjab lasso here. xd

^ JOKE

I can relate. Everybody thinks I'm a freak, but hey, being a freak is better than following the mainstream. Losers.

I'd prefer waking up to a face like Winslow's or even Leroux!Erik's. I dunno. There seems to be something deeper there. Some sort of irresistable interest. They're not like your everyday guys who just try so hard to be macho and all that. People like Brad Pitt are just so overpublicized that it makes me want to straight out avoid them. I see no point in wanting what everybody else wants just because they want it.