Knightmare Article*
-
aww just telling the truth no need to thanks for telling what is obvious ;D
-
And I mean it, they ALL do it. I must've encountered hundreds of people like Beelzebub (oh what an imaginative name that is) on line over the last few years. They all think they're being wonderfully clever and original, and that they're impressing or angering the people they're trying to flame. But they're not. They just bore them.
For example names like imarealidiot! explains it all really doesn't it! But the difference with people like them is that they don't just post once and then cower/run away, they keep coming back irritatingly as much as you just wish that they would completely dissappear and never ever return again. And just when I thought that the certain person had completely dissapear from the face of the Challenge forum they recently reappeared again!
-
They MIGHT come back for another pop, but it's an even bet that they won't dare to read the replies they got to their previous post.
And in fact, I don't particularly wish he won't come back. That would suggest his unsophisticated little flamer was interesting enough to inspire any emotion. He can come back and try again if he wants. We'll just read it, sneer back at him and then return to our normal business. If he doesn't, we won't bother to sneer.
Beyond that, I just don't care.
-
I read that review and I thought it was great, I agreed with all of what you said and it was a slightly biased review but then again there wasnt much to insult about KM apart from that other review which was just petty and stupid insulting the contestants, the KM actors careers and the graphics themselves. Nice work KaM!
Thanks! I think I do have to stress how much I actually love the programme, which, considering it's my favourite show of at all, takes some doing - but will end up on the biased, positive side. The thing is sir, I do bring up several criticisms here, in this forum, where regular watchers are accustomed to, and familiar with, different series, and are familiar with the details - that might refer to different characters, for instance, and S4 (maybe S8 at times), for which I will not hide that I think are relative let-downs at times. Yet, I won't just say something like that sentence without going to lengths to justify myself (for in the end - all Knightmare is great Knightmare, some is just far greater than the rest) - and so it would be immaterial for me to go into the - nit-picking bits and pieces, which is all I find to be negative with concerning Knightmare in such an article. I am delighted that you agree with all the positive points I come out with. Thanks a million.
KaM
-
I tell you something Keith, you sure know how to show those idiots in the other article on how to write a decent article is done! ;D
Thank you James! From a man very capable with words, that's great praise indeed. I've had nearly 400 readers so far, which is absolutely fantastic!
I haven't compared the reading figures to other KM articles on DooYoo, but I'm very grateful to this site for letting me advertise it
http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/tv/tv_programs/knightmare/_review/386618/
and I hope both KM fans and those unfamiliar to the programme might find their way here through the article if they haven't been referred to it from here.
Here's praying for the phenomenal 500 mark
-
Dear People on the Forum,
We are the editors of the website which hosted the article you have been tearing to shreads in your group and we'd just like the opportunity to defend our website's content. Obviously, you did not read the rest of the site or you would understand that the intent in our writing is jest rather than insult. In fact, we all really loved Knightmare as children and still love it to this day (God bless Challenge TV)!
We would like to point out that we are neither idiots nor morons as several of you have accused us of being, I would have thought, if anything, with a degree in EngLit and experience in Journalism AND Publishing, I was probably more qualified to edit an online magazine to a better degree than people who spend their time on a Knightmare message board.
Not to mention "Motley - Knight," you are, by reproducing this article without our permission, in breach of several copyright laws and we would love to discuss that fact with you.
In the name of fairness, we would love for one of you to write us a rebuttal that we could publish in the next issue. I actually don't see your problem with it myself but I'd love to know what you think you're reading. You can address any attempts at writing to kate@crystinkingfish.com, and I would advise you to perhaps take a look at the rest of the website and bear in mind that each and every article is the property of crystinkingfish.com and the opinions of the articles writer and not the magazine on a whole (you can find this information on the disclaimer if you bother to look).
Thank you from the morons and idiots who bring you the Fish,
Kate (Editor) and Andy (Sub-Editor)
PS. What DO you think that good graphics are if you thought the skull was well animated?! Have you ever seen Finding Nemo? That's actually animation, or did you think it was real? Perhaps they were good for the 80s but this IS the year 2004, you need to update your ideas a little bit.
-
Well, I'm afraid you've made an enemy you didn't need there, andy_w. I actually liked your article and agreed with much of it, and unlike some people I DO know the distinction between insulting something you dislike and teasing something you're fond of - my own KM website does little else.
However, the sheer unmitigated arrogance of some of your remarks here is outrageous. If you want to mount a defence of yourselves, by all means do so, but the condescending insults that you've bandied around here are not defence, just aggressive and self-righteous.
As for some of the later remarks in this thread, if you look carefully, you'll discover that they weren't aimed at you at all, but a flamer who joined the forum just to aggravate everyone.
Oh and as for the graphics, you CAN'T compare the graphics of two completely separate eras. It's an unfair assessment, and Ms Ellison didn't acknowledge the timescale involved when making her "badly-animated" remarks. Why not ask her to rewrite that bit, rather than having a go at your audience for not fitting themselves around a weakly-written sub-clause?
-
Motely, Skarkill, don't you two DARE back down.
This guy decided to skim over a couple of replies in this thread without reading all replies and therefore missed completely that we were branding flamers 'Morons' and not him or Kate. Apologies for the misinterpretation, but please read whole threads in future.
As for the article itself, we were not hurling abuse at your style of writing, as you seem to think due to your comments on the various degrees you have (well done on those though - I'm doing a similar degree ). What we were doing was voicing our opinions, and yes some of them can be a little out of order at times. You can voice an opinion as you have done in the form of an article, and so can we in the form of a heated discussion on this messageboard.
To back up HStorm, you cannot compare graphics from two different eras. What you CAN do is refer us to something of the same era that used better animation. We wait with bated breath.
-
Yes, people have the right to express their views here. If you don't like them, don't read them, I guess.
I too can appreciate jest on a subject, and we all often jest about things we like a lot. Actually, I think if that article had been better written, its greatest fans would be among this community.
While I'm sure it was meant to be funny, I just didn't think it was. I'm not suggesting that's representative of the rest of your website or other writers, or even other items written by the same person, but that article didn't achieve that, for me. As I said before, a lot of websites who write similar material are hugely funny, but they're funny for picking appropriate targets. As the front of your website seems to say, it's about saying the things you (and others) have been thinking all along. There's so much about KM she could have had a good joke about, but in my view she failed to hit the mark. That Life Force Skull still gets a lot of positive mentions, and it seems an odd target when there were so many obviously poorer animations and effects she could have mentioned! Some of her other targets are just a bit cheap and obvious, in my personal opinion. Yes, some of the actors won't win Oscars, but is that really a hugely funny or original statement to make about a children's programme?
-
Couldn't have put it better myself, GG.
(If you want to aim a swipe at the life force clock, why not go for the two later versions, both of which were lame beyond reason?)
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the article wasn't good, but it lacked a certain polish, with a careless feel of skimped research. There were elements missing from it that should've been included, and numerous errors that should've been corrected e.g. the aim of the game is not just to keep your life-force clock healthy, but to retrieve a quest object or rescue someone, and there's no such thing as "The Helmet of Truth." And the overall tone of the piece resounds with an air of someone trying a little too hard to sound clever, as though they're scared that if they sound uncritical people will mock them for liking it.
As you two are s'posed to be the editors, jobs for which you so pompously assure us you are very well qualified, you should have asked her for a careful redraft. I think you should put a good, hard, wake-up slap across each other's faces.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login