Sorry to double-post, but I just found an excellent example of my point. Over in this thread, Silentgoldfish wrote a post responding to someone who was complaining about George Lucas’ “Special Edition” movies. He said:
My best guess was that this was intended to be sarcastic. Apparently the next poster, Priceguy, didn’t agree, and responded:
…prompting Silentgoldfish to come back with:
Now, there are three ways I can think of in which Silentgoldfish could have given himself a better chance of getting his point across as he intended it.
The first would be the straight-up version: “Lucas’ special editions are a clear sign that his former artistic vision has been lost, or at minimum altered to beyond recognition.” Remove all elements of irony, and the point gets across just fine. Rather bland, though, if I may say so.
Secondly, he could try being so very over-the-top that there’s no way anybody could take him seriously: “What are you talking about? Lucas clearly the world’s greatest genius, and is using the special editions to better convey to us the perfection of his message. As his only limitations are the constraints of modern technology (since clearly, the problem could not lie in his vision), he should continue making new editions until the day he dies, that we may come closer to fully comprehending his greatness.” Obviously sarcastic, but overly verbose, and it somewhat overstates the point.
Finally, the third method: “What are you talking about? The directors cut is his original vision, the one he couldn’t make the first time around because of limitations in special effects technology and budget. ;)” Or, for the stronger version, he could opt for the hallowed “:rolleyes:”.
Hmm. Decisions, decisions.