Star Wars on Trial by David Brin & Matthew Woodring Stover & Keith R. A. Decandido & Tanya Huff & Kristine Kathryn Rusch

Author:David Brin & Matthew Woodring Stover & Keith R. A. Decandido & Tanya Huff & Kristine Kathryn Rusch
Language: eng
Format: epub, mobi
ISBN: 9781932100891
Publisher: Smart Pop
Published: 2006-05-10T22:00:00+00:00

THE COURTROOM

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: (checks his notes; mutters indistinctly)

DROID JUDGE: Mr. Stover? Your cross-examination?

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: Uh, let's see ... this is where I'm supposed to come up with some questions to make the case that the prequel trilogy is actually brilliantly written, with sparkling performances all around?

DROID JUDGE: Yes... ? And ... ?

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: I'm thinking! I'm thinking! Give a guy a month or two, huh?

DROID JUDGE: Mr. Stover-

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: I mean, Revenge of the Sith won the People's Choice Award for both Favorite Movie 2005 and Favorite Movie Drama 2005-so it's clearly indefensible-

DAVID BRIN: Objection! Defense counsel is trying to argue facts not in evidence!

DROID JUDGE: Sustained. Remarks regarding Revenge of the Sith winning the People's Choice Award for both Favorite Movie 2005 and Favorite Movie Drama 2005 will be struck from the record.

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: All right. Fine. I'll take one for the team. Mr. Hemry, as I understand your testimony, you don't actually blame Star Wars or Mr. Lucas for the slew of embarrassingly bad big-budget sci-fi disasters that befouled eighties cinema. That you place blame instead on the lemming mentality of the Hollywood shit factory. So the actual crux of your argument-the crux of the Prosecution's entire case on this charge (lacking similar bigbudget lemming die-offs following the prequels)-is that madefor-Sci Fi-Channel movies pretty much suck. This, the Defense is willing to stipulate. In fact, it seems as though many of them suck on purpose, but that's another issue. Mr. Hemry, you write SF legal thrillers, can you explain to the Court the logical (and legal) fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, and explain how this fallacy is the entire basis of your argument? Or would you like me to do it?

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.