Sign In

DominicCobb

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
16-Aug-2011
Last activity
20-Feb-2018
Posts
7525

Post History

Post
#1172887
Topic
Dom's Useless Prequel Edits
Time

RogueLeader said:

Dom, love your use of OT John Williams music. I know the biggest concern with some people is that they can’t detach those OT moments with the accompanying music, so it might be a good opportunity to use some unused tracks from the original trilogy.

I know aalenfae used an unused track from ANH to replace Duel of the Fates during Anakin’s search for his mother in AOTC.

Another user (can’t remember who exactly) posted a thread where he inserted the unused music from Vader and Luke’s duel from ESB into Yoda’s arrival at the arena in AOTC (without sound fx).

I’m not sure if you used the original music for the Sail Barge Assault or not, but I know there is also an alternate unused version on the soundtrack that might be worth looking at. I’m sure you’ve already put a lot of thought into it though!

I’ve sort of come to enjoy Duel of the Fates during that scene. I’ll have to see if I can find that clip, but I’m not sure if I’ll actually change that. As for that Yoda scene, that’s an interesting idea. Right now I have a very familiar tune accompanying that sequence (albeit a non-familiar recording).

I definitely considered the alternate sail barge music, but ultimately part of the reason why I wanted to use the track that made it into ROTJ was its use of classic themes. The PT is mostly devoid of the main title and the Rebel fanfare, and I get why, but I mostly see these as generic Star Wars hero themes, and I think adding them to the PT will give them the sort of SW feel that they are missing (especially this scene which is basically the only classic fun adventure scene we get to see with Anakin and Obi-wan together).

I get why some people might not like it, but a lot of these scenes are reusing music anyway, so why not reuse OT music?

Yeah that’s my mentality about it.

Anyway, I really like what you’ve done so far and I appreciate the rules you’ve given your edit to give the films a sense of consistency.

Thanks.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1172848
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

no that is not what I was saying.

Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?

merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.

I don’t need to know what is a good solution. I’m just posing a question. I can’t think of any reason why guns at shooting ranges need to be lethal. It’s a fucking legitimate question and I don’t think I need to know whether rubber bullets are a safe option or whatever to pose it. If you don’t know a solution either I don’t why you you’re questioning my knowledge. It’s not like I’m pretending, I’m being forthright about it. But it shouldn’t matter in this conversation.

Post
#1172834
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

no that is not what I was saying.

Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?

Post
#1172822
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

Post
#1172819
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good solution. I just cannot understand why lethal power is needed to enjoy a gun at a shooting range.

Post
#1172766
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Post
#1172757
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I get why people like shooting automatic rifles at firing ranges. I get it. I don’t get why they need these rifles to have the power to kill someone. That just seems unnecessary.

Post
#1172610
Topic
What is/was the best SW Game ever, on any platform?
Time

canofhumdingers said:

The Rogue Squadron games were always really cool with great environments and neat storylines. But I HATED their control scheme. Having the yaw and roll combined into one control where you effectively made flat turns and could get further away from or closer to the ground but without having true three dimensional freedom always drove me nuts. Especially in the space levels where there is no ground reference! Let me loop, roll, immelman, and split-s 'til my heart’s content dang-it!

Exactly why I would love the people who made the flight mode in Battlefront to work on a new one.

Post
#1172443
Topic
Dom's Useless Prequel Edits
Time

snooker said:

EDIT: Is this just dialogue from the deleted scene?

I must say I am excited for your edit. I have loved all of your previews.

EDIT 2: Holy crap I didn’t even notice that Hayden originally didn’t speak there (in the BluRay version)

Good job!

That’s it. Thanks.

MalàStrana said:

DominicCobb said:

I now present maybe my favorite change I’ve made: https://vimeo.com/256374133

Very good ! I guess you’ve taken the mouth movement from another shot and implemented it here ?

It’s from the deleted scene - it’s actually the same exact take (they digitally closed his mouth).

This post has been edited.

Post
#1172147
Topic
FakeApp - useful face replacement AI software for Fan Edits?
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

DominicCobb said:

The face is too big.

This. He almost looks like an anime character (and we all know how bad that is).

Is anime hated 'round these parts?

Not really, no. Frink and a few close associates are the only ones who’ve expressed a particular dislike for anime. Their dislike was so strong, though, that it became a running joke for a while to mock the stuff.

Joke?

Post
#1172146
Topic
The Marvel Cinematic Universe
Time
  1. Black Panther
  2. Iron Man
  3. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
  4. Thor: Ragnarok
  5. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
  6. Spider-man: Homecoming
  7. Guardians of the Galaxy
  8. Captain America: Civil War
  9. The Avengers
  10. Iron Man 3
  11. Captain America: The First Avenger
  12. Doctor Strange
  13. The Avengers: Age of Ultron
  14. Iron Man 2
  15. Thor
  16. The Incredible Hulk
  17. Thor: The Dark World
  18. Ant-Man
Post
#1171915
Topic
Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith is a 2005 film written and directed by GEORGE LUCAS. It is the third and final film in the STAR WARS PREQUEL TRILOGY.

A.O. SCOTT of the NEW YORK TIMES hailed it as even BETTER than A NEW HOPE.

Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Ridiculous is a 2020 fanedit written and directed by TV’S FRINK. It is the third and final film in the STAR WARS RIDICULOUS PREQUEL TRILOGY.

TV’S FRINK of the INTERNET hailed it as EVEN better than REVENGE OF THE SITH.

Therefore by the TRANSITIVE PROPERTY, Revenge of the Ridiculous is EVEN BETTER than A NEW HOPE…

Nice

Post
#1171873
Topic
STAR WARS: EP VI -RETURN OF THE JEDI &quot;REVISITED EDITION&quot;<strong>ADYWAN</strong> - <strong>NOW IN PRODUCTION</strong>
Time

LordZerome1080 said:

towne32 said:

There’s no explanation needed for a lack of response regarding Vader’s unmasked appearance. If ESB ended with Luke saying, “Sure. I’ll join up”, and then they go out for tea, then yes, some kind of reaction shot (I think a double take, followed by, “Bwaaaa?” would be best).

But his concern is entirely on his ailing/dying father at that point, not something superficial like his appearance.

I made this scene quite a few years ago and thought it was a cool concept. The fact that almost all of you have shown it nothing but vitriol in a thread designated to an alternate version of the SEs. You are all hypocrites and should be ashamed of yourselves for thinking that one idea is “superfluous” when the very idea of changing the original versions is something a lot of us see as blasphemy.

Hahahahahahaha

Post
#1171837
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.

Of course. That’s exactly what all of us who want stricter gun regulations wants and expects. So I don’t understand why anyone argues against it with the “They’ll still get guns illegally” defense and it infuriates me that that defense actually seems to be working, seeing as how there’s been essentially no meaningful legislation or really any steps taken toward the necessary regulation to reduce gun violence/mass shootings for years.

Also, a point - the pro-gun (or should I say anti-regulation) lobby seems to think that those of us who want tougher gun laws expect such laws to completely eliminate these incidents. We don’t, that’s pretty much impossible and we know that. But 50 people dead from a mass shooting or two in a year is a hell of a lot better than hundreds or thousands from dozens of mass shootings in a year.

The thing is, we are all being over protective of our stance, because of the extremes on both sides. Plenty of people actually want to ban personal ownership of guns. This angers people who want to keep their guns and they start thinking everyone thinks this way. Apply that to the other side of the arguement and you’ve got a bunch of people who can’t compromise.

I agree with you though.

Truth is, even though a lot of people would prefer if there were no guns at all, almost none of them are actually advocating for that right now. Most people just want some level of reform. So, essentially, the two sides of the debate are “please let’s do something/anything,” and the other side is “let’s do literally nothing at all.” Only one of those seem like an extreme to me.

But you’re just ignoring the different arguments now. Frink and Yackwicks both said they wouldn’t mind a total ban in this thread, and there are definitely those who actually advocate for it out there. And then there are just people who think the current laws ate the best they can be without stepping on rights. Regardless of whether you agree with them, that stance is not very extreme. Extreme are the people who don’t want any hoops to jump through.

I’m not ignoring that people say that, especially considering I’ve said something to that effect here before myself. What you’re saying though is that people can’t reach a compromise because their proposals are too disparate. That’s not really true - it would be if everyone who wanted to get rid of guns said “I will only accept a bill that makes all guns illegal,” but that’s simply not the case.

Almost anyone pro-gun control at this point would accept any additional regulation they could get, they’re not just being obstinate when it comes to any sort of compromise. It’s the people on the other side that are, saying that whenever a new gun control bill is proposed that they can’t pass it because it’s a slippery slope that will lead to taking away all the guns. Which is ridiculous. Even if many people hope that it is the first step to doing just that, that doesn’t mean that that step in and of itself is doing that. So stopping every piece of gun control legislation on principle just because it’s gun control legislation and who knows what the next bill might be is absolutely absurd and, yes, extreme.

Your argument veers away from discussing policy and turns into a debate about whether a position counts as “extreme” or not. You’re advocating for a slippery slope where any time someone resists adopting a gun control law you may call them “extreme.” So even if bump stocks are outlawed and universal background checks implemented, as soon as another mass shooting happens, you call the people who voted for those things extreme if they resist further regulation. That is a weird definition of “extreme.”

As I suggested, I think there are other things that can be done to try to prevent gun violence. I don’t think someone is extreme if they push for such changes and concludes that various proposed gun regulations are either too extreme or ineffective.

That’s not to say a case can’t or shouldn’t be made for a proposal, I just don’t buy your definition or strategy of labeling certain positions “extreme.”

Um, no. First of all whether or not I consider someone’s position “extreme” is the least important part of my posts. It only matters insofar as it relates to one’s actions on the matter. Even if you have an “extreme” position like “we should ban all guns,” in practice that extreme position isn’t an issue if you’re willing to compromise and pass less extreme common sense gun laws.

Just because someone doesn’t pass a law doesn’t make them extreme, but if they refuse to pass any laws and trot out the same tired nonsense every time (“slippery slope government will steal all our guns next”) then that’s extreme, I think. But again, I use the word “extreme” only in the sense that they’re being obstinate and not willing to compromise.

Post
#1171813
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.

Of course. That’s exactly what all of us who want stricter gun regulations wants and expects. So I don’t understand why anyone argues against it with the “They’ll still get guns illegally” defense and it infuriates me that that defense actually seems to be working, seeing as how there’s been essentially no meaningful legislation or really any steps taken toward the necessary regulation to reduce gun violence/mass shootings for years.

Also, a point - the pro-gun (or should I say anti-regulation) lobby seems to think that those of us who want tougher gun laws expect such laws to completely eliminate these incidents. We don’t, that’s pretty much impossible and we know that. But 50 people dead from a mass shooting or two in a year is a hell of a lot better than hundreds or thousands from dozens of mass shootings in a year.

The thing is, we are all being over protective of our stance, because of the extremes on both sides. Plenty of people actually want to ban personal ownership of guns. This angers people who want to keep their guns and they start thinking everyone thinks this way. Apply that to the other side of the arguement and you’ve got a bunch of people who can’t compromise.

I agree with you though.

Truth is, even though a lot of people would prefer if there were no guns at all, almost none of them are actually advocating for that right now. Most people just want some level of reform. So, essentially, the two sides of the debate are “please let’s do something/anything,” and the other side is “let’s do literally nothing at all.” Only one of those seem like an extreme to me.

But you’re just ignoring the different arguments now. Frink and Yackwicks both said they wouldn’t mind a total ban in this thread, and there are definitely those who actually advocate for it out there. And then there are just people who think the current laws ate the best they can be without stepping on rights. Regardless of whether you agree with them, that stance is not very extreme. Extreme are the people who don’t want any hoops to jump through.

I’m not ignoring that people say that, especially considering I’ve said something to that effect here before myself. What you’re saying though is that people can’t reach a compromise because their proposals are too disparate. That’s not really true - it would be if everyone who wanted to get rid of guns said “I will only accept a bill that makes all guns illegal,” but that’s simply not the case.

Almost anyone pro-gun control at this point would accept any additional regulation they could get, they’re not just being obstinate when it comes to any sort of compromise. It’s the people on the other side that are, saying that whenever a new gun control bill is proposed that they can’t pass it because it’s a slippery slope that will lead to taking away all the guns. Which is ridiculous. Even if many people hope that it is the first step to doing just that, that doesn’t mean that that step in and of itself is doing that. So stopping every piece of gun control legislation on principle just because it’s gun control legislation and who knows what the next bill might be is absolutely absurd and, yes, extreme.

Post
#1171788
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Anyway, Hispanic doesn’t necessarily mean non-white.

true, but how white Hispanics are members of white nationalist groups?

Why are you even still on this track? Why do these questions even matter if it’s been confirmed he’s a white nationalist?

I was not trying to argue that the nut is not a white nationalist.

Great. End of this discussion then because there’s no point.

Exactly.

To the top