Why would they take Anakin to the Jedi Temple then? If they were already rogue Jedi, why not train him themselves?
TimpsonFilmLTD. said:
Yes, we all know it's a disgrace, we all loath this horrifying cinematic failure...
Nope.
And regarding your edit, are you going to exclude the Jedi Order at all from the main characters? If neither Obi-Wan or Qui-Gon will be part of the order, I'm not sure how would that work with the sequels. But whatever...
ray_afraid said:
Alexrd said:
What's wrong with Fett having a name and/or appearing in RotJ? I never thought it was an issue for so many of you.
Fett does have a name. (it's Bobba Fett in case anyone didn't know) But I (and others apparently) see no reason to shove it into ESB.
I agree. But I thought people were thinking on getting rid of Boba Fett (the name) in RotJ. That I see no reason to happen.
What's wrong with Fett having a name and/or appearing in RotJ? I never thought it was an issue for so many of you.
greenpenguino said:
and have started on 'Mad Men'
I'm on Episode six of Series one.
You've done well.
I'm finishing Season 4 of Chuck and I going to watch the first episode of the second season of Sherlock.
none said:
(paraphrasing) the abortion point made in the podcast was that more fetuses are dispelled from human female bodies by natural causes then by abortion technicians*.
Erm... What's the point they're trying to make?
walkingdork said:
This is why I question your sexual activity. People who have sex frequently using birth control can go years and years without having a kid. So when you find out your pregnant after a decade of having sex, YES, it comes as a surprise.
Fine. But it should be a surprise that there was a chance for that to happen. That's my point.
I think everyone here agrees that abortion is not appropriate form of birth control. I assure there is no significant number of the population that is thinking, "nah I don't need to take birth control, I'll just get an abortion." Abortion is much more expensive than the bill or condoms.
I know. The point is, some people do use it as a form of birth control. And the numbers show that (in my country).
And, YES, the birth rate has dropped in Western/Northern Europe and in America. It's not an opinion it's a fact. Ever hear of demography? People study these sorts of things.
Why are you hitting a strawman again? When did I ever question the birthrate in Europe and America?
Warbler said:
here I have to disagree with you, Alexrd. Lets say you buy a lottery ticket for the 10 million dollar jackpot. You had pick 6 numbers that could each be 0 to 99. You had to get all the numbers right and in the right order. You know your ticket has the potential to be the winning ticket. But if it turns out that you ticket is the winner, I'll bet you would be surprised as hell.
Well, but I wouldn't be surprised about my chance to win, otherwise I wouldn't have bought the ticket. I get what you're saying, though.
My point is that even with contraceptive methods, people should be aware that they are fallible and they should accept the outcome in case of failure, before having sex.
Troyig88 said:
There was never no need to change it.
I agree.
The 2004 version. Although I don't mind the original.
walkingdork said:
Alexrd said:
walkingdork said:
When my first child was conceived my wife was on the pill. When my second child was conceived she was on the pill AND I was wearing condoms. Judging by her reaction I would say there is NO chance of her missing them accidentally or intentionally. Weren't we responsible?
Did you know that there was still a chance of getting pregnant? If yes, and if you had sex anyway, what was the surprise?
Yes we knew there was a chance of getting pregnant, but the pill is like 90% effective so yes I was surprise.
You knew it could fail and there was a surprise that it had failed?
Again you guys are comparing a beautiful act of making love to dangerous and immoral things like firing guns into a crowd or drunk driving.
fixed. Sorry, my bad.
Again, you missed the point entirely. The example I gave of firing a gun to a crowd and expect not to hit anyone was to show that your actions have consequences, and wishing to not hit anyone by doing that is absurd. Having sex, even with protection (which are fallible) has the possible consequence of getting pregnant. People know that, so what's the surprise when it happens?
Alexrd, is it that you are you married or have you just never been laid? I guess I don't know how old you are or what your marital status is. The idea that no one should be having sex unless they are planning on having kids is ludicrous.
I never said that. All I'm saying is that people should be responsible for their actions. When people have sex, they should be ready for any possible outcome. If they don't, then in my view they are being irresponsible. And using abortion as a contraceptive method, even more irresponsible it is. Abortion was legalized in my country a couple of years ago, and the abortion rate has increased hugely. The previous law had abortion legalized only in cases of rape, malformation, or when the mother's health is at risk. The "pro-choice" movement here tried to hide these already legal exceptions and used it has an argument against the "pro-life" movement. I'm using quotes because these movement terms are very misleading.
Nowadays, there are many forms of birth control that are up to 99% effective. The birth rate in Europe and America is far less than it was generations ago. Do you really think that is because people aren't having as much sex.
No. Why do you think that?
I'm not saying that if you get pregnant and don't feel like having a kid you should have an abortion. I'm not pro-get-an-abortion-if-it's-inconvenient. However there are several circumstances where I think abortion should an option. I don't think teenagers who stupid and make mistakes should have their life ruined because they let the high school quarterback talk them into sex. I don't think crackhead who will have their children taken from them and thrown into the foster care system (which is fucking mess).
I disagree. People should be responsible for their actions. That's how they grew up (be it teens or adults).
Also the argument that fathers should just be better fathers is dumb. Of course dads in the world should be stepping up, but there is no way to enforce that.
I know. But they should be penalized for the examples I mentioned.
walkingdork said:
When my first child was conceived my wife was on the pill. When my second child was conceived she was on the pill AND I was wearing condoms. Judging by her reaction I would say there is NO chance of her missing them accidentally or intentionally. Weren't we responsible?
Did you know that there was still a chance of getting pregnant? If yes, and if you had sex anyway, what was the surprise?
Again you guys are coming a beautiful act of making love to dangerous and immoral things like firing guns into a crowd or drunk driving.
No. And if you tought that, then you completely missed the point.
walkingdork said:
That's easy to say as a man, especially in the US where the is big problem with men who don't "accept the consequences" by supporting those kids. And no I don't call sending money to the mother of your children supporting the kids. It's supporting the mother who is doing all the work, physically and emotionally.
Men aren't the ones that have their body destroyed. Men don't have to worry about losing or finding jobs because of pregnancy. Men don't have to drop out of college or high school because the next 9 months of their life is fucked. Men don't have to have their genitals tear and split like a hotdog in a microwave.
Also Men don't have to feel the shame of being a single parent. Teenage and college age boys aren't permanently labeled whores for having kids out of wedlock. Single mom's in this society are something to be pitied or felt sorry for. When my ex-wife and I got divorced she was faced with shame at her local church for being a single mom. However when I have the girls everyone gives me props for stepping up. We're both just trying to be good parents yet we are faced with two very different realities.
As much as things have gotten better, there is still gender inequality. Sure there are laws that are meant to enforce equality but it doesn't change public opinion.
That's not what we are discussing here. The father should have the obligation to help (and as you said, not just send money) the mother, if not, he should be penalized. But what we are discussing is abortion and free choice. I said that people had a choice. They chose to have sex. Sex has pregnancy as a possible consequence. Therefore they should accept it. If they don't, then they shouldn't have sex. It's like pointing a gun to a crowd, shoot, and expect not to hit anyone. You must deal with your actions.
CP3S said:
TV's Frink said:
Must...hold...tongue....
Exactly.
Feel free to reply.
walkingdork said:
Now I am 100% pro-choice, specifically women's choice.
But they did have a choice, to have sex or not. If they chose to have sex, why don't they accept the consequences?
nightstalkerpoet said:
Honestly, when I watch the BR of Ep 1, I feel like I have to constantly mess with my tv settings.
Settings for what? I saw nothing wrong with the colour of TPM or RotS. AotC has that awful green teal. I'm considering doing a preservation for AotC when I have the time.
Nanner Split said:
Alexrd said:
TV's Frink said:
Let's say my wife and I have three children, two of which are still with us. We absolutely under no circumstances want another child. Does that mean we should have to give up sex completely?
Unless you don't want to accept the possible consequences, yes.
"Accept the possible consequences"? I swear to god, some of you people make sex sound like a fucking drug addiction or something.
What? Are you implying that only drugs bring consequences? Every action you make has a consequence (and other possible ones), sex has the possible consequence of pregnancy. How is this making it seem like a drug? No need for a strawman, here.
TV's Frink said:
I don't even know where to start with this one, at least without offending you in a way I'd rather not offend.Alexrd said:
If we were to get pregnant accidentally despite taking all reasonable precautions, should we be forced to have a child we did not want to have?Precautions that you know are fallible. Why risk it, then? I understand liking to have sex, but in my opinion, if people are willing to have sex, then they should willingly accept the possible consequences too.
Why would you need to offend me? I haven't done the same to you, as far as I can tell. I'm sure you could reply with an argument that doesn't include an offense.
TV's Frink said:
Let's say my wife and I have three children, two of which are still with us. We absolutely under no circumstances want another child. Does that mean we should have to give up sex completely?
Unless you don't want to accept the possible consequences, yes.
Yes, we use contraception, but the failure rate is not zero. Should one of us have to have surgery, along with all the complications?
I'm not sure I understood that. Surgery for what?
If we were to get pregnant accidentally despite taking all reasonable precautions, should we be forced to have a child we did not want to have?
Precautions that you know are fallible. Why risk it, then? I understand liking to have sex, but in my opinion, if people are willing to have sex, then they should willingly accept the possible consequences too.
Shouldn't abortion at the earliest point possible (six weeks?) be an option?
Shouldn't thinking about it (again, the consequences) before having sex, be an option?
Oh, and at some point I'll bring up our stillborn more specifically, and you will find there is another reason to allow "abortion" beyond just in cases of rape and danger to the mother.
I mentioned malformation too, but I'm open for more reasons.
nightstalkerpoet said:
Ep 1: Pretty even,
Not possible. Despite the DNR on many shots, the Blu-ray version of TPM is miles better than the DVD (which while great for it's time, it's the worst transfers of the saga we have on DVD). Not to mention that we get the full frame for the first time on an home video format.
I share the same sentiment as darth_ender. I'm against abortion, unless there is a malformation, or when the mother's health is at risk and when a woman has suffered from rape.
However, my view has nothing to do with at what stage is the fetus considered to be a human being or not, but it's about responsibility. As such, I don't understand the "pro-choice" argument. People did have a choice. Getting pregnant is only a consequence of that choice. When people choose to have sex, they should know the risks and consequences of such action. Abortion is only a way to escape from responsibility.
... to give to charity.
Put Captain Solo in the Cargo Hold said:
I think the saber looking orange is an effect caused by seeing it side by side with the pink one. It probably looks better on its own.
That's true.
Ziz said:
There are so many things that your brain picks up on a subconscious level as to whether an object is real or not that CG hasn't completely accounted for yet.
CG and puppets. Both have their advantages and flaws.
I don't think he should be replaced, but I do think he can be given some minor alterations digitally (something like TESB Revisited), to remove some of his obvious puppetness(?).
Regarding digital Yoda standing out or looking cartoonish, I disagree. He doesn't completely blend in, that's true, but some shots (in my opinion) already show that it is possible:
aalenfae said:
Alexrd said:
The clip looks great. The only issue I noticed were the edges around Vader and Luke on this scene. The give a noticeable glow effect, specially around Vader.
Here's a screenshot.
The difference between the two is that there's added blue color along the edge of Luke's head, as well as a sharper edge.
Look at Vader's cape.
The clip looks great. The only issue I noticed were the edges around Vader and Luke on this scene. The give a noticeable glow effect, specially around Vader.
Here's a screenshot.
