C3PX

Wait, isn't that how we elect our president? I seem to remember Rob having a very profound theory about the winning candidate always being determined based on sexiness... giving our cultural hangups on beauty, this makes plenty of sense. And as Rob explained, you can go back quite a few years and every time the better looking candidate takes it. I am starting to think Rob has some modicum of reason behind his mad ramblings.

zombie84 said:

I think you read the earliest version of the book, from March, 2007. It has changed quite drastically since then. It's still changing actually, since I'm doing a quiet revision that should be shipping out beginning in the middle of june.

D'oh! Zombie is going all GL on us! ;)

Yeah, I guess that is what Nintendo gets for essentially making a last gen console. Imagine a Wii on par with the 360 power wise... now that would be something! Sure, it wouldn't have hit the market at $250, but in the end the value would have been much greater. Resident Evil 5 on the PS3 or 360 with the golld old fashion controller interface, or Resident Evil 5 on the Wii with the option between wiimote targeting or an old fashion controller? It would really be a no brainer, I think I'd take the Wii everytime. Too bad the Wii could only ever dream about running games like RE5. 

Just a passing thought, how awesome would Portal be on the Wii?

Hahahaha! And we're back on topic!

Well, clearly not everytime, I was being hyperbolic of course. Anyway, fair enough. I just don't want to be part of it. That is all I was saying.

Jabba rescue plan would have been improved.

Ewoks would have been Wookies.

Finally battle would have been about something else, not a revisiting of the Death Star. Attacking the Imperial city or a major Imperial ship yard or something. A little bit of creativity could go a long ways here.

Well, it might be a one sided thing, I can't really tell. Some where along the line you seemed to tick Vaderisnohayden off, and now just about every time you make a post, he says something along the lines of, "Oh god, DarkFather's at it again."

Perhaps "quarrel" is the wrong word to use, but I can't think of a better one.

ChainsawAsh said:

I know someone brought up I Am Legend as a negative example, but look at the opening scenes of a devastated New York City.  Except for the CG animals roaming around, which look awful, showing New York City like that would have been impossible without the use of CGI - and it looks pretty damn good to me.  That's something that was necessary for the story that couldn't have been done any other way. 

Yeah, that was me who used I Am Legend as a negative example, but I also said in the same post,

"In the exact same film, the over grown and abandoned city was also CG, and it looked absolutely breathtaking in my opinion. CG is a wonderful thing, but it can be used poorly and excessively."

To me that movie had a lot going for it, but they really killed it with lazy film making.

Hey, I am not part of this little romance between the two of you. Please leave me out of your quarrels.

Had to do a quick google search to discover that you were talking about Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door.

Never played any of the Paper Mario games. Not too big of a fan of the turned based RPG (it is turn based, right?). I really liked Super Mario RPG for the SNES. It was really cool seeing a fleshed out fantasy world in the Mario universe. Even though I don't like turn based RPGs, I still found SMRPG well worth playing. I would have really liked to see a sequel that followed more closely in its footsteps. Paper Mario just didn't do it for me. The visuals were one of the things I found most interesting about SMRPG.

Really annoyed that SMRPG doesn't work with any of the SNES emulators on the DS. If they released an official DS port, I'd definitely buy it.

Loved it. When that game came out, I was still living with a old NES. Seeing that game on demo in stores made me want a SNES so badly. I couldn't believe the detail and the smoothness of the textures. I thought the underwater levels looked downright amazing. Never cared for the sequels in the least, but I still play the first one on my DS from time to time.

Jackson also only used CG when necessary. He could have made all the Orcs CG, but instead he used real actors in real masks and makeup, and it looks great. Imagine if each and everyone of those Orcs were completely CG? I have a hard time believeing the film would have been as successful as it was had that been the case.

CG has its place. It is a great innovation in film making. Things can now be done that were only ever dreamed about. It really is a wonderful breakthrough. But it is way over used. An example I like to use of a film completely destroyed by CG is I am Legend, I am a huge fan of the book, and enjoyed the previous two film adaptions of that novel. I was really excited when I am Legend was announced, it is one of those films I really, really wanted to be great and was willing to over look all sorts of flaws. But the CG just took it way too far. All the infected were 100% CG and it showed. There was nothing that said the infected needed to be CG, there was no reason they even should have been. We are talking about people infected with a virus, not aliens. People in makeup would have made all the difference in the world with that film. Perfect example of CG working against a film. 

In the exact same film, the over grown and abandoned city was also CG, and it looked absolutely breathtaking in my opinion. CG is a wonderful thing, but it can be used poorly and excessively.

300 is an example of a film where CG was well used. It really fit the atmosphere of the film and completely worked. The film wasn't meant to be realistic, it was meant to be stylized. To me it really feels like the Frank Miller graphic novel come to life (with the exception of all the silly additions, which are fixed in my unreleased fan edit). You are completely immersed in CG and unrealistic looking things, but the style of everything matches so it doesn't come off looking out of place.

It feels like most Blu-ray releases of old movies are coming out half-assed. I am afraid only new movies will use BDs true potential, at least for a few more years. We started out with some pretty crappy DVD releases, but through double dipping, we we treated to some pretty decent rereleases. Hopefully most of us have learned our lessons with the DVDs, and won't be rushing out to buy a lot of these things when we realize they were not made to their fullest potential. y advice to everyone, don't throw your money away on rushed jobs like this. Hold your horses and be content with your DVDs for now if you can. This ST set was obviously thrown together in time for the new film, they shouldn't be able to get away with making inferior products, but they do because people always joyfully rush out to buy them, they don't complain about them until the doubledipping starts, then they whine about them as they pull out their credit cards to pay for the rerelease, effectively telling the studios, "Hey, you throw it at me, I'm buying it. No questions asked".

Wow, am I the only one who finds Shia LeBouf annoying and obnoxious in everything he is in?

Vaderisnothayden said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Solution to disliking the direction a show takes: stop watching it.  That doesn't mean it deserves to be cancelled, especially when it's a fact that it won't be lasting longer than the next season.  Why cancel something that has a built-in end date?  House - there's a show that's run its course, and I would not care one way or the other if it gets cancelled or not since, well, I stopped watching it.  The difference is that House doesn't have a definitive end date - it can go on forever.  Lost does - the next season will be its last.

When a show has turned to crap it's a waste of money and resources and acting and should be cut short, not allowed to continue on until its planned ending.

 

 Opinionated little cuss ain't ya? Sorry to tell you this pal, but countless resources are wasted on things that don't make a difference in your life everyday. For example, I am sure somewhere in the US there is an obese man buying a super sized extra value meal at McDonald's. I haven't been to McDonald's in years, but I am guessing this fat man is paying somewhere around $7 bucks for this meal. Doesn't that just burn you up Vaderisnohayden? Talk about a waste of money and resources. This fat SOB enjoys his hamburger, fries, and drink and you and I get absolutely nothing out of it! Alternatively, there are a bunch of people in Colorado skiing right now. All that money wasted on ski rentals, lift tickets, gas money to drive to the ski lodge. None of this does anything for me, yet money and resources are being wasted. Pisses me the hell off I tell ya! How dare other people put money and resources into something I do like, or receive no enjoyment from! It is an outrage!!!! Dammit!! koerioeqrgioenqjrgiov'nqocnqeroiweqfoince Man, I am so pissed!!!!

Nah, can't be bothered. Besides, they are probably made out of paper. My proposed glasses would be made out of real plastic. I think I will convert a pair of aviators sunglasses into 3D glasses.

Vaderisnothayden said:

Lost deserves to be cancelled. It's been declining ever since the start of season 2. In season 4 it had Lost all the magic it once had... I quit watching the show and I'm so glad I did.

Fortunately, most people, including the powers that be disagree with you. Sounds like you fixed your problem by not watching it any longer. Good choice. I really feel sorry for those idiots who continue to watch something they hate, and continuously bitch and moan about it.

Lost, in my opinion, is one of the few intelligently writen shows on TV today. In fact, it is literally the only currently running show I watch. And for a time travel junkie like me, the last few seasons have been a treat. And as a literature/philosophy junkie, all five season have been a treat.

With the vast sea of pure and heavily concentrated crap that contaminates the television airways, it is hard not to laugh at a comment like, "Lost deserves to be canceled."

Vaderisnothayden said:

C3PX said:

 

And I am the guy who think murder should be legalized (within reason).

 

Can you explain what you mean by that?

 

Hmm, this might be something I probably should have gotten into. Not sure how much I should say here... I am not for legalized murder, so much as legalized killing. And I guess I really don't think it should be legalized, but I like the idea in theory. I don't mean just knocking off anyone you want, but more something along the lines of some guy's young daughter getting kidnapped, raped, and murdered, he finds the guy who did it, and kills him. What happens here? The poor guy who lost his daughter goes to prison for murder. Sure, he murdered the guy, but he never would have had the guy not brutalized and killed his daughter. I would be all for this guy getting off scott free. Primitive, uncivilized, maybe so. My feelings are that as we have evolved as a civilization, justice is something that has become obsolete and all but forgotten. And that saddens me, as I am a pretty big fan of justice.

Of course this matter is pretty complex, and to fully explain the system I'd advocate, I'd have to write you a 900 page book. There are a lot of ins and outs of it that have to be carefully considered, even in merely suggesting the idea. I am sure this idea is pretty unpopular, and is likely to even kick up some dirt in this thread. So many people are completely against the death penalty even in the ridiculously watered down form of it we currently have in parts of the U.S.

It should be pretty easy to make a pair. All you need is a cheap pair of sunglasses (dollar store), and some blue and red plastic wrap, or some clear plastic wrap and a blue and red marker. Pop out the lenses and put the plastic wrap over the holes. Might look a bit ghetto, but I think it should work.

Actually, you could probably just take the back of a plastic CD case, or any other clear pice of plastic and color a section blue and a section red and look through that. Be kind of weird, but also quick and easy.

LexX said:

I like e.g. Hitchcock's Rear Window and I think it's one of the best films I've seen, if someone wants to talk about pacing and how great old films were.

Btw, Raiders of the Lost Ark didn't even have the Ark in the title here, in English it would be Raiders of the Lost Treasure.

I really like a lot of Hitchcock's stuff too, Rear Window is one of my favorite of his flicks. If you don't mind me asking, where are you from, LexX?

Sluggo said:

Great post, C3PX, although my sister Holly might object to the idea of a Holy of Hollies. 

Oops! One too many L's in there. :D

You don't have to have read the Bible to understand it, just as we can understand references to all kinds of other artifacts and myths without having read everything that was ever written about them. I doubt GL is a very big Bible reader himself, nor do I think he really believes any of it (he does use names of ancient cities found in the Bible for a few SW names though, like Endor and the Gamorians). It really is a none issue of whether or not you you believe the stories told in the Bible. The point is Raiders is clearly going with the idea that the Biblical account of the Ark is real to some degree, and that it really does have some sort of supernatural power to it. Be a pretty boring story if it was just a silly box that did nothing. Kind of like making a movie about a Philosopher's Stone that is just a rock and doesn't possess the ability to turn lead into gold, or extend your life, or make you immortal, or whatever else it has been said to be able to do over the centuries. 

I don't, but then it doesn't make sense why the Nazis would want it so bad if it's just gonna kill you.

If I remember correctly, this part was clearly explained in the movie. The stories tell of the Israelites carrying the Ark into battle with them and God would help them defeat their enemies. I believe it is explained that this is what the Nazis are after. They think having the Ark in their possession will make them invincible. And actually, that is all you really need to know about the Ark to understand the story of Raiders.

I think this is why most modern movies don't really have plots either, and when they do the plot is overly simple. People relate a lot better to extensive action scenes and have a hard time digesting dialogue. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had a really silly plot to it, but easily enough understood by a seven year old. You get convoluted crap like, "Knowledge! Knowledge was their treasure! You see Mutt! You've got to stay in school! Got that kids? Stay in school!"

EDIT: Oops, Akwat beat me to it, and explained it in half as many words and without going off on multiple tangents. That is what I get for taking my sweet time while typing. ;)

LexX said:

 Also the Ark is pretty lame, there's no info about what it really is and what it does and when you open it, it just kills people who have eyes opened. Yippee. People like different things.

This was made back in the good ol' days. When not ever damn thing needed to be explained. The general assumption was that most people would be cultured enough to know what the Ark of the Covenant was and some of the background behind it.

These days, if it wasn't something that has been referenced on Family Guy*, you can be pretty certain the average joe is completely clueless about it. God instructed the Israelites to build the Ark and to place various items significant to their exodus from Egypt inside of it (including the stone tablets containing the ten commandments.. No one was even allowed to touch the Ark, let alone open it. It was to be carried on poles by the priests from the tribe of Levi. One Biblical account has it incorrectly being carried on a cart by oxen, it begins to tip over and a man reaches out to steady it and instantly falls dead. It was kept in the Holy of Hollies of the tabernacle (portable temple, used during the wilderness wanderings). Only the high priest was allowed in the Holy of Hollies, and only at designated times.

So, I guess they didn't feel the need to take the time to explain much more about the Ark than the fact that it was a sacred Hebrew artifact. Most people knew at least a little about it, and if they didn't, they wouldn't have to do a lot of asking before they found someone who could tell them more. 

Fortunately in today's world, we are much more considerate of people's ignorance. For example, before publishing the first Harry Potter book in North America, they changed the title, as well as all references in the text of the book, from Philosopher's Stone to Sorcerer's Stone, because there was concern that some Americans might not know what a Philosopher's Stone was. I propose that GL make a special edition version called, Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Sacred Box of Hebrew Artifacts, perhaps he could add a few extra scenes giving some more explaination into the history of the sacred box of Hebrew artifacts. Also, to make the other two films match the title length of Indiana Jones and the Sacred Box of Hebrew Artifacts and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, he should rename them Indiana Jones and the Temple of Absolute Certain Doom and Weirdness and Indiana Jones and the Magical Everlasting Life Giving Cup of Christ.

*Funny story. There is this acquaintance of mine, every now and then we have a conversation, which usually consists of him talking about how good the latest movie he rented was, or about his favorite sports team. One time was talking about how great Transformers was and insisted that I needed to rent it sometime. Then he asked me what the last movie I had seen was, and I told him, "Casablanca". He then proceeded to give a long quote from the movie and I nearly shit my pants from surprise. I was almost expecting a, "Never heard of it? What is it about." from him, not a detailed, verbatim quote. After expressing my surprised, I asked, "Wait a minute, you didn't happen hear that line from Family Guy did you?" He grinned, "Yeah." Turns out he had never seen it and doesn't have a clue of what it is about.

Lol, that would be awesome. Anybody who would actually take their collecting to that leve would be my hero.

Okay, well not really my hero. But I'd applaud their dedication.

Whooohooo! More Don Gaffer video reviews!

Dude! You're getting high tech. Nice stuff.

You could argue that the T-800s are being made early in 2018 instead of 2029, because Skynet had the data from the original T-800 arm and chip that were destroyed in T2, which allowed them to get a head start. Of course, if you take the mobius loop theory of T1 (that is, it always happened that way, and John always sent Reese back, and Reese was always John father, and Skynet excited because of the T-800 parts), then this doesn't work, but then neither does T2 or T3.