logo Sign In

DanielB

This user has been banned.

User Group
Banned Members
Join date
15-Jul-2004
Last activity
5-Oct-2005
Posts
594

Post History

Post
#80025
Topic
Info Wanted: German HDTV rip
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80025/action/topic#80025
Time
Perhaps, but I don't tell them they believe "this" when it doesn't reflect what they believe. -edit- That's called a strawman argument. Very weak. You've been doing it the entire time, so it isn't surprising to see INv8r_ZIM catch on. What it is is arguing to a strawman that you invent in your head, rather than to me. You make up crap that you claim is my position, and then argue against it. Like I said, very weak.
Post
#80022
Topic
Info: DanielB - Give capitalism a chance!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80022/action/topic#80022
Time
Originally posted by: Laserman
You obviously know very little about the film industry here or in the US, I've worked in both and can tell you the independent film market is alive and kicking in both, and both countries are horribly capitalistic - that's how it is.
Considering I'd like to be an independent film-maker, I'd say I know enough. Thanks for agreeing with me though, comrade.
Post
#80037
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80037/action/topic#80037
Time
Here is a list of (everchanging) myths, or possible myths. Some may count as conspiracy theories:

  • ADD and/or ADHD exist.

  • Marijuana is a non-dangerous drug.

  • Apollo 11 landed on the moon. We are expected to believe this despite many glaring contradicting facts, for instance: NASA faked the first space walk, NASA faked an un-manned moon probe (Gemmi 8?), years after the apollo missions, the van allen radiation belts were discovered to be much thicker than previously thought, and the crew of a space shuttle which to-date is the manned space-craft to have ventured furthest into space (except the apollo moon mission) reported being able to see the radiation with their eyes closed (why didn't any of the apollo crews notice this?)

  • Evolution. There is overwhelming evidence against evolution, for instance all lifeforms alive today that were also living "millions of years ago" have not evolved. Darwin's survival of the fittest theory is completely disproved by animals that help each other, like birds that warn the rest of the flock when an incoming crow is spotted. While it is better for the group to have that behaviour, individually it is not. That is to say the bird with the selfish gene will outlive the rest because it can still benefit from the other's warnings - but never puts itself in risk by calling out warnings. The theory of Evolution changes more rapidly than I change my socks.

  • Princess Diana's driver was drunk. Eyewitness accounts and video evidence contradicts so-called forensic evidence.

  • "Jack the Ripper" killed five prostitutes.

  • Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons' "cold fusion" experiment was a hoax. They had a $40,000 experiment and discovered that under certain conditions it seemed the energy they put in increased - or that is - that they got more energy out than was put in. They said cold fusion was one possible explanation. Researchers have, and continue to reproduce the proven results.

  • Mentally handicapped Martin Bryant with an IQ of 66, a terrible shot at hunting and no proven experience shooting from the hip, or shooting weapons of such calibre - shot and killed 35 people, crippled two cars and wounded an additional 22 people in the Port Arthur massacre. Bryant killed 12 people all from single headshots, wounded 10 and remained in control, in 15 seconds flat firing just 17 bullets? I do not think so! For one thing, while he may have had rather close targets, shooting people in an enclosed space is something only the best professionals could do so professionally. When you shoot people, they tend to fall, and block other people - and those other people are screaming and running around. Even if no one moved, and no falling bodies blocked other bodies - Bryant would still have had an incredibly hard time shooting 12 people in the head (or neck) in 15 seconds flat. He wasn't even very good at hunting - he was a terrible shot. Bryant - even if he had experience with such weapons, we should expect to be spraying the bullets everywhere in a fit of loonity. However the killer clearly knew exactly what he was doing. Several eyewitness accounts that contradicted the official line of events were discounted.

    For instance, in the official version of events bryant stayed at the broad arrow cafe for less than a minute before moving out of it and continuing his killing spree. This is an important fact, because mentally-handicapped people who live in their own world tend to like to move on to other things very quickly. However, there are verifiable witness statements that have the killer waiting (at least) 4 minutes before leaving the cafe. This important because a professional would know that to remain in control he should wait while people outside evacuate, as to eliminate witnesses. There was no incriminating forensic evidence found against Bryant. Well, no forensic evidence at all, unless you count the firearms apparently not planted, but found in pristine condition at his burning house. There is no evidence he owned them, used them or practised with them.

    Now there are some tings people will use to incriminate him, like the fact that he was laughing and seemed to be enjoying himself during the trial and while the charges were made against him. However this was not uncharacteristic, for instance his father killed himself by drowning himself in the pond (and had done a lot of paperwork like changing bank accounts to just her name and not his ahead of time to make it easier for her). Now when the police asked Bryant to help search for the body (there was also a suicide note), he was laughing and enjoying himself.

    Anyhow to continue discussing any of these in this post would bring but hours of reading for you, so I will go and allow others to comment on these - and other Myths.
    • Post
    #79958
    Topic
    Info: DanielB - Give capitalism a chance!
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79958/action/topic#79958
    Time
    Dude, I Ialready said Australia is capitalistic.

    "And so he did it his way, which is still "capitalistic", according to you, unless you are changing your definitions."

    No, he did it the way he believes should be every filmmaker's right. Because he believed in equal rights, that was not capitalistic. Yes you can be barred from casinos in Vegas too for counting - that was my point. What horrible capitalistic bastards if they believe it is their right to hold the odds, - and even treid to make it illegal for patrons to use their brain. Atlantic City actually has a decent law, because casinos don't care about YOU loosing money, but they do care about themselves loosing money to counters, even if those counters are few and far between. What I'm trying to say is that the casinos believe you should not be entitled to the rights that they are entitled to.

    Why is America more Capitalistic? You will work it out. One thing is hollywood. I don't like hollywood. No other country in the world has a film industry like it. Independant American Films are so few and far between now. Now that doesn't matter to me as much as Independent Aussie films - but it should matter to every American.

    EDIT: By the way, Casino Canberra uses an EIGHT DECK shoe! There's no getting more capitalistic than that.
    Post
    #79818
    Topic
    Info: Enough of the "Censorship" and "PURITY" threads
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79818/action/topic#79818
    Time
    Originally posted by: consumer_x
    3rd - All Star Wars films have been censored and to deny this is capitalistic.
    Censored by what? The very grain on your eyes? The fact you don't see a flat picture? What exactly?

    See, digital scractch removal I'm fine with (so long as the scratch wasn't there originally). Digitally removing some of the LD's grain and haloing effect is okay too - only because that's something the LD intyroduced, and you are trying to restore it to its original state. But touching up effects - that's like digital colourization.
    Post
    #79813
    Topic
    Info Wanted: German HDTV rip
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79813/action/topic#79813
    Time
    Not really Rik, you're just replacing each frame with the best possible quality frame of the original as possible. I know it's not a perfect solution, but it is good nonetheless. It is loyal to the original source material, it isn't disrespectful to it. Digitally fixing sabre effects is for all intents and purposes the same as digitally colouring a black and white movie.
    Post
    #79812
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79812/action/topic#79812
    Time
    Well Zion, yes we are because you agree that your edited version can't be called original no matter how small the edits. The only difference is you think that it's okay to make that version, and to a certain extent I do agree - so long as you recognize that it's a separate movie. For instance, Balance of the Force is NOT The Phantom Menace, or any edit of it - it's a separate movie that shares a lot of the same source material - but that's about it. So if you want to call your edited version "Zion's Star Wars" then - again, it isn't "Star Wars" or any edit thereof, it's simply another movie made largely from source material used in another movie.
    Post
    #79654
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79654/action/topic#79654
    Time
    Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
    "You've got the correct definition of capitalism, if you can't work out what it means in real life then that's not my problem."

    Actually, it is your problem. You seem to keep singleling me out as the only person who disagrees with your use of the word, despite the fact that every other person in this thread has disagreed with you. Talk to them, not to me.
    Very well. For one's rights to be rights then one must share the same rights - and the same opportunity to access those rights - as the rest of the community. Capitalism is where you believe that your own rights should take precedent, and you extend them at the expense of other's rights.

    For instance, say that it is my right to expect others to be honest and truthful. My friend expects to enjoy that right, while also enjoying the right to lie to others whenever he sees fit. Since this negates other's right to honest and truthful conduct he is being capitalistic. Caring only about his capital firstly, see? Rather than evenly distributing rights. He says it is his right to lie to others. And he also says it is his right to expect others to be honest and truthful to him. So which is it?

    Let's say the first is his right. That is that it his right to expect others to be honest and truthful to him. If this is the case, then he doesn't mind invading their rights to extend his own (ie appending the right to lie whenever he likes). This is capitalistic because the rights of others have been reduced.
    Post
    #79591
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79591/action/topic#79591
    Time
    Originally posted by: consumer_x
    It should be pointed out that if you reside within North America, be it USA or Canada, you do have a legal right to edit any film copy in your possession. I am unsure about other nations in the World, but in at least these two, you are safe to edit what you please with your mass-produced reproduction.
    I know a lot about Australian law, and unfortunately less about American and Canadian law. But I assure you that it is a breech of copyright to edit copyrighted works under American law.
    Post
    #79590
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79590/action/topic#79590
    Time
    Zion, it seems we are on the same side here with a few minor differences. Those being that you think it is still okay to make your altered work, so long as it's labelled as so. I would say that's good enough, and you have satisfied my complaints against you. I will explain this, by again comparing it to lying:

    You no longer say it is your right to lie. But you do say you will continue to lie - but you agree to tell people when you do lie. This negates the negative effect.

    MBJ, I believe in personal rights, yes. Not capitalistic rights. You've got the correct definition of capitalism, if you can't work out what it means in real life then that's not my problem. I will give you a simple explanation:

  • my personal rights should come before all other's rights (that effect me)
    -and-
  • their personal rights should come before all my rights that effect them.

    Or if you want the lying version. It is your right to expect truth and honesty from me. It is not my right to lie to you.
    • Post
    #79484
    Topic
    Info Wanted: German HDTV rip
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79484/action/topic#79484
    Time
    That could be used for a very good project. IF I had the resources this is how I would do it:

    Rip the (PAL) LD's. Upscale to anamorphic, run filters over the frames, etc. Then replace frame-for-frame every frame that was not altered in the original (from either the HD-TV rip, or the PAL DVD whichever is the better source). That way you keep the LD's audio without splicing it, and it's still frame-for-frame the same as the LD ecept with better quality where available. The quality would drop here and there, but it would be the best possible preservation. Of course no one except me would ever do it.
    Post
    #79483
    Topic
    Info: Enough of the "Censorship" and "PURITY" threads
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79483/action/topic#79483
    Time
    I hate to do this to you Rik.

    It is capatalistic to present those definitions and expect all others to agree to them.

    Don't flame me. I will provide an alternative.

    This is what we can agree on:

    All transfers of the star wars trilogy, from the first theatrical prints to the 2004 special edition is unique in some way or another.
    Post
    #79481
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79481/action/topic#79481
    Time
    I cannot stress this enough: He lies because he believes it is his right.

    Only a mature person would conclude that lying is not his right.

    Skeg it's important to my argument, sorry if it offends you. Australian society is not too different. My point is just that he's grown up in a capatalistic society that have forced their views on him. But he can rise above it.
    Post
    #79480
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79480/action/topic#79480
    Time
    Rik, MBJ is very abusive in his language. I know I can be abusive too - however he chooses to express himself, it's not going to prove his point. Once he learns that he might calm down a bit, but that's up to him. On the other hand, you make good advice, I shall try to continue this thread in a positive fashion.

    Now I have a friend I've known for many years. Traditionally we've gone to the same Church, grown up in decent families - and a good city. He's 23. One thing that bothers me about him is he will lie to other people quite frequently. I do my best to tolerate this - in understanding that he is merely mistaking and though he should know better, I can't force him to behave differently. He will lie to his family, whom he loves. To his friends - to anyone at anytime. He does it because he feels it is his right. I have on a couple of occasions confronted him about it, but his attitude was capitalistic "you can't tell me what to do" and "I like lying".

    If everyone else too confronted him, then he'd realize "hey, this could be a problem".

    That's what I put to you MeBeJedi. Instead of counting the number of people who tell you this, decide for yourself are you going to listen to what I have to say? I don't waste time bullshitting like you claimed I do. You however will talk about all sorts of tangents to avoid the real discussion. Now I know there are other people who would tell my friend the same thing I did, if they believed it was right to do so. However they believe it is wrong to, they believe tolerance means accepting what other people do without confrontation.

    Is the effort I've put into trying to tell you this not worth anything?
    Post
    #79472
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79472/action/topic#79472
    Time
    Skeg, I don't see how making comments to American culture is wrong. For instance, America is the fattest nation in the world with 29% of people overweight. Australia is about 20%. Both these figures are extremely excessive when you consider that the human body is not made to become fat, it has to be abused to become so. So one can conclude that 29% of Americans abuse their bodies to the point where their body weight exceeds the limits that your body should be. This is of course all based on solid fact.

    Does it offend? You bet it does. But it's the truth, and if the truth hurts then do something about it. Don't complain that the truth is wrong. America is more capitalistic. This is what fuels the popular belief that tolerance means we have to accept everything everyone does, regardless of what we believe to be right and wrong because their opinion of right and wrong is equal to ours. (The real non-capitalistic definition of tolerance is bearing other's faults - being able to say that they are "mistaken").

    The difference here, is that if someone's fat the capitalistic person will say "oh you're just big-boned" or "don't worry about it, it's normal" or "you're looking good". None of which are honest, none of which are helpful or constructive. I on the other hand will not tell white lies. I believe that lying under any circumstances devalues the truth, tells the person you lie to that they aren't worth the truth and encourages distrust and dishonesty. I also know that one white lie on its own may not make much difference, but more and more certainly do, and it is not a positive difference. Why is this a difference?

    The capitalistic person believes it is his right to lie.

    And sometimes it can be really hard to shake that popular belief. But what would society be like if people all said "I do not have a right to lie"? Can you see how positive it would be?

    Back on topic next post, but I thought I should explain this.
    Post
    #79470
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79470/action/topic#79470
    Time
    Originally posted by: MeBeJedi

    "Making up more bullshit to paint me as the bad guy."     (No, everything I stated was true. If you didn't understand the relevance, then I'll help you. To say one is bound by signing a contract he does not understand is capitalistic. Australian law states that if you do not understand [or are incapable of understanding] what you are signing, then it is not a legal contract. You seem to be of the opinion that if your signature is on a contract, then it doesn't matter if you can understand it - you are bound by it [as is evident by calling what I said bullshit]. This does not help your case, but it does help mine.)

    SO IS MAKING COPIES OF THE LD'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC! (No shit!)

    When the fuck are you going to address this simple point? (When did I claim it was my right?)

    you need to stop accusing everyone else of breaking the law. (As we all know, I didn't accuse you I merely pointed out it is not your right as you claimed it to be.)

    If I were to put one of my versions on the internet, and you watched it at regular viewing speed, you wouldn't know if the fixes were there or not. (Capitalism. "If I was to censor the media you wouldn't know because I am the government." Whether or not people know is irrelevant - it's the chance they have to know. If they don't have that chance then it is censorship. For instance, allowing all pro-government media and banning anti-government media is censorship because it limits people's ability to know the truth of the situation. As you would limit one's perception by presenting edited work without noting it's edited. People in 200 years wouldn't know the originals from the 2004 SE's if they couldn't compare to other unaltered work of the time and the originals were denied to them. To spell it out: the argument is null.)

    And as to me "hating" the films the way they were originally - fuck you very much. "I move over for no one, I can do whatever I want because I am in control."

    I've spent far more money, time and effort on these films than you could ever hope to", which means I have more rights to do what I want."

    and intend to work on a "original theatrical" version as well. (Good.)

    Not one person has agreed with yours. ONE! (Who are you trying to convince? Me? The silent voices? The undecided? What a capitalistic statement. I'm attacking your argument, but I'm not attacking its popularity, or counting the number you've got hanging out of your butt.)
    Post
    #79464
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79464/action/topic#79464
    Time
    Their argument crumbles anyway. MBJ and Zion both agree that 1. you can't notice the changes, and 2. they don't matter. They seem to use this argument in the sense that we should therefore accept the changes. But in doing so it raises two counter questions. 1. if you can't notice the changes, why put them there? and 2. if they don't matter than why does it matter so much to have them edited?

    The simple answer, I think is capitalism and censorship. As any true american they don't want to move over for anyone. They want to have control over practically everything that effects them, even if it also effects others. They don't see the problem with this. They'll swear the changes don't matter - but what they're really saying is "what I'm doing shouldn't matter to you, because you don't tell me what to do. I do what I want to do my way whenever I want to do it". And Tikigod is right, the changes might well be comparatable to changing one stroke of a picasso painting. However isn't that in disrespect to the original work?

    People wanted you to give them water. But instead you made lemonade and said "this will do, whether you like it or not".