DominicCobb

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

You see, because it is a lone film rather than part of a trilogy, DominicCobb was making a little play on words.

Yes, but it should be dash (—) in that case, not hyphen (-).

 You are half right but mostly wrong. It was never a hyphen (and I almost said as much but I'm not into grammar correcting like some people [you] so I didn't), it was always a dash. In case you're unaware, there are two types of dashes, em dash and en dash. Em dash is longer but has no spaces like en dash. In case you still can't figure it out, I used the en dash.

Pretty cool story actually.

Well I'll say first of all that they're thinner than they were in 77 but I'd also say that the fighting styles do not align. If they have fencing sabers, they should be fighting like fencers, like in the original film. But they fight like in Empire, where the lightsabers were noticeably thicker.

Again, on paper the thin lightsabers are a good idea (and I thought so when I heard they would do it) but in practice when you actually see it in motion it does look rather silly. It's not a big issue but I wouldn't mind it being changed.

I appreciate the homage to McQuarrie that the lightsabers are, but when you watch the show, and you see how thin they are, it just looks really dumb, especially when they fight.

Don't have a problem with Vader's eyes. Red lenses look cool.

imperialscum said:

Btw why is there a hyphen in-between Han and Solo in the title?

 It's a joke. Get it?

.

You know, I thought we were all done with the naive assumption that just because Disney is distributing these movies that they'll be scrubbed clean. Let's not forget that they already had a franchise that revolved around pirates, and the main one was literally (and blatantly) drunk in every scene. I have no doubt that this film will have the edge it needs.

The big question, as captainsolo brings up, is how much of the old EU will they actually acknowledge? They ditched everything, of course, but they said they still might take inspiration from old stories. So who knows if they use any Daley or Crispin material.

The bigger question is, is this movie really necessary? Well, no, but why not make it? Han's a great character, and, even though we're all pretty used to HF playing him, I'm sure there's another actor out there who can take him on. But mainly, I'm glad these spin-off films are staying as far away from jedi as possible. It's a big galaxy out there, let's see what a scoundrel can do with his own movie.

By the way, I think we can probably expect this film to have a good sense of humor, considering the directors' track record. Which is a good thing. I always though Han was the funniest SW character. Don't want them to forget that.

I was either too young (in the time before the prequels came out) to have bothered to imagine what Anakin would look like or remember what I had imagined.

I guess I probably imagined Anakin as the Sebastian Shaw ghost we see. But, at the same time, I knew he must have been a lot younger when he became Vader so he never actually looked like that (why does he look like that? it's dumb, but of course that's a different conversation). Also I've never known what young Sebastian Shaw looked like, and I've never bothered to Google it. Who is that dude anyway? I've seen a lot of old movies and he was in none of them.

It's interesting that so many pictured him with dark hair. Is that because he turned bad? What are you saying about people with dark hair? As someone with pretty dark hair myself, I have to say I'm offended.

I never had a problem with Hayden as Anakin, looks-wise (though I think showing a child age version of him might have been Lucas's biggest mistake). That acting though...

Directed by the amazing duo of Phil Lord and Chris Miller Ron Howard and coming to a theater near you 5/25/18 (maybe)!

http://www.starwars.com/news/christopher-miller-and-phil-lord-to-helm-han-solo-anthology-film?linkId=15374280

JEDIT: http://www.starwars.com/news/ron-howard-to-assume-directorial-duties-on-the-untitled-han-solo-film

Obviously what happened was Lucas wasn't really sure what the deal was. Probably the main reason he deleted the mention of red leader referring to Luke's father in the SE because he didn't know what he would do with the Anakin in the PT. If you go by the old EU things are certainly complicated. Been reading a bit and apparently Anakin and Obi-Wan were like the biggest heroes of the clone wars. But there isn't actually any indication of that in the films. From the perspective of the movies Anakin could easily have been seen as just another jedi, and one who was killed by Vader during the purge. OT or PT Tatooine is a remote planet that likely doesn't get many jedi visitors so I doubt anyone there would know of Anakin. 

As far as the split personality thing goes, as others have said in the movies it's more like "Anakin isn't my name anymore." Referring to himself in third person as he does in the EU (and the Emperor sort of makes it sounds like they're two different people in the SE) is more of a metaphorical thing that fits with Obi-Wan's certain point of view speech. As for why Vader seemed to adopt a new identity unlike Palpatine or Dooku, well those two kept their names for political purposes. Anakin could have still pretended to be Anakin after he turned (the propaganda being that the hero of the republic has become the hero of the empire) but with the addition of the suit I think he was given a rebranding as a symbol of terror that strikes fear into the hearts of the remaining jedi and rebels. If that's what Palpatine was going for with the suit makeover then it makes sense that the hero Anakin persona would be dropped in favor of a cold and faceless imperial killing machine.

I've always wondered why it was culturally acceptable to wear the confederate flag (and how has it taken so long for people to realize that that shouldn't be okay?) but I'm actually fine with still allowing the flag on shirts and license plates and such. Makes it easier to spot the shitty people and avoid them.

In theaters, it depends who I'm with. Most of my friends will not stay through the credits, and that's okay. I prefer to, though. It is part of the movie, and there's music and all that. It's a good time to digest the film. I always at least stay through the initial sequence (if there is one) because there's usually often cool graphics and shit.

SPOILERS OBVIOUSLY

Theon (Darth Vader) redeems himself by saving Sansa (Luke) from her attacker, Myranda (the Emperor), by throwing her off a railing to her death.

Arya (Luke) fails a test of her mystical powers through misuse of those powers. She causes the death of a man, Jacquen (Vader), but when his face is removed she sees herself, staring back.

Jamie (Luke) reveals how he is actually related to Myrcella (Leia) and she replies with something along the lines of "I've always known."

Exactly 6 months until The Force Awakens. Get excited.

Three by mine.

This argument has become so pointless. Meanings and intentions have been reframed out of existence. Whatever your point originally was is practically irrelevant at this point. You say you meant one thing, but I saw something else. I admit I see the thing you said you meant, and I acknowledge the veracity of that point, but I what you don't seem to understand is that I do not consider your example "so offensive as to consume the whole argument." What your failing to grasp is that my point is simply that the comparison is extreme and unapt. Whether the meaning of your original post is what I said it was doesn't matter. You can deny it (and surely you didn't mean to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and I never said you did; but it truly does seem like your point was in defense of people who don't accept homosexuality, which, as I've said before, is an uncomfortable topic but an okay one to discuss, though my issue was simply in the comparison used to frame the argument) and that's fair, surely you understand your intentions better than I, though I know for certain the implications of your post were obvious whether intended or not. 

But don't you see the vicious cycle we're in?

You make a post that can seemingly be construed to have two different meanings.

I say your meaning is limited and potentially offensive.

You say that wasn't your meaning and that I'm being overly sensitive for seeing that.

I say that I can see the meaning you say it has, but I try to explain why your argument has another limited and potentially offensive meaning.

Then you say (again) that wasn't your meaning and that I'm being overly sensitive for seeing that.

But I say (again) that I can see the meaning you say it has, but I try to explain why your argument has another limited and potentially offensive meaning.

Basically I am not saying that your point is invalid or untrue. I am simply trying to explain why the comparison you made is limited and potentially offensive. What had frustrated me is that you failed to see that. I do not fail to see your point. And what I'm continuing to argue about is something else, and that is my interpretation of your post is not some insane overreaction, it is actually a fairly rational reaction to a very unfortunate implication. You reframed the argument to be an attack on me for not understanding your original point, so I'm merely trying to explain why I saw a different point, and why that point seemed false. I am not ignoring what you say your original point was. Just trying to explain my reasoning.

Thankfully you have finally admitted that the comparison was limiting, which is what I was trying to say all along. But you still think that I am being overly sensitive and irrational. It's unfortunate because I'm really anything but. I'm actually very reasonable.

Perhaps you were right and I was too quick to see your original post as an argument in defense of homophobes when I should have been focusing on what you say was your larger point. But perhaps you too were a little too quick to judge my argument as blind and irrational oversensitivity when the conclusions I gleamed were apparent, whether intended or not. If what you say about your intentions are true, I'll take you at your word and chalk up my interpretation to your post as a misunderstanding. I will say that your original post was not clear as to your supposed intentions, but maybe I have not been clear as well (probably I have not - I dare say I haven't proofread any of these posts). I'll say it one more time, just so there's no more misunderstanding. My argument was simply that I did not find the comparison you made to be appropriate. I was never disagreeing or ignoring what you say was your point. I was just explaining why I thought that wasn't your point and why what I thought was your point was in bad form.

Surely you can see now that much of this argument has been due to miscommunication. I stand by my interpretation of your post in so far as I still believe my conclusions had a solid basis in that post and my criticisms had a solid basis in reason. But if you say that was not your intention, I'm willing to accept that and move on. Hopefully you too can see how I was never arguing against your intended point, just arguing whether it was your intended point. 

I do not and have never considered you a bigot, ender, and I hope you don't think I have. You're a cool dude, but obviously we come from different values and different upbringings so we naturally have very different POVs. It is only natural, I think, that we tend to argue more fervently for issues that align with out political views. Hopefully you can see where my interpretation came from, and understand now that I was subsequently defending that interpretation. And hopefully you believe me when I say that I challenge my beliefs daily, constantly looking at the arguments from the other side to fully understand the issue and those who do not agree with me. Just because I have strong opinions doesn't mean I can't understand those who disagree with those opinions. I'm always down for some open-eyed thinking.

Interesting ender, how you fail to see that I do not fail to see what your "point" was. I have acknowledged it over and over again. Look again at what I've posted and you'll see that I see what you say you meant to talk about. It is you who have failed to see my point or acknowledge it.

You're right, ender I'm not intelligent enough. I'm just, in fact, narrow minded. Nothing I've said has any truth to it. I'm just overly sensitive. 

Is that what you want to hear? 

Well you know it is possible that your the sensitive one, unable to allow for even a little criticism of yourself. Unable to see the very clear implications of a comparison that by all accounts was just bait to get others worked up about. And then as soon as the shit hits the fan, the back peddling starts, and you become the victim, and everyone else accusing you is an overly sensitive ignoramus. But no, ender, I am not overly sensitive, which would be obvious to anyone intelligent enough to read and understand my posts. I have a valid criticism of your post and the fact that you haven't been able to understand that criticism is just ridiculous.

If that's your point it's a pretty thin one. I'm getting "some day values will not be the same as they are now and you may not like that." Sure, okay, fine, I understand that. But the way you made that point was pretty extreme. Yeah, there's a chance that society will get to a point where pedophilia is allowed, I guess there's also a chance that society will get to a point homicide is allowed too. In my opinion, however, society is progressing to become more accepting in terms of individual freedoms. Helping is being favored while hurting is not. Essentially an extension of the the altruistic behaviors humanity gained through evolution. Accepting homosexuality is a part of our altruistic evolution.

On this track, I simply don't see how pedophilia could ever be culturally accepted (and note how it used to be accepted, but is no longer). 

I think I do understand your "point" now but I still disagree with the logic of this particular reasoning. And I hope you understand how easy it is to see the implications your original post was making. You were basically saying "homosexuality and transsexuality weren't okay because they don't make scientific sense, but now they are. If we continue down this path of ignoring scientific definitions, then soon we'll be okay with pedophiles and animal rapists too." Again, maybe you didn't mean to say that, but that was exactly what was said.

And then you went on to make what appeared to be your main point, which was "don't be so harsh on people who find homosexuals unnatural." And you know, yes I think they are bigots. I don't hate them, I understand their upbringing and don't hold it against them. What angers me, and other people, is when those bigots try to encroach on the rights of others. Now I can already hear you typing "but no, don't you see my point? What if that was you fighting against pedophiles?" well, that's not a great argument, I think. I've already made it quite clear how pedophilia is harming in ways homosexuality most certainly is not. And you can say that wasn't your point and it's all about science all you want, but it seems very clearly like your post was in defense of the homophobes (which is okay, I just don't like the way you went about it and have back peddled on it - honestly I wouldn't mind an open-eyed thinking discussion about the tolerance of those who are intolerant). And I will say, again, I am not one who hates. It's not in my nature. So I do not hate homophobes. But I refuse to admit that someone who fights to remove someone else's rights for a victimless crime is analogous to someone who fights against those who would commit a crime with a victim. The comparison is just not right, science or not.

To summarize, I do believe your original point was "you should be more understanding of people who aren't understanding because it may be you someday," which is something I can get behind. There's a lot of power in thinking that way. There are a number of things that are not necessarily culturally accepted that maybe could be. I like to challenge my beliefs and ask myself why I hold those beliefs and who is really benefitting or losing from certain areas of contention. I operate under the belief that a society should work towards the betterment of itself and all its people, and I don't think this is a controversial opinion. I think the general cultural mindset is the same in this regard, and our progression as a society has been working towards this. The day that society starts working backward and accepts harmful actions is a sad day indeed, and the opposite of progressiveness, in my opinion. Maybe someday pedophilia will be culturally accepted. And yeah, I guess I'm the cranky old man in that scenario. But I'm a cranky old man fighting against violence and oppression - I'm fighting on behalf of others. And that's why comparing my cranky old man to the cranky old man of today, protesting Caitlyn Jenner, doesn't make sense. Because he's just angry that his values aren't being upheld. And I guess that's me too. But my values are actually that we should be helping other people rather than hurting them.

Please feel free to tell me again that I've missed the point, but from here it seems like the truth is that the "scientific definition" stuff was merely a way to more intelligently make a comparison between two very different things (and, let's be honest, homophobes are not always interested in the scientific reasons why homosexuality is "unnatural"). It was always about values and morals, what else could define a social norm? Ever changing values and morals are an interesting topic. You were making a "put yourself in their shoes argument," the issue that was had with it, for reasons I have stated an annoying amount of times, is that the comparison you chose to make was quite off the mark, and had some unfortunate implications, whether intended or not. I think even you could say the comparison was a failure because, by your own account, this discussion is far away from what you wanted it to be (whatever that really was is even more unsure now). I just personally found the comparison rather extreme and sensationalistic and quite unapt. When it comes to the basic principles of right and wrong (morals - what social definitions are based on) that helping is right and hurting is wrong, I simply do not see how it could ever be possible for pedophilia to ever fall under the right column.  

We can turn this into a discussion on "what are morals anyway?" and "what is right and wrong?" and honestly that would be much more interesting and worthwhile than whatever the hell we're arguing about right now (and it seems like we're moving in that direction anyway). 

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV's Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

DominicCobb said:

Maybe something like transsexualism is technically a "disorder" but who gives a fuck. If a guy feels like he should be a girl, then why not let him be a girl? It's a victimless act.

It's not quite victimless when it has an impact on loved ones. 

 Oh please.  They aren't victims, they're intolerant.

So if a man/woman

1. Meets a girl/guy

2. Falls in love with her/him

3. Ends up marrying her/him

4. Has a number of children with her/him

5. Spends a good portion of his/her adult years with her/him

he/she's intolerant if s/he one day springs the news that's s/he's transgendered and wants to have a sex change operation, emotionally devastating him/her in the process? 

Sure, I don't think we can blame the spouse for being emotionally devastated, but at the end of the day, it's still the same person, no? Maybe they'll no longer be physically attracted to their spouse, but compassionate love isn't really about physical attraction, is it?

Ender, I'm just struggling to see your point. "Societies definitions change." Something like that. But it's not a question of morals. But aren't those societal definitions based on morals? If not then what is your point?

Non-heterosexuality is technically a "disorder," but society has now decided otherwise. But why else other than "f that, there's nothing morally wrong with homosexuality and such"? How, in our opinion, might the definition of pedophilia be classified as any thing other than a disorder? If we're talking about societal definitions, then morality will always play a part. And since morality will always shape societal definitions, I'm pretty sure pedophilia will still remain a crime and a disorder.

By the way, I do consider pedophilia a disorder. It is a terrible thing, but in many cases those perpetrating it are doing so because of serious psychological issues. So I think as a society we should move away from punishment for these "evil" people, and move towards treatment instead.

But that is still a wholly different thing from homosexuality, transsexuality, and all that. And, whether or not it was your intention, Ender, the implication was clear - gay used to be bad, but now it's not; maybe some day awful things will be okay too. It's the slipper slope argument almost exactly, again, whether you intended or not (but, again, I'm really not sure what you meant to say). And I have acknowledged the scientific comparison. That doesn't mean I can't say the implication is f upped. And I am not being overly sensitive, just trying to call out some bs. 

I think the root of the matter IS this idea of consent, whether you admit it or not. Naturally speaking, consent is not necessary. Look at any other species. But we are a civilized society with norms and rules based on MORALITY. And consensual sex is the only moral sex. Which means pedophilia and zoophilia will always be immoral because they will always be nonconsensual. The day zoophilia becomes culturally accepted is the day rape becomes culturally accepted. Same with pedophilia. What if the kid gives consent, though? Well currently kids aren't allowed to legally consent to anything, sex or otherwise, until they're 18. That's because we are a scientifically knowledgeable society and we understand that children have not developed their brains enough to drink, join the army, live on their own, etc. So the day pedophilia becomes culturally accepted is the day we let kids be thrown out on the streets. If you notice, as a society we're going in the other direction.

@impscum I was talking to ender, who in a previous post made the slippery slope argument I was referring to.

To both you and Post Prae, I am quite aware that our species has evolved to prefer monogamous and altruistic behaviors. That wasn't really my point, though. I was merely stating that, yes, on the face of it, homosexuality does not help reproduction. Well, on the face of it only having one sexual partner is not great for reproduction either, numbers wise. But my point is that doesn't matter. There's no shortage of babies. And we live in a world where homosexual parents can be just as good as heterosexual parents in terms of helping their children develop, whether that child was obtained through natural means or otherwise.

In regards to what causes such things as homosexuality and transsexuality, I too am curious. Is it neurological? Is it upbringing? It is not "normal" per se, but my point in this regard is that, again, it doesn't matter. Even if it is "technically" a psychological disorder, that doesn't matter, because, unlike the other disorders, it's not harmful (in fact the only thing harmful about it is other people making fun of them or comparing them to pedophiles). 

And DE you're going to have to explain yourself there.

Monogamy is not normal sexuality. Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality. This is a two way street. Whatever "normal sexuality" is or was doesn't matter anymor. Open your eyes and get over it. Homosexuality is normal sexuality now.

You may be making a "scientific" argument but you're basically just repeating the typical homophobic "slippery slope" argument more eloquently. 

Maybe something like transsexualism is technically a "disorder" but who gives a fuck. If a guy feels like he should be a girl, then why not let him be a girl? It's a victimless act.

Having sex with children and animals is not victimles, however. That's the difference.

DominicCobb said:

To be clear, there have been a number of BS "Back to the Future Day" pictures over the year. Now that it's actually 2015, I imagine there's probably going to be a new one every day. DON'T GET FOOLED. There is only one Back to the Future Day. October 21, 2015. So not yet, no.

Look what I found! A page with the sole purpose of trolling people everyday:

http://martymcflyinthefuture.tumblr.com/?og=1

I already hate this thread.

Gonna go read another one instead.

I think most of those would not fall under "lesser seen films." I see where you tried to go against the typical choices in some places, though I will say not showing Raging Bull is heresy.

I'm on the executive board of the film society at my university. We too try to watch things that the classes don't show (but there are actually some well varied courses) but were lucky if we show a film a week. I would never be able to find the time to screen every Bond movie, for example (nor would I want to, despite my love for the franchise), and besides I'm not the only voice that decides what movies we watch.

I'm sort of tempted to make my own list of 104 movies now...

To be clear, there have been a number of BS "Back to the Future Day" pictures over the year. Now that it's actually 2015, I imagine there's probably going to be a new one every day. DON'T GET FOOLED. There is only one Back to the Future Day. October 21, 2015. So not yet, no.