DuracellEnergizer

skyjedi2005 said:

But no more stories will be told in the old EU prime universe.  Its gone and replaced with whatever Disney is replacing it with much like replacing the real star trek with the JJ version.

The "Prime EU Universe" started coming to an end when TPM was released and stories started being printed which reflected the universe depicted in that movie. When AOTC rolled around, the prime universe collapsed completely.

What's happening now with Disney are only the final aftershocks of that cataclysm.  

SilverWook said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

ray_afraid said:

^There's no accounting for taste. I realized when he first started posing movie ratings that his barometer was screwy and that he's probably quite young. Nothin' wrong with any of that.

I'm sure twenty-six is quite young from a certain point of view. But perhaps I should bring up the fact that I am a fan of older movies, prefer them to newer movies by a very long shot, and that my opinion has nothing to do with "Duh, old movies suck"?

As for why I rated Aliens the way I did ...

I didn't like any of the Marines. They were all asinine douchebags, and I was happy to see them die.

I find it pathetic that a group of Marines -- knowing they're going up a whole goddamn hive of nasty man-killing bugs with acidic blood -- armour themselves in bulletproof vests and helmets only, leaving the rest of their bodies open to damage. I could understand it if this movie were set in the present, but it's set in the far future; am I really supposed to believe that a future civilization capable of building FTL-capable starships can't come up with battlesuits or smart armour?

I don't like how all the mystique and ambiguity of the creature from the original film is taken away by making its species nothing more than giant, stupid ants driven by instinct and nothing more.  

 Pvt. Vasquez would like a word with you. ;)

And I don't see how Hicks could be considered an douchebag.

Vasquez is too butch for my tastes. I also don't like her personality.

And yes, you're right -- Hicks wasn't really a douchebag. He was something of a non-entity, though, and beyond serving as Ripley's love interest, he added nothing to the film.

In the past, I noticed that activity on the forums seemed to die down over the weekends. I don't know if that's still the case anymore -- I don't spend as much time browsing the forums as I used to -- but that could be a reason why.

darklordoftech said:

Dra--- said: ↑

darklordoftech said: ↑

Dra--- said:↑

darklordoftech said:↑

Dra--- said:

"Falling in love" is an idea. "Character trait" is an idea.

All ideas are made up of language; all language is made up of ideas. All actions and events are semiotically packed with language. You can't get beyond language and ideas. What you take to be natural are all socially produced constructs (made of language and ideas).

That's why ideology is so powerful and difficult to destroy.

Passions are not ideas. I'm sorry. An animal that's alone its entire life would still have passions.

What you're talking about is a human concept. "Passions" is an idea. In fact, I doubt any biologist would describe animal "drives" or "instincts" that way. It's too human centric. They would use different language and concepts. Over time, these concepts might change.

That doesn't mean that there isn't some real phenomena out there in the world that language aims to describe. But the only way we can talk about "thing-in-themselves" is through language and ideas. Hence, everything is an idea.

All of Western and Eastern philosophy, including science, embrace this concept. Even science talks of "phenomena" rather than "noumena." The noumena are the "thing-in-themselves" that we can only know through human social constructs.

Let's create a planet. Planets are ideas, after all. Let's resurrect George Washington. George Washington is an idea, after all.

You're still not understanding the difference between phenomena and noumena.

Let's say you have planet making technology. You wouldn't be able to make a planet without the idea of what a planet is.

Let's say you have cloning technology. You wouldn't be able to make a George Washington without a whole range of linguistic and ideational data about what his "identity" was made up of. Identity is a social construct. You could produce an exact clone of GW, but if you didn't fill his mind up with the same ideas and language, you wouldn't have GW.

Anyway, if you really want to argue this position, take a philosophy class. Just because you don't understand a well-accepted concept, I shouldn't have to be your teacher. 

I'm guess this has something to do with the "Sith is an idea" thing. I can't make heads or tails of what the hell the argument being made is, though.

Tack said:

Bingowings said:

 SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

(two of my favorite things combined)

Shame that TPM, AOTC, and ROTS are labelled first, second, and third, though.

^This is why, a few exceptions here-and-there aside, I refuse to read modern superhero comics. I'd rather go on a binge of Batman and Superman comics from the Silver Age than read the pretentious torture porn they publish these days.

^This has to violate the first law of thermodynamics.

ray_afraid said:

^There's no accounting for taste. I realized when he first started posing movie ratings that his barometer was screwy and that he's probably quite young. Nothin' wrong with any of that.

I'm sure twenty-six is quite young from a certain point of view. But perhaps I should bring up the fact that I am a fan of older movies, prefer them to newer movies by a very long shot, and that my opinion has nothing to do with "Duh, old movies suck"?

As for why I rated Aliens the way I did ...

I didn't like any of the Marines. They were all asinine douchebags, and I was happy to see them die.

I find it pathetic that a group of Marines -- knowing they're going up a whole goddamn hive of nasty man-killing bugs with acidic blood -- armour themselves in bulletproof vests and helmets only, leaving the rest of their bodies open to damage. I could understand it if this movie were set in the present, but it's set in the far future; am I really supposed to believe that a future civilization capable of building FTL-capable starships can't come up with battlesuits or smart armour?

I don't like how all the mystique and ambiguity of the creature from the original film is taken away by making its species nothing more than giant, stupid ants driven by instinct and nothing more.  

SilverWook said:

Could there ever be a return to the innocence and crazy fun of the original Marvel run?

Too many people in the mainstream comic book industry are fixated on deconstruction and decompression. Light-hearted, short-running stories are a rarity these days.

^I doubt her name would have been Padmé back then, though ;-)

Hmm ... that reminds me of something I've been pondering over for awhile ...

"Padmé" wasn't even supposed to be her real name even back when TPM was released, was it? "Padmé" was just an alias she was using while in disguise, with "Amidala" being her real name. After all, she was called "Queen Amidala" not "Queen Padmé", and members of royalty are always addressed by their given names, not their family ones. That her real name is and always was "Padmé" is a retcon from AOTC.

In hindsight, this makes Padmé look even stupider than usual. If she's trying to disguise herself as one of her own handmaidens in TPM, then why is she going around using her real name? It'd be like Clark Kent going out into public in his Superman outfit while still identifying himself as "Clark".

I wouldn't mind seeing the license for Star Wars comics going back to Marvel if it meant that all this stupid fixation on the Sith would come to an end.

Of course, if it were to happen, probably nothing would change -- especially since Marvel (along with DC) has become a soulless, creatively-bankrupt machine concerned more with sucking as much money from masochistic fanboys' pockets as possible than treating the characters under their care with any respect or dignity.

RicOlie_2 said:

I never have, do not, and never will watch porn

I envy you. I think I'd have a little more inner peace had I never watched any videos of semen-drenched women degrading themselves to fill some holes (no pun intended) in their worthless, meaningless lives.

Jaitea said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I think it's really cool that Frink finally has a picture of his real self for an avatar.

 No, no this is him:

 Fixed =P

Maybe if Divergent actually dealt with something actually interesting -- such as a time traveller unwittingly creating a series of parallel universes through his/her attempts to alter history -- I'd be interested. But it doesn't, so I'm not.

And now I'm wishing for a movie that deals with that very subject; there just aren't enough time travel movies out there which take the many-worlds theory of quantum physics into account. 

Aliens (1986) - 6.5/10

Arabesque (1966) - 8/10

Nosferatu (1922) - 7/10

The Mummy Returns (2001) - 7/10

Blood of Dracula's Castle (1969) - 2/10

Mad Max (1979) - 7/10

Batman: Dead End (2003) - 9/10

Garfield (2004) - 6/10

Jetrell Fo said:

I am not in to incest because it's nasty like anal sex

 Of course, what constitutes "nasty" always varies from person to person.

TV's Frink said:

Bad puns and jokes?  Why I never!

Correct. They're awful puns and jokes.

=P

ray_afraid said:

Doesn't look like lightning to me. Just looks silly.

 Still -- in-universe, in the book itself -- it's lightning, not laser bolts.

*Googles Lords of Magick*

Lucas likes wasting potential, be it in the real world or the fictional ones he creates.

TV's Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

The only ones that look remotely interesting are Transcendance and Godzilla, which isn't saying very much.

Hollywood continues to fail to impress me.

 Yeah, but you gave the same rating to Wizard of Oz and Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

:p

Yeah, but Wizard of Oz is good because it's so bad, while New Nightmare is good because it is good.

I support incest in cases where both parties involved are in a mutually consentual relationship and there is no history of coercion or abuse between them.

There, I said it. May the mudslinging/accusations of closeted incestousness begin.

TV's Frink said:

I have never posted to increase my count.

 Lais, lais, and more lais!

The only ones that look remotely interesting are Transcendance and Godzilla, which isn't saying very much.

Hollywood continues to fail to impress me.

He can always make up for it in ... the Twilight Zone.