Hal 9000

She's my mother!

I think I need to go pray.

TV's Frink said:

ALLOL

What is that? "All lol'd?" Everybody lol'd?

TheBoost said:

Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith. 

I know that Christianity at large (though a very wide spread) has differing opinions about Darwinian evolution. Some insist that it has no place, others are willing to integrate it. 

Does the LDS Church have an official position on evolution, or a majority voice? 

Think in terms of the lowest common denominator. 1080p would make the GOUT-sourced bits, among other things, more noticeable. 720p turns out to be a better end product because it blends together better. 

Luke and Leia didn't seem to be twins at all, and then suddenly they were. 

And I don't see how R2 could have gotten behind those rocks on his own. I mean, it's obvious the production crew had to get him back there, and it's no coincidence we don't see him navigate his way out of there on his own. We just cut away and then back, and suddenly he's out. 

I agree that this shouldn't have been made into a trilogy. I did enjoy it, but like the LOTR films, there was plenty of added or altered things I didn't. 

I'm excited for it too. I'm happy Kerr is doing the actual editing this time; he's much better at it than I am.

Torrents are the best way, and I'm unsure if the filesharing links from fanedit.org are still working. I did not set those up to begin with. 

However, Kerr and I are collaborating on a thoroughly improved version of both our prior edits. There will be a successor to Kerr's 6-part book cut as well as a 3-film style version. The plan is to release it at 720p, because Kerr is doing some re-cropping and other fx work. 

It might be a way off, but I'd be surprised if FOTR isn't done by the time the next Hobbit film comes out. 

Hey, what is this?

A three-hour big-event film in 3D and new 48FPS format sounds like a grueling way to spend the first three hours after midnight. I might stand in line for the conventional format, then let the gimmicky version make my eventual second viewing more novel. 

He was never actually there; it was his clone surrogate. 

The Lars homestead might not have gotten a droid that fits the bill, but they wouldn't have been murdered. They probably would have had a less-than-stellar harvest, Owen would have been cranky, and Leia would have put the Death Star plans into that silver 3PO droid. That droid was an imperial spy. Leia gets executed, but the Death Star never finds the rebel base. The films go on, without Luke or Leia, or anything. 

WHAT IT IS, MY DOGE?

Hah, SuperShadow is always good for a Star Wars related laugh. Only there have I seen ideas worse than what we got in the prequels themselves. 

http://electiondayistuesday.ytmnd.com/

Maybe Hayden's ghost appears to apologize to Luke and Leia like in one of the books. 

Picture it, edited together from ROTS outtakes. Hayden looks off to one side, laughs, and says, "I'm sorry!" 

I was just summing up the concern; I don't care what it's called in the menus.

I think the concern is that seeing the title "Despecialized Edition" in the menu right before watching the film only reminds them that the Special Editions exist. 

bump

Maybe it's a garbage compactor stain?

I know that within much of Protestant Christianity, there are two approaches to the apparent ancient cosmology in the Old and New Testaments. (Things like the sky being viewed as a solid dome with waters above it, and the stars being literally within the sky as opposed to far above it.) 

Some choose concordism, that is to say that a proper interpretation of both scripture and science will ultimately harmonize. Some see things like the Big Bang being described within scripture. 

Personally I do not find that interpretation tenable, so I elect for the concept of divine accommodation. This view suggests that God was evidently not interested in giving the ancient Israelites a science lesson, but rather chose to reveal things in terms they could understand. (And hey, if God did want to give us a science lesson today, I'm sure we would be just as ill-equipped to receive it.) For a good resource about this issue, see this lecture: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCAQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dtel7eJGTF8I&ei=bIZ1UMnaOufWyQGlrYHwAw&usg=AFQjCNHlKMY4Dioq_JmAcC-qP6K5rwqgyg&sig2=Y9sUr8j9UEp04jEPIyS3rg

So then, I wonder if something like this could be workable for the apparent "problem" Mormonism has about God's supposed fleshy body somewhere. Does it seem to you that such a concept could be an accommodation, or does it truly need to point to something objective somewhere in the physical universe? That point doesn't seem to be incidental, but rather is a central message being communicated. (i.e. the object being described, not a metaphor to describe something else)

I thought this idea was more central to Mormonism than you make it sound like. Isn't one of the core goals of a Mormon to achieve a similar reign on another planet/world with one's family?

Thanks; I appreciate the time spent addressing my questions.