Mrebo

I don't see how Lucas could have reasonably reserved such a right. Disney owns the Star Wars IP and thus can do what it wants with it. The only way Lucas could exercise that control is if he did not give up full ownership. That's a cumbersome prospect which would turn off any buyer.

The problem is what happens if Disney releases the OOT, despite some kind of clause against it. Ownership reverts back to Lucas? Disney has to pay a fine? There is simply no reasonable way to enforce such a clause once Lucas actually sells all his interest. It's simply contrary to the fact that Disney owns Star Wars.

I agree with others on Fox, there's no reason Fox wouldn't want to make a ton of money.

Very good, Tyr. You make me wish I had studied history. Seeing how history relates to current events has to be most of the fun.

My feelings are that I think we end up taking the power at our fingertips for granted. The instant gratification allows us to get lost in a mentally comfortable place. It is astounding that we can instantly connect with any unknown human on this planet. We have the ability to spread our ideas across the globe and create projects that would have been otherwise impossible. These things can be based on our passion, nostalgia, and gratification...but very few people get past the gratification part. We use digital media in the most obvious and simple of ways.

This site is a great example of what can be done. The instant gratification allows the fan editors, book writers, and others the resources and audience for their projects. Not all of us have the skills for these projects but I think there is plenty for people to do if only we thought more creatively.

There is such huge potential to not only be instantly gratified but to benefit from it, at least by giving back to others. Think about how much has been facilitated by sites like kickstarter and other sites devoted to various passions. A question to explore is how do we get beyond merely watching a video, reading a blog, commenting in a forum, what can we do?

^ Well said.

Like I said, I don't believe in recasting, but in terms of general casting I hope they don't choose a bunch of pretty people. I find the model look distracting.

And no major stars, please. That doesn't have to mean casting relative unknowns. I could see someone like Emma Watson.

And just say no to Robert “I actually kind of like Jar-Jar" Pattinson. I understand he was asked by the interviewer...as all big stars will invariably be asked. But I hope the big star impulse is kept in check.

Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine, Toy Story 3) is writing the screenplay...is this good?

Question: did putting an end to slavery spur technological advancement in the South? Particularly in agriculture?

Question: was the issue of slavery, though important to the genesis of the Civil War and detestable to some segment of the population, resolved mostly because it was convenient to do so?

How would we make succession happen though?

This CGI technique, for the time, was a great leap into the future compared to contemporary films such as the previous year's Return of the Jedi, which still used static physical models shot by moving film cameras.

Unconscionable.

Mrebo said:

I really am serious about it. I'm not actually a Republican, never have been. When I registered, I chose no party.

I can not find the words to express how much this shocks me.

For the formative years of my political life, I identified as a moderate. I finally realized the "moderate" label was just a way to convey to others that I'm not nuts, not an ideologue, not like those people you hate in the news, that I'm actually thoughtful. It's an excuse to talk up the positions where I'm less reliably "conservative."

Do I need to endear myself to those who would dismiss me as a partisan? Do I need to constantly attack people who are generally on my side to make a point? I don't think so.

I don't love political parties to begin with but see them as a necessary evil. As I identify most with the Republican Party, I object to dishonest and cheap attacks used in an effort to marginalize it.

So you are telling if someone were to win the Republican primary, but then was arrest for murder, that there is no way for the Republican party to get that person's name off the ballot and have him replaced by someone else?

It would depend on the state's law, there may be provisions for incarceration. There was a certain date after which if Akin did not withdraw the party would have been forbid from replacing him. Mostly the party can declare they do not support the candidate and then not give him money. There may be a state that would allow the party to have the candidate removed from their party line but that is completely speculative and there would certainly be time restrictions on doing so. But I think it's a good thing that backroom bosses of party hierarchy don't have such total control.

 

Mrebo said:

You shouldn't believe the disgusting narrative pushed by Democrats that Republicans don't have sufficient sympathy for rape victims.

and the republicans make the narrative more believable every time an Akins opens his big mouth.

Expressing a principled view against abortion doesn't make one an Akin. With due respect, that is an ignorant point of view. It would be like me calling every pacifist a Jane Fonda and attacking the Democratic Party for being traitorous wimps. And you know what, that basically has been the Republican argument for a very long time against Democrats. It was at least an undercurrent of the attack on John Kerry. Each party tries to push a narrative, cobbling it together by finding a bunch of examples, saying they typify the party. It diminishes independent thought to accept such arguments!

Mrebo said:

I agree Akin was an idiot who deserved shunning. Murdock was talking about how he can possibly have a moral opposition to all abortion. Even if you don't agree with him, it's a respectable position. It's the way I respect pacifists even though I think they are terribly naive.

it may be a respectable position, but it doesn't mean it is wise to call a pregnancy via rape, a gift from God.  Its insensitive.

I'll grant you that. But I wouldn't run a person out of the party for not expressing himself well. You already know I don't agree with his principled stance, but as with many principled stances I respect it. His point was that any life is a gift from God. And Mourdock lost. The party doesn't need to boot out people who take a principled stand against abortion and those believe that life is a gift from God.

Mrebo said:

Mrebo said:

Obama said there should be no restriction on abortion, ever. The Democratic Party removed the word "rare" from their platform when it comes to abortion. To me, that is extreme. If we want to demonize a party based on the issue of abortion it should be the Democratic Party.

of course you'd say that,  you're pro-life. 

Intentionally removing from a party platform the idea that abortions should be "rare" is only objectionable because I'm pro-life?

well who the heck is it going to be more objectionable for, the pro-lifer or the pro-choicer?

I'd hope that people on both sides want it to be rare. That had been in the Democratic platform. But I suppose you're right, rare abortions would be more objectionable to pro-choice people. (I see what I did there)

Mrebo said:

Permit an abortion of a 9 month old fetus is only objectionable because I'm pro-life? No, no, no.

if you were pro-choice you wouldn't find it objectionable. 

walkingdork expressed some...let's say reservations about it.

I like how you've (however unintentionally) reduced Feminism to concern about ladyparts and pro-choice to being pro-abortion.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said: 

The 10th Amendment always applies.

it doesn't apply to sports betting.   

The 10th Amendment always applies. It doesn't always do anything, but as a statement of the balance of power in our federal system it is always relevant. The first question to ask, even when looking at the amendment, is whether the power is "delegated to the United States."

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Sports betting and marijuana aren't named in the Constitution but they are said to fall under the power to regulate interstate commerce.

A great many legal minds, particularly those of a leftward tilt, would end at a fancy argument about why those things are interstate commerce. Because that's all that's technically required by the 10th Amendment.

Conservatives like to object and point at the 10th Amendment, along with other arguments, that construing the Constitution in such an expansive way reduces the 10th Amendment to nothing. Really we should only have to argue that the power is not delegated and that be that - but having an Amendment on our side emphasizing federalism should carry some force, we hope.

Warbler said:

Alan Grayson, Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Carter, Chris Matthews...I have my own list of boogey-people who are extremist incompetent loud-mouthed idiots. If the media was hammering the Democratic Party about them the way Republicans are attacked for this or that person you'd have a very different view of things.

you may be right.   But you can't control the media.   The media is going to target republicans whenever possible.   What the party can do, is give the media less ammunition.

If the GOP were motivated to constantly eat its own whenever the media pounced, we would never get anything done. The GOP doesn't need to be held captive, always on the watch, trying to squash elected people who don't toe the media's standards. Plenty of people like Bachmann, even if you don't. Only her own constituents have a say. I don't want stronger parties than we now have.

Mrebo said:

 If the people of Bachmann's district want her as their representative, that's on them. She's not my cup of tea but that doesn't mean she should be shut out of power.

not saying she should be out of power, but the rest of the party should distance themselves from her and not give her any support.   The party needs to show that it is not just not just a bunch of extreme Christian nutcases like Bachmann. 

And plenty of people do distance themselves. Most go about their day, not feeling compelled to release press releases of party members they disagree with.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

And it's not only the abortion, it's all the ladyparts  issues.

??? 

The most pressing issues based on the alleged threat of the GOP. ??? was my point.

of course feminism doesn't equal abortion.  never said it did.  All I did say was that it is considered a women's rights issue. 

We were talking abortion, you invoked "Feminists." Ladyparts were a focus of this campaign (lol) even if you missed it. It was more pronounced (killing myself lol) than usual, making it THE issue for women, where Mitt Romney was not only going to take away abortions, he was going to take away birth control and ladyparts products. Women were actively reduced to ladyparts by liberals in this campaign.

Mrebo said:

Lots of feminists voted for Romney, if one thinks feminism is something more substantial.

?  I'd like to see some proof that lots of feminists voted for Romney.  I'd be willing to bet my life savings that many more feminists voted for Obama than did for Romney.    

If one doesn't take the stingy view that Feminism = ladyparts, lots of feminists (people who believe in women having equal opportunities) voted for Romney. Or do you think many of the women who voted for Romney wish to be 'put in binders'?

Warbler said:

maybe, but there is no way they'd win a nomination under the Republican banner, and yet Akins was able to do so.  

I honestly don't know if that is true. If Clinton moved to Maine, I could see him being elected there as a Republican. Again, Maine elects liberal leaning Republicans (and yesterday a liberal independent). At least Clinton was sufficiently moderate that I find that plausible.

LOL @ Frink. Don't make me not hate you!

And I don't know how I'm feeling about Politics 2.0

Warbler said:

Although I don't smoke pot and would not want to be around people doing pot(I once walked by someone smoking pot and the smell almost made me throw up),  since pot in not mentioned in the Constitution I would think the 10th amendment would apply.  

The 10th Amendment always applies.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The question is whether the power in question was delegated to the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said the federal government can outlaw pot as an exercise of its authority to regulate interstate commerce. I think that was a bad decision.

The real problem is not that the 10th Amendment doesn't apply but that it is pushed aside to make room for powers with no foundation in the Constitution.The more questionable to exercise of power the louder we (me, ferris, xhonzi, etc) yell about the 10th Amendment.

My roommate freshman fall semester smoked relentlessly. I wish I had stepped in to help him somehow. He didn't return the second semester.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

His campaign was about reducing women to #ladyparts

???

 

it wasn't a Democrat that said women couldn't get pregnant via rape.   It wasn't a Democrat that called pregnancy via rape, a gift from God.    If you want the Republicans to have chance, you need to gets these kinds of yahoos out of the party. 

The first guy was roundly and swiftly criticized by the Republican Party which withdrew all support from him and pressured him to drop out. Blame the man, not the party. A person does not need permission from the party to run under its banner.

I think the party does have some say there.   Do you really think either on of the Clintons or Obama would be allowed to as Republicans?

This is one of the situations where it's not about opinion.  If Clinton wants to be a Republican, nobody can stop him. He can run as a Republican, he can win as a Republican. Obama could switch to being a Republican tomorrow. No permission is needed!

The party really couldn't have prevented Akins from running under the Republican banner?  Need I remind you that Akins was supported by Michelle Bachmann?  There's another nut the party needs to distance itself from.

I really am serious about it. I'm not actually a Republican, never have been. When I registered, I chose no party. When I get around to becoming a Republican, the party will have no say in whether I am one or not. It's not conditioned on good behavior. And if I subsequently run for office the party also has no say. The party can say all kinds of things against me, refuse to fund me, try to do underhanded things against me...but it can't legally stop me. If people in the primary or general election choose me, that's too bad for the Republican Party.

But you should see how good this is! Since the party can't control who is under it's banner, all kinds of non-ideologues can find a place. Senators Snowe and Collins from Maine are pro-choice liberal Republicans who have been frequently criticized.

Mrebo said:

And the second guy, as previously discussed, expressed his personal view (so as to explain his principled opposition to all abortion) that the innocent growing baby should be regarded as a gift from God (how terrible! /sarcasm).

It may be a gift from God to that guy,  but to the woman who was made pregnant via rape, it is her worst nightmare come true.     Can you imagine what it would be like to have to carry a baby from rape in you for 9 months??

Unless you're demanding all those women get abortions, that's not too much of a point. You know I agree that it would be bad policy to forbid abortions in that situation. It's one thing to disagree with his policy position but it's quite another to throw him out of a party for it.

Mrebo said:

 It doesn't need to toss someone out for being 'too' pro-life.

no, but the party does need to show more sympathy for women pregnant via rape. 

You shouldn't believe the disgusting narrative pushed by Democrats that Republicans don't have sufficient sympathy for rape victims. I agree Akin was an idiot who deserved shunning. Murdock was talking about how he can possibly have a moral opposition to all abortion. Even if you don't agree with him, it's a respectable position. It's the way I respect pacifists even though I think they are terribly naive.

Mrebo said:

Obama said there should be no restriction on abortion, ever. The Democratic Party removed the word "rare" from their platform when it comes to abortion. To me, that is extreme. If we want to demonize a party based on the issue of abortion it should be the Democratic Party.

of course you'd say that,  you're pro-life. 

Intentionally removing from a party platform the idea that abortions should be "rare" is only objectionable because I'm pro-life? Permit an abortion of a 9 month old fetus is only objectionable because I'm pro-life? No, no, no.

Mrebo said:

Women dressed up as 'ladyparts'

when and where were women dressed up as lady parts.

 warning: ladyparts ahead

Mrebo said:

Perhaps you cannot see what a demeaning self-parody that is.

all I can tell you is that most feminist groups believe that the right to chose is a women's rights issue.  Just who do you think the feminists voted for in this election?   

And it's not only the abortion, it's all the ladyparts  issues. I think any feminism based on abortion is idiotic as well. Feminism used to mean something more than that. We're not talking about "feminist groups," we're talking about women motivated to turnout and vote because their ladyparts were allegedly imperiled. Just because you're told that feminism = abortion doesn't make it truth. Lots of feminists voted for Romney, if one thinks feminism is something more substantial.

Right now there is a perception out there that the republican party is out of touch with modern times and the common man and minorities, that it is the party of old Christian white men.    And yes, I know the media is to blame for that perception.

Yes, yes, and yes.

The Republicans really need to show that perception isn't that case.   They really need to distance themselves from the likes of Akins,  Bachmann,  Palin, Trump, and Bush Jr.     They have to stop making themselves so easy targets for the media. 

Alan Grayson, Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Carter, Chris Matthews...I have my own list of boogey-people who are extremist incompetent loud-mouthed idiots. If the media was hammering the Democratic Party about them the way Republicans are attacked for this or that person you'd have a very different view of things.

Both sides need to make themselves as palatable to the public as they can. Republicans are greatly hindered because the media wants to beat up on them. If the people of Bachmann's district want her as their representative, that's on them. She's not my cup of tea but that doesn't mean she should be shut out of power.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

His campaign was about reducing women to #ladyparts

???

 

it wasn't a Democrat that said women couldn't get pregnant via rape.   It wasn't a Democrat that called pregnancy via rape, a gift from God.    If you want the Republicans to have chance, you need to gets these kinds of yahoos out of the party. 

The first guy was roundly and swiftly criticized by the Republican Party which withdrew all support from him and pressured him to drop out. Blame the man, not the party. A person does not need permission from the party to run under its banner.

And the second guy, as previously discussed, expressed his personal view (so as to explain his principled opposition to all abortion) that the innocent growing baby should be regarded as a gift from God (how terrible! /sarcasm).

The first guy was an idiot, not for being against all abortion, but because his belief was based in part on pseudo-science and implied women were lying about rape. The second guy unwisely walked into a minefield in an effort to express his moral views. The Republican Party is the only pro-life party. It doesn't need to toss someone out for being 'too' pro-life.

Obama said there should be no restriction on abortion, ever. The Democratic Party removed the word "rare" from their platform when it comes to abortion. To me, that is extreme. If we want to demonize a party based on the issue of abortion it should be the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has reduced the importance of women to whether they get their government-funded abortions. It's always about abortion and Planned Parenthood. Women dressed up as 'ladyparts' and the Obama campaign's blog posted: "Vote like your lady parts depend on it." Perhaps you cannot see what a demeaning self-parody that is.

Maybe I should dress up like manparts and beg men to vote based on their manparts. Talk about the neutering of the American male or some such nonsense. Or you know...try to appeal to people based on economic policies or something.

I sincerely do not expect bipartisanship. Obama is a true believer who is seeking to push American politics in a irreversibly liberal direction. If he wanted to simply be a leader willing to tackle to most pressing issues, working with those other people elected to government, we would have seen him pursue such an agenda by now.

His campaign was about reducing women to #ladyparts and making sure the minorities (who for whatever reasons overwhelmingly support Democrats) turned out for him, along with pandering to the most informed and experienced members of our society: the youth. It doesn't provide the ingredients for mature policy that appeals to people regardless of their demographics (which I idealistically hope to see one day).

Republicans have failed to make an effort to break the liberal monopoly on blacks and the growing monopoly on hispanics. I do hope that rising stars like Rubio can get the Republican Party on a better track on immigration. Obama has pursued NO immigration reform and somehow he's won on the issue. I continue to believe that the Democratic Party is pushing our country (by dividing and pandering) in a bad direction all while calling for bipartisanship.

At least for the second time in her adult lifetime, Michelle will be really proud of her country.

I found Warbler's comment re: ferris more troubling.

Imrahil said:

And Harrison Ford on it:

http://www.starwarsunderworld.com/2012/11/06/harrison-ford-open-to-returning-as-han-solo-in-sequel-trilogy/

 

Surprisingly, he's...interested?

Well not only did he have to deal with Han not dying, he's had many years to mellow about it and perhaps to see more opportunity in the role 30+ years later than he saw 3 years after ESB. Different kind of situation, but it reminds me of Tom Baker declining to take part in The Five Doctors and he later regretted it. Ford has the benefit of not regretting!

Glad the enderFrink feud is complete, I was about to pile on... ;)

Gaffer Tape said:

I don't drink.  I've never smoked... anything.  I've never taken any mind-altering substances.  Well, except for when my wisdom teeth were taken out when I was 16.  That was fun!

Also never smoked a thing. I love my tea and coffee. I go many months between having any alcohol. I've never had a desire for drugs.

walkingdork said:

generalfrevious said:

There is nothing I can do. And now you are asking me to look up psychos on Craigslist?

It would be doing something. Meet the psychos before moving in with them.

Recently an ad was posted there on my behalf. A single response received. An older gay gentleman offered to share his studio. There was no mention of money but there was an ellipsis...

It doesn't hurt to only list an ad.

+1 for Fett survival...

"passing the torch" is a convenient device but Star Wars could go more like Asimov's "Foundation" where a passing of the torch is implicit, jumping ahead by decades or more. I think for it to be part of the same story it basically has to be some kind of torch-passing, else it's a spinoff. I could totally get into an Old Republic saga. I don't think many of us have an objection to separate stories being told. If they are going to continue the Star Wars story from E6 to E7, I do want that connection.

Mrebo said:

I can't tell what's serious anymore.

Bingowings said:

Who cares?

Warbler said:

Ender, Frink,  please tell you guys aren't seriously fighting.

I can't tell what's serious anymore.

Anchorhead said:

Mrebo said:

Okay...I do not understand...at all...casting people who are in their 20s and 30s for these roles.

If the next film is a continuation of the third film, it will have to be recast.  If it's a story taking place 40 years later, then we could expect to see Hamill and Ford.

Hemsworth is 29. Ford was about 40 in ROTJ. Some confusion there. From the rumors, if true, it sounds that E7 would start some number of years after ROTJ (10? 15?). But I'm with Bingo and hope those rumors don't pan out anyhow.

I'm surprised at the number of people who are so emotionally against recasting. I can't think of a franchise more contaminated or more in need of a fresh start that Star Wars. 

Remake the PT? I'm all with ya. That's the contamination I see.

Maybe because the NPR version of the original story is my canon, maybe because I'm EU-only, or maybe because I'm a life-long James Bond nerd - but to me the story is paramount, not the actors.  No two ways about it, actors can sometimes make a character, but if Kirk, Spock, or 007 can be played by more than one person, anyone can.

:P well if the OT movies aren't your primary enjoyment I do understand your position. As a lover of Star Wars as literally defined by the OT movies...it wouldn't work for me. I've been amused and/or entertained by segments of the EU but I see those on a much lower rank. They are on about par with fan-fiction, the only difference being LFL's approval.

I've seen enough General Hospital to see how easily characters can be recast in fluff entertainment. I see major distinctions with 007 and a full re-imagining as in Trek (which I see no reason for in SW). Not about my philosophical objections, though I reallllly hope it doesn't matter. Bingo has a lot of smart things to say on Star Wars and I agree with him here. At least casting should lean toward...a continuation of the series and not a remake...since the latter is not the proposal.

Bingowings said:

she's a female actress of the opposite sex.

It's on other issues that he confuses me.

blackmagicdude said:

Nathan Fillion as Han would make sense.

-_-

Okay...I do not understand...at all...casting people who are in their 20s and 30s for these roles.

I gotta agree with Bingo. Hamill can work out, grow the beard maybe, that would work. Pass the torch for a new story. Nathan Fillion doesn't actually need to be Han Solo. This rebooty (yeah, rebooty) idea makes my skin crawl.

As for Star Trek, that was a full-up unapologetic reboot. In the midst of that I still don't think fans would have been good with an aged Spock played by Jeff Goldblum in pointy ears.

Just sayin'.

If there are...I bet they hate Ewoks >.>