logo Sign In

Obi Jeewhyen

User Group
Members
Join date
1-Aug-2006
Last activity
1-Feb-2007
Posts
440

Post History

Post
#260777
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260777/action/topic#260777
Time
Wow, so much to respond to.

I apologize in advance for my scattershot approach.


I deplore some of the stuff that Lincoln did during the civil war. Supsending habeas corpus was as repugnant then as it is now. But I don't hold the morality of the last century up to the standards of this one. That's the nature of civilizational progress. Nevertheless, I don't give Lincoln a pass.

That perfectly illustrates the dangers, however, of a perpetual state of war (such as the War on Terror) --- powers-that-be will be tempted to, and will, use a war state as an excuse to suspend civil liberties (Bush has suspended habeas corpus for captured "enemy combatants" and has violated the 4th Amendment as to U.S. citizens). If a state of war is perpetual, so are the suspensions of civil liberties.

The comparison to the USSR is outrageous. I did not equate the U.S. and the USSR. I said the current administration aspires to be a totatlitarian regime; I did not say it was one. And yet the steps the administration is taking to consolidate and expand presidential power, while thumbing its nose at the authorities of Congress (e.g., signing statements instead of vetos) and the Supreme Court (disregarding rulings re enemy combatants) as well as the Constitution (warrantless searches of U.S. citizens) - clearly indicate a desire to transform this republic into a more totalitarian state - -with power resting solely in one branch of government, rather than a system of checks and balances among three.

This is not an equation either ... but I'm sure many Germans did not realize the step-by-step transition to Nazi rule until it was too late. I'm not saying the U.S. will become that depraved, but it's naive to think entities and persons who desire controlling power and domination won't rise to positions where that can be attempted and perhaps achieved.


As for whether I think any violence is justified ... you won't be surprised to discover that I consider very little truly justified. If you think tens of thousand of Iraqi civilians "got what they deserved" because their unelected head of government was a madman with delusions of dangerous grandeur, then I hope you'll be accepting of your fate when some vengeful Iraqis feel any American gets what they deserve in response to, say, torture at Abu-Graib authorized by Donald Rumsfeld.


In any event ... the Japanese military attacked a military target on December 7, 1941. Their "entire country" was no more behind their war effort than our entire country would become. And our final response to that attack was nuclear annihilation of civilian targets. Go ahead and rationalize that all you please. The depravity of rationalizing a nuclear attack on civilians is disgusting ... but if it will make any of you feel better, go right ahead. And sleep well.



.
Post
#260707
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260707/action/topic#260707
Time
I find it hard to believe that anyone could imagine the subject of Pearl Harbor being brought up on the day after the Iraq Study Group report is issued, and not expect the similarities of the two situations to come into play.

Perhaps if our country wasn't currently an invading and occupying military force, the two situations would not be linked. But that's not the case here and now. Honest people can differ as to who is the aggressor, but there's no denying that the two invasion situations beg comparison on the anniversary of one and the continuing controversy of the other.


For the record, I didn't say I hate America; I said I am ashamed to be an American. Perhaps if our government was the totalitarian regime it aspires to, I would not hold myself or my countrymen responsible for its actions. But, though far from the government for the people, of the people and by the people that the Founding Fathers envisioned, we still have some semblance of representative government in the United States ... and the actions taken by that government are taken in the name of the American people.

To clarify ... I am not ashamed of the American people. I am ashamed of our government, which speaks and acts for the American people to the rest of the world. And I do not imagine the rest of the world as a monolithic entity, but neither do I imagine the rest of the world as having lesser status than the United States. If we have nuclear weapons, who are we to insist that other nations not have them? We who are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war cannot be the moral arbiter of who should have such weapons.

Perhaps we might, on the anniversary of the day the Japanese attacked the United States, also recall the final way in which we responded to that attack, and compare a despicable sneak attack on military targets to a devestating nuclear annihilation perpetrated on civilian targets.


You can rationalize all you want, but I will honor all those fallen by violent attack ... and not merely those from one "side" or another.


.
Post
#260705
Topic
MTV Interview and New Favorite Movie
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260705/action/topic#260705
Time
Originally posted by: CO
SW '77 is a 2 hour movie with a beginning, a middle, and a true ending, and nothing else happens after it. Princess Leia, Luke, and Darth Vader are not related, meaning the Skywalker family drama has nothing to do with anything pertaining to the movie.

Heheh, and this is exactly what I do, and have pretty much always done. Empire Strikes Where? Return of the Who? Heheh, it all means nothing to me!


That said, and shhhh, Star Wars is not my favorite movie. Though it's hard to quantify, I generally concede my favorite as that other 1977 masterpiece, Close Encounters of the Third Kind ... the film that has, for the past 28 years, never been seen in the form I fell in love with. (Le Sigh.)



.
Post
#260681
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260681/action/topic#260681
Time
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
Now, granted, we don't have the OU of Close Encounters on dvd, but that's something I'm willing to let slide because while the original was released in '77, the special edition was a mere 3 years later and the newer effects don't exactly scream "3 years later"

So, it's ok to be revisionist if it's within a certain time frame? I call shenanigans on that!

At least a reasonable facsimile of Star Wars '77 was released on DVD in some format. CE3K'77 has never been released in any home video format ... and Spielberg is far worse the villain than Lucas for that (in my book).



.

Post
#260662
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260662/action/topic#260662
Time
What a difference 60 years makes. Now it is the United States that is the unprovoked aggressor.

Though we did not "sneak" attack Iraq, we were nevertheless completely unprovoked. (Unless, of course, you count violation of U.N. resolutions as a provocation for invasion and occupation ... in which case, where is our invastion of Israel???).


I am ASHAMED to be an American.



But hardly ashamed to be me. So you can stop all the self-hater bullsh!t before you start. I do not have to identify as an American, and I do not. I am an individual human being, and I will not be identified with any of the myriad dastardly deeds of the U.S. Empire. It may not be as bad as the Japanese Empire was in 1941 .... but a rapist may not be as bad as a murderer, and yet both are bad-to-the-bone.



.
Post
#260486
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260486/action/topic#260486
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
So he owns it in any way you could imagine.

No, Go-Mer, we've been over this. There's a legitimate and persistant school of thought about public art which holds that it's owned by the public. Many artists ascribe to this school of thought, as well as much of the public. The law of any particular land goes back and forth on this ... sometimes agreeing that public art is publically owned, and sometimes (as currently) holding that public art is title-holder owned.


Yes, Lucas holds title to the Star Wars films. He has exclusive legal rights to use them as toilet paper if he so chooses. But that's hardly owning it any way imaginable.


Another very popular way to imagine ownership of a movie is to ascribe it to the director as the prime filmmaker, and not the producer as the title holder. There are many ways to legitimately imagine ownership of the films by persons other than George Lucas. If you choose not to imagine it any of those ways, that's your perrogative. But don't be so brazen as to broadly state that your way of imagining must be everyone's way.


It's not, Go-Mer.

Post
#260467
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260467/action/topic#260467
Time
Back and forth is one thing. Argument for the sake of it is another.


Is there really any argument that it would be better for the O.T. to be meticulously restored by current technological standards, and then released anamorphically on DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray? Even accepting that the September release is "ok," would not a pristine release up to 2006 par be "better?" Is there any argument about that?


Ok, further then ... is there any argument that, for historical purposes if nothing else, it would be "better" for Star Wars '77 to be available exactly as it was presented theatrically in 1977? Accepting that later sound-tweaks and subtitles for TV are "ok," would not a full restoration to '77 condition be "better?"


Can we agree on those two items, or is someone going to actually argue that those two things would be worse?


* * * * *

And much as I hate to open the worm can, Go-Mer: can you point me to information about Marquand having little to do with directing Return of the Jedi?
Post
#260322
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260322/action/topic#260322
Time
Check the temperature in Hell, folks ... 'cause I am disagreeing with CO for the first time.


I don't believe future fans will necessarily buy into George's numbering scheme. I think the fame of the films will be such that the numbering scheme will be recognized as an artificial construct and, even if the real first movie is remembered as "A New Hope" (arrrrrgghghgh!!!!), it will be widely known that it was the first movie of the 6 Star Wars films.

(Of course, if the movie could only be properly remembered as "Star Wars," it would always be patently obvious which was the first Star Wars movie. Bah.)



So, until such time as the relics of our civilization are dug up by beings from the 28th century, or from another galaxy far, far away ... I remain confident that all but the most clueless will know that the movies were created 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3. If some retard wants to first watch a movie labelled "1" that they know was really 4th, that's their perrogative ... but they will have no one but themselves to blame for Star Wars seeming lame.

Fortunately, not all the "youth of tomorrow" will be retards.



.
Post
#260308
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260308/action/topic#260308
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Terrorism is an act of War when the terrorists operate from hostile countries where they are encouraged and harbored by the countries.
Agreed. And if that can be proven, then a military response against such countries' military targets would be appropriate. In any case, a military response against terrorist organization assets and personnel on foreign soil is always appropriate. But such a response need not be a "war."


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
If we had treated the 1993 WTC attack as an act of war instead of a law-enforcement issue, then the towers might still be standing.
And if the WTC was demolished by local terrorists, as the Murrah Federal Building was, why is it appropriate to treat one as a crime and not the other? I will grant that a crime committed by overseas perpetrators allows for a military response, as opposed to a law enforcement response. It may even be proper for ongoing military operations to target an entire organization for the purpose of eliminating it. I'm all for a War On al-Queda, or a War on Hizzbollah ... heck even a War on Syria for its support of terrorist organizations - - but a War on Terror is dangerously open-ended.


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
What about the the Taliban? Do. You. Remember. Them?

Yes, refer above to my statement on Syria. A War on the Taliban is legit. A War on Terror is not.


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
The bloods and the crips do not want every Westerner to convert to Islam or die. There's a rather pronounced difference there, dude.

Yes, the difference being that the radical Islamacists have killed under 4,000 Americans, and the bloods and crips countless more. We do not have 'Minority Report'-style crime-fighting or war powers; what people "want" to do is not the issue. It's what they can do and have done.

Frankly, governments do not place any importance on human life. As I said before, the killing of 3,000 people on 9/11 dealt a horrible blow the economy of our country ... and that's what the military response was to ... not to the deaths of our countrymen. As a government purportedly of the people and by the people, perhaps the people should decide other priorities. And if human life were the priority, our resources could go toward defending from likely threats ... and not from the statistically insignicant danger of terrorist attack.


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
The president of Iran wants to bring about the bloody Apocalypse; if that isn't a threat we need to assess, I don't know what is.

Yes, and I assess it at zero. What he wants to do and what he can do are two different stories. It was the same with Saddam Hussein: Surely he wanted to cause mass mayhem ... but, despite the lies told by our Administration, he did not have any capability to. As such, a so-called pre-emptive strike against the country he happened to rule was an act of unprovoked aggression. It is the United States that is the danger to innocents, not Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Madman Ahmadinejad of Iran. They may want to cause mayhem and mass murder, but the U.S. has.

That makes the U.S. every bit a legitimate military target as Iraq was an illegitimate one.






.

Post
#260305
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260305/action/topic#260305
Time
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
If future generations end up watching it on a 16:9 display, Greedo's subtitles will be cut off because the disc is non-anamorphic. Did you ever consider that?

Frankly, the subtitles being below the image is one of the remaining non-restored artifacts of Star Wars '77. The subtitles don't belong below the image, they belong in it. If we are considering Star Wars as a valuable piece of cinematic history, then the proper way to view it is with Greedo's subtitles on the image itself.

Having the subtitles below the image is just as incorrect as not having them at all. Although one of the "wrong" options allows the viewer to translate what Greedo is going on about, that does not make it any less incorrect for historical purposes.



And, yes, I am conceding that the release on DVD, even in shoddy quality, makes it currently available for scholars and others to see a fair facsimile of Star Wars '77 (with the proviso that the audio is altered in many respects and, heheh, Greedo's subtitles are wrong).



.
Post
#260285
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260285/action/topic#260285
Time
There is no war on crime. We fight crime perpetually. It's an ongoing struggle of society. And appropriate resources should be dedicated to it on an ongoing and perpetual basis.

Terrorism is, in fact, no different. It doesn't require a war. To declare "war" on terrorism is to admit a permanent and perpetual state of war. A state wherein abdication of human rights and constitutional rights can be falsely justified and facistically implemented. Not to mention all other the other horrors and economic siphoning that would be a permanent state of being with a permanent state of war.

If we treat terrorism as the crime that it is, we can fight it just as we would any other heinous crime, and battle organizations that commit terrorism the same as we would any other criminal organization.


The danger to our society from terrorism has been insignificant compared to others we are not throwing treasure at. A war is not an appropriate economic or moral response to acts of terrorism commited by ad hoc organizations. Where is the "war" on the mafia? Where is the "war" on the bloods and crips? Far more Americans lie dead or wounded via the acts of these criminal organizations than from those of international terrorists (though I'll grant that terrorism adversely affects our economy to a greater degree with far fewer and less lethal acts of violence).


Risk assessment would be prudent to apply to international terrorism.


And yes, it would be wonderful to rid the world of all despots and evils. Would that we could. And if we could, would war be the proper way to rid the world of evil?
Post
#260267
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260267/action/topic#260267
Time
Originally posted by: JediRandy
ANH has and will “stand the test of time”… film students will still read about the impact of the flicks 100 years from now even with Jar Jar Binks.

But will they be able to see? See the movie that was, in its time, the largest cinematic phenomena ever? That movie ... "Star Wars" of 1977 ... a historical artifact. Not Star Wars:A New Hope:The Special Edition of 1997, 2004 or later.


When I study film, I don't get a colorized and revamped version of Citizen Kane or The General. I get to study film history by viewing film history, and not revisionism.



It would be quite the shame for the 'youth of tomorrow' to only be able to read about Star Wars.




.

Post
#260266
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260266/action/topic#260266
Time
Downconverting's not the issue with older units (like mine) ... it's upconverting. I don't know that it can properly display anamorphically .... I've never seen a control option to switch it from one to the other ... though I also haven't looked too hard, since I don't have a widescreen display. Hmmm, I'll have to dig out the manual.

But, yeah, being a laserdisc/DVD combo, rest assured it was one of the first units ever manufactured.
Post
#260167
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260167/action/topic#260167
Time
Actually, I would count only the first WTC bombing in 1993.

There has been no decrease in the incidence of terrorist attacks on non-U.S. soil. And there's been precisely one less foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil after 9/11 as there was before. Where's the measure of sucess or even progress?


And Stewartism or not, the absurdity of declaring war on a particular tactic should be self-evident. There can never be victory against a tactic.


But we might as well pour as much money into a War on "Terror" as we poured into a War on "Drugs" - because that worked out very successfully, didnt' it?



.
Post
#260165
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260165/action/topic#260165
Time
I have no intention of getting rid of my first DVD player till it dies. It's a combo player that also plays laser discs, and I have an extensive collection of those - - only about 20% of which have I replaced with DVDs, and perhaps will replace only 10% more. Once that player dies, a good part of my film collection dies with it.


(You can just imagine how fast I'm going to dump my extensive DVD collection to replace titles in Hi-Def - - - i.e., on a cold day in hell.)
Post
#260087
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260087/action/topic#260087
Time
I know young people who find the pace of Star Wars '77 to be incredibly slow and boring. Heheh, it's acknowledged on the DVD commenttary that the pacing was ultra-fast for 1977, but lacsidaisical by current standards.

That, and it being the standalone movie that has little if anything to do with the sequels or prequels can make for a very poor experience awaiting anyone who's watched any of the other "Star Wars" movies earlier.


(I still find the "running [pointlessly] around the Death Star" to be an absurd statement. It's a princess-rescue movie that, in '77, harkened back to movies 50 years earlier. If it now harkens back 80 years, I don't see how the nostalgic plot is any less valid. But whatever.)




.
Post
#259607
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259607/action/topic#259607
Time
Though beside the point of this thread's legitimate objection, I actually agree with Go-Mer that the Falcon liftoff and X-Wing liftoff shots are greatly improved in the SE. Ironically, though, it's the widely oooed-and-ah'd shot of the Falcon lifting clear of Docking Bay 97 - - an additional shot - - that messes with John Williams' original score, and the very dramatic moment previously timed perfectly to music of the film's return to outer space after a long stretch on Tatooine.

To which I say: Bah!


And my point is ... even improved special effects do not necessarily improve the film itself. This sequence is - though visually cooler - less dramatically impressive than it was in the original version.


People should leave well enough alone. And if one of the most spectacularly successful and influential motion pictures ever made is not well enough, then nothing is.



.