Octorox

TV's Frink said:

Culture Clash!

O.O

I WANNIT!

also, VCR

Had no knowledge of this, happened before I was born.

Here's what wikipedia has to say, it seems a bit more neutral than your report, which seemed much more heavily critical of MOVE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

eek, double post. sorry about that

Also, although I didn't care for this movie all that much, I have to disagree with some of the ideas behind your edit. Avatar isn't just a heroes' journey, it's a parable, and I feel that by cutting out some of the environmentalist themes/plight of the Navi/2 dimensional characters you're really messing with the themes and message of the film.

Just so you know, unobtanium is not the actual name of the mineral, it's a figure of speech. The figure of speech was kind of used incorrectly in the movie though, a better example would have been the element Tony Stark needed in Iron Man 2. 

"In engineering, fiction, or thought experiments, unobtainium (also spelled unobtanium) is any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material, or (less commonly) device needed to fulfill a given design for a given application."

C3PX said:

Octorox just made me feel really old. But that is okay, because Fink made me feel kind of young.

Don't feel bad c3ps, I saw bkev's post and I just thought it was about time us youngin's capitalize on this thread. At least you can buy alcohol and poison your liver. I'm limited to my lungs sadly...

Oh wait, do educational games count? I remember Freddi Fish! Although all I remember is this knot challenge that was really hard :/. I played educational computer games before Pokemon Snap.

If we could go past 2000 I would mention Pokemon Stadium and Paper Mario as big games for me, as well as The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (was 12 when I played it and its probably still my favorite game of all time)

^^^^^^^

There ain't no party like a Mario party!

Sadly a lot of the ones I want to put came out after 2000 :/. Pokemon Snap! is the first game I ever played at the young age of 8 or 9ish and that came out in 1999

TV's Frink said:

Woo-hoo!  I love shenanigans.

I'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says Shenanigans!

brash_stryker said:

If you're using the PC version of Mass Effect, use the program 'Fraps' to record everything on screen and all audio. You need to buy a licence in order to use it legitimately without it adding watermarks to your videos, but it's cheap and pretty worth it. I used it for recording in-game footage for a short film I had to make in university.

http://www.fraps.com/

yeah, not sure if im going to end up doing it this summer, but if I do i'm probably buy the PC version just to get better PQ and less hassle.

haraldo23 said:

No no no no. You guys misunderstood me. What I meant to say with that whole "Anakin-to-Vader transformation" was - 

that scene where those robots transform Anakin into Darth Vader, not the whole emotional converting process through the trilogy (that pretty much sucked).

I was just talking about that one scene at the end of ROTS. It's a cool scene which I was really looking forward to see 5 years ago and I'm still very excited about it when I see it.  And I think  that it should stay and should not be removed.

 

100% agree.

@sans_fi

I like the idea of Grievous grabbing Anakin's saber, but I don't think Anakin needs to grab Grievous's. Can't we just imply that he constructed a new saber between being indoctrinated and the Mustafar battle? It would also imply some passage of time of you move things around a bit so Anakin's turn won't seem as sharp or sudden.

Also, Grievous taking his sabers from dead Jedi makes him such a badass and in the 2D clone wars series (he's like a jedi slayer, a prototypical Darth Vader). but I agree that in the film it does nothing and I think he looks more menacing with red sabers.

So, Kyle Newman (director of fanboys) just tweeted about Building Empire. called it GENIUS. I believe hes seen and commented on Adywan's work too but I'm not sure.

http://twitter.com/kyle_newman

Maybe a general forum for discussion of Star Wars Fiction and Lore? That includes discussing changes to the fiction made over the course of the EU as well as ideas for rewrites and revisions. Maybe have separate boards for Star Wars film discussion and Star Wars lore discussion?

The way I see it the dream sequences are the easiest way to influence the edit. They can imply things and create emotion without too much seamless, continuity style cutting necessary. The content of these sequences can radically alter the film.

Why is everyone so against dream sequences :/ its a lot more efficient than having Anakin explain everything he's feeling to Padme. I'd keep the dream sequence but after Anakin wakes up I'd have him leave the room, Padme notices and looks worried, and then wipe to the next scene in the jedi temple, cutting out the balcony convo. That way it's ambiguous where he's going. He could be going to Palpatine for all we know.

I love the change to the dream sequence. I say definitely keep them in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcDeNo6KUs&feature=channel

lookin' good. I was really enjoying that BBC Robin Hood series a while ago though. It was a lot of fun.

Eh, I just can't get into COD. The real-world setting doesn't appeal to me much and It doesn't really feel like it has the signature balanced Gameplay that makes Halo great. That said, Iv'e only played it a few times, and I was just thrown into my friend's games, so idk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUv98eWVnL0&feature=player_embedded

humanah humanah humanah........*drools*

WOW. Looking forward to this edit.

doubleofive said:

The only reason I want a Wii is Virtual Console.  Waggle controls can die for all I care.

not a huge fan of motion control, but I like the pointer control in fps's. Too bad there are no good ones on Wii.

The solution: get both. I have a Wii and a 360 and they're both fun. Honestly I play the 360 way more though. I was always Nintendo exclusive until this generation but the deficiency in online multiplayer on the Wii convinced me to get a 360 and I'm glad I did.

Gaffer Tape said:

Really?  I see that as rather annoying, actually.  I much preferred the ratings.  The ratings seemed slightly more inclined to pinpoint how good or how bad something was rather than just a flat out "good" or "bad."  And also, the new layout for comments is just a wreck.  Just an ugly, useless wreck that's nigh impossible to piece together.

AND WHY DOES YOUTUBE FRIENDS STILL EXIST?!  IT SERVES NO PURPOSE!

Let's face it. Most people on youtube are opinionated. The vast majority of people give videos 1 or 5 star ratings. Being able to see the exact breakdown of how many liked it and how many didn't is far more useful to me than the older system. Also, I thought youtube comments were always impossible to piece together.

vote_for_palpatine said:

instead having a large government or a small government,  what about a medium sized government?

A fine idea, but what is the medium? If you put Shaq into a size medium shirt, it would either rip to shreds or kill him. Put that same shirt on Kristen Chenowith and you won't find her for days.

Also, tbh=to be honest.

I think efficiency, openness, and honesty are more important than size

The problem is, we are always promised these things in the run-up to elections, and we never get them. So we end up getting behind the rhetoric we like, and the only thing that changes is that government encroachment expands no matter who's in office.

Personally, I'd prefer things like defense and healthcare in government hands as opposed to corporate ones. I don't believe either should be looked at as an opportunity for profit

The vast majority of life-saving drugs and advanced weaponry were developed here because of the profit motive. Talented people, the people who develop these things, deserve to be compensated for their talents because there is a big demand for these things. What happens when we reduce/remove the incentive to develop the next wonder drug? The next smart bomb? They'll take their talents to someone who will pay the going rate for their labors. Maybe - hopefully - that someone will be friendly to the United States. I'd rather see us continue to produce these things and sell them to the world rather than buy them.

The reality is that we are all motivated by profit. I think a better economic system is one which integrates that dynamic rather than rejects it. The Soviet Union didn't exactly dazzle the world with its exports back when it was one of the world's two biggest superpowers.

I don't think we should be so eager to produce things designed to kill people -_-.

 I once heard that the problem with socialism is that people are lazy, and the problem with capitalism is that people are greedy. I'd have to say I agree, and It's why I generally advocate a middle ground. (although my middle ground is probably more left than yours) 

Also, I trust the Democrats a bit more when it comes to  openness and transparency of government (The Bush administration was really clandestine) but neither party is absolutely great on that front.

ferris209 said:

“The Free Market is the most transformative of economic systems.  It fosters creativity and inventiveness.  It produces new industries, products, and services, as it improves upon existing ones.  With millions of individuals freely engaged in an infinite number and variety of transactions each day, it is impossible to even conceive all the changes and plans for changes occurring in our economy at any given time.  The free market creates more wealth and opportunities for more people than any other economic model.” - Liberty & Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin

You posted an opinion from a manifesto. I could do the same if I wanted to. The market can be a great catalyst for innovation of its excesses are trimmed. But honestly, it seems the best way to make money today is exploitation of economics and making money off of money and not true innovation and advancement. The market can be a drive for innovation but it can also be a drive to cheat the system. 

The government is there to serve the people. Corporations are there to serve their shareholders. I think I know who I trust with the security of my well-being and of the nation's