Octorox

@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

Warbler said:

tbh?

to be honest. Sorry, ill try not to use so many abbreviations.

Warbler said:

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

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

vote_for_palpatine said:

so let's just agree to disagree ;).

I'll go a step farther - I am one conservative who believes 100% pure capitalism isn't a good thing. Some - I have to emphasize some - regulation is necessary to keep abuses of the system at bay.

I'll also say that the New Deal did have one sliver of merit to it: it emphasized the idea that people need to keep working. The LBJ model of big government dis-incentivizes work, and that is a bad thing.

I guess we're in similar boats then, we only disagree on what that percentage of regulation is. 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

Warbler said:

vote_for_palpatine said:

Leftists in the US used to love to rail against the government. Funny how that rhetoric changed once they got the keys.

its also funny how  the opposite happen with the Republicans once the keys were taken away from them.  ;)  

Makes sense to me. Of course people are going to support the government when it pushes through policies they advocate (or at least promises too) and they'll be against when it doesn't.

I DO wish the focus was more on policies and less on people, but I guess that's a byproduct of the representative democracy.

Gaffer Tape said:

I'd say for the most part it's gotten better.  However, the current layout they switched to about a week or so ago is just horrendous.  The thing about the success of something like this is that it's a double-edged sword.  While it means better content and apps and better exposure, it also means more rules, more ads, more annoying cooks in the kitchen.

Disagree, I'm a big proponent of the new layout. The biggest thing for me is the change from stars to thumbs up and down, which IMO is a great improvement and gives me a better impression of who liked and who didn't like my videos.

ferris209 said:

Octorox said:

vote_for_palpatine said:

The only reason I compare Obama to a communist is this: he believes in the redistribution of wealth. I admit I'm out of line here. I mean, what could be less communist than the redistribution of wealth?

 

 

So then was FDR also comparable to a communist? Was I mean how is Social Security not redistribution of wealth? Then again, I'm sure his New Deal met similar resistance in it's time.

Yes, we are extremely against the New Deal!!! It has led us to where we are today and has not been helpful at all. I recommend you read New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Destroyed America by Dr. Burton Folsom Jr., it details how the New Deal has contributed to our current economic situation and this sense of entitlement our people now harbor. It is not unfairly critical of FDR and does expound on the few good things he did, so take a look at it.

Book for Book? I recommend The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein (granted, even I find it very biased but I have a huge respect for the author and I think it brings up a good point). However, I know that neither one of us will take each other up on our offers, so let's just agree to disagree ;).

vote_for_palpatine said:

I don't support Social Security either. I know this makes me an evil, selfish, rich person (In reality I am none of those things), but programs like Social Security and Medicare is more "for you, from you" narcotic designed to get you to love the state.

Leftists in the US used to love to rail against the government. Funny how that rhetoric changed once they got the keys.

I think the left is generally too soft on the government (and Obama) too, but not quite for the reasons you believe they are.

Warbler said:

I think Ferris and the other Conservatives here are against the New Deal as well. 

I wouldn't call Obama a Communist, but I'm not so sure I'd call him a moderate anymore. 

Probably not on our scale, but on a global scale I'd say so. (although I don't want to make assumptions here, I'm still in very much a learning stage when it comes to politics and dont want to seem like a know-it-all) 

I always thought this site had a neat way of looking at political spectrums, but I can't say as to it's accuracy, just throwing it out there

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

ferris209 said:

Octorox said:

vote_for_palpatine said:

ferris209 said:

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:

Warbler said:

why cardiograms and Ekg's be covered and not stress tests?

You're right, none of them should be covered.

I don't get it,  first you say  Echo cardiograms and EKG's should be covered but not stress tests.  When I ask you why, you change your mind and say none should be covered.   Please explain. 

Nah. Nevermind. Leave it to Dear Leader Obama to decide.

 Like giving free breathalyzers to kids. Available in all 57 states.

He clearly meant 47 -_-....And I like how you guys are comparing this unabashed moderate to a communist.

You honestly think Obama is a moderate? That is insane.

Yes, at least in practice. He has a way of turning everything he sets out to do into a compromise and then saying that its "okay" and still "a success". He's not forceful enough in supporting the policies  that people voted him in for, he wants to make everyone happy. I mean the healthcare bill doesn't even have a public option (I mean, Canada has a single payer system and they don't seem to have turned into a totalitarian state yet) and he turns it around into a resounding success, even though I'm sure most of his supporters would have wanted at least a public option.

I was listening to a speaker who pointed out something interesting, which I think makes a lot of sense. The left in this country are too sympathetic to Obama and his overall wishy-washyness. We focused all our support onto getting him in office rather than advocating particular issues and policies. Now, whenever he falls short of an expectation, we want to "give the guy a break" and make excuses. The problem is that, even though he's in office, he's just one guy, and (rightfully so) is not responsible for every decision this country's government makes. The cult of personality around Obama was too high imo, and it's kind of why he's not meeting the left's expectations.

vote_for_palpatine said:

The only reason I compare Obama to a communist is this: he believes in the redistribution of wealth. I admit I'm out of line here. I mean, what could be less communist than the redistribution of wealth?

 

So then was FDR also comparable to a communist? Was I mean how is Social Security not redistribution of wealth? Then again, I'm sure his New Deal met similar resistance in it's time.