RicOlie_2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxoUUbMii7Q

John Branyan - The Three Little Pigs Diminutive Swine

But it's no longer available... :(

What's your first language?

[Whoops...deleted due to minor spoilers--not that they were any worse than ratpack's, but still...].

(1-Bumping the thread) I bumped a thread from 2005: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/My-theory-on-when-O-OT-will-come-Just-a-theory/post/733717/#TopicPost733717

(2-The results) Silverwook found it mildly annoying (or maybe not--it's hard to tell): http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/My-theory-on-when-O-OT-will-come-Just-a-theory/post/733719/#TopicPost733719

(3-The profit/monetary gain/entertainment value) There wasn't any profit, I didn't make any money, and it was only entertaining so far as it meant I wasn't performing the boring activity I was supposed to.

(4-A lesson learned from this experience) TV's Frink is a bad influence. I think I should only bump threads in Off Topic in the future.

(5-What I should have been doing instead of bumping the thread) I had math homework!?

Pretty bored... I should avoid OT.com when doing math homework. :P

I promise not to do it again, Silverwook.

*hangs head in shame*

CO said:

I am thinking when Lucas releases the HD-DVD Version in 2007, just a rumor, but you hear it all over the internet. Here are my reasons why:

It will be a box set of all 6 movies, including updated scenes and effects of all 6 & plus the O-OT as a seamless branching version. It will also have the deleted scenes from the OT we didn't get in the 2004 DVD release, and new featurettes on the saga as a whole. This way Lucas covers all markets: He gets the fans who want a box set of all 6 movies (prequel gushers), the fans that were waiting for all 6 to be released (small group, but there are some out there that are still waiting), and all of the disgusted OT fans who are clamoring for the O-OT on DVD. This way, it will make everyone happy in one big box set, and it will cover all bases of SW fans.

The theory I think on why they will release the O-OT on DVD with the boxset is, they know many fans who are disgusted with the PT, won't be interested in a new boxset, but putting the O-OT with those updated movies, how can we resist?

It is just a theory, but as much as I bury Lucas, and feel he has lost it sometimes, he is a damn good marketer, and he knows when SW can make money, as Yoda would say, "Making money, that he has never lost the ability to do!"

 I think this is a really great theory.

*cough* *cough*

Um, yeah.

My egotistical self is wondering* why this hasn't been implemented yet.

*Not really, of course.

darklordoftech said:

Koryo Songhay said:

darklordoftech said:

Koryo Songhay said:

If new movies happen sooner i could easily see massive sith and Jedi armies, it just looks exciting.

It doesn't look exciting. It looks boring. It also destroys everything good about lightsabers. When it comes to lightsabers on screen at once, less is more.

Few lightsabers on screen at once = Star Wars, Many lightsabers on screen at once = glowstick rave

 tht's like saying all martial arts fights should be between 2 people in movies. You gotta mix it up a little, it's not 1977.

I actually do think that armies of sword wielders inherently suck. The reason that the OOT didn't have armies of sword wielders was because there were people to say no to Lucas, not because of technical limits.

 Citation needed.

Perhaps he just hadn't thought of it, or the fact that there were a very limited number of Jedi in the OT eliminated that possibility?

dclarkg said:

His/her face remembers me a little bit of general Grievous

 I suppose this remembering of yourself happened after you were dismembered by the above-mentioned general?

^That looks suspiciously like the calendar I use when writing sci-fi.

I don't recall anyone named "darth with a red lightsaber"....

Where I live, electric trains are model trains. However, I guess model trains don't feature much outside of family and kid movies, but in those cases the same rules apply as for real trains.

^"Unsaid" would be more accurate.

DrCrowTStarwars said:

If you are a male character you can have forty pounds of mussel despite the fact that you will never been seen once lifting weights and you character may be kind of a slob who eats nothing but junk food and and has a job like a doctor or a writer.

 Can't say I've ever come across that before in a movie or TV show. Where does he usually keep them all? The deep freeze?

Is the root of a word an interfix, or just a fix?

Bingowings said:

There is no quel but prequels, paraquels, interquels, metaquels etc exist (sequel has an independent etymology).

 French has quel--not to mention quelle, quels, quelles, lequel, laquelle, lesquels, lesquelles, dequel, dequelle desquels, desquelles, duquel, auquel, and auxquels.

dclarkg said:

It looks meh... Not bad neither. If it's real (and according to the link it is) we hope they develop a very good complex character.

 Using the royal "we", huh? We think that's very arrogant of you.

You worry about that pawn, ender, I'll worry about keeping him out of the pleasure garden.

I still haven't seen the second Captain America or the second Thor movie--or, for that matter, any post-Avengers Marvel movies aside from Iron Man 3. Hopefully I'll get around to seeing them within the next couple years.

AntcuFaalb said:

What's your opinion on this, d_e? http://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

I came across it on Reddit recently.

 Ender, could you elaborate on your thoughts about the following specific points outlined in the letter (or whatever it is) that AntcuFaalb linked to?:

• Why were there multiple, contradictory accounts of Joseph's first vision? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing one would forget enough to contradict oneself on (p. 23 in the PDF);
• There is, of course, the issue of Joseph translating Egyptian artifacts which were later translated yielding a completely different result. I believe you've explained this before in this thread, but if I recall correctly, you simply (I don't mean to imply that you're a simpleton here, just that you don't have complicated beliefs on the subject :)) believe that the Egyptian texts have a dual meaning, and I'm curious why you believe that (pp. 25-30);
• Joseph Smith was shown to be unreliable with his denial of his polygamy, so it seems quite possible, if not likely, that he was unreliable in general. If he got thirty-one witnesses to sign in testimony against Joseph's polygamical practices, should one consider the testimony of the witnesses to the golden plates any more reliable? If Joseph Smith was known to lie, and used his leadership to pressure numerous women and girls to marry him, while forbidding polygamy to all other Mormons, how can anything else he said and claimed be trusted ? (p. 34);
• Some of the witnesses were apparently unreliable (I forget what you wrote previously about the witnesses, so perhaps the others make up for the following): 

Martin Harris had mortgaged his farm to finance the Book of Mormon, and thus would not be an unbiased witness (and not to the golden plates themselves, but a cloth-covered object supposed to be the plates), not to mention that he had belonged to five other denominations previously, testifying to the truth of all of them at various times, and Mormonism wasn't the last (pp. 52-53);

David Whitmer later testified that he had been instructed by God to split off from the main LDS Church, so one must either pick and choose among his testimonies or join his sect (p. 54);

Oliver Cowdery has a stronger case, but he was still a scribe and co-founder of Mormonism, so he could have easily been in cahoots with Joseph Smith in fabricating the Book of Mormon (p. 55);

• James Strang split from the LDS Church, and though I don't know much about the history of that, it seems that most of the witnesses followed him. If they were duped by James, why not by Joseph (pp. 57-60)?;
• There exists no extant copy of the testimony of witnesses of the golden plates (in the oldest copy of it, the "signatures" are all written by the same hand), so there seems to be no conclusive evidence that the testimony was actually signed and agreed upon (p. 60);
• The Testimony of Three Witnesses, which included Martin Harris, stated that they had beheld the plates and the engravings thereon, yet Martin Harris stated multiple other times that he had only seen them when covered with a cloth, and also that he had seen them with a spiritual eye. All three of those are very different things, and he seems not to have remembered what he saw. It appears he was making things up, and though he never retracted his statements, as far as I am aware (and from what I understand, left Joseph's church for James'), so it seems quite plausible that all the eyewitnesses were making it up (pp. 60-61);
• On the witnesses never retracting their eyewitness statements, see page 60 (although I take issue with the fact that he says none of the Marian apparitions were true ;));
• The summary in the conclusion about the eyewitnesses is also something I'd like you to address, if you don't cover it in your answer to the above.

Take your time answering me, and don't feel like you have to answer me all at once. I expect that some things you have a ready answer or set of links for, but I can wait for anything you want to spend a bit more time explaining. If you already explained something earlier in the thread, and I've forgotten about it, then link me to your post to save you some time.

I look forward to your responses.

CatBus said:

Fatty Bolger, Tom Bombadil, the Barrow Downs, Scouring of the Shire, I was very pleased Jackson et al saw fit to cut all of these out. Let alone Tolkien's more overt royalism and racism.

 I agree that Tom Bombadil didn't belong in the movies, but the scouring of the Shire? I loved that part of the book.... I suppose it would have made the movie too long, and made the ending feel less bittersweet and more bitter. Frodo leaves the Shire quite a few years after returning to it in the book, which wouldn't have worked as well in the movie. Still...

generalfrevious said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I think the movies do a reasonably good job of it. At least a large amount of the material he's using to supplement the Hobbit movies is from other works of Tolkein, if not The Hobbit itself.

 Scouring of the shire.

I don't think mixing the Hobbit source material with other middle earth stories is exactly the best route to go in hindsight (LOTR and its appendices work better though). And isn't Evangeline Lilly's character in the Desolation of Smaug a completely made up person that never existed in Tolkien's books?

 True. Among my favourite chapters in The Lord of the Rings was the one about the scouring of the Shire, and I hated the addition of the girl elf falling in love with a dwarf and Legolas's interest in her. However, there wasn't a whole lot else I didn't like. The movie dragged a tad at times, but I didn't mind much. The book isn't much different, and I'm a book guy, not a movie guy, so I have no problem with long, slowly-paced movies.

"Spoiler Alert!" it says. "If you don't want to see it, stop reading!"

And it has the picture at the top of the page, just cropped a bit more and blurrier.

I don't like it. He looks far too much like Darth Revan, or a generic Sith Lord. I'm hoping for something a bit more original in the final film.