Tiptup

Looney Tunes would be a better fit for Grevious.

C3PX said:

The N64 was on top as far as graphics went, PS couldn't touch it. But PS could do video and audio that the N64 could never dream of, not thanks to more power but thanks to a CD drive and 650mb of space. Even with PS's beautifully pixelated videos, the N64 still kicked the PS pathetic little ass.

The N64 did not kick the ass of the PSX (despite the fact that I would have wanted it to). In terms of sales, the Playstation won that generation of the console wars and that wasn't just a fluke. The CD drive afforded more than just easy video and audio capabilities. For instance, games with complicated textures or other pre-rendered images were simply not possible on the N64 without their detail being reduced to crap. What was the point of having solid rendering and softened graphics to display blurry textures? It was also rare to see an N64 game that was long and involved. CD was the format of choice at that time and Nintendo made a huge mistake. After the first few generations of PSX titles it was very rare to find a game that wasn't well optimized for quick load times. Nintendo was just being stupid.

Jay said:

 

I complimented the GameCube a few posts earlier, calling it a fine and underrated piece of hardware. I still have one, but boxed it up once I got the Wii thanks to the backwards compatibility.

But a GameCube with a higher clock speed and jacked up Power Glove is a piece of shit in this generation. If you can't see that, you don't know what you're talking about and you don't know hardware.

Ahh, I missed your compliments of the Gamecube. I was just clarifying that it was the console I was mostly referring to when I was commending Nintendo's skill with hardware. Even the Virtual Boy was an impressive gizmo to me (even though I couldn't play it due to my glasses).

Otherwise, the Wiimote is no "power glove." I owned a power glove and it actually was complete and utter shit. For the sake that I know you're not an idiot I'll assume you're using hyperbole with that comparison. Same thing goes with the rest of the Wii being "shit." Between its control potential, storage and data access potential, and solid manufacturing, its hardware is nice. While I agree with you that it is weak in terms of graphical power, there's more to appreciating hardware than just that alone (and, even then, it's not "shit"). (Not to mention, as you yourself just said, it was the first Nintendo console system that allowed backwards compatibility.)

Jay said:

Nintendo's hardware is shit and they're getting by on sad nerds with dreams of swinging real swords. Sorry.

Nintendo came out with a control device in this latest generation that has great potential and that is nothing near "shit." Microsoft and Sony are scrambling to copy it. Not to mention, the Wii is a solid system with respect to it's non-3D-rendering capabilities (quality components and all of that). One of the biggest problems is the way Nintendo has crippled the use of the Wii's potential with limited "channels" and sheer bullshit like that (it's one of the key reasons I never purchased a Wii). The homebrew mods people are doing with the Wii are pretty sweet and show how serious of a console it could have been had Nintendo not been idiots.

Otherwise, the Wii aside, I was mostly referring to the Gamecube as a great piece of hardware. It was an awesome litle device for its time (for the price). If you want to call that shit then you don't know what you're talking about and you don't know hardware.

You're absolutely right, DC.

Nintendo's curse of late is that they make great hardware, but can't get anyone to respect it. As much as I love Shigeru Miyamoto, I sort of blame him for this. He thinks his vision for gaming (which is admittedly brilliant) is the only vision that people should have for games. It all started with the N64: it was a great system but it NEEDED a CD drive! After that, when Nintendo had learned its lesson and made a perfect peice of hardware in the Gamecube, nobody knew it because Nintendo didn't really care about what they had created (because of Miyamoto). I'm glad they're still making tons of money, but fads only last so long. As a fan, I worry.

skyjedi2005 said:

I'm no Lucas apologist but i think you guys may be taking Star Wars a little too seriously.  It is a movie serial, despite how good the original trilogy was.

It is not supposed to be representing reality.  You can argue Lucas went against canon in terms of story or changed the rules his fictional universe operates out of, but making claims to great drama out of the original trilogy is a bit of a stretch.

I mean you have a super weapon that destroys planets.   That in itself is straight out of science fiction Pulp like smith's Skylark 3.  Examined in reality it is laughable.   You also have sound in space laughable.  The physics are all laughable.

That is why is is a piece of daydream fantasy than real science Fiction.  That is why Lucas calls it Space Fantasy and why the films open " A Long Time Ago.  In a Galaxy, Far, Far way."  Its the same as once upon a time.

Star Wars was a boys adventure wish fulfillment piece Lucas crafted out of his own childhood reading comic books and watching serials like Flash Gordon.

I can't agree with this.

Star Wars is filled with a lot ridiculous content, sure, but that is not what it is about. The movie has likable, realistic characters that live within a world of charming, refined depth that goes far beyond a far-fetched, poorly constructed film made to entertain unsophisticated minds. As a result, the goofy aspects of lightsabers, Death Stars, giant lizards and incompetent Storm Troopers are ignored because the movie doesn't have them as a focus. The good, realistic aspects of those sensationalistic elements are focused on with such skill there's really not as much space left in our minds for the remaining, obvious flaws. In other words, we care too much about the characters and the other likable aspects of the world to be bothered by flaws because those elements were crafted in such amazing ways. You do Star Wars a great disservice when you compare it to some old-fashioned, hokey and unrefined serial.

It wasn't just stupid children that liked Star Wars. Adults and critics enjoyed the films too. That kind of widespread success didn't merely come from George Lucas' desire for the movie to recreate the kind of goofy entertainment he loved as a child. If the insecure George Lucas of today could be more honest, he'd admit that he was trying to do more than that. Also, he'd admit that many other people input their own unique sense of vision and excellence into the original trilogy just as well. Altogether, they helped him fashion his concepts (which were already of higher quality than his beloved serials) into something great.

JediSage said:

Is anyone else getting tired of seeing that shit on TV, the net, and in print? How many damn lists need to be compiled? A great way to use stock footage, but other than that...useless.

Yes. It's fun to know people's opinions (in some cases), but it's offensive for magazines and networks to get together a bunch of schmucks and pretend they're dispensing something more legitimate. I can't imagine why people can be interested by this nonsense without some proper context for it all.

In general, though, I sort of wish people would stop focusing on the whole damn "list" aspect. As if their limited exposure to the world (and memory of the world) is able to discern the "top" number of anything. The focus of ranking should be why you like what you like since that's more meaningful than a number.

rcb said:

how do you change that?

You don't. You ignore it.

How very sad. She was a fantastic lady from everything I could tell. I loved her role as Lwaxana Troi, she was always great as the computer's voice, and her beginning as Number One and as Nurse Christine Chapel in the original series was always neat.

skyjedi2005 said:

This Trek has an alternate canon history though.  So it does not feature the real earth1 universe Spock, Kirk or bones it like another universe completely.  JJ could have just as easily made it a mirror universe movie instead of a timetravel one to explain away the changes.When i say the real Kirk and company i mean in terms of fiction obviously and not real life, its to draw a distinction between Star Trek Universe A the real Star Trek, and Universe B the JJ tangent.

Well, it seems like they aren't really revealing what the specific time issues involved will be. It might actually be cool. And as for JJ's new take on Kock or Spirk, I'd hope he's a fan and wants to preserve and stress what he likes about those characters. However, we'll see where it goes.

skyjedi2005 said:

It could be a good movie and will still not be real canon Star Trek.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. Whether good or bad, I'll probably be separating a lot of what will be in this movie from what I've liked in the past (to preserve my like for what I currently like). However, what is "canon" Star Trek? To me, Star Trek is filled with so many goofy contradictions and such that you can't take the "canon" too seriously or your head will explode.

TMBTM said:

I don't say that the result is great (far from it), I just say that it was an interesting idea and it should be respected as an artist vision.

Agreed. If Lucas wanted to take the series somewhere else, it was his choice. Just goes to show, though, that he can't be faithful to any of his past concepts. Also, he has no sense of subtlety or precision whatsoever.

Hunter6 said:

HotRod said:

It's just a movie that no one has bloody seen yet!!!

Hotrod,  I understand you do not understand why some trek-fans are mad about this new movie. What I do not understand is why you keep posting a forum on about Disliking this new Star Trek film. You are free to do so, but I'm also free to ignore you.

He makes a valid, on-topic point, however. The ultimate test for suckage will be when the movie comes out and we can judge the final product. If you want to attack specific issues that you don't like, from what you know now, and assume the movie will be horrible, that seems okay, but if others want to disagree with your assumption and wait for the movie to be released, that's okay too. (I'm sort of in between: a lot of stuff I'm hearing and seeing looks dumb, but perhaps there will be some other focus to the movie that I'll be able to enjoy.)

lordjedi said:

Personally, I love the Wiimote.  The people that don't seem to like it (as far as I've seen) are the ones who've learned how to exploit it.  Yeah, you don't have to move it around that much in order to work the game, but where's the fun in that?

Actually, the way you move the Wiimote depends upon the game. Some you can't just get away with wiggling around. In the case of the new Wii-mote attachment, it's become far more accurate and games should be able to require far more involved (a.k.a. potentially fun) motions (assuming anyone makes good games using the attachment).

skyjedi2005 said:

Maybe the grain is there on the restored film prints?

Video and film are 2 seperate things.  Maybe they are trying to please home video hdtv owners and not the elite film people who want video to look like film.

Can a Blu Ray look like a 35mm film at home?

Just wondering because it don't have an hdtv or a blu ray player myself.  If they scan in all of the image grain and all at 4k does the image look stunning at 1080P.  Some examples would be helpful to those who don't know the difference.

The 4k and 2k scans of the direct negative should be very accurate representations of the original film. The problem is Disney giving those scanned images treatment that tries to erase all of the grain and supposedly improve the image. It's insulting to me. They should have just cleaned up the image to remove dirt, keep the grain, and then simply directed their manpower to checking each frame of the movie in detail. As it is now, I have a feeling I'd rather watch the dirty, uncleaned negative scan directly translated to Blu-ray resolution.

Otherwise, any digital video medium (such as DVD or Blu-ray) will have the look of a digital video. The nice thing about Blu-ray, however, is that it is of such a high resolution that it can capture film details within its digital video limits. It's nowhere near 35mm film, but for home video it's great. These screen captures from Godfather 3 show how gorgeous of a job Blu-ray can do at representing film:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/gfiii3.jpg

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/gfiii5.jpg

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/gfiii11.jpg

Gaffer Tape said:

Wait.  You bring up something I meant to ask before, Tiptup.  I remember the new ads talking about the aspect ratio, and that confused me, because I thought that the 2003 DVD preserved that.  I mean, the special features on that DVD made a big deal about the "new-fangled" process they used to make the ratio for that movie, so I assumed it was accurately done for the DVD.  Is that incorrect?

Yeah, from what I can gather, the 2003 release was the first home video release where we got the full widescreen image that was shown in theaters. The guy who did that restoration did a beautiful job of representing what the film looked like (for DVD resolution of course). The new DVD and Blu-ray, on the other hand, went back to the original negative that had even more space that was unseen on the edges. If you look at this page (which I also linked above), you'll see the difference between the 2003 DVD and the 2008 DVD:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3445320-post23.html

Gaffer Tape said:

Oh, and what's the problem with the new Nightmare set?  I got it for my girlfriend for her birthday.  I'd never seen the movie before then, so I had nothing to compare it to.  Is it the standard Disney problem of cutting down the ratio so that it perfectly fits a widescreen TV in 16:9?  Or is it another DNR problem?

Eh, everyone says it's great and I'm sure it's fantastic, but, on the basis of the principles involved, I just don't want to own a version of the film that has the grain removed. There are also terrible DNR mistakes they made at small portions and that's just insulting (they couldn't get a guy to okay every frame?). I can't find everything I saw before, but here's a good example:

http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/09/01/the-nightmare-before-dirt-and-scratch-removal-artefacts.html

Here's another even-handed review:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/archives/2008/09/christmas_comes_early.html

Gaffer Tape said:

A little bit off-topic, but what's the deal with this new Sleeping Beauty release anyway?

The release you and I purchased a few years ago was a "special edition" and was not a part of the more in-depth restoration work going on with other titles. This new Sleeping Beauty release reflects the latter, "platinum" restoration techniques:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris101308.html

The new set is basically for the Blu-ray, but it also has a DVD copy of the newer restoration. In addition to higher resolution (with the Blu-ray) we get to see more of the image from a completely restored aspect ratio. However, there are problems:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/archives/2008/10/sleeping_beauty_bluray_impress.html

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/sleeping-beauty-blu-ray-doesnt-mean-better

http://louromano.blogspot.com/2008/10/sleeping-beauty-closer-look.html

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3445320-post23.html

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3446879-post55.html

http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/10/14/sleeping-beauty-on-bd-mostly-astonishing.html

I'm mostly angry about the colors, but I'm also insulted that Disney would destroy the original film by thinking it's their duty to remove the grain. Screen shots like this look horrible after the grain is tinkered with:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/sb7.jpg

I guess that shot was always out of focus (and not intentionally out of focus due to layering), but my criticism from a few posts up remains the same. Out of focus areas of an image, while still being indistinct with grain, still have a fine texture to them and I like that more.

Why can't we be given the same product that Walt Disney and Animators judged worthy for us to see? Why, instead, do we now have someone deciding that film grain look like "noise" on Blu-ray (when it actually shouldn't if properly encoded)? Who then decides that brush strokes and paper textures should be removed (which probably wouldn't have been as noticeable had the left the grain intact)?

I'm going to stick with my earlier DVD until Disney can do a proper high-def transfer. We may never get it, but I don't care. It's not worth the money. The same thing goes with the recent release of Nightmare before Christmas.

C3PX said:

Bottom line is, while she may have been a self respect lacking whore for much of her life, she was a damn fine whore and deserve better treatment than this.

I can agree with that, but Star Trek is already filled with so many things I already ignore that I can't really see myself getting too bothered by the possibility this new movie will suck (I'll just ignore it). As it is I find myself concerned that this movie will be good just a little more than I care about all movies being good in general.

And, again, as I said earlier, Star Trek has gone through many additions that went from great to crap and back to great again (and then back to crap with Nemesis). While I would like to see the series ended (and hollywood taking chances on new worlds), I'm still open to new adventures on the possibility that we just might get something good again.


Hmm, my greatest hope for a Star Trek movie would be to see a film that reaches the same level of significance certain episodes of TOS or TNG reached. My favorite sci-fi and fantasy experiences are the kind that give me brilliant a sense of realism that causes me to deeply accept what I'm watching (in some way that's hard to describe). The best of Star Trek (for me) has always done this through stories that involved technological limitations, complex social issues, ingenious teamwork, and a humble sense of wonder (or confusion). Even the visuals and sounds in my favorite Star Trek adventures seemed to heighten these qualities. Unfortunately the movies have always gone in the opposite direction of this limited and precise kind of fantasy and drama (with the exception of Insurrection). In the end it gets to the point where Star Trek seems more centered on simplistic, mythical heroes and absurd, sensationalistic confrontations than anything real (and I hate that even when I really enjoy the movies). After all of the various Star Trek movie attempts, I'm guessing that some other franchise will have to come along to create the first, real "Star Trek" movie that upholds the greatness of my favorite Star Trek TV episodes.

The Star Wars universe was like a pure, vestal virgin when it was (and still is) based simply on the coherent, well-made movies of the original trilogy. With the special editions and the prequels, however, it's like George Lucas came along and raped his pristine daughter through the eye socket.

Star Trek, on the other hand, has been an old, wrinkly, STD-ridden whore for many, many years now. This behavior that worships the Star Trek universe in its current state reminds me of the idiots that worship the Star Wars universe after the prequels came out. People that devote themselves to either are loving something that isn't all that great anymore.

Star Trek has amazing portions that I love. I am happy to call myself a Star Trek fan because of them. However, if you want to talk about "lame" contradictions, "lame" explanations, and "lame" story ideas existing in other parts of the Star Trek universe, you're about 30 years too late. While I'm willing to agree that JJ might be like a drunken frat boy out to humiliate and abuse the local town whore, she's not exactly going to be doing anything with him that she hasn't done before and, heck, she'll be getting some money out of it.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

The biggest problem with Lucas is his refusal to release a high quality unaltered version of the original trilogy. The prequels all sucked ass, but who cares?

Agreed. The biggest problem with Lucas is his treatment of important works of art.

Who cares if something new sucks so long as we have the older, good stuff?

zombie84 said:

Well, those links don't seem to really work. But I'll say that animation--in the case of Sleeping Beauty--doesn't photograph in the same way that live-action does when discussing depth. In live-action, its a 3d space captured 2-dimensionally--but animation is a 2-d space captured 2-dimensionally. There was never any actual depth to begin with--its all simulated from the beginning. I'm not entirely sure how depth-of-field simulations work in animation, but my understanding is that its a composite effect of some kind. When I photograph a man standing in front of a building, the building is actually ten feet behind him and thus the depth of field actually falls off in a genuine way, but in animation the BG is not actually ten feet behind the subject, its all flat to begin with.

Sorry, those links are protected from hotlinking so you have to re-enter them once you first try to load them. (Or load the main website just before trying to view the image. Ehh, try loading this page before clicking on the second link: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews39/the_counterfeiters_blu-ray.htm )

Otherwise, with some Disney works there was a way where they'd layer different levels of the final image together. I'm pretty sure this was done in Sleeping beauty but I can't say for sure without checking. I'll try to find the images I saw (which were goofy with respect to focus) and post them later.

As for the rest, you're definitely right that film grain is so large that it doesn't match up with our basic sight. But, something feels natural about it (beyond the fact that I'm simply accustomed to it I think) and I'll just have to keep guessing what that is (next time the issue pops up in my mind at any rate).

Thanks, that all makes a lot of sense.

And you're right, when I close one of my eyes the background doesn't look as complex anymore (and seems softer than I was thinking earlier). Still, though, even with just one eye, the unfocused background seems (or feels) rather likes there's a complex fine-ness to the blur that seems to tell me that things aren't precisely where I'm seeing them on the smallest level. That is statistically true in a quantum mechanical sense, but it feels like my eyes are adding another sort of inaccuracy that sort of feels like Film Grain (albeit much, much higher resolution).

The reason I ask about this is because I was previously looking at how Lowry's grain removal affected some shots in the Sleeping Beauty Blu-ray when slightly-out-of-focus images were a concern. Since then I've just noticed there's a difference between the way depth of vision seems different in a digital image when compared to a film image:

http://www.index-dvd.com/coversbd/screenshots/apocalypto-bd-ss-2.jpg

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews39/the%20counterfeiters%20blu-ray/large/largecounterfeiters%20blu-ray3232.jpg

The latter doesn't feel as flat to my eyes, even though they're both 2D images. It's almost like out-of-focus portions make film grain seem even grainier and for some reason that feels natural and less flat to me. However, I'm an idiot with a lot of things and would like a more knowledgeable opinion correct me if I need it.

I have a question for anyone knowledable of digital imaging versus film grain (and how cameras work in general):

It seems to me that when I focus my eyes on objects in the real world, other objects behind them will be out of focus. However, despite the fact that those objects are out of focus, they are not out of focus in a soft, blurry way. If I work hard to keep my mind centered on the out of focus portion of what I see, there are complex, small details making up that out of focus (due to distance) portion. I think that's the main reason why grain free images bother me (they just soften everything that's out of focus into a big mush when my eyes mix up that information in more complex ways). So, does that make sense in terms of everything technical we know about photography or am I just crazy? :)

Okay, and to quickly deal with some of the other tangential topics that interest me:

lordjedi said:

I'm very aware that Jesus was tempted by the same things as every other man, but he also happened to be God incarnate.  He could read other peoples minds.  He knew what they had done before and he knew what they planned to do.  This gave him a much better ability to do what needed to be done.

Real purity, much like real perfection, is completely unattainable.  If you really believe you, or anyone else, can attain real purity, then I'm sorry for you.  Jesus was perfection.  God is perfection.  No one else can hope to come close.  Purity of mind, body, and soul is a daily exercise.  We can hope to come close to it in our lifetime, but we will likely never reach it.  I don't think Mother Theresa ever reached real purity either.

According to Christian orthodoxy, Jesus did not use any of his powers as God to make the moral work of his life on this earth any easier. If Jesus had done that then his life of moral perfection would have meant nothing as a sacrifice. Jesus did not use his power as God to make morality easy for himself. Every version of Christianity that I know of keeps Christ's perfect life as a sole work of his human nature (which would therefore be distinct from his divine nature).

Otherwise, I see no reason for you to express the point your second paragraph there is making. Are you trying to say that because we can't be perfect in this life, human beings should not bother to seek moral purity?

As for Mother Teresa, yeah (yuck), she was not anywhere near moral purity.

lordjedi said:

 

How does talking about it on an Internet forum help?  Seriously, explain that to me.  I know that sending money helps.  I know that prayer helps because I've seen it work.  But how does blabbing about it on an Internet forum do anything?  As far as I can tell, it does nothing.  Our elected officials don't read it.  Maybe a passerby sees it from time to time, but for the most part, it's just a bunch of guys talking about it.  It's almost no different than a bunch of guys in a room talking about it.  After they're done talking about it, they go home and nothing changes.  Perhaps someones mind is changed, but beyond that, nothing has really been done.  It all ends up being a bunch of hot air.

Talking about things doesn't help unless the talk allows someone to change.  But if nothing is changed, then no help can come about.  I'm sure most of us read or heard about Mumbai.  If we were going to help, we would've done something.  Coming here and saying "So, what do you guys think about this terrorist attack" doesn't help anyone.  It's a mental exercise, nothing more.

Blabbing on an internet forum can help with all sorts of things. In no particular order: It can help your own thinking and the thinking of others. It can help raise awareness. It can help convince people of taking little or big actions. It can help accomplish lots of other things too (like how Obama had a lot of internet support that helped him when all was added up).

Just as we talk about the 911 attacks, or the death of an actor, or George Lucas destroying Star Wars, there can be good things that come of those actions. As such, I personally believe I should have expressed concern about the Mumbai attacks. I don't know if that's something you should have done, and if you believe that talking about Mumbai on the internet or in real life is worthless for you then that's not for me to judge. I just find it odd you think there was nothing you could have possibly done to have acted a little better and wanted you to clarify if that's what you actually believed (since I'd find that a very interesting insight into how you see yourself).

lordjedi said:

I also wouldn't say, as you have, that Mother Theresa was obsessed with death and suffering.  I will say that she lived amongst the poorest of people so she would understand what it was like.  To suggest that a "free market" is going to help some poor individual in South Africa is, to me, a joke.  While a free market would definitely help them, there's nothing wrong with giving up what one has in order to help the less fortunate.  If you've got a TV, you've got more than most people.

I also don't understand why someone like Mother Theresa is given a hard time by you.  She felt that the best way for her to help people living in poverty was to give up what she had, live among them, and do what she could to make their lives better.  She showed the world the kind of poverty that exists.  That is exactly what God calls us to do.  See Luke 21:1-4, Luke 3:11

I know a lot of people respect mother Teresa, but, from everything I know about her, she was a horrible, disturbing person. She was obsessed with pain, suffering and death and her unhinged behavior is quite well documented. She wouldn't help sick people so much as, instead, keep them trapped in her dank, dark houses of death and then watch them die so she could be close to the "suffering" (which she strangely believed would bring her closer to Jesus . . . which is fucking crazy). Even mainstream supporters of Mother Teresa don't deny this crazy, sick behavior of hers (they simply try to dismiss it in light of what supposed good she did . . . which I don't really see).

C3PX said:

Tiptup said:

... tries to pretend a "vow of poverty" (and worthless Mother-Teresa-style shit like that) has any value in the sight of God. Hard work aimed at wise productivity in a free market is far more pure and helpful than some supposedly high and lofty individual that spends her life obsessed with death and suffering (as apposed to someone who works hard to alleviate and heal death and suffering).

I resent that comment. I have no idea why "Mother-Teresa-style" selfless living for others should be called shit. Sure it isn't for everyone, but to me it is just unbelievable that you'd claim a life is better spent living for youself and your family, working hard and productively in a free market society than it is living your life for others. Even more stupid is that you claim it has no value in the eyes of God.

Mother Teresa was not selfless but selfish . . . and crazy. Considering the way she pretended to be righteous and the way people (like you) say such wonderful things about her, she should have been working as hard as should could to produce medicine or heal sick people. Instead, when ordinary people threw a ton of money at her (money that could have been used to employ people or to help cure the lost and sick) she simply spent it to make more of her creepy houses of death.

Maybe in her craziness she still did some good somewhere (in ways that I don't know of), and to the degree that she did that there's probably some value to the work she did "in the eyes of God." But, the way I see it, God doesn't overlook evil and ultimately our actions cannot be called "good" if we knowingly do wrong. Mother Teresa was a creepy, cult-ish person that illegitimately exploited the suffering of real people so she could be close to it and I think her conscience knew that was wrong. She also wasted money designated for the poor in a bunch of ways that never went to help the poor in any way (and that was really wrong too).

Sure, I selfishly have an Xbox and a TV (as lordjedi mentioned) while people are starving somewhere, but I wasn't claiming I was some "higher" person (like you claim Mother Teresa was). Plus, while Xboxes and TVs tend to have a very vain, recreational purpose, at least people were employed somewhere to make those products for doing real work (as apposed to me just giving money to people for doing nothing . . . as you would want?).

I know that if I were to better devote my wealth to goodness that I would be behaving in many different ways. However, I try to keep my overall life centered on the best overall course of action that I can (which is not something I succeed at, but I try anyways). To be well centered in that way means I can't run off and try to do every little action I think I should have done or should be doing. To the degree I haven't done good or am not doing good, I have to accept that fact and try to improve myself in smaller ways. Therefore, to the degree that I live where I live, I deemed both an Xbox and a TV to be reasonable possessions within that. I know I could probably do far more, but I'm nowhere close to that point and it's a slow, difficult process to improve myself without destroying other good things I'm aiming for in my life.

"Vows of poverty" (as how certain Roman Catholic sects would define them) are very sick to me and I won't back down from defending that position of mine (I don't care if the truth as I see it offends people). People who elevate such a vow to the level of an ideal actually pretend that living in squalor and forsaking all possessions is a good way to help people. I, however, find that obviously crazy and illogical on the surface. The only reason United States of America has so much wealth it can then spread around the world is because its society works with a free market where people work for profit and private property. I defy you to name me anyone that helped others by having nothing (in other words, it's not possible to get something from nothing). Lastly, the poverty=godliness movement believes that the material world is evil and that was a heresy rejected by the Roman Catholic Church in its early years (so any Monks or Nuns who believe it today are believing what their own church defines as a heresy). We should not avoid productive work or private wealth, but instead devote it all to goodness as best we can.

A question for either C3PX or lordjedi: do you believe every ruler in the world should be living in the same poverty as their poorest subjects?

Also: would you rather people were given jobs where they can work for their own sustenance while simultaneously benefiting those who gave them the job, or would you rather people were just given straight charity?

lordjedi said:

C3PX said:

I most definitely have to side with lj on this whole thing. Can hardly believe the retardedness of a lot of what I am reading. He said nothing wrong, but for some reason you are really pounding him into the ground and being a dick. I just don't get it.

You're not the only one.  I'm starting to wonder how we went from talking about how we don't care about what happened in Mumbai (even though I stated that I do care, just don't see a reason to talk about it) to attacks on me and my reactions to those incidents.

Seriously TipTup, what the hell?  I know it would be foolish to drop everything and run to India to help them, which is why I don't do it.  It would be foolish and dangerous.

For my part, this has been nothing more than a purely intellectual discussion of personal ethics (from the very start). For your part, however, this has been a curiously defensive, tangential, and long-winded treatise designed to purely avoid my simple question. You have been the one making this so long and so complex, lj. I've gone out of my way to try and simplify your worthless crap and bring you back to my basic, starting question (the one I think you keep purposely misunderstanding). I challenge you or C3PX to prove that my replies have been longer, or more off topic than yours have been.

At every point in this discussion I have gone out of my way to include myself as a person that possibly should have cared more about the attacks in Mumbai, so I don't know why the hell you have the idea that this is somehow about you (or why the hell C3PX thinks it's about you either). Are either of you actually trying to read what I've been asking here? :)

I'm not even certain you're doing or did anything wrong, lordjedi. (I don't even know, exactly, what you or I could have done better.) I'm simply asking you an ethical question for the sake of my own curiousity. To the degree you keep avoiding my actual question, I'm continuing to re-pose it you because I find you to be a person that fascinates me. If that offends you then don't worry about me. I'll be okay if you decide not to respond to what I'm asking. However, to the degree you keep talking to me, I'll respond so long as I see a reason of my own to do so. (Oh, and C3PX, if you're offended by my questioning of lordjedi, you don't have to talk to me either.)

To be as clear as possible, my question is this: all things being equal, you seriously don't believe there is any tiny, infinitesimal action (as a real, ordinary human being living and ordinary human life) that could have possibly been better on your part with respect to the Mumbai attack (say if you were acting on totally pure motives within a totally pure value system)?

All C3PX originally mentioned was that it's odd that we don't talk about important news when it involves a foreign part of our world. I personally think, at the very least, I probably could have paid more attention to it all. Beyond that, I don't really know what I could have done better, but I'm fairly certain that if I were a pure human being (and not such a "dick") I would probably be living a very different life right now. I probably would be living a life that would react to the recent attacks in a very different way. If you feel your every, tiny action was absolutely perfect, on the other hand, I suppose that's a perfectly acceptable answer to my question (even if I don't logically understand it). In the end I'm only curious to know how you would answer what I simply asked. Thank you.

C3PX said:

I most definitely have to side with lj on this whole thing. Can hardly believe the retardedness of a lot of what I am reading. He said nothing wrong, but for some reason you are really pounding him into the ground and being a dick. I just don't get it.

I only "pounded" lordjedi at the point where I countered his earlier assumption that I was somewhere accusing him of being a terrorist. I'm sorry but that's fucking laughable. I don't care if that hurts his feelings or your feelings for me to say that since it's just the basic truth of the matter. Hah, and he now has the gall to say I was being unclear? LOL.

As for being a dick, yeah, I'm a dick quite often. :)

Star Wars' dialogue was filled with emotion, good form, and conceptual significance. Dialogue from the prequels, on the other hand, was boring, awkward, and stupid by comparison. It's sad to watch the many good actors of the prequel trilogy trying to deliver those lines well (it wasn't possible). Ewan McGreggor came the closest to delivering every line well. The actors in the original trilogy had an easy time by comparison.

Were the OT's lines dorky and crass at many points? Sure, and, in that specific, superficial sense, a lot of the crap lines from the PT will seem similar on that basis. But, they still managed to be genuine, heartfelt, and realistic to the degree where their dorky and crass nature promoted likable characters (and that makes all the difference).