logo Sign In

Tiptup

User Group
Members
Join date
4-May-2006
Last activity
26-Apr-2012
Posts
1,696

Post History

Post
#303753
Topic
Indecision2008 Name Your Canidate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/303753/action/topic#303753
Time
Christianity was spread by warfare, Sean?

The times in history that Christendom went to war for Christianity were the worst in terms of spreading Christianity's influence. It's largest spreading has been, time after time, accomplished through the opposite of warfare, if anything.


Originally posted by: C3PX
Yeah, that has always been something that turned me away from him. Even the Democrates admit we cannot just run away at this point. That is something that struck me as merely a people pleaser aspect of Ron Paul. Has he ever addressed how that would work? It has always sounded to me that he had in mind just to pulling them out at the first possible chance.


He has said he would pull the troops out of Iraq immediately. That's why I would never vote for him.

However, don't call him a people pleaser. The guy is a very principled, old-fashioned conservative. He doesn't believe the world is our kid to babysit and I even agree with him on this. Unfortunately I think he misapplies the principle. For instance, while I firmly believe that we shouldn't be involved in places like the Middle East to the degree that we are, I still realize that we have important interests in that part of the world. If we weren't there, worse people would be, most likely.
Post
#303681
Topic
Indecision2008 Name Your Canidate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/303681/action/topic#303681
Time
Yes, America has arguably persecuted Bin Laden's people. That is, without a doubt, a well reasoned and cogent position.

Ehem.


Anyways, I think I'm fully supporting Thompson now. The more I learn about him and see him, the more I like him. He's smart and a well balanced man. Can you imagine the hysterical Mrs. Clinton in a debate with Thompson? Hehe, she'd look like such a nut. I don't care if Thompson hasn't raised gobs of money by this point, quite frankly. he doesn't need it. The American people would quickly run to him after hearing Hilary open her mouth. lol
Post
#303196
Topic
Religion
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/303196/action/topic#303196
Time
Religion isn't something so simplistic that we can dismiss it as an outdated form of behavior based on primitive belief systems. I'm often surprised by how ignorant otherwise intelligent people can be about Christianity and the Hebrew scriptures. This not only applies to non-Christians, but people who claim to be Christians as well. Unfortunately the world runs on misinformation and rhetoric.
Post
#302735
Topic
Indecision2008 Name Your Canidate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302735/action/topic#302735
Time
Oh, I remembered my other big problem with Huckabee: He really thinks that Global Warming is a huge problem that needs to be addressed by forcing the economy to reduce carbon emissions and by using other bad solutions.


I can't say that any of the current three, "front runner" Republicans really support Republican values in a big way. Romney is best, but I don't trust him to uphold the beliefs he supposedly holds right now. Giuliani is heavily flawed, but he's still not as bad as Huckabee as far as I'm concerned. There are times when I think a guy who's willing to fight for issues as strongly as Giuliani might be a strong enough asset to make up for his problems (assuming he can keep himself in check and not attack his opponents too much). I can also appreciate how Giuliani is at least honest about where he stands on issues (and doesn't pretend to have suddenly changed his mind on things).

I'm hoping one or two of the top three candidates can implode and make room for Thompson, Tancredo, or some other, real Republican. Preferably Thompson, I guess.
Post
#302540
Topic
Indecision2008 Name Your Canidate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302540/action/topic#302540
Time
Originally posted by: ferris209
Well, I will research the rest, but I know you are a little ill informed on #5. He did support a tuition assistance program for children of illegals who attended public schools from grade school up and whose primary language is english. I have no bad with that, it's not like illegals were running over the border with 17 year old kids andf then getting free college educations. I think he'll be fine on this, he does want to secure the borders, punish sancutary cities, and deport those illegals caught by Officers.


True, those illegals are more beneficial to society than others. However, free tuition anything makes me angry. It's a waste of taxpayer money. The fact that he'd support that for people with an illegal-immigrant status just makes it worse. Plus, you always hear him talking about how we have to be compassionate and kind to people whenever he discusses immigration. That leads me to conclude that he thinks other people in the party, like Thompson, are not compassionate with the solutions they support. Would you agree with that?

Also, I don't see why Thompson's "poor showing" is a reason to not support him. Sometimes the quality of a candidate and the issues he supports are more important than winning (in comparison to the alternatives at least).
Post
#302467
Topic
Indecision2008 Name Your Canidate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302467/action/topic#302467
Time
Originally posted by: ferris209
@ Tiptup
Why you so against Huckabee, I like the hell outta the guy.


1. He really likes to raise taxes. (The fact he now claims that a democrat-run legislature forced him to support tax increases is cowardly, probably a lie, and another reason to not like him.) He called a pro-taxpayer group in Arkansas a group that was pro "greed." At the very least he thinks it's okay for our government to take in too much money.

2. He really likes wasteful spending on supposedly compassionate programs. He actually thinks he's on a mission from God to waste taxpayer dollars and destroy our economy in the name of helping the poor. He just recently criticized George W Bush for vetoing that horrible s-chip bill the democrats tried to pass! He's a religious nut without a proper perspective of ethics (or the bible for that matter).

3. He was incredibly friendly to illegal immigrants. For instance, he wanted to give free, in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants. If you think having Bush in office is bad on immigration, wait till Huckabee gets in. I don't believe him if he says he'll be tough with immigration.

I think I have more problems beyond this, but I can't remember them at the moment. Those are at least the big ones for me. He's only, perhaps, good with judges. (I say perhaps because he doesn't understand the proper role of the federal government and probably wouldn't know an "originalist" judge if he saw one. All he cares about is abortion and there are more concerns out there.)
Post
#302346
Topic
Indecision2008 Name Your Canidate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302346/action/topic#302346
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
I talk to many people who are already convinced Hilary has it. Kind of silly if you ask me. I really don't think she is as sure fire as she is marketed as. Hear her talk and you'd think she was running against George Bush. Everything is "Bush this, Bush that." She does realize he is old news now, right? There are other people she needs to be running against now, it doesn't matter a hill of beans at this point if Bush is hero or an evil dictator, he isn't running for election. I think she appears as strong as she does because that is the way she is depicted by the media. I think this fact weighs on people, and they get it pounded in their head from the TV that she has practically already won, and so they believe it to be a fact. I am not so sure America is ready for a female President yet, at least not one like Hilary. I also have faith that there are still plenty of people who can see through her. Not saying that it is impossible for her to be elected, just getting kind of tired of hearing that she might as well have already won, that simply isn't true.


I agree. Hillary is not a strong candidate and having Republicans talk about her so much is getting really obnoxious.

The thing about Hillary is that people can't stand her guts whenever she talks about the actual issues. She's got nutty ideas and her demeanor is offensive. All the Republicans had to do was promise that they'd fight for tax cuts, immigration security, and "originalist" judges and a Hillary campaign would have been easily defeated. Now it sadly looks like she might actually have a chance simply because the Republicans don't seem to know what the hell they should be fighting for.
Post
#302325
Topic
Beowulf
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302325/action/topic#302325
Time
Well I saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it quite a bit. Angelina Jolie's model was the only one that looked like a real person at points, however. The rest of the cgi characters made it hard for me to get into the movie somewhat. It's like they went for a realistic look but they didn't quite achieve that in reality and I often felt like I was watching dolls on the screen. Perhaps a more stylized look might have been appropriate; I don't know.
Post
#302305
Topic
A New Thought on George
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302305/action/topic#302305
Time
I'd say the dead Gungans were a pretty unemotional moment compared to the dead Ewoks. Not to say the Ewoks inspired a great amount of attachment, but you felt sorry for them in the sense that they were caught up in a war that was bigger than they were I guess. Little, noble, trustworthy creatures versus the treacherous empire. Made things interesting despite the unrealistic successes they had.

I liked the Gungan battle too, but mostly for the flow of the combat and not much else.
Post
#302151
Topic
Fall to the Dark Side?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302151/action/topic#302151
Time
Originally posted by: Number20
For me, the whole turn to the dark side bit was ruined by the prequels. In the OT, the Dark Side is like a drug. Once you use it once or twice, your hooked on it and it comsumes you, and controls you. So for me, thats why Vader said things like that he "must obey his master" because he was a slave to the dark side at this point. In ROTJ, the emperor and vader are both pretty sure that all it won't take much to turn Luke dark, with Vader simply telling Luke to 'join us', or make him mad enough to use the dark side once or twice and the emperor wanting Luke to get angry enough to kill Vader. So at this point, it looks like to me that it doesn't take much to make a person dark side.


That was always my interpretation as well. But, apparently, killing one of your superior Jedis while overpowered by the emotion of WIMPY INDECISION is enough to enslave a man enough to where he'll instantly have no trouble performing the most disgustingly evil actions (killing children). From the addiction theory, the evil control of the dark side should increase in different steps from truly heinous decisions, not wimpy, angst-y decisions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Anakin makes no sense unless he's a psychopath. Starting with the beginning of AotC, George made it extremely clear that Anakin was a character that only cared about himself. Killing children and murdering his wife make no sense in terms of the Dark Side's controlling influence, but they make perfect sense for a man who's a psychopath.

The most hilarious part is how the one, single version of himself that truly displays any self-sacrifice (Darth Vader at the end of RotJ) gets replaced by the force ghost of his younger, psychopathic self! George Lucas really should have stopped the saga before he got in over his head. It's sad.
Post
#302134
Topic
Fall to the Dark Side?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302134/action/topic#302134
Time
Great post Scruffy. That's a lot to read but your examples are sound. I'm not a fan of the EU, but those falls-from-grace sound better than the one we got for Anakin. Taking examples from the Lord of the Rings and Batman universes worked well in ways that I wouldn't have thought of.


Originally posted by: C3PX
Luke's "turn" in ROTJ was great because it was emotional, with him giving into his anger then realizing his mistake, rather than a retarded confused "should I do it? No I shouldn't! Or should I? Errr, what have I done?! NOooooooo!... huh? Okay, I'll be your loyal slave from here on out. Oh, what's that? Go kill a bunch of kids? Alright I am on it. I'll be back in time for dinner master, remember, I like the red table cloth with the little black zigzag design. And don't forget the candles!


Hilarious. That's a good way to describe the turn as a whole. While at first RotS was compelling in the way it convinced me of Padme and Anakin's love for each other, that, as CO described, eventually went nowhere and, if anything, became ridiculous by the end. Anakin's turn was completely arbitrary and involved no internal motivation that I could discern. Perhaps we're just not smart enough to see it?


The biggest thing that tends to kill my enjoyment of a piece of art would be flaws that are difficult to overlook in relation to that piece of art's best qualities. In other words, if I am forced to focus on flaws because they penetrate to the heart of a given work, I'd rather not waste my time even trying to enjoy it anymore. At best I'll just pick and choose what might have worked had the flaws been missing, but I'm not going to waste my time with that work of art when I have better things I could be enjoying.

Anakin's fall in the prequel trilogy is a perfect example of a flaw that ruins everything else. George Lucas made AotC and RotS both hinge on this event, but he screws it up by portraying Anakin as a whiny, amoral jerk. I don't want to pretend that Darth Vader, one of the most amazing villains ever, fell that way!

While the original trilogy's movies had big flaws, none of those flaws directly intersected what made those movies great and can easily be ignored. The prequel trilogy's flaws make it rotten to the core (as it were).
Post
#301770
Topic
A New Thought on George
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301770/action/topic#301770
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
To me, TPM doesn't deserve to be called "best" anything. That's really lowering the bar. "Least terrible" perhaps, but IMO calling it "best" (and I'm not picking on you, Tiptup, many here have done this) is like being given a list of diseases, and choosing the "best" one to get.

It only seems better because of the two other films it's compared to. Again, just my opinion.

That's fair. I certainly don't claim anyone should like The Phantom Menace if they don't (it has huge flaws that some people can't ignore). I'm just saying that from a weird, sugared-up, attention-span-deficient, could-care-less-about-character-drama point of view, I actually enjoyed the film. Its not very enjoyable mind you, but I still found it fun on the whole. In other words, I don't think it was actually a bad film when I tried to simply let it be its own, weird thing.


Originally posted by: zombie84
Thank you so much for posting that. It is something I came to realise ever since AOTC, explaining the extremely different and entirely dissonant prequel identities. Its ironic that even though the OT is basically a patchwork of improvisations it still feels ten times more consistent and deliberate than the supposedly-planned PT.


Once you reach the idea of Vader being Luke's father the "deliberate" feeling starts to break down somewhat, but in light of the amazing character drama it accomplished, I really don't mind. Luke being Leia's sister is worse to me, but at least even that resulted in a very intense scene in RotJ. By comparison, telekinesis, which was a "new" idea in ESB, seemed an almost totally natural extension of what the first film presented to me. Unfortunately, I find the prequels are jam-packed with ideas that are not only incoherent with the original trilogies concepts (to varying degrees), but they also don't really accomplish anything emotional for me either (to make up for the illogic). At best I can see how each of the new ideas could have extraordinary merit on their own, just not in my Star Wars saga.


Edit: Oh and FanFiltration, your posts are intelligent and insightful to read. I'm pretty sure that nobody here wanted to say otherwise.
Post
#301767
Topic
Why, oh, why do they cancel shows this good???
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301767/action/topic#301767
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
No offense, but... I think that wouldn't have flown. It would have been boring to anyone not going in already interested in Firefly, and the studio probably would have rejected the deal outright.


Probably, but I think Joss Whedon is talented enough where it wouldn't have been anymore boring than the beginning episodes of Firefly were. The studios were mostly just amazed by how well Firefly was selling on DVD. Then by throwing in Serenity's level of action and neat special effects, it might garnered larger profits while still remaining true to what Firefly is about. He would have attached new people to his cool characters (which he did not do in Serenity so well) and perhaps had the option to finish his bigger story ideas in a later movie (or over the span of a few movies). Oh well, that's what I would have had him at least try to do anyways.
Post
#301644
Topic
A New Thought on George
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301644/action/topic#301644
Time
I've said it before and I still believe that George Lucas is a man obsessed with ideas. A certain concept will grab his attention for a moment, he'll love it, try to use it, and then, once he's bored with it, move onto another idea. These fascinating ideas are what made Star Wars so great (and they easily comprise the most promising aspects of the prequels as well). While I'd say that this is his greatest artistic strength, it also causes him to ignore a lot of other things like continuity, plausibility, and finesse, as well as a whole ton of various emotional concerns (such as energetic dialogue). For instance, George knows what character drama looks like from the outside, and can have everything sitting in the right place, but he doesn't know how to connect all of that to the emotions sitting inside. Or, in the reverse case, when George starts with an emotional motivation (like the fear of loss), he doesn't know how to truly connect that to logical events nor on-screen performances. To do so would require too much work and he wants to move onto his next, fascinating idea.

After that, I think he allowed a concern for money to motivate his artistic choices too much. But, that's not too uncommon. :\

Originally posted by: zombie84
So thats why we ended up with Episode I, a film which shows how an unchequed Lucas goes off the deep end, getting obsessed with aliens and special effects and kooky weirdness and totally forgetting about characters and completely ignorant to constructing drama or a finely crafted plot.


Since I could ignore Jar Jar to a degree (and even found his antics humorous at a few points) I still say that Episode I is the best of the prequels for exactly everything you just described right there. It's certainly not a great film (it's even way below RotJ in my mind), but if we simply expect it to be nothing more than it is (and forget the other Star Wars movies, for instance) it totally works as a fun, fast film. Essentially, Phantom Menace had a ton of amusing crap squeezed into it. While I would never recommend it to anyone looking for a serious, adult-movie experience, it's still a movie you can vegetate in front of (for a while).

If you go to watch the other two prequels for what they are, however, they're absolutely terrible and almost completely rely on their connection to the OT to even seem good. They're both just big, long jokes assembled and dressed up in ways to make you think you're watching something well crafted (while it's actually falling apart at the seams).
Post
#301642
Topic
Why, oh, why do they cancel shows this good???
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301642/action/topic#301642
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
I also felt that Serenity didn't do the series justice. I watched all the episodes and the movie in order, back to back over the course of a few days, and my expectation for the movie had been build up pretty high between the course of watching the pilot to Objects in Space. But I can see why the people who watched the series because they watched and liked the movie would have a deep fondness for the film.


In that sense I did like the movie. In terms of being someone who was attached to the show and its characters, the movie sort of worked. It was nice to see them all in action again, and I can't say there was anything outright bad in the film.

Nothing felt the same however. It was like everything I enjoyed on the show was present, but reassembled into a flat, hyped up form. I'm still wishing Joss Whedon had not made the film with the idea to recreate and finish the long-term story he had in mind for the show. That's not what Firefly was about. The whole point of the show, neat people living their lives and trying to make a living in a tough world, was inside out. He should have been a bit more bold and simply focused on a smaller, non-epic story.
Post
#301624
Topic
A New Thought on George
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301624/action/topic#301624
Time
Originally posted by: CO
I think we way overanalyze the faults of the PT sometimes, and it is real simple: Lucas was past his prime when he filmed the PT, and like many directors, his best work was done in his 20's/30's as a struggling director before he had kids and becomes financial successful. Now sure there exceptions like Spielberg, but there are exceptions to every rule.

When was the last time Brian Depalma made a great movie? Did anyone see Eyes Wide Shut by Kubrick before he died in 1999? Has Coppola done anything near the quality of his 1970's work with Godfather I & II, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now? These guys did their best work when they were hungry, and their careers were on the line: Spielberg with Jaws, Coppola with Godfather, Lucas with Star Wars.

I think a director gets soft through the years, and loses that edge, and in this genre of fantasy, is out of touch with what is cool to the public. You have to remember Lucas was in his late 20's when he made the OT, and invented the lightsaber, the millenium falcon, Darth Vader, Han Solo, Carbonite, AT-AT's, The Emperor, these are all cool things that appeal to the geeks in this genre. What is cool in the PT other then maybe Darth Maul?

I do agree that if Lucas would have hired writer A, and had more collaboration, etc, the PT would have been better, but the heart of soul of the OT came from Lucas, and I just think a 50 year old guy writing about a teenage kid who turns the darkside is a recipe for disaster, compared to a 25 year old guy writing about this huge war going on in space between good vs evil.


Bah, anyone who becomes lazy in their old age has no excuse. Someone who lives their life to attain comfort should not be considered normal in my mind. It's a socially acceptable kind of gluttony but it's disgusting. People should always try their best to create the best, no matter what their age. To the degree I compromise things which should not be compromised (like art) I can understand Lucas, but I will not excuse him and I would not want others to excuse me.

That said, we all have blind spots where, even when trying to do our best, we will still make big mistakes. In such situations we should never be afraid of criticism. Receiving input from people who have a different approach to life is invaluable. (At the very least, if someone is convinced of their viewpoint then they shouldn't be afraid to test it.) Thankfully the original Star Wars had a whole team of people creating it. While George Lucas was the primary impetus behind the final result, he had enormously talented people working in conjunction with him. (When he made crap they told him and it was fixed.) In the end we have a great film that can still be enjoyed years later.
Post
#301619
Topic
Why, oh, why do they cancel shows this good???
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301619/action/topic#301619
Time
One of the best shows that has ever been on TV in my mind. And the fact that it only had a few episodes is the saddest part. It was canceled because the network (either Fox or Paramount) was run by fucking idiots.

Though, I should say that every reason I loved the TV show is why I simultaneously don't like the "Serenity" movie (it was okay but it certainly didn't do the show any justice).