- Post
- #258893
- Topic
- Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258893/action/topic#258893
- Time
Tiptup
- User Group
- Members
- Join date
- 4-May-2006
- Last activity
- 26-Apr-2012
- Posts
- 1,696
Post History
- Post
- #258888
- Topic
- The Persecution Season is Heating Up
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258888/action/topic#258888
- Time
Originally posted by: JediSage
No, actually the Constitution says what's allowed on public property. The Free Exercise clause is too often being ignored in today's day and age in favor of the "establishment clause". Allowing a movie studio to display posters about a religious movie does not constitute a congressional establishment of religion.
First, having a Christian nativity sitting on public property, even while going so far as to exclude recognition of other religions, is not a technical violation of the "establishment caluse" in the constitution in any way. The original intent contained within the bill of rights does not change simply because our modern day judicial system is being run by Secularist zealots.
Second, your right to freely exercise your private religion on your own private property is in no way infringed by the decisions of public officials concerning how to govern public property. If you disagree with their decision, and believe they should reasonably recognize the most popular religion in the country, then work to vote them out of office.
Originally posted by: JediSage
And this is just the latest example of an overall climate of secular harassment and persecution of religion in general and Christianity in particular.
No, actually the Constitution says what's allowed on public property. The Free Exercise clause is too often being ignored in today's day and age in favor of the "establishment clause". Allowing a movie studio to display posters about a religious movie does not constitute a congressional establishment of religion.
First, having a Christian nativity sitting on public property, even while going so far as to exclude recognition of other religions, is not a technical violation of the "establishment caluse" in the constitution in any way. The original intent contained within the bill of rights does not change simply because our modern day judicial system is being run by Secularist zealots.
Second, your right to freely exercise your private religion on your own private property is in no way infringed by the decisions of public officials concerning how to govern public property. If you disagree with their decision, and believe they should reasonably recognize the most popular religion in the country, then work to vote them out of office.
Originally posted by: JediSage
And this is just the latest example of an overall climate of secular harassment and persecution of religion in general and Christianity in particular.
You do a disservice to human beings who suffer under real “persecution” when you throw around that term so lightly. Real persecution is far more horrible than what you describe here.
- Post
- #258860
- Topic
- The Persecution Season is Heating Up
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258860/action/topic#258860
- Time
It's definitely stupid, but government officials have a right to say what forms of religious recognition will be allowed on government property or not. It's our job not to elect stupid people.
- Post
- #258857
- Topic
- Peter Jackson evidently IS returning for The Hobbit...sort of...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258857/action/topic#258857
- Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
And Beorn, Tiptp? Well, I'd love it if he was included, but like Bombadil, I'd understand if he had to go for pacing reasons.
And Beorn, Tiptp? Well, I'd love it if he was included, but like Bombadil, I'd understand if he had to go for pacing reasons.
Beorn is perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the story! That's why I'd almost want to see jackson make the movie. (I'm sure a guy like him could apreciate a story element surrounding a large, hairy man who can turn into a bear.)
- Post
- #258853
- Topic
- morals
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258853/action/topic#258853
- Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
I suppose if they were really followers of Christ's teachings, then there would be a lot less massive Church buildings with basketball gyms on every street corner, and a whole lot less starving children in the world. Think what that money could do if it was focused in the right areas. Instead they just throw it back into themselves.
To a degree this is true, but, for the moment, the Christian portion of humanity is still the most giving portion on the planet. It isn’t true to say that Christians give to charity just as much as everybody else. That doesn’t match actual the actual data or statistics.
Otherwise, starving children starve in the world because of war and man-made famines more than anything else. There’s only so much that altruistic individuals can do in light of that kind of disaster without spending more than they should. You see, you believe that spending money on yourself is some crime, but then I would have to conclude that you clearly do not understand how an economy works. When people pay money for wisely invested work, our economy grows. If we give too much to charity, then our economy shrinks. If our economy shrinks, we help less people with charity overall.
Then, in terms of church buildings and Christian ethics, there’s nothing wrong with honoring God by making them beautiful. So long as they don’t spend too much money on that sort of thing, then it’s actually a Christian virtue to worship God with beauty. Balancing the needs of people with the creation of art is difficult, and all people screw it up all of the time, but it’s hardly as if one is always evil in light of the other (that would be ridiculous).
And, as for Jesus, he did teach selflessness to be sure, but do you even know what that means, C3PX? In your mind is it simply giving away all of your money until you are bankrupt? Or, must we all emulate Jesus by walking around like poor preachers as he did? Would humanity even be able to eat if we were all full-time preachers?
Yes, money taxed by the government belongs to it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t call it stealing under the correct circumstances. Though perhaps if we analyzed different policies to that degree then your view of government would become too complicated for you. If you prefer broad generalizations and simplistic answers, then you are certainly free to do so.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Also the things you said about what if the government started a program to pillage and rape, that is so retarded. I am sure if that happened ADM would happily agree with you that they would be wrong. Don't come up with over the top analogies, it makes you sound like a freak. If you want to give a good name to the conservatives think about things before you say them.
I suppose if they were really followers of Christ's teachings, then there would be a lot less massive Church buildings with basketball gyms on every street corner, and a whole lot less starving children in the world. Think what that money could do if it was focused in the right areas. Instead they just throw it back into themselves.
To a degree this is true, but, for the moment, the Christian portion of humanity is still the most giving portion on the planet. It isn’t true to say that Christians give to charity just as much as everybody else. That doesn’t match actual the actual data or statistics.
Otherwise, starving children starve in the world because of war and man-made famines more than anything else. There’s only so much that altruistic individuals can do in light of that kind of disaster without spending more than they should. You see, you believe that spending money on yourself is some crime, but then I would have to conclude that you clearly do not understand how an economy works. When people pay money for wisely invested work, our economy grows. If we give too much to charity, then our economy shrinks. If our economy shrinks, we help less people with charity overall.
Then, in terms of church buildings and Christian ethics, there’s nothing wrong with honoring God by making them beautiful. So long as they don’t spend too much money on that sort of thing, then it’s actually a Christian virtue to worship God with beauty. Balancing the needs of people with the creation of art is difficult, and all people screw it up all of the time, but it’s hardly as if one is always evil in light of the other (that would be ridiculous).
And, as for Jesus, he did teach selflessness to be sure, but do you even know what that means, C3PX? In your mind is it simply giving away all of your money until you are bankrupt? Or, must we all emulate Jesus by walking around like poor preachers as he did? Would humanity even be able to eat if we were all full-time preachers?
Originally posted by: C3PX
Also tiptup, ever hear "give to Caesar what is Caesar's"? Stop complaining about paying taxes.
I never once complained about paying taxes. Nor did I say that government does not have the legitimate authority to tax me. Don’t put your stupid words in my mouth, please.
ADM claimed that government should steal money to supposedly help the poor. I simply clarified that fact (in terms of how I see things of course). If you want to disagree with my evaluation that government is stealing under certain circumstances, then I’m perfectly willing to discuss that unless you’re afraid.
Originally posted by: C3PX
It isn't stealing, they have the right. If you live in America you live a very comfortable and secure life. That might not be as common of a situation as you believe it is. You've no right to complain, and the government has a right to piss on that money as much as they like, being as it belongs to them and all.
Also tiptup, ever hear "give to Caesar what is Caesar's"? Stop complaining about paying taxes.
I never once complained about paying taxes. Nor did I say that government does not have the legitimate authority to tax me. Don’t put your stupid words in my mouth, please.
ADM claimed that government should steal money to supposedly help the poor. I simply clarified that fact (in terms of how I see things of course). If you want to disagree with my evaluation that government is stealing under certain circumstances, then I’m perfectly willing to discuss that unless you’re afraid.
Originally posted by: C3PX
It isn't stealing, they have the right. If you live in America you live a very comfortable and secure life. That might not be as common of a situation as you believe it is. You've no right to complain, and the government has a right to piss on that money as much as they like, being as it belongs to them and all.
Yes, money taxed by the government belongs to it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t call it stealing under the correct circumstances. Though perhaps if we analyzed different policies to that degree then your view of government would become too complicated for you. If you prefer broad generalizations and simplistic answers, then you are certainly free to do so.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Also the things you said about what if the government started a program to pillage and rape, that is so retarded. I am sure if that happened ADM would happily agree with you that they would be wrong. Don't come up with over the top analogies, it makes you sound like a freak. If you want to give a good name to the conservatives think about things before you say them.
Who said I was a conservative?
Second, what’s wrong with strong analogies? Thinking about extreme examples is a technique that has helped the greatest thinkers in history simplify the problems they sought to solve. If you want to dismiss such a valuable tool by calling the people who use it “freaks,” then go right ahead.
Heh, the funniest thing about this conversation is that you two geniuses don’t even know why my pillaging force was a valid example. Even though it is admittedly extreme, when compared to government being an engine for certain forms of charity, there are common principles involved. You’re so quick to make unthinking replies that you don’t even stop to consider what it is that I am actually saying. Who knows, I might even bother explaining myself eventually.
- Post
- #258837
- Topic
- Princess and the Cobbler Review
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258837/action/topic#258837
- Time
- Post
- #258544
- Topic
- Princess and the Cobbler Review
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258544/action/topic#258544
- Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
The whole thing works and it works well, and if properly completed would be the best western world piece of animation ever.
The whole thing works and it works well, and if properly completed would be the best western world piece of animation ever.
That's quite a statement. Do you have a low opinion of Western animation or a high opinion of this work? (I've never heard of it myself.)
- Post
- #258542
- Topic
- Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258542/action/topic#258542
- Time
Originally posted by: Wesyeed
Yeah, I remember watching "yoda" say something to the emperor. He said "Not if anything about it to say I have..." Or something like that. It was so butchered I try to block it from memory. That's not how yoda talks.
To me he never just spoke in badly constructed sentences. He just had his own manner of speaking the language, or style for whatever reason. It was taken to an extreme in the new trilogy.
Yeah, I remember watching "yoda" say something to the emperor. He said "Not if anything about it to say I have..." Or something like that. It was so butchered I try to block it from memory. That's not how yoda talks.
To me he never just spoke in badly constructed sentences. He just had his own manner of speaking the language, or style for whatever reason. It was taken to an extreme in the new trilogy.
Yeah, in the original trilogy, Yoda spoke like someone who tried speaking proper english, but that he was from a culture that spoke with reversed sentence structure and made mistakes. He still tried speaking the language properly, but his speech often reverted at key moments. Apparently in the prequels though, english became flexible and Yoda didn't need to worry about speaking it right, ever (except perhaps when it would even sound too ridiculous to George Lucas' childish mind).
Your example was perfect. "Not if I have anything to say about it" is a cliche! If Yoda was going to repeat a cliche then he'd speak it with the same sentence order (and not make his grammatical mistakes). Totally laughable dialogue.
- Post
- #258349
- Topic
- Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258349/action/topic#258349
- Time
Originally posted by: CO
The cave is such a great part of the movie because it is never explained to the viewer, it lets the viewer come to its own conclusion. Only Yoda says, "Remember your failure at the cave."
The cave is such a great part of the movie because it is never explained to the viewer, it lets the viewer come to its own conclusion. Only Yoda says, "Remember your failure at the cave."
Yeah, the lack of explanation was great. Though, I still think its pretty clear that his failure was how he used the force to attack and kill the illusionary Vader (his striking blow was dealt with lightning-fast speed as I remember). Directly attacking with the force is of the dark side and Luke saw himself becoming like Vader, taking the easy path to victory. Well, even if nobody agrees with me, those are my thoughts.
- Post
- #258348
- Topic
- Peter Jackson evidently IS returning for The Hobbit...sort of...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258348/action/topic#258348
- Time
Originally posted by: Lord Phillock
(just break down the hobbit storyline to a more fit-for-film version.. like eliminating Beorn but keeping him for the Extended Edition)
(just break down the hobbit storyline to a more fit-for-film version.. like eliminating Beorn but keeping him for the Extended Edition)
Any film version of the Hobbit that would leave out Beorn could never be considered the Hobbit.
- Post
- #258346
- Topic
- Favorite Game and Movie
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258346/action/topic#258346
- Time
Movie: Star Wars
- Post
- #258344
- Topic
- Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258344/action/topic#258344
- Time
One thing that strikes me is how the dialogue for the different characters in Star Wars was actually different. They all spoke like individuals in their own way. Now, in the prequels, everyone talks the in the same, sanctimonious or trite fashion or else they talk like a joke.
- Post
- #258157
- Topic
- What did the Prequel Trilogy need?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258157/action/topic#258157
- Time
- Post
- #258142
- Topic
- morals
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258142/action/topic#258142
- Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
We've already been discussing them. You were quick to piss on the words of Christ that I quoted earlier.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Oh, so if we voted to create a federal pillaging force to invade your neighborhood, murder/rape your friends and family, and steal every possession you own, that would be legitimate because our government gave everything its approval?
Stealing is the unethical seizure of private property, whether individuals or democratic governments do it. Sorry.
If. Condition contrary to fact. You're confusing an event that hasn't come to pass with something you say has already happened simply because a government program you don't support is nonetheless in effect. Go take a logic course and get back to us when you know the actual tools of debate.
Wow, I’m amazed by your logic once more, ADigitalMan.
I think you are missing a detail that should have been obvious to you, but I’ll now point it out for your benefit. I wasn’t arguing for any equivalence between the hypothetical government program which I described and the one that I do not support in reality. There was no connection there whatsoever in my post (that should have been obvious to anyone who isn’t an ignorant boob). It was this statement of yours is what I was responding to:
First, you assumed that I judged the government to be a stealing entity because a program was enacted that I happened to disagree with as an individual. (This is stupid because I never said anything of the kind, so for you to get that impression and then accuse me of it without at least asking for confirmation was childish at best. In addition, your logical connection implying that disagreement on my part automatically equals stealing from my perspective is completely facile. I was expecting more from you in this debate, ADM.)
Second, it is fairly clear that you then went on to at least try knocking down your obvious straw man by appealing to a supposed logical principle: You tell me that government-gathered resources are not private and that government-decreed actions are not private, and then, on that basis, you argued that a non-private status automatically neutralized my disagreement. (A non-private status neutralizing my disagreement should be an obviously stupid argument to just about anyone, but I’m beginning to find that you aren’t just “anyone,” ADM.)
Thirdly, you then made your final and most stupid connection. You say that because my disagreement is neutralized by the public nature of democratic government (and perhaps other forms of government?), any reasoning or ethical judgment of policy on my part, behind my disagreement, should then be completely thrown out of the window (to use a colorful phrase). Therefore, you illogically conclude that whatever action I was criticizing (wow, you still don’t even know what I am criticizing yet!), it absolutely could not have been thievery because such judgment on my part is not allowed. (Brilliant!)
Heh. Now, to challenge your supposed principles and completely unconnected logic, I then presented a situation in my previous post that I felt would be a good challenge for your principles. (My federally-funded pillaging force was this very example.) I never once said that the example was in existence anywhere, nor that I was concretely criticizing anything of the sort in terms of reality. Therefore, when you concluded in your most recent post that I was making that particular, logical mistake, you were simply demonstrating more of your illogic, I’m afraid. (It’s okay, we all make mistakes, ADM.)
I hope all of this clarification helps you, ADM. If not, then at least I would hope that I have exposed your foolishness to any other people who might witness this messy conversation you created.
Hmm, perhaps we should make this a formal debate, ADM? Perhaps that way everything could be made clearer for you and thus you wouldn’t get so easily confused? If you know all of the “actual” tools of debate, then a formal, logical debate should be easy for you to engage in. I’d like to see you demonstrate your skill in actually valid ways.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Which morals in particular would you like to discuss?
Oh, so if we voted to create a federal pillaging force to invade your neighborhood, murder/rape your friends and family, and steal every possession you own, that would be legitimate because our government gave everything its approval?
Stealing is the unethical seizure of private property, whether individuals or democratic governments do it. Sorry.
If. Condition contrary to fact. You're confusing an event that hasn't come to pass with something you say has already happened simply because a government program you don't support is nonetheless in effect. Go take a logic course and get back to us when you know the actual tools of debate.
Wow, I’m amazed by your logic once more, ADigitalMan.
I think you are missing a detail that should have been obvious to you, but I’ll now point it out for your benefit. I wasn’t arguing for any equivalence between the hypothetical government program which I described and the one that I do not support in reality. There was no connection there whatsoever in my post (that should have been obvious to anyone who isn’t an ignorant boob). It was this statement of yours is what I was responding to:
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
You keep saying that the government is stealing. Please explain how the government is "stealing" by enacting programs that you disagree with. The tax base is no one person's private piggy bank. Not every citizen supports every bill that the government enacts. That's what it means to live in a Republican Democracy: Representatives are chosen by the people to decide and approve what gets spent on their behalf. This is not theivery. This is called government.
You keep saying that the government is stealing. Please explain how the government is "stealing" by enacting programs that you disagree with. The tax base is no one person's private piggy bank. Not every citizen supports every bill that the government enacts. That's what it means to live in a Republican Democracy: Representatives are chosen by the people to decide and approve what gets spent on their behalf. This is not theivery. This is called government.
First, you assumed that I judged the government to be a stealing entity because a program was enacted that I happened to disagree with as an individual. (This is stupid because I never said anything of the kind, so for you to get that impression and then accuse me of it without at least asking for confirmation was childish at best. In addition, your logical connection implying that disagreement on my part automatically equals stealing from my perspective is completely facile. I was expecting more from you in this debate, ADM.)
Second, it is fairly clear that you then went on to at least try knocking down your obvious straw man by appealing to a supposed logical principle: You tell me that government-gathered resources are not private and that government-decreed actions are not private, and then, on that basis, you argued that a non-private status automatically neutralized my disagreement. (A non-private status neutralizing my disagreement should be an obviously stupid argument to just about anyone, but I’m beginning to find that you aren’t just “anyone,” ADM.)
Thirdly, you then made your final and most stupid connection. You say that because my disagreement is neutralized by the public nature of democratic government (and perhaps other forms of government?), any reasoning or ethical judgment of policy on my part, behind my disagreement, should then be completely thrown out of the window (to use a colorful phrase). Therefore, you illogically conclude that whatever action I was criticizing (wow, you still don’t even know what I am criticizing yet!), it absolutely could not have been thievery because such judgment on my part is not allowed. (Brilliant!)
Heh. Now, to challenge your supposed principles and completely unconnected logic, I then presented a situation in my previous post that I felt would be a good challenge for your principles. (My federally-funded pillaging force was this very example.) I never once said that the example was in existence anywhere, nor that I was concretely criticizing anything of the sort in terms of reality. Therefore, when you concluded in your most recent post that I was making that particular, logical mistake, you were simply demonstrating more of your illogic, I’m afraid. (It’s okay, we all make mistakes, ADM.)
I hope all of this clarification helps you, ADM. If not, then at least I would hope that I have exposed your foolishness to any other people who might witness this messy conversation you created.
Hmm, perhaps we should make this a formal debate, ADM? Perhaps that way everything could be made clearer for you and thus you wouldn’t get so easily confused? If you know all of the “actual” tools of debate, then a formal, logical debate should be easy for you to engage in. I’d like to see you demonstrate your skill in actually valid ways.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Which morals in particular would you like to discuss?
We've already been discussing them. You were quick to piss on the words of Christ that I quoted earlier.
Ahh, unfortunately, I wasn’t pissing on anything in that response of mine. I was providing arguments against what I believed you were trying to argue. Specifically I was proving that your quotes from the bible were out of context and/or misapplied by you (assuming I was correct in my assumption of what you were trying to imply).
Anyways, I’m sorry you didn’t understand what I was saying in that reply. But, either way, I’m not going to bother clarifying any further at this moment and I’m simply going to say that it is now your impetus to respond to what I said and explain to me why your quotes are still valid.
- Post
- #258074
- Topic
- morals
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258074/action/topic#258074
- Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
You keep saying that the government is stealing. Please explain how the government is "stealing" by enacting programs that you disagree with. The tax base is no one person's private piggy bank. Not every citizen supports every bill that the government enacts. That's what it means to live in a Republican Democracy: Representatives are chosen by the people to decide and approve what gets spent on their behalf. This is not theivery. This is called government.
Oh, so if we voted to create a federal pillaging force to invade your neighborhood, murder/rape your friends and family, and steal every possession you own, that would be legitimate because our government gave everything its approval?
Stealing is the unethical seizure of private property, whether individuals or democratic governments do it. Sorry.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
For all the morality that gets claimed by the religious right in this country, the very morals Christ tried to impart are frighteningly absent in their politics.
You keep saying that the government is stealing. Please explain how the government is "stealing" by enacting programs that you disagree with. The tax base is no one person's private piggy bank. Not every citizen supports every bill that the government enacts. That's what it means to live in a Republican Democracy: Representatives are chosen by the people to decide and approve what gets spent on their behalf. This is not theivery. This is called government.
Oh, so if we voted to create a federal pillaging force to invade your neighborhood, murder/rape your friends and family, and steal every possession you own, that would be legitimate because our government gave everything its approval?
Stealing is the unethical seizure of private property, whether individuals or democratic governments do it. Sorry.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
For all the morality that gets claimed by the religious right in this country, the very morals Christ tried to impart are frighteningly absent in their politics.
Ahh, what an interesting statement. Which morals in particular would you like to discuss?
- Post
- #258066
- Topic
- "Black Friday" SW DVD Sales...Wow, Did Some of You...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258066/action/topic#258066
- Time
- Post
- #257969
- Topic
- morals
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257969/action/topic#257969
- Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Let you who is without sin cast the first stone.
Go and sin no more.
I don't believe government should steal for the direct pupose of someone's purely private benefit. Not my own or anyone else's. If I'm behaving in a hypocritical manner here, then so be it, I'll be judged.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Give to the poor and you shall have treasures in heaven.
Let you who is without sin cast the first stone.
Go and sin no more.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Judge not, lest you be judged yourself.
Judge not, lest you be judged yourself.
I don't believe government should steal for the direct pupose of someone's purely private benefit. Not my own or anyone else's. If I'm behaving in a hypocritical manner here, then so be it, I'll be judged.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Give to the poor and you shall have treasures in heaven.
Give to the poor with money you have stolen through the force of government? Hah.
- Post
- #257927
- Topic
- morals
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257927/action/topic#257927
- Time
- Post
- #257746
- Topic
- Peter Jackson evidently IS returning for The Hobbit...sort of...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257746/action/topic#257746
- Time
- Post
- #257546
- Topic
- PS3 or Wii?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257546/action/topic#257546
- Time
- Post
- #257545
- Topic
- Chronicles of Narnia (The movie) striking similarities with The Lord of the Rings (the movie)(s)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257545/action/topic#257545
- Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
the fact that the kids just walked into another world didn't seem to be that impressive to the kids and thus not to the audience either.
the fact that the kids just walked into another world didn't seem to be that impressive to the kids and thus not to the audience either.
You're definitely right there. Something in the movie was really lacking in terms of focusing on the kids. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there seemed to be a lack of wonder from their perspective in the film. It was almost as if the movie was so eager to move into the fantasy world that it never took the time to dwell on the transition. (Maybe.) Also, the transformation of each of the kids as they took on their different roles seemed equally overshadowed.
- Post
- #257541
- Topic
- PS3 or Wii?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257541/action/topic#257541
- Time
- Post
- #257421
- Topic
- Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257421/action/topic#257421
- Time
- Post
- #257391
- Topic
- Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257391/action/topic#257391
- Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
It's not that they got worse, it's that we became more demanding.
It's not that they got worse, it's that we became more demanding.
With modern quality, you better be damn sure that I'm not going to spend twenty bucks a piece for three movies in substandard quality. I already owned the damn 2004 special editions and so as a fan of the original trilogy I'm very disappointed and thus I complain. Complaining gets results. It's not difficult to understand, Go-Mer.
- Post
- #257339
- Topic
- Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257339/action/topic#257339
- Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Now I'm hearing people say it's bad to the point of being torturous.
Now I'm hearing people say it's bad to the point of being torturous.
Image quality is important to me. The quality of this latest release was rather lame and that's why I didn't even purchase this latest release. Nobody here is claiming to be tortured. We're displeased and complaining.
Is it somehow wrong for us to have different values from you, Go-Mer?