logo Sign In

caligulathegod

User Group
Members
Join date
22-Dec-2005
Last activity
2-Mar-2024
Posts
298

Post History

Post
#310278
Topic
.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/310278/action/topic#310278
Time
Originally posted by: Mojo_LA

On the other hand, the XO team has learned a LOT about video clean up and preservation and it would be a shame to see those skills go to waste... there are still a fair number of films that are on laser disc that have never seen a DVD release, any most likely never will.

THOSE movies would greatly benefit from the X0 team's attention!


Oh yay! More films we can wait 4 years on!!!


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/7405/x0cat2tj1.jpg




(Just tweakin' ya)
Post
#310195
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/310195/action/topic#310195
Time
Sin is literally a transgression or violation against a law. It's not hard to apply that concept to other uses. However, the word "sin" has certain connotations. It implies a moral transgression rather than a general transgression. In proper English, one wouldn't describe a parking infraction as a sin. There's even some specific Catholic sin concepts that do go along with your thinking. Mortal sins, venial sins, etc. can be used in non-religious settings despite their religious roots. However, the term "Original Sin" is irretrievably religious and generally Catholic. Original Sin is a specific Christian concept referring to a sin committed by Adam and Eve and inherited by all of their offspring. Judaism nor Islam has it. It is not used in any other context except to invoke the first sin of mankind. Now, it can perhaps be used metaphorically in non-Christian contexts, but it's still meant to evoke the concept of a primary sin that is revisited upon heirs. I think that's what you are getting at. Despite its religious meanings it can be used in non-religious contexts meant to merely evoke the idea. The difference is that it is being used correctly. The meaning is right. With immaculate conception, when used metaphorically to evoke the virgin birth of Christ in comparison to the subject in discussion (be it Anakin or Perseus), it doesn't matter, it's still the wrong term. It's like talking about fruit and picking up a tomato and calling it a banana. It doesn't matter if a million people call it a banana, it's still a tomato. Some people do use it out of ignorance. Once they have been educated, they lose the excuse.

Our concern is not that you are using a religious phrase. I'm an atheist. I just care about using the correct phrase. Using a malapropism makes the user sound like Don King or even Tony Soprano. It has no place in a serious discussion, which I consider the Secret History of Star Wars to be.

Anyway, as I said, I really didn't want to make it a big deal (someone came in and repeated verbatim everything I had said which makes it seem like ganging up). You've corrected it, which is all we asked. I suppose now we're just getting caught up in trying to convince you. Either you are going to be convinced or you won't. It can't be forced. All I can do is point out the fallacy and let it go. It's not really important. I've been doing it since Phantom Menace came out (the phrase never really came up in conversation much until Anakin, hence most people's confusion-They hear the term and it seems to be an elegant way of referring to the virgin birth. Most people are shocked to find out it actually refers to such an esoteric concept.) and I probably will keep on. I'm the kind of person that when I get an email forward, I do the research (never takes more than a couple minutes) and send it back to everyone on the list pointing out what complete nonsense the letter is and how they should look this stuff up before they send it out (Barack Obama did not swear in on a Koran, for example). After a while they stop sending them to me. Most people would rather wallow in ignorance than embrace the truth. Sometimes I get carried away. If this whole discussion seemed that way then I apologize. It really was meant to be nothing more than a typo correction. Again, keep up the good work. We really all appreciate it.
Post
#310078
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/310078/action/topic#310078
Time
The thing is, there's a concept in the English language called connotation and denotation. Denotation is the literal meaning of a word or phrase. Connotation is the subjective meaning of a word and it implies an underlying meaning beyond the literal. For example, someone described as stubborn could be called strong-willed or pig-headed. They both mean stubborn in the literal sense but strong-willed implies admiration for the level of someone's will, while pig-headed implies frustration in dealing with someone. While one could spin the individual words to mean basically the idea of a "clean" conception (e.i. without the stain of blood or other bodily fluids), the concept being attributed is a parthenogenic virgin birth. The term immaculate conception already exists in the context of a virgin birth and it is used for something else. You can call a room or a table immaculate and just mean clean. When you are referring to an incarnation (the proper term), the phrase immaculate conception already has meaning and baggage relating to a specifically Catholic dogma. No one else uses the term immaculate conception for that or any other idea. Think of it like, say, a copyright of a common word. You could open a garage to fix cars and call it "Apple Autocare", or you could open a hairstyling salon and name it "Apple Hairstyling". You can't start a record company and call it Apple because that's taken and you can't start a computer company and call it Apple because that's taken, also. Do you see my point? Immaculate is a word and conception is a word. Put them together and relate it to a virgin birth and you've violated copyright, if you will.

Another point is that it is not truly in the general vernacular except as a mistake. Even when used mistakenly, it always refers to the concept of a virgin birth in comparison to Jesus. As it is an exclusively Catholic concept and not just descriptive words put together to describe parthenogenesis (in other words, you won't ever hear a scientist or teacher use it when referring to amphibians or reptiles that spawn with asexual procreation), it does imply a comparison to Christ and a divine involvement. So when used in context of an Anakin Skywalker, it is still meant to imply or invoke a comparison to Jesus and divinity. Once a person is educated on the matter, he should use the terms correctly rather than perpetuate the incorrect usage. When used incorrectly, it comes across as ignorance in furtherance of appearing erudite. It's like how you can tell someone has little experience with computers when they refer to the picture on their desktop as their "screen saver". On a computer, the screen saver is a specific program that comes on when the computer is idle for a period of time to prevent the screen from burning in (on old CRT monitors) it's not the picture on their computer screens behind their icons. Changing the background of the desktop is one of the first things a person usually learns on a computer and they are often get confused by the terms.

The proper term is incarnation, which means literally "embodied in flesh", and it refers to the conception and birth of a sentient creature (generally a human) who is the material manifestation of an entity or force whose original nature is immaterial. That describes Anakin being conceived of the Force in a most succinct and descriptive way without involving any specific denomination or baggage.

For the record, I really didn't mean it to be a major thing, just a minor correction like fixing a typo. The only reason that it's gone on is that there's a difference in arguing differences of interpretation and correcting outright error. You aren't going to find an authoritative source that doesn't say what we've been saying. It's actually one of those things that rarely gets discussed educationally where the author doesn't point out the common error; like when someone is writing educationally about snakes, they almost always point out how snakes are not slimy despite the general perception that they might be.

Anyway, I've said all I care to on the subject. Do what you will, I suppose. If you were going to be published professionally, you would most likely receive the same comments from your editor. We love your work and greatly admire it. You've actually done the research and backed up things I've said for years but with so much more detail and dedication. It's nice to have an authoritative source for exposing Lucas' mischaracterizations of his conception of Star Wars over the years. We're just helping correct typos. You've put in all the hard work and love.
Post
#309063
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309063/action/topic#309063
Time
I thought we had already covered it. He just repeated everything I had said.

Anyway, I suppose it is just as well since there is still a misunderstanding. There IS no "Immaculate Conception" concept outside of the Catholic Church. No one else uses it for any other purpose, not even other Christians. The name sounds fancy and people know it has something to do with Jesus, but it's actually a rather esoteric notion about Mary. It's not a colloquialism but a malapropism that non-Catholics make. I don't understand why you would want to undermine your otherwise extremely impressive scholarship. When a fancy word is used incorrectly it undermines the credibility of the author. There's an irony in that the whole purpose of the book is to dispel the myths and half truths that George Lucas has spewed over the years causing misunderstandings about the nature of his sub-creation while still perpetuating a misunderstanding about Immaculate Conception. You are now aware that this word has a very specific and exclusive meaning so there is no reason to use it incorrectly regardless of the general perception.


I really didn't mean it to become a big thing. It's just a personal pet peeve and I correct it when I see it.
Post
#308227
Topic
Giorgio Moroder's Metropolis (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/308227/action/topic#308227
Time
Just to let the world know, this is still on. It had slowed down for a bit, but has started up again. Only issue is that unlike most fanedits where they just rearrange scenes and insert footage, I'm doing it literally frame by frame. There's a surprising variation between versions in the arrangement of shots to the use of completely different takes with differing lengths. It's almost like doing animation, but I really want to get it right. It's probably going to pick up speed soon and I can see it being done in a few months. Oh, and I also just replaced my laserdisc player that had died on me, so I'm going to attempt to get a digital PCM rip of the soundtrack rather than just the analog capture I had been using. I'm pretty excited about that. It should sound great.
Post
#303710
Topic
.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/303710/action/topic#303710
Time
Deleted Magic is what drew ME to this site. I found it somehow when I was researching for my own laserdisc transfer (which I promptly dropped once I discovered this site and the torrents).

Is he even still banned? His profile shows his last visit December 1, 2007. He's been gone for over a year, hasn't he?
Post
#303703
Topic
.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/303703/action/topic#303703
Time
It came out that he had been selling his edits and others', which is a big no-no here. Fan-edits are ultimately on shaky ground anyway, so this site prefers to stay under the radar and not profit, nor encourage profit from fan-edits and preservations. OCP was charging above the cost of materials to help pay his rent and other expenses (and cover supposed "bad burns"). After a reasonable warning, he persisted and was banned. At one point he even forbade the free dispersal of one edit until he had made enough of a profit on it (to help with a move, if I recall).

It didn't help that when the GOUT came out, he started ranting like an asshole that he'd wasted all this time on his Classic versions and started spamming threads and creating new facetious threads until he calmed down. That didn't endear him to the staff.
Post
#303458
Topic
***//BUILDING EMPIRE\\: PAL & NTSC DVD - NEW EDITION NOW ONLINE! ***
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/303458/action/topic#303458
Time
It used to be up on Demon**d, but that site no longer exists. If you Google "buildingempire_ntsc" (in exactly that way but without the quotes), you will find multiple torr*nts that are still tracked by the Demon**d tracker. I was shocked how many people created torr*nts for it then just pointed it at the demon.

If you can't get it, then ask again and someone will help you out.
Post
#303447
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/303447/action/topic#303447
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
Well, I cleaned up a lot of the typos from the original version, LOL. I'm pretty sure I've gotten them all, but I've been going through the book again this week and making little nip-tucks.

And yeah, "there", "their" "they're"--especially that last one--can be annoying when you see it. Hopefully I am not guilty of that!




No, your work is great. I take it seriously enough that I'm bringing up what might be brought up by a real editor. Keep up the good work. I really love this book of yours.
Post
#303445
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/303445/action/topic#303445
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: caligulathegod
Content is excellent, as before. I did notice that the new edition still refers to Anakin's virgin birth as an "immaculate conception." Immaculate conception is not virgin birth. It is a Roman Catholic concept created to reconcile how Mary, as a human and subject to Original Sin, as are all humans, could give birth to a sinless Jesus. It was decided that Mary, unique among humans, was gifted a special grace by God and was not stained by Original Sin from the moment of her conception by normal sexual intercourse. So of Anakin Skywalker, Christ, Buddha, or Heracles, none was born by immaculate conception. Mary was.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Incarnation refers to the virgin birth of Christ. Immaculate Conception and Incarnation are specifically Roman Catholic doctrines rather than generic terms for the concepts to which they refer.


Yeah, but in common understanding when you say "Immaculate conception" people understand "virgin birth." To me, it seems that since "Immaculate (free of sin, virginal) conception" is not just a title but also simply a description it is still apt to use it in this broader sense, though its true that in Catholic theology it refers to a specific event (ie Mary's conception).


But it is still incorrect. I see no purpose in perpetuating a mistake regardless of the public misperception. The Secret History of Star Wars should illuminate the truth rather than perpetuate error. Plus, do you really want to rely on the assumption of error on the part of your reader to get your point across? Especially when those that do know the difference will be confused or irritated. Don't get me wrong. I'm not objecting to the religious content. I think earlier someone objected to what I found to be true and incisive scholarship on your part involving Christian myths. I'm only interested in correcting the nomenclature involved. Immaculate conception is something specific to Roman Catholicism and not even Christianity at large and it is only tangentially related to the virgin birth. Incarnation or simply "virgin birth" would be clearer rather than assume error on the part of the reader.

Here's a Wiki link to Incarnation. It is the more correct term regardless of religion.
Post
#303442
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/303442/action/topic#303442
Time
Yeah, it's not meant as a criticism. The book is just so fascinating that when I run across those it takes me out of it for a brief period. Everyone commits typos. That Loose/lose one is just one of my biggest pet peeves and it drives me nuts when I see it because it's usually not a typo but how that person thinks it is spelled. I'd actually mentioned it before in the thread back in May but it wasn't addressed so I just mentioned it again. I've even seen professional help manuals and websites that miss that one, since spell check overlooks it. But yeah, there/they're/their drives me nuts, too, as well as your/you're. The worst one has got to be "I should of done that" instead of "I should've done that. ("should have")" That doesn't even make sense. No one is talking about pluperfect subjunctives or anything complicated and esoteric. If I make a basic grammar mistake, I'd rather be corrected here than use it on a job application or presentation to a customer and look foolish. We're all just afraid to be "Grammar Nazis" when, on occasion, it becomes right and proper to make suggestions. Casual posts in a forum might not need corrected (and can technically be rude, unless done in the right manner), but I think a 500 page tome of worthwhile scholarship is one of those situations.

Oh yeah, another one that I see a lot now is Ludacris/ludicrous. Apparently everyone thinks that is how it is spelled now, but I digress.
Post
#303409
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/303409/action/topic#303409
Time
Content is excellent, as before. I did notice that the new edition still refers to Anakin's virgin birth as an "immaculate conception." Immaculate conception is not virgin birth. It is a Roman Catholic concept created to reconcile how Mary, as a human and subject to Original Sin, as are all humans, could give birth to a sinless Jesus. It was decided that Mary, unique among humans, was gifted a special grace by God and was not stained by Original Sin from the moment of her conception by normal sexual intercourse. So of Anakin Skywalker, Christ, Buddha, or Heracles, none was born by immaculate conception. Mary was.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Incarnation refers to the virgin birth of Christ. Immaculate Conception and Incarnation are specifically Roman Catholic doctrines rather than generic terms for the concepts to which they refer.


Oh, and it still has the "loose/lose" misspellings. Loose with two O's means not tight. Lose with one O means to not win or to misplace. Sorry, but that one drives me nuts.