darth_ender

Mrebo said:

darth_ender said:

I love sports.  I loved watching when Wayne Gretsky threw the ol' pigskin in the basket, thus making an eagle and going on to break the 30-love tie to win the World Series for Penn State.  When was that?  Back in '59 I think.  Man, those were the days!  I love sports!

Did you edit your post to fix a technical error?

Of course not.  There are no errors.  It was a typo!

corellian77 said:

georgec said:

I think Abrams did a good job on the first one, and the alternate universe thing allows him to leave every preexisting thing in the myths intact. But his works seem less like ST movies and more like action movies set in the ST universe. And I don't mean that in a negative way.

That's exactly what Abrams did--and I do mean that in a negative way. He wants to make a sci-fi action movie? Fine. I just don't get why he'd brand it as Star Trek. He's taken a TV and movie series that was about thought-provoking stories with moments of action and created action stories with... Well, who are we kidding, with no thought-provoking content at all.

It'd be like making a movie of All In The Family, but instead of having a character-driven film that centers around challenging Archie's world views, fill it up with car chases, explosions, killer robots sent back from the future to kill Edith before she can give birth to Gloria and start the Resistance... oh, and have Archie walk onto the bridge of a naval destroyer and have him instantly promoted to the rank of Captain.

I'd have nothing against a movie like that, mind you. I just don't think it should be called All In The Family.

I largely agree.  However, it was clearly a marketing move as well.  Star Trek was on the ropes, but Abrams made a film that appeals to more modern audiences who like a little less thinking.  I do enjoy the film, but it does sadden me how it has departed from the aspects of Trek that I loved.  I watched Star Wars for action and adventure.  I watched Star Trek for moral dilemmas and political commentary.  When the respective franchises stray into the other arenas (read PT and ST'09), they suffer.  That said, I did enjoy other aspects of that film with characters with the same names as Star Trek characters, but was not a Star Trek film.  I just disconnect it from the real Star Trek universe in my mind.

Tobar said:

Star Trek Generations (1994)

Sheesh, this came out in '94? Man how time flies. Well, my chronological journey through Star Trek has brought me here. It's been and continues to be an interesting ride. I still don't get the harsh criticisms against this film. Yeah the Nexus is a stupid mcguffin along with the excuses for why Soran has to resort to what he's doing but darn it the film isn't all bad. It had strong ties to the show which had just wrapped up and then rolled into the production of this film. We get to see the end of Lursa and B'Etor as well as see the return of Guinan after a long absence. We also see a Picard acting like himself and not the action hero of the later films. Overall I felt it stayed pretty true to the soul of the show and that's why I like it.

Outside of this film, I'm sad we never got to see any resolution with Tasha's daughter Sela. She would have made an interesting movie villain. The Generation films in general I think would have been stronger if they had all been focused on tying up loose threads from the show. Oh well.

QFT--from the way time flies to the unreasonable criticism to the wishing for some resolution with Sela...all true!

Oh snap!!!

I can honestly say that I know whether or not he is from Maryland...and that I promised I wouldn't tell. Mwahahaha!

Yes!  And that he fell in love with Star Wars 4 years before it even came out!!!

Actually, I think we just re-learned that Frink is a big, fat liar.

What a difficult task. War always sucks, and the more personal, the more difficult. Who knew that something as impersonal as drone warfare would also become so personal?

Timdiggerm included which are B&W in his list, it appears.

Nice to see emanswfan. I know you started doing this, but became busy with other projects. It was nice to see the samples of your work.

I was 15 or maybe 16 at the time (it came out just before my birthday). I had watched Star Wars for years and had it thoroughly memorized. Even at that age I was disappointed with the change, both because it looked fake and because it made Han weak. I immediately thought, "Well, that was dumb." I also didn't like the Jabba scene, much as I wanted to see it.

I too love ROTJ, and have been advocating an edit that would make great use of the deleted scenes. I would ask that you start with all of those, giving highest priority to those in color.

I'm certainly interested. I keep seeing upstarts that peter out and die. I hope you succeed!

^I love it!!!!

Wow, I'm still psyched about this project! It really excites me that we'll be getting double with the OOT and 97SE. It seems you guys are all of the sudden moving at a much faster pace. I know you were originally bogged down with more tedious work that you decided to let go a bit, but I really am surprised that you're already done or nearly done with both versions of ANH!

Akwat Kbrana, I again appreciate this review. It's amazing to read the disparities between the movie critics and general fanbase. Like you said, it seems to be a fad to criticize Jackson (kinda like Lucas bashing!--but I can justify the latter a little more, though not to the extent that I regularly read). The Hobbit should be very different from LOTR, and if the film succeeds at this, even if it is expanding the material, that's great. As long as he's not aiming for the same type of epic, acknowledging what the movie is, then that's fantastic. My heart had been a little broken looking at Rotten Tomatoes, where the critics give it a 65%, but the fans give it an 81%. And considering how I respect the opinions of so many here, I feel pretty confident that I will enjoy it :)

This is a really cool site, and I believe our own Sluggo is associated with it. Not sure about anyone else here, but I wouldn't be surprised.

http://starwarz.com/starkiller/about/

It includes scripts from all the films including one from ROTJ. Coruscant was called Had Abbadon and there were two Death Stars, an idea which intrigues me and has really caught the fancy of Bingowings. I'm not sure how one could successfully edit ROTJ to have two, but it's an interesting idea.

TK-949 said:

 

darth_ender said:

I'm betting many of you are already aware of this, but considering the above Calvin and Hobbes spoof, I figured I'd share these for those who didn't know about it.  This really is a nice way to look back on that *snip*

Although this was posted some time ago, I just have seen these. Thank's man, you made my day. I love Calvin and Hobbes and was always sad it ran only for 10 years.

 

Yes, they're heartwarming to read.  I too loved Calvin and Hobbes and was so sad to see it end.  But Watterson's comics have a timeless quality.  The Hobbes and Bacon comics did a pretty good job of capturing the joy of the original.  Too bad it couldn't go on.

AntcuFaalb said:

Thank you for taking the time to express your view(s) with care and consideration, zombie84.

Can we all be friends now, guys?

Yes, it's much more pleasant reading a thoughtful comment than a rash one.  I appreciate it as well.

DominicCobb, nice words. 

bkev said:

I love how people are more offended that Zombie's against religion than the fact that he's made a sweeping generalization about all Americans. After seeing that, maybe he's got a point. #prioirities

I hope that you are reading such "people's" comments, because I quite clearly am getting on him about these sweeping generalizations.

I don't have time to deal with this at the moment. Zombie84, I sure appreciate your suddenly softened wording. However, you clearly made several statements that actually branded the entirety of Americans and our culture as idiotic. And even if you speak only of our government, as a republic, it is representative of the people. You are free to disagree with how we do things. But you have made bigoted statements, regardless of how noble you feel because you stand against other forms of bigotry. I don't mean to say you are a bigot, or at least any more guilty than the rest of us. Sadly, if we were all to reflect, we'd all find ourselves bigoted in some thoughts. But you have been rather insulting today as well as foolish in your statements. I don't appreciate it, and I pointed out your fallacies.

Let me add a PS to make my point clear. Just because someone differs from you, and just because someone believes in something that is not scientific, that doesn't make that person an idiot. Zombie has shown a great lack of scientific thinking in his blanket statements, yet he clearly has shown great intelligence with his research. People are fallible, and there is value to opinions, even wrong ones.

I have a somewhat deistic POV when it comes to creation. God set up the laws that resulted in the universe's creation, and the extent of his guidance after he set events in motion is not important--I mean, if he's omnipotent, he can set the exact events in motion right at the beginning without direct intervention thereafter, right? Am I an idiot? Very brilliant people hold more biblically literal interpretations. Are they idiots, just because science doesn't always agree? I'd wager if I read your posts more carefully, I'd find less than scientific assumptions in your posts. Let's see, ah...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada#Census_results

In 2001, 77% of your country identified themselves as Christian of one brand or another, not to mention the small sample of other religious affiliations. 22% of the country believes God created mankind in his present form and 20% are unsure. That's a sizeable group there, meaning that Canada is not so "creationist-free" as you might like to believe. Sadly this does not measure how many believe God had a role in the process of evolution, but considering how many are affiliated with Christianity, I'd say it's a decent portion. Meanwhile in the US, 46% believe mankind was created as-is, while 32% believe God guided the process. The US is about 73% Christian, plus some other minorities. So while we hold more to creationism than others, we are still largely open-minded to evolution and science.

http://ncse.com/news/2008/08/polling-creationism-canada-001375

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

It appears to me that you have a very un-scientific hypothesis: that Americans are nearly all "retards" who believe in unscientific things (and I gave you a qualifier that you yourself did not use) while Canadians are nearly all intelligent, rationally-minded individuals who don't preoccupy themselves with such nonsense. A simple examination shows that you are generalizing, that your hypothesis is false in its strictest interpretation, and not even true on a more general level. You have not thought scientifically. You have thought like a bigot. But at least gay marriage is not an issue for you, so you can sleep soundly at night knowing you're not a bigot.

Zombie84, I'm a little disappointed. I have held your opinions in much higher regard in the past. Creationism is an opinion held by many intelligent and respectable people, and the term itself is pretty broad in scope, ranging from those who believe God created the earth 7,000 years ago in exactly six days, to those who believe in the Big Bang, an 4.6 billion year-old planet, and evolution, all guided by God. So essentially you are saying anyone who believes God had anything to do with creation is "retarded" (another term I don't much appreciate, considering I have a brother with Down syndrome). I hope you're just pulling a Mel Gibson and are saying things under the influence.

http://originaltrilogy.com/FORUM/topic.cfm/Android-LightSaber-app/post/609644/

Unfortunately, it appears the post itself must of have been deleted :( All you can read is Frink's surprised reaction. If had happened to anyone else, it wouldn't have been so funny. But the fact that it quoted him, saying, "Hey, a spambot that can interact! The future is truly now," and he appeared so startled that he couldn't even make a joke about it, it just really made me guffaw.

I really laughed so hard when a spambot quoted Frink. "The future is truly now."