Bingowings said:
He didn't have to nuke the world he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for iniquites: the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his bleeding hands he damned us all to hell.
Well that wasn't very nice of him.
But he was dying from injuries sustained from being shot by apes, no? One could argue the actions of the apes led him to setting off the nuke.
Ergo, killed by apes?
Tobar said:
georgec said:
Small article at Empire. Nothing new.
I wouldn't say this is nothing:
"There are infinitely more questions than answers right now, but to me, they’re not that dissimilar. Though I came at these both from very different places, where they both meet is a place of ‘Ooh, that’s really exciting.’ And even though I was never a Star Trek fan, I felt like there was a version of it that would make me excited, that I would think ‘that’s cool, that feels right, I actually would want to see that.
How we were going to get there, what the choices were going to be, who was going to be in it – all of those things I knew would have to be figured out, but it was all based on a foundation of this indescribable, guttural passion for something that could be. It’s a similar feeling that I have with Star Wars. I feel like I can identify a hunger for what I would want to see again and that is an incredibly exciting place to begin a project. The movies, the worlds could not be more different but that feeling that there’s something amazing here is the thing that they share.”
It's just a vague statement that people are excited about the movie.
I always loved watching The Ten Commandments at Easter time growing up. That movie is epic and has some beautiful music to boot. I think ABC usually airs it on two nights.
Who would have thought the guy who played Moses would become the head of the NRA? Or worse, be killed by apes?
My thermodynamics courses elucidated that the sky is blue due to Rayleigh scattering (by very small particles e.g. air molecules). Basically, longer wavelengths of light (red, orange, yellow) can pass through our atmosphere without too much scattering. Since blue light has a short wavelength, it becomes scattered much more than red light, all of which is contained in the sun's white rays. That's why at sunset the sky's color is more reddish. Most of the blue and shorter wavelength light has been scattered out of those rays (which must travel a longer distance to your location at sunset). But when the sun is directly above us, we're basically receiving the direct white rays plus the scattered blue components from the 'adjacent' rays.
I think it's possible for people to be "born straight", grow up, have changing sexual desires or affilitations, etc. Of course it has been demonstrated this comes from a genetic predisposition, and I agree with this. But I guess anything's possible.
At the same time I personally don't like how the "born with it" classification is sometimes used. Let me clarify. I obviously support gay marriage, have never had any hatred or disapproval toward homosexuality (other than the regrettable cultural norm of teenage boys calling each other 'gay' at every immature opportunity).
It just seems sometimes people have to apologize for being homosexual to avoid further scrutiny. "I didn't choose this, I was born with it." I know that's not what people on here mean in this discussion, but I've gotten the impression from random conversations with people that this logic is used more to rationalize.
To use the racial example from earlier, it'd be like a black individual saying, "I didn't choose to be black, I was born this way." Then someone else says, "Oh, okay, you didn't choose to be black. I guess it's okay that you are black, then, because if you chose to be black that would be a cause for concern." It certainly sounds awful in that context, right?
I guess I'm saying that hopefully in the future people become less concerned with why homosexuality exists, and just accept that it does exist just like any other human quality or trait does. But I understand why this discussion arises frequently.
Small article at Empire. Nothing new.
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=36884
TV's Frink said:
georgec said:
We need a mash-up of The Room and the Ridiculousness Trilogy.
You haven't been paying attention.
Sorry. :(
We need a mash-up of The Room and the Ridiculousness Trilogy.
I could see Anakin saying, "Everybody betrayed me! I'm fed up with this world," or pretty much every line by Johnny.
I'll be in my bunk.
I am fed up with this world.
bkev said:
Someone like Count Dooku, only better handled, would be my ideal villain for this trilogy.
Joruus C'baoth from the Thrawn trilogy comes to mind.
TV's Frink said:
I wanna feel what God is...
I know you can show me...
Can you not stop now?
Is it true you have traveled so far?
Do you wish to change this lonely life?
TV's Frink said:
I wanna know what God is....
I want you to show me...
You wanna talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do.
Oops. I blame the forum's sometimes broken posting.
I've already seen Troll 2, as well as the "Best Worst Movie" documentary.
Finally watched The Room. Lived up to the "so bad it's entertaining" billing. Just awful but hilarious. I think I'd find it just as funny if the film's reputation didn't precede it. The acting and dialogue are so incredibly horrible.
That's because the Sith hid their armies in their sleevies. ;)
Not to mention Sith armies vs. Jedi armies basically the exact opposite of what I'd be interested to see, and it's the laziest approach to the new films. We already saw hundreds of Jedi swinging lightsabers in the prequels. It was hella dull and boring.
Star Wars Episode VII will be set 30 years after Episode VI: Return of the Jedi• It will indeed feature the Skywalker/Solo children coming to the peak of their powers
• The Jedi Order has been rebuilt with Luke Skywalker as Grand Master
• A disciple of Emperor Palpatine aims to rebuild the Sith Armies of the Old Republic and destroy the Jedi where the Skywalker children will be thrust into battle and face their inner demons of their Skywalker lineage.
Nothing there surprises me, as it was obvious that's where the story is going. The key will be making the new villain(s) fresh and original rather than a tired rehash of previous ones.
Sorry to pop in, but this discussion reminds me of a scene from Malcolm in the Middle.
video here: http://www.thatvideosite.com/v/4241
Bingowings said:
Since when have wealth and youth been remotely synonymous?
I hate how DuracellEnergizer is watching movies that he doesn't like. :P
They could hire Darrell Hammond to play Connery playing Han's father instead. :P
Is there any chance we can get Sean Connery to play Han's father?
walkingdork said:
georgec said:
walkingdork said:
TV's Frink said:
The MySpleen thread sucks.
Ugh tell me about it. :)
Good to see you, walkingdork. :)
How are you?
Things have been going great. My new job, new girlfriend, busy, busy. I'm finally in a routine and have time to sit down and have computer freetime (after working on a computer all day).
Tonight I finally got a chance to sit down, have a bowl, and visit OT. :)
Cheerios? Lucky Charms? Reese's Puffs?
;)