TPM I could still enjoy while I did not really like it that much. In ATOC Anakin was an annoying jerk right from the start so I was immediately annoyed by the film. But when on top of that he started to whine in a love scene, I knew that there is a zero chance I will ever enjoy this film.
and so this story ends.
DuracellEnergizer said:
This sums up the reason why I like him pretty much. Incomprehensible artistic weirdness appeals to me very much.
By now we are well aware you are into weird stuff.
Unfair edit!
No.
Possessed said:
Is it imperial scum or imperials cum?
Depends on the person reading it. It is like looking in the mirror.
TV's Frink said:
What the hell has happened to my beautiful non-bully thread.
It got bullied.
moviefreakedmind said:
unamochilla2 said:
moviefreakedmind said:
The TFN community is kind of delusional I think. Not that I'm not also delusional, but I don't really understand how someone could honestly think that there's a reason to let the original versions of Star Wars rot away into nonexistence (which I know one specific TFNer has said before)
I believe some have said that if Disney acknowledges and releases the OOT, then it will "interfere" will the saga AKA George's vision. Even when the OOT is released on Blu-ray, I'm guessing the 2011 versions (or newer versions) will still remain as official.
Sure, but who really cares about what is "official"?
Well if you are solely interested in OT then official canon is of no concern. However if you are interested in sequels then that might present inconveniences. For example, if for some reason they wanted to have Anakin's ghost, they might bring Hayden back in order to follow the canon. I gave the worst case scenario but still. :)
Post Praetorian said:
It is possible. It might be interesting to conceive of an experiment to prove or disprove such a concept, but lacking such an aegis I must leave this as merely a possibility.
I don't believe it is possible to conceive an experiment that would prove my theory with existing technology. Unless we can somehow read the brain perception of an individual, it is impossible to do so.
So if I present this the other way around. We are infants without any prior experience. We both look at an cubical object emitting a radiation at frequency about 650THz. What you experience in your brain is this:
and what I experience in my brain is this:
We are both told by the parents that this object is blue. Then we go outside and we see the sky for the first time. Will we both call it blue? Of course we will.
Post Praetorian said:
imperialscum said:
Is the radiation with frequency of 650THz (blue colour) decoded the same way in brain between different people? Could it be that what is my brain's blue is your brain's red? But we all call it blue because that is how we were taught by parents looking at the same object, while in fact experiencing a different thing in our brain.
It is possible, however such a concept is unlikely given the universal acceptance of color groupings such as fall colors, pastels, jewel tones, etc. Further, if my sky were red instead of blue my sunsets would be much less spectacular. My sunsets are spectacular therefor the sky cannot be red.
Alternately, how might one describe a color one cannot see?
I don't think you understood the problem. The name of the colour is standardised based on the frequency of radiation emitted by some common and distinct objects in the nature. Why do you call the sky blue? Not because of what you experienced inside your brain but because someone told you that the sky is blue. So only after that you associated your brain perception to what you were being taught. However brain perception of sky can be different from person to person and yet we will all call it blue because that is how we were being taught and because the radiation frequency is universal.
Same with the fall colours, as you gave the example. We were told that the leafs are red and yellow in autumn. And we have no problem calling it red and yellow despite possible different brain perceptions. This is simply because we associated our different brain perception to the particular frequency of radiation, which is universal.
Is the radiation with frequency of 650THz (blue colour) decoded the same way in brain between different people? Could it be that what is my brain's blue is your brain's red? But we all call it blue because that is how we were taught by parents looking at the same object, while in fact experiencing a different thing in our brain.
DuracellEnergizer said:
imperialscum said:
Films are an art and therefore film maker should be first and foremost an artist. A true artist follows his/her vision with disregard to popularity and people's tastes. A film maker who makes stuff in a way so that people will like it is not an artist but a salesman or an attention whore.
So, seeing as Lucas cut down on Jar Jar's screentime with each prequel as a result of negative public opinion on the character, does that make him an artist or a salesman?
The answer to that question would be clear if the reason behind his action was clear. But the reason you provided is your assumption so the answer (obtained by the algorithm I provided) would be unfortunately your assumption too.
RicOlie_2 said:
Even so, if the foundations are utter crap, then its their inventor's fault for people not liking them. Cheese-flavoured ice cream would not be popular. Ear wax-flavoured ice cream would be even less so.
Films are an art and therefore film maker should be first and foremost an artist. A true artist follows his/her vision with disregard to popularity and people's tastes. A film maker who makes stuff in a way so that people will like it is not an artist but a salesman or an attention whore.
So now let me repeat it... you can't blame film maker for being an artist. If you don't like his/her art blame your taste and move on to the things you like.
RicOlie_2 said:
The ice cream flavour would be analogous of a genre of movie, not a particular movie. The batch of ice cream would be the particular movie.
For the sake of it, then let me expand the analogy a bit... so the milk products are film as an art, ice cream is the genre, ice cream favours are film foundations (story, characters) and ice cream maker is the film maker that does a remake of a film. Now everything as I said before applies perfectly.
And now an example rather than analogy, if I hate some film's foundations then no matter how many remakes they make I just won't like it.
Frank your Majesty said:
But if you like strawberry ice cream and you happen to eat a portion with rotten strawberries you know who is to blame: The one who made it.
In my analogy I established ice cream to be a film as an art and strawberry ice cream as a particular film (i.e. PT). Therefore if you don't like strawberry ice cream (i.e. the foundations of PT: storyline, character development, etc.) it really doesn't matter who makes it. In the end, a rotten strawberry or not, it will still be a strawberry ice cream.
Frank your Majesty said:
And to imperialscum: Blaming Lucas is not blaming the ice cream, it's blaming the one who made the ice cream.
If you don't like strawberry ice cream it is completely irrelevant who makes it.
TV's Frink said:
So am I understanding correctly that it's my fault for disliking the prequels, not George's?
You understand that correctly. If you don't like strawberry ice cream, for example, you just can't say it is strawberry ice cream's fault for your particular taste. You can't control your taste therefore all you can do is to avoid things you don't like and not blame them for their existence.
Alderaan said:
I don't think you understand the meaning of "dramatic conflict".
Very interesting.
Alderaan said:
Lucas seems to have lost himself in the EU, falling back on telling his audience a few superficial facts about a thousand different creations, rather than showing archetypal stories of a few individuals via dramatic conflict.
Dramatic conflicts? Then you should love PT. Dramatic conflicts are not inherently good. PT is full of dramatic conflicts, annoying ones nonetheless, that characterises PT Anakin into an extremely unlikeable annoying repulsive jerk. I would rather see a good-person Anakin with focus on adventure rather than on annoying dramatic conflicts.
The sole reason why I (and probably many others) find TPM the most enjoyable of the PT is because it is still primarily an adventure (poorly executed one but still). In contrast, ATOC and ROTS are primarily focused on annoying personal conflicts of Anakin.
danny_boy said:
As requested by some-I removed the term "official " from the thread title.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I have finished Alien: Isolation main campaign and I must say it is the first good game I have played in a while now. And certainly the best Alien game to this date.
DuracellEnergizer said:
Alderaan said:
^Here's to hoping that was sarcastic!
On my end, yes. I only wish imperiumscum could say the same.
I hope you are being sarcastic now.
timdiggerm said:
imperialscum said:
timdiggerm said:
I have encoded the film as a radio wave which will eventually be received by a deep space probe and sent back so we can watch it. In between transmission and reception by the probe, I have destroyed all copies of the film.
Radio waves, happily, are not made of matter.
Finally a worthy post!
Hmm now there is a question of how broadly you use the adjective "physical". If you use "physical" on the highest level, i.e. an adjective pertaining to physics, then the copy would still be a physical copy since electromagnetic radiation is part of physics.
Good thing everyone uses words to mean things other than their purest, dictionary defined definitions! Physical Media means exactly what everyone else in this thread said it does; this argument, while amusing, is absurd.
Of course it is absurd. The incorrect usage of "Physical Media" has been widely established and used. I am not not able to prevent the wrong usage now. Nevertheless, technically I am correct.