lordjedi

Fang Zei said:

If someone can just make a good argument as to why we want the OOT in decent quality, then we can go from there on what exactly we want.

Maybe because every other classic movie that has had an impact on cinema has had a decent quality release?  And it's 2008, so maybe it's about time this classic get its decent release?  Why the hell do we need a good argument for the OOT to get a decent release?  And why do we have to specify exactly what we want?  Blade Runner got a good release as have countless other movies.  Why is Star Wars the only one that seems to be neglected?  Because Lucas simply does not care.

We don't need a new petition.  Lucas needs to simply wake his ass up and realize that there is a market for a much better release.  Not only would I buy it in a heartbeat, but I'd probably start buying more Star Wars merchandise again.

digitalfreaknyc said:

Again, let's investigate how all of you are watching these things.  Are you watching them on 42" screens?  I hate to say it but there's not a single person on here that i'd trust to do an accurate review of any of these. Send them to the professional reviewers with 100"+ screens and then you'll see all the problems with the original mpeg-2 files.

I gotta agree with this 100%.  Ady's current releases look absolutely stunning on a small screen (20" widescreen LCD) and I'm sure they look good on a 50" 1080i TV (my main TV) as well.  Unfortunately, I'm no videophile.  What looks good to me may look like utter crap to someone with an eye for quality.

I still can't wait to see the AVCHD releases he's working on.  I doubt they'll look as good as something meant to fit on a full size Blu-ray disc though.

skyjedi2005 said:

II was fucking awful i only like part 1.  Vigo is the same dude as denethor from lord of the rings return of the king a cheapie horror movie actor.

Uh, no he's not.  http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0902455/

Seriously, do you pull this shit out of your ass?  Ghostbusters 2 may not have been as good as the first, but it wasn't aweful.

see you auntie said:

skyjedi2005 said:

 Luke is the only one who could do it since he used the force to guide the torpedo straight down the exhaust port into the main reactor....

 

Really!?

I always thought Luke used The Force to anticipate or feel when best to fire the torpedos (which was a fraction of a second) which the computer had/would have failed to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

This is what I always thought as well.  Luke "felt" when the right time to fire was.  Beyond that, the torpedos went in on their own.  Like Wedge said "That's impossible, even for a computer".

That's interesting.  What Intel card is it exactly?  Supposedly, the Intel GMA cards couldn't play it at all, even on XP or Vista.

Didn't Ghostbusters 3 end up as Evolution starring David Duchovny?  I read somewhere years ago that Evolution is what Ghostbusters 3 became.

C3PX said:

It is just a crappy Intel graphic card. Yeah, I played Portal from start to finish on it (through Vista), it got a little laggy sometimes, but nothing unbearable. And like I said, though crossover it worked (when it worked) perfectly, even with the graphics settings maxed out. HL2: Episode Two ran smoothly as far as load times and movement went, the graphic and textures were just glitchy enough to make it not any fun to play.

HL2: Ep2 has huge outdoor environments, the requirements for HL2 and HL2:Ep1 are considerably lower.

 

It's not really the outdoor environments that kill the speed in HL2:Ep2.  There's a graphics hardware feature that's utilized, especially in Portal, that must be hardware accelerated in order for Portal to run.  It simply will not work through software which is how the Intel cards do it.  That's why I'm kind of surprised you even got Portal to get as far as you did.  Most people have it crash the moment they step through the first Portal.

sean wookie said:

I have enjoyed playing GTA:SA on my Macbook this summer during the time at night when I was in my camper and couldn't acces the internet. I used a Windows XP Pro that I got off of The Pirate Bay that I run on bootcamp.

You might not want to talk about using illegal software on the forums sean.  I know you're not providing links, but you're essentially telling people where to get it.  You're suppose to buy a license, even for bootcamp.

ESHBG said:

Luca$ has absolutely no choice the next time around but to offer something really special.  

If he's willing to release the same set twice in two years, what's to stop him from releasing the same thing again on the next rerelease?

It's a Macbook?  Does it have an Nvidia or ATI card built-in?  Because if it doesn't, I'm surprised it was even able to play Portal.  Every person I've ever talked to on the Steam forums that tries to play portal on a Macbook (or a PC with integrated video) has trouble.  Most of the time it's because of crappy integrated Intel graphics chips that support DX 9.0c, but don't support shader model 2.0 (I think that's what it is) in hardware.  Software rendering simply won't do it for Portal.

HL2 and HL2:Ep1 technically have slightly lower requirements than HL2:Ep2, even though they're all in the same box.  So it wouldn't be a surprise if you could run those and not Portal.

Wait, we have rules?

sean wookie said:

He said he doesn't play many games. Why would you get a computer just to play 2 games?

Yet he got a Mac (which is a computer) and now he wants to play games on it.  Newsflash, most current games don't run natively on OS X.  There are a few exceptions.  Some older games will run on it natively, but they're probably several years old.

What are the hardware specs of the Mac?  Does it have a discrete (add-on) video card or is it built in?  List all your specs and the version of crossover you're running.  More than likely, it's just not going to work again.

negative1 said:

yeah, looks like pointless overkill to me..

You probably wouldn't say that if LFL released a similar boxed set of all the Star Wars movies for the same price.

It's only "overkill" if you aren't a fan of the show.  I'm a little surprised that they're releasing such a huge set, but I loved the show when I was a kid too.  I'm not going to buy this set though since it's not worth that much to me.  A similar Star Wars set would be totally worth it though if it had the OOT fully remastered.

Valve games are notoriously difficult to run through Wine (what Crossover essentially is).  The game may run, but it'll likely be pretty unstable.  Not only that, but none of the Steam features will work (Steam friends, community stuff, etc).

If you have Vista installed, you're much better off just booting into that when you want to play games.

So why on earth did you get a Mac if you wanted to play Portal and HL2:EP2?  You'd save a ton of money by just building a PC with good quality parts and installing Vista on it.

skyjedi2005 said:

So it appears negative 1 has access to a bad quality bootleg of the movie, probably an Xvid since the quality is such shit.  Maybe a cam or telesync?

Uh, you might want to take a look at what's out there.  The cam is definitely shit, but the telesync is damn excellent looking.  That doesn't excuse the poor story and writing though.

Crygor64 said:

The joke is on people who willingly paid to see Clone Wars only after watching and hating the PT.

 

What about those of us that didn't pay to see it and still hate it ;) ?

Sooooo, how much money has this film made?

 

The answer to that question will remain a mystery until the actual budget has been released.  They're saying it only cost $1 million per episode to make.  If the movie is 3 episodes, then it was only $3 million to make.  But how much did it cost to make the film reels, distribute it, and advertise it (what little advertising I saw anyway)?

I actually like the Final Fantasy movie aside from the somewhat lack of emotion the characters displayed.  I blame that on the fact that it was 100% CG, so the animators had to do everything themselves.  I was shocked to see one of the main characters was the spitting image of Ben Affleck.

But yeah, there's no way FF could have made its budget back.  I wonder if they even ever intended to.  The movie seemed more like an excercise of "can we do this" than "can we do this successfully".  I think, for its time, it did a pretty good job showing us what was possible.

Hey, check out this BoxOffice Mojo vs page

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=animationactionvs.htm

GhostAlpha26 said:

Again it seems you see the point. Just because someone can drink responsibly does not mean something cant go wrong (i.e. slipping something in a persons drink) but again nothing can possibly go wrong as long as someones responsible :)

You do realize that's true of any drink though.  I could be drinking water (or even soda) among total strangers and someone could slip something into my drink.  That doesn't fall under responsible drinking though, that falls under borderline criminal intent.  The only way to really drink water "irresponsibly" is to drink way to much of it and kill yourself.  But then someone isn't spiking your drink in that case either.

The problem with your logic is that it always assumes that those people who are drinking are always drinking at a bar/club/pub.  What about the person at home who's drinking from a beer they bought in a store?  Let's say they live alone and the beers are all sealed up in the refrigerator.  Are you seriously suggesting that some magical person can slip something into that persons drink?

This originally started because you made the assumption that people thinking they can drink responsibly were obviously just deluding themselves since anything can go wrong at any time.  Now you're obviously changing the argument to be people drinking in a social situation among assholes who think it's funny to spike someones drink (again, that's not about the person doing the drinking, that's about the asshole that decides to spike the drink).  I'm sure there are plenty of people here that don't do that, so your whole argument falls apart.

Just because it can happen in certain situations, doesn't mean that's how things always happen.  The sun could explode by the time I finish this post, but that doesn't mean it will.

GhostAlpha26 said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Your totally right "it can never happen to me" nothing could ever go wrong. Everyone knows their limits and those who do have never had something slipped into their drink. Seriously nothing can ever go wrong when your drinking and responsible. Its not documented at all that motor skills decrease even with a couple drinks, and since thats not true someone could never misjudge something simple like a step and fall down stairs. Heck every convicted murderer need only state they are now a different person and they will never do anything criminal again and as long as they make a statement like that we should with blind devotion believe it. I mean living in a world based in reality how could anything go wrong. Everything is always totally and 100% controllable in life, there are never any exceptions to the rule. Outside factors are never important, and everyone always always makes the right choice in every situation. Murphy's Law is a total fabrication and everything always goes according to plan. And it would be completely unreasonable to not believe any of that :p

 

Actually, knowing that Murphy's law exists, it can be fairly well planned around.  If you know that everything that can go wrong will, you can usually plan around anything that might happen.  As a network admin, I actually deal with Murphy's law on a fairly regular basis.

Murphy's law isn't so much a law of reality as it is a statement of poor choices and improper planning anyway.  Driving down the road, you might get a flat.  But if you've taken proper care of your car, you'll have a spare and you can go on.  The flat is murphy's law, the spare is the contingency for it.  And that's just one example.

Anyway, have fun in a world where you can't trust the people you drink around.  I don't put myself in those kinds of situations (which are almost always in bars and clubs, so basically around people you don't know), so my chances of having that happen are pretty low.  Oh, I know, I'm sure a close friend or relative could do it, but I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery and I almost never play the lottery (there's that control thing).

BTW, you are aware that the effects of alcohol are related to your weight, right?  So a 200 lb person will show different effects (almost none that is) than a 100 lb person after just one drink.  The 100 lb person won't be safe to drive for at least one hour after one drink, whereas the 200 lb person can have 2 or 3 drinks in one hour and still be under the legal limit and still not notice the effects of alcohol.  Obviously if someone slips something into either drink, it's game over.  But since when did drinking responsibly have anything to do with people spiking drinks?

GA26, you're retarded.  It really is that simple.  I take offense to your implication that people who say they can drink responsibly might one day not drink responsibly.

How is it foolish to know ones limits?  Seriously, answer that question.  If I know that as long as I'm not sick, I can drink 1 or 2 beers per hour (that's not very much either) and be totally fine, what's the problem with that?  What, am I going to lose count of how many I've had while the empty's are stacked on the counter?  Am I not going to notice that I'm getting a little drunk if I have 3 or more in one hour or even over 2 hours?  Do I not have the capability to stop?  To simply say "No thanks" when the waitress comes by to ask if I'd like another?  Or to just not grab another one out of the fridge at home?  Even when I was getting plastered on the weekends, which was over 10 years ago mind you, I knew I was getting plastered and wasn't stupid enough to go anywhere (yes, we always put the car keys away and never went out for more liquor).  If/when I have a bad cold, I simply don't drink.  And yes, it really is that easy to decide "hey, I can't drink tonight because I have a bad cold and I don't want to make it worse".

Maybe in your world people can't think for themselves.  Maybe in your world people have such low self-esteem that any kind of offer or "pressure" makes them cave.  In my world, people don't have to drink if they don't want to.  And if they do want to, they can be stopped from going overboard (yes, I have taken keys away from people before) or they know when they've had enough.

Erikstormtrooper said:

rcb said:

only over the years the star wars fan base has been getting bigger and bigger. until george lucas stops reminding us of star wars and any novels are stopped written and those that already have been r forgotten, only then will star wars die. right now i think it'll be around for awhile whether u like it or not.

 

This is a kinda sad defence. Are you basically saying that Star Wars is alive because of all the novels and tangential projects going on? Is that all that keeps Star Wars in the minds of its fans? Is Star Wars only popular because of its popularity? If so, then I welcome the "death" of Star Wars.

In the 80s, the public grew tired of Lucas' tagential Star Wars projects (Ewok movies, droid and ewok cartoons). From all outward appearances, Star Wars died. In the early 90s it was reborn as a more serious and mature franchise, all because it had never really died in the hearts of the "true believers" in the first place. Maybe (I hope) the same thing will happen again.

Mark Hamill once said "I don't think it ever left!".  That was in response to a question, after the SEs came out "Are you happy to see Star Wars back?"

We don't need a constant stream of books, movies, video games, comics, and toys to keep Star Wars alive.  We just need a few good stories and our memories.

sunday256 said:

lordjedi said:

Crygor64 said:

Others are just too old for this shit.

 

I couldn't have said it any better.  This movie is shit, pure and simple.

rcb said:

if u think u can do better, get ur friends together and make a clone wars movie the way u think it should be made!

 

I love this.  Any time someone criticizes a movie for being crap, it's always "go make your own".  Well, why can't the Director and Creator just make something good instead of throwing a bunch of shit on the screen that he thinks kids will like?  He didn't seem to have a problem doing that in 77, but in 2008 he has failed miserably.

 

You may think it's shit, but it's obvious that not everyone feels that way. At least Lucas is staying true to his vision instead of putting out movies based on poll results. If he had done that, then the Star Wars movie that was released in 77 would have been far different.

He's entitled to his own vision, whether you and I like it or not. Hate the movie if you want, yeah keep trash talking it. But you might be better off if you did something more constructive with your time.

 

Haha, yeah, because I obviously spend all day here (check out the time of the post before that last one).

Lucas' isn't staying true to any "vision".  The "vision" he claims to have is nothing more than revisionist history.  Vader being Luke's dad was done for dramatic purposes.  Leia being his sister was also done for dramatic purposes and was definitely a last minute after thought.  There is no grand vision and there never was.  If there were, the prequels would not have nearly the amount of problems and continuity flaws with the originals that they do.

ANH was groundbreaking and a huge success at the box office.  Even Lucas didn't think it would do as well as it did.  But Lucas also wasn't the only one in control back then.  There were all kinds of people involved.  It was truly a collaborative effort, unlike everything he's done since the SEs.

It's quite obvious to me that a majority of moviegoers think Tropic Thunder and The House Bunny are better movies than The Clone Wars.  How else do you explain that a Star Wars movie premieres at #3 and then drops to #5 after a week?  That's unheard of for Star Wars.  If I were a betting man, I'd guess that The Clone Wars will be out of the top 10 by next weekend.  There's a 3 day weekend coming up and Babylon AD will be released.  Even if it does remain in the top 10, I'm sure it'll drop 2-3 spots again.  That is sad.

GhostAlpha26 said:

lordjedi said:

It's usually the other way around.  It's usually reckless today (read: young and stupid), responsible tomorrow (read: older and wiser).  Yeah, sure, I know a few high school people that can drink responsibly, but those are rare.  But I know a fair share of adults that can drink with no problem (cousins, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, friends, coworkers, etc, etc, etc).

I'd even go so far as to say that most people don't start out drinking responsibly.  But as they get older, they become much more responsible.  I can honestly say that I'm one of the few people I know that didn't drink through high school, yet I still got hammered on the weekends after I turned 21.  I got wasted off my ass, but I was still smart enough to not go driving anywhere or be on 2nd story balconies.  And as I got older, and had more responsibilities, I became a more responsible drinker.

 

Hmm more anecdotal evidence :) That group they have oh whats it called oh yeah AA, that has nothing to do with adults and its member population is truly tiny, probably only a couple hundred :p

 

AA also has a pretty low success rate.  Something like under 10-20% if I'm not mistaken.  That means 80% of the people that try it fail.  Programs that teach people how to consume alcohol in moderation have much higher success rates.

Besides, I never said everybody drinks responsibly.  I said people CAN drink responsibly.  But I guess it doesn't matter that the majority of the population isn't involved with AA.  If a huge portion of the population were going to AA meetings on a regular basis, it would be pretty newsworthy.

Crygor64 said:

Others are just too old for this shit.

 

I couldn't have said it any better.  This movie is shit, pure and simple.

rcb said:

if u think u can do better, get ur friends together and make a clone wars movie the way u think it should be made!

 

I love this.  Any time someone criticizes a movie for being crap, it's always "go make your own".  Well, why can't the Director and Creator just make something good instead of throwing a bunch of shit on the screen that he thinks kids will like?  He didn't seem to have a problem doing that in 77, but in 2008 he has failed miserably.

Scruffy said:

lordjedi said:Why do they need to continually have a Sith rise up to control the galaxy every 50-100 years?  According to the PT, no Sith had been in power "for a millenia", so why the hell does it need to happen so often now?  Are the Jedi even dumber than they were before to continually let these Knights cross to the Dark Side and then take over the galaxy?

Well, yes. The Jedi were practically extinct after RotS, and the Sith had controlled the galactic government for decades.

The Sith?  Try not to accept Lucas' rewriting of history to much.  Two Sith (Palpatine and Vader) pretty much controlled the galaxy for 23 years (20 years from ROTS to ANH, 3 years until ROTJ).  After that, the only thing to contend with was the imperial remnant and that pretty much got easier and easier as time went on.

So, Luke trains up a bunch of Jedi using what little knowledge he had or could find.  Sets up some basic rules that are actually a little looser than the old Jedi ways.  Then, lo and behold, 20 years after ROTJ, his own students start becoming Sith.  First it was Kyp Durron, he goes all Sith and then becomes a Jedi again.  Then one of the Solo kids.  Then this guy in Legacy.  How many times does it need to happen before people stop trying to "rescue" the fallen Jedi and instead just put them down right away?  How often does the galaxy need to suffer because some Jedi doesn't have the balls to take down his best friend or whoever it might be?  It's like none of them ever learn anything from history.  "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

Scruffy said:

For literary quality, yeah, I agree that new formulas should have been tried. Too few authors were creative enough, or given enough leeway, to try that. In-universe, I have to agree with KJA: If they Empire built one Death Star, they would've built other superweapons. Other powers would have built superweapons. As a corollary, if the Sith were powerful enough to take control of the government in 20 BBY, they would've been powerful enough to contend for control of the government in 20 ABY. Sith-of-the-week would be popping up for years.

I'd take KJA's answers with a big grain of salt.  I fully expect the Empire to build more than one super weapon, but I also expect Palpatine to have spies all over the place making sure no one else but him is making them.

As far as Sith taking over the govt 20 BBY, that's at least plausible since they had been thought to be extinct for "a millenia".  After that, I'd expect everyone to be on the look out for at least the next 100 years and be ready to put down anyone that even appeared to be taking over the government.  In short, I'd expect people to actually learn from history and not have these "surprises" come up with Sith taking over every 20-50 years.  Sith of the week wouldn't be popping up for years because I'd expect the citizens and the Jedi to take them out quickly.

If people in the real world were that stupid, we would have had at least two Hitlers by now.