lordjedi

User Group: Members
Join date: 8-Jun-2005
Last activity: 9-Apr-2015
Posts: 1,640

Post History

Post: #299737
Topic: anyone reading the eu novel death star?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299737/action/topic#299737
Time: 23-Oct-2007 10:34 AM

Originally posted by: Johnny Ringo
Nope, Raiders. After escaping the well of souls and regrouping with Sallah.

I stand corrected. I guess I need to watch those more often

Post: #299718
Topic: anyone reading the eu novel death star?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299718/action/topic#299718
Time: 23-Oct-2007 12:08 AM

Originally posted by: Sluggo
The Sifo-Dyas issue is the EU writers having to clean up what George messed up. IIRC, the character was originally named Sido-Dyas, and would have been Darth Sidious posing as a Jedi Council Member to order the army. But this might have too obvious to the Jedi or the audience, so George made some changes and Sido was changed to Sifo. Jango was then introduced into the mix as being recruited by Tyrannus on the moons of Bogden to account for the creation of the clones and to legitimize the newly created character of Sifo-Dyas, who was now a legitimate Jedi who still might have ordered the clones and [insert murky plot here].

This created the biggest plot-hole of episodes 2 &3. By the middle of AOTC, Obi-wan Kenobi knew that Jango Fett was affilliated with both the cloners of Kamino as well as the makers of the droid armies of Geonosis. And that doesn't sound suspicious to anyone?

Of course it sounds suspicious, but does that mean we need some stupid convoluted story to explain it? Can't we just leave it a little ambiguous? It's as bad as explaining that a lightsaber can cut through a magnetically shielded door. It didn't need to be done. If George can't be bothered to write a cohesive story than the EU authors shouldn't bother trying to weld these things together.

Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
he really must have been thinking harrison's line from raiders while he was writing the whole saga " i don't know i making this all up as i go".

I believe that was from The Last Crusade, not Raiders.

Post: #299646
Topic: ‘Artist’ Chains Up Dog Until It Dies… Is This Art? Or Animal Abuse?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299646/action/topic#299646
Time: 22-Oct-2007 3:52 PM

How about chaining the artist in a corner and letting him starve? Then draw and quarter every person that went to the exhibit and did nothing about it. Seriously, the "artist" and every person that saw that and did nothing are just as guilty.

Post: #299643
Topic: Dragonball Z
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299643/action/topic#299643
Time: 22-Oct-2007 3:31 PM

I've seen it and it by far blows. It's not indicative of good anime. You can have an entire episode of a guy doing nothing but grunting while he builds up power to hit someone. 20 minutes of that is just to much. The early episodes were great. They actually had a story. By the third season (or series), it sucked. Dragonball (the original) was great. Dragonball Z sucks huge donkey balls.

I'm not surprised sean likes it. He tends to like crappy things.

Post: #299642
Topic: Steven Colbert Running for President!!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299642/action/topic#299642
Time: 22-Oct-2007 3:25 PM

Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
For the record, Colbert is a re-affirmed Catholic who teaches Sunday School at his church in Jersey. So while his tongue may be firmly planted in his cheek when he spoofs these neocon talking heads like O'Reilly, he's not doing it to prop up the notions of the Godless Hollywood Elite but rather to bust on the whole cult of personality that is ruining the television news media.

Then he's doing a poor job of it.

Maybe instead of making fun of the media and some conservatives, he should get a real television program and stop being funny about it. We both know that his core audience thinks he's simply making fun of all those guys and they assume that everything he does is based in fact. That's why you get people that say they can't stand O'Reilly, even though they've never listened to him or watched him. I've heard plenty of people, when you actually start asking them serious questions, that come up with the same answers that O'Reilly does. The sad fact is that those people are watching Colbert instead and assuming that that's exactly what O'Reilly does and thinks when it's really the exact opposite.

If he wants to make fun, and have it not taken seriously at all, maybe he should get a show like the Soup. If he wants to be taken seriously, maybe he should start taking things seriously. It's a lot easier to bust on everyone else though.

So maybe Colbert does do it to bust on the media, like how Jon Stewart does the same thing. The problem is that their core audience doesn't see it that way.

It would be different if the younger generation didn't get their main news source from The Daily Show and The Colbert report. If they watched those shows for what they are, which is strictly comedy, and nothing more, then there probably wouldn't be a problem.

Post: #299641
Topic: CNN: God's Warriors
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299641/action/topic#299641
Time: 22-Oct-2007 3:17 PM

And what do his sins have to do with what the Bible says? Whatever he did in his private life does not change what the Bible preaches, nor does it change the fact that what he was doing was wrong.

You guys keep wanting to equate the religion with the people that preach it. So when some preacher comes out and says he's gay, that means all of Christianity is wrong. Um, no, it means that that guy is a hypocrite. And let's not even pretend that hypocrites come from all religions, politics, and whatever else.

But I know how fun it is to bash the millions of Christians around the world because of a few hypocrites. The Bible is not hypocritical. The people who spread the message might be, but the book itself is not.

Post: #299610
Topic: anyone reading the eu novel death star?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299610/action/topic#299610
Time: 22-Oct-2007 11:10 AM

Originally posted by: Scruffy
On the plus side, they're correcting some of the mistakes that were made earlier regarding the Death Star's size and the gun complement of an ImpStar. These aren't revelations (see, for instance, Curtis Saxton's site which has been up forever) but it's still nice to see them getting wider circulation.

That's a plus? That's everything that's wrong with the EU. They cater way to much to the tech heads who are worried about whether or not the destroyed death star over Endor would've caused an ecological disaster. That's something the EU needs a lot less of. Shadows of the Empire was a prime example of that crap. It's not the laser they see go by when they're being shot at in an X-Wing, it's the finding beam (which is immediately followed by the invisible laser). Finding beam? Geez. Can't we just accept that it's a space opera and put the hard science aside? Why is it such a big deal if the Death Star's size isn't correct or is different depending on the source? Why does any of that matter?

IMO, that is one of the things that has completely destroyed the EU. They're no longer telling good stories. Now they're just injecting hard science in places where it shouldn't be.

Post: #299604
Topic: When did the Jedi become monks?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299604/action/topic#299604
Time: 22-Oct-2007 10:36 AM

Originally posted by: Scruffy
When did the Jedi become monks?

In A New Hope, the first Jedi we meet is a hermit, but Obi-wan is apparently only a hermit because a) he is hiding from the Empire, and b) he is watching Luke. Ben tells Luke that he, "was once a Jedi Knight, the same as your father," and that, "Your father wanted you to have [his lightsaber] when you were old enough."

When ANH was produced, the tenets of Jedi Knighthood were ambiguous, but the Jedi could have children and could make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children, up to and including how they will be raised in the event that both parents die.

They could? According to what? As far as I've ever known, nothing outside of their abilities was ever even alluded to.

Originally posted by: Scruffy
Revenge of the Sith didn't particularly change anything, but it gave us a look at the effect this upbringing has on a young man.

I disagree completely. ROTS gave us a look at what happens when you treat someone as a saviour, but put no rules in place on them or give them things to do that you clearly should not be doing. Sending Anakin off to protect Padme shouldn't have been done since it was obvious he was falling in love. That and what just seemed like a sheer lack of punishment for breaking the rules were the big problem.

The Jedi survived for 1000 generations with these rules (Obi-Wan's words), there's no reason to believe that Anakin's turn was due to anything other than being "the chosen one", so no one seemed to want to give him some discipline.

Post: #299584
Topic: Steven Colbert Running for President!!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299584/action/topic#299584
Time: 22-Oct-2007 2:45 AM

Originally posted by: Tiptup

Originally posted by: lordjedi
Really? All of them? Everything from Ron Paul's "If it's not in the Constitution, we shouldn't be doing it" to the other candidates "We have to finish the job"? Or were you just referring to the Democrat solutions?

Changing the government so that it stays the hell out of things is always a good idea, but apart from Ron Paul I don't really see a candidate truly advocating that. The lack of government action is not a solution though, that's just passing responsibility back to the people who should have it.

And what is the problem with that? Many people choose not to have health care because they view it as an unneeded expense. If you're someone, like me, who only gets sick once a year (I mean need to go to the doctor sick), then government mandated health care is the worst thing that can happen. I might spend $20 (copay + prescription) on myself in an entire year. If I were single and didn't drive, I might think twice about even wanting health care since it would serve practically no purpose. The responsibility needs to lie with the States by giving the People multiple options for what private health care they want. We don't need any government run system, period. If you are to stupid to take care of yourself and/or your family, then you're going to have to deal with the consequences. Things don't always go the way you expect, so being prepared for the unexpected is part of that.

Do people buy car insurance thinking they're going to go out and hit another car right away? Of course not. Do they get homeowners insurance expecting something to break? Of course not. They do it because bad things happen. No one wants to get hit by someone else, but we do it because the out of pocket expense of having to pay the damages yourself are a lot higher. That's true with everything from car insurance to life insurance.

Originally posted by: Tiptup
Absolute crap solutions like expanding socialized health care, where the government decides what kinds of health-care services you can get, are seriously being considered by around half the population of this country.

Right. The other half are Republicans who don't want that.

Originally posted by: Tiptup
The only problem is in the area of legitimate government action. Issues like having a strong national defense, being tough on criminals, standing up for our common social values, and having judges that uphold our laws (as apposed to judges that think our laws should mean whatever they feel it should at any moment) are too important to leave in the hands of a boob like Colbert. (Though I have a slight suspicion that he'd be better than Hillary.) Oh well.

Agreed.

Post: #299583
Topic: CNN: God's Warriors
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299583/action/topic#299583
Time: 22-Oct-2007 2:35 AM

Originally posted by: sean wookie
Lets try this. pretend each religion is a supreme court judge. The judges job is to interpret the constitution in this instance you can think of the word of god. The judges may have completely different point of views which can end up completely different outcomes. The Quran is a different outcome from the word of god as Jews and Christians see it.

Let's not try that because it's completely wrong.

Christianity was built of Judaism, but only because The Torah is part of the Old Testament. When Jesus Christ came along, a close group of Jews believed that he was the Messiah (even though he never actually said "I'm the Messiah", his actions spoke much louder than words though). Of course, a lot of other Jews disagreed. So this guy, Christ, tells everyone to just believe in him and they'll be saved. Then he gets killed and rises from the dead three days later. He tells his close friends that he's the way and to go preach the word to the world. So post resurrection you've got this group of guys that believes he's the Messiah, and another group that still doesn't believe the Messiah has come. So they split and you have Christianity and Judaism. They both believe there is a God, they both believe there is a Messiah, yet one group is waiting for the second coming while the other group is still waiting for the first coming. The second group (Jews) also don't necessarily believe the Messiah will take human form because it's, to them, a lowly form that the Messiah wouldn't bother with.

Now, a couple hundred years after Christ comes, another guy named Muhammed comes and says that everything before is wrong. He claims that Jesus was nothing more than a Prophet and that everyone is to fight and die for Allah. He also says there'll be a bunch of virgins waiting for you in heaven once you die.

So let's make something perfectly clear. Aside from a few similarities in the Quran and the Bible, Islam is not built on Christianity. Where in Christianity does it say you should die fighting for God? It doesn't. Jesus died once for all of us, we don't need to fight that battle anymore. Where in Christianity does it mention virgins in heaven? It doesn't. There is no need or want for anything like that in heaven because it's pure happiness and joy.

Here's a perfect example of one of the similarities. In the Christian Bible (and the Torah), Abraham is told by God to take his son Isaac to Moriah to be sacrificed. On the third day he gets there (some of you may figure this out at this point). So he takes his son up to the spot where God said to go, ties him to a log that he's going to use for burning, and just as he's about to sacrifice his only son, an Angel of God stops him. He then finds a ram and sacrifices that in Isaac's place. This is essentially an early prophecy of Christ's death and resurrection. In God's eyes, Isaac was dead the moment he told Abraham where to go. Three days later, Isaac is resurrected by the power of God. Now, in Islam, this story is totally different. In Islam, Ibrahim is told where to go and then the devil tries to stop him three times but Ibrahim doesn't give up. He gets to the spot and proceeds to sacrifice his only son to Allah. THAT is what I mean by it not being the same god. The god I know would never do such a thing.

Sean, if you don't want to believe in God, that's fine. But if you really want to discuss how you believe that all three are wrong and that there is no God, you should at least study all three so you're not just making stuff up that sounds good to you but has absolutely no basis in fact. At least that way, you won't sound like a complete idiot.

Originally posted by: sean wookie
God is just a sadistic ass hole IMO.

Thankfully your opinion doesn't mean much. Especially since, on one hand, you say it's safer to go with Satan, and on the other you question God's existence. Well, if Satan exists, then so does God. I'll take the winning side, thank you (that would be God for the idiots out there, he created everything after all).

Post: #299555
Topic: CNN: God's Warriors
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299555/action/topic#299555
Time: 21-Oct-2007 6:32 PM

Originally posted by: sean wookie
Religion and politics mixed just makes things fucked up. They have too much influence on the people.

So...what? Christian's are suppose to vote against their beliefs? Is a Christian politician suppose to completely forget his beliefs when voting on something like Abortion or Gay Marriage? It's not mixing the two that makes things fucked up, it's just politics that makes things fucked up. If people would start taking a little more responsibility for their actions and realize that there's consequences to everything, then you'd have a lot less political bs going on everywhere.

Of course, then you have the excuse of "They're going to do it anyway, might as well make it safe for them". That's used for drinking, smoking dope, having sex, and just about any hotbed political issue. It's also bullshit. Yeah, I know you can't watch your kids every moment of the day, but instead of just accepting what they do, put some controls on them. If you find pot, ground them. If they come home drunk, ground them. 3 month grounding usually works pretty well. No phone, no car, no going out except to school. So stop accepting childish behavior as the norm and start enforcing some rules.

Post: #299534
Topic: Steven Colbert Running for President!!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299534/action/topic#299534
Time: 21-Oct-2007 12:42 PM

Originally posted by: Tiptup
Every political solution being offered today is such a joke anyways, why not vote for Colbert?

Really? All of them? Everything from Ron Paul's "If it's not in the Constitution, we shouldn't be doing it" to the other candidates "We have to finish the job"? Or were you just referring to the Democrat solutions?

Personally, I don't think we need a health care solution other than having less government intervention, which the Republican candidates seem to agree on. Most of them, afaik, want to leave it up to the States, which is where it should be.

Post: #299511
Topic: CNN: God's Warriors
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299511/action/topic#299511
Time: 20-Oct-2007 7:40 PM

Originally posted by: Arnie.d

Originally posted by: sean wookie
Have you seen Jesus Camp? You might like it.
No, I have not.

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Because clearly CNN is a bastion of unbiased reporting.

Now I'm not denying that there are fanatics in this world with... interesting... takes on Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) but these fanatics have almost no real political power and no credibility with either major political party.
There is not much bias when showing the speeches these people give. And I'm talking about all three (God's Jewish, Muslim and Christian Warriors).

Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Because clearly CNN is a bastion of unbiased reporting.

Like Fox News?

Did he say Fox News was any less biased? I don't recall reading that. I think his point was to take a story that's more than likely just bashing Christian's based on the actions of a few with quite a large grain of salt.

Where in my initial post did I say anything about Christians. I was talking about religious fanatics of ALL religion. I'm not trying to attack Christians.

My post was actually in response to sean's which was in response to Chaltab's. I've not seen the program you're referring to, so maybe I incorrectly assumed it was bashing Christian's. After having read the Quran, I can tell you that Allah is NOT the same god as the Jewish/Christian God. I don't care what any Muslim says, they are not the same entity.

What examples, if any, can you give us? I don't watch CNN at all.

Post: #299509
Topic: Steven Colbert Running for President!!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299509/action/topic#299509
Time: 20-Oct-2007 7:37 PM

Originally posted by: PaulisDead2221
He is self described as being a democrat, and he describes the conservative right as...aww I can't remember, but he basically was saying there's some good people there, and some real bad people too.

Yeah, just like the Democrat party.

Originally posted by: PaulisDead2221
The thing I'd like about him is that he isn't a political idealogue.

Not yet. Just like Jesse Ventura wasn't a political idealogue and he only served one term. Someone like Colbert would find it impossible to get anything done without aligning himself with one party. The majority in Congress is a slim one at best and they don't even have the power to do whatever they want right now since they simply don't have enough votes to override a veto.

Originally posted by: PaulisDead2221
Nobody is stupid enough (scratch that)--Most people understand his comedy and wouldn't be surprised if democratic policies started coming out of his mouth. But when we elect Colbert, we elect the man, but we also elect his character. So when he talks about national health care for all citizens or something, he has to find a way to make it happen and be begrudgingly defeated over it.

I disagree. For the people that actually buy into him, all he'd have to say is that he wants national health care and that we can figure out how to pay for it later. Maybe he'd add something like "I have a plan, but it's a secret and if I tell you what the plan is, the other candidates will steal my idea". The people that would vote for him would accept that and vote for him anyway. He'll be defeated anyway, simply because there aren't enough stupid young people to get him into office.

Post: #299506
Topic: CNN: God's Warriors
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299506/action/topic#299506
Time: 20-Oct-2007 7:25 PM

Originally posted by: sean wookie

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Because clearly CNN is a bastion of unbiased reporting.

Like Fox News?

Post: #299452
Topic: Steven Colbert Running for President!!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299452/action/topic#299452
Time: 19-Oct-2007 7:06 PM

Originally posted by: ferris209

Originally posted by: lordjedi

Originally posted by: ferris209
Lest we forget that Colbert is a liberal in wolf's clothing. His act is to constantly satire those from the serious end of the cable news industry. He actually takes things as he believes O'Reilly would do and runs with them. If, this farce were pulled off and it did happen, as in Man of the Year, I don't think anyone would be laughing anymore once they see him walk up to the podium and, totally out of character, begins talking about the reasons we should have a socialized health care system. Maybe I'm taking this too serious. I like Colbert, but let's face it, he mocks everything we on the right hold dear. He is good at it, many on the right don't even realize he is mocking them.

Are that many people on the right that stupid? I've watched his show a couple of times and honestly, I don't think he's good at it at all. He's more of a caricature of how a liberal might view a conservative than anything else. The way he acts isn't even extreme, it's just stupid. He hardly acts like any other conservative would. I realize that he thinks he's mocking Bill O'Reilly, but as someone who watches O'Reilly on a pretty regular basis, he acts like someone who just wants to twist how O'Reilly really is in order to make him look dumb. IMO, that just makes Colbert look even dumber.

Between the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, I pretty much don't watch Comedy Central from 8-9pm just because it is so stupid. I'm honestly surprised so many young people actually watch it for "news" since it's really anything but. Of course, that would explain on the misinformation that's out there.

I like Colbert, he does some funny stuff. But my perception is that there are so many politically illiterate people out there that wouldn't have any idea what a conservative really is and walk away from Colbert thinking that he pretty well sums them up, even though he don't come close. He is a satire, I see it, you see it, but idiots like Bill Maher don't. I rarely watch the Daily Show, Stewart as increasingly gotten worse over the past couple of years of constantly knocking the war and the President, even if he has a good point there is only so much of it you can listen to. I also watch O'Reilly everyday, despite the fact the lefties in Hollywood label him a hardcore Conservative, I don't think he is. I seem him as more of a traditionalist. I don't disagree with too much he says except his stance against the Death Penalty. Anyone who faces evil in the eye and or loses a loved one to these sickos, knows the death penalty is necessary and essential.

Bill Maher? But isn't he just another one of those leftist idiots? I'm sure Bill Maher interprets everything the right does in the same way Colbert does, but I don't think either of them see that as a serious conservative. I'm sure they both view it as "harmless comedy". I personally see it as lame, stupid comedy that isn't funny. And I don't see it as funny because they never do it to anybody on the left. But my real issue is with the stupid young people that watch it as real news and treat it like real news. That's a problem, especially since it's not real news.

Post: #299343
Topic: "Lucas can't find home for Star Wars spin-off"
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299343/action/topic#299343
Time: 18-Oct-2007 5:07 PM

Originally posted by: Anchorhead

Originally posted by: see you auntie
More Lucas musings on the live action series http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-starwars17oct17,0,6734523.story?coll=la-home-center

From the article:

"They are having a hard time," Lucas said. "They're saying, 'This doesn't fit into our little square boxes..."

And he even added "'Well, yeah, but it's Star Wars. And Star Wars doesn't fit into that box.'" So he's still got the "It's Star Wars!" mentality. I'm also willing to bet that Cartoon Network is willing to put it on Adult Swim, but that he views Cartoon Network as a "kiddie channel". I think that's pretty clear from this "to go after 9 o'clock, and it can't be a kiddie channel." I wonder if he's ever watched Adult Swim, since it's anything but a "kiddie channel".

Post: #299336
Topic: Steven Colbert Running for President!!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299336/action/topic#299336
Time: 18-Oct-2007 4:10 PM

Post: #299096
Topic: Going in for a job interview soon.....
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299096/action/topic#299096
Time: 15-Oct-2007 10:26 PM

Yeah, that's a pretty good sign. If they're sending you to an orientation, chances are they're going to hire you/have hired you. They'll bring you in, show you around, show you everything you'll be doing. Most places aren't going to do that if they have no plans to hire you.

Post: #299011
Topic: "Lucas can't find home for Star Wars spin-off"
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299011/action/topic#299011
Time: 14-Oct-2007 4:50 PM

Originally posted by: crazyrabbits

Originally posted by: Scruffy
If they were smart, they'd release a few episodes free on the web. Maybe "leak" them to the torrent sites to build buzz and get the traditional media outlets interested. Everyone would have to see the "unaired pilot smuggled out of Skywalker Ranch;" it would hit AICN, SlashDot, and probably the "real" news -- especially if LucasCo could keep up the illusion that it was an unauthorized leak.

Unless the show is terrible, in which case this kind of viral marketing would kill it.

Yes, it's true. It reminds me of what happened early this year with all the season premieres of Showtime series (Weeds, Dexter, Californication) "leaking" months early, in finished DVD quality files, no less. That's whats been happening lately, in that companies are covertly releasing episodes of TV shows in order to gauge audience demand (see The Sarah Connor Chronicles).

Fox sort of did that with the first four episodes of 24 last season. Except in that case, I think it really did leak out. The episodes were scheduled to go on sale on DVD that Tuesday after they aired, except they showed up online the week before they aired. I think that was definitely a case of an early copy getting out and not some intentional "leaking".

Post: #298894
Topic: Heroes
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298894/action/topic#298894
Time: 12-Oct-2007 2:51 AM

Originally posted by: sean wookie
Didn't they make that streaming service because they couldn't get Itunes to sell the episodes for 5 bucks each?

Not exactly. The streaming service was there last season even with the episodes available on iTunes. I know they had a disagreement with Apple about how much the episodes should be and probably who gets how much of the money. The episodes are available on Amazon now though for only $1.99 each (same as iTunes if I'm not mistaken). The difference now is that you don't need an iPod (or iTunes) to watch them and NBC is probably getting a larger take.

Personally, I'd rather have it this way then have to buy it through Apple. The iPod is an overpriced, over restrictive mp3 player.

If this deal with Amazon works out, Apple better watch out. The networks are in the business of distributing shows. They won't continue to use Apple if they can get a larger cut by going elsewhere.

Post: #298799
Topic: Heroes
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298799/action/topic#298799
Time: 10-Oct-2007 4:24 PM

You can also watch the last four episodes on NBC's website.

Post: #298798
Topic: Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298798/action/topic#298798
Time: 10-Oct-2007 4:20 PM

Originally posted by: JangoxFett
Triple-layer 51GB HD DVD May Be Ready

looks like HD-DVD will be bigger than Blu-Ray, HD going up too 51gb 3 layer disc.
This news from: http://www.homemediamagazine.com/

(10/4/2007)
CHRIS TRIBBEY
Several news outlets are reporting the DVD Forum has approved, or is close to approving, Toshiba’s 51GB, triple-layer, single-sided HD DVD, which was first announced at the CES show this year.

Storing 17GB on each of the three layers, the new HD DVD, if used in production, would surpass Blu-ray Disc’s 50GB. The DVD Forum did not wish to comment. However, Andy Parsons, chairman of the Blu-ray Disc Association’s U.S. Promotions Group, was quick to slam the dig at the Blu-ray 50GB with the extra 1GB, and questioned how the 51GB HD DVD would affect production costs for HD DVD backers, and whether the new discs would play on existing HD DVD players.

“It will be very interesting to see how they address production issues,” he said. “And wait a minute, wasn’t the 30GB big enough for them? They were so adamant about it.”

I now own both HD formats and I agree the price should come down below Reguler DVD for Films.

That guy's a jerk. The 30 GB is apparently enough for them judging by a table of movie releases I saw recently. Apparently a lot more movies on HD-DVD are using the VC-1 codec, which is the better codec, due to size limitations. Since BD has 50 GB available on a dual layer disc, studios are just releasing them in mpeg2. VC-1 is the better codec and should be used for all hi-def content on both formats. Rather than go the extra mile to release a movie with a better quality codec, the studios doing Blu-Ray are using mpeg2 on both the Blu-Ray and standard DVD and only going with VC-1 on HD-DVD.

The only reason for announcing a 51 GB HD-DVD is to say "Look, we've got a disc that has a capacity similar to Blu-Ray". Unfortunately, it appears that the triple layer discs aren't compatible with most players.

Post: #298507
Topic: No more Star Wars from Master Replicas
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298507/action/topic#298507
Time: 5-Oct-2007 3:43 PM

Originally posted by: Mielr

Originally posted by: Nanner Split
If you want some cool lightsaber replicas, check out www.parksabers.com

Those look nice. I had no idea there were so many different saber handles (mostly from the PT, I guess). I thought I'd be able to identify all of the OT sabers- but there are a few that look sort of similar (and of course the names don't give you any hints).

There are many different Parks Sabers handles. There are not that many different OT lightsaber handles. DO NOT CONFUSE parksabers with LICENSED sabers. Parks Sabers are NOT licensed. There's a reason the saber handles look almost like what you'd find in the prequels and OT. They are his own designs. There's also a reason they're called Parks Sabers all over that site and not lightsabers. He can't use the term lightsabers.

Even at the conventions, when people tell you about their Parks Sabers, they'll use the term Parks Saber. They do that because Jeff Parks (as well as others) has continuously informed them that they are Parks Sabers, not Lightsabers.

Post: #298499
Topic: Indecision2008 Name Your Canidate
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298499/action/topic#298499
Time: 5-Oct-2007 3:06 PM

Originally posted by: sean wookie

Originally posted by: lordjedi

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

Originally posted by: ferris209

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n7/ferris209/Politics/square-large-fredimao.jpg

Quoted for Truth.

That's three baby!

Sean, did you ever think that maybe if the federal government wasn't so huge we wouldn't need such a high taxes? Why, may I ask, do you think we need taxes? This country got along just fine without them before. The only thing they're used for now is wasteful government spending.

Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance.

Well we could lower them once we bring all these troops home. And don't doubt Paul yet because there is like a fucking year to go. Well I bet the Dems will win. As for me I think both parties are full of idiots. Gore should have been elected in 2000.

Hahahahaha. You crack me up Sean. Lower them once we bring the troops home? Do you even have a SINGLE CLUE?!?! They weren't increased to send the troops to Iraq! The war isn't even in the budget! Sean, you continue to prove that you don't know a damn thing about any of the issues or what's really going on. Seriously, at least do a little bit of homework before making such stupid statements.

Yeah, there's a year to go and Ron Paul isn't even in the top 5. There's maybe 6 months before the primaries. If he doesn't get nominated, he'll have to run as an Independent. If he gets any kind of the following like Ross Perot got (which is REALLY doubtful), it'll hurt the Republicans more than it'll help them.

Since you seem so hell bent on making sure taxes don't go away, I'm sure you'll be voting for a Democrat.