- Post
- #287307
- Topic
- Heroes
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/287307/action/topic#287307
- Time
I think it would at least be an interesting fight
I think it would at least be an interesting fight
lordjedi
- User Group
- Members
- Join date
- 8-Jun-2005
- Last activity
- 9-Apr-2015
- Posts
- 1,640
Post History
I think it would at least be an interesting fight
- Post
- #287211
- Topic
- Do the Jedi steal children?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/287211/action/topic#287211
- Time
Originally posted by: generalfrevious
This whole creating life with midichlorians contributed to Anakin's turn because he was told that the dark side has the knowlegde to create life from midichlorians. Aankin had a dream where Padme dies in childbirth; unwilling to lose Padme, he turns to Palpatine and betrays the Jedi to try to save Padme's life, whether she was in danger or not. So essentially, the creation of life could prevent Padme's "death" by resurrecting her, and his attachment to her did him in. Does that explain your question Mark?
This whole creating life with midichlorians contributed to Anakin's turn because he was told that the dark side has the knowlegde to create life from midichlorians. Aankin had a dream where Padme dies in childbirth; unwilling to lose Padme, he turns to Palpatine and betrays the Jedi to try to save Padme's life, whether she was in danger or not. So essentially, the creation of life could prevent Padme's "death" by resurrecting her, and his attachment to her did him in. Does that explain your question Mark?
Except that we now know it couldn't (creation of life preventing death) and that Palpatine was full of shit. Anakin is probably the only one that would continue to follow someone that in one breath said "I know the secret to eternal life" and in the next said "Together, we'll learn the secret to eternal life". WTF?!
Jedi interbreeding? Hmm, I guess that's a reasonable theory. That Aayla sure is a hotty anyway.
- Post
- #287209
- Topic
- Heroes
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/287209/action/topic#287209
- Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Agreed. I really wonder if there are significant differences between the comic book that Hiro has at the beginning of the series, and the one he has now...i.e. killing a man (presumably Sylar.)
Also, at the end of the last episode, Sylar looks at the city and says "boom". Whether or not he is the one that blows it up, he certainly appears at this point to show intent to do so, if that makes any sense.
future Hiro said "You saved the cheerleader, but the bomb still went off" meaning something else still needed to be done, but since Hiro skipped past it, it still happened. Of course, part of that "something else" is killing Sylar. So maybe Sylar does attempt to nuke the city and Hiro stops him.
Agreed. I really wonder if there are significant differences between the comic book that Hiro has at the beginning of the series, and the one he has now...i.e. killing a man (presumably Sylar.)
Also, at the end of the last episode, Sylar looks at the city and says "boom". Whether or not he is the one that blows it up, he certainly appears at this point to show intent to do so, if that makes any sense.
Oh, he definitely intends to be the one. He believes Isaac's paintings depict him as the one. The only problem I have with that is Peter's previous vision. Of course, there's a problem with having a nuke go off anyway. If they're all in the same place, only Claire and Peter have the ability to survive. I suppose Nathan could fly a few of them away. But really, how would they survive into next season if they're all at ground zero?
- Post
- #287199
- Topic
- Heroes
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/287199/action/topic#287199
- Time
Originally posted by: Johnny Ringo
Peter died - they didn't know Claire would / could resurrect him
Peter died - they didn't know Claire would / could resurrect him
I don't think Claire did resurrect him. Sure, she pulled the glass out of his head, but he had already absorbed her power before. If I'm not mistaken, he only needs to absorb the power once in order to use it again. At least that's the way it appears. He survived the fall by thinking about Claire. He made himself invisible without the other guy being around. Maybe it's a combination of sorts. Perhaps when someone is nearby, he just naturally absorbs and uses their power, but if they're not around, he has to think about them in order for that to work.
Only 3 more days
- Post
- #286992
- Topic
- Do the Jedi steal children?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286992/action/topic#286992
- Time
Originally posted by: Forbidden Zone
Now even if it was intended from the begining by the great and powerful Lucas, then I see this whole Jedi taking children under their care as a sub conscience mirror to his own life as a father by adopting his kids.
George has made a saga that in affect says to kids --to his kids, --that the greatest, most trusted guardians of the galaxy are the ones who don't have natural parents raising them. And the only way to be great Jedi is if you're adopted by the Jedi, --or the Lucas,--then you too can change the ways of the simple minded.
Now even if it was intended from the begining by the great and powerful Lucas, then I see this whole Jedi taking children under their care as a sub conscience mirror to his own life as a father by adopting his kids.
George has made a saga that in affect says to kids --to his kids, --that the greatest, most trusted guardians of the galaxy are the ones who don't have natural parents raising them. And the only way to be great Jedi is if you're adopted by the Jedi, --or the Lucas,--then you too can change the ways of the simple minded.
This, to me if it were true, would be the single sickest message that Lucas has ever sent. It makes you wonder if he really meant it that way or not. Since it's only a theory, all we can ever do is speculate.
- Post
- #286991
- Topic
- Don Imus and the race issue thread.
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286991/action/topic#286991
- Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
And on Grey's Anatomy we've seen it lead to divorce, depression, anxiety and even pregnancy. So much for consequence-free.
And on Grey's Anatomy we've seen it lead to divorce, depression, anxiety and even pregnancy. So much for consequence-free.
Did someone get pregnant and actually keep it? When I stopped watching it, the asian doctor had gotten pregnant and then had an abortion. The message "It's ok to have sex and get pregnant, you can just have an abortion and everything will be fine". The same doctor was even trying to convince a patient to terminate her pregnancy due to some complications and acted like it was no big deal. Did anything else ever come of that?
As for divorce, who else has gotten divorced? Again, when I stopped watching, Patrick Dempsey's character was separated from his wife and I think was getting ready to get a divorce. This, of course, didn't stop Dr. Grey. Nope, even after she found out that they were still married, she continued to pursue the relationship, even though it wasn't in the best interest of all involved.
Again, a lot of what I saw were downright stupid decisions made by apparently very intelligent people. A lot of the decisions were so stupid that I just couldn't handle watching the show anymore.
- Post
- #286930
- Topic
- Hello I'm new and have a question. (re StarWars.com and its message boards)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286930/action/topic#286930
- Time
Originally posted by: CO
I left TFN when the OOT was announced as being 'non anamorphic' and I tried to educate all of the fans who didn't understand it that it was going to be crappy quality, and it was an insult to anyone with a DVD player. I was astonished that a majority of people over told me, "Stop complaining cause you will never be happy with what Lucas puts out." and "You OOT fans are getting what you deserved!" That is when I realized that these were different SW fans then me, and I left the site for good.
I left TFN when the OOT was announced as being 'non anamorphic' and I tried to educate all of the fans who didn't understand it that it was going to be crappy quality, and it was an insult to anyone with a DVD player. I was astonished that a majority of people over told me, "Stop complaining cause you will never be happy with what Lucas puts out." and "You OOT fans are getting what you deserved!" That is when I realized that these were different SW fans then me, and I left the site for good.
I left, the message boards, for the same reason that someone above posted. They say they want all points of view, but if you knock the PT in any way, they come down hard on you. Don't knock the PT, the SEs, or any other changes because "they're all a part of Uncle George's grand vision". They are what I call, "If it says Star Wars, it's perfect no matter what" fans. There's no reasoning with them because as far as they're concerned, the whole thing makes sense and any explanations given by Lucas are Gospel, whether they make rational sense or not.
The only thing good that came out of the PT is that Boba Fett no longer has the worst death scene in a Star Wars movie
- Post
- #286929
- Topic
- TPM: In other words, a BAD MOVIE.
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286929/action/topic#286929
- Time
Originally posted by: Zion
You must not have seen very many behind-the-scenes featurettes for the prequels. From what I remember he was wearing more not-plaid than plaid. Not that I keep notes on his fashion trends or anything.
You must not have seen very many behind-the-scenes featurettes for the prequels. From what I remember he was wearing more not-plaid than plaid. Not that I keep notes on his fashion trends or anything.
To be honest, I haven't. I haven't watched many of the web docs and I certainly haven't watched all the behind the scenes items on the DVDs. I can barely take the commentary that's on those discs, let alone watching all the featurettes.
Still, you'd think that if he was wearing t-shirts most of the time, he wouldn't be known as "the plaid wearing individual".
- Post
- #286928
- Topic
- Heroes
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286928/action/topic#286928
- Time
Originally posted by: Johnny Ringo
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
Hiro wasn't training to fight! He was training to detatch from his emotions so that when the time comes he will be mentally able to make the killing strike. He has no need for combat training - He can freeze time and space - as he often reminds us. He already had Sylar at his mercy once but he hesitated and lost focus. Had he been in that same encounter now I'm sure things would have played out very differently.
The only thing we know for sure is that Ted is not [any longer] the exploding man. Peter and Sylar both have the potential to destroy the city. I guess we'll know in 4 days [Approx].
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
Hiro wasn't training to fight! He was training to detatch from his emotions so that when the time comes he will be mentally able to make the killing strike. He has no need for combat training - He can freeze time and space - as he often reminds us. He already had Sylar at his mercy once but he hesitated and lost focus. Had he been in that same encounter now I'm sure things would have played out very differently.
The only thing we know for sure is that Ted is not [any longer] the exploding man. Peter and Sylar both have the potential to destroy the city. I guess we'll know in 4 days [Approx].
We knew that, about Ted, two weeks ago. When Hiro went 5 years into the future, he saw Nathan as President and the city had been destroyed. At the end of the episode, Sylar said to Peter "They said I blew up the city, but we both know that's not the truth, don't we." Combine that with Isaac's paintings and Peter's vision of himself blowing up. The title of next weeks episode is SPOILER
How to stop an exploding man.
So the question isn't who will blow up, it's can the future be changed or are Isaac's paintings set in stone? If they are set in stone, then Sylar will die by Hiro's sword and Peter will blow up New York. What happens after that is anybodies guess. I'm almost willing to bet that they're able to stop Peter from blowing up, simply because there's no way they can all survive the blast if they're in the vicinity.
- Post
- #286876
- Topic
- TPM: In other words, a BAD MOVIE.
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286876/action/topic#286876
- Time
- Post
- #286875
- Topic
- Hello I'm new and have a question. (re StarWars.com and its message boards)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286875/action/topic#286875
- Time
I hardly ever go to the official site. Most of the breaking news is on TFN before it's on the official site, so I usually head there first. Otherwise, I don't go there much, if at all.
- Post
- #286874
- Topic
- Do the Jedi steal children?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286874/action/topic#286874
- Time
Originally posted by: Scruffy
Ask George. He's the one who decided the Jedi were a cultic monastic order whose members took children from their parents[a], trained them to use weapons from a very young age, denied them human relationships with other people[c], ran their organization on the basis of a faulty interpretation of a prophecy[d], sought to spy on and assassinate political leaders without due process[e], denied the sapience of other beings that developed culture and used human language[f], and generally made fools of themselves.
Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon were trained from very young childhood, and they turned out okay, except for misreading the prophecy and creating Vader. Anakin was trained from childhood, and he ended up slaughtering the Jedi and enabling the murder of billions under the Empire. Luke was trained as an adult, and he managed to convert Darth Vader to the Light Side -- something the remaining Jedi Masters believed could not be done -- and withstood the temptations of Darth Sidious.
I ask you, what moral do you draw from this? The moral I draw from this -- and I give George Lucas all due credit putting something of meaning in the PT that actually makes the OT look better -- the moral I draw is that the Jedi failed because they denied young children the freedom of conscience/thought and militarized them at a young age. Luke flourished as a Jedi because he had developed a solid moral and ethical footing before embarking, of his own free and informed will, on the Jedi path. Although I have not studied Mr. Lucas's politics, I believe he is generally liberal, and the moral I have derived is in accord with liberal principles, as well as certain left-wing beliefs about the roles of military and religion in contemporary American society.
[a] TPM
AOTC
[c] AOTC
[d] PT, passim
[e] ROTS
[f] TPM
Originally posted by: C3PX
I love the faith we have in mankind. And by mankind of course I mean the good guys in a work of science fiction. Must we add a darkside to everything?
I love the faith we have in mankind. And by mankind of course I mean the good guys in a work of science fiction. Must we add a darkside to everything?
Ask George. He's the one who decided the Jedi were a cultic monastic order whose members took children from their parents[a], trained them to use weapons from a very young age, denied them human relationships with other people[c], ran their organization on the basis of a faulty interpretation of a prophecy[d], sought to spy on and assassinate political leaders without due process[e], denied the sapience of other beings that developed culture and used human language[f], and generally made fools of themselves.
Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon were trained from very young childhood, and they turned out okay, except for misreading the prophecy and creating Vader. Anakin was trained from childhood, and he ended up slaughtering the Jedi and enabling the murder of billions under the Empire. Luke was trained as an adult, and he managed to convert Darth Vader to the Light Side -- something the remaining Jedi Masters believed could not be done -- and withstood the temptations of Darth Sidious.
I ask you, what moral do you draw from this? The moral I draw from this -- and I give George Lucas all due credit putting something of meaning in the PT that actually makes the OT look better -- the moral I draw is that the Jedi failed because they denied young children the freedom of conscience/thought and militarized them at a young age. Luke flourished as a Jedi because he had developed a solid moral and ethical footing before embarking, of his own free and informed will, on the Jedi path. Although I have not studied Mr. Lucas's politics, I believe he is generally liberal, and the moral I have derived is in accord with liberal principles, as well as certain left-wing beliefs about the roles of military and religion in contemporary American society.
[a] TPM
AOTC
[c] AOTC
[d] PT, passim
[e] ROTS
[f] TPM
*clears throat* Dude, WTF? I think you're projecting a little bit here. Let's look at it a little differently. For thousands of years this went on with no trouble. Then, a whiney little brat that couldn't stand authority decided to break the rules because he was the "chosen one" (make no mistake, he was the chosen one, I sure didn't see Luke killing Palpatine).
When did Luke embark on his Jedi training with an informed will. "Darth Vader killed your father, now we need to train you in the ways of the Jedi so you can bring him to justice." Two movies later "Oh, well, I meant that your father became Darth Vader, not that he really killed him". That doesn't really sound informed to me. Sure, he went about it of his own free will, but only because he had nothing else keeping him where he was, what with Beru and Owen being dead.
Qui-Gon didn't misread the prophecy. The prophecy was plain and simple "One will be born of the Force that will bring balance to the Force" What it doesn't say is how that individual will bring about the balance. If anything, in his rush to assume he'd found the one (he had) he didn't think to ask that question. Sure enough, Anakin brought balance, but he did a lot of bad stuff in between.
Spying on and assassinating government officials without due process? Did we watch the same movie? Helloooooo! The Emperor was evil dark side incarnate. He deserved to die without "due process". Mace said it perfectly "He owns the courts". To bad the spoiled brat wouldn't listen.
How does any of this jive with far left tendencies? Isn't the left all about reducing the military and keeping religion out of everything except churches, mosques, etc?
Seriously, from the comics we know that they go to families, talk to them, and convince them that their child would be better off raised as a Jedi. They don't use force and they don't use mind tricks. There's no guess work here.
The main reason Luke allows those types of things to go on has less to do with Anakin and much more to do with Kyp Durron. You see, the PT didn't exist when those books were written and most of the records were destroyed during the Jedi purge. So Luke went with what he knew. When Kyp went all dark side, Luke decided that isolation was probably not a bad thing. In fact, since he himself got through his training with emotional attachments, he thought it would be a good thing. So you see, that really had nothing to do with what happened in the PT and a whole lot to do with what happened in the OT.
To answer the question at the beginning of the post, I don't draw any morals from the PT because they're crap and have such a huge mishmash of ideas that it's impossible to draw anything from them.
And FYI, the ability to speak does not in fact make one intelligent
- Post
- #286864
- Topic
- Don Imus and the race issue thread.
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286864/action/topic#286864
- Time
Grey's Anatomy is a perfect example of a show that not only promotes everyone sleeping with everyone else, but they also show just how phoney they really are. Not only do they have subordinates sleeping with direct supervisors (a huge no no for doctors and most other professions), but they have doctors who are so stupid that they don't bother to either 1) use a condom or 2) use the pill. If you're going to sleep with someone and not be ready for the consequences, use some protection (this, for me, only applies to adults, underage people shouldn't be having sex either way). Mind you, I don't watch Grey's Anatomy, these are just some of the things that happened in the first half of the first season. They're also the reason I stopped watching the show. It's no better than a teen angst drama show, it just happens to show adults working in a hospital.
- Post
- #286841
- Topic
- Paint Wars: A New Hope
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286841/action/topic#286841
- Time
Basically, I think Zig has burned a few bridges around here by acting like a child and appearing to demand things without giving much back in return. I know he asked for things in those other threads, but it's how he asked it coupled with his history.
- Post
- #286835
- Topic
- The Now-Released Spider-Man 3 Thread
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286835/action/topic#286835
- Time
- Post
- #286833
- Topic
- Heroes
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286833/action/topic#286833
- Time
Originally posted by: Sluggo
I'd like to think that Hiro trained for a week or two by jumping back in time.
I'd like to think that Hiro trained for a week or two by jumping back in time.
I hadn't thought of that. That's a reasonable possibility. Of course, he could've also stopped time for his training. We never see anyone else in that room with them, so anything's possible.
- Post
- #286832
- Topic
- Don Imus and the race issue thread.
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286832/action/topic#286832
- Time
Originally posted by: Sluggo
Most of the stuff on ABC Family is no different.
Most of the stuff on ABC Family is no different.
Um, ok. I very rarely watch ABC Family and usually only when I'm at my mom's house.
In addition to what I posted last night, I did forget a couple of times that sex was shown, or at least implied, on Buffy. Both were amongst college age individuals. The first time was when Buffy just decided to "go for it" and sleep with a guy on the first date. That turned out badly though since that's all the guy was after. That definitely portrayed it as a bad thing (Buffy was wracked with guilt for "giving it up" to a guy that didn't really care about her). The second time was with Riley. Riley and Buffy were in a committed relationship that went sour because Buffy didn't "need Riley". He wanted to be needed, but since she was so use to protecting everyone, it just didn't work.
Willow and Seth Green's character sex was probably the only relationship that had sex depicted in a positive light, due to the fact that they weren't just sleeping with each other, but were actually in a real relationship. Every other couple, whether underage or not, were always in bad relationships and it was definitely depicted as such.
My point still stands that Buffy is the exception to the rule. In fact, I would say that most of the time, Buffy was the only show that depicted premarital sex in a negative light (Vampire turning evil, Buffy wracked with guilt, getting sucked into an abyss, etc). And again, it's a show about supernatural forces. It's only suppose to relate to real life on a symbolic scale, nothing more. "Don't have sex with that guy, he could turn into an evil vampire" LOL
- Post
- #286798
- Topic
- Don Imus and the race issue thread.
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286798/action/topic#286798
- Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
Didn't you read my post at all? I explained all that quite clearly I thought. Dawson's Creek was a big deal back during the time because it had underage high school students in casual sexual relationships. I have never watched it, but I have no reason not to believe what I have heard, nor have I ever heard anybody defend the show and say that it is not true. Buffy did, without a doubt depict casual underage sex. As I explained, my friend was a fan of the show and I stomached through a few episodes with him, and heard him talk about plenty of others.
However, even for somebody who is a die hard fan of either of those two shows, why is it so unbelievable for them to complain about some of their contents? Do you agree with every bit of content found in any given film or TV show you watch ADM? Why do you have to ask if it is just hersay? I refuse to believe somebody who knows enough about TV to know the WB is defunct, honestly doesn't think that teenage sex is glorified (or at least has been within the past 10 years, like I said before, perhaps they purged teen dramas of this, but I find that hard to believe) by the media. Unless all you watch are after school specials, I don't think there are a lot of shows on TV that actually deglorify underaged sex a whole lot, maybe there are, but I bet it is glorified at least as often if not twice as often. But like I said, I never even turn on the TV, so there is a good chance I am wrong. I am judging this over what I have seen of TV nearly ten years ago.
Didn't you read my post at all? I explained all that quite clearly I thought. Dawson's Creek was a big deal back during the time because it had underage high school students in casual sexual relationships. I have never watched it, but I have no reason not to believe what I have heard, nor have I ever heard anybody defend the show and say that it is not true. Buffy did, without a doubt depict casual underage sex. As I explained, my friend was a fan of the show and I stomached through a few episodes with him, and heard him talk about plenty of others.
However, even for somebody who is a die hard fan of either of those two shows, why is it so unbelievable for them to complain about some of their contents? Do you agree with every bit of content found in any given film or TV show you watch ADM? Why do you have to ask if it is just hersay? I refuse to believe somebody who knows enough about TV to know the WB is defunct, honestly doesn't think that teenage sex is glorified (or at least has been within the past 10 years, like I said before, perhaps they purged teen dramas of this, but I find that hard to believe) by the media. Unless all you watch are after school specials, I don't think there are a lot of shows on TV that actually deglorify underaged sex a whole lot, maybe there are, but I bet it is glorified at least as often if not twice as often. But like I said, I never even turn on the TV, so there is a good chance I am wrong. I am judging this over what I have seen of TV nearly ten years ago.
Uh, actually, Buffy didn't really depict casual sex at all. If my memory serves correctly, every character that was in a relationship that ended up with sex being involved was in some kind of committed relationship. Aside from Buffy and Angel getting it on (Angel was a Vampire, so not a lot can happen from that anyway), the only other two underage people were Willow and the wolf guy (can't remember his name now). There was nothing casual about their relationship though. They were in love and, at the time, he wasn't going anywhere. They were in a very committed relationship. The only casual sex between underage people on Buffy was the one episode where Xander and Faith got it on. All the sex that happened between Buffy and Spike wasn't underage. Buffy wasn't about any of that though. Buffy was a teenage drama set in a supernatural world. If you know of any episodes that did depict underage casual sex, feel free to cite them. I have all 7 seasons on DVD
Contrast that with Dawson's Creek. Dawson was trying to get it on with Katie Holme's character (again, I don't know all the character names). Then along came miss whore (sleeps with just about everyone, or so it's portrayed). Dawson starts doing things he wouldn't normally do and the only major consequence at the time was a little humiliation. Then you have another character who has a reputation for sleeping around and she eventually does do just that. Then you've got Pacey sleeping with his high school teacher. The entire show was based around a bunch of high school students dealing with the drama of who they're going to sleep with and when it's going to happen. I watched enough of it to know that it just got really lame.
Dawson's Creek was not an exception. For a while, all WB put on was "teen angst drama" that was nothing more than a bunch of high school students trying to figure out who to sleep with and when to do it. In fact, the only program on the CW that I still watch is Smallville. Everything else on that channel is a bunch of high school drama crap. Everwood, Laguna (or is it The Hills), the OC. It's all really just a bunch of junk.
The CW is a brand new network as of this season. The WB just recently ceased to exist, so it hasn't been gone that long.
- Post
- #286706
- Topic
- Do the Jedi steal children?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286706/action/topic#286706
- Time
I believe it's also discussed in a novel somewhere. Essentially, they don't usually train anybody older than a year or so. 6 months and younger are preferred.
I did read an interesting message on this over at TFN years ago before AOTC came out. Since Jedi aren't allowed to marry or have children, the "Jedi gene" should die out. If Lucas had left it as an ability that could be learned, everything would be fine. But since it seems to be genetic, Jedi would basically make themselves go extinct since there's no way to pass on that genetic code.
- Post
- #286510
- Topic
- Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286510/action/topic#286510
- Time
- Post
- #286367
- Topic
- ROTS Disc: Who is Charlotte?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286367/action/topic#286367
- Time
Apparently the same thing happened with the others (as the other posters here have pointed out).
- Post
- #286365
- Topic
- Hi Definition adopters food for thought
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286365/action/topic#286365
- Time
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
I don't think you're understanding me, the issue of expense is not the "make or break" issue here.
The differences in resolution you're referring to are NOT perceptible to the human eye when implemented on a consumer TV set (because the screens are too small for the increased resolution to be appreciated,) it's an issue of diminishing returns. Unless you plan on inventing and distributing new sets wacky robot eyes to everyone on the planet or convince everyone watching TV to sit no more than 6 inches from their screens then no - it just won't happen within the next several decades. THese extreme resolutions are only able to be considered when dealing with very large theater (non in the home) screens.
It is absolutely nothing like the difference between a black and white image and a colorized image, that is instantly noticeable to any non-colorblind viewer.
I don't think you're understanding me, the issue of expense is not the "make or break" issue here.
The differences in resolution you're referring to are NOT perceptible to the human eye when implemented on a consumer TV set (because the screens are too small for the increased resolution to be appreciated,) it's an issue of diminishing returns. Unless you plan on inventing and distributing new sets wacky robot eyes to everyone on the planet or convince everyone watching TV to sit no more than 6 inches from their screens then no - it just won't happen within the next several decades. THese extreme resolutions are only able to be considered when dealing with very large theater (non in the home) screens.
It is absolutely nothing like the difference between a black and white image and a colorized image, that is instantly noticeable to any non-colorblind viewer.
Actually, it is. Think about it. If you could have a display capable of 3000p vs one that was only capable of 1080p, at the same cost and with no perceptable difference, which would you take? I'd totally take the 3000p display.
Whether it's perceptable or not doesn't matter. Today there are people that hookup a SD signal to their HDTV and think they're watching HD quality. That is perception, not reality. I'm sure the same thing will be true in 20 years when higher resolutions are available. People will plug it in and think they're suddenly seeing even higher resolutions, whether they really are or not.
I just don't accept that 20 years from now, 1080p will still be state of the art. Technology and resolutions are constantly pushing forward. No one in their right mind would use a 640x480 computer display these days, yet DVD resolution is only 480p. Who knows, maybe in 20 years, the average home theater will have an 80 to 100" screen, so 1080p will look like crap. I'm sure that 20 years ago, most people wouldn't dream of owning a 40 or 50" set, yet today that's considered normal.
Technology is moving forward and I have no doubt that people will be clamoring for even higher resolutions in the next 20 years. If it wasn't a matter of economics, then people would never get anything newer. That applies to TVs, computers, cars, etc. As costs come down and it becomes more affordable, the average joe wants it more, whether they need it or not.
- Post
- #286292
- Topic
- The Matrix
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286292/action/topic#286292
- Time
- Post
- #286291
- Topic
- Hi Definition adopters food for thought
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286291/action/topic#286291
- Time
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
The ultra HD stuff is only useful for large movie theater screens.
It's difficult to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 50 inch screen for the vast, vast majority of eyes (especially taking into account the "average consumer,") if you think consumer home devices with "ultra HD" resolution are anywhere on the horizon you just don't know much about HT in general. Why? It would be outrageously expensive for the consumer, it would be outrageously expensive for the manufacturer (in addition to providing no real visual benefit,) 720p, 1080i, and 1080p have already cemented themselves as “the” HD formats for consumer HD material (1080i and sometimes 720p for broadcast and 1080p home video,) broadcasters would NEVER be able to provide the bandwidth for resolutions that immense, and you wouldn't see a damn bit of difference on most for-use-in-home screens between the HD now and the “ultra crazy stuff” you're talking about. On a spec sheet the differences appear to be gigantic, in practice that could not be further from the truth.
The ultra HD stuff is only useful for large movie theater screens.
It's difficult to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 50 inch screen for the vast, vast majority of eyes (especially taking into account the "average consumer,") if you think consumer home devices with "ultra HD" resolution are anywhere on the horizon you just don't know much about HT in general. Why? It would be outrageously expensive for the consumer, it would be outrageously expensive for the manufacturer (in addition to providing no real visual benefit,) 720p, 1080i, and 1080p have already cemented themselves as “the” HD formats for consumer HD material (1080i and sometimes 720p for broadcast and 1080p home video,) broadcasters would NEVER be able to provide the bandwidth for resolutions that immense, and you wouldn't see a damn bit of difference on most for-use-in-home screens between the HD now and the “ultra crazy stuff” you're talking about. On a spec sheet the differences appear to be gigantic, in practice that could not be further from the truth.
Right now. Never is a long time. I have no doubt that within 10 years, maybe 20 at the most, 1080p will seem like analog broadcast. Those giant resolutions are only expensive until there's a cheap way to get it to the consumer.
I'm sure that when color televisions were introduced, people thought "Well, I doubt it'll ever get better than this". That is, consumers probably thought that. Every step makes it look a little better. I expect to see much higher resolutions being totally pervasive in the next 10 years. And with better mediums for transmission, there'll be plenty of bandwidth to push the content.
- Post
- #286157
- Topic
- Hi Definition adopters food for thought
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286157/action/topic#286157
- Time
Originally posted by: Darth Solo
For the many folks caught up in the Hi Definition war here is a warning before spendeing mega bucks on the this years latest techology. Here is comparison of DVD resolutions (720x480)with the maximum Hi-definition picture (1920x1080=1020i) as well as the maximum digital cinema resolution (4096x2160) against the maximum Hi Def Video currently in development by NHK in Japan (this transfers to an astonishing 200 GB per min of video per min i think).
With the rate technology is currently advancing i ask if its really worth being at the cutting edge of technology at this given time?
For the many folks caught up in the Hi Definition war here is a warning before spendeing mega bucks on the this years latest techology. Here is comparison of DVD resolutions (720x480)with the maximum Hi-definition picture (1920x1080=1020i) as well as the maximum digital cinema resolution (4096x2160) against the maximum Hi Def Video currently in development by NHK in Japan (this transfers to an astonishing 200 GB per min of video per min i think).
With the rate technology is currently advancing i ask if its really worth being at the cutting edge of technology at this given time?
Versus what? Don't buy any movies or a new tv for 10 or 20 years? Do you somehow think that gigantic image is going to be on an affordable medium within 5 years? Even if most people sit out the hi-def format wars, there's always "the next format".
Is it worth being at the cutting edge? Probably not. Is it worth not buying into any hi-def formats ever until the largest image you posted becomes available? Probably not. Will the hi-def formats be worthwhile this Christmas season or possibly next? Probably. Unfortunately, even though the technology is advancing at breakneck speeds, the media companies are doing a fine job of holding everything back.