lordjedi

Janskeet said:

I have been here awhile and this board is full of conservatives not very tolerant of newbies and ignorance.

You should leave the politics in the politics thread Janskeet.  That's what it's there for.

Hunter6 said:

We should sue George Lucas. 

George Lucas has become a con-man and I do think that there is more likely some thing in the law in which a someone or a group could sue George Lucas for con.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

A confidence trick or confidence game (also known as a bunko, con, flim flam, gaffle, grift, scam, scheme, or swindle) is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence.

 

I think in a court of law The '05,'06 and now the '08 DVD releases would be seen as Confidence tricks a.k.a scams.

The '06 dvds with the bad non-remastered transfers from old laserdisks is something taboo in mainstream media (specially coming from Lucas and ILM)  and most people who work in media would more likely call it a scam. 

This seems to fit the The '06 dvds: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_confidence_tricks#Gold_brick_scams

Gold brick scams: Gold brick scams involve selling a tangible item for more than it is worth;    

 

 

So what you're suggesting is that we actually have legal ground to sue every make of every thing.  Seriously, since when is it illegal to bend the truth a little?  Besides, Lucas never told us we were getting a remastered OOT.  Jim Ward said "This is state of the art in 1993".  That said it all.  Even the early reviews said it wasn't remastered.

The '05 set you speak of was, if I'm not mistaken, the retailers trying to sell of stock.  The '06 set was the remastered SEs along with the GOUT.  No con was ever played.  If you bought any of those sets thinking you were getting the OOT remastered, then the fool is you.

KillLucas: Dude, nice username.  If your post was less inflammatory and your username was different, I might've taken you more seriously.  As it is, your username is just wrong.  Is it really worth killing someone over, as your username suggests?

skyjedi2005 said:

Supposedly and i am relying on memory here did'nt the republic have a fleet of warships and no way to crew them because of years and years of piece and no wars, so they needed the clones?  Or were the old fleets decomissioned and a whole new one built up by palpatine?  I was under the impression at that point the republic had no military, and no protection except for the jedi.

I mean seriously if the republic was not a joke they would have had a capable military and political senate and would not need the jedi.  Lucas basically made democracy look like a joke, and they need a theocracy like the jedi to run everything.

I don't know about the fleet, but Mace Windu says in AOTC (I believe) "We're keepers of the peace, not warriors".  The point was that they've had peace for so long that there isn't a military any longer.  They haven't needed one.

For thousands of years the Republic did fine with Jedi there only as peace keepers.  The Democracy that was in place worked perfectly well.  Lucas wasn't trying to make it look like the Jedi were needed to run everything.  Until AOTC, the Jedi weren't even being used for anything other than keeping the peace.  They were basically diplomats except that they could probably read your thoughts or at least sense ulterior motives.

Each planet seems to have its own security force of some sort.  Amidala had hers, so we can assume that other dignitaries also have a security force.  If a dispute arose, two Jedi (diplomats) were dispatched to resolve it.  Hence, no need for a galactic military.

I can't believe they missed "Old Yeller".  Sure, it ends on an up beat, but so do the first 4 movies in their list.  I wouldn't even call Bambi, Lion King, or E.T. sad movies.

AxiaEuxine said:

I would love to discuss Star wars with fellow fans but no one seems to like Star Wars anymore...Well I guess I can save on rent if I dump my hobby room

And why do you think that is?  I use to love arguing the finer points of the movies with friends.  I use to love discussing the books, games, and movies with other people.  Now I can't do it without someone making a comment about the PT.  They might love it, but I don't and I have plenty of reasons for not, so that ends the conversation.  If they hate it, then we end up with points of agreement.  In either case, we end up moving on to other subjects because its been talked about to death.

No one likes Star Wars anymore because it's a stupid kids show now.  It would be like talking about Pokemon.  Adults simply wouldn't do it.  Even if you love that show (I liked it before I had kids) you're not going to get into a deep conversation about it.  Same goes for Star Wars now.

Ziz said:

lordjedi said:

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

RIGHT NOW THERE IS RUMOR THAT FOX WAS CANCEL THE SHOW DUE TO LACKLUSTER RATINGS.  THEY ARE AFRAID THAT THE SHOW IS ALSO PULLING DOWN THE RATING FOR PRISON BREAK.  THE FACT IS EVERY FOX SHOW HAS BEEN DOWN IN THE RATING FOR THE MOST PART.  FOX WILL FIRST TRY TO SHUFFLE THEIR SHOW SCHEDULES BEFORE CANCELING TSCC.  OF COURSE, THIS IS JUST RUMOR.

Yeah, they'll probably try to shuffle it and then hope it fails.  Unfortunately for them, in an age of TiVo and DVR's, it doesn't matter the date and time that the show airs, it'll still get watched.

Fox just doesn't seem to like Sci-Fi shows.

 

Problem is the networks and Nielsens don't see it that way.  They want to know that you're watching the show WHEN THEY TELL YOU to watch it.  You're not allowed to have a life when the TV is off, remember?

As far as they know, I am watching it when they want me to watch it.  If my DVR is on and recording, they can't tell the difference if I'm sitting there or not.  I don't have a Tivo, I have a DVR from the cable company.  Tivo is the only one that actually reports your viewing habits (because it records your viewing habits as well).  And that's exactly why "low ratings" won't really be a valid excuse if they do shuffle it around.

C3PX said:

lordjedi said:

Yeah, they'll probably try to shuffle it and then hope it fails.  Unfortunately for them, in an age of TiVo and DVR's, it doesn't matter the date and time that the show airs, it'll still get watched.

Fox just doesn't seem to like Sci-Fi shows.

 

 

I wonder how shows like Family Guy (during its first run), Futurama (again, during its initial run), and Firefly (the one that was unfortunate enough not to get a second chance like the previous two I mentioned) would have faired against Fox's death warrants had they all aired in the age of DVR and Tivo. I know the Nelson's ratings wouldn't have looked any better, but surely more people would have watched and given an uproar when cancellation was announced.

 

FireFly failed for one reason: they aired the episodes out of order.  I was at Comic-Con that year and got to see a preview of the pilot episode.  When I sat down to watch the show during the season opener, I couldn't figure out exactly what was going on.  What they had done was aired, I think, the second episode first.  They didn't even air the pilot episode until 4 episodes later.  Joss Whedon later stated that Fox simply didn't want a Sci-Fi show at the time, hence the reason for airing it out of order and then cancelling it.  Since Fox owns the rights to "FireFly" the movie was called "Serenity".

I don't watch the other shows, so I can't comment on them.

skyjedi2005 said:

Fox are morons they cancelled futurama because it was not the simpsons in outer space, and they cancelled Space Above and Beyond because it was not Star Wars for tv that they wanted.  X-files should have been canceled after the first few seasons.

X-Files was the only decent Sci-Fi show Fox had on for a while.  What should not have been done is the extension of X-Files after season 5.  Chris Carter had a 5 season arc for the show.  After that finished, he wanted to end it.  Fox wouldn't let him.  They demanded he write more.  That's when the show got hokey and shitty.  It basically went on 3 seasons longer than it should have, all because Fox had a hit that they didn't want to let go of.

The opposite was done with Babylon 5.  JMS had a 5 season arc written before the show started production.  They got half way through season 4 when they got put on hiatus, so they had to wrap everything up quickly.  But then they got picked up again and had to make up a bunch of stuff as filler.

The point of all of this is that network executives are stupid.

Janskeet said:

thebigguy said:

Well it's time for McCain Obama ROUND 2! I think we've all been let down by McCain's performance in the polls this week, and it sure seems like he's going to have to take drastic measures tonight.  Here's what I hoping to see, or at least something close.

McCain should open with multiple Bill Ayers references.  Once he gets Obama a little flustered, he should just throw the Michelle Obama whitey tape out there.  Not that he should attest to it's authenticity, just put it on the table.  Once things calm down he should start in with the lapel pin stuff, and transition from that directly into the National Anthem hand over heart stuff.  Finally McCain is going to need to find a way to describe Obama as Muslim without out actually coming out and accusing him.  Maybe he should tell a story about Obama's Muslim father where he talks about Obama living overseas and accidentally refers to Obama as Osama.  Ooops!  Anyway lets home McCain does some of this stuff.

 

 

why is this in black?

Because the forum software gets retarded sometimes and doesn't know what to do.

Jay said:

Maybe he should run for office.

No need.  He already heads up the highest kingdom ever.

He probably wouldn't get past the primaries though with his checkered past.

You're probably right (about not getting past the primaries).  History shows us that the majority of people are to stupid to "do the right thing".  For example, during the American Revolution, only 20% of the population wanted to break away from England.  The rest of the people were happy to continue the way things were.  That has happened time and time again.

Facts my ass Jay.  The link you posted is also on opensecrets.  Unfortunately, no one can find any actual evidence to support the New York Times list.

The facts remain that Obama, in two years in the Senate, has taken more than 5x as much in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae than McCain has in 26 years.  The fact is that many Democrats have been supporting what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doing for the past 8 years, even in the face of reports that revealed it all.  They've kept anyone from putting any regulations in place that would've prevented the disaster we're seeing now.

But I guess it's just easier to believe that Obama is going to save us all from ourselves.  Thanks but no thanks.  I already have a saviour.  I don't need some politician in Washington trying to act like he's the second coming.

Jay said:

McCain has surrounded himself with lobbyists and all sorts of corrupt Washington scum, and the negative turn in his campaigning reflects that. Obama has surrounded himself with genuinely smart people, his message has stayed mostly positive, and he'll carry that intelligence and positivity with him to the White House.

McCain's campaign has turned negative because he's attempting to do what the media won't: really vet Obama and all his ties and relationships.  Anyone else would've been knocked out of the primaries a long time ago if they had the same ties.  The media has chosen to mostly ignore his relationships and politics in order to further spread this false message of hope.  Obama has only been in the Senate for two years and yet he's the third highest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.  The next highest is John Kerry he's been in the Senate for far longer.  Even Hillary hasn't taken as much money as Obama.

Some of Obama's ties were forced out into the open and he was forced to cut them (Jeremiah Wright anyone?).  He's been doing his best to keep his other ties swept under the rug, calling anyone that attempts to bring them up a "distraction" and not "focusing on the issues".  The decisions you will make as a person are directly related to who/what influenced you as you were growing up and getting ahead in your life and career.  To say this his relationships were all peripheral and mean nothing is to ignore everything he plans to do.  But I guess ignorance is bliss.  That is until it smacks you right in the face.

EDIT: Anyone that thinks Obama's going to end the war in Iraq as soon as he takes office had better pay attention to what he said during the debate.  Don't forget that he ran on a platform of withdrawing the troops and ending the war the day he takes office.

"Obama: I'll be very brief. We are going to have to make the Iraqi government start taking more responsibility, withdraw our troops in a responsible way over time, because we're going to have to put some additional troops in Afghanistan."

Hmm, that sounds a lot like what Bush and McCain plan to do.  A phased withdrawal taking into account conditions on the ground.  So much for ending the war.

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

RIGHT NOW THERE IS RUMOR THAT FOX WAS CANCEL THE SHOW DUE TO LACKLUSTER RATINGS.  THEY ARE AFRAID THAT THE SHOW IS ALSO PULLING DOWN THE RATING FOR PRISON BREAK.  THE FACT IS EVERY FOX SHOW HAS BEEN DOWN IN THE RATING FOR THE MOST PART.  FOX WILL FIRST TRY TO SHUFFLE THEIR SHOW SCHEDULES BEFORE CANCELING TSCC.  OF COURSE, THIS IS JUST RUMOR.

Yeah, they'll probably try to shuffle it and then hope it fails.  Unfortunately for them, in an age of TiVo and DVR's, it doesn't matter the date and time that the show airs, it'll still get watched.

Fox just doesn't seem to like Sci-Fi shows.

Jay said:

Some of his policies may be different and he may have a better grasp of foreign affairs, but he gives off that same vibe of the agitated, impatient old man we don't want dealing with sensitive and complex issues.

That "impatient old man" has been dealing with sensitive and complex issues since Obama was in high school.  That "impatient old man" has a "been there, tried that" air about him that Obama can't compete with.  McCain has "been there, done that" on so many things that I find it hard to believe people are willing to give the reigns over to someone with little to no experience.  Of course, it seems to only be the younger people (30 and under) that think Obama would do a good job.  The 40 and older crowd have reservations about both.  Personally, I plan to vote for the guy who's going to expand government the least.  In this case, I'm pretty sure that's McCain.

Why not just leave the bullet in his head?  Claire was dead until the stick was removed, so I see no reason to believe that future Peter won't be dead until the bullet is removed.  And they have no reason to remove the bullet.

DarkFather said:

Aside from the fact that the Jedi were deeply flawed and hypocritical by nature, Obi-Wan and Yoda the only seeming exceptions, attracted is not a choice.

Of course it is.  Or rather, ones reactions to that attraction are the choice.  I could be a sick disgusting pervert that's attracted to 8 year olds (I'm 33 btw and not attracted to 8 year olds, just using an example), but I don't have to react on that at all.  Similarly, Anakin does not have to react to his "attraction" to a 13 year old, especially when he's married.

I don't know where this idea comes from that the Jedi were flawed and hypocritical.  It's new as of the PT as far as I know.  The Jedi had their rules and traditions for 5000 years, then some snot nosed brat comes along and f's it all up, and they're suddenly flawed and hyprocritical?  No, more likely they just got stupid for constantly giving Anakin these "missions" to test him that he kept failing.  Anyone else would've stopped giving him shit to do and kicked him out of the order.

SilverWook said:

I've enjoyed the first two episodes, for many of the same reasons already stated.

If only they would tone down the battle droid slapstick. They are more annoying now than they ever were in the prequels!

I've long presumed Order 66 is some sort of deep subconscious brainwashing thing ala "The Manchurian Candidate". The clones simply can't disobey it.

How the hell Order 66 was programmed into an Army bought and paid for by an alleged Jedi is anyone's guess. I don't think the Kaminoans would do it without asking a lot of questions, and Palpy can't possibly have met every clone personally...

I believe this is stated in one of the novels.  The Order 66 was right there in the programming.  The Jedi just never bothered to actually read the entire programming.  Order 66 wasn't specifically tied to Jedi either I don't think.  It was tied to anyone that committed treason.  As soon as the Chancellor informed them that the Jedi had committed treason, that was really all they needed.

This isn't related to Blu-ray player prices, but I still found it interesting:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa160.html#ironps3

That's the just released Iron Man Blu-ray disc.  Why in the hell does the disc even need to go online and download this content the first time it's played?  And for that matter, shouldn't this setting be set to disabled or prompt when it leaves the factory?  If I buy a disc, and thankfully I've decided to just continue buying DVDs, I want to watch it when I get home, not download a whole bunch of extra crap.  And besides all that, why not just put this extra stuff on another disc?  Does the content get downloaded to a hard drive?  What happens if the drive crashes?  Do I lose all the content or do I have to download it again?  What happens if the studio suddenly decides that they don't want people to have that content anymore?  Will the disc automatically delete it?

I'm pretty sure this is the type of thing that all the anti-Blu-ray crowd was railing about before Blu-ray won.  I see no need for something like this.  If there's extra content to put out with a movie, just put it on another disc.

Janskeet said:

I always here how social security isn't going to be around when us echo boomers and generation x's go to retirement. But I read that the system is projected to be fine until 2042 and even then the change need to keep social security working with the income they promise you is not going to be hard to adjust. But I read this back in February or March and that was before the stock market crash and weakening econemy. All these conservatives seem to want to make us think that the system needs to be "changed" but it is just an excuse to put it stock market or something, give it a way to filter back to the rich.

 

You're to funny.  The point of making Social Security into private accounts, like 401ks, is so the people that pay in get interest on their money and then get to withdraw their money when they retire.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/question385.htm

That website explains how Social Security really works.  In short, Social Security now has much higher taxes than what it originally did in order to pay for the same benefits.  Also, when it was first created, the ratio of workers paying in to the ones receiving benefits was much higher than it is now.  http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html  That's why the system is breaking down.  When all the baby boomers retire, you're looking at a broken system.

Janskeet, you would do well to stop assuming that everything is about making "the rich" richer and realize that Conservatives actually want people to be able to keep more of the money they make.  We think people can make a better decision on how to spend their money than the government can.  I'm going to assume you're a pretty young person by the way you post.  It would do you good to stop listening to what other people are saying about everything and do some of your own research.  You might be surprised by what you find out.

DarkFather said:

And the flirting is disgusting Ahsoka is not even 18 years old and akakin is married. If he went that route not only against the jedi code and cheating on his wife but also a pedophile. But then again he is a mass murderer of children in revenge of the sith so i guess it sort of fits his character.

I said "quasi-flirtatious." I've seen it in all men with teenaged daughters. The mentality is this: on some level, you are attracted to one another, but there's the factors of conventions, morals, and in some cases, incest-resistant brain mechanisms to take into account, so it usually won't allow anything intimate. You tease playfully just for fun, and to relieve some of the tension. It's sexual tension. Ahsoka (close enough to a human) is good for child rearing, Anakin's instincts recognize this, and he has no choice but to react to it in some way during their interactions. Human nature. Disturbing? Maybe.

 

But this is indeed a disturbing universe.

Oh come on.  He has no choice?  He has every choice.  He does not have to react the way he does (I haven't even watched the show yet, but now I'm afraid to).  I'm a married man with a son and I wouldn't dream of reacting like that to a teenage girl even if I worked with her and especially not if she was a subordinate.  It's simply asking for trouble.  A Jedi should be above that type of reaction, but we can plainly see that Anakin isn't.

Tiptup said:

Conservation for the sake of conservation is also stupid though.

Very true.

Janskeet said:

A little bit of socialism goes a long way in this counrty. You people frown on socialism like we shouldn't have any, but I think it helps the econemy because it keeps the poor and middle class afloat. Without the help of wellfare, social security, these people would be either living on the streets or even more conservative and not play a role in our econemy. By giving them a piece of the pie so to speak we make our econemy stronger. It's not like people get a comfrable life on wellfare. Doesn't it pay people like $400 a month for an individual?

You apparently don't know very many senior citizens or how conservative they can be.  Most anyone on a fixed income (Social Security, pension, 401k) is pretty conservative on how they spend their money.  They don't spend it on frivolous things, but that doesn't mean they aren't playing a role in the economy either.

Welfare, Social Security, and even a pension isn't suppose to make life "comfortable".  It's suppose to make life liveable.  The entire reason for putting money into a "retirement account" is so you can continue to live some kind of reduced lifestyle once you retire.  By reduced, I mean having enough money to eat and pay regular bills, but not necessarily go out and have fun all the time.  You'll possibly also have enough money to do a lot of travelling once you retire as well, as long as you save that money in your younger years and don't spend it frivolously.

Back in the mid 90's (I think), the Republicans wanted to cut the amount that Social Security would be increased.  As an example, let's say it goes up 4% every year.  They wanted to make it 2% per year.  The Democrats pushed the idea that the Republicans wanted to "cut" social security.  This had a lot of senior citizens fuming.  The Republicans didn't seem to respond and it took the conservative talk radio shows to tell people what was really going on.  I don't remember the outcome, but that's not really the point.  The point is that senior citizens don't like it when you try to cut social security.  They also happen to be the most consistent voting block of people in the country.  In a nutshell, you don't screw with the programs those people depend on and expect to hold your office.

Some conservatives do view social security as welfare though (it essentially is).  It also happens to be a pyramid scheme that would be illegal if it wasn't done by the government.  When it was first created, very few people were expected to make it to the retirement age.  Now that people are living so long, almost everyone lives to retirement age.  The reason the system is breaking down is because there simply aren't enough people paying into it anymore to support the number of people retiring.  It was flawed from the get go and needs a serious overhaul.

The poor and middle class aren't really kept afloat by socialism.  They're kept in place.  The more they earn, the more they're taxed, the more they have to struggle to get ahead.  By lowering taxes, you allow more people to move from lower to middle and middle to upper classes.  When they can do that, they have a much easier time getting by without government assistance and they're able to get ahead quicker.

Asteroid-Man said:

I'm just giving a possible answer to the question fool. Don't hate on me. Most of the people here hate any changes to the OOT. And I didn't say everyone. Did I? I said "most of". As in majority. Who care's if I cite Chris Rock. I mean, I believe in what he said, I agree with being open to both sides but not all of his ideals or anyone elses ideals. We all have our own beliefs. Why give them a limit? I personally like to explore all aspects of a situations. Like I mentioned on these boards earlier, the first Star Wars film I saw all the way through was TPM, which is what really triggered my love of the saga. Do I like the PT? Yes. Do I like the OT? Yes. I'm not exclussive to just one side of an argument. By the way, you said " we're against is new adaptations..." "we" implies everyone here. "Most of" means the majority. You seriously stuck your own foot in your mouth there big guy.

Actually, what "we're against" means is the people that I may be speaking for, which is not everyone.  For example, not everyone here is ok with Greedo shooting first.  However, I was ok with it.  I was also ok with Han meeting with Jabba even though most of the people here are not.  For me, the line was crossed when Lucas put Hayden at the end of Jedi.  Ever since then, I've actually hated just about every change since the 97 SE.  I've even come to hate Greedo shooting first.  He must have been a really bad shot to miss from 3ft away!

I would never claim to speak for everyone, so don't put words in my mouth.  The point is, as I believe C3PX posted later, this site was started to get the Original Trilogy put on DVD.  George gave us the GOUT, which is just a piece of shit.

Tiptup said:

I think Asteroid Man is correct when he says that people who like to hold onto the good things that came before will tend to be "conservative" because I think that's the definition of conservatism. Conservatives, in the most basic sense of the word, fight for everything good that they have now and had in the past. Believing in low taxes and small government is an ethical standpoint, however, and has nothign to do with the term "conservative" all by itself.

Change for the sake of change is stupid.  That's why I think "Progressives" are just lame.  Unless there's a good reason to change something, why do it?  When people say "Everyone hates change" I always say "That's not true.  People hate change for the sake of change because that's a lame reason to change things".

Most of the changes to the OT have been change for the sake of change, not change because they were broken.  Greedo, Jabba meeting Han, Hayden at the end of Jedi, etc, etc.

HotRod said:

Thing with firefox....Vista hates it!

 

Besides, I thought Jay had fixed that little problem.

Never had a problem with FireFox in Vista.  I use it all the time when I do use Vista.

Tiptup said:

There's nothing wrong with "carbs" if you exercise.

Exactly!  Eat right and exercise and you won't need to diet.  Eating right doesn't mean only having 1 donut in the morning.  It means having a bran muffin or a bagel with cream cheese instead of a donut.  As long as your calorie intake is the same as the calories you burn, you won't gain any weight.  So make your intake lower than what you burn and you will lose weight.

This isn't rocket science.  If you need to lose weight, start walking, running, or swimming (or all 3!).  You have to change your eating habits and exercise in order to lose weight.

EDIT: There's nothing wrong with eating until your full.  That's what you're suppose to do.  You need to eat healthy though.  Eat until you're full and then stop eating.  Don't try to stuff more in your mouth or you'll end up gaining weight.  6'2" and 190 lbs doesn't sound fat to me anyway.  It sounds like you've got a lot of muscle built up.  What weight are you expecting to reach?

bluedragon1971 said:

Huh?  The PS3 is actually one of the more affordable Blu-Ray players on the market, and arguably one of the best, since it also does MUCH more than just play movies.

 

How is it more affordable?  It's $400 on Amazon.  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ps3&x=0&y=0

Any other Blu-ray player is $300.  Yeah, it's one of the best, but only because the profiles can be upgraded and because it has a few games (that I wouldn't be playing anyway).

bluedragon1971 said:

 Read what I wrote again: scratches on the bottom side can be repaired, scratches on the top cannot.  That is why I still think it's stupid to put discs down on the label side.  I've had far too many discs ruined by scratches to the label side, but few if any have ever been permanently damaged by a scratch on the bottom.  A little bit of disc polish and they play just as good as new again.

It's also possible that the bottom side was exposed to UV light.  I know that at least in the case of DVD-Rs, exposing the bottom to UV light is even worse than putting the disc down on its bottom.  That's why I always place any kind of DVDs face down if they're going to be exposed to direct sunlight.  Otherwise, they get put label side down (I've yet to end up with a single damaged disc doing this).

So, did anybody catch last nights episode?

Asteroid-Man said:

Why are most of the people here Republican/Conservative? Well, you're on a message board targetted to those who are against any new adaptations of the Star Wars and even Indiana Jones franchises.

How on Earth did you manage to arrive at that conclusion from that question?

1. We're not all against any new adaptations of Star Wars and Indy.

2. We're not all Conservative (not even mostly as far as I can tell).

3. Citing Chris Rock for anything is probably not a good idea.

Regarding number 1, what we're against is new adaptations that completely disregard the events of the OT or even the PT in the name of "just another adventure".  Things that completely disregard common sense are also looked upon negatively (fridge in a nuclear blast anyone?).

Tiptup said:

Reagan was fighting the cold war and the legislature (you know, the part of our government that controls the purse) was in the firm hand of democrats. The same is somewhat true with Bush the elder as well (he claims that he had to go along with democrat spending because he wanted to fight a war). Clinton, then, finally helped control spending by quite a bit, yes, but he campaigned and won as a middle-of-the-road-guy (unlike Kerry or Obama) and, unfortunately, too many of his spending cuts came from destroying our military capabilities.

Reagan once said "I'd rather get 80% of what I asked for than 0%".  That's why a lot of his tax cuts came with big spending bills.

As far as Clinton goes, he had a real Republican congress to contend with during 6 of his 8 years.  Remember the "Contract with America"?  Clinton didn't get to spend nearly the amount he wanted.  And his "surplus" was a projected surplus.  See this link http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

With Bush the younger, yes, he was way out of control when it came to spending, but that's because he supported and tried to seriosuly fund Democrat programs. It also didn't help that the Republican legislature perfectly immitated the Democrat legislature that came before them by trying to ensure loyalty with wasteful spending. Republicans were out of control and deserved to lose control as they did. However, you can argue that John McCain was trying to fight against the trends of Bush and his fellow legislators at the time; there's no reason to assume he'll be irresponsible on the spending issue and we have plenty of reasons to assume the opposite.

Yep.  The Republicans tried to win the hearts of Democrats by turning into Democrats.  Unfortunately, it didn't matter.  People hate Republicans because they're Republicans, not because of what they do (historically, they've done far more good than Democrats).

negative1 said:

C3PX said: 

Puggo Grande and Jambe's documentary that Sky mentioned being excited about have nothing to do with any the LD transfer. As of right now, the LD transfer is the best we have and the best we are going to get, everything that could have been done with it, was done with it long ago. (At least the LD is the best we are ever going to get unless your prohect is successful, which would be awesome, but as lj mentioned, there is no way for any of us to know how that is going, and thus hard to be super excited about. In our neck of the woods, typically no news is very bad news.

 lordjedi, this is for you also..

please read this : http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Making-our-own-35mm-preservation-my-crazy-proposal/post/330884/#post330884

and then this  : http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Making-our-own-35mm-preservation-my-crazy-proposal/post/331871/#post331871

 

and then ask me any questions concerning their status..

thanks

later

-1

Actually, I read those right after making that post.  I was kind of excited at first, but now I'm left wondering if anything successful will come from it.  Sure, you're slowly getting all the reels to a 35mm print of Star Wars.  But it looks like the scans are coming out pink from the other comments.  Are you going to be able to color correct a pink tint out of the scanned images?