timdiggerm

Possessed said:

In my defense, movie theaters give me panic attacks. 

This is a pretty good defense.

zyzzogeton

The wings, bizarrely, look like the TIEs in the Star Wars Detours preview. The cockpit bears resemblance to a B-29

Handman said:

M3n747 said:

You can totally see Oola's nipple. Thak you, Harmy! :D

 O_o

 You can see two?

danny_boy said:

As requested by some-I removed the term "official " from the thread title.

 Thank you.

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I for one will never purchase any film unless I get a physical copy.

I hate to be Ric again but even if you download the digital content on your hard disk, you get a physical copy. The information is stored physically on your disk.

 If I buy the movie Speed 2: Cruise Control on Itunes, I do not get a physical copy; I get a digital file of the film that I store on a hard drive that I already own. If I buy it on blu ray, then I get a physical copy of the film... not that I would ever spend money on Speed 2: Cruise Control. 

Or at least that's how it works in my brain

But that is not how it works outside of you brain. Blu-ray or hard disk, both are physical devices that hold digital data.

Digital copies are not physical copies. 

Oh, and the 97 Special Edition is not better than the unaltered versions either. 

But surely you realize Vader's comatose "Alert my star destroyer to prepare for my arrival" is much more in keeping with Vader's calm and collected characterization in the rest of TESB than the inappropriately angry "Bring my shuttle"?

 Instead, it's a callback to his rasher ways in SW77

Davnes007 said:

TV's Frink said:

So I take it you skipped 99% of this thread?

 Pretty much, ya. Did I miss anything remotely important?

You must have. Surely something important happened in an Official thread!

imperialscum said:

timdiggerm said:

I have encoded the film as a radio wave which will eventually be received by a deep space probe and sent back so we can watch it. In between transmission and reception by the probe, I have destroyed all copies of the film.

Radio waves, happily, are not made of matter.

Finally a worthy post!

Hmm now there is a question of how broadly you use the adjective "physical". If you use "physical" on the highest level, i.e. an adjective pertaining to physics, then the copy would still be a physical copy since electromagnetic radiation is part of physics.

 Good thing everyone uses words to mean things other than their purest, dictionary defined definitions! Physical Media means exactly what everyone else in this thread said it does; this argument, while amusing, is absurd.

imperialscum said:

timdiggerm said:

What if I devise an equation which, if calculated, results in a number which, when converted to binary, would be a valid file which, when played in VLC, would show the movie? I then delete any copies of the film, but keep the equation.

Well you would still have a copy of the film. The difference would be that your equation would be sort of a parametric representation of the film as opposed to pixel-to-time mapping. Where ever you would put that equation to (paper, hard disk) it would still be a physical copy.

I have encoded the film as a radio wave which will eventually be received by a deep space probe and sent back so we can watch it. In between transmission and reception by the probe, I have destroyed all copies of the film.

Radio waves, happily, are not made of matter.

What if I devise an equation which, if calculated, results in a number which, when converted to binary, would be a valid file which, when played in VLC, would show the movie? I then delete any copies of the film, but keep the equation.

On the other hand

Roberto Orci said:

the story we are talking about would be awesome, hang in there.

So, who knows if that's good or not.

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I for one will never purchase any film unless I get a physical copy.

I hate to be Ric again but even if you download the digital content on your hard disk, you get a physical copy. The information is stored physically on your disk.

 If I buy the movie Speed 2: Cruise Control on Itunes, I do not get a physical copy; I get a digital file of the film that I store on a hard drive that I already own. If I buy it on blu ray, then I get a physical copy of the film... not that I would ever spend money on Speed 2: Cruise Control. 

Or at least that's how it works in my brain

But that is not how it works outside of you brain. Blu-ray or hard disk, both are physical devices that hold digital data.

 Yeah, but you don't go to the store and buy a hard disk that already has a movie on it. That's what people mean when they talk about physical media vs digital downloads. Are you buying a specially made piece of physical media which has a piece of entertainment on it and is now read-only - or are you buying a storage device which can hold anything, and then also buying a file which you store on that device (along with, I might point out, many other files)?

Those are not the same.

The Pirate Ship's final touch

Pssssd sd:

gys

hr y s nt a cnsnnt y shld dt

Alderaan said:

TV's Frink said:

That's like saying Laserdiscs will always be around.  While technically true, they've been relegated to the domain of the collector alone.

That's not really the same analogy. Anyone who argues that physical will disappear is basically saying the same thing as "writing will not exist one day because everyone knows how to type."

 Oral traditions barely exist, because most people know how to read.

Mondess122 said:

Pssssd sd:

Frnk ndrstnds mndss122, hs jst plyng dmb, prsmbly t gt wth th chcks

 Bt d w tlrt dmb ppl lk Frnk n ths thrd? Ppl shld stck t th rls!

tmdggrm sd:

tmdggrm sd

R pncttn llwd

 Srry shld rd S pncttn llwd Bt wh ddnt nn nswr

 Lk sd, th ttl f ths thrd crts nncssry cnfsn. Drcllnrgzr shld chng t (t, fr xmpl, 'Th N Vwls Llwd Thrd').

h gr nw thnks

emanswfan said:

Yes, it is quite obvious the lighting on Iger doesn't match the scene around him at all, making it clear photoshop.

 On the other hand, film sets are full of non-natural, non-obvious lighting situations. Doubly so when there's a professional still photographer with his own set of lights taking publicity shots.

tmdggrm sd

R pncttn llwd

 Srry shld rd S pncttn llwd Bt wh ddnt nn nswr

R pncttn llwd

For future downtime discussions, I recommend http://www.reddit.com/r/originaltrilogy

although you should bookmark it now, as you won't be able to see this post during a downtime

gh wh?

SPIDER!!!

Also, the model looks great.

AntcuFaalb said:

Mr Ghostface said:

I'll check back in about three years, see if this is finished yet. Angel sends his regards.

We'll see you in hell.

 Later, AnctuFaalb had to cut a dead tauntaun

I don't think so, no.

AntcuFaalb said:

generalfrevious said:

SilverWook said:

Well, it's not like there aren't other adaptations out there. ;)

http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/9-wonderfully-bizarre-hobbit-adaptations-including-one-from-soviet-russia.php

 All of them are probably a hundred times more faithful than Jackson's cash-grab sodomy, designed to piss off all Tolkein fans. No one can like the book and the movies at the same time.

I haven't seen the this film (The Battle of Five Armies) yet, but I'm a big fan of the The Hobbit as well as the two Peter Jackson films of it that I've seen so far.

And I like The Hobbit much more than any of the three LotR books.

And I like the two Peter Jackson The Hobbit movies I've seen so far much more than any of the three LotR films.

So what now? Am I not a "true fan" of Tolk(ei|ie)n? Good.

 Well, given that you prefer Jackson's versions to Tolkien's....