timdiggerm

Ronster said:

I was just thinking of it in terms of watching the 1st film and then sticking the next one on straight afterwards if that makes sense now.

I was not considering any particular span of time that was supposed to have passed between the 2 films. It was "Fun" anyway and I made myself chuckle about the idea this morning. :)

 Well certainly some time passed. Don't forget that they had time to

• Pursue the Rebel Forces across the galaxy
• Run into that bounty hunter on Ord Mantell
• Establish a new secret base
• Dispatch thousands of probes
• Install those new landing gear boxes on the Falcon

So, no, it's a bad idea.

Molly's 100% right and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

Any chance you could make some comparison stills showing what you mean?

DuracellEnergizer said:

The prejorative term for a heterosexual is "breeder", thank you very much.

 I dunno, heteros who intentionally don't have kids can use it as a slur too.

darklordoftech said:

AntcuFaalb said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

^That's what I ask myself in regards to almost every comic book movie that's been released lately. I'd rather see Batman face a schizophrenic child killer who lives in a rat-infested apartment building than some international terrorist organization who wants to bring the First World to its knees.

Agreed.

 Also agreed. 

 And agreed again.

doubleofive said:

timdiggerm said:

Also, a fun game to play is to watch the films and try to guess how things were different at some point of production. Things like the whole Bolg/Azog actor changes. Given that Bolg and Azog are both CG, and knowing what they did with Sauron-->Troll in ROTK, I suspect that Legolas's fight at the end of DoS was originally against the earlier version of Azog.

One of the Production Dairies shows some Legolas fighting a guy in a mocap suit, so it was never against the man-in-suit Azog.

 Oh, good to know. Never mind!

No.

Yeah, you have pretty much summed up my perspective.

Although the end sequence with Smaug, although extended and made up, was really, really great.

One film w/ intermission might be best. It's hard to tell, having seen each of the first two exactly once now just how much is removable without making things confusing.

Also, a fun game to play is to watch the films and try to guess how things were different at some point of production. Things like the whole Bolg/Azog actor changes. Given that Bolg and Azog are both CG, and knowing what they did with Sauron-->Troll in ROTK, I suspect that Legolas's fight at the end of DoS was originally against the earlier version of Azog.

Is this the correct thread for Hobbit film discussion? I couldn't find a better one, but am open to such things if it exists.

SilverWook said:

The "in universe" explanation could be Han has added more smuggling compartments. There actually was a scene in the Marvel comic where the bad guys know where to look, but false bottoms have been installed, faking them out.

That doesn't really explain why the Falcon has more landing gear than before. The only good explanation is that Han installed something heavy in the front end between ANH & ESB, and it required adding more landing gear in the front.

Will be interesting to see how the new Falcon prop turns out.

 Well, if we extrapolate linerally, the Falcon could have...a lot of feet!

ray_afraid said:

What boxes? I needs pics!

 Sure thing!

http://imgur.com/a/Q22Dc

Note that in ANH, the front half of the bottom saucer is smooth, and in ESB it's got those boxes.

All images but the last one are from starwarsscreencaps.com

Ronster said:

I never noticed anything about wedges voice before... I always thought it was the same actor.

 This, btw, is why many people are tired of your posts. Just like you never noticed the voice actor discrepensy, they didn't notice the other little things. If most people haven't noticed, it's probably not worth fixing.

RicOlie_2 said:

FunkyDays said:

RicOlie_2 said:

FunkyDays said:

 But he's completely on the money about Lucifer being a reference to the planet Venus (yes, even in Isaiah) and not some supernatural boogyman.

 Sure, maybe he is, but he doesn't seem to understand that just because the devil was not thought of as an individual until later doesn't mean that he can be discarded as a fantasy on that basis. Just because the earth was thought of as being flat for so long doesn't mean that we can still say it's flat because it was only commonly accepted as being round a few hundred years ago. Our understandings of things change over time, but that doesn't mean the former ideas were correct.

 The Earth was known to be a sphere since at least ancient Greece. This few hundred year idea (and that Columbus disproved it) is a myth, as is Lucifer as a being.  "Lucifer" was never kicked out of heaven. The verse in Isaiah is speaking of the fall of a Babylonian king and comparing him to the planet Venus.  All New Testament talk of Lucifer/Satan/War In Heaven  is based solely on a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12

All Old Testament references to 'Satan' (Job) depict him as a being with free access to heaven, and having absolutely zero power/influence that doesn't come from g*d.

 The earth was known to be a sphere from the time of Ancient Greece, but not commonly known to be such. Anyway, that is not the point. The point is, as I said above, that our understandings change over time, and people may have thought the earth was flat in ancient times, but this doesn't mean they were correct. We now have a better idea of what the earth is and I think the same goes for Satan/whatever you want to call him.

 Although it's worth noting that the Babylonian creation stories portray the world as a disk of earth surrounded by water, with a sort of bowl overtop to form the sky.

Fon Davis interviewed about the state of practical special effects today

He worked on Nightmare Before Christmas, James & The Giant Peach, Attack of the Clones, and more, and now runs a company that does practical effects.

darth_ender said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I've got a new question for you. In Matthew 15:18 (or verse 17, can't remember for sure off the top of my head) Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So my question is, how do you reconcile that with the corruption you believe occurred, causing the Church to fall away from the truth?

 Well, there's more than one way you might interpret that.  First, in spite of temporary apostasy, one might argue that ultimately the gates of hell shall not prevail against God's church.

But the way we see it is a little different from you.  The name Peter means rock, which is the Catholic interpretation on which Christ will build his church.  But Christ is also called the Rock of Israel, and many Protestant will say that he is referring to his building the church upon himself, and even if the church might go into apostasy, true believers in Christ will still be built upon the Rock.  But if you go back, starting at v. 15 (of chapter 16, not 15, BTW), you see that Christ refers to revelation between God and Peter.  God the rock, Peter the rock, and the revelation that God gives to his prophets, taken as a whole, are the rock that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.  As long as God speaks to man via his prophets, his church shall stand. 

 Generally, I hear Protestants say that Peter's confession is the rock. Saying Jesus is Lord is the rock upon which the faith is built.

I'm not particularly convinced, given that he was talking to a man going by the nickname "Rock", but I also don't see why that necessarily implies the Papacy.

But that's a different thread.

The only person I know who uses such shorthand is my father.

TV's Frink said:

I'm sorry but I can't buy any worldview that insists there are defined roles for men and women and the two shan't mix.

Can we get some explanation on that?

darklordoftech said:

IG-88

That story is really a funny idea, if you don't take it seriously.

But unfortunately...

Jaster Mareel

Caring about continuity and retconning.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

 ^ This.

 Having sex with the opposite sex is not what makes one heterosexual. In the same way, having sex with the same sex is not what makes one homosexual. Having sex outside of marriage is what we consider wrong, not being sexually attracted to the same sex.

 How convenient that only heteros are allowed to marry.

"It's okay to be homosexual - but surprise, you can't marry, so you can't have sex!"

 I've always thought that Catholic Sexual Ethics does have at least one piece of logic going for it: All sex has to be potentially reproductive in nature. Thus, the prohibition on homosexual acts is consistent, and doesn't necessarily stem from reasoning which doesn't affect heterosexual couples.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Personally, I don't buy into the false dichotomy that homosexuality is either a choice or something that a person is born with. The causes of homosexuality in humans probably vary between individuals.

 As far as morality goes, it's not even that important. Naturally having certain desires doesn't imply much if anything about the morality of acting on those desires, right or wrong.

DarthKenobi said:

I don't have any messages or anything. How can it be full?

 Even ones you read?

Inspired by my favorite Jeopardy! categories, here are a few that I've written.

BEFORE & AFTER: This gathering over frozen dairy dessert covers such topics as history, government and psychology.
What is ice cream social studies?

BEFORE AND AFTER: Before taking photos for The Daily Planet, he was portrayed on Full House by siblings.
Who is Jimmy Olsen Twins?

BEFORE AND AFTER: How sweet the sound that saved the star of Dial M for Murder and Rear Window.
What is Amazing Grace Kelly?

BEFORE, MIDDLE & AFTER: The sun never sets on this film where Yoda lives in Hill Valley, CA.
What is The British Empire Strikes Back To The Future?

BEFORE AND AFTER: This 1980 sci-fi blockbuster started the business for chiropractors.
What is The Empire Strikes Back Pain?

BEFORE AND AFTER: This Minnesota Senator was successful in his quest to create life from death.
Who is Al Frankenstein?

BEFORE & AFTER: An oft-lambasted plea for consideration for Turin & Niniel.
What is "Won't somebody please think of the Children of Hurin?"?

BEFORE & AFTER: This Hindu praise song by George Harrison tells the story of a hobbit named Frodo.
What is "My Sweet Lord of the Rings"?