This user has been banned.
Sorry, nope. The same thing could be said about ANY choking scene ever put in a movie - the difference between that and erotic asphyxiation (the reason David Carradine died) is that the choking is inflicted as a means to kill.
Leia wanted to kill Jabba. The end.
Although I never quite got how... was Jabba's neck at his back??
I think I was googling for RedLetter Media and found the thread in General Discussion.... a few users (incl. VINH) had posted some stuff I couldn't possibly just let stand!
Then when I read how people wanted to shield their kids from the prequels... I knew I couldn't ever leave.
;)
Especially if your addictive habits extend to other areas of life (like, other forums), there is professional help for internet addiction.
Might be a bit more effective than a bunch of fellow forum members remembering your good intentions and saying "hey, darth, you wanted to keep down your post count, remember LOL!" before posting a funny gif.
Aside from his laughter, he has a really cool, charismatic personality and "smart looks". Whenever talking about Star Wars, even now, he sounds down-to-earth, modest and self-deprecating.
Also gladly admits that he's the "king of wooden dialogue" in public speeches.
I'm not entirely sure which ideas and designs in the prequels were more his and which more by the hired artists, but there are some awfully cool concepts in the prequels, be it some wacky aliens and robots, or the action sequences including the sounds, editing and settings.
If that's what he'd had in his head before production, and got in some form onto the screen - mad propz to him.
Didn't amount to good movies, obviously, but they're movies with "cool stuff" in them.
I'm sure about something now ;)
When Nasreddin walked in a public square with a flock of followers, a Sheikh approached and challenged him: "What gives you the authority to arrogate the role of a spiritual leader?"
Nasreddin laughed and proclaimed: "I can make people do whatever I want! For example, if I tell you to get off your horse, you will obey."
The Sheikh snorted and spake unto him: "Prove it!"
Mulla replied: "Sorry, I was in error. But if you get off, I can make you get onto the horse!"
The Sheikh jumped on the ground.
"Well", Nasreddin laughed, "you see? I told you I can make you get off your horse, and there you did!"
Angrily, the Sheikh stomped with his foot and jumped back on the horse again to ride off.
"Well, and now I've fulfilled my second promise! I've made you get back on your horse again."
QED.
Wait, that's Beethoven.
Haha, Anchor's got me on ignore, so I can do whatever I want!
Dunce.
Dunce.
Dunce.
Dunce.
Dunce.
Dunce.
Dunce.
Dunce.
Dunce.
+ +
`<>´
doubleKO said:
IAMPSYCHODAYVSCANCER said:
darth_ender said:
Yeah, I think that is pretty juvenile. I think I will have to use my ignore feature a second time, and after only two posts. I am grateful for more freedom in our ability to post because I think good discussion can come from it, but this is seriously just some moron taking advantage of his newfound freedom.
TOO BAD YOUR BUTTHURT ABOUT ME SCAMMING EVERYONE OF THEIR MONEY AND NOT PROVIDING PROOF OF DAYVS CANCER, RIGHT?
Someone else I know likes this word...
Like, the whole internet?
That list above is actually a pretty good example of what could be called an extreme form of (possibly even) weak atheism.
It's whenever someone makes the conclusion that religions are based on falsehoods and fallacies and can do considerable harm (weak atheism is based around the notion that the religious claims that have been made so far, are unfounded and constitute no evidence for themselves), and suggests crude, simplified and poorly thought-out solutions.
Having that said, anyone who disagrees with point 3, should ask themselves whether the law should have any say in whether parents are allowed to feed their children false or morally reprehensible ideas, be it pseudo-science (debunked, harmful alternative medicine comes to mind), false history (say one that favors one's own race or nation) or acceptance of morally reprehensible ideas (like, ah whatever, I'll just say Hitler - some brainwashed children are fed sugar-coated lies of that period similar to the apologetic, euphemized attitude many take with regards to God in our beloved Scriptures) from a young age.
Like, is there any line before teaching the children violence, bigotry or self-damage, that should be prevented from being crossed?'
Or should the entire focus be on formal education? How prudent would it be to rely on that, seeing as how parental influence from a young age can leave rather stubborn marks in the unformed mind?
So while I'm absolutely positive that the idea to ban "any teachings of religion" without distinction is not acceptable (I sincerely hope the guy doesn't include education about and comparative religion into his suggested prohibition), some ideas within as well as associated with religion, are just at that level of falsehood and harm, and should be obviously treated just the same way.
Would it be alright if parents scared their kid with a tentacle monster who would eat them alive if they don't do their homework?
Ok, how about fire & brimstone?
You get the drift.
CP3S said:
It has already worked though, haven't seen the guy around for a while, and I've gotten so used to just skipping over his ignored post banner I don't even notice them anymore. Can't really post in a forum if everyone is ignoring you.
I hadn't read anything too captivating here for a while, and had (and still have) other things to do.
I'll post my disagreements and comments regardless of whether they reach the ostrich's brain or not, and no one who decides to put their head into sand should do this under any contradicting delusions.
Ignoring cuts off nothing or no one except your own brain from information. Whether it's obvious or not.
EDIT: Congratulations on restarting this thread, btw. Looks like you people still don't get which way this story goes, eh?
Anakin Skywalker, who was Owen Lars' brother, was one day my apprentice, helping me to defeat the enemys.
(actual line from the movie)
theprequelsrule said:
xhonzi said:
Tone.
Can you elaborate?
SHIT
CRAP
PISS
FUCK
POOP
FART
GARBAGE
Warriors of Virtue: Angus McFadyen (and the rest of the villains). Full stop.
DuracellEnergizer said:
^She was hot?
I think it was a chick...
James Bond: Die Another Day wasn't bad because of the invisible car. Actually, it wasn't bad.
Tone, Characters, Dialogue.
When it comes down to determining the "fundamental flaws", no one will really care about plot holes, or sufficient villain motivation - those three are what makes a movie enjoyable and memorable, and that's where the prequels fell short.
I've recently watched GoldenEye - silly and campy as heck, but AWESOME lines, slick characters, and just tons of fun.
Also shows what really matters in portraying villains - not so much their goals and motivations, but the personality. I still don't get whether Sean Bean wanted to blow up London while getting rich, or getting rich while removing the traces, I don't really care what the hell Famke Janssen really wanted aside from killing random people, I don't care about that General's political motivations... but they all had VERY memorable and entertaining personalities, and each did something that made the audience hate them and wish for revenge.
Did we have that with the Neimoidians? Or Grievous? I think they cut out that scene where he kills a hot Jedi with too much make-up.
http://redlettermedia.com/shorts/the-united-states-of-noooo/
Hey, just something I'm very curious about:
Does anyone know of any religious group, or public thinkers, or anyone of that sort, who believe in the Bible or elements of the Christian worldview (alternatively, Muslim), but condemn the immorality displayed by God?
Would be lots of fun to see the Hitch debate that one... LOL.
But that's probably just my fantasy :D
doubleofive said:
The unfreezing is very nice
Where?! :D
The Force is a Lie by Sinking Spaghetti Monstrosity. Please, my friend, don't fall for it!
Lucas has SEEN all the "Nooo" parodies on YTMND. He has SEEN RedLetterMedia's "United States of Nooooo!"
He's doing this DELIBERATELY.
Shaw didn't talk like James Earl. Fail. Plot Hole. Screw Hayden.
;)