I agree that the writer shouldn't have tried to draw a parallel between what happened with the Mac and what's happening with the iPod.
First of all--and this is the most important--Apple partnered with MS back then. That's how MS did its famous reverse-engineering to steal a lot of the Mac "look and feel" (which Apple hadn't protected in any substantial way--i.e., patents, etc.) There is no partnership this time around. It's quite telling to see who is begging for the partnership (MS) and who is wisely refusing it (Apple.) You don't make a deal with the devil, especially if you already did it once before.
Second, Apple isn't just sitting around this time, hoping that the brilliance and beauty of their products will win the day. It's clear they've learned to keep pushing the boundaries. The iPod has only been around for --what?--two years now and look how many revisions and product variations Apple has produced. Look how many promotions Apple has done. Look how they've built iTunes into the best cross-platform music player and store. Look how they've partnered with Pepsi, HP and a wide range of retailers I just spotted the iPod Mini in a Costco ad. They're not treating the iPod like an exclusive island resort like they did with the Mac. It's come one, come all.
Third, they are reshaping the culture and technology of the Mac to support the iPod (and vice-versa), music and the whole "digital lifestyle" thing. OS X, QuickTime, Core Audio, GarageBand. It's totally embedded into what they're doing. Remember that the Mac was, for a surprisingly long time during and after its conception, treated like an aberration and wasn't fully supported by Apple at first.
Fourth, it's NOT PROPRIETARY. The iPod doesn't just play iTunes downloads. The Mac was bogged down for the first half of its existence with too many proprietary aspects.
Fifth, incompatible software. Remember how the Mac's big "weakness" was that it wasn't DOS-compatible and later Windows-compatible? Extend the analogy. The "software" in this situation is music and the iPod is fully compatible with the rest of the world here. There is no software gap to close.
I appreciate that the writer is trying to get a sense of the current situation, but I think comparing it to the Mac's rough history is shortsighted.
If you didn't like the prequels so far, I guess you shouldn't be excited about it. So why post about it?
Not trying to be confrontational. I just don't get what compels you (and others for that matter) to waste your time on something that doesn't interest you.
How is that "bigotry" and yet your (mis)characterization of Kerry supporters isn't?
Besides, you're taking what I'm saying too literally. What I wrote wasn't intended to be a statement that Bush supporters are in fact stupid but rather that some anti-Bush people saying that Bush voters are less educated actually has some basis in fact.
The bigotry is rampant. Anyone who voted for Bush is a trailer park goon.
I've seen more than one study showing a correlation between education level and a tendency to vote for Bush. The fact is that (whether it sits well with your or not) the lower the education, the more likely someone is to vote Bush. Oh well.
I agree that nobody should use those facts to paint all Bush supporters with a wide brush, but the correlation is there. Look at the red states and the blue states. Which states do you suspect having higher education levels? You sort of suspect that Californians and New Yorkers might be a tad more educated and informed than Montanans and Kansans? Even a little? It's not rude to point it out.
I read a book a few years ago about infotainment and right-wing radio propaganda ("Hot Air") and the author cited a test about current events that was put out to random groups of people. The test asked you to rate your own knowledge level and to note whether or not you listened to right-wing talk radio. Invariably, the group that identified itself as listeners to right-wing radio rated themselves as highly informed, but actually missed most of the questions about current events. Those who didn't listen to AM radio, were less confident about their answers, but got more answers correct.
So, when some folks point the finger at Bush supporters as less intelligent, there may be reasons. Again, I think it's wrong to paint with such a wide brush. Likewise, you shouldn't paint those making such statements with such a wide brush either. Not all of them are doing it just to be rude.
1) How long do you think it will take Republicans to lay the blame for the attack at Bill Clinton's feet (I say 1-2 hours like last time and will probably be Orrin Hatch like last time.)
2) How long do you think it will take for right-wing radio outlets and Fox news to convince everyone that it's true? (I say, 5-10 minutes like last time.)
I wish people would just get off Apple's back. OS X has no viruses yet but it seems that people are all hot and bothered by the idea of finding the first one. What gives?
Anyone care to tell me how this so-called virus spreads? How does it propagate itself? Until we get to that point, I'm not going to accept that this is for real. And until then, those shouting that the sky has officially fallen on Cupertino can shut the hell up. I've heard this a dozen or so times over the last year-and-a-half and it's getting tiresome.
What is it about Apple that non-Apple users hate so much that requires this constant vigil for anything that could be a virus? And then the subsequent shouts of "Yep, take that smarmy Mac users... it's finally happened!" And this usually coming from people who beforehand would argue that the only reason Macs have no viruses is because of low market share. That argument disappears when it becomes inconvenient.
I've used Macs for over a decade now and most of that time was dominated by two phrases repeated ad nauseum. "Apple is dying" and "But there's no software!"
And now those have been replaced by this ongoing Quest for the Holy Virus.
I'm not saying OS X is invincible or that a virus will never hit Mac users, but when it happens, there will be little doubt about it. Until then, can we all just lay off the panic button?
LOL! Damn, that's great! You have a great attitude. I just wish the people around here with moderation points would actually look at the context of what you wrote before modding it as flamebait.
Anyway, we're right behind you. Lead us onward, HarveyBirdman, into the depths of Incorrectly Modded Flamebait Hell! BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
Give it up. I've tried modding some of the outright flamebaitery where posters call Lucas every filthy word in the book and every time I do it, I get meta-modded as "unfair." There is a massive amount of anti-Star Wars venom on Slashdot (hell, this post will likely get modded as "troll" at some point too.)
Some folks around here have taken to hating Lucas with a sort of religious zeal and nothing you can say will change that. I grew up with Star Wars as a massive component of my life, and I think the new versions of the films kick the old versions' asses up and down the street a half-dozen times. But some people around here disagree and won't tolerate opposing points of view. Frankly, I think it's a little unhealthy to get so wrapped up in this stuff that you allow it to affect your emotions and judgment to that extent.
HarveyBirddman, if you want to engage in more mature and meaningful discourse about the films, go to The Force.net and try out their fan forums. Much more respectful and knowledgeable and level-headed group there and it's not as Lucas-worshipping as you might at first assume (plenty of valid critiques of Lucas there without the emotional outpouring and the wailing about ruined childhoods.)
Honestly, I don't know why Slashdot insists that this stuff should be posted here anymore. Clearly, the Slashdot crowd and the Star Wars fan do not overlap much nowadays.
Where are the moderator points when I need 'em? I hope someone mods you as the troll you are. You're painting with a wide brush and being very insulting and making an ass of yourself all at once. Many of us using Macs have had extensive experience on other platforms and have decided on the basis of what suits us best and what works best.
See, there are multitudes of Mac users who quietly use their machines and are happy with them and who don't fit the mold of this cultish Mac user you're trying to depict. That small percentage out there that does advocate Macs like that are loud and obnoxious and DO NOT speak for the majority of us. But they get the most attention. Anyone with half a brain cell can figure that out and wouldn't make idiotic assumptions about a whole group of people as you have.
In short: take your stereotype and blow it out your ass.
I've said it before and this seems to be a yet another small step in that direction: I think Apple is gearing up to offer a movie rental service similar to iTunes, but most likely with much beefier DRM. I think the concept will be that the movie downloads to your computer and can be shifted to the iPod which (in some future incarnation) will be able to broadcast or connect to your TV. Adding audio and video out would be another step in that direction.
I could be wrong, but it seems that some kind of movie download service is coming in some form or another.
And remember, before everyone jumps on that idea, claiming it's already been tried or it's impossible or it would never work... all that was said before iTunes/iPod. I think we're seeing the early moves toward it, but haven't yet seen all of the pieces of the puzzle.
I'm not even reading the article. I don't need to. I've heard it all before. I'm sure I'll hear it again sometime too.
And I'm going out on a limb to say that games are not only not addicting or damaging in any way, but that they yield positive effects on gamers.
Since the popularity boom of video games in the 80s, there has been almost nothing but negative press about how destructive and damaging video games are. They have been likened to vegetating in front of the TV which is wrong because you're not doing any thinking when watching TV. They have been called a tool of Satan by religious fanatics, but that's wrong because I know plenty of good (and religious) people who play games and continue to be good people. They have been blamed for murders and sociopathic behavior, but for every Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris out there, there are millions of well-adjusted and intelligent people playing games. They have been called an illicit source of pseudo-violence for a testosterone drunken society, but plenty of females play too. They have been blamed for laziness and weight problems, for lower intelligence, for addiction, for every evil under the sun, and yet, as a long-time game player, I have never had a single game-related problem in my life, short of running out of quarters when I was a teenager.
And you know what's interesting? I think back to all the kids I knew growing up. The most successful ones now, the ones who are the most productive, well-educated and generally happy, are the same ones who played video games. Imagine that. And some of those video game players let their interest in games blossom into an interest in computers and technology, and we've seen computers and the Internet change society in profound ways. Is there any way we could credit those video gamers, even just a little for what has happened in the last decade?
Gees, it all seems so sinister, doesn't it?
I have allowed my 8-year-old daughter to play video games (ones appropriate for her age, of course) since she was 5 and you know what? She's consistently at the top of her class in terms of reading, writing, spelling, math, etc., etc. She's well-adjusted and sociable and intelligent, just as I imagine lots of gamers of all ages out there are. A few days ago, her third-grade teacher gave out homework with a problem-solving story that was supposed to take three days to figure out. My daughter had it solved in a matter of minutes. The story problem was very similar to problems she has solved playing computer games over the last few years. Games have honed her problem-solving skills. They've sharpened her ability to analyze information and arrive at conclusions about it.
Oh, so damaging to her frail little self, huh? Imagine if she were an addict to problem-solving! Ohh... scary.
With all the real evils in the world, people shooting each other over different interpretations of God, over disagreements over land, over skin color, you would think this kind of agenda-driven fear-mongering would never find its way into print.
Apply what you just said to Yoda and how he was introduced. I remember hearing the audience laughing at how cute and goofy this shriveled alien creature was, fighting with R2D2 over a flashlight, throwing Luke's food around and being generally goofy. Lucas has a standard sort of motif with this kind of stuff. Cute on the surface can sometimes mean deeper and darker beneath the surface. The Ewoks were very cute but still had that darker side. I think some people couldn't get over the cuteness thing.
You can either view the Ewoks as pathetically weak or understand that that's just your first impression of them. Clearly, they know how to kick some butt. Should you retain that first impression of Yoda too and refuse to allow that there may be more to him or does his ability later also destroy the hero's accomplishments? I think that's a half-empty/half-full kind of argument. Depends on how you look at it. Do the Ewoks drag down the heroes or do they bring themselves up above the "cute" thing? I think your interpretation is inherently negative.
It's like right-wingers who claim that animal rights activists cheapen the important of human life. Is that right? Maybe they just want to elevate animals to the high level of humans? Does that cheapen anyone or just elevate the ones below? You can adhere to a negative or positive view of this kind of thing.
Are those really "mistakes" or are they things you just don't like?
For all the griping I hear about how "cute" the Ewoks were, I never hear people acknowledge the somewhat darker undertones to the whole Ewok thing. The weapons and the aggression they hint at as well as the attempt to roast the main characters as well as the fighting and the scene of the Ewok dying as well. If you focus on the single aspect that bothers you (the cuteness) and ignore the rest of it, you can certainly make it seem much worse that it really is.
The same holds true with Jar-jar although it's harder to see due to the fact that he was supposed to be a contrast to the other characters (although I think if his voice had been toned down a bit, his antics would not have been nearly as annoying to so many people.) Not that it was a bad decision to have him there. The prequels were quite different from the originals in that they didn't focus on a ragtag band of rebels, but instead centered on the power struggle between the upper crust of the old republic. Lucas clearly wanted a goof in the mix to stop things from getting too stuffy, but I think he went a little too far with the goofiness. So that old argument that he was supposed to be annoying is true. It just went too far. I don't know if it should be called a mistake.
And remember, the jawas in SW were originally viewed as cute and funny as was R2D2 and C3PO to an extent. The cuteness angle in SW films is nothing unique to Jedi or Phantom Menace.
Yeah, yeah... I know I'm breaking ranks here by protecting the Darth Lucas here on Slashdot, but let's be fair.
1. This is not a parody and therefore not protected by fair use laws. It's an illegal use of copyrighted material. Period. If there is a bad guy here, it's the copyright infringers, not Lucas. If Lucas doesn't protect his work, he loses his rights in this regard. Every single one of you, were you in his position, would do exactly what he's doing.
2. Did this group write to Lucasfilms to obtain legal permission to do this or did they just cut out on their own? It's up to them to secure the rights to do this. There are proper avenues to go before just assuming what you can and cannot do.
3. Before screaming foulplay and denouncing Lucas, bear in mind that this is the same guy who gave wide-ranging rights to amateur filmmakers to use the concepts from SW to create their own fan films (go look on AtomFilms or elsewhere.) What other filmmaker has done such a thing?
You do have a choice, but you are limited to formats other than DVD. I agree that it sucks, but when you get right down to it, it's the same thing: each director changed the theatrical release. I mean, if that's the way they preferred the film to be, why didn't they release it that way to the theater in the first place? That's a rhetorical question, btw. That's the argument used against Lucas but quickly discarded when it comes to Jackson.
This argument cuts both ways and because George Lucas is the current villain of Slashdot and Peter Jackson is the current knight in shining armor, nobody cops to it.
So now I'm curious to hear from the Slashdot crowd whether George Lucas isn't quite as evil as he was last week or whether Peter Jackson is now the anti-Christ for daring to alter the precious theatrical releases of his trilogy.
Oh, I see, because they aren't on the format you prefer, then it's all different. Still, a double standard. You know it too, otherwise you wouldn't have posted such a childish response as an AC.
Personally I find his attitude a lot more palatable than George Lucas who is obviously out to milk the Star Wars franchise for all its worth.
Obviously, huh? I've been watching the SW DVDs for the last week and, while some of the changes come as a bit of a shock for a long-time SW fanatic like me, I'm having a hard time arguing that the changes should not have been made. Most of them improve the films whether those of us overprotective of our childhood memories like it or not. Why are you so confident that Lucas is simply milking the movies? Try to consider the circumstances surrounding Lucas's movies versus those surrounds the LOTR movies. It's easy to see why Lucas has dared to alter the most holy of trilogies now. He didn't have a chance to do it back then the way Jackson gets to now.
Yeah, we're all going to explain away the double-standard of praising Jackson while denouncing George Lucas for creating new versions of the movies. Like it or not, it's basically the same thing. You can argue the finer points, the rationale behind it, the impact it has on your childhood memories, etc., etc., but both are still changing the theatrical release to suit their preference. It's the same no matter how you slice it. (And remember, the "old" versions of the SW trilogy are available, just not on DVD so that argument doesn't hold water.)
And one thing to keep in mind: if George Lucas hadn't pioneered the path first, filmmakers like Jackson would have a much more difficult time getting studios to go along with such massive projects and additional, extended DVD releases. Praise Jackson all you want, but maybe next time, tone down the screams of anguish and accusations of hypocrisy directed at George Lucas. His trilogy was made in much more difficult circumstances, using a great deal of his own money, while trying to change the playing field with the corporate studios. He never had the kind of opportunities to release extended versions shortly after the theatrical releases came to video, and the only reason directors like Jackson even stand a chance is because guys like Lucas showed that those kinds of films can be wildly profitable.
Oh, please. It's space opera, pure and simple, and was never meant to be anything else.
Would it surprise you if I say I agree with this? All I'm saying is that Lucas based the story on standard mythological templates. I'm not saying the story is supposed to carry any deeper meaning or message. It's a space opera, pure and simple. Absolutely.
Lucas himself said as much, repeatedly, until his head started to swell and he began making up all sorts of drivel after the fact to make himself look like a deep, philosophical, brilliant guy.
Perhaps you can explain then why Joseph Campbell himself is on record as having said that he was in contact with Lucas prior to the creation of the film. Perhaps you can explain comments from people like Mark Hammill and Harrison Ford that confirm that Lucas had these things in mind during its creation. Perhaps you can explain the obvious imitations of various myths that Lucas uses all through the films. Is all that just coincidence or part of some grand scheme to make GL look like some kind of genius?
Lucas' brilliance was in marketing.
I'm curious as to how old you are. There were a TON of well marketed space films and SW ripoffs after SW came out and almost none of them are remembered today. Many of them were better marketed than SW was itself; many of them with better special effects and bigger celebrities. SW took off almost on its own. The powerful marketing stuff came long afterward (remember, there weren't even toys available for the first Christmas after SW's release.) To attribute its popularity and continued hold on its audience to marketing is not only shortsighted, but also somewhat insulting.
The story was campy, the acting was mediocre (on a good day), there weren't any deep messages or morals. It was good fun, and nothing else, and nobody pretended any different until Lucas started down the road of egomaniacal self-absorption.
For the most part, again, I agree. I don't think you're supposed to come away from the film with any great revelation about humanity or existence or any powerful philosophical notions. However, to ignore the obvious similarities that the characters and situations in Star Wars bear on standard mythical motifs that have grabbed human attention throughout history would be foolish. It's there. It's almost embarrassingly obvious at times.
Don't read anything into the original Star Wars trilogy. It isn't there.
I don't. But please don't ignore the things that are there. And please don't presume to look down on those of us who dare to notice it and mention it aloud.
Actually, I happen to be one of those people who thinks some of Campbell's stuff is simplistic and overgeneralized. However, that doesn't diminish the brilliance of Lucas studying Campbell's work, gaining an understanding of the archetypes in mythology and incorporating that into SW. Clearly, it rang true with people in a way that has seldom been repeated. Something was there that speaks to people beyond just the flashy special effects. Despite looking like a comic book/space opera story on the surface, Lucas imbued the story with a lot of depth.
Opinions about Campbell's work doesn't really affect that much.
Microsoft Imperial Death Star XP
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Something just occurred to me.
* The Death Star plans were secret, but rebels managed to obtain them anyway.
* Windows is closed source, but people keep managing to steal bits of code anyway.
* The Empire was confident that The Death Star was secure and couldn't be compromised.
* Microsoft is confident that Windows is secure and cannot be compromised.
* Occassionally, rebellious hackers stumble across Windows vulnerabilities that nobody noticed before or thought was important.
* The rebels discovered a vulnerability into the Death Star that nobody noticed before or thought was important.
* Windows slowly positions itself to wipe out the competition.
* The Death Star slowly positions itself to wipe out the competition.
* Microsoft analyses virus attacks and discovers that there is some danger... albeit too late.
* The Empire analyzed the rebel attack and discovered that there was some danger... albeit too late.
* Script kiddies sometimes take devastatingly accurate shots at these backdoors and weaknesses.
* Luke Skywalker took a devastatingly accurate shot at the Death Star's exhaust port.
* Microsoft is attempting to rebuild Windows from the ground up, promising to make it better than before although it looks pretty much the same.
* The Empire tried to rebuild The Death Star from the ground up, promising to make it better than before although it looks pretty much the same.
Therefore... we can conclude the following:
* Luke Skywalker is a script kiddie.
* The Apple switcher campaign should feature Harrison Ford shouting, "Great shot kid, that was one in a million! Let's blow this thing so we can go home!"
* When Windows explodes... oooohhh... pretty.
* Hackers should have medals presented to them by Carrie Fisher.
* Bill Gates is Linus Torvald's father.
* And finally: Microsoft should not put too much faith in this technological terror they've constructed... the ability to destroy the competition is insignificant next to the power of open source.
In your should-have-been-humbly-stated opinion. Anyone familiar with the writings of Joseph Campbell can see what Lucas was doing and it was sheer brilliance. Even today it stands up surprisingly well whereas the Flash Gordon serials you cite are cheesy and ridiculous. People hate to acknowledge it but there are some very intellectual roots in the Star Wars story.
Elsewise, get a life, get a life, get a life.
That's funny. That's usually what I say to people who poke their heads into any given online forum just to sneer at the people there and make holier-than-thou comments.
For those of you who have better things to do than listen to the screaming and wailing of a bunch of fanboys, I present a summary of most posts in today's forum:
Slashdot Mirror
First of all--and this is the most important--Apple partnered with MS back then. That's how MS did its famous reverse-engineering to steal a lot of the Mac "look and feel" (which Apple hadn't protected in any substantial way--i.e., patents, etc.) There is no partnership this time around. It's quite telling to see who is begging for the partnership (MS) and who is wisely refusing it (Apple.) You don't make a deal with the devil, especially if you already did it once before.
Second, Apple isn't just sitting around this time, hoping that the brilliance and beauty of their products will win the day. It's clear they've learned to keep pushing the boundaries. The iPod has only been around for --what?--two years now and look how many revisions and product variations Apple has produced. Look how many promotions Apple has done. Look how they've built iTunes into the best cross-platform music player and store. Look how they've partnered with Pepsi, HP and a wide range of retailers I just spotted the iPod Mini in a Costco ad. They're not treating the iPod like an exclusive island resort like they did with the Mac. It's come one, come all.
Third, they are reshaping the culture and technology of the Mac to support the iPod (and vice-versa), music and the whole "digital lifestyle" thing. OS X, QuickTime, Core Audio, GarageBand. It's totally embedded into what they're doing. Remember that the Mac was, for a surprisingly long time during and after its conception, treated like an aberration and wasn't fully supported by Apple at first.
Fourth, it's NOT PROPRIETARY. The iPod doesn't just play iTunes downloads. The Mac was bogged down for the first half of its existence with too many proprietary aspects.
Fifth, incompatible software. Remember how the Mac's big "weakness" was that it wasn't DOS-compatible and later Windows-compatible? Extend the analogy. The "software" in this situation is music and the iPod is fully compatible with the rest of the world here. There is no software gap to close.
I appreciate that the writer is trying to get a sense of the current situation, but I think comparing it to the Mac's rough history is shortsighted.
Not trying to be confrontational. I just don't get what compels you (and others for that matter) to waste your time on something that doesn't interest you.
No. That's bigotry. Period.
How is that "bigotry" and yet your (mis)characterization of Kerry supporters isn't?
Besides, you're taking what I'm saying too literally. What I wrote wasn't intended to be a statement that Bush supporters are in fact stupid but rather that some anti-Bush people saying that Bush voters are less educated actually has some basis in fact.
I've seen more than one study showing a correlation between education level and a tendency to vote for Bush. The fact is that (whether it sits well with your or not) the lower the education, the more likely someone is to vote Bush. Oh well.
I agree that nobody should use those facts to paint all Bush supporters with a wide brush, but the correlation is there. Look at the red states and the blue states. Which states do you suspect having higher education levels? You sort of suspect that Californians and New Yorkers might be a tad more educated and informed than Montanans and Kansans? Even a little? It's not rude to point it out.
I read a book a few years ago about infotainment and right-wing radio propaganda ("Hot Air") and the author cited a test about current events that was put out to random groups of people. The test asked you to rate your own knowledge level and to note whether or not you listened to right-wing talk radio. Invariably, the group that identified itself as listeners to right-wing radio rated themselves as highly informed, but actually missed most of the questions about current events. Those who didn't listen to AM radio, were less confident about their answers, but got more answers correct.
So, when some folks point the finger at Bush supporters as less intelligent, there may be reasons. Again, I think it's wrong to paint with such a wide brush. Likewise, you shouldn't paint those making such statements with such a wide brush either. Not all of them are doing it just to be rude.
1) How long do you think it will take Republicans to lay the blame for the attack at Bill Clinton's feet (I say 1-2 hours like last time and will probably be Orrin Hatch like last time.)
2) How long do you think it will take for right-wing radio outlets and Fox news to convince everyone that it's true? (I say, 5-10 minutes like last time.)
Anyone care to tell me how this so-called virus spreads? How does it propagate itself? Until we get to that point, I'm not going to accept that this is for real. And until then, those shouting that the sky has officially fallen on Cupertino can shut the hell up. I've heard this a dozen or so times over the last year-and-a-half and it's getting tiresome.
What is it about Apple that non-Apple users hate so much that requires this constant vigil for anything that could be a virus? And then the subsequent shouts of "Yep, take that smarmy Mac users... it's finally happened!" And this usually coming from people who beforehand would argue that the only reason Macs have no viruses is because of low market share. That argument disappears when it becomes inconvenient.
I've used Macs for over a decade now and most of that time was dominated by two phrases repeated ad nauseum. "Apple is dying" and "But there's no software!"
And now those have been replaced by this ongoing Quest for the Holy Virus.
I'm not saying OS X is invincible or that a virus will never hit Mac users, but when it happens, there will be little doubt about it. Until then, can we all just lay off the panic button?
Anyway, we're right behind you. Lead us onward, HarveyBirdman, into the depths of Incorrectly Modded Flamebait Hell! BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
Some folks around here have taken to hating Lucas with a sort of religious zeal and nothing you can say will change that. I grew up with Star Wars as a massive component of my life, and I think the new versions of the films kick the old versions' asses up and down the street a half-dozen times. But some people around here disagree and won't tolerate opposing points of view. Frankly, I think it's a little unhealthy to get so wrapped up in this stuff that you allow it to affect your emotions and judgment to that extent.
HarveyBirddman, if you want to engage in more mature and meaningful discourse about the films, go to The Force.net and try out their fan forums. Much more respectful and knowledgeable and level-headed group there and it's not as Lucas-worshipping as you might at first assume (plenty of valid critiques of Lucas there without the emotional outpouring and the wailing about ruined childhoods.)
Honestly, I don't know why Slashdot insists that this stuff should be posted here anymore. Clearly, the Slashdot crowd and the Star Wars fan do not overlap much nowadays.
See, there are multitudes of Mac users who quietly use their machines and are happy with them and who don't fit the mold of this cultish Mac user you're trying to depict. That small percentage out there that does advocate Macs like that are loud and obnoxious and DO NOT speak for the majority of us. But they get the most attention. Anyone with half a brain cell can figure that out and wouldn't make idiotic assumptions about a whole group of people as you have.
In short: take your stereotype and blow it out your ass.
I could be wrong, but it seems that some kind of movie download service is coming in some form or another.
And remember, before everyone jumps on that idea, claiming it's already been tried or it's impossible or it would never work... all that was said before iTunes/iPod. I think we're seeing the early moves toward it, but haven't yet seen all of the pieces of the puzzle.
And I'm going out on a limb to say that games are not only not addicting or damaging in any way, but that they yield positive effects on gamers.
Since the popularity boom of video games in the 80s, there has been almost nothing but negative press about how destructive and damaging video games are. They have been likened to vegetating in front of the TV which is wrong because you're not doing any thinking when watching TV. They have been called a tool of Satan by religious fanatics, but that's wrong because I know plenty of good (and religious) people who play games and continue to be good people. They have been blamed for murders and sociopathic behavior, but for every Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris out there, there are millions of well-adjusted and intelligent people playing games. They have been called an illicit source of pseudo-violence for a testosterone drunken society, but plenty of females play too. They have been blamed for laziness and weight problems, for lower intelligence, for addiction, for every evil under the sun, and yet, as a long-time game player, I have never had a single game-related problem in my life, short of running out of quarters when I was a teenager.
And you know what's interesting? I think back to all the kids I knew growing up. The most successful ones now, the ones who are the most productive, well-educated and generally happy, are the same ones who played video games. Imagine that. And some of those video game players let their interest in games blossom into an interest in computers and technology, and we've seen computers and the Internet change society in profound ways. Is there any way we could credit those video gamers, even just a little for what has happened in the last decade?
Gees, it all seems so sinister, doesn't it?
I have allowed my 8-year-old daughter to play video games (ones appropriate for her age, of course) since she was 5 and you know what? She's consistently at the top of her class in terms of reading, writing, spelling, math, etc., etc. She's well-adjusted and sociable and intelligent, just as I imagine lots of gamers of all ages out there are. A few days ago, her third-grade teacher gave out homework with a problem-solving story that was supposed to take three days to figure out. My daughter had it solved in a matter of minutes. The story problem was very similar to problems she has solved playing computer games over the last few years. Games have honed her problem-solving skills. They've sharpened her ability to analyze information and arrive at conclusions about it.
Oh, so damaging to her frail little self, huh? Imagine if she were an addict to problem-solving! Ohh... scary.
With all the real evils in the world, people shooting each other over different interpretations of God, over disagreements over land, over skin color, you would think this kind of agenda-driven fear-mongering would never find its way into print.
You would hope at least.
Apply what you just said to Yoda and how he was introduced. I remember hearing the audience laughing at how cute and goofy this shriveled alien creature was, fighting with R2D2 over a flashlight, throwing Luke's food around and being generally goofy. Lucas has a standard sort of motif with this kind of stuff. Cute on the surface can sometimes mean deeper and darker beneath the surface. The Ewoks were very cute but still had that darker side. I think some people couldn't get over the cuteness thing.
You can either view the Ewoks as pathetically weak or understand that that's just your first impression of them. Clearly, they know how to kick some butt. Should you retain that first impression of Yoda too and refuse to allow that there may be more to him or does his ability later also destroy the hero's accomplishments? I think that's a half-empty/half-full kind of argument. Depends on how you look at it. Do the Ewoks drag down the heroes or do they bring themselves up above the "cute" thing? I think your interpretation is inherently negative.
It's like right-wingers who claim that animal rights activists cheapen the important of human life. Is that right? Maybe they just want to elevate animals to the high level of humans? Does that cheapen anyone or just elevate the ones below? You can adhere to a negative or positive view of this kind of thing.
For all the griping I hear about how "cute" the Ewoks were, I never hear people acknowledge the somewhat darker undertones to the whole Ewok thing. The weapons and the aggression they hint at as well as the attempt to roast the main characters as well as the fighting and the scene of the Ewok dying as well. If you focus on the single aspect that bothers you (the cuteness) and ignore the rest of it, you can certainly make it seem much worse that it really is.
The same holds true with Jar-jar although it's harder to see due to the fact that he was supposed to be a contrast to the other characters (although I think if his voice had been toned down a bit, his antics would not have been nearly as annoying to so many people.) Not that it was a bad decision to have him there. The prequels were quite different from the originals in that they didn't focus on a ragtag band of rebels, but instead centered on the power struggle between the upper crust of the old republic. Lucas clearly wanted a goof in the mix to stop things from getting too stuffy, but I think he went a little too far with the goofiness. So that old argument that he was supposed to be annoying is true. It just went too far. I don't know if it should be called a mistake.
And remember, the jawas in SW were originally viewed as cute and funny as was R2D2 and C3PO to an extent. The cuteness angle in SW films is nothing unique to Jedi or Phantom Menace.
BTW, how did you score a cool user number like "66666?" ;^)
1. This is not a parody and therefore not protected by fair use laws. It's an illegal use of copyrighted material. Period. If there is a bad guy here, it's the copyright infringers, not Lucas. If Lucas doesn't protect his work, he loses his rights in this regard. Every single one of you, were you in his position, would do exactly what he's doing.
2. Did this group write to Lucasfilms to obtain legal permission to do this or did they just cut out on their own? It's up to them to secure the rights to do this. There are proper avenues to go before just assuming what you can and cannot do.
3. Before screaming foulplay and denouncing Lucas, bear in mind that this is the same guy who gave wide-ranging rights to amateur filmmakers to use the concepts from SW to create their own fan films (go look on AtomFilms or elsewhere.) What other filmmaker has done such a thing?
This argument cuts both ways and because George Lucas is the current villain of Slashdot and Peter Jackson is the current knight in shining armor, nobody cops to it.
So now I'm curious to hear from the Slashdot crowd whether George Lucas isn't quite as evil as he was last week or whether Peter Jackson is now the anti-Christ for daring to alter the precious theatrical releases of his trilogy.
Obviously, huh? I've been watching the SW DVDs for the last week and, while some of the changes come as a bit of a shock for a long-time SW fanatic like me, I'm having a hard time arguing that the changes should not have been made. Most of them improve the films whether those of us overprotective of our childhood memories like it or not. Why are you so confident that Lucas is simply milking the movies? Try to consider the circumstances surrounding Lucas's movies versus those surrounds the LOTR movies. It's easy to see why Lucas has dared to alter the most holy of trilogies now. He didn't have a chance to do it back then the way Jackson gets to now.
No real difference.
And one thing to keep in mind: if George Lucas hadn't pioneered the path first, filmmakers like Jackson would have a much more difficult time getting studios to go along with such massive projects and additional, extended DVD releases. Praise Jackson all you want, but maybe next time, tone down the screams of anguish and accusations of hypocrisy directed at George Lucas. His trilogy was made in much more difficult circumstances, using a great deal of his own money, while trying to change the playing field with the corporate studios. He never had the kind of opportunities to release extended versions shortly after the theatrical releases came to video, and the only reason directors like Jackson even stand a chance is because guys like Lucas showed that those kinds of films can be wildly profitable.
Would it surprise you if I say I agree with this? All I'm saying is that Lucas based the story on standard mythological templates. I'm not saying the story is supposed to carry any deeper meaning or message. It's a space opera, pure and simple. Absolutely.
Lucas himself said as much, repeatedly, until his head started to swell and he began making up all sorts of drivel after the fact to make himself look like a deep, philosophical, brilliant guy.
Perhaps you can explain then why Joseph Campbell himself is on record as having said that he was in contact with Lucas prior to the creation of the film. Perhaps you can explain comments from people like Mark Hammill and Harrison Ford that confirm that Lucas had these things in mind during its creation. Perhaps you can explain the obvious imitations of various myths that Lucas uses all through the films. Is all that just coincidence or part of some grand scheme to make GL look like some kind of genius?
Lucas' brilliance was in marketing.
I'm curious as to how old you are. There were a TON of well marketed space films and SW ripoffs after SW came out and almost none of them are remembered today. Many of them were better marketed than SW was itself; many of them with better special effects and bigger celebrities. SW took off almost on its own. The powerful marketing stuff came long afterward (remember, there weren't even toys available for the first Christmas after SW's release.) To attribute its popularity and continued hold on its audience to marketing is not only shortsighted, but also somewhat insulting.
The story was campy, the acting was mediocre (on a good day), there weren't any deep messages or morals. It was good fun, and nothing else, and nobody pretended any different until Lucas started down the road of egomaniacal self-absorption.
For the most part, again, I agree. I don't think you're supposed to come away from the film with any great revelation about humanity or existence or any powerful philosophical notions. However, to ignore the obvious similarities that the characters and situations in Star Wars bear on standard mythical motifs that have grabbed human attention throughout history would be foolish. It's there. It's almost embarrassingly obvious at times.
Don't read anything into the original Star Wars trilogy. It isn't there.
I don't. But please don't ignore the things that are there. And please don't presume to look down on those of us who dare to notice it and mention it aloud.
Opinions about Campbell's work doesn't really affect that much.
* The Death Star plans were secret, but rebels managed to obtain them anyway.
* Windows is closed source, but people keep managing to steal bits of code anyway.
* The Empire was confident that The Death Star was secure and couldn't be compromised.
* Microsoft is confident that Windows is secure and cannot be compromised.
* Occassionally, rebellious hackers stumble across Windows vulnerabilities that nobody noticed before or thought was important.
* The rebels discovered a vulnerability into the Death Star that nobody noticed before or thought was important.
* Windows slowly positions itself to wipe out the competition.
* The Death Star slowly positions itself to wipe out the competition.
* Microsoft analyses virus attacks and discovers that there is some danger... albeit too late.
* The Empire analyzed the rebel attack and discovered that there was some danger... albeit too late.
* Script kiddies sometimes take devastatingly accurate shots at these backdoors and weaknesses.
* Luke Skywalker took a devastatingly accurate shot at the Death Star's exhaust port.
* Microsoft is attempting to rebuild Windows from the ground up, promising to make it better than before although it looks pretty much the same.
* The Empire tried to rebuild The Death Star from the ground up, promising to make it better than before although it looks pretty much the same.
Therefore... we can conclude the following:
* Luke Skywalker is a script kiddie.
* The Apple switcher campaign should feature Harrison Ford shouting, "Great shot kid, that was one in a million! Let's blow this thing so we can go home!"
* When Windows explodes... oooohhh... pretty.
* Hackers should have medals presented to them by Carrie Fisher.
* Bill Gates is Linus Torvald's father.
* And finally: Microsoft should not put too much faith in this technological terror they've constructed... the ability to destroy the competition is insignificant next to the power of open source.
In your should-have-been-humbly-stated opinion. Anyone familiar with the writings of Joseph Campbell can see what Lucas was doing and it was sheer brilliance. Even today it stands up surprisingly well whereas the Flash Gordon serials you cite are cheesy and ridiculous. People hate to acknowledge it but there are some very intellectual roots in the Star Wars story.
Elsewise, get a life, get a life, get a life.
That's funny. That's usually what I say to people who poke their heads into any given online forum just to sneer at the people there and make holier-than-thou comments.
"Wwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!! !!!! Boohoo... sniffle..."