There really wasn't much battle in front of the black gate. I can understand if they leave it out. Except, it does provide a good backdrop too see the forces of Mordor flee when the place starts falling apart (after Frodo destroys the ring).
I'll be VERY dissapointed if they cut out the confrontation at the doors of Orthanc. This was strongly hinted at on the Two Towers extended documentaries.
This confrontation is EXTREMELY important because:
1) It's the last time you'll see Saruman. 2) It's where Perry gets a gander at the Palintir which forces him to go with Gandalf to Minas Tirith. He winds up as gaurd for Denethor's chambers (actually more of a bard, Denethor keeps him around to tell Shire tales). Ultimately, he ends up saving Faramir when Denethor flips out because he's been hitting the Palintir too hard;-) See the symmetry, one Palintir abuser serving another.
I would envision "The Hobbit" to be told to Hobbit children by Mayor Sam, Merry, and Thain Peregrine Took. The movie would start with the scouring of the Shire. It would then cut back to the children asking them to tell them about Bilbo.
They would cut back to the kids periodically and the Hobbits would sometimes quarrel about what "version" to tell the kids. So we would see some "kidiesh" versions of Orcs and real orcs. We would see the sanitized story of Bilbo and Gollum, as well as the real one.
If Tom Bombadil was to make an appearance at all, I would suspect a composite character of Bombadil and Beregond. He would of course still turn into the bear. But he wouldn't act so freakin gay running around in tights and singing songs.
Saruman didn't have any real Orcs posted in the Shire. They were all men. A few were suspected to be part orc bred, but human enough to pass in Bree. Indeed the spies in Bree ended up in the Shire.
Tom Bombadil is indeed in Lord of the Rings. Bombadil saves them from "Old Man Willow" in the old forest. He also saves them from the barrow weights. BTW, in the books, they get their blades from the barrow (tomb) in which they were briefly imprisoned.
I believe you have Beorn in mind. For all intensive purposes, he was a bear lycan (he turned into a bear).
One huge thing they illustrated here is that Gandalf was no longer fighting anyone's battle. His purpose in Middle Earth was to train people to fight their own battles vs evil.
The hobbits asked him to help them when returning to the shire. He flat out told them NO.
This will probably set up a real sci-fi plot in the future when Boomer realizes that she is artificial. She could go through a decision process and decide to stick with the humans. This would be kinda a "BladeRunner" angle.
Then you might as well ask why the machines in the matrix didnt just go to another planet or the moon to gather solar energy, or hell, even create some dirigibles/platforms to go above the cloud cover to harness the power of the sun???
Because the Physics in the Matrix were even DUMBER than those of Star Trek Voyager.
Shit, they could've just built a nuclear reactor. Had they gone with the "human cpu" concept, they could have redeemed the trilogy. That is the only possible function that humans could serve for the machines.
Why does Frankenstein's monster want to kill Frankenstein. Perhaps it was for making him flawed.
The reason for the strike could be as simple as wanting their planets for raw materials. Perhaps they even inspire to make themselves human (bio-robots) and need suitable homeworlds.
I really liked the sound of metal on metal in the fight scenes. This is what it actually should sound like. You can only hear the stuff that's impacting your ship.
The navigational effects were awesome. The way the ships moved reminded me of playing Descent.
The faster than light travel was realistic from the standpoint that as soon as you jump... POOOF... your gone.
I think we all get very attached to the things we saw in our youth. Sometimes, when you go back and watch some of that stuff again, you realize it's pretty stupid. Original Battlestar Galactica's was way to uptite about having greek names for EVERYTHING.
Criticisms of the new version: * I can appreciate trying to "bring home" the drama by not dressing the actors in polyester jumpsuits. However, I think the Pinstripe shirts some of these guys were wearing gave you the sense that these people just wandered onto the set in their street clothes.
The officer uniforms from the original were better. As others have pointed out, these one's look like they came straight off of Babylon 5.
* They are using techno buzzwords like "wireless" way too much. I'd like everybody to review their original Star Trek. They had boxes/gizmos and they were effectively magic. The crew didn't describe HOW the boxes worked.
I can remember watching Star Trek in the 80s and saying "Those little cassette thingies they put data on are way too unrealistic". They look nothing like a floppy disk. Well guess what, all those magic doohickies on Original Star Trek are now realities: Flip Phones(communicators), Stun Guns (phasers on stun), Pocket Computers (Tri-Corders).
So please stop trying to be techno hip. It's not REAL science fiction, it's a space drama. Battlestar Galactica with techno goop (not even CORRECT techno-goop) is effectively Star Trek Voyager.
* I like the angle with Baltar. Hoever, they've effectively turned him into Dr. Smith from "Lost In Space". Coincidentally, they were also trying to find Earth.
* I don't get why the fighter bays have to "retract". This is like the Enterprise splitting in two. There is no reason for it.
* The "Model 5" hallucination to some degree is a rip off of John Crichtons "Scorpy" implant on Farscape. BTW, quit calling EVERYTHING a chip.
Good stuff
* The Cylons are creepy. They are also multi-faceted. They are somewhat emotional.
* The effects are Bab 5 effects, and they are excellent.
* The bull-Amazon Starbuck is an interesting twist. I also like how these old GOOFY names are just their pilot handles.
Thats a pretty shitty plan for 3 years or planning. You would think he would enquire as to where he could refuel if he ran into a strong headwind.
You would also think he would know when to turn around if he ran into a strong headwind.
Seriously, he should have planned for the contingency of a "dead zone" in his flight. That is, he hits a head wind for 30 minutes and then doesn't have enough fuel to: 1) Turn Around 2) Complete the flight
Obviously, he knew where the bases were. He seemingly never inquired as to whether he could refuel there. If the answer was obviously NO, then he souldn't have made the flight.
If the situation was reversed - if an American was caught out in Antarctica due to a combination of bad weather and maybe a bit of foolhardiness, would you accept that person being refused certain kinds of help by Australian and New Zealand scientists?
Unfortunately, I think your correct about that. Our media would likely sensationalize the situation. Subsequently, concessions would be made.
American politicians are pretty bad about double standards. It's easy to rile people up any time an American is being treated unfairly. The saner voices tend to get shouted down and misrepresented. I don't think this situation is unique to America. It's just that Americans typically have the muscle to WIN via threats of trade sanctions or other measures. Consequently, foreigners resent it (rightfully so).
Two excellent examples:
The US demands that American POWs are well treated and not used as publicity props.
But....
American armed forces release pictures of Taliban POWs to the media. Then they house them in substandard camps at Guantanomo Bay. We refuse them due process and keep them in legal limbo.
American's would NEVER tolerate her citizens being treated this way. We would be outraged. Unfortunately the voices of wrath rule the day. The Golden Rule is forgotten: Do onto foreign POWs as you would have foreigners do onto YOUR POWs.
The Singapore?Taiwan?... whatever country... case of a teenager sentenced to being caned (whipped with a bamboo stick) over graffiti. We thought this was cruel and unusual. So Senators bitch and complain and posture over the issue. Very little attention is given to the fact that this is a Sovereign nation with the it's own laws.
The fact is that this kid didn't litter. He defaced public policy. If we whipped kids in this country how spray painted walls, we'd likely have a lot less graffiti. Do the crime, do the time. Right????.... BUT.....
Move along to foreign protest over America's death penalty for foreign citizens convicted in American courts. Our take: We're a sovereign nation and we have the right to impose penalties on law breakers. Everyone knows what the law is. Don't try to interfere with US sovereignty.
See, when Americans break laws in foreign countries, they should be held to native (American) penalties. But when foreigners break AMERICAN laws, they should be held to foreign (American) penalties.
Actually, I would compare this to the US Policy of not giving ransom for hostages. The rationale is that it would encourage more hostage taking.
Notice that with the exception of Reagan/Bush Sr's little Iran/Weapons/Cocaine triangle, they largely followed this policy.
Subsequently, the terrorists stopped taking hostages because it was just costing them money to keep people alive.
By contrast corporations have insurance for hostage takers in Central America. It's a lucrative business down there virutally ENSURING that INSURANCE is a necessity.
Businessmen are largely reasonable people (unlike drug addicts). When something is unprofitable they get out of the business*.
* BTW, this is largely the reason we should legalize marijauna and legitamize heroin/coke via prescription. The price will plummet and make elicit distribution unprofitable. No profit, no trade.
Those guys train for this stuff. They're probably happy to do it to break up the boredome up miliatary life.
As long as no one is shooting at them, they are probably pretty happy.
BTW, Dennis Miller isn't as clever as he thinks he is. Anybody can go find a bunch of obscure subjects and flout them in front of everyone else as proof of how "smart" they are (Wm F Buckley (at least Dennis doesn't have to stammer to find the right word)). Real communicators know that you speak to the audience in THEIR language.
This is something that the more well informed Gore should have learned in the face of the woefully informed and prepared GW Bush.
Typically, on a high risk flight there is a "point of no return". I have no idea whether this was in his contingency plan, but he sure seemed to have passed it.
In other words, you need a plan of how much resources you have at what stage of your journey. At each milestone, he should have had a number for fuel that meant he had 150% times the amount he needed to complete the journey or turn around.
He seemingly ignored the signals (strong headwinds) to turn around and got himself stuck.
Another famous case is that of British explorer Shackleton, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/shackleton/. He was breaking ice on the way into Antarctica late in the season. He didn't consider how he might get himself out or turned around. "Failure is not an option". It may not be an option, but it's absolutely a possiblity. His bull-headedness got his crew stuck and some killed.
When the odds are against you, and things aren't going right giving up, and trying again under more favorable conditions is absoluetly an option.
Real pioneers know that they will die if things go wrong. This guy isn't a pioneer. Flying over Antarctica has already been done. This guy is an amateur sightseer and apparantly didn't bother to ask whether he could refuel at their base or not.
Are you so satisfied in your insulated safe little lives, so dependent on the government and society in general providing you with a safety net that you cannot concive stepping out of it?
Actually, it sounds like this pilot was the one relying on the government to bail him out.
Actually, they're treating him in a hospitable way. They feeding him and keeping him alive.
However, they aren't a hotel and they DON'T want to do this for a living. Therefore, they are sending a clear signal that they aren't going to be helpful to amateurs who try to fly over Antarctica and get stuck.
Travel in these hostile climates are for professionals. This guy is lucky he's not dead. He's even luckier that he didn't sustain serious injury which would require an VERY expensive evacuation.
You're being taxed to subsidize mass transit. higher fuel costs make mass transit more attractive, and more people using mass transit makes mass transit affordable.
Slashdot Mirror
There really wasn't much battle in front of the black gate. I can understand if they leave it out. Except, it does provide a good backdrop too see the forces of Mordor flee when the place starts falling apart (after Frodo destroys the ring).
*SPOILERS*
;-) See the symmetry, one Palintir abuser serving another.
I'll be VERY dissapointed if they cut out the confrontation at the doors of Orthanc. This was strongly hinted at on the Two Towers extended documentaries.
This confrontation is EXTREMELY important because:
1) It's the last time you'll see Saruman.
2) It's where Perry gets a gander at the Palintir which forces him to go with Gandalf to Minas Tirith. He winds up as gaurd for Denethor's chambers (actually more of a bard, Denethor keeps him around to tell Shire tales). Ultimately, he ends up saving Faramir when Denethor flips out because he's been hitting the Palintir too hard
I would envision "The Hobbit" to be told to Hobbit children by Mayor Sam, Merry, and Thain Peregrine Took. The movie would start with the scouring of the Shire. It would then cut back to the children asking them to tell them about Bilbo.
They would cut back to the kids periodically and the Hobbits would sometimes quarrel about what "version" to tell the kids. So we would see some "kidiesh" versions of Orcs and real orcs. We would see the sanitized story of Bilbo and Gollum, as well as the real one.
If Tom Bombadil was to make an appearance at all, I would suspect a composite character of Bombadil and Beregond. He would of course still turn into the bear. But he wouldn't act so freakin gay running around in tights and singing songs.
Sorry,
Saruman didn't have any real Orcs posted in the Shire. They were all men. A few were suspected to be part orc bred, but human enough to pass in Bree. Indeed the spies in Bree ended up in the Shire.
Tom Bombadil is indeed in Lord of the Rings. Bombadil saves them from "Old Man Willow" in the old forest. He also saves them from the barrow weights. BTW, in the books, they get their blades from the barrow (tomb) in which they were briefly imprisoned.
I believe you have Beorn in mind. For all intensive purposes, he was a bear lycan (he turned into a bear).
One huge thing they illustrated here is that Gandalf was no longer fighting anyone's battle. His purpose in Middle Earth was to train people to fight their own battles vs evil.
The hobbits asked him to help them when returning to the shire. He flat out told them NO.
There is a difference between a geek, a nerd and a dweeb.
Geeks are techno-savvy, they need not be stylistic nightmares or wimps. In fact, Martial Art Geeks are pretty damn tough.
A nerd is defined by style and social functions. They are also geeks by definition.
A dweeb as all the social and dressing problems of a nerd without the techno-saviness of a geek.
There may be a Supreme Commander that you haven't seen yet. Or it could be a Borg type entity that is an intellectual collection of all the Cylons.
This will probably set up a real sci-fi plot in the future when Boomer realizes that she is artificial. She could go through a decision process and decide to stick with the humans. This would be kinda a "BladeRunner" angle.
A space-burst would be less effective than an air-burst. The bulk of nuclear destruction is done by a pressure wave created by super-heated air.
I thought we already did this thread when talking about attacking asteroids on collision courses with earth.
In any case, the shielding on the thing is quite impressive if it can deflect the radiation of a nuclear device.
Frell you, you fraken wang silcher.
It sounds like the Jews conquering their "promised land" by driving out other peoples.
BTW, along the lines of 12, let's not forget that 13 is an unlucky, evil number.
Then you might as well ask why the machines in the matrix didnt just go to another planet or the moon to gather solar energy, or hell, even create some dirigibles/platforms to go above the cloud cover to harness the power of the sun???
Because the Physics in the Matrix were even DUMBER than those of Star Trek Voyager.
Shit, they could've just built a nuclear reactor. Had they gone with the "human cpu" concept, they could have redeemed the trilogy. That is the only possible function that humans could serve for the machines.
Why does Frankenstein's monster want to kill Frankenstein. Perhaps it was for making him flawed.
The reason for the strike could be as simple as wanting their planets for raw materials. Perhaps they even inspire to make themselves human (bio-robots) and need suitable homeworlds.
I really liked the sound of metal on metal in the fight scenes. This is what it actually should sound like. You can only hear the stuff that's impacting your ship.
... POOOF ... your gone.
The navigational effects were awesome. The way the ships moved reminded me of playing Descent.
The faster than light travel was realistic from the standpoint that as soon as you jump
I think we all get very attached to the things we saw in our youth. Sometimes, when you go back and watch some of that stuff again, you realize it's pretty stupid. Original Battlestar Galactica's was way to uptite about having greek names for EVERYTHING.
Criticisms of the new version:
* I can appreciate trying to "bring home" the drama by not dressing the actors in polyester jumpsuits. However, I think the Pinstripe shirts some of these guys were wearing gave you the sense that these people just wandered onto the set in their street clothes.
The officer uniforms from the original were better. As others have pointed out, these one's look like they came straight off of Babylon 5.
* They are using techno buzzwords like "wireless" way too much. I'd like everybody to review their original Star Trek. They had boxes/gizmos and they were effectively magic. The crew didn't describe HOW the boxes worked.
I can remember watching Star Trek in the 80s and saying "Those little cassette thingies they put data on are way too unrealistic". They look nothing like a floppy disk. Well guess what, all those magic doohickies on Original Star Trek are now realities: Flip Phones(communicators), Stun Guns (phasers on stun), Pocket Computers (Tri-Corders).
So please stop trying to be techno hip. It's not REAL science fiction, it's a space drama. Battlestar Galactica with techno goop (not even CORRECT techno-goop) is effectively Star Trek Voyager.
* I like the angle with Baltar. Hoever, they've effectively turned him into Dr. Smith from "Lost In Space". Coincidentally, they were also trying to find Earth.
* I don't get why the fighter bays have to "retract". This is like the Enterprise splitting in two. There is no reason for it.
* The "Model 5" hallucination to some degree is a rip off of John Crichtons "Scorpy" implant on Farscape. BTW, quit calling EVERYTHING a chip.
Good stuff
* The Cylons are creepy. They are also multi-faceted. They are somewhat emotional.
* The effects are Bab 5 effects, and they are excellent.
* The bull-Amazon Starbuck is an interesting twist. I also like how these old GOOFY names are just their pilot handles.
* Ships move more like they should.
*
Thats a pretty shitty plan for 3 years or planning. You would think he would enquire as to where he could refuel if he ran into a strong headwind.
You would also think he would know when to turn around if he ran into a strong headwind.
Seriously, he should have planned for the contingency of a "dead zone" in his flight. That is, he hits a head wind for 30 minutes and then doesn't have enough fuel to:
1) Turn Around
2) Complete the flight
Obviously, he knew where the bases were. He seemingly never inquired as to whether he could refuel there. If the answer was obviously NO, then he souldn't have made the flight.
If the situation was reversed - if an American was caught out in Antarctica due to a combination of bad weather and maybe a bit of foolhardiness, would you accept that person being refused certain kinds of help by Australian and New Zealand scientists?
... whatever country ... case of a teenager sentenced to being caned (whipped with a bamboo stick) over graffiti. We thought this was cruel and unusual. So Senators bitch and complain and posture over the issue. Very little attention is given to the fact that this is a Sovereign nation with the it's own laws.
.... BUT .....
Unfortunately, I think your correct about that. Our media would likely sensationalize the situation. Subsequently, concessions would be made.
American politicians are pretty bad about double standards. It's easy to rile people up any time an American is being treated unfairly. The saner voices tend to get shouted down and misrepresented. I don't think this situation is unique to America. It's just that Americans typically have the muscle to WIN via threats of trade sanctions or other measures. Consequently, foreigners resent it (rightfully so).
Two excellent examples:
The US demands that American POWs are well treated and not used as publicity props.
But....
American armed forces release pictures of Taliban POWs to the media. Then they house them in substandard camps at Guantanomo Bay. We refuse them due process and keep them in legal limbo.
American's would NEVER tolerate her citizens being treated this way. We would be outraged. Unfortunately the voices of wrath rule the day. The Golden Rule is forgotten: Do onto foreign POWs as you would have foreigners do onto YOUR POWs.
The Singapore?Taiwan?
The fact is that this kid didn't litter. He defaced public policy. If we whipped kids in this country how spray painted walls, we'd likely have a lot less graffiti. Do the crime, do the time. Right????
Move along to foreign protest over America's death penalty for foreign citizens convicted in American courts. Our take: We're a sovereign nation and we have the right to impose penalties on law breakers. Everyone knows what the law is. Don't try to interfere with US sovereignty.
See, when Americans break laws in foreign countries, they should be held to native (American) penalties. But when foreigners break AMERICAN laws, they should be held to foreign (American) penalties.
Actually, I would compare this to the US Policy of not giving ransom for hostages. The rationale is that it would encourage more hostage taking.
Notice that with the exception of Reagan/Bush Sr's little Iran/Weapons/Cocaine triangle, they largely followed this policy.
Subsequently, the terrorists stopped taking hostages because it was just costing them money to keep people alive.
By contrast corporations have insurance for hostage takers in Central America. It's a lucrative business down there virutally ENSURING that INSURANCE is a necessity.
Businessmen are largely reasonable people (unlike drug addicts). When something is unprofitable they get out of the business*.
* BTW, this is largely the reason we should legalize marijauna and legitamize heroin/coke via prescription. The price will plummet and make elicit distribution unprofitable. No profit, no trade.
Actually,
Those guys train for this stuff. They're probably happy to do it to break up the boredome up miliatary life.
As long as no one is shooting at them, they are probably pretty happy.
BTW, Dennis Miller isn't as clever as he thinks he is. Anybody can go find a bunch of obscure subjects and flout them in front of everyone else as proof of how "smart" they are (Wm F Buckley (at least Dennis doesn't have to stammer to find the right word)). Real communicators know that you speak to the audience in THEIR language.
This is something that the more well informed Gore should have learned in the face of the woefully informed and prepared GW Bush.
Typically, on a high risk flight there is a "point of no return". I have no idea whether this was in his contingency plan, but he sure seemed to have passed it.
In other words, you need a plan of how much resources you have at what stage of your journey. At each milestone, he should have had a number for fuel that meant he had 150% times the amount he needed to complete the journey or turn around.
He seemingly ignored the signals (strong headwinds) to turn around and got himself stuck.
Another famous case is that of British explorer Shackleton, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/shackleton/. He was breaking ice on the way into Antarctica late in the season. He didn't consider how he might get himself out or turned around. "Failure is not an option". It may not be an option, but it's absolutely a possiblity. His bull-headedness got his crew stuck and some killed.
When the odds are against you, and things aren't going right giving up, and trying again under more favorable conditions is absoluetly an option.
Real pioneers know that they will die if things go wrong. This guy isn't a pioneer. Flying over Antarctica has already been done. This guy is an amateur sightseer and apparantly didn't bother to ask whether he could refuel at their base or not.
Are you so satisfied in your insulated safe little lives, so dependent on the government and society in general providing you with a safety net that you cannot concive stepping out of it?
Actually, it sounds like this pilot was the one relying on the government to bail him out.
Actually, they're treating him in a hospitable way. They feeding him and keeping him alive.
However, they aren't a hotel and they DON'T want to do this for a living. Therefore, they are sending a clear signal that they aren't going to be helpful to amateurs who try to fly over Antarctica and get stuck.
Travel in these hostile climates are for professionals. This guy is lucky he's not dead. He's even luckier that he didn't sustain serious injury which would require an VERY expensive evacuation.
You're being taxed to subsidize mass transit. higher fuel costs make mass transit more attractive, and more people using mass transit makes mass transit affordable.
Amen,
I symbolically mod you up 2 points.
That sounds like ...
"No one will produce Open Source because they can get it for free."
Right????