> The original Star Wars film started with the scrolling text and that "EPISODE IV" title as a homage to the old short-chapter Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers series Lucas used to watch in the movie theaters previous to the main feature. He NEVER had the intention to make 9, 6 or even 3 movies from the beginning.
One could debate his intentions regarding sequels, but I was at the Cine Capri in Phoenix, AZ for a now-embarrassing number of showings in 1977, and there was no "episode iv" nor "a new hope" in the scroll. I'm sorry, it wasn't there. It was added later.
> But I know better than to say, "how could they possibly do it worse" because as soon as I say that and go see it, there's a strong chance I'll find out.
Agreed. Anyone who isn't approaching this film with extreme caution hasn't been paying attention. But there are parts of the advance information that gives me hope. Not the least of which, I think they realize they can't crap out another set of films like the prequels, and that they really want to get back to the "filmed on location in space" feel of the original films. (Of which I include SW, ESB, and about half of RotJ.)
what? the engine room was one of the smartest things he did. TOS engineering room could in no way support everything 430 people would need on a 5 year mission.
The size of the engine room, agreed. The design (in the first film) not so much. (It did improve in the second film.)
You're absolutely right about TOS engineering room, it was a cheap, dinky set. But I watch TOS with the expectation that the sets aren't going to be any better than you'd see in a stage play. But in the reboot, I expected more high tech, less brewery.
Enh. If they were really only after a cash grab, they could just re-release the original six with different covers and more and more FX added. It would be less work.
I don't blame you. After three films ranging from "meh" to "I just vomited in my popcorn", any new film is going to be approached with extreme suspicion. And that's a good thing.
I recall distinctly, back in the seventies, when the original Star Wars was really taking off, there was discussion that Lucas had envisioned nine movies total, in the order of 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9. This ordering was the result of the decision to start in "the middle of the story" to get viewers immediately into the action, and then backfill later.
Many years later, I think when TPM was being planned, Lucas disavowed any concept of 9 films, insisting he only ever planned 6. But now we're back to nine. Go figure.
The ST reboot really divided fans. I skipped boy scouts to see The Man Trap when it first aired, consider myself a fan of TOS, less so of the ones that came after, (when they transitioned from action-with-a-dose-of-philosophy to Endless Meetings) and I really enjoyed the reboot. Just sayin'. I even enjoyed Into Darkness.
But regardless of what one thinks of Abrams, he wasn't responsible for the midichlorian silliness. Lucas had crapped thrice (some would say three-and-a-half times, to include certain aspects of RotJ) on Star Wars long before Abrams got his mitts on the property.
I think Abrams has done good stuff and bad stuff and stupid stuff. (The Enterprise engine room is a great example of "stupid stuff".) But I suspect, whatever he does with Star Wars, it'll be better than The Phantom Menace. (I still think Lucas must have had a stroke while they were in planning for TPM, and everyone was too frightened of him to mention that he wasn't making sense anymore.)
Truthfully most streamed video can tolerate latency problems fairly well with caching. Real time communications like Skype, Facetime and VoIP are more susceptible to latency problems than Netflix. But your point is valid.
Torrent downloads aren't bothered by latency at all. Just sayin'...
> Because, there is no market it for it where people can pay exorbitant amounts for it. The dying people are penniless.
The way containment appears to be being mishandled, I suspect that isn't going to be true for much longer.
> What do I know, I got modded troll for saying the Apple CEO probably came out for marketing purposes - he released an accessory (iWatch) the next day.
No sane person would ever stop funding for something like this. That is proof this is the Republican's fault.
On the other hand, wouldn't Republicans fund it and then sell the vaccine at a huge profit? Why would they not do this? (Because they hate... black people?... no wait... um.. I got nuthin.)
> Can we be sure that the birds didn't learn the scale from hearing human music?
Dunno, the article doesn't mention whether the birds in question were observed near a human habitat.
I can see it going either way -- that birds have adopted the well tempered scale through virtue of listening to the scale used worldwide for 300 years, or that JS Bach either knowingly or unknowingly, copied nature when he popularized the scale in 1722.
Well, yes, and my wife's parrot can accurately whistle the theme to Castle, but I don't think imitation counts. I think what the article is talking about is birds in the wild with no contact with humans, using the well-tempered scale.
You have a point, but I would argue that Democrats used to be these things in various times in the history of the party. I'm not sure what happened, but I would argue that the current platform doesn't really match what used to be the party's core values. Just as one example, "freedom to believe anything on the following official list" is significantly not the same as "freedom to believe anything you want", which would be more the classic liberal point of view.
In my state we're lucky enough to have a senator who is more a classic Democrat, and is on the front line to protect the people's right to choice, privacy, access, and not deliberately trying to prevent people from doing whatever the collective says they should not do. He appears to make decisions based on what he thinks is right, rather than what interest is paying the most money. I think he was one of the influences in my switch to looking at individuals rather than party. I'd argue that classic Democrats still exist, but you have to look for them.
Well, shooting is quick, and stabbing lets you consider your folly for a little while. I have my own opinion on which party represents which solution.
Anyway, good point.
I think that for the most part, thinking about issues is hard. Just sticking with a party affiliation is much easier, and leaves more time for watching the Kardashians.
Slashdot Mirror
> The original Star Wars film started with the scrolling text and that "EPISODE IV" title as a homage to the old short-chapter Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers series Lucas used to watch in the movie theaters previous to the main feature. He NEVER had the intention to make 9, 6 or even 3 movies from the beginning.
One could debate his intentions regarding sequels, but I was at the Cine Capri in Phoenix, AZ for a now-embarrassing number of showings in 1977, and there was no "episode iv" nor "a new hope" in the scroll. I'm sorry, it wasn't there. It was added later.
The engine room of "Into Darkness" was the finest ignition facility in the American armada!
https://www.llnl.gov/news/nati...
You're right, and that made a HUGE difference in the look of the film. But I'm pretty sure that some of the shots were still in the brewery.
> But I know better than to say, "how could they possibly do it worse" because as soon as I say that and go see it, there's a strong chance I'll find out.
Agreed. Anyone who isn't approaching this film with extreme caution hasn't been paying attention. But there are parts of the advance information that gives me hope. Not the least of which, I think they realize they can't crap out another set of films like the prequels, and that they really want to get back to the "filmed on location in space" feel of the original films. (Of which I include SW, ESB, and about half of RotJ.)
It was a good idea, but wasn't handled well. For just one thing, wouldn't Vader recognize the droid he had built as a kid?
Or Star Wars Episode VII: The Ewok Cuteness
Suggesting that the force is central to the story by naming it in the title gives me hope.
Would that be a new hope?
They'll wait until the first re-release, call it "a NEW new hope" and pretend that was the name all along.
I wasn't interested in seeing J.J. Abrams skullfuck Star Trek; if you think I'm going to watch him do it to Star Wars as well, you're sorely mistaken.
Not even mentioning the name. After midi-chlorians...the Force is already awake...just no.
Millions of the rest of us will enjoy seeing it without you.
Millions of the rest of us will see it without you. Some, perhaps most, will enjoy it.
fify
what? the engine room was one of the smartest things he did.
TOS engineering room could in no way support everything 430 people would need on a 5 year mission.
The size of the engine room, agreed. The design (in the first film) not so much. (It did improve in the second film.)
You're absolutely right about TOS engineering room, it was a cheap, dinky set. But I watch TOS with the expectation that the sets aren't going to be any better than you'd see in a stage play. But in the reboot, I expected more high tech, less brewery.
Enh. If they were really only after a cash grab, they could just re-release the original six with different covers and more and more FX added. It would be less work.
I don't blame you. After three films ranging from "meh" to "I just vomited in my popcorn", any new film is going to be approached with extreme suspicion. And that's a good thing.
I recall distinctly, back in the seventies, when the original Star Wars was really taking off, there was discussion that Lucas had envisioned nine movies total, in the order of 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9. This ordering was the result of the decision to start in "the middle of the story" to get viewers immediately into the action, and then backfill later.
Many years later, I think when TPM was being planned, Lucas disavowed any concept of 9 films, insisting he only ever planned 6. But now we're back to nine. Go figure.
The ST reboot really divided fans. I skipped boy scouts to see The Man Trap when it first aired, consider myself a fan of TOS, less so of the ones that came after, (when they transitioned from action-with-a-dose-of-philosophy to Endless Meetings) and I really enjoyed the reboot. Just sayin'. I even enjoyed Into Darkness.
But regardless of what one thinks of Abrams, he wasn't responsible for the midichlorian silliness. Lucas had crapped thrice (some would say three-and-a-half times, to include certain aspects of RotJ) on Star Wars long before Abrams got his mitts on the property.
I think Abrams has done good stuff and bad stuff and stupid stuff. (The Enterprise engine room is a great example of "stupid stuff".) But I suspect, whatever he does with Star Wars, it'll be better than The Phantom Menace. (I still think Lucas must have had a stroke while they were in planning for TPM, and everyone was too frightened of him to mention that he wasn't making sense anymore.)
"What I wished for was a twelve inch"... wait a minute... um... I can't make that work.
Gotcher 11.9 inches right here.
> not really, because ebola is mostly in Africa
For now.
Truthfully most streamed video can tolerate latency problems fairly well with caching. Real time communications like Skype, Facetime and VoIP are more susceptible to latency problems than Netflix. But your point is valid.
Torrent downloads aren't bothered by latency at all. Just sayin'...
> Because, there is no market it for it where people can pay exorbitant amounts for it. The dying people are penniless.
The way containment appears to be being mishandled, I suspect that isn't going to be true for much longer.
> What do I know, I got modded troll for saying the Apple CEO probably came out for marketing purposes - he released an accessory (iWatch) the next day.
I may burn in hell for this, but that's funny.
No sane person would ever stop funding for something like this. That is proof this is the Republican's fault.
On the other hand, wouldn't Republicans fund it and then sell the vaccine at a huge profit? Why would they not do this? (Because they hate... black people?... no wait... um.. I got nuthin.)
> Now if Verizon can get it's head out of it's ass and roll out 5.0 updates quickly after the mfrs release them, things might be looking up.
Verizon? nah. you'll have to buy a new phone.
I'll look it up. I'm aware that the past isn't what it used to be.
> Can we be sure that the birds didn't learn the scale from hearing human music?
Dunno, the article doesn't mention whether the birds in question were observed near a human habitat.
I can see it going either way -- that birds have adopted the well tempered scale through virtue of listening to the scale used worldwide for 300 years, or that JS Bach either knowingly or unknowingly, copied nature when he popularized the scale in 1722.
Well, yes, and my wife's parrot can accurately whistle the theme to Castle, but I don't think imitation counts. I think what the article is talking about is birds in the wild with no contact with humans, using the well-tempered scale.
You have a point, but I would argue that Democrats used to be these things in various times in the history of the party. I'm not sure what happened, but I would argue that the current platform doesn't really match what used to be the party's core values. Just as one example, "freedom to believe anything on the following official list" is significantly not the same as "freedom to believe anything you want", which would be more the classic liberal point of view.
In my state we're lucky enough to have a senator who is more a classic Democrat, and is on the front line to protect the people's right to choice, privacy, access, and not deliberately trying to prevent people from doing whatever the collective says they should not do. He appears to make decisions based on what he thinks is right, rather than what interest is paying the most money. I think he was one of the influences in my switch to looking at individuals rather than party. I'd argue that classic Democrats still exist, but you have to look for them.
Well, shooting is quick, and stabbing lets you consider your folly for a little while. I have my own opinion on which party represents which solution.
Anyway, good point.
I think that for the most part, thinking about issues is hard. Just sticking with a party affiliation is much easier, and leaves more time for watching the Kardashians.
"if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas".
Good luck to them. They deserve whatever comes of this now and in the future.
I dunno. Maybe they're making the switch because they've already had that experience.
(Speaking as a voter who doesn't belong to either party.)