Offhand, I'd say this mission
is past the negotiation stage.
Offhand, I'd say this mission
is past the negotiation stage.
I personally liked the film. And I didn't really even mind Jar-Jar all that much.
. . .What you want in a marriage is, something like that town in Pennsylvania that's built over a burning seam of coal.". -- ti dave
A good example is when they decide to go back to Naboo, having only just fled there to escape attempts on the queen's life. If Jar-Jar weren't there rejoicing that "[he]sa going home," we'd be completely confused.
So, he's important for the movie itself, even if you don't like the character. As for the character, I guess that's a matter of taste. IMHO, he has some mildly amusing lines ("why were you exiled?" "Meesa...clumsy"), but he is really just a goofy cartoon, so I can see how he could get on your nerves.
And I didn't mean to sound conspiracy-ish. I just mean that people's impressions are shaped partly by their expectations, and the volume and content of press leading up to this movie meant that almost everyone who saw it had negative expectations for Jar-Jar before the lights dimmed.
Jar Jar "Lotsa people gonna die Annie?"
Anakin "Yes, Jar Jar, wars usually do that sort of thing. By the way, I told you I don't like being called Annie."
Then Anakin whips out a lightsaber and cuts off Jar Jar's head, continuing his journey to the dark side of the force, and causing the whole audiance to cheer that Jar Jar finally died.
Trust me, G-Lu doesn't put any line in there without an excellent reason.
Wasn't Anakin the one that said, "Master, destroyers." Then they turned around, then Obi said his line?
I mixed up movies and apprentices.
I thought some of Anakin's lines were poorly read in EP1, but overall, it was a decent movie in my opinion. Not as good as the originals, but nothing will be.
Sorry to disappoint the zealot crowd.
The real Han Solo wouldn't wait for some bounty hunter to draw first and risk getting killed, the real Han is a badass. Fuck you Lucas.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
I HATE the edits of the originals. They need to burn in hell.
I thought The Phantom Menace was OK. I didn't like Attack of the Clones at all
I'm going to be sooo upset if he picks SMG to be Diana! She's waaaay too short and scrawny. Lucy Lawless is the obvious choice, but probably too close to her other character.
Ooh, wait, Sigourney Weaver! She kicked ass in Aliens.
It's gotta be someone who can fill out Lynda Carter's suit. Not many in Hollywood like that.---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
she'll be playing Queen Hippolyta
that's all there is to it.
Suggestion: Catherine Zeta Jones?
The people who expect to be as blown away by TPM as they were by ANH need to first take enough drugs to regress to the age of six.
"'Vengence is Mine', quoth Alvis. And then he shot the guy, right in the freaking face!"
The thing is: The jedi have to use their lightsabres to repel every single 'bolt' fired at them, and they continue to do this whilst wisecracking through the most imposing situations. They only have to get it wrong once, and that's one dead space-monk. But it never seems to happen. Is it completely beyond the wits of the BadGuys to develop a droid / gun which fires at three different, non-colinear, triangulated points of the body simultaneously? Then they'd be screwed ...
They'd just have to be more creative than rely on the fire-deflect modus operandi. Then again, maybe it's in the new one where all the jedi killed: Episode III: The Empire do geometry.
I'm not here, man.
bolts --> lightsaber
| ----- |
| ----- \
just for the effort.
How about thirteen different bolts? ;)
additionally, there is no reason to suppose the blasters in star wars shoot lasers, as in the movies, it's quite clear that the bursts of energy do not travel at the speed of light. in fact, they probably move slower than bullets from the look of them (a hypothesis that should seem plausible to anyone who's watched video footage of the jfk shooting a few times).
[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
It seems you are unaware of the 'quantum' nature of troll postings. Just as light has a wave/particle duality, certain posts can appear as 'trolls' or 'well thought out' depending on the observer.
Hence the phenomenon known as "Trolling with the Truth" - one of a number of techniques which are well documented elsewhere.--dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
How do shadows "move" faster than light, oh rambin' mushroom geezer?
For each motion of the object, its projected shadow will "move" a much greater distance.
There's nothing I can think of that prevents the leading edge of that shadow from moving at any speed at all.
The real ticket to understanding this is to realize that if there were civilizations living on the screen the shadow is projected on, they can't use the superluminal shadow to transmit information, which is the real Einsteinian limitation.
Yep, microscopic civilizations and the word "superluminal" is definitely the clearest way to explain this.---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
That said, if the bolts were not fired simultaneously, or were fired from different enough distances, you might be in good shape.
Alternatively, it could be that those of us involved in this discussion are attempting to subject to serious physical and thematic analysis something that has all the depth of a rain puddle.
I've seen some pretty fricken' deep rain puddles.
Warmest regards, --Your best pal Bob
Boy, if that's the case then I fear for the safety of the Internet.
And sixty comments demonstrating why you haven't.
Please have your desk cleared out by quitting time. Don't bother expecting your last pay check. And consider yourself lucky we aren't turning you into the technothorities.
camFreedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic