If you could have one thing, what would it be ?

No...

I think it's safe to say that the original trilogy was loved by mostly everybody, but the second trilogy has spurned some dissapointments in us. C'mon now, Jar-Jar Binks? And during a certain part of Episode II I felt like singing "the hills are aliiiiiiive". It's like starting a movie halfway through, finishing it, and rewinding to watch the beginning. You already know how its going to end and the second half of a movie is usually better than the beginning anyways.

Am I right, Kharn?
 
The first trilogy sucked as well.

That's to say, they were hugely entertaining films with no extra value anywhere. Just pure entertainment. Like the LotR films now.

I liked both Spaceballs and Thumb Wars better.
 
Well i agree with Ozrat...I mean a good films a good film, even if it is just entertainment. I mean thats what films are made for, am I right?
 
Gameshark said:
Well i agree with Ozrat...I mean a good films a good film, even if it is just entertainment. I mean thats what films are made for, am I right?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Paintings, music, literature and sculpturing could by the same means be considered "pure entertainment". And the larger part of it is, but the rest is art.
 
Star Wars is alright, but only because it has Yoda and Natalie Portman and Chewbacca. It's just been mainstreamed for today, just like the last james bond film and inspector gadget. Look what they've done to inspector gadget. It's a crime, i tells ya.
 
Star Wars is cool(The first trilogy, I'm tired of the second trilogy, the lightsaber fights there were cool, but that's about it. Especially the entire love scene stuff, it just felt out of place.), but it doesn't have any "meaning" to it, but then again, who cares? It's entertaining, thus it is a good MOVIE. If you were to refer to it as a deep, intellectual film, I'd have to declare you nuts, though. Movies(And other artforms) don't need to have a meaning at all to be good. Stuff like Van Gogh's Sunflowers, or Rembrandt's Night Watch are widely considered brilliant art, but they don't have meaning either. Neither do the colored squares of Mondriaan(So I'm Dutch-centered....).
 
Sander said:
Stuff like Van Gogh's Sunflowers, or Rembrandt's Night Watch are widely considered brilliant art, but they don't have meaning either. Neither do the colored squares of Mondriaan.
Click to expand...

That's very debatable.
 
I would have a false bum that flies open at the flick of a lever on my ruff, from which spring two jewel-encrusted blunderbi, allowing me to whirl round and fire volleys of butte-shot and other sinful pellets at my foes.
 
I think star wars would of been a lot better if they were rated R. All it needed was more violence, a little cursing and maybe a even a brief frontal shot of carrie fisher in her birthday suit.
 
You will pay dearly for your insolence [PCE]el_Prez. I'll see to it that you are smoten down.
 
Immortality in my case. I would have to get used to my friends and loved ones dying but what is that compared to the beauty of learning.
Click to expand...
Sure you could learn many things, but
a) could the mind cope with it? You'd be bound to forget most of it after a few centuries (such as your current partner's birthday, with ensuing consequences).
b) would you want to continue engaging in "long-term" relationships if you knew that they were going to die after a short (by your standards) period of time?

The immortality I want is the same the highlander has: no aging + real hard to kill.
Click to expand...
There are a few quirks vis-à-vis immortality in Highlander, including the plot-convenient resurrection delays and the few immortals with permanent wounds/scars (Callas, Xavier St Cloud). Would you like to be immortal knowing that there are swordmasters out to get you?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be immortal too, but there are a few issues to consider.
On a more realistic level, my dream is owning a second-hand bookshop.
 
ðàçðàáîòêà äèçàéíà ñàéòà àðòíèâà

ãîòîâëþ òîëüêî êîãäà áîëüøå íåêîìó ýòî ñäåëàòü âñå óìåþ íî ëåíþñü áûâàþò êîíå÷íî âäîõíîâëåíèÿ íà ÷òî íèòü ýäàêîå. Âîí êàê òî ïèðîæíûå äåëàëà, ïèðîãè ïåêëà, Äàæå îäíîêëàññíèö ïðèîáùèëà ê ýòîìó äåë
 
If you were immortal you would only see the further decaying of the humankind...The world is not such a great place, and 100 years or less would be enough for me...The on thing I'd like to have the most is..hmm....That's actually an impossible question for me to answer.. Because when I think there is one thing I really'd like, then there is alway something else I'd like more, but it would probably something good for more than me...NOT money...hmm...
 
I want a holodeck with holopeople...... Hmm... I wonder how many porn stars it can "produce"?
 
KurganFr said:
Immortality in my case. I would have to get used to my friends and loved ones dying but what is that compared to the beauty of learning.
Sure you could learn many things, but
a) could the mind cope with it? You'd be bound to forget most of it after a few centuries (such as your current partner's birthday, with ensuing consequences).
b) would you want to continue engaging in "long-term" relationships if you knew that they were going to die after a short (by your standards) period of time?
Click to expand...

Ouch, you hit the weak point of my argument. I guess nobody knows if a sentient being could adapt to live forever. Your question brings to light problems of two kinds: the physical problems of immortality as we don't know just how much information can the mind store. I want to believe that the mind holds infinite capacity for storage. Also, we still know pretty much nothing about how the mind works. Old men tend to forget recent things (maybe due to neuron decay?) but start remembering their early life which makes no sense since the oldest neurons should be the most decayed. With immortality, cell decay would disappear which could bring an unforeseen problem: can they mind be coherent...even after learning that much information? The other problems are non-tangible ones such relationships and boredom. I guess that I would end searching for other immortals and bond with them. Kind of like the elves in Arcanum. On the matter of entertainment, I think that learning provides as much fulfilment as any other activity so I don't think I would kill myself out of boredom.

The immortality I want is the same the highlander has: no aging + real hard to kill.
Click to expand...
There are a few quirks vis-à-vis immortality in Highlander, including the plot-convenient resurrection delays and the few immortals with permanent wounds/scars (Callas, Xavier St Cloud). Would you like to be immortal knowing that there are swordmasters out to get you?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be immortal too, but there are a few issues to consider.
On a more realistic level, my dream is owning a second-hand bookshop.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, life as long as I am able to defend myself? I will take those chances, kind sir.

Now, your dream is having a second-hand bookshop? Would you care to elaborate more about the reason of this?

Crap, I put my answer inside of the quote...can I hope that you'll understand me?
 
I would love to own a second-hand bookstore. They rock. The smell of dusty books. All the classics. Barely any customers. Immortality would be cool. You would live to see when humans colonize other planets and all crazy stuff and you'll be there at the destruction of earth. You could do all crazy stuff like jump off buildings and be an asshole to everybody and hit people when you want to and rob banks and steal houses, assuming that you never get hungry, because no one in there right mind would give you money if you did that kind of stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top