Hurin

Wait, so according to you, nothing can "logically" be diminished by something unless that something "caused" it? I mentioned in a prior post that you might want to look up "discern" and "hypocrisy". . . you might also want to sharpen your critical thinking skills as well before you start accusing others of being illogical or irrational. So, just to get this straight, in your topsy-turvy, Lucas-gets-better-with-age, prequels are the best world, you can explain largely how something here-to-fore mystical works, attribute its "motor" to a biological, tangible organisms in our blood, and then in the same breath say that it's illogical and irrational to assert that doing so diminishes the mystery and mysticism surrounding it? All the while, of course, you ignore an even more basic point. . . it's horrible writing (as described above) designed to just establish something (Anakin's relative power vs Yoda, Obi-Wan, etc.) which we all would have rather seen established over the three movies via some good storytelling. But the way Lucas did it (inventing ex nihilo the Jedi-Power-Meter), he had more time for Jar-Jar to get farted on and fall down. So I can see why you think it's a good idea. As for me "straying from the topic at hand". . . I was tying the midichlorians and the change they introduce upon our understanding of the Force back to what many feared would happen to Indy. You, my friend, simply feel the need to defend your beloved (and preferred) SW Prequels and anything Lucas has ever done with no mention of Indy whatsoever. So if you feel the need to continue this, please take it to a SW thread. But if you do, please try to do better than ignoring the point and just impugning the rationality and logic of others while being irrational and illogical yourself. If you could make a post without mentioning "raped childhoods" (a phrase I've never uttered), that would be swell too. I understand that it clearly pains you tremendously to see your very favorite movies criticized in any way. But you can do better than that.

I'm aware that you have a pre-written essay on the subject, though you're only (of course!) a casual fan. I'm also already aware that the Force acts upon midichlorians and that they are essentially the catalyst for it (according to novelizations and information --if memory serves-- not available directly from the movies). However, introducing a tangible, biological component to our understanding of the Force necessarily diminishes the mystery and mysticism of it. It went from being a truly enigmatic mysical energy field to some well-understood and documented tool used by the Jedi and Sith to advance their causes. Oh, and it's also just terrible writing. "Hey, I need a way to show how powerful Anakin is compared to other known characters. Rather than establish this through any type of respectable story-telling, I think I'll just *poof* invent the Jedi-power-gauge!"

Well, that specific rumour is unsubstantiated, but Lucas and Spielberg themselves have said that Lucas had a very alien-centric idea for the movie originally and that both Ford and Spielberg balked because it was deemed to be too outrageously "offensive." Now, the word "offensive" there seems pretty loaded. What do most people get offended about that could possibly have anything to do with aliens? And with what have the prior three Indy films largely dealt? So, you can see where I'm going with this. No, we can't know for sure. And again, I'm happy they didn't "go there". . . but knowing how "The Force" was retroactively and so aggressively "de-spiritualized" . . I wouldn't be shocked if we eventually learned that the original "offensive" idea was that the Ark, and all that is divine in Indy's world was in fact of alien origin. A leap? Yes. But then again, so was midichlorians given what we already knew about the Force.

Good stuff! I'm a bit relieved for the sake of one of my favorite films. I guess we'll never know for sure what the "horribly offensive" idea regarding aliens Lucas had that took so long for Spielberg and Ford to eventually quash.

The only question I really care about. . . Does the Ark remain completely untainted (divine rather than alien origin)?

We must have a different understanding of the word "subtle" because to my way of thinking, there is nothing subtle about the humor in Last Crusade. Edit: JsArclight and I have largely already covered the difference in the subtlety of "Indy humor." Rather than re-hash. . . I'll just link. Edit 2: Quote Dump. . .

Doing a bit of link-surfing from bsu's original link. . . This post, "The Quiet Moments in Raiders of the Lost Ark" and its accompanying commentary, really spells out where Raiders is in a class by itself. Yet, I'm struck by how much this poster feels Last Crusade is the best of the series because it's just so gosh-darned funny and makes him feel so nostalgic. He points out how the actors all just seem to be having such a good time and savoring the "banter." I lost track of how many times he cites some "hilarious" quip, gag, or situation. (nearly all of which strike me as corny). Note how the arguments for each movie's greatness and/or superiority are so divergent. Few people cite the "banter" or "humor" or (obviously) the "wonderful connection between father and son" in their praise of Raiders. Raiders is praised by a different criteria altogether. But suffice it to say that "hilarity" isn't why I adore Raiders as much as I do. They're apples and oranges I guess. Some people like one or the other. . . and some people refuse to acknowledge a difference. To me, the apple is so different than the orange that I don't really even consider themselves to be part of the same dietary group anymore. Which gives this whole "which is the best of the series" a sort of bizarre undertone. If Last Crusade wasn't ostensibly the same character from Raiders, I'd have absolutely no problem with that movie and chalk it up to corny, family-friendly fluff.

Good stuff. Though, IMHO, that third guy really needs to realize, however, that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. He layers on so many meanings to every little plot point and minor event in Crusade that I really think he might need to just relax and realize that George and Steven were probably just trying to tell an adventure story. It's just a cigar. As you pointed out, he doesn't care about the slapstick, or Marcus Brody's lobotomy, or the mugging for the camera because he's too busy proving his over-wrought theses. I get the feeling he likes what he (so assertively) contends the movie is overtly trying to say to him more than he actually appreciates the movie as an Indiana Jones adventure movie. He's analyzing it as literature and as a message, not as a film. Certainly not as an Indiana Jones film. And absolutely 100% certainly not in any relation to the prior films in the series. The Temple of Doom guy seems to have his head on a bit straighter. His assertions of deeper meaning seem quite a bit more plausible to me. And, as I've stated before, at your behest bsu, I re-watched Doom a few years ago and tried to be less critical, and found myself liking it much more. It ain't Raiders by a long shot, but it isn't all that bad. As for the guy analyzing Raiders. . . I hate to say it because I'm sure it will sound pompous. . . but I felt like I was reading my own posts (in condensed fashion) here over the years. The a-retentive ass-clown (douchebag?) in me is tempted to go back to my older posts and compare the two, point-by-identical-point. An interesting question to me is how the guy who wrote the analysis of Raiders would feel towards Last Crusade. Or the fellow who analyzed Doom for that matter. Clearly, each person wrote about a movie they liked. They weren't asked to write about the movies they didn't like (or prefer). I'd be more interested in hearing what each of them had to say about all three. The guy who loves Raiders clearly just loves it and explains why (and clearly alludes to problems he has with the latter two and later Lucas/Spielberg movies/decisions). The guy who reviews Doom has some real problems with it (including leaving the "plausibility" of the admittedly implausible Raiders behind), explains those problems, and then explains how Doom overcomes them. He too goes into some deeper "meanings" in the movie and some analysis that is a bit high-brow and would make any Professor of English feel right at home. But it's not completely over-the-top and it's accessible to the average viewer/reader. The guy analyzing Last Crusade, however, is just off in his own "close reading" hyper-intellectual dream world. You're right, he doesn't give a crap about "what happened to Sallah". . . cuz he's too busy trying to demonstrate how very intellectual he is and how every little event in the film has some deeper intellectual meaning that ultimately redounds to his view of how the movie should be understood by those who understand it properly. In other words, he gives the movie (and himself) way too much credit. So yeah, that particular guy is talking about Crusade on a "different level." But by its nature, that "level" bypasses noticing any flaws or even criticizing it. He's just attributing meaning to it, as he sees it. Wasn't there someone around here though who is constantly telling us that these are popcorn movies and that it's stupid to attribute any real meaning to them?

The original Bandai 1/55 VT-1 Super-O had a much more rounded/snub nose than their other 1/55s. I'm not sure about the line art either, but at that point, it may have just become "tradition."

--Personal Opinion and Not (Necessarily) Official Staff Position-- I think there's a distinction between opinions that stay isolated to their individual threads where they are relevant to the topic at-hand, and an overall "campaign of righteous outrage and indignation" that permeates entire forums and sub-forums with the same complaints and "facts" repeatedly. Nobody is saying that criticizm (even harsh criticizm) of Yamato isn't allowed. It just needs to take place in threads about Yamato's products. Preferably those products that actually have issues. Unfortunately, I don't think this poll accurately reflects the situation. It's a shame there wasn't an answer for: "I wouldn't mind the complaints if they were in their proper threads." As for my personal responses to the poll. . . Abstaining on the first one for the reasons above. But I've generally been thrilled with my Yamato products. Which has mostly consisted of 1/48 VF-1 models.

Topic moved at OP request. H

Starting from the bottom: What sort of response did I hope to illicit? How about one where you actually address what I'm saying rather than "ridiculing" positions nobody is taking. And, by the way, it's not trolling to point out that some people's opinions differ from yours. . . and it's not my fault that you get all butt-hurt when someone says that you aren't discriminating in your preference of SW/Indy films. Has it not occurred to you that the manner in which you openly "ridicule" (your word) the positions of others, call names, and demean the person making the argument ("fanbody") while actually (conveniently) not addressing the substance of what they're saying (such as how nostalgia doesn't apply) is far worse than merely pointing out that those who don't discern a difference in tone/content between the films aren't very discriminating. So, I'm not sure I need to look up "troll". . . though you apparently need to look up "discriminate," "discerning," and "hypocrisy." And you've said this again and again as well. And I still think you're so caught up in the broad strokes and obsessing about their genre that you aren't able to discern any details. . . such as farts, burps, teddy bears, and other means by which the movies began pandering to children rather than to young adults. This seems tied to the fact that you think that the movies have only gotten better as they've gone along. That you think they are better is your opinion and we obviously just have different tastes in movies. That you absolutely refuse to acknowledge any difference in tone or content as cataloged by me and many others repeatedly here and elsewhere does indicate that you are not very discerning or discriminating. . . or that you are so partisan or demagogic in this argument that you can't even give an inch. . . which is more and more looking to be the case to me. Which, of course, makes you calling others "fanboy" absolutely priceless. Well, that's convenient for you. So, by noting differences between any two movies and stating an opinion that those differences make one movie "better" than the other, in your world, one of those movies is automatically (yet unintentionally) being called a "masterpiece." Now, I realize that you have to believe this for your position and arguments to make any sense. But it clearly isn't the case. So, at this point, you're flailing about and I really don't see the point in addressing this disingenuous contention of yours. Pointing out that I think some things are better than other things does not mean that any of them are masterpieces, or even all that good. . . it's merely pointing out differences. And those differences often cause people to prefer one thing over another. Which, begs the question, if they're all the same. . . how can you rank them the way you do? Or rank them at all? What factors make some more worthy in your mind than others? Surely it can't be the special effects only (which would really make you undiscerning). So, if they're all the same (yet have only gotten better? WTF?). . . how can Phantom Menace be so much better than ESB? How can you rank them at all? Why bother? I believe I've pointed this out before. But it's always funny to me when you try to play this whole "They're all throw-away movies and you're all fanboys for judging them at all" card. You originally attempted to do so years ago while pretending that you weren't all that into the Star Wars movies. Only later, via other threads and posts, it gradually came out that you are a pretty rabid Star Wars fan prone to having pre-written essays on how midichlorians aren't really all that damaging to earlier concepts of the Force (etc.) and privy to even the most obscure SW trivia and minutia. At which point, all those you decry as "fanboys" for not uncritically loving all the movies as much as you do just sorta shake their heads at the irony of it all. Outrage? Who's outraged? You're pretty much the only one I see getting upset because you don't like being told that your position is --by its nature-- undiscriminating. Again, I can't help it that such an accurate description of your dogmatic and willfully obtuse opinion bothers you so much. But it is indeed accurate.

Sorry you feel that way. . . but it sure is ironic given your own dismissive positions towards those who have disagreed with you about this in the past. . . And, for the record, it's not about the prequels (as I'd think you'd understand by now). . . RotJ is not a prequel. Nor is Last Crusade and most of the egregious parts of Temple of Doom (though it does take place in the fictional timeline before Raiders). Though, of course, all those do come later than a certain chronological demarcation point where most see a change in the tone of these movies. Who's attributing masterpiece status to them? It's like you're arguing against what you wish I were saying rather than what I'm actually saying. Again, who's attributing "substance" to any of them? I'm merely saying that some of his movies are intended to make small children squeel with glee while some of his movies are intended to make young adults say: "That's cool." You apparently like the ones that make small children squeel with glee. Good for you. But there's a difference between those two types of movies. A difference you consider it the "height of hubris" to notice and see no problem with utterly dismissing as the rantings of a fanboy deluded by nostalgia. It's funny that you are throwing around the word "hubris" when you're the one who's always been dismissing the views of others out-of-hand all along as the rants of anti-Lucas/prequel fanboys. Look, this isn't rocket science. . . as both trilogies progress, there are more painful one-liners, teddy bears, farting, burping, puns, falling down, winking/mugging at the camera, kids, and Jar-Jar. If you can't at least acknowledge that distinction, there's nothing left to discuss. You're setting up straw men now and attacking positions nobody has taken. Guess what. . . that you set your criteria for judging the films based on whether you can see "strings on the TIE Fighters" leads me to believe that you're not terribly discriminating.

If it were nostalgia, I'd still love Return of the Jedi (as you do, ranking it first) as much as I did when I was a kid. Ditto for Temple of Doom. I actually found Raiders to be quite dreary and off-putting as a kid. . . I think it was all the sand. Yet as I grew up, I recognized its merits. Some repeatedly make this charge of it being "all nostalgia", as though it trumps all other evidence or reason, and just simply "proves" that those who are critical or discriminating between the movies are just empty-headed reactionary fanboys. Yet, given that my opinions about the original movies have actually changed as I aged, the charge of "rosy colored childhood" nostalgia doesn't apply. In my particular case, what were my favorites as a kid are now my least favorite. Yet, rather than the "nostalgia" theory, one other pattern does indeed hold. . . as Lucas has aged, and at the point where he became a father, his movies got more schticky, and more directed at the lowest common denominator in the audience (and kids). There's just no avoiding the fact that the tone and cinematic sensibility changed (so far, irreversibly) in RotJ and Last Crusade. And, IMHO, you have to be very undiscriminating (or blinded by hatred of all things "fanboy-like") to not notice (or care about) the distinction. That's not an insult, that's the definition "undiscriminating." That you prefer those later movies is another matter. I have no problem with folks liking the more "kiddy-oriented" movies of those franchises. But to me, the real "fanboys" are those who scream "fanboy" themselves (or do all but that nowadays) while themselves demonstrating a fanatical devotion to the franchises in question. Everyone should (of course) feel free to prefer whichever movies strike their fancies. But some "real fanboys" are so far gone that they actually claim that there's really no difference between any of the movies in tone, quality, or content. That's fanboy-ism. H

I'm not quite sure what's so wrong in pointing out that people who don't discriminate between different styles, tone, or content aren't very. . . (wait for it). . . discriminating. Sorry that you find that so offensive or see it as some egotistical character flaw on my part. As for calling me "Douchy McDouchebag" (in the quote citation). . . you sure that's allowed here? Or is it just allowed for the last remnants of the "old boys network?" H

I don't equate violence with being non-family-friendly. Especially the "look, they're shot and instantly dead and fall down" with no blood or consequences. That's considered graphic now? In fact, only very recently have we as a culture decided that depictions of fighting, violence, and/or war somehow permanently damages a kid and makes them into sociopaths. Up until about 20-25 years ago, children's literature and other forms of children's entertainment were replete with often casual and (some might even say) extreme violence. Plus, does anyone in the movie die that isn't a Nazi or a Nazi-sympathizer?

There were positive reviews of Phantom Menace as well. We actually just heard someone say that Last Crusade is better than Raiders upon recently watching both. Heck there are still Star Wars fans who claim there's really no difference between any of the movies and that they're all essentially equal in quality and tone. In other words, some people aren't terribly discriminating. The linked review (which, while "positive" overall, seems mostly preoccupied with the film's business potential and isn't exactly effusive in any real praise for the film on its merits) mentions that the best part of the film "for fans of the series may be" watching Indy's fatherly relationship bloom with his son. . . and then compares it to the similar development between Indy and his dad in Last Crusade. If you wanted to see the anti-hero from Raiders pine for his daddy's love and be a goody-goody throughout a two hour family-safe series of pratfalls and puns, then Last Crusade was a movie just for you. Hope you enjoyed it. You'll probably enjoy this one too.

If you're watching them sequentially, let us know if you notice any drastic difference in tone between Raiders and Last Crusade.

Spoiler - Hilight to read ***Light Spoilers through context below*** well, it doesn't sound quite yet like the Ark is retroactively made into an alien artifact as "collateral damage" of this new movie. Fingers crossed. Early reviews, however, are that it's exactly what you'd expect from Spielberg/Lucas. Camera mugging, pratfalls, infantile humor, etc. I love how Lucas is going around saying that the earlier movies weren't actually that good. I agree. . . except for Raiders. I'll wait for Netflix. As always, Just hoping they don't retroactively f--- Raiders in the butt.

Refresh my memory: When you took your router out of the loop, the problem went away, correct?

Thanks for the feedback. Looked like a permissions mask problem with the Members group. Should be fixed now. Let me know if it isn't. Best, H

I'm not seeing this. Can you direct me to a thread/post where you're seeing this behavior? I'm on Firefox 2.0.0.14. Keep in mind that you may have a conflicting Firefox plugin (like "noscripts").

The cookie does indeed appear to be tied to an IP address. Though I've noticed that when my ISP changes my IP, it doesn't seem to care. . . so it may have a "time out" period past which an IP can change without causing the cookie to freak out and require another log-in. Though, just to avoid confusion, keep in mind that each computer has its own cookie. So you should be able to check MW from two different computers at two different locations without needing to log in each time. Having said that, no, we're not a bank or E-Trade. But we still need to take security seriously. . . as does the maker of the forum software. It's no fun having an account with administrative/moderating rights compromised and the boards wiped clean. This has happened in the past. So, it's unlikely that the site owners or admins will intentionally loosen up security. Rather, I'd suggest that a browser (like Firefox) that easily stores login passwords be used for accessing MW so that logging in as you go from access point to access point isn't as much of a pain. Sorry, but that's really all I can suggest.

At this point, the most likely culprit (given that others aren't experiencing this behavior) is a localized browser issue. Are you running Firefox. If so, do you have any plugins running and/or any components disabled? If running Firefox, try IE. If running IE, try Firefox. Just as a diagostic.

Just uploaded this one. Obviously, we'd want to know if there is a problem with board functionality. Were you trying to upload the image as an attachment?