Hurin

Amen.

Smilies are for the weak.

What images are you looking at? The ones posted by Two-Ducks don't show any discernable weathering. That's the line that's always been there. . . and I think that's an announcement for a March non-weathered re-release. H

I'm most excited about the weathered (and Tampo-printed, I assume) 1/48. Not really sure what this Destroid is all of you are yapping about. All I see is a WHM-6R Wharhammer with two PPCs, an SRM6, 2 Medium Lasers, 2 Small Lasers, and 2 Machine Guns. It's only got 18 heatsinks though to cool all that firepower output, so it's prone to over-heating. Oh, and shoot for the legs. H

I am all over that weathered 1/48.

I have the non-S version of that router and have no problems. Though, they are different. . . so that doesn't necessarily rule anything out. Have you done a factory reset on all settings for that router after the firmware update? (Sorry, just re-read your message and you mention a full reset. But try this anyways since you might have done it via software and this is the only method I really trust). Try holding in the reset button in it for 10 seconds (you'll see its lights start to freak out, but keep holding it in for 10 seconds. . . even longer to be sure). When you release it, the router should be in its "factory state." Meaning, you'll need to set up the router password and any wireless security you had enabled. You'll know that the full factory reset succeeded because the password for the router should be reset back to the default ("admin" for Linksys routers). If you're still having trouble with that router after doing this. . . well. . . I guess all I can recommend is getting a new router because that one = fail. MW is not doing anything fancy. It's just a website. If a router can't routinely connect you to a website, it's time for it to go. Short of replacing, here are a few other leads: 1. I seem to recall a brief spate of reported issues with a particular Linksys router and Windows Vista. But I would think the newest firmware should fix that. 2. There is some open source firmware created by the community available for some Linsksys routers. You might want to look into that. 3. If the older firmware worked, you may be able to find it somewhere. You might try seeing if Linksys has an FTP server where you can manually search for it. But really, if my router were this flakey, I'd probably just start thinking about getting a different model or at least replacing it with the same one to rule out a hardware problem. 4. If you have other computers behind the router, try unplugging them from the router and seeing if the problem persists. This is a long shot. . . but try it and let us know. H

Can you please give some indication that you've read and ruled out some of the causes listed above in this thread? We can't help you or answer your question if you give us absolutely no information regarding your connection or your environment.

We got it, you don't care. Noted. Logged. Recognized. Accepted. Acknowledged. Exactly how much more do you need to discuss how much you don't care about this? Why not just let those who do care continue to discuss what they find interesting?

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to an opinion about your opinion. And it's my opinion that it's poor form to drop into a discussion only to denigrate the conversation and (by extension) those taking part in it. Indeed, one could even construe such drive-by "I'm too cool for this. You're all nerds!" posts as thread-crapping. So, good for you. You have an opinion. And you value being an undiscriminating and easily pleased consumer. That's wonderful. Now please let those who want to continue to discuss this do so.

If it would be "not good for the Indy franchise" (your words). . . shouldn't it therefore just be a non-Indy movie about crystal alien skulls? To which, of course, nobody here would have any objection. One more time. . . most here are sci-fi fans. Nobody here has a problem with aliens. . . or crystal skulls. Indeed, I think most even sorta think the "Stargate" idea (of past earth civilizations and religions being affected by alien visitors) is cool. The problem comes when you try to graft all of these things onto a vehicle (the Indy franchise) that seems completely inappropriate, counter-intuitive, and (possibly) downright destructive to the very core of the original movie(s). In the case of Raiders, *if* they directly (and retroactively) disavow the Ark's divine nature. . . you've horribly and irretrievably f'ed that movie up beyond all recognition. There's simply no saving it as anything I would personally find appealing. For me, half of what gives Raiders its mystique is the idea that the Old Testament God is being brought forward into the modern world. . . and he's slowly being "awakened" until finally. . . well, we all know what happens. The idea of it being an alien artifact is totally unappealing since that movie already meant something to me for the last twenty years. Now, if someone else wants to make a (non-Indy) movie about the Ark being an alien artifact, that's a different story. That might be a good movie! So, why wouldn't Lucas just make a "one-off" non-Indy movie about aliens and crystal skulls in ancient america? My first guess: Because then he wouldn't become even more rich off of it because it wouldn't have the "Indy" brand name (it wouldn't be a guaranteed blockbuster). . . and honestly, I really do think that he may confuses bizarre twists and sticking it to the fans as some perverse form of creativity. I think he gets a sense of satisfaction out of taking what people have believed/liked/experienced for twenty years and then arbitrarily saying "Hah! It now means something totally different! Bet you didn't see that coming did you? See, it doesn't mean at all what you think it meant! Surprise! Suckers!" Of course, what he often fails to acknowledge whenever these changes come about is that these are changes (and retroactive ones at that). We've only had these conceptions about his work (like the Ark of the Covenant being. . . well. . . the Ark of the Covenant. . . or the Force having nothing to do with microbes in the blood but instead being largely mystical or even quasi-eastern-religious) because it's 99.5% certain that these were his conceptions about his own work too before he decided (years or even decades later) to throw everyone a curve simply because he could. The problem is that when you do those types of things arbitrarily and capriciously, it's just pulling things out your ass rather than being creative. And it shows a tremendous lack of respect for both the audience and even his own creations.

That's it. I officially give up. It's like you comment on what you wish people were saying instead of what they actually are saying.

I hope someone often drops by conversations you're having about things that matter to you only to say: "it's just an x." For the life of me, I don't understand why people bother to drop by conversations that obviously matter to some merely to assert that it shouldn't matter to them. I don't know if it's about people wanting to feel "cool" or "above it all". . . but it sure is one of those quintessential internet behaviors: When you don't have anything to say, but you want to say something. . . just drop by a topic that doesn't interest you only to announce that it doesn't interest you. . . and then (either directly or indirectly) demean those to whom the topic matters. For the record, this is where I got started with Low-Viz too.

Those two are not related, however. I've been known to bite faces off before I was ever an admin/moderator. Though I do not think that I do so unless it is warranted. For the record, as I think I've demonstrated in the past, I'm happy to have a conversation, a disagreement, or even a spirited argument. . . as long as both sides are doing their best to understand the other instead of (intetionally?) obfuscating, setting up straw men, and ignoring inconvenient points and questions. Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel too. I'm not sure if he's honestly doesn't get the distinction, or he actually thinks that there would be nothing "wrong" with it. Either way, I'm not sure I'm up to continuing the conversation. Thus far, it's been both exhausting and unnerving.

Honestly, at this point, I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse, intellectually dishonest, or if you're just confused. We're talking about whether Lucas/Spielberg intended the Ark to be an alien device. . . and you suddenly start talking about Star-Wars and Gollum. Meanwhile, probably intentionally, you continue to ignore basic and and pointed questions while going off on more bizarre, irrelevant tangents. Then, you say yet again: . . . as though anyone else has said there is anything wrong with "aliens in an adventure movie." Seriously man, what's up? Nobody thinks aliens can't be in an adventure movie. At this point, all I can assume is that you're setting up straw men because you don't want to actually address what others are actually saying. But, for the record, you don't need to be a "mind reader" to see the modern influences on the PT vs the OT as well as the inconsistencies between them. Though, since that's largely irrelevant to both this discussion and this thread, and has been discussed to death in other threads on these very forums, I suggest we leave that alone. Dude, try to join us in the conversation we're actually having rather than the one you seem to be having with yourself in your head. There is a world of difference between adding a "war movie" element to a sequel. . . and fundamentally changing the nature of things retroactively. You don't seem to be able to follow these analogies very well. . . but I'm going to try again: In the case of Alien, the analogy would be Ridley Scott coming back to make Alien XII and making it in such a way that we find out that the "Aliens" are actually devils sent by Satan. . . or robots. . . Dude. . . dude. . . wtf? It's like you have no sense of degree or nuance at all. Equating the adding of some details regarding how the established aliens reproduce in a sci-fi movie series entitled Aliens to the introduction of extraterrestrials into the Indy films (and possibly even retroactively to even prior ones) is like comparing an apple to a freakin' aircraft carrier. Anyways, I'm still just waiting for a basic answer to the following basic question. The rest has just been random nonsense and avoidance of it: So if Kawamori suddenly decided that Dolza was Lucifer and the Zentraedi were demons. . . and then had God himself come down and directly work with the UN Spacy and help them in their war against evil. . . you wouldn't have a problem with that? Cuz it's all just fiction? H

One thing I've learned is that it takes a certain type of person to drop into threads merely to tell people that they shouldn't care about something. Usually the motivation is to come off as easy-going or "above it all." Totally missing the point. Or intentionally avoiding it. Why the heck would you totally ignore a question and then jump ahead to discuss Macross 7? The point is that Lucas may be retroactively going back and extracting all the religion and mysticism out of the earlier Indy films and injecting sci-fi/aliens. . . decades after the movies were completed. As I pointed out when you merely asserted that nobody should care because it's "fiction". . . this would be analogous to going back and retroactively replacing the Zentraedi with demons and Dolza with the devil. Yet for some reason you think: "Basara already saved the universe in 7" somehow obviates your need to answer the question: Would you not think such a retroactive change was lame? And, by extension: How would you feel if Kawamori did indeed make this retoractive change and --while you were discussing it-- various folks dropped in from time to time only to say: "Calm down. It's just fiction." You're (still) missing the point. The Fifth Element and Stargate opened with those premises. That's far different than introducing something twenty years later and retroactively changing an existing film in a fundamental way. If Lucas pulls what some of us anticipate, we'll be watching Raiders twenty years later thinking about how it's all a sham because Lucas now says so. That's lame. Again, missing the point. See above. Uh. . . okay. So, general ramblings aside. . . your (irrelevant) point is that other movies have mixed genres and introduced sci-fi concepts with religion. Good. But those movies did so from their inception. The point is that Raiders of the Lost Ark did not have these elements in any way shape or form. Nor did the other two. And decades later, Lucas is once again possibly going to f' with things and retroactively make his movies mean something that they never ever meant until the moment (years after completing them) that he shat out some new, craptacular idea. Your response was essentially: "Who cares? It's just fiction." When I presented you with an analogous change that could be perpetrated on Macross, and asked if you would feel the same way even though Macross is also "just fiction". . . your response was to totally avoid the question. . . and then ramble on with irrelevancies for a few paragraphs. H

Okay. . . it's just movies. So if Kawamori suddenly decided that Dolza was Lucifer and the Zentraedi were demons. . . and then had God himself come down and directly work with the UN Spacy and help them in their war against evil. . . you wouldn't have a problem with that? Cuz it's all just fiction? I wouldn't have a problem with it on a religious level. . . but it sure would be lame. Most of us are just girding ourselves for whatever retroactive assishness Lucas has in store. If the Ark is revealed to be of alien origin. . . thereby actively f'ing with an already great movie and fundamentally altering it, sorry. . . but that's lame. Of course, this could all be jumping at shadows. But it just seems so much like the kind of crap Lucas likes to pull.

It's a website. It uses port 80. Like every other website. Port forwarding is not going to help. Can you (briefly) connect your (fully patched) computer directly to the cable modem and see if the problem persists? Keep in mind that your cable modem may not talk to your computer unless you first unplug the cable modem from power for a few minutes. Cable modems often remember the "MAC address" (not to be confused with Macintosh) of whatever device it has been connected to and will not accept another device until it is power-cycled (with a rest before you power it back up while connected directly to your computer). H

Yeah, I don't recall E.T. making me think about Jesus or God. . . or religion at all. Having said that, Sundown. . . you can be jewish and yet also an atheist. As I'm sure you're aware, it's both an ethnicity and a religion. So, I really don't see Spielberg being jewish as any type of bar against him making some sort of anti-religious statement in a movie.

Ask George.

You say that as though it would be something Lucas/Spielberg would want to avoid. And Star Wars was about a Galactic Civil War and the coming of age of the Last Jedi. . . until Lucas a decade or two later decided to just assert that it was always about Anakin/Vader and the Force is easily explained by microbes in the blood. He gets off on "twisting" things and retroactively altering the meaning of what's been in the can for decades. I think he confuses doing so with real creativity.

It's not an important discussion to have here.

I'm with Sundown on this. When you see the hero of a film being accosted by American soldiers immediately after the American flag is bombastically splayed across the screen, it's a pretty safe bet that this will be more classic Hollywood "Good Americans dislike/mistrust/doubt America" stuff that makes those who subscribe to it feel oh-so-enlightened. Based on recent Lucas political undertones, I think it's likely. It's sorta amazing that, ham-fisted as his political "undertones" tend to be, they still go over the heads of some and instead we get "Gah! Showing your flag is bad!" even as the filmmaker (probably) is making the same point. But, yeah, we should probably start steering away from the political angle. I will say this. . . if it turns out that Lucas has attributed all the supernatural events in the prior films to alien technology. . . wow. . . I wouldn't put it past him. He went out of his way to retroactively take all the mysticism out of the Force in Star Wars via the prequels. Perhaps because of a new anti-religious leaning that he's developed later in life? Spielberg removed the guns from E.T. . . perhaps because of a new anti-gun political leaning he developed later in life? So, I really wouldn't put it past them to retroactively remove religion from their prior movies and turn Raiders retroactively into Raiders of the Lost Alien Face Melting Device. Seriously, I can see it happening. . . it's the sort of thing that Lucas would consider "clever" and a mind-f*cking plot twist even though Star Trek did it via "Who Mourns For Adonis" in the 60s.

Why cringe? It seems to me that the "enemy" in this movie will be some rogue hyper-patriotic right-wing nutjobs who have taken over part of the U.S. Army and/or government. It would fit in with recent Lucas "subtle political messages .'

There's links to the original trailers for Raiders there too. Pretty cool. Strangely, I don't see any slapstick or attempts at humor. Odd. It's almost as if the filmmakers had a different sensibility and traget audience back then. Edit: Wow. . . compare the trailer for Raiders with the trailer for Last Crusade. Now, actually, I don't think the trailer for Raiders makes it look particularly good and its style is dated. But note that it's not trying to be funny in any way but is instead chracterized as a gritty adventure. Not so for the Crusade trailer which pretty quickly develops a campy "family fun" tone. Edit 2: If I seem to be a bit pointed here, it's because that nearly every time Lucas comes up, a certain type of fan always appears that considers any criticizm to be the whinings of hyper-critical fanboys and some even go so far as to bizarrely assert that there is no real difference in tone or cinematic sensibility between early Star Wars/Indy films, and the latter ones. . . and that any perceived differences are the effect of nostalgia. I've got no problem with anyone's personal tastes in movies. But if someone's so very undiscerning that they actually believe that there's just no appreciable difference (it's been said in other threads). . . well. . . I can't really respect their taste in film. . . just as they tend to dismiss mine as the rantings of an angry fanboy who is "dead inside." Forgive me if I have a problem seeing people swallow crap and singing its praises merely because it arrived in the same packaging as the ambrosia to which they originally became accustomed. Having said all that, I have no real hope that this movie won't be horribly undermined by inept attempts at humor and "comic relief" in the Lucas style. Though, in this case, where I of course went out and saw all the SW prequels, I'll have to wait for Netflix to see if I'll be pleasantly surprised here. H

On second viewing (cuz I may have been hasty), it's not as egregious as it could be. But, it still represents a pretty good example of the type of ass-hatery that (to my mind) ruined the latter two Indy films and every Lucas endeavor since Empire. Since they seem so proud of this "funny" moment that they chose to showcase it in the trailer, I'm willing to bet that there will be tons more moments like this throughout the movie. . . just as there were throughout Last Crusade and every other Lucas vehicle in recent (and not-so-recent) memory.