The new one will be, without a doubt, much better. The old version was edited together using VCRs in order to get the episodes done on a tight schedule, so the quality was pretty bad. (Worse than the quality of TOS at times.) Since they are reediting from scratch, that alone will result in much better quality than we've ever seen. Add to that the excellent color correction, cleanup, cg enhancement, etc that they did to the remastered TOS, and it will end up being quite impressive indeed.
Pay attention, George Lucas. This is how you remaster your old work the RIGHT way!

Yeah, Paramount did an excellent job. See, George Lucas? THIS is how you remaster a series. By touching things up, but staying faithful to the original.

But I'm really excited to see how TNG turns out. The originals look particularly bad since all the editing was done on VHS for faster turn-around. For the remastered version, they're reediting the show from scratch, so it should be a big improvement.

@critical_d Makes me wonder how much of what we love about star wars we can give him credit for. How much of it was the influence of others and the pressures of the day that shaped it. It would seem, now that he has complete control, he consistently doesn't get what people liked about it. In the little exerts, he thought we wanted to see Yoda with a lightsaber jumping around like a moron, instead of being the Yoda we all remember ("Great warrior. Wars not make one great"). I'm convinced through the prequels, special editions, and reedits that everyone around Lucas made his early films great. When I go back and watch me some Indian Jones, I see the same playful feel and interesting characters as the first star wars. Perhaps he is capable, just but this time he just wasn't up to the task. I just know that for about 2 weeks now I have been trying to imagine how I would do the prequels, perhaps I should storyboard it out

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Ya, Ok so bitch at the US for telling other countries what to do but then turn around and tell the US what they need to do. Define Irony.
You will always hit a brick wall when you try to tell others what they should be doing or thinking. I do find it rather offensive that people still think their opinion is worth much more then mine just because I'm from the U.S.
Yes, maybe there is something wrong with the U.S. but I honestly do not think its anymore broken than any other country. Ours just tend to be pointed out much more simply for being who we are.
Not long ago I had to go through Europe for some contract work. Almost everywhere I went if they found out I was from the U.S. I had to hear their Opinion on what the U.S. should be doing. Weather or not I wanted to hear it or not and they got extremely angry if I offered any type of difference of opinion. Hell at one point I actually got up in the middle of a restaurant told the waiter to please shut the hell up and get my check because frankly I was damn tired of it. I'm pretty sure I was more then likely labeled with the stereotype of the rude crass American and at that time I could of cared less.
As for genetically Engineered crops I currently have no opinion on it one way or another. Its not in my sphere of interest at this time.

Sorry quoting system here does not seem to agree with my computer. Still working out why posts garbage more often then not.... Edited and reedited.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^You barge in to defend the honor of the US, fully admitting you know nothing and care nothing about the specifics of the topic. It's this kind of entitled, self-important, blindly uncritical nationalism that probably causes people to dismiss you. That's my best guess as a fellow American.


I agree with daddy. Criticism is simple when looking in from the outside. I bitch about my government just like you guys. But why is it the only acceptable emotion we as Americans can show online shame? I agree our government makes many bad if not terrible decisions or oversights... but we do a lot and have the distinct honor of being the limelight. So when reading people standing on soap boxes making criticisms of the US almost willy-nilly like they know best and it's all just so simple I (and I believe other Americans like me) get a little defensive and a little upset.

Please understand - I'm not saying anyone is actually making unwarranted criticism. It's all about wording, tone, and acceptance of other people's points of view.

Ya, Ok so bitch at the US for telling other countries what to do but then turn around and tell the US what they need to do. Define Irony.
You will always hit a brick wall when you try to tell others what they should be doing or thinking. I do find it rather offensive that people still think their opinion is worth much more then mine just because I'm from the U.S.
Yes, maybe there is something wrong with the U.S. but I honestly do not think its anymore broken than any other country. Ours just tend to be pointed out much more simply for being who we are.
Not long ago I had to go through Europe for some contract work. Almost everywhere I went if they found out I was from the U.S. I had to hear their Opinion on what the U.S. should be doing. Weather or not I wanted to hear it or not and they got extremely angry if I offered any type of difference of opinion. Hell at one point I actually got up in the middle of a restaurant told the waiter to please shut the hell up and get my check because frankly I was damn tired of it. I'm pretty sure I was more then likely labeled with the stereotype of the rude crass American and at that time I could of cared less.

As for genetically Engineered crops I currently have no opinion on it one way or another. Its not in my sphere of interest at this time.


Sorry quoting system here does not seem to agree with my computer. Still working out why posts garbage more often then not.... Edited and reedited.

>> ^ulysses1904:

Yeah his voice is obnoxious. And the editing and sound effects are the usual manipulative crap. The only thing missing is the mushroom cloud at the finale. Or was it there, I stopped watching before the end.


However, the message for the cars is completely true. I am not a wealthy person, so fluctuations in used car parts is a real pain for me...and it has been noticeable. Even moreso since many of the components I have needed of late have been engine related.
>> ^handmethekeysyou:

I almost upvoted this video after the beginning sequence.
But after the narrator's obnoxious tone, and then specifically the line, "but this government misallocation of money and resources always[emphasis mine] leads to unintended consequences," I stopped watching.
Always? Now there are a few ways of interpreting this sentences. First would be that when the government misallocates money and resources, there are unintended consequences. I won't disagree with that semantically, but if that's what he's saying, does it really need to be said? When the government screws up, it screws up. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
A second interpretation is that government policy always misallocates money and resources & there are always, without fail, unintended consequences. Well, now I'll disagree semantically. Saying that all policy misallocates $$ & resources is ludicrous. If the video is going to talk about the fact that in all policy, there is always some money misused, that sounds interesting and is a worthwhile, constructive criticism. But something in those ominous clouds composited behind the Capitol Building tells me this isn't going to be an objective, in-depth look at government spending.
I suppose this video is 10 minutes of cherry-picked policies that the government screwed up. I'd love to watch and get worked up about it, but now I know it would just be anti-government propaganda.
...
I decided to watch some of it since maybe it was unfair to rail on it so hard after only a minute. Things that struck me:
- Use of Uncle Sam to suggest overbearing government propaganda. Video then proceeds to lay the propaganda on heavier than a North Korean campaign to get you to trim your hair. People in the streets, in photo negative! Capitol building with dollar signs coming out it, heading right for the lens, in photo negative! How about you composite some more shots over other shots to make this all seem so overwhelming? I think there was a full 5 seconds in there without a single hit or sting. I was bored and not emotionally outraged during those 5 seconds. Please reedit to fix.
- You're going to argue against "regulations" at large? All regulation is hurting me, the consumer, the citizen? [Regulating the amount of lead in my paint ultimately costs me more money, which means I can't provide as well for my children, who are currently eating paint chips.] Strange that he doesn't name a single specific regulation. Though it's actually nice. It saves me from having to think. Now I know, regulation=bad, and I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the whys and hows of it all.
- Nor does he explain the line "We have recently seen that sometimes it's the regulator that keeps bad businesses in business." Ok, sometimes that happens...like, when? Oh, I don't actually know any examples, just sometimes it happens. I can't wait to put on a smug expression of intellectual superiority after I wow the crowd at my next cocktail party when I pull this nugget out.
- During the regulation bit, he does relate that we're paying a "regulation tax" that's priced into my health insurance, shoes, clothing [shoes aren't clothing?], food, cars, homes, and pretty much anything I buy. I hate taxes! I buy at least 3 of those things! [So what?] So...I hate regulations! Which regulations do I hate again? [Not sure.] All of them! [Did I mention this is propaganda?]
I stopped after the regulations part [can you tell I didn't like that bit?]. I have no conclusive paragraph to sum everything up. This video is terrible and offensive.


There are many examples of bad companies staying in power because of using the power of law to enforce their agenda. For instance, the enjoyed legal monopoly of most telco and cable companies. Or, the higher prices Americans pay for sugar because of import tariffs on sugar. And thusly making corn sugar, its unhealthier cousin, the mainstay of American diets. Or, the corn subsidy that makes corn feeding beef more economical, even though it causes ecoli to then be produced by said cattle; this all benefits fast food industries to the defiant of us all. Or minimum wage, it necessarily raises unemployment by denying low skilled workers access to market priced labor; this protects high skilled labor from ever being found wanting for lower priced labor mainly benefiting large union positions, while relegating to perpetual unemployment/illegal employment a low skilled migrant worker.

But I admit, there needed to be more examples and less dogma in the video.

I almost upvoted this video after the beginning sequence.

But after the narrator's obnoxious tone, and then specifically the line, "but this government misallocation of money and resources always[emphasis mine] leads to unintended consequences," I stopped watching.

Always? Now there are a few ways of interpreting this sentences. First would be that when the government misallocates money and resources, there are unintended consequences. I won't disagree with that semantically, but if that's what he's saying, does it really need to be said? When the government screws up, it screws up. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

A second interpretation is that government policy always misallocates money and resources & there are always, without fail, unintended consequences. Well, now I'll disagree semantically. Saying that all policy misallocates $$ & resources is ludicrous. If the video is going to talk about the fact that in all policy, there is always some money misused, that sounds interesting and is a worthwhile, constructive criticism. But something in those ominous clouds composited behind the Capitol Building tells me this isn't going to be an objective, in-depth look at government spending.

I suppose this video is 10 minutes of cherry-picked policies that the government screwed up. I'd love to watch and get worked up about it, but now I know it would just be anti-government propaganda.

...

I decided to watch some of it since maybe it was unfair to rail on it so hard after only a minute. Things that struck me:

- Use of Uncle Sam to suggest overbearing government propaganda. Video then proceeds to lay the propaganda on heavier than a North Korean campaign to get you to trim your hair. People in the streets, in photo negative! Capitol building with dollar signs coming out it, heading right for the lens, in photo negative! How about you composite some more shots over other shots to make this all seem so overwhelming? I think there was a full 5 seconds in there without a single hit or sting. I was bored and not emotionally outraged during those 5 seconds. Please reedit to fix.

- You're going to argue against "regulations" at large? All regulation is hurting me, the consumer, the citizen? [Regulating the amount of lead in my paint ultimately costs me more money, which means I can't provide as well for my children, who are currently eating paint chips.] Strange that he doesn't name a single specific regulation. Though it's actually nice. It saves me from having to think. Now I know, regulation=bad, and I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the whys and hows of it all.

- Nor does he explain the line "We have recently seen that sometimes it's the regulator that keeps bad businesses in business." Ok, sometimes that happens...like, when? Oh, I don't actually know any examples, just sometimes it happens. I can't wait to put on a smug expression of intellectual superiority after I wow the crowd at my next cocktail party when I pull this nugget out.

- During the regulation bit, he does relate that we're paying a "regulation tax" that's priced into my health insurance, shoes, clothing [shoes aren't clothing?], food, cars, homes, and pretty much anything I buy. I hate taxes! I buy at least 3 of those things! [So what?] So...I hate regulations! Which regulations do I hate again? [Not sure.] All of them! [Did I mention this is propaganda?]

I stopped after the regulations part [can you tell I didn't like that bit?]. I have no conclusive paragraph to sum everything up. This video is terrible and offensive.

>> ^vaporlock:
Porn has plots now. WTF


Some of them try unsuccessfully.


>> ^Shepppard:
Hah, the movie itself isn't hardcore porn..
It's more of a comedy with softcore porn bits in it. I for one think the movie is hilarious, and the slightly bad acting only adds to it.


When they didn't recoup their production costs with the hardcore release, they reedited the sex scenes to make a softcore release. With all the video rental shops that bought it, they made enough money to make a sequel.

And Yes, I am ashamed that I know that.

SDGundamX, I don't argue the problems with defining that line in the slightest. At exactly what point do they become a "living breathing person"? It's a debate I've had before and I don't see a clear line which is why I do have some sympathy for those uncomfortable with the subject and little tolerance for those who write off any concerns to religious motivations. In real terms though it's easy enough to say that an hours or days old embryo is hardly up there with the holocaust victim and the comparison deeply flawed since they are already being destroyed and have been for as long as the clinics have been producing extras. Decades. Making use of them for research instead doesn't cost a single life, potential or realized. It just offers the potential to save some. If they want to debate what the clinics themselves have been doing and for years now or if that should be changed that's another issue entirely.

As technology and society changes over time we've moved lots of moral lines based on race, sex, or our medical ability and this one has and probably will move again as well. Past that some aren't even comfortable with transplants yet, it's more of a cringe factor than religious, and those same types of issues could carry into this as well I'd guess. I'm sure psychologists would have lots of interesting theories on what motivates it but for me it's enough to just recognize that it's there.

That's why I like the fertility clinic argument in particular. It skips those issues entirely and just deals with things as they are today. If things weren't already like that I'm not sure where I'd stand but given the rate at which embryos are being destroyed already it makes absolutely no sense to just waste them when we could learn to save lives with them instead. We don't even need to keep taking them, once you have a productive stem cell line you can just reproduce that and leave the rest be if we come to a solution later.

If someone has solutions which would solve the excess embryo problem I'm all ears and I've asked for options in the past but so far there don't seem to be realistic solutions offered which don't leave us with those embryos, they seem to want us to trash them instead of use them if they object at all and that gets hard to defend. It's the single solution I've found which both the stem cell advocates and those who are uncomfortable with the issue can come the closest to agreement on. If we're to end up with productive lines in the US I can't think of a better/less controversial source offhand.

Sorry if I came off a bit strong yesterday, been reading and debating too much politics on another board recently and that hasn't been good for any of us this time around I don't think.

edit to add this... and reedit to remove it We'll get into that later if need be, this is long enough already.

Thank you both! I love the newsies intro DotDude. Dag, I am indeed a history nerd. I'm graduating this year with a major in History and Psychology, and ideally, I'll be going to graduate school in a year to become a History Professor.I'd do more history related votes, but, somehow I doubt Montesquieu would catch the eyes of sifters like a string of obscenities offered from a reedit of Pulp Fiction !