Tags for this video have been changed from 'minutephysics, linguistics, english, robin hood' to 'minutephysics, linguistics, english, robin hood, rune, thorn' - edited by calvados

The aristocats- No one really saw it so understandable how you can get away with that...

Snow White- probably to pay tribute to their first animated movie...

Jungle Book- Yea... don't know how you could get away with that... Granted thre was a 6 year gap between these two movies, but still, if you were watching the films back to back you can see how robin hood did borrow alot... But come on, I think we all could connect the snakes together...

Perhaps if the fortunate members of society, the well-off and rich actually supported the less fortunate then freedom from big government, taxes, welfare, Robin Hood, etc then I could actually support the Libertarian ideal. But they don't and I can't. Our whole civilisation is built upon exploitation of the weak. Why would you expect our society to be any different if you gave people absolute freedom?

Jesus and Robin Hood and Socrates, and any other popular figures from more than a couple of centuries ago, have their existence/non existence blurred with legends, stories and all sorts of stupid demented bullshit to the point where no one really knows what the story is. Anyone who claims to is lying.

You take the good stuff and kind of hope they were like that. Christianity is the selective filtering of some ancient stories from an uneducated diseased fearful superstitious population of people who rarely lived past 35, warped to suit the morality and power structure of a succession of morally dubious civilisations in which the ones with the big hats claiming to know more about what 'god' thinks are invariably FAR more like the self righteous fat ruling class who had Jeebs nailed up. If that actually happened. I mean , if Jeebs was real enough to drive a nail through - they certainly nailed up thousands in that time.

I mean what about the pope/nuns/monks/water into wine etc etc? That's not in the bible. People add, and remove, whatever they want to suit their purpose. They don't seem to be afraid of retribution for it, so either they have a HUGE ego (god will agree with me!) or they don't really believe in any of that shit. The pope sure as hell doesn't, or he'd clean up the Vatican bank sharpish.

Shiny may be bonkers but at least he's not wearing a silly hat in a golden city tricked from the poor and desperate, shouting at Africans that the fantasy god he has violently imposed on them will hate them for using Jonnies to stop Aids.



>> ^hpqp:

Well considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.

>> ^brycewi19:

I've heard that last song before. Does anyone know who that is? It's awfully familiar and I can't place it.


The last song (Hoppipolla by Sigur Ros) was used for Planet Earth and a few trailers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopp%C3%ADpolla

>> ^brycewi19:

For that matter, what's the first song, too?
Definately music plays a part in this vid!


The one at the start... over the credits is used in Finding Nemo near the start of the movie.
The main theme they play after that though is Overture by Michael Kamen and originally from the Robin Hood (Keven Costner version) soundtrack, but a portion of that theme, the part they played here, is used by Disney/Pixar films when the Disney logo is up. Can't say I knew before just now it was in Robin Hood, I just associated it with the Disney logo.
From there it goes into Kaneda's Death, Pt. 2 (Adagio in D Minor) by John Murphy from the Sunshine soundtrack and used in tons of trailers since then. That one I was able to place instantly... he is one of my lead choices for the Dark Tower score...
Then of course goes into the last song already mentioned.

Lots of discussion at: http://videosift.com/video/Robin-Hood-Tax-on-the-Rich-to-Benefit-the-Poor?noredirect

I thought the video would have been shorter >> ^thegrimsleeper:

^ ^ The Funniest Moments of Robin Hood: Men in Tights
That's a bit sad actually.

I take it these are the same guys who threw a sawblade through a 2x4 and exhibited X-tr33m Tape Measure Skillz?

And would you look at that, here's a video of them practicing their nailgun skills.

Having just played this through, I have to say that while most of his stuff is a tad overboard or exaggerated a bit for the sake of comedy, this one is spot on. Dead center robin hood style ace marksmanship. For me at least. Naturally there are as many opinions as there are games, and I unfortunately just like more story. Less time making an island nobody in their right mind would actually explore all of and more time on making the entire island/game feel like a huge copy paste job.

Excalibur!

BTW, a simple tribble test would have prevented that whole Simon Tarses/Betazoid drama.
>> ^Reefie:

Also let's not forget his appearance in Robin Hood: Men in Tights; or the 1984 version of Dune!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Truckchase:
Jean-Luc Picard 2012.

Seconded!
I forgot how good of an actor patrick stewart became through ST. I just was watching some season 1 and 2, and he is so bad, a ton of overacting. But later on, he nails it perfectly. It is kind of fun watching his evolution from Broadway to silver screen.


I completely agree that Patrick Stewart became a better television actor through being on Star Trek but his real talent came from his years as a stage actor. Much like Andreas Katsulas and Ian McKellen who also gained their excellent talents from theatre I think Patrick Stewart was a powerful and compelling actor before he ever stepped into the shoes of Picard!

Did anyone see Patrick Stewart and David Tennant's performance of Hamlet that was running in 2008 and 2009? Very good, didn't get to go since tickets were scarce for every venue and every night but the BBC filmed it and released it at the end of last year.

Also let's not forget his appearance in Robin Hood: Men in Tights; or the 1984 version of Dune!

You can believe they would notice all you want - but when it comes to the difference between $1 billion in profits and $999,500,000 in profits I think most rational people would suggest it's a negligible amount. Obviously you are not among those people.

I will defend that the tax is nothing to those who pay it, and that it's billions for those that will benefit. It's no different form the tax I pay on the cup of coffee I buy - that is used to build roads and schools. In fact, the tax I pay on a cup of coffee is magnitudes bigger than this Robin Hood Tax. Some folks here in Canada scream 'Tyranny' and 'Big Government' at those taxes - and most people correctly identify those kooks for who they really are - zealots.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
Actually, I believe very strongly that they really would notice.

And don't tell me I'm the one playing semantics when the video goes on about how the tax is both virtually nothing and worth billions. The game is semantics, but I'm the one that's calling it out for that.

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.

You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

Actually, I believe very strongly that they really would notice.

And don't tell me I'm the one playing semantics when the video goes on about how the tax is both virtually nothing and worth billions. The game is semantics, but I'm the one that's calling it out for that.

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.

You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.

You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.