>> ^Hybrid:

Boromir in Lord of the Rings
Alec Trevelyan in GoldenEye
Sharpe
and more recently, Eddard Stark in Game of Thrones.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000293/
>> ^eric3579:
Who's Sean Bean?



You forgot he best known role, Sean Miller (the one with the hate-on for Harrison) in Patriot Games (1:02)

Boromir in Lord of the Rings
Alec Trevelyan in GoldenEye
Sharpe
and more recently, Eddard Stark in Game of Thrones.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000293/
>> ^eric3579:

Who's Sean Bean?

But the magic in the LOTR made more sense.>> ^jmzero:

- so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.

"why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?"

Not a hard question. If you look at our ability to grasp concepts, we tend to compare things only in contrasts.

Today is cold--because we know what hot (Or warm) is.

Think of a child born without a nerves to feel pain without even knowing it is doing so. The child will gauge its eyes out if left to itself. You know love because you know pain, happiness because you know sadness, life because you know death.

If I was God, I would do things exactly the same way He supposedly did things. Of course, I don't believe in God, so the point is moot.

And as a last joke, I would burn in hell all the sick Christians and save all the good aethists.

>> ^jmzero:
Pains me to do it - but I am going to agree with ShinyBlurry in that he has a correct conception of how many Christians view the situation and that that view is not internally inconsistent. There are, of course, Christians who view it a bit differently in one way or another, but those differences don't really impact the question we started with here.
In general, the starting point question is "why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?" This is a good question: shouldn't God, being omnipotent, should be able to realize all his goals (including this baby surviving, since he's benevolent) without compromising any other principles or goals?
It depends on what kind of definition you have for "omnipotent". Is it "the ability to make true anything that can be stated?" (ie. He can make 2+2=7). Is it the weaker "he can, without limits, control physical and spiritual reality" (ie. he can make gravity go backwards and make electrons "more wet")?. Is it the weaker "limitless control over the physical configuration of the universe" (ie. he can turn the universe into a pretzel, but gravity will still work the same)? One can make similar distinctions about His omniscience, how it extends into the future, how it interacts with free will, and how it extends into paradox.
It also depends on self or otherwise imposed limits. Does He have bounds in terms of what He can and/or will do? Does He mess with "free will"? Can he create and/or destroy "souls"? Did he create "Satan" or evil or good or law, and what is his relationship with the law?
How you (or an individual Christian) answers the above question dictates, to an extent, how they resolve the question. However, for most Christian groups that I'm familiar with, the presence of evil and bad outcomes in the world is (one way or another) the result of God's unwillingness or inability to limit free will, and the cascade of related mishaps ever since the fall of Adam. The flip side is, for a dead baby like this, that they'll get a good go of it in heaven (or Paradise Earth, or whatever).
The specifics of how this is resolved and stated varies with Christian groups and people, but the overall point is usually pretty similar and, as before, I don't think it's internally inconsistent.
Similarly, the oddity of Jesus (being God) praying to the Father (also God) is resolved in a few different ways (all of which restore consistency in one way or another). Sometimes it is, as sb points out, the idea that though the same in many ways, Jesus was a separate being and was legitimately asking (or sometimes just communicating, with no real desire to be spared). Or you can see it as an instructive, rhetorical thing - demonstrating how normal people are supposed to deal with God (even though Jesus didn't need to communicate or deal in that way). Or there's probably 10 other resolutions that are internally consistent, again depending on exact definitions of God's nature and what not.
All in all, it's natural that Christians are going to have a lot of leeway on something like this. The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time nailing down the properties of God (and it only spends a few chapters literally nailing Him anywhere) - so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.

Pains me to do it - but I am going to agree with ShinyBlurry in that he has a correct conception of how many Christians view the situation and that that view is not internally inconsistent. There are, of course, Christians who view it a bit differently in one way or another, but those differences don't really impact the question we started with here.

In general, the starting point question is "why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?" This is a good question: shouldn't God, being omnipotent, should be able to realize all his goals (including this baby surviving, since he's benevolent) without compromising any other principles or goals?

It depends on what kind of definition you have for "omnipotent". Is it "the ability to make true anything that can be stated?" (ie. He can make 2+2=7). Is it the weaker "he can, without limits, control physical and spiritual reality" (ie. he can make gravity go backwards and make electrons "more wet")?. Is it the weaker "limitless control over the physical configuration of the universe" (ie. he can turn the universe into a pretzel, but gravity will still work the same)? One can make similar distinctions about His omniscience, how it extends into the future, how it interacts with free will, and how it extends into paradox.

It also depends on self or otherwise imposed limits. Does He have bounds in terms of what He can and/or will do? Does He mess with "free will"? Can he create and/or destroy "souls"? Did he create "Satan" or evil or good or law, and what is his relationship with the law?

How you (or an individual Christian) answers the above question dictates, to an extent, how they resolve the question. However, for most Christian groups that I'm familiar with, the presence of evil and bad outcomes in the world is (one way or another) the result of God's unwillingness or inability to limit free will, and the cascade of related mishaps ever since the fall of Adam. The flip side is, for a dead baby like this, that they'll get a good go of it in heaven (or Paradise Earth, or whatever).

The specifics of how this is resolved and stated varies with Christian groups and people, but the overall point is usually pretty similar and, as before, I don't think it's internally inconsistent.

Similarly, the oddity of Jesus (being God) praying to the Father (also God) is resolved in a few different ways (all of which restore consistency in one way or another). Sometimes it is, as sb points out, the idea that though the same in many ways, Jesus was a separate being and was legitimately asking (or sometimes just communicating, with no real desire to be spared). Or you can see it as an instructive, rhetorical thing - demonstrating how normal people are supposed to deal with God (even though Jesus didn't need to communicate or deal in that way). Or there's probably 10 other resolutions that are internally consistent, again depending on exact definitions of God's nature and what not.

All in all, it's natural that Christians are going to have a lot of leeway on something like this. The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time nailing down the properties of God (and it only spends a few chapters literally nailing Him anywhere) - so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.

>> ^ponceleon:

WHAT THE FUCK??
Seriously, what on earth happened there?? And what the fuck is up with that part of the world?? The be producing some scary shit down there...


I know first Lord of the Rings and now THIS! My vacation plans will never include NZ

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lord of the rings, lotr, gollom, hunt for gollom, cgi' to 'lord of the rings, lotr, gollum, hunt for gollum, cgi' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Shepppard:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Xaielao" title="member since March 13th, 2009" class="profilelink">Xaielao
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks the old battles were better. The old battles were slow.. and that MADE them unrealistic.
In a typical swordfight, I'm pretty sure you're not gonna hit 3 times in 5 seconds and stop. And I can probably back the rest of that up with Lore.
Despite being "The Chosen One", Luke was only trained when he was older. Yoda came close to showing off a jedi's true potential by lifting the X-wing out of the marsh, but at that point he was old, and likely hadn't used the force for ages since Luke had appeared.
The Jedi we see in the prequel trilogy had been raised since they were insanely young (Younger then the 9 year old Anakin, because someone even says "He's too old.") and whenever you see someone fighting they're not just a run-of-the-mill jedi, it's typically someone from the council, essentially, the cream of the crop.
And.. just on a last little rant about the swordplay.. they're Jedi. Again, people trained since they were extremely young to use the force as a guide. Qui gon Jin at one point even says something about "He can see glimpses of the future, it's a jedi trait." which again, is something that happens in battle making the fights faster and more epic. Jedi are essentially a partial ripoff of samurai anyway.. and if you don't think sword fighting can be that fast and action packed, watch a couple good Kendo matches.



I may be the only one (though I sometimes doubt that hehe, but I must disagree about the saber battles in the original. They were choreographed by Bob Anderson, one of the greatest holywood sword trainers ever. The guy is behind literally every major action movie with sword fighting in them from Star Wars to The Lord of the Rings, and Pirates of the Caribbean to Highlander. The saber fights are slow I'll give you that, but they were slow for a reason. As I said they were choreographed in such a way that you could almost feel the battle of wills behind the sabers themselves.

>> ^Hybrid:

Thundercats???? This is Lord of the Rings reskinned!


If your gonna steal, steal from the best!

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: "The Lord of the Rings" and "Atlas Shrugged." One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

--Anonymous

>> ^ghark:

I doubt it's just around the corner, preproduction just finished, will take them a couple years to finish the shooting and editing, so it won't be out for maybe 3-4 years


It's next year, they're doing it in two parts

Lux Aeterna by Clint Mansell from Requiem For A Dream. Used in lots of trailers. One of the Lord of the Rings trailers used a slightly recomposed version of it.

>> ^CrushBug:

Hey, wow, and what is the music in the background? I have heard that before somewhere.

Thundercats???? This is Lord of the Rings reskinned!

On the "Renaissance Fair" scale:

Song: modern
Instruments: modern
Clothing: pure fantasy - "Lord Of The Rings prostitute" meets "Jack Sparrow"

Rating: perfect fit for a renaissance fair.

I think I have to wear a Mr. Spock costume for that.

I think Payback pretty much has it. Except, IMHO, I think some of the columns (vertical) were cropped/created using AFX/Maya type programs.
I work in Maya , Max , CAD , AFX etc... Drach's comments about shadows and 'his eye' were as vague as him saying "I work in CGI". Sorry, but 'bollocks mate'. The only shadow (raytraced) inconsistencies are on 'some' of the columns, and their corresponding shadows. Dystopian, I'll bet money that the water is real, as well as the channels it runs in. However some of the columns do not receive or create shadows as they should. If he did create the water in a 3D program, he should be working for one of the major animation houses as a fluid dynamics animator, but I don't think he did. I could be wrong though, because this was NOT a simple trick.

I love the sift, mostly because of the level of intelligence often displayed in the comments. But "CGI" is a vague term that could be used by anyone who's seen Lord of the Rings. If you know what you're talking about, be more specific please. You don't need to 'dumb it down', this isn't YouTube. >> ^Drachen_Jager:

Yeah, you can see it in the shadow-interaction if you look closely. The whole structure also stands out as a bit 'off' to me, but I work with CGI so I guess I have a trained eye.
The giveaway is the shadows though. Freeze frame it when his shadow is half on the structure. The edge of the shadow is blurred on the waterfall, but it's crisp on the floor.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
CGI water? I think you could pull something like this off with a hidden pump. I'd be disappointed if it were just CGI. >> ^Drachen_Jager:
It's just CGI guys. Pretty simple trick.
Very well done though.