Hurin

Okay, I don't want to start a general panic. . . but. . . Is it me, or is the skull in that full-side picture crooked? It's hard to tell, but from that picture, it looks like it's not quite aligned with the "horizontal plane". Again, I could be wrong. . . H

In my humble opinion, pre-cutting the stickers is not possible. My understanding is that these stickers are made in someone's free time using an expensive printer and some 3M paper. Exactly how could someone come by a die-cutting machine that would perfectly match the print-out from this printer every time. I just don't think it's feasible as long as we're talking about stickers being made on a personal level by a fan. All that being said, I've still never seen pre-cut stickers that were cut close enough for my tastes. H

As others have said, the Audigy 2 is the successor (by 2+ generations) to the SB Live. So the SB Live is a downgrade. Your Klipsch speakers are great as far as desktop speakers go. Make sure you don't have EAX enabled. . . I don't know why it would have been enabled for desktop sound by default, but look in your sound control panels (perhaps in "Audio HQ") for an EAX control panel. Turn that crap off! H

I think he wants to do it to reduce the shininess. That is the only real (unavoidable) flaw in these stickers. If the light hits them right, they shine. H

Oh sweet merciful God. . . how are you still saying that I admitted this after just saying that you now realize I was kidding (as indicated by question marks and smileys). The fact that you are still saying that I admitted to such, boggles the mind and makes me realize there really is no point in continuing to communicate with you. . . [ Your point? Half the time I can't even figure out what you're getting at. . . but here I think you're trying to say: "No no! You're the fanatic! Not me! Not me!" <snip> Sad. Just sad. If you don't think there is any change in tone between his early movies and the latter ones. . . wow. But, then again, you think they've all gotten progressively better. So, well, there you are. I think you're kidding yourself and aren't terribly descriminating. But, well, that's your right. I don't believe you were kidding. Especially given the context "purist" has been used here on MW, before. It's possible you believe you were kidding, but I think that it was actually true. This is a toneless form of communication, but the sarcasm just didn't come across to me. My point is that you have sometimes some across as if you have SERIOUS issues and need help. As far as your debating tactics... you've proven to be extremely defensive wherever I've seen things get marginally heated. This hasn't been good for anything other than the occassional smirk from me, but you sound like you've been getting quite worked up. You might claim to "repeat posts nearly word for word" but your selective use of edits sometimes (especially when it's out of context) has mades me question if you're doing it deliberately... but i've always given you the benefit of the doubt. Again, I haven't intended any acrimony in anything I've said. You, OTOH, I'm not so sure about right now. The amount of stuff you owned as a kid equates to a rational and objective (heh) point of view of merchanidising. I think whoever bought you all that Ewok crap (parents) is to blame for your psychosis. Luke, Darth's, & Boba are far more significant than stormtroopers (or Ewoks) in the marketing strategy. Moreover Boba Fett was before & during RotJ and Darth Maul after. But I guess that went right over your head. Were there plush Jar-Jars? Your "evidence" is anectdotal and highly subjective (heh). You still have all that Ewok stuff or was that all from memory? I'm kidding myself? Maybe you're kidding yourself? Maybe i'm more grounded, mellow and discriminating than you are and just not mental from having my childhood f*cked with by ewok stuff thrust upon me? Possible? You hate everything SW besides the original cuts of the first 2 movies. Your attitude towards Zahn (which has got to be the most mild and is widely held to be the best of the EU novels). That's your right, of course (again, it'd be absurd for me to say anything else) but to pretend there's a dividing line that Lucas crossed over is inane though it has certainly been entertaining. Anytime you wanna debate midichlorians, lemme know. Uxi. 1. If a question mark and a smiley don't indicate sarcasm, I don't know what to tell you. The intended meaning was to show you that I know how you view those who feel strongly about these things. It was in no way intended to take that mantle upon myself. How you could read it otherwise is beyond me. Further, the fact that you continue to cast it upon me, even after I have protested, essentially amounts to you flat-out calling me a liar. Which, unless you can read my mind, is pretty weak. Oh, and, the term "purist" is used everywhere. 2. That entire last post of yours is nothing more than a looooong personal attack. You may also note that I only get defensive when people start flying the banner of "no personal attacks" while they themselves are doing it. As for selective quoting. . . I quote just about everything you say back to you. In another thread, I was accused of using elipses and/or periods to truncate off something somebody said. . . as though that's a huge cover-up. Puh-lease. The entire post is right there just above it, untouched. . . and the words I used were not taken out of context whatsoever. It's a totally acceptable way of saving people some reading and emphasizing your point unless it is done in the Maureen Dowd fashion (with malice and intent to deceive). So, the rest of your post is just saying that I "need help" and "have SERIOUS issues". . and that my parents are to blame for my "psychosis." And that's not even all of it. Man, if I ever needed an example of how you aren't able to hold up your end of this rationally anymore, I couldn't have asked for anything better. The fact that you can say any of this in the context of a Star Wars debate doesn't speak highly of your mental state. . . but I'm not going to join you in the gutter. You seem rather obsessed with maintaining this "Hey man. . . it's all good. . . nothing bothers me. . . why can't you just chill like me? Why does it bother you?" attitude. So, therefore, anyone who cares more than you is automatically at a disadvantage in your mind. . . and will eventually just be told "you have SERIOUS issues." And, that's your whole argument. Every time you concede a point (like Greedo), you follow it up with some hippie dismissal: Good for you. You don't care as much. Your entire argument no longer seems directed towards proving me wrong. . . but rather, that I'm just crazy for caring so much. Meanwhile, you love to point out how mellow you are: Here's a tip, Einstein, stop trying to psychoanalyze people via a faceless, "toneless" and anonymous medium while discussing Star Wars Movies. You're not qualified. Further, you might want to stop holding yourself up, rather egotistically, as the preferred alternative. Apparently, anyone who isn't as mellow as you has "SERIOUS issues." You want to call me defensive because you've gradually been calling my very sanity into question in more and more direct rhetoric as this thread has progressed (though it started in the very beginning)? Guilty. What you're doing is slimey and is quite possibly the lowest form of debate (if it can be considered a form at all). Your last post clinched it. If I were you, I'd be ashamed of myself. . . but, well, I doubt you will be. Thanks for helping me kills a few hours at work. . . too bad you ended up just being a troll. . . pushing people's buttons and making personal attacks to see how much you can upset them. Sad really. Especially because I'm completely calm as I write all of this. I don't have to be upset to point these things out. So, "You've failed your highness. . ." Ooops, there I go, quoting Star Wars and being a fanati. . . oops, sarcasm is lost on you. H P.S. I won't be responding, or even looking here again. This thread has lost all merit. If it ever had any to begin with.

Oh sweet merciful God. . . how are you still saying that I admitted this after just saying that you now realize I was kidding (as indicated by question marks and smileys). The fact that you are still saying that I admitted to such, boggles the mind and makes me realize there really is no point in continuing to communicate with you. . . Uh, yeah. It says I didn't like them. Uh, sue me. Your point? Half the time I can't even figure out what you're getting at. . . but here I think you're trying to say: "No no! You're the fanatic! Not me! Not me!" Zero plus zero equal zero, then. I wasn't aware that owning toys as a child constituted research. But okay. . . C) I owned them. Uh, are you even reading anymore before reflexively responding with exactly what I predicted you would say? To wit (This is me from my last post): If you're going to bring something up that I already attempted to interdict, you might want to consider at least making a passing reference to that effort before just saying what I've already attempted to refute. Sad. Just sad. If you don't think there is any change in tone between his early movies and the latter ones. . . wow. But, then again, you think they've all gotten progressively better. So, well, there you are. I think you're kidding yourself and aren't terribly descriminating. But, well, that's your right. Nor have I accused you of doing so. . . again, what's your point? That is debatable despite your earnest assertions to the contrary. He might make better movies, in many people's estimation. Will he be insanely wealthy either way. . . yes. But, that's not his only motivation. No, because there is still a good chance I'll be sitting there. Who knows. But He's already lost a lot in toy, novel, and other merchandise sales from people who feel like me. The point is that his movies don't have to alienate those like me by adding Jar-Jars, puns, and prat-falls. Kids would like it just fine without them. Uh. . . okay. Though how would you know? I'm satisfied with a lot of things. This sandwich I'm having is mighty good right now. LOL. . . off the top of my head, you've used the following words referring to me, not my arguments: hubris fanatic closed-minded dangerous. Some of which you still assert that I adopted for myself even in this very post. . . after you have already admitted that I did so "in jest." It's really mind-boggling. As for the 1/48 thread. When someone is attacking Yamato and their fellow MWers for buying Yamato products, I'll point out the flaws in their arguments and the poor taste in which they're presented. Feel free to point out where I've actually attacked someone personally. And, even if there is a gleam of it in any of my posts, it is in response to people who have made a practice out of attacking Yamato, or other MWers unfairly and personally, while usually using faulty logic or bad assumptions. You can question my debating tactics all you want. I go back, repeat your posts to you nearly word-for-word, and address them. You do no such thing most of the time (at least in any way that is readily apparent). As a matter of fact, you often ignore most of my points or dismiss them with something like: or You can say that as much as you want. . . but all you ever really muster to support why my point of view is illogical is: "Uh, he doesn't owe you anything." Which, of course, I never said he did. I won't even touch the condescending way you like to point out "progress" from views that I never said I even held. Over the last few posts (where this thread has deteriorated rapidly), I have made several comments about how you aren't really making any sense any more. And that is because, truthfully, you aren't being very clear. Yet, I still try to guess at what you're saying and address what I think you are trying to say. I also have pointed out that there is no need for you to start discussing me. If you want to call my responses to those personal comments "personal attacks," that's fine, but they pale in comparison to the words you've chosen to use. The sad thing here, is that I understand your position so well that I can probably illuminate it better than you can yourself. I've read everything you've posted and addressed nearly all of it (rather than just what has been convenient for my point of view). H

Then he must think kids have gotten much dumber. . . which I can believe. And, actually, I don't agree with your premise. Star Wars was intended for teenagers and kids. Gradually, it has lost the teenage appeal and concentrated more directly on kids.

Crap, I thought this had died. I purposefully stopped myself from taking that bait. . . and someone comes along days later and does so. H

Uh, it's not splitting hairs to say that you have the definition completely backwards. How convenient for you that getting something so basically wrong is just "splitting hairs." Uh, actually, I haven't. Not one lick. Other than typing that reviewer's name into google, reading the words "ain't it cool news" and then clicking close. Which brings up an interesting point. . . I'm going on my knowledge of Star Wars from back in the old days. Whereas you constantly say stuff like: "This should be common knowledge. . ." or "Everyone has debated this to death." Wouldn't the fact that you apparently keep so up to speed on this make you the fanatic who spends all of his time reading (and posting) about this stuff? Turnabout is fair play, bud. Again, convenient. There is no smiley the first time. . . the smiley the second time isn't smiling, but rather expressing shock. And, finally, you say you are having fun debating this only because we're talking about movies. Otherwise, I'd be dangerous. So, either write more clearly or stand by what you write. . . Try again? Okay: Ewok Plush Dolls (at least 3 or 4 different ones) Ewok T-Shirts Ewok costumes Ewok TV movies (Two. Funny, I haven't seen any "Jawa Adventure" movies) Ewok bed sheets Ewok umbrella Ewok Cartoon Ewok Cartoon merchandise (Repeat all of above). . . Also, keep in mind that it does not dismiss my argument to say: "Well, there were stormtrooper bed sheets too." Yes, there were. But that doesn't change the fact that it is totally believable that Lucas and his pals thought to themselves: "Ewok Star Wars bedsheets will sell like hotcakes to kids!" Well, again, Lucas says that it was the "technology thing". . . so you can take him at his word or not. But, I'm suprised that a "fanatic" as apparently up-to-speed on all Star Wars debates as you ("The whole wookie/ewok thing has been explored in enough different areas it should be common knowledge.") did not know about this comment from Lucas. Interesting how I went from being ignorant and "dead wrong" to being a fanatic who has done research and that now you may be wrong. What I don't understand is this last bit: That is indecipherable. I'd need to diagram those sentences to make any sense of it. But all I know is that Lucas was under no budgetary constraints for RotJ (he has stated such: "Since I was funding them, the sky was the limit and we could finally do whatever we wanted." (paraphrasing). Further, as I pointed out, having Chewie being able to fly a ship doesn't necessarily mean that all wookies are living in a modern environment. . . so Lucas' assertion on the face of it starts to look shakey. It seems pretty obvious to me, he wanted to put something wretchedly cute in there for the kids. This fits the pattern of his movies becoming more kid-oriented (culminating in Jar-Jar which you actually somehow compare to Threepio). . . and I don't think it is a stretch to point out that he probably had his eye out for merchandising opportunities (which, as everyone knows, is where he has made the lion's share of his money!). Why should he lie? Because he (IMHO) cherishes the myth about him being a visionary genius of filmmaking. Indeed he perpetuates the supporting stories wherever he can (and some are quite dubious). It doesn't make you much like a visionary to say: "I changed it to ewoks because kids will adore them and want to buy ewok crap." Dude, were you a kid at the time? . . . I can't tell you how many ewok backpacks the girls would wear. . . and how many kids were ewoks for Halloween (wearing Lucasfilm licensed masks). A little aside here: I never really addressed this as much as I would like: It is a matter of degrees. Yes, 3PO and R2 provide some comic relief. . . sublte comic relief. Compare that to Jar-Jar. . . and the difference is tremendous. It is that trend/pattern than I am decrying. And, that trend does trace its way through the Indiana Jones films as well (hey, we're talking about them again! Briefly ). To say that there was comedy in the first movie so all the comedy in the later ones is just more of the same. . . well, that's just simplistic. Compare 3PO crying about everyone being crushed in the trash compactor in ANH, and his freakin' Three Stooges impersonation during the factory scene in AotC (old phrase: "Puns are the lowest form of comedy"). But, I really should only need to say one thing to get this point across: Jar-Jar. When Lucas first started making Star Wars movies, he was a young man and still had young man's tastes (fast cars, cool fights, etc.). Then he started making movies "for the kids" and you see the pattern I describe above (and in the original post). Okay, so you weren't referring to that. . . which brings me back to the point of. . . what were you referring to?!? Look, it's becoming painfully apparent now that this isn't going anywhere. . . you're not making any effort anymore to put any cogent thoughts together. Instead, you're (admittedly) just posting stuff to "have fun" with me. So. . . as I said. . . we're done here. Considering you say stuff like: "You want to get started on Midichlorians? I tackled this pretty handily maybe a week or two ago." . . . if you're a "casual fan", then I must just be "vaguely aware" of these new-fangled Star Wars movies. It is interesting that you speak as an authority on all these arguments, and speak about them often (and apparently in different places), and then dismiss everyone else as "fanatics" while you are just a "casual fan." I haven't been to a Star Wars-oriented website in ages. . . whereas you seem like a true fanboy who visits them and engages in debates often. So, which is it? And, if you're no fanatic. . . how can I be one? Oh, wait, I'm sure that, simply by disagreeing with you, I'm a fanatic. . . Hey man, you're the one who has started posting about how I must be "closed-minded" and "dangerous" in other contexts. Meanwhile, your posts have gotten more and more nonsensical and chaotic. It's not "playing the victim" to point out that you are no longer addressing my arguments but are rather trying to discredit the writer (via shadey means I might add). If you can't address the substance and must instead attack the writer. . . we're done here. H

Uh, that's all fine and good. . . but would you feel the same way if your book had formed a large fan community. . . and then you arbitrarily went back and changed the book twenty years later and then said: "There, everything that happened before wasn't really what happened. Oh, and the old one is no longer for sale. Deal with it." You may be within your rights. . . but you'd also be a jerk in a lot of people's eyes. The point is that you already told the story once. And while you may retain "legal" control of the story, that story is now very much a part of the public consciousness. . . in some ways, after twenty years, they own it too (again, not in any legally binding sense). To not take that into account is bad form, IMHO. Obviously, some disagree. . . but that's the way I see it. H

Oooo! Oooo! Where's your evidence! I think you're just coming to conclusions and then rationalizing after the fact! For those humor-challenged among us: That smiley face designates that I'm kidding around. Sadly, this disclaimer now seems necessary. Seriously though. . . that's ludicrous. What about transferring the original prints into digital format would destroy them? After all, they're just being scanned. This smacks of fanboy conspiracy theories. H

First, if you don't see anything wrong with him only caring about he wants (if that is indeed the case), then I can't help you. Why you seem to think it's laudable that he doesn't take the fans wishes into his consideration is beyond me. Uh, I think you have that a bit backwards, my friend. Being objective is taking into account all outside concerns. Only being concerned with your own view is being subjective. Uh, was the question mark and the smiley face there not enough to indicate that I was kidding around and trying to be sef-effacing. Wow. . . this thing is deteriorating rapidly. Uh, what happened to you? Up until now, you've made fairly good points. . . but this just makes no sense. First, there were immediately Ewok plush dolls available. . . including baby ewoks (I know, I had them). Plus the action figures. . . and T-Shirts. But exactly why can't I say that merchandising was one of if not the major motivation in replacing the wookies with ewoks!?! Just how would Lucas have created an Ewok cartoon or made the TV movies without first introducing the ewoks in the movie. Your point makes no sense. Are you seriously saying that Lucas was incapable of planning far enough ahead to put Ewoks in him movie, and then spin off a cartoon series and TV movies to merchandise them?!? How the heck could Lucas introduce the ewoks and get that ball rolling if not in RotJ? Again, It's not even clear what the heck you're talking about here. So, I have to guess. Changing wookies into ewoks was done to save the budget?!? Uh. . . okay, but that directly contradicts what Lucas himself has said. . . I have a distinct recollection of an interview in "From Star Wars to Jedi: The Making of a Saga" which is what I am referring to in that "memory flash" above. He clearly states that it was done because he felt wookies had been shown to be too technologically inclined. . . and he wanted to show the technological empire brought down by nature. So, either you're wrong, or Lucas is lying. . . and from your comments above, you seem to doubt Lucas lies about this sort of thing. Ooookay. . . I think we're done here. . . Looking for evidence? First of all, yet again you're not even clear about what evidence I'm even supposed to be finding. But, hey. . . did it occur to you that I'm not about to start wasting even more of my time looking for evidence in an argument as informal and pointless as this? We're talking about movies here. But, of course, you didn't consider this but rather decided it was time to take things to the gutter. . . I must just be "closed minded" and bring this same level of "close-mindedness" to every argument in which I engage no matter the content. You say quite clearly that I'm closed-minded. . . but are kind enough to say that I'm not quite dangerous as long as we are only talking about movies. How nice of you. Uh. . . way to leap to conclusions and then use them to make personal attacks there bud. Quite open-minded of you. . . especially the part about tying in a joke I made. Very classy. Though, again, I'm guessing because your post is not at all clear, I think you might be referring to the "Lucas had kids" thesis that is all the way back in the first post. As I've said before, the post that started all this was originally published to my own website. . . and was written quickly, spontaneously, and without the benefit of having time to footnote everything according to Strunk & White's Elements of Style. Please note that I state very clearly that all of this is a theory. However, I fail to see why this is a big deal to you. . . I layed out a theory to try to explain the phenomena I have been seeing in Lucas' movies. . . how is that closed-minded? Even if my theory is proven wrong. . . does that mean the pattern that prompted the formation of the theory is incorrect? No, it just means that it is time to try a new theory to explain the pattern. Uh. . .that's how theories work. That's closed-minded? I openly declare that I don't have all the facts. Don't know how much more open I could be. Rationalizing? No. . . theorizing. . . very different things. . . If I were to play your game, I could just say: "Hey, where is your evidence for this?!? Hmmm, you obviously are just the type of person to come to a conclusion and rationalize it later." But, of course, I wouldn't. . . And then of course, you bring out the fanatic comment again. Wow. . . I just don't know what to say. . . if you didn't see that as self-depricating humor, I don't think there's any point in having any more fun with you. . . cuz it ain't fun when someone can't see obvious humor when it is right in front of them. . . but rather uses it in a rather lame attempt to discredit the very person who posted it! I really can't explain this last post of yours. . . have you been drinking? Either way, this last one was almost wholey without merit. . . from getting the meaning of the word "objective" completely backwards. . . to not being at all clear in what you are referring to with your rather vague assertions. . . to taking something I said obviously in jest and then mounting a personal attack with those words. . . twice. Don't know what else to say other than, it was fun. . . but that ending was disappointing. H

Montarvillois's avatar finally loaded. . . and now I'm mesmerized. H

Sounds good to me. Some advice, start the bidding low, (like at $1). . . and let it go up from there. If some parts don't go up, oh well. You don't need them anyways. Just make sure you charge enough for shipping that you don't actually lose money on the gas driving to the Post Office to mail a $1 part. But, I've found that putting a high initial bid on an item will scare off people. . . but once they're in on a low bid, they'll work the bid amount higher until they are well above what you would have initially set as the starting bid. I hope that made sense. Be prepared, however for people calling you a vulture for just trying to get the maximum amount of value out of your parts. I actually usually feel guilty when I don't sell Macross stuff here mano-y-mano. But my last batch, I just needed top-dollar, and so far the most reliable way to do that seems to be to go to Ebay and then post the auctions here in the auctions section. Good Luck! H

In the 1/60 CF case. . . didn't the mass-produced one have a different shade of tan/brown than the TRU Exclusive. Yes, a loophole. . . but it should be noted that they are different (I think). H

Uh, no, just not cut at all. And I don't recall demanding anything (I'm too tired of all this to go back and check if I did, but if I did, I retract it. . . though really, there would be nothing wrong with strongly requesting it). Again, I'm simply expressing dismay at his decisions, which I don't anticipate being reversed. And that's where we disagree. The man has lost his objectivity. He doesn't see them the same way his fans do. . . at least the same way the purist fanatics (me?) do. Look, for me, it comes down to this: He gave us Han Solo as a guy who wasn't quite a "good guy." He was a rogue, he was a scoundrel. He blew Greedo away. . . Then, twenty years later, he retroactively decides that the character we've had for the last twenty years isn't really the guy who would blow Greedo away like that. So he changes it. Sure, add some special effects. Make it look better. But don't go changing the characters and then tell me he was always intended to have been that way. Lucas grew older, got more "sensitive" and then decided that he didn't want the kiddies thinking it was okay to kill someone like Han kills Greedo. So he had to make it more obviously self-defense. When you start to go in and make those sorts of changes to a twenty year old movie, you've lost your prespective and your objectivity. The films are a reflection of their times. They are also a reflection of Lucas at the time. Apparently, he had no problem with the character of Han Solo until much later. Now, he has gone in and --using his beliefs and values of today-- altered something that is supposed to reflect 1977. Should we go back to all the old movies and remove any other references that now seem unpalatable by our present-day standards. Oh, nevermind, Spielberg has already removed all the guns from ET. Wouldn't want kids to actually believe that guns exist in the world! My understanding is that they were going to be wookies. Then it was changed to ewoks. Many believe it was done so that kiddies would buy ewok crap? What, again, am I wrong about? You yourself say: Which is, of course, my point. The ewoks go beyond the pale. The other more subtle things from the prior movies are just that. . . subtle. A kid can love them, but they aren't so obviously child-centric as to put off the adults. But very few adults can watch the ewoks now without wanting to wretch. So, I'm not exactly clear where I'm "dead wrong". . . did I say they weren't there in ealier scripts? Lucas can say they were in there to provide a "nature vs technology" theme as much as he wants. But, if that were the case, wookies would have worked just fine. If I'm not mistaken, he said that he went with ewoks because wookies had already been done. . . or something. (edit: Memory flash: He said that wookies had been shown to be too modern to serve the story's purpose. . . which I don't buy. You can take a non-modern person (Chewbacca) off an island with a primitive culture and teach them how to fly a jetliner. But that doesn't mean that, when you return to the island, all of the people he left behind are suddenly flying jetliners.end edit) Sorry, but I believe the ewoks were put in because they are cute. Wretchedly, wretchedly cute. . . and can do things children will love like slinging themselves in the face more easily than wookies. Lucas can spin the reasons behind their introduction into the movie as much as he wants. . . but after the "Greedo always fired first" BS and all his other self-aggrandizing distortions, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe him. But, again, I'm not exactly sure where I'm "dead wrong". . . I said they weren't side-kicks. . . and are there primarily to be cute. They also serve a different role in the narrative than Short-Round. I stand by that. H

Maybe you can take the valk apart and sell its parts piecemeal? You'd probably get more than the valk is worth as a whole. Then you can buy a new one. With Yamato not offering parts, there is quite a market for Valk parts. . . which would of course plummet if Yamato started offering them. Someone made quite a lot of money selling Yamato parts on Ebay quite a while back. H

Keep in mind that the price for that head was only that high because Yamato doesn't sell them. That's not the same thing as saying that Yamato could make $50 per head. H

Yeah Legato! Your lack of intellect is readily apparent! H

Well, I'd posit that you were reading into it wrongly. . . At no point do I say that Lucas is obligated to do anything. That doesn't mean I can't think he's a jerk for releasing them as SE, releasing them together with the Wizard of Oz. . . or not releasing them at all. How am I backing off? And how does the question of "my kids" enter into Lucas being obligated? I'm becoming more and more lost. Again, I'm saying I would like my kids to see the original releases on decent quality material in 20 years. Lucas disagrees. I disagree with him, vehemently. There is no obligation. And I never said there was. It's his word (vision), not mine. And to say that a director or even producer doesn't have a vision of a project that he then labors to put on the screen. . . well, I'm not sure what's so funny about that to you. It's the way it works. Been through this. The key word in my tirade against the Yamato haters is that they feel "entitled" to things that never existed. While I do not feel "entitled" to the original release of Star Wars on DVD, I do feel like choice is nearly always the right decision. Lucas is removing that choice because he wants to pretend that the older ones don't exist. In other words, people feel Yamato is obligated to make the valks they want. . . I don't feel Lucas is obligated to release the originals on DVD and later media. Though I think good taste, loyalty to his films, loyalty to the filmmaking community, loyalty to film history, and concern for what his audience wants should possibly make him feel obligated. But that's a different issue. He doesn't owe anything to me personally. . . And. . . all this plays into the other reasons I positively loathe the man. Which I think I covered rather extensively in my intemperate rant above. The lying ("I always intended Greedo to fire first. . .") gets to me the most though. No, I can't prove he's lying. I don't know for sure what he always intended. But common sense should play a role here. But, really, it all just comes dows to this: I don't even think he should have screwed with his movies that extensively twenty years after the fact. But, as long as we'll have the originals to watch in the future, that's forgivable (though still annoying because it just complicates things). Now, not only are things complicated, but he's dictating which movies we'll be able to watch in the future. And please spare me the "he's not confiscating them" stuff. Tell you what, if you still have a watchable VHS tape of Star Wars in 20-30 years, I'll buy you a coke. But I doubt I'll be doing so. . . Regarding Ewoks. First, they weren't side-kicks, placed alongside the hero to provide a child-like or outsider view of the hero(s). They were simply there to be cute. . . which is a totally different concept. Though, both are designed to appeal to kids. Further, I didn't need ewoks in order to love RotJ when I was a kid. You can make a movie that kids will love, and adults will love as well. Yaknow, like the first two Star Wars?!? Putting obviously kid-centric crap (as Lucas does more and more) into a series of movies not previously known for that is, in my opinion, a bad decision for just the reason you stated. Sure, you love the movie as a kid. . . but it wears off as you get older. The first two movies, which didn't utilize this cheap trick, don't suffer from that problem IMHO. H

My mistake. You did write Max. Apologies. Obviously, there is no hypocrisy in you buying a Max since they have the improvements. Though, I am suprised that you'll buy from Yamato at all considering your very hostile feelings towards them. I assumed you were trying to make the point that you can still buy a Hikaru 1A. . . since it followed so closely upon you asserting such. Still. . . I stand by the fact that the Hikaru 1A is sold out. Can a supplier buy more of them from Yamato? No. Can anyone (especially in the US) find one easily at the normal outlets? No. The only person I've seen selling them reliably is tisinc.com. As for you "multiple independent sources in Japan (yes, I have friends there)", how can we know about them if this is the first time you've mentioned them? You referred to sources, not stating that they were your own. . . just an oblique and vague reference (which, of course, they still are). And, in case you hadn't noticed, my tongue was firmly in my cheek as I made the Rob comment. That's sorta what smiley faces mean. Again, they are re-issuing it because it sold out. Again, deal with it. As for my intellect. You're right, mis-reading something shows a total lack of intellect. Man, over-reaching a bit? For the record, pointing out flaws in someone's argument/logic and attacking their intellect are two very different things. One is a personal attack. One isn't. One actual requires forming a decent argument. The other doesn't. It's laughable that you seem to think playing "gotcha" with a human error on my part somehow vindicates you and shows a "lack of intellect" on my part. What's next? Are you going to start jumping all over typos!?! Of course, I'm clearly unable to read. Your "aspersions bandwagon" comment wouldn't be so hollow if you weren't so prone to doing so yourself. H

While I respect Rob, I'm not sure him saying the same thing twice constitutes multiple sources. The fact is, while certain retailers may still have some Hikaru 1As "languishing" (everyone's new favorite word) around, the retailers cannot purchase any more from Yamato because they are indeed sold out until the re-release. Dude, they wouldn't be re-releasing it if it hadn't sold well. Deal with it. As for you picking up another Hikaru 1A after bitching and moaning about its quality problems. . . that is just priceless. Especially after you complained so loudly (there, here, and elsewhere) that they were releasing an improved version and "sticking" you with the old one. You couldn't wait a few more weeks or a month or two to get a better nose cone, flaps, arm flexibility, and generally better QC overall?!? I assume the skulls won't matter if you're customizing. But geez, all that whining. . . then you go buy another of the one you've been primarily complaining about all this time. . . Not a whole lot of credibility there in my humble opinion. . . Can't wait for you to start complaining that Yamato has now stuck you with two faulty VF-1As. . . and the tragedy/horror/unfairness of it all that there will be improved ones. . . H P.S. If you know of a place to get Hikarus for $100, you should really share that knowledge!

Shortround IS a comic relief in TOD, also a way for the younger viewers to relate with the adventure, as long you were over 13 that is. Something I always despised in TV and film. It's so condescending to kids. "Hey kids, we know you can't possibly relate to adult problems and situations. . . so here's Orko/Spike/Snarf/Wendy&Marvin&Wondermut/Zan&Jana&Gleek. . ." Even as a young kid, I'd be thinking: "Dude, get rid of Orko. That's just lame." H

Where? Again, where? I'm saying that Lucas is a fool and a jerk for not providing them. In no way do I feel he is obligated to do so. And and no point did I say he is. . . so I wonder exactly what you have been reading. . . In my opinion, if he respected his fans of the last twenty years, he'd release the originals along with the Special Edition. I'm sure you'll concede that there are tons of people who would rather own the originals. . . or possibly even both. But, he just wants to eradicate the old stuff and pretend it doesn't exist. H

Wow. . . glad you're not dismissive or anything. I guess we view movies differently. I view them as art (at least the better ones). I view them as parts of our culture (especially pop culture). Should MichaelAngelo be brought back to life, would he have the right to demolish the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Would it be acceptable for him to smash up the Pieta (not that he didn't already mangle it by writing his name across her sash). Not that I would ever put Lucas and MA in the same class. . . even remotely. But the concept is similar. But, well, why you don't think it's appropriate for someone to point out the shame of losing the originals is beyond me. . . When an artist goes off his rocker, he may have the legal right to go back and mangle his earlier works. . . but that doesn't make it right. . . and I'd damn well expect people to complain about it. Which is what I'm doing. . . H