I could have sworn the Galactic Republic canon was established long before that by the extended universe of book and video games, especially since the prequels barely touched on the SW history outside of Anakin and Obi-Wan's past...
@Frazzleberry: does it need to be funny to be engaging?
@A.Jaswal: OK, so you think there should be no age restriction at all?
Explain yourself: with no restriction, this means you're cool with pedophilia? It's ok with you for adults to have sex with kids as long as it's consensual?
Explain yourself: with no restriction, this means you're cool with pedophilia? It's ok with you for adults to have sex with kids as long as it's consensual?
@A.Jaswal: For many people, there is no difference. It's not like people wake up on their 18th birthday suddenly world-wise. In fact, there's no sudden change in maturity based on a specific change in age. Nobody is arguing that.
The fact remains that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Would you have 30 year-olds having sex with 12 year-olds? How about 25 and 15? What about 25 and 45?
That last one most people are totally cool with, mainly because maturity is relative but at a certain point people reach a relative maximum that we as a society agree is somewhere in the range of 18-25.
Now, to the heart of the matter that you so blatantly ignore: If 18 is an unacceptable age at which to establish a socio-sexual normative boundary, then what age is? If you do not answer that question, then you admit you have no solution.
The fact remains that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Would you have 30 year-olds having sex with 12 year-olds? How about 25 and 15? What about 25 and 45?
That last one most people are totally cool with, mainly because maturity is relative but at a certain point people reach a relative maximum that we as a society agree is somewhere in the range of 18-25.
Now, to the heart of the matter that you so blatantly ignore: If 18 is an unacceptable age at which to establish a socio-sexual normative boundary, then what age is? If you do not answer that question, then you admit you have no solution.
@A.Jaswal: The fact that you can't comprehend this is a sure sign of your ignorance. YES, age is MOSTLY irrelevant. We all can agree on that. However, maturity is related to age, experience, and upbringing. Maturity is what should determine age of consent, but since there is no way to definitively test maturity, we have to use the next best thing, AGE. 18 is widely accepted as an average at at which most people have gained enough maturity to make wise choices. Damn you're thick.
@A.Jaswal: So answer the question, at what age would YOU draw the line, and WHY? If you can't answer that question with a logical solution that is better than the current system, then your whole point is moot.
@SkipErnst: He won't answer, most likely. People like him don't understand boundaries and the need to set them.
YES!!!!!!!
so, not for north america?
In the graphic about SC: A Global Phenomenon, it lists SC2 in the second paragraph when it should say SC1.
@miquonranger03: I feel that, only 5 XBL friends and they're all friends from real life.
SC2 beta is back online! I just logged in, but not enough people to play ladder 1v1 yet.
#speakup
#speakup
@CommentingpointlesslyisMeh: Ah, gotcha
@Gimmi Mørgäikkönën: now for his sake i hope one of the girls downstairs looks like amy reid cause apparently hes got a thing for her.
@CommentingpointlesslyisMeh: is it really stealing if they give their consent? also, why is he a loser for looking at porn? just curious is all.
@biggreencleanmachine: enjoy trolling from your broken mobile devices.
@Unsub: WTF do you get this semantics from? I'm 'selling it short' because my experience, as so many other peoples', was bad. This is my opinion of the movie, which is quite different from your opinion, but that's possible because opinions are subjective. But why is my opinion weird? Is it just because it's different from your own? Good lord, man, I thought the movie was awful because I have a very extensive history of seeing movies that range from bad to good, in my opinion, and I am the foremost critic on what my opinion likes and thinks is good. How is this a weird personal reason?
Gahhhhh, you just made my brain esplode.
Gahhhhh, you just made my brain esplode.
@Unsub: 1. Waterworld had rouhgly 80 mil profit off of the 260 mil gross that i wrote about.
2. Avatar had only roughly 1.7 billion profit off of 2.7 billion gross.
3. I'm not mocking avatar based on how much it made but how much it sucked.
4. I did not say throwing money ensured success, just a decent return.
Please read what I write.
2. Avatar had only roughly 1.7 billion profit off of 2.7 billion gross.
3. I'm not mocking avatar based on how much it made but how much it sucked.
4. I did not say throwing money ensured success, just a decent return.
Please read what I write.
@Unsub: Waterworld cost roughly $175 million, made $260 million in ticket sales and another orughly $40 million in rentals, so I would hardly call that movie making a loss.
@Unsub: No, I don't have an IMax near me so it was in a regular theater. If that is really what makes the difference then we are no longer talking about a cinematic experience.
The reported budget is still very uncomfirmed with sources reporting anywhere between $237 million to $500 million being spent on the production. The actual budget needs to include the cost of producing this 'new technology', so let's assume it was $500. With a very impressive worldwide gross of $2.7 Billion, that's a profit of at least 420%. Some sites even claim the actual budget for the film making was only $237 million, but the total costs associated with it including tech and advertising amounted to nearly $1 billion, making for a true profit of only 1.7 bil.
In comparison, paranormal activity was made for $15,000 (that's fifteen thousand) and made nearly $200,000,000. Super Size Me cost $65,000 and made nearly $30,000,000. Star Wars: A New Hope was made using the old technologies of miniature models, mirrors, and painting on film cells to create what I still consider to be amazing visuals for only$11,000,000 and it had a worldwide gross of $797,000,000.
I'm sorry to be throwing all these numbers at you, but the fact of the matter is that Avatar doesn't even make the top 20 for return on investment, so the title of highest grossing film doesn't mean crap to me. Like @JediMasta, I agree that Blade Runner was an amazing looking film. Ridley Scott used his past as an advertising exec to truly identify and create a futuristic world that felt completely real. I'm sorry to say that I did not feel that way about Pandora because I felt it was a poorly developed Edgar Rice Burroughs clone filled with unexplained phenomena that were contrary to the plot itself.
Sorry again for this long-windedness, but let me summarize for you all: No I didn't see it in IMax, yes it made a ton of money in terms of box-office gross, no it did not make that much profit, any movie that has so much money thrown into it is going to do decently, and lastly, as we mostly all agree on, it was a shitty movie.
Any questions I'll be happy to answer.
(Edited because I mispelled JediMasta's name)
The reported budget is still very uncomfirmed with sources reporting anywhere between $237 million to $500 million being spent on the production. The actual budget needs to include the cost of producing this 'new technology', so let's assume it was $500. With a very impressive worldwide gross of $2.7 Billion, that's a profit of at least 420%. Some sites even claim the actual budget for the film making was only $237 million, but the total costs associated with it including tech and advertising amounted to nearly $1 billion, making for a true profit of only 1.7 bil.
In comparison, paranormal activity was made for $15,000 (that's fifteen thousand) and made nearly $200,000,000. Super Size Me cost $65,000 and made nearly $30,000,000. Star Wars: A New Hope was made using the old technologies of miniature models, mirrors, and painting on film cells to create what I still consider to be amazing visuals for only$11,000,000 and it had a worldwide gross of $797,000,000.
I'm sorry to be throwing all these numbers at you, but the fact of the matter is that Avatar doesn't even make the top 20 for return on investment, so the title of highest grossing film doesn't mean crap to me. Like @JediMasta, I agree that Blade Runner was an amazing looking film. Ridley Scott used his past as an advertising exec to truly identify and create a futuristic world that felt completely real. I'm sorry to say that I did not feel that way about Pandora because I felt it was a poorly developed Edgar Rice Burroughs clone filled with unexplained phenomena that were contrary to the plot itself.
Sorry again for this long-windedness, but let me summarize for you all: No I didn't see it in IMax, yes it made a ton of money in terms of box-office gross, no it did not make that much profit, any movie that has so much money thrown into it is going to do decently, and lastly, as we mostly all agree on, it was a shitty movie.
Any questions I'll be happy to answer.
(Edited because I mispelled JediMasta's name)
