Don't forget, for Episode 4, his (now ex-)wife helped edit the original script. With the Prequels, he didn't get any kind of criticism whatsoever.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
It's not just that. Take a look at Lucas's first big movie, THX-1138. How many lines were spoken in that move?
Lucas is all about visuals, and that's it. If he'd realize that and confine himself to that, he could make a great visual art director in a big-budget movie.
No, 4-6 were good popcorn movies. They weren't high art by any means, but they were far better than the Prequels which were trash. The reason is simple: in 4-6, other people were able to cover for George's inability. The prequels suffered for bad direction and horrible dialog (/script). In 4, his (now ex-)wife edited the script. If it weren't for her, 4 would have the same utterly horrible dialog as the prequels, and 5 and 6 might not have happened. George was also a better director back then, because his ego wasn't as big. 5 was great because it had different writers (Brackett/Kasdan) and a different director (Kershner). 6 was OK because it too had a different writer (Kasdan/Lucas) and a different director (Marquand).
With the Prequels, Lucas did everything, and no one wanted to say anything to him because his ego was so big and he had put himself in charge of everything, so the results are predictably bad. Lucas was never much good at writing a script or even directing actors, but he refuses to admit it.
Natalie Portman and (by most accounts) Hayden Christenson are actually good actors, but you wouldn't know it from the Star Wars prequels. When you have direction that lousy and a script/dialog that lousy, even the most talented actor is going to look bad. According to TFS, Portman even complained that after the Prequels, everyone thought she was a bad actress.
You can't judge an actor by a single movie. Cruise really is a good actor, that's one reason he's had such a long career. Too bad he's also badshit insane with that Scientology crap.
Schwarzenegger can't act but was perfect in the role of an emotionless machine that can't act.
Schwarzenegger was a good fit for several of his parts only because of his body, nothing else. His thick Austrian accent (esp. on a time-traveling robot) didn't exactly add to the realism.
From what I've seen in recent years on TV and in Hollywood movies, getting a part seems to require not so much talent, but a LOT of $$$ for dental work. Getting all your teeth re-capped and made perfectly shaped and white like that isn't cheap. And you'll need that to get any major part on even a low-budget TV show.
Pay attention when you're watching some TV show at the actors' teeth. Then look around you at the teeth on everyone you know.
What they don't realize is that Firefox was created to "take back the web" from the stagnating Internet Explorer 6. It was never about replacing IE as some overbearing dominant beast.
The problem is that it still ended up with an overbearing dominant beast, just a different one - Chrome (or rather WebKit/Blink, but Chrome is the lion's share of that). The good part is that we're still in the stage where stagnation is not a thing yet. The bad part is that it could change literally overnight.
If you know of grammar errors or other writing problems / errors on my page(s), I will be delighted to fix them, and also to learn how to do better. Because doing the best one can is important. Better to strive to paint like an actual painter than to be satisfied with finger-painting like an addled child. So fire away.
They have the talent to be better then most movie stars, but that's really common in LA.
I don't believe it. I believe they think they are more talented than movie stars, but that thinking is common in LA. It's the actor version of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
I don't know who the 'real right wingers' are, but I suspect it's a specimen of the same sort as the True Scotsman. What I know is that the people whom most everybody, including themselves, and who number in the millions, worship the military and the police.
The room of litigation is always there, obviously. But how can the language be worse than the default, unless it somehow explicitly overrides and rescinds some provisions of the original license under which the code is released?
If true, the next obvious question: can the same be done to GPL(v2)?
So modern medicine should go back to the more complex approaches that alternative healthcare has developed over dozens of hundreds of years?
That makes sense.
But none of it is patentable, so fat chance that anyone is going to be funded for the oh-so-necessary clinical trials.
I have several teapots in my cupboard, which I am fairly certain is currently orbiting the sun.
Russell made more stipulations than that of course.
I'm holding out for the gold-pressed latinum age.
I remember that TOS was so cool because it was showing what the world could be like if we somehow were able to get past the major crises of that day. Which were (in descending order of impact on a white middle class male teen): 1) women entrusted with chain of command positions; 2) tolerance of the rights of people who did not look like everyone in my home town; 3) resolving major disagreements with foreigners without throwing nukes around.
How could Star Trek be relevant today like it was back then? I can't imagine a Star Trek episode with Spock and Kirk, or even Data and Picard, dealing rationally with terrorism.
TOS and TNG were fantastically great myths born of that age. But that age is now in our history, and today's problems of terrorism, ecological brinksmanship, and the 99% vs the 1% do not lend themselves to the same kind of myth making.