Wolf04

Glad there are FBTB members here so they can actually read. And yes I make a lot of useless posts because I have no life and I feel like writing useless posts. [end sarcasm] Anyways, I'm assuming the Slave I is the original, green one and not the blue one from EP2. And what's up with the V-Wing? I don't remember a V-Wing from the movies.

Ha, check this post out from fbtb.net: --------------------- "Wrong. Go back 2 or 3 years & we were having fake claims of new sets just about every other week. Sure, they've been less frequent recently, but that doesn't prove this to be true. And guess what, people are allowed to have opinions. Rolling Eyes Ian. PS if you continue to insist this is genuine, then I or one of the other MODs/Admins will be forced to take action. Your choice" --------------------- Thank goodness for Eurobricks. I doubt they're fake because as people said, sam said they're real and I believe him. Sam, don't worry about those idiots, let them be in their arrogant ways. Can't wait for pictures. I have one question though, why are there so many OT sets but no more EP1 or II sets?

Because if you would have paid attention, these sets are ONLY for North American right now.

I love that site. Been going to it for years. Quality pictures.

I got a version of War of the Worlds, this one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/ It came out earlier this month and since it's made by a small company, I heard it's pretty cheesy. I'll watch it tomorrow and I am planning to watch the Spielberg version on Thursday with friends after we pick up reports but I'm not sure yet. This cheesy version is actually much closer to the novel than the Spielberg version as it is set in the past and not in the present. As a note, Spielberg's version only uses the main idea for the movie but it is VERY different.

It would be so funny if what LEGO showed the group are just MOCs and what was told was actually fake. Oh, that would be jokes.

Final PS3 more powerful than E3 demo? [uPDATE] Japanese site says final Cell CPU will run 25 percent faster than demo machine; first PS3 dev kit spotted. Back at Sony's PlayStation 3 presentation at E3, the company and its publishers showed off a number of demos and presentations, some of which were running in real time on a developer's prototype machine. Naturally, one of the questions that was raised by the audience was whether the actual console--which hits stores in spring 2006--would be able to run its games with as much graphical integrity. The answer is yes, according to Web site ITmedia, which reports that the finalized PS3 will be exceedingly more powerful than its current developer's machine. [uPDATE] ITmedia revealed that the Cell chip used in Sony's PS3 developer's kit is running at only 2.4GHz, just 75 percent of the machine's final spec of 3.2GHz. The report also reconfirms that the graphics processor unit used in the E3 machine was not the RSX chip that will be used in the final product but is another Nvidia GPU, possibly the just-announced GeForce 7800 GTX. The article also appears to be the source of an unconfirmed (but convincing) image of a PlayStation 3 dev kit, the first such picture to be made public. While the exact technical specifications of the GPU remain a secret, ITmedia reports that it uses the PCI Express bus instead of the PS3's Redwood bus interface licensed from Rambus. Check: http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/22/ne...ws_6128031.html for the picture and more information.

*Cough*Really old*Cough* *Cough*NOT new SW series*Cough* >:(

Please, I don't want to start another flame war on the crappy you-know-what LEGO line.

For disappearing, well exams are in one week (I have 2 in exactly 1 week) and no offense to the Eurobricks admins but the forum is kind of boring but I still stop by once in a while to check out news and report any new stuff. As for Daniel Logan approaching Harrison Ford, well maybe Han Solo may be seen in the series. Since it deals with side characters, we may see the creation of the MF and how Han Solo came about.

Boba Fett in Star Wars TV Series? Source: USA Today June 13, 2005 USA Today got a hint from George Lucas at his AFI lifetime achievement award gala about the new live-action "Star Wars" TV series. The series is expected to take place sometime between "Episode III" and "Episode IV". Ford was approached by Daniel Logan, 18, who played young Boba Fett in Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Lucas said Logan's character may be included in his live-action Star Wars TV series, which is in the works. IESB.net also chatted with Lucas who said they are getting ready to go on the 3D half-hour version of the Clone Wars animated series is. "The live action will be, you know, a year or two later," he added. Asked if we're going to see some back stories, like Knights of the Old Republic, in the series, Lucas said, "there is a possibility of that, but not in this series. You know, there's a possibility of more series if these work."

Sounds a lot like me. I've got all the seasons of Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, The Simpsons, Joey, Top Gear and a few more. If you know how to look, you'll easily find the right stuff. I've got all the above stuff in very good quality, HDTV-rips. I also came across a Star Wars EP3 Dvd-rip. I've seen the movie in theaters but it's so good that I decided to download it until the real DVD comes out.

Oh, I think I need a new pair of pants...I just wet my pants because of excitement. Looks good, much better than I thought.

Ah, can finally see it. I don't know why you people are worrying about. Have any of you even seen the ship in the movie? Maybe this is how it's supposed to look like.

I don't see anything, just "User posted image".

I've had this movie for a while and still didn't get time to watch it. What is it about?

Why did Padme die? Medically she was fine she just lost the will to live? WTF??? (I guess this accronym won't make the glossary) how can someone medically fine lose the will to live and just die? Ok, so she lost Anakin to the dark side fair enough. But she thought there was still some good in him. Wasn't that enough for her to keep going in hope that he could be turned back. Lame... Lame... Very lame death... Lamest death in the whole Star Wars saga. Had Anakin accidentally caused her death that would have been more justified. But her just dying because she felt like it is ridiculous. Yeah, I almost laughed. She died of a "Broken Heart" :'( ;) (she actually says "Anakin, your breaking my heart!") Quick English lesson It's "you're breaking my heart" (you're from you are, your is used to imply that something is owned by someone, e.g. your car)

But you have to admit, he's got a great imagination. I mean Star Wars? Who would have thought of that? The TV show will be between EPIII and EPIV and he said it will be based on minor characters but who? All the Jedis are dead, all that's left is Yoda and Ben and they're "separated". Maybe we'll see young Leia and Luke?

That's why you always sit at the back. Whenever I go see a movie, I sit as far from the screen as possible. It's more enjoyable.

Yeah, that's what the robot says, she lost the will to live but I still think she died because Anakin strangled her. Well the thing is, after Anakin did strangle her, she probably gave up and decided life is meaningless. The end was really sad and even though I know what eventually happens in the next movies, it was still sad to see the universe become corrupt and everything just falling apart. That had the biggest impact on me.

I would like to express my views on the movie since I've just seen it and it's fresh in my mind. BEWARE: MAJOR SPOILERS! This movie is easily the best of the prequels and it is a movie worthy of its Star Wars name. If you haven't seen it yet, go watch it because for me, it's the best 10 bux I've spent. I'll talk about the flaws first. One of the biggest flaws is progression. I agree, everything happened so quickly and Lucas could have easily made this a 3-hour movie. I didn't like how Anakin was lured to the dark side, how he was burned and Grievous' death. At the beginnign of the movie, Anakin seems to be one of the best Jedis but soon after, just with a snap of a finger, he turns evil and against Obi-Wan. There's no connection and growth of character. Also, the way Anakin was burned seemed kind of stupid. I was thinking he would get burned because he made a mistake fighting but just because he was slipping...c'mon. And how was the fire on him estinguished. I mean by the time the fire would be out, his whole body would have been ashes but he wasn't. And why did Obi-Wan suddenly turn against Anakin. I mean, he was like a father and suddenly, I hate you? That made no sense and could someone please tell me why Grievous was coughing??? I've watched Clone Wars and there is no indication of something happening to him. Talking about Grievous, I think he should have had a larger role. The way he fought with 4 lightsabers was amazing and there should have been more of that. Lucas tries at the end to tell the viewers (and it's so obvious because of the robot) that Padme didn't die because she was sick. He didn't have to put the robot to actually say it, which seemed kind of stupid. One of the biggest mistakes is telling that Luke and Leia are Anakin's kids. That just ruins the fun of the older movies if you plan on watching Star Wars as a series from beginning to end. Nonetheless, the movie had more action than the previous prequels and it didn't bore me at all. The special effects were realistic and the lightsaber duels were amazing...especially Grievous. It's ironic that no matter if you see the future, you can't change it. In this case, Anakin thought he could save Padme but it is in fact, him joining the dark side that killed her. The ending was kind of emotional seeing Anakin kill the kids and being ruthless. If only Anakin would have let Mace Windu kill the Sith Lord...I wonder.

You mean Vader?

First of all, I don't need to own a console to be an expert at them. Almost all of my friends have a console and I've played all of them and that is all that is necessary to make an opinion. I'm not even a console fan, computers do it for me, so I really don't care which one is better but the reason I got into this is that Microsoft is a big joke and them making a console is an even bigger joke and I think that Sony makes decent consoles for those who are too poor to afford a computer. It may sound I am being biased against Microsoft but it's true, they make crappy software with security issues and the reason people use it is because they have no choice. On the side note, I don't buy software, so going and buying games is not my thing. I still don't understand how you come to your "magnificent" conclusion that I was being biased. I stated that Microsoft is owned because Microsoft has to experience in consoles. They've just been making programs full of bugs and errors while Sony has been making consoles for at least 10 years. Oh, btw, on the sidenote, obviously I use Microsoft products (Office, Windows) but in no way I do support them by buying them. Ok, since you spend countless hours analyzing and taking everything literal, MOST games for Gamecube are childish and there is one game - that I've played - that is mature, and that's Resident Evil 4. I know for one game that graphics are trully horrible compared to the PS2 and that's NFS Underground. And it's not just that one game, it's more. Maybe, there are a few select that manage to have somewhat good graphics but it's very rare. One of the major problems with Xbox is resolution. If you have a fairly big TV (30'' +), it seems like you're just looking at moving squares, while PS2's resolution is low but not quite as bad as Xbox. The thing is, PS2 was released much earlier than Xbox so obviously, Microsoft had a chance to implement new technologies to make it better but they didn't (it's Microsoft, what do you expect) but what makes you think PS2 does not have better hardware? Is it because it doesn't have a harddrive or is it because they didn't offer the same service as Xbox Live? Now at E3, you might say, Sony sucks because they didn't offer game demos like Microsoft. Guess what, those demos, they weren't run on the X360, they were run on Apple Power Mac G5 systems and the console was there for decorative purposes. And I still think making the console like a computer (by offering more services than gaming) is a bad idea as it is vulnarable to virus and I wouldn't want a console that has XP on it and when playing games, seeing Windows errors. As for the curtesy, well guess what, I'm not some old man who is easily offended. I'm still a kid and while I'm not old enough to get a thesaurus and look for long, complicated words, I am old enough not to act childish and give reasoning for my choice. But you know, I'm not going to eagerly awaiting for any console. Like I've said, I am a computer person and the only reason I got into this is that many people said that X360 will be better, I don't know how and I wanted to see how people react to the PS3. Bottom line is, I don't care if Sony's trailers are pre-made renders but at least they had the guts to shut up and say that their console is not ready, while Microsoft kept on babbling saying that the X360 will be powerful, yet I don't see anything special and using computers to play the demos?

What, you think I'm being biased? I think you should really think hard before starting blabling useless nonsense. I've never owned a console. I've played PS2, Gamecube and Xbox. Gamecube is too childish, Xbox is ugly and most games are poor quality and PS2, well there was nothing special about it either, so as for the next-gen consoles, I compared the consoles and based on the figures, PS3 has the upper-hand, as PS2 had over Xbox. I don't want to repeat myself again as it is pointless since some people cannot carry out a civiliazed conversation.

Exactly, Microsoft doesn't want to worry about previous games because they're all crap.