Well I'm in my early 40s, old enough to know better but still young enough not to give a hoot either way, lol.

GRUMP GROWL GRUMETY GRUMP Grrrrr, LMAO :lol: :lol: :lol:.

 Qoute:"I can live with the changes they've made to the mythos, but if the comic books can change stuff all the time, why not the TV shows", Unqoute.

Ok so what's this thing about change that everybody loves so much? No really?
People seem to absolutely love having the freaking rug pulled out from under them on a constant basis by idiots with societal attention deficit disorder who have no sense of long term attention span - and have to gear up everything in their lives all over again - almost weekly.

When society has a collective nervous breakdown because everybodie's getting all of this precious "change" shoved down their throats at machine gun rapid fire frequency (and the symptoms are indeed boiling up), I'm gonna laugh my stinkin arse off at the whole of them and come down with a real bad case of the screaming "I TOLD YOU SO"s! lol.

You say "Why can't things change all the time", I say "Why in the heck should they have to?"

I agree fibbits. The "NEW" writing style that your referring to is to be "wishy washy" - to "ride the fence" - to "go with the flow".

For some reason writers are allergic to the solid "good guy versus bad guy / hero vs. villian" formula. They believe that it's unbelievable and that a clear cut good vs. evil struggle does reflect believable reality. So exactly what in the hell have we been going through since 911 anyway? An actual struggle of good versus evil - or a little "I'm Ok - Your Ok, just misunderstood" tiff? I DON'T THINK SO! Tell our young men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that solid heroes are a myth! THEY ARE SOLID HEROES!

Also, I am really getting tired of this "living in the gray area" mentality that writers have anymore.
YES - a lot of things in life DO fall into gray areas - but they are different shades of grey - some leaning more towards the dark and others toward the light. You might say that a totally black and white position does not exist, but in doing so you must also come to terms with the fact that niether does absolute ambiguity.

From the relativistic perspective - mathematically - if your moral bent is over 50% towards the dark side - your generally a bad guy. If it's over 50% towards the light, then your generally a good guy, but NOBODY is exactly 50 / 50. Your still on divided ends of the ethical spectrum.
I'm sure even Hitler had one or two things in common with Winston Churchill, but they were still the antipathy of one another - and that was a static condition.

It's bologney to say that there is no right or wrong, good versus evil, etc., and that writers shouldn't even go there. As a result of this prolonged exahltation of the "anti-heroe" fence rider character formula (which is MY GOD SO OLD AND TIRED), you do not have a more open, "sophisticated" audience - but a more hardened, SYNICAL audience - because they've been spoon fed dog poop for so long that they now prefer it over a well planned meal.

Actually Faeries ARE aerodynamically unstable since they bend at the waist like humans and their wings are typically to thin to sustain lift for their mass, LMAO!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:.

Ok - your right - it all boils down to emotional impact, and emotional impact is directly proportional to believability - hence - OLD RAIDER cool and believeable - NEW RAIDER cheezy and fakey. DA DINNNNGGGGGGGG!!!!!! LMAO!

Well - I didn't say that I HATED the new Raider design - I just think the one on the left looks a lot more reasonable to me. It seems to make more technical sense. Besides - the engine arrangement on the original beats the crap out of the new one HANDS DOWN - you talk about sleek - two big twin turbo thrusters mounted on a low profile, low manifold manta chassis - COOLNESS!

I personally prefer the concept of a three man fighter over a limited function drone anyway because not only do you have a good multipurpose-multioperational fighter, but also a transport for a tight, deployable three troop sqaud for ground operations, not to mention the accessory cargo capacity the old one might've had. The Predator that we have now is great for reconn or launching a missle or two, but that's about it. It's like comparing a really awsome flying tank to a reconn drone. Apples and Oranges.

The old design is also much more compact, much more ergonomical and economical to stow in a hanger bay, and probably a lot more deployable with less support service commitment.

I never watched "Lost" - I was too sophisticated for that - lmao :lol: .

Agreed Geoegress!
If I can't focus on a story all the way through - I'll hang it up - no matter how glitzy the presentation (or how depressing and dismal as with today's shows). Trying to watch and follow the shows they're trying to pass off nowadays is like trying to switch rollercoasters in the middle of the ride. FORGET THAT NOISE!!!

Thank you Bobby!!!

Ok David - thanks.

Wow - I have a presario with only 2 gig RAM and a 500 gig HDD. Boy do I feel impotent right about now, :lol: .

I'll use windows notepad because I'm a creature of habit and I'm used to it - thank you David, that was certainly helpful.

Yes Kaibach - the new "The Fly" WAS absolutely excellent - primarily because it made for an even more disturbing and horrifieing viewing, but the new version of "The Fly" actually stayed true to the essential core elements of the original (those that were germain to the emotional effect of the film).   I loved the new fly remake - but I missed the scene in the original 1950's version where Vincent Price's character sees the tiny fly with a human head and arm struggling in a spider's web outside the scientist's mansion in his garden - screaming "help me" as the spider closed in for the kill, and finally moaning in agony as the spider sank it's fangs into him. Then - Price mercifully pick's up a huge rock and smashes them both with it.

That was a moment of shear cold chills that STILL has major league effect today when you watch the original. It was simply not covered in the remake - and would've made for a fascinating dichotomy. You can remake something until your blue in the face, and you might make a halfway decent show or film of it - but you can never recapture the flavor of the original,
and more often than not - originals do outshine their remade translations.

All EXCELLENT points hborre. HOWEVER I don't think being depressingly over "Gothified" , and constantly launching convoluted sub plot assaults on your audience necessarily translates to "sophistication". The "new" generation is not necessarily more sophisticated than the one that proceeded it - they just have different tastes.

I actually didn't feel like I was being treated as a "mindless imbecile" watching the original, I actually had fun watching it. It was escapist, interesting, visually cool, and didn't have to resort to the absolute baser lower common denominators to entertain. True - it was at at times silly, cheezy, and even absurd - which is one of the things that made it fun. It also had wider family appeal.

It actually had the same ambience as the original AND the newer STAR WARS flicks (which is one of the reasons why George Lucas AND Twentieth Century Fox sued the bajeezus out of Universal over it). It had an operatic feel that was just hip. The original I BELIEVE had a longer running time than the new one (I'll have to check - buit I'm pretty sure about that one).

Ok - what if I create a new UV MAPPED .obj - and I give it the exact name as the old .obj file I want to replace. I store the NEW .obj in a desktop folder somewhere - go and delete the old file from the runtime for the figure - and just stick the new file with the exact same name back in the runtime? would I still have to even mess with the CR2 at all?