Brasil

Well, I don't know about that, Shin. On the surface, it's different from what he usually writes, because this piece has an actual grammatical structure and an attention to punctuation. From a technical standpoint, it's like night and day compared to his previous work. From a conceptual standpoint, though, it's exactly like his other material. I see the angst...I see the great offense taken to authority...I see the same kind of reaction to instructorial criticism that his writing has always demonstrated. The tone of this piece is identical to the tone of his previous work, albeit [i]slightly[/i] subdued. But I think even with the effort to conceal that tone, in the end, it still sneaks its way into the piece. Technically, the piece is sharp--and this is ironic, actually, because for all that the piece harps on (essay being cruel), the piece ends up being an essay, [i]especially[/i] when it comes to technique. In fact, the piece is more [i]personal essay[/i] than creative fiction. For as much as the piece preaches getting away from writing essays and developing a more personal literary style, ultimately, it is an essay.

No, not even mad scientists...maybe not even scientists at all. Just regular people who have developed a mood stabilizer that makes everything feel just fine. It doesn't take away the pain; it just makes you not care...and the euphoric feeling is so good that you never want it to go away. And you know...I don't think you even need to have the teens lured there. Teenagers are stupid. They're scatterbrained. They're dense. They're more than capable of finding their way there on their own...all they need to do is stumble across it, after all--and teenagers have stumbling around down to a science. And yeah. Pretty much every type of addiction side effect could be explored in the RPG.

James, I'm not saying The Lost World novel was horrible or anything. It's written extremely well and it's a very entertaining read...once you get past that pesky Lazarus thing, lol. But with that said, I still feel Malcolm's character was arbitrarily changed (novel or film). In the novel, he's pretty mean, and in the film, he's still got a sinister edge to him, but in the sequels, he's a goofy, lovable family man who spends the entire time looking all doe-eyed and acting like a *****, to put it bluntly, lol. He became a caricature (Lost World novel and film) instead of a character who's grown. EDIT: To whoever is bashing the Star Wars Prequels because they say the story is crap, I'll address that later.

Well, Tony, we agree that The Lost World was pretty bad anyway, but novel-to-novel inconsistencies do matter, because while, yes, the first film differed from the first novel, the second film is almost [i]directly[/i] written from the second novel (the set-up is almost [i]identical[/i]), sans a few characters and sequences. In some ways, the second film was truer to the source material than the first was...but the second film's source material directly contradicted the first novel. Malcom is only in JP2 because Chrichton "wrote" him alive. "Only partially dead." (That's a case of "You're a writer. Fix it!" if I ever saw one.) [quote]They're making a sequel to the film, not the book.[/quote] I think that's half-right. They're making a sequel to the [i]film[/i], yes, but they're using the second [i]novel[/i] as the foundation for the sequel (naturally), and the second novel is pretty clearly (at least to me) a case of "You're a writer. Fix it." Chrichton didn't write the screenplay, yes, but he did write the novel the screenplay is based on, so I do consider him responsible for some rather nasty plot holes in the film itself. I mean, there was virtually no change at all in terms of Malcom's situation in Lost World book to movie. Let's not forget that Malcom's character changes almost entirely between the two films (and in the novels as well--ignoring that pesky Lazarus thing). I'm not saying that Goldblum didn't do a good job...far from it. It's just that the character lost all the bite he had before, and he's no longer the edgy sarcastic voice of reason...he's become a whiner, lol, even in the novel. I know I sound like I'm really bashing on Lost World, but while it has some nifty action sequences...it's a haphazard and rushed sequel (both in novel and film form) that was written strictly cause of the green. The Lost World novel's copyright date is 1995. The first Jurassic Park film was released in 1993. The first novel was copyrighted 1990. I don't see those dates as coincidence.

Charles, when you first mentioned this to me in class earlier today, I knew to expect something good, but this is fantastic! I wish I had that Brick Tamland sound byte...:( Anyway, you've surpassed my expectations. You really never disappoint. I enjoy pussy, too. But I'm allergic to cats. ~_^

Yeah, I think in general, the supernatural scaries angle has been played out. What may be a pretty interesting spin on the idea is that instead of [insert generic supernatural creature here], why not make the villains of the story humans? And not even make them a cult or anything. I'm thinking to provide a motivation for the group to stay...how about they've developed a mood enhancer of some type? The pleasing effect of the drug is so good that those who use it can become very addicted very quickly, and can't stand to be without it for an extended period of time. Their bodies start reacting, sometimes violently. And this way, by making the hosts human, and by introducing this addictive substance, you don't need to have gates welded shut...or however they are. I think it's a much stronger plot, too. You can still have the conflicts of members of the group wanting to leave vs wanting to stay, and then work in some real themes there of self-control, willpower, etc. ^_^

Obviously, me being an Atheist means I don't believe in God. I lean more towards evolution because like Tony has said, there are some pretty interesting similarities between man and ape, and I've seen parts/heard of the documentary he's talking about. And regarding the creation myths...somehow, I don't think placing African tribes' creation myths of goddesses coughing up the universe in some massive spontaneous regurgitation next to the Christian creation myth is really going to "tru-ify" the creation myth. If anything, it just eschews it even more. With that said, I'm with elfpirate on this one, honestly. Given where we are today, with what's going on in the world today, and in general, the state of society, I don't think a circular discussion of Evolution vs Creation or Homo Sapiens vs Adam & Eve is really worthwhile. Yes, knowing where we came from is a good idea, but I think trying to figure out what really happened some 150 million years ago isn't exactly going to allow us to understand our lives any better, lol. When I hear the phrases like "if you don't understand the past, you're doomed to repeat it," Evolution vs Creation never crosses my mind. That idea more relates to sociological, political, socioeconomic historical movements more than anything else...I don't think EvC is included at all, so to use that phrase to spurn on a discussion like this is kind of moot, because the phrase doesn't relate to EvC at all. It does relate to religion, but again, its religious roots are tied into sociology and politics.

1) I have freakishly weird nightmares, so your dream isn't all that bizarre. I'd go into my various nocturnal experiences, but I'll spare you, lol. 2) But as a story concept, I'm not feeling it. I think something to do with the whole part about "trapped in a house with vampires around" just colors the idea as a bit tired and cliched. I do like the idea of the protagonists giving up in the end, though. It's unexpected and could be very satisfying in what would otherwise be a cliched concept.

Take Ninjitsu.

I've got the novels around here somewhere...probably buried, heh. I'm pretty sure that in the original novel of Jurassic Park 1, there were some massive character changes, specifically relating to who dies and who lives. It actually directly pertains to the flavoring of the novel, because...Jurassic Park was exceedingly dark. [spoiler]The deaths are testament to this. Hammond (who is very pleasant in the beginning of the novel) just becomes mean-spirited at the end. He decides to take a stroll when the coast is clear, but then a Tyrannosaur bellows and Hammond panics. He slides down a massive hill, twisting his ankle in the process. He tries to get up but can't. His ankle is gone. He hears the roar again, but it's got a different intonation, then a few seconds later, he hears his grandchildren, Lex and Tim, arguing over who gets to play with the soundboard next. He curses them out like nothing else, and this isn't just frustration. This is pure contempt and hatred. He's condemning them for being children, but what he doesn't realize is that he's been treating this park and its "attractions" like his own personal playthings. It's an incredibly ironic bit and really colors Hammond as a bastard.[/spoiler] This is similar to Malcom. [spoiler]Near the end of the novel, when the helicopter is coming to pick up Grant, Ellie, the kids, Muldoon, Gennaro (the lawyer), and one or two other people, Grant asks about Malcom. Muldoon shakes his head. Malcom had suffered severe injuries, which had gotten progressively worse. He'd gotten snippity just from that, but then became even harsher and more vindictive when they loaded him up on Morphine. There are exchanges between Malcom and Ellie/Muldoon/Dr. Harding where Malcom just snaps at them, belittles them, etc. And it's unfortunate that he dies, because he's probably--hell, he [i]is[/i] the sole voice of reason through the entire novel. But then again, given the dark and cynical tone of the novel, the fact that reason dies makes perfect sense. And really, Malcom is probably the best character in the novel, anyway. The other characters don't have the depth that he does, or even just the matter-of-factly observer-type worldview. In some ways, there are trace elements of Heart of Darkness' Marlow here.[/spoiler] In what I think fully cements the dark and cynical nature of Jurassic Park is Gennaro. [spoiler]Gennaro is a lawyer. He lives. Dark and cynical novel? Hell yeah, lol.[/spoiler] You'll find that each of these characterizations is totally reversed in the film. But that doesn't detract from the film...not at all. Jurassic Park still is in my Top 20 of all-time, because it's just so so good. The writing, the performances, the cinematography, the characterization...all solid. It's just that the film and the novel, like most adaptations, are entirely different animals (Chalk it up to genetic engineering gone wrong! hahahhaha! Get it?...nevermind). So...yeah. I think what happened with The Lost World is studio heads approached Chrichton, went, "OMFG liek ur book to movee m4d3 s0 muich that we want u 2 write a sequel!11!! and pleeze put Malcom in it, bekause he was just 2 kool!1!!" [spoiler]"But...Malcom died."[/spoiler] "OMFG ur a writer!1!! Fix it!1!1"

I'd say The Lost World ranks up there. Ignoring the campiness of it, the story behind it was...not totally possible. I'll make this post brief, but let's just say that "You're a writer. Fix it!" played a major part in Lost World's conception, because [spoiler]Hammond dies in JP1, and Malcom does, too (Malcom's death is stated explicitly)--yet Malcom's alive for Lost World.[/spoiler] Such a great way to write in a sequel. :rolleyes:

[color=black][size=2] Ah, Retro, but because she uses the word "Fucktard," what does that say about her character? The word is childish, and a bit ridiculous, like you've said. Why does the word jolt the reader? Why doesn't the reader expect words like that? Because the narrator isn't a child. She's in her early 20s. You can see this by simply analyzing the dynamics of the scene. Her ex is now engaged, and she wasn't aware of that until they mention looking for the wedding registry. Then she sees the ring. How could she not know about the engagement? All it would have taken is a simple phone call, because when you get engaged, you want to tell everyone because you're so excited. ^_^ But she doesn't know. Why? She and her ex haven't talked for a few years. Now, ask yourself why the narration is so choppy and at times, simplistic and childish. Why are there sophomoric words in the piece? Why is her grammar broken and splintered? Because mentally, she?s still a child. She thinks like a little girl. She behaves like a little brat, a spoiled, self-obsessed, narcissistic brat, and one who has no emotional maturity, as evident by the tone and subject matter of narration. All this information is in the piece itself, lol.[/size][/color]

[quote]If two people are legally married, but neither feel [i]any[/i] spiritual bond, is it [b]morally[/b] wrong to cheat on your husband/wife? The legal repercussions are obvious and undeniable.[/quote] Morally? I don't really know, but I don't think that's all that relevant, anyway. But I think adultery (in any form) is a bad idea, simply due to potential health issues (ignoring the hurt, embarrassment, and emotional strain one would cause for their significant other). I remember watching a special on prostitution in the early 1900s, in New York, and how married men would visit the Red Light District and buy a hooker for the evening. Incidentally, that's where the name "hooker" came from. One street in NYC where prostitutes frequented was called Hooker Street. The name just kind of stuck, I guess. But those 15 years or so were the cause of a massive epidemic of STDs, so I think that's probably the biggest reason not to cheat...health issues. Interesting side-note: apparently, the FBI was originally created as a counter to this explosion of prostitution. [quote]If two people consider themselves spiritually married, but are not legally married, is it morally wrong to engage in acts that a legally married couple would engage in? This may be more of a question for people of a faith concerned with chastity/virginity.[/quote] Again, I don't think morality really plays any part here. I think it's an antiquated system of control, a relic from ancient damnation protocols. That said, I don't think [i]rampant[/i] pre-marital loving is a good idea, particularly when those involved are very young, because they have virtually no way of supporting themselves should something break (that is, of course, if they're using something). I've transcribed reports of 14-year-old girls going into their third trimester. Morality aside, it's just sad to see someone so young being burdened with such a dramatic change in her responsibilities. It's not that I'm critical of pre-marital sex...far from it. I'd be a hypocrite if I were to criticize those who have had sex before marriage. But it has to be handled responsibly, and even just from my 3 years as a medical transcriptionist, I can confidently say most of the time, it's not being handled responsibly. [quote]If two people are spiritually married, how do you think a legal marriage would affect the bond between those two people? Personal experiences may be useful, but input from inexperienced people is not unwelcome.[/quote] I don't think it would cheapen that bond, if that's what you're asking. If anything, I think it would just make that bond stronger, because these two people have already connected on a deeper level, and a legal marriage would show that others appreciate that. I think legal marriages would help people feel more secure in their relationship. [quote]Lastly, what is the purpose of legal/spiritual marriage, and what do they mean to you?[/quote] It's like this: Spiritual marriage: promise ring in a ceremony recognized by the two people. Legal marriage: wedding band in a ceremony recognized by others.

And why would I mention that in the first place? Why would I need to? No offense, but it was obvious in the piece itself. The character is obviously a lunatic, who shows a very strange diction at the very beginning of the piece. All you have to do is read it and keep that in mind. That manner of diction in that one paragraph you quoted was exactly the same manner of diction throughout the piece: a fractured, almost incoherent, mean-spirited, rambly, bizarre, outlandish, short, and choppy vitriol. After all, my writing is not so obtuse as to require author's notes at the on-set, and more often than not, not at all.

I'm sorry, but... [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22572&stc=1[/img][/center] Seriously, though. What's the big deal? Who cares if the girl truly likes anime or she's just acting like she does? I just don't see how it's such a major, life-threatening issue. Yeah, it bothers me a bit when people have no idea what in the hell the Terminator Trilogy is really about, and I try to enlighten them, but in the end, if they still don't get it, they're morons, lol, and not worth my time or effort. So...yeah. I don't think it's that big of a deal. Life sucks. Get a helmet.

To clarify, the person that I based the narrator on does speak and type exactly how I've written it. If you knew her--hell, if you read her blog--you'd find that each and every piece of narration I've written is based on her writing/speaking style. Some parts sound odd because that's how she speaks and writes (no lie). She doesn't form complete sentences (especially when she writes narration); her writing is laden with simplistic, elementary school pronoun use. All in all, she has a horrid grasp on the English language. [quote]Read this. It just doesn't sound good. What really throws it off is the "And always completely intentionally." The use of an adverb and adjective and another adjective all strung together to make a sentence sounds horrid. Perhaps it's just personal prefence, but loading sentences down with adjectives and adverbs is bothersome. This sentence could definitely be reworked. Even though you're trying to develop an eccentric character, this could be executed better.[/quote] I refer you to my above comments, and Sara's post. It doesn't sound bad at all. It's just true to the character. I would think you of all people would appreciate that.

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Out of all the shops in all the towns in all the world, [i]he[/i] had to come strolling into [i]my[/i] store. That was bad enough. Each time I see him, I die a little more. He personifies all that is bad and cruel in the world. Where there is pain or suffering, there he is. When someone can be kicked when they?re down, there he is with a steel-toed boot.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]He doesn?t care. He doesn?t feel. He doesn?t give a shit about compassion. He has no compassion. He lives to inflict pain. Seeing him kills me. I hate him. He?s the reason I?m alone. He?s the reason why nobody loves me, why everybody leaves me. Because of him, I am forgotten. Because of him, I?m eternally alone.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]But what makes it even worse is seeing [i]her[/i]. There she is, holding onto his arm, beaming like an idiot. They walk in, holding hands, laughing, smiling. The way she looks up at him makes me sick.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]She idolizes him. She treats him like God. He isn?t God. He?s evil. He?s a bastard. He doesn?t even deserve to be alive. But there he is, with her, acting like nothing?s wrong at all.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]But something [i]is[/i] wrong. [i]I[/i] should be the one being held in his arms. [i]I[/i] should be the one he?s gazing at lovingly. [i]I[/i] should be the one he?s in love with. Not her. She doesn?t deserve him. That tramp doesn?t deserve his affection. Oh, shit?they?re coming this way.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Hello,? he says. The smile?s a fake. I see how he smiles at her. That?s not the smile he?s giving me. He?s smirking, grinning, mocking me. He?s laughing at me on the inside.[/size][/font] [i][font=Times New Roman][size=3]Haha, Jenn, you?re so pathetic. I?m happily romancing and you?re stuck here plodding out your miserable existence because you refused to accept responsibility and try to change your life for the better! I?m happy and you?re not![/size][/font][/i] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]He always has. He sees me and just laughs. Laughs at my fear, my pain, at my anguish. He laughs at how I?m alone. God, I wish that smile were real, but it?s not. And he knows that. Fucktard.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Hi,? I reply. ?Can I help you??[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Yes, you can.? He glances at her with a smirk and a wink, then laughs. He tenderly squeezes her. They?re both bubbly and happy and all lovey-dovey. It?s just to spite me. They?re not happy. They just think they?re happy. They?re putting on a show. Inside, they?re hurting. Screaming. Angry. Sad. Inside, they?re just like me. ?We were looking for the wedding registry.?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]The wedding registry? What the fuck? This has got to be a joke. A cruel fucking joke that people love to play on me, just to make me more miserable than I already am. They can?t be getting married. They can?t. They shouldn?t. They?re not right for each other. He should be with me. I?m the one he wants. I?ve always been the one he wants. I?m the one for him. Not her.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?The wedding registry?? I ask.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Yep. We?re still deciding on a date, but we?d like to get some things done now.?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?I can help you.?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Oh, great! Thank you.?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]There?s that smile again.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Just wait one second. I?ll get the forms.?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Today fucking sucks. He?s making a mistake by marrying her. She?s not good for him. She can?t treat him right. He doesn?t know it yet. But I know it. She can?t please him. She doesn?t know how. I know what he likes. I know what he needs. She?ll make him miserable. I can?t let that happen.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Okay, just fill this out right here, names, address, contact information, date, and then sign at the bottom.?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]He begins filling out the paperwork but stops. He examines the page, then turns and whispers something in her ear. He points to the page and gestures with his fingers. She leans in and looks closer. She turns back to him and nods. He looks at me again.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?These aren?t the forms for a wedding registry.?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Fuck.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Oh, I?m sorry. These are for the [i]baby[/i] registry. Just a minute??[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]I reach under the desk and pull out the wedding forms. He grabs them and pulls. I don?t let go. He?s not going to get this without a fight. I?m not going to hand them to him willingly. He?s going to have to take them by force. I want him to hit me. God, I want him to hit me.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]I want to call security, to see them take him away. I want to see that stupid smile disappear. I want to see pain in his face. I want him to hurt as much as I do. I want their marriage to end before it even begins.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]He snatches the papers out of my hand, snatching my fantasy from me. He always does that. He always robs me of happiness. Always. And always completely intentionally.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]They fill out the forms quickly, barely able to keep their hands steady. Their voices are hushed, excited whispers to each other. With each line they complete, their smiles grow wider and wider. They laugh together. They write together. They are together.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]He signs his name first at the bottom of the page. Dates it. He hands the pen to her. I see the ring. I want it. I want to wear it. I [i]should[/i] be the one wearing it. She doesn?t deserve it. She?s not supposed to be the one. She isn?t. She can?t be![/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]It won?t last. Relationships never do. They?ll see. Someday I?ll be right and he?ll come back to me.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]They submit the completed forms and watch me file them. They hug each other then turn and walk away, holding hands, walking to a future I?ll never have?because of her.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]I look down at my bracelet. I want to destroy something beautiful. I rip it in half and let the pieces fall to the dusty floor. They don?t plummet but they don?t float. They just kind of glide. It doesn?t matter. I?ll just make another one. I always do.[/size][/font]

[quote name='Kuraineko']I sortof agree here, but there are some episodes I didn't like, for example: The one were they had to babysit a lot of kids. I think that one was set-up because when the kids screamed they would look @ the camera to (what looked like to me) if they were doing it right. I like reality shows better when things happen naturally.[/quote] Well, yeah. That's kind of my point. It's a bad reality show, but it's so bad that it's good. It's almost like a satire of the entire idea, because while stuff like The Real World, Road Rules, The Bachelor, etc, create B-list celebrities, The Surreal Life [i]is[/i] B-list celebrities. It's almost a criticism of the entire craze, a sort of "Okay, you've been on 'reality TV' well, this is the reality you'll be facing very soon: being a washed-up has-been who's had their 15 minutes of fame." [quote]Another show I use to like but don't any more is The Real World. It use to be good, but now everyone is, y'know, another word for happy. No offense to anyone I'm just not into that kind of stuff.[/QUOTE] Though, it's debatable if it ever was all that good, I think the show has taken a bit of a dive lately. You've got all the supermodels and golden-haired adonis-type characters, while the first two seasons were actually [i]real[/i] people that didn't look manufactured by say...Dr. Frank N Furter. That said, I think there's some redeeming quality still in the show, although it's much harder to see nowadays. It still has that idea of tolerance and acceptance (as evidenced by the most recent season in Philly), but yeah. It has gotten diluted over the years.

Yeah, I actually agree with many of the comments here. The sword/cross things always looked too rounded to be effective for...anything (lol), and I figure I'll be changing the look of them when I get a chance. I'll probably just Edit this post with the revised version. The center sword/cross things (I am so going to decide which they really are) will probably feel better if they're more realistic-looking. Truth of the matter is, I kind of flubbed them. I used one of the snowflake custom shapes in Photoshop and was never really happy with how it turned out. I'm thinking a singular sword/cross (gah! lol) might rectify the center of the image. I have a feeling I could do either a sword or cross and it would still make sense for the emotion of the piece, so I'll experiment a bit later. As for the other things, yeah. I'm going to fool with that, too. See what I can do. Thanks for all the feedback so far. Hopefully more will reply, as well.

[quote name='Dragon Warrior']Sounds like a real shindig. I'd go, but ye know... I can't :P Muhahahahaha.[/quote] We wouldn't want you there anyway. ~_^ [quote]And yes, they must use a load of make-up to make Harrison look good for the new movie. He's teh oldness, word :^D And I'd like to see Tales of the Bounty Hunters as well, just because the bounty hunters are my favorite part of Star Wars, preferably Boba Fett--the main man![/QUOTE] Well, not only that, but they're just really groovy stories in general and show sides to the bounty hunters that we don't get to see. I found the story about 4-LOM and Zuckuss to be particularly interesting. I liked the Intuition portions especially. ^_^

There's only one reality show that I enjoy watching: The Surreal Life on VH1. It's dumb as can be, and most (if not all) of the celebrities on there are has-beens, but their egos haven't quite caught on yet. So, I think it's one of those "so bad it's good in a sort of morbid curiously kind of way" shows.

[quote name='AzureWolf']If that's the fastest way to finally make you let it go, sure, we'll go with that.[/quote]Finally. [QUOTE]A difference of opinion, possibly even a difference in weapon selection, knife boy.[/QUOTE]Play with the knife and the game dynamics will change drastically, and it won't be as easy as you've said it is. Simple as that. [QUOTE]Wow, this is your knife argument all over: sorry for thinking logically. I should have played like one of the zombies: ever predictable and like clockwork. Please, convince me to be scared and I'll be scared. Your hypothetical arguments are getting boring and circular, btw. *yawn* I can pretend to have 200 friends too, but let's leave the count with those on OB, since you have to register and confirm that you exist before you can post and have your voice heard. ;) That's five to two, Siren.[/QUOTE]To run with the game and allow yourself to be immersed (being open to the experience) is hardly playing like one of the zombies. You don't have to be mindless and slow to get drawn-in to something, and RE4 is no exception. [quote]:rolleyes: Ok, I'll be willing to give you that one since you tried so hard, but even then, that falls into my "only the first time it works" category. I'm just kind of shocked that no one else thought him reaching for something was fishy. I guess that's me thinking logically again.[/QUOTE]Again with the cheap shots. Note that we are only shown what he's really doing when we get that close-up shot of [spoiler]his hand grabbing the axe[/spoiler]. Then we cut back to Leon for the reaction shot. If you were able to predict it, good for you. You get a cookie. But it's not broadcasted on any level. [quote=Charles]This is true to some extent. Unfortunately, those long empty halls rarely built tension and were merely a segue to the cheap, scripted scares that the Resident Evil series has been notorious for. Generally, the player was forced to wander empty halls after eliminating all of the enemies merely because they had to backtrack and retrieve some obscure item for the purpose of completing an asinine puzzle. If the games were pacing towards boredom, then they succeeded quite well. It's not as if enemies could spontaneously surprise you at any time. In [i]Silent Hill[/i], you find yourself wandering pitch-black halls with a flashlight. You never know what's going to come out at you. In Resident Evil, you explore well-lit empty halls, and after you play through the game once, you know exactly when that dog is going to jump through that window or when that zombie is going to bust a door down. Those are "Boo" moments, my friend. You're not scared. You're not helpless. You jump because a loud noise suddenly broke the half hour you just spend arranging some stupid paintings.[/quote]You're exploring a mansion whose inhabitants have died from a lethal toxin released in the building. There were some attempts made to contain the threat (lockdowns), but eventually everyone succumbed. Why wouldn't you be running through empty hallways? For that matter, why wouldn't the lights still be on? I don't think the scientists exactly had a chance to make sure they unplugged the toaster and turned off the oven before they died. Also, I think your point here actually defeats your argument instead of helping it. If Resident Evil were to take place in the darkened, scary, "haunted" mansion (like Silent Hill's areas) it would be relying even more heavily on a cliche...and cliches are bad. Think about it. In RE, you're exploring a well-lit and empty mansion, slowly learning of horrific genetics experiments gone horribly, horribly wrong, and finding very little traces of [i]living[/i] "survivors" anywhere. Instead of finding a "live" scientist in his bedroom (and his journal explains he locked himself inside), you find his walking corpse...and the lights are on. Maybe it's just me, but I find that to be a far better use of setting than the "OMG the dark is all around me! I can't see!" use of setting in Silent Hill. In some respects, Silent Hill actually [i]more[/i] depends on the cliches. Just consider the use of setting and lighting. RE uses "normal" (I use quotes because of what I explained to you earlier today...PSX graphics and such) lighting, while Silent Hill settles for the cliched "dark and haunted house." Charles, we've both taken courses with Denise Gess. Think about what she'd say if you or I opened with "The abandoned mansion we took refuge in was even darker than the stormy night that bellowed outside." We both know she'd take that pen and cross that sentence out. And like I also explained earlier, play any horror game a few times through and you're going to lose that fright effect...including Silent Hill. I find it odd that RE is so heavily criticized for this while the Silent Hill franchise suffers from the same exact problem with repeated playthroughs and it doesn't even get so much as a mention for being just as guilty as RE in that area. [quote]Actually shot composition rarely contributed to the fear when you could [b]hear[/b] the zombies groaning nearby. And how the hell is there a slow build-up of tension? Within the first thirty seconds you're fighting off a mob of enemies and it continues that pace throughout.[/quote]Actually, it does contribute. Shot composition doesn't exclusively refer to what you [i]see[/i]. It also encompasses what you [i]don't[/i] see. It's the viewfinder that filmmakers use. It's the frame for the shot. When you hear something that's coming from somewhere off-camera, you're going to be wondering three things: 1) What is that? 2) Where is that? 3) Is it dangerous? The tight, constricted camera angle is a technique used in cinema to highten tension, especially the extremely tight shots like you'd find in In Good Company (the film is a perfect example of this). And you can find tight shots like this throughout the games (or shots that function like this), even in the opening camera angle to the first RE game. It's a high-angle shot that heightens the emotional impact of the game, because it establishes the scale and mood for the game, one of isolation in a larger, alien environment that is devoid of life. Similarly, in RE2, when you're about to encounter the Licker, there's one shot that peers in through the window as you enter the room. Consider that you don't get that camera angle when you walk back to the door. There's a reason for that. The Licker isn't looking at you anymore. There's an incredible attention to detail when it comes to placing those camera angles. It's not arbitrary, and it's not a plot device. And just so this also bears relevance to RE4...think about how the camera behaves. Think about how the game is presented. Widescreen. Panoramic. Even when you're fending off the villagers, think about when you hear something behind you. They could have stuck with pre-established camera angles, or even created a camera system that functions more akin to Devil May Cry, in that you can see everything around you...but they didn't. Why? Because they wanted a very particular type of framing, one that gave you a very specific viewfinder. So when you're fighting villagers, you're still seeing it in a frame, a more fluid one, but still a frame. It is shot composition...no matter where you are in the game, no matter what you're doing...it's still shot composition. Like I explained earlier today, now you see why I'm bringing cinema (and pacing techniques of cinema like those of Alien and Hitchcock) into this discussion: because it's utterly, entirely, and undeniably relevant. The RE franchise are cinematic games, and like I'm explaining to AzureWolf, who [i]still[/i] denies the link, and who [i]still[/i] outright [i]refuses[/i] to consider the point, because RE4 [i]is[/i] a playable film, we need to consider it in cinematic terms, which I've been doing very steadily and consistently through this thread. [quote]Oh, do you mean the eerie calm that happens directly after you see said monster emerge and devour a corpse? I sure didn't anticipate it attacking me seconds later. lol[/quote]How about the eerie calm as the sea creature submerges and prepares to charge at you from a different direction each time? [quote]No, sound has nothing to do with it. [i]Devil May Cry[/i] is just a different style of action game. The fact that Leon isn't nearly as maneuverable or overpowered as Dante is the key difference. The point of Devil May Cry is pulling off stylish combos. Resident Evil 4's purpose is survival. That's all there is to it.[/quote]Sound has everything to do with it. You don't hear silence or low, moan-like strings in DMC. You hear rock music with gothic overtones, sometimes a bit muted. And again, that's my point. Dante is so overpowered that nothing stands up against him. Virtually everything that the game throws at you can be defeated in a few sword swipes. This is not the case with RE4...because even your most powerful weapons only have KD power, like I explained earlier today. [quote]Um, HOW ABOUT [i]NO![/i][/quote]You forgot to add "you crazy Dutch bastard." [quote]I'd say that Resident Evil 4 definitely has a pacing curve--but it leads [i]away[/i] from generating scares throughout. That's not to say that there aren't moments of suspense or tension. It would be utterly ludicrous to undertake that argument. However, the general pacing of the game is one of action and brutality. As Leon moves through the game he acquires a heavy arsenal that could wipe out a small army. Nearly every room overflows with legions of antagonists whose remains dissolve into copious amounts of ammunition. There are moments when an unseen enemy will lunge at Leon, instigating a startle effect, but the general theme of Resident Evil 4 seems to be balls-to-walls, thrilling, non-stop excitement. It's all about gratuitous, brutal, spectacular violence. Otherwise, Leon would remain as helpless as he is at the outset of the game. There are rarely moments of foreboding violence. The only tension that exists stems from the game's frantic pacing. Furthermore, the entire last portion of the game plays out exactly like an action movie. I reference the [color=#000000]chopper portion[/color] as a clear example. Your logic here is self-defeating and faulty. Consider for a moment, the implications of traveling through a stark, wooded area with only a combat knife and pistol combination in hand, while being pursued by overwhelmingly powerful foes. Now, compare that scenario to the situation Leon is placed in: he's equipped with a bevy of ridiculously over-powered weapons that only increase in their effectiveness as his mission progresses [i]and [/i]he has an assortment of insanely useful healing items at his disposal. Factor in his powerful hand-to-hand abilities that [b]easily[/b] cause an enemy's head to explode--and you ain't got scary.[/quote]But even those high-powered weapons still do not guarantee 1-hit kills (the rocket launcher is the only exception, and then the secret weapons after you beat the game a few times), only KD. When there is an opportunity for a 1-hit kill, they are very particular circumstances. Like I explained earlier to you, Flash grenades weren't in your Inventory, and they take up room. And remember the usefulness of the Flashes. The headshot tentacle creatures (however many there are in a room) die with one Flash grenade. Now you see why I'm not running around with every weapon in the game. Because the Flash grenades are probably the best grenade in the game, because they're so potent against what is undeniably one of the deadlier enemies in the game. [quote]And, although Resident Evil 4 has terrific sound, I wouldn't say that it lends effectively to the game's scare factor. The moments of silence don't last nearly long enough to achieve that affect. The soundtrack does admittedly borrow heavily from [i]Silent Hill[/i], which is obviously a positive quality, but unlike that aforementioned title, Resident Evil 4 never forces you to listen to it. It's mostly subdued under the sounds of heavy gunfire. I can't say that Capcom uses audio in this title to induce psychological scares either. Especially after playing through [i]Silent Hill[/i] and [i]Eternal Darkness[/i]. That is, Resident Evil 4 doesn't use audio cues to play tricks on the player or flare paranoia--it's very straightforward just like the action onscreen.[/quote]I would actually say that sound is effective to the scare factor of the game. The most obvious example is the fights with the prisoners. If you make noise, they will start swiping. I think it's one of the best uses of sound I've seen in a long time, because you have to resist every urge to run-n-gun, because if you do, the enemy will attack. Otherwise, they more or less meander about. Perfect example of how sound builds tension--both silence and sound, come to think of it. [quote]It's disturbing to be sure. Leon is relatively helpless at this point. But, the game definitely doesn't continue that trend. You can't use the first ten minutes of the game to build a solid argument that holds up for a twenty hour experience.[/quote]Coughing up blood. "Eggs have begun to hatch." Regenerators. Village Chief. Salazar (in human form). I'd think the game certainly has more than one or two disturbing and unsettling moments, and far more than AzureWolf is claiming.

[quote name='AzureWolf']Yes, I'm harping. I'm so flawed and wrong in that argument, Siren. Thank you for proving your point in a clearly not flawed manner. You win.[/quote] ...you can't back-up your claim, can you? [quote]I said Leon was God-like, not the villains. Again, I don't care what type of build-up a movie has versus a supposedly similar game. I know what the game is capable of, and what arsenal of moves will get you through every situation. The more abilities, the more options, and therefore the less worry.[/quote] Yes, and like I said previously, just because you have a Shotgun and a very powerful kick doesn't mean you're not going to get scared (or worried) on any level. And Leon is hardly God-like, AW. One or two hits and you're dead. The weapons don't guarantee survival, and most of them have a minimal impact, in that only a handful have a guaranteed kill (otherwise just KD power), and even then, like I've said previously in the other thread, those weapons have very particular situations in order to get those 1-hit kill guarantees. [quote]Wow, I'm not wasting time watching movies for you to prove a boring point. I've seen Terminator, and I've felt the tension, but there's nothing like that in RE4. Even if that was the goal (which I doubt), IT DIDN'T WORK. So, I've given you the benefit of doubt, agreed that Terminator has tension, but saw/experienced nothing of the sort in RE4. The end.[/quote] I think what Shin said in his post is very relevant here: [quote name='Shinmaru']instead of thinking "Oh, here's a bit of silence, looks like there are monsters coming! :rolleyes: "[/quote] AW, you were too concerned with thinking "Oh, here's a bit of silence, looks like there are monsters coming! :rolleyes:" than you were with experiencing the game. I don't think that's a flaw of the game; I think that's more a personal, nit-picky flaw. Both Shin and I ran with the game and the tension parts worked immensely well. Friends of mine are on their fifth playthroughs and still get just as frightened as they did the first time they played it. You need to be open to the experience, and you just aren't (like a few other people *wink wink*)...but don't fault the game for that. [QUOTE]What about him? What happened? Boss? Did he turn into something dangerous? QTE? C'mon, what happened? A cut scene with no QTE? Yeah, that last guess sounds about right.[/QUOTE] [quote name='AW']If there's even one badguy, you know nothing's going to happen.[/quote] There was one "badguy" there, and something definitely happened. Every review that I've read praised that part because they didn't expect that to happen. So, it seems to me that there is a level of unpredictability in the game, particularly in the moments of eerie silent tension. Subsequent playthroughs, there's not so much surprise, but that's the case with every game (including Silent Hill), so I don't think that's a legitimate crit.

[QUOTE=AzureWolf]Haha, quite alright, Siren. I threw you the bone. Do you want me to say you are right? Is that what you want to hear? Will that make you stop lingering on something so flawed? Well then... You are right, Siren. There you go. You win the argument.[/quote] No, I'd like for you to obliterate my entire argument in that other thread, because you're harping on the fact that you can, so I'd like to see you do it. [QUOTE]I'm not going to study movies to learn how to get scared by a game. There's an inherent flaw. You know your limits within a game, and if those limits are relatively (to the badguys) god-like, then I'm not going to get scared. I'm just not. Sorry if you feel otherwise, or that I'm "lying." XD[/QUOTE] Consider the fundamental (because that was my point, not any mention of god-like villains): the pacing. Hitchcock used the same pacing that the RE franchises does: a gradual build-up with releases throughout the piece. And perhaps you [i]should[/i] study film to better understand a game and appreciate the techniques. Considering that RE4 is the most [i]cinematic[/i] of the franchise, I think a consideration to cinema is appropriate. [quote]No, that's beating a dead horse. If you keep waiting for and using every silent moment to make a move, then that's just predictability, not tension. So, when things are silent, you know that's when things are coming. Uneasy silence indicates something will happen. If there's even one badguy, you know nothing's going to happen.[/QUOTE] Watch Rear Window, Psycho, Alien, The Thing, Terminator, etc., and tell me you're not the least bit uneasy (read: feeling the tension) during those films. RE uses those same fundamentals. [quote]If there's even one badguy, you know nothing's going to happen.[/quote] Did you miss the very first villager in the game?

[QUOTE=AzureWolf] That's because the "You aren't playing the game right" logic was so sad, and your assumptions so erraneous, that I tossed you the bone. I felt pity for you, since you had to resort that low. I'm not going to bother with someone who says, "Oh, if it's easy, then you are playing it wrong." So, consider it out of politeness, because I still can't stop laughing everytime I see your post.[/quote] Then reply and put me out of my misery, since I apparently have such a horrible and weak argument of if you run around with a Shotgun, you're not exactly utilizing the knife to its fullest extent and therefore your criticisms of the knife don't have a full and complete basis for evaluation. [quote]Yadda yadda yadda. So far, I've got a count of five to one, Siren. Face facts already: it's a "boo" scare and absolutely nothing else.[/QUOTE] The "Boo" scares come out of the pacing, AW. Study Alien. Study Hitchcock. Same fundamentals. It's [i]pacing[/i]. [quote name='Sata665']You worry about whats coming next, and RE has always been good at foreshadowing stuff. Parts like crossing the lake when you just know what is going to happen, and also when you get knocked into the water; Defrosting the cold room; the microwave; the weird meat bag thing near the end.[/quote] That's pacing, AW. The franchise builds tension through uneasy silence then a crescendo. It's pacing.