Brasil

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Adahn didn't really make a comparison though.[/quote] [quote name='Adahn]if anything, it makes them [b]more[/b'] intelligent[/quote] [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=more][u]Definition of "more"[/u][/url] That's not a comparison? [quote]You're the one who differentiated between kinds of intelligence for him. His post did not imply multiple intelligence. He simply said that someone who seeks knowledge can be more intelligent than someone who possesses knowledge.[/quote] I didn't differentiate between anything. I merely provided the actual terms used. He made the distinction between two different types of intelligence. If he hadn't, there would have been no comparison made, and there was a comparison made. [quote]I'd like to see him confirm your interpretation before this is discussed any further. You cannot convince me with inference and speculation in this case.[/QUOTE] There's very, very little inference and absolutely no speculation here. What I'm saying is fact. Adahn was making a distinction between two different types of intelligence, comparing them, but simply just not using the specific terminology, the specific terminology that I subsequently provided when everyone was blatantly misinterpreting his point. What is there in my posts to argue with? Zeta, considering that I pinpointed the precise sentence/excerpt where Adahn explicitly states his point, and clearly draws a comparison between two clearly different types of intelligence, how is he not being clear? lol And I'm not even talking from the perspective of an experienced writer/reader, either. The part I quoted, the part that everyone could have read, is incredibly easy to understand, even from a laymen's point of view.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Seeing as he desribes this emotional intelligence as "more intelligent" than verbal intelligence, without actually stating that he's making the comparison between two different kinds of intelligence (Siren you DID perhaps infer too much; Adahn hasn't confirmed your statements), I don't think his point is that there's different kinds of intelligence. From his post it is more reasonable to infer that he has his own definition of the general term, a definition not many others here share.[/quote] My dear Sciros, his evaluation and appraisal of the use of Emotional Intelligence is irrelevant to the fact that he is discussing Multiple Intelligence. From the moment he places one type above the other, he's using the Multiple Intelligence theory. He may not have realized precisely what it was, but his focus was the exact same as the Multiple Intelligence focus: that there is more than one type of intelligence. If he didn't believe there to be more than one type, and thus not subscribing to Multiple Intelligence, he would not have been able to make the comparison, because he would have seen no distinction between the two, objectively or subjectively. [quote name='Zeta']Posts are writing. It is hard to explain emotion in just words.[/quote] Zeta, I'd advise you to re-think that, lol. I'm not even going to bring in entire Literary Canons that would break that claim of yours, instead, I'm simply going to refer you to things like Kill Adam, various pieces in OB Anthology from Shinmaru, Lady A, Arcadia, myself, Lore, etc. Explaining emotion in just words isn't hard. It's only daunting to those inexperienced writers/readers.

[quote name='Adahn']If a person does not have a perfect grasp on what is commonly recognized as necessary to present thoughts and ideas, does that make that person or that person's posts unintelligent? I think that, if anything, it makes them more intelligent.[/quote] Call me crazy, but I don't see how anyone doesn't realize what Adahn is saying here. He's talking about various types of intelligence. His first focus is on a deficient Verbal Intelligence, but through a drive to learn, to interact, etc, that person develops another intelligence: [quote]Their desire to know is so great that they will suffer the hardships of being misunderstood or pointed out as less than perfectly literate to get their ideas across for their own benefit, and the benefit of others.[/quote] This right here is focusing on Emotional Intelligence, or Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Intelligence, the interest and desire to interact, to discuss, to connect with people. All it takes is some reading between the lines, and some good ole fashioned reading comprehension. Adahn's been talking about Multiple Intelligence the entire time, lol.

I'm getting that Adahn is saying there's more than one type of intelligence. I find it amusing how everyone seems to be attempting to refute that. That's the general gist of the replies. [url=http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/intell1.htm][u]Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligence[/u][/url] It's a long-standing Educational Psychology idea, and it makes a lot of sense if people were willing to open their minds to it.

I just recently discovered the Jukebox feature, and though I'm not sure about why you're not able to hear the songs when the window's open, but if you close the window, the music will stop. Maybe your problems are related to your Plug-ins?

It's funny, I suppose, how there are the "Old Members" here, the ones who have been visiting/registered at OB for a few versions now, but you figure that OB has only really been around since...2001? 2000? 1999? 1998? I've heard that v3 started in August 2001. So, it's not really that long, when you think about it--in offline time, that is. I suppose online time does feel longer. Anywho, enough of my yakkin, let's boogie! (This Is Spinal Tap quote. Check it out.) I've only been at OB for a little over a year now...probably a year-and-a-half, but my post count doesn't really reflect that. Members who joined at roughly the same time, or even a few months later dwarf me in post count, and I've always wondered why, heh. And compared to the Old Members, my post count is still Newbie. But in some ways, I think "Older Member" means something else. I don't necessarily equate "Old" with amount of time registered, or Post Count, or anything chronological, really. It seems more to mean a maturity in the posts...post quality, I guess. There's talk about Old Members (chronological) having a dynamic impact on the boards and such, which I do agree with, but at the same time, I don't think I'm out of line when I say that some "Newer" members, like terra, Arcadia, Drix, and Yours Truly, have had a pretty big impact on OB, sometimes on the same levels as various Oldies. Hell, terra and Arcadia rock the Adventure areas, and terra's 'stress relief' spar with myself, Wondershot, and Balmon should not be missed. There's a reason that terra was Modchipped so quickly: because she's a damn fine member, even when she had 35 posts. So, really, when you get down to it..."Oldie" really only refers to chronological, I suppose, because there are some rocking newer members around here that can really give the old fogeys a run for their money when it comes to post quality and depth, lol. :p I'm not sure how relevant this post was to the topic of Old Members' views on things, but it was fun to write, heh.

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]Well, let's remember that GTA has always had similarities with Sims games. In fact, it could easily be said that Sims copied GTA elements and not the other way around (although I wouldn't make that argument, but I think it's the same argument as the reverse). Let's not forget that the original GTA and its sequel contained many "realistic" elements that had fairly little bearing on gameplay, but which significantly heightened the immersion aspect. The key difference between The Sims and GTA: SA is simple. In The Sims, your appearance generally has very little impact on the way others perceive you -- even in The Sims 2. In The Sims, your actions play a more important role in defining your relationship with other Sims and the environment around you. In GTA, this is also true. However, what is GTA trying to achieve? Ultimately, it's trying to achieve the most realistic world possible. You also have to understand the context of San Andreas. The game is taking place in a very specific gang culture -- where things like tattoos and physical appearance have many important subtleties and meanings. In that context, San Andreas isn't copying The Sims at all really -- it's actually trying to remain true to its source material, in a way that not only provides cosmetic polish, but that also has a functional impact on gameplay. The fact that these elements affect gameplay [i]at all [/i]is quite a remarkable thing; in most games, many of these things are peripheral to the main game and they have no functional bearing on the gameplay experience.[/color][/quote] I'm not implying that either game copied the other, necessarily. I'm merely mentioning similarities that don't seem all that exciting, lol. Now, I'm all for more immersion in games. I raved about Chronicles of Riddick because it planted me so well into that world. The level of interaction in KOTOR and Morrowind is quite nice. Doom 3 has gotten me creeped out, because of the level of detail worked in, even though the game itself hasn't changed since the original. But the difference I'm seeing between those games and GTA, is I'm not seeing the relevance in most of San Andreas' immersion-enhancers, as it were. I can understand the tattoo point. It just makes sense, with gang symbols and all. But if we're going to get to eat donuts, presumably, going to a Dunkin Donuts or the GTA equivalent, what is going to be the significance or relevance of that donut shop? Is it going to be a front for gang-related activities? Are we going to sit down at the counter and munch on a raspberry jelly-filled, sugar powdered donut? (Damn, that got my stomach growling, lol) Furthermore, what is the significance of the other fast food and pizza joints, apart from altering the character's appearance and having a mild influence on the character-character dynamics? Also, is CJ actually going to sit down in these places and are we going to watch him down a cheeseburger? Is it going to be an item of sorts that drops on the ground? I just read through a few of the IGN articles, and didn't see anything about that specifically. I figure more details will be released/found as we get closer to the release date. But as it stands now, and oddly similar to MGS3, I'm lukewarm to most of what I'm hearing about GTA: San Andreas. [quote][color=#707875]Well, nobody's suggesting that they are "high art". I wouldn't say that there's anything particularly "high art" about GTA, in the traditional sense of the phrase. However, I don't think anyone can deny the artistry involved in making GTA work. Nobody else is doing what Rockstar North is doing, on a technical level. And if you actually read about the various levels of detail in San Andreas, I think you'll find that this game is a pretty large substantive leap forward from Vice City. I mean, even the smaller "sub-missions" have been made complex enough that they could be games in and of themselves. This doesn't mean that GTA is the best game out there, but it [i]does [/i]mean that the game shouldn't be dismissed as a purely diversionary arcade game. You could definitely suggest that the insanely complicated design and coding involved in the latest game in particular amounts to an art -- even if it's an art with plenty of profanity and violence. ~_^[/color][/QUOTE] I don't think anyone would really consider them "high art." My point with that was I'm not looking for a comprehensive GTA game. The character customization/character dynamics changes are not blowing my skirt up, as it were. The series was never all that deep, gameplay-wise, or character-wise. It doesn't detract from the fun, however, and while it seems like I'm being hypercritical of the GTA series, it's definitely one of the more fun series I've played in a while. It's just that there's only so much you can do before you start overdoing it (incidentally, that's why there isn't an "AlexFilms Ltd" title card in Rebel Scum, heh), and hopefully I'm pleasantly surprised by San Andreas. Regarding the various missions/sub-missions and so forth, I enjoy varied gameplay. I have no problem with it. One of my most memorable missions in the series was having to snipe a dozen armed soldiers on a storage barge. It was fun, and a healthy challenge. But it's not really anything new, albeit it is executed very well, and integrated very well. I'm not attempting to minimize Rockstar's work on the series, at least from a coding/programming standpoint. I suck royally when it comes to programming. Desi can attest to that when he had to revamp all my HTML for Rebel Scum. I know game programming is incredibly difficult, and I'll give Rockstar props for what they've done, and respect them for what they've done, but just because I can appreciate the inner workings of the games doesn't mean I'm going to automatically/necessarily appreciate the outer workings/appearance of the games, if that makes sense, lol. And you know I have no problem with art that has "plenty of profanity and violence." ~_^

Star Wars: Rebel Scum has just Launched. The RPG is Live. Here's the link: [center][url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=43281"][u]Star Wars: Rebel Scum RPG[/u][/url][/center] I've given a slight indication as to Episode content, but I'm going to include my own notes here. Others, feel free to bring in other ideas and material in your posts. ^_^ [list] [*]Weapon Inspectors [*]Arafat and HAMAS (drop me a line if you have questions about this one) [*]Presence of Children [*]Conflict of Interests [*]Political/Social Deceit [*]Abuses of Power [*]Abuses of Trust [*]Retrospect: Why was Leia racing home to Alderaan to have the schematics analyzed? [*]Retrospect: Why is Leia captured over Tatooine, when her destination is Alderaan? [/list] The post order for the RPG is: [list] [*]Shinmaru [*]Shy [*]Boba Fett [*]Kane [*]Siren [/list] I'm leaving it open as to how many posts we'll all have in each Episode, because I'm not set on determining that right now. We'll see how things go, and keep in contact with each other. I'm more than open for more posts in an Episode, provided we can sustain the material. Also, James may make special guest appearances in Rebel Scum, so we'll insert him where necessary. Good luck, all, and normally, I'd say, "May the Force be with you," but we're hunting down those Jedi scum, so...Set Blasters To Kill. ~_^ Have fun, people! [center]***EDIT***[/center] I'm making a minor note here, as Shin has asked about my ideas and themes for Alderaan. The notes, ideas and such that I list do not reflect what the posts are required to be about. For example, Shinmaru's post is not required to specifically deal with Weapon Inspectors and nothing else. The similarities between the length and organization of the Idea List and the Post Order are purely coincidental. Second, as Shin has asked for clarification, each member will be posting in each Episode at least once, more if the Episode seems to call for it. The Post Order is the post order for each Episode. ^_^ My notes and ideas don't need to be addressed in the order I've listed them in, either. The themes and such can be used in any order that still is appropriate. [center]***EDIT #2***[/center] I've attached the HTML coding for the posts in a Notepad format. I believe the sections for Titles and Post Content are fairly well-marked, but if there are any questions, feel free to PM or IM me. The HTML will need to be re-spaced just a tiny bit; otherwise, it'll be really spaced out vertically. The solution is just a matter of deleting the extra space in between the HTML coding. Again, any questions, drop me a line. ^_^ Also, I'd like to request that all Off-Topic and "OOC" comments and notes be saved for Rebel Scum Underground. I'm envisioning the actual RPG thread itself to be very "there," and the OOC stuff detracts from it, heh. Titles are optional. You don't need to include them, but you can if you like.

[indent][indent][indent]A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...[/indent][/indent][/indent] STAR WARS ?Rebel Scum? It is a period of social unrest. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base on an innocent civilian planet, have just won their first victory against the ?evil? Galactic Empire. During the battle, many innocent lives were lost, but in every conflict, there are two sides at war. Unfortunately, it appears that the Rebellion is un-aware of this. Perhaps it will take the lives of many to show them, and who better to tell the tale than those survivors... EPISODE IV ?Alderaan? It was viewed as a needless casualty of war. Millions of innocent lives were suddenly silenced by the cruel and unfeeling oppressive force known as The Imperial Empire when the mighty DEATH STAR?s destructive power was focused on the peaceful and neutral planet of Alderaan. In Alderaan?s place, there is an asteroid field, a floating graveyard that is said to be the precise illustration of the brutality of The Empire. But what if this brutality was not as uncalled for as some led others to believe? There are questions still unanswered, and queries have been left ignored. What of the inspections, and why has there been no mention of them? There are conflicting interests that have yet to be reconciled. Is there any truth to the tales and rumors of deceit and abuses of power? Perhaps there are no answers to these questions, but perhaps the full story of Alderaan has not yet been told. It is said that the first casualty of war is innocence, but it seems that innocence is lost not at the end of war, but at the beginning?

James, I realize that Animal Crossing was hardly the first game to utilize the real-time clock; it was simply the first game comparison that came to mind. About The Sims, it seems that GTA is trying to steer itself away from the "arcadey" type stigma, giving players a greater influence on their characters and in the game world around them, but it doesn't seem to be deepening the gameplay significantly. Character interactions will probably have some variation with the changes in character appearance, and gameplay physics would change accordingly, as well, but it still seems like micromanaging a digital alter-ego down to every last minute detail. That's where The Sims comparison comes in, because Will Wright's games are pretty much God-Games, on various levels (SimCity, City-wide; The Sims, Household), and that's the primary vibe I'm getting from GTA: San Andreas. There's a level of micromanagement in the Sim games, and more and more, I see the GTA series headed in that direction: where they're becoming less of a game series and more of "you get an unprecedented level of control right down to the very last detail." I don't know. Call me crazy, but GTA never struck me as "high art," when it comes to gaming. I've always viewed them as incredibly fun and diversionary arcade games. About the mentions of The Getaway, yes, the controls sucked, and the game engine was pretty clunky, especially the driving, but the plot was stellar, and the voice acting was top-notch. It was essentially Snatch or Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels in game-form, which is always a plus. I didn't play The Getaway for the gameplay itself; I played it for the story, because you can't get any better than British Reservoir Dogs.

Very good. Sh-t, less than 5 minute review here, so I'll make it fast. I can't go into any specific editing right now, unfortunately, but Arcadia, the story is awesome. I'd work on the transitions just a little bit, but not the actual grammatical or paragraph transitions. I'm more talking about the Flashback stuff. If you could figure out a way to make it flow a bit easier, it'd help a lot. It's good as it is now, but I don't know. The backstory just doesn't "click." Gotta run now, but I'll edit this post later. ^_^

[quote name='Boba Fett']Simply put, side C is where I stand. I couldn?t agree more with Siren about arguing with others on these points.[/quote]Huh? I think you may have mistaken me for someone else here, Dave, lol. Okay, uh...I've read through this thread, and it's all one big pissing contest here, a pissing contest I'm not going to be drawn into. Some of this thread is just so absurd that it's not even worth pointing out some major flaws in both sides of the arguments. There are some points that are just total misinterpretations of what the two candidates are saying...it's like the members are trying to spin it so it suits their argument or something. I'm not going to get into that, however. What I am going to clear up is No Child Left Behind, because as far as I can tell, nobody here really knows or understands anything about it, regardless of being for or against it. As to avoid any pointless comparisons between myself and particular hot-headed members here, I'm not going to profess myself as any real authority on the matter--rather, any official authority on the matter. But I believe I have enough experience in the field of education to be able to make a reasonable assessment of NCLB. Those of you who know me and talk to me on a regular basis know me to be very "with it" when it comes to education, educational psych, and education theory, so I'm not talking out of my -ss here, like some have been. Okay, a few months back, probably in Jan 04, there was a thread on NCLB in OL. If you run a search in the Archives, you'll find it. DeathBug and I had a bit of a talk about NCLB, and more or less simply explored what the implications of and reasoning behind NCLB were. Ultimately, the conclusion reached was that NCLB was going to prove more detrimental than anything else, due to some incredibly questionable planning and approaches. Quite possibly the most disturbing portion of NCLB is the evaluation criteria that a school is rated on in order to assess what the school "needs." The sole evaluation criterion, it seems, is standardized testing. If you were to read up on the raging debate over the standardized test, you would see that the validity and effectiveness of those Scantrons are being heavily scrutinized, and you may ask yourself why. The answer particularly relates to ethnic and cultural backgrounds that may or may not enable a student of said ethnicity or culturicity (may not be an actual term, keep in mind) to do as well as they could. Scantrons are believed to level the playing field. What many do not realize is that that "level" playing field sometimes is setting a height that students are unable to achieve, whether it be learning disabilities, simple test anxiety, or simply a lingual/ethnic/background barrier. I mean, let's face it. We've all had our fair share of test anxieties in our schooling career, and we've all bombed Scantrons before. Given this, does it make sense for an entire school's "grade" to be based on those test results? Actually, it's not even plural, too. From what I've read, and from the actual legislation, there is only one (yes, one) standardized test given per year. A comparison to the GEPAs, HSPAs, PSATs, etc., is an accurate comparison. Furthermore, the tests are not repeated for each class each year, instead...I'll use the following as an example: You have the Junior class, the class of 2001. They're taking the NCLB test in their Junior year and score...an 80. The next year, in order to accurately chart the school's performance, it would make sense to test the class of 2001 in their Senior year, right? Not according to NCLB. The class of 2001's test score is going to be compared against the class of 2002's test score when they take the test the very next year, in their Junior year. Now, perhaps things have changed since I was last in school (although, I was the graduating class of 2001), but in no way is a comparison between actual, physical grades appropriate, but that's what NCLB is doing. [center]***EDIT INSERT*** [/center] We all know that no two classes are identical, and totally equal in ability. It's simply understood. If the class of 2001 has a better overall skill and ability with the material than the class of 2002, and has a greater capacity and probability to respond successfully in the test setting, how is comparing the two scores supposed to give an accurate representation of the instructors, school, or education process? It's essentially stacking the deck in favor of government-imposed educational reconstruction. [center]***END EDIT INSERT***[/center] [center]***EDIT INSERT #2***[/center] [left]I attended a Board of Education meeting last night, and apparently, NCLB is far more damaging than we may think. If these evaluation criteria weren't bad enough, there's also a straight test score standard across the board.[/left] [left]This may seem fine, but when we realize that NCLB is requiring that Special Education Students do as well and perform on the same level as Regular Students, something is dreadfully wrong here.[/left] [center]***END EDIT INSERT #2***[/center] That's just the evaluation criteria. Do keep in mind that NCLB was...signed into law, or at least went active, to the best of my recollection, back in 2000 or 2001, possibly 2002. I believe it was 2001. Schools are given approximately three to four years to improve. What happens if they don't improve, you may ask? There are a few different "stages." The first is Early Warning, I believe, where the school is simply warned. Fair enough. The second is a Choice, where schools are required to enable parents to transfer their children to another, more successful school within the same district. The third stage is...I believe Corrective Action. This is similar to the chaos that enveloped the Philadelphia Public Schools a few years ago, when Mayor Street proposed a total government-enforced restructuring. Let's examine these stages. The Early Warning is fine. I don't see a problem with that by itself, although NCLB is quite half-baked, and those evaluating the performances aren't really educated about education, so any Early Warning based on their recommendations is bunk, and I'll get to that in a moment. This Choice stage...I recently got my hands on a progress report of the school systems in South Jersey, and three high schools caught my attention: Lenape, Cherokee, Shawnee. They were all labeled "Choice." They're also all in the same district. I don't think I need to explicitly point out the flaw here, lol. Let's talk Corrective Action. This basically gives the government the power to step in and fire just about any staff member they like and replace them with whomever they like. That's what it boils down to. Again, maybe things have changed over the past few years, but if there is even half the level of instructor excellence at my old high school now than there was when I was there, these instructors do not deserve to lose their jobs. We're talking about losing good teachers who know how to teach. I quoted Last Comic Standing in the thread, and I'm going to quote it again. The following was said by one of the judges when they were deciding whether to accept Rob, a Kindergarten teacher who is also a fantastic comedian: "Are we gaining a great comic, or losing a good teacher?" That's one of the points here. The education institution cannot afford to lose good teachers. That's the bottom line. [center]***EDIT INSERT***[/center] We keep hearing about how the school system needs good teachers and such, well, how about not cutting the good ones already there? [center]***END EDIT INSERT***[/center] Now, I'd like to hit on that point I made earlier about who is recommending these changes and so forth. If you were to closely read the legislation, and just pay attention to what it's really saying, you will see that there is really no mention made at all of including actual educators, administrators and instructors in the evaluation process, or even as members on the recommendation board. What does this mean? It means that those making recommendations based on those test scores are really nothing more than consultants, who are brought in to "trim" things but have no real knowledge of the intricacies of the school system. There's a character in Dilbert called Catbert, and he functions more or less as a consultant for Human Resources. He's the villain of the comic, really, and with good reason. He exists only to torture Dilbert. That's not unlike what these consultants are doing now, quite honestly. They're not helping if the school systems are failing more and more, lol. Some point about resumes was made, some arguing that you need a resume to be effective, others arguing that you don't. I've not taught actual classes yet, and my resume mainly consists of working for Virtua Memorial Hospital, Radiology Division, Transcriptionist, for the past two years. But that doesn't mean my ideas and approach to education are bad. Sometimes, we need a fresh perspective on things, and I can say without ego that my fresh perspective will help to improve many, many things in the current school system in America. Sometimes, we just need a fresh start, a new angle, a new approach, a new face. Just because I don't have 20 or 30 years of experience teaching doesn't mean I'm going to suck as a teacher, and even though the stakes are raised in the Presidency, likewise, I don't think a fresh face, fresh start, fresh perspective should be treated as guaranteeing a bad Presidency. I'm relatively neutral in terms of party allegiances, but I must say that both sides aren't very appealing here, lol. I mean, I'm looking at the Republicans here arguing that we shouldn't villify Bush, that Bush isn't evil, etc etc., but then in the very same page accusing Kerry of being some anarchist or something, who will doom our nation if he's elected, etc etc. Am I the only one who sees a very glaring example of hypocrisy? This isn't even only targeted at the Republicans. I'm seeing this type of behavior from both sides here. If you're going to insult the Democrats for saying Bush is "Satan," but then say Kerry is "Satan," how does that work? If you're going to insult the Republicans for saying Kerry is "Satan," but then say Bush is "Satan," how does that work? I'm not picking a fight here, but it's pretty weird.

Er, well, I don't know how many parents you'll find on OB that have worthwhile input on this. I have a few documents password-protected on my computer, namely a few IM records, an old journal from high school, stuff like that. I password-protect them simply because they're very, very personal, and just things I don't want anyone to read without my presence. Obviously, I don't really see anything wrong with password-protecting documents, and I think that as long as you realize and understand the line between reality and fantasy, fact and fiction, I don't see a problem with restricting access to those.

Quick Off-Topic Film Lesson. [quote name='AnujSuper9']If that's true, that's (albeit cool) a terrible way to direct. It's one of the most important scenes in the star wars history and not giving them time to properly prepare is terrible. Thank God they're all awesome actors. :D[/quote] Ah, but think about where their characters are at that point in the Saga. Yes, they're all fantastic actors and play their parts very well, but what better way to elicit Luke's reaction of shock, horror and dread at the news, than to keep it a secret from both Luke and Hamill the entire time, up until that scene is shot? It's actually a very brilliant way to direct, when you think about it. By keeping that from them, the reaction of Hamill's is totally, and completely shock and surprise. There is no acting there. That's how it actually hit him, more or less. The "NOOOOO!" was added, I'm sure, but...the reaction is natural. I highly recommend that you check out the recently released DVDs. That whole story behind that scene is totally true, and it's rightly considered one of the greatest filmmaking techniques in history. And this technique isn't exclusive to Star Wars, either. If you were to look into the history of The Fly (1958), you'll see that in order to capture the true shock of Helene Delambre (played by Patricia Owens), the filmmakers withheld the actual creature until the very end. When that hood is pulled off in the Finale of the film...that's the first time the actors saw it, and Patricia Owens' reaction is a real one; she's actually deathly afraid of insects. Keeping a secret under wraps isn't unheard of, at all. For John Carpenter's The Thing, absolutely no publicity stills were allowed to be taken, and reference and progress photos were kept to a bare minimum, to help authenticate the reactions of both the actors and the audience. [quote]Well, it is a pretty big spoiler, but honestly, the people now are reasonably honed in on plot twists and things for it to be quite apparent and evident what the "twist" here would be. It is quite predictable, even if it is fantastic. But anyways, that's why I said it was funny, not because the spoiler was unnecessary, but because the idea that people don't know that by now is crazy...especially with the re-release of the movies on DVD....I imagine within the next couple months, the people that haven't seen it, will.[/QUOTE] If someone is a Star Wars virgin, they would not have been able to predict that twist. Even someone who is very well trained/experienced in film theory wouldn't pick up on it until that scene. That's why we Spoiler it. Because it's a Spoiler, regardless of who has or has not seen it. OB is not only viewed by OBers, after all. There are Guests viewing the threads. Spoilering is a good idea, and I think Manic actually made a Sticky thread about it up near the top of the Movie Forum. Better safe than sorry, you know?

[QUOTE=AnujSuper9]I was just reading this, and the fact that the [spoiler]father[/spoiler] thing was spoilered out is hilarious. The fact that everyone doesn't know that already boggles my mind. I spoilered out my post not to be hypocritical, but because I wasn't sure if that was an issue that has been discussed before about Star Wars "spoilers" and how those people living under a rock did actually plan to see the movies eventually and didn't want them "ruined" for themselves...[/QUOTE] Just a quick thing about that, heh. When you figure that during filming of Empire Strikes Back, apart from Lucas, Kirshner, and one or two other members of the production staff, nobody else was aware of the truth. Mark Hamill was told only a few minutes before the scene was shot, as was David Prowse (who played Vader). Literally, Lucas or Kirshner took Hamill aside a minute or two before that shot, saying, "Okay, Mark, up until this point, this is what you've been hearing, but this is what he's really going to say..." That's how it went, lol, so, if the actual actors had no idea, I don't think it's all that outrageous to believe that some people don't know. Plus, it's a pretty huge plot twist, and I know Manic likes us to Spoiler tag stuff like that, so that's why. Hot Shots! Part Deux is sitting here next to me. Lloyd Bridges rocks, and his fight at the end with Saddam Hussein is hilarious. I love how many different movies they mock there...Star Wars, Terminator, even a bizarre twist on Peter Pan, it seems (the shadows fighting, while the President and Saddam chug some Gatorade). Great fight, simply because it's just so ridiculous. ^_^

[quote name='Zeta']How on Earth do you know it is used as a flat out any defintiion of the term?[/quote] How do I know? Do you see any alteration of the term in the image? We've just established that various theatres have their own application and definition of the word, correct? So, with no altering at all of the term used in the MPAA image, how can we not say it's a flat definition? With no alteration in the usage of "Accompany," it's very clear that there is no singular definition intended, meaning, all forms of the definition are included. It's not being vague; it's being specific, although most simply just don't have the proper interpretive training to realize that. [quote]Had that been their intent, they would allow the permission without a second thought, which they don't. Their intent with the way the word is used, is to have an adult with you. It has been engraved upon us, no matter what the definitions mean. In every sentence a word that has multiple definitions is used in a certain way. And it is clearly obvious that the way accompanied is supposed to be used in this sentence, is for them to be with you. Otherwise anyone could get into the movie with the permission, which is obviously NOT true. How is that so hard to see? Had they intended to encompass all the definitions, one could get in with the permission just as easily if a parent was along for the entire movie, yet it isn't true. Getting familiar with the definition will do a person no good in many cases. Seeing as how even though permission is presented, they are still not allowed to see the movie. As I have said before. Permission has been granted for me many time, and for others I am assuming just as much and they still haven't been allowed to see the movie. Getting familiar with the definition will do nothing.[/QUOTE] Let me ask you, Zeta, is your problem here with the language of the MPAA image? Or is it more with how the theatres are misinterpreting that language, even though the language is very clear, and because of that wide-spread misinterpretation, we all have been brought up to believe that there is only one way the word, "Accompany," was ever meant to be used? The MPAA image does intend to encompass all the definitions of the term; it's just that theatres don't know a damn thing when it comes to interpretive practices. It is a matter of [i]people[/i] becoming familiar with the definitions, yes, but it's more than that. The people are only the customers, the movie-goers. If you want to see this "problem" remedied, then the people don't need to be "shown the light." The theatres need to be made aware. Your argument here is based solely on the theatre's misinterpretation of the MPAA's language. Get what I'm saying? I'll explain it a bit more clearly. The MPAA language isn't the "problem." The "problem" is uneducated, interpretively-challenged theatre bigwigs and managers.

[quote name='Zeta']Naturally, I shouldn't be talking about this, seeing as how it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. ^_^;; I'm done now.[/quote] Heh, I know. I don't want to stray off-topic, either, so I'll link this into the topic. You asked how the plot to Halo wasn't generic. [quote]An abandoned ringworld with a deadly organism? A religious race bent on the destruction of the human race,using technology of the abandoned ringworlds creaters? Why does GS recognize MC having never met him before? Nor the human race? Ringworld with a Earth type atmosphere and geography?[/QUOTE] The Ringworld is essentially a weapon of mass destruction. This WMD is being used for Jihad by a group of radicalist religious fanatics. GS is a computerized librarian who has a type of safeguard installed to prevent security breaches of sensitive information. These safeguards also prevent any unauthorized memory data recall/tampering. It's actually fairly similar to a few premises in Phillip K. Dick novels, various ideas in Terminator, even Asimov's I, Robot uses some of these ideas. Establishing an atmosphere on an orbiting vessel isn't unheard of in previous science fiction works. Alien and Aliens have portions of the ships transformed into greenhouses. This is just running off the top of my head. Why do people treat Halo's plot as revolutionary? I think it's just because of the "fancy and polished sci-fi window dressing." Now, how might this relate to RE:A? People are impressed by RE:A simply because of the special effects, because of the window dressing. They're choosing to ignore that much of what RE:A does has been done many times before, just not in such extravagance. You'll find that on the messageboard I linked to, much of the flaming is due to people wanting to ignore the "low plot" of RE:A, because they either: A) Lack the pre-existing knowledge to be able to realize repeated cliches. or B) They're simply too caught up in the overall show to care about the substance.

[quote name='Zeta']It doesn't matter what the term actually means, it is the way in which it is used here. Which is that a parent has to be with you to see the movie if it is R and you are under 17. Show me otherwise that it doesn't say that. Show me where it says you can get the permission, and then I will believe you.[/quote] You asked me to show where it doesn't say the "parent has to be with you to see the movie if it is R and you are under 17," and by that, I'm assuming you mean the whole "be there the entire time." [url=http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/][u]Movie Ratings on the MPAA Website[/u][/url] The image, taken from the MPAA Website: [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21183&stc=1[/img] You will see that they simply use "Accompanied by." That's it. It's a flat usage that encompasses every definition of "Accompany." That's just how it is. And, the Permission request, that is in the MPAA Rating image. Think about it. By having a parent accompany you, that is permission, is it not? [quote=Sciros]Haven't we been talking for a long time now about the fact that movie theaters each apply their own interpretation of "accompany?" You can't possibly expect anyone to believe that movie theater restrictions, at least the problematic ones, are the way they are because the theaters didn't think enough to interpret "accompany" in a different way than they did. Clearly they interpreted it a [i]certain[/i] way, but it was a way that fit what they wanted. It's not like they grudgingly accepted these restrictions; they're self-imposed![/quote] Is it that difficult to believe? Most theatres aren't comprehensive or thorough. This is made clear by the fact that people can sneak in undetected, true? You and others in this thread have mentioned that. If the theatre system is not perfect, isn't it likely, then, that they could stand to further familiarize themselves with the thorough definition of the word, "Accompany?"

Yes, and why, do you two think, that the movie theatres only apply that one definition and that one definition alone? Because they are not aware of the other uses of the word. The complaints here stem not from the supposedly "vague" language used in the Ratings/Restrictions; the complaints here stem from the theatres not being able to sufficiently and comprehensively apply the Restrictions, because they are unaware, like the general public, of the other eight or so uses and meanings of the word, "Accompany." Until this thread, some of you were unaware of those definitions. You see, it isn't a matter of anything being vague; it's a matter of others not understanding the fullest meaning of a word. The terminology used in the Restrictions is specific; it's the understanding of the terminology that is vague.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']???[/quote]I said, "just like Eric Idle" a few posts ago. Think about it. [QUOTE]The comparison was limited to the question of preserving an already existing story arc. (I invite you to reread the post where I first mentioned X-Men.) That's all I brought in X-Men for. X-Men has multiple story lines, and yet a new one was written, still preserving the "X-Men-ness" of the film. Why did it still work? Because the story arcs aren't a pillar of foundation for the X-Men universe. The movie makes this quite clear.[/QUOTE]Again, X-2 was very, very hazy. The characterizations were muted and simple. The dialogue was overwritten. The actors had nothing to work with. It wasn't a tight script. It was too long for what it was trying to do. I'm more than confident that at least thirty or forty pages (thirty to forty minutes of screen-time) could and should have been cut from that script. How can a movie make anything clear when it's so muddled itself? You're saying that the X-men story arcs aren't pillars of foundation for the X-men universe? So...there's just meaningless babble in every issue? Is it purely random? I haven't read X-men comics in a few years, but when I did, there was a rather strong emphasis on the story arcs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the characters shaped by their backstory in the comics? Just from histories influencing their actions, the story arcs are pillars of foundation there. Characters are shaped by history, and are further shaped in what they experience. How are story arcs not pillars of foundation? Oh, because a muddled, hazy, and turgid X-men movie breaks box office records? Or is it just because you absolutely love that muddled, hazy, and turgid X-men movie? [QUOTE]RE games have multiple story lines and yet a new one was written for the films. My apparently subtle point was that it was possible, as with X-Men (this here was the limit of the comparison, really), to preserve the "RE-ness" of the source material with an entirely original plot (the games have a somewhat random plot every time themselves). It simply wasn't carried out.[/QUOTE]"RE-ness?" The quality of being or state of Resident Evil. Okay, I'm trying to see how you can reconcile the massive action/adventure movie "RE-ness" with the game franchise's slower-paced, more methodical mood establishment "RE-ness." [QUOTE]Yes, I can see how solemn of a practice this is for you, this posting on Otakuboards. Much like war, there's nothing funny about it. But you know, I just try to lighten the mood. It relieves tension in this stressful hour. It's my way of coping.[/QUOTE]What are you babbling about? So I'm not joking around. Big deal. It doesn't matter. [QUOTE]Metroid is 99% "getting from point A to point B." If it weren't for the gameplay, there'd be nothing left. Sorry, yes, I must concede this. You are right, that was part of the game, and was actually a third of what you wrote in describing the storyline. Yes, a third is in the introduction, an introduction that takes about a minute of your time to watch. ...How CAN you legitimately count that as much of the storyline? How does that add to the game being story-driven? There's more of an introduction in the Killer Instinct instruction manual, for crying out loud. Nice job trying to "not change" the subject. At least Halo's characters adjusted to a changing plot. But I'm not claiming it's story-driven, because it's not. Morrowind, that's story driven. Metroid's story is static. The fact that you do the exact same stuff in the game regardless of whether you know the character's motivation behind it or not actually proves that. I think you need to reevaluate your definition of story-driven before you can discuss what does and what does not fall into that category. Metroid's story is the very definition of minimal. No misinterpretation required.[/QUOTE][url="http://www.systemmetroid.com/"][u]Metroid Website[/u][/url] [quote=Metroid Story] The Chozo... Over millennia, this bird-like race of creatures made incredible technological and scientific leaps. Traveling at will through space, they built many marvels across the universe-technological wonders of unfathomable complexity and cities unmatched in beauty. They shared their knowledge freely with more primitive cultures and learned to care for and respect life in all its forms. Even as their society reached its technological peak, however, the Chozo felt their spirituality wane. Their culture was steeped in prophecy and lore, and they foresaw the decline of the Chozo coinciding with the rise of evil. Horrified by the increasing violence in the universe, they began to withdraw into themselves, forgoing technology in favor of simplicity. Tallon IV was one of several refuges they built-a colony bereft of technology, built of natural materials and wedded to the land and its creatures. The years passed, and in time a great meteor crashed into Tallon IV, sending a massive spume of matter into the atmosphere and impregnating the land with a cancerous element known as Phazon. This element immediately sank into the earth and water, poisoning life wherever it bloomed. Most plants and animals died, while others mutated into hideous forms. The Chozo called upon all their knowledge and technology to control the power of the Phazon, but their efforts were doomed to fail. All they could do was build a temple over the crater at the impact site, separate the Phazon core, and seal it away. Believing that someday a savior would return to the planet, the Chozo left for an unknown destination, leaving nothing but engraved accounts of their time on Tallon IV. In the year 2000 of the history of the cosmos, representatives from the many different planets in the galaxy established a congress called the Galactic Federation, and an age of prosperity began. A successful exchange of cultures and civilization resulted and thousands of interstellar spaceships ferried back and forth between planets. But space pirates also appeared to attack the spaceships. The Federal Bureau created the Galactic Federation Police, but the pirates' attacks were powerful and it was not easy to catch them in the vastness of space. The Federation Bureau and the Federation Police called together warriors known for their great courage and sent them to do battle with the pirates. These great warriors were called "space hunters." They received large rewards when they captured pirates, and made their living as space bounty hunters. It was the year 20X5 of the history of the cosmos, and something terrible happened. Space pirates had attacked a deep-space research spaceship and seized a capsule containing an unknown life-form that had just been discovered on planet SR388. This life-form was in a state of suspended animation, but could be reactivated and would multiply when exposed to beta rays for 24 hours. It was suspected that the entire civilization of planet SR388 was destroyed by some unknown person or thing, and there was a strong possibility that the life-form just discovered was the cause of the planet's destruction. To carelessly let it multiply would be extremely dangerous. The Federation researchers had named it "Metroid" and were bringing it back to Earth when it was stolen by space pirates! Deep below the surface of Zebes, the Space Pirates researched Metroids for many years, even as a young girl orphaned by their raid on the neighboring planet of K-2L was growing up among the Chozo. Trained as a warrior and infused with Chozo blood, Samus Aran donned a Chozo-made Power Suit and cut a swath through the Space Pirates' operation, destroying everything in her path, including the gargantuan mainstays of the Space Pirate army, Ridley and Kraid. She eventually made it to the core of their base, destroyed all the Metroids she saw, and seemingly blew up the Mother Brain. But the Space Pirates were far from finished. They immediately split their survivors into two camps. One remained on Zebes to begin rebuilding their ravaged facility and resuscitating Mother Brain, Ridley, and Kraid. The second set out in search of a planet with powerful energy resources. They didn't search long before they discovered Tallon IV, which was still emanating huge pulses of energy from the Phazon contained beneath the Chozo temple. Entranced by the massive potential of the strange mutagen, they immediately moved in, retrofitting their laboratories, transporters, and life-support systems into the Chozo Ruins. As the Space Pirates mined the Phazon and experimented with it, they found that its capacity to mutate was unlike anything they'd ever seen, and they promptly started combining it with indigenous life forms. They refined their operation; powering their machinery with thermal-powered engines sunk deep in the molten depths of Tallon IV, they drove deep mineshafts and mined more and more Phazon, shipping it to their two main labs in the Phendrana Drifts, where sub-zero temperatures made specimen containment safer. Research leaped forward: by harnessing Phazon's power, they were able to create untold horrors that soon patrolled the dark caverns below Tallon IV's crust. The Space Pirates also transported many species to their orbiting ship for zero-G Phazon experiments, unaware that Samus Aran had finally tracked their ship to its low orbit. As they continued with their unnatural experiments, Samus sped toward Tallon IV, preparing to wipe them out once and for all. Arriving at the station in orbit around the planet Tallon IV, she found a laboratory in shambles, overrun by strange mutant creatures and full of wounded and dying Space Pirates. The pirates had been conducting all manner of ghastly experiments in the labs- experiments that very clearly went wrong. After a run-in with a giant mutated parasite queen and a newly mechanized version of Ridley, Samus barely escaped the station's self-destruct sequence. She then pursued Ridley to the surface of Tallon IV, hoping to discover what the Space Pirates were up to. Samus' one advantage against the enemy came from a remnant of the Chozo civilization: a temple that was built to block access to the meteor's impact site. This impenetrable temple is all that was stopping the Space Pirates from gaining the full amount of Phazon they needed. Samus collected the 12 artifacts necessary to open the temple, in the process facing down the Mecha-Ridley and all manner of mutated and enhanced pirates. The villains' ultimate goal had been to expose juvenile Metroids to Phazon and see what sort of mutations occurred. Samus found the most hideous result of their efforts at the impact crater in the form of Metroid Prime, an enormous, incredibly powerful Metroid mutation. After a lengthy, heated battle, Samus defeated Metroid Prime and destroyed the Space Pirate menace on Tallon IV, returning the planet to its natural state. After serious consideration of how terrible and destructive the Metroid life form was, the Galactic Federation sent another research ship to SR388. This trip was to make sure their was no more Metroids left on the planet. After a short time the Federation received an emergency notice from the research base. They had lost contact, and the research ship was missing. The base had already sent a search and rescue party, but after their initial contact, the rescue ship was not heard from again. A special combat group was assembled consisting of armed soldiers from the Federation Police and was immediately dispatched to SR388. After transmitting their primary landing data, they also were never heard from! Rumors spread fast, and again, the whole galaxy was seized with the fear of Metroids. With this limited information, the Federation was positive that a Metroid must still be surviving, hiding deep in the planet underground. Even one living Metroid could easily wipe out an entire planetary civilization. So, the Galactic Federation called its members to an urgent conference to find a way to overcome this menace. They quickly came to one conclusion, which was unanimous and simple....Give Samus Aran the order to exterminate the Metroids! Samus, charged with her mission from the Galactic Federation, hurried to the planet SR388. The Metroids on SR388 were more advanced than the creatures on Zebes. These monsters could shed their skins and grow even stronger. Samus worked deep below the surface and blasted all of the Metroids in her path. Her final victory was against the enormous Metroid Queen. When the queen was defeated, Samus discovered a Metroid egg which hatched before her eyes. Even this hardened bounty hunter could not destroy the Metroid larva. When the larva sensed Samus' presence, it clung to her as though it had found its mother. Samus packed up the Metroid larva and took it with her to the Space Science Academy on the Galactic Federation Space Colony where scientists study the creature and understand its special organic structure. The Science Academy scientists found out that the energy-producing properties of the Metroid could benefit humankind. Their report suggested that the Metroids may have originally been created for peaceful purposes. Just when it seemed peace and order had been restored, Samus received an emergency directive from the Galactic Federation: EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! Return immediately to the Space Science Academy! When Samus made her way to the research facility, she found the building in ruins and the Metroid larva was nowhere to be found. Out of the darkness came a group of Zebesian space pirates and their leader, Ridley, who had the Metroid larva in tow. The pirates fled to a rebuilt planet Zebes and Samus followed them, resolving to finish them off and save the hatchling! In the final battle with Mother Brain, the hatchling saved Samus, giving up its life in the process. Samus succeeded in defeating Mother Brain, but the universe lost the promise of using Metroid for the power of good. SR388, former home of the Metroids. After so many years, the remaining creatures on this planet still seemed to be trying to recreate a natural hierarchy, one without Metroids at the top. Biologic Space Labs was hired by the Federation to observe this restructuring of the ecosystem. And because of my experience on SR388, the Federation governor for this sector hired Samus to provide field assistance on the planet. So, once again she found herself drawn to the planet. The biological sample collection was going smoothly on the planet's surface when Samus came into contact with an organism she had never before encountered. The organism was an undiscovered unnamed parasitic life form, which the researchers later called ?X.? Thinking little of it at the time, Samus boarded a ship and set out for the next collection point. Suddenly Samus felt her entire body seize up, and she lost consciousness. The ship began to drift away from planetary orbit toward an asteroid belt. Thankfully, an auto-escape pod jettisoned Samus from the craft before the ship was destroyed. The researchers in the newly constructed research station orbiting SR388 sent a shuttle to recover the pod shortly thereafter. However, in the time since Samus's infection, the X had multiplied rapidly in her body and had even infected her Power Suit. Her heart rate and blood pressure dropped rapidly as she fell into a deep coma. The Onboard Medic Simulation predicted only a 0.873% prognosis for survival. Samus was transported to Galactic Federation HQ for emergency medical treatment. The fact that the Power Suit contained biological components and was also integrally connected to Samus's body seemed to worsen the matter. The Federation surgeons were unable to remove the suit while she was unconscious. Their only choice was to cut and remove parts of the infected suit from her still-unconscious form; immediately after, they sent the suit parts to the Biologic Space labs research station for study. Even with the parts removed, however, the X infection was spreading rapidly through her nervous system, and the researchers monitoring her deterioration knew of no cure. Someone proposed a desperate treatment: create a vaccine from Metroid cells. Apparently the Federation had preserved a cell culture from the last Metroid. The scientists quickly prepared and administered the vaccine. The symptoms of the infection disappeared instantly, and all of the X parasites within Samus died in moments. When Samus woke, the scientists told her that the hatchling had saved me once again. Almost immediately after Samus awoke, she received a distress call from the research station. ?Emergency! Explosion of unknown origin in the Quarantine Bay!? The screams from the com receiver were loud enough for Samus to hear even in the infirmary. She knew that something terrible was about to happen. She immediately boarded the ship the Federation had provided her and sent a reply message: ?Docking with Biologic Space labs station in 10 minutes. Prepare the landing bay!? Upon arriving, Samus found that the X were somehow brought aboard the station and had overrun it. She then began a frantic mission to look for survivors and neutralize the X before they destroyed the research platform entirely. Samus was aided by a remote supercomputer, which she dubbed Adam, who gave her mission objectives and supplied her with new weaponry. Adam guided Samus through the various areas of the station as she battles the X in its various incarnations. Once her mission began, Samus learned of the X's horrifying ability to mimic any organism that it has infected, including her. She soon encountered an X that had taken the form of the pre-infected Samus, complete with all her former weapons and abilities. Adam called Samus' nemesis the SA-X, and this doppelganger haunted her steps throughout the mission. In addition to the SA-X, Samus fought all manner of other infected creatures in the various sections of the station. As Samus gained the upper hand against the X, she stumbled upon a shocking secret - a research lab containing Metroids was hidden inside the station. She found the SA-X fighting a host of juvenile Metroids as the lab area began to self-destruct. Samus barely escaped the lab section before it detached, destroying the SA-X and Metroids, but then Adam informed her that there were even more replicas of the SA-X on board, and worse, the Federation had been using her mission to study them and their application as a bio-weapon. Samus knew that when the Federation came for the X, it would infect them and spread throughout the galaxy, destroying everything in its path. She resolved to destroy the station, and herself, if necessary, to end this menace. Adam advised Samus to start the station's self-destruct sequence after altering its orbital trajectory. This would capture SR388 in the radius of the station's explosion, destroying the planet as well. Samus did this, and then encountered another SA-X as she tried to escape the explosion. After defeating it, she approached her ship to find none other than the Omega Metroid. Amazingly, the essence of the SA-X she destroyed arrived and merged with Samus, enhancing her powers and allowing her to destroy the Omega Metroid and escape the station just before it destroyed both itself and SR388. Finally, it seemed the threat of the X and the Metroids had come an end. But of course, such things always have a way of coming back to haunt Samus...[/quote]The story seems pretty good to me. [QUOTE]A backstory doesn't drive the game. A progressive plot does. If your character is reactive to the story, and more importantly if YOU are, then the game becomes story-driven. Knights of the Old Republic, that's truly story-driven. I'm sure you'll at least agree there. Metroid Prime is NOT.[/QUOTE]Firstly, when you study literature and such, you will come to understand that no backstory means no story. This holds true with games, as well. You don't have a game if you don't have backstory. A progressive plot certainly has something to do with narrative development, as do character involvement, but don't minimize backstory in establishing a story. The plot and characters grow out of the backstory. Samus reacts to the story. She's involved in it; she's involved in how it progresses. You and Samus both play a role in the game. You both do affect the outcome. I don't see how it's all that different from KOTOR, apart from the Dark/Light Side feature and the RPG elements. [QUOTE]Well, just thinking off the top of my head, there was Maximus's supposed devotion to his dead wife/child, and how in the end the point is that he is finally reunited with them, but in the middle of the film he totally tries to get into Lucila's (sp) pants. That's a pretty big deal. ...But the film has problems besides that.[/QUOTE]Yes, there's a kiss on her hand and a longer, tender kiss on her lips. I'd hardly consider that "totally [trying] to get in her pants," but perhaps my definitions are simply looser than yours? I'm sure that's the reason here. Maximus and Lucilla have a history together. He was and still is her protector. He fought for her and still fights for her. And let's talk about his character. He is chaste, as it were, and dedicated to his dead wife throughout the film. Because of this, do you really think there's something sexual about his affection for Lucilla? Honestly, I think the sexual tensions are being projected by Commodus. His advances are clearly sexual; Maximus, however, his kiss with Lucilla is fairly innocent, I think. He's the protector; not the predator. Is it possible you're seeing something that simply isn't there? [QUOTE]Think about how you presented your information. You said, essentially: the film was hated when treated as stand-alone. The film was hated when treated as non-stand-alone. It is therefore clearly not-stand-alone. There's a HUGE flaw to the logical flow there. I don't understand how you're missing it. Again, the lack of logic. Just because outside reviewers hate a film doesn't mean it's not stand-alone. It just means outside reviewers hated it. It honestly doesn't even necessarily mean it's a bad film (although in this case it is). In fact I'm not sure RE:A [i]isn't[/i] a stand-alone film, to be honest. It was carried out so poorly overall that lack of plot or character development can't be attributed to lack of source material preservation so much as just horrible writing/directing. No contradiction, but no affirmation either, as far as the point discussed above is concerned. I hope you realize it by now.[/QUOTE]Let's consider just what "Stand-alone" means, shall we? It implies that something can survive without any other support. That is essentially what it means. What are the implications of this? A "Stand-alone" work is judged solely on its own and by its own merits. There is nothing else to gauge its worth on. Now, who would be evaluating a "Stand-alone" movie? An outside reviewer. Perhaps you do not understand what I mean when I say "outside reviewer." Allow me to clarify. [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953399/"][u]This is an outside reviewer[/u].[/url] She is one who is going into that movie with absolutely no idea of what the source material is or what it's like. Nowhere in that review does she indicate she has any familiarity at all with the game franchise. To her, she is viewing RE:A as a Stand-alone movie, because she is unaware of the source material. And, lo and behold, she very much disliked the movie, simply on the merits and evaluation criterion of reviewing just a regular release that had no previous game franchise to base itself on. Because she is an outside reviewer, RE:A becomes a "Stand-alone" movie, and fails in it. It collapses. The very definition of "Stand-alone," as we've established, describes something that can survive on its own. RE:A does not, and thus, isn't a Stand-alone movie. When taken out of the context of the gaming franchise, it's incoherent and very badly executed. But let's view it from the opposite side now. I'm not one to hold IMDB.com's message boards in any high regard, but occasionally, once in a blue moon, there are some really astute and intelligent commentaries on there. One member, MeltmanX, has some very intelligent comments on there as to why the RE movies falter when compared against the games. To clarify, comparing against the games is what a "Non-Stand-alone" movie is, a movie being reviewed by someone who is aware of the source material and what type of material it is. Libra113 asked what the problems were, as he/she had not played the games. MeltmanX replied: [quote=MeltmanX]As you've said it, libra113, you haven't played the games, so you don't know what they're really like. I'm not gonna bash you for that, if you don't like them it's your choice. But what the games are about is you, on your own, with limited ammo and no martial arts trying to survive, or just to get a bit farther this time around, anyway. And that's a real challenge (well, at least on Hard it is). Now, some people make stupid remarks about the puzzles ("the main guy would have to be a janitor, ROFL"), without realizing that they're used as a break from all the running and shooting around; maybe they never could solve them, maybe they just don't like how in the real world, a treasure box wouldn't have the key needed to turn on a machine to make an anti-virus to... whatever, that's how the game's are, and no amount of bitching will change that. See my point yet? or do I have to go on? [b]The real problem here is that they didn't even try to translate the gaming experience of tension and overall nervous excitement to the big screen. Instead we get bullet-time action and kung-fu monster fights, and that's not what we were looking for.[/b][/quote]I've also included [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318627/board/nest/11950984"][u]the thread[/u][/url]. I've bolded the precise idea. Now, when reviewed by those knowledgeable about both the gaming franchise's approach and execution, and those who are also knowledgeable about what can be done in cinema, the movie is compared against the source material, being treated as a "Non-Stand-alone" movie, and, again, it collapses. With this collapse and failure when it is judged as a "Non-Stand-alone" movie, it's virtually impossible to be considered a worthwhile "Addition" to/Adaptation of the source material. Based on these evaluation points, both from a Stand-alone standpoint, and from the Non-Stand-alone standpoint, it's clear that the RE movies are unable to deliver in either, as it were, and thus drop into the Cinematic Purgatory...Limbo. This isn't terribly hard to grasp. You just need to understand there are only two types of movie here, and the RE movies don't belong in either, based on the reviews and criterion of the respective evaluation types. This is fairly basic film theory. [quote]My point from the get-go was that you don't need to preserve a story-arc from the games to make a good Resident Evil movie. Do you disagree or something?[/QUOTE]Okay, and did they make a good Resident Evil movie when they butchered the story arcs? Zeta, to answer your questions about Halo's plot, I checked the links, and it's all backstory. If we're going by what Sciros has been saying here, that backstory means squat, all of that backstory for Halo should also be considered squat. If we're treating it as a more than generic story, then I'm reading through it and seeing events and plot twists/devices/developments that are increasingly generic. It's stringing together military cliches. It's been done before, and not specifically in the Halo franchise.

[quote name='Zeta']If it doesn't mean to accompany them the whole time, then why don't they allow it plainly? If as you say it isn't said at all, they have no right to restrict you to see a movie, even if they are afraid of lawsuits. If it doesn't say it as specifically as you say, you are free to do whatever you want, even wtihout any adjustments. But the thing is, you are not.[/quote] Why don't they follow it plainly? Like you've said previously, most only know the one definition of the word. It's a general mass ignorance. There's no specification there, but the only reason it's restricted like that is because people think that's the only definition. That's all it is. [QUOTE]When looking at rating/restrictions things at theatres, sometimes there are pictures. Now in the rated R, do you see a little kid? No. You see a 17 year old, and two adults, can't remember if there are any else? But you don't see someone younger than 17 in the pictures. So naturally the saying "under 17 has tobe accompanied by an adult/guardian" combined with the picture of no young'ns in the picture, people assume that they either have to be with you the whole way, or not at all.[/QUOTE] I know of the pictures you're referring to, but it's hard to discern age in those, so you couldn't necessarily say, "Oh, that person is 17, and that person is 6, and that's a parent over there." Yes, there are height differences, but that's not an accurate assessment of age. Come to think of it, that's probably why you don't see many of those pictures anymore. Again, it's not any fault in the Ratings or Restrictions; it's because people aren't aware of what the actual terminology means. [QUOTE]I don't think I have been too clear with my points in this topic I apologize. What I am advocating is that written/verbal permission should be enough to let you into a Rate R movie. I never said that we should get rid of them, as I think Eclipse thought i meant? What I meant is that they are just guidelines, and if you have the obvious written proof of a parent, or a parent comes with you to buy the ticket for you, that should be enough to let you into the movie. In many places I have been around the country, they haven't allowed me to do so, even when my mother was standing in front of them buying me the ticket. I am saying they should be adjusted so that written/verbal permission is enough to let one into a movie. Many, many people look at the restrictions and see that you have to have an adult with you if you are under 17 as the final point, basically, that period. That if you are not 17 and your mom/dad won't be seeing the movie with you, you can't see it. Lots of people see it as that, without even thinking that written/verbal permission should be enough. In some places that is enough, in same it isn't. But how much more proof do you want if you have a note signed by a parent, or the parent is with you buying you your ticket? Written proof is enough to rent rated R movie from places such as Hollywood Video. What is the difference between being allowed to rent when you are under the age of 17, but aren't allowed to see the movie on the big screen when you parent is there to buy the ticket? Hell, you probably see more things on the rented version with deleted scenes and such, so in essence - in my mind at least - more emphasis ( all right, I have no clue how to spell that word, lol) on the renting of Rated R movies. Many times, they continue things times ten of what they would have seen in theatres.[/QUOTE] And that's what I've been saying: written/verbal permission is enough to get you in. It's not prohibited by the Ratings/Restrictions system. It's just that many, many people simply don't realize that. I'm going to repeat what I've been saying all along: the movie Ratings/Restrictions are not an issue or a problem. It's a general mass mis-interpretation of the terminology used that's the problem. That's why I've been saying the Ratings/Restrictions are fine. Because they're not the problem.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Heh. They're both languages as far as I'm concerned. I guess Japanese might be better for singing, as it's more vocal, but other than that...[/quote] I was talking about the people themselves, and I like Chinese because they're cute and they're cuddly and they're ready to please. [QUOTE]That they're adaptations is all that was being compared, however. In my point, genre was irrelevant, as was the source medium. It's a question of preserving the story line, and a story line is a story line regardless of whether it's written or spoken, and at whatever pace. To discount the comparison because the source media and genres are different is to miss the point.[/QUOTE] A story-line in a spoken form is actually quite different from written form. When someone is writing a story, they're paying close attention to coherency, and they cut portions that don't add to the story, and don't drive the plot forward. Spoken, however, like the old bards, and even today, when someone is on stage improvising, that story-line will vary on the fly, because unlike writing, speaking is often extemporaneous, and story-telling is no different. Yes, there are rehearsed performances and so forth, but the rehearsed performance is still structured and guided by a written story. In actual spoken story-telling, like improvisation, the story-line is a totally different story-line than written, because it's a fractured presentation, a non-linear one, if you will. This is basic Literary/Linguistic theory. And you're implying here that all adaptations of any type of source material are able to do the same things, or are all on the same level, when, clearly, that is not the case. I'd actually use The Thing as an example. If you were to see Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World (1951), then see John Carpenter's remake in 1982, you would figure that Carpenter totally skewed Hawks' version, and distorted it beyond recognition. However, if you were to read Who Goes There by John Campbell, published in 1938, I believe, you would see that Carpenter's remake actually adheres precisely to the original short novella, and Hawks' version totally distorts it. This is an example of the exact same source material (the same work) having two different adaptations of it. Even with the same source material, adaptations differ radically, so how are you able to say that all adaptations should behave in the same way? How are you able to suggest that...a storyline is a storyline, when, clearly, the Hawks adaptation to Who Goes There was incredibly different to Carpenter's adaptation? To compare adaptations simply because they're adaptations is missing the point. You're comparing radically different materials here, materials that have radically different intents, radically different points and commentaries. What you're doing here is akin to comparing Day The Earth Stood Still and The Thing, and saying they're able to be compared simply because they're both science-fiction films. But if you were to actually study them, you'd find that comparisons between the two are nearly entirely moot, because they possess entirely different outlooks, objectives, and motivations. I'm not talking about the plots themselves, either. The actual intents of the filmmakers was radically different. This is the same thing with X-men and Mortal Kombat. The source materials have an entirely different focus, and their story-lines (both actual plot and focus) are apples and oranges. You want to compare the two simply because they're adaptations, fine, but your comparison is a totally broken one, because you're failing to consider the finer details, just like your Metroid Prime vs Halo comparison. Also, quote me fully, please. You chopped off an entire sentence from the paragraph I just quoted, and tried to build a rebuttal point off of something taken out of context. [quote name='Siren']But, keep in mind, that MK and X-men do not have the same source material. X-men is a comic book, and MK is a video game franchise. Yes, both have bled into various mediums, but the origins don't change, and the source materials don't change. X-2 isn't a suitable comparison point, simply because it's an entirely different type of adaptation.[/quote] [QUOTE]I guess not, no. Not if you don't mind seeming devoid of a sense of humor. Jeez, I can't even make [i]fun[/i] of bad movies when talking to you...[/QUOTE] Oh, I have a sense of humor, just not here. [QUOTE]The game itself == the gameplay.[/QUOTE] No. The game itself = the entire game. The gameplay = how you get from Point A to Point B. They're not the same. [quote]Your "objective" in the game is to fight evil bees and spiky blobs and expand your missile carrying capacity, essentially.[/quote] If that were the essential objective, there wouldn't be anything else other than that. There would be no Magmoor Caverns; there would be no Phazon Mines. There would be no Impact Crater. You're viewing it in an incredibly simplistic fashion. [QUOTE]The fragment I quoted above wasn't even [i]part[/i] of the game, lol.[/QUOTE] The introductions don't count as part of the game anymore? As I recall, the "Game" was the entire thing. The "Gameplay" was what you've been referring to. [QUOTE]And the rest of what you said is ever so generic and basic that it can hardly qualify as an actual "story."[/QUOTE] Okay, then Halo's story is more generic and basic than you've claimed. I'm not going to drag this off-topic, but just keep in mind that Halo's story was about as cliche-ridden, dumbed-down and simplistic as you can get, and that's without simplifying it, either, like I did with Metroid Prime's story. Prime's story has depth; you just refused to explore it. Don't let your preconceived notions of gaming dictate what the game and its story really are. [QUOTE]Seriously, say what you will, but Metroid is NOT a story-driven game, especially as far as the whole of gaming is concerned. To say it's story-driven, you have to show that your actions in the game are dictated by plot progression [b]rather than the direction of the next turn in the tunnel you're rolling through[/b].[/QUOTE] Right...I do believe that's the most simple thing you've said today, no offense. You're very determined to minimize Metroid Prime's story, aren't you? Even willing to go to those lengths of...misinterpretation? Prime is story-driven. As much as you may hate its story, it is story-driven. The plot becomes more complex as you go through the game; there are revelations regarding particular events, characters, and locales. There is a backstory to Tallon IV. The game is story-driven. [QUOTE]Sure, compared to Gradius, Metroid might be almost twice as story-driven, heh, but that's about all the credit it's due.[/QUOTE] Isn't it possible you're just trying to stay in your bubble? [QUOTE]If you don't mind, I rather look at the more recent works of a director. If Lucas decides to direct another movie sometime, I will anticipate it being major suckage because while the original SW trilogy is cool, the new one is pure cheese. And I'm not too thrilled with Spielberg's last run of films, either, and am nervous about Indy 4 as a result.[/QUOTE] Very well then. Do explain how Gladiator's characters were inconsistent throughout the film, please? Their characterizations are pretty solid throughout; there are no continuity gaps I can detect in terms of character location/costuming. The Emperor remains a sneaky bastard up until the very end, when he dies. The sister remains honorable. Maximus is always determined to get revenge. What am I missing here? [QUOTE]Is there a major typo there? Because your argument would only hold if gamers LIKED the movies. As it stands there's no indication of anything because you say the movie was disliked by BOTH people who knew the games and people who didn't. So RE:Apocalypse was NOT "clearly not a stand-alone film," heh, [i]because[/i] you say it failed miserably when treated as non-standalone as well.[/QUOTE] First, I think you should look at what I was responding to: [quote=Sciros]A story arc or secondary characters is not something that absolutely needs to tranferred over to the big screen intact. Incorporating some elements from the source doesn't stop a film from being standalone. With Resident Evil especially, there's very little that HAS to be preserved to keep it a legitimate RE game, because the setting is almost irrelevant.You just need to keep Umbrella the bad guys, the T virus the source of the problem, and a couple of main characters. That and monsters. All the rest can be brand-spanking new. It's totally possible to keep a lot of source material intact and make a standalone film. The only thing that stands in the way of a film NOT needing the source material as a supplement to maintaint coherency is the talent of the screenwriter.[/quote] You were saying that an adaptation does not need to adhere to the story arc. You were saying that with RE especially, you don't need every single character and setting to make a worthwhile movie. You were saying that you don't need much from the source material to make it a stand-alone film. You were using RE as your major support point there, because the RE game series is apparently simple. Then you mention how the only thing holding an loose adaptation back is if there is a hack screenwriter. Firstly, I honestly don't think poor writing was the only reason the RE movie tanked. Now, let's see my reply: [quote name='Siren']But look at the market reaction to RE:Apocalypse. Critics who knew nothing about the games hated the movies. Gamers hated the movies. RE:Apocalypse was clearly not a stand-alone film, because it failed so miserably when it was treated as a stand-alone.[/quote] Now, let's see what your rebuttal was: [quote name='Sciros]Is there a major typo there? Because your argument would only hold if gamers LIKED the movies. As it stands there's no indication of anything because you say the movie was disliked by BOTH people who knew the games and people who didn't. So RE:Apocalypse was NOT "clearly not a stand-alone film," heh, [i]because[/i'] you say it failed miserably when treated as non-standalone as well.[/quote] I find it humorous that simply because I say RE:A was "clearly not a stand-alone film," based on the uninitiated reviews, you immediately think there's some contradiction there when I mention how gamers hated the movie as well, and you believe I'm treating RE:A as...relevant to the games themselves (read: "non-stand-alone"), simply because gamers hated it? Could it be possible that the reason I said RE:A was "clearly not a stand-alone film," was because outside reviewers hated it, and at the same time, gamers hated it because it didn't adhere enough to the game franchise itself? There's no contradiction here. RE:A was a piss-poor stand-alone movie, and at the same time, it didn't follow the source material enough to be a non-stand-alone. It's in Limbo...Cinematic Purgatory, if you will. [quote]If the movies were pure action but were done WELL as action films, I would have had NO PROBLEM with them at all. But I wasn't saying that once you have Umbrella/T-Virus/main characters you're free to do a gay porno and slap a "RE" title onto it. I just meant that you're not restricted to doing already-written story arcs. RE gives you a lot of freedom because its various games are not so interconnected or developed that you MUST preserve the stories.[/QUOTE] Am I to understand that you're implying the movies were somehow side-stories to the actual games? A side-story that opens in the [i]mansion[/i]? A side-story whose "Raccoon City" looks nothing like the Raccoon City of the games? Perhaps it's just me, but I don't recall seeing any skyscrapers, office buildings, etc, in the games. I don't think you're proving any point here, because...the RE movies are essentially bastard step-children of the original premise of "survival horror" that was ultimately discarded for the "better" "explosion" movie. C'mon, lol.

I'm just making sure I've got everything here. Okay, so Derek is your boyfriend. You've been dating how long? There was a mention of a "friend" in one of your posts in the other thread, but no mention made about Derek. If the "friend" you mentioned was Derek, your boyfriend, why didn't you say, "Derek, my boyfriend?" It doesn't make sense to me. And, two days after you found out, then you explode? I can't believe that parents aren't getting involved here. I mean, trauma like this and it sounds like there's nothing being done? Even in an attempt, there are major, major actions taken by mental health agencies...required psychiatric counseling for those affected directly...evaluations, meetings...none of this is happening? And...your post was at 3:36 pm, on a Tuesday, which is within working hours for most emergency wards. At the hospital I work for, they have 24-hour coverage for those types of emergencies. It sounds like there's nothing being done, either by parents or by professionals, and...pardon me for saying so, but that's unheard of. I'm not attacking you here, but there are still a lot of hazy areas.

Mimmi, beautiful story, and why you two haven't realized you have a thing for each other, I can't understand. ~_^

[quote name='Inuyasha Fandom']I learned about it over the weekend. I didn't know about it untill sunday. And as for Will and Shane, Derek was one reason i was afraid to tell them.[/quote] Which weekend, though? I'm still not seeing how these dates and times synch-up. I'm assuming you meant this past weekend, which was the weekend of October 1st. That Saturday would be the 2nd, and Sunday would be the 3rd. Apart from looking at the calendar, I know this because I attended a local food/music festival held every first weekend in October. Now, you say you found out about it Sunday. Why is there no mention of that at all in your Monday, Oct 4th posts in the other thread? If you had found out about it on October 3rd, wouldn't you have said something about it in your post on October 4th? Specifically, I'm looking at the following: [quote][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/images/liquid/statusicon/post_old.gif[/img] 10-04-2004, 11:59 AM [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/member.php?u=7055"]Inuyasha Fandom[/url] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/images/liquid/statusicon/user_online.gif[/img] vbmenu_register("postmenu_610649", true); Member The Angel of Sorrowed Dreams [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/member.php?u=7055"][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/images/avatars/Inuyasha_Inuyasha.jpg[/img][/url] Will knows i like him, yes, but he is completely unaware i like Shane as well, though definitely not as much. Will is also completely unaware of just how much he himself means to me. [/quote] You're talking about both of them as if they're still alive and well. In fact, you're talking about them in present tense, meaning, not referring to them in [i]past[/i] tense, meaning, they're still alive, if they even existed to begin with. If you had found out about it on Sunday, why do you post about it on October 5th, an entire two days after you found out, and two minutes after your last post in your other thread, a thread that spans over the few days after Sunday, where there is no mention at all of a suicide? And...your post (which is dated October 5th) at the start of this thread has the "I just found out about it this second" type of feeling, similar to the posts in the 9/11 thread back in 2001. I'm not trying to be an -ss here, I'm seriously not. I just am having an incredibly hard time understanding this time-line suggested by the post dates and times, which can't be altered.