Brasil

And I'm actually starting to wonder if there was a Will or Shane to begin with. This entire thing just seems a bit too...contrived, to be authentic.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Whoa, whoa, hold your horses. Well-acted, well-written, and well-directed? Lol, we shouldn't be discussing films. We clash too much. I think MK is utter crap. I think X-2 is well-acted, well-written, and well-directed. You adore the Matrix trilogy. I want my $20 and 8 hours of my life back. Maybe we should discuss something neutral, like Japanese, lol.[/quote] Yes. There was nothing glaringly wrong about the first MK movie. It's a tight film. There's no wasted dialogue, there's no wasted movement, and the camerawork is effective as hell. MK is a very tightly constructed movie. X-2 was horrid. It sat on itself. The dialogue, pacing, acting, etc, were all incredibly turgid. The Matrix Trilogy is a great set of films, and just from the fact I can damn well prove that Captain Ahab is in it (and has a very prominent lead role, I might add), that shows the films aren't as shallow as people think. I drew out a lot of little subtle things--some incredibly minute details and comparison points that many, many viewers don't and didn't pick up on. Just the Pagan leopards and the inhabitants of the Matrix, or the "speechless, placeless power" that is bestowed upon both Ahab and Smith, Smith's hellfire form and Ahab's address to the flames...these are things that you don't find in everyday, run-of-the-mill, average science fiction cinema. But I like Chinese, just like Eric Idle. [QUOTE]I don't agree, but whatever. There's no point in arguing this because nobody's gonna get anywhere.[/QUOTE] You're comparing two entirely different types of story. Two different [i]genres[/i]. You simply can't compare them on any reasonable level. They're both adaptations. That's the only similarity, and one similarity isn't enough on which to build a comparison. [QUOTE]It was a joke.[/QUOTE] Yeah...but that doesn't mean I was required to treat it as such. [QUOTE]The gameplay is not affected by the story. From a game design perspective, the "story" in MP could have been 100000 different things and nothing would've had to be changed in terms of level design or anything for that matter. Because it's so shallow, is why. Alien had character interaction, which is the only thing that kept the film afloat during the first half. Metroid would need to have that ADDED if you want to keep me awake. Actually, I disagree altogether that Metroid and Alien are paced similarly. Alien was a slow suspense horror, whereas Metroid has less suspense than Ocarina of Time. That game is spoon-fed to you from beginning to end.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about the gameplay. I'm talking about the game itself, and the game itself [i]is[/i] story-driven. Without Ridley escaping down to Tallon IV, there would be no objective at first. Getting to Ridley isn't that easy, because the target was lost, so you're going to need to land and go exploring. As it turns out, you're going to run into some unfriendlies in your travels, who have been tampering with a dangerous substance in an attempt to strengthen their armies so they can take over more planets. As you explore their base, you find notes and memorandum of various experiments, and documentation of a creature known as Metroid Prime. It seems to pose a threat to the safety of the galaxy, so you set out to destroy it. How is the game not story-driven? And the pacing of both vehicles is closer than you may think. If you were to examine the major plot-points of Alien, and compare them against the plot-points of Metroid Prime, you'll find they synch-up quite well, especially in their respective times. [QUOTE]Ridley Scott is good enough to do a lot of stuff. But in keeping characters consistent, he'd need some supervision. Gladiator,...ugh...[/QUOTE] Alien. [quote]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] 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. One of the biggest problems with the RE movies is the fact that the entire motif of the games, "Survival horror" (this is where George Romeo is amazing), isn't even present at all. The games were all about Night of the Living Dead. RE:A is more James Bond with Zombies. You can go and make an RE game with Umbrella, the T-Virus, and a few main characters, but if you make it some outlandish and absurd explosion-driven game, you're not really adhering to the other games.

I really think "Navi" is simply short for "Navigator." That's her precise function in the game, and she really does nothing else apart from tell you where to go, fly into wooden fencing, and chime in with meaningless advice at the most inopportune moments. I don't think it's a coincidence there, but I'm thinking any other similarities are just coincidences. I mean, you have a Navigator character of some type, and for a fun, goofy, and easy-to-remember quirky name, "Navi" fits.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']I'm not sure I like any video game adaptations besides Street Fighter and Mario Bros., if only because they're both really funny. Street Fighter especially is hilarious: "your *** is six months overdue, and it's mine!" lol[/quote] And those two fall into the "so bad they're good" bin. MK, on the other hand, was well-acted, well-written, and well-directed. It was a solid adaptation. [QUOTE]All I'm comparing is that you don't need to mirror the plot of the source material to have a good adaptation (and I think X-2 was good, which is why I brought it up to make my point). I guess I don't care if you dislike the film, and it's not an X-Men thread anyway.[/QUOTE] But when the source material is in an entirely different genre, entirely different medium, comparing the two isn't appropriate, because you're essentially comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they're both adaptations, but they're adapted from radically different sources, sources whose very natures (characters, ideas, plot, settings, etc) are like black and white to each other. As for X-2, surely you could admit the writing could have been way better, and that the movie was too long for what it ultimately wanted to do (The Phoenix Saga). It really suffered from so many characters being in there. They tried developing everything, but it just spread too thin, and we never felt for any of the characters. Oddly enough, the only two characters I was interested in were Magneto and Pyro, and Pyro had minimal screentime. [QUOTE]It didn't fail in the "include a generic yet nonsensical black comic relief character" aspect. It also didn't fail in the "give the main bad guy a cool chain gun" aspect.[/QUOTE] But for the purposes of the movie, those "aspects" are accidental. They're really only cliche holes that the movie fell into. [QUOTE]Well, the game isn't story driven in the least. Not any more so than any fighting game, even. Sure, you can scan stuff and find out the history behind everything, but ultimately that's not something you can transfer to the screen and have it stand, because there's no character interaction/development. The game hinges on its exploration/action aspects, not at all on its story. If I was to make a Metroid film, I'd personally start almost from scratch in terms of story.[/QUOTE] The game is story-driven, though. You could barrel through the game and fight Prime at the end, but you would have no idea of why it was there if you didn't read the Pirate Data in the various terminals. I've studied screenwriting for a few years now, and have attended workshops taught by industry professionals, and bringing Metroid to the big screen, with the Metroid mythos intact, would not be difficult. Just consider Alien to be the blueprint for Metroid. Come to think of it, there is actually speculation that it was an inspiration for the game. Alien's pacing and such is very similar to Metroid, and when you consider the characters, it's certainly not impossible to alter the Alien-type film for Metroid. It'd work quite well, actually, and there's no need to start from scratch regarding plot, because the plots are fairly similar. More and more, I'm thinking Ridley Scott could do that. [quote]Movies HAVE to be standalone, because otherwise they'd REQUIRE familiarity with the source material (that's what standalone means). And movies should require no such thing. It's not necessarily respectful to the source material to ignore it, but if certain modifications (even large ones) have to be made in the name of "quality filmmaking" that's fine. I'm a huge Batman fan, and I don't like even what little changes they're making in Batman Begins as far as the mythos is concerned, but if the film is still GOOD on its own, I won't really complain. An example of a film that's NOT standalone is Ah! My Goddess, the movie. That thing is boring as heck unless you're familiar with the characters, because there's barely any development of any secondary ones in it. The same is true of Cowboy Bebop: The Movie. I watched it before watching the series, and basically wanted 2 hours of my life back.[/QUOTE] We're not talking about every movie ever made. We're talking about video game movie adaptations, which should never be intended to be stand-alone. The very notion of a video game adaptation is that you're building off the games themselves, using characters and settings. RE collapsed because it didn't do that, and tried to be stand-alone. Clearly, video game adaptations must have coherency to the source material. Otherwise, they're just as well titled something entirely unrelated to the source material.

I'm having trouble establishing a time-line here. I know a sequence of events would help me in helping you, so...I'm figuring that your thread from the other day, the one where you explained your predicament about having a crush on Will and Shane, has something to do with this thread? [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=42704"][u]Here's the "Crush" thread[/u][/url] I'm really having trouble here, lol. It shows you posted in that thread last earlier today, then had a post yesterday, then posted on Sept 25th. It looks like at that point, you still weren't in a relationship, but...now you post and your boyfriend has committed suicide? You're mentioning something about not being there Friday, and I can only assume you meant October 1st or September 24th, but if it were October 1st, wouldn't you have mentioned something in the "Crush" thread about not being there? From your most recent post today there, I can't tell if you talked to him or not, or when you would have talked to him, and on what day, and if it may have been a Friday. I'm reading that thread again, and it doesn't sound like you talked to them at all. So...could you provide a time-line here, please? I'm confused. I'm comparing the post dates and times, as well, and your last post in the other thread was at 3:34 pm today, and you started this thread at 3:36 pm today. Two minutes doesn't seem like enough time to be told that your boyfriend committed suicide, and to post about it, because I'm positive those who told you wouldn't give you the two minutes to do anything on your computer. Also, it doesn't seem like you had a boyfriend at that point, and the day before it. Now I'm seriously confused.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']How the heck did Mortal Kombat even make it into this thread? It's one of the crappiest films ever made, heh. And Annihilation... ugh, I don't even want to think about it. MK followed a plot which could be summarized in two sentences. That's not really an accomplishment by any standard.[/quote] Actually, given the [i]other[/i] video game movie adaptations, and generally, other films released that year, MK was quite good. The writing was there, the pacing was there, the locales and aesthetics were stunning, and the actors did precisely what they needed to do. Plus, Christopher Lambert of Highlander playing what he does best: the mythical warrior. Linden Ashby captured the flair and arrogance of the movie star very well, and how could you have a problem with Trevor Goddard as Kano? He was perfectly cast, and he [i]nailed[/i] that character. As much as I would have loved to see Shang Tsung as the ancient and elderly, dry, bony sorcerer from the game, I think Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa handled the translation quite well. [QUOTE]"Following a storyline" is often wholly unnecessary. X-2 didn't follow much of any X-men story arc, yet it was very well-executed and remained a quality "comic book" film. Something like Legend of Zelda, if made into a movie, would NEED a (new) cohesive storyline. The same goes for plotless Metroid.[/QUOTE] 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. And quite honestly, X-2's plot was abysmal. The writing was dreadful. I mean, how many times do we need to see a joke about Wolverine's claws? Haven't we had enough of Backstreet Boys by 2003? "Stryker. His name is Stryker." What is that, lol. Let's not forget the cliche-ridden exchanges between Iceman and Rogue that attempt to take themselves seriously, and, let's face it. Even Alan Cumming couldn't make that "Faith" dialogue work. Considering, also, that at least a quarter of that script could have been excised right away (the movie is about 30 minutes too long, by the way, to be able to sustain the picture), I don't think X-2 is the great film you think it is. [QUOTE]The Resident Evil films failed in a good number of respects as far as I'm concerned. But as someone who hasn't played through a single RE game, believe me it's not the "lack of recognizeable game elements" that ruined the movie for me, heh. If you ask me they threw a bit too many random game elements in there which really weren't developed enough to justify being added.[/QUOTE] How about the RE films failed in every aspect? They were just clumsily-conceived, clumsily-written, and clumsily-executed adaptations written by a hack director. [quote]Movies are standalone; they're not supposed to be direct adaptations of other media, mainly because there's not enough time to tell as developed and "rich" a story as a book or tv series or video game might. There's no reason to expect a film version of Metroid to be nearly plotless running-and-shooting-doors-then-rolling-around for two hours, is there?[/QUOTE] I believe your "Plotless Metroid" complaints were answered in another thread, but I'll just re-iterate here. The plot is there in Metroid if you're willing to explore, and it's a very good, well-developed plot, as well, and given the right writer/director, would work quite well. I think Ridley Scott could handle it, actually. I envision a Metroid movie to be similar in some ways to Alien. And, movies are not stand-alone, especially when they're based on video games. Just because there are RE movies being made doesn't mean they can ignore the source material, and that doesn't mean they're going to be able to stand-alone, especially given how the RE movies turned out. That's just how things work.

[QUOTE=Zeta]To be or go with as a companion.-Defination of accompany To be with, or go with. When many think of the word accompany, they think of the person going with them the full time. If your permission was a byline or footnote, it would say something along the lines as "written/verbal permission accepted", but it doesn't. When it says MUST be accompanied with an adult, it doesn't mean they take you and buy tickets. It means they will sit in the theatre with you, and watch the movie. There is no footnote to it. They are supposed to be with you the full time, to go with as a companion. If the persmission thing is included in that, which I am very curious as to how you got that out of the restrictions, it would say so. Why would it say so? Because many people are oblivious to that so called footnote or yours. So yes, you did adjust it. It says you must be accompanied by parent or guardian, which you obviously were not. They gave their persmission, which is not what the guidelines say. Since that is the case, not only you adjusted it, but the ticket seller did as well. It is a known fact that when they say accompanied by a parent or guardian, that they mean in the theatre with you, not just take you there. If that wasn't the case, someones parent could drop them off and they would technically have accompanied them.[/QUOTE]Ah, but isn't your post there splitting hairs in a gray area? You'll notice that there isn't any specification of what "accompany" means in the descriptions that Boba Fett has provided: [quote]R - Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some locations). This signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use.[/quote]If you were to go to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), you'd find that "accompany" does not specifically mean "be there the entire time." When you mention "known fact that when they say accompanied by a parent or guardian, that they mean in the theatre with you, not just take you there," you're actually applying a commonly applied definition that is neither the precise one, nor the only one. The fact of the matter is, there is no specific usage of the word, "accompany," listed in the Ratings/Restrictions. The definition commonly used is a type of misnomer, as there are at least seven other types of definitions found in the OED, a dictionary I use for all of my definitions; it's quite thorough. I'd link to it, but you wouldn't be able to view the page. Shinmaru wasn't able to see it, even with a direct link. I suspect it has something to do with certain computer configurations and the Rutgers network I'm on. [quote=OED]To make any one, to make oneself, become or act as a companion. I. To accompany one thing to or with another. 1. To accompany (a person or thing) to (another): to add as companion; to associate; to add or conjoin to. Obs. 1483 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-c.html#caxton"]CAXTON[/url] Gold. Leg. 174/1 As many as ye can conuerte to your feythe..ye shal haue lycence to baptyse them and to accompanye them to your lawe. 1553-87 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f2.html#foxe"]FOXE[/url] A. & M. (1596) 127/2 The King againe gathered his men..& with fresh souldiours to them accompanied, met the Danes. 2. To accompany (a person (obs.) or thing) with (another): to send it with (or give it) the accompaniment or addition of; to supplement it by; to join to it. (Rare and less correct const. by.) 1629 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h4.html#howell"]HOWELL[/url] Fam. Lett. (1650) 163, I thought it a good correspondence with you to accompagne it with what follows. 1655 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-c.html#ld-burghley"]LD. BURGHLEY[/url] in Fuller Ch. Hist. IX. 167, I have thought good to accompany him with these my letters. 1810 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-t.html#w-taylor"]W. TAYLOR[/url] in Robberds Mem. II. 285 Accompanying my letter by a copy of the ?Tales of Yore.? Mod. He accompanied the word with a blow. 3. refl. To associate or unite oneself with. Obs. 1477 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-r2.html#earl-rivers"]EARL RIVERS[/url] (Caxton) Dictes 119 Accompanye the with good peple and thou shalt be one of them. 1650 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-w2.html#sir-a-weldon"]SIR A. WELDON[/url] Crt. & Char. K. James 62 And did accompany himselfe with none but men..by whom he might be bettered. [img]http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mb/dag.gif[/img]II. To accompany (sc. oneself) with others. Obs. [img]http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mb/dag.gif[/img]4. intr. (by omission of refl. pron.) To accompany with: to associate, consort, or keep company with; euphem. to cohabit with. Obs. 1534 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-b2.html#ld-berners"]LD. BERNERS[/url] Gold. Bk. M. Aurel. (1546) Gijb, Suche as accompanyeth with man-killers and murtherers. 1577 Test. of 12 Patr. When Anan was marriageable, I gaue Thamar unto him, & he likewise of a spite accompanied not with her. 1676 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-c2.html#clarendon"]CLARENDON[/url] Surv. Leviath. 257 Those men who had accompanied with them all the time. 1760 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h4.html#t-hutchinson"]T. HUTCHINSON[/url] Hist. Col. Mass. Bay (1765) v. 461 A young woman was not less esteemed for having accompanied with a man. 5. absol. To associate in a company; to congregate; to meet, to unite or combine. Obs. 1540 WHITTINTON Tully's Off. I. 70 Swarmes of bees do accompany..for as moch as they be companable by nature. 1577 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h2.html#hellowes"]HELLOWES[/url] tr. Gueuara's Fam. Ep. 27 Noblenesse and contention did neuer accompanie in one generous personage. III. trans. (from 4, by omission of with.) To accompany persons or things. 6. To remain or stay with; to keep company with; euphem. to cohabit with. Obs. c1500 Remedie of Loue in Speght Chaucer (1602) 308 b/1 If she sit idle..not accompanide..with maidens I meane, or women. 1580 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s2.html#sidney"]SIDNEY[/url] Arcadia (1622) 195 Shee vsed no harder wordes to her, then to bid her go home, and accompanie her solitarie father. 1660 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-c3.html#r-coke"]R. COKE[/url] Power & Subj. 161 We teach, that upon Festival and Fasting times every man forbear to accompany his wife. 7. fig. To tenant or fill (a place) with company. Obs. rare. 1631 Celestina XXI. 201 What hast thou done with my daughter? where hast thou bestow'd her? who shall accompany my disaccompanied habitation? 8. To go in company with, to go along with; to convoy; to escort (for safety), to attend (as a retinue). (The passive formerly took with, now by.) c1460 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f2.html#fortescue"]FORTESCUE[/url] Abs. & Lim. Mon. (1714) 48 Which Ambassatours..schal nede to be honorably accompanyd. 1494 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f.html#fabyan"]FABYAN[/url] I. ii. 8 Accompanyed with a great Nombre of Troyans..[he] landed in the countre of Italye. 1588 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s2.html#shakes"]SHAKES.[/url] Tit. A. I. i. 333 Panthean Lords, accompany Your Noble Emperour and his louely Bride. 1659 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-r2.html#rushworth"]RUSHWORTH[/url] Hist. Collect. I. 76 The Marquiss went privately accompanied with the Earl of Bristol. 1722 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-d.html#de-foe"]DE FOE[/url] Hist. Plague 43 That no neighbours nor friends be suffered to accompany the corpse to church. 1801 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s5.html#strutt"]STRUTT[/url] Sports & Past. I. i. 11 The ladies often accompanied the gentlemen in hunting parties. 1876 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f2.html#freeman"]FREEMAN[/url] Norm. Conq. III. x. 462 The Earl went as a pilgrim, accompanied by his wife. b. fig. Of things personified or viewed as companions. 1477 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-r2.html#earl-rivers"]EARL RIVERS[/url] (Caxton) Dictes 91 Couetise hath accompaigned them from their childehode. a1541 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-w3.html#wyatt"]WYATT[/url] Complaint (1831) 161 So shall mine eyes in pain accompany my heart. 1611 BIBLE Heb. vi. 9 Wee are perswaded better things of you, and things that accompany saluation. 1645 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f2.html#fuller"]FULLER[/url] Good Thoughts (1841) 23 Lord, I read how Jacob (then only accompanied with his staff) vowed at Bethel, that..he would make that place thy house. 1856 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-m3.html#mill"]MILL[/url] Logic (1868) I. v. §4. 109 One attribute always accompanies another attribute. 1875 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h.html#hamerton"]HAMERTON[/url] Intell. Life I. iii. 14 His adviser prescribed a well-cooked little déjeuner à la fourchette, accompanied by half a bottle of sound Bordeaux. 9. To go along with, or characterize, as an attribute or attendant phenomenon. (The passive still takes with, but by is sometimes found.) 1731 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s5.html#swift"]SWIFT[/url] Pref. to Sir W. Temple's Wks. I. 254 To prevent him from finding them in other Places very faulty, and perhaps accompanied with many spurious Additions. 1751 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-j.html#jortin"]JORTIN[/url] Serm. (1771) I. IV. 62 Their faith was accompanied with greater degrees of fervour. 1794 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s5.html#sullivan"]SULLIVAN[/url] View of Nat. I. 179 The sparkling flame and vivid heat which accompany the rapid combustion produced by that air [oxygen]. 1869 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-p2.html#phillips"]PHILLIPS[/url] Vesuvius iv. 112 The ejections of scoriæ were accompanied by bellowings. 1878 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-g.html#gladstone"]GLADSTONE[/url] Prim. Homer 148 The wisdom of Nestor is amusingly accompanied with self-complacent reflection. 10. Music. To join a singer or player, by singing or playing on any instrument an additional part or parts. (The player is said also to accompany the singing or piece sung, as well as the singer; and to accompany, with music, on the instrument.) 1583 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-g.html#golding"]GOLDING[/url] Calvin's Deut. xliii. 255 A gratious and pleasaunt melody wherein wee be accompanied with the Angels of heauen. c1680 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-b4.html#sir-t-browne"]SIR T. BROWNE[/url] Tracts 124 This hymn accompanied with instrumental musick. 1753 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-r.html#richardson"]RICHARDSON[/url] Grandison (1781) VI. liv. 351 After breakfast, Lucy gave us a lesson on the harpsichord. Sir Charles accompanied her finger, at the desire of the company. 1845 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h3.html#e-holmes"]E. HOLMES[/url] Mozart 26 A lady asked him if he could accompany by ear an Italian Cavatina..[he] accompanied it with the bass without the least embarrassment. 1869 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-o.html#ouseley"]OUSELEY[/url] Counterpoint xx. 162 The counter-subject is a supplementary melody, intended to accompany the subject and answer. The preposition used after the passive accompanied is still somewhat unsettled. As in passives generally, it was formerly with; but by is now always said of personal agents, and, it appears, of things personified or viewed as active agents: ?He was accompanied by two policemen,? ?a ship accompanied by several native junks.? When accompany is used causally, with introduces the secondary agent or instrument, as ?he accompanied the word with a blow;? and this is of course retained in the passive, ?the word was accompanied with a blow (by him).? Hence with is used in the passive whenever the agency may be looked upon as merely secondary, or as an accompaniment rather than a companion, even though no primary agent is expressed, ?The operation was accompanied with much pain.? Cf. associated, combined with; attended with pain, by satellites; followed by unpleasant symptoms. [/quote]As you can see, there is much more to the definition than simply, "To be or go with as a companion." I find the portion concerning the Police Officers very interesting. An officer can accompany a criminal to prison, but they're not going to go in the cell with them. They're not going to stay there the entire time. A similar case would be an Agent and his talent. The Agent would certainly accompany his talent to the game, but he's not going to sit with the athlete the entire game, if he even sits with the athlete at all. Just from those two examples, "Accompany" definitely doesn't only mean "staying there the entire time," and I think it's unwise to not consider the other types of definitions and other usages of the word. Don't you agree? I think MischiefEclipse raises a good point about the Lawsuits, too. This is another very good and solid reason for establishing the Rating/Restriction system. It is very much concerned with everyone's well-being, and as we discuss this more and more, I think the systems' functionality and usefulness are becoming clearer and clearer. EDIT: There are a few typos here and there, so if something sounds weird, just let me know. Chances are, I missed a word in typing my reply, lol.

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Unfortunately it does come down to "you versus him" and if he's perceived as being a victim, he'll probably always win. All you can do is try to avoid situations where you're coming into conflict with him (and you can only try, I imagine it's unavoidable at times).[/color][/quote] This is a point I'd like to elaborate on a bit. In my experience, I've often been labeled the villain/bully/egotistical bastard/etc, but often, this labeling is incorrect, and sometimes, while not all the time, I think it's also incorrect in terms of schoolyard bullying. Granted, there are times where someone just lashes out for no reason at all, and it's happened a few times to me, but often, the "bully" does have some type of provocation, although most don't believe that. Obviously, and I don't debate this fact for a second, that some bullies just attack for the sake of attacking, but in some cases, I think there is a provocation. Whether it's words or insults exchanged, fists exchanged, pushing, shoving, that's still a provocation, but I think those who victimize themselves don't realize that. It's not a matter of "OMG he hit me and I only said he was stupid! He should get punished, not me! I'm not the cause of the trouble." It's like...you swing first, you're going to get hit back. It's similar to not starting something when you know there's going to be a reaction, I think. I know this isn't the case most of the time, but there are situations where the so-called "innocent victim" is really just an instigating whiner. I've run into a few of them in my time, especially in my younger schooling years. Oddly enough, I've found that the more outrageous and absurd the "victim's" story becomes, the more it becomes clear that they're trying to compensate for what they really know is the truth.

[quote name='Zeta']Yes, I don't believe that you would have thrown a hiss fit or anything. But again, the fact remains that you adjusted them to fit your needs. You may not have seen it that way back then, but in light of this topic, you did adjust them because you were unhappy with them. You don't have to throw a hissy fit to mean you are unhappy with something. And you did exactly what some are saying in this thread. That they are guidelines and shouldn't be enforced as heavily as they are. If you had no problems with the rating/restriction system, you wouldn't have seen it in the first place. But the fact that you did, and didn't follow the "rules" set forth, shows that you do in fact have a problem with it, you just won't get all pissed off about it. It's and adjustment to a system that you claims is perfectly fine. If something is perfectly fine, there is no need to adjust it.[/quote] But one thing we need to keep in mind here, is that the Restriction system does have the "Must be accompanied by parent or guardian" byline. In a sense, this means that the parental written/verbal permission clause is already instated in the Restriction rules, so though it may seem like I was bypassing the Restrictions, in fact, I was following them, and not making any adjustments, because I was adhering to the "Must be accompanied by a parent or guardian" foot-note, by having my mom there with me as we purchased the tickets. When you think about it, that wasn't an adjustment at all, because it was already included as a foot-note, as it were, in the Restriction system itself, and this brings me back to one of my first points in this thread, that the Restriction system is not an issue to begin with, and certainly not an issue when you have the parents there with you, which is emphasized in the Restrictions themselves, and is what I did. I was still following the Restrictions. Interesting, isn't it?

I was watching Fight Club and Lethal Weapon 1 a few days ago, then this question hit me. Pardon the bad pun. What are some of the top movie fights of all-time? What fight sequences just give you that charge? It doesn't necessarily have to be blood-bath, though, chances are, most will be, heh, but really, any "fight" goes here. I'd have to say that the final fight between Mr. Joshua and Martin Riggs in Lethal Weapon 1 ranks up there. It's just so well-done, and it looks stunning. I love the feel of it, with the fire hydrant spraying all over, mud soaking the ground, Murtaugh's house totally demolished from the police car, the sirens, the lights...everything about that fight is just impeccable. The lines leading up to it are wonderful, too. "Whaddya say? Wanna shot at the title?" John Carpenter's They Live has a great fight scene, as well. I'm a big fan of Keith David's work in general, and I've never been disappointed by any of his performances. I can't imagine anything better than he and Rowdy Roddy Piper beating the living sh-t out of each other in something like a 15-minute back-alley brawl. Again, the scene composition and storyboarding is amazing. Each shot is just so rough and you really [i]feel[/i] the impact. Empire Strikes Back, Luke vs Vader. Lightsabers, "[spoiler]Luke...I am your father[/spoiler]," losing a hand, Jedi b-tchslap, [i]total[/i] Dark Side pwnage. Fantastic fight, and we finally get to see the big showdown. ^_^ Thoughts? What fight scenes do you all love to watch? Hm, Something About Mary, Ben Stiller vs Puffy. I laughed until I cried.

[QUOTE=Zeta]But if there isn't a problem with it, then why get the verbal/written permission? If you are so for it as you are saying, and that nothing is wrong with it, you wouldn't use a verbal/written permission. You would go with your parents and that is it for a rated R movie. By saying that you get around the restrictions that are in place, show that it doesn't work for you. You want to see the movie, yet you can't unless a parent is with you. That is what is supposed to happen. But yet, you gave a way for others to basically undermind the rating system, a way which you have also followed. I am curious as to how that is saying they work? For the R movies at least. You made an adjustment, pure and simple. Implying that that specific restriction doesn't work for you. How is that [i]not[/i] an adjustment? When you change a little thing here and there, it is an adjustment. In your case it was getting the verbal/written permission, when it is supposed to be that you have to have a parent/guardian accompany you to the movie. Again I repeat, if you see no problem with it, then why did you not follow it? If there was no problem with it, you would have went with your mom/dad. But again, no one wants to see a movie with their parents, some movies at least. You may have stayed true to your argument the whole thread, which as I understand is nothing is wrong with the rating/restriction system and that nothing should be changed. But your example doesn't stay true to your nothing is wrong with the rating/restriction system. Obviously something is wrong if you yourself don't follow it.[/QUOTE]I understand your point, and I see where you're coming from, and it is a legitimate point, but it wasn't an issue or a problem for me back then, because I didn't treat it as a problem. It was simply something at the movie theatre. I didn't get upset over it. I didn't get into a hissy-fit over it. I didn't kick and scream, and I didn't get "uppity." It didn't bother me at all that I couldn't get in to an R-rated movie without my mom, because I knew it was rated R, and I knew that I wouldn't be able to dance around the Restriction on my own. The only reason I was able to get in was because my mom was there, which was a parental permission. I believed in the Rating/Restriction system back then, and I still do. I didn't see it as an obstacle back then, and I still don't see it as an obstacle now, and that's why I see these rantings and ravings about the evils of the system to be just a little bit ridiculous, because people are getting themselves worked up over nothing. That's why I've kept asking, "So what?" when I've replied in this thread. It's simply not an issue, and the mentality that makes it an issue is, like I said previously, the "Freshman boy who is pissed because he's not getting to see Freddy vs Jason" mentality. There's nothing inherently wrong about either the Ratings or the Restrictions. They're a problem because people want to make them a problem. And, considering that the last movie listing I saw had about [i]three[/i] R-rated movies versus approximately [i]fourteen[/i] G to PG-13 movies, I just don't see how the whole "R Restriction" is all that bad. It's not as if the entire theatre is off-limits, and I'm sure Sky Captain is as equally entertaining as RE:Apocalypse. I honestly think that people are just wanting to complain about something, and the Ratings/Restrictions system has become their target lately.

Falkon, I deeply and heartily apologize for this, and I regret replying even after you expressed your disgust, but I'd just like some clarification, that's all, because some of this is just rather underdeveloped. With Lore's blessing, I'm replying. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Again, I'm unsure why this is so confusing to everyone. I have no problem with restrictions being lifted, and that much I always made clear. "Why not?" indeed. But the only time I actually suggested any sort of reasonable solution was when I said that the rating system needs to be adjusted. Which I said [i]before[/i] you referred to me as proposing the removal of the restrictions. Obviously I'd be fine with both approaches, [b]but even in my first post I said that the rating system was inappropriate[/b']. I said that theaters impose restrictions based on an inappropriate set of guidelines.[/quote]I've bolded a particular point here. You did not go into the Rating system itself, apart from [i]briefly[/i] mentioning it. The majority of your first post was attacking the [i]Restriction[/i] system, not the Rating system. Yes, you were listing reasons for declaring the Rating system inappropriate, but the fact remains that you were concentrating on the Restrictions and not the Ratings, and attempting to expose faults within the Restrictions themselves. That has been your focus all along, Sciros, even in your very first post: The Restrictions. Now, since the mid-point of the thread, when it was pointed out that the "Why not?" for lifting the restrictions would be detrimental for the movie-going populace, in that with no restrictions in place, incredibly questionable material (read: adult films) could be accessible to minors, you've since changed your focus to the Rating system. Your above paragraph is certainly a mixed message. [quote]But the only time I actually suggested any sort of reasonable solution was when I said that the rating system needs to be adjusted. Which I said [i]before[/i] you referred to me as proposing the removal of the restrictions.[/quote]Your first post was the [i]initial[/i] post on [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=42955&page=2&pp=15"][u]this page[/u][/url]. Nowhere in your first post (before my "referring to you as proposing the removal of the restrictions," which was the [i]second[/i] post on that page) did you mention anything remotely resembling suggestions regarding changing the Guidelines. [QUOTE]As for me "changing my tune," I'd really like to know where exactly you think I did that, because I didn't.[/QUOTE]I've quoted quite a bit that shows that, and others here are understanding my points, even the thread starter. You've contradicted yourself, rambled, and generally, presented a very fractured and incoherent argument that has flip-flopped quite a bit. [QUOTE]That "moral relativism" discussion you mentioned, Siren, was a prime example of you not understanding a single word I said. Everything went right over your head, and you ended up thinking that I was "against moral relativism" or something else equally ridiculous. Talk to James if you want to know what I was talking about; he understood it far far better than you. And honestly it doesn't factor into this discussion. Yes, because it's without my jurisdiction. Why should I tell other people how to raise their kids? I shouldn't, actually.[/QUOTE][url="http://www.moral-relativism.com/"][u]Moral Relativism[/u][/url]. It seems to me that you latch onto a phrase or idea that you think (or perhaps convinced yourself that) you understand, and when someone begins debunking your points about it, you believe they don't know what they're talking about. In that discussion you and I had, you explicitly stated, and quite vehemently, I might add, that moral relativism "has no place in society." I'm just going to quote the first paragraph of the site I just linked to: [quote name='Link]Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are [url="http://www.cultural-materialism.com/"]culturally based[/url'] and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."[/quote]Do correct me if I'm wrong, but the precise idea you've been arguing for here [i]is[/i] moral relativism, in fact arguing here that it does have a place in society, and in a discussion where we're talking about [i]moral standards[/i], moral relativism certainly is a factor here, or [i]at least[/i] a discussion point. [QUOTE]You're thinking along different lines altogether. I said "it doesn't really matter" because it's probably not gonna come up as an issue. I don't know of too many nine-year-olds who were upset over not being able to see whatever R-rated film. Young children watch other kinds of TV, they go to bed earlier, etc. in comparison to teens. And when a kid reaches his/her teens, the parents should judge based on their child's maturity level what sorts of movies he/she can see.[/QUOTE]Okay, so if it isn't an issue to begin with, why bring it up? Why argue about it? Why use it as support to say that the Restriction system is bunk? The Ratings/Restrictions apply to all ages in the same way. Why do 9-year-olds not factor into this discussion, but teens do? Is it just a matter of age? Are parents just going to suddenly start evaluating their child's maturity level when their child becomes a teenager? Or perhaps are they always evaluating their child's maturity level? I still don't see how your point supports your thesis. Perhaps I'm just dense, or perhaps you're not doing as well as you think you are? [quote]This is an exercise in logic: Bob says the earth is flat. I am not sure what he bases his claim on, but it is inaccurate. Confused?[/QUOTE]The Earth is proven to be round. Have you proven anything in this thread? Have you had any definitive and clear answer in your replies? The answer is no. Even now, you're denying that you ever said something when it's very clear you did in fact say it. I've provided quotes and linkage, yet you still are adamant that you didn't say/mean that. Zeta, to answer your question, you will find that I was one of the very first people here to suggest the written/verbal permissions as a solution to the "problem," even when I didn't see a problem to begin with. I've stayed consistent throughout this thread. Honestly, I don't think there need to be any adjustments at all. If people are so upset over this, though, then I suggested, and do suggest, the written/verbal permissions exception being made official. I think some are missing my point with that. I'm not saying I disagree with the Rating/Restriction system. In fact, I agree with it. I don't see a problem with it, but if people are getting in such a hissy-fit over it, I've suggested a solution. That's not contradictory to my points or thesis. I've stayed true to what I said in my very first post, that there is no problem with the Rating/Restriction system.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Siren, realize: I don't think the theater restrictions are necessary, yes. But [b]I also don't think they can be done away with[/b'].[/quote]All right, then, if you don't believe the restrictions can be done away with, could you please explain what your motivation was for your following statement, which I had quoted previously and you had ignored/contradicted? [i][quote name='Sciros][b]Why not?[/b'] How much should we try to shelter other people's children? I am confused by this tendency to "protect people from themselves." Considering that most of the people who actually give two craps about the rating system are overly concerned and ignorant parents, if they really care enough they can take a more personal role in deciding what their children can and cannot do or watch.[/quote][/i] When one asks "why not," it often signifies that one does not have a problem with a particular action being taken, and thus would advocate it, which you have been doing in the early half of this thread: advocating removing the restriction system. If you like, I'll re-quote those excerpts. To put it simply, by asking "why not," you're directly asking what the problem would be with removing the restriction system. This is simple grammatical and syntactical analysis. If you hadn't thought that the restriction system could be done away with, why would you be asking why it couldn't be done away with? [quote]That's why I suggested adjusting the rating system which the restrictions enforce. I'm not sure why this is so confusing.[/quote]You're now suggesting adjusting the Ratings system, but nowhere in the following excerpt did you mention [i]anything[/i] regarding adjusting the [i]Rating[/i] system, only discussing adjusting the [i]Restrictions[/i]: [quote=Sciros]The bottom line here is that the choice of what movies children can see is no longer left up to the parents. Because of theaters' restrictions, whether or not parents think their children are "mature" enough to see whatever movie is in question, the children cannot unless they're 17+ or the parents go see the movie with them. But it's not that often that parents have time to see (nor do they want to see) all the films their children want to go to. To say that the restrictions are necessary is basically to say that parents cannot decide such things for themselves, nor can they enforce their decisions. To what I say that these sorts of parents won't be able to "shelter" (for lack of a better word) their children from anything anyway, seeing as their parenting is ineffective. So, point is: were there guidelines but no restrictions, it would be in the hands of parents whether to allow their children to see a film or not (which I think is more proper). Because there are restrictions, parents have no say in the matter unless [i]they[/i] feel like seeing a film with their children (and children want to see the film with them).[/quote]How are you able to deny that you've changed your entire focus/argument, when it's very clear that you were arguing for changing the Restriction system in the above excerpt, and are now arguing for changing the Rating system in your current reply? I can't understand this, so please, explain it to me. [QUOTE]I'd support the "deconstruction" of the restriction system were it a possibility, but it's not.[/QUOTE]Apparently, from your above previous quote there, you'd support it either way, without caring about if it were a possibility or not, and not caring about the implications and/or consequences of removing it. [QUOTE]As for your assumption that I "changed my views" or whatever after reading some peoples' posts, well it's incorrect.[/QUOTE]So, it's just an incredibly, exceedingly, insanely timely coincidence, then? Come on, lol. You mean to tell me that your entire argument and focus just arbitrarily change in the middle of a debate? [QUOTE]I disagree that if there were no restrictions we'd have anything resembling so-called "anarchy." I don't think it's appropriate for a 10-year-old to watch adult films, but I'm not gonna make that decision for other people's children.[/QUOTE]Did I just read what I thought I read? You do not feel it's appropriate for a 10-year-old to watch adult films, but you're refusing to step-in when another child may be watching something that you feel (know) they shouldn't? [QUOTE]I know James said that certain age restrictions need to be in place, and I disagree with him, because at a certain age (say, 9 for R-rated films) they almost don't matter, and later on they're not universally applicable.[/QUOTE]Nine years old? Not even in middle school? Fifth grade at most, and you're saying age restrictions don't matter--sorry, [i]almost[/i] don't matter--for a child fresh out of Elementary School? Forgive me for saying so, but that is utterly ridiculous. You're talking about letting a child who is not yet [i]ten[/i] go see Animal House, Taxi Driver or Apocalypse Now. [QUOTE]They're restrictions to be set by parents for their own children.[/QUOTE]I remember you insulting me a while back when we had that talk about "moral relativity." If you would kindly refresh my memory, were you for or against moral relativity? As I recall, you were vehemently against it, and kept harping on how there need to be restrictions in place in society, and how there is absolutely no room for people to have varying moralities when it comes to societal health. [QUOTE]W-w-what? I said the rating/restriction system IS the problem! Especially if you treat it as a single system! Man oh man....[/QUOTE]I'm not treating it as a single system. I use the backslash out of convenience. It makes it easier to mention both of the systems. What are you talking about here? I've always treated them as two separate systems. Also, quote me fully, please. You chopped off an entire two-thirds of that paragraph to make your "point." I would appreciate it if you actually included the entire excerpt in the quote portion. Call it a pet peeve, but if I'm going to be including all of your extended-length paragraphs in my replies, it seems appropriate to do the same for my posts. You have a habit of omitting sections of posts, which leads me to believe that you're trying to build a rebuttal off of something taken out of context. [quote]All the problems we're talking about pertaining to this subject have to do with either the guidelines themselves, or the restrictions based on them. If one isn't the source of the problem, it's the other. Which one you see as "the problem" depends on which one you're aiming to fix to get rid of the problem.[/quote]What you're failing to realize is, I don't view these systems as problems. My suggestions and solutions here are a way to make you whiners feel better, lol. I have no problem at all with the Rating/Restriction system. I view complaints like these to be needless whining about something that doesn't even affect most of the complainers here. [quote]Ultimately the problem is the restrictions, which can be adjusted directly (assuming you think it's "viable" to enforce some ruling across all theaters in the country) or indirectly (by changing the rating system). So, coming back to the statement I quoted, I'm not sure where you were coming from when writing it, but it's inaccurate.[/QUOTE]As I've illustrated above, that earlier in this debate, you were arguing that the Restriction system needed to be changed, yet were also arguing with me when I mentioned the parental written/verbal permission. It's as if you didn't even see it, and now, you suddenly begin to discuss it when others have mentioned it, and seem to be agreeing with them. The fact of the matter is, you're repeating and using as some type of support point what I've been saying all along, and what I've been continually offering as the solution to the supposed "problem" that people are complaining about here. My rebuttal points are hardly inaccurate. EDIT: Just another thing I'd like you to clarify, if you weren't sure where my points were being based on, how is it possible to say they're inaccurate?

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Sheesh, your post has stubbornness written all over it. If you had read what I written, you'd have noticed that what I in reality ADVOCATED was an adjustment of the guidelines, as stated in my last post (although I did make it clear that I personally don't think the restrictions are necessary because I don't feel this need to "protect the innocent"; but whatever). I said that the restrictions (which are based on those guidelines) are difficult to control because they're privately decided upon by theaters, so the guidelines simply need to be adjusted. Sure, passing a law that would control the sorts of restrictions theaters can set in their admissions would work just as well (which is what that written permission suggestion is), I just think it would be more difficult.[/quote]"Stubborn?" Let's see about that. Sciros, since you're now denying that you've been advocating a total abolishment of the restriction system, let's see what you've said previously in the thread, shall we? One of my points to you was the following: [quote name='Siren']Are you suggesting that theatres shouldn't strictly adhere to these age restrictions? Are you suggesting that theatres should let anyone and everyone into whatever movie they want to see?[/quote]To which you replied, [quote name='Sciros][b]Why not?[/b'] How much should we try to shelter other people's children? I am confused by this tendency to "protect people from themselves." Considering that most of the people who actually give two craps about the rating system are overly concerned and ignorant parents, if they really care enough they can take a more personal role in deciding what their children can and cannot do or watch.[/quote]So, you weren't supporting deconstructing the entire restriction system there? What about the following quote? [quote name='Sciros]So, point is: [b]were there guidelines [u]but no restrictions[/u][/b], it would be in the hands of parents whether to allow their children to see a film or not (which I think is more proper). Because there are restrictions, parents have no say in the matter unless [i]they[/i'] feel like seeing a film with their children (and children want to see the film with them).[/quote]Again, how were you not supporting the deconstruction of the restriction system? You may not realize it, Sciros, but throughout the course of this thread, the target of your criticisms has changed entirely. You've gone from describing the horrors of the restriction system, and how it [i]should[/i] be [i]done away with[/i] (as I've illustrated by those quotes), to how the guidelines need to be changed. Your entire argument here has just pulled a total 180 and you don't even realize it. In fact, if there was a precise moment where your entire point changed, it was when members mentioned how if there were no restrictions in place, the movie industry would be essentially anarchy. None here have used those precise terms, but if there were no restrictions at all, like James and I have said, young children would be able to see adult films, and nobody in their right mind would believe that to be appropriate. You're going to deny this, I'm sure, but it's very clear that you've "flip-flopped." Also, ultimately, you're [i]agreeing[/i] with what [i]I've been saying all along[/i], in that the rating system/restriction system is not the problem, because there are very viable solutions to make everyone happy, the most prominent one here being the parental written/verbal permission ammendment, the same thing I suggested back some six posts ago, when I mentioned my Mom giving us permission to see Scary Movie back some six years ago. Come on, man. Who are you trying to fool here? lol

[quote name='Falkon']However, there is a bad side to this. A child could just go into any movie he/she wants to, saying that their parents said it was ok, whether it was or not.[/quote]Exactly. What some here (like Sciros) are advocating is a total disregard for any measure of restriction, based on minors being unable to view an R-rated movie with or without their parents approval, which is ludicrous. Granted, the theatre not allowing a minor in, even when the parent says it's okay, is unfortunate, but this hardly constitutes doing away with the guideline/restriction system. [quote]To fix this, maybe we should have parents come with their child(ren) to the ticket counter, have the parents give verbal or written permission for the child to view the movie, then let the child in. Eh.. just lost my train of thought from here, but that is the general idea.[/QUOTE]And this is a good idea. Keeping the objective guidelines/restrictions in place is a necessity, but a worthwhile ammendment to that would be just what you said, which I've been saying all along, surprisingly. It's not about forcing theatres to become more "lax" in their application of the rating system, and it's not about destroying the entire restriction system, either. The application of the rating system is not as broken as people (like Sciros and TN) are making it out to be. If a law/requirement were to be passed that instituted a system where on-site parental verbal/written permission would be suitable grounds to allow a minor to see an R-rated picture, that would fix much of the "problems" that people are complaining about. I think that is a much more viable solution to this "problem" than abolishing the entire restriction structure in the movie industry.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]The bottom line here is that the choice of what movies children can see is no longer left up to the parents. Because of theaters' restrictions, whether or not parents think their children are "mature" enough to see whatever movie is in question, the children cannot unless they're 17+ or the parents go see the movie with them. But it's not that often that parents have time to see (nor do they want to see) all the films their children want to go to. To say that the restrictions are necessary is basically to say that parents cannot decide such things for themselves, nor can they enforce their decisions. To what I say that these sorts of parents won't be able to "shelter" (for lack of a better word) their children from anything anyway, seeing as their parenting is ineffective. So, point is: were there guidelines but no restrictions, it would be in the hands of parents whether to allow their children to see a film or not (which I think is more proper). Because there are restrictions, parents have no say in the matter unless [i]they[/i] feel like seeing a film with their children (and children want to see the film with them).[/QUOTE] But that isn't the bottom line and you know it. It's more than possible for a parent to walk up to the ticket counter with their child, so your argument there is weak. So the parents don't have time to see the movie with their children. I seriously don't think it's a huge problem for them to simply accompany their children when they're buying the tickets. My mom has done it in the past. Again, I'm going to mention that the Rating system and its application is not some Fascist organization that's impeding on personal/individual freedoms. It is not implying that parents cannot make decisions for themselves, nor is it stripping them of any decision-making power. I don't know whose comments you are referring to, Sciros, but no-one here is saying that parents are unable to decide for themselves, or that parents are incompetent, or that their parenting skills are ineffective. That's not what anyone is saying. Sciros, it's always in the hands of the parents, regardless of a Rating system or not. The Rating system is not stripping parents of all their parental power, and it's ridiculous of you to say that, because it's simply not true. You're still treating this like Fascism, when clearly, it isn't.

Nice thread. ^_^ I'm 21 now, and yes, I still have my blankie. It's an old Winnie the Pooh one back from...oh, I must have been about 1 or 2. It's a very groovy blanket, actually. It's got a nice design collage of different scenes and locations from Winnie the Pooh. The blanket itself feels like a strong felt, I suppose. It's the best way to describe it. The lining to the blanket is coming undone, but it's not actual fabric, instead it's a silky banner-type material that's incredibly soft to the touch. I should take a picture of my blankie and post it, heh.

[quote name='lava lamp']You're my hero. Let's elope.[/quote] Uh...okay. Alan is the Minister, though. Just figured I'd inject some more sanity into this thread. I was at a local mall earlier tonight--er, yesterday evening. Melissa and I had to pick up her younger sister, Ally, and a few of her friends. I'd not been to a mall in a few months, and now I remember why...because I'd be laughing too hard to do anything. This "epidemic" of mass-marketed "punk" is not the end of the world. It's not even a threat to the social order. It's parody. It's unwitting self-mockery. That's all it is. I look at these people, dressed in pants that are five sizes too big for them, with chains, boots, knee socks, spiked hair, etc, and I laugh. I chuckle. How is it offensive? Okay, I don't worship the "punk" movement. I don't treat it as gospel. But I don't treat it as gospel because it's merely a reaction to a previous musical movement, and the reaction to "underground punk" is the mass-marketed punk. It's a simple cycle, nothing more. In a few years, we'll see a reaction to this current trend. It's the way things work. I really don't view the mass-marketed punk scene as having any substantial worth or value, and I don't think it's worth getting this worked-up over, quite honestly. They're not a threat to anyone's way of life. They're merely a threat to their own lives. Let's at least see the humor in that and have ourselves a laugh.

[quote name='Takuya]The movie ratings are [i]guidelines,[/i'] not restrictions. Theaters impose restrictions. These restrictions are, as I've said, unnecessary, simply because other factors already have the same effect.[/quote] Then the Rating system isn't hurting anything, so why complain about it? [quote]I'm not talking about knowing how to drive,[/quote] "The ability to drive" does not only mean knowing how to drive. I think you need to understand that. The phrase encompasses the entirety of automobile usage. [quote]but having the judgement to make responsible decisions. Let me put it this way: if a 16-year-old judges that an R-rated movie is appropriate for him/her (to make this easier to read, I'll just be useing male pronouns from now on), and then sees it and discovers that he does not find the content appropriate for himself, well, maybe he throws up, or develops a phobia, or something like that. If that same person makes an incorrect judgement while driving, his car could be damaged, someone's property could be damaged, someone else's car could be wreaked, he could even end up killing not only himself, but other people. If a 16-year-old can't be trusted to accurately decide what movies to watch, than can that same 16-year-old be trusted to make the much more important and frequently urgent desisons he'll face while driving? My answer is 'no'.[/quote] You're still comparing apples and oranges here. Vomiting and developing a phobia are unconscious physical/emotional reactions that are neither driven nor initiated by the conscious mind. Nobody is making a decision to develop a phobia, or to vomit. There is no lapse of judgment when vomiting or getting so terribly frightened by something that one develops a gripping fear of it. A physical reaction is a physical reaction. Conscious decisions do not play a part in whether or not someone is going to become violently physically or emotionally ill, [i]especially[/i] emotionally. Driving, on the other hand, the majority of accidents are due to recklessness or carelessness on the road, better known as lapses of judgment. Some drivers think they can make the turn at that speed. Others believe they can make it through the yellow light before it turns red. Some do not believe they need to wear a seatbelt. Others believe they're able to drive even after they've had whiskey upon whiskey upon whiskey. We all have seen and heard how those conscious decisions turn out. You're still comparing apples and oranges here. Oh, just for argument's sake, let's say that 16-year-olds shouldn't be driving alone (Come to think of it, they're not allowed to drive alone anyway. Permits and provisional licenses and such), because they lack the fundamental decision-making abilities to be able to drive safely, since you seem to be saying that's the case. If 16-year-olds truly do not know how to drive well, then the movie ratings are even more appropriate, which further makes your analogy useless to your argument that movie ratings are useless. [QUOTE]Never ask people for proof if you don't have any yourself. Before you go asking me to provide evidence of what I say, give me some evidence to back up what you say.[/QUOTE] This reminds me of a few talks I've had with an ex-friend. The ex-friend in question did not respond well to when I began dating a girl we both knew. My ex-friend has had a crush on me for approximately four years now. She reacted very, very poorly (said incredibly, [i]incredibly[/i] mean and nasty things about me and my girlfriend) to what was a very innocent beginning to a wonderful relationship. She was clearly in the wrong, and she knew this. She knew she had absolutely nothing to stand on in her defense. But when I requested that she apologize to me and to my girlfriend, she refused. She claimed that I needed to apologize first. Clearly, I had no need and no reason to apologize to her, as I had done nothing wrong in the first place. My ex-friend was just stalling, trying to buy herself time, trying to deflect the issue, like you are doing right now. Also, I just ran a search in Google for a variety of phrase combinations that relate to your analogy. The search would have produced results...if the results existed. So, it appears more and more that your refusal to produce studies that support your comparison, studies that establish a link between the two unrelated points, is due to the fact that you know there is nothing to substantiate your analogy. [QUOTE]This seems like a good place to point out your strategy in this agruement. You say that my analogy is weak. Why does that matter? It's an example. I'm using it to help explain my viewpoint. [b]Talk about my viewpoint, not about the methods ai use to explain it[/b].[/quote] As I recall, and as I glance over my previous replies, I notice that I have been breaking down everything you've been saying. I don't see how you're able to accuse me of not being thorough here, when I've been doing point-by-point rebuttals, making sure to cover whatever it is you've been trying to say, pointing out inconsistencies in your replies, problems with your analogies, and faults in your logic. [quote]You've tried to make everyone's examples seem irrelivent, but if nobody had provided examples, you would have demanded that you be given examples. Oh, and when we attack your examples, it's an unforgivable attack on the perfect rating system, whereas when you do the [i]exact same thing[/i] with ours, it's 100% acceptable.[/QUOTE] Is it my fault that the examples people are using are totally irrelevant to this discussion? What is this "attacking," anyway? I'm not attacking anyone here. I'm merely challenging what is clearly a faulty argument with faulty pillars of support. This is not a vendetta. I'm not here to beat you to death. I'm debating with you here because your argument is flimsy. [quote]Oh, one more thing. I've noticed that on several occasions, you've said that the rating system is objective, when it's clearly a subjective system. My proof is simple: the people who rate the movies do so based on their oppinion of the content. Some people may think blood and violence deserves an R rating, while others don't. For example, Alien vs. Predator is rated PG-13, while many far less graphically violent films recieve R ratings for the reason of graphic violence. Given instances like that, I don't see how you can possibly believe that the rating system is objective.[/QUOTE] Do you believe that the MPAA is comprised of identical clones? Do you think the MPAA is nothing more than one person duplicated ad nauseum? Perhaps this will help. [url=http://www.mpaa.org/home.htm][u]MPAA[/u][/url]. I'm seeing a mention of diversity on that site, so there are various viewpoints and opinions there, so that could be considered subjective. But look at the end result. All of those varying opinions and viewpoints come together and agree upon a set standard that they all believe in. While the preliminary discussion may be subjective, ultimately, the Ratings of the Rating system [i]are[/i] objective, because they are a "universal" standard agreed upon by the individuals. It's a case of Universals versus Particulars here, and the Universals come out on top. Your proof isn't simple at all, because it isn't proof.

[center]Metroid: Nemesis[/center] It seemed indestructible. It resisted everything I shot. Plasma. Ice. Wave. Everything. It never stopped. It just kept coming. No matter where I turned, no matter what hallway I ran down, it was there, hunting me. Stalking me. I couldn?t get away. I couldn?t escape. Every planet I ran to, it was there. SR-388?Zebes?Tallon IV doesn?t even seem safe, but I have no choice. The entry is a bit rough. The atmosphere is thicker than before, but the sensors don?t detect any change. The read-outs are identical. I drop into the final descent and the stabilizers kick-in, countering the shifting weight. I touch down in the calm, grassy fields of Tallon Overworld. There is a light drizzle and the sky is a gray blanket of clouds. I look up at the overcast sky and wonder why Tallon IV is so odd. The weather patterns are erratic. It would be raining here, sunny in Chozo ruins, and snowing in Phendrana. It still doesn?t make sense. But this doesn?t matter now. I have to get underground. SA-X would be coming out of light speed in a few moments and it would be my death should it find me. I start running. I?m not sure where. I just need to get away. Away from that thing. It was superior in every way. It had better firepower, better armor, better aim. It was a more efficient killer than I was. It is a more efficient killer than I am. I used to be the greatest warrior in the galaxy. The Chozo worshipped me. Called me their savior. And here I am, hiding like a coward. There?s this pain in my chest. It?s probably from the bio-synth hybrid armor. I don?t know. Maybe it?s sadness. Tallon IV may very well be my final resting place. I may never again have the chance to soar across the stars, exploring the farthest reaches of space. My ship will become a relic. I glance back at the craft. The SA-X could detect it with a simple surface scan. It has to be destroyed. I step through the hatch that leads into the bowels of Tallon IV and hear the detonation. The cavern shakes and rubble hits the outer walls. The sabotage worked. I just hope it?s enough. Hope. Such a strange word. I never had to hope before. I always succeeded. Mother Brain, Ridley, Kraid. They never posed a real threat. Even Metroids were easily disposed of. But now, Hope is all I have. Who knows. Maybe somewhere in the depths of Tallon IV, I?ll find a miracle. Until that happens, I?m still running...

[quote name='Takuya']First, bull**** isn't exactly a curse. The F-word is a curse word. Bull**** is not. People even say that at my school, and you just don't hear cursing at my school.[/quote] The censor does block it, you do realize. [quote]Now, the point is that young people are already unable to see movies their parents don't want them to see.[/quote] And this makes the Rating system broken...how? If the young people are already unable to see those movies their parents don't want them to see, how could there be a problem with the Rating system? It's simply making those restrictions official. [quote]The current restrictions, most notably the fact that you can't buy tickets to an R-rated movie if you're under 17, don't have any really notable affect, and are frequently a nuisence(sp?). To me, it seems very stupid that we allow 16-year-olds to drive, but that only 17-year-olds can see any movie on their own. I mean, if 16-year-olds aren't mature enough to see R-rated movies by themselves, without specific adult permission, then they aren't mature enough to be trusted on the road.[/QUOTE] So...your point here is that...if we're treating 16-year-olds as not mature enough to see an R-rated movie...then they aren't mature enough to drive? Perhaps I'm just utterly exhausted, but I can't see how those two subjects relate at all. In fact, they don't. I hardly think one's ability to drive is in any way indicative or any measure of their ability to comprehend and view R-rated cinema in a mature manner. If you would like me to treat your comparison as having any relevance and/or bearing here, you will need to provide me with a few reputable studies that strongly establish a real link between the two. As it stands now, however, your analogy is incredibly weak.

[quote name='Lord Eliwood']This may or may not be a conspiracy, but you never do know...Also, to comment on Siren's post, anyone will allow someone on if they post well.[/quote] I don't know about others, but the actual sign-up is only a part of my criteria. I also take into account previous RPG experience, dedication, and post history. I'm not treating anyone unfairly by not accepting a member when I see a few RPG drop-outs in their resume, or when they post rarely. I don't need that kind of member in my RPGs. The sign-up may be spectacular, but if a member isn't committed, how is their participation going to benefit the RPG? It simply won't. [url=http://otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=42909][u]One of your RPGs[/u][/url]. You had it up for about a day. I've had Rebel Scum sign-ups active for about 2.5 weeks before I closed them. Others' sign-up threads have been active for longer than that. One day isn't sufficient time to get sign-ups, and it's ridiculous to think there's some conspiracy against n00bs when you are being so unreasonable in expecting sign-ups.

Funny enough, I was having this exact discussion with Shy a few days ago, after I closed Sign-ups to Rebel Scum. I explained to him that I actually was worried that some people might get the wrong impression by whom I accepted into the RPG, that people may think I was "playing favorites." I'm sure Rebel Scum isn't what inspired your post, Lrb, but Rebel Scum is a valid discussion point here anyway. There is no conspiracy. There is no "clique." There's no club; there's no secret society. I can tell you right here, up-front, that even though the only members I accepted into Rebel Scum were Shy, Shinmaru, Kane, and Boba Fett, all of whom I consider good friends and whom I talk to on a fairly regular basis, my selection was not some conspiracy designed to exclude other members. The other sign-ups were really good, but I checked out post history and such, and the previous posts just didn't have what I was looking for. Rebel Scum is a concept I hold very dear to myself, and I'm going to recruit members who I know can deliver what I'm looking for. I think the only reason you see particular groups of members signing-up for particular members' RPGs is this: Complementary writing styles often find each other. That's a very apt description of what the Adventure Arena is, I think. You look at the "n00b" concepts, and quite often, they're novice members who create them, and novice members who sign-up for them. Often, you can look at the "OB Families" in some members' signatures and those Families are like calling cards for the RPG casts. This is likewise for the "developed" concepts. You have more experienced members creating more intuitive RPGs and developing deeper concepts, and often, the members who sign-up there are experienced members who have a style that "fits" with the RPG creator. I honestly don't think there's any malicious Roleplay-Gate going on. I think it's merely how things work. It seems that the "novices" "flock" together, and the "oldies" "flock" together.

[QUOTE=Takuya]Um, you kind of just prooved my point. Your mother drove you to see Scary Movie, and she bought your tickets. Therefore, she knew that you were seeing an R-rated movie. If she or your father hadn't taken you (or another relative, or maybe a friends parents. If you get a ride to the theater from a stranger, well, that's extremly poor judgement, and kids who do that kind of thing are probably the same kids who will choose to do things like smoking), then you wouldn't have been able to get to the theater to see the movie. Oh, by the way, I seriously doubt that a little kid is going to ride his trike or bike or whatever to a movie theater unless he lives right next to it, or something (which is very rare). So, only a very, very, very small number of people under 16 are able to get to the movie theater without an adult to drive them, and nothing is this world is ever perfect. And don't you dare give some bull**** reply like 'I've aced tests' or something like that. You know what I mean.[/QUOTE]But you didn't answer my question. What does the inability of children/minors in getting to a movie theatre have to do with the movie ratings? How is that a factor? What bearing does it have here? How does it help your argument that the movie ratings are...useless? I do not see any point in bringing up how minors are unable to get to the theatre by themselves. A child's inability to get to the theatre independently from their parents has absolutely no bearing on the MPAA's rating system. A film's [i]content[/i] is the determining factor, not if a child will be able to get to the theatre. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean here, because, quite honestly, I can't find a point anywhere in your reply. EDIT: Oh, watch your tongue, please. I don't curse at you, I'd appreciate it if you don't curse at me.

[quote name='Takuya]Siren, you're forgetting that unless you are 16 or older, [i]it is nearly impossible to see a movie without an adult[/i]. This is simply because you are not able to get a driver's liscense until you are 16. Therefore, it doesn't matter if a 5-year-old or even a 15-year-old is allowed into an R-rated movie without an adult, because [i]they can't get to the theater without an adult[/i']. And by the time you're 16, you're probably ready to see R-rated movies. So, in short, if a person under 16 sees an R-rated movie, an adult knows and is the one who got the kid to the theater in the first place.[/quote] Your entire argument here is based on the idea that a minor without a driver's license is unable to get to the theatre without an adult, so therefore, because they are unable to both get to the theatre and get into the movie without an adult, the Rating system is broken? I'm sorry, but when I was younger and was going to see...Scary Movie, I believe, I certainly did not have a driver's license, let alone a car, yet my mom drove me and my younger brother there. Not only that, though, she also went up to the ticket counter and gave us permission to go see the film. If the adult will be driving the minor to the theatre (going to the theatre to begin with), there is no problem at all for them to simply go up to the ticket booth like my mom did back then. So, I don't see how your argument is valid if that's your basis. What are you trying to say here, anyway? That the more effective method of age restriction in theatre attendance is simply the understanding that Little Bobby would be unable to ride his Tricycle to the movie theatre? That's what you seem to be saying essentially.