Brasil

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]It doesn't take an "astronomical violation of basic human rights" to get upset about something. [b]I'm angry at HAL for not letting you use the c-stick in anything other than VS. Mode in Smash Bros. Melee, but it's not a violation of human rights. It's just stupid[/b'].[/quote] So you can't use the C-stick in Single-player mode. Big deal. It doesn't matter. [quote]Of course it's not a matter of life or death, but certainly that's not anywhere near a valid excuse to [i]have[/i] the restrictions in question. Changing the speed limit on highways to 40 mph wouldn't violate human rights, but it would be an awful thing to do.[/quote] Why are you bringing in speed limits? Okay, lowering the speed limit would be an "awful" thing to do. Lord knows having people going slower on major highways would just be a terrible thing. Who cares? Even here in South Jersey, you've got people going 30 over the 50 MPH limit, and they do get ticketed for it. Lowering the speed limit would increase the penalty for speeding. How is that awful? Unless you're a reckless driver who continually pushes the limits, you've got nothing to worry about, so I can't see how the speed limit is supposed to relate to this discussion, or even to support your argument, because the only people who have a problem with the ratings system, it seems, are the under-age or those who simply don't like it, and they're the equivalent of speeders when you're drawing that analogy. Again, you're still not proving that there's something wrong with the movie ratings. [QUOTE]No, you see, BECAUSE movie theaters enforce restrictions based on those guidelines, there are two ways to deal with the issue: one is to force the theaters to not enforce the restrictions (impossible); another is to make the guidelines a bit more lenient (or at least reduce the age limits).[/QUOTE] Okay, and why is there such a problem with how the rating system's age range is distributed? It seems pretty solid to me. I can't see any glaring faults with it. Am I missing something? Could you enlighten me as to what the horrors of how unfair the age ranges are? I'm still essentially only seeing Freshmen in high school getting pissed because they can't get to see Freddy vs Jason. [QUOTE]Why not? 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. The problem might be that a 16-year-old (once you're 17 you're ok, by the way...) who wanted to watch The Last Samurai or Glory or Saving Private Ryan or some other movie that doesn't fall into your "random title suggesting gratuitous nudity and violence" pile can't just because some people in it die in battle.[/QUOTE] "Why not?" How about the simple reason that adult films would be open to everyone, and everyone could go see something like Saving Private Ryan, and be bombarded with some 15 minutes of graphic (incredibly graphic) violence? Saving Private Ryan is an amazing film, but don't you think there's a certain age range that wouldn't be able to handle those kinds of images? I was walking out of the theatre when Saving Private Ryan was first released and all ages in there were absolutely drained of any color in their cheeks. But you're advocating lifting the age restrictions entirely. Interesting. [QUOTE]Wow, what great points you make. If the parent is neglectful or not around, the child WILL get to see whatever the heck he/she wants, first of all (it's all downloadable off the internet, people). Second, your fake movie choice is very biased. Replace it with The Shawshank Redemption and see how the above paragraph reads. I find it interesting that you only look at one side of things, and from there come to conclusions concerning the entire situation.[/QUOTE] Drop the sarcasm, please. It's not needed here and it's not desired, either. Like I said about Saving Private Ryan, The Shawshank Redemption is another fantastic film, but it features some incredibly graphic images and scenes. I think the problem here is that you're failing to view things objectively, and somehow believe that since a movie like Shawshank Redemption is more "artistic" than Generic Teeny Slasher Flick #35464564, that it shouldn't deserve the same rating, or that because it has the same rating, that the rating system is flawed. That is a flawed way to look at things, and as of this post, you've not given any other impression that indicates you view the situation differently from how I've just described. [QUOTE]The MPAA's cause isn't noble nor is it ignoble. They're just doing what the public wants; it's their job. It's how their data is interpreted by the industry that becomes a problem.[/QUOTE] Yes, it's their job, so they shouldn't be villified for it. The rating system is totally objective, and so is the actual industry's application, interpretation, and execution of it. Unless you have some articles that prove theatres are actually "playing favorites" in who they admit to various films, then I'm afraid your argument that the industry is being subjective is null and void. [QUOTE]The rating system guides the restrictions which are certainly in place to "shelter" the youth. Whether this "sheltering" means prevention of psychological damage, or whatever, isn't even the point. Whatever the reason for the restrictions in place, they're there, and they benefit no-one but the protective yet irresponsible and distrusting parents.[/QUOTE] Okay, so, if you're a responsible parent, why would you have a problem with the rating system? If you're "with it," then there's no issue at all concerning what films your children are going to see, and that doesn't mean that the rating system is hurting you. In fact, for the responsible parent, the rating system doesn't hurt at all. It merely acts as the guide. How is it an issue for the responsible parent? Simply, it isn't. [quote]As I mentioned above, the problem is not in why the rating system was established, but how it directly affects everyone.[/QUOTE] "The problem is...how [the rating system] directly affects everyone." That's your primary argument here, so I'm isolating that. In the rest of your paragraph there, you're trying to lapse into subjectivity, when, clearly, the rating system is objective, and its application is objective, which makes your efforts useless, to put so fine a point on it. The rating system and its application can be summed up in one sentence and one alone: "You either have the necessary qualifications or you don't." That's it, end of story. There's nothing more to argue after this point, because no amount of "Well, what is 'questionable' material" is going to be a worthwhile endeavor, because at that point, any discussion over what is defined as "questionable" is splitting hairs in a gray area. It either is or it isn't, just like OB's Rules.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]The movie rating system in the United States is bullcrap for two reasons: 1. It PHYSICALLY RESTRICTS some people from watching a movie, just in case you didn't know. It's a pretty general policy across movie theaters (yes, it's not a law, but a policy that they adhere to rather strictly, especially around where I live). This is true of R and NC-17 films only, but that accounts for a good amount of films. If you are under 17 and are not with your parent/guardian, good luck [i]sneaking in[/i].[/quote] Again, how is this a problem? So a 16-year-old can't get into a theatre to see Apocalypse Now: REDUX or Debbie Does Dallas. So what? How is that some astronomical violation of basic human rights that constitutes people getting so upset over the ratings system? It doesn't. And, those physical impositions are neither created nor executed by the MPAA, so I don't see how that is a valid criticism of the movie rating system. The theatres enforce the age restrictions, which are guidelines set by the MPAA, granted, but I think anyone who bases any argument on that is simply looking for something to get testy about. 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? And...so a 17-year-old tries to sneak into a rated-R picture and gets caught by security. Again, so what? What's the problem here? [quote]The ratings serve as a guideline not just for people, but for movie theaters, who impose restrictions themselves. All parents need to do to keep their children from watching R films in the theaters is to not go with them (or not have an adult go with them, basically). But if a parent is too busy to go (and yet has no problem with his/her children watching R films), the child still cannot watch it. If you ask me, it's an unnecessary inconvenience rather than anything beneficial.[/quote] And if the parent is neglectful or simply not around, the child doesn't get to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre 5: Teenage Bloodbath Cheerleader Orgy Part II. What a crime. I still don't see how this is a problem. In fact, complaining about it is seeming more and more ridiculous. [quote]2. It is not very appropriate. I noticed that the examples you people gave in explaining why restrictions to viewing R-rated films are necessary all involved very young children. Godel's example was a 10-year-old, Alex's was a 5-year-old. Do you think your examples would've been just as poignant had you replaced those ages with, say, 16 or 15? I say no. Once you're past middle school, chances are you've had your share of that godforsaken "sexual education," not to mention swearing and possibly school fights. Watching Judge Dredd or Matrix movies won't taint your psyche, heh. Well, if it does, I think you need more help than a rating system can give you.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but I don't hear people screaming how media is poisoning the minds of our youth...intelligent, rational people, that is. The woman in Minnesota who tried to sue Married With Children is certainly a socially-removed individual, and does color the ratings/content control movement negatively, but that doesn't villify the entire rating system, and it shouldn't. When we understand that the MPAA is [i]not[/i] a bunch of lunatics like the Married With Children neurotic, the MPAA's cause becomes much more noble than some want to believe. The MPAA is not running around screaming bloody murder because 15-year-olds just saw Murder Death Kill and now are scarred for life. Furthermore, I seriously do not think that the rating system is in place to prevent psychological damage. A more likely reasoning, and quite possibly [i]the[/i] reasoning, for the establishment of the rating system is to provide a set of guidelines for the entertainment industry and to prevent children and minors (who are not legally responsible for themselves for the most part) from accessing questionable material. I don't see how this is a problem.

[QUOTE=Midnight Rush]Johnson mismanaged Vietnam. Nixon was given an ace high in a game in which everyone else had full houses. He didn't do that bad of a job considering he inherited someone else's war. Please, tell me how Nixon nearly "doomed" our country. In reading history I'm at a loss to find how. Granted he sucked at being president, but he wasn't half as bad as you paint him.[/quote] Did you watch the PBS documentary on him a few months ago? I think that's plenty enough to say that he was running our country into the ground. Or, if you'd like, The Final Days is a pretty insightful look at Nixon. [QUOTE]I haven't read that book, but I'll bet Muffley is a soft, sensitive, intellectual man. Exactly what you simply [i]cannot[/i] have in a leader. We need someone who will fight, and if needed, forceably apply consequences for the sake of American interest.[/QUOTE] When you watch Dr. Strangelove, then come back and talk about Muffley. And had you actually seen Dr. Strangelove, you will see that Muffley [i]is[/i] indeed "someone who will fight, and if needed, forceably apply consequences for the sake of American interest." He wants to avoid nuclear holocaust at all costs, including shooting Major Kong's bomber out of the air. But he would even like to avoid that, preferring that no deaths happen. How is that ignoble? How does that somehow make him less of a man than say...Conan the Barbarian? [QUOTE]Think about it: If you elect a rabbit to represent your country in the realms of business, war, and politics, you will get the same respect as a rabbit gets: NONE. On the other hand, if you elect a huge, vicious dog you will get its respect: AMAZINGLY HIGH.[/QUOTE] Frankly, I think your point is absolutely ridiculous here, because I'd much prefer someone who uses a bit of common sense (the rabbit) instead of some vicious killer, like you're suggesting needs to be in office. By the way, do you honestly believe that you will get [i]true[/i] respect from that "huge, vicious dog" if you elect it? You won't, lol. [quote]It astounds me that anyone could even consider a 'rabbit' like John Kerry for president, but I guess thats "democracy" (I. E. The stupidity of the masses). GWB isn't quite the vicious dog I'd like him to be, but he's damn close. We don't need a terminator. We don't need a 'girly-man'. We need a Tai-Pan, a real man. Someone to stand up to the other nations of the world and say "**** you. The USA comes first." That ruthless, heartless, cold as ice son of a ***** is the only one that can stand between soft hearted pathetic intellectuals and the real world. For the sake of idealistic people everywhere, elect a merciless man. He will protect the bubble y'all live in, keeping you from having to deal with reality.[/QUOTE] Do you know what you want? You want a war-monger. That's all, and that's not what our country needs. To try to steer this back on-topic, I find it so incredibly hard to believe that people like yourself are so convinced that we need force and nothing more, that one side is so horrible and your party is just so spectacular. That's not how it is. Both parties are pretty ridiculous. I was at a local college function last night, just a couple of people chatting about various issues. Call it a focus group, I suppose. We had a few staunch Republicans and a few staunch Democrats in there. I was one of two neutrals. Everyone was nice and all, but they were very, very rooted in their particular parties, and were fairly non-receptive to other ideas, although they were being very respectful to the others there and to the discussion itself. But, and this is an important but, so pay attention, Christine, a Republican, who I'd been debating with here and there, [i]fully agreed[/i] with me when I said how the American political system really is a huge pie-fight (again, check out Dr. Strangelove), where everyone is so concerned with retaliating that they're blinding themselves even further. Everyone agreed with me. Midnight Rush, I think it would serve you well to actually step-back from the entire political process and start looking at it objectively, because an objective look at things is really the only way to go, [i]not[/i] retaliating whenever someone looks at us funny.

I was cleaning out my old files, my back-up and so forth, and came across some very old comp graphics projects I did years ago. They're fun and goofy, and came out pretty well. Figured I'd post them...hot-link to them, since they're too large to attach, haha. I've included three of my early pieces. The first one was something I did for my bro's scientist project or something. Apparently, the researcher he chose studied gamma radiation, so you know where that one goes, heh. The second was a poster I designed for a theatre troupe I used to be in. This poster is actually the last-minute total design overhaul that a few members asked me to do two days before the show opened. I had had a solid design for months before Tech Week, but two days before Opening Night, they tell me they didn't like it, and would like me to change it. I bit my tongue so I didn't curse at them, lol. The third you're going to see is a rather old image for a sprite comic I was working on. The sprite comic, as the image shows, was a visual adaptation of an epic poem I was/still am writing called EPICITY. I consider it to be an epic with modern sensibilities. If any of you are interested, I do still have the original/partial first draft of the poem for you to read. Just PM me about it. Link'ee link'ee thumbnails. [URL=http://img35.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img35&image=DanProjectGammaRadiation.jpg][IMG]http://img35.exs.cx/img35/3255/DanProjectGammaRadiation.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img89.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img89&image=RUTBrightonBeachPosterRedesigned2.jpg][IMG]http://img89.exs.cx/img89/3505/RUTBrightonBeachPosterRedesigned2.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img89.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img89&image=EPICITYcollagenew.jpg][IMG]http://img89.exs.cx/img89/4369/EPICITYcollagenew.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

It's not that difficult of a concept to explain to begin with, so how would it be patronizing? I've done the courses where we read Paradise Lost, and they're third-year Literature courses. So, what's your point? lol Paradise Lost isn't hard to understand or teach. It just isn't. In my post, I didn't imply at all that the teacher would "dumb things down," either. I merely noted that the instructor will present the material in such a way that makes it possible for everyone to understand. That will not insult anyone's intelligence.

Just trust me on this, Raiha. Just trust me on this. Paradise Lost will work, I'm sure of it. I know Shawn better than you know him, and I know his classes better than you do. I'm very confident that his instructors will explain the work sufficiently so that others will be able to understand it.

I'm considering a name change, actually. When I started writing the story, the title seemed to fit, but when the end result appeared, I realized that it doesn't relate at all. Yes, the computer Shawn is sitting at is technically "Satan's Computer," but I agree. It just doesn't feel right. About the "ShawnF66," count off the first six letters of the Alphabet. ~_^ I didn't want to make it too obvious, because I wanted this story to be a myth in reality. It's very likely to find a college student named Shawn with a last name that starts with the letter, F, and the numbers on the end aren't uncommon at all for log-ins and online screen-names. There is some polishing I'm going to do on this chapter, and I'm contemplating continuing the story, too. Only, each chapter is a self-contained story about people like Lisa, so those chapters can stand on their own. But when put together, each chapter forms a larger story arch about Shawn. I'm tossing around a few ideas about what the other chapters are, and one or two taking place in a Literature course or Philosophy course is a definite. I mean, I've got Satan here, and I can't [i]not[/i] have him go into a Lit or Philosophy class and twist things around, hehe. He's going to have a field day with Garden of Eden/Paradise Lost, I'm sure.

[font=Trebuchet MS][size=3][color=#ff0000][b]The Naked Gun: The Game [/b] [/color][/size][/font][size=2][color=black]Just think about it. The Naked Gun would make an awesome game. It would be played in third-person perspective, naturally, as we've got to see Lt. Frank Drebbin's face, and be able to pull off all of those nifty acrobatic maneuvers he does in his apartment. Of course, we'd need all the actors from the film to make the game work, because nobody can imitate Leslie Nielsen's voice, and Ricardo Montalban, George Kennedy, even OJ Simpson all need to do voice work for The Naked Gun: The Game. I recently watched the movie again, and you forget just how damn funny it is until you see it again. It's just simply one of the most hilarious and screwball movies ever made, and it's an incredibly varied comedy, in terms of settings and locations. I mean, who in their right mind wouldn't want to trade gunfire with Ludwig's goon in the meat-packing plant, only to then run up to him to beat his -ss and he trips over the railing? What about the Student Driver sequence? It'd make for an awesome chase level, lol. And there'd be a baseball game at the end! Hell, you could even have a brief level in the opening scene to the movie, playing as Nordberg, though I'm not sure how that'd work with all the traps and such. It'd be much funnier to watch than play. But still...I'd imagine we'd all get a kick out of beating the sh-t out of OJ Simpson.[/color][/size] [size=2][color=black]Ooh, it could be something like a RTS, perhaps play like Tecmo's Deception games. We could set all the traps and such, like the wedding cake, beartrap, etc, in any way we wanted, and get style points for the most damage we can inflict on OJ. It'd be sweet as hell. If done right, The Naked Gun would make an awesome game. Also, the fight scene with the terrorists would rock, too.[/color][/size] [size=2][color=black]Thoughts?[/color][/size]

The only thing that comes to my mind is actually a skit from The Man Show, where Jimmy and Adam go around, asking women to sign this petition to "End the suffraging of women." Either they didn't read the petition, or they just simply had no idea what "suffrage" really meant. I'm betting on the latter. [i]But[/i], it seems to be similar to what you're going for. I'm just doubtful it could be used as a comparison/support point. It's probably too "pop culturey" to work, but...you figure, why do people not read something? Because they can see it on TV, or have been raised on TV. So, you may be able to use that, if you make the correlation between a lack of reader comprehension and TV viewing. Social and psychological conditioning, as it were. Granted, The Man Show is hardly intellectual stimulation, but if you get the results you want with this experiment, those you're talking to are hardly being intellectually stimulated, either. Er, no offense, lol. So, you might be able to use that if you find the right hook for it. EDIT: I'll give one of my friends a call. She just got a Psych degree from Rutgers this past May, and is doing Grad School at La Salle for a Masters in Psych, I believe. I'll get back to you with what she can tell me.

I'm closing Sign-ups now. I think I've given ample time for anyone to sign-up, and I feel that whoever would sign-up, did. So, Sign-ups are now [b]closed[/b]. The following members have been accepted into Rebel Scum: Shy Shinmaru Kane Boba Fett I most likely will be also posting in the RPG, in addition to guiding it along. To those of you who did not get accepted, thank you for applying. There were some really tough decisions I had to make. I was really on the fence for some of you, because your sign-ups are great, and would have gotten you in, but post histories are also an indication of dedication, and I don't want anyone to drop out. Again, I thank all those who came out and tried, and time permitting, expect to see [b]Star Wars: Rebel Scum[/b] launching into a galaxy near you sometime late next week.

[quote name='Jokopoko][color=teal][size=1][b]P.S.[/b] I've also named the Sith 'Teh Shifty' and the Jedi 'The Dead-Eyes' which raises the question of what to call the force....?[/size'][/color][/quote] The F4rc3, of course. I really like the idea, and I know this is an old thread, but I was checking out your post history, to see what you've done, and I really, really dig this idea. I think, given the angle you're taking with it, The F4rc3 will work nicely.

I still don't see what the problem is with the movie rating system. I can't see any point to your discussion about the reasons behind the ratings. Movies have the reasons, as do HBO and various other TV stations. If you read the movie listings in the paper or online, they show the reasons for the rating. It's only when you walk up to the actual ticket booth where you will just see the letter rating, but this isn't due to any neglect and it's not sufficient support to say that the movie rating system should be abolished, because most of the time, it's merely a spacing issue. They need to give the movie title, logo, times, rating in a space of about a foot wide. They're simply not going to have space to put all of the reasons and such. Regarding the points about Romeo Must Die, again, the reason you don't see the reasons is a spacing issue. And again, the reasons are printed nearly everywhere, so I don't see where your criticisms are coming from and/or what makes them valid, because the reality of the situation shows that it's a fairly well-executed system, albeit with a few flaws here and there, but those flaws more pertain to the actual rating itself. For example, imagine my surprise when I saw that This Is Spinal Tap is actually rated R. Ever since I first saw it, I'd always thought it was PG-13. Turns out, it's considered a bit too risque for younger viewers. After watching the film again, I agree that it deserves an R rating, satire or not. It has mature/adult material that parents need to be made aware of. It's one of the more overtly deviant Christopher Guest/Rob Reiner pictures. And, where are you getting this "80%" from? Where are you getting the "F-word said more than two times" from?

I really don't see what the problem is with the ratings system, honestly. I mean, if anyone is going to argue that Kill Bill didn't deserve an R rating, or that Apocalypse Now didn't deserve an R rating, or even Pulp Fiction or whatever, they need to re-think that. I would never consider bringing a 5-year-old to go see Martin Sheen hacking up Marlon Brando...some college students I know couldn't take that sequence and/or film, like my ex. She's incredibly squeamish, which further makes me wonder why I started dating her. But that's beside the point. The rating system is merely a guide, and the MPAA is there for a reason, and reviews are there for a reason: to assist moviegoers in deciding what they or their children are going to go see. The MPAA, despite what some people want to believe, is not some evil and cruel fascist organization that's only concerned with suppressing all of our individual freedoms and expressive abilities. Interesting tidbit about movie ratings: Star Wars: A New Hope was originally going to be rated G, but Fox felt a G rating would ostracize older audiences, as it may make the film look like a kid's movie. They requested it be rated PG, and they got it. I find that pretty neat. Only instance of a studio requesting a higher rating that I can think of.

A few more screengrabs. Say hello to Zoetrope Studios. [font=Tahoma][img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/PDVD117RESIZED.jpg[/img][/font] [font=Tahoma][img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/PDVD115RESIZED.jpg[/img][/font] Below, you'll notice a peculiar similarity to the text crawls for Star Wars. The images below are grabbed from clips from a Flash Gordon episode, a series that Lucas was particularly fond of, and that influenced much of Star Wars. [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/PDVD_108.jpg[/img] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/PDVD_109.jpg[/img] For a few side-by-side comparisons, examine the following: [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/PDVD_090.jpg[/img] vs [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/PDVD_091.jpg[/img] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/PDVD_094.jpg[/img] vs [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/PDVD_096.jpg[/img] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/PDVD_092.jpg[/img] vs [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/PDVD_093.jpg[/img] Clearly, there is no contest at all as to which version looks better and cleaner. Just judging from these pics alone, the OT looks utterly unfinished. And...I'd always wondered why Han runs from just a few Stormtroopers. In the revised scene, however, I'd get my -ss out of there if I ran into a [i]hangar full[/i] instead of a few standing in a hallway.

I learned everything I know from Saturday Night Fever, Pulp Fiction, and Bruce Springsteen. Imagine all of those dance styles combined into one, huge, honky white guy mess, and that's me. I look absolutely horrid on the dance floor and I love every second of it. I just goof off and have fun on the dance floor. That's all there is to it. Just goof off and have a groovy time.

A line of soldiers upon the hill, Approaching ever closer but silhouetted still Against the harsh yet fading summer sun, Their lives are lost yet they're marching on. To what victory, none can truly say, But the shadows' peace hides in another day, And the soldiers march on and on. In the distance, their armor clangs, And underneath, sweat mattes down their golden bangs. Glintings of steel catch the early evening light as Trumpets scream a wailful moan, A howling echo that chills you to the bone. The earth beneath your feet trembles at the horde; It cracks and clefts like a hunk of soured alabaster board. Here comes the march of war. --- Fairly rough draft. Just got down the basic ideas and so forth. Thoughts?

Well, AW, have you done anything to instigate? I mean, have you said anything on your MyO that could be construed as throwing the first punch? I haven't seen anything on there that didn't have provocation, so...what could have prompted the "rude" comments? Could you possibly provide some more information, other than 'this member is being mean to me'?" I think if we were given the entire picture, it would help us figure out what kind of action could be taken in dealing with this member in question.

Today's Revolutionaries become tomorrow's Conservatives. Start a Revolution, then, and start blasting Beach Boys.

[quote name='Syk3']I was rewatching A New Hope today, and I have a question in general about something C-3PO says rather early on. On the rebel ship when it's under attack, he says something like "the princess won't be able to escape this time" but when R2 plays the message for Luke and Luke asks who the woman is, 3PO just says "someone of high importance I guess." Was he just playing stupid, or did he know that there was a princess but didn't know who she was? O.o[/quote] I think so, lol. There's nothing in the OT to suggest that he actually knows who she is, just that there is a Princess on board, but it seems like he doesn't know what she looks like. Interesting.

Well, there's a thread on Star Wars: Battlefront, if you'd like to see what kind of feedback it's gotten from OBers: [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=39834][u]Star Wars: Battlefront[/u][/url] There's a Fable thread somewhere, but I'm too tired right now to find it, lol. But...just looking at what you're describing...Battlefront is designed for Xbox Live, and at most in Fable, Xbox Live will only be extra downloadable content. Even though Battlefront is insanely fun in Offline, Online adds a lot more to it, but Fable is strictly Offline, from what I've heard, so your Xbox Live would be wasted on Fable, I think. Also, you love Star Wars, and you had much more to say about Battlefront than you did Fable, so...how is there any choice here? Seems pretty clear that you're set on Star Wars: Battlefront, lol.

I was listening to the first few minutes of American Idiot on the radio the other day, and I was surprised with myself when I switched the station. I love Green Day's early stuff. I think Dookie is a fantastic album. I really do. But American Idiot just doesn't sound like their early songs/albums did. I feel like they've lost their edge.

[quote name='Zeta']EDIT: I just wanted to say, I am not trying to change your own feelings on the movie. I am only point out that the movie does follow the game quite well at parts, just not in the way that we are accustomed(sp) to like in the game.[/quote] I know that, lol. No worries. [QUOTE]I ask you, how on earth, could everything in the games be fit into the movies? You seem to be a stickler on everything being too little of the game. Mortal Kombat eh? Exactly. One movie, you can't name any others. One movie being close to the game, isn't that big of something to brag about. And again, it is a fighting game. It isn't that hard of a movie to make. It's story was simple. Fight through the "lesser bosses" to get to the big boss. When it comes to movies like Resident Evil and Alien vs. Predator, the stories are more complex. Things have to be left out, things have to be added. Things have to be changed around. Anyone can make a fighting movie like that of Mortal Kombat.[/QUOTE] If fighting games are easily made into good video game movies, then what went wrong with Street Fighter? (Everything, lol) Yes, the stories to RE and AvP are more complex, but complexity doesn't necessarily dictate how good or bad an adaptation will be. It's certainly a factor, but even within the respective franchises of RE, Alien, and Predator, the complexities of each "chapter" of those franchises do not have such a drastic effect on the next chapter. Just looking at the Alien saga, for example. The original film is a very dense one, with quite a few layers in there, but Cameron is a very skilled writer/director, and he understood the source material, so he was able to create a very logical adaptation of that source material for the sequel. Alien 3 failed because the writers didn't understand what Cameron was doing in Aliens, and they lacked the skill to make their script work. Same can be said with Resurrection, and the same can be said with the Predator series. The original was awesome, but the sequel just sucked, because they couldn't go anywhere with it. Clearly, plot complexity, while prevalent in the continuation of a franchise, is not the most significant factor in determining the strength of the continuation. The strength of the writer/director and his or her ability to work with the source material is the sole determining factor, and Anderson is a hack director, lol. Look at what he's done within the course of the summer. [QUOTE]Again, I say, that everything cannot be added to the movie. A quadriligoy of games, yes, with many characters. I agree with you there. You cannot fit everything in. You just can't. Even if everything is written in the script, many parts will be cut for time issues, or money problems. Just because Romero has a script going into detail about characters and stuff, does not mean that it would be in it.[/QUOTE] Just because someone can't fit everything in doesn't mean they fit the barest bare minimum that they can. That's not the way effective moviemaking is made, especially if you're doing an adaptation of something. Are you suggesting that just because Anderson is a hack director and lacks the skill to write a cohesive film that is actually based on more than just a few characters, then he is justified in writing an adaptation that really isn't an adaptation at all? Is he then justified in creating a movie loosely inspired by the source material? The movies aren't anywhere close to the games. They're only loosely inspired by them. [QUOTE]People basically see the RE movies [i]for[/i] the action.[/QUOTE] And again, this shows that the RE movies were not intended for actual gamers, instead the target audience was those who haven't played the games, lol. The games had action, yes, but it wasn't about the action itself, more about the [i]suspense[/i] leading up to the action...the anticipation. That's why REmake worked so well: because it still played on the suspense and anticipation. The games are all about not seeing what's coming after you, and that's not [i]because[/i] of the pre-set camera angles. The pre-set camera angles are designed that way because that (suspense) is the [i]intent[/i] of the game creators. [QUOTE]It is what draws people to movies. Honestly, who wants to watch someone go around looking for a key to open a door? Just because the games are survival horror, doesn't mean the movies [i]can[/i] be that. Now if someone had the money, the time, and the patience to go around a film someone walking around looking for keys and shields, all the power to them. Only the diehard fans would go and see that. Watching stuff like that onscreen is [i]boring[/i]. People want action, and action is what they got.[/QUOTE] Would you rather a "Kill everything that moves with my super shotgun/rocket launcher/ray gun" movie, or a "I hear a scraping noise behind the door, but I can't see what it is" movie? Given the source material, creating a run n' gun flick isn't the way to go, and you don't need someone searching for keys to create suspense. Think of the OT Wampa Ice Creature versus the Special Edition version. The OT one was far creepier, because we didn't see it, except for a brief close-up when it smacks Luke off the Taunton. All that wonder, mystique, shock, and horror is lost when we see it in the Special Edition, and that's precisely my point here, about RE. The RE games are like the OT Wampa; the RE movies are like the Special Edition Wampa. [quote]That is all that can be really put into movies such as these. [b]You can't have the whole mansion episode leading up to the entrance of the lab.[/b] No one wants to see that. They saw it in the game. More could have been done with the mansion, but not to the scale that I seem to be getting from your comments. It would be one long as heck movie had he done that stuff. When movies drag out like that, they only get worse, until an explosive part where it picks up, then dies down again.[/QUOTE] Watch Night of the Living Dead and you'll change your opinion about how a zombie picture can't take place in one set the entire film. NotLD literally spans one night, in a farmhouse. That's it, and it's one of the scariest films I've ever seen in my life.

[quote name='Zeta']How often does everything in a particular game/book get added into a movie? There are ALWAYS large chuncks missing from each.[/quote] Mortal Kombat. I can't even think of anything that was missed in the MK game mythos/characters for that movie. [QUOTE]Maybe saying following the story was a little bit too much o n my part. What I should have said, is that they follow the [i]basic[/i] gist of the storyline. You get me? The Nemesis chasing STARS members and Jill trying to get out of the town are in both movie and game.[/QUOTE] And that's precisely the problem. The RE films are basic. They're shallow. A skyscraper exploding and Alice runs down the side of it. What does that have to do with people trapped in a mansion, trying to survive while all sorts of undead monsters roam the halls? Where is the character study of the games? Where is the actual survival horror pacing? [QUOTE]The mansion is in the game, but on a really small level. A type of entrance to the labratory in the game, but instead of the lab being under the mansion, he uses it as the entrance to the lab under Raccoon City from the second game.[/QUOTE] "But on a really small level." And that's not enough. [QUOTE]Jill and Carlos get to gether in both movie and game, and are trying to escape the city. The get together, and basically do what they did in the game, just not against the Nemesis, a small little deviation to the plot. But again, the Nemesis stuck to his programming like that from the game, until Alice came in.[/QUOTE] And they are two characters out of what is a Quadrilogy of games, with many different interweaving storylines. Too little, too late. [QUOTE]What a lot of people are doing is that they are just watching the movie and comparing it to the games.[/quote] When the movie is called "RESIDENT EVIL," what do you think is going to happen? Gamers are going to be comparing the movie to the games, and I'm going to repeat what I said before to TN: "If you haven't played the games, go see the movie." That is precisely what is going on here, and nearly every review will support that. Check out the MSNBC.com review I mentioned earlier. The reviewer knows absolutely nothing about the games, and this is the audience that the movies are going to need to impress, the audience that has no idea what to expect. And even then, the reviewer was not impressed at all, and wrote a very scathing review, so, again, with that need to attract the unenlightened, RE failed, lol. [quote]Just because he has a good script, doesn't mean the movie will be great, or better than someone elses.[/QUOTE] The guy is [i]George Romero[/i]. [quote]When you actually take the time to [i]watch[/i] the movie for what it is[/QUOTE] I am doing that, and what it is is nothing like the games, lol, apart from a tenuous link here and there, but nothing substantial. I'm taking the time to watch the movie for what it is, and what it is is pure Hollywood, Anderson-commercialized crap that appeals only to those who have no idea what the source franchise is all about. Anderson did the same thing with the Alien and Predator franchises, as well. He totally butchered them, lol.

[quote name='Sword Breaker]Dude, the reason the full cast was cut, the producer is trying to drag this out as fully as one can. [b]Besides, if you had like 50 different charectars it wouldn't be much of a survivor horror now would it?[/b'] Once they see the movie is dieing, they will throw in everyone just to get the most out of the final one. I've heared to be ready tp see Chris in RE Three (Yes they ARE making one)[/quote] And...how was RE:Apocalypse any type of "survival horror?" Think about what "survival horror" means, what genre it is. Survival horror is the RE games. The movies are action/adventure/explosion. Alice running down the side of an exploding building? How is that survival horror like the movie's namesake? [quote]The thnig that i found wierd. Why was Barry Burton black?! I never finished the Res Evil game, but i can be dam sure Barry didn't pull off some rubber mask and turn out to be black! Whats with that?[/QUOTE] One change, as opposed to...too many omissions to count in the Anderson movies.

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]I apologize for butting in, but I don't see how Sciros's statement was offensive, not to mention factually incorrect. Throughout history, religious beliefs have been used as a justification for all sorts of horrible atrocities--everything from the Crusades to modern-day terrorism. This doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with the concept of religion; the problem lies with the extremists who call themselves believers and yet do things which go against fundamental principles of their faith (i.e. when radical Christians bomb abortion clinics). ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] But herein lies an issue, Dagger, because while religion has been known to be used as a justification for all kinds of villainous and cruel terroristic acts throughout history, there's a very, very, very real difference between that (blowing up government buildings) and merely reading a religious text. And I think you actually summed up one issue quite well, because Religion isn't the problem; it's those who use it inappropriately who are.