Brasil

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I don't think either of the movies were made to.... dabble deep into the RE World. If you want that, play the games, read the books, don't go see movies. Anyone who's even got a shread of intelligence knows a movie based on a video game is not going to dwell in the character development or the plot. If its based off a game, the character development is there and so is the plot. Albeit, RE and RE: Apopcalypse add new characters but the basis is the same. It's not meant to dwell in in depth plots and characters, it's supposed to appeal to the shoot'em up video gamers who have lost enough brain cells already as it is.[/quote] TN, I think you're missing an important point here. The RE video game series is not a shoot'em up like Doom, Duke Nukem, or MDK. The RE series is survival-horror, and if you've played the games, you will see that there are some fantastic action sequences in there, but for the most part, it's a slow-paced gameplay...hell, we rarely see any action; it's all off-camera, and that's what makes the games so effective: we don't know what's coming at us, because we can't see it. We only hear it, and our imagination does the rest. So, justifying the RE movies because they're designed to appeal to shoot'em up gamers, when the game sources themselves are clearly [i]not[/i] shoot'em up is faulty. And it's not that every movie based on a video game is going to ignore some character development or exploration of the game's mythos, if that is what you're getting at. The first Mortal Kombat movie was something of an anomaly, in that it did go into the elements surrounding the story and characters, and sufficiently gave reason for why they made the film. MK really stayed very true to the game itself when you think about it, probably one of the only big screen video game adaptations ever to do that. [QUOTE]Carlos and Jill have been in the Games.... 2 or 3 of them I think...something like that... so their characters are already developed. If you haven't played the games, don't bother seeing the movie. Unless you just want to enjoy a good action flick. Alices character, as far as I know, is a new developed character for the movie. She isn't that developed, which is good cause it leaves some room for any sequence to dwell on that, which I think will happen if they decide to make a 3rd instalment.[/QUOTE] Then the RE movies become nothing more than Fan Fiction if the excuse we are given for excluding character development is "Oh, well, their characters are already established, so we don't need to go into that stuff." Really, it's no different than some of the Inuyasha RPGs on OB, then. Jill is a major player in RE1 and 3, and Carlos is a major player in RE3, and what are they reduced to? Cameos in the sequel. Does that make sense? I don't think so. I also think there's a flaw in your "if you haven't played the games, don't bother seeing the movie." RE is a fairly large videogame franchise that many, many gamers are exceedingly familiar with, and when a film titled Resident Evil is released, gamers are going to go see it. Yes, they do know the plot and characters already, but that's hardly an excuse for the filmmakers to exclude proper backstory development, since they are appealing to gamers, because they are using the name, RESIDENT EVIL. Gamers are going to go see the movie, especially if they're fans of the RE game franchise, and I, like those gamers and like those in this very thread, feel cheated, more or less, because the RE movies beared absolutely no resemblance at all to the games, lol. I mean, where in RE did you ever hear of The Red Queen? It's laughable and is somewhat insulting to gamers' intelligence, really. I think a more adequate version of your statement would read: "If you haven't played the games, go see the movie." [QUOTE]Anyway, if you didn't like the film becuase of its lack of plot or character development, your fault you wasted your money. Play the games or read the books if you want that stuff... [b]it's a movie based on the game, there is no need to do any of that stuff unless they completely change it all, and they didn't[/b], so there was no need to explain it all. Anyone who doesn't know it was based off a game... well you should just gimme all your money now.[/QUOTE] Allow me to clarify here... You're saying that when it's a movie based on a game, there is no need to provide any real plot or character development unless they completely change it all, which they didn't... But they did completely change it, lol. Where was Alice in the games? Where was The Red Queen? Does Chris Redfield make an appearance in the movies? What about Claire Redfield? Barry Burton? Albert Wesker? Joseph? Where is Tyrant? Ada? Leon? That's just running them off the top of my head. The only similarities to the games are...Umbrella and the name, Resident Evil. That's about it, and is far from suitable to build a movie on. [quote]As for the actual movies, I enjoyed Apopcalypes more than the original... but I'm all for those whole action scenes... cause it's F-ing cool to watch... and thats all I was expcting out of the film and it delivered.[/QUOTE] It's interesting you should say that, because an all-out action movie is not what the games were at all, so...they really could have just dropped the Resident Evil title and slapped on Generic Zombie Movie Title #45987 and left it at that. I may sound overly sensitive here in my reply, or nit-picking, or something like that, but I'm not terribly offended at all, actually; it's just an inconsistency that should be pointed out.

Read George Romero's script for the first RE movie, and you'll quickly change your tune about the Anderson RE films being so good, lol. I'm reading Romero's script right now, and it's very good. It actually adapts the games themselves instead of simply using Umbrella and a brief cameo of Jill. Such a pity that Romero didn't do the films...they would have been so good. Romero, for the uninitiated, is the king of the zombie flick, having done Night of the Living Dead, he knows how to make an undead picture. Anderson's RE franchise...looks to be nothing more than flash-bang, jump out and scare you horror, when if you look at the original games, you will find that the RE series isn't totally "jump out and scare you" horror. There is a lot of atmosphere in them...Night of the Living Dead-type atmosphere, not James Bond, My Zombie-type atmosphere.

Very good question, Dagger, and a very valid point, as well, because from what I've seen, both in the recent documentary and just from reading online, Lucas has not yet given a specific reason for not releasing the OT on DVD. We can really only theorize at this point, but I checked out a few user reviews of the DVD box set on Amazon.com, and it looks like the common belief is that the OT, in their original form, was "dead" to Lucas. Of course, this comes from the mouths of people who both abhor the Special Editions, and also from those who love the new DVDs, so we can't really be sure of those statements' authenticity. However, if you happened to see the documentary aired on A&E a few days ago, you'll find that most of the production of A New Hope was constantly plagued by technical errors and so forth, with droids constantly breaking down, visual effects stuttering, etc. The entire OT's production was also continually threatened by 20th Century Fox execs, as well. So...I may have said this above, heh, I can certainly empathize with Lucas' desire to re-touch the OT. I know I certainly would be interested in going back and polishing it...I do that with my writing all the time, and I think that also applies to film. If given the chance to go back into some old short films I made in high school, I'd certainly re-do some things. BUT, I would never, never say that this (the new versions of those short films) is the only copy I will endorse, or release, etc. Also, I probably will never agree with the scene inserts, because they do not add anything to the plot or characterizations. So, I do think Lucas is making a mistake in refusing to release the O-OT (Original Original Trilogy) on DVD, and by not explaining why, he is raising more eyebrows than necessary, I think. EDIT: I was just browsing on [url="http://www.msnbc.com"]www.msnbc.com[/url], and I saw this: [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6011380/][u]George Lucas Interview[/u][/url] I find his reasoning for not releasing the O-OT on DVD to be quite selfish, lol.

What is really interesting is how particular franchises are magically wonderful in 3D, while others fail abysmally. Obviously, developer strength plays a large part in this and a successful translation from 2D to 3D. But...gah...I lost my train of thought, lol. The Star Wars documentary is on right now. Uh...well, basically, it's neat how Super Mario Bros translated so well into 3D, but a game like Contra failed miserably. Metroid Prime was amazing, as was Zelda's 3D foray. Why is that?

We've all had our fair share of personal scares and very disturbing experiences with people we know, but where is the line where you must get someone help? At what point, I suppose I'm asking, do you stop and say, "Okay, this has gone too far. You need professional help."? I ask because I am at that point now, today. I'm not going to go into the gory details, because frankly, they're far from appropriate to post here. If you'd like, IM or PM me and I'll link you. With that said, however, I have a former friend whose mental health over the years has rapidly deteriorated, especially over the past six months. She has become increasingly angry and violent, though not physically violent, and for this I am incredibly thankful, because I fear that if she were to get physically violent, her first targets may be herself, myself, or my significant other, and that's a risk I am totally unwilling to take. She has just...gone off the deep end, I guess. Her journal looks like pure hate-mail, but not of the racist type. It's like she just hates everyone, no matter who they are. I suppose she's been like that all along...totally unable to distinguish between the skinny blonde sluts in high school and an intelligent and beautiful actress, you know? But she refuses to admit she has a problem, but clearly, she does have a problem. I'm worried that her only remaining friend is of no help, because she can't pull herself away to look at things objectively and realize that if she honestly cared about the friend, she'd help her get the help that she needs. I don't think her parents will help, either, as she's surely painted the past six months in a way so that I'm put in the worst color possible. So...who do I turn to now? She needs help. I'm contacting a psychiatrist I know, who treated me a few years back, but as I contact him, I can't help but think that I'm doing it for the wrong reasons...like the Subject Line says, Ego Trip or Necessary Help. But based on what you've read here, is it an Ego Trip or am I simply taking action when action needs to be taken, regardless of who wants it or agrees with it?

[quote name='iggypopD']For the people who think this person has too much time on his/her hands, think again.[/quote] Perhaps we should, but perhaps we shouldn't. [QUOTE]Jimmy Page, the lead guitar in Led Zepplin, bought AListor Crowley's house in rural England (I think). Alistor Crowley was the creator of the Satanic Arts and the religion based upon it. And, it was in that house Jimmy Page admitted to practicing Satanic rituals in there. So, I highly doubt its a mistake or some noise and it does sound like that. But this guy could have just been messing with us. :)[/QUOTE] If this were true, then it would be a rather significant history of Page, true? And if it were a major part of his music, then wouldn't it be included in a Biography of Page on [url=http://www.jimmypageonline.com/11318.html][u]Jimmy Page Online[/u][/url]? I've looked all through that Biography, even did a word search for "Crowley," and nothing was found. Care to link us to any factual information? [quote]Believe the "Imagine" clip. My dad showed me that. Also, in another Beatles song, if you rotated "Revolution No. 9" backwards, you will hear "Turn me on, deadman"[/QUOTE] And this Revolution No. 9 song [i]is[/i] the same Revolution No. 9 song that [i]Charles Manson[/i] claimed he heard messages in, right? I just want to make sure about that.

[quote name='Zero Tolerance']Final Fantasy VIII is also a game that stands out for me. I have that necklace that Squall Leonhart wears. I never take it off. I love it so much.[/quote] I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding how...loving a game so much that you own Squall's necklace has anything to do with the game being overrated. So you own jewelry from the game...how does that pertain to FF8 being overrated? FF8 is vastly overrated for me simply because the battle system is pure crap. It's clunky, the Draw system is utterly half-baked, and the Junctioning is overly and needlessly complicated. Quite frankly, if they were going to go for a Junctioning system, why not use Final Fantasy VI? The Esper system was amazing, and damn easy to use.

I only have a few seconds here, so I'll make this brief...as brief as I can be. :p Kane, I think I mis-spoke, or at least wasn't clear about the whole "Editing Anakin's face" in RotJ. What I meant was that when Darth Vader's helmet is removed (we really should use Spoiler tags, but oh well, heh), Lucas is digitally altering the face, specifically the eyebrows and re-coloring the eyes to match Hayden Christiansen's. The Force Spirit is going to be totally re-done, from what I can tell, with Hayden Christiansen replacing Sebastian Shaw. And on an unrelated note, I've had discussions in the past about how Luke falls to the Dark Side in RotJ, and Boba Fett (who was the Counterpoint in that debate) now agrees with me. I was recently going through RotJ, and one line of The Emperor's struck me: "Strike him down and your journey to the Dark Side will be complete." It occurred to me that if Luke is already on the Dark Side, his journey is complete before striking down Vader. So, I thought about it, and it'd be a rather important point to consider that has a significant impact on Luke's Dark Side/Light Side status in RotJ. After musing over it, I've concluded that the "Dark Side" Palpatine speaks of isn't the Dark Side of the Force, necessarily, but more refers to the idea that The Empire, Palpatine, etc, is the Dark Side's other half...the...Non-Force Dark Side, if that makes sense. As it stands, as Luke is poised over Vader, and throughout RotJ, Luke is Dark Side, as is Vader, but Vader still serves Palpatine, and Luke does not. Had Luke killed Vader, then he, like we are told by The Emperor himself, would have taken Vader's place, and his journey to the Dark Side would be completed, as he was Dark Side Force-wise, and after killing Vader, would be Dark Side Empire-wise. I may not have explained that clearly...my head is absolutely pounding right now, and my sinuses aren't worth a damn, lol, so if you'd like me to clear it up later, I will.

For me, it's not so much that Lucas is adding in scenes. It's more that it changes a character dynamic that didn't need to be changed. We know that Han Solo is scum. We know he's a trickster, a swindler, and a killer. He's a mercenary, and mercenaries aren't honest people, especially in Star Wars. Yes, we have Boba Fett, who seems honorable, but he's cold-hearted just like Solo. Having Greedo shoot first doesn't change the fact that Han is a sneaky bastard, lol, even though that was Lucas' intent by inserting that shot in there. Han still has his blaster under the table, and Greedo still gets fried. What the problem is with that, and where most of the criticism comes from, I think, is that Han [i]does[/i] play dirty to begin with. I mean, Lando still challenges him that the game of Sabacc wasn't fair. So, Han is a scumbag no matter how we're given the scene, and it actually makes more sense for Han to shoot first in any edition, when you see that his character doesn't change at all, because as Greedo approaches, in both versions, Han still unclasps his holster, lol. I know we didn't want a debate about this, but Han was going to fry Greedo no matter who was taking the first shot, and the audience knows that. Yes, there are some OT Purists out there who are ranting and raving simply because the OT is getting changed, but I think there are some intelligent viewers out there who disagree with that change simply because it's an un-necessary attempt at changing a character dynamic that doesn't change at all between Editions anyway. As for the other changes, I seriously doubt that inserting the scene with Jabba in A New Hope was necessary, for two reasons. One, Jabba's dialogue is redundant, as Greedo explained it just a few minutes before, and two, we see Jabba in A New Hope, which severely, severely diminishes the impact he has in Return Of The Jedi. RotJ was our very first look at this Hutt-slug, and few can say they weren't just the least bit disgusted and shocked at the huge, malformed slimy cretin. Jabba in RotJ was ugly...butt-ugly. Why should we need to see him in ANH? Simply, we don't. I've not yet heard Lucas' reasoning for editing in Hayden Christiansen's eyes and face for RotJ's Darth Vader unmasked, and for Anakin's Force Spirit, but why the need to change Anakin's appearance? It's clear that Anakin's Force Spirit is older, so why digitally alter it? Is it to link the Prequels and OT together? If that's the reason, then why not use Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan instead of Alec Guinness? And for that matter, are we going to see a CG Yoda's Force Spirit instead of the ESB Yoda?

Just posting here to let everyone know that Sign-Ups for Rebel Scum have just gone Live. [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?p=606141#post606141"][u]Star Wars: Rebel Scum Sign-Ups[/u][/url] Also, I'm posting the Episode Guide here, so people can see and get a better idea of how this RPG will work. EPISODE GUIDE: EPISODE VI ?Alderaan? [list] [*]EPISODE V ?Tarkin? [/list]EPISODE VII ?New Threats? [list] [*]EPISODE IV ?Vader? [/list]EPISODE VIII ?Actions and Consequences Part I? EPISODE IX ?Striking Back? [list] [*]EPISODE I ?Palpatine? [*]EPISODE II ?Korriban? [*]EPISODE III ?The Old Republic? [/list]EPISODE X ?Imperial Strategies? EPISODE XI ?Battle over Endor? EPISODE XII ?Rise of the New Republic? [list] [*]EPISODE VIII ?Actions and Consequences Part II? [/list]

[center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20961[/img][/center] [center]Welcome to Star Wars: Rebel Scum.[/center] [u][b]FORMAT AND CHARACTER SELECTION:[/b][/u] The format and character selection will be similar to The History Channel's historical documentaries. Once I'm able to find a picture of the narrator I'm using, that should provide an ample look and feel for the character, which will make writing the narration that much easier for whomever is selected for it. The character selection is a unique one, in that those signing-up are able to play any character in The Empire. [i]But[/i] (and this is an important but), the big three of The Empire, Grand Moff Tarkin, Darth Vader, and Emperor Palpatine, will be a very, very selective process, as I have a very specific vision for how they will be presented. Thus, I [i]will[/i] have exceedingly high demands regarding writer quality and skill if I'm accepting people to play those parts. If no-one fits the style for those three, I may have to play them myself, but I'm sure there are some on OB who can pull it off. Any other characters are more hands-off...Stormtroopers, Imperial Officers, citizens of The Empire, etc, because their framework is fairly ambiguous, and they don't really need to be totally defined, as they aren't the major figureheads in The Empire. Basically, I'll be working closely with Tarkin, Vader and Palpatine to help establish their characters for the context of the RPG. With that said, I'll talk briefly about the format. In those documentaries, there is usually a chronological flow that they use, with backstory and biography added in when necessary. For example, in Rebel Scum, we may open on the twilight of the Old Republic, and see Palpatine ascend to the throne, but instead of pushing on through his ascension, we're given his biography, and told about his childhood, perhaps given the story of how he started his political career as mayor of his hometown on Coruscant. Star Wars: Rebel Scum will be a mini-series documentary, divided up into Episodes. This will also help bridge it to the Saga, because it will have Episodes I, II, III, IV, etc. [u][b]SIGN-UPS:[/b][/u] Sign-Ups are fairly free-form, in that I only ask for a writing sample. Do something creative about any aspect of Star Wars, about anyone, anywhere, anytime. I don't expect anything ground-breaking, but "wow" me. There is a lot of material in the Star Wars universe; [b][u]give it to me in a way I haven't seen[/u][/b]. [u][b]SUMMARY:[/b][/u] The Star Wars Saga is created so that we can start asking questions...so we can look at things from a different point of view. But when we're seeing things only from the Rebellion's point of view, how can we gain more perspective on the "galaxy far, far away?" [center]Star Wars: Rebel Scum[/center] Get ready to get down with The Empire. Start seeing things their way. Travel the galaxy, meet important people. You may just have the honor of [b]playing[/b] The Emperor! Enlist today and experience the greatest saga ever told: yours.

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]I wouldn't know, I haven't met every gay man in the world, have you? I didn't mean that [i]all[/i] gay men act a certain way or that all gay women act a certain way. I was just replying in the way I thought was implied. I guess that you read his post one way and I read it another. You could probably say that the media portrays all fat people negatively as well, since there either [i]aren't[/i] any or all fat people are either: lazy, rude or happy and they hardly ever have actual relationships. Or in Without a paddle: Stupid backwoods rednecks who grow marijuana. I think that's a bit more negative than being a well dressed gay guy. Besides you know as well as I do that assuming that all gay men dress well, like to shop, and act effeminately is like saying that all straight men dress like slobs and sit around scratching themselves all day while drinking beer and watching football (either version).[/color][/QUOTE] And thus, look at what Queer Eye shows, [i]all the time[/i]: Straight guys that dress like slobs, who need the Fab Five to come in and rescue them from their "lousy" taste in clothing, style, fashion, apartment, etc. If that's not negative stereotyping for both orientations, I don't know what is. Queer Eye consistently emphasizes that straight men know absolutely nothing about how to look good, and how the gay man knows absolutely everything. What is the social expectation of the straight man? What is the social expectation of the gay man? When the straight man deviates from that social expectation, how is he viewed by others? When the gay man deviates from that social expectation, how is he viewed by others? For the answer to this, one simply has to turn on The Real World: Philadelphia, an MTV show that requires very little brainpower to understand. The Real World could be considered a type of microcosm of society. There are two gay men on that show, one feminine, and one masculine, and everyone was totally shocked when the masculine gay man "came out." Why? Because throughout the media, the gay man is portrayed as the feminine gay man, like you would see on Queer Eye. If that's not a strong enough example of negative orientation stereotyping, I'll use myself. I dress for two reasons. To be comfortable, and to look good. I have a carefree attitude about most things in my life, and I'm much, much louder and expressive than most people around me. Just because I may not be as "butch" as the baseball team here at Rutgers, or even Theatre Tech people, should I automatically be assumed to be gay? Of course not. But why would someone think or assume I'm gay because of that? Because of the media, lol. The well-dressed gay man [i]is[/i] a negative stereotype, despite what you may want to think. Just because the Fab Five dress well does not mean that image is not hurtful and/or damaging to masculine gay men, because it is, because society expects all gay men to act that way, because it's what they see in the media. Get what I'm saying? Just because they look good does not mean they are good.

Well, CHW, let me ask you then, if Queer Eye and Will and Grace don't negatively stereotype gay men, do all gay men act effeminately, dress well, and have a high-pitched voice/lisp?

Kane, excellent question. Glad you asked. If you've ever seen any historical documentaries on The History Channel, you'll notice that they often have a narrator, and usually have a series of photographs, topics, and interviews. The format and character selection will be similar to that. Once I'm able to find a picture of the narrator I'm using, that should provide an ample look and feel for the character, which will make writing the narration that much easier for whomever is selected for it. The character selection is a unique one, in that those signing-up are able to play any character in The Empire. [i]But[/i] (and this is an important but), the big three of The Empire, Grand Moff Tarkin, Darth Vader, and Emperor Palpatine, will be a very, very selective process, as I have a very specific vision for how they will be presented. Thus, I [i]will[/i] have exceedingly high demands regarding writer quality and skill if I'm accepting people to play those parts. If no-one fits the style for those three, I may have to play them myself, but I'm sure there are some on OB who can pull it off. Any other characters are more hands-off...Stormtroopers, Imperial Officers, citizens of The Empire, etc, because their framework is fairly ambiguous, and they don't really need to be totally defined, as they aren't the major figureheads in The Empire. Basically, I'll be working closely with Tarkin, Vader and Palpatine to help establish their characters for the context of the RPG. With that said, I'll talk briefly about the format. In those documentaries, there is usually a chronological flow that they use, with backstory and biography added in when necessary. For example, in Rebel Scum, we may open on the twilight of the Old Republic, and see Palpatine ascend to the throne, but instead of pushing on through his ascension, we're given his biography, and told about his childhood, perhaps given the story of how he started his political career as mayor of his hometown on Coruscant. That's just an example, obviously, but it may get into the final cut of the RPG. I think Rebel Scum would best be a mini-series documentary, divided up into Episodes. This will also help bridge it to the Saga, because we would have Episode I, II, III, IV, etc.

[center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20961&stc=1[/img] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20962&stc=1[/img] [left] Still in the polishing stages, obviously, but that's a bare-bones look at the story. As you can tell, I'm looking to start an RPG that tells Star Wars from The Empire's POV. Based on what you see here, what do you think? Would it make an interesting, enlightening, and possibly radical RPG? EDIT: I've been developing the story/format more and more with Shy and Shinmaru, and I've decided to use a Documentary format for Rebel Scum. The flow and feel will be something you'd see on The Discovery Channel or The History Channel, I think. Imagine, if you will, Star Wars like you've never seen it before. This is something that could be very unsettling for some, but a riot for others. What I'm seeking to do here could undermine people's previous conceptions about what Star Wars is, and how they have previously viewed the Saga. Star Wars is all about Ideologies. Its basis is social, political, and historical commentary. Yes, there are mystical warriors and spaceships and such, but Star Wars is a cricitism of how we view the world, and the Saga is created so that we can start asking questions...so we can look at things from a different point of view. But when we're seeing things only from the Rebellion's point of view, so how can we gain more perspective on the "galaxy far, far away?" Star Wars: Rebel Scum Get ready to get down with The Empire. Start seeing things their way. Travel the galaxy, meet important people. You may just have the honor of [b]playing[/b] The Emperor! Enlist today and experience the greatest saga ever told: yours. [/left] [/center]

[quote name='AzureWolf][color=RoyalBlue']First off, that was a poor and completely off-topic lesson - with respect with what you quoted. I find it hard to associate the late 1800s with age-old times than modern day, which is what the 1800s are. If anything, you actually helped to prove my point. By being only able to provide examples of lesbians in more mordern times, you are showing that the concept is a new, emerging trend and NOT an age-old one.[/color][/quote] Firstly, the 1800s are nowhere near modern day, socially, politically, or otherwise. In fact, they are more Dark Ages than anything else. Chronologically, obviously, they are not, but socially and politically, they are. In the 1800s, you were seeing an intense and all-encompassing desire to smother individual thought, to create an oppressive social climate that de-emphasized the individual. You will find that apart from the Patriot Act, individual freedoms and expressions of opinion are relatively open today, and dialoge is encouraged by the majority. This, modern day, is incredibly different from Victorian England, an era that saw the creation/continuation of a "stuffy" society. I think those two ages are far more different than you may realize, AW, and are certainly different enough to warrant an "age distinction." Furthermore, I provided evidence of lesbian literature in the late 1800s (which I have established as different enough from modern day to be distinguished apart from modern day...just examine the social and political climates), which I will quote right now, just in case you missed it when you [i]skimmed[/i] the thread: [quote=Siren] And it's not that lesbianism was ignored in literature, either. Theophile Gautier's [i]Mademoiselle de Maupin[/i] was dripping with lesbian sexuality (no pun intended). It has a woman-on-woman scene in a bath-house, I believe. In regard to lesbianism and Victorian England, there was lesbianism, but it wasn't flaunted like male homosexuality was, which is why not many people believed it existed. But it [i]did[/i] exist.[/quote] Quite honestly, I find it incredibly naive to be placing Victorian England and the 1800s anywhere near modern day. Chronologically, yes, the 1800s are closer to modern day than Epic of Gilgamesh, but that doesn't mean a woman (or anyone, for that matter) is able to speak his or her mind on a podium in broad daylight. The Victorian era was the Dark Ages compared to the veritable plethora of freedoms modern day citizens enjoy. [QUOTE][color=RoyalBlue]If age-old was not clear enough, I even provided an example of a fairly popular story written around the time of Socrates.[/color][/QUOTE] And you will notice that I provided The Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates Socrates by some 1500 years, and I noted how the man-man love was not based on pure homosexuality or lust, but more brotherly love and respect for the fellow man: [quote=Siren] One could make a case that older literature praises male homosexuality if one mentions the Epic of Gilgamesh, but again, one must keep in mind that in Gilgamesh, the man-man love was not based on any sexual attraction to the male body, but more based on how women were viewed as inferior. It's an important distinction to make and understand, I think. The only reason that Enkidu and Gilgamesh love each other is based on brotherly love, love for the fellow man...not simply for getting down and dirty with another guy. lol[/quote] Further, since we're talking about Greek literature, I'd like to call attention to Lysistrata (approx. 410 BC). Lysistrata is a work that could be considered the female sexual anthem. It's a story about women using sex to get what they want, by any means necessary. Female sexuality was incredibly prevalent, provided you know where to look. [quote][color=RoyalBlue]Slash FanFic? What are you talking about? Your entire post... it seems like you read someone else's post in some other thread and tried replying here.[/color][/QUOTE] AW, think about the literature that we've talked about here. They are classic works found in any literary canon, and some are written out of a pure and innocent love for men. I did mention Walt Whitman and Oscar Wilde. Their intent, [i]especially[/i] Whitman's, was to enlighten the world, and show them the beauty of different types of love. I don't think they can be faulted for that, which is what your initial post seemed to do: blame gay literature for the lack of lesbian literature, when in all reality, that blame should be directed toward Slash FanFic, which negatively glorifies and romanticizes the gay lifestyle, causing the same negative stereotyping that Queer Eye does, lol. If you'd like to take issue with the (seemingly) lack of lesbian literature, take issue with Slash FanFic, not authors like Walt Whitman or Oscar Wilde. EDIT: I think we should also realize just where the word, "lesbian" is from. [url=http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blbio_sappho.htm][u]Lesbos[/u][/url] An island off the coast of Greece, I believe, named Lesbos. There, women lived together, sharing poetry, providing moral support, etc. It is unknown if their relationships were sexual, but it seems reasonable to say that sex was not a primary motivation for these women living together on this island. It was female bonding, both spiritual, emotional, and perhaps physical, although this has not been proven, from what I've read. I think just knowing the history of Lesbos should get people to realize that lesbians are not obsessed with sex, just like Whitman not being obsessed with male-male sex, although his poetry is incredibly deviant and sexual. Gay and lesbian literature celebrated the bond between same-sex people. AW, you wanted lesbian literature? [url=http://www.sappho.com/poetry/index_historical.html][u]Lesbian poetry[/u][/url]. Notice that there are lesbian texts dating back to 500 BC.

[quote name='Gelgoog Pilot']Ugh....I know I said a staement such as "Im alright with gays as long as they don't hit on me" I releaise its a retarded way of thinking yes, but its just the way I feel. I treat them like anyone else but if they cross a line I tend to leave or make a note of it, I don't just leave and never speak to them again I just say WHOA cool it. I've tried the whole bisexual thing, and GOD it doesn't work for me.[/quote] But you made no mention at all that you treat everyone that way, so how are we supposed to know that? Are we supposed to be psychic? lol When someone touches you inappropriately, then you should react to that person. [i]However[/i], that does not mean you can be suspicious of all people of that gender/race/creed/sexual orientation.

I know how you feel, man. I think the downward spiral of the "tactical squad-based FPS" really began with Red Faction 2. The game was just...bleh, and nothing in the industry since then has really pulled the genre out of that slump, I think. Of course, there have been some great games since then, Rainbow Six 3 comes to mind, but the gameplay hasn't improved substantially...we just keep getting "use the D-pad to issue commands." I'm sorry I can't offer any more than that, but it's time to head out here. I'd really love to see the FPS/War-FPS to get back to just blowing sh-t up, quite honestly...just all-out chaos, like Medal of Honor: Frontline's Normandy Beach.

Greatest comic ever. I had forgotten how great it was until Melissa had given me Scientific Progress Goes "Boink" for my birthday. I read through it in a matter of hours, because it's just so well-written and imaginative. I'd go as far as to say that Calvin and Hobbes is the greatest comic ever, because it's social commentary as told from an 8-year-old. Calvin always has an agenda, he never shuts-up. If he doesn't like how things are run, he speaks his mind. His fantasies are probably some of the most brilliant plot devices I've ever seen in a comic, because we know precisely how Calvin views the world, both from his dinosaur fantasies and Spaceman Spiff, and while we don't always agree with him, we can respect him for it. It may be just me, but reading Calvin and Hobbes ignites a childhood passion long since forgotten, the wonder of playing with little plastic dinosaurs in the sandbox, or just doing something completely pointless like a lengthy scavenger/flag hunt on the weekend. Calvin and Hobbes is the greatest comic ever. Thoughts?

[QUOTE=Deimos]Ohh,I see what you mean.What I am trying to say is that some gay men could do that.Also to me somethings that my sister watches about gays are disgusting like Queer as folk -bum bum bum...Those shows make me think thank a man would just come up to you and just start "bobbing" away.Also Micheal Jackson makes me think things like this.Thats like saying "Would you like to leave your kids with micheal jackson to baby sit". "Hell no,EWW!!!!" would be my reaction because he is gay[/QUOTE] This is probably the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. You wouldn't want MJ to babysit your children because he's gay? What about you wouldn't want him to babysit your children simply because [i]he dangles children out of windows[/i]? A man being gay or not gay has [i]absolutely nothing[/i] to do with his effectiveness as a babysitter. Absolutely nothing. What does have a significant bearing, and what should have a significant bearing on your decision is the quality of the human being who is offering to babysit your children. That should be the only criterion, not sexual orientation.

[quote name='Delirium']Sorry, this is just way weird. To have all these straight people talking about gays and lesbians as if they know everything? no offense, Siren, I actually like your posts. Very nice.[/quote] It's not knowing everything, far from it. It's simply knowing enough to be able to spot questionable statements. [QUOTE]Siren & Heero: Let me see? media-induced prejudice? Interesting. I, being bi, had the problem, when I first found out, of being scared of other girls touching me. Despite the fact that my mom is also bi, so I grew up with the openness, I felt sort of awkward. Its one of those natural things that happens whether you like it or not. -_- [/QUOTE] I think media-induced prejudice is an apt description of the majority of the public's view on homosexuality, actually. I'm not saying gay television is bad, of course, but when there are shows like Queer Eye, which seem to imply that gays have all the fashion sense and straight guys are just slobs (I'm sure this is true in part, but it's hardly totally and completely accurate), when Jerry Springer/Sally Jessy/etc have utterly bizarre shows that feature utterly bizarre love triangles, or even just turning on the news, you see there definitely [i]is[/i] a media slant that has a strong effect on people's views of homosexuality. Like James has said, there is a very real distinction that needs to be made in the public (mis)conception of what homosexuality is, and I think it's worthwhile to realize how the media reports it. Hell, people in this thread have referenced South Park, lol. While South Park is certainly a very intelligent social commentary, and I cannot praise it enough, it's still an abstraction of society, and is designed for merely providing a mirror to society. It's really satire at its best, but it's still an abstraction, and shouldn't be treated as accurately representing society. I think the media definitely plays a large role in how the public views homosexuality, which means it's a media-induced prejudice, heh. [quote name='James][color=#707875'] Your last paragraph was perhaps the most reasonable thing you said. Gay and lesbian people are just like straight people, save for the fact that their orientation is different. But there's no difference in terms of sex drive or violence/rape, etc.[color=black][/quote] Exactly. [/color][/color]

Well said, lava lamp. [quote name='Heero Darkangel]I have nothing against Gays (as long as they keep their fingers to themselves) and Lesbians, I have an uncle who is gay, he also as a partner, they very cool, They have alot of gay friends which I've told them that [i]if they touched me i'll break their fingers[/i']..they respected what I said and they don't touch me in anyway that might offend me. and lesbians well they're very cool, my uncle has a couple of lesbian friends and they're the best...they're all really good to get along with..and might I add..they're awsome fighters..LOL[/quote] Yes, Heero, like lava lamp, I fail to see how the above statement is supposed to lend credibility in a discussion about gays and lesbians. I have gay friends at Rutgers; I have a gay uncle. My therapist is gay. What bearing does that have here? The answer is none. The above statement is really nothing different than saying, "I'm not a racist because I have a lot of black friends." All I see in the above statement is someone trying to cover their -ss by relating this incredible involvement (but only if they don't touch you) with homosexuals. And to add to what lava lamp has said, Heero, if you haven't been touched in the past, why would you immediately tell these gays that if they touch you, you'll break their fingers? I mean, that just screams media-induced prejudice. Am I simply missing something here?

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Book Antiqua][size=2][color=Blue]Even in literature, you can find age-old tales about gay love, but nothing on lesbians. [/color][/size'][/font][/quote] Quick literature lesson. If one were to study even the late 1890s, one would see that there are some discrepancies in what you said, most notably, in the purpose of writing. What you have to keep in mind, however, is that when you look at the poetry of Walt Whitman (one of the most "out" authors in literary history), or even Oscar Wilde, you will see that both of them [i]were[/i] gay, so they had a very specific reason for writing gay literature...they were gay. Of course, Wilde's sexual orientation is debatable, as he was married with a few kids, but when his career and life ended after a lawsuit by the Marquis of Queensberry, accusing Wilde of being a sodomist because he had taken an interest in the Marquis' son, Lord Alfred Douglas, I think it's safe to say that Wilde was homosexual. What does this have to do with the topic at hand, you may ask? Wilde and Whitman wrote about homosexuality because they believed in it, not because it would net them fame and fortune, although fame and fortune were certainly a driving motivation behind it. And it's not that lesbianism was ignored in literature, either. Theophile Gautier's [i]Mademoiselle de Maupin[/i] was dripping with lesbian sexuality (no pun intended). It has a woman-on-woman scene in a bath-house, I believe. In regard to lesbianism and Victorian England, there was lesbianism, but it wasn't flaunted like male homosexuality was, which is why not many people believed it existed. But it [i]did[/i] exist. Also, it's not as if male homosexuality was widely accepted, either. It was more or less brushed under the rug, as it were. If it were widely accepted, would Wilde have gotten prosecuted? Would his career have collapsed into shambles? Wilde flaunted it. He did everything the Victorians didn't want him to do, including dressing up like a queen. I think the best way to describe the social climate is that the Victorians were fine with homosexuality, both female and male, as long as it was kept behind closed doors. One could make a case that older literature praises male homosexuality if one mentions the Epic of Gilgamesh, but again, one must keep in mind that in Gilgamesh, the man-man love was not based on any sexual attraction to the male body, but more based on how women were viewed as inferior. It's an important distinction to make and understand, I think. The only reason that Enkidu and Gilgamesh love each other is based on brotherly love, love for the fellow man...not simply for getting down and dirty with another guy. lol AW, what you're talking about...criticizing, even, falls more along the lines of Slash FanFic amateurs. Honestly, I think that's where the greatest misconceptions regarding Gays vs Lesbians come from: Slash FanFic and its ilk...the immature writing/entertainment that romanticizes homosexuality, creating the stereotypes mentioned in this thread ("Oh my God, you look faaaabulous!"). Entertainment-wise, equality between gays and lesbians is nowhere close from what I can see, and with shows like Queer Eye, I think gays are being glorified, while someone looks at Rosie O'Donnell and thinks that's how all lesbians are: loud, manly, and obnoxious. They're both rather derogatory stereotypes that need to be balanced out with each other.

The only one, and I repeat [i]only[/i] one where they may have something is Pink Floyd, because Floyd was that type of band, with that sense of humor enough to put that kind of backwards feature in their songs. Otherwise, this kid simply has way, way, [i]way[/i] too much time on his hands, and is trying to see/hear something that simply isn't there. It's always garble when you play songs backwards...that's how it is everywhere. What makes anyone think that Britney Spears is telling people to sleep with her because she's "not too young?" lol It's just silly.

A friend of mine recently recommended that I watch a movie called Death Race 2000. When I expressed to him my lack of knowledge of what it was, he excitedly and quite speedily rushed over to find the copy in Hollywood Video. I stood there as he was retrieving it, all the while wondering [i]What in the hell is Death Race 2000???[/i]. He returned with a VHS tape and shoved it in my hands. I looked at it. It's from 1975, and stars David Carradine (Kill Bill) and Sylvester Stallone. The plot is something you'd find out of a B-movie, and rightly so. DR2000 is a B-movie, heh. The best summary of it (I've not seen it yet, though it is sitting here next to me) is the tagline: [center]"In the year 2000, hit and run isn't a felony: it's the national sport."[/center] [left] [/left] [left]Obviously, once I watch the movie, I can provide a much better response to it, but has anyone seen it? Heard of it? The tagline alone--and David Carradine, of course, should be reason enough to see it at least once, I think.[/left]