Brasil

[QUOTE=wrist cutter]Alien vs. Predator. This movie is going to rock so hard, assuming they don't try to bog it down with plot or character development.[/quote] Considering the premise is illegitimate to begin with, lol, I doubt we'll see much plot or character development at all, heh. I might go see AvP, if only to sit there and goof off for two hours. You know, switch myself off and drift away. However, given what I've read of AvP, and the unbelievable plot-hole to begin with ([spoiler]apparently, it takes place between Predator 2 and Alien, chronologically, and are we to believe that this is the first human encounter with both species[/spoiler]?), and really, it doesn't gel with the Alien saga, if purely from an encounter standpoint. [spoiler]According to AvP, humans know about Aliens some centuries before the original Alien film ever takes place. Since there is a long-standing theory about Predators "planting" the Aliens on LV-426, surely someone would explore that planet long before Alien, seeing as how Charles Weyland, a co-founder of the Weyland-Yutani Foundation, is a major player in AvP, and is going to have some up-close and personal experience with both species. Are we to assume that during AvP, no information [i]at all[/i] is revealed regarding the Aliens' homeworld?[/spoiler] It just doesn't make sense, lol. [QUOTE]Meet the Fockers... I dunno. I have Meet the Parents on DVD and it's a great movie, but a sequel... eeeh.[/QUOTE] I wasn't terribly fond of Meet The Parents the first time I saw it, but it grows on you after repeated viewings. I like the idea of Meet The Fockers, however, and I'm certainly interested in seeing it, just to see how DeNiro and Blythe Danner bounce off of Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Heh, well you can go ahead and think that each character is balanced. That's fine by me. Good luck using Pichu against me though, lol.[/quote]I'm sure you're just so much better than I am that you can trounce me no matter who I play as. :rolleyes: Sciros, I think you and I would be more than a match for each other in Melee. I'm not some dumb Smash n00b that you like to think I am, and likewise, you're not some Smash god simply because you've hung around Smashboards for two months or checked out countless videos of "World-class" players playing. Also, note that in my assessment of Pichu, nowhere did I make a mention of balance, though I do believe the Tier system [i]is[/i] broken, for both the character evaluations and the analysis/answer to your "why are the top characters at the top" question, which, again, you have ignored in your response, and I'm becoming more and more disappointed in your isolated paragraph-focused responses. [quote]Oh, and Kirby's up-smash is also very effective, as are his throws... and his down-smash as well, in fact. I've played some tough Kirbys. He too slow and light overall, but he's far more a viable character than, say, Mewtwo. ... Anyway, if you want to talk "not viable" talk about Ice Climbers. Useability and effectiveness are two different things, but Kirby doesn't belong on the bottom of either listing.[/QUOTE]True, Kirby's Up/Down-Smashes are effective, but his forward throw is the Spike, which has no forward or backward motion, as Kirby simply lifts his opponent up into the air, then slams down with them. Granted, this can be used as a KO, but in casual [i]or[/i] competitive play, who in their right mind would be willing to sacrifice a life of theirs simply to get a kill? Mewtwo has a different moveset than any other character in the game. While others may have similar Smashes and so on, Mewtwo's moveset is exclusive to him. He doesn't cause much damage, apart from a fully-charged Shadow Ball or if you're lucky enough to connect a fully-charged Smash attack, but his attacks are Status changers. Confusion, for example. He doesn't cause damage as Link or Samus would. His attacks are designed to keep his opponents off-balance, and you can see this when you examine how his attacks knock people around. Some jolt them directly up, others send them in the air at a very harsh angle. His Forward Smash doesn't have the same properties of Samus' or Sheik's, because it doesn't send the opponent out very far (except at the higher damages), rather bouncing them off the ground. His Upward Smash holds the opponent there, causing damage rather quickly, then launches them directly up. Mewtwo's throws are spectacular, and can KO at lower percentages. While his Speed or durability may not be the best, he certainly makes up for it with a wickedly deranged moveset. "Mewtwo is a [i]containment[/i] fighter." I think that's the best way of putting it. And don't knock the Ice Climbers. They are deadly, and they are incredibly viable as combatants. Building on what Outlawstar has said, Melee [i]is[/i] just a game. Frankly, I don't want to become like those "World-class" players, not because I lack the skill, because I could become that good if I wanted to. No, I have no interest in achieving their "level" because I have a life. This isn't even talking about Casual versus h4rd0r3 g4m3r, either. This is talking about not letting a game rule my life. Sciros, you've read that Frame Guide on Smashboards, right? That's not commendable. That only further proves that they're spending way, way too much time with this game. EDIT: Ah ha! Now I know what I've been seeing here. All this time, I've noticed a peculiar similarity between you, your responses, and your descriptions of the so-called "Elite World-class" gamers. Jedi Council. What had first made me think that was [url=http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?threadid=40565]this thread here[/url]. The part that caught my attention was the thread starter's second paragraph: [quote]Now I know basic advice like "practice your technical skills" but for the most part I have them all down.[/quote] Where have I heard that before? A New Hope, Obi-Wan Kenobi: "Practice your exercises." Star Wars has more bearing on this discussion than one may think or want to think.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']I visited smashboards mostly to look up certain things Smash-related. I don't post on those boards nor do I frequent the IGN boards, and I never really did. I don't treat those boards as gospel, but I do treat any information I find on them in a reasonable manner. The first time I heard about Tiers was in a random discussion in a Direct Connect channel (not the Smash one). I mentioned the characters my Link had trouble fighting, and someone replied "hmm he knows his tiers..." (which I didn't) so I inquired about them.[/quote] You never really frequented the IGN boards? Or never really frequented Smashboards? Or both? I hardly think your replies in this thread previously have been in any "reasonable manner," quite honestly. You have been rude and insulting without any provocation other than Desi and myself simply disagreeing with the Tier System. Based upon that, and how you acted so offended that he and I were critiquing the Tiers, acted as if we were committing blasphemy, lol, I hardly think you treat the Tier system and/or Smashboards in a "reasonable manner." Again, I'm not insulting you. [QUOTE]As for the post quality or member quality of any message board, well that is highly irrelevant, because these are not the people who made up the tiers nor did they develop SSBM. And in any case, there are so many people on Smashboards and IGN that while some are complete morons, there are enough reasonable and experienced folks on there as well. I don't think you'll really be able to "discredit" IGN's boards, not that it matters because even if you did it would change nothing about the Smash tiers or [i]their[/i] credibility.[/QUOTE] And what if I told you that there were members on the IGN Melee board there who were at the top of their game in Melee, and knew the game inside and out? What if they were just as talented and knowledgeable as the majority of the members at Smashboards are? Further, what if I told you that they regularly provided a compelling and very solid argument as to why the characters are balanced, which is a direct negation of the Tier system, and certainly changes the credibility of the Smash tiers, without getting into player skill? Those members do exist. The threads are no longer there, however, as in our discussions, I wondered what the IGN boards were like, and re-visited the boards to find there was a massive cleaning of older threads. I lost a significant number of posts, as well. But there are experienced and very knowledgeable Smashers who totally disagree with the Tier system, and they can be found on the IGN boards, if one does enough searching. [QUOTE]Since you want me to touch upon your having visited IGN and Smashboards and finding them the "same as usual," I will, but I'm not sure what you want me to say. Whether or not you respect these boards is largely beside the point, as is their content quality really. Even if it turned out that Smashboards was in fact run by one-legged goblins who type by cut-and-pasting words from other people's posts in other forums, Smash's better characters would still stand out and their advantages be just as apparent as ever. [b]The tiers are simply an attempt to organize these advantages as best as possible.[/b][/QUOTE] From what you've said previously in this thread, and from the links you've provided, and what you've demanded that I go find on my own, that's not what you were saying just a day ago. Even in your previous reply, you were getting absolutely pissed at me for "debasing" (yes, you did use that word, not in that conjugation, but you did use that word) the Tier system. What did you accuse me of? I can't quite remember. Ah, yes. You accused me of having "utterly empty logic," who didn't even browse "fore [sic] more that [sic] 5 minutes at even just the thread" you linked me to, noting how "anyone with half a brain" wouldn't doubt the Tiers. Now, if you felt so casually about the Tiers, would you have used such language and displayed such a brash and mean-spirited attitude? [quote]From my playing experience and personal research, they are more-or-less right.[/quote] And from my playing experience and personal research (READ: Hands-on and In-Person, just to be specific), the Tiers are more-or-less [i]wrong[/i]. [quote]I'd like to ask, since you keep trying to provide Pichu as a counterexample to the supposed reliable ranking algorithm the tiers use, why [i]would[/i] he be on the bottom? Why indeed is Pichu ranked the lowest? I mean, he wins... all..those..tournaments... I found so many good players saying Pichu was their best character... or ... not. [b]If the tiers are indeed so faulty, why do the dominant players use the characters that just so happen to be in the top tiers?[/b] Why are those the characters that win most often? Is it just coincidence? Or is this an example of the data being fit to the model rather than the other way around? You know, people looking at tiers updated in May and being like, "hmm looks like Sheik's the best let's use him-her and make those tiers look right." Pardon the sarcasm; my point is that Pichu was put on the bottom because he doesn't friggin win. Period. Research into that may point at his ridiculously low threshold, the fact that his moves deal damage to him on top of that, that he flies through the air slowly making juggling him with someone fast a piece of cake. I don't know, maybe he just plain sucks. But I can promise you one thing: when Pichu starts dominating in tournaments, he'll go up in the tiers. Or rather, if he were to start dominating (he won't). Heh, tell me, if Pichu is not one of the worst characters in the game, then who is and based on exactly what criteria?[/quote] I've bolded your answer. Bizarrely enough, it's the chicken and the egg. Why are characters considered good? Because they are at the top of the Tier. Why are they at the top of the Tier? Because the dominant players (READ: the best in the world) play as them, boosting their win percentage up, and the dominant players play as them because they feel they are the best. Therefore, those characters, as they are played by the dominant players in the world, are placed at the top of the Tier, which strangely enough, is [i]made[/i] by the dominant players in the world. In one of your previous replies, you had mentioned something about character appearance percentages. [quote]My point is that characters in Smash are NOT balanced, and you'll find a lot of good players agree with me. Like it or not, Bowser and Game And Watch do not win anywhere near the majority of Smash tourneys. [b]Sheik, Marth, Fox, Falco do.[/b] Links I believe do ok, but that's probably because there's so many of them, heh.[/quote] Those four win because so many play as them, lol. At the last Tourney I was at, there was an abundance of Shieks, Marths, Falcos, and Foxes, and given how many there were, the probability of a Shiek, Marth, Falco, or Fox winning was exponentially increased, because there were so many. Therefore, when the majority of players [i]stop[/i] playing as those four, and [i]start[/i] playing as Pichu, or any of the non-Top Tier characters, then you will see the shift in win ratios. Until that time comes, however, and the characters are actually given a fair chance to succeed, the Tier system looks like...what was the term...stacking the deck? Not intentionally, I'm sure, but still. I'd actually use [b]Star Wars Galaxies[/b] as a comparison point here. On one server, Bloodfin, the economy and prices have become so incredibly bloated that it's damn near impossible to do anything if you don't have elite combat skills and can draw 35k missions at a time. It's a player-based economy, as well, meaning players set the price. It's become so swelled that you constantly hear people shouting, "Looking for solo group," which is a contradiction in and of itself. "Solo" and "group" just don't belong together. With the advent of advanced Doc Buffs and such, people have absolutely no need to group up for the actual hunting, able to solo creatures that are not accessible when alone. What does this have to do with Melee? Cause and effect. When Armorsmiths realized people's combat skills were getting better and better, they naturally raised their prices, because people were making more. These combat players in turn saw the price increase, and immediately started grinding more and more missions, to be able to purchase new armor. The Armorsmiths see this, and jack up the prices again, simply because they can. It's a vicious cycle, which is precisely what the Tier system is. To answer your question regarding who is the "worst" character in the game, though I really think a more proper description would be "least viable," would be Kirby. He's lightweight (incredibly lightweight), his moves do little damage (though, they do have somewhat of a knock-back, but not enough to prove threatening), and his only viable KO Smash is Forward A (if you're the underhanded type, there is a "fake" suicide kill, but that's risky, given it's only feasible on one stage). While his recovery is top-notch, you get a few good zingers on him, and he's a toasted marshmallow. [quote]My final word on the tier list, as it has not yet sunk in. The tiers apply to really really good players. It is based on the gaming experiences of [i]those[/i] players that these tiers were created. It's only natural that they don't apply to you fully, nor to me. I don't personally know anyone good with Jigglypuff, so from my personal experience she's bottom tier. But watch some really killer player use her, and suddenly she's not looking all that bad. Same goes for Captain Falcon. He's hard as heck to really master, and I haven't been able to get him as good as the tiers make him out to be. But then again I'm not Isai. His Falcon is ridiculous, and I'm never gonna be able to play the way he does. His Falcon is a freaking work of art.[/quote] My friend, Scott, is a Jigglypuff shark. Don't underestimate the balloon, because it will kill you. Quite horribly. Case in point: I was playing as Samus, and I had just gotten a Super Mushroom. I jump at Scott, taunting, "HAHAHA...BIG MUSHROOM MEANS BIG SAMUS." The next thing I know, I hear this whistle, and I'm flying off the screen where I subsequently die in a glorious explosion. Scott then turns to me, and very nonchalantly says, "And makes a bigger target." And that is the biggest problem with most of the characters in Melee. People underestimate them, Pichu included...Bowser included. Ice Climbers, [i]especially[/i]. That is my largest criticism with these so-called "Infallible" Tiers, because no matter what anyone does, player skill cannot be removed from the game. It's a variable that may wax and wane, surely, but nobody can rip it out entirely, and view the game objectively. Everyone is always going to have preferences, everyone is always going to have a predisposition going into a match, [i]including[/i] those playing as, or facing off against, "Top-Tier" characters. [QUOTE]I have come to understand the tiers as a guideline for what characters dominate in the really upper levels of Smash competition. Sure, even the best players debate Fox vs. Falco on occasion (or Mario vs. Doc), but I haven't run into a single one who discounts a character ranking altogether. And not a single one of them has tried to put Pichu anywhere near Marth or Sheik, that's for sure.[/QUOTE] And you should note that I didn't put Pichu anywhere near Marth or Sheik, except only in terms of Smashing power, which is accurate. Despite his small size, that little rodent packs one hell of a whallop, and that one hell of a whallop rivals what [i]Fox[/i] or Sheik can do with their respective Smash moves. [QUOTE]Also, when a player 1000 times better than me tells me flat out that Sheik is the best, period, I don't say "no way Sheik is teh sux0rz Pichu pwns." That player probably knows what he's talking about just a tad bit more than I do. (I'm not trying to draw parallels here, I'm probably not 1000 times better than you, I'm just saying that players better than us has put together these tiers and until we get to their level we should just stfu. Those tiers won't fully apply until we reach their level, nor do we have any solid authority on the matter until then.) That's why I'm not gonna go ahead and discount the tiers as rubbish. I've tried to [i]test[/i] them, and so far I've only been able to come up with support for them as they stand (not [i]exactly[/i], but close enough).[/QUOTE] And I never said that Sheik sucks, but I am saying that Pichu isn't a horrible character. In hearing this, this entire issue then becomes a matter of accepting something we can't know about, which, when you think about it, is a horrible idea. You don't even understand what they're telling you, right? They're telling you that Sheik is the best, and because you are so impressed by them--correction: [i]intimidated[/i] by them, you bend to their will. I don't do that. I strive to question. When someone tells me something is so, I ask why, no matter who it is. [QUOTE]So, Siren, there's my final word on the matter.[/QUOTE] I'm going to hold you to that, and thank you. [quote]EDIT: I didn't even know I had a profile on Smashboards, lol. There have been occasions that I've wanted to post something but I didn't feel like registering. But I guess I did register one day after all. Heh. Oh well, maybe I'll post there on occasion, but probably not. Otakuboards is the only forum I really frequent anymore these days.[/QUOTE] [i]What?!?[/i] You didn't even know you had a profile on there? Why wouldn't you post there? What's stopping you?

I would still like some clarification here, if you don't mind. How long have you been registered at Smashboards? You speak as though you've been there for years, but you still haven't mentioned exactly how long you've been there, and I'm just curious. I'm curious because I ran a search through their Member Database and found your profile: [url="http://www.smashboards.com/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=14783"]http://www.smashboards.com/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=14783[/url] You registered there in June of 2004, and haven't posted. Why haven't you posted? It just seems odd to me that you have such a love for Melee, a dedication to it to the point that you get so vocal about it when discussing any aspect of it, and even with all of this, you don't even post once on Smashboards? Why? You obviously don't have anything to lose there, because you're so knowledgeable about everything Smash-related, so why not get involved in the discussions there? You obviously have things to contribute to those discussions and threads, right? And, I look at the date of this thread we're participating in right now, 8/3/04, and notice your first post back (8/8/04) was in this Melee thread. Am I just not understanding things here, or is [b]two months[/b] all one needs to spend at Smashboards to become the official authority on everything Smash-related, even when other members like [url="http://www.smashboards.com/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=10179"]M3D, a Moderator[/url], have been there for much longer than that, years even, and yet you and they possess the exact same knowledge, with the exact same depth? Such an out-spoken and overly-opinionated guy like you, keeping your mouth totally shut on a messageboard about Smash Melee? I'm rather perplexed. Secondly, why didn't you mention anything regarding my previous visits to Smashboards? I did have a previous reply about it, before Desbreko's. I find it odd that you didn't decimate me there, as well. Why didn't you? The fact of the matter is, I had known about Smashboards back in early 2002, and apart from a different Memberbase, it's the same thing it was back then. I would appreciate it if you would at least touch upon this, because previously, you acted like you thought I had no idea what Smashboards was. This is obviously not the case, and I think it would be a good idea to at least talk about my assessment of Smashboards, specifically, its content. I had said how I had seen the exact same things on IGN, and how Smashboards was nothing new to me, but you didn't even mention anything about that, and I would like you to, if it's not too much trouble. Also, I would appreciate it if you at least tried to keep a reasonable tone here. My replies have not insulted you at all; in fact, they have been quite mild, and my requests have been more than reasonable. [quote]As I have stated, and as you should have found had you looked fore more that 5 minutes at even just the thread I linked you to.[/quote]This is one example. Do you think that I could have commented like I did regarding Smashboards if I didn't even bother to browse that forum with any thoroughness? Likewise, do you think I would be commenting on the Tier List if I didn't browse through the entire thread you linked us to? The thread, might I add, is 30 pages of rubbish, with no semblance of coherent thought from anyone on there, except perhaps the thread starter. Further along the same lines, even the [i]thread starter[/i] of that Tier List thread left it open to debate: [quote]This is just for highly skilled players, not casual gamers. Highly skilled = played in real tournaments and doing good. The Tier List shouldn't change your mind on who to choose. Got any opinions on it? Try to list stats on what you think is wrong. Not just saying stuff like this, - "Bowser is good 'cause I use him and can beat all my friends while they use Marth/Sheik. And I can beat 3 level 9's." Stuff like that or anything close to that doesn't belong here. If someone starts to fight about it, or a mess is going on, I'll contact DarkLink, or someone would. This thread is to discuss about the Tier List, not to argue about it. If you think that someone should be lower/higher, you need to give good explanations.[/quote]I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, though I have a fairly good idea, but you're not helping yourself at all by bringing in random numbers, then refusing to link to them, refusing to even PM me with the sources, then going and insulting me because I ask you for sources, and then when I have a critical evaluation of the Tier List that you treat as the Gospel, an evaluation that does point out some rather glaring inconsistencies, you insult me even further. No matter how many points of evaluation the Tier List is based on, it is not correct, because Pichu is not the worst character in the game, and that isn't even subjective, either. [quote](ground speed, power, move lag, recovery time, weight, jump height, etc.)[/quote]Those criteria you just listed only further support the idea that Pichu is not the worst character, as his ground speed is better than 70% of the characters, his power is in the top 25%, his recovery time is average, his weight is a negative (but his positives far outweigh that), and his jump height is rather significant. This certainly improves Pichu's ranking in the Tier List. --- Speaking of Item Usage, I'm more a fan of pure Adaptation, in that I usually play with everything on, in a Very Low or Medium setting. That way, the Item drops aren't too frequent, so a one-on-one without distractions is possible, but the Item drops are frequent enough to allow a good Improvisation every now and then. It's the most balanced way to play, really. EDIT: And also, my name isn't Petey anymore.

Building on Desbreko has said regarding the Tier List and the questionable placing of Marth/Roy vs Fox/Falco, I'm noticing some other unusual placements, as well, and I feel these problems should be explored. Using the Tier List that Sciros provided, let's examine it. [quote][b][size=1]-=Top=- Shiek Fox Marth -=Upper=- Falco Peach Captain Falcon Samus Jigglypuff -=High=- Gannondorf Mario Dr. Mario Luigi -=Mid=- Link Pikachu Ice Climbers Roy Zelda Young Link Yoshi -=Lower=- Ness Donkey Kong Kirby G&W Mewtwo -=Bottom=- Bowser Pichu[/size][/b] [/quote] If we look at the Top Tier as it stands right now, we see three characters only, Marth, Fox, and Shiek. Why are these characters placed together, at the top? Sciros has strongly emphasized how Speed is the biggest determining factor in evaluating the Tier List, or at least which characters are best. Given Speed as the primary evaluation criterion, we find characters in the lower Tiers that should be right at the top, or at least seen somewhere in the Top Tier. Pichu, for example. Pichu is one of the fastest characters in the game, hands-down. What he lacks in Power, he makes up for in pure Speed. If this Tier list is based on Speed, then the exclusion of Pichu in the Top Tier is incredibly questionable. Given this information, the Tier is rather broken. In Melee, there is often a trade-off of character abilities, most notably Speed for Power and Power for Speed. Are these Tiers based upon Power, then, if Pichu is at the bottom of the list? Let's examine the Tiers in terms of Power. Again, there are characters placed at the bottom when they should definitely be placed near the top. On the basis of Power, Bowser and Pichu are incredibly strong. Bowser is clearly pure brute force, but Pichu should not be underestimated in this regard, as his Forward Smash is one of the more damaging and lethal attacks in the game, and his Upward Smash is, as well. With his Upward Smash, Pichu in fact rivals Fox and Shiek, especially Fox, as one of the deadlier Smashers in the game. Game And Watch also is incredibly powerful. His Forward Smash is quite effective, and his Forward B, when connecting with a 6 through 9, can KO a player. Pikachu, as well, has a very effective Upward Smash, and the Ice Climbers have been rated as some of the most powerful characters in the game. So, given all of this, this Tier Listing is also broken in terms of Power evaluations. If there was a comprehensive, perfect Tier Listing, which gave full consideration to every characters' Strengths and Speeds, it would look like this: [b][size=1]--Smash Tier--[/size][/b] [b][size=1]Shiek Fox Marth Falco Peach Captain Falcon Samus Jigglypuff Gannondorf Mario Dr. Mario Luigi Link Pikachu Ice Climbers Roy Zelda Young Link Yoshi Ness Donkey Kong Kirby G&W Mewtwo Bowser Pichu[/size][/b] [b][size=1]------[/size][/b] [size=1][/size] [size=1]Notice that there are no Tier Levels, and the order of this list does not reflect a better or worse character.[/size]

[quote name='Sciros']Anyway, PETEY, in the end it doesn't matter if you think my info is "ign message board garbage" or not, because it isn't and that's that. Rather than asking me for sources you should have tried to confirm the information yourself, as I did. Then you'd maybe learn something rather than just attack anything I write because it doesn't coincide with your world view.[/quote] All I did was ask for some sources, nothing more. Nothing I said in my post was inflammatory, or attacking you, so I don't see how you could take offense to anything I said. If asking you to provide links is too much to ask, and you are so offended and/or insulted by it, I don't know what to tell you, Sciros. I was respectful in my reply, and I did not attack you. It's the truth. You dropped the name Smashboards, too. You may not be aware of this, but I did frequent those boards back some three years ago. In fact...in my time browsing the IGN messageboards, specifically, the Melee forum, a few members praised Smashboards. I checked them out, and it was adequate. Nothing spectacular. Honestly, I'm not trying to insult you here, either. But I took the liberty now, and re-visited Smashboards. Nothing has changed. In fact, I just perused a few threads each page in the Melee discussion areas, and to tell you the truth, I read that same material three years ago on the IGN Melee Board. Perhaps IGN members and Smashboard members are some of the same people, I don't know. But what I do know is, that the Info threads stickied at the top of those pages are nothing new. Their description of [url=http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?threadid=40948]L-canceling[/url] is nothing more than a Floor-tech. Their FAQs and guides are GameFAQ material. The frame analysis...it is totally extraneous material and wholly unneeded for anything regarding Smash. When there are threads there asking the members how Melee has taken over their lives, and when that thread has how many pages of the same type of reply? You may worship them, Sciros. You may praise them to no end, but I've read all of that before, back when Smash Melee first came out. But, by all means, continue to browse there. You do what you want, but I'm not impressed by the board that houses your gods.

Sciros, I notice you're tossing around a few numbers and this phrase, "World-class." You mention these rankings of the 60 top players in the world, as well. I also notice that no links are posted, except for your recent Edit of the "Marths that rock" video clip. You've mentioned how you've seen World-class players play. Well, forgive me for asking for some more detail here, but where have you seen them play? What cities? What countries? How many tournaments? I notice that information is absent, and I think it would be a good idea to provide all of that information. Also, without links to professional studies and surveys conducted by reputable gaming or statistics sites, your numbers mean nothing. If you don't provide your sources and substantiate your numbers, which at this point are really just claims, we have no choice but to treat your information and statistics as little more than what we all could find on various messageboards across the 'net. And to further go into that a bit, what's to say that whatever we find on one messageboard will concur with that of another, totally different messageboard? At this point, we can only treat your numbers as..."IGN Melee Board Garbage." I also find fault with your statements about player skill and its relation to character strengths. I'm going to venture a rather radical statement here, so just hear me out. It is virtually impossible to decide which character is better than another. Regardless of what people we talk to, what we see online, player skill always factors in to the assessments. I think a proper metaphor for gaming is an ocean, in that everyone and everything is constantly intermingling with each other, affecting and being affected. What happens to one happens to all. It is a fluid exchange of skill, and the gamer, despite what they may think, cannot remove themselves from the ocean. If they view it as a mere puddle, able to be avoided, they will drown.

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I don't know if you got me mixed up with someone else or you just didn't read my post, but I never said it had anything to do with being deep and profound analysis of our existence... In fact I said nothing to that extent at all, my whole post was pointing out that the people who feel "left out" because they thought this movie was going to be something that it wasn't are at fault by themselves, not by the movie. Like I said before, anyone who knows anything about Night's movies knows they are never what they seem to be, so it's not the movie's fault they wasted their money, they should have known better. Then I said that the movie is in depth. There was a post saying something about how this person felt the movie was just a flat work, when in reality, if they were paying attention, the movie goes into great depth. Not meaning it had any profound meaning, I never said that. I simply meant it explained everything that happened well enough to understand the movie. I dunno where in your head you got the silly idea that i was talking about soem analysis of our existence... thats your fault for thinking that. Perhaps you should read my post again.[/quote] I'll just re-quote what I quoted before. [quote name='TN']The trailers make you think that there are these monsters in the woods... when in fact, as you all know, it's something totally different.[/quote] That was the last sentence in that paragraph. Just to provide the pretext, I'll also quote the part before it: [quote=TN]Anybody who knows anything about M Night Shaymalan knows that each trailer he produces to each of his movies is not what the movie is about. The [b]Sixth Sense[/b] trailer is about a boy who sees dead people... but the movie really isn't all about that in the end, [b]it's about Bruce Willis's character figuring out he's really dead[/b].... the [b]Unbreakable[/b] trailer [b]deals with what you think is a man who cannot get hurt no matter what... a miracle worker[/b], but thats only a small element of the movie, [b]it's really about Samuel L Jackson's character finding his opposite and essentially coming to peace with himself... completing himself[/b]... [b]Signs[/b]... the trailer for signs mislead you to think it was about aliens and their crop signs, when in fact it was about [b]signs from God[/b]. The reason the girl left the water around, the reason Merryle had his baseball bat up on the wall, the reason the boy had Asma (sp?)... the aliens attacking was part of the film, but the underlying meaning was not that. [b]The village does the same thing[/b].[/quote] Let's just see what themes you've established? In Sixth Sense, it's a realization of a man's own mortality, so that he can find peace in the afterlife. In Unbreakable, it is a synthesis of polar opposites, to bring about balance. You describe Bruce Willis as "a miracle worker." The implications of your assessment of Signs should be obvious: "Signs from God." While you may not have explicitly been discussing the more profound statements regarding human existence, you touched upon them. I'm not terribly fond of Signs, but when you describe a film as showing signs from God, that film and its plot progression is a deeply religious experience, and is far more than just "in depth." I'm not saying you had any epiphany or anything, but the fact that you treat Signs as a religious picture should tell you that you do see a more profound message in it. I still feel Signs is an utterly empty film, but if you see a "Signs from God" in there, then you treat it more than just an "in depth" film. I mean...it touches on Biblical happenings. Hell, Moses and the Burning Bush in the OT. A sign from God is a deeply moving and [i]profound[/i] experience that changes a person forever. So, based on your interpretations of the films, there are definitely profound happenings and circumstances in them. Now, you said that The Village "does the same thing." Your very next sentence in that paragraph dealt with what the trailers led the audience to believe, yes, but it also went into what the film was actually about. If we think the monsters are in the woods, but throughout the course of the movie, it seems that the real monsters are much, much closer to home (in the Village), what is that saying about the human existence? I think it was in The Shadow, "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?" Really, you could view The Village as an exercise in Original Sin, where mankind is forever doomed because he is forever "unclean," as it were. Original Sin is a Christian ideal based on Garden of Eden, and plucking the apple (though, the apple was not in the original story, instead later added through creative liberties), disobeying God, and being casted out of the Garden of Eden, into a life of sorrow, difficulty and pain, is certainly a learning experience. It's what I would call the Divine Bitchslap. And when you think about it in that way, the Elders play God. They sought to create an "Eden," and established rules. If anybody breaks those rules, they will be punished. Further, the color RED, as the forbidden color in The Village, can also be interpreted as the red apple of GoE, tempting the characters, as it were. Now, based on all of this that can be gleaned from The Village and a rather rudimentary understanding and background of the Book of Genesis and various literary works, and your acknowledgement of the film's themes of "Monsters in the [i]Village[/i]" being quite different than the trailers' theme of "Monsters in the [i]Woods[/i]," I'd be inclined to say that you aren't reading into the film enough. And touching back on "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men," [i]because[/i] the Monsters [i]aren't[/i] in the Woods, and actually [i]in[/i] the Village itself, the Village they construct, the "Eden," fails because violence is an inherent trait of the human existence. Hence, when I said, "Violence is inescapable." Thus, the film [i]does[/i] become a statement...a message about the human condition...the human existence. Then, after we break down The Village to that theme, we realize that it is incredibly simple and redundant, which brings me back to my other points regarding [i]why[/i] it is redundant, specifically, referencing violence seen on MSNBC, FoxNews, and CNN. Someone would have to be blind not to realize that we do not need to go to the theatres to be shown violence, or malicious human desire; all we have to do is turn on the TV.

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']The trailers make you think that there are these monsters in the woods... when in fact, as you all know, it's something totally different.[/quote] This one sentence invalidates your entire argument of The Village being some deep and profound analysis of the human existence. Anyone with half a brain realizes that our society is not in top form these days. It's so blatantly obvious. All we have to do is turn on MSNBC, and we are bombarded with graphic images of violence. The Village is the exact same thing as MSNBC. How, you may ask? Simple. When you strip away all of the...window dressings of The Village, you are left with a cold-hearted fact: Violence is inescapable. Just because MNS decides to force that idea into The Village, suddenly we are supposed to praise The Village as art? It doesn't make sense, because if that's art, then CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, are all art, as well, because they show and say the exact same thing that MNS does in The Village. What's the difference between news programs and The Village? For the most part, newscasters aren't muddled and blinded by the conception of "high art." O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, they know what they are, and they know their role: Entertainers.

Cyke, I think you're missing the bigger picture here. The cartoon feature may die out, and I have a feeling it will, but the technology developed will spurn on new developments in cartridge design and approach. The DS, while looking very impressive, will not suddenly replace the GBA. It may outsell it, sure, but considering the amazing record of the GameBoy since its conception in the late 80s/early 90s, and considering the unbelievable success of it, I highly doubt that the purpose of the DS is to replace an outstanding product line like the GameBoy. Because of this, your criticism of the GBA Video technology, how the "technology [won't be] exploited in any significant way in the near future" is unfounded, as the GameBoy has consistently proven itself to dominate the handheld market, and to offer some very competitive sales figures in the [i]console[/i] war. This Cartoon Cartridge will undoubtedly assist in how games are produced, if only for the technology developments it provides.

But Sciros, if speed is what SSBM is all about, how can an exceptional Ganondorf player obliterate an above-average Sheik player? If speed is what "counts the most" in Melee, how can you explain a Bowser holding his own against Marth? Or Pikachu dominating Falco or Fox? Just based on those match results alone, Melee is more about player skill than character speed. I'm sure character speed has something to do with victory rates, but if a Novice player plays with a Top-Tier character like Shiek, and an experienced player uses Ganondorf, the experienced player (Ganondorf) will win. But if speed is the biggest factor in Melee, Shieks should always win, regardless of player skill. But that's not the case at all. So, care to explain?

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']My fingers are beginning to cramp up.[/color][/quote]That's usually a sign of something that needs to be considered. Perhaps you're overworking your fingers by typing too much? --- What I'm currently reading...The Bourne Trilogy. I began reading [i]The Bourne Ultimatum[/i] a few weeks ago, and last weekend, had the distinct pleasure of buying [i]The Bourne Identity[/i] and [i]Bourne Supremacy[/i] at a bookstore down the shore. I immediately started reading B.I. in our suite at the Northwood Inn on the Saturday night, and it's absolutely breathtaking. Few novels I've read, both in casual reading, and in school-related reading, take the risks that Robert Ludlum takes, notably in terms of dialogue. There are entire pages with just dialogue, which is relatively unseen in the majority of mature literature. This would be authorial suicide if the writer is not proficient in writing believable dialogue, but Ludlum weaves this incredible tapestry, with just two characters at some points. The dialogue is fantastic, and very entertaining. Fight scenes are more difficult to write than anything in literature. That is, [i]believable[/i] fight scenes. Some authors go overboard, and the fight scene becomes utterly campy and absurd. Sometimes, this absurdity is intended, and it works because of that intent. For the most part, however, the more overwritten or underwritten a fight scene is, the more unbelievable it becomes. Ludlum hits the proper balance, and the first fight between Bourne and a few fishermen becomes an exercise in brutality, not ballet or a Super Burly Brawl. I've read parts of [i]2001: Space Odyssey[/i] in the past, and in the upcoming months, am intending to write an essay examining the similarities between Dave Bowman's transformation into the Starchild, and Transcendentalism, concentrating mainly on Ralph Waldo Emerson's [i]American Scholar[/i]. Incidentally, I highly recommend Emerson's American Scholar. It's quite remarkable. Speaking about WWII, Kurt Vonnegut's [i]Slaughterhouse Five[/i] and [i]Mother Night[/i] are two outstanding novels chronicling war's devastating effects on both the environment and the human mind. Slaughterhouse Five's climax occurs during the fire-bombing of Dresden, Germany, which the main character, Billy Pilgrim, witnesses first-hand, just as Vonnegut did in reality. I would have Spoiler tagged it, but it's not some huge, secret ending. Because SL5 jumps around, as Billy Pilgrim as "become unstuck in time," mention is made of Dresden's destruction within the first five pages, throughout the novel, and the last few chapters are set in an underground meat locker during the raid. Mother Night, which could be considered one of Vonnegut's biggest criticisms of the war, explores the aftermath of war, from the perspective of a former US spy, a man named Howard W. Campbell, Jr. In order to infiltrate the German ranks, and acquire intelligence to report back to his commanding officers in the US, Campbell poses as a Nazi sympathizer during WWII, using coded messages to relay the information over a radio show he does. When the war ends, however, he is unable to escape the role he played, and suffers from intense anguish, both internally and from external forces. I believe Vonnegut has described Mother Night with the following: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

Taking a short sidetrack from the main discussion points: I felt this was worth announcing. Bravo movie channel is having a "Tarantino Weekend," probably to commemorate the home release of Kill Bill Volume 2. Right now, Reservoir Dogs is on. Spoiler tags ahead, lol. [spoiler]The scene I just tuned in to was right after they get to the warehouse after the botched diamond robbery, where Orange is on the ground, bleeding, Pink and White are arguing, then in walks Mr. Blonde. I had never really thought about this scene before...or maybe I have, and it just didn't hit me, but as we all know, Orange is the rat that Pink's talking about. At this point in the movie, though, we don't know that, and we hate the rat just as much as Pink, White, Blonde. Blonde is undeniably cool. He's probably one of the best characters in the canon of QT films. His composure struck me as incredible, especially in this scene. With one line, he totally defeats White's ranting, "Are you gonna bark all day, lil doggy, or are you gonna bite?" He seems so rational and smooth, so solid with the situation, that we can't help but trust him. This trust is obviously with a bit of uneasiness, of course, but we still trust him, because as Pink says, "And I sure as hell know he's [Blonde] on the level." (paraphrased the entire bit of dialogue) Why shouldn't we? True, Blonde "went psycho" in the jewelry shop, blasting all of those people, but we don't see it, so we can't be sure of the severity of it, even though White and Pink talk about it...damn near rant about it, especially White. And when haven't [i]we[/i] embellished an intense situation, whether consciously or unconsciously? For all we know, while it's doubtful (White seems like a straight shooter), White could have elevated Blonde's actions to more than what they seemed in the film's reality. Based on this, does Blonde seem all that bad? Yes, lol, but this 'yes' is after "Stuck In The Middle With You," where the now infamous ear-cutting scene takes place.[/spoiler] Just [spoiler]Blonde[/spoiler] alone is an example of QT's seeming mastery of the twist of perspective, where our entire view and opinion of the character, characters, plot, setting are transformed into something entirely different, and a twist that alters our perception of his films. QT does it better than most, I think, and M. Night Shymalan is still a novice at it, lol. QT's twists and perspective flips are on par with that of say, The Usual Suspects. I'm going to enjoy this weekend. :D

I've seen this thing in stores lately. It's been out for a few months, apparently. Surprisingly, I've heard rather positive reviews of it. Just a few months ago, before Summer began, I was chatting with an old high school bud, Scott, who had kept up on the gaming scene just as much as, if not more than, I have. He had purchased a few of these...Cartoon Cartridges, and was very impressed with their performance. Naturally, he said, there was the expected artifacting from the compression, and there's a frame-skip every so often, but for the most part, it's a very nifty little toy. Obviously, at this point, this Cartoon Cartridge thing is just a gimmick--at least, the cartoon portion is. I have a feeling that regardless of if this cartoon portion succeeds or fails, the technology developed will prove most useful, in terms of just how much data they can pack into a standard GBA cartridge in the future. So, right now, I'm ambivalent--well, a bit more impressed than just ambivalent. It sounds like a pretty cool idea. Here's hoping it rides the wave of success, eh?

I recently had the distinct pleasure of partaking of Jackie Brown, and I was very impressed. I think Jackie stood out the most. She wasn't going to sit back and let things happen to her. She was Pam Grier's 70s Blaxploitation character, Foxy Brown, and I think that's why Grier looks so damn comfortable as Jackie Brown...the name similarity probably hints at why she's so right for the role. QT knows how to cast people, heh. Speaking of casting the right people, I recently saw Kill Bill Volume 2, and I had never really been a fan of Michael Madsen up until Volume 2. Granted, he was awesome in Reservoir Dogs, and delivered his lines with the necessary camp in Species, but I never really saw him as a "serious" actor, even in terms of QT films. Volume 2 changed that. Budd really is the most sympathetic character in Kill Bill, I think. He's the only DiVA that shows compassion, it seems. Yes, O-Ren admits she has underestimated The Bride, in a sense, but she doesn't outright, immediately give The Bride the respect she deserves ("Silly Caucasian girl likes to play with Samurai swords?"). Budd, on the other hand, does, I think. Even when [spoiler]Bill comes to warn him in the opening scenes of Volume 2, Budd understands that they (the DiVAS) all deserve to die, and he accepts that. He doesn't insult The Bride's strength or convictions, like GoGo, O-Ren, or even to a lesser extent, Vernita. While James disagrees with me on this point, his usage of the rock salt shells may mean he wanted to torture her, but it also gave him the option to be kind to her, as well, by giving her the choice. If it were up to Elle, Budd could have continually beaten Bea, to the point where she was unrecognizable--hell, maybe worse than her wedding rehearsal. He buries her alive, sure, and that's certainly villainous, but he gives her the choice of a flashlight or an entire can of mace in the eyes. I think that is a major redeeming factor for Budd's character.[/spoiler] Based on this, you could almost say that Budd is the most respectible member of the DiVAS. He's not arrogant like O-Ren. He's not rude like Vernita. He's not an asshole like Elle, lol. He's a regular Joe, more or less, and I think that characterization is found in most of QT's other films (Butch in PF, Mr. Pink in RD, Jackie in JB, for example). Just regular people caught up in this chaos inherent in QT's films. Maybe I'm reading into something that isn't there, but Budd seems like an okay guy. Elle, on the other hand, I couldn't imagine anyone else playing her. Daryl Hannah just captures the role perfectly. I'm sure James has some things to say about her, hehe. The [spoiler]trailer scene[/spoiler] in Volume 2 is just [i]priceless[/i]. QT knows how to cast a movie. The guy who played Pai Mei was awesome in it, and Pai Mei seemed like a disturbed and demented Yoda, actually, especially when [spoiler]he was sitting on top of the board that Bea was trying to break with her fist, and as she kept failing, he kept tapping her on the head with his walking stick. I kept thinking, "Dude, that's [i]so[/i] a ******-up Yoda!"[/spoiler]

My short and rambly post after waking up at 2:15 pm, heh. I found 2004 to be a rather nice year for games so far. A lot of big-name releases came out and were very well-received. There were a few titles I was looking forward to playing, and I was very impressed by each of them when I finally could play them. [b][u]Xbox[/u][/b] [b]Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay[/b] - This was probably one of my favorite games of the year so far for Xbox. It had a polish not previously seen on movie licensed games, and the presentation was outright jaw-dropping. The use of lighting and light/dark was really impressive. The fact that the game allowed players to go through a level guns a-blazing, in typical FPS fashion, was expected, but Riddick goes farther than that and almost gives an open-ended gameplay. This is pretty much unseen on console FPS, and this is why Riddick really "shines." heh. I had mentioned the lighting, and for those who don't know who Riddick is, he's an ex-con who had his eyes upgraded with something called "EyeShine," which lets him see in the dark. After acquiring this ability later in the game, facing off against a squad of armored guards is no problem at all. Simply shoot out the lights, casting the room into complete darkness, flip on the EyeShine, and proceed to sneak around the guards to snap their necks. It's very satisfying. As the title might suggest, there is only one goal in the game, and that is to escape from Butcher Bay, a triple-max security prison. I found this singular and basic goal to be very refreshing after the countless generic "Fight this enemy and destroy their war machine" FPS plots. And really, that's what Riddick is, I think; a breath of fresh air in a tired FPS market. [b]Psi-Ops: The MindGate Conspiracy[/b] - Oddly enough, I'm choosing two games that you had a lukewarm response to, Tony, lol. Psi-Ops is fun simply because of its game engine, I think. The plot is generic and only really serves to provide new and exciting ways to utilize the main character's psychic abilities. And boy, are those abilities fun. The first power you get is Telekinesis (TK), and you immediately can put it to good use, throwing soldiers off of catwalks, into scummy water, or even just bash them against a wall a few times. Later in the game, you encounter open furnaces, nuclear waste, even connecting platforms on skyscrapers. All of these can be used to dispose of enemy soldiers. It's very, very satisfying. I'll edit later with Cube.

If you think that the FF series is the end-all, be-all of the RPG genre, you need to play more RPGs, lol. Granted, Final Fantasy VI and VII are top-notch, and V is a really fun time, as well, but VIII was absolutely abysmal, and the saving grace of IX was that it played like old-school Final Fantasy. Other than that, the series is pretty bleh, in my opinion (gotta put "in my opinion" there...I don't want to offend people!!!!! OMG!!111!). Games like KOTOR, KOTOR II, Fable, Jade Empire, Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Sudeki (and these are just a few RPGs on Xbox), and then Tales of Symphonia, Paper Mario 2, Skies of Arcadia Legends, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles (Gamecube), are all excellent games or are shaping up to be. KOTOR II, Fable, and Jade Empire are probably some of the most highly-anticipated RPGs this year, if not since the next-gen consoles launched. So, I think it's incredibly silly to base one's system preference only because of one franchise that really is only spectacular through namesake and longevity alone, lol. That said, I've been playing my Xbox or Gamecube the most lately, I think. Funny thing is, I haven't been playing really new games, except for Tales of Symphonia and Sudeki. My main Cube action has been Metroid Prime and Legend of Zelda: Four Swords, and I have a feeling I'm going to pop in WindWaker today or tomorrow. KOTOR, Elder Scrolls III, and Roadkill have been dominating my Xbox usage, when I'm not playing games I rent. So, I guess you could say that based upon my gaming tendencies, Xbox and Cube are my favorite systems.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Actually, the young couiple with a child point is valid since as part of the news story about this restuarant was about a couple with an 8 year old who were turned away.[color=black][/quote][/color][/color] [color=darkviolet][color=#000000][/color][/color] [color=darkviolet][color=#000000]You know, I've searched various news sites (CNN, MSNBC, NY Times) and I haven't found anything about this. Could you provide a link to an online article, perhaps? After all, this is a fairly serious issue, and if it means so much in that it is impeding on personal freedoms, then surely one of the major news networks would have something about it somewhere, even a blurb on their website.[/color] [color=black][QUOTE][/color]Never mind the fact that while an 8 year old may know what a fake I.D. is she won't be able to pass herself off as 21. Her parents probably wouldn't let her imbibe anything stronger than coca cola. But still....[color=black][/QUOTE] [/color] [color=black]An 8-year-old...hmm...[/color] [color=#000000]There is underage drinking going on here. We can safely assume that those drinking illegally are between the ages of 17 and 20. The behaviors of the inebriated underage drinkers are bad enough to warrant an age restriction on entering the restaurant, and we can all agree that children would not benefit from being exposed to said behaviors. In fact, exposing children to heavy drinking/smoking/etc does not prove beneficial in general, and from the description of this BBQ place, it certainly is not designed for children. Now, given this, and understanding the difficulty of excluding only the 17-24 year-olds, it is only logical to exclude all those under 25. It's easier, less time-consuming, and requires less manpower than specifically looking for that particular age range.[/color] [color=black][QUOTE][/color]Still, it's a privately owned business, and even though it is age discrimination nobody can do anything about it. Unless the owners actually do start to lose business because of this policy nothing's going to change. Still, it is nice to rant a bit, right?[/color][color=black][/QUOTE][/color] [color=black]We've already established that it's not age discrimination, and I think an actual excerpt from the article might help here:[/color] [color=black] [/color] [url="http://www.rochesterdandc.com/news/07319K536BU_news.shtml"]http://www.rochesterdandc.com/news/07319K536BU_news.shtml[/url] [color=black][QUOTE][/color](July 31, 2004) ? VICTOR ? Most restaurants require at least shoes and a shirt. A few might even call for a jacket and tie. But at the Village Pig, if you don't have 25 birthdays under your belt, you're not welcome inside. Jim Andres, owner of the new barbecue eatery and bar at 75 Coville St., set the unusual age restriction to avoid the [b]undesirable behaviors of two subsets of customers: screaming or crying children and irresponsible younger drinkers[/b]. ?We simply don't want to deal with it.? The policy is legal. Some patrons appreciate it while others don't think it is fair. ?I think it's great, and mind you, I have three kids,? said Jorge Torres, 59, of Victor, Ontario County, who was eating with fellow motorcycle riders at the Colville Street restaurant Thursday night. ?Adults need a place where they can talk, have a drink, have dinner.? Staffers ? some of whom are younger than 25 ? say they have rarely encountered conflict with the occasional customers they have turned away. ?I've only had two people who got kind of snotty about it,? said ID checker Tim Maher. ?I tell them they can go up the hill to Mickey Finn's.? Criticism of the policy doesn't bother Andres, who also owns the nearby restaurant and tavern. ?I'm less focused on who I'm losing and more focused on who I'm getting.? Advertisements he has placed in regional newspapers not only state the age restriction, but also play up the restaurant's casual atmosphere (concrete floors, canned beer) and bullish attitude (tagline: ?You're not special here? ). According to Rick Sampson, president of the New York State Restaurant Association, any establishment with a liquor license can set any age restriction it wants, as long as the exclusion is applied evenly and consistently. Although Sampson is unaware of any restaurants in the state with a similar policy, he said it wouldn't surprise him if more followed suit. ?They don't want the problem of serving an illegal ? that's the biggest incentive,? he said. Not every customer of the Village Pig, which opened May 24, gives the policy a glowing review. ?What's the point?? asked 29-year-old Alan Buckley of Farmington, Ontario County. ?By the time I was 22, I had two kids, two college degrees and four years in the military.? One of his companions, Tammy Beer of Henrietta, called the age cut-off ?a decent idea.? Would she have said that two weeks ago, when she was still a few days shy of 25? ?Probably not.?[/QUOTE][color=black]Let's see...the owner of The Village Pig also owns two nearby restaurants/taverns, out of the entire customer base, only two customers have expressed disappointment, the staff is comfortable with the age restriction, and the "undesirable behavior" I quoted when I pasted an excerpt from Refusal Of Service guidelines is [i]exactly[/i] the reasoning behind this owner's decision.[/color] [color=black]There is nothing happening here that is against the law, except for underage drinking.[/color] [color=black]The owner is operating fully with the Service requirements, and is breaking no laws in setting this age restriction.[/color] [color=black]There is absolutely no issue here at all. There is no age discrimination; there is no violation of personal freedoms.[/color]

"Well, what did you expect me to do?!" Adrienne exclaimed. "Hey, sister, I look out for one man. ME! I can't have you goin around and saying I'm wearing a piece up there, baby! I am my hair. Look at it! Wavy, blonde locks...full figure, my hair is a gift to women everywhere. It gives lepers hope. If I weren't so humble, honey, I'd say my hair can bring about world peace! It's [i]that[/i] important, pretty momma!" Adrienne ran her hand through Johnny's golden silk. "You're right. Damn, that is nice," she said, "How do you get it so soft yet firm?" "Oh, it's a little secret of mine, and I couldn't possibly give it out, because I just wouldn't be so special anymore, and we can't have that. We can't have Johnny Bravo be a washed-up has-been, can we?" "Oh, but Johnny, your hair is just so arousing...it makes me want to make sweet, sweet love to a big hunk of man. I smell that scent and I just want to scream out in a fit of passion...it's a totally organic experience, and please, I [i]need[/i] to know what it is you do to your hair that drives me so wild!" "Well, when you put it that way," Johnny turns to the camera, "When I want my hair to look its best, I need a product that suits my dominant masculinity, but also projects an innocence and vulnerability. I've tried many haircare products in my years as a fasion model--" "You were a fashion model," Adrienne interrupted. "Yes, I was, Adrienne, and I've used many shampoos and conditioners in my time, but nothing ever came close to the power and energy I get from Pantene Pro-V Shampoo and Conditioner." A bottle is tossed to him from off-camera. "I tell you, Adrienne, if you want an attractive head of hair that makes you the cock of the walk, the creme de la creme, if you want to look your best, all the time, then you should use Pantene Pro-V Shampoo and Conditioner! It's dynomite!" "That sounds absolutely wonderful, Johnny! Mind if I try some right now?" "Sure thing, baby! Here, why don't you sit back in this salon chair?" The water is hot, and for a brief moment, Adrienne recoils from the heat, but Johnny's gentle and sensual hands begin massaging her scalp, working the shampoo into her hair. Her face becomes flushed, her cheeks take on a pink hue as her body responds to this affectionate and passioned display of raw human desire. Johnny's breathing becomes labored as his male passion increases, and Adrienne cannot help but be overcome with pleasure. Her body is electric; every inch of her skin becomes an erogenous zone. She begins to moan, louder and louder, writhing in a twisted dance of love and unbridled sexual fury. She screams out and the director snaps. "All right! CUT! Adrienne! Johnny! Give your libidos a rest, please! I said CUT! Johnny, Adrienne, take a shower, please!" They begin to walk away. "And not with each other! I don't want what happened last time, either. I'm still getting grief for that [b]fight in the spa[/b] last year! Keep it clean!" Johnny and Adrienne couldn't help but wink at each other as they headed off to the showers, into the sauna, where their intended continuation of the shampoo commercial would have to wait. There sat the Korean and the elderly and very much naked Yu-Kan sat, steaming out the pain, but ready for some off-camera action.

DW, that's a total cop-out, lol. In our AIM discussions, you didn't want to discuss it anymore because you were worried that any further discussion, and you would start to hate the movie, lol, not because I hadn't seen it. :p Though, you have to admit that [spoiler]Walker [i]does[/i] seem a bit cowardly in The Village, and is totally incapable of surviving in a real reality, instead being forced to turn to creating this...preserve out of an intense, neurotic desire to feel safe. But even in his neurosis, he is unable to feel safe, because he is so scared of the outside world and thus projects this fear unto others, controlling them with the same fear he suffers from. It's an interesting character, surely, but also a very weak one at the same time.[/spoiler]

[quote name='Okita']Firstly the presence of a bar is to serve alcohol, if the owner decides to put a age prerequiste above and beyond the law it is their choice, I have nothing to say about, I was merely pointing out that this is STILL a restaurant, which you have never mentioned in your own post.[/quote] I did mention it, and if you would like, I can quote it. However, the difference between this place of dining and say, Chuck E Cheese's, is that alcohol can be acquired here. Actually, not to argue semantics here, or to pull a Bill Clinton, but how are we defining restaurant? Is it a place that serves both food and alcohol? A kid's eatery? Perhaps a diner down by the shore? Would McDonald's be considered a restaurant? Maybe it's just me, but if a place has a bar, they're a bar. Sure, they may have a dining area and also seat people, but there is still alcohol on the premises, and thus the eatery in question should not be categorized in the same way, as the same type of business as McDonald's or your local Waterfront Marina ice cream parlor. The fact of the matter is, this place has a bar; they should be treated as a bar, not as a family-friendly establishment that should just open its doors to everyone, lol. [QUOTE]What if a young couple with a child came into the restuarant? Would the child qualify as underage? certainly it would be unlikely that he would consume alcohol or heaven forbid: become drunk! Without detail I cannot say for sure, but it would certainly annoy me if I was the one being turned away. Many poeple come to a restaurant to dine, to enjoy the serivce and the food: not for the express purpose of drinking large quantity of alcohol, many of them might even be underage![/QUOTE] The "young couple with child" point doesn't fly, and here's why. My question regarding that is, Does the child even closely resemble an older teenager who may pass for 21? Unless the child has medical issues, I highly doubt it. [QUOTE]Secondly, I have already stated in my post that the above scenario is not an age discrimination issue, merely aggravating. Restuarant has the right as with pub and nightclub to refuse it's service to any individual based on reasonable circumstance as do any other legitimate bussiness. Youth, especially male youth pays a higher insurance rate on cars, this is not consider age discrimation, merely a response base on statistic, there is nothing legaly wrong with this or the above scenario.[/QUOTE] And you will notice that I indeed touched upon the aggravation point: [quote]The "inappropriate behavior" it mentions can certainly mean underage drinking or a general inability on the part of the patron to control himself or herself when imbibing alcohol, thus making the owner's decision sound and valid, and [b]while it may be aggravating, it is only aggravating when the customer cannot think of any other places to dine[/b], my good fellow. It's not as if this restaurant is the only one in NYC, lol. [color=black]Again, I bring up the mother from Wisconsin; if she doesn't like the show, change the channel, if someone doesn't like how a restaurant runs things, go to a different restaurant. No-one is forcing anyone to dine at this particular establishment, and contrary to some individual's beliefs, NYC--New York in general, is rather stacked when it comes to places to eat out.[/quote][/color] So further discussion over the aggravation is moot. [QUOTE]Personally I am indifferent about such a policy, however if every single restuarant meeting the prerequisite of the above scenario decides to do bussiness only to 25 years and older individuals then I would certainty find it a tad annoying.[/QUOTE] But what is the likelihood that this will sweep the nation? Pretty low, if you ask me. [QUOTE]As it is I would simply shrugg this as an isolated incident that doesn't concern me.[/QUOTE] Exactly. And for the majority of people on OB, it doesn't concern them in the least, either, especially those treating it like a big deal or some threat to their way of life. [QUOTE]I work in a restaurant with a bar, I work IN the bar and service poeple both old and young. I am 20 years old with an alcohol license (the servicing of), I understand the owners perspective, but that does not mean I approve of his bussiness ethos.[/QUOTE] So, you understand where the owner is coming from, but in the future, if you own your own dining establishment and are presented with a similar predicament, would you execute an age restriction similar to this owner's? And if you wouldn't, will you be prepared for the consequences that may ensue, if underage patrons leave your business while inebriated and cause significant damage to themselves and others around them? Would you be prepared for those consequences? You are aware of the penalties, as you do work in the restaurant business? [quote]If the situation was truely terrible and I've witness to it, I might just change my mind, as it is I simply pointed out a few things that I disagree with in you're comments.[/QUOTE] So, then, if presented with a similar situation, you would follow roughly the same course of action as the owner in question?

[quote name='Dragon Warrior']I think we're all getting a little too into this here XD[/quote]I agree with Tony on this point. An "intelligent thriller" should be able to be explored at-length, with no seams showing. The Village has too many seams showing, lol. [quote][spoiler]We're thinking too much about it. M. Night's whole idea may have been just to have them live in an olden days lifestyle with some modern conviences such as the medicine. Maybe he didn't even mean for it to be exactly the 1800's?[/spoiler][/quote]When there is a tombstone marked 1897, and it's one of the first images in the film, when the official website for the film is bathed in the time period, when there is absolutely nothing shown to dissuade the idea that this film is set in the late 1890s, I think it's absolutely ludicrous to defend this plot premise by simply saying, "Maybe he didn't even mean for it to be exactly the 1800s." I'm not trying to target you, DW; I highly respect you. It's just that you're treading on thin ice. XD MNS is one of the most deliberate filmmakers around today, and I highly doubt anything in his films was accidental, including plot and setting. [quote][spoiler]The people in the village who aren't aware (I mean, the people who aren't Elders) don't even know about the world outside their village so therefore wouldn't know the history of our Earth as we would if we were living in 1890. Because they don't know any of Earth's history, the "1890" the people of the Village know might be totally different from the 1890 we know in the real world. Therefore, the idea of having this modern medicine in an 1890's environment isn't a bad thing. It may just be what the Elders wish to have the people believe is what the medicine is like in their world. I'm sorry if that's confusing.[/spoiler][/QUOTE]When a History Professor is so warped and twisted that he thinks 1890--at least, [i]pretending[/i] it's 1890 will somehow save those around him...provide salvation, if you will, and thus creates a commune out in the wilderness, something that really could be considered a cult, there is definitely a very half-baked plot premise here. It violates every previously established documentation of the real 1890, simply because some neurotics can't cope with reality, and for me to accept The Village's premise, I am going to have to delete every bit of knowledge regarding American History from my brain. That's all this movie really boils down to: Weaklings who can't cope with reality...societal condition cowards. EDIT: Haha, Dagger, you're right. I [i]am[/i] having a total field day with this movie. :D

[quote name='Dragon Warrior][spoiler']Though what the quote from that messageboard is true, the fact about what you said that the 1890's is worse off than modern day is not totally true. If you watched the movie, you'll note that the reason most of the people left was because of modern technology such as guns wherein there aren't any in our 1890 small village. Most of the reasons for moving were death by modern technology. That might help in the reasoning of why they made it 1890. And as you can see, the children don't know it's 1890, so therefore they wouldn't know that the medicine Ivy fetched from the guardhouse of the park was actually 2004 medicine and not 1890. To her, it just seems like it'd be the medicine they'd get at that time. Plus, she's blind so what's the difference?[/spoiler][/quote]DW, you must keep in mind one thing here. America in the 1890s, especially in the New England/Northeast area, was not some idyllic, pure paradise. It just wasn't, lol. Like I said in my previous post here, the Elders were being blindly Idealistic by thinking just because 1890 didn't possess automatic weapons that it is somehow better than 2004? It's laughable, provided you know your history, lol. The 1890s were anything but idyllic. And look at the guns issue in a relative sense. Today, we have miniguns, uzis, grenades, handguns that can fit into a purse; planes can be taken over with boxcutters, and all of these are incredibly lethal, when we lack the medical training and availibility of doctors. Today, if someone gets shot in the stomach, they have a fairly good chance of survival. This same situation (gunshot wound to the stomach) in 1890 will not, and I mean [i]NOT[/i] result in the same chances of survival, if they are living in an exact, precise and total replication of the social, economic, and medical conditions of 1890 America. The only way for them to be entirely 1890-ized would be to forgo [i]all[/i] modern day ammenities and conveniences, including 2004 medicine. The medicine angle is interesting, if only to discuss what seems to be a glaring contradiction in character action/motivation. If the Elders are so devoted to creating a "perfect" society, with absolutely no way for the outside world to violate and rape, as it were, their Idealistic view of a time period that was not perfect at all...if they were so devoted to living in 1890, they would not have had modern medicine, and instead would have adopted the medical practices and procedures of 1890, meaning many more people would have died. But here's the contradiction. They want to avoid death at all costs. Create a Utopia, a place where everyone is healthy and safe (I suppose we, the audience, should just ignore the fact that everyone lives in fear in the Village), but the village Elders know that even with these rules in place, accidents happen, and they [i]know[/i] that the archaic medical procedures of 1890 will simply not be of use. Because of this, we are shown that they do [i]not[/i] value 1890 as much as we are led to believe, because they are essentially "picking and choosing" what qualities they want to preserve, not showing much regard to the time period as a whole. Simply, do the Elders [i]truly[/i] believe what they preach, given all of this? Another interesting observation: [QUOTE][spoiler]In the end we learn that the village will continue to exist as it has EVEN THOUGH the entire premise on which that society is based is proven to be flawed because of Noah's violent attack on Lucius. Noah's attack exposes the ultimate lapse of logic: despite their efforts to escape the violence of modern life, violence still touched them in their closed society. Violence is therefore proven to be not exclusive to the "outside world". Once this truth is proven, the foundation on which Walker's closed society was built is rendered null. If Walker's village continues to exist then it is no longer because it provides a complete escape from violence. How unsatisfying.[/spoiler][/QUOTE] EDIT: A more concise summation of my points regarding the modern medicine: Because the Elders still used modern medicine, what does that say about their confidence in their abilities to survive in 1890? Along this same line, the characters in The Village are nothing more than Christmas presents; you can change the wrapping paper, but the contents stay the same. The Elders and the "Village" are nothing more than a superficial change. It's make-believe, even from the film's reality. There is no actual change that takes place, no magical transformation of human desire just because they happen to be [i]pretending[/i] to live in 1890.

[quote name='Dagger IX1']Methinks Alex is going to have a total field day with this movie.[/quote] Hehe. :p I've been reading up on The Village, both here, in this thread, and elsewhere on the 'net lately. I've not seen the film yet, but I'll probably go see it this weekend. I figure I'll put in my two cents based on what I've read concerning it. One thing that strikes me in all of MNS' films is the so-called "twist" ending. In some of his films, the twist is breathtaking, and alters your entire perception of the film, like in Sixth Sense. The ending to Sixth Sense really changes the entire film's dynamics, both in terms of characterization, action, and audience reaction. The beauty of Sixth Sense was that MNS more or less subscribed to a theory best explained by James Cameron in the Commentary of T1: "Sometimes it's what you don't show them that drives them absolutely wild." If this is true, and MNS hides certain things--rather, doesn't show them. There is a difference. When a filmmaker "hides" a scene/character/etc, we know there is something there; we expect there to be something there. We feel cheated when we're not given what we want. Not showing something, like in the Sixth Sense, when we see [spoiler]Bruce Willis get shot[/spoiler] and then flash to six months later, with him sitting on the park bench, we immediately assume that he is sitting there because he had good doctors, as it were. We don't ask ourselves, "Wait, what happened there?" because it is implied, in a sense, that he survived the encounter. If you compare Sixth Sense to Unbreakable and Signs, you notice a very distinct difference in approach, most notably in the "showing" quality. In Unbreakable and Signs, we are constantly beat over the head with certain ideas: Bruce Willis as "Unbreakable," and Mel Gibson as...the Fallen Preacher. But where these films fail is that Unbreakable tries to show us too much--Samuel L. Jackson damn near explains the entire plot, as ifwe, the audience, were deemed too dense to figure it out, and Signs tries to hide too much, notably the aliens themselves, while simultaneously overdoing the wife and water. When I think about it, Unbreakable and Signs were incredibly uneven films, even though I enjoyed Unbreakable a hell of a lot more. When I read about The Village, I get the sense that MNS knows his last two entries have been blase and nowhere close to the achievement of Sixth Sense. I think the inclusion--rather, re-introduction, of the "twist" ending from Sixth Sense supports this. The endings of Unbreakable and Signs were incredibly disappointing given Sixth Sense, and The Village's premise/resolution seems to be a bridge back to the twist that alters our perception of the events and reactions to the film. Is this a bad thing? Honestly, I don't know. From what I've read, The "Village" is nothing more than [spoiler]an artifical, secluded commune of sorts, created by a history professor and a few of his followers, who all believe the modern day world is utterly corrupt and the only pure and decent time period is America, circa 1890[/spoiler]. This would be fine and dandy, if it weren't for a little detail like 1890 America was chaotic at best, lol. Granted, there was intense social, educational, and economic reform taking place, but even then, it wasn't perfect...far from it. In fact, you could consider modern day to be infinitely superior to the 1890s, if simply for medical advancements. So, in "spoiling" the ending for myself, lol, and being somewhat versed in American History, as studying American Literature pretty much requires you to "bone-up" on it, as it were, I find myself chuckling at The Village's premise and set-up. Someone would have to be a very twisted and reality-impaired individual to honestly believe that going back in time to an age where there still was no anesthetic other than alcohol, rudimentary medical treatment, and in an age where a single bullet to the arm could mean you could lose the arm, is somehow better than living in a modern day, with modern day conveniences. The plot is incredibly silly, when you think about it. In my time browsing the 'net, I came across this point on the IMDB.com messageboards. I think it's a rather astute observation, given the motivations and personal convictions of the Elders. [QUOTE]Why would you leave civilisation because of the danger and to escape fear of harm, only to force your children to live in fear of harm and feel as if they are in constant danger? Counsellors who have seen their share of trauma and pain would create a place free of it, not one whose basic structure is ensured by its ever-present threat.[/QUOTE]

[color=black][QUOTE=Okita]While you might have some valid point Mr. Bean, ChibiHorsewoman's issue is with the restuarant not merely the bar/nightclub you keep refering to.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]The excuse of the restuarant owner was the legal age of drinking and the presence of the bar, thus expulsion becomes neccessary to anyone under the age of 25 to even dine in the area due to the presence of the bar. At a younger age, I've visited many restaurant/w bar simply to dine, noboby has told me to leave and go elsewhere simply becuase I'm underage.[/quote] [/color] [color=black][quote][color=magenta]I heard about this last night on the local news. There's this [b]resturaunt[/b] that decided to put an age restriction on the diners who may want to go there[...]Why not 21? The owners said it was to avoid under age drinking at the [b]bar[/b][/color] [/quote][/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]Let's examine this for one moment. If the restaurant in question did [i]not[/i] have a bar, then there would be no issue at all, as they would not deem it necessary to exclude those below a certain age. True? If this were the case (not having a bar in said restaurant), than surely, there would be no grief over this. True?[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]Now, keeping that in mind, the restaurant [i]does[/i] in fact have a bar, and the possibility of underage drinking and/or inappropriate behavior from a younger clientele has prompted the restaurant owners to enforce these admittance rules. Agreed? Now, because they have enforced these rules because of the bar itself, the issue is not with the restaurant at all, but more with the fact that the bar itself--rather, the patrons of said bar are engaging in questionable activities.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]The root of this issue is neither the restaurant nor the owner. The root of this issue is the customers' possible irresponsibility with alcohol, and I for one applaud the owner of the restaurant for making this decision. If his observations point to a particular age group that is creating a disturbance, then as a responsible businessman, he is taking the necessary precautions and thus, there is no issue, [i]because[/i] he is acting responsibly and looking out for the well-being of his business and at the same time, his establishment's patrons.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]Agreed?[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black][quote]This may not be age discrmination in your book but it certainly is an agrivationg situation. Say you and a bunch of friend went to this restaurant to eat, one of you is young (perhaps 21?) and thus you where force to go elsewhere by the manager's insistence that one of you didn't meet the age requirement to eat here, not nice is it?[/QUOTE] [/color] [color=black]It's not age discrimination at all:[/color] [color=black] [/color] [url="http://www.restaurant.org/legal/ask_archives.cfm"][color=black]http://www.restaurant.org/legal/ask_archives.cfm[/color][/url] [color=black] [/color] [color=black][quote][b]Refusal of service[/b][/color] [color=black][b]Q:[/b] What are the laws regarding a restaurant's right to refuse service?[/color] [color=black][b]A:[/b] Management's right to refuse service to a customer depends on the basis for such a refusal. For example, under federal law, you cannot refuse service based on a customer's race, color, religion, national origin or disability. Depending on the state where the restaurant is located, some state or local laws also prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual preference, age, etc. Restaurants, however, do have the right to require customer dress codes and to refuse service because of inappropriate behavior or people who emit strong body odors.[/quote] [/color] [color=black]While "prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual preference, age, etc" may catch your eye as an open and shut "the restaurant is at fault for doing this" case, look at the last sentence in that excerpt: "Restaurants, however, do have the right to require customer dress codes and to refuse service because of inappropriate behavior."[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]The "inappropriate behavior" it mentions can certainly mean underage drinking or a general inability on the part of the patron to control himself or herself when imbibing alcohol, thus making the owner's decision sound and valid, and while it may be aggravating, it is only aggravating when the customer cannot think of any other places to dine, my good fellow. It's not as if this restaurant is the only one in NYC, lol.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]Again, I bring up the mother from Wisconsin; if she doesn't like the show, change the channel, if someone doesn't like how a restaurant runs things, go to a different restaurant. No-one is forcing anyone to dine at this particular establishment, and contrary to some individual's beliefs, NYC--New York in general, is rather stacked when it comes to places to eat out.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black][quote]ChibiHorsewoman has valid points, your rebuttle should also address the fact that they are banning people from eating in a restuarant.[/quote] [/color] [color=black]I touched upon nearly every one of her "valid points," as well. As for the fact that they are "banning" people, like many have said already, they are a private establishment, and are able to set their own guidelines, provided they do not violate Federal Law, which, I've just explained, that they are not.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black][quote]This isn't a pub or nightclub we're talking about but a restaurant![/QUOTE] [/color] [color=black]And? It serves alcohol. Customers buy this alcohol. A pub is no different than a restaurant; people just think they're different because of their respective social stigma that goes with them. Nightclubs are no different, as well, except for a different clientele, which--and I think this is worth noting--is more or less the precise age group that this restaurant in question is restricting.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]Some of my friends here at Rutgers go clubbing each and every night, and they are utterly wasted in class the next day. Sunglasses, a hat, the whole thing. One friend in particular has related some rather...intense, heavily inebriated experiences.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]If someone wants to get smashed, they can go to a nightclub. I honestly don't see how anyone can have a problem with [i]this[/i] restaurant's new policies, given just how many places there are for younger people to get drunk off their *****, heh.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]Am I missing some huge point here?[/color]