Brasil

My sign-up. [img]http://img48.exs.cx/img48/5350/KillAdamVol2DaughterSign-UpImage3.jpg[/img]

I was reading over the thread and noticed the mention of the webshooters. If my memory serves me correctly, when James Cameron was originally attached to the project, he decided that it made more sense that Peter's webshooters be organic, rather than something a high school science whizkid made. He rationale for this was, if I can remember the quote, "It had occurred to me that how would a high schooler be able to create an adhesive substance that 3M couldn't develop." It was something to that effect, and quite honestly, I'm glad the organic webshooters were kept, because it makes the films much more "believable." I think it makes for a much better progression, as well, in that his transformation into Spiderman becomes an even greater transformation when his bodily functions change like that. He gain superhuman strength, sight, sense, etc; growing web glands is the next logical step.

I find it difficult to not repeat what DeathBug and Manic have said, lol. They both share my views of the movie pretty much exactly. I'd actually like to focus on something that Manic touched upon briefly: the Raimi Touch. Now, I've noticed some people complaining about the "screaming" scene. I think people need to at least be aware of Raimi's filmmaking roots. Back in the late 70s/early 80s he and Bruce Campbell ([spoiler]the Snooty Usher[/spoiler]) made an extremely low-budget horror film called Evil Dead. Evil Dead was somewhat of a breakthrough film, in that it very successfully blended horror and comedy together, moreso than any Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. Its combination of innovative filmmaking/technique, original spin on familiar material, and a general "Up yours"-type satire on the horror genre itself proved that these young college students could make movies that rivaled the "professional" Hollywood films in terms of entertainment. Now, keeping Raimi's cinema start in mind, look at the Spiderman films. They're filled, and I mean [i]filled[/i] with that "Up Yours"-type satire of horror, and ignoring the fact that when faced with four gigantic metallic arms that are ripping your coworkers apart in an operating room that you are unable to escape from, you will scream, that scene can be viewed as both Raimi's acknowledgement of his cinematic beginnings, and also his criticism of that genre. If anyone wants to doubt the reasoning for how that scene was composed, one should then ask what the chainsaw doing there. While the chainsaw may not make sense given Spiderman 2's universe, Ash and his weapon of choice in Evil Dead (chainsaw) should give us a clue there. Furthermore, the fact that the chainsaw [i]doesn't[/i] work also might be Raimi subliminally telling us that the Evil Dead chainsaw idea is obsolete, because there is such fantastic technology available today, specifically in terms of CGI, which is exactly what the chainsaw was ineffective against in Spiderman 2. I found Spiderman 2 to be utterly awesome, both in execution, direction, performances...I've said it before and I'll say it again. Raimi knows how to make a film.

I've recently decided to finish out my NES Theme on MyO and added in the Intro song to Megaman 3 in the MIDI URL area. I go to click the "Current Song" button, however, and get an error message: "Your browser does not support this feature, sorry!" I've talked to a few people, and I remember they weren't able to play it, either. Anyone able to give me some good, mature advice as to how to get this working? I'm running IE 6.0-something, if that helps.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Well, the film's [i]strengths[/i'] are really in the special effects department.[/quote] So the film's themes mean absolutely nothing? [QUOTE]The writing was okay,[/quote] It was quite good, actually, far better than most of what you'd find in a science fiction/adventure film. The dialogue felt natural, it made sense with the situation, and behaved according to its respective characters' eccentricities. I don't know how you can have a problem with that. Some of the dialogue and exchanges were pretty funny, too, between Malcolm and Grant, especially. [quote]But random details nearly ruined it for me (in the first film, the mosquito they show as one they used to extract dinosaur DNA from is, well, a male).[/quote] A lot of the little details bother you, eh? Something that was shown in one shot, for about ten seconds nearly ruined a 2-hour movie? [quote]The acting was painful on top of that, especially on the part of the woman and the kids. Just horrible.[/QUOTE] On the contrary. While Malcolm was transformed into a more likeable and jovial character than his dark and almost sadistic nature of the novel, he was certainly a strong character, and Goldblum's performance is more than adequate for the role. Malcolm is, by all senses, a social reject. Look at the way he dresses, his mannerisms, etc. Goldblum fit the role, and did quite well. [quote]But damn, the special effects were so awesome. That was really the only reason to see Jurassic Park II and III, and I wasn't disappointed in that respect. Very, very realistic. The ending of the third, though, was way too abrupt.[/QUOTE] I agree that the special effects were indeed amazing, and the full effect of a 52-inch HDTV hits you when you watch Jurassic Park on it, but I was significantly disappointed by JPII, simply because the novel's premise was impossible, due to Malcolm indeed dying in the first book. After the JPII fiasco, with a T-Rex lumbering through downtown LA, I lost interest in the series. The story just wasn't there anymore.

[quote name='Shinmaru']Anyway, I never expected really deep plots when I watched any of the Jurassic Park films - I expected a lot of action and dinosaurs hunting down some humans.[/quote]::waggles finger:: Mike, you know better than that. While the film adaptation of JP may have watered down the themes of it, JP is still very explicit about the dangers of "Playing God." The story itself is one of man attempting to control nature, which is one of the four principal conflicts: 1) Man vs. Nature 2) Man vs. Man (1 on 1) 3) Man vs. Society 4) Man vs. Himself Call me crazy, but Hammond's desire to subjugate nature, bend it to his will, as it were, only to have his own mortality claim him in the end is something right out of Epic of Gilgamesh. Granted, different characters live and die in the novel vs film, but Ian Malcolm's message remains, even though he may not quite survive in the novel. See, Jurassic Park [i]could[/i] be viewed as simply dinosaurs tearing up humans, but it's really more of a commentary on human nature. We seek to subjugate and in the end, that doesn't matter, because nature cannot be controlled. Like Malcolm says, "Nature finds a way."

[quote name='BlueYoshi][color=teal']Do you guys really think it deserved that award it won recently? Apparently, there's an argument against it saying that it was the political content of Fahrenheit 9/11 that attracted the judges to pick it and was nothing to do with the actual directional talent involved at all.[/color][/quote] This is a good point here. Apart from the heavy-handed political slant, Moore's films are not all that different from other [i]entertainers[/i] out there today. Hell, based on what I've seen, Moore's stuff is child's play compared to Christopher Guest's films (A Mighty Wind, Waiting For Guffman, Best In Show) and Rob Reiner's This Is Spinal Tap. Guest and Reiner are far more skilled with the documentary format, even going so far as to create mockumentaries and rockumentaries (Spinal Tap) that have been done so well and been so [i]unassuming[/i] that people took them seriously and believed Spinal Tap to be a truly real band. Moore, in my opinion, is just a wacko with money to burn and an overactive desire to be in the spotlight. "Shame on you, Mr. Bush"? Give me a break, lol.

While the above points weren't directed at anyone in particular, I've got the urge to address them. Dagger, I do consider Moore to be a joke. I think he is a mockery of what politics has become. Because of people like Moore (and Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, etc), our nation's politics have become a certifiable circus. Don't think I only criticize Moore or Left Wingers of his ilk. I'm tired of both sides. ULX, there is a very important distinction here in what Moore does compared to others voicing their concern. If you want to see [i]good[/i] criticism of America, check out The Daily Show, lol. It may only be a Comedy Central program, but it's a far better news show than the majority of what you'd find on MSNBC or FoxNews, simply because it's not full of itself and is able to poke fun at everyone. Moore, on the other hand, contrary to Jon Stewart, does not say something like, "You know, this might hurt us a bit. We should reconsider." Nowhere does he ever use any common sense in his vocalizations. He is more interested in flying off the handle, stirring up controversy, than actually doing something positive about a situation. Look at it this way. You see a fire hazard in your school. Say, an electrical cord is about to fall. Do you scream about it? Do you scream "FIRE!!!" then attack the school admins? You know what, I think that's a very apt description of Moore: just a little kid screaming "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre. [quote]Later posted by CHW [color=#9400d3]In conclusion, go ahead and see the movie if you really need something to do over the summer. But remember that any type of extremism is a bad thing[/color][color=black].[/quote][/color] [color=#9400d3][/color] [color=black]That is, of course, if the person isn't excited about The Bourne Supremacy. ^_^[/color]

[quote name='xmystic_silverx][color=teal']If he thinks that America is such a bad country, then why does he stay in the one place he despises most?[/color][/quote] [color=black]Because he knows that he would be shot and/or killed if he went anywhere else. America is the only place he can get a platform, because we're (check this out) [i]a free country[/i], something Moore denies.[/color] The man is a walking contradiction, and a fat one, at that.

[size=2][quote name='Syk3][color=indigo][color=#000000']In conclusion, you should all keep in mind that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a movie presenting one man's opinion on Bush and the political issues surrounding him.[/quote][/color][/color][/size] [size=2]Syk, you should keep in mind that Michael Moore doesn't know the meaning of the word, "opinion." He is, in the most extreme sense of the phrase, blinded by his own arrogance and sense of self-worth. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a movie presenting an opinion. F/911 is just another outlet for Moore to express his radicalist Left Wing conspiracy theory nonsense that he presents as total fact.[/size] [color=indigo][size=2][color=#000000][/color][/size][/color] [size=2][color=indigo][color=#000000][quote]Let the opposition respond with a documentary of their own.[/quote][/color][/color][/size] [size=2]I've heard this phrase a few times, on various news stations now, and it still irks me to no end.[/size] [size=2]If the opposition made a documentary of their own, what effect would it have? Moore would still live in his own little world of "The Man" holding him down, and still come out with controversial material that is a flagrant insult to intelligent cinema.[/size] [size=2]Quite honestly, Moore needs to shut his trap, or if he's so concerned with the Iraqi people, Afghans, whatever, then he should go over there and give them a hand.[/size] [size=2]I've never seen Bowling for Columbine, and I probably never will, but I know what Moore is about, and it's hilarious when I think about it, because he thinks of himself as some renegade filmmaker, exposing lies and doing something wholly original...but we still get the entire plot, slant, and theme in his previews, which is exactly what happens everywhere else in Hollywood.[/size] [size=2]I don't mean to turn this into a Moore-rip, but the guy's a long-winded, pompous fat-***. I respect you, Syk, but don't fall into the fat-***'s crack.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]EDIT: Oh, by the way, just to clear things up, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, so party allegiances are not a factor for me in my criticism of Moore.[/size]

[quote name='BlueYoshi][color=teal]That's interesting. I never put much thought into [i]why[/i'] Mia was punished in the sense of snorting heroine; she certainly wasn't a derelicious character and besides actually snorting she was fairly innocent throughout the film.[/quote][/color] [color=teal][color=black]One could say that she was punished because she was irresponsible in consumption.[/color] [QUOTE]Remember, the couple's date took place after Jules retired, and before [spoiler]Vincent was killed[/spoiler], which should state that Vincent was [i]already[/i] in the process of abandoning God's side. [b]So in theory, Mia was punished for vulturing an independent man in the form of an over dose[/b] -- I thought she was lucky to have been alive, and if you fit that into context then you could say that she was given a second chance, with the first being a kind of warning.[/QUOTE][color=black]I have a problem with this, simply because I don't think it's reasonable to view Mia's overdose as a temptation for Vincent's fall. Throughout Pulp Fiction, we are almost smacked in the face with Mia as the Forbidden Fruit, the temptress, the seductress. Look don't touch, etc. While the needle going into her heart can be interpreted as a penetration of an almost sexual nature, which I feel is a rather reasonable interpretation, the penetration of the needle during the OD scene is not one of carnal desire, but more of a desire to [i]save[/i], hence the song's, "The only one who could ever reach me was the Son of a Preacher Man."[/color] [color=#000000][i]In fact[/i], check out the lyrics to the song and there's an interesting parallel in terms of Kill Bill and Uma:[/color] [color=black][quote][b]Bill[/b]y Ray was a preacher's son[/color] [color=#000000][...][/color] [color=black] Bein' good isn't always easy No matter how hard I try When he started sweet - talkin' to me He'd come'n tell me "Everything is all right" He'd kiss and tell me "Everything is all right" Can I get away again tonight? [...] How well I remember The look that was in his eyes Stealin' kisses from me on the sly Takin' time to make time Tellin' me that he's all mine Learnin' from each other's knowin' Lookin' to see how much we've grown and[/quote]QT does describe Bill as a Pimp in the Press Notes found in a PDF file on the Kill Bill Vol. 2 website. Bill is fairly seductive...and the "Billy" of this song, played for Uma's character in PF...is this coincidence? Just a neat parallel I just noticed. I do agree about the "second chance" point. It's very clear that Mia has been brought back from the dead and given another chance to live her life better. [/color] [QUOTE]I think that what I've rendered above fits conclusively, but part of it doesn't prove its own point to me. It was Marcellus who ordered Vincent to take his wife Mia out, meaning that Marcellus put his wife's hands in the temporary possession of a man who's not with God -- why would he do that? Maybe he was unaware of the consequences that awaited him, therefore paying them by suffering at the hands of the rapists... I'm still a bit weary on that subject.[/QUOTE][color=black]I'm not too sure about that, either. The fact that both Mia and Marcellus live shakes that argument up a bit, and further, Vincent dying. If there was to be true holy retribution for endangering the lives of those you care about, Marcellus would be dead. But then again, when we see the story of Abraham in the OT, and how he placed his faith in God above everything else, things worked out okay.[/color] [color=#000000]And has Vincent fallen yet at that point in the film? Remember that Marcellus asks Vincent to show his wife a good time long before Pulp Fiction ever happens. This is evidenced by the conversation between Jules and Vincent before they slaughter the drug dealers during breakfast. I think it's safe to say that Marcellus had requested Vincent's help the week before, as those involved in the business all know about it, even the bartender.[/color] [color=#000000]So, when Marcellus asks him, Vincent is still relatively "good." He hasn't fallen yet, but he does fall. He falls hard. Because Vincent is still the Prodigal Son, Marcellus is in the clear, I think.[/color] [QUOTE]Swiftly moving along, guess what? I watched Pulp Fiction [i]again[/i] a few nights ago and this time I was really into it. I paid attention to every little detail, I even subtitled the dialogue and read everything twice... I didn't miss a thing. And now, I've come up with yet another Biblical theory that's all relevant. Diverging from the briefcase matter, I've decided to call Pulp Fiction an "indirect translation of Ezekiel 25:17". Here's why:[/QUOTE][color=black]Interesting. Let's see.[/color] [QUOTE] "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee." -- Ezekiel 25:17 Above is the original passage. Now, fork your mind and provide it with a comparison to the film in total. It should look something like below. Note that it's not in linear order regarding the events that took place in PF and is more in correlation to the Bible passage itself, but with a close eye it's a decent interpretation.[/QUOTE][quote][spoiler]"Shepherds the weak" -- This occurs when Butch returns to Zed and Maynard with the intention of saving Marcellus. Marcellus was weak in his position because he was bound and beaten, even if he was the most powerful man in Inglewood he had nothing to back his cause. "The finder of lost children" -- This refers to Jules. When the diner is stood up, Pumpkin and Honeybunny have basically thrown their lives away because Jules isn't the type of guy you'd want to mess with, his occupation speaks for himself, but the divine intervention that took place that morning made him think otherwise. As a result, he didn't kill them, instead he saved them and set them in the right direction. Above all, he gave his money away to them. "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers" -- Vincent. His attempt to kill Butch back-fired and he ended up as the victim. With Butch being the shepherd I don't think he was supposed to die, and so, his life was switched for Vincent's, the man who turned against God. [b]This happened before the incident with the rapists however, thus Butch wasn't yet the shepherd but he was still entitled to his life.[/[/b]spoiler][/color][/QUOTE][color=black]The "lost children" interpretation is solid. No doubt about that.[/color] [color=black]However, regarding Butch as the Shepherd, I bolded the sentence that weakens the interpretation. If Butch does not become the Shepherd until after he kills Vincent (specifically, saves Marcellus), then Vincent going to kill him would not affect the outcome.[/color] [color=black]The Gold Watch needs consideration here, because Butch Idolizes the Gold Watch. To him, the watch is more important than anything else in his apartment. Think Golden Calf in the Bible. Think the Second Commandment.[/color] [color=black]At this point in the film, Butch is equally guilty of blasphemy, as it were.[/color] [color=black]Now, why does Vincent die and not Butch?[/color] [color=black][quote]The book that Vincent reads is "Modesty Blaise", by 'Peter O'Donnell' . In that book, a killer indulges in a Biblical rant very similar to that of [/color][url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000168/"][color=black]Samuel L. Jackson[/color][/url][color=black]'s character.[/quote] [/color] [color=black]Perhaps Vincent dies because he is reading a text that glorifies killing and also exploits religion, similar to how Jules once did before the Divine Intervention. When Jules retires, the proper interpretation of the Jeremiad (very passionate and threatening Biblical speech) no longer has any...what's the word...staying power, I suppose, in Vincent's life, hence reading Modesty Blaise.[/color] [color=black]It's incredibly late, and I'll clarify my points sometime tomorrow if need be.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]EDIT: I now know what I was trying to say here, lol.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]If we're going by "right to life," then Vincent would have an even greater right, as he saved Mia's life previously. Considering, also, he was still acting on the Side of God, while Butch was making a deal with Marcellus, who is certainly acting along the side of the Devil.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]So, if you're going to argue that Butch lives simply because "right to life," then Vincent clearly should have lived, because he has, at that point in the story, done much more good than Butch has. In fact, Butch treats his girlfriend like **** when she forgets the Gold Watch, further establishing Butch as an Idolator.[/color]

Sounds fun, DW. I'll try. My sign-up is nothing flashy. It's just an ad for Chips Ahoy a la Apocalypse Now. I'll also provide a link to the actual poster, so you can get a better idea of what's going on in it. ^_^ Original: [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19781&stc=1[/img] Chips Ahoy Redo: [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19780&stc=1[/img]

[quote name='BlueYoshi][color=teal']Interesting points. I'm prepared to leave that aside for now because we could go on all day. Instead, let me take your attention to yet another Biblical theory regarding what exactly is in the briefcase. [/quote][/color] [color=teal][color=black]Sure thing. Let's see what's on your mind.[/color] [QUOTE]So I watched Pulp Fiction [i]again[/i] yesterday, only this time I had a broader span of Bible knowledge relevant to the aesthetic involvement of God.[/QUOTE][color=black]Hehe. I watched Pulp Fiction again a few days ago, to refresh my memory, too.[/color] [QUOTE]Marcellus has a plaster on the back of his head. This is the one place that the Bible states where the Devil will drag your soul. Now, taking your remark about the code being '666', I decided to put it to use and accept that the Devil has some sort of revelation in the movie.[/QUOTE][color=black]I think it's actually a band-aid, but that's irrelevant. The focus of the discussion is that a covering is there. Could you point me to the particular passage of the Bible that says this? I couldn't find any mention of that particular information when I ran an online search of the Bible.[/color] [QUOTE]Marcellus sold his soul to the Devil, and he wanted it back, so he sent in Vincent and Jules (one might call these two 'God's helpers) to retrieve it for him. The four people who had his soul were the 'Devil's helpers', because their aim was to get it and ultimately pass it on to someone who would actually represent the Devil in PF, but we don't see that person.[/QUOTE][color=black]Most of this seems reasonable, except the part about Jules and Vincent. Now, if we're to say that Marcellus sends Jules and Vincent to get his soul back from the Devil, and that Jules and Vincent could be called "God's Helpers," does that mean Marcellus is God? I'm not so sure there is enough in Pulp Fiction to support that claim, especially considering that God wouldn't smite an entire village for the errors of two.[/color] [color=black]True, Zed and Maynard [i]were[/i] Sodomists, and Marcellus [i]does[/i] order the blowtorching of the entire neighborhood because of Zed and Maynard--I do like this parallel but just never picked up on it until now. God rained fire and sulfur and such down on Sodom and Gomorrah, and Marcellus pretty much does the same with blowtorches.[/color] [color=#000000][i]But[/i], Sodom was populated with many sinners, and the neighborhood's Sodomists were only Zed and Maynard, so in accordance with the Biblical Ideologies, striking down Sodom for deviance was justified, while blowtorching/crowbarring an entire town simply due to Zed and Maynard is very extreme and rather unfeeling...very un-God-like of Marcellus, if he does in fact represent God.[/color] [QUOTE]According to the Bible, when you sell your soul to the Devil you will obtain infinite power and authority--Marcellus is a pretty powerful man when we see him in PF, it's him who gives the orders. Marcellus sent Vincent and Jules in to get his soul--to save his soul--from the Devil, thus explaining why they are both considered as God's helpers. Inevitably, the evil lose and the good win. When the guy in the bathroom unloaded on Vincent and Jules, he missed every single shot. Reason being that God came down and stopped the bullets... God didn't want them to die because hence, they were saving a soul. This was the divine intervention that they were heatedly discussing in the diner.[/QUOTE][color=black]Okay, so then Vincent dies because he doubts God. I'm pretty sure we agree on that point, as your direction with the above quote indicates that.[/color] [color=#000000]But where does Butch fit into all of this? If God and the Devil are not personified in PF, and if Vincent and Jules are doing God's work, striking down drug dealers, if Marcellus is simply caught in the middle, as it were, how would Butch be significant? He's a very significant character in and of himself. He is the Everyman, as it were...the...run-of-the-mill Average Joe caught in the middle of everything.[/color] [color=#000000]I don't know if you considered Butch in your assessment, or even Mia. These are two characters that must be considered when talking about the religious implications/themes of PF, as they are significant roles in the film.[/color] [quote]I hope that explains the possible outcome of the case (my interpretation anyway), and how the divine intervention was meant to be viewed. To sum it up, it's a battle between God and the Devil himself, but QT uses a very subliminal method about telling us this, and that's what's most compelling about it. It would be very dull if he sat there in an interview and explained what was supposed to be in the case, so I'd take it that some things are best left untold.[/color][/QUOTE][color=black]I found much of your interpretation to be solid, albeit a few points needing some clarification and/or further development/consideration.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]I certainly agree that PF is about the conflict between God and the Devil, but QT is a wily one in the specifics of it. :)[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]Shigeru, uh...none of this is really mentioned anywhere in QT interviews, lol. I know I just really love delving into QT's work, because there's so much there to work with.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]Here's a neat point for anyone:[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]QT has always been heavily criticized for the levels of violence in his films, noteably Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and recently, Kill Bill. There are reviewers who call him obsessed with violence and unable to provide any different forms of entertainment.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]But what these reviewers fail to realize is, that his films are not about the violence itself, but merely the characters' reaction to that violence, and then the audience's reaction to both the character reaction and the initial violence on-screen.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]I think this is a driving factor in why the dialogue of QT films is what it is: natural.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]It seems safe to say that QT is not celebrating violence, instead criticizing the desensitization to violence inherent in society, through Jules and Vincent thinking nothing of gunning down a few drug dealers as they eat breakfast, in fact having a conversation about fast food on the way there, or Vincent and Lance arguing over how to inject an adrenaline needle into Mia's heart as she OD's.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]The violence is not about violence, surprisingly. It is about the [i]reaction[/i] to violence.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']It's a movie, why would anything on it be real? Unless specifically said, based on real events, you must assume what you are watching is a work of fiction and not something real. I thought this was common knowledge. Apparently theres enough idiots out there that actually can believe what they see on a movie screen. Those of the type of people you should probably stay away from. If you cannot differentiate between movie and real life, then you need some help.[/quote] TN, there's a distinction that's required here. The difference between say, The Matrix and Blair Witch was that Blair Witch was marketed as authentic footage. The entire release...the mythos surrounding the movie...all were devised to make people think it was real. This is entirely different from a teenager watching The Matrix, then dressing up in a black trenchcoat and shooting up a school, or a young child trying to fly like Superman. Superman and The Matrix, while creating a believable world in their respective realities, simply were not presented like Blair Witch, and while it may be foolish to consider the idea that people believed Blair Witch to be real, it is understandable, given the context of its release. I hardly think we can lump the Blair Witch audience in with a kid dressing up like Neo as he goes to see Kill Bill Vol. 1. Get what I'm saying?

[QUOTE][b]BlueYoshi:[/b] [color=teal]What I'm trying to say is that if QT wanted a religious casting in his film, then he must obviously have his own thoughts about it whether or not he?s a believer, and on the basis of the points you've made it can easily be seen that QT does have respect for religion and does believe in God, but if that was the case then why would he break the rules whilst trying to achieve the complete opposite? Simple, the Second Commandment is the most commonly broken one of them all. If QT had taken that into consideration, then there would be no image or reference of God or Satan, but he didn't, he wanted to make his movie whilst subliminally parading Heaven and Hell--how can he though? He defied one of the Ten Commandments.[/quote][/color] [color=teal][color=black]Actually...I think in order to discuss this, we should look at the Second Commandment. While it's nice to think that it prohibits using religious imagery at all, it actually prohibits the praying to images/objects that are not God. Tarantino does not worship or praise the images in PF, necessarily. In fact, check this out.[/color][/color] [color=teal][color=#000000][/color][/color] [color=teal][color=#000000]The briefcase...Marcellus' briefcase. Marcellus as Satan...making the briefcase Satan's briefcase. The combination is 666. There is an almost (un)holy (hehe) glow when Vincent opens it, and Vincent is wowed by it--damn near worships it, places it above anything else. What happens to Vincent? He dies. Keep in mind also, that he only dies [i]after[/i] Jules leaves.[/color][/color] [color=teal][color=#000000][/color][/color] [color=teal][color=#000000]If Jules symbolizes God, in that he is a preacher, and Vincent is his son, the Fallen Son, which can be interpreted as Adam from the Garden of Eden, further reinforcing the idea that Mia is Eve (the forbidden fruit), we can say with a fairly high level of confidence that Vincent (Adam) turning away from God, disobeying him, disregarding his power (divine intervention) and thus is punished.[/color][/color] [color=teal][color=#000000][/color][/color] [color=teal][color=#000000]There is definite Idolatry in Pulp Fiction, and the transgressing characters are punished for it. Religion is still respected in PF, even though it doesn't seem that way on the surface.[/color] [quote]That's a kind of farfetched perspective of the religious aspect in Pulp Fiction, I'll admit that, but the boot fits for me.[/quote][/color] I'd agree it's a bit farfetched, and it's cool you're playing Marcellus' Advocate here. :p [color=teal][quote]Agreed. Jules is the servant God, not because QT wanted him to be in correlation to the religious values, but because that's simply his character. The opening scene doesn't vibrate much one the fact that Jules is a religious man, you get the impression he's a normal guy doing a normal hit. His actions in the hotel with the dealer did reflect exactly the fundamental truth behind the Ezekiel 25:17, but he just didn't realise it. Later on in the diner, Jules' eyes were opened due the events that previously happened, namely the divine intervention, he knew the situation very well and only then was he able to personify the Ezekiel passage and what he wants to do in life because it finally smacked him in the face--it wasn't a tool for scaring people at all. Vincent is a very different matter though. Many teachers take huge responsibility of their disciples as they know they carry a huge burden, and mean to teach them well. In the diner, Vincent insisted so urgently to Jules that he either takes back his $1500 or he'll shoot Ringo on general principle, in a way, you could almost say that Vincent was trying to give Jules advice, but that's not the point. Vincent, the son of a preacher man, must have been guided by Jules' religious authority through out the course of his duty and so, should know better than to kill someone or have the intent to kill over money.[/quote][/color] Exactly. The placement of the song, "Son of a Preacher Man," becomes more and more meaningful here. [color=teal][quote]Butch I don't think holds any sort of religious implementation. Simply put, he just wants to settle down with his girlfriend and keep himself to himself. After all, I can't think of any man who'd want to save the devil, but his reasons are his own. He certainly isn't of any representative value as far as God goes because he aided the devil, befriended him in a way. The 666 is just superstition to me though, it could very well be that the devil is inside of the briefcase as whatever?s inside it is evil, or it could merely be an easy number to remember... but I feel the image of holiness and God stretch far beyond the possibilities of Pulp Fiction. It's fun to sit and chat about the messages and stuff, but I'd also like to appreciate the movie for what it is, too, so no disrespect there.[/quote][/color] Butch isn't a value of God, nor is he of the Devil. He is a Lost Soul, inbetween of those Ideologies, conflicted. But he helps the Devil. Why? I think it's because even though the Devil is an evil creature, there is still far greater evil there, and Butch realizes this. In fact, after saving Marcellus, Butch is still unsure of what he should do. Look at how the shot is framed. Butch is standing behind Marcellus, samurai sword ready to swing. He even [i]asks[/i], "So...what's left for us?" Marcellus replies, "There is no 'us.'" Also, though this may be stretching it a bit, but still makes sense in accordance with the religious theme, it appears that the God of PF is the vengeful God spoken of in the Old Testament, and perhaps the reason that Butch lives is because he kills the sodomites, Zed and Maynard. While he does aide the Devil, he still enacts the will of the OT God. Now, I realize this is really going into it here, but I think this point is worth merit. EDIT INSERT: Yep. It is from the OT. [url="http://www.quisdom.com/religion/R2517_ezekiel25-17.html"]PF and OT[/url] [url=http://www.halexandria.org/dward194.htm]Sodom and Gomorrah and OT[/url] [color=teal][quote]We have to remember how exactly Pulp Fiction was made and put together. All three stories were originally set to be separate films, but unfortunately that never worked out for him (I'm a bit hazy in that department, lol). With that, he decided to combine the three scripts together, adding some parts in and taking some out, and so, the non-linear adaptation of Pulp Fiction was created. Now, I don't know if Pulp Fiction reflects Tarantino's temperament on God, but I find it hard to believe that three totally different scripts and stories managed to share your view on God's presence. What I do know is that it's no coincidence, that's for sure.[/color][/QUOTE][color=black]That's not entirely accurate. While QT did write those stories separately, they were short stories. In fact, in the interview with QT on the Special Features DVD of Pulp Fiction, he explains how he wanted these short stories to link together. I'd go more into this but I've got to run out for a few minutes, then start work. But keep in mind that he still viewed those short stories as linking together. He makes a special point of talking about the significance of Vincent and Butch and how their stories intertwine.[/color] [color=black]Also, if you haven't already, check out...[/color] [color=black]Roger Ebert's "Secrets of Pulp Fiction"[/color] [color=black]Shamal Kanter's "Pulp Midrash: Cinema as Sermon"[/color] [color=black]They're both excellent articles about PF and its religious implications.[/color]

BlueYoshi, rock on with the reply. [quote][color=#008080]I'm not so keen on your view of seeing Jules as the image of God though, Bean. It is a reasonable argument and truthfully I had pretty much gathered that information too, but after watching the film over an over I managed to convince myself to totally turn against that thought. It's pretty simple really. [b]One of the Ten Commandments prohibits the ownership or distribution of images, so if QT did try to implement any form of a religious theme to Pulp Fiction then I doubt he would have used such an indirect approach.[/b] I understand that all the pieces are in the right places and everything seems to link together smoothly, but it's still a misfitting contraption to me. An easy trap to fall into.[/color][color=black][/quote][/color] I figure you're referring to the [url="http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/tencom.htm"]Idolatry Commandment[/url]. [quote]"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments."[/quote]What is Idolatry, and how is it represented in Pulp Fiction? I'm not quite sure what you meant by what I bolded, but it sounds like you're saying that since the T.C.'s prohibit Idolatry, QT would have needed to be very overt in his presentation of religious themes. Is that about right? I'm not quite sure that supports your argument. While Jules may not be God exactly, he certainly represents religious values, true? He does in fact preach Ezekiel 25:17, never really understanding what it meant until the divine intervention, like you said. But if he doesn't understand what he is preaching, he's not all that different from the usual religious leaders. Agreed? I mean, many of the prominent religious figures today don't "get" or practice what they preach. In this sense, Jules becomes a criticism of religious doctrine, how conflicted it is. Now, if he is not God, but still a preacher, that is to say, servant of God, who is God? Jules works for Marsellus, fair enough, but is Marsellus God? Seems more like the Devil. After all, the briefcase's combination is 666. When we are first introduced to Marsellus, the setting is a red-lit bar. In fact, Marsellus as the Devil is supported when we see Butch making a deal with Marsellus--making a deal with the Devil. So what is Butch? A lost soul, searching for answers? Salvation, perhaps? Makes sense, I think. Then if Marsellus is the Devil, what is Mia? A prisoner...seduced by Satan (bringing in echoes of Garden of Eden), protected, as well. Is Othello the Devil, though? Good question. He certainly doesn't demonstrate compassion for his fellow man, seeks to destroy before questioning, and Marsellus certainly demonstrates this behavior. Vincent...look at those opening scenes, though. Vincent leads the conversations because Jules is interested in what he has to say, and wants him to speak. Of course, in the the Foot Massage exchange, this becomes fuzzy. But Jules knows he has been proven wrong, and admits that in his own way. This is an example of maturity and should not be taken lightly (you haven't taken it lightly, I'm just saying). Also, when they are about to knock on the drugdealers' door, Jules says, "All right, let's get into character." Perhaps it's just me, but all of this points to [i]Jules[/i] watching over everything, further establishing his character as the father figure in the Jules/Vincent duality, and further cementing the idea that Vincent becomes the "Son of a Preacher Man." And if Jules represents religious values, and Vincent turns away from him, Vincent will meet his death. I mean, he turns away from God, essentially. He doesn't believe in the divine intervention that Jules wants him to realize. He doubts the power of God. But we are brought back to the question of what is God in Pulp Fiction? God is simply there, in the form of the "hand of God reaching down and stopping those bullets." Rambly, and I apologize for that. EDIT: I forgot to mention something. BlueYoshi, don't forget that 99% of what we see in Tarantino's films are totally deliberate and intentional, which means if we see something, chances are, it was meant to be that way. QT is anal retentive when it comes to details, and I think based on what we've seen in PF regarding the religious imagery and thematics, we can't deny what is going on with the characterizations...Jules as the God figure or servant of God; Marsellus as Satan; Vincent as the Fallen Son; Mia as an Eve, of sorts...it's all so concrete and clear that I don't think we can doubt the intent.

I just had an interesting convo with James the other day, mostly about the usage of music in cinema. Naturally, QT arose in the discussion. I'm making this thread to pretty much talk about his movies, what you liked about them, what you didn't like. But I would just like your input to be reasonable. Don't post something like, "Omygod! QT is s0 awsom!" or "Christ, I couldn't stand Pulp Fiction. It just sucked!" Whatever your posts may be, use common sense, lol. Okay, in my discussion about music, I had the following interpretation about Pulp Fiction: [QUOTE]madsatirist (3:57:18 PM): Have you seen Pulp Fiction? Shinmaru007 (3:57:41 PM): Yep. madsatirist (3:57:50 PM): Do you remember most of it? Shinmaru007 (3:58:10 PM): Yeah. madsatirist (3:58:31 PM): Okay, Mia and Marsellus. madsatirist (3:58:37 PM): They're just married, right? Shinmaru007 (3:59:16 PM): Yeah...unless you have something up your sleeve or something *raises eyebrow* madsatirist (3:59:30 PM): You've read Othello, right? Shinmaru007 (3:59:59 PM): No, haven't read it yet. madsatirist (4:00:31 PM): Oh, well Othello is about the marriage of Desdemona (a white woman) and Othello (a black man). madsatirist (4:00:37 PM): There's a lot of sexuality throughout the play, madsatirist (4:00:47 PM): references to D's and O's sex lives. madsatirist (4:01:21 PM): There are passages in the play that hint at D and O never consummating their relationship. madsatirist (4:01:34 PM): They've done other stuff, but never had relations. madsatirist (4:01:38 PM): Now, madsatirist (4:01:41 PM): apply that to PF. madsatirist (4:01:58 PM): Mia (white woman) and Marsellus (black man). madsatirist (4:02:03 PM): Then, madsatirist (4:02:12 PM): the two songs that play during Mia's first scenes. madsatirist (4:02:17 PM): Son of a Preacher Man madsatirist (4:02:24 PM): and Girl you'll be a Woman Soon. madsatirist (4:02:48 PM): If Jules is the God figure of PF, effectively preaching in the film, then Vincent can be said to be his son. madsatirist (4:02:58 PM): Vincent turns from Jules and dies. madsatirist (4:03:04 PM): Jules is his protector, in a sense. madsatirist (4:03:17 PM): Mia is only saved by the son of a preacher man, Vincent. madsatirist (4:03:27 PM): And Girl you'll be a Woman Soon, madsatirist (4:03:50 PM): What is one of the actions that makes a woman, especially one who is just married? madsatirist (4:04:00 PM): Consummating the relationship. madsatirist (4:04:11 PM): But what kind of penetration could there be in PF? madsatirist (4:04:19 PM): The adrenaline needle into her heart. madsatirist (4:04:46 PM): So...those two songs bring some interesting levels to the film. Shinmaru007 (4:05:16 PM): Yes, very interesting lol.[/QUOTE] Thoughts? Seems like a very apt observation of PF.

I agree with Boba here. We can sit here and argue for days on end what may have happened if Event A were to occur or not occur. Hell, if Obi-Wan hadn't fallen in Episode I, then QuiGon might have lived. That would change the entirety of the Star Wars lineage, as Obi-Wan probably wouldn't have trained Anakin, instead QuiGon probably would have taken Ani under his tutelage. If that had happened, there might have been no Darth Vader, no Empire as we know it, etc, etc. But who cares about "What if." What we're talking about here is Jar Jar's role in the Saga, which Boba has so eloquently labeled "failed comic relief." I think this is a rather apt assessment, but there needs to be more to it. Jar Jar is the reason the Old Republic falls. While Palpatine was certainly working behind the scenes throughout the Saga, Jar Jar is the catalyst for the fall, for the transformation into Palpatine's New Order (The Empire). That is his entire purpose in the Saga: to provide the downfall of the Old Republic. Considering also, that he's quite the...moron, who can't do anything correctly on purpose, only saving people by accident, it makes perfect sense that his sole pro-active action will doom the Old Republic. Terrax, another point you're missing is that if there was no Jar Jar, the "bad guys" [i]wouldn't[/i] have won. Also, there are no bad guys in Star Wars, just like there are no good guys in Star Wars. Obi-Wan's speech to Luke in RotJ illustrates this idea. There are no villains in the Saga; there are no heroes. There is simply conflict. There is simply a clash of differing Ideologies. It all comes down to "from a certain point of view," the precise words of Obi-Wan. I really should call him Emperor Palpatine, but that's another discussion entirely, lol.

I don't know why, but I keep having the name, Walt Whitman, popping into my head as I read this thread. Whitman, as you should know, was a homosexual American poet who lived in 1860s Camden, NJ. His poetry is rife with sexual innuendo and blatant deviant language. This isn't a bad thing, necessarily; it just shocks people to no end. But the thing about Whitman (and Oscar Wilde, another homosexual author in 1860s England), is that their writing has a maturity to it. They both were very skilled authors who knew how to work the craft. Reading their stuff, especially Whitman's Leaves Of Grass, you're really blown away. It's great writing. That's why I don't respect Slash fiction. The majority of it is written by teenagers who possess little to know knowledge of how to write. Ignoring the fact that the subject matter utterly destroys any character foundation or subject foundation of the original works themselves...this is an example of a work ignoring what I call Genre Grounding, but that's another topic for another time. Because Slash fiction is...immature, even though it often goes with an Adult warning, I can't treat it as having any substantial value in today's social Ideologies regarding same-sex relationships. So, basically, I think your friend is being awfully naive here to hold that view of same-sex relationships or Pedophilia. Slash fiction is entertainment--and honestly, it's not all that entertaining. ULX, because your friend is basing her beliefs on Slash fiction, a genre that bases itself on fanciful and immature situations, I've got to award you the fight.

[size=2]Quick little piece I wrote a very long time ago. It's about a Southern Hick who is obsessed with bedtimes, or something. I can't quite explain it, lol.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]?What was that? You have ta go to bed? Your bedtime is 11:30? Why, that?s ridiculous! Why, when I was your age, we didn?t have no newfangled bedtimes. We fell asleep when we passed out on the floor, and that?s the way it was, and we liked it! When the rooster started cawin? that?s when we went to bed! Not at 11:30! 11:30 is early. You know why? Cause it?is. That?s why. When I was younger, 11:30 was the start of mah night. Me and mah buddies would hop in pappy?s pick-up truck, get a couple of shotguns, and head on over to Ole Peabody?s place. We?d be a-yelling and a-shooting, hollerin? and drinkin, then Ole Peabody?d run out in his pajammies screamin all sorts of stuff. ?Hey, you mangy varmints! Get off mah property! I?m warning you! If ah catch you round these parts one more time, I?m gonna come out shooting!?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]We?d speed off in the pick-up after Ole Peabody would holler and such, and we went to Johnson & Pecker?s cow farm for a little good ole fashioned cow tipping. It was fun, hooey! Those cows fell down and were mooing?it was hilarious! Sometimes we even got one of those?uh?whaddya call ?em? ?Domino Effects?? Yeah, so we got uh, ?Domino Effects? and a whole row of cows would fall. Then the field hands would rush on out, yellin at us and talking gibberish. You know those field hands who work for near nothing, and don?t even speak English? So, they?re hollerin? at us but we can?t understand a damn word they?re saying, cause it?s all gibberish, and we just push them down on the cows.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2] Then we all get thirsty, so we pile in the truck and head to Jack?s Bar on Sickamore Street. And we?re sitting at the table, drinking and stuff, when all of a sudden a fight breaks out! I turn to mah friends and we?re all like, ?A fight! Let?s do it!? So we join up in the fight, breakin? bottles on people?s heads, throwing people through tables, breaking stuff. But then the pohlice showed up and they start beating us up. They threw Stevie through the window, and then made me spill mah beer. I swung at ?em fer that and they shoved tear gas in my face. There was some feller swinging on the chandoleero thing on the ceiling, but the pohlice got him down right quick. Big ole shotgun blast blew him right off that chandoleero?got him down right quick it did. But they got blood in mah new beer, so I started swinging again. Then they beat me up real good and tossed me into the back of the wagon.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Jail was a weird place and I was scared, but my pappy posted bail and got me out. Pappy belted me somethin? awful when we got home. Then I slept out in the yard and the weirdest thing happened. I was sucked up into the cosmos, right, and there were all these flashy lights and doohickeys on the walls. There were these little green guys runnin? around, talking some crazy talk about their wonderful new specimen. Ah don?t know what a ?specimen? is, so I just stood their and looked pleasant. You know, smiling and stuff. Then these guys laid me down on a long cold table and pulled mah pants down. Folks talk to me about anal probing, but I don?t know nothing ?bout anal probing or whatever you call it, so I don?t think they did that. They did stick a long, cold rod up mah bottom, though. It felt weird at first, but I started to like it after a while. After the rod thing, they shoved me into this tiny little hole in the wall and it smelled like cow poo.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Then ah woke up in mah bed. It was around 11:00 at night. And you were there asking me questions about some theater something. I told you to come over, and you said it was late. You told me you had a bedtime of 11:30. And I said, ?What was that? You have ta go to bed? Your bedtime is 11:30? Why, that?s ridiculous! Why, when I was your age, we didn?t have no newfangled bedtimes???[/size]

Three word review: Worst. Movie. Ever. In-depth review: To put it nicely, this movie sucked my balls. Pardon my french, but this movie was...it made me want to hang myself. Describing Elephant is difficult, not because it has depth or had any redeeming value. No, it is difficult to describe because there are not enough curse words in the English language, or any language, for that matter. Van Sant's purpose of this movie, if it can be called "purpose" at all, seems to be to portray high school in its purest essence. Now, granted high school isn't the most exciting of times, sometimes, but when we are given 2 hours worth of footage that would do just as well with no sound whatsoever (read: SILENT PICTURE), with characters that by many considerations, would not be characters at all, only empty shells that have absolutely no basis for a reasonable foundation, cinematography that can be found in your local high school's TV Production class, we wonder what Van Sant thought he could pull off here. I say this because quite frankly, when we see a filmmaker adapt the idea of Columbine, we expect something along the lines of a serious portrayal of what went on--perhaps even making a documentary about it (and not made by Michael Moore)--not what Van Sant has given us, which is in essence, an exaggeration of said school shootings. Elephant is...disrespectful to the subject matter of school shootings--really, disrespectful to the human race itself. I don't mean to play high drama here, but I feel that any praise you hear of this film will be based on some Idealistic Tomfoolery of "high school is void, empty, tired, quiet." We all know--at least, all but one here, know that high school is not entirely vapid. There are positives of high school...the comraderie, for example. I find it incredibly pretentious and downright disgraceful that Van Sant chose to ignore the good qualities of high school to concentrate on some...half-conceived notion of high school being utterly dead. I'm getting rambly here, so I'll cut this short. Elephant is by far the worst movie I've ever seen. While it may have some average cinematography, it is a clumsy piece of cinema from the man that gave us the most excellent Good Will Hunting. Elephant...needs to be put down with the biggest rifle you can find. Thoughts? Flames? Anybody? Anybody? Anybody? (Ferris Bueller quote...Ben Stein...that's how you show a droll high school environment.)

At risk of repeating all the praise that's already been said, Riddick is a fantastic game. No doubt about it. Personal taste or not, Riddick is amazing, both in terms of execution, style, engine...everything about it is impeccable. If I were to use one word to describe Riddick..."immersion." It's one of the few games ever that totally and utterly immerses you into the environment. From the opening cinematics, to a short gameplay introduction, to the Hollywood-style opening credit sequence that we get to "play," to simply the best damn stealth gameplay we've ever seen in an FPS--stealth gameplay only rivaled by the likes of MGS, and even then, MGS [i]pales[/i] in comparison to Riddick; Riddick's stealth is [i]that[/i] good. The beauty of Riddick's stealth system comes mainly from the idea that it [i]isn't[/i] a system at all. Forget what's been done in the entire MGS series (3 included)...forget about Splinter Cell...forget about the half-assed "Cover Rating." Those are crap compared to Riddick. Words can't really describe it, really. Like Charles has said, the stealth isn't required in Riddick. It's just something you do. It feels incredibly natural to Duck, get that blue hue to the screen and [i]know[/i] an enemy soldier is approaching, whether from the blue itself or his flashlight. With no HUD at all, something as simple as color becomes gameplay, and because of this, the stealth feels incredibly organic and natural, and the immersive qualities of Riddick shine even brighter than if you were using Eyeshine. With the lack of HUD, weapon and ammo read-outs become a key design issue, and an issue that Riddick handles damn near flawlessly. Possibly a throwback to the days of Alien Vs Predator, the rifles and pistols have a digital ammo counter instead of the usual Halo-ish "This is how many bullets left in your clip." It's incredibly satisfying to unload a clip into a group of guards and see the digital read-out zip down from 30 to 0. If I have one criticism of the HUD design, it's the health bars. I wish they had been a bit more organic than what they are now (white blocks at the top left of the screen). That's not to say they're bad or detract from the gameplay, because they only appear when in combat or performing an action, and they blow away every other games' health bar. But I do wish they had been designed more with the eye effect when Ducking. When talking about the health bars, we cannot ignore how perfect the health regeneration is. There are two ways to restore your health: One is to find a safe spot and rest for a few minutes so healing nanos can take over. Two is find a health station. The health station, however, isn't the cheery red and white cross box. The health stations in Riddick look like torture devices. No lie. And there are two types, too. The wall units, which restore the health bars you've lost, and sit-in units, which give you an extra health bar. Think of it like receiving another Energy Tank in Metroid. While this may seem like it makes the game easy, it doesn't, because the game is unforgiving when it comes to damage. Whether you're involved in a firefight, running from a grenade, or engaged in hand-to-hand combat in a ring in the Mines, you need to watch that health. The firefights are exceptional, but hand-to-hand combat integration is where Riddick really shines. I'll Edit this post later, or Charles can pick this point up. He and I pretty much can finish each other's sentences about this game, lol. But yeah. This is an instant buy for those with an Xbox, and reason enough to get an Xbox for those who don't have one.

Thanks for the feedback. Fortunately, the "action" panels are very few throughout the story...I think, lol. I'll know when I get there. :p But yes. I do see how it can get chaotic and such with all the sprites. I agree that animation can be extremely useful in this type of presentation, and if I was able to do animation well, I'd do it. But, the sizing would be an issue, I think. With this comic, I'm looking to actually do more "traditional" panel comics, as opposed to banner animation-type material. Here are the next two panels. [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19444&stc=1[/img] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19445&stc=1[/img]

Two more, hehe. These two were [i]really[/i] fun to make, lol. [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19413&stc=1[/img] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19414&stc=1[/img]

I think I should mention something about the plot synopsis feel to the essay that I failed to mention in my initial post. My instructor has never seen Star Wars, so he asked me to do a plot summary in the paper. What you see here is 11 pages; the paper only needed to be 7. I'm going to trim it down, obviously, but that's going to be a separate Word file. ~_^ But yes. The reason it's so long and detailed is because I was writing for a reader that had no background knowledge of Star Wars.