Brasil

In telling the story of my travels across the state of Pennsylvania, my destination being a particular city in the Western portion of the state, it seems impossible to tell the story just how it is, to leave out the wonder and magic of the fantastic journey I embarked upon. It's impossible to separate fact from fiction, reality from myth, and so the best way for me to tell my story is to let the story tell itself. There is always a peculiar and electric sense of anticipation before you go on a trip to somewhere you've never been before. The week leading up to the date of your departure is a week of mixed feelings. Sometimes you get the jitters, sometimes you're so looking forward to it that your classes can't end soon enough. The week goes slowly, of course, as all things go slowly when you're looking to the future with such high ambition, but when that Friday hits, and with it the understanding and knowledge that you're leaving your small-town behind to travel to a foreign city, if only for the weekend, something is destined to change deep within yourself. Some call it a religious experience, others might call it an epiphany. I honestly don't see the need to label it like that. What happens on this journey is an experience like no other. I view my trip out to Pittsburgh as a Shockabuku. But the Shockabuku came after the trip, and we haven't even started telling the story, or rather, letting the story tell itself. A long, long time ago... ***** Just the start, but you all can see what this tale is about, and what inspired it. ~_^

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Answer me this: what is the cause for a death more often? Knives or guns? What appears to be the weapon of choice? You're right about all those "advantages" of knives, but they have one serious disadvantage: they don't kill like guns do. You [i]cannot[/i'] abuse a knife like you can a gun. I don't know why you said something like that.[/quote]I don't suppose you do Medical Transcription for a living, huh? In my two years of transcribing, I've had one, count it, [i]one[/i] report for a gunshot wound to the head, to anywhere, in fact. Just one. Compare that to the [i]countless[/i] reports I transcribe where the injuries are caused by domestic violence, blunt objects, car crashes, etc. I can't even [i]begin[/i] to tell you how many reports I do on teens (ages 17 through 22) who were in motor vehicle accidents. And the hospital I work for is one of the larger hospitals in South Jersey, too, so they see a significantly larger amount of emergency cases than the surrounding hospitals, so it's not like I work for some tiny little healthward in a tiny little town populated by a vast number of idiots. Sciros, frankly, I don't give a damn what your side is here, but you should seriously re-consider what you want to say regarding what causes more deaths. You may quote the news, but obviously, the news doesn't really report the good stuff, now does it? Death sells, to put it simply. And we've established that we can't really rely on any studies, because each of them has their strengths and weaknesses, so bringing in studies/surveys/number-crunchings won't really help you at all, either. So, what's it going to be? EDIT: And after CHW's recent reply, I think the thread can be closed. CHW hit the nail precisely on the head. Focused, to the point, and really, very readable.

[quote name='cloricus']I'm not even American and I know this is incorrect. Your constitution allows for weapon owner ship to maintain a militia; this is very different to what most Americans think it means and in fact most like you just did only use the first few words and ignore the rest.[/quote] I'm not even Australian and I know this is incorrect. Cloricus, read the entire Amendment. [url="http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html"]http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html[/url] [i][quote]Amendment II[/i] [i]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote][/i] I'll spell it out for you, just so it's perfectly clear and you can't possibly misinterpret it. "A well regulated Militia" - Simple enough, a coherent and organized armed forces. "being necessary to the security of a free state" - This ties in with the idea of a need to protect oneself. The threat can either be foreign (like Britain) or domestic. "Security of a free state" is not limited to protection from outside invaders, Cloricus. And we can even get technical, and say that anyone whom you do not know is an outsider. This all is self-defense. So, when in the presence of an outsider who does indeed pose an immediate threat, your security is threatened, no matter if it's a global superpower or just a random loon down the street. While the [i]literal[/i] meaning was certainly pertaining to the larger scope (International threats), one should not write-off the smaller scope, simply because one is unable to effectively read between the lines. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - What would a protective army be without weapons? They might as well just be using rolled-up magazines and naughty language. In order to have a beneficial defensive force, whether comprised of civilians or officers, must be able to defend themselves appropriately. I certainly would not advise going up against the Redcoats or a rival gang with just a knife, especially when the enemy has firearms. "shall not be infringed" - Speaks for itself. This is a right that will not be stripped away. However, do not think that this right is something that can be flaunted. The authors of the Bill of Rights never had that in mind when writing it. They were concerned with the protection, safety and well-being of their young nation, and to be able to protect that young nation that did not possess extravagant monies to fund and arm an army, they allowed the civilian to own a weapon. It just makes sense. The founding fathers certainly did not intend this amendment to become what it has today, where psychotics, essentially, can claim the second amendment so they can own multitudes of heavy firearms. I am positive that when Boba said, "Gun ownership is protected in the Constitution as a method of self-defense," he was [i]not[/i] supporting the NRA lunatics, which I get the feeling that's what you're trying to spin it into. Simply, the founding fathers' message about guns could be said like this: "Guns in moderation and maturity."

[quote name='Radaghast']I think faN00bOy, using that style of capitolization and creative word condensing, means that he/she is a fan of noob boys. Maybe young noob boys? That is for the public to decide. Hey, I never said I had any answers.[/quote]Maybe he's Michael Jackson? Or Michael Jefferson, depending on what show he's on, hehe. Nice stuff, Desi. I really loved the "no nonsense, just the facts, ma'am" attitude. An excellent piece of investigative reporting, if I do say so myself, which I actually did say by myself...hmmm... And, I wonder if people realize that they can still put loads of information by using an image? My MyO, for example, I uploaded a jpeg of "This Is PoisonTongue." I don't see why people can't do something streamlined like an image. They could put the usual "This is MyOtaku, etc, etc," and since it's a jpeg or gif or whatnot, they're only using a tiny fraction of the 1500 characters available. Maybe I shouldn't have revealed that...

So, recently I had the urge to play Ocarina of Time. I'm not quite sure why, but the mood suddenly struck me. So, I pop in my bonus disc from the WindWaker offer and start playing. The first thing that really struck me as impressive was how I hadn't played my file in about a year, and yet as soon as I loaded my game, I knew exactly what I was in the middle of (Forest Temple). To my memory, [i]no[/i] action/adventure/RPG with save features has ever had that happen with me, even Metroid Prime, lol. So that was a major bonus point as I started to play OoT again. As I was playing through more and more, realizing I didn't really like Forest Temple and frankly, I was getting bored of it, and after realizing that I like the Longshot a whole lot more than the Hookshot, I decided to take a trip to the Water Temple. The Forest Temple remains uncompleted, while I beat the Water Temple last night, lol. Really, I don't know what people's beef is with the Water Temple. It's a fantastic level and it's really not all that confusing. It'll probably turn out to be my favorite Temple in the game. Now, I'm playing OoT, and while I don't agree that it's the best game ever made, I certainly can understand why people say it is. It's really a remarkable piece of gaming. When I first played it, back on N64, it was fun. It was a casual thing, I think. When I got the bonus disc, I played it a bit, and it was still a fun, casual thing. Maybe it's just the end of the semester altering my perception of a game, but I strongly doubt that. OoT is awesome. I hadn't really realized how great it was until now. Sad, eh? lol. My favorite aspect of it is the cheating, I think, like going into the Water Temple after you get the Hookshot so you can get the Longshot instead, Iron Boots, Zora Tunic. I'm figuring on hitting up all the fairies that I can (double magic, double life, etc) before completing any other Temples. I've spoken with Charles about this, and he's said how it's great that OoT requires you to use all of your abilities. I wholeheartedly agree with him. Another bonus is that you really aren't limited to a specific order of the Temples. The "using all of your abilities" really opens up new areas, even when you haven't beaten the first Temple you're told to go to, lol. I [i]love[/i] the idea of being able to go into the Fire Temple before trudging through the Forest Temple. Thoughts?

[center][font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Smith and the Whale: Ahab Echoed in The Matrix?[/size][/font] [/center] [font=Times New Roman][size=3] [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Throughout the course of literary history, there have always been authors who achieve literary greatness and prestige. There are authors who have influenced countless writers after them. Herman Melville is one such author. His effect on literature is undeniable. One only has to look to Kurt Vonnegut?s [i]Slaughterhouse Five[/i] to see what influence Melville?s [i]Billy Budd, Sailor[/i] has had. However, Melville?s hold on writers is not exclusive to literature, and various characters from Melville?s work are so moving and powerful that screenwriters today are still drawing inspiration from them.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]The Wachowski brothers, for example, have incorporated Captain Ahab?s obsession with retribution, his preoccupation with breaking through boundaries, and his Nihilistic worldview, transforming the whaling captain from the early 1800s into Agent Smith, Neo?s callous and compassionless cyber-antagonist in ?The Matrix.? Considering that Agent Smith cannot deviate from his quest to destroy Neo, is obsessed with breaking free from his digital prison, and believes that ?the purpose of life is to end,? it is quite reasonable that Ahab plays a significant part in the character foundation and psychological make-up of Agent Smith.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]The obsessions are similar in that they both begin with a significant violation of the physical self. Ahab loses his leg, which he treats as a total dismemberment of his person, and Smith explodes.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Ahab views his physical violation as a violation of his soul. His missing leg is not simply a missing body part. He has lost part of himself. As his ship is rounding Patagonian Cape in mid winter, he still lays in a hammock as ?his torn body and gashed soul [bleed] into one another; and so interfusing, [make] him mad? (Melville 200). His crew thinks him lost and are forced to restrain him in a strait-jacket. But as the Cape Horn swells, Ahab appears, ?the direful madness? gone and he is able to issue his calm orders once again and to reassume command. However, this calmness is only the exterior, and Ahab?s hidden self raves on, and he still ?was intent on an audacious, immitigable, and supernatural revenge? (Melville 202). He begins hunting the whale, willing to travel to the ends of the Earth for a chance to carry out his vengeance. Ahab?s fury knows no bounds:[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?No, ye?ve knocked me down, and I am up again; but ye have run and hidden. Come forth from behind your cotton bags! I have no long gun to reach ye. Come, Ahab?s compliments to ye; come and see if ye can swerve me. Swerve me? Ye cannot swerve me, else ye swerve yourselves! Man has ye there. Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Over unsounded gorges, through the rifled hearts of mountains, under torrents? beds, unerringly I rush! Naught?s an obstacle, naught?s an angle to the iron way!?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3] [/size][/font] [size=3][font=Times New Roman] Nothing will stand in Ahab?s way, and his path to revenge cannot be altered. The end, we see, is inevitable. There is nowhere for the whale to hide; nowhere can the whale go that Ahab cannot find it. ?Aye, aye! And I?ll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition?s flames before I give him up? (Melville 177). Ahab will go through hell itself before he lets the whale escape him. These sentiments are echoed in ?The Matrix,? in the Smith/Neo duality.[/font][/size] [font='Times New Roman'] Neo, the One, is prophesied to free humanity from enslavement under the machines. At this point in the trilogy, Agent Smith has been the principal mechanical entity, so for Neo to fulfill the prophecy, he must first destroy Agent Smith. This is the first step, in a sense. Keeping this in mind, we re-read Ahab?s mention of his prophecy, and we see that Neo destroying Smith, dismembering him, in fact, fulfills the first half of Ahab?s prophecy. The second half is fulfilled only when the violated get their revenge: ?I now prophesy that I will dismember my dismemberer. Now, then, be the prophet and the fulfiller one? (Melville 183).[/font][font='Times New Roman'] Later, in Reloaded, Smith reveals the precise implication of his destruction at Neo?s hands in the Finale of the first Matrix:[/font][font='Times New Roman'] [/font][font='Times New Roman']?And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed - I'm unplugged - a new man, so to speak, like you, apparently free.?[/font][font=Times New Roman][size=3] [/size][/font] [size=3][font=Times New Roman] This freedom gives Smith the power of duplicating himself by copying his code into another host. He makes sure to fully exploit this ability, converting programs, those humans still trapped within the Matrix, and even those humans who have been freed previously. One particular freed human that he assimilates is a man by the name of Bane. Upon assimilating this human, Smith is then granted a remarkable ability; he is able to jack-out of the Matrix. When Bane jacks-out of the Matrix through a telephone, it is actually Smith jacking-out, but using Bane?s physical form as a host body. This further illustrates the lengths to which Smith will go to have his revenge. His obsession with Neo is growing, and his dialogue in Matrix Revolutions mimics Ahab?s theme of ?nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.? Confronting Neo on the Logos, he says, ?There's nowhere I can't go, there's nowhere I won't find you.? As he assimilates more and more individuals within the Matrix, his power grows exponentially, to the point of posing as much of a threat to the system?s stability as Neo?s power does.[/font][/size] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]These struggles, both between Ahab and the whale, and between Smith and Neo, become a matter of balance. Ahab will only be whole again when he has violated the whale. But with the balancing, both Ahab and the whale are to die. In a sense, they become one, a unification of opposing powers. This is mirrored in ?The Matrix,? as the Smith/Neo duality is based on the need for balance. Upon becoming the One, Neo had become too powerful for the system to function properly. The Matrix becomes unbalanced, and the element of Smith is introduced as a counter to Neo?s power. During the final conflict, the Super Burly Brawl of Matrix Revolutions, the unification seen in the Ahab/Whale duality is brought into ?The Matrix? as Neo allows himself to be absorbed by Smith, allowing himself to be violated, and the two entities become one. This fulfills the prophecy of the One, which foresaw the One bringing peace and harmony and thus an end to the conflict, while simultaneously achieving the balance that fulfills the second half of Ahab?s prophecy, which strongly emphasizes inevitability.[/size][/font] [size=3][font=Times New Roman] Throughout the Trilogy, Agent Smith is the voice of this inevitability. He always looks to the end, to the final chapter. The means are simply there to bring him to his purpose, as is first evidenced during his fight with Neo in the subway in the original Matrix. He hears the horn of an oncoming train, remarking at how it is ?the sound of inevitability?the sound of death.? If the train?s horn is the sound of inevitability, the train becomes death, and the rails then become the path to a fixed purpose, touching back upon Ahab?s fixation on his own iron rails.[/font][/size] [size=3][font=Times New Roman] This obsession with the inevitable end can also be interpreted as a desire to go beyond what is immediate. Both Ahab and Smith demonstrate a desire to meet their end, and often do not hold the immediate present in any high regard, treating it as a barrier that they must break through.[/font][/size] [size=3][font=Times New Roman] Ahab on the Pagan leopards, ?Look! See yonder Turkish cheeks of spotted tawn?living, breathing pictures painted by the sun. The Pagan leopards?the unrecking and unworshipping things, that live; and seek, and give no reasons for the torrid life they feel? (Melville 178). He views the Pagans as without reason for living, without purpose. They live without knowledge of their surroundings and without care for the stifling, suppressive life in which they live. This is the world around Ahab, a world that sickens him so much that he seeks to penetrate and destroy it.[/font][/size] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]His world is based on superficiality, a mask, ?all visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event?in the living act, the undoubted deed?there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask? (Melville 178). Here, Ahab could be indicating there is a controlling force behind every man. This force could be the inner push to escape, which he further develops, ?how can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? (Melville 178).[/size][/font] [size=3][font=Times New Roman] As before, Ahab?s attitude and tone is mimicked in Smith?s action and dialogue, most notably in his tirade to a drugged Morpheus, as he demands the access codes to Zion. If given the access codes, he can then enter the human city, destroy it, and no longer be needed to patrol ?this place, this zoo, this prison, this reality, whatever you want to call it.? To Smith, the Matrix is a world without purpose, and to live without purpose, there is no reason to exist. He views the Matrix as Ahab views the Pagan leopards.[/font][/size] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]His tirade continues, as he grabs Morpheus? head and violently squeezes, ?I can't stand it any longer. It's the smell, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste your stink. And every time I do I feel I have somehow been infected by it. It's repulsive, isn't it?? He feels violated by the physicality of the world around him and it is this sense of physical violation that drives him even further to break free from this disgusting superficiality.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]His disgust with the human form is further developed in Matrix Revolutions, during his confrontation with Neo aboard the Logos, ?still don't recognize me? I admit, it is difficult to think, encased in this rotting piece of meat. The stink of it filling every breath, a suffocating cloud you can't escape,? he spits blood, ?disgusting! Look at how pathetically fragile it is. Nothing this weak is meant to survive.? In this exchange, Smith stresses the importance of breaking through the mask, to see the truth behind it, ?Yes...that's it, Mr. Anderson. Look past the flesh, look through the soft gelatin of these dull cow eyes and see your enemy.? When Neo fully realizes that ?appearances can be deceiving,? the fight begins.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]It is a brutal one, too. Both Smith and Neo endure heavy damage, but nothing can prepare Neo for Smith grabbing hold of a severed electrical cable and shoving it into his face, blinding him in the process. Neo begins fumbling about, as Smith slowly and deliberately steps away, in and out of the shadows, taunting him, ?I wish you could see yourself, Mr. Anderson. The blind messiah. You're a symbol for all of your kind, Mr. Anderson. Helpless, pathetic. Just waiting to be put out of your misery.? Smith picks up a pole, preparing to connect it with Neo?s fragile, human head. He swings but hits nothing, as Neo ducks and counters. ?I can see you,? Neo says. Neo?s physical blindness has allowed him a second sight, giving him the ability to see Smith?s true form: hellfire.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]The basis for Smith?s hellfire form can be found in Ahab?s address to the flames in Chapter 119, which reads,[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Oh, thou clear spirit of clear fire, whom on these seas I as Persian once did worship, till in the sacramental act so burned by thee, that to this hour I bear the scar; I now know thee, thou clear spirit, and I now know that thy right worship is defiance?I own thy speechless, placeless power; but to the last gasp of my earthquake life will dispute its unconditional, unintegral mastery in me?Oh, thou clear spirit, of thy fire thou madest me, and like a true child of fire, I breathe it back to thee? (Melville 550).[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3] [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]In this passage, Ahab indicates he once worshipped the flames, but then was scarred and now believes the only way to honor the flame is through defiance. This passion is what drives him; the fiery anger within him gives him purpose. The ?scar? he speaks of can be interpreted as his physical violation at the ?hands? of the whale. His philosophy of honoring the flame (his destruction) through defiance (fighting it) supports this reading. Smith?s history with Neo closely follows this reading.[/size][/font] [size=3][font=Times New Roman] When Smith is interrogating Neo in the first film, he produces a rather thick folder that appears to cover Neo?s entire life. ?As you can see, we?ve been keeping our eyes on you for some time now, Mr. Anderson,? Smith says. Based upon this extensive knowledge of Neo?s life, Smith?s interest in Neo, and with the understanding that Neo does become the One, the savior of mankind and someone that is worshipped by the humans, as evidenced in Reloaded when Neo and Trinity step out of the elevator and are met with the masses bowing down to Neo, it is safe to say that Smith does in fact worship Neo. In the Finale of the first film, Neo destroys Smith, and Smith bears the scar of it throughout the remainder of the Trilogy.[/font][/size] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Further drawing on Ahab?s speech to the flames, specifically the passage regarding the ?speechless, placeless power,? Smith is granted powers similar to Neo?s after he is destroyed. In this sense, Ahab?s mention of the replication of power takes on a literal meaning. Also, as Smith thinks of himself as an exception to the rules, as an independent force that cannot be controlled, he adheres to Ahab?s rejection of the external control. This is in direct violation of what is expected in the Matrix, and is another example of Smith breaking through boundaries.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]The defiance of the creator is also a technique of asserting one?s place in the world. In Moby Dick, the creator is a father figure (?but thou art my fiery father? Melville 551), and the dominating masculine sexuality inherent in the presence and name of Moby Dick suggests that Ahab is a child rebelling against the father figure. ?Oh, thou clear spirit, of thy fire thou madest me, and like a true child of fire, I breathe it back to thee? supports this interpretation. In realizing that Ahab?s essence is that of a fiery child, breathing flame (violence) back to his creator, we see a stunning similarity between the two works in the Smith/Neo duality.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Smith is only freed when Neo penetrates him. Smith?s previous form, an Agent, is destroyed and he is reborn in Neo?s image. He develops similar powers and abilities, and takes on the social isolation and alienation associated with the personality of the One. However, he seeks to destroy Neo, his father figure, and thus echoes Ahab?s rebellious son. In his hellfire form, Smith also embodies the literal meaning of ?true child of fire,? and does breathe Neo?s fire back to him in Matrix Revolutions. Through his defiance of his creator, Smith again demonstrates his desire to break free from the level of control inherent in the Matrix, and thus breaking the mask of the Matrix, as Morpheus explains, ?[The Matrix] is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.? But what is beyond the mask? What will Ahab and Smith find when they strike through?[/size][/font] [size=3][font=Times New Roman] This is best answered in terms of Nihilism. Simply put, Nihilism is the belief in ?the truth that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless? (Thielicke 27). To the Nihilist, there is no center; there is no grounding to life. Everything exists to end, and there is no meaning.[/font][/size] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Ahab?s Nihilistic influences can be seen in his speech about striking through the mask. He sometimes feels that there is nothing beyond the wall, that there is nothing to live for after achieving his goal. But if there is nothing beyond the wall, this is enough to motivate him, as he is concerned with the end, and nothing more. He welcomes the inevitable death, the inevitable Nothingness. His resolution is Nothingness.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]He demonstrates the Nihilistic worldview further in his cabin, ?This lovely light, it lights not me; all loveliness is anguish to me, since I can ne?er enjoy. Gifted with the high perception, I lack the low, enjoying power; damned, most subtly and most malignantly! Damned in the midst of Paradise! Good night?good night? (Melville 182). Here Ahab doubts love and sees the emptiness in it. He is unable to enjoy love, savor it, because he cannot believe in it.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Smith echoes this same view of love in the Finale of Matrix Revolutions:[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why, why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is, do you even know? Is it freedom or truth, perhaps peace - could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself. Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now! You can't win, it's pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist??[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3] [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Smith?s comments on freedom, truth, peace and love, ?Illusions?vagaries of human perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose,? echo the very definition of the Nihilist worldview. He no longer believes in freedom, truth, love, etc. He sees them as meaningless attempts at justification and as holding no real bearing on the end.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]The Nihilist would say this, ?these fixed ideas [love, truth, etc] rest upon lies of expedience. The inventors of the lies do not believe in them; they have been invented as productive illusions by means of which to realize a definite purpose. In fact, therefore, there is nothing behind them but Nothingness? (Thielicke 34).[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Ahab and Smith do not see meaning in their respective worlds. They view them as empty shells without purpose, as prisons that do not fulfill the purpose of life. As they embrace Nihilism, the purpose of life becomes clear to them. As Agent Smith says, ?The purpose of life is to end.?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]These recurrent themes of Nihilism, the desire to escape, and the obsessive quest all indicate that Captain Ahab played a significant part in the characterization and design of Agent Smith. The Wachowski brothers are known for having done exhaustive research and planning for each of their characters in The Matrix, and based upon what we have seen concerning Captain Ahab and Agent Smith, it is very likely that they looked to Herman Melville?s Moby Dick for particular aspects of Smith?s character.[/size][/font] [size=3][font=Times New Roman] With the success of The Matrix Trilogy, and the wild fascination with the character of Agent Smith, it would prove useful to show students how these two works are connected. Popular cinema is a tool that is vastly underutilized in the field of education. Considering that Moby Dick is a difficult novel to grasp and requires a level of attention and comprehension that some students do not possess, using The Matrix Trilogy as a reference point or supplementary material will greatly benefit the students in gaining a better understanding of particular themes in Moby Dick. Melville?s style and layered writing is daunting, and though some feel that is a positive, there are students who are turned off by it and are less inclined to explore the meanings contained within it.[/font][/size] [font='Times New Roman'] [/font][font=Times New Roman][size=3]Bloom, Harold. Ed. [i]Ahab[/i]. NY: Chelsea House. 1991.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Melville, Herman. [i]Moby Dick[/i]. NY: Penguin Corp. 1992.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Thielicke, Helmut. [i]Nihilism[/i]. NY. Harper & Row. 1969[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Wachowski Brothers. ?The Matrix.? 1999, 2003.[/size][/font]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Do you guys realize that people have been saying "TV is going downhill" for ever? It's not like 50 years ago TV was at some unbelievable level of high culture. Shows come and go, and whenever a show people like goes, they ***** and moan about it. Hercules was great. Then it left. Buffy came. It was great. Then it sucked. Then it left. Now we have Smallville. It'll suck. It'll leave. Seinfeld was great. Then it left. Now we have Curb Your Enthusiasm and Arrested Development. Those will later leave, to be replaced by something else watchable. There's a cycle. As audiences' tastes change, so do shows. That's why we have an influx of "reality" TV. Believe it or not, but a very large portion of Americans (i.e. those who watch the "reality" TV) don't think TV has really gone downhill all that much. It all depends on your tastes in the end, but I can't say it's proper to generalize like many of you are doing. Of course, that's just my two cents.[/QUOTE] Of course, we mustn't forget that "Reality TV" isn't even reality TV. The participants/contestants/victi--er...[i]cannon fodder[/i] know they're being taped, they know there are cameras around, and they're getting paid. Really, the only way for the entertainment industry to have true, real Reality TV is to break the law. Even keeping in mind the state of constant flux, we cannot ignore the fact that the majority of "Reality" TV does in fact suck. The Apprentice is boorish; The Simple Life is ridiculous (though, some have called it a satire of Reality TV); Survivor has turned into Fear Factor. Hell, knowing that Tarantino was guest judging on American Idol a few weeks ago made me watch the episode. AI [i]needed[/i] a boost like that. So, I think it's safe to say that particular genres are becoming tired. And the "Reality" genre dying after what, 5, 6 years? It didn't have the strength of say, The Honeymooners, to begin with. One show that I was extremely disappointed to know was not picked up for a second season was Undergrads. It was a really well-conceived and well-written cartoon about a group of four childhood friends who still get together in college. Two of them are roommates, the third is a computer/Star Wars geek who goes to a tech school, and the fourth is more or less a jock moron attending a community college. Not to say community colleges suck, of course. It's just that Rocko certainly isn't the brightest bulb in the box. Undergrads is a fantastic show and it's unfortunate only one season was produced. Season 1 is on DVD, in case anyone's interested, and you can find it in reruns around 3 am on various weeknights, on Comedy Central. It was hip, smart, funny, and most importantly, well-written. Really, concerning older shows, especially the endurance trial kid's shows on Nickelodeon, they're pretty bad. I was watching GUTS the other day. Pretty bad stuff. The British announcer chick was hot, at least. That was a plus, but she couldn't save the show. Nick Arcade was another show I remember enjoying, but I caught a rerun of it. It's...bad. The announcer knows absolutely nothing about gaming, the game selections are third-rate Atari and/or arcade games, and the show wasn't really handled well at all. On top of that, the kids had absolutely no idea how to play the games, and were totally uncomfortable standing in front of those machines. So, in some cases, our view of retro TV is tinted by rose-colored glasses (such is the case with Nick gameshows). Other times, though, what we remember as good is still good today. I still get a kick out of Alf, and Thundercats still rocks my world. I watch The Honeymooners reruns and laugh my *** off, and there's still something endearing about Leave it to Beaver. The Simpsons reruns pretty much guarantee a laugh, and The Critic is still as sharp and scathing as it was in 1994. There's an old adage that goes, "Good TV doesn't die." That's the truth. From how it looks today, the majority of the shows now don't have much staying power. It might be a quality issue or it might be the audience. It's probably a combination of both, actually. The really excellent shows like Undergrads get ignored, while cartoons like Totally Spies get prime time slots.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']So now you're gonna get on my case about me not editing my posts? First of all, shove it. Second, I only edit my posts when they'd be wrong to leave as they are, and mine aren't. Saying that Halloween is not "horror" but rather "slasher" was wrong then and it still is. Nevermind everything else you said afterwards. If you want me to edit out my disagreeing with that statement, edit out that statement first.[/quote] "Shove it"? Aw. Isn't that sweet. Seriously, though, I try to be thorough in what I do. I didn't make a huge point of it, either. It really doesn't matter all that much, but since you had brought it up in the first place, I decided to comment on it. Tell you the truth, if you hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't have talked about it. Simple as that. And there's no need to put that "blah blah" in the excerpt. Doing that is a sign of immaturity. [QUOTE]You are the rudest person I've met on these boards. The "you're not entitled to special treatment" line is just you trying to be an asshole. Really. I mean are you serious when you write that ********? I wasn't saying "please don't hurt me, Petey, I can't stand it." I was saying that you are NOT right as opposed to me and so it would behoove you to defend your own views rather than attack mine. That's what I was saying. Realize that before you write another of your "you can't escape my wrath, you idiot" paragraphs. You make an idiot of yourself every time you do that.[/QUOTE] Wait, wait, wait. Do you actually believe that this is some "You can't escape my wrath" vendetta? Get over yourself, dude. This is entertainment for me. Do you think that I've got you in my sights or something? Please, spare me your egomania, lol. Seriously, though, I do this for fun. Dagger has suggested, "If you think OB is dead, make fun for yourself." That's exactly what I'm doing, Sciros, my chickiebaby. And the "special treatment" line is the truth, too. It's all good, baby. Easy now. Oh, I'm making an idiot of myself? Like I even care, lol. My self-image is not reflected by how others see me, man. I am my own person and while it may sound bad to say it, I couldn't care less what others think of me, cause it's all good. I quote Jim Carrey in Man on the Moon, "They love me, they hate me, they walk out, it's all great." [QUOTE]Nobody else bothers with you, is all. And I understand your posts. I just think they're rude and wrong. And yes, your style is part of the problem.[/QUOTE] Well, hey man, that's your prob, not mine. Others aren't bothered by it like you are, so it's gotta be something wrong with you. Right, chickiebaby? [QUOTE]Really? Wow, you're a real genius for figuring that out. I kinda made it clear that my opinions are based on a limited scope, seeing as I've mentioned that I haven't seen many of the films you have discussed. But, then again, I did also say the following:[/QUOTE] I've known that from the beginning, but so far, you've failed to realize just what it means: that your opinion here is based on a limited perspective, effectively giving you a limited sense of what the cinema is, man. [QUOTE]You keep talking about this nebulous "essense of horror," but you never really say what even YOU think it is. Deny it all you want, but you LOVE to deal in abstractions and have a way of avoiding saying anything concrete. So, then, what is the so-called "essense of horror?" What is "true horror?" If I look it up on the internet, I get 1000 different views. What's yours? And why should I agree with it?[/QUOTE] Well, I was hoping you could figure it out based on what horror films I've been praising, but true horror, pretty much since the conception of cinema, has always been about teaching the audience, about having a real message and not just "watch this killer slaughter these young, buxom teens with a machete." [QUOTE]Maybe YOU should think about it a bit longer. In [i]that[/i] discussion, you were making all of your points based of sheer misinformation. In this discussion, I was simply listing the horror films I liked, and then explaining to you why they were the ones I liked. I have NOT been dealing in misinformation. And even though you may think that my "favorite horror" films would be different if I was more familiar with the genre, that's not the point and I was never trying to argue with you on that.[/QUOTE] No, but you were definitely dealing with lack of information. And if you think about it, so was I back in that thread. [QUOTE]Um, what the hell does it mean to "give the message a chance?" I've watched the film, that's as good a chance as I can give it. If it gets lost or ruined in the crappiness of a movie for me, then that's just too bad. It's not acting ignorant, it's more like being unforgiving. Kind of like if a student hands in a paper and although the ideas are right they are all written ***-backwards, you're not going to give the student an A.[/QUOTE] True, I'm not going to give the student an A, but I'm sure as hell not going to flunk them. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and give them a second chance. That's what you need to do with particular films. Doesn't that make sense, chickiebaby? [QUOTE]I don't define horror with Scream. I never did. I just told you what comes to mind when I think horror. Yes, I'm part of THAT audience. But again, my point (which you keep missing or ignoring): my view of horror films differs from yours. And it might not change if I watch all the "horror" films I haven't yet. Maybe I'd consider them "thrillers" or whatever. I've always referred to slasher and monster movies as "horror." It's just a distinction I use. I never said it's the absolute definition of the genre.[/QUOTE] Scream is a teeny slasher flick, albeit a self-knowledgeable one. And I've been saying all along, when you actually experience the scope of the genre, those teeny slasher flicks will stop being horror and become the cheesy thriller. [QUOTE]So what you're saying is you are unable to talk politely to people. Well work on it.[/QUOTE] Oh, I'm able to, but sometimes I don't. That's life. Learn to deal with it, man. [QUOTE]I'm not criticizing your view on the subject, if you haven't noticed. But there IS no authority on it. There WAS an authority on what we were duscussing in the Passion thread. It was reality. In this case, there is no true standard on movie classifications (unless you disagree and can show me that there is). Also, think about what my position in this thread is. Really, just go ahead and reread what I've written. I've made it clear that I'm NOT an authority on the subject, and I've never tried to correct yon on anything except that one stupid comment you made at the start of your replies.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you're not really knowledgeable at all about this subject, and when I tell you that there is so much more to the genre and what you've seen is pretty much crap compared to the beauty of the full experience, your panties get in a twist, man. [QUOTE]Apparently, since I'm pretty confident in the above. That fishing analogy is genius, by the way. Do you really think you have me caught? What the hell am I supposed to concede to you? That I don't like the Alien films? That I don't categorize them under horror (sci-fi horror more precisely)? What?[/QUOTE] Do you really believe I was serious with that analogy? There's a point in every person's life when they need to stop taking everything one says seriously, dude. There comes a point in everyone's life when they need to learn how to relax and appreciate a ridiculous comment every so often. This is that time for you, Sciros. C'mon, man, chill out and start having fun, baby. [quote]Except in this case, "it's what I think" is completely acceptable. People aren't here to provide a thesis. And you are the king of dealing in abstractions, although you don't realize it.[/QUOTE] I don't deal in abstractions, now do I? You're just so rooted in looking at things at face value, dude, that you can't read between the lines.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Ugh. I understood your point once you actually gave it (that is, after editing your first post on the matter). But I had already written my response by then.[/quote]If I was able to Edit my post accordingly, then you were able to, as well. It is your own fault for not making an addendum to your response. Having already written a response is fine and good, but if you wish to be thorough in a discussion, you must be willing to think on your toes and edit your responses if need be. In this case, there was a need. Sciros, you're really getting desperate here, aren't you? Using "Oh, you edited your post" as an excuse? Pardon my French, but that's ******** and you should know that. [quote]And I responded to an isolated series of statements, which, no matter how you try to spin them, were improper and you know it.[/quote]What "isolated statements" are you talking about? Let's go back and see my post, shall we? I can only assume that you're talking about my first few posts, or perhaps the ones that I Edited, so...you know what, how about we just review when you quoted me? [quote]Originally Posted by [b]Petey[/b] [i]I hardly think it's appropriate to classify Halloween and its sub-genre as "horror." If anything, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc, are "slasher flicks."[/i] Not so. John Carpenter's The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, The Ring, Blair Witch are all very worthwhile mature films that adhere to the principles set forth by classic and mature horror films. They are what horror should be, and put the teen slasher flick to shame. I'll debunk this later. I've got some lawnwork to do, but remember, the typical horror film formula is not what true horror is. That formula is based off of slasher flicks...thrillers, like James has said. Films that base their progression on plot points and not character development. They're not horror at all. They're cookiecutter cinema, lol. To automatically write-off The Thing just because you dislike it is an injustice to what the film accomplishes, and the messages and ideologies it holds. If you don't believe me when I tell you The Thing has a brain behind it, check out my review of it on the previous page. It's a rather well-conceived piece of cinema, and hardly deserves to be ignored by someone simply because they don't like it. To be able to appropriately look at the genre as a whole, you need to be able to successfully differentiate between the sub-genres. The umbrella genre of horror is not the only distinction around. There are no "black and white" distinctions when it comes to entertainment, and this affects the umbrella genre of horror. "Slasher flicks" are nowhere near what Hitchcock was doing with Vertigo. Alien is entirely different from Friday the 13th. The particulars of the genre, also called sub-genres, are extremely important to know of when talking about any umbrella genre. I'll critique whatever I want, man. You're not safe from someone disagreeing with you. You are not entitled to any special treatment. If I disagree with you, I'm going to speak my mind. It'd suit you well to chill out and not take things so personally. Do you see anything remotely resembling "slasher flicks" in that list? You haven't seen Psycho? Haven't seen Silence of the Lambs? What are you doing in this thread again?...Furthermore, why not just include the entire list?[/quote]You think that material was improper? I was rather reserved in that entire excerpt, Sciros. If I had wanted to, I would have actually been harsh. If you're accusing those quotes of being improper simply because of the "you're not entitled to any special treatment" line, then ask James about some stuff regarding the rules. Nobody on OB is entitled to any special treatment, dude. Everyone is expected to abide by the rules, to be able to hold mature and rational discussion without resorting to just blatantly and outright attacking someone. You think I'm being mean in this thread? Do you think that I've got some ulterior motives here? I'm just trying to get you to realize reality, dude. You're not magically exempt from people taking issue with what you have to say. That's not how things work [i]anywhere[/i]. And I know that when I see a problem or questionable material, I say something about it. I make sure to have input in the discussion/topic. I was improper? Hardly. [quote]Next time say what you mean to say to begin with, and you won't have to defend you crap writing by calling people who disagree with it ignorant.[/quote]Funny how you seem to be the only member here who is completely unable to understand any of my posts, no matter how I may write them. Am I or is my writing style really the problem here, Sciros? [QUOTE]That depends on what you feel like defining as "horror." And like I've said before, when I think horror I think the "slasher flicks," monster movies, and I guess that's it. That's what comes to mind. [b]I haven't seen many of the other films that are considered part of the genre and are supposedly good[/b]. So I draw my definition of horror based on what I've watched, and what I consider "horror" as opposed to "suspense thriller" or whatever.[/quote]I've bolded what I've been impressing upon you in this thread. You have very little experience when it comes to films of the umbrella genre of horror, and thus cannot make any informed or educated assessment of what is good or bad. Having an opinion is fine and dandy, Sciros, but your opinion is based on an extremely limited scope. [quote]...Oh, and again you say that "true horror" is not "teeny slasher," meaning that they're different things.[/quote]I believe we've established that teeny slasher movies represent a very skewed and misguided take that hyperfocuses on a very uneducated facet of the umbrella genre of horror. That means that teeny slasher movies are not in touch with what the essence of horror is. They concentrate solely on a distracted concept of the genre and nothing more. Was that a simple enough explanation? [quote]Well to me there's no such thing as "true horror," there's just "horror," and "teeny slasher" falls under it and that's that. To me "teeny slasher" IS "true horror" because the way I see it there's no "pretend horror." But I never said that was the entire genre. But I'm gonna say what I've been trying to get across one last time, so we can drop the subject. I categorize films differently from you, and that's that. Your "true horror" is not my "true horror" and for all I know we might not even consider the same movies "teeny slasher." James was right when he said that what makes this thread difficult is the definition of "horror." But he didn't mean that some people understood it and others didn't. He meant that the definition differs depending on whom you ask.[/QUOTE] Sciros, you've admitted that you have not seen many horror films, correct? Yes, I bolded that sentence just a few paragraphs above. No offence, but you really have no leg to stand on if you lack experience/knowledge of a subject. Remember our discussion in The Passion? I had no experience living in the USSR and thus did not have the necessary knowledge to talk about it. Think about how that point applies to this discussion. See, everything I say, I say for a reason. Everything I do, I do for a reason. Planning ahead for any circumstance is a very useful skill to possess. About your "teeny slasher" point, Friday the 13th. Nightmare on Elm Street. Scream. I Know What You Did Last Summer. Halloween. Really, any scary movie that starred teenagers and made in the 1980s. Do you disagree with any of that? [QUOTE]I don't think that way. Whatever a film tried to do, or whatever its message, if I think it's a crap film then to me that's that. I don't "admire what [whoever] was doing" if he failed to do it well (IMO). To me that's mature and reasonable enough.[/QUOTE]Then you close your mind off to wond'rous things. In admitting that you will not give the message a chance if you think it's a crap film, why can't you admit that you're acting ignorant? You've already laid the groundwork, why not finish it? [QUOTE]I don't really want to discuss Star Wars much, but yeah I don't see any of that as being "science." Die Another Day has more science than Star Wars. It's not considered sci-fi. Star Wars as I see it is fantasy (albeit in a futuristic setting). Droids, hyperspace travel, etc. Those are trappings of sci-fi, but they don't define the genre (for me in any case). Anyway, my whole point was that categorizations are different for different people. I don't see Star Wars as sci-fi. Now you have my reasoning.[/QUOTE]If you didn't want to discuss Star Wars, why even bring it up in the first place? Plus, even though Star Wars isn't the sole defining piece of cinema for the genre, it still is part of the genre, and while it isn't necessarily as complex as say, Minority Report, it still features elements of science fiction. This is an example of the shades of gray we were discussing. Every genre has those shades of gray, horror included. Because of this shades of gray, we don't hold Star Wars as the definition of sci-fi, nor do we hold Scream as the definition of horror. See what I'm getting at? [QUOTE]Not more so than you. Petey, you always write in an unbelievably condescending tone. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's the truth. That's why it's a pain in the *** reading anything you write. It also makes everything you say that much less meaningful in my eyes. And just because you keep calling me ignorant and arrogant and what not, doesn't mean that you're right to do so. I can throw those words around as well, and what would they mean to you?[/QUOTE]You see, that's your own perception of a situation. I'm actually playing nice here. Other members are able to understand the "unbelievably condescending" tone is just how I write. Of course, if you want to see condescending, I could try to sound condescending and get banned. It would be that outrageous and offensive. Something to muse over for your reply. [quote]Yeah you misinterpreted my post. You can take issue with it, but realize just what it means to me when you do so. That's what my post meant. Criticize all you want, but since I see you as hardly an authority on any matter, all I'll end up doing is trying to explain my point of view.[/quote]You feel it's a threat. That's the bottom line. You are unable to hold any type of discussion where an opposing viewpoint is presented. Considering, also, based upon your lack of experience with the horror genre, I really don't think you should be criticizing me here, based on the topic of "authority of a subject." In the thread about The Passion, you emphasized that experience in a topic is important, and those who have experience in a topic have a stronger and more worthwhile position than one who knows very little and who has had very little experience in said topic. It's a good observation back then, and it's still a worthwhile observation now. [quote]You see there's a difference in the way we talk to each other here. You attack what I write, and I defend what I write. That's what we have going. But I have never considered you more right than me, which is why I keep telling you to stop with your worthless criticism. [b]The only reason I reply to your posts is so other people aren't fooled into thinking that you know what you're talking about [i]as opposed[/i] to me[/b].[/quote]So you insist on replying just so you don't lose face with others here? You are concerned about your image. You are worried that you'll look bad if you stop replying. You think it'll look like you've given up. I've stopped replying to a few threads in the past few months. I certainly am not worried what others will think, because I have confidence in my abilities and I don't feel the need to prove my worth or validate myself. You, on the other hand, are insecure about yourself. Why else would you insist on replying, just so it doesn't look like you backed down, ran away with your tail behind your legs? Are you really that sure of yourself, Sciros? Are you really that sure that you are able to avoid getting caught? You're trashing now, and you've thrashed before, but the fisherman will get you. Why not just concede now and get away before you get gutted? If one is truly confident in their abilities, opinions, and interpretations, would one react in the manner you do? [quote]We have different viewpoints on nearly every subject that we've discussed. But that's all they are. I am not going to tell you that mine is necessarily more "right" than yours, because there's no arbiter above us to judge that. But I have mine and you have yours. I ask that you don't stress that yours is more "right" than mine, regardless of how superior to me you may feel. I really do have a problem with the way you post. [b]Rather than saying, "well, I think it's like [i]this[/i] because of the following reasons..." you say "I can't believe you'd be so ignorant as to say [i]that[/i]! Are you too stupid to understand that it's [i]this[/i]?!" Defend you views instead of wasting everyone's time attacking others. It's more civil and more productive[/b].[/QUOTE]You'll find that I do post that way in my initial posts in any thread. The times that I haven't, were in a very recent "Three Worst Movies of All-Time" thread, and no offence to CHW, but the points needed to be made, to reveal the meanings and intents of Blair Witch and Adaptation. When I see a grave injustice or grave misinterpretation of a work, I say something. The teacher in me will not allow others to be left with a misunderstanding. And in that thread, it was a rather significant and glaring misunderstanding. Other than that, I'm a pretty easy-going guy. The only times I do get invested in something is when it's important in the context of the setting in which it takes place. For the most part, if someone disagrees with me, fine, provided they have a reasonable basis for their disagreement, and don't fallback on "It's what I think." I like evidence and support for a thesis, and I expect others to do the same. I don't deal in abstractions, and neither should anyone else if they want to have a well-developed argument.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Petey you said that I was wrong to argue with you, saying that "slasher flicks fall under horror," but according to what you had posted, that WAS disagreeing with you:[/quote] No, Sciros, you missed my point entirely. I've said that to define the genre, "horror," solely based upon the "slasher flick" is incorrect. The "slasher flick" is a sub-genre, not representational of the whole. I don't know how more bluntly I can put it, man. If you still can't get it now, then you never will. [QUOTE]You do realize that you discerned between "horror" and "slasher flicks" there, don't you? Which would imply that one is not a subset of the other. That's why I said what I said in reply.[/QUOTE] I discerned between "horror" and "slasher flicks" because you were defining the [i]entire[/i] horror umbrella genre in accordance to "slasher flicks." That is inappropriate. True horror, the essence of horror, is not teeny slasher. Sciros, I don't know what in the world you're basing your replies on, but you're not basing them on any real understanding of my points here. I mean, honestly, dude. Would it hurt you terribly to actually think about what I'm saying here? Instead of concentrating on a misinterpretation of a post and then going off on some...self-righteous and rambly tirade, actually [i]read[/i] the post and at least attempt to understand what I'm saying, okay? Again, I'll restate my point as bluntly as humanly possible, just so there is no future misunderstanding on your part: Slasher flicks do not solely define the umbrella genre of horror. They are not suitable source material on which to draw one's definition of horror. [QUOTE]But moving on,[/QUOTE] I honestly think you should just walk away, dude. [QUOTE]You see, I listed the 4 films I liked. I don't care who considers them "the best" or "good" or whatever. [b]As fas as The Thing goes, if I don't like it why should I feel that it deserves some sort of recognition? Why should I suddenly hold someone else's opinion above my own?[/b] Wouldn't that mean that I disagree with myself? [b]Anyway, if I dislike a film then to me it's worth ignoring, regardless of whatever good qualities it has[/b].[/QUOTE] 1) Again, you missed my point. I'm not saying you have to like it, I'm not saying you have to love it. I'm saying that even though you dislike it, at least appreciate what the film does. At least admire what Carpenter was doing. You don't have to like it, and I never implied that you had to suddenly love everything that John Carpenter has ever done, and it's not even taking someone else's opinion and holding it over your own, lol. It's simply being a level-headed, mature, and reasonable filmgoer. 2) And you wonder why I have called you ignorant in the past? Sciros, when someone calls you ignorant, there's a strong basis of observation for it. [QUOTE]For different people, the subgenres differ. Same goes for entire genres. I, for one, [b]don't consider the Star Wars films to be science fiction, because I found pretty much no science in them at all.[/b] Like you said, there are no "black and white" distinctions when it comes to entertainment. So I'd say that while understanding what sub-genres may exist is important, [b]I can't say that there's necessarily a right and a wrong way to categorize many films according to those sub-genres[/b]. And likewise the different sub-genres that exist for an "umbrella genre" may differ depending on whom you ask. My point is, until there's some international standard on classifying movies, [b]as long as you have a reason to put a movie in a genre and it makes sense to you, go ahead and do it. You're not hurting anybody.[/b][/QUOTE] 1) I suppose then, Death Star means nothing? Jumping through hyperspace? What about protocol droids that have the capacity for speech and can translate up to four billion different languages? While Star Wars may not feature microbiology or organic chemistry, there is still an influence of science there. The science used just isn't what one may call, "collegiate science." And even then, the hyperspace travel is being researched even today, so that may become a reality someday. 2) There is a wrong way to categorize films according to genres or sub-genres. Go to a Hollywood Video. 3) That's what I've been doing here all along, and you've been getting rather testy, Sciros. [QUOTE]Don't be a fool. I told you not to critique my categorizations because you're not an authority on the matter and actually neither is anybody. I don't even consider IMDB to be the "go to" guys for film genres. So to me your criticism of my categorization is worth nil. That's why I told you not to bother. You can disagree with me, but that's all you're doing. You're never [i]correcting[/i] me. Let's be clear on that.[/QUOTE] Is there a point to this? All I see here is someone essentially saying, "You're not allowed to criticize me." Are you serious, Sciros? Did I misinterpret your post here? Do you honestly believe that you are somehow immune to [i]anyone[/i] taking issue with what you have to say? [quote]I only included the top 4 because this thread is titled "four best horror films." And no, I haven't seen Psycho and Silence of the Lambs. That might be why I named the Alien films as my favorite horror films. I'm not really into the horror genre. [b]As for what I'm doing in this thread?[/b] [b]That's a good question. The answer: I'm wasting my time.[/b][/QUOTE] Yes, usually when one has very little background knowledge of a subject, they are indeed wasting their time, and would benefit greatly of removing themselves from a topic and perhaps get out there and gain some experience in the topic.

[QUOTE=Alastor]I saw KILL BILL VOL 1. today and I was kinda disapointed. [spoiler]First the Bride is just tkaen to superhuman levels. I mean come on A real person can't take out an gamg of 60-70 peopel no matter how skilled you are. The sword might have been strong but that alone isn't enough to take out all them people. And teh fight with Gogo was really takin it to super levels. The bride was hit with a steel ball with spikes directly in the chest. Not once but twice. No way she could have lived, it would have crushed her chest. Second it was just too predictible. I mean you already knew that Uma was going to kill Luicy lui( forgot the name of the character she played). ANd I knew that she was going to beat all of her henchmen aswell. It seems all th epeopel that she killed you knew that she was going to win.[/spoiler] But even with those two things I still amd going to see Vol 2. and just to see how the story ends. [spoiler]Maybe the Bride will die. In teh nexy Volumes I hope it gets more into the story than into the superhuman abilities of one woman.[/spoiler][/QUOTE] I've spoilered the necessary stuff in the quoting, I'd suggest you do the same with your actua post, lol. And all of your criticism is focused on precisely what Tarantino intended. All of what you had mentioned was totally intentional on the part of QT. The Bride [i]is[/i] an elite assassin. Kill Bill is about revenge and killing those who betrayed The Bride. It's predictable because Tarantino wants it to be predictable. He had a very specific vision for Kill Bill and that's why it's so focused. If you check out the Behind the Scenes making of Vol. 1 on the DVD, pay close attention to the Hittori Hanzo segment. They show a few clips of Hanzo slicing up a whole slew of ninjas, in a very similar manner/style of The Bride in the 88 Yakuza fight. Everything in Kill Bill was deliberate, and that's what makes it great.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Horror as I see it is not a subcategory on the level of "slasher flicks." [b]To me "slasher flicks" fall [i]under[/i] horror[/b']. [/quote]You missed my point entirely (and missed James' point, as well). I said the exact same thing as you just did in your rebuttal. Perhaps because you concentrated solely on two sentences out of the three paragraph point, let's take a look at my point again, shall we? [QUOTE]I hardly think it's appropriate to classify [b]Halloween and its sub-genre[/b] as "horror." If anything, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc, are "slasher flicks," movies designed to provide little more than shock value and that's it. I'm actually inclined to write them off as mindless killing. I see them as simply an excuse to get one's arm around one's girlfriend in a darkened theatre. Because Halloween does not really respect the audience--that style, if it can be called that, is essentially saying, "Okay, this is all we're trusting you with, because we figure this is all you're capable of understanding." [b]Really, saying Halloween is "horror" is just using the umbrella description[/b], I think, that one finds in a Hollywood Video or Blockbuster, or various other rental places. Lumping everything (everything encompassing American Werewolf in London, Halloween, etc) together is really just the [i]easiest[/i] way to do it, not necessarily the [i]right[/i] way to do it.[/QUOTE]1) Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear with "Halloween and its sub-genre." The meaning of that phrase is "Halloween and the sub-genre in which it belongs." It's not that hard to understand, lol. 2) Sciros, is that clearer now? Halloween and its sub-genre ("slasher flicks") are only a sub-genre of the umbrella genre term of "Horror." I honestly don't see what's so hard about this. [QUOTE]You said this in reply to my saying that of the films [i]I[/i] care for, the Alien films are as close to horror as it gets. And that [i]is[/i] so. I don't like The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, or Blair Witch. I haven't seen The Ring.[/QUOTE]And I included those films to show that there are other films out there on the same level as Alien. While Alien is a fantastic pseudo-horror/sci-fi hybrid, The Thing should not be disregarded, nor should Night of the Living Dead. To dislike an outstanding film is fine and all, but at least acknowledge that there is worthwhile material in said film. To automatically write-off The Thing just because you dislike it is an injustice to what the film accomplishes, and the messages and ideologies it holds. If you don't believe me when I tell you The Thing has a brain behind it, check out my review of it on the previous page. It's a rather well-conceived piece of cinema, and hardly deserves to be ignored by someone simply because they don't like it. [quote][b]1) For goodness's sake don't bother[/b]. [b]2) I don't care if you think that "the typical horror film formula is not what true horror is," because all these categorizations are BS anyway[/b]. One can't have a universally proper form of categorization for films. I'm sure your "horror" category is not the same as mine, just like my "adventure" category is not the same as yours. [b]3) It doesn't matter. Also, in reality I categorize films much more simply--I don't watch "slasher" or "true horror" films. I watch "scary movies."[/b] I really don't like to categorize films too much anyway, because it leads to weird crap. [b]4) Like I said that Alien films are sci-fi. Well, they are, but sci-fi should have categories like action and horror in it, as well.[/b] And if Aliens falls under sci-fi action, would someone be wrong to call it an action film and leave out the "sci-fi"? Well, again, it all depends on how you look at it. [b]5) Films like Brotherhood of the Wolf I can't categorize at all.[/b] [b]6) And since there's no real authority on the matter, don't critique my categorizations.[/b] You can offer yours, if you like.[/QUOTE]1) Now where would be the fun in that? 2) You don't care about much to begin with when it doesn't agree with you, now do you? And if the categorizations are BS anyway, and thus don't matter, why would anyone here be having any discussion about the categories to begin with? Answer (See next point): 3) It does matter, and here's why. To be able to appropriately look at the genre as a whole, you need to be able to successfully differentiate between the sub-genres. The umbrella genre of horror is not the only distinction around. There are no "black and white" distinctions when it comes to entertainment, and this affects the umbrella genre of horror. "Slasher flicks" are nowhere near what Hitchcock was doing with Vertigo. Alien is entirely different from Friday the 13th. The particulars of the genre, also called sub-genres, are extremely important to know of when talking about [i]any[/i] umbrella genre. 4) The Sci-Fi umbrella genre [i]does[/i] have those distinctions already. I don't know what you're basing your point on, but just take a look at the industry right now. There are many different sub-genres available. 5) While Brotherhood of the Wolf was a very trippy film, try...myth/spiritual. I think the themes, imagery, and tone will fit nicely there. :) 6) I'll critique whatever I want, man. You're not safe from someone disagreeing with you. You are not entitled to any special treatment. If I disagree with you, I'm going to speak my mind. It'd suit you well to chill out and not take things so personally. EDIT: [QUOTE]Just for fun, here are the top 4 (as chosen by visitors) HORROR films on IMDB: 1. Psycho (haven't seen it) 2. Silence of the Lambs (haven't seen it) 3. Alien (hehehe) 4. Jaws (I forgot about this one it's not bad)[/QUOTE]Do you see anything remotely resembling "slasher flicks" in that list? You haven't seen Psycho? Haven't seen Silence of the Lambs? What are you doing in this thread again? EDIT 2: Furthermore, why not just include the entire list? [url="http://www.imdb.com/chart/horror"]http://www.imdb.com/chart/horror[/url] I think you'll find the majority of films there are classic cinema, and John Carpenter's The Thing is at #22, which is a very comfortable and commendable spot, considering just how many films are included in the "Horror" umbrella genre. Also, make note of the high-ranking appearances of The Shining, King Kong (1933), Nosferatu (1922), Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), Frankenstein (1931), The Exorcist, and The Birds. Come to think of it, it looks like there are no "teen slasher flicks" anywhere in the Top 25. That might tell you something about the state of the genre? EDIT 3: Just a quick afterthought, too. [url="http://www.imdb.com/chart/scifi"]http://www.imdb.com/chart/scifi[/url] It's a very nice selection in the Top 25 there.

James, you beat me to the punch, heh. Sciros, [QUOTE]I know it's not really horror. Stuff like Halloween and what not--that's horror. But I hate that stuff, and so I can't bring myself to list 4 of those movies as my favorite horror films.[/quote]I hardly think it's appropriate to classify Halloween and its sub-genre as "horror." If anything, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc, are "slasher flicks," movies designed to provide little more than shock value and that's it. I'm actually inclined to write them off as mindless killing. I see them as simply an excuse to get one's arm around one's girlfriend in a darkened theatre. Because Halloween does not really respect the audience--that style, if it can be called that, is essentially saying, "Okay, this is all we're trusting you with, because we figure this is all you're capable of understanding." Really, saying Halloween is "horror" is just using the umbrella description, I think, that one finds in a Hollywood Video or Blockbuster, or various other rental places. Lumping everything (everything encompassing American Werewolf in London, Halloween, etc) together is really just the [i]easiest[/i] way to do it, not necessarily the [i]right[/i] way to do it. Cases in point: 28 Days Later and the Resident Evil movie. Both are certainly going to scare particular audiences, but 28 Days Later is more of a mature take on the idea of the living dead. RE, however, has the comic book mentality found in Freddy, Jason, etc. You can find both 28 Days Later and RE in roughly the same section in most movie rental places, but that doesn't mean they are the same, or belong to the same genre or even sub-genre. 28 Days Later was clearly the superior film, too, because of its tone and attitude toward the subject matter. While it may not have been superior in the technical sense in that it didn't give us gun-running and over-extending explosions to the same extent that RE does, or any other comic book-ish scary movie, it was superior in the aesthetic sense. It's really remarkable when you look at it. The effort that the filmmakers put into making 28 Days Later truly stand-out in a tired market. It's very commendable. Scary Movie and Scream. Now, I'm not too fond of either of these movies because they rely so heavily on the Freddy/Jason/Mike Myers material. Scream is a self-mocking slasher flick. It's more or less a modernized Friday the 13th. Not to say it's a bad take on its sub-genre, but it certainly can't define what "horror" is, nor can Halloween. Even though the next two films don't belong to the "Fright" genre, I still think they are worth mentioning. Blazing Saddles and Freddy Got Fingered. Both are pretty crass, but there's a maturity to Blazing Saddles, an almost respectible tone to the source material. Freddy Got Fingered, however, is barely viewable. Really, Freddy Got Fingered has the gross-out style and disrespect of the audience possessed by the slasher flicks. They may be listed as comedies, but there is a definite distinction between them and to the discerning eye, they are nowhere near the same genre. [QUOTE]I said the Alien movies weren't really horror, but again, since some of them are horror-ish, for me that's close enough. (Basically of the films I care at all for, they're as close to horror as it gets.)[/QUOTE]Not so. John Carpenter's The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, The Ring, Blair Witch, Nosferatu, American Werewolf In London, Shadow of the Vampire are all very worthwhile mature films that adhere to the principles set forth by classic and mature horror films. They are what horror should be, and put the teen slasher flick to shame. [quote]And that thing about stupid characters getting killed, I think you misread my post. I didn't say any characters did that in the Alien films. I'm saying that [i]if there were stupid characters who got themselves killed[/i], then it'd be closer to the typical horror film formula. That's all.[/QUOTE]I'll debunk this later. I've got some lawnwork to do, but remember, the typical horror film formula is not what true horror is. That formula is based off of slasher flicks...thrillers, like James has said. Films that base their progression on plot points and not character development. They're not horror at all. They're cookiecutter cinema, lol. To tell you the truth, I don't hold the slasher flicks to have any standing in the umbrella genre of "horror, and it's unwise to think the slasher flicks are representational of the true nature and quality of the umbrella genre. They're mass-market, mass-produced, not the norm. They really hold absolutely no standing in the eye of the serious film critic, and that discerning film critic does not believe the slasher flick to be the standard. The slasher flick is only the standard when we look at the audience. That's it. And from our extensive theatre experience, we know that audience isn't too "with it" when it comes to [i]good[/i] taste, true?

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Ugh. I'm just gonna say the 4 Alien films. I don't know if they should count as horror as much as they do sci-fi, but they have monsters killing people, so I figure they're sorta like Jeepers Creepers x 10000000. Except for Alien 3; that one was pretty lousy. Alien Resurrection had a bad story, but that alien/human hybrid at the end was really unnerving to look at. I know most people will be all like "hey dude the Alien quadrilogy is not horror it's freaking sci-fi" and what not, but think of it this way: if all the characters in the Alien films were complete retards and got [i]themselves[/i] killed by doing something stupid, then it would totally fit the typical horror film formula of "morons killed by mysterious monster." So I figure it's close enough.[/QUOTE] Quick reply. Not really, no. The Alien series, while incorporating definite horror themes--actually, scratch that. Alien was the only film in the series to feature any "horror" in it. Even then, it's not "horror" in the same sense of typical horror. It's more...stalker horror, like Hitchcock. Actually, Alien has been called Hitchcock In Space. So, it's not conventional horror at all. Aliens is a combat picture. Cameron has been interviewed and said that. He based the premise/idea/execution off of Vietnam pictures, films like Platoon. So, Aliens is not horror by far. Alien 3 attempted to connect back with the Hitchcockian feel of the original, but ultimately fell to the conventional horror cliches that Alien avoided so well. Resurrection tried to be a combat picture, but at that point in the series, there was nothing left. And your point about the "stupid characters getting killed" is a bit far-fetched, considering there are maybe two characters in the Quadrilogy that demonstrate that behavior. Also, those two characters, Brett and Burke, do not demonstrate the stupidity of the conventional horror cliche character. Brett is simply looking for Ripley's cat (he dies when looking for her *****...hmmm...perhaps that sexuality argument holds even more strength than we thought?). He isn't running into a dark wood to investigate a strange noise, nor is he just blindly running about in some vain attempt to get away from the killer. Burke is trying to escape, to find an exit. But this is not his fault, as he has no knowledge at all of the colony's layout. He would be at fault if he knew the architecture and had extensive knowledge of the colony's design, and thus would be the stupid cliche character. And to categorize the entire Quadrilogy as "horror" based on two characters is wholly ill-advised.

[QUOTE][i]Title of ChibiHorseWoman's Post[/i] I'm going to skip the Blair Witch[/QUOTE] But [i]why[/i]? Why would you [i]ever[/i] want to not talk about Blair Witch? It's a fantastic horror film that accomplishes far more than the majority of the slasher/gore-fest/"jump out and scare you" film ever has. Now, my all-time four greatest horror films? Obviously, the original [b]Night of the Living Dead[/b] is on there. It's a movie that, while cheesy and gory, serves a very effective psychological assault. I've heard people speak of the social commentary of the film, the racism and so forth, but I don't view NotLD as a social commentary involving racism so much as...social commentary concentrated on distrust of humanity. This distrust is formed out of duress and very intense psychological strain. These people are being put through hell, and their primary concern is survival. Sometimes, this desire for survival leads to violence within the group. Because of this lack of cohesion, [spoiler]everyone dies[/spoiler]. It's an interesting message, really. When presented with the requirement to work together, do so. Failure to do so will result in very serious consequences. It's a neat film, to say the least. [b]John Carpenter's The Thing[/b] also plays a variation on this idea. Where The Thing differs from NotLD, however, is that the characters work together for the most part. They are always able to reconcile the argument, whether through human mediation or...otherworldly interference. It's interesting, because the humans are able to work together because [spoiler]the Thing is an amalgation of different organisms that all fight for their own survival[/spoiler]. The Thing is really a shadow of the humans. It is the manifestation of their darkest desires. This is actually a literal facet of the film, considering the fact that [spoiler]the Thing physically copies various lifeforms[/spoiler]. In this respect, The Thing is a mirror of the human condition. Also, the original The Thing had a heavy Red Scare paranoia, fear of nuclear power, etc, in keeping with the 50s political/social/economic climate. In the early 80s, however, that climate became more of we were unsure of who we could trust. With WaterGate of the late 70s, and the various factions fighting each other in Central/South America, the majority of the public was unsure of who the real enemy was. We had no idea if the threat was truly foreign, or if there was a domestic danger. This attitude is reflected in Carpenter's The Thing, with the hidden killer idea. Fantastic cinema. That's only two right now. I'll Edit the other two in later.

[center]"If I'm curt with you, it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast, and I need you guys to act fast if you want to get out of this."[/center] [center] [/center] [center]~The Wolf[/center] [center]Pulp Fiction[/center] [quote name='ScirosDarkblade][b]Petey, let's not bring those movies into this[/b']. I went to see Kill Bill Vol. 1 expecting a far better film than what it turned out to be (in my opinion; I don't give 2 craps about whether YOU like the film or not). And honestly, same goes for Kill Bill Vol. 2. It turned out to be far worse than I expected. Same goes for Spiderman. And the Paper Mario 2 thread? Did you even read my posts there? They have nothing to do with this discussion.[/quote] Sciros, we need to bring other movies into this. They're important points here. You go into movies expecting trash and you thus see trash because of it. Paper Mario 2 [i]does[/i] have something to do with what I'm talking about, with what you're refusing to acknowledge. You have these lofty expectations so you have grounds to rip the subject apart. Also, you [i]never[/i] expected much going into Vol. 2, Sciros. Don't deny that or I'll call you on it. I linked to the thread, man. I've read your posts. Try to rationalize it all you want, boy, but you've got nothing. [QUOTE][b]My expectations of Goldeneye 2 are relatively high[/b], actually. But no, of course I'm not expecting a true "sequel to Goldeneye." Really, that title is already held by Perfect Dark. Anyway... whether the director of I, Robot is a "strong and talented" filmmaker doesn't exactly go without question. [b]I didn't particularly like the way The Crow was put together. We'll see how he does; I have no opinion of him one way or the other right now, really[/b].[/QUOTE] 1) Are your expectations of GoldenEye 2 high? [QUOTE]As far as Goldeneye 2 goes, I'd say that it's fair to expect less than the original Goldeneye until EA proves us wrong. There's no reason to think it'll be just as good as its "predecessor" and plenty of reasons to think it will be worse.[/QUOTE] I'm sure you have some relatively high expectations of GE2, lol. 2) Am I to understand that you're now distancing yourself from "The movie is going to be crap!!11!"? [QUOTE]Haha, of course I feel right when tearing something to shreds. Who would feel "wrong?" Anyway I disagree about setting my standards too high. [b]I don't think that expecting a cohesive storyline with no holes, decent dialogue, respectable acting, interesting characters, and fluid scene transitions is expecting too much[/b]. The films we've discussed haven't delivered in all those categories, so I don't know why I should still consider them "good" films. [b]And it's not like I have some brainless criteria here; I will ENJOY films that have a good story, good characters, etc[/b]. And I enjoy a good number of films, in fact. Just because I think that the Matrix trilogy and Kill Bill are utter crap doesn't mean that I hate all movies.[/QUOTE] 1) Do you even know what a plot hole is? It's a hiccup in a film, a problem with the plot that [i]cannot[/i] be explained by the plot/film itself. I'd be very interested to see if those plot holes you hate are actually plot holes and not just your own cynicism and ignorance shining through? Speaking of cohesive storyline, you have ranted and raved how particular films suck, but their plots are extremely coherent and focused. I'm going to make a very bold statement here, to which you will surely overreact: There is no bad dialogue in Tarantino movies. Similarly, there are rarely uninteresting characters in Tarantino movies. And scene transitions in Tarantino films are some of the best I've seen, and some of the best others here have seen. 2) Sciros, while you may not have "brainless criteria," you are brainless in your evaluation with set criteria. Flame me all you want, dude, it's the truth. You have absolutely no regard for anything and seek to only bash and nothing more, based upon your radicalist stance on cinema, a stance that is unheard of in film critique. [quote][b]But you are right about me having higher standards than most people[/b]. The only people I know that have higher standards are [b]my parents[/b]; they're really freaking hard to please. But when they explain why they dislike a film, I usually can't disagree. It comes down to a matter of taste (either that or they convince me that the movie I thought was good does, in fact, suck).[/QUOTE] 1) I'm right about far more than that, but you are still blinded by your own cynicism and ignorance to acknowledge that. 2) So your entire outlook on cinema is influenced by your parents? Are we to then realize that your hatred for particular films is not even based on your own opinion?

[font=Arial][size=2][quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']But some people just creep me out and I try to stay away from them. [/color][/quote][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2]I seem to attract the loons. There's this one girl at Rutgers, who is a bit...I want to say "not all there." See, I think she's a nice girl, and she probably is, but I don't think she has any social skills whatsoever. She speaks without thinking, it seems, and has no regard for what is actually going on in a conversation. She has random interjections of random topics that are totally unrelated to anything my friends and I are talking about. Needless to say, I try to not come within arm's reach of her. She is one of the very few people to cause me to shudder when she makes physical contact with me. I should include an email I just got from her that talked about my "aura" today.[/size][/font] [color=#0000a0][font=Arial][QUOTE][color=#0000a0]Hey,! Just wanna tell you that you had a white light about you today. Your aura seemed to glow. As a Witchy person I notice such things, most of the time I don't tell ppl bc they just don't get it. You seem so cleansed, alive. I don't know, what the hell, maybe u were just stoned off ur ***. Either that or u've been nuked....hehe...I'm just being silly. I know a shining aura when I see one. I think it's wonderful. I always tell my friends stuff like this...I hope u don't mind. Ppl may think I'm crazy, when ppl do that I tell them that I am what they think I am...as I cannot control what they think, they always think what they want anyway. I'm in quite an odd mood. I have to do an oral pres for Ms. Gess, on whatelse, a Witch. Anyhow, I'll be going now, and I'm sorry if this aura white light confuses the **** out of you. It's just nice to see, that's all. [/color][/font][font=Arial][color=#0000a0]Peace and regards,[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=#0000a0]Please keep your white light, it suits you well,[/color][/QUOTE] [/font] [font=Arial][color=black]Yeah...you all see what I mean, lol.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=#000000]Other than this girl, I'm pretty much fine with physical contact. I'm a hugger, heh. Up until a few months ago, I wasn't this carefree. An aspect of Tourette's Syndrome is a hypersensitivity to unwanted/unexpected physical contact. Basically, if I don't like you, or am unfamiliar with you, or just generally uncomfortable around you, I will react negatively if you touch me in any way.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=#000000]Sounds bad, I know, but I've learned to control that unconscious reaction. And the strangest thing about that is, back sometime last year, a former friend of mine insisted on tickling me, even with the very explicit request from me that she stop. She didn't stop, and found her hand in between my teeth. I left teethmarks that can probably still be seen today, albeit barely. This friend wasn't too happy with that, to say the least. On top of the matter, I showed no remorse for doing it. Apparently, she didn't like the idea that there were consequences for her actions.[/color][/font] [/color][font=Arial][color=#000000]Flash forward to a few months later, when she and I are hanging out with Brandi, a friend of mine from Rutgers. Over those months, I began the intensive self-control process. Now, she and Brandi begin tickling me mercilessly. I felt that strong urge to react negatively and I was able to suppress it. Had I reacted how my subconscious wanted to react, there would have been bloodshed, and that would have served nobody. But this self-control wasn't proper, so it seems. My friend got very hurt and insulted that I "would bite [my] best friend without remorse or regret, but I wouldn't bite a complete stranger."[/color][/font] [font=Arial]Self-control goes a long way, and personal space is something that some people still do not understand, apparently.[/font] [font=Arial]So, if it wasn't already clear, when someone pisses me off through unwanted physical contact, I will give them a warning, a very clear and explicit warning. I use self-control up to a point, but past that point, my voice stops doing the work and my teeth go to action, lol.[/font] [font=Arial]Violent? Perhaps. Disturbing? Perhaps. But cross the line with me and violate my personal bubble without my blessing, and you're going down fast.[/font]

I'm afraid I don't know what "black/death" metal is. Could you elaborate, perhaps? Any particular bands you like in the genre? Is it stuff like Rob Zombie or Marilyn Manson? Rob Zombie's okay, I guess. His music is really too loud for my ears. He's good background noise for a Mac lab, but other than that, he's not something you'd hear from my radio. Manson, no. That's a level of cacophony that doesn't work.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]I actually rarely find this to be true with anything besides food, at least in my case. If I go in expecting a bad film (i.e. not expecting much from the film), I'll most likely be delightfully surprised when the film has anything redeeming about it. Now, it's true that when I go in expecting a good film then often I am disappointed because the film falls short of my expectations (but I'm never more disappointed than I ought to be). [b]What I'm basically saying is my predisposition towards a film will not skew my impression of it.[/b] And I suppose even if it does, it only does so for a short time. [b]After reflecting on a film, I usually develop a fair stance toward it[/b'].[/quote] *cough*Spiderman, [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=38562&page=2&pp=15]Kill Bill[/url], Matrix, [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=38934&page=1&pp=15]this entire thread[/url], [url=http://www.sciros.net/moviereviews.htm]here[/url], [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?p=572231#post572231]here[/url], [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?p=571620#post571620]this[/url]*cough* [QUOTE]Hmm that was rambling. [b]I guess I usually have "realistic" expectations of most films[/b], and so far I haven't fooled myself into thinking a movie is worse or better than I would have had I gone in knowing absolutely nothing about it to begin with.[/QUOTE] Are you sure about that? Just a question that popped into my head here. See below for further comments. [QUOTE]As far as Goldeneye 2 goes, I'd say that it's fair to expect less than the original Goldeneye until EA proves us wrong. There's no reason to think it'll be just as good as its "predecessor" and plenty of reasons to think it will be worse. But, again, in my case that will not have an effect on my impression of a game once I actually play it. With Ninja Gaiden, I expected killer graphics and literally nothing else. But instead it turned out to be one of the best games I've played on current-generation consoles. I didn't dwell on any minor problems it might have.[/QUOTE] Though, we shouldn't overlook what EoN is. This shouldn't be a major discussion point, but our expectations of GE2 are mostly related to EA's lackluster performances, meaning, strength of the developer. This "strength of the developer" can be applied to the director of I, Robot, who is a very strong and talented filmmaker. [quote]But when I go into I, Robot expecting a bad movie (which will be the case), [b]I will only get a bad movie if it really does suck (as far as my standards go).[/b] ... I guess the thing is I'm allowing for the possibility that it will be better than it seems. It's silly to do otherwise.[/QUOTE] Sciros, surely you don't think that your standards are set at any reasonable level that gives any film a chance? In the time I've observed you, I've noticed that you set any standard of yours insanely high, so that you feel "right" or validated when tearing something to shreds. Something tells me that your standards aren't so "realistic."

And so we sit, just you and I, Thinking and musing before we die. We recall the times of good and bad; And recall the joy we might have had, Had we shared those moments Now fleeting, now passed; and We long for them again. We never parted, nor quarreled much, And yet our hearts did lose touch. Now on our death beds, we meet again, And latch onto old happiness and pain. We talk again and speak of joys We once had, but we did part, And that did make us sad. And is it ironic, that death will bring us back. Now our time has come, For Death has approached upon The winds of hate and with great speed. And we part again; but not before I say That I have always loved you, my friend. I feel myself growing weak, The light is fading, my voice is failing, And yet I must say, I love you. Farewell.

She smoked often in high school. I don?t recall ever seeing her without a cigarette in the morning, before homeroom. Each morning, as I stepped up to the school doors, I would see her standing on the far side of the building, smoking her morning cigarette. Sometimes I would stand and watch her, and sometimes she would smoke her first cigarette fast enough to allow time for a second. Sometimes she would even have time for a third. The bell for homeroom would ring, usually after her second cigarette, and she would come running to the door. Of course, she would have to stop and cough along the way, and catch her breath, but she still ran. It was sad to see, really. She ran track up until our junior year. She had to drop out due to health issues. Her parents and coaches believed it to be her asthma returning, but the students knew the real reason. I had all eight periods with her, and I saw the effects, too. Her teeth were stained yellow; she had a wheezing, hollow cough, and that putrid smell of smoke followed her around, suffocating those around her. The smell was oppressive. It assaulted my nose and it was so heavy that I could taste it on the tip of my tongue. She would reek of smoke the entire day. Each class she would ask the teacher if she could go use the bathroom. I sat close to the door in most classes, so I would watch her exit, and get assaulted by that obnoxious stench, that smell that infests everything. A few minutes would pass and she?d enter, a heavy dose of perfume sprayed on to mask the aroma. She would stroll back to her desk, content with her nicotine hit, still craving more, and coughing all the while. Lunch was fifth period, and I watched her go ask to go to the bathroom, where she would smoke two, maybe three cigarettes. I imagined what her lungs must look like. Grayed on the outside, black on the inside. Dead tissue everywhere. The parts of her lungs that were still functional were fighting to survive. It was a disturbing image, but very close to reality, I was sure. The next morning I was in homeroom early to finish up some schoolwork. The rest of my class filed in, and I heard that familiar ring. A few seconds passed, and then one of my classmates screamed. ?Oh, my God! Someone help her! Call an ambulance!? We rushed to the window and saw a body. Our teachers told us to stay there, but we didn?t listen. An ambulance had just pulled up as we ran outside. They raced to the body and checked for a pulse, then covered her with a white sheet. I didn?t see the face, but I saw the cigarettes.

It occurred to me that deathmatching wouldn't need the Lock-On, right? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how strange it would be to just strip L of the targeting system. The only snag with that, I guess, would be missiles using it for a target assignment. But other games have auto lock-on for missile launchers and such, so that doesn't seem to be too much of a bother. I could go for the Z button weapon switch, though, if the C stick were used for strafing and such. Though, with that neat, unique feel of Metroid Prime, which is partly due to the unique controls, it seems that using the C stick like a conventional FPS would detract from Prime's appeal. I don't know, I'm just rambling here, lol. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[QUOTE=Altron]I saw a trailer and it looked absolutely TERRIBLE! If anyone's read the book I, Robot, they will know it rocked. All the movie keeps intact that correlates with the story line is the three laws of robots. Other than that, Will is just a crime busting, shoot'em up, no plot kind of guy. This movie does NO justice to the book what so ever. Go read it, not watch it. What was the last good movie that will smith was in? Independence Day? Maybe later.[/QUOTE] Dude, don't you think you're jumping the gun a bit here? All you saw was a trailer, a teaser. Granted, trailers today give more or less the entire film, but c'mon, man, lol. You're judging a movie based on less than 5 minutes of footage, probably around 2 minutes of actual film. Oddly enough, this ties into a discussion I was having earlier this morning, on my way to school. When one goes into a film wanting to hate it, they'll hate it. When one begins reading Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis under the notion that it's boring, they will find it boring. This holds true in high school, as well. It's a cliche, yes, but it's true: "You only get out what you put in." Cinema, literature, school, [i]life[/i] is what you make it. Your reaction to an event is shaped by your predisposition to said event. When I heard of Tim Burton's POTA remake, I was leery. The original is breathtaking, albeit some bizarre (over)acting. I went into Burton's POTA with a skeptical eye, and I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have, had I kept an open mind. This holds true with EA's announcement of GoldenEye 2. Same thing. You go into I, Robot expecting a bad movie, you're going to get a bad movie. You go into Bad Boys II expecting high art, you're going to be disappointed. It all comes down to how you're limiting your appreciation for entertainment, Altron. Something to think about.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Oh, that's why it sounded familiar! Yeah I've never read the book, but I've seen it around now that I think about it. Well I guess I can't say the film's unoriginal then. [b]But the Batman 3 and 4 screenwriter? Ouch.[/b] That's not a good sign at all, and [b]the director of Dark City/Crow? Well he can definitely create atmosphere, but there's a few plot problems with even something so simple as The Crow, so I'm a bit unsure about how the director will be able to pull off I, Robot too well[/b]. [b]I'm still going to go in expecting little more than a "fun sci-fi" movie at this point[/b]. The original material they had to work with is really the only thing that makes the movie seem even remotely promising, at least in my eyes. But we'll see.[/QUOTE] 1) I recall the dialogue in 3 and 4 to be pretty bad. "Chill!" Gah. Almost as bad as Storm's "toad struck by lightning" line. But at least the "lightning" line was...funny. It was corny and so horribly written that it actually brings a smile to my face when I hear it or think of it. Just such a [i]bad[/i] line. Arnold's dialogue in 4, though, was meant to be campy and while Arnold has a comedic timing (Kindergarten Cop is hilarious), he had nothing to work with in 4. I'm not totally discounting the screenwriter here, I still have faith that because this writer is coupled with Proyas, there won't be any of the mind-numbingly bad dialogue from the recent Batman movies. 2) Proyas is more than capable of creating a dark and edgy film, and The Crow, broken down to its simplest elements, is a mythic revenge tale. It plays upon the notion of returning from the Underworld to serve oneself and nothing more. It's a fantastic concept. Eric Draven is something out of a nightmare, really, and his character is drawn far better than the "invincible killer" horror cliche. Draven is the symbol of death, but his Death is just and fair, concerned with righting a wrong, not creating havoc needlessly. All of his destruction has a motive, it has a purpose. This is why Draven is one of the more sympathetic anti-heroes, I think. There is a method to his madness, his revenge is understood. He is not going out and blindly killing, and he still holds onto his humanity, even while functioning like an automaton. "It can't rain all the time." It is because of this characterization that I have faith in Proyas' directing of I, Robot. The themes are eerily similar, when you think about it. The idea of a struggle for control of one's destiny and self, one's motivations for action that may be driven out of self-defense or a desire for improvement. This touches directly, I think, upon Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. [QUOTE]1.A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. 2.A robot must obey orders given to him by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.[/QUOTE] Draven must not injure a human being, through action or inaction, and this is why he rescues Sarah in the street. He has an obligation to help those in need. I'd go into more detail if I had time.

[font=Tahoma][QUOTE][font=Tahoma]I was interested at first, when I thought it might be a murder mystery with a robot in the middle of it. But no. It has to be a generic robots-vs-humans sci-fi movie. Can't get enough of those... Arnold is the governor now so I guess the only sensible thing to do is have Will Smith take over where he left off.[/font][/QUOTE] [/font] [font=Tahoma][url="http://www.iit.edu/~cs485/reports/asimovsi.htm"]http://www.iit.edu/~cs485/reports/asimovsi.htm[/url][/font] [QUOTE]I, Robot was one of the most important books in Asimov?s life. It is one of his books which built his reputation in the form of its original publication as a series of stories in the Golden Age Astounding (and, for that matter, one of the books that made the Golden Age golden). The book consists of relatively short stories, robot anthologies, that show to us relations between human beings and robots from the [b]time when first elementary robots were created until the time when computers basically took over the control of economy, progress, and future of a man kind[/b]. In his book robots and characters (including the immortal Susan Calvin) are taking the stage all by themselves. [b]It?s a collection of nine stories[/b]. Stories are logically connected. Throughout his book he describes life of "robopsychologist" Dr. Susan Calvin. The book is based on the stories about robots what she tells to the author or stories where she is one of the characters. She is an expert in robots. [b]At the very end of the book she says:" I saw it from the beginning, when the poor robot couldn?t speak, to the end , when they stand between mankind and destruction."[/b] On my opinion, the idea of necessity of a robopsychologist in robot manufacturing is great, and it shows that Asimov, writing his stories in 1940s, clearly saw how important could be relation between machines and people. In the book Susan Calvin is trying to analyze behavior and thoughts of robots that designed and created by men, but, at the same time, outperforming their creators in almost every task and role. Very important part of her analyses are The Three Laws of Robotics: 1.A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. 2.A robot must obey orders given to him by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.[/QUOTE]That's a basic summary of the I, Robot book. I've bolded some very interesting ideas and phrases. From what I've read about the film, they seem to be adhering to the majority of what Asimov was doing in the novel. Obviously, some creative liberties will be taken, but that is to be expected with any cinema today, of any genre. I took a look at the director's filmography. Alex Proyas. Directed Dark City, The Crow, both of which are very well-handled dark films with sci-fi and/or mythic qualities. Really, that is what I, Robot is: a science fiction work dealing with very particular themes regarding the psyche and emotional make-up of individuals, robot or human. The screenwriter leaves a bit to be desired, Akiva Goldsman (of Batman and Robin and Batman Forever infamy), so I'm a bit leery of that. However, Proyas has had a hand in screenwriting. He is responsible for the story and screenplay to Dark City, so there is a chance he may have input into I, Robot. I don't think we should expect an entire "generic robots-vs-humans sci-fi movie." That's not what Proyas is known for, and judging from the trailer, it's not all action. Also, the CG looks to be very well-done, and I'm very interested in what I, Robot will turn out to be. It looks to be a film with the sci-fi shell, but as we all are aware, the outer shell of a film is often only a shell, and the nut is what we're looking for. I'm looking forward to I, Robot. The novel is very interesting, the ideas, philosophies, and ideologies are thought-provoking, and it looks to be a very entertaining film. The best kind of cinema is cinema that...what was it that my professor said...the purpose of writing is to entertain, entrance, and to teach, in that order. Many people are turned off by the entertainment aspect of a film, and thus are not willing to give the entrancement an opportunity, and thus the messages of the film (the teaching) are lost. First impressions are everything in certain situations, not film. You can replay film, you can't replay life. EDIT: Also, one cannot help but notice I, Robot's influence on The Matrix Trilogy and Animatrix.