Brasil

I echo Lady A's sentiments here. Wonderful poem. The language is precise but lustrous at the same time. There is a very excellent flair to it, and the tone is remarkable. As Lady A pointed out, there is a melancholy to this piece, but the melancholy never feels blase, forced, or overdone. It's a very nice balance. Right now, I don't have any editing suggestions, but if I do, I'll edit them into my post here. But still, very nice work. Nice job.

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Nope, don't care one bit either. I don't care if you're the geekiest person in the world, that doesn't mean you can go around telling me what sci-fi movie sucked or didn't suck. I honestly don't care what you've wrote about. You can write about whatever all you want, that doesn't mean you understand it anymore than I do. It just means you have too much time on your hands to write about it. Do you want a cookie for all the crap you've written about, if so I'll be glad to mail you one.[/quote] TN, you're not even worth my time, then, if you insist on displaying that attitude. If you reply to me and criticize me, then I reply with a sound and logical basis and reasons to defend myself, to which you reply with "I don't care about what you think," then you obviously lack some very important social skills. TN, the world does not revolve around you, nor does it revolve around me. At least I have the common courtesy to explain myself with a detailed analysis and to debate with a point-by-point rebuttal, as to be as thorough as possible. You, on the other hand, refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion of anything, and outright ignore and disregard what others say. "I don't care what you think." TN, step off. You're nothing special. [QUOTE]No your dislike of Event Horizon is purely based on the fact you spent your time finding all the negatives in the movie and never focused on what was good. And I never said I figured out any plot, I said I enjoyed the plot. I don't need to figure something out to enjoy it. I'm sorry, i tried to be nice inmy responce to you, something that normally wouldn't happen, but you didn't appreciate that either. And with the rude comment you posted after all that, I can't help but see that you're obviously stuck up on your opinion and aren't any interested in hearing mine, so I won't give you the pleasure of it anymore concerning Event Horizon. On that note I'd like to point out it is a movie... get over it. I don't care if you think it's crap, but you don't need to chastize someone else cause they like movies you don't. Thats being unprofessional and makes your opinion look more and more unimportant everytime you do so.[/QUOTE] I have a feeling that you are all talk. TN, I'm offering you the chance to prove me wrong in a most major way here. I'm giving you an opportunity to assert your superiority in this situation. If you indeed know more than I do, prove it. Put your money where your mouth is and let's see what you can do. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air here and have no basis for argument. So, go for it, TN. Go for my jugular vein. Let's see if you've got what it takes to analyze Event Horizon, debunk my points, and prove me wrong. [QUOTE]Thanks very much, bye.[/QUOTE] You actually missed the reason why I used that. It's a professor's catchphrase here at Rutgers. You thought I was being condescending. Nope. It's a nice way to close out a subject. [quote]Perhas if you stopped dwelling in the philosophical meanings of sci-fi films you'd be able to understand the art of acting. Just because one actor is good in one movie, doesn't mean he can't possibly suck in any other movie. Watch Spider-Man again, all the acting was below par. Watch the preview to Spider-Man 2... that whole scene in the restaurant is horrible. "Do you love me Peter?"... ".....no....".... ugh.... how unbelievably crappy can you get!?. I've not seen worse acting in a long time. I'm not saying Willam Dafoe or Toby Maguire aren't good in other movies, he just was absolutely horrible in Spider-Man. So was the majority of the cast. They focused more on plot than they did on acting. It didn't raise all that money because it had good acting, it raised all that money cause it had a good plot.[/QUOTE] You're judging an actor on a 2-minute preview? TN, what performances do you like? You had mentioned X2? Let's compare Spiderman to X2, then. Let's talk performances. X2: Halle Berry. I certainly don't recall any amazing performance from her. In fact, she didn't even perform. She essentially just walked through her lines. She demonstrated no emotion nor skill with the material. Hugh Jackman. He was bordering on campy. It's almost as if he was stuck in the 70s. I swear, I was sitting there thinking, "Hyde?" But what differentiated between Hyde and Jackman was that Hyde did the rough guy well, while Jackman looks uncomfortable in the role. Alan Cumming. Now, Alan Cumming is one of my favorite actors, and I expected him to wow me. He didn't. He was not utilized correctly, and his talent and charisma got buried under the make-up. I understand that Nightcrawler is a mutant with scaly, blue skin, but for the majority of the film, Nightcrawler was entirely shadowed. Cumming was lost under there, and his performance suffered from it. Patrick Stewart. His character didn't change at all. It was very static. His brow was furrowed the entire film, his inflection stayed the same throughout. Perhaps it's just how he acts, but I really couldn't tell the difference between Prof X and Captain Picard. Ian McKellan. He was quite possibly the only performance that was worthwhile. He fit the role. The other actors may have looked the part; McKellan was the part. He looked comfortable playing Magneto, he had the flair, the charm, and he was able to give us glimpses of the psychosis deep down inside of him. Those are the principal players, more or less, and most of them gave a mediocre, flat performance. There was no excitement when most of these people were on-screen. Spiderman: Tobey Maguire. Similar to Ian McKellan, he fit the part. Not only did he look like Peter Parker, he was Peter Parker. Maguire is one actor that can play the geekboy and make it work. I think Anthony Michael Hall is the only other actor I've seen that can pull that off. What do you think you would have been feeling if you were in Parker's situation? What would you have done? How would you have acted? I'm willing to bet that the majority of the population would react precisely how Maguire handled the role. School would be a new and exciting experience, especially when one is able to do obliterate a bully. TN, you've run into your fair share of bullies in your life, true? If you had leveled--dominated a giant like that, who had been tormenting you for years, you wouldn't have that thrill and exhiliration? Your face wouldn't be electric? Peter Parker is the underdog, and Maguire handled that quite well. Willem Dafoe. Dafoe and odd characters go hand-in-hand. He's extremely comfortable when he gets to play some outrageous lunatic. His career, like Steve Buscemi's, has been predominantly bizarre characters and situations. Dafoe has an excellent comedic timing, too, and the Green Goblin is that character: nutty, maniacal, with a wickedly evil sense of humor. When I heard that Dafoe was playing the Goblin, I was very pleased. And his Green Goblin, while campy, was exciting. Dafoe has a definite flair when he speaks. He has a very strong screen presence, and that strength and command certainly comes through. His interpretation of Norman Osborne may have been questionable, but his Goblin interpretation was insanely good. Considering, also, that he can smile and look like the Goblin, lol, he fit the role. They didn't even need the bulky helmet, just some minor prosthetics and make-up. Regarding Kirsten Dunst, however, she was boring. Her MaryJane was just there as a sidekick, almost, similar to Sloane Peterson in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Just a question for you, could it be possible that you hate the performances in Spiderman because Spiderman features a predominantly teenage cast, while X2 is predominantly adults? You do have a thing against the majority of teenage movies. Just a thought.

[color=blue]The co-op in Everything or Nothing is spectacular. It could have been released as a stand-alone title. It was [i]that good[/i]. Length would have been an issue, of course, but it was breathtaking. The stressing on actual cooperative gameplay was astounding. EoN's co-op made you work together. Getting separated from the other player meant death if you didn't have mad EoN skills. The levels are really well-designed, as well. They are co-op levels, as opposed to TS2, which is just singleplayer starring two players (that's not a bad thing, though).[/color] [color=blue]But make no mistake, EoN will punish you for screwing up. It's very unforgiving. Enemies do major damage, and you will get shredded if you run through the levels haphazardly. For those raised on EA's Baby Bonds of the past, they're in for an awakening. Those that have stayed hardcore, however, EoN is their next Bond game, co-op or just singleplayer.[/color] [color=blue]I don't think we can fault TS2 on a weak singleplayer. The series has always been about multiplayer, and TS2 is excellent for multi. Considering also, the vast improvements to singleplayer and co-op we got from TS1 to TS2, I think co-op is more than bearable.[/color] [color=blue]Really, the major FPS I'm looking forward to is Doom 3. The game sounds amazing. The multi is being built on Xbox Live 2.0 or 3.0, it's going to feature offline co-op and split-screen 4-player, I think. They're really revolutionizing the series with Doom 3. I'm just hoping it doesn't turn out to be mediocre. It looks to be a sure hit, though.[/color]

[color=green][font=Courier New][size=2]Chop. Chop. Chop. The hollow sound of a knife slicing through cucumber was all that Mary was able to hear. The television was kept nearly silent. Mary found the woman on the television to be rather irritating. Her voice was scratchy and grating; Mary?s aged ears could not endure the screechy racket. After all, this was the time of day that Mary sat in her chair and knitted, as she did every day. She was getting older and had adjusted comfortably to her quiet afternoons. Bothersome television clamor was a nuisance that she did not care to have.[/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]Her meal was sitting on a white TV tray to her right. She hadn?t been able to finish her sandwich and there was a tiny bit of tea left in her cup. The tea was surely cold by now. It had been sitting there for five or ten minutes. Mary didn?t drink much tea anymore. She had lost her appetite lately, too. She was just getting tired, she assumed.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]She was knitting a blue and green sweater with black trim. She had been knitting it for the past few weeks, getting more of it completed each day. It was supposed to be for her grandson, David, but she had not seen him in years. He was probably all grown up now, with his own life to live and didn?t have time to visit his grandmom, she thought. This made her rather sad and she stopped knitting. She felt a lump forming in her throat and a tear began to roll down her wrinkled cheek. Mary sniffled, holding back the rest of those tears.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]The chopping in the kitchen stopped. Mary quickly dried her cheek before Sarah walked in.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]?Mary,? she said, ?are you okay??[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]?I?m fine, just?had a little tickle in my throat,? Mary replied.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]?Would you like something to drink??[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]?Oh, no. I wouldn?t want to be a bother. You go ahead and finish cooking dinner.?[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]?Are you sure??[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]?Yes, I?m sure. You go on,? Mary assured her.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]Sarah went back into the kitchen. Chop. Chop. Chop. Mary went back to her sweater. It was almost done, just a few more days left. She resumed looping the thread and running it through the fabric.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]A strange sound compelled Mary to look up from her sweater. ?That didn?t sound like chopping,? she said, ?that sound came from the hall. What?s going on out there??[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]The sounds were getting closer and closer to the apartment door. Mary thought she heard someone fall. Was there another fight going on outside? If there was, it must have been over something awfully important. Mary wished the noises would go away and then the door slammed open, crashing into the wall. A man stumbled in, panting and breathless. He looked like he was running from the Devil himself. Thunderclaps echoed in the hall. Bullets pierced the door, sending splinters of wood flying everywhere. Another thunderclap. The man ducked and Sarah?s hat flew off the coat rack. He got to his feet and ran into the kitchen. Mary heard the back door open.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=green]A figure ran by the entryway, but it wasn?t Sarah.[/color][/size][/font][/color]

[color=black][quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'] By hype I meant, why did everyone think the cinamatography was so great. Give me Alfred Hitcock films any day. Maybe it's just that classic horror appeals to me more than some girl panting into a camera.[/quote][/color] Funny you should mention Hitchcock, actually. One of his favorite shots was the close-up. His preoccupation with claustrophobic camera angles is prominent in the majority of his work. From The Lodger up until Vertigo, there are close-ups everywhere, and often they're close-ups in the manner of Blair Witch's. Also, Hitchcock loved restrictive environments. Take a look at Blair Witch's tent scenes with that in mind. They pay homage to Hitchcock. [color=black] [/color] [color=black][QUOTE][color=black]Big deal that your friends slept with the lights on, maybe they just have hyper active imaginations, or maybe they sat up higher in the movie theater. Either way, no two people think the same. Maybe I just fear different things than the boogy man and stick figures hanging from trees.[/color][/QUOTE] [/color] [color=black][/color] My friends don't scare easily. They don't have hyperactive imaginations, either. They're very low-key people, very reserved, very composed individuals. It takes a lot to get them scared. It takes a lot to get me scared, and I was very spooked by Blair Witch. And the fact that you sit there and minimize what Blair Witch stood for, by reducing the horror to "boogy man and stick figures hanging from trees" proves that you do not want to give this film a chance. CHW, you're looking at it from a purely superficial level. [color=black] [/color] [color=black][QUOTE][color=black]As for not allowing myself to open up, how the hell do you know what I was thinking?[/color][/QUOTE] [/color][color=black]You know what, I could be very mean right now. I could. Just know this. In your initial post, you said that you were[/color] [color=black][/color] [color=black][color=#9400d3][QUOTE][color=black][color=#9400d3]out voted by two of my friends who [i]wanted[/i] to see Blair Witch. [/color]:rolleyes:[/color][/QUOTE] [/color][/color] [color=black][/color] You weren't going to let yourself be open to the experience in the first place. You went in there with a closed mind. You treated it like you were forced to go. You didn't want to go. How can you be surprised that you dislike a movie when you go into it with that kind of attitude? [color=black][QUOTE][color=black]Do you know me, were you in the same theater as me? Don't fault my opinions because of some closed mindedness of your own.[/color][/QUOTE] [/color] Are you sure that you know yourself? CHW, I'd be glad to see you prove that I'm being close-minded here. I went into Blair Witch with an open mind, ready for whatever I was going to experience. You went in there thinking the movie was crap, and you hadn't even seen it before that. Now you get on here and just outright bash the movie, refusing to entertain the ideas that the film was utilizing. When I explain it to you, you get pissy. Who is close-minded here? [color=black][QUOTE][color=black]I suggest you learn what an opinion is and then come back and discuss such things in a civilized manner.[/color][/QUOTE] [/color] [color=black][/color] No, CHW. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's something entirely different to have an uneducated opinion. When you understand the films that you are so blatantly, blindly criticizing, then I'll give you some breathing room. Until that time comes, however, expect no quarter from me. And you know what? I know that you're just going to ignore what I've said here and continue on with a ranty, rambly, unfocused, and damn near incoherent reply about something that doesn't even touch upon the ideas and philosophies of the films that I've explained, so you can do whatever you want. You obviously don't take informed insight seriously, so why should I bother?

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Event Horizon, as someone said above, is either the worst thing you've seen, or one of the best sci-fi films. I thought it was a good film. I don't think it's the worst thing ever. I found the plot to be in depth, confusing, and for the type of person that was interested in figuring things out in a movie. The movie's target genre is an intelligent sci-fi nerd who would take the time to try to figure it out, you're obviously not that genre if you didn't like it. Certain movies are made for certain people, like I said about those ridiculous movies like Bring it On.... they are targeted at stoned, dumb high school kids and only stoned, dumb high school kids would even remotely enjoy those kinds of movies. And only a person who appreciates sci-fi fims mixed with a little mystery and horror would appreciate Event Horizon. I appreciated it because I took the time to sit and watch it and enjoy the true plot of the story that apparently you never took the time to figure out. Probably cause you were too busy pointing out how corny this and that was...[/quote] Tell me, TN, do you read my MyO at all? I am quite possibly one of the geekiest sci-fi fans around. I've had numerous updates focused solely on exploring the philosophical and religious aspects of 2001: Space Odyssey. I've analyzed the Terminator Trilogy until people were bored of it. I've gone into the Star Wars Original Trilogy and pulled out an interpretation that rocked the very fabric of belief of the Star Wars geeks here on OB. John Carpenter's The Thing hasn't escaped my eye. It's a character study/Cold War paranoia disguised in a sci-fi/horror skin. I've gone into the "Motherly figure as savior and slayer" in the Alien series, especially the original. Ridley Scott's Alien is teeming with sexuality and female imagery, and the original design of the egg resembled that of a part of the female anatomy. They were required to alter it to what we see in the film. Even still, it looks similar. The Alien creature itself is certainly a female figure in its form. Alien is a very delicious movie. I've discussed finer points of The Matrix with James. Even though I may dislike the series, I'm still more than willing to talk about the intricacies of the plot and thematic elements. My dislike of Event Horizon is not based on some misunderstanding of sci-fi, or lack of intelligence on my part. I watch Event Horizon and find an inferior, heavy-handed religious indoctrination. You mention how you have the plot figured out, so do enlighten me then, please. If you'd be so kind, also explore the themes presented in the movie. Thanks very much, bye. [quote]I'd like to say also that most of the recent movies based on comic book heros are really bad. Spider Man, The Hulk, Daredevil, Hellboy were all absolutely horrid. [b]The Spider Man plot was ok but the complete lack of acting ability in the movie ruined it[/b]..... X-Men and X2 were the only decent ones based off a comic.[/QUOTE] I suppose, then, that Willem Dafoe can't act? Platoon? Last Temptation of Christ? Born on the Fourth of July? Shadow of the Vampire? Finding Nemo, even? I've never seen Tobey Maguire give a lousy performance. He was excellent in Pleasantville. He plays the geekboy extremely well. He did quite well in WonderBoys, as well. I really can't see what you have against them. Speaking of worst movies I've ever seen, anyone remember The Wizard, starring Fred Savage? It came out in the late 80s, I believe. 1989. It's basically devoid of any plot, characterization, logic...you name it, The Wizard doesn't have it. What it does have going for it is being a 1.5 hour Nintendo advertisement. I used to love this movie when I was younger. I recently watched it again. Boy, it was [i]painful[/i]. I mean, I was cringing through most of it. The acting was dreadful, totally melodramatic. TN, you want to see really bad "teen" performances, check out The Wizard. It'll make the acting on Dawson's Creek look like Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate. But the scariest thing about The Wizard, is that I didn't hate the movie. Sure, it was unbelievably bad, and I should hate it with every shred of my soul and being, but I enjoyed the corniness. I think that like Evil Dead, The Wizard is so bad that it's good. Plus, we get to see classic NES games played on an Arcade machine. That's a major mistake, right? Metroid being played in an arcade. :shifty:

I've been interested in having a better Comment feature, actually. The system that is in place now is bulky when we want to quote, change font color, etc. MyO has sort of become a second OB. People have discussions through comments and everything, so how difficult would it be to incorporate the OB7 Reply Field additions into MyO V2? I would love to see the WYSIWYG editor in there. It'd be very sweet.

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']You should take your own advice. Come back when you actually understand the movies you don't like.[/quote] Care to enlighten me then? It's one thing to just tell somebody they missed the point, but it's something good when you show them what they missed. TN, be my guest. Show me what I misunderstood about Event Horizon. About Jackass, while it is extremely vulgar, crude, lewd, crass, bold, disgusting, nasty, revolting and disturbing, it's a guilty pleasure for me. I mean, I know I shouldn't find funny 99% of what they're doing, but the Mousetrap sequence just had me in tears. The sheer ridiculousness of it was--as painful as it is for me to say it--refreshing. I mean, even though I'm disgusted by what these morons do as they find new and exciting ways to injure themselves, I admire their dedication to it. True, their dedication may not be rational thought, and perhaps be caused by some radical new brain damage inherent in males aged 18 through 25, but any man who is willing to strip down to his skivvies, strap on a pair of mouse ears, and crawl on his hands and knees across a floor of mousetraps gets props from me. Yes, it's idiotic, but better they than me. The way I look at Jackass The Movie is this: There are much more dangerous ways to waste braincells. Jackass is a good substitute for taking heroin. Lay off the smack, unless that smack is coming from a naked midget. Then it's okay, I think...

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Well, what you say does sound convincing, and it would be to someone who didn't know otherwise. But you are wrong. People of Jewish heritage had "Jewish" written in their passport under nationality. It really did have nothing to do with religion. I'm a direct source here, so trust me on this. I am positive that I am right here. There was no such thing as guilt by association. Russian people who fraternized with Jewish people were not "guilty by association." In the USSR (and in many other nations, in fact), anti-Semitism was not borne out of religious intolerance, much as you'd like to believe it was. In fact, the USSR was an atheist country (de facto and de jure), and saying anti-Semitism was religious intolerance there would suggest that there was intolerance towards other religions, at least to a degree. But there was none. People knew my mother is Jewish based on her last name, Zaytsev, not whether she was religious or not. Nobody really assumed anybody was religious in Russia at the time, because pretty much nobody was. Don't try to challenge me on the above, I don't want to waste my time quoting people just to convince you. Just trust me on it.[/quote] First things first, learn to paragraph. Secondly, I'd be inclined to respect you for debunking my points. I applaud those that prove me wrong. Really, I do. But your tone is less than satisfactory. But before I mention the negatives, I should discuss the positives. Your ideas are solid. You have effectively proved me wrong here. Previously, you were merely dealing in abstractions and not with concrete examples. Here, however, you mention the passports, which is a physical example and can be substantiated--researched, as well. Nice point. Your point about the definition of Anti-Semitism is shaky, though, because it is still based largely on abstraction. Perhaps if you provided the precise definition of Anti-Semitism, your point would be more well-received. The portion of the religious nature of the USSR is concrete, because I can search for it in my college's library. It is a point that can be substantiated. Also, you mention your mother's last name, which also can be researched. This is another example of concrete support, and it strengthens your argument. I stand corrected. Now, while your support is solid, the tone and language need work. Sciros, I understand you're a comp-sci major, but I think you should look into taking a few high-level English courses. It's nothing too major, but your form needs work. If you refine it, you will have a very sharp wit [i]and[/i] a very precise method of presentation. [QUOTE]Hahaha ok that explains why I wasn't getting through to you ;-). English majors...[/QUOTE]On the contrary. English Majors are some of the most open Majors around. Considering that the field we are working in is essentially undefined, we keep an open mind more or less. We disregard what someone is trying to say when they are unable to express it adequately. You can't expect my classmates to take a Freshman paper seriously when the language is childish, even though the core ideas are solid. I've reviewed my Freshman college papers and even though my thesis is tight, the language and tone is laughable, turning the paper into a comedy, rather than a serious piece. [QUOTE]Anyway you try to break stuff down too much. In fact you might even quote the above sentence and then put a "this is irrelevant" underneath (as you have done before), inadvertently making the same mistake you thought I did. Try to avoid it in the future; it makes you seem really stupid.[/QUOTE]Shall we take a look at what I said was irrelevant? Let's do so. [QUOTE]I'm devoted to Batman.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Anyway, IceWolfEyes don't nitpick my posts like that usually it's not even worth the time.[/QUOTE]The "Batman" line was irrelevant. It did not support your thesis at all. You should have cut it. I'm not about to ignore that. It's not what I do. The line regarding IceWolfEyes was a sloppy transition, and unneeded. It did not even require its own paragraph, and as a standalone line, was inconsequential to the topic at hand. In fact, even adding it to the next paragraph wouldn't have strengthened it. It was a weak incidental note. [QUOTE]Ok back on track,[/QUOTE]Technically, you're drifting further off-topic. [quote]you assume that much of what I said betrayed insecurity on my part, but really I was just trying to avoid your worthless nitpicking. Instead I got a bizarro lecture. At the same time, because you were for some reason focused on my "insecurity" (were you really serious about that because really, come on...) you completely failed to acknowledge or challenge a lot of what I said. You have some very unfounded misconceptions of the USSR and what it meant to be Jewish there. But don't challenge my statements based on those assumptions, because you end up thinking you're that much smarter than me when from my "corner" quite the opposite becomes apparent. Oh yeah, just in case, don't think that I'm being defensive here or anything. I am just trying to get you to stop thinking of me as some poor "Jew in denial" and actually realize what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]Where is anything about The Passion here? I brought us back to the focus of this thread, that being The Passion. Sciros, your reply here is ignoring the majority of what I said in my post. In fact, you're hyperfocusing on one point. How can you expect to be taken seriously? Try building a research paper around one point of support. You won't get past two pages in a best-case scenario. You know what, I'd fail you if I were your teacher. Your attitude is self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and you're unwilling to engage in any reasonable and intelligent discussion after I've brought us back from a tanget, and even worked the tanget back into the topic at hand. Also, using relativity as a point of support is not advised. That won't get you a passing grade. Now, I'll copy and paste what I said about The Passion, in the hopes that you'll be able to focus yourself and contribute something worthwhile in your next post here. Sciros, you are part of the audience most at risk from The Passion. That's not because of real or imagined Anti-Semitism in the piece, either. You are unsure of yourself when met with criticism and doubt. You get extremely defensive when someone doubts what you're saying, when someone contradicts your beliefs. I contradicted you right here and you became rather upset. You were influenced by what I was saying. I'm not implying that I changed your views. I'm saying that I was able to elicit a reaction from you--quite a negative reaction, I might add. This is important in understanding just what The Passion is going to do to people. Because the majority of the population is unsure of their own selves, or at least not secure, or even easily unsettled, The Passion is going to shake the very foundation on which those people are based. This is positive and negative. I am one of the loudest advocates of challenging people to think, and I cannot express my joy in words when I see someone's eyes light-up as they understand what an instructor is saying. That is the positive value of The Passion, that some [i]may[/i] be inspired by it and their lives may be changed for the better. However, with the positive, there is a negative. The downside to this being, so much of the world is a cattle culture, which is easily swayed. South Park's most recent episode, while wholly offensive, hits this right on the head. People are liable to take things to an extreme when met with a "life-changing" event. Damn, I hate that term...people are liable to take things to an extreme after experiencing "the swift spiritual kick to the head that alters their perception of reality forever." Much better. This liability stems from those misunderstanding what something really means. So much of our moviegoing populace opinion is based on this misunderstanding, and that is why we need to be critical of The Passion, not because of some Anti-Semitic overtones that may or may not be there. We must educate people of what The Passion concentrated on, which was Aestheticism, the desire to elicit an emotional reaction based upon images and not moral messages. As much as I respect the Aesthetes, they didn't have a solid theory about how to reach out and touch people, as it were.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Seeing as my mother considers herself ethnically Jewish and so I am half-Jewish (and yes, as far as Orthodox Jews and also the USSR (was) is concerned I am simply Jewish) I fail to see how your quote would really apply to me. [b]Am I wrong to be non-religious and still ethnically consider myself partly Jewish?[/b'] If you think so, fine. But that's not how anyone else I know feels about it.[/quote] "Still ethnically consider myself partly Jewish" Keep this phrase in mind. I'll touch upon it later on. [QUOTE][b]Maybe I haven't been too clear, so I'll say it this way[/b]: ethnically speaking, I am half-Jewish. My father is Russian. [b]I can think of myself as Russian, Jewish, American, whatever.[/b] I'm perfectly fine either way. Orthodox Jews would say I'm Jewish. To those who hate Jews, I am Jewish. ... Does my religion matter? [b]Well regardless of whether it was Judaism, Russian Orthodox, or nothing at all,[/b] I'm still half-Jewish, my Soviet passport (if I'd had one) would have said Jewish, Orthodox Jews still consider me Jewish, etc.[/QUOTE] Would they? Orthodox Jews would consider you Jewish even though you don't practice? They consider you Jewish even when you say you're an Atheist? How do the Jew-haters (for lack of a better term) know you're Jewish? If you don't present yourself as Jewish at all, more or less just keeping it in the back of your head, how are you able to say that others know you are Jewish? You more or less hide the fact that you have Jewish roots. Unless you tell people, broadcast it, or something to that effect, others will have no idea. Unless, however...well, read my next point. [QUOTE]If you say that Jewish ethnicity is not separate from the Jewish faith, then answer this: my family is of no religious faith at all, yet we left the USSR because of anti-Semitism. How so?[/QUOTE] You've just answered your own question. You may not realize it, however. What kind of company did you keep in the USSR? Who did you associate with? You mentioned how you knew many Jewish families, correct? Meaning, surely you associated with them? They were practicing Jews, correct? Perhaps not extremely active practice, but they practiced to an extent. Your family did leave because of fear of Anti-Semitism. What you may not realize is, that Anti-Semitism would have been directed at your family out of guilty by association. Think about it. Your family was not broadcasting Judaism, but surely you still associated with those who did display traits of the religion. The root of Anti-Semitism is based on religion. No matter how you look at it, no matter what facet you concentrate on, it's based on religious intolerance. [QUOTE]Ok you got me there. But the persecution and suppression was hardly religious in this century. It was not Judaism that the nazis were trying to exterminate; it was Jews. That's why in the end persecution is far more consistent when considering Jews as an ethnic group and not just a religious one.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about Nazis. I'm also not talking about the past 20 years, either. I'm talking about turn-of-the-century and back. Turn-of-the-century and earlier, it was religious persecution. It's merely evolved into a different animal, as it were. [QUOTE]Oh please, you're going to explain to me how the Jews in the USSR were practicing Jews based on Fiddler on the Roof? And you're giving [i]me[/i] crap? My family and by far the vast majority of the Jewish families we knew in Russia were NOT practicing Jews. And even if some of them celebrated Passover (mind you not too seriously) none went to temple or anything. [b]Please believe me when I say[/b] that very few of the Jews in the USSR were truly religious.[/QUOTE] See above points. [QUOTE]I'm not going to address the other random stuff you threw in there [b]because I think it was just to annoy me again.[/b] (Are you going to tell me to get a helmet this time too?)[/QUOTE] If I'm so wrong, I'd actually encourage you to debunk everything that I'm saying. In order to have a healthy debate, you need to be thorough. I've been trying to impress that upon you, and actually, it has had effect already. Your reply here is almost precisely what I wanted. You still have some more work to do, however. And yes, get a helmet. :D [QUOTE]That's actually funny. [b]Hey look, I was just trying to explain the same thing I wrote above (in this post[/b]). That's why I added that I was atheist. To show that I can consider myself Jewish and atheist at the same time, which would mean that as far as I'm concerned ethnicity and religion are two different things. That's all. If you're going to critique HOW I said it, just save yourself the trouble and don't.[/QUOTE] "If you're going to critique HOW I said it, just save yourself the trouble and don't." Welcome to debating with an English Major. I break writing down. It's what I do. You could have said it much better. This is an example of not being able to clearly type what you're thinking. It's something you need to work on. [QUOTE]I know... .:sniffle:... I know ...:teary eyes:... thank you so much for believing in me Petey you're a great guy.[/QUOTE] My pleasure. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt wherever possible. [quote][b]Hey look I think I'm making the wrong impression here because you keep misinterpreting what I'm trying to say[/b] (blame whoever you want, but I blame you of course.) Anyway I think I'll IM you sometime so we can put an end to this back-and-forth thing because you're getting way too aggressive here.[/QUOTE] Feel free to IM me. Now, we've gone off-topic for a while now, so Teacher Alex is going to come in and bring all of this back on-topic. Let's look at what I've bolded, shall we? [b]Am I wrong to be non-religious and still ethnically consider myself partly Jewish?[/b] [b]Maybe I haven't been too clear, so I'll say it this way[/b] [b]I can think of myself as Russian, Jewish, American, whatever.[/b] [b]Well regardless of whether it was Judaism, Russian Orthodox, or nothing at all[/b] [b]Please believe me when I say[/b] [b]Hey look, I was just trying to explain the same thing I wrote above (in this post[/b]) Let's examine what these phrases mean. Let's look at the underlying meanings in them. All of these abstracts have one key thing in common. They're all unsure of themselves. The language used, the tone, all points to insecurity about what is being said. While you feel very strongly about this, this discussion has been very unsettling for you. I can tell. Don't worry about it. We all get uneasy about certain things. Sciros, you are part of the audience most at risk from The Passion. That's not because of real or imagined Anti-Semitism in the piece, either. You are unsure of yourself when met with criticism and doubt. You get extremely defensive when someone doubts what you're saying, when someone contradicts your beliefs. I contradicted you right here and you became rather upset. You were influenced by what I was saying. I'm not implying that I changed your views. I'm saying that I was able to elicit a reaction from you--quite a negative reaction, I might add. This is important in understanding just what The Passion is going to do to people. Because the majority of the population is unsure of their own selves, or at least not secure, or even easily unsettled, The Passion is going to shake the very foundation on which those people are based. This is positive and negative. I am one of the loudest advocates of challenging people to think, and I cannot express my joy in words when I see someone's eyes light-up as they understand what an instructor is saying. That is the positive value of The Passion, that some [i]may[/i] be inspired by it and their lives may be changed for the better. However, with the positive, there is a negative. The downside to this being, so much of the world is a cattle culture, which is easily swayed. South Park's most recent episode, while wholly offensive, hits this right on the head. People are liable to take things to an extreme when met with a "life-changing" event. Damn, I hate that term...people are liable to take things to an extreme after experiencing "the swift spiritual kick to the head that alters their perception of reality forever." Much better. This liability stems from those misunderstanding what something really means. So much of our moviegoing populace opinion is based on this misunderstanding, and that is why we need to be critical of The Passion, not because of some Anti-Semitic overtones that may or may not be there. We must educate people of what The Passion concentrated on, which was Aestheticism, the desire to elicit an emotional reaction based upon images and not moral messages. As much as I respect the Aesthetes, they didn't have a solid theory about how to reach out and touch people, as it were. You can reply if you want. ~Alex

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Hey Petey how about instead of criticizing other people's choices you submit some of your own. Don't bore us to tears explaining how you love Adaptation and Blair Witch and then leave it at that.[/quote]Hey Sciros how about instead of taking issue with my detailed explanation of two complicated films you just shut your mouth and know your role. :p Okay, you want my all-time, bottom three movies? Event Horizon. I can't begin to describe how atrocious this movie was. It had a brilliant premise. The opening 20 or 30 minutes were excellent. Then they began to beat us over the head with this religious spin and the movie just fell apart. It was an exceptional set-up for a sci-fi film: research vessel disappeared in space without a trace left at all. Then after many years, it reappears. Damn it...too much rhyming. I'm fine with religion in cinema, even in sci-fi. But what Event Horizon did was crossing the line. [spoiler]Sam Neill speaking Latin at the end, his eyes gouged out, becoming the Satan figure[/spoiler]...just corny, and not the good corny, either. Within the first 45 minutes, the movie just fell into the common sci-fi horror cliches. Dreadful film. Any message of coping with fear and understanding emotion was buried under a pretentious high drama. The characters' backstories were pure camp. I didn't feel for any of them. [spoiler]The dead son sitting under the sheet on the medical table...c'mon. Cliche.[/spoiler] My other two worst of all-time are actually two John Cusack vehicles. I'm very surprised at it, actually. Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil, and The Grifters. Midnight seemed like it was trying desperately to incorporate William Faulkner-ish characterization and location, while keeping homosexual overtones similar to Walt Whitman. It felt very scattered and unfocused. Kevin Spacey was not utilized properly, nor was Cusack. I really think they were doing all that they could with the material. Unfortunately, no matter how gifted an actor is, bad material is bad material. The Grifters is a movie that you either love or hate. The characters are very one-dimensional; they had no worthwhile backstory or purpose for doing what they were doing. They were con men, sure, but nowhere does it say that con men can't have personality. The Grifters was very flat, despite Cusack, Bening, and Angelica Huston. Again, I think it was an example of lousy material. The Gifters and Midnight are the only two films starring Cusack that I despise. Cusack has a wonderful comedic timing and a very refreshing self-depricating humor. It's a shame that his broadening his horizons didn't give him the boost.

[size=2][QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman]Well, in your opinion at least since everyone has ideas of what's good and what should be burned in some kind of ceromony. Make sure to give reasons don't just say, it sucked. Why did it suck?[/size] [size=2]Choice one: Blair Witch Project:[/size] [size=2]I don't understand all the hype with this movie. So many peopel thought it was so scary. The only thing that scared me was the fact that I paid money to see the movie and was out voted by two of my friends who wanted to see Blair Witch. Watching it gave me motion sickness. My friends both thought it was bad as well. It was so bad that after the movie we drove over to where Amanda's (one of the two I went with) brother worked and called him out for telling us it was good. Then they got a big I told you so from me, I am so not modest.[/quote][/size] [size=2]You didn't understand the hype? You didn't understand the purpose of the film. Blair Witch was not the Freddy Krueger or Child's Play of horror films. It never intended to be anything like that. Those people who said it was so scary did not mean "jump out at you" scary. Friends of mine slept with the lights on or didn?t sleep at all after seeing it, because Blair Witch is psychological horror. It attacks our subconscious; it targets those primal human fears of isolation and abandonment. And considering that we never see the killer at all, only shadows and fragments of a physical presence, we cannot disregard Blair Witch simply because there?s no maniac with a chainsaw coming after us. It is focused on the fear of the unknown, a quality of literature and entertainment dating back to The Epic of Gilgamesh. You just didn?t allow yourself to be open to the experience. Don?t write the film off because of a fault of your own.[/size] [size=2][quote]Choice two: The Hours:[/size] [size=2]Sure, it won an award for best something, but I sure didn't vote that way. [b]That was the first movie I ever began to sleep through and actually didn't grasp.[/b] Maybe it was due to the fact that I was tired and thinking of how to eliminate my roommate. Maybe it was because my mind was on something else entirely (hey, it was Valentine's day). But everyone had talked up this movie. And I had waited so long to see it in Killeen. And then Lincoln bought tickets for the showing. And it was such a let down. We walked out, got our money back and saw Dare Devil the next day.[/quote][/size] [size=2]Hmmm?I doubt that. No offence, but based on your lack of comprehension of what Blair Witch accomplished?[/size] [size=2][quote]Choice Three: Adaptation:[/size] [size=2]The only good part of that movie was when the two people were eaten by that crocodile in Florida and I didn't even watch that part. The preveiws made it look interesting. And since it was a NIck Cage movie Lincoln had to see it. I think the plot was a guy writing a book on a lady who grew orchids and it got a bit messy. Thank Goddess we rented that one![/quote][/size] [size=2][i]What?[/i] You?re joking, right? I hope you are, because you did not understand Adaptation at all. You say the only good part was when Susan Orlean and John Laroche get devoured by a crocodile, and you didn?t even watch that part. Okay, I guess I?ll explain the basic gist and themes of the plot.[/size] [size=2]The entire film revolves around the question of a true reality. This is the beauty of Charlie Kaufman?s films. He blurs the line between what we think and what we see. Being John Malkovich illustrates this ideal exactly. You probably have not seen Being John Malkovich. BJM is about a puppeteer, Schwartz, who discovers a portal into John Malkovich?s head. Since Schwartz is a gifted puppeteer, he is able to learn to control Malkovich, and stay in there as long as he likes. BJM explores the idea that man is soulless. The idea it presents is that man is simply a shell, and there is some unseen force influencing his path. This can be interpreted as man unable of shaping himself, and always being affected by outside forces. This is defined further in Adaptation.[/size] [size=2]The beginning of Adaptation begins in the middle of the??100 Malkovich? scene. This already hints at how we define our own reality. Our own realities are shaped by others. This takes on a very literal yet figurative meaning in Adaptation. Charlie Kaufman originally wants to create his own reality, independent of the commercialized Hollywood that his brother, Donald, enjoys. Charlie is so dedicated to being his own person that he is ruining his life in doing so. He is so determined to bring The Orchid Thief to film in a realistic and natural way that he loses touch with what life is all about. He forgets that we can only go so far in shaping ourselves, and eventually, we hit that brick wall. This is what happens in Adaptation. He hits Writer?s Block because he is so hyperfocused on himself. The dialogue in the opening credits should slap you in the face with it. It?s an [i]inner monologue[/i], for crying out loud.[/size] [size=2]When Donald is brought on board to help with the script, we actually jump into the script. The entire last third of Adaptation is the actual adaptation of The Orchid Thief. It?s not a messy transition at all. It doesn?t hold your hand at all, too. It challenges you to think. The crocodile scene didn?t happen in the film?s reality. That scene happened in the adaptation third of Adaptation. In fact, the transition is rather sharp. If you had been paying attention at all, you would have noticed a distinct difference in tone between the middle third and the end third of the film. Up until Donald comes in, we have a ?normal? film, we have a serious film. A film grounded in Adaptation?s reality. However, upon seeing Susan Orlean?s nude pictures on John Laroche?s website, you should have realized that Donald has taken over, that Charlie?s obsession with shaping his own reality is now a mere shadow.[/size] [size=2]Adaptation is a brilliant piece of film. It twists what we perceive and challenges what we think as real. Its message is a sound one: ?We are not in full control of how we shape our reality.? When one is so dedicated to isolating themselves from the world around them, treating the outside world like a monster that will destroy them, that one is destined to fail in their self-righteous crusade. That?s what happens to Charlie in Adaptation. His own self-righteousness destroys him.[/size] [size=2][quote]So there are my three choices. I may come back with more later [/QUOTE][/size] [size=2]I suggest that you come back with three different films that you actually understand.[/size]

I was just checking out some online MIDI musics from various videogames. They had a very wide variety of N64 rips, and being me, I couldn't resist checking out the GoldenEye MIDIs. As I was listening to the Facility theme, I couldn't help but muse over the Immersion Factor of games. Not only FPS, obviously. So, that got me thinking. Well, what is a major factor of Immersion in a game? I started to think about it and decided that sound is the most important factor in successful Immersion. Granted, control, plot, and graphics are significant, but if we have light Jazz where there should be strong rock, we're going to get displaced, right? This then got me thinking about how music and sound can be better utilized in a game. Then it hit me: Diagetic music. In all my years of gaming, I've not once came across a game that featured Diagetic music. Diagetic music is music that is within the subject's environment. An example would be in Pulp Fiction, where Jules and Vincent are listening to the radio. That music is Diagetic. Similarly, in Apocalypse Now, with the dawn raid on Vin Drin Dop and Flight of the Valkyrie blaring out of the helicopter speakers. Non-diagetic music is usually the movie soundtrack, stuff that was added in during post-production. Most James Bond music is non-diagetic. Imagine, though, the cool factor of hearing some heart-pounding, adrenaline-pumping Bond theme blaring, only to walk into the next room and find that someone left a TV on. And for a more enhanced Immersive effect over that, being able to turn the TV off. So, anyone have any feelings about this? Any other techniques you can think of? Techniques that are being utilized today, techniques that aren't? Things you'd like to see that would improve the Immersive aspect of a game?

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']OMFG. Jews are also an ethnic group. Yes there's Judaism, but when I say Jews I mean an ethnic group.[/quote]Chill out, dude. You've contradicted yourself so much in this thread that you can't say anything to redeem whatever you have said before. You've tried to rationalize uneducated claims by claiming that's not what you meant originally. Don't pull that with us. [quote]My mother is Jewish, so I am Jewish. (Though I am an atheist.)[/quote]I'd suggest you check [url="http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/facts%20about%20israel/people/SOCIETY-%20Jewish%20Society"]this page[/url] out. You say you're an Atheist? Why then do you argue with Orthodox Jewish sensibilities? I quote the portion of that page I'd like to call attention to; [QUOTE]The Orthodox sector advocates determining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother, in strict accordance with Jewish law, while secular Jews generally support a definition based on the civil criterion of an individual's identification with Judaism.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]It's independent of religion, in that sense.[/QUOTE]There is no separation between Atheism and Judaism in the way you want to say it here. You've just twisted the situation around to suit your case. The Jewish heritage/ethnicity [i]is not[/i] separate from the Jewish faith. I don't know what you're basing that statement on, but I have a feeling you're ignoring Reform Judaism. It is a sect of Judaism that does not have the emphasis on being kosher, but still celebrates the heritage, ethnicity [i]and[/i] faith of Judaism. If you want to say that Ethnicity and Religion are two separate values, then go ahead. But realize what you're saying is very ill-advised. [QUOTE]In fact, you can be an ethnic Jew and be Catholic, I suppose.[/QUOTE][i]What?[/i] Sciros, just walk away now, dude. [QUOTE]Things like anti-Semitism, for instance, have always been directed at the ethnicity, not the religion.[/QUOTE][i]What?[/i] Do 3,000 years of [i]religious[/i] persecution and suppression mean anything to you? [QUOTE]Jews in the USSR weren't "practicing Jews."[/QUOTE]You're really backed-up into a corner, aren't you? Surely you know of Fiddler On The Roof, correct? I'm certain you'd have seen it sometime or another, with you being Jewish and all. Fiddler wasn't fictional. It was based on true stories and accounts of Sholom Aleichem. The Jews in the USSR [i]were[/i] practicing Jews. They celebrated the Sabbath, they wore the yamulkas. Remember when they entered a house and kissed the edge and top of the door frame? That's a characteristic of a practicing Jew. My ex girlfriend, a very devout Reform Jew, has that in her house. [QUOTE]Anyway, IceWolfEyes don't nitpick my posts like that usually it's not even worth the time.[/QUOTE]That is inconsequential. [QUOTE]Petey did it and it's just annoying,[/QUOTE]Life sucks; get a helmet. [QUOTE]because it seems he's of the impression that I'm trying to "force Jesus to be white,"[/QUOTE]Do you want me to go back into your posts? I'm more than happy to. Stop trying to redefine what you were saying, dude. You're not rationalizing your way out of this one. [QUOTE]although technically Jews and Arabs are all grouped under White/Caucasian when it comes to racial distinctions[/QUOTE]And this information comes from where? "White/Caucasian" is a term developed sometime in the 20th Century, I believe. Very far removed from any relevance to any period around 100 BC. Seriously, man, just walk away. [QUOTE]I don't know why he makes such a big deal about it.[/QUOTE]You haven't really demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of much so far, actually. [QUOTE]Yeah, that's right Jesus was white racially too bad if that upsets you Petey.[/QUOTE]Who's the one getting flustered? Who's the one getting frustrated here? Who's the one who replies in long, rambly, ranty paragraphs? Who is the one throwing a childish tantrum because they're not getting their way? [QUOTE]I wasn't even trying to make a point of that I just meant that he was an ethnic Jew and that was that.[/QUOTE]You have no point with this statement, so I can't even comment on it. [QUOTE]And Petey when you said that I didn't make any points I just had religious rambling I think you forgot to read the rest of the post, because that's where the point was.[/QUOTE]I think it's been established that you haven't said anything worthwhile. Sciros, you're 21 years old. You're a comp sci student studying computer programming. You should be more logical than this. EDIT: A final thought. [QUOTE] OMFG. Jews are also an ethnic group.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]My mother is Jewish, so I am Jewish. (Though I am an atheist.)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In fact, you can be an ethnic Jew and be Catholic, I suppose.[/QUOTE] Why are you ashamed of your Jewishness? Why try to separate yourself from it, to distance yourself from it as far as possible? You know what, I doubt that you're even an Atheist. An Atheist wouldn't have thrown that line in there like that. That line is a cover, a deflection, if you will. I realize that Orthodox Judaism is the most stressful sect of Judaism, but you don't have to behave like this. You don't have to buy into the stereotypes, either. I have a Jewish heritage and faith in my dad's side of the family. I'm not an Atheist, either. To quote Ferris Bueller, who quotes John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me." I could very easily convert to the Jewish faith and completely avoid the negative stereotype, even though I can do a damn near perfect Woody Allen imitation. Sciros, it's okay.

Normally, I don't listen to any hip hop, rap, or anything like that. But recently, I was channel surfing and came across a video from Usher featuring Lil Jon and Ludacris. I must say, I was very impressed with the execution of the video. It seemed to harken back to when Michael Jackson had a healthy and meaningful music career. In one shot, Usher was dancing in front of a very nifty light/smoke effect. Reminded me a lot of Jackson's one video from a long time ago. The name escapes me. And I was very pleased to see no women jiggling and gyrating. It was very refreshing to see actual dancing in a hip hop video. In fact, as I watched the group dancing, I kept thinking Early Jackson Videos, primarily the Ghosts one. Another time, on my way home from school, when there was absolutely nothing on any of my regular classic rock stations, I flipped on Q102, just because I needed some music. Eminem's new song featuring D12, I think, was on. Can you tell I have no idea of the specifics of the hip hop genre? lol. But anyway, in an Eminem song, I expected rampant racial and ethnic slurs, sexist statements, etc. But My Band was pretty devoid of them, or maybe I just didn't hear them. If Eminem can keep going in that direction, I think he'll keep his current audience and even gain more respect from other marketshares. I am one of the staunchest critics of his music and messages, and could never find any humor in his previous material. My Band, however, it's funny without being crude. That's a major positive, I think, when it comes to selling records.

You had requested something dark? Unsettling is one thing I'm good at. [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18437&stc=1[/img] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18438&stc=1[/img]

Keep going at these things, man. They're excellent. And very nice work on that Codec screen. I'm pretty sure that calling Master during the Hind D would get "NO RESPONSE." Likewise with any Liquid fight, I think. But yes. I was laughing out loud as I watched it. Very excellent work.

[size=2][QUOTE] I'm going to go run through the halls of my old high school. Do you want to come?[/QUOTE] [/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I've been toying with this idea for a few days now. It occurred to me that I see so many sci-fi RPGs in here, and so many fantasy ones, too, but rarely does a comedy surface. I thought to myself, well, why don't we see too many comedies here?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]So, I began formulating a comedy RPG grounded in high school reality. Call it Minimalism, if you will. [/size][size=2]The plot of this RPG is fairly simple in basis: we enter the school on the Monday of Spirit Week. Spirit Week, for those unaware, is simply a week in November during which the individual classes compete for some Spirit Stick. Each day has a specific theme (Hawaiian Day, Costume Day, Color Day, etc), and Friday is a Pep Rally/Physical Games. The physical games include pudding-eating contests, tricycle races, blind football passes...some really ridiculous stuff.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I'm looking at accepting about five to eight writers here, each creating their own character. The RPG would span five days (Spirit Week) in the high school, with each character giving their own narrative throughout each day. I'm looking at each character's narrative would be for three periods. Each day would have a total of eight periods. I designed it this way to minimize the amount of posting. Too many posts would clutter it.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]For the sign-ups, I don't want the outline stuff. That's not conducive to literary analyzation. For each sign-up, I'd like your name at the top left and character name underneath that. I'd rather not have a character description or biography.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Instead, tell me a story about a funny or interesting high school experience. It doesn't have to be true, but don't make it outrageous. For an example of what I'm looking for, you can check out Sara's MyOtaku, specifically, her Blood Drive entry.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]If I see that you're able to handle the mature comedic tone that I'm looking for, I'll drop you a line through PM or AIM and give you further instructions on your character. I'm not limiting what characters are created, but I don't want to see...say...Not Another Teen Comedy.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Actually, another guideline. Please, no gross-out teen comedy. I don't want somebody trying to emulate American Pie. While the Pie Trilogy is a very smart and sharp series, I want people to develop their own comedic voice.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I'd want to keep things flowing correctly, so I figure I'd play the Principal or an Admin in the school, who gives the day's announcements over the PA in the morning. That way, I could keep the story focused, but still give freedom in what the students are going to do.[/size]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']...Man oh man, nobody actually reads anything nowadays they just quote it.[/quote] Funny, I could say the same thing about you. You [i]totally[/i] missed my point and refuse to admit that you've got nothing to base your argument on. But since you're so intent on dragging this out, let's continue. [quote]There's a difference between skin color and ethnicity.[/quote] Well that's quite obvious. [QUOTE]To say that Jesus was dark skinned and dark haired and therefore Arab is completely and positively wrong. He was not Arab. I repeat, there were no Arabs in Judea at that time.[/QUOTE] And if you had actually bothered to read my post that you quoted, you would see that I'm no longer referring to him as an Arab. Some comprehension would suit you very well. [QUOTE]Jesus was an ethnic Jew. Yes, their skin color and hair color differs across the globe just like the skin color and hair color of Christians differs, and the Jews that lived in Judea at the time had dark hair and darker skin, but they were not Arabs they were Jews.[/QUOTE] You didn't say anything here to support your statements. [QUOTE]When I said that Jesus was therefore white I meant as a race.[/QUOTE] Let's examine your post, then, since I seem to have so gravely misinterpeted it. [QUOTE]Um, nononononono. Christ was not Arab, he was a Jew. Ethnically. There were no Arabs in Judea back then, and in fact Arabs as a people did not exist at all, if you know your history. Nomadic tribes came from Saudi Arabia to inhabit other land in the 6th century AD. These are the people that became known as Arabs. [b]Jesus would have looked like Jews look today. In other words, he was white.[/b] Please don't give out misinformation like this without checking first.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][b]I suppose Arabs fall into that category too, so it wasn't a very meaningful statement[/b] and I can see how you may have misinterpreted it. But he certainly did not look like Arabs, just as Jews who live in Israel don't look like Arabs. And don't think that my "devotion to a hippie Christ" is what prompted me to reply to your post.[/QUOTE] I've bolded a key point here. You're looking at this purely from a modern-day perspective. That's not a good idea, to put it simply. You're taking some 2000 years of societal evolution and applying it to ancient history. You shouldn't do that, because you'll never be able to talk about a topic with any reasonable support. Put yourself in the times of Christ. Understand what the societal condition was back then. "White as a race" means nothing, because Christ wasn't white at all, no matter how you want to twist the meaning of the term to try to suit your statements. He wasn't white ethnically, and he wasn't white racially. Sciros, do you read with any comprehension? I'm beginning to think you just quote my posts and go off on some self-righteous and scattered tangent. [QUOTE]I'm devoted to Batman.[/QUOTE] This has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand, and doesn't serve any beneficial result. Its comedic effect is null and void. [quote]I think I made my point. You may have a different take on things, but it would take a lot to sway me.[/QUOTE] Point? Where? All I see is a bunch of rambling mixed in with some religious indoctrination.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Um, nononononono. Christ was not Arab, he was a Jew. Ethnically. There were no Arabs in Judea back then, and in fact Arabs as a people did not exist at all, if you know your history. Nomadic tribes came from Saudi Arabia to inhabit other land in the 6th century AD. These are the people that became known as Arabs. Jesus would have looked like Jews look today. In other words, he was white. Please don't give out misinformation like this without checking first.[/quote] What Jews are you looking at today? If you're looking at the Jewish population of say...New York City, Philadelphia, or San Francisco, then yes, Jews are white. But America is not the only country in which Jews live. Predominantly white countries are not the only countries in which Jews live. Think about it, Sciros. Jews weren't white to begin with. You agree that Jesus (provided he was a real person) did live in the Middle East, in Judea, right? You do agree with that. Now, if Christ lived in the Middle East back then, and if we look at what Middle Eastern men look like today and realize that the look has...for lack of a better term, been Americanized. Actually, yes. We can say that. Their fashions, their economy, all have an American influence. Keeping that in mind, the idea that over time, people will change the impression and image of a peoples, what makes you so sure that Christ was white? What makes you so sure that you would sit there and proclaim your Lord and Savior as a white man? Christ lived in the Middle East before America even existed. The image that you look to, that hippie-looking guy with the beard, long hair, and fair skin, that's the image created by a group of white people. Something to think about. I understand your devotion to the guy you see on the cross in church, and in religious paintings, but you're worshipping an image that is very far removed from what Christ actually looked like. Those fighting in Palestine right now, those who have that darkened skin and hair, they are closer to what Christ actually looked like. I'm not even pulling this out of thin air, either. Just examine the history and location. It's just common sense, really.

First things first. Winter, check your tone. I know you can behave maturely. Secondly, while protesting seems like an archaic relic from an age long ago, it's still one of the most effective methods of getting a point across, especially if you can get some media attention. It sounds like the student body got their message heard. I would have loved to see a few hundred high school students chanting in a football stadium when there's no football going on, lol. Myself? I've done minor stuff. Nothing too major. Basically, in the past, I've refused to take part in things in which I didn't believe. It goes against my morals to support an institution that I feel is corrupt or at least working improperly. I have scruples. I try not to get involved in every conflict, too. I'm really a pacifist by nature, and it has to take something very serious and very severe for me to get my hands dirty, so to speak. I recall a few times in high school that I was belligerent to an instructor. Haha, it's pretty funny, actually. In my four years at CHS, I had gotten suspended, warned, given detention...but I had never been written up. Well, never written up until the very last day of Senior Year. Yes, [i]Senior[/i] Year. I had gotten written up because my TV Production teacher, Ms. Damiri, didn't appreciate my tone or attitude when we were having the class' film festival. My entry was rejected due to...to put it nicely, I ripped some people up on tape. My project was essentially a rant, insulting a few people in my Senior class. I made valid points, of course, and it's not like my TVP Brethren didn't agree with me, but that kind of malicious nature just doesn't fly. Suffice to say, upon my refusal to join the rest of the class to watch the accepted film projects, Ms. Damiri sent me to the office. I look back on it and laugh. While it was upsetting back then, when you're able to clean your thoughts and appreciate the irony of a situation, it becomes priceless comedic material. But I digress (But wasn't if fuuuun? Yes, Petey, it was.). One thing we have to keep in mind when protesting a decision that we do not like is that we should not go too far. We shouldn't push the issue too strongly, or else there will be a backlash, sometimes quite bad. So, there needs to be a balance sometimes. Obviously, drastic times calls for drastic measures, but for the most part, I think nonviolence and/or nonconfrontational methods are the ways to go. Good job, Roxie and Lumi. Rock on.

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo][spoiler]I also thought the captions at the end of the movie were a waste. It would have been much better if they just ended the film with Samuel L. Jackson's little line about how he should have known that he was destined to become an arch villian. The look of conflict in Bruce Willis' face spoke volumes and even a half wit could have figured out what would of happened. Then again, I never find those captions fulfilling.[/spoiler'][/color][/quote] [spoiler]I do like that idea of no title cards. What would have made the ending even stronger, perhaps is no dialogue at all after the handshake. Jackson and Willis shake hands and Willis is rocked by those visions of chaos and violence. They separate, Jackson silently nods, and Willis backs away, out of the comic shop, out into daylight. It would have been very effective in showing that Jackson is the villain, and we know Jackson can do that nod we're talking about. Plus, if Shyamalan were so inclined, he would have had an excellent set-up for a sequel with that ending.[/spoiler]

[quote name='Yisan']Jesus H Christ! I didn't like the movie! It was not my kind of movie! The plot did not intrigue me! I thought the acting was poor! I have seen both Jackson and Willis do better, so I know they can do it if they try! What more do you need to know?![/quote] What kind of reply is that? I mean, seriously. All HC and I asked you to do was provide some reason behind your views of the movie. You should not have exploded like that. In fact, your tone was totally uncalled for. HC and I are trying to get you to think about why you feel the way you do. Anybody can spew what you just spewed. That's not what I asked for, and I have a feeling that's not what HC had in mind, either. And really, you still haven't sufficiently supported your opinion. Your points are still vague and rather...ranty. It's not a sufficient reply. "It was not my kind of movie" is not a sufficient support. What about the plot didn't you like? Was it certain themes? Character progression? What? Think before you reply. I want a well thought-out and well-constructed, mature reply of at least two paragraphs.

[quote name='Yisan']You want to know why I hated this movie? Well, the plot and acting was sub-par. That's why. Why did I find them sub par? Well, I thought the plot was just stupid, and Willis and Jackson could have done better than what they did.[/quote] Yisan, c'mon, man. You didn't even explain [i]wh[/i]y you disliked the performances. You merely just repeated yourself. [i]Wh[/i]y didn't you find the plot to be good? You're not providing anything to support your scathing critique of the film, and coming off as someone who has no idea why they dislike a movie. Develop your post, develop your opinion. Provide reasons. You need something to support your thesis. As it stands now, you don't even have an introductory paragraph.

[quote name='Yisan']All I am saying is that real life isn't censored. The earlier you expose kids to "real life", the better it will be for them. Sheltering kids is not a good thing. Censoring things just shelters them from reality.[/quote] I hardly think the majority of violence and misbehavior on TV is directly representational of what real life is. If anything, it's an exaggeration of what real life is. Your point is very weak, if you feel that TV violence is "real life." It is far from real. The very fact that it is written for TV, performed for TV, and shown on TV should tell you something. What you see on TV--the programs that are being censored--is not a window into the real world. Howard Stern is not an accurate representation of reality. Eminem music videos are not an accurate representation of reality. Reality TV is not reality in the least. They know they're being filmed, they know there are cameras everywhere. They know they are getting paid for being on recorded on said cameras in said house, mansion, ranch, beach, farm, hotel, etc. If you want children to be exposed to real life, take them outside. That's as real as you can get. Hell, if you depend on the TV, give them The History Channel or The Discovery Channel. Don't think for a second that children will benefit from watching Paris Hilton shove her arm up a cow's rectum, and don't think for a second that Howard Stern pitting two airhead supermodels against each other in a trivia game is based in reality at all. Yisan, I really don't see how you're able to say that censorship limits reality. What is being censored is far from reality. Think about that.