Brasil

I'm probably one of the only ones that enjoyed it, as well. Like you, I'm a bit of a comic book/superhero geekboy, and I think that's why I enjoyed this movie so much more than the regular audience. The spin that Unbreakable puts on the superhero genre is an admirable one, indeed. While Willis' performance was...not his best, the plot made up for it. Plus, Sam Jackson electrifies the screen no matter what he's doing, it seems. He could be sitting on the can and we'd enjoy it. But that's beside the point. It's sad, really, that Shyamalan's second and third films were tossed aside, or failed to live up to The Sixth Sense. I think Unbreakable was vastly underrated. I found Signs to be the inferior film of the three. It relied on jumpy scares more than anything else, and the ideas and writing were trite. Unbreakable, on the other than, Sam Jackson alone makes seeing it worth it. Shyamalan was able to do something that few filmmakers are able to: make the villain seductive. This film had what I call...low-key flair. Similar to Sixth Sense, it used an almost toned down approach to its subject matter. Signs failed to do this, and that's why I dislike it. But Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are two really fun movies. People should give Unbreakable more of a chance.

How about we look at everything from a literary standpoint? It seems that the majority of argument for The Passion has been based on the film being true to the Bible. But we can't very well examine the Bible when we all have religion in our heads, right? Why not look at this entire subject from the literary standpoint? With that in mind, let's begin. Okay, the reason I quoted Dogma in the subject line is because that's a very astute observation. Some were offended by Dogma because they were unable to separate themselves from their devotion to the Lord. They view Christ as a holy symbol, as one who transcends all else, as one who is and always will be. That sounds fine, but it doesn't allow for an in-depth look at anything. That's the problem, I think, when people talk about The Passion. Christ didn't come here to freak us out. He didn't come here to make us uneasy. If I were to say so myself, I'd say he was a pretty laid-back guy. If we could go back to talk to him, I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't try to scare us with horror after horror after horror. That's not what he did in the Bible. He was there to get his groove on, metaphysically speaking. He was really like the Ancient Hebrew's equivalent of Bill and Ted. When he would have seen those Roman soldiers coming to take him away, he surely would have said something similar to "Bogus..." The point of the Biblical narrative of Christ's life was not to scare people. Christ's purpose was to, as Kevin Smith so eloquently points out, help us out. If someone wants to get scared reading the Bible, just check out Exodus or Revelations. [i]That[/i] is the stuff designed to scare the living hell out of you. And that's why Gibson's The Passion falters; because it doesn't concentrate on the groovy message at all. It's almost like Gibson remade Revelations, starring Christ. Christ was our buddy, hence...Buddy Christ. Just one final small, tiny, minute point I'd like to make. Christ was Arab. He was born and raised in the Middle East. He would have looked more like those fighting in Palestine right now than somebody you'd meet in NYC.

[quote name='Cyke][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Bart vs. the World - Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the NES game that had tons of fun Simpsons minigames? If so, that's the one I like. The title offered more variety than the previous Simpsons game did, where you had to fight aliens and co.[/font'][/color][/quote] I have a vague memory of Bart skateboarding down the Great Wall of China, and another level seemed Metroid-inspired, with Bart jumping up an insanely long vertical corridor. I'm not completely sure that was from Bart vs the World, but I'm pretty sure it was. I don't think there were a slew of minigames in there, though. It might just be the varied gameplay and hazy memories merging to form a mutated recollection. Pity someone has mentioned Contra already, so I'll bring up Duck Hunt. Duck Hunt was the very first shooter I ever played, and I loved it. My dad preferred the clay shooting variation in it, but I got off on the pain I inflicted on those little ducks. Occasionally, I'd try to blast the dog, but to no avail. I recall having this gaming helmet contraption with a microphone for voice-activated shooting. That was a really great peripheral to have for Duck Hunt. Just a short "peh" and BANG. If only I could find the name of that helmet...Laserscope, I think.

Though I don't feel like getting drawn into this, Bowling For Columbine is a [i]mockumentary[/i], a piece of filmmaking that has the qualities of a documentary but skews them in a way as to make fun of the subject matter. That's Moore's entire point of it. Mitch, you can't argue with that. You can't argue that he made Bowling For Columbine to make fun of others. I mean, the whole, "create a bank account and get a gun" scene? That's making fun of people. Don't be fooled by Moore interviewing real people. Real people or not, the tone of the piece is parody. Much like how This Is Spinal Tap was thought to be a [i]real[/i] documentary, that's what's happening with Bowling For Columbine. It's far from a documentary, lol. It's a mockumentary.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Guys lay off of Cyke. The man just LOVES Metal Gear Solid games, so obviously PS2 is the best for him (that and Gamecube once Twin Snakes hits stores, actually). [/quote] Hey, I love Metal Gear Solid, as well. It's one of my favorite games of all-time, too. But you don't hear me ripping up other games and systems because of it. Love for one game does not constitute the ability to degrade everything else. I'm not talking about genre-specific, either. I'm talking about when someone loves one game so much that they disregard games in entirely different genres. Metal Gear Solid is a great game, but it's not the only game out there. PS2 is a solid system, but it's not the only system out there.

[QUOTE=DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I'm not critisizing DotD for violence. [spoiler]If it were an adult zombie doing the exact same thing, I really wouldn't care. It's the fact that it's an eight-year old girl that bothers me.[/spoiler] And I'm not trying to condem the film. I'm just saying that, like you said, it rubbed me the wrong way, and I don't want to see it. As for zombies being cool villians, that's a matter of taste. Zombies are frightening, sure, but interesting? I don't see it. They have no personality, they're not particularly bright, they have no motivation, and, when you get down tro it, they're not particularly evil or villanious. They're just hungry. [/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE] DeathBug, that's the thing. In the originals, [spoiler]children did hack up their parents[/spoiler]. If you've never seen the originals, well, how can you expect to not be bothered by the remake? Better yet, how can you be surprised at being bothered? You're going into this with no knowledge of what the series is, lol, of what the series stands for. I suppose I shouldn't even discuss the zombies part with you, because you've never seen the originals, so you'd have no idea what I'm talking about, heh. Watch the original Night of the Living Dead. It's a superb movie and you will appreciate the zombies after seeing it.

[quote name='Cyke][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms']Because it's the PS2 I own. It's just wording things differently since I had to say "PS2" a billion times. You're thinking too much of it.[/quote][/font][/color] Am I? I do suggest you evaluate yourself on a deeper level. You're working on a purely superficial train of thought and not allowing yourself to be open to what your subconscious is up to. Also, why do you think you had to say "PS2" so much? Read between the lines of your posts, Cyke. [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms][QUOTE][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Well, that's your problem. You see, I don't limit myself to saying one game is better than the other because of the game's genre. I value a game over another simply on how much the title entertains me, how much I enjoy it, and how much it immerses me. SSX entertained, and immersed me more than Halo and SSBM ever did, and I enjoyed it more. Also, I normally prefer FPS and fighters to snowboarding games, so you make the math.[/font][/color][/QUOTE] [/font][/color] That's your problem, Cyke. Tell you what, let's go back into that post, okay? [font=Trebuchet MS][color=#00008b][QUOTE][font=Trebuchet MS][color=#00008b]One of the system's lunch titles, SSX, turned out to be one of the best games ever made, and a lot better than any of the launch titles from the GAMECUBE and XBOX. Some may argue that Super Smash Bros. Melee and Halo: Combat Evolved were better, but I believe SSBM is nothing more than your average button-smasher without the Nintendo characters and likeness smashed on top, which long replay value relies only on multiplayer gaming; and Halo is nothing but a solid combat FPS that's been taken way out of proportion by the majority.[/color][/font][/QUOTE][/color][/font] Are you prepared to tell all of us here that your sole reason for crossing genre-boundaries with your dislike is simply because the game didn't immerse you? Look at what you said. "I believe SSBM is nothing more than your average button-smasher without the Nintendo characters and likeness smashed on top, which long replay value relies only on multiplayer gaming." We've established before that Smash Bros is far from a button-masher. You are certainly playing with the wrong people if that is your only opinion of Melee. Cyke, you should really see what can be done with Pikachu. And you may accuse me of being off-topic here, but your criticism of Melee is wholly unfounded, even if it's your opinion. And since you so liberally throw around that accusation of button-masher, what makes you think we should take you seriously at all? Halo is a solid FPS. It's entertaining, and for its time, it was groundbreaking. It's still a great FPS today and the fact that colleges [i]still[/i] host LAN events to play it should tell you something. I think that, like Melee, you haven't given it a chance and/or played with the right people. So again, your criticism is unfounded. [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms][QUOTE][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]I beg your pardon? It's a way of saying the system has great games available for me to play. If you're going to nitpick at the way I say things rather than accept the fact that I simply like the games on one system better than on another, then desist of this pathetic attempt at proving an unapparent point.[/font][/color][/QUOTE] [/font][/color] "Pathetic attempt at proving an unapparent point"? Who is attacking who here? I merely made a very reasonable observation, with a very reasonable basis, and based on your tone here, I think I may have struck a chord of truth. There is no need to get testy, Cyke; I wanted you to actually develop a logical argument. But, you feel threatened for some reason, and deem it necessary to retaliate to some imagined attack. [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms][QUOTE][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]So? What's your point? You're not disagreeing with my argument about not deceasing the value of MGS2 for the PS2, for example, only because it came out later for the XBOX. HOWEVER, when these titles appear in other consoles later on, they aren't original, like Super Mario World and LttP aren't to the GBA.[/font][/color][/QUOTE] [/font][/color] Do we value MGS2 at all, though? Even in its previous PS2 incarnation, the game was sub-rate. It looked pretty, of course, and played reasonably well, but I know I don't play games because they look good, and I know the gamers here don't either. I'm pretty sure you don't play them because they're eye candy, too. So, when we realize that we don't play only for graphics and playability, we need to examine other facets. One of those facets is plot. MGS2's plot...sucked, to put it bluntly. It was hazy, underdeveloped, hyperbolic, and unfocused. It was, quite possibly, one of the worst plots in any game ever. And since when does good gaming have to be original? Yes, originality is a plus in a game, but the Marvel vs Capcom series has not had much significant change over the past few years. The engine has stayed relatively the same throughout the entire series. Is that a bad thing? No, because the engine is a solid one, and the reason that Smash Melee does so well is because its engine is a solid one. Cyke, originality does not mean good gaming. Whiplash is an example of that. In development, the game sounded brilliant. It was a platformer that didn't require us to pick-up useless items. No gems, no coins, no beads, nothing. We just had to destroy property as we escaped from a testing lab. On paper, the game was amazing, and wholly original. Come release time, though, very disappointing. It didn't have enough development time. Final Fantasy 8 had a radical new and original Draw System, but that was certainly inferior. Cel Damage was a new and exciting spin on the vehicular combat genre, but it didn't accomplish what it set out to do. Whatever flair, dynamics, and originality it had were all for naught due to substandard and limited gameplay. See? Originality does not always mean good gaming, just how a direct sequel does not always mean inferior gaming. Also, utilizing the same engine, or keeping the same gameplay does not mean a bad game. You've played Bomberman, right? That's some of the most overtly simplistic gaming around, but it works beautifully, and if a gamer can't find that just the least bit fun, then there is something wrong. Bomberman prides itself on insane simplicity and has kept the same format through the majority of its many sequels and such. Surely Bomberman isn't a bad game because it lacks drastic innovation? [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms][QUOTE][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Where did I say that it was a bad thing that games got released for other consoles? I'm relating that "cross-console re-issues" you're referring to MY personal gain. That's what this thread is about. It's about what console you prefer and why. To me, GTA being released for the XBOX is of no use or value to ME, because I've played and beaten the games for the PS2, so when I take under account the XBOX's value to ME, I don't consider GTA: Double Pack as a factor.[/font][/color][/QUOTE] [/font][/color] Shall I quote your post again? [font=Trebuchet MS][color=#00008b][QUOTE][font=Trebuchet MS][color=#00008b]Then the PS2 gave me Devil May Cry, Onimusha, Grand Theft Auto III and Vice City, Zone of The Enders: the Second Runner and the perfect Final Fantasy X, the latter being my favorite RPG. Surely, some of these titles later came on other consoles, but the PS2 was the system that brought them to me. People don't steal any credit for the SNES now that Super Mario World and The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past are now available for the GBA. Some of the aforementioned games were made for the SONY console, and later ported to the rest.[/color][/font][/QUOTE] [/color][/font] You're treating the cross-console re-issues like some imitation of the "pure" PS2 version. Cyke, you're only looking at your post on a superficial level. Get down into it and examine the subtleties of the language. If you can't, then you don't understand where you're coming from, and you can't expect me to take you seriously at all. In fact, I have a hard time taking you seriously to begin with, just considering your indignant tone. [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms][QUOTE][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]I like how you completely miss the point of this thread, and my post. I never talked about the future of the PS2 in the gaming industry; I talked about the value of my PS2 to ME. Since I have yet to play a game that entertains me more in so many ways as the previous two MGS games have when I played them on my PS and PS2, respectively, the upcoming release of MGS3 is reason enough to put the PS2 on top, in my book. By the time some of these titles come out to other systems, like you like to predict, I would've already played them and be moving on to other, newer games. If you call me a fanboy because I choose to play a game and enjoy it and give credit to the system I played it in, then your definition of the insulting term is highly incorrect.[/font][/color][/QUOTE] [/font][/color] No, [i]you're[/i] completely missing [i]my[/i] point. I call you a fanboy because to you, only Sony exists and nothing more, and that's not how it works at all. The very [i]minor[/i] praise you've given to Xbox and Gamecube does nothing to give you a more well-rounded appearance. The minor praise serves to accentuate a compensation. [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms][QUOTE][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Maybe I should have stated "in the period of one year" rather than early beginnings. Does that seem to "remove" my "fanboy nature" for you? The point is that a decent number of quality titles for the XBOX had taken longer to materialize during the system's lifespan than it did for the lifespan of the GAMECUBE and PS2, respectively.[/font][/color][/QUOTE] [/font][/color] You wrote off the Xbox, though, based on the one year after its release. If you know gaming, you know not to do that with any system. Also, considering that you just sat here and ripped up Smash Bros Melee, a launch title for Cube, then admitting you hadn't bought a Cube until Super Mario Sunshine, which you were disappointed with...c'mon. You refuse to enjoy anything other than Sony. [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms][QUOTE] [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Um, no, expert of the oblivious. The reason I didn't criticize The Twin Snakes as much as the other repetitive titles is because The Twin Snakes is the remake OF MY FAVORITE GAME. You would have an argument if I were discussing Nintendo's console in terms of its impact, whether positive or negative, on the industry and its consumers. However, as I've pointed out several times, the reasons I gave above were in relation to my personal gain. For example, in order for me to significantly enjoy a Zelda game from the one before it, I need the franchise to make more of a change. Why? Because I'm not as big a fan of Zelda as I am of other series. On the other hand, MGS didn't need to make a big change for me from the original to Twin Snakes, because I can enjoy the title significantly with only minor changes. I can accept repetition when I enjoy it immensely, but I can't accept it when, while I play, I think more about how this game could've been better instead of just enjoying it without worries. "Think about it, Poison. Think about it."[/font][/color] [/QUOTE] [/font][/color] No, Cyke, the reason you didn't criticize Twin Snakes is because MGS1 was on a Sony system. And there is no need to take that kind of tone, either. I'm challenging you to think about why you feel this way, so that you can understand what's going on underneath your superficial opinions. And if you are able to ignore faults in a game that you enjoy immensely, then you are blinded by your own ignorance. Even I, one of the staunchest supporters of GE and one of the harshest critics of EA's Bond games, cannot deny that GE has faults, and I cannot deny that some facets of EA's Bond games were done correctly. [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms][QUOTE] [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]I'm glad that they help bring the younger generation into old school gaming... too bad my post was about what [i]I[/i] got out of it, huh? Too bad that what I was asked of this thread was "What's the best gaming console for YOU." Yes, ME, Me, as in Cyke, not the younger generation, not the industry, but ME. Next time you decide to extensively attack someone else's post, be sure to think of two important factors, a) What the topic is about, and what the thread starter asks for, and b) What the person you attempt to quote is answering to, and what he's trying to say. Think about that before you make sudden accusations without any basis for confirmation, as it makes you look completely lost, and frankly, quite humorous. P.S. "Size 2" is the default size for font, so for the love of Koopa, don't use the unnecessary tags. [/font][/color][/QUOTE] [/font][/color] Do you feel that threatened here? Threatened enough to portray me as some mindless monster? Do you honestly believe that I'm here solely to attack you? Do you honestly believe that I had attacking you in mind when I wrote my replies? Cyke, come off it. I don't play favorites and I don't play targets, either. If you want to play the flame game, be my guest. I'll play. But I warn you, Cyke, your side isn't looking too strong here. You're the one making this into an "us vs them" situation; I am not. You're the one getting worked up over this; I am not. You're the one throwing insults around; I am not. I suggest you take a step back here and take a look at yourself, man. I mean, really, are you so full of yourself to think that everyone is out to get you? Are you so full of yourself to think that every little disagreement is a personal attack on your very being?

I'm running into a slight problem, and I think others might be suffering from it, too. Random Add Comment links in my MyO aren't...there, I guess. I highlight the page and don't see anything. It seems random as to which entries are affected.

[QUOTE=wrist cutter]You're all forgetting the most badass movie ever, which just so happened to be released in the '80s: Predator. My siblings would torture me by making me watch this movie when I was a kid, and needless to say it kept me up many nights in those days. But this movie hasn't become outdated in anyway. Movies like this just don't get old, because it has everything: -Explosions -Aliens -Exploding aliens Pure genius. Who'd have ever thought that two of the cast members would go on to become governers?[/QUOTE] Can't forget the nifty cloaking device, and the thermal vision of the Predator was a really nice touch to establish just how inhuman it was. Also, if you want to see two governors go at it, check out The Running Man. I do believe it was an 80s movie. It was a remarkable movie back then, but it's even more entertaining that when we watch it today, with the knowledge that Captain Freedom and Ben Richards are now politicians who could conceivably face-off in Presidential election, the final fight takes on all new meaning, lol. It's very interesting how Schwarzenegger's 80s action/sci-fi movies age so well. We have Terminator, Predator, The Running Man; three classic sci-fi films. Likewise, I'm very pleased at Cameron's 80s efforts. I still am able to watch The Abyss and be mesmerized by it. Cameron is a brilliant filmmaker. He's a second-rate cliche-spewer now, but there was a time in the 80s/early 90s that he created cinema magic. I find that Spielberg and Tim Burton are the only two directors now that can weave a tapestry on screen. Burton is especially gifted. I watch Beetlejuice and still marvel at its ingenuity of execution. Pity that Michael Keaton is more remembered for Batman than Beetlejuice. In my eyes, Beetlejuice gives him a far greater range and more freedom to have fun with a role. Not to say I didn't enjoy Batman, far from it. It's a great film. But Beetlejuice has a certain...flair; a flair that doesn't die out over time. "I seen The Exorcist about a hundred-and-sixty-seven times and it keeps getting funnier each and every time I see it!"

[quote name='Cyke][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]When Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty came out, it was only available for the PS2, and it turned out to be my second favorite game of all time. It simply was the sequel to the best game I've played in my 16 years of gaming, [b]and it was only playable on my PS2[/b]. [b]One of the system's lunch titles, SSX, turned out to be one of the best games ever made, and a lot better than any of the launch titles from the GAMECUBE and XBOX.[/b] Some may argue that Super Smash Bros. Melee and Halo: Combat Evolved were better, but [b]I believe SSBM is nothing more than your average button-smasher without the Nintendo characters and likeness smashed on top[/b], which long replay value relies only on multiplayer gaming; and [b']Halo is nothing but a solid combat FPS that's been taken way out of proportion by the majority.[/b][/quote][/font][/color] [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms][/font][/color] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black]Cyke, I've bolded what you should take a look at, lol. My inclination is to suggest you're hiding a Sony Fanboy in there.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black][/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black]For example, "only playable on my PS2." Why not just say "the PS2"?[/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black][/color][/size][/font] [color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms][font=Arial][size=2][color=black]And I hardly think it's fair to praise SSX, a snowboarding game, over Smash Melee, a fighting game, or Halo, a FPS. Each of these games is in a totally different genre, with totally different focuses and design objectives. Thusly, you cannot outright disregard Smash Bros Melee or Halo, simply because you love SSX. It is really like comparing apples to tuna. I can understand comparing apples to oranges, because at least they're both fruit. Apples and oranges is like Street Fighter and Smash Bros Melee. But you absolutely cannot place a snowboarding game over a fighting game or FPS, because they're so radically different in fundamental design.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE][b]Then the PS2 gave me[/b] Devil May Cry, Onimusha, Grand Theft Auto III and Vice City, Zone of The Enders: the Second Runner and the perfect Final Fantasy X, the latter being my favorite RPG. Surely, some of these titles later came on other consoles, but the PS2 was the system that brought them to me. [b]People don't steal any credit for the SNES now that Super Mario World and The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past are now available for the GBA.[/b] Some of the aforementioned games were made for the SONY console, and later ported to the rest. The great variety of exclusive RPGs and fighters only helped in my PS2 being overly used.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black]Again, "PS2 gave me." This is sounding like something out of a psychologists handbook; no offence, but this sounds unhealthy, lol.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black][/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black]And really, Super Mario World and LttP are 4th generation games, as opposed to GTA, which is more of 17th generation. Surely, based on your statements here, surely you don't intend to debase or devalue the contributions of GBA LttP and GBA SMW because they first appeared on a console some, what, 10 or 11 years ago? I'm not about to bash Twin Snakes because I've already played it when it was on PSX. While I certainly had some negative criticisms of Twin Snakes, I did not sit there and say it shouldn't be played by anyone because anyone can play the original. In fact, as I played through Twin Snakes more and more, it became better and better. Of course, I still won't buy it at this price; if I can find it for 20 or 25, then I'll pick it up.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black][/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black]And that is precisely what the Xbox GTA DoublePack did. Gamers got both Vice City and III in one package, for 50 dollars. How are you able to say that's a bad thing? How are you able to say that's not right? Yes, GTA isn't my cup of tea, but I'm pleased that we're seeing cross-console releases and cross-console re-issues of solid games.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE][b]The upcoming release of Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater alone is enough to confidently put my PS2 above all other systems[/b], yet for those unsure there's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Gran Turismo 4, Hyper Street Fighter II: Anniversary Edition, Onimusha 3, Final Fantasy XII and Suikoden VI to prove the system has franchises strong enough for its lifetime.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black]So, you're really placing your system's entire future into one game? And even so, with the other games you mentioned, have you considered that when they're released, they'll be expensive? With those high-profile franchises, especially... Street Fighter, GTA, Onimusha, Final Fantasy. Based on the recent industry developments, I'm willing to bet that within two years of those releases, we'll see some of them on the other consoles. I feel that you're ignoring a large portion of what the industry really does, and hyperfocusing on Sony and nothing else. That's not the behavior of a fan; that's the behavior of a fanboy.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE]"But Cyke, what's wrong with the other systems?" Well, nothing, really... but it's a matter of what they offer and what they don't. [b]The XBOX was painfully lacking a good ten games to [u]warrant a purchase during its early beginnings[/u][/b], while the GC and PS2 were offering better titles, with only Shenmue II being of my interest. However, the console [b]slowly but surely "outranked" the GAMECUBE[/b], in my book, when Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic came out. I dislike Star Wars, and find the old movie franchise to be cheesy, and the new one to be in the same league as "Charlie's Angels" in terms of film quality (Horrendous, unbearable, and scarring), so the achievement this game made for me to not only accept this universe, but also like it and get addicted to it is immeasurable. The open-ended nature of this RPG is flawless, and does justice to the license it uses. In the words of many a Star Wars geek, "It's the best thing to happen to Star Wars since [i]The Empire Strikes Back[/i]." Games like Panzer Dragoon Orta, Otogi, MechAssault, Ninja Gaiden and the mostly better versions of multiplatform games (Prince of Persia: The Sands of time, WSB2K3, Beyond Good & Evil) helped ensure the system's second place in my video gaming heart... at least until March 9, 2004.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black]I've bolded a few questionable statements. For one, we shouldn't expect a system to be released with loads upon loads of excellent launch titles. For as far back as I can remember, each new console had a small handful of launch titles, even PS2. And I think you should be aware that your Sony Fanboy nature is becoming readily apparent.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE]I didn't get the Nintendo GAMECUBE until Super Mario Sunshine came out. I played my bro's system, and found no reason to get it. All its exclusive games were average, and some downright boring. After getting and playing Sunshine religiously, I was disappointed.[b] I could at least count on Nintendo to get Mario right, but I felt the title had boring, repetitive level design, repetitive, and unintuitive, uninteresting, tedious boss fights (except Bowser, I admit).[/b] It lacked most of what made Super Mario 64 such a classic, although it did include its problematic camera. Super Mario Sunshine was not only a disappointment, but it was a sign of things to come, and a notice of something that was already an issue with the GAMECUBE. With the exception of the incredibly revolutionary, almost-perfect Metroid Prime, [b]nearly all the "quality" exclusive titles were simply upgrade versions of their N64 counterparts[/b], and even some were upgraded versions of another franchise (Star Fox Adventures plays like a bad Zelda). [b]The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Super Smash Bros. Melee, 1080 Avalanche, Mario Kart: Double Dash, F-Zero GX, Resident Evil games, and Wave Race: Blue Storm were some of the GCN titles that shared way too many similarities to the previous game in their respective franchises.[/b] Yes, [i]some[/i] of these games were still great, but [b]why play something that feels I've played before where I could enjoy Devil May Cry, Z.O.E. or GTA, completely original games with their own taste, or an original take of an existing genre?[/b] This is not to say GCN was deprived of any original, great exclusive games (Viewtiful Joe, Eternal Darkness), they just weren't that many. Still, before KOTOR, the GCN was enjoying a nice second in my view, and it got it back after the release of [b]Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes, a game that, while it may be yet another game lacking in true originality for the system, was the remake of the best game ever made. Despite a few flaws and things missing, the game grabs you like the first one, and for any first-timer, they'll enjoy it was much as we did back in '98.[/b] The fact that we don't have F-Zero GX or Mario Kart online is a big minus. Whether Nintendo is choosing not to risk online gaming or not doesn't matter to me. I don't work for Nintendo, and I, as a consumer, only care about what companies give me. SONY and Microsoft give me online play, and Nintendo doesn't. That's all there is to it.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial][size=2][color=black]What are you talking about? lol. Firstly, without hesitation, you criticize Double Dash and F-Zero, Windwaker, Smash Bros Melee, and REmake for tired gameplay or not enough variation. But then you praise Twin Snakes? Forgive me for asking you to refine your view here, but how do Twin Snakes and Smash Melee differ? I'm not talking about gaming mechanics, either. I'm talking about their relationship to a previous title. They both made vast improvements in flow of gameplay and made their respective originals easily accessible for new gamers. This is the same with Windwaker and F-Zero. I'm going to suggest that the only reason you criticize Double Dash or Windwaker, is because MGS1 was on a SONY system. Think about it, Cyke. Think about it.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE]As for the GBA, I only limit myself to playing the Game Boy Player (I rarely play games anymore when I'm out, though I still own a GBA and a GBA SP), and I don't feel like playing tired remakes of games that I only thought were extremely enjoyable back then. With all the SNES ports, it's a good system to revisit the old days (despite the lack of four-face buttons), but in my view the new generation kicks the previous eras in the nads. It still has some great original and fun titles like Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Boktai, but not enough of them to give the system more playtime.[/QUOTE] [/font][/color][font=Arial][size=2][color=black]"Tired remakes"? What is a tired remake? The Mario Advance series? Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire? Metroid Zero Mission? Donkey Kong Country? LttP? Mario Kart Advance? C'mon, dude. If anything, these remakes/re-issues are giving the younger generation a chance to get in on the great games they missed, since they weren't even born yet, lol. And I know my older systems don't really work that well anymore, so these remakes and such are an extra bonus, because I can play them legally.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='DeathBug][size=1][font=comic sans ms][color=black][color=indigo]Well, I haven't seen either the original DotD or NotLD[/color'];[/quote][/color][/font][/size] [font=Arial][size=2]You haven't? Dude, man, you [i]have[/i] to see the originals before criticizing the remake for violence. I mean, criticizing a remake's level of violence is like saying American Werewolf in London is second-rate entertainment, simply because it's gorier than The Wolf Man. You've got to see the originals, dude.[/size][/font] [size=1][font=comic sans ms][color=black][QUOTE][size=1][font=comic sans ms][color=black][color=indigo]I'm really not a fan of zombie flicks. I don't find zombies interesting as movie antagonists; niether do I identify with the whole "us against the world" type of catastrophe flivck. Nothing against the genre, but it's not my cup of tea[/color].[/color][/font][/size][/QUOTE] [/color][/font][/size] [size=1][font=comic sans ms][font=Arial][size=2]Zombies not interesting? They're soulless killing machines. They keep coming at you no matter what. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with, and they absolutely will not stop until you are dead and one of them. If anything, zombies are one of the most interesting horror villains. Vampires can be suave, but put Dracula next to a Deadite, and the Deadite will win out on badassness. Zombies...they don't stop. They can venture out in the day and night, without fear. They have no fear. They are one of the ultimate killing machines. They have no limits because they do not have the capacity to care. Apathy at its finest, I tell you.[/size][/font] [color=black][QUOTE][color=indigo]I also find that I have odd standards for children in horror movies. Apparently, I have no problem with "The Omen", but that scene from the preview apparently crossed my personal line. I'm not sure exactly what my personal standards actually are, though; I just know I think sometrhing's crossed the boundaries of taste when I see it.[/color] [color=indigo]Then again, there's no acounting for test. ^_^;[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Arial][size=2]So...you can't explain why something rubs you the wrong way? Why something strikes a chord in an unusual way?[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2]Now, I'm not a total supporter of film violence. I have limits. But those limits vary depending on the genre. In the case of romantic comedy, I won't tolerate someone's head getting lobbed off; similarly, in "the Dead" series, I expect to see some disturbing, gut-wrenching sickness going on. That's what "the Dead" series is. A series in which humans get devoured by the undead in the sickest ways possible.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2]I'm going to go see Dawn of the Dead on the 19th, and I'm going in there expecting to get scared, horrified, and laugh my *** off, all in the same two hours. That's what the series is; that's what it has always been. Campy, violent, and just a scary fun time.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2]Yeah, taste and morality [i]are[/i] relative. That means you have to adjust your expectations for different movies. The horror genre itself is split into so many different categories that we cannot expect one level and one alone.[/size][/font][/color][/font][/size]

My two harrowing experiences involving parents walking in happened back with my old girlfriend, now my ex. I'm going to spoiler everything here, because something tells me that leaving this out in the open isn't a good idea, lol. [spoiler]We got frisky. Very frisky, and I had a thing for...how should I put it...cunnilingus. So, naturally, we shut the door and I slide her jeans down, then her panties and I start going at it. Well, in the heat of battle, so to speak, you don't hear footsteps until uh...it's too late. "Laura," her dad says, as he raps lightly on the door and cracks it open slightly--not enough to see anything, of course, but enough that we jumped and got dressed faster than either of us have ever gotten dressed before. Lucky for us, there was a blanket handy to cover-up what we weren't able to cover-up. So that's one of my stories. The second again took place in Laura's room. You'd think we'd have learned by then, right? So, Laura is playing with me and we're both enjoying it. Well, Laura's mom is a lot more forward than her dad and she pretty much opens the door entirely. I think she saw me zipping up.[/spoiler] Suffice to say, I'm much more careful now, heh. But was that a sufficient reply?

[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]The preview for this movie, [spoiler]showing an eight year old girl becoming a zombie and mauling her farther right in front of her mother[/spoiler], disturbed me in a way that a horror movie has never disturbed me before. Seriously, it's been two weeks, and I'm still disturbed by that image. So, while not making any value judgement of the film, I can safely say that I won't be seeing it. I'm sorry, butt hat juist ain't right.[/font][/size'][/color][/quote] In all fairness, though, DeathBug, while Dawn of the Dead is only a remake of Dawn of the Dead (well, obviously, PT...dur), the original Night of the Living Dead had some pretty gruesome moments, scenes quite similar to what you described. [spoiler]In NotLD, there's a scene near the end where a little girl becomes zombified and proceeds to hack her mother up with a gardening tool.[/spoiler] I think the only differences between the remake's violence and the original films' violence is that the remakes are much more graphic. That level of violence is there in the original films; it's just shown differently. We actually are left to imagine what happens, as opposed to the remake, where we are shown, blow by blow, stab by stab, chew by chew, as it were.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']Now that I think about it... none of the movies PT mentioned are from the 80s. TMNT is from 1990 lol[/quote]Cripes...lol. Guess that afterthought disclaimer was a good thing afterall, heh. I guess I just wanted a catchy title that had some relevance to the topic. [QUOTE]What's the excuse for the pirate ship flying at the end? Was it also under the influence of drugs? lol[/QUOTE]I'll have to get back to you on that, lol. I may be seeing stuff in Peter Pan that's not there, but I happened to find the original novel online. There's some pretty sick stuff in there...lots of sexual innuendo. While Angel Dust may have not been prevalent when Pan was written, there are some definite adult themes running through that book. [u]James and the Giant Peach[/u] I've read the book of James and the Giant Peach, and what struck me as odd is how the book is a very literal journey. James actually goes on this trip in the physical sense. There's no question about it. There is actually a real hole in the peach, and they actually land in NYC. Speaking of the hole thing...I wonder if Dahl took some cues from Alice In Wonderland. I wouldn't be surprised, really. As I was watching the movie, though, that physical trip disappeared, replaced by something similar to Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five. Billy went on fantastic adventures in the novel, but those adventures were always fantasies. He was escaping into his head, in a sense. This is what I see with the movie James and the Giant Peach. As Billy Pilgrim is laying in that icy ditch, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that James is laying comatose next to the peach. [u]Clue[/u] I think Clue works so well and ages so well because it's really great comedy. It's slapstick that rivals Airplane. It has a strong cast, and Tim Curry is usually really fun to watch. I change the channel when Rocky Horror Picture Show comes on. Just something about seeing Tim Curry in someone else's underwear, lol. Airplane is a movie that seems to be right in the middle. It stays hilarious even now, but some of it is rather dated. Even though the disco scene tickles my funny bone, it really makes the movie show its age, I think. It's still a great movie, but it doesn't age as well as other 80s icons, like Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters is an 80s movie that...is totally 80s...but doesn't suffer from the dating that hurts Airplane. Sure, it has Larry King with hair, Casey Kasem, and the 80s hair (I think Gatekeeper Dana Barrett had to be a parody of that), but it all works, even today. It's one movie that is timeless. Plus, "Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole through your head." "That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me." [u]TMNT[/u] As corny as II was, it did feature some really classic moments. Really, anything with Tokka and Rahzar. Those guys were great. They were lethal children and I always laugh when [spoiler]Tokka looks down at that donut, crushes it, sees the gel capsule, then looks back up at Mike and roars[/spoiler]. Just classic. EDIT: Oh, Mimmi, I love you for mentioning Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I'm surprised I forgot to mention it.

The title of this thread is more or less the topic I'm discussing, but other films will be mentioned. I was just hanging out in Hollywood Video an hour ago, watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles I. Now, the biggest surprise, I think, was just how dark the movie was. I'm not talking about lighting or anything, though lighting does play a large part in establishing mood. I'm talking about general thematic elements and presentation. I mean, I had forgotten how violent the movie was. I pick up on a lot of it now, of course, and it's somewhat upsetting to see Raphael comatose in a bathtub, with April sprinkling water over him. I guess it had never struck me when I was younger because I didn't really have the capacity to realize what was happening. Disney's animated Peter Pan is another film that has some rather deviant subliminal themes in it. Pixie Dust? I'm thinking Angel Dust or heroin. They do fly high over the clouds after "taking a hit." We can't forget the mermaids' infatuation with Peter, either. It's clear they have a previous history with him, and they're...[spoiler]wet[/spoiler], as opposed to Wendy, who is totally dry, and just met Peter. James and the Giant Peach is a wonderful kid's movie about a boy going on an incredible journey with incredible characters. What if the entire journey was the kid's movie equivalent of an acid trip? James gets these crocodile tongues from a very haggard and disheveled stranger, who certainly looks similar to a drug dealer from a slum somewhere. I'd be inclined to write this off as just some bizarre interpretation, but the fact that James eats one of these crocodile tongues, then a hole appears in the peach, closing when James crawls into it...I think there is something wrong going on there. Just that scene alone is hallucinogenic, ignoring the rest of the movie, lol. So, the question I'm asking here, is how do movies change over time? The three that I've mentioned stand the test of time indeed. What movies do you remember loving when you were younger, only to watch them now and think, "What in the hell?" Have any of you noticed any disturbing revelations in childhood favorites?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Pokemon, Zelda, and Square-Enix forums collapsed into the new Play It forum? I'm pretty sure Play It is where the Pokemon threads should go.

TN, chill out. Now, my Top 3 would have to be the original King Kong, Apocalypse Now, and...my Top Ten seems to change everytime I list it...I would say Taxi Driver. KING KONG King Kong was one of those magical childhood experiences, I suppose. I saw it when I was about five and fell in love with it. It was something few can ever fully appreciate. Most would see the black and white or the stop motion animation and refuse to watch it. But they would be missing out on one of the greatest movies in cinema history. King Kong was a film that revolutionized the filmmaking process. They damn near invented blue screen, and if not invented, then made it a viable and lucrative venture. Even ignoring the really fun performances, the sharp and corny writing, the thrill and exhiliration of watching a stop motion King Kong fight off a stop motion T-Rex, with Fay Wray screaming in a tree right next to them, or watching with horror as a stop motion brontosaurus proceeds to devour an entire live action crew. It's a spectacular film, and still reigns as my favorite of all-time. APOCALYPSE NOW A visual orgasm is the best way of putting it. This film is a work of art, much like Stanley Kubrick's 2001. I really don't know how to describe this film to do it justice. It delves into the human psyche, explores how far one can go before breaking down into madness. It shows us what happens when psychotics and deranged individuals are allowed to rule. But what differs from the modern-day supervillain, is that Kurtz makes sense. His ideas, his beliefs, his ideologies...he knows what's going on, and knows the problems of the system. He sees the corruption in the military. He is disgusted with their refusal to act, and he thus takes the matter into his own hands. He rejects any preconceived notion of "civilization" and forms his own empire in the jungles of Cambodia. There he becomes a god. He commands thousands of natives who serve him without question or pause. I look at Kurtz, but I do not see the villain, nor do I see the protagonist. I see a man who is aware of his surroundings. It's a brilliant, brilliant film. TAXI DRIVER It's odd, because Taxi Driver and The Graduate often switch places in my Top 10. They have very similar themes and meanings, but depending on my mood, sometimes The Graduate's innocence comes out on top. Sometimes, though, I just want to see Travis Bickle destroy evil and overcome his own demons. When I spoke of similar themes and meanings, that is entirely true. Both protagonists of the films suffer from intense feelings of isolation and a disconnection from those around them. Granted, the specifics of their situations are very different, but their issues are that of...the social misfit. Travis is the loner. He is God's lonely man. He does not feel at all. He's a sad character, almost...almost sympathetic, really. We look at him and wonder, well, why can't anyone help him? The answer is simple but complicated, I think. On one hand, Travis can be helped. He can shed that painful exterior and be charming. He does this in the film, and that description is even written in the script. But why doesn't his charm prevail in the rest of the film? Because that's not Travis, and that isn't Travis' purpose. His purpose is to cleanse society. He is obsessed with it. The filth, the smell (all you Agent Smith fans out there, check out Travis!), the putrid nature of the city just eats away at him. He is disgusted with society, and that's why we are able to sympathize with him. We have all been where he is. That's the sign of truly great cinema, when a thirty year old film can still connect with today's audiences, and the precise ideas and thematic structure can create a sense of awareness about others. So, basically, Taxi Driver is eternal.

I do not see a piece of writing here. I do not see anything that remotely resembles a story by any sense of the word. Why do I think this? The language used in it. The structure of it. The dialogue here is not that of a story; it didn't come from any character or fictional motivations. Mitch, I admire what you tried to do with it, but your motivations for writing it are terribly obvious. I'm inclined to say that this was just a page essay broken down into lines of conversation. What am I saying here? This piece doesn't work if you're looking to write a story. Even with the desire to write a Realistic piece, it doesn't work. Even though a few lines here and there could be heard in a high school, the paragraphs and language used in them would never be heard. The piece sounds very false, basically.

[size=2]I haven't seen Passion yet, but I have been reading up on it.[/size] [size=2]I think my favorite quote from any review I've read of the movie was from a local paper, actually:[/size] [size=2]"If you go to see this movie, see it with your Pastor. Don't see it alone."[/size] [size=2]Where have we heard variations of that before? Horror movies. "Don't see it alone."[/size] [size=2]Interesting...there might be something to all those criticisms of the campy horror aspect of Passion...[/size] [size=2]From what I've read/heard/seen, it looks like Gibson was trying to pull a Saving Private Ryan with the story of Christ.[/size] [size=2]Now, he's certainly no Spielberg. I gather that he was...inspired...by Spielberg's work. I read an interview with Gibson where he mentioned Schindler's List.[/size] [size=2]I suppose Gibson had Saving Private Ryan in mind, then. It makes sense, too. The extreme level of violence, the gore, the maiming and the heart-wrenching. But where Gibson seemed to fail is with the story.[/size] [size=2]People can flame me all they want, lol, but there really is no story to Passion. It's really just two straight hours of violence, right? That's an Aesthetic film...one that relies on the image, on the feeling that the imagery elicits. Considering also, that it's done entirely in Latin, Aramaic, and Hebew (right?), with subtitles only in plot sensitive scenes, it places the emphasis on the aesthetic quality. The audience is to just sit there and absorb the entire thing...almost turn themselves off. I don't mean to sound hypercritical here, because I'd get in trouble, but Passion does not look to be about the messages of Christ. Not that I value Christ at all, being an Atheist--I make my own message and form my own beliefs about what is right and wrong.[/size] [size=2]My mind is kind of scattered right now, so sorry if I sound fragmented.[/size] [size=2]Basically, I don't think Gibson had authentic motivations for making this movie. I've been reading about all these churches going nuts about the release, renting out theatres, setting up tables outside of the theatres...it really gives the impression of being a giant marketing tactic.[/size] [size=2]Then I see news reports on MSNBC of Official Passion Merchandise being produced. No lie. They're making stake pendant neklaces, a Scripture quote card set that has an eerie similarity to Poker cards, official Passion crosses...[/size] [size=2]I don't mean to cry conspiracy or anything like that, but I must admit, this is rather suspicious.[/size] [size=2]Passion looks to be made for shock value and...as much as I don't want to say it...religious propaganda.[/size] [size=2]I could be wrong, of course, but the cynic in me is going wild.[/size]

[QUOTE=lava lamp]Like TN mentioned, I feel it should be the parent's responsibility to guard their children from offensive programming. Despite the fact that there are such huge variations in upbringings and lifestyles, no one really has to be inconvenienced if everyone plays their part. I think organizations like the FCC are trying to preserve this bizarre ultra-conservative society and by sheltering, the morals that make up such a society are transparent, if that makes sense. Instead of hiding things perhaps they should do more to expose so people can form their own opinions about what is decent and what is indecent. Yes, children are the exception, but like I said earlier, that's the parent's job; it's not the job of some overly-anal organization. If you really want to get down to it, if Howard Stern "should be" censored than so should the majority of popular music riding the airwaves. Yes, there is censorship for certain words, but what's more important? The meaning or the word usage which hints to this? Heck, you don't even need the words being censored most of the time to get to the meaning, which if I may answer my own question, is the more important matter. I digress. [/quote] I agree with you that the parents play a major role in their child's development. The parents being instrumental here is blatantly obvious. However, when parents fail, someone must take action. The main focus of this thread seems to be on Howard Stern. It would do you well to remember that. Howard Stern's show holds no decency whatsoever. None. To argue that he be allowed to continue broadcasting such garbage is ill-advised and uninformed. I don't see how one can argue against the FCC going after him. "I think organizations like the FCC are trying to preserve this bizarre ultra-conservative society and by sheltering, the morals that make up such a society are transparent, if that makes sense." I begin to wonder who is living with skewed and bizarre ideals. If anything, the FCC is taking a step in the [i]right[/i] direction by instituting these regulations. You are making the FCC seem like something out of a George Orwell novel. [quote]I think children and adults alike need to get off of their conservative ***** and realize these things are only "offensive" because we're told they're supposed to be. I think true decency is the ability to decide what [b]is[/b] decent. Plain and simple. This isn't a completely international problem on all levels, and I'll continue to find it to be completely and utterly amusing how a country which embraces freedom makes such stupid regulations. You're not forced to listen to the radio or to public broadcasts on different platforms. If you "accidently" do so, that's your problem or the problem of your guardian if you are under the age of 18. If you're offended, remove yourself and get on with your life. Don't try to conquer the world with [b]your[/b] morals. Chances are millions don't agree with them.[/quote] "I think children and adults alike need to get off of their conservative ***** and realize these things are only "offensive" because we're told they're supposed to be." Firstly, your argument died with that opening sentence. I really do not need to go into your post further, but lets do so anyway. You accuse the Conservatives of being influenced by societal opinion. Do you think that you, playing the Liberal here, are somehow immune to such societal influences? I should hope not. So, lava lamp, I think you should take a few days off and think about that. You will find that you are more removed from reality than the Conservatives. Also, I would advise that you drop the "us vs them" mentality. It does not suit for any discussion, and the "us vs them" mentality only serves to fuel flamewars. I have seen it happen. [quote]Oh, and for the comment about psychoanalysis regarding TN's sexuality: you are blind. Being gay, I can say that what you said is exactly what no one with this label wants to hear. Don't stomp on our opinions with your stupid misconceptions. Citing a sexuality is so completely shallow and weak when it comes to facing an opinion which differs from your own: look to destroying the label, not enforcing it.[/QUOTE] I am blind? Lava lamp, before you accuse me of not knowing anything, and accuse me of being "completely shallow," accusing me of holding "stupid misconceptions," I would suggest that you research post histories before insulting me like that. If you believe that your argument is strengthened through flames, then you are mistaken. If you were to research post histories, you would find that my psychonanalysis was quite solid. I had a very reasonable basis for my interpretationr, and I supported it with logic and fact. You are doing nothing more than ignoring what I said and resorting to outright flaming me. I advise you to evaluate your attitude here. Your tone is becoming increasingly indignant. If you wish to continue to flame me in this manner, at least have the decency to do so in a PM or email. I have no problem with your replying in this thread to my FCC points, however.

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]The biggest joke here is that people like you think other people like you should run my life, tell me what I can and cannot listen to. I wasn't and never have been offended by anything on Stern, or Janet Jackson, I personally didn't listen to Bubba because he was on the same time slot as Howard. I'm so tired of idiots like you telling me what is and isn't decent. Kiss my ***.... how about that decency. How dare you try and tell me how I should live my life. What I should and should not be able to listen to. How dare you. I'm absolutely ashamed to even be remotely associated with you. If you're too imcompatible to change the radio station when you hear something "you don't like" then maybe you should be in a special home with other special people. And any responsible parent can TURN OFF the radio at any time. Maybe if we dealt with more serious problems like irresponsible parents, we wouldn't have an organization like the FCC to try and tell me what I can listen to and not listen to. But with being the incredibly STUPID country we are, no one thinks about that. Stern was not fined because of his language, he was fined because of the way he's done radio for the LAST 20 YEARS. I don't want uncencored radio, I want the SAME radio I've had the last 20 years of my life. And now the FCC decides to jump in. Give me a break. The whole deal with Howard Stern is that he was controversial... he pushed the limits and often times went over them... how does the FCC decide right NOW to throw a hefty fine at him? Oh and if anyone was offended by Janet Jackson's boob, you need to grow up babies.[/QUOTE] TN, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and go into Boba Fett's original reply, to see if I'm able to find the animosity you claim to have seen. [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]It?s about time the agency too it?s responsibilities seriously. They?ve been a joke because their regulations have, until this point, been rarely enforced.[/color] I see no problem here. It is simply a declarative statement based on his own opinions. It's a view that I agree with for the most part. [color=green]They should be. From what I?ve read and heard, both of these hosts are breaking the law by using some of the language that they have. Therefore, they should be fined accordingly.[/color] Again, I see no attack against you, TN. [color=green]Until now, I?ve never even heard of ?Bubba the Love Sponge?. Mr. Stern, on the other hand, deserves a much larger fine than he?s received. As of late, the very premise of his show has been nothing but smut and garbage. Not only is it offensive, but it?s not even funny.[/color] If you wish to insult Boba based on his comment here, then you should have insulted me, as well. I said the exact same thing. If you are going to insult one person for saying something that others have echoed, your basis for argument is faulty. [color=green]I feel that the FCC is necessary to prevent all kinds of crap, like Janet Jackson, from being on TV. Its purpose is to make sure that people aren?t offended by what they see on TV. [color=black]Again, I see no malicious intent directed towards you, TN.[/color] They regulate shows that are supposed to be clean, like the Super Bowl and the nightly news, so that people who don?t wish to have their ears assaulted by profanity or their vision profaned by unwarranted nudity. [color=black]Boba makes perfect sense, regardless of whether one fights for ultimate freedom of speech (anarchy) or a society with a reasonable level of control. The Super Bowl was created with the Olympian Games in mind, I'm sure. If you wish to argue that the Super Bowl should be filled with filth, then do examine its origins. It had honor up until recent years.[/color] The FCC makes sure that shows with offensive content, like South Park, have blurbs before each show that let the viewer know what they?re getting into. That?s an acceptable way to protect free speech while also allowing people who don?t wish to hear these things to tune out. The FCC is a very real and important purpose in our society, which has become increasingly crude in recent years. I applaud the FCC for finally taking its job seriously.[/color] I cannot find anything in this section that warrants your foul language and foul treatment here. [color=green]Long list? I was unable to find anything of the FCC website ([url="http://www.fcc.gov/"]www.fcc.gov[/url]) about this issue. I was able to find the official Clear Channel Broadcasting Statement at [url="http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022604_stern.pdf"]http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022604_stern.pdf[/url] In addition, I gleaned further information from the following reputable news agencies: [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112606,00.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112606,00.html[/url] [url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/News/02/25/stern.suspension/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/News/02/25/stern.suspension/index.html[/url] [url="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20040226_1175.html"]http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20040226_1175.html[/url] None of this was long or junky in nature. Could you elaborate on this comment further?[/color] If anything, Boba was giving you the benefit of the doubt and looking into your statement. If he found material confirming it, I am sure he would have reported it just the same. [color=green]What?s wrong with the FCC and it?s motives? Is warning people about the content of Radio and TV shows they are about to listen to/watch wrong?[/color] I see no problem here, either. [color=green]The FCC provides a service to the American people. Should law-breakers like Stern and ?Bubba the Love Sponge? continue to do what they do, the FCC should punish them accordingly. The FCC ?pleases? people who don?t want to put up with what they deem inappropriate content. You should respect that.[/color][/QUOTE] Indeed. TN, you should respect that. Now, TN, we know you have problems. We know that you are unhappy with aspects of your life. We know that you feel very wronged and violated by current societal events. I think I speak for all of us here when I say that we hope you are able to grow to understand yourself and develop the necessary tools to deal with your emotions. I know that what you're experiencing now is extremely difficult, but that does not give you permission to explode whenever someone disagrees with you, no matter where it is, no matter what discussion you are participating in. I understand where you're coming from. Really, I do. You have fought many forms of censorship your entire life. We all have. We have all been met with hardships and struggles have always presented themselves, and always will present themselves. The key is to understand where those troubles are coming from, and TN, you have not demonstrated any understanding for as long as I've been following your posts. I say that not to insult you, either. I say that as a concerned human being. Censorship is an ugly thing when used inappropriately, but in the case of mass media, it is not being utilized incorrectly. I am going to suggest that other facets of your life are clouding your judgment here. I am going to suggest that you are using the FCC as a scapegoat. TN, don't deny what the true problem is here. You are upset about being ostracized for being gay. That is what this entire thread boils down to, isn't it? I don't mean to psychoanalyze you, but TN, it's okay. You're among friends here. As much as you don't care to admit it, we all care about you. Even Boba and DeathBug do. I don't mean to preach here, and I don't want to sound like a father, but TN, it's okay. Just let all that anger, fear, and self-loathing go. Just let it go. Now that we're talking about censorship now, I was recently watching This Is Spinal Tap. Spinal Tap is a parody of the pretentious hair/heavy metal bands of the early 80s, right down to making fun of the suggestive lyrics (Spinal Tap is described as "retarded sexuality") and chauvinistic behavior. The band in the film is...well, for a lack of a better term, morons. Anybody who has seen the film will agree. Spinal Tap are teenagers trapped in an adult's body. They do not understand why their albums are banned, and they do not understand why their record company refuses to sell their Sniff The Glove album; the cover features a naked woman on all fours, with a dog collar around her neck, and a black glove shoved up into her face so she can sniff it. Why is Spinal Tap so hilarious though? Because it's parody. Because it's fantasy. [i]But[/i], we mustn't forget at how many rockstars were shocked at Spinal Tap, because it hit so close to home. Alice Cooper has said that he saw himself in Spinal Tap. Now, considering this, Spinal Tap's subject matter doesn't seem so outrageous. In fact, it seems a reasonable reference point for the need for censorship. We cannot have bands like Spinal Tap running around, saying whatever they please, because what they want to say degrades society. To end this post on a high note, I leave us with a very special Spinal Tap quote that warms our hearts, [quote]Nigel: This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's very...very special because if you can see... Marty: Yeah... Nigel: ...the numbers all go to eleven. Look...right across the board. Marty: Ahh...oh, I see.... Nigel: Eleven...eleven...eleven.... Marty: ...and most of these amps go up to ten.... Nigel: Exactly. Marty: Does that mean it's...louder? Is it any louder? Nigel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most...most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here...all the way up...all the way up.... Marty: Yeah.... Nigel: ...all the way up. You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go from there? Where? Marty: I don't know.... Nigel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra...push over the cliff...you know what we do? Marty: Put it up to eleven. Nigel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder. Marty: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top... number...and make that a little louder? Nigel: ...these go to eleven.[/quote] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17706&stc=1[/img]

[QUOTE=DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=cominc sans ms] Also, as an older guy now, I can make the decision that I would totally date a girl like Vicky. ^^;[/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE] Vicky was which one? The annoying next door neighbor? I was always more attracted to John Stamos' wife on the show. Now she was good-lookin. ^_^ But so my post isn't solely devoted to male chauvinistic pigginess, Full House was entertaining to a point. I think that point was when the entire cast grew older. With an older cast, the same corny jokes from earlier seasons weren't going to cut it. Really, the writing was never all that sharp. It was, like you said, more feel-good sap. Full House...eh.

[left][font=Verdana][size=2]The dusty saloon went silent and darts stopped bein thrown[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]When in walked that mysterious stranger, strollin to the center of the room.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]His voice was soft but his eyes were quick,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Dartin back and forth, always ever watchful,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]And mindful of the door.[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]He spoke quietly at first,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]?Now listen here an listen good,?[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]He said,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]?I?ve come here to play a game.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]I?m lookin for one man to challenge me.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]It doesn?t matter who?the outcome?s all the same.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]The prize is well enough your trouble,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Though I warn ya,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Should ya lose, the penalty is more than double.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Which out of you wants to try your hand??[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Now, they say the Devil played the fiddle,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Or so the story goes,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]But this man wasn?t carryin any music, or carryin a bow.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]The stranger asked again,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]?None of you stood to challenge me,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Leaves me not much but choose, then,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Who is gonna face me??[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]He took a step to a table to his right,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Eyeing the cards up, musing near the dealer?s hand,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]?Son,?[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]He said, gettin down real close, see,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]?You ever not been the dealer,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Ever been on the receiving end.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]I wonder if you take as well as you be givin?,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]?Cause you?re really cleanin here.?[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]The dealer began to edge away,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Slinkin to his seat,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]When the stranger grabbed him,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]With fire and brimstone in his voice,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]?Boy, get up on your feet!?[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]The stranger raised the dealer in the air,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Cards flyin everywhere and drinks on the floor.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]As the dealer boy struggled, the stranger told the bar,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]?This is gonna be my challenger,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Cause the rest of you didn?t speak,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]He?s goin down fast, folks,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]You watch me break?em like a twig.?[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]The dealer was thrown down to a chair,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]As the stranger sat across,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Grinning smugly like a fox.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]With one sweep of his mighty arm,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Plates and whiskeys went flyin ?cross the bar.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Out from the stranger?s bag came a very special board,[/size][/font][/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Checkered red and black with a polished shine. [/size][/font][/left]

The FCC is why I love Comedy Central. Comedy Central censors their material, but when they broadcast an Uncut South Park The Movie at 2 am on a Friday night, they mean it. It seems like the FCC is going after the "major" offenders, more than smaller networks. Howard Stern, I can see why he's getting slapped. His show is...it revels in stupidity and never features any intelligent commentary anymore (that is, if there was any intelligent commentary to begin with). While I don't agree with [i]the majority[/i] of what the FCC is doing, I do agree with isolated cases, such as Howard Stern. Granted, the blame should be wholly placed on the broadcasters, though they should take some measure of responsibility. I mean, is it demonstrating any respect for anyone in the world to have a "Jeopardy of the Supermodels," or mentally-handicapped dwarves squaring off in trivia? The censorship issue is not an issue of who is right and who is wrong, really. I see it more of an issue of balance. There are some things that simply shouldn't be on the air; Stuff like Girls Gone Wild, anyone? I can't stand those infomercials. 3 AM or not, on whatever network, promos like that should not exist. Like I said, the censorship is not a matter of black and white and it is unfortunate that both "sides" view it in black and white. While I myself do not agree with what SpikeTV recently did regarding their Terminator 1 broadcast, it only further illustrates the unbalance of media in our society. If we wish to achieve some decency in the media, we cannot--absolutely cannot support people like Howard Stern. Of course, we cannot fully support what the FCC is doing, either. There has to be a balance. I think that's all I can say right now.

Tony and TN, I've got all three in the Special Edition DVDs right here, so no worries bout that. ;) It just annoys me that to advertise an Uncut Terminator broadcast, even still advertising the Uncut presentation during the commercial breaks, and then give this. I don't mind censorship, necessarily. I mean, Grosse Pointe Blank was censored on TBS and I was fine with it. Sure, I cringed at "forget you," but they didn't advertise it Uncut and uncensored. I expected Grosse Pointe Blank to be edited for content. I expect many movies to be edited for content on network/basic cable stations. But when a station outright says, "Uncut; the way it should be," and doesn't follow-up to that, regardless of FCC influence or not, it doesn't gel with me, lol. SpikeTV is good for one thing--maybe two things: MXC and the Bond movie marathons.