Brasil

[QUOTE=Mitch][size=1][color=red]Is this book often just called [i]Night[/i]? If so, we're going to be reading it soon in my AP English Class. From what you've said, this sounds like it's this book. The book we're going to read is about WWII. . .but then again, maybe it's just coincidence and I'm thinking of the wrong book. [/color][/size][/QUOTE] Coincidence. [i]Night[/i] is written by Elie Wiesel, and it's a narrative of concentration camps in WWII. Mother Night is one of many Vonnegut novels centered around some aspect of WWII. It's a remarkable work, really, like Slaughterhouse Five. Vonnegut is a master at giving us a conflicted character, sometimes giving that character some simply horrid and despised trait or personality, and grab us. It presents an interesting spin on the entire conflict, really. Who in WWII was acting out of morals, and who was acting out of self-interest? This is one of the major questions we have concerning WWII; it's a major question we have of ourselves in day-to-day life. I've heard the film adaptation of Mother Night is spectacular, as well. I've got it on DVD...I really should watch it one of these days.

A drawing from rather early in my career, Sophomore year of high school, I think. [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17680[/img]

Not! Yes, I know SpikeTV is horrible, and only has one good show (MXC), but for all the advertising they had for their Terminator 1 UNCUT presentation, they sure flubbed it. Every curse was edited out, every curse command was blurred. The eye surgery scene was what we'd find if Terminator 1 had been broadcast on Fox or NBC. SpikeTV can--oh, wait, I've gotta censor this, lol--SpikeTV, to quote True Lies, can [spoiler]blow me[/spoiler]. So, my question is, does anyone else have a problem with TV cinematic censorship? What have been the worst cases of blatant disregard for a director's vision that you've seen? I'd say SpikeTV touting of UNCUT Terminator and then showing this rubbish takes the cake. Though, Speed's network broadcast was pretty memorable, "Forget you!" ::goes to turn on TBS to watch Grosse Pointe Blank::

Heh, it was the quickest post I've ever written, so I didn't go into too much detail, did I? Yes, there is co-op in it. However, it's not the co-op you'd expect. Don't go in there expecting TimeSplitters 2, for example, because it's an entirely different engine than FPS. Co-op is like single-player on steroids, I think. I say this because...even ignoring the fact that co-op is an fully conceived mode on its own...the difficulty level will frustrate many. EoN co-op forces the players to think strategically. Stealth is a major factor in it; you can't expect to barrel through the level and get through it successfully. It takes planning, pacing, and synchronization. It's suicide for the players to become separated in the middle of a massive firefight in a courtyard. Think the shower area scene in The Rock; dozens of enemy soldiers shooting at you from many directions, giving you very little maneuvering space. The difference is, in EoN you can survive the encounter. It definitely takes practice and patience. It's a remarkable addition that could have been a game in itself, with a minor length extension. See, until you play GoldenEye, you haven't played a Bond FPS. Once you play GE, Nightfire will seem like second or third-rate crap. It's unfortunate that you never were able to play GE like I or my comrades did, but you just have to trust us on this if you'll never have a chance to play GE. Nightfire's multiplayer is abysmal; AUF's is better, much better, but does not achieve what GE does (did, lol). Now, the multiplayer is the only somewhat negative aspect of the game. I describe it to an underdeveloped PowerStone or Kung Fu Chaos engine. It's fun, of course, and the arenas are pretty neat, but don't go in there expecting the options of single-player or co-op. It's mainly arena fighting with player-activated hazards. The hazards include explosives, laser beams...really the staple detainment weapons of Bond villains. Still, though, even with the limitations, it is fun with the right people. Mostly, though, EoN is a single-player experience. That's perfectly fine, though, because EA has just wowed us with a damn near perfect third-person Bond adventure with a fully developed single-player mode and a rather remarkable co-op. For once I agree with IGN in their assessment of a more developed multi-player aspect in the sequel, which, knowing EA, there will be, lol. I would have loved to see rappelling in multi. Maybe next time. :) EDIT: 500. :cool:

EoN...spectacular. I really have nothing more to say about it. It's as if EA stopped trying to [i]recreate[/i] GoldenEye and concentrated on making a Bond game. Now, granted there was a horrid attempt at third-person Bond (Tomorrow Never Dies), but forget about that. EoN is the best Bond game since GoldenEye...it's really the only Bond game since GoldenEye. Everything that Nightfire and AUF tried to do (multi-faceted gameplay, Bond moves, and nifty gadgets), EoN damn near perfects. There is so much in this game; it's mind-boggling, really. EA took what they were trying to do with the previous attempts and did it. From rappelling down the side of an exploding building, to chasing down a speeding train on a motorcycle, to having a showdown with an old friend [spoiler](JAWS)[/spoiler] only to have that friend break out of a the trainwreck, to a helicopter chase through collapsing canyons...only in the first three or four levels...dude...we have the next Bond game.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]I watch reality TV, it?s called the news. It?s on all the time too! Just turn on FOX, CNN, ABC or NBC. You?ll get reality TV that?s really cool and educational too. In all seriousness, I really don?t like reality TV. It?s a pointless waste of time. I?d much rather be on the boards, doing homework, etc. Call me an introvert, but I really don?t care what goes on between people who decided to go live in a random house, live on an island, hang with Donald Trump or live a simple life. It?s just not appealing to me, for the same reason I don?t like most TV shows. It all boils down to ?Do I care? No.? -Boba[/color][/QUOTE] Well, Fox doesn't really have news all the time...mostly just crap, lol. "Now, PT, Fox has many quality shows and intelligent programming." But, Boba, you don't find the educational value of watching Paris Hilton give a cow an enema? Or what about Donald Trump booting someone out of his office? Maybe we can learn something from watching people lay in a pile of...roaches, was it? Ah, all those Fear Factor shows are all alike. My Reality TV comes from just walking around on campus. I just observe people. Learn a lot that way, and the trashiness, if there is any, is totally natural. ^_^

Well, the length really depends on what kind of gamer you are. I'm a casual gamer, but when I play, I like to explore everywhere, so Dark Alliance 1 took me around 8 hours to beat it. That's with co-op. I'd imagine longer in single-player, as more leveling is required (and more running, lol). I've heard that Dark Alliance 2 clocks in at around 10 to 11 hours. That's probably casual gamer time. Man, that sounded rambly. :nervous:

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']My main interest in the beginning was mostly because Gibson had chosen to leave subtitles out of it altogether. I thought this was a really cool route to take. I suppose the idea was that what was happening onscreen would be universally understood. Last I heard, he was stuck having to have subtitles added to the film though.[/quote] It'd be interesting to see, indeed. A total absence of subtitles, leaving the viewer to be...conscious during it. Hmm... As neat as that sounds, it sounds more like a film that Gibson wants to make. From what I've heard of it, and how many people are not supportive of it, I don't think it will do very well commercially. But somehow, I don't think Gibson intended for a commercial success here. Oh, for whoever mentioned Gibson in Hamlet. It wasn't really [i]his[/i] interpretation or film. That film was directed by Franco Zeffirelli. I do agree with you, though; it was an amazing film adaptation. While it cut considerable portions of Hamlet, it shows the humanity of the play, as opposed to Ken Branaugh's version, which is utterly pretentious and long-winded. Branaugh's version borders on what, 4 hours? 5?

[quote name='cloricus']And there are several very good reasons why he should still be in power, what is your point?[/quote] Name them now. I want a full and detailed list in your reply, with totally logical reasoning behind it. I want to see if you can do this, boy. On with the topic. The "advertising" disgusts me, yes. It does nothing more than present the process in a negative light. Surprisingly, I am not affected in the desired way when I see the Bush Bashing or Democrat Damagement (heh, fun alliteration). When I see a campaign ripping Kerry up, or portraying Bush as more or less a fool in power, I don't criticize Kerry or Bush. When I see that propaganda, I view the propagandists in a negative light. They're resorting to mudslinging, which is unfortunate. My ideal election would not be an election. With all the mudslinging going on, why not just have a wrestling match between two supermodels and bet on the winner? If Tyra Banks wins, Republicans win; if Elizabeth Hurley wins, the Democratic candidate wins. It'd be a very fun election, I'd say. The country would get a new leader without election fraud and pregnant chads, and the males would get to see two gorgeous women rolling around with each other. ~_^ Kidding aside, the important message here is, "Don't be blinded by the ********." There is always going to be bad stuff going down on both sides of the fence pre-election; it is up to the voters to decide whether that is going influence their decision. If I decide to vote, my vote will be based on what has happened in the past four years, how I feel about it, and which candidate has supported what I want to happen in the upcoming four years. Elections are a good thing, generally. We get to exercise our right to control something. I'm not that naive to think that we are not influenced at all in what we do, but at least we can step back and realize what's going on. Japan was halfway there, I think. She saw the Democratic faults, but didn't imply that the Republicans have their faults, as well. It's really a balance...The Force, in a sense. And as I recall, Bob Dole wanted to play Senator Palpatine in the Prequels, and come to think of it, Joe Lieberman looks similar to Palpatine. Hehe.

[quote name='rttocs77]So when it came out (the AbFab episode) it [i] was not [/i'] yet an old topic. So therefore AbFab is up-to-date and hip.[/quote] Step out of your shell and think about this. Imagine the joke bubble during Botox. [i]Everyone[/i] was cracking jokes about it in one way or another. I held no respect for any comic doing Botox jokes, and when I laughed, it was because the comic was intelligent in their delivery. They used smart humor. You fail to differentiate between being up-to-date and being smart. There is a reason The Daily Show works so well; they are abreast on current issues [i]and[/i] have damn good writers who know how to write comedy. Deflate your ego and walk away from this thread, dude. The fact that you continue with these inane retorts is only digging your grave deeper.

I think we may be asking the wrong questions. Drix, Mods and all, forgive the spam. madsatirist (6:52:01 PM): Sup madsatirist (6:52:05 PM): When you're at a party, fat clown6969 (6:52:06 PM): n/m You? fat clown6969 (6:52:08 PM): lol fat clown6969 (6:52:10 PM): yes? madsatirist (6:52:11 PM): and see two chicks hook up, madsatirist (6:52:16 PM): what goes through your mind? fat clown6969 (6:52:24 PM): gah fat clown6969 (6:52:27 PM): disappointment fat clown6969 (6:52:36 PM): cause I missed two opportunities ;-) madsatirist (6:52:38 PM): cause you're not getting in on the action madsatirist (6:52:39 PM): lol madsatirist (6:52:45 PM): seriously, though madsatirist (6:52:49 PM): when two chicks hook-up madsatirist (6:52:53 PM): what goes through your mind madsatirist (6:53:00 PM): you stop for a few minutes and admire it, right? fat clown6969 (6:53:04 PM): two lesbians fat clown6969 (6:53:07 PM): usually no fat clown6969 (6:53:15 PM): I tend not to dwell on it fat clown6969 (6:53:21 PM): now.. if these two girls are like... fat clown6969 (6:53:23 PM): getting it on fat clown6969 (6:53:39 PM): My body starts to do things that my conscience doesnt like ;-) madsatirist (6:53:43 PM): hehe madsatirist (6:53:52 PM): so you're cool with watching two lesbians doing stuff fat clown6969 (6:54:02 PM): I have to be honest fat clown6969 (6:54:07 PM): no.. logically I'm not fat clown6969 (6:54:19 PM): I don't agree with what they are doing madsatirist (6:54:33 PM): ... madsatirist (6:54:35 PM): ? madsatirist (6:54:39 PM): lol fat clown6969 (6:54:41 PM): I know fat clown6969 (6:54:46 PM): I'm no man *turns in shame* fat clown6969 (6:54:47 PM): ;-) madsatirist (6:54:48 PM): hahaha fat clown6969 (6:55:10 PM): the whole media image of guys liking lesbians really doesn't realistically apply to me madsatirist (6:55:20 PM): oh? fat clown6969 (6:55:24 PM): I don't like lesbianism.. *shrug* fat clown6969 (6:55:38 PM): just gets me hot.. madsatirist (6:55:39 PM): so if two of the most gorgeous women invited you to their place fat clown6969 (6:55:43 PM): hot girls... gah madsatirist (6:55:51 PM): you would go, right? fat clown6969 (6:56:29 PM): Why would i decline their invitation? fat clown6969 (6:56:35 PM): If they started having sex, I'd probably leave fat clown6969 (6:56:47 PM): but I don't avoid people because they are lesbians, Alex madsatirist (6:57:05 PM): care to elaborate? fat clown6969 (6:57:55 PM): Well... I value my morals. fat clown6969 (6:58:10 PM): If someone would ask to have sex with me (with the exception of Natalie Portman) I would probably decline fat clown6969 (6:58:17 PM): Because I don't think it's right. fat clown6969 (6:58:33 PM): Now, because two lesbians getting it on makes me hot, doesn't mean I'm cool with their choice fat clown6969 (6:58:40 PM): I just get horny over it.. fat clown6969 (6:59:01 PM): You know that study saying the average male thinks about sex ever 15 seconds? madsatirist (6:59:01 PM): brb fat clown6969 (6:59:04 PM): np madsatirist (7:05:11 PM): I had to take out ze trahsh madsatirist (7:05:13 PM): hehe fat clown6969 (7:05:55 PM): oh madsatirist (7:06:02 PM): So, do you mean to tell me that you don't succumb to your naughty bits at all? fat clown6969 (7:06:21 PM): I'm not Jesus. I make mistakes fat clown6969 (7:06:26 PM): :-) madsatirist (7:06:29 PM): hehe madsatirist (7:06:34 PM): so you have gotten with people fat clown6969 (7:06:38 PM): Hmm? madsatirist (7:06:39 PM): more than one person at a time madsatirist (7:06:42 PM): ? fat clown6969 (7:06:47 PM): *shifty eyes* madsatirist (7:06:51 PM): I've got my post fat clown6969 (7:06:54 PM): let's just say I.. have [color=darkred] Naughty, naughty Alex. Posting only half the story? Right before we concluded that it was a hypothetical suggestion that I've had sex? I suppose you people should know that I've not had sex.. so let that story end there. Oh, and let me add that I later said that I don't avoid people or dislike people because they are gay...I just disagree with one of their personal choices.~Drix[/color] See, the liberals here are asking the wrong questions. While Drix doesn't agree with what gays do, he would watch them during certain activities. Scruples are an unfortunate thing, eh Drix? It seems that the entire argument against gay marriage is out of a...self-consciousness, in that people still feel uncomfortable around those who are different. You know, I think that's what the whole thing boils down to: People are still very uptight. They don't want to succumb to matters of the flesh, because their conscience (or socially-imposed boundaries) says so. Something to think about. Dinnertime for me, so I'll be back.

[quote name='rttocs77']Oh. Sorry, I forgot how incredibly brilliant, hip, and knowledgeable you are.[/quote] Oooh. I'm hurt. Really. I am. Nice try at sarcasm. Play again when you're told to go on down. [quote]I've stated my reasons for liking it. You have no need to attack me like that.[/quote] Did I hurt your feelings? By the way, don't try to dish out what you can't take. Your first reply, [quote][i]rttocs77[/i] You have to be up to date on pop culture to enjoy this show. People who think it's stupid or think it has no point probably aren't very up-to-date.[/quote] *nods* I think you would want to exit at this point. I'd advise against denying the intent there, too. You have no credibility here, lol. [quote]You mean attacker, you.[/quote] Ouch. [quote]EDIT: Oh, by the way, the 'Paralox' episode was from 99-2000. So that would make it late 90's right? I also suppose, you being so pop-culture savvy, know about the black card.[/QUOTE] Yes. 1999 is late 90s. You needed me to tell you? "Black card" Hmmm...I ran the usual search parameters and nothing was found regarding pop culture. I only found material relating to beam dynamics and poker. Care to elaborate, provided "Black card" is a real term and not something made-up? Or is it something known exclusively to your provincial location? Again, I suggest you walk away from this thread.

[QUOTE=rttocs77]It's a satirical show on the self absorbed, narcissistic lifestyle. The slap-stick comedy is abundant, but I?m not saying whether that is a good or bad thing. I?m just no a big fan of it. However, there are some very VERY clever jokes written into it concerning pop culture. Like in a recent one where Eddie can?t wait for Saffy to have her baby because ?mixed babies are all the rage.? Or the whole ?Paralox? episode that poked fun of Botox. Saffy made some comment to Patsy about how it was used for biological weapons in the middle east, only to have Patsy reply, ?good enough for Saddam, good enough for me.? You have to be up to date on pop culture to enjoy this show. People who think it's stupid or think it has no point probably aren't very up-to-date.[/QUOTE] Oh....then I must not be up to date on pop culture then! Gee, I [i]only[/i] have written theses on incorporating pop culture into the classroom, and have analyzed how to utilize Quentin Tarantino's filmmaking methods to get students interested in school. Wow, I've written at least 5 essays and 3 presentations on pop culture just last Fall! But I still know nothing, because I know enough to despise an idiotic show!? Get real. Botox is outdated. Late 90s. Biological weapons were an outdated joke in the Late 90s. They're a dead joke now. "It's a satirical show on the self absorbed, narcissistic lifestyle. " Incorrect. You do not know what "Satire" means. Allow me to enlighten you. Satire is smart and scathing. It demonstrates intelligence in its execution, and does not rely on some...outlandish and ridiculous presentation or characterization. This is why Monty Python's Life of Brian is satire, because it has a definite intelligence in its presentation. The ideas are solid and the characters are not some...half-assed, airheaded, ditzy wannabees. Most importantly, satire believes itself. It has a level of maturity about itself. The seams don't show, to put it simply. Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is satire because it believes itself, because the tone is correct. Read Modest Proposal then try to tell me that AbFab is satire. Even watch South Park then try to tell me AbFab is satire. Maybe in your world, you believe AbFab to be satire--perhaps in some vain attempt to elevate yourself over others? Come on, dude. It's not an intelligent show at all. It's "dumb comedy," to quote a famous director. And even with the label of "dumb comedy," it comes nowhere close to Blazing Saddles, Dumb and Dumber, or Mystery Men. Yes, Blazing Saddles was a brilliant comedy, but it was still a lunatic comedy, a "dumb comedy." Shall I continue? Nah, I've got to meet with a professor. Byebye. EDIT: Quick thought. Furthermore, there is nothing to AbFab. It's an empty show. There's no meat to those bones, if there is a structure at all. You want Botox jokes? You want WMD jokes? Daily Show. South Park. Chappelle's Show.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']I don't know how, considering it's also available on PS2 heh.[/quote] Hehe. Good point. Well, if you've got an Xbox and an Xbox hater, Dark Alliance 2 will convert them, lol. I haven't played PS2 in a long, long time, actually. Even with a cross-console release, I often ignore the PS2 version. I don't dislike PS2; I still am able to enjoy a large amount of games on there. It's just that PS2's multiplayer capabilities aren't quite up to par with Cube and Xbox. For a game like Dark Alliance, which is only two-player, the multi aspect doesn't factor in as heavily, so then the controls are a major factor in which version I play. I really dig the Xbox Controller S. At first, it was awkward, but I got used to it very quickly, and I've found that Dark Alliance 2's custom control configuration works beautifully with the Controller S.

Dark Alliance 2 had a sizeable predecessor, both in terms of gameplay and graphical achievement. The original Dark Alliance was revolutionary, and I can understand the doubts that DA2 would fail to live up to the original. It does. In some cases, it exceeds it. The graphics were one of the sweetest points of DA1, with gorgeous lighting effects and water and wall textures that made sweet, sweet love to the eyes. DA2 doesn't jump ahead too greatly in the graphics department. I detected no vast improvement at all. In some cases, the graphics are merely DA1. But that's not a problem, so no worries. The gameplay of DA1 was stellar. The co-op was crafted with care, the missions and dungeons sparkled, and the controls were of a second nature even immediately picking up the controller. Dark Alliance 2 keeps this spirited tradition of fluid gaming alive. It is best described as Dark Alliance's evolution. While the changes seem minimal, their effect is significant. For example, in the original, we needed to carry arrows...many, many arrows. DA2 doesn't do that. Pick up a bow? Are you able to equip it? Use it. Great addition. The targeting assist, previously requiring a feat in DA1, is readily available with a touch of the Shift button. The feat and skill selection has been improved upon, too. Part of this ties in with the evolution of the characters, featuring a cast of dark elf necromancers, moon elf monks, dwarven rogues, human barbarians, and a cleric, the feats/skill needed an equal boost. The boost is a nice one, too. One of the biggest pains of the original was running out of healing potions, while having an overabundance of rejuvenation potions. With the necromancer's Alchemy skill, rejuvenation potions become healing, and vice versa. It's a very handy skill, especially with the combined gold system. Yes, combined gold. Really, I see why this system was created. In DA1, in a co-op game, each player could have amassed some 50,000 gold by Act II, which really did not add to the co-op "feel." Each player had more than enough to purchase whatever they desired. With the combined gold, players are required to work together in order to advance in the game. Considering how expensive healing potions become later in the game, the Alchemy skill and necromancer become invaluable as rejuvenation potions are all that appear from dead corpses and barrels. I don't have time to go into it fully, but Dark Alliance 2 is a very worthy successor. I highly recommend it for those looking for a good ole fashioned dungeon crawl with a liberal sprinkling of monster mashing mayhem. It's good times, and will convert Xbox haters!

[QUOTE=rttocs77]Are you kidding!? Edina, Patsy, and Saffy make up the show! They are all hilarious. I laugh out loud many times each episode. I own seasons 1-4 on DVD and I still crack up during each episode. I think it's the only truly funny British show.[/QUOTE] He kids you not. I can't stand the entire damn cast of that show, and when I see a commercial for it, the channel gets changed, TV gets muted, or the TV goes off. They're that annoying. The writing isn't even anything worthwhile. It's just utter stupidity, lol. Oh, wow, two idiot ditzes running around England? C'mon. It's just so blah. It is not the "only truly funny British show." In fact, it's not funny at all. Monty Python has comedy down pat. "This parrot has ceased to be!" I recall one skit where Palin and Idle played little old ladies, then Cleese was lowered down in a harness to rob their safe, then went right back up. AbFab had no point to their stupidity, and whether or not that was the point of the show is irrelevant. What matters here is how mind-numbingly drab and trite that show was. I, for one, am glad it's stuck in 3 am syndication on a UHF station. I cringe when I hear soundbytes from it, or see commercials of it. It's something that should never have been created.

[quote name='Shinmaru']And why don't you consider them to be fighting games? That's just a bunch of elitist nonsense, in my opinion. Smash Bros. and Melee are just as legitimate as any other fighter; they just have a more "arcadey" (and I use arcadey loosely, since Smash Bros. can get much deeper than the normal arcade game) feel to them. Fighters that are similar to Smash Bros., such as Power Stone and its sequel, I would count into the fighting game genre, as well.[/quote] I don't know if elitist nonsense is the proper term, actually. See, from how the fighting genre looks today, and how the fans of the genre behave, I really don't think there is a conscious elitism present. I really think the reason that a majority of gamers hate Smash Bros, is simply due to...peer pressure, I guess. Social stigma brainwashing, in a sense. Just visiting boards like IGN or Gamespot, there is this fanboy-ism that cannot be rationalized as elitism. Elitism, from what I've seen, is not a blind distaste for something; elitism comes from experiencing the entire scope, or a very broad scope, of a genre, and thus being so well versed in that genre, that one is able to provide meaningful insight into why a game does not suit their needs. I chalk up that "Smash hater" attitude to fanboy-ism. [quote]Sad as it is to say, I'm probably stuck in the 2D era for fighters, as well. It's not for lack of giving 3D fighters every opportunity in the world (hell, I was pretty damn excited for Soul Calibur II's release), but I've never been able to get into 3D fighters all too much. Could be any number of things, heh. Stuff like Marvel vs. Capcom (and its sequel), Smash Bros./Melee and Power Stone (and its sequel) are more my style of fighting game; fighters that maintain a ridiculous pace and really get me into the game and make it fun.[/QUOTE] I think that since 2D was the original engine for fighting games--the engine that we grew up with, and the engine that laid the groundwork for the entire genre, our love for 2D comes out of familiarity. Really, though, it's a matter of gameplay. The 3D fighters I've played have rather awkward mechanics, even Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance and SCII. Their engines do have faults, but SCII is an arcade game, first and foremost. The movement is pure arcade-based, which is disappointing. SCII is a fun game, of course, but it seems to have a much greater window for button-mashing than MKDA or Melee. Playing it or even just watching someone play it, the moves can be linked, but they're so damn effective when used alone, why would anyone bother to learn the combos? Not to sound cruel, but...while SCII does have room for deeper mechanics, the shallow mechanics outweigh the deeper ones, I think. That's one reason I love Melee; because yes, you can get corner-trapped and beaten to a bloody pulp, but you can still survive after the beating. Perhaps it's a lack of skill on my part, but the damage in SCII is unbalanced. In fact, the life bar system is unbalanced. It's archaic, because it's not handled appropriately anymore, I think. Case in point. My average Melee match lasts 8 minutes. Some have even reached 13 minutes. I've had a few matches that have gone on for 18 minutes. The only matches featuring life bar systems that have gone on that long have been in Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance with my brother. Now, I'm not green when it comes to fighting games, lol. I like to think I know my way around them pretty well, and for that match length experience to only apply to Melee and MKDA is ridiculous. My longest SCII match lasts for 5 minutes. Is it a matter of a quicker high? Faster not longer? I guess attention spans are waning? Oh, speaking of fast fingers, Kung Fu Chaos is insane fun. It's one of the best lunatic fighting games I've played. It's so out there and so bizarre and so well executed, that it's a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant or pallid industry.

So, I've been thinking about this for a while now, pretty much since my Pittsburgh trip. As you all know, it was a gigantic Smash Bros Melee tourney. I got schooled in the majority of it--sans a particular free-for-all in Hyrule Temple, in which I had taken 356% damage against a spectacular Marth player, who I'm very pleased to say I gave a run for his money, lol. As I was chilling in the TV Lounge, I was speaking to Justin, the Vice President of OGS. We were talking about fighting games and how interest is generated in them. Naturally, our conversation concentrated on Melee and Soul Calibur II for a while, during which Justin told me of his newly acquired distaste for Soul Calibur II, because he had played it so much. I was intrigued to say the least, and asked him why he had become so tired of it, only after a few months. "It lacks something," he said, "It can't captivate the audience like Melee can. I mean, look at Melee, which has been out since 2001, and I look at this turn-out for a Melee Tournament." It makes sense, too. SCII is an obvious deep engine. Just looking at the superficial mechanics, and you can tell there is a complex system in place. That's what draws people in, I think, the obvious deepness. They see 3D movement, weapons being flung about in 360 degrees, fully directional attacks, and subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, think, "That is a deep game." Then what happens? They shrug off Melee as some second-rate, inferior, empty fighting game with an engine that belongs in the N64 era, or close to it. But for a game like Melee, which is incredibly deep when the gamer becomes adept at it--I mean, the stuff I was seeing at this tourney was [i]incredible[/i]. I tell you, when someone bashes Pikachu, I snap at them. Some of these Pikachus at CMU held their own against the top-tier characters (Marth, Fox, Sheik) with little to no trouble at all. Pikachu is regarded as a middle-tier character, too. And yet gamers continue to praise other games over Melee, simply based on a superficial ideal, lol. So, my question to all here is, is this representational of the fighting genre? Is this why certain games do so well commercially and find so many gamers to admit they play them? I've found this is the case with SCII, especially. I'm not against SCII, of course. It's a really great game, but it's limited in the sense that it doesn't have the speed of Melee, that I can't lay into someone with juggling, and when I'm able to, it doesn't feel intuitive like a few choice Melee characters. I understand the different tastes of different gamers, but I feel certain fighting games are being disregarded simply by image. What do you all think of the current fighting genre? Where do you see strengths? Weaknesses?

There are two courses of action that we can take here. 1) Purchase this "Ultimate" Edition of the Original Trilogy of Star Wars, which is undeniably one of the greatest Trilogies in film, and with that we get the bastardized editions of what we know and love, in addition to what sounds like a spectacular fourth DVD chock-full of behind the scenes footage from the creation of the Original Trilogy. Or, 2) We invest in video capture equipment (really high-end stuff) and transfer our VHS tapes to a digital format, then purchase, steal, etc, the software and computer equipment to digitally remaster the Trilogy that we know to be the true Trilogy, then burn it onto a DVD collection of our own. Regrettably, it looks like the only feasible option is #1. As much as I disliked the Re-releases, I think I can grow to ignore the minor changes. From how it sounds on various sites, only the re-releases are being...released. I think that means we're getting a total digital re-release of the re-releases, meaning no [i]other[/i] new scenes added. Also, they might surprise us and release the Originals as Easter Eggs in the collection...but not likely. I'm willing to ignore the additions--to a point. I have a feeling that my opinion will change as more details are leaked. But as it stands now, I'm more optimistic than anything. I mean, at least we're getting this, lol. From how it looked even a year ago, we were never going to get the Original Trilogy in any form, on DVD. So...yeah. Better this than nothing, I think.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Inuyasha7271 [/i] [B]I never thought of it like that I always thought of Star Wars being more deep than people thought it was, but If you watch the first three(after the last one comes out) and A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. You will notice that Anakin and Luke both broke the rules in a similar fashion. I do doubt though that Luke becomes the Dark Emperor probably a teacher of future jedi, but Dark Lord no. [/B][/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you fully appreciate what this interpretation does, lol. The entire Expanded Universe is broken now. Everything that bases its narrative off of the (incorrect) idea that Luke is "good" in RotJ, is now obsolete. Also, I don't think you understand just what Luke's fall means. See, at the end of RotJ, Luke has broken even...meaning, he is neither Light nor Dark--at least, that's the nice way of putting it. I have a feeling there is still more Dark Side there than is shown. For example, Ben's lightsaber is blue, and Luke's lightsaber color is blue, up until losing his hand. With his hand goes his blue lightsaber, and I think it is safe to say that Luke losing that blue lightsaber is the final sign of Ben's death. This is further supported by The Emperor's Obi-Wan imitation in Jedi. Obi-Wan was fully killed in ESB, when the blue lightsaber was lost; and the positive messages that he preached are now dead. There is a reason that Luke builds a green lightsaber, too. [url]http://www.saumag.edu/art/studio/chalkboard/c-wheel.html[/url] Red and Green are complementary colors. [quote]Color Complements are color opposites. These colors contrast each other in the most extreme way possible. They also help to make each other more active.[/quote] That definition is most interesting. Red and Green contrast each other. If Red lightsabers symbolize the Dark Side, then Green lightsabers symbolize the Light Side--and Luke throws the Green lightsaber away. Red and Green also strengthen each other. This means, Luke's choice of a Green Lightsaber symbolizes the Dark Side growing stronger. But if he throws the Green lightsaber away, does that mean the Dark Side has lost? No. We know that Leia is Force-Sensitive and we know that she will rebuild the Republic. This is known even with the EU thrown-out. We also know that Leia will (most likely) be on the Light Side when she develops her Force Powers. But here's the twist. Apart from Luke, there are no other Jedi left. And when you examine the make-up of that final shot in RotJ, you see that Luke and Leia are standing next to each other. The shot is unbalanced. If we adhere to the belief that Luke is Light Side, this unbalance is not a concern. However, now that we have established Luke did fall to the Dark Side in RotJ, this unbalance becomes dangerous...very dangerous. Luke no longer has anyone to guide him. He has no Light Jedi to show him the good path. Considering also, that he fell so easily, he will fall again. If we use the unbalanced family shot of RotJ as a reference, and realize that Leia is Light Side, there is no Dark Side in that image. And here is where it gets even more interesting. Luke is Dark Side, or has an intense predisposition to the Dark Side. If he will fall again, become a Dark Jedi, Leia has no chance of going Light. This means that the next three episodes (if they are ever made) will feature a shadow of the Empire. The New Republic that Leia creates will not be a Republic; it will be a New Empire. EDIT INSERT: It seems that the entire right side of that family shot will be corrupted and/or destroyed. See what this means? Yes, Luke will become a teacher, perhaps, but he will be training future [i]Dark[/i] Jedi. Not to sound Nihilistic, but unless they kill Luke, Leia will fall, just as Luke did. Luke is going to train her in The Force and...mistakes will be made. See how the Expanded Universe is utterly destroyed now?

My movie mode has been running overdrive lately, lol. [center][u]T'd Up[/u] [size=1]Part 2[/size][/center] Okay, so for the past week, I've been discussing the Terminator series with a classmate of mine here at Rutgers. He's the main movie reviewer of our school paper, and we've decided to have a little public debate about the series. He feels that T3 was impossible, given the events of T2. I would post his initial article, but I'd have to type it up, unless I can convince him to email me a copy, lol. Here's my reply at least. It's a good one. If you copy and paste it into Word, double space it, you've got a research paper, no lie. 4 pages single spaced, 8 pages double. Oh yeah, DUFFMAN! [quote]Jason, I feel that you are missing key points of discussion in your T3 article. It seems that your major argument that T3 was impossible is based on T2?s ?theme? of ?No Fate but we make for ourselves.? Let?s examine that. The No Fate ideal is brought to us by humans. Humans are known to have clouded judgment, true? We are subject to emotion and raw passion that influences our behavior and beliefs. Surely, you do not argue against that? It is foolish to assume that humans are not driven by instinct, and it is equally unwise to believe that characters are not driven by instinct; that they are not driven by a desire to comfort themselves. We do that ourselves. When we are met with an unpleasant situation, we tell ourselves what we want to hear in order to cope with traumatic experience. I believe the term is cognitive dissonance, where we deny what we are told because it directly conflicts with what we want or want to believe. When we keep cognitive dissonance in mind, Sarah?s narration becomes less reliable. She is telling us what she thinks, not what is. It becomes more a window into the human condition than a window into reality. ?The future, always so clear to me, has become like a black highway at night. We were in uncharted territory now?making up history as we went along.? This is said on their way to blow up the main campus of Cyberdyne. Jason, considering what kind of company Cyberdyne is?technology/computer development?would destroying their main research facility and Dyson?s office have the total effect of preventing Judgment Day? If my question is unreasonable, then, when you are writing a very important paper, do you save it only in one folder on your computer; or do you keep a floppy disk or ZIP disk handy to periodically back-up your paper on a remote storage device? I know I do, and I should hope you would, as well. Because, say for instance, that your computer crashes or there is a power failure. You would be in trouble if the only copy of your very important research paper were stored on your hard drive, correct? Now, apply that to Terminator and Cyberdyne. Cyberdyne was developing far more important equipment than a collegiate research paper. They were involved in chip production, software research, and their security was extremely tight on their main campus. Considering they had password-protected doors, silent alarms that prevented access to the deeper core of their building and research labs, I think it is very safe to say that they had off-site data back-ups. Do you disagree? It is simply logical. Cyberdyne is portrayed as the villain of the series, but they are not portrayed as stupid. Destroying the main campus of Cyberdyne would not prevent Judgment Day; it would delay it. The setback suffered from the loss of that primary research data would be a few years, which T3 adheres to quite well. Interestingly, Cyberdyne can be viewed as the main ?character? of the series. Every action of the humans revolves around Cyberdyne, and considering that Cyberdyne is responsible for Terminators, we can determine fairly accurately, that machines dictate Fate. When you spoke of Sarah destroying the T-800, you missed a key point. She does not kill it. The hydraulic press does. You may argue that Sarah pressed the button, but what if the hydraulic press had malfunctioned? Sarah would have been quite dead, and a paradox would occur. This is an example of machines dictating Fate, not humans. Also, the finale of T1 did take place in Cyberdyne. The hydraulic press is Cyberdyne equipment. If you wish to argue that the deleted scenes in T1 are the only evidence of that, T2 makes it very clear. Cyberdyne has the arm and chip of the first Terminator. That would not be the case if the robotics lab had belonged to a different company. Cyberdyne factors very heavily into the series, more than you care to admit, it seems. Your emphasis on human independence, primarily the incapacitation point, is questionable. While, yes, John was able to avoid the T-1000, he was unable to escape it. He would have been crushed had it not been for the T-800, a machine. Again, machine dictating Fate. ?It?s up to John and Sarah to save themselves.? I wonder what scene this came from, because John and Sarah are never able to save themselves. I can only suppose that you are referring to the steel mill in T2. But keep in mind, that they can only avoid the T-1000. When Sarah tries to destroy it, she fails and is about to be killed. She survives only by the T-800. Again, machine dictating Fate. Sarah is short one shell. Keep that in mind, as well. Had she not dropped that one shell previously, she would have been able to destroy the T-1000 independently of mechanical influence. Had she not dropped that one shell, a human would have dictated Fate. True? Also, why do you think she drops that shell? Panic, a human emotion; a human influence. You place such a heavy emphasis on humans dictating Fate, but you fail to take this very important?and very subtle?detail into account. The T-1000 is only stopped by the T-800. This may all seem coincidence, but for the Terminator series and its heavy emphasis on Fate, chalking it up to coincidence is unwise. ?T2 concludes with Judgment Day prevented, humanity saved, and Sarah looking forward to an uncertain future. One could argue that this uncertainty leaves room for Judgment Day to happen. But they?d be missing the point.? One could argue that you are missing the point, Jason. I realize you are a film elitist (I didn?t use the ?S? word, heh), but you are letting your devotions to art cloud your judgment. While a primary factor of T3?s creation was ?all about the Benjamins,? it closely adheres to the principles and philosophy of T1 and T2. See, throughout the Trilogy, the Terminator isn't just a symbol of death; it's a universal symbol of Fate itself. While death is certainly a component of Fate, it's not the only component. Life encompasses death; it encompasses emotion; it encompasses love, sadness, fear, sickness, dread. Our Fate...is Life. The message of the Terminator series is not to meet your death, or to fight it; the point of the series is to understand Fate and live life to the fullest. The dialogue and values in T3 are not as terrible as you imply. When John is relating his mother's post-T2 years, he says, ?She told me that every day after this one is a gift.? Sarah made John know that. She made him understand that. That understanding came out of working with Fate. That understanding came out of understanding Fate, and realizing how to adapt?not fight. Sarah knew this because she didn't insist on staying in her...naive, innocent bubble world of her waitress days in T1. Her Fate came to her, and she learned to accept it. The series is by no means about concerning oneself with something that cannot be, not at all. The series is about acknowledging reality. The reality of life is to live. To be concerned with the unattainable is morbid and unhealthy. Cameron knows this. Just looking at him speaking of Terminator, you can see this wise knowledge in his eyes, in his expressions, in his mannerisms. He is no Buddha, but he is very in tune with what is. He's lost a bit of that over the years, I think. I mean, it was incredibly pretentious of him to yell ?I'm the king of the world!? at accepting awards for Titanic. But, even then, he knows what life is about: to live. He is not concerned with death, not at all. He knows it's coming, sure, but he's not letting it rule his life. And that is the precise message of the Terminator series: Live. I quote Naomi Hunter from Metal Gear Solid 1, "You mustn't allow yourself to be chained to fate, to be ruled by your genes. Human beings can choose the kind of life that they want to live. What's important is that you choose life... and then live!" Naomi is telling us to not let Fate control us, meaning, don't treat Fate like some cruel, heartless monster. "Chained." Don't think of Fate as a prison. Embrace it, understand it, work with it, and live. I?m not sure if you?re aware of Cameron's inspiration for the original. He was suffering from a very unpleasant illness in the Mediterranean area. While he was bed-ridden, he had a nightmare of just one shot: the T-800 rising out of the fire in T1. That nightmare was brought about by his intense feeling of loneliness as he laid there with no-one around. He mentions this in the interviews about T1. I would further hypothesize that Cameron is the Terminator in the films. Think about it. The Terminator is something that instills fear and dread and a very large sense of isolation. It is the epitome of Fate. We are all going to be ill, sick, lonely, etc, at some point in our lives. Cameron was using the Terminator as an allegorical figure. Terminators are coming. We are all going to experience extreme amounts of pain sometime. We are all going to have to face Fate. Now, here we have John Connor, who will lead the remnants of civilization to victory after a nuclear holocaust. That is his destiny. That is his Fate. And what is directly linked with his destiny? Terminators. So, John's Fate is a Terminator. Sarah Connor's Fate is a Terminator. Kyle Reese's Fate is a Terminator. And what do the humans do? Try to fight their Fate; try to create their own desired Fate. But how can one prevent sorrow, sadness, fear, loneliness, death, sickness, etc? Simply, we can't. Cameron knows this. He understands that he could not have prevented his illness. It was a destined happening. He accepted it and grew from it. He didn't fight it, but he did work around it. That is why he did not use the alternate ending to T2, the ending in which Judgment Day is prevented. Sorrow cannot be prevented. We can only work with it. I think the reason that you are so unwilling to appreciate what T3 is, is because you are not aware of the meanings behind the series. Your article is vague, and does not touch on the core fundamentals of the series. You are steadfast in outright bashing T3, based upon a superficial review. Jason, I know you are better than this. I believe that if you decide to fully uncover the series, you will find that T3 fits very well, both with the philosophy and plot. The message is the same all throughout the Trilogy. If I could fault T3 at all, it is only in delivery. Even then, the Terminator series has always been about masking profound messages about humanity in a fun action/adventure/sci-fi shell. T3 just goes over the top with the action, but examine it more closely, and you?ll be rewarded with the messages.[/quote]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hells Fire [/i] [B][COLOR=blue]It was looking pretty dim in the 80s with comical horror movies like [I]Gremlins[/i], but the 80s were saved by truelly scarey movies like [I]Aliens[/i].[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] If you think, even for a second, that Gremlins was trying to be scary at all, you need to re-think that idea. In no way was Gremlins trying to be a serious horror film...or horror at all, not even comical horror. It was a satire of Disney sensibilities. I'm not lying. Watch it again and keep Mickey Mouse in mind. You'll notice Gizmo, the cute original, spawning all sorts of horrid imitations. Think about it. Don't concentrate on what you think it is, because what you say it is...isn't what it is. Don't be superficial. The [i]only[/i] way for Gremlins to be scary is if you're six years old. You'll call them "giant bugs" and hide under the coffee table. I'm not lying. It'd suit you to actually know something about the movies you're bashing.

Well, here's how I look at the whole Valentine's Day scenario. The abbreviation for Valentine's Day is V.D. The abbreviation for venereal disease is V.D. Coincidence? I don't know. I'm inclined to say no coincidence. All of you who have dates and such, just be sensible, please. Wear a hat. As for me, well, I'm probably going to be hanging out with my close friends on V-Day, so I'm perfectly groovy. I haven't really felt bad about V-Day for a while now. This will be my second V-Day that I'm single for. Last year, I was quite ill...fever, upset stomach, cold sweats. I spent the entire night on the couch, watching...Signs, I think. I was going to have friends over, but that didn't happen. My friends aren't too happy with me if I infect them. This year, I'm looking at V-Day as just another day of the week--which it is, really. I mean, it's just another day, only during this week, flower shops and chocolate houses will do mega-business and make mega-bucks. No big deal. :) The important thing is, to do something fun on V-Day, regardless of whether or not you've got a "date." This week, I might hook-up with a girl in class and get together on V-Day, but if not, no worries.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by OlgaTheDwarf [/i] [B]Another more recent movie (within the last 10 years) that is quite an impressive horror film, is Event Horizon. Think, the Shining in space. It also has probably the creepiest movie line of all time in it (see signature). I really don't think people mature to horror films, but they are rather desensetized to them and become rather apathetic about them. [/B][/QUOTE] Event Horizon? Are you joking? Sorry, but it had a good premise. It had a good opening 15 minutes. The set-up was brilliant. However, the execution was C3...cliched conventional crap, lol. It had some nifty camera angles here and there, but it just falls apart halfway through. I can appreciate what they were trying to do, the whole, "Hell in space" motif, but it bordered on outright ridiculous and not a mature science-fiction take on the horror genre. Also, it didn't appropriately utilize the two leading players, Sam Neill and Laurence Fishburne. Neill is a very competent actor but his character and material was abysmal. And Fishburne, well, his character was nonexistent. The ending became so cheesy and second-rate, that I had to force myself to sit through it, lol. Literally. Event Horizon started off like a serious and intelligent sci-fi, but it degenerated into a blathery typical "Devil on the starship" execution. It was pure camp at the end, and not the good camp. "I really don't think people mature to horror films, but they are rather desensetized to them and become rather apathetic about them. " It's not a matter of apathy; it's a matter of the majority of moviegoers having no idea of what good horror is. Good horror is...Night of the Living Dead...John Carpenter's The Thing...Alien...Them...The Twilight Zone. That's the stuff people should be watching.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i] [B][color=green]Ahem. I?m assuming you?re basing this whole thing on the assumption that the force is divided into the ?light? and ?dark? sides. However, the [u]New Jedi Order[/u] novel series explores, and eventually affirms, that the force is actually unified. For the sake of argument, I?ll assume this discussion will be of Episodes I-VI only.[/color][/quote] Boba, remember that the outside canon novels and expanded universe had been written really only [i]after[/i] RotJ. While Lucas endorsed them, their relevance to the Original Trilogy is essentially null and void, as their publication and penning occurred after the Original Trilogy. They may be great stories, but I really do not support using them for support when we are concentrating solely on the films--Original Trilogy. [quote][color=green]I?d have to say, since this argument is now based [b]solely[/b] on the movies, that there is no way of knowing whether or not force choke is a dark side skill. Just because Darth Vader uses this power in [b]ANH[/b] and [b]ESB[/b], doesn?t mean this is a power unique to the dark side. Luke, Vader and Ben all use alter mind. Therefore, it?s safe to assume that alter mind is a fairly common and benign power belonging to neither side. Couldn?t force choke be the same thing?[/color][/quote] It could, but would that make sense? I examine what Force Powers are used throughout the OT. Obi-Wan never uses Choke, and even in this situations where he could use it--provided he has it--he does not. Also, considering just what characters utilize Choke, Darth Vader, and the imagery we are given to show how horrible and [i]dark[/i] Force Choke is, it's very reasonable to say that Choke is a Dark Side power. I agree with you on the Mind powers being universal Force Powers, but I think it's made very clear that Force Choke is along the Dark Side. [quote][color=green]*Twitches* There is a wealth of information outside the canon that indicates that Force Spirits, referred to by the less respectful as ?blue glowys?, cannot be controlled nor created by someone still living. However, since the expanded universe is currently out of play? *Twitches* Your interpretation of these events is correct. Luke is indeed falling to the dark side.[/color][/quote] Yes, I mentioned how the outside material isn't in play, here, because well...it wasn't even written back then. [quote][color=green]*More Expanded Universe twitching* Could be. However, I attribute this to Ben?s nervousness. After all, he?s in very hot water with Luke. Should Luke determine that Leia is the ?other? Yoda mentioned, the final fallback plan for Ben will collapse. There will be no hope for the Jedi should Luke go over to the Dark Side. This explains Ben?s increased influence on his surroundings.[/color][/quote] Really? Does it? Ben even sits down next to Luke, and his message is one that The Emperor himself preaches. I'm assuming you watched the OT back to back? Go through it again. Ben's ANH and ESB Spirit and Jedi's are so radically different that it seems impossible to explain it with "Ben was under stress." And when we take into account just what Ben said or implied after Yoda's death in Jedi, we are a bit shocked. He really essentially tells Luke, "You must kill Darth Vader." The specific lines phrase it differently, Luke: I can't kill my own father. Ben: Then The Emperor has already won. Compare Ben's "Kill" message to The Emperor's sermons in the Finale. You admit that the suggestions are eerily similar? [quote][color=green]The path of the Dark Side is a long one. A single act, while it can lead to the dark side, isn?t a defining action. It is still very possible for Luke to retain his light side allegiance.[/color][/quote] But the path to the Dark Side is faster. Yoda said it. "Faster, more seductive." When Luke leaves his training, he leaves it for a faster solution. He begins his fall in the end of Empire. The black glove, too, after his hand gets sliced off. Then in RotJ, he appears and uses Force Choke, which we've established is a Dark Power. Keep in mind, too, that he never went back to Yoda to finish his training until [i]after[/i] he [u]kills[/u] Jabba and his cronies. Still on the Light Side, you say? [quote][color=green]This is all true PT. Luke is steadily falling to the Dark Side. You?ve convinced me. Almost. After Luke taking all these dark actions, [b]ROTJ[/b] reaches it?s plot climax. Luke is fighting with his father under the watchful and insanely manipulative eye of Emperor Palpitine. At the end of the battle scene, Luke has severe his father?s hand. After doing this, he is horrified at what he has done. It is here that his redemption starts. Luke throws away his lightsaber and tells the Emperor that he will no longer fight. The Emperor?s attitude then turns from malevolent glee to rage. Emperor: ?So be it? Jedi.? The Emperor then proceeds to attack Luke with Force lightning, intent on killing him. Why would the Emperor do this if Luke were of the dark side? If Luke were, as you claim, of the dark side at this time, the Emperor would have accomplished his goal. He would have been happy if Luke had turned, since he is not?[/color][/quote] "After doing this, he is horrified at what he has done." He is not horrified at what he has done, he is horrified at what he [i]sees[/i]. His father's right hand, or lack thereof, is a machine. This brings him back to ESB, with the cave. He is Darth Vader. If he destroys Vader, he destroys himself. That is why he throws his lightsaber away, because his lightsaber is directly responsible for his experiences in the cave. "It is here that his redemption starts." It's not even a start, either. It's one action. Does one action decide Light Side progression? You've said one action does not decide Dark Side, and I agree. I think it is only fair to say that one action does not decide Light Side. There were many (multiple) times in which Luke performed Dark Side actions; I find it incredibly hard to believe that one action can negate all of this. [quote][color=green]I?d already refuted Obi-Wan?s appearance discrepancies. As for the Emperor seeing everything? Yoda: ?Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.? Also, if the Emperor had foreseen everything, why did he get killed in the end? Wouldn?t he have foreseen his death and avoided the situation entirely? I agree with your existentialism ideas and their relationship to Star Wars, as well as your observation that Star Wars is ?deep?. However agree with Luke?s falling to the dark side, I do not.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I have debunked your refute of the discrepancies. [quote]Yoda: ?Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.?[/quote] You just answered your own question, but let's continue. Remember when Vader told Palpatine that his son was on Endor? Palpatine didn't feel it and asks Vader if his feelings are tainted, or something to that effect. See, I believe the reason that Palpatine was unable to predict Vader's betrayal was that Vader had begun to subconsciously drift away from his master. Something in their dynamic was faltering. A...wavelength was disrupted. Call it a "disturbance in The Force." And also, Palpatine is going quite insane with glee at the end, which could have clouded his cognition. Also, he had foreseen Luke killing him. We could--yes. Luke does kill Palpatine, through manipulating his father. What looks like a plea for help isn't. It's Luke controlling the situation. He had already planted the seeds of influence previously, insisting that his father is still good. Luke was manipulating him in the same manner The Emperor does. Come to think of it, one of the primary reasons that Luke will fall to the Dark Side is killing Palpatine, assuming the mantle of Dark Lord, so to speak. In refusing to kill his father, Luke kills Palpatine. Light Side, you say? In the Ewok village party at the end, Luke is presented in more light, but even that light has prominent streaks of shadow. The torchlights and funeral pyre cast almost ghostly glows on Luke, and he is still not presented totally in the Light. When he is looking at Ben, Yoda, and Anakin's Force Spirits, his face is still half-clad in shadow. The final shot is a "family" shot, in a sense, with Solo in the center, as the father figure. Luke is off-center, to the right of the frame. He looks just a bit out of place, doesn't he? His placement in the shot is that of the isolated son, the one who isn't truly part of what is around him. This "isolated son" motif does not imply that he has turned to the Light Side. In fact, after the climax of the film, he is presented in half shadow and half light. He is not Light Side. He has broken even. At least, that's my take on it.