Brasil

I'm contemplating getting 'Boxed, but I'm a bit unsure as to what games to get. You might call me an Xbox Virgin. I figure Knights Of The Old Republic is a necessity, as I am a Star Wars geek. Deathrow is another game that I'll probably pick up (insanely fun deathmatch). Any other games I should look for? Do provide reasons to support your gaming suggestions, too. Thanks, PoisonTongue

Raiha, purple does not belong in a Kill Bill banner/avatar/ad. Simple as that. While the film itself may have purple in it, the advertisements consist of a strict color schema: yellow and black. Katana, yeah, it's really a 6/10 or 7. My first, so I'm still getting the hang of animating stuff. Funny thing about the KILL ADAM banner. I spent 3 hours on it, copying and pasting each individual word and aligning everything. After I completed the banner, I realized I could have just typed everything first lol. But the 3 hours provided valuable typographic layout experience, so it worked out for the better. ^_^ Jenn, thanks lol. While I may be better at Photoshop, Jenn is much more adept at blinkies and animating stuff.

First try. Interesting stuff, but funky when first starting.

Just an advertisement for the newest, hottest, most electrifying public attraction since...public spankings.

Contrary to what my cycloptic colleague, Charles, has said, I would definitely control everything in the known universe. While living in a world full of unexpected and unknown experiences is quite fun and amusing, the idea of having total, undeniable, infallible, absolute, supreme power is something I like very much. To have control over every living being, to will things into existence, to destroy things with the blink of an eye, to create where there is nothing, that is ideal. It is the Star-Child from 2001. Ultimate control. Excerpted from the novelization; [quote][i]Excerpted from 2001[/i] [b]There before him, a glittering toy no Star-Child could resist, floated the planet Earth with all its peoples. He had returned in time. Down there on that crowded globe, the alarms would be flashing across the radar screens, the great tracking telescopes would be searching the skies--and history as men knew it would be drawing to a close. A thousand miles below, he became aware that a slumbering cargo of death had awoken, and was stirring sluggishly in its orbit. The feeble energies it contained were no possible menace to him; but he preferred a cleaner sky. He put forth his will, and the circling megatons flowered in a silent detonation that brought a brief, false dawn to half the sleeping globe. Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next But he would think of something.[/b][/quote]

VH1's I Love The 80s Strikes Back is on right now, and they just did a bit about Cronenberg's The Fly. This got me thinking. That movie is amazing. It's morbid, disgusting, dark, violent, but even with the utter nastiness, it's an remarkable film. Jeff Goldblum's performance is jaw-dropping. In the beginning, he plays Seth Brundle, a simple scientist who builds a teleportation system. When he tests it, though, something goes wrong. Horribly wrong. [spoiler]A fly is trapped in Pod 1 with him, and combines into his DNA when they're transported [i]together[/i].[/spoiler] The rest of the movie shows Seth's transformation into [spoiler]a fly[/spoiler]. He gets progressively violent and starts...[spoiler]his teeth and nails start falling out, he starts losing his hair, his skin begins tearing off.[/spoiler] The Fly is disgusting, but it makes my jaw drop everytime I see clips of it. Has anyone else seen it? Loved it? Been scarred by it?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][/b] [color=#707875]How on earth can you say that The Matrix was empty? It was anything [i]but[/i] empty. The Matrix was really a cinematic masterpiece, from concept and plot through to physical execution and production value. As I said earlier, the plot alone would make a great drama -- even when one ignores the fight sequences.[/color][/quote] Concept. I refer to eXistenZ, a film that came out before M1. It features almost the same exact plot, same exact concept, and the execution is eerily similar. The only difference between the two is presentation. eXistenZ uses a humane and organic approach. Production values do not make a movie, and in my opinion, production values should not be included in determining a ?cinematic masterpiece.? Look at the Star Wars prequels. Their production values were astronomically high, and they sucked *** (for lack of a better phrase lol). The Prequels were blasted by critics for being half-assed, and the high production values just added to the ?suckiness? of the Prequels. Physical execution. Matrix used wire techniques, kung fu, and highly advanced computer imaging and camera systems. Wire techniques had been in use since the Godzilla movies, if not earlier?actually, sci-fi films from the 40s and 50s used wire techniques for monster movement. Movies like The Thing (both versions), Them, even the Star Wars Trilogy all used variations of wire techniques. Kung fu. 60s and 70s exploitation movies. The level of kung fu and martial arts used then isn?t quite as advanced, but that?s precisely the point. Matrix is using state of the art equipment to film its kung fu sequences and is therefore regarded as cinematic masterpiece. Odd. Computer imaging and cameras. 1999. Almost turn of the century. T2, 1993 (roughly). Kicked open the door for CG and to date, unmatched perfection. Star Wars, 1977. Special effects infancy. 2001. 1964. Techniques unmatched today. Who today has been able to recreate the rotating interior without resorting to computer graphics? King Kong. 1933. Damn near invented blue screen effects, revolutionized stop motion animation and matting techniques. I have not seen another movie achieve the level of animation excellence and matting like in King Kong. [color=#707875][quote]Didn't you realize the significance of many of the conversations during the movie? I agree that some converrsations were not incredibly profound, but afterall, I'm not here telling you that Reloaded was the movie to end all movies. I'm just pointing out that so many people fundamentally misunderstood it...I think it's one of the most underrated movies in history. lol[/color][/quote] That?s saying quote a lot, James, lol. One of the most underrated films in HISTORY? Is Reloaded more underrated than Evil Dead? More than Clockwork Orange? Night of the Living Dead? Godzilla? Timothy Dalton James Bond? Jason and the Argonauts? Being John Malkovich? Adaptation? Return Of The Jedi? Eyes Wide Shut? Man On The Moon? Dr. Strangelove? [quote][color=#707875]Oh, absolutely not. Definitely not. Lol[/color][/quote] Definitely not, indeed. (LOL. I know I twisted your words there, but wasn?t it fun?) [quote][color=#707875]Many [i]adults[/i] didn't come close to understanding the entire scope of The Matrix. When I talk about The Animatrix and the online comics, I'm absolutely serious about how they open up the universe for the viewer. Charles argues that this is milking the franchise. I'm sure it probably is. But I don't see that as a drawback; look at all the other movie and TV franchises that are milked as much or more. [/color][/quote] It is milking the franchise. I?m willing to bet the W. were sitting around, musing over Matrix success, and thought, ?Hey! We?ve got a following, we?ve got the audience in our pockets, let?s do this!? Why do I think this? Look at the plot of Animatrix and compare it to M1. I?m pretty sure that Animatrix makes no mention whatsoever of Oracle prophesizing the One?s return, like Morpheus describes in M1. Since Second Renaissance does in place, take part during the war and subjugation, wouldn?t the One be seen, mentioned?[i]something[/i] anywhere? Granted, the One is seen in other short bits, which leads me to believe they originally wanted Animatrix stuff to be in Reloaded, but cut it (but didn?t cut enough lol). If Matrix isn?t a commercial slave, isn?t a marketing slave, why a total synchronized release of Reloaded, Enter The Matrix, and Animatrix? Why a ?Year Of The Matrix? in 2003? If it isn?t a commercially enslaved series, why didn?t they wait a few years? The Star Wars Trilogy had a few years between the films and did quite well. Might I add, Enter The Matrix was released BEFORE it was complete, full of glitches, bugs, engine hiccups, etc. The PS2 version is nearly unplayable, and the other 2 versions crash when playing a certain level. Is this evidence of a series that isn?t commercially enslaved? Doesn?t look too commercially independent to me. [quote][color=#707875]I am also a writer; journalism is my career. While some elements of the movie were admittedly poorly written, one cannot fault the fundamentals. My biggest problem is that some [i]great[/i] concepts were simply not delivered with the kind of attention to detail that was required. I would certainly say this about certain conversations during the movie, but I wouldn't say that the entire movie suffered from the problem.[/color][/quote] While I respect journalists, there?s a difference between fiction and reporting. While both professions require labor-intensive practice, there is a distinct difference between writing a sci-fi movie and reporting on a sci-fi movie. When you?re writing a story, you have to keep in mind how the story will?read?to the reader. How the dialogue will present itself. Let me ask you, James, when you write an article, do you write it in a long-winded manner, in a manner that doesn?t sound natural and doesn?t flow off the tongue? Or do you write that article in a way so that your reader will be able to follow it easily? Do you use long words and phrases to sound cool or to impress a point on your readers? Do you write the article in a way that requires repeated readings? No, because you aren?t chained to capitalism. While you may view the Architect scene?s dialogue as necessary and the authors? motives for writing it as such are to require multiple viewings, I see it as a way to get more people to [i]go back[/i] to the theatre, to buy [i]another[/i] 7 dollar ticket. I mean, surely you can?t deny that in order for something to continue, it has to be successful and make?gasp?money. One of the most important rules of fiction writing is if you can cut it, you cut it. That?s a rule of filmmaking, and I?m willing to bet that?s a rule of journalism, too. Correct? If you can cut something, you cut it. [quote][color=#707875]Oh, PoisonTongue...how can you say that? lol. You're an intelligent guy! Don't you understand why The Architect scene was produced in that way? Don't you see why it was ten minutes rather than two sentences? I just don't get it. How can you misunderstand it so? Having said that, I do agree that some aspects of the movie were drawn out. The Architect scene was definitely not, however. It was critical and well produced, in my opinion.[/color][/quote] The dialogue was ?padded.? The scene was basic. The message was basic. Oooh, a cyclical world. The extraneous wording was used to hide what the scene really was: anti-climactic and weak. For a conversational climax scene that works, Pulp Fiction. Jules at the end, in the diner, buying Tim Roth?s life. That is brilliant writing, because it flows and isn?t pretentiously padded. Reloaded?s Architect scene is horribly, most pretentiously padded. The audience spent 2.5 hours for that? A poorly written, monotone monologue? Gah, lol. [color=#707875][quote]However, I feel that had the "rave scene" been either taken out or shortened (to make way for more plot-intensive moments), we'd all have been better off. There are a few things that could have used more definition in Reloaded.[/color][/quote] Rave scene=boring. We agree! :) [color=#707875][quote]The Matrix...empty? My jaw is dropping as you say that. lol You probably could sum up several concepts in one paragraph. But what is the point of that? There is none.[/color][/quote] I have before with other movies, but not to the one sentence effect of Reloaded. [color=#707875][quote]Look at the discussion of cause and effect, for example. When I first saw that, I was quite bored...and I thought "Geeze, who cares?" I admit, I did feel that way. But I implore you to watch a second time...to listen carefully and to consider this conversation in the context of the entire story. It's very important, it's well written and it's extremely relevant. I'd say the same about The Architect and The Oracle's conversations. The Oracle, for example, subtley hints at things to come -- at the responses that programs have to their machine masters. This is all so important...and it shouldn't be ignored or shrugged off as "plodding along".[/color][/quote] Cause and effect. Yup. We need the machines, they need us. Yup. Hm. Oracle. Programs hunting programs. Telling the main character of a massive decision he will need to make, or rather, has already made. Yup. Architect. Summed up with, ?Matrix 1 didn?t matter, cause it?s cyclical, baaaby!? How?s that for showing respect to a series? When in one scene, the entire first chapter is killed? [color=#707875][quote]The dialogue was [i]far[/i] from porno dialogue. Far, far from it. As for punching and kicking...I feel that The Matrix was a bit "balletesque". But generally, the choreography was very good. I watched the movie for a [i]third[/i] time the other day...and generally, when really watching it and thinking about it, I didn't notice the fighting as being like feathery touches. It's really not that bad at all. I just get such a strong sense that this movie is being canned for the wrong reasons. It's being written off so quickly. But there's [i]so[/i] much intelligence, depth and genius in the plot...it doesn't deserve that kind of condemnation, especially when it's a movie that begs to be understood and torn apart by theories.[/color][/quote] Porno dialogue?s biggest nail in the coffin is how it feels totally unrelated and unnecessary to the action at hand. I mean, look at Striptease (not a full porno, but). The dialogue is atrociously bad, and does nothing more than to bore us until Demi starts stripping lol. It?s dialogue that doesn?t matter. It?s dialogue that means nothing. It?s dialogue that doesn?t fit and doesn?t feel natural to the movie. Reloaded?s dialogue falls into this chasm. OK, so you?re saying the fighting is now LESS like ballet and more like?hard hits? How is that more different than the porno analogy? If the movements are becoming [i]less[/i] graceful and more brutal, the movie is moving closer to porno dialogue. I?m not canning this movie because of some insane notion of glitzy special effects being the devil. I?m not canning this movie because I just can?t stand people enjoying it and I take the opposite side. My criticism is not based on superficiality. My criticism is based on mediocrity in general, whether that mediocrity stems from technique or presentation, substance, writing, etc. [color=#707875][quote]This would have to be the single biggest misinterpretation of the franchise I have [i]ever[/i] seen. Having seen the movies and read the "officially sanctioned" essays and short stories, written by a variety of authors from around the world...I can't even begin to tell you where you are wrong here. There is nothing "lite" about The Matrix. Nothing whatsoever. The problem is that one [i]may[/i] look at the action sequences, or the fact that Keanu Reeves isn't a very good actor and immediately assume that this is the case. You can definitely make yourself sound superior/intelligent if you make these claims. lol Believe me when I tell you that I simply don't have the energy to sit here and go through, point-by-point the deeper philosophical and religious fundamentals of this franchise. I'm only responding this way because this movie is being treated so unfairly...and it is not being understood at all. I am not an unintelligent person, nor am I a person who is pulled in by things easily. If The Matrix were "philosophy-lite", I'd definitely see it. And originally, I did get a sense of that. But...what can I say? I have explored the "universe" and I've become a converted man. lol The creators deserve credit for being truly visionary individuals. I defend this movie not so much because I want to get into an argument over whether you like the movie or not (regardless of your reasons, you have the right to dislike it). The whole reason I am even posting this comment is because I see an injustice of biblical proportions here. lol That's the only way can I describe it.[/color][/quote] So, a movie is visionary BECAUSE it borrows stuff? Because it borrows ideas from other things? Because it??steals? philosophical names, ideas, themes? A filmmaker is visionary BECAUSE they steal ideas and themes? [quote][color=#707875]No. No, no. lol PoisonTongue...how can you [i]not[/i] get it?[/color][/quote] I do get it. Commercially enslaved ;) [color=#707875][quote]High school level philosophy? Even [i]you[/i] aren't understanding this movie. lol This comment could be taken in two ways. For one thing, you could say that the majority of the populace understands the basics "real world/Matrix" and that's that. You know, as if it gives them a feeling that they've grasped something. Well, that's probably true. I'd agree. However, I could also take offence at your comment. Me, as a person who is defending this movie, could definitely fall within your classification. But I know that I don't. I know, based on what I have seen and consumed of this franchise, that this is a franchise worthy of far more praise than it has received. It just saddens me that it can be attacked so lightly and so inaccurately.[/color][/quote] I think the biggest problem here is, the populace is still in awe of The Matrix. Give it a few years. Hell, give it two years. The Matrix will just be another blip on the cinematic radar. [quote][color=#707875]Once again, I simply don't have the time to go through something very detailed here...maybe I will fully indulge you with my time later. How do I put this. It is easy to view The Matrix as pretending to be something that it is truly not. I can see how you would reach that conclusion. When I saw Reloaded the first time, I also felt that way to some extent. I was, in effect, disappointed. The reason that I discuss the comics and the short stories and the essays and The Animatrix is because all of these elements are "officially sanctioned". That is, they tie into one another as the main movies do. And so, when I say that the movies make up 1/3 of the franchise...I'm not kidding. And I'm not just talking about pure content, in terms of the quantity of content that is there to consume. I'm talking about the qualitative nature of the content. How can one view The Animatrix -- then fully understand it -- and claim that The Matrix is some kind of commercial slave? This could not be further from the truth. The Matrix is absolutely a sincere exploration of humanity, in a variety of ways. The ironic way in which the machines are presented (as being ruthlessly dominant over their programs, as humans were with them) is fantastic. Yes, the effects are there...and yes, they're cool. Again, it might be very easy to cynically dismiss the movies and say "Well sure, they are pretty but that means they [i]can't[/i] have any substance". The problem with this attitude is that it dramatically underrates the qualitative nature of the franchise. Of course, I had problems with Reloaded. And I felt that some of the action was quite underwhelming. But when one truly understands the entire franchise...I can only say that one also realizes how unimportant these scenes truly are. It's probably true that such scenes are what most of the public goes to see. I'm sure that 99% of the population is in that same boat. But...all I can say is that I've "seen it all" with regard to this franchise. There is so much intelligent, throught-provoking material to uncover. There's so much in the way of morbid, dark, almost grotesque backstory to become wrapped up in... There's just so much creative genius there. While my comments aren't at all going to change anyone's opinion...they just have to be here. They have to. I just can't say nothing, when I believe that a truly innovative and clever movie/comic/novel franchise is attacked without [i]real[/i] foundation.[/color][/QUOTE] I?ve taken the liberty of an edit on your post. ?The Matrix is absolutely a sincere [i]exploitation[/i] of humanity, in a variety of ways.? That sums up my entire thesis. Funny how by changing one word in one sentence, two conflicting viewpoints can both be supported. In this sense, we agree to disagree, and to discuss Matrix through AIM.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinmaru [/i] [B]Heh, don't you wish :p I [i]was[/i] a Sephiroth follower until I finally realized how flat of a character he really is. Sure, he's a psychotic badass but he doesn't have anything to offer other than that. Kefka, however, is much more devious and believable (in terms of personality) than Sephiroth. He's a egotistical maniac who's not afraid to pull some dirty tactics to get what he wants. Do you think Sephiroth would've thought to poison a river to kill the inhabitants? No, he would've just cast Meteor and blown the thing up, the idiot :p [/B][/QUOTE] Sorry, Shin, but I've gotta do this. Kefka is a flat character. The very definition of "flat character" is one who is a cliche...a stock character...an exaggeration. Think of the Clown from Shakespeare. He's put in there for the sole purpose of making people laugh. He has no depth or fullness to him. He is there simply for the sake of being there and acts as such. He makes a fool of himself the entire time--wait...fool...another term for Shakespeare's Clown was..."Fool." Yep. Stock character. Not saying that Sephiroth isn't flat, but he's [i]less flat[/i]. He shows a more sincere emotion and doesn't resort to yelling and shouting and generally making a fool of himself. He's not a cliche to the extent of Kefka. Kefka is a caricature. Sephiroth shows depth through restraint. But anywho, I've since drifted away from RPGs, but when I did play them... I recall Super Mario RPG. That was a fun game. My timing sucked trying to get Freebie attacks and such, but SMRPG combined two of my then favorite gaming tendencies: RPG and Super Mario Bros. How could I go wrong with it? I loved the humor about it, too. The characters were nuts, Bowser especially. Peach's frying pan had to have been the funniest weapon ever. Just seeing the enemy reactions to getting beaten in the head with it. Priceless. :) As I recall, most of Peach's weapons were hilarious. Final Fantasy 7. Great game. Spent hours upon hours playing it during my Soph year of high school. The scope of the game was remarkable. 3 disc, 70+ hours, epic storyline. Great stuff. The Chocobo raising and quest to get KOTR were games in themselves, and I loved Golden Saucer. I spent entire nights just playing the games-within-a-game. Final Fantasy 6. This was one of the last RPGs I played, simply because I started lacking the time required to play them. It was a really fun game, had some memorable moments (finding Gogo was my fav ^_^), and the battle commands rocked. Attacking wasn't a chore like in other RPGs; attacking was actually entertaining.

Loew's Theatre in Cherry Hill, NJ. Worst. Theatre. Ever. I went to see T3 a few months ago. T3 was said to start at 4:45 pm. We got there at 4:30 pm. The movie previews didn't start until 5:15, and T3 started at 5:30 pm. 30 minutes of commercials. 30 minutes. For products that I will never use, never buy, never want. Shampoo, cars, jeans, WTF. lol. On top of that, hip-hop muzak played the entire 30 minutes of commercials. Theatres need to get back to the late 80s/early 90s, a time when going to the theatre actually meant going to the theatre and not watching TV. Whatever happened to the days when we could go see Ghostbusters and not get boggled down with Pepsi ads and some guy hogtying a car? I live in propaganda for the most part, and spew it right back at political activists and religists, but I really don't want a product like Isotoner gloves being shoved in my face when I'm going to see X2. Down with commercials in theatre. Down with Capitalism. ;)

Spirit Week. Viewed by many as just an excuse to dress up in a costume that would have violated the school dresscode any other week, an excuse to shove pudding into a classmate's face without fear of getting a detention for it, an excuse for setting off stink bombs in frosh hall. Spirit Week, in my experience, has always been a chance for the school to further cattle-lize the student body. We are herded--literally. they tell you where to go and when, mass you in the halls, and direct you...definitely herding--into the auditorium, whereupon entering, are packed tightly according to (class) size. We are then required to perform parlor tricks in order to stay in good graces with the school admins. If we do not decide to cooperate, we are punished, that is to say, slaughtered. I was never fond of Pep Rallies, nor Spirit Week. On the rare occasion that I did play dress-up, I did so in a way that was sure to annoy/worry/unsettle people. When asked to participate, I replied, "Why? What would you offer me to make my effort worthwhile? I don't care about those points. Make me a reasonable offer and I'll consider participating." Stuff like that. Mess with the school admins. Don't play their game by their rules. Frankly, see the point of Spirit Week I did not. Success at a Spirit Day event gave the class what? 10 points? What were those points for? Where did they come from? Who created them? The answers to those questions are. The points were for nothing but to make a class feel superior to another. The points came from an archaic tradition instated some 2500 years ago in ANCIENT ROME. Gladiators, games, etc. The points were created by rulers as to divide classes and control them.

?The Pistols? Dark Rounds. Jake was so f-----g screwed. The bullets were imbedded in his chest, spreading toxins and disease into his bloodstream. His left arm was already numb and turning gray. Sores and blisters warped the skin into a putrid mass of pus and discharge. A nearby shard of glass showed the effects of Dark Rounds. Jake?s face was wasting away. His eyes were dark sockets, the eyeballs deep within his head. The overhead fluorescents sent ghastly shadows stretching down his face, accentuating his protruding cheekbones. The Night Pistol was a few feet away, laying near Jason?s limp, dead hand. He had a bullet in his forehead. With good reason, too. Jason was a f-----g traitorous rat. Cared only about himself, didn?t give a flying f--k about the mission. Jake was glad he wasn?t moving anymore. Jake looked at that blank stare with pleasure. He never liked Jason. Never trusted him, either. Jake shifted his eyes to the corner. There was Jimmy. What was left of him, at least. Jimmy had been shot in the face. He took a Dark Round in the eye. Flies buzzed around his head, some landing on his face, some exploring the inside of his skull. Jimmy?s gun was next to him, soaking in a pool of blood. A firestorm was burning Jake?s insides; it felt like his blood was on fire. That was the Dark Round toxin at work. Jake could do nothing but lay there. He couldn?t think. He couldn?t stand. He couldn?t save himself. He was so f-----g screwed. Sitting sent wicked and cruel pains shooting through his body, forcing him back down to the floor. His breaths were coming in short gasps now, beads of sweat left slick trails on his face. You know that cliché, ?life flashing before your eyes?? It?s true. Last night came rushing back to him, flooding him with brutality. The killing began when Joey?s body was found, the head a foot away. That was around 3. Jason made the call. Jake and Jimmy got there in minutes. Jason was standing over Joey, holding a bloody machete. ?Drop the knife, f----r!? Jake had his gun drawn. Jimmy followed suit, circling Jason. Jake repeated the command. ?Drop the knife.? Jason complied. ?Now back away. EASY.? Jason reached into his jacket. ?Hands! Get them up now!? The hand left the jacket, holding a pack of cigarettes and a lighter. ?Easy, man, I?m just getting a smoke. Want one?? Jake shook his head, never taking his eyes off him, and never taking his finger off that trigger. Jason took a long drag. ?Good cigs. Nice flavor.? ?What the f--k happened.? Jake asked. ?I don?t know. Joey here didn?t have a head when I got here.? ?Bullsh-t.? ?It?s the truth. Here, ask him yourself.? Jason kicked the head to him. Jake took his eyes off him and paid for it. The Night Pistol came out of its holster at Jason?s side, firing a round into Jimmy?s face. Jake fired the first shot, hitting Jason in the arm. The firefight took a split second, a clip going into Jake?s torso, Jason dropping from the headshot. Now Jake lay on the floor, dying. The grungy windows filtered the morning sunlight into haze. It was going to be a hot day today, but Jake wasn?t going to live to experience it. One last spasm of pain, one last cough of blood, and Jake?s body went still, his gun clattering to the floor.

Having finally seen Reloaded, I now can offer crit upon it. I?m going to put the entire thing in Spoiler tags, most likely because I?m too damn lazy right now to go into my review and put spoiler in the appropriate places. [spoiler]Okay. Disappointing. VERY disappointing. Of course, M1 really was empty to begin with, but not to the extent of M2. My biggest beef with M2 was?I found myself going ?so what?? during a good portion of it. The characters did not intrigue me. Correction. Agent Smith was the ONLY character that I enjoyed. The dialogue took a turn for the worse. It was just sloppy and long-winded for the sake of being long-winded. I am now fully convinced the Wachowskis wrote The Matrix Trilogy for 14 year old boys, writing the series in a way that those 14 year old boys could feel intelligent and superior to their classmates/peers. Perhaps it?s because I?m a writer, and know when to listen and such, but I found myself tuning out a lot of the dialogue, translating what was going on, and essentially rewriting the movie as it went along. Part of that is just knowing where the clichés fall, part of it is keeping my eyes focused on the screen. It?s sad when an entire scene (check out the Architect scene) can be summed up AT THE END with ONE OR TWO SENTENCES. That scene was at least 10 minutes long. Now, I can take slow stuff. I?ve enjoyed 2001, which is considered to be the slowest sci-fi film ever made. But 2001 grabbed me. M2?didn?t. I draw comparison of MGS and MGS2. Most would agree, MGS2 was frigging wordy and long-winded, double the length of MGS, and quite frankly, saying less?not even half. Such is my problem with M2. Ignoring the fact that M1 was empty, M2 was even emptier. The dialogue just plodded on and on and on, and wasn?t saying anything that couldn?t be summed up in a paragraph. It was like porno dialogue. And this analogy fits, surprisingly. The Wachowskis expect the audience to jump out of their seats in a wild orgy of excitement. Basically, the punches and kicks were?pumping motions. The blood was released due to those pumping motions. There are moans, grunts, grindings, passionate (almost sensual) movements of body. Porno? Yep. Enough about dialogue. Action scenes: eh. Basically re-used everything from M1. One thing that really bugs me; Neo could control everything in The Matrix. That?s what the One is, all powerful, all controlling, able to change whatever he saw fit to change. Then, why in the hell, would he need to fight? He doesn?t. He could just blink the enemies gone. Thus, every fight scene with Neo, meaning 80% of the fight scenes, were unnecessary. On top of that, the fight scenes just lacked the edge of the first one. The hits were non-existent (compare any M2 fight scene to the Smith/Neo fight in the subway of M1, or compare to Neo/Morpheus in the dojo.). The hits are simply not there in M2. It?s like bad CG ballet. Onto my next point. The CG. God awful. For a series that prides itself on state of the art technology, their CG was abysmal. The CG in the 100 Smith fight scene was so wrong. Neo?s twists and leaps were?CG and you could tell it was CG. That really bothered me. T2, which is about 8 years old, features CG that looks totally ?believable.? M2 fails to do this. Character. Simply, there was no character. Morpheus was not at the caliber of M1. Trinity?I didn?t feel anything in M2?of course, I didn?t feel much from her performance in M1, either. Neo. Is it just me, or was he doing a ?Batman? thing the entire time? Scowling, plodding about. Being all mopey? And he wasn?t even doing the Batman thing well. And this isn?t due to Keanu Reeves?s supposed sub-par acting ability. He can electrify the screen with characters. Ted, Jack (Speed), and even Neo (M1). M2 though, he was flat. Smith. OK. Here?s the saving grace of M2, the entire Matrix series in fact. Hugo Weaving knows how to deliver lines. I listened to everything he said in M1 and M2. The movie is alive when he?s on camera. His inflections and mannerisms are pure creepy, his delivery is deadpan and yet raping the camera. Smith is the reason I?m going to see Revolutions. The Smith subplot is genius. A corrupted file in an interrupted download?that?s why Neo is able to stop the Sentinels. Smith attempted to do a full copy and installation but his connection was lost, leaving a small bit in Neo. Remarkable. The plot. I understood it entirely, so my criticism is not based off of confusion. There comes a point in a filmmaker?s life when the filmmaker decides what kind of movie maker he is. Whether the filmmaker wishes to create works of art like Schindler?s List or Pulp Fiction, whether the filmmaker decides camp is what he is good at and goes about making Evil Dead. The Wachowski bros?are neither of these. They do not create art and they do not create camp. They create something that they call art, which they call groundbreaking cinema, and are met with world-wide success. Not to say that for something to be art, it has to fail commercially, not at all. But the term ?art? is tossed around way too loosely. The Matrix series, while commercially entertaining, does not entertain heavier philosophical and religious issues. The Matrix is essentially ?Philosophy-lite, Religion-lite,? in that it is geared toward high school boys, the audience that gobbles up something ?flash-bang, explosions, guns, hot women in leather, kick-*** action sequences.? I mean, without the light sprinkling of philosophy and religion, Matrix would just be another action/adventure/sci-fi. But because it includes high-school level philosophy, it is gorged upon by the audience. If we compare it to 2001, which is arguably one of the, if not THE deepest sci-fi film of our time, Matrix just can?t hold up. 2001?s plot is still a man vs machine part, with a character that becomes like a god. The message of 2001 is dangerous apathy. In the opening sequence, we see primal behavior at its peak. We see emotion. The primal urges are magnified with the bone weapon, and the beast throws the bone into the air, then a slam-cut to an orbiting space station. With one cut, we are brought from emotion to apathy. From liveliness to dead. The human spirit is killed by technology. Look at the videophone scene. It?s absolute void of humanity. There is no connection between him and his daughter. 2001 teaches us to not lose touch with ourselves, to not let apathy encompass our being. That?s a much deeper message than fight against a virtual world using our bodies for energy. And what strikes me as even weirder, 2001 is nearly forgotten in mainstream circles. It is only kept alive by ?outside the box? people, while Matrix is engulfed in pop culture. Considering that 2001 had a deeper plot and idea, and if plot and idea is all we should be concerned about, why is it not achieving the commercial success of The Matrix? Because The Matrix is entertainment. It?s a slave to commercial nature. No matter how many filmgoers view it as breaking the mold, it?s still in that mold. It is, in my opinion, style over substance. The names feel like they were used to sound cool. I?d give it a 7/10. Without Smith, it drops to 5/10.[/spoiler]

Teachers are human beings. Human beings curse. That's...the way it is. I can understand if someone feels uncomfortable with an instructor who says, "mother ******* ******** ******* **** for brains *******!" But just "****"? No. Some of my professors have used "******* ********" to describe an interpretation of film, but you see, the students' age and maturity level was high enough to not be offended...was high enough to appreciate the humorous way that "******* ********" was used. Granted, instructors should keep a clean mouth. But an occasional Freudian Slip shouldn't offend anyone. And...yes. The Walt Whitman quotes do pose a conundrum. Read Leaves Of Grass. "Mother ****** ********" will sound a lot less offensive after reading a few choice selections from Leaves Of Grass. Walt Whitman is one of the undisputed kings of devy sexual language. Shakespeare is one of the other devy sexual writiers ("I'll have this Michael Cassio on the hip"

Mainstream: She stood in a normal way on the normal cliff, looking out in a very normal fashion at the normal ships coming in. The normal sun was setting over the normal ocean, with the normal streaks of red, orange, and pink. The air felt mild to the touch, that is to say, it felt normal. Though she wore a light jacket, she was not cold, and yet was not overly warm. She was toasty. The feeling of the sunset was peaceful and comfortable, and her boyfriend of 3 years stood there next to her, sharing this nice moment. His name was Steve and even though they were only 23, Stacey felt that he was the One. Her life was so picture perfect. Her life was so normal. Any woman would have killed to be in her shoes. She glanced down. Her shoes were indeed lovely, hugging her feet, the leather possessing a golden hue from the fading sunlight. Such a perfect end to a perfect day. Genre: She stood on the cliff, staring out over the mineral fields and the harvesters that crawled over the rocky crags, hauling the Durillium ore to the storage depot and processing plant. Steam and gas escaped from gashes in the uneven rock, rising up into the atmosphere to set the sky ablaze with greens and oranges and yellows, yet the sun was still unable to burn through the haze. Time was lost in the quarry. Night mixed into day and day blurred into night. Sometimes the clouds dropped toxic rain, sending the workers scrambling for cover. The rain was no longer deadly, but still posed serious health hazards. After the first year deaths and after pressure from the Industrial Workers Union, the Company changed their policies. Now workers were tested weekly for chemical contamination and sickness. She knew this wasn?t enough; she knew the workers were in more danger than the Company let on, but she wasn?t about to lose her job over it. Managerial positions were hard to come by these years, and Katherine kept her mouth shut. A few beeps came from the survey device by her feet. She reached down to check the monitor. 78% concentration. The IWU demanded a concentration of under 30% to allow the miners to continue. Katherine entered a few keystrokes. A few more beeps were heard, and then Katherine glanced back at the monitor. 28% concentration. She picked up the device and walked back to the shielded office. Experimental: She stood on the cliff, staring out into the white, vast unknown, as amorphous blobs ebbed ever closer. The blobs hadn?t been there before, and Betty wondered where they came from. She didn?t remember writing them in, and nobody?she looked around?nobody was in sight for miles. She held the script in her hand, skimming through it. No additions of amorphous blobs. She checked her notes on the back. No mention of any blobs. What the ****? The horizon was supposed to be a white background, with no splotches of color. Just white. That?s what she wrote; ?There is a vast sea of white, as if someone had painted the sky a single panel.? Nothing about blobs and yet, there they were. Damn it. Betty was a writer, but apparently not a very good one if she couldn?t control her own story. She took her red pen and scribbled something in the margins; ?Betty?s story is what she has written, nothing more. There are no weird blobs; there is no outside force controlling this story. I, Betty, am writing this story, and I am in control of it.? The blobs disappeared. Betty liked this. She wrote again; ?I, Betty, the author of this story am writing the sky to be blue.? The sky was now blue. ?I, Betty, write storm clouds.? Dark thunderclouds brewed, sending torrential rains stinging Betty?s face. A burst of wind took the script out of her hand, carrying it high into the air, buffeting it from all sides, twisting it in an excruciating aerial ballet. The script began tearing itself apart, tatters of the cover sheet being whipped about in the maelstrom. A massive lightning bolt struck, turning the script to ashes. In the next second, all was calm. Betty stood there again, on the cliff, but this time holding a blank piece of paper. Oh, what the imagination can do.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#707875]I think Baron is saying (from his last post anyway) that mankind being monsters is a matter of perspective. We see Bin Laden as a monster because he deliberately targets and slaughters innocent people. Whereas, I don't see my government as a monster (in this regard), because it has very strict rules of engagement -- which sometimes put our own forces in harms way, in an effort to protect innocent people. So, it's probably more a matter of perspective and what you find to be acceptable in your own life.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Hmmhm. But, since we're saying it's a matter of perspective, there is really no answer to this, therefore...no purpose to any debate on this, correct? Because we would always be coming back to the conflict of perspective. Now, because of this conflict of perspective, is there no set reality and no set "trueness" to this? I could say that Bush is evil because he is doing something that I feel is morally corrupt, in fact, that he himself is morally corrupt. And because of this, I say he is a drooling Alfred E Neuman monster. And then, Bushists would accuse me of being a monster, simply because they feel threatened by my views. Some Bushists even resort to threatening "liberals," who in turn respond with friction. We feel Bin Laden is a terrible, terrible, evil man, and many of us are willing to destroy him and his ideals. But from Bin Laden's POV, we're the monsters. So, when we just decide it's a matter of perspective, are we not saying, "Well, since everyone feels someone else is a monster, and that someone else feels that everyone is a monster, we just can't decide who is a monster." But, then, going with that line... If everyone feels that someone else is a monster, we thus are all monsters, since we're going on fractured perspective, and leaving the "labeling" up to fractured perspective.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i] [B]I agree, that is a bad thing to happen, however, as I said somewhere (o.0 lol) humans have many bad attributes. We think we are the most supreme thing, and [i]deserve[/i] to be here. We have a sort of right, but no right to act... how we do. From our POV: The shakr is obviously a danger to us, so we should kill it, to save ourselves. This is perfectly justified, because we do not deserve to die. from the sharks POV: It came near me, I am merely surviving by killing/eating it. it is my instinct, I have no brain. this is my territory (the water in general) and them coming here is at risk of themselevs, I do not deserve to be killed for it. this is perfectly justified. We are not monsters. We merely have a superiority complex, compared to all the "dumb" animals. That is our problem. In this case, depending on your viewpoint, both cases are justified. [/B][/QUOTE] Though, Baron, Hitler had a pretty big superiority complex. Would you not consider him a monster? He felt anger toward a certain being, and decided to exterminate that being, because he decided it was for his own good. Now, going along those same lines, Hussein killed countless numbers of people, simply because they may have disagreed with him, that is, threatening his rule. Bin Laden. Kills those who disagree with him, who pose a threat. USA. Kills those who pose a threat to OUR well-being. Are you suggesting that we do not hold ourselves to the standards we hold others to?

OOS (Out Of Story) Sorry to interrupt everything, but Molleta just PMd me with a small request. [quote]Due to the fact that I have AOL, and it doesn't really like OB, I cannot post because it thinks I am banned. I assure you I am not, this happens a lot, to my dismay. I was wondering if you would post in my RPG, Zodiac Warriors the following... Please. None of the members are online, or I would ask them to do it. Much thaks, Mole[/quote] She can't log on, so her posts will be delayed. Sorry for the spam.

Interesting thing about Reno 911, apart from it being one of the funniest damn shows I've ever seen, is that it wouldn't have been possible on Comedy Central without South Park. I am going to talk about Reno, but I can't talk about Reno without talking about Comedy Central over the past few years. South Park did something for Comedy Central, much how...The Simpsons did something for Fox. SP opened the gates on what could be aired on CC. I fully believe that if it had not been for South Park, shows like Reno, Man Show, Crank Yankers, Chappelle Show, Insomniac, That's My Bush, Trigger Happy TV, and even Comedy Central movies like Porn 'N' Chicken and Knee High PI, would NEVER had been able to be picked-up/created/aired. It is because of South Park's demented and skewed humor that Comedy Central is in the comedic high that it is now. If I'm looking for comedy, I either turn on The Simpsons, or I turn to Comedy Central. That said, Reno 911 is hilarious. The writing is brilliant (as most of Comedy Central's original comedy is), the acting is remarkably great. Reno is COPS on crack, which considering the nature of COPS, is very hard to top that level of dementia.

Spring. Come to think of it, Spring is my favorite season, because ?love is in the air.? Spring is a time when all the gorgeous women here at Rutgers start dressing in a way that increases the tightness of male pantaloons. The trees are in full bloom, the temperature is at a nice 69 or 72 degrees, the birds are chirping. There is, for the most part, clear, blue skies. But most importantly, gorgeous [i]college[/i] women in modest yet drool-inducing attire. Am I?sexist? Yep. Chauvinistic? Yep. Male? Yep. ?Springtime For Rutgers.? Now on with the grammar check. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PhoenixFlame [/i] [B]I love the winter for a few reasons, reason one, I LOVE THE COLD! (Don't say capitalizing things when im yelling something or seriously mean it is incorrect grammar ok?Thanks.Also do not say that saying thanks in one sentance is incorrect grammar too ok?Because it is correct grammar.) I love ice, I'm basically the opposite of a pyromaniac, when i was about 11 years old i used to freeze my toys in glasses of water just for fun. One of the toys i froze was one of those eyeballs with a liquid inside a plastic container that had the eyeball inside, the eyeball still looked up! (If you consider that as off topic, it isn't because it explains why I like the cold and why i like winter.) There you go that is why I like the winter. [/B][/QUOTE] I love the winter for a few reasons[color=red].[/color] [color=red]One, I LOVE THE COLD! (two spaces here)[/color] Don't say capitalizing things [color=red]is incorrect[/color] when [color=red]I?m[/color] yelling something or seriously mean it[color=red], Okay? Thanks. Also,[/color] do not say that saying thanks in one [color=red]sentence[/color] is incorrect grammar[color=red], too, because[/color] it is correct grammar[color=red]. (two spaces here)[/color] I love ice[color=red], so I'm[/color] basically the opposite of a pyromaniac[color=red]. When I was about 11 years old, I[/color] used to freeze my toys in glasses of water just for fun. [color=red](two spaces here)[/color] One of the toys [color=red]that I froze[/color] was [color=red]the liquid suspension eye sphere, in which the eye continually was facing up.[/color] (If you consider that as off topic, it isn't because it explains why I like the cold and why [color=red]I[/color] like winter.)[color=red]. (two spaces here) There you go; that is why I like the winter.[/color] By the way, ?Thanks.? That?s a sentence fragment, which is a most heinous grammatical error. It?s not correct grammar. Don?t argue with me on this. I?m an English Major and I?m going to be teaching English. And also, ALL CAPS is frowned upon in all writing and scribing endeavors. Using ALL CAPS does not make one look intelligent. If anything, it makes them look even more grammatically-challenged, in that they can?t express their views without resorting to ?shouting.?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i] [B]The ear thing isn't a hoax.. I've actually been able to see the mold that is used to create an ear, or a replica. [URL=http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/superhuman/photo/zoom_03.html]Cute mouse :p[/URL] As for stem cells... people don't realize stem cells can be harvested from blood, placenta, and the unbilical chords. I am all for stem cell research, and think that any advances concerning science in this feild are more than welcome. However, I don't think the research should consist of aborted babies, or entire human cloning at ALL. I'm absolutely pro-life on the topic, and I know that being able to say "Well, at least I gave it's stem cells to save someone else," takes off part of a guilt trip that I belive [b]should[/b] be there (of course this changes in the case of rape, however I'm still pro-life in that situation). Continue research by all means, just don't kill babies in the process ^_^. [/B][/QUOTE] Drix. That pic is sick. And coming from me, me calling something sick...that takes A LOT of sickness. Stem cell research is both right and wrong. It's horribly horribly horribly wrong in the case of that mouse-ear. That's...Frankenstein gone wrong...that's...immoral genetic engineering. That...that...is ******* sick. Pardon the language lol. OK. I'm for stem cell research, because I don't like seeing a quadriplegic unable to move, having to be supported by machine upon machine upon machine. If an aborted fetus can help that person who can't help themselves to even move, I'm all for it. If one mentions "fetus potential," what about that quadriplegic's potential? What if that quadriplegic could walk? Surely people would want that, correct? To see another human being able to stand on two legs on his or her own? I know I'm not the most sentimental person around, but seeing that would bring a lot of joy to my heart, and knowing that other people support that quadriplegic walking again would make me believe in mankind. lol. Most of you say the human race is not cold-hearted, most of you disagreed with me on the "humans as monsters" idea. Are you prepared to say that restoring physical ability to one who hasn't been able to walk in a long, long time isn't important enough to extract stem cells from an aborted fetus? If you are, then that sounds very cold-hearted. Anyway, I'm mostly pro stem cell research...except in the case of growing gigantic ears on the back of mice. That's just plain wrong. That's something out of bad science fiction. "The Day The Mouse Grew Ears." EDIT: Oh yeah, PhoenixFlame, shut-up. Stop whining and maybe you won't get banned.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PhoenixFlame [/i] [B]Well i know a place that lets me download sonic X episodes...there are rare websites that host episodes and movies,and yes hells fire is right kazaa is good for downloading that stuff. [/B][/QUOTE] Though, I believe OB looks down upon linking to a site that may or may not host material that infringes upon copyrights, and Kazaa is most definitely a copyright infringer. Plus, I don't see why anyone still uses Kazaa, even KazaaLite. Viruses all over the net, hacker threats, worms, even just annihilating one's hard drive. Is that really worth it, just to download the newest song from Michelle Branch or Nelly?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PhoenixFlame [/i] [B]well no not about the kid with the shotgun i didnt say it would make nukes harmless,by then they arent gonna wanna use nukes theyre gonna wanna get the crap that the enemy has,hence why some other countries are trying to get into space(as in they wanna get what their enemies have)and as for the off topic reference to smash bros melee,if you got kicked in the butt by jiggly puff.....after i got some practice with link on the old smb..after i got link and started using him i beat the crap out of level 16 monsters in multiplayer mode....I went around asking a few people who they were good with and when i told them i was good with link they started laughing their asses off they said that link sucked no matter who used him he was only good when used by the computer.The point of that is that the characters in smb are not really all that much more powerful than each other,so i dont understand what the point of your off topic saying of the smbm thing [/B][/QUOTE] Grammar. Grammar. Grammar. OK, I?m going to TRY to decipher this. I?m guessing you didn?t pay attention to my last few sentences of my post. [quote] Do you get it? Having a bigger weapon doesn?t make you invincible or powerful. If anything, it makes you a bigger target. (Off-topic reference to Super Smash Bros. Melee: I was fighting as Samus against a few of my friends, Scott included. He plays as Jigglypuff. I had just picked up a Super Mushroom and said, ?HAHAHHA! BIG MUSHROOM MEANS BIG SAMUS!!!? as I proceeded to jump at Jigglypuff. A second later, I hear a whistle, I?m flying off into oblivion. You know what happened? Rest attack. You know what Scott did? He turned to me and said, ?And makes a bigger target.?)[/quote] Pretty clear enough, I think. Even those who I?ve angered on this thread and who would rather hurt me, would follow what I said. Now, regarding Smash Bros, a game on which I am very well trained, and have fought against very excellent players, RPCrazy included. The computer level goes up to 9. The characters are not called ?monsters,? they?re called Nintendo Mascots. And frankly, if you don?t realize that Jigglypuff is a deadly character, and if you don?t realize just what Rest Attack is, then you should not open your mouth to criticize my Super Smash Bros. Melee reference. Rest Attack, as EXPERIENCED players know, is the ultimate defensive maneuver. It takes very astute timing and skill to pull off against normal-sized players, but a GIANT SAMUS is very vulnerable to such an attack. Any character using a Super Mushroom is easy to kill with Rest Attack. Normally, I could avoid Jigglypuff?s Rest Attack, but since I was giant (read, bigger than the rest), I was easier to kill. Do you get it? The bigger they are, the harder they fall? Shall I come out and say it? Being bigger and/or stronger does not mean you have an advantage. There. Is that better? By the way, I could school you in SSB or Melee any day of the week. I dare you to go up against my Sheik or Mario, or Samus.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PhoenixFlame [/i] [B]I didnt say america would last forever and they jumped on korea for secretly developing nuclear weapons,im saying that they chances are theyre gonna be very careful about their enemies having nukes until something else comes along more powerful but less permanent.America is currently the strongest,i didnt say it would be forever,but look at past cultures the later on they happened the longer they lasted. [/B][/QUOTE] As Baron said, grammar is your friend. Things such as apostrophes help immensely, as does proper spacing after comma usage. I think your main point here was ?the later cultures happen, the longer they last.? If this point is true, then what about colonialism? Do you mean to tell me that Spain, Britain, and to a lesser extent, France, all still have that massive colonial culture? Am I missing colonies and outposts stationed throughout the Americas? Are there conquistadores still traveling through the Everglades of Florida? The Native American culture started far before Columbus? first voyage, and native cultures of the East Indies had been established long before ?white man? set foot there. Am I missing something here? Do we still have explorers charting out territories, claiming rivers as their own? Do we still have adventurers from afar coming and taking control of our country? I think not. That is an example of an older cultural ideal that has survived longer than a more current cultural ideal. Let?s compare Nazism to the Roman Empire. Both were definite cultures, correct? [url]http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=culture[/url] Definitions 4 and 5 pertain to social constructs and beliefs, and most certainly the Roman Empire and Nazism fall under these definitions. Yet, there is something wrong with your point. By your logic, Nazism should have lasted far longer than the Roman Empire did, simply because Nazism came later. But that?s not the case at all. The Roman Empire had a run of at least 500 years before a major division, but then those divided sides even lasted for a lot longer. Nazism lasted for oh, about 25 years. Longer if you count Neo-Nazis, but that just lengthens it by 50 years, amounting to only a fraction of the time of the Roman Empire. ?,im saying that they chances are theyre gonna be very careful about their enemies having nukes until something else comes along more powerful but less permanent.? Allow me to clarify your point here. You?re saying that we?re worried about nuclear weapons now and worried about our enemies developing nuclear weapons. That?s fine. But we?ll stop worrying about our enemies having nuclear weapons when there are more powerful weapons developed? Are you saying that bigger means better? Should we view ourselves as the kid with a shotgun while everyone else only has a handgun? Just because we have a cannon doesn?t mean a grenade isn?t deadly. Just because we have a sword doesn?t mean we shouldn?t worry about other people having daggers. If anything, more dangerous weapons mean a greater danger for us. Look at the Cold War and Space Race. Those are the definitive military races of the 20th century. Why would we have worked so hard with our space program if the Soviets hadn?t announced Sputnik? Many speculate that we wouldn?t have had nuclear weapons when we did had the Germans not started developing theirs. Do you get it? Having a bigger weapon doesn?t make you invincible or powerful. If anything, it makes you a bigger target. (Off-topic reference to Super Smash Bros. Melee: I was fighting as Samus against a few of my friends, Scott included. He plays as Jigglypuff. I had just picked up a Super Mushroom and said, ?HAHAHHA! BIG MUSHROOM MEANS BIG SAMUS!!!? as I proceeded to jump at Jigglypuff. A second later, I hear a whistle, I?m flying off into oblivion. You know what happened? Rest attack. You know what Scott did? He turned to me and said, ?And makes a bigger target.?) EDIT: You had asked what?s wrong with your grammar. Here it is. [quote] humans currently arent intelligent enough to be monsters nor people of peace who can be peaceful all the time and get out of every situation....simply put were neither monsters nor superior...but one day animals could evolve to match our current intelligence in several billion years[/quote] [color=red]Humans[/color] currently [color=red]aren?t[/color] intelligent enough to be monsters nor people of peace who can be peaceful all the time and get out of every situation....simply put [color=red]we?re[/color] neither monsters nor superior...but one day animals could evolve to match our current intelligence in several billion years[color=red]. [/color] [quote]no if you compare us to animals we act very similar,if we are monsters then everyone and everything alive is therefore there would not be a monster cause everyone is one[/quote] [color=red]No,[/color] if you compare us to animals[color=red], [/color] we act very [color=red]similar, if[/color] we are monsters then everyone and everything alive therefore would not be a monster [color=red]because[/color] everyone is one[color=red].[/color] [quote]Arch you have a good point but humans always find a way to survive,so they would last longer than like 100 years after nuclear waste destroys the majority,by the time that we would actually launch nukes to every part of the world we would have already had a space colony,cause no nuke currently can be launched to every country from one country,and america prolly wont let many countries have nuclear power...Simply put i doubt it would go down like that but you were right on most of your post.[/quote] Arch[color=red], [/color] you have a good point but humans always find a way to [color=red]survive, so[/color] they would last longer than like 100 years after nuclear waste destroys the [color=red]majority, by[/color] the time that we would actually launch nukes to every part of the world we would have already had a space [color=red]colony, cause[/color] no nuke currently can be launched to every country from one [color=red]country, and[/color] [color=red]America[/color] [color=red]probably[/color] [color=red]won?t[/color] let many countries have nuclear [color=red]power...simply put, I[/color] doubt it would go down like that [color=red],[/color] but you were right on most of your post. Those are the glaring things. Some other errors involve syntax that I just don?t feel like delving into.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PhoenixFlame [/i] [B]Arch you have a good point but humans always find a way to survive,so they would last longer than like 100 years after nuclear waste destroys the majority,by the time that we would actually launch nukes to every part of the world we would have already had a space colony,cause no nuke currently can be launched to every country from one country,and america prolly wont let many countries have nuclear power...Simply put i doubt it would go down like that but you were right on most of your post. [/B][/QUOTE] Just one thing. As much as we like to think it, America is not the only controlling factor in the world. That mindset is most likely due to our Americanized culture, the idea that we're the best and strongest and so forth. As much as we like the idea of ourselves as the "world police," we're not. We're viewed by many other nations to be sticking our noses into other countries' business. It's unintelligent to think that one nation will control everything. Look at the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the Nazi Party. Those global powers tried to rule everything, tried to control everything and their "world police" status didn't last too long. About space stations and such, I'm not too abreast of what the current space technology situation is, but I'm pretty sure NASA isn't doing too well (especially after a few recent mishaps), and I think other nations' space programs have taken major hits, too. Also, during the Cold War, the space station idea was...more or less in a design phase. During the Cold War, the Soviets and we both had the technology to hit each other in the right places (without space stations), but the primary reason that the Cold War didn't escalate to conflict was MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction. Neither nation wanted a war in which everyone would die. That's not the case today. MAD is a relic of sorts. Plus, in a nuclear war, we wouldn't need to hit every country from one country. That's the dark beauty of nuclear weapons; hitting one country will devastate those around it, whether it be shock waves, radiation, whatever. Not to mention the ensuing nuclear winter that will decimate pretty much everything around the blast area. Considering just how fragile humans are, I seriously doubt we'd last longer than 50 years after a nuclear war. Granted, there were survivors in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and were able to re-build and begin anew, but that was in essence, an isolated incident. If global thermonuclear war were to occur, survival would be very slim.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Gentle [/i] [B]Yeah I know, I saw what it said. It could atleast be stretched another 5 miliseconds or something though. [/B][/QUOTE] That's the purpose of subliminal advertising: things go really fast as to implant the idea without the viewer's knowledge. I think it's fine the way it is.