Charles

[QUOTE=The_Ghost]I just saw this movie about two hours ago, so these are my first impressions. Uhm, in my opinion, it was portrayed pretty accurately. Considering Mel Gibson was a devout Catholic, I'm pretty sure he checked the plot out from the source. [b]The Lord of The Rings[/b] was quite different from [b]The Passion[/b], and I'm almost offended that you compare them. LOTR was an epic film, trying to engage the viewer mentally. Sure, it had it's visual effects, but it's main point was in it's story. [b]The Passion[/b] is more of an emotional film, trying to show the viewer the pain and suffering that Jesus went through. Maybe that's not the "high art" that LOTR was, but I still think it's worth seeing.[/QUOTE] Well, I'm almost offended that you totally misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. What I meant to illustrate in my comparison with [b]The Lord of The Rings[/b] was that it's not an unpopular idea to translate an older piece of writing accurately, despite factors like age or mass. Those books are quite old and it's not a stretch of the imagination to say that fans have a strong affiliation to the characters. The attachment to the characters themselves transcends the events themselves. I'm sure LoTR fans would have considered it blasphemy if only one defining moment was pulled from the entire series. Obviously people [i]still[/i] went to see the movies, knowing full well how they were going to end. So, you took my point out of context. My comparisons are generalized at best, not made for the purpose of comparing the intricacies of the films directly--they're only there to demonstrate that it is indeed possible to remain accurate to a source material in such a way that you're getting emotions across, but not in a constrained way. You should also know that, although my quote wasn't putting the accuracy of [b]The Passion [/b]in question, Gibson's research was shaky in certain areas; he did fall back on his own opinions for some of the more objectionable parts of the film.

[quote name='Farto the Magic']As if they don't have enough of an ego, they tear down someone else's. You can't get them alone, because they're always flanked by four of their frineds. I mean, what the hell? I'm sure that other people would be glad to carry on my rant.[/quote]On the contrary, these people are making fun of you because of their own low self esteem. They don't intend for their jibes to lead to a physical confrontation (or at least a fair one). If you encountered one of these people alone, I can guarantee that they wouldn't rouse you; it would be a different situation altogether. These individuals have a singular thrill--and it's exalting in one other's presence at the expense of someone else. It's all a joke to them. They aren't considering things like someone else's feelings. This is why they're never alone and refuse to stand on their own two feet. They aren't strong enough to be individuals. Nor are they mature enough to have fun together in a positive way. They probably aren't even creative enough to find anything better to do. I won't lie. If I were you, and a group of jackasses were calling me names, I'd be angry and upset too just because I don't like being used as a building block for someone else's poor self esteem. It's very inconsiderate. But, at the same time, there's no point in exchanging verbal blows with them. This is not a situation you can actually "win." Just be the better person and show you're above it by walking away. Don't give them a reason to laugh. Even if it bothers you, shrug it off. Just keep in mind the knowledge that these guys will be bald and fat two years after graduating from high school. They'll probably be working for you eventually too. Feel me? Either that, or you can remain bitter about this and become a disgruntled postal employee who wears lipstick and keeps their names on a personal list for future reference. It doesn't take a genius to recognize the preferable course of action here.

All right, nonsense has gotten out of hand. Transtic Nerve, I'm terribly disappointed by this outburst. It's perfectly acceptable to feel passionately about an issue, and to argue with equal zeal, but it's an entirely different story when you verbally [b]attack[/b] others like some deranged verbal pugilist. If you're going to introduce a topic, you've got to be prepared to discuss it on a mature platform. Just because someone[i] disagrees[/i] with you, doesn't mean they've got some devious ulterior motives hidden up their sleeves. Boba Fett was giving your ideas copious amounts of attention by responding to them point-by-point in a respectful way. What more could you ask for? He gave you sources! Any time someone feels your ideas warrant enough time to produce such a response deserves positive recognition. I know you're intelligent and capable of defending your stance maturely. That's why it pains me to see these meandering replies that serve up more self righteous rhetoric than logical thought process. I've seen this sort of overreaction from you [b]numerous[/b] times where you needlessly lash out at others and it's so beneath you it's not even funny. The worst part is, that you know better. The disregard for common deceny is ineffable here. You've got to find the dignity to keep your composure in these situations. I don't want to see this bullsh-- again. I'm going to allow this thread to remain open, with the understanding that I want it to get back on track--and fast. Psychoanalyzations are unnecessary here. And I don't think we need to see cheap shots aimed at baiting Transtic Nerve. These underhanded tactics aren't fair. Furthermore, name calling shouldn't be answered with more name calling (I'm looking at you DeathBug).

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel]Screw Twin Snakes, Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life comes out mid-March. I'm not worried about some of the average scores as many magazines never give the series good ones. I still can't figure out why, but I love the games heh. [/QUOTE]Not to get off topic, but I may actually try this game; I forgot it came out in March. It's too bad there won't be an online function though. We could trade chickens or something. But, yes, this is probably [i]the[/i] killer app until Halo 2 is released. It's the most excitement an Xbox game has generated for me since KOTOR. Speaking of which, apparently, you can unlock a light saber too. [img]http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/bannerimages/ninjasecret1.jpg[/img]

Anyone with an Xbox should have had a passing interest in this oft-hyped game for some time now. Now that this much delayed bugger is nearing its long awaited release, the gaming community is abuzz. The anticipation has reached a high pitched fervor, of sorts. For once, Gamespot and IGN both seem to agree; they've each scored Ninja Gaiden an impressive 9.4. Furthermore, they've lavished it with praise, not only confirming a length of twenty hours, but by comparing the adventuring fundamentals to those found in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. In fact, most of these reviews were spent gushing over almost every facet of the gameplay. I've already reserved the game because my expectations lead me to label it as the game Devil May Cry 2 should have been. Impressions have noted the outstanding variety in the level designs, a satisfyingly high difficulty level, and a competent camera. What more could you ask for in this genre? If the media is correct, we have a game that's consistently good and nails all the essentials. Expanding Ryu's repertoire of abilities and weaponry sounds notably polished too. The accumulation of skills done in the same vein as Devil May Cry and Viewtiful Joe; you purchase them. I simply love action games whose characters not only have a robust array of abilities, but introduce a learning curve as well, by making you unlock them as you progress. It's a way to keep things fresh and balanced. I seriously hope I'm not the only one here digging Ninja Gaiden. Navigating huge, seamless environments with such a versatile gameplay engine should be quite the treat. I've heard that it's a truly fun experience. Plus, emulated versions of the original Ninja Gaiden trilogy are unlockable (although the method of obtaining them sounds tricky). So, what does everyone else think? With this and Twin Snakes releasing within the same month, gamers are definitely enjoying a better first quarter than they're used to. That's for sure.

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']I think that it's a great thing that Mr. Nader is once again running for president. He'll siphon off votes from whoever the Democratic candidate is, inadvertantly helping President Bush to win reelection.[/quote][/color] How does this introductory part of your quote relate at all to the following?[color=green][quote][b][color=green]I don't see how anyone could vote for Nader, as it's obvious he's going nowhere.[/b] Every single one of his runs for the presidency has ended in failure; not even garnering ten percent of the vote last year. This year, Nader seems to be less likely to draw liberal votes because there's a significant difference between the platforms of the Democrats and the Republicans. [b]The fervent opposition to President Bush will probablly make liberals think twice before voting for a third party candidate, even those on the extreme left. Nader will draw votes in this election, but I doubt he'll be a spoiler for the Democrats again.[/color][/b][/color][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=wrist cutter]No wonder you didn't enjoy the movie. If you haven't figured it out already this isn't a typical movie. It's plot was given away thousands of years ago, and people have been caring about the characters for an equal amount of time. It's not trying to be a movie for everyone - it's not going to have little "side plots" to bring out the characters or whatever. It would be completely irrelevant to anyone who has already read the Bible. That being said I really don't see why non-Christians are going to see this movie. It's not meant to "entertain" you. It's not meant to just give you something to do for a few hours. It's to help you better understand what really happened to Jesus and what He went through for us, by providing a visual aid. It's meant to hit you hard, because sometimes the text just isn't enough to fully understand. So don't expect it to be a sound "movie" because it really isn't. Side characters may seem irrelevant, but they're in the Bible and that's what matters. This isn't going to create some fictional account to make it more entertaining. I'll add in that I haven't seen this movie yet. But I will have as of this Saturday.[/QUOTE] I love theological stories; they're very captivating. I've read both the Old and New Testaments and the characters here aren't represented as well as they could have been. You're not able to invest yourself in them as much as you'd like. Their relationships are defined only through brief snippets in flashback segments. You'll see what I mean once you see it. It's as if they're trying to rush everything in because of the limited time they're working with. Also, I don't think it's irrelevant to realize the Bible thoroughly on-screen. How is this different than something like [b]The Lord of The Rings[/b] where massive novels were translated accurately to film? Fans of the books obviously wanted to see the stories portrayed accurately. But, anyway, as I said, I [i]did [/i]enjoy the movie. This quote of yours really sums up one of my main faults with it: [quote]But really, my point was that this isn't Star Wars or something. It's not really about entertainment, or a movie you go to just to watch a movie. I think you'd be disappointed with it in that way anyway.[/quote] It was derivative that they [i]did[/i] try to make it about entertainment by introducing strange, largely unnecessary elements like ghouls. In any case, the cinematography is excellent. It's well documented that it tries to replicate the look of Italian Baroque paintings of Caravaggi. Before [b]The Passion of Christ[/b], disturbing imagery never looked so beautiful. The raw emotion etched on the character's faces goes a long way in delivering an [b]intense[/b] experience. There will be many acting nominations for this one.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel]As for the brutality, this is the story of Jesus. Not Bob from down the corner. There's obviously a difference between them on many levels. Having him endure all these things, while exaggerated, is kind of the point. How can you bring pure logic into a story that involves things that are written in the Bible concerning him? Should I also dislike the movie because of the resurrection? Afterall, no real person could do that either [spoiler](I do think the wounds in his hands in that scene was lame though)[/spoiler'].[/quote] I understand that the figure represented isn't "Joe Average" and I knew that because I didn't define my point more clearly you'd easily find some measure of fault in it. My basis of conflict is [i]how [/i]it was done and what it didn't achieve. The scourging of Christ triggered a powerful emotional response, there's no doubt about that. It's an effective scene if ever there was one. [i]But, what was it really[/i]? If you examine it, it can be dissected into gruesome, sadistic, stomach-turning and hard core graphically violent torture detached from any background information save for mostly clumsy flashbacks. Unless one has prior knowledge to this material, they're just not getting the full symbolism or the attachment of the characters. Going into a movie, I expect the introduction of characters, I expect them to be developed and I should see their stories pay off by the end of the film. None of these expectations are met here. Hell, many of the supporting characters felt out of place and irrelevant to me. I don't know. Maybe such ambitious scope is just too limited for one film to handle. Perhaps the story should have been more robust, spread across multiple films to achieve its purpose. It's just disheartening to say the least, to see such ineptitude in how everything was pieced together. This is a film made with evident and abundant religious conviction that is at the same time just [i]utterly[/i] lacking in grace. I've always felt that there should be a certain degree of beauty to the story itself. We saw some of that. [spoiler]When Mary rushed to Jesus's side with the flashbacks spliced in and Jesus said "See mother, I make all things new again,"[/spoiler] I was just in awe. If more time had been concentrated on defining the relationships of the characters like that, I would have been enraptured with the film. As it stands now, I was simply pleased. [quote]]It's by no means the best movie I've ever seen or even the saw recently... but I can't say I agree with you overall either. Obviously the wrath involved against Jesus is a key point of the whole thing. If was obviously killed for real justifiable reason as it was. If you want to walk away from that feeling nothing only the negative impact of it, then okay. I can't say I walked away thinking the same things.[/QUOTE] I don't expect everyone to agree with me; I love seeing opinions different than my own. So, I'm not arguing with you here or trying to sway your take on the film. I just enjoy discussing the intricacies of complex movies. Hopefully even more people will partake in the conversation. I also want to make it clear that I didn't come away only feeling the negative impact of [b]The Passion of Christ[/b]. I just fell into a situation here where it's what I ended up discussing the most. Overall, I enjoyed it and am obivously willing to make some concessions of other people's points. I'm not saying that I don't agree with you. I just don't fall into agreement entirely. After all, We've only discussed two aspects of the movie here in-depth.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']I think that's a really extreme opinion over one stupid aspect of the film. Whether or not you liked the humanization of Satan is one thing, but it hardly makes this film comparable to anything from the so-called "Bennifer". Just using that term deserves a punch in and of itself lol. Do you work for Extra or Celebrity Justice? Ugh heh.[/quote] What? I don't think I hold an extreme opinion at all. I believe the movie was [i]good[/i] but had the potential to be fantastic. I may have pursued my dissatisfaction towards some aspects of the film in an aggressive manner, but these are [i]critical [/i]flaws. It's as if I'm nitpicking just for the sake of doing so. If that makes me a radical, well, what can I say? :wigout: The "Bennifer" term is suited to the vast majority of today's audiences. Whether you like it or not, these people only invest themselves heavily in the idea of Hollywood more so than good filmmaking. They have short attention spans and have to see conventional distractions onscreen to kindle an interest. [b]The Passion of Christ[/b] achieved these diversions with rubber suited monsters and cartoon violence. [quoteI agree the use of a humanized Satan really didn't always have the desired effect. However, I don't really see how the thoughts of Jesus or Mary's temptations could have been shown much better. The only other device that comes to mind would be giving them flashes of hypothetical situations that really just wouldn't have fit in with the film. If you're familiar with the Bible there are actually parts where Jesus pretty much does converse or see the devil "in the flesh" so to speak. Therefore I don't find what they did to be pandering to some idiotic audience.[/quote] Over the course of the movie, they reiterated the idea of truth or what exactly truth is. With this in mind, I find it incredibly ironic that a film based on faith wouldn't let us arrive at our own sense of truth instead of blatantly hitting us over the head with their idea of honesty. Your biblical references don't hold water here either. Most of the scenes depicting Satan were superfluous. Nor do they excuse Boogieman-like apparitions haunting Judas. For me, the mysticism was sacrificed because of these symbolic, albeit pointless gestures. [quote]However, I do agree in some senses because I don't really see the point in making them look ridiculous to the point of being almost humorous. I think the use of the goofy looking children was a bit over-used... It had the desirable effect that it was going for on me, but that's mostly because I knew what it was trying to get at. In and of itself, the children were rather comical. Comparing that to Darkness Falls is rather ridiculous.[/quote] I was comparing the demon that screamed at Judas to [b]Darkness Falls.[/b] The children reminded me of a parade of [b][b]Leprechaun[/b][/b] miscasts. Again, I know why they were there, but does that excuse their needless presence? We know that Judas is cursed. Hell, anyone who's had the benefit of reading Dante's Inferno knows that he's forced to suffer in Hell for eternity. [quote]As for the brutality, really what was exaggerated about it? Any weapons they used on Jesus would have had those same effects in reality. Jesus's cross would have been about that size in reality. Obviously his overcoming things most anyone else couldn't is slightly exaggerated, but it's not much different in the Bible -- I always thought that was part of the point. Afterall, he isn't exactly a normal person lol. The only thing I think might be thought to be extreme would be the level to which the Roman's enjoyed attacking Jesus... however, in reading other things and studying their culture in Latin class, I find no reason to believe why there wouldn't be people who loved doing that sort of thing to that degree. This is a culture that had people kill eachother on a regular basis for the sheer fun of it all. The brutality is all part of the point, I think. People of the Christian religion have the idea of "Jesus died for your sins" beaten into their brains so often that it loses all meaning. What you're supposed to get from this film is really how much Jesus went through for what amounts to totally selfless reasons. That's the "uplifting" message. That the son of God would care for the people of this earth so much that he'd be willing to go to these lengths. It's the core of the whole Christian belief system. I'm not religious whatsoever. I don't even believe in Jesus as a religious figure, really... but if you can't put the ideas of the religion along with the reasoning as to why i happened, I think you're just going to miss the point of the film and look at it as just another simple movie. Anyway, I thought this was very well done in terms of costume design, acting and cinematography at the least.[/QUOTE] I'm running out of time, so I can't address these points in as much depth as I'd like. At least, not at the moment. If Jesus actually received the amount of punishment dished out in this film though, he would have died three times over before being crucified. The violence was almost something I had to bear. It was just excruciating stuff in general. As the New York Times review keenly pointed out, the film concentrates too heavily on the savagery of Jesus's final hours and captures the feeling of wrath instead of love. In effect, it assaults the audience instead of uplifting it.

[QUOTE=Raiha][color=seagreen]Satan: The female/male is in my avatar now, but she's alot freakier in the movie itself. Did a very good job of making me writhe with fear and disgust. I highly reccomend it, saw it last night, and wailed and screamed through several parts of it. Including the 40 minute flogging scene and the half hour they spent crucifying Jesus. A better review is at myotaku.[/color][/QUOTE]I writhed with disgust that's for sure; this concept of Satan ruined the film. The movie itself wasn't bad. It's heart wrenching and as a human being, you just want to get up and help. That was my immediate emotional response. But, you know, for every wonderful scene in the film that had me captivated, my attention was lost by some Hollywood distraction. Satan should have been a metaphysical idea. There shouldn't be a humanized realization of the concept of evil. It's just terrible filmmaking. [i]Terrible.[/i] The ghouls they show are so out of place it isn't even funny. On second thought, it [i]is[/i] funny and that's what's sad. I shouldn't be laughing cynically as Jesus is flogged because a Hellraiser reject that's supposed to represent Lucifer is suckling some twisted infant. This isn't [b]Jeepers Creepers [/b]or [b]Darkness Falls.[/b] It's as if we [i]had[/i] to have these fantasy elements included within the film. Otherwise our limited attention spans wouldn't allow us to enjoy a theological tale driven on raw human emotion (and faith) rather than state-of-the-art special effects. Right? [b]The Passion of The Christ[/b] is worth seeing, but it didn't quite trigger the response from me I hoped it would. It's probably too violent. The brutality is overly exaggerated in some cases. Being exposed to such troubling imagery didn't make me feel uplifted. That's for sure. There were a select few memorable scenes that'll be plastered into my memory. I also liked how they didn't use subtitles the entire time--only to define critical plot devices. Otherwise, this is a Hollywood infused product for the Bennifer generation. Why hast thou forsaken me, indeed. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=jblessing]Well.. for one, I think having Moderator privileges might show some superiority, eh? Oh wait wait, what about being a [b]Team Leader[/b] and showing that [i]superiority[/i] under your user name? :rolleyes: *takes privileges away* :cool:[/QUOTE] I think it was just a rhetorical joke....:crying:

[QUOTE=Boo][color=gray]I was browsing the forum with my bro standing behind me, complaining that I didnt like the OB new looks lol. But anyways. My bro suddenly came up with the idea that the General/myOB/Misc could just be at the same place but that you have a button to scroll it down. That way theres more space for forum and that looks better IMO. Just a suggestion to make use of this board lol.[/color][/QUOTE]Interesting suggestion, but ultimately ineffective. At least, that's how I see it. If this proposal was to be implemented, the navigation bar would lose its entire purpose; it would become inefficient. Instead of having a generous array of useful functions at your fingertips, you'd have the time consuming (and tedious) task of scrolling through a menu just to find what you want instead of having it all laid out in front of you. So, it'd be a very unpractical and costly move from where I sit. I sure prefer the luxury of having these options at my immediate disposal. Having said that, you're not the only one who's complained about the new design. Others have shared similar concerns. So, with that in mind, understand that I'm not trying to dismiss what you're suggesting as nonsense. I just have a general understanding of this site and I think it's safe to say that this direction is the one most suited to OtakuBoards right now, and it's an (easy) adjustment that members are ultimately going to have to make. That is, unless an alternative skin ever gets developed without the navigation bar or something. But, I have no knowledge of such plans. I personally wouldn't give members any alternative but to embrace it. In the long run most people won't know how they surfed OtakuBoards[i] without[/i] the bar. Oh, and before I forget, please try to title your threads more thoughtfully. Generally, they should relate to what you're talking instead of imitating me after I've had Mexican food.

[quote name='Zanarkand Abes']Why was it removed? I thought it added a lot of personality to the boards and brought the members together. That and it made them feel more rwal as we could see who it is we are talking to. I think it should be brought back officialy to the site.[/quote] Other than the picture site mentioned, you're also able to include a picture in your profile. Combine that with the further integration of the myOtaku service into OtakuBoards, and I think you'll find that there's still plenty of opportunity for you to share your pictures. You'll live, I swear. :D

[quote name='K. Battousai']I want someone to rate my site, ya no? I don't have any guestbook entries so I'm just asking. :tasty:[/quote] I don't think this forum is meant to advertise your myOtaku account. As the name of the forum implies, this is a place for you to offer your impressions of [b]this[/b] site so that we can address any concerns you have or consider your suggestions for the betterment of the community. A shameless plug does not constitute what we want to see here. Use your signature for these purposes.

All right, AzureWolf is [i]officially[/i] the man. I read through this thread, and up to his post, wondered why no one even made a passing mention of Virtua Fighter. It's simply not possible to entertain a discussion about fighting games without citing it. What a glaring oversight. Absolutely unforgivable. There's a serious problem when even a few residents of a site pronounce Super Smash Brothers Melee as anything more than a brief footnote in the fighting genre whilst neglecting to give Virtua Fighter its just due. Futhermore, why are we even mentioning this party game in the same breath as Soul Calibur 2? We're talking apples and oranges here. Two games designed to achieve two entirely different purposes (which each title does well, respectively). They're not even interchangeable alternatives to one another. That's exactly why the attractiveness of both titles will always depend on the audience in question. I'd hardly attribute Calibur's success to superficiality. That's an odd sentiment to express, especially in comparison to Melee, a game that [b]reaches[/b] for nostalgia. Namco really did an excellent job of fine-tuning an engine most considered perfect. Let's not attribute the depth of the mechanics to imagination for imagination's sake. Soul Calibur 2 is literally a game anyone can play, but few can master with a variety of characters. It's something a dedicated player must commit themselves to [i]learn. [/i]As far as the entire genre is concerned, I think it's holding up well. Only recently it reached a Renaissance of sorts upon hosting two of the best fighters ever released in such a short span of time with Virtua Fighter 4 Evolution and Soul Calibur 2. Really, guys, if you have yet to play Virtua Fighter Evolution, go out, do so [i]and then[/i] reply to this thread about your take on fighters. It's a bargain title I prefer to even Calibur II. Not for the complexity or the brilliant learning curve--but because it's simply an enjoyable experience no one should miss. Perfection realized. For those of you placingMelee in the same camp as traditional fighters, this is an absolute necessity. Otherwise, fighters haven't become any more stagnant than other aging genres. Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance was fantastic; I greatly anticipate the prospect of playing the follow-up online. The Guilty Gear franchise should also continue with a four player installment. That'll be insanity, my friends--[i]pure insanity. [/i] Fighters aren't flourishing but they aren't floundering as a whole either.

[quote name='Cyke][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms] Many people call it the game that came with the $50 MGS2 demo, and with good reason.[/font'][/color][/quote]That's exactly how I see it. The first Zone of Enders was average. But, more than anything else, it was MGS2 fodder. As a mech game, it was surprisingly intuitive. The lock-on combat immediately put me in control. I didn't have to suffer through hours of tutorials to have a good time. Also, it's [i]fast[/i]. The sensation you get from zooming across the skies in a mech big enough to topple a building, yet agile enough to perform battle tactics akin to something like Shinobi, is awesome. So, the movement was wonderful. Again, I just have to reiterate how cool it was controlling a massive robot that moved around with that much grace. Unfortunately, the game had little more to offer. It suffered from a flaw apparent in Sega's latest forays in the hack n' slash genre. It was very repetitious.

I just stepped out of the OB and into The OC. Wild stuff. :box:

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel]I don't really get some of the complaints. From all I've read and heard the movie and the actual death of Christ are no different than what is written in the Bible itself. Why a movie would suddenly make a random person hate the various sects of people involved in it, I really don't know. If that were the case, they have a book that's thousands of years old to use as fodder in the first place. There was someone on that special they did saying that he doesn't feel the movie does anything it shouldn't... but that some people would jump to conclusions and create some sort of hatred against the groups in the movie. I don't really know what could be done about that, as some people are just crazy.[/QUOTE] It's only natural that people are offended by the film; you really can't do anything about it. There's nothing arbitrary about the audience it offends either; it's clearly going to affect the Jews, as all the clamoring of anti-Semitic overtones illustrates. There are a number of factors here that are important. The film is a traditionalist Catholic vision of the crucifixion. As nearly everyone knows, the Jews have a sharply different viewpoint on the historical details of this event (they don't even believe their people killed the messiah). But, they weren't consulted at all here. They can't be happy with that at all. The organized Jewish community probably won't welcome the fact the dialogue includes "Passion" either. Am I insisting that people [i]should[/i] be offended by the movie? Not at all. Likewise, it's hardly a pervasive effect. Especially considering the Jewish don't accept the New Testament, which you cite as a reason the film shouldn't offend anyone. It's not like they don't have a problem with that document to begin with. A modern movie based on it [i]has[/i] to spark uneasiness simply because of how the Jewish are portrayed. I've read that the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox traditions were also left on the front doorstep in this movie, as well. The limited scope of [i]The Passion of the Christ[/i] alone is bound to irritate some. I'm not even saying it's possible to satisfy everyone's beliefs but this is the case. [quote name='NorykoAngelcry][SIZE=1][COLOR=darkred]Basically, anything that puts the truth out there, people are always going to have problems with [/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] I just had to quote you because of how utterly silly and unfounded this comment was. Any point you were trying to make with your entire post was defeated right there. Better luck next time. [quote name='cloricus']I wonder if they will, in the movie, point out how rich Jesus and his family was; or that he did not carry a cross but in fact the cross beam that was nailed into a smallish tree; or maybe that his mother was close to being killed because she had sex before marriage? Oh wait; made by a devote catholic, bye bye reality![/quote] Why would a film that attempts to realize Gibsons' own traditionalist Catholic vision of the Gospel story mention these things?

I read this article about two weeks ago; it's exciting news. I know that nearly everything I'll mention was highlighted already, but I may as well go for it. For a long time, I considered myself a rabid Resident Evil fan. I loved the idea of B-movie esque zombie horror in video games well before it became the norm. It goes without saying, I anticipated the first game's release for the PSX well before the media lavished it with praise. Not only was it an original Capcom effort--it was [i]good.[/i]. [b]Really[/b] good. It left a lasting impression on me because it was the first truly great game of the 32-bit generation. Resident Evil was a point in gaming where I absolutely the industry's foundation was going to be rocked. Subsequently, the series has faltered. It's been solid, but only because the same successful formula has been replicated over and [i]over[/i] again. Resident Evil 4 strikes me as a notable turning point in the series because for the first time in a long time, I'm interested. The most promising piece of information the article mentioned is this: [quote]Tired of where the series was going, Mikami decided to take it in a new direction. Change the persepective in a Resident Evil game? Remove the zombies? Sounds completely insane, but that's indeed what has happened. "I remember playing [Resident Evil] Zero and saying to myself that this is just more of the same, "confided Mikami. "This is why I wanted to change the system. With the new system I once again feel nervous and afraid when I play it."[/quote] I couldn't agree with the general sentiment here more. It's such a refreshing confession, and it makes me glad to see his involvement here once again. The series was so bereft of intensity and originality, I just couldn't stand it. Resident Evil simply didn't generate the atmosphere its competitors in the genre managed to create. Play one hour of Fatal Frame 2 even, and you'll see what I'm talking about. This new direction should curtail the convoluted storyline and give the series a fresh new beginning. They've exhausted the possibilities with the Umbrella corporation and zombies. I'm much more excited at the prospect of fleeing from human pursuers who [i]think[/i] in a sense. Who set traps like laser trip-wires. It should be interesting to navigate past these dilemmas in such wide open areas with an entire village at your heels. It's also cool that you can eavesdrop on their conversations (although they're in Spanish). [i]And,[/i], if injured, they're able to flee and lure you into ambushes. It's just such an attractive element--dealing with more intelligent foes as opposed to lumbering vegetables. The fact that you can barricade yourself in a building with a table and leave them villagers beating on the door only sweetens the pot. It almost reminds me of [i]28 Days Later[/i]. When Resident Evil Code Veronica released, the opening sequence had me concerned that the series would abandon its take on horror in favor of a more action oriented style. Instead it appears that they're just adopting a new brand of horror. I couldn't be more excited, really.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Desbreko [/i] [B][color=indigo][spoiler]The fight itself was a lot of fun, though--just as good as in Super Metroid.[/spoiler] [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [spoiler]You thought that was fun? Hm, I don't know. It only took me about thirty seconds [i]max[/i] to beat Kraid. You have this huge, screen-filling gargantuan bearing down on you, and he keels over like he's nothing. Lame. Sadly, Ridley was just as [b]pathetic.[/b][/spoiler] And, I have it on normal mode. So, although the boss sequences are set up nicely with great cinematic flair and the creatures look fantastic, the battles themselves are lackluster. If I were to write a FAQ about this game, all I would have to do is urge players to shoot a barrage of missiles at these "menaces" until they die. It's really that mindless. Hopefully hard mode will remedy this problem.

Yeah, you're obviously allowed to increase your jumping ability as the game progresses, along with the trajectory of your shots. Good stuff. Isn't the diagonal shot new to this one as well? If so, I'm sure that changes the feel of the game significantly. [spoiler]Unfortunately, the somersault attack can be a problem when platforming because it actually [i]destroys[/i] certain platforms and enemies you're trying to leap across.[/spoiler] On the whole, I'm not very [i]impressed[/i] with Zero Mission, per se. That's due, in part, to my mile high expectations. It delivers exactly it should thus far. The design isn't up to Fusion's standards, or even the most recent Castlevania title, but it's still impressive considering it's influenced by such an old game. [spoiler]I've not yet experienced the post Mother Brain segment though, which I've heard is a breath of fresh air. That should be exciting[/spoiler]. I'm past the two hour mark and it's still not over, so I'm satisfied seeing as how length was my biggest concern. I'm thorough with my exploration habits, so I'm confident I can stretch out the gameplay. If you take into account the fact that I only play portable games for their intended purpose instead of at my own leisure, I'd say this could last nicely. I was never a huge fan of the original Metroid, so after I'm done with the redux, I can play that one on here. How could would it have been if Fusion and this had been one large adventure though? super Metroid would have been toppled for sure.

You could just log out if you wish, but if you [i]really[/i] want your account deleted, I'll handle it for you. However, you've only posted 19 times, so I sincerely hope you're not neurotic enough to make a habit out of this or anything. Honestly, I've never understood why people would request to have their accounts deleted in these situations. It's not as if they lack the self control to just not visit the site and post. But yes, I'll do it for you if you absolutely must have it gone. It'll be no problem. Just private message me.

[center][img]http://www.marshallart.com/fun/Disgust.jpeg[/img][/center] This picture sums up my reaction to this thread pretty well. Please people, I'm not asking for much here, just real discussions with a shred of logic involved. Instead of liberating pens, you should liberate Otaku Lounge from pointless posts. I know you're just being playful with this thread, but anyone with some common sense can see that this is going nowhere. Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to use my fat, sweaty hands to lock this sucker.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by G/S/B Master [/i] [B]American Idol is getting boring. And Alan (the guy who sang to Paula) should die or get the boot in a blaze of idiocy. Can't believe he got through. He's WAAAY too cocky. [/B][/QUOTE] Heh, I actually like that guy. His "Alan Idol" boast was one of the most entertaining speeches I've seen from any of the contestants. I'm sure he won't win. He's more of a sex symbol than a serious competitor, made obvious by his late night escapades and strip tease performances. But, I do find him entertaining. He knows how to play the judges too (especially Paula). I respect that. I also liked the guy who sang for the Clintons. Again, the attitude was just there. His main flaw was letting his ego get the best of him. I'm hoping he'll realize that mistake and do well in the wild card round. And yeah, Kira was a young teenage girl. I don't think she was mentally prepared for the big time just yet. Her outburst was a clear demonstration of that fact. In the end, I'm sure at least one of the female singers from the first group performance will be present. They were head and shoulders above everyone else--period.

I like Valentine's Day; I won't offer any complaints about it. I feel like one of the minority here who's not draped in black cutting myself and drawing dead birds to the "Beautiful People" song. Any day that places a special emphasis on a good message like "love" is cool with me. It's probably especially useful for older married couples with kids whose affections for one another are sometimes taken for granted in the daily grind of life. It's a nice day for reminding people to set time aside and rekindle some romance when they might otherwise not. It's also a day for starting new relationships, as I've seen mentioned here. That's why I can't see how so many people can be bitter over a day that celebrates positive human emotions as opposed to all the terrible crap that takes place day in and day out. So, yeah, I don?t think Valentine?s Day is promoting the importance of demonstrating love in a profuse way for one day. It?s just sort of a reminder for people who are up to their necks in the other aspects of their lives.