James

[quote]And sex can't be recognized as commitment? Give me a break. It may not be a marital commitment, but it's one you have to focus yourself on being responsible and careful. Sex is a huge commitment to yourself; to make sure you're in good health, and to make sure your partner is also in good health. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]And that is exactly what Sage is saying. He's saying that it shouldn't be marriage for marriage's sake...but that marriage should represent commitment. Therefore, by extension, we are not talking about "marriage" necessarily, as marriage is just one person's version of commitment. The point Sage is making, I think, is that one can be committed in a variety of ways, which may or may not include marriage. So in actual fact, you two agree on that.[/font] [quote]Is it me, or do you have something against marriage, lol. There are plenty of couples who love each other and don't get married (my parents, Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel). But as I've said before, some people just find that it's acceptable to wait for marraige. Some will agree (including myself) with the whole loving someone and staying with them for the rest of your lives without being married. There's nothing wrong with either "option". It's how people see it. I would be too scrutinizing against marriage. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think Sage has anything against marriage (far be it for me to speak for Sage though), but rather, I think he's saying that people tend to use marriage as an arbitrary measure. In any case, whatever people decide - whether they wait for marriage or whether they never get married at all - I respect their choice. Afterall, it all does come down to choice at the end of the day. People simply have to decide what's right for them.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]If you want to start a thread with banners for people to use and you have that thread open for others to submit their banners, that's entirely up to you. Knock yourself out.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]If it worked that way, the forum would probably still exist. Unfortunately, in reality, we'd probably end up needing to prune a good 90% of what goes on in there. So in the end it becomes a place that requires high Moderator activity, but really yields very little - I mean, it's high maintenance for little ultimate value. In comparison it's easier to just enforce the rules and remove the odd introduction threads that we get. But I'm definitely interested to see people discuss/debate the issue. You never know, sometimes ideas come out of these things that end up being used, it's certainly happened before. Edit: I just posted at the same times as Charles... ~_^[/font]

[QUOTE=Retribution][SIZE=1] I agree with you on this one, James, but to answer your question... "Normal" exists because the majority of people do something. As humans, we want to fit in (primal instincts engrained deep within), so we strive to be "normal" (most of the time), whatever that may entail. While your suggestion is wise, it's not going to realistically happen ever for the majority of folks. [/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I know what "normal" is, but I think the whole concept is slightly ridiculous anyway - one person's normal might be another person's crazy. I mean, you even get variation from country to country. But that's kind of off the point. Basically, if people are going to have sex - or avoid sex - just to be "normal" (ie: to submit to social pressures rather than to make their own decision), I don't have much sympathy. Afterall, I think we've all agreed that sex is a very personal decision and not one to be taken lightly. As a result, making such a choice based on what friends are saying, or what "society" says, could lead to negative results. I think most people are generally getting it right here anyway - most are saying that they want to have sex under conditions that they favor. And I think that's reasonable enough. As long as people aren't feeling pressured to make a choice that they disagree with, I think they will mostly be okay.[/font]

[quote]Many people seem to have the idea that Burton was entirely responsible for every aspect of NMBC. True, he came up with the idea and the basic designs, but he wasn't there for a vast majority of the production and he certainly didn't direct it. Most of what made NMBC special, in my opinion, was thanks to Henry Selick and Danny Elfman. Without Selick's direction, design and general amazing stop-motion animation style and experience that movie would have been nothing. Same deal with Elfman writing the songs and being Skellington's singing voice.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]This reminds me of Shigeru Miyamoto. He tends to be given an omnipotent kind of quality by many people (especially with the Mario and Zelda games), but he hasn't been in the director's chair for many years now. Although that's [i]slightly[/i] changing with Twilight Princess, where he has some more direct involvement as a producer. I would say that Burton is similar. Without him, clearly, none of these films would be possible. It's his vision and his artistic style that really defines these films. But by the same token, it has to be recognized that he is not the only person who is driving the creative engine on these things. So in that sense, I'd say it's definitely very similar to Shigeru Miyamoto. I mean, we can thank Miyamoto for inventing Mario, but we should probably thank Koizumi for Super Mario Sunshine and Aonuma for The Wind Waker.[/font] [quote]As for this movie specifically, I've been interested in it since the very first production image appeared in some magazine (I posted it on my site, maybe someone remembers.... months and months ago; James seemingly initially saw it there too lol). I'm a big fan of stop-motion animation and I'm glad at least some major productions involving it still exist. The movie concept itself doesn't sound as interesting to me, but obviously I've not seen the movie and I'm remaining open about all of it. I'm definitely looking f forward to it at least. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]The very first time I saw anything from this film was when someone linked me to a poster via IM. That might have been you, I don't remember. But of course, as with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I'd known about the film for some time before that. It's the same with anything though - there are often a number of films I look forward to simply based on title and those involved (or at least, I tend to follow their progress more than other films on that basis). Pretty much any new film that Burton makes interests me, even though I haven't really liked all of his works. Anyway, I agree it's great that stop-motion production is still going on at this level. Considering Disney's apparent issues with 2D animation lately, it's nice to know that there are people doing something other than 3D CGI work. I don't really have anything against that work in particular, but it's always nice to see people attempting other methods.[/font]

[QUOTE=Retribution][SIZE=1] It's kinda hard to enjoy a movie went the main character's love interest is losing limbs and whatnot. >_>;; Just a personal preference, mind you.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]But don't you see? That's the joke! It's [i]funny[/i]. It's like Nightmare Before Christmas, where Jack Skellington's love interest was basically a Frankenstein's Monster. You know? She kept having to sew her arms back on and she used her leg as a weapon. It's supposed to be gruesomely charming. I just don't know how you can enjoy life without getting that. lol[/font]

[QUOTE=doukeshi03][SIZE=1]Okay, now I don't want any of this "do it when you feel ready" crap, we've heard it all before, don't try and be sensetive, I want the gods honest truth from you people. [/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]The honest truth is that you lose it when you are ready. End of story. Why associate "weirdness" with it? Who cares what other people think? If you are going to base your loss of virginity on an external standard for whatever reason, I think you are already making a mistake. I mean, in the same way that you shouldn't lose your virginity early due to peer pressure, you also shouldn't force yourself to lose it because you're worried that people will view you as a loser or something. As a novel idea, why don't we worry less about what people think is "normal" and instead focus on what we feel is right for us? Afterall, you are in the best position to know what you feel comfortable with and to know when the time is right.[/font]

[QUOTE=Kamuro][SIZE=1]Sure, the characters in the movies are different, some very different, even opposite. But as Tim Burton has his own style, so do actors like Johnny Depp. Even in roles that lack similarities, a lot of the time you can see through them and the acting is overshadowed by an outside force almost jading the character. Don't you think you'd love a Depp movie even more if you had to wait for it? Wondering when he'll do another movie and you'll get to see his acting again after his previous endeavor? It just seems to be to much of a good thing. Depp, over and over again. Tim Burton's outlandish movies becoming, well, not so outlandish.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think Depp is overexposed anymore than any other actor. There are a million actors who get more roles than Depp, but who are completely inferior in terms of talent. The reason I've never worried about overexposure of Depp was because he's a brilliant actor - each of his characters is different and he has the ability to remove himself from a role. Some actors really always play themselves. I think people like Jack Nicholson come to mind with something like that. Not that it's bad, but they aren't the kind of character actor that Johnny Depp is. And Retri, what's with the necrophilia? I've always found it hypocritical for people to be so puritanical, but to jump to some sort of sexual depravity as their first conclusion about things. I mean, geeze, lighten up. lol[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think I really became a major Tim Burton fan in 1994, when The Nightmare Before Christmas came out to cinemas here. So that's what? About ten years or so. In any case, I'd seen his work before that but I was probably a little young to fully appreciate it. I mean, I'm 22 now, so I would have only been about 12 at that time. The main thing that appeals to me about Burton is that he's a lot like my favourite children's author, Roald Dahl. His stories are basically family friendly (probably skewed a little toward children), but he doesn't treat children like idiots - he understands that children love horror and the grotesque. Children do love gruesome fairy tales for a reason, afterall. And Burton's films generally have that "gruesome fairy tale" vibe. Anyway, I heard about this film some time ago and I was very pleased to see the first trailer last year. You may remember that I had a series of Corpse Bride banners quite some months ago. It was a bit frustrating that nobody was really talking about the film then, but it seems to have some more exposure now, which is great. I know that there are a lot of TNBC lovers here, so I don't have to point out why this film is going to be so fantastic. Apart from the gorgeous art and direction, you've got talented writing and a highly talented case of actors. So yeah, I'm very much looking forward to this film.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]We will do some new things like that, some new interactive features. But we won't use an RPG/shop system. I've never liked those systems and I kind of view them as being a bit superfluous when it comes to posting. We will be adding some features that are unrelated to posting but I don't want to add too many - when people are here I'd prefer that they contribute by posting, rather than doing lots of unrelated things. I also think we risk confusing people if we add too much in terms of those things. While we won't have an RPG/shop system, we will have a fully-featured arcade system that will be integrated into the site and will allow multiplayer challenges. That should be good fun.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, if the mod doesn't fit into whatever standards the M-rating relates to, I don't really see a problem with a change in rating. I know what the mod consists of, but I wasn't sure whether or not that would fall within the M-rating as the ESRB has defined it. Although our M-rating is generally similar, there must obviously be some slight variation on sexual content (but this is true for many countries in comparison to the United States). I agree that Rockstar is pretty much entirely to blame here. They obviously handled this thing in a sloppy fashion and weren't entirely forthcoming with the ESRB. As mentioned, it definitely doesn't make the industry look any more responsible, which is something that the industry really can't afford at this point in time.[/font]

[quote]I'm not understanding how this disuades the idea of it being made for a candy bar. The whole reason the film was pushed and got funding was because of the chocolate promotions they made to encompass it. Regardless of what Dahl originally wrote it was changed largely so it could be accessed by kids well enough so that they'd want to buy the new candy. It's the same concept with making a cartoon to sell action figures from the producer's point of view. All of the changes really directly tie into using it as a vehicle to sell Wonka branded products and as such I don't think it's incorrect to say he was mostly upset about the whole chocolate incident because all of that is involved with it directly. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Okay, but we're getting into semantics a little here. The fundamental point is that, regardless of the reasons for the change, Dahl was upset that his script was so severely edited. The core meanings and intentions behind the script were removed. Also, I don't know what the outside literary references and some of the changes in focus have to do with selling more candy bars as some promotional tool. I view those as being largely irrelevant. Charlie's relationship with Wonka (and Wonka's own character) was changed to a reasonably significant degree...but I don't know how that ties into encouraging kids to buy candy or something like that. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I'm saying that this (as bad as it is) isn't the primary reason why Dahl was upset with the film. He was upset because of the destruction of much of his original script.[/font] [quote]The difference here is that I'm not one of these people and I'm speaking of my own accord. I've read the book. I liked the original movie. I was interested in this film before even Marilyn Manson was rumored about it, which was a long, long time ago. I don't have any misconceptions and ignorances coming into this. After all of that I still think people who have seen and read all of these things will compare the films.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Okay, that's fine. But my comments were not even directed to you, so I don't know why you feel the need to respond to this point. I'm not sure how this paragraph is relevant to what I've been saying. You are talking to someone who has been a fan of the novel since childhood and who feels that a movie that more accurately represents the book is a positive thing. I too was excited by the prospect of this film, well before any suggestion of Marilyn Manson came into the picture. So we're both the same there, lol. All I am trying to do in this thread is to clear up any misconceptions that exist, so that the comparisons can be made with some sense of context. I originally quoted Noryko and I was responding to that quote to provide a little perspective to those who may not have the knowledge of this story that I do.[/font] [quote]If people want to discuss how important it is to stay true to the book then whatever... I don't really know how one can even compare how similar they are or aren't without even seeing the film yet unless they sit and read the entire script. I know the films are different from eachother and the novel in various ways (it's not as if either of them use the original idea of the Oompa Loompas fully among many other things), but they're still going to be compared even by people who have read and seen everything because they're directly related to eachother even if it is in a very basic way. I don't really see what's wrong with saying "I liked this guy as Willy better" or "These kids better" or "this take on that angle better" because they're very similar films even with the differences. This one may be more like the book, but it's not completely like the book and then what...? If someone makes another one of these in thirty years that is even more like the book are we not going to compare it to this new one? It's not like we really know if Dahl would love this version either and all movies are edited around to some extent. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]This paragraph seems to ignore what I've already posted, though. I haven't seen the film, which is why I'm not dealing with too many specifics. But I do know enough to be aware that it is closer to the book in a number of key areas than the original film was. For the purpose of the point I'm making here, that's all that really matters; we're dealing in pretty general stuff. As I said - and will say again - I'm not against comparing these films. It's logical to compare them, of course. What I'm saying is that it should be understood that this new film is not a remake of the 1971 version. By providing a little trivia on the history of these movies and their relationship with the novel, people are going to have a better understanding of where certain references come from and such. Nor am I saying that people can't say what they prefer. I don't care what version people prefer. lol I'm simply saying that it would sometimes be inaccurate to say that certain aspects of the original movie were a part of the original story or the original concept. If people understand the history of the films a little more, they're going to have a better frame of reference, that's all. Again going back to the two versions of Alice, my intention isn't to say that one is better than another. That's up to individuals to decide. My intention is just to point out where one might be closer to the source material than the other and in that vein, to demonstrate which is more accurate. People may not prefer the more accurate version though - and that's entirely up to them. I don't care.[/font] [quote]Regardless of all that, it really comes down to how enjoyable the film is by itself for me. If people want to read the book then go read the book. Being accurate and being a more enjoyable film are very different things sometimes. For me, this film was largely just far more disposable and forgettable in the long run... maybe because I've read and seen the original "adaptation" before? I have no idea lol. That's my opinion obviously. I've seen many people who prefer it, even without knowing the book. I don't think they're wrong or anything. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Of course. But I want to be very clear so that I am not misinterpreted; I am not saying that anyone is wrong. And I am not saying that accuracy equates to a more enjoyable film. It's very important for me to underscore that. If you go back over my comments, you'll note that I've never made such implications. For all I know, someone may love the movie and absolutely hate the book. I mean, it happens, I guess. So I'm not here to judge anyone's taste in that sense. But if we are going to discuss this movie and compare the two films, it's important to know what we're comparing - in other words, it's important to understand what this story really is and how the two films approach it differently. People are free to enjoy whatever version they want, whether it's more accurate or not. It doesn't matter.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]So in other words, the content of this mod (ie: sex scenes, even clothed ones) would put this game beyond the M rating? Interesting. It makes me wonder if something like that will happen over here. I've seen the mod and what it does, but I would not have thought that it'd go over M in any way. I say that mostly because M-rated movies (our M rating is similar to yours) would probably include that level of content without much trouble. Only in some cases would it go to MA (MA is like M, but M is more a suggestion and MA actually restricts the age of purchase).[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't really understand the ratings system we're talking about here. In America, M-rated games are the equivalent of R-rated movies? If that's the case, this seems quite ridiculous, especially given the mildness of the content (mildness in the sense that it would surely fit within those ratings boundaries). In Australia, we use our movie classification system for both games and film. But guess what? There is no R18+ rating for games, only films. Therefore, there is the implication that games can't possibly be for adults. So instead of GTA being given an R classification, it gets banned and requires parts to be edited (thankfully they only edited the ability to pick up a prostitute, from GTAIII...I believe San Andreas was unedited, which is even more ridiculous, because it allows you to do the same thing that GTAIII was banned for; go figure).[/font]

[quote]In a lot of ways I don't really think it matters if this is a direct remake or not. It should be obvious to most people that this has more to do with the book (I think they should have put Dahl's name above it honestly), but that doesn't mean the films shouldn't be compared. They're based on the same source material and Dahl wrote the original's screenplay. I think a lot of what he disliked about it really just stemmed around the fact that it was largely only made so someone could sell a new type of candybar. I know I'd feel disgusted by that too.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think that the question of it being a remake is incredibly important, for two noteable reasons. First and foremost, if people have seen the original film without having read the book, they're obviously going to expect that this film is a remake. Doing so can really only lead to disappointment, because both films are really trying to emphasize different areas. People who loved the original - without reading the novel - are going to view that as the authentic representation. So the new film could easily be seen as a poor deviation in that sense, when in actual fact, it's less a deviation than the original film. Secondly and most importantly, Dahl's dislike of the original film had nothing to do with candy bar promotions. Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay to the 1971 film, but the final screenplay was quite different to what he'd written - David Seltzer largely rewrote huge chunks of the thing and basically killed a lot of the original screenplay. He killed off many of the darker elements and included various totally unrelated literary references. Dahl was upset about this (and rightly so). As a result, he apparently refused to sign over the rights to the second book, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. I'm not against comparing the two films, but it must be done when armed with the right information. That's all I'm saying.[/font] [quote]They attempt different things and use the source material in separate ways, but being more true to the book doesn't necessarily make a film better. They're going to be compared no matter what. I think they nicely sit next to eachother thanks to the differences, but I can't see anyone not comparing between the two because they have the same characters, same areas and many of the exact same lines because of the book they're based on. Honestly, aside from the new backstory for Wonka (which really adds very little in my opinion) and a few smaller changes to basic things. They're incredibly similar and Burton is obviously strongly influenced by much of the look of the first one.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Being true to the book doesn't necessarily make the film better for the lay viewer, that's true. But it [i]is[/i] important if you're looking for the "true" story/experience. Even the design of the factory and various other visual elements were lifted directly from the novel (including the Art Deco aspects). I think that the two films are relatively different in their interpretations, but my overriding point is that the 1971 film is really more the deviation. I'm sure that people who haven't read the book simply won't care about that, which is fine. As mentioned, I love the original film for what it is. But there's no doubt that it's absolutely a pretty hollow representation of the original story - and that's an important point if we're discussing the validity of various choices with characters and design.[/font] [quote]So, again, I don't really think something being directly based on the book moreso than something else automatically makes it better. I just don't think it's as interesting in many ways, personally. It had nothing really to do with little things it did or didn't take from the book.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]It doesn't necessarily make it "better", no. But it does make it more authentic, which is important, if only because we [i]are[/i] talking about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, as opposed to some other story. I mean, how relevant the movie is to the novel obviously carries importance. As I said above, I'm not making any attempt to say that one film is better than the other. That misses my point. I'm trying to explain that when one compares the two films, it's important to do so within the right context - as a fan of the original story, that's important to me, just as it would be important to you if someone had made a film from a novel that you love. I think my example earlier on pretty much illustrates this anyway. Compare the Disney Alice in Wonderland to the novel. The novel is absolutely the source - it's the authority and everything else springs from it. Disney's version of Alice was gorgeous in and of itself, but it wasn't a terribly accurate representation of the source material. So in discussing Alice, that would be an important factor to consider. That doesn't make the film any less good, that just makes it a different interpretation.[/font]

[QUOTE=Revue][color=#caa617][size=1]. *raises hand* [/size][/color][/QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]So...you'd be happy to have miles and miles of coastline covered in enormous man-made windmills? I just personally would hate to spoil the natural beauty by plugging in all of these giant man-made objects. Yuck. Not to mention that the power that comes from them wouldn't be enough anyway, for the most part. The same is true with solar energy. The cost just doesn't make it feasible for one thing, but for another, the amount of power that solar cells collect is just too small. When you have low power production at high cost, serving only a small amount of people...it's just not worth it. I think fusion will probably be the biggest revolution in power. I've seen a few documentaries about it - there are already experiments going on in this field. A giant fusion reactor was built in Europe for such experimentation. However, it [i]is [/i]difficult to contain the energy...apparently it's akin to threading a needle while wearing boxing gloves - it's very cumbersome and we don't have the precision to do it properly. But apparently it'll be more realistic within about fifty years. That'd certainly be nice, though I think it's probably an optimistic view.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I just saw the video for this and it certainly looks impressive. I liked some of the shots that showed the shadows fluttering across the walls quickly - very 28 Days Later. And that can only be a good thing really. Anyway, Resident Evil 4's gameplay was really as close to perfect as you can get for that type of game I think. It did need a few improvements, but generally it was a breath of fresh air. I am hopeful that Resident Evil 5 will build on that foundation (and I'm sure it will). So that prospect alone is worth being excited about. But yeah, this game is going to have a mammoth budget and it's going to take quite a while to complete. I guess this is where we get welcomed to the next generation of game development. Very bittersweet, indeed.[/font]

[QUOTE=NorykoAngelcry][size=1][color=darkred]Ok, I feel a little better, reading this thread, informing me that it is not a re-make, but it's still going to feel like that when I watch it a little. I tend to look at remakes in a different light anyways, so it's not like it will ruin it. I did originally think that this was going to be a follow up to the original movie, but was upset when I heard it was the same storyline. Hopefully Tim Burton won't dissapoint on this one. Not saying that he is known for ruining things, quite the opposite! [/color][/size][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, it's [i]incredibly [/i]important to understand that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. You will find that it's a relatively different film, because it's based on the novel and not on the original film. I'll be seeing this new film in a couple of weeks, so I'll tell you what I think at that point. But I do think it's important to point out those things, mostly because I'm a huge fan of the novel. Apparently Dahl wasn't very happy with the original film, largely because it "Disney-ized" his novel. The original film was great, but it wasn't "Wonka". At least, not as intended. The comparison I'd draw would be one that most could understand. Think of Disney's version of Alice in Wonderland. And then compare that to the original novel. They are both quite different - the Disney version is basically a musical interpretation of the novel and it leaves some massive parts out, while also including its own bits and pieces. It's a fantastic movie (one of my favourite from Disney), but a fan of the novel could hardly call it an accurate representation of the novel itself. If it were, it would have included the Dutchess and her baby - remember how, in the novel, she sings about how it's fine to beat your children when they sneeze? Obviously that wasn't in the Disney film, but that's a part of the original story nonetheless. The exact same thing was true of Wonka. "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was a corporate gloss-over of the novel. I think it was a good film - and Gene Wilder is always remarkable - but it wasn't as true to the novel as many fans had hoped. From everything I've seen and read, this new film does seem to more accurately depict the novel. So I'm very happy about that. I can understand that many people will incorrectly compare this movie to the original, or they will view it as a bastardization of the original film. In actuality, the original film is the "odd one out", so to speak. So it should be viewed in that context. I definitely know how Sara felt, though, when she talked about people seeing Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy without having read the book. Those people (myself included) will simply not fully appreciate it and won't know all of the little references...nor will we know what was missed or left out. I definitely see where she's coming from, having seen the reactions to this film. lol[/font]

[QUOTE=Pumpkin][size=1] Why do you think the U.S. is desperate to get oil? As far as I can see, people are pretty much going to war for it. (President Bush's want to take Iraq's Oil) It's pretty much necessary for our luxuries in life. [/size][/QUOTE][font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Don't even go there. The war was [i]not [/i]about oil - don't fall into the trap of going with the herd on that one. If you have any understanding about the oil situation (or about what's been happening in Iraq since the war), you'll have a better perspective on that.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Anyway, like most other people I do sometimes worry about these things. I'm not so concerned about metals and things like that, largely because there's already a very robust (and growing) sector related to recycling. What you'll find, especially in certain areas (such as cars), products are becoming increasingly recyclable. This means that metals (and even plastics and other materials) can be more easily re-used than they were in times past. I think that's one very important aspect to this whole dilemma - recycling, on a broader scale.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]I think the biggest issue is definitely going to be energy. Much of the world is relying on Middle Eastern oil right now and that's obviously not a good thing, for a multitude of reasons. But even more broadly than that, it's true that oil will not be plentiful enough to meet world demand. As a matter of fact, demand outpaces supply right now.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]My feeling on energy is that it has to be a multi-pronged approach. Based on various things I've read lately, I'm more inclined to support nuclear energy; a lot of the groups who are against it seem to be pretty ignorant about it. Certain nuclear waste can also be recycled and used in other areas, which is also a positive. Not to say for a moment that this is the ideal form of energy - but many people are talking about replacing oil with wind and solar power. That's kind of ridiculous, because you'd need insanely large wind farms to generate even a fraction of the power that people are currently using.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Besides, who wants every coastline in the world to be covered in wind farms? Surely that has a detrimental impact on the environment as well.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]As far as oil drilling goes, it's hard to say. With the Alaskan thing, I'm hearing very mixed reports on both sides. One side claims that it'll have a limited environmental impact and that it will contribute a reasonable percentage of oil to America's overall oil useage for about thirty years or so. The other side claims that the reserves there are too small (but I haven't seen that quantified in any meaningful way yet) and that the environmental impact would be too large. Of course, there are groups who will oppose [i]any [/i]kind of drilling or development, citing environmental concerns. So I suppose it largely depends which group is saying what, and what their credibility is based on their past claims. I haven't spent enough time looking at those issues though, because I think it's relatively unimportant, but I am not personally in a position to have a judgement or an opinion on that just yet.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Conservation is important, as is recyling and other things. But I think the most important thing is to focus on new forms of energy and to focus on cleaner forms of energy. I'm not talking about solar or wind power (though they are useful in limited areas), I'm talking about researching and focusing on energy for the mass market...again, things like nuclear energy or gas energy or fusion energy. The latter is probably still fifty years off, but most scientists seem to agree that it represents the "future of energy" and a potential replacement for fossil fuel based energy. So we'll see I guess.[/font]

[font=Franklin Gothic Medium][/font][font=Franklin Gothic Medium]I've been looking through this thread a little and I have to say, I've noticed one major thing - your work keeps improving by leaps and bounds. Although you have some clear influences and there are certain general design trends evident in various pieces, I think your work has deviated from the "Photoshopped-look" into something more unique.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium][/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]This is probably because, from what I can tell, you've dramatically simplified your work over time. I think this is a great demonstration of the idea that simple things can be (and often are) so much more powerful than highly complex, flashy imagery. A silhouette, a shape, a series of basic objects - that can create a very powerful response in any viewer. And I think you've achieved that level of effectiveness in a lot of your pieces here.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium][/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]It also seems to me that you put quite a lot of thought behind most of your designs - the more simple they are, the more thought goes into them, it seems. If there's less on the page, you presumably have to spend more time considering what to place where. Every object counts in that sense.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium][/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]I particularly liked [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=666076&postcount=78"]this post[/url], largely because these images are pretty intriguing (especially "The Editing Process"). I would be interested to read your thoughts on these pieces - specifically, I'd be interested to read your interpretations. Perhaps that would stop me coming up with my own...but I'm definitely curious.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium][/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]I really love "DO NOT THINK", even though I think that the actual subject it deals with has become very common - that is, I see "rebellious" and "individual thought" type pieces everywhere. But I suppose that this is only because it's such a universal idea (and such an important and passionate one). But having said that, I like the actual graphic design you've used on this piece. The background is [i]particularly [/i]appealing to me - very nice brushwork. I don't use Photoshop, so I often can't achieve brushwork like that. A collaboration might be interesting at some point. ~_^[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium][/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Anyway, that's a kind of summary from me about your semi-recent stuff. Now for your latest pieces.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium][/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]BRAINWASH ERROR: Somehow this piece makes me think about a typewriter or some kind of automated machine - probably the font and the stipples on the page. I'm not sure what to say about it. I like it, but as with the "DO NOT THINK" piece, I personally don't see a particularly fresh message. Not that there [i]needs [/i]to be a fresh message, but for me, I suppose it just comes across as a bit repetitious. Still, it's a nice piece, though not my favourite of this kind from you.[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium][/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Lovely, You and I: This is interesting more because of its potential meaning than its raw graphic design, I think. "Gasoline rainbow" and "mistaken love" make me think that this piece may not be talking about the love between people...but perhaps the fact that humans are too reliant on fossil fuels, or something like that. Or perhaps "gasoline rainbow" is referencing something else that I'm missing. Still, it's intruiging and I'd be interested to hear your own thoughts on it.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'd only expect these things to cost between $5 and $10 or something. You'll probably be able to get a pack of six for only a few bucks. I don't think that'd be too excessive for many people.[/font]

[QUOTE=satan665]Its funny, because games on the whole have been getting cheaper lately. A lot of games like ESPN sports and Katamari have been coming out at $20 which is like a godsend. I wonder if we're heading to an era where games cost more or less depending on the game's budget? Final Fantasy 13 might cost $65 while some low rent RPG might be $40. I'm not happy at all about paying more than $50 for games, I'd rather they just made milder technological jumps and kept things at reasonable prices. I'm still more than happy with the graphics and performance of the PS2 games coming out. I have a bad feeling about PS3, I'm excited about it, but it might just be its own downfall if all this price stuff gets out of hand like we're talking about.[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]It's difficult to say. What I can tell you is that the trend of higher prices has already begun - not in this generation, but in the next. If you look at the listings for Xbox 360 launch software, you'll find that the retail price for these games is something like $5 to $10 higher than current generation games. And this is across the board, remember - it's not just one or two games. In a sense, it's not something people haven't experienced. Some Nintendo 64 games were set at a higher price than others, but this was largely due to the variance in cartridge capacity at the time. Obviously with disc-based games, prices are more-or-less stable, except for certain circumstances that don't relate to storage medium at all (ie: budget-priced games that were much cheaper to make are also cheaper to buy). So, what you'll find is that the general game price for next generation software might come in at $50 minimum, with most games arriving at, say, $55. "Bigger" or more high-priced games might arrive at $60 or $65. I am interested in PlayStation 3, but I definitely have reservations about the general industry trends that are occurring right now. Konami have said that they'll put one or two big flagship games on each system. If you think about it, that's very different to what they're doing now - it essentially suggests an overall reduction in game production. Why a reduction? Because of massively-increased costs. It's going to be very difficult. So far, PlayStation 3, like its predecessor, appears to be the least developer-friendly console. That didn't have much of an impact on Sony in the current generation because of their overall sales success. But it's a bigger problem next time 'round, largely because of stronger competition from Microsoft and Nintendo. Where MS and Nintendo are attempting to really make developer-friendliness a priority, Sony haven't really revealed anything so far that seems to alleviate matters. This is especially true if you consider their technical demonstrations for PS3. Hideo Kojima basically said that if Sony are expecting that quality of graphics, he is worried that it might be hard for many developers to meet that target. I agree, but not because of some inherent difficulty of producing photorealistic graphics; the biggest problem will be the complex hardware and the middleware is going to be a big question. So who knows. At the very least, this generation is going to be the first to put a really massive strain on the industry worldwide. Let's hope that Sony is going to present really strong and affordable middleware for game developers.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think this is a good idea, but just as a side-note...you may want to consider what the main plot of the RPG will be. I mean, you'll need a premise that people can understand. For example, I know that a lot of people who play The Sims make up stories about their characters. And I guess that over time, little narratives sort of automatically pop up (in my case, it's usually like Melrose Place or something). With any RPG, there is always a risk of it being [i]so [/i]open that people kind of lose track and they don't know where to go. So, you may want to consider developing some kind of basic premise related to a plot for this. It's not necessarily required, but I think it may be a good way of getting people interested in your idea. ^_^[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=black]I think it's a brilliant idea. People love customizing things, especially teenagers. It's a very, very good idea. If the plates are cheap enough, they are guaranteed to do well.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]I also like the idea of having special plates for competitions and stuff like that. It'd be cool if Nintendo and Microsoft did that with their respective systems.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]With Revolution, I loved most of the concept colours they had shown. It'd be cool (but probably impossible) if you could remove the [i]entire [/i]outer skin and replace it with another colour. That way you could have four or five colours to change now and then. I'd like that very much. But for now, face plates are just fine.[/color][/font]

[color=#332e1d][font=franklin gothic medium]I guarantee you, next generation games will be more expensive regardless of medium. Whether or not the games arrive on DVDs or Blu-ray is largely irrelevant when it comes to cost. I also think that the source there is somewhat dubious. Xbox 360 games are already marked as $5 to $10USD more than current Xbox software. The general price will rise across the board. I'm interested to see if Revolution's games are more expenisve, though.[/font][/color]