James

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue]O_o Really? Was I around for previous origin of species debates? I don't remember hearing about any such book, but I'm interested, heh. Need name... thank you. Granted, I probably won't check it out anytime soon, but I will sometime.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=#B0251E]I don't know if you were, I just meant that in general we've seen so many. Hehe But yes, the book is called "Telling Lies for God". It even has a contribution from Archbishop Hollingworth (who was also our Governor-General for some time). He basically says that the book isn't anti-God but that it tries to clear up the Creationist arguments that themselves are basically anti-religious.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]The only thing I'd point out is something about what Azure said. In actual fact, just about all of Genesis has been disproved...and long ago, too. lol I can understand why that may not be so widely known or discussed in America, but yeah. There's a book by an Australian geologist (which I've mentioned before here), which basically goes into great detail in terms of disproving, point-by-point, the biblical account of creation (from the great flood -- where did the water go and for that matter, where did it even come from? -- to the ark -- what about animals that need to live in swarms? Those that require fresh water? Single-cell organisms? Noah and his wife would have had to run at the speed of light to feed them all, lol). So yeah. I think that Genesis is not even worth bothering with in any serious way. But that does not mean that the world was somehow formed without God -- I do not believe that science and God are opposites. So I agree with Azure on that. In fact, I like to think that if God exists, he himself is the creator and instigator of the various natural sciences (or the scientific understandings of our world). I find that pretty logical, in any case. But yeah, we've had this topic so many times...I don't even know what to say anymore without being repetitive. So I'll leave it up to you guys. lol[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I think one actress who really surprised me was Uma Thurman. In pretty much everything non-Tarantino, I've never liked her. I've always thought she was a pretty lousy actress (probably a female version of Keanu Reeves, lol). But in Tarantino films she never ceases to be amazing. I'm not sure what the difference is; perhaps the characters just suit her better, or maybe Tarantino pushes her harder, or something. Either way, it's positive. She was brilliant in Pulp Fiction and she was [i]amazing[/i] in Kill Bill. She made that film. It just wouldn't be the same without her. So that was really refreshing for me, personally. It was nice to see her at her very best, when I feel I'd so frequently seen her at her worst.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I think the only real problem with the film is that it's a bit too ambitious for its own good; to some degree, it really does require you to delve into the other extended materials. And I can see how it'd be frustrating for people who don't like the concept of one movie being split in two (ie: Reloaded/Revolutions). But really, the meaning of the films isn't particularly "pretentious" or even convoluted. It's all quite clear and everything makes sense and is deliberate -- but again, whether or not people notice that is another question. [spoiler]The ending had tremendous significance and was very clever. On the one hand you have a film that strongly suggests a nihilistic bent -- the Godless cycle of life, where machine replaces man and program replaces machine. Smith himself is a very nihilistic character. You also have the prophecy, which itself is just another layer of control -- again, that's another nihilistic aspect of the films. There's also an underlying message that religious dogma itself is a powerful form of control and that fundamentalism is unhealthy. And yet at the same time, you have this [i]other[/i] layer of control going on outside all of that -- call it fate, or God, or whatever. The ending is representative of that. In a sense it's very derived from Hinduism - a large part of the message is that "love is the ultimate form of control" and that decisions based on love lead to nirvana. Neo frequently makes [i]bad[/i] choices, but those choices are based around his love for Trinity and/or his love for his fellow man. So the ending with Smith was incredibly important for various symbolic and functional reasons -- symbolic, because it represented the fact that conflict didn't resolve anything; an act of love (joining yin and yang together) was what brought about an ending. At the same time, there was a beautiful irony occurring. Smith was an unknown entity for the machines and he was a personification of their own arrogance and failure to acknowledge the lessons of the past. In that sense he's also the symbol of the Godless cycle. Where that cycle would have continued normally, it was ultimately ended by "love". I love the fact that there's this amazing irony going on throughout the entire three films -- it's a huge social commentary. But then you have several layers of control, which all have their own meaning and implications.[/spoiler] So yeah, I'm sure I'm not saying anything new to most of you there -- and I obviously can't convince anyone to like those movies. But generally I do think that the movies themselves don't have much of a problem. As I said, they are just generally misunderstood/underappreciated. But that's definitely partly the fault of the creators. By spreading this thing out with so many different media and by creating a film that isn't so ideal for the cinema (ie: like Donnie Darko), they've almost created a walking contradiction. Of course, in a way, that's part of the beauty of it all. The public's reaction to the art becomes part of the art and all of it uncannily falls into place with several of the movie's own themes (ie: dogma, misunderstanding, control, etc). So in that sense I think they can be satisfied. But yeah, that's my view on it. I liked the fact that they included critics on their commentaries, I thought that was a bold move. lol But to get back on topic, I wanted to also address The Lost World with Alex for a moment. When you talk about those deaths...you're talking about the novels aren't you? I don't even remember if The Lost World's novel had them alive. I remember the novel opening with discoveries of dead bodies (dinosaur carcasses) on the beaches of Costa Rica, which Dr. Levine investigates. If I remember correctly, Dr. Levine's character is changed pretty significantly in the film. Things like that really disappointed me. [spoiler]And don't you think that the whole raptor-chase-at-night sequence would have been interesting in the film? You know, the one where they go on the motorcycle to grab the key from the raptor who swallowed it?[/spoiler] I really feel that they missed a lot of opportunities with that one.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I suppose that most people will probably talk about the Matrix sequels, so I'll only say my bit during this post. Dismissing those movies for superficial things is entirely missing the point, especially if you see the production effort that went into 'em. More importantly, every single scene in those films has importance and several layers of symbolism and meaning -- yes, [i]even[/i] the rave sequence. But as I've said before, if you don't look, you won't find. Many people just brushed 'em off upon first viewing, because they seemed like convoluted train wrecks. Obviously they probably had a hard time beating out the original in terms of providing something groundbreaking, effects-wise (though the car chase was groundbreaking, as were many other things -- it's just that they didn't have the same impact as bullet time when it was first revealed). But those sequels don't suffer from being objectively bad; just misunderstood. It's a bit like Donnie Darko, a film that was almost universally canned by US critics but which is studied in British film classes. Very similar situation. It too was accused of being a convoluted train wreck -- that is, until people actually made an attempt to understand it. Really, if you know Matrix at all, you know that the story would be nothing (and not nearly as brilliant) without the second two films and The Animatrix. With that out of the way... I think that the worst sequel I've ever seen would have to be Jeepers Creepers 2. Even with films I don't at all like, I'll generally at least be prepared to sit and watch them. I watched all of JC2 simply because it was like watching something incredibly embarassing, lol. The original film was pretty bad, but I have to wonder why they made a sequel. Did the original really do so well? I have no idea. But even among cheesy horror movies, it was poor. The sequel was even [i]worse[/i], if that can be believed. Other than that, I'm not really sure of anything off the top of my head. I'm tempted to say The Lost World. The movie itself was [i]okay[/i], but unfortunately it took big liberties with the source material. As a result, it wasn't nearly as strong as the first movie. I feel that if The Lost World had kept more true to the novel, it'd have been a much better film. I was disappointed that both Kelly [i]and[/i] Arbie weren't include as a duo...since that was a pretty major aspect of the novel. There were also a ton of other things going on in the novel that the movie didn't even attempt to consider. Of course, that also happened with the first movie/novel. But I feel that The Lost World emphasized some things to the detriment of others -- there were plenty of ways in which the film could have taken better advantage of the source material.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]It's hard to say, for me. On the one hand, I know that farmers kill some kangaroos/rabbits/mice because they are often considered to be pests. And because they live in abundance (ie: large populations that rapidly reproduce), it's never considered to be as serious as when someone cuts down trees where koalas live (because obviously they have a very specific diet and require very particular living conditions). If someone is just hunting them for sport, I personally can't say that I support or understand it. However, if they're combining that with the fact that there's a need to get rid of them (due to the pest problem), then I really wouldn't have an opinion one way or the other. So generally I don't really know how I feel about this subject. I can see the need to cull certain animals based on the pest question, but I personally don't understand the fun of hunting animals. Not to say that I'd necessarily want to make it entirely illegal (for the aforementioned reasons), I just personally wouldn't get any pleasure from killing something in general.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Yeah, I think fame is easily the least important. Some people are famous just for the sake of being famous (ie: Paris Hilton, lol). And really, what's the point of that? If people became famous for actually doing something good (well, some do, but most probably don't), then I think the landscape among celebrities would be very different. ~_^[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Funnily enough, Final Fantasy is probably more likely to be found on Xbox 2 or Revolution than PS3. Apparently Square-Enix is actually more upset with Sony than anyone, for legal/contractual reasons. But they've obviously achieved significant success on PlayStation 2. So, I don't think that they're going to be too eager to make a sudden move elsewhere, other than in terms of multiplatform ventures. If anything I think we'll probably see more S-E involvement on Nintendo platforms, with DS being the first to see some pretty significant support.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I just find it interesting that "maturity" is always centered around either sex or violence. What about games with political themes? Games with characters of different sexualities (and I'm not talking about two women rubbing oil on each other for no apparent reason)? What about games that deal with a character who has had an abortion? Or perhaps games that deal with themes of religion and race on a deeper level? Of course, there are some games that do this already (particularly religious and political themes). But it'd be nice to be talking about mature games that are truly mature -- games that reflect various issues in society via their characters and stories, while still obviously being entertaining just as game experiences. I will always enjoy games that aren't mature, though. I'll always enjoy games that make me feel like a child again -- games like Mario and Zelda in particular. Zelda is a bit arguable, because historically it has jumped between being slightly mature and being far more lighthearted. And the new iteration definitely appears to be aimed at 20-somethings in terms of its general themes and design philosophy. Funny thing is, I don't regard GTA as being particularly mature. Sure, it has violence and sex and so on. But does it really deal with anything particularly mature? Generally the humor is fairly low-brow and the story is relatively devoid of anything truly compelling (although it was definitely improved in San Andreas). So, I think it would also be worth talking about what a mature game really is and whether or not new themes should be explored (or old themes explored in new ways).[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Well, I know a lot of "casual gamers" and I've never thought of them to be especially ignorant. Sure, they are uninformed -- when they actually see games like Viewtiful Joe they wonder why the hell they'd never heard of it before. But having said that, they seem to appreciate story and so on just as much as I do. It's just that because they aren't as into games, or at least the industry, they aren't aware of some really good stuff out there. But generally speaking that's all it is; there are actually quite a few casual gamers who are far more intent on beating games and getting high scores than I am, even. I wouldn't worry about the whole graphics thing anyway. These days, consumers take it for granted. And they'll increasingly do so. Eventually (the moment isn't too far away), impressive graphics won't be able to sell a game at all anymore. Yes, games will get better looking and there will usually be some really standout titles. But "good graphics" won't make much difference when we reach the point where it's hard to go any further and where the leaps forward aren't as large. Instead of how photorealistic something looks, I think people will become more concerned about the art design, how they interact with the game and various other aspects.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]There's no question, though, that the majority of RE's scares come from those "jump out and frighten you suddenly" moments. I haven't played RE4, but I know that this is the case with the previous games in the series, without exception. Silent Hill is at the other end of the spectrum. While it does have some "sudden scares", it builds fear through entirely different means; a total sense of disorientation, claustrophobia and even paranoia. It's a lot more subtle than RE most of the time, but it's also more confusing and fundamentally frightening -- in RE you are afraid of dying, in Silent Hill you're afraid of going insane.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I can only think of one suggestion at the moment. [b]Underrated[/b] [u]Marilyn Manson[/u]: Apart from all of the labels (ie: being a scapegoat and being called "Satanic"), I think the general populace is simply missing out. I think most agree (at least those who are aware of his music) that he has at least one or two songs that are going to appeal to almost anyone -- that is, if they give him the chance. I really regard Manson as a unique artist at the moment, if only because he really keeps pushing both aesthetics and music (and keeping them relevant to one another), while simultaneously ensuring that both the aesthetics and the music are carefully considered and grounded with some sort of reason and premise. Internal, external, contradiction and fusion...there's a lot there to consider. It's a shame most don't.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]The most scared I've ever been was when my sister and I were on a ride at the Melbourne Show. It was this big long thing with multiple seats and arms at each end, which are then connected to another set of arms that touch the ground (I'm guessing that makes no sense). But as the second set of arms rotate, the long thing also rotates. It's like sitting on a chair that goes around in circles and also rotates. It's quite confusing. lol Anyway, we both fit the height limit and so on, so you'd think it'd be fine for us to go on it. But the bars that clamp down over you to hold you in were somewhat wide apart. In addition, the clamps were sort of high...they didn't grip you tightly. So every time the thing went upside down, your body would slide upwards just a little and hit the metal bars (there wasn't even any padding). So my sister who was next to me was getting very distressed, because obviously she's smaller and she was convinced that she was going to fall out. I tried to calm her down and tell her to put her feet on the floor and push upwards, so that she doesn't slide around. Considering that I felt very unsafe (and I'm obviously larger than her), I can't imagine how she must have felt. It was very distressing -- but you're so high up that there is nothing you can do. Even if you'd called for them to stop the ride, there's no way they could hear you. When it finished, my sister was in tears and she was shaking. I can't say I've ever been on a ride where I've actually felt in danger of falling out in mid-air. But that was definitely the first (and hopefully the last).[/color]

[QUOTE=Dragon Warrior][b]"She's Got The Look"[/b] is definitely a good song. It was done by [i]The Roxettes[/i] who were just a simple one-hit wonder (and I have yet to listen to anything else by them), but I like this song. It kinda reminds me of castles, I'm not sure why. It's a must listen for any rock fan ;^D I don't really have a favorite band in classic rock, though. I like too many =/[/QUOTE] [color=#B0251E]Ahem, [b]Roxette[/b] had plenty of hits; I can't name them all, but there would have to be at least a dozen. Among them are [i]Almost Unreal[/i] (check the Super Mario Bros. movie soundtrack) and [i]Wish I Could Fly[/i] (late 90's track that did pretty well on the radio). There were bigger hits in the 80's and 90's but I'm too tired to remember their names now. Perhaps someone can fill in the blanks. :sweat: [/color]

[color=#B0251E]There's nothing wrong with having an imagination.[/color]

[QUOTE=Reise][COLOR=DarkRed]I think we're all excited about this one Annie, this is an absolutley amazing concept James, and I'll happily attempt a sign-up at it. Marilyn Manson should have been Wonka in the first place, and I have to agree that in the original Wonka film, alot of people didn't see the morbid and twisted guy behind the chocolate factory. As for the promo image, marvelous James, marvelous.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=#B0251E]Thank you, I appreciate it. Right now I am still fiddling with the in-thread graphics, but you should see the sign-up thread soon I hope. Again, thanks for the support. I am simultaneously doing myOtaku-related stuff at the moment, which is slowing things down a bit. But it shouldn't be a big deal.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]So you can't just go outside or to another room while he's playing the game? You've already said that he'll sit there and play it alone when nobody wants to hang out with him. Even if you're in the same room as him, if he's occupied playing the game...what's the issue? ^_^[/color]

[color=#B0251E]If the problem is just his annoying behavior, then there are only a couple of things you can really do (if you avoid the katana method, lol). You can simply avoid him as much as possible, or you can try to occupy him with something (ie: set up Neverwinter Nights at home and let him play it until he leaves...or something). Other than that I really don't know. Part of growing up is dealing with annoying people who are less reasonable than yourself. It sucks mightily, but it's a reality that we all have to deal with at one time or another.[/color] [quote=AzureWolf]And if you've never been in a fight, it's something you, as a boy, definately have to do. You can't just, not have ever been in a fight. Don't get me wrong: it's not like I've been in a million brawls or actively sought blood, but even I, a nerd among nerds, have gotten into fist fights every now and then. They just have to happen, haha - not anymore, though. College has those legal issues you mentioned. [/quote] [color=#B0251E]*applause* Good job. Great advice for teens. lol[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Guys, chill. You can debate without insulting one another. I don't even know why there is a particular need to "debate" -- wouldn't you be more interested in learning how each one of you comes up with a particular conclusion? By that I mean, perhaps we should try to understand the way others think, rather than getting into this back-and-forth situation. Enjoy it while you can, anyway.[/color]

[quote name='Idiot2.0][FONT=Arial Narrow][SIZE=2][COLOR=Navy] or set things on fire (Can't be helped I'm a pyro :flaming: ) Basically I just choose what rules I will obey, man I sound like a dog.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] [color=#B0251E]Nah, you just sound like a typical teenager to me. ~_^ But yeah, I think some answers here are really predictable. Most teens are probably going to talk about being rebels and whatnot, when fairly often, that "rebellion" is probably the most conformist thing someone can do. Let's rebel by obeying the rules! Hehe. ~_^ Ahem, but on a more serious note...I suppose it depends what rules we are talking about. Are we talking about laws? Or school rules? Or the rules of a club? Or general "rules" of behavior, related to courtesy and so on? For me it really depends. Some rules (for example, rules specific to various religions) are things that I don't follow because they don't apply to me. In that sense, those are like "club rules", that is to say, they are rules that you tend to follow voluntarily. I mean, you enter into a group and you agree to abide by their rules and laws. In terms of government law, of course, like most people, I am a law abider. But I'm sure that there are always degrees of how much any of us are law abiders. For instance, while we may not all be murderers or something, I'm sure many of us have probably smoked somewhere we shouldn't have, or burnt a DVD/CD for someone, or whatever. So yeah. I don't think any of those things are deliberate acts of rebellion, I think mostly it comes down to someone putting their own convenience over the law; particularly if they are only doing something minor. Not to say that it's necessarily good or right, but getting caught up with every little incident probably isn't terribly healthy either.[/color]

[quote name='Ein08']Sorry, to add one last thing. I pretty much like all the songs that are the endings for Inuyasha!! ^_^ Hehe.[/quote] [color=#B0251E]Ein08, please be aware that double (and triple) posting is against the rules at OB. I recommend checking our rules page on the left navigation menu for further clarification. It seems to me that your posts are pretty reasonable quality, but I'd really like to see attention paid to our rules. Thanks. If you have any concerns, you can post in the Suggestions & Feedback forum about it.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Elfpirate, if I thought a girl or a guy was very attractive physically...lots and lots of tattoos would definitely change my view. That is to say, they might still be physically attractive but they're covered in paint -- it's like a really gorgeous person being covered in mud or something, you know? It's obscuring their natural features. Having said that, it's not only a personal preference thing, but it's a case-by-case thing. I suppose that if someone had one big tattoo on their shoulderblades but nowhere else...that'd be totally fine. I really can't say, I think it comes down to the individual.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]This is one of those questions with no answer, for a simple reason: everyone has their own preferences. Just as everyone has their own preferences with artwork and music, so too do they have preferences in what they find physically attractive. My personal view? If I were with someone and they had a small tattoo on their lower back or their inner thigh, or on their arm or shoulderblade...sure, I wouldn't mind that. I think that might be quite nice. But if it was a huge tattoo covering their back, or arms, or legs? Er...well, I personally find that quite unattractive, no matter how great the art and quality of the tattoo. I [i]personally[/i] would tend to view it as a defacing of the body rather than an enhancement. But -- and there's the big but again -- that's just what I personally find appealing and not appealing. Everyone is different. Some people adore tattooes and they like as many as possible, while others only like them in certain spots. I don't think you should be at all offended -- I wouldn't be offended if someone said they didn't find dark-haired guys attractive...because although I am dark-haired, I understand that it all comes down to someone's personal preference.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I actually don't like either "the corporation" or "Corporate". "The Corporation" just doesn't sound right; it sounds somewhat simple and clumsy. But Corporate is admittedly just a little confusing, if only because of the way it appears in the sentence. However, I'm going to be totally useless and offer no suggestion on how to improve that. Perhaps "Corporate" can still be used, but maybe the sentence itself can be modified to be a little clearer.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've investigated and I believe what you're saying; the member in question did a really bad job of patching things up and putting their own watermark on there. So I think the plagiarism is pretty obvious. I've flushed the member's entire account and I will be posting a warning about plagiarism on theOtaku.com shortly. Again, thanks for bringing this to our attention; we take this type of issue very seriously.[/color]