James

[color=#334366]We should just start the next chapter and leave behind those who don't want to post or who can't post in the first chapter. C'mon guys, it'll only die if you let it die. ~_^[/color]

[QUOTE=QuincyArcher] so you're saying it's an obvious ripoff, yet its completely different? or are you saying it's a ripoff because there's a slight correlation between the ghost woman in the Grudge with the zombie ghost girl in The Ring (was the ring the first movie to come up with the concept of ghosts?) get serious man. and whats wrong wtih comparing a horror movie with a horror movie? I guess i shouldn't go comparing Rice Crispies with Crispy Rice then either huh? i might end up offending a dedicated cereal fanatic. [/quote] [color=#334366]Um...I think you are missing the point. lol I'm saying that The Grudge is a complete ripoff of Ring. I said that The Ring is different from Ring. I wasn't saying Grudge was completely different from Ring. If you actually take a look at the film techniques used in The Grudge, you'll find that it's a complete cash-in on Ring's success and innovation. Don't forget; a whole bunch of so-called "ghost girl" movies came out after Ring, which itself was the most successful Japanese film in its home market. So it's obvious that various studios have tried to ride Ring's coat tails, so to speak. [i]Nobody[/i] said that Ring was the first movie to come up with ghosts. Either you have skimmed my post or completely misunderstood it. I said that Ring was the movie that started the "ghost girl sub-genre", which has become so popular in Japan and within asia in general (both Chinese and South Korean films have tried to go for this style -- there is even a South Korean Ring called "Ring Virus"). So, first and foremost, I think it's worth going back over my post again. On every single point you've kinda misinterpreted it. Apologies if I didn't make it clear enough, but nothing you've attributed to me is what I had said at all. lol[/color][quote=QuincyArcher] All that aside, I don't know the Ring really didn't do anything for me (except Naomi Watts *drool*) neither did 28 Days Later. But for me The Grudge was amazing and the first movie to actually scare me in years. So i guess we'll just have to let Mr. W00t,iM uNbAnNd decide for himself ne?[/QUOTE] [color=#334366]The thing is, The Grudge is basically a fairly cheap imitation of Ring. The American version in particular has included elements that only serve to make the story needlessly convoluted. And although it's almost a frame-by-frame duplicate of the Japanese film, it [i]still[/i] misses some of the best scares of the Japanese version. I'm not saying that nobody will like Grudge -- I'm sure plenty will. I'm just saying that Grudge is generally considered to be a follower rather than a leader. Ring is really the source and it's a movie that people should see, especially those who have an interest in Japanese horror (and who are interested in great cinematography in general). I mean, don't get me wrong -- I enjoy films like The Matrix a whole lot, for instance. But I wouldn't want to ignore the cues it has taken from Dark City, even if it's still a unique film in and of itself.[/color]

[QUOTE=Zidargh]Coke is absolutely gorgeous when you're really needing a drink, and you sip some out of a cold, classic, glass bottle. I'm ill at the moment, and I'm really craving some fizzy drinks, but there's none in the house. I reckon soda will make me feel worse though.[/QUOTE] [color=#334366]Yup. If you are feeling sick, water is probably your best bet. But yeah, Coke Hit = Orgasm. That first sip of Coca-Cola sends a shiver down my spine to my toes and back up to my brain. It's (almost) better than sex.[/color]

[color=#334366]... Azure, I didn't think it was possible, but that reply out-dorkifies your last one! Wow. In all seriousness, it's no big deal. When you worry about someone linking to a private thread (which is the most mundane and boring thing in existence) and you start getting concerned about public/private ratios and so on...well, you know you probably have too much time on your hands. The cool thing about Nifty Fifty is that it's a pretty lighthearted and fun event. I'm really pleased with how it turned out. But uh, in terms of the subject of this thread...the staff forum is certainly nothing to be envious about. In fact, it's all about business and practical matters. Believe me, nobody is missing anything, except perhaps the lame novelty of being able to view a private forum. But yeah, that's definitely a lame novelty, lol.[/color]

[color=#334366]I'm a Coke addict. Pepsi is okay, but it's more...varnish-like than Coke. I don't think I've ever tasted a cola quite like Coke -- it's smooth and it has a unique taste that is unrivalled by pretty much everything. *smiles for the camera* Ahem. But yeah, Coke is my religion. There's nothing mundane about it; it's the pure classic, that classic men such as myself can enjoy. o_O Anyway. Other than Coke, I don't mind Pepsi -- it's okay, it's just like cheap Coke. So it's a good alternative. But aside from that, there really isn't much other soda that interests me. I used to love Passiona (I have no idea if it's over there in America), but I'm not so interested in it anymore. These days it's usually water, Coke, orange juice or milk.[/color]

[color=#334366]The Japanese version (Ju-On) is better than the American version, which is identical save for some added bits of nothing that don't add to the story whatsoever. The Japanese version...eh. It's okay; marginally okay. It's an obvious rip-off of Ring (which created the so-called "ghost girl" sub-genre) and it's a poor one at that. And don't even start comparing the American Grudge with the American Ring -- there is no comparison, lol. The Ring had a significantly different plot (which was actually pretty decent considering it was a remake) and it had its own unique visual style (thanks to Gore Verbinski, who can really create some amazing subtle visuals). Honestly, I don't think it's worthwhile. See the Japanese version if you must, but be aware that it may not float your boat.[/color]

[color=#344366]Geeze, Azure. That is perhaps the dorkiest post I've ever seen on OB -- and I've seen a lot (and made plenty myself). I mean, c'mon. Get a real problem. lol The Nifty Fifty is all about reflecting on various noteable parts/events/people of OB during that year. Not everyone even has to agree -- if something has created some sort of controversy, then it's probably worthy of being considered noteable (though perhaps not nifty -- but the more we get into semantics, the less hair I'll have on my head).[/color]

[color=#334366]Um, well, I used to listen to a lot more dance/trance type stuff than I do now. These days I've moved into stuff that's still electronic, but that is noteably different in terms of sub-genre. But yeah, that's not to say that I don't listen to certain trance tracks now and then. I'm generally not a big fan of dance, but trance is more my thing at times. One of my favourite trance tracks would be Synaesthesia by The Thrillseekers. It's very simple and in some ways a bit cliche, but I have good memories with that one. I think that my favourite trance artist was probably Paul van Dyk. These days I barely listen to any of his stuff, but he used to be among my favourite artists. My two favourite tracks from him would have to be For an Angel and Tell Me Why (the original of the first one and the club mix of the second). Very addictive beats there, hehe. [/color]

[color=#334366]Thanks for your patience, everyone. The new chapter includes Maklav, Sweetreyes and Semjaza. If you are behind on your reading, please ensure that you check up on that. Also, use this thread to ask any questions. ^_^[/color]

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel]Ocarina of Time was more hyped for reasons that I think just make sense. It was the first 3D Zelda, not to mention the first new one since Link's Awakening hit the Game Boy. While I think Majora's Mask is a better game personally, it's still a game that utilizes so many things that existed simply because of OoT. I don't think it was "overhyped" as much as Majora's Mask was underhyped because the N64 was slowly dying out. As for Half-Life... I think most people know about it, assuming they know anything about games outside of consoles. Hell, the first one sold two and half million copies by December 2000 (and who knows how many since then) and the sequel is nearing two million copies. Certainly not approaching Halo 2 numbers, but certainly not unknown.[/QUOTE] [color=#334366]I agree with you about Zelda. I don't think Ocarina of Time was overhyped -- it's a game that delivered several new benchmarks, in the same way that Mario 64 did. I think it would be hard to overhype Ocarina of Time. However, I do think that Majora's Mask was underhyped. That game deserved a lot more credit -- I know of a lot of people who have played OoT and who haven't touched Majora's Mask. What they may not realize is that Majora's Mask seems to blend so many of the series' best elements (ie: the wonderful control and gameplay of OoT combined with the dark and quirky atmosphere of Zelda II). In regard to Half-Life...well, specifically Half-Life 2, I think that the game has been overhyped to some degree, especially considering how long it took to make. However, I have to be honest in saying that it's one game that impressed me [i]a lot[/i] in 2004. It definitely impressed me more than most games in recent times. And that's not just due to visuals; it's mostly due to the actual physical interaction in the game. That kind of interaction is something that few games seem to pull off so well, no matter how nice their visuals are. So I think Half-Life 2 definitely deserves most of the hype.[/color]

[color=#334366]Nothin' like a good piece o' meat, I say. Ahem. On a more serious note, I suppose I'm like most people: omnivorious. That is to say, I can eat both vegetables and meat. My belief is that human beings are naturally omnivorous. We have canine teeth, which are designed for eating meat, for instance. And it is considered healthy (and important) to have various meat in one's diet. This is why many vegetarians have supplements that make up for the lack of meat in their diet. Having said that, I don't support torture of animals or keeping animals in harsh conditions. I don't think it's necessary or desirable to treat animals in that way -- I think animals definitely deserve to live in clean, healthy conditions.[/color]

[QUOTE=Lore][color=#ff6600]The really hilarious thing about that is the fact that it was pretty mentioned as an aside, and ended up becoming OB Holy Writ. [/color][/QUOTE] [color=#334366]Yeah, I think I made that remark as an off-hand thing in a Suggestions & Feedback thread ages ago. Somehow it's become part of OB legend. But I suppose that's a good thing, although I do still get the odd PM that reads something like this:[/color] [quote name='DBZchikachankunbaka5000SP_69_JPN][i]"OMG, look ok, if u want a kikass mod im at ur desposal. i meen, i modded at deze forumz ([color=#334366]A link is then provided, which leads me to a now-empty Ezboards site, or an error page - no offence to our friends at Ezboards by the way[/color']). if u will hire me u wont regret it!!! :D :eek: :wigout: :flaming: "[/i][/quote] [color=#334366]I really appreciate the thought put into these types of messages (especially the variety of smileys). But of course, many of these messages come from people who have been at OB for less than five minutes. And I'm a firm believer that the responsibility should be handled by people who personify the OB spirit (or alternatively, by people who are comfortable with sleeping to the top, like Shinmaru, for instance).[/color]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']I have a question bout the spoiler tags. Why are they an issue? You don't need to go into detail about a games ending if you just want to say they sucked. Halo 2 and Tales of Symphonia's endings both sucked big floppy donkey dong. There its said anybody whose played agrees and everybody wins.[/quote] [color=#334366]The reason is simple: saying that a game sucks isn't enough. We want you to tell us [i]why[/i] you didn't like it. If we simply had a list of people saying what sucked, we'd not have any interaction or discussion. It'd just be a list. And that kinda defeats the entire purpose of the site. ^_^[/color]

[quote=Shy]Let's get one thing straight here: Batman doesn't fight crime, he fights criminals. No matter how fast he can throw those batarangs the fact of the matter is that his work is reactionary, and feeds off crime. For the cycle to continue there must always be innocents to protect, and there must always be criminals to fight. Although I imagine that Bruce Wayne pours a good amount of money into charity work and other projects, it's the Batmobiles that take up a good portion of his disposable income, I'd imagine. There is certainly nothing healthy about that, as we've established, and anyone attempting to follow in his example in the "real world" would be deemed unstable and insane. [/quote] [color=#334366]Yeah, that is what I meant. You hit the nail on the head with that, I think. Batman's ultimate goal doesn't seem to be the overall elimination of crime/criminals, because he obviously needs these things to exist to justify the existence of his own alter-ego. So yeah, in that sense, crime and criminals facilitate his alter-ego, which is in turn a response to various personal issues (primarily the death of his parents). I would tend to suggest that Batman would not exist if Bruce Wayne were able to deal with the death of his parents. In that sense I do agree that Batman is a form of escapism -- a symptom and coping mechanism. [/color] [quote=Semjaza Azazel]Simply describing Batman as a sociopath misses a large portion of his being, character and motivation as far as I'm concerned. It's far too simple of a label to place upon him. Batman doesn't exist in this world, the one he exists in is of a far different variety. The constraints on what is and what isn't a "crazy" attitude, I think, are changed because of this. [/quote] [color=#334366]I agree that there are more nuances to Batman, but fundamentally I think one could probably call him a sociopath. At the very least, his lifestyle does fit the definition (even though there are other factors involved). As I said earlier, it depends how you analyze Batman -- in what context you look at him. I think the main thing that defines Bruce Wayne is the fact that he really has no serious relationships with anyone, other than Alfred maybe. More specifically, he seems incapable of having romantic relationships. I suppose a large part of this is due to the fact that he doesn't want his alter-ego to be revealed (as a purely functional matter), but one could also argue that the alter-ego is also an [i]excuse[/i] not to develop these relationships and to continue to try to cope with his parents' death and other issues. [/color]

[color=#334366]Well, it depends how you view Batman. I mean, in what context. In a sense, he is definitely a hero -- he's a hero in the sense that he puts his life on the line to defend the innocent citizens of Gotham. In that regard, he's a selfless human being...he has really devoted himself to the cause of justice, despite the fact that this has a negative impact on his personal life (ie: his relationships and so on). However, what if Batman were real? If he were real, then yeah, he'd be a guy with serious problems. I guess he is obviously portrayed as a person with problems in the films/comics/etc, but if he were real, I think it would be a far more serious situation. The [spoiler]death of his parents[/spoiler] is something that has held him back from really ever having a normal relationship. The idea that he has to constantly sacrifice himself [spoiler]to avenge his parents[/spoiler] just demonstrates that he hasn't gotten over what happened. And obviously, no matter how many bad guys he takes out, he'll never really feel like he's done enough. It's a way of avoiding the issue, I suppose. When you're fighting crime, [spoiler]you're not dealing with the loss of your parents[/spoiler]. So yeah, if Batman were real, he'd need a psychiatrist as soon as possible. lol But in the context of the fiction, he's a very interesting character, especially when you compare him to the villains that he fights. I mean, in one way or another, most of the villains he fights are not "born evil", you know? Most of them seem to have suffered an enormous tragedy, just like Batman himself. But rather than avenge the situation through crime fighting, they've decided to lash out at the world instead.[/color]

[color=#334366]Very cool, Annie. This is getting better each time; I like how you've mixed different settings in there. I'm also very humbled that you put me in the story. I'll definitely watch out for the next chapter, as I'm interested to see where you take it. ~_^[/color]

[QUOTE=elfpirate] Um... just because there are laws doesn't mean that they're enforced... but the point of this thread was to ask whether or not discrimination still existed and why it wasn't as obvious as it once was. [/QUOTE] [color=#334366]Absolutely. You can have laws on the books (which help), but ultimately it comes down to attitudes changing over a period of time. I think racism and prejudice are still huge problems in the world, but I do agree that things can also go the other way -- the whole racial hypersensitivity thing. Unfortunately some people respond to one type of extremism with another. And it doesn't help. Having said that, some political correctness is not a bad thing at all. In that case it's just about being reasonable and having respect for others. However, taking it to the extreme (not being able to say "black or white" for instance) is only rolling the ball to the far end of the spectrum the other way. It's just as bad, in a sense. [b]Edit:[/b] Even though the free lunch point is questionable (although if it were only given to poor kids or something that'd be different), I would [i]hope[/i] that all of Raid3r's post is sarcasm.[/color]

[QUOTE=slimshady]:cussing: :cussing: :cussing: Hey all you otaku members could you ask an adminastraitor why I got banned? My user name is Masterchief100 THX! :help: My two girlfriends are muching of me right now.... :2women: :drool:[/QUOTE] [color=#334366]I hate to be rude but...your post kind of provides all the evidence. Overabundance of obnoxious smileys: Check. Questionable spelling and text speak: Check. Inclusion of unrelated smileys simply for the sake of using them, even when they don't relate to the topic: Check. If you were banned from theOtaku, it means you violated our terms of service in some way. But I have no idea; that ban does not relate to OtakuBoards. Although, I suppose now it does.[/color]

[quote name='Sepiroth']Tell me W00t,iM uNbAnNd, do you know how they feel, or are you relying on the media pictures you see? We obviously would not have insurgents fighting us everyday if Bush(dont want to say WE because it means everyone) was doing the right thing. This is fraction of the death toll considered to africa, due to aids. My theory is that Bush is fighting for oil not to help people. If we were to find a new source of energy for our cars than he would not even care about saddam. That is my theory.[/quote] [color=#334366]Okay, but can't you see what's wrong with your logic here? lol. By your logic, we should automatically say that all police are doing the wrong thing because crime exists. It makes no sense. The insurgents are fighting for various reasons. Some of them are definitely supporters of the former regime. And others still (the majority) are simply foreigners who have entered Iraq to fight the Americans. Don't forget that bin Laden himself was involved in the Afghan war against the Soviet forces in the 1980's, for no reason other than to "get the foreigners off sacred land", so to speak. So, the fact that insurgents are fighting back has nothing to do with Bush doing the right or wrong thing. These people would be fighting regardless -- these are the people who carry out terrorist attacks across the Middle East. And don't forget that the majority of people they kill are Iraqi citizens. And for god's sake...[i]Bush is not fighting the war for oil![/i] That is the lamest possible line when it comes to this war, lol. It's a bandwagon that people jump on with absolutely no knowledge of how the war works or what led up to it. To be clear, Iraq's oil is not controlled or owned by the United States. The United States is [i]spending[/i] money and not [i]earning[/i] money from the Iraq war. Even if you take into account the private contracts for developers, you're talking about a small fraction of the amount that the USA will be investing in the country.[/color]

[color=#334366]I'm so tired of these conspiracy theories. Seriously, don't people have anything better to do? Nevermind the fact that the moon landing operation not only resulted in samples being returned to Earth, but that the mission itself required numerous technological innovations to be developed to make it possible (and that those innovations have been put to use in a variety of ways since then). For this to even be a question at all leaves me in complete amazement, lol.[/color]

[quote name='Sepiroth']Thats the point i w as trying to make but still sound caring. Bluntly put they were fine with their system for years, why change cause a westearn power tells you that you are wrong and they are right. Bluntly we should have never gottten involved in the first place. Because if we did not do anything the International Community would be mad at us for not helping but when we go in they get mad also(no anti european remarks intended). The price for being a superpower. We just should stay out of it. I dont bother you , you dont bother me.[/quote] [color=#334366]They were fine with their system? No, they weren't. As I mentioned in my last post, they tried to rise up against Saddam at least twice during the 1990's. They [i]weren't[/i] fine with their system and they were crying out for help. To say such a thing only demonstrates that living in a free country can put you in a complacent bubble. It's really really easy to say these things when you can just switch off your computer and do as you like. It's 100% different when you're actually living in terror day after day. Spare a thought for those people.[/color]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']Woah, I'm confused. Since when was Saudi Arabia America's true enemy? Just because so many of the terrorists came from there? Aren't they just an exception and were against the Saudi government in the first place? :confused:[/quote][/color] [color=#334366]Saudi Arabia is a problem for many reasons. For one, Saudi Arabia is the main supplier of religious fundamentalism. Haven't you heard of the schools in Saudi Arabia that do nothing but preach hate and death to outsiders? The country is a breeding ground for terrorists and extremists. So it is really the natural enemy of many countries, including many of its own neighbours.[/color] [quote=Chibachou][color=#004a6f] I have a question for supporters of America and the war on Iraq. It is not meant to be rude at all: What do you want?[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=#334366]I want justice. Justice meaning, freedom for the people of Iraq. Not just freedom, but [i]responsible[/i] freedom -- freedom that involves seperation of powers and transparency/accountability for those in power. The Iraqi people want to be free. They have tried to rise up against Saddam on at least two occasions after the first Gulf War. And their jubilant reaction to the elections is further evidence that they [i]wanted[/i] to be freed but could not do it on their own steam. My support for the war (apart from the legal support, which I've gone over before) largely comes down to humanitarian goals. I [i]don't[/i] find human suffering acceptable and I [i]don't[/i] think that we should always "stay out of each other's business" and accept the status quo. All too often, the status quo involves violent oppression, denial of education, denial of civil rights and so on. It takes effort (and yes, death) to actually get in and solve these problems. But they are worth solving. When Iraqi children grow up, they will hopefully be used to living in a democracy where they have choices in life -- choices in education, job, family and so on. They won't have to live under oppression and murder, as their parents and grandparents did. That, to me, makes this entire exercise worthwhile. Basically, I consider my support for the war as a compassionate and humanitarian stance. You've seen my posts about civil rights on OtakuBoards and you know that I believe in tolerance and equality. So it shouldn't be confusing that I supported the liberation of Iraq -- despite the problems, which are always going to exist no matter what we do, the final outcome is what makes all of it worthwhile.[/color] [quote name='Sepiroth']I am for humane treatment and all that but no it is not worth the sacrafice. more people have been killed in less than 2 years than saddam did in 3 years. And just because bush does not like saddams reign, he does not have the right to "liberate" people in another country. Saddam has not threatned us recently. So i dont think its worth it. Now if it was in Afghanistan than i am all for it.[/quote] [color=#334366]More were killed in less than two years than Saddam did in three years? No. It is estimated by Amnesty International (who were opposed to the war) that upwards of [b]30,000[/b] innocent Iraqis were arrested, tortured and murdered [b]each year[/b] by Hussein's regime. The war has of course killed people on all sides, but the figures don't even come close. In addition, you will find that there are multiple legal factors involved with the war. Saddam Hussein already violated the Gulf War I treaty by firing at aircraft in UN-monitored no-fly-zones. This [b]alone[/b] would be reason enough to take military action, because it signifies a violation of the GWI treaty and therefore, a resumption of military action. Remember, when Gulf War I ended, it ended with a cease-fire. That cease-fire was conditional, based on certain undertakings from Saddam Hussein's government. By violating those undertakings, he has knowingly scrapped the agreement, which by legal default returns Iraq and the allied nations to a state of war. In addition, Iraq violated resolution 1441, which set a [b]specific[/b] timetable on verifiable disarmament. So there are several misconceptions on all accounts. Saddam didn't threaten the US recently? Well, sending anti-aircraft trucks into the desert, to try to shoot down allied aircraft (who are on legally sanctioned patrols) couldn't be considered non-threatening. And that's only one facet of the story.[/color]

[color=#334366]Only a million? Bleh. I'd probably invest some of it in property (so that I can earn rent from it in the longterm). I'd use the rest to pay off things (house for my parents and school fees). Then I'd buy myself a unit and a car...and I don't know what I'd do with the rest. Maybe I'd give some of it to family and friends, although a million dollars really isn't a lot of money in this day and age. I mean, buying a house and car would easily set you back nearly half that amount (assuming you buy a reasonably nice house and car, without actually buying a mansion lol).[/color]

[QUOTE=Morpheus]There are a good number of terrorists in every single country. Have you ever heard of the KKK? On a side note, Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, but he was sort of...how do you say...exiled.[/QUOTE] [color=#334366]I'm not sure if I'd call the KKK "terrorists", at least in terms of comparing them to Al-Qaeda. I mean, at the moment (and for a while) they seem to be a pretty lame group of people who's ideology is thankfully not too popular. At least they aren't bombing buildings and stuff. You're right about bin Laden, which goes back to my point; the Saudi royal family isn't a fan of the guy. But the bin Laden family is still one of the most powerful families in the Middle East, as they own several large businesses in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.[/color]

[color=#334366]I think it's like any war of this kind; it takes a decade or two to actually see things from a clearer perspective. Some people are saying that the coalition should already get out of Iraq. But the United States was in Japan for some ten years or so. I mean...I just think most of those people simply don't know/understand their history. So the answer to that point is yes and no; we can evaluate some things and we can say that the motives are right, but I don't think that we can actually declare a 100% success at this point. It takes time and baby steps, like anything of this kind. But if you know your history, you know that history is mostly on your side so far. Regarding the Bin Laden thing...it's ironic that he is also an enemy of Saudi Arabia's royal family. The problem with that environment is that you not only breed terrorists who attack other nations, but you also breed people who want to overthrow their own government (but who would rather replace it with something potentially far worse).[/color]