James

[color=#707875]I'd have to agree with what everyone here has said (except for Matrix's story sucking; you just need to pay a little attention ~_^). Different movies tackle fights in different ways. Ironically, many of the action films that are fight-heavy (like Van Damme movies -- I don't know if I'm spelling his name correctly) are also the films with arguably the worst fights. I'm a fan of anything by Jackie Chan, except for some of his American collaborations (like The Tuxedo). Project A and Policy Story are insanely cool, as is Drunken Master (which has one of the funniest and most imaginative fight sequences I've ever seen). Kill Bill definitely deserves a mention. I think that it's one of the most impressive movies in recent times, in regard to fights. Tarantino's very specific choreography is amazing, especially considering that he isn't someone with a background in that type of work. The Crazy 88 fight was wonderful, as was the GoGo Yubari fight. Basically every fight was very cool. I'd also have to agree about the fight with Elle Driver; amazing stuff. The Matrix should also be mentioned, of course, because it not only redefined special effects to a large degree, but it also had an enormous impact on the application of martial arts in cinema (particularly in western films -- and even some eastern films). The fights in Reloaded and Revolutions were generally more impressive to me than the fights in the first film. The Burly Brawl (Neo vs many Smiths) was pretty amazing, save for the poor CG models. But the actual choreography, where Neo was fighting Smith doubles, was amazing and very complicated. If you look at how they did that, you'll find that it required an insane degree of precision. The Chateau fight was also great, in that it used just about every aspect of the three dimensional space, which almost no fights do. And then there is Revolutions, which had two really great fights. The first being "Coat Check Chaos", which also made good use of the three dimensions (ie: having programs flip upside down and cling to the ceiling). And of course, the Super Burly Brawl (final battle) was awe-inspiring stuff. The sheer amount of detail and work involved in that was pretty impressive. Other than that, for me it mostly comes down to the older 70's and 80's kung fu films. The Jackie Chan stuff is particularly amazing, but there are a number of other fantastic Chinese movies with brilliant kung fu sequences. Some of it is so complex that it will make your head spin. The fact that it doesn't rely on special effects makes it all the more incredible. Also, I felt that some of the fights in the Mortal Kombat movie (the first one, at least), were pretty good. Certainly nothing that competes with Kill Bill or The Matrix, but still probably above your average Jean Claude movie (and therefore probably worthy of some note).[/color]

[color=#707875]I definitely agree about Friends. I remember that I always thought there must be something good about it, since it's so popular. So I began watching it, only to find that it is the most flat, inane show I've ever seen. Really poor acting and really awful writing. Overall, I just found it to be a total and utter disappointment. I'm kind of amazed that so many people actually like it. lol Everybody Loves Raymond is good, but not great. Ray annoys me more than anyone on that show and I honestly think he's the worst part of it (ironically). I much prefer his mother, and the comedy that involves the interactions between family members. It's reasonably good, but I wouldn't personally say that it's one of the best shows I've seen. Seinfeld was big for a reason; it's just a really clever show. Great acting and a great variety of humor (some of it very overt, most of it very subtle). It kind of reminds me of a Tarantino film, in that the characters in those movies tend to extrapolate really basic and pointless situations in day-to-day life, to the point where it becomes ridiculous. Seinfeld is very much the same; it takes mundane situations that are easily-relatable and it extrapolates them to their nth degree, so to speak. But yeah, I definitely agree that Friends is highly overrated. It's the only show mentioned so far that really doesn't deserve the accolades, as far as I'm concerned.[/color]

[QUOTE=Siren] It's not a matter of "OMG he hit me and I only said he was stupid! He should get punished, not me! I'm not the cause of the trouble." It's like...you swing first, you're going to get hit back. It's similar to not starting something when you know there's going to be a reaction, I think. [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]But surely you wouldn't say that you should swat a fly with a cannon. You know? If someone is being an idiot and saying things to you, you really don't need to go and push them over or hit them or something. But if they are actually physically confronting you, that's a different scenario. Regardless, I think that the member who started this thread did the incorrect thing. Although he was "provoked", he responded incorrectly and that resulted in him getting into trouble. So really, he's no better or more correct than the kid who was saying things to him at the start. Believe me, I don't always agree that someone can or should be ignored (especially if they are trying to physically harm you), [i]however[/i], I don't think that words should be met with physical violence. And so, I have little sympathy for the member in question, only to suggest that a lesson can be learned about this (ie: when to apply force and when not to).[/color]

[color=#707875]The teachers have no way of knowing the absolute truth and neither do we. It's a situation where it will never be perfect. I think it is widely believed that schools need to "do more" about bullying (whatever that may mean), but by the same token, I'm sure it's possible that bullying is sometimes overstated. I don't really know the answer to the question. Obviously you shouldn't have pushed the kid over -- he was only using words, so I think that's kinda a non-issue. I mean, avoiding physical contact would have allowed you to avoid the situation entirely. Not to say that he was right or anything, but I think you know where I'm coming from. All I can say is that these things happen. Kids will always lie to try to get out of things and there isn't a lot you can do about that. Unfortunately it does come down to "you versus him" and if he's perceived as being a victim, he'll probably always win. All you can do is try to avoid situations where you're coming into conflict with him (and you can only try, I imagine it's unavoidable at times).[/color]

[color=#707875]Guys, I don't mind if you discuss Flash movies, but please try to put more effort into your posts. Right now there's just no discussion going on here. And, djtaverner, please ensure that you read our rules page. All new members are required to read and agree to it before registering. The rules state that double posting isn't allowed at OtakuBoards. So, I'd just like to remind you to bear the rules in mind in future.[/color]

[QUOTE=Ohkami][color=navy]I think I've heard this one before... Was it a Parachute? Because he parachuted out of a plane but then it wouldn't open so he fell to his death. Either that or he picked up something other than his parachute and realised too late. Those are my guesses. ~Ohkami[/color][/QUOTE] [color=#707875][i]*ding ding!* [/i] We have a winner. ~_^ Yep, it's a parachute. I have to admit, I like Solo's guess too. [/color]

[img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21144&stc=1[/img] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21145&stc=1[/img] [color=#707875]I hope that these are what you're looking for. ^_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Neoakira, you may want to read our rules page before you continue posting. We do not allow threads for the specific purpose of advertising sites. There's no discussion value there. You may have a link in your signature, but that's all. Again, please ensure that you are aware of our site's rules before posting.[/color]

[quote name='Blade15']Now, I've heard a riddle similar to this. Not quite the same, but I'll put the answer anyways. The man was superman and there was Krypotonite in the box.[/quote] [color=#707875]Nope. Good answer, but it's incorrect. The actual answer is kind of funny...it makes a lot of sense, but it's something you may not expect.[/color]

[QUOTE=Falkon] However, there is a bad side to this. A child could just go into any movie he/she wants to, saying that their parents said it was ok, whether it was or not. [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Exactly. There are a lot of situations where parents aren't going to be able to make the decision, either because they aren't there, or because they simply aren't aware of the situation. I mean, let's be serious here...none of us would let a ten year old into a strip club or something like that. There are age-based restrictions on many things in society, in an attempt to protect children. I [i]do [/i]believe that restrictions on movies can tend to go a bit far (the whole controversy over the "wardrobe malfunction" at the Superbowl is an example of how so many in America are complete wowsers), but still, I think it's also true that it shouldn't be open slather. We do need to have some basic standards involved.[/color]

[color=#707875]Just to add a footenote to that, in Australia, if you want to watch an R-rated film and you're under 18, you need to be with a parent or guardian. So siblings don't count, unfortunately. In terms of them not letting you in even with a parent there...well, in Australia, that wouldn't be right (I mean, it wouldn't be legal I guess). I don't know what the situation is in America though. But it depends if that person just bought the tickets or if they went in with you as well. Perhaps they have to actually go in with you. I don't know, but it definitely sounds a little shifty.[/color]

[QUOTE=Queen Asuka][color=hotpink][size=1] Also, James, I've been meaning to talk to you about something, so if you see me on AIM, send an IM my way. Yes, it pertains to Kill Adam. :)[/size][/color][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Cool, will do...and vice versa. You know, Quentin Tarantino has often spoke about doing a prequel to Pulp Fiction, called The Vega Brothers. I am almost inclined to suggest some kind of spin-off that deals exclusively with Arianna (and I know that Shy is planning a spin-off that deals with a weekend in Shanghai and Jamie/Joshua). I know it's a bit early to talk about that stuff, since KA2 isn't near finished, but still...there's a lot of expandability to our little universe here.[/color]

[QUOTE=Lrb][size=1][color=darkolivegreen]You are all correct when you say that The Respected Members are only looking for good posters and that's how they choose, like everyone else. But think about this, some of you said that you try to have at least 1 New Member per RPG. What's that supposed to mean? Is that pointing out that Newer Members are bad-posters? Or are you simply pointing out that for, well I can't think of another reason. Lol. [/color][/size][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]No, it doesn't mean that new members are bad posters. It means that we try to inject some variety into our RPGs, as far as members are concerned. I could quite easily have a small group of four or five of the same people in every single RPG I do, if only because their posts are great and they usually seem to enjoy the RPGs that I come up with. But where's the fun in that? My aim is always to be as diverse as I can, but to also ensure that I'm looking at quality before anything else. Bear in mind, I made Arcadia a Moderator only days after she registered. I copped a lot of flak for that, simply because I'd "chosen a newbie with not enough experience". Yet, the fact that Arcadia has been so successful and has done so well, is proof positive of my philosophy; that post quality and attitude is more important than anything else, including status or the amount of time you've posted, or the amount of years you've been here. That same principle can be applied to RPGs, I believe.[/color]

[QUOTE=O-Ushi] 3) A man is slumping in a phone box. The windows to either side of him are shattered and his hands are bleeding. What happened? [/QUOTE][color=#707875][spoiler]The man had caught a fish and was telling his wife about it. "The fish is [b]this[/b] big."[/spoiler] At least, that's the answer I'd heard to that riddle previously. ~_^ This one may have been asked, but I haven't seen it myself. A man is lying in a field, with a box next to him. The man is dead. What's in the box?[/color]

[QUOTE=Lord Eliwood] To summarize, no one signs up for any RPGs by a newbie. [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Incorrect. Do you remember Arcadia's first RPG? She posted it as a newbie, before she became a Moderator. And now that RPG (Laeth E'Thae, I hope I'm spelling it correctly) has become one of the most popular RPGs around. It's not a question of rank or anything like that. A good RPG (or an RPG that interests the most people) is going to have more sign-ups. It's as simple as that. I've had plenty of RPGs that never even got off the ground, because the concept wasn't popular enough. And yet I have the highest rank/responsibility on this site. My status has absolutely nothing to do with it, there's just too much evidence in my own experiences to suggest otherwise. In regard to who gets in...well, that comes down to the individual creator. You will find that usually, a member who makes an RPG will allow in friends, and people whom they feel have the kind of posts that they need. I [i]never[/i] choose people based on who they are, or their status. I choose people based on their sign-ups, and whether or not I feel that they'd contribute positively to the RPG. Now, it's true that you do see Moderators getting into my RPGs at various times. Why? Several reasons -- one, many of these people are friends of mine. Therefore, I trust them and I know that they will do justice to my RPG. Two, their sign-ups are often very high quality. These guys are Moderators afterall; they became Moderators because of their oustanding post quality. So it stands to reason that they are generally going to do pretty well when they sign-up for things. But it isn't based on their status at all. I'm not going to let a Moderator join my RPG if I don't like their sign-up, or if I feel that they didn't care about what they were writing. On the reverse side, I often try to give "newbies" a chance in my RPGs. Kill Adam II features two such members -- people whom I've never had in my RPGs, but who I gave very large roles to (and who will play a very important part in the story). And when you see my next RPG, you'll see an even bigger example of that. So, in short, there's no "conspiracy" here. That's just sour grapes and it comes off as being really lame. lol Members will often choose friends and trusted people to join their RPGs, or they will choose writers whose work they like. Why is it suddenly labeled as a conspiracy when staff do it? That's massively unfair. In addition, many of the most successful RPGs have never been created by OB staff (like Sage's many successful RPGs). So, there really isn't much evidence to support the idea that the staff are gathering around a table and deliberately excluding members from their RPGs (as if we have nothing better to do lol). Oh and, this thread is in the incorrect forum. It belongs in Arena Underground. I'll move it there now.[/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah, you are just supposed to end this one chapter (ie: the mission on the boat). But you don't have to write about the entire Osaka operation if you don't want to.[/color]

[color=#707875]I said that people's eye colours do not just change. I also said that there are probably explanations as to why people think they might change. So that's pretty clear. My prior post was primarily directed at those who are trying to suggest that there's some physical genetic thing going on, when there clearly isn't. And the comment about science was a misinterpretation -- again, nobody is saying that people's eyes don't sometimes look different. What people are saying is that the genes that control eye colour don't change based on your mood or the weather or whatever else. It's very important to understand that there are multiple points beind made there -- I'm certainly not suggesting that anything is black and white, other than to say that genetics don't change based on mood. It's also very ironic to tell me that I'm coming off as rude, when you have responded by jumping all over me and yelling (bolded capitalization? o_O). I'm more than happy to have a calm discussion, in fact, I am always encouraging it. You can't suggest that you want everyone to have their views put out there, and then, in the same breath, tell people to keep their facts and figures to themselves. If we're going to go down that road, then why ever have a discusion? lol So, again, just to be totally clear, I'm not saying that people are lying if they think that their eyes look kinda different now and then. But those who are trying to suggest that their actual eye colour changes based on certain things are either lying, or seeing something that they are misinterpreting as something else. So, hopefully there are no hard feelings. If anything I've said has been misinterpreted or misunderstood, I'm more than happy to clarify.[/color]

[quote name='...]Oh my goodness... are you serious?? This is not something so black and White James. Science [b]CAN [/b]be wrong. I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, or that Heero is right here. [b]ALL I AM SAYING[/b], is that you can [b]NEVER [/b]say someone is making a story up on a board. It's just not fair. Because you're right, you'll never believe him no matter WHAT proof he gives you!! So why even doubt him publicly in the first place??? It's just plain rude in my opinion. You're making it hard for people to post because you want [i]undeniable [/i']proof that what they say is true. And if that's not fair, I don't know what is.[/quote] [color=#707875]Wait a minute. Calm down for a moment and consider what I am saying. If you have read my posts in this thread, you will know that I'm making a particular point. I am saying that your genetics do not just change overnight, or with your mood. That is totally and utterly ridiculous, period. That's like your skin changing from black to white when your mood changes. [i]However[/i], I am also saying that there are possible explanations for this apparent change in eye colour. Dragon Warrior listed one possibility -- bloodshot eyes, related to various conditions (tiredness, angriness, or whatever else). I also mentioned that lighting conditions and colour relationships play a role. As someone who studies graphic design, I have learned one fundamental fact about colours -- a colour is never in isolation. What I mean is, a colour is often defined by the colours that surround it. If your eyes are blue and you're wearing a yellow jacket, the "blueness" of your eyes will probably seem a [i]lot[/i] more vivid. As the shade of your jacket changes, so too does the appearance of your eyes. In reality, your eyes are not actually changing their pigment, nor are your genes changing. But your perception of the eye's colour changes based upon the entire scene that you are witnessing. So, nobody is beating anyone over the head with their views. I'm letting you have your say, and everyone is having their say. I am simply making a factual point, and then attempting to explain why people may feel that their eye colour is changing. I'm not saying that people don't see colour changes, I'm just saying that there are explanations as to why they might be seeing that. [/color]

[QUOTE=...]:rolleyes: OK ... That whole "debate" ^^^ was not needed. Meaningless. I mean, who can really say someone's eyes [i]don't[/i] change color, if you've never MET the person?? :rolleyes: To state that science says no to it, is just closed minded in my book. You should all keep your facts and figures to yourselves if you're going to beat them down on people. You have no way of knowing for sure, so why don't you leave it at that? :rolleyes: But we're all having fun right? :laugh: Right. :flaming: [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]If I told you that I am pregnant, you wouldn't believe me. Why? Because I'm a male, and we know that biologically speaking, males are unable to give birth (well, for now anyway, lol). So saying that science is closeminded is just ridiculous. This thread is really akin to saying that your hair was brown one day and when you woke up, you were a red head. In other words, your genes decided to change overnight. I'd encourage some of these people to take photos to prove it, but I have to remember that there are programs like Photoshop out there. ~_^[/color]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]The movie rating system in the United States is bullcrap for two reasons: 1. It PHYSICALLY RESTRICTS some people from watching a movie, just in case you didn't know. It's a pretty general policy across movie theaters (yes, it's not a law, but a policy that they adhere to rather strictly, especially around where I live). This is true of R and NC-17 films only, but that accounts for a good amount of films. If you are under 17 and are not with your parent/guardian, good luck [i]sneaking in[/i]. [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I'm talking about adults and not teens. I was referring to TN, when he said that it was restrictive. My point was that if you're an adult, you can view whatever material you want, generally. As part of my job I deal with OFLC issues all the time, and I know that the OFLC is pretty similar to the ratings board you have over there. There are specific differences when it comes to actual ratings, but just about every country has its own interpretation on that.[/color]

[QUOTE=Serraph-Angel][size=1]James, you never sieze to impress me. All I have to say for everyone of them is... WOW!!! Your banners are always great and I have been trying to get a hold of you for you to possibly make me one but I never can. But they are great. I especially like the I Robot one and the Elle Driver ones. But the thing is, they almost all of them are Kill Bill... I can see you like the movie... lol. But anyways they are all great. So if you have a way for me to contact you... please post it here so I can request a banner from ya.[/size][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Thank you for the compliment, but I don't really do banner requests unless they're posted in the Art by Request forum. And even then, I tend to only do something in there occasionally. The problem with banners like these, is that they take quite a while to make (for me, at least). I usually make them during times when I just want to relax. I mean, there are no specific requirements and I'm not having to meet a deadline or something. So I enjoy just diving in and seeing what I come up with after a couple of hours. But having said that, I might consider doing some general animated banners that people can actually use. If you really want to use one of these banners (one that doesn't have my logo, like the I, Robot banner), you may do so, as long as you credit me in your signature. EDIT: I've just added my latest banner to the list. It's a bit more memory-heavy (and I promise my next one won't be so memory-heavy), but I'm fairly happy with it. It's a little larger than all my others, and it includes one of my favourite moments in the film. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]I have only one thing to say about this. Why would Adam, of all people, be at the head of a n00b empire? He's almost as quality driven as I am. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]America is insanely weird and sensitive with its movie ratings -- that's one thing that I think is true. I remember some parents saying that they would fast forward the scary moments in Finding Nemo on DVD, to protect their children. I'm sorry, but that is incredibly backward. lol But having said that, movie ratings generally don't do anything, as in, they don't physically stop you from viewing the material that you want (unless something is moved to a later time slot or whatever). The ratings are only there as a guide, to tell you what kind of contents are in a film. Although specifics are nice (like saying that something has adult themes or sex scenes and stuff), the ratings pretty much encompass that anyway (ie: you generally know what an R movie will have versus a PG-13 movie). The only time that I dislike ratings is either when something gets banned, or it gets inappropriately rated (like an MA movie being rated R, though I don't know if America has MA or not).[/color]

[color=#707875]People who decide on ratings don't necessarily decide what you can and can't see, as such. Rather, they provide a guide as to what kind of content the film/music/game contains. That way, adults and parents in particular can make decisions about what they and their kids should be watching. Of course, some ratings do physically restrict kids under 17 from viewing certain material...but I think there probably has to be [i]some[/i] kind of physical restriction in place, especially for really young children. In terms of how ratings are chosen, I can only tell you what happens in Australia, where we have the OFLC (Office of Film & Literature Classification). In order to become a representative/member of that group, you need to do a one day course, which basically goes through the various standards and the way in which materials are assessed. So these ratings are not arbitrary or anything, they are based on some really specific guidelines across all types of media. The only problem I have with ratings is that sometimes certain things are banned, because there is no rating for them or something. I think that there should be a rating to encompass all of these types of media, because I believe that an adult should be free to buy whatever they want in that regard.[/color]

[QUOTE=Falkon] OK, i can respect your opinion, but after reading this it kinda popped an "ALERT!" sign into my head. This is also what is annoying me. you see, more than half of the music I listen to is Electronica (aka Dance). Can I ask, Have you ever tried listening to Dance music? seriously. This may not be your case, but here is a scenario which pisses me off majorly: Ok, so I am sitting at school, headphones blaring, not really talking to anyone. Some of the more "popular" kids come up to me and ask what I am listening to. I hand them my headphones and they listen for a second or two. Handing my headphones back to me, they say, "That is awesome. What is it?" I tell them that its dance music and then they say, "Dude, f**k, that s**t sucks. I cant believe you listen to that stupid s**t." [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Absolutely. And there are too many people (particularly in America) who think that all electronic music is "techno" or "dance" or "rave". In actuality, there are dozens and dozens of different electronic-based genres, which will generally suit almost any taste. Moreover, electronic music has had an enormous impact on just about every other form of music that exists today. So, let's not start attacking other genres. The fact that [i]anyone[/i] would say stuff like that simply because of the name of the genre is incredibly stupid. Rather than having a completely small-minded and closed view about music, we should instead be open to experimentation, so that our own tastes can expand. I think this applies to the newer forms of punk, as much as it applies to any other genre that you'd care to name.[/color]