James

[color=#707875]My banners always bothered you? *gasp!* Hehe. Um...the pixelated thing is really just an experiment with overlay and colour changes. I created a grid over the image and then I "filled in" specific squares. I wanted to do something weird...simply because the base picture had been used by so many people before. I've tried to go with a different style for each banner generally -- in terms of colours and effects and so on.[/color]

[color=#707875]I was a huge Ninja Turtle fan; I had several figures, including Super Shredder! Hehe. Though I never had the turtle van. My cousin did...and I was insanely jealous. [/color]

[color=#707875]Well, here I am, creating one of those funky "banner threads". I guess I'm creating this thread mainly because a few people have asked about some of my banners. And since I'm using a random image script...you obviously see a different one at a different time. So, I thought I'd show them all here at once, rather than having them rotated. I guess that these banners all have a similar theme in some regards. They are mostly based on a Mik Sang style of photography. Mik Sang is where you basically crop out a section of a larger image, to convey its "essence". Some images follow this line more strictly while others don't. And some don't follow any principle at all -- they're just fun/silly images that I produced. So, here they are. I'll label what they relate to above each one. Viewtiful Joe [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/candystripes.jpg[/img] Final Fantasy X-2 [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/cityofruinsnew.jpg[/img] Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/ffvii2banner.gif[/img] Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/ffVIIbanner2.jpg[/img] Go-Go Yubari (Kill Bill) [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/go-goyubaribanner.jpg[/img] Go-Go Yubari (Kill Bill) [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/gogoyubaribanner2.gif[/img] Final Fantasy X-2 [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/greatcavernnew.jpg[/img] Kill Bill [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/killbillbanner1.jpg[/img] Kill Bill [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/killbillbanner2.jpg[/img] Kill Bill [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/killbillbanner3.gif[/img] The Matrix: Revolutions [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/revolutionsbanner1.jpg[/img] The Matrix: Revolutions [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/revolutionsbanner2.jpg[/img] The Matrix: Revolutions [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/revolutionsbanner3.jpg[/img] The Matrix: Revolutions [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/revolutionsbanner4.jpg[/img] The Matrix: Revolutions [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/revolutionsbanner5.jpg[/img] SSX3 [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/ssxbanner.jpg[/img] Viewtiful Joe [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/banners/VJ2.jpg[/img] Generally speaking, my editing on these images is pretty light. However, the edits that I [i]do[/i] make are very specific. Lately I've been focusing on editing colour/midtone/shadow quite a lot. I think that some of the subtle (sometimes very major) effects created by this can be really unique. I've changed a lot of these images around also. I used to have a few others that aren't there anymore...and I'll probably keep adding/replacing them over time. I've done this because I can never settle on one banner -- the random image code has been very useful to me in this regard. I'm too fickle; I can't ever settle on one thing. So, I just keep adding simple things that spark my interest now and then. ^_^[/color]

[color=#707875]For Christmas...I want...OtakuBoards v7! Hehe. But you already knew that. ~_^ Seriously though, I don't know what I want. I never do. I have everything I need, pretty much...I mean, sure, it's nice to buy new video games and clothes and things...but eh. I can live without that stuff. I'm happy with my life as it is. Anything else is just a bonus. ^_^[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B][color=teal]Hey why don't we go and give crap to cripples? They are DAMN SELFISH don't you think? Can't stand it the way the parade around all the time... Selfish of them for not walking/hearing/seeing/moving isn?t it? No idea how society handles them?[/color][/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Cloricus, Cloricus, Cloricus. Where do I even start? Where in my post do I indicate some kind of stupid contempt for truly suicidal people, as your portrayal of my comments suggests? Don't be so utterly blind next time you try to paint my comments in a particular way. This quote above has absolutely nothing to do with what I said...it doesn't even come close. It is, in fact, the opposite of much of my contention. Note that I made specific and frequent [i]distinctions[/i] between "truly suicidal" and "fake suicidal" people. Oh, wait...no, you didn't bother with that. You skimmed and jumped at the chance to look intelligent, while "rebutting" me in some odd way. Go and read my posts again. This is my vain attempt to get you to understand what I was saying.[/color][quote][b][color=teal] People driven to Suicide have a problem, like every one else; just the problem is in their head and it some times ends in death. It is no different than say the afflictions of a cripple of some description, there appears to be no way out of their situation to them and in a lot of people that go all the way to others. "Cowards" is thrown around all the time to describe suicides because people around them cannot deal with the fact that they drove some one they know and love to kill themselves just for example the columbine massacres in America, it was every one else?s fault except for the people that run the system that brought them up and will continue to produce people that will do things like this until society is fixed. Though that isn?t going to happen any time soon so people need to deal with it better and ignorant people like some that have posted only make it worse. If you think some one is depressed drop the **** and talk to them, that?s all it takes to stop most of the ones that go all the way; some one to talk to. Or is that too hard? [/color][/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I guess you haven't read my previous posts (not in this thread) relating to the fact that suicide is often the result of mental illness. I don't even want to do a line-by-line quote. This just...falls so very short of being any kind of critique of what I was saying. Again, re-read my posts. Surely English isn't too difficult to understand. I apologize in advance if my post sounds harsh. But I'm very tired of you, Cloricus. Either read my posts carefully and slowly next time and respond to them when you have understood, or, atlernatively, do not respond.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]Concept. I refer to eXistenZ, a film that came out before M1. It features almost the same exact plot, same exact concept, and the execution is eerily similar. The only difference between the two is presentation. eXistenZ uses a humane and organic approach.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I can come up with plenty of movies made before The Matrix that have some significant similarities. But I don't use that as a basis to discredit The Matrix itself; I take the story of The Matrix for what it is. And, as I keep bringing up this point...particularly with the short stories, one really must explore the entire "universe" to fully grasp what is being portrayed here. I think it's critical in this case.[/color][quote][b] Production values do not make a movie, and in my opinion, production values should not be included in determining a ?cinematic masterpiece.? Look at the Star Wars prequels. Their production values were astronomically high, and they sucked *** (for lack of a better phrase lol). The Prequels were blasted by critics for being half-assed, and the high production values just added to the ?suckiness? of the Prequels.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I agree. Production values don't make a movie. The Matrix's story stands up on its own -- quite successfully -- without the need to even be presented as a film. And this is also where some of my beef with The Matrix series lies. Reloaded just didn't do justice to the brilliant story. There is no question there. I think that if you try to present the story in this way...you're going to have to work very hard and be highly creative to really present it accurately. The Matrix does a pretty good job of it, while Reloaded is missing something. Call it lesser dialogue, or pacing issues, or whatever you like...but neither of us deny that there is a problem with presentation. The fundamental point that I'm trying to express, however, is that your critique of the movie is too much of a surface issue. It deals with these technical elements to the film...elements that are perhaps important to the movie, but which do not diminish the fundamental story and idea. Reloaded is a good movie. It's not great -- absolutely not great. But it shouldn't be blasted when not fully understood...and it shouldn't be [i]dismissed[/i] as being some kind of mass market tripe, when this is [i]not[/i] what it is. There is true creative genius behind it -- even if Reloaded isn't the best example of that. And that creative genius should be appreciated.[/color][quote][b] Physical execution. Matrix used wire techniques, kung fu, and highly advanced computer imaging and camera systems. Wire techniques had been in use since the Godzilla movies, if not earlier?actually, sci-fi films from the 40s and 50s used wire techniques for monster movement. Movies like The Thing (both versions), Them, even the Star Wars Trilogy all used variations of wire techniques.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The Matrix also used revolutionary camera techniques. What's your point? That The Matrix's effects aren't 100% original? That has no relevancy. I never claimed that The Matrix's effects were 100% original...I was speaking entirely about the plot. I mean, again...Kill Bill's effects could be blasted in this way too. But what point would I be proving? I'd only be sounding ridiculously anal about it. This has no bearing on whether or not the movie is any good, let alone whether its plot stands up.[/color][quote][b] Kung fu. 60s and 70s exploitation movies. The level of kung fu and martial arts used then isn?t quite as advanced, but that?s precisely the point. Matrix is using state of the art equipment to film its kung fu sequences and is therefore regarded as cinematic masterpiece. Odd.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]What are you talking about? You aren't responding to me here at all. I didn't cite The Matrix as being a cinematic masterpiece, based on the effects or choreography used. PoisonTongue, you need to remember who you are talking to here. You aren't talking to some stupid Matrix fanboy who thinks it's the best thing in the world because of some fancy 360 degree camera work. In fact, the techniques used in filming haven't even factored into my logic on this issue.[/color][quote][b] Computer imaging and cameras. 1999. Almost turn of the century. T2, 1993 (roughly). Kicked open the door for CG and to date, unmatched perfection. Star Wars, 1977. Special effects infancy. 2001. 1964. Techniques unmatched today. Who today has been able to recreate the rotating interior without resorting to computer graphics? King Kong. 1933. Damn near invented blue screen effects, revolutionized stop motion animation and matting techniques. I have not seen another movie achieve the level of animation excellence and matting like in King Kong.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Again, what's the point? To me, this quote looks like you're simply trying to sound impressive by posting cinema history. lol This has absolutely no bearing on my original post. [/color][quote][b] That?s saying quote a lot, James, lol. One of the most underrated films in HISTORY? Is Reloaded more underrated than Evil Dead? More than Clockwork Orange? Night of the Living Dead? Godzilla? Timothy Dalton James Bond? Jason and the Argonauts? Being John Malkovich? Adaptation? Return Of The Jedi? Eyes Wide Shut? Man On The Moon? Dr. Strangelove?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]My answer: Yes. lol But to be more specific...The Matrix as a whole (comics, stories, Animatrix, essays, movies) is underrated. It's underrated not just because there are people who do not appreciate it -- yet who have not completely consumed the entire franchise and are thus not in a position to fully understand it -- but moreover, because most of the population is watching the pretty effects and understanding the most obvious aspects of the movie. It's not really their fault, but they do themselves a disservice when they don't seek out the other material. The other material really comprises 75% of "The Matrix universe". In this context...yes, absolutely, The Matrix is as underrated as any of the movies you've mentioned. You can look at Reloaded in a vaccuum and say that it was a disappointing movie -- in many respects, I will agree with you. But I will only agree with you in terms of the movie being used as a vehicle to deliver an idea to an audience. I will not agree that the underlying principles are not sound, because they are.[/color][quote][b] It is milking the franchise. I?m willing to bet the W. were sitting around, musing over Matrix success, and thought, ?Hey! We?ve got a following, we?ve got the audience in our pockets, let?s do this!? Why do I think this? Look at the plot of Animatrix and compare it to M1. I?m pretty sure that Animatrix makes no mention whatsoever of Oracle prophesizing the One?s return, like Morpheus describes in M1. Since Second Renaissance does in place, take part during the war and subjugation, wouldn?t the One be seen, mentioned?[i]something[/i] anywhere? Granted, the One is seen in other short bits, which leads me to believe they originally wanted Animatrix stuff to be in Reloaded, but cut it (but didn?t cut enough lol).[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The answer is: No. This is because you might not be understanding what The One is. There would be no concept at all of The One in The Second Renaissance. The One is only a result of The Matrix's flawed application to mankind. So, no...The Animatrix does gel with the original movie.[/color][quote][b] If Matrix isn?t a commercial slave, isn?t a marketing slave, why a total synchronized release of Reloaded, Enter The Matrix, and Animatrix? Why a ?Year Of The Matrix? in 2003? If it isn?t a commercially enslaved series, why didn?t they wait a few years? The Star Wars Trilogy had a few years between the films and did quite well.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The second two movies were originally due to be released at the same time. As far as I know, the third was pushed back so that more time could be allowed for the crew in post production. But I'm not 100% sure on that. The Animatrix is a necessary but seperate part of the story. How else could these individual stories have been included in Reloaded? It makes sense to produce a seperate piece. Why hasn't Kill Bill's second episode been moulded into the first movie? Why are they waiting until next year to release it? Isn't this an example of a franchise that is a slave to commercialism? That comment sounds nice, but it is simply emotional rhetoric. The point is -- and I'm sure most will agree -- The Matrix is the same as any other movie. Regardless of how creative or valuable it may be in terms of story and so on, it is, of course, subject to a certain level of commercialism. The same is true of any new movie, regardless of how brilliant it is. But to what extent do we use this to attack the movie itself? To what extent does this make the movie "bad" or "invalid"? I don't think it has very much application here. The Matrix is only as commercial as any other movie out there. This is a hollow criticism.[/color][quote][b] Might I add, Enter The Matrix was released BEFORE it was complete, full of glitches, bugs, engine hiccups, etc. The PS2 version is nearly unplayable, and the other 2 versions crash when playing a certain level. Is this evidence of a series that isn?t commercially enslaved? Doesn?t look too commercially independent to me.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I agree about Enter the Matrix. It was a pretty horrendous game. But I hold Shiny to account for that. The Wachowskis are not video game developers -- as admirable as their intentions were with the game, they don't understand video games and Enter the Matrix proves that. Shiny was a bad choice. But again, how much do I use this as a bearing on how bad the movie is? This makes no qualitative difference to the fundamentals of the story whatsoever. This is a technical, peripheral issue. Moreover...commercially enslaved? Read my above comments. This sounds like nice emotional rhetoric. But I don't know how accurate it is. Again, there are many, many movies which have featured video games near or on their release. I don't use this as an indication of The Matrix especially being a "slave" to commercialism, any further than other movies out there on the market. And I certainly don't use this as any bearing on the qualitative nature of the franchise.[/color][quote][b] While I respect journalists, there?s a difference between fiction and reporting. While both professions require labor-intensive practice, there is a distinct difference between writing a sci-fi movie and reporting on a sci-fi movie. When you?re writing a story, you have to keep in mind how the story will?read?to the reader. How the dialogue will present itself. Let me ask you, James, when you write an article, do you write it in a long-winded manner, in a manner that doesn?t sound natural and doesn?t flow off the tongue? Or do you write that article in a way so that your reader will be able to follow it easily? Do you use long words and phrases to sound cool or to impress a point on your readers? Do you write the article in a way that requires repeated readings? No, because you aren?t chained to capitalism. While you may view the Architect scene?s dialogue as necessary and the authors? motives for writing it as such are to require multiple viewings, I see it as a way to get more people to [i]go back[/i] to the theatre, to buy [i]another[/i] 7 dollar ticket.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]This is an incredibly, incredibly cheap shot. Very sly, PT. ~_^ So you're saying that by making The Architect use correct English and slightly uncommon words, the creators are thus slaves to commercialism and are only wanting to suck more money out of poor moviegoers? Give me a break. That is complete and utter rubbish. The Architect's eloquence and intelligence are natural traits of his character -- they are, [i]of course[/i], what we would expect of an artificial life form such as himself. This whole argument that even The Architect's dialogue is designed with commercialism in mind is absolutely far out and almost bordering on some kind of bizarre conspiracy theory.[/color][quote][b] I mean, surely you can?t deny that in order for something to continue, it has to be successful and make?gasp?money.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Of course. What's your point? Yes, you could say that all of these elements (with the exception of The Architect's dialogue) is designed to make more money. Of course it is. But what the hell is wrong with that? lol. And who says that, just because this is the case, that this is also the supreme motivation of the creators? You've seen The Animatrix. You are aware of the kind of creativity and love that went into its production. To simply dismiss this as greedy capitalism is, at best, crazy.[/color][quote][b] One of the most important rules of fiction writing is if you can cut it, you cut it. That?s a rule of filmmaking, and I?m willing to bet that?s a rule of journalism, too. Correct? If you can cut something, you cut it.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Of course.[/color][quote][b] The dialogue was ?padded.? The scene was basic. The message was basic. Oooh, a cyclical world. The extraneous wording was used to hide what the scene really was: anti-climactic and weak. For a conversational climax scene that works, Pulp Fiction. Jules at the end, in the diner, buying Tim Roth?s life. That is brilliant writing, because it flows and isn?t pretentiously padded. Reloaded?s Architect scene is horribly, most pretentiously padded. The audience spent 2.5 hours for that? A poorly written, monotone monologue? Gah, lol.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]But I don't think you understood The Architect scene. How was it padded? Give me specific examples. The fact that you even tell me that the audience waited 2.5 hours for a poorly written monologue only proves to me that you totally missed the important (and often subtle) major plot elements that came beforehand. And what do you mean by monotone? How did you expect a machine to sound? I mean, really. This is a very, very weak criticism. [/color][quote][b] Rave scene=boring. We agree! :)[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yep, boring. Should have been replaced by something more plot-related and more significant to the overall story. It took far too long for the film makers to represent "man's defiance of machine oppression".[/color][quote][b] Cause and effect. Yup. We need the machines, they need us. Yup. Hm. Oracle. Programs hunting programs. Telling the main character of a massive decision he will need to make, or rather, has already made. Yup. Architect. Summed up with, ?Matrix 1 didn?t matter, cause it?s cyclical, baaaby!? How?s that for showing respect to a series? When in one scene, the entire first chapter is killed?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]You didn't understand the movie. Your summation of The Architect's comments is completely incorrect. The Architect was not saying that the first Matrix didn't matter "because it's cyclical". He wasn't even saying that it didn't matter. And it's easy to brush off "cause and effect" and "Oracle" like that. But to me, this only shows that you didn't see the significance of either segment in the movie.[/color][quote][b] Porno dialogue?s biggest nail in the coffin is how it feels totally unrelated and unnecessary to the action at hand. I mean, look at Striptease (not a full porno, but). The dialogue is atrociously bad, and does nothing more than to bore us until Demi starts stripping lol. It?s dialogue that doesn?t matter. It?s dialogue that means nothing. It?s dialogue that doesn?t fit and doesn?t feel natural to the movie. Reloaded?s dialogue falls into this chasm.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]In some respects, I agree. Some dialogue is simply pointless and it makes me wonder why it's there -- it ruins the more important and philosophical moments in the movie. But...to dismiss all of the dialogue in this way (and as you did above, with some specific scenes), again only demonstrates that perhaps you misunderstood elements of the movie. [/color][quote][b] OK, so you?re saying the fighting is now LESS like ballet and more like?hard hits? How is that more different than the porno analogy? If the movements are becoming [i]less[/i] graceful and more brutal, the movie is moving closer to porno dialogue.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]No...this doesn't interpret me correctly at all. Perhaps it was my wording though. What I meant was that, the physical impact of the strikes between characters wasn't as "airy" as I'd first thought. But by all means, the choreography was very "ballet-like". This is a testament to the fact that much of the choreography is very artistic and not necessarily "beat 'em up" as in a movie like T3. This isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing...it simply comes down to personal taste on this point.[/color][quote][b] I?m not canning this movie because of some insane notion of glitzy special effects being the devil. I?m not canning this movie because I just can?t stand people enjoying it and I take the opposite side. My criticism is not based on superficiality. My criticism is based on mediocrity in general, whether that mediocrity stems from technique or presentation, substance, writing, etc.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Your criticism is based 75% on superficiality and 25% on misunderstanding. lol You just spent a large part of your post telling me about how The Matrix is terrible because it's a slave to commercialism. You spoke about several scenes and brushed them off -- with clear misinterpretations of what they meant. This includes dialogue. I think much of your criticism is unfounded. And that is the only reason I'm even here defending this movie, aside from the fact that I think it's a "franchise" that deserves to be appreciated -- though of course, I know that not everyone will either appreciate or understand it.[/color][quote][b] So, a movie is visionary BECAUSE it borrows stuff? Because it borrows ideas from other things? Because it??steals? philosophical names, ideas, themes? A filmmaker is visionary BECAUSE they steal ideas and themes?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]No. The movie is visionary because it takes some very universal ideas and paints them with a unique brush. The story itself -- regardless of what it does or doesn't borrow -- is unique. The presentation is unique. We have, as an entire package...something that utilizes many mediums to tell a very cohesive and winding story. You are only pigeonholing this movie based on largely superficial issues. There are plenty of movies that you have mentioned here, which borrow themes and ideas from either older films or older novels. But that, again, misses the point. Not only does it miss my point about why I think the movie is worthwhile, but it misses the whole point of even watching and enjoying the movie in the first place. [/color][quote][b] I do get it. Commercially enslaved ;)[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]No, you don't get it. You are too obsessed with superficial elements and this idea of "commercial enslavement", which in this case, is not only a double standard...but is largely your own invention, applied to this movie. You also don't seem to "get" aspects of The Architect's monologue or several other important discussions. I could be wrong about this, but you haven't indicated anything else to me -- you've quite happily skipped over The Oracle's comments without any mention and you've misintepreted The Architect, or, at least, what you've mentioned of his monologue and its relationship to the rest of the movie.[/color][quote][b] I think the biggest problem here is, the populace is still in awe of The Matrix. Give it a few years. Hell, give it two years. The Matrix will just be another blip on the cinematic radar.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yes and no. The overwhelming populace is still in awe of The Matrix -- largely for its effects. Few of these people really understand what it is saying. And that is the only reason why it might become a blip on the cinematic radar. If those who truly attempt to look at the entire story decide that the movie is a blip on the radar...they will have missed a very magical opportunity. Shame on them.[/color][quote][b] I?ve taken the liberty of an edit on your post. ?The Matrix is absolutely a sincere [i]exploitation[/i] of humanity, in a variety of ways.? That sums up my entire thesis. Funny how by changing one word in one sentence, two conflicting viewpoints can both be supported. In this sense, we agree to disagree, and to discuss Matrix through AIM. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]How is The Matrix an exploitation of humanity? Because it is a nasty capitalist monster? That comment does not sum up your thesis...and your thesis can't be supported by misinterpretation and hollow or unrelated sniping. But yes, I'll be happy to continue to discuss this with you on AIM. As it stands, we're probably off topic anyway...as this discussion is squarely about The Matrix: Revolutions and theories behind its story. I'd like it to get back to that, particularly because we should use this thread to discuss Revolutions after we've seen it (and it's not far away now).[/color]

[color=#707875]I heard a very frightening superstition a while ago. Before you go to sleep, you take a piece of paper and a pen. And then you write the following (in this [i]exact[/i] order): 1. OMG 2. WTF 3. leik yah 4. ph33r 5. OMFG WTFHAHA!!! LOLZ 6. ur teh winn3rx 8. AZN PWR 9. LOLz SuK0rX! 10. kool usually wheneva i say that dudes get nervous Once you've written these ten phrases down, put the paper underneath your pillow. Then, burp twice and lay on your bed backwards (ie: put your feet on your pillow and your head down the other end). Before you shut your eyes, yell out "HELO B00BIEZ!" If you do this correctly, you will be haunted by spammers. I haven't tried this myself, because I'm simply too terrified to do it. The very idea of this happening to me is incredibly horrific. In terms of other superstitions...no, I don't believe in them. I don't believe in any of them, with the exception of the Spamm0r Curs3.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Skeith34 [/i] [B]OK... I'm sorry! You don't have to Ambush me!:blackeye: [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Why are you apologizing? You didn't do anything wrong. You simply made a suggestion. And other members responded to you. No need to apologize. And...nobody ambushed you. Ambushing you means that we would have come up and started making these comments pre-emptively. But I mean...this wasn't unexpected -- you made the first post. Surely you expected people to respond. Just clarifying a few things. ~_^[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinji Ikari [/i] [B][b] One other thing that I have discovered is, the Merovingan heavily hints on there being previous versions of "the One" when Neo Trinity and Morpheus encounter him. this leads me to the idea that you should be open to anything and everything to happen in Revolutions, subtle plots hints can turn into some of the most fundamental points of the movie, and that where I think this movies trains of thought succeed exceedingly well.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yep. [spoiler]There were five prior versions of The One. The One is actually cyclical anomaly, based on the minority of human beings who reject the subconscious choice to accept The Matrix. As we learn from The Second Renaissance -- the original version of The Matrix was a utopia. But for various reasons, human beings couldn't tolerate it. Their minds rejected it. It was only Version 2 of The Matrix that presented things differently -- and that gave individuals a subconscious choice as to whether or not they'd accept it. Of course, most did. Some didn't. The point is that, Neo himself carries a certain amount of code that, when reinserted into The Matrix...will cause it to reboot with "improved settings", so to speak. This means that fewer people will reject the new system. The idea is that this process will continue and continue until [i]everybody[/i] accepts The Matrix. However, if Neo doesn't enter the source...The Matrix will undergo a system crash as a result. And that, as The Architect says, will cause everyone connected to The Matrix to die. Does this mean that the machines could never use The Matrix again? No. If you remember the first movie, human beings are harvested in large fields (where embryos are grown in small pods, attached to large "mechnical plants"). So, I just assume that the fields would be large enough that the machines could recoup their losses in a certain amount of time -- but it may mean that they'd have to start the process over again. Neo chooses to re-enter The Matrix to save Trinity. By doing so, he ensures that both Zion [i]and[/i] The Matrix will be destroyed. Had he chosen to return to the source, The Matrix would have remained online...and Zion would have been destroyed, except that Neo would have been able to choose individuals from within The Matrix to start a "new" Zion. So, this essentially reveals that Zion is a form of machine control. It is not, as the humans would like to think, some kind of free place that they've built on their own. In actual fact, the machines [i]allow[/i] Zion to exist.[/spoiler][/color][quote][b] The Oracle was very profound in her wording too, Neo suspects her of being a program, and I don't think she directly says she is in fact, a program, but we get the feeling she is. The Oracle, who was the cornerstone of the first movie, prophesising about the One, could very well have just been another computer program intent on control, Might I suggest that neo has had such an impact on The Oracle, that she now knows, or thinks, the end of the Matrix draws nigh?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Well... [spoiler]The Oracle is a machine-created program. However, she isn't a part of The Matrix. Notice that her bodyguard protects her...and that he addresses her when it's time to leave. Presumably, she is always in danger. She's a highly valuable program and no doubt, individuals like Smith and the Merovingian pose a significant threat to her. As far as I know, the Merovingian attempts to kidnap her in the third movie. Remember, he trades in knowledge...and The Oracle is possibly the empitome of that trade. Neo tells The Oracle that she is a program and she accepts that. That's why Neo mentions that he doesn't know whether to trust her or not. She could be trustworthy or she could be deliberately designed by the machines to hoodwink Neo. Bear this in mind; she urges Neo to find the Merovingian and to locate the keymaker. Why does he locate the keymaker? He locates the keymaker so that he can enter the door which leads back to the machine mainframe. The Oracle has advised him to enter the machine mainframe. The Architect gives him this same advice, essentially. This is what he is [i]supposed[/i] to do, in order to perpetuate The Matrix and ensure the destruction of Zion for a seventh time. So, The Oracle is urging Neo to fulfill his purpose -- to perpetuate The Matrix. Does this make The Oracle seem like a benevolent character? It's something to think about. ~_^[/color][/spoiler][quote][b] This all ties in very well with the Animatrix. Matrix Reloaded began unravelling the story of man/machine relations that date back to B166ER, and that, my expectations for Revolutions will be a more profound understanding of the history between man and machines from both sides,[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yep. The relationship between man and machine also mirrors the relationship between program and machine. I think that, if Reloaded did reveal anything important, it was probably this issue.[/color][quote][b] I also think that alot more of renegade Agent Smith will be integral to Revolutions, whose transformation from agent of the system to free rebel program is interesting to say the least, I will be looking forward to seeing how this all plays out in the conclusion.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Me too. Smith is kind of like a virus. And he's duplicated himself so many times...that he is not only powerful enough to play around with the humans who enter The Matrix, but he's [i]also[/i] powerful enough to completely take out the Agents. The Agents are the machines' "Matrix police", as you know. If Smith is capable of overriding these forces, he essentially has free reign over The Matrix -- short of the machines physically shutting it down. [spoiler]This makes me think that Smith -- by also using one of his clones to take human form -- is to the machines what they were to humans. The machines have, in effect, lost control of their own creations. And they, like humans before them, didn't show enough respect for their new life forms.[/spoiler][/color][quote][b] In conclusion, I don't think I've done the story any justice, and that, hopefully, is saying alot ^^. The Matrix world is vast and complex, and some things I really don't understand, but I intend on finding the meaning to. This is [i] why [/i] I don't believe it's just "high school level philosophy" my opinion anyway. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Correct. And what I've talked about here...this only scratches the surface. There is so much to explore. The Animatrix is great for understanding more of it, because it gives you a bigger perspective on the machine/human relationship and what The Matrix means -- especially when it comes to talking about humanity itself. Some of the short stories have been very eye-opening for me, too. One of them was written by Morris Gleitzmann (I think that's how you spell his last name). He's an Australian author and he writes about a character who lives in London...and who's life is dramatically affected by The Matrix. [spoiler]At one point he's riding on the train...and time starts moving backwards and forwards...at one point he's in space and at another point, he lives ten years of his life in ten minutes. He even talks to a machine at several points, who begins to reveal a little more information about what is happening to him. In the end, he returns to his regular way of life. But this story is written from the perspective of someone living "within The Matrix". So...it reveals a lot about the effects that The Matrix has on humanity. It's one reason why there's still so much to explore, even if you've seen The Animatrix.[/spoiler][/color]

[color=#707875]That's a rather cool picture. I like the fact that you weren't afraid to use pink. Good on ya. ~_^ I like the proportions of Joe...they're generally in-line. You've done the face quite well and I think you've captured his movement quite well also. I'd say, to improve, that you might want to focus on your colouring a bit more. You know...use small circles of colour rather than straight lines. That may help. And...if you go a bit more slowly and try to stick within the outlines, you'll get a neater image. You may also want to significantly darken the outlines. I think that'd suit Viewtiful Joe's theme. In any case, good job. Keep up the good work. [/color]

[color=#707875]Well, I guess that my current tastes influence my feelings on this banner. Lately I've become far more interested in very basic manipulations of images. So, if you look at my banners...some are very mildly edited while others are more heavily edited. I love experimenting with colours/shadows/midtones and adding or removing bits and pieces here and there. I also love the whole idea of Mik Sang photography (capturing the essence of something by taking a small portion of it and showing only that). Also, I generally prefer 2D work over 3D work...which means that I tend to dislike bevels. I like bevels if they're thin and tidy, or if they're deliberately very soft and plastic-like...but that has to be accompanied by good use of lighting and texture. I like what you've done and what you've attempted to do here. I'd say that the bevels could probably do with being a bit lighter and sharper. And, maybe, rather than showing everyone in a plain line...maybe you could just crop out the details of one or two characters. In my avatar, I kinda did this with Niobe (though it looks better on my homepage at myOtaku). I also changed the colours a little and edited the shadows. So, there's a lot you can do, even with a few basic effects. If I had to give this a numerical score...I'd give it maybe a 4/10. I like where it's going...I just don't feel that it's arrived at its destination yet. ^_^[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i] [B][color=crimson] But, it was not a defense at all. Just a rejection of the stereotype that the subject of suicide brings of cowardly, selfish bastards looking for an 'easy' way out. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Suicide is nevertheless a "way out". What does that mean? If someone is unable to deal with issues in their life...they resort to suicide. People do it if they're trying to deal with extreme grief...they do it if they are highly depressed or mentally unstable...they do it to get revenge on someone...they do it to "escape" the troubles of life. I don't know what other reasons exist. Suicide is always a "way out" of something. Do you see what I mean? Of course, it takes initial courage to do something violent to yourself...but even then, the "courage" is only present to allow you to cause temporary pain on your own body. Because of course, the assumption is that it will all be over...that you'll fall asleep and never wake up. So, of course it's an "easy way out" so to speak. It's easier than dealing with issues in one's life...it's easier than dealing with the loss of a very close loved one...it's easier than going through your day-to-day life, trying to improve your situation by other means. I just can't see another way to define it. I don't mean to say that the motivation for suicide is always selfishness in and of itself. But, the act of suicide is a selfish act. Of course it is. Whether or not it's ever justified or whether or not the person committing suicide is actually in a lot of pain...I don't doubt any of these things. Every situation is different and I would never stereotype a group of people in some arbitrary way. But you have to understand what I'm saying. I'm just trying to explain my thoughts a little better. As far as suicide being cool...there are people who wear suicide and "attempted suicide" as a badge. Either it's to make them popular, to draw in sympathy for them or to make themselves look tough. And it's wrong; it's a complete mockery of people who really [i]do[/i] have serious troubles. People who talk constantly of suicide as though it's some cool/tough experience completely lose my respect. It's immature, naive and disrespectful of those with real problems. I say that only to define the difference between truly suicidal people and those who are "kinda depressed and suffering other normal teenage traits" - one of which is some kind of fake obsession with death and suicide. And, you know who these people are. I mean...you and I both have seen various threads where people are being all melodramatic about it. It's rubbish. I would [i]never[/i] wish that those people really go through the true pain of suicide.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Harry [/i] [B] Most of it was nonsense. How can you say a movie is good when there's some 20 minute slow motion mass orgy scene to crappy music, while showing a really bad sex scene. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I hate to sound like a broken record...but this only proves that you didn't understand the movie. I mean, it would be like me taking something such as Kill Bill...and saying "Did you see how fake it was with the blood? God. How can you call this movie GOOD?" When, in actual fact...it can be demonstrated that there's a hell of a lot more to Kill Bill. This is how I feel with The Matrix. And it's a conclusion I've reached over time...and over evolving feelings about the film. I can probably clarify my position by adding something else, too. In my opinion, the fundamental plot of The Matrix is pure genius. The philosophical questions...the biting irony...it's a powerful, powerful franchise. [i]But[/i], Reloaded simply hasn't continued to present these ideas as well as the original movie did. As I said in the Kill Bill thread, I believe that this is mostly a result of the directors putting the emphasis on the wrong areas at certain points. It makes me wish that we'd get a great movie of The Second Renaissance...or that we'd get a movie of the collected comic works. There is so much beauty, so much depth and so many grotesque and dark elements...it's a story that deserves to be told in nothing less than a beautiful way. My feeling is that while Reloaded is a [i]good[/i] movie, it [i]could[/i] have presented the plot and ideas in a more cohesive way. Where Kill Bill didn't have much of a plot in comparison, the presentation was so utterly gorgeous that one cannot help being sucked in -- Kill Bill emphasized the little things and ended up taking a relatively average story and making it spectacular. Reloaded, on the other hand, is a slightly clumsy attempt to truly portray a wonderful universe. Perhaps this explains my position a little better. This is why I do not accept certain comments about the actual fundamentals...because this story is far from shallow or anything of that kind. It deserves to be heard and to be appreciated.[/color]

[color=#707875]Whew, finally I can comment on this movie. I just saw it...so it's very fresh in my mind. I'll say two things right off the bat. First and foremost...I think that most people are overrating this movie. The characters and story are not nearly as fleshed-out as they could be. And there are a few pacing issues with the film. [i]However[/i], I do think that this movie is possibly a "visual masterpiece". Not in terms of special effects, per se, but in terms of cinematography. Most of the shots in the movie are simply amazing. The use of typography works so very well...and the way music is used at particular points (without requiring words to tell the story) is masterful. I was very impressed by the actual technical production of the movie. I was also generally impressed by the interwoven elements of old hong kong action flicks, spaghetti westerns and Matrix-esque elements. It came together well...it didn't come across as being tired or boring and instead, it felt very new and fresh. The "newness" of this movie is impressive to me, because so many movies feel stale. Even The Matrix Reloaded -- despite the fact that it is a window on an incredibly deep plot -- didn't feel "new" like the first movie. I don't blame that on special effects...I blame that on less-than-amazing cinematography and direction. In my opinion, Kill Bill proves that you don't need the most ground breaking effects. If you are good with a camera...you can move mountains. This movie proves it. (I would also say that Jenna's photography helps to prove this point as well -- her black and white stuff is gorgeous. I'm just generally very impressed by what she does with a camera.)[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Inuyasha Fandom [/i] [B]I'm not being suicaidal, not really. I'm just confused about what to do in life. The main poat, how I started this topic, is about asking what keeps you going. I see no pointr in going on. Life itself has become meaningless most of the time. I don't see anything worth trying for........ I have lost my way, and I don't belive in anything anymore. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I think we all feel that way sometimes. It happens. The key is just to try and get through it; to think about the [i]positives[/i] that do exist in your life. Surely you can find something worthwhile. It sounds to me like maybe you just need to occupy your mind with something. To me, it sounds like your problem is boredom more than depression as such. But as I said, we all have confused times in our lives...I'm sure you'll get through it. Try not to worry too much about it. ^_^[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Molleta [/i] [B][color=green] I agree that suicide is ultimately a selfish act. I don't think that DeathKnight was glorifying suicide. But do not think that a person on the edge is not riddled with guilt with what they may inflict on those who care? Do you really think that it is not a frightening event for them? To say that a person who actually follows through with it does not have some sort of courage...It may not be the same kind of courage as you, the courage to face the world and ability to deal with what it throws you. [/color][/b][/quote] [color=#707875]I don't think anyone is saying that suicide is not frightening. It is. But, suicide shouldn't be discussed as though it's some Disneyland rollercoaster ride, you know? It's not a light issue and it's not an issue related to one's image. I'm not saying that specifically in relation to DeathKnight, I'm just saying it more as a general issue (related to all the suicide threads we've had here in the past.)[/color][quote][b][color=green] Isn't it just as selfish of the people around them to make them continue an existence they despise simply for the fact that the crowd may want them around? Maybe they should show that desire while the person is still alive, and he wouldn't want to die[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]No...but nobody is suggesting that. I think the basic point is that suicide isn't cool. It doesn't mean that you're tough and it should never be used to prop up some kind of funky exterior image to the rest of the world. Suicide is a serious issue and it's generally not something that "truly suicidal people" go around talking about at every opportunity. So, with a lot of these threads...I get the feeling that a lot of people (particularly the kids we've had who have started the threads in the first place, in the past) aren't old/mature enough to understand the gravity of these things.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Skeith34 [/i] [B]I think that not being allowed to use online grammar (i.e. u=you ur=your, etc.) Is VERY unfair. Please remove this rule. all the other message boards allow it, Why can't you? I thank you if you get rid of this Harsh rule. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Well, I'd ask you to see it from our point of view. You are right in saying that most online forums allow people to post with poor quality. What we've tried to do, is create a place free of that -- somewhere where people can go and not have to see cluttered, spammy posts all the time. So, given that we created this site and everything...it's our right to make that determination. We've consciously chosen what we want to do here. I'm sure that this will not suit everyone's tastes. And, possibly, we are even potentially discouraging some people from joining as a result. But I don't mind. I'd rather be in that situation, than simply allowing the floodgates open to all kinds of lower quality posts.[/color]

[color=#707875]I personally like to watch the trailers, because sometimes I see something that is very unexpected. But I also agree that they show too much. Some of the best scenes from Reloaded were shown during trailers...and I think that hurt the movie. It killed any sense of surprise. Having said that, I somewhat like the trailers also for the fact that if I turn up a bit late...I know the movie hasn't started. lol I am absolutely paranoid about getting to the movie on time, even though I'm often in allocated seating. o_O;[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]Having finally seen Reloaded, I now can offer crit upon it. I?m going to put the entire thing in Spoiler tags, most likely because I?m too damn lazy right now to go into my review and put spoiler in the appropriate places. Okay. Disappointing. VERY disappointing. Of course, M1 really was empty to begin with, but not to the extent of M2.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]How on earth can you say that The Matrix was empty? It was anything [i]but[/i] empty. The Matrix was really a cinematic masterpiece, from concept and plot through to physical execution and production value. As I said earlier, the plot alone would make a great drama -- even when one ignores the fight sequences.[/color][quote][b] My biggest beef with M2 was?I found myself going ?so what?? during a good portion of it. The characters did not intrigue me. Correction. Agent Smith was the ONLY character that I enjoyed.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Didn't you realize the significance of many of the conversations during the movie? I agree that some converrsations were not incredibly profound, but afterall, I'm not here telling you that Reloaded was the movie to end all movies. I'm just pointing out that so many people fundamentally misunderstood it...I think it's one of the most underrated movies in history. lol[/color][quote][b] The dialogue took a turn for the worse. It was just sloppy and long-winded for the sake of being long-winded. I am now fully convinced the Wachowskis wrote The Matrix Trilogy for 14 year old boys, writing the series in a way that those 14 year old boys could feel intelligent and superior to their classmates/peers.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Oh, absolutely not. Definitely not. lol Many [i]adults[/i] didn't come close to understanding the entire scope of The Matrix. When I talk about The Animatrix and the online comics, I'm absolutely serious about how they open up the universe for the viewer. Charles argues that this is milking the franchise. I'm sure it probably is. But I don't see that as a drawback; look at all the other movie and TV franchises that are milked as much or more. [/color][quote][b] Perhaps it?s because I?m a writer, and know when to listen and such, but I found myself tuning out a lot of the dialogue, translating what was going on, and essentially rewriting the movie as it went along.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I am also a writer; journalism is my career. While some elements of the movie were admittedly poorly written, one cannot fault the fundamentals. My biggest problem is that some [i]great[/i] concepts were simply not delivered with the kind of attention to detail that was required. I would certainly say this about certain conversations during the movie, but I wouldn't say that the entire movie suffered from the problem.[/color][quote][b] It?s sad when an entire scene (check out the Architect scene) can be summed up AT THE END with ONE OR TWO SENTENCES. That scene was at least 10 minutes long. Now, I can take slow stuff. I?ve enjoyed 2001, which is considered to be the slowest sci-fi film ever made. But 2001 grabbed me. M2?didn?t. I draw comparison of MGS and MGS2. Most would agree, MGS2 was frigging wordy and long-winded, double the length of MGS, and quite frankly, saying less?not even half.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Oh, PoisonTongue...how can you say that? lol. You're an intelligent guy! Don't you understand why The Architect scene was produced in that way? Don't you see why it was ten minutes rather than two sentences? I just don't get it. How can you misunderstand it so? Having said that, I do agree that some aspects of the movie were drawn out. The Architect scene was definitely not, however. It was critical and well produced, in my opinion. However, I feel that had the "rave scene" been either taken out or shortened (to make way for more plot-intensive moments), we'd all have been better off. There are a few things that could have used more definition in Reloaded.[/color][quote][b] Such is my problem with M2. Ignoring the fact that M1 was empty, M2 was even emptier. The dialogue just plodded on and on and on, and wasn?t saying anything that couldn?t be summed up in a paragraph.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The Matrix...empty? My jaw is dropping as you say that. lol You probably could sum up several concepts in one paragraph. But what is the point of that? There is none. Look at the discussion of cause and effect, for example. When I first saw that, I was quite bored...and I thought "Geeze, who cares?" I admit, I did feel that way. But I implore you to watch a second time...to listen carefully and to consider this conversation in the context of the entire story. It's very important, it's well written and it's extremely relevant. I'd say the same about The Architect and The Oracle's conversations. The Oracle, for example, subtley hints at things to come -- at the responses that programs have to their machine masters. This is all so important...and it shouldn't be ignored or shrugged off as "plodding along".[/color][quote][b] It was like porno dialogue. And this analogy fits, surprisingly. The Wachowskis expect the audience to jump out of their seats in a wild orgy of excitement. Basically, the punches and kicks were?pumping motions. The blood was released due to those pumping motions. There are moans, grunts, grindings, passionate (almost sensual) movements of body. Porno? Yep.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The dialogue was [i]far[/i] from porno dialogue. Far, far from it. As for punching and kicking...I feel that The Matrix was a bit "balletesque". But generally, the choreography was very good. I watched the movie for a [i]third[/i] time the other day...and generally, when really watching it and thinking about it, I didn't notice the fighting as being like feathery touches. It's really not that bad at all. I just get such a strong sense that this movie is being canned for the wrong reasons. It's being written off so quickly. But there's [i]so[/i] much intelligence, depth and genius in the plot...it doesn't deserve that kind of condemnation, especially when it's a movie that begs to be understood and torn apart by theories. [/color][quote][b] But the term ?art? is tossed around way too loosely. The Matrix series, while commercially entertaining, does not entertain heavier philosophical and religious issues. The Matrix is essentially ?Philosophy-lite, Religion-lite,? in that it is geared toward high school boys, the audience that gobbles up something ?flash-bang, explosions, guns, hot women in leather, kick-*** action sequences.?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]This would have to be the single biggest misinterpretation of the franchise I have [i]ever[/i] seen. Having seen the movies and read the "officially sanctioned" essays and short stories, written by a variety of authors from around the world...I can't even begin to tell you where you are wrong here. There is nothing "lite" about The Matrix. Nothing whatsoever. The problem is that one [i]may[/i] look at the action sequences, or the fact that Keanu Reeves isn't a very good actor and immediately assume that this is the case. You can definitely make yourself sound superior/intelligent if you make these claims. lol Believe me when I tell you that I simply don't have the energy to sit here and go through, point-by-point the deeper philosophical and religious fundamentals of this franchise. I'm only responding this way because this movie is being treated so unfairly...and it is not being understood at all. I am not an unintelligent person, nor am I a person who is pulled in by things easily. If The Matrix were "philosophy-lite", I'd definitely see it. And originally, I did get a sense of that. But...what can I say? I have explored the "universe" and I've become a converted man. lol The creators deserve credit for being truly visionary individuals. I defend this movie not so much because I want to get into an argument over whether you like the movie or not (regardless of your reasons, you have the right to dislike it). The whole reason I am even posting this comment is because I see an injustice of biblical proportions here. lol That's the only way can I describe it.[/color][quote][b] I mean, without the light sprinkling of philosophy and religion, Matrix would just be another action/adventure/sci-fi. But because it includes high-school level philosophy, it is gorged upon by the audience.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]No. No, no. lol PoisonTongue...how can you [i]not[/i] get it? High school level philosophy? Even [i]you[/i] aren't understanding this movie. lol This comment could be taken in two ways. For one thing, you could say that the majority of the populace understands the basics "real world/Matrix" and that's that. You know, as if it gives them a feeling that they've grasped something. Well, that's probably true. I'd agree. However, I could also take offence at your comment. Me, as a person who is defending this movie, could definitely fall within your classification. But I know that I don't. I know, based on what I have seen and consumed of this franchise, that this is a franchise worthy of far more praise than it has received. It just saddens me that it can be attacked so lightly and so inaccurately.[/color][quote][b] Considering that 2001 had a deeper plot and idea, and if plot and idea is all we should be concerned about, why is it not achieving the commercial success of The Matrix? Because The Matrix is entertainment. It?s a slave to commercial nature. No matter how many filmgoers view it as breaking the mold, it?s still in that mold. It is, in my opinion, style over substance. The names feel like they were used to sound cool. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Once again, I simply don't have the time to go through something very detailed here...maybe I will fully indulge you with my time later. How do I put this. It is easy to view The Matrix as pretending to be something that it is truly not. I can see how you would reach that conclusion. When I saw Reloaded the first time, I also felt that way to some extent. I was, in effect, disappointed. The reason that I discuss the comics and the short stories and the essays and The Animatrix is because all of these elements are "officially sanctioned". That is, they tie into one another as the main movies do. And so, when I say that the movies make up 1/3 of the franchise...I'm not kidding. And I'm not just talking about pure content, in terms of the quantity of content that is there to consume. I'm talking about the qualitative nature of the content. How can one view The Animatrix -- then fully understand it -- and claim that The Matrix is some kind of commercial slave? This could not be further from the truth. The Matrix is absolutely a sincere exploration of humanity, in a variety of ways. The ironic way in which the machines are presented (as being ruthlessly dominant over their programs, as humans were with them) is fantastic. Yes, the effects are there...and yes, they're cool. Again, it might be very easy to cynically dismiss the movies and say "Well sure, they are pretty but that means they [i]can't[/i] have any substance". The problem with this attitude is that it dramatically underrates the qualitative nature of the franchise. Of course, I had problems with Reloaded. And I felt that some of the action was quite underwhelming. But when one truly understands the entire franchise...I can only say that one also realizes how unimportant these scenes truly are. It's probably true that such scenes are what most of the public goes to see. I'm sure that 99% of the population is in that same boat. But...all I can say is that I've "seen it all" with regard to this franchise. There is so much intelligent, throught-provoking material to uncover. There's so much in the way of morbid, dark, almost grotesque backstory to become wrapped up in... There's just so much creative genius there. While my comments aren't at all going to change anyone's opinion...they just have to be here. They have to. I just can't say nothing, when I believe that a truly innovative and clever movie/comic/novel franchise is attacked without [i]real[/i] foundation.[/color]

[color=#707875]It's a fact that most suicidal people do not seem suicidal at all -- rather than discussing their feelings with others, they tend to become insular and isolated. Most truly suicidal people are able to adequately hide their tendencies from others. Having said that, I will tell you that I've definitely had some very big negative things occur in my life. I won't sit here and tell you that I drugged myself up or that I slit my own throat...I'm not going to dramatize to you. I'm just going to tell you that I know what it's like. And that's all. I mean, we've had threads here at OtakuBoards where people have talked about suicide as though it was a trip to Disneyland. You know, as though it was something cool or "tough". Some have serious suicide issues, some use talk of suicide to portrey themselves as a tough, hardened soul. This is why I am not sitting here going into any details of my own life -- because I don't want to provide some kind of "show" in any way. Anyone can say any rubbish over the Internet...and I'm not going to feed into that teenage-angst-related crap. Having said that, I can only tell you my experiences based on two perspectives. My own as an individual...and my own as the nephew of a man who [i]did[/i] commit suicide. Through my own experiences, I discovered that suicide is definitely a selfish act. This can be argued with until sky falls...but, the blunt truth is that if you commit suicide, you are going to hurt those around you to a very large extent. I believe that out of all the people who really talk about suicide, very few are [i]truly suicidal[/i]. Those who are truly contemplating suicide are possibly tempted to pity themselves further -- but I don't believe this is the answer. I believe that, if you are suicidal, you need to think about doing the opposite -- taking responsibility for your feelings and the consequences of your own actions. What I mean is...it's very easy to think of yourself. But when you consider others around you (those whom you love) and the effects you can have on them, you start to realize that your life isn't just your own -- it is interconnected with the lives of others. Obviously, the best advice you can get is simply that you should talk to your family about your thoughts. Better yet, seek some sort of professional attention. A lot of people don't do that, but it's something worth considering. As for me, there are a lot of things that keep me going. My family and friends are the primary reason for me to be alive and to enjoy life. But I also enjoy school, work and my hobbies...I enjoy the possibilities that life holds. I could never close the book so early in my life...not now, anyway. But that's just me. I am not going to pretend to speak for all injured people or anything like that...and I'm not going to wow you with a smoke and mirrors display, either.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kent [/i] [B] Reloaded sucked and revolutions can only hope to take away some of the damage reloaded did.[/b][/quote] [color=#707875]I know that we all have our tastes...but I don't know how anyone who really understood Reloaded could say that. Reloaded was an important movie in terms of what it said about the overall story...and in terms of the revelations that were revealed. I really advise you to go out there and read through the follow up material. It sucks that you have to do it, but it's worthwhile, believe me.[/color][quote][b] I mean, a world of transitic, raver, hippies...:mad: [/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Transitic raver hippies? What are you talking about? lol Do you know [i]why[/i] they had the "rave"? And what makes them hippies? Somehow I can't see hippies using enormous machine gun-equipped mechs to take out an army of Sentinels. o_O[/color][quote][b] Shoulda just stuck with the neo is a badass and smith is after him formula. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]But don't you see what is so wrong with that? lol. That's not what The Matrix is. If you see it that way, you are [i]not[/i] at all understanding it. The Matrix probably makes more sense as a drama than an action movie, any day. More importantly, if they had not used Reloaded as a bridge between The Matrix and Revolutions, there would probably be even less understanding of Revolutions itself. I don't mean to be harsh or anything, but if 99% of the population sees The Matrix in this way...they just aren't getting it at all. Keeping things as "Neo is a badass and Smith is after him" would totally and utterly [i]destroy[/i] the intelligence of the film. That would be very, very sad, considering the depth and breadth of the entire story (where the movies are probably only 1/3 of the entire "universe"). Dragonstar -- interesting stuff there. I can't respond to your theories now, but I'd love to discuss them when I'm online next! ^_^[/color]

[color=#707875]In Australia, you can basically do anything at 18. I mean, you can do the same as what you do at 21 in America. I remember thinking that becoming 18 would change things a lot...but honestly, it didn't. lol Nothing really changes. Sure, you can buy alcohol or go out to a club. So? It's really no big deal, unless you plan to live in clubs your whole life or drink yourself silly. *shrug* I never found that I had any particularly huge sense of new found freedom or anything like that. I never really sat there and thought "Cool, I'm 18, I can do all this stuff." But it just depends on the person. Some people will really take advantage of being 18, I guess. I just personally never saw it as being very different. If anything, I think my life changed a lot more noticably when I entered tertiary study. My life changed in many ways as a result of that. So for me, that was really more of a "growing up" catalyst or something.[/color]

[color=#707875]I can only hand you over to Justin B. or something. I have no idea what the problem is, at all. It does seem to primarily affect AOL users though. I don't know about anything we can do from our end to fix it.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]Hmmhm. But, since we're saying it's a matter of perspective, there is really no answer to this, therefore...no purpose to any debate on this, correct? Because we would always be coming back to the conflict of perspective.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I would argue that almost everything is a matter of perspective. Yes, there are truths or "hard facts" out there, but even then, there are many who choose to ignore such facts. I could ask you why we ever debate or discuss any topic on OtakuBoards. Opinions on an anime, or on a political issue are usually matters of one's perspective. Yet here we are, discussing our ideas. I discuss ideas because I [i]like[/i] to hear what others have to say. What other people say gives me something to consider...and sometimes I adopt that view (or parts of that view), or I adapt and modify my way of thinking. It's all about improvement, in one way or another...for me, at least.[/color][quote][b] Now, because of this conflict of perspective, is there no set reality and no set "trueness" to this? I could say that Bush is evil because he is doing something that I feel is morally corrupt, in fact, that he himself is morally corrupt. And because of this, I say he is a drooling Alfred E Neuman monster.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Well, this depends. If you want to discuss whether or not Bush is a monster...I'd be happy to get into that discussion with you. I feel that, once again, perspective rules the day. We can often look at a current political figure and think "That guy is amazing" or "that guy is an idiot". Usually, we won't form a true perspective until many years later, when every fact has been unearthed and when new revelations appear. Know what I mean? I think that history will ultimately be the judge of President Bush, the same as it will be the judge of people like Osama bin Laden. The question is whether or not society (and its progression) has room for either or both points of view. The question is what point do we reach when we decide that we either don't want to blow up innocent civilians, or attack dictators. I can't answer that question, because I think only time can. I can only offer you my personal feeling about it.[/color][quote][b] And then, Bushists would accuse me of being a monster, simply because they feel threatened by my views. Some Bushists even resort to threatening "liberals," who in turn respond with friction.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Of course. And this comes down to the individual. Some "Bushists" will sit there and attack anyone who they feel is not a Christian conservative. Whilst others, despite their views, will happily discuss their ideas freely and without personal criticism. This is also why I hesitate to label all humans as monsters. Just as one cannot label all "liberals" as tree-hugging-communists, one can definitely not paint any group of society (or society itself) with the same brush.[/color][quote][b] We feel Bin Laden is a terrible, terrible, evil man, and many of us are willing to destroy him and his ideals. But from Bin Laden's POV, we're the monsters.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Of course. This is a question of perspective, yes. But you can't leave it at that. You have to ask yourself "Okay, this is my perspective. Where did it come from?" You have to go further and ask [i]why[/i] Osama bin Laden is a violent, religious zealot. In the same way, rather than simply saying "All Arab nations should be democracies", one should ask [i]why[/i] they aren't democracies. Life and history is never so simple; one must always be prepared to ask questions and to consider things from multiple angles.[/color][quote][b] So, when we just decide it's a matter of perspective, are we not saying, "Well, since everyone feels someone else is a monster, and that someone else feels that everyone is a monster, we just can't decide who is a monster."[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]That's exactly right. And then we have to ask ourselves how we define "monster"? Our very definitions might be different. This is why I don't think that anyone can really say that [b]all[/b] human beings are monsters. Some are and some aren't, depending on your point of view. Someone like Hitler is considered to be a monster because of what he did. And, to our society, what he did is inexcuseable. So, to us, he is a monster. That is most definitely a matter of one's perspective. I think he's a monster and you do too. I don't think it's a question of right or wrong at all. It's just a question of what we find acceptable and unacceptable. And over time, that tends to change, when talking about various issues.[/color][quote][b] But, then, going with that line... If everyone feels that someone else is a monster, we thus are all monsters, since we're going on fractured perspective, and leaving the "labeling" up to fractured perspective. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Well...even if everyone thinks that everyone else is a monster...do you think that [i]you[/i] are a monster? I mean, we will still all have different views on that; on who is and isn't a monster. If anything, I'd say that means humans aren't all monsters. Humans are beings with individual perspectives -- "monster" is word created by human beings, afterall.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B] Are you suggesting that we do not hold ourselves to the standards we hold others to? [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I think Baron is saying (from his last post anyway) that mankind being monsters is a matter of perspective. We see Bin Laden as a monster because he deliberately targets and slaughters innocent people. Whereas, I don't see my government as a monster (in this regard), because it has very strict rules of engagement -- which sometimes put our own forces in harms way, in an effort to protect innocent people. So, it's probably more a matter of perspective and what you find to be acceptable in your own life.[/color]