Semjaza

In the future you really need to research what you're downloading more... I've never even heard of that pop-up blocker. If you hate pop-ups, you might be best off downloading a different browser like Firefox, which should work on your computer no problem. If you get stuff like Microsoft Anti-Spyware, AdAware or Spybot Search & Destroy it sounds like most of the problems you typically have would be avoided.

I've personally always been a big fan of male vs. female vocal dynamics in bands. I think it might be pretty interesting in your case because I don't know of any similar bands offhand that have done that successfully. I don't live anywhere near you guys, so I can't really help with any recording mixing... which is something I actually know how to do (unlike my shoddy guitar playing abilities lol).

I like Drix, but his contention with that is one of the stupidest things related to "punk" ideas that I've ever read... half-joking or not. That's the second time he used it and it was even less useful then. As I recall, it was pretty much denounced by people who actually knew what they were talking about (Heaven's Cloud, for one)... not just simply a bunch of people who hate anything not "punk enough". I'm going at this from the idea of a punk sound versus a punk ideal, which I usually use lol. We're not really talking about the punk sound in Avril's case. Even if we're generous with what should be included in the genre (and I think it's best to be generous with all genre constraints personally), her sound just doesn't mesh with what one would put within even the most vague punk rock descriptors at all. Like it or not, genres have general contraints. You don't just pick what you want to be and everyone magically calls you that. I don't even really dislike her music, so that's not my angle with this. So what that leaves us with is the idea that she is somehow within the punk ideal because she's fighting against the norm. What has she fought against? What important things has she said? From all I've seen, she was picked up by a major label for doing Sarah McLaughlin covers, transformed into something more brooding, given songs written by lyricists (with some of her own input), told to wear certain "punk uniform" clothes that general people identify with punk for whatever reason and that was the end of it. Ironically, you have her running around saying she's not punk in a variety of interviews and such, so I'm not sure why this has been perpetuated. BUT, if we're going to consider what she is doing here going against the grain, counter-culture or anti-establishment that's a totally different story. We're really, [I]really[/I] lowering the bar here. Have people gotten that lazy? Is it just a matter of doing something the opposite in a commercial, consumer/seller setting nowadays? If having a company change your style and portray you as something you don't even consider yourself is "going against the grain" I have to question people's thought processes. There's nothing anti-anything about Avril (or her marketing team if not directly her) and what she managed to present. We might as well consider Carrot Top's comedy act "punk" because he still attempts lame prop comedy in a time where it's no longer considered "cool" lol. Hey, everyone, I'm white but I'm going to call myself African American. I'm not one, but man, I'm going against the grain!!! No. It doesn't work. So we wind up with two "no's" here. She doesn't play punk music and she doesn't do anything that can be construed into fitting within punk's ideal (again, the DIY mentality is a main component of this) either. If she had one or the other, I'd certainly have no complaints here. Afterall, I defend the random "pop punk" bands here for at least fitting within the general sound. I don't dislike Avril for not fitting in these things. I don't dislike her in general. The general idea presented in that quote is just illogical and incorrect. And finally, the Ramones first album came out a full year before The Clash's (and they formed three years before). Considering how short the initial punk movement was, a year is an eternity. The Ramones are credited as the first punk rock band because they should be. Drix's comment is funny in a satirical sort of way, but it holds no real ground in any knowledgable discussion about the genre, the movement or its history. I don't know why it's continually popping up on here again and again. I personally use genres to describe movements and music. I couldn't care less what people are wearing or screaming about in a situation like this and I certainly don't run around pigeon-holing people into separate groups based on their appearance (preppies vs goths? who cares?)... but genres need and use labels. We'd have no way to discuss or trace them otherwise. I don't see what's so bad about that, it's just double-edged depending on how people use it.

I suggest people put in the Independent Film Channel and watch "Punk: Attitude" or pick up "Afropunk" or any of the other multitude of punk related documentaries. Every time a weird thread like this pops up, the same things have to be said that wouldn't even be posed here if people knew anything about its history. People are way too critical of what belongs in "punk" and what doesn't. There's almost always been a punk image (although most of it was created by stores and fans in the UK, most bands didn't even wear the same sort of things), a punk sound as contrasted to the punk ideal, the general "do-it-yourself" mentality. The original ideas of all of this pretty much were just going to explode out eventually anyway... the whole image was an afterthought. Marketing people didn't know how to advertise it, but once they did it pretty much became a packaged deal that anyone could buy into... which is pretty much how it still is today with the current punk revival. An interesting thing about many of these documentaries is that members of original punk bands themselves talk about the basic ideal of "punk as something very transferable. For example, they were talking about the relationship between punk at the time and the early hip-hop groups and such. It pushes the idea that I try to give here in these threads that there's an obvious difference between a punk sound and the ideal itself. They're not always both present.

I suppose the only nice thing about this company is that they are generally responsible for the first localized anime series most people in the US have seen. In a sense, they're kind of a gateway to other anime and would perhaps encourage people to look deeper into what is out there. However, it certainly isn't something they're directly trying to do, from what I can tell. It's kind of just an indirect result. They're getting it on TV, at least, which is a start. I'm not a big fan of editing anything and the idea presented here that they don't even offer uncut DVDs disgusts me, but again, it's a start. I'm sure a large amount of people on this website would never watch a lot of what they do now if it wasn't for 4Kids attempts (albeit poor attempts). I don't know how to write this in a way that makes 4Kids look like a shoddy company that still somehow manages to get more people into other anime at the same time lol.

[quote name='HellsAngel14']Dude it rocks its awsome, but I think your a little too high strong. It is just a kids movie.[/quote] Well, personally I disagree with that. People of all ages can enjoy it equally. It's a solid, entertaining and funny film by all accounts. If people feel like they should only be watching adult-aimed things by a certain age, I think they're missing out.

The funny thing about songs and poems is that, like you said, they're so similar written down in many cases... the odd thing is that I love music, yet I can rarely bring myself to read poetry at all. Perhaps it's just some sort of weird psychological thing. I found myself more interested in what you have labeled here as "songs", but it's probably just because of the way I approach the words. I don't know lol. Anyway, I thought most of this was rather strong. I don't really "write" myself, so I find it hard to give decent constructive criticism... but I suppose the main thing that grabbed me about these was that, despite some of their more solemn or downbeat (for lack of a better word) topics, they don't really have that lame, naggy quality that is present in the writings of so many other people. Personally, I think that's a big compliment lol. Your last quote reminds me of the Simpsons for whatever reason. Anyway, nice job. I wouldn't mind reading more, although as you've probably seen here, I'm not good at giving specific reasons for anything heh.

I agree with Dagger's take on this, although I'm not seeing where it says these guys loved eachother in the first place. For all we know they were just trying to get off. I wouldn't naturally assume to heterosexual people were having sex for any love-based/"righteous" reasons either.

FFX came out in the US soon after the Japanese release, but we're still talking a few months. I don't see them being released any closer to that. Probably Summer for the US.

I don't know why anyone would expect much out of Xenosaga 2 considering how bad the first one was lol. There's some good RPGs missing in that poll (including Phantom Brave, Baten Kaitos and basically everything on handhelds), but it includes the ones I'd consider voting for, so it's not so bad. I didn't care for Star Ocean 3 or Shadow Hearts: Covenant whatsoever. SH: Covenant turned out a little better than I first gave it credit for (and I adjusted my review for it), but honestly it stuck true to my main "this is like a really lame, perverse anime" complaint lol. That's just my opinion. My pick was Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. At first I figured I'd be the only one into this game, but apparently my excitement for it caught on and interested a few people who wound up buying it and enjoying it (Heaven's Cloud, Otaku Sennen, Satan665 and Zidargh are the ones I know of). It's a really solid title with a very interesting story and NPCs. The story itself has to do with what philisophy you choose in the recreation of the world following its destruction. You can take different paths depending on what alignment you choose (with Lucifer, God, whatever), resulting in one of a few endings. It has obvious religious influences. The graphics have a weird motion blur, but are otherwise really solid and stylistic. The game has some really great cutscenes that make use of this style (such as Chiaki's classroom sequence). It has a fast, streamlined battle system and challenging dungeons. Your party is formed based on what demons you convince you join you or which ones you manage to create through fusions. If anyone care to look into it, there's a surprisingly large thread on the title here: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=39425[/url] If you want to buy it, I'd try to now. It's hard to find new anymore, but it's still going for fair prices on eBay. That will likely change in the coming months. It's also out in PAL territories as well. I don't really think another RPG from 2004 compared to it (even though I liked and finished Baten Kaitos, Tales of Symphonia and Paper Mario -- to varying degrees anyway). As for 2005, some good ones are out already, but I'm looking forward to Digital Devil Saga 2, Final Fantasy XII (I don't like the series much anymore, but this game sounds freaking amazing) and Dragon Quest VIII... among others.

[quote name='The Vampire: Ed][CENTER][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]Also, making GTA San Andreas an Adult Only game is pointless as it's only a one year difference in age requirement. I mean at that rate Rockstar should just make the sex mini-game accessible now that it's an AO game, I mean no point in keeping it locked away now. I guaran-damn-tee that had GTA San Andreas been an AO game to begin with we'd still be hearing these complaints from these idiots.[/COLOR] [/FONT'][/CENTER][/quote] If people aren't understanding the concept that none of these stores would sell this game as an AO title to begin with, I don't know how else I can explain it. Either way, it's only rated AO (if places will even carry it as AO, Best Buy pulled it for example) until Rockstar removes that code and sends out new versions. It's not like AO games sit on the shelf next to M games at Walmart. Has anyone ever seen an AO game at the store? There's a reason for it. There's some politician named Jack Thompson that's going after Take 2's next game, Bully. I guess he's annoyed by the darkness of it and the idea that it somehow glorifies schoolyard violence in an "age after Columbine". Somehow it shows kids how to act just like those two. Again, the only logical complaint he has is that kids have had no problem pre-ordering this title. Lately I kind of just wish they'd make carding a requirement so these guys would leave the actual developers alone. In this case I agree with Kamuro's idea here. Why go after the company? The stores are still ordering it and selling it. It would make more sense to have the ESRB ratings become a requirement rather than a suggestion. It's either that or have these idiots attempt to block every violent game in existance. Many of us are old enough to make our own decisions as well as buy AO and M rated games within its age contraints.

[QUOTE=Lady Asphyxia][font=Arial Narrow][size=2] So what people seem to be saying is that the complexity and the flexibility of the genre is the attractive part. Keeping that in mind, and on the fact that I've never really seen anime, what shows would you recommend, and why? Are there any essential things that a person, like myself, should know before they step into the anime realm, or can it just be picked up as you go? [/size][/font][/QUOTE] I no longer like much anime myself, but there are a few I still strongly enjoy and would recommend for others. I think Grave of the Fireflies is the main one. Pretty much all of the Miyazaki/Ghibli movies too (although, contrary to seemingly everyone else, I think Castle in the Sky is digustingly boring). If you have Adult Swim, I'd also recommend checking out Paranoia Agent. It's the only one of their current anime series I actually enjoy. I figure you might too since we're in a similar boat. I find that anime fans recommending things to non-anime fans tends to work out very rarely for whatever reason lol.

There honestly are a lot more list type threads going on here than I'm used to. Not all of them have been closed yet, but some have. I think it's mostly a matter of the fact that most of the mods live in the US and it's Summer here. They're simply not on as much. Things get taken care of eventually it seems.

[quote name='Kamuro][SIZE=1']"1) retailers got in trouble for selling M-rated games to children under 17 in the first place, 2) if carding kids to make sure they're old enough was a common, required practice," thats how it's supposed to be. We put these restrictions on games for this very reason. What difference will it make to change the rating? If the store doesn't ask for ID, they'll still be able to buy it and play it to their heart's content. So why all this political fodder over changing the rating when in the long run (judging by your statistics) it won't make a difference anyway?[/SIZE][/quote] I understand where you're coming from with most of this. I mean, it's not like I've been this age all my life lol. But, really, the question you're posing here kind of answers itself. The stores don't card because they aren't required by law to do so. It's up to the individual store. Part of the argument here is making these ratings actually mean something and hold people who sell these things to underage kids accountable. It's not something that is done, but it's definitely something they want to be a standard. Here in Illinois the government is pushing strongly for that and wants to fine retailers that sell games directly to these kids (this would not matter if a parent bought the game and gave it to their kids, so if your parents think you can deal with the stuff it's not an issue). In terms of rating this AO, the difference is enormous. If a game is rated AO, these kids would have next to no access to it to begin with. Almost any store would refuse to carry this game (Target, Sears, Walmart, K-Mart, Toys R Us...etc) and magazines that deal with games would refuse to run print ads for it. The difference is that we're going from something kids can buy anywhere under current laws to something that they'd probably have a hard time finding at all. The game also wouldn't be marketed in publications that are completely and totally geared towards people under 17. I think people are getting the idea that politicians are jumping on this Hot Coffee thing and that alone. They're jumping on anything M and up being sold to people under the ages suggested by the ESRB. They don't think they should be "suggestions" as much as they think they should be "requirements". That's really their main goal here. Not to make all M rated games AO or to censor them or block their sale entirely. It's just a matter of how responsible these companies are being, whether or not the ESRB even has any pull or importance in anything and who these games are truly being marketed to. I don't know how else to explain it lol. I don't think politicians are great or anything, but I certainly see where some of the (smart) ones are coming from.

I don't know that this review shatters the "I hate them because they're popular!" perception as much as it is someone realizing there's other decent bands out there that don't happen to fit in their favorite genre. I don't really care for this band myself... Others have done similar things before and better, but have been largely ignored. On the other hand, I don't think they're bad by any means, although I think everyone should hate that single with the rapping in it lol.

Bumping this because I'm interested in seeing more responses. This is one of the more interesting music threads here. I also wanted to say that Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon is not the best selling album of all time. It's not even in the top 10. Their Wall album is number 3 or so, but not Dark Side of the Moon. As far as I know, Michael Jackson's Thriller and The Eagles' Greatest Hits album are still at the very top and have been for years. Dark Side of the Moon was on the charts for an insanely long period of time though.

[quote name='satan665']Ha, they don't make any bigger ones do they?[/quote] Not for the Zen, although I can put my own drive in there if I really wanted to bother with it. As for 60GB iPods, the 40GB model is $100 more than I paid for the Zen... I wasn't even going to bother with the more expensive, larger color screen model prices lol.

[quote name='AzureWolf][COLOR=blue']Tom Cruise, great actor, one of my favorites. But his opinions are just a reflection of his blind devotion to this Scientology religion he joined. He's only preaching what they feed him. If he didn't say them so mechanically and had more basis for saying what he says, then I'd value his opinions more.[/COLOR][/quote] In terms of Tom Cruise, that's all there is to really say. The guy has been like this, obviously, for years, but now that his publicist is a relative into Scientology too it's coming out all over the place all at once lol. I don't care, first of all, what celebrities think. Him being in movies gives him no real room to claim his ideas on the matter are any more informed. In some interview he got all upset (Matt Lauder?) and claimed he studied psychology and there's no science behind medication... what? Since when is Tom Cruise a known psychologist to begin with? Let alone someone that knows more than the likely expensive practitioners of celebrities (in this case is was Brooke Shields' depression after pregnancy). If anything, he studied some biased Scientology version of it... if even that much. The stuff doesn't work for everyone, but what does? The main issue is around doctors prescribing things too soon, drug companies lying to people about effects and other doctors not pursuing futher potential issues. I don't think it makes the concept of medications for these issues "unscientific" lol.

[QUOTE=Kamuro][SIZE=1]Well, for one, If the ESRB is supposed to veiw all seemingly controversial cutscenes and portions of the game, then it's the creator of the game who should suffer the consequences for the inadequate rating. It's their job to provide the ESRB with all the information needed to place the best rating possible. But this isn't the case, instead of cracking down on this one portion of gaming, whether it be the game itself, the creator of the game, etc. Instead they bare down on all games and industries due to the mistake of a certain company or product. I think it's unfair to look at GTA and then generalize about all video games. Do you think the politicians, or even the parents play these games. I can assure you that few play GTA and most don't play video games at all. So they see this one controversial scene, and thats all they have to go on. There is so many examples of good gaming, but this one spark of opposition causes problems for everyone. As far as parents go, if their children are playing GTA already, then they aren't doing their job. It already had an M rating, they would've had to buy it for their child anyway. And this particular scene is far from the worst thing in this game. Killing policemen, people, prostitutes, etc. And everyones worried about this particular scene. I mean c'mon.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Obviously it's the problem of that specific developer. Clinton hasn't said anything about censoring every game in existance. Neither have any of the grounded politicians out there either, whose interviews you'll see on IGN or whatever else. They don't want children to be able to buy these games, just like they don't want kids buying porno magazines or going into R rated movies. This isn't censorship, it's getting kids to avoid questionable material. So in that case, I don't even see the issue. They aren't saying all games are evil. They aren't saying no games should have this content. They aren't saying people old enough shouldn't be able to play these games. In fact, many of them have been careful to stress all of this. Of course, there's always the more extreme ones, but what they're trying to do would never go by someone of moderate intelligence in the first place and certainly never pass, same with anything else they do. These things give too much tax money and courts plop down the free speech angle on things all the time... it's why the compromise to put "explicit lyrics" stickers on music was made. What you were saying would make sense if 1) retailers got in trouble for selling M-rated games to children under 17 in the first place, 2) if carding kids to make sure they're old enough was a common, required practice and 3) if adults had to be present in even a remote majority of situations where kids got these games. The plain fact is that none of those are the case. Time and time again it has been proven through studies that something like 70%+ of minors have had no problem buying supposed 17 and older games at any store they please and because of the idea of "games are for kids" that's still prevalent in this society, there is not any sort of social stigma that's present like there would be if these kids tried to buy R-Rated movie tickets or porno magazines. I mean, I'd rather they'd just shut up, change this game and move on too, but this isn't a case of what's "fair" or "unfair". They've been going after Rockstar, GTA and Take 2 specifically because of these reasons. I've not seen a single other game bitched about during all of this (aside from that REALLY uninformed politician on Sims 2 and maybe everyone has noticed that not a single other person has jumped on his bandwagon), so I don't really see what the issue is here. They're going after that company much more actively than anything else. If they don't do anything about any of this, what message does that send? More proof for politicians that the ESRB has no actual power or importance or objectivity, something they've been clamoring about for years now. This isn't something that popped up simply because of "Hot Coffee"... which totally undermines the system in the first place. In turn it of course would lead to a questioning of the industry as a whole because many of them feel this was an issue before San Andreas came out to begin with. When you have a situation where the ESRB is misinformed, slow to act, does ratings these groups think are too lenient in many cases AND are essentially industry employees (again, as I said, causing a rather large conflict of interests), I don't see why they wouldn't question the ESRB and industry as a whole anyway. It's just logical from that point of view. They're not getting pissed about Super Mario or Katamari Damacy, they're getting pissed over how this could have happened and why this game wasn't properly dealt with. Expecting them to not question how the rest of the related processes work in the industry seems odd to me. They want to avoid future issues like this and I don't blame them. Of course, there's some of that "hey, I want to blow this thing up so I look like a great politician stuff" too, but I think a lot of that is largely secondary to the main issue personally lol. So again, I don't think this is as much of a "OMG kids are seeing sex and" thing as much as it is "see, we told you the ratings system was fundamentally broken and things need to be done about it", based on the actually informed things I've read. Uninformed opinions from these people rarely seem to go anywhere... afterall, what was done with Mortal Kombat years ago? It's bloodier than ever lol. Kids shouldn't have these games, but they can easily buy them themselves. What is stopping kids from hiding them and playing them when their parents are away? I don't think all the blame lies on parents who don't expect their children to have M rated games and then later find out their kid has easy access to them. If people buy them for their kids themselves, then whatever, there's nothing that can be done about it (and the politicians have said this, again saying they don't want to censor these titles if they're properly rated)... but at least then they'd have no room to blame the companies or retailers like they can now. I think that would be an important step in making the "blame" more clear in the future and would likely actually [i]benefit[/i] the industry. Anyway, I'd normally agree with what you're saying in here, but I find myself agreeing with the opposite side as well and defending it because it seems to have so much more opposition lol. I'm conflicted. :animeknow

Well, hopefully it being there will encourage more online gaming related posts (if that's what this is), because currently there really isn't much discussion about any of it outside of Guild Wars. Even the WoW thread mostly consisted of "what server are you on?" and posts from people who hadn't gotten the game yet.

I must be alone in prefering the old version... (the one before the graphic change a few months ago). Not that I have any issues with this one either, I just prefered the other one.

[spoiler]This is basically just an elaborate hoax that sprang up pretty much exclusively on the internet. The game, from all anyone has devised, never existed whatsoever. The actual ROM has never been put online. People who claim to have it refuse to put it anywhere someone can download it. What else has to be said? Most of those polybus.exe files load up and simply state "haha april fools" after displaying the supposed titlescreen with some German word that means "desensitized" in the copyright. Besides, what I've read of all of the "descriptions" of this game doesn't mention anything that looks like what you have a screen of here. The rumor involves it being some sort of weird ball puzzle game. Unless you know that this is bogus and I'm just ruining it for everyone lol.[/spoiler]

[quote name='Kamuro][SIZE=1']GTA is the more controversial title. Of course it previously had an "M" rating but a code leading to a certain "sex scene" has achieved it an adult only review. Of course, if you're playing the game anyway, I don't think this makes much of a difference. You're already killing cops, stealing cars, beating people with sex toys, I really think a mild sex scene is the least of parents' worries. Of course, Hillary Clinton, thinks otherwise. She claims that those judging the games and applying ratings aren't aware of the actual content within them. Which is ridiculous really. How could a game be given an adequate rating without being played beforehand?[/quote] What you're talking about here in the last sentences is exactly why the politicians have so much of a problem with these games and the ESRB in the first place. It's how it works and she's complaining about that... why is it wrong to have a problem with it? The ESRB does not play ANY of these games. They're given a write-up/survey that answers some basic questions about the content and such. They're also given tapes that show first-hand examples and complete cutscenes that may be considered inappropriate for an E-type rating. To expect these people to play through every title end to end is ridiculous. It is--and I think [i]should[/i] be--the job of the developers to adequately answer these questions and objectives given to them by this ratings system. Almost alll of these same politicians have been bitching about GTA before San Andreas. They have more fodder now because "Hot Coffee" adds to all of their previous complaints. It's also the issue of the fact that that modification (if you even want to call it that) goes beyond what the ESRB was shown and how they rated this title. It gives further credence to the idea that the ESRB is broken in very basic ways, not the least of which is the fact that the members of it are essentially industry employees leading to an obvious conflict of interests. That's the problem here. It's not simply that "omg, there's sex! I didn't care about the violence, but sex is wrong!!" Obviously this country gets more worked up over that and I think too many politicians are focusing on this specifically (aside from focusing on this to confuse uninformed people to think they're great workers of the cause of the everyday American). But to me, and I think a lot of these peopel, it's not a case of censorship as much as it is a case of things not being properly labelled and marketed. In essence, because of the ease of this "Hot Coffee" change, the game has been sold and marketed to people that it shouldn't have been [i]by the definitions of the ESRB ratings, store regulations and magazine allowances[/i]. I'm not talking from a "moral" standpoint, but simply by the rules. I would assume most people know that a lot of magazines will NOT allow ads for AO rated games in their magazines and a lot of stores wouldn't have even sold it to begin with. If this game came out at AO to begin with, of course some people would complain about the fact that it exists at all, but they'd have no real grounds to complain to this degree because it would be properly rated and marketed. As for the voice thing, I think it's a bunch of BS. I side with the main complaint against this... if a voice actor should get royalties for best-selling titles then so should the programmers and artists and such that spend literally 100 times more work on it. A raise is one thing, but they don't want that alone. They're already making something like $300 an hour last I heard. A lot of voice actors aren't part of those unions to begin with. They're just going to wind up forcing studios to rely on non-union workers and that will be the end of it. There's so many "professional" voice actors out there that are doing terrible jobs in games even today to begin with. And lastly, the rumor complaint... it's not any worse than it has been really any generation that's had the internet.

[quote name='Dragon Warrior']Yes, he is doing the CB score. And I don't think I ever said he was only made for Burton. I think I said he is perfect for Burton and without him Burton's movies wouldn't be what they are. I loved his work in Spiderman and Donnie Darko and every other flippin' movie he's done. He doesn't need Burton to be brilliant; he just helps Burton a lot with his own art.[/quote] Michael Andrews did the score for Donnie Darko. Elfman had nothing to do with it. But yeah, Elfman is a really good writer/composer to begin with. He's the head of Oingo Boingo, a weird 80s new-wave rock band that put out some good albums. He's done the themes for shows like The Simpsons and Tales From the Crypt... There's more to him than just Burton films and, to be honest, I think some of his best work is outside of them.

Many people seem to have the idea that Burton was entirely responsible for every aspect of NMBC. True, he came up with the idea and the basic designs, but he wasn't there for a vast majority of the production and he certainly didn't direct it. Most of what made NMBC special, in my opinion, was thanks to Henry Selick and Danny Elfman. Without Selick's direction, design and general amazing stop-motion animation style and experience that movie would have been nothing. Same deal with Elfman writing the songs and being Skellington's singing voice. In this case, Burton is directing and I'm sure it will turn out fine, but Burton gets way too much of the praise for NMBC and everyone else that was more important to the overall project is largely forgotten. As for this movie specifically, I've been interested in it since the very first production image appeared in some magazine (I posted it on my site, maybe someone remembers.... months and months ago; James seemingly initially saw it there too lol). I'm a big fan of stop-motion animation and I'm glad at least some major productions involving it still exist. The movie concept itself doesn't sound as interesting to me, but obviously I've not seen the movie and I'm remaining open about all of it. I'm definitely looking f forward to it at least. I don't really see why using experienced actors would ever detract from an animation either... I mean, you can't really enjoy any animated film in the last few decades if you believe that.