What kept me entertained with Speed Racer was the creativity of the whole thing...the colour palette, the design of the various cars, the ingenuity of how various sequences were shot and shown...not to mention how good of a job they did making it look like those drivers really were in that environment, as opposed to being in CG land.::shrug:: different folks for different folks, I suppose.
I have dishonered those who have come before me...to my father, my brother, and all those that made me into the movie buff that I am today, I am deeply and truly sorry.
That being said, Citizen Kane was crap:-) I love old movies, but man...I just could not get into it. Never really understood why it was voted as greatest movie of all time in AFI's list...
There is one thing you aren't considering though: critics tend to treat all movies as if they are from the same genre. You wouldn't compare Half-Baked to The Shawshank Redemption...they are entirely different movies with completely different messages. And yet, they are both awesome movies, for different reasons.
I wouldn't say that Half-Baked presented a milestone in script writing, or was an acting disaster...I would say that it was hilarious and a well done stoner-movie. I wouldn't say Shawshank Redemption sucked because there wasn't enough comedy in it, or because it was insanely slow paced...I would say that it was amazing because the actors truly were the characters and even though nothing much really happens throughout it, somehow they manage to keep you very pulled in to the story for hours on end.
It's just like Speed Racer. SO many critics have said Speed Racer is dull, empty, devoid of meaning...ARE YOU SERIOUS? It's a movie based on a series that practically INVENTED the word cheesy...it isn't supposed to be Citizen Cane. It's just supposed to be entertaining. And you know what? It did a damn fine job of entertaining me. I wasn't looking for some underlying reasoning behind it, or for Oscar winning performances, or for some new level of thinking...I was looking to simply be entertained by a bunch of crazy coloured race tracks with cars slamming into each other.
You can't judge all movies by the same metric. That is, unfortunately, why so many critics hate so many movies. You shouldn't expect Dumb and Dumber to have the same nuance and impact as Jane Eyre. It doesn't work that way.
To be fair, The Ring was actually a scary, well done remake. The same can't be said for the rest of the recent remakes, but The Ring (interestingly the one that kickstarted the whole remake thing) was done fairly well.
I swear, it's like for every good movie out of Hollywood, there are five marginal movies, and for every marginal movies, there are ten that are complete crap, like this one: a movie based on a badly dubbed and chopped piece of crap cartoon about a guy who races in every single episode in this, okay, admittedly, tricked out car, and he's smart enough to remember which button is the jump skis (or whatever the fuck those things are) and which button is the buzzsaw in the front bumper, but he's too fucking stupid to check the trunk for the kid and the chimp, and no one picks up that Racer X is his brother.
They are very hard to find, but I suggest you dig up some uncensored versions of Speed Racer...IE the original Japanese versions. Quite a different show.
Hey, a fiery crash could happen anywherem it doesn't have to involve a car...they could run full speed into a lit gas-stove...they could trip and fall into a camp fire...or they could go out Georgia Lass-style and get hit by a flaming toilet seat that fell from space...
I am personally of the opinion that video games are the same as movies in that ANY topic should be fair game. This is why I wish the console manufacturers would "support" AO rated games. AO shouldn't just be for porn games, it could be utilized for more realistic violence, or topics like rape.
There are PLENTY of novels and movies that deal with the topics that you mentioned...why not video games? The common argument against this is that video games are interactive, and as such are different from just watching or reading about someone doing something.
The way I see it is this. If you are a rapist with uncontrollable desires, and hate the fact that you act out on these feelings...why not make a video game for them? After all, would you rather a rapist actually go out and rape someone, or play a video game where they follow someone around during their day, watch their house, and do whatever it is that rapists do when picking their prey?
There are some really sick people out there, and I think the more options they have to them that satiate their desires while simultaneously reducing the risk that they would do it in real life would be a huge plus.
I think by anyone's logic, getting rammed by an airplane would increase the likelyhood of death compared to getting rammed by a car.
Yes, I made a blanket statement. I also expect people to be able to get what I'm saying without me having to expalin it, considering it was fairly simple.
There is no way for the game to tell if a player is drunk (or otherwise intoxicated) all the game can do is make the controls work less well. Just as happened in Nethack with a "potion of booze" 20 years ago.
Not true. World of Warcraft is a perfect example of this. Underneath the "skin" of the game, there are algorithms that determine how much you have drunk. This may be my imagination, but I have noticed that the larger races take more alcohol to get them drunk. And when they are REALLY drunk, it can make it harder to see what is going on (camera sways, gets all blurry, etc.) It doesn't change the controls, it simulates the difficulty in walking straight.
Other than that, I fully agree with you...especially the last part. Cars are more dangerous than guns, in my opinion. The chances of surviving a gunshot to the body are much higher than surviving a car slamming into you center mass.
That's not true. The problem is that most vocal critics of video games blame the games. BZZZT! This is wrong.
If Jack Thompson was instead crucifying parents who don't monitor the entertainment their young children participate in, and focused on the fact that games like GTA IV are for adults and not their 8 year old child...THEN he would have something that I would agree with. Considering how loud he complains, if he complained this way, then I think his message would get through.
But, that doesn't seem to be what his opinion is, making this post completely pointless:-(
I know that some abilities gained in video games can translate to real life (better observance from playing FPS, better reaction times from playing Ninja Gaiden, etc.) if you think you could be a better driver in real life from driving in a video game using a thumbstick...well, you deserve to die in a fiery crash. The gene pool doesn't need that kind of person contributing.
Same goes for a racing wheel. Even if the technology advanced to the point where you could "feel" the road in the steering wheel like in a real car, the ability to truly simulate what it feels like to drive a real vehicle (the forces on your body, what you hear, feeling the four different tires through the steering wheel, etc.) is many MANY years away...we would likely have self-driving cars before that technology came about, making driving ability moot.
My opinion on this mirrors the opinion of many others. I personally WANT Jack Thompson to be running around acting like a moron. Yes, there are some people that listen to him...but the kind of people that listen to him would share his opinion even if he wasn't around.
The reason I want him to run around acting like a moron is this: as long as someone like Jack Thompson is the most vocal anti-video game person out there, we as gamers are safe. We are in trouble when someone comes around that can actually put together a cohesive argument instead of the "Video games cause deaths! Just because!" type of argument. By him being this way, once again, the only people that listen to him are the ones that already have the same opinion.
I would seriously doubt Thompson has been very successful in changing the opinions of folks insofar as video games are concerned.
The whole point of video games is to do things that you couldn't possibly do in real life safely. In my opinion, MADD should be ENCOURAGING people to drive drunk in GTA IV, using this logic:
"See how much harder and more dangerous it is to drive drunk? And this is just in a video game...imagine what would happen if you did it in real life."
Does anyone here with a D-Link wireless PCI card have any networking issues with this release? I know that when the previous one came out, I was having some issues getting Ubuntu to recognize my wireless card... WDA-2320, if I'm remembering correctly.
My reasons for preferring the Horde are as follows:
1. The units in all three Warcraft games and their expansions are much better on the Horde side (Undead in Warcraft III are border line overpowered, to be honest.) 2. Their tribal nature. It appeals to me. 3. The way that Horde act in WoW compared to Alliance. Granted, they both have their good and bad folks, but the Alliance seems to have many more immature folks. 4. Come on...who WOULDN'T want to be an orc?
The primary thing that pisses me off about the potential WoW movie is that from everything I have read, it looks like it's going to be told from the perspective of the Alliance.
Come on. Everyone knows the Alliance is for pussies. And so are Blood Elves.
The ghost concept could be extended to the agents. They are obviously self-aware, and other than lacking a physical body they have ever bit of the same as the Major.
Actually, you could say that Agents in The Matrix could be compared to The Puppet Master in Ghost in the Shell...
The shot of Morpheous jumping out to Neo in the Helicoptoer ----> Motoko Kusanagi jumping off the building in the beginning of the movie is the first one that comes to mind for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Most likely because he wouldn't be allowed to grow hemp or keep slaves...
I was always rather attached to Bamboo...it makes for a much more satisfying "thwack" XD
What kept me entertained with Speed Racer was the creativity of the whole thing...the colour palette, the design of the various cars, the ingenuity of how various sequences were shot and shown...not to mention how good of a job they did making it look like those drivers really were in that environment, as opposed to being in CG land. ::shrug:: different folks for different folks, I suppose.
GAHHH!!!
:-) I love old movies, but man...I just could not get into it. Never really understood why it was voted as greatest movie of all time in AFI's list...
I have dishonered those who have come before me...to my father, my brother, and all those that made me into the movie buff that I am today, I am deeply and truly sorry.
That being said, Citizen Kane was crap
There is one thing you aren't considering though: critics tend to treat all movies as if they are from the same genre. You wouldn't compare Half-Baked to The Shawshank Redemption...they are entirely different movies with completely different messages. And yet, they are both awesome movies, for different reasons.
I wouldn't say that Half-Baked presented a milestone in script writing, or was an acting disaster...I would say that it was hilarious and a well done stoner-movie. I wouldn't say Shawshank Redemption sucked because there wasn't enough comedy in it, or because it was insanely slow paced...I would say that it was amazing because the actors truly were the characters and even though nothing much really happens throughout it, somehow they manage to keep you very pulled in to the story for hours on end.
It's just like Speed Racer. SO many critics have said Speed Racer is dull, empty, devoid of meaning...ARE YOU SERIOUS? It's a movie based on a series that practically INVENTED the word cheesy...it isn't supposed to be Citizen Cane. It's just supposed to be entertaining. And you know what? It did a damn fine job of entertaining me. I wasn't looking for some underlying reasoning behind it, or for Oscar winning performances, or for some new level of thinking...I was looking to simply be entertained by a bunch of crazy coloured race tracks with cars slamming into each other.
You can't judge all movies by the same metric. That is, unfortunately, why so many critics hate so many movies. You shouldn't expect Dumb and Dumber to have the same nuance and impact as Jane Eyre. It doesn't work that way.
There is quite a bit of profanity, and graphic violence runs rampant...quite the polar opposite of the Speed Racer seen in the US.
To be fair, The Ring was actually a scary, well done remake. The same can't be said for the rest of the recent remakes, but The Ring (interestingly the one that kickstarted the whole remake thing) was done fairly well.
They are very hard to find, but I suggest you dig up some uncensored versions of Speed Racer...IE the original Japanese versions. Quite a different show.
Hey, a fiery crash could happen anywherem it doesn't have to involve a car...they could run full speed into a lit gas-stove...they could trip and fall into a camp fire...or they could go out Georgia Lass-style and get hit by a flaming toilet seat that fell from space...
"Sometimes we'd roll a critical success on our avoid traffic check..." -Wil Wheaton
I am personally of the opinion that video games are the same as movies in that ANY topic should be fair game. This is why I wish the console manufacturers would "support" AO rated games. AO shouldn't just be for porn games, it could be utilized for more realistic violence, or topics like rape.
There are PLENTY of novels and movies that deal with the topics that you mentioned...why not video games? The common argument against this is that video games are interactive, and as such are different from just watching or reading about someone doing something.
The way I see it is this. If you are a rapist with uncontrollable desires, and hate the fact that you act out on these feelings...why not make a video game for them? After all, would you rather a rapist actually go out and rape someone, or play a video game where they follow someone around during their day, watch their house, and do whatever it is that rapists do when picking their prey?
There are some really sick people out there, and I think the more options they have to them that satiate their desires while simultaneously reducing the risk that they would do it in real life would be a huge plus.
I think by anyone's logic, getting rammed by an airplane would increase the likelyhood of death compared to getting rammed by a car.
Yes, I made a blanket statement. I also expect people to be able to get what I'm saying without me having to expalin it, considering it was fairly simple.
After reading his OP, I think you're right...sorry about that, thanks for pointing it out!
Not true. World of Warcraft is a perfect example of this. Underneath the "skin" of the game, there are algorithms that determine how much you have drunk. This may be my imagination, but I have noticed that the larger races take more alcohol to get them drunk. And when they are REALLY drunk, it can make it harder to see what is going on (camera sways, gets all blurry, etc.) It doesn't change the controls, it simulates the difficulty in walking straight.
Other than that, I fully agree with you...especially the last part. Cars are more dangerous than guns, in my opinion. The chances of surviving a gunshot to the body are much higher than surviving a car slamming into you center mass.
That's not true. The problem is that most vocal critics of video games blame the games. BZZZT! This is wrong.
:-(
If Jack Thompson was instead crucifying parents who don't monitor the entertainment their young children participate in, and focused on the fact that games like GTA IV are for adults and not their 8 year old child...THEN he would have something that I would agree with. Considering how loud he complains, if he complained this way, then I think his message would get through.
But, that doesn't seem to be what his opinion is, making this post completely pointless
I know that some abilities gained in video games can translate to real life (better observance from playing FPS, better reaction times from playing Ninja Gaiden, etc.) if you think you could be a better driver in real life from driving in a video game using a thumbstick...well, you deserve to die in a fiery crash. The gene pool doesn't need that kind of person contributing.
Same goes for a racing wheel. Even if the technology advanced to the point where you could "feel" the road in the steering wheel like in a real car, the ability to truly simulate what it feels like to drive a real vehicle (the forces on your body, what you hear, feeling the four different tires through the steering wheel, etc.) is many MANY years away...we would likely have self-driving cars before that technology came about, making driving ability moot.
YMMV, IMHO, and all that noise...
My opinion on this mirrors the opinion of many others. I personally WANT Jack Thompson to be running around acting like a moron. Yes, there are some people that listen to him...but the kind of people that listen to him would share his opinion even if he wasn't around.
The reason I want him to run around acting like a moron is this: as long as someone like Jack Thompson is the most vocal anti-video game person out there, we as gamers are safe. We are in trouble when someone comes around that can actually put together a cohesive argument instead of the "Video games cause deaths! Just because!" type of argument. By him being this way, once again, the only people that listen to him are the ones that already have the same opinion.
I would seriously doubt Thompson has been very successful in changing the opinions of folks insofar as video games are concerned.
The whole point of video games is to do things that you couldn't possibly do in real life safely. In my opinion, MADD should be ENCOURAGING people to drive drunk in GTA IV, using this logic:
"See how much harder and more dangerous it is to drive drunk? And this is just in a video game...imagine what would happen if you did it in real life."
Does anyone here with a D-Link wireless PCI card have any networking issues with this release? I know that when the previous one came out, I was having some issues getting Ubuntu to recognize my wireless card... WDA-2320, if I'm remembering correctly.
My reasons for preferring the Horde are as follows:
1. The units in all three Warcraft games and their expansions are much better on the Horde side (Undead in Warcraft III are border line overpowered, to be honest.)
2. Their tribal nature. It appeals to me.
3. The way that Horde act in WoW compared to Alliance. Granted, they both have their good and bad folks, but the Alliance seems to have many more immature folks.
4. Come on...who WOULDN'T want to be an orc?
The primary thing that pisses me off about the potential WoW movie is that from everything I have read, it looks like it's going to be told from the perspective of the Alliance.
Come on. Everyone knows the Alliance is for pussies. And so are Blood Elves.
"Welcome, to Fhloston Paradise!"
The ghost concept could be extended to the agents. They are obviously self-aware, and other than lacking a physical body they have ever bit of the same as the Major.
Actually, you could say that Agents in The Matrix could be compared to The Puppet Master in Ghost in the Shell...
In keeping with the theme of the discussion, here you go:
http://www.mig81.com/matrixgits/
EXCELLENT comparison of The Matrix and the first Ghost in the Shell movie.
The shot of Morpheous jumping out to Neo in the Helicoptoer ----> Motoko Kusanagi jumping off the building in the beginning of the movie is the first one that comes to mind for me.