It's not that consoles will turn into PCs, it's that low end PCs will be cheap and powerful enough to compete with the consoles.
People say this all the time, but yet, even though the price of an entry level computer has dropped signifigantly over the last five years, console sales just keep getting stronger and stronger. For example- five years ago, selling a million consoles, total, was considered a huge success. Now, when the PS2 can't do that on it's opening DAY, its a huge misstep. The world is hungry for consoles ands not because of the hardware... It's because of the differences in the play experience.
Josh Sisk
Re:A crash is possible, but for different reasons
on
Gaming Crash up Ahead
·
· Score: 1
I believe he meant the cost of developing games, not buying them.
Many, perhaps most, people who have game consoles also have computers. When one can choose between buying a console or upgrading a computer to play the same games with the same or better performance, which would be the smartest choice?
I have a very nice gaming PC. I also have a DC and plan on getting a PS2, once the furor dies down and more games come out. I will always buy consoles for one reason: it's a different experience. With a console, you can sprawl out on your couch, in your living room and play a game. It takes virtually no time to start the console and begin to play. No boot up, no distractions (how many times have you sat down to fire up a game and noticed a stack of emails in your inbox), no sitting up in your chair, at your desk. Console games are usually set up where you can sit and play for a few minutes, relax, then get up and do something else. When I sit down to a RTS or FPS game, I generally play until my eyes hurt. Also, consoles are fun for the couch multiplay... Nothing like taking your friends on at some Soul Caliber, Tony Hawk or Mario Kart.
Consoles will always be popular for these very reasons (unless the PC can gain more headway in the living rooms of the world) and it would be silly to think otherwise. There is a reason why the console market is growing and the computer market is, at best, staying the same.
You are missing out on some great games, man. I love the old games, too... But I also love new ones like Metal Gear Solid, Shenmue, Tony Hawk... New technology sometimes offers new gameplay as well, not just fancy graphics.
And as far as kids not liking the classics... Would you like Adventure as much if you had grown up playing Tomb Raider?
But the parents have to buy a desktop PC (which continue to drop in price) anyways just so there kids can do their homework. The console then becomes redundant.
No, it does not.
How many times does this have to come up on slashdot? Console gaming and PC gaming are just different. They have different types of games and offer different experiences. The PC is better at more immersive, detailed games. The kind you sit up at your desk and play. The console is better (indeed, about 100x better) at games where you lay back on the couch and relax, maybe with a few friends.
Do not underestimate couch multiplay. I have much more FUN playing Mario Kart with 3 friends (who are right there with me, laughing and drinking) than I do playing online PC games with anonymous strangers, but I am still driven to play games online, improve my characters and my personal skills... Consoles offer a party atmosphere as opposed to the more solitary PC experience. It's nice to have something to do when you are actually physically hanging out with another person. For example, I can interest my girlfriend in a game of Worms Amageddon on my DC, or the aformentioned Mario Kart... But she would never agree to play Quake with me, even if we had two networked machines.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Console and PC games are different. Both will continue to exist, unless something comes along that combines the best aspects of both.
I do have to say, it makes sense that they would make you insert the cd every once in a while. Otherwise, everyone would just sell all their cds to other people (or used cd stores) and just listen to them via MP3.com... Or at least that's what the record companies think would happen. They should make the reinsertion a regular thing, though... Say, six months after adding a cd you have to "renew" it. Not that I care, since I don't use this service anyway.
With my.MP3.com, you do have to buy the cd. That's the whole point. It's a service that allows you to listen to the cds you own anywhere... at work, for example. Except the new rules seem to make the service pretty pointless.
There is no way that either Napster or MP3.com will survive if they begin charging for what is, essentially, a free service... Say goodbye to Napster, if they start charging they will die.
A major difference between my.MP3.com and Napster is that Napster doesn't require you to only listen to music you own. I think there are millions of people who will pay Napster $5 a month to keep using it, as long as they are allowed to use it as they do now... to download anything they want.
Their legal stance is different... my.MP3.com Made their own copies and distributed them under the (incorrect) premise that as long as the users already owned the music, they weren't breaking any laws. Napster is operating under the premise that they are just providing a "search engine", none of the files are theirs, so they aren't responsible. So, I don't think Napster (if they survive) will have to do all this cd-inserting and so forth, because they don't want you to prove you own it... They don't care.
Thank you for all the lively discussion, by the way, Robertjo... Sorry if I came off as a little aggressive in any of my responses. I just love talking about movies.
Yes, I think thats the problem most people on here have in thinking about the movie... Thinking about it as a superhero movie. I didn't know about the superhero aspect when I saw it, so it came as a complete suprise to me... I was just hoping the movie wasn't a clone of the Sixth Sense.
aside: showing the son the newspaper was unnecessary for the plot and stupid in that it slowed the movie down. Why was it important that the boy be reassured that Bruce was a superhero? The audience already knew it, why redundantly state it again?).
I belive they put that scene not just to reassure the son that Bruce was a superhero, but to let the audience know that their family unit would be doing well again... Mom's cookin up breakfast, Father and Son are sharing a secret, etc.
I have never seen a completed character arch advertised for a movie.
You've never seen a three act plot structure advertised for a movie, either, but trust me, they are there. A character arc is something that exists in virtually every story and pretty much ever movie, even dumb comedies(I'm speaking about Western stories hear, suppossedly Eastern ones are structured differently, but I'm no scholar, so I don't know about that), and if it's not there, you will probably find the story unfufilling, even if you don't know why. (You might find it unfufilling anyway, however). Imagine a movie where the characters all end up the same in the end as they were in the beginning. That's all a character arc is... Their progression through the story. The charcter arcs are the story, pretty much.
After an entire movie about comic books, it is revealed that Bruce's character is a comic book hero and Samuel L. is his nemesis. Surprise! If you didn't see any of that coming, God help you.
The fact that Bruce Willis was a hero wasn't intended to be suprise, since Mr. Glass told him that he was about 20 minutes into the movie. That Mr. Glass was the villian, was obvious as well, so I don't think it was really supposed to be a suprise either. The only part that suprised me was Mr. Glass' evil actions... I wasn't expecting that. I think this movie really wasn't meant to hinge on a suprise ending, like the Sixth Sense... Without the Sixth Sense's twist ending, I don't think most people would have liked it (I know I wouldn't have). It was an ending that totally changed the way you looked at the rest of the movie, whereas Unbreakable's ending didn't really change the way you looked at the rest of it, it simply explained a few things.
You said that, "The ending event that gives Sixth Sense purpose was Bruce and the boy exposing the mother as a murderer." You are a bit off here. I could have sworn that the ending event for Sixth Sense was Bruce figuring out that he himself was a ghost. (Talk about a surprise ending with meaning and fulfillment! So tasty, so fresh, so new!) I could be wrong tho.
The very ending of the Sixth Sense is where Bruce discovers and accepts his role. But this is not the scene that gives the film purpose... His character is a Doctor/Psychologist and he wants to help the boy. Once he believes in the boy, they expose the Mother who has been killing her children, putting the ghosts who threaten the boy to rest (and I think also saving the murderers other child? no sure about that). This does a few things. It brings the boy and his mother back together, it shows Bruce he can save the boy (which was in doubt since the last boy with this problem shot him). It also leads to Bruce's discovery of himself, and his fate. This is the "heart" of the film, in my opinion because teh characters are actually doing something... They are saving the child and revealing the murderer. All of the boy's sufferring at the hands of the ghost through out the whole film was intended to bring him here, to this action. Likewise for Bruce, the whole movie he is striving to help the boy stop believing in ghosts and help him. This is the first time in the movie where Bruce believes in ghosts and in the boy, finally proving that he can help someone, be useful. This then leads to his realizations about himself.
(Talk about a surprise ending with meaning and fulfillment! So tasty, so fresh, so new!)
It is a good ending (though the main character being dead reminded me a bit of -spoiler alert- Jacob's Ladder or Angel Heart), but where would the meaning be if we had simply watched a movie where Bruce Willis is dead, wandering around, then at the end he realizes he's not dead and POOFS into nothingness? It's the actions the characters take that build the story and give it meaning. A twist ending, just for twists sake, is not meaningful.
As far as Codas go, Seven's was irrelevant. (I was too busy crying for Gwyneth Paltrow's character)
That's a shame, because it's the heart and soul of teh movie. Go back and watch it again... The movie starts with Morgan giving up hope, and it ends with him regaining his hope. John Doe intended his "Performance" (or whatever you'd call it) to show people that his way was the way... But he failed, and instead caused Morgan to keep going.
If you saw it coming that Tyler Durden was actually Ed Norton, you are a truly gifted film viewer. Fight Club's ending made me reevaluate the ENTIRE movie. It shook up the audience completely. I immediately wanted to see it again and again. I took the movie to heart and applied its message to my life. We are the same decaying organic matter as everything else. THAT is a good movie.
Agreed, excellent movie. I know a few people who guessed (one of whom turned to me in the first half of the movie and said "Hey, I just figured it out!" to which I replied "Great, shut up and keep it to yourself!").
Josh Sisk
Re:Suprise isn't necessary, but worthy ending is.
on
Review: "Unbreakable"
·
· Score: 1
SPOLER ALERT
The reason you saw the film was that Bruce Willis' character completed his character arch. That is the basis for virtually every story. A character follows their arch, then either makes a change in themself, or resists outside forces and doesn't change (chooses not to change).
As for Unbreakable not having an ending event, the ending event was Bruce deciding he was indeed gifted and going to that house, saving the kids who were being held prisoner. Everything after that (showing his son the newspaper, his revelations with Mr. Glass) is part of the coda, which is the section of the film that explains what has occurred and ties up loose ends. Accepting himself for who he is (much like in Sixth Sense), solves all of his problems (or seemingly does so). His relationship with his wife becomes less strained, his depression leaves him, him and his son are friends again...
Often the coda reveals who is the real main character of the film. To use Seven as an example, the main character is played by Morgan Freeman and he completes his character arc when he decides to continue being a policeman, after the twist ending. In that film, the twist ending is not they payoff- it's Morgan's decision, which he makes because of the twist. This is also what gives the film a purpose- a good man doesn't give up, as he was going to in the beginning.
The ending event that gives Sixth Sense purpose was Bruce and the boy exposing the mother as a murderer. As I recall, this is where Bruce first really believes in the boy's visions. (I've only seen the movie once, when it first came out, so I may be a little off). This is coincidentally, the first step in realizing his own condition. Additionally, he is conflicted about his ability to help his patients, since his failure with Donnie Walburg's character... So by helping the boy come to terms with the ghosts, he is helping himself.
In Fight Club (whose twist isn't in the ending, it's at the end of act 2. All of act 3 he knows the truth, even if he doesn't completly accept it.) The twist there does not complete "Jack"/the Narrator's arc. He completes it when he accepts the truth about himself and Tyler, then shoots himself, thereby vanquishing Tyler. He fully actualizes himself and, it is implied, will be more normal and in control of his life now.
They also say that villians have larger or mis-shaped heads, and something about how arch villians are weak, but use their minds as a weapon "those are the really dangerous ones". Mr. Glass fits both of those descriptions. Check out that hair!
I agree, I don't think he was well-meaning. He actually says something to the affect of wanting to find a hero so he would feel like his life meant something. Its obvious he wasn't doing it to help people, but to make himself feel better.
I think the film touched on this, in the scene where he was getting all the flashes of the crimes. It was like, how far should he go? Which crimes were ones he should try to address? Is date rape big enough to try to confront the rapist? And what the hell would he do, anyway? I wished the movie had gone farther with that, it's could have been pretty interesting.
Personally, I think this is a better MOVIE than the Sixth Sense... I think the Sixth Sense is a average at best script which is only saved by the twist ending. It's also slow; slower than Unbreakable, but is saved in most people's eyes by the "scare scenes" which are peppered though out the film, seemingly at random, and the twist ending. It is a great ending and a great idea, but not a great movie. Of course, I wouldn't consider Unbreakable a _great_ movie either. Both are simply pretty good, much better than most popcorn flicks (IMHO).
Unbreakable started out being about comic books, was about comic books in the middle, and ended in comic book style. What is wrong with this? NO SURPRISE ENDING.
So no movie is good unless it has a suprise ending?
Some stories just don't need a suprise twist at the end and indeed, many would be hurt by just tacking on a suprise for the sake of a suprise.
That said, most people I know (including myself) did not predict the ending, at least not exactly. Personally, I knew _something_ was up, but I did not predict the exact ending.
Now I'm not saying the movie sucked or anything, but I'd exspect to see more of his "powers".
I don't think the movie was really about the fact the has powers... I think it was more about the fact that people can perform extraordinary acts (though not as extraordinary as David Dunn's), but they don't because they don't believe in themselves.
For example, a game like Civilization - great game, but comparitively week now a days. However, it can (and has been) released in the sort of 'classic' form.
Weak? I think the original Civ could be classified as weak only in the graphics department. Personally, I consider Civilization to be the definition of a "classic" game... It has been revamped several times and, in general, the revamping has been mostly limited to the graphics (Civ II) and setting (Alpha Centauri). The revamps (Call to Power, Test of Time) which have changed the game's structure have failed critically and commercially. The "sequels" which have stayed true to the original (Civ II, Alpha Centauri) have done well commercially and have won accolades from the press. I believe both Civ II and Alpha Centauri were in the top ten of PC Gamers best games list. Alpha Centauri is a really great game, and just adds to the framework which was laid by the original Civ games.
So if you want to connect your DC, the solution above is the only way to go.
So they lied in the store when they promised that the internet part would come, now I don't want that infernal machine anyway. f... sega.
You do know you can connect to any standard dial up account via the DC, right? And, once the broadband adaptor is out (it may already be in Europe), you can connect to any lan or your cablemodem.
Go look at the numbers for DC games. It pathetic compared to the ancient PS1 market.
You're comparing a new product with an established brand that has an install base of 70 million units. It's rather like saying "Wow, Quake III on the PC only sold 200,000 copies. Compare that to the PSX market, it's a failure." The PC gaming market is smaller than the PSX gaming market. This doesn't mean that their sales cannot generate tidy profits. This must be the case since more and more DC games are coming out from various developers. The DCs sales have been fine in America, more than enough to generate profits for SoA. The softness in Japanese sales are what caused Sega's losses. They have sold more DCs in the first year than Sony did PSXs. The game market has changed drastically since the PSX release. Before the 70 million sales of PSX, a console was considered successful if it sold 1 or 2 million units. Sega will not duplicate the success of the original PSX. It's unlikely that Sony will, either. Sega's position in the next-gen market is much like that of the N64 vs the Playstation- a distant second place, but still in the game.
'The DC has been a success in the US'
Funny definition of 'success.'
My definition of success is not 'the #1 in the market place'. My definition of success is a) profitable and b) better than previous efforts. On both counts, the DC is a success- in America. As I said in my previous post, however, in Japan it is a horrible failure.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that consoles will turn into PCs, it's that low end PCs will be cheap and powerful enough to compete with the consoles.
People say this all the time, but yet, even though the price of an entry level computer has dropped signifigantly over the last five years, console sales just keep getting stronger and stronger. For example- five years ago, selling a million consoles, total, was considered a huge success. Now, when the PS2 can't do that on it's opening DAY, its a huge misstep. The world is hungry for consoles ands not because of the hardware... It's because of the differences in the play experience.
Josh Sisk
I believe he meant the cost of developing games, not buying them.
Josh Sisk
Many, perhaps most, people who have game consoles also have computers. When one can choose between buying a console or upgrading a computer to play the same games with the same or better performance, which would be the smartest choice?
I have a very nice gaming PC. I also have a DC and plan on getting a PS2, once the furor dies down and more games come out. I will always buy consoles for one reason: it's a different experience. With a console, you can sprawl out on your couch, in your living room and play a game. It takes virtually no time to start the console and begin to play. No boot up, no distractions (how many times have you sat down to fire up a game and noticed a stack of emails in your inbox), no sitting up in your chair, at your desk. Console games are usually set up where you can sit and play for a few minutes, relax, then get up and do something else. When I sit down to a RTS or FPS game, I generally play until my eyes hurt. Also, consoles are fun for the couch multiplay... Nothing like taking your friends on at some Soul Caliber, Tony Hawk or Mario Kart.
Consoles will always be popular for these very reasons (unless the PC can gain more headway in the living rooms of the world) and it would be silly to think otherwise. There is a reason why the console market is growing and the computer market is, at best, staying the same.
Josh Sisk
You are missing out on some great games, man. I love the old games, too... But I also love new ones like Metal Gear Solid, Shenmue, Tony Hawk... New technology sometimes offers new gameplay as well, not just fancy graphics.
And as far as kids not liking the classics... Would you like Adventure as much if you had grown up playing Tomb Raider?
Josh Sisk
But the parents have to buy a desktop PC (which continue to drop in price) anyways just so there kids can do their homework. The console then becomes redundant.
No, it does not.
How many times does this have to come up on slashdot? Console gaming and PC gaming are just different. They have different types of games and offer different experiences. The PC is better at more immersive, detailed games. The kind you sit up at your desk and play. The console is better (indeed, about 100x better) at games where you lay back on the couch and relax, maybe with a few friends.
Do not underestimate couch multiplay. I have much more FUN playing Mario Kart with 3 friends (who are right there with me, laughing and drinking) than I do playing online PC games with anonymous strangers, but I am still driven to play games online, improve my characters and my personal skills... Consoles offer a party atmosphere as opposed to the more solitary PC experience. It's nice to have something to do when you are actually physically hanging out with another person. For example, I can interest my girlfriend in a game of Worms Amageddon on my DC, or the aformentioned Mario Kart... But she would never agree to play Quake with me, even if we had two networked machines.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Console and PC games are different. Both will continue to exist, unless something comes along that combines the best aspects of both.
Josh Sisk
I do have to say, it makes sense that they would make you insert the cd every once in a while. Otherwise, everyone would just sell all their cds to other people (or used cd stores) and just listen to them via MP3.com... Or at least that's what the record companies think would happen. They should make the reinsertion a regular thing, though... Say, six months after adding a cd you have to "renew" it. Not that I care, since I don't use this service anyway.
Josh Sisk
With my.MP3.com, you do have to buy the cd. That's the whole point. It's a service that allows you to listen to the cds you own anywhere... at work, for example. Except the new rules seem to make the service pretty pointless.
Josh Sisk
There is no way that either Napster or MP3.com will survive if they begin charging for what is, essentially, a free service... Say goodbye to Napster, if they start charging they will die.
A major difference between my.MP3.com and Napster is that Napster doesn't require you to only listen to music you own. I think there are millions of people who will pay Napster $5 a month to keep using it, as long as they are allowed to use it as they do now... to download anything they want.
Their legal stance is different... my.MP3.com Made their own copies and distributed them under the (incorrect) premise that as long as the users already owned the music, they weren't breaking any laws. Napster is operating under the premise that they are just providing a "search engine", none of the files are theirs, so they aren't responsible. So, I don't think Napster (if they survive) will have to do all this cd-inserting and so forth, because they don't want you to prove you own it... They don't care.
Josh Sisk
Thank you for all the lively discussion, by the way, Robertjo... Sorry if I came off as a little aggressive in any of my responses. I just love talking about movies.
Josh Sisk
Yes, I think thats the problem most people on here have in thinking about the movie... Thinking about it as a superhero movie. I didn't know about the superhero aspect when I saw it, so it came as a complete suprise to me... I was just hoping the movie wasn't a clone of the Sixth Sense.
Josh Sisk
aside: showing the son the newspaper was unnecessary for the plot and stupid in that it slowed the movie down. Why was it important that the boy be reassured that Bruce was a superhero? The audience already knew it, why redundantly state it again?).
I belive they put that scene not just to reassure the son that Bruce was a superhero, but to let the audience know that their family unit would be doing well again... Mom's cookin up breakfast, Father and Son are sharing a secret, etc.
I have never seen a completed character arch advertised for a movie.
You've never seen a three act plot structure advertised for a movie, either, but trust me, they are there. A character arc is something that exists in virtually every story and pretty much ever movie, even dumb comedies(I'm speaking about Western stories hear, suppossedly Eastern ones are structured differently, but I'm no scholar, so I don't know about that), and if it's not there, you will probably find the story unfufilling, even if you don't know why. (You might find it unfufilling anyway, however). Imagine a movie where the characters all end up the same in the end as they were in the beginning. That's all a character arc is... Their progression through the story. The charcter arcs are the story, pretty much.
After an entire movie about comic books, it is revealed that Bruce's character is a comic book hero and Samuel L. is his nemesis. Surprise! If you didn't see any of that coming, God help you.
The fact that Bruce Willis was a hero wasn't intended to be suprise, since Mr. Glass told him that he was about 20 minutes into the movie. That Mr. Glass was the villian, was obvious as well, so I don't think it was really supposed to be a suprise either. The only part that suprised me was Mr. Glass' evil actions... I wasn't expecting that. I think this movie really wasn't meant to hinge on a suprise ending, like the Sixth Sense... Without the Sixth Sense's twist ending, I don't think most people would have liked it (I know I wouldn't have). It was an ending that totally changed the way you looked at the rest of the movie, whereas Unbreakable's ending didn't really change the way you looked at the rest of it, it simply explained a few things.
You said that, "The ending event that gives Sixth Sense purpose was Bruce and the boy exposing the mother as a murderer." You are a bit off here. I could have sworn that the ending event for Sixth Sense was Bruce figuring out that he himself was a ghost. (Talk about a surprise ending with meaning and fulfillment! So tasty, so fresh, so new!) I could be wrong tho.
The very ending of the Sixth Sense is where Bruce discovers and accepts his role. But this is not the scene that gives the film purpose... His character is a Doctor/Psychologist and he wants to help the boy. Once he believes in the boy, they expose the Mother who has been killing her children, putting the ghosts who threaten the boy to rest (and I think also saving the murderers other child? no sure about that). This does a few things. It brings the boy and his mother back together, it shows Bruce he can save the boy (which was in doubt since the last boy with this problem shot him). It also leads to Bruce's discovery of himself, and his fate. This is the "heart" of the film, in my opinion because teh characters are actually doing something... They are saving the child and revealing the murderer. All of the boy's sufferring at the hands of the ghost through out the whole film was intended to bring him here, to this action. Likewise for Bruce, the whole movie he is striving to help the boy stop believing in ghosts and help him. This is the first time in the movie where Bruce believes in ghosts and in the boy, finally proving that he can help someone, be useful. This then leads to his realizations about himself.
(Talk about a surprise ending with meaning and fulfillment! So tasty, so fresh, so new!)
It is a good ending (though the main character being dead reminded me a bit of -spoiler alert- Jacob's Ladder or Angel Heart), but where would the meaning be if we had simply watched a movie where Bruce Willis is dead, wandering around, then at the end he realizes he's not dead and POOFS into nothingness? It's the actions the characters take that build the story and give it meaning. A twist ending, just for twists sake, is not meaningful.
As far as Codas go, Seven's was irrelevant. (I was too busy crying for Gwyneth Paltrow's character)
That's a shame, because it's the heart and soul of teh movie. Go back and watch it again... The movie starts with Morgan giving up hope, and it ends with him regaining his hope. John Doe intended his "Performance" (or whatever you'd call it) to show people that his way was the way... But he failed, and instead caused Morgan to keep going.
If you saw it coming that Tyler Durden was actually Ed Norton, you are a truly gifted film viewer. Fight Club's ending made me reevaluate the ENTIRE movie. It shook up the audience completely. I immediately wanted to see it again and again. I took the movie to heart and applied its message to my life. We are the same decaying organic matter as everything else. THAT is a good movie.
Agreed, excellent movie. I know a few people who guessed (one of whom turned to me in the first half of the movie and said "Hey, I just figured it out!" to which I replied "Great, shut up and keep it to yourself!").
Josh Sisk
SPOLER ALERT
The reason you saw the film was that Bruce Willis' character completed his character arch. That is the basis for virtually every story. A character follows their arch, then either makes a change in themself, or resists outside forces and doesn't change (chooses not to change).
As for Unbreakable not having an ending event, the ending event was Bruce deciding he was indeed gifted and going to that house, saving the kids who were being held prisoner. Everything after that (showing his son the newspaper, his revelations with Mr. Glass) is part of the coda, which is the section of the film that explains what has occurred and ties up loose ends. Accepting himself for who he is (much like in Sixth Sense), solves all of his problems (or seemingly does so). His relationship with his wife becomes less strained, his depression leaves him, him and his son are friends again...
Often the coda reveals who is the real main character of the film. To use Seven as an example, the main character is played by Morgan Freeman and he completes his character arc when he decides to continue being a policeman, after the twist ending. In that film, the twist ending is not they payoff- it's Morgan's decision, which he makes because of the twist. This is also what gives the film a purpose- a good man doesn't give up, as he was going to in the beginning.
The ending event that gives Sixth Sense purpose was Bruce and the boy exposing the mother as a murderer. As I recall, this is where Bruce first really believes in the boy's visions. (I've only seen the movie once, when it first came out, so I may be a little off). This is coincidentally, the first step in realizing his own condition. Additionally, he is conflicted about his ability to help his patients, since his failure with Donnie Walburg's character... So by helping the boy come to terms with the ghosts, he is helping himself.
In Fight Club (whose twist isn't in the ending, it's at the end of act 2. All of act 3 he knows the truth, even if he doesn't completly accept it.) The twist there does not complete "Jack"/the Narrator's arc. He completes it when he accepts the truth about himself and Tyler, then shoots himself, thereby vanquishing Tyler. He fully actualizes himself and, it is implied, will be more normal and in control of his life now.
Josh Sisk
They also say that villians have larger or mis-shaped heads, and something about how arch villians are weak, but use their minds as a weapon "those are the really dangerous ones". Mr. Glass fits both of those descriptions. Check out that hair!
I agree, I don't think he was well-meaning. He actually says something to the affect of wanting to find a hero so he would feel like his life meant something. Its obvious he wasn't doing it to help people, but to make himself feel better.
Josh Sisk
DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE
I think the film touched on this, in the scene where he was getting all the flashes of the crimes. It was like, how far should he go? Which crimes were ones he should try to address? Is date rape big enough to try to confront the rapist? And what the hell would he do, anyway? I wished the movie had gone farther with that, it's could have been pretty interesting.
Josh Sisk
Sixth Sense kept me at the edge of my seat
Why, exactly? When I saw it, I was really pretty bored. I liked it, but it definitely didn't keep me on the edge of my seat...
Josh Sisk
Personally, I think this is a better MOVIE than the Sixth Sense... I think the Sixth Sense is a average at best script which is only saved by the twist ending. It's also slow; slower than Unbreakable, but is saved in most people's eyes by the "scare scenes" which are peppered though out the film, seemingly at random, and the twist ending. It is a great ending and a great idea, but not a great movie. Of course, I wouldn't consider Unbreakable a _great_ movie either. Both are simply pretty good, much better than most popcorn flicks (IMHO).
Josh Sisk
Unbreakable started out being about comic books, was about comic books in the middle, and ended in comic book style. What is wrong with this? NO SURPRISE ENDING.
So no movie is good unless it has a suprise ending?
Some stories just don't need a suprise twist at the end and indeed, many would be hurt by just tacking on a suprise for the sake of a suprise.
That said, most people I know (including myself) did not predict the ending, at least not exactly. Personally, I knew _something_ was up, but I did not predict the exact ending.
Josh Sisk
I liked the ending, except for the cards that flashed over them. I didn't think it really needed that...
Now I'm not saying the movie sucked or anything, but I'd exspect to see more of his "powers".
I don't think the movie was really about the fact the has powers... I think it was more about the fact that people can perform extraordinary acts (though not as extraordinary as David Dunn's), but they don't because they don't believe in themselves.
Josh Sisk
Except in this case, he's right: helping.org is an arm of the AOL Foundation.
As he pointed out in his original post, if you had read it: "Now, as it happens they are affiliated with AOL as can be seen here."
Josh Sisk
World Gazette says Denmark has 5,363,900 people.
Josh Sisk
So anyone thats under thirty is automatically stupid and a newbie?
Righhht.
I agree though, this isn't news.
Josh Sisk
For example, a game like Civilization - great game, but comparitively week now a days. However, it can (and has been) released in the sort of 'classic' form.
Weak? I think the original Civ could be classified as weak only in the graphics department. Personally, I consider Civilization to be the definition of a "classic" game... It has been revamped several times and, in general, the revamping has been mostly limited to the graphics (Civ II) and setting (Alpha Centauri). The revamps (Call to Power, Test of Time) which have changed the game's structure have failed critically and commercially. The "sequels" which have stayed true to the original (Civ II, Alpha Centauri) have done well commercially and have won accolades from the press. I believe both Civ II and Alpha Centauri were in the top ten of PC Gamers best games list. Alpha Centauri is a really great game, and just adds to the framework which was laid by the original Civ games.
Josh Sisk
So if you want to connect your DC, the solution above is the only way to go. So they lied in the store when they promised that the internet part would come, now I don't want that infernal machine anyway. f... sega.
You do know you can connect to any standard dial up account via the DC, right? And, once the broadband adaptor is out (it may already be in Europe), you can connect to any lan or your cablemodem.
Josh Sisk
Go look at the numbers for DC games. It pathetic compared to the ancient PS1 market.
You're comparing a new product with an established brand that has an install base of 70 million units. It's rather like saying "Wow, Quake III on the PC only sold 200,000 copies. Compare that to the PSX market, it's a failure." The PC gaming market is smaller than the PSX gaming market. This doesn't mean that their sales cannot generate tidy profits. This must be the case since more and more DC games are coming out from various developers. The DCs sales have been fine in America, more than enough to generate profits for SoA. The softness in Japanese sales are what caused Sega's losses. They have sold more DCs in the first year than Sony did PSXs. The game market has changed drastically since the PSX release. Before the 70 million sales of PSX, a console was considered successful if it sold 1 or 2 million units. Sega will not duplicate the success of the original PSX. It's unlikely that Sony will, either. Sega's position in the next-gen market is much like that of the N64 vs the Playstation- a distant second place, but still in the game.
'The DC has been a success in the US'
Funny definition of 'success.'
My definition of success is not 'the #1 in the market place'. My definition of success is a) profitable and b) better than previous efforts. On both counts, the DC is a success- in America. As I said in my previous post, however, in Japan it is a horrible failure.
Josh Sisk