Good thing I said "And FYI, before you say so, a "sequel" does not connotate unoriginalness. Empire Stikes Back and Godfather 2 both took the same characters and presented them in a new light to be wonderfully entertaining" - because looks like you said just that.
Oh, so you're one of those people that thinks that everything is copied from something? One of those "Lord of the Rings is just a copy of older fantasies." What movie, EXACTLY, did the incredibles copy? Hey, The Godfather wasn't the first crime movie. I can find many references to old movies, art works, etc in it. Original is, according to worldimages.com " a work that is a new creation by an artist as opposed to that which is copied or reproduced in another work."
By that definition, I found new depth and insight into the characters "as opposed to that which is copied or reproduced in another work" in the following films. It is my opinion, and therefore indesputable:
Fast Eddie Felson in the Color of Money
Ash in Army of Darkness
Luke Skywalker in Empire Strikes Back
I can go on and on. These are my opinions that they are different characters. You can say that everything is copied from everything. Here, I have a challenge then. You can either accept that I have a different opinion, or...
Give me FIVE examples of TOTALLY unique and original films. I guarantee you I can tell you previous bases for them. "Inspired" != "unoriginal."
Given the original scripts coming out, mabye tons of remakes isn't so bad after all.
***YAWN***
Yet another cliched "There's nothing good/original coming out anymore." Everyone like you seems to remember the "good ol' days" of 1972 or some shit like that. Well, let me tell you, aside from The Godfather, a LOT of crap came out that year, and every year after and before. This year (like most others) has had some AMAZINGLY wonderful AND ORIGINAL screenplays:
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Oh yeah, Charlie Kaufman is "so unoriginal")
The Incredibles (Yep, Pixar does the same film over and over - ALL ANIMATION! I mean, come on!)
Kill Bill, Vol 2 (The best samauri movie made in 20 years. And wha!?!?!? It was American?)
Spiderman 2 (MAYBE 1978's Superman was an equal. MAYBE. I personally thought Spiderman 2 was better. But this is without question at least ONE of the greatest super hero movies ever made. Took the genre to new levels that perhaps ALL future superhero movies will be judged against. And FYI, before you say so, a "sequel" does not connotate unoriginalness. Empire Stikes Back and Godfather 2 both took the same characters and presented them in a new light to be wonderfully entertaining).
Shaun of the Dead (Um... a zombie romantic comedy, that works? Yeah, I'll call that original any day)
Napoleon Dynamite (I didn't see it, but everyone I know says it was a different movie than had been made in a long time)
Movies I personally loved (i.e. my opinion), but understand I may find no mass-critical acclaim for:
Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
Mean Girls (seemed like yet another High School movie, but it surprisingly had a lot of heart, and great characters)
Hero (It just worked for me)
Team America: World Police (To me, it was the funniest film I had seen in years)
Harry Potter & Prisoner of Azkaban (Alfonso Cuarón made the best film in the series, so far - I'm really looking forward to 4 and 5)
Miracle (I never saw a movie before that I knew EVERYTHING that was going to happen, yet I was very excited and suspenceful in seeing it).
And I can only speculate, based on the flawless (or nearly flawless) directoral efforts of these directors that we have at least a few more gems coming out:
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (Wes Anderson is NOTHING if not original)
The Aviator (Maybe he'll finally get his oscar?)
Anyway, I didn't mean for this to sound mean-hearted. It's just that it's very common to hear this knee-jerk reaction to "today's (movies, television, culture, teenagers, music)" and forget that yes - a lot of trash comes out, but it does EVERY year. Be a half-full kinda person and treat yourselves to some of the wonderful new entertainment that came out this year.
if the GameBoy Advanced (released in 2001) has the capabilities of the NES (early 1990s?) and the DS has the capabilities of the N64
Actually, it's more like the GBA has the abilties of the SUPER nes, not the NES. The gameboy Color seemed (to me, but maybe not in actual specs) to be equal or superior to the original NES (Donkey Kong Country was even actually pretty close to the SNES version.
Why would you trade those items for things like a TV tuner?
I fully agree NOW. But... back in 1990, in 3rd grade, that just sounded SO COOL! The idea that you could watch tv anywhere, that everyone would crowd around your tv at recess seemed so sweet (though we didn't think of things such as "what the hell is a kid gonna watch at 12 noon - news, or soaps. to a 10 year-old, both sound ugh."
Yes, Hanukkah is a "minor" holiday in terms of religious "importance" - you are correct that both Passover and Yom Kippur are more "important" holidays. In fact, it's one of the only jewish holidays to not be in the Hebrew Bible (ironically, only the Catholic Bible has it - Macabbees I-IV).
actually, it's a chicken-and-egg problem with no solution...
As someone in this thread correctly pointed out, Hanukkah has been celebrated since 165 B.C.E. when the events took place. As is customary in Jewish holidays celebrating happy events like this, there are "fun" customs. For example, in the case of "Purim" (where Jews celebrate liberation from a tyrant in Persia who wanted to kill all Jews - it's the story of the bible book "Esther"), they celebrate this happy occation by dressing up in costumes and getting drunk.
To celebrate Hanukkah, it was always traditional for parents to give their children a few coins as a gift at this time of year to celebrate the "miracle" that jews believe occured in 165 B.C.E. You may have seen these chocolate coins sold at this time of year. They are often given to kids as a fun substitute for coins.
Anyway, Christmas occurs at the same time as Hanukkah, and the gift-giving idea evolved from judaism's coin-giving. This gift-giving was "re-borrowed" back by jews, so now everyone gives gifts.
hahaa, that reminds me of a promo for Oz before it's 5th season...
A skinny businessman is walking the city street of manhattan, casually. He crumbles throws out a piece of paper into a public garbage. It bounces off the top and onto the street, next to a NO LITTERING sign. The guy is like "whatever, it's a friggin piece of paper" and keep walking. 4 steps later, the camera zooms in to his face, and he's petrified...
The next 10 seconds show VERY FAST and brief flashes from Oz: people being raped, beaten, gangbanged, burned, screaming, crying, locked up, naked, etc...
Flashes back to the guy. He sees what prison is like, quickly turns back and picks up the piece of paper and puts it properly in the garbage...
Well, I think the article is talking about the decline of the "universal" mascot. EVERYONE recognized Pac-Man and Mario. But ask any parent - who the hell is Rayne? The Prince from Prince of Persia is hardly universally recognizable. I have no idea what Spyro looks like. But Mario? Sonic? Those characters were actual mascots - i.e. you could find Sonic in a Sega commercial/magazine ad that wasn't even advertising a Sonic Game.
You still see that to some extent though - earlier this year, Mario was used not to promote a mario game, but for the general-nintendo "Who Are You?" ads.
Michael - i've said it before... It's simple professionalism in journalism:
On the front cover of the New York Times, they cannot say "Bush just eliminated protections of the environment. This is a really stupid idea." This is because on Page 1, the people expect the facts, not the author's point of view.
They can, however, state on Page 1: "Bush eliminated protections for the environment" and then on the Op-Ed page, where opinions are encouraged/expected, state "Bush's cut of Protection X is stupid because..."
Or, if Michael simply can't hold it in, he can do what a New York Times journalist might do, and take the opinion of an expert: "Bush cuts enviromental protections. Ralph Wiggum of the EPA states that these cuts will have 'horrible impacts on the grizzly bear population.'" Michael could have said his gripes about Steam and quotes IGN/Gamespot or anyone else. But... not himself. That is unprofessional. Take any journalism class and you'll learn that on day 1.
On the front cover of the New York Times, they cannot say "Bush just eliminated protections of the environment. This is a really stupid idea." This is because on Page 1, the people expect the facts, not the author's point of view.
They can, however, state on Page 1: "Bush eliminated protections for the environment" and then on the Op-Ed page, where opinions are encouraged/expected, state "Bush's cut of Protection X is stupid because..."
Or, if Michael simply can't hold it in, he can do what a New York Times journalist might do, and take the opinion of an expert: "Bush cuts enviromental protections. Ralph Wiggum of the EPA states that these cuts will have 'horrible impacts on the grizzly bear population.'" Michael could have said his gripes about Steam and quotes IGN/Gamespot or anyone else. But... not himself. That is unprofessional. Take any journalism class and you'll learn that on day 1.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so you're one of those people that thinks that everything is copied from something? One of those "Lord of the Rings is just a copy of older fantasies." What movie, EXACTLY, did the incredibles copy? Hey, The Godfather wasn't the first crime movie. I can find many references to old movies, art works, etc in it. Original is, according to worldimages.com " a work that is a new creation by an artist as opposed to that which is copied or reproduced in another work."
By that definition, I found new depth and insight into the characters "as opposed to that which is copied or reproduced in another work" in the following films. It is my opinion, and therefore indesputable:
Fast Eddie Felson in the Color of Money
Ash in Army of Darkness
Luke Skywalker in Empire Strikes Back
I can go on and on. These are my opinions that they are different characters. You can say that everything is copied from everything. Here, I have a challenge then. You can either accept that I have a different opinion, or...
Give me FIVE examples of TOTALLY unique and original films. I guarantee you I can tell you previous bases for them. "Inspired" != "unoriginal."
***YAWN***
Yet another cliched "There's nothing good/original coming out anymore." Everyone like you seems to remember the "good ol' days" of 1972 or some shit like that. Well, let me tell you, aside from The Godfather, a LOT of crap came out that year, and every year after and before. This year (like most others) has had some AMAZINGLY wonderful AND ORIGINAL screenplays:
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Oh yeah, Charlie Kaufman is "so unoriginal")
The Incredibles (Yep, Pixar does the same film over and over - ALL ANIMATION! I mean, come on!)
Kill Bill, Vol 2 (The best samauri movie made in 20 years. And wha!?!?!? It was American?)
Spiderman 2 (MAYBE 1978's Superman was an equal. MAYBE. I personally thought Spiderman 2 was better. But this is without question at least ONE of the greatest super hero movies ever made. Took the genre to new levels that perhaps ALL future superhero movies will be judged against. And FYI, before you say so, a "sequel" does not connotate unoriginalness. Empire Stikes Back and Godfather 2 both took the same characters and presented them in a new light to be wonderfully entertaining).
Shaun of the Dead (Um... a zombie romantic comedy, that works? Yeah, I'll call that original any day)
Napoleon Dynamite (I didn't see it, but everyone I know says it was a different movie than had been made in a long time)
Movies I personally loved (i.e. my opinion), but understand I may find no mass-critical acclaim for:
Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
Mean Girls (seemed like yet another High School movie, but it surprisingly had a lot of heart, and great characters)
Hero (It just worked for me)
Team America: World Police (To me, it was the funniest film I had seen in years)
Harry Potter & Prisoner of Azkaban (Alfonso Cuarón made the best film in the series, so far - I'm really looking forward to 4 and 5)
Miracle (I never saw a movie before that I knew EVERYTHING that was going to happen, yet I was very excited and suspenceful in seeing it).
And I can only speculate, based on the flawless (or nearly flawless) directoral efforts of these directors that we have at least a few more gems coming out:
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (Wes Anderson is NOTHING if not original)
The Aviator (Maybe he'll finally get his oscar?)
Anyway, I didn't mean for this to sound mean-hearted. It's just that it's very common to hear this knee-jerk reaction to "today's (movies, television, culture, teenagers, music)" and forget that yes - a lot of trash comes out, but it does EVERY year. Be a half-full kinda person and treat yourselves to some of the wonderful new entertainment that came out this year.
I read on CNET they hope to sell 1.5 million games by the end of the year - 3 games per unit
Actually, it's more like the GBA has the abilties of the SUPER nes, not the NES. The gameboy Color seemed (to me, but maybe not in actual specs) to be equal or superior to the original NES (Donkey Kong Country was even actually pretty close to the SNES version.
Also, the N64 was originally called the Ultra 64, so it's code # is ULT-XXXX (maybe off by a letter)
I assume, then, that you don't want a PSP then (seems like, while very advanced, nothing more than a PS2 compatable with PS2 games shrunk down).
ok cool, just wondering. (i don't have one, just thought i read that somewhere).
I thought there was a story on Slashdot that your flash card wouldn't work in the DS. Maybe I'm wrong...
Why would you trade those items for things like a TV tuner?
I fully agree NOW. But... back in 1990, in 3rd grade, that just sounded SO COOL! The idea that you could watch tv anywhere, that everyone would crowd around your tv at recess seemed so sweet (though we didn't think of things such as "what the hell is a kid gonna watch at 12 noon - news, or soaps. to a 10 year-old, both sound ugh."
I'll probably play C&C and RA2 then. In C&C - who should I be? Allies or NOD?
Goooooooooooo grapefruit!
Better graphics: Game Gea (by far)
Backlight: Game Gear
Color Graphics: Game Gear
TV Tuner option: Game Gear
Battery Life: Gameboy (by FAR)
Overall Winner: Gameboy
(hint, hint, Sony...)
everyone seems to think TS sucks. Why is that? How can it be THAT different?
Go China!
C&C
C&C: Red Alert
C&C: Tiberian Sun
C&C:Red Alert 2
Once finals are over, which of these should I play over the break? And why, if I may ask?
Yes, Hanukkah is a "minor" holiday in terms of religious "importance" - you are correct that both Passover and Yom Kippur are more "important" holidays. In fact, it's one of the only jewish holidays to not be in the Hebrew Bible (ironically, only the Catholic Bible has it - Macabbees I-IV).
As someone in this thread correctly pointed out, Hanukkah has been celebrated since 165 B.C.E. when the events took place. As is customary in Jewish holidays celebrating happy events like this, there are "fun" customs. For example, in the case of "Purim" (where Jews celebrate liberation from a tyrant in Persia who wanted to kill all Jews - it's the story of the bible book "Esther"), they celebrate this happy occation by dressing up in costumes and getting drunk.
To celebrate Hanukkah, it was always traditional for parents to give their children a few coins as a gift at this time of year to celebrate the "miracle" that jews believe occured in 165 B.C.E. You may have seen these chocolate coins sold at this time of year. They are often given to kids as a fun substitute for coins.
Anyway, Christmas occurs at the same time as Hanukkah, and the gift-giving idea evolved from judaism's coin-giving. This gift-giving was "re-borrowed" back by jews, so now everyone gives gifts.
A skinny businessman is walking the city street of manhattan, casually. He crumbles throws out a piece of paper into a public garbage. It bounces off the top and onto the street, next to a NO LITTERING sign. The guy is like "whatever, it's a friggin piece of paper" and keep walking. 4 steps later, the camera zooms in to his face, and he's petrified...
The next 10 seconds show VERY FAST and brief flashes from Oz: people being raped, beaten, gangbanged, burned, screaming, crying, locked up, naked, etc...
Flashes back to the guy. He sees what prison is like, quickly turns back and picks up the piece of paper and puts it properly in the garbage...
You still see that to some extent though - earlier this year, Mario was used not to promote a mario game, but for the general-nintendo "Who Are You?" ads.
Yeah - 3 square meals, no work, no rent, oh... and that pesky forced-anal-raping and beat-downs daily*. But hey - free cable and video games!
*from my watchings of Oz - my skinny, white, jewish ass would last all of 45 seconds in a prison.
On the front cover of the New York Times, they cannot say "Bush just eliminated protections of the environment. This is a really stupid idea." This is because on Page 1, the people expect the facts, not the author's point of view.
They can, however, state on Page 1: "Bush eliminated protections for the environment" and then on the Op-Ed page, where opinions are encouraged/expected, state "Bush's cut of Protection X is stupid because..."
Or, if Michael simply can't hold it in, he can do what a New York Times journalist might do, and take the opinion of an expert: "Bush cuts enviromental protections. Ralph Wiggum of the EPA states that these cuts will have 'horrible impacts on the grizzly bear population.'" Michael could have said his gripes about Steam and quotes IGN/Gamespot or anyone else. But... not himself. That is unprofessional. Take any journalism class and you'll learn that on day 1.
that's exactly what I was thinking. I used to LOVE those...
Michael is the new Jon Katz of Slashdot: hated by everyone (except when defending himself under a pseudonym account)
On the front cover of the New York Times, they cannot say "Bush just eliminated protections of the environment. This is a really stupid idea." This is because on Page 1, the people expect the facts, not the author's point of view.
They can, however, state on Page 1: "Bush eliminated protections for the environment" and then on the Op-Ed page, where opinions are encouraged/expected, state "Bush's cut of Protection X is stupid because..."
Or, if Michael simply can't hold it in, he can do what a New York Times journalist might do, and take the opinion of an expert: "Bush cuts enviromental protections. Ralph Wiggum of the EPA states that these cuts will have 'horrible impacts on the grizzly bear population.'" Michael could have said his gripes about Steam and quotes IGN/Gamespot or anyone else. But... not himself. That is unprofessional. Take any journalism class and you'll learn that on day 1.
then he still has to buy the electricity...