Messages

Here's what you're basically saying: The Oscars should vote for just American films.

No, no. I've said if case A, then A. If case B, then B.

But it's already case B, so I don't see what the problem is.

Kinoko, I don't think I've misintepreted anything.

Here's what you're basically saying: The Oscars should vote for just American films.

Okay, now here's what I'm saying: The people in the Academy might feel their favourite picture of the year comes from another country.

I think my point is valid especially since the Academy is made of of people from other countries. For example, Geoffrey Rush, Roberto Benigni, and Pedro Almodovar are all in the Academy. Ultimately, it's the Academy's decision. Which is why...

Secondly, it's not like relegating the Nobel Prize to Norwegians at all because the Oscars is a show created by the Americans, isn't it? It's held in America, hosted by Americans and run by Americans... isn't it? If I'm wrong, I'm sorry.

... you're partially wrong. What counts is who votes. And from what I understand, the voters are past winners, many of them from other countries (such is the case with the foreign film award).

You can try and tell them not to, but the way movies are these days, I doubt many will listen.

Sad, innit?

Okay, they're foreign actors but they're nominated for the American films they were in, no? That was my point.

No, you're wrong. Three of them were in films not American made: Vera Drake (Staunton), Maria Full of Grace (Moreno), and Hotel Rwanda (Okonedo). And you could go one further and say Annette Being's nomination was for a British film (Being Julia), even though she's American.

I'd like to see the Oscars become more global, but it's one or the other for me, not this wishy-washy in-between state.

But it's not wishy-washy. It is global. It's an American institution, but nowhere does it say that it has to be strictly for American films. Doing so is stupid. It's like relegating the Nobel Prizes to Norwegians. Sure, Norwegians are a fine bunch, but there are geniuses and peacemakers in other countries too.

As eric asks above, does it matter what the Oscars do? In this discussion, yes, but here's the thing: The Oscars is comprised of Academy members who's purpose is to decide what films they liked. Now, I ask you this: Why should we tell them "Hey guys, you can tell the world what films you liked, but only if they're American films!" That's nonsense! People in the Academy can like films, and songs from films, from other countries. It's just like me liking films from Australia as well as America, Britian, Japan, India, Europe, etc. If you say, "Hey, they should only vote for American films." Then you might as well just relegate Americans to watching American films, Australians to Australian films, Britians to British films, etc, etc, which is equally as much nonsense. I like seeing films from other countries as much as my own.

The Oscar are just a group of people who tell us what movies, local or foreign, they liked. And I don't think anyone here can say what movies they, or anyone else, are allowed to watch. That's the real narrow-mindedness.

Since Dragonrose has commented that it's the latter, I'll assume that for now. So, assuming that, why is there a foreign  film catagory? Also, why is it that American films by FAR dominate the rest of the catagories? If the Academy Awards is in fact for films from all over the world, why is it that you never see one or two non foreign films in the Best Film or Best Sound or Best this or that catagory? Foreign actors are never in the Best Actor/Actress awards..

Not true. Catalina Sandino Moreno, a Columbian actress, was nominated for Best Actress. Kate Winslett are Imelda Staunton, both British, were nominated in the same category. Clive Owen, another Brit, was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. And Cate Blanchett, an Aussie, won for Best Supporting Actress. And nominated along with her was Sophie Okonedo, another Brit.

Now all these actors are technically foreign in the sense that they're non-American. If we are going to get really nit-picky about whether the Oscars are for American films or not, then you discount other English-speaking countries too.

I'm all for diversity in film because I believe in seeing the world differently. And I think the Oscars would support my belief (although it's a little much for me to assume, but I do so humbly ). Which is why I say go for it when it comes to nominating foreign language films in other categories.

Darth:

I can understand that.  But it doesn't make sense then to have categories for foreign languages.  At least to me.  If they want to make it 'worldly' then throw them all in together.

I'm not too sure what you're trying to say, Darth.

Are you trying to say the Academy shouldn't recognise foreign films with their own category, or are you saying they should recognise them but keep them limited to their own category?

The Foreign Film category is for foreign films as a whole production and were first established to promote foreign films, especially since the Academy Awards are an American institution and dominated by English-speaking films. It's basically the reason why Animated Features got their own category -- because several fine animated films were being ignored by the Academy (Chicken Run, for example)

Meanwhile, the song category is for individual songs, despite their language. Now, it seems kind of ridiculous to discount Non-English songs, right? And I don't see what's wrong with non-English songs being nominated. After all, music isn't just about lyrics. I watched the ceremony and was happy to hear the song from The Motorcycle Diaries as well as the song from Les Choristes.

And if you discard films not in English lanuage, you miss out on some very fine films. Kurosawa, Miyazaki, Godard, Fellini, and Bergman are some of the finest filmmakers. Apart from Godard, the Oscars have honored them all, and rightfully so. In fact, one of my favourite films is Cinema Paradiso, an Italian film that won Best Foreign film for 1989. The film sums up why people go to the movies in the first place. And I think the Foreign category gave it the kudos it deserved.

So, what's wrong with that?

It was okay. Not really gutbustingly funny.

This is better: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/chemistry.asp

Best part of last night's oscars: It was a chance for me to get drunk and shout obscenities at the TV. I can hardly remember the ceremony at all. I feel like Leonard from Memento. EDIT: Ah, wait, I remember Chris Rock's opening. That was funny.

Worst part of last night's oscars: My hangover. It hurts. Lots.

Okay...

I consider myself an Oscar doyen... (yes, a doyen) ... when it comes to watching the oscars. I've been watching them since '96. And here's how my thought pattern has gone....

1st half hour: shit, Aviator and million dollar baby are neck and neck. Net you Aviator wins the nexr award... oop, they do!

2nd hour: million dollar baby just won nes actress. Do tyhey have a chance?

3rd hour: My second bottle of wine. It's Cab Sav. See, I'm not a zombie freak following Sideways (blergh, we must conquer humans and drink pinot noir blerhg!!!) Anyway, The Aviator is still in the leauge.

3rd hour and a half: f*ck f*ck f*ckf*ckf*ckf*ckf*ck... Charlie Kaufman won for Best Screenplay, YAY!!!

3rd hour and a half. Eastwood won for best director and... well, fuck it, best picturee too... all hail eastwood and this second bottle of wine I've drunk!!

As for Michael Doak.. correct me if I'm wrong, but he's the creator of Fatman, right?  Well, he's been somewhat recently involved in the Space Quest community, starting up a fanproject.  As for the current moment, I don't think anybody's heard from him in a month or two.

I don't see why no one can find Mike. He posted in this thread earlier today: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=19243.0

I like the relationship between Spongebob Squarepants and Patrick the Starfish. They hold hands... skip along the seabed... have buttsex... It's truly a special friendship they have...

EDIT: Also...

Firstly, you completely misunderstood my quip about lava. I wasn't using lava as an example because it's destructive, rather because it's a thing. I could have made my point with "pot plant". You said violence EXISTS and I was saying that just because something exists, where's the motivation to make a game about it? This pen in front of me exists... no motivation to play a game about it. I'm not saying you -shouldn't- either, just that that's a pretty meaningless argument as to why something should be done.

Likewise, I think if something exists, then it's probably a good enough reason to make a game about it. After all, about 100% of all games are based around things that exist. Without the existence of monkeys and plumbers, we wouldn't have Donkey Kong throwing his faeces at Mario.

Secondly, how do you feel about D&D? My group recently lost Patrick to the horrors of Sydney and we could use another player. I keep trying to think of people I know who might be non-horrified by role playing...

I'm not good with D&D. The first and last game I played was in high school. I called my character DanDeHippie and I was a cleric of Chantelle, who was the Goddess of the Harvest. Knowing me, you can only assume what "crops" my character liked to "harvest". *nudge nudge subtle drug humour ELL OH ELL nudge *

After a few days of playing, I was accused of not playing seriously (DUH!). My line of thought was it was just a game, so who cares? The gaming (and subsequent arguments) became a little fanatical and it ended up with me just walking away.

By the way, why'd Patrick move to Sydney? (Apart from Brisbane being a hole)

I would have prefered to see what would have happened to Lucas if he directed Apocalypse Now as he intended instead of following the Star Wars path.

MY point was really that I hate games like that (and any other similar media) because they just have the stupidest ... god, I can't even form it in words. You called it satire. Again, I haven't played it, but I just don't see that myself. Violence exists, we know that. Why does that warrant a game about it? Lava exists... where's the game about lava (holy shit, where IS the game about lava?!).

First of all: http://eicart.free.fr/volcano/ -- And I think there should be more games that feature realistic lava. In fact, I like any game that utilises good physics, no matter how violent they are (Case in point: Truck Dismount or Stair Dismount, if you've ever played those).

And second of all: No, no, no. That's a ridiculous comparison for many reasons:

1. There's no debate as to whether lava is a human quality. Meanwhile, people have for many years debated as to whether violence is a human quality, since humans have been violent for many centuries.

2. Games aren't banned for being about lava.

3. And there are many best selling games that feature lava: Super Mario Brothers, Quake, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis... By your logic, should these games be banned as well for featuring lava? No! Why? Cause it's a ridiculous comparison in the first place!

Comparing lava to violence is like comparing ham to heroin. And I think Morgan Spurlock said it best: "I can eat all the ham I want, but I'm not going to get strung out on ham!"

If you were to say "What about games that feature drugs?", which is a controversial issue like violence, I'd sit up and take this point of view a little more seriously. And even then, I could point you in the direction of games about drug dealing (such as the infamous shareware Drug Wars game) and use similar points-of-view as my case for GTA.

But I still think your point-of-view is like saying "Hey, we should ban Trogdor because he promotes burning poor people." It's nonsense.

I don't think it teaches anybody anything, I don't think it tells people anything they don't know already. It's just showing something we hear about in a thousand other ways, the only difference being that it lets you do it. I think one of my problems with it is that it IS so real.

God, that's it!!! The whole game is UGLY! I can't believe anyone would want to play such an ugly game. I hate ugly games!

True, but the same could be said about Saving Private Ryan, which is a film that looks VERY real (like GTA), shows us something we've seen in a thousand other war movies (like GTA), and tells us something (i.e War is hell; sacrificing yourself for others is noble, etc) most of us already know (like GTA). It pretty much does the same things you accuse GTA of doing. Should Saving Private Ryan be banned? Guess what? There was debate as to whether US networks would get fined by the FCC for showing Saving Private Ryan on Veteran's Day:

http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&lr=ab=wn&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=%22Saving+Private+Ryan%22+%2BFCC&btnG=Search+News (Take your pick from most of the articles there)

Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of the anti-war movement. But I'm not against a film like Saving Private Ryan merely because it depicts violent acts of war. Sure, you could argue the film carries an anti-war message. But the same applies to GTA -- sure, it's not an anti-violence message, but the message is still clear: Sometimes people have no option but violence if they are to survive in this world. Sure, I don't agree with violence, but I still can play a game to understand how someone might feel in such a situation. That's one of the reasons why we have games: they're simulations -- they help us understand. Think about people who live their lives to either kill or be killed. But it's perfectly fine for most of us (middle-class white people) to say, "My word! The violence in this game is quite unsettling! Let's ban it and then pass the grey poupon!

(Side note: Today I learnt what grey poupon is!)

Take for example, another game that provoked a lot of controversy: JFK Reloaded. Here is a game that allowed the player the opportunity to gun down JFK. Here's a news article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031571.stm

The Kennedy family have dennounced it, yes. But I think the gaming firm still has a valid point to explore the history of the JFK assassination. The firm stated that "the game was aimed at disproving theories that a conspiracy, rather than lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, was responsible for the assassination."

Sure, the game is ugly and very real -- in fact, more real than GTA, since JFK Reloaded is based on a real event -- but I still think it has a valid point.

And that's why I think it's unfair to target and dismiss GTA for being real or ugly without considering what it actually has to offer a responsible gamer. And likewise, I think it's unfair to target it when you don't consider other games that are as real if not more real than GTA.


My biggest problem with games is when they are medicore. I remember when the latest Leisure Suit Larry game (based on a long-standing adventure series, mind you) was banned here in Australia. It wasn't a realistic game, just very cartoonly (unrealistic like Dead or Alive, as you say), but it was still banned. And I was glad it was banned! And not because I have a thing against pornography (If anything, the opposite is true ), but because it was a shitty game and deserved to go unplayed. I downloaded the 200meg demo just to play a slice of that piece of shit game and it was the worst thing to which I've ever set my fingers to keyboard. And I think the more shitty games/films/music/presidents that get banned, the more enlightened our society will become.

Here's my thoughts on the situation. Yeah, DG with an opinion. Who'da thunk it?

I think a lot of people miss the point of GTA. I've read numerous articles that say that GTA is a satire on urban society. Likewise, with Manhunter as a satire on reality television (I never played the game, but heard the story was some kind of TV show where you have to kill or be killed. Am I right about this?). I agree with this line of thought. The violence in GTA is basically a reflection of the violence outside your windows. And in many ways, this functions in the same way as Day of the Tentacle, which was a satire on American history and the future.

By banning GTA, what you're essentially doing is shielding your eyes to what's happening in the world. Drug dealers exist. Violence exists. People who beat up old women exist. What GTA is is a simulation of these kinds of realities. Granted, an extreme simulation of reality, but satire takes such aspects to the extreme in order to make a point. And I think the point is clear: We live in a violent world, with or without GTA. In fact, violence has existed (and in some ways has been more extreme) waaay before video games.

As for kids playing these games, no. To mention young kids playing these games is the worst point-of-view you can ever use in this type of discussion. Why? Because young kids aren't even supposed to be playing these games in the first place. There is ratings advice clearly stated on the packaging of each game, and all are rated by each government organisation in each respective country. Now, if the child accidently gets a copy -- say a retailer sells the kid a copy of GTA without thought to the ratings advice -- is the fault on the retailer? Sure. Putting profit ahead of responsibility is a terrible thing to do. It's like a car company that cuts back on safety features in order to widen their profit margin.

However, many kids are still allowed to play these games despite what happens to the retailers. I find many parents are lax in their duties to monitor what their kids are doing. I feel parents should decide and control what their kids actually play, based upon the amount of responsibility they see their kids display. For example, if I had a son (god forbid!) and he spent most of his time trying to set the cat of fire, I'd think "Hmmm, maybe GTA would screw my kid up even more." If on the other hand, my son was a polite kid who did his chores, his homework, my tax refund, and then asked if he could play GTA, I'd think, "Well, the kid's been good and doesn't display any psychotic tendancies, so maybe he's okay to play GTA. In fact, just to be an even better parent, I'll play a few games with him."

Everyone got their knickers in a twist over the incident where a kid was bashed with a hammer ala Munhunt. As Eric said, the biff was over "drug debts and and money." Now my question is this: Why is there such a huge controversy over the kid playing Munhunt (which he didn't as has been said in this thread) when the real question should be how the kid managed to accumulate drug debts in the first place?? Once again, a lack of decent parenting IMO. Parents should know if their kids have drug debts in the first place, and then say, "Hmm, how did my kid get drug debts? Maybe I should, I don't know, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?? Like try and stop him from getting his hands on more drugs."

And that's the real problem here. We live in a society to is so self-obsessed. Parents are a selfish bunch that they figure, "Hey, we don't need to worry about out kids. We'll get buy a copy of Finding Nemo, set the kid in front of the tube while we go back to getting pissed on dry martinis and worrying about our own insignificant problems. Like whether we should have red wine or white wine with dinner tonight. Oh dear! The tragedy! Life is tough being a parent! Take pity on me!" Screw pity. You had the kids. You look after them, you arseholes!

My point is this: Parents, take some fucking interest in what your kids do. Don't use tired bullshit excuses like, "Oh, we're too busy." My arse! See, it's only when something goes wrong, like say a kid gets bashed with a hammer, that parents start taking an interest. The problem is they start blaming everything except themselves. They blame video games. They blame music. They blame the fact there's no prayer in public schools. But not once does it cross their minds, "Hey maybe we should take our thumbs out of out butts!"

See, a shooting game can be educational. Five years ago, I would have never thought it. I thought adventure games were where it's at.

Then I played games like Hitman, GTA, and Deus Ex. Especially Deus Ex.

Hitman taught me about how the fragile psychology of a human being can get so twisted during upbringing that he's taught to be violent. It asks questions like: Are we designed with a purpose in mind? Can any of us really find salvation or redemption? And one of the greatest moments comes at he end of the second game. I won't spoil it, but if you haven't played it, do it now.

Deus Ex taught me that a game can be deep. In fact, Deus Ex is probably the deepest game I've played. It speaks so much about the human condition and our relationship with higher beings. Is man really made in the image of God? Are we to emulate God to the point where we become God? I'm sure Nietzsche would have had a field day playing Deus Ex. Not only that, the game practically predicts a Sept 11-type scenario even though it was made (I think) four years before Sept 11 even happened. And look at the symbolism: the Statue of Liberty destroyed. Fuck you, Charlton Heston. Your damned dirty apes movie has nothing on the symbolism in Deus Ex.

As for GTA, I've explained the idea behind it: Violence exists, with or without GTA. For me, to say GTA isn't educational is basically being ignorant of the world around you. Compare that to another PS2 game... something like Britney's Dance Beat, which is just another cheap and shitty way to make money of the Britney Spears image. No substance. No filling. No quality. No way!

Now, having said all that, consider this: I think someone should start a petition to ban Dada: Stagnation In Blue. Aparently, it's way more controversial that GTA after having nabbed the most controversial game award on DIY Games.

http://diygames.com/index.php?p=450&more=1&page=9

It is an adventure game, after all. Yet, it contains just about as much controvesy as GTA. (Personally, I think Dada is a piece of shit. Not my finest moment). What about other violent, but brilliant, adventure games, some written by us? Like Bearly Sane? Pleurghburg? You see, I'm not sure if you can focus on games like GTA as being vulgar and violent without some retrospect on adventure games. I mean, if someone says that adventure games can educate while FPS are just plain violent, then I think that person is just being selective and not looking at the whole picture. I think any medium, adventures or shooters, can educate and enhance our understanding. I think it's unfair to label all shooters as violent and ugly. Not only that, sometimes the most violent of games can teach us the greatest of lessons. Sure, there's nothing glorious about violence (Then again, look at how the US Government treated the last days of the Iraq war), but there is something about it that's intrinsic (or fascinating) to our nature. School yard biff. Urban violence. Wars. They're all a part of us, with or without video games, with or without shooters, and with or without adventure games. But maybe, if we play these games, and with the right guidence (perhaps from our parents, or our own sense responsibility) then maybe we can learn something.

In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill wrote "If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for all we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility."

And I leave you with that...

About 90% of all webcomics can be best described by this article: http://www.omgjeremy.com/webcomicsshit.shtml

...

It's been so long since I've made it and played it, I can't remember what to do.

I think you've got to get a stick or something in the hole. And you've got to fill the hole with water.

Everybody listen to Kinoko. Patrick's comics are brilliant. In fact, I first discovered Patrick's work when he did a few underground comics in Brisbane called Pickleman and Plink the Stickman. Something to note: Plink the Stickman was partially the inspiration for my opus Stickmen. So pay as much attention to Patrick. He deserves all the notice he can get.


As for other comics...

I'm a Sexy Losers (www.sexylosers.com - Duh!) fan. Helm introduced me about two years back and since then I've been laughing my arse off.

I also like this one: http://www.whiteninjacomics.com/

And I'm not a big fan of Penny Arcade, but I dig Penny Arcade Remix: http://www.yukihime.com/comics/paremix/

And, finally, I like That Wacky Jesus. The guy who does that comic is a genius.

yeah raul julia should of stayd alive just long enough to make a good movie and then die. i don't think he planned things through.

also did you see the mortel kombat movie OMG my childhood was raped twice oneoneexclaimationmarkone

hey guys did anyone see the street fighter movie with john clawd van damn man it sucked and raped my childhood memorys am i rite guys huh huh?