Recent Content by TheVader74

I see nothing wrong with it, and I see no reason why this is an issue anymore. People are People, and love between them is hardly something that should be cordoned by social norms or gender. I'm heterosexual, if we're talking from a purely physical standpoint, I can't find anything physically or sexually attractive about men. That said, I'm not someone who is attracted to people purely for their physical aspect. Sure, I can appreciate, and oftentimes am attracted to hotness, cuteness, beauty etc. but ultimately, it the personality and the person themselves I love. If I meet a guy whose personality I could fall in love with, then who knows?

I think this generation has, by and large, outgrown a more narrow-minded approach to sexuality. Any borders their were have been resolutely smashed, bar a few instances on the social/political front.

Disney has at times inserted content as something of a parental bonus, something that the parents can find some joy in while watching the movie with their kids. Some of these things are more intentional, such as the more recent Pixar films, but there are these so called controversial cases such as the examples mentioned, but these aren't things kids are going to pick up upon such as the "Little Mermaid" thing, and it's hardly a corrupting influence if they do find it, it's simply a moment of awkwardness.

Honestly, outside of these examples, I'm hardly thinking of anything that caused a major controversy, and these ones have explanations of employees just having some fun or the case of Bald Mountain, and it's just some animated nipples, it's not like it's anything pornographic offensive or 'corrupting'.

What's there to really say about this? If the Soldier is a Christian, then they will probably have a Christian Funeral arranged, and if they are not then there's no reason to impose it as it would just cause administrative aggro. I sure wouldn't want it to be forced that my funeral be Christian, I don't want my immortal soul anywhere near that "God". The article also appears to be ignoring current laws as well, but hey, it's Texas politicians here. We can't expect a lot of sense out of them, especially when they're throwing around the word "Liberal" like it's a blight upon their fair country.

I've never understood the Self-Defense argument. If you're walking along the street, and you get pushed into the wall and someone is demanding you hand over your money and they have already got a knife or a gun pulled as they most likely have, then what exactly are you going to do? Reach for your gun, turn the safety off, aim at the mugger and fire? In that time they will have incapacitated you, robbed you blind and probably leave you bleeding out on the sidewalk. And how often do you think this situation will ever come up? You won't react, you'll be either scared shitless or give up your money so you don't get wounded.

And sure, I'm all for protecting your civil freedoms, but even here in the UK, if you sort out a permit and some required paperwork, then you can legally possess a gun. Reducing it from a constituitional right just makes the process more difficult for the idiots in society. And frankly, if nothing from the Constitution never changed, you'd still have an abundance of slavery and women would still not have the right to vote (Arguably, I'm not totally up to scratch on my knowledge of the Constitution).

If you ask me, it's incredibly unsettling to think of the vast amounts of idiots in the US who government is basically OK with giving them deadly weaponry. That requires me to place a greater amount of trust in people I neither know nor care about in an atmosphere that just seems to promote fear to me. I have nothing wrong with weapons, I have problems with idiots with weapons.

It's Pixar meets Highlander. I'm sold already.

Huh, never would have thought I'd encounter fans of the film. Well, each to their own. I can't stand it, but people seem to enjoy it, so don't let me discourage people from watching it. I relish the thought of different viewpoints on films. Just my opinion, but my recommendation remains that if you want to see a good Final Fantasy movie, check out Advent Children Complete. Sure, I'll be the first to admit it's not a great film, but not only is it visually gorgeous but the characters actually make me care about what happens and the story is at least somewhat engaging and not entirely focused upon being a visual spectacle.

Sorry if my comment came off as rather brash or insulting, but when I really dislike something in media form I can be a tad... dramatic and exagurrated . Such as if anyone brings up Avatar or Equilibrium around me, oh ho boy.

Spiderman was directed by Sam Raimi (Also well known for the Evil Dead movies), not James Cameron. I think Cameron may have worked on some form of Spiderman media, either the animated show or a TV serial or something, but I'm not terribly savvy on that. I don't keep up with him much, James Cameron is probably mythe worst director in my books, ever since he created Avatar. That's when he went from bland to outright horrible.

It's bloody awful, and that's all you should need to know. Not even the good kind of awful, the awful that you can get some fun from by laughing at how bad it is. It's just HORRIBLE.

Well, perhaps because from that Athiest point of view, Religion is not necessarily a good thing? Now, speaking personally, I feel I understand enough about God and the system of Christianity at least to know I do not support a religious lifestyle. I feel it acts as opposition to free-thinking by giving a set of morals for it's followers to act upon as well as said morals being in some cases things I do not think is right. That's not to say I think Religion is evil, nor do most athiests, not at all, and it is everyone's right to believe what they wish to religiously, but because of my understanding of God I don't feel that I could contribute to a organization I disagree with on principal. That and to be part of a religion, wouldn't you need to believe in the deity that religion worships? By definition, an athiest cannot be a part of a religion. They can agree with it's morals and principals, but Theism has nothing to do with the morals one believes.

Edgar Wright, George Lucas, Christopher Nolan and Frank Darabont for me.

Edgar Wright in particular (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim) is probably the best director in the business right now. His whole style is bringing out incredibly unique films that the industry desperately needs. One of the best writers out there too, Hot Fuzz is one of the best written films I have ever seen, every single line of dialogue has a significance to the overall narrative. Looking forward to more stuff from him.

If Men can pick up a gun and follow orders, why can't a woman? What more is there to this?
Moral Standpoint? What, like is it morally right to put someone who can give birth on the front lines? Is it morally right to put ANYONE there? Logistical standpoint? Surely this goes from person to person, it's not something you can determine from sex. You get a weedy but intelligent recruit, you put 'em where their useful, you get a recruit with more stamina and strength, you put 'em on the front lines.

Learned about sex at about 12-13, was wierded out a little, but I was starting to find girls attractive then, so I just sort of rolled with it. My parents never had "the talk" with me, but they realised they didn't need to. They know if I wanted to know, I'd ask, and as far me being sexually untrustworthy... they have always said to me that their approach is to let me make my own mistakes, and after 6 years of teenage schoolyears since then, I have learned an awful lot about sex, and they trust me with my own body. They are always there and make sure to say so in case I screw up that badly, just before anyone says anything about my parents not having a role in educating me.

I can't really say I have an active sex life (Never had a girlfriend), as its only really recently I've found people that I've really begun to truly care about, and I'm not really someone with much of a life anyway. Not a social animal, I admit, but it's soemthing I'm coming out of. It's a case of I haven't really found someone I love to extent I'd man up and actually begin a relationship.

As long as you are responsible and willing to accept any consequences of your actions, then there's nothing wrong with an active sex life. I'm not entirely sure why people are opposed to sex before marriage, but to me it doesn't particularly matter. The only difference is a piece of paper saying that you guys actually love each other and trust each other, aside from you actually knowing this stuff already because you, you know, love each other. Sexual Promiscuity? Sure, if both sides are fine with it and are safe about it. Is love necessary for sex? No, I don't think so, however, I feel that I would only be comfortable having sex with someone I actually loved and trusted.

In my honest opinion, People can do whatever they want to to be happy with one another, so long as they take responsibility for themselves and don't compromise someone else's happiness in the process.

Haha, typical Micheal Bay. Stuff's blowing up and I have no idea why. It's looking sound enough, but still nothing I'd be willing to pay actual money for. Not after Revenge of the Fallen. I saw them trying to take over in the first movie, didn't I?

I got back from seeing it a few hours ago, and I think it was pretty damn good. I'm gonna make a full review of it on later on, but I'm gonna put my initial thoughts here under spoiler tags

Spoiler

I really liked how the romantic element was integrated into it. It wasn't blatant or oversaturated, but it did show a growing development between the characters. And, I'll just admit it, Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman aren't too hard to look at either. They made the relationship believeable, and not just fall into the traps of your usual "Fish out of Water" movie.

Loki as the villain... eh, weakest point of the movie. I couldn't tell exactly what he was working for in the end be it his own desires or for his father, and the whole reason he's the villain is because he's jealous of Thor... Why? Every time Thor does wrong he is instantly reprimanded for it, and Loki's shown to be in the right. Hell, Thor gets banished before Loki would even have to go into his big plot with the Frost Giants. Sure, I have no problems with him being jealous of Thor, but we're told this rather than shown it, which does let it down a mite. That's only in his motvation though. Otherwise he was fairly solid. Only other problem with the film is that it cycles between precisely three places: Asgard, Jotunheim and New Mexico. Not that that's bad, but it just got a little stale by the end.

All of the acting was fantastic. Hemsworth manages to portray the headstrong and arrogant Thor, while still being so damn charismatic and endearing you can't help but be on his side. Portman does a great job as Jane Foster, as does Tom Hiddleston as Loki, although he started out kind of wobbly to me. I wasn't sure that Anthony Hopkins could really pull of being Odin of all gods, as he is more of a softer speaker, but when he needed to be forceful, hot damn did he pull it off.

Overall, a great movie, far better than the last big one I went to see (Tron Legacy), and really got me hyped for Avengers. Hawkeye's cameo was much appreciated, and the post-credits scene... wow.

Also, because I felt like it, I brouht a Green Lantern Ring on the way to the cinema. Just thought I'd say it. In Brightest Day, In Blackest Night...

Now, speaking as a non-comics reader, (I.E: I've read Watchmen and Superman: Red Son, and that's all as far as comics are concerned), I have to disagree with this. Most media external from comics tend to paint Superman as an All-American hero, and on basis alone, I really agree with you. He is a world citizen, he fights to save the world, not just America, but his character in and of itself has that tie to America that if I'm honest I can't even pinpoint. This is something that always irks me about the JLA, the fact that are, by name, an American association yet serve as an indepentant organization with no real ties to the US at all.

However, going off of that panel alone, yeah, that link with America can easily become something of a burden to Superman, with him being a political nuisance of some kind because of his link with the USA. However, Superman overcoming problems he can't just fry with Heat Vision is a good thing, because it should make interesting stories. This is a back-door escape, and as you say, is basically a publicity stunt on DC's part with a hinting at an actual social commentary.

Yes, I'm saying a lot of this without knowing a whole lot about the context, but I enjoy the wild and interesting stories that Superhero Comics and Graphic Novels can produce. I hate Superman, but I loved Red Son. This just seems a wierd thing to do in my opinion.