Halo

If you was to go back in time, and kill yourself.

CidTheKid said
We don't know enough about ontology to know what would happen.I could probably make up enough speculatory bullshit to fill over 20 pages of utter garbage, but I'd rather not. Instead, here is a sphere turning inside out.

Topology is probably the most prominent mathematical subject that I've simultaneously come across very frequently and yet utterly fail to understand beyond the basics. It's very frustrating when you're trying to learn about physics x)

What MBTI type are you?

8 said
That's interesting. I've taken it several times over about a two-year time span, and consistently gotten the same results. I seem to fit the bill exactly of most of the definitions of my type too.edit: Also, extrovert isn't necessarily misspelled, there's a reason behind the 'a' instead of the 'o'.

I think it's a poor test if you're at the border between types, because for about 80% of the questions I wasn't a solid yes or no. If you fall fairly solidly into one type, though, it works well, as you can answer the "yes/no" questions with more certainty and more consistently from test to test, from mood to mood, etc.

Elaborate? I've not come across "extravert" before, enlighten me. :P

Veritas

corneredbliss said
Ooh, I've played the demo for Mirror's Edge and absolutely loved it. I don't know why I never actually bought the game haha.

I absolutely love it, one of my favourite games of all time. It has such a high replay-ability just because of how unique it is. It's not very expensive now, I don't think; worth picking up over summer!

I look forward to Friday, then. ^^

What MBTI type are you?

ENFP
Extravert(67%) iNtuitive(100%) Feeling(62%) Perceiving(67%)

Considering they spelt extrovert wrong, however, I'm not going to place too much stock by it. It's one of the most ridiculously faulty tests I've ever taken, and I get different results every time I take a different variant of the test.

If you was to go back in time, and kill yourself.

Smiral said
This thread is the equivalent of a forum bong hit.

But Smiral-chan... drugs are bad... ugguuuuu~ ;-;
But friends are good! ^_^

Apparently I'm a Myth, a Legend, and now an Oldfag.

Blitzkrieg said
Someone after your own heart.

Veritas

corneredbliss said
Oh, jeeze. *smacks both your hands off the keyboards* Save the walls of text for the game! Haha, only joking. But very interesting opinions from both of you.

Please, let's just sink away in a lake of sadness together.

I promise to restrain myself from now on. xD

That's how I felt for days afterwards... I quite genuinely went home afterwards and ranted to my friend about the cruelty and unfairness of the world, straight after the film. >_> Even my super-stoic male buddy was tearing up.

icmasticc said
Lol... Holy crap that's a lot. It's all good though, I actually read it all hahahaha.

And I think what said outlines my overall problem with the X-Men film franchise. It seems that every movie is always showcasing the ongoing bias of the government against mutants when the very stories the filmmakers are adapting from the comics are so much more than that. There are so many X-Men stories that have absolutely nothing to do with the government and general human bias towards mutants and it makes me sad that we may never seem adapted into live action. X-Men, by all accounts, should be a much bigger franchise than it actually is at the moment. The X-Men universe is so huge and so versatile and even though I'll say Bryan Singer is the best thing for the franchise at this point, even he seems to only view the movies in a limited scope. The next one coming, X-Men: Apocalypse, may be more on track with what I'm saying, but I think I'm tired of the mutant vs. non-mutant backdrop now. I really just want to see the X-Men being the X-Men for once - going up against a big bad with their signature team dynamic that the Avengers movie portrayed so well in live action. I just don't care that the military wants to kill all mutants anymore lol.

I'll give that Spider-Man point. Not everybody reads the comics so you have to expect that the Sinister Six won't be known by everyone. They're basically a team of villains that got the bright idea to take on Spider-Man together instead of one at a time. I guess you can only judge it on a standalone basis if you're not familiar with certain set-ups. Ah well, hopefully Spider-Man will get the movie and game he deserves before I die XDD.EDIT - OH Bliss, didn't see you there XDD.

I'm so sorry. D: It's just become habit, I love talking to people about anything and everything.

I hadn't actually thought about that, but now that you mention it, I somewhat agree. It was a clever allegory and exploration of social issues at first, but you do begin to wonder when they're going to do something new with it. I actually quite like that it isn't just superheroes vs. villains, that it's a bit different from many other genres (though an X-Men film in the style of the Avengers would be so unbelievably awesome), but I do want to see it expand a bit in some way or another - particularly, as you said, as they're drawing from rich source material. On the other hand... the issues they were exploring (which is so not a word) are still very pertinent. Maybe the fact that they keep plugging those issues in every film is just another aspect of the allegory - demonstrating just how ridiculously long and slow the process of change on these matters is. Though as it's primarily a superhero film designed for entertainment, I doubt that.

I think it's challenging to write superhero films in the sense that you have to appeal to everyone - those who're diehard comic fans and know everything about the characters, as well as people who've never read a comic in their life and know nothing about the backstory. It's hard to find the middle ground. But oh my freaking word, I want a good Spiderman game - one not made as a movie tie-in but as its own game, by experienced devs. With games like Mirror's Edge pushing how dynamic we can be with movement in games, a Spiderman game that does the source material justice is edging closer and closer.

Annnddd so much for containing myself. Tsk, me, tsk.

I'm a square again

Smiral said

I can be a quadrilateral if I want to, bigot. D:<

If you was to go back in time, and kill yourself.

There are, as I understand it, three possible ways to look at time-travel.

You can believe in a "fixed" timeline, i.e. no events can be changed by going back in the past - so any event undertaken in the past after time-travel is already part of the "future" reality in which you live. An example of this is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - when they go back in time, everything they do had occurred when they originally went through the events (like Harry being the one to cast the patronus from the far side of the lake.) In this case, the very fact that you're alive to be able to time-travel backwards demonstrates that you either don't try, or try and fail to, kill yourself.

You can believe in a "dynamic" timeline, in which events are not fixed, and you can change them by travelling back in the past. In this case, the paradoxes you guys are discussing arise.

Or, thirdly, you can believe in a sort of multiverse theory, in which either new universes or new timelines are spawned each time you do something - and so when you go back and kill yourself, you're only affecting certain timelines, whereas in others you continue to survive. A certain requirement of this is that you can't travel between timelines/universes - otherwise the paradoxes we've already observed can come into effect.

Veritas

icmasticc said
Well, slower in that it was much more plot and character focused than I anticipated. And I don't mean to say that as a negative, I'm just used to the bigger scope the X-Men films usually go for. It was still very enjoyable, but I was expecting a bit more action I suppose? And I'm probably the only guy who thought Wolverine was woefully underused as Wolverine has been my favorite since the comics lol.

As for Spider-Man, I truly don't understand some of the criticism. The villains were not very developed for sure, but I saw it as a setup for the eventual Sinister Six. Even disregarding that though, the movie was less about the villains and more about Peter dealing with the role of Spider-Man as it infects his personal life on every level. Basically, the plot of the original Spider-Man 2 XDD. On a superficial level, the action sequences were REALLY well done in my opinion. Marc Webb continues to capture the essence of Spider-Man in battle better than the originals did in my opinion. I don't know, maybe I'm simple-minded or something.

On a side note, I gotta say Halo, you're an intriguing person to talk to XD.

That's a fair comment, actually - I suppose I didn't notice because it had been quite a while since I'd seen the original X-Men films, and character-driven superhero movies are becoming much more common. The difference wasn't as striking to me because of that. On the other hand, I'm not sure I disliked that at all; the films have always been dedicated to showing the emotional repercussions of mutation, on the mutants in particular but also on non-mutants. It's always gone a little bit deeper than the typical superhero movie emotions, which tend to come down to romance and personal angst - X-Men deals with ostracism and society-wide issues in quite a mature way by comparison. Nolan's Batman trilogy does a similar thing on a more philosophical basis regarding the Batman and his role as a symbol in the crime-riddled society he lives in. For me, it paints a much more compelling picture to explore those issues in a more meaningful way, as they largely did for young Charles, Eric, and Raven throughout FC and DOFP.
I have to agree on the Wolverine aspect, though. I mean, damn, Hugh Jackman be fiinnneee. >_> The more time he's on screen, the happier I am. Plus, yeah, Wolverine's one of my favourites, though I never read the comics.

See, I don't even know what the Sinister Six are really, so you can tell I'm not really well-versed enough to be a good judge. I think the criticism comes from the fact that we've become accustomed to villains not being so two-dimensional. There aren't many Saurons anymore, who're evil... just because they're evil. Villains have depth, motivation, a reason. We like them to be characters we can almost identify with; it makes it feel less stereotypically good guy vs bad guy, and the current obsession with "gritty" films demands that the lines be blurred. I think they handled Spiderman (and his relationship with Gwen) very well, though, no denying that. I think overall, people felt they tried to cram too much into just that film, though, and certain things got brushed over - like the... well, I don't want to spoiler, but let's say the major discovery he makes as a result of a broken calculator. :P I think they might deal with that in the sequels, though, and if they do that I think the criticisms will die away in retrospect.
In fact, that's the problem - people are treating it as a standalone rather than as a continuation of a series. You wouldn't criticise the villains so much if you realised it's just setting it up for the Sinister Six in the future; similarly with the personal issues Peter faces, looking at it as if it will be continued and developed in future, as if you're only part way through, removes a lot of the criticisms of "brushing over" people have.
But no, I don't think you're simple-minded at all, what? xD It's a freaking superhero film, the action sequences are like 70% or more of why we go! It's not superficial, those aspects are a core part of any action or superhero film, and I couldn't agree more - I absolutely love watching Spiderman fight in the new films, compared to the old ones!

Only because your excellent conversation is bringing out the best in me ;). Oh my God, I've fallen into my habit of writing freaking essays in response to everything, I'm sorry. ._.