CP3S

Been extremely stoked about the new Mumford & Sons album. Doesn't come out here in the States until the 25, but it came out in other parts of the world today, so naturally... I got my hands on it (still be buying it next week, just didn't want to wait any longer to listen to it.

A few of the tracks had already been released at various times over the last several months. The song Holland Road (Home) I found particularly gorgeous and totally fell in love with it. Couldn't wait to listen to it in higher quality than a lousy youtube ripped mp3 file. However, I was very disappointed to find that the album version, while keeping the same title, is entirely unrecognizable. I think the only lyric that is unchanged is the line "Holland Road". The music is mostly different too.

Makes me sad.

Still, brilliant album. Having worn out Sigh No More since first hearing it, it is nice to hear more of them.

Tyrphanax said:

You also need to trust what they tell you to do and do it. Remember that medication is not a bad thing. This is a very, very serious thing and while we want to help you, I doubt any of us here are equipped to deal with it like a professional is.

I'd like to highlight this point. I have a friend who suffers from depression and won't take medication for it. He seems to think since it is something involving his head, taking medications to fix the problem is like admitting that he is crazy or that he has something horribly abnormal with his brain, or some crazy crap like that. The fact is, this is a medical problem like any other. Taking blood pressure medication, or heart medication, or indigestion tablets to help your body reach homeostasis doesn't make you a freak, it just means your body needs assistance in maintaining a healthy functional balance. It is no different in this case. It doesn't make you any less of a person, or less intelligent, or substandard. It is a medical condition like any other, and thanks to modern medicine, it can be treated. Admittedly, it is a little trickier to treat than many other issues are, which is why it is important you work closely with and communicate with your doctor or therapist, but it can be done. Unlike hypertension, your doctor can't just check your blood pressure and see that the treatment is working, you have to work with them, which is why finding one you can trust and who you feel like is really working to help you is important.

Shit. You need considerably more help than anyone here can give you.

Not saying that to make you feel alienated. You're not alone. A lot of people suffer from depression like this. So many others go through this kind of hell. Some worse than others. But I hope you realize you really need help. Don't fool yourself into thinking you deserve to be miserable. You don't! Sounds like you've been getting counseling and medical help. Good. Stick with it. If you feel like it isn't helping, branch out to different doctors and find one who knows what he/she is doing, but don't give up.

You're not that weird, unique, or unusual. A lot of people get dealt this kind of sucky hand and have to deal with it.

:(

Maybe he is just doing it for attention and that is why people don't like him, because he does stuff like this for attention.

;)

Nice thread! Tyrphanax has pretty much got this, all his advice is quite sound. Bingo is on a good track too, but, a little style never hurt anyone. But he is right, don't be too self conscious about it. Whatever you're wearing, wear it with confidence. Regardless of your gender, confidence is sexy as hell.

I relate in a lot of ways, and not so much in others. From teenager on through college I always had a good number of female friends and female attention. But I totally lacked confidence. So much so, that I didn't even realize that I had more female friends than a lot of guys did or that I had others that were interested in me. Even if a girl did show interest in me and made it a point to talk to me, I'd write it off as just being friendly and not allow myself to try to pursue anything for fear of awkward rejection. 

Flash forward to many years later and I reached kind of a low point in life where I didn't really care anymore. Apathy is generally not very attractive, but it cancelled out my self consciousness and during that time I discovered the whole "just take a plunge" thing, which in turn built up my confidence pretty well, which got me out of that funk in all sorts of ways.

Just go up and talk to people, that is what everyone else does. That group of nerds would probably be more than happy to have an new guy join the group. Just walk up to some guys playing magic and say, "You know, I've always thought that game looked really awesome, but sadly, none of my friends have ever been interested in it." That is probably a good enough conversation starter right there, if they don't engage you and just stay focused on their game, a simple "mind if I sit and watch?" will grant you permission to listen in on their conversations and decide your next infiltration method. They start talking about anything you know anything about, you can interject something.

With girls it is the same way, just find an excuse to start a conversation. If things go south, I do an out loud inner monologing thing (say something quirky humorous about how that didn't go over very well as if I am talking to myself, not her), it sometimes gets giggles, usually smiles, and from time to time completely turns things around, and at the very least makes me feel less awkward and kind of ends the exchange with a lighthearted tone. Just don't be afraid of rejection, not every girl you try to talk to is going to be interested in talking with you (most probably will, women like attention) and if they politely brush you off, it is no big deal. If you just let go and try, I think you'll find having enjoyable random conversations with girls isn't that hard.

Fear and self consciousness really hold a lot of guys back. 

Also, there is no greater social crime for one to commit than to be boring. It is absolutely unforgivable. Everything is interesting to someone, and nothing is interesting to everyone; so this isn't yet another thing to be self conscious about, just find things you are interested in and keep educating yourself about them (for goodness sakes, not just frivolous things, things that actually matter). When you fill your head with knowledge, you'll always have something exciting to talk about. If it is exciting to you, but not to the people you are talking to, then it probably isn't a girl/person/group you are going to click with anyway, so don't sweat it. 

zombie84 said:

Also watched Jackie Brown (sober!), which always remains as good as the first time I watched it. Probably my favourite Tarrantino film.

Mine too!

I like it more every time I see it.

Glad to see I am not the only member here who keeps up with TWD.

What do you mean by Kirkman breaking the fourth wall? Negan explaining his reasoning for who he is going to kill? Didn't really feel like a genuine wall break to me.

The Walking Dead #101

Still waiting for things to pick up or for some big game changer to happen in order to keep things interesting. The story has been meandering for a while. We were promised something really big in issue #100, and it really wasn't that big.

*SPOILERS* Someone died, and all those extra pages they'd been advertising issue #100 would have were used in order to show that character die in as much unnecessary brutal detail as possible. *SPOILERS*

It really isn't worth reading on a monthly basis, because each issue just isn't interesting enough on its own anymore. After issue #102 ends the current arc, I am just going to forget about the series for a while and maybe come back six months or so later to enjoy several issues in a row.

What I'd kind of like to see happen to mix things up and carry the story forward would be something along the lines of Rick and most of the other survivors we are close to dying, then skipping ahead a few years and showing us a teenage to young adult Carl in the leadership role. Carl has been molded to be this totally badass character, but he is still this little kid. I'd really like to see what he is like when he is older, and I don't want to have to wait 20 real life years for the story to progress that far, which is what we are looking at at this rate.

Oh, and as of a couple of months ago, I now have a Rick Grimes (comic version, of course) action figure on my desk near my Bouncer (Bioshock) figure.

Ziggy Stardust said:

Since I haven't posted or been online in nearly a month, somebody should fill me in on everything I've missed.

Previously on OT.COM:

C3PS: Ziggy, I AM your father!

ZIGGY: NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

----------------------------------------

TV's FRINK: Look at me! Look at me! I'm TV's Frink! Look at me! Look at this picture! Watch my edit! Look at me!

----------------------------------------

WARBLER: *Sigh*

----------------------------------------

NEGATIVE1:

Later

-1

----------------------------------------

WARBLER: *Sigh*

----------------------------------------

WARBLER: *Sigh*

---------------------------------------

FERRIS: Messa back!

WARBLER: YAY!!!

--------------------------------------

WARBLER: *Sigh*

--------------------------------------

GORMALLY: Messa back!

C3PX: Pft. Pansy ass loser of a demon,"

GORMALLY: I've become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

C3PX: Yeah right!

GORMALLY: See?

C3PX: Oh carp! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

GORMALLY: GORMALLY IS PLEASE WITH THIS NEW VESSEL.

-----------------------------------------

BINGOWINGS: Two weeks without a cigarette and counting.

WARBLER: *Sigh*

-----------------------------------------

ZIGGYSTARDUST: Messa back! What happened?

TV's FRINK: Political carp. What else?

C3PS: Hey, check out my attempt at a television like recap!

WARBLER: *Sigh*

-----------------------------------------

And now the conclusion...

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Warbler said :

true, but at least when I booze and/or over eat while sitting next to someone, I am not giving them heart disease and/or liver problems. 

True but have you heard about a domestic abuse case directly linked to smoking? I could imagine one linked to giving up smoking but not smoking itself. What about the hit and run drivers where their judgement was blurred by tobacco.

I have never committed domestic abuse, nor do I drive drunk. 

And I've never given anyone lung cancer. There, we're even!

 

However, on my way to work I drive past several white crosses alongside the highway... Most of them related to drunk driving. There is no arguing it, alcohol is WAY more deadly than cigarettes.

Last time: I don't drink and drive.  

Last time: I don't have lung cancer.

I suppose that means both habits are pretty safe and harmless?

CP3S said:

Are you not aware of the deadly long term health risks associated with alcohol use?

yes, but the health risks are only to the drinker,  not those around him. 

Not if you don't smoke in close proximity of others. When I smoke it is usually out of doors alone with my pipe or a cigar. There is no one around me breathing that air. When I go out with friends and bum a cigarette or two, it is us smoking around a lot of other smokers, or people over the age of 21 who are willingly putting themselves into a room filled with deadly carcinogenic air.

It is true, you do have dumb women pushing strollers while smoking or pregnant, and other horrible selfish acts like that. But that is akin to the guy who has a few drinks and physically or verbally abuses his children while under the influence, or a woman who drives her kids somewhere while drunk. It is irresponsible use. I wasn't trying to argue those things never happen. Both drinking and smoking are horrible habits, but I find it annoying and ironic that smokers are highly looked down upon at present in our society, almost to the point of becoming taboo, but alcohol use and abuse is still plenty acceptable.

It is an example of, "I don't do it, so it isn't a big deal to lose it". If you enjoy going out every now and then and loosening up with a few drinks, then you can't really condemn the habit. When you get no enjoyment out of smoking or have any interest in it, then it is easy to say, "It is disgusting and you are killing the entire world!" A lot more people drink than smoke, so this one is a no brainer. But if we are being fair, they are both pretty awful, pretty disgusting, and over all do a massive amount of harm.

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Warbler said :

true, but at least when I booze and/or over eat while sitting next to someone, I am not giving them heart disease and/or liver problems. 

True but have you heard about a domestic abuse case directly linked to smoking? I could imagine one linked to giving up smoking but not smoking itself. What about the hit and run drivers where their judgement was blurred by tobacco.

I have never committed domestic abuse, nor do I drive drunk. 

And I've never given anyone lung cancer. There, we're even!

However, on my way to work I drive past several white crosses alongside the highway... Most of them related to drunk driving. There is no arguing it, alcohol is WAY more deadly than cigarettes.

The cool thing about cigarettes is they generally only effect the smoker. Unless you are a d-bag who smokes in-doors with your children, or in a car you drive your kids around in, then your smoke isn't really getting to those around you. In-door public smoking is almost non existent, except for certain bars and clubs, and you know going into those places that you are going to be breathing it, it is your choice. There are plenty of bar and club options out there that are smoke free.

Getting hit by a drunk driver, or knifed by a drunk idiot because he noticed you notice his girlfriend, isn't a choice. Last night I almost got barreled over by an extremely large (rotund) drunk. He came charging toward my table, in a hurry to scoot past it and get somewhere, but instead tripped over it. On his way down he grabbed my chair, almost pulling it backwards, as the chair started to tip I leaned forward and grabbed the table. These are the really tall bar height chairs, if he would have pulled me backwards like he almost did, I probably would have smashed the back of my head real good on the hard tile floor. There are bar room injuries and accidents every night. Just visit your local ER during the 11 - 4 am period. You'll see the wonders of alcohol at work.

RRS-1980 said:

Of course Warbler is wrong about booze. Alcohol does ruin people around the drinker.

it can,  but it doesn't give others deadly health problems.  

No, but it sure does kill a lot of people dead. Kind of skips the health problems part... Except for when it doesn't skip the health problems part, which is extremely often. Are you not aware of the deadly long term health risks associated with alcohol use?

zombie84 said:

My friend/roommate is about 6 years younger than me, and grew up in the 32-bit era mainly. He always talks about "finishing" a game, as though it's inevitable if you just keep playing it, like how a movie is.

Games have definitely made that shift. I enjoy a good challenge, and I think there are still those out there. I see this shift as a good thing. Games as a means of story telling, rather than just a silly story slapped on a game to give it direction, has really taken off. There are games I just play for the story. Sure, I could probably get much better stories from a book or even movies, but it is an entirely different and very engaging way of experience a story.

You can still have that challenge, many games have a difficulty setting on them that can still reach a pretty brutal level. Bioshock on the hardest setting with vita-chambers turned off is pretty unforgiving, for example. 

But for the most part, even to beat a game like Halo on legendary or COD on veteran, it is just a matter of perseverance. Anyone could do it, as long as they are determined enough to make it to that next check point. Even if you suck, eventually you'll make it someway or another.

darth_ender said:

Atheist response:

You insensitive Christians who think you're right and all other religions are wrong.  You bigots!

;)

I suppose we are talking I'm-a-super-hip-liberal-and-too-cool-to-be-Christian short of "atheists" here? I've never met too many of those, usually the enlightened too cool to be Christian types seem to aim for some other type of spiritualism, for whatever reason.

I think you'd be surprised to find that a very large number of (true) atheists are extremely critical of Islam and it's ludicrous fit throwing at depictions of Muhammad. 

zombie84 said:

I think it's because in the 80s and 90s we were just better gamers. Repetition, memorization, pattern recognition and tons of practice on nothing but hard games, by todays standards. The mainstream explosion of gaming in the early 2000s has progressively dumbed down the standards of difficulty in games.

Exactly. Back in the N64/PSX days, I remember one of my friends watching his youngest brother playing some 64 plat-former game he played constantly and still sucked at. My friend sighed like a warbler and made a comment about how the poor kid is never going to be good at video games because he had just missed the 2D era and was stuck finding some silly 3D game we found ridiculously easy overly hard.

Didn't think much about it at the time, but he pretty much his the nail on the head. This was probably back in 1997 or 8.

I didn't realize it would make me suck at games too, though. Bought Mega Man 9 for the 360 a few years ago, have played it for hours, and have still never managed to beat a single boss. I was playing those games back when I was in first grade (I seem to recall a phase where I ran around the playground during recess with a blue sock on one arm making annoying pew pew sounds as I shot my friends), and was fairly decent at them.

zombie84 said:

Also, dammit why did Lucasarts make the Super Star Wars games so difficult? They are some of the best games ever made, but I would call anyone who said they beat them without using passwords a dirty liar. I had to cheat using save states on emulators to finally beat Super Empire Strikes Back. On the actual consoles it's a big deal when you get to the third levels.

Me and my buddies beat Super Star Wars and Super Return of the Jedi. We used the password saves thing to start back where left off the time before. For some reason none of our little group of friends got Super Empire Strikes Back until a lot later, and I guess we were over it by then and onto bigger and better things and didn't spend much time on it. I do remember we made it to Vader in Cloud City though... I wonder if that is the very end of the game? Now that I think about it, it probably is, I don't recall us ever beating him though. 

Something I find amusing. I don't ever remember us making a huge deal about those games being ridiculously hard back when they were new. We just played them and loved the hell out of them, and when we got frustrated we'd pass the controller. We'd spend hours and hours on them and couldn't put them down. Now when I pick one up and play it, within five minutes I've died a few dozen times and am bored with it.

GORMALLY THINKS IF YOU WANT TO LOSE YOUR VIRGINITY TO A CARTOON PAMELA ANDERSON, YOU'RE PROBABLY THE SORT THAT WILL NEVER GET LAID BY SOMEONE WHO LOOKS ANYTHING LIKE A REAL LIFE PAMELA ANDERSON.

Wow, the game of semantics went so far, Frink is arguing about the different tenses of the word "cheat". WTF? Weirdest most senseless argument ever.

As Gaff very clearly stated, he doesn't give a flip about the use of the word "cheat" here, and admitted that it doesn't necessarily fit. It is insignificant to the point he is trying to make at any rate. His point is, he felt some player got screwed over by some timer cock-up that made the difference between winning and losing, that it was unfair, and that it is wrong that the powers that be did nothing to rectify the issue.

Ironic the guy who keeps popping up to condemn the discussion is the one turning it into a meandering fuss on the various uses of a particular word and how it means Gaff is wrong.

What is this... I don't even...

GORMALLY IS ASHAMED OF ALL WHO HAD DIRTY THOUGHT WHILE READING GORMALLY'S LAST SENTENCE... GORMALLY WAS TALKING ABOUT MAGICAL SPHERE.

GORMALLY LIKES LARGE SHINY BLACK THING AND INTENDS TO GRAB IT AND SHAKE VIGOROUSLY.

zombie84 said:

CP3S said:

I think The Dark Knight Returns and the rest of Miller's Batman works serve much more as a defense for Warbler's side of this discussion than anything else. In other words, Miller got the character, why couldn't Nolan?

Going to have to disagree here. Dark Knight Returns opens with Batman already having given up being Batman. But he decides to come back for a final fight, with the understanding that it will probably kill him. Like in Dark Knight Rises, his health problems and the realization that this battle may be his last are hinted at throughout.

I have no qualms about him having already retired and coming back. In The Dark Knight Returns, he calls it quits after Robin dies a brutal death and comes back he sees Gotham needs him. In The Dark Knight Rises he retired after taking the fall for Dent and ruining his reputation. It makes sense in that context to retire, Batman is now a symbol of the wrongs in Gotham and thanks to Dent, Gotham crime levels have reached a point manageable by the police force. I think both of those scenarios are believable enough (Nolan's perhaps more than Miller's even), but in both those situations he retains his identity, his resources, and everything needed to jump back into the game.

In The Dark Knight Returns Bruce fakes his death to get a government that wants him dead off his back. Millions of dollars of Bruce Wayne's money mysteriously disappears and the mansion burns to the ground. In Miller's story, there is a purpose for his death, he doesn't die to retire or quit, he dies and a means to continue fighting. In Nolan's story, it really feels like the main reason it is there is simply because Nolan was making a salad out of elements from his favorite Batman stories. He fakes his death when the was no real logical reason for it to be necessary.

He could live and still go to France. Or anywhere else he wanted. There was simply no real reason to let the world think he was dead.

Finally at the end, Batman does give up being Batman. The suit is retired, and he instead decides to spend his days training new recruits to do the work he once was able to do so effectively, passing on the torch as it were.

That simply isn't true. The suit is never retired. He is wearing the bat suit, fighting Clark, he "dies", then the very next scene with him it is revealed he is alive and training his recruits. Never any talk about not being Batman. When he says, "She is perfect" in regards to Carrie, he isn't talking about a replacement, it is in response to Alfred questioning him for accepting another sidekick after what had happened to the last Robin and how hard on him it had been.

Ever time I've read The Dark Knight Returns, I've gotten the impression of Batman being an old man who is determined to wear the cowl until his heart stops beating, not someone looking for a replacement so he can chillax

 (Dark Knight Rises is way more realistic: Bruce's body would be spent for good before he was forty)

Like the part where he gets his back broken and is fist fighting Bane mere months later?

Not really, if they stay close to the original story.

They make them all the time. DCAU are a series of animated strait to DVD/BD movies based onm different DC properties. DC releases a new one every couple of months or so. They've made a couple of Batman ones already. I watched Batman: Year One and thought it was a really good adaption (I did find myself wishing Kevin Conroy did the voice acting for Batman/Wayne. Bryan Cranston as Gordon was freaking amazing though). So I am pretty excited about TDKR (disappointed to see Cranston not returning to do Gordon again). A Batman aminated movie featuring Conroy, Hamill, and Cranston might just be about the best thing ever, but one can only dream.

Wasn't First Class a sort of reboot?

As for Days of Future Past taking place in a prequel setting, it is a bit of a time travel story, so it'll work fine.

A Nuclear bomb blows him up, but he uses his teleportation superpowers (same ones he uses to get back to Gotham from Africa) to escape the explosion.

zombie84 said:

But in the mid-1980s---30 years ago, I might remind you--Frank Miller re-wrote the mythology. He recast it in an R-rated noir, where an aging Batman comes out of retirement to give his life to save Gotham from one last threat, eventually deciding to fake his death and let a young replacement, who briefly fought along side him, take over as Batman, with Wayne retiring. Because Batman is a symbol, and Bruce Wayne's body no longer worked, he realized he could retire so long as there was someone worthy to take on the symbol as their identity.

Wait a minute... rereading this part of your comment, I'm thinking you have never even read The Dark Knight Returns yourself... The vast majority of everything you say in the above quote never even happens in The Dark Knight Returns. Carrie isn't intended to replace him as Batman (Batwoman?) and he doesn't decide Batman is just a symbol and so he can therefore let go and pass it on. The only reason he fakes his death is so that he can go into hiding rather than be killed and continue the desperate fight by training others. In the sequel, he comes back, as Batman. Older still, and still fighting. As Batman. No retirement ever depicted.

I think The Dark Knight Returns and the rest of Miller's Batman works serve much more as a defense for Warbler's side of this discussion than anything else. In other words, Miller got the character, why couldn't Nolan?

zombie84 said:

The Dark Knight Trilogy, especially Dark Knight Rises is classic Batman, as faithfully as has ever been done. If it doesn't seem that way to you, it may very well be because you haven't kept up to date with the modern mythology of Batman. And fair enough. The 1990s Batman movies were more old fashioned in approach, the Nolan trilogy is the first feature take on the modern mythology.

I think it is important to mention that The Dark Knight Returns was never intended to fit into Batman continuity and is not in any way canon. It features Gotham City being located in a dystopian America lead by Ronald Regan. It also features the 3rd Robin as a young woman, before the character of Tim Drake had even been thought of. I think calling it "classic" Batman is extremely inaccurate. While the graphic novel itself is most certainly a classic, and it is about Batman, it is very avant-garde and out there, it is most definitely not "classic Batman". You could very accurately make the claim that Returns is part of modern Batman mythology, but that doesn't make it, or other works that loosely use some of these ideas from it "classic batman".

I also think you are misrepresenting Wayne's "retirement" in The Dark Knight Returns. The government wants Batman dead. They send Superman to take him out, and he fakes a heart attack during the fight so the world thinks he's dead. After the funeral, the very next scene is Bruce Wayne alive and well preparing to train a small army. That Batman, even though non-canonical, very much fits with my view of Batman never giving up and fighting until his last breath. I've read The Dark Knight Returns several times, it is one of my favorites. But his "retirement" in that book and the one in the new film are hardly even comparable.

The Dark Knight Returns depicts an old grey haired Batman still donning the cowl and giving it his all. The Dark Knight Rises depicts a still very young Bruce Wayne (the cartilage in his knees was messed up from all he put his body through as Batman, Warb) who seems delighted to still be able to fight with the assistance of technology, and still seems more than capable of doing so. In TDNReturns, Bruce had every reason to fake his own death in order to hide from a government that wanted him dead. In TDNRises he only does it because... uh... well I have no idea actually. 

Probably just because Nolan enjoyed doing scenes inspired by Frank Miller's work, and it made for a dramatic ending. If he intends to return as Bruce Wayne and mentor young Robin (Blah!!) Blake to be the new Batman, then it is really a shame he let his fortunes fall apart (and thus leaving few resources for Blake to use) and it doesn't make sense he'd fake his own death. What logical reason was there for it? If he doesn't want to be Batman, killing Batman would have been enough. But if he intended to train Blake to be the next Batman anyway, why even do that? Killing Bruce off only makes sense if he wanted to disappear into the world and not be looked for, but if he intended to train up Blake, this seems counter productive. Also by killing Bruce off, he looses all claim to Wayne Enterprises (which was potentially salvageable, and his position in the company could have been restored if he uncovered and revealed the faked fingerprint stock scandal) and the resources it would provide for Blake's Batman. 

No matter how you spin it, I feel like the ending of this film is a complete mess.

Frank Miller's TDKReturns depicts a determined, intelligent Batman who meticulously plans his every move and is willing to keep fighting until the end, even if it means he has to fake his own death to do it.

Christopher Nolan's TDKRises depicts Bruce Wayne who lets his fortunes fall apart, fakes his own death so that he can escape to leave Gotham and enjoy his life, and leaves his batcave to a young hot headed cop.

As a side note, though I'm not sure if it should count in this discussion, since it didn't come out until 2001. But TDKReturns' sequel, The Dark Knight Strikes Again, also written by Frank Miller, features Batman, his sidekick, and his army coming out of hiding in order to take down the oppressive dystopian empire they've spent years training to fight against.