Hey man, I like you and all, but your post on the Disney thread made me go "wut" the whole time. Like, that's cool you like Big Hero 6, but I personally didn't care for it, and there was no reason to jump on me like that just because I briefly gave an opinion. You had seen my post on "last movie you watched" about half a year ago where you saw I said the movie felt like it was trying to be How to Train Your Dragon, and I still believe that. Hiro and Baymax may have been that duo like with Hiccup and Toothless, but Hiro wasn't as interesting as Hiccup, and Baymax was so-so for me (even though he was the best character in the movie). I also feel How to Train Your Dragon 2 did the whole "coming-of-age" story better, even though that's still going to continue into the next film for sure (and that's not a bad thing).
If we're going to make the argument that a movie deserved an Oscar, The LEGO Movie should've gotten at least a nomination. I love How to Train Your Dragon 2, but The LEGO Movie was the best animated movie that year, and it being snubbed is one proof out of many that animated movies are still treated like **** by the Academy Awards.
And why would you say "I wonder what on earth you think DreamWorks made in 2015 that was better than Big Hero 6?" Just because Home was clearly a kids' film doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Kung Fu Panda 3 could've counted had it not been moved back to early 2016 because of Star Wars.
I think the reason I never saw any similarities/inspirations was because I knew Mr. Peabody & Sherman was taken directly from the famous Peabody's Improbable History shorts that played on Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends, and had grown up with it. That's why I enjoyed it so much because it still carried over elements from the short and was true to it despite the modern-day setting. I'm sad it didn't do well in theaters, but I'm glad I watched it and enjoyed it. DreamWorks has been doing well with their movies lately, even though it's sad they're in a financial crisis. Though yeah, there were a lot of similarities between Frozen and Tangled, but Frozen was just bad.
I didn't see Po in him. He's more like the Giant from The Iron Giant, just if the Giant was able to talk throughout the entire movie and didn't have to be hidden from the government.
Lol, I figured that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure since you said "trainer" and not "user" XD. But yeah, I do it every year in using a user title that relates to a Christmas song I currently like that year.
My parents kinda make fun of me for being critical like that, though . It's probably because I'm a graduate film student, so I can catch on to these things quicker. But I'm also a story-driven person, and if the characters don't do it justice for me, the movie suffers. Sometimes good characters are trapped in bad scripts and vice versa.
I never really saw anything relating to Meet the Robinsons with Mr. Peabody & Sherman (which is a great movie, it just sucks it didn't turn a profit), I felt it was a smart film that may have taken cues from other sources, but it still had its own identity. There really is nothing wrong with taking other sources as influence to make a story, but it doesn't mean much when it's not its own identity. That's what bothered me the most about Big Hero 6 was that it didn't feel like it was a Disney movie. It was just trying to be like something else, and it kinda shows. You can tell Disney's trying to make Baymax into the next Toothless or Stitch, and the character suffers a bit from it--he's still the best character, but I'm not squeeing over him or wishing I had one of my own because of it. Probably because for a bit at first, he was more cringe-worthy than charming.
Still, go see the movie regardless. The visuals were nice to look at, the use of the Cloner Tool and particles were very well done, and the action's nice.
Skyla? Yeah, it looks nice. Blue seems to complement well with the avatar(s), probably because of the usage of pink, so it makes it pop. There's quite a number of the trainer ranks I liked because of it.
I still haven't found out what's in it, so if you could tell me that'd be awesome. Someone actually told me way back when the games first came out but I eventually forgot what Pokemon were in it and all I could remember was that it was Ice type.
Hey! Thank you for being so patient with me. I had a crazy summer (I moved twice and changed jobs and it was insane) and I just didn't breed anything for my shop for the most part because I literally had no time. I will honor all requests that were made before I said I couldn't IV breed, so now that you've contacted me, I'll get back to work on your request. I actually do have part of it done.
It may be a awhile before I can formulate a response. I've been desperately wanting to respond to a whole slew of posts in the debate forum, but my internet is currently through just my phone right now. Typing up anything large and comprehensive on it is an annoyance I don't want to trouble myself with. I would just litter the debate forum with sarcastic slights at my opponents, but I don't know if I could feasibly get away with that. In due time, I'll be back in the fray.
Either way, I'm not sure if this is an entirely satisfactory answer, but that's more or less the gist of the situation anyway. Point is, it's peculiar that Paul mentions lesbianism, and to me at least, suggests that there's something more to Romans 1:26/27 than simply "homosexuality is against nature." I also feel reading this, if nothing else, brings up a lot of interesting points to take into account--in particular, that sexual identity has evolved over the years--all of which require too much explaining I'm too lazy to do at the moment.
The evidence is, admittedly, highly circumstantial. The difficultly is that lesbianism is mentioned almost never in Ancient Roman documents, whereas male homosexuality is brought up on occasion. Moreover, because this was Ancient Rome and men had power, as well as sexual identity in Ancient Rome being passive/active rather than gay/straight, the policy that women could not mingle outside of their marriage effectively makes lesbianism a crime in most cases.
Part of this, however, is that sexual identity in Ancient Rome is vastly different. Women were not expected to exercise control over their sexuality; there's no word in Latin for gay (closest word is caenidus, which literally means 'a man who takes in the rear,' to be blunt). More concrete evidence is scant, but you have Ovid a la here. Catullus' poems discussed a woman he called 'Lesbia,' of which poems about her can be found here. Past that, the lack of lesbianism in Latin literature (compared to the overwhelming amount of male sexuality in classical mythology) simply begs the question why Paul would see lesbianism and describe it alongside the seemingly more common male homosexuality.
oh right. I had my birthday on Monday. /I remember then, just not five days later.
I'm not sure how long I'll stick around. Mostly came here to contribute what I wanted to contribute for some time (I've been lurking in that thread in the past), and only did so since I had time to actually write out my rather complicated views that I can't express succinctly.