arche_757

Ah... my math was fuzzy. 2014 - 2005 (when you rejoined) = 9. If as you say you were 14, then that would make you 23. I think you need to correct your birth certificate, and give back a few years worth of birthday gifts. And I'm not sure about lamenting people who were openly hostile/antagonistic towards others here (as quite a few other people on here have mentioned).

Is Argentina favored? I would be surprised to think they might be. I think the Dutch are a better team, and have played a better crop of teams this cup than Argentina. Germany vs Holland Germany wins 2-1 in extra time.

You're only 23 now?! Geez. How old were you when you first joined this forum?

moo I couldn't care who wins or loses this game. The highlights I've watched appear to show the Germans moving at high speed with the Brazilians simply plodding along at a snails pace. Odd to think they're that bad AT home! Crazy. Though Brazil hasn't impressed that much this cup. Germany vs Holland for the final? Could be quite entertaining.

I suppose Game of Thrones gets more scrutiny from me than it ought to - since it is fantasy/sci-fy - because I find the period of history it supposedly represents quite interesting, and find that many people often greatly misunderstand what the world was between 476CE - 1760.

What does signature mean? 30 floors? 50?

"It only matters that Tyrion either lives or dies based on this fight, but then Game of Thrones is mired down with many boring/needless stories." Game of Thrones has a lot of filler/fluff added into it. I'm not saying Oberyn vs Clegane wasn't a needed scene, but it really was not. Cleganes story from here on is weird, and I don't see how it can be made into a totally relevant piece. Not everything need be taken from the books - its much easier to cover 400 pages of information when read compared to watching it in 10 episodes that are 50 minutes long. I find myself wondering why certain scenes or people are even in the television series.

Good question. However, there is no doubt that Psycho's story would have trouble being told without that scene. Game of Thrones head crush scene on the other hand makes little difference in the overall story. The only issue that needed to be conveyed was that Oberyn dies at the hands of The Mountain. We don't need to see the fight even, as the only portion of the story that is most relevant to is Tyrion's fate. And it matters not if Oberyn dies by blood sucking leech, spear, arrows, sword, or - preposterously - by having another man squash his head into nothing. It only matters that Tyrion either lives or dies based on this fight, but then Game of Thrones is mired down with many boring/needless stories.

Or just use them 1 time! I think the repetitive use of those letters everywhere is what bugs me. Still, that's a tough jumble of rooms and spaces to build and envelope around, and being an arts building if it isn't perfect it will forever be criticized.

I think this is getting some backlash because of the following two reasons: 1) The hokey pictures/rendering/marketing material initially presented to the media. 2) The fact this is out in the far north-eastern rural stretches of greater Houston. That and there are some - both "native" and "non-native" - who look at the idea of a park dedicated to Texas as hokey. As opposed to say... a giant mouse wearing pants (sometimes) or talking chipmunks. Nah, those aren't silly at all.

I suppose I'm asking - or writing - about what that line is? Is there a line? What level of violence depicted in film or television is "too much?" Surely we do not like rape scenes; which is probably the reason Downfall (2004) "allowed" the German women to simply walk through the Russian lines at the end of the film? Which was odd for a European movie, as they tend to push things further from the happy endings common in Hollywood. Though if you read the book(s) the movie was based on, or know anything of the conflict on the Eastern Front, then you know that rape/gang-rape was such a pervasive epidemic that it defined the flight of the Prussians and other East Germans prior to the total collapse of the German Army in 44/45. Oddly enough those attrocities *may not have been pushed upon the Germans had they themselves been a bit more human in their treatment of the Eastern Slavic peoples when they invaded in 1941? Who knows? The Bomb ushered in an era of American peace - of sorts - though we've been involved in the following conflicts since 1945: Korea, Vietnam, The Afghan War (70s-80s), Granada, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia & Herzegovina, The War in Afghanistan, The Iraq War. In fact we're in a near state of constant conflict of some scale... much like the British during the reign of Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, and Empress of India. I just find it interesting.

Which came immediately after the most devastating conflict in Human history... Vlad the Impaler was an exception, not the norm. Today we still execute people, we just don't do it publicly - at least not in the square - though we still watch killers die. The Middle Ages were hard not because of the violence, but because of the everyday things people had to deal with - sickness, lack of cleanliness, child mortality, lack of food, and life expectancy. Is war less hard today because we have guns and not swords? I doubt it. Again, my point is not that violence need be left out of films or tv, but that graphic violence is usually not needed and serves little purpose. All art is subjective, I suppose?

Shoot, just need a broken car, some cinder blocks/building materials strewn about and some from of mixed-breed fighting dog with chain restraint and this could very well be the first ride.

I hope Khyber can relocate... love their buffet on the weekends!

Because San Antonio has zero large companies calling it home... excepting Valero (which I think has a corporate campus rather than big office tower). The other major employment sectors for San Antonio are healthcare, Department of Defense and tourism. Of those three major employment sectors Tourism is the only one to contribute much to the skyline with the tallest buildings in town being hotels. SA has enough cheap land, and the central core is lacking the density to build tall residential buildings (like Austin) so few tall buildings are needed. I think its fine. SA is the biggest small town around, and that's neither good or bad, just my observation when I go there over the years. I think they could support a nice 40 floor office tower downtown, something like BG Place would look great - something that tall. As for why does Dallas and Houston have so many more tall buildings - simple both DFW and Houston are lightyears larger and much more sophisticated business towns than either SA or Austin. There are about 13,000,000+/- people living in DFW and Houston combined, compared to about 4,000,000+/-in SA and Austin.

I looked closer last time I drove by downtown.... I agree that Day's Inn sucks. Central Bank sucks, but is slightly more interesting of the two/three buildings. I just hope this thing happens faster than it has been so far.

I agree with everyone who's posted here - to an extent. Censorship, and media control based on religious or political leanings is wrong. However, I'm not talking about censorship. I'm not talking about controlling what is on TV, or what movie you watch. My question (and my posts on this topic have run a little long...sorry) is this: "Why have violent scenes in films, and televions escalated?" and "If the violence is not relevant to the story then what purpose does it serve?" We are talking about "art" here, documentary films are a tad different in that they depict portrayal's of actual events/places/people in history. Does art need to escalate to extremes to make a point? Again, Game of Thrones clearly makes it known that the world is hard and cruel without having to stab a very pregnant woman in the stomach many times over, or have a mans head crushed. That is just my take on it. And I'm not sure we're more peaceful now? Hard to gauge that. Here's an interesting link about global conflict: http://www.cfr.org/global/global-conflict-tracker/p32137#!/?marker=2

Yes of course we can change the channel, or not buy a movie stub. What I'm writting about here is not a personal choice to leave/remove oneself from viewing pictures that might be offensive, rather, I'm talking about the need for what I would consider "ultra-violence" where the context of said violence is unwarrented for the greater good of the story. I used the third to last episode of Game of Thrones season 4 as an example because of the nasty, overly violent ending that was shown which honestly did very little to make the show better, or more importantly to move the story along. It was unnecessary. The man could have died off screen completely and the story would have gone on without him, with zero consequence. There are other movies, tv series and other media where violence - namely that of the "excessive" kind - is becoming more pervasive. What does that do to a society? Why have we gone down this road when we're so squeamish about naked bodies, or even a breastfeeding woman?! People react much more strongly against a woman feeding her child than they do to a squashed head (fake or not), or bullet riddled bodies. I find that strange, and sad. Our society is very odd at times.

Great find! Thanks for posting. I've seen images of DT Houston from around that era and the throngs of people would make even Slick Vic spit out of sheer joy. A shame we completely abandoned that form of living and are now paying to try and recover that which was lost 70 years later.

Each of us have our own standards for moral behavior. I've long felt that naked bodies are FAR less offensive than any form of violence, though it seems the vast majority of this country still views breasts and butts as offensive compared to say - a guy getting shot in the head (multiple movies - from PG-13 on up). Though there are some who have puritanical views that the human body is something to be viewed in private - which I agree not everything needs to be on display. However, I still find it odd that people who have that view are ok with violence, sometimes extreme violence. And before anyone says "that's just an assumption you have," I do actually know several people who share/have those views!

Perhaps there were soil samples taken within the recent past that we simply missed? I would think this project will happen, even if it is on hold for a few years prior to starting construction.

Indeed the real footage is impossibly hard to watch - at least for me. That is how it ought to be. I can however, see that depictions of violence are also hard to watch. Schindler's List - a movie - very, very hard to watch. And everyone went home at the end of the day. Perhaps its just good storytelling when one can be so engaged that they cringe at the violence, or swoon over the love, or feel betrayal or anger over the loss of a well liked character?

To your first point - I doubt you are the only conservative on this forum. I agree that the graphic depictions of violence are meant to be a form (or part of) the entertainment presented. Yet they also show a decadent and rather vulgar side to society. Humans like spectacle. Rather than attend public executions we depict them on TV or in film. Perhaps we're far more civilized than before? Though your point that the executions were at least a form of warning to those in attendance to "tow the line, act a good citizen?" [Decadence does indeed presage the "end;" as the end signifies the prior period or style of life is over. The Romans are perhaps the greatest example of decadence "crumbling," although it was not an overnight crash and burn, rather, it was a slow methodic destruction from within through bad policies that destroyed the Western Empire.] All to the points you mentioned -- I do believe we needn't cross certain lines in film or tv to make a point. Squashed watermelong or not (though it was meant to LOOK like a smashed up head with brains and eyes and bone - probably as convincing as it needed to be) some elements of violence can be left out to adequately tell the tale. Film and TV are forms of art. When does art become so realistic it is no longer art? Is there a point? Is the rape of a sister by her brother a form of art? Did Game of Thones cross the line there? Or was that less bad? Does a show like Game of Thrones cover gore and violence the way it does to sell? Yes. And when you do that - in my opinion - it goes too far. Game of Thrones is not the only culprit there are plenty of others.

Glad no one was injured! What has HPD said about anything? Probably quiet...unfortunately.

1) Thanks to all who have replied. Getting addtional voices and ideas has made this an interesting topic for debate. 2) This should have mentioned other movies/tv shows but focused in stead on Game of Thrones... that was a mistake to single out Game of Thrones, which is a very well made/acted/filmed TV series. 3) Sensationalism sells. Always has, always will. We would have forgotten about the Titanic like we did the Lusitania if it hadn't been proclaimed "unsinkable." Such is human nature. 4) There is something to be said for realism vs overly glossy/gussied up footage that Hollywood is so famous for. Saving Private Ryan, Unforgiven, Children of Men (for several examples) are gritty, real, and hard to watch at times... the context is different for each of those films, but the gore and violence are similar (consequently Unforgiven isn't really gory, more of a psychological gore) and they play a very important part for each film. Glossy violence in films like Iron Man or The Expendables (for two random examples) is probably much more of the problem than the overly gross/realistic stuff. Kids and adults alike equate those scenes to be far more likely than reality, and hence view violence in general as something far less troublesome than it really is. 5) Movies like SAW are a prefect example - perhaps that is what I should have put on here instead? They are little more than gore fests with little story, little emotional responses less the shuddering as someone has their jaws torn apart by some ridiculous "trap." And how many have been made? Proof that people enjoy violence-in-the-extreme way too much. 6) I disagree about History/National Geo/BBC others showing REAL war footage. Yes it is hard. Yes it is really, trully brutal, but unlike the made up stuff these are actually real humans who are going through this attrocity. We need to show war for what it is: Hard. Brutral. Nasty. Unkind. Remorseless. However there are ways to achieve that without going overboard. War of the Century - When Hitler Fought Stalin (BBC - 2005) is a great documentary about the most attrocity filled conflict in history. Its brutal to watch. There are film reels that show attrocities against civilians... talk about rough stuff, but unlike made-up movies and TV this is something we should watch to understand that is how life was, how life will continue to be, and hopefully how life will be able to adapt so we will no longer have to endure such pain and suffering again. War of the Century should be watched, at least once, as the educational benefit far outweighs the negativity surrounding the real violence shown. If historical events cause people to have nightmares while movies and films do not, thats good. History can't be undone, history can't be ignored. Squashing a mans head and showing it just because... has zero value to it other than to be sensational. If you pit reality versus film/TV, reality wins every time. I guess at the end of the day there are films, TV shows, books and documentaries for every taste, every different set of eyes and ears. Each of us reacts differently to each scene, and at the end of the film that is what the director and stars really wanted us to see and feel.