Orius

That's a more difficult question to answer... difficult because I don't have an interesting answer. I don't try to remember bad movies, and there were a lot of bad horror movies, too many to list. I could name you dozens of b-horror movies like Alligator, Creature, Spiders, Sabertooth (all very creatively titled, aren't they?). I do have a few notable titles that I disliked: - Evil Dead remake (yet another unnecessary remake that pales to the original) - AvP: Requiem (the first one was guilty pleasure; this second one was torture) - Alien: Resurrection (Joss Whedon actually had a part in writing this atrocity) - Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (see remark about AvP) - Darkness Falls - A Sound of Thunder - I’ll Always Know What You Did Last Summer - The Final Destination (remember the prefix, "THE", as inaccurate and pointless as it might be) - Halloween: Resurrection (what an insult to the franchise and Jamie Lee) I'm sure there are a lot more, but you get the idea: generic remakes and sequels that were made for blatant cash-grabs. As long as a movie is made with some level of creativity, I can't fault it to my "least favorite movie" book. To further answer @zoop's question about horror films, here's another one I would like to mention: Curse of Chucky Much like other horror franchises, the "Child's Play" franchise was dying of its own bloatedness choked full of sequels and reboots. So when "Curse of Chucky" came along, I didn't have a lot of expectations. But then I saw the positive reviews and decided to give it a chance. So glad I did. Curse of Chucky returned to its horror roots and even played around with certain tired tropes like other horror films I've mentioned, twisting your expectations about certain characters around. There's actually a story in this movie, and decent characters too, not just throwaways you wouldn't care about and wish would be dead. The morality of the characters is ambiguous and realistic, so that's a bonus. A lot of things about Curse of Chucky just went right, and it shows a promising future for the franchise. Now onto my favorite genre... The key difference between horror and thriller is the effect on the mind. Horror movies are meant to frighten, whereas thrillers play on the mind and the expectations of the audience much more often. It's these mind games that made me love thrillers much more than horror, because more often than not, I wouldn't know what to expect. Here are some of my favorite thrillers of all time. Disclaimer: A lot of these trailers rely on your lack of expectation, so don't watch these trailers unless you've already seen the movie. Phone Booth Joel Schumacher gets a lot of flak for his Batman movies. What people didn't know was that he created not just one, but two magnificent thrillers - Falling Down and this film. I remember Joel mentioning something about his interest in a Batman: Year One movie after Burton's departure, and I think he would've made a great "Year One" film had it not for studio intervention (as much as I love Nolan's take). The great thing about Joel's thrillers is the human element in them. There's always a protagonist who is relatable on some level, whether it's job loss or family issues. Phone Booth features a fast-talking dirtbag who acts like your typical movie jerk. He's a womanizer and only looks out for himself. But by the end of the film, I was shedding tears for this guy, surprisingly enough. It just shows how well Joel is able to bring the sympathetic side out of his characters, no matter how much of a scumbag they are (initially). I don't think I need to state how much of an amazing actor Colin Farrell is if you've seen his other works (like "Saving Mr. Banks" and "Seven Psychopaths"). Along with Joel's direction, he brought out the desperation of his character effectively. Because of the nature of these films, I'll be avoiding plot spoilers as necessary, but Phone Booth is quite a straightforward storyline - arrogant d-bag gets punished for his deeds. As familiar as thriller storylines can be, I feel that it's the execution that makes all the difference in holding your attention and your pulse running. Phone Booth succeeds very well in that respect IMO. The Game David Fincher is the master of thrillers. There's no argument about it. He's the best in the field in twisting your mind and scooping it out from the inside. This is especially apparent from his latest work, "Gone Girl", which also subverts audience expectations. But his earlier works like "Seven" and this film showed just as well the talents of a rising talent. He's like J.J. Abrams in toying with your mind if Abrams wasn't obsessed with that stupid "Mystery Box" gimmick. Much like Phone Booth, The Game is also about an arrogant d-bag that gets his. Unlike Phone Booth, and more like Fincher's other works, there are tons of unexpected twists. I can't talk about the plot from this point, so you'll just have to check it out yourself. Highly recommended for fans of psychological thrillers who love mind games. The Dark Knight Yes, The Dark Knight is a crime thriller, not part of the non-existing "superhero genre", just like how "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is a political thriller. I think that everything that can be said about The Dark Knight has already been said by everyone and their mother. Greatest superhero movie that ever existed. Heath Ledger was an amazing Joker. The Batman movie that we deserved and needed. I love The Joker's expertly-planned manipulation, and I love his morally grey speeches about the vulnerability of law and order to influences of corruption. It's not a masterpiece, but it's certainly one of my Top 10 favorite movies of all time. Captain America: The Winter Soldier I actually have more to say about The Winter Soldier, even though I love TDK much more than this. It's because Winter Soldier helped shape the Captain's character much more significantly and dramatically than TDK did with Batman. This was the film that examined how a relic from the "greatest generation" would treat the 21st Century ideas of counter-terrorism. It challenges the pure and noble ideals of Steve Rogers with hard truths and pragmatism that he couldn't ignore. Not only does this make it a fantastic character arc, it also sprinkles sufficient amount of commentary to encourage discussions about the current political climate. Rather than proving Steve's seemingly naive ideals false, I think it merely reinforced them and made me love and respect the character even more for planting himself like a tree beside the river of truth. By the way, I would love to see a Captain America v. Joker movie, if only just to see how the most morally incorruptible man on Earth would face against the most corrupting force on the planet. Such an amazing film. It's both philosophically and creatively ingenious. A survivor of a post-apocalyptic world is sent to the past to fix things only to end up in a nuthouse and forced to question his sanity. Usually, such fear of the apocalypse would be associated with delusional conspiracies conjured up by either doomsday phobics or just plain tinfoil hat-wearing basement dwellers. It's why it's such a clever plot - how could we tell which is the reality if it seems like such a likely delusion? Aside from an examination of the human sanity, it also delves into fate and our inability to stop the wheels from turning... like monkeys dancing to a street organ. I found this film while seeking out high-octane action-packed thrillers that would pump up my adrenaline (being the junkie that I am). Surprisingly, this was a smarter film than what I was looking for, like most thrillers out there. It deals with Cold War politics, anti-war sentiments (rather than anti-military), and how blindly following orders isn't always the best idea. Tony Scott is known for his hyperbolic thrillers that often go over-the-top, but I'd say this is his best work yet that's smarter than his other films. Aside from the politics, the main attraction here is really the confrontation between the two heavyweight actors of the time: Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman. The intense rivalry between commander and officer here is riveting. Neither is really in the complete wrong and both have good reasons to launch or not launch those missiles. . The real reason why I suggested for you to ask me about my favorite thrillers. This was another hidden gem that I just happened to stumble upon thanks to a review by Chris Stuckmann. Like a lot of my favorite thrillers, it has such a simple plot with a massive pay-off. An old friend reunites with our protagonist and his wife, later offering them a seemingly harmless gift. Again, not much can be said without spoiling, but it's a story about the past coming back to bite you. The great twists aside, the acting here is wonderful, and you can see the emotional pain all of the characters carry here beneath their facade. Another film I've mentioned a lot in the forums. The first MI was a spy thriller through and through with very little of the goofy comedy you'll come to find in the fourth and fifth film. The film follows Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), an agent who is betrayed, with his entire team killed in a failed operation. Cruise delivers a great performance, particularly when he discovers who really betrayed him at the end. You can see all the pain on his face as he put the pieces together and realized the truth during the confrontation. Noteworthy is playing during that scene. Danny Elfman once again delivers a haunting score that's unforgettable. It fits the scene incredibly well and made it one of my favorite movie scenes of all time (next to the vault-infiltration scene I described in length in the "Favorite Movie Scenes" thread, the one devoid of any BGM). Last but not least... I could write an entire article on what I love about this film, what it has done right for the Bond franchise, all the amazing characters it has, the groundbreaking character development of James Bond, the exhilarating music that kept my heart pumping, the amazing villain, and many many more. It's my third favorite movie of all time and no other films have surpassed it, including The Dark Knight. I could write at length about this, but I think I'll save it up for an idea I have for the "Favorite Movie" thread which I'm planning to respond to again in the near future, but with an extremely lengthy post that will rank all my favorite movies from Top 20 to Top 10. In fact, I think I've exhausted here what I have to say about some of my favorite movies I intended to talk about in that post, so I think I'll stop for now. I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point anyway. What I would generally look out for in a thriller is often what I would look out for in a good movie - unexpected twists, emotional characters I could relate to and sympathize, ambiguous morality, and a sprinkle of philosophical musings if needed. Thanks for the question, @zoop. I hope you had fun reading it as much as I did writing it.

6/10 The original is way better. Really don't like this dubbing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tss7S4HYeMk

On the morning of July 15, 1974, American news reporter Christine Chubbuck committed suicide live on-air as she was broadcasting the news. Released at the 2016 Sundance Festival, the trailer to the biopic, "Christine", described the suicide as an event that "changed the face of television." Whether that was true or not, I do not know. It was a sensationalistic statement that got my attention nonetheless. Movies that dramatized the grittier parts of reality have often gripped my interest, such as the similarly-themed "Nightcrawler" starring Jake Gyllenhaal. Whether I enjoy such films, however, is not the problem here, as unlike Nightcrawler, this was based on a true story, so sensationalistic should be the last adjective I use. Thankfully, the film is anything but dramatized, in spite of Robert Greene's raised concerns towards the ethics of biopics in his satirical doc, "Kate Plays Christine". In case it isn't obvious, Greene's film also dealt with Christine Chubbuck. It was released in the same year and in the same Sundance Festival alongside Antonio Campos' "Christine" biopic. I didn't have the good fortune of watching both films back-to-back as the Sundance audiences did, but I would imagine it would've been a much more effective and impactful experience due to what both films had to say. See, supposedly, Christine Chubbuck's suicide footage was hot stuff on the Internet. Many people had searched for it. Of course, the legendary videotape was never found, even though there's a news article floating around in recent years claiming otherwise. The one footage you could find on the Internet today (YouTube) has been claimed to be fake by many. The footage, a black and white video, also contradicts what Christine actually said seconds prior to her suicide, "in living colour." "Kate Plays Christine" criticized such voyeuristic desires to see the suicide footage, while adding on that such a biopic is impossible to be made without dramatizing or glorifying the facts. The actual biopic in question, Campos' "Christine", challenged this notion with a cold and distanced tone that made the film more of an unbiased character study than the disrespectful sensationalism Greene was concerned about. It doesn't try to explain why the tragedy happened, nor should it, because we'll never truly know what went on in Christine's troubled mind (if she's indeed troubled at all at the time of her suicide and not just out to send a message). However, it's this lack of knowledge that makes Greene's argument about biopics relevant. Rebecca Hall, a wonderful actress I've only seen once in a favorite thriller of mine, Joel Edgerton's "The Gift", played Christine with a proper balance of awkwardness and sympathy. It's a very neutral way to tell us that Christine's solitude was partly due to her own behavior, and yet also attributed to the frustration she faced as a prejudiced working woman during the '60s. I feel that this neutrality, while good-intentioned, makes the portrayal not genuine - that is, if a biopic portrayal could truly be genuine at all in relation to the real life counterpart. Personally, I feel that it's impossible to portray a real life person to a completely accurate level, especially when you're showing that person's flaws. I notice that whenever a film is portraying a flawed individual - be it a suicide victim or a serial killer - they always try to give them some distinct tic or characteristic in order to have an "accurate" imitation. Real people aren't telling the audience a story, so whatever visual tic that defines their individuality wouldn't always be so visible and obvious. So when actresses like Hall try to bring out that "unique" characteristic of theirs, it can seem quite contrived when I compared her to the real life counterpart (albeit after I've seen the film). It's an inherent problem all biopics would face. They asked, "How accurately can you imitate that person?" instead of just, "How do you act like a real person that's not on camera?" That said, it's probably an unfair criticism. For all the impossible obstacles that Campos had to leap over in creating such a biopic, it is an impressive work by itself. I'm glad the film took such a step back from forcing some meaningful message about feminism or sensationalism onto the audience and simply showed us what kind of life Christine might have lived. It's the ultimate expression of filmmaking - simply showing life itself. It's not a perfect way to tell Christine's story (and I couldn't imagine if there ever will be), but it's one that's worth praising nonetheless. ★★★½

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEjLoHdbVeE

4/10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTaWayUE5XA

I know this isn't technically anime and more of a visual novel, but I think it fits as well. Warning: Disturbing and NSFW Images: [spoiler=NSFW]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3o325-KSMw I just reinstalled euphoria on my computer in preparation for playing it again in the near future, and I'm reminded of how much I love the OP. It looks like a typical eroge, but I can assure you without irony that it isn't. It's kinda like Saya no Uta in that respect, as in the eroge content is relevant to the story.

Oh boy. Here we go. The horror genre is one of my favorite genres of all time, and I remember being fascinated by horror films since I was a kid, so I'll probably go quite in-depth on this one. Grab a cup of java and get ready for some heavy reading. Don't say I didn't warn you... The Fly (1986) I was, surprisingly enough, quite a gore hound even as a child. And not just any gore would fascinate me. I mean, you could pour tons of gratuitous fake blood and it would just be that, superficial red paste. What I really enjoyed was the shock factor, something I hypocritically criticize today. I love horror movies that went for the extremely disturbing, so I really liked Carpenter's The Thing remake as well, if for the uncanny gore alone. But with (David) Cronenberg, he's specialized in body horror, a true expert really, so he's able to twist human flesh into some of the most disturbing imagery you could ever imagine, and there's something especially disturbing about our own flesh looking as horrifying as that because it's part of our own body because it reminds us how vulnerable the human body is. The Fly had this really gory scene at the end that really shows this well. [spoiler=Plot Details]Brundlefly spits out acid onto Stathis' arm and literally melted it like a fly would melt its food, and it was both an uncomfortable and a fascinating sight to watch because it made my child-like mind think, "What else could the monster do to the human body with this cool ability?" It just set my imagination on fire. In years to come, however, I would look at the movie very differently, more than just some cheap b-movie schlock. When I watched it again as an adult, I realized it's a very tragic story, a metaphor for a man's struggle against cancer or a terminal illness really, and this made it become my favorite horror movie of all time. The best tragedies usually involve an inevitable or unforeseeable cause or mistake - it's sadder because there was nothing any could've done to predict it - and The Fly's tragedy begins with such a mistake, a mistake done with good intentions in mind too. It's your science experiment gone (very) wrong. Usually, that kind of movie would have some generic story about a monster killing people, but here, it's more about a man watching himself dying slowly. A truly heartbreaking film that one must experience. That human element is a key ingredient the sequel would come to miss, returning the series into cheap Hollywood schlock once again. The Fly II was gorier, more violent, and sleazier too. Yes, you may argue that it was the gore that attracted me to the first movie in the first place, but you'd be dismissing the fact that it was Brundle's tragic character that made it one of the top horror movies in my book. Scream (1996) and Scream 2 (1997) Today, tongue-in-cheek self-aware movies are aplenty, and not always appreciated as good movies because it shows how dated certain tropes and genres have become. Even the satire horror has become the new cliche. Everyone has to be clever nowadays. But back in the '90s, when Wes Craven first set the trend for self-aware slasher flicks, it was an exciting period, albeit short-lived. I remember feeling proud that I was in on the joke. Scream 2 took it even further by mocking movie sequels, albeit ending up becoming part of the joke it was telling. I was becoming Randy Meeks the movie geek, just picking apart movies and making fun of the bad ones and terrible sequels. I was so full of myself back then, thinking I know better than I really did, but I digress. Needless to say, Scream had a big impact on my life, and it was one of my favorite scary movies back then (it's technically a slasher film, not a horror one, but I hope this counts anyway). But it has dated quite a lot today and just doesn't contain the same excitement or novelty. Scream was a lot of fun back then, trying to break all kinds of rules and being as clever as it could be. In a lot of ways, the movie was like a metaphor for my teenage years - a fun time, but not one I would look proudly upon. I feel like it's important to mention Scream regardless of whether if it's still one of my favorite horror movies today because it played such a significant role in molding my love of scary movies. I think I still miss it though, if only because of Randy. Randy is this movie-savvy expert, and I looked up to him and even wanted to act like him. I loved it when he talked about sequels in Scream 2, like how Empire Strikes Back was part of a planned trilogy (so it doesn't get extra credit for being a good sequel), or how the first Alien was more superior than Cameron's Aliens in spite of the latter's popularity ("Thank you; Ridley Scott rules."). He was such a snob, but such a knowledgeable snob that I wanted to be that guy, the guy who could charismatic assess the quality of a movie with a silver tongue. I do appreciate that I've mellowed out though in my movie criticism, but like the childish memories of your adolescence, those Scream movies and Randy still carry a special place in my heart (kinda like how some adult males still dig American Pie in their 30s lol). Scream 2's opening was one of my favorite movie openings of all time, by the way. The first Scream had a really clever opening on its own, [spoiler=plot details]tricking the audience into thinking that Drew Barrymore, America's sweetheart and also a well-established household name at the time, would survive. The sheer brutality of that scene might feel like it was made for cheap shock, but I think it was an important scene to set the serious tone of the film, how the movie wasn't going to play around, and that no punches were being held back. The second movie imitated that same shocking opening that the two other sequels would come to imitate as well (and fail). The second one was even more shocking because it took place in a theater, which we now know to be a place of real life violence as well. The real genius of that scene was showing how the audience reacted. They all thought it was just part of a show, a marketing ploy, and the barrier between fiction and reality was distorted. It's a wonderfully written scene that I felt was criticizing slasher fans and our obsession with violence. Also noteworthy was Sidney's character. Neve Campbell is a terrific actress and made Sidney the Ellen Ripley of my generation. I really loved her character development, especially in Scream 2 where she became this strong but realistic victim of the horrors that kept dogging her life. The allusions to PTSD symptoms were intriguing to watch, and it made Sidney my favorite Scream Queen of all time. I also love that, aside from being a suspenseful track that effectively sets an edgy vibe (in a good way) during the first-half of the song, also expresses Sidney's constant struggle as the unfortunate main star of a slasher franchise in the second-half. Being a satire franchise that makes fun of slasher flicks, it's not surprising that Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson (the latter, writer of the first two films and the fourth one, being the real brain behind the Scream franchise IMO) created such a character who not only embodies female empowerment in a genre that usually portrays them as damsels in distress, but also a slasher protagonist that deconstructs a lot of trends and tropes of past slasher protagonists, like her ability to survive till the fourth film, or how she had a relatable character arc and managed to grow as a character, or how she managed to live a semi-normal life in spite of all the killers after her. But I've talked about the Scream movies way longer than I had intended. Seems that I still have a lot more love left for the franchise than I would like to think. The Cabin in the Woods (2012) My interest in self-aware movies that made fun of movie genres would carry on with this film (especially after this film, actually). The Scream movies were a good start, but Cabin in the Woods really took the genre and had fun with it, mocking (and deconstructing) all kinds of horror cliches you'd find, from the dumb blonde to "the virginal final girl" to splitting up instead of staying together. There are a lot of subverted tropes here you won't recognize unless you've seen your share of horror films. It's the ideal gift and a love letter for horror movie fans. Just talking about what the plot is about ruins the experience, so I won't do that and will instead say: A bunch of kids visit a cabin in the woods. Bad things happen. I would LOVE to talk at length with you about the movie once you've seen it, because there are so many in-jokes that are worth talking about, all those clever little writing Whedon and Goddard put together to tell you, "See what we did differently? Clever, right?" The Orphanage (2007) This was one of those (very) lucky opportunities I was given. It's a movie I didn't seek out myself, and was only made aware of due to the grace of another movie fan back then. And boy, was I grateful. Much like the other films I've talked about here, there's not a lot I could talk about without spoiling the story (I see a trend here), but I will say that, if you ever find yourself the good fortune of seeing this film, don't let the seemingly generic formula of the first-half put you off. I was initially skeptical of how good the film would be when it went through the usual routines, like how the main character would investigate the cause of the horror and discover an expositional backstory waiting for her. lol But eventually, this cynicism of mine was put to rest and was for naught, because there's an incredible pay-off at the third act that not only made this a great horror film, but also an emotional tragedy. I haven't seen this film for a long time so I can't say for certain, but I think it tackled the theme of childishness, and how we as adults tend to abandon the once guileless nature children had, that utter lack of cynicism and jadedness. It's a brilliant film that a lot of people would probably put off because it's not in English, but I would definitely recommend anyone to check this out, not just horror fans. That's all that I can name right now. To be honest, while I like what horror movies can do when done right (which isn't often), my preferred genre is thriller (particularly the psychological kind), not horror. And yes, there's a significant difference. So, ask me what my favorite thriller movies are next if you wish, and I'd be able to name you a lot more favorites. Of course, that's only if you could stomach even more heavy reading after this...

Aside from being one of the rare movie reboots that was actually quality, Tron: Legacy had an amazing teaser trailer as well: The cinematography of the teaser alone was beautiful, slowly pulling back the curtain to tease audiences about the return of Tron in millennium high definition quality. When that newly upgraded light cycle appeared in the trailer for the first time, I could just imagine Tron fans going crazy over it. I love that there's almost no music in the background at all till the end. It really sets an immersive atmosphere and absorbs us in. The reveal of a returning protagonist at the end at the trailer was of course ingenious. Rarely do movie reboots at the time bothered to bring back stars from the original movies after so many years due to financial concerns. Star Wars was an exception because it's a bazillion-dollar franchise; Tron wasn't.

Nice to see Spielberg, one of the giants of the filmmaking world, still retained his talent for storytelling (unlike Ridley Scott and James Cameron...). He's probably my favorite filmmaker back then, capable to grabbing your heart and your emotions with such child-like innocence. I'm not really as interested in his modern works because they are out of range with my own interest and preferred genres (Lincoln, for example), but it's still nice to hear news like this.

As you all know, this is my profile: As I've told @Cy~, I created it on a whim, slapping together various images from Google search to make something look coherent. lol This is of course a Steins;Gate 0 theme, one of the three visual novels I'm currently playing. I might change into another theme based on what I play in the future, but we'll see. At least customizing your profile here is a lot less complex than MyAnimeList, so I have the excuse of being lazy.

DISCLAIMER: NOT AN EXPERT From what I know, "moe" has the meaning of a cute girl that gives an aura of vulnerability, triggering your inner-chauvinism, and therefore, making you want to protect her, adore her, hug her. It's more of a feeling than a character trait. That's why little sister characters are the ideal version of moe, because their vulnerability essentially bring the "protective big brother" outta you, literally or otherwise. Of course, that original definition has been lost over the years, and it probably became more generalized into just cuteness alone. Now anything fluffy and pink are considered moe. Personally, I don't really care. I don't hate cute things every once in a while, but I feel anime's bloated with them and gave non-anime fans a distorted image of what anime really is. I think it's one reason why anime has a distinct style, one which I don't necessarily like. The 'chibi' style that's often associated with moe is something American animations try to imitate, thinking that's what anime looks like in general. Sigh. See why I don't like to define anime by a single art style alone? It's like saying all American comic books are about superheroes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr8kWkPffYw

So many tropes from shounen anime that I would have to look them up and list them. I guess I'll try to name some: Hot-Blooded, Idiot Hero, Big Eater Look. Luffy is cute. Natsu is badass. And Goku is funny. But can we please stop churning these copies out? It got boring by the time Fairy Tail decided to create the next shouty big-ham hero with an appetite of all the starving African children combined. It's one of the biggest reasons why shounen anime is one of my least favorite anime, ever. Freudian Excuse, Kill All Humans, Omnicidal Maniac Inspired by Trigun of all anime. I hated the villain. But there are worse examples than Legato that are overused. If I have a penny everytime a supervillain wants to destroy the world, I could buy Trump Tower 10x over. And their excuses are so weak. Usually, it has to do with revenge or how someone wronged them in life. I mean, look, I get being a misfit and all - heck, I was one of the biggest misfits in class - but killing people and destroying the planet because people wronged you just doesn't make any sense, logically speaking. If anything, I'd rather just screw off and get off the planet, go live in solitude or something. Too much hassle destroying planets. Moe. Just moe. This needs to stop. I'm tired of seeing moe in my anime if I could be frank. Never saw the appeal of it. I think I'll list these for now. There are a lot of troupes that I'd have to look through TVTropes to properly analyze this, but this will do for now.

Alignment - Neutral Evil Yeah, I was really honest about whether if I would steal when things turn desperate. Didn't expect to align towards "evil" though. Was hoping for "True Neutral" instead. Temperament - Melancholic Figured I'd be labeled an emo again. lol At least it says I'm "thoughtful" and "creative". I do become occupied with tragedies (or at least, tragic fiction) more often than not. There's something about depressing stories that calls upon me... DnD Class - Ranger I probably chose bow-related choices one too many times. Figured I would have been an assassin or some kind of vicious conqueror, considering how many times I chose power over honor. Hogwarts House - Slytherin...? Yeah, figures. These quizzes tend to be inconclusive due to how much nuance our personality contains. I can't just belong to any single one House due to that. Still, I hit Slytherin almost immediately at the last question. lol I feel that I can be more selfish than most people. Hey, at least I'm honest about it. Dere - Kuudere Mhm, finally, an accurate result. Or at least, close enough. I think this is more of a type of personality I strive to become, rather than what I actually am though, since I can be quite open and honest about my emotions, and it's more like I want to look cool... rather than actually looking cool. <_<

To clarify my last post, I wanna say either morning or night, but because I stay indoors so often, it barely makes a difference to me. Also, since my sleep cycles tend to flip around so frequently, it's hard to keep track when I'd stay awake, day or night. But if I have to pick, I'd say morning as well. Night time has its problems, like the inability to buy food, or the likelihood of bugs appearing. I hate bugs.

Wrong section, but oh well. A mod will probably move this later. Favorite time: When I'm not sleeping. I get to have a lot more fun!

Makes sure the crush isn't literal as she hurtles towards me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_jSSVJwGek I first heard this heartbreaking song from the season 5 preview of Dexter. Loved it ever since.

Fuzzy. I consider any Japanese hand-drawn animation to be anime (which also includes cinematic in video games) if you want to go strictly by the book. However, in terms of art style, I also consider a lot of light novels and visual novels to be similar in style when compared to anime. Like I've said before, I think anime has such a broad stroke that it's impossible to define a single definitive and distinct style, and that variety spreads to other Japanese works as well. Heck, if you want to bring music into part of the definition, then I could very well say live action Japanese shows can be considered part of anime culture as well, considering how some of them reference "moe" or even outright incorporate "moe characters" in live action form (alas, a more cringey effort than a successful one). But that would mean that the definitive anime style strictly and exclusively involves moe... which it doesn't (necessarily). And here's the part where we go round and round in semantics, so I'll just stop there. I think it's more of a wishful thinking on my part to think that anime has a style that other Japanese works would imitate in mediums outside of animation, when in truth, a lot of Japanese people don't even really care about anime in general. I mean, they don't hate it, they are just not as obsessive as we foreigners seem to be. You have to also consider that anime and otaku are closely associated, and "otaku" is a generally frowned upon concept in Japan. But that's for another topic. Honestly, I'd say this is a really fuzzy question, one I have much more trouble answering than the "genre vs. medium" one. Anime can be so many things. Life. Style. Art. It's very fluid.

Tricky question, since I technically first watched anime ever since I was a kid, about 6-7 years old - only that I didn't know about the term, "anime" yet. The first time I truly discovered anime and its definition was during my college years, when I was 19 or 20 years old. That was the first time I actively sought out anime on my own instead of just watching whatever that came up on TV. So, yeah, go figure from there. It really depends.

Hate to say this, but this was my least favorite route. I don't think it's terrible by any means, and my reasons are definitely biased and selfish. That said, I just can't get myself to like this route (and possibly the movie by extension). Saber might or might not have to do with it...