CP3S

Hey, it's me. said:

Stupid question. Stupid thread. 

You can't see it through the screen, but I just waved my index and middle finger at you.

I never suggested the developers were making any kind of a statement about homosexuals. Clearly you didn't read my second post in this thread, and possibly not the first post either. Some of you all take everything too seriously.

This thread is mostly just me being playful and bored, but I did find myself feeling sorry for him.

We don't know he is gay until he tells us the dead guy was his lover, which is just before you part ways. So the character has been well established as kind of a dick and unlikeable long before you discover his sexual preference. So I'd say they treat him that way and he is gay. So I am sure the writers intended the reveal that the girl stole items from him to be his comeuppance, jerk got what he deserved. But the scene where the girl revealed she stole his nudey magazine,  laughed at the idea of him missing it at night, then unceremoniously tossed it out the window just made me annoyed at the girl. Yeah, he was a grumpy grump and a jerk, but he still risked his life to help her and then discovered the loss of someone important to him in the worst kind of way.

Stealing something that might be important to someone else just to destroy it for amusement, is cruel behavior and is only done to hurt someone. Stealing the comic book because she wanted to read it, or stealing weapons, food, or useful items is far more justifiable, even though it is selfishly motivated, at least it is serving a purpose. Taking something just to take something away from this person so that they don't have it anymore is far worse than selfish.  

Everything done by this character prior to this point has gone toward liking the character and finding her somewhat endearing. I feel the writers took a misstep here. They probably intended this scene to be endearing as well, since the guy was an asshole. But they already gave this asshole character a gut wrenchingly bad day, then they have the protagonist do something shitty to him on top of it all, even though she should be grateful. He gave them guns from his private gun stash, risked his life, and sacrificed the only functioning car battery he knows of which could have been of great use to him, and all for their sakes.

I don't know. I am not fat and the seats feel comfortable to me. I've never really stopped to wonder if they are comfortable to different sized people.

Just JEDITED the title and hijacked my own The Last of Us thread so that I can have a place to talk about The Last of Us.

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

This rather pointless thread contains early game spoilers for the PS3 game The Last of Us. If you haven't played at least through the fourth chapter of the game, then minor spoilers follow.

So, The Last of Us is about a smuggler and a fourteen year old girl who have to travel across the post-apocalyptic cordycep infected United States together. At one point in the game you require a car and the main character decides to cash in a favor with an old acquaintance of his. The acquaintance is reluctant to help but is eventually guilted and pressured into the task. This man, Bill, is a crotchety middle aged asshole, and is a complete dick to both your characters as he helps you trek across dangerous neighborhoods filled with deadly infected on your way to acquiring a working car battery. But I imagine if I lived outside the quarantine zone and had to deal with cordycep infected humans at all hours of everyday, I'd be a bit of a grump too.

After a long and daunting journey across this treacherous neighborhood, you enter a house and discover a dead man hanging by the neck from the ceiling. This seems to really upset Bill, and when you ask him he admits that the man was his "partner". A note from Bill's dead lover is discovered that basically says he is sick of Bill and can't stand to be around him anymore and was going to steal the functioning car battery and run away, but was bit by the infected and had to kill himself. Ouch. Soon you part ways with the very distressed Bill, and after you get a ways down the road you discover the 14 year old girl stole a comic book, a cassette tape, and a beefcake magazine from Bill's home. After taking a peak and the centerfold, cracking some jokes about how Bill is going to be missing it tonight, she tosses it out the moving vehicle's window.

So after all Bill did to help our protagonists, he gets to wander the long and dangerous journey back home, this time all by himself with no one to cover his back, while grief stricken and heartbroken from learning of his loved one's demise and true feelings. Assuming he eventually makes it home alive, the poor guy is going to attempt to turn to his gay porn mag for a little relief, and discover it is missing, just because some silly girl wanted a giggle at it before tossing it on the roadside. I am sure porn mags have got to be a hot commodity in the post apocalyptic world, with no more free internet porn out there, the things must be treasured like gold. Gay porn mags are probably an even bigger rarity. Poor Bill may never stumble across another in his lifetime.

What is up with Naughty Dog choosing to knock this poor guy down and then kick him repeatedly? The guy was kind of a dick the whole time, but having the main characters steal his porn and have a laugh about it after the extremely sort of shitty day he had just had seems like a bit much.

generalfrevious said:

SilverWook said:

Great Scott! Can't they use some other villain from the rogue's gallery for a change?

No, because the audience would not be familiar with any other superman villians beside Lex Luthor and Zod. It's all about selling tickets than taking risks. That's why they had the origin story in Man of Steel for the second (or third?) time.

That is all demonstrably false.

Many villains that are not so well known have been popping up in comic books movies. Batman Begins started off with Ra's al Ghul, while well known to fans of the comics, the general public had no idea who he was. Lesser known villains have made their way into Disney's Marvel movies as well.

I don't think featuring Lex Luthor in the sequel would be in the interest of playing it safe, but rather because he is Superman's arch nemesis and modern super hero movies seem to have a life expectancy of three installments. I don't seem to remember too many complaints about the Joker in The Dark Knight, and in fact most people found this tired and overused villain to be the highlight of the film. Hopefully they find a way to make Lex interesting, rather than rehashing Hackman, like they did with Kevin Spacey in the overly shitty Superman Returns.

Also, this is a reboot. What is wrong with a fresh take on the origin story? We haven't seen his origin on the big screen since 1978, that was a year after the first Star Wars film was released, and several years before I was even born. If Marvel can keep rebooting the same characters over and over and over again (Spider-Man, the X-Men, The Punisher, the Hulk, and probably a few others) all in the expanse of ten years, then surely D.C. is allowed to give Superman another go from the beginning after 30+ years. 

bkev said:

....where in God's name do you live that movie tickets are $5.50?

In Southern California, my student discount tickets I buy on-campus are $8 -- and that's $5 less than you pay at the multiplex! It's getting so bad and I'm so damn stubborn that I almost never go to the movies even when I really want to see something.

Well, if there's a bright center to the universe, I'm in the state that it's the farthest from. I live in a crappy Southern state with piss poor education statistics and the fourth highest obesity rate in the country (in other words, it would be entirely legit to call it a state filled with high quantities of stupid fat people). Trust me, cheap movie tickets are hardly a consolation. $9.50 is actually the normal 2D movie ticket price around here, but one of the lesser quality theaters near me offers matinees for $7.50, and late matinees (4:00 - 5:30) for $5.50.

If I was living in Southern California right now, I'd be more than happy to pay way more for my movie tickets.

A friend of mine and I planned on seeing this last night over a week ago. We invited a few of our other friends along the way, then something came up and the original friend I planned on seeing it with couldn't make it. We get to the theater, and one friend says, "Oooh! World War Z, I'd almost rather see that!" Another friend, "Yeah! I'd be down with that!" and the other, "Works for me. Are you cool with that?" All three of them turn to me. What could I say? "Yeah, if you guys would rather see that it's fine." Would have much rather seen This is the End or something that would have been mindless fun. It was the worst and most lifeless, souless movie I've allowed myself to be subjected to in a long time.

I hate situations like that. So, hopefully sometime in the near future I'll get an opportunity to see Man of Steel and will be able to post a few comments on it. If I would have known things were going to pan out that way, I'd have gone to see it by myself the night before.

Was suppose to see The Man of Steel with a group of friends last night. But once we got to the theater a few of my friends decided they'd really rather see World War Z and those of us who wanted to see The Man of Steel gave in. Such utter shit! Absolutely awful in every way imaginable! This is why I never see movies like this in the theater. I feel like I wasted $5.50, a couple of hours of my life, and a perfectly good evening off. Also frustrating that it will be a whole week before I have another evening free to go check out Superman just because we had to go see that worthless pile of tripe.

Imagine the most generic zombie film your mind can possibly come up with. Then remove all the gore. Add a bunch of large scale mindless action, a bunch of explosions. There, that is World War Z. It is like a shitty summer blockbuster got together with a shitty zombie horror flick and they had a bastard child together. If Michael Bay did zombies, this is exactly what we'd get.

The whole time watching it I was shifting in my seat trying to stay comfortable while wishing it would hurry up and end. Such a long piece of shit too. I intentionally tried to go to sleep just so I could get through it, but failed and had to suffer the whole thing. This movie was so damn shitty, here it is 3 in the morning and I am still pissed off that I wasted anything to do with myself on it. Even the gas spent driving to the theater feels like a regrettable loss.

Worse of all. We get out of the theater and before anyone else says anything, one of my friends pipes up and says, "That was a lot better than I thought it would be! I mean, they changed a lot from the book, but overall they did a pretty good job!"

Better than you thought it would be??? How freaking bad did you think this damn turd was going to be??? Why the hell did you want to go see it if you thought it was going to be worse than that? I went in with really low expectations, and came out having a nervous breakdown and wishing I could have slipped into a coma. The fact that nobody else out of the group made a single comment on the film after our friend said that, makes me feel sure the others in the group felt the same way as me, but now we couldn't rag on about how awful it was without being rude to our friend who already stated that he really liked it.

0 out of 4 piles of Brat Pitt's steaming hot turds

Hey, it's me. said:

A lot of the reponses I've been getting from Americans on here are reticent of what a lot of people were saying on this side of the pond 10-15 years ago about this problem.

So, ten to fifteen years ago in the UK a lot of people were saying this is a serious issue we really need to deal with, but without labeling all Muslims the same way?

Hey, it's me. said:

I respect your opinion C3PS. But you have absolutely no idea to the extent of the problem. 

Don't know the extent of it? I'm not there, and haven't been for a few years now, so yeah, I don't know the full extent. But we do have Muslim immigrants in America too, and we have plenty Americans who feel like they are trying to take over. As mentioned before, I had one as a room mate not too long ago. Also mentioned before, I keep a watchful eye on the immigration issue in Europe as it is a subject of great interest to me, and I do see it as a very alarming problem.

I feel like you aren't reading my posts, or you're just not understanding the stuff I say.

I also seem to remember you arguing that America's freedom of speech is kind of pointless. You even asked us when the last time any of us actually exercised our right to free speech.

Sucks when you don't have it. In America we let loonies of any variety say whatever they want.

Remembering archaic technology...

Back in high school a buddy (foreign exchange student) and I went to an electronics store. My friend asked the sales floor guy there about mini-disc players, and the guy, trying to be helpful, told him not to even bother with mini-disc and to go with an mp3 player instead. This was a few years before the ipod came along, mp3 players were a new thing and what would be considered a cheapo mp3 player today was quite expensive then. My friend argued with the electronics store guys that mini-discs are clearly going to be the successor to the CD and that mp3's will never take off beyond use by pirates (this was even before Napster sold out), and also that mini-discs were better because they never skip. The guy looked at him funny and said, "Mp3's are all digital, there are no moving parts, it would be impossible for them to skip."

They went back and forth for a while. Kind of a funny conversation to reflect back on now. Pfft, mini-disc players...

With the rampant anti-piracy awareness campaigns going on around this time, I once got grounded for having mp3's, apparently my computer was making a lot of noise so my mom went in to check it out, saw a weird program running on the screen, made out the word "mp3" along with artist and song names, noticed a stack of borrowed CD's on top of the CPU, and somehow figured out that I was ripping CD's into mp3's. There went a perfectly good week of my social life. Mp3 almost did used to be a dirty word associated with delinquent youths who stole music. It was almost like I got caught with drugs, I remember my mother in a hurt and disappointed voice saying something like, "I sure hope you wouldn't be okay with going into a store and stealing CD's."

DuracellEnergizer said:

Seeing as I've never seen TDKR (and have no plans to ever do so), I wouldn't have known that. Regardless, I had more problems with the way the character was written than the way he was performed.

For all the absolutely shitty movies you watch and leave negative comments for on here, I am often surprised at your lack of willingness to waste time on mediocre ones.

In Bruges (2008)

I really liked it.

4 out of 4 racist dwarfs.

Hey, it's me. said:

Because the liberal Muslim shadow MP Keith Vaz was sharp enough to go on TV (the BBC I might add. Shock! Horror!)  to berate these two people as wanting to come and incite hatred, but was mysteriously silent about Al Arefe. Who has condoned wife beating, secterian violence and all manner of nasty things. Vaz himself has a particularly murky past. Now you tell me. Is this liberal hypocrisy? 

Holy shit! A politician with a personal bias and an agenda? Call the press!

One mistake you have made through and through on this thread is lumping people together under labels. There are those Muslim immigrants that are trying to take over, and then there are the liberals who are fighting a war against your rights who are welcoming the teaching of Islamic violence while barring those who may be anti-Muslim from the country.

You place all liberals and all Muslims in tiny categorized baskets. If you'd get to know them as people, you'd find we all have varying beliefs, goals, and agendas. It isn't some big conspiracy. You have some Muslims who believe in violence as means to an end, and you have some politicians with agendas.

SilverWook said:

Superman, at least on tv and film has always been an optimistic positive view of the world. In other words, it's not Batman. Sure, you might get mugged in Metropolis, but odds are you're more likely to get mugged in Gotham in broad daylight.

You would have said the same about Batman prior to the 1989 Burton film. I remember my parents trying to decide if they should take me and my sister to see it or not, and people telling them that it was really dark and violent for Batman (at this point the Adam West serial was still playing reruns on ABC and was what everyone thought of when they thought of Batman). Eventually they decided to take us to see it, then were surprised to find out it was a lot darker and a lot more violent than they expected it to be even after being warned.

I am sure nobody made that mistake with Batman Begins, because since then it has been well established through the 90's via the Warner Bros. cartoon series and the Burton/Schumacher films that Batman is kind of dark and violent. Prior to that, outside of the comics, Batman was as fun, positive, and squeaky clean as Superman had always been.

The Superman on TV and film that you talk about having an optimistic and positive view of the world are products of the 1940's through the 1970's, including the old serials and movies, cartoons, and the Christopher Reeve's films. Even Superman III and IV, made in the 80's, are a little bit darker and more violent (and yet also more campy).

Added emphasis on Dr. Manhattan's penis? I'm not sure how they put emphasis on his penis, he's naked throughout the graphic novel, and he is naked throughout the movie. I don't feel like any emphasis was present in either, it is just there, which was the point. He is so out of touch with being human, he doesn't understand a need to wear clothes, he isn't naked for any sexual reason, he is naked because he simply doesn't care to wear clothes. It wasn't like they were zooming in on the thing, or showing it in great detail. It is actually pretty blurry and low on detail throughout the film.

All of the sex scenes in the movie are also in the graphic novel. There is that one sex scene that I have always felt went on a little too long (mostly so they could play a decent amount of Hallelujah during the scene), but it is there in the novel and happens in the same way.

Have you even read either 300 or Watchmen? 300 the graphic novel, on top of being filled with gore and blood splatter throughout, also depicts the Spartans running around naked half the time. That book has more exposed dong in it than an all gay college fraternity's frat house.

I'm going to go see Man of Steel on Wednesday with some friends. I'll be able to give some real opinions on the film then.

generalfrevious said:

Yeah I'm glad I didn't see this film. Snyder has a talent for making the adaptation more violent than the source material; I remember my Dad walking out of 300, and he wanted to see it!

300 more violent than the source material? The source material was extremely violent. The Superman comics have gotten fairly violent at times too over the years.

Ronster said:

The big question that looms is from what you have said CP3S will it be the same as that Dawn of the dead film?

Not a replacement but a piece that can co-exist quite hapilly?

I grew up watching the Reeve's films and loved them as kid. I tried to watch them again a few years back, and decided they were better left as fond memories.

I am not sure why they couldn't co-exist happily, or why it should even be an issue. In order to like the Nolan Batman films, do you have to throw out Burton's film? I never really cared for the two Burton Batman flicks, but I know a lot of people who do and still enjoy the Nolan films a great deal. Why should it ever have to be either or? It is even more puzzling to find this a conundrum when you consider Superman has been around a very long time and there are already dozens of versions of his origin story out there.

Superman, for being as popular as he once was, has been getting the short end of the stick in recent years, with far less influential characters getting title films and remake after remake. Superman Returns was extremely terrible, tried too hard to tie into the Reeve's films, which was an awful mistake to start with, and then portrayed the character of Superman as a total creeper, which couldn't have been more at odds with the portrayal of Superman in the Reeve's movies.

Worrying about the possibility of this not meshing with, or not being able to co-exist with the Reeve's Superman films strikes me as odd as not being able to enjoy The Avengers because the Hulk portrayed in that film doesn't mesh with and is unable to co-exist with Lou Ferrigno's Hulk. 

Essentially, Superman is a piece of American mythology. Myths and legends can be retold in any number of ways, ultimately it is the fun in telling the tale that matters.

imperialscum said:

"Respect our beliefs"? So everyone should respect immigrants' beliefs while demanding them to respect others is something offensive?

It isn't about respecting their beliefs. I don't respect their beliefs. It is about respecting them, regardless of their beliefs.

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

 

I think this Palestinian-American blogger has her thinking on the right track on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/24/is-the-hijab-worth-fighting-over/in-hijab-debate-a-weak-vision-of-feminism

and wouldn't a ban on burkas enforce the idea that women's bodies are not their own?

Yeah, did you not read the little blurb that I linked to and you quoted? That is exactly what it is saying.

I don't think anyone should tell anyone else how they should dress. Unless maybe it is obscene or overly offensive.

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Yes they are choosing to wear it, but the reality is that some of them are being denied choice,

not in the US.   They are free to wear them or not wear them. 

Dude, seriously? How are you not understanding this? It is not rocket surgery. Yeah, legally they have the choice, but realistically, they don't have a choice. Sometimes there are psychological walls, familial restraints, or reasons of impracticality that keep us from doing things.

If she doesn't wear her burka, the US applauds her, but now she has committed a violation of expectations within her culture. Her husband could potentially leave her or disown her, or at the least retaliate for it.

But again, if it makes you happy to think that Muslim women in the US who wear burkas are doing so 100% of free will and out of their own personal desire to do so, then more power to you.

I once worked a temporary job involving a dozen Afghan women. They were all married and all wore hijabs. Only one of them spoke English, and during down time she'd try to teach me some farsi, or about Afghanistan's cuisine, and other cultural interested. We talked about the covering she would wear on her head, she admitted that it would be nice to walk around with her hair free like other women, but her husband wouldn't allow it and she would feel uncomfortably immodest. Here you have familial and cultural restraints preventing her from going into public without her hijab.

I think this Palestinian-American blogger has her thinking on the right track on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/24/is-the-hijab-worth-fighting-over/in-hijab-debate-a-weak-vision-of-feminism

Taking the piss, maybe. But they'll get that much for it. Never underestimate the desire of some to have the latest and greatest. Fine with me, let them help cover the R&D costs. Years down the line when the console finally starts turning a profit and has substantial price drops, guys like you and I can enter the scene and pick one up. By then the most common hardware failure kinks will be worked out too and we won't have to muck around with sending our units in to be fixed all the time.

Wow, the maturity level this discussion is dropping to is staggering. 

I honestly work with nine year olds who toss around more grown up insults than some of your guys. Perhaps if we wanted to demonstrate our ages, we could drop the ridiculous name calling altogether?

You ol' bunch of meany poo poo heads.

Warbler said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Punishments like beatings and 'stuff like that' are illegal in the good ol' US of A? They're illegal in most countries but doesn't stop them happening behind closed doors.

I when it happens behind closed doors, I would suggest that victims leave that house and go to the police.   They do not have to live like that.  

But they won't Warb. That is part of abuse and oppression. If you talk to a battered wife or girlfriend in the US, they will generally defend their abusive significant other. They'll usually excuse him saying that they really did screw up that time and probably deserved it. Most of these women will lie to cover up for their abuser, "I ran into a door knob. Again. I'm really clumsy, you know."

You can't even get modern "liberated" American women to go to the police about stuff like this. So how do you think that is going to pan out when the woman has been taught since infancy that she is inferior, that her husband is within his right to beat her on occasion, and that god and her family would turn their backs on her if she were to do something as horrific as turn her husband into the authorities of this disgusting, evil, godless society. You can pretend "she should go to the police" is a safety net that really protects her all you want, if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the harsh reality of these poor women and the cycle of abuse and poor self image this way of thinking forces on them.

Remember our discussion about the gang rapes in France? You have a 15 year old girl who gets gang raped by 20 guys, she can't go to her parents because they will disown her. You think she is actually going to go to the police??? If she does that her parents are sure to find out, then she is out on the street and screwed. It is messed up and backwards as can be. 

If we are letting these people into our countries, we have some obligation to protect them, educate them, and force order on them.