CP3S

doubleofive said:

Bane was unintelligible most of the time, and the Wayne/Tate romance came out of nowhere, but other than those details I found it to be great.

[Thar bee spoilers in dese 'ere waters]

I've heard others complain about not being able to understand Bane. I found him really easy to understand. I wonder if the quality of the sound system at the theater plays a role in this?

I actually really loved his voice and found it somewhat soothing. On the way home from the theater my friend and I were talking about how much we loved the voice and I commented that I honestly wish I could get audiobooks read by that voice. Something about it is very pleasant, I just want to listen to it carry on long conversations.

I agree with the Tate romance, it happened very abruptly and came off as more of a convenient sexual exchange than a real connection between the characters. After it was revealed that she was Talia al Ghul, it made sense why they haphazardly shoved a wee bit of affection between the two in there, as the character is a long running love interest of Bruce Wayne/Batman in the comics. I don't think they succeeded in that so well, I never got the impression either one cared much for the other before or after their exchange.

Part of me really wishes they had just called the character Talia Head which is her alias in the comics, instead of Miranda Tate, in order be slightly more true to the source material. But I am pretty sure they did that in order for it to be a shocking twist even for those with a good deal of knowledge of Batman lore.

I'd also wished John Blake had been named Dick Grayson or Tim Drake, IF they felt the need to make him Robin (groaner moment for me). None of the Robins ever actually had the name Robin. Again, like with Miranda Tate, I am sure this was done merely to make it a twist moment even for those who'd recognize the name otherwise. I think naming him Officer Timothy (Something) then revealing that his birth father's last name was Drake (or the same with Richard and Grayson) would have been a slicker reveal to me.

Sluggo said:

Great googely-moogely!  I'm back!

After a bath in a vat of mayo and soy, I have trapped that imp in some type of phantom zone.  I just wouldn't quote this posting or he might get loose and come after you.

What did you say about not quoting this post? I didn't quite catch that?

<p>Yay, I've been holding off on upgrading my DVD set to a BD set for something like this to come along.</p>
<p>I too hope it is a new encode.</p>

Gaffer Tape said:

Squeaky.

Wow, still?

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

walkingdork said:

Also, there's such a thing as too much ass. Just saying.

what? I mean there certainly is, but THOSE aren't it. The assess at Walmart, that's too much, but these chicks? They're just fine.

Perhaps you're nervous you can't reach from the backside? :P

Maybe if you like freakishly distended rear ends, sure, but for the rest of us ...

 

DurecellEnergizer can't reach from the back ...

TV's Frink said:

 

I'd say that shows it occasionally is moderated.

 

Holy shit!!! What are we going to do?!?!?!?!?!?!?

walkingdork said:

asterisk8 said:

Warbler said:

yeah, if someone did that to Mr. Aldrin,  they deserve to have their ass kicked. 

Seriously! If you haven't seen the video, it's absolute gold:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

That is great!

Come on guys! Buzz Aldrin never punched that guy, the video is clearly faked. Funded by our government as a warning to those who go around saying the moon landing was faked. The Van Allen radiation belts in Aldrin's fists make it physically impossible that he could ever actually punch someone, it is therefore a staged lie.

asterisk8 said:

You don't foster peace between nations by beating them in a physical competition. My strongest memory about the Olympics, growing up in the 80s, is people cheering for the US to beat those commie bastards in the USSR.

I am with you, the fostering peace thing is obviously silly. When have the Olympics ever averted war or made us fonder of another nation? The day after the Olympics are over, people will be back to letting whatever the current headlines and hot topics are carry their emotional views toward the outside world. I suppose my view on them is that they are just more bread for the masses, but this time feeding the ego and providing international bragging rights or shame. 

Most people I know watch the Olympics to see their country win, not just to "pick a side because it's fun" but because it's fun to believe that my country is better than yours.

My country is better than yours, and you know it!

While I suppose it may be generally true that people watch to cheer on their own nation, and Warb's admitting that it is unpatriotic to cheer on another nation (I am sure he isn't the only one who feels this way) kind of confirms it is, at least moreso than I ever realized... My personal experiences and observations throughout life regarding the Olympics have always painted a very different picture for me. It seems like the people I have been around will pick players they like, regardless of country, simply because they like them or sympathize with them somehow, or they feel like they are the best, or like their style, etc. But I usually default into hanging around more internationally minded type people (aliens legal and otherwise, people that travel a lot, fellow former ex-patriots, traveling toaster salesmen, etc.). In that, I could see how some people could claim it fosters peace by building sympathies with those of other nationalities. I have to admit, that is kind of a neat idea. Come together for a fun little event. But, sadly, it does feel like the spirit of nationalism prevails and is encouraged to.

Anyway, that's enough out of me here. Dissenting opinions are not wanted. Maybe I should start a thread about hating the Olympics where no one is allowed to talk about liking them.

No, haven't you heard? We can do whatever we want with it now (personally, I am thinking it should involve cats). There is no Olympics events discussion thread anymore. It gave up.

:(

Warbler said:

You can have this discussion without me.  

Not really. You're the only one here that feels it makes makes me unpatriotic when I cheer on a British guy (or Chinese chick, etc.) over an American (I was actually pretty surprised to hear that, I more than half expected you to say "no, of course not"), but at the same time claim it isn't about nationalism. There really is no discussion here without you.

Not saying that to try to encourage you to continue the conversation. It'd be an interesting discussion, because I'd really like to see where that viewpoint comes from and the logic behind it (so far all we've got is, "whatever" and "*sigh*"), but I don't think it would be any fun and would just get certain blood pressures rising. Not worth it.

Akwat Kbrana said:

FWIW, I can appreciate Warb's point of view. The purpose of his thread wasn't so much to debate the various merits (or lack thereof) of the Olympic games in general, it was to discuss the particulars of the current games.

I get this, and I agree. My point was he seems to think it is only him, and that people do it specifically to piss on things he cares about. Any one of us could make a thread on something we care about, and someone would come in and make a comment on how they don't care much for whatever it is we are so passionate about. Most of us wouldn't react the way Warbler does and make it into a huge devastating thing, respond telling the other person they are totally wrong without anything to back it but "whatevers".

A respectful, "interesting insights, Zomb, but can we keep this thread related to discussion related to the games themselves?" might have gone a long way. His first response to Zombie and the beginning of the degeneration did include the words, "fuck attitudes like yours". Though I think it was the long quote block sentence by sentence response that encourages further discussion more than anything else.

Warbler said:

While I do really love this forum, there are aspects that I can't stand.  One of them is that is seems that whenever something happens that I like/cherish/care about/think is good/ think is important,  someone here as got to find a reason to piss on it.   It is like some are not happy until they can find a reason to piss on some else's parade.   People here have pissed on My Country, the Constitution,  my religion, now the Olympics,  Christmas and the rest of the holidays,  911 tributes, various things and traditions and what not.    Heck, I remember I created an "r.i.p." thread for Rosa Parks when she died and people had to come in there and piss on her.   I've really had enough of it.  

*pisses on everyone that have pissed on the things I mentioned* 

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

;)

Dude, relax. For everything you love, there will be plenty those who find it equally distasteful. Why should this bother you so much? Zombie made some good points on the Olympics thing. You could either make some great rebuttals about why the Olympics are so admirable and uplifting regardless of the things he said, disprove the things he said, or just write it off and someone elses opinion, disagree with it, and move on uneffected.

I too think the Olympics are pointless nationalistic BS. But why should that ruin your enjoyment of them any? Who cares what I think about them. It seems like anytime someone questions these great or sacred things you feel are beyond any criticism, you feel like you need to defend their honor. America is a great country, but there are other countries out there that are pretty damn awesome. Stands to reason that some people might not think America is the end all be all of countries. Same thing for holidays, not everyone is obligated to love commercialized, Christianized, and Americanized old pagan holidays. And so on. Maybe they are not trying to piss on your parade just to make you mad. Maybe they are just sharing their personal perspectives. Personally, I like seeing the other side of the coin. If I have something I love and discover someone else hates it, I like hearing and trying to understand why, if it sparks a debate, maybe that is a good opportunity for me to take a half hour or so to do some brief reading and educate myself so I can better defend these things I love. Shoving my fingers in my ears and shouting, "lalalalalalalalalala" isn't going to benefit me any, and it isn't going to convince any neutral observers who may potentially be swayed one way or the other on the subject. 

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

whatever,  my nation is the US of A and that is who I cheer for.

Would it be a bit unpatriotic of me to cheer for the Chinese?

yes. 

Then I think Zombie's comments on nationalism stand pretty damn firm.

Warbler said:

whatever,  my nation is the US of A and that is who I cheer for.

Would it be a bit unpatriotic of me to cheer for the Chinese?

Apparently, in off topic personal insults are not really personal insults.

*shrugs shoulders*

zombie84 said:

As it stands, Americans in New York have as much in common with Americans in Florida as Canadians in Ontario have with Canadians in Saskatchewan and Europeans in Germany have with Europeans in France. Politically and economically they may have ties, as is necessary being close neighbours because there is basically no choice. But if you are going to admit Germans and Frenchmen have distinct socio-cultural differences, then you have to admit that people in Quebec City and Vancouver, and Detroit and Dallas do as well.

Being an American who grew up in the northwest, spent substantial time living in Europe, the midwest, and now find myself somewhat trapped in the South, and having spent a great deal of time traveling all over the states as well as all as Europe, meeting and talking to people all the while as opposed to just sight seeing. I can say that is entirely untrue.

Sure, there are socio-cultural differences, but American culture is bound much tighter than that in many ways. The biggest cultural variances I have seen in the states have more to do with class than anything else. The affluent, successful, and educated tend to be quite out of touch with the lower class, and the lower class seem out of touch with the middle. Beyond that, from Detroit to Tennessee, from Oregon to Florida, from Nevada to Pennsylvania, Montana to Texas, and so on, we are strongly bound by pop culture, music, movies, television, foods, sports, products, religion or lack thereof, etc.

Saw it last night. Thought it was a lot better the TDK, which I've never been a huge fan of.

Kind of nice to see a trilogy of a superhero movie not completely destroy itself. It isn't perfect, but it feels like so many series try to go for a trilogy these day really screw it up in the end making an entirely unwatchable third movie.

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Happy not being run from Westminster day.

Wish us luck on getting our own please.

what do you mean?  Isn't Britain independent?  

*sigh*

No, because he wasn't in the row, the row was directed at him.

darth_ender said:

Incidentally, I've been reading through the old religion thread that twister found.  I find it fascinating that C3PX was such an ardent defender of Christianity (and as eloquent as always, I might add), while sean_wookie dismissed religion so out of hand.  Both, it seems, have had some changes of thought in the past 5 years.  Fascinating.

I am still an ardent defender of Christianity.

zombie84 said:

I don't think they ever expected it to do numbers like 1997, but I honestly think George believed that the 1999 box-office numbers were due to people genuinely liking it

That boggles the mind. Poor George.

It is amazing how much the state of Star Wars has changed since 1997. Back then SW was very much loved and we were all very excited to rush to the theaters to dish out full ticket prices to see a movie we had two copies of lying around at home. When Star Wars hit the $2 theater, I went to see it every time I could talk someone into going to see it with me.

When The Phantom Menace came out it was a huge disappointment, but I still don't want to admit how many times I paid full price to see it (several). It sucked, but somehow it was still Star Wars and having never known the concept of a crappy Star Wars film before, it was kind of a hard to know what to do with it, hating it and not watching it anymore just didn't sit right.

I guess I am a lot older now so maybe that skews my perspective, but it is really hard to imagine fans who are as old now as I was in 1997 getting as excited for these 3D releases as I did for the theatrical rereleases of the OT. Aside from much of the goodwill that had been associated with Star Wars over the first twenty years of its life being forever changed, so much technology exists now that allows us very theatrical like experiences at home. Contrast BDs on a 50 inch widescreen HDTV with VHS on an old 20 inch set. That old 1997 commercial for the rerelease that showed a tiny box in the middle of the screen playing Star Wars bursting into a widescreen picture that covered the screen was so very relevant then in a way it could never be again.

I could just be naive and majorly overestimating people, but I get a funny feeling that if the OUT were to receive a theatrical rerelease again, bare bones restoration, no 3D even, it would pull in some very serious numbers at the box office. For that too good to be true scenario, I would be as excited as I was in 1997 and I'd once again be going to see it every time I could talk someone into seeing it with me.

xhonzi said:

 

CP3S said:

Aside from Tolkien, who I love, I've never had any interest in fantasy books, maybe it relates to that.

My level of Tolkien interest is too low for other fans to consider me one of them, and too high for norms to consider me one of them.

As mish, as peshkë, I guess.

And I agree, almost all of the rest of the "fantasy" genre doesn't interest me at all, depsite the fact that fantasy plays heavily into genres that I love (Space Opera, soft Sci Fi, superheroes, etc...).

Have you ever read the Wheel of Time? When I worked at Barnes and Noble, some employees only read fiction, some only read history, and others only read home and gardening... but everyone (myself excluded) read Wheel of Time. Since my job was on the line, I picked it up and really enjoyed the heck out it. There were 8 books at the time, and I think they're up to 14 with the 15th and "final" book out early next year.

Of course, once you get into it people will make the assumption that you're into fantasy and you just need to read more of it... but it's worth the price.

 

You and I kind of have our own code language on this forum, but we never use it. ;)  Nice to see you throw out a phrase.

When I say I love Tolkien, I don't mean I am a diehard Tolkien fan that reads everything by him and memorizes their ME history. I love The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, but have no interest in the Middle-Earth lore beyond that. I didn't enjoy the Silmarillion enough to finish it, and I've never bothered with any of his histories. I do however really like his children's stories. Farmer Giles of Ham, Leaf by Niggle, Roverandom, Father Christmas Letters, great stuff.

The first fantasy book I ever tried to tackle beyond C. S. Lewis and Tolkien was the first Wheel of Time book (Eye of the World, right?) Bored the crap out of me. Later I tried to read some of the Shanara books, but those didn't really pull me in either.

I have a copy of The Game of Thrones I need to read (have a close friend who has been trying to get me to read it for years, always refused on account of my not liking fantasy, but since I admitted to enjoying the TV show, she isn't going to let it go until I at least give the first book a try).

I got to play it some last night after my room mate went to bed. Increased my level some and got to level up some skills, that made it a bit more fun. Killed several dragons at this point (not quite as an amazing experience as it has been built up to be, IMHO).

For some reason the story is of zero interest to me. Aside from Tolkien, who I love, I've never had any interest in fantasy books, maybe it relates to that. I try to listen to what people are saying and to try to get into the storyline, but I don't find anything anyone says the least bit engaging. Contrast that to the Bethesda Fallout games where I try to go everywhere and talk to every minor character to see what things they might have to say.

Maybe the 1950's post-apocalyptic future is just that much more interesting to me than the Elder Scroll's fantasy world. Playing Skyrim is giving me a slight itch to go back to New Vegas and play all the DLC I never bothered with getting.

One of my room mate's has constantly been trying to talk me into playing Skyrim. Finally, I decided to give in to his nagging and give it a shot. The game has been sitting in the game drawer for months untouched with nobody having any interest in playing it. Well, after watching me play it for a few hours, I guess my he realized how much he missed the game and started playing it again.

Soooo, now that I am about three hours into the game and just barely starting to find it interesting (what kind of a fucking game takes three hour or more to become interesting?) the copy I was playing is now in constant (and I mean constant) use by my room mate again.

xhonzi said:

Also- I got those three Achievements on Borderlands today. The three "collect random stuff from Claptraps in the Robolution DLC" ones.

Nicely done.

Does that give you 100% achievements then?

Consultor said:

creepie

 Officially my new preferred spelling of "creepy".