Calax

http://www.kayfabenews.com/gawker-returns-mask-mr-gawkmerica/

I found that interesting. It completely flops at home, but the Chinese love it? Why is that? Are they all WoW addicts? Do the elements the Americans hate seem quirky and exotic to them? So we might get a War2 movie thank to China Chinese love it for a couple reasons... First, it didn't get the bad publicity that it did in the U.S. prior to release. Propaganda, buzz, 'marketing', etc. matter... a lot. The propaganda machine has a great deal of sway on the public. It will convince many a good movie is bad, or a bad movie is good. The title of thread is an example of just how much sway that machine has. So is the initial box office. Second, In China, Blizzard hasn't burnt so many bridges with their fans as they have in the U.S/Europe, and WoW is still quite popular (or at least at this point, more popular). It's China that has been propping WoW sub numbers up for years. Without going in to much detail (which could fill a few pages for even people familiar with WoW, let alone for those who aren't), in very short, Blizzard's name is a bit tarnished amongst a great many former major fans. Had this movie come out in say '06-'08, it would have been at least the better part of a billion dollar movie. I personally know at least a few dozen people who would have flocked to it back then, who couldn't care much less now. You can multiply that many times over, as there are oodles and oodles of disenfranchised former Warcraft fans out there. As popular as Blizzard still is among many, it's very possible they have more former fans than current ones, particularly when it comes to the Warcraft franchise. Also, it's 'cool' amongst many in the modern western video game community to hate on WoW these days.... All of the above barely if at all takes into consideration the quality of the movie itself, yet all factor huge into how much money it will make. As someone who had very low expectations when I went to see it, and couldn't even convince any of the half dozen or so disenfranchised former Warcraft fans I know locally to join me, I was very pleasantly surprised. As I said above, the movie is actually pretty good. And that's the sentiment of a lot of folks out there. The buzz amongst many if not most now is: 'The critics have no idea what they are talking about. The movie is pretty good, nothing amazing, but good. If you like fantasy films, or at any point in your life were a Warcraft fan, you should see it.' As for a sequel... Warcraft 2 is more than likely happening. The story was set up a continuation (and anyone who knows their Warcraft lore knows the first movie just scratched the surface and the best (potentially anyways) is yet to come). The current movie is on track to be the highest grossing movie ever, that was based on a video game. And if you've paid attention to the IMDB, and other media sources, 'Warcraft' as it was being referred to just a week ago, is now more commonly being referred to 'Warcraft: The Beginning'.... I'd wager that while not officially green lit yet, producers are already working on putting together a sequel. It probably doesn't help that they're trying to prop up an entire generations nostalgia with the movie. Consider seriously that there is an entire generation of children who grew up playing warcraft with their parents. I mean the game came out in 2004. Most of the player base today probably hadn't been old enough to get in on that when it was popular. And the movie is trying to go back to the 22 year old game for their lore. Meanwhile most of the players who were of the generation that had played the RTS games and knew the lore had moved on, gotten jobs and played less and less until it became just a drain on their wallets that they only logged into once a month. Honestly, before the land of twitter and social media, I could see this being in the vein of Independance Day or a Michael Bay film. Critics hate it but the average joe would be like "eh, worth 6 bucks"

Yeah I liked that about the movie, I feel that more films should do that since everything is getting franchised nowadays anyways... It gets franchised if it sells. American Ultra didn't make that much money, but the screenwriter was already banking on it being a hit and had written out the draft for a second film (stupidly). The problem is that if you go into it expecting "This'll be a HUGE hit and I don't want to write myself into a corner!" you wind up writing a movie that feels incomplete because half of your one good idea is going to be put in another film. It seems like China has managed to Save the warcraft Movie in terms of ticket sales. But I'm wondering if the studio would take the chance on #2 (at least Domestically). If they did I could see them shifting the director and most of the crew to be less fanservicy and thus loose what little audience they have trying to get an Audience they already lost.

Sexism is a two-way street, Bruce. The notion that men can't feel embarrassment at having their sex tapes leaked is no less stupid and harmful than the overall societal view that ties women's worth to their perceived purity. Yes my friend, of course I know sexism is two way. Thats a physiological fact but the whole Hogan issue for me is about the moral and social decision Hogan made when he had sex with his wifes friend .....I am not surprised he felt embarrassed But I am not really convincing anyone about my point, let me try this another way. Bill Cosby is a sexual predator, how would you feel if he was also filmed and he decided to sue a company like Gawker ? So in other words does the character and actual deeds of a person matter when they get offended and decide to take legal punitive steps? For me it does because I would ask "you who raped over 50 women now are offended by a leaked video " So... basically you're saying that hogan was "asking for it"? That the fact that he doesn't fit into your personal moral code means that it's perfectly fine for him to have suffered because of his choices? Because the way you make it sound, Paris Hilton wouldn't have had any leg to stand on to try to recoup any losses from HER sex tape because of her public persona at the time (She was awarded 400k). If a Cosby sex tape did leak, there'd be some people showing "Karmic Judgment!" in the same way others did when OJ got 33 years in prison for armed robbery. But, any lawyer would tell you "hey, he's totally within his right to sue for damages". Although how much he'd get would be far less because he basically has no reputation at this point.

I hope that does not last long. You will burn out quick! If it lasts longer than a month my boss is going to have to find a way to spare me a bit. As it is, earning 12/13 bucks an hour, (I've been 14 for 3 weeks) I'm on pace to earn 30k by the end of the year before taxes.

I assumed you would say I was contradicting myself but I am not as I always look at the context and the nuances with this type of event And yes there is a difference between Hogan and his lifestyle choices and someone like Jennifer Lawrence No, there isn't. The only real difference is that one has a "hoohah" and one has a "wee wee". Both had photos of them being hacked and put on display on the internet. And when Jennifer asked to have hers taken down Gawker did, because she was a she. When Hulk Hogan asked to have his removed, they doubled down and threw up the middle fingers to him. And before you say "But people are losing their jobs!" Realize, this entire thing has caused Hulk himself to be declared "Un-person" by the largest wrestling promotion in the world (his former employer WWE). The only other time that I can remember this happening with a wrestler was the murder suicide of Chris Benoit. (WWE keeps most of hits big talent of the old days on "Legend Contracts" that pay a living salary for sporadic appearances)

Whelp... My next few weeks are going to be INSANE in the membrane. I've been moved back to Ames for work, But the other person who worked with me turned in her two weeks. Yesterday was her last day. So now I'm the only person to run this place from 730 to 530 m-f and 9-12 on saturday. Plus anything extra to ensure I'm ready for the next day. This is going to be unique.

Went and saw it. I think that it was almost to MUCH of a fan movie. Not in the sense that it was aimed at fans, but that it was made by fans. From my perspective, Doomhammer should have been the primary orc, not Durotan. Because for the era that they're playing in, Doomhammer is the focus of the Horde (In the games he offed Blackhand and forced Gul'Dan into submission after murdering all his guards). And the reason I think that Everyone compares this to LOTR is because the visuals are very reminiscent of LOTR in the Human parts. And it has a similar feel to it where they name characters, but never really give the audience a moment to get to know them. I guess you could say there's no "audience surrogate" character that's done well. Most people watching will know Gul'Dan, Durotan, Garona and Khadgar. Beyond that there wasn't much in the way of "Hello, my name is Anduin Lothar, I'm commander of the Human Forces!" By comparison Lord of the Rings started correctly in that you had the Hobbits, and then the cast slowly built as the audience got to know who was who (although most of the audience only knows Sam as "the Gay one" and Merry and Pippin as "those other two") before growing the cast more to include other characters. In Warcraft it was "Durotan!" "Orgrim!" "Durotans wife!" "Gul'Dan!" "Garona!" cut to Human Lands "King Llane!" "Anduin Lothar!" "Khadgar!" "Medivh!" "Llane's Wife!" "Baby Lothar!" etc.

Well... I'm playing as Chaos, and managed to beat the plot twist with my entire army routed, except for my combat specced Archeon, and his Hero. Seriously, Archon came out of that battle with almost 200 kills, the Hero with 150, and less than 1/4th of the forces remained in his stack. Nice thing about chaos though, 3 turns later he was a doom stack to march on my enemies

With the way the story is written, the Alliance is basically the "Evil Empire" at this point, while the Horde are the scrappy underdogs... somehow. In the movie ? In the game...eh. They worked hard at this noble savage thing. Still laugh at the internment camps used as a dig against the Alliance when dealing with genocidal invader. Yeah, in the game (more specifically in war 3

With the way the story is written, the Alliance is basically the "Evil Empire" at this point, while the Horde are the scrappy underdogs... somehow.

I think, as long as it's confined to it's own corner of the internet, they (and others) ignore it. If it gets to rampant they come down on it. I mean, Esurance had to change their mascot because there was just so many metric tons of porn created from Erin Esurance (with really really really bad puns)

Realistically, if you're going to do a warcraft movie "right" it needs to be two movies. One for the Horde, the other for the Alliance. Otherwise you're looking at the Avengers... where Avengers 2 is happening between cuts. Admittedly I haven't seen this movie, but the few complaints I've looked at so far (been out of touch for a week) have been that it's jam packed. It does help that Robert Kazinsky (Doomhammer) plays WoW religiously (He raids on an Orc Death Knight), at least it helps with my view for the movie. The big thing we've always seen is that in a lot of these "property" movies, either it's somebody who really loves the property who makes something to celebrate that property... or they're just doing a job and the property is stuck on there for the sake of money (Deadpool vs Xmen Origins Wolverine)

Spent a week out in California at a family reunion. Made me stop going on specific outings with my parents (like the actual activites) as a specific family because it seems to get to easily back into the rut of "you're the youngest, you have to abide by us" again. Specifically my dad accused me of "turning into a monster" after I got pissed that they ignored me about getting off a bus (long story). And didn't seem to understand that part of the reason that I was pissed was that he didn't even check if I was in agreement that this was the right spot... or that I was getting off the bus behind them.

What, you mean just because he's handsome, smart, educated, talented, a bonafide WWE superstar, and a YouTube celebrity? And almost has a PHD

Xavier Woods makes me feel like I've done nothing with my life.

Well part of that was because back in the years of the 90's and Hulk Hogan, it was much easier to control the image and what customers saw of your product. Back then most people wouldn't see anything except the shows, so most people watching casually just assumed that the Undertaker went home and watched tv each night like this http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/the-undertaker-4.jpg

Signed for a new Ames apartment. On the edge of my price range, but I think I'm coming out ahead, just have to adjust my payments on the car and credit card a bit.

The more I learn and see about Nolan North, the more interesting this man becomes. Also in the past week been apartment hunting (part of promotion is going back to the Land of Hades, Ames), and got two fillings and a crown started. The crown gets finished next thurs. Along with another cavity. It sucks trying to find an apartment in a college town this late in the cycle (every single rental contract up there turns over on August 1)

Do you mean like another Civil War? Under the correct circumstances... yes. I don't think it will or should happen. But it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility. Did you really watch what happened there Bruce? Hillary's people disqualified a majority of Sanders delegates and refused to say why. Then despite a vote in favor of a recount closed the convention and walked away but not before asking the sheriff deputies to put everyone out. But who fight in this war? And surly because of the resources any internal battle against the Federal government would be suicidal? In 2015 there were 14,843,895 resident hunting licenses sold in the US. Many hunters will buy a out-of-state license to hunt in another state, but they will only buy one resident license. Bear in mind, this is just hunters. Forget for a moment sport shooters, and folks who keep them for home defense. That means 14,843,895 people who own at least one (probably more) rifle or shotgun and are proficient in their use. The entire armed strength of the US Military, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and US Marshal Service is 2.75M. Assume 100% of them would be willing to take up arms against their fellow citizens (by NO means a certainty) and had to fight just the hunters. Even if just a third of the hunters only (discounting other gun owners) were willing to fight it would be the largest armed force in the history of the world. Now granted we are being hypothetical about something that while possible, is unlikely. And it would be impossible or organize all of that into a united fighting force but it would be stupid to give the US Military a stand up fight and there are many historical examples of partisan effectiveness. And it may be suicidal in the end. But as anyone who has served in the military will tell you there are many things more dear than your own life. You seem to be assuming that there isn't some cross over between the two. And ignoring the fact that almost every single police officer in the USA is armed and would pick sides. The other thing to consider is that I don't think you can blow up a tank with an AR15.

And this is exactly my point about Clinton and the Media. We don't hear about this because he's not the one running for president. If he was this would be Fox News story for sixteen weeks straight until it morphed into something else... like Benghazi.

The Email situation just highlights one of her most serious flaws. She doesn't know anything. She has a poor grasp on how technology works; which is pretty important in this era. She also has terrible judgement: Should we invade Iraq? Hillary: Derp, let's do it. Should we interfere in Libya? Hillary: Derp, let's do it. Should we assist the Syrian rebels against Assad? Hillary: Derp, let's do it. I don't think she made policy in Lybia or Syria. Hell when the Syrian civil war started, was she even in a position to influence anything? That said, I'm willing to write off the fact that she doesn't know much about technology from a users perspective. Why you ask? Because she spent 9 years in a bubble of "No technology!" and has been high enough in the political sphere that she hasn't needed to learn as much about technology to get by. By Comparison, Grey Davis (former california governor that got recalled) when his Recall was basically a confirmed thing, had a crash course in tech and even things like "gassing your car" by CHP because he hadn't had to learn or use that information for several years.

Really? you think that Bill wouldn't be at the same level of intense... distaste by members of this board/the world because of a similar 25 year long existance in the public eye and all of his dirty laundry being dug up again and aired again? Because I, for one, do not desire to go through the media circus of the Lewinsky scandal, again... on national tv, in the 24 hour news cycle... with social media chiming in as the WONDERFUL id it represents in this modern era. And all the hate and vitriol people have towards Hillary would be redirected towards the "Terrible human being" that is William Jefferson Clinton because he's the most likely victor of the primary etc etc. Honestly, I don't think anyone that has put their hat forward is a truly terrible human being. Cruz is probably the closest to that point, but ultimately they're people trying to live up to their convictions. Well Trump doesn't because he doesn't seem to really have any major political convictions that are contentious issues. The only reason he says outrageous crap is to get TV time. And yet, here we are, on an internet forum acting like it's highschool again and that the stuck up Valedictorian and **** Jock are running for Class President. Sitting behind the bleachers in our black pants, black hoodie/jackets, and rediculous amounts of black eyeliner while talking about how fat or stupid either one are and whispering the stupid rumors that the school newspaper is tossing out. More Seriously: How does Clinton's "email scandal" or "Benghazi scandal" actually effect her ability to act as an efficient governor? I mean this seriously... I asked this question of my mom about Anthony Weiner and his scandal, and never got a good answer. How on earth does any of these scandals actually reflect on this person and their ability to govern these United States? Does flashing your **** while talking to somebody who is NOT your spouse magically make you unable to pass a bill effectively? I suppose Clinton's private email server is something more relevant. But the question there is, was it actually her who made the decision to set up the server for her phone's email? OR is it instead she said something vague like "Find a way to get my email on my phone." and her staff set up the server without realizing that what they were doing was breaking the rules (or did it anyway when they broke the rules because they didn't want to bug the boss about it). But the question still comes down to "Who do you think will most effectively run the nation for the next 4-8 years?" Not "Who do you like the most and think deserves a gold star on their resume?"

In my US navy handbook they gave us at Boot. Had an entire section about that specific statement of position, age, and marriage requirments. Don't have it now as that's one of the things they force you to remove when you're separated, along with basically everything you can think of beyond a single set of clothing, shoes, and your DogTags (if you made it to that point before being declared ineligible)

IIRC, legally the penalty for horse thievery was not death. Hanging of horse thieves was done by vigilantes (even if some were "lawmen") not by the state. And while universal voting for Women wasn't ratified until the 1920s, there are records of women voting in 1756 (Lydia Taft) and New Jersey law gave women property owners (of property above a certain size) the vote until 1807 when laws officially disenfranchised women. I'd be curious to know which states had laws about unmarried couples being married due to virtue of renting a room together. Most of the common law marriage laws I've heard of have a cohabitation rule that would not be met by sleeping together in a hotel room (and would also result in a lot of John-Prostitute marriages). *does some digging* so recently (2011) a woman was given 60 years in prison in Arkansas for horse theft (five horses). As to the Marriage thing? I admit that was something I read on a "Dumb Laws" website. But along those lines the UCMJ says that you can have sex with a woman A)Only in the missionary position, B) if she's over the age of 12, and C)your wife. And a Mississippi gem from 1964 states that if you have to illegitimate children, you can be jailed and fined.