Blarghagh

Serrano's experience jives with mine. It'll just fall off by itself, and it takes a really long time to grow a new toenail.

I love "so bad its good" movies too. But for the life of me, I don't understand how Sharknado got to be on that list because that's just bad. It has literally two laughs in it - one scene, and the title. It's no The Room, or Birdemic, or Troll 2. Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus was fun with how terrible it is. Sharknado is just boring. It was painfully engineered for cult approval.

I have to be honest I would have thought you would be one of the people who understood my post and reasoning? I do understand it. I just think it's bull. I know white privilege is a thing. I just don't care because acknowledging it, or not acknowledging it, makes absolutely no difference. The questions you originally posed still weren't answered - what does it mean for him that you acknowledged it? He feels a little better because someone who was dealt a good hand in life acknowledged him while he was dealt a **** hand. He was already dealt that **** hand, however, so acknowledging doesn't change that. Playing your cards in a way to help people with **** hands dealt to them or to give new hands being dealt a better chance of being good, that's meaningful. The fact that the hand you were dealt was good due to no control of your own is pointless to dwell upon. You claim you're already doing a lot to try to make it a better place for less fortunate people, to educate people about racism, etc. so what does this change for you, going forward? Are you going to help more than you already did? What does this change for the man who got you to acknowedge it, going forward? Are you going to help him, specifically? Why and how does it matter? Why is your white advantage constantly under scrutiny while it's their black disadvantage we need to be taking a closer look at? The world would be a much better place if people pointing fingers and going "this person has an advantage I don't have, let's attack them" and started pointing fingers and going "this person has a disadvantage I don't have, let's help them" - more people would be helped, and less people would be polarized against those trying to help. Have you never stopped to wonder why so many people are now against those who talk about "social justice"? It's because they constantly focus on and attack people for **** that doesn't matter. So you've accepted your white privilege - so what? Here's a way to look at it - I've lived with mental disorders for my entire life. Products of my formative environment, who I was born to, how my bodychemistry works. People who don't have to deal with depression, chemical imbalance, social anxiety etc. have a massive advantage over me. I could spend my time bitching at people to acknowledge they have it better than me and their problems don't matter as much as mine, but how does that help anyone? Instead, I try to talk to people who deal with the same thing and help them and raise awareness by pointing out my disadvantage instead of their advantage. Because the fact that someone I talk to is healthy doesn't change anything.

So you accepted it because someone went "muh feelz".

Blind Fury.

Except X-3 and the first Wolverine movie were made when he was no longer involved with the franchise. Then again, First Class had barely a cameo and then when he was back in the saddle for Days of Future Past, there he was back in the center.

http://steamed.kotaku.com/ten-years-later-star-wars-kotor-ii-gets-an-official-up-1719284362

Wasn't there a guy who said yes to Mission Impossible II and no to playing Wolverine? I don't even remember the actor's name.

Oh no, they can see I'm a famous director after they google me. Knowing the name and not knowing its history is a big no-no.

Yeah a director of a bunch of really bad movies. Might as well call yourself Cordwainer Bird, Stephen Greene, Norman Ashby, Robin Bland, David Agnew or Thomas Lee. That's the joke.

I prefer Alan Smithee. Then they can google me and see how I'm a famous movie-director too.

So he told you to check your privilege? I kid, I kid. But that sorta proves what I'm saying, you shared even less than I thought you did and you got disregarded for it in another instance. Being more "real" in a community can often be a good thing, but sometimes a drawback.

On the subject of sharing vs anonymity (and trolling): I maintain that despite being a factor in online harassment anonymity is still an important cornerstone to the internet. I'm sure many people were members here long before they shared any personal information - I know I was - and many of them might not have been if there was no anonymity. I will always want a certain degree of anonymity. I doubt I would have registered if that anonymity wasn't there. I'm very self-conscious and the anonymity of forums is a big factor in what draws me to them. And while being entirely anonymous might cause some people to not trust what you say, there's also the opposite - judged by what you have shared. What did they say in the other thread, Bruce? You didn't know what you were talking about because your family was rich, or somesuch? It evens out. Plus, I would rather not associate my real name with this place, not because I want to have the freedom of anonymity to hide behind now but because I used to do that. I've been here since I was a dumb 16 year old kid and I have said many, many idiotic things that I never would have lived down were I not anonymous and even long after that I was able to lose my temper and sling unwarranted insults occassionally. I've also complained about my job, my boss, the clients we did work for. I would rather not have someone (prospective employers, perhaps) be able to find that when googling my name, you see? I've shared enough that I'm sure if someone combed through my posts eventually they'll be able to find who I am, but it's not easily accessible and I want to keep it that way. My own experience and wishes aside, there's also the fact that as far as I can tell, not a lot of us are minorities or different sexualities. Anonymity is an important factor to the internet for LGBT or ethnicities or even women to escape prejudice or come to grips with their identity. How many closeted homosexuals or transsexuals were too scared to even face it, let alone come out, until they found support online where they had the safety of anonymity? Or even in simpler circumstances: I know my girlfriend will often switch to gender neutral screennames if she's tired of being treated differently when she's gaming online. I have very little experience with needing to do that - the only prejudice against me personally that I've ever encountered was from crazy radfems and even that's been minor (although irksome), so for me anonymity is mostly a preference. For them it's much more important. In short: Anonymity isn't just a roadblock that enables trolls, it's important to many people, and some people will never be comfortable sharing things from their life. I don't think people should be required to share to be considered real, but they do have to consider that people might not take them as seriously.

Since I've stopped working as a community manager I've received zero harassment. I think her field, and therefore her colleagues may be conflating their own experiences to the rest of the internet.

I totally second Mike Mignola. I also really like Dave Gibbons use of light and shadows.

While that might seem like a problem, remember that the same can be said of Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I think that it was just that what makes it worthy of recognition, because it was just bad enough to kill the franchise without reeking of sabotage. Upon closer inspection however you begin to see just how ridiculous this movie is. Sounds like you never took a closer look at the preceding films. Did one of the extras looked like he slip on a banana peel because he fell 2 seconds before batman was even near him? Did the main bad guy had the funniest voice ever? No, the lead did. Make fun of Bane what you will, he's still less ridiculous than Batman himself. And while I didn't pay attention to a lot of extras, it was filled with plotholes and contrivances you could drive the tumbler through hidden through sneaky editing. Like when the Joker is looking for Harvey Dent at Bruce's fundraiser, Joker throws Rachel out the window, Batman jumps after her, and then it cuts to the next day despite the fact that the Joker is still holding Gotham's richest hostage and they never mention it again. Or when after the truck crash when the Joker comes out with two henchmen, but then the second one disappears because he's inconvenient for the scene. Or why the hell nobody in the police realizes that their honor guard has been completely replaced with people nobody knows. And lets not ignore the fact that every Joker plan relies on complete coincidence and strain believability in every instance. He leads Batman to the next clue using the imprint of a fingerprint from a gun impact that Batman was only able to find because he was developing the technology for it right then and there as he was working on it. That begs the absolutely ridiculous question of "How did he know Batman would create a fingerprint machine for it?" Dark Knight was still a really fun movie to watch but it's nowhere near the masterpiece some people seem to think it is. Heath Ledger's performance is pretty much the only thing that elevates it. But people thought Dark Knight was so amazing for some reason that Rises had huge expectations attached to it that it was never going to get close to. That doesn't excuse the many flaws that film has (the only thing I really liked in it was Catwoman) but it's just mediocre on a whole. It's really not that different from the rest of the franchise (there's a good case to be made that it is a retelling of the first film). It's definitely not so bad that you could consider it deliberate sabotage. And about that anyway, sabotage of what? "Contractual obligations"? Nolan was always contracted for three films, and this was written to be the ending. The studio approved it being an ending to that franchise. There was nothing to sabotage. And if it was sabotage, then Nolan must be the worst at sabotage ever because it utterly failed. It has 87% on Rotten Tomatoes (critics loved it), 8.5 on imdb (audiences loved it) and made over a billion dollars worldwide (the studio loved it). In every category that matters (i.e. not nerds being snarky on a video game forum) the film was a rousing success. And it was super memorable too, considering people are still doing Bane impersonations. Not sure where exactly the deliberate sabotage angle comes in.

Sounds like he didn't so much become a gamer as he did read the Codex.

I think that it was just that what makes it worthy of recognition, because it was just bad enough to kill the franchise without reeking of sabotage. Upon closer inspection however you begin to see just how ridiculous this movie is. Sounds like you never took a closer look at the preceding films.

Correctly surmised that this was in the wrong forum. Moved to computer and console.

Really? I didn't think The Dark Knight Rises was awful, just mediocre. It's closer to Batman Begins than Dark Knight was. It seems more like Nolan trying to salvage what was left of his original plan when Ledger died.

Near constant-nausea due to post-nasal drip after allergies. I'm getting really, really annoyed at it.

I doubt it. It's a Will Smith character that says "let's go save the world". He may as well be saying "welcome to earf".