Blarghagh

This video is not available in your country.

It's not even that exaggerated. That weird piercing is the only thing that seperates Disturbed's vocalist David Draiman from being the metal twin of Howie Mandel.

On my list to play are Reaper of Souls, Rayman Legends - then when I'm done with those I hope The Stomping Land will be out - which is likely, because I'm not allowed to play those other two games until my huge backlog of work has been processed.

Us dutchies surprisingly came in second with our very bluesy entry - everyone's joking that our lady singer should have worn a beard and then we would have won.

I don't know, I don't live there, I picked the UK because decado singled them out up there.

That's possible, but I do understand that as a European, the only time I ever hear about Americans defending free speech it's the KKK claiming they have a right to march, or the Westboro Baptist Church championing their right to picket funerals. At the same time, the only time I ever hear Americans (keep in mind, through the filter of European media) criticizing free speech it's when it actually matters, like Snowden or Wiki Leaks where the government lies to your faces and prosecutes those who tell the truth. I read a hilarious article once by American comedy writer Daniel O'Brien where he describes how he had to scrap major parts of a satiricial book on "How to Fight Presidents" about how to beat Abraham Lincoln and such in bareknuckle boxing matches should you ever have to do so, because he fell under investigation by the FBI. I may not understand how Americans really see it, but I do understand how their policies on free speech translates to European countries as being a complete scam. Not saying it is, but through all the exposure I have on the subject it looks like that. Obviously I can't have a complete picture, not being American and very rarely speaking to Americans on the subject, but it doesn't look like Americans care half as much about it as they pretend. I mean, I don't think the UK ever came close to passing a Patriot Act.

Just the expansion, you mean. They've already got D3.

I liked the trailer. It looked like a fun type of pulp. Then again, I've only read a couple of hellblazer comics and they don't mean too much to me.

I can't agree with this in this specific case. You'd have been correct if this movie hadn't been an epic disaster in the first place. This movie's script and production was a disaster. The story and direction are in the toilet, famously pretty much every shot of Wesley Snipes was filmed in a different location at a different time by different people because he kept threatening to kill the director. The comedy is literally the only good thing about this movie and as a bonus, pretty much all of it's ad-libbed (there are entire reels of variations that you can find online). If the rest of the movie was better I'd agree with you, but it's such an enormous turd. Jessica Biel is super hot in it, though.

Wait a minute, I was under the impression there already was a remaster. I marathoned them at a friend's place about six months back and the copies he had had no dewbacks, no greedo shooting first, no jabba in new hope, no musical number in jabba's palace and no hayden christensen at the end. Color me confused.

Same here - stepped in a pothole yesterday and now today I can barely move.

There's a directors cut of Kingdom of Heaven? How does it differ from the theatrical version?

The Stomping Land comes out through Steam early access end of the month. Now I've had bad experiences with early access, but survival/crafting type game with low level technology and the ability to hunt and ride dinosaurs? This game is literally my dream game.

Ridley Scott is frustrating, because he is a good director that for some reason insists on directing movies from extremely terrible scripts. Sometimes it works, Alien was a great version of the awful Starbeast script. Sometimes it doesn't work, like when Robin Hood just doesn't tell a story good enough to justify its existence. Bad news by the way Sorophx, Community got cancelled.

It's quite good. I've only got one real issue with it: It's rather gory and event heavy. Not inherently a bad thing, but it's like that from the very beginning so when you get to the end you've kindof gotten used to it so the climax isn't that great. Turns out Outlast was on sale because they just released a DLC campaign called Whistleblower. It's lovely - the setting is now familiar so they make up for it with an extra helping of disturbing characters, body horror and chase sequences.

No, no, no that's completely wrong. I believe in freedom absolutely but not if that freedom means it offends or hurts someone else That's not something that, as the offending party...or even necessarily the offended party...can control. it is fascinating to see how folks raised elsewhere sees different. in the US we view as kinda obvious that the speech that is most needing protection is speech that is likely to offend somebody. nevertheless, elsewhere, it is seen as equal obvious that hurtful or hateful speech is not worthy of govt. protection. we has actual written articles on this subject. HA! Good Fun! You may have written articles on it but this post is a gross oversimplification AND misinterpretation of what is going on. Americans always say their most important amendment is free speech, but they're really not because they confuse their freedom to offend with their freedom to abuse. EDIT: This post rubbed me the wrong way and I edited out some choice comments about how dumb American law is that I added just to piss off the lawyer. My apologies. Well, the gross oversimplification of your post rubs me the wrong way. Certainly there are a great many Americans who take advantage of the remarkable free speech situation here, and pass over into the realm of abuse. But to generalize about all Americans from the data of a notorious minority is just silly. I think most Americans probably do honestly believe that the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech is the most important, for reasons other than allowing arseholes to spew racist trash that might well be considered abuse. That's a side consequence of believing that people ought to be able to say what they want without fearing the heavy hand of an intrusive government. I apologize, I spoke (typed?) out of anger and did not mean to offend you. Obviously it was a generalisation, but I do have a point - I have never seen anything out of America (keeping in mind that as a European, almost my entire exposure is through the media) that "defended" free speech for anything other than abuse. In fact, the only times I've heard about it in any other context is when people argued against it during the whole Snowden debacle.

No, no, no that's completely wrong. I believe in freedom absolutely but not if that freedom means it offends or hurts someone else That's not something that, as the offending party...or even necessarily the offended party...can control. it is fascinating to see how folks raised elsewhere sees different. in the US we view as kinda obvious that the speech that is most needing protection is speech that is likely to offend somebody. nevertheless, elsewhere, it is seen as equal obvious that hurtful or hateful speech is not worthy of govt. protection. we has actual written articles on this subject. HA! Good Fun! You may have written articles on it but this post is a gross oversimplification AND misinterpretation of what is going on. Americans always say their most important amendment is free speech, but they're really not because they confuse their freedom to offend with their freedom to abuse. Soliciting sex is not "freedom of speech" and sending **** pics certainly isn't. EDIT: This post rubbed me the wrong way and I edited out some choice comments about how dumb American law is that I added just to piss off the lawyer. My apologies.

It's quite good. I've only got one real issue with it: It's rather gory and event heavy. Not inherently a bad thing, but it's like that from the very beginning so when you get to the end you've kindof gotten used to it so the climax isn't that great.

I hate these topics because of the amount of whining about misandry or semantics about what the definition of a sexist act is, or people who just plain don't believe it happens. That and the amount of posts that boil down to "it's not my problem", "stop white knighting" and "look at my clever picture" makes this board seem so passive sometimes. Everybody has to have an opinion yet nobody has an opinion that actually means anything. Instead of opinionating, I'd like to share some stories of things that have happened to my girlfriend in the context of online gaming. With the exception of the last one (I wasn't in the picture at that time), I witnessed all of these first hand. I'm going to present them without comment and see how you guys feel about them: My girlfriend started using Real ID on Battle.net and she would get kicked out of WoW pickup groups about half of the times she joined a group. It stopped when she stopped using Real ID. My girlfriend once used voice chat in a Rust server and suddenly a group of dudes stripped their characters and insisted on trying to jumping around her and take screenshots of their characters' crotches in her character's face until she left the server. My girlfriend has recently stopped playing DOTA 2 because her Steam screen name shows she is female and for some reason DOTA 2 players like to send girls nude selfies with their penises in their hand. It happened 7 times in about two months. She reported these people, and we know at least two of them got banned for it. We know this because both of these got onto different accounts to harass her again because she got them banned. Those are two seperate occassions, by the way, not banned at the same time. My girlfriend was once e-mail and private-message-stalked by a guy demanding nude pics, sending nude pics and claiming that he loved her for six months until he gave up. She had never even interacted with this guy - he was a member on GameFAQS and she had made an account there to post a topic about Pokémon and used her first name in her screen name. My girlfriend tells me she was once asked if she would like to meet up for sex in return for points in Neopets by a 46 year old man. She was 13 at the time.

Really enjoyed this movie. The ending caught me off guard. It was a bit annoying that the dialogue kept hammering on how weird the main character was (show, don't tell, guys!) and I'd hoped the plot would have gone more supernatural, but I still really enjoyed it regardless. It had a quirky sense of fun that really got me on its side. Glad Stephen Sommers decided to get back to fun instead of epic, because he's good at fun and not at epic. The Mummy still entertains me, but Van Helsing takes itself far too seriously to be entertaining.

I first noticed it in, of all places, Pirates of the Carribean. I thought the first installment of that series was fun, despite its many flaws, mostly due to Jack Sparrow - but the sequels were not, despite giving him a lead role instead of a supporting role. In the first film, all characters are constantly reacting to whatever stuff Jack pulls and that's what makes him interesting. Seeing him react to stuff happen to him is not interesting. That's why the first one was a decent adventure that didn't take itself too seriously and the sequels are bloated tripe (in my opinion). I'm going to take a step back here and see if we're saying the same thing in different ways. The stakes and threat have to be established. This can be seen as something happening to the protagonist and they have to respond. I can agree on that. But I still disagree that Anakin's failure was that he drove the plot. He was still reacting in that sense, just to things that didn't matter. Like Manifested, I noticed this "trend" in character stories and the whole "plot driving character vs plot feeling character" is my own theory, so keep in mind that I could be completely off and I honestly haven't thought it all the way true. It could be a case of correlation =/= causation. What you say makes sense but it's not exactly the same thing. I wouldn't say it's a fast and loose rule that the character doesn't "react" so to say, but more of the narrative nature of those reactions. To be perfectly honest I'd have to think about it more if I were to put it into more concrete terms. Honestly, there are plenty of things work against my argument. Breaking Bad starts out with Walter White reacting to the plot, but he ends up being the driving force of the plot and is still the viewpoint character, so thinking about it even Anakin *could* work. I've just noticed that a lot of stories don't go that way. It's more of a narrative trope to get the audience on your side easier than a real "rule", I guess?

Well yeah, it's not a complete distinction. I mean, parts of Lord of the Rings focus on Aragorn after we've been introduced to his story through Frodo, and plot things happen to other characters as well. But in general, this is how stories work. Protagonists are much more reactive forces than other characters. Amentep, I see your view and I'd say we both have valid views - but I don't think I-III should fit the monomyth type so I think we can just agree to disagree. Since we know Anakin is eventually not the hero by virtue of these movies being prequels, and that there can be no refusal of the call due to the fact it is essential to his fall-by-hubris that he desperately wants nothing more, and Anakin's fate and story essentially removing all possibility of the entire last third of the monomyth due to it ending at the belly of the beast/transformation step (depending on which version you subscribe to) that the hero's journey does not fit Anakin in the prequels. Agree to diagree?

Ah yes, Pernilla August. I thought she did quite well. As for starting Anakin off as Luke's age being the fundamental mistake for Phantom Menace, I've heard that said before but I disagree.The fundamental storytelling mistake of the prequels, not just Phantom Menace, was focusing on Anakin in the first place. That never should have happened. I hope I can explain this right because I've never put this into words before, but here goes: As far as I can tell, Anakin is supposed to be the genius, the wild card, the too-powerful Jedi, the dark horse seduced by the dark side. He is a plot driving character, and very rarely do plot driving characters work as viewpoint characters. It's why Frodo is the main character of Lord of the Rings instead of Aragorn - the viewpoint character is the character who the plot happens to, not who drives the plot. It's why everything Indiana Jones does in Raiders of the Lost Ark is pointless and all he does is react to what other people are doing. It's why the first Matrix movie works when Neo is still the guy stuff happens to, and the Matrix sequels don't work because Neo is the Superman who makes stuff happen. Not Anakin, he's shown to be awesome at everything and get all his wishes of being the greatest pod racer, pilot and jedi even as a kid and this continues throughout the prequels, getting to be the one Jedi who gets to love, the youngest Jedi on the council, etc. This is not someone we can identify with. Moreso than being the character that makes the plot happen, Anakin IS the plot. He is not the character who experiences the plot, thus not the character who we experience the plot with. On the other hand, Obi-Wan's arc is already there, even in the prequels he is the character that the plot happens to. He is a too-young Jedi Knight who loses his master and takes on a job he can't handle. Even Anakin's eventual betrayal (spoiler alert) is a plot point that happens to Obi-Wan, not to Anakin. Anakin's fall and eventual redemption is the plot of the entire series, but somewhere George Lucas decided it's also Anakin's story. It's not Anakin's story. It's never been Anakin's story.

It's not a real distinction, wooden is generally bad, but in this case I would say it's because their character have nothing to feel most of the time, so they become, well, wooden. I don't know how else to describe it. It's more that the characters are wooden than the actors are. : / I forgot the actress' name, but Anakin's mother in Episode 1 knocked it out of the park, I think. The best moments are when Neeson and she are sharing screentime.