Lyric Suite

Torment's combat wasn't any worst then any other IE game, it's just that most of the encounters leaved a lot to be desired, which would have been been as scarce through out the whole game as it was during the first few chapters. One thing it did very well were the spell effects and critical hit animations, which made things a bit more bearable.

Here's my list:

That's because standards have been dropped in the military as well.

What lines are these again?

What if he's right?

Indeed, which is why Middle Eastern societies are not evolving. By subjugating women entirely, the males have no incentive to do anything. That said, i'd say that the whole women's movement of the 50s (third wave feminism) pushed the balance to the other extreme. All feminists do this days is franchise women's greed, take advantage of the court systems for themselves and dump down society as a whole to the fabled 'kitchen' they so vehemently tried to struggle out of (or so they said. Personally, i don't believe them), which is why the west is folding so easily against Muslims. Schopenhauer once said that their liberal stance towards women was Sparta's undoing. He may have had a point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman 41 years ago (definitely more than 15), this man shot and killed 14 and wounded 31 others at the University of Texas at Austin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_related_attacks 1st entry 116 years ago (also definitely more than 15), a man fired a shotgun into students at a playground I love how the number of shooting keeps multiplying as time goes on. There's almost 30 years of gab between each of the early shootings but how many did we have in the past 10 years alone?

"BOLSHEVIK PRESS MESSAGE", lol, please.

Probably due the fact women do contribute nothing.

Conan has a few qualms dealing with magic users, unless they happen to be voluptuous and fair skinned women with a soft spot for a bit of rugged barbarism after dealing with civilized flappy invertebrates their entire lives.

He generally used whatever weapon was common in whatever area he traveled at any given time, though he seemed to favor bladed weapons above all.

In case that was directed at me, i need to specify that i didn't imply his demeanor was wild, but his physical characteristics most definitely are. His superior strength, agility, cunning and heightened senses are always ascribed to his barbaric heritage. Fighting Conan it's like fighting a tiger. All considerations of martial ability and experience get thrown out of the window compared to that. As an individual, he is usually very rational and cool headed which is not very 'barbaric', i agree. The fact at one point he becomes a military genius and ruler of a large kingdom should prove beyond doubt he wasn't meant to be a dull headed brute.

Intelligence isn't measured by the number of books you read. Howard was a deeply troubled character who resented his own position as a self made literati among uncouth traders and professional men who had no interest in such things. Locked in an environment that was completely anathema to his nature he sought freedom in his characters, chief among them Conan. This is why he took such great care in centering his narrative in the contrast between the unflinching, unconquerable nature of the barbarian (his own personal ticket to freedom) and the inherent oppressive condition of civilization. In this sense Conan becomes a reflection of the author, and that translates in a personage of relatively great intelligence. Many of the most insightful quotes regarding this contrast of barbarism vs. civilized men come from Conan himself, and he always displays a great deal of facility in the way he learns the languages and lore of his ever changing surroundings. Remember once he was released as a gladiator he was taken in by those monks and taught to read/write as well as tactics and combat. I'd say he certainly has more education then a typical commoner and I believe most of the Conan writings back up that opinion as well from what I recall. Nonsense. The gladiator deal is an invention brought forth by the film that has no relation to the original character. Howard's Conan would have cracked the skull of anybody trying to put a yoke around his neck (or died trying) without the faintest hesitation. The idea that he was a slave, taught and raised in the ways of civilization by a master is to miss the point to such a degree i'm still not sure if John Milius actually read any of Howard's stories at all. The original Conan was raised as a free man, hunting wild animals in the dark hills of Cimmeria and (by age 15) fighting along side his clan's men in their raiding and war parties. Even regarding Conan's martial proficiency Howard obsessively focus on his wild and barbaric traits as opposed to any specific skill. In the The Pool of the Black One, when Conan duels the pirate's captain to take control of his ship, Howard writes very explicitly that it was only thanks to his superior martial training that the latter stood toe to toe with the barbarian, at least for a time. In all of his stories, he never mentions any particular skill or technique but he often compares Conan to a wild animal against which no civilized man can stand, regardless of any special training or expertise. It's only late in his career that he begins to pick up on real military training, and i think any D&D translation should probably take this into consideration by picking fighter levels late into the build.

Not if you based your character on the books rather then the ****ty film. If you read any of the original stories, he always wore the most appropriate gear for the situation, including full plate armor in Hour of the Dragon.

I was referring to the whole OMG PHYSICS R WRNG SCIENCE IS A LIE EINSTEIN WAS A DIRTY ZIONIST!!!1 ordeal.

Creationists are going to be all over this.

No amplification = win. As for Pavarotti, he was good in his early years, but his career became a charade later own. Not that it matters now.

Ha, are all visual arts to be reduced to this then? Is Michelangelo also nothing but eye candy? Rembrandt perhaps? You don't think film making shares a similar plane of existence, considering how crucial the visual element is to the form? If photography is to be considered art, then likewise for the visual counterpart of a film, which can become even more engrossing when you add other forms of stimulation (like music). I don't have a preference, as long as a film aims at the highest order of craft and expression. 2001 does this, and i think it earns great distinction from being so peculiar in the first place.

The same way you enjoy a photograph, or a painting. Even when the subject contains aspects which are often arbitrary and even mundane, it's the way they are represented that brings out their full aesthetic impulse. Other times, it's the novelty of the subject at hand that leaves a mark. Ultimately, you have to understand of course that 2001 looked much different when it was first released then it does now. Many of the images contained in the film were probably shocking and awe inspiring when they were first screened. Nobody had seen pictures like those before, and that's also the effect Kubrick wanted to achieve. Today, it's hard to understand what made 2001 such a powerful experience back in 1968, but this can be said for many other classics as well. Different strokes for different people i guess. The first time i saw 2001 i was enthralled right from the beginning. If you think 2001 was boring, god forbid you watch a Tarkosvky film.

No. The 'empty' segments have to be enjoyed on their own accord (for their beauty, a concept which apparently is unknown in cinema). The symbolism is actually quite elementary and only a small portion of the whole. Can't comment on those films since i haven't seen them, but judging from this trailer it doesn't look like something i might be interested in. My taste in cinema is fairly limited though. I tend to find the other arts (literature and music in particular) to be much more satisfying.

Pretentious? How, because it tries to stimulate the mind rather then fondle your imagination with the usual characterizations and escapist plots? Is cinema forever to be bound to being a lesser form of art? And please, let's not mention 2010 in the same breath as the original, shall we?

Imagine that.

I read the book, but i consider the movie to be a superior effort. You don't need the first to understand the latter. 2001 flows through symbols, the narrative expressed by the action (much like a silent film), the themes conveyed through direct experience rather then plot or character progression (as befitting their timeless significance). It's not that complicated, really. Here's a simple summary of the salient elements: http://www.kubrick2001.com/ As for the extremely long intro, does anybody know what an 'overture' is?

2001 is still the best and probably the only one i can still take seriously. I just saw Blade Runner again recently and i really don't get what's supposed to be so good about it. I loved it when i was a kid but now, bleh. Those type of films weren't really that great to begin with, much like Westerns i guess.

Looks just as ****ty to me.