Amentep

The continuance of Nintendo eStore, PlaystationsNetwork and XBoxLive is probably tied to the existence of the stand-alone console market that they support. Similarly, something like Origin will probably last as long as that publisher wants their in-house system. Steam and GOG are pretty diversified, so can probably withstand a lot of change in the market. Unless the majority of publishers want their own Origin, a Steam or a GOG should do well without the intervention of a better competitor. I'm not sure worrying about the long-term future of these really makes sense. Its about like worrying whether my PST, BG, and IWD discs are going to suffer CD rot. Odds are, eventually, they will. And I won't have access to the data on them.

I was just thinking about reading my collection of the HHGTtG. “The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.” Don't really have time atm, too many other things to read. ... I hate those oddball questions in interviews. Thankfully only had one: "What kind of bird do you see yourself as?" Couldn't think of any bird at all except the damn albatross because of Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Finally said it, and the interviewer kindly said "so you see yourself as being able to stay aloft over sea for long periods of time" which I guess was a better interpretation than "results in curses for sailors who shoot them".

A picture is worth a 1000 words.

The internet says they're supposed to be okay to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. No clue if the internet is right, though.

Its been republican since 1979 when they first elected Newt Gingrich, IIRC. That said, it used to not have North DeKalb in it but instead part of Walton County.

Pretty sure the 6th district avoids Atlanta's city limits. Its North Fulton, North DeKalb, and East Cobb counties. Eh, he lives a mile and a half from the 6th district while his girlfriend is attending Emory medical school. Supposedly he grew up and lived previously around Northlake, which is currently part of the 6th district but wasn't part of it until 2013, I think.

Fixed that for you.

There's a long running gag* that we're all alts of about 12 people. *or is it? dun dun dunnnn

https://forums.obsidian.net/user/27272-obyknven/

Reverse vampires? They walk around in the day giving blood transfusions to the unsuspecting?

Wonder Woman - good film, well made; Director Patty Jenkins gets a lot of good work from the cast and the story hangs together better than most big budget action films.

MODERN version of comic book Black Widow is, essentially, a USSR super-soldier (albeit not in the same exact way as Cap). But she was physically and mentally enhanced to be at peak human condition (and iirc is in her 70s - she was a small child at the beginning of WWII).

The Mummy (2017) I liked it. I'd say it's a good, but not great film. It has a few genuinely creepy moments, and actually keeps the scale down a bit more than I expected. I think there are at least one potential plot problem, but to be honest it really didn't detract from enjoyment. So some spoiler discussion ahoy: Overall it may not be the box-office winner start Universal wanted to restarting their monster franchises, but I'd argue its a pretty respectable, if flawed, beginning.

Been a couple of decades since I read it; my memory was that there was implication of great powers if not demonstration of such (but again, the memory cheats, if not outright lies at times).

So...apparently CD Projekt Red has apparently been given a ransom demand to pay money or face leaks of Cyberpunk 2077 design documents. https://mobile.twitter.com/CDPROJEKTRED/status/872840969795899394/photo/1

The Monster Hunting society is who Dr. Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe) is working for... Bride of Frankenstein is the next movie up in the shared universe.

The Universal Mummy IP that dates back to 1932. That the Bendan Frasier films were also an attempt to cash in on, one that was successful. And honestly we'd probably be looking at a different iteration of mummy films if the last Frasier one hadn't done poorly at the box-office. *THIS*, so much this. I don't get this attitude nowadays where people ask of films to 'take themselves lightly', as if taking scenes that should be tense, dark or terrifying (as is usually the case with horror films) ought not to be either thing. Seriousness has its place in entertainment, we can all find enjoyment in tension, high stakes and *mood* and sometimes these require a film to play such scenes with a staight face. I hear this **** about Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (or, well, his films in general) all the time. I don't know, but even whilst being pretty dark and brooding films I had a blast with each, *in great part* thanks to their atmosphere. To me its about the story being told. Being funny, being dark, being actiony, being thoughtful or ponderous...these are all aspect of tone and story telling. The producers have said they wanted an exciting film, but also one that was a monster film. So action-horror hybrid. I don't know how successful they are in that goal, but the trailers make it obvious that is their goal. It doesn't have to be funny. But if it's serious, it should also try to establish characters and build some sense of suspense/horror in there. While I'm trying to not allow myself to biased before personally seeing it, what I am picking up from the surge of reviews is too much of a "This gets by on Tom Cruise doing Mission Impossible style action sequence after action sequence at a frantic pace" rather than story telling. Which may be a fair assessment; at least its a condemnation of failing at what it tries to do (be a horror-action hybrid) than condemning it for not being something it never tried to be (a comedy/light adventure like the Frasier films). When I see the Mummy (and I'll see it because I try to see all Mummy films - and I've seen a lot of good and terrible ones), I'll be the least likely to notice how "M:I" it is because I refuse to watch any films from that film series.

Regardless of the previous films (that this is not a sequel to) or how you feel about the classics (which for monster fans are serious, regardless of how modern audiences approach them), it just doesn't mean this film has to be a lighter. Feel free to think the film isn't for you, but I have no issue with them trying to do a more serious film nor will I fault the film for not being something it's not trying to be.

Why shouldn't it take itself seriously? The Variety film had a similar coment - basically saying that 'creature films' are so silly the only way to do it is for laughs. I don't get it. The original Universal horror films weren't comedies, why does this have to be? (And yeah, they weren't action films either)

Like Gromnir I wonder what the 10+ classes mean. Also curious if stretch goals could bring in non-core classes (would love to play an alchemist) or non-core races.