Amentep

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.

I suffer in silent shame no more, at least.

Given the title, I feel forced to confess to not actually being an expert on Cheech and Chong films.

It'd probably be a blunt weapon like a staff...perhaps with reach (or similar) unless the blade of the oar was sharpened to have a blade edge in which case it could serve as something akin to a glaive or a naginata. Other silly ideas - An anchor & chain as something akin to a spiked chain / meteor hammer / kusarigama A pair of metal rudders sharpened and used as dual-weilded axes An ancient pirate flag as a magical cloak Wooden Leg as a club (too obvious) A petrified arm with a hook hand as a club/piercing damage unique weapon Magical eye patches that let you see hidden things Shield made from a ship's wheel - has a % chance to allow disarm to represent the idea of blocking the weapon on the fellow and using the handles to twist the weapon from opponents grip Tiller as a club Giant shark tooth as a shield that adds blunt & slash to bash attacks

We ask that the users of this board treat one another with respect, even when opinions differ. Please discontinue the speculative discussions of other posters status (health, mind, body, etc.) in this thread and stick to the topic.

kp brought up Mummy in the genesis post. with the new universal monster movies being released, we cannot help but lament the metaphorical death o' the traditional mummy. no longer is the mummy a revenant punishing those who defile a tomb, but is a demigod/god with apocalyptic intent. blame the brendan fraser rachel weisz films? to keep this political, we can throw out a more sinister (ridiculous) possibility. given the middle-eastern origin o' the mummy, is the transformation from a singular and limited threat to a danger directed at western culture entire represent transparent and insidious islamophobia on the part o' the movie producers? muahaha. c'mon. you has seen crazier stuff from breitbart, no? HA! Good Fun! First Universal Mummy film w/Karloff has the Mummy/Imhotep not punishing interlopers or defilers; instead he walks out of the tomb area (sure he drives an archeologist mad so doing, but that's he couldn't take the site of the Mummy walking around) and later tries to force the re-incarnation of his lost love. You have to jump forward 8 years to 1940's THE MUMMY'S HAND to get the idea of the Mummy being directed by the High Priest of Karnak to kill all those who'd defile Anaka's tomb. That said, its probably important to point out that the first of the major mummy novels, Stoker's Jewel of the Seven Stars, involves the mummy trying to re-unite her soul (trapped in a mummified cat) with her 'astral body' who happens to be the daughter of one of the expedition leaders who found her tomb. That a bunch of people end-up dead (at least in the original version) is secondary to her attempt to reunite spirit and body, however its arguable that Queen Tera is the prototype for the super-powered Mummy who could potentially rain destruction down that you see picked up in the Frasier and current films.

I actually didn't have much issue with a second run other than I find Kadara kind of tedious. It actually feels a good bit like DAI (for better or worse) to me from a game standpoint (although less polished in many ways). Still I had fun with it - but then I tend to find most Bioware games fun to a degree.

There's no time frame, so the Basque Separatist bombing in Palma Nova in 2009?

Too bad they cut the Simon Williams posters from GOTG2 - you could have added a debate on whether or not Nathan Fillion and Simon Williams are the same person, or if they are two different actors, why they look exactly alike...

And that's an honest formed opinion made from engaging with the work - who can fault that?

And that's great. If we all liked the same stuff it'd be awfully boring. My comment was simply to address that I didn't hate (or like) it sight unseen for reasons other than what the film actually was.

I liked the recent Ghostbusters film. Then again I didn't think the original Ghostbusters was the greatest film of my generation either and I also didn't become apoplectic at the thought of either (a) the Ghostbusters not including Murray, Ramis, Ackroyd or Hudson or (b) the Ghostbusters being women.

Reads to me as the law is intended to keep people from interfering with Alligators unless otherwise proscribed by law (like, say, someone who is licensed to capture and relocate them). Its unlawful to "feed, entice, or molest an alligator"; in this case I suspect that it was intended to stop people from alligator wrestling or harassing the animals (like throwing things at it, trying to make it angry by poking it wit sticks, etc).

Modern comics Supergirl was at one time portrayed as 'stronger' due to not having grown up having to suppress her powers like Clark did as she arrived as a teenager. Not sure if that applies to the episode as I'm not watching the show.

According to data from the Joint Center for Political and Economic studies, African American voters had been voting overwhelmingly Democrat in US Presidential races at least as early as 1936. Anecdotally I've heard that this can - at least partially - be attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt making sure New Deal legislation applied equally to whites and blacks and her outreach to African Americans, but I don't know if there's any hard data on that. No Republican Presidential candidate has - since 1936 when the Joint Center started compiling data - carried more than 40% of the vote; the closest was in the 1956 election when incumbent Eisenhower pulled just under 40%.