Amentep

The theory comes from comic book fans, who have nothing better to do than debate minutia and overthink things while waiting for the next release.

such stuff might make sense save for the brutal amazon training every ww has endured. if the movie shows gadot sleep-walking her way through her themyscira amazonian training, w/o the traditional obligatory sweat and toil and struggle, then we could accept a plausibly rail-thin ww who were able to similar magic her way past monsters and mayhem rather than muscling her way to victory. The argument goes if Superman's powers provide him strength, what on earth can he train with on earth that would actually give him heroic musculature? Similarly if Diana's strength is supernatural and the Amazons are not (they have and haven't been in DC comics) how can training with them ever be rigorous enough to create a heavily muscled body. Again this isn't necessarily an argument I agree with, merely presenting it as it could be a rationale they're using to create a less muscled version of Diana.

Yeah its even "first look" in what I linked. However given that it seems to be a collection of scenes, I'm not sure it really fits my understanding of first look either (which usually is a complete scene by itself). Then again it could just all be marketing made up stuff.

IT trailer 2:

For me it had the right amount of dramatic work in it. Its understandable in a film where major characters meet family members that there will be some drama, but I think it works without interfering with the fun of the story.

Arguably, both of WW's major origins make her supernatural, so I'd think an argument similar to the "why does Superman need to be muscular if his superpowers are where he's pulling his strength from* and not his muscles" could be applied to her. The biggest thing (to my mind) is the movie ensuring I believe she's WW. *Note I think this argument mostly fall on Post-Crisis Superman, whose powers were defined as a form of telekinesis rather than a yellow-sun fueled body. Movies I watched over the weekend: Guardians of the Galaxy 2 - very similar to the first film; I'd argue neither really better or worse. Nice visualizations of some of the cosmic stuff. Kurt Russel was really good. Avalance Sharks - lol, wtf? Now You See Me 2 - A decent caper film; I don't think the narrative is as strong as the first film, but I liked the set pieces a lot.

The avatars do line up good for a fight - vs

I don't imagine many HS programs get students to near fluency. Maybe if someone does a full four years in an advanced program. I'm not sure they are designed for that, though.

I remembered enough of HS French to mess up my college Spanish classes as I'd start sentences in Spanish and end them in French (stupid Romance languages).

All of the pets I had got sick in cars. Made trips to the vet fun.

Are you saying required to get into the 4-year program or required to graduate from the program? Most HS (even Texas, IIRC) require some form of FL work for HS Graduation. So a lot of colleges expect it for admissions purposes. But I'd be surprised if a lot of 4-year BS programs are requiring a foreign language at the most competitive schools as part of the graduation requirements. Liberal arts programs, maybe, but not science.

Just realized that I missed noting the 100 anniversary of the death of one of my favorite Pre-Raphelite artists, John William Watterhouse: One of his Lady of Shalott Paintings Destiny

I must not be watching the right TV shows (entirely possible). I saw the original trailer a couple of times on TV and not at all in the movie theaters (not even on WB films, which was surprising).

Its been reported that WW has a bigger ad budget than Suicide Squad, but I'm not seeing it so far. That said, they may be planning a media blitz before it opens or something

I was only trying to say the man is hit or miss; when he's good he's usually really good when he's bad he's usually really bad. I make no claims The Dark Tower will be any good. But then I actually tried to read the first one a few times and gave up; it wasn't for me.

And The Client, A Time to Kill, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man... Also its my understanding a TV show set in the Dark Tower universe is forthcoming; essentially (again as I understand it), the TV show fills in the back story (ie stuff from the books).

I think that's one of the big questions really, is whether Jodorowsky is being literal or if he's trying to shock the audience (something that fits into the era of El Topo,as within the decade on either side of that film we get things like Kenneth Anger's Scorpio Rising, John Waters' Pink Flamingos and Armando Bo's Fuego and dozens more films that break taboos and try their best to move the viewer out of their comfort zone). I don't blame her for taking Jodorowsky's statements literally though; without him (or the actress) providing additional context all she really has to go on is his words. I also don't blame his defenders who'll argue that Jodorowsky's interviews include a lot of posturing and postulating and aren't always sincere as they're part of a broader performance.

Well to be fair to the author, even if she'd included his caveat from the interview (that he'd explained the scene to the actress, including what he planned to do) and the inference (that she'd agreed to it), it still raises a couple of questions - ie as he was in a position of authority over her, did she really have the ability to disagree with what he did; did her reaction indicate that what he did and what he explained not the same, and did any of it happen at all since AFAIK we only have Jodorowsky's statements on it - and we know that he wants to provoke people and shake the establishment and again AFAIK wouldn't be above doing it in an interview. The important thing would be to have the actress' view of it, but its not there leaving what happened legitimately open for debate I think. I find it distracting that the author seems to mistakenly attributes the scene to Fando y Lis (it wasn't) and that they question El Topo as an early midnight movie (it was), but that doesn't invalidate her argument which, honestly, is a fair position. Not everyone is going to try to figure out whether Jordorowsky's statements are performance or real, or what he might mean when he uses loaded language.

The Dark Tower The Defenders (series) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h3m7B4v6Zc

Blade More like 'so bad it's good'. Did he have a comic before the movies. Blade 2 or 3, the one with Ron Pearlman and Ryan Renolds is my fave. The character had been around since 1973, mostly in Marvel's TOMB OF DRACULA, but had solo stories in some anthology titles - VAMPIRE TALES (#8 & 9), MARVEL PREVIEW (#3 & 8.) He was in the Nightstalkers team series in the early 1990s. His first stand alone solo titles (some one-shots and a miniseries) I think came in 1998 in the lead-up to the first film.

Adjectives - well defined in a scale - are mostly an example because I've wondered myself whether or not providing numbers to the player encourages min-maxing because if the numbers are there some players will feel incentivized to use those numbers to create a "superior" build rather than creating a character to play and one of the ideas I wondered if it would work would be character creation via an adjective-like system that gave a well defined scale but hid the actual numbers from the player. So naturally when I saw Cain's triangles - with and without the adjectives - I perked up. Obviously graphical representations could be done (distance on a mini-map for projectiles, bars that filled/depleted) as well, but gets closer to the numerical system, I guess. One of the things I've gotten from this discussion is that RPGs perhaps fill a niche that bridges simulation and gameist(? is that the right term?) design. ie the player doesn't need to know the exact damage Mario does when he shoots a fireball in Super Mario Bros (gameist), but they do need to know what the maximum distance of a particular type of missle is and the direction and windspeed acting on it when I fire it from my mech in Battletech (simulation).

I really think you're comparing apples and kumquats. You keep comparing a numerical system with random adjectives. If "mediocre range, good armour and the capacity to deploy a fair number of fighters" uses a scale where "mediocre" "good" and "fair" are defined, then either "swell" would also be defined on that scale, or it wouldn't be used. A lot of games have used S, A, B, C, D, E, F ranks to define equipment. Sure they show the numbers behind it, but the truth is (IMO) you don't really need the numbers to make a decision. S is defined as better than A, so an S weapon should have better overall stats than an A. Do you really need to know exact specific tonnages of your mech in Battletech? Or do you really only need to know the comparative weight compared to others mechs? Heck you could use the lightest mech (say a Wasp which IIRC is at 20 tons) and use that as a base weight. An Arbelest weighs 1.25 Wasps. An Orion is 3.75 times the weight of a Wasp. If you establish that heavier = slower, doesn't the game player know all they need to know without calculating anything and without needing specific tonnages? Its just a step further to abstract that to light, medium and heavy (which is already there in the description of the mech) and use no numbers at all.

Wouldn't this be a product of being more a simulation of something that exists in the real world rather than an abstraction designed for a non-simulation style fantasy game? I don't disagree that a simulation would have to provide information in the way the real-word thing being simulated would (ie a flight simulator or aerial combat simulator or tank simulator or racing simulator is going to need to provide the same kind of numerical data that the vehicle would provide during real-world operations).