Amentep

Have you seen the original Django film by Sergio Corbucci with Franco Nero? I think it holds up really well.

Katherine Hepburn is in AFRICAN QUEEN, not Audrey. I think ones connection to the film is dependant on whether you like Bogart & Hepburn bickering with one another. I too find it dull even if I recognize good performances from both leads.

Really enjoyed Civil War. They really did good at making the story work. Good stuff.

LoT is a terribly written show. The recent episode required everyone to act as stupid as humanly possible to happen. Probably still watch out the seasin, but yikes. Sadly AoS has also been dumber than usual.

I liked Shadow of the Beast the original. The trailer for the remake seemed...gory?

I may be wrong, but if the event was open to the public (which I think it was) I believe the rule is that you can't expect privacy with respect to not being recorded in public spaces so long as the end result isn't commercial. The only grounds - again - that I understand she might be able to argue would be defamation, but she'd have to prove she was portrayed in a false manner; just being unflattering or embarrassing isn't enough. I find it interesting that article - rather than debating any of Sullivan's points spends the article trying to say Sullivan's points are wrong not for factual reasons but because he's "liberal".

She's filed a police report; if it is true, then hopefully they'll find the attackers and successfully prosecute them.

I could take Karzak as long as the topic wasn't dual wielding for rogues, then my eyes would glaze over and I'd fall unconscious. I remember Caelis mostly as a spammer, not a serious poster.

Get off my lawn! I always appreciated (and indeed tried to follow) the idea of cultivating a thread if it got derailed very quickly by splitting off the derail and the original thread into their own threads. Not really sure about the capabilities of the board, but you'd think merging and/or separating threads would be expected in board software now. But I often love those kinds of posts...although I don't like it when it's done ad nauseam like it seems some of us have been doing lately, and I probably wouldn't love it if you did it to me, and I'm sure you've had opportunity... And really, this just ties into the general point I made way earlier in the thread about basic civility to one another...there's just that little difficulty of "not being a massive hypocrite" that I'm struggling with...so I guess your way is probably better. Some posts I don't cancel; if I have a good point I'll just edit it or re-edit it. Or I may type up my vent but then cancel it and come back in a few hours and type a legit post. Very rarely do I actually get so vexed by a poster here that I really have to rant. In fact I think I only have two posters (maybe three) in my ignore list because, for the most part, everyone here is either ok or I can just skip their posts without suffering knee-jerk-itis.

You should see all the posts i spend significant time writing were I pedantically point out errors, attack fatuous logic and tell people off...which I then delete before posting them. I understand the need to vent. I vent all the time. I just don't end up posting the vent for everyone to see. If you find yourself unable to not respond to another poster, I recommend really giving them what-for then hitting "cancel". Works great - there are people who think I'm level-headed enough to be a mod (thanks Malcador!).

This is a very good post, I support the last line emphatically My experience as a moderator is that there are some users who have no discretion. My experience as a moderator is that while those folks exist, they are actually quite rare on most forums (4chan, reddit, youtube, et al being notable high profile exceptions). I personally have not seen such on WoT. Also, my response as a moderator to all this would be something along the lines of what Meshuggar posted here, though probably a bit more blunt in it's delivery. WOT is generally a lot better place than WWOT/Ye Olde was on BIS (but in BIS's favor, it had the benefit of having two forums so the happy spamming was kept separate from the serious & po-faced discussions so it was probably easier to police). Mind you my response as a moderator would have problem been very similar to what I wrote - report posts that you think are trolling or derailing threads if you feel that strongly about it. The moderators aren't always going to assume because a thread drifts off topic or becomes dominated by a popular figure that it isn't part of the natural evolution of a thread - which will always involve topic drift.

This is a very good post, I support the last line emphatically My experience as a moderator is that there are some users who have no discretion.

I think trolling about Bioware and Bethesda (and Troika) was a LOT more common back when the forums started. It might be time for a review of the forum rules - reviews never hurt. So again, I come to - do you report these posts that you feel are out of bounds? Or do you expect the mods to read every thread and intercede without being signaled? Or do you just give as good as you get and figure if the rough-housing gets too violent a mod will jump in to referee? Back when I was a mod on BIS - not that there is completely applicable to here - there was no way that the 4-5 people who were mods of the WWOT forum could keep up with all of the posts, reading each one and moderating each discussion. Yes we read threads, but we also relied on the posters telling us where the problems were because we couldn't watch every thread or every "problem" poster. And sometimes if no one complained the assumption was that people were happy with the bickering. Or the mods couldn't come to a consensus that what was done warranted action.

These forum's moderation has always seemed to operate under a "no harm/no foul" rule. Or put another way, that if - instead of clicking the "report" button because someone posts a personal attack against you in a disagreement, you respond with your own personal attacks - more than likely the mods are going to let it slide unless you continue to virtually pull hair for a couple of pages or a third party complains. My experience is that most people who get into these kinds of arguments are giving as good as they got. At that point it becomes a case of "who shot John?". Poster 1: "He threw the first punch!" Poster 2: "No he threw one five pages ago!" Poster 1: "He threw one on this other thread!" Poster 2: "But he threw one in a thread before that!" Poster 1: "Oh but this all started when he threw a punch in a thread three years ago!" Poster 2: "You punched me four years ago!" And at that point the mod questions the sanity of their decision to join the mod team and punishes both people, which then leads to all of Poster 1's and Poster 2's pals complaining that the mods were heavy handed because THEIR pal didn't start it, the other guy did so why is THEIR pal getting punished and how this would never happen at the RPG Codex and we get pages and pages of people whinging about draconian moderation and Bioware's and Bethesda's forums (because people here always complain about Bioware and Bethesda) and the mods vodka intake increases 20% and they lay low for awhile. ... I might have went overboard with the hyperbole there. Sorry. ... Anyhow, I do agree the Trolling rule reads a bit weird. I think its missing some words. I italicized an example and what I think needs a fix: "It's OK to say you don't like a game, but referring to another company's employees or the company itself to troll or harass is simply not be tolerated here. Posts which intentionally attack another game company and/or it's employees will be deleted and the member censured accordingly" At the very least the phrase "...or the company itself is simply not be tolerated here." needs to be changed.

If only the new trolls would quit posing "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn", the old one would slumber in R'lyeh still...

In 1920 a 54 year-old Harry Houdini and a 61 year-old Arthur Conan Doyle met. They shared an interest in spiritualism (Houdini trying to contact his mother; Doyle trying to contact his first wife, son, brother and two brother-in-laws). They became friends. But Houdini - knowing a thing or two about cold reading amid other stage magic misdirections - couldn't let fake psychics stand and so began exposing their tricks. He was so good that Doyle became convinced that Houdini was an unwitting pyschic who was blocking other psychics from using their powers. They had a falling out, ruining the friendship. And then Houdini died in 1926. By 1920, the first woman with arrest powers in the English police force, Mrs. Edith Smith had been vested as such for 5 years and was 2 years in service as head of the Metropolitan Women Police Patrols (whose first 25 members, unlike Mrs. Smith, did not have arrest powers). This development had been started in 1914 when Margaret Dawson and Nina Boyle convinced the Commisioner at the time to hire women officer (as the Women's Police Volunteers - later Women's Police Service) to deal with wartime manpower shortages as well as to specifically deal with female prostitutes. This brings me to the rather anachronistic Houdini and Doyle - already aired in England and Canada and premiering on FOX last night. Presumably so no one would have to see an aging and bald Houdini team up with an aging Doyle, the grand meeting of the 2 is recast in 1901. Houdini, 35, had ended his 6 month run at the Alhambra Theater and would have been touring the rest of Great Britain. His press for a handcuff escape that baffled Scotland Yard would have been a year old at that time is still a sore point with the local police (but apparently Houdini is pals with the Commisioner of Scotland Yard). Doyle, 42, had published his book on the Boer War. Holmes had been gone for 8 years and its unclear if this is prior to The Strand serializing THE HOUNDS OF THE BASKERVILLES (Aug 1901 - Apr 1902) but I suspect before given the talk with the book seller. The premier has the pair - already knowing each other and a bit antagonistic towards the other's beliefs. Houdini is presented as a high level skeptic. Doyle as someone desperate to believe. They are joined by Adelaide Stratton, the first woman at Scotland Yard who is assigned to babysit Houdini and Doyle who are both interested in a Ghost Murder case. The trio argue, bumble around and eventually all figure out the mystery separately in time to reveal what really had happened. If you accept that the setting is wrong/alternate universe with respect to history[1] for any of the events portrayed and ignore the modern dialogue (at one point Houdini anachronistically dismisses a claim by Doyle with 'Garbage in, Garbage out' a term applied in Computer Science and here created 57 years prior[2] to its first known appearance in print leading to some guffaws from this viewer), the mystery is actually not bad. For a first episode, considering they have to sell us on the characters as much as set up a mystery, it does its job of defining the main characters and their conflicts (Houdini and Doyle with each other, Stratton with her superiors) fairly well. And the mystery buff can always appreciate settings that play up the need for clues/clews as opposed to jamming trace evidence in a machine that shakes and using a computer to blow up a picture image far past the amount of data it contains to get the vital information to solve the case ala modern Forensic-based mysteries. While the first episode explains all the supernatural events in the mystery Scooby-Doo style, there are hints the supernatural might be real in an X-Files sort of way. Logically able to contain the series in a End-of-the-Victorian-Era-That-Never-Was reality, there's enough here that I want to see if, in future episodes and having set up the setting and characters, they manage to make something of the series concepts and improve the central relationships to more than shouty matches between Houdini and Doyle. But if one is looking for an alternate-history mystery series, Canada's Murdoch Mysteries does it better (if you can deal with Murdoch creating just about every scientific advance to criminology for several decades well before it actually happened and the on-again/off-again romance between Murdoch and female pathologist Dr. Ogden with all their longing stares and inability to actually talk about what they feel). [1]To further the idea that this is an alternate universe Houdini and Doyle, Houdini's wife's name is changed from Wilhelmina Beatrice ("Bess") to Cecilia. Also I'm not aware of Doyle's wife being in a coma; she died of tuberculosis in 1906 but I don't recall her being incapacitated more than typical with that disease. [2]It should be pointed out that the concept was recognized by Babbage in 1864, but not articulated as GIGO by him; so Houdini saying it here strikes me as a huge anachronism. In fact no one really talks much like they're in Victorian England and Doyle doesn't sound Scottish like he should. I'm not sure what Houdini sounds like, his accent is weird but then Houdini family was from Budapest and he spent his developing years in Detroit. But hey, alternate universe.

we liked dredd, but the titular character works much better in comic books than he does in film. have an actor do dredd for +90 minutes? can't be easy. is a kewl character, but if you want character development in a dredd movie/show, it is gonna need come from the villains and from other judges. perhaps make a dredd kinda like the 1982 conan? arnold got a couple o' unforgettable scenes in conan, but his job were to be tough for +90 minutes... let james earl jones, max von sydow and even mako do the heavy lifting. am knowing it sounds odd, but am thinking you need to take considerable focus off of dredd to make a dredd show or movie work. dredd is more a function o' setting than actual character. he... is. as to the budget, we didn't mind dredd's dirty, ultraviolent, dystopia filmed almost entirely within a single grimy urban housing development. kinda reminded us o' the raid: redemption. HA! Good Fun! I think that's the reason both films got POV characters (Fergee and Hershey in the first, Anderson in the second) - Dredd doesn't change. I liked the urban housing, but when you looked at the exteriors they couldn't really match what JUDGE DREDD did on a bigger budget (not that it ultimately mattered to the movie itself).

I actually don't dislike Rob in JUDGE DREDD. There's actually a lot that works there, but it lacked focus because they tried to jam too many stories into one movie - rebuilt ABC Robot rampage, Dredd/Rico/clones, Exile to the Cursed Earth, the Angel Family. But anyhow Schneider serves as a voice for the audience who doesn't get a lot of what's going on, but can ask the questions the audience might have and do so in a way to elicit a chuckle. DREDD though is a tighter story with laser focus. It does lack the previous films budget to realize MegaCity 1 though.

No.

I think all three of you are right. Well more specifically Laci Green and MRA guy are both right because you are right that the general theme is about prejudice. Laci is right because the "prey species" are represented by two major female characters (Judy and Dawn) who are trying to get ahead in the big city where the power structures we see are all represented by men (Bogo, Lionheart, Mr. Big). MRA dude is right because Judy learns not to give up on her dream because the world is against her - she can (and does) her job and ultimately the world changed to oblige her determination and skill. But both of those readings are really there because the bigger theme is more generically prejudice and how it can shape the individual and society negatively (another lesson Judy has to learn about herself).

Has anyone actually ever been banned, outside of spambots? I couldn't name anyone. Personally I like it that way. You can always head out to RPGWatch or SA for stricter moderation... or the KKKodex for the opposite. Here? I think so. Wasn't originally the late Vicseris banned and came back under other names? At BIS & Interplay, I know we banned a bunch of people.

am admitted interested not in lara croft/tomb raider, but if a filmmaker is planning on doing multiple actiony movies with the same attractive female lead, it makes sense to start with a younger actress. gotta plan for future, no? hope for three movies and you are gonna be looking at at least five years between filming o' the first and third flick, no? HA! Good Fun! Indeed, which is why everyone was putting money on 24 year old Daisy Ridley.

Given that they're planning to follow re-boot Lara, I think looking young will be a plus.

Jolie was 26. Not much difference there, to be honest. I've liked Vikander in everything I've seen, she's a strong actress (even if Daisy Ridley seemed to be more like Reboot Lara made flesh).