Amentep

Yeah a director of a bunch of really bad movies. Might as well call yourself Cordwainer Bird, Stephen Greene, Norman Ashby, Robin Bland, David Agnew or Thomas Lee. That's the joke. Well I guess you can attract women who appreciate humor that way, but it seems like you might also attract women who really have bad taste in movies.

Yeah a director of a bunch of really bad movies. Might as well call yourself Cordwainer Bird, Stephen Greene, Norman Ashby, Robin Bland, David Agnew or Thomas Lee.

Not really sure Leiberman and Clinton are conservatives based on their "big ideas"; albeit I understand that its possible to be "conservative" in some areas and "liberal" in others - to the point that a binary nomenclature is useless in describing great variations like Monte suggests (but then these gradations are steamrolled in the US by our binary monolithic overlords, the Dems and Repubs). And anyhow you're in California, that makes you automatically more liberal than 90% of the USA.

That quick transition from, er, the 1950s? Did you miss the 80's and 90's or something? To be fair, I don't recall your example conservative, Joe McCarthy calling out 2 Live Crew or NWA or similar in congress in the 1980s. And while Jack Thompson took on 2 Live Crew and NWA in the 1980s and 1990s, I don't recall him trying to force average citizens to name their communist pals in the 1950s. So I can understand the confusion. Joking aside, there's an adage that the a guy who complains he think his wife is cheating on him despite having no evidence is probably cheating on her because he's applying what he'd do to her is probably appropriate with respect to censorship. Someone who would definitely want certain products or line of thought censored will probably assume that the other side would also want certain products or line of thought censored and probably feel their line of thought is part of that when discussing binary situations (Repubs-Dems, for example)

Saw Ant-Man. Thought it was amusing but a bit uneven.

Not sure what we're considering "old school" given that we're listing a bunch of cool artists who are still doing work. Anyhow obviously as a fan of the medium there are a lot of artists I could count. But I'll try to pace myself: Nick Cardy: US comic artist, started in the "Golden Age" of American comics. Was a top talent with DC in the 60s (stints on Teen Titans, Aquaman, Bat Lash) as well as the late 60s cover artist for most of their line. Went on to do commercial poster art in the 1970s. Passed away in 2013. Don Lawrence UK artist, best know for The Rise and Fall of the Trigan Empire and Storm. Passed away in 2003. Akihiro Yamada Japanese illustrator of Record of Lodoss War: The Lady of Pharis; mostly moved to book illustrations and book covers. Reed Crandall US golden age artist; worked on a number of books in the 1940s (Blackhawks, Doll Man); did work for EC in the 50s, Warren, Tower and King Comics in the 60s and continued doing comic work until he suffered a stroke in 1974. He passed away in 1981.

EW has published photos with Psylocke, Storm and Apocalypse. http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/07/16/first-looks-at-psylocke-and-the-new-storm-from-x-men-apoclaypse/

I didn't ask for any of this gobbledygook! Just tell me if I was right, darn you! I can't even remember what a preposition or a predicate bloody well are...American education, I tell you...(or rather, how I completely and utterly failed to learn anything from it, particularly on this subject, ). (Unrelated: did you know that gobbledygook had a "d" in it? I sure didn't before Googling how to spell it!) I think so, the last sentence is a bit tricky but I think you were right on it. But English isn't my forte and I'm going on a lot of memory here (with a few glances over a grammar website).

IIRC, He walks He - Subject Walks - Verb An object is something that is acted upon by the subject, or by a prepositon She calls you She - subject calls - verb you - direct object She gave him advice She - subject gave - verb him - indirect object advice - direct object predicate He talks to you He - subject talks - verb to - preposition you - prepositional object

'Who' is the subject of the sentence 'Whom' is an object of a sentence Generally speaking, if you can replace it with "he/she" then "who" is correct. "Him/Her" then "whom" is correct. (Note some sentence structure elements may need to change, but generally it works). As an example, something is done "for him" or "for her", therefore "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls..." is correct to use "whom" rather than "who" as "for" makes "whom" an object of the sentence (reworded "Do not ask if the bell tolls for him/her...") This digression was brought to you by the letter Q and the number 42.

I do have a problem with the risk-averse big-budget model; it's been stifling creativity in the medium since its inception. That's not a good thing, and it won't magically turn into a good thing just because we now have the tools to circumvent it. (Also, while I don't consider myself to be an expert on movie history, didn't Hollywood operate on a similar principle until the... I think seventies? when the bubble suddenly burst and studios were forced to return to low-to-mid-budget productions with a strong authorial vision?) In any case, it's not the existence of big-budget games that irks me, it's the public perception of "gamers" as people who consume those big-budget games exclusively (and to the exclusion of all other activities). Film industry originally worked on the studio system were the studios made the pictures, owned the picture-houses and contracted stars to be in their films. The studios owning the theaters and block booking titles was ended by law in 1948 after an antitrust suit over block booking was levied against Paramount by RKO (albeit in practice ending in 1954). The result of this was that it became harder to get time for a "Prestige Film"; in the past if a theater wanted to sell a new star or a hard concept, they'd tie it to an existing star (so if a theater wanted the next two Mary Pickford films, they also had to book 5-10 other films that the studio was doing). This led to the ability to make a financial go of less popular fare being drastically reduced. It also meant that you needed to have prestige stars, directors and writers - or other hooks - to sell a successful film. While this led to a Renaissance in a way in the late 60s (as stars were able to make personal projects happen because their name guaranteed boxoffice and as most of the older stars were retiring new stars were taking their place with more modern and socially relevant to the times fare) it also set the stage for the blockbuster. When JAWS came out, it re-wrote the way the studios did business; you could run for years provided you can get a blockbuster to hit every now and then. This leads to now where a blockbuster can make a profit but not be blockbustery enough - the studios don't want to spend 10 mil to make 30 mil, they want to spend 10 mil to make 100 mil and so we get weird situations of films that actually make money being perceived as flops.

That... wouldn't be much of a progress from an artistic standpoint, would it. No. But the figurative Call of Duty that symbolizes the male dominated AAA and is the constant target of critique isn't an artistic masterpiece either. ...I thought we wanted better, not "roughly the same amount of crap, but now in pink". No matter what you intend, most of it will be considered poorly. Its the nature of the creative beast. Even assuming that gamers could agree on what is "better", wanting better will never make it better. Note that no creative person sets forth to create crap. That means that at some point in the development of both "good" and "bad" games, they were considered to be ideas worth pursuing by the majority of the creators in a position to make those decisions. Also a couple of pertinent quotes: Sturgeon: Kipling:

I dug the Suicide Squad (more meh on BvS). But then I liked the comic. I really enjoyed Prince of Darkness too; I personally think its a strong film, equal to In the Mouths of Madness (if without that films sense of humor).

Hope they're ants and not a termite swarm trying to start a new colony.

Suicide Squad Comicon Teaser officially released by WB:

Depends on how you were setup, but yes many people on USENET displayed First & Last name.

HOLLYWOOD PARTY (1934) In the history of odd films, Hollywood Party stands as something of an odd film achievement; it is unique to its time and place in film. While it bears similarities to other films that lurched to completion (say, CATWOMAN which started out as a spin-off vehicle for Michelle Pfeiffer and slowly rumbled to a final film production that no longer had a clear goal or identity), it isn't just a long gestating film. And while it has several unnamed directors, this wasn't a result of difficulty in the filming as much as it was something necessitated by the very idea of the film. THE STUDIO SYSTEM Back in 1932-33 when production on this film started, MGM had a problem. The studio billed itself as having "more Stars than there are in heaven" and the result was that the studio had a huge roster of contract actors, directors, scenarists, writers, stage hands, etc. And a problem arose - what to do with these stars when they weren't in an active production. The studio was paying them but not getting anything in return. Anthologies weren't a new concept, and Paramount had success in 1932 with If I had a Million using different writers/directors to guide a star in a story about people given a million dollars by a wealthy dying man. And so MGM set out to do the same. But instead of being an anthology, they'd weave a series of viginnettes together around a theme - an extravagant Hollywood A-List Party. And it'd be a musical comedy (because MGM was one of the premiere musical studios). So how hard could it be for different writers and directors would craft stories for the stars and weave them together in a comedy masterpiece? Well if it tells you anything it took a year in the studio system to finally come together. That's like decades in modern movie time. ENTER...SCHNARZAN Jimmy Durante had been a vaudevillian song and comedian (with partners Lou Clayton and Eddie Jackson) who'd transitioned to a name player with MGM (after being paired with Buster Keaton late in Keaton's shorts series for the company). And the film is built around Durante playing Jimmy Durante, star of the popular series Schnarzan, Monarch of the Mudlands, a play on Tarzan and Durante's schtick as the Schnozzola in reference to his large nose. The Schnarzan films aren't appealing to audiences anymore (neither are the competing films for Liondora (George Givot)) so the producers hit on an idea - Durante will throw a Hollywood Party, invite Baron Munchausen (played by radio Baron Munchausen, Jack Pearl) who has recently acquired some real lions. The producer will buy the lions and refurbish the series by having Schnarzan fight real lions instead of his trusty lion rug. Meanwhile Liondora hearing of this decides he must have the lions for himself. This becomes the backbone of the story, as characters are weaved into the story as things all come together (and/or fall apart) at the party. A CAST OF THOUSANDS On paper the cast seems incredible, aside from Durante, Pearl and Givot we get Lupe Velez (as Schnarzan's Jane and Durante's off-again girlfriend in a nod to Valez marriage (at the time) to Johnny Weismuller), Charles Butterworth, Polly Moran, Eddie Quillan, and June Clyde as the major players. Of more interest to the casual fan we also get the Ted Healey and his Stooges (the last work Moe, Larry and Curly did for MGM before breaking with Healey and heading to Columbia) and Laurel and Hardy. And then there are the bit roles with Ted Kennedy, Arthur Treacher, Bess Flowers amid many uncredited players. In practice the movie is an uneven affair, with comedic moments (which may appeal greater if you're a fan of Durante, Valez, The Stooges or Laurel and Hardy) and Busby Berkly inspired musical numbers. The muscial numbers range from the enjoyable to the labored (while I appreciate the choreography that went into the title song, it starts slow and has a certain amount of repetitveness that makes me wish for more editing. IT IS PRE-CODE, AND BOY HOW! So in 1930 the Hays Code of regulations on the film industry had been enacted, but it wasn't until 1934 that it became rigorously enforced. So this film slips in during the lax period where things were supposed to be cleaned up but the weren't. The result gives us things like the silhouette of an obviously naked woman showering, partner swapping (as Butterworth and Moran's married rich oil tycoons seem to have no problem pursuing other partners at the Hollywood Party - a point implied in the title song's refrain "Hollywood Party! / Nobody sleeps tonight. / Bring along your girl! Go home with someone else's. / Forget about your girl. / She's gonna do all right.") and in general debauchery left and right. AND THEN MICKEY MOUSE SHOWED UP Shades of "Roger Rabbit", there's an interlude where Durante finds Mickey Mouse crashing the party. The two tussle and then the crowd begs Mickey to show a cartoon, which he obliges. The cartoon - "The Hot Chocolate Soldiers" is either an anti-war piece (showing the wounded soldiers coming home after a brutal war) or a euphemism for sex (amid other scenes, hot chocolate soldiers are smothered in bursting white custard from weaponized eclairs gushing their contents on them). Disney was often in need of money in the early years, and I imagine that this kept his company going for a little while longer. Wonder how that worked out for him... SOMETHING TO OFFEND EVERYBODY Its no surprise that something from 1934 would have insensitive concepts that many would find objectionable these days. It goes with the territory of watching old films. Here we have wife swapping, what modern eyes might consider potential date assault (while initially eager to be seduced by a disguised Lionardo, Moran begins objecting to his advances and ends up being kissed in what appears to be a headlock), voyeurism (Butterworth who watches Lionardo's technique on his wife with much interest before he decides to try it on Lupe Valez, who flips him into the bushes), and at least one homosexual gag (the Baron's gorilla after carrying him in and being menacing, joins the party by sashaying down the steps while Durante double-entendre's "Its a chimpanzee / its a chimp-pansy") And that's not to forget Lupe's "Mexican Spitfire" routine (which some find problematic), Lionardo's Greek Aristocrat stereotype, the African Jungle Native Dancers (complete with bones in their nose), Lupe's dress (sure to offend prudes) and probably a dozen other things that I can't remember. Lets just say if you can't get past that this is a period film, it just isn't going to be for you. AND THEN LAUREL AND HARDY SHOW UP The film has a certain moxie that I have to admire. Mind you, I enjoy Durante (ha-cha-cha) and Lupe Valez (she actually gets two of the best gags in the movie). Butterworth's droll reactions (particularly when everyone leaves him to dance) and the Three Stooges cameo work well. As mentioned above the musical numbers - while not MGM's finest - work for the most part (Eddie Quillan and June Clyde's young lovers song and dance is both fun and weird; Quillan in particular has this great expression as the two start to dance with themselves(!) that is so over the top its amazing). But the show stopper is Laurel and Hardy; they get a great routine with Tom Kennedy as the doorman who tries to keep the pair out. But the almost wordless fight between them and Valez is great and displays both of their skills to great aplomb. THE END...OR IS IT? Turns out that the film was originally longer (at least 75 minutes) but after being made was cut down to try and make better sense of it all. I'd say it didn't work - ultimately it doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's part of the fun and/or charm of the film. All we get is a 68 minute film. But even the 75 minute version may have not included everything; the last bit filmed (by the 8th director) tried to make sense of the existing footage and its clear that there are things missing (in particular look at Kennedy's black eye in his last appearance - never explained by the film - or the drop Lionardo from the plot at the 9/10ths point). This is a peculiar and particular film, certain one that is very much of its time. I enjoyed it for what it is and for the general encapsulation of pre-code MGM that it serves as. I'm not sure the film is for everyone (many will find it dull or antiquated), and yet I think for the right kind of film buff its something worth seeing once just to see an odd bit of Hollywood history if nothing else.

They did to some degree. There were less people with anonymous nicknames (but they did exist, like the guy I mentioned up-thread). I think that people were less inclined to be asshats in public with a real name associated with it but even that wasn't a guarantee. But as time went on more people created anonymous IDs or alt IDs and some of the alt. newsgroups (alt. hierarchies had a lower threshold to create and would often be abandoned and then repopulated by squatters) became the home of people who'd assail those who stumbled across their private clubhouse. And towards the end of the time I was there, the Discordians loved trying to wreck the hierarchy in general by randomly cross-posting across hierarchies and staging "invasions" and such. And there were console wars in the games newsgroup like clockwork every couple of months.

Depends on where you were at, of course. There were a lot of civil discussion, but it had its dark side too. One of the News Groups I followed, for example, had a guy who if you disagreed with his position in an argument would start a thread with the title being something like "is a child molester". And most people had their real names on their IDs (weirdly, this was one of the reasons that message boards were seen as great - the ease of being anonymous). A female writer had a falling out with a female fan who became an eStalker. There was an upper-line of admins for USENET (the USENET "gods") but for the most part they didn't intervene in the affairs of the board from a content perspective, but mostly was involved in propagating news groups, making sure votes for new groups was legit and the like. But it had its positive side as well, I interacted with writers, artists and game makers. And there were the great eccentric posters to read and good friends to talk with.

Reminds me a lot of USENET. Which was one of the problems (and features) of USENET1 and why many people went to message boards. 1I'm aware that USENET had moderated groups; they were not the norm though in my experience. You aren't misunderstanding. Gawker attacks women, such as posting Olivia Munn's texts and pictures, while related blogs in the Gawker family complain about various things. Won't even get into stuff like the Hogan sex tape, but it seems Gawker is fine with attacking people if they're the right target. Seems weird; so why are so many people who are pro-SJ's siding with Kotaku if Gawker is problematic on a whole?

RIP.

Wait, Ms. Lacy claims when talking about the negative side of the internet (right before the cesspool comment) that Gawker media attacks women, but isn't Gawker media behind Kotaku who are one of the "Social Justice" websites that think the presentation of women in games is bad? Is this weird to anyone else, or am I misunderstanding?

When you start looking at mob mentality, the idea of whether or not an individual in the mob has an ability to be self-reflective is kind of moot; the self isn't the priority with persons in a mob while the mob is active.

Probably should just shake my head and move on, but... Actually you kinda do Tale of Tales, because correlation doesn't speak to causation. There's a correlation between shark attacks on humans and swimming in the ocean, but that doesn't mean swimming in the ocean is the cause of shark attacks on humans.

Man, both Aragorn and Han Solo are going to be really disappointed to hear that romance had no place in their story... (I'd still like the space ships.) First thought was "someone has probably written some slash fiction on that".