Amentep

I would have loved it if they kept the original ending with John Connor dying and them putting his face on Marcus's body and him taking over as leader of the resistance. Ditto, that's where the film felt it was going and it would have been a nice twist on the "annointed one" storyline that had been running (with Original John Connor essentially so prepped for his "Destiny Moment" he was incapable of being a real leader).

Maybe Avellone will just be sitting in the audience to troll the Obsidian Panel.

Introduction to an Avengers 50th anniversary @ Chichester University from Mr. Macnee in 2011. Ended up watching "The Cybernauts" and "Dead Man's Treasure". Sadly I don't have copies of any of the existing Cathy Gale episodes or the Tara King season.

2nd mission in Fallout Tactics looming tonight. Hope I recognize "raider in a red jacket" contact and don't blow him away. Friendly fire...it happens.

Depends on where you live. They still find unexploded cannonballs from the US Civil War in a lot of the big battleground states. But probably not so much from 600 BC (but hey it is theoretically possible).

Rip Patrick Macnee. Going to try and squeeze in a few avengers eps tonight or tomorrow

I started belly crawling through the wasteland sniping an people's ankles in FALLOUT TACTICS, the only Fallout game I've never played.

I wouldn't have known about it at all if it hadn't become an internet issue. Mind you, I've never played a GTA game, so...

Interesting; I obviously just went through on Normal being an of-average-cleanliness normal player. But large changes to stats when I played around with the PC stats with the console didn't seem to make much of a difference in attacks outside anything that effected the deflection bonus (which seemed to make the most difference in Combat). I guess I didn't test enough spells with effects to see how the benefits worked with respect to duration.

Given the normalization of the impact of stats in the game, would bumping the stats for enemies really alter combat meaningfully? Or do the enemy stats work differently than the PC/NPC stats?

Thing is the people who believe the Confederate Stars and Bars flag means something aren't the kind who'll hear the message; they're most likely already inclined to not trust the government.

As I understand it the connection is that its Gawker Media (the owner of Kotaku and io9 amid others) that published the video (which was made in secret and published without Hogan's - or presumably his partner's - consent), so the question becomes if Kotaku is backed by a company that doesn't act ethically, how can we expect Kotaku to? This could be a spurious connection depending on reporting structure and control/lack of control between parent and subsidiaries...

So you're okay with people videotaping in secret and without consent (like they did Hogan) and subsequently releasing it to the public as long as the person involved was doing something you declare immoral? That's kind of a despicable position to take, I hope you realize. You're essentially saying that personal rights only matter for moral people and immoral people can have their rights violated because they are immoral.

The thing is that they knew enough of Rocky to make a quip about how it would be better to communicate to them in terms of more obscure directors which are lauded for their talent. So they clearly knew that Rocky as part of pop culture and they used the contrast to communicate a bit about themselves. Namely that they are pretentious twats that consume not for joy but because they want to feel superior to others. I don't think that they meant to come off that way but nature will out. BTW, if you need a good contrast of what an actual cinephile behaves like you only need to look to our own Amentep who manages to be passionate about film without being smug about it. Kudos. Thanks for the compliments.

Reminds me of Barefoot, Kentucky. Kentucky also has a "Thousandsticks" and "Topmost" amid many, many colorful placenames ("Big Bone Lick State Park")

Not that I believe the young earth theory, but logically, if an all-powerful god created the universe, then that same all-powerful god created time (it being a function of the universe), which means dating anything accurate is dependent on whether god intervened (ie god could manipulate time), which would - presumably - be impossible to detect without god intervening to say "yeah, I did it". Therefore, the earth could date to 4.5 billion years, and yet also be 6000 years old at the same time, because god intervened. I've never understood people who believe in an all powerful god fear the data of science - it seems to so devalue the ability of god who they claim to be all powerful, really. One of the interesting things to me about PoE's setup is that yes the pantheon we're introduced to are gods created by man, but while the Engwithans - we're told - could find no proof a real god (or gods) existing, it doesn't remove the idea that there's actually other gods out there that the Engwithans could never see. Yes - that is one of the most interesting parts of the PoE world. The Engwithans stopped looking and made something up. The plot twist in the sequel might involve actual gods of the world who aren't happy about the invented ones. just saw this, so apologies for a reply coming so late, but we would hate such a direction for the plot. obsidian managed to get rid o' the traditional fantasy world pantheon by making 'em human constructs. add more gods simple sends us back to proverbial square one, no? if it were Gromnir writing, we would explore the eothas death a bit more. perhaps the gods were created not so much as individuals but as a system and the system is currently broken. unfortunately, real world calamity is resulting from the failed divine system. eventual, the player gets a chance to deal with the eothas problem in a variety o' ways. fix system, effective replacing eothas with a new deity construct. another option would be to fix w/o a new eothas; make so other deities can absorb the increased load. end system, terminating the power o' the gods... which wouldn't necessarily end belief in those gods. etc. *shrug* the thing is, we don't wanna know what obsidian is gonna do. we want for obsidian to do something we do not foresee, but having reached the conclusion and looking back on the entirety o' the story, we only then realize how all the myriad pieces finally fit together and we recognize that the way obsidian did were inspired. in any event, we don't want a turtles all the way down problem by adding additional deities. HA! Good Fun! I'm not sure there is a need for an additional layer of gods; I just like the fact that they allow you to perhaps continue to have faith (if that is who your character is) even in the face of man-created Dieties either because you still believe in them or because you believe something else is better out there.

James Remar (Ajax in The Warriors) is in tonnes of films. He had a small role in RED which I watched over the weekend. He was also horribly miscast as Raiden (even moreso that Christopher Lambert).

Not sure that comparison fits; there are independent comics out there that succeed far better than some mainstream comics. So the industry is different. The move of rebadging IP characters from the Big 2 in US Comics is heavily bound to the fact that the market where comics are sold is an increasingly insular one.

Yeah I actually wrote a different scenario and I thought "you know that might work" so decided it made a terrible example shortened it to a simple shanking. Anyhow, I didn't think that Cinderella was perfect (if she was she'd have managed to circumvent a lot of the problems by having the Prince know her). I did think that her approach to being positive and forgiving tied heavily into what was established in the prologue from her mom and despite the Step-mother and the step-sisters insistance that she "wise up" and change to get what she wanted, she was ultimately vindicated in a way that says in a general sense "be yourself and you'll succeed". If she'd used the kind of behaviors her step-sisters would have it would have violated the "be true to yourself" theme, IMO.

I don't think anyone intentionally sets out to make a bad game. Its always the unintentional stuff that gets you.

While I thought CINDERELLA wasn't as strong a Live Action working of the fairy tale as some of the others have been - there certainly was room to have improved the narrative - I'm not exactly sure why making her have "worse" acts would be an improvement. Did she need to shank someone in the back to be taken seriously as a character? I just don't get it, I guess.

Even though I did the quest (because...game), I admit meeting Kolsc on the road (or tracking me down in the village) didn't exactly inspire me with a desire to support him. Seems like the Raedric quest really should have been a lot more involved than it is (and your choice is rendered moot by the game itself, in the end, as I understand it).

Nice.

Unless your basis for "merit" is "selling well", of course.

You know 1939 - the "magic" year that many point out as the "best year of Hollywood" had, from a quick glance, 37 sequels. Possibly more because I'm not as familiar with the budget westerns stars (and I'm not sure whether you count cowboy stars like Gene Autry (3 films) and Roy Rogers (1 film) where they essentially play themselves as sequels or not, as often they're a different "characters" each film or a fictional version of themselves later on) but I did count the Lone Ranger serial sequel and the 5(!) Hopalong Cassidy films of 1939.