Amentep

At least its obsessing over the looks of a digital women in a digital media. Its not like anyone does it in real life. "Forget it, Jake. It's the Internet."

Game sounds interesting; will look to play it sometime in the future.

I think Activision Blizzard owns the rights to the game (having bought Sierra Entertainment, who AFAIK owned the rights to Arcanum).

^To be clear, I wasn't saying the movie needed more character development. Nor that Furiosa wasn't an interesting character. And Nux does have the strongest character arc so I wouldn't disagree with those who think he's the only one with a character arc.

Obi-Wan in STAR WARS - "It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." Obi-Wan specifically says all living things are connected to the force, that's mundane - not miraculous.

^Nux and Capable, Max, and the Splendid Angharad are arguably the only characters in the film with real character arcs. Furiosa is a driving force in the movie, but her character doesn't really change or grow, really.

^I wouldn't be surprised if part of the cost was vehicle related since they chose to go with practical effects. That said, adjusting for US Dollars (USD) and then inflation gives a slightly different perspective. Mad Max was filmed in 1977 for about $400,000 USD which would be $1.5 million USD now. Road Warrior was filmed in 1981 for about 7 million USD which would be about $18 million USD now. Fury Road is estimated to have a 150 Million budget which seems a large increase (bigger that Star Wars' 75 budget of 11 million (50 million in today's dollars) comparing to the 4x larger Force Awakens budget), and that makes me wonder if some of the production costs incurred during earlier cycles when they tried to film this was rolled into the final cost (this was the third time the film came up for filming)?

Wow...that seems a bit harsh. What is the definition of a " paupers grave " ? It means different things in different times. What I mean is that the state - as I understand it now - pays for a cremation, a basic urn, and the urn to be interred somewhere in a participating cemetery.

My understanding is most funeral homes will try to work out a payment plan with the bereaved. And the state will pay for minimum cost burials (that's the "paupers grave" that Gfted mentions) albeit I think its actually more often burial after cremation now.

Musical comedies about an all-female a cappella group entering singing competitions, in classic "underdog tries to win" fashion.

Do you mean an unblurry 3d instead of 2d? Because you don't need polarised glasses for 2d. If you meant 3d, then wearing polarized glasses won't do anything to make the 3d unblurry. It will still look blurry with one eye whilst wearing polarized glasses because each lens is different for each eye. http://science.howstuffworks.com/3-d-glasses2.htm In the above link, a person with one eye is only getting half the picture and it's still blurred. Okay so what I am saying is this: If you go see a 3D film without glasses the picture will be blurry, one eye or two eyes. It is blurry because they are projecting two different complete film images frame by frame that overlap. What the glasses do is break the films into a left and right channel. Polarization does this by cutting out specific light wave types. For 3D to work, you need two full images that are slightly shifted through the depth of field the way the binocular vision normally works; the polarized glasses will insure that Left-Image goes into Left Eye and Right-Image goes into Right Eye by cutting out the other image (which is at the wavelength the polarized lens cuts out). If done right your mind will put the two images together and create a depth of field - just as it does in everyday life where the "shift" of the angle of light creates the perception of depth. Therefore you should be able to - with one eye - watch a 3D movie using the glasses. It should look like a normal 2D presentation of a film. You should see the film based on one of the two displayed images, therefore the picture would be 2D to you but the key is that it shouldn't be blurry unless there is some other eye or perception issue at work as long as you are wearing the 3D glasses (and thus eliminating the second image from your eye's perception). Mind you if I had one eye, I wouldn't want to pay the extra $$$ to see a 3D screening, but that's a different issue entirely.

No, not only do you need both eyes to see 3D but also both eyes need to be the same. The 3D effect doesn't work for me because my left eye isn't as good as my right eye. And one eye definitely doesn't work. I didn't say (or mean to imply) you could see 3d with one eye. What I meant was that a person with one eye, wearing polarized glasses should be able to watch an unblurry 2d version of the film. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Could be something else with his eyes than just the lack of vision in the one eye.

I want more information before forming an opinion.

^weird, I would have thought wearing the glasses would have removed entirely the other image even with polarized lenses. In fact, looking it up online, that is supposed to be what happens. It'll look like a fuzzy mess to anyone watching it without glasses (same was true with red-green 3d) because there's nothing to cancel the double image.

You're right, that called for a square response... No need for reflex responses...

Technically, being a 90 degree angle, its neither acute nor obtuse but I guess "That's a right joke" didn't play in Peoria...

My guess is all that stuff is from the pilot.

Interesting, I'll see if I can get a chance to see either.

I wasn't crazy about arrow, and flash has yet to completely hook me, But I liked the legends of tomorrow promo

It reminds me of a somewhat better take on some of the ideas that were present in that wonder woman pilot a few years back.

Not really seeing a familial resemblance (if that's intended by common last name).

^Where's William Shatner when you need him?

Marvel is - more or less - ending their multiverse (as it is now). For about 6 months almost every title will be tied - in some way - to the new Battleworld that was created by Dr. Doom manipulating the end of the universe. Its my understanding that the Ultimates line will end and be incorperated into the new Marvel U. It is heavily rumored that the X-Titles will end up with their own universe to play with (whether it be a literal universe, their own planet, whatever) and FF is being split up for an unknown amount of time.

Do you have any recomendations?