Amentep

Sure they mock the old religion - the Sith only have two force users, the Master and the Apprentice. The order itself is considered long gone. But you seem to be working under the assumption that any opinion held by a religion must be related to mystical or spiritual matters which doesn't seem to be true. Obi-Wan did not say that it was a mystical or mysterious power, though. Yes? Or they had super-charged midichlorians that channeled the Force (" an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together") in a greater degree than others. Not really. It is still unknown. You could still debate whether it is the hand of the Creator directly the bestows midichlorians on the blessed family lines (not unlike the "Divine Right of Kings" theory) or a creation of the creator that passes like genetics from parent to child. Midichlorians are, ultimately, a handwave. They don't explain anything and I confess that I've never understood why people felt it took the "magic" out of Star Wars. Why would the existence of XYZ gene make Chi crap in your example? There's nothing necessarily mutually exclusive about an XYZ gene providing Chi power and Shaolin Training being the way to tap that Chi power that would make one invalidate the other.

^And my point is it was never mystic. I'm not talking about the Jedi Order - they were mystics as represented by Obi-Wan. But something that surrounds and binds everything and is in everyone isn't mystical. That would be like saying that magnetism was mystical.

I like it all. Turn based, RTwP, RT. Mostly its how its implemented that's important. That said I like TB just because its easier to play a game and watch TV with.

When the sex-cut scene starts, be sure to yell "THIS IS FOR YOU, BRUCE!"

I'll admit, it was this trailer that sold me on the game (I was coming into Fallout after I'd played BG1 and IWD so other than mixed reviews and the giant grey dude on the box, I didn't know much about PST at the time). Was a bit thrown off when none of the game music was like the trailer music.

Well I was hoping we'd see a Giant Green Walking guy like in the original Planescape: Torment (around 0:35). Mind you, he didn't appear in Planescape: Torment the game, but you know eventually we'll get a game with a giant green walking guy that has Torment in its name. I want to believe!

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. Energy field that ONLY people with a lot of "X-gene" can manipulate and use it. That is why it is no longer mystical/miraculous, all you need is "X-gene" Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you (or you I); Obi-Wan hasn't been proven incorrect that the Force is a mundane element of the Star Wars universe. It still surrounds and penetrates and binds the galaxy regardless or how many people can manipulate it. Its still a mundane, natural element of the Star Wars universe.

Given that its a luzarius thread, I expected diagrams showing how Cassandra's face maps to a "mans" skull.

lol, what a dumbass. All I got from that article is an overriding sense of "Ha ha ha! I have a PHD and am an ACADEMIC! HA ha ha!" What I got from it is that twitter is a piss-poor platform for serious discussion - if anyone wanted that and honestly with all the twitterage that goes with every. single. event. that. happens. ever. its pretty damn clear that the majority of people posting on twitter aren't interested in a serious discussion.

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...