Smersh

Originally Posted by MrCaptainMan

As a passing laugh every now and then (at xmas on the waycto the lodge for example), her deadpan responses are amusing punchlines, but when you see their exchanges every day for hours, she starts looking like an evil harridan. I mean, jeez, it's not like she's got dozens of suitors, is it?

Talk about Miss Haversham.

Eco

Originally Posted by TheDeepBlue

Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by Durakken

You know, one of the greatest problems I have with this nonsense is that according to all the crackpot conspiracy theorists were right in like even 1 of the thousands of claims they make about new world orders, reptilians, mayan calenders, etc I would be one of the people in on it...and if it any more of it were true I'd be one of the most in on it people so I can say without a doubt that there is nothing like what they suggest happening.

Of course I could be saying that to confuse you! Who knows.

Originally Posted by DeviousMe

Can't really say specifically, as it'd depend on a number of factors (chiefly the mass and course of said dwarf star, naturally), but there'd definitely be a few orbital shifts, some larger, some smaller. The worst-case scenario (for Earth) would of course be a collision, with too close a pass sending the planet careening out of the system entirely a close second.

However, one must keep in mind that even with a dwarf star around, Sol is still the big boy on the block. And I mean big. It's got power. Which means that on the opposite extreme, nothing might happen at all, save us having to write new tide charts on a regular basis.

In either case though, an object that massive entering this system can easily be detected via the gravitational 'warp' it drags around. We'd see orbit shifts in small celestial bodies (asteroids, Ceres, heck, probably Pluto), deviations in solar wind and cosmic particle patterns, etc. So unless Elenin happens to be a dwarf star half composed of exotic matter, we'd have noticed something by now, and it wouldn't be earthquakes.

Originally Posted by Megajoule

These are both awesome, IMO.

Originally Posted by Nameless_Hero

Hey Smersh! Long time no see! You're still in game right?

Originally Posted by Desi_Nova

yeah but Sam Raimi knows how to do more with less. (not to mention helping make Bruce Campbell's career"

Originally Posted by BrandX

Still seeing it.

I'm seeing a lot of "Good but misses the mark" "Lots of action, summer block bustery goodness" they all seem to be knocking it for "serious at times, comedy at others"

Havent read a review from a GL fan, but I wouldn't trust a GL fan to review the movie to save their lives as a lot of fan reviews end up like this "Doesn't follow the comic so it sucks" (paraphrasing of course).

Originally Posted by Residentx10

Did I say S. was dumb? I believe I said couldn't keep her attention...

Originally Posted by Residentx10

My point is that he couldn't even keep the attention of a young woman which isn't that hard. Can we/should expect something paranormal in GL?
I bet S had a good laugh when he was made sexiest man alive

Originally Posted by Residentx10

Are you surprised? It has "Ryan Reynolds" as the main character!!!!!

He's like Mr. Shallow, he couldn't even keep Scarlett J. and she is almost 10 years younger than him. If you can't keep a clueless young woman like her...you are pathetic.

Originally Posted by BrandX

Was I the only one hoping to see some rocket booster action there?

Originally Posted by Mr_Squid

That, and I feel like a lot of people (not just the reviewers in question) seem to think that cynicism = funny. It doesn't. Done RIGHT being overly cynical can be funny, but when it's done wrong it just makes you sound whiny, pessimistic, and well...boring. It's one of the reasons I stopped watching Yahtzee, it seemed like he started to rely less on jokes and more on lengthy author tracts about how terrible and awful the games industry is.

Now if you want to see an example of a reviewer who can be humorous AND optimistic, check out Vangelus. He's one of the few people out there who reviews toys in a semi-professional fashion, and is really funny about it too.

Check out his youtube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Vange1us

and he recently joined That Guy With the Glasses!

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vid...lus/vanreviews

Originally Posted by Psiphon

The point I was trying to make is that the playstyle is static compared to SD's. Once you've picked your spot it's a matter of staying there relaying the Burn patch while keeping the mobs in it. I find that SD's allows more movement without dimishing the damage.

Originally Posted by Psiphon

My other point is purely preference, FA with burn patch is a very static playstyle - you drop the patch and you pull the mobs onto the patch.

Originally Posted by Ironik

Indie comic book writer/artist Allison Bechdel's "Movie Test", now called "The Bechdel Test". From her 1985 comic book, whose title would get censored here.

I think the first one also specified that they had to have names.

Edit: added the link.

Originally Posted by Durakken

I haven't seen PotC, Fast Five, or Kung Fu Panda 2, but I would rank Thor above this and probably KFP2 equal to or better than Thor...while Pirates would likely come under that as equal or better than this, just based on genre and what I know I like...and Fast Five would get negative points >.>

Xavier saying things like "they'll never accept you that way" and "we got to hide" and things like that are signs of a weak and overall negative outlook on the situation and this is antithetical to Xavier's character who is a loud and proud mutant who wants the X-Men in the spotlight to show what good mutants are doing. Xavier is the complete opposite of what a "visibility" movement leader should be in this film and they don't have him showing signs of changing either.

Emma Frost's scenes all played to what I know about her character (though the whole squeezing a lady wrapped in diamonds to get her to change back is kinda dumb I dunno exactly how her powers work, but that is still dumb). I have a feeling though that this was more due to the actress than the writer... I mean her main scenes were walking into a place in underwear and giving a psychic lapdance...

In fact, thinking back on it, the Female characters were all pretty silent and almost always half naked or completely naked, so getting Emma Frost accurate to the point the movie did is no large feet considering she doesn't have to talk be clothed for most of it.

And now that I think about the movie really gave off an anti-feminist vibe with all the nakedness, lack of females talking, the talking of not accepting based on looks, angel saying the way she didn't like the way the guards looked at her... it seems to me that the entire movie centered around how they should look or want to look rather than this issue that they're dangerous to themselves and others and either that new paradigm has to be accepted or curtailed... even the main villain with all his power ultimately was relying on nuclear missiles which doesn't show how dangerous he and mutants are but rather how dangerous mankind is to itself.


Like I said, badly written and the more I think on it the worse I tend to view it.