Smersh

Je Saist - My inv/fire can still solo AVs. Haven't been nerfed yet.

But not in the Chalet.

Hey, now. Avatar:TLA is way better than everything I had cartoon-wise when I was a kid. Well, not everything, but a lot of it.

As to new Thundercats - if I see it and like it, I'll watch it. If not, then not.

That wasn't the argument that I was making, and if I'm looking for a debuffer, I'm looking for debuffing of a number of attributes, not just one. Every debuffing defender primary debuffs a number of attributes, and I would not personally consider a FF/Rad a 'debuffer'.

That does not mean I don't consider the debuffs from /rad to be useful debuffs. They're just one-dimensional, and teams looking for a debuffer usually look for multi-dimensional debuffers.

I, of course, usually have a debuffer on my team already when I'm recruiting and take whoever shows up. Doing the hard stuff means I, ahem, have a cold/rad defender on my team, oddly enough.

We're talking Defenders here. The debuff isn't necessarily for you, it's for the level 36 blaster with yellow SOs that you brought along on the ITF. Or the level 15 scrapper from your SG you brought along on your tip missions.

It appears to have replaced the 'leaning forward' eye beam animation.

That is... new as far as I know. And really really neat.

Well, that and bio-engineering an entire ecosystem. Not to mention the sheer energy requirements.

As far as I was concerned, that was actually the best... I really felt that Wally West grew into the role of Flash very nicely.

I think that DC made a mistake bringing Barry back, actually.

I think Warden was actually calling you out on not giving *context* for Ebert's statement.

I got it, because I read a news story about it. Not everyone did, and "Roger Ebert said WHAT on Twitter!?!?" would be an understandable reaction for someone who didn't have the context. On the face of it, it certainly looks like a racist statement by Ebert, and it could be incorrectly inferred that you were referring to Ebert as such.

As to the rest: It doesn't matter if anyone asked his opinion on censorship, he's free to offer it, and whatever opinions he has, whenever he wants. You can call it narcissism, go ahead.

In my opinion, and that's the opinion of someone who used to do the occasional bit of academic film criticism for the sheer fun of it - a critic with a basic familiarity with the medium is easily able to cross between theater, film, and literature; and probably to comic books and video games as well. (Incidentally, that is why Ebert cannot view games as art: he just doesn't have the basic familiarity with the medium.) Issues of censorship have had an impact across all of those media, and it is utterly appropriate for any number of people to comment on censorship in any sort of media. It is perfectly sensible for someone who makes their living by associating with the arts - and that includes film - to have strong opinions on the matter of censorship.

(I have already made my opinion known on Ebert's statement - he could have done it better, and Twitter and Facebook are horrible means for communicating nuanced views, and I wish that more public figures knew that.)

Lots of film and literature that is not strictly religious in the purest sense still use Christ-like chosen one characters. It's a common enough framework in Western culture, and one that goes way back. Lord Jim is not a religious book by any means, but Jim is still treated as a Christ figure, right down to a pseudo-crucifixion at the end.

There are matters of degree and scope, of course, but you can just as easily argue that Optimus Prime is treated as a Christ-like figure.

Not all chosen ones are Christ figures, of course, but Neo pretty explicitly is, from the virgin birth into the real world to the crucifixion at the end of Revolutions. The traitor in the crew in the first film? Called Cypher, and is a call out to Lucifer.

Anyhow... using the metaphor does not make a story religious in nature.

Yes, but it pulled from other sources as well. The second and third movies pulled in a lot more of the Christ metaphor at the expense of the epistemological issues, which made them a lot less interesting from a philosophical standpoint. The Christ symbolism is the bit that stuck around, mostly because the Brothers W used up all the other stuff they had in the first movie.

Nolan didn't get a Best Director nod... it's rare (though possible) for a picture to win Best Picture without also picking up Best Director.

I always liked the idea that the prophecy was misinterpreted, and Agent Smith was the One who could hack through multiply recursive Matrices.

An unpowered Wonder Woman on television puts a bullet in the head of any proposed Justice League movie. A powered Wonder Woman, not so much.

If you're running a high-recharge attach chain, the Achilles Heel proc stays up fairly constantly. I have to admit, I haven't played with the Fury of the Gladiator in my Dual Blades character. A quick look at the numbers indicates that you're right - the debuff would likely be up more than it's down, but not 100% of the time.

All true - though Electric Armor has lightning reflexes to increase the available recharge, and Ice Armor is immune to recharge debuffs. Both might be worth considering for a Dual Blades tanker.

So... it'll be this. Not what I think of first when I think of Wonder Woman.

I agree with this comment. That is exactly how Cap should move.

I do want to kick some people... Twitter and Facebook are not good venues for ideas that require nuance, which Ebert's statement required. He was making a stand against censorship in one part, and pointing out that bigotry exists but is better than slavery on the other. Neither of which easily come across in a tweet. If he'd put out an essay on the subject (as he has been known to do - reference his "Why video games will never be art") I think that his point would have come across better and less offensively. You can disagree with his conclusions, but he usually makes a valid argument, and I suspect he would have in this case.

Ebert does great reviews. I don't always agree with him, but I can usually tell whether I will like a movie based on his reviews.

And, unlike some reviewers, he is candid about why he doesn't care for some movies - he will reference news stories or political issues when talking about his view of a movie. His viewings don't occur in a vacuum, and he admits it.