I hate being premature.

It is a let down for everyone involved.

srsly ? aww 1/10 thats a let down.

DAMN YEE SIFTBOT ! DAMN YEE !

Despite being let down in the second half, this film scared the crap out of me. I had no idea there were vampires going in, so when they turned up I lost it.

I wasn't going to watch this, as I was severely let down by Prometheus and thought this would just annoy me.

1:40 in and yup, they are two fan boys with waaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on their hands to try to justify themselves liking the movie.

Man, if you like the movie, that's fine, but if you feel you need to feel superior to everyone else for liking it, because you 'get' it but no-one else does... grow the fuck up.

It was a poorly constructed movie that squandered so much potential. If you enjoy it despite that, cool, but don't try to tell those of us who were really fucking annoyed by it that it was actually a good movie and we didn't 'get it'. We 'GOT' it. It was poorly written. The end.

>> ^kymbos:

Spoiler alert
Am I the only one who is just a tad let down by this season? Breaking Bad is the best TV since Deadwood in my opinion, but previous series have had me constantly on the edge of my seat. This one, I'm just kind of watching play out. I mean, season 4 - come on. That was gripping.
The last two episodes where Walter just becomes the kingpin and makes piles of money just left me a little empty...


I'm impressed that they like to be different. Working for Fring and the eventual high stakes is actually the kind of plot which they could have ended the entire show with the implication that White takes over, completing his ascent (or descent if you like).

If they didn't take chances they would still be stuck in that RV and we might never have had a Fring.

Season [edit] 5 [/edit] was impressive because it was about getting back into the saddle and the writers engineering the plot developments logically from what went before. I've always loved that about the show and the way they still get to focus on these characters and also extract great acting performances. Jonathan Banks was outstanding. And Dean Norris' awkward face when Walter visited his office was priceless.

As for pure gripping tension I think Dead Freight delivered in spades.

I know what you mean by "empty". I suspect this is how Walter feels after all his accomplishments, most of which seem to be about staying below DEA radar. Could they have moved him to a new location and allow him to develop into a Fring-style respected businessman with a dark secret? But then that would be close to repetition.

Spoiler alert

Am I the only one who is just a tad let down by this season? Breaking Bad is the best TV since Deadwood in my opinion, but previous series have had me constantly on the edge of my seat. This one, I'm just kind of watching play out. I mean, season 4 - come on. That was gripping.

The last two episodes where Walter just becomes the kingpin and makes piles of money just left me a little empty...

These people aren't "participating in the system" because said participation requires great wealth. Those with great wealth have no interest in such an agenda.

Conversely, the Tea Party was an inadvertently pro-corporate movement quietly backed by millions of corporate dollars. That is why it worked. Ever seen footage of police quelling a Tea Party rally? There is no equivalency between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement.


>> ^Darkhand:

I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I think you are misunderstanding my point.
The problem is from what I have seen the people trying to enact change don't actually participate in the system. So other than marching, and banging on drums, and protesting they aren't actually accomplishing anything.
The Tea Party might not be the most successful group but it sure as hell worked in a lot of their endeavors. I haven't seen the Liberal Version of the tea party yet and I don't think I will.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^petpeeved:
The revolution will not have a permit.

There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.
Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.
Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.
Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.

You seem to think that only violence can change the system at this point? I honestly don't know if there is any hope of reforming the government via policy and procedure but I doubt violence would change anything for the better either.
I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.
If there is one thing we should socialize, it's the political process itself. We have spending caps on pro sports teams; we should have spending caps on political campaigns as well. Give all the major candidates free television and media coverage during the election season. Eliminate corporate contributions entirely etc.
We just need to turn politics into a job that attracts people for the right reason: public service, as opposed to the reason most seem to get involved these days: personal aggrandizement.
Romney's fundraisers are aiming to raise a billion dollars to win this election. I'm sure Obama's are aiming for as close to that figure as possible too.
This is the root of all the problems we face as a nation, imo. It's all about the money needed to buy an election.

I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I think you are misunderstanding my point.

The problem is from what I have seen the people trying to enact change don't actually participate in the system. So other than marching, and banging on drums, and protesting they aren't actually accomplishing anything.

The Tea Party might not be the most successful group but it sure as hell worked in a lot of their endeavors. I haven't seen the Liberal Version of the tea party yet and I don't think I will.

>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^petpeeved:
The revolution will not have a permit.

There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.
Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.
Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.
Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.

You seem to think that only violence can change the system at this point? I honestly don't know if there is any hope of reforming the government via policy and procedure but I doubt violence would change anything for the better either.
I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.
If there is one thing we should socialize, it's the political process itself. We have spending caps on pro sports teams; we should have spending caps on political campaigns as well. Give all the major candidates free television and media coverage during the election season. Eliminate corporate contributions entirely etc.
We just need to turn politics into a job that attracts people for the right reason: public service, as opposed to the reason most seem to get involved these days: personal aggrandizement.
Romney's fundraisers are aiming to raise a billion dollars to win this election. I'm sure Obama's are aiming for as close to that figure as possible too.
This is the root of all the problems we face as a nation, imo. It's all about the money needed to buy an election.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^petpeeved:
The revolution will not have a permit.

There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.
Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.
Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.
Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.


You seem to think that only violence can change the system at this point? I honestly don't know if there is any hope of reforming the government via policy and procedure but I doubt violence would change anything for the better either.

I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.

If there is one thing we should socialize, it's the political process itself. We have spending caps on pro sports teams; we should have spending caps on political campaigns as well. Give all the major candidates free television and media coverage during the election season. Eliminate corporate contributions entirely etc.

We just need to turn politics into a job that attracts people for the right reason: public service, as opposed to the reason most seem to get involved these days: personal aggrandizement.

Romney's fundraisers are aiming to raise a billion dollars to win this election. I'm sure Obama's are aiming for as close to that figure as possible too.

This is the root of all the problems we face as a nation, imo. It's all about the money needed to buy an election.

>> ^petpeeved:

The revolution will not have a permit.


There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.

Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.

Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.

Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.

Oh wow, got to see this! Love the original Starship Troopers, the sequels were a let-down so I hope this is as spectacular as the first film

>> ^AeroMechanical:

>> ^Payback:
>> ^kceaton1:

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

Air Force One?

cough Hudson Hawk cough Armageddon cough


While both those films are fairly bad, they are FAR more watchable than the true dregs of movies that have been made by people such as Uwe Boll or M. Night Shyamalan--when M.N.S. made a good show, followed by a decent one, and then proceeded to believe that he made the best films man had ever bear witness to. Plus we both know that there was an audience (and a large one for Armageddon) for BOTH of those movies and also Air Force One, @Payback; sure, they weren't me and you (or @Payback), but there are a lot of people in this world that do not ask very much from their movies.

It's when a movie lets down EVEN THEM that it is a pure and utter failure, able to be ridiculed without equal until the end of time. These are the worst films made. Of course many of the movies that DO succeed, like Prometheus right now (June 2012--for reference), can be made fun of A LOT (like Armageddon, which has been the punchline to many jokes). Why? Because, they have MASSIVE disconnects from reality or other bad writing and screenplay mechanics that they are just ridiculous when thought about with any amount of real thought and prowess in a subject dealing with the movie and it's attempt to portray reality in another light that is utterly false. As I said they appeal to the "entertainment" type audience; someone that would go see Independence Day over and over again. Not to us were we watch someone take off a helmet in a potential zero atmosphere environment "to test it out"; that is UTTER NONSENSE, no one does this in reality! This is the stuff that makes us hate those movies (and create the myriad of jokes for it as well). But, not the entertainment crowd who can enjoy a movie for what it is and suspend their connection with reality for awhile.

Granted if I were to use my "full-on" reviewing analysis of what I would include as good movies--the count of "alright" movies would plummet (for Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis). I can think of atleast 3-4 shows that Bruce has been in that I would consider failures in this light, but I know that many people beyond me DO like these movies--that is why I don't count them as failures as there remains an audience--a decently sized one--for those movies. I have to admit I have my own "cult" movie favorites that no-one likes, really, except for me and maybe a few other people I know. I also have been able to like movies for their entertainment value although I know if I treat them with reality they fall completely apart, quickly. Sometimes it's best to let your imagination rule your heart.

Same thing here. I'm just not on the end of the spectrum that enjoys those movies, if you get my drift. So, trust me, I know Bruce has his bad movies (same with Harrison Ford)--but his bad movies, so far, are better than the real dregs and bottom scraped-up leftovers that are out there. That is what I was trying to say in a lot less context--I hope this clears it up. We most likely see things fairly close or the same; I'm just giving credit to the people that DO like Hudson Hawk, Armageddon, and Air Force One.

>> ^Fantomas:

I was pretty damned impressed by how he snuck some of those titles in.
I was hoping for Suffragette City, but was disappointed.


I was only slightly let down he didn't find a way to get my favorite, The Bewlay Brothers, in there somehow.

My bad on D1 dungeons.

There will always be cookie-cutter builds. And besides, when you're talking about 'the' build, you're talking about the ideal items to have, the vast majority of people will never get there. Meanwhile, the options for 'best with what you have' varied heaps. I played D3 through with a Monk, and the entire time, the only stats that felt worthwhile chasing were damage, dexterity and vitality.

I'm not saying it didn't have dark elements, but vast portions of the story, dialogue and tone, particularly after Act 1 (which I thought was best part of the game), where juvenile and completely off for a Diablo game. I mean for christ sake, the game delved into damsel in distress territory multiple times. Anyway posted this elsewhere, going to just copy paste:

1. Story tone is horribly off for a Diablo game. Act 1, the tone is almost that right mix of dark, macabre & grim horror albeit with overly colourful graphics. Then, in Act 2 and especially 3/4 the game becomes flat out goofy. It's almost like different studios designed the two parts. Regardless, it's obvious the whole gothic, cheesy but serious tone of previously Diablo games has been thoroughly ditched.

It becomes obvious there is a reason that most of the prime evils were mostly mute & why your characters was kept to making sarcastic remarks and one liners in D2. Diablo beretting you with grating "if it wasn't for your meddling kids" dialogue completely ruins the game's tone. Overall the mix of occasional ultra-violence and the overt colourfulness and childish NPC banter gives it an almost surreal and contradictory theme. As if a design house was of two minds, fighting over dominance over the franchise's feel.

There was just no need to muck with what was not broken to the point that it's hard for me to NOT imagine Activision sitting behind the developers dictating them how well the WoW tone sits with target demographics. There is nothing wrong with WoW existing in its own space with it's own unique identity. There's a problem with creative variety between Blizzard games becoming non-existent because they've caught on to what sells best and decided to stick to that.

As for launch issues, I didn't play D2 at launch, but that's not what really bugs me. It is abundantly obvious though that foisting online-only is part of the reason they're having so many launch issues.

Here's my full bitch session - http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5149543659

>> ^mentality:

>> ^RedSky:
@mentality
D2 felt like a huge leap on D1. Randomized dungeons, huge increase in class and especially item variety, introduction of a vast swathe of new environments. In comparison critically looking at D3, while it does have an expanded skills system, at the end of a prodigious 11 year development cycle, D3 has far less item variety at launch, and arguably simplified gameplay mechanics on a number of levels.
Personally, I happen to also think the story is a let down, the tone of the game has been inappropriately been made cartoonish (art design non-withstanding).

D1 had randomized dungeons. Item variety in D2 was very limited because there often was one set of unique item that was 'THE' item for a specific build. The expanded environments in D2 were also very cartoony compared to the dungeons of D1, and calling D3 cartoonish with levels like the Halls of Agony is outright ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that the grass is always greener, and we all look at the past with rose colored glasses. History repeats itself, but it seems like few people remember all the problems, controversy and bitching surrounding Diablo 2's launch.