Time for a dump in a bag in a theatre.

Which in the related movie theatre etiquette vid they translated as "family jewels". Makes sense.

Yep, I've gone from "meh, superman" to "hey this actually looks cool".

But honestly, the marketing side is really starting to grate. I want to watch a friggin movie. I am NOT going to eat Burger Kings shitty food or buy a freakin' Nokia. And if Superman goes for a burger or talks about how awesome his phone is during the movie, I'm walking out of the theatre.

This is the "official" list but I know for a fact it is not updated http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos.html#Theatres

Tunging wimmen in the theatre?? Ahh civilization!

Lulz....since when can you legally confiscate anything anywhere even if its on your property? (BTW she was a building manager not an owner)

But sir...i didn't steal their wallet. I CONFISCATED it. Carry on then....

You're lucky you were able to bully those laser-pointer KIDS into giving you their pointer. They could have easily told you to buzz-off. Then What? Then you could have either awkwardly sat back down or you could have been the 'crazy lady' in a movie theatre.

The only legal thing to do is have a chat and if that doesn't work, call the authorities.

When I first saw this at theatres I never noticed the lens flare thing. But once it was pointed out to me, I can't see anything else... (See what I did there.)

Abrams film left me feeling 'meh' so I'll catch the next one at home...

I saw this movie in theatres (Ebert cred).

Gonna throw out what will probably be an unpopular dissenting opinion.

To quote Harlan Ellison: Pay the fucking writer.

I am pretty much the only person I know who doesn't download/torrent/stream media.

I'd love to, but I genuinely believe in rewarding creators, even if that creator is "Hollywood" or "labels" or whatever other faceless entity that can afford to be ripped off.

Amanda Palmer didn't come out of obscurity and raise $1.2 million on kickstarter. She was an established artist. An unknown band down the road won't raise that money.

Oh and since people are gonna hate this anyway, living statues are the single least creative bit of street theatre ever.

Rant over

They did, the theatre all I was in groaned when the one paper plane it the side of the window. Everyone was cheering for that guy =)

The mission generally dictates the engineering and design of a mechanical system. The Buran and the Shuttle are prime examples. The new X-37 resembles both in general shape because a reusable "space plane" needs certain specific physical characteristics.

The Mig-25 looks like the F-15 because both were originally designed as high altitude, high mach interceptors. The demand placed on the system by the overly large engines dictates the shape.

The basic principles of radar "stealth" dictate certain shapes to be effective. The Have-Blue shape was effective against high frequency radar through deflection. As materials technology advanced, e.g. radio absorbing materials, more aerodynamic shapes could be implemented and still retain "stealthy" characteristics, if not improve upon them.

All the F-22 vs Pak50, M1a1 Abrams vs T80 videos are funny. The 1 versus 1 advantages are fun to debate, but its the entire system that wins or loses the fight. In the same vein, its common knowledge that German armor in WW2 was vastly superior to American armor in every technical way. Similarly, German fighter aircraft were more maneuverable than the P-47s and P-51s that they fought. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, this superiority was not enough to defeat the allied system as it rolled east across Europe.

The term 5th generation does not define the aircraft themselves, but the system they belong to. If you read wikipedia, this does not mesh, but the wiki values maneuverability (which is inherently limited by the pilot), stealth features (limited by current materials and design), advanced avionics (what does this mean?) and multi-role capabilities (we have had this since the 1980's). The key to 5th generation fighters and its defining characteristic is the ability to integrate the new fighters with every other piece of war equipment in the theatre, not just in tactical use, but the total meshing of sensors and 2-way data links. Its the difference between a war of attrition and a war of "look first, shoot first".

The Russians appear to be building an excellent stealth fighter that looks sexy as hell. The Chinese are doing the same. What they both lack at the current time is the "backend" systems to make these new 5th generation-esque vehicles fully capable. The Pak50 and the J20 won't be sharing targeting data with their Navy or other ground forces anytime soon.

Two points come to mind, strictly from the perspective of an armchair general.

First, you need first class logistics as well as industrial capacity to run a doctrine of fire superiority continously over lengthy periods of time. If you can't supply your troops adequatly, suppressive fire becomes a luxury. Basically, industrial prowess allows you to sacrifice resources instead of soldiers. The Sowjets, on the other hand, had ample manpower reserves, yet limited logistical capacities, leaving human waves as a doctrine.

Second, I suppose it's much easier on your nerves to be "pro-active" about incoming fire than to just wait for an opportune moment. The vast majority of soldiers in major wars were civilians with comparatively little training. During the later years of World War 2, for instance, the difference between seasoned Wehrmacht divisions and reserve/Volkssturm units was enormous, despite acute ammunition shortage in the entire European theatre. Interestingly enough, even the replacement of bolt action rifles with semi-auto rifles such as the G43 didn't increase ammo consumption as much as one might expect.

*spoilers*

tesserect was explained more in "Captain America" and being as this is effectively a culmination of all the previous movies, it shouldn't be detrimental to expect people to have seen the previous movies.

2 Asian extras killed in a row? I guess that's there for comedies sake, but I hardly see how that's against the movie again.

The little girl can find banner because he's helping cure the native population of some plague, and it even says in the movie "You found me?" "We never lost you".

The "Second pissing contest" was the exact reason loki wanted to be captured in the first place. He wanted to turn the Avengers against each other so they'd never work together, crossing two points off right there.

The entire alien invasion is a threat because it's demolishing the city. Just because we never actively see anybodies head explode in a family movie, doesn't mean that people aren't getting killed. The city is in flames, and buildings are being destroyed. Kinda doubt everybody is totally okay in that.

I could go on, but I really feel that if I do my nerd muscle will explode. Seriously, I saw the movie twice, both times when it was in theatres months ago, and I still managed to explain 6 of his points away with ease.

I remember being stunned when I first saw that. A few months later I watched it again in a university lecture and the whole theatre stood up and applauded the first fight scene

Awesome movie. too bad they never made any sequels.

*promote *Canada's cultural exports to the *Asian theatre of operations