Hmmm. That's funny. I thought Spiderman 2 was the best comic book to movie adaptation to date. And, for the record, I thought Spiderman 1 was pretty good, I liked X-Men, I thought X-Men 2 was much better, I liked the first Batman movie (the one with Keaton) but thought the rest stunk, and I even kind of liked Tank Girl (though it was still a pretty bad movie.)
Drama for children? Are you serious?
I noticed that you dropped down to AC to post that, so you must have realized few people would agree with it.
You're not buying a game machine because of the way it looks?
So, if the DS comes out, and it turns out to be the greatest hand-held game machine ever created, has a library of hundreds of great titles, great battery life, and costs less than the PSP, you still won't buy it?
All of those things made the real Fallout games great. But what are the odds that Bethesda is going to make Fallout 3 anything like that. Without the writers, designers, and programmers who made the first two great, doesn't it seem likely that Fallout 3 is just going to be another generic RPG? The Fallout games had a certain magic that no other RPG has managed to capture.
And if Bethesda decides to program Fallout 3 with a console port in mind, you can kiss that magic goodbye.
What's to fall for? They told you there were going to be two versions. They even told you when they would be released - and with the first two, the EEs were certainly delayed because they weren't done. Sounds to me like you just couldn't wait to see it again, though you could have rented the theatrical release rather than buying it.
You also have to keep in mind that Peter Jackson stated publicly, before any DVDs were released, that there would be two editions of each movie, and that fans were free to choose which one they wanted to buy. Of course, that didn't stop some people from buying both. But this is not the same thing as, say, releasing four unique editions of Terminator 2 on DVD, with very little to differentiate them, or selling a "Collector's Edition" of the Mummy that wasn't even in widescreen, then immediately releasing an "Ultimate Edition" in widescreen and with more extras. At no time has Peter Jackson or New Line attempted to cheat or otherwise expoit their fanbase. Please remember that before you start complaining again.
And ream us they may. But even if they end up charging me $5 a channel a la carte, I only need 4 channels. That $20 a month is a much better deal to me than 100 channels at $55 a month (soon to be $60). And that's just the cost of basic cable around here. The cable companies' claim that cable pirates are forcing them to raise rates, but that claim has about as much merit as the RIAA's. Until I can get just the channels I want at a reasonable rate, I'm never paying for cable again. And please know that this does not mean I steal cable (though I have no ethical qualms about doing so). At the moment, I have no cable at all. I don't even have an antenna on my TV, so even local is out, too. I'd love to be watching Comedy Central or the Food Network, but not for $55 a month!
Herzog Zwei was indeed real-time. It could be played full-screen against the computer, or split-screen against a human. And it was not hex-tile based.
From MobyGames.com:
Herzog Zwei is a real time strategy game, some historians would argue THE first real time strategy game.
The premise is that two opposing forces are in combat with one another. Each player controls a jet airplane which zooms across the screen and may turn into a ground based soldier. These ground soldiers can hurt enemy units, but can not affect bases. To take over bases scattered across the map (and ultimately, the enemy base), players must purchase new units and transport them to certain positions. In this way, the player acts more like a transport and management for different types of units rather than a combat character themselves. If the plane is ever destroyed, it restarts at the player's base location. As previously mentioned, a level is complete when either side's base is lost to the opposing forces.
I was released in 1990, so it predates Dune 2 by three years.
Actually, that wasn't it, either. The actual originator of the modern RTS genre was "Herzog Zwei." Aside from being perhaps the most innovative game released for the Sega Genesis, it was one of the most innovative games to date on any platform. And it predates Dune 2. Look it up on MobyGames.
The line was "Bring my shuttle." He says it in such a way that you can really feel his frustration. The new lines show no emotion, and give no insight into his character. They were just a way to introduce a new scene.
A kids movie? Are you nuts. Temple of Doom is the only one of the three I wouldn't take a young child to see. The very idea that an entire village has been robbed of its children, only to have them enslaved, tortured, and killed is far, far darker than Indy's illuminating quests for the Ark or the Holy grail. This movie was NOT made for children.
I never realized how truly good it was until I watched it recently.
True. The XBox is the #3 console right now - both in the US and internationally. It's a close third, but it's still third, for now. Funny, though, how a lot of third party developers insist on producing games for the #1 console (PS2) and the #3 console (Xbox) while leaving out the #2 console (GCN). Do you think MS might be dishing out money to keep this happening? If so, then their willingness to lose money on something like this might have implications for their music plans.
I would have agreed with the sentiment you express, until I bought the trilogy and watched them all (the first time I have ever seen the first two in widescreen, too). Now, I think Temple of Doom gets the shaft undeservedly. True, Spielberg calls it his least favorite, but that's mainly because it was so different from the other two. Temple of Doom was intended to be a darker film, more like Empire Strikes Back. And you know, I actually really like it. But that's just my opinion.
If not, I have to say that it also cannot be so we'll buy the EE DVD. Consider that the average moviegoer, as with the first two films, will be perfectly happy with the theatrical cut, having probably never read the books anyway. And almost all of the true fans would have bought the EE DVD anyway.
In the movie, if you remember, Sam was not present with Frodo to look in the mirror. The scenes that Frodo saw, then, of the burning of the Shire and the enslavement of the hobbits, was explained as what might happen if Frodo failed. In case you missed it, Sam was one of the hobbits in chains and being whipped by orcs, thus indicating that this was a vision of a possible future.
It's only called a ripoff if they don't tell you about the SE DVD before you buy the regular one. If you recall (and you clearly don't) Jackson announced the SE at the same time as the theatrical DVD, and even gave release dates for both so fans could choose which one they wanted to buy. Of course, that didn't stop some geeks from having to buy both, but that was their mistake.
Jackson has also said that their will be NO additional SE releases, though their may be box sets. But those sets will just be bundles of the existing versions, with no added features.
In my opinion, that is quite the opposite of a ripoff.
You weren't, by any chance, expecting the movies to be exact translations of the books, word for word, to the screen, were you? Of course not. You knew they were going to be adaptations just as everyone else did. Judging, then, from your apparent complaints against the movies, I ask you why you saw them at all, knowing as you must have that certain scenes would have to be cut/altered (who here actuallt believed Tom Bombadil would be in the movie)?
I'd love a 150 hour LotR epic just as much as the next geek. Then again, maybe I wouldn't. That's what the book is for.
IE didn't become "better" than Netscape until long after it had won the browser war. The first two or three versions were utterly terrible, yet IE still eroded Netscape's market share purely on the Windows factor.
As much as I love Apple, and as wonderful as I think that iTunes, the iPod, and the iTMS are, I fear you are right. Let's not forget the lesson of Netscape vs IE- Netscape was not just the dominant browser, it was THE browser. Then, MS started giving away IE. Then, they "incorporated" it into Win98. Pretty soon, Netscape who?
The vast majority of Windows users will, in fact, use whatever software or service that they first see when they boot up their machine. And MS is going to make damn sure that it's an MS branded music service. It doesn't matter how much it sucks, users won't switch because that takes effort.
This is what I fear will happen, and history has shown that it probably will. But I REALLY hope I'm wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. That's funny. I thought Spiderman 2 was the best comic book to movie adaptation to date. And, for the record, I thought Spiderman 1 was pretty good, I liked X-Men, I thought X-Men 2 was much better, I liked the first Batman movie (the one with Keaton) but thought the rest stunk, and I even kind of liked Tank Girl (though it was still a pretty bad movie.)
Drama for children? Are you serious?
I noticed that you dropped down to AC to post that, so you must have realized few people would agree with it.
You're not buying a game machine because of the way it looks?
So, if the DS comes out, and it turns out to be the greatest hand-held game machine ever created, has a library of hundreds of great titles, great battery life, and costs less than the PSP, you still won't buy it?
Actually, in Fallout 2 you could "fall" through the floor in a few places.
All of those things made the real Fallout games great. But what are the odds that Bethesda is going to make Fallout 3 anything like that. Without the writers, designers, and programmers who made the first two great, doesn't it seem likely that Fallout 3 is just going to be another generic RPG? The Fallout games had a certain magic that no other RPG has managed to capture.
And if Bethesda decides to program Fallout 3 with a console port in mind, you can kiss that magic goodbye.
Hmmm. This argument sounds so...familiar. I wonder why. Oh, well. Back to using my Macintosh.
What's to fall for? They told you there were going to be two versions. They even told you when they would be released - and with the first two, the EEs were certainly delayed because they weren't done. Sounds to me like you just couldn't wait to see it again, though you could have rented the theatrical release rather than buying it.
You also have to keep in mind that Peter Jackson stated publicly, before any DVDs were released, that there would be two editions of each movie, and that fans were free to choose which one they wanted to buy. Of course, that didn't stop some people from buying both. But this is not the same thing as, say, releasing four unique editions of Terminator 2 on DVD, with very little to differentiate them, or selling a "Collector's Edition" of the Mummy that wasn't even in widescreen, then immediately releasing an "Ultimate Edition" in widescreen and with more extras. At no time has Peter Jackson or New Line attempted to cheat or otherwise expoit their fanbase. Please remember that before you start complaining again.
Is it me, or did this guy just cite the holocaust in a discussion about cable TV pricing?
And ream us they may. But even if they end up charging me $5 a channel a la carte, I only need 4 channels. That $20 a month is a much better deal to me than 100 channels at $55 a month (soon to be $60). And that's just the cost of basic cable around here. The cable companies' claim that cable pirates are forcing them to raise rates, but that claim has about as much merit as the RIAA's. Until I can get just the channels I want at a reasonable rate, I'm never paying for cable again. And please know that this does not mean I steal cable (though I have no ethical qualms about doing so). At the moment, I have no cable at all. I don't even have an antenna on my TV, so even local is out, too. I'd love to be watching Comedy Central or the Food Network, but not for $55 a month!
I think we can all be absolutely certain that he is.
From MobyGames.com:
I was released in 1990, so it predates Dune 2 by three years.
Actually, that wasn't it, either. The actual originator of the modern RTS genre was "Herzog Zwei." Aside from being perhaps the most innovative game released for the Sega Genesis, it was one of the most innovative games to date on any platform. And it predates Dune 2. Look it up on MobyGames.
The line was "Bring my shuttle." He says it in such a way that you can really feel his frustration. The new lines show no emotion, and give no insight into his character. They were just a way to introduce a new scene.
A kids movie? Are you nuts. Temple of Doom is the only one of the three I wouldn't take a young child to see. The very idea that an entire village has been robbed of its children, only to have them enslaved, tortured, and killed is far, far darker than Indy's illuminating quests for the Ark or the Holy grail. This movie was NOT made for children.
I never realized how truly good it was until I watched it recently.
How sad for you.
Yes, but who here is going to admit to that? Obviously not you, Mr. A Coward.
True. The XBox is the #3 console right now - both in the US and internationally. It's a close third, but it's still third, for now. Funny, though, how a lot of third party developers insist on producing games for the #1 console (PS2) and the #3 console (Xbox) while leaving out the #2 console (GCN). Do you think MS might be dishing out money to keep this happening? If so, then their willingness to lose money on something like this might have implications for their music plans.
I would have agreed with the sentiment you express, until I bought the trilogy and watched them all (the first time I have ever seen the first two in widescreen, too). Now, I think Temple of Doom gets the shaft undeservedly. True, Spielberg calls it his least favorite, but that's mainly because it was so different from the other two. Temple of Doom was intended to be a darker film, more like Empire Strikes Back. And you know, I actually really like it. But that's just my opinion.
Pulling taffy?
Rearing Children?
Carpet bagging?
Windsurfing on Mount Baldy?
Shaking hands with Abraham Lincoln?
Was that supposed to be sarcastic?
If not, I have to say that it also cannot be so we'll buy the EE DVD. Consider that the average moviegoer, as with the first two films, will be perfectly happy with the theatrical cut, having probably never read the books anyway. And almost all of the true fans would have bought the EE DVD anyway.
Was there a fifth option?
I think it WAS for time reasons.
In the movie, if you remember, Sam was not present with Frodo to look in the mirror. The scenes that Frodo saw, then, of the burning of the Shire and the enslavement of the hobbits, was explained as what might happen if Frodo failed. In case you missed it, Sam was one of the hobbits in chains and being whipped by orcs, thus indicating that this was a vision of a possible future.
It's only called a ripoff if they don't tell you about the SE DVD before you buy the regular one. If you recall (and you clearly don't) Jackson announced the SE at the same time as the theatrical DVD, and even gave release dates for both so fans could choose which one they wanted to buy. Of course, that didn't stop some geeks from having to buy both, but that was their mistake.
Jackson has also said that their will be NO additional SE releases, though their may be box sets. But those sets will just be bundles of the existing versions, with no added features.
In my opinion, that is quite the opposite of a ripoff.
You weren't, by any chance, expecting the movies to be exact translations of the books, word for word, to the screen, were you? Of course not. You knew they were going to be adaptations just as everyone else did. Judging, then, from your apparent complaints against the movies, I ask you why you saw them at all, knowing as you must have that certain scenes would have to be cut/altered (who here actuallt believed Tom Bombadil would be in the movie)?
I'd love a 150 hour LotR epic just as much as the next geek. Then again, maybe I wouldn't. That's what the book is for.
IE didn't become "better" than Netscape until long after it had won the browser war. The first two or three versions were utterly terrible, yet IE still eroded Netscape's market share purely on the Windows factor.
As much as I love Apple, and as wonderful as I think that iTunes, the iPod, and the iTMS are, I fear you are right. Let's not forget the lesson of Netscape vs IE- Netscape was not just the dominant browser, it was THE browser. Then, MS started giving away IE. Then, they "incorporated" it into Win98. Pretty soon, Netscape who?
The vast majority of Windows users will, in fact, use whatever software or service that they first see when they boot up their machine. And MS is going to make damn sure that it's an MS branded music service. It doesn't matter how much it sucks, users won't switch because that takes effort.
This is what I fear will happen, and history has shown that it probably will. But I REALLY hope I'm wrong.
I'm shutting my mouth now. The post he's talking about makes my argument better than I can.
So, how about it, Shep?