I scheduled a personal day back in April of 2004 when they announced the release date (yeah, that's right, a full 13 months ago). I know it's a geeky thing to do, but at the university where I work I knew there would be competition for time off and I didn't want to miss my chance.
From the "Be Careful What You Wish For" department: a year ago or so the suits at WB wanted to make a Green Lantern project starring (hold on to your emerald power battery) Jack Black!
Not that I don't like Jack, he's super funny and cool in an awkward way. But he's no superhero. If they do GL, I want to see it done with the same iconic goodness that was used when Donner gave us Superman or Burton gave us Batman. I don't want to see the Lantern (whichever incarnation they choose) to be reduced to comic relief.
I can't think of someone I would choose for the role, but I'd like to see someone with some acting skills who could make me believe in the power of one man's will.
"In Brightest Day, In Darkest Night..." yeah... that would be cool.
I won't complain about famous reviewers like Roger Ebert getting top listing (he always does on IMDB under "external reviews"), but it seems strange that there are so many reviews from Boxoffice Online, Epinions.com, and rec.arts.movies.reviews. And yet, no where is a smaller independent reviewer like http://www.filmguru.net/ mentioned. What's up with that?
The version you're thinking of is the Roger Corman produced film from 1994. Apparently the special effects were so bad and the acting so cheesy that they scrapped the whole thing in between early marketing campaign and its release. Early teaser posters were sent out, and are now collector's items. The film is only available in bootleg, but I have seen DVD and VHS copies available on Internet auction sites.
Have you considered incorporating more non-battle orientented heroics into City of Heroes? I envision heroes helping to rescue people from burning buildings, stopping the destruction of buildings and monuments following an earthquake, or even doing more simple heroics like foiling a bank robbery.
I think it would be an excellent way for low-level heroes to build experience. It would also allow for fun diversion from battle for experienced players.
Everybody knows there are as many heroes in comicdom who prefer to work alone (Punisher, Daredevil, and Batman, for example) as there are heroes in the Avengers or the JLA. But City of Heroes, being an MMOG, caters to an online community. After a month of solid play and getting my character up to level 12 (with some occasional help from others), I found myself unable to complete any new missions without assistance. If I continue to hang around in Kings Row, however, I don't get any experience for beating up weaker villains.
My question is this: will future expansions of CoH offer a "loner" track where one can choose to take only single-player missions? I'd like to continue playing in CoH's rich multi-player environment, but I don't want my growth experience in the game to rely on having to team-up to complete every mission. Am I alone in this thought?
At $4.5K a shot, Segways are already ridiculously priced. Imagine the markup on them once the insurance industry labels them as "medical equipment." I paid just over $2K for my last wheelchair (ultra light, but not a sports model), for which insurance paid just slightly more than half. I would hate to think of the elderly or moderately disabled paying $6-8K for a Segway while we foot the bill through increased medical insurance premiums and higher Medicare costs.
What is there about Enterprise (or Voyager or DS9) that fans want to see that couldn't be offered by a new, fresh, science fiction show? The characters are all different. The villains are mostly new. The only connection between Enterprise and TOS is a ship named Enterprise and a pointy-eared science officer. There's not even a Federation.
Don't get me wrong, I love Enterprise. But not because it is part of some long-loved franchise. I like it because (when it's good) it tells good SF stories. Remember when SF used to be about the stories? It's not about certain costumes, certain alien races, or certain characters. It's about good writing.
The best TOS episodes could have been written for any show. Captain (insert Captain's name) goes back in time to save a crewmember. Captain falls in love. Captain discovers that to save the future the woman must die. That's GOOD storytelling! All the franchise stuff is unimportant.
I would rather see three new, clever shows on UPN (the ill-fated Jake 2.0, for instance) than to see Star Trek continue just because it is Trek. Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, and Farscape all offered science fiction fans an alternative to Trek and were very well received. Maybe it's time that Trek producers (and fans) tried something different.
An 80% chance to live 5 years may sound bad, but for me it's a reasonable trade-off. As a writer, experience is inspiration. Even if it was dangerous (micrometeor collision, radiation, not to mention catastrophic system failures), I would be happy to live in space whether on an orbital platform or on a small colony somewhere. There are three things I must have, however: 1) Other people. I can't live without some human contact. 2) Privacy. Too much human contact can drive anyone crazy. 3) An Internet connection to Earth. How could I live without checking Slashdot every day?
If you're refering to the pics in the seattlepi.com site, number nine is the car from the film Blade Runner (as it clearly states in the caption to the right).
This last semester I was dating, working 40+, and trying to finish my Master's. What became crystal clear to me was the amount of feldercarb in my life that doesn't mean anything. Television was dropped (with two exceptions that I taped and watched at odd hours). Gaming was something I did only for an hour to break the tension of writing my thesis. The things that truly matter are the things you give your time to, without reservation.
That said, if you have to ask how to juggle an SO and your game time, you aren't ready to have an SO.
"Here endeth the lesson." Sean Connery The Untouchables
I do a little Web design for friends and colleagues. Most of the time I do it as a favor, not expecting payment in return. One girl, a musician, sends me her CDs so I make MP3s for her site. I get to keep the CDs. Another friend, an awesome artist, gave me an original piece he painted just for me.
All in all, I like the barter system. No bills to collect, no hurt feelings, no taxes to pay.
According to the IMDb (the alpha and the omega of movie sites) the film is slated for an October release in the US, not summer as originally reported.
--FilmGuru
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how the Piraha say "I was told there would be no math"?
I believe you mistranslated the title. It's "To Serve Man."
I scheduled a personal day back in April of 2004 when they announced the release date (yeah, that's right, a full 13 months ago). I know it's a geeky thing to do, but at the university where I work I knew there would be competition for time off and I didn't want to miss my chance.
From the "Be Careful What You Wish For" department: a year ago or so the suits at WB wanted to make a Green Lantern project starring (hold on to your emerald power battery) Jack Black!
Not that I don't like Jack, he's super funny and cool in an awkward way. But he's no superhero. If they do GL, I want to see it done with the same iconic goodness that was used when Donner gave us Superman or Burton gave us Batman. I don't want to see the Lantern (whichever incarnation they choose) to be reduced to comic relief.
I can't think of someone I would choose for the role, but I'd like to see someone with some acting skills who could make me believe in the power of one man's will.
"In Brightest Day, In Darkest Night..." yeah... that would be cool.
I won't complain about famous reviewers like Roger Ebert getting top listing (he always does on IMDB under "external reviews"), but it seems strange that there are so many reviews from Boxoffice Online, Epinions.com, and rec.arts.movies.reviews. And yet, no where is a smaller independent reviewer like http://www.filmguru.net/ mentioned. What's up with that?
(Shameless plug)
--FilmGuruThe version you're thinking of is the Roger Corman produced film from 1994. Apparently the special effects were so bad and the acting so cheesy that they scrapped the whole thing in between early marketing campaign and its release. Early teaser posters were sent out, and are now collector's items. The film is only available in bootleg, but I have seen DVD and VHS copies available on Internet auction sites.
i cfour.html
For more information on the Corman version, check out this review on Bad Movie Planet: http://www.badmovieplanet.com/3btheater/f/fantast
Have you considered incorporating more non-battle orientented heroics into City of Heroes? I envision heroes helping to rescue people from burning buildings, stopping the destruction of buildings and monuments following an earthquake, or even doing more simple heroics like foiling a bank robbery.
I think it would be an excellent way for low-level heroes to build experience. It would also allow for fun diversion from battle for experienced players.
Everybody knows there are as many heroes in comicdom who prefer to work alone (Punisher, Daredevil, and Batman, for example) as there are heroes in the Avengers or the JLA. But City of Heroes, being an MMOG, caters to an online community. After a month of solid play and getting my character up to level 12 (with some occasional help from others), I found myself unable to complete any new missions without assistance. If I continue to hang around in Kings Row, however, I don't get any experience for beating up weaker villains.
My question is this: will future expansions of CoH offer a "loner" track where one can choose to take only single-player missions? I'd like to continue playing in CoH's rich multi-player environment, but I don't want my growth experience in the game to rely on having to team-up to complete every mission. Am I alone in this thought?
At $4.5K a shot, Segways are already ridiculously priced. Imagine the markup on them once the insurance industry labels them as "medical equipment." I paid just over $2K for my last wheelchair (ultra light, but not a sports model), for which insurance paid just slightly more than half. I would hate to think of the elderly or moderately disabled paying $6-8K for a Segway while we foot the bill through increased medical insurance premiums and higher Medicare costs.
What is there about Enterprise (or Voyager or DS9) that fans want to see that couldn't be offered by a new, fresh, science fiction show? The characters are all different. The villains are mostly new. The only connection between Enterprise and TOS is a ship named Enterprise and a pointy-eared science officer. There's not even a Federation.
Don't get me wrong, I love Enterprise. But not because it is part of some long-loved franchise. I like it because (when it's good) it tells good SF stories. Remember when SF used to be about the stories? It's not about certain costumes, certain alien races, or certain characters. It's about good writing.
The best TOS episodes could have been written for any show. Captain (insert Captain's name) goes back in time to save a crewmember. Captain falls in love. Captain discovers that to save the future the woman must die. That's GOOD storytelling! All the franchise stuff is unimportant.
I would rather see three new, clever shows on UPN (the ill-fated Jake 2.0, for instance) than to see Star Trek continue just because it is Trek. Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, and Farscape all offered science fiction fans an alternative to Trek and were very well received. Maybe it's time that Trek producers (and fans) tried something different.
An 80% chance to live 5 years may sound bad, but for me it's a reasonable trade-off. As a writer, experience is inspiration. Even if it was dangerous (micrometeor collision, radiation, not to mention catastrophic system failures), I would be happy to live in space whether on an orbital platform or on a small colony somewhere. There are three things I must have, however: 1) Other people. I can't live without some human contact. 2) Privacy. Too much human contact can drive anyone crazy. 3) An Internet connection to Earth. How could I live without checking Slashdot every day?
Um... are you putting me on?
If you're refering to the pics in the seattlepi.com site, number nine is the car from the film Blade Runner (as it clearly states in the caption to the right).
This last semester I was dating, working 40+, and trying to finish my Master's. What became crystal clear to me was the amount of feldercarb in my life that doesn't mean anything. Television was dropped (with two exceptions that I taped and watched at odd hours). Gaming was something I did only for an hour to break the tension of writing my thesis. The things that truly matter are the things you give your time to, without reservation.
That said, if you have to ask how to juggle an SO and your game time, you aren't ready to have an SO.
"Here endeth the lesson." Sean Connery The Untouchables
Mmmmmm... Jennifer Runyon... One of my favorite '80s girls. Thanks for the memory. :)
--FilmGuru
I do a little Web design for friends and colleagues. Most of the time I do it as a favor, not expecting payment in return. One girl, a musician, sends me her CDs so I make MP3s for her site. I get to keep the CDs. Another friend, an awesome artist, gave me an original piece he painted just for me.
All in all, I like the barter system. No bills to collect, no hurt feelings, no taxes to pay.
--FilmGuru
According to the IMDb (the alpha and the omega of movie sites) the film is slated for an October release in the US, not summer as originally reported. --FilmGuru