Netflix did this because their costs went up. If you haven't been paying attention, studios have become more ambitious with asking for more money for less content. Unfortunately this meant an inevitable price increase. To be honest I'm surprised that Netflix held out this long. While data costs may be going down, content prices have skyrocketed for Netflix, thus our prices went up. Blame the studios for your higher prices. Not Netflix. If anyone knows how to fuck up a good thing in search for a profit, its the studios.
So what? Making a profit doesn't matter? Clearly netflix was in it to provide a streaming service to everyone at a loss. Unfortunately this was inevitable. If you want to blame anyone, blame the studios. They've been attacking Netflix and demanding higher prices for years for the same content. Netflix costs go up, so does the cost of service.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm really not impressed since it still requires software to be installed on the desktop. I guess it's removing a step by not making me launch skype, but I'd be really impressed if it was purely browser based like the new google solutions just announced.
That or they have profiles of types of users they want to add and you don't fit that profile. Testing isn't purely about getting a bunch of people to use the service. It's about covering a spectrum of users and experiences. My boss at work got a Chrome laptop and I didn't, because he fit the profile of what they were looking for and I didn't. I assume that's how they handled their initial google based invites before the additional user selected invites.
yeah, except they didn't launch, they launched a beta. Do you people complain this much when Blizzard runs a closed beta version of WoW and only some people are allowed in? Give it a little bit of time. As I pointed out. It's been a week since they launched the beta.
I can't believe that people are complaining that they can't join the beta of a social networking site that just launched less than a week ago. Come back to complain when it's been 4 months. They were planning on letting more people in right now, but then someone found a bug that allowed someone to send infinite invites and they got overwhelmed. Give it a little bit and I'm sure it will open up again.
I would suspect that Google is planning a much more rapid rollout than facebook though, making the limited market expansion method a little less plausible. I mean, it JUST launched. Start complaining about it's lack of open enrollment in 4 months, not within the first week.
Because Facebook launched nationwide to everyone at once and didn't do something like slowly expand from school to school and then eventually to the general public....oh wait.
That's assuming that CoD players are the core gaming market and not just that non-core gamers play CoD as well. I know plenty of people that only have a handful of games, and CoD is one of them.
You can most certainly play the game again. It's not a one and done thing. The only thing the save file will affect is the unlockable content. Meaning if you're the person who enjoys the satisfaction of doing all the tricks to get that extra shotgun, or to unlock that bonus level, you'll need to buy a new copy. The old save file leaves you without much to do except replay the levels and beat the previous owner's high scores., but if you don't care, it shouldn't be that big of a deal to you. Granted I still think it's garbage and I will not be purchasing the game solely on principle alone, but for those that are on the fence, it's something to consider.
Perhaps that is the difference in our understanding. I'm 25, reasonably healthy, and have been investing into my account as much as I can, but I think that's also where we need to look at plans starting. What system is going to work the best for people their entire lives, rather than looking at the whole picture for every person right now. I'm not saying screw anyone over 30 or anything like that. I prefer to just open the markets and let people choose the best option for them. We can help those that can't afford a solution, but we need to work towards solutions that will perpetually provide a sufficient solution for all. What I'm talking about is building a system for the future, not just today. The changes are simple and forces nothing on anyone old or young. It is to just remove atrocities like the HMO act of 1973, provide the same tax benefits to individuals as you do to businesses, and remove the caps and restrictions on things like HSAs.
Right, but statistically you're not going to hit that deductible, which is why the insurance companies charge the lower rate they do than in comparison to the HMOs. I'm much less concerned with the gorging people may do once they hit that deductible than I am the spending they do before hand. The vast majority of people do not hit that limit and are going to make smarter decisions with their money, creating a positive influence in the market. Is it a perfect system, no. I don't think it's possible to come up with a system where people only get the medical treatment they need when they need it, until we reach the age of body scans in the home, but that's part of why we hang out on slashdot isn't it.
Avoiding preventative care is a temptation, but that's why insurance companies also include a free physical every year with your plan, in order to make sure that you do get yourself checked out some. Once again, it's allowing us as adults make our own decisions
As far as the limit goes, personally I'd like to see it removed entirely, and this is part of what I've been saying about government meddling and picking winners and losers. I can see no valid justification for putting a cap on an HSA when you cannot use it for anything other than medical expenses and the second you pull money out of it for other purposes, you're taxed then.
Except it's not really roullete. Under the worst case, an HSA is still extremely affordable. Paying 100% for my own insurance, I have a $2500/year deductible. Given my Insurance premium of $100/month, or $1200/year. That means, worst case scenario, I'd be out $3700 before I can begin to save additional money. That's not really all that bad. I was paying close to $6,000/year under an HMO. I only make around $35-40k/year, depending on bonuses, and I find it extremely reasonable.
So, any money in the account over $3,000, I would never need within a year. and that is to assume that I wouldn't be able to match any withdrawals from the account like I should. Any money I put in the account over $2500, I should never have to touch, it should stay in there and work for me.
Like I said, over a few year period, I should be able to invest enough where the dividends exceed my yearly deductible. However. if that catastrophe happens, and I'm out my yearly deductible every year for 10 years. it still is feasible to put in enough to put me in that same situation, it's just going to take a little bit longer and take a little more discipline.
Feel free to take a system where you pay far more year to year and particularly over a lifetime. I'm going to stick with this. The sooner you get more people on this system, the cheaper it will become for everyone. meaning even less risk.
Actually, it isn't really the insurance companies that are cheating us. If you look at their profits, they're nothing impressive. Instead it's a system that rewards the biggest contracts and names, not the best prices and service, that is sending prices through the roof. The insurance prices are just high because our system currently costs more.
Lol, I love this kind of argument. You're using an outlier example that happens rarely at best as an attempt to disprove the 99.9% of cases. No system is completely perfect, but for that vast majority of cases, beyond reasonable comparison, HSAs work amazingly well. Sure, there are going to be people injured close to the buzzer and they may want to hold off on getting care until after the start of the year, but that's their decision as an adult to evaluate the situation and weigh the pros and cons, and it's not going to be a significant enough number to justify significant changes to the system.
Yeah, the insurer doesn't cover everything like crutches and elective surgeries. The same goes for HMOs as well. But the purchases should be tax deductible under HSAs.
The one big point I think you're missing is that you can perpetually fund your entire life's medical expenses with your HSA. Any money you have over $3000 in the account, you're able to invest into things like mutual funds. If you keep your balance up and spend several years keeping it there, eventually you should have enough that the dividends from the mutual funds exceed your yearly deductible.
There's nothing immoral about not wanting the government involved. That doesn't mean we or I don't want to help people, it's just a difference as to how people should be helped. I personally prefer true organic change.
You do realize that with an HSA I'll be able to perpetually fund my entire life's medical expenses right? Any amount in my account over $3000, I'm allowed to invest into things like mutual funds and return the dividends into the account tax free. I'm young and relatively healthy now. So sparing some catastrophe I'll be able to put enough money in the account over a few year period to where the dividends exceed my yearly deductible, funding my healthcare for the rest of my life. Worst case scenario and I do have to reach that deductible a couple times, it'll take a few years longer, but all in all, a net win.
Also, quality and cost come together to show value. The $3000 sleep study I was quoted was from a major hospital with a bigger reputation. The $1000 one was from a private practice that had a good reputation. For something like a brain surgery, sure, I'll go with the top guy, but for something like telling me if I have sleep apnea, please. Both are licensed and held to standards and have good reputations. No reason to not take the $1000 guy.
Actually, you couldn't be further from the truth. In December of 2008, I was laid off from a much needed job that provided me with full health coverage and was going to allow me to fund my way through my last year of school. I was unable to find full time work for almost a year and a half, having to settle for part-time gigs at Kroger and doing website maintenance for a non-profit, though I never really made half of what I made at my full time job. During this time both my wife and myself were each forced to go to the ER once, and on another occasion my wife had kidney stones and she decided she would suffer through the pain to avoid the medical costs. I stayed awake the whole night holding her while she cried and screamed.
So yeah, I do understand what people are going through, but that doesn't mean I support a system that treats symptoms of the real problem. I'm looking logically at the whole issue, rather than just what my needs are. It didn't matter that I was suffering, because I don't want a system that isn't going to fix things, just because it makes things better for me.
People like you see people suffering and want to treat that, but you fail that isn't the real problem. Why are the people suffering? Is it because we lack hospitals? For the most part no. Aside from a few dense areas, there are plenty of places to get care. Is our care lacking in quality? Absolutely not, we have some of the greatest facilities in the world. So then what is the real issue? It's cost. Healthcare costs too much. It makes it harder for people to afford care. It makes insurance more expensive and less obtainable. It makes it harder to provide care to those who can't afford it. It weighs the whole system down. So if you recognize this, you must realize that the place to fix healthcare is cost. Lowering the cost allows more families to afford coverage and makes it easier to pay for coverage to those who can't, either through government programs or charities.
All these other systems do is change who's paying for the coverage, and that isn't the answer. In Germany, the doctors pay for it out of their pockets. In Japan, the hospitals pay for it. In the UK,. the taxes pay for it, but everybody is still paying. If you want lower prices you have to have true competition and fluctuating prices. This is something our system completely lacks, which is why prices are so high. The government endorsed HMOs with the HMO act of 1973, and required all employers to carry an HMO, giving only tax breaks to employers for purchasing healthcare. This shifted the market to employer based HMOs, which eliminates true competition and fluctuating prices. You go to who your health care provider says to go to and you only worry about your copay. True competition rewards the providers that give the best value. This system rewards corporations with the biggest contracts. We need to lift the restrictions and encourage people to use things like HSAs which are significantly cheaper than HMOs and provide better care with more consumer options.
I don't really see other countries with universal care as "developed" in contrast to the US. Sure, they provide care to more people, and in the short term, things look great. But the reality is that none of these nations handle the real issue that is straight in the face of the US, rising healthcare costs. Universal care in other countries doesn't fix this. They just make someone else pay for it. In Japan, over 50% of the hospitals operate in the red. In Germany, doctors are forced to take substantially lower wages than in comparative countries, which has led to a number of protests consisting of tens of thousands of doctors and contributed to Germany's immigration deficit.
The US system sucks, but it's a lot easier to fix than in these other nations. Currently we have a corporatist system that favors corporations and restricts the freedom of the consumer. Government has picked winners and losers and restricted the consumer from making decisions on their own.. If you want to get lower prices and better care, you need to take the restrictions off of the individual and give them the same benefits and freedoms that an employer gets. By not endorsing HMOs and taking the restrictions off of HSAs, we allow increased competition in the market which leads to lower prices. We can see this actively working in areas of the medical field where people pay mostly cash for services such as ophthalmology or cosmetic surgery. Increased competition has resulted in significantly lower prices than in comparative medical fields.
With an HSA, I am in charge of my treatment and spending, and it matters. When I had an HMO, I went to the first place on the list that my health insurance provider recommended. I didn't care about the cost, because all I had to worry about was the copay. But now that I have an HSA, I am responsible for paying that first $2500 of my medical expenses out of my pocket. Now, that $2500 + my premium is still substantially cheaper than the HMO premiums I would be paying, but by making me consciously in charge of my medical expenditures, I am going to avoid paying as much of that $2500 as possible. I needed to get a sleep study done, and I called several places and found quotes ranging from $1000 to $3000. That's a huge difference in price. Active competition in the market rewards those with the better offers and punishes those who are overpriced. We don't have that in the US system. we instead run a system of corporatism where there is no direct competition and there are no negotiable prices. This is not capitalism. This is corporatism.
If you want to help people, the real answer is to lower the cost of medical care. This is the only real long term solution. Everything else just delays the inevitable.
Before you read this, understand I'm particularly harsh on films, but, with so many good films out there, it's not fair to treat the bad ones with a gentle touch.
Personally I found the film to be quite bad. I went in there expecting nothing and still left disappointed. It's not that they didn't come up with a compelling story (they didn't). It's not that I never felt attached to any of the characters (I didn't). It's not even that so many of the lines and characters felt out of place (they do). It's that the film suffers from fluidity issues from the very beginning. I want to believe that there was a much more comprehensible film originally shot and then some jackass in the editing room decided to take out chunks of the film and slap it together so that it could be under 1:45, because the film feels jerked around and unnatural, not to mention the plot hole issues. There is a particular scene where right before Hal is chilling with his girl. Then, the villain attacks this underground military base where Hal has never been, and all of a sudden he bursts through the wall with no explanation as to how he got there or knew what was going on. After the battle is over, both the hero and villain are suddenly in their home, with no explanation as to how that happened. This is probably the worst it gets in the film, but that same lack of fluidity is what seeped into ever part of the film and made it a complete failure to me. That said, it's not the worst super hero film ever made. It's better than X-men 3 and Spiderman 3, but not by much. I give it a 4.5/10.
Bring back version n-1! It was clearly superior to version n, even though I said the same thing about n-1 when we changed from n-2 to n-1 and n has lots of features back from n-2 that I was disappointed was not in n-1.
Slashdot Mirror
Netflix did this because their costs went up. If you haven't been paying attention, studios have become more ambitious with asking for more money for less content. Unfortunately this meant an inevitable price increase. To be honest I'm surprised that Netflix held out this long. While data costs may be going down, content prices have skyrocketed for Netflix, thus our prices went up. Blame the studios for your higher prices. Not Netflix. If anyone knows how to fuck up a good thing in search for a profit, its the studios.
So what? Making a profit doesn't matter? Clearly netflix was in it to provide a streaming service to everyone at a loss. Unfortunately this was inevitable. If you want to blame anyone, blame the studios. They've been attacking Netflix and demanding higher prices for years for the same content. Netflix costs go up, so does the cost of service.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm really not impressed since it still requires software to be installed on the desktop. I guess it's removing a step by not making me launch skype, but I'd be really impressed if it was purely browser based like the new google solutions just announced.
That or they have profiles of types of users they want to add and you don't fit that profile. Testing isn't purely about getting a bunch of people to use the service. It's about covering a spectrum of users and experiences. My boss at work got a Chrome laptop and I didn't, because he fit the profile of what they were looking for and I didn't. I assume that's how they handled their initial google based invites before the additional user selected invites.
yeah, except they didn't launch, they launched a beta. Do you people complain this much when Blizzard runs a closed beta version of WoW and only some people are allowed in? Give it a little bit of time. As I pointed out. It's been a week since they launched the beta.
I can't believe that people are complaining that they can't join the beta of a social networking site that just launched less than a week ago. Come back to complain when it's been 4 months. They were planning on letting more people in right now, but then someone found a bug that allowed someone to send infinite invites and they got overwhelmed. Give it a little bit and I'm sure it will open up again.
I would suspect that Google is planning a much more rapid rollout than facebook though, making the limited market expansion method a little less plausible. I mean, it JUST launched. Start complaining about it's lack of open enrollment in 4 months, not within the first week.
Because Facebook launched nationwide to everyone at once and didn't do something like slowly expand from school to school and then eventually to the general public....oh wait.
That's assuming that CoD players are the core gaming market and not just that non-core gamers play CoD as well. I know plenty of people that only have a handful of games, and CoD is one of them.
You can most certainly play the game again. It's not a one and done thing. The only thing the save file will affect is the unlockable content. Meaning if you're the person who enjoys the satisfaction of doing all the tricks to get that extra shotgun, or to unlock that bonus level, you'll need to buy a new copy. The old save file leaves you without much to do except replay the levels and beat the previous owner's high scores., but if you don't care, it shouldn't be that big of a deal to you. Granted I still think it's garbage and I will not be purchasing the game solely on principle alone, but for those that are on the fence, it's something to consider.
So the things people cared the least about in Google's wide spectrum of services were health and energy? We're doomed.
Perhaps that is the difference in our understanding. I'm 25, reasonably healthy, and have been investing into my account as much as I can, but I think that's also where we need to look at plans starting. What system is going to work the best for people their entire lives, rather than looking at the whole picture for every person right now. I'm not saying screw anyone over 30 or anything like that. I prefer to just open the markets and let people choose the best option for them. We can help those that can't afford a solution, but we need to work towards solutions that will perpetually provide a sufficient solution for all. What I'm talking about is building a system for the future, not just today. The changes are simple and forces nothing on anyone old or young. It is to just remove atrocities like the HMO act of 1973, provide the same tax benefits to individuals as you do to businesses, and remove the caps and restrictions on things like HSAs.
Right, but statistically you're not going to hit that deductible, which is why the insurance companies charge the lower rate they do than in comparison to the HMOs. I'm much less concerned with the gorging people may do once they hit that deductible than I am the spending they do before hand. The vast majority of people do not hit that limit and are going to make smarter decisions with their money, creating a positive influence in the market. Is it a perfect system, no. I don't think it's possible to come up with a system where people only get the medical treatment they need when they need it, until we reach the age of body scans in the home, but that's part of why we hang out on slashdot isn't it. Avoiding preventative care is a temptation, but that's why insurance companies also include a free physical every year with your plan, in order to make sure that you do get yourself checked out some. Once again, it's allowing us as adults make our own decisions As far as the limit goes, personally I'd like to see it removed entirely, and this is part of what I've been saying about government meddling and picking winners and losers. I can see no valid justification for putting a cap on an HSA when you cannot use it for anything other than medical expenses and the second you pull money out of it for other purposes, you're taxed then.
Except it's not really roullete. Under the worst case, an HSA is still extremely affordable. Paying 100% for my own insurance, I have a $2500/year deductible. Given my Insurance premium of $100/month, or $1200/year. That means, worst case scenario, I'd be out $3700 before I can begin to save additional money. That's not really all that bad. I was paying close to $6,000/year under an HMO. I only make around $35-40k/year, depending on bonuses, and I find it extremely reasonable. So, any money in the account over $3,000, I would never need within a year. and that is to assume that I wouldn't be able to match any withdrawals from the account like I should. Any money I put in the account over $2500, I should never have to touch, it should stay in there and work for me. Like I said, over a few year period, I should be able to invest enough where the dividends exceed my yearly deductible. However. if that catastrophe happens, and I'm out my yearly deductible every year for 10 years. it still is feasible to put in enough to put me in that same situation, it's just going to take a little bit longer and take a little more discipline. Feel free to take a system where you pay far more year to year and particularly over a lifetime. I'm going to stick with this. The sooner you get more people on this system, the cheaper it will become for everyone. meaning even less risk.
Actually, it isn't really the insurance companies that are cheating us. If you look at their profits, they're nothing impressive. Instead it's a system that rewards the biggest contracts and names, not the best prices and service, that is sending prices through the roof. The insurance prices are just high because our system currently costs more.
Lol, I love this kind of argument. You're using an outlier example that happens rarely at best as an attempt to disprove the 99.9% of cases. No system is completely perfect, but for that vast majority of cases, beyond reasonable comparison, HSAs work amazingly well. Sure, there are going to be people injured close to the buzzer and they may want to hold off on getting care until after the start of the year, but that's their decision as an adult to evaluate the situation and weigh the pros and cons, and it's not going to be a significant enough number to justify significant changes to the system.
Yeah, the insurer doesn't cover everything like crutches and elective surgeries. The same goes for HMOs as well. But the purchases should be tax deductible under HSAs.
The one big point I think you're missing is that you can perpetually fund your entire life's medical expenses with your HSA. Any money you have over $3000 in the account, you're able to invest into things like mutual funds. If you keep your balance up and spend several years keeping it there, eventually you should have enough that the dividends from the mutual funds exceed your yearly deductible.
There's nothing immoral about not wanting the government involved. That doesn't mean we or I don't want to help people, it's just a difference as to how people should be helped. I personally prefer true organic change.
You do realize that with an HSA I'll be able to perpetually fund my entire life's medical expenses right? Any amount in my account over $3000, I'm allowed to invest into things like mutual funds and return the dividends into the account tax free. I'm young and relatively healthy now. So sparing some catastrophe I'll be able to put enough money in the account over a few year period to where the dividends exceed my yearly deductible, funding my healthcare for the rest of my life. Worst case scenario and I do have to reach that deductible a couple times, it'll take a few years longer, but all in all, a net win.
Also, quality and cost come together to show value. The $3000 sleep study I was quoted was from a major hospital with a bigger reputation. The $1000 one was from a private practice that had a good reputation. For something like a brain surgery, sure, I'll go with the top guy, but for something like telling me if I have sleep apnea, please. Both are licensed and held to standards and have good reputations. No reason to not take the $1000 guy.
Actually, you couldn't be further from the truth. In December of 2008, I was laid off from a much needed job that provided me with full health coverage and was going to allow me to fund my way through my last year of school. I was unable to find full time work for almost a year and a half, having to settle for part-time gigs at Kroger and doing website maintenance for a non-profit, though I never really made half of what I made at my full time job. During this time both my wife and myself were each forced to go to the ER once, and on another occasion my wife had kidney stones and she decided she would suffer through the pain to avoid the medical costs. I stayed awake the whole night holding her while she cried and screamed.
So yeah, I do understand what people are going through, but that doesn't mean I support a system that treats symptoms of the real problem. I'm looking logically at the whole issue, rather than just what my needs are. It didn't matter that I was suffering, because I don't want a system that isn't going to fix things, just because it makes things better for me.
People like you see people suffering and want to treat that, but you fail that isn't the real problem. Why are the people suffering? Is it because we lack hospitals? For the most part no. Aside from a few dense areas, there are plenty of places to get care. Is our care lacking in quality? Absolutely not, we have some of the greatest facilities in the world. So then what is the real issue? It's cost. Healthcare costs too much. It makes it harder for people to afford care. It makes insurance more expensive and less obtainable. It makes it harder to provide care to those who can't afford it. It weighs the whole system down. So if you recognize this, you must realize that the place to fix healthcare is cost. Lowering the cost allows more families to afford coverage and makes it easier to pay for coverage to those who can't, either through government programs or charities.
All these other systems do is change who's paying for the coverage, and that isn't the answer. In Germany, the doctors pay for it out of their pockets. In Japan, the hospitals pay for it. In the UK,. the taxes pay for it, but everybody is still paying. If you want lower prices you have to have true competition and fluctuating prices. This is something our system completely lacks, which is why prices are so high. The government endorsed HMOs with the HMO act of 1973, and required all employers to carry an HMO, giving only tax breaks to employers for purchasing healthcare. This shifted the market to employer based HMOs, which eliminates true competition and fluctuating prices. You go to who your health care provider says to go to and you only worry about your copay. True competition rewards the providers that give the best value. This system rewards corporations with the biggest contracts. We need to lift the restrictions and encourage people to use things like HSAs which are significantly cheaper than HMOs and provide better care with more consumer options.
I don't really see other countries with universal care as "developed" in contrast to the US. Sure, they provide care to more people, and in the short term, things look great. But the reality is that none of these nations handle the real issue that is straight in the face of the US, rising healthcare costs. Universal care in other countries doesn't fix this. They just make someone else pay for it. In Japan, over 50% of the hospitals operate in the red. In Germany, doctors are forced to take substantially lower wages than in comparative countries, which has led to a number of protests consisting of tens of thousands of doctors and contributed to Germany's immigration deficit.
The US system sucks, but it's a lot easier to fix than in these other nations. Currently we have a corporatist system that favors corporations and restricts the freedom of the consumer. Government has picked winners and losers and restricted the consumer from making decisions on their own.. If you want to get lower prices and better care, you need to take the restrictions off of the individual and give them the same benefits and freedoms that an employer gets. By not endorsing HMOs and taking the restrictions off of HSAs, we allow increased competition in the market which leads to lower prices. We can see this actively working in areas of the medical field where people pay mostly cash for services such as ophthalmology or cosmetic surgery. Increased competition has resulted in significantly lower prices than in comparative medical fields.
With an HSA, I am in charge of my treatment and spending, and it matters. When I had an HMO, I went to the first place on the list that my health insurance provider recommended. I didn't care about the cost, because all I had to worry about was the copay. But now that I have an HSA, I am responsible for paying that first $2500 of my medical expenses out of my pocket. Now, that $2500 + my premium is still substantially cheaper than the HMO premiums I would be paying, but by making me consciously in charge of my medical expenditures, I am going to avoid paying as much of that $2500 as possible. I needed to get a sleep study done, and I called several places and found quotes ranging from $1000 to $3000. That's a huge difference in price. Active competition in the market rewards those with the better offers and punishes those who are overpriced. We don't have that in the US system. we instead run a system of corporatism where there is no direct competition and there are no negotiable prices. This is not capitalism. This is corporatism.
If you want to help people, the real answer is to lower the cost of medical care. This is the only real long term solution. Everything else just delays the inevitable.
Before you read this, understand I'm particularly harsh on films, but, with so many good films out there, it's not fair to treat the bad ones with a gentle touch.
Personally I found the film to be quite bad. I went in there expecting nothing and still left disappointed. It's not that they didn't come up with a compelling story (they didn't). It's not that I never felt attached to any of the characters (I didn't). It's not even that so many of the lines and characters felt out of place (they do). It's that the film suffers from fluidity issues from the very beginning. I want to believe that there was a much more comprehensible film originally shot and then some jackass in the editing room decided to take out chunks of the film and slap it together so that it could be under 1:45, because the film feels jerked around and unnatural, not to mention the plot hole issues. There is a particular scene where right before Hal is chilling with his girl. Then, the villain attacks this underground military base where Hal has never been, and all of a sudden he bursts through the wall with no explanation as to how he got there or knew what was going on. After the battle is over, both the hero and villain are suddenly in their home, with no explanation as to how that happened. This is probably the worst it gets in the film, but that same lack of fluidity is what seeped into ever part of the film and made it a complete failure to me. That said, it's not the worst super hero film ever made. It's better than X-men 3 and Spiderman 3, but not by much. I give it a 4.5/10.
Wouldn't surprise me. Any government agency that refuses and audit is suspect.
No, but the bricks stack better to make a pimp ass fort.
They just print paper there. Go to Ft Knox for the gold.
Bring back version n-1! It was clearly superior to version n, even though I said the same thing about n-1 when we changed from n-2 to n-1 and n has lots of features back from n-2 that I was disappointed was not in n-1.