Welcome to Gaia! ::

It is now 4:33 in the morning here in the mystical land of Jersey, and all the WoW crap finally finished downloading.

14 1/2 hours.

It took 14 1/2 BLOODY FREAKING HOURS.

Are we having fun yet?

CUZ I'M SURE AS HELL NOT.

I'd say this game sucks already but I won't have the chance to play it because I need to collapse.

Clever Blizzard, making me waste my first day of your 10 day trial just to make sure the damn thing's on my laptop.

BRAVO.

Excuse me while I go hold down my pillow for a few hours.

I know what you mean. If movies of comics were to be exactly the same as the comic, it would take forever to get something good. take spider-man for instance. The first few issue had him fighting crooks, and the first villain he encounters, is the Vulture. Really, it the Vulture made to be a big movie villain? Hell no. That why they have the arch nemeses a a villain with in the first two films.
But don't bring up Spider-man 3, that was just terrible story wise.

But you know what, notice how you don't see as many people b***h about how cartoon's are not like the comic.
I use to watch the Spider-man cartoon from the 90's. In that Venom attached to Flash Thomson, and since I never read the comic books back then, I always though it was Flash Thomson that was Venom.

Something like that also happened at the store. I was wearing this T-shirt with Hal Jordan with this classic Retro look to it. The cashier saw it and asked, "I though the green lantern was a black guy." Once I realized it, he was talking about the Justice League show. I didn't want to sound like a total dork, so i just said this was the first green lantern (not counting golden age GL)

Spidey actually fought the Chameleon before the Vulture. And in the cartoon, the symbiote did attach itself to Brock, who bore an unusual likeness to Flash. I loved that show. I actually have it on DVD... sweatdrop

I agree, though. The movies aren't perfect translations, nor are they meant to be. They're two entirely different mediums, and should be treated as such. And I'm not sure why fans are so pissed off over Wolverine. It's not like it's the first comic property the studios have made a complete mess of, and you can bet your a** it won't be the last.

I'm about to take one for the team....I am about to watch The Spirit. I will be back with thoughts....if I survive.

Aw, just because the film is "subtle" does not mean Wright does not have a style. His Pride and Prejudice is far more stylistic then other film versions of the same story; using the camera in a very contemporary way with exceptionally sharp editing (along with a near surprising amount of special effects). In today's world of films I'd say Wright's Prejudice and Atonement stand out away from the crowd, following more in the footsteps of Mulligan's To Kill a Mockingbird and even the work of Douglas Sirk rather then the road many of his fellow young British directors have taken. This does not mean I think he is "better", just making different choices.



Meh. Depends on what you think the monolith is. The monolith is a literal object within the film, but that doesn't mean it is to be understood in the literal - just because it is there and man does not know what it is does not mean it has to represent a higher being. A lot of people believe the monolith to merely represent the potential of man, appearing at times when man furthers/seeks to further himself and at times when he fails. Others feel the monolith is indeed a higher power; while some people see the monolith as a movie screen.

I don't personally believe the film has anything to do with becoming equal or a part of the universe. I feel the film certainly has a large amount to do with the evolution of man and what it is to be human, but I feel it is actually a cautionary tale of sorts. But after all "All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors."



The irony here is that, of course, I saw Sunshine as a less effective 2001. xd

Genre isn't the only factor to determine a film's quality. Most of the time, it isn't a factor at all. I mean, there've been good spoof movies (I, for one, thought Walk Hard was friggin' brilliant) and I didn't think the original Fast and the Furious was all that terrible. Personally, I thought the Spirit was terrible because of the ridiculous dialog, stale acting, unbelievable characters and the almost complete absence of plot.

Since I've been boning up on my Hunter S. Thompson as of late, I figured I'd give 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' another watch and, man, am I glad I did. Johnny Depp channeled Thompson (or 'Raoul Duke') perfectly. Del Toro was good too, but it was Depp's stream-of-consciousness monologue that held that movie together. I was going to watch 'Where the Buffalo Roam,' but I don't think I can see anyone else in that role.

Just re-read Survivor too, and I'm still amazed at how great it is. Palahniuk's ability to take facets of our culture like celebrity or materialism or reality TV and show them to us in his own satirical, twisted-but-hilarious way still gets me every time.

Kurosawa is indeed pretty goddamn awesome. And if you like Seven Samurai, Yojimbo I think is even better. (Or more accessible, at any rate.)
And I will totally keep an eye out for that. I've been lacking in yakuza goodness for a while now, gotta get back in the game.

Have I mentioned how badass Batman: Arkham Asylum looks? Here is a kickass clip featuring Bane.