Chindie

Audiences think it's changed, other comments talk of a new dub being sent down. Believe what you like. I just thought people might like to know what has been a criticism of what has been shown so far is rumoured to have been dealt with.

I've been here for exactly 5 years. Theres something almost sobering about that.

Talk that criticism of Bane's voice (i.e. a large number of people being unable to understand a word he said in the prologue, a problem I largely didn't have even on a pretty low rent cam recording) seems to have been taken to heart as the studio has apparently re-balanced the audio for the prologue with Bane being made a bit more clear and the engine noise toned down a notch.

What I find particularly amusing about that statement is that it doesn't make any sense. They waffle on about how he was not given a fair crack of the whip in the investigation and believe that he is innocent. Which in any persons mind would lead to an appeal, surely? But then they attempt to twist the focus away to the larger issue, of racism, and claim they will not pursue an appeal because it will obscure the campaign to rid racism from sport. But it won't. If anything it'll help - at worst it draws more attention to a very admirable and correct cause. At best it betters that campaign by revealing it's strengths and weaknesses and also puts the lengths that the authorities will go to to uphold it into stark contrast. The statement is a facade of stoicism in the face of injustice, but below the surface it's clear they either don't believe he's innocent, or can't be bothered to prove he is, which may as well amount to the same thing at the end of the day.

Makes a mockery of their antics over this.

The Lion King Rises

I feel similarly. I think they are guilty. But were I in that jury, from what I have heard of the evidence I would not feel safe convicting them. (I may have of course missed some of the evidence as I've not followed the case that closely).

Disagree. I think Cahill is overrated, him and an ageing Terry will be pulled out of position a lot IMO. Never got the hype with Terry, good defender but nothing more for me. I've never been one of his fans on or indeed off the pitch. However that said he did have a fantastic game the other night at Spurs. Best I've seen him play in a while. Largely agree. Cahill is has garnered a reputation, somehow, far beyond what he deserves imo. And a partnership of him and Terry would be terrible, they are both quite slow and immobile and both defend quite similarly. It's telling that Terry's best days were when he was partnered with a defender that was much more disciplined and, in all honesty, probably smarter too - Carvalho would always cover Terry's eye catching 'heroic' stuff. For that reason (as well as Terry's decline) I believe they want Cahill to replace him in time rather than partner him. Terry himself rather mirrors Laursen for us. Eye catching defending and gives his all every week, which makes a number of fans myopic to his flaws.

Play-offs are not something I would endorse for league winners. I don't really like the system for the Championship, though can see, somewhat, why it's there, and I also understand that the same argument that somewhat justifies it's existance for promotion chasers can apply to the Prem too (though perhaps a better utilisation would be for CL qualification...), but it would just feel wrong.

Making another attempt to get into Iain M Banks Culture series, so received the Player of Games and the Use of Weapons for Christmas. Rereading Transitions currently though so may have to wait a while.

Drogba is also (in part, though some consider it a pretty large part) considered to have stopped a conflict.

I think even someone who is opposed to considering darts a sport would think that comparison is disingenuous Mike.

:nod: If it is, then so is dominos. And golf. (I've long been of the view that the best definition of sport (in the non-Hemingway context) is physical competition where one can "play defense", that is to say, [legally] act in such a way as to impede your opponent... auto racing is borderline under this definition, but darts, golf, etc. are firmly on the "not sport" side of the line) Would that not make most athletic events 'not sports'? I usually argue that a sport is any competitive event requiring physical ability, be that skill (which would include darts), or simply physical capacity (speed, strength, endurance). Whereas a game is something were people compete on a largely physical level playing and compe to win largely mentally and/or on luck. So chess, e-sports, aren't sports.

Inspired by how good the remake is and how much I've heard people like the originals I'm considering picking up the extended trilogy of the original films...

...getting?!

:oops: GB didn't appear to give it GOTY - went to Elder Scrolls instead. I'm willing to bet it was a bloody close call for them though.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Incredibly meh action film, you can almost see the frame work it's so staid.

Painfully obvious it's going to be Giantbombs game of the year.

Well I've put a few hours into it. I've enjoyed it rather more than I thought I might. It's a markedly different pace of game. You simply cannot rush it seems, rushing leads to mistakes and that leads to you dying, as even the lowest ranking enemy can straight up murder you in a couple of swipes. I've died more than a few times, and more often than not it's been my fault. There have been a few times that I've died because of a lack of familiarity with the controls, which aren't immediately intuitive (something that a lot of Japanese games have in fairness), and there can be a degree of tedium when you're doing a run from a bonfire for the umpteenth time because your pioneering into the unknown has had you cut down time and again. And there is grind, the game encourages it really. But it's so satisfying. Every enemy can be a nasty piece of work but with concentration, preparation and haste each can be defeated and each is it's own satisfaction. I like the mystery of it as well. The game doesn't explain much. It damn near lies in parts. You're left to find out yourself what does what, what benefits and downsides certain actions may have. It can be daunting - I'm unsure of rather a lot of things still, and some I may never get. I kinda like this game. I've no doubt it will try my patience (I'm not blessed with much of temper) and I actually doubt I'll finish it I'm honest, but I like it all the same.

I don't think anyone thinks Top Gear is a car review show - they've had... lets be kind, 6 years say, to come to conclusion it's not a car review show now. Anyone who is watching now who wants car reviews has not been paying attention for half a decade. The problem the show has now is that, whilst it's an entertainment show, the whole thing has worn tired. It's not particularly entertaining, it's lost it's edge. It was entertaining when they weren't **** around with painfully scripted shit - they almost seem to be trying to make you laugh because it's so obviously painfully scripted, but failing, because instead they either achieve something thats not funny because they miss the subtleties of the obvious scripting angle, or not funny because the scenario isn't funny. It fundamentally fails. It's lowest common denominator shit, its like a really bad modern take on the Goodies. I've enjoyed 'new' Top Gear since the beginning and the show has clearly evolved and for a good few seasons it was a huge success in every way. They then made a fundamental error, around the time that 'Top Gear' became the thing BBC2 pinned all it's hopes on and everyone seemed to watch it. They decided that shit like the caravan trip was what the show should focus on. And sure some of them are funny - the caravan skit was funny, if predictably low brow, they kinda got the balance right with it. And the motorhome skit had it's moments. And a few others. But they seem to have forgotten that they could do great bits of non-dumb TV. I dunno about anyone else but I enjoyed the likes of Clarkson taking a hot Mercedes to Wales one morning. Or taking 3 luxury sports coupes to the Isle of Man. Not in themselves comedic but they entertained all the same. Currently the show is killing itself. The 'characters' are shite. Hammond cannot act for toffee whatsoever. I don't hold Clarkson's politics against him but I'd rather not have to have it wheeled into a light show that ultimately is car based. It isn't funny. It's painfully predictable, uninteresting. The India special had the potential for some superb stuff. They've done fantastic road trip stuff before, and India is an incredible country. Instead they served up painful rubbish they could have been done anywhere on the planet, in any set of cars, with anyone playing the roles. It's sad they risk ruining the memory of some good fun TV with this crap. It's like a band who made 3 great albums, then decided the experimental stuff that got some good comments should be used to form the foundation of the bands future - and it didn't work, making it all the back catalogue have a slightly sour taste in retrospective.

We won't make a profit on him. We overpaid in desperation, and any buyers out there are not going to be in the same situation (unless someone scared of relegation finds quite a few mill down the back of the sofa). I actually don't think those in charge at the club will be too upset to sell at a 'decent' price either, he's the last big money asset that can be flogged for quick buck - they'll accept the hit on the purchase price in favour of the money to do as they will with. I don't see him being here by the close of the summer window. Can't say I'd blame him either for leaving given the chance.

Not just me that felt it was very dull then. I struggled to hold my attention to it, every joke felt cheap and tired.

I've sadly not seen the original Swedish adaptations, so can't compare, but I would say that having watched it tonight, Finchers film is one of the best I've seen this year.

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is incredible.

I would agree with that, as I say I find they, even the good ones, will in some way disappoint. Iron Man is good entertainment and a fun watch with some nice performances, but suffers from a fairly weak final act thats a little underwhelming. Batman Begins suffers from a fairly weak villain as well (plot flaws too) though gets away with it a little as it is almost totally the epitome of an origin story (most superhero films featuring an origin tend to do 'origin+half arsed proper story', Begins focuses so much on Wayne becoming Batman it kinda gets away with it). It also imo, on reflection now 6 years after release, has the trappings of a film that wasn't quite the full imagining that Nolan wanted it to be, something he managed with TDK. Speaking of which, TDK suffers from some really messy scenes, the chase seen with Dent in the swat van for a start, and Jokers comeuppance has never quite sat right with me. And so on. There just seems to be something about superhero movies that leaves even the good ones feeling just a little lacking somehow, which is odd since, really, all they are are action movies. It's kinda why, despite being a fan of superhero films (hell, superhero media full stop :oops:), I hope the clamour to have all of them get film adaptations ends and there is an attempt to get the quality of the ones that do get made be jaw dropping. I want the superhero equivalent of Heat - a movie that just delivers from start to end in every facet, rather than let you down in some manner. TDK is probably the closest we've got so far.