1661

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Survivor2299

« on: December 28, 2013, 09:54:43 PM »

What exactly do you mean when you compare the game's humor (whether positively or negatively) to the original two games?  I agree that F3 has pretty bad comedy for the most part, but it's at least given me a few laughs, which is more than I can say for the first game.  Admittedly, I haven't played a whole lot of it yet, but so far, the only funny thing I've seen is that they actually got MacGyver to voice one of the characters.  I'm not trying to be a sadaam or anything, but where's the humor?

I was wondering the same thing.

For F3, I thought the wacky wasteland stuff was pretty funny. None of the dialogue made me go bananas but it was still a fairly humorous game.

1662

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy

« on: December 28, 2013, 08:29:21 PM »

It wasn't because of the controversy that they caved? 

Unfortunately that seems to be the case.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/12/28/duck-dynasty-to-resume-filming-with-phil-robertson-ae-announces/

And apparently there were petitions, threats of boycotting the station, etc., until they brought Phil back.

1663

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy

« on: December 28, 2013, 03:41:03 PM »

A&E has decided to keep filming the show with Phil. So this whole little "controversy" was pointless.

1664

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: December 28, 2013, 05:33:19 AM »

Not to mention that about 95% of the LotR books were Tolkien telling you what the rocks beneath their feet looked like

I have been saying this exact same phrase for so long now. It's why I could never finish the trilogy, I got so tired of the excruciatingly detailed descriptions.

1665

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: December 28, 2013, 05:26:39 AM »

And they are.

NO! 

1666

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: December 28, 2013, 02:11:36 AM »

And all of these character "establishments" were really shallow. You're not going to convince me otherwise. The movie focused on CGI sequences and a love story which never existed in the book.

The ring foreshadowing was still done with quirkiness, which is why my dumb audience laughed at it. It was overly goofy.

But you're right that the movie is for kids and I just can't get into it.

1667

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: December 27, 2013, 09:51:53 PM »

I dunno, as far as I can recall the book was pretty goofy too. That's one of the things I was hoping Jackson would make sure to do with the films, rather than making it broody mcbroodwalking like the LotR. That said, I do think the goofiness was over the top, as you say, but I definitely don't think the goofy atmosphere is a flaw or a bad thing. I liked the whole barrel section, it was one of the less boring parts of the film. I remember finding that part funny in the book, though I might be crazy, so I'm glad it was equally as silly in the film. I loved Bilbo's moment of realization after he pushed them all off into the river.

It's true that the book is geared more towards kids. (Or at least it's the one we were forced to read in middle school.) But I was hoping for the broody mcbroodwalking.

And Lemon, I didn't enjoy it so I was explaining why.

1668

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: December 27, 2013, 09:41:49 PM »

Yes, there are more characters but that doesn't have anything to do with character development. And it certainly seems like Thorin and Bilbo are not as prevalent as they were in the first movie.

We probably get to know Tauriel the best, but she's not even in the books.

More characters were developed.

The audience was stupid but so was the over the top goofy-comedy of the movie.

Have you seen the first movie?

Having more characters does not equal character development. Like I already said it was extremely shallow and each character had basically one emotion throughout the whole movie.

The first one had its comic relief as well. It's something I generally dislike about the movies. But it didn't have a 30 min barrel ride of a bouncy fat dwarf.

1669

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: December 27, 2013, 08:29:57 PM »

Yes, there are more characters but that doesn't have anything to do with character development. And it certainly seems like Thorin and Bilbo are not as prevalent as they were in the first movie.

We probably get to know Tauriel the best, but she's not even in the books.

The audience was stupid but so was the over the top goofy-comedy of the movie.

1670

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: December 27, 2013, 07:51:16 PM »

The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.

I really disliked it. I enjoyed the first one more if just for the character development. The second seemed cheap and shallow. I thought the river barrel scene was ridiculous. And the audience I was in kept laughing during really inappropriate times simply because the whole movie had a goofy "don't take me seriously" vibe. Like when Bilbo says "mine" for the first time when grabbing the ring... How is that funny?

Kili/Tauriel, Smaug, and Gandalf using magic were the only decent parts in a way too drawn out movie.

1671

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)

« on: December 27, 2013, 02:17:55 AM »

I was told that Mothership Zeta kinda sucks. I like anchorage because free stuff.

It was weird and I think I rushed through it. But you're on a UFO. And aliens!

1672

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)

« on: December 27, 2013, 01:46:30 AM »

Are they better?

I remember them being more fun. It's been a couple years though. It might have only been fun for the gimmick of aliens and cliche plantation/zombies though.

1673

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Honey & Lemon

« on: December 27, 2013, 12:04:18 AM »

I just add honey, never tried adding lemon to other teas but I do have a lemon tea.

There's also a medicine called Theraflu which is basically a lemon tea.

1674

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)

« on: December 27, 2013, 12:01:16 AM »

I have completed Operation Anchorage and The Pitt.  So far, these add-ons are kind of meh.  Perhaps NV has spoiled me.

I'm waiting for you to play Mothership Zeta and Point Lookout.

1675

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Daily Contact Prayers in the 3 Major Faiths

« on: December 26, 2013, 12:04:11 PM »

Well meditation for monks can last about 2 hours so I doubt they do that 4x a day unless they're trying to skip out on chores.

1676

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Daily Contact Prayers in the 3 Major Faiths

« on: December 25, 2013, 06:33:10 PM »

Yas, God is vein.

Ok. I could accept that as an axiom for the Abrahamic traditions, but what about the East? I don't even know if they have the practice.

Eastern religions are usually more about the individual than the gods themselves. For example, in Hinduism devotion to the gods is just another way of achieving true happiness, and there are other paths to Nirvana that have little if anything to do with the gods. You don't have to jump through hoops to prove your devotion to your gods of choice, because they don't give a shit and you're mostly doing it for your own sake.

Everyday I'm believing less and less that Yaakov is a historian. To get a BA in history you have to take world, ancient, European, and American history courses so he should have basic knowledge of most cultures/histories.

Like Tausami said Eastern religions are more about the individual than paying homage to a god. Buddhism, for example, is about achieving Nirvana through meditation and releasing yourself from all physical and earthly desires. Buddha himself is not even a god as we know them. If you consider meditation prayer than they tend to do that in the morning and at night and for as long as they wish.

Other Eastern religions allow for small shrines for a house/family protector. Since it's not monotheistic they pray to whichever god that's relevant to their situation but there's no strict rule that I'm aware of.
In ancient Chinese religions your ancestors would be your gods/protectors and that is who you would have prayed to with state "religions" being more social/political institutions like Confucianism.

1677

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Erich von Daniken

« on: December 24, 2013, 01:12:00 AM »

Actually, the more I am reading of his work, the more I am inclined to agree with you. He is a VERY sloppy individual. I think Carl Sagan may have been right about him. Although paleo-contact is a possibility, and Sagan acknowledges that it is, he still believes that von Daniken is sloppy at best, and downright dishonest at worst. I am beginning to agree.

Praise god.

1678

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Erich von Daniken

« on: December 24, 2013, 12:06:13 AM »

Whatever one may think of von Daniken's work, I expect most of the research for the 2nd book was done by the time the wheels of the Swiss justice system were able to churn out his arrest & coviction.

Stop. I can't do this. You think way too highly of this terrible fraud who has completely poisoned so many minds about ancient history. He is an utter disgrace.

You claim to be a historian but I can't believe any historian would read that garbage and take any of it seriously.

1679

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Erich von Daniken

« on: December 23, 2013, 05:33:09 PM »

Look at Daniken's past. He has been arrested for fraud before.

But was he ever convicted of fraud?  People get arrested (and later released) for things that they didn't do all the time.

Yes.

In November 1968 von Däniken was arrested for fraud, after falsifying hotel records and credit references in order to take out loans[8] for $130,000 over a period of twelve years. He used the money for foreign travel to research his book.[6] Two years later,[8] von Däniken was convicted for "repeated and sustained" embezzlement, fraud and forgery, with the court ruling that the writer had been living a "playboy" lifestyle.[4] Von Däniken entered a plea for nullity on the grounds that his intentions were not malicious and the credit institutions were at fault for failing to adequately research his references.[4][6][8] Von Däniken was sentenced on 13 February 1970 to three and a half years imprisonment and fined 3,000 francs.[8][10] He served one year of this sentence before being released.[6][11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken

He wrote his second book while in prison. I doubt he could do any real thorough research that way.

1680

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Trek

« on: December 23, 2013, 04:10:11 PM »

The Inner Light was definitely an interesting episode. But I think the Q episodes are also my favorite. Particularly the one where they have to fix the future by fixing the past, I don't recall what the episode title was. I also really love Guinan episodes since I thought the El-Aurians were really fascinating.

Any of TNG with Wesley was automatic shit. I hate Wesley.