Messages

I think it looks great and I'm certainly not going to start slagging it because the scene with the football field doesn't look realistic enough - some people really are hard to please!

Sorry to double post, but just anothe rpoint about Sin/Dex:
Doesn't Anthony Williams draw a particularly great Wulf Sternhammer and Gene Dog?

Loved this issue.

A clever and funny Dredd and a totally thrilling Strontium Dog were the highlights for me, closely followed by Sin/Dex.
I think some of you guys need to lighten up - Sin/Dex was great fun and it's always nice to see Gene Dog whatever the context (especially at Xmas)!

Re - The National Anthem...

I don't think the bit with the finger is a plot hole. The finger gets sent to the TV station, not the police, and the media guy says something like 'take it away and photograph it before you send it to the police'. So the media have already processed and sent out the information (or misinformation) to the public before the police know anything about it or can ID the finger.

It's a nice poster, but the line 'The Legend Ends' coupled with the image seems totally at odds with the film's title.

Is that not the point/counterpoint?, as in the Dark Knight is dead, long live the Dark Knight!

The legendmay be dead but he lives on.


Listen to a crappy audio recording of the prologue:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7vOEwnD6dfQ

Well maybe, but to continue your analogy, it would usually mean 'The (old) king is dead, long live the (new) king'.
Are we to believe that there's a new 'Dark Knight' and that Batman is dead?
And anyway, isn't it usually the person that dies and the legend that lives on, not the other way around?
What does it mean, 'The Legend Ends'? Surely, one of the defining characteristics of a legend is that it endures?

This is what I mean when I say it's confused (I really mean I'm confused)!

Nah, I think it's quite deliberate and works quite well when read in the order of the poster tagline:

The Legend Ends...

The Dark Knight Rises

Hmmm, still sounds a bit confused to me.

Still really looking forward to the film though!

It's a nice poster, but the line 'The Legend Ends' coupled with the image seems totally at odds with the film's title.

Looks awesome!

Despite my initial reservations I actually think this looks pretty good. Some of the design work is lovely and if one of the main Pixar bods is behind it I'm pretty confident it will be a story well told.
I hope this becomes a successful franchise.

I am resolutely UNINTERESTED in seeing any more of these movies. And I say that as a 'Formers fan.

Sorry Paramount / Michael Bay / whoever, but you kill my favourite character in horrific fashion and NEVER reference it again at any point in your script, and you lose my custom. And that goes for DVDs too.

That's war, man.

I like the Transformers, they're fun - as are Jason Statham films. I think this is good news and I'd definitely pay to see this. It could be like 'The Transporter' except the car's a robot!

Kids today. Spoon fed everything, and everything is easier.

People who whine about how difficult it is having to make it to a "save point" make me sick.

I don't recall ever completing a Spectrum game. I got absurdly good at Match Day 2, and I can't have been been far away from clocking Quazatron, but the hundreds of others?

Not a chance.

Did you ever play Bruce Lee?

Easiest end of game boss ever!

I'm pretty sure my brother completed Sabre Wulf and Knightlore. Got about 98% on Attik Attak too.

i find it hard to reconcile the fact that the Happy Feet films are written and directed by George 'Mad Max' Miller!

[Arkham City]

Finished the last of the side missions on Arkham City yesterday - now that I have 100% on both the main story and side quests I don't feel guilty about putting it back on the shelf for a bit while I tackle Assassin's Creed: Revelations. Played about 3 hours so far and I'm loving it - there's just so much to do!

But if half the protesters don't actually understand what they are protesting about (and the level that some of the protesters are at is typified by the quotes like 'some people have more money than other people')  - or can't come up with a decent, cohesive argument or plan for change then the 'face to face' debates are just a farce. I find the protesters very hard to take seriously as they don't seem to be a unified group, just a group of people wanting change but not really understanding the hows or whys.

Some protestors are not all protestors. As I said it's a long March and it's not true that they don't know what they're doing, many do and can educate those who don't as the demands evolve, do really you think it's easy to change such an old, ingrained infrastructure? I see nothing bad with masses of people engaging in a conversation about the biggest problems or our time, maybe you have a better solution to how and where these things will be discussed without them being co-opted institutionally? At least they are starting the conversation society as a whole been putting off for way too long. Being too critical because it's not like other protests with a shopping list is not constructive either.

I'm quite happy with the mode of protest that you are suggesting but this is the first time I have heard their wishes expressed like this - and that brings me back to my first point. What they are trying to do is unclear.
If it's about promoting conversation then that's what they should put on their placards. 

The problem I have with the 'Occupy' movement is that the nature of the protest is so poorly conceived and the message they are trying to promote is not clear.

I also don't agree with the occupy movement, which seems to me to be protesting about life being unfair without offering any credible solutions.

Not true, I believe not fully declaring demand is part of the point, just because they haven't signed any declaration doesn't mean there isn't a message. To me the message is quite clear, there is a widening social gap between the haves and have-nots and it's not good, that is a hugely complicated issue the solutions to which can't by written down in simple form. The point is to bring as many of us into the conversation face to face as possible because there is no other fora for this to happen that aren't owned privately or by the government. We are the 99% is a pretty good slogan for now that corporate media finds very hard to pigeon-hole because it's not bound by ideology but reality. Their demands will develop over the ensuing months, consensually, and by not declaring full intentions so soon makes it very hard for corporate media to take them down or brand them as useless hippies, stoners, yippies, spoiled iphone users, wimpy liberals, libertarians or whatever else the movement clearly is generally not. The main thrust of this movement is not represented by upset iphone users with little regard for St. Paul's gift stop as someone else said. Maybe some prefer simplistic short-lived campaigns like Obama's 'Change': the same unrealistic/empty promises all governments proclaim which promise all and deliver nothing. I know which I'd prefer.

It's the long march, the best ones always are.

But if half the protesters don't actually understand what they are protesting about (and the level that some of the protesters are at is typified by the quotes like 'some people have more money than other people')  - or can't come up with a decent, cohesive argument or plan for change then the 'face to face' debates are just a farce. I find the protesters very hard to take seriously as they don't seem to be a unified group, just a group of people wanting change but not really understanding the hows or whys.