If anyone is interested in seeing what an MOO is like, I have been known to play and enjoy the Discworld MUD.
It's good fun!
@cornbredx: A bit more info on off licenses: it specifically means that a shop is licensed to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, as opposed to a bar which is (obv) licensed to sell alcohol for immediate consumption (my dad once told me this was an "on licence" but I'm starting to think he was winding me up).
As far as size goes you might have to accept that smart phones are big now!
If the high end smart phones are a bit too pricey, I think I can recommend the phone I just got, which is a Sony Xperia M2. It's their mid range phone, apparently not as powerful as the z2, but I don't really play games on it so it hasn't bothered me, and it' near half the price of most high end phones. I'm sure that most games that are really designed for phones would be fine on it. It has one of the better battery lives I've seen in a smart phone - I get about 2 days from it if I'm using it fairly heavily, and if I'm using it how I normally use it (some phone calls, maybe about an hour a day using it as an MP3 player) then I get 3 or 4 before it needs charging. It also has that sweet 4g capability.
For the more general questions, I'm no expert but here's a few thoughts:
On whether it will last for 3 years: My last phone was a Samsung Galaxy S2 which I got second hand from my sister. It lasted me 3 years, and she had it for 2. It still works, actually, but it was slowing down a lot and the OS had developed some odd bugs. Basically there's no reason, imo, that any phone wouldn't last 3 years at least if you take care of it. Obviously with phones getting larger and thinner it's a bit easier to break them accidentally now, but if you're not clumsy then you should be ok!
On whether to buy Sim Free or get a contract: Best thing to do is to compare any contract that comes with a phone to the cost of the phone, and the cost of an equivalent SIM-only contract. If you get a phone on contract (in the UK) it's normally a 24 month contract, so it's a case of subtracting 24 months worth of the SIM-only contract from 24 months of the with SIM contract to find out how much they are charging you for the phone, essentially. It will invariably be over the odds, but that's thee premium for financing your phone I suppose. I suppose this is actually totally obvious, but I feel like in this country they try and obfuscate the fact that what you are doing is financing a purchase. If you have the money in hand, it will almost certainly be better to buy the phone out of pocket and get a SIM only contract. Less money overall, and it will have less impact on your monthly cash flow.
On whether a better phone is worth it over a console: Obviously this is a personal decision, but for me I would say definitely not. The range of types of game you can get on a phone is pretty limited, and honestly once the initial excitement has worn off I very rarely find myself using my phone for games. It might be worth it if you are travelling/commuting a lot and don't get much time to sit down and play games, I suppose.
So someone please correct me if they know something that I don't, but is there an assumption that it's going to be a political allegory about racism because that's basically what he's done before? Is there more evidence for that than just his last two films?
To me I get more of a sense that this is going to be about the ways in which negativity in our environment has negative effects on our personality, and how it can be a struggle to not let it get to you.
Admittedly Jackman's character does seem to be presented as a typical bigoted bad character, but Blomkamp doesn't seem like someone who can totally leave behind narrative conventions (or doesn't want to jettison traditional structures at the risk of reducing the commercial appeal). That tension certainly seemed to be there in District 9.
So I'm not saying I'm definitely right, but I do think what I saw in that trailer does suggest as much potential for it to be a quite Universal, philosophical and humane film as a stretched political allegory. I hope that's the case, because it could indicate a step up for his career, moving beyond the SFX-artistry-meets-b-movie-sci-fi of his previous films and applying that to meatier stories with real heft to them.
What annoys me about it is the text prompt. I don't care if you have a choice or not, the text just makes it look really hokey. Just a simple X when you approach the casket would suffice, and make quite a difference. Imagine if there had been a text prompt in MGS3: "Press square to shoot Boss in head"
Seen a few people say this and I agree. I think the main reason that I think a simple "x" or "press x" would be far more effective is that it would acknowledge a universality of grief as something that everyone understands. It would be a way to connect with the character, rather than just know what they were feeling, because even though a lot of difference separates him and the player, there is a commonality to that experience.
As an extension to that, I think a simple "press x" would make the player think about what that button press would do, and about the range of responses available to grief and how they might react and how it feels and so on and so on. It's not like anyone playing that scene is going to think "what, press x to take a dump on the coffin?" so I don't see why you wouldn't do that. "Press X to grieve" reduces the range of responses in the player and therefore reduces the thought and engagement they will have. It also probably raises the chance they will feel talked down to, like, what else do you think I would make my character do at a funeral?
Edge of Tomorrow - This movie starts out really really well, but begins to unravel some time near when they go to the farm with the helicopter, I think. That section just kills the momentum of the movie (and up until that point, they do an absolutely stunning job of keeping things moving, especially given the premise. Things pick up a bit after that, with Tom Cruise doing some really excellent IDGAF acting, but then fairly soon after that, the changes they make from the book start to really unravel the movie for me.
I'm not normally someone who complains about a) Changes from the source material and b) Plot Holes as I think usually these are insignificant problems, but in this case the plot holes are so much the direct result of changes from the book that it really left me scratching my head and wondering what they thought the changes were adding. My main issue is that the book is actually very precise about the whys and hows the day is resetting for Cage, and how the Mimics use this ability. The film is a lot more murky on this, and doesn't seem to really stick to any set of rules: Why is it that killing an Alpha is what gives Cage his ability at the start but then at the end killing an Alpha will not give them this ability, only allow the Mimiccs to reset the day? This is the biggest of a range of issues that I have with the time travel stuff in the film - and I know that time travel is always a bit silly, but I'm only saying that the book explains a consistent and believable mechanism for it that they ignore for no beneficial reason, I think.
So yeah. It's a mixed bag for me. I think it starts out incredibly strong, loses its way in the middle, and then pretty much everything towards the end (the final assault) is pretty sub par. The very last scene has the stink of studio interference and reactions to test audiences, and feels totally tacked on and cheap, and undercuts a lot of the themes of the rest of the movie. I'd give it 3/5 tentacles.
Also watched the Coen Brothers remake of The Ladykillers, which has a bad rep that me and the missus wanted to confirm for ourselves, as fans of the original. I'd say it's mostly deserved. Where the original is lean and focused, this remake is baggy, with a lot of additions designed to extend the story that don't add a huge amount. With that said, the slightly counterintuitive thing is that these additions allow for some classic Coen character moments (including some great scenes with Steven Root). These are more enjoyable than some of the "wacky" moments (which are more in keeping with the original), which are a little hard to watch. The scene where Tzi Ma's General dies trying to kill the old lady is a pretty good example of how the zany humour falls flat, although the deadpan way he falls down the stairs at the end is properly hilarious. It makes me wonder if this would be a much better film if they'd gone darker with it, really. Marlon Wayans is awful in it, but the rest of the cast are pretty perfect, especially Tom Hanks who actually captures the spirit of the Alec Guiness performance really well, without imitating it. I'd give it 2/5 hearses
At first I was going to say that his biggest mistake was adding salt before cooking, but then I googled it and found out that I was wrong, and at least in the case of an omelette it's probably the better way around.
Conclusion: Dan is actually some kind of naive cooking savant!
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment