Jul 19th 2010 8:47PM I agree that Tom Jones is his iconic role, the one he's most identified and the one he'll be remembered for long after he's passed on.
Two other performances that stick out in my mind -- The Dresser (1983), a movie that nobody talks about anymore and Miller's Crossing (1988), where he's the only watchable thing in that whole damned horribly overwritten movie.
PS: I'm surprised you managed to get through that whole article without once mentioning his role in Wolfen.
Jul 19th 2010 5:07PM Wait ... wait... just wait a goddamn minute --- there's another Fast & the Furious movie in the works!?
Jul 13th 2010 10:48PM What, no love for Vamp? C'mon! Can't go wrong with Chris Makepeace and Grace Jones!
Vamp > Fright Night II.
Jun 2nd 2010 2:35AM Terrific list. My personal preference is to drop Wolfen lower and maybe push Dog Soldiers and The Howling a little bit higher.
And while I know you said no sequels, Ginger Snaps: Unleashed and Ginger Snaps Back are both worth a view.
One of the things I liked about the series is that the producers just didn't retread the same forumla over again for the sequels; part II goes in a different direction from the original, and part III is an entirely different story, set different time period, albeit with the same actors.
Anyway, great post.
Jul 27th 2009 4:40PM Just remember: There's no such thing as a free lunch.
You do, after all, pay for the public library and that's "free."
Same goes with any other resource -- it's just a matter of who is doing the subsidizing.
If not you, then fine, the advertisers pick up the tab. But when the advertisers don't want to pay and you don't either .. guess what?
No more "free" resource because nothing is, in fact, "free."
Jul 7th 2009 8:21AM A bit overboard with arena? Gimme a break. Either Chilton is as clueless as his reputation says he is, or he's towing some company line with that one.
In BC, they made the best weapons in the game PvP only (until the release of Sunwell) and completely neglected Battleground development.
What did they *expect* people to do? Players follow the gear upgrades, and that's something anybody over level 40 knows. Why didn't Blizzard?
Jun 30th 2009 10:14AM I find the badge changes confusing.
Blizz made a mistake with heroics and progression. It was too easy to gear up in Naxx, giving players little reason to run heroics once they had mostly 7 and 7.5 level gear.
So on one hand I see this badge change as a way to bring Ulduar raiders back into heroics, or at least give them some motivation to run the daily.
On the other hand, I'm afraid this will hurt progression in other ways. Why run Naxx 10 or 25 when I can run the easier heroics once a day (and get anywhere from 10-25 badges in a few hours) and get Ulduar level gear? (There's more on sale than just the tier loot, after all.)
Is there a reason for players to progress from heroics to Naxx to Ulduar anymore? Or does the new badge system essentially junk an entire raid?
Jun 19th 2009 12:10AM "No longer will people berate low toons for entering battlegrounds."
You're overlooking something: According to the article, I can turn off BG XP gains at level 10 and go into "twink" matches.
Most people won't do that but I wouldn't be surprised to have a a few of lowbies running around twink games spamming chat with "LAWL 1SHOTTED AGAIN HAHA."
Jun 16th 2009 10:36PM Heh. Shamans underpresented. This is news?
They have been for years and Blizzard has shown little to no interest in changing the situation.
It's getting rather dull to hear them trot out the same old, same old in regard to "fixing" arenas, comps, and representation.
After hearing the same blather every season, I don't believe anything GC or any Blizzard dev says.
Feb 6th 2009 10:09AM Interesting that Guild Ox is the only one of the three that has listings for the newer PvE servers, like Winterhoof.