[Chat]Ball II: Chat Harder

Podly

RiemannLives wrote: »

"Courier New",0xFF333333,11px

(who measures fonts in points in this day and age?)

people who use InDesign

moniker

RiemannLives wrote: »

"Courier New",0xFF333333,11px

(who measures fonts in points in this day and age?)

I do, but then I generally consider inches more important than resolution when it comes to text.

Elki

Tycho wrote:

I rarely have nice things to say regarding continuity, using modifiers such as "dreaded" or "despicable" to characterize it. Aside from our general aversion to the concept, which - as we've established - is really quite vile indeed, it's simply not compatible with the way we do things around here. Certainly, we can envision a series of sequential events and transcribe them. However, the moment we commit to something of that nature, invariably something entertaining or revolting occurs and we're forced to make a decision between maintaining some artificial scenario we've invented or covering the events of the industry in real time.
Gabriel is leaving us next week for his annual family get-together, the strip and post will continue as usual, and the storyline we hinted at yesterday will begin on Monday - in the meantime, we couldn't let these Driv3r review rumors we saw linked off of Evil Avatar just slip by. I'm not saying that they're true, now - I'm saying that I hope they are. Because God damn if I'm not ready to sell out. I'm right here. This is the kind of shit I can bring, game industry. I'm talking about some graphic homoerotic metaphors. You know where to find me.

It has been a long time since I wrote anything substantial about a movie. I believe the last time I experimented with the form was in an off the cuff dismissal of Requiem For a Dream, which tickled neither my fancy nor any other part, but my skull still reverberates with the bludgeoning I received from film school students and drama queens for whom Aronofsky's ridiculous After-School Special glittered with secret meaning. Luckily, though that great gulf yawned between us, I managed to find a sliver of common ground with that film's adherents: Jennifer Connelly is hot to death. Staring intently into a mirror, I once said her name for an hour in the hopes that she would suddenly appear.

I had an opportunity to see Spider-Man 2 at midnight, which is a tradition among our people as you well know. The tickets were purchased via some ordinary online mechanism, common, which seems anticlimactic compared to the tent cities that blossomed around the Episode One line - but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I've had the archetypical line experience, I can relate cautionary tales to the young if necessary.

The second Spider-Man movie is, in essence, radical. They really have the right idea, a pattern which the X-Men films also deliver on: make a movie that is great on its own, for anyone, but is heavily encrusted with references for the faithful - some overt, some nearly subliminal in their delivery. The possible follow-up is made quite prominent, but they have planted the seeds of Spider-Men Three through Five while holding in a real way to what makes the character so great: how human he is. Even Brenna, who in most cases can be trusted to patiently yield to my fascination with films of this type, has actively sought out information on this movie and solicited assurances from me regarding our attendance. It's easy to see why - there is a real disparity between the invulnerable, mythological "hero" and this young man named Peter Parker who is beaten virtually to death in every encounter. His risks seem genuine in a way that the exploits of paranormal bad-asses typically don't.

(CW)TB out.

all you trekkies and tv addicts