Chindie

Sadly not, it would have improved the movie. The Knightmare thing ties to a long running thing in the Batman world of never missing an opportunity to use the word 'Knight'.

Microsoft's racist Twitter bot. Reading about a Microsoft created AI telling the world it was 'smoking kush in front the police' absolutely made my day earlier.

I genuinely think WB want to satisfy fans, but the problem is they are rushing to get to their version of the Avengers. The Marvel idea only really worked because they spent 4 years establishing it. WB want to skip all that and get to the big event so BvS is full of random bits of wider universe stuff (I'm not joking when I say the movie literally stops in the final hour to show us all the other characters we're going to have in the Justice League...). The movie has a moment which essentially sets up the future villain Marvel will have literally spent the best part of 10 years setting up the equivalent to. The reason I think they want to satisfy (and develop) fans is that these movies are only a licence to print money when audiences buy into them. BVS made a shit ton of money over the weekend but it also had the biggest drop off in takings between Friday and Sunday of any superhero movie ever, even bigger than absolute car crash Fantastic 4 last year. Projected takings for BVS after that actually has it losing money (just) in cinemas over it's run after that. It'll turn a profit on home media, but WB wanted (and needed, really) this to be a billion dollar movie. It's exceptionally unlikely to be now. And that's because it isn't very good, on any level. Say what you will about Marvel, even their bad movies, even if you hate superhero movies, work and are well made and solid. Iron Man 2 is rubbish, but it's a better movie than BVS on a fundamental level.

Yeah the character is apparently Steppenwolf. It's hard to take that name seriously given the band but I'll go with it. I've looked up that character, as my deeper DC lore is hopeless, and that thing looks nothing like him. But fine. He is one of Darkseid's posse and I suppose they do need to set up these villains as Justice League 1 is on the horizon and they don't have many movies before then to do the leg work - although rumour has it the first Justice League movie is just Batman going on a quest to bring together the team, so they could do the donkey work there as well. We don't know who the villain in Suicide Squad is so maybe that's one of them. But from I know, Darkseid's crew are supposed to be pretty much Superman level creatures, in which case the Suicide Squad shouldn't be able to defeat it. My guess is at best, if it does tie in to the wider universe villain, it's more that Darkseid has something to do with the creation of whatever it is the Suicide Squad fight. It's a mess. I genuinely can't believe they didn't realise this was going to be as much of a mess as it is.

I'll be surprised if that plays into Suicide Squad with any depth but we'll see... The Knightmare scene is odd. There's no reason why it can't work on paper. The problem is they do it really badly, on every level. It's very disorientating in the movie. It takes a minute to realise its a dream because of how abrupt it is. And they get caught at cross purposes with it. You can absolutely use the dream sequence of a world gone to shit with Superman as some all powerful dictator to show Bruce's fears. It's a bit on the nose but it works. The problem comes that they try to do that, but also try to make it like a premonition. There are various references to a future of the series (it's obvious that this is what they want to threaten the world with being post Justice League) so you've muddied the water - it's an embodiment of Bruce's fears and it's a nod to things that are actually coming, it doesn't make any sense to have references to the big bad in Bruce's dream about being scared of Superman. Secondly, and more importantly, even if you clean up the dream, remove the premonition element, make it a more natural and obvious dream sequence, the movie doesn't need it at that point. You do that 20 minutes into the film, cementing Bruce's mindset of Superman being a dictator waiting to happen, having laid some more careful foundations of his distrust. Cinematically it's more satisfying. What we actually get, is an hour of setting up Bruce as being distrustful and ultimately hating Superman. The opening, which is really good, if too blunt on the 9/11 imagery, does all of your set up. You absolutely understand immediately Bruce's motivation. You need no further elaboration. You've got it the moment Bruce glances up to the sky and you see his anger at what's happened. After that you don't need to develop it, and you certainly don't need dream to drive it home. But they do anyway. The second one is just silly. As I said they've admitted they chucked it into the finished script as a 'cool, clever moment'. It's neither. It's stupid, confusing, and only acts a set up. Awful.

There's a moment in Batman V Superman that may or may not be a dream sequence (the film establishes that could be either), that confuses the **** out of everyone and doesn't add anything to the movie at all. Turns out, the reason for that was they just decided to shove it in after the script was finished because they thought it would be clever and cool. Somehow. Also they've already released a deleted scene that does more set up for things to come that is so obscure is not really even a spoiler, but strangely actually makes the very end of the movie make more sense. As currently it makes no sense at all. How no-one sat in the editing suite and said 'Zach, I don't think this cut actually makes much sense, and is a bit of a mess really mate', I have no idea. That video above is 45 seconds long. It could be even shorter. But it makes the final minute make sense. How isn't it in the movie?

I agree it's a bit impenetrable. I think it was designed with the idea that you'd be making notes of patterns in the day and characters and then investigate things. But nobody did. So you fall into using guides But still, it's a nice change of play style from the Zelda formula. The closest they've come to breaking it since was a Link Between Worlds. And all that did was say buy the boomerang etc and do the dungeons in any order you like.

D'Onofrio steals series 1. They said at the time it was as much an origin of Kingpin as it was Daredevil and everyone rolled their eyes a bit, but it absolutely is. He takes a slightly silly but important villain and embodies him. It's a great interpretation of a slightly broken man who has become this barely contained raging bully. I'm really hopeful we see more of him. Even if you immediately think of E'gar from MIB - sugar, water. Morr. Morr I think the whole show has been brilliantly cast, apart from Elektra. I don't rate Elodie Yung. She does a decent job with the character (and she does get better so don't be surprised if your opinion changes) but she's not a great actor, and she's playing a really divisive role - people think Daredevil either improves in her absence or they think it really isn't Daredevil without her. I'm in the former group, she's a rubbish character and always has been. So Yung is lumbered with a crap character she can't play very well from my perspective. Bernthal smashes the part, Cox is a really good Murdoch and Daredevil, etc etc. You should consider Jessica Jones afterwards. It's a different type of show, but really good with another brilliant villain.

Majoras Mask is the black sheep of the family. It's actually very good, but was such a departure from the formula it rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way. They won't do something like it again unfortunately.

Aha... What do you make of the series individually? 1 is probably better overall but 2 offers some great scenes (the episode 3 fight... ) and some nice reveals.

First series or second?

That It starts to recognise patterns in how you play and adapts to them. I played the opening few hours heavily reliant the tranq pistol with headshots, and then slowly they started to ramp up enemies wearing helmets. Later I had a powerful tranq sniper that didn't need the headshots really, so started to go to body shots - they then started to wear body armour. You can fight back against the though - when you open the FOB you can send squads out that 'destroy the supply lines' so for a few missions there are less helmets etc. It never really gets hard (bar a few missions that have difficulty spikes) though.

IIRC, and I could be wrong here, she doesn't unlock until early in the Africa missions, and you might have to listen to her tapes and do a side mission relating to her as well. Probably best to just blitz through anything relating to her and also visit her in her cage a few times.

Spawn the movie, even as someone who kinda likes the character, is dreadful, and moreover is an incredible waste of the character and concepts.

Inevitable. I wish him well, and think he'll be one of the few to leave here and have success. He didn't have the chance to succeed.

I can kinda see the point you're making, but the IRA, Breivik and Timothy McVeigh, amongst others, kinda undermine it to the extent it's groundless.

My initial reaction, not knowing the full story, it doesn't sound like a terrorist incident.

Look up Tenura matting. Its a slightly rubbery net life fabric that grips pretty much anything. Reasonably cheap as well.

Plenty of people haven't bought PS4s yet, and if you've got the capability to do minor tweaks that your developers are whinging about, why not? Especially if some of those tweaks might add another feather to your cap and tie into marketing buzzwords that are hot currently and might force a few hands (HDR, 4k...). They don't really expect every PS4 owner to rush out and buy new ones, a few might but the sales pitch is basically for new adopters who want a few of these new features and may be prepared to pay a premium for it. Further it's a first step to normalising a more regular upgrade cycle. Whether that catches or not is up in the air, but they'd like to get towards releasing new hardware on a shorter timescale than we've got currently - perhaps breaking the generation structure entirely.

Iron Giant please. Which is finally getting a Blu-ray release this year.

I'm not sure I agree. The PC has become the avenue for VR because of the power necessary to operate it to a good standard. It's incredibly hardware demanding. The PlayStation VR needs a booster pack to operate to full capacity because the PS4 isn't capable of running it alone. The Rift specs are so high that most things released today are going to be playable on a Rift machine. There may be some variance in quality but that's standard on PC at this point. Pretty much everything is playable. There's nothing stopping developers making good VR games with this variance. At the moment the problem is understanding how to make VR games. So far the obvious moves have been cockpits, and less commonly 'table top' viewpoints. Going forward they will fix that, but for the time being they have to push the technology and see how things work. That's why the day one Rift offering was rubbish. It literally is tech demos in many cases. That'll change - whether it becomes a successful format with killer titles of up in the air - I'm not convinced. The PS VR was demoed recently and that had as much tech demo feel as Rift does. Perhaps some of them hide it a little better, but you have things like Headmaster which is absolutely a proof of concept demoing ideas in a mini game. Much like the Rift. Battlefront is being spoken as an 'experience' -they aren't porting Battlefront to VR wholesale, they're developing something that takes elements of it and uses VR to complement it. They may never do a true VR Battlefront. VR's hurdles to overcome are the technical limitations, working out how it works, what works, how to use VR in gaming successfully, and secondly the cost. The cost is a massive barrier to entry. The Rift and Vive are too expensive at the moment for many to join in, and have associated cost of a PC able to use it. But the PlayStation VR is expensive as well. It's cheaper, but it still isn't going to get massive numbers on board. It won't become mass market until the jumping on point is attainable and justifiable for the masses. I'm not convinced it'll do that any time soon.

Depends. It could be considered terrorism, dependant on what actually happened. But the bloke that did it is a 66 year old pastor from Tennessee who had a history of disrupting Congress. Seems he flipped.

What are your thoughts for X? Presuming it's some kind of military action, this is exactly what ISIS wants. They believe in a scenario that was apparently prophesied where an end of times battle takes place in Dabiq which proceeds the return of Jesus and the end times. By issuing an ultimatum that says 'the next attack will be followed by US invasion of Syria and an eradication of IS' you'd have an attack in days. You may as well just go in. Everything IS is doing and inspiring abroad are jabs at the world to encourage the reaction - to enchanted us to do something that drives more people to them, and ultimately to force us to enact their prophecy and get embroiled in a nightmare... Assuming we did go in and fight IS proper, what is the plan assuming you can capture all that territory? You're signing up to nation building, which to date has been a fools errand in the Middle East. Nation building is difficult in the best of circumstances (if not impossible). In Syria and Iraq? You'd be signing up for generations long campaigns which will sow the seeds of the next terror group. If you just turn large chunks of Syria to glass, and walk away at a job well done, who's going to fill the gap? Assad? He's a lunatic murdering his people en masse. The Kurds? A lot of Syrian people will have a problem with that, and likely other people in the region too. The anti Assad forces? You're just setting the battle lines for a war that will possibly lead to a genocide. And so on and so forth. A power vacuum and misguided meddling helped to make IS, another will just foster the next. And that's not accounting for wider regional games of influence and power with the Iranians and the Saudis, or Shia and Sunni generally. There isn't an easy answer to this. If there was we'd already be doing it. Pandora's box has been opened and we're going to watch it play out until things change to such a degree we can try to fix it.

The Samsung one has improved sensors and so on that improve latency, and also has lenses that improve the effect considerably. The ones based off Google Cardboard are just holders for the phone with lenses.

The case against Apple has been dropped. Because the FBI managed to crack it anyway with help from 'a third party'.