Pookiablo

The Baader-Meinhof Complex Watched this again to get me in the mood for researching my dissertation. I think it's an excellent account of the group and its actions through its most significant period. However, I get the impression that for someone who's never heard of the group, it'd be extremely hard to follow. Even with a bit of background knowledge, knowing all the characters is a tad tricky upon first viewing. Nevertheless, I love how it's been done and it's kinda chilling when you think that some of the stuff that happens in the movie, actually occurred in real life. My interest in researching the group has peaked as a result! For the enthusiast (perhaps not the best term) - 9/10 For the typical viewer - 7/10

Exactly, I just don't see how on earth it can be a remake - Microsoft and Rare are certainly not stupid enough to sell rights etc. (or at least I think they're not). It's either gonna be an entirely new, albeit shitty game based on the film, or more likely, some unrelated piece of shit with the name Goldeneye to con people into buying it. If it's the latter, I seriously suggest we consider boycotting it.

Dunno why but I just have this image of you as Samurai Gorah from F-Zero GX after he gets whooped by Falcon in the story mode, lol.

I was thinking this too. They'll probably just end up spending it on more food anyways.

Ooooh, so I saw! All the bad stuff seems to be happening in East Reading lately and it's gradually getting closer to where I live

I remember thinking so - if you were an avid N64-er like myself, you appreciated the fact that Rare pretty much kept that console alive for you - virtually all of their games were fucking epic. Saying that, I hated Starfox Adventures (although it was a very purdy looking game) - but then I was never a big fan of the cube anyway.

I'm the opposite - I feel that Zelda really does need a breath of fresh air. That or, if they did follow the old style, just do it a lot better. A world that feels like it has people and not people who only serve as useless "sign posts". Plus, I really would love for some voice-acting, I worry that it'll damage the game, but hopefully Nintendo, should they opt for it (can't see it happening myself) - would pump a fuckload of cash into it and get the best people available. But yeah, not another Twilight Princess for me. That game was disappointing in terms of what I was expecting from it. Something clever and inventive a la Majora's Mask is needed!

I honestly can't see this being a remake - there are too many interests involved and I think the amount of money needed by Activision to pay off certain groups would be too much to make the game worth it. I imagine it's either a big con or they're doing a Goldeneye: Rogue Agent jobby again. And if they are remaking it, where the hell is Pierce Brosnan!?!?! Don't get me wrong, I like Daniel Craig but it'd just be so out of place to have him. If they were to have voice-acting then I think quite a lot would be lost, given that Brosnan certainly had that witty charm to him. Besides, (as someone posted earlier I think), didn't Activision make a near fully-working remake of the game for Wiiware/XBLA but it got shot down before it amounted to anything?

Well the group is actually a global network, but yes, the Taliban were providing a sanctuary for the operations in that area. And religious brainwash as a term I can agree with but not if people argue that that's why they flew planes into buildings. Another media folly is to suggest that religious terrorism is the main cause of suicide attacks. It's not, and a very small percentage of suicide attacks have been conducted by religious groups. I don't think they hijacked those planes because they were out of touch with reality or had a mental disorder per se, and rather it's because it's an incredibly effective tactic. Nevertheless, maybe some brainwashing did influence their decision although you can't say that for a certainty.

Much like how none of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan either. Also, I strongly disagree with the bit in bold.

True, to a certain extent. I think it's more to do with a political transformation. The state is becoming less and less of a central actor as other sub-state, non-sovereign actors are capable of challenging its power. Globalization has facilitated transnational terrorism, to the point where Western technology can be turned against itself (Islamic fundamentalists may despise Western values but they certainly love using our technology to kill us in new and inventive ways). 9/11 for me, signifies a pretty big wake-up call - you can be the most powerful military force on the planet, but a small, determined non-state actor was able to cause significant havoc, disruption and at high cost (to paint a very real picture of this, consider the fact that the US military is as powerful as the next 14 states' military forces COMBINED). Furthermore, it's estimated that it cost Al-Qaeda approximately $400,000-$500,000 to carry out the 9/11 attacks, whereas the result of said attacks cost the US around $500 billion in resulting costs, etc. It goes to show that the state, despite being very powerful, no longer possesses a monopoly on the use of force and resources. The point here is that, yes, the 2004 Tsunami was far deadlier and it's a shame that we didn't pay it the attention it truly deserved, but 9/11 is not just about the loss of life, it's about the context in which it finds itself. I do strongly agree about the media's slant/take on things - the way in which it presents these events as news is disturbing, purely because it gives them the very attention that they so crave. Plus, the news footage of the 9/11 attacks was incredibly shocking and regardless of the CNN factor and how it approaches the subject, that imagery is gonna stick in your mind and be far more memorable than the Tsunami purely because it was so downright shocking. One thing I would argue that you can be grateful for with regards to the media, is that it often forgets to focus on the grievances of terrorist groups when they attack, choosing rather to focus on the nature of the event itself. The "plus side" to that? It ignores the political nature of the attacks and thus doesn't necessarily help promote a terrorist group's message. Hence, (as a result of the media's take) why Islamic terrorist groups (if not all terrorist groups) such as Al-Qaeda are interpreted by us as being a band of madmen, hell-bent on killing and destruction. The fact is, they're more often than not, a group of intelligent people, with a variety of different upbringings and educational/social backgrounds who rationally opt for terrorism in order to advance their goal.

I love how it's so seamlessly merged in with the traditional wedding march song - doesn't sound out of place at all!

Indeed. I believe it's what Wilkinson called a "symbiotic relationship". The fact that terrorists can rely on the media always reporting on terrorist incidents has often meant that terrorist attacks have become so spectacular for lack of a better word. By this I mean terrorists have to actually make their attacks so incredible just so that the media will pay attention, so yes, I certainly concur. In a way it's kinda not the media's fault - ideally, the media would just ignore terrorism and not report on it, thus making it highly ineffective in terms of communicating a legitimate grievance. However, would that count as not appropriately informing the public? But, as you imply, it's really down to the way in which it's presented to us - why does the media so intently focus on trying to scare us with terrorism, when in reality, it's not that big a deal (it kills a ridiculously insignificant amount of people in comparision to other much deadlier events).

Funny that because when I was living in Germany and France I was able to claim benefits, despite the fact that I was only living for a 6 month period in each on internships. So no, you're completely wrong. The French system, albeit very bureaucratic, helps many people who earn under a certain amount or nothing at all. Also, immigration brings in more money than it costs. Otherwise it wouldn't occur. States operate in self-interest, it's a fact of political realism. They're not charities, despite your ignorant view. Argue all you want about "spongers" and what-not, the majority of folk who come over here pay their taxes and aid the economy. We need immigration in order to prosper and I can find numerous sources that say so (not gonna waste my time proving your simpleton view wrong though). And try not to get me infracted this time, it's not my fault if you're gonna argue something so completely and utterly wrong.

It's not ridiculous, it's part of being in the freakin' EU. We can move to France or Germany and sponge off our their benefits if we want to. Everyone always sees it from only our bloody point of view. It applies to all. It's greater freedom of movement and it's there for reason. Movement of labour is no longer restricted, making it easier for people to work across borders and so on. Yes, I know, people hate the Poles and Romanians for coming over, but many that do are hard-working and do earn money - jesus, we're short on many trades in this country and they've been plugging the gap. Plus, I'm sure there's plenty of jobs over there where skilled people like our supposed-selves can go and help out and earn a nice package in the process. Plus, my altruistic nature tells me we should be helping the fuckers anyways, they suffered for 40 years or so under Communism while we trundled along in self-interest. And it probably isn't bigotry, but it's taking a very typical example that applies to a minimum of people who come over here and making it something it's not.

^Bahahahahahahahhahahahahaha! That's amazing!

That or you're poor...like me. Hold me my casual brother! We'll get through this together (that or we could go play Big Beach Sports or somat).

I imagine they'll have some sort of video demonstration that illustrates how it works. It'd be very hard for them to sell it to us if they couldn't at least show us in a mass media kinda way.

Grrr, it's losses you moron! I thought it was a simple typo at first but the repeated spelling errors makes your post even more annoying to read. It's incredible because in your edit you got the singular right! On point, I think it's less to do with the used games market (although that's an issue) and more to just make something more profitable to begin with. Games have such a stupidly big budget that in some instances, they'd have to sell a ridiculous amount of copies to actually get a worthwhile return. At least with DLC, they can get the pre-owned user's cash as well as those who bought the game and really enjoy it.

Thank you Emasher, ye speak the truth! - dazzy it would be considered an entirely new console, even if it has the name Wii in it somewhere. Why? Because the "HD games" you so cherish wouldn't work on a normal Wii, thus it would be different. Your example is literally like the difference between GC and Wii - a more powerful console with backwards compatibility.

I got that when I started again a few weeks back. I swear it's telling me I'm fat as punishment* *or because I love eating cheese and crackers, and cake, and dominos...

Mine's not nearly as interesting as most other folks but... ...my girlfriend and I went for dinner the other month. As we were sitting there, waiting for our food, this old story about how I'd gotten off with my mate came up in discussion (he's a bloke, we were drunk, it was a dare, I swear! lol). She was teasing me about it, suggesting that subliminally I had feelings for him and wanted more. After a few minutes of winding me up about it, I then blurted out "I do not have sexual feelings for Bob!". I then turned to see an entire restaurant and the waiter looking at me. I just focused on eating my food after that. Plus my girlfriend had to pay for the meal on her card so I clearly looked like some gay friend of hers...

Is there something wrong with you? I think you've responded to the wrong post, that or you're insane. I never said any of this! And I seriously doubt that they would sacrifice it for reasons that I explained earlier. Brawl and MK (and a handful of other things) - these are CURRENT generation games that use LAST gen controllers. And on a sidenote, could you please read my posts in future, rather than just respond to something I never said.

They've certainly got the look right - I was expecting a poorly executed 3D attempt (remember the god awful Clone Wars: Republic Heroes?). I'm not a fan of the series myself but if it turns out to be a fun game, I might be swayed into playing

Indeed, although I highly doubt it, given that the moment they launched anything, the US would literally wipe them off of the face of the planet.