ClaRK! Kent

Separate issues. Dumbing-down on the one hand, Americanisation on the other. Our popular culture is now at least 60% imported from America, and the stuff we create ourselves is incresingly dumbed-down and catered for the lowest common denomintor. I love America, it's a fucking awesome place and I love Americans too, but I do think we should be able to fill our own TV schedules and movie theatres without relying almost exclusively on imports from the USA.

I don't usually post about Sports, but Sousa directed me here and frankly there's been a lot of BS spewed. The original article is utter trash, and I'm stunned that 4 pages-worth of posts have dignified it with discussion. That said, the reason football/soccer isn't big in America is actually socio-political, stemming back to when the sport first took off globally in the late 19th century and the early 1900s, a time when the USA was engaged in a policy so staggeringly isolationist that it was a shock they didn't close their borders. Add that to the inherent differences in the 'psyche' of America compared to not just Europeans but the ENTIRE rest of the world (oh yeah, let's not boil this down to old Europe vs. new America when the rest of the world is also totally enamoured with football) and you're going to have difficulties exporting the game to the USA. It's sad, actually, because a good game of football (despite what people have said, 0-0 draws are often really dull and the phrase 'not a game for the neutral' is widely-used in football journalism) is probably the most exciting sports-related event in the world. I'm thinking of England vs. Brazil in 1970, the 1966 World Cup final, and more recently the Liverpool vs. Milan Champions League final in 2005, classic games that totally dispel the "boring" myths about football. The fact is that basketball and American football have 'higher scoring games' is largely due to the fact that, for example, in basketball you can score 2 or 3 points whereas in football/soccer every goal is worth 1. It's a question, really, of what you want out of a game - football fans are amongst the most passionate and dedicated in the world, and the concept of 'entertaining football' for me is something straight out of the Americanisation and dumbing-down of British culture. Alas. It's not a sport that would go over well in the States, because the concept of a 'draw' or a game where you can dominate but still lose are completely alien to the modern American popular psyche. Still, it's becoming more popular, and perhaps in 10 years we'll be having a different conversation. EDIT: Also, to point out - the quality of the game in America is DIRE. Absolutely awful, from grassroots up to the international level. Which, actually, does make a difference. I live in Brighton, where there's only one team who have been pretty much awful for the last 15-20 years, especially since their financial issues in the late 90s. In Brighton, it's stunning to me (largely because I come from Bristol where people are massively passionate about the game) that younger people don't seem to care all that much about football, perhaps because there's never been a team they can go and watch that has anything approaching quality. Most locals I meet support London teams, or Liverpool or whatever, a Brighton & Hove Albion fan is a rare sight. So it's not surprising that it's not that big in the States, where the best teams would struggle to make waves in League One over here.

I went to see Watchmen this evening with 3 friends who, like me, were huge fans of the graphic novel and we were all very wary about how the movie would pan out. Loved it. It was fantastic, a great adaptation/updating of the novel, everything that was changed was done so cleverly and in a way that streamlines and/or makes things relevant for a modern audience that hasn't necessarily read the original. Jackie Earl Haley and Matthew Goode, particularly, brought their characters to life fantastically, which is not to say the rest of the cast didn't do a fantastic job because everybody was very well cast and did wel, even down to Malin Ackerman who I had serious doubts about until about 20 minutes in. Awesome, from start to finish.

I hate July/August. I constantly want to start a game where I take Bristol City up into the Premiership, but July/August are so intensely fucking boring and awful that I never manage it. Plus, their total lack of wage budget/the fact that their players are rated way worse than it actually is, of course.

Mash. Although I wasn't born when it finished so that's kinda obvious. And The Sopranos.

Last time out I usually used Zidane, Vivi, Steiner and Quina towards the end, especially when I was rinsing the optional bosses and stuff like Ozma. Quina, levelled appropriately and casting Magic Hammer, is essential for helping neutralise said boss' threat, while Vivi casts magic (IIRC I subbed him for Amarant and a year's supply of dark matter against Ozma) Zidane supports and Steiner uses either Shock or Climhazzard. Garnet falls behind due to her annoying 'oops, lol, am distracted' stuff that falls slap-bang when I do most of my serious levelling, Eiko is really only useful for white magic and not for summoning which is cool and all but when you get to 60+ generally you should have enough Elixirs/Mega-Potions to see you through, and Freya is completely meh later on. Anyhow, this play-through I'm doing without any help from a guide/FAQ/cheat-sheet, which I usually consult just to check what rare/cool items are in an area to make sure I'm thorough and some boss-related info if I keep dying. So far I forgot to get my Moonstone from Brahne (and after impressing all 100 of those cocking noblemen to boot) and a bunch of other swag went missing too, although I did manage to remember where the Zaghnol is in the Festival of the Hunt and thus win that. Am currently hanging out in Burmecia with Stiltzkin, waiting for Beatrice to hand me my nuts on a platter.

I love feather so much.

I'd join in for FFIX, but in no way will I be able to stop myself playing it the day I get it.

I'm getting to itch to play this again, having gotten the desire to finish my role-play with my wizard/mage character (think LOTR wizard ripoff ) and do the Shivering Isles with him. I cannot decide, in fact, between doing this or starting a new role-play with a character designed to be a Batman-style vigilante. That shit would own.

Several moments in Oblivion - the cave exit, the intro to Shivering Isles, basically most of Shivering Isles in fact because that was awesome, and the end of Knights of the Nine. I loved Knights of the Nine, as the second time I played through I did a wizard/mage character with a custom class I called "Maia" and spent much of it roleplaying to an extent in a vaguely Lord of the Rings way. KotN was easily the best part of that, especially the bit where my character died fighting Umaril and was reborn in 'white' form. Silent Hill - just, the entire game. Amazing. The ending of Assassin's Creed was totally mind-fucking, not that the original twist 15 minutes in wasn't either. And every Final Fantasy game's opening 15-20 minutes always leave me completely blown away.

My brand-spanking-new copy of FFIX should be arriving in a few days. Look forward to seeing me in this thread more, whining about the skipping mini-game.

I concur with the demand for a box to tick for "neither, they're both mirthless cunts."

Surely they can replicate photon torpedoes? And they did build a new shuttle twice during the run of the series (although the Delta Flyer mk. II's random appearance one episode after the mk. I had been destroyed with no exposition was a bit odd) so I think it's implied that they start running out of shit. Not to mention that the whole point of the Borg in Voyager was that they'd been brought in because everyone hated the Kazon and stuff, they were an attempt to spike ratings and such. I can kind of understand why Voyager kept being able to take them out - it's like the way the Klingons were treated in TNG and DS9 as opposed to the original series. Still a threat if they were angry, still a 'red alert on sight' deal, but once you've survived enough encounters, gathered enough data, and worked out enough of their strategy, then they become a bit less threatening and a bit less incincible because you know how they operate. Janeway's strength, against the Borg, is that she always came up with some batshit insane plan involving letting herself be assimilated or nicking a trans-warp coil, and the Borg couldn't predict her actions as they were driven by instinct and emotion. I'd agree with Keith that there were a lot of wasted opportunities, lots of episodes that could have been better than they were (basically anything devoted to Tuvok with the exception of Flashback) and I suppose the Seven of Nine-centric episodes did mean you got a bit less Chakotay, Kim etc, but then again this was no different to any of the other Treks. Data completely overtook TNG (to the point where Patrick Stewart was considering leaving in Best of Both Worlds) and you barely got an episode for Crusher, Troi or Geordi after the first 3 years. Even DS9, which was built on the ensemble cast, started giving way less time to Kira, O'Brien etc when the last three years all became all about Sisko, Bashir being in section 31, the obligatory "lol, Ferengi" episode, and every other storyline being about Odo. So yeah, Voyager wasn't perfect, and perhaps it had its flaws, but DS9 and TNG had them too, so I don't get why Voyager gets the hate and people fall over themselves to fellate DS9.

So, I've always liked Star Trek, watched it since I was a kid (TNG was on the telly when I was about 4 or 5) and generally been a fan, although I don't think I'd class myself as a Trekkie because I don't know what a warp plasma manifold is, and I don't understand what a deflector dish does (apart from function as deux ex machina) etc. As I got older, I didn't watch Trek as much, although I watched all of the movies and enjoyed them, with the exception of Nemesis and The Final Frontier, which were pants. Anyway, recently I've had some free time, and I've been watching lots of old episodes again. TNG, DS9, Enterprise, Voyager, etc (Enterprise gets a lot of bad press but probably only deserves half of it, and mostly only if you're massively concerned by continuity flaws) and I've also been reading about it, because I'm like that with TV shows I'm interested in, I always feel that the episode is only half of the info or something. Basically, I've read from a lot of sources that Voyager gets a lot of stick from Trekkies and fans for some reason, and I'd like to know why - of all the series, it's probably my overall favourite of the bunch (although TNG provides my favourite individual episodes, it must be said, and DS9 is also fairly awesome) and unlike most things where I have a kind of 'I-see-your-point-but-I-disagree' attitude, I literally cannot understand why people don't like Voyager. Okay, sure, season 4 was very Seven of Nine-centric, to the detriment of other characters, but this was rectified later on with each of the main cast getting a 'hero episode' at least once during the last few seasons, and in fairness Seven had 3 years' worth of character development to catch up on very quickly, not to mention that the entire format of the original series in the 1960s was based around Kirk and Spock, with McCoy and Scotty occasionally popping up to be interesting. Chekov barely developed in 2 years, and Sulu didn't do anything interesting until he got promoted to Captain, so I don't see how the 'oh, it became all about Seven' argument stands - especially if you want to talk about her operating as a "walking deus ex machina" as I saw her described in one article, because she was nowhere near as bad as Data on TNG for that, and a much more interesting character to boot. So yeah - why do people, Trekkies, etc dislike Voyager? Seriously, it's fucking awesome television and only nitpicking or "oh well, TNG had Patrick Stewart in it"-style bashing seem to have any real basis from what I've seen. Asplain. EDIT: Also, it had easily the best theme tune so... yeah. That helped.

So I throw some names up, if they get approved I come back with pictures? Yeah, we all know I'm about to own the fuck out of this thread. Michelle Trachtenberg, Kaley Cuoco, Eliza Dushku (pre-Tru Calling, natch), Rose McGowan, Kat Von D off Miami Ink.

I actually like that it's basically a vehicle for Dara, Frankie and Russell now. The guests come in, make a few cracks here and there, Hugh does his thing, and then the other 3 just cruise and carry the show across the 30 minutes. It's very fun.

So... how 'bout that Davros then?

Marsters guesting is a cause for much hot man-love to whoever dreamed that idea up. Regardless of how good/awful he is. Or the rest of the series, for that matter. Marsters > *****

Voyage of the Damned... not bad. Not awesome, but fun in places and quite exciting. Nice twist to kill off Astrid and such, more angst for David to do his square-jawed broody face in relation to, which he does so like doing. Some of the guest starts were quite fun, some weren't great, and the moment with the bad HRH impersonator saying "thankyou, merry Christmas Doctor" after the ship didn't quite kill Buckingham Palace was totally cringeworthy. Bernard Cribbins > *, however. The preview for season 4 seemed to be quite a lot of running, a lot of Ood, a lot of random semi-famous British actors in 'dramatic reveal' shots, and some fire to liven it up a bit. Much Catherine Tate too, and a few shots of Freema to brighten the evening. Two points of possible interest - David with his 'stunned, joyous' face on staring at a woman, all of whom we can see is the back of her blonde hair. Billie, perhaps, although it's not likely. The second point of interest is Sarah Lancashire wielding a sonic screwdriver and apparently playing a chemist (holding up that pill, the clipboard, etc etc), which is a pretty good reason for people to start shouting "zOMG she's The Rani!" in loud voices.

Fuck Moombas, the Buddhism-lite message that surrounds them at the Shumi village is boring, even if they are cutesy-coo. Tonberries > Cactuars > Chocobos = Moogles > Moombas > Irvine

Okay, so... I've sold my PS2 for buckets of cash (okay, £70) and I'll be getting the shiny PS3 for Christmas this year. One thing I've not been able to work out, because the literature's so confusing - will I be able to play PS/PS2 games on the thing? Specificially want to know for the FF games, because I refuse to sell/part with any of them. Don't wanna be pissed off with a console that won't let me enjoy Cloud and Squall's hijinx, and stare at Freya's ass appreciate Freya's qualities as a person.

Ben Affleck. No, seriously, he's not really that bad, but he's done some dross. He was quite good in that Tom Clancy adaptation, though.