|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on May 18, 2016 9:02:02 GMT -5
I went to see Civil War for a second time (first film I've done that with since Return of the King in 2003). It was equally brilliant, though I really noticed the sped up nature of the opening action sequences the second time around. Black Widow's and Cap's bits in that opening set piece were particularly sped up, almost 2x, and it was quite jarring once you noticed it.
I'm still giving the film like 9 or 9.5 out of 10 though, as I was after the first viewing.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on May 2, 2016 6:22:58 GMT -5
Glad we didn't let Leicester win it at OT. Thiught top 4 was a goner but with City losing we still have hope, albeit needing favours. I get the feeling we will get those favours then blow it ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 30, 2016 4:22:47 GMT -5
It releases a week earlier in the UK. It was actually in the Declaration of Independence. We took their tea, so if Marvel were to ever build an entire Universe for their superheroes on the various platforms -- we'd have to let them see a week early. It's basically scripture. I don't like tea, but Civil War is brilliant, so I'm happy with that deal.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 29, 2016 15:03:25 GMT -5
Lots of people > big chasm > Hillary > huge chasm > Trump > suicide > Cruz for me.
Don't think anyone who says they would prefer Trump to Hillary could truly be a Bernie fan. They agree on far, far more than Bernie and Trump do. You may hate Hillary, but you can't prefer Trump and remain consistent on the issues.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 29, 2016 9:26:15 GMT -5
Cap III is the best Marvel film and it isn't even close.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 28, 2016 13:26:47 GMT -5
Going to see Cap at midday tomorrow. Will report (spoiler-free) when I get out.
That said, my expectation for this to be the best Marvel film has not changed.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 18, 2016 15:52:39 GMT -5
Back just in time for Old Trafford, I'm sure that'll be fun. I wouldn't be so sure he will be back... Spurs were brilliant tonight. Stoke were awful, but Spurs really put them to the sword.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 17, 2016 12:38:59 GMT -5
Glad Vardy finally got caught out on those 'throw yourself into the defender' dives he does. Did a shocking one last season vs. us and one this season vs. Arsenal too off the top of my head.
Showed his class calling the referee a f*cking c*nt for having the balls to make the correct call. He really is the pretender to Rooney's throne.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 11, 2016 6:32:20 GMT -5
I think the bigger shock would have been sub-par reviews for Civil War. Didn't expect anything less than great. This may be unfair or silly, but I am honestly expecting Civil War to be the best Marvel movie. If they can recreate the feeling of Cap 2 but with internal Avengers conflict it could be utterly fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 4, 2016 11:56:03 GMT -5
He's a wildman. An absolute wildman. Or he just doesn't think. It could be that. When did he spoil a WM main event?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 4, 2016 11:52:50 GMT -5
I guess we will see tonight if most of this has a payoff or not. Even if it does, I feel like the biggest show of the year should be where the payoffs happen. I don't like this way of thinking. Or rather, I don't like where this line of thinking leads. That 'WrestleMania is the be-all and end-all of wrestling' stuff where any story that starts after SummerSlam should culminate at WM. Not saying you are someone who thinks like this, but a lot of people do. The WWE's best years of programming (97-00) featured four WMs that were all meh at best. I doubt any of them (WM 13-16) would feature in anyone's top 15 'Mania's. But at least part of that is because every single PPV was treated much more importantly. By the same token that those WM's wouldn't make people's top 15s, if we look at non-WM PPVs in history I reckon a top 15 list would feature a fair few from that era. The year 2000 alone probably has 3 or 4 of the best ever non-WM PPVs (Royal Rumble, Backlash, Fully Loaded, SummerSlam), and part of that is because they were treated as almost on a level playing field. Any angle no matter how big could start and end naturally with no need to rush or extend it to WM, and that made for much better years overall. Of course this outlook was not the main reason for the success of the Attitude Era, but it certainly helped. The current WM-centric outlook means that so many PPVs are much less important than they could and should be; whilst the WM focus can be successful if it leads to a great WM like 28 or maybe 30, when there's an average one like 32 it can be awful.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 4, 2016 9:35:34 GMT -5
I personally think that, overall, HBK's 2nd run was way better than his 1st. 2nd run Shawn is the greatest of all time IMO. He won MOTY from PWI every year between 2004-2010, and probably came 2nd or 3rd in 2003.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 4, 2016 9:28:35 GMT -5
I didn't watch WM, but the main event seems to have been a carbon cut out of WM22 10 years earlier, but a worse match. HHH thinks he can pull a great match and cheers out of an unwanted main eventer. HHH is proven horribly wrong. HHH is 3/3 for poor matches when put in the main event of a WM in the past decade. In fact, if we are being really harsh we can say that 5/6 of his WM main events have been at the very least disappointing, though WM-X8 wasn't his or Jericho's fault.
Hopefully the parallels between WM 22 and 32 continue and Reigns has a cracking match and great feud with an all time great at 33.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 4, 2016 9:16:26 GMT -5
Let's not argue fellas, it's just a wrestling show after all. How about a nice meme to cheer us all up? *Shameless plug for one I just made* Wasn't expecting the greatest sports manager of all time to pop up here. Nice surprise.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 4, 2016 8:54:53 GMT -5
Here's mine:
1. HHH vs. Chris Jericho - WrestleMania 18
This would be a solid opening contest. 2 good wrestlers have a good match where the main problem was that it was on last; maybe going first would help with that.
2. Daniel Bryan vs. Randy Orton vs. Batista - Wrestlemania 30
Another solid match; a good triple threat with 3 big stars that showcases all their talents. The right man wins.
3. Undertaker vs. Edge - Wrestlemania 24
From the scale of this card this would be the first huge match imo; a classic Streak contest that had the crowd believing Edge could win.
4. John Cena vs. Shawn Michaels - WrestleMania 23
One of Cena's best matches. Another match with huge star power, and something a bit different from the previous contest.
5. Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant - WrestleMania 3
The complete opposite to the previous matches. May not hold up as well compared to the rest of the card which is more modern, but it'd still be one hell of a spectacle and he 2nd biggest match on the card.
6. Brock Lesnar vs. Kurt Angle - WrestleMania 19
If I had to choose only one of these matches to have the WWE title this would be it. A great technical match from two great wrestlers. Very different from the last match!
7. Lawrence Taylor vs. Bam Bam Bigelow - WrestleMania 11
The obligatory 'celebrity' match that would let the crowd breathe after the past two matches. I was originally going to put this after Hogan-Andre but didn't want the only two below-par contests to come one after the other.
8. Stone Cold vs. The Rock - WrestleMania 17
The biggest rivalry of all time (imo) has to take the Main Event slot. I'd actually prefer the WM19 encounter (imo the best of the 3) and the ending here is still a bit dodgy, but it's definitely better than their WrestleMania 15 encounter.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 4, 2016 6:50:05 GMT -5
So yeah... book a WM using only past WM main events. The challenge IMO is to try and make it a coherent event that would flow, ignoring that the WWE title is defended in almost every match!
Rules:
1. 'Main Event' is the last match on the card. No Rock vs. Hogan or HHH vs. Undertaker. 2. You can only use each superstar once. I'll allow one superstar to be used twice on the condition that their matches are one of the first 2 and one of the last 2 on the card (like Bryan being first and last at WM 30). 3. A WM is 4 hours, and assuming most main events take about 30 mins that's between 7 and 9 matches on the card.
The 32 main events, for your reference (winners listed first):
1. Hulk Hogan & Mr. T vs. Roddy Piper & Paul Orndorff 2. Hulk Hogan vs. King Kong Bundy 3. Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant 4. Randy Savage vs. Ted DiBiase 5. Hulk Hogan vs. Randy Savage 6. The Ultimate Warrior vs. Hulk Hogan 7. Hulk Hogan vs. Sgt. Slaughter 8. Hulk Hogan vs. Sid Justice 9. Yokozuna vs. Bret Hart (followed by Hulk Hogan vs. Yokozuna) 10. Bret Hart vs. Yokozuna 11. Lawrence Taylor vs. Bam Bam Bigelow 12. Shawn Michaels vs. Bret Hart 13. Undertaker vs. Sycho Sid 14. Stone Cold vs. Shawn Michaels 15. Stone Cold vs. The Rock 16. HHH vs. The Rock vs. Big Show vs. Mick Foley 17. Stone Cold vs. The Rock 18. HHH vs. Chris Jericho 19. Brock Lesnar vs. Kurt Angle 20. Chris Benoit vs. Shawn Michaels vs. HHH 21. Batista vs. HHH 22. John Cena vs. HHH 23. John Cena vs. Shawn Michaels 24. Undertaker vs. Edge 25. HHH vs. Randy Orton 26. Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels 27. The Miz vs. John Cena 28. The Rock vs. John Cena 29. John Cena vs. The Rock 30. Daniel Bryan vs. Randy Orton vs. Batista 31. Seth Rollins vs. Roman Reigns vs. Brock Lesnar 32. Roman Reigns vs. HHH
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Apr 2, 2016 15:32:44 GMT -5
Sorry Cam, but it must be mind numbingly boring supporting West Brom under Pulis. Obviously are hard to break down which is obviously the Pulis way but you don't ever go out of your way to score. Feel sorry for the more talented players in your team having to play Pulis' negative, time wasting tactics away from home. Think that's it for the relegation spots unless we can beat Norwich in 2 weeks. Can't say I'll miss the Premier League, just typical it'll probably happen when the big TV money deal comes into effect. I imagine West Brom fans must be near-sick of it. By far the worst team to watch in the PL, and probably the least liked side out of any in the bottom half. Don't know any neutral who would be sorry to see them go.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Mar 31, 2016 15:52:10 GMT -5
From what I can find less than half were against, but more voted against than in favour as 40 were absent or abstained. Whilst that's more than I thought I think my point still stands - a Republican-led government would probably try and introduce a law making same-sex marriage illegal if they could, whereas a Conservative-led government passed a bill enshrining same-sex marriage in law. That's a big difference, and its not an exception. I think there are also several key economic differences, though not as many as on the social side of things. As you say the majority of those who did vote, voted against it and that's the LGBT issue where British society is probably the most progressive. I'm not saying they're the same, I was making a very rough comparison (even then I was saying closer, not close) to help someone with a limited knowledge of British politics understand my opposition to the Conservative party's social policies and while I agree with a fair amount of what you're saying I stand by the original point. Agree to disagree then. This thread is about the US anyway and we're getting off topic.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Mar 31, 2016 15:28:29 GMT -5
I would disagree. The Republicans nowadays really are obscenely far right. Gay marriage for example was passed by a (mostly) Conservative government - there were a few backbench rebels but all leading conservative politicians were fully on board. By comparison, I'd be shocked if you could find me 2 leading Republicans who wouldn't be against gay marriage, let alone passing it in their own government. More than half of the Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage though, so I stand by the suggestion that they're closer to the Republicans, though I'd concede that the rhetoric and attitude of most Conservative MPs is nowhere near as bad as the Republican politicians I'm aware of. From what I can find less than half were against, but more voted against than in favour as 40 were absent or abstained. Whilst that's more than I thought I think my point still stands - a Republican-led government would probably try and introduce a law making same-sex marriage illegal if they could, whereas a Conservative-led government passed a bill enshrining same-sex marriage in law. That's a big difference, and its not an exception. I think there are also several key economic differences, though not as many as on the social side of things.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Mar 31, 2016 15:01:37 GMT -5
I can't be bothered to go back & find the post but I saw you said that the Tories are closer to Republicans than Democrats a while back. Care to elaborate? Whilst the Conservatives are the right wing party here and the Republicans are the right wing party in the US, I would definitely say that our political centre ground is far enough to the left of the USA's that our right wing party is actually for the most part closer to their left wing party. The Republicans post-08 are something like the BNP whereas Obama for example is certainly closer to Cameron than Corbyn or even Miliband, or than Cameron is to Bush or Trump. Same goes for almost every major Democrat in the past 25 years. Of course there are a few backbench Tories that are mental and would align with the Republicans, but there are a small minority of mental Labour MPs too. I wouldn't put the will of the Tory party/its members as a whole anywhere near that of the Republican party/its members. I wasn't comparing the two as a whole, I was saying they're generally closer to the Republicans than the Democrats when it comes to the social issues that are important to me (animal rights, LGBT rights, gender equality) which I think is a fair enough comment? I would disagree. The Republicans nowadays really are obscenely far right. Gay marriage for example was passed by a (mostly) Conservative government - there were a few backbench rebels but all leading conservative politicians were fully on board. By comparison, I'd be shocked if you could find me 2 leading Republicans who wouldn't be against gay marriage, let alone passing it in their own government.
|
|