I'm with the tanker on cell phones. The only functions I want on a cell phone are:

(1) I can talk/text to someone.
(2) It has buttons.
(3) It has a contacts list.
(4) It has a messages box.
(5) A clock/calendar/alarm/night-light are handy things.
(6) I can drop it (on the ground).

All the fancy crap that I'll never use and have to pay extra for, no thanks. Right now, I have a free cell phone which I pay $18 every 4-6 months for. All I'll ever need.

I like Freegurt's snakeman avatar. I think I've mentioned that before. The other type of snakemen design I like is the human-looking type, like from 70's movie makeup, or from that TV show Land of the Lost. It looks like a man with scales, but it's actually a cool aesthetic.

Most of that fancy crap you don't pay extra for and just because you don't think you would use it that doesn't mean the majority of the people who do buy phones with all the bells and whistles wouldn't either. I use just about every function on my phone, music, videos, games, apps, internet, email, chat, texting, phone, facebook, alarm, scheduling, document readers, books, weather, camera, news feeds, etc. I use it all regularly. So sure, I can see why some people may not NEED such a device, but at the same time, you must also be able to realize why some people may WANT or appreciate one.

And quite honestly, if you were given such a device, it were indestructable, and your service charges remained consistant with what you are paying now, would you turn it down?

With smartphones in general it doesn't come down to whether you "get" them or not, it comes down to whether you have a need for one or not. ...or else you just buy stuff because someone told you it's a cool gadget...

For me I needed a light, portable computer for travel that I could take anywhere. I didn't wan to have to lug around a laptop or netbook or tablet, or camera, or mp3 player, or maps, or anextra phone...
My Android phone combined all those things (and more). So it saved me a LOT of packing, weight and bother!

I had a need and a device to fill it. If you don't have that same sort of need, then you can do without an expensive phone so that's good for you! ^_^

-my phone cost over $700 outright. I don't pay any expensive use fees etc. just the same pre-paid credit top ups every now and again, like Mlai.

isukun
So while I can definitely see a purpose behind having a handheld device that does everything, I rally have to wonder how Apple has managed to dupe their loyal fan base THIS LONG with their line of iCrap. They still don't address problems they have had since the original iPod, they don't listen to their customers, they have terrible customer support, they are staunch supporters of DRM software that limits how you use the media that you've paid for, and their syncing software is the worst abomination to grace a computer of any type, ever. God only knows why people continue to line up to pay inflated prices for the garbage they shovel onto their store shelves.

What baffles me is the thing with itunes.
I hate that program.
To me Macs are just ordinary PCs and laptops like any other, I'll use them like I use any machine, ipods are just Mp3 players, no big deal, iphones are just another smartphone, the ipad is just yet another tablet...
I would happily buy any of them like I'd buy any other product that suited my needs, apart from one thing: that massively high walled garden of shiz of which the badly designed stodgy itunes is a big part. Not the only part, but a big one.

When I buy something, I expect it to be fully mine. I want total control over my device right out of the box. No compromises.

isukun
So while I can definitely see a purpose behind having a handheld device that does everything, I rally have to wonder how Apple has managed to dupe their loyal fan base THIS LONG with their line of iCrap. They still don't address problems they have had since the original iPod, they don't listen to their customers, they have terrible customer support, they are staunch supporters of DRM software that limits how you use the media that you've paid for, and their syncing software is the worst abomination to grace a computer of any type, ever. God only knows why people continue to line up to pay inflated prices for the garbage they shovel onto their store shelves.

well said, also makes me laugh that a lot of people who dislike microsoft because they represent corporate evil money grabbing thing lap up apple products who are even worse.

Someone
What baffles me is the thing with itunes.
I hate that program.
To me Macs are just ordinary PCs and laptops like any other, I'll use them like I use any machine, ipods are just Mp3 players, no big deal, iphones are just another smartphone, the ipad is just yet another tablet...
I would happily buy any of them like I'd buy any other product that suited my needs, apart from one thing: that massively high walled garden of shiz of which the badly designed stodgy itunes is a big part. Not the only part, but a big one.

When I buy something, I expect it to be fully mine. I want total control over my device right out of the box. No compromises.

Agreed. The power of marketing baffles me.

Genejoke
Agreed. The power of marketing baffles me.

BUY THIS TOY! It's NEW, it's improved! It's really COOL! Everybody likes it why not YOU? IT's NEW and COOL!

I'm baffled too it's amazing how I've failed to be convinced by it all these years. Can't I get cool plastic toys in cereal boxes instead?

It's one of the many reasons I don't watch TV anymore. When I picked up the phone I have now, it wasn't until after spending a couple of weeks researching and looking for a device that would actually do everything I wanted.

Scott Pilgrim. This comic can get fucked. And if you like it you can get fucked too with your dumb NERD CULTURE bullshit and love for self-insert main characters. Movie was cool tho.

There. I said it. Game on, bitches.

bravo1102
BUY THIS TOY! It's NEW, it's improved! It's really COOL! Everybody likes it why not YOU? IT's NEW and COOL!

Damn! You haven't even said what it is, and I want one already!
;-)

DAJB

bravo1102
BUY THIS TOY! It's NEW, it's improved! It's really COOL! Everybody likes it why not YOU? IT's NEW and COOL!

Damn! You haven't even said what it is, and I want one already!
;-)

It's the prototype pf the first iphone repackaged without the phone part removed. we called it the ipad.

lefarce
Scott Pilgrim. This comic can get fucked. And if you like it you can get fucked too with your dumb NERD CULTURE bullshit and love for self-insert main characters. Movie was cool tho.

There. I said it. Game on, bitches.

Not read or watched either but the trailer for the film made it look about as appealing a testicular cancer.
I have no intention of checking out either.

It's actually very good, and mostly saved by great performances and Edgar Wright doin' what he does. But hey whatever, miss out on a Great Thingâ„¢.

I also haven't read the comics or watched the whole movie. We had a vote in my class to pick a movie to watch for the last week. Kick-Ass won. Making it the SECOND superhero(ish) movie I'd seen that week. The first being Megamind.

But I kept hearing other students during the vote saying that they wanted Scott Pilgrim instead.

Later on I saw one of the tutors watching it by himself... It looked like it had some interesting colour schemes and effects. But the acting seemed kinda wooden rather than quirky. I dunno. I'll have to take a look at some point.

I guess it's probably because I never had a Nintendo home console until Christmas 2000 when I got a 64 and apart from some Mario, Duck Hunt (I played it in 1998 on my cousins console) and Donkey Kong references I'm just clueless on other early games. I know more about Sega console games and I've NEVER had one!

Scott Pilgrim plays out mostly like any other Edgar Wright film, with quick banter, neat effects (although moreso in Pigrilms case than his other films), and wise casting. Cera was actually not terrible, which is an accomplishment itself. The comics on the other hand, they don't really work. It's just one of those things that really needed to be told in a more appropriate medium, and a stylized film was perfect for that.

Kick-Ass is still a good choice tho. Although like Scott Pilgrim, the comics are really really awful (appropriate since it's a work by Mark Millar) while the films are pretty damn good.

I actually bought the graphic novel version on the way home from college that day. (My usual route typically goes past a comic shop whichever way I go). Since I already had volume 1 of Clint magazine and figured if I'm gonna read Kick-Ass 2, I might as well read Kick-Ass 1.

In my opinion, if both the movie and comic had merged storylines instead of two separate ones, throwing out the plot devices and character developments (or lack therof) that didn't work for either, they both could've been great. Like Watchmen but without the squiddy thing removal.But alas, even though the graphic novel is good, it's not as good as it COULD'VE been. It's a good thing it's got decent artwork and Kick-Ass 2 seems to be making up for it so far.


As for Wanted, I'm still waiting for a copy that doesn't have Jolie on the cover. But I've seen the movie. And It's an absolute shitfest.

NEVER MISUSE YOUR MORGAN FREEMAN!
Although I've heard the graphic novel has a completely different storyline and stuff. So that's why I'm thinking of getting it despite that.

I liked the kick ass comic better than the film. Started better than it finished but it was an enjoyable read.

Faliat
I already had volume 1 of Clint magazine and figured if I'm gonna read Kick-Ass 2, I might as well read Kick-Ass 1. But alas, even though the graphic novel is good, it's not as good as it COULD'VE been.

I bought CLiNT #1 and did exactly the same. As seems to be typical of Millar, Kick-Ass (the graphic novel) is fairly lightweight stuff, stretched out over far more pages than the story really deserves.

Genejoke
Started better than it finished

I agree. Although it lacked any real depth, the book started off as a lot of fun, and I really felt for the main character. But, to me, it went rapidly downhill once Hit-Girl appeared. Given that she was the main selling-point of the movie, I foolishly expected the book to get better after she entered the story. Ah well, we all make mistakes!

It started better than it finished because in Mark Millar tradition, he just had to end on some batshit insane shock value that comes across more like some edgy middle schooler drawing guns and boobs in class. That, interestingly enough, is why the movie is much better. What a shock!

The comic book version of Wanted is much, much, much better than the shit movie. It's natural for you to have disliked the movie, but you can't go wrong with the comic book, which -yes- has a completely different storyline from the movie. The comic books storyline actually makes sense, and is cool rather than shit.

Which is why it's damn annoying trying to find a copy that doesn't have Jolie on it.
It was like that even before the movie came out in the UK due to the comic being imported from the US in my "local" store. Ten miles is not local but it was the nearest one to where I used to live.

No wonder my home town was so backward.

Angelina Jolie

Why do people think she's so amazingly beautiful and a great actor? Really, her acting is pretty average, and for looks she's just skinny with big facial features. Plus, she has her dad's weird creased up cat's anus lips (John John Voight), just pumped up.

Freegurt
Rocky Horror Picture Show. Just...what the hell? I really tried to watch it, but I kept getting bored and wanted to do something more exciting the whole time. I couldn't find any plot in it and when I tried to make sense of it, I just ended up falling asleep. I didn't think the songs were catchy enough to warrant me listening.

I gotta agree with this. I finally attempted to watch it this year after everyone made a big deal out of it (plus, I like Tim Curry, so I figured I ought to see it). No thank you.

I have to add The Godfather to the list too. I figured I should watch it, since it is a "classic" and my Italian ancestors had some shady realms from what I'm heard. I sat through the whole trilogy (well, slept through about 50%). Definitely not entertaining in the least.

And Napoleon Dynamite. Why on earth does my sister love that movie so much?! I swear, it comes on TV, and I avoid whatever channel it's on while she insists on watching it like it's made of jewel-encrusted platinum. It's like medieval torture to me to sit through even a single scene.

~~~

Oh, and I like the original Star Wars trilogy. I detest the hype and the crazed fandom turning it into something more/else. I truly enjoyed the acting, the writing, character development, etc. They were very well-done movies for the story-telling and characterizations, and most modern "sci-fi" just don't hold up, imo. I'm not impressed by special effects; I want good writing and good acting. (Btw, I don't consider Star Wars particularly sci-fi-esque as much as it is an adventure story.) I had a few action figures as a kid -- but mine came out of their boxes and got played with.

I also enjoy some Star Trek for what it is. I don't understand why some things inspire such cult fanaticism, though.

mlai
The comic book version of Wanted is much, much, much better than the shit movie. It's natural for you to have disliked the movie, but you can't go wrong with the comic book, which -yes- has a completely different storyline from the movie. The comic books storyline actually makes sense, and is cool rather than shit.

Exactly. Basically, the movie traded every single good idea in the comic for a mediocre, unoriginal clichee. Especially the main idea: That the villains won.

ozoneocean
Angelina Jolie

Why do people think she's so amazingly beautiful and a great actor? Really, her acting is pretty average, and for looks she's just skinny with big facial features. Plus, she has her dad's weird creased up cat's anus lips (John John Voight), just pumped up.

YES. Exactly. Absolutely. I just don't get it. Why do people even think she's able to star opposite Johnny Depp?? Complete mystery to me.

ozoneocean
Angelina Jolie

Why do people think she's so amazingly beautiful and a great actor? Really, her acting is pretty average, and for looks she's just skinny with big facial features. Plus, she has her dad's weird creased up cat's anus lips (John John Voight), just pumped up.

Cameron Diaz. She's a ditz. Every movie she's always played a ditz and she has a shapeless underfed figure. Her eyes are nice but don't look into them because you'll see there's nothing behind them. Not even a very good facade. You could replace her with some blonde ditz from an Aussie kids show and no body would know the difference.

I have a feeling half of this is just good publicity and image building. Was Angelina Jolie more than just another pouty actress before she hooked up with Brad Pitt? I think Her real ability is inversely proportional to how often she's appeared in People magazine.

On the other hand I get the buzz about Sandra Bullock, Anne Hathaway, Kiera Knightley and Natalie Portman. They're talented actresses.

Yes, Angelina Jolie and Cameron Diaz top the list of "Actresses I Don't Get." Even Megan Fox, I can get -- she's hot when with Hollywood hair/makeup on. But Jolie and Diaz... both are critically underfed. Jolie was especially hideous in Wanted.

But, I will say Jolie was perfect casting for the role of Lara Croft. The game character, after evolving beyond the 1st game, was probably inspired by her looks.

Well... compared to Megan Fox, Angelina Jolie is still a formidable actress. As for looks: I can rationally understand that there are a lot of people who like the way Megan Fox looks, just as there are a lot of people who think Angelina Jolie is beautiful. I'm not a fan of either. But it's hard for me to separate Megan Fox's looks from her complete inability to act. Ever since I've seen her act, she seems to exude an aura of stupidity and incompetence to me.

I think it's unfair to compare Megan Fox and Angelina Jolie. Megan Fox hasn't really tried any heavy roles unlike Jolie and the one which was supposed to be a heavy role (Jennifer's Body) ended up being all about Megan Fox's body.

And Jolie was very good in Girl, Interrupted and Changeling so all she might need is a non-action film with a strong director instead of these mindless and empty star roles. Maybe then she'd deserve the hype.

bravo1102: Yup, Angelina Jolie can act, that's what I was trying to say :P While I've had to painfully watch Megan Fox fail even the most simple acting exercises. Good actors don't need "heavy roles" to act well (other than maybe to get noticed at the Oscars).

My list:

-The Beatles as the best band ever. (not the "BEST")
-John Travolta and John Cusack as a "good" actors. (their voices are the WORST part)
-Napoleon Dynamyte as a good movie. (not funny)
-Superman as a good hero. (I die by rock???)
-Doctor Who being continued. (This show SUCKS. :P )
-People who worship Harry Potter. (it's not worship material but they are good)
-How the two geekiest people I know are jocks.
-U2 (SUCK)
-much much more.

mlai
The comic book version of Wanted is much, much, much better than the shit movie. It's natural for you to have disliked the movie, but you can't go wrong with the comic book, which -yes- has a completely different storyline from the movie. The comic books storyline actually makes sense, and is cool rather than shit.

They're both really awful, and boils down to a pissing contest of which is slightly less of one. The movie is scored by Danny Elfman, and the comic has a dude getting railed up the ass. I think the movie wins out just very slightly.

Back onto movies, and I just don't get how so many people could like "Lost In Translation". It's boring as hell as well as blatantly racist. And there's no payoff at the end. I like ambiguous endings most of the time. But this one just seems like the writers ran out of stuff to use for dialogue and threw the "ambiguous" part in at the last minute thinking it would make up for it.