I never drafted Invasion, but I have a Coalition Honor Guard in my Prismatic deck. As soon as I saw Spellskite on the spoiler my reaction was basically "Ooh, cheap Flagbearer!".
As someone who has drafted Invasion, let me assure you that card was even more annoying than it looks. And it was common, so seeing a deck with 2 was not outside the realm of possibility. It invalidates so many cards and you can't even use combat tricks to get rid of it in the unlikely chance they block with it (Consume Strength excepted).
So yeah, never seen Spellskite in limited but I would have to guess it's pretty good too.
I would put it at about the level of violence of the X2, if you've seen that. Not as dark or violent as The Dark Knight, but certainly still some more mature elements. There are a couple violent parts that are gruesome in theory but not shown as such. Probably the most disturbing part for a young one would be
Erik's mother being gunned down in front of him right at the beginning of the film. Again, not at all graphic.
But I figure kids have dealt with scenes like that for a long time.
Also: movie was surprisingly good. Very enjoyable, good action sequences and Fassbender/McAvoy are a really good pair on screen. The teen actors did fine, but those two carried the movie. Magneto has always been a very alluring character and Fassbender brought some serious charisma along for the ride.
I'll add another differing viewpoint and say that triple Champions of Kamigawa was a really fun format. Lots of different strategies, some really interesting synergies and chances for off-the-wall decks (Dampen Thought.dec anyone?) I also have so many fond memories of blowing people out with Devouring Rage and Devouring Greed and various Splice shenanigans.
I guess I'll be a little more direct. This is a joke. A comedy program on the CBC. Notice the tagline?
"We don't just talk about the issues. We fabricate them."
As I'm completely sure the more conservatively minded Canadians would have been LEAPING on this as soon as it had it's first reading and I've heard nothing of the sort about it, I think that's pretty good confirmation this is a joke as well.
Well this is mostly based on the recommendations of others (haven't had much chance to play this myself) but Arkham Asylum might fit the bill. The Fable games also sound like what you're describing, but I know those can be hit or miss for a lot of people. She might like Oblivion- even though it's first person, I don't think precise aiming or fast, complex movement is overly necessary. Same with Portal and Portal 2 and Fallout 3 (no aiming required at all for that one!).
Wow! It doesn't strike you as being totally and utterly essential for a Norse god to be at the very least, white?
No, especially not after seeing the film. Blinking said it best- they're aliens, so who cares what colour they are?
Blacks account for 12% of the U.S. population last time I checked. The cultural representation should account for that. If it doesn't then we need
changes, but it's almost as if we're talking about 50/50.
I'm not talking about numbers, I'm talking about roles. I'm talking about a black man being able to play a lead in a mainstream movie, in a role that doesn't care at all about the protagonist being black. The only person I can think of who gets to do this now is Will Smith.
Oh, and we haven't gotten into the Tyler Perry films yet. Do you think Perry should start casting non-blacks? (I don't personally care, because I think it fits the setup and cultural context, but it seems to me you ought to be somewhat offended, given your stance. Unless you're of the position that the past 5,000 black actors/actresses to audition for his films "coincidentally" beat out everyone else.)
Tyler Perry and his films are a reaction against what I just described. Black people like going to the movies, and they also occasionally like to see other black people on screen in roles other than "inner city thug/cop" or "persecuted black man."
Whether it distracts you or not is to some extent a subjective decision, but to carry the Holmes analogy further, if they cast a man to play Irene Adler, yes, it's going to distract me. If they cast a skinny guy to play Friar Tuck without explaining that he had just lost 100 lbs, yes it's going to be distracting.
I believe maintaining distinct elements of characters (general race, gender, hair color at times, etc.) is a crucial element of myth and legend. I believe that you need a better reason than a standout audition to change fundamental elements of a character.
There's fundamentally no way to resolve this disagreement, as we have no way of scientifically testing anyone's intentions.
If you don't believe the BBC, which happens to be an arm of the British government would be interested in promoting a PC agenda by remaking local myths so that they are representative of the population today, then nothing I'm going to say will convince you.
I'm not screaming tragedy, but I'm surely crying foul.
This whole thread reminds me of the campaign to get Donald Glover (African-American actor who plays Troy on Community) to play Peter Parker in the new reboot of the Spider-man franchise. I mean, if you're making the whole origin story happen today, there's no reason Peter couldn't be black- there are lots of lower-middle class, intelligent black kids, and Stan Lee gave his blessing to the idea.
But people got up in arms over the idea- people made a fuss over casting a black actor as Heimdall in Thor, and yet he was probably the best part of that movie. You have to recognize that since that vast, vast majority of past literature and other artwork that tend to inspire films are often exclusively stocked with white characters, and even now it's extremely rare to have a non-white lead role, too close an adherence to "literary integrity" will reinforce the disadvantages blacks face in their cultural representation. Should a black actor not have a chance to play the hero, without having to be a "black hero"?
If you read that article, it gives a perfect example. Red in Shawshank Redemption was written as an Irishman, but they gave the role to Morgan Freeman because they decided that fact wasn't important to the story or his character. I assume if you've seen the movie you know that was a good decision.
I really do love this show. I think it's a sign of a great comedy when they can make really strong episodes that revolve around every character and relationship, even the ones that don't seem obvious like Abed-Shirley in the Messianic Myths episode.
Also, I might be in the minority, but does anyone else think Britta has become one of the funniest characters? Aside from Troy of course, but I would say that if it's a good Britta episode, I'm guaranteed to like it. Her lines in the documentary episode were hysterical in particular.
That's just an excuse by the ACLU that the school districts and teachers unions have latched on to. Even if you prevented these vouchers from going to parochial schools, they'd still oppose school choice because it makes them accountable to the parents.
Is there no way to make them accountable that doesn't damage the education of the kids that can't/don't choose to go to a school an extra 20 minutes away?
While in no way defending the song itself, I don't think this isn't actually created by a record label or put out as an actual single or anything. As far as I can tell it's a company that makes these things, basically for rich parents giving their spoiled kids a "music star for a day" treatment as a birthday gift or something. If you look on the channel there are a bunch more of the same basic thing (unknown singer autotuned to hell and back, glossy but meaningless video etc.)
EDIT: Oh and apparently she's 13. So while it's fun to mock, I doubt I could do much better at that age.
I like that this actually backed up exactly what I said.
Because of its heavy usage among various age groups today, crack has been regarded as a more dangerous addictive substance than most of the other abusive drug forms.
Crack gets you high faster. It has other differences, it may have a stronger addictive property, but to say that those justify (again from your article)
Just obtaining 5g of crack will make you eligible for 5 years imprisonment, compared to obtaining 500g powder cocaine and being sentenced for the same extent of time.
You really think this is a justified difference with absolutely no connection to the racial image of crack? Come on now.
This is getting slightly off topic, but it's a good illustration of different ways inequality can be perpetuated in society. Rules are made by the majority, and they can easily make laws that appear to apply equally to everyone, but disproportionately affect a minority group. Imagine you really disliked Seventh Day Adventists, and you didn't want them to work for you. Sure, you could say "No Seventh Day Adventists" in your job application sign, but that would draw a lot of attention and be busted on right quick. But what about you require every employee to work every other Saturday? The same rule applies to everyone, but suddenly SDAs can't follow your rule. Even if you could easily have them work Sundays, or extra hours other days, hey, that's the rule, no special rights for minorities, right?
This sort of thing happens all the time, though to be fair most of it is unconscious. But whenever something like this comes up, and people try to fix the problem, there are always screams about "special rights" for minorities or "special interests" as the modern parlance goes. This is what I have termed, after a real-life experience, 4 year old fairness- it's like a child that protests about how unfair it is that her brother got a bigger slice of pie, even though she doesn't really like pie and had a snack an hour before dinner. Sometimes, substantive equality requires different treatment.
Why are you so convinced the reason for that law is race based?
Probably because the reason crack was argued to need a higher punishment is because of its perception as "dangerous", seeing as it was the more popular with those violent inner city gangs, instead of mostly harmless white kids just looking to party. It's an image of each drug steeped in racial stereotypes, there's nothing inherent about crack that makes it significantly more dangerous than powder cocaine.
Besides, it doesn't have to be consciously racist to have seriously disproportionate effects on one group. Once such a thing is realized, not fixing it IS consciously racist.
As someone who has drafted Invasion, let me assure you that card was even more annoying than it looks. And it was common, so seeing a deck with 2 was not outside the realm of possibility. It invalidates so many cards and you can't even use combat tricks to get rid of it in the unlikely chance they block with it (Consume Strength excepted).
So yeah, never seen Spellskite in limited but I would have to guess it's pretty good too.
Also: movie was surprisingly good. Very enjoyable, good action sequences and Fassbender/McAvoy are a really good pair on screen. The teen actors did fine, but those two carried the movie. Magneto has always been a very alluring character and Fassbender brought some serious charisma along for the ride.
"We don't just talk about the issues. We fabricate them."
As I'm completely sure the more conservatively minded Canadians would have been LEAPING on this as soon as it had it's first reading and I've heard nothing of the sort about it, I think that's pretty good confirmation this is a joke as well.
No, especially not after seeing the film. Blinking said it best- they're aliens, so who cares what colour they are?
I'm not talking about numbers, I'm talking about roles. I'm talking about a black man being able to play a lead in a mainstream movie, in a role that doesn't care at all about the protagonist being black. The only person I can think of who gets to do this now is Will Smith.
Tyler Perry and his films are a reaction against what I just described. Black people like going to the movies, and they also occasionally like to see other black people on screen in roles other than "inner city thug/cop" or "persecuted black man."
This whole thread reminds me of the campaign to get Donald Glover (African-American actor who plays Troy on Community) to play Peter Parker in the new reboot of the Spider-man franchise. I mean, if you're making the whole origin story happen today, there's no reason Peter couldn't be black- there are lots of lower-middle class, intelligent black kids, and Stan Lee gave his blessing to the idea.
But people got up in arms over the idea- people made a fuss over casting a black actor as Heimdall in Thor, and yet he was probably the best part of that movie. You have to recognize that since that vast, vast majority of past literature and other artwork that tend to inspire films are often exclusively stocked with white characters, and even now it's extremely rare to have a non-white lead role, too close an adherence to "literary integrity" will reinforce the disadvantages blacks face in their cultural representation. Should a black actor not have a chance to play the hero, without having to be a "black hero"?
If you read that article, it gives a perfect example. Red in Shawshank Redemption was written as an Irishman, but they gave the role to Morgan Freeman because they decided that fact wasn't important to the story or his character. I assume if you've seen the movie you know that was a good decision.
I really do love this show. I think it's a sign of a great comedy when they can make really strong episodes that revolve around every character and relationship, even the ones that don't seem obvious like Abed-Shirley in the Messianic Myths episode.
Also, I might be in the minority, but does anyone else think Britta has become one of the funniest characters? Aside from Troy of course, but I would say that if it's a good Britta episode, I'm guaranteed to like it. Her lines in the documentary episode were hysterical in particular.
For additional ear bleach. And somewhat relevant content!
It did go something like that song...
Is there no way to make them accountable that doesn't damage the education of the kids that can't/don't choose to go to a school an extra 20 minutes away?
I agree with you, never heard it before, but that song is quite enjoyable. Don't know what Kuvien is on about. Not even sort of close to Friday.
EDIT: Oh and apparently she's 13. So while it's fun to mock, I doubt I could do much better at that age.
I like that this actually backed up exactly what I said.
Crack gets you high faster. It has other differences, it may have a stronger addictive property, but to say that those justify (again from your article)
You really think this is a justified difference with absolutely no connection to the racial image of crack? Come on now.
This is getting slightly off topic, but it's a good illustration of different ways inequality can be perpetuated in society. Rules are made by the majority, and they can easily make laws that appear to apply equally to everyone, but disproportionately affect a minority group. Imagine you really disliked Seventh Day Adventists, and you didn't want them to work for you. Sure, you could say "No Seventh Day Adventists" in your job application sign, but that would draw a lot of attention and be busted on right quick. But what about you require every employee to work every other Saturday? The same rule applies to everyone, but suddenly SDAs can't follow your rule. Even if you could easily have them work Sundays, or extra hours other days, hey, that's the rule, no special rights for minorities, right?
This sort of thing happens all the time, though to be fair most of it is unconscious. But whenever something like this comes up, and people try to fix the problem, there are always screams about "special rights" for minorities or "special interests" as the modern parlance goes. This is what I have termed, after a real-life experience, 4 year old fairness- it's like a child that protests about how unfair it is that her brother got a bigger slice of pie, even though she doesn't really like pie and had a snack an hour before dinner. Sometimes, substantive equality requires different treatment.
Probably because the reason crack was argued to need a higher punishment is because of its perception as "dangerous", seeing as it was the more popular with those violent inner city gangs, instead of mostly harmless white kids just looking to party. It's an image of each drug steeped in racial stereotypes, there's nothing inherent about crack that makes it significantly more dangerous than powder cocaine.
Besides, it doesn't have to be consciously racist to have seriously disproportionate effects on one group. Once such a thing is realized, not fixing it IS consciously racist.