kariyanine

Great show guys. I'm pretty sure that they were rafting in Scotland. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure she woke up in a hospital in Aberdeen.

This pretyt much goes with what Ryan Reynolds had said shortly after Blade: Trinity was released. He said the Blade franchise was Snipes and he didn't think they would go in the direction of a Nightstalkers spin off. He also said that even if they did he wouldn't be a part of it. I wish I had the link to the interview it was quite telling that he wasn't happy with his experience on Blade: Trinity, which is a shame because he was outright hysterical in that film.

Just about finished the episode. Its a little longer than normal and I've been listening to it in my car. Anyway, Jenny, I remember G.L.O.W. fondly as well. Here in Philly it aired at 10AM on Sundays and I would sit there and watch it every week. The lighting was always terrible but it was highly entertaining. For me, G.L.O.W. and NWA/WCW was the wrestling I was brought up on. I didn't really get into the WWF/WWE until the Rock made his face turn during the Attitude era and have since given up WWE almost entirely (outside of Wrestlemania of course). I now watch TNA, despite the crappy production Sting was my hero as a younger fan and I now watch TNA to catch him. Mike, You should certainly read the remainder of Stephen King's the Dark Tower series. Book two is so much better than book one and deals with different dimensions, time travel, and monsterous flesh eating crabs. Book three is even better and adds in some sci-fi to the mix. Book four is primarily a flash back and deals with witchcraft, rebellion and love but also moves the story forward and has a touch of the Wizard of Oz in it. Book five is straight sci-fi and has nods to everything from Harry Potter, Star Wars and Dr. Doom and King's own story Salem's Lot. There are two other books after that and overall the ride is well worth the time. -Chris

And this is exactly why this will fail. For $20 you get no special features, you have to watch it on your computer or portable media device, you have to wait for it to download and I'm sure it won't be lickity split because the file is going to be big. Apple has been fighting the studios on the $20 price point for some time now and they just won't bend. I can tell you I sure won't be downloading anything for that price. Here's another thing. I do happen to download TV shows off iTunes for $1.99 the same price they are offering on this site as well. If the studios are making money off a $1.99 download for a 24 to 48 minute TV program, I'm sure they would make money off a movie download if they put the price at say $9.99.

Hazah! I know a lot of people download the show directly from the site or my sig at various forums, so it's finally nice to hear that someone uses (and found it through) iTunes! I also discovered the show through iTunes. I was trying out a lot of other podcasts on iTunes but yours and one other one are the only ones I still download on a regular basis.

Firefly was a fantastic series too. Too bad FOX screwed around with its scheduling and played it out of order because it really could have been something special.

Because massive heart attacks aren't as much fun to watch.

I'll be the first to asmit I think Aquaman is a lame character, I've always been partial to Marvel's version (Namor), but I downloaded the pilot anyway and I have to say it was decent. Not great by any means and I though Ving Rhames was way off base but it was entertaining. The show seemed to have a good amount of promise, it seemed like it was going to explore the mythology and mystery behind the Bermuda Triangle and the legend of Atlantis. Yes the acting wasn't great but it was entirely watchable. Too bad the CW didn't pick this one up.

Mike, Jenny, great episode. Glad you liked Clerks II, it was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time and its already made its budget back and some. As for Blade: The Series, I'm kind of enjoying it. I never really liked the Blade movies and while you said you are pretty much only still watching it because it is Blade; I'm watching it despite that. I happen to like Kirk Jones as Blade despite the silly dialogue he seems more imposing to me than Snipes ever did as Blade. I also like how the show isn't entirely focused on Blade or his villain but also adds in another element with both Krista and the annoying cop (although I agree that storyline sucks so far). To answer a couple of your questions that you brought up during the show: 1. Blade didn't want to go after Van Skiver directly because he wants to bring down the entire House of Kathon and Van Skiver is only a small portion of the entire house. His reasoning was by eliminating Van Skiver you just create a hole that someone else will fill and that was how he explained it to Krista in the double length Pilot episode. 2. Van Skiver didn't want Fritz going after Blade because he was afraid of Aurora(sp?) ending up being discovered by Blade. Blade himself told his buddy that he was going to capture Fritz and bring him back to his hideout to dissect him alive and figure out what makes him tick in the second episode. Van Skiver couldn't risk the serum/vaccine being discovered by Blade (at least not at this point). 3. Van Skiver kicked the crap out of Fritz because he questioned his authority and was going to go after Blade himself. I was also surprised that they killed of Fritz as soon as they did although I wasn't all that attached to him. Chase on the other hand is one sick little puppy, so they better keep her around for the long haul. As for Friday's show, I recommend 'My Super Ex-Girlfriend' although I haven't seen it; I have heard that it is a good lighthearted comedy. All I've heard about 'Lady in the Water' is that M. Night Shyamalan has lost his mind although the film was shot less than five minutes from my house at the old 3M Plant in Levittown, PA. And finally all I've heard of 'A Skanner Darkly' is that you should probably do some drugs before you watch it and it might possibly make more sense.

I've got to say it has me hooked. I'm not a big Superman fan and have never seen any more than about five minutes of Smallville but I'll be tuning in to watch Ollie.

On the flip side he said Michael Bay is like one of the top action directors ever. Lost all credibility there..... Touché! Maybe not "ever" but still the guy does have a string of hits: Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon, Bad Boys 2. and with Spielberg pulling his strings on this I think Bay could do quite a fine job here.

Early May is now when summer blockbuster season officially starts. Look at Spider-Man 3 next year with a May 4th release. A January or February release would have been surprising to me. I take the May release as a good sign that they think this movie is going to rock.

Mike, Great episode. I understand how you feel about the wholesomeness (not even sure that is a word) of Superman but the movie is PG-13, so this film isn't targeted to the "younger" crowd (although you would think Superman.... kids... perfect combo but Warner Bros and Singer didn't go that way) and it seemed like Singer was trying to show a humanity that Superman isn't normally protrayed with. Superman is a god except for one thing and that is his emotions and I thought Singer did a great job of making Clark/Superman feel human to the audience (the drink with Jimmy, the creepy stalking scene, the almost reveal of Clark as Superman). My main problem with Superman has always been that Superman is too godlike, I thought Singer made it so we were able to relate to him on at least some level. And Jenny, Cyclops is boring. He sucks.

While I like Dominic Purcell, I would actually rather see Brendan Fraser as Bruce Banner. Fraser is a highly underated actor and I think he could really pull off the Banner role well.

I think that if you are selling something for a certain price then it is fair game for people to buy at that price regardless of its worth. To the person selling it, obviously that is what they think the worth is, but to you it is worth more. On the other hand I would probably give the $100 back though if I found it in a book.

I know it's just a teaser trailer but damn that looked good. I'm still skeptical about condensing the Venom Saga into one movie but I am psyched for this film.

Good point, it does work both ways.

I agree. It makes the company look really stupid to list them by their character's name. I mean, really: you didn't see Pierce Brosnan listed as Remington Steele. But the WWE produced the film and using brand recognition they promoted the film. It's kind of the same reason The Rock still gets billed as The Rock and not Dwayne Johnson. It's also why The Rock resigned with WWE, despite him not wrestling a whole lot anymore. The WWE owns the rights to the name. People know the name Kane, they don't know who Glen Jacobs is. Do you really think Glen Jacobs would get top billing for a horror film? I don't. See No Evil had very little buzz around it to begin with but with Kane attached to it the film made money ($8 million production budget, currently just under $15 million box office take). I don't know if the same could be said about it if it was not billed with Kane as the star. All speculation of course but....

A part in "An Evening With Kevin Smith" details Smith's dealings with Burton when he was signed on to do a rewrite of the script for "Superman Lives" and it is downright hysterical. Burton would have so killed this movie. I like some of Burton's work but making Superman into an H.R. Geiger bad ass would have been the absolute death of Superman. Oh and they wanted a giant spider in the film as well.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Xbox_360_S..._PS2/1150211868 Thoughts? Here's a better question though: What are the numbers of original XBOX's being sold? I own a PS2 and neither Microsoft system but I would be intrigued to see what those numbers are. My guess is, much like some others, that this is more about the price of the system than anything else. It will be interesting to see if the PS2 will outsell the PS3 due to the price difference of close to $500.

No it's not such a strange notion, its just strange that they want to release a system that is roughly $200 more (and maybe even $300 more by the time the PS3 releases) than it's biggest competitor and try and justify it by telling you the system isn't really a gaming console anymore. All around the news you read articles saying Sony needs to "justify" their price. Sony doesn't need to justify shit. They can release their product at whatever price they want. I'm no fanboy, but I'm just getting sick of this "me first" attitude people have, and then you have the idiots that say Sony is doomed because of their price. This is going to sell out the first day, regardless of price, and to believe otherwise is ignorance. You're right Sony doesn't need to justify anything and it will sell out on it's first day. But then again GD-DVD players sold out right away as well but you don't hear anyone calling that fact an indication that HD-DVD will outdo Sony's Blu-Ray format. The reason is because the manufacturer's don't release a surplus of hardware for two reasons. 1) You don't manufacture enough hardware for everyone for the fear that it doesn't sell. 2) By releasing a limited quanity it creates a frenzy which normally brings the press (free publicity). Unfortunately while Sony wants to portray the PS3 as this super system that will do everything for you, most people already have a DVD player and a computer so the added features aren't essential and most people will be buying the PS3 (at least at first) as a game console. At the price point Sony wants to introduce the PS3 at you can currently get an XBOX 360, three games and a second controller. To get that set up for the PS3 it's going to cost me over $800. This is the exact same problem that Microsoft hit on in the last generation of consoles. They had the more superior system but by the time it came out Sony had already established the PS2 as the goto system. You can be as sick as you want of the "me first" attitude but remember people are buying this for their own personal use. So it kind of dictates a "me first" attitude. I've been a firm supporter of Sony for both the Playstation and the PS2 but I can't justify to myself the need to spend $600 on a game system when I can get something of similar quality for less. And while I can't speak for anyone else I would think that alot of other people won't be able to justify the purchase to themselves either.

No it's not such a strange notion, its just strange that they want to release a system that is roughly $200 more (and maybe even $300 more by the time the PS3 releases) than it's biggest competitor and try and justify it by telling you the system isn't really a gaming console anymore.

The answer is: No. I was really trying to hold out hope for the PS3 but I think this may have just solidified my move to another system, I will hate to leave behind the Final Fantasy series but it may be a loss I will have to take.

Hasn't Rob Zombie proved that he can't make good(ones that make money) movies? Actually Zombie has proved that he can make low-budget films that make a decent deal of money for what it cost him to make the film. Zombie's "House of 1000 Corpses" cost $7 million to make and it raked in almost $17 million worldwide. His second film "The Devil's Rejects" cost $7 million as well and raked in almost $20 million worldwide. Neither of his films were released in more than 2000 theaters. If you look at if from a certain standpoint Zombie makes perfect sense to try and resurrect the franchise. Halloween has a built in audience that will most likely flock to the film regardless, other horror fans will jump on board because of Zombie's reputation for making very gritty and disturbing films. If he can produce the film for just under $10 million it has the chance to rake in quite a bit of money as you can be sure that it will release in close to 3000 theaters.

That's not entirely accurate, though. While they'll buy just about anything, if it sucks and they know they aren't going to move it, they'll buy it for a dollar or less. You won't see a game for cheaper than five bucks in that store, so using your example, they buy fifteen copies of a game for a dollar each, and sell six for five bucks a pop. Their expenses are $15 and their profits are $30, plus they've got seven extra copies of the game in inventory, which they can either sell through the online shop or keep in stock for the next time someone wants a copy. Yeah but you also got to figure the more a game sucks the more copies that are going to come in to the store and the less they are going to sell of said game. I think the used game market is more driven by word of mouth than anything else so if the game has bad word of mouth the store isn't going to sell as many copies. They buy the shittier games for less than a dollar. So, even if the buy 100 copies of a game, it doesn't matter how many they sell or not. If it comes down to it, they can donate the games to goodwill or a local community center and write it off on their taxes. When they write it off, they write off the value at which they would have sold it for. Wether they sell it or not, they are still getting a huge return that neither the gamer or the company that put out the game will ever see. After a a good while on the market though, at the start they are taking them in for roughly 40-50% of the original price. Let alone the fact that a business is attempting to make money as that is their purpose, just like SOny and the game company. In anycase I would rather have a quick-convienent option then to not have one and because of that I will be looking into buying an XBOX 360 as opposed to Sony's system.