Animalchandler

I wasn't really into comics when the wole GL/parallax sagge was going on, so I don't really have a clue of the significance of losing Hal and having him replaced with Kyle, but I'm guessing kyle is established now?

My human rights point is aimed at the right to have that choice in society, not have it taken away due to their lifestyle. Oh I agree with you on this as well. I just don't see how integration and coexistence can work effectively if there is one rule for one group of people and a different rule for another, like in the example of Gay marriage, or gay adoption. This acts as a type of segregation (whether it be discrimitory or not), which is the opposite of integration. King of carried away hey? tis a grand title @notworthy@

I'm not sure if this came on uk tv, but I haven't seen it before. I love it!

Batman - Mask of the Phantasm

I see both of your points as valid, and I think they would work - terminations would stop more unwanted pregnancy, maybe it will teach people that it isn't the best situation to be in being a single parent in a world. And I agree with you that it would be easier to screen people who want to have a child, in the same way as you do for potential adoptive parents. Stopping gay people from adopting would stop the kid from being bullied because they had homosexual parents is true as well. All these I agree with you would work, and work they would. What I don't agree with is that at the end of the day, you would be taking away basic human rights of people that are the same as everyone else except in one respect - that they chose to have a different sexual orientation. In the same way that a heterosexual couple will adopt and love a child, so too will a homosexual couple. I do not see how it is a selfish act on the part of the homosexual couple to adopt a child. In the case of bullying, it is NOT the fault of the homosexual parents that the child gets bullied - the child will ONLY be a victim of the ignorance of those who torment them, and not a victim of the selfishness of the parents. In the UK a lesbian couple, one suffering from a deliberating disease that confined her to minimal movement of her arms and head was able to have IVF and become the mother to a healthy baby. The program portrayed this woman as a human being, ready to love and cherish the child in the best way that her and her partner could, and not as just a disabled homosexual. She was shown to have dignity, pride, love, and a future ahead of her. A parent and human being, with human needs and human rights. Yes its true that the dynamics of a homosexual family will be different to a heterosexual, but again, if the child grows up to be a doctor, or scientist - what does it matter? If they are gay as well then what does that matter? It has become too easy to see people as a label, whether it be 'gay' 'black' 'asian' 'muslim' and think of them only thus, and that isn't fair on them. Sorry if I'm getting carried away, this is one of the things that I hold close to me.

Thats true,which is a shame. I've heard of sects of religions that would take in gay people with a promise of 'curing' their homosexuality through the love of God. And while I don't doubt the love of any god, I doubt the followers of it who would treat any person without the basic rights they had as a person. People went to these 'clinics and told that their choice of lifestyle was wrong, that they were living in sin and that they would go to hell, scaring them and making then feel confused and all alone. No one who is only being the way they are should be told that their choice in lifestyle (thats not hurting anyone, or being detrimental to anyone) is wrong and because of it they will be tainted and cursed for life. Homosexuality used to be classed as a psychological disorder, and people 'suffering' from it were institutionalised or put in prison. And I don't see where just tolerating something is enough. Gay, black, and to some extent females feel that they want acceptance, not just tolerance. But by denying gay people to be joined in such a way is not allowing those who want to be together for the right reasons to celebrate and recognise their love for each other. I see nothing wrong with wanting someone to give your rights to someone else when someone is ill or unable to handle them themselves. If the closest person to them is their partner, who just happens to be the same sex as them I see nothing wrong with that. This I agree with you 100% the dynamics of the world are changing, and people will be left behind if they don't start to think about some of these issues. I agree with you on this as well, because everyone is different, being gay is just one of the things that you are, or are not, like being right or left handed IMO. Yet we don't ostricise left handed people (well, not anymore). Surely adoption is never a selfish act. I see no selfishness in having a child, looking after it and letting it grow into another person in society, that has jut the same chances to make a positive difference in people's lives. Yes I agree with you that its terrible that a child will picked on, but it wouldn't be the child, or the adopted parents fault that happens. I guess my views are pretty much rooted in the idea that no matter what preferences or differences are, everyone has the right to be treated the same as the person next to them. I'm from a varied family, with different colour, religion and sexual preference, and fundamentally I see them the same, and wish for the world to do the same, in whatever facets of life.

Thats the worst games trailer i've ever seen

Maybe gay people think that too Straight couples do that too. Greed is a human trait, not a gay one. Children are entitled to loving parents aren't they? regardless of what sexuality they are. Gay couples can get married here in the UK now, and I think that can only be a positive thing. Love doesn't see colour, creed, sexuality or religion. Its the bonding of two beings, thats all it ever was and thats all it ever will be, nothing to do with anything else. Is that not the bigger picture?

Its the collective term for a group of people in a big building working out the future of their country. Which earth is this?

To be honest, I've never been a supes fan at all. Even when I was young superman never appealed to me. I think its because he is SO super, ie the only thing that can stop him is kryptonite, or maybe magic. having said that I've only read a couple of his comics. I've always been a Bats guy, especially the darker bats. Something about the sinister anti hero that he is, is more appealing to me. I think I'm more impressed by the fact that he has no powers, and yet still gets the job done. Granted its just as far fetched as an alien from another planet that is invulnerable to everything except a green rock, but I've always liked the fact that he HAS to rely more on his wits, or he really could end up dead,more so than Superman. He's a complex character, and I think that makes for good story telling

Well the Flash would be pretty useful if there were alot of bad guys, he could deal with a chunk of them pretty quickly, fastest man alive an' all that. Does the 'god' rule apply to Dr Fate? he's pretty powerful. He could get you out of there, and also mess with the badguys. Bats or GL are good choices. I would like to think that Green arrow could give them a run for their money as well, tho I doubt he would be as effective. And Captain Marvel could hold himself, tho again, the god rule, but then he is 'earth's mightiest mortal'

Booster had a cool JLU episode. In fact that was a pretty good episode for a few minor JL members. Was good to see them in action. One of the things that I like about DC is that they will use all the characters they have acquired over the years, they don't get rid of characters if they haven't been seen for a while.

I've seen the first season of B:TAS in HMV, but there are no director's commentaries, and that's one of the best things about the set. It'd be better to get a multi-region DVD player and import them. I did that just because I was so desperate for them. I saw it today and was really tempted to get it. It was 19.99. 28 episodes plus a trailer and two features. Not loaded, but then I don't really mind. Alas, being a student means I'm poor...

Interesting stuff, very interesting. I didn't know alot of the stuff that vid was talking bout, like building 7, and the pentagon information. And in no way would I call it left wing BS. I get the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this film is implying that there was more government involvement than was led to believe, and at the least that they knew beforehand that something was going to happen. If that was the case, then I don't understand how the government could justify doing what they did. Surely no government would allow such a thing to happen? I have more faith in the american government, in what it is to be a human being than to allow myself to believe that they would instigate an operation in which tousands of poeples lives were taken away and destroyed. That may sound naive, and may sound like I do not wish the truth to be known, but I will be signing the petition to open the investigation. My opinion is that the US government would no way intentionally harm the people it governs, as it would take the humanity out of them, and no one could live with that.

Ok, so lets get explicit about our love for the DC universe. Tell us your fave DC character and why you like them. In fact, try to find an issue you like with them in, or 'best bits' and mention it. We could end up finding some issues that really epitomise the character. Maybe your fav pic? Hell it doesn't have to be a well known one, just one that caught your eye one time and you think they look pretty cool, and you think they deserve a little press. Lets bask in DC's warming glow.

Now all we need is some set UK releases of the box sets...

I've only heard good things about it, so I'm eager to see it, and I've always advocated subtitles. I agree they can enhance the experience. Its a shame that there isn't as many films breaking through over here. I always make a point of seeing world cinema when I get the chance, and I have few dvds, which are absolutely superb films. I don't know why there doesn't seem to be much room for them in western cinema (From a UK perspective, I don't know about the US).

I saw the trailer for this on empire.com, and in all honesty I thought it was a joke, and so did alot of other people. The trailer that I saw either was a VERY preproduction of a better trailer (the snakes looked awful), or the cgi really was that bad. But don't hold it against me if I wait for the reviews first...

Hmmm, there's not alot in that trailer - more exciting music and fast moving body parts. The trailer is effective, but doesn't really show much. Have to get my PS2 booted up and see how it plays.

No way will there be the full extent of their powers surely? GL could kick ass totally in a game, and the flash could as well, and superman...well there we go again. The upgrading part will be good, it worked well for x men,but I thought that legends was pretty easy and alot of the same. I wonder if it will be a mostly fighting one, or have heroic deeds for citizens as well. Scope for alot in a game like this, have to wait and see

I have the sinister 6 venom and a Venom with a spider trap base. Both of them are pretty good interpretations, the classic spidey one has abit more colour, but if you're looking for a straight forward venom to display, then the sinister 6 would be the best. I guess it depends on how you prefer your venom in the comic books. My spider trap venom has his tongue out, my other doesn't.

Thats an awesome pic of spidey It's growing on me now I look at the costume. Looks like Tony got it right.

I'm happy with John Stewart as my staple GL in the game. Skins would be good, but i would want john as the GL. He maybe a little less imaginative, but he's a GL through and through.

Bruce Lee James Bond Vs Doctor Who

I saw it today and thought it was a great movie. As for Moore complaining about it...it is easy to sell off the rights to a story and then complain about it later when the film doesn't do well. if he was so worried about it I would think he would take Frank Miller's (Sin City) approach and be a part of the process, no? Also, he needs to learn that 95% or more of the people who go see this movie didn't read the book and could care less if the movie takes "creative license" and is not 100% true to his work. The thing about that is while Frank Miller owns the rights to Sin City, Alan Moore does not own the rights to any of his work for DC Comics. He did not sell the rights to make this movie, nor did he have any control over the deal when DC did. This is why he is angry with DC because his contract allows the rights to revert back to him after the book is out of print for a certain amount of time. DC has neever let this or Watchmen out of print, thus keeping the rights. Moore did not forsee this situation and is a little bitter about it. And I've also read that DC has screwed over Moore on more than on occasion, such as merchandising rights to his Watchmen title, and no doubt that because he takes no credit for this version that he will get little, if not no royalties from the merchandise from this film; posters, novelisations, figures etc. It's also easy to dismiss Moore's claim as sheer greed when money is involved...but there is NO money involved. He isn't taking any for making the film, and this whole situation occured BEFORE the film went on general release, so he didn't know how it was going to do. I see this whole situation as DC running off with Moore's creation, and when you see the way in which Moore creates, it would be easy to see why he would be annoyed at the way in which he has been screwed over. As would anyone else. Being a comic book artist must be risky at the best of times, and to put work in then have this sort of thing happen, and not be recognised for it - you better believe he's pissed off about it!