Wait until you start unlocking the hidden courses in Yoshi's Woolly World. Some serious challenge there, although they're basically impossible to co-op.

I think we can trust @avclub-d0cf409eb912cc0cc950b41b6d892d07:disqus on this one. He said right there that he's not lying.

Man, your Fire Emblem skills sound impressive! I felt like I got a grasp on the game in a way I don't always manage with tactical RPGs (I beat it on Hard/Classic!), but no resets would have seen me limping in to, like, Chapter 10 with a force of Chrom and Robin.

Lots of gaming to be done this weekend! In virtual space, Xenoblade Chronicles X if I get a chance and Super Mario Maker for sure (time constraints will not hinder my dedication to my craft.

I think Mike's point about Spoiler Space being a waste of time and space when the actual thing to be spoiled isn't interesting is bang on, but I'm still glad I made my original comment if only for these excellent fake spoilers everyone came up with.

It really strikes me as a situation where the film, which is already excellent, could be god damned great if they'd made one more pass at the dialogue!

I'm not just "not sure" of that, I'm quite sure you're correct!

Unless he killed them all at once, how did he evade the attentions of the parents in a neighbourhood where parents are willing to commit horrifying vigilante murder? Were they just chilling when it was fifteen kids, but approaching twenty crossed the line?

Yeah, it wouldn't even have to be that big of a rewrite. Exact same dialogue except either he killed "four kids in the neighbourhood" or he was a drifter who killed "at least twenty kids across the midwest."

Actually, "at least" is pretty silly, too, since they're all in the neighbourhood. Should be easy to get an exact count!

It's not the twenty kids. It's "in the neighbourhood."

Do we not do Spoiler Space around here any more?

I saw the Simpsons parody before I ever saw the film and was actually expecting something similar the first time I watched it. At least some ambiguity over whether he deserved it!

Yeah, this is what I mean about just correcting the film in your head as you watch: there's a brilliant idea in there, but the way it comes through in the film is absurd.

Oh, a lot of dialogue definitely needs to be glazed over. "Parents take revenge on child killer, he takes revenge on their children from beyond the grave" is an awesome idea. The idea that a serial killer killed "at least twenty" kids in a single neighbourhood is so ridiculous that I cringe every time, especially if…

Rewatched it in October and was struck by how godawful most of the script is! The mother's exposition when she confesses to Nancy is a particular standout. She says Fred Kreuger was a "filthy child killer who killed at least twenty kids in the neighbourhood."

Zimmerman's conviction had nothing to do with reasonable doubt and everything to do with whether or not it was possible to persuade a Florida jury that Trayvon Martin was a dangerous thug.

I don't think the point of the documentary was to "prove Avery's innocence," based on the stated intentions of the filmmakers and the content of the documentary.

That fits pretty closely with how most of these MAM arguments have gone here. Some people saying "but the evidence clearly leaves tons of reasonable doubt and strongly suggests impropriety on the part of law enforcement at all levels in this case!" and some people screeching back "REDNECKS ARE GROSS!"

I saw you playing my levels, although I didn't make the Mannion/msquared connection until I read the first sentence of this post!