The Kotaku article was full of capitulation and self-abasement, something I'm sadly not surprised to see coming from reviewers whose power is diminishing by the day as publishers turn to stupid YouTube enthusiasts to deliver their pre-scripted advertising messages. "[S]o be it," Totilo sighs, "if", unlike every other…

A little while back on here, I predicted an industry-wide attempt to murder the review and pimp the pre-sale as a devil's pact between publishers who would inevitably prefer a veil of secrecy around mediocre titles to more publicity for stellar ones, and lo and behold…

Every single time you post you're throwing a tantrum over this issue. It seems to consume you entirely.

That's… actually the case, though. Most of what people "know" about "ninjas" nowadays was invented by various publicity-seeking con-artist types during the 1970s or after. They really do lie somewhere between popular myth and poorly-confirmed, poorly-understood historical fact. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either…

Nothing scares me. I'm a super-brave ultra-person, a real superior type, and all those things you think are scary? Just a cool breeze to me. I'm pretty much the coolest, the greatest, and I don't understand why anyone is ever afraid of [INSERT THING I'M ACTUALLY FRIGHTENED BY HERE].

Thus you ensure your arguments fail thanks to confirmation bias. What odd behavior to pursue on purpose.

No.

Correct. This is especially true for a fully animated, super-tall, monster humanoid walking around, interacting with people, etc. Practical effects for that on a TV budget would look laughably terrible compared to other shows.

Uh-oh, you broke orthodoxy. It must be because you're "high" or a "contrarian" or something, no one could ever disagree with the approved opinion on this!

Thanks for bothering to mount an argument here, vs. the tons of otherwise apparently intelligent commenters who have just offered variations on "THE WRITER SUCKS AND THE THING IS GOOD BECAUSE I LIKE THE THING AND THE THING IS GOOD BECAUSE THE WRITER SUCKS".

I eagerly await the argument that was promised to follow this bald, unsupported assertion.

The difference between suspense and horror.

Is he also epic? For the win? Do all your base belong to him?

What an unconvincing argument.

What an immature person you are to imagine that bizarre conversation simply because you disagree with the article.

I'm sure you're wrong, and you're also sure you're wrong (since obviously someone, somewhere doesn't like the effects) but irrational hyperbole is how conversations are conducted on the Internet, so expect a lot of upvotes to further encourage your poor thinking and behavior.

The only good part of it, really, the dream sequence.

It's one of Carpenter's worst movies, but it would be interesting to see it covered here.

Since "awesome" means nothing in that sentence, I can't agree. It would be nice to see some actual arguments against this piece from its detractors instead of whining about how "awesome" and "epic" the movie is (terms that don't mean anything) and a bunch of immature slagging of the writer.

That practical effects take longer and cost more is not an argument against CGI.