It's not a "shitty comparison", thanks, because there is at least a scientific starting point for assessing the matter. In fact, there are studies that give up to 13-14 days as a safe zone to eat balut by boiling without inflicting pain, so— like any other animal we eat— suffering can be minimized. That's why I made…

But the pain and cruelty comparison is *exactly* the point I'm making: if we were to somehow measure the pain and cruelty we inflict on animals that we eat, I'm unconvinced that balut is any higher on the list than many of the animal products we eat. It's just causing such a sensational reaction (in these comments for…

They Look Like People has definitely intrigued me. The trailer is one of the old-school "doesn't reveal every major moment of the movie" trailers, which makes me even more interested to know exactly what's going on.

Har har. It's not that far out though. Gristle and crunchy bits are a relatively common part of the meat-eating experience— it's really not like you're eating a pillowcase full of feathers. As another commenter posted further up, you "crunch on tiny little bones" when you eat quail.

I meant 'has a face' in a metaphorical sense (hence the quotes), as in "it's very obviously an animal that you're eating". Because when you get right down to it, there's no functional difference between eating balut and eating chicken breast except for squeamishness. Sorry if that was unclear.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't eat anything unless I can look into its eyes.

Kinda interesting how as soon as it 'has a face' we get grossed out, right? I mean, I sympathize, I'm the same way. But the preparation of food like foie gras or ortolan I think takes the cake as far as "is this really necessary, humans?"

How about just, you know, "the woman"?

A 'fair hit,' as Tina puts it, still needs to be based in reality though.

Eh, they're part of the fun that get people interested as fans, so I don't mind them. (99% of them tend to suck and not pass any sort of muster, but that's neither here nor there.)

I watched Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Cure last night and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It had all the best aspects of Japanese horror without any of the meandering aimlessness that tends to infect a lot of that genre in the third act. All in all an extremely tightly woven movie. Very excited to follow it up with Creepy.

Yeah, I think everyone's forgetting that part of the first ep. I think Maeve is the only other person who has heard that "trigger phrase" apart from Dolores.

I think it's a red herring. Knudsen sounds robotic with some of her lines, but I still have a couple of shillings down since Ep 2 on Bernard being a robot.

Never really understood the popularity of that show. It's more campy overacting than a scare-fest to me.

Horror is a broad genre, to the point that a "scary" movie isn't equivalent to a horror movie, but is merely a subset of it. Movies that are gross or uncomfortable (like say, A Serbian Film—- which kinda sucks as a movie anyway—- and the much better Audition) are not meant to be "scary", but suspenseful and…

Eh, I'd feel dirtier if every interview with a celebrity was followed by a good rating of their latest gig. That would look too much like paying for good reviews.

It definitely depends on the style of the horror game and whether the point of view is 'more stick'— if you lose you have to replay a sequence, which means you're missing out on progressing the story— or 'more carrot'— the game proceeds anyway, but the reward for playing well is a better ending, more backstory, etc.

There should be a support group for actors who look like other actors. Jeffrey Dean Morgan and/or Javier Bardem run the sessions, and Tom Hardy & Logan Marshall Green give out coffee.

That's my issue too. The zombies are kind of a not very interesting afterthought once you're in the "fortress" stage, especially if they're Romero-style zombies.

What is Mercury in retrograde?