I mean, I could see "overstepped" or "was overzealous." It's the term "abused" that I think is way off considering the context.

Context is key though, as always. I ain't someone who shouts "SJW LIBRUL!" or whatever, but when I do think think comments are over the top it's usually because people are ignoring context. They're in a zombie infested apocalypse and he was saving her life.

That was my initial thought, but then I thought maybe there was info I was lacking. I guess not.

Genuine question no one will probably answer: is there a reason everyone in the comments sides with her? I'm really asking, I don't know. Just reading a few of these stories objectively there's no real evidence either way and her previous testimony is damning, but again, maybe there's something I don't know?

The common thought, which is included in the "is he or isn't he" feature on the Blu-ray, is that Rachel had unicorn dran implants, Deckard was thinking of that, and Gaff was using said unicorn to symbolize he was letting Rachel escape.

Since he Zimmer'd melody out of superhero themes I think I'm okay with his Snydering out of the genre.

I can look past what he did and enjoy his movies, just like I look past what a loon Tom Cruise is and enjoy his movies. None of that means I wouldn't arrest Polanski in a second if he came here, or that I don't find it egregious that France won't arrest him for us.

I'm just saying you could apply that to almost any action movie. Iron Man blowing up tanks and such, who knows who was in there. I think it's just a movie conceit that they're killing the bad guys and only bad guys, unless the plot says otherwise.

But like every other superhero and action hero kills the bad guys. You're basically saying Batman and (mostly) Superman are the only two heros in superhero cinema.

I know it's from the comics but I don't get the whole "never kill" thing with Batman. Imagine the lives he would have saved if he killed the Joker 50 years ago! Also every other hero in ever other movie I have ever seen kills the bad guys, even the other comic book dudes. Also also Batman killed in the Batman stuff I…

It's a fun play on Bond movies, just like the rest of the film. Vaughn purposely did stuff movies used to do but would be called too cheesy or offensive today, so when he reads comments like yours he probably high-fives himself and says "mission accomplished."

Their profits are too tied to affiliates and cable companies to do this with that kind of regularity and availability. The vast majority of households still watch TV normally and they can't harm that revenue stream for an up and coming one yet.

Glad you made this point. I lived in Eastern Europe for a year and everyone pirates everything there because they little other choice. Many other regions have the same issue. A lot of these high piracy numbers are from regions without access or budgets.

I've always thought the hate for 3 was way overblown, but I know (on the internet at least) that's a minority opinion.

They should have just had self contained movies with new actors Bond style, rather than reboot. Raimi's movies still so good overall. Even the Marvel reboot annoys me, but whatever.

It's kind of amazing that two such "big" Summer tent pole movies are being brushed away like a failed TV pilot. I mean, I agree with the public's ambivalence, it's just kind of amazing.

They're not "making a profit" but they're selling Blu-rays and other things for "donations" and talking about being a "professional production." There's a reason they're getting sued and other previous fan films did not.

There are so many instances of "fucked X when I thought it was Y" in sci-fi, but no one ever talks about what that really means in said shows/movies.

*blah*blah*blah* "lower taxes!" *blah*blah*blah* "more freedom!"

I get that, but I'm just an "I want to know" kind of guy, despite the uncomfortable aspect and risks. I have a strong mental illness tendency in my family, so I kind of "get" the dangers (would I have been tinkered with for prevention?).