And to follow up... yes, they did commit crimes, and yes, they were (finally) charged with them. http://gawker.com/5992017/teens-behind-gallon-smashing-prank-being-charged-with-multiple-crimes

Disney does not own the rights to Rocketeer, and Zorro and John Carter are questionable depending on how you feel about public domain (and whether or not that applies in either case).

I was a game reviewer for about four years, companies sent a bunch of games (and DVDs) to review... but I never received an embargo sheet. Was I not high profile enough to rate an embargo sheet, were my editors just not forwarding them to me, or was this not a thing five years ago?

I would watch this movie. Someone get this guy a contract.

How come spambots keep getting through but I keep getting asked to fill out those prove-you-are-human Rorschach tests?

In defense of Sub-Mariner

But they're so good!

Exactly, but why cry over spilled...

Also health code violations if milk is allowed to remain on whatever other food items it may have splashed on. I've seen businesses shut down for less.

Vandalism - deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property.

Now that's how it's done. All satirizing up in their business.

See? Now this is a prank. This does not involve destroying anyone else's property, or making anyone else have to clean up after their fun. This involves people living together making their own lives horrible for laughs. Prank on!

At least this guy isn't a full-on vandal, nor is he destroying someone else's property. He's just giving people making minimum wage more to do because he thinks it's funny that they have to work hard for a living.

Why is this posted anywhere than in an e-mail to their local police department? These people aren't pranksters, they are vandals. On the other hand, promoting them as "fun" and "priceless" on a major video game website is a great way to encourage gullible kids across the internet to try to copy the same damn thing and…

It was sleeping! It wasn't gunna hurt anyone!

I thought the post was hispstery before it was cool to think it was hipstery.

I think the poll is poorly worded. I doubt a lot of PS2 users would look at a PS3 that was not backward compatible and say "never!" However, if they asked if backward compatibility affected purchasing a new console, the results ma be even greater (and probably more honest).

Gotta admit, if it was successful, it wouldn't've been considered an experiment. Imagine if Wii had flopped? It would've immediately been thrown into the same category.

Considering you couldn't play it while walking (without modding it up the wazzoo), it was technically a home console. It should be in there.

You beat me to it. This is a necessary inclusion, and deserving of possibly beating out Wii's slot, as it was designed to work without even looking at it!