All good. Its even more of an odd cameo given he WASN’T an unknown at the time.

Yeah, Statham had several roles of various sizes under his belt by the time Collateral was coming out. The Transporter came out in 2002, so he had already been the face of an action franchise by that point, not to mention his prior work with Ritchie.

Is SR3, ShadowRun 3rd edition? I’ve never played, beyond the tutorial of the revival cRPG from years ago, but I recall being similarly aghast at the plethora of options in the character creator. It’s a shame, because the premise is awfully enticing. Ah well, as someone else in here mentioned, it seems like learning new systems has some inertia to it. The more you learn, the easier it is to learn more, since there only so many ways to roll a die lol. Maybe Shadowrun can be a project for future me.

Your points about getting a baseline understanding of the flow and adding crunch in as GM and players get comfortable is well taken. My initial strategy was to focus on only one mechanic (in this case, firing a ranged weapon), but to know that mechanic absolutely front to back. However, in this system, firing a ranged weapon interacts with almost every mechanic in the game, so I was still trying to drink from the firehose. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your input.

Could be I’m just dumb and unfamiliar with crunchier RPG systems, I’ll freely allow for that, but man, I feel like you and I have a different definition of “simple” lol. Considering this is a flowchart for adjudicating a single Ranged Combat roll, to say nothing of any other mechanic in the game. Granted, this is particularly egregious, but it’s also the main thing most characters will be doing in combat.

I suppose the old adage holds true. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.

Aye, I’ve been following their uploads and it has been helpful from a general observation perspective. I wish they were a little clearer about the rules they are navigating, but I recognize it’s not a teaching cast either. I will say it’s been illuminating how free-wheeling the Ref is with the NPC rules, which has helped me conceptualize the flow a bit better.

I mean, there’s a pretty critical casting of minor illusion that he’s responsible for. And, it was pointed out to me, that the various instances of him cajoling the party along, especially when the flashier members are having doubts, is basically Bardic Inspiration. Which I think is a neat way of handling it.

I can only offer my own opinion and admit that my preferences lean towards maximalist entertainment in any case; but, when the scope just kept escalating, I was along for the ride. The reveal of who techbro douche’s mother is made me laugh out loud, alone in my house. I was caught completely off guard. I expected the movie to be lean and mean, budget allowing for one or two major set pieces per act, but it seemed eager to outdo itself at every turn. It wasn’t going to let a little something like “logic” slow it down. Once I realized that the writer was Kurt Wimmer, it all started to click. He’s the writer-director behind the 2002 Christian Bale gunkata shoot-em-up Equilibrium and 2006’s Ultraviolet. Both of which I think are inarguable as high-concept camp. Whether you think they’re good, on the other hand, is going to be far more subjective haha.

Skypig

Ah! That explains not seeing it, thank you for sharing!

The opposite!

Link? I just looked through their recent vids, but I didn’t seen anything that mentioned either Statham or Die Hard, but I’m curious to hear what they have to say.

Considering the glut of post-Die Hard movies which were variations of “Die Hard on a BLANK” (bus=Speed, plane=Air Force One, etc.), literalizing that concept as a visual gag is the exact sort of “this might be so stupid it’s actually clever” high-concept camp that I LIVE for from Statham. See also: The Beekeeper.

I’ve been absently working my way through BTAS over the past couple months and I have what I think may be a pretty hot take, so bear with me. While all of the praise that gets heaped on BTAS for its mature and sober storytelling in its best episodes (such as Heart of Ice or Feat of Clay), while absolutely a cut far and above typical “Saturday Morning Cartoon” fare of its day, is still ultimately hampered by the expectations of its format.

Put another way, BTAS is absolutely a groundbreaking work of Western animation and deserves most of the laurels it gets, but we mustn’t miss the forest for the tree here. As good as it is when it’s at its best, BTAS remains a childen’s cartoon. Taking the basic treatment of BTAS’ Clayface origin, but recontextualizing it in a different, somewhat less constrained, medium could absolutely result in a novel perspective.

That being said, super powered origin story is ALSO potentially a very formulaic medium, so it’s incumbent upon the filmmakers to still do something interesting, but I think the potential is there.

I can’t help it; Chris Christie is my muse, unfortunately.

Not much in the way of shining, shimmering splendor though. Best she can do is soggy and swampy splendor.

Could be bias I suppose, but this one has a proven track record in my experience. Not only was it my introduction to Herzog, but I’ve had very good success getting other people on board with his particular documentarian style.

That’s rad as hell. Watercolor may as well be magic to me.

Excited for once a decade reminder that Cruise is, in fact, capable of playing something other than his star persona when he chooses to do so.

Saw it last night and I think it’s sitting just below the Evil Dead remake for me in a ranking of the three newer films, but that comes with a pretty tremendous caveat regarding the central thematic conceit they chose to underpin the story. That, and I’m against any pet murder, so two pretty big caveats, which makes weird that I otherwise pretty much had a ball.