Well, Scott Pilgrim wasn't advertised in Australia. All I had to go by was a picture of Scott on guitar. I kid you not, it looked like a "Juno" clone.
What's the most mis-advertised thing you've ever seen?
- Thread starter twistedmic
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hah, I remember these trailers.Azaraxzealot said:
Now, I like Dragon Age: Origins, a lot. And I knew what kind of a game it was going to be, so I wasn't disappointed with my purchase. However, the ad campaign had NOTHING to do with the game. Big closeups of people swinging axes, jumping on massive creatures and wailing them to pieces, accompanied with Marilyn Manson's "This is the new shit". And we get an extremely classic, slow paced tactical RPG.
I don't mind really, but I think it's obvious that Bioware/EA knew the game's target audience wasn't very large by today's standards, and wanted to 'fool' people into buying the game with cool fast paced, action packed trailers, which don't exactly portray the gameplay very accurately.
Everyone around me keeps saying "simples" all the time....ultimateownage said:
I can't take it any more.
Given that the thing has more than twice my weight unladen, three times the cubic capacity and a slab front, stone age engine technology (given it was Ford in the 80s, I'm guessing pushrod valves, points ignition, etc?), a 4 speed and almost 3x the mileage at which mine is starting to feel like it's wearing out (96k miles was a bit of a turning point between "old but serviceable" and "getting a bit past it"), colour me suitably impressed even at 17mpg...TestECull said:
Probably because they were being pressured to show a little bit of evidence for their claims rather than just pulling them out of their ass.
Then again, given how the EPA tests were (are?) done - on a dynamometer with a certain amount of resistance that supposedly mimics drag at the respective running speed and the energy input needed to get to a certain speed, and not much care taken over the fine details - they may have submitted a model with an extra high range differential and lean burn carb, and weight pared down as low as possible without modifying the frame...
I can believe it, if their engines at the time were anything like what a friend had in his hand-me-down 1.6 Nissan Bluebird. Quite a tank of a car compared what most of our peers rolled around in... but the motor was so asthmatic, particularly against the weight of the thing, I bet my little 1.0 VW could have taken it down in cross-country time trial. Certainly the 1.6 GM that came after would have kicked its ass seven ways to sunday, and it's respectively kicked in the dirt by this Renault. At least, when I get the revs up past about 3000... (not that it's short on cruising power, but given the capacity and lack of turbo, it doesn't kick you in the back until higher rpm). Bizzarely, it's also the most efficient thing I've ever driven, including a GM diesel and the VW... well, unless the occasional VW hypermiler run (as a cash-strapped student) can be counted. Nothing quite like a 1000cc for camel-like endurance if you keep your speed WAY down. Like, 70+ mpg if you limit yourself to no more than 40mph (with a 1990 spec engine!).
Anyway. Combine the sheer lack of specific output with your lower grade fuel and I can imagine a lot of very tedious, noisy hill climbs on a trans-Rockies road trip...
excuse moi. but, i'd happily murder a dozen for a beautiful girl with unnatural haircolor and individual style. if she wore more black id slay 2 dozen.mcnally86 said:
i once saw an advertisement for an energy company stating something along"today, we are providing the gas for tomorrow" the advert was on a page with an article about a concentration camp.
The movie of Casshern.
Here's the trailer, for your enjoyment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk9fGI90qdM
This looked like a good fun brainless action flick with super ninjas and exploding robots.
Turned out to be a 2+ hour epic treatise on the attrocities of ordinary people in times of war, eschewing clear-cut goodies and baddies for vast tracts of moral ambiguity.
So yeah I got my super ninjas and exploding robots, but rather than hitting a cold one and going to sleep afterwards, I spent the next few hours awake soaking in everything I'd just seen.
Here's the trailer, for your enjoyment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk9fGI90qdM
This looked like a good fun brainless action flick with super ninjas and exploding robots.
Turned out to be a 2+ hour epic treatise on the attrocities of ordinary people in times of war, eschewing clear-cut goodies and baddies for vast tracts of moral ambiguity.
So yeah I got my super ninjas and exploding robots, but rather than hitting a cold one and going to sleep afterwards, I spent the next few hours awake soaking in everything I'd just seen.
I'm going with
Bird Flu
Shark Attacks
and whatever else the media is hyping in a severely overblown way.
Bird Flu
Shark Attacks
and whatever else the media is hyping in a severely overblown way.
Off the top of my head: The Last Airbender, Priest, and The King's Speech.
All I got when I saw these were horrible, boring, and lukewarm experiences I was really disappointed with, respectively.
All I got when I saw these were horrible, boring, and lukewarm experiences I was really disappointed with, respectively.
Heh, sounds like my previous car. If it hadn't been smashed into by an idiot in a Celica who didn't understand the concept of "yield to traffic on main road", and I had realised just how easy it is to buy back a write-off from the insurer and repair it to test-passing standard, I'd probably still be running around in it now. GM model (what would be known in the US as the second-type Chrysler LeMans I think), engine and body built like a tank but still not too big or heavy. Not so much power but plenty of torque, and never really being revved past 5000 or being all so mechanically stressed meant it probably would have kept ticking for the better part of forever. Still fast enough for most purposes (it'd hit 110mph on a good day if opened up) and fairly economic, too.TestECull said:That simplicity may be why it's lasted so long. I've got no plans to overhaul it. It doesn't burn a drop of anything it's not supposed to burn, doesn't leak anything, it never stalls unless I make a mistake with the clutch, it starts easily, it shifts like a brand new car, the clutch is wonderful(But I did just do a routine replacement of that), and it's able to rival the efficiency of modern pickups despite it all. It may feel old and worn out but I don't sense any impending failure in it.
I had no love for it at all, unlike my first, but I did respect it as a comfortable and reliable place to be whilst mooching around the country. Only major work I ever had to do or have done was a gasket change. Still driveable after the accident, just needed a new headlight unit and a check to ensure the frame wasn't cracked or excessively bent. Total idiot to let them tow it away.
Ah, I forget you had catalysers and unleaded fuel at least a decade before we did... which pretty much mandates fuel injection unless you're VERY good at carb setup, particularly as harsher emissions laws come along with. At least that seemed to be the case with euro cars. My first one - FI and cat; immediate previous model year was carb and straight-thru. Similar story on various competitors in the same 2-3 year period. The correlation is compelling.
.......
Sorry I just had an anyuerism at 98hp being "underpowered" given that my current ride is 106 (on paper)... and I was keeping fair pace with a Beemer 5-series through fairly quick traffic (75-100mph running speed...) this morning. He only got the drop on me at one point - pulling onto the motorway - at which point we both had to slow anyway because of a cop on the shoulder.
I would theorise that your actual problem was a knackered clutch instead - even with the harshest upshift off the line, the only time mine slips like that is if I choose to do it (to smooth out the snatchiness and the bounce from my ruined shocks, and to stave off another broken engine mount) and so long as I keep it on the powerband it goes like a train. (Of course, that's also taking it to 6k or more in each and every gear except top... but it loves it...)
Unless Nissan make, like, REALLY heavy and REALLY torque-less coupes?
On the other hand, every time I read a report of the speed of American traffic, despite the typically lower limits, I get a little scared. Are your on-ramps like 100 yards long or something?
... I guess I'm also spoilt for choice of cruising speed in that most of our heavy trucks are limited to 53 or 56mph (85 or 90km/h), and most modern buses to 62 (100). There's usually someone you can happily stick behind to eke the fuel out with, and even if not, so long as you stay in the "slow" lane and keep to about 55, you won't see so much trouble.
Cruising on the motorway at 40-45 was a terrifying experience though. Only did it once. Wouldn't again. Every 20 seconds or so there was a truck looming up behind like something out of The Duel. Even a 10mph closing speed is worrying when they don't change lane untiltheverylastsecondaarrrgh. The extra low speeds were mainly for getting to and from work, etc, within about a 10 mile radius on regular surface streets (but with limits up to 60), where it's a little more expected to find dawdlers. Journeys that HAD to be made, even if the fuel to get there next week was going to come out of THIS week's pay packet.
(Now, for such occasions, I have a small motorcycle instead. Thrashing it to top speed (65~75mph) over the last couple days, then filling up, I've managed 65 miles on 3.66 litres, which is a personal WORST for that vehicle. 220 on 10 litres is more typical without even crawling; if I did the same no-more-than-40 trick I could easily get another 20-25% mileage. (80 and 100 mpg UK, btw... or 120-125) ... the comparitive cost is so low I don't even bother)
That looked so epic in the trailer, then in the film there were only 4 Predators at all, never mind the ones hunting him. I actually really enjoyed that film, but the trailer had a few moments that lied if I recall.aaronobst said: