David Clark

Every time I open an item menu in Skyrim, I can't scroll through the items for about 10-15 seconds. The game doesn't freeze because the music is playing and I can back out of the menu with ease. Its just when I want to loot a chest or scroll through my inventory and I hit down to do so, it just does. not. respond. I have to close and re-open the menu 4 or 5 times just for it to start working again. Its very annoying when I'm about to die and I need to get to my health potions like NOW.

Has anyone else had an issue with this? I've gotten two different discs of the game (first one broke) from two different sources and the same thing has happened with both, so I don't think its an isolated incident. Any help?

Thanks.

What're your picks for the top 10 superhero movie casting decisions of all time? Here's mine

10. Alfred Molina - Doctor Octopus (Spider-Man 2 - 2004)

Do you know how hard it is to take a character as ridiculous and silly as Doctor

Octopus and turn him into a tragic, emotional powerhouse? To this day I'm amazed

at what Molina did with the character.

09. Patrick Stewart - Professor Charles Xavier (The X-Men trilogy - 1999-2005)

Stewart was masterfully cast for this role. He was wise, gentle and powerful all at the

same time.

08. Christopher Reeve - Superman (Superman series - 1978-1987)

He captured the nobility and selflessness the Man of Steel and the dorkiness of his

alter ego perfectly.

07. Jack Nicholson - The Joker (Batman - 1989)

Audiences were still getting over the goofy camp of 60's Batman in the late 80's, so

a little cheese was needed to soften the ride (nobody was quite ready for the gritty

realism of the Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy just yet). And who better to walk the line

between goofy cheese and unpredictable evil than Jack Nicholson? He was MADE

to play the Joker. He was funny, he was scary, he was everything the clown prince

was supposed to be. And that grin. *Shudders*

06. Cilian Murphy - Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow (The Dark Knight trilogy - 2005-2012)

He certainly wasn't the most memorable villain in the trilogy, but he was

one of the most unnervingly effective ones. Murphy nailed the role in all

three movies - as the no-nonsense doctor/creepy villian in Batman Begins, as

the down-on-his-luck/selling-fringe-narcotics-out-of-the-back-of-a-van loser in The Dark Knight, and as the equal parts completely insane and utterly hilarious judge in the Dark Knight Rises. With those huge blue eyes, its like he was made for this role.

05. Hugh Jackman - Wolverine (the X-Men trilogy - 1999-2005)

Yeah, yeah, yeah - we know Wolverine is supposed to be short and super muscular

or whatever, but still - nobody could have nailed the personality down like Hugh

Jackman. Is there anything that guy CAN'T do?

04. Toby Maguire - Peter Parker/Spider-Man (the Spider-Man trilogy - 2002-2007)

Andrew Garfield was OKAY as Peter Parker, but he was too cool. Parker is supposed

to be a lovable dork, and Toby Maguire filled those shoes perfectly. Not only that, but

he made you genuinely care about the character by bringing him to life with more

emotional depth than anyone else possibly could without making it look like they

were trying to hard. Maguire got both the humor and the humanity of Peter Parker

down to a T.

03. Robert Downey, Jr. - Tony Stark/Iron Man (Iron Man trilogy - 2008-2013, the Avengers - 2012)

Nobody could have possibly fit the role better than Downey, Jr. He was brilliant, he

was hilarious, he was just damn perfect. To me, he didn't just PLAY Tony Stark - he

IS Tony Stark. His one-liners and snarky quips come so effortlessly to him its

almost insane. Why can't I be that clever?

02. J.K Simmons - J. Jonah Jameson (Spider-Man trilogy - 2002-2007)

Why does this guy not get any recognition for this?? He was beyond perfect as Peter

Parker's loud, abrasive boss. Every scene he was in was side-splittingly hilarious.

There are more than 7 billion people on the planet now, and I am fully, 100%

convinced that not a single one of them could have done a better job than Simmons.

Drinks all around.

01. Heath Ledger - the Joker (The Dark Knight - 2008)

What else is there to say about Ledger's monster that hasn't already been said before?

I think the best thing about it is the fact that all of us - ALL of us - were naysayers

when we first heard the casting decision. The guy from Brokeback Mountain and a

Knight's Tale? Seriously? In any case, I don't think I've ever been so wrong in my life.

He was a force of nature that left the entire audience with their mouths on the floor -

combination of shock, terror, and complete satisfaction. He transformed completely

into the Joker until he became absolutely unrecognizable. Sadly, he lost himself inside

the clown as much as we did.

Did Toby Maguire or Andrew Garfield do the best job with Peter Parker? Which movie had the better villains? Better love interest? Better overall?

Here's my picks:

Better Love Interest - Emma Stone (The Amazing Spider-Man). I love Kirsten Dunst, but Emma Stone just nailed it. The whole Mary Jane/ Peter Parker thing in the original trilogy was cute and all, but it was extremely forced. It never felt natural that a gorgeous redhead would fall for a goofy looking loser like him (I get the whole "underdog gets the girl" thing, but with them it was just awkward. What incentive did she have to love him?) On the other hand, Stone and Garfield had great chemistry and it never felt out of place or forced.

Better villain: Alfred Molina (Spider-Man 2 (2004)). Okay, this one is unfair. The original trilogy had 5 villains in it, whereas the new movie only features one. But still, I had to give this one to Spider-Man 2's Doc Oc. The Dr. Connors guy in the new movie was one of the dullest, least interesting, poorly CGI'd villains in recent memory. I tried to care about the character, but I just - couldn't. He looked about as cool as Spider-Man 3's Venom and you cared about him as much as you did Sandman from the same movie. As for Molina's Doc Oc, however, I was well and truly floored. Do you know how hard it is to take a character as ridiculous and silly as Doctor Octopus and turn him into a tragic, emotional powerhouse? The guy freaking nailed it. To this day I'm amazed.

Peter Parker - Toby Maguire (Spider-Man). Toby is the superior actor in every direction - he captured the emotions, the humor, the humanity of the character better and with more depth than Garfield ever could. He took a goofy comic book character and brought him to life as a real human being with struggles and pain and inner turmoil. In comparison, Garfield's Parker - (and I like Andrew Garfield) - was relatively one dimensional. Besides, wasn't Peter Parker supposed to be a nerd? Because I didn't see that at all in the Amazing Spider-Man - he was too cool. He wore his hair cool, he dressed cool, he did cool hipstery stuff, he skateboarded, did photography, etc etc. Felt like a ladies' magnet from the first minute onward. Maguire totally nailed the lovable dork thing without going too far with it and turning it into a lame joke.

OVERALL - I thought the Amazing Spider-Man was good and all, but not nearly good enough to justify the reboot. My vote goes to the original trilogy. What's your vote?

The first 2 or 3 seasons of Family Guy were gold, but its gone downhill since then. Now its just a bunch of lame 80's references and unnecessarily offensive jokes because MacFarlane ran out of clever wit years ago and has to resort to shock humor to get laughs. South Park used to be retarded because it tried wayyyy too hard to be funny, but once Matt and Trey found their footing, the show's only gotten more intelligent and creative since then. My vote goes to South Park. What's your opinion?

What are some insanely popular bands that you think are over-hyped? I'll start with a few:

Nirvana - Rolling Stone magazine thinks "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is one of the greatest songs in history (no. 9 on their top 500 list, i believe) and Kurt is apparently the 12th best guitarist of all time? Look, I like Nirvana, but come on. There are people out there who would treat even Cobain's squeaky farts as musical brilliance. And while their tunes are definitely catchy and meaningful, they're also insanely simple, and the band's so-called "musicianship" is laughable. These guys make AC/DC look like Dream Theater.

AC/DC - Speaking of which, AC/DC make the list too. Now don't get me wrong - I don't have anything against the band itself, mainly because they've never pretended to be anything other than a straight up, 4/4, no bells-or-whistles rock band. And that's totally fine. But I do have problems with people who think they're the greatest hard rock group of all time. Even the band itself admits they've been essentially releasing the same album over and over again for 3 and a half decades. They've got some great mullet-rock classics but the rest of it is extremely repetitive.

U2 - You know who else is repetitive? The Edge. His guitar playing is so dull it puts me in a trance (and not in a good way). They've got some fine songs, and Joshua Tree is a terrific album. But is it just me, or have they not evolved from that era? Like, at all? Its been 25 years, Bono. Move on.

The Sex Pistols - Look. I get that these guys were really influential to a lot of punk bands. But Sid Vicious is one of the most magnificently talentless people to have ever gotten a record deal, and Johnny Rotten isn't too far behind. With the exeption of the passably mediocre Anarchy in the UK, there isn't a single song in their catalog that's even remotely pleasant to listen to. I guess I just never got that whole punk rock "yeah but we're TRYING to sound bad" mentality. That's like taking a sh*t on a bus and expecting everyone to calm down because you totally meant to do it, you guys. No one cares WHY you did it, sh*tty pants.

I'll start with a few:

Blink-182 - Most people think they're a bunch of immature, talentless frat boys, but when I listen to their music I hear almost the exact opposite. Listen to their self titled album from 2003 and tell me there's no talent there.

My Chemical Romance - While I admit they definitely shot themselves in the foot with the whole emo thing back in the early 2000's, I've gotta admit these guys can write songs better than almost any of their competitors. I saw them live back in 2011 and was surprised at how un-emo they actually are - they're more upbeat, pink-haired alternative punk-rockers than anything and they definitely know how to put on a show.

Nickelback - Bear with me on this one. I'm not a fan by any stretch of the imagination. But I do think the hatred they get is a little extreme. Sure they're boring, cheesy and repetitive, but then again, 75% of all popular music acts since the dawn of the industry have been boring, cheesy, and repetitive. Is that really the reason people loathe them more than any other act on the planet? Or are people just doing it to fit in? I don't get it.

Heres my list:

10. Bane (Tom Hardy - The Dark Knight Rises)

9. Mr. Potter (Lionel Barrymore - Its a Wonderful Life)

8. Saruman (Christopher Lee - The Lord of the Rings Trilogy)

7. Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson - The Shining)

6. Gollum (Andy Serkis - The Lord of the Rings Trilogy)

5. Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem - No Country For Old Men)

4. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins - Silence of the Lambs)

3, SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz - Inglorious Basterds)

2. Darth Vader (James Earl Jones - Star Wars)

1. The Joker (Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight)

I got an Android powered Concord phone for T-Mobile for Christmas, so its brand new. I've been downloading a few games and most of them work fine, but if they're any bigger than Draw Something or Angry Birds, I won't be able to play them. For example, I bought GTA3 for .99 and it installed fine. However, when I selected the app to give it a go, it instantly crashed back to the home screen with no explanation and continued to do so every time I tried to open it. Luckily, I got a refund when I uninstalled it, but I wasn't so lucky with Black Ops Zombies, which has the same problem (and I paid 3 bucks for that one, so I'm a little annoyed). I read around a bit and some people said it could be an issue with limited memory, but every game I have I immediately move to the SD card to avoid that exact problem. As a result, the phone itself says it has more than 2/3 of its memory left, so it can't be that. I also tried cleaning up my running apps, but everything on that menu was one of the "essential" apps that came with the phone. There were no currently running games or downloaded apps.

Does anyone know what to do? I really want to play these games and I have no idea why none of them are working. And please dumb it down for me, because I'm not going to understand something like "yeah man, just reboot the circuit board and clear the data cache with the SD enhancer."

Thanks!

I hear a lot of complaints from overweight people who starve themselves yet can't seem to lose weight and the most common answer they get is "your body is holding on to every bit of food it gets and storing it as fat." That's all well and good, but if the person only eats 500-1000 calories a day (or less, in extreme cases), how is it physically possible for that tiny amount of stored fat to result in literal weight gain, which requires several times as many calories (3500 calories for a single pound)? If you're burning more calories than you consume, shouldn't the resulting deficit lead to weight loss? At what point does that simple, concrete math flip around and start having the opposite effect? It just doesn't add up.

Those people also say "your body needs a minimum of 1200 calories." Fine. But if it stores everything you put in it, then what is it running on? Isn't saying the body stores any calories it gets like saying a car on empty simply "stores" the next intake of fuel? Then what does the car run on? Its got to burn something to stay alive at all! Any dietitians or doctors out there?

Personally, I love both, but I gotta give it to TDK. The Avengers was a well made popcorn movie, but Nolan's movies are freaking works of art that leave you with your jaw on the floor What's your opinion?

Which show do you like better and why?

Personally, I'd like to enjoy the Walking Dead more, because a show about zombies could be incredible. And it is good - but between the mindless, padding-drama and the fact that they spent an entire season a farm - it could be so much better.

Breaking Bad is the opposite. While the Walking Dead is a show I expected to love but ended up being somewhat disappointed by, something I never thought I'd enjoy - a show about failed high school teacher who turns to meth to provide for his family before he dies of cancer. It sounds horrible. But it ended up being such a fantastic show!

What's your pick?

The Expendables movies pride themselves on their all-star, action movie cast. But I think they're missing a few key players. Here's my list:

Liam Neeson

Vin Diesel

Steven Seagal

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson

Kurt Russell

Clint Eastwood

Samuel L. Jackson

Danny Trejo

Mr. T

Hulk Hogan

What's your list?

Don't get me wrong - it was a great flick. It was fun, and it had several fantastic performances (Robert Downey Jr. was phenomenal, as always). It was well, well worth the money. But I didn't take anything away from it other than "yeah - that was a load of fun, I think I'd like to see it again." Boom. The end. I in no way thought it was the greatest film of all time, or even the best of its genre. It was good, it was fun, it was worth the money, but it was also very basic, very formulaic, and at some points, very cheesy. None of which are negative things at all, if they're done right (which they were). But they usually do prevent movies from becoming masterpieces like this one supposedly is.

In fact, now that I think about it, the only part that REALLY had me going (not to say the rest was bad at all), was the last third when they're fighting in the city, and that got me thinking - when Michael Bay spends a third of his movie on a giant city-battle, he gets mercilessly slagged in reviews and universally hated by fans. When Joss Whedon does the exact same thing, he's celebrated as an artistic visionary. What gives?

What I also don't get is how people can compare the Avengers to the Dark Knight trilogy and think the two are equals or even that the Avengers is superior. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, I guess, but still. It was great fun, but at the end of the day, its just a really well done popcorn blockbuster. Its not like there haven't been a hundred others. On the other hand, Nolan's trilogy is a work of art that stays with you long after you leave the theater.

Even if the Avengers was perfect (which I don't believe it was), its achieving perfection on a very simple premise. The Dark Knight trilogy achieves nigh-perfection on a far more complex premise, which is, in turn, far more impressive.

Why is it that when a politician changes his mind on anything, he's seen as

unreliable and fake, but when a normal person changes their mind on something,

it implies that they're open-minded and intelligent?

Shouldn't the ability to observe the facts and adjust your opinion accordingly be

seen as a positive trait in lawmakers?

Bear with me here - this isn't some kind of hate-fueled rant, its just an inconsistency

I've noticed at the core of the religious anti-gay movement (be it Christianity, Islam,

etc) that I'd like cleared up by someone within that movement.

From what I gather, religious texts don't talk about same-sex marriage, they just talk about homosexuality itself. They don't say "Yeah, its okay to be gay, just don't let gays get married."

I've asked several Christians if they think gays should be allowed to be gay, and they almost all said "yes." Its kind of like the abortion thing - a lot of pro-choice people don't think abortion is morally okay, they just think the choice should be left to the mother. Same thing here - they're not supportive of homosexuality and some may hate it, but they all agree that its ultimately up to the person to decide who they're attracted to. The argument is all about gays who are already gay, getting married. Where's the religious foundation for that particular argument? If they're already gay, then from a religious standpoint, what difference does it make if they get married?

P.S - There's also a huge "hate" undertone to the whole anti-gay thing. Some Christians I know get insanely riled up at the mention of homosexuality and started ranting and raving against those "evil homos" and their "gay agenda." Not many religious people still do this, but enough do that its still a huge issue. Anyway, I've read a lot of the Bible and some of the Qu'Ran, and from what I understand, these texts claim that God does not "hate" gays at all, but that He in fact loves them dearly and wants to help them. How can religious people then justify their hatred of gays when their God still loves them? There's a huge difference between hating gays, and loving them and wanting what's best for them.

Again - please keep your personal opinions on the topic of homosexuality out. I'm just asking for a religious perspective on this.

I hear people putting AC/DC above the other two constantly, but I have to disagree. Here's my take:

CONSISTENCY: AC/DC, hands down. Haven't really changed much in 39 years. Then Van Halen. GN'R can't compare here.

LONGEVITY: Again, AC/DC. Been around since 1973. Van Halens actually a year older but they've changed more. Once again, GN'R fails completely, since they had a reign of about 5 years and after that its all noise.

DEALING WITH LINEUP CHANGES: AC/DC once again. They lost a lead singer and ended up exploding in popularity with the next one almost immediately. Van Halen lost theirs and merely survived, whereas GN'R kept theirs but lost everyone else and promptly fell of the face of the earth.

VARIETY: GN'R - In 3.5 albums (GN'R Lies isn't as high a caliber as Appetite or Illusions), they had power ballads (Sweet Child), regular ballads (Don't Cry, Estranged), Acoustic ballads (Patience), Epic symphony ballads (November Rain), furious hard rock (Jungle), some of the best stadium anthems ever (Paradise City), and one of the greatest covers of all time (Knockin on Heaven's Door, although VH's You really got me and pretty woman give it a run for its money). VH had a unique sound that you could do a lot with but it all ended up sounded somewhat similar. And AC/DC gets slaughtered here since even they admit they've been making the same record for three and a half decades.

MUSICIANSHIP: AC/DC is vastly underrated because they limit themselves, but still, they can't compare with VH or GN'R. I think VH is way more focused on individual prowess, with each member trying to outdo each other, and GN'R is a tighter outfit with a more solid sound. Axl and Dave are equals, Alex (VH) is a better drummer than Steven (GN'R), Michael (VH) is better than Duff (GN'R), Eddie and Slash are tied (Eddie's far more original and influential but Slash can shred with the best of them and makes his solos complement the songs. Eddie's don't as much. And I know I'll get flak for not saying Eddie's better, but be honest. Listen to the Sweet Child solo and tell me Slash couldn't play as fast as Eddie, even if he doesn't do it as often).

SONGWRITING: GN'R. Could the other two bands write November Rain? Axl and Izzy are 10X the writers anyone in the other two bands are, and that's saying something.

ALBUMS: Tough one. AC/DC has Back in Black, VH has VH1, and GN'R has Appetite. For me its a toss between Back in Black and Appetite, but I gotta choose Appetite.

What's your take?

For whatever reason, I'm an 18 year old American kid and I love researching WW2. I know so much about the war that I know which specific armies fought at Saipan and Hill 400, and I know for a fact that Hitler loved Disney to the point that I'm almost positive he had a pair of Donald Duck footie pajamas stashed somewhere in the Fuhrerbunker. I know so much about the war that if I ever met Stephen Ambrose he'd probably tell me to buy an X-Box and shut the hell up already.

But one thing I simply can't grasp is why the Russians took such atrocious casualties during the war. They lost 20,000,000 people on a single front, most of which were military personnel. The US fought on every front of the war EXCEPT that one and lost "only" 400,000 men.

And I know the scale of the war in Russia absolutely dwarfed that of every other front, but not even the Germans took those casualties, and they were fighting pretty much everyone, pretty much everywhere.

The Russians lost 1.2 MILLION men in the summer of 1941 ALONE. And even after they took the initiative and got talented generals again, they STILL took way more casualties than the Germans. Look at Kursk. They outnumbered and outgunned Germany almost 3 to 1 AND they had the German attack plans to build a defense around. And even though they won, 80% of the casualties were on their side. And that's just the biggest example - the whole damn war went on like that.

Does anyone know why they were so damn incompetent? My god its driving me nuts.

For whatever reason, I'm an 18 year old American kid and I love researching WW2. I know so much about the war that I know which specific armies fought at Saipan and Hill 400, and I know for a fact that Hitler loved Disney to the point that I'm almost positive he had a pair of Donald Duck footie pajamas stashed somewhere in the Fuhrerbunker. I know so much about the war that if I ever met Stephen Ambrose he'd probably tell me to buy an X-Box and shut the hell up already.

But one thing I simply can't grasp is why the Russians took such atrocious casualties during the war. They lost 20,000,000 people on a single front, most of which were military personnel. The US fought on every front of the war EXCEPT that one and lost "only" 400,000 men.

And I know the scale of the war in Russia absolutely dwarfed that of every other front, but not even the Germans took those casualties, and they were fighting pretty much everyone, pretty much everywhere.

The Russians lost 1.2 MILLION men in the summer of 1941 ALONE. And even after they took the initiative and got talented generals again, they STILL took way more casualties than the Germans. Look at Kursk. They outnumbered and outgunned Germany almost 3 to 1 AND they had the German attack plans to build a defense around. And even though they won, 80% of the casualties were on their side. And that's just the biggest example - the whole damn war went on like that.

Does anyone know why they were so damn incompetent? My god its driving me nuts.

I was in the middle of an X-Box Live game and suddenly the connection crashed. I checked my macbook - all pages had stopped running and the little cycle bar was caught in a loop. I checked my Motorolla modem and my Netgear router - both working like normal. So I checked the network diagnostics on my laptop. Everything was green lit and connected, yet I can't access the internet from my laptop, desktop or my X-Box.

Is there any way to fix this that someone can explain to me in English? I turned off both the modem and the router but nothing changed (does that EVER actually work?)

Anyway, if there's a way to fix this from here I'd love to know how because if I have to spend another four hours on hold before I can talk to the fascinatingly clueless Comcast customer support I'll probably just end up going down there and setting their office on fire.

In the past week, I've been in an earthquake, a hurricane, lost power, had our whole septic system shot, had to watch my friend who's 11 year-old sister died in a bizarre accident suffer and learned that my ex girlfriend who's with someone else because I ****** up and hurt her a few years back which I never really forgave myself for just had a relapse in cancer and has to have her leg amputated tomorrow morning. I don't know why I care so much about her - its not even romantic anymore. But honestly I would rather take that cancer on myself than watch her go through it again.

What's your worst?