CaptainHowdy

Oh, since I see that it's still not clear, I'll summarize: I'm not upset with those who give a 1 to the review or to the Maiden, not at all, but with those who offend for no reason, understood?

Yes.

to the others...

I'm calm, I'm not associating with someone who wishes death upon others... me... you take the chamomile, okay... Then who tells you that this review doesn't make sense? Are you God? If you don't like it, just give it a 1 (maybe explaining why) and that's it, without offending or wishing bad things upon others; I think it's a matter of civility, not tranquility. Best regards.

I think the strength of the Maiden lies in their ability to remain true to themselves, and just talking about the types of songs, you've already mentioned at least three that recur in Harris & co., so they aren't that static after all. Then, regarding the sound, with that statement it’s clear that you may have listened to Maiden, but not with much attention, since there’s a huge difference between what they did until '81, what they did until the '80s, what they did in the '90s (which may not be great albums but are different from the others in terms of atmosphere, sound, and inspiration), and what they do today. Of course, in the substratum, there’s always that Maiden essence, which, I repeat, is their strength (if they changed, I would get really angry), but I don't expect someone who goes around quoting people wishing death upon others to understand anything about empathy. Regards.

Aside from Neu! who has serious problems, I won't even try to interact. I'm baffled by this rather unmotivated hostility, not so much towards Maiden, who can simply not be to everyone's taste, but towards people who are just sharing their own preferences. It seems quite obvious that Maiden still generates interest, given the number of reviews and the amount of comments per review (I'm talking about serious ones that aim to contribute—perhaps giving a 1 to the review but justifying it, not tearing it down). On this site, there are 17,000 reviews; maybe you could find something you like among those without feeling the need to insult (or tell to go fuck themselves, I'm sorry Bjork but you're dead wrong this time...) people who are here just to discuss calmly. I think your attitude is more pathetic than that of a fan posting the hundredth review on whoever, whether it's Maiden, Nirvana, Metallica, Floyd, etc. I believe DeBaser would benefit more if you stopped rather than the fans halting their reviews, at least as long as those who have the final say on what is publishable or not—namely Editors and Webmasters—continue to put them online. Then do whatever you want; this is just a piece of advice to save you from wasting your time—given that it’s clear you’re not acting as a deterrent, quite the opposite... and speaking of that, since things are this way, I could even decide to review not just the unpublished Maiden material but their entire discography, and I assure you that I have plenty to say that hasn't been addressed yet. Aloha.

Neu! You have serious problems.

An album not entirely convincing, better only than "No Prayer for the Dying" and "Virtual XI."

Unbreakable is an original screenplay by Shyamalan (which initially envisioned a trilogy) that pays tribute to the world and narrative mechanisms of comics, but it is not based on any series or character. This homage to the conventions of narrative genres is typical of the Philadelphia director; it happened in "Signs," where he reintroduces the aesthetics and typical plots of 50s sci-fi films, and also in "Lady in the Water," where the protagonists are the fantastic imaginings (and narrative references) of fairy tales. Shyamalan is one of the most misunderstood directors of our time, and indeed his highest-rated film by critics and audiences is also his worst (worst among his works, but not bad, on the contrary) namely "The Sixth Sense." As for the reviewed film, I can say that it has never thrilled me, and I believe that the best Batman ever is the one portrayed by Nolan a couple of years ago. Generally, I think the best possible adaptation from comic to screen (in terms of fidelity and quality) is Singer's first X-Men.

Well, now there’s this craze to find out who was more innovative or not, which album from this one or that one is more original blah, blah, blah... It’s natural that the albums following "Iron Maiden" derive directly from the experience of that album, which was not only innovative but, in a way, codified the canons of a genre (the foundations were laid by Sabbath in the 70s), but that doesn’t take away from the fact that all the Maiden albums following it up until '88 (there are 6) are better, because they develop that embryonic idea of classic metal that was present in the debut, and they develop it better in technique, production, and in my opinion, also in creativity.