I thought they removed the invicinciblily startup for Wesker's Rhino Charge from MVC3 to UMVC3, but I've seen some matches where my opponent was able to do it invincibile on startup?

Yay i finally got my email

DoNotReply@ac.playstation.net to me show details 9:47 AM (23 minutes ago)

Dear Mike, To reset your PlayStation(R)Network password, please click on the link below. This link will expire in 24 hours from the time that it was sent. The link will direct you to a PlayStation(R)Network web page and allow you to enter and confirm your new password.

I updated my PS3 and it says a message has been sent to my email on how to change my password, but 15 minutes later, I still haven't got that email. Did anyone else have to wait a long time to get it?

Also, how is the average consumer supposed to know which Bluray movies are the "bad" ones and which ones truly stand out as true high-def movies? This isn't fair to most people who buy Bluray movies assuming it's going to kick the DVD version's ass out of the water, but then take it home and realize it wasn't worth the extra $15 premium.

One perfect example, apparently the movie 300 was supposed to be the "model" for true high-def glory (no pun intended) on bluray, yet when the movie came out, it turns out it doesn't look that much better than DVD, in fact, some people argued they looked identical. I've read on many forums where people kept saying "yeah 300 looks like garbage on my PS3"

I'm reading up on the threads where people were complaining how their Bluray movies don't look THAT much better than regular DVD and I've noticed one common theme: apparently some Bluray movies aren't up to snuff.

Here are some quotes I've found in these threads:

"Depends on movie. Some movies on BD looks exactly like the DVD versions of the same movie. "

"Talladega Nights looks aweful for a BD. Its the same mpeg2 transfer thats on the DVD."

" yeah like the first gen of the fifth element and Full Metal Jacket. they where both just dvd copys with blu-ray slaped on."

But this last quote has really bothered me:

"just because its blu-ray doesn't mean you will be getting the best picture. This is more out of our hands. It has to do with how the movie was shot, mastered then encoded and transfer to blu-ray."

So if the quality of movie primarily depends on how it was shot, then doesn't that defeat the purpose of having Bluray, where we're under the impression that ALL Bluray movies are supposed to look far superior to the DVD version? It's kinda pissing me off reading about how some bluray movies don't look that much better than DVD when that's the whole point of having Bluray in the first place, to get a picture that's MUCH MUCH more detailed than DVD, otherwise, why can't I just simply buy the DVD version of a "bad" movie, get an identical picture quality, and save me $15?

Ok, maybe I should've reworded my question. I'm GOING to buy the monitor, so I don't have it here with me to try out.

^^^And don't worry, the 1280x1024 res is at 80hz, which is enough.