Producer: "Videogames are cool right now. Let's make a movie that's essentially Call of Duty!"

Yes-men: "Genius"

Internets: "OMG TAKE MY MONEY" *foamatmouth*

Me: "Whatever happened to cinema . . ."

(Apologies to those who are foaming at the mouth. I realize tastes differ, but apparently we seem to have forgotten that exciting action relies on a tempo, with crescendos complimenting quiet bits. Some of the best action movies consist of less than 20% of action, and yet somehow they manage to be amazing. Also, if I want to watch a videogame, I'll play it myself.)

Upvoted for Total Annihilation. (Also, educational.)

This is true. There are tons of recipes out there that are healthy, well varied, and still taste fantastic. I tend to use Cooking Light's website as a reference for healthy recipes when looking for inspiration, and you'll be surprised at what you can come up with. (In one publication of their magazine, they extolled the virtues of butter, and yet every single related recipe was perfectly healthy.)

In general, healthy living should be a combination of both healthy eating and good exercise.

Secret for cooking almost ANY pasta: reserve a cup of the pasta water when draining, then mix it back in and let the pasta sit for a bit, mixing occasionally. (Depending on the sauce, you can either mix it with the sauce, or prior to mixing in the sauce.) This will result in a creamier texture, which is frankly quite amazing.

Except we all eat too much salt anyway. Just sticking below the recommended 2300mg a day is tough for me, and I don't add salt to any of my meals, plus I eat fairly bland stuff in general. It's pretty surprising.

Considering the dick-waiving that the whole Star Trek vs Star Wars thing always devolves into, I actually enjoyed the light-heartedness of this skit.

That said, the purpose of the stories told by each is meant to be completely different. That Star Wars goes for the simpler, classic hero's journey doesn't make it a lesser work, it just has a more singular focus, and the original trilogy did it well. But when you have a strong foundation like that, you really can't expand on it without losing a lot of the charm of the basic story. That's part of why the sequels were so disappointing. They couldn't retell the hero's journey without being a rehash, and by focusing on the hero's downfall, they had to up the complexity of the plot. But how complex can you make a plot before it just drags the movie down? (The exception was Clone Wars, which was able to circumvent this because it had more space to tell the story.)

This is why I am fairly certain that the new Star Wars movies will be lacking. They can either go the simple route and end up with a rehash, or the complex route, and end up with a similar mess to the prequels. There's a fine line they need to ride in order to make a good set of movies, but there are a lot of things working against them, from the expectations of the Star Wars fans, to the concessions writers have to make to appeal to the mass audience of modern movies. (To say nothing of Abrams, whose insultingly abysmal treatment of Star Trek gives me little confidence.)

Now on the Star Trek end, the stories are meant to be more complex, with commentaries on philosophy, modern politics, and the human condition (as well as showing the unique technological possibilities that the future held). Most of the stories were designed for introspection, and that's a major part of what made the show popular.

But if you lose that introspection and focus on action and special effects, the stories become empty. This is why many of the later movies, which again had to focus on mass appeal, were so lacking. (Movies like Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Generations, and First Contact avoided this because they were able to draw on the richness of the show to round out the themes they were trying to express, but even still, they weren't quite up to par to the shows when it came to the fundamental concepts of Star Trek.) The same goes for much of Voyager and Enterprise, which often ended up going more for appeal than intellect. (Perhaps the writers ran out of things to say, perhaps the audience just got dumber, who knows.)

So in the end, which one is nerdier? Star Trek, hands down, and as ChaosEngine said, it's a good thing.

Which one is better? That depends on what kind of story you're looking for.

But in the end, there's no denying . . .


Riker is a freaking boss.

When I first watched TNG, back in my youth, I didn't really think Riker was all that amazing. I mean, how can you compete with Picard, Data, Worf, etc? But when I rewatched the remastered release of the show recently, I realized . . . Riker is the biggest boss in the Star Trek universe, bar none. (And yes, that includes Kirk. I went there!)

I mean, of course he gets all the ladies, but he also plays the trombone, fights Klingons, eats Klingon food, arouses Klingon ladies, is a crack shot with a phaser, is an excellent tactician that thinks outside the box, knows several martial arts, is a master poker player, good at chess, and has a beard that makes Chuck Norris pale in comparison. (I FREAKING WENT THERE!)

Riker is glorious, and I am completely serious when I say that.
(See? No sarcasm tag.)

*promote

Say whatever you will about the quality of the directors. With regard to this particular rap battle, Michael Bay tore it up with some harsh truths.

I'm not particularly crazy about this trailer, but it really isn't bad. The original Capital Ship trailer was similarly cinematically enhanced, and it was pretty darn cool. So I think this one is fine, EXCEPT the lousy music. (Like, wtf?)
Also, this guy makes a good point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5KLi6or8hs

I've probably made it clear here several times that I'm fairly religious, and that at the moment, I'm not convinced evolution is the correct explanation for our existence as humans. But it certainly doesn't mean I'm ignorant in the subject. I've studied it for many years, both in school and out. Although it's not my area of expertise (physics was my focus), I'm most definitely not uninformed. Now there may come a time in the future that I am sufficiently convinced, and change my viewpoints regarding evolution. Will that be a problem for me? I don't think so. Not everything in the Bible is literal, and my interpretation of certain parts may be off. But for now, I don't believe in evolution.

But my disbelief is certainly no hindrance to my education, my understanding of science, or my contribution to society, and it would be insulting to assume otherwise. There are plenty of other Christians (and other religous folks) that are the same. The issue is that the fundamentalists are causing everyone problems, as they usually do, by refusing to accept the teaching of such material, and I certainly don't agree with that.

As a Christian parent, by all means, let your kid learn about evolution, and if you don't agree with it, explain to them why. (Parents are teachers too.) The child may not grow up agreeing with the viewpoint, but they won't be ignorant of it.

I had a chance to see one in person recently. It's surprisingly quiet!

Oh hey! Sylvester McCoy, the best Doctor!

Hooray! Another Sluggy fan!

Why you gotta say that, dawg . . .