the first star wars trilogy is epic. the last one not so. in fact it sucked big time and almost ruined my impression of star wars universe.
with star trek it was different -- the next generation was awesome while the other star trek spin-off tv series were not even close. and all the star trek movies more or less sucked
still, if if I had to decide on a threat of pain, I'd say star wars win

there's only one real trilogy, after all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAEo3CWeq8

Does this idiot not realise that the "divine" law of the Old Testament/Pentateuch is the basis of Sharia Law, and that Islam is but a spin-off of Christianity/Judaism (the same way the former is of the latter)?

(edit: rhetorical question of course; a Repubublican and/or fundamentalist Christian actually knowing something about religious history? ha!)

Just think of the spin off products...

Pug Stomper, Squirrel Stomper, Rabbit Stomper, Budgie Stomper, Gerbil Stomper, Gecko Stomper

...and oh so many others. This product is limitless

Don't forget the tandem-operated Pig Stomper.

Aww I was hoping they did a spin off of Superman where he became a crab fisher and Mike Rowe voiced over his adventures. And then he later went on to be an ice road trucker and cheated using his super powers.

I said that jokingly, but you know......we mere humans could understand that crap. Sure he could still save people and be all heroic, but journalism is the opposite of interesting. Got some dude who can bench press cars and he's writing articles instead of doing the work of 10 guys labor in a day in one hour and running around rescuing people the rest of the day.

He could be both the common man (manual labor) and a super hero.

I always liked when Superman was not all super-positive....when he was getting into fights in restaurants and stuff. I mean your life as a secret super hero would be pretty damn stressful, and being continually upbeat is annoying.

Ok, to address the Chris Pine issue. Lets consider that that first of all they are both portraying the same character. Second, that all of the Star Trek time continuity was utterly decimated, leaving it more then likely that people who had a family history in starfleet (i.e. Tom Paris, Kathryn Janeway, Will Riker, Geordi Laforge, etc.) are now at least bastard children or have had their DNA completely obliterated by Nero. (Not to include all the other continuity problems that the crap spin off Enterprise introduced.) Third, he's only done one movie, all the others, including Luke have done multiple movies or a series. Until the sequel with Chris Pine comes out I don't really see him as having a command until it's been more then 24 hours. Fourth, He was appointed by the previous captain, and considering his incredibly brief Starfleet training I'd have a hard time believing any Admiral in thier right mind would continue to let him remain in command of what is now Starfeets only ship. Fifth, I still haven't forgiven J.J. Abrams for the ending of Lost or the hour of my life that I'll never get back after Cloverfield.

>> ^probie:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^probie:
I never got into Frasier. Frasier Crane was my favorite character on Cheers and the Frasier on Frasier was not the Frasier on Cheers.

As a fan of both Cheers and Frasier, I'm going to need you to elaborate on that one.

Sure. Cheers was very much a comedy of the classes; Frasier and Lilith typifying the upper class, white collar intellectuals. With Fraiser (the show), they got rid of the class element and focused more on the family dynamic between him, his brother, the father and the other characters. On Cheers, Fraiser was more akin to Il Dottore; professional, collected, pompous, arrogant at times...only Lilith was able to put him in his place. On Fraiser, because he was now the central character, he played foil to the rest of the supporting cast. While Grammar is still playing the same character, it's not the same Frasier (to me at least).


I'd say that Martin and Roz, to a lesser extent, were the foils to Frasier and Niles. Was Frasier the exact same character he was on Cheers? No, he evolved, which is fairly typical of most sitcoms -- just look at Homer Simpsons in the early seasons of The Simpsons, or Michael Scott in The Office. I'm not sure if you gave Frasier more than a few episodes, but I really think you should give it a chance -- it's (IMO) one of the rare spin-offs that's just as good as the show that spawned it (save for the last couple of seasons).

>> ^legacy0100:

As a Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory fan, I feel that all good Multiplayer games are in one way or the other a spin off of Enemy Territory. It started it all.


ET was awesome. I wished more was done to it. Fork it and make it better?

As a Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory fan, I feel that all good Multiplayer games are in one way or the other a spin off of Enemy Territory. It started it all.

Ahh, I upvoted before realizing this was campaign rhetoric designed to attack the Republicans rather than outline the real issue - that both parties wanted the pipeline to go ahead:

47 House Democrats voted to require the administration to quickly act on the Keystone XL project, helping to pass the North American-Made Energy Security Act (H.R. 1938).

Nearly two dozen House Democrats wrote a letter to President Obama asking him to approve the Keystone XL project, saying it will “create 20,000 direct jobs, spur the creation of 118,000 spin-off jobs.” The Democrats note that several environmental reviews show “the Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.”

A bipartisan group of 14 Senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in support of the Keystone project. The Senators said Keystone XL would “provide thousands of high-quality jobs for Americans and invest billions of private sector dollars in our nation's economy.”

Both of Montana’s Democratic Senators support the Keystone energy project, including Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) who said, “We need to put Montanans back to work and cannot afford further delays to the Keystone XL pipeline.”

“The Keystone pipeline will create Montana jobs,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), “And it should not have to wait 14 months for an up-or-down decision…”

“I support the Keystone XL project,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR). “You want to talk about shovel-ready projects, that’s one that’s shovel-ready,” reported Politico.

“I think the president’s wrong on this,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) who is “inclined to vote for the GOP’s version of the payroll tax cut measure” because he supports both the payroll tax break extension and the Keystone XL jobs project, according to Politico.

“I probably would vote to accept the deal,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

“Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he’s not swayed by Obama’s veiled veto pledge,” says Politico. “The Keystone is awfully important,” he said. The article highlights several other Democrats who support both the payroll tax break and the energy project.

These are from http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=271882

Adam is great...and like Cenk I agree with him on many issues....but it's not hard to believe that Adam doesn't really understand what OWS is really about. He doesn't study this stuff...he is a casual observer of the news and uses that to spin off on rants and stories. What he know about OWS is the general information the news media feeds us which is OWS is about rich vs poor, bums and slackers wanting everything for nothing, etc...>> ^ghark:

It's not above Adam Carolla's head unfortunately, people like this know exactly what they are doing, trying to make the people who are robbing entrepreneuring you look awesome.

>> ^WKB:

Quite possibly the most underrated show of all time. Such a shame that all the spin offs crapped out.


Ya, the universe they created was pretty interesting. Much beyond the typical star trekesk stereotyping of races as archetypes of the human condition. While many episodes are very single serving, the overall story arch of years or more was welcome, as it is so rarely or poorly done. My favorite dynamic was the role of the elder species, very neat concept of good and evil.

It's not really rumoured any more, it was long since announced and Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans have already done interviews about the movie.

It's probably one of the most ambitious franchise projects I've heard of in a while and includes the following films:

Iron Man 2

and then:

Thor
Captain America: The First Avenger
Nick Fury
The Avengers

There's potential for a Hawkeye movie in the same vein but none has been announced.

Samuel L. Jackson and Clark Gregg will be in four of the movies (Nick Fury isn't mentioned for Thor, and Agent Coulson isn't mentioned for Captain America).

It's very unlikely that Spiderman and Wolverine will make appearances; although separate for both are in the works, but as separate entities.

The Wolverine is being directed by Darren Aronofsky so it'll probably have quite a different tone; and despite Hugh Jackman being scheduled to play it looks like it will be a departure from the X-Men movies (ie, ignoring the disappointing X-Men Origins: Wolverine). So it's unlikely in the same way you wouldn't see Christopher Nolan's Batman in a Justice League movie alongside Ryan Reynolds as the The Green Lantern.

Either or both might get a nod though, but neither are fundamental to the Avengers anyway.

The Hulk is scheduled to appear and is much more important to the Avengers, but I guess there's many good reasons there's no spin off movie


/me not as interested in this as it sounds

I smell an animated spin-off

>> ^Sagemind:

Movie games are just bastardizations anyway - They shouldn't be taken as "Part of The overall Story" - Ever.
Most Movie Games are never good enough to be games and rest on the merits of the movie itself - so why would anyone be shocked that this one would be any different!
Most of the games you see out there from Disney - for example - are the same game with different graphics to reflect the new movie they're promoting and parents let their kids buy this crap.
I tell my kids - if it's a spin off a movie - don't buy it. Buy it only if it was a video game first!


There are exceptions... For example, the grapevine says that the Chronicles of Riddick game was actually pretty good. What this means is that the awesomeness of a movie and it's associated game and vice versa can never be above a certain limit (the Uwe Boll quotient). This explains why games based on good movies suck so hard, and also explains why the Mario Bros. movie was just abysmal and why the Resident Evil movies were rather disappointing.

Movie games are just bastardizations anyway - They shouldn't be taken as "Part of The overall Story" - Ever.
Most Movie Games are never good enough to be games and rest on the merits of the movie itself - so why would anyone be shocked that this one would be any different!

Most of the games you see out there from Disney - for example - are the same game with different graphics to reflect the new movie they're promoting and parents let their kids buy this crap.

I tell my kids - if it's a spin off a movie - don't buy it. Buy it only if it was a video game first!