I don't get why a female lead should be so controversial. I don't see any evidence that women are in any way a threat to male dominance in cinema.

Why does female empowerment bother people? Do they feel women should be subservient? Do they feel women are inferior and should not be glorified in cinema? Are they threatened by challenges to traditional gender roles? I don't get the conservative lizard brain.

Most films are focused on male characters: ex cia operatives, cia operatives, superheroes, starship pilots, lawyers, roughnecks, wealthy aires, adventurous lads, movie stars, pilots, news reporters, detectives, grieving sons, criminals, singing woodland crittters, spys, soldiers, cops, businessmen, farmers, swordsmen, insurance salesmen, vietnam vets, tap dancing penguins, even men playing female roles.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/box_office.php

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yes, more adventures with Pham and the Qeng Ho. Sadly, I sort of feel like Vinge peaked a while back, around the time of Deepness - and his books have not improved since. Other writers like Stephen King seem to never run out of steam.>> ^jonny:

>> ^dag:
Also, Children of the Sky was a little disappointing - though I wanted it to be great.
That seems to be the overwhelming consensus of reviews I've seen, so I haven't bothered to buy it. I did read a free "Prologue" story, After the Battle on Starship Hill, but it didn't especially excite me. I would have been much more interested in a sequel to A Deepness in the Sky. The characters and story are more compelling to me than those of A Fire Upon the Deep.

>> ^dag:

Also, Children of the Sky was a little disappointing - though I wanted it to be great.

That seems to be the overwhelming consensus of reviews I've seen, so I haven't bothered to buy it. I did read a free "Prologue" story, After the Battle on Starship Hill, but it didn't especially excite me. I would have been much more interested in a sequel to A Deepness in the Sky. The characters and story are more compelling to me than those of A Fire Upon the Deep.

>> ^schlub:
WORST. CAPTAIN. EVER.


What do you mean? I had always wanted to see an over-the-hill kindergarten teacher captain a starship. Biggest fantasy ever.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^buzz:
The problem with Guy Pearce is that you never know whether the film is going to be absolutely awesome (Memento for instance) or an absolute steaming pile of gangrenous, maggot ridden, shit... (errr, lots of his other stuff)

This looks like maggot shit to me. I'm turned off by any scene with a guy being unfazed by a series of merciless punches to the face. That shit will scramble your eggs. It takes me right into "this is a silly movie for Buffy fans" territory.


Found your comment funny, but don't forget that some films are good because of blatantly over trumped characters. I mean, i fucking love Starship Troopers, and it's crap in theory. Overly stoic hero - could work. Arny's pulled it off many times.

Be sure to watch Red Letter Media's review of this turd.

Solutions:

1) Go to another junk dealer who does take Republic credits, exchange for Watto Bux.

2) Not counting that the Trade Federation is on the lookout for a BRIGHT SILVER SR-71 and getting another ship would be a great idea anyway, use Republic credits to hire a starship and pilot (sort of like how LUKE and BEN did it). And before you nerds start in, the cantina was filled with aliens from everywhere. SOME being would be bound to deal in Republic credits.

In the very first episode of Transformers (so many years ago), it was shown (http://youtu.be/g2ZUZEixOx0) that when they crash landed on Earth, all the robots suffered great damage. To repair them, the AI on their starships used the only templates available, which were the vehicles and devices of the humans of earth.

>> ^bmacs27:

I always found transformers kind of weird. Why on this foreign planet do robots transform into cars or planes when there are no people? Why do they become the likeness of the extinct ancestors of birds from another world?

yeah, but how do you get back?

That is one intimidating looking Starship!

The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."

Well, the reason the FBB was donating was to be listed as one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. That's what they were turned down for. Not only that, but they used to whole thing to garner publicity. So I am not feeling too much sympathy for them at this point.

I agree that the reason many people/organizations who donate large amounts of money is specifically to get on those lists. So yes, I am prepared to say that many on those lists are doing so for political reasons. Perhaps not all of them, but I would say probably the majority.

We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

Well, I think the problem that most believers have is that the stated goal of many atheists and atheists organizations is to remove religion from the public sphere or irradicate it entirely. The mouthpieces for the New Atheism say in no uncertain terms that people who have faith are pinheads and that religion is the worst thing to ever happen. It's certainly not a live and let live kind of attitude that is being promoted as representing atheism.

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!

Ahh, but I don't believe in coincidence.

Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.

Yes, and sadly, that is just scratching the surface. The bible for many seems to be book of allegory, filled with mere suggestions on how to live our lives, rather than the direct commands of God. That's why you'll find Christians in bars, Christians smoking weed, and Christians cheating on their taxes. More than that, false doctrine has invaded the church. A very popular one right now is the "Health, wealth and prosperity" gospel, which teaches that God only wants you to be rich, and people who are poor and suffering just don't have enough faith.

Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.

That is the thing, that it is all being done for show. It is not about salvation, or sanctification; it is about sterling and silver. This is what is truly harmful, that the public face of Christianity is so far astray from the true teachings of the bible. Light years away from it in fact. The airwaves are saturated with false teachers, who proclaim that God is the great ATM in the sky, and if you only send in some money He'll give you the pin number. They are wolves in sheeps clothing, preaching a man-centered doctrine, to tickle the itching ears of people who seek out teachers who will tell them what they want to hear. "No, you don't need to change! God loves you the way you are!" The bible is not so kind to such people:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray."

haha, yes..some of these translations are very poor/strange. I prefer the ESV, it is probably the best modern literal translation. The KJV can be a good supplement, because although it used less accurate manuscripts, its archaic language preserved some of the meaning that the more modern translations may have glossed over. bible.cc is a good site for comparing verses. Here's a good sermon on Matthew 6:5-6

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=813081634369


>> ^Ryjkyj:
The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."
We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.
>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.
As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!
Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.
Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray." <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileopen.gif">
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 6:2-3
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."

We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.
As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!


Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!

Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.

Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray."

>> ^shinyblurry:

If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 6:2-3
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Yes, and...

????.

Wow, I'm impressed.

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

I'm confused. Why does God need money?

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry
I need your help


Duh.... to buy a starship.

well its gotta be pretty close....
Can we agree its the worst song in recent memory?
It been many years since Starship unleashed "We built this city".
>> ^Yogi:
It's not even the worst song ever.