I think that was covered by the bit about vanity sizing. If a store can make more money by lying to women, they have no incentive to use a system based on physical measurement.

Honestly, I think men fall victim to the same trick when our clothing sizes are based on an arbitrary scale not clearly linked to physical measurements. I bet what was sold as a "medium" men's t-shirt 50 years ago doesn't resemble what Walmart labels a medium today.

It's an issue where only government regulation could give us truth in advertising.

I enjoyed the movie. I read the book first, but only because I saw the trailers and wanted to see the movie, but I was advised to go to the source first. Perhaps because it was all fresh to me etc, that when I saw Zac's "moment montage" I was able to fill in the gaps.

I guess it depends on your definition of adaption. I feel that implicit in adaption is transformation or evolution. The story is in the telling no? Can you cut the story out, leaving behind all context, and still call it "Watchmen"?

The homage to Batman's suit is perhaps not literally true to the source material, but I think in some ways it is kind of true to the spirit of it. Here's Watchman, the graphic novel, was playing with our preconceptions of what makes a superhero comic book. Perhaps Snyder's intention was to use motifs of superhero movies in the same way Watchmen used preconceptions of its medium. maybe.

I disagree that it cannot be adapted to film. It could be done with a director that can function in a storytelling environment, which Snyder simply cannot do. The problem with Snyder was covered very well here recently, *related=http://videosift.com/video/Nerdwriter-Fundamenal-Flaw-Zack-Snyder-Batman-v-Superman
He was exactly the wrong director to have film this. I would have went with Del Toro or Whedon, but even they have their flaws.

Now, if the question is, can an adaptation be done that Alan Moore will feel 'suits' his vision? Probably not. He is an artist, in very good ways, but also in some very bad ones. He has a specific idea of how his creation must flow, which means he will never be satisfied with a medium outside of the graphic novel or comic.

Personally, I think one of the few un-adaptable works would be Gaiman's Sandman, but that's just my opinion.

And the reason why a large pizza isn't twice as expensive as a medium is because the primary driver isn't materials, it's labour.

making a large takes slightly longer than a medium, but making two mediums takes almost twice as long as a large.

If you could automate the pizza making process, you would see the price more accurately reflect the size, but who wants automated pizza?

Yep, now there's a thing that needs some rapid, high temperature oxidization, rapid high temperature oxidization with the precipitated gaseous emissions of a rapidly oxidizing medium subjected to high temperature.

I think she continually glossed over the dudes line, "it's the same [size] pizza." What she was trying to say is that she'd rather have a small pizza over a medium one.

the point is to be able to make cheap and very short runs to a physical medium. much like the split 7" in punk's haydays. (45s are also making a comeback right now in different scenes for the same reasons). there's also the rise of the future/retro aesthetic see vaporwave, outrun, seapunk, chillwave, etc. the rise of these things has a lot to do with the last remaining DIY philosophies that exist today. to dismiss it as "oh hipsters" misses the point.

No, I agree @newtboy, no one likes a mouth full of hair. I prefer to only floss twice a day!!

I have been with both women and men where there is so much of it you almost need a weed whacker to find the goods. I have heard women say they feel like a pre-pubescent girl when it is all gone. I prefer a happy medium, or as us ladies put it, shave the undercarriage and trim the hood. If I had any musical talent at all, I could write my own rebuttal song!

It is interesting that you brought up guys who manscape...I never thought about it making them look like pre-pubescent boys. Most gents I know who do say it makes the "package" look bigger. I think balls just look better without hair, but that is just my opinion, since I find them such a weird and intriguing part of the male anatomy.

I'm thinking you probably don't understand Star Trek. The TNG movies were no work of art, but they were still decent Star Trek movies. Now none of the Star Trek movies, not even the first 6 (with the exception of the Motion Picture, and arguably The Voyage Home) truly represent what Star Trek is with relation to their respective TV shows, as they choose to focus more on space action and conflict, but all of them stuck with the core premise that Gene Roddenberry laid out: To explore the human condition and show how mankind can better itself.
The TNG movies certainly could have done better, and while First Contact was pretty darn good (especially if you consider how it relates to the Borg "trilogy") I've come to see Generations and even Insurrection in a more forgiving light. Heck, as painful as it is to admit, even Nemesis had a lot of potential, judging by the scenes that were cut. (But that's being REALLY generous.)
However, none of the new movies come anywhere near what the old movies were. Yes, Star Trek 2009 was actually a better movie than several of the previous movies, but otherwise, all of them, even what I'm seeing in this new trailer, lack the vision laid down by Roddenberry. And also, it's very hard to appreciate a Star Trek movie that doesn't have its core points laid down in a TV show, as it really is best suited for the TV medium. Without that character and setting development, you can really only get by with nostalgia and action.

Now some of the fan works, on the other hand, seem to do their source material better justice. I avoided them for quite some time, but after hearing about some of the good ones, I've started to look into them and have been pleasantly surprised. They are certainly rough around the edges, but they do seem to stick to Roddenberry's vision a lot better. Heck, that Axanar thing looks pretty compelling, if they ever get to complete it.

I kind of get it. But on the other hand, every time you change mediums the way you tell the story changes. Every time a movie comes out based on a book (I mean an all-text novel, not a graphic novel / comic), most people that love the source book *think* that they want the movie to be a 100% verbatim adaptation. But the medium just doesn't work the same way.

Describing a setting or a character might take many paragraphs in a book, possibly spread out over multiple chapters or even multiple books. In a movie, *bam* -- you put it on screen, and you can see it. Done. On the other hand, describing a character's motivations can be done very succinctly or in great depth and detail in a book, but it is harder to do that in a purely visual medium like film.

Wolverine's color scheme and costume design works in comic books. His mask/hat thing with the horn-like points works in the comics. But in live-action film, what materials can look or behave like either or those things, and not be jarringly weird? Even cosplay type stuff is generally built to look good in still images -- not necessarily in video, being subjected to action-movie kinds of physical motion. I believe the directors / filmmakers when they say that they have tried more authentic costumes, and felt that they "didn't work".

Deadpool was a very good example of how it *can* work to move the imagery in a direction visually closer to the comic books. But I think the best we can hope for is a happy medium where *some* visual cues are adapted from the comics, in the situations where those things adapt well to the format.

Well there you go, even Wikipedia says dogfights haven't existed for some 25 years So the F-35 doesn't need to have maneuverability as it's primary design feature.

I think I see why we are disagreeing - we have differing definitions of dogfights, if you read the air battle encounters from the gulf war you'll see that it wasn't dogfighting in the traditional sense where planes are doing all sorts of fancy aerobatics to try to use guns on each other like WW1.
(And wikipedia has this defintion problem too because it seems to call all air engagements a dogfight).

It was all BFM at a fairly long ranges in the order of 10 miles. (which is considered close range, since a plane takes several miles to make a turn at high speed).

Not one guns kill in the air. A few close range missile kills, but mostly long range AIM7's. (well techinically it's called medium range, but it's it's still like 20-30miles).
There's a good reason why fighter planes carry one about 7 seconds worth of bullets, and only 2 close range missiles vs 6+ long range missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War

Versatility is great, but I think they tried to do everything and failed to do anything well. Having multiple skills is different from trying to be a Jack of ALL trades.

Personally, I much prefer bulletproof to 'invisible', since there's no such thing as invisible, just hard to see.

Again, that's the plan, but it can't do that today. When acting as 'close air support', it is visible and in danger from ground and directed air fire, going slow, and is slow to get going fast again. Also, close air support is not just dropping bombs, that's more medium-long range.

No, the F-35 is the worst plane for 'full air superiority' because it's far too expensive, and we won't have enough of them to control the smallest skies for years/decades, and even then they'll be to valuable to use that way.

Yes, it seems like insane overkill to be electronically invisible to fight against people who barely have electricity. Even against the most advanced ground to air systems, our current planes were doing fine. I don't see the need for this in the foreseeable future, just the desire for better, more expensive toys.

I can tell you unequivocally that this is in now way a "hologram". Without a medium for the light to interact with, (a screen, water, smoke, etc), there currently exists no technology to create a visual in open space anywhere near this defined.
If this is actually claiming to be some sort of live hologram displayed in real-time in this environment, I can go into extremely technical detail about why it's not, or rather "fake", but I didn't get the impression that was being claimed anywhere. It's just the video of the title here and on youtube. I didn't look that far into it, but then.. wait... what the fuck?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Beam

You know what I find beautiful about records? I actually have to pay attention to the record. They stop playing after some time and if I want to skip a song or listen to a specific song, it requires physical interaction with the medium the music is recorded on. It focuses me more on the music as I'm more likely to sit in front of the record player, listening instead of doing something else.
You know what I love about the WalkMan? It has buttons. I can feel a button. I can press it without looking at it. I must look at a touchscreen. I must.
A WalkMan has batteries that I casn change anytime. A MP3-Player has a built in battery. If it's empty, I have to recharge, I can't just exchange it.

New isn't always better in every way.