Sorry. I was channeling Moff there for a minute. I kid because I love.

there were those little tiny ones, and I'm envisioning a plot where some of the little guys were caught by government scientists and kept for study.

Only one wasn't caught, survived in the New York sewer (because anything can down there) and goes searching for its fellow monsters (telepathically connected, of course.)

Pretty much the plot of every 'aren't the aliens dead?" film really...well executed it can work, poorly executed...blurg.

When you start to treat a unique creative process like any other mass produced product, it happens. The Trek crew was stretched too thin and made too ubiquitous...it was all about giving fan boys what they wanted, but not just some of it....all of it. All the time.

Same problem Lucas has with Star Wars.

Sometimes, less is just...more.

It is, at least, one that's been lovingly translated with the involvement of the original creator.

These Hollywood remakes are just blatant cash grabs.

Just because YOU haven't been keeping up, and are jumping the BSG bandwagon late doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to keep its mouth shut.

I bet Baltar and Adama have a go at it one of these days.

Jackson's version was good, but when I left the theatre I was left with a fundamental sense of...well..."Why?" more than anything else. It just seemed unneccesary.

And I agree with @Priam we need more remakes like I need a hole in the head. Somebody please TRY something ORIGINAL for god's sake and I might plunk $12 on the table again.

Tonight I'm going to see Persepolis....that qualifies.

I guess somebody drank a bit too much of someone's milkshake.

Seriously thought, if the opening of the Hellmouth doesn't convince people in Texas that they need to be less dependent on an oil economy what ever will?

@daived: I'm not saying your wrong, but I want to be clear on something here:

There is /NOTHING/ inherently wrong with showing more cleavage.

Moving along now...

Just to be clear, it's not THIS that spells trouble for Smallville. It's SO many other things.

That movie is stunning.

You're entitle to your opinion of course. I just think it's important to make you aware that it's wrong.

And yet, in the third movie the issue of an attack on Zion's mainframe never comes up. It's a physical attack on the city.

More, from Morpheus:
-----
What is The Matrix? Control. The Matrix is a computer generated dream world, built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this.
-----

but yes, he also says this:

-----
'As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.' After he died, the Oracle prophesied his return, and that his coming would hail thedestruction of the Matrix, end the war, bring freedom to our people
-----

but through the first two films, the physical manifestation of the Matrix was minimal: the story focused on the battle /inside/ the code.

Suddenly, in Revolutions Morpheus has competition? A board of directors? A general? These things are never discussed in the first film.

So I see a disconnect.

I never bought that Wachowski bullshit about "planning it as a trilogy all along." They made a great movie, a tonne of money and the studio wanted more. Suddenly a whole bunch of plot elements got created and grafted on the back end of the thing, with only the thinnest of connections to earlier work.

I call it "Lucas-itis" most times, but it happened here and it made the third Matrix film the weakest of them all, despite the presence of Monica Belluci's substantial (previously mentioned) assets, and Carrie Anne Moss in leather.

As long as he keeps nailing the hot chicks between now and then, I say all power to him!

The movie did have some goodness though: Keanu & Carrie Anne get shagadelic; some kick ass fight scenes a la the first one (but a bit too a la...some could have BEEN the first ones.)

The second was better, and more original than the third. It wasn't as shocking as the first, but it was pretty bad ass. That scene where Laurence Fishburne rolls out of the way and takes out the twins' Cadillac with a Katana was just part of the awesome highway chase scene (and a good predictor of the quality level of domestic automotive product.)

And those shots of her draped in honey and caviar.

I need a minute here...I'll be /right/ back.

It does not have Carrie Anne Moss in a wicked highway chase scene with a Ducati, ergo it is not better than The Matrix Reloaded.

There's a better than average chance that it's better than The Matrix Revolutions.

Miller's four issue miniseries turned Woverine into a complex and noble character.

The X-Men movies, and so many other portrayals, turned him into not much more than a rage machine. A man with a bad temper that he can't control.

As a Samurai, Wolverine was a great character.

Every since about mid-last season I've been expecting a conclusion in which Cylons and Humans cooperate, in order to provide a demonstration of how similar they are. The old "people are people, even if some people are related to toasters" trick.

There were basically two alternatives: they continue to fight, forever or they gain a mutual understanding and respect and work together in some capacity.

Adama and Roslin in love? That's not surprising at all. I mean c'mon. Roslin. Schwing! She's a total babe: brainy, gorgeous, sensitive to her friends but tough. Who WOULDN'T fall for that?

It's not like she's a frakkin' Cylon, after all.

Duh. Clearly. Jesus never got laid THAT much.

Now Baltar as John Holmes? Giddy up.

(I'd say Baltar as Priest, but he seems to prefer...women, and what would be out of character for that profession.)

> Here are some pics from the Smallville
> series finale

Why, I remember when you couldn't BUY dinosaur poop no matter HOW hard you tried.

First up: an aging, b-list rock star tries to choose the perfect woman...in space.

Call it Rock the Sattellite of Love.

Blurg. I can't believe I just channeled Brett Michaels and Lou Reed in a single sentence. I should burn in hell.

Look for Lexx to re-appear on Space I'd bet, just to meet aging CanCon requirements.

The general rule of thumb on "shake" and tripods is that you probably need some sort of steadying device if you want to shoot at a shutter speed lower than your lens' focal length.

So for a 200mm lens, you should be shooting at 1/200th or faster (which, practically speaking, usually means 180 or 250.)

This is really true of SLR cameras in particular, which have a mirror that moves thus inducing "mirror slap." With range finders, or most compact digitals it's possible to hold a camera steady at speeds quite a bit slower than this with great effectiveness. I've shot at 1/15 with a 50mm lens on my SLR and gotten both good and bad results, but at 1/15th on a compact digital I've got pretty steady hands. I mean Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles steady.

Still, a tripod allows you the ability to shoot at *slower* speeds with *higher* f-stops, thus allowing for greater depth of field. That you *can* shoot at slow speeds without one doesn't mean you *should* shoot at slow speeds with one. Tripods are awesome.

> multiple ways of measuring f-stops
> in the past

While true, the f-Stop has been the de facto standard for lenses for some time: witness Adams' and Weston's f/64 group. f-stop is not a measurement of light, it's a measurement of the portion of the available light allowed to pass through the lens.

What has been less consistent is the measurement that light meters use to determine luminosity: ASA & DIN are commonly known (although all modern cameras use ASA). Weston was used and is less commonly known (I own a Weston meter, which I use with my medium format equipment.)

I actually have a conversion chart online here:
[personal.penguinstorm.com]

Gibson may have started in a science fiction vein, but he's long since ceased to be a science fiction author despite his fans (and bookstore's) insistence on shoving that round peg into that square hole.

I just finished reading Serenity Sky and Halting State by Charles Stross: the former was clearly science fiction (I thought it was pretty much a space opera, complete with romance!, albeit a somewhat engaging one) while the latter was really a spy thriller.

Much like Spook Country.

Which, btw, remains an awesome book.

This can't be a surprise, can it? The rise of the hyper focused specialty channel hasn't yet been proven as a business model. The problem with the 500 channel universe is that all the broadcasters are doing it slicing the same size pie into 500 pieces, instead of 4. That doesn't leave much pie.

Combine this with a stereotypically narrow definition of what constitutes "Science Fiction" and suddenly you've got a recipe for unhappiness.

The Inter-tubes will kill many many many of these specialty channels, and also give rise to even more frighteningly focused ones such as this one:
[www.thepuppychannel.com]

Ah. Ok. google answered it.
[www.imdb.com]

Lisa Rinna's pretty hot. I'm not sure that makes up for the movie, but she is.

"Relax kid, I'm just blowing smoke up your hoo ha"????

I never really dug the Nick Fury / SHIELD storylines. Kind of stereotypical. Maybe I missed some good stuff.

Probably those thunderbolts will take care of it though.

> No more Angelina Jolie.

So much so that it may be boycott worthy!

(Cue backlash...NOW.)

At least our superheroes would be able to concentrate on the fight, instead of constantly worrying about being made homeless as a result of the sub-prime mortgage crises.

Power Pack has potential though. Kids. Aliens. Relatively unpopular, so not a lot of sacred cows.

I think Iron Man benefits from that last part: because he was never really a "Rank A" super hero (Spiderman, X-Men etc.) the movie benefits. Not that Iron Man wasn't cool and all, just that it's a bit easier than say...Wolverine, around whom you've got a huge existing fan base.

@Kiamat: Reboot Ghost Rider? We already had that, last year. Horrible horrible movie. Any superhero movie with Nicholas Cage should probably be approached with caution.