A maximum of two seasons, probably with an unresolved plot and perhaps even with an unresolved cliffhanger. I really don't want to be the killjoy here but it's so hard to keep up the optimism after so many failed tv series.
Remember Caprica and Dollhouse? The ones that were cancelled? Now let's make a TV series that's less nuanced and more heavy handed with its message! Geez, no wonder I don't watch TV any more...
There is a sayin, which paraphrased sais: "Writing is one art talent and 10 parts diligence."
I like the creature design but I agree with you that the beginning, with the feeling of dread and loneliness was far better, especially since the tentacle CGI was far worse than the monsters - if you have a limited budget, why create a situation like broad daylight and closeups so that your limited SFX are clearly visible. Just remember Alien - one of its key features were very lovecraftian questions like: "What is this thing?" "Where is its frikkin' head?" "What part of the body am I watching right now?"
What I was trying to say is: If I had the choice between a "Riddick-esque" adaption and a "Trooper-esque" adaptiion, I'd choose the later. However, if I had any choice (or say in that matter), yeah, I wouldn't choose the Starship Troopers route either. I love the book as it is.
Fingers crossed. As an avid book reader, I am used to see many of my cherished reads violated or truncated.
Ok, that makes me chuckle. It strikes a similar vein like "Born in the USA" used as a rallying song for patriotistic gatherings ;)
SPOILERS
I don't think they have to change that much - turn the Queen-Subplot into some "scary" psychological attacks by the aliens, omit the subplot of the egg totally and change the tone of some scenes and voila.
SPOILER END
Point taken regarding "male, american values" - I agree that they can be applied to many countries, I just labelled them as such because the movie is made by Hollywood and not Berlin and because these values are often promoted by american movies.
Oh, and I would regard it as a small success if they made it a Starship Troppers since that movie had at least a critical tone against military and totalitarism.
Excuse me, is this the place to rant and voice trepidations about the Ender's Game movie? Does anybody else fear that it will become a celebration of "male, american virtues" like not giving up, persisting in the face of adversity, gritting your teeth and walking on, all under the eyes of a brave military that might look ruthless in the eyes of civilians but just does what they have to do? Anybody? Or has the PR machine already started, spurting soothing lines about the director respecting and loving the source material?
Exactly. Which is the reason why those people who uncovered the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib should be charged with treason. Think of all the violent outrage in the middle east, it was a disaster and endangered the lifes of countless american citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention the diplomatic fallout!
I am sorry, but for most of the videos, the music industry does not want me to get interested in these bands. God forbid I might get tempted to buy some music.
I don't know but I will keep a set of (unused!) fetish gear and a metal thong handy, just in case that this building will be the nucleus of Monica or Bregna.
Yay, JJ Abrams, I cannot wait for seasons above seasons of mystery with no explanation or payoff at all - it's like getting engrossed in a Fox SciFi show only with a shittier plot structure.
It's not about the state of gestation that counts or the exchange of DNA, it's the "character slot" that's created by the fertilization. Human egg is fertilized- bam, humanity's rooster got a new one. Of course it's possible, that the gestation will be terminated by natural causes but that can happen to born people, too - as long as a human is not responsible for the termination, no human is to blame.
As for all you other (well written, I might add) arguments - that's for someone religious to talk about. My first and foremost goal was to point out that religious people do have a reason why in some cases they cannot let other people be but rather have to intervene. A debatable reason, yes, but a reason nonetheless.
As for all you other (well written, I might add) arguments - that's for someone religious to talk about. My first and foremost goal was to point out that religious people do have a reason why in some cases they cannot let other people be but rather have to intervene. A debatable reason, yes, but a reason nonetheless.
1- Take a gander here: [www.bbc.co.uk]
2- To a certain degree, even governments do. E.g. Polygamy, an "unconventional" form of marriage is illegal (illegal, mind you, not "frowned upon") in some countries, marrying close relatives is forbidden in many countries. I guess (I repeat: I guess) as long as some basic standards are met (1 male human, 1 female human, consenting and not closely related by blood) religious people don't object (too much).
"Regardless of what their religion tells them is right or how they interpret it, they are still not looking at the alternative and considering the facts against their arguments." Yeah, well, problem is, some problems cannot be easily measured. There is no "human-o-meter" indicating the level of how much human a person is. With some issues, you have to decide what to take as the foundation of your world view.
Last but not least: There are lots of religious people out there that can live with the whole "Let's agree that we disagree" shtick. Did you know that Brandon Sanderson is an active Mormon (yeah, you heard that right). He even regards homosexuality as "wrong" - but he does so respectfully. I don't know you, but I had to take a stiff drink after learning that from Sanderson's blog. Nevertheless, he is one of the very, very few with such a viewpoint I can still stand and respect.
2- To a certain degree, even governments do. E.g. Polygamy, an "unconventional" form of marriage is illegal (illegal, mind you, not "frowned upon") in some countries, marrying close relatives is forbidden in many countries. I guess (I repeat: I guess) as long as some basic standards are met (1 male human, 1 female human, consenting and not closely related by blood) religious people don't object (too much).
"Regardless of what their religion tells them is right or how they interpret it, they are still not looking at the alternative and considering the facts against their arguments." Yeah, well, problem is, some problems cannot be easily measured. There is no "human-o-meter" indicating the level of how much human a person is. With some issues, you have to decide what to take as the foundation of your world view.
Last but not least: There are lots of religious people out there that can live with the whole "Let's agree that we disagree" shtick. Did you know that Brandon Sanderson is an active Mormon (yeah, you heard that right). He even regards homosexuality as "wrong" - but he does so respectfully. I don't know you, but I had to take a stiff drink after learning that from Sanderson's blog. Nevertheless, he is one of the very, very few with such a viewpoint I can still stand and respect.
I believe I did not make myself clear:
If you believe abortion=murder you cannot sit idly by while other people do abortions, do you? It's like saying: "If you don't like murder, don't kill anybody and stay the hell out of the way when others do it."
Same with marriage. If I call your mom "Fatass Whore" because that's my word for "mother" I am sure you will not be very willing to listen to my absolute valid historic arguments on why it is absolutely ok for me to call your mom "Fatass Whore".
"Live a life of faithful devotion to your deity of choice and leave the rest of us alone. " - if it were that easy, we'd have reached Utopia long ago. There are reasons why people with convictions feel compelled to mess with other's life. You should strive to understand these reasons so that an agreement or compromise can be reached. There is no other viable way.
If you believe abortion=murder you cannot sit idly by while other people do abortions, do you? It's like saying: "If you don't like murder, don't kill anybody and stay the hell out of the way when others do it."
Same with marriage. If I call your mom "Fatass Whore" because that's my word for "mother" I am sure you will not be very willing to listen to my absolute valid historic arguments on why it is absolutely ok for me to call your mom "Fatass Whore".
"Live a life of faithful devotion to your deity of choice and leave the rest of us alone. " - if it were that easy, we'd have reached Utopia long ago. There are reasons why people with convictions feel compelled to mess with other's life. You should strive to understand these reasons so that an agreement or compromise can be reached. There is no other viable way.
Yeah, well, there is a difference between being in favour of killing a criminal and being in favour of killing an innocent child, isn't it?
ZING! :)
Interesting post, however, two things I'd like to add:
1- abortions: The problem with abortion is this: Many religions define a foetus or embryo as "alive". Thus, according to this definition, abortion is murder. Therefore many religions cannot simpyl stand idly by while people perform abortions, since every abortion they let happen it a murder they allow to happen. Not taking sides here, just explaining the point of view of *some* religions. Oh, and not every religious person identifies with murdering Anti-Abortionists, just like not every atheist identifies with Mao or Stalin.
2- Gay Marriage: Okay, let's face it: Most Religions would like to see Gay Marriage banned just because it has to do with homosexuality. However, there are also many religious people out there objecting against gay marriage because is has to do with "marriage". Marriage for many religious groups is connected to their religious ceremony of marriage and thus they judge the validity of a marriage by the standards of their own religion. At least according to my experience with religious people, calling the whole thing different - like, for instance "civil union" and leaving out any religious connotations out of it can help a lot.
Again, not taking sides here, just responding to your argument.
1- abortions: The problem with abortion is this: Many religions define a foetus or embryo as "alive". Thus, according to this definition, abortion is murder. Therefore many religions cannot simpyl stand idly by while people perform abortions, since every abortion they let happen it a murder they allow to happen. Not taking sides here, just explaining the point of view of *some* religions. Oh, and not every religious person identifies with murdering Anti-Abortionists, just like not every atheist identifies with Mao or Stalin.
2- Gay Marriage: Okay, let's face it: Most Religions would like to see Gay Marriage banned just because it has to do with homosexuality. However, there are also many religious people out there objecting against gay marriage because is has to do with "marriage". Marriage for many religious groups is connected to their religious ceremony of marriage and thus they judge the validity of a marriage by the standards of their own religion. At least according to my experience with religious people, calling the whole thing different - like, for instance "civil union" and leaving out any religious connotations out of it can help a lot.
Again, not taking sides here, just responding to your argument.
That's why I prefer books. Sure, eyecandy is always nice but for every decent flick you get a "Skyline" or "Battle LA". Scalzi and Hamilton offer me the same mindless fun any blockbuster strives for - without inane fratboy humor, offensive racial stereotypes and stupid pacing (Transformers, I am looking at you).
Yeah, if they did not take the German variation of a neutral face into account, the smiley will constantly glower.
