It's a supernova with some quirky behavior. Mildly interesting if you're an astrophysics geek, but otherwise, you can now return to your LOLcats.
I can almost buy the idea of a time traveler caught on film. But I'm puzzled by the idea of time-traveling cellphone transmission towers.
@kolacek: Why exactly do you defend a show you don't like, much less watch it? Change the channel - and liking certain shows on a TV station doesn't mean you have to defend the rest of the programming.
I'd love to love MC Frontalot - even bought one of his album - but... I find his lyric-writing skills pretty poor. This song is not an exception; the subject is neat, but he just gets side-tracked and it takes him three verses to spoil Fight Club. It just feels clumsy.
I like his delivery style and his looks, but otherwise it's pretty bland hip hop. I just wish I could love it, being the geek that I am.
I like his delivery style and his looks, but otherwise it's pretty bland hip hop. I just wish I could love it, being the geek that I am.
@MonsterMash42: That's easy: risk mitigation. If 6 of your movies make money, there's a good chance they recoup the 6 other ones, especially if you made them on a shoestring. (And if they don't, Hollywood has plenty of accounting tricks up its sleeve - ask Uwe Boll.)
Then there's the chance that one of those 12 becomes a megahit, and justifies every sent you wasted on the 11 ones. That's a bit like winning the lottery, only a lot more likely. Fans ARE known to get behind any kind of movie, even low budget, low quality B stuff.
Compared this to pooling all your money and playing on hitting a home run that will recoup this massive budget... You've got one chance at this, and if you lose, you lose everything. THAT ain't good investment strategy.
Then there's the chance that one of those 12 becomes a megahit, and justifies every sent you wasted on the 11 ones. That's a bit like winning the lottery, only a lot more likely. Fans ARE known to get behind any kind of movie, even low budget, low quality B stuff.
Compared this to pooling all your money and playing on hitting a home run that will recoup this massive budget... You've got one chance at this, and if you lose, you lose everything. THAT ain't good investment strategy.
I was a senior producer for Ubisoft and BioWare, and had to work with writers a lot of the times. I disagree with Mr. Wolfman.
The characters that work in videogames are not well-defined characters, or steeped in excellent dialog. What works best is this: a character, blank enough to not obstruct the player, but that offers an opportunity to roleplay.
Gordon Freeman is an example. He is mute, but the world is articulated around him to invite the player to roleplay a scientist at the opening of HL1, and then as a post-apocalyptic hero in HL2. Freeman actually has NO dialog at all, but he's got a flexible but well-defined role.
BioWare characters like Shephard in Mass Effect have a clearly-defined role (soldier, then Specter), which are cool ideas that the player may want to invest in. Ditto with Sam Fisher of Splinter Cell: he works because his attitude towards the mission mirrors the player's own involvement. The funny dialogs are just a bonus on the top of the opportunity to play a badass ninja with near-future military tech.
In recent memory, the heroes of Gears of War were great characters, because they did something very effectively: they mirrored a fratboy, bloodthirsty attitude at the player. This created a bond between the player and the character.
But well-defined characters? Good dialogs? Sorry, that can actually work against the game. Best example: Halo 3. Master Chief was a blank slate in Halo 1, but by the third one, we're lost in the plot, and Master Chief has a life independent of the player, with a lot of cutscenes.
The mistake of game writers is often to think that story and characters matter a lot. They do, but only when they enhance the gameplay, and offer the player a chance to roleplay, and thus enhance their actions in-game. More than that, and they start working against the game; this is because, contrary to popular belief, storytelling happens in gameplay; cutscenes can actually work against game storytelling, and plot can drown it out.
The characters that work in videogames are not well-defined characters, or steeped in excellent dialog. What works best is this: a character, blank enough to not obstruct the player, but that offers an opportunity to roleplay.
Gordon Freeman is an example. He is mute, but the world is articulated around him to invite the player to roleplay a scientist at the opening of HL1, and then as a post-apocalyptic hero in HL2. Freeman actually has NO dialog at all, but he's got a flexible but well-defined role.
BioWare characters like Shephard in Mass Effect have a clearly-defined role (soldier, then Specter), which are cool ideas that the player may want to invest in. Ditto with Sam Fisher of Splinter Cell: he works because his attitude towards the mission mirrors the player's own involvement. The funny dialogs are just a bonus on the top of the opportunity to play a badass ninja with near-future military tech.
In recent memory, the heroes of Gears of War were great characters, because they did something very effectively: they mirrored a fratboy, bloodthirsty attitude at the player. This created a bond between the player and the character.
But well-defined characters? Good dialogs? Sorry, that can actually work against the game. Best example: Halo 3. Master Chief was a blank slate in Halo 1, but by the third one, we're lost in the plot, and Master Chief has a life independent of the player, with a lot of cutscenes.
The mistake of game writers is often to think that story and characters matter a lot. They do, but only when they enhance the gameplay, and offer the player a chance to roleplay, and thus enhance their actions in-game. More than that, and they start working against the game; this is because, contrary to popular belief, storytelling happens in gameplay; cutscenes can actually work against game storytelling, and plot can drown it out.
I've never, EVER seen a video for which this image macro is more appropriate:
@Megaera: Well... I love him too. :)
I just want the Japanese to make Godzilla movies, though! I'll take my man-in-suit and silly dialogs any time over an American Godzilla!
I just want the Japanese to make Godzilla movies, though! I'll take my man-in-suit and silly dialogs any time over an American Godzilla!
Meh. That would be like a novelist tacking on a tract to his novel at the time of publication for one last chapter supposed to make sense of it all. They had one very specific moment to wrap up loose ends: that's in the FINALE.
I don't see any way this will NOT bomb.
It's a sequel, so they'll try to amp the action pieces and the manly manlove. This will make it even MORE over the top.
Problem is, 300 worked for the brief time between the release of its amazing trailer, and its first month at the box office. After that, most of us woke up from the slick cinematography and the cool soundbytes, and realized this was a silly, homoerotic piece of cartoon.
It's a sequel, so they'll try to amp the action pieces and the manly manlove. This will make it even MORE over the top.
Problem is, 300 worked for the brief time between the release of its amazing trailer, and its first month at the box office. After that, most of us woke up from the slick cinematography and the cool soundbytes, and realized this was a silly, homoerotic piece of cartoon.
@Megaera: Don't say that... That's how we were tricked into seeing the 1998 American version!
@Rincewind: My understanding is that the box office was steadily going down since they started making Godzilla movies again in 2000. They decided to give Godzilla a 'break', so he'd be 'fresh' when they'd bring him back.
It's a shame, because I really enjoyed the post-2000 Godzilla series... 'Godzilla X Mothra X Mechagodzilla: Tokyo S.O.S.' was a lot of fun, and 'Godzilla, Mothr and King Ghidora: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack' was a cool take on the Godzilla mythos.
It's a shame, because I really enjoyed the post-2000 Godzilla series... 'Godzilla X Mothra X Mechagodzilla: Tokyo S.O.S.' was a lot of fun, and 'Godzilla, Mothr and King Ghidora: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack' was a cool take on the Godzilla mythos.
Well, crap. I came up with this idea for a SF short story of mine, and I wish I had published earlier, now. :)
Whether the fall of America (in whatever form) happens or not is irrelevant, here: it's about the Zeitgeist. I think that, just as people growing old become painfully aware of their mortality, the US's current crises are making Americans, and American writers specifically, aware of the finite nature of any empire.
I know that the Fall of America is nothing new in SF, but I think the sign here is that the topic is now deemed topical enough to make it into the minds of many of America's great SF writers.
I know that the Fall of America is nothing new in SF, but I think the sign here is that the topic is now deemed topical enough to make it into the minds of many of America's great SF writers.
What's with io9's fascination with porn and the sex industry? I'm not against the occasional NSFW clip, especially since B movies are great with a pair of gratuitous boobs thrown in... But I see a hell of a lot of pure porn thrown in as soon as there's a tenuous connection to SF nowadays.
It amuses me that Cameron spends millions on making 3D aliens look like real people; then Hustler comes along, uses the same amazing technology that gives us the Blue Man Group, and voilà, Avatar porn.
@SG-Jim: I second that.
I like The Wire and Toy Story both, but I found this pretty unfunny. The concept was far greater than the execution.
Maybe I need more coffee.
Maybe I need more coffee.
@Zom-B: To clarify: to me, it's not about whether the character is Black or White; it's whether his or her race plays a part in defining him or her.
To give you another ethnicity example: Magneto is from a German Jewish family, and his story is closely linked to him being a Holocaust survivor. Switching his ethnicity would be a disservice to his identity as a character. But I don't think race has ever been part of Peter Parker's identity, so I have no trouble with that potential switch.
To give you another ethnicity example: Magneto is from a German Jewish family, and his story is closely linked to him being a Holocaust survivor. Switching his ethnicity would be a disservice to his identity as a character. But I don't think race has ever been part of Peter Parker's identity, so I have no trouble with that potential switch.
@gd01skorpius: I agree, that would be tantamount to making all the good guys in The Last Airbender white gu... oh wait.
Truth is, a lot worse has been done in terms of 'whitifying' Black characters when a story made the jump to the big screen. Hey, how about that Jesus guy going from a Semite to being white, hey?
Thing is, race does NOT define Spider-Man. It didn't define Han Solo or Lando, for that matter, so I don't really care if they changed races in some remake. Race defined Spawn to a degree, just because it was an edgy choice given the lack of Black superheroes in comics. So making him White, because of this, would definitely be a wrong move.
What defines Spider-Man is his nerd cred, his relationships, his powers, and his ethos. I think the greater issue at work here is that people are not comfortable with the stereotype of 'Black nerd', because it's not in the collective unconscious. I really think there could be a backlash against a Black Spider-Man movie just for that reason, but I really wish it were otherwise.
My guess is that the producers will let Glover audition, say how good he is, then pick a White guy and insist it had nothing to do with race, honest.
Truth is, a lot worse has been done in terms of 'whitifying' Black characters when a story made the jump to the big screen. Hey, how about that Jesus guy going from a Semite to being white, hey?
Thing is, race does NOT define Spider-Man. It didn't define Han Solo or Lando, for that matter, so I don't really care if they changed races in some remake. Race defined Spawn to a degree, just because it was an edgy choice given the lack of Black superheroes in comics. So making him White, because of this, would definitely be a wrong move.
What defines Spider-Man is his nerd cred, his relationships, his powers, and his ethos. I think the greater issue at work here is that people are not comfortable with the stereotype of 'Black nerd', because it's not in the collective unconscious. I really think there could be a backlash against a Black Spider-Man movie just for that reason, but I really wish it were otherwise.
My guess is that the producers will let Glover audition, say how good he is, then pick a White guy and insist it had nothing to do with race, honest.
