Because it's not Brooks' documentary? I'd be surprised if Shatner didn't go in with more wardrobe and makeup considerations than Brooks got, simply because Shatner is the main star.
Well, that and Brooks won't wear a hairpiece that makes him look 10 years younger.
Well, that and Brooks won't wear a hairpiece that makes him look 10 years younger.
Enh, it's a movie. A disease that takes weeks to kill people isn't as scary or as easy to convey in 120 minutes or less.
That said, there have been enough real plague that wipe out 25%-40% of a population when human society wasn't so crowded and inter-dependent, that the idea of a superbug obliterating 40%-75% isn't too unlikely. In the past plagues may have burned themselves out, but that was before population pushed over 7billion and global mass rapid transit was cheaply available. Where's everybody going to run to to get away from everyone else?
(on a side note: telecommunications will actually improve some things for human survivors, but ham radios will rapidly become the only means of mass communication left)
That said, there have been enough real plague that wipe out 25%-40% of a population when human society wasn't so crowded and inter-dependent, that the idea of a superbug obliterating 40%-75% isn't too unlikely. In the past plagues may have burned themselves out, but that was before population pushed over 7billion and global mass rapid transit was cheaply available. Where's everybody going to run to to get away from everyone else?
(on a side note: telecommunications will actually improve some things for human survivors, but ham radios will rapidly become the only means of mass communication left)
Maybe it's a nod to the (even crazier) hairstyles among dwarfs you see in Warhammer? There you have mostly naked maniac dwarfs with orange or red mohawks.
I think the kicker is that whether it's a disability, a choice, or an orientation, if it's something they're comfortable with that isn't hurting themselves or others then their contentment must be considered.
To those who know Who better: were the Daleks the first threat to use minimalistic catch-phrases? I know that RTD seemed to require his monsters to all have "scary" quotes ("Delete!" "Are you my mummy?" "My babies!!!"), but the Daleks started that trend on Who, right?
That's what I was thinking too. Technically they are removing limbs to get mechanical replacements, but it's not like in cyberpunk where people upgrade their bodies by removing -healthy- body part for bionics.
A step closer to that though perhaps?
A step closer to that though perhaps?
Slow news day?
Also, there's no option for River Tam. What kind of io9 poll is this?!?!
Also, there's no option for River Tam. What kind of io9 poll is this?!?!
For some reason I'm reminded of Romero's "Survival of the Dead" where it seemed like all the zombie extras were just overweight fans. Very -intact- overweight fans.
Maybe the skinny zombies are going to be put in "fat suits" with enormous chunks torn out?
Maybe the skinny zombies are going to be put in "fat suits" with enormous chunks torn out?
Didn't anyone ever tell you: internet forum posts are a serious business!
Don't forget geothermal, hydroelectric, gas, and coal.
Of course, we can't make enough energy using all of those methods combined to offset the loss of oil, and many of them are limited resources as well (nuclear is expected to peak soon enough). And all of them have varying degrees of harmful environmental impact depending on who you talk to. Ultimately, our energy consumption problems will be solved through mass human extinction. I'm hoping for plague to do it for us, rather than resource war, but either way there's simply not enough energy to support the population.
Another option for hope of course is that we'll find new sources of energy. More fissionable materials or sources of oil, improved energy technologies and energy grids, maybe even finally realizing fusion power. The big problem with any solution at this point is that unless we take steps to capitalize on these alternatives and improvements now, it may be too late to do so later.
Of course, people have been predicting the end of civilization since the time of Hammurabi, so maybe this is just the latest scare in a series of scares that goes back for millennia.
Of course, we can't make enough energy using all of those methods combined to offset the loss of oil, and many of them are limited resources as well (nuclear is expected to peak soon enough). And all of them have varying degrees of harmful environmental impact depending on who you talk to. Ultimately, our energy consumption problems will be solved through mass human extinction. I'm hoping for plague to do it for us, rather than resource war, but either way there's simply not enough energy to support the population.
Another option for hope of course is that we'll find new sources of energy. More fissionable materials or sources of oil, improved energy technologies and energy grids, maybe even finally realizing fusion power. The big problem with any solution at this point is that unless we take steps to capitalize on these alternatives and improvements now, it may be too late to do so later.
Of course, people have been predicting the end of civilization since the time of Hammurabi, so maybe this is just the latest scare in a series of scares that goes back for millennia.
I think the author meant Tiamat when they said Polychromatic Dragon. They just forgot what it was called, how it screamed all kinds of horrible things, and how it sounded like the very voice of evil when I was a kid.
Seconded. The Big D ran for President and -won-. And his will was one of the more amusing parts of Shadowrun myth (it also doubled as a great collection of mysterious plot hooks for GMs to run with). [ancientfiles.dumpshock.com]
The Lost Room is great. A bit darker and more suspenseful than most of the Syphilis Channel's (can't resist) offerings. On the flipside, the core premise of "the world is full of strange objects that people want to collect" can be seen in Warehouse 13. I'm not saying W13 is a better show, but the formula it uses has been much more successful it seems.
River Song is Romana.
"Blue Planet" is another good RPG that deals with capitalist dystopias (or at least the negative impact of corrupt capitalistic societies). Mutant Chronicles also springs to mind (the game, not the movie), where 5 megacorps control pretty much everything and war with one another.
Heck, anything that has a "megacorp" in it probably classifies as a capitalist dystopia.
Heck, anything that has a "megacorp" in it probably classifies as a capitalist dystopia.
I'm torn....
On the one hand I think people who don't "get" Firefly are missing out. On the other hand, I think fans are too quick to jump to the show's defense.
It was a good show, on a demanding network, that didn't get enough people to watch it or buy it. It might come back in a few decades (think Next Generation after Star Trek) or it may never be anything more than it was.
On the one hand I think people who don't "get" Firefly are missing out. On the other hand, I think fans are too quick to jump to the show's defense.
It was a good show, on a demanding network, that didn't get enough people to watch it or buy it. It might come back in a few decades (think Next Generation after Star Trek) or it may never be anything more than it was.
Reminds me of Disney's Gargoyles. It ran 3 (or 2, depending on who you ask) seasons back in the 90's before cancellation. They had fan conventions, comic continuations, etc. etc. Stuff that's much more demanding of the fanbase than simply posting a sentence of support on public forums. But it's all dead now.
The real question isn't "why do people still like Firefly" but "how long until they move on to something else".
(on the upside: Firefly -could- become the next Star Trek, but I think there's more options now for the fandom to fixate on, like BSG, Stargate, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. etc. Firefly -could- come back, but it'll take more than internet chatter to do it)
The real question isn't "why do people still like Firefly" but "how long until they move on to something else".
(on the upside: Firefly -could- become the next Star Trek, but I think there's more options now for the fandom to fixate on, like BSG, Stargate, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. etc. Firefly -could- come back, but it'll take more than internet chatter to do it)
I love it.
I think there are several films mentioned here that are more "important", but Fifth Element is a great little sci-fi action comedy.
I think there are several films mentioned here that are more "important", but Fifth Element is a great little sci-fi action comedy.
Now, I'll admit the Doctor -could- be a woman, and that it'd be at least as easy to justify in this show as any other (of course, there's as much basis that he could -not- regenerate as a woman as there is that he could, but that's besides the point). The fact that people are so passionate about the idea of the Doctor hinges on this ambiguity, along with the realization that people making shows listen to the fans more than ever before (which isn't much, but still....).
The real reason he shouldn't be a female is that it's -lazy- writing. "We want a strong female character that's a thinking person's comical action hero. If she's British and a pacifist that's fine, but we want her to be hugely successful from the get go." If Wonder Woman can move past her bizarre S&M fetish origins ("suffering Sapho!") into something resembling a strong positive role-model for women, than why can't modern writers do the same (Buffy anyone?). Gender switching the Doctor isn't creativity, it's co-opting.
But let's say the Doctor gets his/her gender switch. How long does it have to last to count? An episode? A series? Then when does he (or she) become black? And why does he/she have to be British? I know this sounds silly, but the reason people ask these questions is that it challenges their ideas of what's integral to the character and what isn't. What can you change and still have the Doctor, what can you not touch? If gender isn't important enough to stay the same, then why is it so important to change it? Different people answer these questions differently. Imagine how people would've reacted if Buffy were made a guy for a season, look at how they reacted to the casting in Avatar.
Or, you can think "I fear change 'cause I hates wimmin" if that makes it better.
The real reason he shouldn't be a female is that it's -lazy- writing. "We want a strong female character that's a thinking person's comical action hero. If she's British and a pacifist that's fine, but we want her to be hugely successful from the get go." If Wonder Woman can move past her bizarre S&M fetish origins ("suffering Sapho!") into something resembling a strong positive role-model for women, than why can't modern writers do the same (Buffy anyone?). Gender switching the Doctor isn't creativity, it's co-opting.
But let's say the Doctor gets his/her gender switch. How long does it have to last to count? An episode? A series? Then when does he (or she) become black? And why does he/she have to be British? I know this sounds silly, but the reason people ask these questions is that it challenges their ideas of what's integral to the character and what isn't. What can you change and still have the Doctor, what can you not touch? If gender isn't important enough to stay the same, then why is it so important to change it? Different people answer these questions differently. Imagine how people would've reacted if Buffy were made a guy for a season, look at how they reacted to the casting in Avatar.
Or, you can think "I fear change 'cause I hates wimmin" if that makes it better.
You're not alone.
Female Time Lords? Fine. Female Doctor Who? Stupid.
It's the prime case of "Internet Rule #63", where for any given male character there are people who want the female version of said character (and vice versa). Normally it's all fan-wank daydreaming that'll never go further than a joke episode or some such ("hey, wouldn't it be great if Buffy were a guy for an episode/issue!"), but in Doctor Who's case it could be the basis of an actual character shift that lasted for a season or more. Assuming that regeneration allows for a gender switch.
"Well, Time Lord regeneration doesn't work in a way that turns men into women!" It works however the writers (and producers) want it to. Continuity in Doctor Who had gotten so bad that they had to essentially reboot the entire mythos for the current run.
A better cry is "what does the story gain by gender shifting the protagonist?" Well, other than the potential for the Doctor to be a mother (and in sci-fi, being a mother and having female reproductive organs aren't aren't both necessary), not really much. If a show like Doctor Who has to do a gender-swap on its lead to get a strong female (or male) character into the story, it has bigger problems that a "simple" gender-swap won't fix.
Female Time Lords? Fine. Female Doctor Who? Stupid.
It's the prime case of "Internet Rule #63", where for any given male character there are people who want the female version of said character (and vice versa). Normally it's all fan-wank daydreaming that'll never go further than a joke episode or some such ("hey, wouldn't it be great if Buffy were a guy for an episode/issue!"), but in Doctor Who's case it could be the basis of an actual character shift that lasted for a season or more. Assuming that regeneration allows for a gender switch.
"Well, Time Lord regeneration doesn't work in a way that turns men into women!" It works however the writers (and producers) want it to. Continuity in Doctor Who had gotten so bad that they had to essentially reboot the entire mythos for the current run.
A better cry is "what does the story gain by gender shifting the protagonist?" Well, other than the potential for the Doctor to be a mother (and in sci-fi, being a mother and having female reproductive organs aren't aren't both necessary), not really much. If a show like Doctor Who has to do a gender-swap on its lead to get a strong female (or male) character into the story, it has bigger problems that a "simple" gender-swap won't fix.
